D&D 5E Paladin/Hexblade+Options

[Guest User]

Last week we had 30 turn up at the gamestore.

The joys of Island Living.
In person events are so passé.

 

[Zardnaar]

The joys of Island Living.
In person events are so passé.

No D&D this week. Said player is changing his mind all the time anyway.

Forge cleric of aquatic deity, picked aquatic Dragonkin, now wants whatever.

 

[Azuresun]

I get you said No.

But my point was you said No for the wrong reasons.

"I'm not running a campaign for those races." is a perfectly valid reason. If someone wants something that I explicitly ruled out in the campaign pitch, then my first thoughts will be one of these three:

1: Didn't read the pitch, and probably not invested in the game.
2: Wants the RP of the whole campaign to warp around his wacky character.
3: Wants to be the most powerful character, and doesn't care if he overshadows the other PC's (Hexblade dip is a giant glowing red light there).

There might be an exception if they're going to make an effort to discuss how the PC would fit in with the world (and actually indicate they're not one of the above three), or if they're suggesting the character along with other possibilities. A lot of this attitude comes back to one player I used to know, who couldn't have played a "standard" character if you had a gun to his head. It had to be the most weird and super-special option possible, minmaxed to the gills and with a background built for spotlight hogging.

 

[Ancalagon]

No D&D this week. Said player is changing his mind all the time anyway.

Forge cleric of aquatic deity, picked aquatic Dragonkin, now wants whatever.

Make sure he's not mistaking a lack of reaction from you as a no - if he proposes something decent, be quick in going "oh that could work!" or something similar?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As I said PHB plus Yuan Ti and Warforged anything else ask.

Triton I said no.

You could easily invoke the PHB +1 rule without looking too bad.
You can tell him that it is an official advernture's league rule to prevent unwanted synergies between different surce books.

 

[Greg K]

I have a new player who started this week. Themed game of happy pirates. He's pushing hard to be a Triton along with Hexblade/Paladin.

(Stuff removed)

So being to unreasonable or fair enough?

You are the DM. Decide what races, classes, optional rules, etc you want to allow or limit based on your setting, what captures the tone you are going for, and any other aesthetic choices (including personal dislikes). Make all of this known to the players. Players can choose to accept the limitations you set or find another table if the two of you can't can't come ot an acceptable agreement.

Personally, there are races, subclasses, and even a class or two in the 5e PHB that I would not allow if running 5e. Most often they don't fit the aesthetics of the fantasy that I want to run, but a banned items are dislike for the mechanics of a given class or subclass (and that is before getting to spellls). Similarly, pretty much most of the WOTC supplemental stuff would be out for the same reasons (which was true when I ran 3e. In contrast, there are options that I would allow from several websites (including ENWorld), DrivethruRPG, and DMs Guild .

 

[DND_Reborn]

The problem here with a "I am the DM and this is my game" is that in many ways it is crap thinking. The table belongs to the DM and the players. Sure, if you are in a place where there are tons of players, the player can move along and find a different DM I guess.

IMO the best way to explain it is the "rules" and rulings belong to the DM to arbitrate, but the setting/theme/whatever belongs to the entire table--including the players.

Obviously, that is just my feeling on the issue. Democracy reigns, and if the group as a whole decides: no tritons, no MCing, no hexblade, etc. then cool.

 

[Greg K]

The problem here with a "I am the DM and this is my game" is that in many ways it is crap thinking. The table belongs to the DM and the players. Sure, if you are in a place where there are tons of players, the player can move along and find a different DM I guess.

IMO the best way to explain it is the "rules" and rulings belong to the DM to arbitrate, but the setting/theme/whatever belongs to the entire table--including the players.

Obviously, that is just my feeling on the issue. Democracy reigns, and if the group as a whole decides: no tritons, no MCing, no hexblade, etc. then cool.

As as GM who uses D&D when players will only play D&D or cannot agree upon another system other than D&D for fantasy, I am not interested in incorporating any concept the players can justify under the official rules. I am tailoring the system to fit the campaign setting and genre of fantasy that I am willing to run using D&D rather than running a type of fantasy that I dislike (e.g. WOTC kitchen sink fantasy) or one that I will only run in another system (e.g. wuxia, something anime inspired). This means excluding specific official races (or limiting them to NPCs), subclasses, classes, and even spells, if they don't fit the campaign, the fantasy I am going or in general, or the mechanics simply don't fit how I thnk they should work (even if I would allow something similar under another system). At the same time, I do try to include numerous options for the players. I look to third material that fits better for a given campaign my fantasy influences, or just mechanics that work better for how I want things to work. Examples include Rich Howard's variant human cultures, Khaalis's light armored fighter variant, Michael Wolf's Shaman Class, 5MWD's Commander Fighter Archetype and Sorcerer Fey Origin). Players are then free to work within the confines of the setting (e.g. deities, cultures, races, classes etc.) to build a character

 

[DND_Reborn]

As as GM who uses D&D when players will only play D&D or cannot agree upon another system other than D&D for fantasy, I am not interested in incorporating any concept the players can justify under the official rules. I am tailoring the system to fit the campaign setting and genre of fantasy that I am willing to run using D&D rather than running a type of fantasy that I dislike (e.g. WOTC kitchen sink fantasy) or one that I will only run in another system (e.g. wuxia, something anime inspired).

(emphasis mine)

Why not? Why are you bent on stopping a player from playing a concept they would enjoy? Why are you only "willing to run" what you want? The game is supposed to be about having fun for everyone, not just the DM. I can understand if they want something third party or from a book you might not have, in both cases you can review things and decide for yourself whether to include them or not. But frankly, otherwise it should be a group decision IMO. Our table just finished a 18-month game and are ready to start a new one. We discussed it as a table and came to a decision on what we will play next. One player will run Sunless Citadel first (his first time DMing), then me, and then another player will run an adventure he has planned for levels 12 and higher.

I'm sorry, but where I live and the people I play with, if I had your outlook I wouldn't even have a game. I am going to run Frostmaiden on my turn because the table wants to play it. Am I really thrilled about it? Nope. I've read it, I think it sucks in a lot of ways and I'm going to have to do a lot of extra work to make it better--but I am still doing it because they are my friends and I know they will have fun.

If you are fortunate enough to live in a place where players abound and you can have such a strict outlook, kudos for you.

 

[Zardnaar]

(emphasis mine)

Why not? Why are you bent on stopping a player from playing a concept they would enjoy? Why are you only "willing to run" what you want? The game is supposed to be about having fun for everyone, not just the DM. I can understand if they want something third party or from a book you might not have, in both cases you can review things and decide for yourself whether to include them or not. But frankly, otherwise it should be a group decision IMO. Our table just finished a 18-month game and are ready to start a new one. We discussed it as a table and came to a decision on what we will play next. One player will run Sunless Citadel first (his first time DMing), then me, and then another player will run an adventure he has planned for levels 12 and higher.

I'm sorry, but where I live and the people I play with, if I had your outlook I wouldn't even have a game. I am going to run Frostmaiden on my turn because the table wants to play it. Am I really thrilled about it? Nope. I've read it, I think it sucks in a lot of ways and I'm going to have to do a lot of extra work to make it better--but I am still doing it because they are my friends and I know they will have fun.

If you are fortunate enough to live in a place where players abound and you can have such a strict outlook, kudos for you.

DMs fun outweighs the players.

Player unhappy leaves.
DM unhappy no game.

DM night want to run whatever where only XYZ is allowed.

A player wanting ABC makes game less fun for DM.

DM would be idiotic to not listen to players to some extent. Mine get to pick the theme from a list of stuff I would run.

I'm not going to run wuxia no matter what so I don't want wuxia type stuff in my games using one example.

Once a campaign ends if a player still wants that rave I'm more open to design something for them or run something that appeals to them.

If they're late to the party though it's get with the program. Don't like it don't play.

Context I've got 5 players, 6 and 7 would be easy enough and I'm essentially getting paid to do it via store credit so I'm getting the books half price/free.

My groups also the most stable one, only one that's lasted over a year. The newbies don't really know how to keep a group together.