What options have you regreted allowing in your game?

[Delta]

Gestalt classes. Sweet Baby Jebus Jumping Up and Down, that was a mistake. Nothing ruins the game faster.

Quick question: did you use it as written, and convert everything in the campaign so every PC is Gestalt? Or did you merely provide it as an additional option?

 

[howandwhy99]

The Complete Adventurer version of the Ninja class. It's just... I dunno... Dumb?

I did this too. Afterwards the player never showed up.

 

[Mallus]

I can't think of anything that I regret letting into my game. In fact, I don't think I could be put in a position to regret allowing something in my current campaign, because the players I have would voluntarily give it up/remove it themselves (what "it" might be) if they noticed a particular bit of mechanics was giving me a hard time.

We are just talking about mechanical elements, right? Because I regret a good number of egregious puns and absurdist flights of fancy I stuck into my game.

Wait, no I don't.

 

[Baby Samurai]

5d6 drop the lowest two.

After foolishly letting my players use the above ability score generation method in my current Planescape campaign, one of the players winded up with a 67-point buy equivalent.

Rather than lower the stats he rolled "fairly", we all decided after a few months of playing it was only fair to raise the rest of the party's ability scores to a 67-point buy equivalent.

…Never again.

I think next time we’ll go for a 15-point buy!

 

[Insight]

I did this too. Afterwards the player never showed up.

Maybe he was still there, you just didn't see him.

 

[Deset Gled]

A friend of mine decided to DM an undead campaign (which isn't a problem by itself), and made the unfortunate judgement call of allowing one of the players to be a vampire wizard (with proper LA). Useless spells combined with an unkillable PC and an endless supply of teenage angst make for a really bad game. He regretted it rather quickly.

 

[Wik]

A friend of mine decided to DM an undead campaign (which isn't a problem by itself), and made the unfortunate judgement call of allowing one of the players to be a vampire wizard (with proper LA). Useless spells combined with an unkillable PC and an endless supply of teenage angst make for a really bad game. He regretted it rather quickly.

"Oo! My mascara's running! Oh no!"

"Hey, would you like me to read you some of my poetry?"

"Excuse me, you wouldn't have any Red Wine, would you?"

"Guys, let's take a break and listen to the new My Chemical Romance CD."

Yeah, that would really suck.

 

[Oryan77]

I have a love/hate relationship with the Spell Compendium.

It has a ton of great stuff in there. It can really help a player out a lot. But it can be a real nuisance to a DM. Swift & Immediate spells can quickly thwart any attempts at making an encounter challenging. Girallon's Blessing combined with Blood Wind gets annoying also.

I still like the book though. It allows players to do a lot of things that are really helpful to them.

 

[DM_Jeff]

I am usually an in-control DM and regret nothing from WotC I've ever allowed in my games...except Book of 9 Swords.

And that's a darn shame. As in, it's intriguing, and a very neat idea. I just hate the look on the faces of my other four players, in both my groups, as the Bo9S character in each game runs around killing everything and obviously overpowering everyone else, without even trying.

Ah well, live and learn.

-DM Jeff

 

[Deuce Traveler]

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

JediSoth

Now that's one hell of an idea...