5E What classes should be restricted?

What are the reasons why you would not want a class in your game?

  • The class doesn't fit the game world setting

    Votes: 112 78.3%
  • The class doesn't fit with what I think D&D is

    Votes: 29 20.3%
  • There isn't enough of a historical precedence for it

    Votes: 4 2.8%
  • Too weird for me

    Votes: 41 28.7%
  • Creates in game issues (balance, etc)

    Votes: 85 59.4%
  • Introduces too much class bloat

    Votes: 33 23.1%
  • The theme is counter to a heroic RPG (e.g. a class that is primarily an "evil" class)

    Votes: 46 32.2%
  • It's a 3PP class, not an official one

    Votes: 56 39.2%
  • other (please explain)

    Votes: 8 5.6%
  • Bonus option: I don't want to see it in the official game

    Votes: 11 7.7%
  • Bonus option: I don't care what others play, I just don't want them in my game

    Votes: 42 29.4%
  • Bonus option 2: No class should be restricted in any of my games

    Votes: 12 8.4%
  • Bonus option 2: No class should be restricted in any official game

    Votes: 12 8.4%

  • Total voters
    143
I wouldn't exclude a class simply because the fluff didn't fit my setting. The point above about the separation of crunch and fluff is important. If you strip off the fluff all a class is, essentially, is a feat tree that provides additional rules. When I start with a character concept it very often isn't tied specifically to a class, so I'll treat multiclassing, or even single class choice, as a practical matter of what rules best represent the character concept I have in my head. This happens, for example, with the Bard class all the time for me - the crunch suits a lot of builds, and not all of them are performers who deal magic by keying up Toss a Coin on their medieval IPods.

I'm sure not everyone treats classes like I do, but I try not too get to caught up in the fuff, at least not at the expense of a good character concept.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
In my worlds (and in my own mind), certain things are evil ispo facto. A man becomes contaminated with evil when he kills stealthily for hire
Be careful about conflating class and socio-economic role. A person with an Assassin class can be someone who kills stealthily for hire... or they may be dedicated to the defense of their people by being part of special forces deployed only at the word of their ruling council to end the life of terrible threats to their people.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Unless the campaign setting is not supposed to be heroic. Some groups like to have an evil campaign instead, for instance.
I believe I had already addressed this:

umbran said:
I think "the PCs are heroes" is a setting conceit the GM could apply - not that all settings are such. And, IF the GM does make that conceit, then "does not fit the setting" already applies.
 
D&D has some nuance about this that the real world doesn't. In D&D you know that, for example, certain creatures are evil, while the real world is never like that. If my character is an adventurer who is regularly hired to hunt down, say, Liches and kill them stealthily (who wants to fight a Liche head on anyway?) does that make him, ispo facto, evil? Pretty clearly not. Sure, there's a lot of grey area north of Liches, but my point is that knowledge of alignment, and in fact the very existence of alignment (and a far more black and white ethical palette generally), changes some questions of ethics and morality.
 

Fenris447

Explorer
In general, I limit my players' options to official 5e content and to UA, with a few caveats:
  • I can buff or nerf UA at my discretion
  • If the options you're using becomes official (like the Eberron races), we switch you to it whenever makes sense in-game
  • We'll adjust your character to make sure any changes don't hurt your play experience. For instance, I provided armor for our Warforged player when the new, official version dictated he needed some, and I let him tweak his stats because the altered racial bonuses had knocked one down
I don't have any particular subclasses or classes banned, as I've tried to design my homebrew world such that anything can fit. I would be wary of bringing in 3rd-party stuff, but open to it if they follow the same rules as above.

TL;DR I'd only outright ban things if they made the game less fun for anyone or if there's just no way to fit them into my world without breaking verisimilitude.
 

Fenris447

Explorer
I can't slap fight you at 3, I'm slap fighting Fenris420 at 3. Would 4 o'clock be acceptable? Bring you second, sir.
Dear god. I almost suggested bringing seconds, but I thought there was no way anyone else was as lame a child as I was and wouldn't get the reference.

I'll gladly fight Fenris420 with you at 3 and fight you myself at 4. Fenris69 will be my second.

I must warn you though, he plays a Ninja class he got from D&D Wiki and is so OP it's not even funny.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
If cleric is available, gods are real? that kinda thing?
PrCs would be even better world building tools, to that way.
Clerics can be available without gods, though.

Now, saying there is no divine magic certainly builds part of the world, but even then you could have that be true and still have gods. They just don’t grant spells. Weird mechanic anyway.
 
Dear god. I almost suggested bringing seconds, but I thought there was no way anyone else was as lame a child as I was and wouldn't get the reference.

I'll gladly fight Fenris420 with you at 3 and fight you myself at 4. Fenris69 will be my second.

I must warn you though, he plays a Ninja class he got from D&D Wiki and is so OP it's not even funny.
I will gladly accept your help. You seem a decent fellow, I hate to kill you.
 
Be careful about conflating class and socio-economic role. A person with an Assassin class can be someone who kills stealthily for hire... or they may be dedicated to the defense of their people by being part of special forces deployed only at the word of their ruling council to end the life of terrible threats to their people.
Nod. "Assassin is evil" was a 1e thing, and doesn't apply to the 5e Assassin Rogue sub-class. It's just a bit of lingering versionitis, OT1H, and a (sub-)Class name-hang-up, on the other. I suppose it's also worth pointing out that a character need never be called by the game's name for it's class in the fiction? Your character might be a Noble Defender of the Queen's Own Grey Guard, and no one would ever dare call him a "rogue," let alone an "assassin."

I've played enough campaigns (usually Eberron) where the gods being real or not is irrelevant to the clerics. It's the characters' belief that exist and that doesn't require any specific class.
However, following the logic does that mean war does not exist because there are no warlords?
See, that's just getting hung-up on the name, like the above.

Rather, it means that partys without magical support don't exist...
...for long.
 
Last edited:

Ashrym

Hero
In my worlds (and in my own mind), certain things are evil ispo facto. A man becomes contaminated with evil when he kills stealthily for hire or when he seeks to control that which should be dead. He may try to do many other fine things, but he has to repent of and turn away from assassination or necromancy in order to hope for redemption.
Any class can kill for hire. Hiring the party to deal with so-and-so is a pretty typical hook

An assassin can be an agent of the crown. James Bond license to kill style.

Animating dead is considered evil. A good necromancer is more of an undead fighter instead of an undead creator possibly atoning for a darker past.

Evil depends on actions and reasons. It's not inherent to a class just because the class is more capable of evil.

Rather, it means that partys without magical support don't exist...
...for long.
Moving the goal post ;-)

Your conment changes from clerics and gods to all classes with similar abilities through magic. That's your caster bias showing again. ;-)

When I've played non-magic campaigns the only real concern was treating status effects with medicine checks quickly.
 

Tallifer

Adventurer
Animating dead is considered evil. A good necromancer is more of an undead fighter instead of an undead creator possibly atoning for a darker past.
That sounds like the cleric class. Animating and controlling the undead is an evil act, so a class built around doing that is evil.
 

Ashrym

Hero
That sounds like the cleric class. Animating and controlling the undead is an evil act, so a class built around doing that is evil.
Until 5e a necromancer didn't even need to know animate dead. 5e gives it for free and buffs the undead but does not force using the spell.

You seem hung up on what you think the option should look like to you and missing what can be done.

At this point you are omitting them as evil but the only reason they are evil is because that's what you decided regardless of the PHB stating not all necromancers are evil.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I feel free to tailor races and classes to the setting, feeling no need to include all possible options.

I also tend not to like the idea of classes that not everyone has access to. This mostly comes from purchase-only 3pp. That goes double for ones I don't have access to.

And I will definitely not allow something that I feel is unbalanced, be it UA, 3pp, homebrew or whatever.
 
Until 5e a necromancer didn't even need to know animate dead. 5e gives it for free and buffs the undead but does not force using the spell.
Willfully passing up a sub-class benefit to maintain a non-evil alignment?

Feels a little off to me.
(Edit: to be clear, doing it doesn't feel off, needing to do it does.)
 
Last edited:

cbwjm

I can add a custom title.
I look at the 5e necromancer and think that it fits more as an evil (or at best neutral) subclass. If someone wanted to play a white necromancer, I'd probably look at alternate subclass features instead of the raising of the dead ability.
 

Advertisement

Top