Recent content by Remathilis

The best D&D setting is Eberron. Run it.

Half-Dragon PCs For All Worlds Half-Dragon PCs For All Worlds Behold! the 2e half-dragons from Council of Wyrms, expanded to other D&D settings.

Apparently adding one turns it into a gonzo kitchen sink circus troupe, so why not?

I guess we need to walk on eggshells so no one's feelings get hurt, heh? I'll remember that the next time a "circus troop" thread gets posted.

And if was responding to a specific person's campaign, I'd probably phrase it differently. But I'm not, I'm referring to a particular style of game I find unfun. Why do I have to sugar-coat it when discussing the abstract? Are skins so thin that if I say "I don't find that type of game fun" you...

I gotta agree. D&D has gods-knows-how-many species, but only twelve PHB classes, one supplemental one, another on the way, and a variety of 3pp alternatives. However, I rarely see someone ban paladin and then replace it with bloodhunter. They just ban paladin and your available options become...

At this point in the discussion, its catharsis. Because FOR ME a DM who limits the options in his game is too narrow a vision FOR ME and it won't be fun FOR ME to play in that game. But people keep trying to omit the FOR MEs and assume I'm making a blanket statement FOR EVERYONE so that they can...

My guess is that people here are taking that personally because D&D is a personal endeavor. If you invited me to play a video game with you and then explained the game and I said, "no thanks, that doesn't sound like a game I will enjoy" you probably won't take that personally because you didn't...

I'll be blunt: I have stated repeatedly that I have a standard I hold for new games I'm joining: no options less than what the core rulebook gives. If I don't see that, I will walk. I've been told I am entitled and wrong for having that standard. I can only imagine this is because people have a...

Yeah I know, but you keep trying to convince me that your carefully created vision is Good Actually even though I've said its too limited for me to have fun in. I keep saying no thanks and you keep telling me I'm wrong for saying it!

Player: Cool. No beasts, no undead, no demons, no aberrations. DM: Whoa whoa whoa: you can't expect me to not have cultists summoning monsters or having attacks from dinosaurs! Players: Consider it "flexing your creative muscles you wouldn't otherwise consider"

I find it hilarious that that's all I've ever argued and people keep insisting I'm forcing DMs to bend to my whims. Are DMs such snowflakes that they cannot stand the idea a player can have standards the DM cannot meet? I'm actually convinced DMs are so used to kicking players out of their games...

Like I've said, it's principle. If you are removing my options without considering alternatives, how about I do the same for you? Let me ban a monster type from your game we will never encounter and has no place in your world? You ban Dragonborn, I'll ban beholders. You ban PC goblins? I ban...

Ok, so we're talking minimums again. Which is more than the minimum. Which actually wasn't my point. My point was Shadowdark has 6 ancestries and four classes, so I expect a minimum of 6 ancestries and four classes. I don't care if they are the six from the core book or if you replace some...

Well considering your Platonic Ideal, what was next was banning four species and eight classes, so I think my judgment call was spot on.