So I have a player in my group who... just likes to play monsters. In Volo's Guide to Monsters there are a few additional races to play but this isn't enough for this player. Once he wanted to play a gargoyle or something, I can't remember. In 3.5 you have the level adjustment to work with so that you can play some interesting creatures. 5th edition doesn't have that. I know that in the DMG there is the Creating New Character Options section which helps guide you in races and class modification. But say someone comes in saying "I want to play a beholder!" or some random monster in the Monster Manual and the rest of the group are playing standard roster, what do you do? I have no idea how to balance it out, especially if they want to play a powerful creature. I mean what classes would an owl bear be able to take? Granted we could say "Play a(n) (insert playable race) druid and have wild shape at level 2" and call it good but NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! this guy wants to play full fledged creature like a roc or a chimera that was born as that creature but became sentient. Oh and since the creature is sentient, it has a higher intelligence than the normal creature. Story-wise the character makes sense in my world, but how do you create balanced bonuses like ability score increase, advantages/disadvantages, character traits, and applicable classes to that creature? Also I have a friend who wants to play a character that is effectively Nightcrawler from X-men. How would you validate a character that is say a tiefling fighter at level 1 with teleport (a level 7 conjuring spell with a range of 10 feet) and wants to be able attack multiple times using this spell in one round!? *rubbing temples of eyes* granted this girl has never played D&D but still...
I'd say that not being able to use weapons or non-custom armor is a rather significant disadvantage, as is being unable to perform somatic or material components when spellcasting. Also, remember that the listed HP does not apply to PCs of that race. As for custom armor, you can quite easily treat it as barding, with the usual x4 cost. Handle ASIs by using the related modifiers and remembering that no playable race has a bonus greater than +2 to any one stat. Remove Multiattack, if applicable. Model bites and so forth after the aarakocra's Talons. Flying speeds; damage vulnerabilities, resistances and immunities; Innate Spellcasting; poison; invisibility; and anything similar are significantly more complicated.
Nightcrawler would, I think, be a 6th-level monk of the Way of Shadow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
At some point you have to say no or else you are always going to have to attempt to balance everything. I feel like most people who want to play those odd things are looking for something over powered. There are also just some races that aren't going to be let into town.
I have the opposite problem that you seem to be having, I say no to everything that's not basic most times than not. It's only been recently that I have opened up and allowed a bit more, ridiculousness, into the game and it's been decently fun. A couple points that I'd point out to the character wanting to play a beholder (or other monstrous race), they are scary and the general populace is not going to accept them just because someone says they are a good guy. So they are going to have to deal with at the very least xenophobia (if not full on attacks from 'heroes' who believe they are evil). In fact that could be a whole session of play, or a recurring theme.
As for Nightcrawler, re flavoring is your friend. Have them play a Tiefling Ranger (revised UA), this way they can ignore difficult terrain. Then just say that their 30ft movement speed is a teleport. Remember Nightcrawlers limitation is that he cannot teleport where he cannot see (I know that this is a psychological restriction). Having two weapon fighting as a ranger will allow the player to use 2 rapiers, and be a dex based build. Using Dash would be thematically like multiple teleports in the same round. Don't forget that when nightcrawler teleports there is a smell of Sulphur and a dark cloud (this would be the drawback to the teleport reflavor).
If you really want to get cheesy with it, have them take the Beast Master conclave and give them a panther named Shadowcat ;)
Having two weapon fighting as a ranger will allow the player to use 2 rapiers, and be a dex based build.
Rapiers are, for no apparent reason, not light. This is probably so they can be different from shortswords, but it has the effect of forcing someone who wants to dual-wield them take the Dual-Wielder feat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Thank you so much for the feedback guys. Being relatively new when it comes to DMing I felt overwhelmed with this. I know that I can say no to a lot of what my friend requests due to the fact the monsters he wants to play are overpowered/socially hated by the npc populace in my world. But there is always the part of me that goes "hmm... how he's going to pull it off?" which then makes it tough for me to say no in the first place. As for the Nightcrawler issue, as I said before, the problem, in my mind, is that the person who wanted to play a character like Nightcrawler doesn't understand why she'd have to be limited in her powers during combat. She brought up a scenario where she would like to perform multiple strikes (lets say 8 strikes) in sequence with her teleportation and it would all be under 5 seconds. In her mind that is way to fast for the target to react to her strikes. I spent a good hour talking with her about how combat worked in D&D and how everyone would be acting in turn based on the initiative rolls and how many feet (squares) you could move per round... She still couldn't wrap her head around how each attack would be considered an attack action and each teleport would be either a free action or movement action depending on how the teleport action would be set up for her character.
Having two weapon fighting as a ranger will allow the player to use 2 rapiers, and be a dex based build.
Rapiers are, for no apparent reason, not light. This is probably so they can be different from shortswords, but it has the effect of forcing someone who wants to dual-wield them take the Dual-Wielder feat.
Right, so at fourth level the two weapon fighting feat to remove the restriction.
a bit late... but if theyre wanting more than 4-5 strikes they MUST be a fighter and use action surge... she has an overpowered fantasy and thats going to make her the damn star if she can not only teleport back up to people on whim but also land 8 strikes a turn which is ridiculous...
for the sake of balance you need to consider what she is capable of and say no if you feel you shouldn't allow it. thats already pushing for alot, i have to grab a certain class like shadow monk or warlock shadow teleport feature in order to have something like that. and thats not taking into account the 8 attacks.
I found a good rule of thumb when I started to introduce monsters as players, give a hard cap on the CR of your available races. I stuck to CR2 and under, yea some of them were more viable than others, but it kept the players who went with classic races from being over shadowed by the monster races. It also gave the players some familiar races to choose from as most CR 2 and under creatures were familiar to them.
On the very rare occasion I let someone go outside that range I needed them to have a very well thought out reason for their choice, "I'm a Githyanki warrior who is out to prove his mettle in combat" really doesn't show a whole lot of depth. Where as "I'm the offspring of an ogre and deamoness, 3rd generation, my father won't give me our territory until I prove my worth as both a fighter and scholar, therefor I must travel and learn of what is beyond the mountains" gives a bit more depth that can potentially impact plot points.
When it comes to level adjustment, I found that using the CR adjustments from the DMG on creature creation tables can give you a baseline. For every 2 CR above the party level the monster race is you can essentially give it a level adjustment of 1 considering the CR is meant for a party of 4 vs it. From there it's just a matter of adjusting on the fly during the game to make sure the entire party stays relatively close in capability.
Swapping out the spells gained from Infernal Legacy can give a Nightcrawler flavor. Change out hellish rebuke with blur and darkness with blink. Maybe flavor it as one parent was a tiefling and the other was an eladrin, the infernal blood mutating the fey step ability and causing strange changes to it.
Thank you so much for the feedback guys. Being relatively new when it comes to DMing I felt overwhelmed with this. I know that I can say no to a lot of what my friend requests due to the fact the monsters he wants to play are overpowered/socially hated by the npc populace in my world. But there is always the part of me that goes "hmm... how he's going to pull it off?" which then makes it tough for me to say no in the first place. As for the Nightcrawler issue, as I said before, the problem, in my mind, is that the person who wanted to play a character like Nightcrawler doesn't understand why she'd have to be limited in her powers during combat. She brought up a scenario where she would like to perform multiple strikes (lets say 8 strikes) in sequence with her teleportation and it would all be under 5 seconds. In her mind that is way to fast for the target to react to her strikes. I spent a good hour talking with her about how combat worked in D&D and how everyone would be acting in turn based on the initiative rolls and how many feet (squares) you could move per round... She still couldn't wrap her head around how each attack would be considered an attack action and each teleport would be either a free action or movement action depending on how the teleport action would be set up for her character.
There is a document on DMs Guild called "Monstrous Races". It costs $3 and it creates a balanced playable race for each monster in the monster manual. Maybe take a look at that. Monk's Flurry of Blows (I think that's what it's called) could also do multi-attacks (I think lol).
NIGHTCRAWLER ISSUE: If you are going to make this character do this or they won't play unless they're Nightcrawler, here's how I would do it: The 5e rules for broken up combat are if you have 30 feet of movement, you could move 10, use an attack action, then move the other 20, you wouldn't move 30 again. What this means is even if your character had a teleportation distance of 30, you could translate that to mean that she could teleport up to 30 feet per round. You would have to houserule broken up attacks since attacking is all included in your 1 (ONE) action. You could teleport 5 feet, attack, teleport 5 feet, attack (assuming they have multiple attacks, or are using your bonus action to make an off-hand attack), then continue to teleport and attack until you either hit your maximum of teleporation speed, or maximum of attacks allowed by your class. You could explain that as Nightcrawler had to be taught to be a badass. There a multiple episodes of the series where he is in a giant training room practicing his teleportation and combat. You could equate that training to leveling up and adventuring.
Hope this helps! Even though I just realized that the original post is almost reaching a year old.............................*face palm*
This guy wants to play full fledged creature like a roc or a chimera that was born as that creature but became sentient. Oh and since the creature is sentient, it has a higher intelligence than the normal creature. Story-wise the character makes sense in my world, but how do you create balanced bonuses like ability score increase, advantages/disadvantages, character traits, and applicable classes to that creature?
I am sadly one of those guys, I love playing monster races but I know my limits. I just created a new race (Centaur) which has 60ft of a walking speed but it has a -1 armor class. This race would be good for those kinds of people and plus it already can talk so you wouldn't have to make it sentient...
I hope that this might be helpful to those new players who like to spice up the D&D campaign and play a monster class. If you are interested in playing that Centaur race I could upload it (probably going to still do it after this post.)
I am sadly one of those guys, I love playing monster races but I know my limits. I just created a new race (Centaur) which has 60ft of a walking speed but it has a -1 armor class. This race would be good for those kinds of people and plus it already can talk so you wouldn't have to make it sentient...
I hope that this might be helpful to those new players who like to spice up the D&D campaign and play a monster class. If you are interested in playing that Centaur race I could upload it (probably going to still do it after this post.)
I would suggest that maybe giving other creatures advantage against attacks on they back half of the centaur, or attacks from creatures behind it? Not real sure how that works in-game, it would be equivocal to a hide bonus I guess.
First of all, hate is a strong word. The DM probably doesn't hate it. Bothering them... probably not in the sense you mean.
The issues with making highly unconventional characters are manifold, from the perspective of the DM.
First of all, the game is not, by default, balanced against such characters. It is not meant to be played with a Roc PC, or an ancient dragon PC, or a Couatl PC. The Couatl can do things most normal PCs can't. This means that any adventure modules, any pre-made encounters, etc., cannot possibly have been balanced with a Couatl PC in mind, and will therefore be incorrect as printed, and must be modified. The DM also is even less able to rely on encounter difficulty calculators like the one here or KFC, which do a mediocre enough job with a normal party that meets all the default assumptions for its level and party size. By putting a Couatl into the mix, you've now tossed all the assumptions under which those algorithms were produced out the window, meaning the DM will be unable to rely on those. This makes a great deal more work for the DM - you're basically negating all pre-made content and forcing the DM to homebrew literally everything, and must do it without the algorithmic assistance (such as it is) provided by these computer tools.
Second of all, it is the DM's job to make sure that all players have characters at the table who are relatively equally useful and powerful compared to each other. The game designers have, to a certain degree, already ensured this is the case if you go with the default races and classes provided by the books. They have, at minimum, thoroughly play-tested the races and classes to ensure that nothing is wildly out of whack, and that having, say, an Aarakocra paladin side by side with a halfling warlock is not going to mean that one player is wildly outshone by the other. Such testing is not possible with a homebrew monster character. Which means a good DM will be concerned about introducing a character into the party that is unfairly powerful compared to the other PCs. The good DM will be rightly worried that your character could upstage everyone else at the table. Wildly fun for you (probably) -- miserable for everyone else. The DM's job is to make sure everyone has fun, not just you.
Finally, there is the snowball effect. When someone at the table sees that you get to play a Couatl, what's to stop him or her from asking to play a unicorn, or a medusa, or a lich? There is no objective reason why the DM could say no to anyone for literally any monster concept, once you are allowed to play a Couatl. So now you are opening up a whole can of purple worms (and why can't someone play one of those now too?) for the DM, who thought we were going to have a regular adventuring party of humans, elves, and dwarves, and now has a Couatl, a lich, a succubus, and a pegasus playing the adventures. Surely you can see how this might throw the DM's intended adventures right into the trash bin. Again, this makes more work for the DM. And we must consider that, although the DM's job is to try and help the players enjoy their ideas as much as possible, the DM is a player, too, and the DM should get to have fun, too. If I'm planning on a standard humans-halflings-gnomes-dwarves campaign and my whole table is playing exotic creatures, that may not be fun for me as a DM.
These are some of the reasons why a DM will say no to characters like a Couatl as a PC. The game was not really designed to allow it, it throws the balance out of whack, it has the very strong potential to upstage everyone else, and it can send the campaign way the heck off the rails into a place that would not be fun for the DM. And while yes, you are supposed to be able to have fun, and yes, the DM is supposed to be trying to make sure that you do... the DM is supposed to have fun too, and you shouldn't be allowed to ruin the DM's fun either.
But of course, ask your DM. I would not allow a Couatl PC, but your DM might. Maybe it's not a problem. You don't know until you ask. Though I would suggest, be very clear that it's OK for the DM to say no. If the DM feels like you will be miserable if the answer is no, you might be allowed to do it even if it wrecks the DM's fun, because we DMs are self-sacrificing like that (it's part of the role we take on). Don't let your DM make that kind of sacrifice for you. It's not fair... and in the end you'll regret it, because if the DM is not having fun, the campaign will fizzle out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
If your DM hated it, they would should have said “no.” They likely can’t hate it very much since they agreed to your character.
Well... maybe.
Many DMs don't like saying no to a player if the player is really excited about an idea and really wants to do it. If we feel we can "live with it" many of us will put up with it even if, fully given our druthers, we'd not have allowed it. There are a several rules options I allow in my campaign that if I'm being honest, I really don't like, and I'd rather not use... but one of my players asked for it, and I have said yes because I can stomach it, even if I'd really rather not. As I said above, many of us are self-sacrificing that way.
IMO, as a player, one of your jobs (and you don't really have all that many as a player, compared the the jobs a DM has to do) is to try not to paint the DM into a corner where the DM has to say yes to something he or she really doesn't want, to avoid making you unhappy. That's why I said, always give the DM an out... always be clear that this is a cool off-beat idea that you have but it's OK for the DM to say no -- you won't be upset. And you need to actually not be upset. I mean -- basically what I'm saying is people need to be grown ups and cooperate here, rather than wanting it their way or the highway.
I can't speak for all DMs, but I think it really depends on how outlandish the request is. For example if you would have asked me to play a Couatl, would have simply said no. Want to play a half ogre we could work something out. The farther you get from the official races, the harder it becomes to make a campaign that is challenging and relatable to everyone at the table.
Player 1: Hello, I am playing a Half-Elf Sorcerer named Milo. My Draconic bloodline fuels my magic.
Player 2: Cool, I am playing Nathandar a Human Druid, I am looking forward to using my Wild Shape
Player 3: Hey everyone, I am playing Gorak, the Dwarf Cleric, I will be your healer today.
Player 4: I am Bren Stonebreaker, Goliath Barbarian and I am ready to smash the bad guys!
Player 5: Those sound great. I am playing a Magical Flying Snake that can shape change an unlimited number of times per day and I have lots of innate spell abilities, many of which are cleric spells. Also I am Immune to most non magical damage, speak all languages and have true sight.
How much fun do you think the rest of the group is likely to have?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I have a player in my group who... just likes to play monsters. In Volo's Guide to Monsters there are a few additional races to play but this isn't enough for this player. Once he wanted to play a gargoyle or something, I can't remember. In 3.5 you have the level adjustment to work with so that you can play some interesting creatures. 5th edition doesn't have that. I know that in the DMG there is the Creating New Character Options section which helps guide you in races and class modification. But say someone comes in saying "I want to play a beholder!" or some random monster in the Monster Manual and the rest of the group are playing standard roster, what do you do? I have no idea how to balance it out, especially if they want to play a powerful creature. I mean what classes would an owl bear be able to take? Granted we could say "Play a(n) (insert playable race) druid and have wild shape at level 2" and call it good but NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! this guy wants to play full fledged creature like a roc or a chimera that was born as that creature but became sentient. Oh and since the creature is sentient, it has a higher intelligence than the normal creature. Story-wise the character makes sense in my world, but how do you create balanced bonuses like ability score increase, advantages/disadvantages, character traits, and applicable classes to that creature? Also I have a friend who wants to play a character that is effectively Nightcrawler from X-men. How would you validate a character that is say a tiefling fighter at level 1 with teleport (a level 7 conjuring spell with a range of 10 feet) and wants to be able attack multiple times using this spell in one round!? *rubbing temples of eyes* granted this girl has never played D&D but still...
I will most likely get a lot of hate for this answer, but sometimes you just have to say no. It sucks, especially in a game where we want to say yes.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'd say that not being able to use weapons or non-custom armor is a rather significant disadvantage, as is being unable to perform somatic or material components when spellcasting. Also, remember that the listed HP does not apply to PCs of that race. As for custom armor, you can quite easily treat it as barding, with the usual x4 cost. Handle ASIs by using the related modifiers and remembering that no playable race has a bonus greater than +2 to any one stat. Remove Multiattack, if applicable. Model bites and so forth after the aarakocra's Talons. Flying speeds; damage vulnerabilities, resistances and immunities; Innate Spellcasting; poison; invisibility; and anything similar are significantly more complicated.
Nightcrawler would, I think, be a 6th-level monk of the Way of Shadow.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
At some point you have to say no or else you are always going to have to attempt to balance everything. I feel like most people who want to play those odd things are looking for something over powered. There are also just some races that aren't going to be let into town.
I have the opposite problem that you seem to be having, I say no to everything that's not basic most times than not. It's only been recently that I have opened up and allowed a bit more, ridiculousness, into the game and it's been decently fun. A couple points that I'd point out to the character wanting to play a beholder (or other monstrous race), they are scary and the general populace is not going to accept them just because someone says they are a good guy. So they are going to have to deal with at the very least xenophobia (if not full on attacks from 'heroes' who believe they are evil). In fact that could be a whole session of play, or a recurring theme.
As for Nightcrawler, re flavoring is your friend. Have them play a Tiefling Ranger (revised UA), this way they can ignore difficult terrain. Then just say that their 30ft movement speed is a teleport. Remember Nightcrawlers limitation is that he cannot teleport where he cannot see (I know that this is a psychological restriction). Having two weapon fighting as a ranger will allow the player to use 2 rapiers, and be a dex based build. Using Dash would be thematically like multiple teleports in the same round. Don't forget that when nightcrawler teleports there is a smell of Sulphur and a dark cloud (this would be the drawback to the teleport reflavor).
If you really want to get cheesy with it, have them take the Beast Master conclave and give them a panther named Shadowcat ;)
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Thank you so much for the feedback guys. Being relatively new when it comes to DMing I felt overwhelmed with this. I know that I can say no to a lot of what my friend requests due to the fact the monsters he wants to play are overpowered/socially hated by the npc populace in my world. But there is always the part of me that goes "hmm... how he's going to pull it off?" which then makes it tough for me to say no in the first place. As for the Nightcrawler issue, as I said before, the problem, in my mind, is that the person who wanted to play a character like Nightcrawler doesn't understand why she'd have to be limited in her powers during combat. She brought up a scenario where she would like to perform multiple strikes (lets say 8 strikes) in sequence with her teleportation and it would all be under 5 seconds. In her mind that is way to fast for the target to react to her strikes. I spent a good hour talking with her about how combat worked in D&D and how everyone would be acting in turn based on the initiative rolls and how many feet (squares) you could move per round... She still couldn't wrap her head around how each attack would be considered an attack action and each teleport would be either a free action or movement action depending on how the teleport action would be set up for her character.
a bit late... but if theyre wanting more than 4-5 strikes they MUST be a fighter and use action surge... she has an overpowered fantasy and thats going to make her the damn star if she can not only teleport back up to people on whim but also land 8 strikes a turn which is ridiculous...
for the sake of balance you need to consider what she is capable of and say no if you feel you shouldn't allow it. thats already pushing for alot, i have to grab a certain class like shadow monk or warlock shadow teleport feature in order to have something like that. and thats not taking into account the 8 attacks.
I found a good rule of thumb when I started to introduce monsters as players, give a hard cap on the CR of your available races. I stuck to CR2 and under, yea some of them were more viable than others, but it kept the players who went with classic races from being over shadowed by the monster races. It also gave the players some familiar races to choose from as most CR 2 and under creatures were familiar to them.
On the very rare occasion I let someone go outside that range I needed them to have a very well thought out reason for their choice, "I'm a Githyanki warrior who is out to prove his mettle in combat" really doesn't show a whole lot of depth. Where as "I'm the offspring of an ogre and deamoness, 3rd generation, my father won't give me our territory until I prove my worth as both a fighter and scholar, therefor I must travel and learn of what is beyond the mountains" gives a bit more depth that can potentially impact plot points.
When it comes to level adjustment, I found that using the CR adjustments from the DMG on creature creation tables can give you a baseline. For every 2 CR above the party level the monster race is you can essentially give it a level adjustment of 1 considering the CR is meant for a party of 4 vs it. From there it's just a matter of adjusting on the fly during the game to make sure the entire party stays relatively close in capability.
Swapping out the spells gained from Infernal Legacy can give a Nightcrawler flavor. Change out hellish rebuke with blur and darkness with blink. Maybe flavor it as one parent was a tiefling and the other was an eladrin, the infernal blood mutating the fey step ability and causing strange changes to it.
#OpenDnD. #DnDBegone
Published Subclasses
Published Subclasses
Guys, check this out - FR 5e adventure for evil dragon characters!!!
https://www.dmsguild.com/product/296647/Year-Of-Rogue-Dragons
Playing it now and so far it's a big hit.
googles this to nerf down a Couatl to play it in-game and-
do all dms hate when players play unorthadox pc races?
like- does my dm secretly hate me?
Im trying to do all the hard stuff myself bc its my choice but still
am I bothering them????
First of all, hate is a strong word. The DM probably doesn't hate it. Bothering them... probably not in the sense you mean.
The issues with making highly unconventional characters are manifold, from the perspective of the DM.
First of all, the game is not, by default, balanced against such characters. It is not meant to be played with a Roc PC, or an ancient dragon PC, or a Couatl PC. The Couatl can do things most normal PCs can't. This means that any adventure modules, any pre-made encounters, etc., cannot possibly have been balanced with a Couatl PC in mind, and will therefore be incorrect as printed, and must be modified. The DM also is even less able to rely on encounter difficulty calculators like the one here or KFC, which do a mediocre enough job with a normal party that meets all the default assumptions for its level and party size. By putting a Couatl into the mix, you've now tossed all the assumptions under which those algorithms were produced out the window, meaning the DM will be unable to rely on those. This makes a great deal more work for the DM - you're basically negating all pre-made content and forcing the DM to homebrew literally everything, and must do it without the algorithmic assistance (such as it is) provided by these computer tools.
Second of all, it is the DM's job to make sure that all players have characters at the table who are relatively equally useful and powerful compared to each other. The game designers have, to a certain degree, already ensured this is the case if you go with the default races and classes provided by the books. They have, at minimum, thoroughly play-tested the races and classes to ensure that nothing is wildly out of whack, and that having, say, an Aarakocra paladin side by side with a halfling warlock is not going to mean that one player is wildly outshone by the other. Such testing is not possible with a homebrew monster character. Which means a good DM will be concerned about introducing a character into the party that is unfairly powerful compared to the other PCs. The good DM will be rightly worried that your character could upstage everyone else at the table. Wildly fun for you (probably) -- miserable for everyone else. The DM's job is to make sure everyone has fun, not just you.
Finally, there is the snowball effect. When someone at the table sees that you get to play a Couatl, what's to stop him or her from asking to play a unicorn, or a medusa, or a lich? There is no objective reason why the DM could say no to anyone for literally any monster concept, once you are allowed to play a Couatl. So now you are opening up a whole can of purple worms (and why can't someone play one of those now too?) for the DM, who thought we were going to have a regular adventuring party of humans, elves, and dwarves, and now has a Couatl, a lich, a succubus, and a pegasus playing the adventures. Surely you can see how this might throw the DM's intended adventures right into the trash bin. Again, this makes more work for the DM. And we must consider that, although the DM's job is to try and help the players enjoy their ideas as much as possible, the DM is a player, too, and the DM should get to have fun, too. If I'm planning on a standard humans-halflings-gnomes-dwarves campaign and my whole table is playing exotic creatures, that may not be fun for me as a DM.
These are some of the reasons why a DM will say no to characters like a Couatl as a PC. The game was not really designed to allow it, it throws the balance out of whack, it has the very strong potential to upstage everyone else, and it can send the campaign way the heck off the rails into a place that would not be fun for the DM. And while yes, you are supposed to be able to have fun, and yes, the DM is supposed to be trying to make sure that you do... the DM is supposed to have fun too, and you shouldn't be allowed to ruin the DM's fun either.
But of course, ask your DM. I would not allow a Couatl PC, but your DM might. Maybe it's not a problem. You don't know until you ask. Though I would suggest, be very clear that it's OK for the DM to say no. If the DM feels like you will be miserable if the answer is no, you might be allowed to do it even if it wrecks the DM's fun, because we DMs are self-sacrificing like that (it's part of the role we take on). Don't let your DM make that kind of sacrifice for you. It's not fair... and in the end you'll regret it, because if the DM is not having fun, the campaign will fizzle out.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
If your DM hated it, they
wouldshould have said “no.” They likely can’t hate it very much since they agreed to your character.Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well... maybe.
Many DMs don't like saying no to a player if the player is really excited about an idea and really wants to do it. If we feel we can "live with it" many of us will put up with it even if, fully given our druthers, we'd not have allowed it. There are a several rules options I allow in my campaign that if I'm being honest, I really don't like, and I'd rather not use... but one of my players asked for it, and I have said yes because I can stomach it, even if I'd really rather not. As I said above, many of us are self-sacrificing that way.
IMO, as a player, one of your jobs (and you don't really have all that many as a player, compared the the jobs a DM has to do) is to try not to paint the DM into a corner where the DM has to say yes to something he or she really doesn't want, to avoid making you unhappy. That's why I said, always give the DM an out... always be clear that this is a cool off-beat idea that you have but it's OK for the DM to say no -- you won't be upset. And you need to actually not be upset. I mean -- basically what I'm saying is people need to be grown ups and cooperate here, rather than wanting it their way or the highway.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I can't speak for all DMs, but I think it really depends on how outlandish the request is. For example if you would have asked me to play a Couatl, would have simply said no. Want to play a half ogre we could work something out. The farther you get from the official races, the harder it becomes to make a campaign that is challenging and relatable to everyone at the table.
Player 1: Hello, I am playing a Half-Elf Sorcerer named Milo. My Draconic bloodline fuels my magic.
Player 2: Cool, I am playing Nathandar a Human Druid, I am looking forward to using my Wild Shape
Player 3: Hey everyone, I am playing Gorak, the Dwarf Cleric, I will be your healer today.
Player 4: I am Bren Stonebreaker, Goliath Barbarian and I am ready to smash the bad guys!
Player 5: Those sound great. I am playing a Magical Flying Snake that can shape change an unlimited number of times per day and I have lots of innate spell abilities, many of which are cleric spells. Also I am Immune to most non magical damage, speak all languages and have true sight.
How much fun do you think the rest of the group is likely to have?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master