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

[ElectricDragon]

It all depends on the campaign. A one-shot is a simple campaign. Sometimes it is necessary to limit choices: one of my campaigns centered around a magic university in the middle of the wilderness. Every player must be a specialist mage, no two could be the same specialist type. Only basic races (human, elf, gnome, dwarf, Halfling, half-orcs, half-elves). To graduate to 1st level required each mage to make up his own personal spell (DM approved) that no one else would have. Further levels gained required also a new spell made. 7 mages. Good thing the "wilderness" was really tame and easy. Even those who thought they could not make up a decent spell, made and used (at least once) their spell successfully, in combat mostly. Only lost one mage, nice campaign. I believe everyone enjoyed it. But no one wanted to play the mage in the next campaign, lol.

 

[Guest 6801718]

I've only ever put restrictions on race (and not class) once. I ran a zombie apocalypse campaign once. So you couldn't be an undead or construct race. I wanted the players to be vulnerable to possibilities of a zombie disease or the danger of one of their fallen comrades rising as a zombie. So in order to really drive home the threat of the undead, I had to make sure they could fall victim to everything in the game world.

Other than that, I don't put restrictions on what people play. It's not my character. I'll never play it. Part of the social contract of the game is that everyone has fun. So play what you like, not what I like. I allow all races, classes and UA stuff. Third party material is reviewed for approval, just to make sure it's balanced with the rest of the game. Sometimes it can be difficult to fit the more exotic races into a game world. That's why I let the players figure it out. If they want to play a dragonborn or tiefling, I just ask them how they think their race fits into the world. It gets them more invested in the game world, encourages creativity and lessens my work load. So it's a win all around. That player is instantly more invested in the game as they contributed to it.

When I run D&D and put together a campaign, it's not "my" game. It's the group's game. If I want things only my way with only my say so, I'd be playing by myself. I create the world, the adventures, the NPCs and monsters and all the content. The players create their characters and have agency over what that character is. Keeps me happy. Keeps them happy.

 

[Arilyn]

Unless I am doing a very specific campaign, I allow all classes and races, including ones from other sources. None of them are overpowered and I don't like stomping on player choice. Back in the day, being told that I couldn't have an elf ranger or dwarf magic user turned me right off the game. Players often come to the table excited about their character ideas. We should be embracing these creative choices, especially if the players are new to the game. Sometimes ideas that seem silly or unrealistic can lead to great story telling.

 

[Phazonfish]

Dragonborne- Really? A munchkin gamers wet dream race come true

Tiefling- [...] Another Munchkin gamers dream race come true lol.

I get how they might rub you the wrong way thematically, but if you say they are Munchkin races that means they are unbalanced or exploitable, right? In what way?

Paladin- I did not nix this class but went old school. The artwork in the PHB for the pally is so wrong on so many levels lol. So what I did do with this class was just make it for Humans only, Lawfull Good and Oathbreakers are N/A.

Lawful good only? Makes sense, I feel like the only reason this wasn't already the case is because 5e has a thing against alignment making a mechanical difference. No Oathbreakers? Makes sense, Oathbreakers sound more fit to be villains than players. But if I may ask, why humans only?

 

[Mephista]

I disallow humans. Not just variant humans, but regular ones as well for a number of setting-/ story-based reasons.

That said, The_Gunslinger658 ? Sounds like you just have a hate-on for anything that's new, and being insulting about it. And, the most annoying part is you can't even use words right. Dragonborn (no e at the end), tieflings? They're not munchkin material. That's not what a munchkin is. Munchkins are players who try to outshine others at the tables, being the best, taking the most kills, most of the loot, and more, often in reference to power gaming.

Slapping random derogatory labels on something you don't like and not getting spelling or information about them right is just being a troll. Good day, sir.

 

[Gladius Legis]

That's the first time I've ever seen anyone call the 5e Dragonborn overpowered. The general consensus seems to be the exact opposite ...

So yeah, troll.

 

[Irda Ranger]

As a general rule as a DM I try not to waste play-tested rules. If something exists as a stat block I try to use it, even if I re-write the fluff entirely.

I can't stand Dragonborn or Tieflings though, and don't have a place for fire-breathing PCs in my campaign. I just never liked them and didn't write them into my homebrew setting.

Halflings and Half-elves I'm not a fan of thematically but I use the stat blocks.

Lightfoot and Stout Halflings are reskinned as "Micin" and "Ratkin", two races of anthropomorphic rodents.

Half-elves are reskinned as "Changelings". They're just humans who were abducted by Fey as children.

I have included some of the Elemental Evil and the Volo's GtM races. I think Aarakocra and Tritons and Goliaths bring something to the campaign.

I also use a one-axis Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic alignment system, and while there are no banned classes there are alignment restrictions. Warlocks have to be Chaotic. Wizards, Sorcerers, Barbarians, and Shadow Monks cannot be Lawful. Druids must be Neutral. Clerics and Paladins must be the same as their deity/oath.

I draw a hard line between PC races and monsters though. Monsters are monstrous. Orcs aren't misunderstood or just more violent on average than humans. They're corrupted beyond redemption, like Reavers from Firefly. Goblins are Fey who enjoy drinking human blood and painting their caves with it. Etc. You'd no more play an orc or bugbear than a werewolf or vampire.

 

[Mephista]

Monsters are monstrous.

Heee. So,w aht does that make monstrous, then?

 

[The_Gunslinger658]

No need to insult me with a troll label just because I do not like Dragonborne or Tieflings in my campaign. The question is do you allow such races in your campaign, if so kool, if not that is kool too. But I am liking some of the ideas you guys are throwing out there. Good stuff.

[MENTION=6855766]Phazonfish[/MENTION]: << I get how they might rub you the wrong way thematically, but if you say they are Munchkin races that means they are unbalanced or exploitable, right? In what way?>>

Ya they do rub me the wrong way, the reason I called the Munchkin races is because munchkin players like playing monsters and one that can breath fire, even better. I kinda wish WotC would have just put a supplement out with monsters as PC's instead of carrying over old 4E races. As for why Pally's are Human only, being old school AD&D grog, thats just the way I feel. In most fantasy literature and legends represent Paladins as human IE Charlamain, King Arthur, Sir Lancelot and so on. Not angry looking orcs. (another residual from either 3E or 4E).

Scott

 

[Guest 6801718]

No need to insult me with a troll label just because I do not like Dragonborne or Tieflings in my campaign. The question is do you allow such races in your campaign, if so kool, if not that is kool too. But I am liking some of the ideas you guys are throwing out there. Good stuff.

@Phazonfish: << I get how they might rub you the wrong way thematically, but if you say they are Munchkin races that means they are unbalanced or exploitable, right? In what way?>>

Ya they do rub me the wrong way, the reason I called the Munchkin races is because munchkin players like playing monsters and one that can breath fire, even better. I kinda wish WotC would have just put a supplement out with monsters as PC's instead of carrying over old 4E races. As for why Pally's are Human only, being old school AD&D grog, thats just the way I feel. In most fantasy literature and legends represent Paladins as human IE Charlamain, King Arthur, Sir Lancelot and so on. Not angry looking orcs. (another residual from either 3E or 4E).

Scott

I can see where you're coming from with some of your issues here. If you have some powergamer players who gravitate to races with special abilities or powers, it can be annoying. I wouldn't say that the PC race is the issue there though. As someone who plays a lot of paladins, I remember being excited when other races were finally allowed to be paladins. It opened doors for all kinds of character concepts. Plus it never really made sense to me that only humans could serve a god in that way. Why can't other races have holy warriors if they are devout? A dwarf with a strong sense of honor, strong bonds to his family and clan and a devotion to Moradin would make for a perfect paladin. Now we can have that. It doesn't take anything away from humans. Humans are still one of the absolute best races for a paladin.

That angry looking orc paladin could be an amazing character. Suppose that orc (or half-orc) was raised by humans. He didn't choose to be born an orc and now he lives in a society that judges him because he's a orc. Yet he was raised right and holds strong values. He wants the world he lives in to thrive and be successful, as that's where his family is from, even if that society doesn't want him. So in looking for a path, he turns to faith. He finds a god who values mirror his own. He takes the path of the paladin to uphold the values his family taught him. Now he's a warrior for a kingdom that doesn't want him, even if they may need him. That could be an amazing character with tons of story potential for the DM to play with. You never know what kind of awesome character a player can come up with.