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

[steeldragons]

Where do I vote "No. I don't use all of the PHB classes or races. They aren't all 'cool' "

Races available to my homebrew setting/game world:
Humans: 6 varieties of ethnicities and national/cultural identities, + a "default" option for any/all human PCs, depending on game desired
Elves: 1 ["High" elves] playable type, +2 optional playable varieties (not the PHB's), +3 more NPC types.
Dwarves: 1 ["Hill" dwarves] playable type, +1 optional playable variety ["Mountain" dwarves], +2 "known" NPC types.
Halflings: Hairfeet only.
Half-Elves: half-high-elf for PCs only.
Gnomes: Homebrew version, no PHB "forest" or "rock" varieties.
Centaurs: homebrewed
Satyrs: homebrewed
Sprites: homebrewed
Jerali: setting specific homebrewed felinoids
Zepharim: setting specific homebrewed winged humanoids
Lizardmen: homebrewed

For classes...there is no sorcerer/wizard distinction: homebrewed "Mage" class. No PHB Ranger. PHB Barbarian: Berserkers only. Never had a warlock played...but could give it a shot. "Storywise" they could make sense in the setting, si I haven't/don't "ban" them...yet.

Plus somewhere around 10 or 12 homebrewed subclass options, + homebrewed Psychic class, + homebrewed spelless Ranger class.

So, yeah. No. I don't use all of the PHB classes/races.

 

[happyhermit]

It really just depends on the game to me. I am not a fan of Dragonborn because IME they are one of those options that seems to draw in and amplify the things in players that I want less of. I often don't have PC Druids because I find them a PITA to run in the same way I sometimes discourage "divination" type magic. Those are just my biases though, it really depends on the circumstances.

How "new" they are makes no difference to me really. Tabaxi seem new to me and although I admit to some eyerolling over just how excited a player or two got over playing them, they have been a fun addition. No issues with Tieflings really either, assuming they make some sense in the setting.

 

[LordEntrails]

[MENTION=771]Davelozzi[/MENTION],
Makes sense. I do have similar sensibilities, but right now I'm running WotC adventures so I allow whatever. When I run homebrew settings, then races and classes are restricted to what makes sense. Sometimes elves are all seen as being evil and selfish forest dwellers, sometimes they are the majority.

 

[Gradine]

In a typical campaign I'm fairly permissive. I tend to DM for mostly new players, so I tend to stick with what's in the PHB of a given edition and only allow them, unless players have a concept that I think a non-core class would be better suited to (I had an Archivist in a 3.5 campaign once, for instance). I mostly only run in Eberron now, and as far as 5e goes Tieflings and Dragonborn are fairly rare but there's a place in the canon for them (and basically all of the PHB classes as well). None of my players are interested in psionics at all but I'd allow a Mystic at this point, I think.

I will, on occasion, run a setting of my creation and make restrictions where I think there's no support in the setting for them. Had one campaign where I disallowed dwarves, for instance, because they were all xenophobic jerks. Made some fun villains. That campaign had the PCs as an elite squad of scouts/spies in an army, so I told them to mostly stick with classes that could handle stealth.

Played in an all-human, no-magic 3.5 campaign once that was a lot of fun. Campaign setting very inspired by the Thief series. I actually ended up playing an Archivist myself, but then I was secretly working with that setting's equivalent of the Keepers, so I had to keep the fact that I could do magic secret from everyone else. Fun game.

 

[Mad_Jack]

I'm pretty liberal with running whatever as far as races and classes, although I do insist that the player work to fit the character into the campaign world - but I also generally have no problem refluffing a particular race or class as an anomaly/lost traveler/wizard-did-it/whatever if having an entire race of them doesn't fit well with the pre-existing fiction of the world.
Like, say, there may not be warforged in the world, but there could be an Awakened animated statue or sentient free-willed golem. And I've always preferred the old-school random-appearance tieflings to the fluff and art direction of the 4E ones, so random plane-touched characters of any kind aren't much of a stretch. The so-called "monstrous" races like drow, dragonborn, tieflings, kobolds, etc., are likely to get stared at or even discriminated against, but are unlikely to be killed on sight since even peasants in the fields know that they live in a world of dragons and magic and will generally pause and stare long enough for the idea that the character seems non-hostile to take hold. A creature dressed and acting in a civilized and intelligent fashion, particularly one dressed as an adventurer in a party of other adventurers, is unlikely to be directly accosted.

 

[Li Shenron]

I allow all classes, although I usually hope no one will choose Monk.

I don't like non-classic races on the other hand. Sometimes when we have beginners or casual gamers at the table, I have restricted the choice of race to the iconic four (and no Drow subrace). When allowing other races, I typically treat the PCs of non-iconic races as rare individuals, if not one-of-a-kind. I especially always hated dragonborns.

 

[CapnZapp]

snip

Please phrase poll options in a neutral way, avoiding snark and humor.

I resent
...the juxtaposition of "purists" vs implicit "unpure gamers"
...having to concede "its just a game" just to answer "anything goes"
...the antagonistic "don't try to constrain me"

For these and more reasons I will abstain from voting. Better luck next time! Thanks

 

[schnee]

I remember when AD&D modules had the players fighting robots.

I know Gary wanted the characters to be somewhat plain, so monsters feel more monstrous, but I want worlds that resemble Thundarr the Barbarian meets Final Fantasy more than I want another boring Tolkien clone.

Bring on the weirdos!

 

[Mecheon]

I'm fine with everything. Its a fantasy world, and D&D is poor at low magic

Honestly if I could chop one race it'd be Halflings, to give gnomes their due. Hobbits can stay in Tolkein, let gnomes take back their stuff that sort of got stolen by both elves and halflings

Yep, I prefer dragon-people before halflings. Because dragonborn have that delicious pulpy doofiness I love in D&D.

 

[JonnyP71]

PHB/SCAG all ok with me. Nothing else. But Fantasy racism is alive and well, and anyone playing a potentially unpopular race will suffer the consequences. Plus, I enforce this old chestnut: