The new, shiny "Stuff I Have/Would Ban" thread!

[Neuroglyph]

Wierd they hybrids are very rarely a way to get power... they make certain atwill boosters work better... and that is about it

Agreed. Hybrids are not more powerful, but they can be a bit more versatile.

I think hybrids are just a cheap and easy way to "create" a new class that matches a particular Character concept that doesn't exist yet in the game. Like taking a Fighter/Warlock Hybrid and making him a sortof 4e interpretation of a Hexblade from 3.5. It's more about concept than power.

 

[Iron Sky]

I originally was planning on banning things from my campaign but then decided against banning anything. I figure if my players get really excited about some uber-build, great! Then I get to DM "powergame" and throw more and more difficult encounters at them at them and design more and more powerful custom monsters to match whatever they are doing.

 

[Jhaelen]

You can go ahead and think I'm a bad DM - you've never played with me, so I'll take your opinion for what it's worth.

Huh? But I never said that!
You may have noted I was actually replying to Capp'n'Zapp and used the opportunity to warn against bossy DMs who prematurely feel it's necessary to ban everything that looks like it may be an interesting option for players. If you feel that describes you, be my guest!

I don't believe that everything in the game is made well.

I don't believe that either. I do believe a DM should have a good reason for banning something. "People on the internet think it's overpowered" doesn't count as a good reason in my book.

And as you've admitted yourself: Banning the most powerful option only means that the second-best option is now the most powerful. You may end up banning everything interesting until all that is left is bland.

And yes, I trust my players, but I also trust they'll take the best stuff for their new characters.

And here's the difference to my players:
They won't take the best stuff for their new characters if they think it's made of cheese. I don't have to interfere at all.

If something is broken for 4 sessions, those 4 sessions could have been improved by not having the broken thing to begin with. It's a risk I'm willing to take.

And here's the crux: What if the players actually had lots of fun in those 4 sessions? Being overpowered actually often is fun - at least for a while. I say: Let the players revel in their power if everyone enjoys it!

It only becomes a problem if players of less optimized characters feel they're completely overshadowed. But that's the risk I'm willing to take.

As a final note: One-trick pony builds that require a very specific combination of feats, powers and items to do their thing create characters that are quite vulnerable to anything that prevents them from using their trick.

Players will always lose the arms race against the DM if the DM sets his mind to it.

 

[Ryujin]

... and then die.

Rogues are pretty squishy. It's not a problem if a rogue makes it to the enemy's back line, because he'll be torn apart, and will have problems getting serious damage into a target because he'll either lack CA, or have to waste powers gaining it.

Now put a defender there instead.

To be more specific, the Invigorating Goliath Fighter with the Bloodclaw Mordencrad.

 

[Pickles JG]

These haven't come up in our game, but why do you feel +2 damage per tier to be ban worthy?

What Obryn said plus they increase the power discrepancies between Weapon users & Implement users & between Rangers & other strikers.

My list is the same as the others. Obryn's stuff, maybe Staff of Ruin, probably hybrids which I predict will be 95% gimps & 5% horribly overpowered.
Duel implement wielder seems like a fudge to catch up implement wielders so would go too. Sadly I play mostly in LFR so rangers kind of dominate. (& the paragon Bracers of Archery drop in the first paragon tier adventure grr). As a hgome DM I dictate like mad - but noone is remotely powergamey so its moot.

 

[eamon]

I really hate long lists of house rules, and the same goes for lists of banned items.

I see the motivation, and some of these items/feats/powers/whatnot are annoyingly unbalanced.

But, it's a reality that wizards has the tendency to "fix" minor imbalances not by errata but by new options. I wouldn't be the least surprised to see Iron Armbands or similar for implement powers as a form of "fix" - or, more likely, simply "cooler" implement powers+feats. This style of errata by wizards means that you really need to stay on top of the new stuff if you want ensure that your list is up-to-date.

But isn't that kind of a waste of time if 99% of these items either don't even occur in your game at all, or occur on non-problematic characters? YAGNI - you ain't gonna need it: don't bother house-errataing items, 'cause it's probably wasted time. Do it when you need to, I say... and only fix the really crazy stuff (and Iron Armbands really don't qualify here).

Edit: (to clarify; I'm kind of ambivalent between the proactive and the reactive approach, but to play devil's advocate to this thread...)

 

[keterys]

Depending on the game it may be very easy to ban items, without even keeping a list. Just don't give them out.

Course, if you've got people Enchant Item-ing anything out of any book they want or constantly trying to buy magic items, that works less well. But a lot of games don't have that.

 

[eamon]

Depending on the game it may be very easy to ban items, without even keeping a list. Just don't give them out.

You still need to know which items to "not give out" - and if you're working with wishlists, "just don't give it out" is a pretty nasty solution...

Course, if you've got people Enchant Item-ing anything out of any book they want or constantly trying to buy magic items, that works less well. But a lot of games don't have that.

Buying magic items is pretty common, isn't it? I mean, what else do you do with all that treasure you loot?

In any case, a lot of builds really want a few specific items, so if the player's ever get a say (be it via wishlist or magic-item shopping), you'll need to tell em you've banned the item - and for some items, that can impact the viability of various character options pretty heavily. For example, in heroic tier, a fighter might choose to wield a spear and a shield and take polearm momentum. Doing so requires taking 15 Dex and 15 Wisdom (and usage of a low-accuracy, low-damage weapon), but the plain old fighter at will doesn't push far enough to trigger the feat - he'll need one of several items to make it work. If you don't intend to let him find or buy those items, he needs to know before he starts playing.

 

[keterys]

You still need to know which items to "not give out" - and if you're working with wishlists, "just don't give it out" is a pretty nasty solution...

Given that you get 3-5 choices on a wish list for every level, it likely works out fine. Or you just ask the person for more choices - you can potentially need to do that anyways if, for example, you know the entire group gets a new magic weapon at the end of a big adventure-quest arc, and the only thing someone puts down are new weapons (or armor, or neck, or whatever)

Buying magic items is pretty common, isn't it? I mean, what else do you do with all that treasure you loot?

In any case, a lot of builds really want a few specific items, so if the player's ever get a say (be it via wishlist or magic-item shopping), you'll need to tell em you've banned the item - and for some items, that can impact the viability of various character options pretty heavily. For example, in heroic tier, a fighter might choose to wield a spear and a shield and take polearm momentum. Doing so requires taking 15 Dex and 15 Wisdom (and usage of a low-accuracy, low-damage weapon), but the plain old fighter at will doesn't push far enough to trigger the feat - he'll need one of several items to make it work. If you don't intend to let him find or buy those items, he needs to know before he starts playing.

Yep, I'd hope that the DM is willing to give one of the several items needed for that build, especially since they're not broken. But any DM who has a party that doesn't Enchant Item and wants to deny Bloodclaw and Reckless, or the Badge of Berserker, or Grasping Javelin, or _whatever_ can pretty easily do so.

 

[eamon]

Ah, yes, the loot sink!

Yep, I'd hope that the DM is willing to give one of the several items needed for that build, especially since they're not broken. But any DM who has a party that doesn't Enchant Item and wants to deny Bloodclaw and Reckless, or the Badge of Berserker, or Grasping Javelin, or _whatever_ can pretty easily do so.

Yeah - and if it turns out that missing an item is a bigger deal than you thought, you can always let em retrain towards a build that's not so focused on the item you'd rather not give out.