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

[Imaculata]

One thing I outlawed in my pirate campaign, now that I think about it, is any races that can naturally breath underwater. I want the sea to remain an interesting obstacle for all players, that is not simply negated by being able to naturally breath underwater. Using spells, potions, or shapeshifting abilities however, is just fine. Just as long as the players need to make some effort to deal with water as an obstacle. I also outlawed any permanent flying abilities or races. I want the players to travel the oceans, not fly over them. Using a fly spell, or shapeshifting into a bird, is fine though. Just as long as the focus of the campaign remains on sailing and naval battles.

 

[Arilyn]

One thing I outlawed in my pirate campaign, now that I think about it, is any races that can naturally breath underwater. I want the sea to remain an interesting obstacle for all players, that is not simply negated by being able to naturally breath underwater. Using spells, potions, or shapeshifting abilities however, is just fine. Just as long as the players need to make some effort to deal with water as an obstacle. I also outlawed any permanent flying abilities or races. I want the players to travel the oceans, not fly over them. Using a fly spell, or shapeshifting into a bird, is fine though. Just as long as the focus of the campaign remains on sailing and naval battles.

Yes, that makes sense, although in a "pirate" campaign one of my players made a selkie. She was the only one who could easily navigate the water, which meant if she wanted to explore something in the depths she was alone. Made things tense both above and below decks. Even when the other characters had water breathing potions, she was the one who scouted ahead. A whole crew of water breathers? Wouldn't,t have had same feel.

 

[Imaculata]

Yes, that makes sense, although in a "pirate" campaign one of my players made a selkie. She was the only one who could easily navigate the water, which meant if she wanted to explore something in the depths she was alone. Made things tense both above and below decks. Even when the other characters had water breathing potions, she was the one who scouted ahead. A whole crew of water breathers? Wouldn't,t have had same feel.

I would not have allowed that, if simply for the fact that I want them to do things together, and not split up. Plus it would made it too easy for that one player to solve all the underwater obstacles for the rest of the group. Having one player who can naturally breath underwater also kind of undermines the power of shapeshifters and spells. I like that currently in my campaign the Druid is their go-to guy for underwater things, because he can shapeshift into a shark or crocodile. This allows the Druid to really feel useful and unique.

 

[Arilyn]

I would not have allowed that, if simply for the fact that I want them to do things together, and not split up. Plus it would made it too easy for that one player to solve all the underwater obstacles for the rest of the group. Having one player who can naturally breath underwater also kind of undermines the power of shapeshifters and spells. I like that currently in my campaign the Druid is their go-to guy for underwater things, because he can shapeshift into a shark or crocodile. This allows the Druid to really feel useful and unique.

Splitting up can be a problem, but I made sure to bounce between them. Since I make sure all players have spotlight time, this was a chance for selkie to shine, and also get spooked, since she was alone. We also had plenty of non underwater action, and magic meant that other players could be under water sometimes. It all worked out fine. We played in this campaign for quite a while and everyone had fun.

 

[Ninja-radish]

As a DM I try not to ban anything unless there's a specific story reason why it wouldn't work or the race/class in question is horribly broken. In my view it's a bad DM who bans things because of personal taste. It's not a DM's job to point out to players what they should and shouldn't like. If your player likes Dragonborn and you don't? Tough, suck it up. I'd never play with a DM that pulled a stunt like that. Just my view on it.

In my current campaign the only race that's banned is the Yuan-Ti Pureblood, and the only reason I banned that is because the Yuan-Ti are one of the major bad guys in my campaign. If I had no plans to use them as villains, I would totally allow Yuan-Ti PCs.

 

[Imaculata]

Sounds great. And I think this is a perfect example how you can allow or disallow certain races depending on the type of campaign you are running.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I've often run that game myself, but I rarely ever disallow races, classes, or race/class combos. If dwarves are skilled, orderly artisans and you want to play a barbarian dwarf, I'm going to say, "OK, tell me why you're different and how this affects your relationships with your people." I'm going to use that as an exception and tell a story around it, not just say 'you're not matching my definition, so, no.'

And there's also the point that I don't consider any class to have it's book lore be definitional, so if you wanted to play a dwarf barbarian as an artisan partially possessed by a rage demon, and you kept it coherent, I'm game, let's play.

 

[Arilyn]

I've often run that game myself, but I rarely ever disallow races, classes, or race/class combos. If dwarves are skilled, orderly artisans and you want to play a barbarian dwarf, I'm going to say, "OK, tell me why you're different and how this affects your relationships with your people." I'm going to use that as an exception and tell a story around it, not just say 'you're not matching my definition, so, no.'

And there's also the point that I don't consider any class to have it's book lore be definitional, so if you wanted to play a dwarf barbarian as an artisan partially possessed by a rage demon, and you kept it coherent, I'm game, let's play.

Yes, couldn't't agree more. Playing against type or creating odd combinations, if done for story purposes can be great. Years ago, in PF, I made a Crow inspired character using the urban barbarian. Barbarians have never been one of my favourite classes, but by picking and choosing feats and abilities that matched my idea I created a character who became one of my favourites. GM had lots of fun with his story arc. If he had claimed that urban barbarians are stupid, we'd have missed out on some rich storytelling.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Dragonborn definitely aren't monsters unless you houserule them that way. By the book, they're just people of a draconic, as opposed to mammalian, evolution. Perhaps you're thinking of Dragonlance's Draconians? Either way, they are definitely a "heroic" race in the core, nothing strange about them being PC options.

Tieflings aren't extraplanar. They have an ancestor who might be, or who may have made a pact with something, etc, but Tieflings are natives to the same world as humans.

Paladins as humans only is a strange idea. Must be one of those rules we never even considered following back in the day. Can half-orcs not be good and devout in your campaigns?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've often run that game myself, but I rarely ever disallow races, classes, or race/class combos. If dwarves are skilled, orderly artisans and you want to play a barbarian dwarf, I'm going to say, "OK, tell me why you're different and how this affects your relationships with your people." I'm going to use that as an exception and tell a story around it, not just say 'you're not matching my definition, so, no.'

And there's also the point that I don't consider any class to have it's book lore be definitional, so if you wanted to play a dwarf barbarian as an artisan partially possessed by a rage demon, and you kept it coherent, I'm game, let's play.

Part of the fun, for me, is finding a place in the world for a concept. I hate resorting to "a wizard did it" just as much as I hate saying "no, elves are necromantic ancestor worshippers or urbane city dwellers in Eberron", or whatever.

My Eberron campaign has an elf Druid, so we found a place in Eldeen Reaches for a small minority culture of Druidic elves, who preserve the stories of their kin by teaching them to trees and memorizing them in great detail. The story of the founders of their communities can be learnt directly from the ancient trees planted and nurtured by those very ancestors. It fits the story of Eberronian elves, but also fits the character concept.

Another player wanted to play a Vryloka Wrath Blackguard in 4e(she is a vengeance Paladin in 5e), so I (with Kieth Baker's help in a wotc forum thread) built a place in Karrnath for Vryloka as a minority group that has worked its way into the nobility, a few even becoming Warlords. They also have a variant sect of he Blood Of Vol faith. By looking for a fit, we added to the setting, and created some really interesting stories.