Most nonsensical ban you've played under

[Necroticplague]

I've heard that mentioned more than once on this forum. And my response is always, that there are nowadays some very nice alternatives. http://roll20.net/

Eh, some people like the personal touch of being face-to-face. I'm not one of them, thus why my playing is done on the PbP section of this board.

[bjoern]

I am reminded of this monstrosity.

Sometimes I feel like I'm flirting with this. Except for the crazy race nonsense.

When we first started up no one realized that you can only have one shield bonus. So a dwarf warpriest in full plate with two shields was like the panzer of builds early on.



Oh and my current DM bans drow , which is fine. They kinda suck for the LA anyway.

[Zytil]

I once played under rules which were basically "If it's over Tier 5, or a feat/class feature/variant/item/anything else that could be useful to higher tier class, ask. If you have to ask, it's probably not ok."

This was after i was told to join and optimize to make sure the rest of the party wouldn't kill themselves tripping over the front step of the inn we started in.

[Zombulian]

I had a DM ban characters over 3rd level once. They were too complicated for her.

Reminds me of one of my friends who DM's every now and then. Except he generally doesn't obey any type of game rule anyway. I've considered showing him OSRIC or something, because 3.5 is all he knows but he plays it like 1.0.

[Owl Prowler]

I am reminded of this monstrosity.

The funniest thing about that comic is the idea that, apart from the name and the racial shenanigans, the character presented is in any way shape or form overpowered or munchkin-y.

[AuraTwilight]

So were all PrC banned, or could you enter them without feats?

What about class abilities that referenced or granted feats?

Wish I could tell you, but it never got that far. He wasn't a very good GM.

[Zombulian]

The funniest thing about that comic is the idea that, apart from the name and the racial shenanigans, the character presented is in any way shape or form overpowered or munchkin-y.

Probably written by a non-optimizer. When I was first getting into it, it seemed like all that optimizing was was over-complicated multiclassing and weird race combinations.

[Knaight]

The funniest thing about that comic is the idea that, apart from the name and the racial shenanigans, the character presented is in any way shape or form overpowered or munchkin-y.

It presents a character who gets boosted sneak attack damage, and hits with a full set of two weapon fighting attacks (plus an extra one) with the daggers, plus two claymore attacks also with sneak attack. It's also supposed to be a starting character. That's pretty munchkiny.

[...]

Probably written by a non-optimizer. When I was first getting into it, it seemed like all that optimizing was was over-complicated multiclassing and weird race combinations.

Now we know that you have to stick with a primary caster and choose weird feat options.

[Vhaidara]

It presents a character who gets boosted sneak attack damage, and hits with a full set of two weapon fighting attacks (plus an extra one) with the daggers, plus two claymore attacks also with sneak attack. It's also supposed to be a starting character. That's pretty munchkiny.

Level 1. And actually, it does fit munckining pretty hard.

Munchkins go for BIG BIG numbers, even if they aren't effective. They look at fireball and just try to make it deal 5 million d6.

Optimizers want to do things. They look at Fireball, laugh, and cast Wings of Flurry if they want damage, or Planar Binding for anything else.

[Ravens_cry]

It presents a character who gets boosted sneak attack damage, and hits with a full set of two weapon fighting attacks (plus an extra one) with the daggers, plus two claymore attacks also with sneak attack. It's also supposed to be a starting character. That's pretty munchkiny.

Also, while in a campaign about optimization, compare that to the other characters and the DM's reaction. Munchkinry and optimization are relative things.

[Zombulian]

Where did the term Munchkin come from anyway? Optimizer makes sense because... you know.

[jaydubs]

Where did the term Munchkin come from anyway? Optimizer makes sense because... you know.

According to wikipedia:

"The term was applied originally to young gamers by older players, presumably because the connotation of being short and ridiculous (like the Munchkins in the book and film The Wizard of Oz) made it an apt label for the childish gamers it was applied to. However, before long it came to refer to anyone who engaged in a juvenile gaming style no matter their height, age or experience."

[Zombulian]

According to wikipedia:

"The term was applied originally to young gamers by older players, presumably because the connotation of being short and ridiculous (like the Munchkins in the book and film The Wizard of Oz) made it an apt label for the childish gamers it was applied to. However, before long it came to refer to anyone who engaged in a juvenile gaming style no matter their height, age or experience."

Fair enough then.

[DarkSonic1337]

I don't know if I should call this nonsensical because there were apparently story reasons for it (unfotunately the campaign broke down before we found out) but...I played in a game where any spell that allowed you to breathe under water or gave the swim movement mode was banned. Nobody was allowed to know how to swim.

[Zombulian]

I don't know if I should call this nonsensical because there were apparently story reasons for it (unfotunately the campaign broke down before we found out) but...I played in a game where any spell that allowed you to breathe under water or gave the swim movement mode was banned. Nobody was allowed to know how to swim.

That part is kind of nonsense. Unless I guess all the characters lived in a desert and had never been to an Oasis.

[Ssalarn]

I played with a GM who thought all hybrid classes were cheese and anyone who wanted to play them was trying to pull of some kind of "munchkin cheese". So no Beguilers, Incarnates, Warmages, Duskblades, or Warlocks, only good old "balanced" classes from the Player's Handbook like the Wizard and Cleric.

...

I tried to explain that one to him a few times and he just never believed that those other classes were far better balanced and far harder to power-game than standard wizards, no matter what evidence was presented.

[Owl Prowler]

It presents a character who gets boosted sneak attack damage, and hits with a full set of two weapon fighting attacks (plus an extra one) with the daggers, plus two claymore attacks also with sneak attack. It's also supposed to be a starting character. That's pretty munchkiny.

If it's a starting character (as in level 1) then I'm not sure how it's accomplishing all that. If it's a low level character that managed to fit all that in, then more power to it. It's not like melee gets nice things anyways.

Level 1. And actually, it does fit munckining pretty hard.

Munchkins go for BIG BIG numbers, even if they aren't effective. They look at fireball and just try to make it deal 5 million d6.

Optimizers want to do things. They look at Fireball, laugh, and cast Wings of Flurry if they want damage, or Planar Binding for anything else.

Fair enough. Looking at the character, it seems like the theoretical optimizer was going for a "sneak attack as much and in as many different situations as possible" route. For a low level primary damage dealer, that's not ineffective. Sure, it's less effective than say, battlefield control or summoning, but seeing as the guy isn't playing a spellcaster, it's a bit of a moot point.

[Aquillion]

I think at this point we've banned Miracles. Not because they were OP, but because of the damn Shadowcraft Mage and his Miracling everything. So now NO-ONE GRANTS MIRACLES! MUWAHAHAHAH!

Shadowcraft mage miracles can be pretty brutally overpowered, though. And miracle itself is one of the most powerful spells available to clerics, so it's not that odd to ban it in the first place.

[Ravens_cry]

If it's a starting character (as in level 1) then I'm not sure how it's accomplishing all that. If it's a low level character that managed to fit all that in, then more power to it. It's not like melee gets nice things anyways.

The game being played is not D&D. Some knockoff fantasy clone that uses many of the same terms, but it's explicitly not D&D, but D&D&D.

[Sith_Happens]

Was this before or after Wind Waker came out? You know, the Zelda game with the actual grappling hook.

Wind Waker: 2003
Dungeonscape: 2007

Matter of fact, Wind Waker came out before D&D 3.5.

[Rijan_Sai]

Wind Waker: 2003
Dungeonscape: 2007

Matter of fact, Wind Waker came out before D&D 3.5.

Sadly, (or fortunately?) I have nothing relevant to add to the topic at hand...

However, I believe my head my have just exploded...

[Vhaidara]

Sadly, (or fortunately?) I have nothing relevant to add to the topic at hand...

However, I believe my head my have just exploded...

I checked, and it was only 2 months on the US release. 6 on the Japanese.

[Sith_Happens]

Sadly, (or fortunately?) I have nothing relevant to add to the topic at hand...

However, I believe my head my have just exploded...

Relevant.

[ArqArturo]

I played with a GM who thought all hybrid classes were cheese and anyone who wanted to play them was trying to pull of some kind of "munchkin cheese". So no Beguilers, Incarnates, Warmages, Duskblades, or Warlocks, only good old "balanced" classes from the Player's Handbook like the Wizard and Cleric.

...

I tried to explain that one to him a few times and he just never believed that those other classes were far better balanced and far harder to power-game than standard wizards, no matter what evidence was presented.

Please tell me you crushed this belief with indiscriminate (and some say, even inhumane, but that is debatable in a game where non-human humanoids running around) use of CoDzilla?.

[pwykersotz]

In one game I decided to play a Favored Soul. I was healing focused. I just really wanted to spend my time being pure support. I used my skill points to spec Craft: Blacksmithing to give the party Fighter and Barbarian some gear.

After about ten games, my DM felt I wasn't being creative enough. He banned moving and casting in the same round because all I was doing was keeping my team up, I wasn't damaging things. Worse, he never explained it. I just kept telling him what I tried to do, and he responded with "you can't". I left the game when I figured it out.

[chainer1216]

i once played in an epic level game, as a single classed fighter and half-fiend ( i wasn't even into the epic level HD yet) and my DM banned the weapon mastery line of feats from PHB2 because i was doing too much damage.

[atemu1234]

I once had a DM who banned, according to him, "optimization". This meant, for lack of a better definition, no multiclassing, no using PrCs, no using feats he deemed "OP". This DM put up a straight-class fighter as the definition of nonoptimization, and when one of the players, a sorcerer, managed to one-shot a supposed-to-be recurring villain, he flat out banned spellcasters (and then wondered why we were getting slaughtered en masse) (That was short lived though, we explained it to him).

Turns out he was a new DM who got his tips offline. Once we played a while he got better and slowly began to trust us more.

[Ratatoskir]

I played in a game where we rolled background stuff that gave a small mechanical bonus, and that we had to build our backstory around. I got something to the effect of "survived a deadly illness" for a +1 to fort. Cool! That will help my sorcerer! I'm game for it. So I chose some exotic disease the has a big table of random effects, one of which was changing your hair color, and I choose green, cuz heck, why not?

I'll let you guess what part of all that the DM banned.

[ArqArturo]

In a PF game, I implemented the called shot mechanic. Seemed decent enough, it had clear rules, I did some minor tweakings here and there but otherwise were the rules as is.

The group's alchemist/barbarian then decided he wanted to do called-shots to the eye.

With horses.