Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 3057656" data-attributes="member: 467">Even more to the point, I think, is whether it falls within the setting, genre and tone of the campaign the DM is going to run, or whether the DM just doesn't want to deal with potential problems or inconsistencies caused by certain options.This weekend I talked with a player for a game that I had disallowed a Paladin/Monk combo character.  Although I skirted around the issue a little -- even to myself -- I ultimately admitted it was pretty much an arbitrary decision on my part.  I didn't like it -- mechanically, feel wise or anything else.  And the fact is, while I generally try not to make such blantantly arbitrary rules, the fact is I am running the game so unless you can wow me and make me change my mind, you'll just have to live with it or not play.He did decide to play -- he created a crazy barbarian sunderer guy -- and fun was had by all.  Realizing that I was being arbitrary when I disallowed the Paladin-Monk combo, would I do it again?  probably not.  Does it mean I won't put the kibosh on certain combos, feats, PrCs, races etc... down the line?  Absolutely not.  It is my right as the guy putting the work into the game to make decisions about what I don't want in the game.  I will never tell a player what to play (unless we have agreed to use pregens) but I am well within my rights to tell them what they can't play at my table.The check and balance to that, of course, is that if I am too much of a jerk, I don't have any players.</blockquote>

Verification