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

[Piratecat]

I'm of the opinion that if I have more than a page or two of house rules, I'm doing something wrong or playing the wrong system.

I only ban stuff (generally on a case by case basis) that makes the game less fun. There's a lot of stuff that doesn't appear in my game by default - any number of prestige classes, for instance - but if one of my players came asking about using an unusual PrC my normal response is "provisionally yes, until it looks like it's broken."

GMs who rewrite whole systems with a ton of house rules send up major red flags for me. I'd be a bad player in their games. I learned that back in 1e, when a heavy-house-rule GM turned out to run a game I found really frustrating.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'm of the opinion that if I have more than a page or two of house rules, I'm doing something wrong or playing the wrong system.

True to an extent, though I think it depends on how much you're allowing in the game as DM to begin with. For example, I allow like 90% of 3E books and much of dragon mag and online additions (a large chunk of what I don't allow is simply because I haven't read it and/or have no access to it, rather than a true "that's broken, no" ban). Thus...my ban and nerf list (not the thread's topic, but ALSO my "buff" list) is fairly big. But out of all the material I allow, it'd probably account for less than half of a percent of it all.

I only ban stuff (generally on a case by case basis) that makes the game less fun. There's a lot of stuff that doesn't appear in my game by default - any number of prestige classes, for instance - but if one of my players came asking about using an unusual PrC my normal response is "provisionally yes, until it looks like it's broken."

My metric is more if something fundamentally breaks the roles or assumptions of the game. For example, Divine Power and Righteous Might are fine for me. Cleric wants to spend combat rounds buffing with round/level spells to fight really well, whatever. I ban Persistent Spell, which lets him have those buffs all day long with no wasted combat rounds, and thus completely negates any benefit of playing a true martial character.
Another example is Abrupt Jaunt, which for now I've left with a nerf, but I could just as easily ban it in the future. It just simply makes a huge chunk of threats, probably a majority of them, completely harmless with just one level in a class. That just should not be.

GMs who rewrite whole systems with a ton of house rules send up major red flags for me. I'd be a bad player in their games. I learned that back in 1e, when a heavy-house-rule GM turned out to run a game I found really frustrating.

Yup, gives me warning flags if the DM's running D&D but has mounds of houserules fundamentally changing how the game works, too. Again though, its not just quantity but also quality, the magnitude of the houserules. Little tweaks to something because it seems overpowered is different than say...a crit fumble houserule that leads to breaking your weapon, as one of my former DMs had.

 

[Greg K]

I'm of the opinion that if I have more than a page or two of house rules, I'm doing something wrong or playing the wrong system.

Which is why my main game is now Savage Worlds which I discovered last year (thanks to many thirty party d20/d20M companies deciding to convert products).

However, I still enjoy 3e. With the variants in the 3e DMG, Unearthed Arcana, and 3rd party supplements, it was easy to tailor the game to my preference by controlling the options.

Most of my house rules were/are about adding player options (new classes, UA style class variants, Cityscape enhancement wilderness/urban skill swap, UA action points, UA Incantations, combat maneuvers) and, when multiple options were availble, choosing those that best fit my preferences mechanically.

Granted some are done out of preference or dislike
a. Removing Level Drain (never liked this)
b. Removing sunrods, tanglefoot bags, spiked chains, halfling riding dogs etc.
c. Variant: Ability Score Damage (DMG): stops rewriting character ability scores and the time take
d. Poisoncraft replacing the poison rules
e. Artificer's Handbook replacing the magic item creation rules and getting rid of XP costs in the process.

However, some choices make existing WOTC supplements unnecessary
f. Using the Book of Iron Might means I have no use for Bo9S
g. Using Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook means there is no need for XPH
i. Using the martial Rogue and wilderness rogue means there is no need for the CA: Scout (which I don't like, mechanically, anyway).

Then again, some are done for Setting
j. controlling the races and classes (granted their is some exclusion to prefernces as well)
k. Making clerics spontaneous divine casters (UA) and limiting clerical spells to those related to the deity's domains plus a few spells shared by all clerics. Clerics have more flavor as the choice of deity becomes more important.
l. controlling PrCs

and/ or balance to bring down the spellcasters
m. limiting cleric spells to their deity's them tones down the class
n. banning or altering some spells (also done for setting flavor)
o. re-instituting some previous edition restrictions on wizards to find spells rather than spells automatically and increasing time to regain spells

I only ban stuff (generally on a case by case basis) that makes the game less fun. There's a lot of stuff that doesn't appear in my game by default - any number of prestige classes, for instance - but if one of my players came asking about using an unusual PrC my normal response is "provisionally yes, until it looks like it's broken."

GMs who rewrite whole systems with a ton of house rules send up major red flags for me. I'd be a bad player in their games. I learned that back in 1e, when a heavy-house-rule GM turned out to run a game I found really frustrating.

Right, not every player is appropriate for every game and not every game is appropriate for every player. Better to move on and find compatability for a more enjoyable game.

I think there are several types of house rules (as shown above).
1. The exclusion of specific core options
2. The use of official variants from core books
3. The exclusion of elements from official supplements.
4. The use of exclusion of alternate rules and rules variants from third party sources
5. Homebrew material: new material (e.g., classes, UA style class variants, spells, feats) or the alteration of existing items (e.g., classes, multiclassing, grappling and spells)

And they are done for several reasons including:
1. Perceived balance
2. To fill in perceived gap
3. To alter specific mechanics or elements to a preferred feel or style
4. To tailor the rules to a flavor for a specific campaign.

Anyway when you write 1-2 pages of house rules, do you mean (using 3e as an example):
a. a checklist of variants and options from the DMG (e.g., variant ability loss and variant: training) and Unearthed Arcana and references to specific items in books (e.g., the spellless Paladin and Ranger variants in Complete Champion) or the Book of Iron Might Maneuver system and rely on the player to look them up?
b. writing out some bullet notes (e.g. Sorcerer's: as inheritantly magical beings, they receive UMD as a class skill, Eschew Materials at 1st level and a bonus metat magic feat at levels 5,10,15,20 and Wizards being studious receive Decipher Script and Speak Language as additional class skills)
c. fully writing out each of the variants by source? or
d. a combination of the above?

 

[Alexanderone]

Greg I was talking to james courage on that last post not you.

 

[Greg K]

Greg I was talking to james courage on that last post not you.

Alexanderone,
Oops. Sorry! I thought you were responding to my post about not playing with power gamers and min/maxers unless they adapt to the style of game I am running.

 

[Alexanderone]

I as the moderator has pointed out was unfair with my statements so i apologise for that.
I agree that the entire group should decide what books,feats and classes they allow heck that's what my group does but I think its wrong for dms to take autonomous control of the game disregarding players preferences.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Greg I was talking to james courage on that last post not you.

Well then, let's address it!

I'm not a power gamer I mostly play rangers and paladins and value a good story first. But over controlling bullying dms like you are just as bad as powergamers. 've never struggled to find a table but i bet your players could find a much better table to play at.

I'm not sure if you read my personal changes earlier in this thread:

• I've broadened magic with my own unique system to be amazingly versatile. I never understood, for example, why you can't throw up a ward against fire on a chair. Now you can. It's so freeform, in fact, that the only real fault I can honestly say is that it might take too long to pick your "spell", as there are no default spells. You built every individual spell, then you cast them as you go. Magic users in my game have versatility unlike anything they have ever had before within the limits of a mechanical system. Want to paralyze someone after burning them? Want to give yourself a Strength bonus while also granting your weapon a bonus? Want to ward yourself against damage, reactively on your opponents turn, while he attacks you? These are some of the easier things to comprehend within my system (difficulty in-game varies, obviously).

• I've broken down traditional Racial traits, and divided it into four different categories: Racial, Societal, National, and Regional. Racial traits have no variation, while Societal, National, and Regional traits all let you spend a set amount of points, with each list having options (that way an elder from one nation looks different from a warrior of the same nation).
  • Racial traits are inherent to the race, no matter where the race is, who they were raised by, etc.
  • Societal traits are given to creatures that are raised within the society of another race. For example, if a human was raised amongst dwarves, then he would be subject to the dwarven Societal traits.
  • National traits are given to creatures that are raised within the borders of a specific nation. For example, someone raised in the elven nation of Nissalli will have a different natural leaning then someone raised among the dwarven nation of Kalamane.
  • Lastly, Regional traits are given to creatures who are raised within a specific terrain. Those raised within a forest will differ from those raised in a city, and both will differ from those raised in the mountains.

• I've eliminated classes completely. It's a classless system. I don't restrict my players with them. I've instituted a point-buy system instead. In fact, you get all of your points as you progress through the level, and you can spend them at any time. This means that you aren't just gaining new features every time you level, you gain new points every session. There is a constant character progression, rather than staggered to potentially massive jumps in unrelated powers every time you arbitrarily level up. In fact, the classless system is so freeform, you can have 5 hit points at level 20, if you want a character concept where you're just a scholar, and nothing more. You could also spend an immense amount of points on hit points, and have 100 hit points by level 6, though you'd be lacking an many other areas, like versatility, damage, specialization outside of taking a beating, etc. I restrict my players far less than others do when you take this into account.

• Specifically, my Special Ability section within the point-buy is amazingly diverse. If you can think of a character concept, then there's a way to go about making it, even if I would hesitate on allowing in (if it violates my setting). You could have someone who gains Undead traits (one player did), or someone who shapeshifts into animals (another player did), or someone who has a "guardian angel" watch after them (an example in my description). The simple builds like warrior, thief, or mage are just incredibly easy to build. Do you want some sort of passive transformation into a beast that lets you fight better, with an active transformation that allows you grow larger and attack even better? Easily doable within the system. Magical specialist, easy. You name it, and the concept is playable, even if the mechanics are slightly different than you'd think they would be.

• I've eliminated alignments. As much as I do honestly like alignments within the D&D setting, I find it can cripple roleplaying for many people (even if it enhances it at other times), and I thought simple eliminating any restriction on your character would open player options tremendously.

• I've also completely revised several skills, but most notably is the Craft skill. I've implemented an economy not based on character strength, and thus it can find itself rooted in something more realistic. Prices were determined using many factors, including hardness of objects, effectiveness, DC (and thus complexity), average workers taking 10s to make a living, etc.

• I've significantly raised end game saves, while limiting end game spell DCs (no longer based on relevant ability modifier, for example).

What I adamantly refuse to budge on are setting issues:

• You have literally no chance of advancing technology in any meaningful way. I simply won't allow it.

• Equipment is based (however loosely) on medieval period weapons (with a wide time range, admittedly). That means equipment based on eastern, native American, etc. cultures will not be considered.

• Gods are unique to my setting (27 of them total). They are not involved in the world in any way, at all, other than background manipulation. There is a god of war. You pray to him before a battle. If one side wins, it's often attributed to that god. That's basically the extent of it. There are no clerics drawing off of power within my game. (technically, you could make a concept based off of it, but you'd have no way of knowing whether or not that character actually was, as all magic is essentially arcane in nature, as well as spontaneous).

• There are no D&D planes in play, though there are my own unique "planes" in the game, known as realms. There are only a handful of other realms, though they are unique, and all are more based in realism rather than (what I felt are) gimmicks. You cannot create your own realm.

That's summing it up, of course. The game has its own book. It's easy enough to pick up if you've played D&D. There are other changes, but every ripple from changes that I've run across has been addressed thus far. It's been a project about a year in the making, and it's very well balanced. You can easily make a mundane character that does massive damage (if that's your concern), for example.

The game is rooted in realism, and I will not budge that. If you want a swordsman who flies around and teleports to enemies, you can have one, but know this: he's either using magic or a spell-like ability. He's no longer mundane.

 

[Alexanderone]

In that case i was mistaken. Theres nothing unreasonable in what you ask of your players my group developes its own systems and settings too. and for the recored i agree whole heartly about not letting post medieval technology into the game.

 

[JamesonCourage]

In that case i was mistaken. Theres nothing unreasonable in what you ask of your players my group developes its own systems and settings too. and for the recored i agree whole heartly about not letting post medieval technology into the game.

I've stated several times my feelings on things:

While many people will indeed playing a character that they find humorous, it usually goes against the spirit of roleplaying, in my opinion. Which, I should stress, is my opinion.

I do stand by what I said, and once again stress that it's my opinion.

These are my personal gaming preferences when I'm running a game, and nothing more.. I am not saying this is how everyone should play.

I've tried to make it clear that these are my preferences, and that people should play with their preferences. I think you'd agree with that. I do think that someone needs to be the final arbiter at the table, and that falls on the GM in my mind.

 

[Alexanderone]

Well I've admited my mistake in calling you out. If you want to be un-gracious thats your bussiness.