Paul Farquhar
Legend
I wouldn't. You find all types of people in a city. That's the nature of cities.
D&D General City Campaign
You don't think that some subclasses might be inappropriate for or at least less than optimal for urban adventures?
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Even druids, rangers and scouts find themselves in cities on occasion. They might not feel happy in that environment, but that provides players with good role-playing opportunities.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Less than optimal? Sure, but I'd probably react to a player expressing interest in one and warn them about it rather than outright ban it. I'm OK with curating choices for things I don't want to deal with in a campaign for various reasons, but known sub-optimality really isn't one of those reasons.
Fair. I just think that it would be kind of unfair to allow a subclass that did not fit and whose abilities would be wasted a lot of the time. When i say "city campaign" I mean: the whole thing takes place in the city (and potentials dungeons beneath it). No long distance travel. No wilderness except maybe as a singualr adventure in the Haunted Park or whatever. No planar jaunts. Urban.
I am thinking of Sharn as a base too. Or maybe Zobeck (but I need to find out more about that city).
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Assuming you are using 5e rules the only abilities that relate to wilderness travel are irrelevant ranger fluff.
But if you tell the players it's a city adventure they can make up their own minds what they think will be useful.
Oofta
Legend
I don't. Someone may have to explain why a druid chooses to live in a city, but other than that nothing. If you're talking backgrounds then if you have a noble background for example, you're from a fallen house, the 5th son who has no inheritance, you're estranged from your family, or similar. A monk may have a sensei in a broken down dojo, the wizard was tutored by someone. There are all sorts of explanations.
This is sort of off the subject, but I feel like it is incumbent on the GM to help provide spotlight time for players. That means, though, that players building inappropriate to the campaign characters impacts more than just themselves. It is potentially disruptive to the game they signed up to play.
Let's say you are going to run a thieve's guild, morally ambiguous criminal campaign. Do you let a player come in with a Lawful Good paladin intent on doing the Lawful Good paladin thing? I wouldn't. I might work with the player to come up with a paladin concept that can work with the campaign theme, but I would not want to have to constantly be dealing with the out-of-place character and their reactions to the group's criminal activities, etc. In short: I don't think players have the right to play whatever they want if they have agreed to a certain style of game. It is their responsibility to create a character that works with the campaign premise.
That's an extreme example, of course, and I don't expect any subclass absolutely could not work in a city campaign, so in essence I agree with you: as long as the player is still accepting the premise, they should be able to play what they want. But I don't think there is anything wrong with a curated list of things that would "work best" to give the players some guidance, either.
Similar Threads
