D&D 5E What classes should be restricted?

[Lanefan]

I force some classes (e.g. Paladins, Cavaliers, Monks, Assassins, Necromancers) to be particular alignments or alignment ranges, but in my games any PC alignment is allowed.

I won't allow some particular race-class combinations, partly for setting reasons, partly personal preference, and partly because I've learned that when certain races can be certain classes balance kinda goes out the window.

Were I to DM different editions of D&D there's some classes I'd flat-out never allow: Gunslinger (hard to be one without gunpowder, which don't exist 'round here); Warlord (at least as written, as I don't like martial healing); and a bunch of prestige classes that just seem a bit OTT. I'd also look at combining some classes e.g. Sorcerer and Warlock into just one, and try to cut down overall the number of caster classes while maybe adding a few non-casters.

All that said, the classes that are allowed or not allowed do help inform various elements of the setting, and vice-versa e.g. the Gunslinger example above.

 

[Vael]

My general rule is any WotC class should be fair game, so no restrictions except for 3rd party classes. And if a player came with a 3rd party class, I still might allow it. Now, specific exceptions might be made, like no Clerics/Paladins in Dark Sun, for example, but my general rule is not restrict choices.

 

[Helldritch]

I voted for non official classes (like 3PP) and other. Other, in my mind means: "Psionics classes!"

I hate these classes as they always bring some imbalance, inconsistency and I am sure that I am allergic to them. (Just writing the word psionic makes me sneeze like hell...).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Animating and controlling the undead is an evil act

Why? It's not like those bodies are being used anymore. It's just recycling.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Why? It's not like those bodies are being used anymore. It's just recycling.

Something was using them. A family of worms is going to go hungry because their dinner is out walking around.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Something was using them. A family of worms is going to go hungry because their dinner is out walking around.

No reason the worms can't come along too.

 

[Helldritch]

Why? It's not like those bodies are being used anymore. It's just recycling.

It is an act beyond the evil of evilness. Animating a body traps a part of the soul in the animated body (as far as D&D cosmology works). This prevent the soul to go on its journey toward its paradise/hell/final rest or whatever you call it. This means that the soul is now trapped in either the plane of shadow (where it might become a shadow) or trapped in the Concordant Oppositions plains where they are likely to get captured by evil entities (such as Night Hags, Yuggoloths and others). These entities will either use these souls to barter for services or feed upon them, thus destroying the immortal soul in the process.

In a world where gods exist and paradises/hells are a real thing, destroying a soul is a crime beyond evil itself as even evil would like to be in his paradise/hell or whatever. (Think of the Goblin never ending war in Archerus). Creating undead is a sure way to prevent the soul from reaching its destination.

I do not recall where I learned that. Maybe it was a dragon article I don't remember but it was quite an explanation that I was happy to have.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It is an act beyond the evil of evilness. Animating a body traps a part of the soul in the animated body (as far as D&D cosmology works).

Setting specific fluff, not a universal rule.

I do not recall where I learned that. Maybe it was a dragon article I don't remember but it was quite an explanation that I was happy to have.

Quite. It's someone writing stuff to justify why, in their setting, necromancy is inherently evil. But it's not inherently a part of D&D. If you want to say - in your setting - it's evil, that fine. But no setting is required to be that way, and some - Eberron for example - are canonically not.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Setting specific fluff, not a universal rule.

So is "animating dead bodies is a thing that happens".

Quite. It's someone writing stuff to justify why, in their setting, necromancy is inherently evil. But it's not inherently a part of D&D. If you want to say - in your setting - it's evil, that fine. But no setting is required to be that way, and some - Eberron for example - are canonically not.

It's pretty inherently a part of D&D inasmuch as alignment is in general. The animate dead spell no longer has an [Evil] tag, but that's probably got more to do with such tags not existing anymore than a reevaluation of reanimation in particular. Even in Eberron, the "non-evil" necromancy is... on the sketchy side. Can you write a setting where necromancy is an unambiguous good? Absolutely. Lots of people have done it. I've done it. But in the context of D&D, that's very much the exception rather than the norm. To characterize necromancy as it is presented in this game as without moral valence by default strikes me as inaccurate.

 

[Helldritch]

Setting specific fluff, not a universal rule.


Quite. It's someone writing stuff to justify why, in their setting, necromancy is inherently evil. But it's not inherently a part of D&D. If you want to say - in your setting - it's evil, that fine. But no setting is required to be that way, and some - Eberron for example - are canonically not.

The planes are supposedly universal. The old Legend and lore (and 2ed, 3ed and to some extent 4ed) tend to agree with that statement. I wonder what you would think of someone coming at the funeral of your child, saying I need that body as fighting entity and animating it as a zombie. In Eberron, these necromancers are despised. In fact, only the Aeranal venerate undead and they are their ancestors (a religion of ancestors of some sort).

The acceptance of animating undead is relatively new in RPG. The elves in Eberron venerate their ancestors but they are the exception, not the norm and they do not animate random persons. They litteraly join the undead to better protect their families. This is something akin to the mummies' role in some setting. Most of the mummies are created to protect the tomb of their liege. They make a willing sacrifice. So are the Aereni. This is entirely different.