How many spells have you banned from your game?

[el-remmen]

Here is a list of the changes to the spells in the Aquerra setting: http://www.aquerra.com/rules/spells.htm

 

[el-remmen]

Shield - Took me using 3.5 to realize how stupid 3.0's version was. Never banned it though...

Funny, I prefer the 3.0 version and continue to use that one.

 

[pawned79]

My group has only banned on spell from the PHB 3.5. Detect Thoughts. Only those that have it naturally are allowed to have it. Dopplegangers for example.

As a side note, we've also modified the Feat Toughness to be more useful, and we've changed the skill Concentration from constitution based to wisdom based.

Everything else is pretty much the same.

~ P ~
Huntsville, AL

 

[Psion]

Funny, I prefer the 3.0 version and continue to use that one.

I prefer it too... never saw the problem with it. But for simplicity of reference, it is one that I let stand.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Let me try this one...

Of course not. I agree with Crothian on this one, and I feel it's safe to say that it's a point of pride to find an alternative way to deal with problematic spells; an alternative to banning that is.

[SNIP]

All good points. I think that my problem, however, is the idea that refusing to ban spells is a point of DM-ing pride, when in fact some spells are sufficiently unworkable that banning them may make for good DM-ing.

It seems to me that you have found many alternitives to banning in your 17 years of DMing. I find it an irony that you had a problem with someone simply trying to encourage out of the box DMing.

"A problem with someone simply trying to encourage out of the box gaming?" No. A problem with the attitude that refusing to adopt houserules is a "point of pride"? Yes.

A game is an arbitrary set of rules. IMHO, tweaking those rules to make a better game should never be seen as less worthy of "pride" than adhering to them no matter what the cost to the quality of one's game. That's really all I was trying to say.

 

[Desdichado]

"A problem with someone simply trying to encourage out of the box gaming?" No. A problem with the attitude that refusing to adopt houserules is a "point of pride"? Yes.

A game is an arbitrary set of rules. IMHO, tweaking those rules to make a better game should never be seen as less worthy of "pride" than adhering to them no matter what the cost to the quality of one's game. That's really all I was trying to say.

Preach it, bro! If anything, I've probably gone too far the other direction; it's a point of pride for me how much I've been able to mold the d20 ruleset to reflect my very un-D&D-like setting.

 

[Pants]

Funny, I prefer the 3.0 version and continue to use that one.

The AC bonus it provided was a tad high, but that was balanced in that it only provided the AC bonus in one direction. However, since 3e got rid of facing, that part of the spell always struck me as a tad... archaic? Also, the shield blocking magic missile effect came up several times. Now that there is no 'facing' element involved in shield, it's much less arbitrary and... wonky in my eyes.

 

[fanboy2000]

A game is an arbitrary set of rules. IMHO, tweaking those rules to make a better game should never be seen as less worthy of "pride" than adhering to them no matter what the cost to the quality of one's game. That's really all I was trying to say.

I see what your saying.

Personally, I'm more of an addition kind of DM. I modify the game by adding spells, feats, and PrCs (to expand the topic a bit) rather than modify or remove existing elements.

 

[Darkness]

I'm more of an addition kind of DM. I modify the game by adding spells, feats, and PrCs

So am I. Still, I won't suffer for other people's errors, so I fix broken stuff and temporarily remove anything I can't fix right away until I can fix it.

 

[Algolei]

I only allow the spells from the PH. What percentage is that?