D&D 5E What classes should be restricted?

[The Crimson Binome]

They are in the book and you don't allow them. That seems like the definition of banning to me. I have no issue with you doing so, I was just verifying you were that draconian about it. Of course, what good DM wouldn't want to a draconian!

One of the nice things about 5E, especially in contrast with 4E, is that it's very up-front about everything being optional. They want every DM to take ownership over their own world, and only include exactly what they want for their campaign. There's a big section about it, in the DMG.

The idea that any given thing should be included, just because it happens to have stats in a book, is an extreme example of player entitlement. It's a bad habit that the community seems to have picked up, sometime around third edition.

 

[dave2008]

One of the nice things about 5E, especially in contrast with 4E, is that it's very up-front about everything being optional. They want every DM to take ownership over their own world, and only include exactly what they want for their campaign. There's a big section about it, in the DMG.

The idea that any given thing should be included, just because it happens to have stats in a book, is an extreme example of player entitlement. It's a bad habit that the community seems to have picked up, sometime around third edition.

Like I said, I felt the same in my youth, I am just more into group cooperation than DM entitlement now. I have no issue with your approach it is just not mine anymore. Heck, I gave my players the MM and said pick your race from that (except for fiends and undead) and I can make it work.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't give a kobolds crap what your opinion of the Warlord (or 4e) is.
I don't like it, & as I'm the DM it has no place in any game I run. Not even in a hypothetical 4e game.

Well, you seem like a pleasant person.

 

[Ashrym]

I generally allow any standard class unless the specific campaign setting would cause me to disallow it.

3PP is where I am cautious. That's when I watch out for weird options or obvious balance. Those need a case by case request for me to allow them.

UA is playtest material and we allow it while actually testing it. Otherwise it's treated like 3PP.

I do not want any evil player-characters, so no assassins or necromancers.

Neither of those is required to be evil. I have played several good necromancers over the years.

The core four classes get a free pass. Any class that's redundant with one of those will not be added.

For example, I would never add druid to the game, since nature cleric already exists. I would never add sorcerer to the game, since wizard already exists.

I think of some classes not so much as redundant as alternative classes. It hurts nothing to allow them therefore not allowing them is rather pointless.

There's nothing gained from taking those options away from players even if they might be little more than alternate class features.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think of some classes not so much as redundant as alternative classes. It hurts nothing to allow them therefore not allowing them is rather pointless.

It's extra complexity. That's the cost. You make the world more complicated, with more moving parts, for no real gain. There's certainly no benefit to including druids in a world, if nature clerics are already there to fill any narrative role that you might need them for.

There's nothing gained from taking those options away from players even if they might be little more than alternate class features.

I'm not taking away options, because they were never player options to begin with. Classes are options for the DM to use, when building their setting.

 

[dave2008]

Can’t speak for Saelorn, but in my ideal DnD I would. I’d have classes be restricted to core with fewer but more impactful attributes, and have a bunch of subclasses to fit those archetypes with more subclass features than what’s there currently

Yes, ideally I would have 2 classes: Mundane and Arcane. I sometimes think three would work by adding a Divine class, but that is it. However, to achieve that I would have to make the classes from scratch and I don't want to do that.

 

[cbwjm]

Yes, ideally I would have 2 classes: Mundane and Arcane. I sometimes think three would work by adding a Divine class, but that is it. However, to achieve that I would have to make the classes from scratch and I don't want to do that.

That's always the problem, right? The amount of work required has seen me start work on a class and then hit a wall when I see the amount of work required. Maybe I'm just trying to do too much with it right at the start or maybe my attention span can only work on something for so long before new ideas pop into my head for other things.

I think one of the things I liked about 2e and earlier is that they had less moving parts which means it is easier to build something new.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I don't ban them. I just don't take the pro-active step of adding them. (Except for the monk, which occupies a unique conceptual niche from the other classes.)

I'm the DM. It's my world. Nothing exists until I say it does.

That's a semantic point and your argument is a tautology. "I don't allow it because I didn't allow it," isn't a meaningful answer. It's a dishonest position for the purposes of the survey.

Assume that you must provide a justified answer because the justification is the point of the survey. "Because I say so," is not a justified answer. It's a non-answer. You have a real answer in your head. You should state that.

If your real only answer is, "Because I say so," then I think you should see a therapist because I can't imagine having your players call you "Le Petit DM" is very healthy.

 

[The Green Hermit]

I do not want any evil player-characters, so no assassins or necromancers.

Do those characters always have to be evil, though? I could see both being heroic characters.

It's extra complexity. That's the cost. You make the world more complicated, with more moving parts, for no real gain. There's certainly no benefit to including druids in a world, if nature clerics are already there to fill any narrative role that you might need them for.

I'm not taking away options, because they were never player options to begin with. Classes are options for the DM to use, when building their setting.

I think of some classes not so much as redundant as alternative classes. It hurts nothing to allow them therefore not allowing them is rather pointless.

There's nothing gained from taking those options away from players even if they might be little more than alternate class features.

Agreed. And sometimes, even if they can do basically the same thing, the reason for the different class titles add a significant part of the characters' background.

 

[Umbran]

I think the "does not fit the campaign setting" and "does not fit an heroic RPG" are redundant.