D&D 5E What classes should be restricted?

[The Green Hermit]

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

Unless the campaign setting is not supposed to be heroic. Some groups like to have an evil campaign instead, for instance.

 

[The Green Hermit]

Somewhere along the line I embraced the weird in D&D. I tolerate quirky, goofy characters that I would bounce right out of other rpgs I run. I blame my teenage sons - they seem to love the weird stuff in races and classes - so I go with the flow.

On my end, I have to keep reminding my husband that he shouldn't play a drunk jerk all the time, especially since our teens and tweens make up the rest of the group. I like playing with them, but do wish at times that we had an adult group to game with as well (especially if I could be just a player and not a player AND the DM).

 

[Tony Vargas]

But as for what a class is, could you possibly explain how the inclusion of a class builds the setting?

If cleric is available, gods are real? that kinda thing?
PrCs would be even better world building tools, to that way.

 

[Li Shenron]

1- if it doesn't fit with the fantasy setting
2- if it doesn't fit with the campaign theme
3- if it's just too badly designed

The last one normally has been the case only for classes in supplement books and 3rd party.

1 and 2 are not the same thing, because the campaign refers to the PCs while the fantasy setting is much larger. Just like there can be orcs but no PC orcs, there could be e.g. warlocks but no PC warlocks in a certain game.

 

[Ashrym]

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.

Tomato, tomahto.

Classes are definitely options at the DM discretion, I agree. Not including them just doesn't have any significant impact unless the campaign setting has significant changes the predicate it, like low/no magic or no magical healing. Not including a class because it's "redundant" cannot impact the setting once you've defined them as redundant because there would already be a class in existence doing the same thing. ;-)

If cleric is available, gods are real? that kinda thing?

I've played enough campaigns (usually Eberron) where the gods being real or not is irrelevant to the clerics. It's the characters' belief that exist and that doesn't require any specific class.

However, following the logic does that mean war does not exist because there are no warlords?

 

[Tallifer]

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.

In my worlds (and in my own mind), certain things are evil ispo facto. A man becomes contaminated with evil when he kills stealthily for hire or when he seeks to control that which should be dead. He may try to do many other fine things, but he has to repent of and turn away from assassination or necromancy in order to hope for redemption.

 

[Iry]

Setting is the single biggest one for me. I've run so many games I lean towards strange novelty concepts these days. So evoking a certain feeling or theme is very important for me, which might cause me to prevent a class from being played unless it can be fluffed to fit the setting. Luckily, almost anything can be fluffed to fit a setting, so what is actually being prevented are contrary character concepts and not the class itself.

 

[DEFCON 1]

To me, classes consist of two things... a package of narrative identities (the fluff of the class) and a package of game mechanics (the crunch). We as players have become so accustomed to how the two connect that we now assume one builds off the other to create a whole.

What does that mean? It means that even when there is overlap on one side of the two between two or more classes, most of us will still treat the classes as different, separate, and potentially necessary/core to the game. And where you fall says a lot about what you find important when it comes to classes and how necessary you see them.

And it is this necessity that for me helps define which point I voted for, which was the "doesn't fit the game world setting". To me mechanics are mechanics-- they are all a necessary evil to make the game a game, rather than a complete improv exercise. Now the combination of certain mechanics from different classes produce results that make it more of a pain on my end as the DM to challenge them... but I don't outright disallow something simply because of mechanics. If the mechanics make things more difficult for me... I see it as my job to work around them and take them into account.

However... if a particular game I am running has a particular flavor and narrative focus, and there are classes whose fluff runs counter to that focus... I have absolutely no problem just not including them in that particular campaign. If its a game with no gods, then not including the cleric is a simple concession to the game that causes no issue. And the reason it causes no issue is because my players know that I am a DM who cares much, much more about the fluff of a campaign than I do the crunch, and thus I have curated a group of players to match. They won't bother requesting to play things that don't fit the story, because they care about fitting into the world as much as I do and wouldn't ever even think to ask.

 

[Coroc]

Depending on campaign I do not only restrict races and classes / subclasses but also combos of allowed races and classes which I either do not want to see as a PC or not at all.
E.g.: I hate the concept of a dwarf wizard. In every official campaign setting possible, even planescape, except eventually Eberron.
Or: there are Halfling fighters in the game world but none of the players will play one.
No matter if a Halfling rogue is an allowed option or not.

I also prescribe certain alignments or alignment ranges to be mandatory for certain classes / subclasses and do punish if I notice the player does not play it true to his alignment.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

In my worlds (and in my own mind), certain things are evil ispo facto. A man becomes contaminated with evil when he kills stealthily for hire or when he seeks to control that which should be dead. He may try to do many other fine things, but he has to repent of and turn away from assassination or necromancy in order to hope for redemption.

Do Enchanters fall in the same category? In my campaign, enchanters are considered the evil-est type of magic. Animating dead stuff is unsavory to say the least, but stealing the agency of sentient creatures for your benefice is a monstrous thing, from my point of view.