Burning Questions: Why Do DMs Limit Official WOTC Material?

In today’s Burning Question we discuss: In D&D, why do DMs limit spells, feats, races, books, etc. when they have been play-tested by Wizards of the Coast?

Photo by Mark Duffel on Unsplash


The Short Answer

A DM (Dungeon Master) is well within their right to decide which options are available at their table, regardless of the source of that material. After all the DM is responsible for the integrity of the game experience and may deem some material inappropriate or unbalanced.

Digging Deeper

This may seem a bit unfair to those who have paid for a product and expect to be able to use that product anywhere they go. However, the idea of limiting the material available to players is not without precedent. Currently the D&D Adventurers’ League has a PHB +1 rule, meaning a player can use the Player’s Handbook and one other source for their character. I believe this may be increasing soon. Previous incarnations of D&D organized play would use certs and introduce content a little at a time. There is a logic to setting limits. A DM can only know so many things and it is easy to get overwhelmed with a system like D&D or Pathfinder, where the amount of add-on content is enormous and occasionally deeply themed.

Appropriate Thematics

When creating a world to play D&D in, or more specifically to run D&D (or other games) in, a DM/GM will often choose a theme for the world. It may only apply to that specific campaign or it may apply to the entire world, but the theme sets expectations for the kinds of play experiences players may run into. Many DM’s, including myself, try and create a zeitgeist, a lived in feel to the world and this may well exclude certain types of character options.

Let’s just take a few examples from the PHB itself and show how they might not be appropriate for every campaign.

  • The Gnome. In general played as a cutesy and clever race, akin to dwarves but more gem obsessed. They work fine on Faerun, but if you were porting gnomes to say historical renaissance Holy Roman Empire, would they work? Maybe not. .
  • Eldritch Knight. In a world where knights do not exist or magic is inherently evil, warriors may not even think of learning sorcery.
  • Oath of the Ancients. Works great in a world where Fey and ancient forests are prominent. Works somewhat less well in desert or ice settings and campaigns.
Of course any of these could be made more thematic with a little work, but as mentioned the DM already has a lot of work to do. An overabundance of options mean keeping track of more abilities and their potential impact on both the setting and other party members. Even having the players keep track of the information themselves does not necessarily ease that burden. A more limited scope can work better for one shots and short campaigns. Where as wildly varying characters and character abilities may upset the verisimilitude of that style of game or possibly be game breaking.

Out of Balance

Of course just because WoTC tested a product does not make it right for every campaign. Balancing mechanics across an entire game can be a daunting task. Some might say an impossible one. And typically as a design team (who might have new members added) tinkers with mechanics and new options, a degree of power creep inevitably sneaks in.

Even a balanced rule can cause issues. Take for instance Healing Spirit from Xanathar’s Guide. There is a great deal of debate over whether Healing Spirit should be allowed in a game or not. Many players do not like its downsides. Certainly more than a few players enjoy the potential upside as well, but Healing Spirit is not a slam dunk or no-brainer for a DM.

In general, a DM has a high degree of latitude when creating a setting or planning a campaign. Ideally they will discuss their motives with players and come to the best compromise.

This article was contributed by Sean Hillman (SMHWorlds) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. We are always on the lookout for freelance columnists! If you have a pitch, please contact us!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sean Hillman

Sean Hillman

I think people need to read the spell description more closely. It states... "Until the spell ends, when you or a creature you can see moves into the spirit's space for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, you can cause the spirit to restore 1d6 hit points to that creature, no action required."

Everyone seems to miss the work "first". This means the spell only works once for each person who enters the spirit or starts their turn within it. If you re-enter or its moved over you a second time, it won't work. The spell is actually balanced nicely for 2nd level. The ranger in our party uses it all the time to help give provide a little one time healing or revival of a fallen comrade.

Has this been clarified on the AL DM discussion page? If so how did I miss it?

Actually, it says "for the first time on a turn" -- meaning they can move back in on their next turn, and it triggers again. It doesn't say "the first time, " it says "the first time on a turn." So, for 1 minute, a group could have some figure-skating-waltz-eight-style line that just keeps rotating into the square for 10 rounds (1 minute) meaning everyone in the group could get 10d6 healing from the spell -- unless you take the hard line that you can't cast it outside of combat, which isn't rule-supported and also feels like an arbitrary answer.

I'd like it if the spell said "you can only benefit from this one time" but it doesn't. As it is, during downtime, a group of 6 characters could get healed to full from one single 2nd level spell.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Everyone seems to miss the work "first". This means the spell only works once for each person who enters the spirit or starts their turn within it. If you re-enter or its moved over you a second time, it won't work. The spell is actually balanced nicely for 2nd level. The ranger in our party uses it all the time to help give provide a little one time healing or revival of a fallen comrade.
I'm pretty sure that the relevant clause is, "for the first time on a turn"; which could be compared to "for the first time in a day" or "for the first time during the duration of the spell".

If it was just "for the first time ever", it would be balanced, but the "on a turn" thing runs counter to that interpretation.
 


Well, then you'd both be wrong. It's also a pretty big assumption to just assume that if players want to impart any part of D&D that isn't canon into ME that it means they don't really want to play ME. ME is a lot of things. The lands, the lore, the NPCs, the stories, etc. Maybe the players want to play with all of that, but just wanted to play dragonborn (or a tiefling, or a class, or whatever else) in that setting. You shouldn't assume that wanting to play something not canon to a setting means they don't want to play in that setting at all. That's simply a bad assumption to make.
Then there shouldn't be any problems with them playing dragonborn, or we're right back to "my way or the highway", right?

If the players don't feel fidelity to canon is important in their game, why should the DM feel differently (and override the players' desires in the process)?
 

Then there shouldn't be any problems with them playing dragonborn, or we're right back to "my way or the highway", right?

If the players don't feel fidelity to canon is important in their game, why should the DM feel differently (and override the players' desires in the process)?

We sort of spent pages going over this. Because it's the DM's game. Their story and world they are telling. This isn't really that hard to understand. It doesn't matter if the players don't care about having dragonborn in their ME game, it matters if the DM does since the DM is the one doing all the work.
 

Fair, but the topic of this thread could be re-stated as "When is it reasonable for a DM to deny official material?"

When it doesn't fit in the game world the DM is running, for whatever reason the DM has explained.

*Edit* For clarification, I believe any time the DM is denying official material, they owe the players an explanation for that other than "cuz I said." I don't think that's a high bar. For example, if the DM does not allow dragonborn or tieflings, a common explanation is, "My game worlds are more traditional with traditional fantasy races, nothing exotic like dragonborn or tieflings, because those either don't exist at all, or are reserved for monsters rather than PCs."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

We sort of spent pages going over this. Because it's the DM's game. Their story and world they are telling. This isn't really that hard to understand. It doesn't matter if the players don't care about having dragonborn in their ME game, it matters if the DM does since the DM is the one doing all the work.
We'll agree to disagree then.
 

We'll agree to disagree then.

This isn't really a subjective thing to disagree on. The rules are pretty clear on how the game is expected to play, and what the roles of the players are vs the DM. So if you disagree with me, you're disagreeing with the way the games is meant to be played. Which is fine if that's what you like, don't get me wrong. But the premise isn't really up for debate since the DMG is pretty clear on this subject. And playing the game the way it's designed doesn't make the DM a coward, or entitled, or unreasonable, or any other pejorative that's been used in this thread so far.
 

This isn't really a subjective thing to disagree on. The rules are pretty clear on how the game is expected to play, and what the roles of the players are vs the DM. So if you disagree with me, you're disagreeing with the way the games is meant to be played. Which is fine if that's what you like, don't get me wrong. But the premise isn't really up for debate since the DMG is pretty clear on this subject. And playing the game the way it's designed doesn't make the DM a coward, or entitled, or unreasonable, or any other pejorative that's been used in this thread so far.
We'll agree to disagree on that point as well.
 

I'm the primary DM for my group, and I really am not interested in running certain types of games anymore. If the players don't like that I'm fine with that, one of them can run a game instead and if I like the idea I'll play in it. Its never been an issue though even as I've moved the game from modern 5e back to an OD&D clone with all its limitations and restrictions. Dragonborn? Heck there aren't even gnomes!*

*which is the way it should be. Unless they are Paladins.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top