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



## Zardnaar (Jul 16, 2014)

As the thread says. What are your banned/restricted races and classes? For the most part I allow any class or race into the game that was in the 3.5 PHB/PFRPG with the exception of the monk.

Banned Classes.

Monk. Reason I really hate them. I wasa child in the 80's and watched cheese like The Karate Kid and Bruce Lee movies. Not a fan of wuxia type films or at least having them in D&D anyway so no monks. They are allowed in an OA type game but I will never DM one of those with maybe the exception of 1st ed one day.

Races.
All of the 1st Ed/3.5 PHB races are fine.

Probably (Ask 1st)
 Aasimar Goblins, Kobolds, Hobgoblins

Maybe (Campaign Dependent)
Drow, Tieflings, Genasi, most humanoids

Hell No.
 Anything large, Dragonborn, Kender, Warforged, anything anthropomorphic, 

 Note that if I am running a specific campaign setting (Eberorn, Dragonlance, DarkSun) you can be a member of the banned races as such as long as they are a major part of that campaign world.


----------



## Ichneumon (Jul 16, 2014)

I'm the last guy to ban anything, but the 5e playtest paladin got put into 'temporary retirement' for my games. The always-on save shield was just too good.

The players' response? "We're not surprised."


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jul 16, 2014)

I really don't like the Dragonborn from 4e. I am actually not too fond of any of the "extra" races they have added. It's mostly because I just find the fiction to make them fit in convoluted. I haven't banned any though, and 4e really reduced the options I felt you had when it comes to "suitable" races, but that's mostly the power gamer in me. 

I kind of liked the LotR style where humans are the "ordinary" and everyone else a bit strange and mystic a lot better.

Regarding classes, I don't like the monk in a typical "western" setting. It's fine in an oriental setting though.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Jul 16, 2014)

Zardnaar said:


> Monk. Reason I really hate them. I wasa child in the 80's and watched cheese like The Karate Kid and Bruce Lee movies. Not a fan of wuxia type films or at least having them in D&D anyway so no monks. They are allowed in an OA type game but I will never DM one of those with maybe the exception of 1st ed one day.



My problem with the monk is that it's this one randomly specific asian-themed class in a faux-medieval Europe milieu. That page space could be filled with a more versatile pugilist class, but I guess enough players want to be Jacky Chan with magical powers that the devs devote those pages to the monk class edition after edition, so whatever.

In 3e, I was satisfied enough to drop the Lawful requirement; in 4e, I don't even have to do that, so I'm happy enough. 

In the past the only thing I've banned are the 'essentials' classes -- god I hate that misnomer! -- because I don't trust them to be balanced. But recently I'm edging toward "Eh, sure, why not?" If I see a potential problem, I can nerf it away.


----------



## the Jester (Jul 16, 2014)

I am fairly permissive. If it's a viable pc race and it is in my campaign world, I'm down.

That said, neither Drow nor gith of any kind are pc races imc.

I also don't go for annoying races: gully dwarf, kender, tinker gnomes, that kind of thing.

All that said, my preference is for a game where the race mixture fits fairly well with the existing population demographics of the area, or it's easy to justify a pc of that race being in the group.


----------



## Minigiant (Jul 16, 2014)

I don't ban races and classes. I discourage them or enhance them with mechanics. A lot more fun.

All dwarves are insane and suffer from fits of rage outside of dwarflands.

Wizardy has taboos and special monster kill taboo breakers for power.

Druids who use plant magic use photosynthesis and get sick without light. Same with animal spells and diet.


----------



## JeffB (Jul 16, 2014)

If it's in Moldvay, it's Okay.  Basic four food groups.

Also Gnomes, Rangers, and the occasional Barbarian (13th Age


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 16, 2014)

I don't like banning things in the PHB. At least, not the first PHB of a given edition. I feel like I'm doing a disservice to new players (I've taught a lot of people) if I have to ban things in the book that's mostly responsible for bringing in new players. Also, I like having a book that's "o.k. this is all legal, no exemptions."

It's like looking for El Dorado.

After that, everything is fair game.

Left to my own devices as a DM, I generally don't allow classes and races specific to a campaign setting unless that is the campaign setting I am running. Then I treat the main setting book like the PHB. 

Things I've banned: everything by minotaurs in 4e's PHB 3, Shard Mind's specifically, Candle Casters from Tomb and Blood, and way to many other 3.x PRCs to list. Technically, 3.x PRCs were on an approval basis, but I approved most requests because my players usually made good decisions.

I've seen some rumblings that seem to be taking the new 5e Basic as 'core' and banning very little (if anything) from it while treating the PHB as another supplement. I don't think I'll be taking the view.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 16, 2014)

It depends on the game and campaign. For the current Pathfiner game I am running gnomes were not an option as in the last campaign in this setting the gnomes left the world for Reasons. 

Now there are classes like the Warlock and Summoner I don't like and I'll encourage players to choose something else but if they have a cool character concept I am inclined to find a way to make it work. I love it when my players do that.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 16, 2014)

I think it's fine to keep a campaign flavor, but I try to work in unique things my players want. 

If all else fails, and what they really want are the mechanical bits more than the story bits, reskinning is a very useful option.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Jul 16, 2014)

I never banned, but I informed players up-front that I do play racial hatreds up-front. Amazingly, the player who made a drow didn't protest when they ended up in jail the entire time the party was in an elf settlement. But the player also didn't make a drow again after that.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 17, 2014)

I don't have a general rule - I choose on a campaign by campaign basis.  I've usually found the PHB to be sufficient for my needs, but if players want something beyond that, we can talk and see if it fits in the world.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2014)

It's certainly going to be campaign by campaign, but, generally, I don't outright ban anything.


----------



## steeldragons (Jul 17, 2014)

I feel its a matter of...perspective. I don't "Ban" anything...because certain things to do not exist in the game world in the first place. They aren't there...I don't have to say they "aren't there." If you want to say "It's in the PHB its LAW!!!" then, I suppose, I do "ban" things.

Dragonborn, Tieflings, Shardminds, Wilden (those were the plant people right?), "Fey-stepping Eladrin", any setting specific races, including but not limited to: kender, warforged, thri-kreen, half-giants, et al. do not exist in the game world. Hence, they are not up for grabs for PCs.

Minotaurs & Drow are evil-by-nature creatures. Most goblinoids as well (though I would likely allow a hobgoblin or goblin PC. No one's ever asked). My world's version of "Grey Elves", whether or not you want to equate that to "Eladrin" (I wouldn't but some might). None of these, though they exist in the world, are available for PCs.

Setting specific or other game system classes are not permitted. No artificers. No [PF] summoners. No [PF] cavaliers...etc...Pretty much anything that is considered a "prestige class" is out. I don't know what books they're from or if they're prestige classes or what, but no duskblades, soulknives, the dozen different "guys with magic and swords" n' all that business. 

Barbarians are a human culture and class in my game world. Your halfling with anger management issues is not/and will not be a "Barbarian" class in my games.

...and Halflings have bushy-topped hairy feet/don't wear shoes.

As a player, you have...liberally, about a dozen or so races, including 6-8 cultures of human...a dozen to 15 or so sanctioned classes (more if you want to count each arcane specialist as a separate class)...if you can't make a PC you want to play out of those combinations...shrug. Because something is in a PHB does not make it any more "mandatory" than in a DMG or MM or any further supplement.


----------



## Lalato (Jul 17, 2014)

Oh... I'm a firm believer in making each campaign world unique.  Banning classes and races is one way to do that.  Houseruling them is another way.

I also rather enjoy worlds that aren't based on medieval Europe.


----------



## The Human Target (Jul 17, 2014)

Nothing.

I don't get hating a game thing enough to ban other people from enjoying it, and I've never run into something so broken that it ruins the game.

Being the DM doesn't make my opinions about this stuff more important than my players.

I'd never want to play a shadar-kai spiked chain wielding death cleric, but if ya want to I'll work with it.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 17, 2014)

The Human Target said:


> I don't get hating a game thing enough to ban other people from enjoying it, and I've never run into something so broken that it ruins the game.




Hyperbolic.  I have banned things for some games.  It isn't out of "hate" - "hate" is reserved for things that cause real-world harm to real-world people.  

When I've done it, it is because the thing in question simply didn't fit with the other thematic elements, social structures, and such.


----------



## Lalato (Jul 17, 2014)

I don't look at as hating something.  Though some might ban things because they hate.

I look at it as creating a living, breathing campaign world.  If you're building a post-apoc campaign setting, some races and classes may not make sense. Maybe a particular race was wiped out by the cataclysm.  Maybe the tools required for a certain class archetype no longer work.  Maybe physics works differently.

If you're trying to model a campaign around a great novel you read. And let's say that novel doesn't mention certain races, you might ban them because they don't fit the setting.  Alternatively, you might modify existing races to make the new campaign setting work.

If a player later comes along and wants to play something that doesn't fit in the world... you're always welcome to allow it, but that player should be ready to play the very first of the species in the campaign world.  People will react to such a creature in interesting and maybe dangerous ways.

Anyway... it's not about hate, at least not for me.  It's about telling the story of your campaign.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jul 17, 2014)

Yep. It’s a campaign by campaign basis, really, but I don’t feel the need to ‘ban’ anything. Except Kender, obviously, as they suck… 

Classes I feel are a bit superfluous, however, include the Barbarian and Sorcerer (as of 3rd edition experience). In the case of the Barbarian, I think it’s more of a background rather than a class - I think a lot of the archetype could have been handled under the umbrella of a Fighter (with specifically chosen traits and skills). Similarly, Sorcerers just seem like a mechanical difference to Wizards to me, that could have been handled with some sort of ‘spontaneous magic’ trait or feat. I’d have argued the same sort of thing for Warlords, although they no longer exist as a class (although they may end up as some sort of background or Bard speciality perhaps). I’ll wait and see how Sorcerers pan out in 5e though.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Jul 17, 2014)

In 3.5 and 4 I've always wanted everything in the core three books -- so that includes monsters as player races at the back of the MM, but nothing else without specific permission. It's a clear benchmark that is egalitarian and represented a safe benchmark from which to add. 

But I always prefer to add than subtract. 5th might be the first time something in the core three books doesn't get included by default. 

And if that's the case, it's my job to see that as a virtue of the system, and not as a problem.


----------



## The Human Target (Jul 17, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Hyperbolic.  I have banned things for some games.  It isn't out of "hate" - "hate" is reserved for things that cause real-world harm to real-world people.
> 
> When I've done it, it is because the thing in question simply didn't fit with the other thematic elements, social structures, and such.




The OP says he bans monks in part because he hates them.

No hyperbole.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 17, 2014)

For my next campaign (set in Onnwal, Greyhawk) I'll be slightly restricting races and classes available. The one big one is banning monks. The fun thing about that is that monks certainly exist... it's just that they all belong to the Scarlet Brotherhood, the chief bad guys of the campaign!

As the campaign is set in an area where humans and dwarves make up the bulk of the inhabitants, I'm giving serious thought to banning elves, but I'll probably just see how many players want to play one.

Cheers!


----------



## The Human Target (Jul 17, 2014)

Lalato said:


> I don't look at as hating something.  Though some might ban things because they hate.
> 
> I look at it as creating a living, breathing campaign world.  If you're building a post-apoc campaign setting, some races and classes may not make sense. Maybe a particular race was wiped out by the cataclysm.  Maybe the tools required for a certain class archetype no longer work.  Maybe physics works differently.
> 
> ...




Yeah, temporarily restricting options for a specific game the group agrees to in advance ( like say do divine characters in Dark Sun) is one thing.

Though I will say on a personal preference note, I play D&D to play D&D.

I don't really go in for using the D&D rules to run a Napoleonic Wars campaign or Conan the Barbarian game.

Which is probably why I like inclusivity.


----------



## The Human Target (Jul 17, 2014)

MerricB said:


> For my next campaign (set in Onnwal, Greyhawk) I'll be slightly restricting races and classes available. The one big one is banning monks. The fun thing about that is that monks certainly exist... it's just that they all belong to the Scarlet Brotherhood, the chief bad guys of the campaign!
> 
> As the campaign is set in an area where humans and dwarves make up the bulk of the inhabitants, I'm giving serious thought to banning elves, but I'll probably just see how many players want to play one.
> 
> Cheers!




Curse the Scarlet Brotherhood!

See in that game I'd probably lobby to be an elf, because being the only one around would open up a lot of fun circumstances.


----------



## Ratskinner (Jul 17, 2014)

I don't historically have any standing bans, but I sometimes institute them on a campaign by campaign basis when I DM. Frex in one campaign I wanted them all to be royals, so they all had to be human.


----------



## Salamandyr (Jul 17, 2014)

I'll ban things.  I'll probably ban the monk, because a guy who can kill things with his bare hands what other people need swords and bows to kill is a higher level version of the guy with the sword or the bow, not a different thing altogether.  

I often ban clerics, because their existence makes metaphysical statements about my campaign world that I'm not prepared to allow.  And also it's the only class whose power is really in being an adjunct to another being, which is uncomfortable.  Well, now there's the warlock, but then the cleric and the warlock are very similar in kind, only their granted powers are different.

I think most people are comfortable with banning races inappropriate to the campaign world, probably more than they are  classes.

And lemme see, I will always ban double weapons.  No suicide swords.  They don't work, they're not cool, and a quarterstaff isn't any more a double weapon than a longsword is (after all, you hit people with the pommel and quillions too).


----------



## Umbran (Jul 17, 2014)

The Human Target said:


> The OP says he bans monks in part because he hates them.
> 
> No hyperbole.




That *he* bans things because he hates them does not imply that and horrible brokenness are the only reasons, though, which was the implication I got from the post.  So, yes, it read like hyperbole.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 17, 2014)

I ban Europeans and those with a net worth of more than $500,000, because those are bad enough on their own and that combo is just broken. 

Unless they bring beer.


----------



## TwoSix (Jul 17, 2014)

I don't ban anything.  If you want to play something weird, come up with a way to fit it into the game.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 17, 2014)

I ban stuff that doesn't fit the campaign, so no warforged in Greyhawk, for example. I also ban stuff I want to reserve for DM use only. That includes Drow and, in my Greyhawk game, psionics (I made them a specialty of the Scarlet Brotherhood).


----------



## Gilladian (Jul 17, 2014)

In the main campaign world I run, I do put some limits on races and classes:
No drow, gnomes or dragon-related races. I add grippli, catfolk and were-folk as playable races. Dwarves are heavily modified, and elves are slightly modified. Otherwise the standard PH 3.5e races are all fine.

No monks, oriental classes or paladins (replaced with my own knight prestige classes) - this rule changed slightly when we switched to running an E6 version of dnd - I started allowing paladin again, as prestige classes don't really work.

If I were to run another campaign setting my restrictions would probably change, as these rules are suited to that particular world, not to my permanent view of what's right/wrong for DnD.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Jul 17, 2014)

I'm down with just about anything. In fact when players want to use non-setting races in a specific campaign I challenge them to come up with a creative justification or reskinning, and they often do.

That said, I have a *very *strict No-Gnomes policy.


----------



## Greg K (Jul 17, 2014)

It depends on the campaign.  I have run campaigns that were humans only.
Rather than list what I don't use, I will list what I allow

For 3e 
I, typically use the following : Dwarves, Elves*, Gnomes, Half-Elf, Halfling, Humans, Lizardman (depending upon campaign, also Half-orc and Half-Ogre)
*My version of dark elves are elves with a different skin color/hair color, and  different favored class

For 3e classes, I use the following or some subset of depending upon campaign: Barbarian (including the Unearthed Arcana Crafty Hunter variant), Bard (including the Arcane Sage, Divine Bard, and Savage Bard (Unearthed Arcana Variants), Cleric (with DMG tailored spell lists variant and by deity Cloistered Cleric UA and homebrew variant classes), Fighter, Paladin (including non-spell casting variant from Complete Champion), Ranger (including non-spell casting variant from Complete Champion and the UA Urban Ranger), Rogue (including Martial Rogue and Wilderness Rogue UA Variants), Sorcerer, Wizard

I also use the Oriental Adventures Shaman with a few tweaked abilities (replaces the Monk), Hong's Knight (an OA Samurai variant), and the following classes from Green Ronin:  Holy Warrior, Psychic (instead of the WOTC Psionics classes), Shaman (instead of the Druid and WOTC's Spirit Shaman), Thaumaturge (DM only which replaces the Warlock), and Witch (also replaces the Druid).


If I ran 4e, my typical list would be
Races: Dwarf, Eladrin, Elf, Gnome, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Halfling, Human

Classes:  Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock (GM only except for Feylock which would be allowed for PCs too), Warlord, Wizard, Barbarian (no elemental based powers), Bard, Invoker, Shaman, Sorcerer.


----------



## Stormonu (Jul 17, 2014)

I wouldn't say that I ban, but I certainly discourage anything that wouldn't obviously fit.  It's then up to the player to come up with an acceptable story why/how that character got there.  I have even on some occasions helped players come up with something when they suggest something wild (but awesome) but have trouble articulating a good idea of fitting it into the group.

Outwardly, I've made it clear "no evil".  But that's because I don't want to explain that I'll even allow evil so long as it doesn't turn into a 'screw all the other players and go join the villain out of spite'.


----------



## Rod Staffwand (Jul 17, 2014)

I like distinctive campaigns and worlds and I'm not a fan of getting "D&D" into my D&D, so there's almost always some changes to character options.

I've done a bunch of human-only worlds and they're probably my favorites. I usually ditch halflings as too LotRsy and subraces of elves other than "elf" as too elfy. I don't think I've run a game for a dwarf character in close to 20 years, but that's been a lot of player preference. I'm also a big fan of kit-bashing one or two common races for worlds to make them even more distinctive: gargoyles, harpies, weresharks, arcane minotaurs, living illusions, etc.

As for classes, I almost always get rid of clerics with a generic caster class picking up healing and support spells. I hate just about everything about the class in every edition of D&D--fluff, mechanics, everything. I like the druid better, but dislike the implementation in most (all) editions. I've got various rewritten versions that I use along with vastly reduced spell lists for all casters.

If a player comes up with a concept that doesn't fit the world, I always try to work with them to reach a compromise or offer world-friendly alternatives that the player might enjoy.

Oh...and I outright ban evil, self-serving characters; inter-party scheming and backstabbing; and brooding loner characters with hair-trigger tempers. D&D is based around group adventuring and you're responsible for coming up with a reason and a willingness to interact with the group.


----------



## The Human Target (Jul 17, 2014)

Yeah, I do ban evil.

I don't need that headache.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jul 17, 2014)

I don't like using Monks, because I find the presence of _one only_ oriental type of character in an otherwise western inspired setting annoying. I love Monks in an oriental setting without western classes. I would be totally fine with Monks in a _truly_ kitchen-sink fantasy setting that also has other non-western classes such as shamans or witch-doctors. But just one class is out of tune.

I am not a fan of half-races. I like bloodline-types such as aasimars and tieflings, but not half-X or stuff like dragonborn.

I hate Warforged in general. Too much sci-fi or pulp for my taste, and I don't like mixing fantasy with other genres in D&D.

However, I also do run kitchen-sink games or vanilla settings, in which case I probably allow anything. But in that case I'm not going to spend much effort in trying to establish consistency to such setting. IOW, if you want to eat a soup that tastes like everything, I can cook it for you, but then you can't pretend to sort out a consistent flavor 

BTW, I really appreciate that WotC is presenting 5e races as "Common" and "Uncommon". Makes it feel like the job of the DM is to choose what to _include_ rather than what to _ban_.


----------



## Yora (Jul 17, 2014)

I always create whitelists with classes and races that exist in the setting of the campaign. Everything else can't be played because it does not exist.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jul 17, 2014)

Actually, thinking it, I DO have a banned list. That is, any Class outside of the Player’s Handbook not pertaining to a specific setting. 

What I mean by that is that I hope D&D doesn’t go down the route of previous editions by creating loads and loads of crunchy books with extra Classes to the point that you end up with a bazzillion of them. If a setting specifically has particular Classes central to it, then I’d consider them, but otherwise 12 should be enough. 

Races are slightly more adaptable, to a degree - if people look at a particular adaptable creature from the Monster Manual then I’d consider it - but again, no more splatbooks please.


----------



## wedgeski (Jul 17, 2014)

I've DM'd for two different kender PC's. If they can be made to work, anything can be made to work. I've never banned a race or class.

Evil groups, though, no. Not under my roof, ever.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2014)

Funnily enough, recently, we have been playing evil campaigns. It's an interesting tension in the game. Everyone gets a whole lot more polite because everyone knows that if you take it too far, you might wake up dead. 

The truly interesting thing is I find that evil parties work better together. Far more pragmatic.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Jul 17, 2014)

If its in a book on my physical or virtual shelf, you can play it.  If its in a book not on my shelves - buy it for me and you can play it.

About the only "ban" I've enforced is no evil alignments when DMing for my kids.  

I'll also sometimes limit something to one per group - a cleric in Dark Sun or pre War of the Lance Dragonlance, for example.  

Otherwise, go for it.  I've had player character shadows, were-polar-bears, multi-template-bug thing-that-I-don't-even-remember-the-core-race-of, kender-in-Ravenloft, pegataurs, angels, nimblewrights, and a bunch of stuff I'm forgetting.

Yeah, it stretches the campaign verismawhatever, but I prefer to think of it as a challenge - where did this character come from? What sort of prejudices are they going to face among "normal" races?  What story hooks does this character's presence provide?


----------



## The Black Ranger (Jul 17, 2014)

If it doesn't fit or if I don't like it then I ban it. 

If you don't like themed games where everything fits then you wouldn't like my games.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jul 17, 2014)

MasqueradingVampire said:


> If its in a book on my physical or virtual shelf, you can play it.  If its in a book not on my shelves - buy it for me and you can play it.




Do you seriously make people both buy stuff AND permanently give it to _you_, rather than just letting you read through it? 

Personally I pretty much only _outright_ ban Evil PCs outside of Evil-specific campaigns (though if a player had a good idea on how to play them non-disruptively I'd consider it), and Wizards. Anything else is a matter of "can we fit this in?" dialog between me and the player.

Well, you can play what the rulebook calls a Wizard, but you'd better stick to the term Mage... <narrows eyes>


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Jul 17, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Do you seriously make people both buy stuff AND permanently give it to _you_, rather than just letting you read through it?
> 
> Personally I pretty much only _outright_ ban Evil PCs outside of Evil-specific campaigns (though if a player had a good idea on how to play them non-disruptively I'd consider it), and Wizards. Anything else is a matter of "can we fit this in?" dialog between me and the player.
> 
> Well, you can play what the rulebook calls a Wizard, but you'd better stick to the term Mage... <narrows eyes>




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.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Jul 17, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Do you seriously make people both buy stuff AND permanently give it to _you_, rather than just letting you read through it?




It could be worse: He could also charge a book rental fee for consulting the books to write-up the class and check and rules for it at each level-up.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 17, 2014)

Zardnaar said:


> What are your banned/restricted races and classes?



 Varied with the edition and venue:

AD&D: mostly /changed/ things, I used extensive variants in both eds.

3e:  Typically ran 'core only' at cons, and used pre-gens, anyway (which, I guess is like banning everything  the pregens don't have), used a lot of variants in my one home campaign.

4e:  Always use pre-gens at cons.  At other public venues I run 'anything goes.'  I've been running in public so much I haven't run a home game, but the one I'm in bans Expertise Feats, Hybrids, Essentials, post-E, and Dragon mag content.

5e:  I plan to run in organized play at public venues so will follow those policies.


----------



## Quartz (Jul 17, 2014)

Zardnaar said:


> Banned Classes.
> 
> Monk. Reason I really hate them. I wasa child in the 80's and watched cheese like The Karate Kid and Bruce Lee movies. Not a fan of wuxia type films or at least having them in D&D anyway so no monks. They are allowed in an OA type game but I will never DM one of those with maybe the exception of 1st ed one day.




Can I suggest you have a rethink? Instead of thinking of a Monk as a wuxia warrior, think of the Monk as a disciplined warrior. Consider a Knight / Monk or Fighter / Monk multiclass. (Both of which could easily model Tarquin from OoTS.)


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 17, 2014)

Zardnaar said:


> As the thread says. What are your banned/restricted races and classes? For the most part I allow any class or race into the game that was in the 3.5 PHB/PFRPG with the exception of the monk.




For 3.X

Banned Classes: Druid, Monk, Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin, all PrC's, any base class not in the PH unless excepted.

Allowed Non-Core Classes: Shaman (as Green Ronin wt. minor variations), Fanatic (Homebrew), Hunter (Homebrew), Champion (Homebrew), Explorer (Homebrew), Akashic (as Arcana Unearthed wt. minor variations), Feyborn (Homebrew)

There are however some differences between the homebrew fighters, wizards, clerics, rogues, sorcerers and so forth compared to stock 3.X.   In general, most classes above tier 3 is now about one tier lower and anything below tier 3 is about 1 tier higher.  The exact mechanics of that are too complex to go into.

Anything Else: Ask.  The answer is probably "No" unless the concept is archetypal to fantasy and there is class in the above list capable of handing the concept, and you can't get there with multiclassing either.  Keep in mind that I won't see a mechanical difference in how the class works as proof it can't handle the concept.  For example, mechanics aside, a psion is just a sorcerer with a slight flavor change.  If I wanted psions in my game, then I probably wouldn't have wizards and socerers and a wizard would just be a psion with a slight flavor change.  If the only reason you want to play the class is mechanical, the answer is "No."   If your whole character concept is mechanical, like, "I want full sneak attack and full BAB progression.", the answer is not only, "No.", but, "You might be unhappy with my table."

Banned Races: Halfling, Gnome, all races not in the PH unless excepted.

Allowed Non-Core Classes: Sidhe (Homebrew), Changling (Homebrew), Pixie (Homebrew), Goblin, Hobgoblin, Orine (Homebrew), Idreth (Homebrew)

Anything Else: Ask. The answer is probably, "No.", unless you have previously played one or more of the above previously and you have a darn good reason for wanting something unique and have enough understanding of the setting to understand the consequences of your choice.  If the race isn't LA +0 and can't be made as LA +0, the answer will be no.

There are however some minor differences between the homebrew elves, goblins, hoblins, and so forth compared to stock 3.X.   

Technically, I'm not sure that there is a race or class in my game that isn't 'homebrew', so in a real sense, everything published is banned.

Banned Alignments: None.  However, everyone in the party has to be able to play with everyone else in a social manner.  Anyone departing from party alignment 'norms', whether as a good guy or a bad guy (depending on the norm), has to take responsibility for finding a credible reason to be in the party and behaving in a constructive manner.  This includes behaving in a way that another character is not provoked to consider you an enemy unless everyone is on board with intra-party conflict.   In practice, there is no point in banning alignment.  Most players aren't able to play more than one alignment, so 90% of all players play all their characters as the same alignment regardless of what's on the sheet.   In practice, it works better to write on the sheet what they'll actually play than to try to fit the play into the alignment.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Can I suggest you have a rethink? Instead of thinking of a Monk as a wuxia warrior, think of the Monk as a disciplined warrior. Consider a Knight / Monk or Fighter / Monk multiclass. (Both of which could easily model Tarquin from OoTS.)




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.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 17, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> 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 (Jul 17, 2014)

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 (Jul 17, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> 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 (Jul 17, 2014)

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 (Jul 17, 2014)

Mouseferatu said:


> 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 (Jul 17, 2014)

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 (Jul 18, 2014)

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 (Jul 18, 2014)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 18, 2014)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2014)

Hussar said:


> 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!


----------



## Dungeoneer (Jul 18, 2014)

Mouseferatu said:


> 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.



Also, people act like 'fighting monk' is strictly non-medieval archetype. Apparently they've never heard of Friar Tuck? Europe had monks (and friars and other 'godly' men) and yes, sometimes they fought. You don't have to play it as wuxia at all.


----------



## Lalato (Jul 18, 2014)

Savage Wombat said:


> 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.)




(c) Discuss it at the table with the group, and we can all decide what's fun for us to play.


----------



## CM (Jul 18, 2014)

Races: I facetiously banned shardminds, just because I think they're so bizarre, but if somebody actually wanted to play one I'd figure out a way to reskin it and make it work. My FR campaigns don't allow Dark Sun or Eberron races, and the Dark Sun game uses only DS races (plus a few more I've fleshed out, such as minotaurs, jozhals, kenku, nikaal, ssurrans, and tareks).

Classes: Since I had a psionics-heavy Dark Sun game running concurrently with my FR Sundering campaign, I asked the players for that game not to make any psionic-classed PCs. That was a one-time thing though. My FR Neverwinter campaign had a gnome artificer reskinned as a priest of Gond. He was a lot of fun, though the player had to leave the campaign for IRL considerations. 

Edit: Oh. Forgot to mention that the DS campaign has no divine classes, obviously. Great thing about 4e is that there's still plenty of other effective healer classes to choose from.


----------



## Shiroiken (Jul 18, 2014)

Lalato said:


> (c) Discuss it at the table with the group, and we can all decide what's fun for us to play.



Depends on the group. In some groups, the DM is (at best) first among equals, while at others he's the absolute authority for the game. When I DM, I set the restrictions up front, but am willing to consider some ideas. If an idea just won't work for the campaign, then the player either accepts that restriction or chooses to leave. I've known far too many players that like to play weird for the sake of weird, and I find it very disruptive.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 18, 2014)

Hussar said:


> 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 said:


> 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 said:


> 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").
> 
> ...




Hussar I have mixed feelings about this. For example if a DM says I want to run an all human world then trying to convince him to let him an elf into the game does feel like player entitlement. On the other hand being told all the time no you can't play an elf in ever campaign feels like a DM letting his dislike get in the way of fun.

Savage Wombat you do have a point. But DMs know when they are banning things simply because they don't like them and I think players pick up on this. This is a cooperative game and I think banning something you hate all the time even if you have a player who really wants to play it is kind of selfish. 

Kobold Stew I agree that reskinning is a good way to handle things. In my homebrew if a player wanted a half orc I would offer the half hobgoblin from the Kalamar if they still didn't want that I am not sure what I would do maybe make a race that was similar. The orc issue or lack off is an important plot point in my game. If someone really wanted to play a dwarf and they were willing to accept that the rest of the humanoid races hate them and that they would be in for a tough time I would allow it. 


I do think if the DM is trying for a certain style game and the players have agreed to it then they should not fight to hard to play a banned race or class. That does smack a little to me of being a brat. There is a big difference to be in a DM saying in this game there are no half orcs and saying I will never allow half orcs in any game I run.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 18, 2014)

Elf Witch I agree with what you said. Trying to play an elf in a human only campaign wouldn't fly and was not what I was talking about. The DM isn't banning elves simply because he doesn't like elves but has a very specific game in mind. No problems. 

Where I tend to fall is when someone had fairly generic fantasy setting, even one that is very detailed, and bans something because he or she either doesn't like it or can't conceive of how to compromise. At that point, big warning bells are all going off in my head that I am probably a poor fit for that table.


----------



## MoonSong (Jul 18, 2014)

Hussar said:


> 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.




Well I don't entirely think things have changed as much, over the past month I started receiving a strong vibe after reading one delighted comment after another on how easy it was going to be forbidding stuff in the new edition. As if thousands of controlling DMs started laughing like maniacs as one. And that was scary. 
Well this thread existing (And others like "I'm banning feats forever" or something like that) is proof enough there are DMs out there that have already decided the PHB is superfluous and just another splatbook.  



Kobold Stew said:


> 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").
> 
> ...




Personally I hate wizards in general, and I truly despise them and everything they stand for in every single edition I have played, yet I wouldn't ever dream of banning them just for kicks. I dislike the class but I understand they are one of the most popular classes out there and I'm already too quirky as a DM to give myself that luxury. I mean as a DM you should care about the campaign and the kind of stories you want to tell, not about micromanaging the player's characters down to the last proficiency and feat. (Sadly I have found DMs that do and will only stop when you rules lawyer your right to play the character you want to play instead of a sockpuppet. And the new Basic approach doesn't give me much hope)




Lalato said:


> (c) Discuss it at the table with the group, and we can all decide what's fun for us to play.




This is my favored approach, another one I like is "Say yes", if it isn't broken and won't disrupt the table, require more work for the DM or cause a major change except for the enjoyment of the player playing the PC it should be allowed by default.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 18, 2014)

KaiiLurker said:


> Well I don't entirely think things have changed as much, over the past month I started receiving a strong vibe after reading one delighted comment after another on how easy it was going to be forbidding stuff in the new edition. *As if thousands of controlling DMs started laughing like maniacs* as one. And that was scary.
> Well this thread existing (And others like "I'm banning feats forever" or something like that) is proof enough there are DMs out there that have already decided the PHB is superfluous and just another splatbook.
> 
> 
> ...




It is not because I am a control freak DM. after 12 years of powergamers in 3rd ed a few weeks in 4E before I binned it I got sick of the min maxing and most of it was due to player options. Feats, powers, ability to easily aquire magical items and combo them with feats and/or powers. Just makes DMing a pain in the ass. Basically you spend hours developing a world and story and the players like turning up with some cheeseball combo and ruining it IMHO.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jul 18, 2014)

Dungeoneer said:


> Also, people act like 'fighting monk' is strictly non-medieval archetype. Apparently they've never heard of Friar Tuck? Europe had monks (and friars and other 'godly' men) and yes, sometimes they fought. You don't have to play it as wuxia at all.




Yep - a Monk is simply someone who lives an ascetic life, generally for religious reasons. There’s no implicit reason it’s associated with Eastern cultures - Western monks could also dedicate themselves to martial training.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Jul 18, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> Yep - a Monk is simply someone who lives an ascetic life, generally for religious reasons. There’s no implicit reason it’s associated with Eastern cultures - Western monks could also dedicate themselves to martial training.




Because Western monks actually tended to have military training as strictly_ not_ part of their ascetic lives. They were rather well known for it. Friar Tuck is so famous because he is known as an exception, not the rule.


----------



## The Human Target (Jul 18, 2014)

Zardnaar said:


> It is not because I am a control freak DM. after 12 years of powergamers in 3rd ed a few weeks in 4E before I binned it I got sick of the min maxing and most of it was due to player options. Feats, powers, ability to easily aquire magical items and combo them with feats and/or powers. Just makes DMing a pain in the ass. Basically you spend hours developing a world and story and the players like turning up with some cheeseball combo and ruining it IMHO.




What about dragonborm makes DMing a pain?

Or monks?


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 18, 2014)

The Human Target said:


> What about dragonborm makes DMing a pain?
> 
> Or monks?





 I run a Eurocentric game+ demi humans for the most part. A monk should be an educated cloistered cleric, a Dragonborn would appear to be a monster.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jul 18, 2014)

Nergal Pendragon said:


> Because Western monks actually tended to have military training as strictly_ not_ part of their ascetic lives. They were rather well known for it. Friar Tuck is so famous because he is known as an exception, not the rule.




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? 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. 

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?

I like Monks because a) Friar Tuck is indeed a cool archetype to want to play, and b) I like that there is some outlet towards playing a Class that has asceticism as their ‘power source’. 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.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Jul 18, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> 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? 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.
> 
> 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?




There's a large difference between "monastic order" and "monk." Monastic orders often had large numbers of members who were actually not monks; the monks themselves tended to be people who had taken vows of poverty, celibacy, nonviolence, etc. A monk was ultimately defined as someone choosing to live the closest to what was considered the most pious life, which typically came with some pretty heavy standards.

And, yes, we can have fighting monks... but the only sources to model those on are Eastern sources. Otherwise, the closest you come is the holy knights, and those are modeled by paladins.

Thus, why DnD monks are Eastern-themed.

Edit: Also, look up the original stories; Friar Tuck didn't actually do much fighting. That's a modern addition to the story.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jul 18, 2014)

Nergal Pendragon said:


> There’s a large difference between “monastic order" and "monk."






> Edit: Also, look up the original stories; Friar Tuck didn’t actually do much fighting. That's a modern addition to the story.



The fighting Knights Templar were monks, by definition. The only difference between a ‘monastic order’ and a monk is that the former term refers to an organisation of monks.   

The stories of Robin Hood were folklore. There wasn’t any original written tales to refer to.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Jul 18, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> The fighting Knights Templar were monks, by definition.
> 
> The stories of Robin Hood were folklore. There wasn’t any original written tales to refer to.




In order to be a monk, one had to be an ordained priest. The Knights Templar were not priests. So, no, they were not monks. They never could be monks because they didn't meet the basic requirements.

And the earliest surviving records of the tales of Robin Hood that were written down are from the 1400s.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 18, 2014)

RACE:
At campaign start I'll sometimes force the race, based on where they're starting out; and other races can join in later.

Barbarian in my game is a sub-race of Human, not a class, and always will be.

There are no Halflings in my games.  There are, however, Hobbits.

Otherwise, for races I don't tend to outright ban things but if you want something uncommon (this includes Gnomes) you have to risk rolling on a racial abundance table and being stuck with what you get; you're most likely going to end up with one of the basic races anyway but (un)lucky rolling can get you into a Leprechaun, Hobgoblin, Dryad, Sylph, or a bunch of other quasi-playable races.  You can also get into some unusual versions of standard races here - Gray, Arctic and Dark Elves, for example.

I can't see myself ever allowing Dragonborn or Tieflings in any game or system, ditto Warforged unless I for some odd reason was running a steampunk campaign.

CLASS:
I have 14 classes in my game - Cleric (War. Normal, Nature-a.k.a.-Druid), Fighter, Cavalier, Paladin, Ranger, Magic-User, Illusionist, Necromancer, Thief, Assassin, Bard, Monk.  That's it.  A few specific race-class combinations are banned - there are no Dwarf Wizard-types, for example - but I'm way more lenient than RAW 1e ever was; and most of the old racial level limits are long gone too.  That said, I think if I ever start another campaign I'm going to put a few restrictions back in.

Paladins aren't banned but they are somewhat discouraged by...

ALIGNMENT:
...any alignment being allowed, and played.  In my current campaign PC Necromancers in total have outnumbered PC Paladins 3-1 (and there's been about 6 PC Assassins as well, mostly multi-classed with something else); and if the party want to fight each other instead of the enemy it's all fine with me.

PSYONICS:
After years and years of trying to make them functional but not broken, I finally ditched them for PCs and most monsters. Some iconics e.g. Demons, Mind Flayers, etc. still have them, and are thus even more dangerous.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 18, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


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



Except Friar Tuck is not a Monk.  In game terms he's almost the archetype of the Cleric in how he fights and so forth, he just doesn't have the spellcasting (then again, nobody in Robin Hood does).

In fact, Robin Hood's merry band hits a bunch of class archetypes.  You've got lots of Fighters (e.g. Little John), lots of Rangers (including Robin Hood himself), some Thieves (can't think of any specific names but some of those guys have to be Thieves), a Cleric (Tuck), and a Bard (Alan a-Dale).  There's probably a Druid somewhere in there as well.

Lanefan


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jul 18, 2014)

Nergal Pendragon said:


> In order to be a monk, one had to be an ordained priest. The Knights Templar were not priests. So, no, they were not monks. They never could be monks because they didn't meet the basic requirements.
> 
> And the earliest surviving records of the tales of Robin Hood that were written down are from the 1400s.



No. The earliest surviving written records of Robin Hood come from the 13th century - but only as the occasional reference here and there. The stories were spread by word of mouth, and then written about later as poems and verse (15th century and after), before becoming formalised as written stories much later - 19th century or so. 

And sorry, you are mistaken about the Knights Templar. They were not just fighting men that happened to hang around a monastery. They were, by definition, an order of monks that were fully ordained by the Church. Some of them, in fact didn’t have any martial training either.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jul 18, 2014)

Lanefan said:


> Except Friar Tuck is not a Monk.  In game terms he’s almost the archetype of the Cleric in how he fights and so forth, he just doesn’t have the spellcasting (then again, nobody in Robin Hood does).
> 
> In fact, Robin Hood's merry band hits a bunch of class archetypes.  You've got lots of Fighters (e.g. Little John), lots of Rangers (including Robin Hood himself), some Thieves (can't think of any specific names but some of those guys have to be Thieves), a Cleric (Tuck), and a Bard (Alan a-Dale).  There's probably a Druid somewhere in there as well.
> 
> Lanefan




Friar Tuck is not a Cleric. That’s why he’s called ‘Friar’. 

In game terms - it’s a moot point because in D&D the Monk is a legit Class already - he’s a monk as he fights and doesn’t cast Cleric spells. 

Everybody has their own perspectives on archetypes, as you can see.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Jul 18, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> No. The earliest surviving written records of Robin Hood come from the 13th century - but only as the occasional reference here and there. The stories were spread by word of mouth, and then written about later as poems and verse (15th century and after), before becoming formalised as written stories much later - 19th century or so.
> 
> And sorry, you are mistaken about the Knights Templar. They were not just fighting men that happened to hang around a monastery. They were, by definition, an order of monks that were fully ordained by the Church. Some of them, in fact didn’t have any martial training either.




I'm referring to the actual written versions of the tales; those are 1400s and later. Not the references to them.

And I'm not wrong about the Knights Templar. I was wrong for not challenging you on calling them a monastic order; I looked it up and it turns out they weren't. They were a _military_ order. You can read about military orders in this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_order

In short, no, they were not monks. They actually were military men who happened to hang around monasteries. Because it was their job. And they were not even the only people who did it.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jul 18, 2014)

Nergal Pendragon said:


> I'm referring to the actual written versions of the tales; those are 1400s and later. Not the references to them. So, yes, what I wrote is correct and what you wrote agrees with it.
> 
> And, no, I'm not wrong about the Knights Templar. I was wrong for not challenging you on calling them a monastic order; I looked it up and it turns out they weren't. They were a Christian _military_ order. You can read about military orders in this link:
> 
> ...




And you can find out more about them by reading more sources, rather than just flicking around on google for something that you think supports you. Look, here’s a few that took me all of 4 seconds to find too: 

http://historymedren.about.com/od/templars/p/templars.htm
http://www.weird-encyclopedia.com/Knights-Templar.php
http://www.lordsandladies.org/knights-templar.htm

They were a militaristic, monastic order, m’kay. 

And have you read the poems that were written from the 1400s? They’re aren’t exactly Robin Hood as you might remember…


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Jul 18, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> And you can find out more about them by reading more sources, rather than just flicking around on google for something that you think supports you. Look, here’s a few that took me all of 4 seconds to find too:
> 
> http://historymedren.about.com/od/templars/p/templars.htm
> http://www.weird-encyclopedia.com/Knights-Templar.php
> ...




Your second link refers to them as being secular knights. The other two do not in any way refer to them being priests, and all three note them for their wealth and military power while speaking almost nothing about them having any sort of religious basis beyond who gave them authority. So, all of the evidence from your own links shows them to be a secular order of fighters who operated with the authority of the Church backing them. And since monks are religious by nature, that automatically rules them out.

And, yes, I have read some of the early ones. Friar Tuck was notable for having been a former monk in many of those early tales.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jul 18, 2014)

Nergal Pendragon said:


> Your second link refers to them as being secular knights. The other two do not in any way refer to them being priests, and all three note them for their wealth and military power while speaking almost nothing about them having any sort of religious basis beyond who gave them authority. So, all of the evidence from your own links shows them to be a secular order of fighters who operated with the authority of the Church backing them. And since monks are religious by nature, that automatically rules them out.
> 
> And, yes, I have read some of the early ones. Friar Tuck was notable for having been a former monk in many of those early tales.



Read them again, and get back to me. Possibly add a wikipedia search for ‘monk’ too.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 18, 2014)

As a player, seeing a DM with a shopping list of banned stuff does set off alarm bells in my heed. If the DM is, in my view, micromanaging the campaign to this degree, it's a sign that my playstyle will likely conflict and I should be asking a lot more questions before joining the group.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Jul 18, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> Read them again, and get back to me. Possibly add a wikipedia search for ‘monk’ too.




This is going to be fun.

Okay, first, the Wikipedia article you mentioned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk#Western_Christianity

Here's an important quote that relates to what you said about Friar Tuck:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Within western monasticism, it is important to differentiate between monks and friars. Monks generally live a contemplative life of prayer confined within a monastery while friars usually engage in an active ministry of service to the outside community.




However, note also that it differentiates between two levels of monkhood: Ordained priests and lay brothers. And, back around the time the Templars existed, that difference was _extremely important_.

How important? Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_brother

Basically, lay brothers were servants; in the eyes of the Church, they pretty much were not true monks. Only the ordained monks could perform what were considered the most important religious services.

Now, what does your second source have to say?



			
				Weird Encyclopedia said:
			
		

> The Knights Templar were a monastic military order formed at the end of the First Crusade with the mandate of protecting Christian pilgrims on route to the Holy Land. *Never before had a group of secular knights banded together and taken monastic vows.* In this sense they were the first of the Warrior Monks.





​Note that the only source you have for them being a monastic military order also refers to them as being secular knights. And while the others do say they took monastic vows, they don't say the Templars actually acted like monks. They don't even refer to the Templars as being lay brothers. So, other than their oath and that they tended to reside in monasteries, there's nothing within the texts that actually refers to them acting in any way like monks. They don't even act like lay brothers.

So, there is the problem. You don't actually have anything showing they were monks; only items saying they took monastic vows and calling them Warrior Monks. Plus, the very evidence you requested further disproves that Friar Tuck is an example of a monk.

Now, to go back to my original point: All of this has to do with the idea of monks being based on Eastern principals because the Western monks typically were not known for fighting.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 18, 2014)

Zardnaar said:


> As the thread says. What are your banned/restricted races and classes? For the most part I allow any class or race into the game that was in the 3.5 PHB/PFRPG with the exception of the monk.




All other things being equal, all non-PHB material is on a case-by-case basis unless I have something very specific in mind or someone makes a very convincing arguement.

I will not be having Dragonborn in any new D&D game because I don't think they are very thematic, and I hate 'monster races' in general. I especially despise lizard- or insect-based PC races.

In pretty much any homebrew game I do, I don't allow people to multiclass divine and arcane casting classes, and I try very hard not to think about the Bard. 

(I've always said I would someday just get rid of the cleric as a casting class, and now it looks like that day may be here: I'm thinking I might well be able to chunk the cleric and not destroy the normal balance of the game. At the same time, I generally enjoy playing a cleric and I'm just so used to the class that it's unlikely to overcome my natural laziness as far as re-writing large chunks of rules goes.)


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jul 18, 2014)

Nergal Pendragon said:


> This is going to be fun.




No. It’s not. People can read through the links or whatever they want on the subject from this day on. You may wish to review some of my previous posts, for example, as I am well aware of the difference between Monks and Friars. But I’m not going to engage in endlessly revolving pseudo-history debates with you any more. 

Monks are in as a Class in 5E, and can be justified from both East and West cultures. Last I’m going to say on the matter.


----------



## The Human Target (Jul 18, 2014)

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.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Jul 18, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> No. It’s not. People can read through the links or whatever they want on the subject from this day on. You may wish to review some of my previous posts, for example, as I am well aware of the difference between Monks and Friars. But I’m not going to engage in endlessly revolving pseudo-history debates with you any more.
> 
> Monks are in as a Class in 5E, and can be justified from both East and West cultures. Last I’m going to say on the matter.




That does not mean you are correct.

Pick up _The Templars: The Secret History Revealed _by Barbara Frale. In it, she discusses how the Pope had forbade priests, and all monks, from going into combat or spilling blood. She also argues the Templars were not monks because of that and the fact true monk orders had ordained priests in charge.

If you're wondering who she is, read this info about her:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Frale

So there is no Western origin for it because the monks were forbidden from fighting. And that is established historical fact.

Admittedly, I could have said this in my first posting... but I wanted to have a fun conversation, not a contest in who's right.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 18, 2014)

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 (Jul 18, 2014)

MasqueradingVampire said:


> 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...". 



Kobold Stew said:


> 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").
> 
> ...




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 (Jul 18, 2014)

The Human Target said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2014)

Oops, I meant flurry.

Furry of blows is a different thing.

I do ban those.


----------



## The Human Target (Jul 18, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2014)

The Human Target said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jul 18, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




Friar and Monk are used interchangeably. I've heard tons of people call him a monk. He wears a monk's habit, for god's sake, this isn't hard. Otherwise I agree that those are his main traits (that and fighting).



Celebrim said:


> 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.




Haha, no, I don't buy that this is what would come up on Family Feud in a million years. That's ridiculous.

"Bald" or "tonsure" or "shaved head" is much more likely.



Celebrim said:


> 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.




My exposure is since the 1980s and onwards, because,_ like most RPG players, last I checked_, I wasn't alive much before that. You seem to be under the bizarre misapprehension that films from the 1930s and ballads from the 1600s have anything to do with how most people, i.e. the public, and by extension, gamers, see Friar Tuck.

It's not like Robin Hood isn't still a frequent subject of TV/Movies etc.


----------



## Emerikol (Jul 18, 2014)

Reply to OP:

For reasons that are situational to the campaign, I could ban any class or race.  Generally though I have never banned the core 4 classes or races.  

I get the impression though that the question is not about what you'd do for a specific setting but rather what you'd avoid no matter what.  So given that criterion, I don't know necessarily anything that is absolute.   The tiefling is probably one I would ban *most* of the time.  I don't like the race.  

It is a standing rule in my games though that only the core 3 books are allowed by default.  Someone bringing me something in another book, has to get it approved.  If I feel strongly enough about something in a core book I will present it to the group before they even join my campaign.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Jul 18, 2014)

Seriously? We're having a historical debate about Friar Tuck??

My original point was that Yes, there is a Western archetype for the Fighting Monk. Is that archetype historically accurate? Who cares and entirely beside the point. This is D&D, it has armored clerics and elven rangers. It draws from folklore and fantasy literature and pop culture. I would argue that monks who fight or brawl or whatever have as much a place in it as anyone. If you dislike the wuxia flavor, don't explain the monk that way, but don't claim that you're banning it because it "doesn't belong."


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 18, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Friar and Monk are used interchangeably.




I rest my case.  



> "Bald" or "tonsure" or "shaved head" is much more likely.




Bald is certainly a good answer as well.



> My exposure is since the 1980s and onwards, because,_ like most RPG players, last I checked_, I wasn't alive much before that. You seem to be under the bizarre misapprehension that films from the 1930s and ballads from the 1600s have anything to do with how most people, i.e. the public, and by extension, gamers, see Friar Tuck.




If Ivanhoe, the Merry Adventures of Robin Hood, Robin Hood and His Merry Outlaws, the Adventures of Robin Hood and the like have so little influence on how the public and particularly nerds sees the character that they think he's a kung fu style martial artist, then I want nothing to do with their influences whatever they are.  I'd at least expect nerds to recognize that Friars are not Monks.  I'll take my jolly fat swordsman that uses a steel cap as a begging bowl any day.  I know that the story is decaying under the weight of parody, deconstruction, and reimagination for fantasy settings but I would have liked to believe that the situation is not as bad as you say.   



> "Presently the willows parted on the other bank, and Robin could hardly forebear laughing out right. His mystery was explained. It was not two men who had done all this singing and talking, but one--and that one a stout curtall friar who wore a long cloak over his portly frame, tied with a cord in the middle. On his head was a knight's helmet, and in his hand was a no more warlike weapon than a huge pasty pie, with which he sat down by the water's edge. His twofold argument was finished. The meat pie had triumphed; and no wonder! for it was the present witness, soon to give its own testimony.
> 
> But first the friar took off his helmet to cool his head, and a droll picture he made. His head was as round as an apple, and eke as smooth in spots."



 - From 'How Robin Hood met Friar Tuck', by J. Walker McSpadden


----------



## Kobold Stew (Jul 18, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> Bald is certainly a good answer as well.




Yes. Also: "quarter staff", "glutton", and "Slim Pickens"

(My information comes from Porky Pig, 
Rocket Robin Hood, and Disney. Kids these days have no respect for the source material.)


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 18, 2014)

Dungeoneer said:


> Seriously? We're having a historical debate about Friar Tuck??
> 
> My original point was that Yes, there is a Western archetype for the Fighting Monk.




But not for the monk as it is mechanically depicted in D&D.  Just because they share a name doesn't make them interchangeable.



> Is that archetype historically accurate? Who cares and entirely beside the point.




Well, I care, but yes, it is beside the point.   The point is that the monk as depicted in D&D isn't historically accurate for Korrel, the world I run games on.  So far as I know, there is nowhere on the whole continent of Sartha that has a culture appropriate for the D&D monk class.  



> This is D&D, it has armored clerics and elven rangers. It draws from folklore and fantasy literature and pop culture. I would argue that monks who fight or brawl or whatever have as much a place in it as anyone.




You don't get to tell me what D&D is for me at my table any more than I get to tell you what it is for you at your table.  If your D&D setting has Monks, great.  If it's also thoughtful, artfully done, internally consistent, and imaginative then even better.  But don't you don't get to tell me how to run my table no matter how well done yours is.  You have a kitchen sink setting where that makes sense - Planescape, for example - then that's a great setting.   But I'm in no way required to accept it as mine and run games there.



> If you dislike the wuxia flavor, don't explain the monk that way, but don't claim that you're banning it because it "doesn't belong."




I don't know about 'wuxia flavor', since one of the current PC's is a Sidhe rogue that bounces around like Yoda in the prequels during combats doing summersaults over and under foes while slashing them with his rapier, but the Monk class just doesn't belong.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 18, 2014)

Kobold Stew said:


> Yes. Also: "quarter staff", "glutton", and "Slim Pickens"
> 
> (My sources include Porky Pig,
> Rocket Robin Hood, and Disney. Kids these days have no respect for the source material.)




LOL.

Also traditional, in their own way.  The modern stuff tends to be parody of a parody, which renders it self-parody in my opinion.  The sad thing is apparently people no longer are aware that they are watching parody.


----------



## Emerikol (Jul 18, 2014)

Dungeoneer said:


> Seriously? We're having a historical debate about Friar Tuck??
> 
> My original point was that Yes, there is a Western archetype for the Fighting Monk. Is that archetype historically accurate? Who cares and entirely beside the point. This is D&D, it has armored clerics and elven rangers. It draws from folklore and fantasy literature and pop culture. I would argue that monks who fight or brawl or whatever have as much a place in it as anyone. If you dislike the wuxia flavor, don't explain the monk that way, but don't claim that you're banning it because it "doesn't belong."




Hey it's a fantasy world so if you can fit it then it fits.  The question is for most people would the monk as mechanically defined in D&D fit a traditional western european medieval setting.   I think not.   I though being DM and creator of my own campaign setting have added monks and it didn't make my campaign feel necessarily broken flavor wise because of it.

I tend to make my monks a secret order that trains like the Shao Lin temple of China.  They "appear" to be normal monks.  They instead are a secret society that serves some greater cause.   They are often spies in the high courts of the world.  Their grandmaster is thought to be a mastermind who is secretly manipulating half the thrones in the world.  These monks always appear as normal monks and thus they get access to areas that are not available to a heavily trained and armored knight.   When you need poisoning or knife work, the monk is often a capable agent.  If you want the secrets to the Kings defense of the city, then perhaps a monk can find that too.

See... I just added monk back into the world.

I do have to agree though that there is nothing obvious in history that tells us such a thing as the D&D monk really existed in western Europe.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jul 18, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> I rest my case.




So you agree? The words Friar and Monk are used interchangeably.



Celebrim said:


> Bald is certainly a good answer as well.




It's a lot better and far more likely than "swordsman". Non-specific "warrior" or the like is also more likely.



Celebrim said:


> If Ivanhoe, the Merry Adventures of Robin Hood, Robin Hood and His Merry Outlaws, the Adventures of Robin Hood and the like have so little influence on how the public and particularly nerds sees the character that they think he's a kung fu style martial artist, then I want nothing to do with their influences whatever they are.




I think you're somewhat confusing my argument with someone else. I'm not saying people see Friar Tuck as a D&D-style Shaolin-type Monk. I'm just saying that they absolutely do not see him as some sort of master swordsman-type. Fat, jolly, drunk, bald, he does fight - these things yes. But a "swordsman"? Not really.

Your 1938 film (which I have seen, but remember nothing of), 1940 book (which I have never even come across, despite liking Robin Hood, being British, and my mum being from right by Sherwood, I note), and 1820 book, yeah, they're not longer direct influences on the image of Robin Hood. Though that cute hat Errol has on still appears from time to time, usually to be mocked (I love those hats though!). Being annoyed by this will not change it.



Celebrim said:


> I'd at least expect nerds to recognize that Friars are not Monks.




Not Shaolin-style Monks? I think most nerds recognize that, but I know not all of them do. Sometimes it's even the other way around! I remember being introduced to 1E (post-2E) and being very confused that there was this class called "Monk", by which I, with then zero-exposure to Kung Fu flicks, assumed meant "A fat bald religious dude in a habit", but this class was some sort of weird mystic. He did remind me a bit of Friar Tuck because he was unarmed and unarmoured, like most depictions of said Friar I'd come across, but he seemed pretty odd!

What I'm saying re: Friar/Monk is that the WORDS are used interchangeably in day-to-day English, or just monk is used.



Celebrim said:


> I'll take my jolly fat swordsman that uses a steel cap as a begging bowl any day.  I know that the story is decaying under the weight of parody, deconstruction, and reimagination for fantasy settings but I would have liked to believe that the situation is not as bad as you say.




I'm not trying to harsh your groove, but I'm pretty sure I'm right on this. The only thing you may be thinking that I'm saying, but I'm not, is that people think Friar Tuck was a Shaolin-style Monk. It's not that bad! But they sure don't think about pre-1940s depictions of Robin Hood much when they have a wealth of post-1990s depictions.



Emerikol said:


> I tend to make my monks a secret order that trains like the Shao Lin temple of China.  They "appear" to be normal monks.  They instead are a secret society that serves some greater cause.   They are often spies in the high courts of the world.  Their grandmaster is thought to be a mastermind who is secretly manipulating half the thrones in the world.  These monks always appear as normal monks and thus they get access to areas that are not available to a heavily trained and armored knight.   When you need poisoning or knife work, the monk is often a capable agent.  If you want the secrets to the Kings defense of the city, then perhaps a monk can find that too.
> 
> See... I just added monk back into the world..




This is a cool take on D&D Monks, I have to say.


----------



## MoonSong (Jul 18, 2014)

Zardnaar said:


> It is not because I am a control freak DM. after 12 years of powergamers in 3rd ed a few weeks in 4E before I binned it I got sick of the min maxing and most of it was due to player options. Feats, powers, ability to easily aquire magical items and combo them with feats and/or powers. Just makes DMing a pain in the ass. Basically you spend hours developing a world and story and the players like turning up with some cheeseball combo and ruining it IMHO.




But, not all combos are min-maxed by necessity. I'm not a power gamer, I'm bad at optimizing for maximum kill capacity, but I am a tinkerer, and something of a rules lawyer, I don't enjoy that kind of spotlight, but I like to get my characters just right, many of them aren't very conventional but I don't think they are exactly cheesy.  And that is my problem with DMs that just make blanket bans, they take away my fun off the table which translates on me being less funny at the table.  




Hussar said:


> As a player, seeing a DM with a shopping list of banned stuff does set off alarm bells in my heed. If the DM is, in my view, micromanaging the campaign to this degree, it's a sign that my playstyle will likely conflict and I should be asking a lot more questions before joining the group.




At least those DMs telegraph their intentions, but yes it is never a good sign. I have banned or modified some stuff in the past because it is overpowered, but beyond that I don't micromanage. I hate some classes, but ultimately each player is responsible for their own character and I won't hold it against them. I really don't enjoy micromanaging DMs.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 18, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> So you agree? The words Friar and Monk are used interchangeably.




I could reply to this at length but it wouldn't be worth it.

I suppose you are going to passionately argue with me that the Anglo-Saxon hero Robin Hood doesn't use a longbow, he uses a  'Saracen Bow' (that actually looks more than a 3rd century Hun horse bow) and fights with scimitars (logically because he's defending Saracen culture from the invading Normans) and everyone knows this.  He launches himself over walls with a catapult and stops the Sheriff of Nottingham's plot to become king.  He's an agent of Celtic paganism.  That's Robin Hood.  That's what it is all about.  That makes you an authority.

I won't argue with you any more.  It makes me too sad to think that someone from Sherwood believes he's an authority on Robin Hood because everyone has seen Robin Hood: Men in Tights and the wealth of other post 1990's presentations and everyone knows that is what Robin Hood is about and all that other stuff you've never heard of just isn't relevant.  You've just burned the Library of Alexandria for me.

Friar Tuck was once a swordsman who wore a cervelliere to cover his bald pate.  I thought everyone knew this.  I guess not.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 18, 2014)

Meh, I think I was strongly influenced in the very early 80's by reading a lot of Stephen Donaldson's Thomas Covenant books.  In that series, you had the Cords - pretty much by the D&D books Monks in a decidedly Faux-European setting.  At the time, it seemed to make perfect sense that D&D would have monks too.  Didn't bother me in the least back then and doesn't bother me now. 

The idea that my Faux-Europe can't have Cords just doesn't sit all that well with me.  Those guys were WAY too cool and served as the inspiration for one of my longest running characters - an AD&D monk.  Is it historical?  Who cares?  Good grief, D&D is about as historically accurate as Doctor Who or an average History Channel documentary.  I feel zero need to limit myself to trying to emulate history in a system that has absolutely nothing to do with history.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Jul 18, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> I tend to make my monks a secret order that trains like the Shao Lin temple of China.  They "appear" to be normal monks.  They instead are a secret society that serves some greater cause.   They are often spies in the high courts of the world.  Their grandmaster is thought to be a mastermind who is secretly manipulating half the thrones in the world.  These monks always appear as normal monks and thus they get access to areas that are not available to a heavily trained and armored knight.   When you need poisoning or knife work, the monk is often a capable agent.  If you want the secrets to the Kings defense of the city, then perhaps a monk can find that too.



This is actually very close to the default way that 13th Age envisions monks: they are either assassins or resistance fighters (although not necessarily spies, but who knows?).


----------



## TwoSix (Jul 18, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> Friar Tuck was once a swordsman who wore a cervelliere to cover his bald pate.  I thought everyone knew this.  I guess not.



I've never seen Friar Tuck hold a sword.  And Ivanhoe is a terribly misogynistic title.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jul 18, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> I could reply to this at length but it wouldn't be worth it.
> 
> I suppose you are going to passionately argue with me that the Anglo-Saxon hero Robin Hood doesn't use a longbow, he uses a  'Saracen Bow' (that actually looks more than a 3rd century Hun horse bow) and fights with scimitars (logically because he's defending Saracen culture from the invading Normans) and everyone knows this.  He launches himself over walls with a catapult and stops the Sheriff of Nottingham's plot to become king.  He's an agent of Celtic paganism.  That's Robin Hood.  That's what it is all about.  That makes you an authority.




Can you explain why it is you (hilariously incorrectly) think I would think this? It seems like a bunch of random nonsense to me. 



Celebrim said:


> I won't argue with you any more.  It makes me too sad to think that someone from Sherwood believes he's an authority on Robin Hood because everyone has seen Robin Hood: Men in Tights and the wealth of other post 1990's presentations and everyone knows that is what Robin Hood is about and all that other stuff you've never heard of just isn't relevant. * You've just burned the Library of Alexandria for me.*




Is this a joke? Tell me this is a joke. It's too sad otherwise.  I'm not an "authority", I'm presenting my experience and beliefs, which apparently horrify you.



Celebrim said:


> Friar Tuck was once a swordsman who wore a cervelliere to cover his bald pate.  I thought everyone knew this.  I guess not.




What people think "everyone knows" never ceases to amaze me.


----------



## SkidAce (Jul 18, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Meh, I think I was strongly influenced in the very early 80's by reading a lot of Stephen Donaldson's Thomas Covenant books.  In that series, you had the Cords - pretty much by the D&D books Monks in a decidedly Faux-European setting.  At the time, it seemed to make perfect sense that D&D would have monks too.  Didn't bother me in the least back then and doesn't bother me now.
> 
> The idea that my Faux-Europe can't have Cords just doesn't sit all that well with me.  Those guys were WAY too cool and served as the inspiration for one of my longest running characters - an AD&D monk.  Is it historical?  Who cares?  Good grief, D&D is about as historically accurate as Doctor Who or an average History Channel documentary.  I feel zero need to limit myself to trying to emulate history in a system that has absolutely nothing to do with history.




Can't xp you again for now...

But this is exactly how I look at my monks also, and the Thomas covenant books were the inspiration....

...for a lot of things in my world.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 18, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Is this a joke? Tell me this is a joke. It's too sad otherwise.  I'm not an "authority", I'm presenting my experience and beliefs, which apparently horrify you.




Looks to me like, in this previous post, you're making a direct appeal to authority:


			
				Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> 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 you're not trying to claim some kind of authority about how people see Robin Hood, then I'm not sure why you mention being British or your mother being from near Sherwood. You may say that you don't want to get all "appeal to authority" but that's exactly what you did. You made as clear an appeal to authority as I've seen.

By the way, Friar Tuck as a swordsman? Oh yeah. I'm familiar with that. So if you think you can state "objectively" that you know what Friar Tuck is known for in the US, you might be mistaken.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 18, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Can you explain why it is you (hilariously incorrectly) think I would think this? It seems like a bunch of random nonsense to me.




Well it seems like a bunch of (nonrandom) nonsense to me to as well, but since you have portrayed yourself as an authority on Robin Hood in the popular media, I thought at least the allusions to popular media would have made sense to you.  Now you claim not to recognize Robin Hood as traditionally presented either in the period from 16th century to the 19th, or in the period from 1800 to about 1980, and the period beginning about 1987 to the present appears to be random nonsense to you.  Exactly what wealth of portrayals of Robin Hood are you familiar with that you definitively know what everyone knows?  What is this constant exposure of which you speak?   If your view of Robin Hood isn't covered by the 'random nonsense' I alluded to, and its not covered by the classical literature or movies, what is it actually influenced by?



> Is this a joke? Tell me this is a joke.




I have little or no sense of humor in the usual sense of that term. 



> I'm not an "authority"




Wait?  What?  Didn't you launch into this with...



> 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...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)...I'm not trying to harsh your groove, but I'm pretty sure I'm right on this.




Sounds like an authoritarian position to me.  You can objectively state your belief as a fact without citation or reference to anything but your own experience.  You don't want to get all appeal to authority, but you are going to anyway because its just so unavoidable.  On what planet is that not an assertion of authority in this matter?



> I'm presenting my experience and beliefs, which apparently horrify you.




At this point I'm no longer convinced you have experience and beliefs, which I find to be rather much a relief.  But I am now genuinely curious about what in the world you are seeing in your head when you say you are steeped in the legend.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jul 18, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> Well it seems like a bunch of (nonrandom) nonsense to me to as well, but since you have portrayed yourself as an authority on Robin Hood in the popular media, I thought at least the allusions to popular media would have made sense to you.  Now you claim not to recognize Robin Hood as traditionally presented either in the period from 16th century to the 19th, or in the period from 1800 to about 1980, and the period beginning about 1987 to the present appears to be random nonsense to you.  Exactly what wealth of portrayals of Robin Hood are you familiar with that you definitively know what everyone knows?  What is this constant exposure of which you speak?   If your view of Robin Hood isn't covered by the 'random nonsense' I alluded to, and its not covered by the classical literature or movies, what is it actually influenced by?




Celebrim, you made specific assertions about what I you think I think. That's extremely rude, so you can apologise for that for starters, if you want a detailed answer. I recognise most of the individual elements and their sources, but the way you've randomly strung them together is bizarre and nonsensical to the point where I'm wondering what you're even thinking. That's what I'm saying. If you can't understand that, you are not trying very hard.



Celebrim said:


> I have little or no sense of humor in the usual sense of that term.




Indeed, and that's very problematic for you, I can see. I feel rather bad for you. 



billd91 said:


> If you're not trying to claim some kind of authority about how people see Robin Hood, then I'm not sure why you mention being British or your mother being from near Sherwood. You may say that you don't want to get all "appeal to authority" but that's exactly what you did. You made as clear an appeal to authority as I've seen.




Can you explain, then, billd, how one is supposed to give a context to explain one's experiences, without people flying into a fury about it being "an appeal to authority"? These are my experience, my background, take it for what it's worth, is what I'm saying. You want to place zero value on it, go for it. You want to place a ton, go for it.



billd91 said:


> By the way, Friar Tuck as a swordsman? Oh yeah. I'm familiar with that. So if you think you can state "objectively" that you know what Friar Tuck is known for in the US, you might be mistaken.




I haven't claimed any "objective" knowledge, afaik. If you want to infer that everything not preferences or suffixed with "IMO" is a claim of objective truth, let me know, please, so I can add you to my ignore list, because I literally never going to engage with someone who wants to play that game ever again! 

In the end, it's my belief that is is a generation-gap thing. I'm pretty sure you guys are what, 5-15 years older than me? Older? I'm 36. People over a certain age may have different ideas about Friar Tuck, but if so, they've not communicated them much.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Jul 18, 2014)

Dungeoneer said:


> Seriously? We're having a historical debate about Friar Tuck??
> 
> My original point was that Yes, there is a Western archetype for the Fighting Monk. Is that archetype historically accurate? Who cares and entirely beside the point. This is D&D, it has armored clerics and elven rangers. It draws from folklore and fantasy literature and pop culture. I would argue that monks who fight or brawl or whatever have as much a place in it as anyone. If you dislike the wuxia flavor, don't explain the monk that way, but don't claim that you're banning it because it "doesn't belong."




Yep. Having a historical debate about Friar Tuck.

That said, if you want to see the Western archetype of holy men fighting (which includes monks), there are two classes which deal with it: The Cleric and the Paladin. It was the source of those classes, and both of them actually tend to come from the same origin.

The Monk class is based on Eastern monks because the West doesn't seem to carry the same association.


----------



## TwoSix (Jul 18, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> In the end, it's my belief that is is a generation-gap thing. I'm pretty sure you guys are what, 5-15 years older than me? Older? I'm 36. People over a certain age may have different ideas about Friar Tuck, but if so, they've not communicated them much.



As a 35 year old, I think that's a very large factor.  My exposure to Robin Hood would be:
The Disney movie
The Kevin Costner movie
The Mel Brooks movie

I think that's it.  Beyond that, it's mostly exposure to the Robin Hood concept when it's used a metaphor or a reference in other media.  You read enough fantasy, you figure out who Robin Hood is just by association.

I mean, the first thing I think about when I hear Robin Hood is 

"I'm going to cut your heart out with a spoon!"
"Why a spoon, cousin, why not an axe..."
"Because it's dull, you twit, it will hurt more!"


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Jul 18, 2014)

TwoSix said:


> As a 35 year old, I think that's a very large factor.  My exposure to Robin Hood would be:
> The Disney movie
> The Kevin Costner movie
> The Mel Brooks movie
> ...




My exposure actually started with a copy of a book written in the 1600s about Robin Hood. The rest was the same movies you referenced when I was growing up. I was exposed more to Knights Templar stuff, which was due to my grandmother being a Knights Templar/Masons conspiracy theorist (among other things).

That said, every time I think of Robin Hood, I think of a certain song...

http://www.hulu.com/watch/12907


----------



## TwoSix (Jul 18, 2014)

Nergal Pendragon said:


> That said, every time I think of Robin Hood, I think of a certain song...
> 
> http://www.hulu.com/watch/12907



Holy cow, the dad from Good Luck Charlie (I have little kids, don't judge) was Little John in that movie!  I never put that together.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 18, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Can you explain, then, billd, how one is supposed to give a context to explain one's experiences, without people flying into a fury about it being "an appeal to authority"? These are my experience, my background, take it for what it's worth, is what I'm saying. You want to place zero value on it, go for it. You want to place a ton, go for it.




Perhaps you could simply say that you've never heard anyone refer to Friar Tuck as a sword fighter and say what your appropriate context is - something like "Hmmm.. I've never heard of Friar Tuck as a swordsman and I've got family from the Sherwood area." That's a recounting of experience. But you said that you didn't want to get all "appeal to authority" and that's pretty much a clear indicator that is exactly what you are about to do. It's a caveat intended to dodge the nature of the following statement but it usually points to exactly what that statement is. You see it a lot when people say things like "I don't want to sound racist..." and you always know it will be followed by a racist statement. 




Ruin Explorer said:


> I haven't claimed any "objective" knowledge, afaik. If you want to infer that everything not preferences or suffixed with "IMO" is a claim of objective truth, let me know, please, so I can add you to my ignore list, because I literally never going to engage with someone who wants to play that game ever again!




Are you aware of what you've posted? I'll include your whole statement so there can't be any claim of taking things out of context:



			
				Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...




Was I not supposed to take this post seriously? You certainly did make an objective claim here.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jul 18, 2014)

billd91 said:


> Was I not supposed to take this post seriously? You certainly did make an objective claim here.




You weren't meant to take the objectively literally, given the "I think" which proceeds it. I can edit it if you like though! 

God does literally even mean literally any more?! Or does it only mean metaphorically? Argh.

I can see there's no way around the authority thing. If I honestly list my experiences, I'm going to get accused of it, so "Oh well" is all I can say to that.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Jul 18, 2014)

TwoSix said:


> Holy cow, the dad from Good Luck Charlie (I have little kids, don't judge) was Little John in that movie!  I never put that together.




Not judging. I babysit my young cousins a lot 



Ruin Explorer said:


> God does literally even mean literally any more?! Or does it only mean metaphorically? Argh.




It means "overexaggerated metaphor" unless the speaker is autistic, at which point it means "literally."



> I can see there's no way around the authority thing. If I honestly list my experiences, I'm going to get accused of it, so "Oh well" is all I can say to that.




This is why I don't post based on my experiences when arguing. On the internet, they either get derided as invalid or taken as being an objective statement.


----------



## TwoSix (Jul 18, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> God does literally even mean literally any more?! Or does it only mean metaphorically? Argh.




It literally means literally AND figuratively.  My head literally exploded when I saw that in the dictionary.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 18, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Celebrim, you made specific assertions about what I you think I think. That's extremely rude, so you can apologise for that for starters, if you want a detailed answer.




Oh brother.  Now we are going to get all passive aggressive and argue that "No, I'm not being rude, you are."  

Let's start back from the beginning so as to avoid arguing over what we are arguing about and cut to the chase.  I asserted a matter of fact statement that Friar Tuck is known for fighting with a sword and in a steel cap.  

You took umbrage and that and asked, "On what planet is that true?" and make the claim that what I state is "ridiculous".  You vaguely assert that you have special authority on these matters on the basis of your vast experience, but you aren't actually willing to demonstrate that authority and now you again find excuse to be silent because I'm being extremely rude to you.  It's all so vague and anecdotal, but definitive apparently.  When I quote or cite probably the most famous and influential portrayals of Friar Tuck in all of literature, you dismiss them because you aren't familiar with them as if your lack of familiarity makes them inconsequential.  Everyone no doubt feels the same way.

Ok, fine:

This is Friar Tuck in 'Robin Hood' 1922 wt. Douglas Fairbanks



Friar Tuck in 'The Adventures of Robin Hood' 1936 wt. Errol Flynn, widely regarded as the definitive Robin Hood movie.  It's also the most faithful to the 19th century literature that sets the tropes for the modern story.
 

This is James Hayter in his iconic role as Friar Tuck from 'The Story of Robin Hood' 1952.  Pretty much every portrayal of Tuck since then builds on this characterization or else exaggerates some aspect of it.
  

Ok, so maybe it is a generational thing?

This is Friar Tuck from BBC's 'Robin of Sherwood' 1984, widely regarded as the modern trope setter in the genera.
 

I could do others but I'm clearly wasting my time.  

On what planet does Friar Tuck fight with a sword?  Earth.   

If you haven't seen Friar Tuck holding a sword or wearing a steel cap, that's not my fault.  It just implies you don't know much about Friar Tuck and have relatively little exposure to Robin Hood (and probably almost nothing to the myth of Robin Hood or to any academic discussion of Robin Hood).


----------



## TwoSix (Jul 18, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> This is Friar Tuck from BBC's 'Robin of Sherwood' 1984, widely regarded as the modern trope setter in the genera.
> View attachment 62873




The awesome thing about this picture is that, besides not being the monk or the woman, I have no idea which one is Robin Hood.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Jul 18, 2014)

TwoSix said:


> The awesome thing about this picture is that, besides not being the monk or the woman, I have no idea which one is Robin Hood.




He's the guy with a sword standing in front of the tree, next to the woman.


----------



## MoonSong (Jul 18, 2014)

Nergal Pendragon said:


> He's the guy with a sword standing in front of the tree, next to the woman.




And I bet the guy next to him holding the quarterstaff is little John


----------



## TwoSix (Jul 18, 2014)

Nergal Pendragon said:


> He's the guy with a sword standing in front of the tree, next to the woman.



Oh yea, now I see the green clothes.  I guess he blended into the tree the first time I looked, like a good ranger should.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Jul 18, 2014)

KaiiLurker said:


> And I bet the guy next to him holding the quarterstaff is little John




I think so!


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 18, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Elf Witch I agree with what you said. Trying to play an elf in a human only campaign wouldn't fly and was not what I was talking about. The DM isn't banning elves simply because he doesn't like elves but has a very specific game in mind. No problems.
> 
> Where I tend to fall is when someone had fairly generic fantasy setting, even one that is very detailed, and bans something because he or she either doesn't like it or can't conceive of how to compromise. At that point, big warning bells are all going off in my head that I am probably a poor fit for that table.






Zardnaar said:


> It is not because I am a control freak DM. after 12 years of powergamers in 3rd ed a few weeks in 4E before I binned it I got sick of the min maxing and most of it was due to player options. Feats, powers, ability to easily aquire magical items and combo them with feats and/or powers. Just makes DMing a pain in the ass. Basically you spend hours developing a world and story and the players like turning up with some cheeseball combo and ruining it IMHO.






Nergal Pendragon said:


> There's a large difference between "monastic order" and "monk." Monastic orders often had large numbers of members who were actually not monks; the monks themselves tended to be people who had taken vows of poverty, celibacy, nonviolence, etc. A monk was ultimately defined as someone choosing to live the closest to what was considered the most pious life, which typically came with some pretty heavy standards.
> 
> And, yes, we can have fighting monks... but the only sources to model those on are Eastern sources. Otherwise, the closest you come is the holy knights, and those are modeled by paladins.
> 
> ...






Hussar said:


> As a player, seeing a DM with a shopping list of banned stuff does set off alarm bells in my heed. If the DM is, in my view, micromanaging the campaign to this degree, it's a sign that my playstyle will likely conflict and I should be asking a lot more questions before joining the group.






Hussar I know what you mean. If I get a long list of banned things from a DM I have never played with before I will sit down and talk to him and ask why. Because a long list sets alarm bells off in my head. In my experience a DM who micromanages his campaign world that rigidly will also usually end up trying to micromanage the PCs as well. Usually you can get an idea from them by just talking if they tell me well I am going for this flavor and that is why I don't think certain things will fit I am usually okay with that. But if they go on how this is broken and I hate this and I will never allow this in my game ever then no I don't think I am a goof fit for them.

One thing that really irks me is a DM who says no I don't allow this because I have seen other players abuse it and ruin campaigns that make my job harder. First of all I am not other players and why should I be penalized because of bad players and second you are telling me you lack trust in your players. I am a big believer in trust at the table. 

Zarndaar I certainly understand your frustrations. I have found that players who do this are players that I don't want to DM they take to much effort because you have to check everything they do. To me it is just easier to ban them instead of the the things that in other players hands is not used to break the game.

As for monks I think there is a lack of imagination going on if you can't see beyond the eastern trapping. In a Kalamar game one of the players played a monk. The DM reskinned some of the flavor not the actual abilities he made monks come from the temples of the God of three strengths. Clerics represented one aspect the divine will of the god. Monks represented the strength of the body and psionics represented the the strength of the mind. 

In my campaign monk style fighting comes from the elves they train their minds and their bodies to be weapons and some have taught this skill to the other races. 

I can understand if your campaign is a  historical fantasy and you basically want say Rome with magic. But I don't understand limiting yourself in a fantasy setting simply because there is no historical precedent for fighting monks in western civilization. Maybe in this world there is. There are a lot of disconnect in most generic fantasy gaming worlds where you have paladins and fighters in plate armor fighting alongside dex based light weapons and armor. If you can have a swashbuckler aka musketeer fighting along side a knight in heavy armor then why is it so hard to imagine and unarmed fighter fighting alongside them?


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Jul 18, 2014)

Elf Witch said:


> As for monks I think there is a lack of imagination going on if you can't see beyond the eastern trapping. In a Kalamar game one of the players played a monk. The DM reskinned some of the flavor not the actual abilities he made monks come from the temples of the God of three strengths. Clerics represented one aspect the divine will of the god. Monks represented the strength of the body and psionics represented the the strength of the mind.
> 
> In my campaign monk style fighting comes from the elves they train their minds and their bodies to be weapons and some have taught this skill to the other races.
> 
> I can understand if your campaign is a  historical fantasy and you basically want say Rome with magic. But I don't understand limiting yourself in a fantasy setting simply because there is no historical precedent for fighting monks in western civilization. Maybe in this world there is. There are a lot of disconnect in most generic fantasy gaming worlds where you have paladins and fighters in plate armor fighting alongside dex based light weapons and armor. If you can have a swashbuckler aka musketeer fighting along side a knight in heavy armor then why is it so hard to imagine and unarmed fighter fighting alongside them?




That's just it: We're not the ones who limited the class. Reskinning a monk has always been easy, as has been altering their weapon proficiencies; I've reskinned them before to be Egyptian holy warriors and given them Egyptian-themed weapon profs.

The issue is that WotC chose to limit it. When they did a fighting monk, they did it based off of Eastern monks and chose weapons that are primarily seen as Eastern. And made that a base class. And someone made the claim that there is a historical basis for it based on Western monks (which, there specifically isn't; Friar Tuck doesn't count because he's known for repeatedly violating his own vows).

My comments are primarily to explain why the base class is the way it is. Not to say it's a good thing. If it were a good thing, we wouldn't be arguing about it.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 18, 2014)

TwoSix said:


> The awesome thing about this picture is that, besides not being the monk or the woman, I have no idea which one is Robin Hood.






In my opinion, none of them are, but I can tell you which of the characters is called Robin Hood. 

Seriously, the modern movies rarely have anything to do with Robin Hood beyond name dropping.  It's really just laziness.  They are creating completely new stories about completely different things, but they don't want to try to stand on their own so they do a bunch of name dropping and allusion to powerful older myths in order to basically market what might otherwise be seen as incredibly cheesy.

Laziness is the least damning explanation.  

When they don't make me sad, it's because they are incredibly comic - most often unintentionally.  

For example, Kevin Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves trivializes and simplifies the historic story by removing from it Prince John and his agent - the mercenary Sir Guy du Gisborne - who is traditionally one of Robin's main rivals.   They do this by promoting up the Sheriff of Nottingham from being a corrupt flunky to the main evil antagonist.  They pick the Sheriff however mainly because its the Sheriff that is famous from parodies, comedies, spoofs and light-hearted children's entertainment as the more buffoonish character among the villains - a characterization reinforced by these comic portrayals and in which he's usually given the larger (or sole) role.  As a result, they pick a buffoon for their main antagonist.  And the character never rises above that despite this supposedly being a drama.

Worst of all, they apparently have no idea what the title sheriff means or what role they originally played in English government.  Sheriff is just a contraction of 'Shire Reeve', where Reeve is a person that serves criminal warrants.  The Shire system and its reeves were instituted by the King in a direct attack on the independence of the nobles, and as such were hated by the aristocracy.  The Shire Reeves were appointed directly by the king from out of the commoner class, precisely because they would then be entirely dependent on the favor of the king for their power.  This means that a Shire Reeve plotting with the nobles to usurp the king and take the throne has got to be the most ridiculous political power play in the history of literature.  

And none of this is helped by Alan Rickman's over the top acting (so well suited for Snape), because it just makes the thing look all the more buffoonish.  Neither Rickman nor Costner are naturally athletic and clearly neither had ever held a sword in their life, so the ultimate climatic fight between them looks like it was staged for slapstick comedy, and then performed by two rubes with no gifts for physical comedy, with the two spending more time tripping over props than actually crossing blades and never looking like they are anything but overacting and uncertain of what to do next while doing it.   Gone our the days when you couldn't call yourself an actor if you hadn't spent at least a year in fencing classes so you wouldn't look like an idiot on a stage.   At least most modern movies generally put their actors through an intense short course to try to achieve something of the same effect (at least to the eyes of someone who also hasn't held a sword).  Costner clearly didn't even bother to do that.

Anyway, enough of Robin Hood.  It was never really that relevant outside the apparent assertion that Friar Tuck justified the inclusion of the class.  I guess I'm going to have to actually explain myself now why I think D&D Monks don't fit in my world, lest people thank it's mostly because I'm an occidental history purist that doesn't like peanut butter in my chocolate.  I think Hussar does a decent job of justifying the inclusion of Monks in his setting.   I'll try to justify why they aren't in mine in a later post.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 18, 2014)

Nergal Pendragon said:


> That's just it: We're not the ones who limited the class. Reskinning a monk has always been easy, as has been altering their weapon proficiencies; I've reskinned them before to be Egyptian holy warriors and given them Egyptian-themed weapon profs.
> 
> The issue is that WotC chose to limit it. When they did a fighting monk, they did it based off of Eastern monks and chose weapons that are primarily seen as Eastern. And made that a base class. And someone made the claim that there is a historical basis for it based on Western monks (which, there specifically isn't; Friar Tuck doesn't count because he's known for repeatedly violating his own vows).
> 
> My comments are primarily to explain why the base class is the way it is. Not to say it's a good thing. If it were a good thing, we wouldn't be arguing about it.




I don't agree with a lot of the flavor that WOTC has put into their classes or the flavor TSR did for some. Thanks to TSR making rogues thieves we have that annoying legacy where so many players think I have to play a rogue as a  kleptomaniac.  I thinks druids of all editions have the worst flavor ever they don't in any way really represent what the druids were. 

But as a DM you don't have use the flavor. Yes I would like to see the eastern flavor stripped out of the PHB monk and made more generic. Save the eastern flavor for a splat on an eastern style setting.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Jul 18, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> Worst of all, they apparently have no idea what the title sheriff means or what role they originally played in English government.  Sheriff is just a contraction of 'Shire Reeve', where Reeve is a person that serves criminal warrants.  The Shire system and its reeves were instituted by the King in a direct attack on the independence of the nobles, and as such were hated by the aristocracy.  The Shire Reeves were appointed directly by the king from out of the commoner class, precisely because they would then be entirely dependent on the favor of the king for their power.  This means that a Shire Reeve plotting with the nobles to usurp the king and take the throne has got to be the most ridiculous political power play in the history of literature.




To add even more humor to it: Prince John is known as a villain primarily because he tried to enforce taxes on the rich. Thus, having him as the ultimate bad guy means that Robin Hood was fighting for the wealthy.



Elf Witch said:


> I don't agree with a lot of the flavor that WOTC has put into their classes or the flavor TSR did for some. Thanks to TSR making rogues thieves we have that annoying legacy where so many players think I have to play a rogue as a  kleptomaniac.  I thinks druids of all editions have the worst flavor ever they don't in any way really represent what the druids were.
> 
> But as a DM you don't have use the flavor. Yes I would like to see the eastern flavor stripped out of the PHB monk and made more generic. Save the eastern flavor for a splat on an eastern style setting.




Oh, druids are not based on real-world druids. They're based on hippies. I bet that suddenly makes everything about the class make a lot more sense 

I agree; they really should just save the flavor for the settings. But, something tells me they won't. After all, FR is the base setting.


----------



## Mercule (Jul 18, 2014)

Campaign based. For Greyhawk, I use what was in the 1980s boxed set. For Eberron, what was in the 3.5 hard cover.

For my home brew, I decided halls and gnomes were redundant, and gnomes got kept because they have a point. I added hobgoblins and trollborn (from 2E Viking handbook) as standard races, but you won't find most of the newer races. They just don't fit with the established setting and I don't much like kitchen sink settings.

Regardless of setting, it's explicitly known that any gnome PC that plays with machinery, especially in a comic fashion, will receive an immediate smiting, most likely in an out of game fashion. I wouldn't even consider playing in a group in which this was an issue. Halflings that act like kender have a lighter version of that ban. If I ran a Dragon Lance game, I'd allow kender PCs, but tinker gnomes would be off camera.

For classes, I like psionics and have included them forever in my home brew. Rangers don't have a TWF option. Most Western type classes are okay. Anything that's Wuxia leaning  doesn't really for in my home game. I wouldn't be opposed to ruining an OA game, though. 

No gunpowder. No aliens. No Far Realms or Lovecraftian horrors.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Jul 18, 2014)

Nergal Pendragon said:


> That's just it: We're not the ones who limited the class. Reskinning a monk has always been easy, as has been altering their weapon proficiencies; I've reskinned them before to be Egyptian holy warriors and given them Egyptian-themed weapon profs.
> 
> The issue is that WotC chose to limit it. When they did a fighting monk, they did it based off of Eastern monks and chose weapons that are primarily seen as Eastern. And made that a base class. And someone made the claim that there is a historical basis for it based on Western monks (which, there specifically isn't; Friar Tuck doesn't count because he's known for repeatedly violating his own vows).
> 
> My comments are primarily to explain why the base class is the way it is. Not to say it's a good thing. If it were a good thing, we wouldn't be arguing about it.



I think this conversation would go a lot smoother if you stopped stating your opinion and preferences as fact. It's not a 'fact' that Friar Tuck doesn't count as a monk. It's not a 'fact' that most people think of him using a sword. It's not a 'fact' that the 'monk' in D&D is Eastern-themed. And it's certainly not a 'fact' that fighting monks can't be a trope in Western fantasy/folklore/literature. You obviously have strong opinions on all of these points, but others could feel different, and clearly do.

Here are some examples of ACTUAL facts:
- There were monks in Western Europe from at least the 1st century AD.
- The Teutonic Knights were recognized by the Pope under the 'Order of Augustine' aka they were fighting monks.
- The Knights Hospitaller were monks charged with defending the holy land and which would escort pilgrims while armed.
- The opening of the Jesuit charter begins, "Whoever desires to serve as a soldier of god..." 
- Founder Ignatious Loyola was a knight and is the patron saint of soldiers. 
- There were monks in D&D starting with the 1975 Blackmoor supplement.
- The monk class predates both the bard and the druid. 
- The monk appeared in the first edition of the Player's Handbook.

It is my OPINION that the monk is about as core as you can get. It is my OPINION that a fighting monk archetype has some basis in the western cultural canon. It is my OPINION that talking about 'history' in a game that involves armed dwarven clerics is ridiculous. But it is also my opinion that at your table, you can ban monks. You can also ban elves with pointy ears. Just don't ask me to play.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 18, 2014)

Elf Witch said:


> Hussar I know what you mean. If I get a long list of banned things from a DM I have never played with before I will sit down and talk to him and ask why.




Let me try to explain where I'm coming from.

I legitimately feel that using my house rules despite all the 'bans' there aren't less options for characters to play than the stock 3.X rules but in many ways more options.  Yes, some of the more far out options of 3.X aren't immediately available (but since many involve PrC's and/or +X LA templates, +X LA base races, or racial HD you couldn't play them from 1st level anyway), but a lot of the options that should be present - like a good aligned 'assassin', a smart fighter, or a CG paladin - but aren't, are baked into my rules.

The reason that so much is banned is less because I want to restrict the number of concepts the players can have, than it is to restrict the number of mechanical ways you have to get there, and part of that is in itself because I believed the mechanics from getting to where you wanted your character to be required you to not be who you wanted to be from 1st level too often (Stone Giant Lycanthrope Monks aside).  

So far in my campaign I've had the following PC's - a Templar of the god of death, a pirate, a barbarian who could talk to dinosaurs, a lay brother of the goddess of beauty who was actually a heretic assassin/undead slayer, an immortal children's nursemaid turned beserk killer, a fey blue skinned hobgoblin who could grow into 12' tall giant, a drawf princess sword mage who was the daughter of the high thane, an androgynous prostitute, a priest of the sun goddess, a priestess of the sun goddess (yes, yes, pile of dead bards), a half-elf witch for which it is taboo to touch a man, a hobgoblin rake/gentle-men in waiting working for an archmage, an elf arcane archar, and a half-elf telepathist sorcerer.

Monk is interesting because it represents the only concept I can think of off the top of my head where I'm specifically squashing it.  It's not that it is impossible to make an unarmed combatant/martial artist under my rules or that there is nothing to support it.  It's that I've deliberately made it inferior and subpar compared to making the same character as a weapons master.   I have gotten a little push back on that, and I really am wrestling with whether I can add the choice happily even though it makes no real sense logically. 

But even if I do, it will become a valid build of a Fighter - one flavor of which might be a monk martial artist (which fits for the god Jord actually) - but not a new 'monk' class carrying all that unnecessary mechanical baggage and generally lacking in build options.   The setting trappings are easily enough stripped away but the class is what it is however you paint it.



> I am a big believer in trust at the table.




I am as well, but trust is earned.  I'd break my rules but only for a player who has shown me that the trust they are asking for is well placed.  If you can't be happy with all the options I first offer you, then truly you probably aren't a good fit for the table.



> I can understand if your campaign is a  historical fantasy and you basically want say Rome with magic. But I don't understand limiting yourself in a fantasy setting simply because there is no historical precedent for fighting monks in western civilization.




There is a lot more too it than that.  There isn't really a precedent for the D&D monk in eastern civilization either.  Shoalin didn't preferably fight without weapons when they had the option.  It's the notion of balancing unarmed attacks with armed attacks that is most critical to my problem with the monk, though there are several other problems that are nearly as bad.



> If you can have a swashbuckler aka musketeer fighting along side a knight in heavy armor then why is it so hard to imagine and unarmed fighter fighting alongside them?




Well for one thing, knights in heavy armor really did fight alongside musketeers.   There is nothing inherently hard to imagine about that.   But yeah, it's impossible for me to imagine an unarmed fighter fighting alongside them by choice.   Pretty much no trained warrior ever has ever gone, "Oh yeah, I'm going to use my fists instead of this sword right here."


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Jul 18, 2014)

Dungeoneer said:


> I think this conversation would go a lot smoother if you stopped stating your opinion and preferences as fact. It's not a 'fact' that Friar Tuck doesn't count as a monk. It's not a 'fact' that most people think of him using a sword. It's not a 'fact' that the 'monk' in D&D is Eastern-themed. And it's certainly not a 'fact' that fighting monks can't be a trope in Western fantasy/folklore/literature. You obviously have strong opinions on all of these points, but others could feel different, and clearly do.




It actually is a fact that Friar Tuck doesn't count as a monk; monks lived within monasteries while friars were outside among the people. It was enough of an important difference that there are what are considered monastic orders and what are considered friar orders.

Now, that doesn't change that he's publicly perceived as a monk. I can't argue that one, and in fact it wasn't an argument I even attempted to make.

I also did not state that most people think of him using a sword, so I have no idea why you are blaming me for that one. In fact, I had never stated anything about his weapon styles.

Thirdly, it is a fact that monks are Eastern-based. Gary Gygax himself, in the introduction to Oriental Adventures (the 1986 edition), had this to say:



			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> In its early development, the D&D game was supplemented by various booklets, and in one of these the monk, inspired by Brian Blume and the book series called The Destroyer, was appended to the characters playable. So too was this cobbled-together martial arts specialist placed into the AD&D game system, even as it was being removed from the D&D game.




Now, here's what _The Destroyer_ is about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destroyer_(fiction)

Notice how it is that the character is using Eastern martial arts?

You are correct that I am letting some opinion slip into my posts. And correct that I shouldn't have argued this in the first place. That was a mistake, and one I plan to correct in the future.



> Here are some examples of ACTUAL facts:
> - There were monks in Western Europe from at least the 1st century AD.
> - The Teutonic Knights were recognized by the Pope under the 'Order of Augustine' aka they were fighting monks.
> - The Knights Hospitaller were monks charged with defending the holy land and which would escort pilgrims while armed.
> ...




Here's another actual fact: By papal law, monks were forbidden to spill blood before the Knights Templar, the Teutonic Knights, or the Knights Hospitaller were ever organized. That's a major reason why contemporaries of the three orders sometimes did not feel they were monks.

Here's one more actual fact: There's no reason why any of that has to matter and why it is they can't change the monk to have proficiencies other than with what are traditionally Eastern weapons. I merely stated it as leading up to why the class existed as it did, not to say it cannot be changed.



> It is my OPINION that the monk is about as core as you can get. It is my OPINION that a fighting monk archetype has some basis in the western cultural canon. *It is my OPINION that talking about 'history' in a game that involves armed dwarven clerics is ridiculous.* But it is also my opinion that at your table, you can ban monks. You can also ban elves with pointy ears. Just don't ask me to play.




I bolded one statement in your post; that is the statement I feel is most important, and the one I most agree with. I made a mistake in even talking about the subject.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 18, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> Let me try to explain where I'm coming from.
> 
> I legitimately feel that using my house rules despite all the 'bans' there aren't less options for characters to play than the stock 3.X rules but in many ways more options.  Yes, some of the more far out options of 3.X aren't immediately available (but since many involve PrC's and/or +X LA templates, +X LA base races, or racial HD you couldn't play them from 1st level anyway), but a lot of the options that should be present - like a good aligned 'assassin', a smart fighter, or a CG paladin - but aren't, are baked into my rules.
> 
> ...




From what you are describing it sounds like you do what I do for my homebrew you have a specific flavor you are going for. Also it does not sound like you are really out right banning things but reskinning them and changing how and when you get things mechanically. To me that is not the same as just banning things because you don't like them and to Hades with your payers desire. 

As I said I don't have PHB paladins in my game because I use the prestige paladin from Unearthed Arcana and the recommendation if you use the prestige class is to not allow the PHB paladin. I have also been thinking of using a ranger from another publisher than the PHB ranger because the other fits my campaign better. I limit some multiclassing and prestige classes I don't outright ban them but they require my approval. For example if you want wizard or barbarian you have to start at first level. The only exception with wizard is if the player tells me a ahead of time so I can work in down time for them to study or I can put in an NPC to travel with the party to teach them. 

The reason I don't have an issue with an unarmed fighter like a monk choosing that over a sword is because it is not really sup optimal. They can hold their own and as they hone their bodies they get to do things that fighters don't better movement , evasion  , some healing ability. In a real world yes it would be silly to think an unarmed fighter would be able to go up against a fully armored knight with a broadsword but not in a fantasy world where they have special abilities. 

The thing about trust is it works both ways. I have played with DMs who have been burned by bad players and because of that they never trust again and I have found that it is not worth my time to try and prove that I am not that kind of player. I have had players who have been burned by bad DMs so they don't trust and they won't or can't and if they can't trust me then I don't think I can DM for them. 

I think it is a sad state of affairs that DMs and players need to earn trust instead of starting from a place of trust and going from there.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 18, 2014)

Elf Witch said:


> From what you are describing it sounds like you do what I do for my homebrew you have a specific flavor you are going for. Also it does not sound like you are really out right banning things but reskinning them and changing how and when you get things mechanically. To me that is not the same as just banning things because you don't like them and to Hades with your payers desire.




Well, if I don't like them, then I'm going to ban them.  The player's desires will be considered, but ultimately if I don't like it, the answer is, "No."  I think that I generally have a good reason for it, but I really don't have to prove anything to anyone.  

You want to be a minotaur?  I don't care what you reason is, "No."  You want to play a wererat; I don't care why, but "No."   If that's really your heart's desire and you can't be happy any other way, then it's really not the table for you.  If that idea outrages you, then this is really not the table for you.

I honestly believe that there is not a single DM in the world with a fundamentally different opinion, though I'm certain that there are a lot that will say that they have a different opinion.  They'll swear up and down that they have a different reason for saying "No.", altogether and the comparison is just "Not the same." 

We all have our opinions and we all feel that since it is our table, we ought to get what we want.



> For example if you want wizard or barbarian you have to start at first level.




For example, on some level I feel that is ridiculous or I'd make the same restrictions myself.  While, I can see where you are coming from on one level, but I feel pretty confident of the fact that some equally unbelievable leaps in skill acquisition go completely unquestioned by you.  For you, that's just a bridge too far.   For me, that's like, "If I didn't want you to multiclass into new careers, I wouldn't have made it an option."   For me the bridge to far is buried in the barbarian itself, which got banned - or more correctly reskinned - in such a way that the objection behind your objection to multiclassing into barbarian was rendered void.   Any of that extra baggage that compelled a player to drag a bunch of background into a character concept was removed from every class it occurred in.   So now there are literally far more examples of 'barbarians' in my setting that aren't natives of a remote and less civilized region than there are, while at the same time there is no real presumption that any native of a remote and less civilized region has the 'barbarian' class.   In fact, it's absolutely critical to my setting that there are elite bodyguards, beserkers, psychopaths, and Templars that have the ability to rage and much else that comes along with the class, but who are not in fact raised in the howling wilderness and initiated into secret warrior cults.  

In my campaign 'monks' (that is sworn laity in the service of a religion) are known for there 'rage' powers, not for their ability to use their fists as weapons.

But at your table, if you feel 'Rage = barbarian', and that it's ridiculous that I think 'Rage = monk' because that's my character concept, I would be totally ok with that.  In fact, seeing your rules had 'Rage = this guy who looks like a viking', I'd never even ask about 'Rage = monk'.   It's your table.   There are more PC's that I could play and have fun than I could ever actually play.  My enjoyment is never going to be based on playing 'this one guy'.   If you say, "No wizard after first level without talking it over with me.", I'd never imagine doing anything else.  It is after all your table.



> The reason I don't have an issue with an unarmed fighter like a monk choosing that over a sword is because it is not really sup optimal. They can hold their own and as they hone their bodies they get to do things that fighters don't better movement , evasion  , some healing ability. In a real world yes it would be silly to think an unarmed fighter would be able to go up against a fully armored knight with a broadsword but not in a fantasy world where they have special abilities.




I understand where you are coming from, I just don't agree.



> I think it is a sad state of affairs that DMs and players need to earn trust instead of starting from a place of trust and going from there.




I've spent the last 14 or so years thinking really hard about what sort of rules I think would make the most fun version of D&D 3.X I can imagine.  If when I present to you this 600 page house rules document with its wealth of options and say, "If it's in there, it's legal.", and your response is, "Wow, this is way too restrictive.  I could never build a fun and enjoyable character out of this.", what you are really saying, "Is I don't trust you.  I don't believe you are working in my best interest."   If you think my character generation rules are crap, then you are pretty sure to think my on the fly rulings are crap as well.   If you tell a DM, "Your rules don't work for me.", then you are not starting in a place of trust yourself, so demanding the DM then trust you is pretty darn hypocritical.  My response is going to be, "You know, these rules have worked for a lot of people.  I think they are well thought out.  If they can't work for you, it's probably not the fault of the rules."

But at an even deeper level, the fact is that if I'm getting into a new group, my fundamental attitude is going to be of humility and gratitude.  I'm thankful to the players and most especially the DM for trusting me to come to their table and share their game with them.  To the DMs who have in the past taken me in as a perfect stranger and said, "Yes, I'd game with you.", I have nothing but gratitude.   If I sense in a player that that isn't their attitude to my table, then yes, warning bells are going to be going off.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Jul 19, 2014)

Dungeoneer said:


> It's not a 'fact' that the 'monk' in D&D is Eastern-themed.




There is a Q&A thread with Tim Kask over on Dragonsfoot in which the origin of the monk was discussed. Make of this what you will.



			
				Tim Kask said:
			
		

> As we collectively remember it, Dave's group in MN started experimenting with these two PCs. Somehow or other Brian heard about / saw the monk and was infatuated by the PC; he was a huge fan of *David Carradine's Kung Fu* on TV.
> 
> Gary was not impressed by either; we shared the belief that the assassin as a PC was kind of "twisted". I could not tell you how much of what I was given for the editing of _BM_ about the Monk PC was Dave's or Brian's. One day when I was in Gary's den I was enumerating my objections to the class and apparently Brian overheard for when I left for home that day he immediately went to Gary and pitched the PC again... Gary told me to go ahead and put it in as it was part of Dave's milieu; the assassin rode in on the Monk's coattails, so to speak.






			
				Dungeoneer said:
			
		

> It's not a 'fact' that Friar Tuck doesn't count as a monk.




Dragon Magazine labels itself 100% official content. In Dragon 274 "Rogues and Royal - Heroes and Villains of the Robin Hood Campaign" Friar Tuck is a 5th-level Cleric / 1st-level Rogue. 

The title Friar is used for members of a mendicant order whereas the title monk is used for members of a monastic order. Friars are active while monks are cloistered. But really, the question is: does the Monk class properly emulate Friar Tuck. In my opinion, the answer is undoubtedly "No". The Monk class has too many abilities, including increased speed and flurry-style attacks, that don't fit with any literary or cinematic depiction of Friar Tuck that I have ever seen.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 19, 2014)

Gary also said in the foreward to OA that the Monk is going back to where it belongs.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 19, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> Well, if I don't like them, then I'm going to ban them.  The player's desires will be considered, but ultimately if I don't like it, the answer is, "No."  I think that I generally have a good reason for it, but I really don't have to prove anything to anyone.
> 
> You want to be a minotaur?  I don't care what you reason is, "No."  You want to play a wererat; I don't care why, but "No."   If that's really your heart's desire and you can't be happy any other way, then it's really not the table for you.  If that idea outrages you, then this is really not the table for you.
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## The Human Target (Jul 19, 2014)

I respect the man, but I highly doubt I would have enjoyed playing in a Gygax game.


----------



## MoonSong (Jul 19, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> I've spent the last 14 or so years thinking really hard about what sort of rules I think would make the most fun version of D&D 3.X I can imagine.  If when I present to you this 600 page house rules document with its wealth of options and say, "If it's in there, it's legal.", and your response is, "Wow, this is way too restrictive.  I could never build a fun and enjoyable character out of this.", what you are really saying, "Is I don't trust you.  I don't believe you are working in my best interest."   If you think my character generation rules are crap, then you are pretty sure to think my on the fly rulings are crap as well.   If you tell a DM, "Your rules don't work for me.", then you are not starting in a place of trust yourself, so demanding the DM then trust you is pretty darn hypocritical.  My response is going to be, "You know, these rules have worked for a lot of people.  I think they are well thought out.  If they can't work for you, it's probably not the fault of the rules."
> 
> But at an even deeper level, the fact is that if I'm getting into a new group, my fundamental attitude is going to be of humility and gratitude.  I'm thankful to the players and most especially the DM for trusting me to come to their table and share their game with them.  To the DMs who have in the past taken me in as a perfect stranger and said, "Yes, I'd game with you.", I have nothing but gratitude.   If I sense in a player that that isn't their attitude to my table, then yes, warning bells are going to be going off.




I don't want to sound disrespectful or confrontational, but if you put a 600 pages document in front of me which you claim is the be all, end all of character options -and leaving a door closed to more- I don't really think I can trust you having a fair sense of variety when I'm kind of used to have 1200+ (2e), 1800+(3.5) or 1500+(4e) pages of options and even then they aren't enough. I mean that kind of rings a bell or two too. It tells me that as a DM a) you could be rigid and unapproachable not to mention closed to change, b) this could be a sign you like to micromanage player characters too much (and my worst experiences come from micromanaging DMs, so rather that mistrust this translates into fear), and c) if this is the "most fun" version you could think of, it most likely means you cut down all of the "badwrongfun" (and I thrive and enjoy the most lots of fringe concepts, and I work hard to make them work.). Of course I could make a workable character I could enjoy out of that -I have successfully made a character I liked in 5B and can make wonders with core-only 3.5-, but I'm moody, even slightly flighty, I cannot know what kind of character I will enjoy next, without seeing them I don't know if those 600 pages would be enough for me in the long run.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 19, 2014)

Elf Witch said:


> I think it really depends on why you don't like them.




I've been trying to avoid directly contradicting you on that, but fundamentally, I just don't.  You don't have to justify to me why you don't want a PC to suddenly pick up training in being a wizard, if in your campaign it normally takes an 8 year apprenticeship.  I get it.  But you know, if you didn't want rogues in your campaign, or banned elves because well they are elves, I'd be all understanding about that too.  That's true even if and especially if I don't do the same at my table.



> 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.




What this amounts to in my opinion is the claim that "My reasons or valid, but your reasons are at the least suspect and quite possibly invalid."  



> 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.




And my response is, "So?"  It's their game.   I hate Peter Jackson's work myself, and I'm sufficiently not a fan of gnomes that I banned them (well, technically, but since you could skin a Sidhe as a gnome or pretty much any other 'little people, that point is moot).



> Or they have read online some where that this class is broken even though they have actually seen it in play.




Again, so.  If you think they are wrong, gain their trust and then see if you can't after that argue them over to your point of view.   Otherwise, give them some respect.  



> 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.




Sure.  But you certainly don't start out on a respectful position if you tell a DM that he's got to run his table to suit you.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 19, 2014)

KaiiLurker said:


> I don't want to sound disrespectful or confrontational...




But you will anyway.

I mean seriously people, whenever you hear yourself saying that you don't want to do something, what's really going on here is that you know you are being disrespectful and confrontational but you don't want to admit to yourself that that is what you are doing.   I think maybe you are thinking to yourself that by saying, "I don't want to.... whatever" that you are softening the harsh, but you are actually heightening it.   Better would be, "I know this will sound disrespectful and confrontational, but please don't take it that way."   Better yet would be, "I beg your pardon for being disrespectful and confrontational, but..."



> but if you put a 600 pages document in front of me which you claim is the be all, end all of character options -and leaving a door closed to more- I don't really think I can trust you having a fair sense of variety when I'm kind of used to have 1200+ (2e), 1800+(3.5) or 1500+(4e) pages of options and even then they aren't enough.




It's pretty pathetic that 1500 or 1800 pages of character generation rules aren't enough isn't it?  When I say to you that I honestly think that I cover core fantasy archetypes better than 3.X as a whole with fewer pages, I mean it quite sincerely.  There are only two archetypes I can't quite yet cover under my rules, and its solely because nothing in 3.X covers them to my satisfaction either.   One is the 'Sherlock Holmes' character with mundane powers of divination, and the other is the 'Saka' type character who lacks easily definable skills and yet manages to always make himself useful to characters that are in theory far more powerful than him.  But seriously, everything else you can think of that doesn't fall into the 'Stone Giant Lycanthrope Monk' category is covered.

So much of the chargen space in 3.X is just absolutely wasted and so many of the solutions that they adopt like PrC's are so inefficient in terms of space.  Each PrC for example provides a fixed series of progression in class abilities tied to single highly narrow concept.  That means that you basically need one PrC _for each possible character concept._  So of course they needed a massive amount of rules and of course it was never enough.  They didn't really care.  Page bloat was to a certain extent a feature in the WotC 3.X business model rather than a bug.  They didn't print tons of rules for chargen because they needed tons of rules.  They printed rules to sell books.

Look, honestly, systems like HERO far more space efficiently cover far more concepts even than I intend to cover, but there is nothing inherently unreasonable in suggesting, "Even though I've got fewer pages than 3.X, I actually cover nearly as much conceptual space."   Where 3.X has me beat hands down I'll admit is in, "There is more than one way to do things."   They've got 3-6 overlapping classes for every concept, each defined by very minor mechanical variations in the theme.   Where I typically would get a disappointed player compared to 3.X is in the guy that optimizes by splashing a few levels of 3-6 overlapping classes to get overlapping stacking front loaded abilities.   But you know what?  That's intentional as well.   The possibilities of mechanical synergy compared to 3.X aren't there by design.   But in terms of the actual concepts, it's every bit as broad you just might have to accept using a different mechanic to represent the same thing compared to what you are used to.  Ultimately though, I cover more things by default that 3.X should have covered - paladins of every alignment for every diety, for example - than 3.X did using less space and ultimately I think that there are more truly viable concepts.  To some extent in core 3.X, if you weren't playing one of the tier 1 classes or equivalent 'tier 1' builds, you were intentionally hampering yourself.   With what I think is superior balance compared to unmodified 3.X, you are freer to just play the concept rather than worry about the mechanics.



> I mean that kind of rings a bell or two too.




I can't be responsible for your past experiences or what they've done to your trust. 



> It tells me that as a DM a) you could be rigid and unapproachable not to mention closed to change,




If on day one you tell me I got to change, then yeah, you are likely to find me pretty darn rigid and intolerant.  If on the other hand you outline a character concept, and ask what you could do by the rules to implement it, if the concept is reasonable at all either I'm going to find you a way to do it or create you one.  



> this could be a sign you like to micromanage player characters too much (and my worst experiences come from micromanaging DMs, so rather that mistrust this translates into fear)




Again, I can't be reasonable for your past experiences and insecurities or how that prompts you to respond to people.  I think I'm pretty firmly hands off micromanaging PC's if I understand your meaning rightly.   As much as I demand you respect my setting, I reciprocate by respecting your right to play your PC however the heck you like.



> and c) if this is the "most fun" version you could think of, it most likely means you cut down all of the "badwrongfun" (and I thrive and enjoy the most lots of fringe concepts, and I work hard to make them work.).




You know, I have no idea what you are talking about.  I hate generalities.  It is more than possible that what you think is a fringe concept is so mainstream that its mechanically supported in my rules.  Most things I think are 'fringe' I think so either because they inherently can't be balanced, can't pull enough weight, or are inherently anti-social - not because they are weird.  You are unlikely to want anything that I find too weird to be a character.  



> but I'm moody, even slightly flighty, I cannot know what kind of character I will enjoy next, without seeing them I don't know if those 600 pages would be enough for me in the long run.




If you can exhaust the options, then I'll make new ones, but I bet you can't.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 19, 2014)

Hey [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], what's wrong with minotaurs?  I like minotaur characters.  They're a blast to play.  Been either playing one or have had one in games since 1e with Krynn.  Where's the beef with minotaurs?


----------



## Lord Xcapobl (Jul 19, 2014)

Basically, if I choose to ban a race or class, it simply has to do with the campaign setting. I don't care how you want to justify your Drow having come to Athas, even if she is a level 18 wizard, level 20 sorceress, level 14 bard, level 2 fighter multiclass character. Neither would I allow a native from one of the Athasian city-states to become a paladin. But on that same train of thought I might just use the Advanced Race Guide and the Races of Ansalon to emulate you playing a Baaz Draconian in an Age of Mortals campaign set on Krynn.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 19, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Hey [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], what's wrong with minotaurs?  I like minotaur characters.  They're a blast to play.  Been either playing one or have had one in games since 1e with Krynn.  Where's the beef with minotaurs?




I suppose if you could come up with one that was LA +0 and had no racial HD I'd be ok mechanically with them being a PC.  If they had something like no racial HD and LA +1, I could probably balance them with standard races using the same sort of tools that I balance Orine and Idreth with.   Among other things that means that they certainly couldn't be large or have a +8 STR bonus.

But there is a bigger thematic problem with them in my setting.  The Seven Free Peoples of Korrel don't just believe that they are fundamentally different than all the other races of the universe, they really are.   Those seven and only seven free peoples are: fey, goblinkin, elves, humans, orine, dwaves, and idreth.   The fey were the first free peoples - the small gods.  The other six were modeled after them jointly by the gods in a special act of creation that could only be replicated by all the gods again working together.   Virtually all other races on Korrel - and they are all also comparatively rare - were the creation of 1 or 2 deities and completely lack in the gift of free will.  They unavoidably resemble and serve their creators.  They cannot choose to worship any other gods, they never differ markedly from the alignment and personality of their creator, they unswervingly obey their creator, and they cannot advance in power (gain XP) without the permission of their creator.   For this reason they are called Lesser Servitors.  Lesser Servitors are not treated as people by the Free Peoples, but as emissaries or agents of a god because that's what they are.   If the god doesn't have standing in the community, they'd treat the Lesser Servitor as a monster.  If the god does have standing, they'd expect the Lesser Servitor to confine itself to matters belonging to that god.  

Minotaurs are therefore always evil, and have no freedom in the sense that PC races have, and as such any player playing them outside their trope is simply doing it wrong.  Anything else is a violation of the cosmology of the setting.  Further, no civilized area is just going to shrug and say, "Heh, sure, the minotaur can drink in the bar."   They are either going to go, "Monster!", or "Where is the cleric responsible for minding this thing, and what are you doing outside the temple grounds?"  This could not possibly IMO be a fun situation for a player.  It would require an amazing RPer with an amazing idea and a deep knowledge of my setting from years of playing in it for me to consider something like a minotaur character, and only if they were willing to have Minotaurs implemented as LA +0 races with no racial HD.   Your average player who wants something like a 7' muscular dangerous character would be better off with an Orine or playing a human and taking the Massive trait.   

I'm frankly not all convinced that even though you've played Minotaurs that there is something so unique and special to the biology of a Minotaur that you can't get the experience elsewhere.  What is it about Minotaurs that is biologically and psychologically distinct from all other possibilities that makes them special to you?   What in particular about them makes them a blast to play?

Now, there are some examples of things that aren't the above seven races that would have the characteristics of free peoples, and could theoretically exist in the cosmology, but which aren't on the official approved PC race list.  These include many varieties of fey that are off mostly because I don't have a +0 LA template for them and can't at the moment conceive what you could do with a +0 LA template that you couldn't do with a Pixie, Changling or Sidhe.   However, one possibility that immediately comes to mind is a Genasi character.   The genie are in fact free peoples, being simply the elemental cousins of the fey.  The genie have at time bred with both the Gods - creating the race of giants - and with free peoples, creating various varieties of sorcerers.   I might be inclined to consider a Genasi character if the PC knew what he was getting into, had a great idea for a character, and did not want to play a sorcerer.   Playing a sorcerer is normally  how you convey 'I'm not quite human' under the rules, and with pretty flexible multi-classing its pretty easy to dip sorcerer and have that just work (in fact dipping spellcasters is just about broken in that its easy to get more back than you paid for and thus highly encouraged under my rules).   But conceivably there could be a concept that that wasn't right for that and I might consider a one off genasi PC.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 19, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> I've been trying to avoid directly contradicting you on that, but fundamentally, I just don't.  You don't have to justify to me why you don't want a PC to suddenly pick up training in being a wizard, if in your campaign it normally takes an 8 year apprenticeship.  I get it.  But you know, if you didn't want rogues in your campaign, or banned elves because well they are elves, I'd be all understanding about that too.  That's true even if and especially if I don't do the same at my table.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No I am not saying that your opinions are invalid and mine are valid. I have gone out of my way to not do that.


Yes it is the DM table and it is right to do what he wants but I can have an opinion that he is wrong or being a jerk or whatever and choose not to play. 

Sorry I am not going to work to gain a DMs trust been there tried that and found it pointless because I have found that if they feel that strongly nothing I do will change their mind. So I will save us both the grief and choose not to play with him. And that is totally different than arguing with him to change his opinion. And it is showing respect when I choose to walk away I am showing respect to him by acknowledging his table his rules. 



As a DM I am upfront with players that I will fudge if I think it benefits the play and if that is an issue and you don't trust me to know when to do it or you don't like it then as a player you are not a good fit for my table and it is better that you find a DM more suited to you.

That is what the crux that is being said here the freedom to choose not to play with someone who you think will not be a good fit. And one big warning sign to me is a DM with a lot of hates towards classes and races. Because in my experience that goes hand in hand with being rigid and uncompromising. 



 I will be honest here if I meet a DM who has advertised looking for players for say 3E DnD then I meet him and he shows me a 600 page house rule booklet I am going to be annoyed because at that point you are not playing 3E DnD. I have meet DMs like that and I always ask why they just didn't advertise that they were looking for players to play in a game system that has been heavily modified.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Jul 19, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> and the other is the 'Saka' type character who lacks easily definable skills and yet manages to always make himself useful to characters that are in theory far more powerful than him.




Try building it with a Commoner. I did that by accident one day with a goofy character intended to die quickly.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 19, 2014)

Nergal Pendragon said:


> Try building it with a Commoner. I did that by accident one day with a goofy character intended to die quickly.




The idea is to implement the concept in such a way it would be balanced with rogues, fighters, wizards, sorcerers, etc.

I have a concept for doing it ('Paragon'), but I'm still working on the mechanics/balance.   Essentially, the idea is a character of great potential that is lucky/destined and can always be counted on to come through in a pinch.   Mechanically, the character would have some light narrativist powers usable a certain number of times per day depending on class level.   The basic framework is already present in my rules, I just need to figure out how to make the class truly robust and diverse.   Balance issues are hard because it really doesn't have any powers directly comparable to any other class.  It's basically a slightly weak skill monkey with the ability to push a 'I win' button a certain number of times per day.    But it would be useful for portraying certain character types from fantasy literature particularly when you have party ensembles where some characters are much more overtly powerful than another character in the party but the weaker party member is equivalently important to the story - Gandalf and Pippin for example.


----------



## MoonSong (Jul 19, 2014)

Elf Witch said:


> No I am not saying that your opinions are invalid and mine are valid. I have gone out of my way to not do that.




I also want to add, that at least I have an internal filter that makes me realize some of my reasons to ban things are just silly or outright childish, and thus I get the selfcontrol not to act on them. Otherwise I would get nobody to play with, if I don't like something I rather compromise and pay a blind eye to it if it improves the experience for all involved.  



> Yes it is the DM table and it is right to do what he wants but I can have an opinion that he is wrong or being a jerk or whatever and choose not to play.




I'm more of the opinion the table is the whole group's. When I DM I may have a kind of experience/storyline in mind, but the game isn't mine and mine alone I end up being some kind of authority, but I always look for consent of the players. Heck I even ask the existing players their opinion on new players and where to take things to.



> Sorry I am not going to work to gain a DMs trust been there tried that and found it pointless because I have found that if they feel that strongly nothing I do will change their mind. So I will save us both the grief and choose not to play with him. And that is totally different than arguing with him to change his opinion. And it is showing respect when I choose to walk away I am showing respect to him by acknowledging his table his rules.








> And one big warning sign to me is a DM with a lot of hates towards classes and races. Because in my experience that goes hand in hand with being rigid and uncompromising.



This. Not because I want to change people, but I like people who can compromise and avoid people who can't. 



> I will be honest here if I meet a DM who has advertised looking for players for say 3E DnD then I meet him and he shows me a 600 page house rule booklet I am going to be annoyed because at that point you are not playing 3E DnD. I have meet DMs like that and I always ask why they just didn't advertise that they were looking for players to play in a game system that has been heavily modified.




Yes, the 600 pages of houserules are a big warning sign. And I'm still skeptic on those 600 pages having enough, I mean they don't even have gnomes.


----------



## Emerikol (Jul 21, 2014)

Dungeoneer said:


> This is actually very close to the default way that 13th Age envisions monks: they are either assassins or resistance fighters (although not necessarily spies, but who knows?).




I think 13th Age has some good fluff.  I just dislike their mechanical approach.  Well it would be better to say I dislike elements of their mechanical approach.  Some of what they did are things I had thought of doing myself when designing a class.


----------

