I don’t believe there is. Usually that sort of thing is just done verbally. “You can be any race except x or y.” Or “only races x, y and z are available in this world.”
Granular control over player options, race/species, spells, subclasses, feats, etc., are something people have asked for since I think content sharing was a thing. I don't know if there's a technical hurdle or not, but it's not something we currently have.
So yeah, what we do now is what DMs have always done, let players know what is and isn't done at your table. DM basically has a "dealer's choice" in that regard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Technically, there like just over 300+ races to choose from (some are just variants of the same) - I let players choose, but negotiate build: for example, a player wanted to be an Aarakocra Monk, I agreed, but they couldn't fly, yet can glide 10:1, because certain abilities are just overpowered and should be earned (and with limits), yet I'll let them use their talons as weapons. Side note: he found a Ring of Contrariness, that gives him 10 minutes of levitation once a day, up to a mile high (glide 10 miles).
Granular control over player options, race/species, spells, subclasses, feats, etc., are something people have asked for since I think content sharing was a thing. I don't know if there's a technical hurdle or not, but it's not something we currently have.
So yeah, what we do now is what DMs have always done, let players know what is and isn't done at your table. DM basically has a "dealer's choice" in that regard.
There was a post by a staff member about this, basically said it was against the philosophy of the site to allow those constraints on player options.
Personally, I disagreed with that philosophy and still do - it would be nice for players to at least have a "only permitted content" toggle button, it would make it easier for players to see what they can and can't use (according to the DM's rules). I don't think the technical side would be too hard to implement - but that's moot if DDB doesn't want to make it possible. On the other hand, that was before WotC took over so...who knows?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Granular control over player options, race/species, spells, subclasses, feats, etc., are something people have asked for since I think content sharing was a thing. I don't know if there's a technical hurdle or not, but it's not something we currently have.
So yeah, what we do now is what DMs have always done, let players know what is and isn't done at your table. DM basically has a "dealer's choice" in that regard.
There was a post by a staff member about this, basically said it was against the philosophy of the site to allow those constraints on player options.
Personally, I disagreed with that philosophy and still do - it would be nice for players to at least have a "only permitted content" toggle button, it would make it easier for players to see what they can and can't use (according to the DM's rules). I don't think the technical side would be too hard to implement - but that's moot if DDB doesn't want to make it possible. On the other hand, that was before WotC took over so...who knows?
Yeah, I think I remember that articulation now that you mention it. It is a poorly thought out philosophy. It burdens DMs with characters that the DM doesn't want to welcome into the game because either 1.) matter of world building taste or 2.) they're not comfortable with the character option because they're not familiar with it. So instead of having the option of setting parameters for a given campaign, DDB instead opts to invite session 0 conflict. Most of us have played in games where there's some sort of content limit. I've never seen a player, at least a mature player, hem and haw over such limits. The policy, if in fact a policy as opposed to a poor articulation of a practice for other reasons, sounds like an anxious reaction to accommodate player agency, when I just don't think such disputes happen in good faith play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I mean, one way of doing this could be to just .... make a list. Then show it. Like this:
In my game, you may pick the following races as player characters:
Human
Halfling
Gnome
Goblin
Orc
/end of list
You may also suggest any CR1, bipedal, non-flying race you like, and I'll tell you no in the politest terms possible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
DnDBeyond simulates handing your friend the book(s). You wouldn't normally redact the book itself, rather you would verbally tell them what is allowed and what isn't. This would be especially complicated if they own the book in question themselves. Just count on your players to only use what you explicitly allow (and as the DM, you should have access to their sheets as well.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is there a way to just display a curated race list for players? Rather than displaying ever race available in every book published so far,
I don’t believe there is. Usually that sort of thing is just done verbally. “You can be any race except x or y.” Or “only races x, y and z are available in this world.”
Granular control over player options, race/species, spells, subclasses, feats, etc., are something people have asked for since I think content sharing was a thing. I don't know if there's a technical hurdle or not, but it's not something we currently have.
So yeah, what we do now is what DMs have always done, let players know what is and isn't done at your table. DM basically has a "dealer's choice" in that regard.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Technically, there like just over 300+ races to choose from (some are just variants of the same) - I let players choose, but negotiate build: for example, a player wanted to be an Aarakocra Monk, I agreed, but they couldn't fly, yet can glide 10:1, because certain abilities are just overpowered and should be earned (and with limits), yet I'll let them use their talons as weapons. Side note: he found a Ring of Contrariness, that gives him 10 minutes of levitation once a day, up to a mile high (glide 10 miles).
There was a post by a staff member about this, basically said it was against the philosophy of the site to allow those constraints on player options.
Personally, I disagreed with that philosophy and still do - it would be nice for players to at least have a "only permitted content" toggle button, it would make it easier for players to see what they can and can't use (according to the DM's rules). I don't think the technical side would be too hard to implement - but that's moot if DDB doesn't want to make it possible. On the other hand, that was before WotC took over so...who knows?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yeah, I think I remember that articulation now that you mention it. It is a poorly thought out philosophy. It burdens DMs with characters that the DM doesn't want to welcome into the game because either 1.) matter of world building taste or 2.) they're not comfortable with the character option because they're not familiar with it. So instead of having the option of setting parameters for a given campaign, DDB instead opts to invite session 0 conflict. Most of us have played in games where there's some sort of content limit. I've never seen a player, at least a mature player, hem and haw over such limits. The policy, if in fact a policy as opposed to a poor articulation of a practice for other reasons, sounds like an anxious reaction to accommodate player agency, when I just don't think such disputes happen in good faith play.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I mean, one way of doing this could be to just .... make a list. Then show it. Like this:
In my game, you may pick the following races as player characters:
/end of list
You may also suggest any CR1, bipedal, non-flying race you like, and I'll tell you no in the politest terms possible.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
DnDBeyond simulates handing your friend the book(s). You wouldn't normally redact the book itself, rather you would verbally tell them what is allowed and what isn't. This would be especially complicated if they own the book in question themselves. Just count on your players to only use what you explicitly allow (and as the DM, you should have access to their sheets as well.)