D&D 5E Zards Ban List?

[FlyingChihuahua]

I normally don't allow them but they're going to be important this campaign. On the fence about it for the reasons in your post.

Could always just replace full on advantage on all magic to something like Gnome Cunning.

Call it "Serpent Mind" or something.

 

[Zardnaar]

Could always just replace full on advantage on all magic to something like Gnome Cunning.

Call it "Serpent Mind" or something.

I'm fine with them raw. There's other ways of fixing it if it turns out to be OP.

 

[Horwath]

Yeah,

-5/+10 part of SS/GWM are good choice to ban.

you can turn those feats to half feats and remove the "power attack" part,

or add respective fighting style instead of "power attack"

 

[Weiley31]

Me at this rate.

 

[Blue]

You could change them from flat -5/+10 to -Proficiency/2x Proficiency. So at 1st it's only -2/+4. I've found that works to bring some of the swinginess of the feats down at my tables.

Not trying to say what you are doing is wrong, just informing you.

I have seen mathematical modelling showing that the lower numbers, and I think -Prof/+2xProf was one of their examples, that because it makes sense to use over a wider range of ACs it ends up being more beneficial than -5/+10 did over the course of enough rounds. In other words, over 100 rounds because it was viable to use (increase in expected damage) to more rounds, the total change in damage due to the feat was greater with the smaller modifiers.

But of course there's too many variants for their generic math to work for every campaign. Bless, magic items, rolled vs. point buy, level ranges, etc. But it did make you wonder about if the change did what you expected it to.

 

[Khelon Testudo]

Have you seen my discussion thread about Yuan-Ti?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I don't quite understand the "Tieflings are too evil to be pirates" rationale. Pirates seem to be pretty evil already. What is it about Tieflings that makes them too evil for a life of pillaging and plunder?

 

[MDragonG]

Also not to many magical polearms.

This in my opinion is kinda dumb. As a DM you know you can put them in your games. They don't have to be printed in a book to be a thing. If I have a player that wants to use a pole arm, hand crossbow or any other nonstandard weapon I'll put it in game myself. Nothing says a glaive can't be wounding or vorpal.

 

[cmad1977]

None of that stuff is broken but ban whatever works.

 

[Salthorae]

that because it makes sense to use over a wider range of ACs it ends up being more beneficial than -5/+10 did over the course of enough rounds.

That may be over enough rounds, but I'm still ok with that.

It levels out the swinginess of the combat with my change is all I was saying. Much less "miss, miss, miss, TONS OF DAMAGE" or "can't use my feat because I'll probably miss" stuff going on.

So the PC feels comfortable using it in more situations because it's not such a big negative, but their damage output is also lower in a given round so the combats aren't as shortened as they can be with the huge +10 boost to damage when normal GWM does hit.