I really like getting to see *everything* that is available to my character using the character builder. And, I tend to look at guides to get idea of what the better powers/feats/items/etc to help narrow down my choices.
But, outside the CB, my group doesn't have all these sources. And some of them (like Dragon Magazine) are considered to be "sketchy" by some.
I really don't want to be a power gamer... what are some reasons to not allow feats, powers and magic items from more obscure sources?
But if you have access to the character builder then you've got all of the relevant rules-text for the content in question (again, assuming that you're dealing with the online builder or the final version of the offline one).
The main concern that I see is added complexity, although that's much less of an issue in 4E than it was in older Es, since things generally fit into the same basic structures.
Its also because something radically changes something. Like the ability to cast fireball using any elemental damage in place of fire.
Or its because they think something is not fantasy, IE Warforged being "Robots" just simply cause they are made out of a bit of metal rather than flesh. Often people believe the only races that should even be allowed are the standard corebook races, sometimes barring teiflings and dragonborn. I call this "It has to be human" syndrom that pretty much started when tolkin first made fantasy as big as it is.
Sometimes things are banned becase "Its not in the campagin setting". This is sometimes and unspoken ban, as a campagin specific guild doesn't exist for you to take a campaign specific paragon path or PRC.
Much of it though is the fear. The fear of the players having ability to do things that the DM does not expect. The fear that the players are trying to screw over the DM at every turn. The fear of the unknown. ect.
Setting- As mentioned above, sometimes things just don't fit within a particular setting, especially some of the things mentioned in world specific books like Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, or Ebberon.
Familiarity- There is a ton of material out there. I do not proclaim to have read it all, be aware of it all, or even to have access to it all. As a DM this is important. There are particular things that sometimes are determined to be "broken" that end up getting houseruled, but when you are talking about sources which the DM may not have had any knowledge of this becomes more problematic. You can always ask a DM to view a feat or a particular power, but I know from personal experience that planning a campaign puts a lot on your plate and sometimes you really don't feel like reading a whole dragon article, checking erratta, and everything else that goes into a new game element.
Basically, the guy who's house it is (and our usual DM) has effectively banned anything from Dragon Magazine. He also makes the stipulation that we can't just print out a specific issue, but would have to print off EVERY single issue of Dragon Magazine in order for the feats, powers, etc, to be allowed in.
His excuse is that he has always had this as a rule (I've only been playing with him for two years), and that he doesn't want to have to read the online magazine to look up what's in the magazine and have to balance for it in his campaigns. He claims he doesn't have the time due to college (he takes some night classes a couple nights a week).
My biggest frustration is that the magazine is only online, so with his house rules I'd have to spend hundreds of dollars in printing fees to get the handful of useful feats and powers I'd like to use. I'm not trying to power game, but there is some great synergy in the expanded feats that work well with certain character themes.
Additionally, he never allows any players to start with, or buy/find, any equipment they want within reason. He always has us submit charcater sheets ahead of time with equipment requests and then decides what equipment that he wants us to have, possibly giving us equipment that completely ruins our build like he did with one player's warlock. He didn't even let my lvl 17 Pursuit Avenger start with a +2 Symbol of Victory, and instead gave me a generic +3 holy symbol.
All I can say is, I will never be the kind of DM that bans anything without giving the group the opportunity to decide as a majority that my ruling is unjustified.
If the DM believes it is too fantastic for your character they should limit it or change it so it has a place at the table.
When I'm playing as a PC the DM is always needing to make rules as most of my spells are from my own brain. If a spell sounds to amazing for my level the DM will tell me to wait two or three levels before I can choose that. In my spell book I have spells I know, spells I want to learn and even a few spells I'm perfecting and changing to interoduce down the track.
The next time you find something you want to use in the game don't tell your DM about where it came from, just provide the basic ideas of what you want and have them shape it to work in your games world. They may even search for that spell or feat after you describe it and find the very rules they would have otherwise blacklisted.
Also your DM may feel like letting in one crazy book edition in will open the flood gates and let all the players start picking crazy skills and spells from other sources. Just make sure your DM knows they still have final say.
Then I scorer everything I can find to create the concept. I feat here that gives me prof with a scythe and knowledge religion, a PRC that makes me closer to becoming undead, A race from a dragon magazine that fufuils the wolfman thing without having to be a werewolf or something. (Or begging to be human but look like a wolfman.)
and eventually I come up with something. Unfortantantly most concepts require a lot of work to get into the few levels I have.
Ocassionally, I do go the other route if I have a possition to fill. (Find something cool, make character off of it.) but often Its to test everything out and find what we like and what we don't like.
I can see banning dragon magazine, as well, just to level things with other players. Not everyone has access to that specific source, and they do contain a few sketchy powers. Like letting rouges wield any one-handed heavy in rouge powers; totally invalidates rapiers.
Some bans make sense; like banning most dark sun material from a dark gothic campaign so you don't have deal with psionic dread pirates and sand shark cloaks messing up your dark and looming castle.
I can see banning dragon magazine, as well, just to level things with other players. Not everyone has access to that specific source, and they do contain a few sketchy powers. Like letting rouges wield any one-handed heavy in rouge powers; totally invalidates rapiers.
Not true at all. Rapiers are still generally a better choice. The only heavy blade choice that would do more damage is a bastard sword, but it's only +1 damage on average. Light blades have better support overall for rogues, with feats such as Nimble Blade and Light Blade Expertise (which gives you a scaling +1/2/3 damage with CA, as opposed to an average +1 with the bastard sword).
This kind of thinking to ban stuff is what upsets me.
The issue is that dragon magazine content is harder to access for some players than others. I have two who, until this week, didn't even have phone or internet lines ran to their house; how could they access anything like that? Combined with the fact that not all of the feats or powers mesh well with the written books, it creates the opportunity not for abuse, but more for player dissatisfaction.
Take, for example, the statement I made about rapiers; a somewhat untrue one, really, but a reflection of my players reaction when I commented about how the feat in question allowed a rouge build I have been experimenting with to pull out 1d10+11 with each properly executed blade vault at level four. With my players being extremely new to building characters, this seemed like some sort of extreme damage output, and it made them feel like lightblades were thus pointless for rouges. As they saw it, grabbing this feat meant they had access to an entire set of weapons instead of just one (surface logic, I know) and meant they could step from the d6 to the d10 immediately.
They saw it, quite simply, as something that I had, and they didn't. Moreover, they saw it as something which I had, and they couldn't get, and that is the issue.
I used to ban dragon, back before it was done by WoTC. It was pretty evident that Dragon would published stuff with what had been printed by WoTC in mind (Obviously) but WoTC wouldn't pay any attention to what dragon had printed (Why should they). So I constantly had weird rules interactions I would have to hash out, and it just wasn't worth it. Plus 90% of the stuff was awful, and I would have super gimped PCs who couldn't keep up with the rest of the party.
Now that WoTC does it, it seems to work better. Plus the character builder makes it harder to disallow it than allow it. (I don't have the new one, so maybe that changed.)
I also still ban all 3rd party books. (With the exception that if you run it by me I will probably allow it)
I can see banning specific things from specific campaign settings. EX: Red Wizards of Thay cannot exist without a thay, but I can also see a case for a few small modifications to the class and then letting players use it.
> but would have to print off EVERY single issue of Dragon Magazine in order for
> the feats, powers, etc, to be allowed in.
This is...
Well, if he also takes the view that no print book material (including, y'know, the PHB) can be allowed in unless every print book published to date is available at the table, it would at least be consistent.
Though still utterly nonsensical.
The DM I play with used to have a ban on Dragon material, but lately it's been more of a "Just ask me before you use it and it's cool"
One of the house rules for the group I play with is that it is only allowed if it's in physical printed form, and present at the session. Every book is present in his own collection so this isn't much of a problem, except for Dragon Magazine.
Basically, the guy who's house it is (and our usual DM) has effectively banned anything from Dragon Magazine. He also makes the stipulation that we can't just print out a specific issue, but would have to print off EVERY single issue of Dragon Magazine in order for the feats, powers, etc, to be allowed in.
His excuse is that he has always had this as a rule (I've only been playing with him for two years), and that he doesn't want to have to read the online magazine to look up what's in the magazine and have to balance for it in his campaigns. He claims he doesn't have the time due to college (he takes some night classes a couple nights a week).
My biggest frustration is that the magazine is only online, so with his house rules I'd have to spend hundreds of dollars in printing fees to get the handful of useful feats and powers I'd like to use. I'm not trying to power game, but there is some great synergy in the expanded feats that work well with certain character themes.
Additionally, he never allows any players to start with, or buy/find, any equipment they want within reason. He always has us submit charcater sheets ahead of time with equipment requests and then decides what equipment that he wants us to have, possibly giving us equipment that completely ruins our build like he did with one player's warlock. He didn't even let my lvl 17 Pursuit Avenger start with a +2 Symbol of Victory, and instead gave me a generic +3 holy symbol.
All I can say is, I will never be the kind of DM that bans anything without giving the group the opportunity to decide as a majority that my ruling is unjustified.
This is just bizarre. And a DM maintaining that level of control would be a serious red flag for me.
Some bans make sense; like banning most dark sun material from a dark gothic campaign so you don't have deal with psionic dread pirates and sand shark cloaks messing up your dark and looming castle.
I could see a psionic character in a dark, gothic campaign. They've begun to develop strange powers of the mind that would cause some to hate and fear them. The character himself unable to convince himself that his powers aren't unnatural and dangerous...
I can see banning dragon magazine, as well, just to level things with other players. Not everyone has access to that specific source, and they do contain a few sketchy powers. Like letting rouges wield any one-handed heavy in rouge powers; totally invalidates rapiers.
Everyone not having access to Dragon at home isn't really any different than if one or more players doesn't have their own copy of a book. And the material generally isn't too bad.
Things like the BoED spells (rain of roses comes to mind), most of the Book of Nine Swords, a lot of items in the Magic Item Compendium, etc etc.
As far as I'm concerned if you are able to take a combination of feats/powers/magic items that stacked together mean that I am forced to use specific counters to provide any challenge, then it is stupidly boring for everyone except Mr Invulnerable Powergamer.
Normally I only "ban" something for an particulair reason depending on setting. But since lately I've actually placed one WoTC production on a perm-ban list in my games. The Essentials. Everything related to Essentials is banned. Why? Because it is awfull.
So you don't like essentials your players can't play it. It's balanced, got some good feats in it and some good build options. To each there own I guess
Normally I only "ban" something for an particulair reason depending on setting. But since lately I've actually placed one WoTC production on a perm-ban list in my games. The Essentials. Everything related to Essentials is banned. Why? Because it is awfull.
What, exactly, do you mean by "awful"? The classes are well balanced, the feats are interesting, and it's easier for some people to grasp than the other stuff. I'm not a huge essentials fan myself, but it works perfectly well with everything else. Why ban it?
Normally I only "ban" something for an particulair reason depending on setting. But since lately I've actually placed one WoTC production on a perm-ban list in my games. The Essentials. Everything related to Essentials is banned. Why? Because it is awfull.
What, exactly, do you mean by "awful"? The classes are well balanced, the feats are interesting, and it's easier for some people to grasp than the other stuff. I'm not a huge essentials fan myself, but it works perfectly well with everything else. Why ban it?
Because wotc will get how awful it is by this one DM bannig it
There are perfectly real balance concerns when mixing Essentials content with core 4E (either way around), and while this doesn't necessarily make Essentials "awfull", not permitting any of it to be used in a given game is perfectly reasonable as far as I'm concerned.
This doesn't seem to be the case here. The DM banned because he thinks it's awful
People should be more worried about a happy DM who feels confident about the material he is running rather than worrying about what is banned.
The opportunity to play is far more important to me than having every option available.
I always find these discussions about having systems elements banned confusing. If a good DM came to me, and said I'm using chainmail, or the 1977 boxed editions, I would ask when is the first session.
People should be more worried about a happy DM who feels confident about the material he is running rather than worrying about what is banned.
The opportunity to play is far more important to me than having every option available.
Arbitrarily banning things is usualy a sign of a bad DM.
I always find these discussions about having systems elements banned confusing. If a good DM came to me, and said I'm using chainmail, or the 1977 boxed editions, I would ask when is the first session.
People should be more worried about a happy DM who feels confident about the material he is running rather than worrying about what is banned.
The opportunity to play is far more important to me than having every option available.
Arbitrarily banning things is usualy a sign of a bad DM.
How is the DM limiting material that he is not well versed in arbitrary? You have qouted me and ignored the substance of my post. Why would I want to piss off the DM lobbying for every option? For me I simply don't need, or even want every published option in every game. It is also a lot of work for a DM to stay versed in all options being contantly churned out.
Following your logic, how do feel about dark sun? That limits or bans certain elements as a tenet of the setting. Not every ban is arbitrary.
I always find these discussions about having systems elements banned confusing. If a good DM came to me, and said I'm using chainmail, or the 1977 boxed editions, I would ask when is the first session.
People should be more worried about a happy DM who feels confident about the material he is running rather than worrying about what is banned.
The opportunity to play is far more important to me than having every option available.
Arbitrarily banning things is usualy a sign of a bad DM.
How is the DM limiting material that he is not well versed in arbitrary?
It's not. You implied that the quality of the DM was more important than bannings,
I countered that the two were often linked. I'm not saying banning things makes one a bad DM, but if a DM is all "I'm making a D&D game, core only, PSIONICS ARE BORKEN." I'd be a little wary (And more than a little tempted to make CoDzilla if this is 3.5).
It is also a lot of work for a DM to stay versed in all options being contantly churned out.
Which is a perfectly legitimate reason, although you really don't have to keep up with the new material, you just need to look at what your players are using. And if you can't read say 20 pages of text once, you probably don't have the time to play D&D, much less DM it. But whatevs, I can respect that (Depressing as it is to have my Pally get heavily outclassed by the sneaky fellow who bought the DM Martial Power for Christmas, but it's a collaborative game, so as long as they don't bitch at me about it, whatevs ).
Following your logic, how do feel about dark sun? That limits or bans certain elements as a tenet of the setting.
I'm in lesbians with it. I mean, everyone's gonna play a Thr-Kreen, so banned races are irrelevant, and the book even suggests ways players can play banned elements with a minor reflavoring if they have their heart set on it, and the DM isn't overly tetchyabout it, so yeah ("Wanna be divine? Magic ancestors. BAM!").
My main thing is banning Alignment, just because I feel its unnecessary. In my 3.5 campaign I have a Lawful Neutral character, and am worried I will go to Chaotic, which I am told limits my abilities for the class I chose.
As far as classes go I recommend trying to move out of your comfort zone. Instead of a ranger I promote the use of Seeker, I would also say that there are other healers besides Cleric.
I dislike Gensai Swordmages right now, mainly due to three people that always play as them. And recommend players against it.
In my first D&D campaign however I did allow a Paladin and a Swordmage, but the players did overpower their abilities.
My main thing is banning Alignment, just because I feel its unnecessary. In my 3.5 campaign I have a Lawful Neutral character, and am worried I will go to Chaotic, which I am told limits my abilities for the class I chose.
Oh **** yes. Anybody who says monks can't be chaotic hasn't played Godhand.
That said, I wouldn't mind if one of my players brought a 4e pun pun to the table, they could probably use the help
I will, however, aggressively ban races and classes if I'm running a short-term, particularly flavored game. For example, I could see running a short-term Arthurian game, where everyone would play a human (maybe allowing one half-elf), and I would limit the character classes to a handful.
I can also see myself working with the players to self-limit based on setting.
For example:
Genasi wizard with the feat to allow strength to elemental powers + winged horde + enlarge spell + energy admixture: thunder (winged horde) + resounding thunder. Throw on multiclass sorceror and a helping of dual implement expertise and here's what you've got
a character that can at-will carpet bomb a 7x7 square for d6+int+str+str+enhancement+OH enhancement-2
lets put this character at, oh, level 15 with a level 17 (staff of ruin)and a level 11 implement (magic staff) (22 str and int)
thats d6 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 3 - 2
or d6 + 27....in a 7x7 area, which doesn't hit allies....every turn
that doesn't count various paragon path bonuses, other feat bonuses to damage, the absurd accuracy the character can have with the spells, or the various encounter and daily spells he has access to (not like he needs them)
THESE are the kind of things i struggle to avoid in my game. If this character exists, any fight which doesn't include at least 2 elites or a solo, or attack from a HUGELY spread out position will be a complete pushover.
minions are right out, and a huge set of tools for creating a meaningful and worthwhile game disappear.
other things i strongly consider restricting include
frostcheese abuse
abusive charge builds
conditions lockdown builds (largely fixed now)
permanent invisibility (lock/rogue hybrids)
similarly, i can understand the viewpoint of your dm not wanting to allow material he hasn't seen or doesn't have access to.
i haven't had a chance to look over heroes of shadow yet, and as such, i asked if my players could please avoid using it for our most recent campaign (characters built last week, being played this week). Once i get a chance to flip through it and understand a bit about it, i'll be much more understanding.
i suggest picking the powers/feats you want, go over WHY you want them and HOW you plan on using them, and then present all of that to your DM. You may find him much more receptive if you're up front about why and what you're doing and what impact it will have.