Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elf Witch" data-source="post: 6338811" data-attributes="member: 9037">I think it really depends on why you don't like them. Is it because you feel they are to powerful, or they are to cheesy and don't fit your game or they break your ability to suspend disbelief there are valid reasons not to want them in your game. But I have met DMs who ban things because they don't like elves because they hate the way Peter Jackson portrayed them or they had a bad experience with a player who ruined a campaign as a gnome so no more gnomes.  Or they have read online some where that this class is broken even though they have actually seen it in play. I support the idea of multiclassing because it allows players more freedom to create their concept. But role playing is important to me and suddenly out of the blue a player goes I leveled and I am now a wizard is not going to fly. You don't just become a wizard you have to study to become one. Barbarians are more than just a class there is an assumption that they come from a non civilized culture. So you can't just become a barbarian unless you go and actually spend time with them.  If a player wants the rage ability then he can take it as a feat. As for the monk we just need to agree to disagree which is fine because both of us are entitled to our opinions. I think there is a world of difference between being presented with a 600 page work that a DM has put a lot of work into and being told no you can't play a paladin because every player I have had plays them wrong. See I see it working both ways yes the DM is trusting me to become part of the group and be an asset but I am also trusting the DM and the group to help provide a good gaming experience. It is a two way street. I want to add there is a huge difference in a well thought out set of house rules and micromanaging your campaign.</blockquote>

Verification