Quartz
Hero
Dragonborn would be perfect for the oriental empire to the west of the Sea of Dust.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E How do you decide which Races to disallow (and/or Classes)?
- Thread starter SubDude
- Start date
Dragonborn would be perfect for the oriental empire to the west of the Sea of Dust.
DMZ2112
Chaotic Looseleaf
I've recently discovered that it isn't about the racial and class options; it's about the players.
I absolutely agree with the posters in this thread who have said that the most important thing is that the dungeon master be comfortable with the verisimilitude of his setting, and that he therefore has final say on all player options in it, but what I've found is that even if I've decided up front that there will be no drow gunslingers in my campaign, the right player approach can change my mind.
Right approach: "I have this great idea for a drow gunslinger, here are three pages detailing his history and can I buy you a chai while we talk for an hour about how to fit him into your world?"
Wrong approach: "I have this great idea for a drow gunslinger, Drizzt is awesome and guns are awesome."
Worst possible approach: "I have this great idea for a drow gunslinger; this feat and that archetype and multiclassing here and here, and 40 gazillion damage without having to roll to hit."
I may not /want/ drow gunslingers in my party, or even in my world, but the player with the right approach is going to make the campaign better, damn him, and denying him doesn't actually /accomplish/ anything. I have decidedly mixed feelings about how rare this sort of player is.
I just did a light conversion of Dragonlance to D&D5 and I made room for tiefling, dragonborn (draconian) and warlock characters because I trust that my players are of this type. Does it make me nervous? Sure, but I've come to trust my players and take that nervousness in stride.
I guess what I'm dancing around is that there is no fairness in dungeon mastery. I've always felt this way about play, and I don't know why it took me this long to apply it to character generation. But just because I let player A play a drow gunslinger does not mean that I am obligated to let player B do so. Just as I can rule on success differently for the two players based on circumstances in play, there are extenuating circumstances in the metacampaign as well.
It's important that my campaign world have internal logic, but it is also important that I be open to external ideas, so long as those ideas come from people who have proven themselves. The end result from such moderated interaction can only be improvement.
I absolutely agree with the posters in this thread who have said that the most important thing is that the dungeon master be comfortable with the verisimilitude of his setting, and that he therefore has final say on all player options in it, but what I've found is that even if I've decided up front that there will be no drow gunslingers in my campaign, the right player approach can change my mind.
Right approach: "I have this great idea for a drow gunslinger, here are three pages detailing his history and can I buy you a chai while we talk for an hour about how to fit him into your world?"
Wrong approach: "I have this great idea for a drow gunslinger, Drizzt is awesome and guns are awesome."
Worst possible approach: "I have this great idea for a drow gunslinger; this feat and that archetype and multiclassing here and here, and 40 gazillion damage without having to roll to hit."
I may not /want/ drow gunslingers in my party, or even in my world, but the player with the right approach is going to make the campaign better, damn him, and denying him doesn't actually /accomplish/ anything. I have decidedly mixed feelings about how rare this sort of player is.
I just did a light conversion of Dragonlance to D&D5 and I made room for tiefling, dragonborn (draconian) and warlock characters because I trust that my players are of this type. Does it make me nervous? Sure, but I've come to trust my players and take that nervousness in stride.
I guess what I'm dancing around is that there is no fairness in dungeon mastery. I've always felt this way about play, and I don't know why it took me this long to apply it to character generation. But just because I let player A play a drow gunslinger does not mean that I am obligated to let player B do so. Just as I can rule on success differently for the two players based on circumstances in play, there are extenuating circumstances in the metacampaign as well.
It's important that my campaign world have internal logic, but it is also important that I be open to external ideas, so long as those ideas come from people who have proven themselves. The end result from such moderated interaction can only be improvement.
dmccoy1693
Adventurer
For me, I'm cool with just about everything as long as the players understand that the most common races are the core 4 races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling) and everything else is substantially less common. So nothing about a dragonborn empire (ancient or otherwise) in backstories. Sure there can be dragonborn colonies, towns or forts but that's it. And if they don't appear in the campaign, well, gnomes don't make many appearances either.
If I'm going to restrict any class, its going to be the monk because of the Eastern flavor. But even then, I haven't done that in ... a decade or more.
If I'm going to restrict any class, its going to be the monk because of the Eastern flavor. But even then, I haven't done that in ... a decade or more.
Mouseferatu
Hero
This is a slight tangent, but I've found it pretty easy to reflavor monks to fit a more Western European style of setting. No harder than reflavoring fighters or wizards to fit an Eastern one.
Having been educated by western monks and stayed in their monasteries, I have to say that the eastern and western monastic traditions are VERY different.
...and I STILL don't have a problem with D&D monks on that basis.
...and I STILL don't have a problem with D&D monks on that basis.
Vymair
First Post
I come up with a campaign concept. This almost always lead to some race restrictions. I've also allowed races not usually allowed as character races from time to time when the campaign concept supports it.
In the campaign I'm just about to start, I disallowed Dragonborn and Gnomes. I also added Eladrin as an elf option. If a player had desperately wanted to play a dragonborn, I left that open in the original campaign communication and would have made them extremely rare. However, since no one did, I dropped them. My concept is that a long-time human empire that recently collapsed had good trade relationship with neighboring petty kingdoms that had access to trade with the elves and dwarves. The dwarves dominate the major mountain range in the east while giants dominate the western range. The old growth forest found in pockets around the world have wood elves protecting them and thus represent the majority of elf-human contact. High elf cities buried deep in the forest with connections to the feywild are not unknown, but rare in the world Eladrin live in the feywild where portals within the High Elf citiies are often found. Halfings are found in the plains and are heaviliy involved in agriculture. There's a Tiefling kingdom where the nobility there had struck the standard type deal with some ancient fiend. Humans are represented by several different cultures loosely based on the Romans, Germans, Romany, Norse and Celts. Since I don't have a role for Gnomes, I dropped them.
In my group, we often find the campaign is best remembered by the things that make it different from the standard setting, so dropping races are part of what defines a campaign's unique flavor.
In the campaign I'm just about to start, I disallowed Dragonborn and Gnomes. I also added Eladrin as an elf option. If a player had desperately wanted to play a dragonborn, I left that open in the original campaign communication and would have made them extremely rare. However, since no one did, I dropped them. My concept is that a long-time human empire that recently collapsed had good trade relationship with neighboring petty kingdoms that had access to trade with the elves and dwarves. The dwarves dominate the major mountain range in the east while giants dominate the western range. The old growth forest found in pockets around the world have wood elves protecting them and thus represent the majority of elf-human contact. High elf cities buried deep in the forest with connections to the feywild are not unknown, but rare in the world Eladrin live in the feywild where portals within the High Elf citiies are often found. Halfings are found in the plains and are heaviliy involved in agriculture. There's a Tiefling kingdom where the nobility there had struck the standard type deal with some ancient fiend. Humans are represented by several different cultures loosely based on the Romans, Germans, Romany, Norse and Celts. Since I don't have a role for Gnomes, I dropped them.
In my group, we often find the campaign is best remembered by the things that make it different from the standard setting, so dropping races are part of what defines a campaign's unique flavor.
I now want to base a campaign around Jesuit kung-fu.
Maybe the whole Protestant Reformation as wuxia.
"Come out and fight me, Master Pope! Your Ex Cathedra-style is no match for my Sola Scriptura Boxing!"
(why haven't I thought of this before??!??!)
Mouseferatu
Hero
Well, yeah. I didn't mean just replace Eastern monks with Western monks. Vastly different concepts. I meant it wasn't hard to reskin the idea of "semi-mystical martial artist" to various cultures.
dmccoy1693
Adventurer
Well, yeah. I didn't mean just replace Eastern monks with Western monks. Vastly different concepts. I meant it wasn't hard to reskin the idea of "semi-mystical martial artist" to various cultures.
Yea, what finally turned me to allow monks was thinking of them as brawlers, pit fighters, and muscle people that wanted more out of life than mere strength alone. They are warrior poets and seekers of truth while still keeping their bodies in excellent physical form.
Because you don't hang out with me enough!
Similar Threads
- Question
