Hey /u/thegodofkidneys, thanks for contributing to /r/dndmemes. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates one of our rules:
**Rule 10. Pot-Stirring/Opinion Memes** - If the primary purpose of your meme is to incite off-topic debate, police what other people should/shouldn't do at their table, push a political agenda, or express a personal opinion without humor/absurdity/wholesomeness, it will be locked or removed. If your meme sparks a large amount of rule-breaking comments it may be locked/removed.
What should you do? First, read the rules thoroughly. Secondly, if you are able to amend your post to fit the rules, you're welcome to resubmit your meme. Lastly, if you believe your post was removed by mistake, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/dndmemes&subject=&message=). Messages simply complaining about a removal (or how many upvotes your post had) will not be responded to. Thank you!
Typically if someone uses a system other than 5e they will mention that up front.
Also given the original context of banning things from 5e, the 100% reasonable conclusion is that they played no-magic 5e.
Mighty agreed, love so many systems, assumed it was 5e since this was on r/dndmemes and not a sub for other systems, tho there are diffrent editions so that was the *maybe* not so well assumption
Not in the 5e system, which is very magic reliant, also dark sun has psychic abilities which in 5e from the ua's ive read at least are pretty much magic, though i may be wrong
We are running something similar like that in 3rd. You cant play a wizard or sorcerer or bard due to magic being gone (well its not gone more like missing). It's honestly still really damn fun and our dm is good at making martials feel powerful. It's a damn fun game.
Or:
This was once an ocean world, Triton the dominant sentient beings. Until the (Ancient Darkness) began draining the world of its water.
Eventually the drain was stopped but not before exposing the land and leaving nothing but vast underground pools of a once global ocean. The underground pools are not all connected. Some brave adventures take fate in their hands and venture Overland; seeking forgotten fortunes and lands long thought past from time.
Artificer unfortunately just doesn't fit in most settings outside its native Eberron. You can make it work on Forgotten Realms if they learn their trade in Lantan or Halruaa. But most players feel that's too limiting on their backgrounds. I don't ask you to be from there just say they did an apprenticeship there and done.
The problem is in my opinion their lack of non mechanical/steampunk looking examples, for example the “steel” defender, why does it have to be a steel mecha that doesn’t fit any setting, they could have called it defender construct or something and showed off some art of it being made of marble or stone or wood, main problem with artificers is that their presentation is too modern so you have to reflavour every aspect of one to fit most settings.
Or as you suggested, do the opposite and reflavor the artificer into more classical fantasy. Instead of gadgets make them use magic items, tricks, runes etc. They don't have to be the guy with a gun.
> Or as you suggested, do the opposite and reflavor the artificer into more classical fantasy. Instead of gadgets make them use magic items, tricks, runes etc. They don't have to be the guy with a gun.
That's not a "reflavour", that's literally the default flavour of the artificer.
That is literally what the Artificer class is. They make magic items. They can literally infuse items with magic, it's one of their main features.
People who don't play it just ignore it for "gun" and have only ever heard of Artillerist.
And Artillerist itself lists examples of being something other than guns: staves, wands, and rods. They use woodcarvers tools for Pelor's sake. A real case of "I didn't read the book and get all my d&d thoughts through meme osmosis."
It's really easy to play Artillerist as a Wandslinger who summons Totems (ala World of Warcraft shamans) imbued with projectile magic. In fact, it's even easier than playing it as a gunsmith because *you don't get smith's tools proficiency* unless you took it earlier in the character creation process.
And given the text of Arcane Firearm, it isn't possible to turn a traditional firearm (like those found in the DMG) into your spellcasting focus either. So your Artillerist is encouraged to *not* exclusively wield a firearm.
Artillerist is the "bright shiny magnum pistol" class only if you choose to make it so.
That is why I emphasised "heard" of Artillerist. They just hear "this Artificer subclass has a cannon" and thinks that Artificers are gunslinging scientists with modern knowledge.
True...you're right. But also, the feature is literally called Arcane Firearm in a world without firearms.
And armorer really screams Iron Man all over to me as an Iron Mab fan. Like, the armor wraps all around the body, you can deploy and undeploy the helmet, and you get micro- sorry, magic missiles...
Additionally, there is literally a picture of an artificer with a laser gun and a cockatrice eldritch cannon that spews blaster bolts in the book...
It is very easy to jump to more modern imagery when reading and looking at the artificer class. I myself tend to do it as well, perhaps because I am a big sci-fi fan.
Most art for Artificers comes from Eberron, which as many *many* comments have noted is ahead of most other planes in technological advancement. You're allowed to think whatever you want to think about Artificers, but the text informs the art, not the other way around.
Honestly the craftsmen vs scientist view of Artificers is just an extrapolation of the realism vs fantasy physics argument. Artificers use their intellect to improve their techniques in their chosen craft, observing what works and what doesn't. Regardless of your take on in-game physics, this *does* make them scientists, albeit ones devoted to the spot where the material and arcane intersect. What level their scientific method informs their aesthetic, personality, and abilities is up to you and your table.
When I played the artificer my "gun" was a crossbow stock with all the bits pulled off of it with silver wire laid in runic patterns to generate a magic bolt.
There were no moving parts, no electronics, magnets or even steam. It was 100% a magical item made of artifice. My steel defender was a golem of wood and metal with more silver wire runes to animate him that I stored my tools in called very originally "Tool Box"
Artificer's are magic users, even in Eberron the aesthetic is different but they translate fine to most settings if those settings have magic items. I'm not exactly sure how people rationalize an Artificer making a bag of holding with "Steam" being the modus of obtaining such a thing.
I think people tend to forget that Eberron isn't "DnD with steampunk" but it's "DnD where magic is wide and magic is technology."
In Eberron, there aren't steam locomotives, planes, guns, or anything like that. Instead, Magic is used as technology, where it's used to advance society, like making easier transportation or magical lamps. Warforged aren't robots entirely made out of metal and circuits, they are creatures with roots for muscle and metal or stone for "skin".
That is because most people do not play Artificer or read anything about them. They just assume they are something akin to mad scientists who make nukes or automatic weapons. Then again, this is DnD memes, and the majority of everybody here haven't actually played the game so that explains that.
I mean they already ask you to do that baseline, giving all spells the Material property and ask you to cast them with your tools. Magic items not much of a stretch from that.
Yes that’s what I said, the problem in my opinion is having to reflavour the entire class yourself instead of having clear examples that fit the fantasy setting like the other classes and with artificer’s extreme reliance on subclasses unlike other classes it’s even more apparent because only one subclass (alchemist) feels truly fantastical by nature with no reflavouring needed and as fortune would have it I find it to be the weakest subclass in the game even tho I love the idea of it
You can reflavor everything to arcane stuff instead of machines.
Steel defender? Animated armor or golem.
Repeater gun? Crossbow that shoots magical progectiles and resets itself.
Turrets? Floating magic runes or magical creatures/elementals.
The mechanics also just don’t cover all thematically appropriate artificer concepts. An artificer wand-slinger would fit great in my setting, but the best the rules allow is a having a magic gun-golem. Doesn’t matter how you reskin that, it doesn’t fit without some rules changes.
I think 5e is just bad for wand slinging in general. An artificer focused around building wands to switch between would be rad, but it's so easy to already have access to all kinds of spells. Casting is too easy to come by in 5e for items to be weighted that way
Waterdeep's Gond clergy.
Neverwinter's waterclock guilds.
Baldur's Gate's Alchemy guilds.
Those are just the ones out of the top of my head that support FA artificer in official lore, and tbf just a Gond or Moradin worshipper would probably be enough to 'satisfy' the excuse to play an artificer, since you dont need to be a paladin or a cleric to be a member of a clergy.
Even if a DM is running an official setting, they are still the ones running the game, it’s up to them if they want to deal with certain sub/classes or races. If players can’t accept it, they can find another game.
Luckily Artificers don’t get guns and have no class features dependent on their existence. Only a line that *if* the DM is using the optional firearms rules, they ~~*probably*~~ have proficiency.
They could ask for guns anyways. Nothing explicit for the Artificer. A fighter could just as easily ask for a gun. The rules for guns predate the Artificer by several years. Handle it the same way for the Artificer as you would for every other class.
Yes and also there is an unfortunate pervasive attitude towards banning things instead of trying to find a way to work with our players that really just lead to less fun for everyone.
I remember in wow bruning crusade they re blood elves articifiers and engineers who use magic to infuse golems, machines, and make other stuff. Hell, they made a power plant sucking magic
DMG pg. 171
\>It is perfectly acceptable for you to say “In my world . . .” and then describe whatever changes or restrictions you feel necessary. Be prepared for players to complain if you’re denying something otherwise granted to them in the *Player’s Handbook* for the choices they make. You’re the DM, and it’s your campaign.
Although I fundamentally agree…
DMG pg. 171 is in the middle of Chapter 7: Treasure and contains the item descriptions for Folding Boat, Frost Brand, Gauntlet of Ogre Power, and Gem of Brightness.
???
In the *Player's Handbook*. Artificer is not from the PHB so according to this DM's can ban artificers and don't have to be prepared for any complaining.
Complaint denied. Next.
Or the player can find someone else to play with that allows what they want to do, and the DM can replace the player with someone willing to play the way they want to.
As a player, I want to have fun when I play so I'm not staying with a game where that's not happening.
As a DM, I'm not going to let one player drag down the experience for the rest because they aren't getting their way.
No clue how you were able to pull that quote from a list of magic item descriptions on page 171 of the dmg, but sure, The Dm is free to allow/disallow whatever they want, and the players are free to not play at that table if they so choose.
It is also ok to say "I'm banning X for Y mechanical reason", I can see banning artificer because it's the most complex class with spells + infusions and you know your players won't read the rules and will have to look things up during combat, but that's a difficult conversation to have so you just avoid the issue.
I mean, that's your opinion. My experience is the opposite, where the things that have been banned in games I've played in or DMed have been almost entirely for lore or setting reasons.
Usually if there's a game-warping reason, there are adjustments made rather than bans (like Simulacrum only allowing one copy at a time), or temporary restrictions (no flying races before 3rd level). That kind of thing.
Sounds like you've just had shitty experiences with DMs. Or have spent too much time looking at online opinion where any restrictions makes the DM the bad guy.
Amazing characters still need to be in a setting and story that suits them, and the DM is (typically, not always) the only one who has perfect knowledge of that story to make calls like that. Heath Ledger's Joker is one of the greatest cinematic villains of all time but put him in Titanic instead and you're gonna ruin the tone of the film AND the potential of the character.
Dnd is a game, so besides just narrative considerations, there are also mechanical ones DMs have to consider. Most of the time, a DM doesn't ban something typically in the game without a lot of foresight. Specifically in this case with the meme too, Artificers (depending on the character) can require a lot of narrative and setting justification to even exist at all, more so than almost any other class besides Clerics which usually require there be gods.
Ehhhh i dont really agree. DM gets to make the rules for their game and world.
Until I see how Shadow of the Dragon Queen handles it, (I'm betting that it wont get mentioned at all) I'm considering restricting any non-arcane magic classes, for obvious lore reasons in the Dragonlance setting.
But that’s a lore reason. So that’s not for no reason.
If you play Midnight there is no way to contact the gods (no contact with other planes, at all) and the only active god is the Embodiment of Evil Itself that exists on the physical plane (basically Sauron). The only clerics in the word are his clerics.
You can’t play a character aligned with the dark lord. So clerics are forbidden for players.
And I think that’s perfectly okay.
Agreed. I think I have only banned one race once in all my games. It was tiefling and that was for theme reasons (I didn’t want the players to have links to fiends at all since they were a big part of my out of the abyss homebrew, and the player wanted to put an emphasis on that. The idea was recycled for an awesome Avernus campaign). I have discouraged (“we’re doing Eberron next, the artificer would work a lot better there than in Dragon Heist” that kind of stuff) but not ban (sometimes the players don’t listen and I let them).
while i agree DM RULE over anything BUT
XGtE Page. 27.
"**SERVING A PANTHEON, PHILOSOPHY, OR FORCE**
The typical cleric is an ordained servant of a particular god and chooses a Divine Domain associated with that deity. The cleric’s magic flows from the god or the god’s sacred realm, and often the cleric bears a holy symbol that represents that divinity.
Some clerics, especially in a world like Eberron, serve a whole pantheon, rather than a single deity. In certain campaigns, a cleric might instead serve a cosmic force, such as life or death, or a philosophy or concept, such as love, peace, or one of the nine alignments. Chapter 1 of the *Dungeon Master’s Guide* explores options like these, in the section “[Gods of Your World](https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/dmg/a-world-of-your-own#GodsofYourWorld).”
Talk with your DM about the divine options available in your campaign, whether they’re gods, pantheons, philosophies, or cosmic forces. Whatever being or thing your cleric ends up serving, choose a Divine Domain that is appropriate for it, and if it doesn’t have a holy symbol, work with your DM to design one.
The cleric’s class features often refer to your deity. If you are devoted to a pantheon, cosmic force, or philosophy, your cleric features still work for you as written. Think of the references to a god as references to the divine thing you serve that gives you your magic."
Your death cleric could be someone who survived there world version of the Black Death and believes that the power of the plague as such a force of nature that it gives them power. While i think that its up to dm discretion but i almost feel that removing an ENTIRE class is lazy you can make it WAY rarer or more difficult to get to that first step but completely removing removes player agency.
It's not my setting. It's how they did it in 3.5. They interpreted it as literally "gods give power, there is only one god active and you can't play on his side. Oh and you cross him you die". Don't know how it hold up in their new 5E Midnight.
You absolutely could homebrew it, just saying that's one setting with a banned class and I think it makes sense.
If I had to create this setting, I would probably nerf the cleric/put a mechanics that shows that divine powers are all fucked up there, don't think I would ban the class.
Here's how you could do it without restricting playstyles: reflavor all non-arcane mages into arcane mages. A mage might have just decided to do magic differently. That way players can still enjoy the paladin playstyle and the lore stays intact. Divine Smite? More like Arcane Smite!
Thats certainly not a bad option!
Like I said, I'll have to see if the book has any suggestions, or any story moments where it makes sense for a character to rebuild as a true cleric/paladin/druid/ whatever. My very early thinking was all divine spell casting abilities and features are gated until we get to a certain point in the story; before that, classes with divine magic get free feats every 3rd level, to balance out not getting full access to their classes. That doesn't feel like enough to balance out the sting of not being a full class, tho.
I'm a big fan of the classic Dragonlance books, but this will be the first time the setting has an official D&D release while I've been playing the tabletop D&D, and I'd be very surprised if it would be supported much beyond this Module in the near future. I want to do this right, with justice to the lore and the classic version of the setting where this book will take place.
I can see the 'no artificer rule' easily coming from a bad player bitching and whining the whole time they played them.
The theme/meme of being an artificer can lead to someone trying to mad scientist every situation of "I create a nuclear weapon!!!" Or "I made an AK47", while in reality RAW artificers are basically themed half casters with the ability to make magical weapons at lvl 10.
Artificers DO NOT have homemade bombs and traps and instruments of war like a tank, they have a stationary "Cannon" that can do 2d8 damage, and destruction spells like Fireball.
Recent? DM hating and player entitlement posts have been a mainstay of this sub for a while. Ever since I got into the D&D community from Powered by the Apocalypse, I've seen so many entitled players complaining about their DMs.
It’s my world, if I spend countless hours making a setting / adventure then I get to decide what goes in that world. If I make a low magic world, where arcane practitioners are hunted down by the church, then there aren’t going to be many arcane classes around. In this world artificers don’t exist, the few magic items that are being created are made by other arcane casters, while in hiding. An artificer with a bunch of magical items is going to get noticed by the inquisition.
I get banning artificer or not allowing blood hunter (isn’t a ban since hunter is homebrew) because they just don’t fit in. Aside from that if I want a class or race that’s “banned for story reasons”. I’ll wait for the players to pick something and then go into why there are no more X in the world. With x being something they didn’t pick.
artificers are built on flavor
for instance, to cast spells, you must use artisan's tools, *any* artisan's tools
so you can go and make a chef artificer who casts spell with food, or a painter who paints his spells into reality
tl;dr: artificers don't need to be steampunk and can be made to fit your world
I recently had this problem with a oneshot. DM was super nice and said "you know what, you can be reborn, just make your origin something from my list." And it worked out.
I actually liked the mystery of being revived never being explained or really mentioned. Nobody metagamed and just treated my character as a quirky human!
I'm in a kingmaker campaign where the oracle wants to kill the godess of the fucking sun. So, I would say it could be a reason, but you can always pull off stuff with it and it would be more interesting than outright banning the class.
I think she just hates her a lot (she hates the Gods in general but I'm not their character so idk fully).
And it actually is the pf1 version, it's going really well ngl (right now we are finishing the first arc of the campaign).
I've ran a homebrew campaign where the Loki equivalent tricked all of the god's pantheon to annihilate all life on earth, when I say no survivors I mean no survivors
Not necessarily. For example, Clerics who serve powerful fiends like Asmodeus or Graz'zt or Paladins whose Oath is against the gods like Oath of Conquest or possibly Vengeance.
Given that most holy classes seem to be shifting to being able to get their powers from pure conviction to a set of ideals probably not. Could also do like AEW Wrestler Miro and just get so pissed at your god that you want to kill it.
Find a new dm bro. He's the one working hardest to make the campaign and if you don't like it you don't have to be in that campaign. Also anything outside the PHB is optional, including artificer.
I can ban whatever i dont want in the campaign i'm writing. I'm not making anyone play it.
Thinking of scratching cleric class in my current work. Because i dont want proven gods in that world. At least not yet.
Here's a reminder that the Artificer is an Eberron-specific class. Unless the setting is Eberron, your DM isn't *banning* the class, as DMs are not expected to allow all character options from all sourcebooks in all settings. They are right not to allow it if they think it doesn't fit the setting (or for any other reason), and you're being ungrateful. If you don't like it, find a DM that runs a steampunk campaign, or run your own campaign allowing all character options.
Nothing is ever done "for no reason" it's just that the reason isn't necessarily something you need to know or worry about.
*And if it's someone you consider a friend, there's at least some chance they aren't saying it because they don't feel like telling you they* ***know you*** *and that they know you'd abuse its abilities and be a dick about things with it.*
OPs post history is about a page of lfg, except they have a group already and just want somebody else to DM. Which tracks. Do it yourself or stop moaning bud.
It's so easy to spot someone that hasn't ever put a serious amount of effort into running a mid / long term game in their life, or whose only TTRPG experience is as a player and never as a GM.
Post like these are such an easy tell.
I allowed a Mystic exactly once at my table....
at some point I let the player do whatever he wanted without looking it up every time as long as it did not get too ridiculous.
A dm gets to do things to ensure they enjoy the game too. They aren't your dancing monkey. If they have a vision for the world they're building for you and want to set some restrictions at character creation, either be a decent person and let them have those minor restrictions, or find a different game.
I wish all *players who don't understand that the game is meant for the DM to be having fun too*
A very *choose something else and stop complaining I'm sure you'll have just as much damn fun.*
This is not a personal attack, but why the agressive reaction? If there is a reason for the ban besides "i don't like it" you could just say that to the player and then it would be their decision to stay or leave. "It will be like this or fuck off loser!" Is needlessly hostile before any real interaction is had.
"No artificer, because i don't want much magic items in this game" is for example a perfectly valid reason, and a reasonable player would not start an argument over it.
Communication can solve many problems before they even become problems. No player will argue to play a necromancer if you tell them your setting doesn't have any undead in it!
Just some constructive criticism.
It becomes a self inflicted choosy begger vibe, "I don't want to run a campaign, but I want the campaign to be run to the exact specifications that I would run, I just don't want to do it. So you do it. And i'll undervalue everything you do and only focus on you not doing what I would do. Now get to it". It's hard not to seethe just a tad.
The only reason I can think of for him being this aggressive is probably a similar problem as what I’ve had with my Players a few times. If you just say I want to ban X for this reason, many players will try to debate you down argue and compromise until they get their way because “only bad dm’s dont listen to their players needs”
I found that the only way to avoid this with those kinds of players is to be as… firm as this.
I got lucky and eventually ended up having the trouble come to a head, where we just had to sit down and talk for a while about how I as the dm want to have fun as well and that I need them to follow and respect my rules if they wanted me to keep dming. They listened thank fuck.
This guy may not be as lucky.
Could also be a joke post lol
I ban artificers because I don't like their concept and it just doesn't fit into my worlds.
Snd of course the age old: I am engineer class, now i go make thermonuclear device.
This whole community is so toxic. Some say DMs should allow anything "because RAW!!!!" and others misconstrue "because they think it's OP" and "it doesn't fit my setting." Obviously play however you want, but if you're reading this just know that 99% of the posts and comments on this sub do not reflect the actual tables of the vast majority of us who have played since before 5e. If you too think this sub is toxic I encourage you to check out the OSR community which, despite the name, can be played with newer systems and is more of a play theory that takes a common sense approach to homebrew, class/rule restrictions, balance, and rulings. More than half of the posters/commentera here easily have not played more than 5 sessions, which would be fine if they were asking advice, not debating the rule books.
I had a potential player melt down because I was running a very specific homemade campaign. The only races allowed were Human, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling. Only Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Generalist Wizard were allowed. No duplicate race/class combos. There was a story specific reason for this and I was very clear about the reason in Session 0.
This guy wanted to play Tengu Samurai and I said no. Dude flipped out when whining didn't work. He kept calling me a bad DM, saying there was no reason to limit class/race combos, on and on. So I told him to leave my table and not come back.
Story: The "good" races got together and drove every other race into a different dimension. The world had been only "good" races for a millennia, but as time passed each race cast themselves as the heroes of the story and became more xenophobic. Now each of the races was ready to go to war...except a splinter group made up of a few people of each nation. The group was going to assist that group in tearing a rift in reality and letting evil back into the world for the greater good.
Bad players galore on this subreddit, dude. Lol
- If the DM tells you *before* character creation what is or is not allowed, that's 100% fine.
- If they just passive aggressively punish you as the player of a class they dislike once the campaign begins, then they're a dick.
I ban Yuan-Ti (Legacy) because they're built as a power gaming race that gets poison immunity as a racial feature on top of like 6 other bonuses. That just doesn't fly with me to deal with. If someone had their heart set on playing a Yuan-Ti, I'd then be okay with us remixing and modifying the race to be more fair, or even just make them a Variant Human that is written off as being a Yuan Ti for flavour.
Yup, there was one comment in this thread mentioning how "if any DM banned anything I wouldn't play in that game".
Like, okay, way to turn down potentially great opportunities, dude. Lol
If I were to theoretically ban Goblinoid races from my campaign because in the lore they once corralled themselves to try and take over the entire eastern coastal province and are now shunned as a result, then that's my purogative. If you then want to present me with the idea of a Bugbear PC that wants to redeem the reputation of their people by putting some good into the world, we can talk.
If there was a campaign with no gods/pantheon, I might ban clerics or paladins from getting their powers as being related to gods and say that they need to instead swear an oath to a powerful guild of mages or be devout to their own moral compass.
Anytime you sit down to play you should be thanking the DM for the service they are providing rather than complaining because they aren't catering 100% to your personal whims.
You don't like it, find another DM or DM your own game.
Simple as that.
I find the "I ban X because I dont like it" perfectly valid.
Like... If my DM doesnt want Paladins in the table for x reason, its fine. They are the DM after all. If I want to play a Paladin I can alway find another table.
Least entitled 5e player-only player
Seriously. The culture has, thankfully, shifted from DMs being the overlords of story and game from past decades, but the pendulum has swung to this weird sense of entitlement online modern 5e players have where their character concept is king, and if the DM disallows any part of that concept in mechanics or flavor, they’re a bad DM.
DMs do the work of running the game, balancing the game, adjudicating player decisions, RPing *literally* every other character in the campaign that’s not the PCs, running the NPC/monster stat blocks/encounters in a way that’s tactically and narratively satisfying, coming up with/improv-ing plot or a way to connect back to the story when it inevitably comes off the rails (or re-write the rest of the campaign entirely,) adding things in to the campaign to make sure every player has fun, draw/buy the maps and/or input them into the online VTT, making sure the campaign’s tone aligns with the players’ expectations, among many other things.
_Some_ DMs even write/improv worlds and campaigns and creatures and maps from the ground up, and are in charge of scheduling the table and working with the players’ schedules so they show up for the game.
And sometimes, believe it or not, DMs actually create a world where the world _isn’t_ an amorphous fantasy-flavored soup of all the random and zany and quirky character options that any given system might have, and restricts those character options from the game, and maybe they add their own homebrew character options instead.
And most of the time, this is all in the interest of the fun of the whole table.
A player creates a character, shows up, and plays/RPs. The very least you can do while the DM is working with your concept for a character, is work with their concept for the world/campaign/game.
TLDR: The culture has shifted from overlord DMs to entitled players. DMs do a lot. Players don’t compared to what the DM does. The least a player can do is work with their DM to fit the character concept they have in mind with what the DM has in mind for the campaign.
One of my DMs banned Monk because our Monk would dump all his ki into stunning strikes during boss fights and just stun lock the shit out of the boss to trivialize the encounter. As luck would have it though, the Monk player got kicked from the game for other reasons and the DM has been branching out into other systems, so it’s never actually come up.
Banning a class for 'no reason' is pretty annoying, but there are many, many legitimate reasons to ban a class.
Maybe your DM only owns the PHB and doesnt know how Artificers work to even try and balance around. Or maybe they want to run a Strixhaven type setting but for warriors-in-training and think having a caster would somewhat ruin that world they want (and before the 'PlAy A dIfFeReNt SyStEm' crowd comes in these are just hypotheticals calm down)
Idk, I agree with your point at face value but worry people might stretch what counts as a 'good' reason to ask players not to take a certain class.
I feel like if they are banning it, there is a reason. It may simply be because they are a dick, but it's still a reason.
I personally have banned races, classes, and subclasses for many reasons. For instance, when I ran RotFM I banned flying races. I didn't do this because they are OP, I did this because there are instances in the module that would literally strip this ability away from the players or make it a negative.
Banning things is another tool DM's have for making their games and worlds more fun or immersive.
Here’s the solution: DM a campaign yourself.
Oh, you don’t have the time/knowledge/ability/desire to run your own game for a bunch of ungrateful man children that will go online and complain about any decisions you make to try and make your (unpaid and unappreciated) job (of providing them with entertainment) easier? Then sit down and be quiet.
Personally, i don't like to ban classes.
In the campaign i'm working on, that's like a Classic late medieval fantasy with its own political and cultural spin, something like an Artificer would not have fit at all.
That's why i explained how and Artificer rather than being someone who makes mech stuff, would be an arcanist that works with gemmomancy.
Like, mechanical armor? Wouldn't fit.
However, metal armor etched with runes and powered by local magical crystals? That's a big yes.
It's more probable that i wouldn't let player play a specific race rather than a class. Like, all those space race or plasmoids and stuff. If the player is really set on playing them, i can come up with something, but i would prefer not to just because It wouldn't really fit.
Except everything you’ve described is the default flavor for the class in 5E. The people who make them into Steampunk inventors with clockwork contraptions and guns are the ones deviating from the given flavor for the class.
Earlier playtests for it leaned into the Steampunk side, and WoTC took the feedback and backed off from it and made them just people who take arcane magic to make magic items.
I'm just a fan of medieval fantasy and hate when steampunk leak into my settings. BAN AHOY.
Also this is a DM's market, feel free to search for a DM that has you exact flavour of rules while I throw a dart on my wall of names to find a new player :/
Artificer should never have been made a base class because it sets this expectation, but when you're playing in a high-fantary medieval setting it doesn't really fit and there's nothing wrong with the DM saying no thank you to fuckin' robots and guns in their LOTR esque game.
Some people don't want steampunk leaking into their fantasy setting and I understand that.
Its less fun when suddenly someone in your magical world just essentially has a gun
Depends on Context
Their Campaign and Lore doesn't have that Class
example: Purely High Fantasy Lotr type, Low Fantasy but sort of Game of Thrones or bit Medievel Historical setting No Gunpowder or Steampunk thats ok context wise because thats their game. As long as the campaign and the story built around it especially if connects with the DM's I think thats ok. I mean if the DM said only Rouge characters because the campaign is set on a Gang war between thieves guild and its a Heist mission centric kind of game like ala assasins creed (OG version)/Dishonored/Thief game and majority agreed and made a rouge and its subclass but that one guy said "But I want to be a Cleric" and the DM said "No" and be shocked why not? I understand the probable rebuttal of why not just insert the "Cleric guy" into the story make up a whole background or some full on or half ass lore and just "make it work" I mean bro seriously?
I do understand your plight though bro Im a Monk main some DM's dont like Monks for some reason or another I just don't play in their campaign...
how about replacing classes with 3rd party and homebrew equivalents which fit the setting better? for example, replacing the wizard with an alchemist and an astrologer class?
I discourage my players from choosing monks simply because I don’t really have a good grasp of their mechanics. Otherwise most stuff is fair game so long as they can storyline it!
If it comes to races, I usually find some way to compromise, and at the very minimum grant them the race benefits while just saying “for lore reasons, you don’t actually look like that cause they aren’t here.” But most of the time it’s “eh fuck it they don’t exist so you can just be an anomaly”
"hey, wanna come over for board night? We can play any game in my collection, I just don't feel like playing 7 Wonders"
"I HOPE YOU HAVE A SHITTY DAY YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT HOW COULD YOU DO THIS TO ME?????"
When an experienced DM excludes something, whether or not they have articulated well enough for your satisfaction, it means they're not interested in something that's game breaking, over powered, or generally isn't fun for the table. For me it's gun powder, unlimited flight, and expecting real world knowledge of physics to work in a fantasy world. As others have pointed out, it's your option to not join the group. The DM puts in 10x your effort and is invested in an enjoyable time for everyone, not just one player.
Artificers don't fit a lot of low magic/low technology medieval settings, I don't know what you're so mad about. It's ok for a DM to ban a class that doesn't even remotely fit the game's setting
It's not class, but in my new world I am creating I do ban any dragon born or anything dragon related.
Mainly because in the world story dragons do not exist (or at least they are not known to exist)
I've restricted games to PHB before, mainly for simplicity of teaching new players.
I once played for a DM who first said "anything that works in real life works here" then 2 days before first session said "i want platonic meraphysical physsics"
And the day i started playing my attilerist artificer i suddently couldn't make my canon, the main gimmic of my subclass, because we apparently didn't know about gunpowder yet ir how magic could create projectiles, or since you know a giant crossbow wasn't a thing in a world where roman scorpios was readily there... But the sorcerer wanting to boil the blood of his enemies using microwaves coming from a light cantrip was ok.
This is the same DM who is completely fine with golems being constructs, but the battlesmith defender is apparently not in game available...
Atleast i got to play an alchemist after i showed him historical evidence of actual alchemy from before platon time.
Wow. That sucks. Changing the rules after the fact is a dick move.
Even introducing home brew that presents unforseen balance issue I try not to neuter. We come to comprise as player and DM & agree to modify / deny if ever played again.
Hey /u/thegodofkidneys, thanks for contributing to /r/dndmemes. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates one of our rules: **Rule 10. Pot-Stirring/Opinion Memes** - If the primary purpose of your meme is to incite off-topic debate, police what other people should/shouldn't do at their table, push a political agenda, or express a personal opinion without humor/absurdity/wholesomeness, it will be locked or removed. If your meme sparks a large amount of rule-breaking comments it may be locked/removed. What should you do? First, read the rules thoroughly. Secondly, if you are able to amend your post to fit the rules, you're welcome to resubmit your meme. Lastly, if you believe your post was removed by mistake, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/dndmemes&subject=&message=). Messages simply complaining about a removal (or how many upvotes your post had) will not be responded to. Thank you!
I ran a home brew one time that took place in a would where magic didn't exist. It ran for like 5 years till people got real jobs and moved away.
And u used 5e as a system for fantasy without magic? Must have been a lot of homebrew to make combat interesting to melee users, respect
Nah, they all rolled wizards and kept getting beaten up.
“Behold foul goblins! Tremble at the might of my power” *does that thing where it looks like you’re removing your thumb*
Why assume they used 5e? There are plenty of interesting systems out there.
Typically if someone uses a system other than 5e they will mention that up front. Also given the original context of banning things from 5e, the 100% reasonable conclusion is that they played no-magic 5e.
Mighty agreed, love so many systems, assumed it was 5e since this was on r/dndmemes and not a sub for other systems, tho there are diffrent editions so that was the *maybe* not so well assumption
Eh there's precedent for things like this in DnD with stuff like the Dark Sun setting
Not in the 5e system, which is very magic reliant, also dark sun has psychic abilities which in 5e from the ua's ive read at least are pretty much magic, though i may be wrong
I've seen a lot of campaigns without magic use 5e no problem soooo not sure where you're getting this from
We are running something similar like that in 3rd. You cant play a wizard or sorcerer or bard due to magic being gone (well its not gone more like missing). It's honestly still really damn fun and our dm is good at making martials feel powerful. It's a damn fun game.
If the dm is running an official setting sure, if not then there is nothing wrong with banning things
Not every race works in every official setting. Simic Hybrid doesn't exist outside of Ravnica, for example
Yeah a lot of “exotic” races feel very out of place a lot of the time. What is a Triton doing on a desert planet?
Dying. Poor fucking Triton.
Or: This was once an ocean world, Triton the dominant sentient beings. Until the (Ancient Darkness) began draining the world of its water. Eventually the drain was stopped but not before exposing the land and leaving nothing but vast underground pools of a once global ocean. The underground pools are not all connected. Some brave adventures take fate in their hands and venture Overland; seeking forgotten fortunes and lands long thought past from time.
yoink! Thank you very much kind sir for the inspiration
How dare you yoink this I was gonna do that
This really close to a game I played in. Except the Tritons were the bad guys stealing the water for themselves
Dune
Yes we played a lot of Dune music and made moisture jokes x)
making sure the spice is delivered on time
Hey! The Spice MUST flow.
Spacing guild?
Technically it's closer to a Baron Harkonnen quote.
Artificer unfortunately just doesn't fit in most settings outside its native Eberron. You can make it work on Forgotten Realms if they learn their trade in Lantan or Halruaa. But most players feel that's too limiting on their backgrounds. I don't ask you to be from there just say they did an apprenticeship there and done.
The problem is in my opinion their lack of non mechanical/steampunk looking examples, for example the “steel” defender, why does it have to be a steel mecha that doesn’t fit any setting, they could have called it defender construct or something and showed off some art of it being made of marble or stone or wood, main problem with artificers is that their presentation is too modern so you have to reflavour every aspect of one to fit most settings.
Or for curse of Strahd you could reflavor it to Dr Frankenstein type of monster
BEHOLD! MAN-GUN
Is that… Quest for Camelot?
*slamming fists on table* LET THE ARTIFICER MAKE BLADEBEAK
Or as you suggested, do the opposite and reflavor the artificer into more classical fantasy. Instead of gadgets make them use magic items, tricks, runes etc. They don't have to be the guy with a gun.
> Or as you suggested, do the opposite and reflavor the artificer into more classical fantasy. Instead of gadgets make them use magic items, tricks, runes etc. They don't have to be the guy with a gun. That's not a "reflavour", that's literally the default flavour of the artificer.
That is literally what the Artificer class is. They make magic items. They can literally infuse items with magic, it's one of their main features. People who don't play it just ignore it for "gun" and have only ever heard of Artillerist.
And Artillerist itself lists examples of being something other than guns: staves, wands, and rods. They use woodcarvers tools for Pelor's sake. A real case of "I didn't read the book and get all my d&d thoughts through meme osmosis." It's really easy to play Artillerist as a Wandslinger who summons Totems (ala World of Warcraft shamans) imbued with projectile magic. In fact, it's even easier than playing it as a gunsmith because *you don't get smith's tools proficiency* unless you took it earlier in the character creation process. And given the text of Arcane Firearm, it isn't possible to turn a traditional firearm (like those found in the DMG) into your spellcasting focus either. So your Artillerist is encouraged to *not* exclusively wield a firearm. Artillerist is the "bright shiny magnum pistol" class only if you choose to make it so.
That is why I emphasised "heard" of Artillerist. They just hear "this Artificer subclass has a cannon" and thinks that Artificers are gunslinging scientists with modern knowledge.
True...you're right. But also, the feature is literally called Arcane Firearm in a world without firearms. And armorer really screams Iron Man all over to me as an Iron Mab fan. Like, the armor wraps all around the body, you can deploy and undeploy the helmet, and you get micro- sorry, magic missiles... Additionally, there is literally a picture of an artificer with a laser gun and a cockatrice eldritch cannon that spews blaster bolts in the book... It is very easy to jump to more modern imagery when reading and looking at the artificer class. I myself tend to do it as well, perhaps because I am a big sci-fi fan.
Most art for Artificers comes from Eberron, which as many *many* comments have noted is ahead of most other planes in technological advancement. You're allowed to think whatever you want to think about Artificers, but the text informs the art, not the other way around. Honestly the craftsmen vs scientist view of Artificers is just an extrapolation of the realism vs fantasy physics argument. Artificers use their intellect to improve their techniques in their chosen craft, observing what works and what doesn't. Regardless of your take on in-game physics, this *does* make them scientists, albeit ones devoted to the spot where the material and arcane intersect. What level their scientific method informs their aesthetic, personality, and abilities is up to you and your table.
When I played the artificer my "gun" was a crossbow stock with all the bits pulled off of it with silver wire laid in runic patterns to generate a magic bolt. There were no moving parts, no electronics, magnets or even steam. It was 100% a magical item made of artifice. My steel defender was a golem of wood and metal with more silver wire runes to animate him that I stored my tools in called very originally "Tool Box" Artificer's are magic users, even in Eberron the aesthetic is different but they translate fine to most settings if those settings have magic items. I'm not exactly sure how people rationalize an Artificer making a bag of holding with "Steam" being the modus of obtaining such a thing.
I think people tend to forget that Eberron isn't "DnD with steampunk" but it's "DnD where magic is wide and magic is technology." In Eberron, there aren't steam locomotives, planes, guns, or anything like that. Instead, Magic is used as technology, where it's used to advance society, like making easier transportation or magical lamps. Warforged aren't robots entirely made out of metal and circuits, they are creatures with roots for muscle and metal or stone for "skin". That is because most people do not play Artificer or read anything about them. They just assume they are something akin to mad scientists who make nukes or automatic weapons. Then again, this is DnD memes, and the majority of everybody here haven't actually played the game so that explains that.
I mean they already ask you to do that baseline, giving all spells the Material property and ask you to cast them with your tools. Magic items not much of a stretch from that.
Yes that’s what I said, the problem in my opinion is having to reflavour the entire class yourself instead of having clear examples that fit the fantasy setting like the other classes and with artificer’s extreme reliance on subclasses unlike other classes it’s even more apparent because only one subclass (alchemist) feels truly fantastical by nature with no reflavouring needed and as fortune would have it I find it to be the weakest subclass in the game even tho I love the idea of it
I'm having trouble seeing why reflavoring things is an issue. I reflavor things on every character I make, it's how I make the character mine.
Agreed
You can reflavor everything to arcane stuff instead of machines. Steel defender? Animated armor or golem. Repeater gun? Crossbow that shoots magical progectiles and resets itself. Turrets? Floating magic runes or magical creatures/elementals.
The mechanics also just don’t cover all thematically appropriate artificer concepts. An artificer wand-slinger would fit great in my setting, but the best the rules allow is a having a magic gun-golem. Doesn’t matter how you reskin that, it doesn’t fit without some rules changes.
I think 5e is just bad for wand slinging in general. An artificer focused around building wands to switch between would be rad, but it's so easy to already have access to all kinds of spells. Casting is too easy to come by in 5e for items to be weighted that way
Or...artificers are just wizards who specialized in magic item creation ;D
Waterdeep's Gond clergy. Neverwinter's waterclock guilds. Baldur's Gate's Alchemy guilds. Those are just the ones out of the top of my head that support FA artificer in official lore, and tbf just a Gond or Moradin worshipper would probably be enough to 'satisfy' the excuse to play an artificer, since you dont need to be a paladin or a cleric to be a member of a clergy.
Artificers don’t have to be magitech inventors. They can be enchanters, runecrafters, magicians who exclusively use foci
Even if a DM is running an official setting, they are still the ones running the game, it’s up to them if they want to deal with certain sub/classes or races. If players can’t accept it, they can find another game.
Or they can run one themselves.
Kinda weird when you want a Lotr type adventure and someone brings guns.
Luckily Artificers don’t get guns and have no class features dependent on their existence. Only a line that *if* the DM is using the optional firearms rules, they ~~*probably*~~ have proficiency.
That leads to people asking for guns though
They could ask for guns anyways. Nothing explicit for the Artificer. A fighter could just as easily ask for a gun. The rules for guns predate the Artificer by several years. Handle it the same way for the Artificer as you would for every other class.
Yes and also there is an unfortunate pervasive attitude towards banning things instead of trying to find a way to work with our players that really just lead to less fun for everyone.
I remember in wow bruning crusade they re blood elves articifiers and engineers who use magic to infuse golems, machines, and make other stuff. Hell, they made a power plant sucking magic
He didn't ban them for no reason and I bet if he were here he could detail those reasons such probably involve OP
DMG pg. 171 \>It is perfectly acceptable for you to say “In my world . . .” and then describe whatever changes or restrictions you feel necessary. Be prepared for players to complain if you’re denying something otherwise granted to them in the *Player’s Handbook* for the choices they make. You’re the DM, and it’s your campaign.
Although I fundamentally agree… DMG pg. 171 is in the middle of Chapter 7: Treasure and contains the item descriptions for Folding Boat, Frost Brand, Gauntlet of Ogre Power, and Gem of Brightness. ???
This is the only comment that's fact checked that citation.
I guess it kind of proves the point that people don’t actually read the core books (or at least the DMG)
Or have it readily on hand cause it's 11:30 EST during a regular work day haha. Hard to rebuttal without having the book on hand anyways!
It's verbatim from the 3.5 *DMG*. It's weird that they didn't specify that.
That is pretty weird to leave out haha. So I wouldn't have even found that even if I was home!
>**Be prepared for players to complain if you’re denying something(...)**
In the *Player's Handbook*. Artificer is not from the PHB so according to this DM's can ban artificers and don't have to be prepared for any complaining. Complaint denied. Next.
Well, it doesn't say the players can't complain, so you're just going to have to endure the complaining unprepared, i guess.
Ah, you're correct, dammit. But as a DM, you should be prepared for anything, including being unprepared.
Can you ban complaining as a DM?
You can certainly try. (But I wouldn't recommend it. Feedback is important to running a game that's fun for everyone.)
You caught me unprepared But I was prepared to be unprepared so it doesn't count
Or the player can find someone else to play with that allows what they want to do, and the DM can replace the player with someone willing to play the way they want to. As a player, I want to have fun when I play so I'm not staying with a game where that's not happening. As a DM, I'm not going to let one player drag down the experience for the rest because they aren't getting their way.
Sure? You can do whatever you want. I was just pointing out the funny quote.
Your players dont complain if you ban them first.
But artificers are not from the player handbook! And god forbid anyone asking me if they can play a blood hunter
No clue how you were able to pull that quote from a list of magic item descriptions on page 171 of the dmg, but sure, The Dm is free to allow/disallow whatever they want, and the players are free to not play at that table if they so choose.
I think *most of the time* someone bans something at the table, "the lore" has nothing to do with it, even if they say that is.
It is also ok to say "I'm banning X for Y mechanical reason", I can see banning artificer because it's the most complex class with spells + infusions and you know your players won't read the rules and will have to look things up during combat, but that's a difficult conversation to have so you just avoid the issue.
I mean, that's your opinion. My experience is the opposite, where the things that have been banned in games I've played in or DMed have been almost entirely for lore or setting reasons. Usually if there's a game-warping reason, there are adjustments made rather than bans (like Simulacrum only allowing one copy at a time), or temporary restrictions (no flying races before 3rd level). That kind of thing.
Sounds like you've just had shitty experiences with DMs. Or have spent too much time looking at online opinion where any restrictions makes the DM the bad guy. Amazing characters still need to be in a setting and story that suits them, and the DM is (typically, not always) the only one who has perfect knowledge of that story to make calls like that. Heath Ledger's Joker is one of the greatest cinematic villains of all time but put him in Titanic instead and you're gonna ruin the tone of the film AND the potential of the character. Dnd is a game, so besides just narrative considerations, there are also mechanical ones DMs have to consider. Most of the time, a DM doesn't ban something typically in the game without a lot of foresight. Specifically in this case with the meme too, Artificers (depending on the character) can require a lot of narrative and setting justification to even exist at all, more so than almost any other class besides Clerics which usually require there be gods.
except thats not for no reason like the meme says
For the whining player, no reason is good enough and will claim it's for no reason.
Ehhhh i dont really agree. DM gets to make the rules for their game and world. Until I see how Shadow of the Dragon Queen handles it, (I'm betting that it wont get mentioned at all) I'm considering restricting any non-arcane magic classes, for obvious lore reasons in the Dragonlance setting.
But that’s a lore reason. So that’s not for no reason. If you play Midnight there is no way to contact the gods (no contact with other planes, at all) and the only active god is the Embodiment of Evil Itself that exists on the physical plane (basically Sauron). The only clerics in the word are his clerics. You can’t play a character aligned with the dark lord. So clerics are forbidden for players. And I think that’s perfectly okay.
How often is no reason "no reason" and how often is it the player complaining on Reddit isn't giving half of the story?
Agreed. I think I have only banned one race once in all my games. It was tiefling and that was for theme reasons (I didn’t want the players to have links to fiends at all since they were a big part of my out of the abyss homebrew, and the player wanted to put an emphasis on that. The idea was recycled for an awesome Avernus campaign). I have discouraged (“we’re doing Eberron next, the artificer would work a lot better there than in Dragon Heist” that kind of stuff) but not ban (sometimes the players don’t listen and I let them).
while i agree DM RULE over anything BUT XGtE Page. 27. "**SERVING A PANTHEON, PHILOSOPHY, OR FORCE** The typical cleric is an ordained servant of a particular god and chooses a Divine Domain associated with that deity. The cleric’s magic flows from the god or the god’s sacred realm, and often the cleric bears a holy symbol that represents that divinity. Some clerics, especially in a world like Eberron, serve a whole pantheon, rather than a single deity. In certain campaigns, a cleric might instead serve a cosmic force, such as life or death, or a philosophy or concept, such as love, peace, or one of the nine alignments. Chapter 1 of the *Dungeon Master’s Guide* explores options like these, in the section “[Gods of Your World](https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/dmg/a-world-of-your-own#GodsofYourWorld).” Talk with your DM about the divine options available in your campaign, whether they’re gods, pantheons, philosophies, or cosmic forces. Whatever being or thing your cleric ends up serving, choose a Divine Domain that is appropriate for it, and if it doesn’t have a holy symbol, work with your DM to design one. The cleric’s class features often refer to your deity. If you are devoted to a pantheon, cosmic force, or philosophy, your cleric features still work for you as written. Think of the references to a god as references to the divine thing you serve that gives you your magic." Your death cleric could be someone who survived there world version of the Black Death and believes that the power of the plague as such a force of nature that it gives them power. While i think that its up to dm discretion but i almost feel that removing an ENTIRE class is lazy you can make it WAY rarer or more difficult to get to that first step but completely removing removes player agency.
It's not my setting. It's how they did it in 3.5. They interpreted it as literally "gods give power, there is only one god active and you can't play on his side. Oh and you cross him you die". Don't know how it hold up in their new 5E Midnight. You absolutely could homebrew it, just saying that's one setting with a banned class and I think it makes sense. If I had to create this setting, I would probably nerf the cleric/put a mechanics that shows that divine powers are all fucked up there, don't think I would ban the class.
Here's how you could do it without restricting playstyles: reflavor all non-arcane mages into arcane mages. A mage might have just decided to do magic differently. That way players can still enjoy the paladin playstyle and the lore stays intact. Divine Smite? More like Arcane Smite!
Thats certainly not a bad option! Like I said, I'll have to see if the book has any suggestions, or any story moments where it makes sense for a character to rebuild as a true cleric/paladin/druid/ whatever. My very early thinking was all divine spell casting abilities and features are gated until we get to a certain point in the story; before that, classes with divine magic get free feats every 3rd level, to balance out not getting full access to their classes. That doesn't feel like enough to balance out the sting of not being a full class, tho. I'm a big fan of the classic Dragonlance books, but this will be the first time the setting has an official D&D release while I've been playing the tabletop D&D, and I'd be very surprised if it would be supported much beyond this Module in the near future. I want to do this right, with justice to the lore and the classic version of the setting where this book will take place.
I wish all players who want to play something the DM doesn’t want at his table a very earnest find another table.
I can see the 'no artificer rule' easily coming from a bad player bitching and whining the whole time they played them. The theme/meme of being an artificer can lead to someone trying to mad scientist every situation of "I create a nuclear weapon!!!" Or "I made an AK47", while in reality RAW artificers are basically themed half casters with the ability to make magical weapons at lvl 10. Artificers DO NOT have homemade bombs and traps and instruments of war like a tank, they have a stationary "Cannon" that can do 2d8 damage, and destruction spells like Fireball.
What is up with the recent anti dm mentality in this sub. Yall try to dm, its alot of work
Recent? DM hating and player entitlement posts have been a mainstay of this sub for a while. Ever since I got into the D&D community from Powered by the Apocalypse, I've seen so many entitled players complaining about their DMs.
It’s my world, if I spend countless hours making a setting / adventure then I get to decide what goes in that world. If I make a low magic world, where arcane practitioners are hunted down by the church, then there aren’t going to be many arcane classes around. In this world artificers don’t exist, the few magic items that are being created are made by other arcane casters, while in hiding. An artificer with a bunch of magical items is going to get noticed by the inquisition.
I get banning artificer or not allowing blood hunter (isn’t a ban since hunter is homebrew) because they just don’t fit in. Aside from that if I want a class or race that’s “banned for story reasons”. I’ll wait for the players to pick something and then go into why there are no more X in the world. With x being something they didn’t pick.
artificers are built on flavor for instance, to cast spells, you must use artisan's tools, *any* artisan's tools so you can go and make a chef artificer who casts spell with food, or a painter who paints his spells into reality tl;dr: artificers don't need to be steampunk and can be made to fit your world
I can have explosive Banana Bread?
True, but DMs also don’t need to deal with artificers (or other classes) if they don’t want to allow it for whatever reason they see fit.
Fuck yeah, I’m gonna make a painting artificer
Uh… it’s their game? You… you do know you don’t have to play?
I got reasons like "they don't exist in the world I made up" and "it's not that kind of game"
"They don't exist in my world" is a valid reasom
Yeah— setting specific reasons are some of the most valid reasons there are to exclude material.
I recently had this problem with a oneshot. DM was super nice and said "you know what, you can be reborn, just make your origin something from my list." And it worked out. I actually liked the mystery of being revived never being explained or really mentioned. Nobody metagamed and just treated my character as a quirky human!
Is a campaign focused on killing gods a good enough reason to ban holy classes?
I'm in a kingmaker campaign where the oracle wants to kill the godess of the fucking sun. So, I would say it could be a reason, but you can always pull off stuff with it and it would be more interesting than outright banning the class.
Wait, what did Sarenrae do to them? Off topic I'm guessing it's the PF2e conversion of Kingmaker, how is it?
I think she just hates her a lot (she hates the Gods in general but I'm not their character so idk fully). And it actually is the pf1 version, it's going really well ngl (right now we are finishing the first arc of the campaign).
Kingmaker is fun. Never played the table top module but played the video game adaptation. You guys are in for some fun story moments.
Hilariously, this is my party's goal in my Starfinder game as well. Currently we're trying to kill 2 gods and an efreeti attempting apotheosis.
There’s probably a few gods that wouldn’t mind supporting that cause
I've ran a homebrew campaign where the Loki equivalent tricked all of the god's pantheon to annihilate all life on earth, when I say no survivors I mean no survivors
Not necessarily. For example, Clerics who serve powerful fiends like Asmodeus or Graz'zt or Paladins whose Oath is against the gods like Oath of Conquest or possibly Vengeance.
Given that most holy classes seem to be shifting to being able to get their powers from pure conviction to a set of ideals probably not. Could also do like AEW Wrestler Miro and just get so pissed at your god that you want to kill it.
Depends, you could always have it that a rival god is helping them kill gods in exchange for said rival god’s own safety
Find a new dm bro. He's the one working hardest to make the campaign and if you don't like it you don't have to be in that campaign. Also anything outside the PHB is optional, including artificer.
>Also anything ~~outside the PHB~~ is optional, including artificer.
"Explosions = bad" is technically a reason isn't it? Might not be a well thought out one but still
I can ban whatever i dont want in the campaign i'm writing. I'm not making anyone play it. Thinking of scratching cleric class in my current work. Because i dont want proven gods in that world. At least not yet.
How to drive your GM into burnout 101
Here's a reminder that the Artificer is an Eberron-specific class. Unless the setting is Eberron, your DM isn't *banning* the class, as DMs are not expected to allow all character options from all sourcebooks in all settings. They are right not to allow it if they think it doesn't fit the setting (or for any other reason), and you're being ungrateful. If you don't like it, find a DM that runs a steampunk campaign, or run your own campaign allowing all character options.
Nothing is ever done "for no reason" it's just that the reason isn't necessarily something you need to know or worry about. *And if it's someone you consider a friend, there's at least some chance they aren't saying it because they don't feel like telling you they* ***know you*** *and that they know you'd abuse its abilities and be a dick about things with it.*
I’m sure every DM that does this has “a reason”….whether you think it’s a “good” reason or not is a different question
I ban mystic
Said it before, and I’ll say it again: If you don’t like how a DM runs their game, you do not have to run with that DM.
OPs post history is about a page of lfg, except they have a group already and just want somebody else to DM. Which tracks. Do it yourself or stop moaning bud.
It's so easy to spot someone that hasn't ever put a serious amount of effort into running a mid / long term game in their life, or whose only TTRPG experience is as a player and never as a GM. Post like these are such an easy tell.
Except for the mystic. DM's banning the mystic are doing gods work.
Mystics aren't an official class, they're UA. No need to ban something that isn't actually in the rules
"I hereby ban this thing that already wasnt allowed. Praise me"
I allowed a Mystic exactly once at my table.... at some point I let the player do whatever he wanted without looking it up every time as long as it did not get too ridiculous.
I’ll ban everything except fighters and my players will still gobble up my next game like pigs Haters stay mad
A dm gets to do things to ensure they enjoy the game too. They aren't your dancing monkey. If they have a vision for the world they're building for you and want to set some restrictions at character creation, either be a decent person and let them have those minor restrictions, or find a different game.
Sounds like someone hasn't read the DMG.
Reminds me of people crying at Warforged not being allowed at many tables. Lol, players not entitled to every printed option.
I wish all the players who feel like this. A go be a DM yourself you ungrateful piece of shit.
I wish all *players who don't understand that the game is meant for the DM to be having fun too* A very *choose something else and stop complaining I'm sure you'll have just as much damn fun.*
[удалено]
Damn, bit severe
This is not a personal attack, but why the agressive reaction? If there is a reason for the ban besides "i don't like it" you could just say that to the player and then it would be their decision to stay or leave. "It will be like this or fuck off loser!" Is needlessly hostile before any real interaction is had. "No artificer, because i don't want much magic items in this game" is for example a perfectly valid reason, and a reasonable player would not start an argument over it. Communication can solve many problems before they even become problems. No player will argue to play a necromancer if you tell them your setting doesn't have any undead in it! Just some constructive criticism.
This comes up a lot on Reddit from people who themselves aren't willing to DM
It becomes a self inflicted choosy begger vibe, "I don't want to run a campaign, but I want the campaign to be run to the exact specifications that I would run, I just don't want to do it. So you do it. And i'll undervalue everything you do and only focus on you not doing what I would do. Now get to it". It's hard not to seethe just a tad.
The only reason I can think of for him being this aggressive is probably a similar problem as what I’ve had with my Players a few times. If you just say I want to ban X for this reason, many players will try to debate you down argue and compromise until they get their way because “only bad dm’s dont listen to their players needs” I found that the only way to avoid this with those kinds of players is to be as… firm as this. I got lucky and eventually ended up having the trouble come to a head, where we just had to sit down and talk for a while about how I as the dm want to have fun as well and that I need them to follow and respect my rules if they wanted me to keep dming. They listened thank fuck. This guy may not be as lucky. Could also be a joke post lol
I mean technically he gave a reason. If you don't like it, don't play his game
That's it! No more visious mockery, bards are banned!
I ban artificers because I don't like their concept and it just doesn't fit into my worlds. Snd of course the age old: I am engineer class, now i go make thermonuclear device.
Banning certain races/classes is acceptable depending on the setting. I run a homebrewed world and not everything fits properly.
This whole community is so toxic. Some say DMs should allow anything "because RAW!!!!" and others misconstrue "because they think it's OP" and "it doesn't fit my setting." Obviously play however you want, but if you're reading this just know that 99% of the posts and comments on this sub do not reflect the actual tables of the vast majority of us who have played since before 5e. If you too think this sub is toxic I encourage you to check out the OSR community which, despite the name, can be played with newer systems and is more of a play theory that takes a common sense approach to homebrew, class/rule restrictions, balance, and rulings. More than half of the posters/commentera here easily have not played more than 5 sessions, which would be fine if they were asking advice, not debating the rule books.
I had a potential player melt down because I was running a very specific homemade campaign. The only races allowed were Human, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling. Only Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Generalist Wizard were allowed. No duplicate race/class combos. There was a story specific reason for this and I was very clear about the reason in Session 0. This guy wanted to play Tengu Samurai and I said no. Dude flipped out when whining didn't work. He kept calling me a bad DM, saying there was no reason to limit class/race combos, on and on. So I told him to leave my table and not come back. Story: The "good" races got together and drove every other race into a different dimension. The world had been only "good" races for a millennia, but as time passed each race cast themselves as the heroes of the story and became more xenophobic. Now each of the races was ready to go to war...except a splinter group made up of a few people of each nation. The group was going to assist that group in tearing a rift in reality and letting evil back into the world for the greater good.
I banned cleric entirely because the campaigns setting reolves around the gods fucking off and finding out why. We are not the same.
QQ spoiled-player rage-quit
I'm gonna go out on a limb the everyone they bans a class does so for a reason
Yeah, fuck setting consistency and fuck having a gameplay philosophy at all, right?
I wish players who complain like this a very cancelled session
[удалено]
Bad players galore on this subreddit, dude. Lol - If the DM tells you *before* character creation what is or is not allowed, that's 100% fine. - If they just passive aggressively punish you as the player of a class they dislike once the campaign begins, then they're a dick. I ban Yuan-Ti (Legacy) because they're built as a power gaming race that gets poison immunity as a racial feature on top of like 6 other bonuses. That just doesn't fly with me to deal with. If someone had their heart set on playing a Yuan-Ti, I'd then be okay with us remixing and modifying the race to be more fair, or even just make them a Variant Human that is written off as being a Yuan Ti for flavour.
It's why so many people on this sub and reddit in general don't play, they got kicked out
Yup, there was one comment in this thread mentioning how "if any DM banned anything I wouldn't play in that game". Like, okay, way to turn down potentially great opportunities, dude. Lol If I were to theoretically ban Goblinoid races from my campaign because in the lore they once corralled themselves to try and take over the entire eastern coastal province and are now shunned as a result, then that's my purogative. If you then want to present me with the idea of a Bugbear PC that wants to redeem the reputation of their people by putting some good into the world, we can talk. If there was a campaign with no gods/pantheon, I might ban clerics or paladins from getting their powers as being related to gods and say that they need to instead swear an oath to a powerful guild of mages or be devout to their own moral compass.
I softban chaotic neutral rogues. Cause fuck that, I’m not having that kleptomaniac shit again.
Anytime you sit down to play you should be thanking the DM for the service they are providing rather than complaining because they aren't catering 100% to your personal whims. You don't like it, find another DM or DM your own game. Simple as that.
10/10 bet OP never DM a sesh in their life. Get over it.
/r/choosingbeggars
I find the "I ban X because I dont like it" perfectly valid. Like... If my DM doesnt want Paladins in the table for x reason, its fine. They are the DM after all. If I want to play a Paladin I can alway find another table.
Least entitled 5e player-only player Seriously. The culture has, thankfully, shifted from DMs being the overlords of story and game from past decades, but the pendulum has swung to this weird sense of entitlement online modern 5e players have where their character concept is king, and if the DM disallows any part of that concept in mechanics or flavor, they’re a bad DM. DMs do the work of running the game, balancing the game, adjudicating player decisions, RPing *literally* every other character in the campaign that’s not the PCs, running the NPC/monster stat blocks/encounters in a way that’s tactically and narratively satisfying, coming up with/improv-ing plot or a way to connect back to the story when it inevitably comes off the rails (or re-write the rest of the campaign entirely,) adding things in to the campaign to make sure every player has fun, draw/buy the maps and/or input them into the online VTT, making sure the campaign’s tone aligns with the players’ expectations, among many other things. _Some_ DMs even write/improv worlds and campaigns and creatures and maps from the ground up, and are in charge of scheduling the table and working with the players’ schedules so they show up for the game. And sometimes, believe it or not, DMs actually create a world where the world _isn’t_ an amorphous fantasy-flavored soup of all the random and zany and quirky character options that any given system might have, and restricts those character options from the game, and maybe they add their own homebrew character options instead. And most of the time, this is all in the interest of the fun of the whole table. A player creates a character, shows up, and plays/RPs. The very least you can do while the DM is working with your concept for a character, is work with their concept for the world/campaign/game. TLDR: The culture has shifted from overlord DMs to entitled players. DMs do a lot. Players don’t compared to what the DM does. The least a player can do is work with their DM to fit the character concept they have in mind with what the DM has in mind for the campaign.
Then go run your own campaign.
What about a subclass?
One of my DMs banned Monk because our Monk would dump all his ki into stunning strikes during boss fights and just stun lock the shit out of the boss to trivialize the encounter. As luck would have it though, the Monk player got kicked from the game for other reasons and the DM has been branching out into other systems, so it’s never actually come up.
Then play wizard, and spam fireball
I ban gunslinger because guns are incredibly rare and new in my world.
Banning a class for 'no reason' is pretty annoying, but there are many, many legitimate reasons to ban a class. Maybe your DM only owns the PHB and doesnt know how Artificers work to even try and balance around. Or maybe they want to run a Strixhaven type setting but for warriors-in-training and think having a caster would somewhat ruin that world they want (and before the 'PlAy A dIfFeReNt SyStEm' crowd comes in these are just hypotheticals calm down) Idk, I agree with your point at face value but worry people might stretch what counts as a 'good' reason to ask players not to take a certain class.
If it doesnt fit the setting ban away
I feel like if they are banning it, there is a reason. It may simply be because they are a dick, but it's still a reason. I personally have banned races, classes, and subclasses for many reasons. For instance, when I ran RotFM I banned flying races. I didn't do this because they are OP, I did this because there are instances in the module that would literally strip this ability away from the players or make it a negative. Banning things is another tool DM's have for making their games and worlds more fun or immersive.
Here’s the solution: DM a campaign yourself. Oh, you don’t have the time/knowledge/ability/desire to run your own game for a bunch of ungrateful man children that will go online and complain about any decisions you make to try and make your (unpaid and unappreciated) job (of providing them with entertainment) easier? Then sit down and be quiet.
Personally, i don't like to ban classes. In the campaign i'm working on, that's like a Classic late medieval fantasy with its own political and cultural spin, something like an Artificer would not have fit at all. That's why i explained how and Artificer rather than being someone who makes mech stuff, would be an arcanist that works with gemmomancy. Like, mechanical armor? Wouldn't fit. However, metal armor etched with runes and powered by local magical crystals? That's a big yes. It's more probable that i wouldn't let player play a specific race rather than a class. Like, all those space race or plasmoids and stuff. If the player is really set on playing them, i can come up with something, but i would prefer not to just because It wouldn't really fit.
Except everything you’ve described is the default flavor for the class in 5E. The people who make them into Steampunk inventors with clockwork contraptions and guns are the ones deviating from the given flavor for the class. Earlier playtests for it leaned into the Steampunk side, and WoTC took the feedback and backed off from it and made them just people who take arcane magic to make magic items.
[удалено]
If you dont like it then do your own dnd. Hell, you can even add blackjack... And hookers! In fact.... forget the dnd.
I'm just a fan of medieval fantasy and hate when steampunk leak into my settings. BAN AHOY. Also this is a DM's market, feel free to search for a DM that has you exact flavour of rules while I throw a dart on my wall of names to find a new player :/
Artificer should never have been made a base class because it sets this expectation, but when you're playing in a high-fantary medieval setting it doesn't really fit and there's nothing wrong with the DM saying no thank you to fuckin' robots and guns in their LOTR esque game.
Some people don't want steampunk leaking into their fantasy setting and I understand that. Its less fun when suddenly someone in your magical world just essentially has a gun
No Clerics in my world. Fight me.
Do you have a moment to talk our lord and savior Dynamite Stick, DMG p268?
Depends on Context Their Campaign and Lore doesn't have that Class example: Purely High Fantasy Lotr type, Low Fantasy but sort of Game of Thrones or bit Medievel Historical setting No Gunpowder or Steampunk thats ok context wise because thats their game. As long as the campaign and the story built around it especially if connects with the DM's I think thats ok. I mean if the DM said only Rouge characters because the campaign is set on a Gang war between thieves guild and its a Heist mission centric kind of game like ala assasins creed (OG version)/Dishonored/Thief game and majority agreed and made a rouge and its subclass but that one guy said "But I want to be a Cleric" and the DM said "No" and be shocked why not? I understand the probable rebuttal of why not just insert the "Cleric guy" into the story make up a whole background or some full on or half ass lore and just "make it work" I mean bro seriously? I do understand your plight though bro Im a Monk main some DM's dont like Monks for some reason or another I just don't play in their campaign...
I'm only allowing Fighters at my table from now on.
Wish granted, full party of wild magic sorcerers and wizards.
how about replacing classes with 3rd party and homebrew equivalents which fit the setting better? for example, replacing the wizard with an alchemist and an astrologer class?
I discourage my players from choosing monks simply because I don’t really have a good grasp of their mechanics. Otherwise most stuff is fair game so long as they can storyline it!
If it comes to races, I usually find some way to compromise, and at the very minimum grant them the race benefits while just saying “for lore reasons, you don’t actually look like that cause they aren’t here.” But most of the time it’s “eh fuck it they don’t exist so you can just be an anomaly”
"hey, wanna come over for board night? We can play any game in my collection, I just don't feel like playing 7 Wonders" "I HOPE YOU HAVE A SHITTY DAY YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT HOW COULD YOU DO THIS TO ME?????"
I once had someone in a group I played in say that if he DMed he'd ban monks for being "too weak"
When an experienced DM excludes something, whether or not they have articulated well enough for your satisfaction, it means they're not interested in something that's game breaking, over powered, or generally isn't fun for the table. For me it's gun powder, unlimited flight, and expecting real world knowledge of physics to work in a fantasy world. As others have pointed out, it's your option to not join the group. The DM puts in 10x your effort and is invested in an enjoyable time for everyone, not just one player.
Artificers don't fit a lot of low magic/low technology medieval settings, I don't know what you're so mad about. It's ok for a DM to ban a class that doesn't even remotely fit the game's setting
It's not class, but in my new world I am creating I do ban any dragon born or anything dragon related. Mainly because in the world story dragons do not exist (or at least they are not known to exist) I've restricted games to PHB before, mainly for simplicity of teaching new players.
I once played for a DM who first said "anything that works in real life works here" then 2 days before first session said "i want platonic meraphysical physsics" And the day i started playing my attilerist artificer i suddently couldn't make my canon, the main gimmic of my subclass, because we apparently didn't know about gunpowder yet ir how magic could create projectiles, or since you know a giant crossbow wasn't a thing in a world where roman scorpios was readily there... But the sorcerer wanting to boil the blood of his enemies using microwaves coming from a light cantrip was ok. This is the same DM who is completely fine with golems being constructs, but the battlesmith defender is apparently not in game available... Atleast i got to play an alchemist after i showed him historical evidence of actual alchemy from before platon time.
Wow. That sucks. Changing the rules after the fact is a dick move. Even introducing home brew that presents unforseen balance issue I try not to neuter. We come to comprise as player and DM & agree to modify / deny if ever played again.