Most nonsensical ban you've played under

[Milodiah]

My DM banned Factoruns. Because inspiration is restored after each batle, and factoruns add they int to pretty everything. He thank it was a "too powerfull" ability

I ban them because they're just stupid, in my opinion. Being able to offer a mediocre anything just seems rather...mediocre. I'm a roleplaying DM, not a mechanics DM, but still, trying to justify to the other players sounds silly to me. And it makes little sense in-universe; just try phrasing factotum mechanics in a way that explains it in-character, and you'll see it.

"Well, if there's a hole in the group, I could fill it!"
"...but there is a hole in the group. Because nobody's playing as a healer but you insist on half-filling that hole, plus piling some dirt on top of the holes we fill too."
"But what if you guys get knocked out or something! I could fill the hole you leave!"
"...again. We're gonna get knocked out. Because NOBODY IS PLAYING THE HEALER."
"So? I can heal! I can also pick locks, cast spells, do sneak attacks, and all that too!"
"...but we can already do those things. Just be a cleric, we beg you."
"I don't see what the big deal is, I can do a little healing and do a little of everything else!"

Besides, the bard is supposed to be the generalist, but even the bard has its own individual flavor and uniqueness about it. Factotum's just...sub-par every-other-class-at-once.

[Vhaidara]

I ban them because they're just stupid, in my opinion. Being able to offer a mediocre anything just seems rather...mediocre. I'm a roleplaying DM, not a mechanics DM, but still, trying to justify to the other players sounds silly to me. And it makes little sense in-universe; just try phrasing factotum mechanics in a way that explains it in-character, and you'll see it.

"Well, if there's a hole in the group, I could fill it!"
"...but there is a hole in the group. Because nobody's playing as a healer but you insist on half-filling that hole, plus piling some dirt on top of the holes we fill too."
"But what if you guys get knocked out or something! I could fill the hole you leave!"
"...again. We're gonna get knocked out. Because NOBODY IS PLAYING THE HEALER."
"So? I can heal! I can also pick locks, cast spells, do sneak attacks, and all that too!"
"...but we can already do those things. Just be a cleric, we beg you."
"I don't see what the big deal is, I can do a little healing and do a little of everything else!"

Besides, the bard is supposed to be the generalist, but even the bard has its own individual flavor and uniqueness about it. Factotum's just...sub-par every-other-class-at-once.

They're Rogue 2.0. They are literally better than rogue at everything except damage (and they can be competitive there with ToB dipping + Iiajutsu focus/Cunning Strike). They break Action Economy in half after level 8 (to the point where some builds use an 8 level factotum "dip"). They destroy Rogues on skill checks.t

[jaydubs]

"Well, if there's a hole in the group, I could fill it!"
"...but there is a hole in the group. Because nobody's playing as a healer but you insist on half-filling that hole, plus piling some dirt on top of the holes we fill too."
"But what if you guys get knocked out or something! I could fill the hole you leave!"
"...again. We're gonna get knocked out. Because NOBODY IS PLAYING THE HEALER."
"So? I can heal! I can also pick locks, cast spells, do sneak attacks, and all that too!"
"...but we can already do those things. Just be a cleric, we beg you."
"I don't see what the big deal is, I can do a little healing and do a little of everything else!"

I'm going to be honest. When a group starts asking specifically for a healer rather than a divine caster, I get suspicious they're looking for a healbot.

Which, outside of the whole issue of how effective or not the role happens to be, is incredibly boring. (At least for me, I'm sure there are people who enjoy playing healbots.)

[JohnnyCancer]

I was playing a Pathfinder game back in 2012 where the DM banned henchmen, summons, cohorts, extended use of mind control (you could charm your way past someone, but not dominate them into perpetual servitude), and construct and undead creation. I was playing a Necromancer (for debuffs, since undead creation was out) and I was allowed to choose between keeping the Power Over Undead ability or a Familiar.

[Milodiah]

I'm going to be honest. When a group starts asking specifically for a healer rather than a divine caster, I get suspicious they're looking for a healbot.

Which, outside of the whole issue of how effective or not the role happens to be, is incredibly boring. (At least for me, I'm sure there are people who enjoy playing healbots.)

True, but a factotum still isn't a divine caster. He's a guy who can hypothetically cast some arcane magic, but also hypothetically do anything else. But worse.


And yeah, they also can out-rogue rogues at certain levels, while still being able to half-ass any other class. All the more reason, I say, to ban.

[Milodiah]

I was playing a Pathfinder game back in 2012 where the DM banned henchmen, summons, cohorts, extended use of mind control (you could charm your way past someone, but not dominate them into perpetual servitude), and construct and undead creation. I was playing a Necromancer (for debuffs, since undead creation was out) and I was allowed to choose between keeping the Power Over Undead ability or a Familiar.

...so he basically banned being able to hand a guy 100 gold and say "come fight bad guys with us and I'll pay you 100 gold again."

See, when someone bans doing something both possible and realistic, like the concept of mercenaries, I have to start losing my respect for them. Was he just afraid you guys were going to break his lovingly-crafted encounters by adding a few more swordswingers into the mix?

[Vhaidara]

And yeah, they also can out-rogue rogues at certain levels, while still being able to half-ass any other class. All the more reason, I say, to ban.

Except that Rogue is a terrible class specifically designed to function on a different schedule than everyone else (out of combat). Factotum's have options for in combat while doing the stuff no one else can help with faster.

Also, the Factotum eases the burden on others by helping their role (secondary healer, secondary utility caster, secondary combatant)

[nedz]

(At least for me, I'm sure there are people who enjoy playing healbots.)

Oh yes, they even have their own class with Unicorns and everything.

[Milodiah]

I suppose I should point out that my games have a hell of a lot of "out of combat". If factotums were designed more to be combat rogues I'd have less of a problem. I suppose it's the "total generalist" part that gets me annoyed. And the last game I played with a factotum ended up with said factotum just deciding he wanted to *be* the party instead of *assist* the party.

[Drelua]

I ban them because they're just stupid, in my opinion. Being able to offer a mediocre anything just seems rather...mediocre. I'm a roleplaying DM, not a mechanics DM, but still, trying to justify to the other players sounds silly to me. And it makes little sense in-universe; just try phrasing factotum mechanics in a way that explains it in-character, and you'll see it.

"Well, if there's a hole in the group, I could fill it!"
"...but there is a hole in the group. Because nobody's playing as a healer but you insist on half-filling that hole, plus piling some dirt on top of the holes we fill too."
"But what if you guys get knocked out or something! I could fill the hole you leave!"
"...again. We're gonna get knocked out. Because NOBODY IS PLAYING THE HEALER."
"So? I can heal! I can also pick locks, cast spells, do sneak attacks, and all that too!"
"...but we can already do those things. Just be a cleric, we beg you."
"I don't see what the big deal is, I can do a little healing and do a little of everything else!"

Besides, the bard is supposed to be the generalist, but even the bard has its own individual flavor and uniqueness about it. Factotum's just...sub-par every-other-class-at-once.

Emphasis added. These phrases do not go together. 'Playing the Healer' and 'do sneak attacks' are not in character phrases, they are completely metagame things. Now, if you're an adventuring group looking to hire a new guy and you've got a bunch of applicants, your characters might not have a good reason to pick the Factotum, but there's plenty of ways for an adventure to start that don't give anyone the option not to pick a certain guy. Besides, he can UMD the out of combat healing, and in combat healing is rarely a good idea.

Here's an actually-in-character way that conversation might go:
Factotum: "So, what does your group need?"
Fighter: "Well, my buddy's a mage, and I'm just a guy who knows how to swing a sword. We don't have any magical healing or any way to deal with traps, so we could use some help there."
Factotum: "Well, I can't cast a lot of healing magic, but I do know how to use this curing wand, I can handle traps, I can fight reasonably well, I'm good at talking to people and I can throw some magic around if I have to."

That sounds like a good enough pitch to me.

Anyway, as for the actual topic of the thread, I'm currently playing with a DM that bans psionics, and the closest thing he's ever given to a reason is a rant about how bad second edition psionics were. They did sound pretty bad, but we're playing Pathfinder, which has completely different psionics.

[Grod_The_Giant]

...so he basically banned being able to hand a guy 100 gold and say "come fight bad guys with us and I'll pay you 100 gold again."

See, when someone bans doing something both possible and realistic, like the concept of mercenaries, I have to start losing my respect for them. Was he just afraid you guys were going to break his lovingly-crafted encounters by adding a few more swordswingers into the mix?

He probably didn't want to slow things down with a bunch of secondary characters. I've made similar requests. I very much doubt it was a "mercenaries do not exist in the universe" thing.

[Milodiah]

Emphasis added. These phrases do not go together. 'Playing the Healer' and 'do sneak attacks' are not in character phrases, they are completely metagame things. Now, if you're an adventuring group looking to hire a new guy and you've got a bunch of applicants, your characters might not have a good reason to pick the Factotum, but there's plenty of ways for an adventure to start that don't give anyone the option not to pick a certain guy. Besides, he can UMD the out of combat healing, and in combat healing is rarely a good idea.

Here's an actually-in-character way that conversation might go:
Factotum: "So, what does your group need?"
Fighter: "Well, my buddy's a mage, and I'm just a guy who knows how to swing a sword. We don't have any magical healing or any way to deal with traps, so we could use some help there."
Factotum: "Well, I can't cast a lot of healing magic, but I do know how to use this curing wand, I can handle traps, I can fight reasonably well, I'm good at talking to people and I can throw some magic around if I have to."

That sounds like a good enough pitch to me.

Anyway, as for the actual topic of the thread, I'm currently playing with a DM that bans psionics, and the closest thing he's ever given to a reason is a rant about how bad second edition psionics were. They did sound pretty bad, but we're playing Pathfinder, which has completely different psionics.

I didn't mean to phrase it like that, sorry. It wasn't supposed to be an example of in-character dialogue, but I misworded it. I still maintain my dislike for factotums, but considering they're the only thing I ban, all but one of my players hadn't heard of it until I banned it, and nobody wanted to be one anyway, it's not a big deal for our group. (Plus I heavily discourage psionics, slightly because they're broken but mostly due to the setting)

[georgie_leech]

I didn't mean to phrase it like that, sorry. It wasn't supposed to be an example of in-character dialogue, but I misworded it. I still maintain my dislike for factotums, but considering they're the only thing I ban, all but one of my players hadn't heard of it until I banned it, and nobody wanted to be one anyway, it's not a big deal for our group. (Plus I heavily discourage psionics, slightly because they're broken

*Twitch*

but mostly due to the setting)

Now that's a reason I can get behind.

[Milodiah]

If it weren't for the setting, I do mean 'discourage' and not 'ban'. Discourage as in "if someone had ever said 'I wanna be a psionic' I would list the reasons I personally don't care for psionics and really wish they didn't go for it, but if they persisted I'd read through all the psionics books and be ready for what they threw at me next". I probably shouldn't have even mentioned it, considering that as with the factotum issue it never even came up with my players. In reality I think that they all have even forgotten about psionics.

I'll also add I shy away from psionics from lack of experience, which in reality is a good reason for a DM to be cautious about allowing them, since he/she is expected to have a large functioning knowledge of how it all works.

But in this particular setting the only things that have full-on psionics are Mind Flayers, Beholders, the really monstrous stuff, psionics simply isn't a thing the playable races have.

[questionmark693]

The thing about factotums is that they aren't supposed to consistently be any one role, and that gets mentioned explicitly in their description. They're really nice for a fifth or sixth wheel character when every role is filled, they can fill *temporarily*, which is much more helpful than consistently being a specific niche role character.

[KillianHawkeye]

I heavily discourage psionics, slightly because they're broken

But... they're NOT.

Really, the Psion is a little better than a Sorcerer, but still far below Wizards, Clerics, and Druids in power.

[georgie_leech]

If it weren't for the setting, I do mean 'discourage' and not 'ban'. Discourage as in "if someone had ever said 'I wanna be a psionic' I would list the reasons I personally don't care for psionics and really wish they didn't go for it, but if they persisted I'd read through all the psionics books and be ready for what they threw at me next". I probably shouldn't have even mentioned it, considering that as with the factotum issue it never even came up with my players. In reality I think that they all have even forgotten about psionics.

I'll also add I shy away from psionics from lack of experience, which in reality is a good reason for a DM to be cautious about allowing them, since he/she is expected to have a large functioning knowledge of how it all works.

But in this particular setting the only things that have full-on psionics are Mind Flayers, Beholders, the really monstrous stuff, psionics simply isn't a thing the playable races have.

Mmhm, those are all valid reasons. Lack of experience with and the setting being unsuitable are my favourite reasons for disallowing something. Just... power level, they're really not that bad. Core is worse in that regard. Spells are basically Powers, except they auto-scale without additional investment; they get better with levels, not just having a higher investment cap. Imagine if you had to prepare Magic Missile in a level 5 slot to get the 5 missiles at level 9, instead of just getting them automatically, and they'd scale similar to Psionics.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not jumping on you about this. I don't think everyone must always include everything in the game. I just think it's important to clear up common misconceptions when they arise. Again, banning Psionics is perfectly fine, for all the other reasons you gave.

[Drelua]

Yeah, I've got no problem with people banning psionics as long as they have a decent reason. 'They're broken' isn't a good reason because it's not true; none of the main psionic classes are as powerful or as ripe for abuse as cleric, druid, or wizard, to say nothing of other classes outside of core. If they don't fit in with the setting, that's a good reason, or if you don't have access to the books and using the SRD isn't convenient, if you're not familiar with them, or if you just plain don't like them, that's all fine. As long as your reason is true and relevant.

As for the Factotum, it seems to me that you're saying you ban it not because of the class, but because of the concept it's meant to fill. That's not really a reason to ban something, it's just a reason not to play it yourself. But then, it also sounds like if someone really wanted to play one, you'd probably let them, so you're not saying anything unreasonable, your opinion just seems a bit odd to me. Nothing wrong with that, I've got plenty odd beliefs and opinions.

[ryu]

But... they're NOT.

Really, the Psion is a little better than a Sorcerer, but still far below Wizards, Clerics, and Druids in power.

Depends on how free we're wiling to be with psychic chirurgary, or psychic reformation failing that. Above all three of them if the former, or fully equivalent if the latter.

[KillianHawkeye]

Depends on how free we're wiling to be with psychic chirurgary, or psychic reformation failing that. Above all three of them if the former, or fully equivalent if the latter.

Having a couple of ways to cheese out your class does not make the entire Psionics system "broken."

[ryu]

Having a couple of ways to cheese out your class does not make the entire Psionics system "broken."

We can debate that the former doesn't count as we're paying for a service from a different class to start the ball of doom rolling, but psychic reformation straight-up puts you in the same level of versatility and it's native.

[KillianHawkeye]

We can debate that the former doesn't count as we're paying for a service from a different class to start the ball of doom rolling, but psychic reformation straight-up puts you in the same level of versatility and it's native.

Again, that does not make the entire Psionics system broken! T1 casters are not broken outside of a few problematic spells, either, so being equal to them should not be seen as broken.

[Fax Celestis]

We can debate that the former doesn't count as we're paying for a service from a different class to start the ball of doom rolling, but psychic reformation straight-up puts you in the same level of versatility and it's native.

So is wish and miracle.

[ryu]

Again, that does not make the entire Psionics system broken! T1 casters are not broken outside of a few problematic spells, either, so being equal to them should not be seen as broken.

I never used the word broken here? That was all you. I merely pointed out that psions are equal to or greater than tier 1. I'm just fine with that.

[Owl Prowler]

I never used the word broken here? That was all you. I merely pointed out that psions are equal to or greater than tier 1. I'm just fine with that.

But they're not. They're quite solidly Tier 2. In fact, I would say that the only way Psions are better than the sorcerer is that their casting mechanic is designed better. Power wise, sorcerers get access to the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list, which is still the most powerful thing in the game.

[Doc_Maynot]

Not to mention you can Limited Wish or Wish to use powers anyway.

[ryu]

But they're not. They're quite solidly Tier 2. In fact, I would say that the only way Psions are better than the sorcerer is that their casting mechanic is designed better. Power wise, sorcerers get access to the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list, which is still the most powerful thing in the game.

If your criterion for power is access to the sorcerer wizard list we can do that easily and without even using permanent build resources. Psychic chirurgary. We also get all the other lists in the game right down to the obscure ones with access to spells at lower levels than we normally see them. Don't need feats, class dips, exorbitant amounts of money, xp, or any annoying to replenish resource either. Psion is the most powerful class potential wise short of the pun-pun racing league where paladins get a special edge in one incredibly niche way.

[Owl Prowler]

If your criterion for power is access to the sorcerer wizard list we can do that easily and without even using permanent build resources. Psychic chirurgary. We also get all the other lists in the game right down to the obscure ones with access to spells at lower levels than we normally see them. Don't need feats, class dips, exorbitant amounts of money, xp, or any annoying to replenish resource either. Psion is the most powerful class potential wise short of the pun-pun racing league where paladins get a special edge in one incredibly niche way.

How are you getting full access to all arcane spells with just Psychic Chirurgary? This is a trick I am unfamiliar with.

[Aquillion]

True, but a factotum still isn't a divine caster. He's a guy who can hypothetically cast some arcane magic, but also hypothetically do anything else. But worse.

And yeah, they also can out-rogue rogues at certain levels, while still being able to half-ass any other class. All the more reason, I say, to ban.

That's just silly. The core classes are badly designed. The ToB classes can also out-fighter the fighter while occupying a variety of different roles (they can heal, they have some battlefield control, buffs, saves, some are good at skills, etc.)

In general, versatility is a good thing in a class. What you're saying basically amounts to "I'm going to ban a well-designed skill-monkey class because it makes the badly-designed skill-monkey class in the corebook look bad."

Also, you're dead wrong about the Factotum being worse at everything. The Factotum's thing is versatility, which is very different. A Factotum can use their extra actions to occupy two roles in the same turn, or to double down on the same role; they can use stealth to get into position to cast a spell, or can use a spell to amplify their skillful strikes. These are (relatively) unique to them -- wizards can to an extent too, but that's because being Tier 1 means being able to do everything.

And being a jack-of-all-trades is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself; not every role is just a matter of "occupy that role, done." Having a second person sneaking alongside your rogue, or casting an additional spell when you need more spells right now, or stepping into combat when you need someone else to add a few blows -- these things are all valuable in a way that having someone who is only good at one role is not. Frequently, the "main" person in a particular role is rendered better by having someone else for situational backup.

Finally, the game is just better overall when everyone always has something to contribute. Having everyone else sit around the table bored while the Rogue resolves Rogue Challenges (and contributes nearly nothing outside of them) is terrible design. Having everyone have their own way to contribute to every challenge (even if some are of course better at certain things than others) makes for much more satisfying gameplay.

[Milodiah]

That's just silly. The core classes are badly designed. The ToB classes can also out-fighter the fighter while occupying a variety of different roles (they can heal, they have some battlefield control, buffs, saves, some are good at skills, etc.)

In general, versatility is a good thing in a class. What you're saying basically amounts to "I'm going to ban a well-designed skill-monkey class because it makes the badly-designed skill-monkey class in the corebook look bad."

Also, you're dead wrong about the Factotum being worse at everything. The Factotum's thing is versatility, which is very different. A Factotum can use their extra actions to occupy two roles in the same turn, or to double down on the same role; they can use stealth to get into position to cast a spell, or can use a spell to amplify their skillful strikes. These are (relatively) unique to them -- wizards can to an extent too, but that's because being Tier 1 means being able to do everything.

And being a jack-of-all-trades is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself; not every role is just a matter of "occupy that role, done." Having a second person sneaking alongside your rogue, or casting an additional spell when you need more spells right now, or stepping into combat when you need someone else to add a few blows -- these things are all valuable in a way that having someone who is only good at one role is not. Frequently, the "main" person in a particular role is rendered better by having someone else for situational backup.

Finally, the game is just better overall when everyone always has something to contribute. Having everyone else sit around the table bored while the Rogue resolves Rogue Challenges (and contributes nearly nothing outside of them) is terrible design. Having everyone have their own way to contribute to every challenge (even if some are of course better at certain things than others) makes for much more satisfying gameplay.

There is nothing behind the factotum other than trying to fill holes. That's all I'll say on the matter, since I've finally learned that no argument on the Internet will actually change opinions.