Just wondering
None.
Banning? Not outright. Well, not yet, anyways.
For example, in the ruleset I’ve been working on (on and off, for practically forever), I’m replacing iterative attacks for composite bows and crossbows with the Vital Strike mechanics, and allowing crossbows to use Touch AC for the first range increment. Composite bow users can’t use Clustered Shots or Rapid Shot, and are able to use Manyshot only against two separate, adjacent targets. Crossbow users can’t use Clustered Shots, and feats that allow you to rapidly reload crossbows by non-magical means are gone.
Not that any of these have ever come up, but these are the ones that would be pre-banned automatically, off the top of my head.
Chained summoner. Sacred Geometry. Leadership. Finding Haleen, Magical Lineage, Wayang Spellhunter. Dazing Spell. Come And Get Me. Fate's Favored.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
… Leadership.
I’d be fine with a feat that boosts someone’s existing leadership abilities, but I’m not a fan of feats that grant a PC one or more NPCs to follow you around. I’d much rather see PCs get bodyguards, entourages, henchmen, retinues, or even outright armies by way of financial investment (mercenaries, etc.), earning titles of nobility (and thus lands and accompanying knights, fyrds, etc.), or really good role playing.
Nothing directly. I do modify the setting quite a bit before character creation begins, and that does amount to making certain abilities pointless, and make others require substantial character background explanation as to how they came by that ability.
Some things, like leadership, end up in a bad spot. You could take it, and guarantee the power level and loyalty of your followers, but I'm not having NPCs teleport into existence to assist you, and you could recruit followers through roleplaying without the feat. So, is a feat worth the ability to micromanage followers? Usually the answer is no.
Other things could be region locked. Some things are too rare to have the support needed to use them regularly. Other things will be forbidden knowledge and require a background based means of having secretly acquired those things.
I try to make sure that it's not so much restrictive as it's an opportunity to meld the character better with the world, but it doesn't always work out that way.
In general, nothing, not even the 3pp stuff, so long as I have the Book. But I tell my players If you use it, I use it. Plus I reserve the Right to say no if some of their interactions get wonky (EX: Spheres of Might + Path of War)
Having said that however, Sometimes I run a campaign that has Specific Restrictions, purely because of the nature of the campaign.
If they all start as Kids who grew up together in the same village, I'm going to say No Slow Maturing races like Elves or Dwarves. If I run a Viking Saga campaign I'm going to say "Make a Viking" and No to anything Not a Viking.
If I run a Viking Saga campaign I'm going to say "Make a Viking" and No to anything Not a Viking.
Aḥmad ibn Faḍlān ibn al-ʿAbbās ibn Rāšid ibn Ḥammād is disappointed.
I don’t like guns in my fantasy game, so gunslingers and any gun-based archetype banned. I also don’t allow evil characters so that means no antipaladin as a player character. Some campaigns I run have specific themes so if the character does not fit that theme, I will suggest the character is not appropriate for the game.
the following list is only when i run a balanced game. I also run games which run on the premise that the character are meant to be broken, in which case many of the following do not apply.
1. guns, because if i wanted them we'd be playing Shadowrun instead.
2. occult classes, because no matter how you want to call them they are broken
-my wizard can cast in full armor he just need to keep his cool.
even if this was a compromise it's not balanced. normal wizard in armor need to roll for fail every time he cast, not only when something scary shows by.
3. mythic, because it make the game a whole deferent setting (much like guns) and it's waaaaay to easy to abuse. my mythic character in another game was banned once it hit 3rd tier (tip-it's easy to break the game if you pick the mythic weapon option..).
4. blood money and numerical feat shenanigans. nothing is free.
5. i enforce the rules as they are set, not as the player wish them to be.
for example:
leadership help one attract npc followers & cohorts, as such they are NON-player character and the players has very little say in how they are built nor are they automatically dominated by them.
-the player can look to attract a paladin or wizard or even a character who is good in crafting, but he has little say in how they set their feats\traits\stats and class levels. the paladin that shows up might be multiclass or not.
the player can always refuse and look for another, but the more demanding are his hiring restrictions the longer (if ever) it takes for a suitable npc to show up for the job. (you want an archer you get to pick from a list of tens if not more applications, you want a Drow dragon rider who can cast invisibility and has rich parents? you might have to wait a while for one to show up)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
… Leadership.I’d be fine with a feat that boosts someone’s existing leadership abilities, but I’m not a fan of feats that grant a PC one or more NPCs to follow you around. I’d much rather see PCs get bodyguards, entourages, henchmen, retinues, or even outright armies by way of financial investment (mercenaries, etc.), earning titles of nobility (and thus lands and accompanying knights, fyrds, etc.), or really good role playing.
Leadership is one of those mechanics that seems half-done. Do you pay the cohort? or does s/he take a share of the loot? or s/he work for free?
It all depends on why s/he your cohort. It can be your significant other, a devoted follower of your deity, someone that follows you for greater glory, and so on. But s/he still needs to eat, still needs equipment, free time, someplace to sleep, etc., etc.
My group generally agrees that a half share of the loot is appropriate for a cohort/henchmen. That means that everyone pays for him/her with a reduction of their loot, so the person that wants to take leadership generally has to select someone that is agreeable to the other players.
That somewhat reduces the worst possible exploit with cohorts.
In the current campaign, I am testing a different approach, giving the players a chance to hire henchmen or get them through roleplaying events.
It is a return to the 1 edition AD&D roots.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ban the classes from the Advanced class guide, several spells, and a few feats (like Arithmancy and other numerology feats). The main reason is power creep. The CRB classes or their Unchained versions should be viable, so I avoid classes that do the same thing, but better.
Not a rule ban, but I strongly discourage the 15 minuted adventurer day. Enemies attack during your sleep. If you stop they have the time to react and change plans.
And most opponents react as true living beings. They try to flee when previously wounded, they surrender, when the BEEG sees that the cannon fodder has been defeated and knows he has a very small chance to win he considers taking his most valuable possession and fleeing (naturally, it all depends on the opponent motivations, a cult of fanatics that is doing a ritual that can be done only once every 12,000 years will to flee or surrender, mercenaries instead will surrender often).
I don’t like guns in my fantasy game, so gunslingers and any gun-based archetype banned.
I personally don’t like guns as presented in the game*. On the other hand, I LOVE historical hybrid firearms. There are some amazing hybrid weapons out there that I think would make a fun addition to the game.
* Which is largely an extension of me not liking how the game handles bows and crossbows, and the way reloading the latter becomes almost a magic of its own.
The Vigilante class. Not because it is overpowered (if anything it's underpowered), but because, having played in campaigns with a couple, it just doesn't work well in a group with non-Vigilante characters, to the point that it's actually disruptive to good gameplay, because either the GM spends too much time doing side quests with just the Vigilante, or there is a lot of hand-waving to excuse the 'one day our fourth party member is Freddo the Fop, the next it's Felix the Figher' situation.
Worse, the class is all about doing out-of-character restricted versions of things that other people can do anyway. e.g. Party need to sneak into somewhere in disguise. The Vigilante can hit the dificulty effortlessly, but the party rogue who has a positive charisma, has invested a bit in the skill and a disguise kit can probably take 10 and also do it effortlessly - so do you tell the Vigilante their "big thing" is no big deal, or nerf the rogue?
Basically - the class doesn't work.
c. Banned classes.
1. Summoner
2. Fighter
a. archer builds
3. Undead Lord
4. Arcane Trickster
5. Arcane Archer
6. Anything from Occult Game
d. Alignment.
i. Any non-evil alignment is allowed.
this is what we ban in our games.
We discovered that the Archer builds - specifically the fighter archer deals way more damage in comparison to other builds so we have banned it while we experiment with ways of nerfing it. Our current trial is banning Rapid Shot and Cluster shot to see if that brings it back in line with other builds.
We also limit anything that give you multiple actions by having more than one character - like the Summoner/eidoloon combo, or the hunter/wolf combo or the Leadership feat.
a. archer builds
…
We discovered that the Archer builds - specifically the fighter archer deals way more damage in comparison to other builds …
I don’t even think it’s a matter of the damage output archers* are capable of, relative to melee combatants. It’s the flexibility and bypasses that come with archery’s total package.
It’s effectively getting three bonus attacks and the ranged equivalent to deadly aim by 6th level.
It’s being able to do all of the above AND make any DR an afterthought as early as one level later, via Clustered Shots.
It’s getting a reverse pounce with zero feat investment, by riding away from whatever is trying to get you into melee range—with no penalty so long as your mount is only making a single move at a time.
Not that you HAVE to ride away, since the same feats that improve your accuracy and damage also eventually allow you to make ranged attacks without provoking. And by 12th level, you can stick them with two attacks of opportunity (with scaling damage bonuses) before they even reach you.
All of the above is available to all Fighters and any class that can unlock Weapon Specialization. Where the latter are concerned, the real choice comes down to a more limited number of feats, and what benefit you want to get first. In either case, the abilities in question support the default archery concept.
And that’s where melee combatants struggle. Not so much in terms of damage output, but in having to either give something up to get something, or in relying on special attacks whose effectiveness decreases as monsters get tougher (combat maneuvers against creatures with too-high CMDs, or whose size makes them invalid targets; critical effects or power attack variations whose Fortitude save DC is an afterthought even at the level gained). What mounted archers get for the cost of a horse is only available to a melee combatant who commits to builds that are niche even within specific classes (e.g., Beast Totem barbarians).
* Fighter or otherwise; Divine Hunter Paladins and Eldritch Archers are on another level altogether
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I don't ban anything per se. For my current game I'm running, I'm keeping the players to anything in pocket edition, so they aren't overwhelmed. (two veterans 3 newbies) But if anyone wants to bring in an option from a softcover, shouldn't be a problem.
Neriathel, I'd suggest if the dual ident is an issue, look at Legendary games Legendary Vigilantes. The Exposed Vigilante archetype gets rid of the dual ident, locking the vigilante in social identity. I actually prefer the warlock archetype over the magus.
Tx, you banned the fighter? Not just some archetypes but that whole class? For as many "fighters get robbed late game" threads as there are on these boards, I was genuinely surprised by that one.
Yep, a pure fighter, due to all the feats and weapon trainings, no matter the build, can have insane damage output. we were seeing over 150 damage per round around 12th level on a regular basis, and sometimes up to 300 with a couple of crits. And a melee fighter is a bit worse off due to needing to reposition, but an archer, can just stand and shoot and totally destroy the head bad guy.
As for the "fighter gets robbed" threads... I laugh. IMO perhaps those people aren't building the fighter the same way I do...
I’m curious, do you not see the same damage outputs—or even greater ones—from Paladins or Rangers?
I’m curious, do you not see the same damage outputs—or even greater ones—from Paladins or Rangers?
nope, not really, and the fact that they have to reposition to get to the next target (being melee builds) limits their damage output. Even if they can kill a bad guy with one hit, if they can only reach one badguy, they can only kill one bad guy. An archer doesn't have that limitation, he can hit everyone on the battle field, and if they are within 110' without penalty.
the paladin only has similar damage output when he smites, which has a limited type of target, and a limited number of uses per day. And a ranger flat out doesn't deal the same damage as a pure fighter. even against favored enemies.
Gunslinger - Testing a Rework
Cavalier/Samurai - Testing a Rework
Fighter - Designing a Rework - but stalled at talents
Ranger, Swashbuckler, Shifter, Brawler, and Ninja are also on the chopping block but I'm not sure I'll ever get around to them so they're legal for the moment. Just highly suggested to avoid.
If a class doesn't get to pick fun new things to do every other level its a bad class. Spellcasters get spells, martials should get something fun too. If you can't even bother to give me Rogue Talents/Rage Powers to sort through I'm gonna try and fix it.
Gunslinger's rework is actually quite fun though I'm unsure how the math will work out. Hopefully my RotRL campaign will help figure out what I've gotten fluey. Wish one of my players was testing the Cavalier but I'm throwing one at them every now and then to see how they work.
I’m curious, do you not see the same damage outputs—or even greater ones—from Paladins or Rangers?nope, not really, and the fact that they have to reposition to get to the next target (being melee builds) limits their damage output. Even if they can kill a bad guy with one hit, if they can only reach one badguy, they can only kill one bad guy. An archer doesn't have that limitation, he can hit everyone on the battle field, and if they are within 110' without penalty.
the paladin only has similar damage output when he smites, which has a limited type of target, and a limited number of uses per day. And a ranger flat out doesn't deal the same damage as a pure fighter. even against favored enemies.
I don’t disagree re: the distinction between melee and archer builds.
I take your point re: the Paladin, but I guess I’m not sure what a Ranger lacks compared to a Fighter, beyond the Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization feats (which the Ranger makes up for by way of his Favored Enemy bonus… which he can apply to other creatures as well starting at 11th level).
|
|
I’m curious, do you not see the same damage outputs—or even greater ones—from Paladins or Rangers?nope, not really, and the fact that they have to reposition to get to the next target (being melee builds) limits their damage output. Even if they can kill a bad guy with one hit, if they can only reach one badguy, they can only kill one bad guy. An archer doesn't have that limitation, he can hit everyone on the battle field, and if they are within 110' without penalty.
the paladin only has similar damage output when he smites, which has a limited type of target, and a limited number of uses per day. And a ranger flat out doesn't deal the same damage as a pure fighter. even against favored enemies.
What do you do with a pouncing barbarian? He can easily resolve the repositioning limitation.
I agree with the archer problem. I recall a supposedly hard fight with three witches.
The archer was able to surprise them and roll a higher initiative. He killed all three from the other side of the room before they had a chance to act.
Some spellcaster build could have done the same, but it is easier to control spell access and the right spells are, at least, an expenditure of a significant resource for the day while a few arrows aren't, when you have a bag of holding with a few hundreds of them.
I don’t disagree re: the distinction between melee and archer builds.I take your point re: the Paladin, but I guess I’m not sure what a Ranger lacks compared to a Fighter, beyond the Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization feats (which the Ranger makes up for by way of his Favored Enemy bonus… which he can apply to other creatures as well starting at 11th level).
You can build a fighter and a ranger side by side, same feats, weapons etc, and the fighter will eventually start to outpace the ranger mostly due to the 2 feats you mention, but also due to weapon training. And don't forget, Favored enemy only applies to the favored enemy, Favored enemy: Undead, doesn't help when you ransack a village of hobgoblins....
What do you do with a pouncing barbarian? He can easily resolve the repositioning limitation.
I agree with the archer problem. I recall a supposedly hard fight with three witches.
The archer was able to surprise them and roll a higher initiative. He killed all three from the other side of the room before they had a chance to act.
Some spellcaster build could have done the same, but it is easier to control spell access and the right spells are, at least, an expenditure of a significant resource for the day while a few arrows aren't, when you have a bag of holding with a few hundreds of them.
We haven't had a player try a pouncing barbarian build yet. our ban list is reactive, not proactive. So until we see someone abuse a build in our game, it's legal.
And yep, your example is exactly why we banned archers. there are times when they literally finish the fight before the rest of the party even has a chance to act.
You can build a fighter and a ranger side by side, same feats, weapons etc, and the fighter will eventually start to outpace the ranger mostly due to the 2 feats you mention, but also due to weapon training. And don't forget, Favored enemy only applies to the favored enemy, Favored enemy: Undead, doesn't help when you ransack a village of hobgoblins....
Don’t get me wrong, it’s your table and your experiences, and I’m not trying to tell you their invalid… it’s just something I haven’t seen before.
At 12th level, Weapon Training, Weapon Specialization, and Greater Weapon Specialization give the Fighter a +6 bonus to damage. At the same level, the Ranger’s Favored Enemy bonus gives him a +6 bonus to damage (along with a higher attack bonus)—and at that level the Instant Enemy spell (a swift action casting) means he is able to apply that bonus to a creature type that isn’t even a Favored Enemy at least 1/day. As the Fighter gains levels, his damage bonus stands to increase by +3. The Ranger’s stands to increase by +4 (along with his attack bonus), and he can realistically apply his highest bonus to 3-4 other types of creature.
Again, I completely get your reasoning—I completely changed the archery concept for my rules set. I just don’t see how those other two classes, and the Ranger in particular, don’t require the same considerations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is the Fighter banned? Even with AWT, I just cannot understand why anyone would ever ban the Fighter... you could have a blanket ban on all full-BAB classes, and the Fighter should still get a pass to play.
And to ban archery is like banning one of the essential elements of a fantasy game... it's like banning magic, or swords, or shields... like WTF, why? Because archers can attack without moving? So make them move. Lol.
It looks like GM's just ban what they are too lazy to adjust for...
I thought about replying but realized that it was eventually going to turn into a back and forth about the reasons for doing the thing and nitpicks from others about the why, and the unfairness of it because issue 'X' isn't dealt with, or you could do 'Y' to resolve the issue too. So, I won't get into the specific things that I frown on.
I stick pretty closely to 1st party material, so I don't have to deal with the 3rd party nonsense. My players are aware that they are going to get as good as they give. If they want an arms race, they will get one. If they are capable of nuking a single mob with ranged weapons in a single round, the same potential exists to happen to them. To help offset this, I let them play around with some hero points.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, sorry... I did not mean to derail the topic or start an argument.
Everyone has their own reasons, and that is fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I banned scrying spells since such a cautious playstyle is not what I consider adventuring. They might be back at next campaign, though, to allow players that playstyle if they really desire it.
Beyond that, I changed effects that neutralize opponents (anything beyond staggered / slowed) to allow a new save at the end of each round. By now I saw this in action for some sessions and IMO it works well, although a crafty player already figured out command isn't handicapped at all. Nevertheless, this houserule avoided a ban on such effects.
I am thankful that most of my players don't feel the need to gravitate towards (IMO) problematic material. They seem happy as long as they feel the challenges are fair and they get to shine (which can require me making a fool of my NPCs, but that's part of the job).
You can build a fighter and a ranger side by side, same feats, weapons etc, and the fighter will eventually start to outpace the ranger mostly due to the 2 feats you mention, but also due to weapon training. And don't forget, Favored enemy only applies to the favored enemy, Favored enemy: Undead, doesn't help when you ransack a village of hobgoblins....Don’t get me wrong, it’s your table and your experiences, and I’m not trying to tell you their invalid… it’s just something I haven’t seen before.
At 12th level, Weapon Training, Weapon Specialization, and Greater Weapon Specialization give the Fighter a +6 bonus to damage. At the same level, the Ranger’s Favored Enemy bonus gives him a +6 bonus to damage (along with a higher attack bonus)—and at that level the Instant Enemy spell (a swift action casting) means he is able to apply that bonus to a creature type that isn’t even a Favored Enemy at least 1/day. As the Fighter gains levels, his damage bonus stands to increase by +3. The Ranger’s stands to increase by +4 (along with his attack bonus), and he can realistically apply his highest bonus to 3-4 other types of creature.
Again, I completely get your reasoning—I completely changed the archery concept for my rules set. I just don’t see how those other two classes, and the Ranger in particular, don’t require the same considerations.
The fighter picks up all the Archery feats quicker than the Ranger, and as mentioned, favored enemy does not always apply. Also, the fighters damage multiplier goes to x4 with a bow at 20th level. The Ranger Master Hunter ability, while nasty, pales in comparison (especially when the fighter will be getting 7 arrows compared to the Ranger's one) (4 attacks +1 for many shot, +1 for rapid shot, and +1 for haste)
And we haven't banned archery completely, just archery builds. So your longword build hunter can still take a bow, just not be an archery build.
Sheepish, you would strongly dislike my current tables lol! One of my players has a PC in both of my games and he helps direct PCs towards the following pattern in both
Sounds like a healthy injection of chaos is in order (pun intended).
It's a complex pattern and relies on a lot of things, so it's rather fragile. What if no plot hook comes up and players are supposed to find their own goals? What if no sources for investigation are available - maybe they are stranded alone in the middle of nowhere? What if being fast is actually detrimental - perhaps they have to wait until full moon anyway? What if the situation changes heavily after their scrying etc.?
If they have to improvise, they might notice it works out and is more fun also (well, for some people, at least).
I like to keep my fantasy firearm free, so no Gunslingers. I will allow the Bolt Ace archetype, but that's it. I also strongly discourage Paladins and Anti-Paladins because they are too divisive when it comes to how people think they should be played. In college, I had to step into a physical confrontation over the "right" way to play a Paladin twice. It was the same two guys both times. In my current campaign, there aren't any of the Eastern classes, such as the Samurai, the Ninja, or the Monk. They really don't mesh with the flavor of the setting well. No one's ever wanted to play a Summoner of any kind, so that hasn't come up. But going by all the bad press it's gotten I would definitely ban the Synthesist Summoner archetype. I'm also not a fan of the Vigilante and no one in my bunch has any interest in it, anyway. I substitute a variant class, the Peer, created by Owen K.C. Stephens if anyone wants to play something along that line, though.
I LOVE the Path of War rules and classes, but unless the whole party either takes a PoW class or at least feats that allow uses of some of the disciplines they don't work. Once, as an experiment I let a player create one to try out the rules and it utterly wiped out every foe they encountered and the rest of the party barely got to do anything at all during combat sequences. The BBEG was designed for a specific character to fight alone as part of the story arc, but he never got the chance to even take a swing at it.
I discourage or outright ban most of the races available to players. Most don't really fit with our homebrew setting and some just seem downright silly to me. I allow the Core races, though the Half-Orc is actually its own race in our campaign world as Humans and Orcs can't interbreed. None of the anthropomorphic animal races, either. I offer a couple of homebrew races as options and a greatly modified Hobgoblin, though. If a character is dead set on playing something I would normally not allow if they can give me a convincing argument as to why they want to use it I will sometimes relent, but they have to deal with the reactions by NPCs who might be wary or even terrified of them because of their "strangeness".
I can't really think of any spells, feats, or items off the top of my head, though I'm sure there is a handful of them that wouldn't work with our style of play.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would I ban stuff? If I wanted my players to have a more limited experience we'd just play 5e. [/jokes]
Seriously though, I don't ban anything because nothing is more powerful than an optimised wizard or more versatile than a druid, and those are core classes.
If a player over-optimises their character, I usually check in with the group to see if everybody is having fun, and feels like the spot-light time is shared well. If everybody is enjoying the game, then I'm good.
Also, I like guns and gunslingers in my games, as well as tinkerers, alchemists and other science powered heroes.
It's weird to me that fantasy settings can have arrested technological development for so many thousands of years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Banning the synthesist is funny, because it’s an obvious power downgrade from the two action economy of core summoner. The only potential problem it has is abusing point buy, by dumping all of your physical stats, and even then, it’s foolish to dump constitution, because of the potential for sudden, if knocked out of your form.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Banning the synthesist is funny, because it’s an obvious power downgrade from the two action economy of core summoner. The only potential problem it has is abusing point buy, by dumping all of your physical stats, and even then, it’s foolish to dump constitution, because of the potential for sudden, if knocked out of your form.
Yeah, I would WAY rather have a Synthesist at my table than litetally anyone focused on actually, you know, summoning.
I have a short list of things I don't use in my campaigns (sacred geometry, mythic stuff, fates favored, exemplar traits, campaign traits from campaigns other than the current). Then I have a list of things that I have not added into the setting yet, but if a player is interested in it we'll work something up (guns, occult classes, vigilantes).
Then a specific campaign might have it's own limitations, races or alignments typically.
Also, just because a specific spell or item isn't "banned" does not mean that it is common or readily available.
Paragon Surge.
Yeah, I would WAY rather have a Synthesist at my table than litetally anyone focused on actually, you know, summoning.
Seriously, I love summoning, but I often have to hold back to not overshadow the table. 3+charisma mod is just so many disposable and versatile summoning options per day. As for how I hold back, I almost never go for multiple summons. Flooding the field with monsters is where most of the real shenanigans come in.
My last summoner was a spirit summoner, so I wouldn’t fall back into the habit of dropping the eidolon to just summon all day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monster Tactician is where it's at for summoning... but I haven't even considered even thinking about banning it.