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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7165763" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I pretty much allow any race or class. I don't see what's really to be gained by limiting those choices, unless I have a really specific theme in mind. However, since my campaign is actually a continuation of several prior campaigns, taking place in the big D&D setting worlds, there's not much reason to restrict anything. We pretty much play in the entirety of the D&D playground. In fact, I'm very open to players coming up with new concepts. Because our campaign is also using older material we played in previous editions, we do have a few kind of out there options....we have a mind flayer PC, and a Shade PC, and a Cavalier PC, and an Assassin PC, and so on. The classes are pretty easy to fit into existing 5E mechanics (the Cavalier is a fighter, the Assassin is a Rogue/Fighter with the Assassin subclass, etc.) but the races take a little bit of work. I primarily DM, so I can understand the desire to limit such things to only be the things I like, but that's a bit selfish, so I really try not to do it unless there's a strong reason. And doing that has actually made me like some of the concepts I previously dismissed. For example, I am not really that fond of gnomes or druids....but I've had players who like them, and have made cool characters that made me look at them in a different light. If you label something as being bad and then never ever allow it to be used, then of course your opinion will never change. To be fair, most legends depict members of any class as being human because most legends are about humans. Elves and dwarves and the like aren't really portrayed as being as similar to mankind as we think of them now in most legends. Seems odd to limit the paladin and not other classes based on this criteria.</blockquote>

Verification