The Power of "NO". Banned Races and Classes?

[Dannyalcatraz]

My 2¢ on western monasticism & Templars:

I got 4 years of history classes from Cistercian monks, one of the 2 oldest orders in the Church, and the particular order that supported them early on. While they were organized with the same kind of hierarchy as a monastic order, most Templars were not actually monks. They were laymen who had taken certain religious vows: supplicants took vows of poverty, chastity, piety, and obedience, surrendering all of their wealth and goods to the Order- but because they did not take certain other vows, they did not have any real authority to perform the religious duties of the clergy. They couldn't even administer the Sacrament of Communion, of Confession or any other Christian sacrament because they were not ordained priests. Most brothers joined for life, although some were allowed to join for a set period. Sometimes a married man was allowed to join if he had his wife's permission. Neither temporary membership nor married membership is consistent with being a true monk.

Only the third subgroup of Templars, their chaplains, were actually ordained priests. And they were, like all true monks, forbidden to be combatants.

So, while they were ascetics, they were not monks.

As for the original question: I do ban things, but what I ban is generally campaign specific. To the best of my recollection, there is no race or class I have a blanket ban on.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Maybe I should have put a cheeky smiley of some sort in there. I do want to be able to look through whatever it is during non-game time for reference so, while I don't "make" them buy it for me, I do insist on borrowing it for an extended period.

Sadly, I played RPGs in the '80s and '90s so tales of DMs making wild and ridiculous demands are all too plausible to me!

Like you I pretty much say "I'm going to need to be able to read through that book if you want to use stuff from it...".

Yes, it seems I'm in this minority as well.

I'm finding the whole conversation fascinating. I understand DMs wanting to ban things because they genuinely believe that it is mechanically broken. Very few of the comments in this thread of of that class, however. The majority (self-selected, admittedly) do like to ban their players playing things, because of the personal taste of the DM ("I don't like/hate x").

This is completely foreign to my experience as a player, and consequently as a DM as well. Even if the dwarves have all been hunted and killed in the setting, if a player wants to play a dwarf, I want to work with him to make that happen (and I recognize that by saying that about dwarves up front, I am actually encouraging players to want this). Even if there are no orcs in the setting at all, I can find a way to get the mechanics of the half-orc into the setting without any real difficulty -- reskinning is trivial if the player wants to make it happen too.

I can understand not allowing non-core* options for various reasons (power-creep; the belief that it's underplaytested or disruptive; or due to accessibility -- i.e. mechanical or practical reasons), but if a player wants to commit to a certain story knowing the default assumptions of the setting, I don't see why my like/dislike of that particular race or class should even become relevant. As a DM, I've already get to control the entire universe at the table -- the player just gets one character.

I think I count myself very lucky that I've never had one of my ideas "banned" because the DM doesn't like something. Judging from this thread, I'm in a rare minority.

* I do recognize that the distinction of core/non-core may come to mean something very different in the new edition. With all the options the DMG will apparently offer, there will be some that are in, and some not. My instinct, though, is that all of the PHB will be in for games I run (incl. feats and other "optional" elements) -- even if I myself do not happen to like it.

I want my players to tell the stories that get them excited!

My experiences are broadly similar to yours, I must say, and your last sentence reflects how I see things. Players forced to play something they aren't really into tends to lead to boredom and the slow death of campaigns, in my experience. That's not to say I don't encourage people to keep it sane but I do by finding other exciting things, usually.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I remember when Friar Tuck used a sai to knock out Prince John with a furry of blows and escaped by slow falling down the side of the tower.

Sounds a lot like the last BBC Robin Hood, actually!

Also that is totally awesome.

On Friars, they'd actually make a pretty cool class - Dark Age of Camelot had them alongside Clerics as leather-armour-wearing, staff-fighting hybrid melee/healer, who was, frankly, a badass and would fight right in to D&D. Maybe I'll write them up post-PHB, more likely I'll have long forgotten by then!

 

[The Human Target]

Oops, I meant flurry.

Furry of blows is a different thing.

I do ban those.

 

[The Human Target]

Sounds a lot like the last BBC Robin Hood, actually!

Also that is totally awesome.

On Friars, they'd actually make a pretty cool class - Dark Age of Camelot had them alongside Clerics as leather-armour-wearing, staff-fighting hybrid melee/healer, who was, frankly, a badass and would fight right in to D&D. Maybe I'll write them up post-PHB, more likely I'll have long forgotten by then!

I think maybe those monk friars should be clerics, to give the old paladin a little more definition.

Hmmmmm...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think maybe those monk friars should be clerics, to give the old paladin a little more definition.

Hmmmmm...

I disagree that but gives me a good idea - perhaps they should be a Paladin sub-class! Their main deal was always fighting and buffing more than healing.

 

[Celebrim]

The Knights Templar were a Monastic order, as were plenty of other orders. In D&D terms they are probably closer to Paladins but, frankly, so what?

The answer is, "So the monk class is a very poor fit for the archetype." Monks in D&D are unarmored mystic warriors who in D&D fight with their hands. The Knights Templars in the real world were largely armored heavy cavalry.

In a fantasy game we can draw sources from anywhere we want, regardless of historical or cultural source, and integrate it into our own worlds.

Sure, and my Homebrew world has lots of monastic orders. One of the current PC is a monk who belongs to the Hospitaller Brothers of Aravar the Traveller. He's not however Monk class. He's actually a 'Champion' classed individual. Knight and monk are his professions. Most of the lay brothers of Aravar are in fact have levels in 'Fanatic' - think Barbarian. Those who aren't fighting men are generally Experts. All those persons, Champions, Fanatics, and Experts are Monks, but not a one of them fights unarmored with their empty hands by choice.

Christianity has only been around for 2000 years or so, anyway, and most Fantasy worlds rarely include it. If you can have polytheistic religion as the norm in your pseudo-western-medieval fantasy world, then you can include fighting monks too, surely?

Again, I have lots of fighting monks. The last two sessions have largely dealt with a dawn attack by a large force of Kelterist cultists (about 300) - that is berserkers - backed up by Necromancers on the Temple quarter of the city of Talernga. The temples were all protected to one degree or the other by fighting monks, that is Templars. However, in general all those Templars wore mail, carried large shields, and fought with the favored weapons of their deity. They were certainly fighting monks, but none of them are Monks. The whole notion of fighting monks fighting barehanded and unarmored comes from a historical situation where the monks had been disarmed by the government, and so had to improvise weapons and employ fighting techniques based on that improvisation. However, even then, none of those monks preferred to fight bare handed. Like the peasants of Europe, they tended to employ weapons that had originally been improvised from agricultural implements. The whole 'kung fu' monk of D&D is almost entirely a D&Dism (like the Wizard, the Druid, the Barbarian, the (D&D) Ranger, and the plate wearing Cleric).

I like Monks because a) Friar Tuck is indeed a cool archetype to want to play...

Sure, but Friar Tuck is in no way Monk classed, since he's known for his skill with the longsword and fights in a steel cap. In D&D terms, he's almost certainly a fighter or cleric (assuming you want to have magic in your setting). He's the priest serving the Merry Band, and having a priest performing services for them legitimizes the band.

and b) I like that there is some outlet towards playing a Class that has asceticism as their ‘power source’.

I have no idea what 'asceticism' technically means in this context, but if I can make a good guess based on what you say next...

In this respect, I actually see Monks like an alternative magical class, rather than a warrior as such - it’s just the martial abilities are the way in which they express this power.

Absolutely. The monk of D&D is an arcane warrior.

It's a terrible fit for western monasticism. Heck, it's even a terrible fit for almost all eastern monasticism. More to the point, it's a terrible fit for the sort of monasticism practiced in my homebrew world.

 

[Celebrim]

I got 4 years of history classes from Cistercian monks...

Let me just saw that the historical Cistercians rock. Big admirers of them. Not sure what the present ones were like but the ones in the middle ages are amazing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sure, but Friar Tuck is in no way Monk classed, since he's known for his skill with the longsword and fights in a steel cap.

On what planet is this true? Because I think I can state objectively that, here, on Earth, in the UK and USA, Friar Tuck is known for being:

1) A Monk.

2) A Drunk.

3) Fighting generally.

But not for "fighting with a longsword in a steel cap". I mean, I don't want to get all "appeal to authority" on you, but as a British person growing up with constant exposure to the Robin Hood legend (my mum is from around there), via many media, one thing I never think of Friar Tuck being "known for" among either the general public or gamers is a "fighting with a Longsword and a steel cap".

 

[Celebrim]

On what planet is this true? Because I think I can state objectively that, here, on Earth, in the UK and USA, Friar Tuck is known for being:

1) A Monk.

2) A Drunk.

3) Fighting generally.

If we were playing 'Family Feud', and asked about the character of Tuck in Robin Hood, I'm pretty sure that we'd get back answers like

a) Friar - Not a monk, a Friar. Incidentally, this is an anachronism in the modern setting of the tale (Prince John's rule, Richard I's imprisonment), because the order of Friar's wasn't yet established then.

b) Fat - Friar Tuck is most known for his belly and his fondness for food. This is a common medieval trope on Friars generally.

c) Fond of Ale - I can never recall Tuck being portrayed as a drunk, but he's certainly fond of ale.

d) Swordsman - In for example the Errol Flynn Robin Hood, Robin encounters the fat friar asleep and decides to have fun with him. This proves to be a mistake, because the other Merry Men (Alan a Dale IIRC) recognize him as the fighting friar who is known as one of the most dangerous swordsman in the British Isles, but decide to conceal this information from Robin for their amusement. The result is the famous battle of wits at the river crossing which eventually results in a duel with longswords before the Friar recognizes his tormentor as Robin Hood. This is almost a direct port of the 16th century ballads and stories concerning the character.

But not for "fighting with a longsword in a steel cap". I mean, I don't want to get all "appeal to authority" on you, but as a British person growing up with constant exposure to the Robin Hood legend (my mum is from around there), via many media, one thing I never think of Friar Tuck being "known for" among either the general public or gamers is a "fighting with a Longsword and a steel cap".

If all the media you are exposed to is post about 1990, then all that exposure is actually working against you in terms of your familiarity with the traditional stories.