As a blanket statement, no. I may present a "low magic", "classic", or "exotic" adventure with character creation guidelines, but if the party asks for something in particular, I'm happy to reimagine the adventure to accommodate player preferences. The most important thing is that everyone around the table is invested and excited to play.
I wouldn't bar any race or class unless they are completely at odds with your setting, and you have voiced that to the players. For example, I don't have any grungs (or those other fish people) in existence in my world, so the players shouldn't choose that.
Our group allows any race but won't allow the CR classes usually or Artificer. We, as a group, all feel the whole idea of the Artificer is garbage and don't buy into it, so we scrap it as a class.
Depending on a campaign, we may also limit a race, as in the one I am running. Players had to choose from one of the "monster" looking races I provided, which was due to the theme of the campaign, where heroes from a faraway place have come to save the realm. They had to choose from races I am NOT including in the world I created, so they were unique and looked at with some skepticism when they first arrived. Makes for some interesing options in social interactions that I haven't yet really implemented. I have plans for them as they advance, lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I am also not a fan of Artificer. To me, it belong in a sci-fi/spelljammer setting if anything. Otherwise, you have a Lord of the Rings type troupe running around with Iron Man and it just doesn't fit. Haha. Rare to find someone else who doesn't buy into artificer as I've seen it to be pretty popular.
I agree with most of that. I also always found the artificer to be a bit weird in a LotR kinda setting. But the Alchemist subclass actually works pretty well in that setting too. I have one in my medieval game and it isn't too clashing with the setting luckly. Altough I do find that to be an exception within the subclasses.
Artificer depends on how you flavour it. In a LotR setting, I would have an armorer artificer much more magical than mechanical - the armour being linked by magic, not hinges, powered by magic, not springs and pistons, and so forth. Reflavouring to suit the game is an important aspect of play, I feel!
I have not banned races from my games yet, though I would probably consider Aarakokras and any other flying races to be something of a concern. I also have a setting I'm putting together which would need most of the races to be banned, but that's because your average dnd race would simply drown - it's an underwater adventure!
I would consider limiting character creation if I were running a themed game, but I would likely plan the game with the players so they know what to expect. For drop-in oneshots and the like, I don't restrict anything because it is largely inconsequential!
I am also not a fan of Artificer. To me, it belong in a sci-fi/spelljammer setting if anything. Otherwise, you have a Lord of the Rings type troupe running around with Iron Man and it just doesn't fit. Haha. Rare to find someone else who doesn't buy into artificer as I've seen it to be pretty popular.
If you're looking at basic interpretations of the class, pretty much every class except for Ranger Fighter, and Rogue (and maybe Sorcerer) would stand out in a LOTR setting. They can all be easily reflavored and imagined in ways that make them fit, artificer included. That, to me, is why 5e is good. It lets you flavor basic concepts to fit your theme.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
I don't ban any official race or class in my normal games.
As others have said, I might if there was a very specific theme I was going for, but that's very rare. I prefer to let my players decide what their world looks like, not have me dictate it. Even in published adventures, there is no reason that almost any race or class couldn't be there.
Homebrew is a different matter. They usually aren't very well balanced. Even the semi-official ones don't really appeal to me. But if someone really wanted to play a Blood Hunter, I would take a deeper look at it.
The official classes and races aren't really unbalanced. Some builds or choices can certainly be strong. But it's usually better for me to adjust the campaign to please the players, rather than limit their choices to make DMing easier. Are there any specific examples you are worried about?
For races I limit it to the PHB but I will look at any race the players want from other books and decide if it fits my game or not, most of the time I allow it. I'm 100% fine with reflavoring races provided it fits the setting. For classes I have no bans on them but I have bans (Twilight/Peace Cleric) or multiclassing restrictions (Hexblade/Undead Warlock) As for if a class' flavor doesn't fit the setting I do ask for reflavors on those types of classes (artificers aren't steampunk but enchanters in my setting) but mechanically they're playable.
I limit my players to a single campaign world. I don’t allow Eberron specific races or classes in the Forgotten Realms, and I don’t allow classes or races from the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide in Eberron. Etc..
I do it for lore reasons, not mechanical reasons. So every one of my campaigns is different.
I am very trusting when it comes to players' characters. I allow all official races and classes, and I encourage the creation of homebrew provided that it is made in collaboration with me to ensure that it is balanced and fits into my game well.
The reason I feel like I can trust my players is because we have a social contract that says something on the lines of this: I will trust you to create characters which are fun for you to play, and I generally will not restrict your agency to make the type of character that, mechanically speaking, you want to make. However, the moment you start scrolling through reddits or YouTube shorts about how to frustrate your DM with blatantly minmaxed characters or combinations that take advantage of the rules as written, all bets are off. Since I mostly play with friends and family, this has worked out well for me. If you play with gamers or strangers at your table, I don't recommend this strategy at all.
I'd like to add a note about banning classes because of their roleplay. I've seen a story about a DM who got frustrated with the "so-lawful-good-that-it-actually-hurts-people" paladin that he banned the Lawful Good alignment and the Cleric and Paladin classes entirely. Similarly, several DMs have nerfed/banned warlocks or rogues because they are associated with murder-hoboism. This is not the solution. Any class can be roleplayed harmfully, and banning the classes most often used for harmful roleplay changes nothing. If you have a player who plays a character who is roleplayed in a problematic way, it's time to say "roleplay nicely or get out."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
I'm running a campaign set early in history where only the elder races exist - elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, half-elf, firbolg, etc. What is left of these races has been forced into a small area of land protected by mountain ranges and sea by a horde of hobgoblins. As the campaign progresses they come across the more of the playable races - humani, half-orcs, thieflings, dragonborn...but they are not an option early on.
Obviously Artifcers aren't an option either and the only half elf in existence is in the party but thought of as a freak (it must be half dwarf given the beard right?!) and is the first sorcerer too. every other class is available though.
Some people would balk at being limited in such a fashion but the players have enjoyed the world to date and are now all 17th level reclaiming their homes back from their invaders.
Only PHB. No Gnomes. No Monks. I'm still learning the game.
...why? I can kind of understand not allowing Monks, given how underpowered they are (although an outright ban seems unnecessary), but Gnomes? Is there some ultra-broken race/class combo I'm not aware of? Or are the restrictions because of your setting?
Only PHB. No Gnomes. No Monks. I'm still learning the game.
...why? I can kind of understand not allowing Monks, given how underpowered they are (although an outright ban seems unnecessary), but Gnomes? Is there some ultra-broken race/class combo I'm not aware of? Or are the restrictions because of your setting?
Interesting. I think opposite actually. I think Monks are very strong, almost a Class I made "prestige." I made Paladin a prestige class in my world. Meaning, you need to be at least level 10 before you can become a Paladin and need to take your oath in game and succeed on a vision quest from your deity. Monks, while not as strong as Paladins in my opinion, are super versatile and have exceptional defenses and utility. I wonder what makes you say they are underpowered? If you're looking at it from a pure burst damage perspective, sure. But overall I think having a monk significantly increases the party's ability. Happy to hear your thoughts!
Only PHB. No Gnomes. No Monks. I'm still learning the game.
...why? I can kind of understand not allowing Monks, given how underpowered they are (although an outright ban seems unnecessary), but Gnomes? Is there some ultra-broken race/class combo I'm not aware of? Or are the restrictions because of your setting?
Interesting. I think opposite actually. I think Monks are very strong, almost a Class I made "prestige." I made Paladin a prestige class in my world. Meaning, you need to be at least level 10 before you can become a Paladin and need to take your oath in game and succeed on a vision quest from your deity. Monks, while not as strong as Paladins in my opinion, are super versatile and have exceptional defenses and utility. I wonder what makes you say they are underpowered? If you're looking at it from a pure burst damage perspective, sure. But overall I think having a monk significantly increases the party's ability. Happy to hear your thoughts!
Monks aren't nearly as versatile as most other martial classes, many of their abilities are very situational, and their unarmed strikes - the main thing that makes them more powerful - can easily be outclassed in damage by playing a grapple-based fighter. Also, it costs a Ki point to dash as a bonus action when the Rogue gets it for free. I recently played a Way of the Drunken Master Monk and the only reason I could keep up with the other player was because the DM, for some reason, literally gave me a pair of +5 gauntlets (they increased unarmed strike damage, not AC), and even then all I did in combat was run towards the opponent and spam Flurry of Blows.
I really see absolutely no reason to lock the Monk - or any other class for that matter - behind a whole 10 levels. If it works for your group, that's great, but the Monk seriously isn't very good. The optimal build for a Monk is literally just to buy a gun and get the Gunner feat.
I'd actually be very interested to hear why you consider the Monk to be so powerful. I don't mean this sarcastically or in a smug way. If there's some super-powerful Monk build or multiclass I'm unaware of, I'd like to know.
Edit: also I ended up using the Deflect Missiles feature a whopping 1 time during the course of two adventures. I love the theme of the Monk, and had a lot of fun playing it, but the whole class felt very underwhelming.
Are there any races or classes you do not allow in your campaigns?
Some races seem so over powered
As a blanket statement, no. I may present a "low magic", "classic", or "exotic" adventure with character creation guidelines, but if the party asks for something in particular, I'm happy to reimagine the adventure to accommodate player preferences. The most important thing is that everyone around the table is invested and excited to play.
I wouldn't bar any race or class unless they are completely at odds with your setting, and you have voiced that to the players. For example, I don't have any grungs (or those other fish people) in existence in my world, so the players shouldn't choose that.
Our group allows any race but won't allow the CR classes usually or Artificer. We, as a group, all feel the whole idea of the Artificer is garbage and don't buy into it, so we scrap it as a class.
Depending on a campaign, we may also limit a race, as in the one I am running. Players had to choose from one of the "monster" looking races I provided, which was due to the theme of the campaign, where heroes from a faraway place have come to save the realm. They had to choose from races I am NOT including in the world I created, so they were unique and looked at with some skepticism when they first arrived. Makes for some interesing options in social interactions that I haven't yet really implemented. I have plans for them as they advance, lol.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I am also not a fan of Artificer. To me, it belong in a sci-fi/spelljammer setting if anything. Otherwise, you have a Lord of the Rings type troupe running around with Iron Man and it just doesn't fit. Haha. Rare to find someone else who doesn't buy into artificer as I've seen it to be pretty popular.
I agree with most of that. I also always found the artificer to be a bit weird in a LotR kinda setting. But the Alchemist subclass actually works pretty well in that setting too. I have one in my medieval game and it isn't too clashing with the setting luckly. Altough I do find that to be an exception within the subclasses.
Artificer depends on how you flavour it. In a LotR setting, I would have an armorer artificer much more magical than mechanical - the armour being linked by magic, not hinges, powered by magic, not springs and pistons, and so forth. Reflavouring to suit the game is an important aspect of play, I feel!
I have not banned races from my games yet, though I would probably consider Aarakokras and any other flying races to be something of a concern. I also have a setting I'm putting together which would need most of the races to be banned, but that's because your average dnd race would simply drown - it's an underwater adventure!
I would consider limiting character creation if I were running a themed game, but I would likely plan the game with the players so they know what to expect. For drop-in oneshots and the like, I don't restrict anything because it is largely inconsequential!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
If you're looking at basic interpretations of the class, pretty much every class except for Ranger Fighter, and Rogue (and maybe Sorcerer) would stand out in a LOTR setting. They can all be easily reflavored and imagined in ways that make them fit, artificer included. That, to me, is why 5e is good. It lets you flavor basic concepts to fit your theme.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
I don't ban any official race or class in my normal games.
As others have said, I might if there was a very specific theme I was going for, but that's very rare. I prefer to let my players decide what their world looks like, not have me dictate it. Even in published adventures, there is no reason that almost any race or class couldn't be there.
Homebrew is a different matter. They usually aren't very well balanced. Even the semi-official ones don't really appeal to me. But if someone really wanted to play a Blood Hunter, I would take a deeper look at it.
The official classes and races aren't really unbalanced. Some builds or choices can certainly be strong. But it's usually better for me to adjust the campaign to please the players, rather than limit their choices to make DMing easier. Are there any specific examples you are worried about?
For races I limit it to the PHB but I will look at any race the players want from other books and decide if it fits my game or not, most of the time I allow it. I'm 100% fine with reflavoring races provided it fits the setting.
For classes I have no bans on them but I have bans (Twilight/Peace Cleric) or multiclassing restrictions (Hexblade/Undead Warlock)
As for if a class' flavor doesn't fit the setting I do ask for reflavors on those types of classes (artificers aren't steampunk but enchanters in my setting) but mechanically they're playable.
I limit my players to a single campaign world. I don’t allow Eberron specific races or classes in the Forgotten Realms, and I don’t allow classes or races from the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide in Eberron. Etc..
I do it for lore reasons, not mechanical reasons. So every one of my campaigns is different.
Professional computer geek
I am very trusting when it comes to players' characters. I allow all official races and classes, and I encourage the creation of homebrew provided that it is made in collaboration with me to ensure that it is balanced and fits into my game well.
The reason I feel like I can trust my players is because we have a social contract that says something on the lines of this: I will trust you to create characters which are fun for you to play, and I generally will not restrict your agency to make the type of character that, mechanically speaking, you want to make. However, the moment you start scrolling through reddits or YouTube shorts about how to frustrate your DM with blatantly minmaxed characters or combinations that take advantage of the rules as written, all bets are off. Since I mostly play with friends and family, this has worked out well for me. If you play with gamers or strangers at your table, I don't recommend this strategy at all.
I'd like to add a note about banning classes because of their roleplay. I've seen a story about a DM who got frustrated with the "so-lawful-good-that-it-actually-hurts-people" paladin that he banned the Lawful Good alignment and the Cleric and Paladin classes entirely. Similarly, several DMs have nerfed/banned warlocks or rogues because they are associated with murder-hoboism. This is not the solution. Any class can be roleplayed harmfully, and banning the classes most often used for harmful roleplay changes nothing. If you have a player who plays a character who is roleplayed in a problematic way, it's time to say "roleplay nicely or get out."
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
I'm running a campaign set early in history where only the elder races exist - elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, half-elf, firbolg, etc. What is left of these races has been forced into a small area of land protected by mountain ranges and sea by a horde of hobgoblins. As the campaign progresses they come across the more of the playable races - humani, half-orcs, thieflings, dragonborn...but they are not an option early on.
Obviously Artifcers aren't an option either and the only half elf in existence is in the party but thought of as a freak (it must be half dwarf given the beard right?!) and is the first sorcerer too. every other class is available though.
Some people would balk at being limited in such a fashion but the players have enjoyed the world to date and are now all 17th level reclaiming their homes back from their invaders.
Only PHB. No Gnomes. No Monks. I'm still learning the game.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Hahaha. I don't know the story behind those bans, but the way you state it so bluntly made me chuckle.
Everything in the PHB is good. Except Gnomes... Can't stand those guys in particular.
Wait, you're not secretly a Kobold are you?
Whats wrong with us gnomes?
...why? I can kind of understand not allowing Monks, given how underpowered they are (although an outright ban seems unnecessary), but Gnomes? Is there some ultra-broken race/class combo I'm not aware of? Or are the restrictions because of your setting?
[REDACTED]
Interesting. I think opposite actually. I think Monks are very strong, almost a Class I made "prestige." I made Paladin a prestige class in my world. Meaning, you need to be at least level 10 before you can become a Paladin and need to take your oath in game and succeed on a vision quest from your deity. Monks, while not as strong as Paladins in my opinion, are super versatile and have exceptional defenses and utility. I wonder what makes you say they are underpowered? If you're looking at it from a pure burst damage perspective, sure. But overall I think having a monk significantly increases the party's ability. Happy to hear your thoughts!
Personally, I have banned only one thing from my games. Bladesong. The bane of my existence.
Monks aren't nearly as versatile as most other martial classes, many of their abilities are very situational, and their unarmed strikes - the main thing that makes them more powerful - can easily be outclassed in damage by playing a grapple-based fighter. Also, it costs a Ki point to dash as a bonus action when the Rogue gets it for free. I recently played a Way of the Drunken Master Monk and the only reason I could keep up with the other player was because the DM, for some reason, literally gave me a pair of +5 gauntlets (they increased unarmed strike damage, not AC), and even then all I did in combat was run towards the opponent and spam Flurry of Blows.
I really see absolutely no reason to lock the Monk - or any other class for that matter - behind a whole 10 levels. If it works for your group, that's great, but the Monk seriously isn't very good. The optimal build for a Monk is literally just to buy a gun and get the Gunner feat.
I'd actually be very interested to hear why you consider the Monk to be so powerful. I don't mean this sarcastically or in a smug way. If there's some super-powerful Monk build or multiclass I'm unaware of, I'd like to know.
Edit: also I ended up using the Deflect Missiles feature a whopping 1 time during the course of two adventures. I love the theme of the Monk, and had a lot of fun playing it, but the whole class felt very underwhelming.
[REDACTED]