I am intrigued if my fellow DM's limit races/classes/subclasses for campaigns, either to make players be creative and try new things, or because it doesn't fit the theme of your campaign. Or do you allow full freedom of choice of everything that has ever been published?
Personally for each Campaign I define N+2 or N+3 races that can be chosen from (N being the number of players), and while I generally don't limit classes I do limit the subclasses available to each class, usually to 2-3 per class
I find that limiting player choice sometimes forces interesting options and makes players think differently about their character, especially if they have played multiple campaigns.
I limit them. There are so many options out there, that if you allow them all, IMO, you end up with this very generic setting rather than something more specific and themed. It's hard (not impossible, but very hard) to produce a setting with any sort of verisimilitude that allows *everything*. It's much easier to provide a sense of a themed world when you have a coherent set of parameters within which to play, which are a subset of all possible parameters.
This is true for any game, not just D&D. If you play Call of Cthulhu in the 1920s setting, certain "modern" skills are disallowed and definitely certain kinds of backgrounds (no, in the 1920s, you cannot be a 'software engineer'). But if you don't restrict those, it won't feel like the 1920s.
Similarly, in D&D, if you want it to feel like a certain world, you may have to restrict things -- which Pantheon of gods the clerics can worship, which races are friendly to the PCs, which subclasses, and so on.
I also agree with you that by limiting the choices, you may force the players to become creative and not just play the same one or two or three character concepts that they always play, because those three don't happen to fit in this world.
As BioWizard says, sometimes setting parameters can actually spark creativity rather than leading to a generic feeling world.
I've been in a couple of campaigns as a player where there has been limitations on character creation - campaigns around a specific race, for example. This has lead to all sorts of cool RPing opportunities. Currently I am part of a PbP where we were limited to Dragonborns and it has lead to some really deep character moments having all PCs sharing the same race.
I am currently writing a campaign focused in Eberron which will be focused on telling the story of the Warforged. As a DM, telling that story will have a lot more suspense and impact if I limit players from playing a Warforged. It also saves the, "Oh yes, I know Bob... as a Warforged we've been walking in the same circles."
I think it needs to be made very clear and player feedback considered if you do impose limitations. Also giving players enough freedom to say, "Nah I'd rather play this." and ensuring that no-one feels shoe-horned is vital.
I find that limiting player choice sometimes forces interesting options and makes players think differently about their character, especially if they have played multiple campaigns.
Precisely, it's always good to mix things up and challenge players - why not start at character creation. I know that Pathfinder has a system for players wilfully taking on drawbacks / flaws (trait mechanics) in character creation to accomplish exactly this.
It really depends on the group I'm DMing for and the campaign I want to run. When I have a bunch of beginners I tend to limit them to the Player's Handbook only to keep it simple. I generally don't allow feats or multiclassing in that case either. When I ran Eberron campaigns I restricted character creation to the PHB and E:RftLW once and allowed Tasha's and Xanathar's after that. I discouraged the monstrous races from Volo's when that book first came out but I'm much more lax with experienced groups now. For me, it really boils down to how well the players know the system and whether the options are thematic for the story I want to tell. What I do not do is ban specific spells, feats, or subclasses because of personal issues with them.
I often limit depending on the level of fantasy, magic or complexity. I sometimes have PHB only or in other low fantasy/magic setting some races or classes may be off limit etc
As a newer(ish) DM, I’ve actually been wondering about this concept. I like the idea, but it seems like it could be hard to get the players interested in your restrictions. Do you ever have trouble with players feeling like you’re limiting them unfairly? One of my players, in particular, has had some very bad experiences with a past group, amongst which was an ultimatum about what characters she was “allowed” to play, and how she was “allowed” to play them.
To be clear, I’m not talking about limiting character choices for thematic reasons; the DM and two of the three other players were abusing her in- and out of game. The whole campaign revolved around them, and they only “allowed” her into the foreground at all was when something awful was happening, and they didn’t want it to happen to the favored players.
I really like the idea of limiting choices to give a campaign depth, but what do you do when you know that one or more players could react negatively to such an idea? It seems unfair to say “Everybody must choose from this list, except Jane Doe, who can do whatever she wants.”
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I live with several severe autoimmune conditions. If I don’t get back to you right away, it’s probably because I’m not feeling well.
As a newer(ish) DM, I’ve actually been wondering about this concept. I like the idea, but it seems like it could be hard to get the players interested in your restrictions. Do you ever have trouble with players feeling like you’re limiting them unfairly?
As long as you are not limiting them unfairly, they hopefully won't feel that you are. For example, one thing I said regarding everything -- spells, feats, etc -- was that "If I don't own the book, we're not using it." Surely most people would not consider that an unfair restriction -- one cannot reasonably expect a DM to run a game in which players are using rules the DM hasn't even read. In particular, there are lots of setting books that have rules not appropriate to other settings (such as Eberron). If you're playing in the Forgotten Realms, you can't get angry that Eberron-only content is disallowed.
Btu again this is about how you present it. "Here is my world, and here are all the races and subclasses you can choose from," is a good way to formulate it... Rather than saying "You can't pick X." If a player just "has" to be a certain concept, that may indicate an issue with the player -- an unwillingness to bend, and fit their PC into your world, is not cooperative, and is generally a warning signal that this player will be self-centered and uncooperative in other ways (at least, in my experience).
Now, regarding your one player that seems to have bene traumatized by her previous D&D experience -- again, I think if you explain these are the parameters of your world, and you make these parameters apply to everyone starting in session 0 (make sure you have a session 0, btw), it should not be a problem. If she reminds you about the past abuse, just explain to her that these rules apply to everyone not just to her. If she can't deal with that, well... you're on your own. I'm not a counselor.
I really like the idea of limiting choices to give a campaign depth, but what do you do when you know that one or more players could react negatively to such an idea? It seems unfair to say “Everybody must choose from this list, except Jane Doe, who can do whatever she wants.”
You absolutely, 100% must not do that. Jane Doe has to abide by the rules of everyone else. If she thinks it is unfair that the rules apply to her (because of her past experience or not), then you need to be very careful -- otherwise the other players won't like it.
In my experience, if you give players a restriction of X, they will complain until you give them X+1. Then they'll be fine for a bit. Then they will complain until you give them X+2.
I'm not trying to put a negative spin on anything. But are all fans of this past time, hobbyists, collectors, nerds, whatever your term(s). Players love at least having options, and as many new and exciting options as possible. It sells books, makes money, and feeds the excitement and frenzy of something shiny and new.
This subject is a micro version of a DM wanting to play a serious game, maybe with horror or suspense, and the players wanting to play more of a silly and lighthearted big adventure. Not all people, let alone all DMs and players, are going to come to the table for the same reasons. If you are learning the ropes, wanting to play with a certain theme or within a world you've created, and whatever all the rest of the time, love, and work you're putting into a campaign is, the players have to make a decision for themselves to "buy in" to that. If not, they can DM.
I have mentioned this elsewhere, but in my fixed group we will occasionally pitch campaign ideas that include the gist of what kind of character restrictions might be present. If the response is less than enthusiastic, we pass on it.
I am generally fine with restrictions as a player, but I also have a decent number of characters in various campaigns. If I had one game and that campaign was going to be two years, I might be a little miffed if I had to work within tight restrictions. I have a wizard in a game that is PHB only and I'd be lying if I said I was never frustrated that I don't have access to spells from other sources. Restriction may encourage creativity, but having more options can breed more creativity and roleplay scenarios too.
As a DM, I'm much more likely to work with the player to reflavor class/subclass/weapon/etc choices rather than ban them for a given campaign. Although when it comes to stuff like Loxodon and Centaurs, they're gonna have to really wow me to get me to say yes.
1. Setting specific reasons (which has been explained by others), like there are no elves in this world etc, etc.
2. I've also limited things like no features etc. It's not that 'important' in DnD, but in groups where the players have very different knowledge of the system, I sometimes limits it to make sure the players with less knowledge don't get 'lost' in the rules.
Concerning reason 1, I've also done the complete opposite: given the players completely free choice of race and class, and then built the world/setting around those choices. That can be a lot of fun, and I recommend DMs to try that once. At least for a shorter game :-)
Generally, I try to stay away from setting specific races unless they have a backstory reason for it existing in that setting. I also don't like power gamey stuff, because it those tend to start with an optimized build and then work backwards to try to shoehorn in some backstory as an afterthought.
In general I also feel like there are just way too many half animal type races and just personally don't like the idea of a group of animal people roaming around a world where that is not common, and everyone not reacting to it like the circus just came to town every time they go to a new place.
1. Setting specific reasons (which has been explained by others), like there are no elves in this world etc, etc.
2. I've also limited things like no features etc. It's not that 'important' in DnD, but in groups where the players have very different knowledge of the system, I sometimes limits it to make sure the players with less knowledge don't get 'lost' in the rules.
Concerning reason 1, I've also done the complete opposite: given the players completely free choice of race and class, and then built the world/setting around those choices. That can be a lot of fun, and I recommend DMs to try that once. At least for a shorter game :-)
My current campaign I did this, I actually for the first time ever let my players pick anything and didn’t define anything about my world until after they had made that choice. Mainly because I have a party of experienced roleplayers who have never played DnD 5th ed I don’t know if I would do it every time but this group really embraced it. I then took the player selections (Tabaxi, Satyr, warforged, minotaur, dragonborn and then halfling and half elf). This made me work out where each race fit in my world and then got me to structure my world and the player backstories into that narrative I am loving this world creation as I go vs pages of stuff pre determined.
As a newer(ish) DM, I’ve actually been wondering about this concept. I like the idea, but it seems like it could be hard to get the players interested in your restrictions.
As a new DM (welcome to this side of the table, by the way, we have cookies!) you have a good reason to restrict things.
GM: Right, now you all know I'm new at this, right? Good. I'm going to keep things simple for this game so that I don't get overwhelmed. PHB only please. As my skill and confidence grows, we can add other books later (lets revisit this choice in 6 months, OK?).
Here's the limitation for my next GREYHAWK CAMPAIGN upcoming. Is this something you guys would embrace or dislike?
VARIANT RULES & HOUSERULES
- Determine Ability Scores: Determine ability score by rolling 3d6 seven times keeping the six best scores. (PHB 12)
- Ability Scores Maximum: A score of 18 is the highest that a person usually reaches, rather than 20, thus the normal range of ability scores is 3-18 without magic. (PHB171)
- Choose Race: The dragonborn, drow and tiefling are not allowed. In humano-centric setting, humans combine standard and variant features. (PHB09)
- Choose Class: The sorcerer and warlock are not allowed.
- Alignment: No evil alignment can be selected. (PHB122)
- New Languages: New languages that can be selected are ancient baklunish, flan, old oeridian, ancient suloise. (PHB 123)
- Starting Wealth By Class: Due to low income and supply after recent war, only some light armor, simple weapon and class/background equipment are available. (PHB 125-143)
- Slow Natural Healing: Characters don't regain hit points at the end of a long rest. Instead, a character can spend Hit Dice to heal at the end of a long rest, just as with a short rest. (DMG267)
- Healer’s Kit Dependency: A character can't spend any Hit Dice after finishing a rest until someone expends one use of a healer's kit to bandage and treat the character's wounds. (DMG266)
- Death: Every time a character drops to 0 hit points, he gains a level of exhaustion. Players roll their characters’ death saving throw in secret.
Here's the limitation for my next GREYHAWK CAMPAIGN upcoming. Is this something you guys would embrace or dislike?
VARIANT RULES & HOUSERULES
- Determine Ability Scores: Determine ability score by rolling 3d6 seven times keeping the six best scores. (PHB 12)
- Ability Scores Maximum: A score of 18 is the highest that a person usually reaches, rather than 20, thus the normal range of ability scores is 3-18 without magic. (PHB171)
- Choose Race: The dragonborn, drow and tiefling are not allowed. In humano-centric setting, humans combine standard and variant features. (PHB09)
- Choose Class: The sorcerer and warlock are not allowed.
- Alignment: No evil alignment can be selected. (PHB122)
- New Languages: New languages that can be selected are ancient baklunish, flan, old oeridian, ancient suloise. (PHB 123)
- Starting Wealth By Class: Due to low income and supply after recent war, only some light armor, simple weapon and class/background equipment are available. (PHB 125-143)
- Slow Natural Healing: Characters don't regain hit points at the end of a long rest. Instead, a character can spend Hit Dice to heal at the end of a long rest, just as with a short rest. (DMG267)
- Healer’s Kit Dependency: A character can't spend any Hit Dice after finishing a rest until someone expends one use of a healer's kit to bandage and treat the character's wounds. (DMG266)
- Death: Every time a character drops to 0 hit points, he gains a level of exhaustion. Players roll their characters’ death saving throw in secret.
As a DM I have mixed views on this list personally, but each to their own and if your players are happy then great.
Rolling death saves in secret, is this a physical or online game, you as the DM at least should see the roll. In my in person games I have a dice tower set up which points behind my screen, this means a player can roll the dice by putting it into the tower, but has no idea what they have rolled. My players are allowed to discuss what hitpoints they have around the table.
Not sure why you limit the Ability score to 18, in many ways this means characters will be better all round (the +2 bonus will need to be spent on other things) meaning that a player with a low attribute will correct it as opposed to leaving it for that +5. Also as the game progresses monsters are balanced against a +5 so you will be restricted in some of the monsters you can pull out against the party at the level they are at.
No sorcerer or Warlock, intrigued by your narrative reasons (no issues I just like to have a story reason why those classes don't exist as options in game). Are there warlocks of Sorcerors in your world?
Starting wealth, are you restricting the equipment available or are you going to give them cash and make them buy it but amend the prices/availability?
Slow natural healing and healers kit, are fine personally I don't like using them it tends to slow the game down. But generally you seem to be pushing for a harder style of play, I am more about storytelling then gritty realism in the rules.
The rolling abilities, I have moved away from rolling for abilities, I prefer the Variant array 17, 15, 13, 12 10, 8 and your method means that statistically players will have a wider swing of stats between characters, so you might have players who just feel like their characters are far too weak.
I am intrigued if my fellow DM's limit races/classes/subclasses for campaigns, either to make players be creative and try new things, or because it doesn't fit the theme of your campaign. Or do you allow full freedom of choice of everything that has ever been published?
Personally for each Campaign I define N+2 or N+3 races that can be chosen from (N being the number of players), and while I generally don't limit classes I do limit the subclasses available to each class, usually to 2-3 per class
I find that limiting player choice sometimes forces interesting options and makes players think differently about their character, especially if they have played multiple campaigns.
I limit them. There are so many options out there, that if you allow them all, IMO, you end up with this very generic setting rather than something more specific and themed. It's hard (not impossible, but very hard) to produce a setting with any sort of verisimilitude that allows *everything*. It's much easier to provide a sense of a themed world when you have a coherent set of parameters within which to play, which are a subset of all possible parameters.
This is true for any game, not just D&D. If you play Call of Cthulhu in the 1920s setting, certain "modern" skills are disallowed and definitely certain kinds of backgrounds (no, in the 1920s, you cannot be a 'software engineer'). But if you don't restrict those, it won't feel like the 1920s.
Similarly, in D&D, if you want it to feel like a certain world, you may have to restrict things -- which Pantheon of gods the clerics can worship, which races are friendly to the PCs, which subclasses, and so on.
I also agree with you that by limiting the choices, you may force the players to become creative and not just play the same one or two or three character concepts that they always play, because those three don't happen to fit in this world.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
As BioWizard says, sometimes setting parameters can actually spark creativity rather than leading to a generic feeling world.
I've been in a couple of campaigns as a player where there has been limitations on character creation - campaigns around a specific race, for example. This has lead to all sorts of cool RPing opportunities. Currently I am part of a PbP where we were limited to Dragonborns and it has lead to some really deep character moments having all PCs sharing the same race.
I am currently writing a campaign focused in Eberron which will be focused on telling the story of the Warforged. As a DM, telling that story will have a lot more suspense and impact if I limit players from playing a Warforged. It also saves the, "Oh yes, I know Bob... as a Warforged we've been walking in the same circles."
I think it needs to be made very clear and player feedback considered if you do impose limitations. Also giving players enough freedom to say, "Nah I'd rather play this." and ensuring that no-one feels shoe-horned is vital.
Precisely, it's always good to mix things up and challenge players - why not start at character creation. I know that Pathfinder has a system for players wilfully taking on drawbacks / flaws (trait mechanics) in character creation to accomplish exactly this.
DM - The Call of Strahd (CoS); Feyrealm Campaign, Chapter 0 - Bleak Prospect (BP), Chapter 1 - Destination Unknown (DU)
It really depends on the group I'm DMing for and the campaign I want to run. When I have a bunch of beginners I tend to limit them to the Player's Handbook only to keep it simple. I generally don't allow feats or multiclassing in that case either. When I ran Eberron campaigns I restricted character creation to the PHB and E:RftLW once and allowed Tasha's and Xanathar's after that. I discouraged the monstrous races from Volo's when that book first came out but I'm much more lax with experienced groups now. For me, it really boils down to how well the players know the system and whether the options are thematic for the story I want to tell. What I do not do is ban specific spells, feats, or subclasses because of personal issues with them.
I limit them. I’m currently in a “PHB only” phase.
I often limit depending on the level of fantasy, magic or complexity. I sometimes have PHB only or in other low fantasy/magic setting some races or classes may be off limit etc
As a newer(ish) DM, I’ve actually been wondering about this concept. I like the idea, but it seems like it could be hard to get the players interested in your restrictions. Do you ever have trouble with players feeling like you’re limiting them unfairly? One of my players, in particular, has had some very bad experiences with a past group, amongst which was an ultimatum about what characters she was “allowed” to play, and how she was “allowed” to play them.
To be clear, I’m not talking about limiting character choices for thematic reasons; the DM and two of the three other players were abusing her in- and out of game. The whole campaign revolved around them, and they only “allowed” her into the foreground at all was when something awful was happening, and they didn’t want it to happen to the favored players.
I really like the idea of limiting choices to give a campaign depth, but what do you do when you know that one or more players could react negatively to such an idea? It seems unfair to say “Everybody must choose from this list, except Jane Doe, who can do whatever she wants.”
I live with several severe autoimmune conditions. If I don’t get back to you right away, it’s probably because I’m not feeling well.
As long as you are not limiting them unfairly, they hopefully won't feel that you are. For example, one thing I said regarding everything -- spells, feats, etc -- was that "If I don't own the book, we're not using it." Surely most people would not consider that an unfair restriction -- one cannot reasonably expect a DM to run a game in which players are using rules the DM hasn't even read. In particular, there are lots of setting books that have rules not appropriate to other settings (such as Eberron). If you're playing in the Forgotten Realms, you can't get angry that Eberron-only content is disallowed.
Btu again this is about how you present it. "Here is my world, and here are all the races and subclasses you can choose from," is a good way to formulate it... Rather than saying "You can't pick X." If a player just "has" to be a certain concept, that may indicate an issue with the player -- an unwillingness to bend, and fit their PC into your world, is not cooperative, and is generally a warning signal that this player will be self-centered and uncooperative in other ways (at least, in my experience).
Now, regarding your one player that seems to have bene traumatized by her previous D&D experience -- again, I think if you explain these are the parameters of your world, and you make these parameters apply to everyone starting in session 0 (make sure you have a session 0, btw), it should not be a problem. If she reminds you about the past abuse, just explain to her that these rules apply to everyone not just to her. If she can't deal with that, well... you're on your own. I'm not a counselor.
You absolutely, 100% must not do that. Jane Doe has to abide by the rules of everyone else. If she thinks it is unfair that the rules apply to her (because of her past experience or not), then you need to be very careful -- otherwise the other players won't like it.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
In my experience, if you give players a restriction of X, they will complain until you give them X+1. Then they'll be fine for a bit. Then they will complain until you give them X+2.
I'm not trying to put a negative spin on anything. But are all fans of this past time, hobbyists, collectors, nerds, whatever your term(s). Players love at least having options, and as many new and exciting options as possible. It sells books, makes money, and feeds the excitement and frenzy of something shiny and new.
This subject is a micro version of a DM wanting to play a serious game, maybe with horror or suspense, and the players wanting to play more of a silly and lighthearted big adventure. Not all people, let alone all DMs and players, are going to come to the table for the same reasons. If you are learning the ropes, wanting to play with a certain theme or within a world you've created, and whatever all the rest of the time, love, and work you're putting into a campaign is, the players have to make a decision for themselves to "buy in" to that. If not, they can DM.
I have mentioned this elsewhere, but in my fixed group we will occasionally pitch campaign ideas that include the gist of what kind of character restrictions might be present. If the response is less than enthusiastic, we pass on it.
I am generally fine with restrictions as a player, but I also have a decent number of characters in various campaigns. If I had one game and that campaign was going to be two years, I might be a little miffed if I had to work within tight restrictions. I have a wizard in a game that is PHB only and I'd be lying if I said I was never frustrated that I don't have access to spells from other sources. Restriction may encourage creativity, but having more options can breed more creativity and roleplay scenarios too.
As a DM, I'm much more likely to work with the player to reflavor class/subclass/weapon/etc choices rather than ban them for a given campaign. Although when it comes to stuff like Loxodon and Centaurs, they're gonna have to really wow me to get me to say yes.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I restrict the shit out of my campaigns! In theory.
To be fair my starter outlook is pretty much only humans, no magic.
It never really ends up like that though. I guess I'm soft.
Sounds like getting together to play real life, not D&D.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
With swords. And monsters. :) and humans are only boring if you make them boring. We never had any issues
The two main reasons I limit my players are:
1. Setting specific reasons (which has been explained by others), like there are no elves in this world etc, etc.
2. I've also limited things like no features etc. It's not that 'important' in DnD, but in groups where the players have very different knowledge of the system, I sometimes limits it to make sure the players with less knowledge don't get 'lost' in the rules.
Concerning reason 1, I've also done the complete opposite: given the players completely free choice of race and class, and then built the world/setting around those choices. That can be a lot of fun, and I recommend DMs to try that once. At least for a shorter game :-)
Ludo ergo sum!
Nope. Anything goes.
The can give me whatever classes and races they want, I will work with it.
Generally, I try to stay away from setting specific races unless they have a backstory reason for it existing in that setting. I also don't like power gamey stuff, because it those tend to start with an optimized build and then work backwards to try to shoehorn in some backstory as an afterthought.
In general I also feel like there are just way too many half animal type races and just personally don't like the idea of a group of animal people roaming around a world where that is not common, and everyone not reacting to it like the circus just came to town every time they go to a new place.
My current campaign I did this, I actually for the first time ever let my players pick anything and didn’t define anything about my world until after they had made that choice. Mainly because I have a party of experienced roleplayers who have never played DnD 5th ed I don’t know if I would do it every time but this group really embraced it. I then took the player selections (Tabaxi, Satyr, warforged, minotaur, dragonborn and then halfling and half elf). This made me work out where each race fit in my world and then got me to structure my world and the player backstories into that narrative I am loving this world creation as I go vs pages of stuff pre determined.
As a new DM (welcome to this side of the table, by the way, we have cookies!) you have a good reason to restrict things.
GM: Right, now you all know I'm new at this, right? Good. I'm going to keep things simple for this game so that I don't get overwhelmed. PHB only please. As my skill and confidence grows, we can add other books later (lets revisit this choice in 6 months, OK?).
Here's the limitation for my next GREYHAWK CAMPAIGN upcoming. Is this something you guys would embrace or dislike?
VARIANT RULES & HOUSERULES
- Determine Ability Scores: Determine ability score by rolling 3d6 seven times keeping the six best scores. (PHB 12)
- Ability Scores Maximum: A score of 18 is the highest that a person usually reaches, rather than 20, thus the normal range of ability scores is 3-18 without magic. (PHB171)
- Choose Race: The dragonborn, drow and tiefling are not allowed. In humano-centric setting, humans combine standard and variant features. (PHB09)
- Choose Class: The sorcerer and warlock are not allowed.
- Alignment: No evil alignment can be selected. (PHB122)
- New Languages: New languages that can be selected are ancient baklunish, flan, old oeridian, ancient suloise. (PHB 123)
- Starting Wealth By Class: Due to low income and supply after recent war, only some light armor, simple weapon and class/background equipment are available. (PHB 125-143)
- Slow Natural Healing: Characters don't regain hit points at the end of a long rest. Instead, a character can spend Hit Dice to heal at the end of a long rest, just as with a short rest. (DMG267)
- Healer’s Kit Dependency: A character can't spend any Hit Dice after finishing a rest until someone expends one use of a healer's kit to bandage and treat the character's wounds. (DMG266)
- Death: Every time a character drops to 0 hit points, he gains a level of exhaustion. Players roll their characters’ death saving throw in secret.
As a DM I have mixed views on this list personally, but each to their own and if your players are happy then great.
Rolling death saves in secret, is this a physical or online game, you as the DM at least should see the roll. In my in person games I have a dice tower set up which points behind my screen, this means a player can roll the dice by putting it into the tower, but has no idea what they have rolled. My players are allowed to discuss what hitpoints they have around the table.
Not sure why you limit the Ability score to 18, in many ways this means characters will be better all round (the +2 bonus will need to be spent on other things) meaning that a player with a low attribute will correct it as opposed to leaving it for that +5. Also as the game progresses monsters are balanced against a +5 so you will be restricted in some of the monsters you can pull out against the party at the level they are at.
No sorcerer or Warlock, intrigued by your narrative reasons (no issues I just like to have a story reason why those classes don't exist as options in game). Are there warlocks of Sorcerors in your world?
Starting wealth, are you restricting the equipment available or are you going to give them cash and make them buy it but amend the prices/availability?
Slow natural healing and healers kit, are fine personally I don't like using them it tends to slow the game down. But generally you seem to be pushing for a harder style of play, I am more about storytelling then gritty realism in the rules.
The rolling abilities, I have moved away from rolling for abilities, I prefer the Variant array 17, 15, 13, 12 10, 8 and your method means that statistically players will have a wider swing of stats between characters, so you might have players who just feel like their characters are far too weak.