D&D 5E Humans Only

[EzekielRaiden]

Probably not. I like dragonborn too much. I have been flexible in the past (e.g. I played a Human for the long-runner DW game where I was a Paladin). That was (at least in part) because I had a DM I trusted. It was also, in part, because I had literally just played a very satisfying roughly-six-month game and was comfortable playing something "different" (for me) for a while. And then later I got to play another pseudo-dragonborn in a side-game that became a weekly alternate game (game A, game B, game A, game B, etc.), so I wasn't even really losing out on being a dragonborn at that point.

That said, I didn't even bother asking to play one of the were-dragon people in the W:tA 20th Anniversary game I'm in, but that's because I've wanted to play a Fianna for longer than I've liked dragonborn, and that's an itch you can only scratch in Werewolf.

 

[Yaarel]

Darkvision is probably equivalent to a cantrip or any proficiency, if players are interested in swapping it out.

 

[hopeless]

Yes and technically already have as that was a play on Sliders using regular humans even had a recurring sequence in other campaigns, where we witness a raft being pulled across the sea by whales a call back to that campaign!

 

[Stormonu]

Sure, have done it before, on both sides of the screen.

Even in a world where elves, dwarves and the like exist, but they’re not player options.

 

[Maxperson]

Just curious: if you were offered a seat at a D&D campaign table, but there was a "humans only" rule for PCs, would you play. Assume all other things being equal -- it's a GM you know and trust, no other major limitations are presented, and it is going to otherwise be a "typical" D&D campaign of the sort you prefer.

Humans only, elves only, dwarves only, drow only, and more. I've done a number of X race only games and would do so again. I've also done a number of X class only campaigns.

 

[Aarkvard]

Yes.

 

[J.Quondam]

Yes, I have done humans-only campaigns, and absolutely would do so again. I actually prefer this sort of limited-scope campaign to kitchen sinks.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Not every DM knows how to do that. Most don't if they haven't received help, aren't experienced in the edition, or aren't using a book written by someone who is.

I don't see it that way. Human only isn't any different than, "Hey, we're pirates this campaign." or "How about we all play some sort of relic hunter?" It's just campaign flavor. It's not like it's an indicator that they might fly off the mechanical rails and change major rules.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't see it that way. Human only isn't any different than, "Hey, we're pirates this campaign." or "How about we all play some sort of relic hunter?" It's just campaign flavor. It's not like it's an indicator that they might fly off the mechanical rails and change major rules.

That's my point.

Pirates is a big change. A BIG change if you really honed down on it.

 

[Maxperson]

That's my point.

Pirates is a big change. A BIG change if you really honed down on it.

Pirates is no change at all. The game's only base assumption is that PCs will be a race and a class. It doesn't assume anything further. All humans or no humans, a mix of races or all the same race is all the same to the game's base assumption of a D&D party. Whether the group will be pirates or generic adventurers is likewise not assumed by the game. HOW you go about adventuring is completely up to the individual table and is not assumed in any way by the game.