Origin of Codzilla:
It bears saying: if up against a logic-impervious DM who thinks Core is balanced and Psionics isn't, then the most powerful way to disprove that is to play a C.o.D. (Cleric or Druid). Noncore material will not be necessary unless you are going for pure overkill. So by all means, if you must win that argument, take you C.o.D. to town. Annihilate the opposition. Make the NPCs and other players scream "Oh no, it's C.o.D.zilla!!!!!" in badly dubbed English. Breathe radioactive fire. Knock down buildings. Then stomp out of the burning Tokyo that is the ruins of the game and swim off into the ocean, seeking a DM with some basic cognitive functions.
Whether the DM can see and adjust will be the deciding factor. As a DM, I ban SOME books because I am not familiar with their contents, not because I think anything in them is broken. If that is your DM's reasoning I agree with them, if not then it is your DM who has "broken" the game by not allowing your character to reach their full and proper potential. Unfortunately, this argument would just make your DM mad so I wouldn't use it.
If it doesn't happen play the next best thing.
Warlock- Blaster sorcerer, with one cool utility power per level. Maybe even go into the prestige class in the DMG that adds spell progression and sneak attack. (needs you to have some rogue levls)
For the TOB fighters- http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=163005 Is a good tripping build. You might have to switch some feats to get your DM to ok it, but thats not a bad thing. This should give you some fun tripping options similar to TOB manuvers.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=646185 A fencer fighter build focused on striking your opponent after you are hit. Again, you might need to swap a few feats, but that won't make it unplayable.
Or I would suggest you read this http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=863508 and make your own.
Its hard to convince someone very set in their ways, but these might give you some alternative methods for playing the same concept you want.
In the specific case of a DM crying "broken" at everything new, it could be any number of factors. Sheer ignorance is the primary culprit here, but not the only one. Fear of "anything new" is a possibility. Fear of "learning more" is possible as well, as some DM's just "can't be bothered" to read another book. This may sound strange, but it's been my experience that some DMs who only DM for too long (ie: hasn't been a PC frequently, or for a long time) start to lose sight of game balance outside of their own sphere of thought. Their view becomes myopic to the point that they feel anything that doesn't start in their field of vision, has no business being there at all. It's a shame, but it happens.
If you don't feel comfortable in a game, than let your feet do the talking. Don't play that game. I know it's hard, and in the case of long-term friendships, it can seem kind of harsh. However, people play games to have fun: If a DM is quashing your fun with nonsensical "it's broken" rationales, find a DM who supports what you seek in a game instead (if possible). Some DMs only become more entrenched in their beliefs when they are questioned or criticized (even constructively); In those situations, it my be best to just cut your losses and look for a new game that is a better fit for you.
Origin of Codzilla: ...
That quote makes me smile every time I read it! Beautiful imagery.
Anybody have any suggestions for dealing with players and DMs who assume none core material is automatically broken?
Yes. Don't assume they don't want the material in the game because they think it's 'broken' just because they say so. They may have a different reason. Maybe they're simply not familiar with the material, and don't want to allow something they haven't seen yet. Or maybe they don't like the flavor or the mechanics. Or they don't want to spend 1/4 of the evening looking at somebody applying rules they don't understand, who is assuring them that they are being applied correctly.
Ask if you can play the class you have in mind. Let the DM borrow your book for a while, to read up on the material. Promise to make something that's not unbalanced, and state that the DM can ask you to remove the character if he still considers it unbalanced after two or three sessions. Next, make something that is at par with the rest of the party, preferably something that helps the other PCs so your group gets to share your joy. Change is fed to people one tiny bite at a time ;)
Maybe the answer will still be 'no'. Hey, that happens. Sometimes, people don't agree. Sometimes, two opposed opinions are both 'right'. Decide up front if the issue is important enough for you to switch to a group that shares your opinion on this matter.
As for me, I'm a fairly flexible DM when it comes to things like this. I generally allow everything that is present at the table in print, except for Leadership. When it comes to Incarnum, ToM, ToB or Psionics, I insist on keeping my copy of the book. Because I want to know what the heck is going on and why the player is rolling dice. I consider that one of my tasks as a DM
In all fairness my DM hasn't had a great deal of experience.
He might just be hesitant to allow stuff that he is not familiar with. He'd have to deal with rules he's doesn't know yet. Plus, as far as he knows it might actually be broken and ruin his game. That is by no means stubborn or closeminded: that's just an unexperienced DM trying to give his group the best game he can offer.
Talk about it together. Everybody at the table benefits from a good game, right? So you have a mutual goal. Try to keep the focus of the conversation on this goal, instead of the means like 'using ToB' or 'banning material'.
Maybe after that talk the answer is still 'no'. Sometimes you can't have it all.
Others see warriors as just fine and it too drastically deaprts from the essence of the warrior. For some, whatever was needed to level the playing field giving them a magical feel wasn't it. It introduces new concepts that weren't how warriors worked before and its too much of a leap for some dms.
I should think with the wild diversity of 3.5 there should be plenty of other choices are out there other than Nine Swords. Sure its cool but there's lots out there.
Perhaps dming your own game is a solution. It will introduce the stuff that your current dm bans and show how it can be incorporated without blowing up the game. You could showcase how using the rules as is works just fine and you don't have to mod all sorts of things to get some supposed non-broken game.
I don't think playing a cleric or druid is really a good idea. They might just end up getting banned
This wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. I banned the druid for YEARS because of its insane brokenness.
Anybody have any suggestions for dealing with players and DMs who assume none core material is automatically broken? I am in a Forgotten Realms game, and I am becoming rather frustrated with my DM. He is against the use of the Book of Nine Swords claiming it is over powered. Furthermore, he says the Warlocks Eldritch Blast is too powerful, and so every time it uses it, it takes Con damage. Mind you this same DM, however is a big fan of anime such as Dragon Ball Z, and so thinks the Warlock should be like Tien, and how his life energy was drained when he used certain energy attacks, and he also thinks the Monk is somehow super powerful, which is bull if I ever heard it. Sorry about this post coming off so long winded.
All of the a fore mentioned items are indeed broken when used incorrectly, or combined with other prcs ect.
The Book of Nine Swords is indeed much more powerful then any other splat book in that it changes how melee characters work. The book is somewhere between 3.5 and 4th edition.
If the DM is running a relatively Medieval Style game, then Bo9S/Monk/Psionics are indeed to powerful.
Yes the druid is by far powerful straight up. I mean at first level it acts as a fighter + cleric for the group.
And cleric at high levels will own anything. But at level 1 they arn't so bad.
As far as banning books goes: As a DM, I refuse to ban any books that are WoTC official books. Any DM who bans an official supplement for the edition you are playing is just jerking you around because he can. If it's an official supplement, it should be allowed. DM's who ban official supplements just don't want to take the time out of their day to learn something new.
Now, if we're talking about non-official supplements (such as netbooks), then I'm on the side of the DM banning them. Non-official supplements have no place at my table, and as such aren't allowed in my campaigns.
As far as your DM's thinking about balance: Your DM sounds like they found that one character type that they enjoy when they are a player, and unfortunately that has translated into him/her thinking this is the best PC/NPC/DMPC available in his/her campaigns. It's one thing to have a favorite class/skill/ability when you're a player. But to limit the abilities of one class in favor of granting abilities for another class because you like or dislike them in your own campaign is just wrong. I can see not allowing certain classes due to game balancing (example: 2nd edition AD&D I don't allow the race Wemic due to their ability to have 9 attacks every 2 rounds at 1st level), but to just limit one class/power up another due to personal likes an dislikes when you are the DM is plain wrong.
My advice: I notice you stated that you don't know anyone else who games, so you don't have the option to join another local group. I have a few suggestions for you:
1. Use the boards here to find someone else in your area;
2. Visit your local hobby shops/RPG suppliers to see if there are any games looking for players;
3. Start your own campaign - be the DM for the other guys/girls you game with.
All of the a fore mentioned items are indeed broken when used incorrectly, or combined with other prcs ect.
The Book of Nine Swords is indeed much more powerful then any other splat book in that it changes how melee characters work. The book is somewhere between 3.5 and 4th edition.
Mm, no. Just because it changes how melee works doesn't make it broken. It actually makes melee combat interesting because you get to do more than 'swing, swing, swing, swing'. Casters still play their game of 'let's take reality and twist it into a balloon animal'; all the Bo9S does is let the melee folks have some fun while watching the casters own the universe.
If the DM is running a relatively Medieval Style game, then Bo9S/Monk/Psionics are indeed to powerful.
Define 'relatively Medieval'. If he's using the cleric, druid, or wizard as-written, then none of those are 'too powerful' because those three classes eclipse EVERYTHING straight out of the PHB. The monk, particularly, sucks.
Yes the druid is by far powerful straight up. I mean at first level it acts as a fighter + cleric for the group.
AND wizard, AND its animal companion is more powerful than the fighter.
I have some comments on this topic.
As far as banning books goes: As a DM, I refuse to ban any books that are WoTC official books. Any DM who bans an official supplement for the edition you are playing is just jerking you around because he can. If it's an official supplement, it should be allowed. DM's who ban official supplements just don't want to take the time out of their day to learn something new.
Now, if we're talking about non-official supplements (such as netbooks), then I'm on the side of the DM banning them. Non-official supplements have no place at my table, and as such aren't allowed in my campaigns.
As far as your DM's thinking about balance: Your DM sounds like they found that one character type that they enjoy when they are a player, and unfortunately that has translated into him/her thinking this is the best PC/NPC/DMPC available in his/her campaigns. It's one thing to have a favorite class/skill/ability when you're a player. But to limit the abilities of one class in favor of granting abilities for another class because you like or dislike them in your own campaign is just wrong. I can see not allowing certain classes due to game balancing (example: 2nd edition AD&D I don't allow the race Wemic due to their ability to have 9 attacks every 2 rounds at 1st level), but to just limit one class/power up another due to personal likes an dislikes when you are the DM is plain wrong.
I really disagree with this. You are free to ban whatever you want from your game, but to suggest that DMs who do not automatically allow WotC content in their games are jerks is a bit far off. I allowed far more 3pp content than official content. Not to say core was perfect, which is why I used a lot of 3pp books that seemed to work a lot better. Not to mention some of the better 3pp (Green Ronin, Malhavoc Press, etc) seemed to put out much better material than WotC.
And yes, if a race, class, or other idea doesn't fit the DMs campaign, he is perfectly within his rights to ban it. I don't have to let you have a ninja just because WotC made one. Now that being said, the idea of the game is for everyone to have fun, so the DM should try to work with the players as much as possible. If a concept doesn't fit the campaign, or it is horribly broken, usually a little nerfing and/or refluffing can fix the problem.
Anyway, the point of my rant is that while I agree that the DM shouldn't just say "I don't like that" there are perfectly legitimate reasons for banning official material.
That said, it doesn't sound like this particular DM really knows what he's talking about. Disallowing a class for balance reasons when theres even more broken ones currently in the game makes it seem to me that he just personally doesn't like it, or that he doesn't want to take time to read it.
DM's who ban official supplements just don't want to take the time out of their day to learn something new.
Now now, you make it sound as if it's a bad thing.
The DM is kind enough to take on the additional workload of running a game. That means he has a final call about those limits of the game that define the workload. Reading up on a 200-page book is a pretty time-consuming activity.
Any DM who bans an official supplement for the edition you are playing is just jerking you around because he can.
Thats quite a bold statement. Do you think WOTC playtests everything they release? I personally don't believe they do, so I have to follow my instincts. I put alot of work into the campaigns I run, and I refuse to remodel my game around a character that disrupts its entire balance. That beng said, there is very little players have presented to me that has outright refused. I'm a referee, not your cruise ship activity coordinator.
I can certainly think of a number of scenarios where classes and races don't exist in a dms homebrew world.
I used to allow any official WotC book into my game. When rulebooks consisted of ideas like Sword and Fist, I didn't have a problem maintaining the game. The real problem came with a book called Unearthed Arcana, which a player bought and then informed me he would be adding a "gestalt" character into my game. I said it sounded like an interesting concept, but it sounded really powerful, and I wasn't sure about it, and I wanted to read the book. After some arguing (he didn't want me to see the book, and I soon found out why), I found the book to basically be a manual on how to throw a game out of whack. It was intended for DMs who wanted to break game stagnation, or do something different, not players who wanted to play a schizophrenia super character. So it was the first official book I banned outright, and it set a new precedent...if I didn't read the the book first, and get a good feel for it, it was by default banned from my game.
Adding materials outside of core provides a difficult challenge for a DM. It requires relearning and understanding new rules and concepts, the investment in owning the new book (DMing rules in a book you don't own is a pain in the...), the disruption in gaming style. This doesn't mean adding in a new book is bad, it means the DM has to know the book well enough to apply it.
The real problem came with a book called Unearthed Arcana, which a player bought and then informed me he would be adding a "gestalt" character into my game. I said it sounded like an interesting concept, but it sounded really powerful, and I wasn't sure about it, and I wanted to read the book. After some arguing (he didn't want me to see the book, and I soon found out why
And you booted him from the game on the spot, for cheating, right?
I mean, the entire section on Gestalt characters says, outright, that you shouldn't try to mix these with normal characters or compare them to normal characters, because they're simply outright better in just about every way.
They're intended to give you a much wider selection of build options, and enable you to copy various fictional characters. And, frankly, to give a 4E-ish sense of "I will always have SOMETHING interesting to do, every round". But they're explicitly not intended to be even remotely balanced with standard characters.
(In the unlikely even that I ever run D20 for any reason ever again, I will totally be using Gestalt characters. "Balance" is not an issue because I'm the DM, I can just throw bigger monsters at them for less XP if I feel like it - but the sheer variety and *fun value* of the Gestalt group I played with compared to normal single-class characters make it a no-brainer for me.)
That being said:
I have absolutely no problem with banning anything or everything from the game you're running, for any reason you feel like. Your game world doesn 't have a place for Dragonborn? Gone. Elves are extinct? Gone. You're running pseudo-medieval Europe and so "Monk" is a descriptive word applied to people whose Class is Fighter, Cleric, or maybe Paladin? Awesome. You think Druids are overpowered and don't feel like retooling them or challenging them at the cost of the rest of the party? Great.
I really, honestly, truly do not care what you allow or don't allow in your game. I care that your game will be fun. If you excise core rules (or add house rules) to the point where the game is too boring or the mechanics are too annoying, I won't play, and that's cool. You don't need me, and I don't need you. If you're running a fun game and you've simply decided that you don't want to have to filter through a bunch of supplement books you don't own for balance and challenges, so we're using straight PHB1 and 2 and nothing else? Awesome. I can do that.
If the DMs worldbuilding and balance and I-don't-own-it restrictions make the game unfun for you, don't whine, don't complain, and don't play. If all his players quit, he's doing something wrong and may need to compromise (or find new players). If you aren't interested but other people are, awesome. They can play that game and you can find (or run) a different one.
I mean, seriously, this is gaming. It's a pastime, a hobby. If you *only* have one group you play with and you *always* play with them and you *always* play the same game and you *never* have a different group.... weird, but my advice is to branch out a little more rather than get upset that a dude wants to run a semi-authentic Tolkien-derivative Middle Earth clone, and so he's said "No PHB2 Races, no Dragonborn or Tieflings, and you should all probably be from Rohan or some ****."
In one game, nothing but PHB1 and 2 is allowed at all, with VERY rare exceptions for things that are of benefit to the entire party and/or particularly awesome. So far, that list is "Transfer Enchantment" and the use of the magic item levelup rules, both from Adventurer's vault.
In the second, the rule is that nothing is allowed until everyone gets a chance to use it - so nothing out of any book that wasn't physically at the table was allowed until more than half the group bought DDI subscriptions and/opr a physical copy of the book, and the DM is cautious about items from Martial Power or Arcane Power because she worries about Divine characters feeling left behind. This restriction has been relaxed since the only Divine character in the group doesn't care.
In the game I run, things from Dragon are banned unless I specifically approve them (with you making the case for why I should) because they're so often poorly written and obviously unplaytested, Adventurer's Vault is generally available but I reserve the right to say no to specific items and combinations, and everything else is wide open until and unless we find a specific abuse.
And every one of the players in all three games walked in, eyes wide open, knowing that this was what we were doing and how we were doing it.
The best you can do is try and cope with the non-nonsensical rulings, and find a way to make whatever concept you have work with the classes allowed.