Post/Author/DateTime	Post
seandpconners@aol.com 07-27-03, 05:13 PM	I was wondering do you ban any of the following and why Classes Races Alighnment spells And anything else you care to mention. There is one thing i will be banning in my next campaign and thats bards. I just dont like them and they still dont seem to work. If you wanna play a bard play a rogue that works for me.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-27-03, 05:37 PM	Classes Paladins because: 1) I don't use alignment and 2) they disrupt my game. Monks -- I replaced them with marshal (sp?) artists because they weren't in flavor. Races Half orc, other gobliniods and gnomes because they just don't exist on Ere. (The gobliniods for plot reasons, the gnomes got rolled over into halfling) Alignment Yep, I banned that. Spells Mordenkainen's Disjunction (my players hate it, I hate it, nuff said), Alignment spells, Wish, Miracle (Replaced with Greater Shades, a homebrew which only copies spells at 90% power) To be fair, I added 3 new classes, 3 new races, and allow most supplement spells.
Talcoram Cyndar 07-27-03, 06:31 PM	Classes- Monks, because our current campaigh is set in a pseudo-historical europe and oriental style monks just don't fit. This may no longer be the case if/when the pcs manage to get to the orient. Any Prc from any spatbook that I have not carefully read an/or modified for my specific campaign world. There are currenty only 6 prcs available for characters to take. Races- Gnomes. IMC the gnomes are a scholar/ tinkering race and exist in only one small area of the world. They are just not appropiate as a PC race IMC. Thats all... -TC
Vegeta8472 07-27-03, 06:36 PM	I ban any product not WoTC...or at least that I don't have. I asked my players what I ban, and one of them starts listing stuff off that I wouldn't allow. Then I told him that he could have been, but another player said that he would kill him if he was a Drow, Blackguard, Assassin, ect:rolleyes:
Argsnoth Forgesmith 07-27-03, 06:36 PM	Not really just power gamers and cheating on dice rolls.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-27-03, 06:46 PM	Originally posted by Vegeta8472 I ban any product not WoTC...or at least that I don't have. I asked my players what I ban, and one of them starts listing stuff off that I wouldn't allow. Then I told him that he could have been, but another player said that he would kill him if he was a Drow, Blackguard, Assassin, ect:rolleyes: Prehaps you should ban certain players from being pricks.
Evangelos 07-27-03, 06:46 PM	I allow all PHB classes, alignments (Evil PC's must provide an approved character history!), and races. I don't actually ban many spells. However, I have a list of restricted ones. Restricted spells can't be chosen for free at level-up; they have to be learned in-game, either by finding a scroll or someone to teach you the spell. I don't like prestige classes, but I do realize that a lot of people like to play them. I allow them on a limited basis, but anyone who wants to become one needs to locate a teacher in-game. Anything that's in a splatbook is subject to my approval, but there's a fair amount of non PHB/DMG stuff in my campaign.
Airsucker 07-27-03, 08:12 PM	I ban psionics and metagaming. So far, as my husband and I own all the books the players in my group have access to besides their PHB, I feel comfortable allowing most things in those books that are non-evil. If they do get interested in getting their own books, I will probably ban S&S studios. Every book fron them that I've seen is overpowered.
RLWilde 07-27-03, 08:15 PM	I generally disallow evil alignments. My experiences with them in the past (player and DM) have been generally very negative, and I prefer to run more heroic games. Evil protagonists just don't seem to work well with the way I run.
DragonX10^9 07-27-03, 08:39 PM	I don't go for the "half this, half that"...I only allow half orc and half elves, and even that is a stretch in my suspension of disbelief (cats and dogs living together in harmony is easier to believe). Why not have a half anything-whatever? It's silly. Nor do I allow monster races as player characters...it's just not feasible to have an adventuring monster (I do use them as NPC's though, troll fighters and whatnot) walking into town or whatever. And the only way the party is going to get a wish outta me is by outright buying a hugely expensive item or by accquiring the spell ("Oh, you found a ring of three wishes!" :rolleyes: Like that'll ever happen). Then there's the Deck of Many things, which I always introduce into a campaign at some point or another...but what're the chances of them drawing a wish? More likely they'll get killed by death or lose some experience levels. Hahahaha!
seandpconners@aol.com 07-27-03, 08:55 PM	[ I don't actually ban many spells. However, I have a list of restricted ones. Restricted spells can't be chosen for free at level-up; they have to be learned in-game, either by finding a scroll or someone to teach you the spell. I like this and may well adapt it. If you could go a little further about what spells you ban it would be appreciated.
Salla 07-27-03, 09:02 PM	Evil Alignments are banned. I run heroic games and nothing but. What can I say? I'm old school. Cheaters and metagamers are banned. Any homebrewed stuff or third-party stuff has to be reviewed by me at least two days before the game that it's intended to be implemented so I can check it for balance, and I need a copy of it for my records. Anything and everything else goes.
Demonknight 07-27-03, 09:17 PM	No evils allowed, yap, i´m for heroic games. I have some feats and spells banned from the class books of WOTC and FRCS & MOF. Anything the players ask me about D20 is checked and then allowed (Improved Sneak Atack) or banned (Any prestige classe on the net that screams munchkin or demigod). Game disrupters and cheaters are killed on site. Metagaming thinking is not encouraged. And yes, i usually play by the rules, they work... Except in Mystic Theurge, banned in 3.5
Yankee 07-27-03, 09:24 PM	Having just looked at the DMG 3.5 yesterday, I'm not allowing the 'mystic theurge' or 'arcane knight' into any of my games unless someone does a fantastic job of convincing me that they are not as overpowered as they look.
Henkledwarf 07-27-03, 09:26 PM	I dont ban anything in my game, except monsters as races, unless it is a lycanthrope and then they need to be infected. In my world Everything is legle somewhere and you can do whatever. The catch is that anything they want they have to want enought to find it. if you want to become a vampire find one that wont kill you and decapitate you(most do that in my game) you can be one. the other catch is you have to provide a reson for everything, such as if you were a paladen and you wanted to change to a blackguard you have to have a reason other than "they are cool." you can get wishes easaly in my game, but they have a good chance to be cursed. also you can learn any spell yuou want just as long as there is someone to teach you, same with classes skills and feats. the only exceptions are the ones in the PH.
Demonknight 07-27-03, 09:28 PM	Originally posted by Yankee Having just looked at the DMG 3.5 yesterday, I'm not allowing the 'mystic theurge' or 'arcane knight' into any of my games unless someone does a fantastic job of convincing me that they are not as overpowered as they look. What arcane knight? Are you talking about Eldritch Knight? If so, i do not think it is overpowered indeed.
seandpconners@aol.com 07-27-03, 09:37 PM	Originally posted by Yankee Having just looked at the DMG 3.5 yesterday, I'm not allowing the 'mystic theurge' or 'arcane knight' into any of my games unless someone does a fantastic job of convincing me that they are not as overpowered as they look. Firstly like you i thought wow Then i read them more carefully what you give up is massive compared to what you gain. If someone wanted to play them i would say ok Look at thurge.You need to be six level before you can enter because you must be able to cast second level arcane and divine spells. As he gains a new level as a mystic thurge he gains new spells as if he had just gained a level in his arcane class and divine. The problem is he does not however gain any other benifits a character of that class would have gained like bonus metamagic or item creation bard or assasin and so on. I think this far out ways the benifits. The same can be said of the eldritch night but you will have to look at that for yourself and make up your own mind Hope this helps.
Adriayna 07-28-03, 12:10 AM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Classes Paladins because: 1) I don't use alignment and 2) they disrupt my game. Monks -- I replaced them with marshal (sp?) artists because they weren't in flavor. Races Half orc, other gobliniods and gnomes because they just don't exist on Ere. (The gobliniods for plot reasons, the gnomes got rolled over into halfling) Alignment Yep, I banned that. Spells Mordenkainen's Disjunction (my players hate it, I hate it, nuff said), Alignment spells, Wish, Miracle (Replaced with Greater Shades, a homebrew which only copies spells at 90% power) To be fair, I added 3 new classes, 3 new races, and allow most supplement spells. How did banning alignment work for you? I have major beefs with alignment myself. Did your players take well to it? Does it make the game a bit less stereotypical? I would like to hear your thoughts.
Xalxika 07-28-03, 01:51 AM	Airsucker, S&S studios, huh? Sword and Sorcery right? I don't really see anything as overpowered in there. Even Gary Gygax says, "These Sword and Sorcery guys are good." Anyway, I ban all templates unless they earn Lichdom or are bitten by a vampire. I also restrict the bonuses to magical items if they boost their characters for a higher level campaign. Edit: Yankee, the Mystic Theirge may actually be a little under-balanced. Take this level advancement for example: Your build should change to Nec 3/Clr 3/MyThe 4/True Necromancer 10/ Lord of the Dead 5/ Cleric 5 This Necromancer will be level 30, but can't cast any of the Epic spells. That's a big downfall. The benefit here is that this PC could cast Necromancy spells as a level 40 PC. Necromancy is one of the weaker schools, so the balances here are probably against the PC unless they wanted to become a Lich or Vampire.
Dash Branaghan 07-28-03, 02:00 AM	I usually ban morons. There is nothing per se that I ban, but a lot of things I don't bother introducing to the game. Artifacts such as a DoMT are rarely (and I mean rarely) introduced.
Unholydragoon 07-28-03, 02:11 AM	I banned outright everything from the Forgettable Realms. If I want munchkinny crap, I'll go buy something by Monte Cooke, spank ye very much. :nonono:
Wizard 07-28-03, 02:17 AM	We don't ban much mainstream stuff. A lot of the quintessential stuff we ban, though.
Unholydragoon 07-28-03, 02:20 AM	Originally posted by Yankee Having just looked at the DMG 3.5 yesterday, I'm not allowing the 'mystic theurge' or 'arcane knight' into any of my games unless someone does a fantastic job of convincing me that they are not as overpowered as they look. The MyTh is not overpowered (taking up the challenge). It might seem like it, but ye are always at least 3 caster levels (meaning spell tiers/levels, folks) behind a single class caster (SC). Basically, ye end up with additional low level spell slots, have less HP than a "normal" 10/10 multiclass, have weak as hell non-casting clerical abilities, lose out on extra metamagic feats, lose at least three, if not 5 (depending on build) caster levels (huge). And all yer spellcasting has to abide by yr clerical ethos. Violate them, and ye cast spells as a third level wizard (losing everything the MyTh gives ye when ye lose divine casting). All that for a little bit of versatility. :bored: Now the Eldrich Knight, on the other hand, is craptastically crapity crap. Worse than the Dragon Disciple - and I didn't think any class would ever be more pathetic than a dragon Disciple. Did't think it could be done.
Ideki 07-28-03, 03:34 AM	In my opinion, it would seem to me that the Eldritch Knight would be severely overpowered for fighter-sorcerers. You lose most of the fighter bonus feats, but you ultimately give up only one level of spellcasting (plus the fighter levels you took) to get a fighter's BAB and good fortitude saves. If your character is primarily a spellcaster, that would be a tradeoff well worth making. As for things I ban, I tend to discourage half-orcs in my campaign, simply because it brings up too much stuff with how they are percieved in the world, plus I almost always have at least one elf in every campaign that I do, which would bring up too much junk (and since I happen to like elves, the half-orc gets the boot). My next campaign, if it ever happens (I haven't been able to get my group together very often lately) will probably not have sorcerers or bards in it, seeing as I've never really liked the concept behind either class.
DrakathTheRatling 07-28-03, 03:46 AM	In my current campaign I have quite a few restrictions. It is only for this campaign, and would change if I ran another. Most of these are for plot purposes and some will change as the story moves on. Classes Clerics - There are no active gods. Paladins - see above and I find the LG vs CG party dynamic annoying. Wizards - magic cannot be written down (no spellbooks/scrolls) Monks - wrong environment Races Everyone is human. This is partially because I wanted to avoid the traditional D&D party of a dwarf, elf, half-something and human or whatever. The world is very human centric and other races will be portrayed differently than they are in the PHB. A mixed party really would be ridiculous. Alignment I said no evil because I wanted to run a heroic campaign. In reality, I'm ignoring alignment. Spells Lots of restrictions that I haven't had to enforce yet. Most of the spells named after a spellcaster won't exist, along with other "high" or "pure" magic spells (hard to explain). Elemental and natural magic are the focus. All spellcasters have access to healing spells to compensate for the lack of Clerics.
Greymallkin 07-28-03, 04:04 AM	First off... I try not ban anything, as a player I like to have access to as much goodies (races, class, feats, spells etc.) as possible, As a DM, I try to give my players the same consideration. That being said, there are things in D&D (and just about every game I have ever run) that I object to, ergo there out. As a general rule, I do not allow anything from books I don't own or have not read. I don't see how I can be expected to allow an item or race or class or whatever that I know nothing about. This goes for homebrew's and junk from the internet as well. As for the splat books and non-WoTC products, well I don't own any non-WoTC stuff, so see above. As for the books wizards published, Tome & Blood, Sword & Fist etc... there fine, I allow just about everything, some stuff subject to approval. CLASSES: Monks - They simple don't fit into my perceptions of D&D or my campaign world. That is about it. RACES: All PHB races are allowed, and SOME (emphasis added) Ecl +1 creatures, anything beyond that... no. ALIGNMENT: Neutral - no creature is truly neutral, well maybe a god or an elemental, but nothing else. Also highly discourage evil alignments, though I will allow evil alignments under certain circumstances. SPELLS: I have not banned any spells... yet PRC'S: Elemental Savant, Dragon Disciple and a few others - they are munchkin
Unholydragoon 07-28-03, 04:08 AM	Elemental Savant, Dragon Disciple and a few others - they are munchkinActually, the Elemental Savant is one of the few good classes in that whole book. And the Dragon Disciple isn't munchkin, it's crap. Craptastically crappy crappity crap. It and the Eldritch Farce are the two worst PrC's ever concived and made "official".
seandpconners@aol.com 07-28-03, 09:18 AM	I noticed that several of you banned the following Monks Alighnment Is there a trend here?
MrNiceGuy 07-28-03, 09:33 AM	Classes - Monks as PCs. They don't for the most part fit my conception of D&D - they do exist in the Scarlet Brotherhood (it's a Greyhawk campaign) but that's it. Races - Base PHB races only w/ variants from FR considered on a case by case basis. Assimar/Tieflings, template anythings, or SS garbage. Alignments - Evil is prohibited at beginning - could come later as characters develop. Spells - None yet - PCs aren't really rules-savvy enough yet to be able to abuse the broken spells PrCs - I have initially banned all published PrCs. I will consider them on a case-by-case basis, and a few home-brew PrCs will be available for discovery as the game proceeds. Paul
Unholydragoon 07-28-03, 09:39 AM	Originally posted by seandpconners@aol.com I noticed that several of you banned the following Monks Alighnment Is there a trend here? One is a class that was brought back to fit a niche, and not all DM's have that nich in game. The other is a Sacred Cow that they couldn't get rid of (although d20Modern did a great job of it).
king_of_evil007 07-28-03, 10:21 AM	I tend to ban anything that the players can't show me. If a player says his new PrC is in a book, I need to see the book (and approve the class). Also, I disallow anything which I deem overpowered, even if it is WotC. I may tweak the class a little (i'm not the best at tweaking, but another player who doesn't care about the class may help out) and let it be used, but anything which I consider overpowered I don't allow, unless the character if by far underpowered. I also disallow evil alignment unless the player can handle the alignment and agrees to cooperate with the other PCs, as long as he can. My reasoning for this is simply because of the people I play with. If they have an evil alignment, they believe this means they must kill everyone they see, including their "teammates". I've had 3 campaigns end because of an idiot evil character "Oops. I'm sorry I hit you with my +30 keen vorpal scimitar." If the player tells me this isn't his goal (to slaughter every person he sees, especially his teammate) then great, evil characters are fun. (I am the King of Evil after all ;) ) Otherwise, I try to keep the game as free as possible, with as many character options open for use. If a player wants to pick a terrible PrC, then go ahead.
Twisted Puppy 07-28-03, 10:49 AM	Like some others who previously posted, I generally disallow evil alignments because 1) they really wouldn't fit in given the nature of the campaign and 2) like Salla, I like the PCs as heroes rather than villains. There haven't been any metamagic rods so far in my campaign, and there never will be. They strike me as munchkin items. (My players should be relieved because the BBEG can't have them either). None of the players currently in my game have Forgotten Realms (neither do I), so that will probably be on the nix list from now on, with exceptions - I have no problem if you choose a deity or homeland from there, just no spells/classes/equipment unique to FR.
SputnikCorp 07-28-03, 10:56 AM	gnomes, because aren't they dwarves with senses of humour. monks don't fit into my western european style campaign. and don't ask for any psionics either. this game is fantasy not sci-fi.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-28-03, 11:00 AM	Originally posted by Adriayna How did banning alignment work for you? I have major beefs with alignment myself. Did your players take well to it? Does it make the game a bit less stereotypical? I would like to hear your thoughts. While I don't want to take this thread off topic, I found that it worked very well. The character don't agonize over wheither they are or not they are acting in alignment any more and really get into their characters. I have a few new players and I really think it helped them get the concept of roleplaying more because I made them answer questions about their characters wants needs and motives as well as why they stay with the party. But like I said, I don't want to get off topic. If you would like to know more, you can e-mail me :) As for so many people having banning stemming from Monks and Alignment: Monks are out of flavor for a lot of people's idea of DnD, plus, a lot of thier abilities are so varied and off the wall, its hard to keep track of the character. Finally, I can't speak for everyone, but full saves and that BaB just rub me the wrong way. For alignment... well, some don't like the system, like myself. And some ban specific alignment. Now, if you've been watching the boards, you've seen Salla and I butting heads over the 'evil can't be heroes issue', but c'est la vi.
Darastrix 07-28-03, 11:18 AM	Banned: Psionisists, monks, barbarian class, paladins (until someone proves they can "role" play), Billy from playing a spellcaster:smirk: , any homebrew from someone elses campaign needs my approval, evil align. ( if they want to play non heroic, let them play C/N), then again I'm almost to the point of doing away with alignment all together. Also, players use the base races - no templates or savage species. I will not ban spells, feats, skills. But I need to see actual descriptions in an actual published work. We haven't used PrC's yet so they must meet my approval. Wow, Do we all sound like tyrants or what!! As for all you that ban bards, ouch that hurts. I love bards, you just need someone in your campaign that plays one like me!!:D
Bazcasta 07-28-03, 11:28 AM	Originally posted by SputnikCorp gnomes, because aren't they dwarves with senses of humour. WHAT? Then why not halflings. NO they arn't dwarves. Read about each race in the PHB, you might notice the differences. Anyway thats just my opinion. So don't get all defensive I ban very little. I discourage alot, like evil alignment, I will allow it but that character isn't treated the same, I tend to try harder for him to die. I also ban for one player to have more than one charcter with the EXACT same goals, desires, ect. One player likes to do that... He'd change his name, and hair, eye color, wepon for his new character, just use the same guy basically.
hiryuu 07-28-03, 12:40 PM	Originally posted by SputnikCorp gnomes, because aren't they dwarves with senses of humour. monks don't fit into my western european style campaign. and don't ask for any psionics either. this game is fantasy not sci-fi. The strange thing is that, upon reading the psionics handbook, I noticed it was cloder to doing all the things that traditional spiritual/mental/tribal magic was supposed to do, as opposed to what was in the player's handbook. I mean, come on, it's altering reality in an impossible way. That makes it fantasy. But, still, your perogative. Just come up with better reasoning.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-28-03, 01:27 PM	Inceidentally, Sci-fi is often seen as a type of fantasy and visa versa.
COSMO KNIGHT 07-28-03, 02:38 PM	1. Gnomes they are all evil spawn of some demon and have been eradicted. 2. Magic Shops I find this a very stupid concept. 3. Material from books I have not approved or read. 4. Metagaming 5. Personal conflicts taken into the game. 6. Godless Clerics\Paladins I don't go for the I worship a concept bull.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-28-03, 03:22 PM	A little hostile aren't we? ;)
Prime Minister Malchior 07-28-03, 03:45 PM	I was wondering do you ban any of the following and why Classes Races Alighnment spells And anything else you care to mention.I have some new-to-gaming players and we are all new to 3E so this is a "Back to Basics" campaign. Currently: No banned classes (they're too low level to consider PrCs yet) PHB core races only (except for ½-orcs, which I disallowed for RP reasons) Non-Evil only (I encouraged them to play good alignments, though I am rather liberal with my interpretations) Absolutely NO Wish spells will ever be found in my game (there have been entire threads already related to this topic) Then there are my background guidelines: "You will not be from, nor will you have ever been to Myth Drannor. You will never have slain, or even SEEN, a dragon, drow, beholder, illithid, aboleth, or the Tarrasque. You will not be friends with, nor will you have ever met Elminster, Khelben 'Blackstaff' Arunsun, any of the 'Seven Sisters', Fzoul Chembryl, Manshoon, Szass Tam, or any of the deities." Other than that, I've been pretty much letting anything go. The players are having fun and I am thoroughly enjoying that fact.
Jace_Von_Varius 07-28-03, 04:04 PM	I kill Alingment; Paladins and alingment-based spells are based on a character's beleifs; if someone has the evil domain, whomever they would see as not being evil gets to be good as far as the spell is concerned. Similarly, two paladins of opposite ethos (both viewing themselves as "good") could see each other as evil, and smite evil one another. Most stuff I find doesn't need tweaking until epic level; I've disallowed xp-cost reduction items (I have 1,000 simacrulums! yay!), and I've toyed with making changes to the epic spellcasting system. Most of the 3.5 revisions take out the "Uber-Caster" although I've decided to keep spell focus and greater spell focus as they are. Those were ok-- it was the archmage that got out of hand.
skrayper2003 07-28-03, 04:30 PM	My banned list: Vorpal weapons Time Stop Blink Blur Displacement The first two for game balance, and the last 3 because the irritate the crap outta me.
Hellbore 07-28-03, 04:44 PM	Things I ban: Kender. They are so annoying. If you want to play a Kender, you'll have to find another DM. BANNED! Hack-'n-slash. BANNED! There are always elements of a plot. When the players try to just look for monsters to fight, I let them wander around and find weak monster that give them no XP until they get bored and look for something better to do. There aren't a gazillion monsters roaming my world waiting to be fought. Monster manual player races. BANNED! You can't play a monster silly! Bards are not banned, but they suck. I let players play bards. Then I let them get killed. Yes, most bards seem to just die off. Not my fault, I just don't step in to save their hides (deus ex machina) when they end up getting killed due to their pathetic lack of ability in anything. If a bard can survive and keep up with the rest of the party, fine, but so far they haven't.
Demon Lightfoot 07-28-03, 04:58 PM	Banned: Most of 3.5 Banned: Magic Shops; while there may be merchants who have a few magic items in their inventories, carefully hidden and protected... There. Are. No. God-damned. "Magic Shops".
Sephiroth-sama 07-28-03, 05:43 PM	I never banned anything, really. Alignment is sort of banned. It is treated much more loosely than others take it. Enough to take away all paladin problems. And there are chaotic monks. Everyhting else is pretty much in. Magic shops, psionics, you name it.
mr andy 07-28-03, 05:48 PM	I ban nothing. But I'm considering banning familiars and animal companions. I just can't stand them. But I can't ban them until I figure out a way to balance out the loss to classes that get them. And my players are pretty cheeky--I think they'd want a better explanation from me than, "I just can't stand them," if I decided familiars were out.
Fable 07-28-03, 07:31 PM	Mean spirited play and evil alignments are not allowed! I enjoy DMing heroes. Nothing else springs to mind - although my initiative system kind of negates improved initiative and I am not a big supporter of "great cleave" and "cleave" but I let my player use it when it made sense.
hiryuu 07-28-03, 08:28 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Inceidentally, Sci-fi is often seen as a type of fantasy and visa versa. Yes. They're both called "Speculative Fiction." A good set of definitions has not yet been found, but I work with these: Science Fiction: A genre of speculative fiction in which incidents occur in a world where possible, theoretical physics are maintained. Fantasy: A genre of speculative fiction in which incidents occur in a world where the laws of theoretical and known physics are altered, suspended, or new ones are added. Note that telepathy, ESP, and overt mental control over one's cellular structure are not areas of known or theoretical science.
Unholydragoon 07-28-03, 10:07 PM	Originally posted by Demon Lightfoot Banned: Magic Shops; while there may be merchants who have a few magic items in their inventories, carefully hidden and protected... There. Are. No. God-damned. "Magic Shops". While I dissagree aboot 3.5 (at least, when I start a new campaign), is 1000% agree with this statement. The logic of a magic shop escapes me - it's just munchkinny, Forgetable Realmsish, CRAP
devinmdp 07-28-03, 11:30 PM	I ban certain class/race combinations that I feel are there purely for comedic value. Halfling barbarians or gnome barbarians for example. Halfling monks. Since I run fairly serious years long campaigns, what might seem like a funny joke at first gets very tedious and ruins the atmosphere 5-6 years into the campaign. Devin
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-28-03, 11:47 PM	:( You guys are way too hard on magic shops. If run correctly, they serve a very important function in High Magic games. I appreciate that you don't use them, but I think this open and blatant hostility is not warrented.
Darastrix 07-28-03, 11:59 PM	Can't we all just get along?
snail shell 07-29-03, 12:01 AM	Eh, I hope you're taking all of these opinions with a grains of salt. Banning certain classes for a particular campaign I can see, though I try to work with players on that. Banning alignment is a particularly brave choice on some people's parts...only because so many game mechanics are based on alignment. Otherwise, I could see it being a viable choice so long as the players are mature enough to stay in character. I don't really ban things unless they have glaring errors, but I also don't allow anything that wasn't published by WotC unless I have scrutinized it closely. Actually, I'm surprised so many people ban so much. I guess as long as your players are on board, its all good.:)
Sephiroth-sama 07-29-03, 12:03 AM	I love magic shops.:love: Thye are in great abbundance in my campaign. Not to sound like a munchkin, but magic shops have a geat fantasy feel. So I defend magic shops. They're great.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-29-03, 12:08 AM	I didn't mean to start a debate here. Its just that some people are getting a little too hostile about the things they ban and ironically, I was trying to prevent just this. I mean, I think I was rather civl when referring to banning Paladins and Alignment, even though I am passionate in my dislike for both.
Sephiroth-sama 07-29-03, 12:15 AM	Oh, sorry if I set off a flame war. Just had to stick up for magic shops there. Just had to say that. And the Forgotten Realms isn't a big deal either. Leave the poor campaign alone. It doesn't bite anyone. Anyway, back to banning stuff.
white_trash_samurai 07-29-03, 01:27 AM	I also disallow evil alignment unless the player can handle the alignment and agrees to cooperate with the other PCs, as long as he can. AMEN!!!! Most players i have gamed with actually believe that if you are evil there is no repercussions for what you do!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes: No really they really think that if they go on a killing spree than the local police should never come and confront them!! OR they believe that any "Good" game they cant do what they want to do, and must be evil but the very minute they are evil they want to kill the other players
JusticeZero 07-29-03, 01:34 AM	Originally posted by devinmdp I ban certain class/race combinations that I feel are there purely for comedic value. Halfling barbarians or gnome barbarians for example. Halfling monks.And when it is in no way a joke? I mean, I seem to recall a gnome barbarian character once who was played straight and would have been welcome in any serious game.
Tevish Szat 07-29-03, 01:50 AM	Classes: Case by case. in some worlds, there are no clerics. in ohers, i might disalow monks. something like that is prety rare. Most of the time, i'll say no to a Paladin. there are few people i trust ro Role-play them and not go uber smite happy. PrCs: none yet have really shown problems. evil ones are only open for people who are really evil. Races: None banned yet, but i discourage the small races. 'cept dwarves. because of certain things that would just mak life hell on the character Alignment: Most of the time, i'll run a heroic campagin which = no evil. however, if you can convince me that you'll RP well and that your character would be hanging out with a bunch of do-gooders, fine. if your going CE just to take levels in assassin and for nother reason, or won't work on the good side, no. spells: None yet. nothing has so far presrented a problem. However, players are forewarned that if you wish for more than a wish should be able to give, then i will prevert it horribly. also, i use the restricted spell mechanic mentioned earlier (Devloped independantly) for Wish, Hide life, Limited Wish, imprisonment, maze, binding, and a few others.
meabolex 07-29-03, 01:58 AM	Is there a reason why alignment is such a bother? I find that as a DM, I have no better way of keeping my PCs in line than alignment. In fact, alignment solves many of the problems on this thread: * The path that is most evil isn't necessarily the most rewarding. If a PC plays an evil alignment and doesn't stay in character (that is, evil), other evil NPCs will begin to dislike them (you become a goody-two-shoes) and the PCs' lives get a lot harder. Good NPCs usually avoid or try to kill the evil PCs. So, my most of my PCs find evil characters difficult to play due to the numerous logistical problems they have. * Monks and Paladins are heavily based on strict alignment codes. These codes limit behavior. If I see behavior that doesn't follow the codes, I follow the three-strikes rule; after three incursions, I change alignment. This is very bad for monks and paladins. Thus, very few of my PCs play monks or paladins (for very long).
JusticeZero 07-29-03, 02:32 AM	...? Evil characters HATE other evils. They want to hang around Good characters. Evil characters will stab them in the back and conspire against you. With the good guys, all you have to worry about is not overtly upsetting the paladin. The paladin is a better guy to get drinks with anyways, knows how to hold his liquor and not overindulge and will keep the people he's with from harm.
Kevin Andrew Murphy 07-29-03, 02:37 AM	What I ban: Needlessly complicated and/or silly things. #1 on the list: the musical hookah for dragons to play, from Song and Silence. That was obviously inspired by an old Jefferson Airplane album cover, and while a cool cover, the idea of dragons playing hookahs was obviously a joke invented by a gnomish bard. Or a particularly sarcastic opium-smoking dragon. I also ban the "good against fey when played in the key of F" rules for musical instruments from Song and Silence. They are a needless complication and bizarre levels of min-maxing. If you want a special bonus, buy a magic instrument. There is no such thing as a banjolele. What is described is a small banjo. I also ban races which don't exist in a given world, and likewise clerics of gods who do not exist either. Likewise interdimensional tourists, unless it is a world where such things happen. I ban the "Evil" descriptor from spells whose only evil is being "Ooky" and made to frighten those who dislike bats, snakes, tentacles and spiders. I'm sorry, but Evil has to rise to a higher level than just waving a squid at someone. I ban other things that I find similarly clumsy or silly.
JusticeZero 07-29-03, 02:56 AM	Originally posted by meabolex I find that as a DM, I have no better way of keeping my PCs in line than alignment.How? Alignment doesn't constrain most characters - or even AFFECT them in any way shape or form, unless someone starts throwing around Protection From ___ spells and such.If a PC plays an evil alignment and doesn't stay in character (that is, evil), other evil NPCs will begin to dislike them (you become a goody-two-shoes) and the PCs' lives get a lot harder. That would make evil NPC's like them more as a rule, assuming they're not going hell-bent-for-leather toward being a champion of law and order (no alignment attached). Evil characters treat people the same no matter what 'alignment' they have. If the LG wizard wants to buy some narcotics, they're happy. If the CE wizard wants to buy their slaves, they're happy. It's treachery that upsets them, and that comes from evil, not good. Anyways, it's not like people have a neon sign over their head telling what alignment they are.Monks and Paladins are heavily based on strict alignment codes. These codes limit behavior. If I see behavior that doesn't follow the codes, I follow the three-strikes rule; after three incursions, I change alignment. This is very bad for monks and paladins. Thus, very few of my PCs play monks or paladins (for very long). I abjectly despise people who treat characters that way. "The sheriff walks up. He's a Balor! He orders the Paladin to rape the sorceress! HAH! Take THAT, EX-Paladin dude! How's THAT for your class abilities?" "What? You don't attack the bum on the corner? Ex-paladin! That goes for you too, sir gawaine the DRUNK for drinking one glass of small beer!!" Paladins are human too, and are allowed some slip room, same as anyone else playing any other alignment. I actually treat them as I would a good police officer, which is the closest equivalent IMO. Ditto Monks. Monks are also characters who are not based around a strict code - they merely have to have a general trend of discipline and orderliness. There is no strict monks code (Beyond "You can't advance Monk levels if you aren't a Lawful alignment come XP time").. what on earth would you base it off of?? The lifestyles of a lot of the historical unarmed fighters have been moderately rowdy.. sure they're disciplined and follow their head rather than their heart (thus Lawful) but they also get in bar brawls, play pranks on people on occasion, and exist as rounded characters.
seandpconners@aol.com 07-29-03, 03:30 AM	I have read some of the replies and its pretty clear how different everybodys game is. If you throw 3.5 into the mix i know there is a lot of it i dont like and wont use.Like size and how it effects weapon damage i coulld go on but im interested in any views on 3.5 and things you wont be useing and why. Thanks for your views.
Shifting Master 07-29-03, 09:32 AM	I ban evil alignments and metagaming. Besides that, and BoVD, everything is not only allowed, but encouraged. Psionics, why not? Monster characters, of course! A conversation between me and a PC: DM: The mind flayer extracts your brain. PC: I have a reserve. DM: Wanna play a monster character? PC: Nah, I'll use my reserve. :confused:
Argarnis 07-29-03, 09:50 AM	What I Ban: Almost nothing. I have monks, paladines, all alignments, ECL >+1 and so on. But there are somethings I really don´t like: The weapon rules at the PHB: A Greatsword user as fast as a shortsword wielder? :uh-huh: Gimme a speed factor! Mordenkainens Disjunction slays all magic items?:nonono: Gimme a save! Out of the SavSpec: Lawful good Succubs?:D Gimme a shovel: Always and for ever chaot. evil Monster classes count for multiclassing? :rolleyes: yeah sure! So does a class of human, elf... Gimme the torch! The Psionics: Time regression: Doing the same encounter over and over again?:fight!: NO WAY! and yeah, gimme a bowl of acid! Edit: And I almost forgot: Many Evil discriptors. Its a question of use not a question of tools.
White Mage 07-29-03, 10:31 AM	I was wondering do you ban any of the following and why Classes: Psionics is banned because I don't use it and all PrC's have to be approved because some are overpowered and some are underpowered IMO Races: all PHB races allowed, why not? Alignment: all evil is banned and CN only available to good roleplayers because I don't like disruptive behaviour and I do like a heroic campaign spells: all non-WOTC material has to be approved because there is some broken stuff available
seandpconners@aol.com 07-29-03, 11:15 AM	I dont like favoured class for races it just does not seem to work.
COSMO KNIGHT 07-29-03, 11:27 AM	My Gnome ban was pure sarcasm. I mean really does it make gnomes any better to play now that their favored class went from illusionist to bard either of which no one in my groups play any way. Its a long running joke that gnomes don't exist anymore even when talking with one it must be a thin dwarf or something else. The magic shop I ban because I like magic items to be worth something I don't give out un-needed items. Especially now with how easy it is to upgrade a sword or other item why sell it when you can make that old +1 sword a legendary weapon of yours. I allow things to be sold or bought but thats strickly the mage guild/temple or theives guild. Either way you have to really need it and its really going to cost you. Not in cash but in trade for doing something for them. Any time my players dealt with those three they always thought rightfully so they really didn't make out as well as the other party did. Thats the nature of the beast, you want something they don't necessarily want what you have to trade so you make the best of it.
laughing-dragon 07-29-03, 12:19 PM	As the DM in my campaign (weekly now for seven years running), I no longer even bother to ask my players what the alignments of their character's are , unless perhaps in passing and for the sake of some explanation for why they may have chosen some of their actions. Current storyline began just two months ago with first level characters. I am currently running a modified homebrew version of the "Shackled City" campaign in Dungeon. Currently have five player characters in the party. All are good or neutral save one :Summoner Sam. Summoner Sam is a chaotic evil Sor2/cleric1. Though he creeps everyone out, he always PRETENDS to be fanatically GOOD. Sam is a tiefling who has skin like nightcrawlers (black blue with ugly yellow teeth and sawed off horns ala hellboy), but he presents himself in public as a handsome looking aryan. His familiar is a quasit, who is ALWAYS disguised as an innocent looking 6 year old girl. "My sister" Sam calls her. The little girl poisons food, and eats the flesh of those who die by the party's sword. All other members of the party find this hideously revolting, at which point Sam will say "she needs to learn discipline" and will beat her mercilessly. The other party members are sickened by the behavior, but Sam always defends himself by qouting from goodly aligned sacred texts . "Did not the prophet say that the child who lacks discipline is like a rotten fruit?" When the Gnome locksmith NPC Keygan Ghelve admitted that he had been complicit in some of the towns kidnappings, the rest of the party forgave him and sought to enlist his help. Sam however, follewed him around and at every opportunity whispered that he was directly responsible for the murder of innocents "You are accursed of God, and will NEVER be forgiven. If there is justice you will yet hang from a gallows." If the party protests his actions Sam says "I seek only the good! Why do you seek to lay me low?" Sam will not heal members of the party unless they turn over their possesions to his God in the event of their death. He calls his God "the Forgotten St. Samael, bringer of light and harmony" , but he actually seeks to be a thrall of Grazz't. When the party freed the prisoners from the cellblocks in the Malechite Fortress. Sam heled the two most vulnerable and fragile among them of 1hp each, assuring them "St. Samael loves you and seeks to provide you with the wholeness of life." Now these two loosers are the first acolytes in his tiny wooden shack "1st Freewill Temple of St. Samael." down by the waterfront. Does the party trust Sam? No way! But he seeks to corrupt them slowly, so it never manages to disrupt my storyline. Evil characters probably won't work too well with inexperienced players and DMs, but given the right set of circumstances ANY alignment presents a viable option for a player.
icewall 07-29-03, 01:43 PM	laughing-dragon - Kudos for actually role playing an evil character. It's annoying when people insist that the only interpretation of an evil character is the one of a disruptive psychotic idiot that attempts to stab everyone in the back at every opportunity. Intelligent evil people jealously guard their reputation as upstanding, law-abiding citizens. Banned: Changing your alignment willy-nilly. If you feel the need to change your alignment, maybe you should have considered it more carefully when you created your character. What is the point of having alignment if you can change it as many times as you wish without penalty? I think this was a dumb change from old D&D to new. And I allow all alignments from the get go, so there's no reason to feel railroaded.
devinmdp 07-29-03, 01:47 PM	"And when it is in no way a joke? I mean, I seem to recall a gnome barbarian character once who was played straight and would have been welcome in any serious game." If it were serious, and if the player had a VERY VERY good reason why is gnome would adopt a lifestyle so totally opposed by Gnomish mores and society, and if I felt he were doing it solely out of a desire to RP the character and not to min-max abilities....only then would I allow it. Unfortunately, 99.99% of the time such combos are done for silliness reasons or in order to min-max abilities. Devin
Snommelp 07-29-03, 02:22 PM	I ban all evil and CN. It's not because I run a heroic campaign; it's because my players can't handle it. They fall into what appears to be the normal train of thought, which is that evil has to be homicidal crazy types. And when they found out I had banned evil, they wanted to play CN because to them it was just "evil without an evil descriptor." I also got rid of favored classes, bacause it just doesn't make sense to me. I do like magic shops, when they're used right. It can't be a Wal-mart type thing, it has to be more like a specialty blacksmith. You know, a person who only makes things to-order. That way the shopkeeper knows his item's getting bought.
meabolex 07-29-03, 03:11 PM	Originally posted by JusticeZero How? Alignment doesn't constrain most characters - or even AFFECT them in any way shape or form, unless someone starts throwing around Protection From ___ spells and such. There is no strict monks code .. what on earth would you base it off of?? Except that you cannot advance as a monk or paladin if you are chaotic (or evil if a paladin). You lose all your class abilities if you're the paladin and don't act lawful. I would call that pretty severe constraint. You're not doing justice (ironically your name is justicezero, heh) to the alignment system. I've had PCs play monk characters that acted on the following code: whatever I say goes. I don't think so. Anyone who does whatever they want whenever they want is not playing lawful. If you don't respect what the book says about alignment restrictions regarding your class, then you're not doing justice to your character. It's called "role-playing," not "be whoever I want to be whenever regardless of everything." You assume the role of a character. If you don't play the character, you're not playing the game--you're being a disruption to the people who ARE trying to role-play effectively. All these problems can be averted by playing a chaotic character. "Whatever I want, whenever" sounds very chaotic to me. Paladins are human too, and are allowed some slip room, same as anyone else playing any other alignment. I give plenty of slip-up room -- three strikes and you're out. However, I'm very lenient on what I define as a 'slip-up.' Punching a guy in a tavern who insults your family is fine for a lawful character. Killing someone you think is evil but later find out isn't evil and feeling sorry for it is fine for a good character. Things like making a promise and then just breaking it whenever you feel like it cause problems for lawful characters. Doing favors for rich evil nobles (knowing that they're evil) just for profit is also a no-no for good characters. My above comments about keeping evil characters in line was kind of rambling (stayed up a little too late last night (: ). What I MEANT to say: Evil characters have to be continuously evil in my evil campaign. If they trust someone, rely on a relationship, or word of honor, they're asking for it. Most good NPCs will eventually become repulsed by evil PCs, so they're forced to deal with neutral and evil NPCs. Evil NPCs try to con and manipulate greedy evil PCs into doing their bidding (and evil PCs try to do the same thing to them). Thus, evil NPCs will backstab them if they're not careful--and they have to be very careful (:< Most PCs I know have difficulty in being evil ALL the time, so most of them want to be good or neutral. I do have players that are very good at being evil, so I let them--it's a roleplaying game--let the players play who they want to be.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-29-03, 04:05 PM	Originally posted by meabolex Evil characters have to be continuously evil in my evil campaign. If they trust someone, rely on a relationship, or word of honor, they're asking for it. Most good NPCs will eventually become repulsed by evil PCs, so they're forced to deal with neutral and evil NPCs. Evil NPCs try to con and manipulate greedy evil PCs into doing their bidding (and evil PCs try to do the same thing to them). Thus, evil NPCs will backstab them if they're not careful--and they have to be very careful (:< Most PCs I know have difficulty in being evil ALL the time, so most of them want to be good or neutral. I do have players that are very good at being evil, so I let them--it's a roleplaying game--let the players play who they want to be. But isn't that ignoring the organic nature of the character? Noone is always good or evil, or anything 24-7
meabolex 07-29-03, 04:11 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland But isn't that ignoring the organic nature of the character? Noone is always good or evil, or anything 24-7 I'm not referring to shades of grey -- arguable actions corresponding to alignment are not the problem. The problem is BLATANT, CONSTANT, ANNOYING alignment problems. Of course no creature is good/evil/neutral 24-7 -- but SOME lawful characters I've DMed have been chaotic 24-7. That's my problem.
General Dorsey 07-29-03, 04:15 PM	I don't actually ban very much. I do not allow, under any circumstances kender or drow PCs. I have gotten tired of Drizzt clones and "drow are too cool" arguments. To avoid them all together, no drow. I have never seen a kender played correctly in any addition. I know that there are people out there who can do it, but I have not found them. To make my life easier when running a game, no kender. Too often players use this race as an excuse to steal from the party or cause problems in the game. I don't allow most players to have an evil character either. Most people do not know how to play evil well enough. Again, this is used as an excuse to screw with the adventure and the party. I do allow some people, but they have proven themselves to me with their roleplaying skills. I also ban anything from the net that I have not had a couple weeks to go over. Nearly everything I have found is worthless or unnecessary. I have allowed a few things, but not many. I need a couple weeks because I run 2 campaigns, work, and go to school while trying very hard to maintain a relationship. If, after a couple weeks, I haven't had the time to go over it in detail, then I simply say "no." There are enough options simply with the PHB that most stuff is superfluous anyway.
meabolex 07-29-03, 04:19 PM	heh, I didn't answer your question: oops. In regard to the continuous evil in evil campaigns: If the characters let their guard down, they're going to get it. That's why evil characters are difficult to play. It's difficult to have shades of grey in an evil campaign, because if you trust the wrong person, you can easily die. Usually in a good campaign you can tell that NPCs are good and will bring you no harm. Evil NPCs almost always want to bring you harm, so you have to constantly plot AGAINST them to keep them in check.
Lhiannon Sidhe 07-29-03, 04:48 PM	I've banned neutral evil and chaotic evil PCs - I allow Lawful evil, becuase they usually are able to tolerate cooperation with the good aligned PCs. I don't allow Psionics at all Any Non-PHB race/class has to be approved by me before the game starts, and all PrCs have to be approved by me
Loghan Shadowhand 07-29-03, 04:51 PM	My Banned List: Black Lotus Tolerian Academy ...oops, sorry, wrong game. :D Races: I only allow PHB races. If I'm DMing a FR game, which I have yet to do, I would allow the FR variants. Classes: None, though I do have a bias against Bards. Alignments: All evil PrCs: I do not allow any PrCs except for the Arcane Archer and two homebrews made specifically for my campaign setting. Supplements: I do not allow anything from the splatbooks or third party d20 publishers.
Raindancer 07-29-03, 05:59 PM	Originally posted by Unholydragoon I banned outright everything from the Forgettable Realms. If I want munchkinny crap, I'll go buy something by Monte Cooke, spank ye very much. :nonono: I'm curious---what about FRCS and the such dissapointed you? So far I've found if you keep it in its setting, it balances out well. Maybe you've noticed something I haven't?
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-29-03, 06:57 PM	Originally posted by meabolex Is there a reason why alignment is such a bother? I find that as a DM, I have no better way of keeping my PCs in line than alignment. In fact, alignment solves many of the problems on this thread: * The path that is most evil isn't necessarily the most rewarding. If a PC plays an evil alignment and doesn't stay in character (that is, evil), other evil NPCs will begin to dislike them (you become a goody-two-shoes) and the PCs' lives get a lot harder. Good NPCs usually avoid or try to kill the evil PCs. So, my most of my PCs find evil characters difficult to play due to the numerous logistical problems they have. * Monks and Paladins are heavily based on strict alignment codes. These codes limit behavior. If I see behavior that doesn't follow the codes, I follow the three-strikes rule; after three incursions, I change alignment. This is very bad for monks and paladins. Thus, very few of my PCs play monks or paladins (for very long). I missed this post the first time around, so I'll address it now. Alignment is a bother to me on two fronts: 1) The players get wrapped up in 'playing their alignment' and stop playing a three dimensional character. Anyone who's ever heard 'You can't do that, You're Chaotic Good!' knows what I mean. 2) I don't like playing flat black and white. I don't like hearing 'But they were evil' as an excuse to kill anyone or thing. Not knowing who is there to help you or to hurt you is a big part of my games and so are motives and ideals. Even the most cold hearted NPC IMC can be turned to the PCs side with the right words. As for PCs PHing on another over alignment, I think that more of a point for my side than yours. Evil doesn't mean that you wake up and eat a baby each morning. As for keeping the PCs in line, thats not something I want to do. I don't oush or railroad them toward anything.
seandpconners@aol.com 07-29-03, 11:23 PM	Thanks to all those who have so far shared there views.
Unholydragoon 07-30-03, 01:17 AM	Originally posted by Raindancer I'm curious---what about FRCS and the such dissapointed you? So far I've found if you keep it in its setting, it balances out well. Maybe you've noticed something I haven't? None of it is balanced outside of the Forgotten Realms. Trying to shoehorn something from a high magic setting into a lower magic (or even standard) setting just isn't possible. The spells are almost always at the wrong levels. The PrC's are wholly unbalanced (how the Archmunchkin got into the 3.5 DMG still leaves me shaking my head). The magcal items/special materials are too cheap or incorrectly priced. In short, nothing of it is balanced for a system that is not the Forgettable Realms. Yet there ar people that seem to think otherwise (I wish I could strangle every idiot that has said, "well, try this. It's from the Forgotten Realms, so it's official". Morons like that make me wish there was a way to control stupid people from breeding. :nonono: ). The Forgotten Realms is, as I said, munchkinny crap. It has no place at my table, nor at any table that expects a reasonably balancd campaign.
Micah Wedemeyer 07-30-03, 02:50 AM	I'm surprised that I'm the first to mention it (and will probably be flamed viciously), but I ban Charm Person. It's not that I think it's such a horrible spell, but it creates too much argument and slows things down. After every casting of charm person where the NPC fails his/her save, the DM tries to save their carefully planned encounter from falling apart. The DM says, "Hmmmm. OK, you're now his trusted friend, but no, he won't tell you the secret location of the tomb, since he swore to never tell anybody." The PCs complain and say, "Wait, he's charmed. He REALLY trusts us, more than anybody else, so he would tell us." The DM, not wanting to throw away the whole night's adventure where PCs must actually search for clues, still refuses. Players feel like they wasted a spell slot on a worthless spell, and probably continue to argue. Of course, even worse is when an NPC casts charm person on a PC and the PC fails his/her save. "You're charmed. He asks you if he could perhaps take a look at your brand new wand you constructed." "No way! I spent all my gold making that wand. I'm not letting him have it!" "Hey, he's a trusted friend now. Your character would be happy to give it to him." Argument continues... However, I do allow higher level domination spells since they are pretty straightforward. "You're dominated...move 10 ft backward and attack the guy who just healed you." edit: punctuation
Unholydragoon 07-30-03, 03:36 AM	For Charm, ye are forgetting that the target still has free will. Have the players roll Diplomacy and/or Bluff Checks to get him to do what they want. That at least gives ye a chance. And sorry, but if he is protecting a place with his life, a friend asking him to move isn't gonna cut it. Then, it's all aboot the diplomacy and bluff. ("No, I don't want to loot. I just want to get a look around in case ye need my help later." :smirk: )
Mooon 07-30-03, 04:20 AM	Sins I am the DM in my group, i want to ban ALL PrC witch isn't in DMG. Races in the PHB is allowed, Monk's and Paladin's is not the top 2 to pick in class. Dislike monk's, because of their ability to avoid elemental dammage. (cone of cold, fireball, etc, etc) And noone can play the paladin without becoming neutral or evil. (my group has a habit of becoming evil......) They do the good mission's, adventures and campains, but they do it in a evil way. (hopeless to having them at good aligment) The players can't look into the MM and DMG unless thei have got PrC or get familiar. They can only look into their own PHB. sins it's only me and "and another one" witch has played ADD and 3.0 the other once don't know what is in the 3.5Edition. it's just me who knows whats inside the MM and DMG, at the most. "the another one" protest in these matters, he want to look inside thouse books. and be the most powered PrC. and he looked, he is aware of the "new" (the PrC that has been taken from other books in 3.0) He's a good friend of mine and i don't want to loose him. The other one seems to be fair to it. It's just "the another one" witch don't aproove in that matter. the way to lurn a PrC is that they have met a NPC with PrC and they have seen them in action, how they hit, use spell, shoot or fooling around. (I loved drunken master) DM needs PHB, MM and DMG. players need PHB
allegos 07-30-03, 05:03 AM	Originally posted by Kevin Andrew Murphy I'm sorry, but Evil has to rise to a higher level than just waving a squid at someone. (laughs own butt off)
Ack'noth Necrom 07-30-03, 05:56 AM	Classes: i dont ban any of the core classes. In fact Dremlon's Midevil European and Oriental settings border next to eachother on the same continent. So monks/knights being in the same group are no problem. But any home brewed stuff or non WotC is subject to approval Races: None out of the PHB, anything else is subject to approval Spells: I dont ban any spells, i do restrict ultra powerful ones though, like wish and time stop. And wishes must be worded VERY carefully. One of my favorite wish mess ups went like this "ok you wish for the stone to appear in your hand, moments later it appears imbedded into your right hand causing immense pain, and you scream uncontrolably" :devil: Alignments: I dont ban alignments, i play a heroic/epic campaign though. Lots of peeps are going then why do you allow evil alignments? The answer is because even a necromancer can be heroic in their own way. I proved that as a player years ago. Although i am thinking of getting rid of alignments when i figure out how to get past the game mechanics. Prestige classes: Any home brewed/non WotC are subject to approval. Everything else is restricted till you find someone to teach it to you. Only other things i ban are Metagame thinking, Cheating, power gaming, min-maxing and bad attitudes. If any of that is brought to my game i show the player the door.
Count Arioch the 28th 07-30-03, 09:46 AM	Things I ban: 1. Bad Attitudes. If you had a bad day, you're not allowed to take it out on my game. IF you feel the need to do so for your amusment, then I have Everquest and Diablo, go play them and pick fights. 2. Alcohol. I'm tired of people doing stupid things just because they are drunk. Note that I don't care if your character gets drunk, just the player I ban from being intoxicated. 3. Bickering. If you have a argument about a rule, I'll look it up in the book, and go by what it says. If it's an arguemtn on an ad-hoc ruling, then you just gotta deal if you don't like it. If you're that upset, make a note, and we'll discuss in the future. 4. I am [i]not[i/] banning Atacks of Opportunity just because it gives Giants an advantage in combat! They're freaking giants for crying out loud! 5. Anyone who uses the argument "It's a good roleplaying class!" to defend a weak class/PrC. EVERY class is good for roleplaying, therefore all must be good for roll-playing as well, I don't beleive in punishing roleplayers by making all the fun ones weak. 6. Anyone who uses the term "broken" to describe anything that does not fall under the following criteria: Infinite damage loops, making self-replicating copies of yourself that have more EXP than you do, breaking the laws of physics with rats, sheep, commoners, or other vermin, and using 50 karma beads with Holy Word. Other definitions might be found, but if it's simply effedtive, than it's a good idea. If it's way too powerful, than it's either unbalanced, or overpowered. Anyone calling those two broken is kicked. (Gloves of storing and energy weapons aren't broken, the MyTh isn't broken, the ElKn isn't broken.) As for rules questions: I ban the following: 1. Any PrC that I deem too weak, pending revision. Note that I hold MAge of the Arcane Order, Archmage, Mystic Theurge, and my revised versions of Duelist, Thief-acrobat, and Tempest as the benchmarks. All PrCs must be as powerful as them before I allow them in. 2. Sohei class as written in OA is banned. My revised sohei is in. 3. Psi as written is banned. My psi revision is allowed. 4. 3.0 ranger and bard are banned. I like the new ones too much. 5. Fighters as written are banned. My revised fighter is allowed. 6. Diviners a'la 3.5 are banned. Diviners must pick 2 opposed schools like everyone else, considering that divination is the best school in my campaign.
seandpconners@aol.com 07-30-03, 09:47 AM	Always amazed at how much we all dont like. What we then do is either change it or ignore completely. This could give game designers some solid points for forth edition. I have enjoyed your views keep them coming.
Micah Wedemeyer 07-30-03, 10:35 AM	Originally posted by Unholydragoon For Charm, ye are forgetting that the target still has free will. Have the players roll Diplomacy and/or Bluff Checks to get him to do what they want. That at least gives ye a chance. And sorry, but if he is protecting a place with his life, a friend asking him to move isn't gonna cut it. Then, it's all aboot the diplomacy and bluff. ("No, I don't want to loot. I just want to get a look around in case ye need my help later." :smirk: ) I'm not forgetting that the target has free will. That's the entire problem with the spell. Deciding exactly how far someone who is charmed will go is pretty much impossible. I've never seen any other spell generate so much argument. Then again, I've never played a high-level campaign where wish was available. From what I understand, arguments ensue from that one as well. In addition, charm person fails the "If I add this to the game, is it so powerful that everyone will want it?" test. For powergamers and people who want to avoid role-playing, charm person is like a first level fireball. When in a pickle, charm somebody and let them fix the problem for you. Besides, can you answer my point about the NPC charming the PC and then asking for stuff? I could use an opposed diplomacy check, but who sets the bonuses/penalties? Not that I let my players set these, but only they really know their character and know how receptive they would be to any proposition. Try this one on for size: "Roll opposed diplomacy checks to see if you hand over your wand. Since you're friendly to most people, he gets a +2 bonus to his check." "Hey, that's not fair. So I don't go around slaughtering peasants, and you're going to penalize me for that?" I can't think of a single situation where a PC could get charmed and not feel cheated. Killed by an assassin's death attack? Seems kind of cheap, but them's the breaks. Coup de grace because they fail a listen check? Frustrating, but oh well. Charmed and forced to reduce yourself to a pauper? Now that will really tick off a player! Why? Because, in essence, they have lost control of their character while being told they still have free will. Bottom Line: Whenever charm person is cast, someone gets unhappy. Either the DM feels players cheated their way out of an encounter, or players feel like DM cheated and took control of the only things (the PCs) that players actually have dominion over. edit: spelling
Buffetassassin 07-30-03, 10:41 AM	PSIONICS. I have despised PSIONICS since they arrived in 1st ed. But I have to put up with them when using my Mind Flayers. Oh Well....BAAAAAANNNNNED!!!!!!!!!
Erus 07-30-03, 11:18 AM	Paladins as PCs... Gunpowder Erus.
Arashi Ravenblade 07-30-03, 11:22 AM	Depends on the campaign. Whenigo back home im only allowing races from the FR books and FR suppliments. Nothing more than stating gold, regional bonus equipment ect... I usually ban anything that lives underground or soley in the trees as pc races. No prestige classes meantfor other campaignesettings, so no you cant play a knight protector of the great kingdom. I usually dont allow monsters with a LA above +4 I banned the leadership feat, it keeps people from building armies. No evil alignments unless you have good reason to work with dogooders. Im banning anything from the epic level hanbook until you are epic level, youalways have that ones person who can afford somthing in that book, or they pool thier resources.
laughing-dragon 07-30-03, 11:23 AM	Qoute: "I can't think of a single situation where a PC could get charmed and not feel cheated. Killed by an assassin's death attack? Seems kind of cheap, but them's the breaks. Coup de grace because they fail a listen check? Frustrating, but oh well. Charmed and forced to reduce yourself to a pauper? Now that will really tick off a player! Why? Because, in essence, they have lost control of their character while being told they still have free will." Not really sure why your group doesn't seem to be able to have fun using this spell. I couldn't run my game without it. (I certainly wouldn't want to play a low level wizard who had no acess to it. I had a guest DM run Gary Gygax's NECROPOLIS adventure for my group so that FINALLY I would have a chance to play myself. I played a very stupid (int 7) barbarian named Klob-Ur. I was charmed by a local prostitute in Khemet. She had me fall in love with her so that she could guide me back to her wicked fathers house where I was to be poisoned and robbed. When we got to the fathers house and had gone in, Klob ~ur said "Your daughter belongs to Klob~Ur now, and is now under my authority" Both father and daughter seem somewhat surprised by this. The charm has worked VERY well, Klob~Ur has fallen in love. According to his barbarian custom Klob~Ur simply needs to stake his claim with the father, and the girl is his PROPERTY! Well this doesn't sit well with daddy (or the DM). Daddy pours drinks saying "Very well, lets drink to celebrate this happy day" and he goes into the back room to pour two drinks. I know that Klob~Ur is incapable of passing any kind of sense motive roll, so I continued to play up the "barbarian custom" route. The two drinks are set on the table, one in front of Klob~Ur and one in front of wicked ole daddy. Klob~Ur says " Now to show that we are truly family, it is the custom of my people that you drink from my cup and I drink from yours" Klob~Ur then takes daddys cup and drains it, afterwards saying "And now my father you may drink mine" I played this out as if Klob~UR genuinely was too stupid to know he was being poisoned, but I was able to use the situation to my advantage by creating spontaneous "barbarian customs" Klob~Ur left the woozy father in his home, grabbed the "charmer" by her arm and loaded her onto the back of his camel. One charmed player who never felt cheated:D
WhtKnt 07-30-03, 11:48 AM	Originally posted by seandpconners@aol.com I was wondering do you ban any of the following and why Classes Races Alighnment spells And anything else you care to mention. There is one thing i will be banning in my next campaign and thats bards. I just dont like them and they still dont seem to work. If you wanna play a bard play a rogue that works for me. I'll start off with saying that I don't ban a whole lot of actual game material. I'm a pretty free-wheeling DM and I may make certain adjustments here and there, but I don't actually ban too much. Much of what is permitted does depend on the setting, however. My world is big, and encompasses many different cultures, so much of what is permitted depends on where you are in the world. In Valenor, for example, monks tend to be a rarity, and there are no barbarians or psions. Those classes are simply unknown. You can still play one, but you can't originate from Valenor. On the other hand, paladins, druids, wizards, and psions are unknown in Nakusai. No monks or clerics are known to exist in Keltoi society. The same restrictions apply to races. Elves are pretty common in Keltoi (where they are known as sidhe), and they are fairly common in Valenor, but no one in Nakusai or Xian Wu has ever even seen an elf or a halfling. On the other hand, you're very unlikely to enounter a ratling or a spirit folk in Nørskar, but dwarves are common there. Alignment I use as written, with the understanding that it is a general indicator of a character's moral disposition, not a straightjacket. There are relatively few game-related penalties for switching alignment in my game (unless you're a cleric or other spellcaster whose power are divine in nature), but it's a lot harder to transition upwards than it is to go down. Sliding from good to neutral is pretty easy, but trying to go from evil to good requires a lot of hard work and atonement. Evil PCs are not encouraged, but they aren't outlawed either. If you really want to play one, you can, but expect me to make your life a nightmare if your moral bent becomes common knowledge! I have banned very few spells. With the advent of 3.5, heal and harm are off the banned list. Resurrection and raise dead were never really banned, but they were and remain very difficult to obtain. Returning the dead to life is not something that most deities permit without a darned good explanation. These spells cannot be prepared "just in case," but must be requested specifically for a particular instance and if the deity in question isn't completely convinced of the cause, the spell will not be granted. Some belief systems do not even have access to these spells (in dwarven tradition, it is an affront to Moradin to return a dwarf to life). As a reviewer, I receive a lot of material, and some of it is really good. I take a careful look (since I'm reveiwing it anyway) look at everything that comes across my desk before I permit it to be used in-game, but most everything is permitted (although some of it is changed, particularly the "quintessential" stuff from Mongoose). Again, though, it has to fit the setting. A wu-jen from Oriental Adventures just has no place in Valenor (except as an oddity, perhaps), but they are common in Nakusai or Xian Wu. The woodsman from the Wheel of Time rulebook has replaced the ranger in my campaign (rangers may yet become a prestige class, but I'm not sure; same with paladins), and I've also adopted the Mystic from the new Dragonlance campaign setting. Prestige classes; some are not appropriate to the setting and there are some I simply don't recommend, but if a player wants to take one of them, that's their business. If I'm running a campaign centered around Lionsgate (the largest city in Valenor) and the player insists on taking a halfling outrider... hey, who am I to stop him? I don't know that I've actualy outlawed any prestige classes. Outside of mechanical elements, I frown on powergaming, min-maxing, and metagaming. I've seen several people on this thread who ban morons or stupidity, but I feel that these have their own special rewards. Like the player who, just last night, wanted to use a fireball against a single ghoul that was locked in melee combat with two of his own party members! (He later wanted to use fireball on a red dragon that the party encountered.) On the other hand, if a player is deliberately acting stupid, then they will be dismissed. My group uses the 3.5 rules as written. We are in the testing phase. If we later discover a problem, we will adapt the rule to suit our gaming style and the revision will go into the Big Book of House Rules, that I keep.
Daverom Pureblade 07-30-03, 12:13 PM	I dont ban much no DMG''s or MM's near the players when we play. Out of book preservation I keep small tables beside the players for drinks and snacks. I will consider monster PC's but I rarely allow them. I don't allow spells and magical items from anything not in the PH/DMG unless I bring it into the campaign as part of the story. I never considered actually banning alignment but I dont force people to stick with it. I am considering banning Prestige classes dont like them at all!!! Also does anyone else think that the sorcerer class should be a template instead of an actual class?
WhtKnt 07-30-03, 12:37 PM	Originally posted by Daverom Pureblade Also does anyone else think that the sorcerer class should be a template instead of an actual class? Take away my sorcerer class and I won't be joining your games. I thinkt hat sorcerers are the best thing that ever happened to D&D, period. Full stop. End of sentence.
Mister Mayhem 07-30-03, 12:53 PM	I ban anything that is certain to prevent other players having fun. I'll allow evil, for example, but only if the player in question can give me a convincing reason why he would be working with the party. "So he can kill them and steal their stuff" is not considered a convincing reason.
Dungeon_Master 07-30-03, 02:34 PM	I noticed several bannings of psionics, and a good bit of FR bashing. Care to explain the reasoning?
Kasmiur 07-30-03, 02:42 PM	I banned rolling dice for stats. I tell my players this. 1. You have 80 points to distribute(more than enough for any class) and you start at this level. 2. You have 70 points to distribute and you start +1 level than the other people. No more do i have people with stats like 18,16,15,14,14,14 nor do I have to worry if one of my players did buy those trick weighted dice. With a large group of players such a thing was needed sadly.
Hupple 07-30-03, 02:46 PM	Like a lot of the posters here, I don't allow evil PCs -- I just don't like 'em, and players who want to play evil PCs generally want to play 'em to be disruptive. Heroic campaigns are more fun, for me anyway. I don't allow Paladin PCs, more because they annoy me than for any particularly well-thought-out reason. (I mainly get tired of endless attempts to detect evil, although that might have changed in 3.5.) Alignment, as with many other DMs on the thread, is not a straightjacket in my game. After all, one of the more basic suppositions of D&D is that many, many ends justify the means of judiciously-applied violence. It's fun to use moral hazards now and again to challenge players to roleplay, and players should be indignant when that nice little old lady who always offers them onion tarts is threatened by kobolds, but then they should also feel free to deal violence to said kobolds. Too much agonizing about alignment can slow down the game. I've mainly DMed for a group of novice players, so currently I'm not using any prestige classes -- there's enough to choose from with the core classes, and I want the players to get excited about the potential of each core class before they do a lot of mixing and matching. I'm very open to multiclassing suggestions, however. Players who want to play races beyond the standard PC races need to make a decent case for it. I'm also not interested in illithid or ogre PCS . . .
WhtKnt 07-30-03, 03:00 PM	Originally posted by Hupple I don't allow Paladin PCs, more because they annoy me than for any particularly well-thought-out reason. (I mainly get tired of endless attempts to detect evil, although that might have changed in 3.5.) My solution to this was to make the use of detect evil fairly noticable to those who know what they're looking for. In my games, using detect evil requires that the paladin take a long, hard look at the individual, object or area. It's nothing that would be instantly obvious to the casual observer (a deep stare is all), but to those who might already be suspicious, it could give the paladin away. Also, many beings do not take kindly this kind of treatment (if they recognize it for what it is). I had one NPC paladin who approached a party (and was scrutinized) become very offended and refuse to offer them any aid whatsoever (this came after I had warned the offending player several times about overusing detect evil). Since this is a divinely granted ability, it is also possible that overuse would draw the ire of one's deity. Using it on certain people leaving the gate if the BBEG is expected to try to sneak by in disguise is one thing, using it to check out every person who walks into the market, hoping to catch a pickpocket to roll for a few XPs (I had a PC try this) is something else entirely. I view the use of detect evil as an invasion of privacy and not an ability to be taken lightly. I can't imagine a deity being too pleased with a paladin who spends his days standing on the street corner, detecting the alignments of passer-by, going, "Evil... not evil... not evil... evil... whoa momma!" Sure, they may be working to support the cause of righteousness, but there are a lot better ways for a representative of Heironeous to spend his time.
king_of_evil007 07-30-03, 03:08 PM	Occasionally I allow ridiculous characters (vampiric frost giant) but only for short, joke, one-shot games, in which case everyone tends to make an odd character, just for fun. In my standard game, I don't allow templated characters (or anything from Savage Species) without a good reason(even then, it can't be a winged half-red-dragon celestial half-fiend minotaur) I tend to allow monks in the game, I do play a very high magic game. I do have a few magic shops, but just the weak stuff (+1 or +2 stuff at best, though rare), and even then, the characters still have to find special raw materials (the heart from a red dragon for a +1 flaming weapon), so I tend to make the PC Wizard make the magic items, because the players can't find high-level magic items at the local corner store.
laughing-dragon 07-30-03, 03:44 PM	Dungeon-Master: Can't say why any DM playing 3e would want to ban psionics. It isn't like you have to learn a whole different system now, since psionics act pretty much the same as magic. Also, psionic type characters are anything but overpowered these days..... so I dunno... DM laziness is a distinct possibility. On the other hand, I understand the ban on anything Forgotten Realms. I can remember buying the original gray boxed set for this setting in 1986. It seemed so interesting and full of potential then. Over the next ten years or so, as this setting became the default setting for 2e, it became so overdetailed that one could hardly run a game in the setting without dismantling some bit of pre-established "canonical history" In addition to being ridiculously overdetailed, it became ridiculously high powered, to the point where it no longer made sense. After all, any real threat should be taken care of by the 2 million or so 15-25th level characters who seemed to tend every bar, tavern, shop and farmhouse throughout Toril. What's worse is that every Realms fan who would join my game wanted to play a Drizz't clone aaaarrrggg. Finally, some of the really old school traditional gamers out there view Forgotten Realms as a petty usurper of the great Greyhawk legacy. Many of these cheered loudly when Greyhawk was announced as the default setting for 3e, and felt betrayed and angry when it became clear that Greyhawk was still not going to recieve the kind of product support that FR does. FR has gained the reputation of a "munchkin setting", a reputation not entirely undeserved. I run a homebrew world myself, and for the first 6 years of my game, I did not allow any Drow elves to be played in my game. This was a direct result of all the hype drow seem to get in the FR setting and literature. I just DID NOT WANT TO DEAL with the hackneyed, "I am a good drow" crap. After six years, I finally relaxed this rule, and within two months I had a "good drow" in my game. Fortunately the player playing in this game is a long term player of mine, that I felt should be given a shot. Now we are headed into the underdark as I begin running modified 3e versions of DECENT INTO THE DEPTHS OF THE EARTH, HIDDEN SHRINE OF THE KUO_TOA, and VAULT OF THE DROW. I can gaurantee that afterwards my players will not care to be hangin with the drow again anytime soon.
Erus 07-30-03, 03:49 PM	Originally posted by Dungeon_Master I noticed several bannings of psionics, and a good bit of FR bashing. Care to explain the reasoning? My opinion on this: Psionics: Older D&D folk who played 1st ed were introduced to a psionics system that was clunky, complex, VERY difficult to impliment, and blatently overpowered in some aspects. as it was then pulled from the core d&d, the newer folks got used to D&D without it, now its back and much better, (arguable I know, but still) and there are a lot of older purists who have leftover hate. Someone mentioned that psionics = Sci-fi not fantasy. I suppose this could be a valid reason in some folks minds, myself, I think it fits right in. FR gets a bad rap from purists and older D&D folks as well. Many here from my browsing seem to lean towards a very low-magic, strict game where commoners are poor and flock to the streets when an adventurer shows off a sword that glows. This is the main reason I think that folks don't like the High magic - fiction-novel driven world of FR. Erus. * dons his undies of flame resistance *
Arbitrary Aardvark 07-30-03, 03:54 PM	Originally posted by Daverom Pureblade I dont ban much no DMG''s or MM's near the players when we play. Being fundamentally lazy, I insist that players who summon monsters use a MM. I hate having to go look up something like a Lantern Archon, keep paging back and forth between it and the monster they are fighting, and then get *****ed at because I didn't have it use a particular power.
MrNiceGuy 07-30-03, 04:03 PM	I ban nude women in my bed... . . . . . . . . . . . NO! Not ban; WELCOME! Paul
Daverom Pureblade 07-30-03, 05:01 PM	I dont like MM's near the players due to the fact that they have a tendancy to look up monsters as they fight them bad bad bad for DM's. I don't have magic shop's period! I run a you get or make your own magic not walk into a store with a wheelbarrow full of gold and buy one to me it cheapens the +1 sword you picked up after a vicious fight that nearly killed you. I have no problems with psionics at all my wife runs one. As for FR that is my main campaign world, it's mine! WOTC gave me the right to run it any way I want same right they gave everyone else I use the basic world set and no one in my campaign has ever set eyes on a Drizzt or a Elminster!
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-30-03, 05:08 PM	Originally posted by Daverom Pureblade Also does anyone else think that the sorcerer class should be a template instead of an actual class? I've played with a sorcerer type template (Search for Inborn on the old boards) I was going more for Mutant powers than a full fledged sorc. because I like the class loads more than the book keeping heavy wizard. The template would not only have to be HD dependant, but go to epic levels. Also, a bit off topic, but are there things the you encourage? For Me: 1) OA classes I like Shujenja (sp?) Samurai and Wu jen a lot. 2) Sorcerers. I dislike the wizard and would MUCH rather the PCs play a spontanious caster. 3) High CHR. I play it as heavily important. 4) Leadership. I don't know why... I just like playing NPCs. 5) I prefer everyone to bring what Source books they have to help me with obscure rules and things.
Sephiroth-sama 07-30-03, 07:30 PM	I encourage a lot of things. 1. Advanced technology. I find it adds more to fantasy than subtracts. 2. Psionics. Makes everything more interesting. magic vs. psionics is always fun. 3. Magic shops. It's worth reapeating. Magic shiops are awesome IMHO.I understand that magic shops have the potential of breaking the game, but so far they have proven a great element in my campaigns. 4. High magic in general. Magic stuff doesn't lose their mystery just because they're common 5. Planar travel. 6. House Rules. The thing I encourage the strongest. Everyone is encouraged to suggest different ways of playing the game and gettibf rid of rules no one likes. back to banning stuff. Leadership. I haven't really banned it. More like it just hasn't been used yet. I don't like the idea of a bunch of NPCs tagging along the players everywhere.
meabolex 07-30-03, 08:19 PM	Originally posted by Sephiroth-sama Leadership. I haven't really banned it. More like it just hasn't been used yet. I don't like the idea of a bunch of NPCs tagging along the players everywhere. Leadership is probably best in a single-player campaign. Having two characters to control really chokes the amount of roleplaying you can actually do in a party. This gets really nasty when the PC and corresponding cohort have a conversation in game. You could have the DM control the cohort, but that simply gives more work to the DM. Leadership also takes focus away from the PCs -- usually a bad idea. So in short, use leadership very sparingly and irregularly and it should be fine.
LeopardQueen 07-30-03, 11:07 PM	I ban all prestige classes implicitly, and allow a few for people who spin a good yarn. I ban version 3.5, cuz I aint that rich. I ban PC names that are puns I ban copies of movie/book/computer characters I ban direct quotes from Summoner Geeks
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-30-03, 11:23 PM	Leadership. I haven't really banned it. More like it just hasn't been used yet. I don't like the idea of a bunch of NPCs tagging along the players everywhere. Mine have a city I fear them.
Micah Wedemeyer 07-31-03, 12:00 AM	Originally posted by laughing-dragon Not really sure why your group doesn't seem to be able to have fun using this spell. I couldn't run my game without it. (I certainly wouldn't want to play a low level wizard who had no acess to it. Exactly! Charm person fails the "So powerful everyone would want it" test. That usually means it's either too low level or simply too powerful in general. Originally posted by laughing-dragon I played this out as if Klob~UR genuinely was too stupid to know he was being poisoned, but I was able to use the situation to my advantage by creating spontaneous "barbarian customs" Klob~Ur left the woozy father in his home, grabbed the "charmer" by her arm and loaded her onto the back of his camel. In this situation, you used made up barbarian customs to circumvent the charming. You metagamed and took control of the world when you lost control of your character. If I were DM I wouldn't have allowed it. I'm not as anti-metagaming as some DMs, but something this extreme is just too much. Micah
Count Arioch the 28th 07-31-03, 01:19 AM	And I would have given the barbarian an EXP bonus for roleplaying. :p
seandpconners@aol.com 07-31-03, 01:39 AM	Good replies and lots of questions. I must admit for some reason i never got into Fr that is until now. I love the campaign setting and see a lot of scope for my next campaign. As for being restrictive no way im going to set the story back twelve years from the campaign book and go with the new flow. I then have history to work with if i dont like something i will change it. Anyway keep well and speak to some of you soon.
laughing-dragon 07-31-03, 09:24 AM	Quote: "In this situation, you used made up barbarian customs to circumvent the charming. You metagamed and took control of the world when you lost control of your character. If I were DM I wouldn't have allowed it. I'm not as anti-metagaming as some DMs, but something this extreme is just too much. Micah" uhhhh. not quite Micah. In fact I used the EXACT opposite of metagaming to circumvent the charm, its called roleplaying. I am simply amazed that ANY DM could possibly call this metagaming. Klob~UR (pronounced Klob` Oor, for those who ban pun like character names yeesh) never was given any indication that he was being poisoned, but if I can come up with a creative and fun way to avoid being poisoned without resorting to the trite " My barbarian has a +14 to fortitute saves" one would THINK a DM would find that that PROMOTES the fun of his game, but I guess if you have an us versus them attitude with your players this might could be viewed as "taking control of the world." So tell me micah, if I had roleplayed this way in your game what would you have done to "not allow it"? Would you have told me "those aren't really your tribes customs." Oh, really? well do you have a sheet detailing for me all of my tribes customs,? because if you do I'd like to see it for the sake of good roleplaying. Being imaginative as a player is not "taking control of the world" (and by the way the adventure was occuring on MY world) By the way I'll tell you how our DM handled it. He had the prostitute who charmed me fall in love with Klob~Ur because he was soooo masculine and in control. She figured with a man like Klob~Ur she would be better off without her father. Unfortunately she was eaten by a giant crocodile as she and Klob~Ur were skinny dipping a few days later. Her death sent Klob~Ur into a month long depression which only the act of frequently knocking someones teeth out could cure. By the way I DO hate metagaming and supress it at every opportunity when it occurs during the course of the game.
WhtKnt 07-31-03, 10:04 AM	Originally posted by LeopardQueen I ban version 3.5, cuz I aint that rich.Who needs riches? Just go to the SRD at the Wizards site and print out what you need.I ban PC names that are puns.*sigh* I wish. Just once I'd like for my wife to play an elf that isn't named Spike, Slick, Bud, or something similar.I ban direct quotes from Summoner Geeks Add to this list: Star Wars quotes Star Trek quotes Monty Python quotes Pulp Fiction quotes (don't ask)
WhtKnt 07-31-03, 10:24 AM	Originally posted by Micah Wedemeyer Exactly! Charm person fails the "So powerful everyone would want it" test. That usually means it's either too low level or simply too powerful in general.On the other side of the coin, my group never uses charm person. I've yet to see a PC wizard make use of it, even when it has been used against them! They prefer the much flashier spells like magic missile and shocking grasp.In this situation, you used made up barbarian customs to circumvent the charming. You metagamed and took control of the world when you lost control of your character. If I were DM I wouldn't have allowed it. I'm not as anti-metagaming as some DMs, but something this extreme is just too much.And I would have awarded the PC experience for circumventing the encounter through excellent role-playing. On the other hand, I would certainly be drawing on these barbarian customs in future scenarios.
Micah Wedemeyer 07-31-03, 10:57 AM	Originally posted by laughing-dragon uhhhh. not quite Micah. In fact I used the EXACT opposite of metagaming to circumvent the charm, its called roleplaying. I am simply amazed that ANY DM could possibly call this metagaming. Klob~UR (pronounced Klob` Oor, for those who ban pun like character names yeesh) never was given any indication that he was being poisoned, but if I can come up with a creative and fun way to avoid being poisoned without resorting to the trite " My barbarian has a +14 to fortitute saves" one would THINK a DM would find that that PROMOTES the fun of his game, but I guess if you have an us versus them attitude with your players this might could be viewed as "taking control of the world." How is that roleplaying and not metagaming? You used out-of-game knowledge about the game (ie. metagame) your character did not have to circumvent the situation. You yourself said the character had no idea he was being poisoned. You said he was a poor judge of character. But you (the player) were suspicious of the father, the daughter, and the drink. So, when you lost control of your character, you just took control of the world. Roleplaying means playing a character, not the world. How would you like it if your players just came up with stuff on the spot? When dealing with a local lord: "Well, my brother once saved the lord's life, so I think he should give us what we're asking for." Or even better: "My character donated 10,000gp to the church a long time ago. He should get raised for free whenever he dies." Or: "My barbarian tribe once raided and subjugated this village. Everyone here should be scared of me." Now these are obviously overblown examples, but I see them on the same level as your barbarian customs, even if your customs were more creative. Originally posted by laughing-dragon So tell me micah, if I had roleplayed this way in your game what would you have done to "not allow it"? Would you have told me "those aren't really your tribes customs." Oh, really? well do you have a sheet detailing for me all of my tribes customs,? because if you do I'd like to see it for the sake of good roleplaying. That's exactly what I would say. Any details about the campaign setting not agreed upon beforehand are left up to the discretion of the DM. I don't let my players dictate to me where my traps are placed. Why should I let them dictate to me what customs barbarian tribes have? Could you show me a sheet of your tribe's customs? I'd like to see it for the sake of roleplaying as well. If you came to me out-of-game and had a sheet of customs you wanted for your character, I'd probably allow every single one. I love character background and encourage it at every turn. However, my players don't get to adjust their character stats on the fly, and neither do they get to adjust their background on the fly. I really like it when players use background stuff to come up with novel solutions, but only when the background material is true background, and not just something made up to circumvent an unpleasant situation. Micah
Godeskian 07-31-03, 12:23 PM	What do i ban? to date, just marshmellows seriously, and it's a very long and traumatic story but at the end of it all marshmellows vanished from my world, the knowledge of it was erased from tomes and the minds of the populace, and Fate and Destiny manifested physically to inform the world that ti would never again be allowed to know of them
Loopy 07-31-03, 12:26 PM	I don't allow Chaotic Neutral character. It's a totally B.S. alignment. It's a cop-out and totally not allowed at my table.
Fable 07-31-03, 12:50 PM	Originally posted by Loopy I don't allow Chaotic Neutral character. It's a totally B.S. alignment. It's a cop-out and totally not allowed at my table. So if you had a barbarian playing they would be CG or CE?
laughing-dragon 07-31-03, 12:54 PM	quote: "How is that roleplaying and not metagaming? You used out-of-game knowledge about the game (ie. metagame) your character did not have to circumvent the situation. You yourself said the character had no idea he was being poisoned. You said he was a poor judge of character. But you (the player) were suspicious of the father, the daughter, and the drink. So, when you lost control of your character, you just took control of the world. Roleplaying means playing a character, not the world." Well first off Micah, I NEVER lost control of my character in the first place. The third edition charm spell specifically states that charmed characters simply see the charmer as a close friend to be trusted. They are not DOMINATED. I ROLEPLAYED that charming, by falling head over heals in love with the lady who charmed me. Did that mean I had to abandon my adventuring career or turn over control of my character to the DM? No. Most of my fellow party members were viewed by Klob~Ur as trusted friends as well. Does that mean they CONTROL my character? of course not. Niether did the prostitute who charmed me. And I still for the life of me cannot understand how you view this action as "taking control of the World" I am relieved to see that our fellow posters here disagree with your assesment, otherwise I might fear for the hobby. Lets just say that I think you are being a little "retentive" about what constitutes "control of the game." I hope your players have fun in your game, I don't think I would. Micah: the father goes to the back and pours two drinks of wine, bringing one to you." Klob: It is my custom that we drink from each others glass to prove we are family" Klob ~Ur tells the father to drink his glass. Micah: No creating customs on the fly. Klob: But these things add lightheartedness and depth to the game. Micah: Sorry, you are trying to take control of my world. Klob :uuuuh o.k. so what are my choices Micah: you must drink from the glass, to do otherwise is metagaming. Klob: Sigh o.k. I drink Micah: poison DC of 16 Klob: I rolled a 3. Three plus 14. I pass. O.K. seeing that none of these mugs is going to attack a fully concious Klob~UR, I take my new girlfriend and leave. Micah: Shes not your girlfriend. Quit trying to take control of my game. Klob: Guys I forgot, I have to go mow the lawn. Group: but its 9:00 pm Klob: yeah well, no time like the present.
WhtKnt 07-31-03, 01:05 PM	Originally posted by Micah Wedemeyer Any details about the campaign setting not agreed upon beforehand are left up to the discretion of the DM. I don't let my players dictate to me where my traps are placed. Why should I let them dictate to me what customs barbarian tribes have?I depend quite a bit on my players to help me customize the world. If they decide to be a resident of a village I've not yet detailed, then I ask them to tell me about the village while they're detailing their character background. Players tend to take a much greater interest in a world that they feel they've helped create.I love character background and encourage it at every turn. However, my players don't get to adjust their character stats on the fly, and neither do they get to adjust their background on the fly.So long as it's reasonable, I don't have a problem with this. Some of my best characters have been developed "on the fly." This is not permitted for the purpose of gaining skills, feats, or other abilities ("My father's father was an elf, so I should have half-elven abilities," is right out, for example) and cannot change established campaign continuity, but aside from that, if they want to decide that their character is the long-lost daughter of a gypsy tribe, let them! I'll mine it for plot hooks. My players have learned not to abuse the priviledge, ever since "the incident." A player decided on the fly during one adventure that he was related to a famous dragonslayer in the campaign in an effort to impress some locals. That came back to haunt him later when the party met up with a dragon who happened to know of this dragonslayer (he had slain the dragon's mother many years ago). The dragon was not suitably impressed by the dragonslayer's descendent. Revenge was sweet.
Loopy 07-31-03, 01:30 PM	Originally posted by Fable So if you had a barbarian playing they would be CG or CE? Heehee. Well, I guess it was a foregone conclusion that I didn't allow Evil characters either. I guess around here I shouldn't make such an assumption. :rolleyes: :D
laughing-dragon 07-31-03, 01:41 PM	so are all barbarian tribes in your world chaotic good, or just the ones that the PC's have to come from?
laughing-dragon 07-31-03, 01:46 PM	quote: A player decided on the fly during one adventure that he was related to a famous dragonslayer in the campaign in an effort to impress some locals. That came back to haunt him later when the party met up with a dragon who happened to know of this dragonslayer (he had slain the dragon's mother many years ago). The dragon was not suitably impressed by the dragonslayer's descendent. Revenge was sweet" Now THAT I like. I would have smiled if a DM had been clever enough to use my creative tribal customs against me later.
Godeskian 07-31-03, 01:50 PM	Dragon, Did you know you were about to be poisoned, or did your character have a real in game reason to believe he was about to be. I must have missed the post where you explained which one it was.
laughing-dragon 07-31-03, 02:01 PM	As a player, I SUSPECTED that I was about to be poisoned. I had been charmed by a woman thought by the community to be a town neer do well, and we had already been told by NPC's that her family was "impious." Anytime a guy like her daddy slides you a glass of wine, you as a player are going to be suspicious. But I wanted to play Klob~Ur as the idiot he was. I didn't want to let the fact that I suspected poison as a player, get in the way of the fact that Klob~Ur is a fool. So as a player, I needed to come up with a sensible reason why Klob~Ur would not drink without resorting to the idea that HE was suspicious. I thought I pulled the whole thing off quite cleverly, the other players were laughing histerically, the DM was flustered but smiling, as if to say "you got me." It was a great moment in the game. The idea that some DM would have spoiled it is galling. Anyway, SOME of Klob~Ur 's earliest adventures are chronicled in the ONCE UPON A TIME forum over in the community boards. The folder is called LIVE TO DESTROY, and is written from the perspective of the party's evil cleric Balthshazar, though Klob~UR is the subject. Check it out, I'm kinda proud of it and would enjoy getting the feedback.
Godeskian 07-31-03, 02:07 PM	So your character had vague village gossip, but no evidence whatsoever, and it was you who had the suspicion? that is if i read your post correctly, in which case i have to admit, as a DM i would say it was meta-gaming I'm not going to register any sort of judgement value on that, but from my perspective, you chose to act out your own suspicion through the auspices of your character. And i don't get over to the stories section of the community boards much, but I will se if i can make it over there at some point.
laughing-dragon 07-31-03, 02:26 PM	"that is if i read your post correctly, in which case i have to admit, as a DM i would say it was meta-gaming" And would you have said I was meta-gaming if Klob~Ur had said "I suspect I am about to be poisoned" ? After all, I could easily have said that. Maybe Klob~Ur was just paranoid that day. Fact is, to insist that I NOT suspect anything would be the DM "taking control of my character". As a player, I can say my character thinks or feels ANYTHING, including suspicion regardless of my intelligence. (Which by the way would simply be in the low to average range of human Int.) Point is, I didn't WANT Klob~UR to suspect anything, though I certainly would have had every right as a player to say that he did based on information given by the DM, or simply calling it a "barbarian hunch." ROLEPLAYING = METAGAMING the formula for a new generation of gamer!
Godeskian 07-31-03, 02:34 PM	I'd appreciate it if you don't make too many gross generalisation and include me in them. It's a personal thing. I'm saying that if your character had no real reason to expect being poisoned, and you decided because you as a player knew it was likely, to have your character act in a way that is not usual is metagaming honest roleplaying would be consistent with your characters previous behavior and would not be 'paranoid' just for the day when you as a player knew you were likely to be poisoned. Out of curiosity, how do you define metagaming, as your use of the word seems to be somewhat different from mine and i'd like to clarify that before continuing the debate.
Micah Wedemeyer 07-31-03, 03:10 PM	Originally posted by laughing-dragon Klob :uuuuh o.k. so what are my choices Micah: you must drink from the glass, to do otherwise is metagaming. Klob: Sigh o.k. I drink Micah: poison DC of 16 Klob: I rolled a 3. Three plus 14. I pass. O.K. seeing that none of these mugs is going to attack a fully concious Klob~UR, I take my new girlfriend and leave. Micah: Shes not your girlfriend. Quit trying to take control of my game. First off, my reply to the question, "What are my choices?" would be: "Well, you tell me." I don't enumerate choices to my players. It's not a multiple choice test. I let them tell me what they want to do, and I run with it. In truth, the issue of metagaming rarely comes up, since most stuff they want to do is well within the confines of good gaming. I can't really take any credit for that, I am just lucky to have a great group to play with. And yes, I would not allow you to "take your girlfriend and leave" She's an NPC with her own desires and motivations, not a mindless cohort. You could try to take her and leave, but she might decide otherwise and express her wishes in a not-so-nice manner. If you truly wanted a roleplayable solution to the problem, try this: Just because you care about a girl doesn't mean you trust her father. For many people, the exact opposite is true. I would not have been put off at all as a DM to hear a player say, "I don't trust him, he probably wants to keep his daughter from me. I won't take anything from him, including food and drink." THAT is roleplaying. It may not be as clever as your invented customs, but it's not as metagamed as well. Still, there is a metagame aspect to it. *Sigh* The problem ultimately stems from the charm person spell. In one sense, the player is now supposed to treat someone as a trusted ally. However, in the DMG it says never to force reactions from a PC because of a dice roll, ie. they cannot end up liking/hating someone becuase the person has high charisma or rolled well on diplomacy. The player is always in control of their PC's feelings, except when under the effects of a spell. So, in the case of charm person, the player knows the charmer and his/her allies probably have bad intentions, but they are expected to play like they don't know this. It's nearly impossible for anyone not to metagame in this situation. It's like telling them out-of-game that the patron they are currently working for is actually the BBEG. Try that some time and see if they suddenly don't want to work for him anymore, even though nothing has changed for the PCs. That's why I prefer out-and-out domination spells to charm person. No anguishing over how to get your character out of it. They are simply controlled like automatons. Also, I didn't mean to give the impression that I lock the PCs' backgrounds at the start of the game. The are welcome to give additions as they interact with the world, as long as the additions are reasonable. If they are to meet with a member of the thieves guild in a town he's from, I have no problem with the party's rogue saying, "Can we assume that we've met before and are good friends?" As long as I had not planned for the thieves to be hostile, I would allow it. The rogue's player is obviously doing it for story reasons, not simply to help himself. I would also do the same for barbarian customs. They come to a wounded deer in the woods and the barbarian's player says, "In my tribe, we end their suffering with a blessed blade and then honor their spirit." Fine by me. Excellent roleplaying. Micah edit: clarification
Loopy 07-31-03, 03:12 PM	Most tribes in my campaign world are true neutral or neutral good. PCs gotta be CG.
laughing-dragon 07-31-03, 03:34 PM	Quote: "If you truly wanted a roleplayable solution to the problem, try this: Just because you care about a girl doesn't mean you trust her father. For many people, the exact opposite is true. I would not have been put off at all as a DM to hear a player say, "I don't trust him, he probably wants to keep his daughter from me. I won't take anything from him, including food and drink." THAT is roleplaying." Aww, c'mon Micah. The outcome is EXACTLY THE SAME!!!! The net effect on your game is EXACTLY THE SAME!!!! Your saying that you would squelch my reason for not drinking, and then provide what you see as a "reasonably roleplayed" aternative for my actions where the NET EFFECT IS UNCHANGED except that in the second instance, I would not have been able to roleplay the actions and reasoning for my own character. Instead of not drinking because of what I saw as my own customs, I now need to not drink because "some people don't trust the father of their girlfriend" Roleplaying is what the player makes it. DMs who squeltch a players interpretation of his own character, when it doesn't harm the game are going to find themselves alone moving figurines around on a battlemat wishing they had players
laughing-dragon 07-31-03, 03:41 PM	As for Klob~Ur claiming the girl (Neftet) as his property, it may be metagaming to tell you, but there was nothing that little third level hussy or her fat daddy were going to do to stop my 10th level barbarian from throwing her over the camels hump. Thats not taking control of your world, thats simply "taking what's mine":smirk:
Godeskian 07-31-03, 03:55 PM	Can't disagree with that. However i believe that is generally called kidnapping :D Isn't stopping someone who kidnapped the girl usually what the PC's are hired to put and end to
Dungeon_Master 07-31-03, 04:39 PM	Originally posted by Erus This is the main reason I think that folks don't like the High magic - fiction-novel driven world of FR. I'm kind of irked over the whole "it's only canon if the NOVELS say it is" @$%^, to. The novels are the whole reason we have the thousands of good aligned drow who just happen to be from Menzoborenzan (sp?). Otherwise, I like the setting. I personally like the idea of psionics because I'm a bit of a sic-fi freak, and most of my players are either that or anime. So, it fits pretty well into my group. To tell the truth, I'll probably end up buying D20 modern someday and running two games. Maybe FR, run a game based on Starcraft, AND a game based on Tom Clancy's Rainbow 6. :cool:
Loopy 07-31-03, 05:02 PM	Originally posted by LeopardQueen I ban direct quotes from Summoner Geeks I assume you mean the Dead Alewive's Society skit? Hmm. How totalitarian of you. When I went to GenCon, the DM of the Living Grayhawk game we were in actually let my friend know that the Darkness was a viable target for his magic missile spells if he so desired. He said it in such a flat tone of voice that half of us nearly died laughing while the other half simply sat there, bemused. Good times.
Wolfwood2 07-31-03, 06:22 PM	Originally posted by Loopy Most tribes in my campaign world are true neutral or neutral good. PCs gotta be CG. I can't quite understand how a DM could ever enforce a ban on neutral player characters. Evil I can sort of see, because it's really easy to define. But being neutral is basically just being a regular person who's not selflessly motivated to help people he doesn't know without thought of reward. A guy who doesn't stick his neck out for strangers. Sure you could force all your players to write "G" on the top of their character sheets. That's just a letter, though. There's nothing to stop them from playing their characters how they see fit. If how they see fit happens to fall within your range of "good", then fine. If not, what are you going to do about it? "I'm converting your character to an NPC if you don't start doing more good deeds! You actually asked what was in it for you on that last quest. I smell neutrality!"
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-31-03, 06:36 PM	Originally posted by Wolfwood2 "I'm converting your character to an NPC if you don't start doing more good deeds! You actually asked what was in it for you on that last quest. I smell neutrality!" I never got that some DMs think they have the right to take over a character. To me, that is one of the Biggest no-nos. I mean, If a character is disruptive, remove him, but never play the character -- especially if you suddenly have the bright idea of making the slightly evil character a BBEG. The only time I NPC a PC is when that players tells me that their going to be late and ASKS me to do it. Taking a character sheet is an offence punishable by cartoonish violence around here.
NestroEmichae 07-31-03, 06:51 PM	My banned list: FR stuff. Why? Are any of my campaigns in Faerun? No. Do you see Baldur's Gate sitting fifty miles from here? No. Is Elmister trying to pick up prostitutes across the street from where you are staying? No. So don't try to bring any in. Anything from a book I don't have. Successful arguements and internet sources for it may cause it to be allowed. The 3.0 ranger. I use the new version. Unless I specify that I use it, 3.5 is banned. They took a good possibility and made it not even worth using as toilet paper. Psionics without the Psionics are Different variant. The 3.5 version may actually not be total crap. Most Evil descriptors. Common sense should be required, not optional. As soon as I am done with my retooling of necromancy, I will ban 3.0 necromancy and introduce my variant version. I have met cocaine addicts with a better understanding of what necromancy is about than whoever decided upon the spells in that school. They can't even be bothered to stick with their own definition of it. Pitiful. Truly pitiful. While I do not ban paladins, I watch them closest of all. Religious zealots always get close scrutiny by me. If they start to perform certain actions, the character instantly dies and the player must make a new one. I have no tolerance for fundies.
Dash Branaghan 07-31-03, 06:59 PM	Originally posted by NestroEmichae I have no tolerance for fundies. Please define that a little more. Are you talking Christian/Alternative Modern Religion fundamentalists who bring it into the game, or are you talking about playing characters like a fundy? One of my favorite characters to play was cleric that I modelled in the form of a Mormon/JW with the door to door religion. Every time he entered town, any NPC he interacted with he would try to convert.
NestroEmichae 07-31-03, 07:05 PM	Originally posted by Dash Branaghan Please define that a little more. Are you talking Christian/Alternative Modern Religion fundamentalists who bring it into the game, or are you talking about playing characters like a fundy? One of my favorite characters to play was cleric that I modelled in the form of a Mormon/JW with the door to door religion. Every time he entered town, any NPC he interacted with he would try to convert. With those I play with, the second one. Keep in mind that fundementalism is a curse on all religions, not just the more popular ones.
Dungeon_Master 07-31-03, 07:22 PM	I personally think it's bad tastes to not allow someone in or ban them because of their religion or lack therof. However, I would very quickly lose patience with someone who told me I was a soulless satan worshipper every time I had them fight a demon. I've had enough of that.
Dash Branaghan 07-31-03, 07:57 PM	Originally posted by Dungeon_Master I personally think it's bad tastes to not allow someone in or ban them because of their religion or lack therof. However, I would very quickly lose patience with someone who told me I was a soulless satan worshipper every time I had them fight a demon. I've had enough of that. If it is any consolation, I think you are a soulless Satan worshipper and I don't need to fight a demon to reach that conclusion. :devil: :D
NestroEmichae 07-31-03, 08:06 PM	Originally posted by Dungeon_Master I personally think it's bad tastes to not allow someone in or ban them because of their religion or lack therof. However, I would very quickly lose patience with someone who told me I was a soulless satan worshipper every time I had them fight a demon. I've had enough of that. I allow people of all religions to play. I honestly don't care if you worship Allah or a piece of week-old cheese. I only ban people who fit the description of fundies, and I ban all them of them no matter what beliefs they hold. I don't discriminate.
Dungeon_Master 07-31-03, 08:10 PM	Originally posted by Dash Branaghan If it is any consolation, I think you are a soulless Satan worshipper and I don't need to fight a demon to reach that conclusion. :devil: :D (shapeshifts to clint Eastwood) "Them sound like fighting words......." (pulls out six shooter) :D
baneofkobolds 07-31-03, 08:46 PM	Nystul's Marvelous Pigment- dont allow money to be made trust me
Adriayna 07-31-03, 09:49 PM	Originally posted by baneofkobolds Nystul's Marvelous Pigment- dont allow money to be made trust me Did you also ban the Lyre of Building? I suppose a bard with a high perform check could really rack in the cash with that too :)
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-31-03, 10:21 PM	If you plan ahead for it, Letting the PCs make money with their skills can be an adventure in and of itself.
The Law 08-01-03, 02:02 AM	Originally posted by Unholydragoon None of it is balanced outside of the Forgotten Realms. Trying to shoehorn something from a high magic setting into a lower magic (or even standard) setting just isn't possible. The spells are almost always at the wrong levels. The PrC's are wholly unbalanced (how the Archmunchkin got into the 3.5 DMG still leaves me shaking my head). The magcal items/special materials are too cheap or incorrectly priced. In short, nothing of it is balanced for a system that is not the Forgettable Realms. Yet there ar people that seem to think otherwise (I wish I could strangle every idiot that has said, "well, try this. It's from the Forgotten Realms, so it's official". Morons like that make me wish there was a way to control stupid people from breeding. :nonono: ). The Forgotten Realms is, as I said, munchkinny crap. It has no place at my table, nor at any table that expects a reasonably balancd campaign. I dm for my group of players (5 of them) and we play FR, and enjoy it so much that we bought silver marches accessory, CotsQ, Magic of Faerun... You're asking for trouble if you port from a high magic world to a low magic world. And vice versa, if you port from low magic to high magic, your guys will be underpowered. Fine magic is very prevalent, but thats the point. Thats what makes FR unique. Ever bother to read the FRCS and seen how well developed the world actually is? Or do you know that there are areas in FR where magic isnt as common? Simply base your campaign there. But senseless attacks on a campaign based on nothing but your opinion is unjustified and silly. Many people enjoy the game else it wouldnt be so well developed and the best selling campaign setting now would it? Let me guess, your PCs are wielding +1 swords at level 24 and your lvl 45 wizard's best spell is magic missle becoz 'thats not munchkinny' :rolleyes:
paradoxmage 08-01-03, 05:21 AM	I ban nothing, everything is allowed. I find that as a DM I can find nothing too overpowered for me not to be able to handle it in my game. :D
Loopy 08-01-03, 05:40 AM	Originally posted by Wolfwood2 I can't quite understand how a DM could ever enforce a ban on neutral player characters. I don't ban Neutral characters. I ban Chaotic Neutral characters. My players have used this alignment as an excuse to do whatever they damn well please far too often. I might reinstate it if they agree to use the Emotion Die (also known as the "blasted female" die in some circles). It's a D6 with different kinds of smiley faces on it. This might be a good way of determining the random nature of a Chaotic Neutral character without the psychotic retardation that many players feel they have the right to exploit. I don't ban it because I'm a jerk, I ban it because it's disruptive. I enjoy a good joke at the table as much as the next guy, but when the disruption goes much deeper than a few minuites of game time, I gotta do something about it.
Count Arioch the 28th 08-01-03, 08:22 AM	Originally posted by Loopy I might reinstate it if they agree to use the Emotion Die (also known as the "blasted female" die in some circles). It's a D6 with different kinds of smiley faces on it. This might be a good way of determining the random nature of a Chaotic Neutral character without the psychotic retardation that many players feel they have the right to exploit. That's the exact wrong way to go about it. That is an encouragement of the problems you are facing with that alignment, not a fix. Chaotic neutral does NOT mean you act randomly! It means you look out for number 1. You will do what's best for yourself, and your family/companions/etc., but not for your country, or some God, or anything else. Now, you don't actively harm others, but if keeping yourself alive means harming others, you'll do it, and without remorse, although you might try to avoid unneeded cruelty, because that would eb chaotic evil. Diverting the river for a better harvest, even though the village downstream will suffer is chaotic neutral. Doing so, then going to that village, taking their food, and raping the women (Or men, if you prefer) is chaotic evil. Han Solo in episode 4 is a good example of what Chaotic neutral is supposed to be like.
laughing-dragon 08-01-03, 09:19 AM	quote: "Can't disagree with that. However i believe that is generally called kidnapping Isn't stopping someone who kidnapped the girl usually what the PC's are hired to put and end to?" Its called kidnapping in modern western society. Fortunately Klob~Ur doesn't live in the world of Urban Arcana. He lives in a psuedo-medieval version of the middle east, and I can assure you that the Khemetan town watch and the townspeople in general were happy to see the slatternly little trollup get what was coming to her! Klob~Ur was created in the sixth year of my campaign when I was experiencing a little burnout from running six years worth of weekly HEROIC fantasy games. I bought a module called THREE DAYS TO KILL by Penumbra press. Reading the back I saw it called for characters with a more mercenary mentality. I handed it to one of my long-term players and said "you are going to run this module." We called it the "mercenary game" and I relaxed all my heretofor strict restrictions about playing evil alignments. The mercenary game was wide open: play whatever you want. We got a cleric dedicated to Nihilel, the archangel of death, we got a black skinned "africanesque" sorcerer, an orcish fighter... and Klob~Ur. Klob~Ur is totally unpredictable. He frowns on the use of alchohol, but smokes scorpion venom. He will be your best pal but if you cross him, he is likely to knock your teeth out, and he certainly didn't have any qualms about taking the girl. Fact is, I think she kinda liked it.
laughing-dragon 08-01-03, 09:25 AM	My thread about Klob~Ur is located here: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52991
laughing-dragon 08-01-03, 09:43 AM	quote: "While I do not ban paladins, I watch them closest of all. Religious zealots always get close scrutiny by me. If they start to perform certain actions, the character instantly dies and the player must make a new one. I have no tolerance for fundies." Sounds to me like your letting a little of your own personal baggage affect your gaming. "I watch them closest of all, and kill them instantly if they perform certain actions"?!!!! What the heck is that about? What sorts of actions are you refering to? Personally I'm no fundamentalist. (mystic Christian here), but why discriminate against them, especially if they are a CHARACTER IN THE GAME! This amounts to discriminating against the player of course, and doesn't make you much better than the zealots you so intensely dislike.
Godeskian 08-01-03, 12:56 PM	Its called kidnapping in modern western society. Actually, it's called kidnapping in D&D too there is a reason that 'save the damsel in distress' is such a popular motif for games. However if no one is particularly distressed by her kidnapping then that's fine.
Snommelp 08-01-03, 01:07 PM	Dragon, I think (s)he's referring to those paladins who detect evil everywhere , and attempt to smite every evil person they find. I reread the paladin's code in the PHB last night (I was bored and my library book hasn't come in yet). Nowhere does it say that the paladin must destroy evil. It says a paladin must "act with honor..., help those who need help..., and punish those that harm or threaten innocents." I realize that there's been some bad incidents with ellipses (...) on these boards, so I'd just like to let you know that the ellipses I put in only cut out clarifying text (i.e. after act with honor: don't use poison).
Dungeon_Master 08-01-03, 01:52 PM	Originally posted by Count Arioch the 28th Han Solo in episode 4 is a good example of what Chaotic neutral is supposed to be like. I agree. For me, CN is "Look out for #1".
laughing-dragon 08-01-03, 02:30 PM	quote: "Actually, it's called kidnapping in D&D too there is a reason that 'save the damsel in distress' is such a popular motif for games. However if no one is particularly distressed by her kidnapping then that's fine." I guess you can call it whatever you want, but given the culture Klob~Ur operates in, where women, especially lower caste women are considered chatel, I don't think the modern idea of "kidnapping" applies. "damsel in distress" may be a popular motif for fantasy role playing, but its also incredibly tired, hackneyed, stereotypical, overdone, trite, and thus boring. There is a reason that DUNGEON magazine won't accept submissions with this theme or the "go get the evil wizard in his tower" theme. They are incredibly passe. In addition, given "mercenary" theme of this campaign, it wouldn't matter if anyone WAS "particularly distressed". Klob~Ur and his friend Mahesh also recruited henchmen by addicting a bunch of local youngsters to scorpion tail and refusing to give them their "fix" until they performed whatever tasks we required of them. In the modern world, this is called "contributing to the delinquincy of a minor." Again, call it what you will, but it didn't stop the CN Klob~Ur and his NE friend Mahesh from doing what it took to get our way.
laughing-dragon 08-01-03, 02:33 PM	oh, and in addition the "damsel in distress" theme is sexist. At least as sexist as my sexist barbarian.
laughing-dragon 08-01-03, 02:35 PM	Jack Sparrow from the Pirates of the Carribean movie would also be chaotic neutral. Disallowing the CN alignment removes ALOT of good character possibilities from the game.
Snommelp 08-01-03, 03:22 PM	Yes, it does. However, when your group isn't going to be attempting to play CN as a viable alignment, it's best just to ban it. My group, for example, thinks CN is evil without the problems that go along with the evil label. If anyone in my group decided to play a CN character, that character would eventually stab every party member in the back because of his "random behavior."
devinmdp 08-01-03, 03:24 PM	Play dictates alignment, not the other way around. Tell your players what you think Chaotic Neutral means and then inform them that their alignment will be determined by their reactions. If they want to play their character as someone who does random off-the-wall things, then they are basically playing an insane person and, as they do destructive things, a Chaotic Evil person. Devin
Dash Branaghan 08-01-03, 03:24 PM	Originally posted by Dungeon_Master I agree. For me, CN is "Look out for #1". Chaotic Neutral has always struck me as the ultimate in hedonism, the "I do whatever pleases me, when I want to." Neutral Evil has always struck me as "Looking out for #1." If I'm looking out for myself, I will sell out my friends if it benefits me, backstab them for profit, betray, cheat, lie and swindle. I will keep them around me if it benefits me, but the moment it doesn't the tie is severed. That has always been my take on it. Chaotic Neutral just goes with the flow, does what it wants, and doesn't justify the decisions made, suffering from the consequences of actions after the fact or reaping benefits. What it comes down to for me is that NE is more concerned with benefits to the point that control will be exercised on decision making and the NE character may elect not to do something with an immediate benefit because of long term penalties, whereas the CN character will go for the immediate benefit despite the long term affects.
Loopy 08-01-03, 03:51 PM	Han Solo may be looking out for ol' #1, but he still always does what's right regardless of what his better judgement tells him. Han Solo is Good. Someone who does as they please for their own benefit is evil. If my players were to actually look up the defenition of Chaotic Neutral in the book, I might let them play it, but it ALWAYS comes back down to one thing: "It's okay if we put vice-grips on this guy's genitals while we interrogate him... it's not like we're GOOD or anything!"
Dash Branaghan 08-01-03, 05:04 PM	Originally posted by Loopy "It's okay if we put vice-grips on this guy's genitals while we interrogate him... it's not like we're GOOD or anything!" :rofl: That was too funny...and a great idea. Now where is my BOVD...must add this to the torture second.
Wolfwood2 08-01-03, 05:57 PM	Originally posted by Loopy Han Solo may be looking out for ol' #1, but he still always does what's right regardless of what his better judgement tells him. Han Solo is Good. Someone who does as they please for their own benefit is evil. If my players were to actually look up the defenition of Chaotic Neutral in the book, I might let them play it, but it ALWAYS comes back down to one thing: "It's okay if we put vice-grips on this guy's genitals while we interrogate him... it's not like we're GOOD or anything!" Torture would be evil. All you have to do is remind them that torture is evil. Refraining from torturing people, even when it would really benefit you to do so, is neutral. Going out and rescuing people who are being tortured, even when you hate their guts and it's at great personal risk to yourself, is good. Look at it it this way. Good is positive-acting morality. There are things you will do. You will help people if they look like they need it, even at risk to yourself. Neutrality is negative-acting morality. There are plenty of things you _won't_ do. You won't kill, you won't murder, you won't hurt people even when it would benefit you to do so. But you won't necessarily help them if doing so places you at risk. (If helping a person is easy and convenient, a neutral person may do it just because most people like to think of themselves as being good.) You look out for number one, but you don't intentionally hurt other people to do so. (Number one may or may not be yourself. A Lawful Neutral person's "number one" might well be an organization they are loyal to.) Evil people, of course, are perfectly willing to hurt others to get ahead. I disagree with the example Count Arioch gave earlier in the thread. Diverting a river to help yourself, at the expense of hurting people dowstream, is classic evil. It's not _as_ evil as going over there and raping and murdering the populance, but it's just a matter of degree. Still evil. I play a lot of neutral characters. Not because I don't like playing heroic chracters, but because I think being good is _really hard_. Not every character concept is going to be able to live up to being good. Most of my neutral characters are perfectly decent people who would never dream of hurting someone to get ahead. They just aren't so willing to place themselves in danger to help people without some benefit in doing so to themselves or people they care about. Charity starts at home and all that. But all of this is mere deviation from the point. I'm really curious about how exactly you ban alignments. I mean the mechanics, how it works in play. Obviously you can force people to write "Chaotic Good" at the top of their character sheet, but how do you enforce it once the character is actually being played? DM: I'm not sure you'd do that. You're chaotic good. PLAYER: Eh, I'm doing it anyway. I think it's what my PC would really want to do in that situation.
Octiron 08-01-03, 06:06 PM	I like CN, it indicates a sort of flawed character who hasn't really grown up yet. I always looked at it as the "child" alignment. There's a belief that children see themselves as the center of the universe. They may do "good" one day and "evil" the next, but rarely with the intention of doing so. They just go with the moment. I guess the "look out for #1" idea also fits in with that. As for what I ban, I never let anyone have psionics. It's too much trouble to allow for a whole other magic system to keep track of. I guess I would allow psionics, if it was one or the other (i.e. psionics and no magic).
NestroEmichae 08-01-03, 06:07 PM	I find it comical how several people on here assume everyone has the same moral system as them. Morality is like laws: It is subject to where you are and who you are with.
WhtKnt 08-01-03, 06:14 PM	All quotations are drawn from the System Resource Document (http://www.wizards.com/D20/article.asp?x=srd35) and are subject to the terms of the Open Gaming License (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/OGLv1.0a.rtf):Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.Pretty self-explanatory. Superman is perhaps the best known example of a lawful good character. He obeys the law, protects the innocent, and sees that the guilty are punished within the laws of the system. Qui-Gon Jin from Star Wars Episode I is also an example of a lawful good character.Neutral Good, “Benefactor”: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.Neutral good characters tend to strife for the greater good, but they aren't as concerned with how they go about it. If achieving the greater good means going against the laws of the land, then the neutral good character will do what is necessary to achieve his goal. The best example of a neutral good character that comes to mind is Obi-Wan Kenobi. Indiana Jones would also be considered neutral good.Chaotic Good, “Rebel”: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society. Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.Han Solo is chaotic good, as is Robin Hood. Chaotic good characters do not feel bound by the law to achieve their goals. Batman is an extreme example of a chaotic good character. He works with the law, but does not allow himself to be constrained by it.Lawful Neutral, “Judge”: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government. Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.A set of values is paramount for a lawful neutral character, whether his own or those of a society or organization. The best example is, quite naturally, Judge Dredd. He upholds the law, regardless of personal feelings. James Bond, who obeys the dictates of M.I. 6, is also lawful neutral. Arguably, most of the Imperial troops from Star Wars and lawful neutral. They don't necessarily hate the opposition, they're following orders.Neutral, “Undecided”: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.I actually view neutral as the toughest alignment to play, but I'll try to outline my viewpoint here. A neutral character is middle-of-the-road. She will not take an innocent life, but neither does she feel particularly compelled to save them. A character obsessed with vengeance on a particular enemy could be considered neutral. Nothing else matters, just avenging themselves against that foe.Chaotic Neutral, “Free Spirit”: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.I've heard some people say that the best example of a chaotic neutral character is an insane individual. This isn't true. Insane characters act without reason, but chaotic neutral characters act without predictability. Chaotic neutrals are very self-centered individuals who tend to see the world in relation to themselves. A chaotic neutral does what will benefit them the most. He may join a paladin on a holy quest, if there's something in it for him. He might be moved to kill an innocent, if he stands to achieve a personal goal in the process.Lawful Evil, “Dominator”:A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains. Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master. Lawful evil is sometimes called “diabolical,” because devils are the epitome of lawful evil. Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.Lawful evil individuals serve the greater cause of evil, but do so within a strict set of values. Batman's foe, Ra's al Ghul, is lawful evil. Darth Vader is also an example of a lawful evil character, serving the Emperor faithfully (until his epiphany). Interestingly, Anakin seems to have gone through several alignment shifts; from a neutral good lad in Episode I, to the chaotic neutral, self-centered individual of Episode II, to the lawful evil dictator in the earlier trilogy, to his final turn back to neutral good in Return of the Jedi.Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has. Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies. Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.Like it says above, neutral evil is pure evil without rhyme or reason. Nothing is sacred to the neutral evil character, who often delights in his own wickedness. The Emperor from Star Wars was neutral evil.Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him. Chaotic evil is sometimes called “demonic” because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil. Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.This truly is the most dangerous alignment. The chaotic evil lives simply to cause chaos by whatever means are available. The best example of a chaotic evil character I can think of is The Joker, from Batman. Anyway, that's my take on things.
devinmdp 08-01-03, 06:15 PM	"I find it comical how several people on here assume everyone has the same moral system as them. Morality is like laws: It is subject to where you are and who you are with." If you are going to have alignments in a game you HAVE to have an absolute moral system. Othwerise, everyone is basically good. Few people in real life wake up in the morning, twirl their waxed mustache, and say "today I am going to be REALLY REALLY evil...ha..ha...ha!" Almost every person we regard as evil in the real world did not think of himself like that. Many in fact considered themselves good. The saying "The road to he*ll is paved with good intentions" is apt here. Devin
Dungeon_Master 08-01-03, 06:24 PM	Originally posted by laughing-dragon oh, and in addition the "damsel in distress" theme is sexist. Care to explain this veiw? I'd just like to hear why you feel this way. It's not saying all women are incapable of defending themselves. Keep in mind, though, most classic damsels are nobles, who, unfortunately, tend to be either spoiled brats or people with no training in combat whatsoever (though I think princess Fiona in Shrek proved that wrong sometimes ;) ).
Dungeon_Master 08-01-03, 06:25 PM	Originally posted by devinmdp [BIf you are going to have alignments in a game you HAVE to have an absolute moral system. Othwerise, everyone is basically good. Few people in real life wake up in the morning, twirl their waxed mustache, and say "today I am going to be REALLY REALLY evil...ha..ha...ha!" [/B] Some of us do when we've had a REALLY bad day the day before.... ;)
Wolfwood2 08-01-03, 06:40 PM	Originally posted by WhtKnt I've heard some people say that the best example of a chaotic neutral character is an insane individual. This isn't true. Insane characters act without reason, but chaotic neutral characters act without predictability. Chaotic neutrals are very self-centered individuals who tend to see the world in relation to themselves. A chaotic neutral does what will benefit them the most. He may join a paladin on a holy quest, if there's something in it for him. He might be moved to kill an innocent, if he stands to achieve a personal goal in the process. Here's where my disagreement comes in. No, a chaotic neutral character will _not_ kill an innocent just because it benefits them. Or at least if they do, it's an evil act that is otherwise uncharacteristic of them. Killing an innocent to benefit yourself is an evil act. Morally neutral character do not normally committ evil acts. If you go around comitting evil acts, you are evil. Being chaotic is not an excuse. The heart of the problem people here are having with the chaotic neutral alignment is that some players seem to think it makes evil acts "okay". "I'm not evil, and just doing evil things because it benefits me!" I don't have any problem with the helping a paladin example, because helping a paladin only because it benefits yourself is not a good act. Being good is tough.
ruindar 08-01-03, 06:40 PM	Alighnments really only seem to effect certain classes like monks , clerics , paladins etc. Therefore ban them if you are not going to play in alignments for everyone. I think that you should try and play them in its one factor to consider when designing a charcter. It can give you some ideas on how to role-play. Surely the game isnt just about rules its about morale issues as well. Yes there are grey areas in life thats what makes it fun.
NestroEmichae 08-01-03, 06:54 PM	Originally posted by devinmdp "I find it comical how several people on here assume everyone has the same moral system as them. Morality is like laws: It is subject to where you are and who you are with." If you are going to have alignments in a game you HAVE to have an absolute moral system. Othwerise, everyone is basically good. Few people in real life wake up in the morning, twirl their waxed mustache, and say "today I am going to be REALLY REALLY evil...ha..ha...ha!" Almost every person we regard as evil in the real world did not think of himself like that. Many in fact considered themselves good. The saying "The road to he*ll is paved with good intentions" is apt here. Devin Actually, you misinterpreted the quote. It refers to people who set out to do what they think is right and have it turn out to be wrong. Like missionaries: Most of them are good people, but what they are doing can be considered evil acts. I find good and evil are subjective to the situation. An evil person can save the lives of thousands of people and remain evil, while a good person can destroy an entire world and remain good. The acts are inherently good and evil respectively, and yet they have the opposite effect. Think about it and you can see how that is true. Now, take me. I honestly don't care if most people would drop dead tomorrow. It's not that I'm evil, just that I'm apathetic. Apathy is not inherently evil, and neither is much of what DnD considers evil. When you start throwing logic and common sense into it, the entire alignment system collapses.
devinmdp 08-01-03, 06:58 PM	"Now, take me. I honestly don't care if most people would drop dead tomorrow. It's not that I'm evil, just that I'm apathetic. Apathy is not inherently evil, and neither is much of what DnD considers evil. When you start throwing logic and common sense into it, the entire alignment system collapses." I'm actually not arguing whether the alignment system is a good or bad thing or a realistic or unrealistic thing. All I am saying is that if you want to use the alignment system then you must have an absolute scale of good and evil. Devin
NestroEmichae 08-01-03, 07:04 PM	Originally posted by devinmdp "Now, take me. I honestly don't care if most people would drop dead tomorrow. It's not that I'm evil, just that I'm apathetic. Apathy is not inherently evil, and neither is much of what DnD considers evil. When you start throwing logic and common sense into it, the entire alignment system collapses." I'm actually not arguing whether the alignment system is a good or bad thing or a realistic or unrealistic thing. All I am saying is that if you want to use the alignment system then you must have an absolute scale of good and evil. Devin Ah, you have fallen into the same hole that some of my friends do. There are no absolutes in good or evil. There are cases where murder is a good act and saving a life is an evil one. And they are supposedly inherently the opposite. I've made it a point to study evil long and hard, and all I've found listen for the absolutes is a bunch of misconceptions, lies, and flat-out ignorance. And it only took me five years to discover that.
Dash Branaghan 08-01-03, 07:08 PM	Nestro, it seems that you are a cultural/social relativist like myself. Or am I wrong?
NestroEmichae 08-01-03, 07:19 PM	Originally posted by Dash Branaghan Nestro, it seems that you are a cultural/social relativist like myself. Or am I wrong? You are not wrong. I study humanity as a whole in an attempt to understand myself. I've learned that all cultural views are required to understand anything. I have a feeling we are the same in that way, even if we did get off on the wrong foot in one topic.
devinmdp 08-01-03, 07:19 PM	"Ah, you have fallen into the same hole that some of my friends do. There are no absolutes in good or evil. There are cases where murder is a good act and saving a life is an evil one. And they are supposedly inherently the opposite. I've made it a point to study evil long and hard, and all I've found listen for the absolutes is a bunch of misconceptions, lies, and flat-out ignorance. And it only took me five years to discover that." Nestro, I am not going to argue whether relativism is applicable to the real world. That is a major philisophical debate that would be outside the scope of this forum. However, in the D&D world, you have a final arbiter of good and evil. Either a supreme ruling god (like Ao in Faerun) or, even more authoritatively, the DM. Since in D&D you can have an absolute authority, you can have absolute good and evil and absolute alignments. I can fully relate to your ambivalence. In my campaign alignments are very loosy-goosy and I don't slavishly stick to them, so I am on the same page as you with regard to preference. Nonetheless, whereas in real life we don't have a tangible Ao or DM to dictate good from evil, in the D&D world this can be present. Devin
NestroEmichae 08-01-03, 07:36 PM	Originally posted by devinmdp "Ah, you have fallen into the same hole that some of my friends do. There are no absolutes in good or evil. There are cases where murder is a good act and saving a life is an evil one. And they are supposedly inherently the opposite. I've made it a point to study evil long and hard, and all I've found listen for the absolutes is a bunch of misconceptions, lies, and flat-out ignorance. And it only took me five years to discover that." Nestro, I am not going to argue whether relativism is applicable to the real world. That is a major philisophical debate that would be outside the scope of this forum. However, in the D&D world, you have a final arbiter of good and evil. Either a supreme ruling god (like Ao in Faerun) or, even more authoritatively, the DM. Since in D&D you can have an absolute authority, you can have absolute good and evil and absolute alignments. I can fully relate to your ambivalence. In my campaign alignments are very loosy-goosy and I don't slavishly stick to them, so I am on the same page as you with regard to preference. Nonetheless, whereas in real life we don't have a tangible Ao or DM to dictate good from evil, in the D&D world this can be present. Devin That post I cannot argue with, as it brings in the one thing that no one can argue against: The DM.
Nadokla 08-01-03, 09:26 PM	We have some things that are banned, some that are limited, and some that are discouraged. Here are a few. I am likely forgetting something. Banned: Evil PCs - We had one and it just was NOT working out well for party cohesion. Why waste everyone's time with squabbles. This game is supposed to be played to have fun. Psionics - had one last campaign and don't want to deal with it anymore. Paladins - I have yet to see anyone play one and fit in with the rest of the group. Not saying it can't be done by someone, but not by the players in our group, unless everyone were to play LG alignments. Limited: We allow some magic items to be available for purchase, but most are low level (many potions and some low level scrolls are often available). Any other magic may or may not be available depending on the size of the city or where else you may look. Hey, if you can go sell an item to someone, shouldn't they have other items available that someone else sold? Even then, there are a small number of items available and there is a list of what is out there and where. It is updated every so often, adding and subtracting items. If it isn't on the list, it is NOT available to buy. You can't just pick any magic item and go buy it at the corner store. Discouraged: Actions against others in the party. Certain players are discouraged from playing certain classes. When a player wants to play a spellcaster, but never has a clue what spells they have or how to use them, don't play a spellcaster. We had a player that we discouraged from playing a cleric. He always wanted to play a cleric, but got WAY too caught up in the alignment and religious aspects rather than playing his character. We actually now have an NPC cleric in our group and we rotate and take turns playing the extra character each adventure. So far, it is working okay. We designed him as slightly neurotic so as to explain why he may act differently dependent on who is controlling him. Leadership feat - too many extra NPCs to worry about
Dungeon_Master 08-01-03, 10:56 PM	I think it's an evil act to go around intimidating and bullying the weak and downtrodden. That's probably from years of being the "uncool kid", though. Anyone who has to bully someone else to feel good or to try and impress someone has problems, I think. :mad:
NestroEmichae 08-01-03, 11:08 PM	Originally posted by Dungeon_Master I think it's an evil act to go around intimidating and bullying the weak and downtrodden. That's probably from years of being the "uncool kid", though. Anyone who has to bully someone else to feel good or to try and impress someone has problems, I think. :mad: Actually, in high school I was the kid who bullied the bullies. If they picked on one of my friends or someone I did not dislike, I picked on them. They honestly thought I was demon-spawn and were afraid to mess with me because I might infest their houses with half of the legions of Hell. Being an albino has its advantages.
Dungeon_Master 08-02-03, 12:31 AM	Originally posted by NestroEmichae Actually, in high school I was the kid who bullied the bullies. If they picked on one of my friends or someone I did not dislike, I picked on them. They honestly thought I was demon-spawn and were afraid to mess with me because I might infest their houses with half of the legions of Hell. Being an albino has its advantages. lol, now bullying the bullies is something I have no problem with (as long as it ends when they quit ;) ). Kind of like the special forces: Terrorize the terrorists :D . That, and isn't D&D about saving the downtrodden from oppressors? :)
Loopy 08-02-03, 09:49 AM	I'm gonna make a thread that hopefuly the WotC dudes will help us with. This argument just has got to be settled.
laughing-dragon 08-02-03, 12:07 PM	quote: "We had a player that we discouraged from playing a cleric. He always wanted to play a cleric, but got WAY too caught up in the alignment and religious aspects rather than playing his character. We actually now have an NPC cleric in our group and we rotate and take turns playing the extra character each adventure. So far, it is working okay. We designed him as slightly neurotic so as to explain why he may act differently dependent on who is controlling him." This seems to be a bit of a contradiction for me, could you explain further. It seems to me that if a player wants to play a certain class, and its a necessary class for your game, you should let him! Everybody has to learn. In addition, it seems very strange that you would say a cleric figure is way to caught up in alignment and religion. Aren't alignment and religion like bread and water to clerics. How can one play a cleric that is TOO caught up in religion??! The Gods grant spells to clerical adventurers PRECISELY because they are ZEALOTS! Remember, the Gods have a multitude of everyday worshippers, but only those with a very fervent and abiding faith are ever going to earn the title of clerics and be given the magical powers of a god. It sounds to me like you would be better off giving the cleric back to the guy that WANTED to play him ( and seemed to be playing him right on from your description) and getting rid of the neurotic NPC with no personality and who seems to wishy washy to ever be given the benefits of clerical office in the first place. Clerics are one of the coolest classes in the game if you can find a personality willing to play one correctly. Too often they are used as some mobile medical unit for an adventuring party with nary a thought given as to how they might not be furthering the actual goals of their diety.
NestroEmichae 08-02-03, 12:12 PM	Laughing Dragon- To get an idea of how that is possible, you need only talk to two people. Go talk to a moderate Christian, and then a Bible-thumper. You'll then understand how it is possible to take religion and alignment too far.
Nadokla 08-02-03, 01:04 PM	Originally posted by laughing-dragon quote: "We had a player that we discouraged from playing a cleric. He always wanted to play a cleric, but got WAY too caught up in the alignment and religious aspects rather than playing his character. We actually now have an NPC cleric in our group and we rotate and take turns playing the extra character each adventure. So far, it is working okay. We designed him as slightly neurotic so as to explain why he may act differently dependent on who is controlling him." This seems to be a bit of a contradiction for me, could you explain further. It seems to me that if a player wants to play a certain class, and its a necessary class for your game, you should let him! Everybody has to learn. In addition, it seems very strange that you would say a cleric figure is way to caught up in alignment and religion. Aren't alignment and religion like bread and water to clerics. How can one play a cleric that is TOO caught up in religion??! The Gods grant spells to clerical adventurers PRECISELY because they are ZEALOTS! Remember, the Gods have a multitude of everyday worshippers, but only those with a very fervent and abiding faith are ever going to earn the title of clerics and be given the magical powers of a god. It sounds to me like you would be better off giving the cleric back to the guy that WANTED to play him ( and seemed to be playing him right on from your description) and getting rid of the neurotic NPC with no personality and who seems to wishy washy to ever be given the benefits of clerical office in the first place. Clerics are one of the coolest classes in the game if you can find a personality willing to play one correctly. Too often they are used as some mobile medical unit for an adventuring party with nary a thought given as to how they might not be furthering the actual goals of their diety. You ask how someone can be too caught up in alignment or religion? How about when it starts to interfere with actual game play. Or actually developing the character on your own. Rather than developing a character, too often it was a situation of asking the DM, "what does my diety want me to do in this situation?". "How does my deity feel about this?" "How does my diety feel about that?" It starts to put the responsibility of the character's actions on the DM instead of the player playing the character and developing the character. And, if you are willing to do that, it now means the DM has to spend time more time determining every action that the deity desires. That steals time and effort away from the other characters. As you yourself said, "Clerics are one of the coolest classes in the game if you can find a personality willing to play one correctly". Obviously, we may have different ideas about playing correctly. To me, playing correctly means helping the party and helping promote the enjoyment of all the rest of the people playing before fulfilling the demands of some non-existent, fantasy deity. This player has played clerics on two other campaigns with us. The last time, he was worshiping an evil death goddess. His character just was not fitting in and benefitting the party as we felt it should be. And, he was getting a little too into the death thing at times. It was kind of creepy and, knowing his personality, definitely not the best situation for him to be dwelling on that death aspect. He tended to spend a lot of non-game time pondering and dwelling on the character and his ethos, and spending time dwelling on death is not a good thing for him. When he once explained the whole background of his character (including kidnapping, killing, and experimenting on humans), it sent a shudder down my spine. And, he wasn't banned from playing a cleric, we just strongly urged him to play something else. He is playing a rogue now, and is playing it well. And, I don't believe every cleric has to be a zealot. When you read fantasy novels, how many clerics are actively trying to always recruit others to their religion? Not many. They are usually truly devout and thank their deity often when they survive a tough situation. But, most aren't zealots. In fact, in fantasy novels, there have been a number of clerics that are doubting and unsure in their religion. Adon in the Avatar Trilogy and Avelyn in the Demon Wars saga come quickly to mind.
Nadokla 08-02-03, 01:05 PM	I forgot to mention in the previous reply, that said player has been playing D&D for around 20 years. So, he is not a new player to the game.
Flak 08-02-03, 01:25 PM	Okay, on the whole clerics playing zealots thing, I'd like to share my view on it--In most fantasy situations, almost everyone is a follower of the pantheon, praying to different deities as they need something from them. These people are not granted spells by the deities. Priests are, due to the fact that they venerate one power over all others. They would want to remain completely faithful to that deity, since that is the source of their power. Rather than discouraging being sure of what said god would want, I would encourage the player to read up on the god, and not constantly ask the DM what to do. As for Nadokla's problem player, I must say that he doesn't even sound like a healing cleric--a death deity would be more likely to grant destructive spells. Also, you mentioned that clerics don't have to be zealots. This is true, but they must be pleasing their god, or they will not be granted spells. And you mentioned Adon--he was doubting during a time in which his god was seemingly not helping him. He actually first thought he must have done something wrong, not that his faith was wrong. He remained true to the faith, in that he still acted within the bounds of what was expected of priests of that faith. And, if you'll recall, he grew closer to his faith again with a little direct influence from his god.
laughing-dragon 08-02-03, 04:31 PM	quote: "Laughing Dragon- To get an idea of how that is possible, you need only talk to two people. Go talk to a moderate Christian, and then a Bible-thumper. You'll then understand how it is possible to take religion and alignment too far." I didn't say it wasn't possible for a real person to take alignment and religion too far. Clearly that happens in the real world every day. Why there are entire nations that have carried religion too far. My question was how is it possible for a cleric in the Dungeons and Dragons game to take religion too far. If Gods are going to hand magical powers to people they are going to hand them to the most fervent believers, not the moderates or the agnostics. Now that we have had some clarification about the example that prompted the discussion, I can see that the player in question would have been somewhat annoying with the constant "what does my diety think?" questions. I think I would have said "Heck, he's your God, what do YOU think he feels about it?"
NestroEmichae 08-02-03, 04:55 PM	Laughing-dragon- I usually assume clerics are real people. And even the clerics that are moderates do get powers. Or have you not noticed that little fact?
Mercury Glitch 08-02-03, 05:16 PM	I allow all things from the 3 core books, anything from the splat books, and essentially any book I have, currently the main ones I lack are (from straight up D&D/WotC/Non campagne books) Epic level the fighter/bard/monk splat books just so you know what I mean the books I have are PHB/ DMG / MM for 3.5 Monsters manual 2 savage species dieties and demigods manual of the planes the splat books for, wiz/sorcs/clerics/paladins/barbs/druids/rangers psionics handbook book of vile darkness (books I have that aren't like the rest) Forgotten realms forgotten realms faiths and pantheons ghostwalk campaign setting magic of faerun I allow the players to go to various websites but they have to let me approve anything first. The game is about fun, some people like customization, others don't, you don't make anyone unhappy by allowing those who do to do so, but if you limit them they aren't getting everything from the game. Some people like to go straight through with just the core books, this tends to get hard with epic games (no not epic level, just epic games) because eventually you will come across every creature you're going to come across, you'll know its weaknesses, and poof goes shock value. I don't mean to say you should never throw the same creatures at a party, but after your 10th attack from goblins you tend to get bored with them unless you've faced some other things. Note, by attack from I mean a good length battle not a brief skrimish in the middle of the night when you're on watch.
Kkat 08-02-03, 05:31 PM	I ban powergamers. I ban players who take min-maxing to a level beyond what I or my other players do. Period. I ban 3.5 material, save for a handful of things that I have typed up on my "allowed from 3.5" sheet. I only allow things from the non-core 3.0 sources (PHB, DMG, MM) after I have examined and approved them. Frankly, I approve 3rd party material more often than I approve WotC's material. --Kkat I do not ban characters who stat-dump Charisma... but most of my players are wise enough not to do that. They know it's asking for a world of hurt.
Dungeon_Master 08-02-03, 05:57 PM	Originally posted by Kkat --Kkat I do not ban characters who stat-dump Charisma... but most of my players are wise enough not to do that. They know it's asking for a world of hurt. Some of my group does that with alot of characters, simply because we enjoy playing gruff or low force-of-personality characters.
laughing-dragon 08-02-03, 06:25 PM	quote: "Laughing-dragon- I usually assume clerics are real people. And even the clerics that are moderates do get powers. Or have you not noticed that little fact?" Lol. I usually assume my PLAYERS are real people and that clerics are fictional characters. Yes, clerics should be MODELED after real people, but they exist in a fantasy world wherein only the fact that they are somewhat "larger than life" sets them apart from the commoner. You state that even clerics who are moderates do get powers. (maybe I just didn't notice that little fact) Clearly in your game its no problem for a cleric to be wishy-washy about his religion and still get powers. And in my world there would probably be any number of low level clerics who could be described as moderates. But the guys who can cast high powered spells are all "on fire for God". Otherwise, I can't picture any god in the established DnD pantheon or otherwise granting them powers. And THATS being realistic.
Kkat 08-02-03, 06:38 PM	Originally posted by Dungeon_Master Some of my group does that with alot of characters, simply because we enjoy playing gruff or low force-of-personality characters. There is a serious different between "gruff" and "low force-of-personality". The character who stands in the corner all dark and silent and ominous has a high Charisma. The character who stands there as people walk by and put "Kick-Me" signs on his back has a low Charisma. People who are gruff and intimidating, who are wombat-holes and can get away with it, have high Charisma. People who try to be gruff and are promptly turned to paste by people who "don't have to take that from the likes of you" have low Charisma. --Kkat
Wolfwood2 08-02-03, 07:09 PM	Originally posted by Kkat I ban powergamers. I ban players who take min-maxing to a level beyond what I or my other players do. Period. I do not ban characters who stat-dump Charisma... but most of my players are wise enough not to do that. They know it's asking for a world of hurt. That first bit would be uncomfortably vague to me. IF all the players got together and decided to take min-maxing to a level higher than you were previously comfortable with, would majority rule? On your second point... I recently played a character who had an 8 Charisma. However, he had taken pains to buy a great many ranks in Diplomacy and Intimidate to try to make up for his natural shortcomings. How would you have NPC's react to a character like that? On the one hand, he doesn't have great force of personality by nature. On the other hand, he has tried to train himself to overcome what nature did not give him.
Kkat 08-02-03, 08:03 PM	Originally posted by Wolfwood2 That first bit would be uncomfortably vague to me. IF all the players got together and decided to take min-maxing to a level higher than you were previously comfortable with, would majority rule? No. But if an entire group wants a different level of min-maxing, they should have no trouble choosing one of themselves as a DM. Assuming this is a group of my friends, I'd even be willing to play a character in that game, if they wanted someone with my play-style involved. I'm not going to put all the time and effort required to be a good DM into a game I'm not comfortable with. On your second point... I recently played a character who had an 8 Charisma. However, he had taken pains to buy a great many ranks in Diplomacy and Intimidate to try to make up for his natural shortcomings. That is rather cool. http://www.geocities.com/edymnionii/KkatCool.txt You see, this is why I don't ban characters who stat-dump Charisma. There is plenty of room for really cool characters by people who understand that a low Charisma is a serious shortcoming. It's the people who stat-dump Charisma without a second thought, believing Charisma isn't important, who are in a load of hurt. --Kkat
NestroEmichae 08-02-03, 08:11 PM	Originally posted by laughing-dragon quote: "Laughing-dragon- I usually assume clerics are real people. And even the clerics that are moderates do get powers. Or have you not noticed that little fact?" Lol. I usually assume my PLAYERS are real people and that clerics are fictional characters. Yes, clerics should be MODELED after real people, but they exist in a fantasy world wherein only the fact that they are somewhat "larger than life" sets them apart from the commoner. You state that even clerics who are moderates do get powers. (maybe I just didn't notice that little fact) Clearly in your game its no problem for a cleric to be wishy-washy about his religion and still get powers. And in my world there would probably be any number of low level clerics who could be described as moderates. But the guys who can cast high powered spells are all "on fire for God". Otherwise, I can't picture any god in the established DnD pantheon or otherwise granting them powers. And THATS being realistic. I said moderates, not wishy-washy. You can be moderate and devout. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Mercury Glitch 08-02-03, 08:51 PM	There is a problem with cha that doesn't seem to have been struck upon quite yet. Delicate diplomacy with nobles who have found you tresspassing in their domain would require a check based on cha. So would intimidating the locals into leaving your party alone. Though the two are based on the same skill modifier, they certainly aren't the same thing. This is something me and my roommate have talked about for long hours yet can't find a truely satisfying way of settling it. Barbarians should be scary, but, does that mean they shouldn't be able to settle disputes? The way the default barb is built, he's a brute, but his only intelectual fault is illiteracy (considering the current president of the US this should not limit them ;) ). Charisma is the most over looked skill, it can be the difference between life and death if the player is smart, and it adds a lot of depth to the game if the DM and player choose to let it.
ruindar 08-03-03, 12:11 PM	Yes it is overlooked but that maybe because the skills it effects are roleplay based and some refs dont roll dice for bluff etc they roleplay it.
Epoh The Great 08-03-03, 02:26 PM	The only way someone can take a non-organization PC is if it is mentioned to me at the start of the campaign, and OKed then. For example, if someone wanted to be a dwarven defender, they would have to tell me before the campaign began (I usually allow 1-2 game sessions for people to warm up to their new characters). Organization PC the players have to be invited in or earned a place in (Harpers ect). Other then that I frown on evil alignments, and there is a list of PC that are banned outright. No races with more then +1 level adjustment (I've found from experience that they just don't work right). That's about it.
Dungeon_Master 08-03-03, 05:55 PM	Originally posted by Kkat The character who stands there as people walk by and put "Kick-Me" signs on his back has a low Charisma. That would be the catagory my current DM NPC party member falls under. He's a nerdy rouge, basically. Like me, only I dont tempt death on a daily basis.
Tzalice Minoladir 08-03-03, 06:54 PM	I dunno, I tend to be pretty easy going, but I do want my game to run smoothly and I'm rather sick of min/maxing I generally don't BAN, but I do have to revise a few things: psions--I don't have the PsHB, so I'm thinking that generally they won't appear in my game. If a PC wants a psion, they can check with me, I'll check over the PsHB and we'll see. They don't generally fit the flavor of my campaign, so I prolly wouldn't let one at this time. monks--again, they don't really fit the flavor of my campaign. I go european, If I wanted monk, I'd play OA. Plus they just are TOO powered. too frontloaded. No class needs all good saves and while they must remain lawful to progress in the class, they don't lose any abilities if they become chaotic. Moreover, any PC who wants to play a monk would have to write up their code. I don't believe I'd allow an evil PC (I DM Ravenloft, evil doesn't stay PC for long). They'd need a damn good reason and backstory to play an evil PC. I DO ban level dipping. You know rgr 1/mnk 5/pal 1/prc 2/prc 3/prc 2/something 6. THat's just blatant min/maxing. I demand roleplaying, I don't do hack and slash. I don't ban anything, I may make some spells less available, but they can be used (I may make wish/miracle purely NPC magic *shrug* we'll see.) a few changes I might institute--sorcerers have a smaller selection of spells. Learn spells randomly. or are wild mages. I'm not sure which one I want, but the magic is just more random, they shouldn't have better spontaneous casting than wizards who devote their lives to the study of magic. prcs/non core spells/homebrew races/et al must be approved by me and I'll test it AGAINST the party before the PC can take it. If you set up that rule in advance, you don't get quite as munchkinny things brought to you :) I allow ECL races as long as it's not more than half the starting LA of the party (I.E I had a group of lvl 5 pcs starting, they could be ecl races of under 3) Really I address things on a basis of when it arises.
Kkat 08-03-03, 07:41 PM	Originally posted by Tzalice Minoladir I dunno, I tend to be pretty easy going, but I do want my game to run smoothly and I'm rather sick of min/maxing Hear! Hear! :bow: http://www.geocities.com/edymnionii/KkatBigGrin.txt I generally don't BAN, but I do have to revise a few things: Ah! Same here. I have a few pages of rule revisions and homebrew rules that I pass out to my players at the beginning of a game. I go over any changes with them before implimenting them mid-game. I DO ban level dipping. You know rgr 1/mnk 5/pal 1/prc 2/prc 3/prc 2/something 6. THat's just blatant min/maxing. http://www.geocities.com/edymnionii/KkatSmile.txt I demand roleplaying, I don't do hack and slash. http://www.geocities.com/edymnionii/KkatLove.txt You are my hero(ine) for the day! (psst: I'm running an online RPG in the "Real D&D Adventures" forum. I have room for one more if you are interested!) Really I address things on a basis of when it arises. Best way, I've found. --Kkat Who is currently reviewing the Sacred Exorcist because a player is interested in it.
seandpconners@aol.com 08-06-03, 10:28 PM	Its been a fun thread lots of ideas thanks to everyone.
Dungeon_Master 08-06-03, 10:52 PM	Originally posted by seandpconners@aol.com Its been a fun thread lots of ideas thanks to everyone. Keep it going. *bumps thread shamelessly*
DrakathTheRatling 08-07-03, 06:51 AM	Maybe next campaign I will "ban" all shops and force PCs to use Craft skills to make what they need. Or ban the letter S from being uzed.
Graathus 08-07-03, 07:13 AM	I don't really ban but discourage. Non standard races - In my experiance people just want to play these as they think it will give them some great bonus over the others. If they can come up with a good reason for playing it and I think they will do it well then fair enough. True Neutral Alignment - Usually choosen by people that A) Don't want to be effected by good/evil or lawfull/chaos spells or B) People that don't undertand alignments and say true neutral is natures way/survival of the fittest and use it as an excuse to do what they want. Books I don't own - Unless I get a chance to borrow them. Not everything will fit straight into the campaign or be suitable. Buying a book and turning up the next game expecting me to allow it without even a glance isn't going to happen. Complaints/whinging about something being too difficult or unfair and then continueing to argue about it. The game world will suddenly be rewritten to make you happy, monsters will kill themselves rather than fight you, if your lost a city will just appear, gods will offer tribute just to keep you on side. This works suprisingly well against munchkins as well.
MissyDestruction 08-07-03, 07:32 AM	In some adventures and campaigns I just do not allow evil PC's. They screw up the character hooks, and my players always think an evil character just robs his fellow partymembers, steals and kills for fun and has low intelligence in being evil. Like a bunch of eight-year-olds pretending to be bad. Really annoying. I hardly ever allow munchkins. If a character is overpowered, he'll lose something. It doesn't matter if that is an item that is overpowering or his life so that he will lose a level when being brought back to life. Munchkins are a big nono. And some other occasional stuff... I am a mean DM. But my players all want to play and they regularly ask me to DM (I haven't had time lately since I had to graduate from grammar school). So I guess they don't mind my crazy, unfair moods as a DM
Arilou_skiff 08-07-03, 07:44 AM	I ban alignment descriptors on arcane spells. Oh, and the new FR cosmology.
Dungeon_Master 08-07-03, 12:17 PM	Originally posted by Arilou_skiff I ban alignment descriptors on arcane spells. Oh, and the new FR cosmology. Use the old Planescape idea? I still don't quite understand why they got rid of Sigil. It made it so much easier to send your characters to modern day quasi-reality earth, or bring M-16s into the campaign, or go test out the StarWars universe with your characters.......
OrigamiCommando 08-07-03, 12:40 PM	Originally posted by seandpconners@aol.com I was wondering do you ban any of the following and why Classes Races Alighnment spells Classes Monks outside of Oriental Adventures: This really needs no explanation that hasn't already been given does it? Paladin: I have, instead, made a class called The Chosen of (deities name here). That's not too Forgotten Realmsy is it? Assassin, Blackguard, Dragon Disciple, and any PrC from any splat or add-on books. If you wish to play a PrC out of a book published by Mongoose Publishing, I will review it, however. Races No half races: To open the field back up however, I have allowed the playing of Orcs, tweaked Kobolds, and my homebrew races. Alignment None banned but alignment is now decided based off motives and thoughts, not actions. Spells There's a handful. If it lets you jump planes, do anything with no save, or detect alignments, its gone.
Dungeon_Master 08-07-03, 01:18 PM	I've got a tweaked tallfellow halfling and winged elf I'm running as NPCs. The halfling is 5'6" medium sized, thanks to being a tallfellow, and the fact he's 1/8th elven. He is a rouge (soon to be rouge/ranger). I made him because I didn't want to have to use a hornblade just so my halfling could use a longsword one handed. I also didn't want to be "shorty". ;)
Epoh The Great 08-07-03, 01:25 PM	Just out of curiosity, all of you people who are banning monks, how many of you played in 2nd ed when the monk was not a class option. Personally (not meant to offend people in any way here) but it seem that viewing monks as an oriental adventures only class is kind of narrow minded. There were a lot of monks in Europe, and they spent a lot of time locked up in monasteries away from prying eyes. Who's to say that they were only contemplating religious ideas ect? Why couldn't they have been training to be masters of their own bodies? Even if it is a distant land that they come from, why limit the characters like that? I can see taking out certain presige classes, but limiting players from a core class just doesn't seem right ot me. I think that a lot of the banning of monks is discrimination based on 2nd edition opinion (it is like that with some of my players as well). I also see that as a main reason some people ban PC's (same thing in my group, 2nd ed players refuse to acknowlage PC's existance). Like I said, just my thoughts (but comments/questions are welcome).
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-07-03, 01:30 PM	There's a handful. If it lets you jump planes, do anything with no save, or detect alignments, its gone. Just wondering, does this include dimension door, Teleport and the like? Seeing as they use other planes.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-07-03, 01:51 PM	Originally posted by Epoh The Great Just out of curiosity, all of you people who are banning monks, how many of you played in 2nd ed when the monk was not a class option. Personally (not meant to offend people in any way here) but it seem that viewing monks as an oriental adventures only class is kind of narrow minded. There were a lot of monks in Europe, and they spent a lot of time locked up in monasteries away from prying eyes. Who's to say that they were only contemplating religious ideas ect? Why couldn't they have been training to be masters of their own bodies? Even if it is a distant land that they come from, why limit the characters like that? I can see taking out certain presige classes, but limiting players from a core class just doesn't seem right ot me. I think that a lot of the banning of monks is discrimination based on 2nd edition opinion (it is like that with some of my players as well). I also see that as a main reason some people ban PC's (same thing in my group, 2nd ed players refuse to acknowlage PC's existance). Like I said, just my thoughts (but comments/questions are welcome). I replaced the monk with a marshal artist. A mystic monk is decidedly oriental in flavor (and most of them weren't warriors either) while european monks were pencil pushers for the most part. The pally.... well to mention all my reasons for axing that walking diaster would start a flame war.
Nadokla 08-07-03, 05:21 PM	I can see where allowing or disallowing monks could depend on the flavor of your campaign. Though, I was also surprised that so many made the assumption that monks are necessarily oriental in flavor. I'm not arguing your right to ban them in your campaign. Hey, it's YOUR campaign, do as you wish. But, there are a few monks in fantasy literature that are not necessarily oriental in flavor. Danica, from Cleric's Quintet, and all the monks in Demon Wars come to mind. I can't recall all of Danica's background, so I am not sure where she came from. But, all the Abellican monks in Demon Wars are trained to be warriors. Granted, having the gemstone magic thrown in kind of throws an odd spin on it, but they are trained in the martial arts first and foremost.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-07-03, 09:56 PM	To clarify, I myself didn't ban monks because of Oriental flavor. I banned them because the Martial artists of Ere -- Calleni Hand and Fists -- are decidedly not spiritual. That and I hate the All good saves thing. Most of the Monk's stuff became feats. Looking back, its ironic that I banned the only core Oriental class in a setting that is Asian and a campaign that is inspired by anime.
Impulse 08-08-03, 01:15 AM	A european warrior monk is a cleric or paladin anyway
SirisC 08-08-03, 01:57 AM	Originally posted by Unholydragoon While I dissagree aboot 3.5 (at least, when I start a new campaign), is 1000% agree with this statement. The logic of a magic shop escapes me - it's just munchkinny, Forgetable Realmsish, CRAP A PC I DM for is planning on starting a magic shop, otherwise the only location you might, and I mean might, find a magic shop is in the city Union from ELH. (which is incedentally where he plans on having his shop)
laughing-dragon 08-11-03, 09:31 AM	quote: "I still don't quite understand why they got rid of Sigil. It made it so much easier to send your characters to modern day quasi-reality earth, or bring M-16s into the campaign, or go test out the StarWars universe with your characters." I'm afraid I don't really understand this one. I ran a Planescape game for about two years with Sigil as a homebase. I gave it a slightly steampunkish flavor, but still held close to the pseudo-medievalism that Planescape was built on. Never saw any M-16's or lightsabers though. I wouldn't have been able to forgive myself. My world still sticks with the Cosmology as presented in second edition planescape. Sigil is the center of the universe. Union does not exist. Which brings me to the ONE THING that is absolutely, positively, 100% BANNED in my game.........(Drumroll please) The EPIC LEVEL HANDBOOK and anything presented in it. That's right folks, laughing-dragon believes that if you want to play a superheroe rollplaying game .... go play champions! Now get that blasphemous book off my table, I need to draw on the battlemat.
laughing-dragon 08-11-03, 09:34 AM	Magic shops.... Never have had one in my game, although having watched the Harry Potter movies, I have to say that IF it were handled carefully it might could at a little flavor to a game. I would'nt stock the shop with anything too important or powerful though.
Snommelp 08-11-03, 11:54 AM	laughing-dragon, you may be interested in making magic shops the way I make them. The owner has small stuff like healing potions readily available up-front, but if you want something good then you have to wait for him to a) do a background check and b) make the magic item. That way, some rogue doesn't just waltz in and steal several vorpal weapons.
Ghost Bear Snow Owl 08-11-03, 04:53 PM	As far as banning goes, I don't ban much. We're still in 3.0 until we can finish the current section of the campaign. Then we'll upgrade. :r: I ban monster races that do not have: a) hands b) a means to communicate c) a means of locomotion that isn't a handicap to the rest of the group. I usually allow most of the moster races as long as there is a viable reason they would be with and work with the group. :r: I threw out the traditional Alignments a long time ago. I now just go off: Good, Evil, and Selfish. The Alignment descriptors in spells are also gone. :r: Psionics are out, not because they are Sci-Fi, but because I do not like the current incarnation of them. It's like watching the movie Willow and The Matrix slammed together. :r: Stupid monsters and BBEGs are BANNED! nowhere in my game are you going to find a monster that is wussed-out. BBEGs are to be feared and the battles to kill them should be like storming Normandy, not Greneda. Other than that I let most things in. If you wanna min/max in my game, go ahead, but it's not my fault if you only got XP for defeating monsters instead of the whole adventure. Powergaming is not a problem as long as you participate and interact with the story given.
king_of_evil007 08-11-03, 05:59 PM	I ban evil, because my players use it as a way to take out their out-of-game problems on other players. i.e. John and Ken get into an argument at the water cooler, while they're at work. Later that day, in D&D, John's evil mage being to fire Fireballs while we're fighting the BBEG. Joe: "Oops, sorry Ken! I just happened to kill your thief! Man, if it wasn't for the blast radius of Fireball. . .) Ken: :nonono: While I think the idea of having evil campaigns could be great (in moderation, of course) none of the players I've ever seen are mature enough for the alignment.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-11-03, 06:12 PM	That just holds with my banning being a jerk. PK IMC and you at the very least get no playtime the rest of the session. I have no tolerance for the stupid.
Nadokla 08-11-03, 11:31 PM	Our version of a magic shop is just that there will be a few items (usually low value items) available at wizards' guilds. Healing potions and the like can at times be purchased from churches. Just curious for those that ban magic shops. Where can the players sell items they discover but do not want or need? We assume that is where most items come from that end up being available for purchase. Well, at least items of more than minimal power. Guilds may scribe a few scrolls or brew a few potions themselves for resale, but would not be likely to go into business making major items just for resale. Those would have to have come from somewhere else.
Super Draco Whitewind 08-12-03, 12:26 AM	actually, in my world there are people into mass production of magic items. it has a big market, and there is demand. there are people who simply settle down one day, and begin to make items. afew battles here and there cover XP costs for them. ~Draco
Flak 08-12-03, 03:17 AM	Originally posted by Nadokla Just curious for those that ban magic shops. Where can the players sell items they discover but do not want or need? Private interests are the driving force of magic retail in many campaign settings--I use private collectors, shopkeepers (weapons are the best for shops to buy/sell magic), guilds, etc.
Simeon38X 08-12-03, 04:21 AM	Classes Actually I allow any class (as long as it isn't futuristic), I even have favored class listing loads of monsters. I use all the PHB, OA and PsiHB classe's. Races I use an alternative less-strict ECL system, so characters in my groups get intresting. Your average party in my group ends up like this... Ethereal Filcher Bard Abyssal Maw Fighter Uridezu Psychic Warrior Drider Psion Mercane Samurai Ulgurstasta Sorceror Alignment I ban nothing to do with alignment, but I do get rid of those 'always, ussuallys and oftens' you get with monsters, very liberal world you see. Spells Non at all, if I find a new spell its in my world.
Simeon38X 08-12-03, 05:03 AM	Now, for stuff that annoys me though... Players who change their alignment at will for no apparent reason. If your going to do that why didn't you role-play a scizophrenic!?. Players who want to destroy everything in sight, even if they happen to be of 'good' alignment. I allow any race/monster/class imaginable, but believe it or not my group are not power-players. The once I had this group which consisted of (the nice, normal players)... Cerebrilith Cleric Gibbering Mouther Psion Caller in Darkness Shugenja Psion-Killer Wizard Ultroloth Wu Jen Phthisic Barbarian Udoroot Monk You see we had two new players at the time, the guy who played Phthisic Barbarian and this other guy. Oh dear... He wanted to play an Astral Dreadnought Psychic Warrior, and I would of let him. But he asked if he could be ten levels higher than everyone else (despite the fact he had the most powerful monster hence he would of been behind everuone else!) and if that wasn't enough he asked if he could have full levels in the alienist PrC (despite the fact he didn't meet any of the requirements). I thought because he's new he wasn't aware of how it works, so I politely told him that that would over-powered, and told him his character could be a monster with one class level just like everyone else (different ECL system I made up see). Then he started going on about this crap that he wanted to be the leader, and the rest of the players had to as he says. I got defensive, he whinged about it, so I asked him to leave, so he stormed out. Oh well, perhaps power-playing is hereditry... :rolleyes:
Nerfix 08-12-03, 05:43 AM	Classes Edit:Actualy none. Races Elves-Extinct in my setting Dwarwes-Most species are extinct in my setting. Aligments None, but i have removed a quite bit of restrictions. Spells Be aware and beware my corrupted teleport spells!
Gilead 08-12-03, 07:34 AM	Originally posted by laughing-dragon quote: Which brings me to the ONE THING that is absolutely, positively, 100% BANNED in my game.........(Drumroll please) The EPIC LEVEL HANDBOOK and anything presented in it. That's right folks, laughing-dragon believes that if you want to play a superheroe rollplaying game .... go play champions! Now get that blasphemous book off my table, I need to draw on the battlemat. So because in my campaign the Pc's are required to awaken (and perhaps fight) the ancient god-dragons of the land in order to overthrow the BBEG, I'm some sort of munchkinny superhero game wannabe DM? Yeah [/B]that[/B] makes sense
Ghost Bear Snow Owl 08-12-03, 11:04 AM	Originally posted by laughing-dragon quote: Which brings me to the ONE THING that is absolutely, positively, 100% BANNED in my game.........(Drumroll please) The EPIC LEVEL HANDBOOK and anything presented in it. That's right folks, laughing-dragon believes that if you want to play a superheroe rollplaying game .... go play champions! Now get that blasphemous book off my table, I need to draw on the battlemat. I am so tired of ELH bashing. Please excuse this rant. :teach: The ELH is not a core book and therefore is not required for D&D play. It is an optional resouce to be used in the same way as the splat books, Dieties and Demigods, Manual of the Planes, etc... Superheroes are not made from the ELH. The ELH is there for DMs and PCs to extend play of thier favorite characters into the levels past 20. Some DMs craft elaborate campaigns that extend past 20 levels of game play and enjoy having this resource to continue on. For those who believe that Characters should be reitred at level 20, I accept that. That is your choice. You still cannot make Superman, The X-Men, or anyother superheroes from the ELH. The only thing you can make from the ELH is epic and fanstastic characters that can do what is seeming ly impossible such as the myths and legends that come from around the world (ie: Hercules, Paul Bunyon, Arthur Pendragon, etc....) Is this a perfect book? NO, but it is adequate to extend your characters into epic levels.
laughing-dragon 08-12-03, 11:59 AM	In theory I believe you are correct my friend. There is no real reason a character should HAVE to retire at level 20. However, at the gaming table I have yet to see ONE epic level character or campaign that started at first level and worked its way up to being an Epic game. Instead what we had the moment the Epic level handbook was released was thousands upon thousands of gamers who suddenly had 25th level characters. From descriptions I read these superheroes without tights had all the personality of a bowl of instant grits. I'm not saying a decent DM couldn't run a good epic level game, but when I have perused the epic level handbook boards I see munchkinism (not a term I use very often, but when the shoe fits....
SirisC 08-12-03, 01:09 PM	my group has adventured from lvl 1 into epic. (level 43 at the moment)
OrigamiCommando 08-12-03, 01:29 PM	Originally posted by Epoh The Great Just out of curiosity, all of you people who are banning monks, how many of you played in 2nd ed when the monk was not a class option. Personally (not meant to offend people in any way here) but it seem that viewing monks as an oriental adventures only class is kind of narrow minded. There were a lot of monks in Europe, and they spent a lot of time locked up in monasteries away from prying eyes. Who's to say that they were only contemplating religious ideas ect? Why couldn't they have been training to be masters of their own bodies? Even if it is a distant land that they come from, why limit the characters like that? I can see taking out certain presige classes, but limiting players from a core class just doesn't seem right ot me. I think that a lot of the banning of monks is discrimination based on 2nd edition opinion (it is like that with some of my players as well). I also see that as a main reason some people ban PC's (same thing in my group, 2nd ed players refuse to acknowlage PC's existance). Like I said, just my thoughts (but comments/questions are welcome). If elves aren't a class in my games then monks aren't a class outside of Oriental Adventures. Sorry, but as funny as it would be to have Friar Tuck walking up walls and kicking peaoples heads off, its just not for my games. You wanna play as a warrior monk, there is always the cleric. Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Just wondering, does this include dimension door, Teleport and the like? Seeing as they use other planes. Teleport, Dimension Door, Gate, and Plane Shift are covered by different artifacts and machines spread across the lands, from ancient times. They are high tech teleportation machines that the people of the world forgot how to use and any fan of sci-fi who plays in my game generally understands that immediately (out of character, of course).
laughing-dragon 08-12-03, 01:43 PM	quote: "my group has adventured from lvl 1 into epic. (level 43 at the moment" I didn't say it had not ever happened, only that it clearly is not normative. In addition I would have to add that any group that is at level 43 after a mere two years of third edition rules is either playing alot more than the seven hours per week that my group games, or they have opted for an extrodinarily fast rate of advancement. I started a new campaign four months ago, having just finished the 3e campaign that began the summer that edition was released. The characters, only two of which had survived from level 1, had reached level 20-21. I am not saying you did things wrong or that you should only do them my way. What I am saying is that at my table, I truly do want to create an "epic", and that means having characters struggle to finally hit the big time. By the time these characters were 20-th level, I had them locked in a psychological and physical struggle with duke Amon of Stygia. The same Duke Amon that a 43rd level character would have killed with one blow of his +10 Hackmaster. Epic stuff just won't wash at my table, it doesn't mean I think your lame if it washes in yours,
Argarnis 08-13-03, 07:49 AM	Just for the files: I have a party that starded as 1st level Pc´s (exapt those Joiners) and are now around 30th level. And you shall know what I told and tell my players: There Is Always Something Bigger Than You Are! And those who do not belive get smashed and wiped!:fight!:
Cahlius 08-13-03, 10:16 PM	Monks Magic Shops Evil PC's (in a good campaign)
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-13-03, 10:39 PM	Just to chip in, My epic game started at L6 and is now at 25. No munching involved.
Fanrat on the Lam 09-22-03, 07:19 PM	Rule 1: If the DM does not own a copy of the book, it is banned. Rule 2: If you do not like rule one donations are accepted, unless the book has the words "Ultimate" in the title. Other banned stuff Paladins, Monks, Most Prestige Classes, all races that cause me to figure out that ECL chart, annoying players, Cool Ranch Doritos
Dungeon_Master 09-22-03, 08:29 PM	Originally posted by Fanrat on the Lam annoying players, Cooler Ranch Doritos Do these have something to do with "WHERE ARE THE CHEETOS?!" :D
Donnavin Snowolf 09-22-03, 09:00 PM	Its not for everyone, but there is a way to non-orientalify the monk. Call him something similarily exclusive, like Fist-fighter or Strong Man. then... change the ability names. Stunning Blow = Heavy Hand Ki Strike = Inner Fire Leap of the Clouds = River Jumper Still Mind = Clear Headed Flurry of Blows = Scrapping Slow Fall = Wall Grab (just explain that now you dig your fingers into the wall to slow you down) Purity of Body = Heartiness Wholeness of Body = Quick Healer Diamond Body = Strong Stomach Abundant Step = (I never thought this fit anyways) Champion Sprint Diamond Soul = Thick Skin Quivering Palm = Gut Smasher Timeless Body = Greater Health Tongue of the Sun and Moon = (This never made sense either) Fighter Talk Empty Body = Spirit Walk Perfect Self = True Hero There, now it fits into most any campaign thats not at all oriental. I wouldn't say monks (now Fistfighters) live in monstaries, or have to be lawful. But those aren't really balance issue anyways. So you have a non-oriental monk. As a DM- I ban anything I don't like, plan and simple. Which changes from game to game. If the game is centered around an invading extra-planar force, then I'm not going to allow planar creatures because the gates are closed off by the invaders. If its a city of subterfuge and bribery, then let the planars come in. Its never been an issue though. *shrugs*
Loopy 09-22-03, 10:10 PM	Originally posted by Dungeon_Master Do these have something to do with "WHERE ARE THE CHEETOS?!" :D My Funyuns are stuck in the MACHINE!!!!
laughing-dragon 09-23-03, 08:52 AM	glad to see this folder finally revived. bump
GoodTeletubby 09-23-03, 09:07 AM	Originally posted by Fanrat on the Lam Rule 1: If the DM does not own a copy of the book, it is banned. ah, now that would be a problem for the group i'm playing in there goes the MM and DMG oh well
OrigamiCommando 09-23-03, 10:21 AM	Originally posted by Donnavin Snowolf Its not for everyone, but there is a way to non-orientalify the monk. Call him something similarily exclusive, like Fist-fighter or Strong Man. then... change the ability names. Stunning Blow = Heavy Hand Ki Strike = Inner Fire Leap of the Clouds = River Jumper Still Mind = Clear Headed Flurry of Blows = Scrapping Slow Fall = Wall Grab (just explain that now you dig your fingers into the wall to slow you down) Purity of Body = Heartiness Wholeness of Body = Quick Healer Diamond Body = Strong Stomach Abundant Step = (I never thought this fit anyways) Champion Sprint Diamond Soul = Thick Skin Quivering Palm = Gut Smasher Timeless Body = Greater Health Tongue of the Sun and Moon = (This never made sense either) Fighter Talk Empty Body = Spirit Walk Perfect Self = True Hero There, now it fits into most any campaign thats not at all oriental. I wouldn't say monks (now Fistfighters) live in monstaries, or have to be lawful. But those aren't really balance issue anyways. So you have a non-oriental monk. As a DM- I ban anything I don't like, plan and simple. Which changes from game to game. If the game is centered around an invading extra-planar force, then I'm not going to allow planar creatures because the gates are closed off by the invaders. If its a city of subterfuge and bribery, then let the planars come in. Its never been an issue though. *shrugs* I have a Martial Artist varient core class for the fighter. I certainly see the appeal for hand to hand combat, but I will not allow running 30mph, magic fists, or anything supernatural. All supernatural abilities are replaced by good ol'Ex fighting abilities, like Flat Palm Strike and Whirlwind Trip.