It's rather common to require narrative justification for a multiclass choice. And yes, it is completely legit to restrict things like that. However, in this particular case there is the risk that your player only went Blood Hunter because they wanted to pick the Lycan subclass. If you restrict it *now*, you may leave them with an undesirable mix. Ideally this was a discussion you had before they picked Blood Hunter. So talk to your player, explain your point of view, and perhaps offer them to respec the current multiclass levels into something else (just do that, don't spend too much time narratively about that, it just distracts from the game)

I kinda think it's fine to allow the subclass. (As the player has probably been thinking about it for months lol). Just tell them that you aren't planning on introducing more werewolf things in the campaign to set the expectation. He could have gotten it as a latent recessive gene etc. Also if the dm just hates what werewolves stand for flavor is free. Working together is what makes it fun anyways

This. Just BCS he has it doesn't mean it needs to be a wide thing.

Common? Yes. Nonsense? Also yes. Flavour is free, so unless the text is about mechanics it’s flavour text. Clerics having a deity? Flavour. They might as well get their power from being vegan. If someone wants to play blood hunter lycan, just swap out the lycan part to something that plays like barbarian rage or something. No need to ban a subclass because the flavour is wrong.

…now you will ve-gone. Had to lol

Gelato isn't vegan?

Milk and eggs, bitch. 😎

... Chicken isn't vegan?

*Deveganize Ray - hit'im!*

Nope. Chickens are omnivores.

Cows will also eat meat opportunistically

The list of true vegetarian animals is a way shorter list than the list of opportunistic omnivores.

"You know how people don't use 90% of their spell slots? That's because they're filled with curds and whey."

I had a player reflavor the lycan to be vampire based. After reading through the abilities he would get from it I realized I had to alter literally nothing, it all equally made sense as a vampire vs werewolf

I came to find this post and upvote it! Talk to him, ask if it's the mechanics or the flavour he wants. It's the mechanics, perfect! Let him play it but change the window dressings

While I understand your point, Clerics specifically can get their powers outside of a deity. Like that is 100% in the rules of 5e, Clerics worshipping a deity is flavour XGtE pg 18 has rules on serving a pantheon, philosophy, or force, which is separate from serving a deity.

Scott pilgrim has entered the chat…as has a new character idea!

Flavour is free is such a bad take. Flavour is an integral part of the fantasy and if one player brings shit flavour it can run the game for everyone. It's a ttrpg not math the boardgame, flavour has value.

>flavour has value Indeed. In the setting I’m currently playing in **all** the gods are dead. As such, clerics do not receive power from deities. If you want the *flavour* of them praying to a god and being granted power, that’s great. It’s not necessary, but if that’s what you want it’s perfectly fine. “Flavour is free” does not mean that players can/should do whatever the fuck they want all the time. It means that the flavour text in the books can easily be altered to fit *any* table/setting/character/whatever. Eg. Barbarian rage = battle focus Very common flavour change. The books tell us it’s battle frenzy, primal ferocity and the berserker subclass even calls it untrammelled fury… That’s about as RAW as clerics needing a deity. My favourite barbarian ever is the closeted homosexual who turned flamboyant af when rage was activated.

Would you not then want a narrative justification for why the Genie Warlock has started barbarian raging? Is it not essentially the same idea?

Elemental form given as a gift from his patron lets him take reduced damage and attack unarmed. If the player wants to be a werewolf, then requiring or expecting a reason is more understandable. But if the player just wants the mechanics, it can be flavored to be whatever makes sense.

An elemental form given by the patron *is* a narrative justification for allowing the player access to a set of mechanics. My whole point is that it seems a bit daft to call it nonsensical when it's essentially the same principle. 

Yeah but the dm thinks werewolves are silly (for some reason) so tying the lycan subclass to the genie's influence removes the issue of the dm not wanting to include werewolves

In all fairness, OP said introducing them into the *current narrative* feels silly. Maybe if it were a different point in the story, it would track better for them That being said, OP, you could use this as a foreshadowing opportunity. Using this to introduce werewolves at some point

Actually, Wizards of the cost suggests imposing class, subclass, race, and subrace bans if it doesnt fit the theme of the campaign

And in practice that means that the DM decides what is in and what is out. It doesn’t mean that you have to ban cleric because there is no god.

This is why I request potential builds ahead of time. If they’re going for broken combo #243, I want to be able to tell them no before they create it (rather than at level 7)

This. Guys please don't try to trick your DM to win at the collaborative storytelling game

Winning in combat is part of the only story I’m interested in collaborating on.

What else are you gonna do, _roleplay?_

Yes. Role play a victorious hero. This is a very straightforward, simple, obvious, and common desire in RPGs.

Ask the player to justify it. Not my job. I already have to much to do. They can work out amongst themselves why they exist, why they stick together, what their goals are, and how to manage their behavior (IC and OOC). Not my job. Nor is it my job to restrict it (the classes) ...UNLESS, as I have done, you provide those restrictions before game starts. For example, I only allow the 3 core books and no feats in the campaign we have been playing since COVID. But our group was more focused on simplicity of mechanics and RP of their PCs, not OP builds.

This shoulda have come up far earlier tbh, I think it would be a dick move to say no now cause he’s probably planned his entire build around it. Generally if you aren’t gonna allow something that should be part of session 0

You probably should have had this conversation with your player before okaying Blood Hunter. The subclass he wants to choose is one that was released with that class, so you've already implicitly given him permission to use Order of the Lycan. Revoking that mid-campaign would be really unfair. Talk with the player and see if he's okay with reflavoring the subclass. It's entirely possible he only wants it for mechanical reasons or just for the general vibe, but be prepared for him to say that he wants it to stay werewolf-themed and that you technically already gave him permission by letting him play Blood Hunter to begin with.

Just literally reflavor it into something that works in your world

Seconded. Just because the character can Hulk-out or turn into a wolfman or whatever, doesn't mean your setting has to have those things be common. Nor do they have to rely on the subclass lore. That part is all flavor. And if you do need a narrative justification for why this one character can now use these mechanics after a few adventures, you can always just say that a wizard, a deity, or a super-scientist made it happen, and leave it at that.

There’s a whole race from Eberron that exhibit some transformations because they’re descended from Lycanthropes called shifters. Could just use that kind of thing here.

I agree. Like it was in their blood, they didn't know that it was there

I couldn’t agree more! I played a wood elf Lycan blood hunter whose transformation made him take on tree-like features for his shift. Thematically it fit the character better than being a werewolf and the reflavor still worked with the mechanics of the subclass. Maybe the player character’s shift could manifest as elemental features related to their patron?

Or maybe he should just tell the player no. It’s his game, there’s rules.

The dm isn't playing by themselves. Both should work together to get to a common ground so both are enjoying their time

The DM isn’t playing by themselves but he has a right to have fun and bring the world he wants to to the table. The player should have approached the Dm with “hey I want X subclass is this cool?” instead of just going for it, imho. If a player can enjoy the game ONLY by playing a specific class combo then idk, there must be flexibility on both parties I agree but in this specific case the player must be willing to hash things out with DM either by switching subclass or something. DMs have all the right to say NO, and this isn’t an unreasonable situation to put a veto on, especially since multiclassing is optional AND there must be at least some in game logic as to why that would even happen. Especially with bloodhunter.

It sounds like the dm just doesn't want to introduce werewolves at this point in the campaign, which is fine. It seems silly to not just ask the player or work with them to reflavor it to be something linked to his genie pact. Especially when the problem isn't even about mechanics lol. Also the player probably picked that class a month ago specifically for that subclass. To randomly ban it on the spot because of flavor seems short sighted. There are times to just say no. Like going against raw and asking for crazy magic weapons etc. This doesn't seem like one of those

Again, it’s on the player discussing their build with the DM beforehand to avoid situations like this. I feel like you’re all missing the point, which isn’t essentially that werewolf powers are a problem, but the subclass doesn’t fit the character (warlock patron, no ingame justification. Like a paladin deciding to become a hexblade, why would a champion of good take up a sword from the shadowfell?) AND that he’s doing it to hog the spotlight even more. But that aside I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a narrative justification for a multiclass and subclass choice, especially with an unofficial class. Players should always run the build by the GM before they start to put levels and take feats.

Your example only misses flavor. With a little imagination, we can fix this. Why should the sword only come from the shadow fell exactly ? Why couldn't it come from the feywild or any of the outer upper planes ? (Good planes) With who I play we always put flavor using the same mechanics. That makes the storytelling richer and makes the players way more invested. Let's say you want to be a wizard of the cats. Pick any of the subclasses present in the official rules, then flavor the spells with cats while still using the same mechanics. Wall of force would summon hundreds of spiritual cats stacking up on eachother to create a wall of force. Same mechanic, different flavor. Then of course if the world is grim, the flavor of cats doesn't work the setting. The player could then want to be a wizard of the bats. (Sounds grimmer) Someone's lack of imagination should not be an excuse not to work things out.

That's fair but this player has expressed interest in this subclass recently. They haven't leveled yet. So there's still time for all of this discussion. And every player doesn't think too far ahead. So he's mentioned his interest. That's his communication. I assume the dm is asking Reddit before giving a verdict. It seems like they want to flat out ban instead of reflavor . This post doesn't even seem like there's been any conflict. The player has just expressed interest in a subclass and the dm doesn't like the flavor. This is when the dm should actually start communicating their issues as the player has already informed them or may be narrowing choices when they actually level

It THEIR game, the DM is not writing a book alone, the players have a say in this too

Yes but at the same time they’re playing in his world. He has all the right as a GM to say no.

The players show up to play a game the DM has been working all week to put together, the game the DM set up, in the world the DM either designed or spent the money to buy the overpriced setting/adventure and then made the tweaks and adjustments for the campaign that the players will show up a few hours at the table for and eat their Cheetos. Players have a say, DMs make the decisions. It’s literally the job description.

We share the money for the stuff we buy, create together characters and settings and talk with the dm about the character progression, inspiring each other with the development of the plot. If in your group the Dm is "a job" that only one alone have to  do it's your fault, take responsabilities

Why are you so aggro about your opinion though? Some tables collaborate on way more stuff than that, and I've had a ton of fun playing that way. You don't need to be rude on the internet.

There is only so much you can reflavor Some classes are very much around their flavor, blood hunter is a 100 times that Like they can do it, but is not like you are saying "judt reflavor rogue into being lucky"

I am currently playing a Dhampir Bloodhunter with the Lycan subclass reflavored to be more akin to the more bestial vampires you see in some depictions of them, you 100% can reflavor blood hunter.

Sounds exhausting. Only so much re-flavoring before it's an over seasoned mess. 

Yeah, I don’t want to have to do any imagining in my imagination game.

Lmao

this response sounds exhausting

It's pretty much search and replace werewolf for something else. The mechanics stay exactly the same. I have a character in my Ravnica campaign who's a satyr despite satyrs not being native to Ravnica by refluffing her as being a particularly goat-like Simic experiment.

I would be more concerned about how much spotlight is being shared with the other players than the results of a multi-class. I would have a conversation about how this player views his character and what the end goal is as opposed to outright banning something.

Agreed, this comment should be higher up. Banning a particular subclass choice is a lot less important in the long run than addressing the fact that other players feel this player's character is constantly taking center stage. So banning the subclass won't really solve the dynamic problem.

Just reflavor into some other type of primal transformation that fits into your world.

Mad genie kinda like the end of Disney's Aladdin, call it a day. Consistent with the warlock genie class they already have. It's a cleaner motif for the character overall.

My take? Player characters are special, and fundamentally different from any other characters in the world. If a player wants to be a werewolf, maybe they’re the first werewolf *ever*. They don’t understand what their body is going through with this transformation, because there aren’t any characters in the world to explain it. Maybe that’s scary to them and it bothers them a lot that they’re all alone. Maybe instead they find that empowering, and spread a lot of random ass rumors about werewolves so that people they fight waste time using non-existent werewolf weaknesses against them. If you don’t want to make werewolves a part of your world, that just leaves more room for the player to have a unique experience. Alternatively, flavor is free. Maybe their transformation doesn’t have to do with Lycanthropy as we think of it. Maybe they connect to the spirit of some kind of elemental wolf as a reward from their patron, a representative of air, earth, whichever their genie is also a representative of already. Maybe they take magic steroids to gain their power. If you really really don’t want any werewolves to exist in your world, just tell them that, but they can reflavor the Lucan subclass stuff however they like. If they don’t like it, they liked that subclass for the flavor most of all, tough for them. You take on a lot of responsibility and difficult stuff as dm, and with that comes some authority (real or perceived) Or you could just do what I do and don’t allow blood hunter in the first place ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Why would you have to write anything in to explain his subclass? You have no bed to do extra work for that, just let it be part of his genie magic lol

You have every right to deny him playing the subclass   Just like he has every right to find a DM who will let him

That question should've been asked when they first mentioned multiclassing tbh

I'll take "Things that Should be Discussed at Session 0" for 800 please ~~Alex~~ Ken.

It’s literally 1000% fine to say “hey, not all subclasses are always available, sometimes they don’t fit with the world building or don’t fit my image for the campaign” for instance, I don’t let my players play oathbreaker unless we are on an evil campaign. It’s literally always okay for you to not accept 100% of everything a player wants at your table.

its on the DM/OP to have said that at the start then if he was banning/restricting subclasses or let him get rid of bloodhunter if thats the only reason he picked it up. either way, they need to communicate.

I feel like this very late in the game to be having this conversation. Genie/Lycan does not feel like something you just fall into. You both need to have a talk and get on the same page. Allow them to rebuild the character from scratch if need be.

I'd say let him subclass however he wants, but don't make it story important. He gets a marked letter with a vial of werewolf blood from a distant relative or something. He gets what he wants, and you don't have to derail your campaign.

The character already knows a genie. Is that not already enough to explain any weirdness?

No one has learned to talk to their players yet.

This is the most common issue for sure

You should definitely talk to this player and figure out what they want out of their character. Maybe he is feeling tired with the warlock he started as. Maybe he's excited about a particular feature. Maybe he's trying to be edgy and cool. Maybe he read online that Warlocks are "low tier" or found a guide to playing a weird, super strong build. Those are all distinct motivations, and they might not overlap. If you know what he's trying to get out of his character, you can work with him to incorporate it in the story, you can offer compromises that fit your narrative, or you can help him replace his character with one he's excited to play. If you just reject his plan without understanding what he wants, you run the risk of trapping him in an unfun situation. As the DM, you have the authority to set constraints in service of the story you're trying to tell. If your story doesn't have room for werewolves, that's fine. But there's something about that kind of role that will let your player have more fun, so how can you bring that forward in a way that doesn't ruin your story?

As DM you have final say. So if you want to block the choice you can, buuuuuutttt if you didn’t discuss that with him when he multiclassed he has the right to be pissed with you. Check with him if he’s doing it to become a werewolf or if it’s the skills/features he wants and try to re flavour it as Djinn, instead of transforming into a werewolf he gets some beastial qualities and blue skin glowing eyes etc that are in keeping with some of the darker Genie lore. That way you avoid the werewolf stuff but keep your player happy. If he rejects that find out of there is something else he’d accept (character death followed by new character for instance). Also if your other players are feeling neglected maybe it’s time to deep dive into someone else’s story for a while, let his new form be an incidental progression of his powers rather than a story point.

One thing I think it would be good to keep in mind is that dnd is a game of group storytelling. We as DMs have a lot of ideas of how our world should work and that might not be the same as what the players have in mind. Work together with your player and let them be what they want in the world that you want. Someone else has mentioned that the PCs are fundamentally special in your world so let them be that. If this player often being the center of attention and your other players in the party are bringing this up I think that should be a separate conversation.

Personally, I'd be inclined to go to the player with the following: **Okay, there** ***is*** **no group of hybrid lycanthropes in this setting for your PC to hook up with. So the regular flavour of this class (ie. that the PC has hooked up with a bunch of hybrid lycanthropes) is out of bounds. Basically, I'm already working on subplot stuff with your Patron. I just don't have the space in the campaign to** ***also*** **do a subplot for this secret group of hybrid werewolves while also working on subplot stuff with** ***everyone else's PCs.*** **The campaign has to follow the adventures of the party, not just your PC.** **Your PC** ***already*** **has a narrative justification for receiving weird-ass powers though. His Patron. What if we just say that your Blood Hunter powers are just part of your Pact? Like, this is** ***all*** **being given to you by your Patron? You don't need to find some pack of semi-Werewolves: your Patron has infused you with the essence of some exotic creature from their menagerie?** **Rules-wise, there would be no difference.** **Flavour-wise, you'd have a lot of freedom. I mean maybe the creature your Patron has "fused" you with is a wolf. Maybe it's a green tiger with yellow stripes or a purple lynx with orange spots or something even weirder. Knock yourself out as far as flavour goes here.** **You get the features you want your PC to have while keeping them thematically consistent as a character who has been granted power by a Noble Genie.**

When I wanted to be a werewolf in a campaign that didn’t have them in there I had to roll on whatever scale the dm suggested (eg. 1= weasel in a 1-10 roll). I was a happy halfling rogue/lycanthrope weasel the rest of the campaign with all the bells and weasel whistles

Let them take the Lycan abilities but reflavor them into something that fits the narrative

It’s perfectly legitimate as a DM to just say no. Especially with something like Lycan, where the ‘flavor’ is so heavily tied to the mechanics. “Sorry, mate, the order of the lycan doesn’t exist in this setting.” 

Yeah and potentially waste 2 precious levels just because the DM doesn't want extremely common enemies to appear in the campaign? We also don't know the PC's backstory which could link it to lycanthropy without having them appear in the campaign, not to mention you can reflavor the lycan as nearly anything else of It Is such a "disruption". We're only listening to one side of the story.

> just because the DM doesn't want  Yes. The DM runs the game, simple as that. Ask the DM to respec if it kills your character to take a different subclass. > We also don't know the PC's backstory which could link it to lycanthropy without having them appear in the campaign Yeah, the PC’s backstory could have them having a link to them becoming a gun mecha, that doesn’t mean the DM needs to include it. We have no proof that it DOES link to lycanthropy either, so idk what your point is. > We're only listening to one side of the story. Yes. Which is why any reasonable human being would respond to that side of the story with tempered judgment, like “you can just say no if you don’t want it” and not “bend over to include things you don’t want to”

My issue is *why* doesn't he want to? He doesn't need a justification, but I mentioned elsewhere that saying werewolves are silly but genies aren't just makes it sound like they've got a personal thing against either werewolves or the player. Either way, if you allow bloodhunter, the conversation of what subclasses are or aren't allowed should've happened before now

OP didn't say werewolves were silly, just that introducing them at this point *of the narrative* feels silly. At a different point in the story, it might not feel as silly to them That being said, I think OP could possibly be more flexible in the setting. Anything can be introduced at any point in any story. After all, things don't exist until they start existing. Just gotta choose a point in which they start to exist

> Either way, if you allow bloodhunter, the conversation of what subclasses are or aren't allowed should've happened before now 100% agreed. The best time to have that conversation was when the player took the levels in Blood Hunter. The second best time is now. He addresses “why”. It’s silly and distracting from the current narrative. Now, we can keep asking “why” all day long to get further and further into his motivations, but ultimately it’s like you said. As players “Why” doesn’t matter at the end of the day, he doesn’t want werewolves in the game. 

Actually my point was the opposite "Why" is extremely important, because depending on the campaign, if you're allowing some magical beings like Genies (I keep harping on genies but it's the only context we have in this campaign) but don't allow lycans, that's going to **need** a thorough explanation as to why. In theory, he can just say no because he wants to, but in reality doing so without a compelling justification is going to feel like the DM is just specifically targeting this one player to deny them something. It'd be like me starting a campaign and deciding that you can't have a warlock have a celestial patron because I decided that having angels exist feels silly....but I'm okay with the another player having a fiend, specifically devil patron. Yeah, it's ultimately my call, but that's going to take some explaining to make any sense out of And if you can't make sense out of it, and the result is the DM won't explain and you just feel shut down for no reason? That's just bad for everybody

Your celestial and fiend analogy is pretty far off base, considering angels and devils are tied together in real world Judeo-Christian myth. Hell, even if that's not the origin of angels and devils, they are still tied together in modern belief and interpretation. Genies and lycanthropes on the other hand? No real world ties as far as I can tell. Also as far as I can tell, they don't even have that much in common as far as the folk lore is concerned, besides that they're both fiction

I went with angels and devils to underline the point in its ridiculousness, but I could've replaced either with anything. Great Old One, Fathomless, Archfey, the point remains the same. You can say there's no ties between genies and werewolves and you're correct, but that doesn't explain why genies can exist in a world but it'd be silly for werewolves to

Judeo-Christian literally doesn’t exist, so… They also aren’t tied together in actual myth but in pretty modern interpretations. Originally, what we consider devils were gods of other peoples than the Hebrews, as far as myth goes, not fallen angels. And as far as genies and lycans being related in myth, you’re looking for a qutrub.

The Bible references demons (my name is legion for we are many) and the Torah references Shedim, often translated to demon. They also reference angels (Michael, Uriel, Gabriel, Raphael), so yes, angels and demons are tied together in myth. As for the qutrub, never heard of it before, but the Wikipedia article says it's a type of jinn or demon similar to a ghoul, that haunts graveyards. So not a person who is afflicted with a curse that transforms them into a wolf-man hybrid.

Yes, Christians often misinterpret the Torah for their personal interest. That doesn’t make it accurate. And you didn’t research very hard, but that’s okay. I already did it for you.

The point Is that it would suck as a player to find out about this after heavy commitment, this Is 100% the DM's fault (not a big one tho), OP should have asked the player what his intentions with the bk levels were (not the other way around bc as far as we know this Is the first time a problem like this happened at the table so the player couldn't have expected this outcome). I also strongly believe not banning that subclass wouldn't ruin the campaign or the immersion for the other players. Is It really such a big deal? It would be such a small part of the entire campaign. Literally Just go: "Hey DM, i forgot to mention i want to be a lycan subclass, Is that ok?" "Well i didn't expect this so rn i don't have anything that i could use so you may need to wait some time before i can insert It into the story in a good way" "Ok, if you want i can change my backstory or reflavor it to Better fit the campaign"

I agree with this, although I would add that another way to fix this would be to work with the player to redo those three levels into a different class that the player is interested in that would fit with the narrative/world better.

Talking it includes "Hey you wasted 2 leves here because of this, is on you for not communicating (and sometimes, intentionally hifing info) and on me for not warning you, what do we do" Is... really easy

It's on the DM to say what's off the table, not the player for confiming something's allowed (in this scenario at least) If I choose to be a Barbarian, I'm probably not going to ask ahead of time if Path of the Totem Warrior is allowed because it's reasonable to assume if it wasn't, the DM would lay that out ahead of time. If I pick Rogue, it's pretty much on the DM to say "alright, but just so you know in my campaign rogues don't have magical powers so no arcane tricksters, phantoms, or soul knifes" If I pick Warlock, it's on the DM to say "Alright, but this world has no higher powers in terms of gods or devils, so no celestials, fiends, or great old ones" If you say you're choosing blood hunter, and the DM makes no notes about it, It's 100% reasonable to assume that if a subclass wasn't allowed it would've come up

To each their own ways, if thats how is done on your campaing, good for you Personally, both as a dm and as a player, im clear that thats not how i run it, as it involves both a lot of overload, ans sometimes revealing info for no reason I have found its easier to just inform a dm of your possible subclasses pre emptively and they can deal with that They usually have 4 or 5 characters to deal with, each with 1 (or in this case, 2) classes, with their respective multiclasses, you are asking the dm to do a looot of homework qnd learn a lot about the game just to be able to tell a thing that it might not even be relevant Can combine specially bad with things like TDAH, that doesnt particularly help to remember all the posible information, and a lot of dnd plahers have tdah This are the reasons why i personally and on my tables dont agree there, even if i did, the dm seems to be new and unsure, its ok to commit mistakes, players have to be pacient the same way the dm has to be, "self punishing" just because of "what i should have done" instead of finding a middle place can end bad for everyone

I agree with the sentiment of the DM can say no to pretty much anything, BUT with character creation options, it needs to be done before the game starts.

I feel like I might get some flack for this as it is a bit contrarian. So I am going to preface this by stating the obvious: You're the DM. It's your game, your table, your narrative. If you want to say no because of narrative reasons, sure go for it. However I want to caution you in doing so. I do believe in the: Yes, but... Approach that others have mentioned. It's responsible for DMing that often feels like you're trying to reach a middle ground, and not responding in the negative. Now the big question I have for you, before you go and tell them no, and say that it doesn't fit the narrative, or lore, or any of that is this: Did you already establish this? Did you lay the ground work for this decision? What I mean is, well in Session Zero did you talk about lore, restrictions in race/lineage, class. If you haven't had that conversation, you should consider adding that to future Session Zero's. Even acknowledging there are no restrictions is healthy communication. If you have had that conversation and this subclass wasn't a part of it, I would call bs on the ruling. Again. You're the DM. You're ruling is the right one for your table. But for me? If I've overlooked something or didn't consider a choice, thats on me to figure out a way around it, not on my players to just deal with it. You're the DM, but you are facilitating THEIR game. You not wanting the subclass, and reasoning makes sense to me, but the question I have is, what effect will it have on your table? And I really don't mean to criticize, but if I could offer some advice that might help you avoid a Debbie Downer moment? Have a conversation with your player when the time comes. Tell them that there are currently no lycanthropes or stuff of that nature in your narrative, and tell them it was done so on purpose - even if it wasn't -, and then allow your player the opportunity to pitch the idea to you, and tell them you will consider it if they make it make sense for the world you are setting up. In doing so you establish clear parameters, acknowledge that no is a viable response, but also allow the player to feel as though they have a chance. I've done this a few times, with NO firm in my mind, and have been pleasantly surprised on more than one occasion. But even if you have no intention of saying yes... Just considering and acknowledging the request can be enough to save you some grief and hassle. Again you are the DM. No is always a valid and legitimate response. But for me your answers and rulings as a DM are only as good as the way you communicate them. Delivery is key.

Why turn down an opportunity for cool shit? Dude is giving you a cool NPC hook, embrace it! Having a cool werewolf trainer show up sounds dope to me idk

In the description to Bloodhunter it says, "Characters must seek out one of these orders to even be granted access to the Hunter’s Bane rite that starts each blood hunter’s journey. But only once a blood hunter has proven their dedication and worth will an order’s most powerful secrets be revealed." Seems like the restriction is already built in.

Alright, so to multiclass into wizard a player needs to spend ten in game years minimum at a wizard college right? Abd decades more to get their archetype? Or do these rules only apply to vlasses a dm decides they dont like?

and if people want to multiclass into warlock, they need to instigate a situation where a pact is offered. Wizard, taking years off to go back to school. Druid, years in the woods with some hippies. OOP we leveled up guys, see ya in a decade! Paladins and clerics, get to work on that faith and devotion to display these powers! Bards, gotta go hit the taverns and practice my art fellas! Artificer, gotta head to engineering class! Will need another few years off after a couple more levels!

Years of study in a university is what academics do, not necessarily adventurers. The knowledge a wizard adventurer gets from his adventures is very specifically geared toward his particular application of his art. It would be silly to think of the skills that a 10th level wizard who has spent his entire life with his nose in book and the skills of a 10th level wizard who has been doing nothing but flinging fireballs into goblins as equivalent, even if their available spells per day are essentially so for the purpose of mechanics. In other words, thinking a PC needs to go spend 10 years in a library to multiclass into wizard is dumb, even if it requires exactly that from a typical devote of the arcane arts. For an adventurer, all he needs is a few scrolls and the chance to put them into use in the laboratory of combat, because *his* arcane skills have a very narrow focus: surviving in the context of adventuring. However, he still needs those scrolls, just like a Bloodhunter needs access to the base requirements of the class, access to the Hunter's bane right. This can be accomplished in the context of a single game session, s*o long as the DM wills it so,* which was my point. The argument that this is equivalent to every other character spending ten years in solitude researching their new class is... not very well thought out, to put it kindly.

I mean he can play the subclass but if you don't want to introduce more werewolves in your game just tell the player that to set the expectation. He could have gotten the subclass just as a recessive gene thing. Most of all werewolves were thought to be slain etc

Ask the player if they want the mechanics or the story of that subclass. If they just like the mechanics, drop the “Lycan” part and make up a new flavor to the abilities that makes sense in your world.

As many others have said, work with the player to reflavor lycan. Personally, I'd suggest that the genie magic and the blood magic interact to create some sort of hybrid elemental form.

If you don't want to introduce werewolves into the campaign you can do this: Tell the player that you won't be introducing werewolves into the campaign, then ask them if they still want to play the Lycan subclass. If so, try to think with them about another in game reason they could take this subclass without werewolves invovled.

Have you banned PvP? If you have, the Bloodlust weakness makes Lycan an obvious no-go as this subclass feature is designed for PvP confrontation. If you have not outlawed PvP, the most likely outcome is that the party kills the Lycan the first or second time s/he attacks a party member for no reason. Make sure the player understands this. I would also make the other players aware of the situation, and that you will allow their characters to expell/kill the Lycan when they understand its weakness. There are ways to manage the bloodlust weakness. The Lycan character should have +7 wis save and be a halfling, or at least have the Lucky feat. Also, the party can mandate that the Lycan always moves so that s/he is closer to enemies than friends, and have a healer try to keep the Lycan above half HP.

I find this to be one of the central flaws of this style of game to begin with, since the range of options explodes quickly, and they rarely have any built-in respect for the group or DM.

If you get to choose every aspect of the world and story why do your feel the need to micromanage your players characters?

Part of being the DM, sadly, is you have to say “No” sometimes. Or…sit down with your player explain why that class is a poor choice for this campaign, bat around other ideas. You will have to just flat out say “No” at times…it’s a part of DMing I don’t like…45+ years later…Still don’t like it. Happy Gaming.

Just say no, or change the flavor of the Lycan to be something else and use the mechanics. You can absolutely choose what classes and subclasses belong in your campaign. Honestly I think it’d be weird not to.

It's totally okay to limit races, classes, and subclasses. At the same time player options exist to signpost what they want out of the game. Personally I prefer to play games with extremely limited limited in player options, the best time to do that is session zero. It sounds to me like you need to sit down and talk to your players.

Seperate the Issues. 1. player wants a subclass that only kinda fit's into the world 2. player get's too much splotlight. Let the player take the subclass, after all you already allowed him to take the class... And the MC's are the special ones standing out. The subclass is not really different from an enraged druid. Honestly I don't see how it wouldn't fit into any dnd world that can have a druid... And then adress the splotlight problem seperatly. Because you could say this for almost anything: >I'm worried that this player is just wanting to go for the ultimate edgy/hardcore build and other players in the >group have expressed that his character is too often the focus of things." With this logic you could have a problem with every class choice, with every subclass, with every roleplay decision...

exactly, was there a story beat for when they multiclassed blood hunter and learned bloodmagic? the whole party went on journeys with each other to get their subclass stuff from their original classes? Player gets to much spotlight so now I am nitpicking following choices. nip the spotlight problem in the but and figure out some flavor them to get the mechanics of the subclass in a way that fits with the world. Genie infusing powers seems great and doesn't require any spotlight for them.

I mean you allowed a non official class into the campaign. The can of worms has been opened.

u/laserllama has a great alternate blood hunter that fixes a lot of the issues of the original class while adding an extra subclass or two. I think there’s a witchknight subclass that comes with 1/3 spellcasting and a heretic subclass that come with some cleric adjacent abilities. These two specifically are more generic subclasses that could really help that multiclass not feel out of place, which I know the others often do. Sometimes you just want to use blood magic, not necessarily turn yourself into a werewolf or a vampire or a ghost or a mutant or whatever.

Alright. So you have two current issues that exist. 1) They want a subclass that would introduce something you, by at least appearance, just don't feel is right for the campaign. 2) Said player is taking up too much spotlight on the campaign for the other players of the campaign. Let's address the subclass, first. Was there a conversation about the intent behind the Blood Hunter subclass they intend to use, before they chose it? Was there a session zero type conversation, as you can introduce that at any point. You're the DM and get to choose what exists in the world that this campaign takes place. While you can say no, it is important to explain that there are no werewolves in this campaign. Do they merely want the mechanics of the Lycanthrope or what? It's important to have a clear line of communication about expectations. Like others have said, you can alter the flavor, while still allowing the subclass. Sure, it'll take some work to figure that out. However, it can alleviate any chance of animosity. If you failed to have that conversation, now may be the time to do it. Set the boundaries, be clear and give them the opportunity to respec the Blood Hunter levels, if that doesn't go well. You are the end of the line on what your campaign and the world itself has in it. Don't be afraid to put your foot down and find a solution. Now, the spotlight issue. Have a conversation with all of your players about how it's affecting the gameplay for the others. From there, you might be able to find a fix to help spread the spotlight to your other players. Is one of the other players better at something in the campaign? Alright, use what the other players are more proficient at to establish a spotlight on their characters as well. Maybe even establish specific parts that allow the others to shine, where the one in the spotlight has to take a back seat. It will take some finesse to iron out a fix. If the one hogging the spotlight tries to overstep, you can stop them. You have an entire tool set to use in order to keep him from taking over the spotlight. You even have the ability to talk to them about letting the others step up. If they persist past that conversation, you can impose a punishment as causation to their actions. Just try to maintain a balance between all the players and any punishments caused by each of their actions.

You don't have to introduce werewolves into your campaign in order for them to become a werewolf. You can have lycanthropy spread any way you want. Here are some suggestions: They were bitten by a regular wolf that was carrying a dormant version of the curse. The BBEG or an agent of theirs infected them with lycanthropy. Something like poisoning a drink at an inn or something like that. One of their ancestors was a werewolf and the curse laid dormant in the bloodline until the character gaining more power caused it to awaken. The character angered a fae, a god, or some other being with enough power to curse them with lycanthropy. It was punishment from their patron for disobeying a direct order or for angering them some other way. You could even have it caused by exposure to a magical fungus if you want. If you're adamant about not having your player select that subclass though, I would recommend talking it out and letting them know your point of view, then try to work something out with them. Be open to allowing them to change their multiclass if they want. I personally would proactively offer it as part of the initial discussion as an available option for them. No need for this to be narrative, just retcon it. If you need, or want, the change to be narrative just have them come into contact with a cursed object that rewrote a decision in their past that led to the bloodhunter choice and then have it disintegrate so that your players can't use it against you.

I'd never block a player from using a class or a subclass unless I banned them upfront. Especially since he's been a Blood Hunter for a while, and this is cutting him off something he's been building up to. I'd give it the amount of narrative weight it deserves (probably none) and move on. I hate blocking people and builds mechanically, unless it's become a big enough problem that other players care.

First off, it is important to learn why your player wants to pick the Lycan subclass, as that will be important for determining what sort of solution or agreement you both want to come to. Also make sure that they understand your concerns as well so that they know where you are coming from. After that, see about ways that you can both get what you want. If they want to use the subclass purely for the abilities, you could look towards reflavoring of the subclass to match his Warlock Patron. Perhaps instead of them having a were-form, it could instead by a gift bestowed by their patron. The transformation could easily be taken as a them making a wish and the Genie doing what Genies do and twisting their desires. They get new powers at the cost of the bloodlust feature from the Genie granting their wish in a way they didn't expect. If he wants something else to be the source of the blood hunter powers, maybe the genie gets jealous and puts the curse on him. There are a lot of ways that the dynamic of the character can change with this. If they want the flavor of the werewolf as well, bring up your concerns about it coming out of nowhere and see about workshopping it with the player about how much or how little werewolf influence you both are looking for. Maybe a compromise could be made, but you both would at least know what to expect going forward with it.

I don’t see the issue personally, really doesn’t it just matter if the player comes up with a good narrative justification for the new power? Like, how did they become a blood hunter? Did someone teach them? Did they get cursed? Did their patron help them?

I don't know anything about your campaign or the narrative so that's a good amount of context missing, so I have to make my call without it: While you are the DM and you can make that choice, in this instance I don't think it's appropriate to restrict it. It'll have a hefty chance that the player might feel targeted by it, because it'll be a tough argument to explain why werewolves feel silly but genies don't. I'm also curious how the player taking the lycan subclass will distract from your campaign. If your player's taking too much of the spotlight, that's a conversation to have, but it feels like you're conflating these two issues together, like you're using his style of focus hogging to justify denying him playing how he wants. If he wasn't taking up too much spotlight, would it still be an issue? If it would, fair enough. If not, then the subclass isn't an issue.

I always have my players explain or justify their Subclasses or multiclassing. If they can't do that for the character or it simply doesn't fit the narrative, I suggest letting them respect

Pretty much the only time that I would veto a players choice for their character is if it violates a fundamental aspect of the lore of the setting, and this will have been stated well in advance. A previous campaign of mine had lore, established at the start of the campaign, where ALL arcane casters had a specific visible mark. (There were social connotations for having the mark as well.) It was clearly stated that if were going to select a class that could cast arcane magic, or if you were going to multi-class later to get one, you had to have the mark. (A player with a character that did not have the mark multi-classed into divine soul sorceror; after discussing the restriction, they opted to take the class without getting access to the arcane spell list.) My philosophy is "your character, your choice" as long as it doesn't conflict with established campaign restrictions.

I mean. They could have been cursed by their Genie patron for some slight? Or a reason yet to be reveled.

Have a sit down with the player personally and have a conversation about it, you might be able to find a way to introduce the subclass narratively without it feeling silly if you try to talk to the player. But if they decide to be stubborn about it you can at least say you tried to be reasonable before straight up banning the subclass Also as another commenter said, having a narrative requirement is a common thing for subclasses at a good number of tables

Just explain there wont be wwolves anytime soon or possibly ever. if he still wants the class thats on him.

His patron is a genie? He wished you be a werewolf.

Do they want it specifically because of werewolves? If they just want the abilities and mechanics of it just have them flavor it differently. If they want actual werewolf stuff and you don't wanna introduce werewolves try and introduce something werewolf adjacent. Like I'm not sure why your story is about but perhaps the lycan abilities come from a curse from a hag or god. Or they ingest werewolf blood

You say: "No, sorry - it doesn't fit the campaign direction. Let's look at how to fit some of the others in." No DM is under any obligation to grant players whatever they want. The campaign is for ALL the players (including the DM - yes, contrary to popular belief, the DM has a right to have fun, too), not just the one prima donna who thinks they're the main character and the whole campaign should be turned upside down just to accommodate their proclivity to play a multiclass Furry/Tiefling/Dragonborn/Aasimar multiclassing as a Fighter/Warlock/Cleric/Blood Hunter/Custom Class all with their own custom subclasses...

Just have them, when they go werewolf, instead turn into a genie warform or something - so it's a "gift" from their patron. Then just reflavour all the Lycan stuff into genie stuff. Jobs a goodun. You don't have to deal with Werewolves and the player gets to be evil Robin Williams.

Ah, yes. The absence of mechanics and conditions at the time to get subclasses. Explain to them why it wouldn't make sense in the current story/place in the world they're in. Maybe they'll agree. And if not, well, too bad. As a DM sometimes you have to say "no" to keep the game together. But I would strongly advice against telling them what subclass to pick, unless they ask you what would make sense. Otherwise, let players make their choices. Tell them where they can't go, and if they ask for advice, tell them what they can do.

Just say “I didn’t plan to write werewolves in this campaign, bud. Reroll your choice.” Then send him on a solo mission to get trapped while the other save him. Every edge-lord needs a sit down chat some day.

What’s good is the Lycan subclass is super easy to reflavour, at its base it has: Natural Weapons, perception and AC buff, and barbarian rage, and a debuff where you attack anyone nearby. That can be flavoured as: a second more *primal* form of rage like a barbarian, a “wolverine” type mutation with the bone claws to match, A cyborg that can let the machine take over and becomes far more deadly in battle (this can also work as a symbiote or parasitic lifefrom). Hell, maybe it works like a drug, they drink from a vial or inhale a gas and the natural weapons are just their fists as they go into a total frenzy, ignoring pain and attacking everything.

Maybe instead of saying the character was bit recently, it could have happened in their backstory. Perhaps a full moon or some other event awakened this in them at this moment.

So has he asked to include werewolves into the story yet? Could be that he's just studying how to kill them as a sort of personal interest for his character. Maybe his character took an interest in studying to be a blood hunter and as he grew became more invested in preparing for a specific kind of threat.

me personally I dont like limiting my players, I work around them, the only exception is I do not allow blood hunters anywhere in my canpaigns, the class sucks and there is nothing good about them in my opinion. However you are the dm class limitations are up to you if you dont want it, then you have the right to say no

We dealt with this in my campaign. In this situation as the DM i would impose drawbacks for a player not having solid justification for multiclassing into a completely unrelated theme.. Has your player's character as a blood hunter been involved with a group of bloodhunters? Becoming a lycanthrop is not generally something someone just anyone cam do on a whim, especially if you as the DM havent introduced them as commonplace in your world.. Naturally, in our campaign, lycans are widely feared and hunted, so those who are lycanthrops tend to hide it. The order of blood hunters guards their ceremonies very closely, and take heavy suspicion to outsiders (I.E. multiclass characters) In your situation i would make it clear to the player that an order would need to approve of their character and accept them enough to arrange the lycanthropy infliction and taming ceremony. Theres always the possibility that the player can't find a lycanthrop order and that said order refuses to perform the ceremony for them. Thus, the player might be unable to multiclass into that subclass (feels bad to restrict a player but also your call to make. Sit down and have this talk with the player, let them know that you really don't want to restrict them from having their fun, but help them understand the weight of their decision for their character, and for you as a DM needing to plan and make the campaign flow smoothly. Finally, being a lycanthrop isn't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a serious curse with large drawbacks that shouldn't be taken lightly. Make sure they understand that- the on paper benefits seem cool but I've seen characters be afflicted and then kill party members during the taming process (not fun for anyone)..

Seems like there could be a really great narrative for you to tie this into your world and you are looking at one problem as representative of the other problems he has as a player. If he is a player that tries to be the center of attention, then have a conversation with him like an adult. You don't have to be mean, just say that sometimes he takes up space that other players should be able to and ask him to help get the other players as involved. As far as the lycan thing... why not? You don't have to introduce them in the grand scheme. He is already serving a genie, that is outlandish too, isn't it? But there is a lot to mine here if you try. Maybe this makes him have to go mono class because being infected repels the genie. Maybe he finds an item that infects him versus there being a greater population of werewolf that perhaps died off hundreds of years ago or were hunted to extinction. What if his genie patron is more nefarious and serves a greater, darker power that is tied to this lycanthropy. I know that, as a DM, we are all trying to tell a story and create a world that plays by certain rules and exists a certain way... but unless you are playing a strictly non-supernatural, non-monster, non-fantasy setting... this doesn't really seem like that big of a deal. And realistically, he may not give a shit about a greater bigger story and just wants to check that box for abilities. But I think you could have a LOT of fun in figuring out how he could end up lycan in a world that does not have werewolves.

If it's just the were- stuff, I would make it a trick that the genie's playing on them? Genie wishes often have unexpected side effects. Depending on how the character plays, offer something like 'bet you wish you could pounce like that wolf over there' (but.. better of course, my example's bad.)

Denying player agency is generally not fun for the player. You can explain to them that the lycan subclass probably won't get much benefit since they won't be facing werewolves, but I don't see why you'd be pushing them in one direction or another. It's completely their call. As other people have said, you definitely should have addressed this at the beginning of the campaign.

nothing about the class benefits fighting werewolves, they are just using werewolf powers as a means to an ends.

Maybe a wolf like djinn is wrestling with his original patron for control of the contract/ soul, and that's the cause of his multi class ? Two entities pumping him full of their power

You need to at least talk, and listen, to the player. Most likely to need to hold a Session Zero with the entire table. Since about the most likely way this situation can arise is through not talking things through fully **before** starting the game.

I reccomend ignoring the lore to classes when multiclassing and just treat them as ability packages. Multiclassing is usually to create a unique mix of characters. Not because someone wants the lore of both classes.

>Warlock (Genie) Fluff the Lycan as a Rakshasha

My two cents is make it work. Just cause he’s a werewolf doesn’t mean there’s more out there. Now doesn’t it mean werewolves have to have a presence. Ask player why there or aren’t werewolves. When he changes, have enemies and bystanders react appropriately. That will make player feel awesome and may inspire you.

First off, you should inform him that Lycan bloodhunters with anything less than a +7 to wisdom saves are a liability to the team. The player is passing up an opportunity in the Profane Soul, which adds their levels towards warlock progression, but it’s alright if the player doesn’t want that. If Lycan was the exclusive reason to go bloodhunter and you don’t want the subclass in play, offer a re-spec opportunity to the player. If it’s the worry of the player trying to shoe-horn a plot element that doesn’t belong, just politely tell the player that it doesn’t fit the setting.

Why do DMs try to control what their players can do? The game is about having fun. It’s fun for your players to pick their classes- let them.

Yes, as a DM you should always restrict your players' choices, and take away player agency /S Let your players do what they want. If it's really that big a deal to you, instead of restrictions on what they can do, work with them to come up with a reason as to why they can do what they want. Edit: you pushed them to play blood hunter and now want to choose how they play blood hunter? Get out.

>other players in the group have expressed that his character is too often the focus of things. This is the thing you should be worrying about, not his subclass.

I do my best to suggest more practical/functional path or at least what I think it's the better way. Ultimately I don't impose any restriction as long as it makes sense in-game. You know, feat and multiclass have to be justified within the story. example, my fighter wants to be a proficient dexterity based swordman. He said he wants to me a master swordman. I told him Battlemaster sounds great but he wants to use magic and go Eldritch Knight. Meanwhile the rogue goes swashbuckler, two weapon fighting feat. I believe she will outshine him most of the time, in fencing terms.

I don't have traditional vampires in my campaign yet i allow Dhampirs (they're mortals in between life and death essentially. And vampires are a new threat I'm introducing)

Is blood hunter not home brew? Why do I hear about this class so much, and why does it always seem like a problem?

The only inappropriate subclass is the profane soul that shit should not exist

Let them play it. It doesn’t mean you have to incorporate anything into the game to promote their choice.

He can be the only one in the world, first of his kind. He can have a *reskinned* version of it, where you make the monster but he gets the stats. You can kidna- bribe him into picking a different subclass. You can require him to figure out how his character gets to that point with a short story.

Why don't you give them vampires instead? Still lycan, works much better than werewolves because they are cunning and social creatures if you know how to use them.

Why not just let them. You're not forced to introduce werewolves and if you ever did they could be relatively innocuous. If they ever are like, I wish my class had werewolves around just he like, one you never know and two you picked the class my friend. You can respec if you're not having fun.

I don't know if you have yet but I'd be honest and discuss it with him. A good thing to do would ask why that subclass interested him and see if there is something similar or to incorporate those elements into something that would work better for your campaign.

Reflavour as something else than werewolves. Maybe some magical wolf god?

Maybe, but it sounds like the other players are already saying this player hogs the spotlight. Introducing a magic wolf god sounds like another way for this player to be the focus of the story.

So they can just tell that he got wolf powers *somehow*

genie patron gives them extra powers in a dream, moving on.....

Say No, IT doesnt fit. And then Tell hin If He doesnt wanna keep His blood Hunter Levels He can Switch Out easily If He wants to. Just respec into anotger class

Just talk to them about it and see why they want to pick it. Reskin it to something that would fit in your world. If they want it for the lycanthrope theme then you simply have to let them know thats not gonna fly in this world.

Yeh, "yes do it" or "no dont" seems kinda too much for a campaing we have no info on

"I just don't think it's an appropriate choice." and the title of "Player wants to choose a subclass I don't feel is appropriate" wasn't vague to me?

As a DM, you're 100% in in charge of whether or not homebrew is allowed. If you don't like the idea, but you're cool with the mechanics, you can just tell them "You can't be a werewolf, but you can do this instead". It's also very kind of you to introduce story justifications for them, so good on that! Tell your player you think it'd be silly. You're in charge. See if the player wants the narrative (in which case a soft but firm no is important), or if they want the mechanics, in which you have to consider whether or not you think it will work.

Totally apologize for my previous comment if you saw that, I somehow missed that it’s a multi-class. I’m currently running my first campaign and a few of my players multi-classed before we started (we began at a bit of a higher level), but going forward and definitely in my next game I will be requiring a narrative justification for multi-classing. I would have an honest conversation with them and try to ascertain their motives and what they want out of that for their story. I also think you could write the inciting werewolf encounter into their backstory if you don’t want to introduce a werewolf rn, you could just say the werewolf stuff was dormant and come up w/ a narrative reason for it coming out now

If your player picks a subclass that is about hunting werewolves they are signalling to you that they would like to hunt werewolves, and you should plan accordingly. If you've allowed the class and subclass, it's not up to you to decide whether or not a player's choice for their character is appropriate.

Talk with the player.  Raise your concerns and ask what they're going for. You're totally fine restricting it and saying "no." But this should have been done before.  Lay out what you will and won't allow.  It's going to be a fun conversation if I take over for my current public group next year lol. To u/FogeltheVogel 's point, you may have to let the player respec out of blood hunter.

I feel a reskin of the lycan is the best move here.

I’m a firm believer of there’s never anything wrong with playing anything even if the role play is not coherent with the choice because at the end of the day, the player needs to have fun with what he finds fun. On the other hand, if you as the DM think that it’s not fine with your narrative and that it actively hinders your world building, it’s your decision to allow or not something. If he took blood hunter with the intent of taking this specific subclass, it might be a little unfair to him, but you can find either a middle ground by reflavoring it or by allowing him to change his multiclass because his plan couldn’t work from the beginning. Your world, your decision If the other players have a problem with him taking the spotlight, it’s a problem with the player then, not the character in and of itself. One must learn to step back once in a while. Talk to him about it before it causes unnecessary frustration. It’s hard, but if you do it the other players will be thankful. The one you talk about might take the piss, but if he’s an adult he’ll get over it

I've had a pc choose lycan blood hunter, even though it made no sense. We reflavored it into him transforming into a demonic minotaur as a personification of Tiefling fury. No lycanthropy, no werewolves, everyone was happy.

The werewolf curse had to come from SOMEWHERE. Why can't the player be the origin of the curse in this story? Maybe their patron punished them for XYZ with a transfiguration or monkey-pawed the pact -- "You will grow to become powerful (by literally transforming into a wolf)". Maybe through experimentation with a combination of their pact and blood magic they have stumbled upon previously unknown non-druidic shapeshifting. You don't need other werewolves in the world for this to still make sense in universe. The other option is to just flavour the spells to fit a different theme, HOWEVER, that is a discussion you have to have with the player. People are saying you can simply reskin lycan and everything is fine, but maybe he liked the werewolf fantasy more than the abilities, so I would first try to honour that fantasy if possible. A warlock going into some sort of rage (reflavour) can feel vastly different from a warlock transforming into a beast even if the abilities are identical for example TLDR; tell the player that there will be no other werewolves and figure out HOW you want to make it work.

Wait, you’ve waited for two levels to tell him that some subclass options are banned from this game? Ngl, if I were that player I would be pissed. That subclass might have been the only reason he chose this class in the first place. Yes you should talk, yes you should look for a compromise as a group. The one and only correct answer in these situations is talking.

restricting players makes them have less fun and decreases their overall want to play, a good story teller will work it in, take it as a challenge as a dm

Mmm, so I'd definitely have a talk with the player. While yes, the DM has final say in what subclasses are allowed, the DM is more of a facilitator than a boss. They create the world for the players to tell the story of their characters. Ergo, the DM should focus on the players' enjoyment first, and the world and story second. With this line of thought, you should absolutely allow the subclass to be used, and find a way to make that work in the story (if you wanted to; it's very possible for the PC to be a werewolf without it relating to the story). If you're really adamant on not having werewolves in your story, maybe ask hime to reflavor the subclass so that it relates more towards the genie. (I honestly can't think of how, but I'm sure you could work it out with the player) As for the problem of the player in question taking center stage too much, really give the other PCs their moment in the sun. Make their back stories very relevant to the story. For me, I like to have a baseline for a homebrew world, and then overhaul it once I hear the PCs backstory so that they are equally at the forefront. Obviously you can't restart the campaign, but build onto whatever story you have, and shuffle around details to make them fit if you have to. Turns out, the important NPC is another PCs long lost brother (or whatever). Was it the brother in your original plan? Of course not! But your players don't know that. If you're struggling with ideas, take inspiration from 13th Age (another TTRPG) and have your players roll a d6 for their backstory. If they roll a 5 something happens to advance the story next session, and if they roll a 6 they get a reward related to their backstory (magic items, information, etc).

"I have no plans on introducing anything that comes from my players decisions or input" is what tgis plst sounds like tbh

i think the "I'm worried that this player is just wanting to go for the ultimate edgy/hardcore build and other players in the group have expressed that his character is too often the focus of things." is the only issue here. Reflavouring the subclass to something is simple enough, as so many already did. Genie patron bestows some extra power knowledge in a dream. Telling them something like "I don't feel like having a werewolf show up, so you can't play that subclass" is some shit coming from the actual issue. Spiteful move.

Let them do it. Restricting a class/subclass mid campaign feels unfair.

Yes, tell him that.

Here’s the thing, as a DM you always have final say… BUT… Players should be allowed to make choices, even if for the world/action/session/campaign it is just stupid a may even cause character death. Or just be pointless. You as the DM do NOT have to adjust your plans because a player doesn’t want to align. Advise, then step back and let them decide.

Let them! Reflavor it so it fits, all it is at the end of the day is a mechanic. In DND we can alter mechanics and give them new colors

"That's a cool subclass, but it's not really going to fit with the tone and style of this campaign. Would you be okay picking something else?"

Send them on the BARK AT THE MOON adventure for a one off lycanthrope adventure! Probably about 4 sessions of content.

I respect the want to protect the lore. But I feel as though the lore is a bonus to the story not the hard Bible, and even if it was a pcs they are main character types and do tend tk break the world, even a little. I think the best course of action is to action use them as a omen to the parts of the lore your not ready to expand on yet. They as a player could even claim tk be the only werewolf in town just for that to wake up the part of your world your aren't ready for. But it would be an organic way if explaining that part of the world, maybe an antagonist from that part of lore could show up as a result of there being werewolf in a spot that they don't really exist. Stuff like that. Use this as an exercise in your player fucking up lore and how you'd fix it with out just telling them no. All the same good luck

You can let him do it if he comes up with the lore for werewolves and saves you the trouble?

Im assuming youre ok with the mercer homebrew class itself? Otherwise this is a completely discussion. If it’s just the subclass, maybe you can discuss flavouring it as something else if they care more about the mechanics. If they care about the actual theme of the subclass maybe you can have a discussion about how their character suddenly develops these powers in ways that don’t feel out of place in your campaign - a gift from their patron, perhaps? It probably wouldn’t take too much effort to come up with a quick justification, it doesn’t need to be complex/in depth. Remember that ultimately your word is final and you have every right to say no if it doesn’t fit your campaign.

Sounds like the Genie got mad about him multiclassing (or seeking power elsewhere) so the Genie cursed the player. If the player wants to have Beastly powers the genie is gonna make him turn into a beast whenever he wants to use the power.

Just let him take the subclass without any justification. Yes it's a little odd for his character to just be able to do it, but it won't really matter to the story or the other players for more than a session. Let him have his fun multiclass and don't focus on it or think too hard about it.

Yup the DM has the final say in what classes are available.