Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="StreamOfTheSky" data-source="post: 5445884" data-attributes="member: 35909">True to an extent, though I think it depends on how much you're allowing in the game as DM to begin with.&nbsp; 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 &quot;that's broken, no&quot; ban).&nbsp; Thus...my ban and nerf list (not the thread's topic, but ALSO my &quot;buff&quot; list) is fairly big.&nbsp; But out of all the material I allow, it'd probably account for less than half of a percent of it all.My metric is more if something fundamentally breaks the roles or assumptions of the game.&nbsp; For example, Divine Power and Righteous Might are fine for me.&nbsp; Cleric wants to spend combat rounds buffing with round/level spells to fight really well, whatever.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; It just simply makes a huge chunk of threats, probably a majority of them, completely harmless with just one level in a class.&nbsp; That just should not be.Yup, gives me warning flags if the DM's running D&amp;D but has mounds of houserules fundamentally changing how the game works, too.&nbsp; Again though, its not just quantity but also quality, the magnitude of the houserules.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="StreamOfTheSky, post: 5445884, member: 35909"] 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. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification