D&D 5E Do you use all of the P.C. races and classes from the PHB?

[Sword of Spirit]

Not judging anyone else's game mind you, to each their own, but I was just curious if I was alone in feeling this way.

You are most definitely not alone. D&D lore/setting is honestly the most important reason I play D&D (there are other systems I can use if I just want a fantasy game).

As far as what races or classes I allow for a PC, that's completely dependent on campaign. What races exist in my world is the more important issue for me.

Dragonborn don't exist in any of the main worlds in my (mostly 2e) multiverse, because they weren't part of the history and were something that was added in 4e or proto-4e (late 3e bloat-books).

PHB Tieflings don't exist at all, because again, they are a new thing that was added in the 4e era rather than a traditional D&D race. Variant Tieflings from the SCAG are present (including just using the PHB stats and giving a different appearance and origin), because those have existed since 2e.

That being said, I have no philosophical objection against putting Dragonborn or fiend incarnate tieflings on some other world I make up, but I haven't felt a desire to do such yet.

All of the classes are present in my world. While classes do have actual in-setting reality in my worlds (they aren't just an out of character game construct) warlocks and sorcerers are something that feels to me like they should have always been there, and don't really mess anything up in the lore.

I do generally enforce cultural connections between classes. The "monk" class is from Far East inspired setting locations. There are no @#$% wood elf monks. That's a major pet peeve of mine. If you want to be a ki-infused martial artist, you come from an east Asian themed background--or at least your training does. If someone in a traditional European inspired fantasy setting talks about a monk, they mean a monastic cleric, not a martial artist using an exotic form of energy. And it drives me batty that they've attempted to merge things together nonsensically by fusing those together, so you have monks (as in monastic clerics) who are using the "monk" D&D class, because "duh, it's called monk, right?" and you end up with stupid.

I'm just as hard-nosed with the western classes in my eastern themed games. The "monk" class is totally approved, but some of the other PHB classes and subclasses just aren't setting appropriate. Same thing goes with races. No elves, dwarves, etc. D&D already has established races for that theme, which just don't have 5e conversions for them yet.

 

[Azurewraith]

Depends on the setting I'm running but if there isn't a world building reason to veto them I'm cool.

 

[redrick]

If I really had my druthers and were running a long campaign with a lot of player buy-in, I would probably scrap the default races/species and go with something new. I like the idea of what settings like Eberon did, where races were kept mechanically, but their backstories were completely changed, and the generic setting I use in my head does something like this.

That being said, since we tend to play short (3-9 month) campaigns, it's generally easier to just go with the assumptions built into the PHB, but I don't do a lot to build the "newfangled" character races into my campaign world. I have occasionally discouraged people from playing tiefling or dragonborn, or asked, if they played tieflings, if they were ok with looking like humans with more subtle demon features. The whole gigantic horns and a tail thing really rubbed me the wrong way when I made the jump from vanilla AD&D to 4e.

When I need to calm myself down and remember that kitchen sink fantasy settings with lots of various humanoids wandering around can be fun, I think back to Perdido Street Station by China Mieville, which is a wonderful example of a city where all sorts of different humanoid species live and interact together in the way that I'd imagine they might in a fully realized D&D world.

 

[Mortilupo]

It depends on the campaign. Current world I'm running a has few demi-humans so the characters are humsn.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using EN World mobile app

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I actually have been using the "less common" Races more than the core 4, of late. My new campaign setting I'm using while developing, I haven't even found a spot for dwarves yet, and elves are around, but quite different, and humans are rare newcomers from a distant island chain far to the south. Goliaths, bugbears, and Shadar-kai are more common than humans.

Dragonborn, gnomes, deep gnomes (reworked as semi-aquatic), Kenku (more like 4e than 5e, but different to both), and the Fey races like Satyrs and Dryads are probably the most common races.

Even in my Eberron campaign, we have a Vrylocka, a kobold, a changling, a raven hengeyokai, a dragon-sorc dwarf, a half-drow, and sometimes a shadar-kai, or a Halfling, companion character.

 

[Jester David]

I created my current campaign setting way back in 2e, updated it to 3e, and then revised it for 4e. Reimagined really, because that edition was a overhaul of D&D and I initially made a lot of rookie worldbuilding mistakes.
So I downplayed gnomes (but had them around) and added tieflings and eladrin. Plus genasi and aasimar. Dragonborn threw me for a loop when they were announced, but I found a way to work them in.
So converting the world to 5e was fairly easy.

Of the 5e races, tritons don't have a place but I've worked in a few catfolk and goliaths (they're still rare). Aarakocra lack a "role" so they're not used. Kenku were quickly worked in, as were firbolgs. Lot of space in the feywild, so firbolgs were easy. And the various monsters already had a role.

 

[SheWantstheD&D]

Everything. Want to be a Pole-Arm bear? Were-octopus? You got it. I will make it work.



Except gnomes. *shakes fist*

 

[TwoSix]

I allow everything. Plus I encourage my players to find new stuff online that they might be interested in. My game exists to support the players and their characters, the setting is merely window dressing.

 

[Gwarok]

Honestly, I think the idea of Dragonborn and Tieflings as everyday characters in anything approaching a standard DND setting is just absurd. Total fanboi crap that just can't seem to be avoided it seems. Don't even get me started on warforged or those crystal rock thingies from 4th ed. /eyeroll

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Honestly, I think the idea of Dragonborn and Tieflings as everyday characters in anything approaching a standard DND setting is just absurd. Total fanboi crap that just can't seem to be avoided it seems. Don't even get me started on warforged or those crystal rock thingies from 4th ed. /eyeroll

Whereas, for me, I see it as a great way to communicate that the D&D world just isn't the same as the real world--in several ways. People of wildly divergent phenotypes, much more divergent than humans have ever been even if you count several of our close relative species, can get along just fine. Or not! It's a mixture.

Of course, I also like it best when races are given a reason for being there, rather than just "well there are elves because there HAVE to be elves!" Whenever something just "has" to be there, it feels like a kludge to me. Might be part of why I like dragonborn as much as I do (though, admittedly, only a small part); it forces the DM to go through some far more active, involved worldbuilding. You can't boilerplate, because there IS no boilerplate.