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

[Ranes]

Prestige Bard is also on the SRD.

That's handy.

I think the PrC's BAB progression is a little mean but I can't remember exactly what I did to it (very little, I think). The skill list misses a trick for me (my bard can't swim well but can intimidate, for example). The prerequisites are okay (but my variant requires more than one knowledge skill at 4 ranks and requires the bard to be able to speak at least four languages). The ability of the PrC bard to ignore ASF is a nice touch, I think.

I also altered some details, not all of which I can recall right now but here's an example:

Fascinate: a higher level bard can scrub the 'and able to pay attention to him' clause.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Uhh, am I wrong, but is D&D not a fantasy themed game? Don't magic and fantasy go hand in hand? I thought I was playing in a world filled with magic slinging badasses and the Rootinest, Tootinest, Fightinest dudes you ever did see. Or am I playing a different game than you guys?

And why can't you reflavor it to be actual blade magic? I know the chapter is called "Blade Magic" in the book, but it is just the strikes, counters and boosts, why can't you just say it's actual blade magic? Who's to say that in some shrine somewhere, a group of badasses got together and created a new type of magic that used the weapons as focuses and material components and the verbal components are the yells involved with killing stuff?

It is a fantasy game, not a magic game. That person misrepresented the game, in my opinion. Here is where many people have problems with it:

1) It's not typically something you would see regularly in a fantasy movie or book, unless the setting was themed that way. Most people, when they think fantasy, draw off of popular sources, and TBo9S doesn't really cater to that outlook. This is a somewhat flawed line of thought, as certain other basics are an exception to this: monks, dozens of magic items per character, etc., etc., etc. The list could go on and on.

2) It's too good. Too many people see it, and want the feats, classes, etc. over other sidebooks. Now, I've heard that it's narrows the gap considerably with spellcasters, and that's good for balance. Generally speaking though, many GMs are hesitant to allow anything that everyone wants, since it's generally a sign it's too good. I've never heard stories of the classes outshining powergamed, prestiged spellcasters, but I don't know all of the different classes and mechanics well enough to honestly comment with anything close to complete assuredness.

3) It's too powerful. Many people love low-power settings. I'd say more often than not, these are players I've directly gamed with (THIS IS NOT ME SAYING THAT THE MAJORITY OF PLAYERS PLAY THIS WAY). In this scenario, magic usually takes a hit, so further increasing melee power in such a magical way goes against the setting. If everyone is doing magic (both the spellcasters and the melee members), it makes the nonspellcasters seem weird, where in a typical d&d setting that I've personally experienced (AGAIN, NOT SAYING IT'S TYPICAL FOR EVERYONE), people tend to emphasis the mundane to bring out the specialness of the PCs. Seeing people go about their daily jobs, seeing mundane guards ask the players for help or fight against them... these are instances of the mundane world highlighting the PCs by way or contrast. If you make a setting where even melee is magical, it hurts the ability to contrast.

Keep in mind, all of these are reasons why people don't like the book, but not reasons why it's bad. It's just that people have different tastes, and to those that like the book, use it. It's got a lot of cool stuff in it. If you don't like the book, then don't use it, and you don't have to worry about it.

The only real problem arises when someone wants to use it, but the GM doesn't want it, but it seems straightforward here to me, too, but maybe that's become I've only played a game twice in the last three or four years (I run the rest): do what the GM says. It's his setting, and he has his reasons. You can ask why, as there's no harm in that, but once he gives his reason, don't argue too much. It could be anything from "it doesn't fit the setting" to "it's too powerful" to "I don't own the book, and we can only use books that I own." If you feel his reason doesn't encompass your character ("We only use books that one of us owns" and you bought the book, but he doesn't know about it yet), feel free to bring that up. Just don't argue against his reasoning, even if you inquire what made him decide to make that decision.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Uhh, am I wrong, but is D&D not a fantasy themed game? Don't magic and fantasy go hand in hand? I thought I was playing in a world filled with magic slinging badasses and the Rootinest, Tootinest, Fightinest dudes you ever did see. Or am I playing a different game than you guys?

And why can't you reflavor it to be actual blade magic? I know the chapter is called "Blade Magic" in the book, but it is just the strikes, counters and boosts, why can't you just say it's actual blade magic? Who's to say that in some shrine somewhere, a group of badasses got together and created a new type of magic that used the weapons as focuses and material components and the verbal components are the yells involved with killing stuff?

Simply put, because fantasy in everything that's not D&D is 90% martial characters doing over the top and extraordinary feats. Hell, feats were the word originally used to describe celtic heroes doing impossible tasks.

Throughout most of D&D there was an imposition: if you do not cast magic you are not allowed to be a hero. You cannot do the impossible without casting a spell.

Thing is, that's not how most fantasy works. Most fantasy is Conan shrugging off a spell then killing the evil wizard via thrown throne. Most fantasy is based on very martial heroes, be it various forms of mythology or stories. I've yet to read a book that was just a wizard casting spells at things to make them go away. Even in Dying Earth, where the D&D vancian wizard originates from, Turjan spends far more time being a swashbuckler and a scoundrel then he does throwing out spells.

Thus why I state that D&D for most of the time was a magic game, not a fantasy game. You weren't allowed to be fantastic if you weren't magical.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

1) It's not typically something you would see regularly in a fantasy movie or book, unless the setting was themed that way. Most people, when they think fantasy, draw off of popular sources, and TBo9S doesn't really cater to that outlook. This is a somewhat flawed line of thought, as certain other basics are an exception to this: monks, dozens of magic items per character, etc., etc., etc. The list could go on and on.

Uh, what?

In just about every single fantasy movie or book that has ever existed, the main focus is almost entirely around some guy with a sword defeating other guys with swords, and doing it with flashy and unique moves.

The only place I've seen pre-ToB style combat was in Rock'em Sock'em Robots.

2) It's too good. Too many people see it, and want the feats, classes, etc. over other sidebooks. Now, I've heard that it's narrows the gap considerably with spellcasters, and that's good for balance. Generally speaking though, many GMs are hesitant to allow anything that everyone wants, since it's generally a sign it's too good. I've never heard stories of the classes outshining powergamed, prestiged spellcasters, but I don't know all of the different classes and mechanics well enough to honestly comment with anything close to complete assuredness.

See, it's not that ToB was "too good," it's that martial classes before it were too terrible. I mean yeah, I'll take an apple pie over a turd hot pocket. That doesn't mean the apple pie is blindingly amazing.

3) It's too powerful.

Literally I would refuse to play with a DM that uses this, and then only because I'm too lazy to create a spellcaster and show him what "too powerful" really means. There is a reason ToB ranks at the most middle tier whenever ideas of class power come up.

In my experience, the more someone worries and bans things because of balance, the less they actually know about balance. And for a depressing number of people, balance translates to "A wizard casts a spell."

The problem is that people got so used to fighters being utterly worthless that having a character that could do things blew their minds. People got so used to fighters being boring that having a character that had real and interesting options was strange and alien. People got so used to fighters not having class abilities that having a character with flavorful and useful abilities was "too far."

I gurantee, if Vancian Casting were released as a splat, it would be banned by every DM that currently thinks it's the pinnacle of balance.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Uh, what?

In just about every single fantasy movie or book that has ever existed, the main focus is almost entirely around some guy with a sword defeating other guys with swords, and doing it with flashy and unique moves.

The only place I've seen pre-ToB style combat was in Rock'em Sock'em Robots.



See, it's not that ToB was "too good," it's that martial classes before it were too terrible. I mean yeah, I'll take an apple pie over a turd hot pocket. That doesn't mean the apple pie is blindingly amazing.



Literally I would refuse to play with a DM that uses this, and then only because I'm too lazy to create a spellcaster and show him what "too powerful" really means. There is a reason ToB ranks at the most middle tier whenever ideas of class power come up.

In my experience, the more someone worries and bans things because of balance, the less they actually know about balance. And for a depressing number of people, balance translates to "A wizard casts a spell."

The problem is that people got so used to fighters being utterly worthless that having a character that could do things blew their minds. People got so used to fighters being boring that having a character that had real and interesting options was strange and alien. People got so used to fighters not having class abilities that having a character with flavorful and useful abilities was "too far."

I gurantee, if Vancian Casting were released as a splat, it would be banned by every DM that currently thinks it's the pinnacle of balance.

I don't think you read my post clearly. These are reasons people dismiss it, not why I'm for or against it.

1) I was saying that martial characters in stories are exceptional, but not magical. Most stories in fantasy do not have blade magic as a staple. As I even stated, this argument isn't well supported when you take in the rest of standards in fantasy settings that don't line up with D&D (monks, dozens of magical items per person, etc.). You don't see TBo9S style maneuvers in things like Lord of the Rings. Please read my points before disagreeing with them.

2) I was saying that most people think it's too good, because GMs have learned to look out for things that everyone wants. Does everyone want a specific spell, or feat? It's probably too good. Would they still use it if it was a little worse? A lot worse? If so, it can probably be toned down. GMs see TBo9S, and they don't like the fact that every martial character wants it. I even stated that "I've never heard stories of the classes outshining powergamed, prestiged spellcasters". Spellcasters still tend to be better from a power sense. Please, READ MY POINTS BEFORE DISAGREEING WITH THEM.

3) You're saying you don't prefer low power settings, which is what I explained in my third point.

"Keep in mind, all of these are reasons why people don't like the book, but not reasons why it's bad. It's just that people have different tastes, and to those that like the book, use it. It's got a lot of cool stuff in it. If you don't like the book, then don't use it, and you don't have to worry about it."

Also:

"The only real problem arises when someone wants to use it, but the GM doesn't want it, but it seems straightforward here to me, too... [snip]... do what the GM says. It's his setting, and he has his reasons."

You have the right to not play. Use it, and play with people who do. It's very straightforward, and I don't know why I have to restate everything I already said. Please, read my points before disagreeing with them.

 

[Dandu]

You don't see TBo9S style maneuvers in things like Lord of the Rings.

Ballista Throw, Page 70.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

My apologies - it's a topic I've rehashed more times then I can remember, and I tend to skim through.

Now then, to take on the points:

1) The warblade is a non-magical class, and, likewise, is meant to coincide with the Fighter. What the warblade has is not "magic" but rather "narrative control." The most often used example is Iron Heart Surge. I don't see this ability as being "magical" though, which is where my gripe with so much of D&D is. It's a narrative ability. It's Conan shouting "CROM!" and hurling aside the evil curse of the most likely hilariously racist sorcerer.

The problem with using LotR as an example is two-fold. First, D&D was never meant to emulate it. Gygax was very much not a fan to begin with. Secondly, LotR spends very, very little time focusing on the fights. Did Aragorn fight like a warblade? I honestly have no idea. He could have! But the book doesn't say how he fights. It more or less just says "They fight, wait Frodo is injured." There isn't a play by play of the melee.

2) I stand firm on my statement. Apple pie isn't really super delicious, but if it's your first option in a sea of turd hot pockets, it will look amazing.

Rather, the problem is that so many people got used to fighters being bad that anything else seems too strong. As I've stated on other forums, you can't balance around something done poorly. You can't hold up something terrible and announce that as what should be the norm. If Tome of Battle seems too good, then the problem is with the person's vision.

3) I actually really enjoy low magic settings! I think RuneQuest (Mongoose Edition) is one of the finest games created, and it's bronze era sword-and-sandels to the max.

What I think is that D&D isn't a focused game. It's a very broad game. If I want a very focused game, then games built around that focus will always work better. RuneQuest is better at low magic bronze era, Pendragon is better at setting up a game or stories of arthurian knights.

What D&D does is mash them all together and hopefully make them all playable. D&D isn't a fighter full attacking, and D&D isn't one set of game styles.

D&D is medieval knights in ren-era armor worshipping a greek pantheon while following a pastiche of modern morality fighting against squid headed alien invaders from the future who are trying to revive a Lovecraftian nightmare.

 

[Ranes]

I have always regarded Gary's assertion that he didn't care much for Tolkien as disingenuous. That he preferred Vance et al, I can accept but D&D was born out of a resurgence of interest in Lord of the Rings and TSR got into hot water for lifting from it.

I also don't buy the argument that people got used to being fighters being so bad. People got used to wizards being so bad, if anything (and I wouldn't agree with the notion that they were, either). Up until 3rd edition, the game was almost predicated on the idea that the wizard hides behind the fighter for five levels and, in return, the fighter can hide behind the wizard after that. At low to medium levels, you need nothing more than an Int 6 10x10x10 pit trap providing an introduction to lots of kobolds armed with long, pointy sticks, for fighters to prove interesting.

Only from 3e onwards does this change. And then we start getting people complaining about wizards having nothing interesting to do after ten minutes.

What I do agree with is your assessment of what Bo9S does. I don't allow it, because of its crude mechanics and toe-curling dressing.

 

[concerro]

It is a fantasy game, not a magic game. That person misrepresented the game, in my opinion. Here is where many people have problems with it:

1) It's not typically something you would see regularly in a fantasy movie or book, unless the setting was themed that way. Most people, when they think fantasy, draw off of popular sources, and TBo9S doesn't really cater to that outlook. This is a somewhat flawed line of thought, as certain other basics are an exception to this: monks, dozens of magic items per character, etc., etc., etc. The list could go on and on.

2) It's too good. Too many people see it, and want the feats, classes, etc. over other sidebooks. Now, I've heard that it's narrows the gap considerably with spellcasters, and that's good for balance. Generally speaking though, many GMs are hesitant to allow anything that everyone wants, since it's generally a sign it's too good. I've never heard stories of the classes outshining powergamed, prestiged spellcasters, but I don't know all of the different classes and mechanics well enough to honestly comment with anything close to complete assuredness.

3) It's too powerful. Many people love low-power settings. I'd say more often than not, these are players I've directly gamed with (THIS IS NOT ME SAYING THAT THE MAJORITY OF PLAYERS PLAY THIS WAY). In this scenario, magic usually takes a hit, so further increasing melee power in such a magical way goes against the setting. If everyone is doing magic (both the spellcasters and the melee members), it makes the nonspellcasters seem weird, where in a typical d&d setting that I've personally experienced (AGAIN, NOT SAYING IT'S TYPICAL FOR EVERYONE), people tend to emphasis the mundane to bring out the specialness of the PCs. Seeing people go about their daily jobs, seeing mundane guards ask the players for help or fight against them... these are instances of the mundane world highlighting the PCs by way or contrast. If you make a setting where even melee is magical, it hurts the ability to contrast.

Keep in mind, all of these are reasons why people don't like the book, but not reasons why it's bad. It's just that people have different tastes, and to those that like the book, use it. It's got a lot of cool stuff in it. If you don't like the book, then don't use it, and you don't have to worry about it.

The only real problem arises when someone wants to use it, but the GM doesn't want it, but it seems straightforward here to me, too, but maybe that's become I've only played a game twice in the last three or four years (I run the rest): do what the GM says. It's his setting, and he has his reasons. You can ask why, as there's no harm in that, but once he gives his reason, don't argue too much. It could be anything from "it doesn't fit the setting" to "it's too powerful" to "I don't own the book, and we can only use books that I own." If you feel his reason doesn't encompass your character ("We only use books that one of us owns" and you bought the book, but he doesn't know about it yet), feel free to bring that up. Just don't argue against his reasoning, even if you inquire what made him decide to make that decision.

It is not too good or too powerful. The issue is people misapplying the rules.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It is not too good or too powerful. The issue is people misapplying the rules.

That's definitely a possibility. I don't think it unbalances a game so much as it more balances melee against spellcasters (towards the power end, rather than houseruling nerfs on spellcasters), but those are definitely some issues that people commonly list against it.