ITT

ITT
We list things we will never let anyone run
>wild magic sorcerer
>divination wizard
>character under age 15

>character under age 15

Looks like you won't be able to play yourself, then

>any tiny race like pixies or cats or imps

Just keep everyone in the general humanoid size category.

Sacred geometry.

>divination wizard
Oh no! He has an extra True Strike!

Why do you hate fun, OP?

>Kender
>Intelligent animal
>Robots and Species without physical needs in fantasy
>mute or blind characters only as special exception on a case by case basis

and this

>but m-muh fun...

Shut up. Shut the fuck up. You don't get to fuck up someone's hard work and claim that it's okay because it's "fun." Shitting all over a campaign with your stupid bullshit character isn't fun for anyone except you, you ADD riddled stupid asshole fuckface. I curse you, your family, and your cows. All of them.

Monks and ninjas because banning them in Euro-mediƦval-flavored fantasy pisses off the hipsters.

I Played a Chaos Sorcerer. It went better than expected.

>Euro-mediƦval-flavored fantasy
>banning monks

>muh holy untouchable campaign
As a forever DM: fuck off. If your campaign doesn't adapt to your players, it's a shit campaign and you're a shit DM.

Now tell that to the person who traumatized you, not to us anons. Unless that person is Whitey Bulger.

...

>cant play a pugilist prior

>ninja
>literally just an asian word for a concept that was also in place in yurup
Do you also ban youxia?

Well the thing is monks being good is a lot more fantastical than it sounds like he wants his setting to be

The only things I'd outright ban are obvious fetish stuff in inappropriate games.

Everything else deserves consideration on a case by case basis. A lot of concepts aren't unplayable, they're just harder to do well. If I feel I can trust a player and they pitch the concept in a cool way, I'll let them play it. If they're someone I know less well or the character comes off as one note or innately disruptive, I'll ask them to reconsider. IMO just banning an entire category is just lazy.

>>wild magic sorcerer
I think the 5e Wild Sorcerer is really bad design. For it to be worth playing, for both style and effectivnes, it needs to be able to thingy surge very reguarly. But how often it does so is up to the GM that genraly will want to limit surges as much as possible due to their ability to totaly screw any situation. I think you do the right thing op. Better to just say no rather then let someone play something but change it so it isn't actully what they want.

On the other hand I happen to be playing a 5e Div Wiz at the moment. It's really strong but I don't think it's game breaking.

In existing settings (e.g Star Wars):
>No connections to Main Characters
>No familial Relationships to existing characters
In everything else:
>No clones of existing characters
>This Includes yours who just died
>No stereotypes

Inspiration from fiction is fine, but I GM'd a group where 75% of the PC's were either copies of characters they had made before or stereotypes, and it got annoying fast.

As an actual GM (ie: one who doesn't play D&D) fuck off. I work hard on my shit. Too hard for one autistic fucker to waltz in and go "HURR DURR I kill the king cuz I'm SOOOO WACKY gosh isn't this so FUN?"

After what happened last time, no more fucking kobolds.
Well maybe, but not for a god damn while

>It's impossible for stupid people to do dumb things in any system
You're a class A retard.

Because other systems don't have stupid shit like Wild Mages and Kender. Get fucked D&D babby, your system is dead.

do you have legit autism?

>no argument
>claims autism
>GAWSH SO CLEVAR!

Admission of defeat right there. Go home folks, show's over! D&D fags lose yet again!

If you're so concerned about the integrity of your precious campaign story then go write a novel, you sod.

The only GM trait more important than "good writer" is "excellent improviser". I don't like dealing with retards in my games either, but I also hate GMs who just want to use me as a tool in their shitty fanfiction.

>psychers in 40k do not have the ability to accidentally TPK

>kender
GROUNDBREAKING idea here: Don't play in the dragonlance setting. Woah. That was crazy hard to come up with, I must have an IQ of over a million!

you are being rather rude, are you ok? do you want to talk about something?

>No characters under 15

How else am I gonna play a newborn fungoid man or illithid innocent to the ways of the world.

Kender are a problem in literally any game written by someone who likes the idea of a race of disruptive, selfish assholes who get a free pass because they're "cute".

This, improvising is so important as a DM. 90% of the fun is the fact that the players can do something you don't expect and you have to roll with it.
Improvisation is both important to be able to keep the game fun, and to reign in your whackier players

>really fetishy characters
>furfag characters

But functionally any character is fine as long as you don't fuck up the campaign or the setting with it.

Every now and then I get a character who just doesn't work on a functional level.

Like once I ran a space cop game, and one guy wanted to play an abrasive, book dumb ex soldier who fought for the other side during a civil war and was a wanted criminal. He justified the last part by saying "he was misidentified".

Yeah, I'd like to talk about all you assholes thinking it's just fucking dandy to shit all over someone's game because "muh fun!" and then saying it's the GM's fault entirely because "LAWL shoulda adapted brah!"

i don't want an argument, i asked you a question

but i guess this gave me my answer

I used to not let people play evil characters, but then I stopped using alignment altogether and replaced it with allegiances. Pick a few people, places, concepts, etc. and those are what you base your decisions and morals and ethics around.

So you want to talk about yourself?

Tell me about your mother.

>shit all over someone's game
>as if its not just as much their game as it is yours
Consult

Go fuck yourself. You're not funny or clever. You don't get to turn this back around on me. I'm right and all of you fucking know it! It's you isn't it Greg? Greg! I fucking knew it Greg! I knew it was you! Fucking Greg! Fuck you!

She didn't let you fuck her. You know why.

>I flip it

You're not talking to Greg. Greg OD'd on aspirin because you broke his heart. Shame on you.

Okay, I'm now convinced this is bait.

But if it's not, well then Greg, , you're a stand-up guy.

That file name had me laughing in public. Thanks.

>divination wizard

Why is this bad? I've been wanting to try one but I didn't find what I pointed up to be incredibly broken or unengaging. If anything it allows the DM to bullshit plot through divination.

Banned in my group as the one weeb who spergs over them broke my stereo and pretends he didn't.

He still hasn't made the connection.

One of my players played an Illithid who was raised outside of Illithid society, innocent to the evils of his race, and had a hero complex. He helped save the world from both Zargon and Atropus. On separate occasions, of course.

inb4 women

This is the last time you fuck with me Greg! Greg? You fucking hear me Greg? You think it's funny to just fuck someone's campiagn up and then brag about it on the goddamn internet Greg? You think you're smart Greg? You think your funny? Greg? GREG! I will fucking murder you Greg! I'm going to do it Greg just like your stupid fucking dog Greg! Yeah I killed your dog Greg fuck your dog Greg it was a whiny little shit so I killed it Greg! Fuck you and your dog!

This, really. You'd think it'd be easier to railroad the players that way. And if this thread indicates anything, that's really important to some people.

What?

>I want this to be a guy that kills another character at some point

But Greg had a cat. Remember?

Honestly I don't ban any sort of character out of hand.

If you seem like a sperg and choose a character that seems like it'll play into that, then I'll say something. But a good player wants to play a 14 year old girl, or a catfolk, or whatever, that's great! I've had plenty of both.

Outright banning character concepts (unless they're directly contradictory to the setting) is bad GMing.

What makes them good is the ability to slap hefty insight bonuses to any action they please several times a day.

>character under age 15

I had a player running this once.

Since it was a swords&sandals ancient fantasy setting, I just ignored the fact and treated the character as an adult anyway. After all, bar mitzvah makes one an adult at 13...

At the cost of a caster though. It's literally giving up an entire character's worth of fightan' for a support caster. I'm just not seeing how it's broken here. AC doesn't even matter at higher levels anyway depending on the edition.

It's not about combat. At least not directly. It's about being able to plan many steps ahead, on a large scale. So GM has to as well.

As for the combat use, knowing what you're up against next and being able to tailor gear / spell slots accordingly is a huge plus.

This.

>was trying 5e
>player gets into arguments about rules
>want to wrestle / grapple ogre
>does so
>his character only has 10 strength
>i tell them there is no way he can do this even with high rolls
>thanks to shitty rolls he manages to
>tell him it doesn't happen
>he gets into arguments
>i tell him I am GM and I do not want it to happen
>he starts whining about some anime where this shit happens
>I tell him that this isn't fucking attack on titan, your shitty little girl character cannot be a bad-ass because of your cuntish white knight attitude
>shitfling ensues
>i call him a fat kike even though he isn't jewish
>another player is
>i tell them all to get the fuck out of my house
>this was last night

I am so sick of the randomness of d20 as well. There should be NO WAY that you can grapple such a large creature. Fuck even the GURPS rules probably negate this shit.

What this faggot did IS EQUIVALENT to unironically trying to pull off the "healing with drowning" rule in 3.5.

It is absolute bullshit and I will not tolerate it.

>character under age 15

We had a guy in our group try to do this. He wanted to play a 7 year old boy human fighter. DM said he could but made him travel with his mom who would supervise him in everything he did

>I rob the campsite
>Your mom catches you and scolds you for your misbehaviour then sends you to bed

>wild magic sorcerer
I am confused. Why ?

>ALL "X" PARTY

Fuck this retarded meme bullshit. It's been plaguing the fucking scene for over a year now and I'm getting so goddamn tired of telling people that over-posted greentext and fanfiction is NOT a valid basis for a functional group.

Because lolrandumb shit

>tell him it doesn't happen
This is where you fucked up. Alternately, allowing him to roll in the first place when you think there should be zero chance of success is where you fucked up.

Once you let him roll that shit, you should stick with the result. You fucked up.

>look mom I posted it again!

Literally nothing allows them to plan many steps ahead. If the GM is bullshitting his way through the campaign then he can simply bullshit his way through divination too.

Again, nothing allows you to cast "what am I fighting next?"

Well it's that or dragonshit. As a DM I prefer the former.

Nice bait there. His character with perfectly average strength can't outmanoeuvre a ogre for a short period of time while grabbing onto them?

Only restriction I have is on cheese builds, if I'm playing a game that's breakable in the ways D&D is.

I don't really rule out concepts or class options; if what you're making sounds like shit I'll just tell you and if you don't knock it off you can find another game.

>Why is this bad?
Sufficiently advanced divination effectively becomes in-character metagaming. It's not bad per se but it's significantly more work for GM to keep up with. Obviously lazy GM will want to avoid that.

I'm surprised OP doesn't forbid summoners and thrallherds, those also mean significantly more work, if only in combat.

>forbid summoners and thrallherds

I thought those were handled by the player who summoned them?

My character wasn't randumb. He aspired to be a travelling magic item salesman.

That sounds like a DM problem. When it comes to divination, our DM is vague, yet to the point.
For example, there may be a prediction of a violent betrayal, but that could mean that the king could get assassinated, or that the PCs are going to get double crossed. The most that this would help the Diviner is a nudge in the right direction, and maybe what spell type might be good (Doesn't really effect us that much since we use a Mana system.)
Even then, that seems more useful, and not really a bad thing. Helps the plot, and there's nothing wrong with bringing the right-ish spell to an encounter when all you know is a hazy bit about it.

Fucking this
>Suggest to my group ''hey guys let's all be Dwarves it will be funny haha''
>Funny for like 1 session
>novelty wore off quickly
>was one of the worst campaigns we ever had

Wasn't even the DM's fault, found out after he had to throw out an entire dungeon filled lots of loot and traps because it wouldn't work for a party of 5 dwarves

you need to take your pills user

I don't see how this would be a problem unless you're playing one of the systems where Dwarf is a class.

I've never played a wild magic sorcerer like lolsorandumb.
Maybe it's just like CN, it's not necessarily bad, but bad player love it especially.

I've run a few games from underdark cities with strong racial homogeneity. It's a bad idea to do outside of relatively exotic conditions, but can actually be fun if you've got a competent group.

I'm a divination wizard with a bat familiar and I'm ruining encounters in the adventurers league it's a lot of fun

It depends, but both options are DM headache.
If summons/thralls are handled by player, and the player is somewhat competent, they give party plenty of extra power on the virtue of coordination and cooperation. Suddenly it becomes difficult to tailor encounter difficulty without either summoner steamrolling through everything on the back of his minions or DM accidentally killing other PCs because they wanted encounter that will be actual challenge for the summoner.

If they are controlled by DM, well, it's more characters to take care of, and you need to think for two competing factions in combat, Which is kind of difficult unless you simplify at least one of them to complete idiots.

>all human campaigns
>current year

Overly fetishy concepts (I'm a lewd fucker myself, but drew the line when I had to play a campaign with a pregnancy fetish character) and "hilarious and witty" attempts to rip off the likes of Old Man Henderson and Sir Bearington.

Anything else and I'll be willing to sit down with you and try to salvage your concept.

>wanting to be an entire party of weirdos

>tell him it doesn't happen
>i tell him I am GM and I do not want it to happen

This is textbook shit GMing. I bet you're the kind of guy who goes "your character gets ebola and dies".

Your players are better off without you in their lives.

The only system I can think of that does this would be The Dark Eye. And while all Dwarf party indeed is a stupid idea, all Wood Elf works perfectly fine.

>Bards
>Haflings
>Gnomes

FUCK YOU.

>illusionist wizards
>druids, especially the 'raised without human contact in the woods' variety
>chaotic neutral anything

One more is something that you have to wait a few sessions on and see with, but anyone who makes a character only on a jokey gimmick and doesn't at least build on it over time to make a rounder character is out.

But then again, if the players want to do something you don't enjoy DMing then there is a problem. I don't want to be forced to play something I don't want to play just because I'm the DM. I think, through his foaming rage, that was what the other user was trying to say maybe?

>>being a baby
>>not giving the ogre advantage
>>not being super excited when the players and the dice cause something exciting to happen

I mean, what was that ogres expected lifespan? One encounter? What would have been wrong with him doing some kind of clever pressure point or something? And besides, the ogre could just grapple him the next turn anyway

>druids, especially the 'raised without human contact in the woods' variety

why this?

>All tier 1 classes
I am not going to be trying to murder you every session so there's no reason you should be soloing encounters by yourself. There use I will use my BS GM fiat so the other players can shine. In other words, no T1 classes because they tend to steal the spotlight way more often than the other classes.

Try getting a group of adventurers together when one of them has never seen a human before and 4/5 members of the party are human. It's just too much of a easily avoidable chore.

Holy shit, you're such a fucking faggot.

Because you either get something like where you have to spend some time teaching them all the rules of civilization and all these strange new ideas and concepts, or the player just uses it as an excuse to try and get away with stealing 'because they don't know any better' while clearly looking around for stores and taverns and other things they shouldn't know about.

It might work if it's played for comedy, but I usually don't get players that are that good of actors/writers to really pull that off. And it's frustrating for me to get a druid that ends up wanting nothing to really do with nature once the game starts, when that aspect of fantasy is usually so skipped over for the sake of other plotlines.

>Furfag shit
>dumblrina quinquingendered demisexuals
>Gnomes/halflings
>Half-orc/orcs
>Paladins and anyone who takes alignment seriously
>Techpriests
>Obvious ripoffs
>Characters with awful names, anything with a weapon in it is especially out

ah ok, so i assume you're ok with druids done properly then?

i like playing druid

I pull The Professor. Crossdressing optional.

Most of those, I can at least understand the logic behind disliking them even if I don't agree with all of them. But what do you have against techpriests?

Do you people live in Rhode Island by any chance?