D&D General Character Classes should Mean Something in the Setting

[Steampunkette]

If Warlock is deemed just a pile of mechanics for arcane character concepts, completely divorced from making a pact with some kind of intelligent (or alien) being (ie, drawing power from an ideology, an organization, a personal belief etc...) then why couldn't a character concept who is devoted to not-religion draw power from an ideal such as the "Cosmic Balance" or "Mathematics drive reality" or "the Multiverse" etc... I mean... could an uber Philosopher or Buddhist monk use the Cleric class mechanics? Why not?

PErhaps another take: Clerics devoted to the Philosophical concept of Chaos, Law, Neutrality, Karma, Entropy etc...

Devoted to a concept? Sure! I was just saying the same thing Jmarkdr2 says in the first part of his reply:

"There are no gods" atheists are the flat-earthers of most DnD settings. "The gods are stupid and no one should worship them because they're stupid" is more in-line with modern atheism (which tends to not only reject but critique religion as a concept) - and a pretty reasonable point of view in a lot of settings.

Not sure I'd play them as a cleric, though. If they wanted that particular spell list we'd come up with something.

A true "Atheist" would be a person in denial of objective reality. Now an -Anti-Theist-, like most of the modern famous atheists, -that- would work just fine.

An actual Atheist in Forgotten Realms is like someone who screams "THE SKY IS BLUE!" on Athas. Ignorant of reality or delusional.

Though in FR atheist souls get turned into bricks, in the afterlife, to build the city of the dead with. So that's at least interesting? The "Sky is Blue" guy probably just gets eaten by a Thri-Kreen or an Elf.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm a lamist who read the OP but not the 15 pages in between, but my quick thought on the matter.

I do think that classes should have an anchor in the setting, but I think that is the job of the setting book, not the core books. Ideally the core rules should encourage a wide array of archetypes, you don't want the books telling you too much about what "your character's flavor" is.

I have no issue with setting X having a specific hook for sorcs or goblins or magic item xyz, but I don' think that should be imprinted right at the beginning when I look up a sorceror.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No... that's specific.

I get that it's not FR or Eberron in space. It's D&D in space. From that single description I can extrapolate SO MUCH about the setting. I can imagine Beholders as an Alien Species. Space-Dragons of all the colors and metals. Illithid Empires stretching across the stars. Astral Dreadnoughts lurking on the dark side of a planet's moon(s). Cannons on a starship that allow a Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock/Eldritch Knight to fire Fireball spells at targets in ship-to-ship combat in space. Magic Missiles pinging enemy targets with unerring accuracy. Mordenkainen's Magnificent Escape Pod.

Some guy climbing into an Apparatus of Qualish to use it on an "Away Mission" on a hostile planet. Quall's Laser Rifle Token. Dwarves mining Adamantine from Asteroids rather than waiting for the space-rocks to crash into a planet to snag the precious metal.

Orcs as Klingons. Hobgoblins as Romulans. Elves as Vulcans. Goblin Engineering Squads. Deities taking on the role of Q. Catfolk pole dancers in skeezy Mos Eisley type locations. The "Jedi Temple" being a Wizard School with a heavy focus on Bladesinging. Lightsaber? Sunswords for everyone! Undead ships with Death Knight Captains and Liches searching the stars for endless knowledge.

All of the specific details of "D&D" paint a pretty strong picture because of all kinds of assumptions about what is actually -in- D&D.

But you’d be wrong, because D&D doesn’t always use all the things that exist in D&D. Because D&D is general. Using D&D doesnt mean there are beholders, or liches, or sun swords.

Pretty much none of what you assume features in the game at all. The classes do, and every race and lineage is available if a player wants to use them, and we have various factions, etc, but no, no beholders, no liches.

 

[Necrozius]

Can't -really- do Athiest Clerics in D&D Settings 'cause most of the time the fact that there are gods is common knowledge. Not "Maybe there's a God" but "I saw him, last Tuesday, down at pub. He owes me 6 silver!"

For sure, but my admitted straw man was a cheesy way to challenge the idea of completely divorcing class mechanics from class fluff. Like you, I want classes to “mean something” in a setting, even if a player’s personal concept rejects the norm. I just don’t see the point in being a Warlock without a Faustian pact of some sort, whether that be a literal mustache-twirling Fiend, clever Fey Lady or apathetic Great Old One floating about in the Abyss biding their time until they eat the solar system. Or something else to represent “kewl powers at a cost” whether tangible and immediate (“in exchange for my power you must never have children and any you do have will betray you to your doom”) or long term (“when you die, your soul belongs to me for eternity”).

Personal taste, and all. Do what you want at your table, of course! I just love in-game opportunity for tragic stories of heartbreak, hubris, regret, longing and betrayal. The Warlock sings to me of this.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's just amusing nonsense though, and your "space fantasy" example is hysterical because your final sentence is exactly what I'm saying!

No, you’re just jumping to the conclusion you wanted to land on to start with, and clinging on to a word as if it defines the entire position presented.

“D&D in space” doesn’t mean anything more than “a space game using the D&D system“. The D&D system does not require any particular setting, theme, tone, genre, or even gameplay style.

It doesn't do "any variant of fantasy adventure you want".

Yes, it does. I’ve used it to do so.

This is really a "fish doesn't know what water is" situation imho, based on the last sentence.

No. I’m quite familiar with a range of systems, but thanks for speaking down to me because I disagree with you. Not arrogant or condescending at all.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Can't -really- do Athiest Clerics in D&D Settings 'cause most of the time the fact that there are gods is common knowledge. Not "Maybe there's a God" but "I saw him, last Tuesday, down at pub. He owes me 6 silver!"

There are atheist clerics in Eberron, in the Blood of Vol. They believe that the “gods” are just psychological archetypes given folk stories and that divine power comes from faith and will, not from anything external. They aren’t the whole faith, bc others view the gods as antagonistic toward mortals, while still others have different beliefs from either of those.

A homebrew setting could easily just not have gods but still have clerics.

 

[Steampunkette]

There are atheist clerics in Eberron, in the Blood of Vol. They believe that the “gods” are just psychological archetypes given folk stories and that divine power comes from faith and will, not from anything external. They aren’t the whole faith, bc others view the gods as antagonistic toward mortals, while still others have different beliefs from either of those.

A homebrew setting could easily just not have gods but still have clerics.

I mean... kind of.

Originally, Erandis Vol (Lady Illmarrow) was using the whole "Worship Within" thing as a way to hide the fact that the Blood of Vol were worshipping -her- as part of a bid to get enough worship to fulfill some ritual or another that was never elucidated and reach apotheosis, becoming the Queen of Death, goddess of the dead. And as a powerful entity and center of worship, like the Silver Flame, she's able to grant divine spellcasting and stuff because that's just how Eberron works.

Though in recent years they've buried the lede on that and might even have retconned it out. But if you're gonna retcon it out, why keep Vol at the center of worship?

Just an interesting thing to note. They're "Atheists" who are creating a god from a mortal (well, immortal since she's undead) being unintentionally!

But you’d be wrong, because D&D doesn’t always use all the things that exist in D&D. Because D&D is general. Using D&D doesnt mean there are beholders, or liches, or sun swords.

Pretty much none of what you assume features in the game at all. The classes do, and every race and lineage is available if a player wants to use them, and we have various factions, etc, but no, no beholders, no liches.

D&D doesn't "Always" use those things. But those things -are- part of D&D. Even if they're not always used, they're there, in the mindset of everyone who hears "D&D in Spaaaaace" or any other setting.

Because even divorced from Faerun, or Eberron, Ashen Lands, or Greyhawk: D&D comes with a whoooole mess of very specific assumptions.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I mean... kind of.

Originally, Erandis Vol (Lady Illmarrow) was using the whole "Worship Within" thing as a way to hide the fact that the Blood of Vol were worshipping -her- as part of a bid to get enough worship to fulfill some ritual or another that was never elucidated and reach apotheosis, becoming the Queen of Death, goddess of the dead. And as a powerful entity and center of worship, like the Silver Flame, she's able to grant divine spellcasting and stuff because that's just how Eberron works.

Though in recent years they've buried the lede on that and might even have retconned it out. But if you're gonna retcon it out, why keep Vol at the center of worship?

Just an interesting thing to note. They're "Atheists" who are creating a god from a mortal (well, immortal since she's undead) being unintentionally!

As of the current iteration of the lore, Erandis Vol does not draw power from the Blood of Vol's worship, nor is she able to grant them divine spellcasting. Outside of the Order of the Emerald Claw, the Blood of Vol does not worship Erandis, most Seekers have never even heard of her, and she had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of the Blood of Vol religion. The "Vol" they take their name from is an entirely fictional figure who in Seeker myths and legend was the first individual to discover the Divinity Within; this version of the story was born from a mix of local human traditions, and incomplete and distorted fragments of Aereni history taught to the first Seekers by the Bloodsail elves. This fictional version of Vol is treated as a cultural hero, but not worshipped as a god; rather, Seekers of the Divinity Within focus their spiritual practice on cultivating just that, to the point that their Clerics and Paladins are able to manifest divine magic from their own souls and blood.

EDIT: I checked both Eberron: Rising from the Last War (the official 5e Eberron book) and Exploring Eberron (Keith Baker's personal DMsGuild release); ERftLW says that "The Blood of Vol is a grim faith, founded by Erandis d’Vol, an elf from Aerenal." We asked Keith about that in the Eberron Discord server when ERftLW came out, and he said that it was an error that slipped through the editing process (both Erandis having a d' prefix in her surname, which she never would have had, and the claim that she founded the Blood of Vol). My initial paragraph describes Keith's personal version of their history that can be found in Exploring Eberron and on his blog.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean... kind of.

Originally, Erandis Vol (Lady Illmarrow) was using the whole "Worship Within" thing as a way to hide the fact that the Blood of Vol were worshipping -her- as part of a bid to get enough worship to fulfill some ritual or another that was never elucidated and reach apotheosis, becoming the Queen of Death, goddess of the dead. And as a powerful entity and center of worship, like the Silver Flame, she's able to grant divine spellcasting and stuff because that's just how Eberron works.

That isn’t true. I don’t think it was ever actually true, but it certainly isn’t now. In Eberron, divine magic comes from faith.

Vol isn’t the center of worship, either. She’s the head of the main clerical structure of the faith, but most actual practice is based in ones community.

The Flame grants power because it is the combined souls and power of all the faithful who have ever died in service to the ideals of the Silver Flame, so it’s a bit different from any other faith in Eberron.

Though in recent years they've buried the lede on that and might even have retconned it out. But if you're gonna retcon it out, why keep Vol at the center of worship?

Just an interesting thing to note. They're "Atheists" who are creating a god from a mortal (well, immortal since she's undead) being unintentionally!

Even if we ignore what I wrote above, they aren’t “atheists”, they’re just atheists. They don’t believe the gods are real. The end. And they very well might be right.

D&D doesn't "Always" use those things. But those things -are- part of D&D. Even if they're not always used, they're there, in the mindset of everyone who hears "D&D in Spaaaaace" or any other setting.

Because even divorced from Faerun, or Eberron, Ashen Lands, or Greyhawk: D&D comes with a whoooole mess of very specific assumptions.

That has nothing to do with how generic D&D is, though. A more accurate way to put it is, D&D comes with a whole wide swath of options, such that you can build pretty much any kind of world and game you want with those parts.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As of the current iteration of the lore, Erandis Vol does not draw power from the Blood of Vol's worship, nor is she able to grant them divine spellcasting. Outside of the Order of the Emerald Claw, the Blood of Vol does not worship Erandis, most Seekers have never even heard of her, and she had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of the Blood of Vol religion. The "Vol" they take their name from is an entirely fictional figure who in Seeker myths and legend was the first individual to discover the Divinity Within; this version of the story was born from a mix of local human traditions, and incomplete and distorted fragments of Aereni history taught to the first Seekers by the Bloodsail elves. This fictional version of Vol is treated as a cultural hero, but not worshipped as a god; rather, Seekers of the Divinity Within focus their spiritual practice on cultivating just that, to the point that their Clerics and Paladins are able to manifest divine magic from their own souls and blood.

EDIT: I checked both Eberron: Rising from the Last War (the official 5e Eberron book) and Exploring Eberron (Keith Baker's personal DMsGuild release); ERftLW says that "The Blood of Vol is a grim faith, founded by Erandis d’Vol, an elf from Aerenal." We asked Keith about that in the Eberron Discord server when ERftLW came out, and he said that it was an error that slipped through the editing process (both Erandis having a d' prefix in her surname, which she never would have had, and the claim that she founded the Blood of Vol). My initial paragraph describes Keith's personal version of their history that can be found in Exploring Eberron and on his blog.

Well put.

I dare say that in practice, the BoV is very much a community faith, and the faithful could be said to empower eachother, but ultimately all divine magic in Eberron come from faith.

 

[Steampunkette]

That isn’t true. I don’t think it was ever actually true, but it certainly isn’t now. In Eberron, divine magic comes from faith.

Vol isn’t the center of worship, either. She’s the head of the main clerical structure of the faith, but most actual practice is based in ones community.

The Flame grants power because it is the combined souls and power of all the faithful who have ever died in service to the ideals of the Silver Flame, so it’s a bit different from any other faith in Eberron.

Even if we ignore what I wrote above, they aren’t “atheists”, they’re just atheists. They don’t believe the gods are real. The end. And they very well might be right.

That has nothing to do with how generic D&D is, though. A more accurate way to put it is, D&D comes with a whole wide swath of options, such that you can build pretty much any kind of world and game you want with those parts.

Erandis Vol

Erandis Vol, usually known as Lady Illmarrow or the Lich Queen, is the last heir of the House of Vol, the elven bloodline that bore the Mark of Death. Half an elf and a half a dragon, Erandis was the hope of many to end the war between the dragons and elves. She is believed dead by most, but was...

eberron.fandom.com

The statistics provided in both editions represent Lady Vol in her current state. If she achieves her apotheosis, becoming the Queen of Death, her powers will rival that of a god and bring about an apocalypse for the elves and dragons.

Apotheosis means "Become a God". It was her original goal.

Anywho! On to the D&D thing: Yes. It absolutely DOES have everything to do with how generic D&D is.

No other fantasy has Gelatinous Cubes and Ochre Jellies. No other fantasy has Mimics and dragons divided by Chromatic, Metallic, and Gemstone. No other fantasy has Aboleths and Mind Flayers, Vancian Spellcasting, the Hand and Eye of Vecna, The Sphere of Annihilation.

And as much as you strip out, BadWolf, MD, you've got to realize that those things are a part of something you're stripping away to get at the bits you want and need.

And once you've stripped away enough that it's easier to describe what you -haven't- removed than what you -have- removed, you've gotta know you're not playing D&D at that point. Oh, you're using the d20 system at the heart of D&D. But it ain't D&D anymore.

If you order a Big Mac at McDonald's and tell them to take off literally everything, item by item, 'til nothing is left but the bottom half of a bun, you're not eating a Big Mac. You're eating half a warmed up hamburger bun.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Apotheosis means "Become a God". It was her original goal.

Whatever Erandis's personal goals may be, it doesn't change the fact that she is not worshipped, or even acknowledged, by the majority of the Blood of Vol. Only the extremist Order of the Emerald Claw, as well as a small number of spies she has sent to infiltrate the Blood of Vol's clergy (and any assets those spies may have recruited during their infiltration) are aware of her existence.

As well, from what Keith has written, Erandis's current efforts are focused around trying to restore her Apex Dragonmark, rather than pursuing the Divinity Within that the Seekers have discovered (she can't go down that route, as she's Undead). The Blood of Vol to her are nothing more than potential pawns for her to manipulate; she would not directly gain anything were they to suddenly start worshipping her.

All of this is to say that yes, the Blood of Vol is an atheistic, or at least nontheistic religion. Erandis Vol/Lady Illmarrow is not their god.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Erandis Vol

Erandis Vol, usually known as Lady Illmarrow or the Lich Queen, is the last heir of the House of Vol, the elven bloodline that bore the Mark of Death. Half an elf and a half a dragon, Erandis was the hope of many to end the war between the dragons and elves. She is believed dead by most, but was...

eberron.fandom.com

Apotheosis means "Become a God". It was her original goal.

Anywho! On to the D&D thing: Yes. It absolutely DOES have everything to do with how generic D&D is.

No other fantasy has Gelatinous Cubes and Ochre Jellies. No other fantasy has Mimics and dragons divided by Chromatic, Metallic, and Gemstone. No other fantasy has Aboleths and Mind Flayers, Vancian Spellcasting, the Hand and Eye of Vecna, The Sphere of Annihilation.

So what? (Ignoring that other fantasy settings do have some of those things, and things like them)
The fact that there are specific things in a game doesn’t make the game non-generic. If it’s the word generic that’s bothering you we can use another, I don’t care, but the point is that D&D can be any fantasy genre. It shines brightest when you include adventure in the genre specification, but it works without it.

And as much as you strip out, BadWolf, MD, you've got to realize that those things are a part of something you're stripping away to get at the bits you want and need.

And once you've stripped away enough that it's easier to describe what you -haven't- removed than what you -have- removed, you've gotta know you're not playing D&D at that point. Oh, you're using the d20 system at the heart of D&D. But it ain't D&D anymore.

Okay, the name thing is disrespectful in a very strange way, but whatever. Not using aberrations or liches or finding any specific place for most of the races until they come up in adventure prep or character generation hardly qualifies as “not D&D”.
Most games I’ve seen never use whole swaths of the MM, none of my games feature a “blood war” even if set in a world that canonically has one because I find the fiend dichotomy rather stupid, and yet no one who has ever sat down at my table has posited that we weren’t playing D&D .

If it’s got some number of the D&D races and classes, and swords and spells, and the D&D action resolution system, and many of the creatures, etc, it’s a game of D&D.

If you order a Big Mac at McDonald's and tell them to take off literally everything, item by item, 'til nothing is left but the bottom half of a bun, you're not eating a Big Mac. You're eating half a warmed up hamburger bun.

Okay, but that isn’t a like comparison. No one I’ve ever played D&D with assumes that every game of D&D will specifically feature liches and beholders. It’s like claiming that I’m not eating a cheese burger because I didn’t put onions on it.

 

[Steampunkette]

I apologize for the disrespect. It was meant to be humorous, not insulting! That's on me.

I also see your infinite Ships of Theseus, and understand your position. I just disagree with it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I apologize for the disrespect. It was meant to be humorous, not insulting! That's on me.

I also see your infinite Ships of Theseus, and understand your position. I just disagree with it.

I’m curious what you consider necessary for a game to be D&D , then.

IME, nearly all campaigns leave some classic element or other out. D&D is vastly too broad to easily do otherwise.

I’ve never seen anyone claim that DMs who run a “curated” game, only using a few races and a limited scope of monsters, aren’t really running D&D, so why is a game where only humanoids, beasts, monstrosities, are commonly seen creatures, and dragons are semi-legendary, any less D&D than one that is just stock canon FR?
Do you see Dark Sun as not really D&D?

edit: I’m not meaning to be aggro about it, but I am a bit...perturbed by the suggestion that my game isn’t D&D because it doesn’t include every single element that’s ever been in a D&D core book.

 

[Krachek]

Chapter one of the DM guide, A world of your own.
I’m sure that there is no suggestion about using most of the monster manual to qualify into a DnD Wolrd.

 

[Greg K]

Okay, the name thing is disrespectful in a very strange way, but whatever. Not using aberrations or liches or finding any specific place for most of the races until they come up in adventure prep or character generation hardly qualifies as “not D&D”.
Most games I’ve seen never use whole swaths of the MM, none of my games feature a “blood war” even if set in a world that canonically has one because I find the fiend dichotomy rather stupid, and yet no one who has ever sat down at my table has posited that we weren’t playing D&D .

If it’s got some number of the D&D races and classes, and swords and spells, and the D&D action resolution system, and many of the creatures, etc, it’s a game of D&D.

Okay, but that isn’t a like comparison. No one I’ve ever played D&D with assumes that every game of D&D will specifically feature liches and beholders. It’s like claiming that I’m not eating a cheese burger because I didn’t put onions on it.

Agreed. When I run, there is no "Blood War" and it does not stop there. The vast majority of other planes do not exist and neither does the multiverse. So there is no Planescape, no Spelljamming, and no possible travelling between D&D worlds. Furthermore, outside of few modules, I have never used Beholders, Cloakers, Drow, Mimics, Piercers, Rust Monsters, Shriekers, Stirges. I have also never used the vast majority of 1e and 2e monsters and would never use them or the vast majority of monsters introduced in WOTC editions.

I also do not use the vast majority of official spells introduced in the 1e Unearthed Arcana and later editions. Even spells such as Flame Strike, Rope Trick, Prismatic Spray, Prismatic Wall, Reincarnation, Tenser's Transformation are removed. The next time I run, I will be removing both flashy attack spells (e.g. Fireball, Lightning Bolt) and any area and ranged healing.

And, I have not even touched on races or classes/subclasses.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Agreed. When I run, there is no "Blood War" and it does not stop there. The vast majority of other planes do not exist and neither does the multiverse. So there is no Planescape, no Spelljamming, and no possible travelling between D&D worlds. Furthermore, outside of few modules, I have never used Beholders, Cloakers, Drow, Mimics, Piercers, Rust Monsters, Shriekers, Stirges. I have also never used the vast majority of 1e and 2e monsters and would never use them or the vast majority of monsters introduced in WOTC editions.

I also do not use the vast majority of of official spells introduced in the 1e Unearthed Arcana and later editions. Even spells such as Flame Strike, Rope Trick, Prismatic Spray, Prismatic Wall, Reincarnation, Tenser's Transformation are removed. The next time I run, I will be removing both flashy attack spells (e.g. Fireball, Lightning Bolt) and any area and ranged healing.

And, I have not even touched on races or classes/subclasses.

You’re much further afield from “standard” D&D than I, but yeah we are all playing D&D.

 

[Salthorae]

I agree with the OP, that I like my classes to impact the fiction of my world, though this discussion seems to have gone far afield from the original proposition.

That said, it's not the only way to play the game. For me it is.

What is the impact on the world around for people who are born with the ability to use magic with no studies. That should be considered, or what is their history. Maybe they became an aristocracy at one point that was then overthrown and sorcerer's are now hunted rather than served, so people try to keep it a secret (and subtle spell has much more play!).

 

[Jaeger]

I wanted to share something that I've felt is a real problem with several character classes in D&D: They have Fantasy Associations, but no World-Anchoring.

Yeah, a Sorcerer is descended from a powerful ancestor. But other than "LoL! You had to -study- to learn magic? Pleb!" type jokes and statements, what does that -mean- for the world? What interactions does the existence of magic people from birth really mean? And I'm not talking about "My baby cast prestidigitation and scared the babysitter" I'm talking on a Cultural Level.

In a setting I've been designing, I had honestly considered just flatly cutting Sorcerers out of the game, entirely. They seemed almost pointless, like a vestigial nub of some greater narrative purpose that was never fulfilled. But then it hit me: Arcane Nobility.

This is because D&D was never designed for a specific setting.

D&D was always a hodge-podge of different Fantasy S&S, and Weird Fantasy sources. If you were to take a step back and create the next edition of D&D for a specific setting from the ground up, a lot things would need to be mechanically re-thought out.

All Settings.

Character classes should be a part of the world. Should shape it as a narrative conceit in the hands of the writer.

The word "Paladin" (or "Herald", now, I guess) should hold weight in the Mists of Ravenloft and also on Krynn. It should be a part of the narrative structures of Faerun and Athas. It shouldn't just "Exist to Exist". Is what I'm getting at. For the purpose of the setting, of -any- setting, a character class or race or other aspect should have a purpose.

If it doesn't have a purpose; it should be cut out.

Because Limits are important.

They're not just how we keep things in check, but they're the best way to give things a unique flavor. When you have a world that includes every D&D class, and assumes the existence of every D&D monster somewhere, it's going to end up looking a bit like the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk, no matter what you do.

The best way to create a new world isn't to come up with a new spin on existing classes or monsters; but to exclude things.

IMHO, you should stick to your first instinct and cut Sorcerers out.

Rather than trying to come up with yet another reason to include more of "Core D&D" , your setting will be more unique without having to justify why sorcerers are in your world. Because the more you include the more your setting will trend towards a Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk pastiche.

I’ve never seen anyone claim that DMs who run a “curated” game, only using a few races and a limited scope of monsters, aren’t really running D&D, ...

Them's the naughty words right there...

I have seen it on this very board that when GM's start talking about restricting this or that element from the core PHB for their home brew campaign they start to get very politelyish pushback for not being "creative" enough to accommodate what a player may want to play regardless of the settings conceits.

When IMHO it is restriction that tends to breed creativity.