D&D 5E Humans Only

[iserith]

As a DM, it's less that a DM couldn't handle when using character creation restrictions as it is more that extreme restrictions are often indicative of the DM departing heavily from base D&D assumptions.

No every DM knows how to do that. Most don't if they haven't recieved help, aren't experienced in the edition, or aren't using a book written by someone who is.

I think this is a fair concern. I've seen my share of restrictions and rules changes that are not so much based in thematic concerns as they are in misunderstanding the rules or how the game runs or trying to make the game fit something it's not designed for.

 

[Hatmatter]

I'm aiming for more of a post-Roman Britain feel, with the horror and wonder beyond The Wall.

That sounds really cool. You are probably well aware of it, but the 2nd edition PHB HR5, Glory of Rome, might provide additional ideas. I have not read it, so I do not know, but I draw from A Mighty Fortress (PHB HR4) for some ideas for my campaign.

 

[Steampunkette]

Actually human only, not merely obfuscated.

Still a Yes.

But I wanted to point out that such an obfuscated direction could still be a way to have your cake and eat it, too!

 

[Greg K]

Most likely,

I recon there are three types of humans-only D&D games;

• games in multi-racial setting (lets say FR) but race choice is restricted to human.
• games in a human-only setting (other races can exist, but their entry would be in the Monstrous Manual rather than the PHB).
• games in a human-only setting but where PHB races are re-fluffed as regional/cultural/ancestral variations of humans.

I really like the last one. I'd miss the customization loss of the second one, but would enjoy the game nonetheless (especially for a mythical history game). As for the first, I wholly rely on DM to make it pertinent.

Personally, if I were running an all human game, I am most likely using this with possibly some minor tweaks here or there. Then again, if I were running 5e at all, I would most likely be using it

 

[Reynard]

Still a Yes.

But I wanted to point out that such an obfuscated direction could still be a way to have your cake and eat it, too!

I don't like it because it feels like confirmation that folks usually pick races for game mechanics instead of roleplaying reasons anyway. I know that's probably not not actually true, but I have seen many a person choose a race just to have darkvision* or to get access to a particular set of proficiencies or abilities.

*Also, I have come to HATE darkvision in D&D and one benefit of an all human campaign is that it goes away.

 

[Minigiant]

I think this is a fair concern. I've seen my share of restrictions and rules changes that are not so much based in thematic concerns as they are in misunderstanding the rules or how the game runs or trying to make the game fit something it's not designed for.

Yeah. My guess is that many GMs and DM who say "Humans Only" are not running typical games like the OP suggests.

So if the DM says "Humans Only" I have to take a pause to see if I want to be in their experiment.

 

[Reynard]

Personally, if I were running an all human game, I am most likely using this with possibly some minor tweaks here or there. Then again, if I were running 5e at all, I would most likely be using it

For my purposes, it doesn't solve the "PCs are mundane and they are exploring wonder and horror" aspect.

 

[Mannahnin]

Seems fine to me, and appropriate for the campaign concept you're discussing. Actually, now that I think of it, I had started playing in a group like this just prior to the pandemic. The PCs were all inhabitants of a small, isolated human village. Sadly, the DM had no interest in transitioning to online play, so the game died after a few sessions.

I've also always wanted to try out the variation where the PCs start out with limited selection, but as they explore the world more and encounter alien cultures, they "unlock" the option to recruit nonhumans or characters of new lineages as retainers, or as new/replacement PCs if someone's PC dies or retires. This could also be quite a cool mitigation of the sting of a character death.

 

[Steampunkette]

I don't like it because it feels like confirmation that folks usually pick races for game mechanics instead of roleplaying reasons anyway. I know that's probably not not actually true, but I have seen many a person choose a race just to have darkvision* or to get access to a particular set of proficiencies or abilities.

*Also, I have come to HATE darkvision in D&D and one benefit of an all human campaign is that it goes away.

For me it's a combination of narrative and mechanics. Though I, too, hate Darkvision and generally add "Elfsight" to my games as a vision-doubling in all conditions over human standard.

Bright day and a human can see 600yards clearly? Elves can see 1,200yards clearly. Perception check radius reduced to 30ft because of Fog? 60ft for Elves. A Candle puts out 5ft of dim light? 10ft for Elves.

They don't actually -get- darkvision, but they get something similar. Also Orcs/Half-Orcs get it as well, instead of Darkvision.

Darkvision is largely reserved for underground races (Dwarves, Drow) and planetouched races (Heiligschein and Pactborn).

 

[jgsugden]

I would likely ask why the rule was in place, mostly out of curiosity. Unless there was a huge warning sign in the answer to that question, I'd go with it.