NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9712986" data-attributes="member: 6790260">And others never ever ever have put up pages of hysterical rants about how utterly god-awful players are and how they NEED to be subject to extremely tight constraints or else they'll destroy things.I think you'll find there's plenty of digital ink spilled here about how bad behavior from players completely requires GMs to suspect misbehavior from all fronts, while simultaneously demanding nigh-infinite trust that the GM would never, ever abuse the powers they lay claim to.Edit: May as well combine this with the other response I have for you.Aaaaand here we have the goalposts moving at the speed of light.Sorry, not gonna accept this line of reasoning. It's a default ancestry that has been present in some degree for at least three editions running. (IIRC there was something in...1e, from Dragon mag, that looks shockingly like a dragonborn in race-as-class form, sans scaly dreadlocks of course, except that they "ate" magic items instead of wearing them directly. Neat idea, not really my cuppa but I could work with it if the GM expected only "in-edition" content.) It's been a core ancestry for, at this point, 18 years. It's one of the most popular non-human options in the game; as of the most recent statistics, behind only half-elf and elf, and half-elf got straight-up deleted in 5.5e, so...dragonborn are theoretically now the second-most-popular non-human ancestry in D&D? I mean, if you believe the statistics coming from the official sources.</blockquote>

Verification