The Power of "NO". Banned Races and Classes?

[Celebrim]

Hussar I know what you mean. If I get a long list of banned things from a DM I have never played with before I will sit down and talk to him and ask why.

Let me try to explain where I'm coming from.

I legitimately feel that using my house rules despite all the 'bans' there aren't less options for characters to play than the stock 3.X rules but in many ways more options. Yes, some of the more far out options of 3.X aren't immediately available (but since many involve PrC's and/or +X LA templates, +X LA base races, or racial HD you couldn't play them from 1st level anyway), but a lot of the options that should be present - like a good aligned 'assassin', a smart fighter, or a CG paladin - but aren't, are baked into my rules.

The reason that so much is banned is less because I want to restrict the number of concepts the players can have, than it is to restrict the number of mechanical ways you have to get there, and part of that is in itself because I believed the mechanics from getting to where you wanted your character to be required you to not be who you wanted to be from 1st level too often (Stone Giant Lycanthrope Monks aside).

So far in my campaign I've had the following PC's - a Templar of the god of death, a pirate, a barbarian who could talk to dinosaurs, a lay brother of the goddess of beauty who was actually a heretic assassin/undead slayer, an immortal children's nursemaid turned beserk killer, a fey blue skinned hobgoblin who could grow into 12' tall giant, a drawf princess sword mage who was the daughter of the high thane, an androgynous prostitute, a priest of the sun goddess, a priestess of the sun goddess (yes, yes, pile of dead bards), a half-elf witch for which it is taboo to touch a man, a hobgoblin rake/gentle-men in waiting working for an archmage, an elf arcane archar, and a half-elf telepathist sorcerer.

Monk is interesting because it represents the only concept I can think of off the top of my head where I'm specifically squashing it. It's not that it is impossible to make an unarmed combatant/martial artist under my rules or that there is nothing to support it. It's that I've deliberately made it inferior and subpar compared to making the same character as a weapons master. I have gotten a little push back on that, and I really am wrestling with whether I can add the choice happily even though it makes no real sense logically.

But even if I do, it will become a valid build of a Fighter - one flavor of which might be a monk martial artist (which fits for the god Jord actually) - but not a new 'monk' class carrying all that unnecessary mechanical baggage and generally lacking in build options. The setting trappings are easily enough stripped away but the class is what it is however you paint it.

I am a big believer in trust at the table.

I am as well, but trust is earned. I'd break my rules but only for a player who has shown me that the trust they are asking for is well placed. If you can't be happy with all the options I first offer you, then truly you probably aren't a good fit for the table.

I can understand if your campaign is a historical fantasy and you basically want say Rome with magic. But I don't understand limiting yourself in a fantasy setting simply because there is no historical precedent for fighting monks in western civilization.

There is a lot more too it than that. There isn't really a precedent for the D&D monk in eastern civilization either. Shoalin didn't preferably fight without weapons when they had the option. It's the notion of balancing unarmed attacks with armed attacks that is most critical to my problem with the monk, though there are several other problems that are nearly as bad.

If you can have a swashbuckler aka musketeer fighting along side a knight in heavy armor then why is it so hard to imagine and unarmed fighter fighting alongside them?

Well for one thing, knights in heavy armor really did fight alongside musketeers. There is nothing inherently hard to imagine about that. But yeah, it's impossible for me to imagine an unarmed fighter fighting alongside them by choice. Pretty much no trained warrior ever has ever gone, "Oh yeah, I'm going to use my fists instead of this sword right here."

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

I think this conversation would go a lot smoother if you stopped stating your opinion and preferences as fact. It's not a 'fact' that Friar Tuck doesn't count as a monk. It's not a 'fact' that most people think of him using a sword. It's not a 'fact' that the 'monk' in D&D is Eastern-themed. And it's certainly not a 'fact' that fighting monks can't be a trope in Western fantasy/folklore/literature. You obviously have strong opinions on all of these points, but others could feel different, and clearly do.

It actually is a fact that Friar Tuck doesn't count as a monk; monks lived within monasteries while friars were outside among the people. It was enough of an important difference that there are what are considered monastic orders and what are considered friar orders.

Now, that doesn't change that he's publicly perceived as a monk. I can't argue that one, and in fact it wasn't an argument I even attempted to make.

I also did not state that most people think of him using a sword, so I have no idea why you are blaming me for that one. In fact, I had never stated anything about his weapon styles.

Thirdly, it is a fact that monks are Eastern-based. Gary Gygax himself, in the introduction to Oriental Adventures (the 1986 edition), had this to say:

In its early development, the D&D game was supplemented by various booklets, and in one of these the monk, inspired by Brian Blume and the book series called The Destroyer, was appended to the characters playable. So too was this cobbled-together martial arts specialist placed into the AD&D game system, even as it was being removed from the D&D game.

Now, here's what The Destroyer is about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destroyer_(fiction)

Notice how it is that the character is using Eastern martial arts?

You are correct that I am letting some opinion slip into my posts. And correct that I shouldn't have argued this in the first place. That was a mistake, and one I plan to correct in the future.

Here are some examples of ACTUAL facts:
- There were monks in Western Europe from at least the 1st century AD.
- The Teutonic Knights were recognized by the Pope under the 'Order of Augustine' aka they were fighting monks.
- The Knights Hospitaller were monks charged with defending the holy land and which would escort pilgrims while armed.
- The opening of the Jesuit charter begins, "Whoever desires to serve as a soldier of god..."
- Founder Ignatious Loyola was a knight and is the patron saint of soldiers.
- There were monks in D&D starting with the 1975 Blackmoor supplement.
- The monk class predates both the bard and the druid.
- The monk appeared in the first edition of the Player's Handbook.

Here's another actual fact: By papal law, monks were forbidden to spill blood before the Knights Templar, the Teutonic Knights, or the Knights Hospitaller were ever organized. That's a major reason why contemporaries of the three orders sometimes did not feel they were monks.

Here's one more actual fact: There's no reason why any of that has to matter and why it is they can't change the monk to have proficiencies other than with what are traditionally Eastern weapons. I merely stated it as leading up to why the class existed as it did, not to say it cannot be changed.

It is my OPINION that the monk is about as core as you can get. It is my OPINION that a fighting monk archetype has some basis in the western cultural canon. It is my OPINION that talking about 'history' in a game that involves armed dwarven clerics is ridiculous. But it is also my opinion that at your table, you can ban monks. You can also ban elves with pointy ears. Just don't ask me to play.

I bolded one statement in your post; that is the statement I feel is most important, and the one I most agree with. I made a mistake in even talking about the subject.

 

[Elf Witch]

Let me try to explain where I'm coming from.

I legitimately feel that using my house rules despite all the 'bans' there aren't less options for characters to play than the stock 3.X rules but in many ways more options. Yes, some of the more far out options of 3.X aren't immediately available (but since many involve PrC's and/or +X LA templates, +X LA base races, or racial HD you couldn't play them from 1st level anyway), but a lot of the options that should be present - like a good aligned 'assassin', a smart fighter, or a CG paladin - but aren't, are baked into my rules.

The reason that so much is banned is less because I want to restrict the number of concepts the players can have, than it is to restrict the number of mechanical ways you have to get there, and part of that is in itself because I believed the mechanics from getting to where you wanted your character to be required you to not be who you wanted to be from 1st level too often (Stone Giant Lycanthrope Monks aside).

So far in my campaign I've had the following PC's - a Templar of the god of death, a pirate, a barbarian who could talk to dinosaurs, a lay brother of the goddess of beauty who was actually a heretic assassin/undead slayer, an immortal children's nursemaid turned beserk killer, a fey blue skinned hobgoblin who could grow into 12' tall giant, a drawf princess sword mage who was the daughter of the high thane, an androgynous prostitute, a priest of the sun goddess, a priestess of the sun goddess (yes, yes, pile of dead bards), a half-elf witch for which it is taboo to touch a man, a hobgoblin rake/gentle-men in waiting working for an archmage, an elf arcane archar, and a half-elf telepathist sorcerer.

Monk is interesting because it represents the only concept I can think of off the top of my head where I'm specifically squashing it. It's not that it is impossible to make an unarmed combatant/martial artist under my rules or that there is nothing to support it. It's that I've deliberately made it inferior and subpar compared to making the same character as a weapons master. I have gotten a little push back on that, and I really am wrestling with whether I can add the choice happily even though it makes no real sense logically.

But even if I do, it will become a valid build of a Fighter - one flavor of which might be a monk martial artist (which fits for the god Jord actually) - but not a new 'monk' class carrying all that unnecessary mechanical baggage and generally lacking in build options. The setting trappings are easily enough stripped away but the class is what it is however you paint it.



I am as well, but trust is earned. I'd break my rules but only for a player who has shown me that the trust they are asking for is well placed. If you can't be happy with all the options I first offer you, then truly you probably aren't a good fit for the table.



There is a lot more too it than that. There isn't really a precedent for the D&D monk in eastern civilization either. Shoalin didn't preferably fight without weapons when they had the option. It's the notion of balancing unarmed attacks with armed attacks that is most critical to my problem with the monk, though there are several other problems that are nearly as bad.



Well for one thing, knights in heavy armor really did fight alongside musketeers. There is nothing inherently hard to imagine about that. But yeah, it's impossible for me to imagine an unarmed fighter fighting alongside them by choice. Pretty much no trained warrior ever has ever gone, "Oh yeah, I'm going to use my fists instead of this sword right here."

From what you are describing it sounds like you do what I do for my homebrew you have a specific flavor you are going for. Also it does not sound like you are really out right banning things but reskinning them and changing how and when you get things mechanically. To me that is not the same as just banning things because you don't like them and to Hades with your payers desire.

As I said I don't have PHB paladins in my game because I use the prestige paladin from Unearthed Arcana and the recommendation if you use the prestige class is to not allow the PHB paladin. I have also been thinking of using a ranger from another publisher than the PHB ranger because the other fits my campaign better. I limit some multiclassing and prestige classes I don't outright ban them but they require my approval. For example if you want wizard or barbarian you have to start at first level. The only exception with wizard is if the player tells me a ahead of time so I can work in down time for them to study or I can put in an NPC to travel with the party to teach them.

The reason I don't have an issue with an unarmed fighter like a monk choosing that over a sword is because it is not really sup optimal. They can hold their own and as they hone their bodies they get to do things that fighters don't better movement , evasion , some healing ability. In a real world yes it would be silly to think an unarmed fighter would be able to go up against a fully armored knight with a broadsword but not in a fantasy world where they have special abilities.

The thing about trust is it works both ways. I have played with DMs who have been burned by bad players and because of that they never trust again and I have found that it is not worth my time to try and prove that I am not that kind of player. I have had players who have been burned by bad DMs so they don't trust and they won't or can't and if they can't trust me then I don't think I can DM for them.

I think it is a sad state of affairs that DMs and players need to earn trust instead of starting from a place of trust and going from there.

 

[Celebrim]

From what you are describing it sounds like you do what I do for my homebrew you have a specific flavor you are going for. Also it does not sound like you are really out right banning things but reskinning them and changing how and when you get things mechanically. To me that is not the same as just banning things because you don't like them and to Hades with your payers desire.

Well, if I don't like them, then I'm going to ban them. The player's desires will be considered, but ultimately if I don't like it, the answer is, "No." I think that I generally have a good reason for it, but I really don't have to prove anything to anyone.

You want to be a minotaur? I don't care what you reason is, "No." You want to play a wererat; I don't care why, but "No." If that's really your heart's desire and you can't be happy any other way, then it's really not the table for you. If that idea outrages you, then this is really not the table for you.

I honestly believe that there is not a single DM in the world with a fundamentally different opinion, though I'm certain that there are a lot that will say that they have a different opinion. They'll swear up and down that they have a different reason for saying "No.", altogether and the comparison is just "Not the same."

We all have our opinions and we all feel that since it is our table, we ought to get what we want.

For example if you want wizard or barbarian you have to start at first level.

For example, on some level I feel that is ridiculous or I'd make the same restrictions myself. While, I can see where you are coming from on one level, but I feel pretty confident of the fact that some equally unbelievable leaps in skill acquisition go completely unquestioned by you. For you, that's just a bridge too far. For me, that's like, "If I didn't want you to multiclass into new careers, I wouldn't have made it an option." For me the bridge to far is buried in the barbarian itself, which got banned - or more correctly reskinned - in such a way that the objection behind your objection to multiclassing into barbarian was rendered void. Any of that extra baggage that compelled a player to drag a bunch of background into a character concept was removed from every class it occurred in. So now there are literally far more examples of 'barbarians' in my setting that aren't natives of a remote and less civilized region than there are, while at the same time there is no real presumption that any native of a remote and less civilized region has the 'barbarian' class. In fact, it's absolutely critical to my setting that there are elite bodyguards, beserkers, psychopaths, and Templars that have the ability to rage and much else that comes along with the class, but who are not in fact raised in the howling wilderness and initiated into secret warrior cults.

In my campaign 'monks' (that is sworn laity in the service of a religion) are known for there 'rage' powers, not for their ability to use their fists as weapons.

But at your table, if you feel 'Rage = barbarian', and that it's ridiculous that I think 'Rage = monk' because that's my character concept, I would be totally ok with that. In fact, seeing your rules had 'Rage = this guy who looks like a viking', I'd never even ask about 'Rage = monk'. It's your table. There are more PC's that I could play and have fun than I could ever actually play. My enjoyment is never going to be based on playing 'this one guy'. If you say, "No wizard after first level without talking it over with me.", I'd never imagine doing anything else. It is after all your table.

The reason I don't have an issue with an unarmed fighter like a monk choosing that over a sword is because it is not really sup optimal. They can hold their own and as they hone their bodies they get to do things that fighters don't better movement , evasion , some healing ability. In a real world yes it would be silly to think an unarmed fighter would be able to go up against a fully armored knight with a broadsword but not in a fantasy world where they have special abilities.

I understand where you are coming from, I just don't agree.

I think it is a sad state of affairs that DMs and players need to earn trust instead of starting from a place of trust and going from there.

I've spent the last 14 or so years thinking really hard about what sort of rules I think would make the most fun version of D&D 3.X I can imagine. If when I present to you this 600 page house rules document with its wealth of options and say, "If it's in there, it's legal.", and your response is, "Wow, this is way too restrictive. I could never build a fun and enjoyable character out of this.", what you are really saying, "Is I don't trust you. I don't believe you are working in my best interest." If you think my character generation rules are crap, then you are pretty sure to think my on the fly rulings are crap as well. If you tell a DM, "Your rules don't work for me.", then you are not starting in a place of trust yourself, so demanding the DM then trust you is pretty darn hypocritical. My response is going to be, "You know, these rules have worked for a lot of people. I think they are well thought out. If they can't work for you, it's probably not the fault of the rules."

But at an even deeper level, the fact is that if I'm getting into a new group, my fundamental attitude is going to be of humility and gratitude. I'm thankful to the players and most especially the DM for trusting me to come to their table and share their game with them. To the DMs who have in the past taken me in as a perfect stranger and said, "Yes, I'd game with you.", I have nothing but gratitude. If I sense in a player that that isn't their attitude to my table, then yes, warning bells are going to be going off.

 

[Jacob Marley]

It's not a 'fact' that the 'monk' in D&D is Eastern-themed.

There is a Q&A thread with Tim Kask over on Dragonsfoot in which the origin of the monk was discussed. Make of this what you will.

As we collectively remember it, Dave's group in MN started experimenting with these two PCs. Somehow or other Brian heard about / saw the monk and was infatuated by the PC; he was a huge fan of David Carradine's Kung Fu on TV.

Gary was not impressed by either; we shared the belief that the assassin as a PC was kind of "twisted". I could not tell you how much of what I was given for the editing of BM about the Monk PC was Dave's or Brian's. One day when I was in Gary's den I was enumerating my objections to the class and apparently Brian overheard for when I left for home that day he immediately went to Gary and pitched the PC again... Gary told me to go ahead and put it in as it was part of Dave's milieu; the assassin rode in on the Monk's coattails, so to speak.

It's not a 'fact' that Friar Tuck doesn't count as a monk.

Dragon Magazine labels itself 100% official content. In Dragon 274 "Rogues and Royal - Heroes and Villains of the Robin Hood Campaign" Friar Tuck is a 5th-level Cleric / 1st-level Rogue.

The title Friar is used for members of a mendicant order whereas the title monk is used for members of a monastic order. Friars are active while monks are cloistered. But really, the question is: does the Monk class properly emulate Friar Tuck. In my opinion, the answer is undoubtedly "No". The Monk class has too many abilities, including increased speed and flurry-style attacks, that don't fit with any literary or cinematic depiction of Friar Tuck that I have ever seen.

 

[Zardnaar]

Gary also said in the foreward to OA that the Monk is going back to where it belongs.

 

[Elf Witch]

Well, if I don't like them, then I'm going to ban them. The player's desires will be considered, but ultimately if I don't like it, the answer is, "No." I think that I generally have a good reason for it, but I really don't have to prove anything to anyone.

You want to be a minotaur? I don't care what you reason is, "No." You want to play a wererat; I don't care why, but "No." If that's really your heart's desire and you can't be happy any other way, then it's really not the table for you. If that idea outrages you, then this is really not the table for you.

I honestly believe that there is not a single DM in the world with a fundamentally different opinion, though I'm certain that there are a lot that will say that they have a different opinion. They'll swear up and down that they have a different reason for saying "No.", altogether and the comparison is just "Not the same."

We all have our opinions and we all feel that since it is our table, we ought to get what we want.



For example, on some level I feel that is ridiculous or I'd make the same restrictions myself. While, I can see where you are coming from on one level, but I feel pretty confident of the fact that some equally unbelievable leaps in skill acquisition go completely unquestioned by you. For you, that's just a bridge too far. For me, that's like, "If I didn't want you to multiclass into new careers, I wouldn't have made it an option." For me the bridge to far is buried in the barbarian itself, which got banned - or more correctly reskinned - in such a way that the objection behind your objection to multiclassing into barbarian was rendered void. Any of that extra baggage that compelled a player to drag a bunch of background into a character concept was removed from every class it occurred in. So now there are literally far more examples of 'barbarians' in my setting that aren't natives of a remote and less civilized region than there are, while at the same time there is no real presumption that any native of a remote and less civilized region has the 'barbarian' class. In fact, it's absolutely critical to my setting that there are elite bodyguards, beserkers, psychopaths, and Templars that have the ability to rage and much else that comes along with the class, but who are not in fact raised in the howling wilderness and initiated into secret warrior cults.

In my campaign 'monks' (that is sworn laity in the service of a religion) are known for there 'rage' powers, not for their ability to use their fists as weapons.

But at your table, if you feel 'Rage = barbarian', and that it's ridiculous that I think 'Rage = monk' because that's my character concept, I would be totally ok with that. In fact, seeing your rules had 'Rage = this guy who looks like a viking', I'd never even ask about 'Rage = monk'. It's your table. There are more PC's that I could play and have fun than I could ever actually play. My enjoyment is never going to be based on playing 'this one guy'. If you say, "No wizard after first level without talking it over with me.", I'd never imagine doing anything else. It is after all your table.



I understand where you are coming from, I just don't agree.



I've spent the last 14 or so years thinking really hard about what sort of rules I think would make the most fun version of D&D 3.X I can imagine. If when I present to you this 600 page house rules document with its wealth of options and say, "If it's in there, it's legal.", and your response is, "Wow, this is way too restrictive. I could never build a fun and enjoyable character out of this.", what you are really saying, "Is I don't trust you. I don't believe you are working in my best interest." If you think my character generation rules are crap, then you are pretty sure to think my on the fly rulings are crap as well. If you tell a DM, "Your rules don't work for me.", then you are not starting in a place of trust yourself, so demanding the DM then trust you is pretty darn hypocritical. My response is going to be, "You know, these rules have worked for a lot of people. I think they are well thought out. If they can't work for you, it's probably not the fault of the rules."

But at an even deeper level, the fact is that if I'm getting into a new group, my fundamental attitude is going to be of humility and gratitude. I'm thankful to the players and most especially the DM for trusting me to come to their table and share their game with them. To the DMs who have in the past taken me in as a perfect stranger and said, "Yes, I'd game with you.", I have nothing but gratitude. If I sense in a player that that isn't their attitude to my table, then yes, warning bells are going to be going off.

I think it really depends on why you don't like them. Is it because you feel they are to powerful, or they are to cheesy and don't fit your game or they break your ability to suspend disbelief there are valid reasons not to want them in your game. But I have met DMs who ban things because they don't like elves because they hate the way Peter Jackson portrayed them or they had a bad experience with a player who ruined a campaign as a gnome so no more gnomes. Or they have read online some where that this class is broken even though they have actually seen it in play.

I support the idea of multiclassing because it allows players more freedom to create their concept. But role playing is important to me and suddenly out of the blue a player goes I leveled and I am now a wizard is not going to fly. You don't just become a wizard you have to study to become one. Barbarians are more than just a class there is an assumption that they come from a non civilized culture. So you can't just become a barbarian unless you go and actually spend time with them. If a player wants the rage ability then he can take it as a feat.

As for the monk we just need to agree to disagree which is fine because both of us are entitled to our opinions.

I think there is a world of difference between being presented with a 600 page work that a DM has put a lot of work into and being told no you can't play a paladin because every player I have had plays them wrong.

See I see it working both ways yes the DM is trusting me to become part of the group and be an asset but I am also trusting the DM and the group to help provide a good gaming experience. It is a two way street.

I want to add there is a huge difference in a well thought out set of house rules and micromanaging your campaign.

 

[The Human Target]

I respect the man, but I highly doubt I would have enjoyed playing in a Gygax game.

 

[MoonSong]

I've spent the last 14 or so years thinking really hard about what sort of rules I think would make the most fun version of D&D 3.X I can imagine. If when I present to you this 600 page house rules document with its wealth of options and say, "If it's in there, it's legal.", and your response is, "Wow, this is way too restrictive. I could never build a fun and enjoyable character out of this.", what you are really saying, "Is I don't trust you. I don't believe you are working in my best interest." If you think my character generation rules are crap, then you are pretty sure to think my on the fly rulings are crap as well. If you tell a DM, "Your rules don't work for me.", then you are not starting in a place of trust yourself, so demanding the DM then trust you is pretty darn hypocritical. My response is going to be, "You know, these rules have worked for a lot of people. I think they are well thought out. If they can't work for you, it's probably not the fault of the rules."

But at an even deeper level, the fact is that if I'm getting into a new group, my fundamental attitude is going to be of humility and gratitude. I'm thankful to the players and most especially the DM for trusting me to come to their table and share their game with them. To the DMs who have in the past taken me in as a perfect stranger and said, "Yes, I'd game with you.", I have nothing but gratitude. If I sense in a player that that isn't their attitude to my table, then yes, warning bells are going to be going off.

I don't want to sound disrespectful or confrontational, but if you put a 600 pages document in front of me which you claim is the be all, end all of character options -and leaving a door closed to more- I don't really think I can trust you having a fair sense of variety when I'm kind of used to have 1200+ (2e), 1800+(3.5) or 1500+(4e) pages of options and even then they aren't enough. I mean that kind of rings a bell or two too. It tells me that as a DM a) you could be rigid and unapproachable not to mention closed to change, b) this could be a sign you like to micromanage player characters too much (and my worst experiences come from micromanaging DMs, so rather that mistrust this translates into fear), and c) if this is the "most fun" version you could think of, it most likely means you cut down all of the "badwrongfun" (and I thrive and enjoy the most lots of fringe concepts, and I work hard to make them work.). Of course I could make a workable character I could enjoy out of that -I have successfully made a character I liked in 5B and can make wonders with core-only 3.5-, but I'm moody, even slightly flighty, I cannot know what kind of character I will enjoy next, without seeing them I don't know if those 600 pages would be enough for me in the long run.

 

[Celebrim]

I think it really depends on why you don't like them.

I've been trying to avoid directly contradicting you on that, but fundamentally, I just don't. You don't have to justify to me why you don't want a PC to suddenly pick up training in being a wizard, if in your campaign it normally takes an 8 year apprenticeship. I get it. But you know, if you didn't want rogues in your campaign, or banned elves because well they are elves, I'd be all understanding about that too. That's true even if and especially if I don't do the same at my table.

Is it because you feel they are to powerful, or they are to cheesy and don't fit your game or they break your ability to suspend disbelief there are valid reasons not to want them in your game.

What this amounts to in my opinion is the claim that "My reasons or valid, but your reasons are at the least suspect and quite possibly invalid."

But I have met DMs who ban things because they don't like elves because they hate the way Peter Jackson portrayed them or they had a bad experience with a player who ruined a campaign as a gnome so no more gnomes.

And my response is, "So?" It's their game. I hate Peter Jackson's work myself, and I'm sufficiently not a fan of gnomes that I banned them (well, technically, but since you could skin a Sidhe as a gnome or pretty much any other 'little people, that point is moot).

Or they have read online some where that this class is broken even though they have actually seen it in play.

Again, so. If you think they are wrong, gain their trust and then see if you can't after that argue them over to your point of view. Otherwise, give them some respect.

See I see it working both ways yes the DM is trusting me to become part of the group and be an asset but I am also trusting the DM and the group to help provide a good gaming experience. It is a two way street.

Sure. But you certainly don't start out on a respectful position if you tell a DM that he's got to run his table to suit you.