D&D 5E How do you decide which Races to disallow (and/or Classes)?

[SirAntoine]

Dragonborn would be perfect for the oriental empire to the west of the Sea of Dust.

There is an Isle of Dragons that may be ideal, off the south shores of that empire I think. The empire itself I would use for Oriental Adventures, like Greyhawk's Kara-Tur. You should look up the oriental dragon species and consider giving these dragonborn the ancestry.

In the Flanaess, which is the name for the common region of Greyhawk, the dragonborn would be peculiar to me. Not that I don't want to allow any race and class if the player is attached to them, but Greyhawk is the home of the Steel Dragon who prefers to be in human form in the cities of humans. They often have children with humans, and these half-dragons are there already only they look mostly like big elves. They don't look reptilian, or have a breath weapon of their own, and introducing a dragonborn would kind of overwhelm a player of one of these half-dragons. They wouldn't feel as much like a half-dragon. In the Oriental empire, whose name I just can't think of right now, but it may have been Linn, the dragonborn might not encounter the half-dragons and it would be most fitting closer to the isle of dragons where some of their eggs may have produced a good number of them and then some left in search of adventure and so entered the rest of the world.

It would be nice to introduce them there first, or say that a dragonborn in the Flanaess is a traveler. I tend to say monks and other oriental classes are from there, too, except when portraying the brotherhood. A dragonborn would be a fearsome creature to behold, especially if the breath was seen or if they were outfitted with impressive armor and weapons. It's nice that so many of them are lawful good, too, so rumors would quickly spread that they actually were sent by the gods to help mankind and the other races. They could gain acceptance quite easily, but maybe in general people who have never seen them before will run away or attack out of fear.

Just some thoughts, out of hand.

 

[SubDude]

Thanks, all. This has been very encouraging. I think I've always wanted to use all of the available race / class options, including Dragonborn, but something was telling me that I shouldn't. I don't know if it was just the "well back in my day" in me, or if it just came from reading about other campaigns and what they approved or denied. Bottom line seems to be clear: make a decision that works for your particular campaign and players.

I've already allowed one player to be a dragonborn, so I'll probably keep them as a very exotic (at best) option as I further flesh out the campaign.

Oh, and...

Yep: Halflings = Demi-Greeks.

Think of the hoplites (hoblites?) in their masses. Think of Hellenic contributions to cuisine. To philosophy. To being hirsute.

...this brought back some troubling visual recollections.

 

[Elf Witch]

Thanks, all. This has been very encouraging. I think I've always wanted to use all of the available race / class options, including Dragonborn, but something was telling me that I shouldn't. I don't know if it was just the "well back in my day" in me, or if it just came from reading about other campaigns and what they approved or denied. Bottom line seems to be clear: make a decision that works for your particular campaign and players.

I've already allowed one player to be a dragonborn, so I'll probably keep them as a very exotic (at best) option as I further flesh out the campaign.

Oh, and...

...this brought back some troubling visual recollections.

DMs and players need to find what works for their groups there is no right or wrong way to play. What is right for one group may be totally wrong for another group. I am far from the only DM in my group and we all do things differently when it comes to this. I really get into world building and I read a lot of splat books and articles so part of my enjoyment is making a custom world.

Another DM runs mainly adventure paths and if it is allowed in the game then it is usually allowed though she usually bans any third party stuff.

 

[Unwise]

For species, I'll be OK with anything that does not make me, in and of itself, remake adventures or the campaign. Examples include:

- a flying creature, it just changes the game too much and I have to remake almost every outdoor encounter or challenge to account for it.
- an evil species, or indeed anything that people assume is evil. I don't want to have to roleplay the villagers trying to drive out the fiend every game. It is limelight hogging and unnecessary. If I gloss over it or hand-wave it, it sucks flavour out of both the character and the world.
- an enemy species. In a game about the war with the elves, no PC will play an elf.
- a character that is too weird in a relatively social game. Like the evil species, a wierd species needs to be mentioned and explained to every single person you meet. That is just tiring for all concerned. Before long you stop having innkeepers even reacting to the fact that one PC is a 9ft tall purple plant two headed plant monster. It either offends the social contract of not being a limelight hog, or the believably of the world.

I am happy to change the world around a character. Move a barbarian tribe into the area, even add a race into the world entirely, adjust the politics of the area to allow friendly relations etc. I just don't want to have to change the actual adventures or work around a problematic PC. I prefer to tinker with adventures to highlight some PC backgrounds etc, rather than tinker with them out of necessity just to make the damn thing work for one player.

I very seldom ban classes. I do ask people to reconsider summoners though. They just make combats drag on. In 5e I ask people not to run a warlock darkness+devilsight enthusiast, as that is no fun for anybody else. I am very happy to nerf/buff things now though, so I can make anything work.

 

[BASHMAN]

Find out what the players have their heart set on playing the most, and then arbitrarily ban it from the campaign without remorse. At least I have known some in the past who followed this guideline.

 

[was]

...For campaigns in published settings, I do not put limits on what's listed in the PHB. I do, however, require that the players learn enough about the campaign world to come up with a roughly plausible history for their own characters.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I do, however, require that the players learn enough about the campaign world to come up with a roughly plausible history for their own characters.

Alas, so often a pipe dream.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The Greek city-states should all be halflings. You know I'm right.

I've typically thought of the gnomes more in this vein -- all wisdom and learning. My halflings tend to be pretty frickin' Brittish Isles about stuff. Gnomes like schools and dangerous ideas and seeking truth. Halflings like getting loaded with their mates and comfort in their warrens and, of course, worldwide empires of tea-sipping brutal imperialists who view all the other races with a patronizing sort of pity for them not being able to enjoy the delights of second breakfast, the poor barbarian dears.

 

[Fabio Andrea Rossi]

What I currently do is presenting my players a choice of two or three different campaigns, complete with whatever optional rules and/or limitations come with them.

Then, we usually find one we all like and we roll with it. The limitations or additions to standard races & classes need to make sense with the setting so if the players buy in the setting, they'll also buy in the limitations.

I also always make sure to present campaigns overview I really desire to run, and to mandatory disallow things which I do not want to mess with whatever the chosen campaign is. This is vital to keep burning my DM flame and, as long as these limitations are explained in advance, motivated and few in numbers, everybody is fine with them.

A big example is multiclassing, which is a main balance offender when you have at the same table min/maxers and storytellers. I tell in advance, I explain why, I point out that most "multiclass" concepts are already there in the main classes and that's it.

 

[JWO]

I was thinking about having the 'standard' races set as humans, dwarves, elves, half-elves, half-orcs, gnomes and halflings, which players would have free reign to pick and choose from. There would then be 'monstrous' races, which would be things like warforged, gnolls, tieflings, maybe dragonborn (though I really don't like them) and goblins, and with these I'd allow one per party (i.e. one gnoll OR one warforged OR one tiefling, etc.). I just think that the weirdness of these races get a bit diluted when there are too many of them in a party.

I've also considered saying that half-orcs and orcs are just different species of orc (neither of which are inherently evil).