Why do people take such a big issue with spell banning?

Dozen said:

Interesting. I haven't ever played a campaign without Alignment rules. I can see the appeal of it, but does it work out? Let's say there is an Evil deity who's allied with demons at large due to the portfolio. And a demon wants to kill a worshipper because, well, it's a demon; depending on how dump it is, it might murder him on a just 'cause basis. Wouldn't that trigger a bell for our hypothetical worshipper, given enough time before said demon chops his head off?

Click to expand...

There is some leeway in this. Most of the conventionally good deities would regard any "always evil" creature as an enemy (and vice versa), regardless of which deity of demon prince that creature actually worshipped.

But as a cleric of Pelor the sun god, my detect enemy won't ping on an amoral faithless murderer, because he isn't an enemy of the faith. It won't even ping on a mortal follower or cleric of any of the "core D&D evil deities", because none of them are directly opposed to the concept of sunlight. It would, however, ping on all undead, due to Pelor's hatred of undead, and would ping on all evil outsiders. It'd also ping on mortal followers of Wee Jas, because Wee Jas has undeath as part of her portfolio.

If I were a cleric of Kord, my detect enemy would ping on all evil outsiders, and mortal followers of Hextor, due to his opposition to the liberty ideals of Kord. It would also ping off any creature that had an attack that directly attacked your Strength, including sentient creatures (Int 3+) with poisons that attack Strength and wizards who have memorised ray of weakness.

As a cleric of Moradin, my detect enemy will ping on followers of Corellon Larethian or Gruumsh (both traditional racial enemies), in addition to the usual "always evil" creatures. It would also ping of any creature who habitually and with destructive intent "unforged" things on a large scale.

So yeah, these spells become relevant or not depending on your deity. deities are no longer just a set of domains this way.

Ashtagon said:

There is some leeway in this. Most of the conventionally good deities would regard any "always evil" creature as an enemy (and vice versa), regardless of which deity of demon prince that creature actually worshipped.

But as a cleric of Pelor the sun god, my detect enemy won't ping on an amoral faithless murderer, because he isn't an enemy of the faith. It won't even ping on a mortal follower or cleric of any of the "core D&D evil deities", because none of them are directly opposed to the concept of sunlight. It would, however, ping on all undead, due to Pelor's hatred of undead, and would ping on all evil outsiders. It'd also ping on mortal followers of Wee Jas, because Wee Jas has undeath as part of her portfolio.

Click to expand...

Ah. I see. So for instance, Maglubiyet's divine casters would detect Kikanuti's and vice versa, Lastai's would detect prudes, Chaav's would detect bullies, etc.
What would happen if you cast Detect Follower on a follower of a god with similar portfolio, "alignment" or domains? Their goals are more or less the same, even if they don't worship the same deity.

Detect ally would generally detect any outsider or mortal who worships your own deity or related deity. Roughly speaking, a related deity is a deity who is not an enemy for any reason, and is one of:

• A deity who has the exact same alignment and two or more cleric domains (not counting alignment domains) in common, or
• A deity no more than one step away in alignment in and has a related portfolio of interests. (eg Artemis and Obad-Hai are both into nature), or
• A deity who is a fellow member in good standing of a tightly-knit pantheon (eg. the Olympian deities).

Bear in mind that one of the consequences of this is that most other PCs in a typical party will now be "neutral" in relation to the party cleric, which may have consequences when the party cleric casts holy word word of $deity.

Ashtagon said:

Bear in mind that one of the consequences of this is that most other PCs in a typical party will now be "neutral" in relation to the party cleric, which may have consequences when the party cleric casts holy word word of $deity.

Click to expand...

Oh, no, Alignment rules stay. I thought of impementing the Detect spells only in place of Detect Alignment, so to encourage players to think about killing people first. Every once in a while I get a player who thinks he can slaughter tons of creatures by virtue of them being Evil, when they haven't done anything wrong or not beyond salvation. Which he can, but I'd like them to consider the alternative more often.

Why do (some) people take such a big issue with spell banning? My personal experience is that these people are reliant on gaming the system to their own personal advantage. Such individuals naturally gravitate to the most powerful and self-reliant classes, those of spellcasters. So when you take spells out of your game, you are taking away a very real level of control over the game for them. Taking control away from anyone generally leads to mixed feelings at best and anger at worst.

Now, I do not mean to denigrate that style of play. It is fine for people who like it. That said, when beginning to play with a new group of players, it is often best to discuss what they hope to get out of the game as well as what their expectations are as to the kinds of rules that will be employed. I have had groups implode and/or split in twain because of serious differences in play style. I prefer players who choose thematic elements to their characters and then try to pick mechanics that fit the theme because I like story-oriented games. But some groups just like marching into dungeons, killing monsters, and looting the bodies; for those groups mechanics ARE the game. And there are positions in between. Before banning a spell or rule, a good DM will talk with his players about his reasons for it, especially if it happens in the middle of a campaign. But I generally do not ban spells or other rules. I allow the three core rule books, and anything else requires permission.

There is also a clever DM technique which I like to think of as "the silent ban." If you find something is disruptive to your campaign but realize that taking it away from your players will cause the kind of strife you'd prefer to avoid, you minimize its impact behind the screen. Truth be told, there are ways to counter virtually everything in the game, and they are perfectly fair tools to use in your DM toolbox. Even if you didn't have it in your notes beforehand, if you feel the offending spell is causing problems, there is nothing stopping you from adding it to your notes in the middle of a session behind the screen where the players cannot see. I do not advocate the use of this technique very often, but just often enough to ensure the players are being challenged and not resorting to one simple tactic over and over to achieve success. In other words, adapt.

There is also something to be said for saying "yes" to players. If they come up with something clever, such as a cunning use of a spell that might not be what it was intended for, but technically follows the rules of the game, you should let it work at least once. Allow the players to be rewarded for their ingenuity, but if you feel it is the kind of thing that the players will try to exploit over and over, then change things up. Sometimes it is as simple as throwing a golem at them. Spellcasters hate golems. But do not deny them the sweet taste of victory just because it sets back your plans. So they offed the evil villain. No big deal. Unlike the player characters, you can keep coming up with new characters who are tougher and meaner without limit. The evil villain could turn out not to be the true brains behind the operation.

I am waxing philosophical a bit too much here, so I will close with this thought: try to put yourself in your players' shoes when you ban something from the game. Think about how you would feel in their place and then try to find an equitable solution that is a middle ground or a win/win.

Sometimes it is as simple as throwing a golem at them. Spellcasters hate golems.

Click to expand...

Spellcasters who are not conjurers hate golems

I usually work with whitelists instead of blacklist. Nothing is available unless it is on the list for classes, races, equipment, and spells for the campaign.

I tend to do less banning than changing. For instance, if every 3rd level wizard started dropping Glitterdust into the middle of a crowd, I'd probably take away the blindness or at least reduce it to 1 round and dazzled thereafter. Because my players know I will do this, they pick effective but not overpowered spells and never even try to abuse Polymorph and the like, meaning there is no need to ban things.

Where players do object to this type of thing, I suspect that the underlying sense of entitlement needs to be weeded out. If a rule in a rulebook produces an unreasonable result (in the eyes of the DM first and foremost, or the eyes of the players), something needs to be changed. Really, there should be an asterisk next to every sentence of text in the PHB, linking to one note at the end that says "...within reason".

Fortunately, IME most of the rules lawyer types can be taught to play the game without being a jerk.

Ahnehnois said:

Where players do object to this type of thing, I suspect that the underlying sense of entitlement needs to be weeded out. If a rule in a rulebook produces an unreasonable result (in the eyes of the DM first and foremost, or the eyes of the players), something needs to be changed. Really, there should be an asterisk next to every sentence of text in the PHB, linking to one note at the end that says "...within reason".

Fortunately, IME most of the rules lawyer types can be taught to play the game without being a jerk.

Click to expand...

This is a possible explanation for that kind of behavior, but not the only one.

If I see a problem like this in an established campaign, I can usually just mention it to my players, explain why I see it as a problem, and then announce the ban or change. They will generally see my point and trust that I have the best interests of the game at heart, and am not out to change the rules so that I can "win" my struggle against their characters. Again, this arises out of the trust that I have (hopefully) earned by being a good steward of our shared fun.

In a new campaign with players with whom I am unfamiliar, I will be much more cautious about such things. I'll bring it up in conversation, and ask if anyone else sees the same problem. I'll ask if anyone has any ideas to fix it. We'll hammer out a solution together. If I just announced that I was banning something and someone objected, I don't necessarily think this is an example of "player entitlement". Rather, it could be a simple example of a lack of trust. They want to have fun in this game, and if I haven't done enough yet to demonstrate that I am a reasonable GM with good judgement, I can totally understand that they'll push back against me a little bit if I do anything to worry them that I'm drifting into bad behavior. To beat a dead horse, it's all about trust, and I won't blame them for not extending trust infinitely before they get a feel for my style.

The absolute worst thing to do in this situation is harden your stance, dismiss their concerns as "rules-lawyering", and then try to "change" their playstyle into one you find to be more correct. I'll admit that I learned this lesson the hard way as a junior GM. I'm also not saying that anyone here does that. It's just something to keep in mind when we do these player-style analysis. To bring the discussion full circle, I find the game runs smoothest when I extend some trust in my players' good intentions, even when they are arguing with me. It builds trust in turn, and when we have a good foundation of that then rulings that I make in the future are much more likely to be accepted without a grumble or gripe.