The Power of "NO". Banned Races and Classes?

[Zardnaar]

As the thread says. What are your banned/restricted races and classes? For the most part I allow any class or race into the game that was in the 3.5 PHB/PFRPG with the exception of the monk.

Banned Classes.

Monk. Reason I really hate them. I wasa child in the 80's and watched cheese like The Karate Kid and Bruce Lee movies. Not a fan of wuxia type films or at least having them in D&D anyway so no monks. They are allowed in an OA type game but I will never DM one of those with maybe the exception of 1st ed one day.

Races.
All of the 1st Ed/3.5 PHB races are fine.

Probably (Ask 1st)
Aasimar Goblins, Kobolds, Hobgoblins

Maybe (Campaign Dependent)
Drow, Tieflings, Genasi, most humanoids

Hell No.
Anything large, Dragonborn, Kender, Warforged, anything anthropomorphic,

Note that if I am running a specific campaign setting (Eberorn, Dragonlance, DarkSun) you can be a member of the banned races as such as long as they are a major part of that campaign world.

 

[Ichneumon]

I'm the last guy to ban anything, but the 5e playtest paladin got put into 'temporary retirement' for my games. The always-on save shield was just too good.

The players' response? "We're not surprised."

 

[Blackbrrd]

I really don't like the Dragonborn from 4e. I am actually not too fond of any of the "extra" races they have added. It's mostly because I just find the fiction to make them fit in convoluted. I haven't banned any though, and 4e really reduced the options I felt you had when it comes to "suitable" races, but that's mostly the power gamer in me.

I kind of liked the LotR style where humans are the "ordinary" and everyone else a bit strange and mystic a lot better.

Regarding classes, I don't like the monk in a typical "western" setting. It's fine in an oriental setting though.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Monk. Reason I really hate them. I wasa child in the 80's and watched cheese like The Karate Kid and Bruce Lee movies. Not a fan of wuxia type films or at least having them in D&D anyway so no monks. They are allowed in an OA type game but I will never DM one of those with maybe the exception of 1st ed one day.

My problem with the monk is that it's this one randomly specific asian-themed class in a faux-medieval Europe milieu. That page space could be filled with a more versatile pugilist class, but I guess enough players want to be Jacky Chan with magical powers that the devs devote those pages to the monk class edition after edition, so whatever.

In 3e, I was satisfied enough to drop the Lawful requirement; in 4e, I don't even have to do that, so I'm happy enough.

In the past the only thing I've banned are the 'essentials' classes -- god I hate that misnomer! -- because I don't trust them to be balanced. But recently I'm edging toward "Eh, sure, why not?" If I see a potential problem, I can nerf it away.

 

[the Jester]

I am fairly permissive. If it's a viable pc race and it is in my campaign world, I'm down.

That said, neither Drow nor gith of any kind are pc races imc.

I also don't go for annoying races: gully dwarf, kender, tinker gnomes, that kind of thing.

All that said, my preference is for a game where the race mixture fits fairly well with the existing population demographics of the area, or it's easy to justify a pc of that race being in the group.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't ban races and classes. I discourage them or enhance them with mechanics. A lot more fun.

All dwarves are insane and suffer from fits of rage outside of dwarflands.

Wizardy has taboos and special monster kill taboo breakers for power.

Druids who use plant magic use photosynthesis and get sick without light. Same with animal spells and diet.

 

[JeffB]

If it's in Moldvay, it's Okay. Basic four food groups.

Also Gnomes, Rangers, and the occasional Barbarian (13th Age

 

[fanboy2000]

I don't like banning things in the PHB. At least, not the first PHB of a given edition. I feel like I'm doing a disservice to new players (I've taught a lot of people) if I have to ban things in the book that's mostly responsible for bringing in new players. Also, I like having a book that's "o.k. this is all legal, no exemptions."

It's like looking for El Dorado.

After that, everything is fair game.

Left to my own devices as a DM, I generally don't allow classes and races specific to a campaign setting unless that is the campaign setting I am running. Then I treat the main setting book like the PHB.

Things I've banned: everything by minotaurs in 4e's PHB 3, Shard Mind's specifically, Candle Casters from Tomb and Blood, and way to many other 3.x PRCs to list. Technically, 3.x PRCs were on an approval basis, but I approved most requests because my players usually made good decisions.

I've seen some rumblings that seem to be taking the new 5e Basic as 'core' and banning very little (if anything) from it while treating the PHB as another supplement. I don't think I'll be taking the view.

 

[Crothian]

It depends on the game and campaign. For the current Pathfiner game I am running gnomes were not an option as in the last campaign in this setting the gnomes left the world for Reasons.

Now there are classes like the Warlock and Summoner I don't like and I'll encourage players to choose something else but if they have a cool character concept I am inclined to find a way to make it work. I love it when my players do that.

 

[Obryn]

I think it's fine to keep a campaign flavor, but I try to work in unique things my players want.

If all else fails, and what they really want are the mechanical bits more than the story bits, reskinning is a very useful option.