What do you usually ban in your games?

[veekie]

This is, IMO, a misconception.
I've been the "co-processor" before.
But here's the thing, part of the concept of The Gentleman's Agreement is that everyone is there to have fun. Together. As a Group.
Putting the entire burden on ONE PERSON for every rule, every source, every combo, etc. is BS. First of all, no one can know all of it through and through, much less remember it all even if they had known it at one point. Second of all, people can be wrong. The rules-lawyer-ing should be something of a group effort. With the caveat arbiters that: it should not disrupt game-play over-much; and that there is a fine line between "correct" and "ass".

The DM is, quite simply, the player who came up with an idea for a decent story, and agreed to play all of the NPC's.
No more. No less. No else.

It severely impedes the DM when the players are working with rulesets he is unfamiliar with. A maximalist approach(allowing every source, regardless of familiarity and trusting the players to use them right) doesn't really add that much to the game, while opening up avenues for unexpected damage and ill-intentioned abuse from all sides. If only the player knows the rules, then only the active effects of the subsystems(e.g. the output, range and effects of a power) are known to the GM and not the passive(the manifester level cap on pp and what may raise it, the conditions that prevent manifesting, and the effects of transparency(or lack thereof) on manifesting, how psi-focus works, etc). This can cause a lot of trouble.

Contrast not being able to play a psionic character, the net loss is minor. The player would have a similarly desirable alternative character to play.

Mind you, I take an especially strong stance on this because I've been the co-processor for pretty much all my nWoD and Exalted games. I have to track and remind GM of the basic rules, AND manage the advanced rules. It also made the GM open to exploitation by the other rules-savvy player who took it as an opportunity to spring all kinds of crafting hijinks and generally shredding the plot for personal interests.

[Empirate]

I don't ban outright so much as rely on a combination of the following:


1) gentlemen's agreement. Planar Binding was in the game, and used, by a Conjurer PC a while back, but Efreeti for Wishes was never an issue. Because all the players at the table understood what this would lead to: less fun for everybody.


2) I possess most of the books, while none of the players has much more than the PHB. That automatically means my system mastery is hugely superior. The players probably wouldn't ever have come up with the idea of DMM plus Nighstick stacking, simply because their time with both Complete Divine and Libris Mortis on hand has been extremely limited. This is not even intentional on my part (which would be pretty dickish), it's just that the players only request I bring certain books when they have to make mechanical decisions like building characters; they rarely keep the books at their places for long; they almost always have a particular concept already in mind when they come up with mechanical stuff.


3) the players trust me to a very large degree. I'm the go-to person for mechanical questions. It has happened on several occasions that somebody had an idea and asked me for suggestions ("I want to play this wild-at-heart musicion with a melee penchant, and I like Dragon Disciple. Please help me make it work!"). I work to earn that kind of trust, and spend a lot of time poring over books so I can give mechanically sound advice. Obviously I won't include cheesy stuff that I'd hate to have in the game in my advice - and that's usually what the players request anyway.


4) my group has a certain love for low-powered campaigns, or at least for campaigns with single-digit levels. My players simply don't like powergaming that much. They also enjoy the roleplaying more than the rollplaying (although we all agree that the latter can be very fun at times). I'm the closest thing the group has to a powergamer or minmaxer, and I'm the DM! When we played a seriously high op campaign with an ubercharger Barbarian, abrupt jaunt Focused Conjurer, CoDzilla Cleric/Ordained Champion,  the players all enjoyed the ride ("Wow, I hit again! I just did... wait a sec... over a HUNDRED damage to the Giant?! I can't believe this is possible at level 7!!"), but they were all glad to return to a low-magic, low-power, E6 homebrew after that.



As a result, I can use my system mastery and more extensive effective command of rules resources to custom-build unique and memorable challenges for my group. For example, the final boss in the above-mentioned campaign was a martial adept (Cloistered Cleric 1/Crusader 4/Ruby Knight Vindicator 7). None of the players had ever played a ToB class, so in effect it was 'reserved' for high-powered special bosses designed to leave an impression.
In that fight, the players were in turns amazed, frustrated, frightened, and finally exalted, when at first it seemed like the big bad was never going to fall and would always have a new, unexpected trick up his sleeve, When they finally slew him, they were extremely gratified that it had been such a special experience.

I'm hoping for a similar reaction when I introduce a new group of baddies in my current campaign: Artificers in a low-magic E6 campaign will totally come out of left field. Hopefully, the players will enjoy the challenge!

[Unbeliever]

...
It severely impedes the DM when the players are working with rulesets he is unfamiliar with. A maximalist approach(allowing every source, regardless of familiarity and trusting the players to use them right) doesn't really add that much to the game, while opening up avenues for unexpected damage and ill-intentioned abuse from all sides. If only the player knows the rules, then only the active effects of the subsystems(e.g. the output, range and effects of a power) are known to the GM and not the passive(the manifester level cap on pp and what may raise it, the conditions that prevent manifesting, and the effects of transparency(or lack thereof) on manifesting, how psi-focus works, etc). This can cause a lot of trouble.

Contrast not being able to play a psionic character, the net loss is minor. The player would have a similarly desirable alternative character to play.
...

If the bolded statement were generally true, you'd see no argument from me.  But, consider playing a Ranger.  This is a fantasy archetype.  How hard is it to play a Ranger without many sources?  You need stuff like Swift Hunter, Favored Enemy (evil) and various enhancers, and so forth.  It's just a fact that many archetypes or ideas for characters that are not well-supported in the core systems.  Or, that are supported better, or in a more balanced light in sub-systems.  Some of it might be little dips (e.g., I have a dip into Warlocks that really helps out a few of my Rogues), some of it might be more. 

Or, consider the work you have to go through to make a high mobility, dynamic, fun to play melee fighter without Tome of Battle.  How many more hoops do you have to go through to make the Monk archetype or concept work when ToB or Psychic Warrior are taken out of the mix? 

Restricting sources has the effect of altering the kinds of character concepts available to the game, and subtly or not so subtly channeling players towards a specific set of them.  It's no surprise that people will tend to gravitate towards Druid, Cleric, and Wizard in an all-core game. 

tl;dr:  Therefore, there is a significant cost to restricting sources in the game.  It restricts the character concepts available to the players, sometimes by a great deal.


P.S.:  the counterargument to my position seems to consistently back into douchebag players.  That is a deeper problem than restricting sources or sub-systems.  Someone who is going to be a dick and intentionally disregard gentleman's agreement and "shred the plot for personal interests" is, I contend (a) not going to be dissuaded from restricted sources, but try and do it within whatever framework is available, and (b) be a pernicious player. 

[veekie]

Not necessarily douchebag players. Incompetent players exist and need to be accounted for. Note there is also a difference between degree of source limiting.
Limiting new subsystems is a natural consequence as they possess the highest complexity.

Limiting scattered sources like Dragon or setting specific material follows after, there is just far more material than a GM should be required to consider, and it is not necessarily indexed or referenced properly. Or relevant at all.

Limiting GM-targeted material goes next. Polymorph and Planar binding can access a lot of potential creatures and material, which the player won't necessarily have on hand, and is not necessarily appropriate.

Limiting broken material is a good way down the line. If you understand it, its easy to counter or remove.

Yes it makes less character options viable. Doesn't really matter, there are plenty of options left in the pool, and as experience so far demonstrates, what we in CO consider basic performance will cream anything of regular difficulties to begin with.

[ksbsnowowl]

The GM must know the mechanics better than anyone else, barring a responsible, rules proficient player acting as GM-co-processor. If he can't handle the mechanics, he shouldn't allow them.

That's been my biggest gripe as a player: DM's who don't know the rules.  I'm cool with house rules that are laid out from the beginning, and were made for intelligent reasons (setting or "flavor" reasons, or the DM didn't like the core mechanic).  But the DM needs to understand what the core mechanics are before he can intelligently start making changes to the rules.

This is, IMO, a misconception.
I've been the "co-processor" before.
But here's the thing, part of the concept of The Gentleman's Agreement is that everyone is there to have fun. Together. As a Group.
Putting the entire burden on ONE PERSON for every rule, every source, every combo, etc. is BS. First of all, no one can know all of it through and through, much less remember it all even if they had known it at one point. Second of all, people can be wrong. The rules-lawyer-ing should be something of a group effort. With the caveat arbiters that: it should not disrupt game-play over-much; and that there is a fine line between "correct" and "ass".

I'm not saying the DM has to know EVERY rule by heart.  Just last night I had to look up the Bull Rush rules in the middle of combat, because its a little-used rule that doesn't come up that often.  In another campaign that recently ended, I was the co-processor for the DM.  He knew most of the basic stuff, but not all.  If a question came up, I'd point out what the rule was, but always tack on a "... but whatever you want to rule is up to you."

But the DM does need to have a solid grasp of the basic and commonly used rules.  If the rules-lawyering is a group effort, but no one really knows the rules, you end up with the crap I've had to deal with.  Rogues getting sneak attack because two other people are flanking the target.  Rings of Protection not stacking with armor (and getting a "no they don't, because I said so" in response when you point out that, yes, the rings do stack with armor).

Sorry, I've had too many bad experiences.  I will NOT play under a GM that doesn't know the rules and refuses to acknowledge that he doesn't know them (and thus needs a co-processor).

[Empirate]

It's no surprise that people will tend to gravitate towards Druid, Cleric, and Wizard in an all-core game. 

tl;dr:  Therefore, there is a significant cost to restricting sources in the game.  It restricts the character concepts available to the players, sometimes by a great deal.

Is that really your experience? In the campaigns I have been DMing or playing in, optimization was never the conditio sine qua non. Sure, sometimes players would grumble a little that they can't play a Warblade because ToB is unavailable for some reason (not necessarily outright banning), but a likable alternative is usually found. Most RPGers I know like to play to a concept regardless of whether it will be as effective as the Wizard, Cleric or Druid.

Put another way, no game I've ever witnessed had NO tier three, four or five characters in it. It's the DM's job to make it work, and the whole group's job to make sure everybody's having fun. If that requires the casters to tone it down at high levels, so be it. And if it requires you don't even go to the highest levels, so be it, as well.

[Unbeliever]

^ sort of.  I say "sort of" b/c I've played with the same 3 or so gaming groups for the past few years, and we pretty much never categorically ban things.  But, I can readily see how someone would have a rougher time playing a Paladin (holy warrior not entirely dependent on spells) or an Unarmed Fighter archetype without ToB, for instance.  You'd just be encouraging them to pick something else.  Sure, there are other concepts out there, but it's a cost to the game and the campaign when someone doesn't get to play the (reasonable and genre-appropriate) thing they want to play. 

I will freely admit that one of my chief values in a rules system -- and source banning or not is part of a rules system -- is that it supports the widest array of character concepts (conditional on the setting, etc.) in interesting ways. 

With regards to these comments:

Is that really your experience? In the campaigns I have been DMing or playing in, optimization was never the condition sine qua non. Sure, sometimes players would grumble a little that they can't play a Warblade because ToB is unavailable for some reason (not necessarily outright banning), but a likable alternative is usually found. Most RPGers I know like to play to a concept regardless of whether it will be as effective as the Wizard, Cleric or Druid.

Put another way, no game I've ever witnessed had NO tier three, four or five characters in it. It's the DM's job to make it work, and the whole group's job to make sure everybody's having fun. If that requires the casters to tone it down at high levels, so be it. And if it requires you don't even go to the highest levels, so be it, as well.

...
Yes it makes less character options viable. Doesn't really matter, there are plenty of options left in the pool, and as experience so far demonstrates, what we in CO consider basic performance will cream anything of regular difficulties to begin with.

2 thoughts.  First, I don't love the tiers system, as I think optimization corrects a lot of the disparity between the "raw" classes (I know the tiers are controlling for optimization, which is part of why I don't like them).  So, yeah, a group with a Ranger and a Conjurer in the party can be totally balanced.  I've played that Ranger and had a blast.  It just took a little bit of work on my part, but that's actually a part of the game I enjoy.  My gf is playing a Soulknife who is pretty awesome.  And, I agree with Veekie, the goal is not the most powerful build possible or anything, it's just that it be viable and fun and do what it sets out to do.  You just want to avoid warriors that can't fight and stuff like that, they don't have to be zomg! awesome. 

Second, it seems that these are more shifting the DM's burden around than eliminating it.  It's her job to "make the power disparities work."  It's unclear to me whether that's really any more work than reading an executive summary (or even the entire ruleset) for something like ToB.  This is especially the case in running modules and adventure paths.

This may come down to a difference in DM style.  I sort of prefer to rely on my players knowing the benchmarks, or communicating them explicitly to them, and then running challenging encounters and seeing what they do about it.  There's not a lot of tailoring in that style.  Others, including some of my best friends and some of the best DMs I know, prefer to tailor the encounters more to the PCs. 

Just to circle back a bit, I do think if someone has to scratch a particular concept they had in mind for rules reasons, that's bad, and significantly so.  And, I'm not sure digesting a bunch of ACFs, obscure feats, and synergies that it would take to make a Paladin perform the way you'd expect it to is any easier than just letting someone play a Crusader. 

P.S.:  I think this is a really interesting discussion, and appreciate everyone's thoughts and, to be blunt, the tone of it.  Things can get kind of ... acrimonious online, especially on these things, and I don't think this thread has. 

[sirpercival]

P.S.:  I think this is a really interesting discussion, and appreciate everyone's thoughts and, to be blunt, the tone of it.  Things can get kind of ... acrimonious online, especially on these things, and I don't think this thread has. 

That's 'cause veekie is involved.  He has a whole thread devoted to his awesomeness.

[Dkonen]

I also think this is a really interesting discussion and I'm encouraged that the "DM must know the rules" has become "Dm must know a reasonable amount of the rules"...

Yes, I've had someone demand I know *all* the rules. His head exploded when I told him that RAI was mind reading, and the best I could manage was RAA (Rules As Assumed). He doesn't play with us. He was a silly person.

I didn't ban things. I however, had that abused three seperate occasions by three seperate people. Only one was terrible cheating. The other two were done by players I trusted trying to see how far they could push me as a DM. I caught them both at it, one had the grace to admit they had been going too far for the campaign in mind, and the other got angry to the point of personal insult and refused up down left right and sideways. He insisted I was making it all up and he would never do something like that... that was just an accident he built a character for that. He now is willing to admit maybe he did it on purpose and really pushed it too far.

We have five players who will plaster on fake smiles/sad face and remark "I didn't *know* it would be that powerful." In fact it's been said enough that the GM and I were thinking about instituting a 1$ fine for each time it's said to pay for gas money and mortgage. We decided they'd just find something else to say like "ohmy! Ooops! I did create a monster!"

The guys (mostly) mean well, they just like to play to see how high they can stack things and don't stop to consider sometimes. If they're confronted with it, they can usually understand. Banning cuts down on me having to pull someone aside and talk to them ... probably every sessio.. and explain why they need to tone it down.

It disrupts gameplay if I have to interrupt to have that talk. And to be honest... our games do not suffer for the lack of the few things we do ban. But.. we also allow a *lot* of other material.

We also have a rules debate rule, where if the DM doesn't know the rule, he'll adjudicate unless someone can look it up. If we disagree on the adjudication we talk about it while we have our supper break and see if we can find a way to manage it with everyone happy. We don't retcon the previous decision, it's just a "from now on...." and it's noted.

Really, banning (for us) isn't used as a "you can't have that!" so much as a "I don't want to have to argue with you over it" with a dash of "you want me to memorize how much? You do realize I have other things in my life right now?"

It isn't that I don't trust my players to be good folk, it's just that they tend to kid/candystore and forget to stop gorging before they vomit all over everyone. (lovely picture, no?)

[Pencil]

"yada yada yada"

That again boils the point pretty much down to that most of your players seem to be jerks.I, and I am just talking for myself, would rather not banhammer my stuff and not play with these kind of people.Allowing every source material and telling your player what kind of game you are planning to DM is also a nice method to get your players known and to see if "one is fit" for the other or not.

I am sorry, and I dont want to sound like a dick,but one needs max. 30min preparation to get into a totally new mechanic one is not familiar with at all.That is not much and I go as far to demand it from the DM to take his/her time to just get it.I offer help, sure, but in the end I demand it.
So why do I demand it?
I demand it  because I offer no less myself.(I also got time problems like every other human being).As a DM or as a player I take time to prepare for a session.As a player I think about my character mechanics,about his/her role in the party,about the concept, I write down my characters backstory(often only keywords but enough for everyone to understand) and I flesh out the mechanics.So I(and every other member of my group) just take my time in this hectic world to do some preparation.
Dont get me wrong please, I dont want to play down the stress you are going through but... everyone got his stress in some way or another.And preparing for a session,or taking time in general, is also a good way to calm down for me.

[veekie]

I am sorry, and I dont want to sound like a dick,but one needs max. 30min preparation to get into a totally new mechanic one is not familiar with at all.

Not true for all players/GMs. It may certainly apply for most of us here in CO, but reading and absorption ability varies wildly, to the point that ease, or even success, of learning cannot be assumed.

[Pencil]

I am sorry, and I dont want to sound like a dick,but one needs max. 30min preparation to get into a totally new mechanic one is not familiar with at all.

Not true for all players/GMs. It may certainly apply for most of us here in CO, but reading and absorption ability varies wildly, to the point that ease, or even success, of learning cannot be assumed.

Well one should have a distinctive sense of logical thinking to begin with in my opinion to DM D&D.They may be amazing in more role play focused systems but D&D is so mechanical that you practicaly need logical thinking to survive.
Also there is tons of online support or one can ask friends to explain it.

I kinda sound like a jerk in my posts, no?

[ksbsnowowl]

We also have a rules debate rule, where if the DM doesn't know the rule, he'll adjudicate unless someone can look it up. If we disagree on the adjudication we talk about it while we have our supper break and see if we can find a way to manage it with everyone happy. We don't retcon the previous decision, it's just a "from now on...." and it's noted.

That's pretty much how I do it.

[muktidata]

Every gaming group has a unique DNA and personality. At the games I'm a part of, there's a ton of arguing and sometimes it's more headache than it's worth, but it's darn hard to find 3.5 gamers in Louisville, Kentucky. We fought a Beholder last week as level 11-14 characters and took five hours to scout a small area and kill the darn thing. Fifteen minutes of squabble and arguing yields a move action.

I am DM'ing Age of Worms soon and wanted to allow more source material/be a more lenient GM since our other GM is very strict and has been playing since 2nd edition and often mixes up mechanics from all the systems/gets confused/frustrated/the game turns into cowboys and indians:

"I got you!" - Indian (PC)
"No, you didn't!" - Cowboy (DM)
"Yes, I did!" - Indian (PC)

I know more about MinMax tricks than the rest of my DnD group, so I don't expect any surprises or anything overpowered, but since it DOES go up to level 20, I want to keep my eyes peeled. I suppose I will just allow all source material and flex my biceps when it comes to the fact that "DM is always right" and "Yes, that means whatever I say IS fair. Take it or leave it."

[veekie]

I am sorry, and I dont want to sound like a dick,but one needs max. 30min preparation to get into a totally new mechanic one is not familiar with at all.

Not true for all players/GMs. It may certainly apply for most of us here in CO, but reading and absorption ability varies wildly, to the point that ease, or even success, of learning cannot be assumed.

Well one should have a distinctive sense of logical thinking to begin with in my opinion to DM D&D.They may be amazing in more role play focused systems but D&D is so mechanical that you practicaly need logical thinking to survive.
Also there is tons of online support or one can ask friends to explain it.

I kinda sound like a jerk in my posts, no?

Naw, not so much, its just your gaming environment, and you can expect that. I have a much more mixed environment, and my responses reflect that as well.

What I find is that:
-People with no affinity for rules can and will continue to have no affinity for rules, however large a wealth of resources and support can be provided. You can build the whole character for them, and it won't be used effectively without constant reminders, as spells and item effects get forgotten. This can be an issue as a GM, of course, they may have engaging plots, and interesting roleplay, but don't expect strategic or tactical complexity in combat and challenges, and expectation-bypassing abilities likewise foul up their plans.

-You can be theoretically competent at CO, but unable to implement in play. This is more an issue for live games, but the practical aspects of heavy summoning and shapeshifting is the need to rapidly apply and remove attributes. You may suffer analysis paralysis when called on to take a particular standard action, yet optimization favors characters with dozens of possible options, all of which are effective. Each additional ruleset adds to the ongoing complexity. Think of it as a memory analogy, you may have a 1TB hard drive, but only 1GB of RAM, you can't have everything loaded at once and function.

Finally, you don't always get to pick the personality of your group. There are great players with no sense of restraint, even here there would be people who if they see a source or houserule they dislike, will set out to 'prove' a point. There are good friends you play with because you just enjoy hanging out together. Limiting sources is a way to work around(not solve, its just there to get the game going regardless) these minor issues, especially because after chargen, limited sources generally cease to matter.

[Empirate]

I kinda sound like a jerk in my posts, no?

I wouldn't go as far as that, however may I be excused for detecting a hint of "my fun is better than yours" in your posts?

IMO people have the right to play and enjoy D&D in rather a lot of different ways. Including "I simply don't feel like allowing that book/rule/feat/class/mechanic". Also including "I'll ban stuff, I'll cheat, and I'll go into lengthy rules discussions again and again and again, just to keep playing with the same set of players that have caused me so much aggravation already". If somebody at the table has a problem with some part of how the game is handled, then it's the table's responsibility to come up with a workable solution that preserves everybody's gaming fun to as large a degree as possible. How a gaming group does that can and will vary widely. And it's not our job to promote our views of what makes a "good", "balanced", or "fun" game of D&D for any particular group but the ones we're gaming with ourselves.

Quite often, "vote with your feet", "get other players" etc. aren't really viable advice, since many people don't have a plethora of games/co-gamers to choose from. This is a thing that's cropping up again and again on these boards (and all others related to RPGs, to be sure). It never fails to annoy.


Granted, this is the CO board, but this discussion has left the realm of CO far behind anyways, so I don't feel bad for making these points...

[Tshern]

-You can be theoretically competent at CO, but unable to implement in play. This is more an issue for live games, but the practical aspects of heavy summoning and shapeshifting is the need to rapidly apply and remove attributes. You may suffer analysis paralysis when called on to take a particular standard action, yet optimization favors characters with dozens of possible options, all of which are effective. Each additional ruleset adds to the ongoing complexity. Think of it as a memory analogy, you may have a 1TB hard drive, but only 1GB of RAM, you can't have everything loaded at once and function.

I have a rather decent real life example of this. A few weeks ago I started in a campaign with a total of six players. Three of these guys know what to do and know the basics about action economy, battlefield control, effective melee and such things. Two others are very competent, but the other one is overeager and hates the idea that someone might outshine him even in a single area. Then there is me and I mostly help others and do some debuffing and BFC.

The twist of the campaign is that all core classes have been banned. Don't cry foul yet, it was a mutual decision. Anyway, pretty soon we realised that we've become too used to taking Fighter dips, using Cloistered Cleric for various boons, decimating enemies with Druids and making utility Wizards for all the oddjobs and BFC. At the moment we have two ToB-based melee dudes, a Psychic Warrior, a Dread Necromancer, a Spirit Shaman (my character) and a Beguiler. As you can imagine, we are pretty short on divinations and utility casting, so the campaign has taken a really peculiar twist.

Long story short, we have the knowledge, we have the sources, but a few limitations basically threw us off our game. Oh yeah, forgot to mention that we had 20 minutes to throw together a character concept and make a preliminary selection of feats, so we were slightly handicapped there.

[veekie]

Granted, this is the CO board, but this discussion has left the realm of CO far behind anyways, so I don't feel bad for making these points...

Actually...I should have done something about this days ago...

[Pencil]

I kinda sound like a jerk in my posts, no?

I wouldn't go as far as that, however may I be excused for detecting a hint of "my fun is better than yours" in your posts?

Just so you know:This was in no way my intention.(Also mainly because I wouldn`t say something that stupid )

[Unbeliever]

I didn't ban things. I however, had that abused three seperate occasions by three seperate people. Only one was terrible cheating. The other two were done by players I trusted trying to see how far they could push me as a DM. I caught them both at it, one had the grace to admit they had been going too far for the campaign in mind, and the other got angry to the point of personal insult and refused up down left right and sideways. He insisted I was making it all up and he would never do something like that... that was just an accident he built a character for that. He now is willing to admit maybe he did it on purpose and really pushed it too far.

We have five players who will plaster on fake smiles/sad face and remark "I didn't *know* it would be that powerful." In fact it's been said enough that the GM and I were thinking about instituting a 1$ fine for each time it's said to pay for gas money and mortgage. We decided they'd just find something else to say like "ohmy! Ooops! I did create a monster!"

The guys (mostly) mean well, they just like to play to see how high they can stack things and don't stop to consider sometimes. If they're confronted with it, they can usually understand. Banning cuts down on me having to pull someone aside and talk to them ... probably every sessio.. and explain why they need to tone it down.

For this kind of gaming group, I suppose banning is the only option, or probably the most economical.  But, I can't say enough how foreign this is from my experience and from what I think the ideal should be.  Example:  in a game I was playing I made a ToB, single-strike focused character with Deep Impact and Boomerang Daze (a feat I've cooled towards in the intervening period) that he could use with melee attacks.  It quickly became clear to me that the idea was sound and using a reasonable level of opt-fu -- make single powerful attacks that would jack up the save DC on Boomerang Daze b/c it's based on damage dealt -- but the combo was essentially a guaranteed stun lock.  I don't mind stun locking the opposing wizard b/c their Fort save sucks, that's why we have different categories of saves after all, but when a Frost Giant Jarl can't make his Fort save against my 10-ish level character, that's probably a problem.  So, as a player I told the DM that I was going to see if I could come up with a house rule to make this idea work or else scrap it entirely.  And, via email over the next week, we hammered out something that made us both happy -- me b/c it still did justice to the build and was fairly awesome, her b/c her baddies could make the Fort save. 

We talk open and honestly about benchmarks and what our characters can do.  I've said things like "how much damage is unreasonable for this game?" though usually it's a more general benchmark.  Like, as a DM I usually say "anything on par with a straightforward Druid build is fine," and leave it to others to manage it.


The best pro-banning argument here seems to be that some players will take advantage of new material and twist it to their purpose.  As I've already indicated, I believe this is at best bad form, and usually what we just call "cheating."  And, the idea of cheating in an RPG is a little surreal to me. 

But, in response to this question, I have to ask:  aren't the most broken mechanics already present within the "core" mechanics, e.g., the primary spellcasters?  Can someone really do something much more broken with psionics or ToB than they can with say ... Wizard spells?  Or, is it just the case that the DM won't know if they are lying or not about the mechanics? 

I ask b/c it seems to me the only way to make, say, a Binder or Incarnum "broken" to the point where it would be more powerful than a simple, banal Druid, Conjurer, Cleric, etc. would be to lie about the mechanics.  Even Psionics, which seems the most "breakable" add-on sub-system is certainly no more breakable than spellcasting, and arguably adds in support for some iconic things (I'm thinking of blasting mages) that was lacking.