What options have you regreted allowing in your game?

[Particle_Man]

Warforged.

Not too far in the game, with the right prestige class the warforged basically has all of the immunities of undead, but they get to keep their constitution modifier and they aren't vulnerable to turning.

For what it is worth, there is a Warforged domain that anyone who worships the Sovereign Host has access to. This allows clerics to turn or rebuke Warforged.

 

[wedgeski]

Heheh, grappling, yeah. What a complete pain in the d20 that is. I can't and don't really want to dump it because one of my players makes a point of using grapple quite effectively, but you really haven't felt pain as a DM until you try to run a six round grapple in which two new combatants join the grapple every round.

In answer to the OP, no, nothing is excluded except entire books, and even then, not many.

 

[Li Shenron]

Players They're the source of every problem.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Tome of Battle - The Book of Nine Swords.

Never again.

 

[Gez]

Persistent Spell. It's from... Um, Complete Arcane, I think, though it might've been Complete Divine.

It originally appeared in the FRCS, IIRC.

 

[Piratecat]

May I humbly suggest my own marshal house rules?

...3) All the auras that use Charisma modifier are limited to either Cha mod or marshal level, whichever is lower.

These make it a much more attractive full class, and a much less attractive dip.

I actually considered these house rules on my own. The problem is that the paladin took the class because of the tremendous bonus to everyone in the party. If I negate that, he had no particular reason to choose that class for the 2-3 levels he took it, and he's going to feel badly jacked -- especially since I'm the one who suggested Marshal in the first place. I'm chalking this up to "DM error I'll just live with," and moving on. It does rankle a bit, though.

We banned the 3.0 version of Persistent Spell, and haven't looked (or wanted to look) at the 3.5 version. It may be fine, but I don't particularly feel like revisiting it unless the player insists.

Tome of Battle - The Book of Nine Swords.

Never again.

I'd be interested to hear why in a separate thread (so as not to hijack this one). I love the B09S.

 

[Tetsubo]

For what it is worth, there is a Warforged domain that anyone who worships the Sovereign Host has access to. This allows clerics to turn or rebuke Warforged.

If introduced after a player starts playing a Warforged it is just slimy... and if I knew that domain existed in a campaign I would never play a Warforged. You might as well just ban the race... I see the creation of this domain as a supremely vindictive act on the part of a game designer... absurd and obscene...

 

[robberbaron]

Hmm. Interesting question.
I haven't allowed much outside the 4 main core books but I think the worst decision was allowing templated characters. Not that they cause me trouble with power, just their being too obviously out of place in the world.

I've also ruminated upon my decision to include psionics. Again, not because of their power, which I think is sort-of balanced with magic, but just because they add another layer of complexity to the game that I don't think is necessary.

 

[Ant]

In 1st edition, the DM greatly rued the day he allowed the jester class. Any semblance of a semi-dramatic and serious game died a horrible, creampie-related death that day.

In 2nd edition, I regretted allowing thieves to backstab with two-handed swords (I still don't know what came over me ...)

In 3.X edition -- so far, nothing. Which is a little surprising, I admit. I've been steadily opening the sluicegates over the years to allow more classes, feats, options and variants and, fortunately, we've had it pretty good.

 

[JediSoth]

In 2nd edition, I regretted allowing thieves to backstab with two-handed swords (I still don't know what came over me ...)

At least you didn't let him backstab with a ballista.

JediSoth