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

[Celebrim]

while portraying people who like to multiclass as disruptive asshats.

This is itself a complete straw man. There are two issues here and you seem unable to keep them separate.

a) Having 600 or more wildly imbalanced inflexible Prestige Classes isn't good for a class based rules-set.
b) Playing a gonzo character in a serious game is as potentially disruptive as power-gaming. You don't need to multi-class to be going for gonzo or, to put it more mildly, 'comic relief'.

For me, a character like "Beardfist Fistbeard" - and all the other less fully realize examples - illustrates both problems.

It's almost like you're cherry picking an example to prove your point using situations that are highly unlikely to occur in real life

So, you are suggesting that disruptive gonzo roleplayers are highly unlikely to occur in real life? The particular problem is so common that within literally just a few years of D&D going viable, the 'loonie' was an archetypal player type. Consider for example this classic humorous description of archetypcal player types: REAL MEN, REAL ROLEPLAYERS, LOONIES AND MUNCHKINS. I'm not cherry picking anything. I've been there done that. Heck, I've even played 'loonie' type characters on occassion (aforementioned Gamma World experience). I'm speaking here from considerable experience (just how much experience I try not to think about anymore). These problems occur all the time. Sure, when we talk about them we tend to exaggerate in the same way we tend to exaggerate the problems with power gamers and rules lawyers, but all are definately real and have disrupted many a game.

And note, (as I've emphasized before) I'm not even saying that having a 'looney' at the table is bad for the game. They tend to be highly proactive players and are often witty and creative problem solves. Many are in fact pretty good RPers as well. There are a lot of good reasons for having a 'Loonie' at the table. But as with any other extreme archetype, moderation is the key to their successful integration with the rest of the group. A looney has to be discouraged from their natural inclination to monopolize the game at the expense of the goals of every other player at the table.

I don't really need to justify my decisions any further. I've been asked 'What?' and 'Why?' and I've answered at length. No one actually wants to address my answers though. Instead of having a discussion, I'm finding myself answering insults against my character and integrity. If "Beardfist Fistbeard" is perfect for your game, then fine. It's terrible for mine.

I've been studying for the GRE.

I have no idea what that has to do with anything, but good luck.

 

[Wyvernhand]

So, you're basically saying that someone who would want to play a character like Fistbeard Beardfist is too immature to play with you. Gotcha.

 

[Dandu]

I apologize for exposing Cerebrim to my jejune and sophomoric sense of humor. I am ashamed of all the rampant penis and sex jokes that are inherent to the character, as well as all humor related to disgusting bodily functions.

Rest assured, I shall model my next character on the great works of literature, such as the plays of Shakespeare, which contain absolutely raunchy, disgusting, profane, or low brow humor in them.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I apologize for exposing Cerebrim to my jejune and sophomoric sense of humor. I am ashamed of all the rampant penis and sex jokes that are inherent to the character, as well as all humor related to disgusting bodily functions.

Rest assured, I shall model my next character on the great works of literature, such as the plays of Shakespeare, which contain absolutely raunchy, disgusting, profane, or low brow humor in them.

Though to be fair, the humor didn't dominate the play, much as Celebrim warns that a "gonzo" character tends to. The point of the play isn't the vulgar humor, whereas the player of the "gonzo" character tends to try to make the game about him.

I really do think more civility and honest acceptance of the views of others would do wonders for this thread. It's "what do you ban?" Celebrim has talked about why he would ban these things. Others have voiced their disagreement. I think that any more arguing won't be too productive, and I respectfully suggest we simply move on to other aspects that pertain to the original topic.

 

[Celebrim]

So, you're basically saying that someone who would want to play a character like Fistbeard Beardfist is too immature to play with you. Gotcha.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering at this point.

I didn't say anything about immaturity.

I didn't say the character of Fistbeard Beardfist was bad for every game. I described several scenarios where a character like "Fistbeard Beardfist" would be welcome at the table with me.

Where do you get this stuff? Sheesh.

 

[Borthos]

I think that any more arguing won't be too productive, and I respectfully suggest we simply move on to other aspects that pertain to the original topic.

I agree.

Anyway, I ban anything not printed by WotC. Anything Green Ronin, etc, all that crap I completely ban. I ran a game with my group where one of the players decided to screw with me and make a character completely out of the unsanctioned splat books and I tentatively let him run it until he abused mechanics to somehow get Storm Rage at level 6 and continually grow in size category for every creature he killed. I introduced the bad guy early and raped him with Rule 0. No more unsanctioned in my games.

 

[Celebrim]

I apologize for exposing Cerebrim to my jejune and sophomoric sense of humor. I am ashamed of all the rampant penis and sex jokes that are inherent to the character, as well as all humor related to disgusting bodily functions.

Rest assured, I shall model my next character on the great works of literature, such as the plays of Shakespeare, which contain absolutely raunchy, disgusting, profane, or low brow humor in them.

When did I say anything about obscenity or profanity being the issue here? That's entirely tangental and unrelated to anything I've said. The issue is attempting to make play revolve around you by creating a character that is wildly inappropriate to the setting and theme of the game. That might not be an issue in the game you play, but move characters from the game you play to the game I play (or vica versa) and it might be.

(COMPLETE TANGENT: Obscenity is so far from my actual concerns it might as well be on another planet. In fact, I'm not particularly worried about obscenity or profanity and its associated vices or 'color' in a gonzo game, precisely because such things rarely become a vice in a light-hearted gonzo game. In such games, they tend to get no worse than PG-13. It's the serious gamers you really have to watch out for disrupting the table by going 'dark' (usually in the name of 'gritty realism', which is about as far from the concerns of your typical beer and pretzels gonzo player as you can get). END TANGENT)

As a complete side note, it has nothing to do with my point or the topic, but any of the Shakespearean clowns probably would be approved as a character concept in my game.

I know Shakespeare, and you sir are no Shakespeare. You're not even a Brian Helgeland, which would at least be closer to target. And I'm going to stop there, because I'm really tempted to actually respond in kind and not half in jest.

 

[Celebrim]

I agree.

Anyway, I ban anything not printed by WotC. Anything Green Ronin, etc

Interestingly, a lot of the things that are banned in my game are replaced by things from Green Ronin.

For example, you can't play a Druid in my game, but you could play a GR Shaman and flavor him like a druid.

You can't play a Paladin in my game, but my Champion class started out as the GR Holy/Unholy Warrior class(es) and you could very effectively emmulate the Paladin class to play a paladin.

Power level is just one of the several issues involved with the particular rules set I've selected and created. It's not like the WotC stuff is all balanced and well thought out as things like Pun-Pun (to mention just one of many many broken possibilities) show. The point is, DMs can have many reasons for choosing a limited slice of the possibilities out there. One of my reasons for massaging the rules was to allow my limited slice to emulate virtually anything (at the concept though not necessarily the mechanical level) that you could do with with the unfiltered bulk of rule variations.

 

[Borthos]

Yeah, I know everything WotC isn't all that balanced and stuff, but with core and the completes, barring Wizard/Cleric/Druid20, there's not a lot you can multiclass into and do what I described above. as a matter of fact, I've never seen it done before with WotC only stuff. The same guy who made that character for my game made a "Blue mage," for those who don't know, it's a sex mage, for my friend's game he DM'ed with the same group. GR again, and he just completely derailed the game with stupid feats and mechanics from a 3PP.

And before anyone says "well talk to him, you're the DM," he's left the group for now cause he had to move out of the house he was at cause he didn't pay rent on time. So he's no longer a problem player. both our games were put on hold because of his characters. Now we'll probably go back to our games. But after him, I'm banning all GR products and any 3PP unless I've played it or seen what it can do.

 

[Celebrim]

Yeah, I know everything WotC isn't all that balanced and stuff, but with core and the completes, barring Wizard/Cleric/Druid20, there's not a lot you can multiclass into and do what I described above.

I tend to stick closely to core. As you say, if you figure out how to handle Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer, there isn't alot that is breakable in core. Granted, you do need to nerf the big four a little and bump up a bit in power the rest, but I don't need 600 classes which badly accomplish that purpose to achieve those ends.

The same guy who made that character for my game made a "Blue mage," for those who don't know, it's a sex mage...

Ahh... yes. That's about the actual point where I start worrying about obscenities and crudeness in the game.

But after him, I'm banning all GR products and any 3PP unless I've played it or seen what it can do.

That's a sound policy in my opinion. Failing or not on my part, I couldnt' even keep up with all the WotC options - either economicly (buy al l those books) or mentally (memorize all those class entries). And I did want to use the GR material, because while there was alot of poorly thought out material out there, GR in particular I thought was doing more flavorful and interesting stuff than WotC was.

One of the reasons why 600 classes is bad is that I don't want to have to poor over the rules to discover amongst the 360,000+ combinations which ones can be dipped effectively to synergize up something breaking, nor for that matter do I want to force my players to do that. And above all, I don't want to have to spend that much time prepping NPC's.

There are some legtimate problems that PrCs were leveraged to address, but they were never really meant to address those problems and in most cases did it quite badly.

Legitimate Problems:

a) From the core, certain archetypes - swashbuckler, champion of evil, arcane necromancer, military leader, urban tracker, etc. - simply lack a good mechanical representation.
b) Multiclassing doesn't really work as a means of hybridizing a spellcasting class.
c) From the core, full spellcasters complete outstrip the power of the other classes beginning around 12th level (some say even sooner, and I feel no need to quibble).

Reasons Why PrCs Don't Work as Solutions
a1) By trying to provide those archetypes via a PrC, you are essentially saying, "You can't really be your concept from 1st level."
a2) You are also creating an inflexible solution that isn't really built for customizing. PrCs usually have very tightly defined progressions - you get X at 1st level, Y at 3rd level, Z at 6th level. So to get 'Z' if 'Z' is what you really want, you not only have to pick up the baggage of X and Y (which may not fit), but you have to pick up all the baggage required to qualify for the PrC.
a3) The only way to achieve the flexibility that players were craving was to keep providing more and more mechanical variation. But that has the problem of unintended synergies, to say nothing of rules bloat and putting a time burden on the DM when it comes to creating NPC's.
b) The concept of PrC classes designed to enable spellcaster multiclassing in a general sense does address the problem, allowing for you to exchange a few levels of crucial spellcasting ability for a comparitively large slice of class abilities from the other class. The problem is that by using PrC's, you essentially have to have a PrC for each class synergy you want to facillitate. So you need a rogue-wizard, fighter-wizard, ranger-wizard, monk-wizard, fighter-cleric, bard-cleric, ranger-cleric, rogue-cleric, monk-cleric, wizard-cleric, barbarian-druid, ranger-druid, fighter-druid, rogue-druid, and so on and on.
c1) Attempting to use PrC's to balance the game was inherently flawed on several grounds. First of all, by introducing 600 PrC's, you were essentially throwing play testing out the window. There was no hope of even getting all those classes reviewed by an editor, much less playtested.
c2) As a side effect of 'C1', PrC power levels were all over the board - from much weaker than base classes to much much more powerful than them.
c3) To actually address the problem would have meant lots of martial enabling classes and no worthwhile spellcaster PrC's. But of course, they didn't actually do that. The result was that as powerful as Wizard, Cleric, or Druid already was, there were Uber-Wizard, Uber-Cleric, and Uber-Druids available as well as tons of classes you could take to give up nothing and get something extra on top of your spellcasting ability. So in order to keep up with the new caster PrC's, they had to make even more powerful and breakable abilities for the martials. But then, they had to print new PrC's for the fans of casters, and these presented new oppurtunities to break the game, and so forth. But that meant that old material wasn't balanced with the new material. CR's of older monsters didn't match those of newer ones. Nothing was portable, and the better the customer was, the more likely it was that he was getting completely frustrated.

Way back when I first started playing 3e (2002?) I was trying to convert I3yramid over to the new edition, and I got stuck trying to convert the Dervishes and other monster entries. They very much wanted to be barbarians, but they were lawful. And they had features that suggested variations on the Barbarian that weren't available in the rules at that time. "Aha!", I said to myself, "I'll create a PrC. This is exactly what PrC's were designed for. It's a secret society with unique abilities." So, I did. But it never really worked right; it was good, but I'd had to make comprimises in the design and in the faithfulness of the adaptation. Had I just been running it for myself, I'd have used Rule 0 and ran with it. But I took some additional effort and published it to EnWorld, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized that the problem wasn't fixable with a PrC. It was only fixable by fixing the Barbarian class. Thus, the Fanatic class was born (and evolved from its simple orgins as I encountered new ideas), and the decision was made to ban PrC's.

I've never regretted it. I use to run pickup games at tables weekly for the local gaming store, and I got to watch PrC's in action and that only reinforced my decision.