How many spells have you banned from your game?

[Darkness]

if I can't do something about the spell in game, then I'm not a good DM (at least thats how I see it), and deserve to have the sheet pulled over my head.

I'm intrigued.

First of all, "have the sheet pulled over my head" implies an adversarial relationship to your players. I realize some people like to play this way, and more power to them, but the very concept is alien to me. Like, whatever, mate.

Second, adhering to broken rules despite knowing better is not very healthy for your game. Pride to the point of needlessly suffering is never a good thing. Been there, done that, still bear the scars. Inflexibly the rules' every word is hardly the mark of a good DM (not saying you can't be good anyway; you'd just be even better if you let the rules work for you instead of the other way around). What's more, allowing broken rules to flourish makes some crunch choices decidedly better than others and thus, reduces the number of sensible options. And that's boring.

No offense, man. Just my 2 cents from harsh experience.

 

[Crothian]

Now, I don't ban spells either - I modify them so they work for me -, but...

Admitting defeat? You can't be serious.

Sure I can, you should know me well enough by now to reailze when I am being serious.

Now, it can be the reason. (Some DMs don't like having to deal with Divination spells, for example.)

Which is fine, they can't handle them so they don't use them. Banning them might solve the solution for them but it is the easy way out and admiting defeat.

But some spells just don't fit in some worlds. Take Dark Sun. As I recall, Dark Sun banned a lot of spells in 2e.
Ravenloft banned a lot of detection spells.

That is not the DM banning the spell, that is the setting banning the spell. There is a difference.

Also, banning resurrection magic, which seems a somewhat popular ruling, isn't admitting defeat; it's a question of taste. (It's not to my taste, but whatever floats someone's boat, right?)

Sometimes a spell is just so broken that trying to salvage it isn't worth the effort for some people. Like it or not, not everyone is a super rules tinker and not everyone is playing with a group that accepts rules changes more easily than simply banning stuff. It saddens me that you think less of people for that.

I'm not thinking less of people. I'm just thinking that banning is an easy solution and some people have a habit of hearing how "broken" something is from other people on the net. So, they ban it instead of trying to work with it.

Spells work for everyone, so it is not like a powerful spell in the hands of the PCs makes them all that. THe bad guys can just as easily have it as well.

 

[Sammael]

Spells work for everyone, so it is not like a powerful spell in the hands of the PCs makes them all that. THe bad guys can just as easily have it as well.

There is a reason why CR and ECL are not the same, and the logic behind that design decision (which is sound, IMO) applies to spells as well.

An NPC will usually get to use any given "problematic" spell once or twice against the PCs. Even if it's a divination spell, he'll rarely benefit from it more than a couple of times. On the other hand, the PCs have the option of using the "problematic" spell over and over and over and over again, every day, multiple times per day, until the DM either A) bans the spell; B) nerfs the spell; or C) starts using metagame tactics against the PCs (designing NPCs in such a way as to specifically counter the PCs' ability to cast that spell).

Not every spell is "problematic" in every campaign. However, there are more than a few spells which designers just... screwed up. And I am not including 3rd party (chains of vengeance) or splatbook (miasma) spells, either.

 

[derelictjay]

I'm intrigued.

First of all, "have the sheet pulled over my head" implies an adversarial relationship to your players. I realize some people like to play this way, and more power to them, but the very concept is alien to me. Like, whatever, mate.

Second, adhering to broken rules despite knowing better is not very healthy for your game. Pride to the point of needlessly suffering is never a good thing. Been there, done that, still bear the scars. Not daring to disagree with something as simple as a spell is hardly the mark of a good DM (not saying you can't be good anyway; you'd just be even better with more confidence in your abilities). What's more, allowing broken rules to flourish makes some crunch choices decidedly better than others and thus, reduces the number of sensible options. And that's boring.

No offense intended, man. Just adding my 2 cents - feel free not to take them if you don't want to.

Its cool, but I'm anything but adversarial, in fact I'm very fair to the point of being a big softy. But my players are very tacticly minded, and think up all sorts of wierd ways to use spells, so I have to be fast on my feet or I'm sitting there stunned by their actions, not that I won't congradulate them for ingenuity (and grant them that extra bit of XP).

Now, using rules that are obviously broken, its just easier to let it go than to try to change them, as my players will forget that I made a change (also why I hate house rules), and I just get tired of reminding them of the changes to the rules. Besides which, because they use it means now I can use it, so most of my players have shied away from obviously broken material (that sounds abit adversarial, don't it ).

 

[dren]

To begin, but certainly not limited to:
Alignment Spells: Protection from good/evil/law/chaos - unavailable for wizards
Bestow / Remove Curse: Priest Only
Mordenkainen or Otiluke Spells unavailable
Most Scrying spells are unavailable
Shadow Spells are unavailable
Undead spells: Animate, create, halt, disrupt, summon undead are unavailable to non-necromancers

 

[BlueBlackRed]

Augury & related spells.

Not because they are broken, but because one particular player is too afraid to make a decision on his own.

So he gets to cast it one time every umpteen sessions. Any future casting result in a saving throw with failure meaning no spells castable the remainder of that session.

Apparently those spells are the only reason he tends to play clerics as he's not played one with me as the DM in a while.

 

[Abstraction]

Oops! Misread. No spells banned from core, and only one that is definitely banned from the Complete Class books. Miasma. Fail save and die now, or make save and die later, and even if you don't die, you cannot cast any spells.

 

[Darkness]

Sure I can, you should know me well enough by now to reailze when I am being serious.

Yeah, well. I don't usually take you seriously in any case.

Spoiler

Note for uninvolved observers: Yes, I am joking. Actually, I never take him seriously.

Banning them might solve the solution for them but it is the easy way out and admiting defeat.

Which is what I said. Stop stealing my posts, you! *scrolls Crothian's screen up so he can read my previous post*

That is not the DM banning the spell, that is the setting banning the spell. There is a difference.

Semantics. If I wanted to mass-nerf high-level Divination spells because I couldn't deal with them, I could easily brain-damage the corresponding deity (e.g., Savras in the FR) to do achieve that effect.

I'm just thinking that banning is an easy solution and some people have a habit of hearing how "broken" something is from other people on the net. So, they ban it instead of trying to work with it.

I totally agree with that. It always saddens me to hear people knee-jerk banning BoVD material from their PCs.

Spells work for everyone, so it is not like a powerful spell in the hands of the PCs makes them all that. THe bad guys can just as easily have it as well.

That's the second-worst mistake when trying to balance an ability. (The worst being trying to balance it with role-playing restrictions.) One, it often forces the DM to metagame to an unhealthy degree. (PCs have spell x? Only enemies with power y can stand against it so they either all die or have this ability. Great.) Two, the bad guys have only a few rounds to wreak havoc with unbalanced abilities - the PCs have an entire campaign to do that. Where's the balance there, again? Three, min/maxing bad guys to get the most bang for their CR is lame. If you give them a more powerful ability (including a spell of their class), their CR should reflect that. Four, why do you need to unbalance your antagonists with PC abilities, anyway? You can give them whatever you want without having to make it available as a spell, feat or otherwise purchasable option.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I chose none but then I remembered I'm thinking of upping the level of Plane Shift for clerics. It feels wrong that you get Plane Shift at the same level as Overland Flight.

Hey, screw crossing the Crystalmists, let's go to Bytopia!

 

[Darkness]

... I'm anything but adversarial, in fact I'm very fair to the point of being a big softy. But my players are very tacticly minded, and think up all sorts of wierd ways to use spells, so I have to be fast on my feet or I'm sitting there stunned by their actions ...

Glad to hear it. So if there's an adversarial relationship, it's one-sided. (I.e., only your players are adversarial, the bastards.)

using rules that are obviously broken, its just easier to let it go than to try to change them, as my players will forget that I made a change (also why I hate house rules), and I just get tired of reminding them of the changes to the rules.

I see where you're coming from. Interesting dilemma, which I fortunately never had to deal with. I'd probably get medieval on their lazy butts, though.

Besides which, because they use it means now I can use it, so most of my players have shied away from obviously broken material (that sounds abit adversarial, don't it ).

Hehehe. Mutually assured destruction, eh? Not what I'd prefer, but whatever works, right?

Cheers, mate.