D&D 5E What Races (classes) do you allow or disallow in your campaign?

[reelo]

About to start a game in the Realms. I've ditched Dragonborn and Drow as playable races, as well as Goliath, Aaracokra, Tabaxi, Kenku, Firbolg etc. They just don't fit into my view of the Realms. Some of them might exist, but certainly not common to make them a playable race.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using EN World mobile app

 

[JonnyP71]

I've often run that game myself, but I rarely ever disallow races, classes, or race/class combos. If dwarves are skilled, orderly artisans and you want to play a barbarian dwarf, I'm going to say, "OK, tell me why you're different and how this affects your relationships with your people." I'm going to use that as an exception and tell a story around it, not just say 'you're not matching my definition, so, no.'

And there's also the point that I don't consider any class to have it's book lore be definitional, so if you wanted to play a dwarf barbarian as an artisan partially possessed by a rage demon, and you kept it coherent, I'm game, let's play.

I would allow a player to be a Barbaric dwarf, but within the mechanical confines of the Fighter class, the brutal nature instead being brought into play through flavour - background, roleplaying and flaws.

For me the Barbarian class is highly dependent on the culture of their society, I see Barbarians as tribesmen, born into a brutal environment and hardened by their experiences. Dwarven communities are more orderly.

I know these are old fashioned stereotypes, but they sit easily with me, and unless I'm comfortable with the source material and the setting (as well as the game system), then I'm just not able to commit my energy to the game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I would allow a player to be a Barbaric dwarf, but within the mechanical confines of the Fighter class, the brutal nature instead being brought into play through flavour - background, roleplaying and flaws.

For me the Barbarian class is highly dependent on the culture of their society, I see Barbarians as tribesmen, born into a brutal environment and hardened by their experiences. Dwarven communities are more orderly.

I know these are old fashioned stereotypes, but they sit easily with me, and unless I'm comfortable with the source material and the setting (as well as the game system), then I'm just not able to commit my energy to the game.

Eh, that's not uncommon. I just don't feel the a class has to have it's going baggage spinning. The barbarian class is essentially a pile of mechanics with a layer of fluff on top. If I don't like the fluff, or have an interesting idea that fits the mechanics, it goes WotC's fluff and in comes mine.

How would you help a player that wanted to play a dwarf artisan partially possessed by a rage demon realize their concept?

 

[Thenerdymusician]

My methods

I usually allow:
Humans (any class)
Half Elves (any class)
Elves (Spellcasters or clerics)
Gnomes (spellcaster, rogue, or bard)
Halflings (Rogue, bard, and some spellcasters)
Dwarves (any non-magical combat class, ranger, and sometimes paladin)
Dragonborn (NM combat class or paladin)
Half Orcs (NM combat class or paladin)
Tieflings/Aasimar (any class)
And the Genasi or Planetouched (any class)

I encourage people to take those classes with that race but ultimately allow them to do whatever within reason

 

[Iry]

For me the Barbarian class is highly dependent on the culture of their society, I see Barbarians as tribesmen, born into a brutal environment and hardened by their experiences. Dwarven communities are more orderly.

Even in an ordered society you could have a Dwarf raised in an abusive family. Bruce Banner is the poster boy for a Barbarian that was raised in an ordered society.

 

[Coroc]

I always restrict, race class possible Combos Equipment etc.

For my current greyhawk 5 E campaign ist humans half elves gnomes half orcs teiflings only. Dwarves and elves are to different in their acting thinking and rare in the world

My Players prefer humans often anyway so the Party consists of a human Pally of heironeus (LG variant, the only i normally allow as a Pally and in this game only humans can be Pallys) a Gnome Illusionist a half elf dex based battlemaster and a human swashbuckler (SCAG).

In this specific campaign several classes are nnot allowed sorcerer barbarian Monk Moon druid e.g.

The Scenario is pretty classic since none of my players who are some 10-15 years younger than me know much about greyhawk, but technologically i wanted to put it into a 30 years war era, just without gunpowder (i use crossbows instead ).

I found that Fitting having organized orc hordes under Iuz (pike formations and the like included )

Generally i loathe halfling / barbarian / fighter types running around with greatswords or dwarven wizards / druids etc. This just is not my Thing, the more archetype the better if it is a vanilla world.

 

[JonnyP71]

Even in an ordered society you could have a Dwarf raised in an abusive family. Bruce Banner is the poster boy for a Barbarian that was raised in an ordered society.

Why do you *need* class mechanics for each concept?

... a fighter with anger issues will suffice. Just roleplay the anger!

 

[JonnyP71]

E
How would you help a player that wanted to play a dwarf artisan partially possessed by a rage demon realize their concept?

Dwarf fighter with a a proficiency in some kind of tools, and anger management problems.

Develop it as the game goes on through the story, through roleplay and interaction.

All PCs will start at level 1 and begin as not much stronger than regular people, they are not developed heroes, nobody will be 'possessed by a demon' at 1st level.

 

[Vaprak001]

As a grognard myself, I can empathise with the OP and prefer the (demi) human-centric approach. IMHO, as a game, there needs to be core limitations to class, race and alignment to avoid the proliferation of pseudo-classes (as in 3.x) and ever more exotic races in comically inappropriate party compositions (did you hear the joke about the death slaad paladin, Deva shadow assassin and gnome illusionist that walked into a bar...) I'd have preferred 5e's paths/ archetypes to be more thematic than mechanical - bit more like 2.e 'kits'.

In my homebrew rules, I have a very strict class structure which is the equivalent of 'Ego' (see table). Basically, you have an environment (super-ego), to which you instinctively adapt (Id) based on strengths. From this you choose class (ego). Each class then has 'kits' that flesh out background and can be almost anything. The previously mentioned 'urban' barbarian makes no sense to me at all! He's a fighter or thief with a 'thug' kit. Champion is one of the only classes with mechanically different kits, e.g. ranging from Paladin, Dwarven Defender, Elven F/MU - Eldritch knight etc.



Multi-classing is much more difficult in my homebrew. The bookish nerd who trained as a wizard might dream of being an axe-wielding horde master but how practical is that? Using his high dexterity moonlighting as a rapier wielding rogue might be possible though! Usually such changes requires some sort of catalyst and requires a campaign.

I'm much more flexible with race, but humans definitely have an advantage. Each non-human race has one culturally favoured class with an XP bonus, all others having varying degrees of penalty, but not banned as such e.g. Hill Dwarf in the second table. I likewise have an alignment penalty to XP for deviation from cultural/ racial norms - again without an outright ban.


It'd be great to hear your thoughts...

 

[Iry]

Why do you *need* class mechanics for each concept?
... a fighter with anger issues will suffice. Just roleplay the anger!

You don't *need* class mechanics for each concept. But there are better game systems out there for people who don't want to deal with class mechanics. Class mechanics are a big part of the fun!