In a new campaign I'm running two of my players decided to play classes I didn't expect. Prior to the session they told me they were both dwarf Vikings. When they said Vikings I thought they meant Barbarians so I said alright. Come session 1 and they both are playing the Viking Homebrew class. How do I tell them I would prefer them to not play a Homebrew class and would rather them switch to something in the players handbook?
You just be up front with them. Just say you misunderstood and that this world/campaign you are using needs to stick to official sources due to balance. The official classes are balanced, whereas nearly ANYTHING homebrew has not been playtested as much and can therefore throw everything out of whack. If you're a new DM or there are new players, you can even say that. Say without the bulk of experience, you'd rather stick to official material.
And just a preference, I'd try to get one of them to be a barbarian and the other to be a fighter or paladin or something. I personally don't like two characters of the same class at the same time in the same campaign party, but again that's just me lol
I would just level with them and say that you don't want home-brew content in this campaign. Offer to work with them to shape PHB options to fit their character concepts.
This is what Session 0 games are for. Use the first session to make the characters together in front of everyone to both create a coherent party and also give you an option to make rulings for cases like this.
This is what Session 0 games are for. Use the first session to make the characters together in front of everyone to both create a coherent party and also give you an option to make rulings for cases like this.
I agree in the usage of session 0, however, that doesn't really help the poster in this situation.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
here is what you do step by step: step 1. look at this homebrew class, if you feel it is too strong or underpowered and don't want them playing as it proceed to step two, if not let them be vikings step 2. contact them sat the following: look guys when you said you were going to be vikings I though you ment roleplay it I didn't know it was a class, so I am going to have you guys switch over to another class fitting for it, you both could be barbarian battleragers or berserkers, sorry again guys, if they get all mad proceed to step 3 step 3. if they get super man just say this: look guys when you said it I though you were going to be barbarians because that what vikings are, that or fighters, anyways like I said you guys have to change class I am trying to keep things in official published content and this is not it, next time you do something like this make sure I know its a class and let me look over it rather than just doing it, I have to remember your guys stuff and juggle it with all the NPC stuff and its easier if its all stuff from WoTC.
Hey everyone, thanks for your suggestions. I talked to the players and basically told them I didn't know Viking was a class and it caught me off guard, and I told them I would prefer it if they would switch to official content. Overall it went fairly well, they were disappointed and maybe a little angry but they both agreed to switch their classes. One of them switched to a Paladin of Conquest and the other actually switched to Artificer (Still not official but since it's made by WoTC, I'm more okay with that). I made an in game reason for them to switch so it made sense in the context of the world and now, hopefully, where on our way to something great.
Well if you ask me if someone wanted to make a viking I would assume they wanted to make a barbarian berserker because Vikings were the first berserkers.
But baring that I always tell my players offical content is always fine, all homebrew and UA content must be showed to me first show to me before I consider it.
Well if you ask me if someone wanted to make a viking I would assume they wanted to make a barbarian berserker because Vikings were the first berserkers.
Not really. Most beserkers were land-warriors, hunters, and wore animal skins as trophies. Vikings are pirates - they wage war on the seas and only come onland briefly to raid a village or two for supplies. Although, to be specific, not all vikings were pirates: viking originally meant any seafarer, but was more commonly used for raiders (and eventually what we call pirates). The term was originally applied very loosely: anyone can be a viking, you just a ship. A Beserker was specifically Norse, however, and required a very specific battle technique (raging/going beserk) that was best suited for land battles and very ill-suited for sea battles which most vikings would be involved in.
It's extremely unlikely that seafarers were the first to use a battle-technique that is utterly useless at sea battle.
Vikings = Anyone with a big boat but commonly pirates who often raided ships and occasionally coastal villages.
Beserker = Fur-wearing Norse men who use pure frenzied rage in close-quarters battle.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Vikings = Anyone with a big boat but commonly pirates who often raided ships and occasionally coastal villages.
Beserker = Fur-wearing Norse men who use pure frenzied rage in close-quarters battle.
you are crazy wrong on all accounts man, should have spent 2 seconds googling it, here is a quote from the wikipedia on berkers "The English word berserk is derived from the Old Norse words ber-serkr (plural ber-serkir) possibly meaning a "bear-shirt" or "bear coat"—i.e., a wild warrior or champion of the Viking age, although its interpretation remains controversial. The element ber- was interpreted by the thirteenth-century historian Snorri Sturluson as "bare", which he understood to mean that the warriors went into battle bare-chested, or without armour. This word is also used in ber-skjaldaðr that means "bare of shield", or without a shield. Others derive it from berr (Germ, bär = ursus, the bear); Snorri's view has been largely abandoned"
pirates were not around in that time period and were also known for raiding other ships Vikings were known to raid and pillage villages from the surrounding areas, also fun fact when they would find a nice place to raid the longboats were not only made to carry lots of men but to be easily dragged onto land and then flipped upside down to use as makeshift shelters. also Vikings were EXCLUSIVITY Norse not "anyone with a big boat"
and the brief history lesson for today is over.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In a new campaign I'm running two of my players decided to play classes I didn't expect. Prior to the session they told me they were both dwarf Vikings. When they said Vikings I thought they meant Barbarians so I said alright. Come session 1 and they both are playing the Viking Homebrew class. How do I tell them I would prefer them to not play a Homebrew class and would rather them switch to something in the players handbook?
You just be up front with them. Just say you misunderstood and that this world/campaign you are using needs to stick to official sources due to balance. The official classes are balanced, whereas nearly ANYTHING homebrew has not been playtested as much and can therefore throw everything out of whack. If you're a new DM or there are new players, you can even say that. Say without the bulk of experience, you'd rather stick to official material.
And just a preference, I'd try to get one of them to be a barbarian and the other to be a fighter or paladin or something. I personally don't like two characters of the same class at the same time in the same campaign party, but again that's just me lol
Published Subclasses
I would just level with them and say that you don't want home-brew content in this campaign. Offer to work with them to shape PHB options to fit their character concepts.
This is what Session 0 games are for. Use the first session to make the characters together in front of everyone to both create a coherent party and also give you an option to make rulings for cases like this.
I agree in the usage of session 0, however, that doesn't really help the poster in this situation.
Published Subclasses
Yeah, I agree with everyone else. Do a session 0, and just be upfront
My Homebrew | Background | Feats | Magic Items | Races | Spells | Subclass | Homebrewery
To see my more recent homebrew creations, please check out my content on Hombrewery.
Just tell them you misunderstood and thought they meant barbarians, and that you don't want to deal with potentially broken homebrew.
EDIT: Having read that homebrew, I'd definitely not allow it.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
here is what you do step by step:
step 1. look at this homebrew class, if you feel it is too strong or underpowered and don't want them playing as it proceed to step two, if not let them be vikings
step 2. contact them sat the following: look guys when you said you were going to be vikings I though you ment roleplay it I didn't know it was a class, so I am going to have you guys switch over to another class fitting for it, you both could be barbarian battleragers or berserkers, sorry again guys, if they get all mad proceed to step 3
step 3. if they get super man just say this: look guys when you said it I though you were going to be barbarians because that what vikings are, that or fighters, anyways like I said you guys have to change class I am trying to keep things in official published content and this is not it, next time you do something like this make sure I know its a class and let me look over it rather than just doing it, I have to remember your guys stuff and juggle it with all the NPC stuff and its easier if its all stuff from WoTC.
UPDATE:
Hey everyone, thanks for your suggestions. I talked to the players and basically told them I didn't know Viking was a class and it caught me off guard, and I told them I would prefer it if they would switch to official content. Overall it went fairly well, they were disappointed and maybe a little angry but they both agreed to switch their classes. One of them switched to a Paladin of Conquest and the other actually switched to Artificer (Still not official but since it's made by WoTC, I'm more okay with that). I made an in game reason for them to switch so it made sense in the context of the world and now, hopefully, where on our way to something great.
Thanks again to everyone who commented
Well if you ask me if someone wanted to make a viking I would assume they wanted to make a barbarian berserker because Vikings were the first berserkers.
But baring that I always tell my players offical content is always fine, all homebrew and UA content must be showed to me first show to me before I consider it.
Not really. Most beserkers were land-warriors, hunters, and wore animal skins as trophies. Vikings are pirates - they wage war on the seas and only come onland briefly to raid a village or two for supplies. Although, to be specific, not all vikings were pirates: viking originally meant any seafarer, but was more commonly used for raiders (and eventually what we call pirates). The term was originally applied very loosely: anyone can be a viking, you just a ship. A Beserker was specifically Norse, however, and required a very specific battle technique (raging/going beserk) that was best suited for land battles and very ill-suited for sea battles which most vikings would be involved in.
It's extremely unlikely that seafarers were the first to use a battle-technique that is utterly useless at sea battle.
Vikings = Anyone with a big boat but commonly pirates who often raided ships and occasionally coastal villages.
Beserker = Fur-wearing Norse men who use pure frenzied rage in close-quarters battle.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
you are crazy wrong on all accounts man, should have spent 2 seconds googling it, here is a quote from the wikipedia on berkers "The English word berserk is derived from the Old Norse words ber-serkr (plural ber-serkir) possibly meaning a "bear-shirt" or "bear coat"—i.e., a wild warrior or champion of the Viking age, although its interpretation remains controversial. The element ber- was interpreted by the thirteenth-century historian Snorri Sturluson as "bare", which he understood to mean that the warriors went into battle bare-chested, or without armour. This word is also used in ber-skjaldaðr that means "bare of shield", or without a shield. Others derive it from berr (Germ, bär = ursus, the bear); Snorri's view has been largely abandoned"
pirates were not around in that time period and were also known for raiding other ships
Vikings were known to raid and pillage villages from the surrounding areas, also fun fact when they would find a nice place to raid the longboats were not only made to carry lots of men but to be easily dragged onto land and then flipped upside down to use as makeshift shelters.
also Vikings were EXCLUSIVITY Norse not "anyone with a big boat"
and the brief history lesson for today is over.