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

[Waterbizkit]

I feel like these threads come up regularly, so I'll try and stay concise. I'm generally an "everything goes" DM. All races, classes, UA material, 3rd party material (subject to my review), and even all alignments within the same party. If you have a strong character concept I'm going to support you in having it see play at the table.

If I do ever place restrictions it's usually to support a specific theme and in my case the more restrictive I am the shorter the campaign is likely to be. Perhaps I have all the players make characters that have to be some sort of goblinoid race because the "adventure" is them spearheading an assault on a settlement or fortress. Or maybe everyone has to play a dwarf because they're a group scouting for new veins of ore deep in the bowels of the mountain range they call home. These are typically short runs though because I just don't like putting so many restrictions on my players.

Now, to slightly sidestep some of the vehemence going back & forth in the thread I just also want to say this, and I typically do in these types of threads anyway: the differences in how we all run our games is what's so great about D&D and similar games. One DM might have a handout listing several restrictions on what players can and can't play while the next DM down the line just says "anything goes" and there's everything in between... and it's all good. What others do in their games won't impact your games, and so long as everyone is having a good time who cares? Either way I like reading these threads to get a glimpse of how other people run their games.

 

[JeffB]

Really depends on the setting. In my old age, I prefer humanocentric worlds ala Hyboria or Nehwon (and AS&SH's Hyperborea). Most of the settings I use are older settings,so it's typically the core four

Same for classes (In 5e I have only used the basic rules except for a couple oneshots where we had an EK and a gunslinger-oh and a war domain cleric).

Things that make me cringe no matter what edition- Dragonborn, Tieflings, Monks, Assassins, Psionics, Multiclassing and half-whatevers.

 

[Belltent]

I'm currently a player in a game in which every one is a human and all warlocks are always EVIL. I think both are dumb.

If I was feeling retributive I guess I would ban Humans and paladins.

Also, dragonborns are not for munchkins. I've never seen a single build out there that picks dragonborn as the optimized race. If anything, I would buff them a bit.

 

[Greg K]

I'm currently a player in a game in which every one is a human and all warlocks are always EVIL. I think both are dumb.

And, likewise, many people find one, several, or even all of the following to be dumb: Aaracokra Aasamir, Changelings, Dragonborn, Drow, Elan, Genasai, Githyanki, Githzerai, Gnomes, Half-Orcs, Halflings, Illumians, Killoren, Mongrelmen, Shadar-Kai, Tieflings, Tortles, or possibly one of many other PC races introduced over the years. The same goes for Avengers Paladins, spellcasting Rangers, Elemental Monks, Shadow Monks, monks in general, Sorcerers (3e, 4e, and or 5e). Choose a race or class and, somewhere, you will probably find someone that thinks it is dumb.

The nice thing about D&D is that it can handle many different types of settings (some requiring more work than others to pull off). If a DM does not like something or feels it doesn't fit the feel of the setting that they want to run, they do not need to include it. If players don't like the limitations, they are free to walk or set up their own group.

 

[steeldragons]

I hadn't even noticed we're supposed to talk classes as well...let's see...

Well, if you're asking about 5e and what I would use in a 5e game for my own homebrew worled, I am likely to go something like this:
Barbarian: berserker only.
Bard: Lore or Valor.
Cleric: all.
Druid: Land only.
Fighter: all, though EK would be for certain humans, half-elves, or elves only. Allow gnomes to take EK but select only illusion and enchantment spells instead of evocation and abjuration.
Mage ("Wizard"): all.
Monk: Open Hand for sure. Elemental is ok, I guess. I probably would hold off Shadow monks for NPC "bad guys."
Paladin: must be Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral only, Devotion Oath only. I could probably be persuaded to have A (ONE, SINGULAR per party) Ancients paladin that was NG or CG...or might just keep them as NPCs.
Ranger: homebrewed spell-less base only.
Rogue: all, though Arcane Tricksters will be reserved to humans, half-elves, elves, and gnomes. And I don't allow Evil PCs so Assassins are off the table except as use for NPC "bad guys."
Sorcerer: doesn't exist per my homebrew. All "wizards" eventually master varying levels of spontaneous casting. MIGHT use them as a framework for Psychic [origin] characters. But I have a homebrew for that, as well.
Warlock: Fey only. GOO and Fiends would be held for NPC "bad guys."

My own homebrew game system, developed for my homebrewed campaign setting offers the following available classes, which may or may not be translated/translatable into 5e PHB (or UA) sources.

Fighter: everybody.
Knight: humans, half-elves, elves, dwarves only.
Barbarian: humans only, a culture and nationality as much as, if not moreso than, a class

Mage: everybody
Illusionist: humans, half-elves, elves, halflings, gnomes, satyrs.
Psychic: humans, half-elves, elves

Cleric: everybody
Templar: humans, half-elves, dwarves (and only available to religious orders of certain Lawful deities)
Druid: everybody, though halflings and dwarves pursuing a druidic path do not really have any place in their societies.

Thief: everybody
Acrobat: everybody
Ranger: everybody

With homebrewed "Uncovered Secrets" (tm lol. ) classes added/available on a case[PC]-by-[PC]case basis:
Bard: everybody.
Shaman: certain humans, half-elves, elves [wood], satyrs
Witch: everybody
Swashbuckler/Mariner: everybody
Mystic[Monk]: Humans, half-elves, elves [elemental "air style"], dwarves [elemental "earth style"], et al. non-standard PC or NPC races.

 

[Ath-kethin]

Curious minds inquiring. Do you have some kind of cap or something? Because I can just imagine that people will put those extra two points into getting Str / Dex / spellcasting Attribtue 18 almost all the time, which is basically going to be munchkin-y as well.

But I must say, I do like this idea. Point buy does tend to lean towards two main stats and dumping the rest, and I find the dice rolls leads to unhappiness with a crappy roll, especially if someone gets an 18 in their starting stats. The problem I had with arrays is that it does tend to feel like forcing people into a niche if it doesn't match their racial / boons. That extra bonus +2 feels like it could encourage people to break a bit out of the same old forms that come up time and again.

I have had a total of 11 players in my 5e games - hardly a representative sample - but not a single one has followed the distribution you describe. All but one put two points into their "8" score to remove the negative modifier, and all of them used the other two points to even out odd ability scores to hit another bonus. Out of the lot, only three took the ASI at level 4 and used it to boost an ability to 18. Sadly, I have yet to have a group reach level 8 in 5e to see what they would do at that point; people move away or change jobs or whatever and the campaigns fall apart before we reach that level.

Ultimately, I find that the generation method I use minimizes the sense of competition I've seen in groups, where everybody is scrambling to one up each other in terms of cool stuff they get with various race options. If everybody gets the same tools, all that's left is customization and character development.

Now, you could say exactly the same thing about ANY generation method, really, since race options and ability scores are key to any character's concept. So I guess I don't have a real explanation as to why this procedure as been so much more successful for me than other methods we used in older games, but it seems to work well and that's good enough for us.

 

[MechaPilot]

Of course I inform potential players of both race and class restrictions. . .

I assumed you did, and I said as much. You certainly didn't say anything that would lead me to believe otherwise.

. . . some will bulk at such restrictions. others are more than happy to abide by them. It is just a matter of taste I would say, there is stuff I do not like and stuff I do like. This in the end is a reflection of both me and my campaign.

Naturally. Every style of play and set of restrictions/modifications will attract some and avert others.

By way of examples:

1) I don't give out +X weapons and armor. I find a simple +X to AC, or to hit and damage, to be very boring. Instead, I replace the +X bonus with other benefits, like expanded crit range, additional damage against certain types of foes, activated abilities, etc. That style certainly isn't for everyone. I know some people would really miss not having +X items, and if that's a deal-breaker for them then I hope they find a game they enjoy, but it won't be at my table.

2) I don't allow long-range teleport magic. Overland travel, and the places, people, and creatures you encounter along the way have meaning and enhance the feel of a setting/campaign. Plus, if there's nothing important along the way, it's easily glossed over.

3) I can easily imagine a fair number of people who exclusively prefer to play wizards probably wouldn't enjoy playing in my Wildwood setting, where nature abhors civilization (and has the power to do something about it), and where literacy (and thus scrolls & spellbooks) is extremely rare because most civilizations who've grown enough to develop it have been wiped out by vengeful mother nature.

On to further rock the boat, I also put restrictions on alignment IE no True copout, no Chaotic Stupid (the Alignment of choice for murder hobo PC's) nor any evil alignments. I want my campaign to be fun, memorable and avoid possible Murder Hobo activities. Believe me, when I restarted DM'ing earlier this year, I thought most players would be mature caring adults, but some are not.

I also restrict alignment choices, sometimes. It really depends on the player in question. If a player has proven she's mature enough to handle playing an evil or chaotic character without being jackasses, then I'll allow her to try it as a test to confirm or refute my analysis of her maturity.

One thing I don't do and don't believe in though, is imposing required alignments for character races or classes. Not that I judge anyone who does. To each their own. I just don't see any good reasons to do it.

Mechapilot; yes my players do have fun in my campaigns. . .

Never said or meant to imply that they weren't having fun. I'm sure that players who share your sensibilities find your games quite stimulating and enjoyable. I don't believe I would find it so, but that doesn't make what you do bad or wrong; and vice versa.

 

[thekindgm]

Unless there is a story reason, I allow all races and classes in my campaigns.
Also, I allow the UA content because I really like it and like trying it.

Sent from my iQ9011_2 using EN World mobile app

 

[JonnyP71]

I recently had a similar discussion with one of my regular groups. We played a 5E campaign, and since that ended we've been playing 1E. It took them a little while to get used to the older system, but gradually even the youngest, most 'gamey' players have taken to it. But I know they miss 5E - some more than others - and I would like to run it again at some point... but not RAW, because while the base mechanics are excellent, there's too much in there that does not sit well with my old grognard roots.

The ideas I've suggested include:
- no Dragonborn
- only Humans and Half Orcs can be Barbarians
- Dwarfs and Halflings cannot be full arcane spellcasters
- only Humans can be Paladins
- Only 'outdoor' races can be Rangers

Racial stat bonuses are reduced, and 1E style penalties are reintroduced, making PCs overall slightly weaker.

Some armour and weapon tweaks, adding flavour where possible

eg Replace Plate Armour with Platemail, add new level of Plate Armour, cost 5000gp, AC 19, Str 18, Stealth Disadv, Weight 65

Change Trident to Versatile (1d10), and give it Reach, also give Spears Reach

Grittier recovery rules:
- keep times as currently
- max 1HD used on Short Rest
- no natural healing on a long rest, player must use HD (and can recover them as per current rules)
- naturally heal 1/2 CON score with a full night of proper comfortable rest (home, inn, etc)

No combat Yo-yos, if you are reduced to 0hp you are unconscious. 10 minutes to recover before the PC can fight again.

Reduce experience gained from killing foes, increase experience gained from quest completion.

There are more, but I don't want to derail the thread somewhat....

 

[WarpedAcorn]

What Races (classes) do you allow or disallow in your campaign?

No class is disallowed in my campaign. I can't think of a good reason why I would mark any class off limits in a standard adventure. Now, if the game is a low-magic setting that is different, but that would require a buy-in from the players as well. I wouldn't just tell them they can't play certain classes, I would ask if they would be interested in a game without those classes.

As for races, the only thing I disallow is flying races. I can imagine that being abused and, most importantly, splitting the party. Any other race is fine. Some make more sense than others, but I try to tailor the level of appropriateness to the player. For instance, an introverted player who plays a drow who is the type of player who just hangs back and enjoys playing with a group...I let that slide. But if there is an extroverted character playing a drow, then I show that player more affects of being a weirdo race. I have a similar instance right now with a half-orc who wants to be a Cleric of Grumsh. I've advised against it and given reason why. She still wants to, so we will play it and see what happens. it could be interesting.


Also, to echo sentiments in this thread, I don't view the Dragonborn or Tiefling race as munchkin. Someone correctly stated that powergamers will typically gravitate to the Human-Variant due to the Feat. That FAR outshines a couple of 1/day spell abilities. Disallowing Warlock is also a weird one, especially given how tropey it is for someone to make a deal with the devil for the right reasons. Plus there is the Great Fey and Old Ones who are most certainly not directly evil. A Warlock is just someone who made a deal for power.