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

[JonnyP71]

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!

Maybe for you, but I prefer class mechanics to remain simple, and personalities to come to the fore - and 5E is just fine with this style of play.

I've gone back to DMing 1E recently with a group of players who started with 4/5E. Most of them don't have much idea of game mechanics, that's my job to keep control of anyway. The players just focus on playing their characters, not the numbers, not the tactics, and the game is much better for it.

 

[Arilyn]

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!

Yes, I agree. F20 games have levels and abilities because it's fun. Mechanics help your character do things. I can role play an angry dwarf but it's the mechanics which give that angry dwarf cool things to do which make him unique. To be honest, I never understood people who want to keep F20 games stripped down. If you are going to have classes and levels, which make no realistic sense, go for broke and have fun with it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Maybe for you, but I prefer class mechanics to remain simple, and personalities to come to the fore - and 5E is just fine with this style of play.

I've gone back to DMing 1E recently with a group of players who started with 4/5E. Most of them don't have much idea of game mechanics, that's my job to keep control of anyway. The players just focus on playing their characters, not the numbers, not the tactics, and the game is much better for it.

Then do you not allow the barbarian class at all? Tribal humans who go into berserker rages could mechanically be fighters, too, right? Just roleplay the tribal aspect and the anger.

 

[JonnyP71]

I will allow them, but only for humans and half orcs who have a background which involves growing up in a wild/tribal community.

 

[The Human Target]

I will allow them, but only for humans and half orcs who have a background which involves growing up in a wild/tribal community.

That's bonkers.

 

[JonnyP71]

That's a matter of opinion...

 

[Satyrn]

That's a matter of opinion...

No kidding.

I don't find it bonkers at all since the barbarian was originally made to model exactly what you're restricting it to.

Now, I don't make such a restriction myself and I'd have preferred if, at some point in D&D's history, the barbarian had been renamed the Berserker and the fluff described the class as a common figthing style that, while common to barbaric cultures, could also be adopted by less disciplined brutes or even as a highly disciplined martial art that focused the warrior's rage into a sharpened point released all at once.

And then those who want to restrict the berserkr to specific cultures could and I could readily play my civilised berserker.


And I'd also like the change becaused the barbarian is one of the few classes that describes a culture instead of a sort of profession. It feels out of place that way.

 

[Shasarak]

Then do you not allow the barbarian class at all? Tribal humans who go into berserker rages could mechanically be fighters, too, right? Just roleplay the tribal aspect and the anger.

If we want to completely break down the class structure then you only need a Fighty Class and a Casty Class. Some people may want to add a Skilly Class but I suggest just roleplaying the skill aspects.

 

[Zardnaar]

Kender are out right banned in all meta universe setting and banned twice on Krynn.

 

[Imaculata]

Kender are out right banned in all meta universe setting and banned twice on Krynn.

They are banned five times in any campaign I run.