Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 9827578" data-attributes="member: 63508">Again I think posters are posting past each other.I think we are all agreeing that restricting a few classes or races is fine. There shouldn't being argument between the DM and the player since the player most likely will have other concepts in their head besides the banned ones. The DM bands gnomes, goliath, druids and sorcerer. The player can choose to be a dwarf wizard instead of a gnome sorcerer. If the player only want to play a dwarf wizard then they have to get up and opt off the table. It's their prerogative to have a preference and only want to play their number one preferred character. However the typical mentality within the D&D community social discussion is that a player does not sit down at a table with a single concept for a character as their only option without getting declaring of the DM well before they come to the table.The part danced around is when the DM heavily restricts character creation option on their end. And I get it. It's easier to say that I as a player want to play a gnome wizard to the DM than I as a DM say"No dragonborns elves gnomes tiefling aasimar, goliaths can only be Hill or stone. No clerics no droids no warlocks no paladins, no rangers, no Wizards". It's a lot.However if you inform the players of all your restrictions and they choose not to play, fine. You as a DM have to be able to accept the rejection and accept that somebody might not find your setting interesting. And you as a player have to accept that you might not be able to play a specific player character concept at any given table.</blockquote>

Verification