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

[Mouseferatu]

Doesn't really work, because mechanically the Monk isn't really about being a disciplined warrior. Mechanically it is mostly about allowing a character to compete on roughly equal footing as a melee combatant despite being unarmored and unarmed. You could make the sort of argument you are making about something like a Kensai, but I don't see it in the case of the monk.

Jerem MacCree. Miner and stonemason, human but spent lots of time living with dwarves. A combination of his skills and spiritual beliefs eventually allowed him to bond with the spirits of rocks and earth. They enhance his movement along the ground; armor him by toughening his skin in relation to his faith; allow him to hit with fists like stone; and so forth.

(I played this character briefly in 3E.)

My point is, anything--monk included--can be reskinned from one culture/theme to another.

 

[Elf Witch]

I do ban depending on the campaign.

In my homebrew Dwarves are not allowed as PCs. Elves can't do arcane magic they can do psionics. Humans can't do psionics. Half elves can do both arcane magic and psionics. Half Orcs are not allowed because there are no orcs in my world. My campaign is about dragons so all the races from Races of the Dragon are allowed as well as Irda from Dragonlance. Halflings are not from the PHB but a race I designed. I use the prestige paladin from Unearthed Arcana so the paladin from from the PHB is banned. No evil alignment allowed.

If I am running an Adventure Path then I allow almost everything unless I feel that it does not really fit. I don't allow mixed alignment groups of good and evil because that never tends to work out. I will run an evil campaign as longer as they players realize that I will be pitting them against good and doing my best for good to win but that is the same when I run a good campaign I play the evil guys and do my best for them to win.

I don't tend to like races that were developed for other settings. I want warforged to stay in Eberon , kender to stay in Dragonlance. If a player came up with a way to really make them fit then I would consider it.

I try and work with my players and not let my dislike of races or classes stop them from having fun. For example I personally hate half orcs and tieflings because they seem to attract the lone wolf I have a huge chip on my shoulder players. I don't like barbarians I would rather see a rage ability worked into the fighter class. And I have a huge dislike of rogues. But instead of outright banning them I work with the player and I also let them know up front that certain things won't be tolerated like getting notes from the rogue how he is pick pocketing the cleric.

I have no problem as a player if a DM bans things because they don't fit the setting but I do have an issue if they ban things in every game simply because they don't like them.

 

[Quartz]

Doesn't really work, because mechanically the Monk isn't really about being a disciplined warrior. Mechanically it is mostly about allowing a character to compete on roughly equal footing as a melee combatant despite being unarmored and unarmed. You could make the sort of argument you are making about something like a Kensai, but I don't see it in the case of the monk.

I disagree. I'm looking at all the special abilities the Monk gets and how they mesh so well with the other martial classes. Think of the classic trope of the old knight who can still whup others' arses. Well, he got to 17th level in Monk and is benefiting from the Timeless Body class feature. Along the way, he's got Improved Evasion, Diamond Soul, etc - all very useful in battling wizards.

 

[Zaran]

I ban awesome Class hybrids like the Paladin/Warlock. I would reach for the ban stick if someone came to be with a drow, vampire, or talking dog without a really awesome story to back up the idea.

 

[Celebrim]

My point is, anything--monk included--can be reskinned from one culture/theme to another.

Even if I concede that, it doesn't concede that a Monk can be reskinned as a generic disciplined warrior. Like it or not, you are picking up the baggage of, "I'm deadly with my fists." Your reskinning in to a new 'culture/theme' doesn't in fact involve anything but inventing backgrounds to fit the very specific mechanics of the class. It's not a case of the mechanics being configurable to fit the tropes. Whatever your local color, you still end up with a D&D monk in drag. In stock 3.X, monk is probably the least configurable do it yourself class in core. You don't have class options like domains, specializations, bloodlines, etc. You don't have a lot of selectable bonus feats. You don't have a configurable spell list. What you do have is heavy MAD, an alignment restriction, and an almost entirely static level by level fixed progression of class abilities. Regardless of the color of the culture and the source of the powers, you end up with something that is mechanically a lot like every other monk.

A generic disciplined warrior would need to be a class that could be built around different attributes, different weapons, different fighting styles, and different approaches to armor. That's not what you get with a monk. What you get with a monk is David Carradine and if your DM allows it, a makeup kit.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I wasn't the one suggesting that a monk could be a generic disciplined warrior. I'm merely suggesting that if one's objections to the monk are cosmetic or cultural, there are ways around it.

If one's problems are mechanical, of course that's a different story. But as several people objected due to the wuxia aesthetic, I felt it appropriate to point out options.

Sometimes a "make-up kit" is all you need.

 

[Quartz]

Anyway, back to banning things.

I think that at the very start of a normal campaign I'd ban anything other than human. After all, the other races - if they exist in the campaign at all - will have secrets behind them and I would want the players to have the pleasure of discovering those secrets. For instance, I might re-skin elves as warforged made from wood. Or as larval treants. Once a race has been discovered then it would be available for use.

For a wilder campaign, I might insist everyone take races of the same LA.

 

[Hussar]

I have no problem as a player if a DM bans things because they don't fit the setting but I do have an issue if they ban things in every game simply because they don't like them.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-Banned-Races-and-Classes/page6#ixzz37m4uedg4

Heh, I made a comment to that effect years ago and got absolutely dog piled for it. Pages and pages of people telling me what a terribly entitled player I was to even suggest that the DM doesn't have the absolute right to ban anything at the table for any reason. Times maybe have changed a bit.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Heh, I made a comment to that effect years ago and got absolutely dog piled for it. Pages and pages of people telling me what a terribly entitled player I was to even suggest that the DM doesn't have the absolute right to ban anything at the table for any reason. Times maybe have changed a bit.

Seems to me the issue is this: if you only "permit" the DM to ban things for "good" reasons, you then have the question of whether his stated reason for a ban is the actual reason. A player might accuse the DM of ignoring his "perfectly reasonable" argument for inclusion just because he secretly doesn't like them.

I'd suggest the best option is to (a) trust the DM and allow him to ban whatever or (b) grumble a lot and put up with it. (Assuming that "don't play with that DM isn't a desirable outcome.)

 

[Kobold Stew]

Heh, I made a comment to that effect years ago and got absolutely dog piled for it. Pages and pages of people telling me what a terribly entitled player I was to even suggest that the DM doesn't have the absolute right to ban anything at the table for any reason. Times maybe have changed a bit.

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!