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

[Dandu]

Perhaps you should take a while to cool off.

The only one of the bunch I regret is, "juvenile to the point of infantile", because Dandu had already had his hopes crushed enough by that point and didn't really need me piling on.

I wasn't disappointed (in that you have to care about someone else's opinion to be disappointed) but rather, irritated that all complaints were about the fluff of the character which could have been easily changed, rather than the mechanics in a discussion about how multiclassing inherently degraded the quality of the game by resulting in ridiculous characters with little to no roleplaying justification or ability.

 

[Celebrim]

I wasn't disappointed (in that you have to care about someone else's opinion to be disappointed) but rather, irritated...

Ok, irritated then...

that all complaints were about the fluff of the character which could have been easily changed, rather than the mechanics

Ok, most of the complaints were about the fluff which shall we say, is not for everyone. But the mechanics were also discussed.

in a discussion about how multiclassing inherently degraded the quality of the game by resulting in ridiculous characters with little to no roleplaying justification or ability.

Ok, it was a discussion of that only in your own mind. I don't think anyone on the side of banning things said that multiclassing was inherently bad (though, it wasn't in oD&D so I'm sure some would).

The fact that the character in question had fluff which was ridiculous to many observers confused the issue, but no one - certainly not I - stated that the various mechanics you had used to build up the character had no in game justification or that they were useless for helping to characterize the character in question. I'm quite certain that in 3.5, going the route you did was the only or at least most satisfying way to achieve a mechanical connection between the concept of your character and the things your character could in your imagination do. Leaving aside the question of whether drunken monks are appropriate to every game, they are certainly appropriate to some (and I said so at the time), and lacking any better rules than 3.5, you are fully justified in building the character that way.

What 'irritated' me at the time was you and others kept trying to turn it into a discussion of how I hated multiclassing, which isn't true. I hate PrC's, which isn't the same thing. What I was saying was, "A rules set doesn't need 600+ Prestige Classes to give players the ability to customize their character's abilities to match their roleplaying concept. And, to the extent that a rules set does require that, it's evidence of not only poor design of the rules set but it will probably fail to a large degree in its goal."

You brought up Beardfist I think in an effort to show how cool the results of moderate levels of multiclassing could be. But, I and others took your character, with its 2-3 levels of 5-6 classes as more illustrative of the ridiculous lengths that the 3.5 rules forced you to go to in order to achieve some particular not overly complicated effect, and therefore illustrative of one of the several reasons why at an early date - long before most of those PrC's existed - I banned PrC's and started looking for other solutions.

You or others kept saying things like, "Well, if you ban PrC's X, Y, and Z will happen. You must want spellcasters to dominate the game. You must want no flexibility in character creation. You must be a person who hates player freedom. You must play boring games. You are a bad person who just takes things away from people."

But as I said, I've always agreed that because of flaws in the core RAW X,Y, and Z will happen in those cases, but I have taken that into account and modified the game elsewhere as well to correct for that. I never wanted to take things away without putting something back. But when I say that, people say, "Well, if you are just going to house rule everything you shouldn't play D&D!" or "You can't cite house rules as a fix for the changes made by your house rules!" or just simply "Your way is badwrongfun."

 

[JamesonCourage]

I am fairly certain that, if nothing else, Celebrim is correct in stating that sticking to RAW in this discussion does go against the spirit of the thread we're posting in. There are many threads for that, but this thread specifically is about not sticking to RAW, and in fact houserules, arbitrary GM decisions, and perhaps reasoning behind those decisions.

As for myself, as I've stated once, I'm so heavily houseruled that it's no longer D&D. Though with the point-buy system I have in place, I basically allow anything that it can accomplish (which is nearly any concept).

As for Alexanderone, I disagree with your statement strongly. Everyone at the table wants to have fun, and they have the right to, correct? Well, what if only one person wants to min/max, and it makes it less fun for everyone else? What if four out of five people want to, but the last one doesn't, and it takes away from his fun?

I purposefully used the term "people" rather than "players" to illustrate a point: GMs have just as much right to have fun as players do. If the players want to min/max their characters, but it takes away from the GMs enjoyment, they should tone it down out of simple courtesy. Just like the GM should not min/max every NPC and creature in the world when the players do not do so to their characters.

Everyone should have fun, yes. And people should decide -as a group- what those parameters are beforehand. I personally do believe that someone should have the last word on that, and I'd give it to the GM. I do not think voting is out of place, compromise should be encouraged, and friends should realize that while this can be a great activity, that real life transcends the game, no matter how good or how involved the game gets.

 

[Lord Ipplepop]

I usually like to run my games as close to 1ed as possible, so I have banned many of the more modern allowances (Teifling and Mintour pc's??? Half ANYTHING monster pc??? I don't think that's gonna happen).
About the only class from the new breed I have allowed is the Warmage... I was able to go thorugh and play with it and figured that it was, really, only a fighter/sorcerer on steroids.. and was willing to let it go.

 

[Dandu]

About the only class from the new breed I have allowed is the Warmage... I was able to go thorugh and play with it and figured that it was, really, only a fighter/sorcerer on steroids.. and was willing to let it go.

In that steroids make you impotent?

 

[Greg K]

But why is it wrong for players to power game if that's what entertains them. like min-maxing or not its their game as much as yours so get off your high horse.

No, it has to do with the style of game that I want to run and the type of players I want to deal with.

Do they have a right to play how they want? Yes. Are they entitled to play in any group. No. Personally, I am not intersted in gaming with them unless they adapt to the style I am running. The same goes for about 20 other groups I know. So, their choice is adapt or find another group.

If you are a powergamer or min/maxer and it offends you, suck it up. Nobody owes you a table at which to play

 

[Corwin of Amber]

Yes, because fairness is snipping out excerpts without quoting what I'm responding to.

The point I was making was that you seem fine with sarcastic and obnoxious remarks made by yourself, while also complaining that other people are doing it to you. Notice how I have not whined about people responding firmly to my posts? That's because I have been doing it as well and I don't expect to be immune to backlash. Perhaps if you would cut out with the victim complex people would take your posts more seriously.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The point I was making was that you seem fine with sarcastic and obnoxious remarks made by yourself, while also complaining that other people are doing it to you. Notice how I have not whined about people responding firmly to my posts? That's because I have been doing it as well and I don't expect to be immune to backlash. Perhaps if you would cut out with the victim complex people would take your posts more seriously.

Considering I can easily go through this thread and link many posts that are attacking Celebrim, I don't think I'd categorize his claims of being attacked as unfounded.

I also think either side going on and on about disagreements does stray from the point of the thread, as this thread shows that people in this thread don't just state disagreements, but they vehemently disagree, to the point of arguing, rather than hearing why people ban what they do, and simply move on.

 

[Corwin of Amber]

Considering I can easily go through this thread and link many posts that are attacking Celebrim, I don't think I'd categorize his claims of being attacked as unfounded.

I also think either side going on and on about disagreements does stray from the point of the thread, as this thread shows that people in this thread don't just state disagreements, but they vehemently disagree, to the point of arguing, rather than hearing why people ban what they do, and simply move on.

I never said that the claims were unfounded. In fact, I outright said that it happened in the post you are quoting. But, he is the only one complaing about people attacking him, rather than just accepting it.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I never said that the claims were unfounded. In fact, I outright said that it happened in the post you are quoting. But, he is the only one complaing about people attacking him, rather than just accepting it.

I do agree that you should only dish it out if you can take it, but I don't think that the charges he's leveled are equal to those leveled at him. And I also think his responses have been much better expressed (if not much more thought out).