My group allows all races and classes. When I DM, the same thing goes. Our philosophy is "play whatever will make you happy". It's your character after all. If I run the game, I want my players to have the freedom to try whatever they like. We've had some really fun and unusual characters as a result. The attitude with my group is "it's not my game, it's our game". So we go with all the options available to us. If I personally don't care for something, then I simply don't play it. No reason to impose it on someone else.
D&D 5E Do you use all of the P.C. races and classes from the PHB?
When I end up running 5e, this is my plan
All campaigns (sometimes exclusively): Humans (variant Humans only)
Most Campaigns: Dwarves (Hill, Mountain*), Elves (no Drow), Gnomes, Half-Elves, Halflings, Lizardmen
Sometimes: Half-Orcs
NPC Only: Drow (and only if I were to run FR or Greyhawk) , Tieflings (NPC only)
Never: Dragonborn
*Mountain Dwarves do not get Armor Proficiency as racial ability
CLASSES
Barbarian: Bererker (yes), Totem (no)
Bard: yes
Cleric: yes but heavily modified
Druid: Circle of the Land only
Fighter: Battlemaster only
Monk: Way of Open Open Hand (sometimes), Way of Four Elements (never), Way of Shadow (never)
Paladin: Oath of Devotion (Most campaigns), Oath of Ancient (most campaigns), Way of Vengeance (never)
Ranger: sometimes (the UA non-caster will be always)
Rogue: Thief (yes), Assassin (yes), Arcane Trickster (maybe until I find a 20 level class)
Sorcerer: PHB subclasses (No)
Warlock: Great Old Ones (only NPC and only in certain campaigns), Fey Pact (most campaigns), Pact of the Fiend (most campaigns, but NPC only)
Wizard: yes
All campaigns (sometimes exclusively): Humans (variant Humans only)
Most Campaigns: Dwarves (Hill, Mountain*), Elves (no Drow), Gnomes, Half-Elves, Halflings, Lizardmen
Sometimes: Half-Orcs
NPC Only: Drow (and only if I were to run FR or Greyhawk) , Tieflings (NPC only)
Never: Dragonborn
*Mountain Dwarves do not get Armor Proficiency as racial ability
CLASSES
Barbarian: Bererker (yes), Totem (no)
Bard: yes
Cleric: yes but heavily modified
Druid: Circle of the Land only
Fighter: Battlemaster only
Monk: Way of Open Open Hand (sometimes), Way of Four Elements (never), Way of Shadow (never)
Paladin: Oath of Devotion (Most campaigns), Oath of Ancient (most campaigns), Way of Vengeance (never)
Ranger: sometimes (the UA non-caster will be always)
Rogue: Thief (yes), Assassin (yes), Arcane Trickster (maybe until I find a 20 level class)
Sorcerer: PHB subclasses (No)
Warlock: Great Old Ones (only NPC and only in certain campaigns), Fey Pact (most campaigns), Pact of the Fiend (most campaigns, but NPC only)
Wizard: yes
HorusArisen
Explorer
Generally if I'm DM or even a player I only allow or play what's thematically appropriate to the setting of the campaign.
Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app
Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app
JCraigmile
First Post
I have been considering a world where humans are far more common and other races are extinct or receding rapidly. Everyone would be human, with the possibility of being elf-blooded, demon-blooded, fae-blooded, etc allowing for smaller racial bonuses without the campaign looking like an episode of Farscape. I think the Dragonborn, tieflings, etc took things way too far. I was perfectly comfortable with the old school Tolkien races. I used to disallow halflings. And I still hold fast to no Drow. Ever. Don't ask. If I have to suffer through one more Frizzt the Drow Ranger/Rogue wannabe...
I used to have a DM that killed off all the halflings, gnomes, tieflings, fae, and any other cute, trendy race in what he called, "the smurfoid apocalypse." No one knows why or how it happened, but all the cute, short races and half-breeds died horribly. To a certain degree, I like that policy, but I've also been known to play windlings (converted from Earthdawn) and Kender (made the DM cry more than once.) I think a little flavor is good, but too many diverse weird races bog down the game.
I used to have a DM that killed off all the halflings, gnomes, tieflings, fae, and any other cute, trendy race in what he called, "the smurfoid apocalypse." No one knows why or how it happened, but all the cute, short races and half-breeds died horribly. To a certain degree, I like that policy, but I've also been known to play windlings (converted from Earthdawn) and Kender (made the DM cry more than once.) I think a little flavor is good, but too many diverse weird races bog down the game.
Midknightsun
Explorer
I'm pretty open as far as classes, though there are a couple third party sources that I would say no to. As far as races, I am not a big fan of monster races, and really don't like DMing campaigns that feature them regularly. But I have a couple players that play almost exclusively monstrous and known evil races- well, the same monster race pretty much all the time- so I try to be flexible for the sake of their enjoyment. But I would be more restrictive depending on the campaign setting. For instance, I love Ravenloft, but I am old school about the races showing up there as PCs, so I wouldn't allow monstrous PCs unless they really liked the idea of being chased around with torches and pitchforks all the time in pretty much every village they try to enter. At the same time, I like Eberron and if I ran it I would have no problem with monstrous races or warforged because they are explicitly written into the setting. So it depends. I have not said no to any races, but there are some choices I am definitely not a personal fan of.
I tend to be bit of a traditionalist with regard to to races, and even then it tends to be a bit too Kitchen sink for my tastes sometimes. That being said, I like the way 4e introduced the tieflings in their 'Points of light' campaign with the ancient empire of Baul Turath and such, so I can see a campaign where they are the ancient evil and such, with a few 'good' outliers (coughDrowcoughDrizztcough). But even then I would probably limit other races, or even have different campaigns where other races are limited to create a tone and feel for the world. I tend to be much less inclined towards new races than classes in general though.
Classes on the other hand, tend to represent decent fantasy archetypes, even if they are new. While again certain campaigns could ban certain classes to create a 'feel' (no wizards in this world, no clerics in this other one a la traditional Dragonlance, or the more universal 'no psionics') for a campaign world, I find classes more flexible in flavor and fit for my fantasy tastes and am usually more permissive (at least with PHB and official supplement stuff).
Classes on the other hand, tend to represent decent fantasy archetypes, even if they are new. While again certain campaigns could ban certain classes to create a 'feel' (no wizards in this world, no clerics in this other one a la traditional Dragonlance, or the more universal 'no psionics') for a campaign world, I find classes more flexible in flavor and fit for my fantasy tastes and am usually more permissive (at least with PHB and official supplement stuff).
akr71
Hero
I voted "Its just a game..." but the reality is that all things are discussed in a Session Zero. If a player wants to play an Aarakocra or a 'monster race' there should be a character concept behind it - not just "I wanna fly."
I would be very open to an orc, goblin or hobgoblin as part of a party, its when the whole group wants to make something non-standard but don't want to put any effort into why the group is together that I try to steer them back toward more standard choices ("so why is your tabaxi travelling to the city with a kenku and firbolg?)
I would be very open to an orc, goblin or hobgoblin as part of a party, its when the whole group wants to make something non-standard but don't want to put any effort into why the group is together that I try to steer them back toward more standard choices ("so why is your tabaxi travelling to the city with a kenku and firbolg?)
Irda Ranger
First Post
For most of my campaigns I have made a homebrew world or region with a few races, and discourage players from taking anything that's out of that scope. I do this because I like to integrate players into the local politics and culture and you can't do that if someone plays a gnome and there's no gnome culture/kingdom in the area.
I also just don't like the Dragonborn race as presented in the PHB. I think they're boring. Or maybe it's the art. I don't know. I'd be fine with Lizardmen or Draconians in the right campaign setting though.
Classes I'm a lot more flexible with. The hardest one for me to integrate is Sorcerer, actually. I just don't have a good mental template of how they fit in, socially and politically.
I also just don't like the Dragonborn race as presented in the PHB. I think they're boring. Or maybe it's the art. I don't know. I'd be fine with Lizardmen or Draconians in the right campaign setting though.
Classes I'm a lot more flexible with. The hardest one for me to integrate is Sorcerer, actually. I just don't have a good mental template of how they fit in, socially and politically.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
To be fair, the stranger in a strange land is as old a trope as the hero's journey.
I voted "anything goes", but the wording almost had me not voting. It's not because "it's just a game", it's because I don't buy the mindset that more races is at all negative to good storytelling or roleplaying.
But yeah, all the published races and a few homebrews.
Davelozzi
Explorer
Apologies to the folks who I offended or put off with the wording of my poll options, I thought that snarkiness was standard operating procedure for polls around here, but then [Joe Pesci] I've been away for a long time and they didn't go up there and tell me [/Joe Pesci].
Yes, I personally prefer to stick to the traditional fantasy races myself, but in no way did I meant to imply that more races was negative to good storytelling/roleplaying, or to judge those that feel differently, and even though I fall into the "purist" camp myself here, I am not at all sure that I would even consider "purist" to be a compliment in the first place. Mostly I was just curious as to whether the new races in particular had been embraced by the bulk of D&D fandom.
I'm less concerned with classes, and in hindsight, I sort of wish I left them out of this poll, or maybe gave them one of their own. While I am not particularly a fan of warlocks or some kinds of sorcerers as standard P.C. classes, I think they work fine on a limited basis for NPC/villains, and either way, I concur with the sentiment that they are a lot easier to fit into a established setting than a new major race is.
Yes, I personally prefer to stick to the traditional fantasy races myself, but in no way did I meant to imply that more races was negative to good storytelling/roleplaying, or to judge those that feel differently, and even though I fall into the "purist" camp myself here, I am not at all sure that I would even consider "purist" to be a compliment in the first place. Mostly I was just curious as to whether the new races in particular had been embraced by the bulk of D&D fandom.
I'm less concerned with classes, and in hindsight, I sort of wish I left them out of this poll, or maybe gave them one of their own. While I am not particularly a fan of warlocks or some kinds of sorcerers as standard P.C. classes, I think they work fine on a limited basis for NPC/villains, and either way, I concur with the sentiment that they are a lot easier to fit into a established setting than a new major race is.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
- Poll
- Poll
