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

[CuRoi]

Hopefully we don't descend into people picking apart someone's "banned" list again. I for one appreciate someone being able to actually post what's banned in their game and won't begrudge anyone for banning X or allowing Y. I may get snarky about psionics for instance, but I don't think there's anything wrong with someone using it in their game.

I for one am intrigued by ashockney's suggested modification list. I think one thing his list illustrates is the two schools of thought on how to "fix" the system and why we "ban" things in the first place. I think nearly everyone universally agrees that spellcasters and magic in generally is is at least a bit "unbalanced" at higher levels (of course it's always been that way to some extent - the logic behind the old ediitons was requiring more XP to advance and paying some serious dues at low levels as a caster). The question is always "what to do about it". One response is to make melee classes more "magical" the other to trim down on magical power.

I think it all rests with personal preference and how the game you run is played. I've said many times I value low-power games. So my variations will be different from your own. My conditions for "balancing" a spell or item or class even depend on many factors and usually how that combination relates to the group we have at the table. Anyway, I think modifications for your game (such as the very lengthy list of spells suggested) is probably the way to go instead of flat "banning" things. However, I also still make the distinction between a "ban" and "this just doesn't fit into the campaign". I know it's a bit of a fine line, but I think DM's should have creative license over the setting to some extent.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

Scrying, Greater Scrying, Greater Prying Eyes, Discern Location
Augury, Commune, Commune with Nature, Stone Tell, Find the Path, True Seeing
Why should these be so much more powerful than Gather Information or Diplomacy? I'm not a big fan of "absolutes" in the game. These deter from roleplaying, and end up being used as shortcuts, even encouraging the players to stall and cajole the casters into using them to "fast-forward" the plot. A slight change to make these skill-based challenges both align this better with other characters abilities and don't make these an "absolute" success for the players when casting.

I personally love divinations, its my favorite school. In the case of info gathering spells, I feel they're within the reins of the Dungeon Master because the Dungeon Master can choose what or how much he reveals. I dont feel they're a perfect shortcut solution unless DM allows them to be such-they are very good for dropping hints or information in a flavorful way.

Enervation
So, I would challenge you to think why you find this to be your favorite spell? You know how fun it is for yoru PC's to lose Con or levels. Yeah, that's not cool. These are all debuffs at their heart, and should be pulled in line with other debuffs of their level.

Enervation is different for monsters and players. Like poison, if not reversed the PCs will feel the effects over multiple encounters. A monster that's only going to live some 5-6 rounds probably wont die soley from neg levels or poison, nor will it suffer drastic loss scores (unless perhaps you hit it with two maximized EVs and how many times/day will you see that?) albeit it will make a difference. Against PCs-they are expected to go through multiple encounters, and if they are facing Poison, Neg levels, or Ability Drain/Dmg in each one then the effects will be more pronounced. Such effects are better when used by a series of monsters against PCs than by PCs against a series of monsters.

Phantasmal Killer, Slay Living, Circle of Death, Destruction, Power Word, Kill
Finger of Death, Wail of the Banshee. Implosion, Weird, Trap the Soul, Implosion, Flesh to Stone, Earthquake

Again, as above, anything that can instantly eliminate a threat is radically more powerful than most spells of the level. These are the classic high-risk, high-reward play, and I think the 3.5 version of disintegrate handled this line the best, and provided us with a superior model for balance.

They arent 100% effective, but they offer an appropriately high reward if you are willing to take the chance. Its not for everybody. In the same fashion, any spell or ability, or tactic the PCs attempt can be used against them. I've faced many of those things before and held my breath hoping that my contingencies and saves hold out or invested in whatever immunities I can afford just the same as used them on my enemies. Such is the fate of men who cast their lives like dice. And dont forget as you advance in level, fewer things work on your opponents.

And just something from a ways back i want to comment on:

Is there even a use for planar ally/binding that isn't game-breaking? Even if I simply use it as written, you are talking about an 11th lv cleric gating in a trumpet archon (with cleric14 spellcasting) to adventure with us for 11 days, at a cost of 12,000gp (or 3000gp per party member). This seems like a steal to me!

I dont have much experience with it. I used a Planar Ally spell recently, but I still managed not to have to pay the demon, because when I wanted to hire the Guecubus as a spy, it was to infltrate a hidden church and I said he could possess anyone he wanted. (It was Evil enough he said he'd do it for free)

Of course...now I dont know where he is after reporting to me a few times (he never finished the job), and I am growing suspect.

*Long Story Short*

...It's kind of a 'Dammed if you Do, Dammed if you Dont' situation. Nothing's worse than getting stuck in one of those conundrums.

Unfortunately there's not really a way to get out of it, except to walk away. It just becomes a sort of back and forth to see who "turns away first" like a game of chicken...except no ones in mortal danger so it can basically go on forever. Certainly I can say that walking away doesnt mean you're wrong or that the other person "wins" because you didnt "defend" yourself ad infintium.

 

[Alexander123]

I think that nothing should be done about caster superiority. I accept that casters are superior. I don't believe in equality of outcome in my games. I think that if you choose a non-caster class you should be prepared for everything that such a choice entails.

IMO the best way to deal with this without ruining the fun of casters is to have parties that are formed of classes within the same tier.

 

[Corwin of Amber]

*reasoning for changing spells*

Well, while I may not personally like it, those are decent reasons for limiting spells. Sometimes you just want to make the world rely less heavily on magic.

Enervation
So, I would challenge you to think why you find this to be your favorite spell? You know how fun it is for yoru PC's to lose Con or levels. Yeah, that's not cool. These are all debuffs at their heart, and should be pulled in line with other debuffs of their level.

I know exactly why I like it, it's really good without being outright broken. If I'm using it against the NPCs I don't have to worry about ruining their character because either they will die during this encounter or will escape and be able to regain those levels. I don't expect my DM to make the recurring BBEG 3-4 levels lower for the rest of the campaign because he fails a save vs negative levels, so I see it as less debilitating than when it is used on a PC.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

I can post this is you'd like, though it's pages long, with unique races, unique nations, etc. Even the races common to D&D and my game are different (the D&D dwarf is not the same as the dwarf in my game). The document isn't that long (about a dozen pages, I believe), though it is fairly straightforward.

If you don't think it would be generic enough to post, just hosting it somewhere and putting up a link to download it would work.

Simply put: to allow a player to advance technology (not that I think their character would probably be capable, realistically), I would have to adjust the entire setting over time. Simply not allowing their characters the chance to advance technology is a personal preference, but one that other GMs could ignore. Though I'd argue that outside of some amazing skill checks, they simply could not come up with that technology. To my own bane, however, if someone was so interested, they could specialize enough to achieve those skill checks successfully and regularly.

That seems reasonable enough; if your motivation is to not let the PCs render all your preparation useless, I can certainly sympathize.

The question is always "what to do about it". One response is to make melee classes more "magical" the other to trim down on magical power.

I'd be careful about saying that powering up melee is making it more magical, 'cause that tends to bring up the ToB "It's magic"/"It's mundane" argument. In fact, things like condensing feat trees, making combat maneuvers easier and more attractive, making feats not suck as much, and the like don't make a martial class more magical, just more powerful and versatile. You don't have to be magical to keep up with casters--you don't necessarily need a magical way to fly if you can pull out a bow instead of your sword and not suck, you don't necessarily need a magical way to pierce concealment if you can do so with high skill checks or other mundane means, and so on.

I think that nothing should be done about caster superiority. I accept that casters are superior. I don't believe in equality of outcome in my games. I think that if you choose a non-caster class you should be prepared for everything that such a choice entails.

I agree that casters should, on some level, be innately superior to mundane classes; someone who can eventually perform mythical feats on par with Hercules, Beowulf, and others (in theory, at least ) most likely isn't going to be on par with someone who can break the laws of physics as we know them from day 1. That doesn't mean that the magic/martial gap has to be as huge as it is, though. Martial characters should have mythical abilities at higher levels that can be extrapolated from their current abilities (punch people, jump high, soak damage -> Superman; run fast, chop things -> Beowulf), because (A) by that point they've left real-world limits behind and (B) D&D is a more magical/less realistic world anyway, where (Ex) just means "breaks laws of physics in an antimagic field) and where you can be just fine after jumping off a 100-foot cliff after some point.

 

[MrFaust]

This may seem like over doing it but I grew quite wearing of a pair of my players (whom might I add are Munchkin's to a T) whom spent countless hours pouring over source books seeking out the "best" items and "feats" and "spells" to the point where each game we had to spend an hour or so reading over each of these things they had found (Note that we did not own most of these guides so as you can guess it was a pain in the rear finding them and doing so). Not to mention that these players I had already done them a huge favior in allowing them to cast spells as a sorcerer even though they were wizards (mind you this was a huge mistake and aided in ruining the campaign) and changed toughness so that it granted 3hp each level...Dumb.

It had become a big problem over time until i finally had enough of the BS and decided to cut the campaign short (mind you that i spent over a year in creating this campaign from scratch so it was quite a loss) because they had their characters so lopsided an any attempt to take an item away, ect, ect they some how found a rule in some book stating on how to reclaim what was lost. Anyhow I started a Forgotten Realms Campaign (I've always wanted to play with this setting) and told them that we are following the standard rules and only using anything found in a Forgotten Realms source book or from a collection of 3e softcover source books we had.

This pissed off the two Munchkin (one of whom I had been playing with since 96 and was not always this way) and they left the group to play their own campaign using a point buy system (Power Gamer heaven) and so far a few games into our new campaign (with two new players as well) we have been having quite a good time.

 

[Greg K]

to play their own campaign using a point buy system (Power Gamer heaven) and so far a few games into our new campaign (with two new players as well) we have been having quite a good time.

Points buy systems as with DND are only a power gamer heaven if the GM does not do their job and set appropriate limts. And, every major point buy system that I have seen have told GMs to set limits and watch out for abuses.

Or to quote Guardian of Order's Roleplaying Gamer's Manifesto"
"Min/Maxing and Munchkinism aren't problems with the game; they're problems with the player.
The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game."

 

[JamesonCourage]

If you don't think it would be generic enough to post, just hosting it somewhere and putting up a link to download it would work.

I don't have anywhere to post it, save for the website of a friend. He got it about a week ago, and he's still setting up his stuff, though when he first got it, he did say I could start to post my campaign information on it, for my players. When that becomes the case, I can always post it up and let you guys know.

As I said though, it's very campaign specific. Though Regional traits (terrain) are probably the least campaign specific.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think that nothing should be done about caster superiority. I accept that casters are superior. I don't believe in equality of outcome in my games. I think that if you choose a non-caster class you should be prepared for everything that such a choice entails.

IMO the best way to deal with this without ruining the fun of casters is to have parties that are formed of classes within the same tier.

Count me as basically the polar opposite. It's a fantasy game. In the fantasy narrative, most heroes aren't spellcasters, they're martial characters.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

This may seem like over doing it but I grew quite wearing of a pair of my players (whom might I add are Munchkin's to a T) whom spent countless hours pouring over source books seeking out the "best" items and "feats" and "spells" to the point where each game we had to spend an hour or so reading over each of these things they had found

Put your foot down. Enforce a time limit to take their turns. If they don't even know how their own crap works nor are able to look it up swiftly, tell them too bad, do something else or lose your turn. Seriously. (Exception for actual new players who simply are learning the rules, they deserve slack obviously). There's no rule about it anywhere, but I can assure you, the creators of 3E never intended it to take 4 hours to fight a group of orcs. This is always where a rules lawyer could be helpful to a group, someone besides the DM who knows the rules well or where to find them, to speed combat up.

(Note that we did not own most of these guides so as you can guess it was a pain in the rear finding them and doing so).

Stop. Right there. No. Just. Say. No. NO! Don't have the sourcebook? No splatbook rule for you! That is seriously askig for trouble, not just trying tolook up what something does, but also forgetting (innocently or intentionally) some aspect of the ability that makes it less good than the player seems to remember.

Not to mention that these players I had already done them a huge favior in allowing them to cast spells as a sorcerer even though they were wizards (mind you this was a huge mistake and aided in ruining the campaign) and changed toughness so that it granted 3hp each level...Dumb.

Yeah. Every DM makes mistakes, as long as you learn from them, it's ok.

It had become a big problem over time until i finally had enough of the BS and decided to cut the campaign short (mind you that i spent over a year in creating this campaign from scratch so it was quite a loss) because they had their characters so lopsided an any attempt to take an item away, ect, ect they some how found a rule in some book stating on how to reclaim what was lost.

You tried to rein them in by taking away their items or abilities, rather than like...talk it out and come up with a solution? No offense, but you sound like a horrible DM.

Let's do this without the insults, huh? This should be obvious. - Piratecat

Anyhow I started a Forgotten Realms Campaign (I've always wanted to play with this setting) and told them that we are following the standard rules and only using anything found in a Forgotten Realms source book or from a collection of 3e softcover source books we had.

Good. You should follow RAW if youdon't know what your houserules will do to game balance, generally. And noone should just let anything go when they haven't even read it over. That said, I thought FR and the 3.0 splatbooks (I assume these are the soft covers you're referring to) had some of the most dubiously balanced stuff of anything...

...and they left the group to play their own campaign using a point buy system (Power Gamer heaven)

Point buy isn't power gamer heaven, it's FAIR. If anything, rolling is power gamer heaven. With PB, the DM controls how strong the PCs start out as, with rolling it's random and a person could end up with very high rolls. In any case the most powerful classes in the game only care about having one high score ultimately (their casting stat), so any attempts to nerf ability scores IME just hurts the ones that already need help.