Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Fend 05-10-06, 05:07 AM	this threads about Where you draw the line in the sand on your PC's Freedom. ive only been at this for 5 years, but already i have some pet hates... Psions, Warlocks, Frenzied Berserkers, Alienists... And some more ill remember soon enough. Warlocks for the Fact every round they can hit pretty much anything bar an elder air elemental on a 2+. Can Turn that into a Cone Area of effect And can Alter that furthur to make people catch fire. Cast shatter at will. Turn into a swarm of Bats. Fly at will. Go invisible at will. See invisible creatures at will. and Do pretty much All sorts of Game Wrecking Situations At will. I dont allow Warlocks in my Campaigns because of the fact that although he is weak in combat - Im Not Dead Set about Killing my players in any Set order. I Dont like "killing players". I Just help them Assist suicide. anyone here who says Ranged Weapon them to death / Spell them to death / Charge them to Death obviously didnt Realise a warlocks got a Trick up his Sleeve for all these situations unless the enemy is Tooled up to counter each and every one of them. I Think a warlock is Way to powerful to be a PC and is Far better Suited to being an Ongoing Villain - who is more than powerful enough on his own to go head to head and best any other class one on one in a duel. Psions... =shudder= tho i like the idea of people running around pretending to be Jedis (Mind blade?) I think they have Ridiculous ACs At low levels (not even a goblin can hurt them) And Can Go Nova and deliver Devastateingly Ridiculous Advantages to the players Each and every combat (as they will no doubt limp away afterwards, rest, then clear out the next room of the dungeon) and unless im Dead set on killing them - I wont have them harried Constantly while Resting (Because This slows the Game down so much and gives them exp on a plate) Frenzied Berserkers Can simply just Potion heal up before theyre Rage Wears off. its Cheesy and Rediculous that they cannot be Removed from a Combat and only die when they win (or if the enemy is just "that" overwhelming you didnt intend them to survive anyway). Seriously, why is the class even offered to the players? If i made a villain who was a Frenzied Bersekers my players would be like "AHHHahAHAHAHahHAHGGHGHGggGGAAHah and run away - so why should i let "them" be one?) And alienists Worry me. What are yours?
Terraneaux 05-10-06, 05:31 AM	Don't mind psionics so much. Absolutely can't stand warlocks however. Their mechanics, their art, so much of it just rubs me the wrong way. I don't allow ur-priests in my games. I hate that class. For the most part no ninjas. I'm a pirate kind of guy. Other than that I'm generally okay with things.
Arakim 05-10-06, 05:44 AM	1# Was surrounded at low level by 3 Dire gaurds and almost left to die by the surviving rouge and monk. 2 other players were dead on the floor near by. 2# Fought in a Combat with 9 Ogers and only 9 hit points. 3# Lept into a Gelatinous Cube to Save a Team mate with only a silk rope around his waist. 4 Fell 150 Feet. Then Swam 200 Feet of DC 20 Swim checks. Then Climbed 60 Feet of DC 20 climb check Walls Over Boiling Lava on the elemental plain of Fire. 5#Had to be Ressusitated by the untrained Party ninja after leaving the elemental plain of fire. 6# looked a Bodak in the Eyes And Lived 7# Fought the Same Lich Drow... Three times before it was destroyed. 8# Poisoned By a Phase Spider 9# Took on Adult Green Dragon armed only with Wand of Lightening Bolt. It appears to me that you already own one of the most game-breaking classes there is; a Cleric. At medium or higher levels a Cleric could take a similarly equipped character from any other class. At high levels, not even a contest. Shall we talk Druid? Nah, too easy. That being said, I allow any base class that resides in the Core Books and the XPH. I allow the XPH because I DM a Psi game, and realize the weaknesses of the classes better than someone who has read reviews of said classes, or watched someone else play one in a game not their own. Anyone that allows wizards and Sorc's in their game shouldn't have that much of a problem with Psions and Wilders. I also allow the CP, because I found no class in the book as powerful as a Cleric or Druid. If there is a character in one of my games that is stealing the show, usually they have to deal with bounty hunters, assassins, and other undesirables. There isn't a core character (or psi) out there made by RAW that I couldn't challenge.
Brehon 05-10-06, 07:01 AM	With rare exception (i.e. Rainbow Servant), I allow everything. I am a compulsive consumer and pretty much buy every book that WOTC releases (with the exception of adventures). When I buy a book, I carefully examine the material in it and see if I think it will fit my game. Pretty much everything will with a minimum of effort. I then update my Allowable Classes and Allowable Prestige Classes lists, which are available to all of my players at any time. I want my players to try new things and if they manage to surprise me with some interesting and fun combo, good for them.
olshanski_home 05-10-06, 07:10 AM	I allow everything in the core rules. I am tempted to allow a few things from the "complete" series, but I have serious reservations about at least 1/4 of what I've read: I am not fond of the mechanics for warlock (too many touch attacks) I think frenzied berzerker is not an appropriate PC race (Party Killer) I think there are problems with master thrower I dislike the fluff of "spellthief"... an attack that steals spells, what?!
Zherog 05-10-06, 07:22 AM	I've never banned a class. I have, however, rewrritten prestige classes - but mostly because of their suckitude rather than their overpoweredness...
Dhavaer 05-10-06, 07:31 AM	Spellthieves and paladins. Spellthieves just because I don't like them. Paladins because I dislike the flavour.
Wargamer 05-10-06, 07:43 AM	Nothing, unless the Campaign didn't suit it. For example, my Oriental Campaign only allows the following: Bard. Fighter. Monk. Ninja. Ranger. Samurai. Shugenji. Wu-Jen. Those are the only classes available to the players. Prestige Classes will be consdiered as and when the need arises.
Senevri 05-10-06, 07:57 AM	I'm going to have to comment on this: this threads about Where you draw the line in the sand on your PC's Freedom. ive only been at this for 5 years, but already i have some pet hates... Psions, Warlocks, Frenzied Berserkers, Alienists... And some more ill remember soon enough. Alienists? Why? Frenzied berserkers: Agreed, but for different reasons. Warlocks for the Fact every round they can hit pretty much anything bar an elder air elemental on a 2+. Well, if Eldricht Blast is a touch attack (no books atm), sure they can. Then again, Wizards auto-hit with magic missiles, and Scorching Ray does a lot also. Combine with your-favorite-trick-of-swapping-damage-type, and it can do it to, practically anything except golems. Which get the acid arrows. Can Turn that into a Cone Area of effect And can Alter that furthur to make people catch fire. Meanwhile, Wizards and sorcerers are singing, "Anything you can do..." The unlimited uses/day is nice, for the first four to six levels or so. After that, it doesn't matter, as usually an encounter doesn't require more than three offensive castings, anyway. Cast shatter at will. Sounds like fun. ^_^ This can be strong on low levels, later on it doesn't matter as much - remeber, doesn't work on magical items. Turn into a swarm of Bats. Fly at will. Go invisible at will. See invisible creatures at will. and Do pretty much All sorts of Game Wrecking Situations At will. Wizards. Item crafting. Wands. Or just Sorc+ pure castings. Nothing new. I dont allow Warlocks in my Campaigns because of the fact that although he is weak in combat - Im Not Dead Set about Killing my players in any Set order. I Dont like "killing players". I Just help them Assist suicide. anyone here who says Ranged Weapon them to death / Spell them to death / Charge them to Death obviously didnt Realise a warlocks got a Trick up his Sleeve for all these situations unless the enemy is Tooled up to counter each and every one of them. All players, if they're smart, should be able to have some idea how to handle various situations. I Think a warlock is Way to powerful to be a PC and is Far better Suited to being an Ongoing Villain - who is more than powerful enough on his own to go head to head and best any other class one on one in a duel. ...You do realize what warlocks have are essentially an infinite use of really weak powers? mostly lv1-2, few lv 3-4. A sorcerer will eventually be able to cast lv4 and lower spells a minimum of.. 40 times a day, I think. That's 10 castings/encounter, on a 4-per-day track. Nothing new. Goblins? the 2-9 HP, 15 AC, +2 Atk ones? Psions... =shudder= tho i like the idea of people running around pretending to be Jedis (Mind blade?) I think they have Ridiculous ACs At low levels (not even a goblin can hurt them) Lv1... anything, really, with a bit of defensive focus, will easily have an AC of 20. Any self-respecting defensive minded wizard will have an AC of 23, minimum, from lv 3, if Alter Self isn't banned, in which case, they'll keep a Shield in reserve, for a minimum of 21. Presuming 100gp starting gold, LV1 any fighter type can have an AC of 18+dex tos start with. Tower shield gives the aforementioned 20 as base. Now, fighting defensively gives you +2 AC, even without ranks in Tumble. Meaning that a fighter 1 with 18 str, won't be hit with anything except a 20, and will hit the goblins on a 15. And Can Go Nova and deliver Devastateingly Ridiculous Advantages to the players Each and every combat (as they will no doubt limp away afterwards, rest, then clear out the next room of the dungeon) ...And whatever's in the next room will just kindly wait for whatever's to come? Yeah, right. As for Novas... Don't allow them to rest after every encounter, so that they'll learn to conserve PP. and unless im Dead set on killing them - I wont have them harried Constantly while Resting (Because This slows the Game down so much and gives them exp on a plate) True. This is something of a problem with pre-fabbed adventures - if you add challenges, they'll be higher level later on, and you'll need to up the challenges or they'll run through anything. One solution would be to start docking exp. since they aren't being _challenged_ with this tactic. Then save up on the EXP and drop something appropriately nasty on them. ^__^ Frenzied Berserkers Can simply just Potion heal up before theyre Rage Wears off. Ahh. Yes. I dislike FB:s because they ruin the fun for other players, most of the time. They're very powerful, too. I'd place them at LA+2, or so. But, they can't drink potions while frenzying. (Instead, have a druid cast a Regenerate x wounds spell on them, and... but, I digress.) Do note that the Frenzy lasts for a number of rounds usually <20. Just have the opponents run away/go elsewhere/temporarily disable... Also, an FB's AC is crap. Surround them with bunch of weak critters with reach weapons (troglodytes with longspears will do), and see them take zillions of attacks of opportunity. its Cheesy and Rediculous that they cannot be Removed from a Combat and only die when they win (or if the enemy is just "that" overwhelming you didnt intend them to survive anyway). Calm emotions, Hold person etc. Seriously, why is the class even offered to the players? If i made a villain who was a Frenzied Bersekers my players would be like "AHHHahAHAHAHahHAHGGHGHGggGGAAHah and run away - so why should i let "them" be one?) Well... Don't allow them on pre-fabbed adventures where you can't build appropriate challenges, really. Also, make all players agree to allowing an FB in the game. And alienists Worry me. What are yours? Well, for the reasons I've outlined above, I dislike FB:s. Also, casters are a bit trickier than simple melee'ers to run in general. I haven't experienced it, but I can see myself disliking shapeshifting specialists. But, what about the Alienists? I thought they're generally agreed to be a bit weak, as far as prestige classes go.
Toran_A_Sunder 05-10-06, 08:02 AM	I dislike disallowing classes or +0 LA races when I run, for two reasons. 1) I understand that my players have invested time and money in their characters, from writing them up, to purchasing the splat books or core books or whatever to get the info on these characters. I'd hate someone to tell me I cant use, well lets say Warlock in this case, because they think its overpowered and cant compensate accordingly, when I went out and spent 30 bucks on CA. and 2) I absolutely hate it when a DM says I cant play a class, regardless of their reasoning (i.e. flavor, the class is broken, they just dont like it, doesnt fit in their campaign, etc.) so I wouldn't tell my players that. The only time I ever tell a player "no" is when it comes to a PrC that just doesnt make any sense what-so-ever. For example: Me: you want to play a dwarven defender?? Player: Yeah! I think it'd be great! Me: ...but you're an elf. :uh-huh: Player: But my elf thinks he's a dwarf. Me: ..... :uh-huh: But thats me. Just my way of doing things.
Azezel 05-10-06, 08:40 AM	I dislike psionics - no, I mean I really dislike psionics. A lot. Then this happens. Player: Hm, maybe I'll play a Psion if [character] dies. Azezel: Okay. Serriously - I don't like psionics at all, not one little bit, but this guy does. Why should my thoughts on the subject limmit his enjoyment of the game? Also - chaps, warlocks aren't that bad, they look a lot more fierce than they really are.
Count Arioch the 28th 05-10-06, 08:53 AM	Generally, there's only a few classes that I don't allow players to take. However, usually I have an alternate version for them to take. For example, I don't let anyone take the CW samurai, I have an alternate version. (I use the OA samurai as a base, take out the ancestral daisho ability, take out Iaijutsu focus as a skill, and add the staredown abilities from the CW samurai, as I feel it's actually a neat ability.) Same with the CW swashbuckler, I'm working on a way to fold Duelist into the class, since that PrC is also crapola.
CzarGarrett 05-10-06, 09:10 AM	Very rarely have I ever had to ban a class from any game. And if I did so, it was due to socio-political background of the campaign world, rather than prefrence/dislike of certain classes. For example- in a post apocolyptic campaign world, there were no wizards. Why? Because becoming a wizard requires signficant years of teaching, and the world was currently still in upheaval with no wizards around to teach. In other campaign worlds, it was a super-urban type environment. So I removed the Barbarian and Druid, and required the Urban Ranger variant for Rangers. Unless I have a really good reason to do so, I won't ban any class.
Illion the Red 05-10-06, 09:12 AM	I haven't run into a problem with any of the base classes or prestiege classes so far and I don't outright ban anything from a book that I, personally, own. But, then again, I tend to only play with reasonable players in my games. I have yet to have a player decide to take an odd PrC just for the crunch. Then again, I do require a roleplaying reason for a change in a character's class and I usually require it well in advance. Mind you, this doesn't have to be a 46 page dissertation on the motivating factors for a change, but some in-game explanation of what's changing in the character's life/experience to cause the change. For instance: One of my players wanted their dwarven fighter to multiclass into cleric. He spent the next few sessions increasing his devotion to his god and when the downtime came, he spent the entire time in a temple to his god. His next level was in cleric and there were no continuity issues. In fact, it gave me the opportunity to integrate the change into the campaign with his first task as a cleric being the dedication of a new dwarven smith's forge to the big M. He completed the ceremony flawlessly (knowledge religion - nothing quite like rolling a 20 when you really want one..., a few spells, and good roleplaying) and the forge was truly blessed by his god, giving a +5 bonus on crafting rolls while using the forge to make dwarven arms and armor. (OK...straying a bit there) My basic point (and I really thought I had one) is that there is little need to ban anything outright in most campaigns - as long as everyone involved is reasonable. If someone is being unreasonable and are not willing to work cooperatively with myself (DM) or the other players, they are welcome to find another game - no hard feelings. Life is short and game sessions are rare enough that they should be enjoyable for everyone involved. If they aren't, then you are wasting your time and effort.
Pegasos989 05-10-06, 10:01 AM	Classes banned so far: -none -even more nothingless Player: "Whoa. I just realized that after the next level I could level as frenzied berserker. Cool!" DM: "Whoa! I just realized that after the next level villains could afford mirror of opposition! Cool!" Player: "Though when I think about it, frenzied berserker looks kind of dumb..." EDIT: Oh, I don't know anything about psionics and as that, I guess you could say that I ban them. Not so that my players would use them anyways.
Gemstone 05-10-06, 10:02 AM	Well, since a while, I've been trying to be more open (even thinking about allowing psionics) but that has nothing to do with this :) Any class outside the core, is something I want to look through before allowing. Other than that, well it's quite good to go
Nyaz 05-10-06, 10:28 AM	I allow all classes apart from homebrew PrCs (because they suck enormously and without exception). There is a reason for playtesting. As for the player who said that the Cleric was overpowered, I had a Bbn11 take out a minor drow matron Clr12 (CR 14) in 3 rounds. 'Nuff said. But it might have gone the other way. Depends on rolls, so the Cleric class is on par with all other classes.
celtredleg 05-10-06, 10:32 AM	No Psionics. Sometimes things that are counter to the current game. But maybe next time. Anything that will cause major inparty conflict. Like blackguard and Paladin in the same party.
Board_Rider 05-10-06, 10:32 AM	I allow all things WoTC. I DM using all things WoTC. I only follow three guidelines class/race wise: 1. Only one PrC can be taken at any given time and must be completed if another PrC is wanted. Base classes can be taken at the Players whim however multiclassing (if applicable) penalties will apply. 2. Most items/races/classes from one campaign setting does not carry over into another. So no Warforged Artificers in Forgotten Realms. 3. Nothing greater than an LA+2 race. This is never a problem as I begin at 2nd level. I don't run evil campaigns. Thats about it.
DarknessEternal 05-10-06, 10:41 AM	Paladins/Frenzied Berserkers/Blackguard - Any class that burdens the rest of the players, rather than the PC who took the class, should be banned. Psion - They're just heinously overpowered. Don't try to change my mind, you won't.
danielinthewolvesden 05-10-06, 10:52 AM	I ban Psionics as I don't like the concept. Also if you don't know the Psionic rules REALLY well, and watch the Psionic PC's carefully, those PC's can get away with murder. I wouldn't allow a FB, and I don't allow Evils except in an "Evil Campaign". Really, Fend- the Warlock if anything is underpowered compared to just about any other spellcasting class. Let one be played, and you'll see it.
Pegasos989 05-10-06, 11:08 AM	I allow all classes apart from homebrew PrCs (because they suck enormously and without exception). There is a reason for playtesting. As for the player who said that the Cleric was overpowered, I had a Bbn11 take out a minor drow matron Clr12 (CR 14) in 3 rounds. 'Nuff said. But it might have gone the other way. Depends on rolls, so the Cleric class is on par with all other classes. HOLY ****! NO! SHUT UP BEFORE THEY EAT YOU ALIVE!!! From my experiences of the forums, it is STRICTLY disallowed to say that clerics and druids would be on par with others or that the fighter is not underpowered. For some reason you haven't started a flamewar here yet, but be veeeeery quiet about that opinion or you'll destroy several threads by turning them on a debate about the power of Clerics and Druids.
bitnine 05-10-06, 11:09 AM	I don't have any hard and fast rules, but I might 'ban' stuff from time to time, I suppose. Mostly it's hypothetical, as I don't think I've had much of an occaison to put these to the test. Doesn't fit the campaign/setting. This includes certain things that just aren't present or things that would be problematic for the player. This includes: If we're making mid-level characters and I want to run an escape from the underdark as the opening chunk of the campaign (though I haven't spelled that out), that PrC that causes you to die if you go for three days without sunlight is out. Really, that's for the player's sake. Would be disruptive/not mesh. Okay, this adventure details the exploits of a group of mercenaries working for the city-state of Jolar, a LE power. You know all the other characters are neutral/evil. So why did you bring me an exalted paladin? This includes any personage that quite obviously would be left behind or fail to join the party (PC stamp on the forehead aside). Source I don't want to deal with. Yeah, part of that's the force of inertia. But sometimes when you bring me a thick 3rd party book with a complex spellcaster who uses some sort of alternate magic system, I just don't have the time to do the reading to check it out.
Sir Knight 05-10-06, 11:11 AM	I have two so far: Frenzied Berserker Radiant Servant of Pelor Frenzied Berserker is just TOO strong. I thought you guys were kidding and let one of my players use one for the campaign we're wrapping up and he trivials all encounters (at level 12 or so he solo'd in one round an Elder Fire Elemental). He can do EASILY 200+ points in one round. He's a Barbarian 6/Frenzied Berserker 8 at the moment and will be the last one I'll allow. Radiant Servant of Pelor is a favorite of mine. I really, REALLY like it. The problem is that it takes EVERY ability a Cleric gets (Spells and Turn Undead) and gives them full progression in addition to the impressive RSoP abilities. It really overpowers said character so we deemed it unusable. If they had tuned the spell progression down (+1 every other level or something) then it would be okay, but as written it's too much. I dislike rewriting classes. I would rather not use them until official eratta is publishes than to rework it. That's just how I am. As we play and see what else is unbalancing, more may be added to the list but so far those are the only two.
aotrscommander 05-10-06, 11:41 AM	Never had to ban a character class; of course, I'm usually the first one to buy the splat books (and usually there's only one player/DM in my group that follows suit). My players also are terribly conservative, and rarely take any PrCs or have any some strange racial combo (which suits me fine, as then I don't have to ban them). After seeing reports of Frenzied Bersekers on the boards, I have put that on the restricted list. I would allow one ONLY if the player took Righteous Wrath (from Exalted), and have short list of players that I would feel capable of playing an exalted character. My new campaign world has fortunately taken some two years or so to build (it might actually be three!) and the end is not in sight, so I have been able to add elements (like psionics) in at ground level that would not have fit easily into my older worlds. (I've even been able to expand the elements from three/four to nine, since the world is dealing with fresh monsters.) I have a list of classes and PrC available on said world (some are restricted by culture).
Kensan_Oni 05-10-06, 11:48 AM	... I'm so non-restrictive, that I've occasionally entertained letting players have full access to the classes from Wheel of Time and Jedi's... cause, like, why not? But I'm a radical, anyway. :'D
Fend 05-10-06, 12:01 PM	Alienists? Why? Suddenly having 1 person with the abilitity to control / communicate with things beyond the planes themselves throws me. It just doesnt fit for me. i like to save those Mysteries for a time when the players go Player 1 - "Ok weve Defeated the Draco lich. burned down his fortress. dug 100 feet underneath it to find his Phylactery - which just happens to be Fused into this Large Red Pulseing Crystal We Didnt Read deep Enough into the Liches Journal to Know much about" Player 2 - "what do you think it does?" Player 1 - "Meh. who cares. No phylactery. no Dracolich. No worries" Player 2 - *Shatters Crystal* Bubbling Vortex / Rip in the Fabric of Time opens up Un-named Entity - Nyuuurg... Squelch Player 1 and 2 - "WTF IS THAT?" Un-named Entity 2 - Nyurg? Player 1 - "Ahhh! hit it! hit it again!!" ... you get my point. Well, if Eldricht Blast is a touch attack (no books atm), sure they can. Then again, Wizards auto-hit with magic missiles, and Scorching Ray does a lot also. Combine with your-favorite-trick-of-swapping-damage-type, and it can do it to, practically anything except golems. Which get the acid arrows. Eldritch Blast is a touch attack. And he can do it unlimited times per day. and as he levels up. It Gets Stronger. Alone it could proove Crap. but throw it in with Everything else. invisibility, Fly, Turning That 1 Touch attack into a 60 Foot Area of Effect Dragons Breath Cone Every Round AND set people on fire AND wear armor AND Shatter their Weapons / Armor / what have you - AND all the other Kit and Kaboozal... Heres a story - Me : "The Green Dragon Whacks his Clenched Claw into his chest, Rears up and Roars at you" Player 1 : "We Brought you the Rangers Shin Bone as you asked" Me : "It Sniffs the Air then looks over your companions - "You Brang Others to my lair. That is punishable by Death Manling" Player 1 : "Oh... Crap. ok... er... um" Warlock : "Never fear! Warlock Here! - Having Trouble Overcoming High AC's? IM your man!. Do Dragons Pester you on the wing? IM "Still" Your Man! "Do" you Fear running out of spells before the end of a battle? HAHAHAHAH I NeveR run out! so Watch out DracoFeind! your End is Nigh" During the entire combat the Warlock didnt Miss once. The Dragon Ended up Cowering behind a stalagmite having a similar mental Breakdown as me. saying "make it stop! why wont it Stop!" the rest of the party just Formed a wall around the warlock as the dragon only had a line weapon and the cave was hard to manuver in. ...And whatever's in the next room will just kindly wait for whatever's to come? Yeah, right. As for Novas... Don't allow them to rest after every encounter, so that they'll learn to conserve PP. =sigh= Oh so what should they do instead? Band up the monsters in the room beyond that and Stack CR's till the PC's come back? then "alll" get Nova'd at once? True. See? you Agree with me! (snickers) But, they can't drink potions while frenzying. (Instead, have a druid cast a Regenerate x wounds spell on them, and... but, I digress.) Really? didnt know that... Do note that the Frenzy lasts for a number of rounds usually <20. Just have the opponents run away/go elsewhere/temporarily disable... Im Pretty sure the Frenzied Berseker will most likely Run Screaming after them and catch them (barbarian anyone?) and hack them to bloody iddy tiny ribbons... not to mention i dont fore see Every bad guy going "Ok. hes gone Rage. Run away!" (Said the Black Gaurd). Also, an FB's AC is crap. Surround them with bunch of weak critters with reach weapons (troglodytes with longspears will do), and see them take zillions of attacks of opportunity. Not if they all Die next round... But, what about the Alienists? I thought they're generally agreed to be a bit weak, as far as prestige classes go. See the Begining of this Page.
olshanski_home 05-10-06, 12:09 PM	Radiant Servant of Pelor is a favorite of mine. I really, REALLY like it. The problem is that it takes EVERY ability a Cleric gets (Spells and Turn Undead) and gives them full progression in addition to the impressive RSoP abilities. It really overpowers said character so we deemed it unusable. If they had tuned the spell progression down (+1 every other level or something) then it would be okay, but as written it's too much. Have you read all of the fine print for the Radiant Servant of Pelor class? I believe that RSoP has a d6 instead of d8 hit dice. I believe that the RSoP "abilities" to maximize healing and whatnot apply ONLY to the domain spells, not to any other healing spells you might have prepared, and certainly not to any spontaneous spells.. I believe there is a problem with the text that should be errata'd but will not... for some reason the RSoP gets tower shield proficiency and martial weapon proficiency, I think... there is certainly no flavor reason for the RSoP to gain those proficiencies... if you drop them, I think the class is very well balanced. Keep in mind this requires you to take both Sun and Healing domain... if you take any other domains, you are not getting the benefits of the class and you are getting a lower hit dice.
Ghenesh 05-10-06, 12:11 PM	No psionics (don't like the ridiculous points system) No Dervish (most ridiculous class ever... after Plumber of Mushroom Kingdom) No Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil (ridiculously... overpowered) No UR-Priest (ridiculous skills) No Frenzied Berserker (ridiculous... TK) Those PrCs just doesn't exist in my campaign. I will use only Core material + Complete Series.
Zherog 05-10-06, 12:15 PM	...the rest of the party just Formed a wall around the warlock as the dragon only had a line weapon and the cave was hard to manuver in. So... um... you know that line breath weapons continue on past the first target, right? One PC standing in front of the warlock wouldn't prevent the warlock from being breathed on by a dragon. Hell, 10 PCs standing in front of the warlock wouldn't prevent it. Also, why the hell did the dragon live in a cave where it couldn't move around? The warlock is fine; the problem is you don't know how to run a dragon.
revnk 05-10-06, 12:18 PM	I'd hate someone to tell me I cant use, well lets say Warlock in this case, because they think its overpowered and cant compensate accordingly, when I went out and spent 30 bucks on CA. and 2) I absolutely hate it when a DM says I cant play a class, regardless of their reasoning (i.e. flavor, the class is broken, they just dont like it, doesnt fit in their campaign, etc.) so I wouldn't tell my players that. To each his own, but many DMs (myself included) have a policy of not allowing classes or races if we don't own the book it's in. And many of us (myself included) allow, disallow, or modify races or classes based on the specific campaign world we're making for the players (and, frankly, for our own enjoyment as well, although the world is nothing without the players). I only mention this because a player who purchases a book in the expectation it will be allowed by a DM is taking a foolish gamble. Buy the book because you want it. Or buy the book after you've talked it over with your DM, even, and received some kind of approval of its contents. But don't buy the book because you assume that a DM is going to feel sorry for your expenditures and trouble and will cave to your whim because you dropped $30 or $40 on something (especially when he would have told you to save your money if you'd actually asked him about it). (On a personal note: I recently purchased some supplements that could be used in a friend's campaign I'm playing in. I've offered to make the materials available, and would love it if he used some of them--but I bought them because I wanted them and thought I might be able to use them sometime myself, not because I can presume to tell my friend how he runs his game. He decides he doesn't want to incorporate anything new, hey, it's his table.) My two cents, anyway.
Fend 05-10-06, 12:38 PM	The warlock is fine; the problem is you don't know how to run a dragon. The Line went through the parties hexblade. Hit the warlock who critically succeded his reflex and i alowed a complete dodge. but even if it did hit him - it wouldnt have killed him. He had shape breath. i Used the line to "hit" him given his distance and the cone wouldnt reach. and i nerfed them with the cone once. and hit the warlock that time too. but he still didnt die. If anything i belive he should have d4 Hit die. instead of d6. The Dragon also had a pool of water to hide in and only a narrow Aproach to his island in the cave. but. this was a Pre-Fabbed adventure i had made before the warlock was written in. What am i going to do to counter this. suddenly say "the Cave never happend - it was actually an open Air Lake complete with nice open banks and nice murky water. Oh and the Dragon grew an Age category in the 2 days since you last saw it" this was the very first combat the warlock ever Fought in. and I Did whatever i could to fight him (short of landing infront of him and full attacking him. Forcing the character to make a new Character ... again - Not to mention then the dragon would have been surrounded and destroyed in no time that way) the Dragon had enough room to fly. just not Very high. and the party formed a Spikey wall of Swords Preventing me Getting in - and the Warlocks Ranged attacks are just to Persistant and sustained for the Dragons d4+1 round Breath weapon to Recharge intime to take on. does that Clear the situaton up some more for you?
Pandaemoni 05-10-06, 12:41 PM	Sounds like fun. ^_^ This can be strong on low levels, later on it doesn't matter as much - remeber, doesn't work on magical items. It does if you Dispel the magic first, and Warlocks can take Dispel Magic and Greater Dispel Magic as a power. :D
Zherog 05-10-06, 12:43 PM	Hit the warlock who critically succeded his reflex and i alowed a complete dodge. but even if it did hit him - it wouldnt have killed him. So... it's the fault of the warlock class that you did something that wasn't in the rules? And if the dragon didn't have a means of escape from his own lair - with or without the warlock - then it's a poorly designed lair. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the warlock class. You're basing your evaluation on one encounter where you admit to A) not following the rules and B) gimping the dragon.
Pegasos989 05-10-06, 01:09 PM	The Line went through the parties hexblade. Hit the warlock who critically succeded his reflex and i alowed a complete dodge. but even if it did hit him - it wouldnt have killed him. He had shape breath. i Used the line to "hit" him given his distance and the cone wouldnt reach. and i nerfed them with the cone once. and hit the warlock that time too. but he still didnt die. If anything i belive he should have d4 Hit die. instead of d6. The Dragon also had a pool of water to hide in and only a narrow Aproach to his island in the cave. but. this was a Pre-Fabbed adventure i had made before the warlock was written in. What am i going to do to counter this. suddenly say "the Cave never happend - it was actually an open Air Lake complete with nice open banks and nice murky water. Oh and the Dragon grew an Age category in the 2 days since you last saw it" this was the very first combat the warlock ever Fought in. and I Did whatever i could to fight him (short of landing infront of him and full attacking him. Forcing the character to make a new Character ... again - Not to mention then the dragon would have been surrounded and destroyed in no time that way) the Dragon had enough room to fly. just not Very high. and the party formed a Spikey wall of Swords Preventing me Getting in - and the Warlocks Ranged attacks are just to Persistant and sustained for the Dragons d4+1 round Breath weapon to Recharge intime to take on. does that Clear the situaton up some more for you? So you let him have evasion for free? (compelete dodge the breath) And WHY would ANY (even white) dragons live in a cave that they can't fly in, don't have enough room, have only one escape route... "Yeah. I put this 10th level wizard in his home (with antimagic field) and the 3rd level fighter beat the crap out of him! Fighters are so overpowered. After that the druid critted a heal check and fighter got full health!"
Rojar 05-10-06, 01:26 PM	My current campaign has Paladins banned, but that's just because of plot. Pretty much all base classes would be allowed aside from that, and prestige classes are allowed as well, provided the person can explain how/why it's happening. Some of the things I have difficulty with though, are: People starting off "civilized", staying "civilized" in behavior, yet wanting to multiclass as a barbarian... Obviously that 40' movement rate and rage is attractive, but come on! Also, I feel goofy about the whole multiclass to a wizard thing too... like... huh? People (elves especially... heh) spend YEARS (decades?) learning to cast the most basic of arcane spells from complex formula/notation in their spellbooks, yet Joe-better-than-average-intelligence-but-not-genius-fighter can buy a blank spellbook, devote a little time to arcane knowledge or spellcraft or something (take a level of wizard) and boom, he's entitled to know all 0 level spells, and 3+int modifier first level spells... when last week, he'd never even SEEN a wizard. That sort of speed-training makes Luke Skywalker's look like a 4-year degree! Or maybe I'm just over-analyzing.... it's a game. I dunno.
Ace the Dead 05-10-06, 01:26 PM	I hear, "Warlocks look more powerful than they are in playtesting," a lot. I can't understand this as I looked at the warlock, and thought it was balanced (after I got over the "they can do this HOW many times?" thing). I've played one (in a party with three wizards). I've seen them used a few times by players, usually as a fellow player, and I've made use of them as NPCs. With the exception of the NPCs who rolled not 1 but two natural ones on critcal checks, they've all come out ahead of other classes. They're just too good. They can solve/avoid too difficult or unwanted encounters by playing around with their skills (Beguiling Influnce is not a waste by any means), they have the ability to keep dishing it out that excedes a fighter, and their defenses are just too good. I'm not saying their AC/saves/hp are better than other party members, but they give up far less for them, and can compensate for their lows far better than members of other classes. I want to allow them, but I don't think I can as written. Similarly for psions. I like the concept, and hell, I love the power points/augment & psionic focus mechanics. I absolutely love them. But every time I have allowed psions, or played with one, they have consistantly outpaced every other PC/NPC in terms of power without EVER RUNNING OUT OF POWER POINTS. Even in 5/6 encounter days, without keeping themseleves in reserve. Just a little common sense resourse managment, and they made the other player's characters look like toys. I want to allow psions, but cannot in good conscince do so. Also, what the hell is up with their power list? They're the "Masters of the Mind" but psionic dominate has durration concintration & they're better at blasting than warmages? Really don't like that list. Scouts are another one I don't allow. I've played a scout, and its basically a better version of rogue (overall, but they do have their faults). I've played a lot of rogues, and they don't need to be any more powerful. Again, I like the class, but cannot allow it. I also really don't like the cleric class. This is primarily an issue with a subset of its spells, including rightous might, divine power, and THE 7th level cleric spell, Destruction, (Holy Word, Blasphemy, etc. do not exist). Ninja may not be coming back in future games. The only ninja I've had any real experience with was broken most of the time, but given who the player was and what he rolled for stats, that was a given. The problem was he was so situational: It has uncanny dodge/is undead & I can't hurt it. It doesn't, well that was easy. Not something I particularly enjoyed. There was that one shot I wrote specifically for ninjas that is awesome, but there I could compensate for the issues with the class very easily. As far as prestige classes go, I don't think we'll be letting anyone get away with another radiant servant. He ruined all my fun. Likewise Sacred Exorsit seems... like there is no trade off. No harsh prereqs, no big sacrafices. I've not had the privlage to run for a Frenzied Beserker, but Deathless Frenzy seems kind of pointless. "I don't die, but as soon as I take any subdual damage, I'm at more subdual damage than my current hit point total and fall uncontious. Oh and by the way I take 2 points of subdual damage every round for being in a frenzy." A cool concept that the mechanics really fail to do justice. I also just had a single classed barbarian with monkey grip, a holy sword and boots of speed in a campaign that recently finished. Quite litterally, if he began his turn within a 5' step of getting his opponent within reach (he loved his potions of enlarge person), it would die, with the exception of a creature that had mirror image. In comparision with the feat and chosing when to rage trade off that he'd have had to go through to get FB (not to mention the loss of DR and other fun high level barbarin abilities), it hardly seems unbalnced.
Tristan 05-10-06, 01:53 PM	none, however I've ruled that rule 0 of my games is "you must speak with me"
Pandaemoni 05-10-06, 02:09 PM	none, however I've ruled that rule 0 of my games is "you must speak with me" I agree, I don't outright ban anything, but you will need to speak with me first. Actually, since I always start campaigns at level 1, that does effectively limit a lot of unusual combinations. Even in one-adventure games that I do start above first level and for new characters introduced mid-campaign (for example, when the prior PC dies and can't be raised) I tend not to allow monstrous PCs. I'm not afraid of "Zombie Nazis riding dinosaurs" coming to shoot up my house, I am afraid of them turning up in game as PCs.
Cadfan 05-10-06, 02:23 PM	I don't allow druids... sort of. I will probably allow them now with the PHBII changes. My problem with them was wildshape, and shapeshift doesn't seem bad at all. There are a number of spells I do not allow. Polymorph. Some of those. I don't feel like I "ban" psionics, I more don't affirmatively allow it entry into my game. Its a variant magic system, and I feel no obligation to use it. The power point system creates more balance problems than I want to deal with. I'm familiar with the pro-psionics arguments, but... most of them are poorly thought out, or rely on comparison to wizards using spells that I've banned, or rely on comparisons of optimized 20th level casters while ignoring more mundane levels and characters with less optimization. I had not previously banned the War Weaver prc, but I will now after my last campaign. Casting improved invisibility on the entire party is so amazing that, at the very least, it should cost more than one spell to get everyone on the team. In general, I like players to tell me before they take a class or PRC, but I'm mostly pretty open. I'd probably ban the frenzied berserker if someone actually tried to use it, but mostly people stick with what they began with in my area.
Senevri 05-10-06, 03:47 PM	Suddenly having 1 person with the abilitity to control / communicate with things beyond the planes themselves throws me. It just doesnt fit for me. i like to save those Mysteries for a time when the players go Player 1 - "Ok weve Defeated the Draco lich. burned down his fortress. dug 100 feet underneath it to find his Phylactery - which just happens to be Fused into this Large Red Pulseing Crystal We Didnt Read deep Enough into the Liches Journal to Know much about" Player 2 - "what do you think it does?" Player 1 - "Meh. who cares. No phylactery. no Dracolich. No worries" Player 2 - *Shatters Crystal* Bubbling Vortex / Rip in the Fabric of Time opens up Un-named Entity - Nyuuurg... Squelch Player 1 and 2 - "WTF IS THAT?" Un-named Entity 2 - Nyurg? Player 1 - "Ahhh! hit it! hit it again!!" ... you get my point. Ah, yeah. You don't want players with pet Cthulhoids. Understandable. Eldritch Blast is a touch attack. And he can do it unlimited times per day. and as he levels up. It Gets Stronger. Alone it could proove Crap. but throw it in with Everything else. invisibility, Fly, Turning That 1 Touch attack into a 60 Foot Area of Effect Dragons Breath Cone Every Round AND set people on fire AND wear armor AND Shatter their Weapons / Armor / what have you - AND all the other Kit and Kaboozal... Well, you _know_ what the sorcerers and wizards are singing... I do agree that on low levels, while it still matters, Warlocks can be quite nasty. However, Eldritch blast is essentially a weaker Scorching Ray. The Sorcerer I was talking of, will eventually get in the range of 60-ish of those a day. And can teleport & Fly and ride with a flying horse who has a 240 base move. Oh, and with Innate Spell, they too get infinite, let's say, Magic Missiles a day. Less damage, but no save, no SR... Now, if you have dozens of encounters a day, warlocks are gonna come out on top - as are druids and such - others without consumable resources. Heres a story - Me : "The Green Dragon Whacks his Clenched Claw into his chest, Rears up and Roars at you" Player 1 : "We Brought you the Rangers Shin Bone as you asked" Me : "It Sniffs the Air then looks over your companions - "You Brang Others to my lair. That is punishable by Death Manling" Player 1 : "Oh... Crap. ok... er... um" Warlock : "Never fear! Warlock Here! - Having Trouble Overcoming High AC's? IM your man!. Do Dragons Pester you on the wing? IM "Still" Your Man! "Do" you Fear running out of spells before the end of a battle? HAHAHAHAH I NeveR run out! so Watch out DracoFeind! your End is Nigh" That's... brilliant. ;_; I take it, this was at an early time and the dragon didn't have SR or access to Minor Globe, or Dex boosting thingies? However, how is that different from a sorcerer spamming 4 scorching rays for a minimum of 16d6 at level 4, and finishing with 6 magic missiles for a 12d4+12? Of course, at that point the sorcerer _is_ out of spells... During the entire combat the Warlock didnt Miss once. The Dragon Ended up Cowering behind a stalagmite having a similar mental Breakdown as me. saying "make it stop! why wont it Stop!" the rest of the party just Formed a wall around the warlock as the dragon only had a line weapon and the cave was hard to manuver in. If the dragon is cowering, why isn't it trying to run away? If it's not, why isn't it full-attacking the annoying warlock? See? you Agree with me! (snickers) Well, ya. If one is allowed to rest after expending a lot of spells, er, PPs, any blaster will rule. and since Psis can pump out more of their reserve at once, they'll do better than vancian casters. Still, it's no different than building high-offense fighters and allowing them to heal a lot. Really? didnt know that... Fights to the best of it's ability, yes. but, can't use magic items or activate.. or even _speak coherently_ as far as the flavor is considered. Im Pretty sure the Frenzied Berseker will most likely Run Screaming after them and catch them (barbarian anyone?) and hack them to bloody iddy tiny ribbons... not to mention i dont fore see Every bad guy going "Ok. hes gone Rage. Run away!" (Said the Black Gaurd). True, dat. However, they're extremely vulnerable to anything mind-affecting, usually. But, any melee character against a raging frenzying frenzied berserker is... well, likely to die. Disarming might work, if you can get through that annoying +7 they have to attack. Grappling works if you're larger than they. Anything flying can potentially destroy the FB. Sniper-archers also work - and can set off the FB while the only thing it sees is the party. Not if they all Die next round... the FB only has a one five-foot step. Also, they tend to favor greatswords, not reach weapons. Now, let's imagine a situation: an FB just charged and killed an enemy X. weak medium-sized creatures(CC) move to attack with longspears. his AC is... let's say, 20 -6 = 14. He's also very much flanked. His attack pattern is something like aa/aa/bb, maybe aa/aa/bb/cc at this point. Anyway, at this point he takes an attack from each for a total of 12 attacks. vs. AC 12. They should be able to hit on a 8, at least, in a point where the player's been able to pick a FB level. On average, that's alread 6d8, or ~24 + 9x strenght (two-handed weapons). CCCCCC CC CC CC X FB CC CC CC CCCCCC Now , FB moves to attack.. using his one 5 ft-step for the round. CCCCCC CC CC CC FB CC CC CC CCCCCC and kills three. CCCCCC CC FB CC CC CCCCCC next round: now, four opponens strike first, then 5ft. step away. Rest delay their actions until FB moves, in which case they first take their attack of opportunity, and after the FB moves to the square in front of them, they 5 ft. back, and do their attack. I think. ~8+3xstr. CCCC CC CC FB CC CC CC CCCC Each of them is now 10 ft. away. Which ever direction the FB moves to, he'll get a minimum of 3 attacks of opportunity, and won't be able to move. His cleave will mow down all those within reach, which is a maximum of ... two opponents, actually. the two that have already moved. However, those two still have their attacks of opportunity, and minimum number of AoOs is 3. Avg. minimum damage 6+1.75xstr Next round, the third within range does his attack and 5ft. steps away. 4+1.5xstr The rest might consider moving closer. Now, wherever he moves, he'll take the minimum of 4 AoOs. Rest prepare for AOO+5ft. step + normal attack pattern. CCCCCC CCCC CC FB CC for an average of 8+3xstr. Let's say that the FB falls for the trap waiting for him. CCCCCC CCCC CC FB CC 4 attacks of opportunity + 3 normal attacks. avg. 16 + 6xstr... at this point for a total of 60 + 21.25 x Str. For Orcs this would be 102.5 average damage for a CR6 encounter. even if the FB plays as smartly as possible, I'd still see him taking around 150ish damage, total. Not bad for a CR5, eh? and without power attack, too! Now, let's make them a guild of orcish rogues.. ^_^
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-10-06, 03:57 PM	Paladins, Exalteds and Frenzied Berserkers for the fact that the rest of the party has to suffer thier drawbacks. Psi because I don't really need another magic system. Sometimes, at night, I unban the Paladin just to get the giddy feeling of banning it again.
OravennasBrother 05-10-06, 04:02 PM	As DM I often Ban Monks and anything not in the core books. Monks because I seldom run a setting where that class is appropriate. Anything not in core books because I don't intend to bog the game down in rule interpretation on what some obscure rule means when matched agaisnt some non-core class loosely worded ability. I don't allow standard PrC's - rather any PrC is part of a special group (Order of Knights, Elven Brotherhood, Arcane School what have you) and is tailored to the campaign. When a player whines "I MUST be allowed to play X Class/Race/Feat/combo because that is my character concept," I ask if they have only one character they can envision. Finally I generally restrict Multiclassing. AS a player I generally stick to single class Fighters or Rangers. The Only MC characters I have ever played were a Halfling Fighter/Rogue - who got so powerful I stopped playing him, and a Ranger who qualified for a "PrC" order of Wizard Hunters.
kelvinaw273 05-10-06, 04:14 PM	I do not ban any core classes per se, but I may demand a really good background justification as to why they should be around :D . I also will not allow evil characters unless a player can convince me that they will not disrupt the party and explain just why their character is so nasty. As such, three classes I effectively ban are Alienists, Blackguards and Assasins. Otherwise I allow ... pretty much anything. But it has to be rationalised.
LCD2YOU 05-10-06, 04:18 PM	I ban all classes except, Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert and Warrior. The Adept was just way too over powered. I let them pick their poison but I also hold them to the character.
Pegasos989 05-10-06, 04:25 PM	I haven't studied frenzied berserkers, but I assume that they can work with a team? Thet "trap" and surrounding is much better with a few other melee fighters
Senevri 05-10-06, 04:52 PM	I haven't studied frenzied berserkers, but I assume that they can work with a team? Thet "trap" and surrounding is much better with a few other melee fighters Mmh. Not really. Up to a point, yes... and with some precautions they can be used in a party. However, FB are like ninjas, in that they flip out and kill people. Basically, after they run out of opponents, they start killing allies. Their primary weapons are: extra attack, power attacks at 1:4 return ratio Able to fight 'til they hit -10, at first. Eventually, as long as the frenzy lasts. Total str bonuses of, initially +10, later +14. (effectively, they can attack at their normal attack, but with +27 to damage...) Their primary weaknesses: -4 to -6 to AC Not party friendly often flip out and kill people 2 points of subdual damage each round while frenzying. Can't use items / certain skills while frenzying. Thus, the closer to the end of frenzy they get, the more likely they are to be alone. Fighting a FB, you need cannon fodder, and tactics which deny them iterative attacks. 12 rapid shotting archers spaced out with 10-20 ft between each would have the chance of killing a FB right nice... after the frenzy ends. Unless they have party support. (a Cle/hierophant with Reach Heal would do.. Plus calm emotions/hold person...) In short, I don't recommend them in most parties.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-10-06, 04:55 PM	I haven't studied frenzied berserkers, but I assume that they can work with a team? Thet "trap" and surrounding is much better with a few other melee fighters Frenzied Berserkers have the 'drawback' of being garunteed to kill the rest of the party eventually.
Crimson_Concerto 05-10-06, 06:34 PM	No Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil (ridiculously... overpowered) :confused: You're kidding, right? What's so ridiculously overpowered about them? o_O I know it can't be their veils, because those are ridiculously easy to get past and are usable way too few times per day to be all that big a deal. <_< Even Kaleidoscopic Doom is pretty esoteric in usage. I was also confused about Alienist until I read it was just a flavor thing and not a mechanical thing. Which is good because I can't imagine how they would be overpowered... Honestly, I don't ever remember banning anything at all. Im pretty okay with just about everything so long as the PCs tell me what they're doing. Warlocks aren't all that big a deal, Psionics are not overpowered, and I've never even had problems with Clerics, Druids, Archivits, Artifacers, or Wizards. People overestimate, like, everything these days. XD
kelvinaw273 05-10-06, 06:54 PM	I haven't studied frenzied berserkers, but I assume that they can work with a team? Thet "trap" and surrounding is much better with a few other melee fighters Depends on you definition of "work with". If it includes "Chop into small quivering pieces when there are no more enemies left to kill" then yeah, they can work with anyone! Otherwise, no not really. The FB can frenzy, but he can't stop until the alloted time is past, go figure ... On consideration, I would ban this class from PCs.
sedqon 05-10-06, 07:09 PM	Sometimes, at night, I unban the Paladin just to get the giddy feeling of banning it again. And I thought I was the only one who enjoyed it.
allenchan 05-10-06, 07:21 PM	Im proud to say I've never banned a wotc base class, and I've modified a few prcs for pc's that were interested. I think the only thing I ever flat-out said no to was a thrallherd, because it didnt make sense in the campaign, not because I found it too powerful.
Greg K 05-10-06, 07:30 PM	In my current campaign, I disallow most WOTC base (read non-players' handbook) classes for various reasons (feel, mechanics, 3rd party alternatives). I even disallow a few core classes. The PHB: I disallow the ranger and paladin which are PrCs. I also disallow the Druid (which may be returning with the shapeshift ability from PHB 2 being mandatory) Non PHB WOTC classes: The only WOTC non-base classes currently allowed are the healer and swashbuckler although I will be allowing the beguiler and possibly the duskblade (My decision on the duskblade will depend on how I view it compared to AEG's Myrmidon). While I ban most of the WOTC base classes, I do allow many class variants from Unearthed Arcana and a few base classes from third part sources. The Unearthed Arcana class variants that I allow include: barbarian hunter, the various bard variants, cloistered cleric, thug fighter, monk styles, martial rogue, wilderness rogue, battle sorceror, and specialist wizard abilities. Non WOTC classes include: 1) Psychic (Green Ronin): used instead of WOTC psionics 2) Shaman (Green Ronin): currently used in place of the PHB Druid and also instead of the Spirit Shaman from Complete Divine. If the PHB druid returns to my campaign, the Shaman from (GR) will still remain instead of the WOTC spirit shaman. 3) Witch (Green Ronin) 4) Myrmidon (AEG): a fighter/mage class 5) Knight (Hong's which is available free on the net)
Zendu 05-10-06, 07:30 PM	I dont ban many, just warlocks for thier ranged cheese attack freized barbs without PARTY permission. Ive played one, they are very dangerous and very powerfull, i think that if everyone recognizes the threat a party can handle it. opposing good/evil alignments although not a character, its still party breaking
KingTut 05-10-06, 07:31 PM	I don't really ban anything. I might have to start thinking about considering it if my players could grow a brain between the four of them. (don't know if that makes me happy or depressed :confused: )
Kresalak 05-10-06, 07:56 PM	I ban Monkey Grip, for some of the same reasons as I ban commiting suicide.
Greg K 05-10-06, 08:03 PM	revnk, I am in a group that up until recently had four people that DM'd on various occasions (two of them just moved across country) and you pretty much summed up our take on the use of content and the purchase of books. To each his own, but many DMs (myself included) have a policy of not allowing classes or races if we don't own the book it's in. And many of us (myself included) allow, disallow, or modify races or classes based on the specific campaign world we're making for the players (and, frankly, for our own enjoyment as well, although the world is nothing without the players). I only mention this because a player who purchases a book in the expectation it will be allowed by a DM is taking a foolish gamble. Buy the book because you want it. Or buy the book after you've talked it over with your DM, even, and received some kind of approval of its contents. But don't buy the book because you assume that a DM is going to feel sorry for your expenditures and trouble and will cave to your whim because you dropped $30 or $40 on something (especially when he would have told you to save your money if you'd actually asked him about it). .
Lokathor 05-10-06, 08:31 PM	I actually don't allow the Cleric. I use a toned down version of the Cleric in my games called the "Channeler". No favored Fort save, no Divine Power, and they don't cast Miricle because they don't draw powers from the gods (among other things). Other than that, I mostly just reduce the power on a class that think is taking over and too good, rather than toss it out. The druid is perfectly fine if you put an "[epic]" tag on Natural Spell and drop wildhshape to a 1min/level duration. Well... they're reduced to the level of any other caster... that is.
revnk 05-10-06, 09:02 PM	I actually don't allow the Cleric. I use a toned down version of the Cleric in my games called the "Channeler". No favored Fort save, no Divine Power, and they don't cast Miricle because they don't draw powers from the gods (among other things). Other than that, I mostly just reduce the power on a class that think is taking over and too good, rather than toss it out. The druid is perfectly fine if you put an "[epic]" tag on Natural Spell and drop wildhshape to a 1min/level duration. Well... they're reduced to the level of any other caster... that is. I have never actually banned the cleric, but I've thought about it often--not because of the power of the class, but because the existence of the class itself can raise questions about the hows and whys of things like sanitation and epidemiology while dictating the structure of the universe (i.e. the cleric almost guarantees that there are pantheons and certain kinds of afterlives). Typically, I've ended up with unhappy compromises where players can play clerics but most temples are run by laypersons or low-level clerics. I'm actually contemplating a future campaign with all of the spellcasting classes collapsed into one custom class: a spontaneous caster who can use almost any spell (divine or arcane), but at a high personal cost. (Every spell, even a benign one, would possibly taint the caster and cause premature aging in proportion to the spell level. The rationale being that all magic use in this world would tap dark and corrupted energies that cause enormous damage to the channeler. A witch casting a healing spell in this world is putting dark energies to a noble use, but they're still dark energies. It has the bemusing incidental benefit of guaranteeing that every powerful mage looks like Merlin or Gandalf, even when they're in their early 20s.... The question of what deities existed would be an unanswered one--the gods, if they existed in this world, would be far away and apathetic.) I'm not married to the idea, and every time I want to sketch out ideas for the new world, I end up having to write for my current game--not that I'm complaining, it's just that this other world is frustratingly left on the back-burners while I cook for my group. This hypothetical class in this hypothetical campaign would fit well into what is conceived of as a gritty, fairly low-magic setting where all magical items and weapons are powered by a tainted "bloodmetal" brought into a world by a meteoric impact that triggered a massive ice age that has only recently begun to thaw when the campaign begins--harsh winters, icy seas, and ambiguous anti-heroes trying to survive (this particular campaign would probably jettison the normal alignment rules--possibly but not necessarily replacing them with the honor mechanic). Players in this hypothetical world could play a spellcaster--but only of the custom class, and they would have to accept that the natural course of things could result in their character dying of old age in short order or being twisted and warped by the very forces they try to manipulate. A player who wanted to play a standard-issue wizard would certainly need to look to another game, but that's okay. Heck, I'd be happy if he played a wizard in another game on Fridays and a paladin on Saturdays and a desperately cold rogue in this cold, icy ocean game I'm pondering over on Sundays. It's all good, y'know?
Senevri 05-10-06, 09:09 PM	Cleric... instead of banning it, why not just ban Divine Power? A lot of the time it's single spells or feats which are troublesome.
Count Arioch the 28th 05-10-06, 09:15 PM	I ban Monkey Grip, for some of the same reasons as I ban commiting suicide. Dude, that's awesome.
D45id 05-10-06, 09:24 PM	The divine mind(or as i have appropriatly named: the psionic paladin) is really good at level 1. have considered banning.
Eltharon 05-10-06, 09:29 PM	It depends on the setting. This campaign has no clerics, druids, paladins or bards, only one wizard or sorcerer in the party, and a no magic ranger. But in a normal DnD game i dont ban anything.
Tharivol 05-10-06, 10:24 PM	I'm usually lenient about what I allow. I haven't seen base class in a WotC book that I'd definately disallow (there are a few that I really don't like, but why should my preference dictate the players' preference?) but I do require that I own the book that it's in. I don't trust myself to judge balance, so I like to stick to things in the books so that I can come here to look at reviews of things. As for PrCs, I don't give a blanket allowance, so I guess I don't actually ban anything, but there are definately some that I wouldn't allow. Frenzied Berserker is one because it's not party-friendly. Evil PrCs are also usually out, but if the pre-reqs require evil but the class itself could have other flavor then I'll allow the flavor to be re-written. People need a reason to become adventurers, and I generally prefer games where the party's reason is "save the world", or something along those lines if less dramatic. If there's another reason for the party to be (and I'm considering running a game over RPOL that has a Gulliver's Travels/Alice in Wonderland/Wizard of Oz/"The Odyssey"-style "desperately lost in a strange world and looking for home" motivation) then I'd drop that alignment requirement and only require the ability to work together with the other PCs--which would take a paladin who absolutely refuses to work together with an evil person out before it takes out the evil person who's willing to put their differences aside for the moment, but that's character concept, not class.
feartheinvinceblehamster 05-10-06, 10:28 PM	It took A LOT of persuading for me to let one guy play a ninja. When he ALMOST became DM my question to him was: "Can I play a ninja?" So yeah, I'm kinda in the middle on the subject. I don't like it's eastern flavor as much as the general idea. I know one guy has banned individual players from being certain classes, and i've come close to banning paladins, as a occasional paladin player who hates it when people playing them like nice maniacs. Okay, 1. Paladins have brains. and 2. Nothing is forcing them to be nice or honorable. You can sneak up behind a guard in the villians castle and stab it, and you won't lose your powers. You cannot however, kill random peasents because they are evil.
StakeTeriyake 05-10-06, 10:53 PM	I've never banned a class, I feel that if you can't challenge a player, it's a failing on the GM's part, not on anything else. If a player brings a new supplement to the table, I only require that I be given a week with it to study it. One of the reasons my players always want me to GM is because I know what everybody at the table has. The number one mistake that GMs can make in this matter, imo, is not knowing what the players can do. Whenever someone else runs, they never look at Character sheets, and don't know 75% of the classes, and a few are even lacking understanding of the base classes. It takes a little practice, but you can tailor an encounter quite flawlessly that can be quite balanced, even if you've got a Cleric, Druid, Warlock and Dread Necromancer running around. All it takes is knowledge. And before someone says "Well so-and-so can whatever..." I say that this strategy is tried and true a thousand times over, and nobody has ever had too easy of a time. But I've never had a TPK, either. But... whatever works for you. Have fun... that's the key.
tiercel 05-10-06, 11:06 PM	Cleric... instead of banning it, why not just ban Divine Power? A lot of the time it's single spells or feats which are troublesome.Actually this is my thought about most "problematic" classes -- it is easier to tweak them than to ban them outright. As far as I can tell, the biggest problem you get from clerics is when you allow big piles of Divine Metamagic. (Divine Persistent divine power, anyone?) If clerics can't run around buffed to the teeth all the time, either they have to blow some time at the start of a fight powering up or just play support. If divine power is your main beef with clerics, then either ban it or bump it up a spell level or something. It is true that a cleric can turn into CoDzilla when buffed up to maximum potential... but usually this means that you have given the cleric entirely too much time to prepare and that the cleric isn't worrying so much about buffing, or being able to heal, his party. The PrCs that make me wary of allowing them are the ones that seem potentially disruptive by their very construction (e.g. Frenzied Berserker) or are built around a problematic mechanic (e.g. Ur-Priest advanced spell progression) or are "something for nothing" (e.g. Radiant Servant of Pelor, which gives up 1hp per level but otherwise trivial prereqs, loses nothing else compared to a cleric, and gains a raftful of special abilities to boot). I don't have a knee-jerk "auto-ban" response to any single class, but if a PrC matches one of the criteria above I will try to get the player to convince me why it won't be a problem in our game. Other classes and PrC I allow after review -- I don't let someone use something I haven't had a chance to read through. (One of these days I will finally get and read through XPH carefully to evaluate... the main thing I worry about psionics is the increased need to balance the characters with several encounters per day, lest you encourage psi characters to "go nova.") And a side note about the Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil... someone was asking earlier why they were so powerful. Well, they have some steep prereqs, and the first few levels are only so-so. Reactive veils are strong, though. And by time you get kaleidoscopic doom, you are high level, and facing high level opponents. A high level enemy who is a a buffed-up spellcaster or has been significantly buffed up will probably have more than two or three active spells, if they have had a chance to get ready, at which point kaleidoscopic doom is an almost-certain death sentence (it's like bull rushing someone through a prismatic wall, possibly more than once, while dispelling them). Initiates of the Sevenfold Veil make BRUTAL NPC foes. (I used an IoSV and a Wild Mage, who would summon d4+1 air elementals to circle him for his Random Deflector power, as a pair of BBEGs. Their top-level abilities are nasty to unleash on PCs, and the reactive wards and random deflections meant they were really, really tough to bring down. My players were very glad -- after several goes -- to finally get rid of those guys.)
Ryuu_Tenshi 05-10-06, 11:30 PM	There's only one class that I specificlaly do not allow, and that's Favoured Soul. The first reason is that we run spontaneous divine casters from Complete Arcane, so there's no reason for them. The second is that they're just plain dumb, especially in their flavor. Come on. "LOOK AT ME IM A DIVINE SORCERERZOR WITH WINGS FOR NO READILY APPARENT REASON! YAY!" I enjoy min-maxing. I enjoy watching my players chew through everything I throw at them. It's fun, dammit. Now, I will disallow certian classes and PRC's on a case-by-case basis, hence why I ask first. For instance, I am currently disallowing Truenamers and Shadowcasters, simply becuase the two mechanics are way too much for me to deal with right now, ESPECAILLY truenamers. I love their flavor. Hate their mechanic. As for PRC's, well, again, case-by-case basis. If I decide it's not something I want to deal with, fine. I heart warlocks. They amuse me endlessly and are absolutly devestating NPC's when your PCs don't know what to do. And you know the best way to thwart a Warlock? Lesser Globe of Invulnerability + True Seeing. Then it's a matter of killing the little bastard before Globe wears off. Which, if you are a wizard and there aren't too many targets, shoudn't be that bad. 'course then there's Voracious Dispelling, in which case you'd better have a backup plan. I suggest displacement. And a dex of a billion.
The Chondathan 05-11-06, 12:03 AM	I DM a campaign with six players, two of which work at a comic book store and own every book the second it is released. I have only banned one class and will probably only ever ban one class. That of coarse is the Artificer. Why,.... It's not the insane damage they can do with wands. Which flat out dwarves anything a warlock can do. They effiently create magic items, as DM, I control the magic items released into the party. If I don't want a paladin to have a +6 to chr.....he doesn't get it. Sure wizards/clerics can make items, but not like the artificer can....not even close. A good artificer can crank out items even while adventuring. If you are having trouble with over powered characters...take a look at the ability scores. I only DM games with a 25 pt buy straight out of the DMG. The monsters get alot tougher when most of your players refuse to buy an 18 because it cost too much. My second piece of advice is to watch the magic items you give out. Give out enough to keep the players happy but not enough to make them unstoppable.
Chrono Nexus 05-11-06, 12:52 AM	I don't ban material. If something about a class/race/etc. is broken, I fix it. Then, I hand it back to the player and let him/her deliberate on whether they want to play it or not.
Archangel62 05-11-06, 01:06 AM	Don't really ban anything unless it won't fit thematically. (IE if in Eberron Samurai is available only in Darguun and prestige classes are localized to certain areas, many requiring training) I might restrict but that's about it. And on the Warlock, a well optimized warlock can do decently when compared to a wizard that gets jumped. The warlock has the problem of having very few tools to do their job with. I've been in games with them, the Dragonwrought Kobold Warlock has been pretty damn cool in the game and he's been more of a crippler type of character often saying "Ok, I'm dropping some annoyance here....here...here...and here" when dropping chilling tentacles into enemy masses. That and when compared to the party sorcerer he ends up about equal. Also add in that he basically hides and zaps, or sits on the shoulder of the mage slayer and plays tailgunner.
revnk 05-11-06, 01:10 AM	Cleric... instead of banning it, why not just ban Divine Power? A lot of the time it's single spells or feats which are troublesome. For me, personally, a decision to not include clerics would be based on the setting, not the rules. I don't consider clerics especially "broken." Indeed, at least one setting where I considered banning clerics (and decided not to) would have replaced clerics with druids, a class that some appear to consider even more "broken." I suppose that I would have to admit some bias towards clerics and druids versus other classes simply because they've been around pretty much since the beginning. Heck, I had a moment's pause looking at the 3.5 Barbarian just because I had ill memories of the original (and horribly broken) Barbarian from the original Unearthed Arcana in the 1980s <shudder>. Even some of the "splatbook" classes I'm currently suspicious of right now could theoretically enter their way into a future campaign if (a) I own the rulebook in question and (b) they fit into the world somehow. In the meantime, my current campaign is core-only with some wriggle room for supplemetal PrCs on an ad-hoc basis (the characters are all pretty low-level, so no one even qualifies yet). So far, no one has complained and people seem to be having fun.
Vaelan 05-11-06, 01:50 AM	I don't ban anything. My group as a whole has effectively banned the Frenzied Berserker by saying that they'd never adventure with such an unreliable person.
Amthyst_fire 05-11-06, 02:30 AM	hmmm. I have yet to ban any class, although it is tempting sometimes. I trust that my players will be responsible with their characters. If I change groups, I may limit to basic classes until I get a feel for them.
Archangel62 05-11-06, 02:38 AM	Permanent bans don't work so well IMO because they're more likely to annoy players than anything else. That being said I've also had people state that if anyone goes FB they will not travel with that person anymore because of inability to trust someone willing to lose themselves so deeply in rage that they forget their friends and become willing to slaughter them.
gkp79 05-11-06, 02:41 AM	Warlocks for the Fact every round they can hit pretty much anything bar an elder air elemental on a 2+. Can Turn that into a Cone Area of effect And can Alter that furthur to make people catch fire. Cast shatter at will. Turn into a swarm of Bats. Fly at will. Go invisible at will. See invisible creatures at will. and Do pretty much All sorts of Game Wrecking Situations At will. I dont allow Warlocks in my Campaigns because of the fact that although he is weak in combat - Im Not Dead Set about Killing my players in any Set order. I Dont like "killing players". I Just help them Assist suicide. anyone here who says Ranged Weapon them to death / Spell them to death / Charge them to Death obviously didnt Realise a warlocks got a Trick up his Sleeve for all these situations unless the enemy is Tooled up to counter each and every one of them. I Think a warlock is Way to powerful to be a PC and is Far better Suited to being an Ongoing Villain - who is more than powerful enough on his own to go head to head and best any other class one on one in a duel. Warlock is actually one of the more underpowered classes. It is certainly weaker than any of the Core spellcasting classes (wizard, sorc, druid, or cleric). The Warlock is effectively just an archer with a few spell effects and only 1 attack per round. Not that impressive. In actual game play the benefit you get by having your 'powers' usable every round an unlimited amount of times is FAR overshadowed by the fact that your abilities are much weaker than the real spell casting classes get. Sure, the level twenty Warlock can do 11d6 damage every single round forever - but the level twenty sorcerer can timestop and drop 5 delayed blast fireballs for 100d6 damage all at once. Guess which ability ends up being more useful in a normal game?
Lokathor 05-11-06, 02:43 AM	Cleric... instead of banning it, why not just ban Divine Power? A lot of the time it's single spells or feats which are troublesome. Allow me to expand on what I said earlier everyone: In my campaign world there are no clerics because the deities that clerics would normally worship are far in the outer planes and the "World Spirit" (from the other 'family' of gods, Deities and Spirits) prevented and still prevents any of the Deities from interacting with the Material Plane at all (after they attempted to destroy it, campaign backstory thing). So, as a result, there are no clerics because the clerical teachings would not survive through over 700 years of abject fear and horror of the common man towards clerical teachings combined with the complete and sudden loss one day of all of the gods. However, there are still divine classes, just not Deity powered classes. The OA Shaman, Druid, paladin, Shugenja, etc are all still around, just not the cleric itself. The Channeler is also different in a significantly enough way from the cleric in several ways that it's justified to call it basically a new class that mostly uses the clerical list. It has a much stronger connection to a specific outer plane or pair of inner planes (using the planar domains, along with fire, earth, air, water, healing, and destruction). It doesn't get undead turning. Instead as it advances it gains the ability to actually use planar travel spells (which are otherwise unavailable by anything less than an artifact), and they also work off of the idea that prepared spells are actually drawn into their body (kinda like electricity in a battery) and so they're actually stronger if they've got more spells memorized then after they've "drained" away all their power. Summary:::: The Cleric isn't banned by me out of balance concerns, but for a campaign reason (lack of gods, and the fact that everyone in the material plane would have combined forces to hunt them into extenction in the years following the Deities attack on the Material World, with all refrences on the specifics of clericdom being similarly destroyed).
Archangel62 05-11-06, 02:50 AM	Hmm, if you have the planer handbook the denier prestige class might actually have some good stuff for you because it shows the idea of a godless cleric. Just an idea as it has some of the things that you've mentioned.
Fend 05-11-06, 03:00 AM	Ah, yeah. You don't want players with pet Cthulhoids. Understandable. Aww... aint they cute? and yes. i dont want my players owning any extra-dimensional entitys. unless the situation is especially comical and funny at the time... I do agree that on low levels, while it still matters, Warlocks can be quite nasty. However, Eldritch blast is essentially a weaker Scorching Ray. The Sorcerer I was talking of, will eventually get in the range of 60-ish of those a day. And can teleport & Fly and ride with a flying horse who has a 240 base move. Oh, and with Innate Spell, they too get infinite, let's say, Magic Missiles a day. Less damage, but no save, no SR... a Warlock Can do this all the time. A Warlock is just... too Ranged cheese attack for my campaigns. A sorcerer Expending a spell slot, that i can take. and hell i can counter that just fine i dont mind because hes made the decision to use that spell. But a Warlock doesnt make any Decisions he just points and obliterates. even if the situation wont come up unless an Epicly Titanic Combat that lasts 100 turns eventuates which is doubtful, I Still Feel totally uncomfortable, like many DM's here, in the Warlocks total lack of Drawbacks or Sacrifices. I Even imposed a house rule on my player he could only have Specific Powers from the list and i would only let him use them an amount of times equal to his level times his charisma modifier. he complained he would have far less spells than a Sorcerer of the same level. so i told him furthur he could continue to cast, but beyond that he would suffer d6 Subdual Damage as the powers would Sap his Energy. He ofcourse Said thats Gay. and he wouldnt Play a Warlock unless he was alowed to play it Write. Basicly Its Just to Controversial for me to Ever include in a game again. I take it, this was at an early time and the dragon didn't have SR or access to Minor Globe, or Dex boosting thingies? However, how is that different from a sorcerer spamming 4 scorching rays for a minimum of 16d6 at level 4, and finishing with 6 magic missiles for a 12d4+12? The Dragon Was only juvenile. this Warlock was around level 4 or 5. The EL of the encounter was about 1 higher than the party in total at the time. So i knew it wouldnt be a difficult combat in hind site. I would have no problems with a wizard or sorcerer doing the same thing. My Beef was the Warlock was doing it without even trying. see where im coming from now? His powers Just Are not Justified. at all. The Dragon Couldnt Get in and full attack. He initially Charged Strait in, took to much damage in 1 round for his likeing in melee , Took a parting shot (withthe line) at the warlock) and Retreated to his island - where the players could only aproach one at a time. The Arrows i wasnt worried about, cause he was in cover. but the Warlock just Sat there Throwing Eldritch Blasts - while the party stood around and waited for the Dragon to die. Thats where i was having a break down. hes just "too" powerful he practicly did it alone and it didnt endanger him at all. it made him a target. but a well protected one. to counter this i then launched from my hiding place, flew above them and unleashed my Breathweapon in a cone (Blanketing a nice 30 by 30 foot Square beneath the dragon) but it didnt do anything to break the party up cause even the dragon would have to wait another 2 turns at minimum for his breath to come back to him. the Warlock just continues to stand there Dealing an Automatic X amount of Damage every round. The worst thing about the Warlock is that he Garentees the enemy will take X D6 Damage each and every round and "Then" Some. The Warlock isnt just Artillery. Hes "Leomunds Unlimited Tool kit" for any situation. and that is What makes him over powered. Put him Side by side With any other level 1 spell caster and youll have to admit. Casting unlimited Magic Missiles shows you how over powered his is from the get Go... If the dragon is cowering, why isn't it trying to run away? If it's not, why isn't it full-attacking the annoying warlock? A - My first Real Dragon "lair". I didnt intend for him to be doing the running. B - So What your Saying here is Every Combat i should Attempt to Kill the Warlock and completely ignor his freinds. Seriously. Think like a DM. If what your suggesting is the Case that the Warlocks Major Draw back is Short Continuity and an Excuse not to Roleplay. Which the player wasnt doing anyway. It was Cheesy and unrewarding for me or the party who considered him a Glory hog. an FB just charged and killed an enemy X. weak medium-sized creatures(CC) move to attack with longspears. his AC is... let's say, 20 -6 = 14. He's also very much flanked. His attack pattern is something like aa/aa/bb, maybe aa/aa/bb/cc at this point. Anyway, at this point he takes an attack from each for a total of 12 attacks. vs. AC 12. They should be able to hit on a 8, at least, in a point where the player's been able to pick a FB level. On average, that's alread 6d8, or ~24 + 9x strenght (two-handed weapons). CCCCCC CC CC CC X FB CC CC CC CCCCCC Now , FB moves to attack.. using his one 5 ft-step for the round. CCCCCC CC CC CC FB CC CC CC CCCCCC and kills three. CCCCCC CC FB CC CC CCCCCC next round: now, four opponens strike first, then 5ft. step away. Rest delay their actions until FB moves, in which case they first take their attack of opportunity, and after the FB moves to the square in front of them, they 5 ft. back, and do their attack. I think. ~8+3xstr. CCCC CC CC FB CC CC CC CCCC Each of them is now 10 ft. away. Which ever direction the FB moves to, he'll get a minimum of 3 attacks of opportunity, and won't be able to move. His cleave will mow down all those within reach, which is a maximum of ... two opponents, actually. the two that have already moved. However, those two still have their attacks of opportunity, and minimum number of AoOs is 3. Avg. minimum damage 6+1.75xstr Next round, the third within range does his attack and 5ft. steps away. 4+1.5xstr The rest might consider moving closer. Now, wherever he moves, he'll take the minimum of 4 AoOs. Rest prepare for AOO+5ft. step + normal attack pattern. CCCCCC CCCC CC FB CC for an average of 8+3xstr. Let's say that the FB falls for the trap waiting for him. CCCCCC CCCC CC FB CC 4 attacks of opportunity + 3 normal attacks. avg. 16 + 6xstr... at this point for a total of 60 + 21.25 x Str. For Orcs this would be 102.5 average damage for a CR6 encounter. even if the FB plays as smartly as possible, I'd still see him taking around 150ish damage, total. Not bad for a CR5, eh? and without power attack, too! Now, let's make them a guild of orcish rogues.. ^_^ Ok so every combat your saying i should counter with some Large unrealistic mob of unrealisticly prepared creatures who just happend to know the FB was coming... Just to Balance the combats... DM: "Ok you See a Night hag on a Winged Nightmare and Several Ghouls around her. Oh and standing over to one side is a Huge mob of Troglodytes that just happen to have longspears" FB : "Ok i Rage and Charge into the Biggest Mob of them" DM : " ok the Trogs . and you guys? " Party : *Runz* DM : " ok looks like your doing this yourself again" FB: "Go for the eyes boo! GO FOR THE EYES YALG!! *Squeeeee*"
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 05-11-06, 03:07 AM	In my game I ban Fighters. People just like that class way too much and it Is REALLY OVERPOWERED! I mean come one! Feats at every even level! Other classes have to be satisfied with feats at just every three levels, Plus!, Fighters get Those Feats too! Actually I ban Humans too, Because they're cheap as well. Extra feat! Extra Skill Points! What the heck! Come to think of it, I should probably ban Bards too. I just don't like the concept, Singing is okay....but not for an adventurer really and not for giving out bonuses. Clerics just don't make sense and they aren't allowed either. Being able to scare away ANY UNDEAD and maybe Even Destroy them. Way too cheap. I despise that class. Don't get me started on Rogues, one time one of my players was hiding in the shadows and then did his sneak attack. He attacked 4 times with TWF which included the sneak dice. Okay, TWF or Sneak attack, using them together is just wrong! That's why I don't allow Rogues anymore, just way too ridiculous.
Archangel62 05-11-06, 03:11 AM	a Warlock Can do this all the time. A Warlock is just... too Ranged cheese attack for my campaigns. A sorcerer Expending a spell slot, that i can take. and hell i can counter that just fine i dont mind because hes made the decision to use that spell. But a Warlock doesnt make any Decisions he just points and obliterates. even if the situation wont come up unless an Epicly Titanic Combat that lasts 100 turns eventuates which is doubtful, I Still Feel totally uncomfortable, like many DM's here, in the Warlocks total lack of Drawbacks or Sacrifices. I Even imposed a house rule on my player he could only have Specific Powers from the list and i would only let him use them an amount of times equal to his level times his charisma modifier. he complained he would have far less spells than a Sorcerer of the same level. so i told him furthur he could continue to cast, but beyond that he would suffer d6 Subdual Damage as the powers would Sap his Energy. He ofcourse Said thats Gay. and he wouldnt Play a Warlock unless he was alowed to play it Write. Basicly Its Just to Controversial for me to Ever include in a game again. The Dragon Was only juvenile. this Warlock was around level 4 or 5. The EL of the encounter was about 1 higher than the party in total at the time. So i knew it wouldnt be a difficult combat in hind site. I would have no problems with a wizard or sorcerer doing the same thing. My Beef was the Warlock was doing it without even trying. see where im coming from now? His powers Just Are not Justified. at all. The Dragon Couldnt Get in and full attack. He initially Charged Strait in, took to much damage in 1 round for his likeing in melee , Took a parting shot (withthe line) at the warlock) and Retreated to his island - where the players could only aproach one at a time. The Arrows i wasnt worried about, cause he was in cover. but the Warlock just Sat there Throwing Eldritch Blasts - while the party stood around and waited for the Dragon to die. Thats where i was having a break down. hes just "too" powerful he practicly did it alone and it didnt endanger him at all. it made him a target. but a well protected one. to counter this i then launched from my hiding place, flew above them and unleashed my Breathweapon in a cone (Blanketing a nice 30 by 30 foot Square beneath the dragon) but it didnt do anything to break the party up cause even the dragon would have to wait another 2 turns at minimum for his breath to come back to him. the Warlock just continues to stand there Dealing an Automatic X amount of Damage every round. The worst thing about the Warlock is that he Garentees the enemy will take X D6 Damage each and every round and "Then" Some. The Warlock isnt just Artillery. Hes "Leomunds Unlimited Tool kit" for any situation. and that is What makes him over powered. Put him Side by side With any other level 1 spell caster and youll have to admit. Casting unlimited Magic Missiles shows you how over powered Except...lessee that golem makes the warlock cry, that Clay golem makes the warlock run off in terror. Most of their abilities aren't that great, at low levels the warlock looks good but I wonder, did you also factor in that the dragon got a cover bonus against the warlock, ranged touch attacks or not cover still applies, so does concealment if that's an issue. The warlock also doesn't get every damn invocation on those lists, his selection is limited and if he's a toolkit I sorta wonder what your games run like, just wondering because if he built his character to work well in your style then it might be more that he built to DM rather than character. Other note, even the mightiest dragon is smart enough to know it can get overwhelmed, it should have escape routes and plans built into its lair. I've made that mistake once or twice myself but it is worthwhile. Also, I usually run and I have had no problems with warlocks, also worth noting is that they prestige horribly unlike any other caster class.
Khan2000 05-11-06, 03:25 AM	I only limit my players to whatever books that I have available. :D It just works out that the other DM has books that I don't have (and vice versa), and we share and share alike. :cool:
Fend 05-11-06, 03:42 AM	Except...lessee that golem makes the warlock cry, that Clay golem makes the warlock run off in terror. and how often do you face those... theyre not exactly a common occurance. did you also factor in that the dragon got a cover bonus against the warlock yes. He just Never Ran out of attacks so even if he did Blow off a hunk of Stalagmite hed just adjust his aim and fire again the next round. i was litterly "beseiged" until my breath could recharge. and if he's a toolkit I sorta wonder what your games run like Wonderfully for the player and myself. I Removed the Warlock Ages ago from the campaign in an unfortunant incident involving a Hammerclaw and a Water trap. just wondering because if he built his character to work well in your style then it might be more that he built to DM rather than character. He built the character with Pure Destruction abilities and no Roleplay. the player himself doesnt role play and - i dont think hes even seriously capable of it. he can do Systems Very well and He can make a combination but hes Bias towards choosing the best most powerful one he can each and every time - and then not role playing in the game at all. he has fun planning and systematicly peicing together his characters in ways the stretch the rules to their very limitations. hence he loves the warlock class because That is pretty much what it is - except its all under the moncheir of "Legitimate player Class". Which truely sadens me. He was just all power no Spark. And at the moment my group has unanimously decided im the best dm among them. With the Exception possibly of Vinnie, hes a wonderfully Creative and imaginative player. im sure he would make an Excellent Dungeon master. Other note, even the mightiest dragon is smart enough to know it can get overwhelmed, it should have escape routes and plans built into its lair. I've made that mistake once or twice myself but it is worthwhile. =sigh=... i guess no one will totally explain unless i Sum up the whole Scenario. Players went to go kill Drow who were poisoning the Water source in a Cave. they finish with the drow and rest outside with a prisoner tied to a Tree. during the night i roll up Dragon on the Encounters list. he Lands. eats the prisoner. Players flee. Dragon Catches them. Player "Succedes" diplomacy against a hostile Creature. I make the Dragon give them a moraly questionable mission. on the fly this was pretty good on my part. telling them to kill a ranger theyed befreinded in town. they Gleefully accepted (Which Made me Seriously question their Lawful neutral alignments) and - Mugged the Ranger while he was out on patrol one night. returning with 2 other players they garnered from the tavern to show the dragon - meeting him back at the cave they fought the drow. The Cave , wasnt built for a dragon encounter. but i did Deeped the Water abit and i did Raise the Ceiling abit (as the players hadnt asked) the island was still there the whole time so in hind site that was all coincidence. I Grew Tired of my players Sudden alignment Change to gain the Dragons Favor and Decided I will make them Fight the Dragon as punishment for being A*s*holes. the ensuing Combat made me have a nervous Fit because the Warlock overpowered the Dragon, i was more than Ready to kill him i just didnt want to Continue my Own Moncheir of "Killer DM". i was trying to encourage continuity without invincibility. I mean what am i supposed to do. say the Dragon Suicidally runs in, Bypasses Its former Lackys Spends 2 rounds in combat hacking up the Warlock before getting cut down by Fighters screaming "IT Was worth It!!" =sigh= That should clear things up ... any questions? It was never a Dragons Lair to begin with. it just became one by Default. since then ive run a Dragon Combat in a Sewer Cess pool and succeded in Chaseing off the adventurers. a Volcano on the plane of Fire which was our most fun session in memory. a White Dragon Gaurding a Portal in Carnia Which we still laugh about... the party had a rather affectionant Reaping Mauler in it at the time who also happend to be an Azer. A Black Dragon in a Deep Vertical Water Well. And Most Recently, an Adult Green Dragon In a Forest surrounded Lake with an underwater lair "And" an Escape From that Lair to the opposite Bank. I know how to run a Dragon Encounter Properly. "This" Wasnt a normal situation. But id Expect it To Repeat itself With Any Creature in an Average dungeon Room. the Warlock will sit back , Relax , and Own Over everything.
Archangel62 05-11-06, 04:05 AM	Ok, that makes more sense now that you've explained it. The warlock shooting gallery can happen. I think though that what happened was also the fact that the dragon got overpowered by the terrain and location as much by the warlock. The situation played to the warlocks strength and so he did well. On the note of golems every group I play in seems to somehow earn the ire of a wizard with his own portable construct factory. I ran a warlock once, I didn't end up as uber as your warlock did but are you sure that you understood the warlock rules. Nothing against you but I had to read through the thing a few times to make sure I understood it properly and I've been playing since 2nd ed and have been a DM for about 3 years and you might have misread an ability or he might be intentionally misrepresenting an ability to make it more powerful than it actually is. I've used warlocks as enemy NPCs and have played them and had my guys play them, they can be great but they require a lot of planning to be effective in a game. Your guy was a bit of a munchkin anyhow by the sound of it so that should also be factored in. A munchkin can make any class obscene, caster classes just make it more obvious because of the level of options. And my question about the style of campaign had more to do with the types of challenges and encounters that the group faced than anything else. Warlocks can be really good in a few areas but absolutely putrid out of them.
StruckingFuggle 05-11-06, 04:06 AM	Currently, I don't ban any classes. I stronglystrongly discourage FBs, for the same reason most people do (but I feel bad about banning them, because one of my villains is one) ... I've been tempted a few times, but part of it is, even though my game is gestalt, my players don't generally try to do anything really to "optimize" them ... its kinda fun, though I do have to tone down npc creation (most of my encounters are vs. npcs) ... but really. The only classes I frown on are Psionicists (I just, personally, don't want to take the time right now to become familiar with the system to run them right) ... I've come CLOSE to banning the Paladin, and may later, because I don't like the headache and I know some of the others players I have don't like it, either. But I can't think of anything (other than FB) that I've looked at, after reading a great many books, that made me go "aw, hael no" ... though the Teflammar Shadowlord has me wary, and I'm gonna have to see how it goes against my PCs (as I plan to use one in a few levels) ...
gkp79 05-11-06, 04:39 AM	he has fun planning and systematicly peicing together his characters in ways the stretch the rules to their very limitations. hence he loves the warlock class because That is pretty much what it is If playing a warlock is the best this 'power gamer' can come up with, hes not doing a very good job of power gaming. The warlock really is a pretty weak class compared to the stuff you can pull off with prestige classes, or even with just core spell-casters. Put him Side by side With any other level 1 spell caster and youll have to admit. Casting unlimited Magic Missiles shows you how over powered While the level one Warlock is trying to do 1d6 damage every round (in which he probably is missing 1/2 of his blasts at that level anyways due to no BAB) The Sorcerer/Wizard is casting Color Spray and knocking out 3-4 monsters at a time and coup-de-gracing them all. Until level 3, when Eldritch Blast becomes 2d6, its almost just as good to be shooting a crossbow as shooting the blasts against 90% of opponents - and as the levels get higher real spellcasters get much much more powerful options than the Warlock gets. I admit there may be a point, right around the range of levels 3-7, where the Warlock makes a more effective combat caster than Wizards or Sorcerers do. But then again, even at those levels a Barbarian or Fighter is still outdamaging the Warlock - its not like the Warlock is an unstoppable machine that outclasses his party inside that range of levels - he is just perhaps 10% or so better than the sorcerer. And then also you have to remember that for levels 8-20 the Warlock will fall far behind real casters in terms of effectiveness, almost to the point of hilarity how bad they are at high levels. If a player wants to give up the potential for power at levels 8-20 in exchange for a slight boost in effectiveness at level 3-7 whats so bad about that? Every class peaks at different times.
Lokathor 05-11-06, 04:46 AM	StruckingFuggle: If you can get ahold of Dragon 310 it's got some nice "alternate alignment" paladins you might be interested in. Since I'm using fractional advancement I just said that anytime you change alignment you just replace all the class features to match your new alignment and then when you level up you gain the +1 BAB all paladin types get, but you get the +1/3 or +1/2 save points depending on what your current "conviction" of Holy Warrior is. Anyways, it'd get rod of the paladin code thing a bit. If you act chaoticly, you just turn into the Neutral Good form of Holy Warrior and no one has to get up in arms about it. (they've also got neutral forms of holy warrior in the same one, and the evil forms are in issue 313 I think).
babysamurai 05-11-06, 07:34 AM	I'm with Board Rider, in that I allow anything WotC. I even allow all material from Dragon/Dungeon. The only time I won't allow a player to take a class/race etc, is when it doesn't exist in the campaign setting. Like: No Half-Giants in a Dragonlance campaign. No Wu-Jen in a Dark Sun campaign. No Warforged in a Forgotten Realms campaign. ...etc, etc. But at the moment I'm running a Planescape campaign, so my players can choose anything from anywhere.
Senevri 05-11-06, 08:03 AM	I'm enjoying this (thus far civilized) argument so much. Aww... aint they cute? and yes. i dont want my players owning any extra-dimensional entitys. unless the situation is especially comical and funny at the time... "This place is crawling with ARBYFISH!" Anyway, looking at the further info received... Yeah, Warlocks can look a bit powerful on low levels. I don't see the toolkit effect, though.. one least invocation and one lesser invocation at that point, right? a Warlock Can do this all the time. A Warlock is just... too Ranged cheese attack for my campaigns. A sorcerer Expending a spell slot, that i can take. and hell i can counter that just fine i dont mind because hes made the decision to use that spell. But a Warlock CANNOT make any Decisions he just points and obliterates. Edited for GREAT ACCURACY! ;) Yeah, a juvenile green dragon looks like a decent challenge for 4 lv 4-5 meleeists... and, at that point, casters would run out of spells before the dragon dies. at lv 4 hitting that AC of 17(9+cover+total defense)... shouldn't be _that_ easy for a lv 4 warlock. If they have cleric BAB, I'd expect them to have a maximum of +7 to hit - or 50% of the time. 2d6 each, comes to total of 12 points of damage, average, on the span of 4 rounds. I'd imagine the 8d6 breath weapon would have been quite devastating, if the party relied entirely on warlock sniping - considering that (with only Warlock sniping, which wasn't the case - the dragon took some damage earlier, right?) it'd take 40 rounds to kill a juvenile green. (that's at least 80d6 breath weapon damage, folks.) On the other hand, 3 6th level characters (fighter, barbarian, archer-type) took out a young adult blue within 4 rounds, so... The dragon's AC of 22 isn't _that_ hard to hit, though... (4 base +4 str +1 masterwork +1 focus - typical fighter hits on a 12.) All in all, I think it would have been an easy encounter in any case. even if the situation wont come up unless an Epicly Titanic Combat that lasts 100 turns eventuates which is doubtful, I Still Feel totally uncomfortable, like many DM's here, in the Warlocks total lack of Drawbacks or Sacrifices. Think of it this way: Casters with extremely limited selection, or: Archers with a really powerful once-per-round hit, but without iterative attacks. I Even imposed a house rule on my player he could only have Specific Powers from the list and i would only let him use them an amount of times equal to his level times his charisma modifier. he complained he would have far less spells than a Sorcerer of the same level. so i told him furthur he could continue to cast, but beyond that he would suffer d6 Subdual Damage as the powers would Sap his Energy. He ofcourse Said thats Gay. and he wouldnt Play a Warlock unless he was alowed to play it Write. Basicly Its Just to Controversial for me to Ever include in a game again. Well, it looks like you're once burned, twice shy, like... Level X charisma mod... isn't very good, really. I mean, it could be, but you'd have to minmax charisma to some nice count, like 30-40ish... However, a Sorcerer effectively gets level X 6 spells, which equals to having a cha of 22 for free. Now, something like, level X actual charisma score... that I could agree to. (essentially what you did was, you implemented a power point system.) The Dragon Was only juvenile. this Warlock was around level 4 or 5. The EL of the encounter was about 1 higher than the party in total at the time. So i knew it wouldnt be a difficult combat in hind site. I would have no problems with a wizard or sorcerer doing the same thing. My Beef was the Warlock was doing it without even trying. see where im coming from now? His powers Just Are not Justified. at all. Seriously? 2d6 a round is not justified? What about the archer, rapid shotting for 2d8 +6 each round? Or the rogue TWFer, flanking for 6d6+2x str each round? Okay, having range is nice, and the ability to hit touch AC means that they hit a lot. However, their damage potential is less than anything else could have at that point. As mentioned before, blaster-casters _will_ still run out of spells, at this point - however, they're better off using other spells besides blasts at this point. What the warlock has, is a lack of _bad_ choices - a spellcaster _might_ be terribly ineffective at that point. The Dragon Couldnt Get in and full attack. He initially Charged Strait in, took to much damage in 1 round for his likeing in melee , Took a parting shot (withthe line) at the warlock) and Retreated to his island - where the players could only aproach one at a time. The Arrows i wasnt worried about, cause he was in cover. but the Warlock just Sat there Throwing Eldritch Blasts - while the party stood around and waited for the Dragon to die. Where is the once every 1d4 rounds 8d6 breath weapon in all this? did you roll a 4, and the dragon had less than 49 HP left? Thats where i was having a break down. hes just "too" powerful he practicly did it alone and it didnt endanger him at all. it made him a target. but a well protected one. to counter this i then launched from my hiding place, flew above them and unleashed my Breathweapon in a cone (Blanketing a nice 30 by 30 foot Square beneath the dragon) but it didnt do anything to break the party up cause even the dragon would have to wait another 2 turns at minimum for his breath to come back to him. the Warlock just continues to stand there Dealing an Automatic X amount of Damage every round. The worst thing about the Warlock is that he Garentees the enemy will take X D6 Damage each and every round and "Then" Some. Ah, right. There's the breath weapon. Warlock guarantees nothing. Dragons just have a lousy touch AC, which hurts them a lot. Against a nimble rogue, your warlock could easily be trying to hit AC 20, while others would be aiming at AC 22-23 - but, if they hit, they'll do a lot more damage. A max-level warlock does.. what, 9d6 a round? 15d6 a round? A TWF rogue will do around... at least 30d6 a round. Warlocks are relatively strong in early levels, but get progressively weaker as the game progresses. The Warlock isnt just Artillery. Hes "Leomunds Unlimited Tool kit" for any situation. and that is What makes him over powered. Put him Side by side With any other level 1 spell caster and youll have to admit. Casting unlimited Magic Missiles shows you how over powered his is from the get Go... Well, compare him to a level 1 archer. A warlock will hit more often, but others will do more damage. Plus, a touch attack is not magic missile. at higher levels you'' encounter touch ACs around 20ish often and a few approaching 30. As for "toolkit" effect... level 1 wizard starts out with all the cantrips in his spellbook. Warlock has the eldricht blast and a single least invocation. * Acid Splash * Arcane Mark * Dancing Lights * Daze * Detect Magic * Detect Poison * Disrupt Undead * Flare * Ghost Sound * Light * Mage Hand * Mending * Message * Open/Close * Prestidigitation * Ray of Frost * Read Magic * Resistance * Touch of Fatigue A - My first Real Dragon "lair". I didnt intend for him to be doing the running. B - So What your Saying here is Every Combat i should Attempt to Kill the Warlock and completely ignor his freinds. Seriously. Think like a DM. If what your suggesting is the Case that the Warlocks Major Draw back is Short Continuity and an Excuse not to Roleplay. Which the player wasnt doing anyway. It was Cheesy and unrewarding for me or the party who considered him a Glory hog. Sounds like a player problem, not a class problem. But, generally I'd say an intelligent opponent attacks the one that is actually _hurting_ him/her. It's not about fairness as much as it's about logic and efficiency. Now, a bunch of int 4s, I'd probably roll a die to see who they attack. Ok so every combat your saying i should counter with some Large unrealistic mob of unrealisticly prepared creatures who just happend to know the FB was coming... Just to Balance the combats... Actually, the example is directly from Return to temple of elemental evil. Troglodytes. With longspears, which is a simple weapon. 12 opponents at once are a bit tedious, encounter-wise, but a place where, oh, there _lives_ troglodytes, or orcs for that matter, I'd expect to easily found 12 of them. Unrealistic? Hardly. The point is, by just using a bit different weapons and tactics appropriate to them, you can use up party's resources. The encounter I presented, while most likely not lethal to the FB, will make him consider the drawbacks of charging into battle - and there's a good chance that - the party won't significantly assist a FB - the FB will charge a single opponent to start the combat - he might aim for a mob, since he needs lots of enemies in the first place, to avoid TPKs. You could just use groups of four, using forcing the FB to charge, and getting AoOs. This should net you 2-4 hits each round, and the combat should last four rounds, for a total of 8-16 hits, or about 20-30% of hit points. But, FB:s are annoying critters who will kill your BBEGs in a single round, yes. If you want to kill them, use a kobold commando squad: 6 lv 3 rogue kobolds, which hide until the FB is in frenzy, then ranged sneak attack him from several different locations. Their hide checks should be around +14, meaning your spotmasters will probably notice them -- but not FBs, who only listen very well. When not raging, anyway. With a bit of luck, they could drop a budding FB in 3 rounds, while only being a CR 5 encounter. DM: "Ok you See a Night hag on a Winged Nightmare and Several Ghouls around her. Oh and standing over to one side is a Huge mob of Troglodytes that just happen to have longspears" FB : "Ok i Rage and Charge into the Biggest Mob of them" DM : " ok the Trogs . and you guys? " Party : *Runz* DM : " ok looks like your doing this yourself again" FB: "Go for the eyes boo! GO FOR THE EYES YALG!! *Squeeeee*" Heh. Teh funny. You're good at this. But, yeah. FB is pretty much the type, you throw into a dungeon, lock the door and enter after the sounds of battle have dispersed. A night hag capable of flying will take out the FB on her own, though... Magic missile at will?
Harkle 05-11-06, 08:11 AM	The only base classes I allow are the ones from the PHB, no psionics, none from complete series of books, just PHB. Of course exception will be made based on the campaign I'm running, but that is rare, only when I'm using oriental material, or I need something wierd do I allow anything and only case by case I allow it. Prestige classes I don't usually ban unless I absolutly hate everything about it, or it doesn't fit the campaign. Such as the Kensai from Complete Warrior, I hate it with multiple kinds of passion, and have pretty much banned it from being looked upon. Another interestion presitge class of note is the Bladesinger, the only version of it that I will allow is the one from Races of Faerun. And as one side note, since I own damn near all the books, nobody is allowed to play anything I don't own.
VirgilCaine 05-11-06, 08:31 AM	StruckingFuggle: If you can get ahold of Dragon 310 it's got some nice "alternate alignment" paladins you might be interested in Dragon #94, IIRC, has some alternate paladins also.
Traevanon 05-11-06, 08:31 AM	I ban: Ur-Priest Frenzied Berserker Necromancer (well I dont ban the actual class, just Animate Dead) Psionics (at the request of my players) Artificer (as a PC class) Savage Species, Savage Progression Leadership Animate Dead Miracle and Wish (as a spell, players still get them from NPCs through SLAs and items)
Zherog 05-11-06, 10:16 AM	The Dragon Couldnt Get in and full attack. He initially Charged Strait in, took to much damage in 1 round for his likeing in melee , Took a parting shot (withthe line) at the warlock) and Retreated to his island - where the players could only aproach one at a time. The Arrows i wasnt worried about, cause he was in cover. but the Warlock just Sat there Throwing Eldritch Blasts - while the party stood around and waited for the Dragon to die. Of course, the cover would also boost the dragon's touch AC. So more and more it sounds like you dislike the warlock because of one encounter in which you're admitting you ran it poorly. You keep referring to the warlock's "toolbox." What the hell? They have one least invocation known at 1st level. If they want to do anything with their eldritch blast (such as picking up the eldritch spear ability to extend the range), then they can't do anything else. Want Beguiling Influence, so you have a boost to Diplomacy and Intimidate? Hope you like getting in close to use your Eldritch Blast. The class is fine. The warlock is what the sorcerer should've been.
Traevanon 05-11-06, 10:40 AM	The only problem I have with Warlocks is infinate Dispel Magic and Greater Dispel. Its effectively a "take 20" on Dispel Checks against objects and detrimental effects. Everything else is fine, though infinate conjuration spells could be problematic to the campaign if the warlock wanted them to be. Warlock: "I cast Vitriolic Blast into a barrel!" DM: "Um... that's not really what that's for." Warlock: "I cast Vitriolic Blast into a barrel!" DM: "Um... hey! Over here! I'm talking!" Warlock: "I cast Vitriolic Blast into a barrel!" DM: "Fine, you fill the barrrel." Warlock: "I buy 1000 barrels!" DM: "I think I see where this is going...." Warlock: "How many rounds are there in a day?"
Fend 05-11-06, 10:47 AM	I'm enjoying this (thus far civilized) argument so much. as am i. hehe. but what are arbyfish? I don't see the toolkit effect, though.. one least invocation and one lesser invocation at that point, right? What im Getting at here is that if a character Dies. and makes a new character at higher level, he is likely to bring in (if he does choose warlock) a very powerful, Tailor made - not to mention wealthy - Gamewrecker. I dont particularily like having the BBEG's things Broken. subsiquently followed Each round by the slowl removal of his henchmans weapons and armor aswell. i dont like my BBEG's to be that helpless (yes i know. here come the Barrages of - Well if you dont want them to be helpless give them some of... blah) Yeah, a juvenile green dragon looks like a decent challenge for 4 lv 4-5 meleeists... and, at that point, casters would run out of spells before the dragon dies. at lv 4 hitting that AC of 17(9+cover+total defense)... shouldn't be _that_ easy for a lv 4 warlock. If they have cleric BAB, I'd expect them to have a maximum of +7 to hit - or 50% of the time. 2d6 each, comes to total of 12 points of damage, average, on the span of 4 rounds. I'd imagine the 8d6 breath weapon would have been quite devastating, if the party relied entirely on warlock sniping - considering that (with only Warlock sniping, which wasn't the case - the dragon took some damage earlier, right?) it'd take 40 rounds to kill a juvenile green. (that's at least 80d6 breath weapon damage, folks.) The Dragon was hardly in the position to make use of his breathweapon without spending a turn in the open. he got to use it twice. combine that with the huge amount of melee damage done to the dragon at the begining of the encounter when he charged in... and the subsiquent damage he took at the end when the monk and Rouge moved in and flanked him (the hexblade got there to late to get stuck in...). The difference between a warlock and an Archer is the Warlock Cant be taken care of with a Critical fail (bow string Snaps), or Warp Wood. yes. hold person. Not even Silence can Stop a Warlock tho. theres nothing you can do to Stop him short of Killing him. or atleast running in and Feigning your gonna kill him - but this ofcourse makes the players feel immortal. The good thing about a party with a cleric, a Fighter a wizard and a rouge like back in the traditional old days of dnd is that Its simple. Each Class is good at somthing None of the others can do better... and it makes each player have their own domain in the party to Carve out. A Warlock Isnt good at one thing. Hes good at The things he chooses to be. he can do them over and over as many times in a day as hed like. and he can Rattle out an unstoppalbe hail of ranged attacks that thwart armor and deal massive damage. its almost similar to a cleric being able to throw "inflict x wounds" at range every round even on the undead. yes hes thwarted by spell resisitance. but so are wizards. Yes hes got Crap hit die. So he should! id be worried if he was stronger. but the fact ontop of this he can wear armor. and do all sorts of seriously funky ****... Look if he Did that well agaisnt a "Dragon" Whats to say Toril's Weaker creatures stand as good a chance without good preperation (knowing hes coming... Let aloen what he is)... Im almost tempted to create a Warlock BBEG and Say to my party members. witness the Cheese of a milion noodles! (BLAST - burning - Screaming - flying - Gone - Blasting again from 250 feet up...) Seriously? 2d6 a round is not justified? What about the archer, rapid shotting for 2d8 +6 each round? Or the rogue TWFer, flanking for 6d6+2x str each round? I can handle an Archer. he will run out of arrows , or have his bow broken eventually if he isnt careful... he expends Resources. even if they are finite. But a Warlocks cant have his "bow removed" or run out of arrows... he Is just unjustified in the fact he draws the power from an unlimited resovuoir in his soul and it Doesnt have any serious effect on him what so ever? ... i just find it hard to belive. and i wont alow it again. Where is the once every 1d4 rounds 8d6 breath weapon in all this? did you roll a 4, and the dragon had less than 49 HP left? Im going to copy paste the entry on the dragon fight from my blog to here for all to read then. The coming Storm At First Light yet Again the Party Set out from Badwall, makeing Good Time and Encountering Nothing as they Trod the route to Thraxils lair. By sunset Again they Arived. Making a Short Camp to Talk Tactics and Formations while they Ate and Drank from their Rations. They would Take the fight to Thraxil in his Own Den. Thraxil was no fool though, and Listened Keenly - Boasting a Taunt from the Bowels of his Lair which Rumbled out Ominously "Will you Fools Shut up... Come... Meet your End". Aware that Planning meant nothing now... the party Decided to Generally Move in, With a monk on Each Flank and Devicor In the center. Kalgor - the parties Artillery - Would Hold the Rear Throwing Eldritch Blasts while Garrat would Attempt to Gain a Flank on the Dragon with his Sneak Attacks. The Den of the Beast And so - Keenly the Party Decended into Thraxil's Lair... Makeing their Decent to the Spring Room and Fileing out in an Orderly Fashion. Thraxil, Curled Around the Spring Its Self, his Incredulous Hoard of Wealth Spilling into the Lake on Either Side of him Stared out Across the Steping Stones Balefully. "You Dare Return... With Manlings... Your Treachery will Not go unpunished" rumbled Thraxil's Forebodeing Words. Zacharius unwrapped and threw the Shin Bone across the Ground towards Thraxil. "Our Task is Done. Now Reward us" He replied Stalwartly. Thraxil Gave a Haughty Chuckle. The Group was too far for him to use his Breathweapon on. but the chamber was high Enough to Fly in. Sizeing them up as he Spoke to buy himself Time he Singled out the Armored warrior with the Greatsword to be the Biggest Visible threat. though he did not ignor the spell Caster... though he knew not what to expect. The monks looked Relitvly Weak in the eyes of the dragon... the rouge would be no problem as His Blind Sence Rendered its Sneak Attacks Obselete. Regardless The Taunts Flowed between the Adventurers and the Dragon for some time... "Your Use to me has ended. you may Leave with your Lives" Gloated Thraxil maintaining an Aire' of Control. but the Party Members were out for Blood... and Gold. Each Gave their own insult to the Dragon to Anger it. Insulted that his Gracious offer to let them live had been Rejected - Thraxil Threw himself from his Perch... Thraxil's Rage In Response to the Monsterous Dragons Advance The party Hastily Lept to Action. Zacharius and Garrat Launching off Arrows into the Beast From their Positions as Devicor Charged Forward to meet it - Attempting to place a Hex on the Dragon, but the Beast ignored his Grim Warnings. Amal Readied and Alchemist Fire While Kalgor Opened up with an Eldritch Blast - Easily Bypassing the Dragons Formidable Defences To Deal Damage. Thraxil Plowed into Devicor, Bashing him Aside with its Powerful Skull. Amal and Zacharius Closed to Aid Devicor. Dragon Blood began to Flow as all 3 Attempted to exploit Weakspots in the Young Dragons Armored Body. Garrat Circled to get a better Flanking Point. Kalgor Continued his Eldritch Barrage. Overpowered Out in the open Thraxil Realised His Biggest threat was now being Flanked. His Eye fell on Garrat moving in. The Unrelenting Eldritch Barrage Also Stunned him Into submission as None of his Superior Defences could Gaurd Against Such Attacks. Completely Stunned At his Inability to Cow' His Attackers He Retreated towards the Stepping Stones. Aiming to hit at the Fell Warlock in the Rear Ranks, Thraxil Took a Deep Breath And Reared up. Devicor Had barely a Moments notice to Thrust his Sword and Arms up Defencivly as Thraxil's Terrible Jet of Corrosive Breath Washed Over him Towards Kalgor. Seeing this Coming, Kalgor Nimbly Rolled to One Side - Escapeing the deadly Breath attack. Devicor's skin and Hair Burned as the acid began to Corode at his Skin. but He Fought On. Thraxil Still However didnt Escape towards the Stepping Stones unharmed - Devicor and Zacharius dealing attacks of Opportunity as the Dragon backed away. Now confident in his Assailents inability to Swim in at him from the Lake Thraxil Waited on the Bridge to his Island, a Small collection of Large steping Stones. "Ha, Now Face me In short order Fools" He Bellowed - Confident he was regaining some Control over the Battle. Zacharius and Amal Fell back in short order to the entry, Reading their Ranged weapons and keeping A wary distance of the Dragons Fell Breath attacks. Garrat and Devicor Fell back too - Devicor Not Keen to once again face the Terrible Lizard up close again. Realising his Error in Judgment Thraxil Retreated behind the Meager Cover of the Stalagmite which Held up the Gourd Stone Feeding the Spring. Arrows Clattered of Scale and Stone alike while Eldritch Blasts that didnt Find their Marks Blew Grand chunks of Stone' from the surrounding Cave walls. Thraxil began to Feel underseige. Feeling his Breath Slowly Returning too him, Thraxil Launched himself into the air, dodging Arrows and Javlins - even a throwing Axe as he went. finding a Nice Position from which to attack he Let out a Baleful Draconic Smile as he Strafed 4 Unfortunant Interlopers with his Fearsome Acid Breath. a 30 Foot by 30 foot Cone all But Sending the entire Party Scattering for cover. Zacharius Bore the full brunt of the attack - feebly throwing his Arms infront of his Face as the Corosive Gas engulfed him. the others Rolled and Screamed As Acid Burnt their Skin. When the smoke Cleared - Zacharius Still stood - Weakly Reaching more out of Will power than anything for the Curative potions on his belt. Thraxil then Realised his Attack had done nothing to change the course of the battle. the Ranged attacks continued. Mortified he Fled back to his perch behind the Spring suffering from many Wounds. Amal - who had Escaped the Dragons breath worked his Way to a location on the West bank of the lake to begin Throwing Alchemists Fire at the Dragon. Seeing his Moment to single out the Lone Monk - Thraxil Launched himself Across the lake (In his Desperate Bid to Take 1 of these Bastards down with him Forsakeing Cover). Amal However Avoided the attacking dragon as its Bite Smashed Aside stalagmites instead of Flesh. Zacharius and Devicor Saw their opportunity to Get onto the ungaurded island. Using his Supernatural Monk Speed - the Elf Threw himself Across the Stepping Stones and Moved in behind the Dragons rear, Devicor in tow. Garrat moved up on the Side of amal but Fearing the Final Rath of the Belegured Dragon, Kept his Distance and held back Drawing attention with his Bow. Enraged and Trapped in his Own Lake Thraxil's Madness took over, Turning About and Lashing at his new attackers who had Stormed his island so Abrubtly to Take his Treasure and his Domain. Servants must be Punished! The Water Ran Red with his Superior Blood. Thraxil Went all out at Zacharius. Wing, Claw and Maw. Zacharius Ducked and Weaved his best through the attacks. the Angry Dragon's Jaws closing within inches of him, before a Stray Wing Buffet Knocked him into the path of the Beasts Rending Claws. But it was all over. Amal and Zacharius - Attacking from Eitherside of Thraxil - Using the exotic Arts of Kung Foo Melee Found Weakspot after weakspot. Zacharius Eventually ended the fight - a Round House Kick to Thraxil's Exposed Cheek Snapping the Dragons Head down - Disconnecting the Vertibre' from the Heavy Skull with an All Mighty Resounding Crack. Thraxil Sank into the Depths of his Own Lake... His Hopes and Self Delusion with him... Yes i know. thraxil is a Puntzy name for a Dragon but i had to come up with one on the fly when they asked it. And i got it Wrong. 2 Monks. My bad. Warlock guarantees nothing. Dragons just have a lousy touch AC, which hurts them a lot. Against a nimble rogue, your warlock could easily be trying to hit AC 20, while others would be aiming at AC 22-23 - but, if they hit, they'll do a lot more damage. Most things have a lousy touch AC. unless they are super Dextrious but thats only about 20% of things. Bare in mind also that later in the warlock will most likely still hit them on a 10 or some equally low number. But, FB:s are annoying critters who will kill your BBEGs in a single round, yes. and thats why i banned them Heh. Teh funny. You're good at this. :) thanks A night hag capable of flying will take out the FB on her own, though... Magic missile at will? Dunno. ive never really taken a look at the night hag. it just came to mind as somthing that usually rides a nightmare.
Zherog 05-11-06, 11:58 AM	...the Warlock Cant be taken care of with a Critical fail (bow string Snaps), ... Of course, now you're telling us of yet another house rule. There's no such thing as a critical failure, nor is there any way within the rules for a bow string to snap. So now you're comparing a warlock to an archer who is hampered by a poorly written house rule. *yawn*
bitnine 05-11-06, 12:08 PM	Of course, now you're telling us of yet another house rule. There's no such thing as a critical failure, nor is there any way within the rules for a bow string to snap. So now you're comparing a warlock to an archer who is hampered by a poorly written house rule.But I hate archers so when they keep firing their bows asplode!!1!11 That makes them balanced. Maybe I could make the Walock's hands snap off when he rolls a 1 and then he'd be balanced too!
Zherog 05-11-06, 12:33 PM	I suggest that if they roll back-to-back ones, you actually make their head explode. That'd be cool. ;)
Fend 05-11-06, 12:41 PM	Of course, now you're telling us of yet another house rule. There's no such thing as a critical failure, nor is there any way within the rules for a bow string to snap. So now you're comparing a warlock to an archer who is hampered by a poorly written house rule. *yawn* I Find that insulting sorry. and im sure even "you" have House rules My House rule of a Critical Fail Malfunctions your Ranged Device, (Crossbow Jams, String Comes loose) Requires you to fix it before you can use it anymore. this Gives an Element of Bad luck to both the good and bad guys in my Campaigns and so far its become a laughing point many times. Its a Critical Fumble with a Ranged Weapon. You have no Right to knock me. so Stow it.
Feeb 05-11-06, 01:21 PM	You have no Right to knock me. so Stow it. A large part of your complaints about a RAW class are based on non-RAW events. It is a valid criticism. Back to Topic: Up coming campaign has no deities (unless you happen to be a Tsocharr or an Aboleth), thus no divine based classes (clerics, paladins, favored souls, etc. Druids *are* available, using variant rules from PHB2.) Psionics, however, are included.
Zherog 05-11-06, 01:24 PM	I Find that insulting sorry. *shrug* and im sure even "you" have House rules Yep, I certainly do. The difference is I don't then go onto message boards and complain that something is broken, only to have it revealed later that it only appears to be broken because of a silly and counterproductive house rule I have in place that butchers other classes. In addition to that, when you make arguments on a message board, it's assumed you're talking about the actual rules, not your personal variants. Otherwise, people don't all work from the same starting point. My House rule of a Critical Fail Malfunctions your Ranged Device, (Crossbow Jams, String Comes loose) Requires you to fix it before you can use it anymore. this Gives an Element of Bad luck to both the good and bad guys in my Campaigns and so far its become a laughing point many times. Its a Critical Fumble with a Ranged Weapon. You have no Right to knock me. so Stow it. I do, however, have every right to knock your house rule and provide my opinion of them - even when it's a negative opinion - as long as I follow the CoC. I think I've done that; if you disagree, then report me. *shrug* Seriously. That's not being snarky. If you think I've crossed the line - or if you think anybody has crossed the line for that matter - you should use the handy little "report this post" feature. I don't think I've even come close to breaking any rules, though. Critical failure on a 1 generally hurts PCs more than NPCs, and hurts fighter types more than non-fighter types. In addition, if you don't require the critical failure to be "confirmed" (just like a critical success is confirmed), then you're making things even worse for your players. Do you really think a world class archer breaks his or her bow string every 20 shots? Let's face it; you have house rules, bad rules interpretations, and poorly set-up monster lairs at work here, yet you're blaming the warlock class for all three of those. Sorry to tell you, but the problem isn't the warlock class; the problem is the other three.
Zherog 05-11-06, 01:29 PM	Up coming campaign has no deities (unless you happen to be a Tsocharr or an Aboleth), thus no divine based classes (clerics, paladins, favored souls, etc. Druids *are* available, using variant rules from PHB2.) Psionics, however, are included. Mmmm.... Tsochari... they might be my most favorite thing from Lords of Madness. ;) So you're implementing this restriction, even though the PHB says it's possible to have godless clerics and paladins? Just curious - I know plenty of folks who regard that rule as stupid. ;)
Tharivol 05-11-06, 01:41 PM	I Find that insulting sorry. and im sure even "you" have House rules My House rule of a Critical Fail Malfunctions your Ranged Device, (Crossbow Jams, String Comes loose) Requires you to fix it before you can use it anymore. this Gives an Element of Bad luck to both the good and bad guys in my Campaigns and so far its become a laughing point many times. Its a Critical Fumble with a Ranged Weapon. You have no Right to knock me. so Stow it. I used to work on an archery range at a Cub Scout camp. I was teaching archery to kids between 1st and 6th grade. I did this for two years, and was at the camp for a third year although I didn't work on the range. They would fire about 18 bows at a time, for about... maybe 6-7 hours a day, on average, 6 days a week for two months. Toward the end of that third year, I heard of a bow being broken for the first time. Nobody was hurt, and the string was just fine. And the kid broke the bow doing something he was specifically told not to do because it would break the bow (dry-firing) and not while actually shooting. I'm not sure it's actually possible, and it's definately not very likely to happen to an actual archer. Just FYI. :angelhide
Feeb 05-11-06, 02:05 PM	So you're implementing this restriction, even though the PHB says it's possible to have godless clerics and paladins? Just curious - I know plenty of folks who regard that rule as stupid. Yeah, I probably should amend my ealier post to reflect that there is no divine *anything* with the exception of these uber-beings from the Far Realms (the aberrant deity-things). It is mostly for story/flavor reasons So the reasoning goes that these classes have no source for their power, deific or transcendental in nature, and this largely will have to due with the inclusion of incarnum in the game (there was a time in the past when incarnum did not freely exist, and the dieties/outer planes did.) An event in the not so distant past released incarnum and resulted deities "dying" off. Events of the campaign might make this event reversable. I'm thinking I might allow the Binder class to fullfill requirements of Divine Prcs, with vestige level replacing spell level requirements. I'm choosing to use the Ardent and Divine Mind rather than deity-less clerics and paladins. I should also note that there won't be any Outer Planes (save the far realms, which will be co-terminus with the deep etheral) or elemental planes. The transitive planes exist, as to the positive and negative planes, but the plane of shadow has merged with the prime material, resulting in some locations having prime material traits and others plane of shadow traits. Campaign plot points will include a six-way war between a "false" theocracy ruled behind (inside?) the clergy by the Tsocharr, a loose condederation of Aboleths trying to "drown the World", a shadowy cabal of Mystery-using Alhoon (Illithid shadowcaster liches) intent on reviving a long desicated Elder Brain via dark magics, a city of free-willed undead who extend their existence by "feeding" on crafted magic items, and continent spanning empire ruled by Orge-magi and the remanants of mortal kingdoms and cultures, desperately trying to survive. Sort of an post-apocalypse, aberrants-gone-wild thing.
Spike_Fightwicky 05-11-06, 02:27 PM	Umm, about that Green Dragon.... What spells did he have? Obscuring Mists would have done wonders against the Warlock (does Eldritch Blast require line of sight? If so, it would completely negate it)
Arquinsiel 05-11-06, 02:39 PM	Monks. Because the orient doesn't exist in my campaign world.
Zombie Carl 05-11-06, 03:22 PM	Monks. Because the orient doesn't exist in my campaign world. I can see why you have done this, however I try to conceptualize monks as being non-oriental in my campaigns. I think the problem is just with the title "monk". It should be Unarmed Combat Artist, or Bean-Eating Buttgoblin or something similar, but in real-world stereotypes, the venerable monk who can destroy blocks with his bare hands in a popular - and well recognised - one. A character finds an ancient text detailing how everyone has this secret inner power, and sits in his dingy hovel studying it and practising some moves. After a few months, he is a level 1 monk. He's 6'4, a fat gut from too many greasy fry-ups and happens to be a bricklayer. He's got a big complex about his fat gut and height, was always teased as a kid for being lanky, now he's lanky and fat and so slouches alot through lack of self-confidence. However, he has focused, mediated and studied and now can use his inner power. He ends up pressed into an adventure, and is forced to use these fledgling skills to survive. Lucky he picked them up, eh? Anyway, a year down the line, fighting for his life every step of the way, he is a lean, mean killing machine. He can punch through walls, jump up to the third floor of a building and run faster than linford christie. The gut's gone and his posture is straighter than a telephone pole, and he carries himself with an air of self-assurance. He is a monk; he has the self-belief to face any situation and the skills to back it up. That makes for an interesting story of the character, with nice development and progression, all without pulling your eyes sideways and making "ching-chong china-man" noises.
Cifer 05-11-06, 04:26 PM	@Fend I more or less agree with the others: As accurate as diagnosis-at-range can be, the problem was less the class, but rather the player, the environment and the housrules (bow string snapping and evasion-like 20). Our new DM had a problem like that on his first day: We had a relatively strong, but clumsy BBEG to defeat and the fight took place on the open plains, with some trees in between. The characters that were there on that day were essentially two rogue- and monklike characters going cat burglar (every damn feat and class option there is for climbing) and my mounted fighter (yep, every damn feat there is for mounted combat). So what he had was one guy standing there, using some rather inefficient ranged weapons while the two rogues were standing on trees, throwing their throwing weapons while I charged past him (Ride-by-attack+Lance reach weapon = about no possibility to get hit myself; lance+spirited charge = mean damage) landing strike after strike. The DM (yep, one of the "DM has to play against players" persuasion) was furious about how easily we won and didn't realize that it was essentially the perfect battlefield for each of our characters. It essentially becomes the question in which way you wish to play your monsters: Shall they be effective, trying their best to beat the PCs, or not? With regards to this special dragon, being effective would mean: get a cone on the group in, then go down to the ground, take a full attack at the warlock to incapacitate him (easy because of your reach) and take off again. Of course that's mean for the warlock, but anyone should have heard the saying "kill the mage first" by now - that's why mages stand back and not charge into the front after all. To go back to the class itself, I shall do some high-level examination: Yes, a level-20-Warlock can sport 11d6 per round. Now think about the most popular L3-spell - fireball. 15d6 to a group auto-hit with a reflex save for half damage and a complete evasion only possible for a few characters. Add some metamagic in and 11d6 is a joke. If we come in close, I think it's not unreasonable for a rogue to get some improved invisibility up by that level and a brilliant energy weapon isn't unheard of either. Thus, we go for about the same AC the warlock has to beat - with 10d6 sneak damage per attack for between 3 and 5 attacks per round. One always has to view the whole class progression before ruling something as overpowered and the warlock seems to me more like an archer than a true spellcaster.
DarknessEternal 05-11-06, 05:06 PM	I suggest that if they roll back-to-back ones, you actually make their head explode. That'd be cool. ;) Your Head ASPLODE! Any universe with Critical Failures in combat is one in which no conflict is resolved with violence. No army could function in a battle without destroying their own side in under five minutes.
Purkake 05-11-06, 05:10 PM	Your Head ASPLODE! Any universe with Critical Failures in combat is one in which no conflict is resolved with violence. No army could function in a battle without destroying their own side in under five minutes. On the brighter side so will the enemy :P So everybody will hold hands and dance all day long...
Senevri 05-11-06, 05:28 PM	Heh... We had a critical hit/fumble tables... until I showed how this screws up anyone using an axe. Or what happens when a character uses a keen rapier with improved critical (3.0) On-topic, I'm thinking of banning Shapechange and Polymorph. as am i. hehe. but what are arbyfish? Plot devices, essentially. Foot-long flying seal aberrations with near-infinite powers. Anyone conversing with them for extended periods of time are likely to go insane. Green ones have been known to obsess 'bout mushrooms. Three fun things to know 'bout the 'fish: - They laugh like a snake, whatever that sounds. - They're all about propriety. - You Can't Beat An Arbyfish. What im Getting at here is that if a character Dies. and makes a new character at higher level, he is likely to bring in (if he does choose warlock) a very powerful, Tailor made - not to mention wealthy - Gamewrecker. Well.. again, sounds more of a player problem. One thing I've noticed, don't allow for custom magical items during character creation. We generally also use the rule that maximum item price is half of starting wealth. I dont particularily like having the BBEG's things Broken. subsiquently followed Each round by the slowl removal of his henchmans weapons and armor aswell. i dont like my BBEG's to be that helpless (yes i know. here come the Barrages of - Well if you dont want them to be helpless give them some of... blah) Well, a mage with Disjunction is _worse_... But, I don't really see players using this tactic a lot, since it means less loot. As said, others too get shatter and dispels. and, once you get away from the lower levels, the number-of-castings per day becomes trivialized. Now, a sorcerer with full Arcane Order levels... Brr... _that's_ versatility. I'd allow a sorcerer spellpool access, if they manage to create a spellpool on their own. When they time, the take 20 on dispel magic can be a bit useful from time to time, I'd think. However, do they get greater dispel or somesuch? The Dragon was hardly in the position to make use of his breathweapon without spending a turn in the open. he got to use it twice. combine that with the huge amount of melee damage done to the dragon at the begining of the encounter when he charged in... and the subsiquent damage he took at the end when the monk and Rouge moved in and flanked him (the hexblade got there to late to get stuck in...). ...so, the whole party contributed. Good, good. The difference between a warlock and an Archer is the Warlock Cant be taken care of with a Critical fail (bow string Snaps), or Warp Wood. yes. hold person. Not even Silence can Stop a Warlock tho. theres nothing you can do to Stop him short of Killing him. or atleast running in and Feigning your gonna kill him - but this ofcourse makes the players feel immortal. I'd think they feel, more like, superheroes. Quite similar to sorcerers, I hear - even if they're mechanically weaker than wizards, early on those extra castings _can_ be fun. Critical fumbles... well. It's not really fair that proper fighters have twice the chance of a mishap than someone who's less proficient in fighting. Mishap tables and critical tables are _fun_... they just don't work evenly. Maybe something that you'd need to collect your base number of attacks in nat ones to suffer a mishap. This would make it even across all classes, but is more book-keeping. Also, crit tables should only be allowed on confirmed nat 20s. Otherwise, you're going to end up with high crit weapons being more powerful than others. I think grappling also stops warlocks. Dragons are very good grapplers, but the rest of the team would've killed him if he tried that... It doesn't seem like the warlock contributed _that_ much to the dragon's death. You've seen the math... the dragon could _stand in front of the warlock_ and _Still_ kill it in a duel, one on one. (both do about equal damage, dragon has more HP.) The good thing about a party with a cleric, a Fighter a wizard and a rouge like back in the traditional old days of dnd is that Its simple. Each Class is good at somthing None of the others can do better... and it makes each player have their own domain in the party to Carve out. True, dat. UA with all of it's disliked stuff, also has the very fun generic classes... But, running a game with those, you should only allow those three classes. A Warlock Isnt good at one thing. Hes good at The things he chooses to be. Yes? And? He's a medium damager, pretty good with mobility & avoidance, has some staying power. The arcane equivalent of a fighter, really. it's.. what, fifteen invocations isn't much vs. wizard's or cleric's every single spell in the book thing. he can do them over and over as many times in a day as hed like. and he can Rattle out an unstoppalbe hail of ranged attacks that thwart armor and deal massive damage. Not _that_ massive. A sorcerer-based arcane trickster will be doing 19d6 a round vs. single targets, and 17d6 AoEs a few times a day. its almost similar to a cleric being able to throw "inflict x wounds" at range every round even on the undead. Reach spell. Hierophant. Cure spells harm undead. or cast spark of life. yes hes thwarted by spell resisitance. but so are wizards. Yes hes got Crap hit die. So he should! id be worried if he was stronger. but the fact ontop of this he can wear armor. Costs wizard a few feats, but they can too. I believe there are gishes going around in full plate, with no ASF, with BAB 17 and CL 17. Or, you could just go ftr 3 / cleric 17 for the same net effect. Also, Bards get chainmail. and do all sorts of seriously funky ****... Look if he Did that well agaisnt a "Dragon" Whats to say Toril's Weaker creatures stand as good a chance without good preperation (knowing hes coming... Let aloen what he is)... Well.. a single dragon is hampered by it's limited action count. Any mage with Minor Globe will be immune to Eldricht Blast... weak against multiple weaker critters, though, at that point. Or so I'd think. A Warlock is actually rather bad off against anything since a warlock _can't_ prepare anything. Thus, he'll be using the same tactics all the time. no versatility. Im almost tempted to create a Warlock BBEG and Say to my party members. witness the Cheese of a milion noodles! (BLAST - burning - Screaming - flying - Gone - Blasting again from 250 feet up...) Feel free. Still, the time stop + 5 delayed blast FBs for 100d6 damage is a tad more annoying. Or the twin emp scorchers for 36d6. combined with a quicken it's 48d6. The warlock is a weird hybrid between fighter's benefits and a casters, really. Downsides: - not that tough (a bit tougher than bard, maybe.) - very limited spell list (around 16 total. a ranger has more.) - their main attack isn't that impressive, plus only once / round. 9d6, 1 / round, as touch attack vs: 8d6 + 32, thf fighter with str 18 - not that good attack, though. vs: 12d6 to 36d6, 1/round round, or up to lots more: Scorching ray. touch. vs: 60d6, twf rogue flanking. Vs. normal ac -2 or flatfooted AC -2 vs: 5d8 +5x str, archer, vs. normal AC. 10d10 +5x str, monk. Upsides: - Infinite castings (vs: fighter - infinite attacks) - more mobility/disabling/avoiding options(less than mages, more than fighters.) I can handle an Archer. he will run out of arrows , or have his bow broken eventually if he isnt careful... he expends Resources. even if they are finite. Well... with your rules, I'd carry spare bows. Also, my archers buy arrows in the hundreds. But a Warlocks cant have his "bow removed" or run out of arrows... he Is just unjustified in the fact he draws the power from an unlimited resovuoir in his soul and it Doesnt have any serious effect on him what so ever? ... i just find it hard to belive. and i wont alow it again. Well, it's similar to how some fiends have SLAs unlimited / day. Mechanic-wise, it's like how you have infinite melee attacks / day. The flavor.... yah, there's something of an issue. The energy pool should be huge, but there should be a way to drain it, if you really tried. level X charisma score might be okay - so a starting lv1 warlock would have 14-18 castings a day. Much more than others, but still drainable. Im going to copy paste the entry on the dragon fight from my blog to here for all to read then. Well, looks like the rest of the party contributed a lot! Without the party, the warlock would've been toast. Yes i know. thraxil is a Puntzy name for a Dragon but i had to come up with one on the fly when they asked it. And i got it Wrong. 2 Monks. My bad. Most things have a lousy touch AC. unless they are super Dextrious but thats only about 20% of things. Bare in mind also that later in the warlock will most likely still hit them on a 10 or some equally low number. Mm. Personally I think it's to compensate for the weakness of that power. (low spell level, not that impressive damage.) and thats why i banned them Well... Okay, fine. But really - not overpowered. An arcane version of the fighter, really. Although sounds kinda like you had a bit troublesome player... If you don't like the flavor, change it. Dunno. ive never really taken a look at the night hag. it just came to mind as somthing that usually rides a nightmare. there's a lot of nasty BBEGs. Three vrocks can do nasty things, too. Any insane AC build will also ruin a FB's day. A troglodyte X would do. (full plate, few points to dex, tower shield for AC of 28 without any magic. Could go up to 44 while doing full defense while waiting out the FB's rage with appropriate magic items. This by lv 12, easy.) {pronounced: cheesy}
syntaxerror37 05-11-06, 07:58 PM	Actually, if a player wanted to play a frenzied berserker, I would let him. After he causes a TPK everyone will have learned a valuable lesson, "Don't play a character that is a hazard to the party". They do, however, make fun enemies to throw at PCs. To those that banned paladins (excepting campaign setting reasons), in what way is playing a paladin placing a burden on the other players? "Aww shucks, now I can't play my evil backstabbing character who would sell out the party for a shiny copper piece." "Damn! Now I can't stab that commoner for looking at me wrong! Why did Bob have to be a paladin?" Frankly, if a having a paladin in the party stops crap like that, I'm thankful. I played a paladin in a party with a CN thief who had a habit of taking the five-finger-discount while item shopping. He didn't do it with the paladin there, and he certainly didn't brag about it in front of him. Although I was constantly suspicious of him (in character), I in no way interfered with his ability to be a shifty little bastard. At no time in the game were my paladin restrictions a "burden" on any one but me.
ravenshrike 05-11-06, 10:23 PM	I don't ban anything. My group as a whole has effectively banned the Frenzied Berserker by saying that they'd never adventure with such an unreliable person. Easy enough to counter. Just have at least two other combat party members with improved trip, as well as a druid with a wolf. Then sit there and keep tripping him until Frenzy runs out.
loaba 05-11-06, 10:48 PM	I don't ban anything outright, I just look over whatever it is and go from there.
StruckingFuggle 05-11-06, 11:21 PM	To those that banned paladins (excepting campaign setting reasons), in what way is playing a paladin placing a burden on the other players? "Aww shucks, now I can't play my evil backstabbing character who would sell out the party for a shiny copper piece." "Damn! Now I can't stab that commoner for looking at me wrong! Why did Bob have to be a paladin?" Frankly, if a having a paladin in the party stops crap like that, I'm thankful. That's quite the false dichotomy you have going there ...
Tormsskull 05-11-06, 11:30 PM	I ban all non-core material. I tend to make a lot of unique material for my campaigns so that the experience my players receive cannot be easily replicated by a different DM. Plus I can't stand "builds" and I get some kind of sick satisfaction in stopping people from multi-classing into classes their character has never heard of, or dipping into a class to get certain abilities. As has been said before, any class can potentially be unbalancing, but in my own opinion I believe the core classes to be best balanced against one another without adding in other classes that could potentially unbalance the campaign.
DarknessEternal 05-11-06, 11:40 PM	To those that banned paladins (excepting campaign setting reasons), in what way is playing a paladin placing a burden on the other players? "Aww shucks, now I can't play my evil backstabbing character who would sell out the party for a shiny copper piece." "Damn! Now I can't stab that commoner for looking at me wrong! Why did Bob have to be a paladin?" You need to re-read the description of Evil. Evil is defined in D&D as someone who simply cares more about their own survival more than others'. Evil does not make someone an *******-jerk-traitor-murderer. I guarantee you hang out with people on a daily basis that are evil as defined by D&D.
Cadfan 05-11-06, 11:41 PM	Easy enough to counter. Just have at least two other combat party members with improved trip, as well as a druid with a wolf. Then sit there and keep tripping him until Frenzy runs out. That doesn't work. First, you have to trip the frenzied berserker, even with his frenzied strength score. That's not a guarantee. Then, after you trip him, he is going to stand back up (move action), and hit you in the face very, very hard. You get an attack of opportunity when he stands, but he counts as prone during that attack of opportunity, meaning that you can't trip him again. And to trip, you have to be adjacent, so he can reach you when he stands...
Anguirus23 05-11-06, 11:50 PM	And you know the best way to thwart a Warlock? Lesser Globe of Invulnerability + True Seeing. Then it's a matter of killing the little bastard before Globe wears off. Which, if you are a wizard and there aren't too many targets, shoudn't be that bad. Oh, Ryuu, you only know that because of Lord Mugwhap's recent encounter with Woogoo the Mad Mage... :P I just ran a game with a warlock for the first time, and they are very newbie-friendly and excel out of combat. This particular warlock also spent the invocations and money on being good at eldritch blast, so I don't begrudge him that. He saved the party quite a few times...before he went nuts and ran off (if you must ask, do so via PM, lol). Basically, in the time he played, the warlock wound up fighting a lower-level cleric solo to a draw and harassing a higher-level wizard with a swarm during a fight with the whole party. Wound up getting the final blow in after the wizard's Globe wore off, but that was after said wizard killed off half the party. (I run optimized NPCs against my optimized PCs...) Now, on-topic. Currently, I have a blanket ban on the Bard and the Soulknife, allowing them only as PrCs (see UA and the 3.5 Dark Sun PrC list). Why? Well, I like the 2nd edition flavor for the Bard as a fighter/thief/arcane dabbler, rather than the master of "music magic" and second-rate healer that it has become. And the Soulknife base class...sucks. The PrC is useful. I also use the spontaenous cleric and druid casting variant from UA. That means no favored soul, as it becomes redundant as well as absurd. If you want to prepare divine spells in my games, be an archivist. This variant makes clerics a good deal more fun/flavorful and a good deal less overwhelming. I haven't gotten my hands on the PHBII yet, but I may require that druids use the nerfed Wild Shape in there, too, because Wild Shape seems pretty crazy. But honestly, no one's ever wanted to play a druid in my games, so it hasn't really come up. Aside from that...by default, anything is allowed in any of my books, but if you want to do something, ask me about it. I don't allow some UA variants, for instance. I'd probably allow a player to be a frenzied berserker, but I wouldn't stop the other players from killing his dumb ass when he went nuts. I tend to restrict options based on what my world is like, not what I'm afraid I can't handle. I don't allow Incarnum right now, for instance, because not only do I not own the book, but I think having all three Tome of Magic systems plus psionics plus the warlock plus traditional magic is about all my world can support. I let a player use a race from there already, though, and if there was serious player demand to use Incarnum I'd certainly look into it. I don't understand some of the issues in this thread. If a player can easily beat an encounter by playing to some strength that I hadn't taken into account when I designed/read it, I congratulate him, reward him suitably, and try to think of a tougher, or at least different, challenge for the next time. It helps that at the moment the players' foes are very intelligent and powerful NPCs with class levels who have a good idea of what they can and can't do by now, but the same principle can be applied to almost anything. In a world where warlocks are common, for instance, no intelligent dragon is without scintillating scales, or at least a backup plan. If I don't get bitter when PCs do well, they don't whine when I present them with smart enemies that play by the same rules.
bitnine 05-12-06, 12:04 AM	That doesn't work. First, you have to trip the frenzied berserker, even with his frenzied strength score. That's not a guarantee. Then, after you trip him, he is going to stand back up (move action), and hit you in the face very, very hard. You get an attack of opportunity when he stands, but he counts as prone during that attack of opportunity, meaning that you can't trip him again. And to trip, you have to be adjacent, so he can reach you when he stands...Why would he stand back up? If he's frenzied, I think he can eat the -4 prone penalty and still cut you off at the shins. Prone doesn't mean you can't attack:Prone: The character is on the ground. An attacker who is prone has a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A defender who is prone gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.
Vaelan 05-12-06, 12:31 AM	Easy enough to counter. Just have at least two other combat party members with improved trip, as well as a druid with a wolf. Then sit there and keep tripping him until Frenzy runs out. My group is perfectly aware of how a Frenzied Berserker's can be negated. They don't want to deal with it. Further, your solution doesn't actually work. Read up on the rules for being prone. Getting full attacks while prone is more effective than standing up and getting tripped again, and thus the Frenzied Berserker would only be minorly hindered. The real way to counter it is to go Thayan Knight and have a Red Wizard cohort, though that should really be the other way around. Or you can get +18 to Will saves, which isn't terribly difficult.
syntaxerror37 05-12-06, 01:21 AM	You need to re-read the description of Evil. Evil is defined in D&D as someone who simply cares more about their own survival more than others'. Evil does not make someone an *******-jerk-traitor-murderer. I guarantee you hang out with people on a daily basis that are evil as defined by D&D. I guarantee you that I do not hang out with people on a daily basis that are evil as you so defined it. I may come into contact with them, but I only hang out with people I like. The definition you are presenting is pretty much how evil sees itself. Many neutral characters can easily put their lives ahead of others and still be far from evil. Although I do not doubt that evil characters will show that trait that is hardly all evil is. Perhaps you are in fact the one who needs to re-read about evil and alignments in D&D (its on pages 104-106 of the PHB). So what you’re trying to say is that because being a paladin and meaning that the party has to be non-evil is placing a burden on the other players? How many DMs outright ban evil alignments to begin with, so this isn't even an issue? Am I the only player who builds a party with the other PCs instead of just throwing any old characters we feel like playing together (ex: "Hey, is anyone thinking of being evil? Because I was thinking of playing a paladin.")? Yes my examples were fairly exaggerated. That was the point. And what about just being lawful good, or any other good alignment for that matter? Sure you may not have an evil-radar or lose class features for associating with an evil character, but if a person of evil alignment starts to take actions that conflict with your world view, that's the 10:05 express to inter-party strife. From both a DM's standpoint and that of a player, I don't see how forcing the party to be not-evil is anything but a blessing.
Fend 05-12-06, 02:48 AM	Of course, now you're telling us of yet another house rule. There's no such thing as a critical failure, nor is there any way within the rules for a bow string to snap. So now you're comparing a warlock to an archer who is hampered by a poorly written house rule. *yawn* Think what you like. This isnt a house rules thread. I have issues with the warlock. I wont alow them to be accessed by my players again. Fair enough. The Dragon encounter was the first one the warlock was in. he was in many others after that before he died. and i Still dont like him.
Archangel62 05-12-06, 03:00 AM	I'm not saying that you can't ban the warlock in your game, it is your game after all. I don't think that any of us here are saying that. The point that we're trying to make is that your test was tainted with corrupt data. The information used was incorrect, there seems to be a general assumption that you made a mistake in regards to the invocations he had access to, he can't swap em around or anything like that. And the situation seemed far less that the warlock did the whole battle but was the one best suited for the situation. The comparison might be this, if the group came upon a bunch of goblins in perfect square formations who were somehow prevented from diving for cover a few fireballs could wipe them all out easily. That doesn't make fireball overpowered, just that that situation in particular made fireball really good. To me it sounds more that the dragon was defeated more by the terrain and the intial pummeling that it took than the warlock. I'm just saying consider what the rest of us are saying here. Most of us are DMs with at least some experience. Some of the biggest mistakes can come from people misreading or misinterpreting rules. The point on houserules came more from the fact that it also alters how the warlock works. If there is a game where SLAs can be augmented with some sort of ritual but regular spells don't get that ability then the warlock does get stronger but that is BECAUSE of that houserule rather than the warlock.
DarknessEternal 05-12-06, 10:17 AM	Yes my examples were fairly exaggerated. That was the point. And what about just being lawful good, or any other good alignment for that matter? Sure you may not have an evil-radar or lose class features for associating with an evil character, but if a person of evil alignment starts to take actions that conflict with your world view, There's an enormous difference between people being a Paladin with an evil character and characters merely having a good alignment. You can NEVER have a Paladin in a party with an evil character; he immediately loses all of his class features. This is most likely permanent since he has the detect evil to be knowingly breaking his Paladin code. If people are good, but not Paladins, an evil PC may just be the shifty guy they hang out with.
yukisanada 05-12-06, 11:10 AM	Personally the are very few classes that I do ban while being a DM and those are 1) Warlocks, too ugly 2) Ninjas, I absolutley despise Ninjas since they would rather run than fight and 3) Knights, a Knight basically sits around in heavy armour trying to act like a Samurai. Those are the only classes that I ban.
babysamurai 05-12-06, 11:15 AM	Personally the are very few classes that I do ban while being a DM and those are 1) Knights, a Knight basically sits around in heavy armour trying to act like a Samurai. Wow - you're going to get a lot of flak for that one.
Tharivol 05-12-06, 01:29 PM	If people are good, but not Paladins, an evil PC may just be the shifty guy they hang out with. Shifty=/=evil. What would the motivation for this group's adventures be? If the only reason the characters are adventuring together is because they are the PCs and not because of any in-character common motivations, isn't that metagaming and bad roleplaying? A character doesn't have to be nice to be good. I'm planning on using a warlock in my next game who enjoys yelling at small children until they cry and frightening puppies for fun, but who would pull out her mace and stand between either and anyone who would actually hurt them. That's not evil, she's good--just kinda mean. A paladin may scold her, but she's still be a loyal adventuring companion for one, sharing in his/her overall motivations. Personally the are very few classes that I do ban while being a DM and those are 1) Warlocks, too ugly 2) Ninjas, I absolutley despise Ninjas since they would rather run than fight and 3) Knights, a Knight basically sits around in heavy armour trying to act like a Samurai. Those are the only classes that I ban. Don't such aspects of the character's personality and appearance depend on the individual character? I've had three rogues, a ranger, and a sorceress who would rather fight than run away (although all of those characters sucked it up and fought alongside their companions anyway), but no ninjas (although, to be fair, I've never had one at all). As for warlocks being ugly.. the only ugly character I ever played was an evoker; the warlock mentioned above? She's supposed to be supernaturally beautiful (not that her beauty is anything special just that nothing can mar it, like her wounds never seem to leave scars when they heal no matter how deeply she was cut).
DarknessEternal 05-12-06, 02:30 PM	I'm planning on using a warlock in my next game who enjoys yelling at small children until they cry and frightening puppies for fun, Read how D&D defines evil: "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. "[Y]elling at small children until they cry and frightenting puppies for fun" is "hurting [and] oppressing ... others." You will be playing an evil alignment as far as D&D is concerned. Your example only furthers my point.
Decepticons 05-12-06, 02:38 PM	Read how D&D defines evil: "[Y]elling at small children until they cry and frightenting puppies for fun" is "hurting [and] oppressing ... others." You will be playing an evil alignment as far as D&D is concerned. Your example only furthers my point. Sometimes my dad yelled at me when I was a child until I cried. Usually it was for a good reason. This does not make him evil. (However, it's a friggin wierd character development, I'll admit. "Hark, stand down from those ugly, idiot children and their retarded mongrel pets, evildo-er, lest I bash you with my mace!")
Tharivol 05-12-06, 02:49 PM	Read how D&D defines evil: "[Y]elling at small children until they cry and frightenting puppies for fun" is "hurting [and] oppressing ... others." You will be playing an evil alignment as far as D&D is concerned. Your example only furthers my point. I didn't say she yells at them for no reason. She just tends not to be very nice unless she needs to be. There is also a slim possibility that I was exaggerating slightly to get my point across (yelling at small children would be rare and certainly not something done at the mere sight of them).
Lincoln Hills 05-12-06, 02:50 PM	Base classes I don't allow? That's a toughie. I'm a 3.0 diehard, you see. My crude, backward, half-broken, abandoned, inferior hillbilly game mechanic doesn't have any of these odd new classes that seem to be troubling you modern, sophisticated city folk. (Not that 3.0 doesn't have problems - I could make a list! - but broken base classes don't seem to be one of 'em.)
Decepticons 05-12-06, 02:53 PM	I didn't say she yells at them for no reason. She just tends not to be very nice unless she needs to be. There is also a slim possibility that I was exaggerating slightly to get my point across (yelling at small children would be rare and certainly not something done at the mere sight of them). You did say your character frightens puppies for fun...and I'd say that's pretty borderline. The implication here is that your charachter frightens puppies for personal satisfaction and as a DM, I'd probably go with applying the evil tag to that behavior . I think I understand what you're getting at (your character is (sometimes?) mean, but not evil), but I think you've given a poor example. Won't someone think of the puppies!?!
daponz 05-12-06, 03:15 PM	For me Warlock is a clear no-go. Simply to strong when compared to other baseclasses. All the others I allow but everything depends on reason. If you have a player that really searches his synergies, all spellcasting classes are potentially too strong. Druid is a fine example, but it depends on how he's build and to what spells he has access.
bitnine 05-12-06, 03:23 PM	Hm, seems slightly off topic, this evilry business, but it does remind me a little of something I posted a while back on the topic of smite-on-sight:For example, here we have Frank. He's a plump little man, a merchant and a moneychanger with 5 levels of Expert. He's selfish and greedy. He charges just as much from his customers as he thinks they will pay, and drives the hardest bargain he can. He doesn't bat an eye at those in need, and readily refuses to deal with those who cannot afford his goods. However, he does not cheat on his taxes, nor does he break the law of the land. Not because it's the right thing to do, but because he knows himself to be unpopular and fears that his enemies and rivals would search out such indescressions and turn him in - just as he would do to them. Moreover, he prides himself in his ability to act within the law and still make a profit, enjoying them as he would the rules of a ruthless game. He is demanding to his servents and will fire those who displease him, ending up with those who are the most in need of coin and willing to put up with his personality. He's unmarried and childless, but sees women now and again - almost all of which are solely interested in his money. He practices usury, and enjoys convincing the needy into loans and bargains that will ruin them. He presses the local law agents to exact full punishment on those who cannot afford to pay him or violate any contract. He has had men sent to prison knowing full well that their children will starve as a result. He even takes satisfaction in this, with the smug self-righteous thought that they have visited this harm themselves as the price of violating the law, the rules of his game. He shows a great distaste for violence, and pays a very impressive half-orc bodygaurd fairly handsomely, mostly because the very presence of the great brute is enough to stifle most altercations before they start. He's Lawful Evil and he was just killed in cold blood. Also, directly in the LE description there is a line: 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. Now, it isn't much protection to act within the law if it's just peachy for someone to detect evil and smite you, eh?
LCD2YOU 05-12-06, 03:43 PM	Hey bitnine, Problem is to be evil, it takes actions to be evil. Just saying you're evil means nothing. To be evil you have to kill and cause pain to innocents. So for your Expert to be LE he needs to be more than just greedy. Read page 134 in the DMG under Players changing alignment. It's in the middle of the page on the right hand side. It says Actions are required. Perhaps you think a person who in graspy and greedy is evil, I think they are just foolish and very short sighted, but still only N. Your Expert is LN or N, not NE.
Decepticons 05-12-06, 04:33 PM	Hey bitnine, Problem is to be evil, it takes actions to be evil. Just saying you're evil means nothing. To be evil you have to kill and cause pain to innocents. So for your Expert to be LE he needs to be more than just greedy. Read page 134 in the DMG under Players changing alignment. It's in the middle of the page on the right hand side. It says Actions are required. Perhaps you think a person who in graspy and greedy is evil, I think they are just foolish and very short sighted, but still only N. Your Expert is LN or N, not NE. You're assuming actions require some physical act of violence. In this case, the "action" is greed without mitigation. Driving a hard bargain = Not Evil. Using deceit to convince those that a bad idea is actually a good one = Evil.
Nidair 05-12-06, 04:54 PM	Whether or not Frank was evil, he certainly was vile enough do be smitten where he stood. Maybe Detect Evil couldn't depict him as evil, but a DC 10 gather information check made around his office surely would. To remain on topic: My players are generally mature enough to pick fairly balanced classes, though I have banned a few classes - Frenzied Berserker, Apostle of Peace, and Occult Slayer - because they make life considerably harder for other party members. I also don't like the new knight class, but that's because it makes the DM's task harder. Though if one of my players asks to play a knight I won't disallow it.
Muspelheim 05-12-06, 04:56 PM	I would say that this pretty much qualifies as actions: [he] enjoys convincing the needy into loans and bargains that will ruin them. He presses the local law agents to exact full punishment on those who cannot afford to pay him or violate any contract. He has had men sent to prison knowing full well that their children will starve as a result. He even takes satisfaction in this, with the smug self-righteous thought that they have visited this harm themselves as the price of violating the law, the rules of his game. Detect Evil is a pretty ridiculous ability/spell in the first place though ...
syntaxerror37 05-12-06, 05:57 PM	Hm, seems slightly off topic, this evilry business, but it does remind me a little of something I posted a while back on the topic of smite-on-sight... I'd have to say that's about the best example I've seen given of a Lawfull Evil individual. There's an enormous difference between people being a Paladin with an evil character and characters merely having a good alignment. You can NEVER have a Paladin in a party with an evil character; he immediately loses all of his class features. This is most likely permanent since he has the detect evil to be knowingly breaking his Paladin code. If people are good, but not Paladins, an evil PC may just be the shifty guy they hang out with. Is there a reason you cut off the end of my last sentence there? …that's the 10:05 express to inter-party strife. My point is it’s the alignment that can cause issues within the party. Bob the lawful good fighter won’t lose any class abilities for associating with Phil, the neutral evil cleric, however, that does not mean that the party won’t have alignment based conflicts. Just because someone is playing a paladin is not a burden, because its not a good idea to be mixing good and evil in the same party in the first place. "[Y]elling at small children until they cry and frightenting puppies for fun" is "hurting [and] oppressing ... others." You will be playing an evil alignment as far as D&D is concerned. Your example only furthers my point. What point? That you don't know what evil is? Doing something that is "not nice" or "selfish" does not instantly qualify you as evil. Yes, they are characteristics of evil, but they can be found in a neutral alignment or even a good alignment (in moderation).
gkp79 05-12-06, 07:49 PM	(Not that 3.0 doesn't have problems - I could make a list! - but broken base classes don't seem to be one of 'em.) Rangers - way overpowered 1 level dip in 3.0, and then of dubious worthfulness for anyone who wants to take it higher than 1 level.
Elemental 05-12-06, 08:16 PM	To remain on topic: My players are generally mature enough to pick fairly balanced classes, though I have banned a few classes - Frenzied Berserker, Apostle of Peace, and Occult Slayer - because they make life considerably harder for other party members. Occult Slayers don't have to hate all spellcasters as written--they're not Forsakers, they're just specialised in fighting and resisting spellcasters. Heck, you can even be an Occult Slayer who can cast spells from another class by the RAW. Nothing in the class stops a character who gets on fine with the casters in his group, but who has specialised to take down hostile mages--after all, a Ranger can have orcs and animals as a favoured enemy and still adventure with a half-orc druid.
HIDragonstar 05-12-06, 08:46 PM	Going back to the OP... I actually don't ban any classes at all. The only limitation it comes to is that they have to be from a book from Wizards of the Coast, and I have to own the book. I have several other books and 'homebrew' attempts, but for the most part I've felt that most of them are too weak or too strong. So far what actually limits my characters is that half my group wants to play Good. The other half wants to play Evil or if anything 'Selfish'. It causes plenty of inter-party interaction. Being a mature group (most of the time) they keep the conflict to a minimum. (As of right now, no one wants to play a Paladin or other alignment depedent class.)
LCD2YOU 05-12-06, 08:59 PM	You're assuming actions require some physical act of violence. In this case, the "action" is greed without mitigation. Driving a hard bargain = Not Evil. Using deceit to convince those that a bad idea is actually a good one = Evil.Actually, I think using deceit is chaotic, not evil. He is lying, not slitting a throat. Yes, the actions are what the CORE says evil is: Oppressing, harming and Killing. Note the last one, killing. This Frank guy is a creep and a creten but to have a DM rule him evil so a Paladin, who can smite on site evil as many times as they can each day as far as the SRD and Core states with no ill effects sticks of a DM who likes Pally wacking. If a person is going to show up on a Pally's DE, they should be evil. If they are evil, they kill and are nasty to the core. If they are only "little 'e' evil", then having them show up on a Paladin's radar is a trap set by the DM to smack the player and the Paladin. From what I have read, many DMs should ban Paladins. Not because they are over powered, but many DMs IMNSHO can't properly DM one of them worth a tinker's damn.
Vaelan 05-12-06, 09:26 PM	Read page 134 in the DMG under Players changing alignment. It's in the middle of the page on the right hand side. It says Actions are required. Yeah, don't bother with the trifling matters of logical consistency or the ability of the concept to fulfill its stated purpose... it is written in the rulebook! :rolleyes: Actually, I think using deceit is chaotic, not evil. He is lying, not slitting a throat. You seem to be suffering from the misconception that anything that is not Lawful is Chaotic. The rules say that Lawful characters tell the truth, but it does not attribute deceit to Chaos.
Majorafire77 05-12-06, 09:40 PM	Psions... =shudder= tho i like the idea of people running around pretending to be Jedis (Mind blade?) I think they have Ridiculous ACs At low levels (not even a goblin can hurt them) And Can Go Nova and deliver Devastateingly Ridiculous Advantages to the players Each and every combat (as they will no doubt limp away afterwards, rest, then clear out the next room of the dungeon) and unless im Dead set on killing them - I wont have them harried Constantly while Resting (Because This slows the Game down so much and gives them exp on a plate) Looks like somebody needs to reread the psionics rules... Psions don't have mind blades. No matter what AC you're talking about (armor class or astral construct), your point isn't valid. Psions don't start with any armor or shield proficiences; their armor class is typically just as good as a wizards. As for astral constructs (which are weaker than summons), psions can only manifest one at a time. Wizards can more easily go nova than psions can. Psions can't deliver "devastatingly ridiculous advantages to the players each and every combat". Seems like the majority of this board is full of misguided people who ban stuff even when they have little to no knowledge of how what they're banning works. I mean, it seems like everyone's so intent on killing psionics (which can be adapted to any campaign setting the same way magic can) and warlocks (and frenzied berserkers, for party function reasons), but I see few bannings of CoDzilla. I currently ban nothing in my campaigns. None of my players have yet to show any desire to be "the ultimate pwner" who outshines every other character in the game. My only houserule is that the astral construct nerf in CP doesn't apply. However, I am ready and willing to ban the synchronicity power (the only broken part about psionics imo) if my players abuse it.
LCD2YOU 05-12-06, 10:03 PM	Yeah, don't bother with the trifling matters of logical consistency or the ability of the concept to fulfill its stated purpose... it is written in the rulebook! :rolleyes: Roll your eyes all you want. I'm stating the RAW and I am using logic and consistancy which actually agrees with the RAW. Sorry to have to shoot you down.You seem to be suffering from the misconception that anything that is not Lawful is Chaotic. The rules say that Lawful characters tell the truth, but it does not attribute deceit to Chaos.Actually I was replying directly to this quote:Using deceit to convince those that a bad idea is actually a good one = Evil.when I statedActually, I think using deceit is chaotic, not evil. He is lying, not slitting a throat.So, using it as you did, to create a strawman is to creation your own misconceptions. Usually it is done to confuse the issue when one's own arguements are poor. I take it your position is poor so you need to remix words like that and take things out of context as a last resort. Does that mean you may believe your position is weak so this is how you compensate? Do you wish to continue this or are you going to drop it?