D&D 5E What classes should be restricted?

[Fenris-77]

For the standard settings I don't ban stuff official WotC stuff, although I'm not going to auto-include UA content. I voted for 3PP and balance stuff, which is essentially the same answer. I don't care if it's 3PP unless it looks OP, at which point I'll probably nix it.

All the above said, if I were running my own homebrew setting that was, say, low magic, or Steam Punk, or whatever, I'd have no problem restricting access to classes from any source to what I thought fit my setting.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The only class I have a problem fitting in my games is the monk. So dont fit the theme/setting are my votes.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I don't allow 3PP or UA at our table, only officially published classes. Although, I suppose I'd also ban a class for not fitting with the setting, but I haven't done so yet.

 

[ccs]

I don't give a kobolds crap what your opinion of the Warlord (or 4e) is.
I don't like it, & as I'm the DM it has no place in any game I run. Not even in a hypothetical 4e game.

 

[dave2008]

The core four classes get a free pass. Any class that's redundant with one of those will not be added.

For example, I would never add druid to the game, since nature cleric already exists. I would never add sorcerer to the game, since wizard already exists.

So in your games you ban rangers, paladins, monks, warlocks, barbarians, etc.? That's interesting. If i was designing my own game I would keep it to 2 or 3 classes max, but in D&D I allow pretty much anything that fits my setting.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So in your games you ban rangers, paladins, monks, warlocks, barbarians, etc.? That's interesting. If i was designing my own game I would keep it to 2 or 3 classes max, but in D&D I allow pretty much anything that fits my setting.

Can’t speak for Saelorn, but in my ideal DnD I would. I’d have classes be restricted to core with fewer but more impactful attributes, and have a bunch of subclasses to fit those archetypes with more subclass features than what’s there currently

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So in your games you ban rangers, paladins, monks, warlocks, barbarians, etc.? That's interesting.

I don't ban them. I just don't take the pro-active step of adding them. (Except for the monk, which occupies a unique conceptual niche from the other classes.)

I'm the DM. It's my world. Nothing exists until I say it does.

 

[dave2008]

I don't ban them. I just don't take the pro-active step of adding them. (Except for the monk, which occupies a unique conceptual niche from the other classes.)

I'm the DM. It's my world. Nothing exists until I say it does.

They are in the book and you don't allow them. That seems like the definition of banning to me. I have no issue with you doing so, I was just verifying you were that draconian about it. Of course, what good DM wouldn't want to a draconian!

 

[dave2008]

I'm the DM. It's my world. Nothing exists until I say it does.

I used to be like that, but now I prefer to make the world with my group. Maybe I am getting soft in my old age. Or is it lazy?

 

[Fenris-77]

This feels like it's going to get ineffable mighty quick. My two cents - not allowing classes from the core book is effectively the same as banning them. Semantics aren't the important part here I don't think.