D&D 5E When lore and PC options collide…

[HammerMan]

why not... everyone is perfectly fine with insulting each other and pretending they are being assaulted at this point. these threads have become more and more cess pits.

Have you notice a common theme in the threads that end up this way?

 

[Velderan]

your right context matters... the entire thread and the post he responded to show the context is he is calling anyone that disagrees a douche

That's not what he said at all and you know it.

 

[Maxperson]

That's just wrong.

Max doesn’t need me to defend him, but here’s the quote:

Yep. Despite being told multiple times that I wasn't referring to anyone here AND telling him exactly what the comment was for, @GMforPowergamers is still willfully misrepresenting my words and intentions.

No one was called a douche for wanting to play a PHB race/class.

Thanks for stepping in.

 

[Maxperson]

except again... this is in the context of pages (threads really) of him argueing that the suggestion of an orc or half orc on krynn would ruin the world and the player would be in the wrong...

I've literally never said that even a single time and have several times said the opposite, but thanks for playing the Misrepresent My Words Game again.

 

[Maxperson]

your right context matters... the entire thread and the post he responded to show the context is he is calling anyone that disagrees a douche

And a third time! You get the Misrepresent the Words of Another trifecta!

 

[MoonSong]

None of that has anything to do with the Sorcerer's "toys"; that is metamagic, which only the Sorcerer subclass gets FWIW, especially since I don't use the feats in TCoE. They still have Sorcerer points and can exchange them for spells slots

However, since you asked: yes, a spellbook and casts with INT. It is a WIZARD subclass now.

So you did kill the sorcerer and gave wizard its toys... At least is your subclass called the inchantatrix?

 

[Lanefan]

So.. like a literal slippery slope argument?

Please tell me how this is going to happen, because that's the thing that keeps going missing form these screaming matches: How is having this one thing or even multiple things contained to this specific character in this specific campaign going to destroy everything.

If I don't want to run a 'monsters' campaign yet over time one by one each player ends up with a monster as their PC, my campaign has clearly slid down that slope.

People keep asking like they need to build up entire add-ons to the world and do all kinds of work to just explain why this guy looks funny or casts funny or is actually capable while swinging a stick.

Three-word answer: consistency, fairness, precedent.

I will neither play in nor run a game/campaign that doesn't base itself on all three of those precepts.

 

[Lanefan]

Or a Knight. Not everything needs be expressed in strictly in D&D terms.

When talking about what D&D classes would/would not fit into a particular setting, putting things in D&D terms would seem to go with the territory.

 

[Lanefan]

I as a player don't like Paladins. Rather than just not playing one, I will conspire with the DM to make sure another player, who likes playing Paladins isn't allowed to.

Is that a thing that sounds reasonable?

Because that's what this actually is. One player keeping the others from playing what they want because they don't personally like them. The DM isn't special in this aspect.

Yes, the DM is special in this aspect.

If any given player stops enjoying the game and quits, the game goes on and a replacement can IME usually be recruited.

If the DM stops enjoying the game and quits, there is no more game.

So, if I as player don't like Paladins and someone decides to play one, I'll probably just accept it, in full knowledge that Paladins - if played well - tend to drop like flies through their own self-sacrificial actions anyway and thus the issue will be temporary.

But if I as DM don't like Paladins then it's my prerogative to ban them outright during setting design, before players even get invited in.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, but then you have to set up the security fence perimeter and double check batteries. Next thing you know you accidentally zapped Bob one too many times because they used the wrong bathroom and then you have to dig that hole in the back yard to bury the body. Bright side, you get rid of Bob. But all the paperwork with the city to verify where all the pipes and cable are? It's just too much hassle.

The bigger hassle would be that now you need to recruit another player as Bob's replacement...