D&D 3E/3.5 What do you ban? (3.5)

[DragonLancer]

I only banned the Mystic Theurge.

The only thing I nerfed was spells like Ray of Enfeeblement. I ruled that they didn't stack.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Ray of Enfeeblement is a penalty to strength, so by the "same spell source" rule, it already didn't stack, just overlapped.

"Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above). "

 

[Dandu]

True of my game as well. And, barring a few broken builds, this tends to be better for the PC's than for monsters. Some of the brutish monsters can get huge benefits out of power attack, and more importantly, monsters will generally face fewer traumatic damage saves over the course of their career than players. Power attack is a critical component of any plan to regularly do melee hits doing more than 50 points of damage.

If the concern is killing PCs too quickly with Power Attacking monsters as a DM... why not just have the monsters PA for less?

We both acknowledge that melee characters need Power Attack to remain relevant. It seems odd, then, to nerf their ability to do the only thing they are good at.

 

[DragonLancer]

Ray of Enfeeblement is a penalty to strength, so by the "same spell source" rule, it already didn't stack, just overlapped.

"Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above). "

Thanks for that. I could never find the bit about penalties not stacking.

 

[Runestar]

Is there even a use for planar ally/binding that isn't game-breaking? Even if I simply use it as written, you are talking about an 11th lv cleric gating in a trumpet archon (with cleric14 spellcasting) to adventure with us for 11 days, at a cost of 12,000gp (or 3000gp per party member). This seems like a steal to me!

I am surprised people restrict/ban belts of healing though, it is clearly inferior to a wand of CLW, even if you allow the use of multiple belts.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Would the Trumpet Archon get a share of the loot and xp?

 

[aboyd]

I am surprised people restrict/ban belts of healing though, it is clearly inferior to a wand of CLW, even if you allow the use of multiple belts.

Well, the belt will keep going after the wand runs out of charges. In a game I'm playing in right now, we can burn through a wand of CLW in just 2 or 3 encounters. So seeing the belt continue to work long after the wand is gone is certainly part of it.

Having said that, when I DM, here's my problem: the PCs can either buy a potion of Cure Serious Wounds for 750, or the belt for the same price. The potion is one-time use. The belt goes on & on. So I don't ban it, but I do make the belt cost a bit more. I think I had it at the cost of 3 potions. If the players are OK with the price and want 20 of them, by all means, buy 'em up.

 

[Dandu]

Melee characters need a lot of healing due to their career choice of standing in front of large, nasty monsters with big teeth. Healing items are expensive. At the start of 3.5e, this was a problem. A healing belt helps alleviate the problem. Nerfing the healing belt re-introduces the problem.

Yes, a healing belt is better than a potion of cure serious wounds. This is because potions suck.

 

[aboyd]

If changing the price of the healing belt turns my game from "correct level of healing" to "broken level of healing" then I'd say two things. First, then D&D is very fragile if one such change ruins it. Second, I'm OK to play the game broken, then.

 

[Runestar]

Well, the belt will keep going after the wand runs out of charges. In a game I'm playing in right now, we can burn through a wand of CLW in just 2 or 3 encounters. So seeing the belt continue to work long after the wand is gone is certainly part of it.

That doesn't seem like a very fair comparison. A fully-charged wand of CLW heals on average, 275hp. Burning it through 2-3 encounters means healing roughly 90-140hp per fight.

Conversely, a healing belt heals 6d8 hp on average, or 27hp each day. You would need 4-5 belts per fight just to break even, or 10+ belts per day. For that money, you may as well get that many wands of CLW (or even better, vigor).

I suppose the belt is more worth it in the very long run, but by that time, the savings hardly seem worth it.

Having said that, when I DM, here's my problem: the PCs can either buy a potion of Cure Serious Wounds for 750, or the belt for the same price.

Considering that for the same money, you could be getting a wand of vigor, I would argue it is the potion which is overpriced.