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

[Sorrowdusk]

YDRID.

I'm sufficiently happy with my current tweaks to the SRD that I can honestly say that I've never been happier with any game system I've played. My players are extremely happy with the game, and have favorably compared it with their prior experiences (those who aren't new) or are begging me to run the game more often (those that are new). And I'm turning away players from the table because I can't run them all.

*snip*

No, it doesn't, though the rules on magic item construction are a bit different than the standard. The main point was to remove cheap unlimited healing from the game, because I didn't like how its presence changed the game from the one I remembered in 1e.

I'm not gonna bring up Edition VS Edition or anything, but what it all really comes down to is what floats your boat, and lets you set sail for adventure.

Thing that suprised me most actually is the spell nerf, not adding the spell level in the calculation. For low level spells it doesnt matter as much, but the higher the spell the more it shows more. It feels odd to me that a higher level spell is more dangerous, but isnt any harder to resist. A 1st level spell and a 9nth level spell are vastly different, but neither of them has any better chance (save agaisnt SR). It makes the save DC primarily a function of the casting primary stat. It DOES also mean that all spells have equal chances though-which actually is interesting. I think it would encourage IC knowledge of the opponent, to make sure you're targeting their weakest save whatever it may be. Depending on how often spells with Saves succeed, people may use them or forgo them for non-save spells as the effectiveness of both Effect (probably the most dangerous kind of spell) and Direct Damage (those with saves for 1/2) work.

The thing I will concur with you on druids is the theme.
Barbarians?
Wizards of a sort?
Divine mages?
Warriors?

Basically every class could concievable fit into any RL cultures mythology OR a fictional ones. Even Knight could be intepreted as a kind of Samurai in the proper setting. Druid feels more distinct in flavor as a base class-it would almost thematically work better as a PRC for Ranger unless you were just in the right kind of setting.

One last thing I've brought up before-you hear people talk about "builds", you've heard people talk about "What should I do we're up against our DMs 'Unstoppable' homebrew whatever".

Basically, any builds or answers you see on the net presume both
1. That everyone allows the same content (feats, spells, classes, PRCs)
2. That there are no Houserules, or modifications to any of this content.

Tables can play SO wildly differently, unless you're of the mind "anything goes if you can bring the book" any talk of builds or tactics is basically only hypothetical. Thats not a weakness of the game, as its a strength. No matter how long you've been playing, you cant guarentee that this knowledge will necessarily contribute to your success-you've got to pay attention and you've got to think about what you are allowed to work with.

(EDIT: double post, meant to edit the addition in)

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not gonna bring up Edition VS Edition or anything, but what it all really comes down to is what floats your boat, and lets you set sail for adventure.

Agreed. Sometimes I read someone saying about how much the game has changed between 1e and 3e, and I first think to myself, "What do you mean? I'm DMing in pretty much exactly the same way I did then?". Then I look at my rules set and go, "Oh yeah. I'm not necessarily playing the game you are."

Thing that suprised me most actually is the spell nerf, not adding the spell level in the calculation. For low level spells it doesnt matter as much, but the higher the spell the more it shows more. It feels odd to me that a higher level spell is more dangerous, but isnt any harder to resist. A 1st level spell and a 9th level spell are vastly different, but neither of them has any better chance

Again, 3rd edition rules, 1e edition feel. One of the things that annoyed me most about my experience of stock 3rd edition is that as you increased in level, the chance you'd pass your saving throws actually decreased because the DC of the saves was increasing faster than your saving throw bonus. This was exactly the opposite of my experience with 1e which was that as you went up, you got less and less likely to fail a save. This was essential, because as you leveled up you got more and more likely to encounter "save or die" rather than "save or suck". (Actually, most things were save or die back then, but if 3e wasn't some improvement, I would still play 1e.) Then I got to thinking about 3e at levels above 9th, and I realized that alot of it was being driven by this one fact. In 1e, you mainly cast direct damage spells, because even on a save you still were going to do alot of damage. In 3e, direct damage was somewhat nerfed and so "save or suck" ruled the day, basically on the expectation that if you matched your spell to the opponents poor save, they'd need to roll a 17 or better to save (same as a 1st level character 1e). I didn't like at all what this did to combats, strategy, or the survivability of PC's.

So it struck me that the spell level of the spell adding to the DC (and the HD of the monster adding to the DC of special attacks) was redundant. Higher level characters (and more powerful monsters) would already have higher DC attacks just based on their ability bonus. While it intuitively seemed like a more powerful spell ought to be harder to save against, D&D had never worked that way before. It was an unnecessary attempt at 'realism' in the middle of a nebulous spellcasting system, and worse yet it didn't have to be thought of that way. Why should a harder to cast and less well mastered spell necessarily be harder to avoid than one which was well practiced and mastered by the caster? Metamagic (Heighten Spell) now directly adds to the DC of save under my rules, representing 'juicing up' a spell you have already mastered.

And keep in mind - there is pretty widespread agreement that the 3rd stock classes are basically balanced up until about 9th level (some would say 7th, others, 12th, but the cluster of votes would be around 9th). Precisely because this tweak "for low level spells it doesnt matter as much, but the higher the spell the more it shows" it does more than any other single change I can think of to restore some balance between spellcasters and non-casters. Which again, reminds me of 1e, although the exact means to that end is different.

I think it would encourage IC knowledge of the opponent, to make sure you're targeting their weakest save whatever it may be. Depending on how often spells with Saves succeed, people may use them or forgo them for non-save spells as the effectiveness of both Effect (probably the most dangerous kind of spell) and Direct Damage (those with saves for 1/2) work.

Honestly, it just works better. It brings the old game back. "Save or die" now is a high risk, high reward choice. Yes, you may gain a big boost in the action economy, but you also might waste your own action to no effect. Direct damage - good old fashion fireballs and such - are now a much more viable option, which in turn reduces the burden on play of a lot of dynamic bonuses (something you could conceivably have had in 1e, but rarely in practice did). And because of the changes in Constitution and other increases to average hit points, direct damage, while quite powerful doesn't completely overshadow what you can do swinging a sword.

Basically every class could concievable fit into any RL cultures mythology OR a fictional ones. Even Knight could be intepreted as a kind of Samurai in the proper setting. Druid feels more distinct in flavor as a base class-it would almost thematically work better as a PRC for Ranger unless you were just in the right kind of setting.

For the record, I've stripped down both Ranger and Barbarian for thematic reasons almost identical to the reasons I dumped Druid. Ranger is now 'Hunter' and has no implicit or explicit ties to a protector of the forest or druidic magic. The class is now regularly used for NPC (and PC) scouts, bandits, hunters, and assassins without adding unnecessary baggage. Barbarian is now 'Fanatic' and has no explicit ties to a primitive wildernes or chaotic culture. 'Fanatics' can come from any culture where it makes sense. They can be terrorists, elite assault troops, sadistic pit fighters, pyschotic mad men, sworn temple gaurdians, or yes initiates of a tribe's masculine warrior cult. The interesting thing about this is that in published works, you'll frequently find the Barbarians class used to stat up these vary sorts of character concepts - even if the character in fact has no background that would indicate that they come from a primitive wilderness area. So why not do away with the unnecessary baggage?

 

[TanisFrey]

Agreed. Sometimes I read someone saying about how much the game has changed between 1e and 3e, and I first think to myself, "What do you mean? I'm DMing in pretty much exactly the same way I did then?". Then I look at my rules set and go, "Oh yeah. I'm not necessarily playing the game you are."



Again, 3rd edition rules, 1e edition feel. One of the things that annoyed me most about my experience of stock 3rd edition is that as you increased in level, the chance you'd pass your saving throws actually decreased because the DC of the saves was increasing faster than your saving throw bonus. This was exactly the opposite of my experience with 1e which was that as you went up, you got less and less likely to fail a save. This was essential, because as you leveled up you got more and more likely to encounter "save or die" rather than "save or suck". (Actually, most things were save or die back then, but if 3e wasn't some improvement, I would still play 1e.) Then I got to thinking about 3e at levels above 9th, and I realized that alot of it was being driven by this one fact. In 1e, you mainly cast direct damage spells, because even on a save you still were going to do alot of damage. In 3e, direct damage was somewhat nerfed and so "save or suck" ruled the day, basically on the expectation that if you matched your spell to the opponents poor save, they'd need to roll a 17 or better to save (same as a 1st level character 1e). I didn't like at all what this did to combats, strategy, or the survivability of PC's.

So it struck me that the spell level of the spell adding to the DC (and the HD of the monster adding to the DC of special attacks) was redundant. Higher level characters (and more powerful monsters) would already have higher DC attacks just based on their ability bonus. While it intuitively seemed like a more powerful spell ought to be harder to save against, D&D had never worked that way before. It was an unnecessary attempt at 'realism' in the middle of a nebulous spellcasting system, and worse yet it didn't have to be thought of that way. Why should a harder to cast and less well mastered spell necessarily be harder to avoid than one which was well practiced and mastered by the caster? Metamagic (Heighten Spell) now directly adds to the DC of save under my rules, representing 'juicing up' a spell you have already mastered.

And keep in mind - there is pretty widespread agreement that the 3rd stock classes are basically balanced up until about 9th level (some would say 7th, others, 12th, but the cluster of votes would be around 9th). Precisely because this tweak "for low level spells it doesnt matter as much, but the higher the spell the more it shows" it does more than any other single change I can think of to restore some balance between spellcasters and non-casters. Which again, reminds me of 1e, although the exact means to that end is different.



Honestly, it just works better. It brings the old game back. "Save or die" now is a high risk, high reward choice. Yes, you may gain a big boost in the action economy, but you also might waste your own action to no effect. Direct damage - good old fashion fireballs and such - are now a much more viable option, which in turn reduces the burden on play of a lot of dynamic bonuses (something you could conceivably have had in 1e, but rarely in practice did). And because of the changes in Constitution and other increases to average hit points, direct damage, while quite powerful doesn't completely overshadow what you can do swinging a sword.



For the record, I've stripped down both Ranger and Barbarian for thematic reasons almost identical to the reasons I dumped Druid. Ranger is now 'Hunter' and has no implicit or explicit ties to a protector of the forest or druidic magic. The class is now regularly used for NPC (and PC) scouts, bandits, hunters, and assassins without adding unnecessary baggage. Barbarian is now 'Fanatic' and has no explicit ties to a primitive wildernes or chaotic culture. 'Fanatics' can come from any culture where it makes sense. They can be terrorists, elite assault troops, sadistic pit fighters, pyschotic mad men, sworn temple gaurdians, or yes initiates of a tribe's masculine warrior cult. The interesting thing about this is that in published works, you'll frequently find the Barbarians class used to stat up these vary sorts of character concepts - even if the character in fact has no background that would indicate that they come from a primitive wilderness area. So why not do away with the unnecessary baggage?

The DC system works well for everything expect bought poisons. There is very little reason to buy a poison. It easier for both you and the monsters to make the saves as you level up for bought poisons.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I always figured bought poisons fall into 3 basic categories, depending on your needs. And assuming you're the type to think of using them -- both from an ethical standpoint and a "do I really want to spend a bunch of money on a one shot item that's not a buff (ie, might not even work)?"

1.) No use. The poison simply isn't worth consideration.

2.) The more affordable poisons, which have very low DC and small effect (when possible, ABSOLUTELY sacrifice DC in favor of effect). They may do little and seldom work, but the point is, they DO still work, at least 5% of the time. And if the poison's cheap enough relative to your wealth, it might be feasible to coat some porjectiles in it, spam them, and see if the investment pays off.

3.) When you absolutely, positively have to kill something dead. Or you're about to face an encounter waaaaaay above what you can reasonably expect to survive. When you're just plain need to win, no matter the cost, it could be perfectly financially logical to go out and spend a major chunk of your total wealth on the highest freaking DC poison you can find. It's not an ideal situation, but one DC 20 debilitating poison at ECL 3 if successful will win the day like few other purchases could. Of course, this assumes you can acquire a poison whose price range is atypical for what a character of your level would normally be shopping for. Ie, you live in a big city.

Ironically the cheap spam poison is more of a high level option, and the super expensive 733+ poison is more of a low level option (because there simply aren't any good high level poisons, and even if there were, fort saves and poison immunities have skyrocketed by then).

 

[Ahnehnois]

I try not to ban too many things outright but to change them into something workable if at all possible. Most of the core rules I use in some form.

One thing I do always ban is the paladin class. The code of conduct is destructive to party cohesion and places too many constraints on other players. Also, the paladin is the very definition of a prestige class, so if the party was good and wanted a paladin, I would do the UA prestige version.

IMC divinities and dragons are anethematical, are are divine magic and psionics. Thus divine casters cannot gain any psionic power or dragon magic, and dragons and their followers and psychics cannot gain divine magic.

I also ban all dragon-hunting classes and feats because killing dragons is not within the PCs reach in my game.

I won't allow Tome of Battle because I value the distinction between magical and mundane.

I can't think of any spells or feats that I've had to ban. Things like polymorph are implicitly understood to be overpowered, but my players know I'd crack down if they tried to abuse the spells so they don't. Also, no one wants to do the work. Actually, the worst polymorph abuser was me as a player, some time ago before I figured out how powerful it was. Same deal for other open-ended spells like the planar binding. No one tried to abuse it because they know it wouldn't work. The same is true with most things; my rules changes are generally not to fix imbalance but to change flavor.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

The DC system works well for everything expect bought poisons. There is very little reason to buy a poison. It easier for both you and the monsters to make the saves as you level up for bought poisons.

Thing about poison is that its better for monsters. You KNOW the fights gonna be over within 1 minute unless you do hit and run or its just a very drawn out fight. The monster uses poison, NOW the party actually has to deal with that secondary damage.

The party? They need to take an action to apply the poison, and the monster is going to be dead before that minutes up. That's for weaps, CONTACT poison can be used to protect things.

Did anyone ever try the psychic poisons?

I try not to ban too many things outright but to change them into something workable if at all possible. Most of the core rules I use in some form.

One thing I do always ban is the paladin class. The code of conduct is destructive to party cohesion and places too many constraints on other players. Also, the paladin is the very definition of a prestige class, so if the party was good and wanted a paladin, I would do the UA prestige version.

See, this is one difference between an LG Paladin and an LG Knight. Knights have codes too-but its explicitly stated that Knights never think they can enforce their code on others. The paladin not only restrains themselves, but wont aid or knowingly associate with, people whose moral standards are too different. They may even put themselves between a party and a goal, if they believe it is right-because its the "right" thing to do. "I'm sorry Dave, but I cant let you do that."

One thing to do is come up with a group template, whatever alignments/creeds/codes/types are in the party-you assume they have already known each other for a time, perhaps months, perhaps years. Whatever they do up until the games start, they have associated with one another.

Why do they work together?
How do they get along?

You settle this before the game starts, so you dont have to do it in game.


HERE's a funny thing:

A blackguard is supposed to be the 180* opposite of a paladin. Yet...could you see a blackguard refusing to associate with a GOOD character, because they were good-if it was to their advantage? A paladin wouldnt do so with an evil character by contrast for their own gain. A blackguard could just fake like he's a fighter or something, or just some mercenery if he needed to and accompany a party to gain wealth to later pursue, or fight alongside to directly advance his goals. He wouldnt care if the party saved people from time to time, or gave their money away as long as it wasnt his own.

Of course-the Blackguard (just being a blackguard and not a regular evil character) MIGHT want to do a lot of things, and find his style cramped by the parties morals. OR he might be satisfied with acting out in the shadows, behind the parties back or in subtle ways. Paladins tell people what to do, "Keep off the grass, dont lie to the peasants, dont rape the cycle of life with necromantic magic."

The Blackguard if anything would encourage what typical parties already do, and perhaps even subtly bring out the worse in them. He could stick around, provided he (publically at least) stopped short of being a complete monster. I dont like complete monsters myself when I paly evil characters, because they're too hard to be likable.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CompleteMonster

 

[Ahnehnois]

See, this is one difference between an LG Paladin and an LG Knight. Knights have codes too-but its explicitly stated that Knights never think they can enforce their code on others. The paladin not only restrains themselves, but wont aid or knowingly associate with, people whose moral standards are too different. They may even put themselves between a party and a goal, if they believe it is right-because its the "right" thing to do. "I'm sorry Dave, but I cant let you do that."

One thing to do is come up with a group template, whatever alignments/creeds/codes/types are in the party-you assume they have already known each other for a time, perhaps months, perhaps years. Whatever they do up until the games start, they have associated with one another.

Why do they work together?
How do they get along?

You settle this before the game starts, so you dont have to do it in game.

Occasionally I have dictated a party structure to the players but I try not to do that. I prefer to give them freedom. I would similarly forbid any PC from playing any character that did not fit the group (which I let them define). Paladins, if played by the book, cannot cooperate with almost any other character. When we've had paladins, they've sometimes attacked the party. I'd rather not deal with that.

 

[Eman Resu]

why ban wraithstrike?
If you want to ban spells that cause a lot of damage ban any of the area effect spell, fire ball, cone of cold, they all potentially can cause damage to many targets. The total damage can exceed several hundred hit pionts in 1 round, given is a large population and a lot of failed saves.

Hold person spell can kill ya just as quick, with a rogue or somebody with coupe de grass feat is a ugly combo, right?

As far as banning, we never liked the cleave feat. Never made since that 1 target falls so you get another attack on someone else?

Eman Resu

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

why ban wraithstrike?
If you want to ban spells that cause a lot of damage ban any of the area effect spell, fire ball, cone of cold, they all potentially can cause damage to many targets. The total damage can exceed several hundred hit pionts in 1 round, given is a large population and a lot of failed saves.

Hold person spell can kill ya just as quick, with a rogue or somebody with coupe de grass feat is a ugly combo, right?

As far as banning, we never liked the cleave feat. Never made since that 1 target falls so you get another attack on someone else?

Eman Resu

...Are you joking? The part about hold person seemed serious, but I'm having trouble believing you were serious on the rest of that post... Except that the only "Coup de Grace feat" I'm aware of -- Deathblow -- sucks.

 

[Celebrim]

why ban wraithstrike?
If you want to ban spells that cause a lot of damage ban any of the area effect spell, fire ball, cone of cold, they all potentially can cause damage to many targets. The total damage can exceed several hundred hit pionts in 1 round, given is a large population and a lot of failed saves.

Because a lot of damage distributed amongst a lot of targets is alot less problimatic than a bunch of damage dealt to a single target. Fire ball and cone of cold are actually rather weak in stock 3.5. The only thing that they are really good for is cleaning out a bunch of mooks without a lot of trouble, but mooks aren't terribly dangerous to begin with. Consider that the average damage presave of a fireball is 35. Now, factor in that the target at higher levels will probably make the save and probably has some amount of energy resistance and the average damage of the fireball to something actually threatening goes down to about 7.

Just because you can do 35 damage to a 20 ogres doesn't make fireball broken. By the time you are 10th level, CR 2 or CR 3 challenges like ogres have a lot of relatively easy solutions, like Cleave for example. But being able to do 700 damage to a single target at 10th level would be broken.

Wraithstrike spikes damage up beyond the expectation for all levels that it is available.

Hold person spell can kill ya just as quick, with a rogue or somebody with coupe de grass feat is a ugly combo, right?

Yes, but it also has alot of counters - crit immunity, immunity to mind effecting spells, freedom of movement, or even just a good will save.

As far as banning, we never liked the cleave feat. Never made since that 1 target falls so you get another attack on someone else?

I believe that the idea is that your attack is so unhindered by the target, that you rip right through it and follow through on a different target. I'm not sure how 'realistic' this is, but its a staple of fantasy and swords movies. For example, the famous 'seven cuts' scene in Yojimbo includes at least one 'cleave' type move.