Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7182202" data-attributes="member: 4937">We seem to have moved on from numeric restrictions toward ideas like class restrictions and generally can the DM ban stuff.This is very abbreviated list of everything banned in my current campaign: dragonborn, tieflings, goliaths, halflings, gnomes, half-orcs, orcs, warlocks, rangers, druids, monks, paladins, barbarians, all prestige classes, and most spells that wouldn't be recognized by a 1e era player.Appalled?It's not as bad as it sounds, because for everything I've banned, I've put something in.&nbsp; So, you can't play a halfling or gnome, but you could play a sidhe or a forest dwarf or a wild elf if you wanted to play a 'little person', and a bearded sidhe trickster with illusion magic might feel very gnome-like.&nbsp;&nbsp; You can't play a ranger, but you can play a hunter and if you really wanted to make a ranger you could play a hunter/shaman with an animal companion.&nbsp;&nbsp; You can't play a paladin but you can play a champion, and if you really wanted to play something with the flavor of a paladin you could play a champion with the righteousness and guardian portfolios serving a lawful good deity that promotes a chivalric code.&nbsp;&nbsp; You can't play a druid but you can play a shaman, and you could customize your shaman with totems like plant, animal, healing and fire and take the spell wild shape and a adopt a guise similar to a northern European animist priest.I've very little complaint about DM's banning different elements.&nbsp; I consider basically every element of the game optional, and I expect DM's to want to make the setting their own.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'd probably be highly skeptical of the ability of any DM who didn't ban something.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7182202, member: 4937"] We seem to have moved on from numeric restrictions toward ideas like class restrictions and generally can the DM ban stuff. This is very abbreviated list of everything banned in my current campaign: dragonborn, tieflings, goliaths, halflings, gnomes, half-orcs, orcs, warlocks, rangers, druids, monks, paladins, barbarians, all prestige classes, and most spells that wouldn't be recognized by a 1e era player. Appalled? It's not as bad as it sounds, because for everything I've banned, I've put something in. So, you can't play a halfling or gnome, but you could play a sidhe or a forest dwarf or a wild elf if you wanted to play a 'little person', and a bearded sidhe trickster with illusion magic might feel very gnome-like. You can't play a ranger, but you can play a hunter and if you really wanted to make a ranger you could play a hunter/shaman with an animal companion. You can't play a paladin but you can play a champion, and if you really wanted to play something with the flavor of a paladin you could play a champion with the righteousness and guardian portfolios serving a lawful good deity that promotes a chivalric code. You can't play a druid but you can play a shaman, and you could customize your shaman with totems like plant, animal, healing and fire and take the spell wild shape and a adopt a guise similar to a northern European animist priest. I've very little complaint about DM's banning different elements. I consider basically every element of the game optional, and I expect DM's to want to make the setting their own. I'd probably be highly skeptical of the ability of any DM who didn't ban something. [/QUOTE]

Verification