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

[GreyLord]

About puking...he asked me a direct question...and I semi-seriously stated something.

I suppose it was in poor taste...so forgive me. Point blank...it's disallowed if I'm Dm'ing. I limit things to three classes because I already have enough to do without trying to check every little book and rule to see if there is going to be abuse possible in the future, or current abuse. Too many who do this try to abuse some feat, skill, or ability so that they get "super" Jonesy...instead of simply outlawing the munchkins, it's easier to state a flat rule that NO ONE get's over three classes. It's easier on ME (the DM), it's easier on other players, and avoids arguments like..."Jack got to have a dozen classes with his character...just because you think I'm being a munchkin gives you no reason to make it so I can't do the same" Type reasoning.

It' s too much work, and too much of a head ache. If you guys like to spend your days trying to solve arguments amongst players, or hunting down rules in books to make sure that the synergy won't cause angst amongst everyone else...especially once you start getting into classes that are not core and sometimes may be obscure...more power to you.

My take on why 3 classes are enough. If you have enough imagination and actually ROLEPLAY as opposed to ROLLPLAY in 3e, there are enough skills, feats, and ideas that you should actually be able to play almost ANY idea with A SINGLE class. Sure, it might not be the next superman...but the idea should work. I let 3 classes in so that if there is something very specific you want that is not available in any other way, or that you wish to utilize (perhaps as part of an organization...your character has always wanted to work towards being an Assassin, and this is representative of you going to being part of the Assassin's guild...hence the Assassin prestige class), it's there.

I find it shallow, however, when people try to substitute the idea that they have to use classes to justify roleplaying. I see it as restrictive, and actually hindering their growth as roleplayers. There will NEVER be a class for everything out there. You won't have a class for Animal trainer for Birds that can tell the miners when there's no oxygen or not. Simply put, there isn't a class called Miner Animal trainer.

However, with imagination you can recreate something JUST LIKE that or very similar with the right selection of skills and feats. In fact, you could use that idea with a majority of the classes out there. Some would take longer than others to obtain the right skill points and feats, but it's doable. Letting yourself be strictly defined by a class, and letting that dictate what you can roleplay...to me...is distasteful.

That why I stated the humorous (or not so humorous apparantly to some) statement of puking.

As a player, I also see this as symbolic of someone who let's there class define them, instead of their roleplaying and view of what they want their character to be. This is also not my ideal person to roleplay with. I'd rather roleplay with someone there to roleplay, then someone who can't think outside the box and has to have the exact class to tell him what he is. In otherwords, letting class define you...rather than roleplaying and vision define you in my 3.5 games is a little off putting.

NOW...I allow anything to happen or go in my Forgotten Realms games. You want to play that, I won't puke at all. However, despite your attempt at making a humorous backstory, it will probably come back to bite you pretty quick, most likely in one of the groups you mentioned offending...offing you unless you come up with a viable excuse of why they should no longer be upset with you. That would either make your character stronger by finding that there are others in the party that have to defend your weak build...and so you bond as a group...or the characters ignominious death and a reroll.

 

[Alexander123]

I personally could not have fun without optimizating my character to the fullest possible extent.

I like Dandus character, if he feels that this is how he gains satisfaction from playing D&D I would be the last person to stop him. I like my D&D games to allow every person to gain from them what he or she wants to gain from them. I am not interested in imposing my value judgements on another person nor would I create arbitrary rules to do so. I would also not play in a game with such arbitrary rules.

Also if Dandu feels that he gains satisfaction by having a comical character I would not stop him. Humor and Optimization are not mututally exclusive, neither are Humor and Roleplay.

Also, in general I don't try to bring spellcasters and martial characters closer to one another in power by nerfing one etc. etc. I simply have different tiers of play and if a spellcaster wants to play in a game with lower tier characters he will have to find a way to fall in their tier primarily through multiclassing and losing caster levels etc. to the point where he does not overshadow the martial characters. Also my lower tier games usually do not go to the higher levels stopping at around level 10-13.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Am I the only one that doesn't check every single thing my players do when I DM to make sure they aren't being "munchkins?"

I feel like people very needlessly confuse "multiclass" with "munchkin," which was sorta true in 2e, but not in the slightest in 3e. Dandu's character really isn't all that super powered. It's not weak, but it ain't a game breaker - or anywhere near it. It's a decently strong melee character with a funny joke. Limiting to 3 classes doesn't stop that either, as the key to power is to actively not multiclass but instead be a straight spellcaster

Hell, that character could be played just as easily as using his fists instead of his beard. I think people just look at the classes and instantly leap to "No, it's too powerful!" without actually looking at how it works.

Edit: Incidentally, if character makes character and not class, then banning them from taking more then three classes is the opposite of this idea.

 

[Greg K]

Currently, I prefer to use Savage Worlds or, for level base, True20. However, when I ran or were to run 3e, here is what I did

In terms of Core, I didn't tend to ban except for specific spells, specific PrCs and the feat: natural spell. I did, however, modify including
a. Cleric spell list and access
b. Druid Wild Shape and Animal companion
c. Specialist wizards
c. Wizard spell access
d. multiclassing


Supplement wise it's easier to ask what I don't ban when dealing with WOTC products (I'll leave UA off the following list since I use a lot)

Complete Adventurer: some feats and equipment
Complete Arcane: a few of the spells and feats
Complete Divine: a of the feats, spells and domains
Complete Warrior: some the equipment, feats and PrCs. Cloak of Bravery
Complete Champion: the spellless variants for Paladins and Rangers
Sandstorm: certain spells, monsters and equipment
Stormwrack: certain spells, monsters and equipment
Races of Destiny: a couple of spells
Races of the Wild: the alternate skill uses and a couple of spells
Cityscape enchancement: wilderness/urban skill swap


DM only sources:
Book of Vile Darkness
Fiendish Codex 1
Lords of Madness
Heroes of Horror
(plus the following 3.0 books: Fiend Folio and MM2)

 

[Corwin of Amber]

It seems to me that people are so concerned with being overpowered via multiclassing, thus causing people to have less fun that they are ignoring the already present problem of unbalanced classes.

You insinuate that Fistbeard Beardfist is more powerful that Monk 20, therefore the Monk player will not have fun; however, Cleric 20 will grind Monk 20 into the dust by simply not choosing the worst spells, is it more fun to be outclassed by a single class character than a multiclass? That must be it. After all, people keep saying that because 3.5 is buggy that multiclassing is overpowered, so obviously that bugginess doesn't extend to single classes.

Then, my favorite part, people are so concerned with controling their players with an iron fist of rules that molds the game to exactly how you desire, while simutaneously saying that the players are free to roleplay the character the way they want, but not have the mechanics they wish to back it up.

Oh, and for your Miner Animal Trainer, Dwarven Spiritual Connection Ranger/Scout/Animal Lord (Birdlord Totem)/Exemplar (Craft: mining). This character will be able to speak with animals, have high Spot and Listen Checks, increased speed, and be able to share his skills with his companions (the birds).

 

[Greg K]

I feel like people very needlessly confuse "multiclass" with "munchkin," which was sorta true in 2e, but not in the slightest in 3e. Dandu's character really isn't all that super powered. It's not weak, but it ain't a game breaker - or anywhere near it.

With some players I do consider it to be powergaming, min/maxing or munchkin (or at least an attempt at one or more). However, more often than not, I am concerned with what makes sense in terms of what the characters have been doing in the game setting, having access to trainers (which can be another party member), time to train, etc.

Then again, I am big on using class variants (i.e., the PHB customizing a character, Unearthed Arcana), variant spell lists (DMG) and some third party base classes to help players with their starting concepts (provided it fits within the setting, its cultures, and, often organizations (wizard academies, temples, etc.) which, when I run, are pre-determined before the players begin generating characters.

 

[Wyvernhand]

Just because you can fix the system doesn't mean its broken.

If you spend the time to rewrite dozens of feats and all of the core base classes so that only limited multiclassing is required to achieve whatever theme or archtype is desired by the player, couldn't you also spend the time simply working within the system? Simply looking up, or asking others to look up, classes, feats, spells, or abilities that match what you are interested in doing? I mean, you could make a rogue/sorcerer class, the Gutter Mage, as you called it, and figure give it all of the abilities of a Rogue1/Sorcerer4/UnseenSeer10/ArcaneTrickster5. You end up with the same result, albeit maybe a little more streamlined. Have you REALLY gained anything though? Really? If two different people were roleplaying each, and you couldn't see the character sheet, could you REALLY tell the difference?

And as far as online discussions go...its much easier to work within the system, since that system is a commonality we all share. You might have a 500 page document written up with all of your house rules and fixes and class/feat/spell rewrites, and all of that means nothing to someone who hasn't read them.

As I stated, 3.5's biggest draw is its multiclass system. The ability to piece the bits you want together to get an end result that looks like what you want. Its not a perfect system, but its the system that exists. If you don't like the system, thats fine. If someone wants to play with the system, and use the system like that, then who are you to tell them that their style of play is WRONG...because thats what you are doing.

 

[Celebrim]

It seems to me that people are so concerned with being overpowered via multiclassing...

Huh? Ok, point out where people in this thread have been concerned with overpowered via multiclassing. I don't recall that being much of a theme, and to my knowledge nothing I've said nothing that suggests anything of the sort. The easiest way to get overpowered in core rules is straight full spellcaster. Multiclassing isn't much of a concern to me on that grounds, and my only comments about power have been to deflect charges that if you remove multiclassing and PrCs that you'll have removed all ways to near the power of full spellcasters by noting that so long as I was making changes I didn't limit myself to just banning a few things or even just banning a lot of things.

No one opposed to massive multiclassing has stated that the primary reason that they are opposed to massive multiclassing has anything at all to do with power level. I oppose some PrCs on power level grounds, but not multiclassing generally and I certainly don't oppose the example of 'good multiclassing' we've been given on power level grounds.

Rather, I think there is a whole lot of projecting going on here. The people defending fully open multiclassing and PrCs in particular are doing so on the grounds that they approve of the resulting power level, so they are assuming without any evidence whatsoever that those that object are objecting on power level grounds. But that would be having a conversation with a straw man or someone else not present here.

...thus causing people to have less fun that they are ignoring the already present problem of unbalanced classes.

Who, what? Show me the quote?

After all, people keep saying that because 3.5 is buggy that multiclassing is overpowered, so obviously that bugginess doesn't extend to single classes.

I didn't say that. Though I would say that the big four full spellcasting classes are so powerful that clearly any PrC that made them more powerful would be taking things in the wrong direction.

Then, my favorite part, people are so concerned with controling their players with an iron fist of rules that molds the game to exactly how you desire, while simutaneously saying that the players are free to roleplay the character the way they want, but not have the mechanics they wish to back it up.

This is nonsense. The purpose of me readjusting the classes was to give the players more freedom to create what they wanted and giving them readier access to mechanics without jumping through PrC hoops, wierd prerequisites, fixed level progressions in order to get silo'd class ability X and Y, and so forth. My purpose was to elimenate alot of arbitrary flavor baggage so that, yes, you could play a Chaotic Good 'paladin' or a Lawful Nuetral Barbarian, and yes, you could be a 'ranger' without having a deep attachment to the wilderness and dabbling in druidic magic. And the intention was to let players do this 'out of the box' without them having to go, "Can I take the alternate base class from book X, because I want to progess and take the PrC from book Y, and then the PrC from book X.", and me having to say, "Have you looked at book J yet?"

Yes, obviously I'm also trying to create the game I want, but so is the DM who doesn't ban everything and allows every splatbook and I won't apologize for wanting to enjoy the game. Some other DM can make his game to his taste, and more power to him. All I'm saying is that I hear a lot of people unhappy with 3e especially at higher levels, and while some of those problems (complicated math) are inherent, a lot of the others aren't part of core and in fact only serve to make core's problems harder to address.

 

[Keldryn]

Just to generally address the people that seem to discourage and/or dislike multiclassing: Why are you trying to bend to your will a system based so heavily on building your character via multiclassing and mechanics to represent fluff?

Why not just try to play older versions where your only options were a single multiclass or dualclassing.

I'm just joining this discussion now, so excuse me if I seem to be butting in, but I would disagree that the system is based heavily on building your character via multiclassing.

D&D has always been a class-based system, and the classes in the core rules of every version generally reflect strong fantasy or mythological archetypes. In my opinion, this is where D&D is at its best. This is less about which version of the rules are used and more about character options that are based on those archetypes. When D&D starts to stray from those archetypes, it tends to fall apart (in my opinion, again). It happened as 2e developed, it happened again with 3e, and it's happening with 4e as well.

The fact that a character "concept" requires a handful of levels in 6 different classes indicates to me that the designers never intended the system to work in this way. This is a class-based system being forced to work like a point-based system, and I think it is unfortunate that D&D 3.x went in that direction (or was perceived to have gone in that direction).

Prestige classes were supposed to be limited by the campaign, representing specialized roles that are grounded in the campaign setting. It's never stated in the rules, but frankly I can't see why a PC should ever have more than one prestige class, given what they were intended to represent.

The whole "favored class" setup may not have accomplished its goal very well, but clearly it is there to discourage taking levels in too many classes. Given the lineage of the game and the example characters in early 3.x products, it seems to me that the designers intended multiclassing in 3.x to serve the same purpose as it did in 1e and 2e -- to give PCs some flexibility and versatility at the expense of a bit of raw power, not to combine in ways which don't make sense in the context of the game world in order for players to give their PCs the specific abilities that they want.

Going back to the core 3.5 books after a couple of years and ignoring the supplements which came after gives me a very different perspective on the game. It's actually a fairly elegant update of the AD&D games that I grew up on. Reading about the Beardfist Fistbeards of the world over the past few years made me forget that.

 

[Greg K]

As I stated, 3.5's biggest draw is its multiclass system. The ability to piece the bits you want together to get an end result that looks like what you want. Its not a perfect system, but its the system that exists.

Bull. Multiclassing may be the biggest draw for you. It may be the biggest draw for some or all of the people you know. I am sure it is a draw for many people. However, it is not the biggest draw for everyone. It is definitely not for myself nor the people I have played with since the initial release of 3e.

If you don't like the system, thats fine. If someone wants to play with the system, and use the system like that, then who are you to tell them that their style of play is WRONG...because thats what you are doing.

Speaking for myself, if it is not a game that I am running or counter to the group being played in,. I am not going to tell anyone how to play. They can play how they like. At the gaming table, as DM, I will tell a player that it is inappropriate for the particular table. The DMs that I know will do the same. So will many of the players at my table and tables that I have played at. The player in question can then conform or find a more suitable group.