D&D 5E What Races (classes) do you allow or disallow in your campaign?

[MechaPilot]

As for races, the only thing I disallow is flying races. I can imagine that being abused and, most importantly, splitting the party.

I have been allowing flying PCs for at least a decade now. In my homebrewed Tenesia setting, arcane casters can fly on brooms as long as they have spell slots remaining (Actually, the rule is spell points remaining, Tenesia uses the spell point variant).

From my experience (and mine is certainly not the only one, so I'm not claiming some grand authority to declare this) flight is pretty hard to abuse, especially in dungeons which are prone to having relatively low ceilings, and especially if the flight is winged. I have a rule that if you are a winged flier, you cannot fly unless you have room to spread your wings. For a medium-sized humanoid, I assume that means each wing spreads out into an adjacent 5 foot space. So, in my games, a medium-sized winged flier can't fly through an area less than 15 feet wide.

That said, flight certainly can lead to party splitting.

 

[ccs]

On changes you're considering;

- Only 'outdoor' races can be Rangers

What's that even mean?

 

[Obryn]

So I'm not running or playing 5e, and don't expect to, but this is a pretty generic D&D question so I might as well chime in anyways.

I prefer carrots to sticks. If I have a theme in mind, I'll communicate it with my players. If they want to go with it, they get a perk like an extra +1 point for attribute point-buy or something along those lines. If they want to do other stuff, I'll work with them to get it as appropriate as possible. Nothing earth-shattering, but a bit of an incentive.

I used to have ban lists like 10-15 years ago, but eventually I realized I'd probably just go ahead and approve any idea that was done judiciously. So now I just skip 'em, present the campaign, and work with my players to make sure they're able to make characters they want to play.

What I do, however, push is a 'reason for getting all together' where appropriate. Like, when starting Zeitgeist, I was pretty clear, "Hey, you are all constables and you start out thinking to some extent or another that Risur is pretty swell. If you move away from that later in the campaign, cool, but this is the way we're kicking this off." In other games, I will check into relationships to figure out who knows whom, to tie the group together better.

Anyway, I've been playing D&D since the Moldvay box around 1982 or so, and I'm pleased as punch that the game has been expanding into new, interesting territory. (That's actually one of my chief complaints about 5e, tbh.)

 

[mrpopstar]

I curate the available race and class options for each campaign, and those decisions are always story-dependent, but I find that I tell most tales with the following core options disallowed:

• dragonborn
• gnome
• tiefling
• sorcerer
• warlock

 

[JonnyP71]

On changes you're considering;


What's that even mean?

Humans, Elves, Half Orcs, Forest Gnomes, Halflings, Half Elves.. to me, traditionally 'underground' races do not fit the Ranger concept, therefore Rock Gnomes and Dwarfs are out..

 

[Obryn]

Humans, Elves, Half Orcs, Forest Gnomes, Halflings, Half Elves.. to me, traditionally 'underground' races do not fit the Ranger concept, therefore Rock Gnomes and Dwarfs are out..

The idea of intrepid Dwarven scouts blazing trails in the trackless tangle of tunnels in the underdark doesn't appeal?

Or hunting across mountaintops for foes, keeping the icy peaks and secret valleys at the edge of their homeland free of giants and dragons?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Angerguy]

troll thread

 

[JonnyP71]

The idea of intrepid Dwarven scouts blazing trails in the trackless tangle of tunnels in the underdark doesn't appeal?

Or hunting across mountaintops for foes, keeping the icy peaks and secret valleys at the edge of their homeland free of giants and dragons?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Underdark/underground caverns will not be allowed as a favoured terrain. Rangers will be outdoorsmen first and foremost.

For me, getting the right feel to the game is very important, and if something doesn't feel right then it is gone. Like monsters as PCs. No, Goblins are all evil monsters, end of.

 

[Mecheon]

Underdark/underground caverns will not be allowed as a favoured terrain. Rangers will be outdoorsmen first and foremost.

For me, getting the right feel to the game is very important, and if something doesn't feel right then it is gone. Like monsters as PCs. No, Goblins are all evil monsters, end of.

No mountain climbing dwarven survivalists who camp out for days with their trusty bear companion?

I mean honestly I'm more offended at the lack of dwarf barbarians. How can dwarves not be barbaric? Or elves, even? Elves of course being child-stealing monsters weak to silver, as we all know, who's inherent 'goodness' is a greatly misunderstood lie at best

(Oh and your general sweeping of all goblins as 'evil' but we all know I hate alignment. A goblin can be good, much as humans very much can be evil. There is no inherient goodness or evilness to anything in my worlds. Its just everyone trying to make do as they do.)

 

[JonnyP71]

Whereas I'm a big fan of alignment as a game mechanic, and inherent good and evil is a big part of my games - very much nature not nurture for the vast majority of the world.

Dwarfs are happiest underground, most of them will have never seen a bear! They are skilled, orderly, artisans - not even remotely barbaric.