I have to say, I do have a "wolverine" character...but he's a Halfling. 
Material allowed ingame by a DM
- Thread starter cross ofth carpenter
- Start date
cross ofth carpenter
First Post
That is difficult to determine, the line between "potent" and "gamebreaking", especially with non-core material.
Greenfield
Adventurer
While "everything" might have an appeal, it isn't always appropriate in a given campaign setting.
For example, a PRC like Fist of Hextor is only appropriate in a campaign that uses the D&D pantheons. If there no Hextor, how can anyone by a warrior/priest of Hextor?
Our setting is the ancient Mediterranean world of the Roman Empire. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (i.e. anthropomorphic Turtle people) aren't setting appropriate since there were no ancient world legends of such folk.
If you're playing in a Dark Sun world, a Decanter of Endless Water is an inappropriate item. The spells needed to craft it aren't even supposed to exist in that setting.
Similarly, Fearun specific items/spells/races may be inappropriate outside of a Faerun setting.
Our group's starting members agreed upon a particular setting, and selected our acceptable sources appropriately. That setting specifically excluded the presence of high level casters as a common thing, and never included the local Wiz-mart where anything magical is sitting on the shelf and available. We include a Delver's Guild, where some magical items and supplies may be found. Or they may not.
When a character joins the game late, they have an advantage in that they can equip their character, within budget, with pretty much anything in any of our valid source books. In essence, Wiz-mart is open to them, at least during character creation. They can look at the game setting, catch up on the story, and custom select a magical arsenal that's fine-tuned to the situation.
Pushing for items that aren't in approved source books just seems greedy to me. More over, it seems to demonstrate something akin to "bad faith", in terms of making a character that's supposedly from the game world.
When, in addition, they choose things from obscure or disallowed sources, and then get them conveniently wrong, as this player did, it gives me a bad feeling about how well they'll fit in our group. We aren't in a contest to see who can make the most powerful character nor see who can make the DM's life the most miserable. I know people who play like that, and they're essentially in it for their own amusement at the expense of everyone else' fun.
Don't want players like that.
For example, a PRC like Fist of Hextor is only appropriate in a campaign that uses the D&D pantheons. If there no Hextor, how can anyone by a warrior/priest of Hextor?
Our setting is the ancient Mediterranean world of the Roman Empire. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (i.e. anthropomorphic Turtle people) aren't setting appropriate since there were no ancient world legends of such folk.
If you're playing in a Dark Sun world, a Decanter of Endless Water is an inappropriate item. The spells needed to craft it aren't even supposed to exist in that setting.
Similarly, Fearun specific items/spells/races may be inappropriate outside of a Faerun setting.
Our group's starting members agreed upon a particular setting, and selected our acceptable sources appropriately. That setting specifically excluded the presence of high level casters as a common thing, and never included the local Wiz-mart where anything magical is sitting on the shelf and available. We include a Delver's Guild, where some magical items and supplies may be found. Or they may not.
When a character joins the game late, they have an advantage in that they can equip their character, within budget, with pretty much anything in any of our valid source books. In essence, Wiz-mart is open to them, at least during character creation. They can look at the game setting, catch up on the story, and custom select a magical arsenal that's fine-tuned to the situation.
Pushing for items that aren't in approved source books just seems greedy to me. More over, it seems to demonstrate something akin to "bad faith", in terms of making a character that's supposedly from the game world.
When, in addition, they choose things from obscure or disallowed sources, and then get them conveniently wrong, as this player did, it gives me a bad feeling about how well they'll fit in our group. We aren't in a contest to see who can make the most powerful character nor see who can make the DM's life the most miserable. I know people who play like that, and they're essentially in it for their own amusement at the expense of everyone else' fun.
Don't want players like that.
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
Very true; sometime a setting's theme simply demand that certain things be excluded.
That said, you seem to take this much farther than I would:
It's your campaign, so I won't tell you that you're wrong for strictly adhering to Roman mythology. But given all the crazy races and monsters in classical mythology, anthro turtle people wouldn't exactly stick out.
Is refluffing not an option? If a player thought that the PrC would really fit his cleric of Ares, you wouldn't let him just file the serial numbers off and slap on a new title? (Possibly with a couple of simple alignment-related tweaks, if Ares isn't Lawful and Evil in your game.)
When I run a game my rule is core and the complete books. Anything else needs my approval. I also ban things if they don't fit into my campaign. In my one campaign only elves can be psionic and no elf can cast magic.
I also have a Xena style campaign and a lot of things are banned to keep the flavor. Though I allow fists of Hextor in that campaign it is called fists of Ares
I am very strict about PRC they have to fit into my campaign and make sense for the character taking them.
That being said I try and not say no and will work with a player to try and make his concept fit in the game.
As a player I don't mind restrictions unless I feel the DM is being too controlling to the point that it is unreasonable often that shows to me a lack of trust on the DMs part towards his players. We are all there to have fun that means working together so that everyone at the table including the DM is having a good time. I don't enjoy playing with someone who refuses to see how their actions can ruin the game for other people.
I also have a Xena style campaign and a lot of things are banned to keep the flavor. Though I allow fists of Hextor in that campaign it is called fists of Ares
I am very strict about PRC they have to fit into my campaign and make sense for the character taking them.
That being said I try and not say no and will work with a player to try and make his concept fit in the game.
As a player I don't mind restrictions unless I feel the DM is being too controlling to the point that it is unreasonable often that shows to me a lack of trust on the DMs part towards his players. We are all there to have fun that means working together so that everyone at the table including the DM is having a good time. I don't enjoy playing with someone who refuses to see how their actions can ruin the game for other people.
Grogg of the North
Adventurer
I've never understood why more players don't simply say "I would like class/feat/item X. Is that acceptable?" rather than just showing up with it. The end result between the two, asking vs. showing up, is so drastic! And even if the group/DM says no, it opens the door to talking about what may be an acceptable alternative. For instance, Hextor vs. Ares as mentioned above.
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
Probably the delusion that 'Asking for forgiveness is easier than asking for permission.'
Greenfield
Adventurer
Our rule is similar to Elf Witch's: We have a limited set of pre-approved sources, but neither our campaign nor our minds are closed. If someone wants to run a Cat-person in a Greco/Roman setting, ask. Make a good pitch about how this fits, or where it came from, and we may say yes.
As for the "forgiveness" v "permission" approach: Why would I accept an empty and insincere "sorry" more readily than I would accept a "May I please"? The "forgiveness" approach decides in advance to take what they want and try to get away with it, and as a philosophy it says that they'll take what they want next time as well. If they're already planning their next offense, they aren't really "sorry" about this one.
So, frm me at least, that one earns a "No" every time, no question.
As for the "forgiveness" v "permission" approach: Why would I accept an empty and insincere "sorry" more readily than I would accept a "May I please"? The "forgiveness" approach decides in advance to take what they want and try to get away with it, and as a philosophy it says that they'll take what they want next time as well. If they're already planning their next offense, they aren't really "sorry" about this one.
So, frm me at least, that one earns a "No" every time, no question.
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
Don't know if this portion is directed at me, but yeah, this is exactly my point. Asking forgiveness arguably has an advantage in other situations, in which the action in question is irrevocable, like "Sorry I borrowed your porsche without asking dad. My boss offered me overtime to come into work today, and hey, I didn't put a ding on it!" Dad's more likely to forgive and forget, because the deed's been done and getting angry won't change it.
But in a game, that logic fails. The deed is absolutely reversible, in addition to being boot-worthy.
Last edited:
When a new player shows up with a lot of forbidden things that sets off a warning bell. It is pretty obvious that the player feels the rules don't pertain to him and that makes him a special snowflake. It a clue of what is going to come later because this type of player will make a DMs life miserable. You will constantly having to monitor and fight with them. It is rarely worth it.
Similar Threads
