| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ask him?
I can't comment on the PF-specific stuff, but from the banned-spells list it looks like your DM is removing things which 1) win/bypass whole categories of encounters (fly-type spells), and/or 2) are incredibly versatile (polymorph-type spells), and/or 3) allow players unlimited access to the Bestiaries and all questionable content therein (polymorph, gate, planar binding).
Some of them don't clearly and definitively fit into any of the above categories (animate dead), but there may be secondary/other reasons for banning those. (He wants a heroic game, and animating the dead causes torment to the souls in question and is thus evil.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of these are pretty common bans. Spells that give you permanent minions (Animate Dead, Simulacrum) slow down the game and allow one player to dominate the battlefield.
Others are unusual choices, like banning all flying spells. Perhaps they're unsuited to the type of campaign he's planning. (Maybe there's a chasm you're supposed to be unable to cross, or something.)
But there's only one person who knows the real reason...
Yup, Tequila has it in a nutshell.
Primarily this appears to be a DM who doesn't want outside-of-the-box thinking. Just swing your sword and cast fireball and everything will be okay. That's the type of game he's interested in running.
That doesn't make it wrong, it's just what's going on.
|
It looks like the GM has a particular kind of campaign in mind. Unclear what kind just from the bans.
You definitely need to ask him about the campaign and the ways that it differs from a "normal" campaign.
Some just seem strange to me. Black Tentacles is a useful spell but not one that most would consider severely overpowered.
Yeah, ask your GM about it. We could make guesses, but they'd only be guesses.
If something in particular is bothering him you could ask him about it specifically.
Though as far as the spells are concerned, for several of them I can understand:
•Permanency - Very powerful. Usually allows you to replicate much more expensive items for cheaper.
•Animate Dead - Too many Minions. I hate minions as both a player and GM.
•Fly (And any spells that are similar to fly) - At low levels this can really trivialize things. At higher levels it shouldn't be a problem. Some settings, like the one Zeitgeist games uses, just says the flight magic just doesn't work like normal and only lasts at most a minute per level.
•Polymorph - Pretty powerful buff spell, but not a good reason to ban IMO.
•Gate - More minions. Same problems as Animate Dead.
•Simulacrum - Even more minions. Potentially very abusable if you make copies of yourself and your GM doesn't change how spells and SLAs work on simulacrums of creatures.
•Rock to Mud - Not sure
•Blood Money - It's overpowered. Like definitely, you shouldn't even be allowed access to this spell unless your playing the campaign it's from (Rise of the Rune Lords).
•All Pit spells - This is rather silly
•Planar Ally - Minions again!
•Planar Binding - F~@*ing minions!
•Polymorph any Object - Poorly written rules for things that don't operate like normal polymorph spells.
•Shapechange - It's a good spell, but not overly powerful
•Magic Jar - Very powerful, with some rule problems. It's been replaced with Possession spell anyways.
•Passwall - The spell of dungeon bypassing...it can be problematic to a GM, but an experienced GM should be able to work around it.
•Black Tentacles - It's a classic, don't know why it's banned.
•Windwalk- Probably same reason he banned other flight spells.
If your GM is old school he might have banned the polymorphing spells because he thinks it works like it did in 3.5, where it was much more powerful than it is now.
As far as minions are concerned, I allow 1 combat minion per person. Whether it's an animal companion, bound minion, etc is mostly irrelevant to me. Simulacrum is one that I add some extra rules to, that reduces any spell casting or SLAs of the creature based on the hit die reduction the experience (which leaves me room to say that things like Efreeti don't have their Wish SLA if you make copies of them).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of these are understandable (for example, as Claxon noted, Magic Jar in a lot of places has been replaced by the much easier to use Possession series of spells, and flight/moving through walls/etc. can just break a whole dungeon setup), but others just seem nonsensical (Black Tentacles, Polymorph/Shapechange, Bitter armour, Ring of Arcane Mastery/Grit Mastery, etc.), and the absence of summoning spells on this list baffles me considering the other things he's banned...
If your GM is old school he might have banned the polymorphing spells because he thinks it works like it did in 3.5, where it was much more powerful than it is now.
This is the first time I've ever been refered to as old school by implication. ;)
Truly, old school is a shifting standard.
Thanks for your input I have asked him but he feels like he doesn't have to explain it to his players. Also he house ruled only 1 active/combat pet/minion allowed. Just trying to figure out his thinking since i cant see why any DM would out rite ban something verse working with your players to fix the broken-ness of a spell or abuse. Since no spell i see is really broken its the uses and abuse that make it broken/over powered.
Maybe he fears that some players will interpret "This is why I've banned this thing..." or "Let's work together on this..." as "I will give in out of frustration if you argue with me for long enough."
Or maybe he's just a father-knows-best D-bag DM, who knows? Well, I dunno, you might if you've known him prior to this experience...?
Are any of these things something you really want, or are you just curious? Honestly, I look over that list and don't see a single thing that would make me a lick of difference.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM had older spell descriptions in mind, 3.0 black tentacles was really powerful. You got 1 tentacle/caster level and they would all try to grapple the same foe if there was only one target in the AoE, so 7+ grapple checks, each for d6+4. 7d6+28 per round for 1 round/level, plus all the benefits of grappled foes, was a little much for a 4th level spell. I don't think there was a level cap either.
The current version is much more reasonable.
No fly, or windwalk, but he allows teleport?
Does he just ban polymorph, but not all the various spells it duplicates? That makes little sense.
He bans the Charisma inherent bonus book but not any of the others?
Some of his banned items can be used to do some slapstick prank type things, like sovereign glue and immovable rod.
That magic item list is so extensive and inconsistent I'm surprised he doesn't just ban item creation and shopping, and control magic treasure like a Gygaxian 1e DM.
If your GM is old school he might have banned the polymorphing spells because he thinks it works like it did in 3.5, where it was much more powerful than it is now.This is the first time I've ever been refered to as old school by implication. ;)
Truly, old school is a shifting standard.
3.0/3.5 came out in 2000. While that doesn't seem like that long ago, we have to stop and realize that's almost 18 years ago. If it was a person it could vote. I realize there are plenty of people older than that who are still active, but when something is a 20 habit, it's pretty "old school". 2000 was basically when I started getting into D&D, so yes, it feels a bit old school to me when I think about the nostalgia.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Blood Money is a unique spell from ancient Thassilon that only appears in 1 hard to read scroll and also the end game bbeg spellbook in Rise of the Runelords.
I wouldn't allow unique spells from Adventure Paths unless we were playing that adventure path (or that the events of an adventure path has already occurred in the campaign world), especially unique spells belonging to bbegs...
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for your input I have asked him but he feels like he doesn't have to explain it to his players.
That's probably a bigger red flag than the extensive list of banned things.
Thanks for your input I have asked him but he feels like he doesn't have to explain it to his players.....
Ummmm...I find that response VERY problematic.
My first thought followed other posters here.
Maybe it conflicts with the campaign he wants to run..
Maybe there are some things doesn't want to deal with..
Maybe he wants to keep the power level of the game low for flavor.
But when asked by his player(s)...you know, the people the he is SUPPOSED to be making sure are enjoying themselves...you get some pompous "I don't have to answer to YOU PEOPLE" type of answer?
That raises more flags to me, than fly outside the UN building.
Maybe I'm over-reacting. Does the GM otherwise provide an enjoyable and fun game?
Because, that's the kind of answer I would expect from the arrogant, dictatorial type of GM, that only cares about his own power-trip.
I've been a GM/DM for most of the 40 years I've been rolling funny dice on a table. And while I'm not above using a strong hand to keep a campaign from running off the cliff, player enjoyment is always the priority.
If I have house rules or restrictions, or want to run a different type of campaign, ABSOLUTELY I would freely discuss it with my players. I'd give reasons why (as opposed to arbitrary fiat), and be open to good ideas/alternatives or changes they propose; especially if it's going to make the game better for them.
I've changed direction (willingly), when it was obvious that some aspect would be problematic for player enjoyment.
Examples: Planning on a very low-magic game, but finding out 2 players (who usually play martials) were really looking forward to trying out spellcasters.
Or wanting to run the old Ravenloft campaign setting, and while explaining the fear/horror rules, seeing those rules personified in the faces across from me.
IF your GM has solid reasons for that ponderous (and somewhat inconsistent) banned-list of his. I am very disappointing in his reaction to legitimate questions.
Hey, maybe he's a great guy, and the group has a riotous good time together. If that's so, then game-on and enjoy yourselves.
But, if my gut reaction to his non-answer is correct, you may want to consider moving on. That would be the kind of toxic GM that ruins a great hobby for people.
3.0/3.5 came out in 2000. While that doesn't seem like that long ago, we have to stop and realize that's almost 18 years ago. If it was a person it could vote. I realize there are plenty of people older than that who are still active, but when something is a 20 habit, it's pretty "old school". 2000 was basically when I started getting into D&D, so yes, it feels a bit old school to me when I think about the nostalgia.If your GM is old school he might have banned the polymorphing spells because he thinks it works like it did in 3.5, where it was much more powerful than it is now.This is the first time I've ever been refered to as old school by implication. ;)
Truly, old school is a shifting standard.
Fair enough, there are gamers around who consider 2e AD&D new school.
It is pretty obvious that he wants casters to be blasters, not problem solvers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough, there are gamers around who consider 2e AD&D new school.3.0/3.5 came out in 2000. While that doesn't seem like that long ago, we have to stop and realize that's almost 18 years ago. If it was a person it could vote. I realize there are plenty of people older than that who are still active, but when something is a 20 habit, it's pretty "old school". 2000 was basically when I started getting into D&D, so yes, it feels a bit old school to me when I think about the nostalgia.If your GM is old school he might have banned the polymorphing spells because he thinks it works like it did in 3.5, where it was much more powerful than it is now.This is the first time I've ever been refered to as old school by implication. ;)
Truly, old school is a shifting standard.
I resemble that remark.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) If the DM won't tell you his reasoning, ask the other players. There may well be a few interesting stories attached....
2) Don't worry about it. Get creative with stuff he hasn't banned (there's PLENTY to work with). If you do this well you might impact future banned lists. :)
3) I don't see any feats on this list. You should ask him about those.
4) If possible, take the leadership feat & seek out a Deck of Many Things. :)
5) If you get the sense that the DM is afraid of player creativity or such, mess with him by asking for or taking something innocuous - like an unbreakable quarterstaff.
I did this to one of my DMs years ago. At the start of the game each player got to request 1 magic item. Assorted weapons/armors/misc items were requested. One gal wanted a custom amulet. Some of wich had game-breaking combo/potential or power-gaming written all over them. (and were eventually used such to the irritation of the DM)
Me? I asked for an unbreakable 1/4staff. That was it. That was it's only magical feature. Not even a + (wich since we were playing AD&D was important as some monsters simply could not be harmed except by +x or better weapons).
For two years the DM constantly wondered WHY this item. WHAT was I planning to do with it? And he had reason to be suspicious as he knew me to be a creative player from many other games (not just D&D) we'd played. If CCS was asking for something there was a REASON, be wary....
And nearly every week, through normal spontaneous play, a situation would arise where having an unbreakable stick proved useful.
And still the DM wondered.
At the end of the game he finally asked, admitting it'd been driving him nuts.
My reply: :Mission accomplished."
Oh & I pointed out numerous times it'd proven just plain useful. That I'd gotten more use out of an unbreakable staff than any of the other players had ever gotten from their special items.
It is pretty obvious that he wants casters to be blasters, not problem solvers.
Not entirely obvious. Teleportation, mind control, invisibility and wish aren't banned.
I'm guessing the ban list is for things he's had bad experiences with in the past. E.g., the party found a way to avoid his planned traps by flying over them, or a boss battle with a group of wizards was trivialised by a single casting of Black Tentacles.
Is this a custom setting game? If so the above is pretty reasonable (I mean, I run a custom setting game and my banned list is much longer.) Sometimes there are metaphysical reasons why you want to ban things, as things in your world work differently than things on Golarion might (e.g. in my case, outsiders are different and less-accessible.)
But if the banning involves some kind of "well, it doesn't work that way in my world" don't expect the GM to explain all of it. I will not, for example, explain to my players why Raise Dead, Resurrection, and similar spells are not common, available, or existent. On one hand, I made "you come back from the dead" spells largely unavailable in order to make death more meaningful, and on another hand there's a reason for this I'm working towards revealing in the right campaign.
I admit, though "Fly (and similar effects)" gives me pause.
•Rock to Mud - Not sure
•All Pit spells - This is rather silly
•Magic Jar - Very powerful, with some rule problems. It's been replaced with Possession spell anyways.
•Black Tentacles - It's a classic, don't know why it's banned.
These fall into "terrain control and enemy elimination".
The DM doesn't want flight because it removes the necessity for Climb checks and allow PCs to bypass... terrain. They don't want summons because they increase body count, slow down combat, and also... terrain control. They don't want polymorph spells (strange that gaseous form isn't banned) because those can bypass... terrain.
The DM - as is their right - wants walls to be walls, corridors to be corridors, and PCs to not alter the fight, just fight it conventionally.
The unwillingness to discuss this seems defensive and adversarial, but I don't know the DM so it could just be... something else.
I resemble that remark.Fair enough, there are gamers around who consider 2e AD&D new school.3.0/3.5 came out in 2000. While that doesn't seem like that long ago, we have to stop and realize that's almost 18 years ago. If it was a person it could vote. I realize there are plenty of people older than that who are still active, but when something is a 20 habit, it's pretty "old school". 2000 was basically when I started getting into D&D, so yes, it feels a bit old school to me when I think about the nostalgia.If your GM is old school he might have banned the polymorphing spells because he thinks it works like it did in 3.5, where it was much more powerful than it is now.This is the first time I've ever been refered to as old school by implication. ;)
Truly, old school is a shifting standard.
Heh, the OS/NS border will always be TSR/WotC for me. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough, there are gamers around who consider 2e AD&D new school.I resemble that remark.
Heh, I remember 1e/2e edition wars. No internet at the time, so it was "fought" mostly in person. It was several years after 2e came out before I was able to find a group willing to actually play it due to 1e preference.
Also, it's perfectly fine for a GM to ban things as part of worldbuilding - but that comes with an easy explanation. "That doesn't exist on the world." Boom, done.
I've been working on a homebrew world where there is no magic that manipulates time, and there are in game reasons for it. It might even be possible to change that state if the players pursue it. I consider all that basic information that the players should know before character creation.
Heh, I remember 1e/2e edition wars. No internet at the time, so it was "fought" mostly in person. It was several years after 2e came out before I was able to find a group willing to actually play it due to 1e preference.
And Dragon Forum posts. But people were bickering over the internet via email just a few years after it came out. It was just done with email listservs like ADND-L rather than web forums.
I never saw that much edition warring in person. Most of the people I knew ran a hybrid game between 1e and 2e, particularly to use the 1e ranger.
I'm not against banning game stoppers like black tentacles or entangle. Oof. :)
Hang on... Tome of leadership and influence, but none of the other tomes/manuals?
What does he have against Charisma?
In all honesty, though, that reads like a list of “I’ve seen these abused in other games, so I won’t risk it in this one” spells and items. Creative players can really do fun things with some of those.
Broken is always subjective. One man's broken is another man's trap(weak) option.
As an example if he intends to have X number of combats, and you teleport from point A to point B then you have just bypassed those encounters. If he uses XP to level, and he wants to you level before getting to point C he now has to find a new way to get you those XP points. There could also have been a plot-based event between points A and B. Now he has to find a way to hold the story together.
I just realized he allows fly, but not teleport. That is strange. I am betting that if you use teleport he will likely ban that too. It is a lot more powerful, than fly. All you have to do is scry and fry to get that ban into place.
PS: This is a weird list, and I have no idea why I thought I saw Teleport. You will have to ask him about this list. If you can do it just join another game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this GM doesn't like battlefield control to the point of banning Black Tentacles, he'd probably have an aneurysm if you showed him Etheric Shards.
I'm not against banning game stoppers like black tentacles or entangle. Oof. :)
You'd best not look at that link, either...
If this GM doesn't like battlefield control to the point of banning Black Tentacles, he'd probably have an aneurysm if you showed him Etheric Shards.
I'm not against banning game stoppers like black tentacles or entangle. Oof. :)You'd best not look at that link, either...
That was like the big red button in Space Madness. Argh!
I mean, Major League Baseball, for example, has a history of banning things after they prove they are a problem (e.g. the moveable outfield wall) and will just pile up ban after ban as team after team figures out a way to exploit something.
I see no reason that GMing *can't* work the same way.
I mean, Major League Baseball, for example, has a history of banning things after they prove they are a problem (e.g. the moveable outfield wall) and will just pile up ban after ban as team after team figures out a way to exploit something.
I see no reason that GMing *can't* work the same way.
I dont think anyone has a problem with a GM making certain rules for his game.
From a general point of view those things he listed can be handled, and that seems to be the point from which the OP was questioning the decisions.
Most of us probably realize that he could have good reasons for those bans, but the GM isn't here so we can only go by what we know.
|
|
I have asked him but he feels like he doesn't have to explain it to his players.
That is a REALLY, REALLY bad sign.
I have no problem with house rules. Some things ARE overpowered, some don't fit with the game the GM wants to run, some may just be personal quirks (I hate guns in my fantasy, for example).
But I'd always expect the GM to tell the players, even if only in vague terms if they are afraid of spoilers.
Him not telling you makes me think that he is either planning a gotcha or two OR he is a non communicative control freak.
The original post said "he states they are broken and or power gamer-ish". So the general reason is clear, even if the GM doesn't remember/feel able to explain exactly how he came to that conclusion.
I have asked him but he feels like he doesn't have to explain it to his players.
That's a huge red flag, as it signals an incredibly autocratic gaming style. Hope you like that.
Thanks for your input I have asked him but he feels like he doesn't have to explain it to his players.
I wouldn't play in his games, but that is just me even though I do understand one reason why might feel that way.
He could feel like any explanations could open the door up to an argument, but he could say "This is why, and its not open to discussion" if he is 100% sure that he wont change anything.
However he didnt say that so he could just feel like the GM is the boss and that is just the end of it. That is how many "I dont have to explain anything" GM's are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You may need to remind him that you're all playing together. He's not your boss, but he can be "fired" as GM. If he just doesn't know how to handle those spells, that's one thing. Maybe he's fairly new and is a bit overwhelmed with all the spells and options available to the players, simply saying that he doesn't have to tell you? Is he supposed to be a friend of yours? Because most friends don't act like that. I've used or been in parties where players have used those spells. There's nothing broken or power-gamey about them.
The original post said "he states they are broken and or power gamer-ish". So the general reason is clear, even if the GM doesn't remember/feel able to explain exactly how he came to that conclusion.
Yeah, it sounds like a fair and valid reason to me. These spell cause the GM headaches, be it because the math is hard, the spells are broken, they bypass too much plot, or are open to being abused to power-game.
The explanation is that he doesn't want to deal with it, and there's no particular reason he should need to. In fact, having a big up-front list of what players can't take is a very helpful piece of communication, rather than finding out 10 sessions in that your shapechanging wizard isn't actually allowed to have Polymorph.
if the plot is being bypassed by flight(or flight like mechanics), grappling, some one turning into another creature or a non artifact item of some kind you need better plotThe original post said "he states they are broken and or power gamer-ish". So the general reason is clear, even if the GM doesn't remember/feel able to explain exactly how he came to that conclusion.Yeah, it sounds like a fair and valid reason to me. These spell cause the GM headaches, be it because the math is hard, the spells are broken, they bypass too much plot, or are open to being abused to power-game.
The explanation is that he doesn't want to deal with it, and there's no particular reason he should need to. In fact, having a big up-front list of what players can't take is a very helpful piece of communication, rather than finding out 10 sessions in that your shapechanging wizard isn't actually allowed to have Polymorph.
Furthermore, if the plot is being bypassed by someone having armour that is sticky, greasy, or nasty-tasting, I'm not sure whether that's a bad plot or a fantastic one.
I'm very much in the red flags camp and wouldn't play with this GM. Speaking as a GM many of these spells and items aren't exactly difficult to deal with so I would call into question his abilities/attitude to GMing; his response to the OP's request for better clarification was completely disrespectful and would be reason enough to not play. Wouldn't surprise me if you found yourself in suspiciously contrived scenarios where opponents just happen to be specifically immune to your abilities. I've had it happen as a player with a previous GM where in one fight I dropped a load of zombies into a pit then burned the rest and the next fight just so happened to be against some obscure undead creatures that could fly and were immune to fire but who's presence didn't make much sense other then the fact they were immune to a couple of my spells.
I'm very much in the red flags camp and wouldn't play with this GM. Speaking as a GM many of these spells and items aren't exactly difficult to deal with so I would call into question his abilities/attitude to GMing; his response to the OP's request for better clarification was completely disrespectful and would be reason enough to not play. Wouldn't surprise me if you found yourself in suspiciously contrived scenarios where opponents just happen to be specifically immune to your abilities. I've had it happen as a player with a previous GM where in one fight I dropped a load of zombies into a pit then burned the rest and the next fight just so happened to be against some obscure undead creatures that could fly and were immune to fire but who's presence didn't make much sense other then the fact they were immune to a couple of my spells.
Ah yes, I had a GM that said we'd be a lv12 dragon hunting campaign and to make character's that were famous dragon hunters for this. My wizard had some good DC's, spells that targeted saves especially dex, and spell penetration knowing that dragon's have good saves and spell resistance. So the first dragon I easily passed the SR and the dragon's had a less favorable chance of succeeding, the next dragon fight had their lowest save be like 35 and their reflex like almost 50. And then the dragon after that had SR of like 50. I then have no idea what the next dragon had as I had left the campaign.