D&D 5E "When Running a 5E Campaign I Always Ban at Least One Core Race, Class, or Sub-Class" (a poll)

[el-remmen]

Once again. . .

The premise:
True or False: "When Running a 5E Campaign I Always Ban at Least One Core Race, Class, or Sub-Class"

Note, it says "CORE" for the purposes of this poll not allowing stuff from non-Core books is not "banning" it is "not using an option," which is different.

 

[TwoSix]

Nope, haven't banned a thing in numerous 5e campaigns. I discouraged a few racial choices in my Ravnica game, but they were allowed if the player really wanted to fit them in somehow.

I'm also very opening to reskinning if the player wants a certain mechanic; we just change the presentation into something that fits the setting's themes a little better.

 

[Stormonu]

If the player really wants it, core or not core, I'll find a way to make it work.

Though, fitting dragonborn into Greyhawk has been a mind-boggle.

 

[Shardstone]

I don't ban SH*T. Why would I? Bust out your Twilight Cleric dedicated to Silvery Barbs, its whatever, there's a lot of ways to pull tension in a game and I don't rely on straight forward, fair combats, because to me, if you have magic, you're never gonna be lookin' for a fair fight with the PCs...doubly so if you don't use magic. My players understand this, and no they'll eat trash if they think cheese and gimmicks can fodderize everything. Still give them some easy wins because its a game and they deserve to feel cool, but no official core material has ever, ever, ever unbalanced one of my games.

 

[Laurefindel]

I usually let the major themes of the game known before characters are made. Nothing is off that table but players typically make characters that align with the campaign-to-be.

I have played a campaign where the main gimmick was "use any of these pre-selected races", none of which was in the PHB. But that was an exception rather than norm.

 

[iserith]

I prefer to call it a white list of allowable options than a ban list of disallowed ones.

But yes, I absolutely curate what races and classes and other options are available in a given adventure or campaign according to what will best support the theme and play experience I intend.

 

[Yaarel]

For me, it is true.

Ideally, a setting focuses on about four or seven interesting races. Such as a five-guy-band trope. Each race is saliently different from the other. Together, they set the themes and the tone of the entire setting.

Anything that distracts from this starts to interfere with the focus of the setting. There can be some more in the background around the central group, say upto thirteen altogether, but still focusing on the salient ones. Any else is in the distant periphery, normally never encountered but there if the players switch their local setting to a different local setting. Sometimes, there are races that are simply not part of the setting because they would conflict with the themes and tone of the setting.

A setting can be like carving a sculpture from a block of marble. What one removes is just as important as what remains.

D&D has many many possibilities. Not all of it is useful for a particular story that one wants to tell.

 

[commandercrud]

Drow. Always drow.

 

[Reynard]

I don't, but I have one player that almost always makes me wish I had.

 

[Burnside]

I haven't ever baned any PHB material race, class, or sub-class in 5+ years of running 5E. I might if I ever ran something in Theros or Ravnica, where some of the PHB races don't exist.