The Power of "NO". Banned Races and Classes?
For my next campaign (set in Onnwal, Greyhawk) I'll be slightly restricting races and classes available. The one big one is banning monks. The fun thing about that is that monks certainly exist... it's just that they all belong to the Scarlet Brotherhood, the chief bad guys of the campaign!
As the campaign is set in an area where humans and dwarves make up the bulk of the inhabitants, I'm giving serious thought to banning elves, but I'll probably just see how many players want to play one.
Cheers!
As the campaign is set in an area where humans and dwarves make up the bulk of the inhabitants, I'm giving serious thought to banning elves, but I'll probably just see how many players want to play one.
Cheers!
The Human Target
Adventurer
Yeah, temporarily restricting options for a specific game the group agrees to in advance ( like say do divine characters in Dark Sun) is one thing.
Though I will say on a personal preference note, I play D&D to play D&D.
I don't really go in for using the D&D rules to run a Napoleonic Wars campaign or Conan the Barbarian game.
Which is probably why I like inclusivity.
The Human Target
Adventurer
Curse the Scarlet Brotherhood!
See in that game I'd probably lobby to be an elf, because being the only one around would open up a lot of fun circumstances.
Ratskinner
Adventurer
I don't historically have any standing bans, but I sometimes institute them on a campaign by campaign basis when I DM. Frex in one campaign I wanted them all to be royals, so they all had to be human.
Salamandyr
Adventurer
I'll ban things. I'll probably ban the monk, because a guy who can kill things with his bare hands what other people need swords and bows to kill is a higher level version of the guy with the sword or the bow, not a different thing altogether.
I often ban clerics, because their existence makes metaphysical statements about my campaign world that I'm not prepared to allow. And also it's the only class whose power is really in being an adjunct to another being, which is uncomfortable. Well, now there's the warlock, but then the cleric and the warlock are very similar in kind, only their granted powers are different.
I think most people are comfortable with banning races inappropriate to the campaign world, probably more than they are classes.
And lemme see, I will always ban double weapons. No suicide swords. They don't work, they're not cool, and a quarterstaff isn't any more a double weapon than a longsword is (after all, you hit people with the pommel and quillions too).
I often ban clerics, because their existence makes metaphysical statements about my campaign world that I'm not prepared to allow. And also it's the only class whose power is really in being an adjunct to another being, which is uncomfortable. Well, now there's the warlock, but then the cleric and the warlock are very similar in kind, only their granted powers are different.
I think most people are comfortable with banning races inappropriate to the campaign world, probably more than they are classes.
And lemme see, I will always ban double weapons. No suicide swords. They don't work, they're not cool, and a quarterstaff isn't any more a double weapon than a longsword is (after all, you hit people with the pommel and quillions too).
That *he* bans things because he hates them does not imply that and horrible brokenness are the only reasons, though, which was the implication I got from the post. So, yes, it read like hyperbole.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I ban Europeans and those with a net worth of more than $500,000, because those are bad enough on their own and that combo is just broken.
Unless they bring beer.
Unless they bring beer.
