What game mechanics etc. do you, the DM, forbid?

[BlueBlackRed]

Not to drag this too far off topic, but ... uh ... why?

Especially that "Take the 5' step" really means "Don't withdraw at all," given that your target can just as easily follow you with his own 5' step.

Because I don't like the idea of getting out of melee for free.
If you turn your back on something and run away, then an AoO is the least your opponent should get.

This works for both sides. So my players don't worry about it too much.

 

[Griffonsec]

I just checked...it is on page 37. Enjoy!

Thanks, I thought perhaps the rules in the special edition were different.

 

[Breakdaddy]

We dont use the 3.5 weapon sizing rules
We dont use the cover and concealment rules from 3.5

both revert to 3.0

We dont use the damage reduction rules as written in 3.5, using a 3.0/3.5 hybrid system instead.

 

[Soel]

Because I don't like the idea of getting out of melee for free.
If you turn your back on something and run away, then an AoO is the least your opponent should get.

This works for both sides. So my players don't worry about it too much.

You can't withdraw if you start out in a threatened square...

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

You die at -Con, and are staggered (only standard actions, take 1 point of damage from doing strenuous stuff) from 0 down to negative (Con bonus -1). So someone with Con 18 could still act at -3 hp, but falls unconscious and starts bleeding at -4.

I was already using "death at -Con", but I think I'm yoinking "act until -Con bonus".

 

[JoeBlank]

You can't withdraw if you start out in a threatened square...

I think the rule is exactly the opposite of this. From the Hypertext SRD:

"The square you start out in is not considered threatened by any opponent you can see, and therefore visible enemies do not get attacks of opportunity against you when you move from that square."

- and -

"If, during the process of withdrawing, you move out of a threatened square (other than the one you started in), enemies get attacks of opportunity as normal."

 

[diaglo]

I think the rule is exactly the opposite of this. From the Hypertext SRD:

"The square you start out in is not considered threatened by any opponent you can see, and therefore visible enemies do not get attacks of opportunity against you when you move from that square."

- and -

"If, during the process of withdrawing, you move out of a threatened square (other than the one you started in), enemies get attacks of opportunity as normal."

and it all revolves around just using the withdraw.

if you do something else and then try a withdrawal it all changes. attack and then withdrawal... or withdrawal and then attack...or at least it did pre revision. i'm still not very good with the newer editions when it comes to rules...

diaglo "still playtesting" Ooi

 

[Kristivas]

Even as a player I don't allow psionics.
If someone takes it, I make a ranger who dual-wields maces (aka tire-irons) who hates psionics.
Then I mention to everyone that a skull does sound like an eggshell when crushed.

That's really assinine. If I made a psychic warrior in a game where you made a dual-weilding ranger who hated psionics, I'd totally munchkin up and take Expansion and Improved Trip and then he'd make comments about how easily it is to slip and fall when prancing around the forest.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

That's really assinine. If I made a psychic warrior in a game where you made a dual-weilding ranger who hated psionics, I'd totally munchkin up and take Expansion and Improved Trip and then he'd make comments about how easily it is to slip and fall when prancing around the forest.

I think I'd be more likely to just lobby for him to be booted from the group (or just exclude him as a player from my game if I was DMing) but the general assessment stands. I have the vauge hope he was kidding/trolling.

 

[Kristivas]

I don't allow godless clerics, HOWEVER, I do allow the Mystic class from the Dragonlance setting for Divine casters who want another option.

I view most stuff on a case-by-case basis. While I'll allow the "rogue-paladin" and "rogue-cleric" PrCs from Complete Adventurer, I will not allow the Order of Illumination. I'm sorry, but you can't be Lawful Good and still destroy an entire village just to root out 1 demon.

Evil and CN PCs I don't care for.

I also don't like the +LA races, it sucks to keep track of and hasn't become an issue because most of my players have never wanted to be a level or more behind.

A lot of the restrictions I've seen here, though.. seem really overboard. I can't believe so many people would feel the need to "dumb-down" so many class abilities. Adjusting PrCs are one thing, but screwing over the core classes would just make me want to say "eh, screw it.. I'll just go re-play Baulder's Gate if I want a DnD experience.." heh. So, why do it? I'm really curious. Sounds a lot like one of my friend's Dad, who DMed a game for us during 2nd edition and though "all arrows should do 1d6 and weapon specialization for a fighter was much too strong".

Rather than jip my players, I'd much rather make some more difficult encounters.