After reading the PHB and some of the arguments presented on these forums I am leaning towardss the following house rules as such.
Paladins. Do not have to be LG, they do have to be good aligned.
Barbarian, Monk, Warlock. Were banned may be heavily discouraged. By discouraged I will tell any player point blank do not expect any magical items for your character beyond generic ones anyone can use. Monk is the wrong genre/goofy, Barbarian is a boring old rager and is a silly class and should be a back ground, Warlock has the best chance out of these 3 classes of being allowed.
Races. Anything in 3.5 or AD&D is fine, Drow, Dragonborn and Tieflings are a no no NPC only as they do exist, Dragonborn are likely to play the role of Draconians in Tiamats cult which will be a major villain hence I would prefer no Dragonborn PCs. Not a fan of antromorphic PC races, Drow as PCs and Tieflings full stop.
Not that it mattersI highly doubt anyone will want those races and classes anyway but you never know. However one of my players from Castles and Crusades wants to take the Battlemaster fighter and probably the noble back ground. Said player was a Knight in C&C and in that game the closest thing to a Battlemaster/Warlord would be a Knight/Bard multiclass PC. IN C&C bards are purely martial based class.
Battle master was on the list of subclasses to not allow. We had a civil conversation last night about it and I told him I would prefer not to have the class used for various reasons. A main one being for the 1st campaign I would prefer to keep things simple. Any massive arguements over class and races is more than likely make me to just use Basic D&D with feats allowed to keep it simple and that would solve a lot of arguements over such things.
For my 1st game tomorrow knight I will have 5 players and I think I know what 3 of them will take and a 4th is a new player and wants a support character or bard but another player is eyeing up a bard as well. I suppose we could use 2 bards one of each subclass.
Potential party.
1 Cleric of Gorum (war)
1 Bard
1 Fighter (warmaster)
1 Support character
1?
The Cleric of Gorum may morph into another type of Cleric. I do not think we will have a Rogue the Bard will be the skill monkey in that regard.
As I said I want to keep things simple, this player wants to use the variant human and feats as well with heavy armor mastery and polearm mastery. I already know those are probably two of the best feats and this player has had the PHB for almost a week, I got it late last night. Said player has also been looking up the War Cleric and Heavy Weapon master combo (+5 to hit, +10 damage+cleave).
Put simply I want a nice simple game, he seems to want a powerful PC which is shades of 3.5 all over again. The main reason I am thinking of allowing feats is because without them I see a lot of dex based characters being rolled up and I do not think I will be seeing to many human players without them. I would not take a strength based sword and board type fighter for example without feats and probably a human to boot otherwise I would pick a two handed weapon fighter or a dex based one.
My PCs are not the most blatant power gamers in the world but they can already see that dex based PC has one less AC than a strrength based one in most cases and gets dex to hit, damage, AC, skill checks, a major save and initiative. I did like the point buy human with 12,12,12,14,14,16 for stats but the Half Elf seems to obsolete that skill monkey idea I had as you can have 16 dex, 16 charisma and 14 con as a half elf using the standard array and you get 2 more trained skills.
So the game has not even started yet and I'm wondering if this is an issue yet or if I am being overly cautious with what I allow. I do not like some things based on flavour and early on in an edition I prefer to keep things simple. For example I only saw a wizard being used for the 1st time last night as in the other sessions I ran no one picked a wizard and I had a smaller part as well only using D&D Basic.
What to do and what to allow seem to be 2 different things. If I was a player it would not bother me to much if the DM said D&D Basic stuff only + feats or D&D Basic only no feats. Other players seem to want more, I am just happy to play as I DM all the time. Hell my 1st character ever was a BECMI fighter.
I can't help but feel like you are being too restrictive (Barbarian not allowed? Really?). That said if your players are down with it I don't see an issue. No Battle Master though? I don't get that one.
this seems like a DM power trip blog.
sure, you can ban stuff but do you really think people on the internet care? especially after the 20000th time you've posted something like this?
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Yeah, those are some good points. I'm just surprised because previously you've said that allowing paladins to be anything other than LG was anathema to you.
pukunui wrote:
If you can find people who want this, then, sure. Do what makes your group happy.
Most people I know (including myself) would never want a DM or group that bans so much from the game, however. It's almost like saying "you can only build with red, white, and grey legos with 2-20 studs on them! All other pieces will be thrown out!" (even if that means buying a lego set, and trashing 2/3rds of it)
Why are you even playing or running 5e? Seems like you want AD&D (minus the monk), which is totally still in existance and available.
PS: "By discouraged I will tell any player point blank do not expect any magical items for your character beyond generic ones anyone can use." This is also just rude, IMO...Are you even friends with your PCs?
seti wrote:
If I were asked to stat out Little John from the Robin Hood stories, I'd use Monk...
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Your setting you rules. Customization is good. But I don't find any of the classes or races ruining anything I would write (although I do alot of human only settings).
tallric_kruush wrote:
CCS wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
tallric_kruush wrote:
Although I love Drow, I am actually seeing the motivation for banning them for new players. The sunlight sensitivity and the fact they actually have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks in complete darkness, as they treat it as low-light, makes them really, really bad. After actually DMing the game, they are even worse than I expected them to be.
CaptainPicard wrote:
Now I have an over-whelming urge to roll up a character based on either Shaggy or Scoobie.
Probably a Monk based sandwhich-eating, disguise-making monster-fleeing build.
Shasarak wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Monks are fine in Athas because Monks and Thrii-Kreen go together really, really well
In 4E they were made for each other. And c'mon, a 7 foot praying mantis fricking monk-jumping onto someone and just tearing their head off is what Dark Sun's about
Zardnaar wrote:
I don't really know the point of this thread honestly but I will say that Zard if he is up front about his preferences has my support. Nothing he has done would scare me away from his campaign as a player. I don't hate as many classes and races as he does but I agree on some of his decisions. I see no use for the Barbarian or the Monk. I could though fit the monk into the game with a lot of refluffing so I probably wouldn't ban it.
I don't see any problem restricting classes or races or combinations thereof if its part of the setting.
This weird desire to genercise all things boggle the mind, why play Dark Sun if its exactly like the Realms.
As long as your transparent with your players and they are on board with the setting and themes of the game then they shouldn't want to play a 1/2 dwarf-warforge psion/shadow monk/artificer from the future in your arthurian based campaign.
Mecheon wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
I think any adjustments a given Dungeon Master wants to make for his/her own homebrew world are generally fine if the players agree to it. For instance, in the campaign we're starting this Saturday, our DM has said that gnomes tieflings are not available PC races, and any Monks will not have an eastern flavor, as he doesn't think it fits well with otherwise Euro-descended campaign concepts. Seems legit to me. I might be bothered if I wanted to play either a tiefling or gnome, but I don't; I tend not to like playing small races, and I've never understood why tieflings get to be a core PC race, but aasimar don't, as I'd typically prefer to play someone with Celestial heritage instead of Infernal.
If I were a potential player in your campaign, Zardnaar, I'd probably think you were being too restrictive, and might think twice about joining your group, but I wouldn't pitch a fit over it. I've had opportunities to join new groups in the past, and I've been playing D&D long enough at this point to know what questions to ask, as I've figured out what parts of playing are really important (as in, a decision-maker) to me vs. those that are "nice to have, but I can cope if they aren't there." It's one thing, to me, to disallow a class because its concept doesn't fit with your campaign setting (Paladins make little sense in Dark Sun, for example), but kind of petty to disallow them just because you don't personally like them.
But, again, it's your campaign, and the Dungeon Master is God. 
Eldren73 wrote:
What do you care if a class is boring? You are not even going to play it being the DM.
Then the BM is too complex, but the cleric with a potential list of hundreds of spells to choose from each day is ok. Go figure.
Just try an play the game as it is, see what works and what doesn't, discuss with your players and make adjustement accordingly then.
Uskglass wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Uskglass wrote:
Zard, the only reasons I can imagine for this thread are approval-fishing or pointing out that you can't be kept from banning things. The first won't actually get you anything; the second will get you a fairly exhausted "Yes, I know." Now to specific points:
1. I don't understand why one needs some sort of Asian realm for the monk. Yes, the class's primary inspiration is pop culture interpretations of Asian martial arts; so what? It's a fantasy universe. Those martial arts could be developed anywhere, by anyone, and assuming that all of a culture's tropes need to go to the same region is painfully absurd. I stuck samurai in Ylaruam (primary cultural trope sources: Arabia, Persia, Venice) and tend to have monk-style martial arts traditions rise up from the elves in my settings.
2. I need to respond to this post:
Zardnaar wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Uskglass wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Suggestion:
Run the first session or two under strict Basic rules; no feats, no PHB material, just simple characters. Explain that this is to give all the players a chance to get up to speed with the 5e playing rules, to develop their role-playing personalities and to establish the story line, without worrying about optimizing classes. Explain that, until they have an idea of the way the campaign will go and how they will co-operate as a team, it's too soon to finalize their characters.
Tell your players in advance that, when they reach first level-up, the training wheels will come off and they will be allowed to rebuild their characters using the PHB, as would be allowed in Adventurer's League play. Names and inventories are kept but everything else can be rebuilt from scratch as if they were new Level 2 characters. Or, they can just level up the characters they have, or go multiclass if they like in the normal way.
I think you should skip 5e. If you have to "ban" a third of the choices and are heavily restricting almost every choice, find another system that fits your needs, because this one doesn't seem to be it.
Also imo, when a DM "bans" things because of their precious setting and places that over things the players want to do, I think that's lame, but to each their own.
VeroMaestro wrote:
No Orcs on Krynn means no half orcs either. Seems perfectly fine and logical to ban certain races and classes if they do not exist.
I will admiti it. I miss the barbarian that was immune to many forms of magic but couldn't use magic items.
Daganev wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
magikot9 wrote:
I think it is silly to think banning something for a particular setting is somehow unfair or bad. The reason D&D keeps adding more and more races is that DMs are able to pick and choose the appropriate things for any particular setting they want. I'm in favor of DMs creating great settings because that really adds a lot to the play experience. I think DM's crafting their own races in some instances makes sense too if those new races address something special about his world.
You can't want everything but the kitchen sink in the game and then turn around and say banning anything is bad. I don't see dragonmen being an integral part of every world I create. I don't see any race that way necessarily. I do favor traditional fantasy so FOR ME, I do tend to have dwarves and elves but even in those cases I often heavily reflavor them. So if you wanted to play and elf, I might drop a whole ton of background material on elves in your lap that maybe you don't want. You have no right to demand the book elf.
*shudder* man, that sounds truly terrible.
Zardnaar wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
I'm new to the forums... Very interested in everything people have volunteered, from opinions to house rules, to details of their game philosophy and how their groups interact. It's tremendously helpful to someone who just can't get to my local store on game nights because I'm a single parent of a kid with a disability -- pretty sheltered here for the last decade, lol! Anyway, I've noticed something, else, too... 1) Person shares idea, asks for constructive criticism. 2) Advice/suggestions/critique is provided. 3) Someone disagrees with something, and 4) Before the end of the thread, there has been one or more broad, sweeping generalizations about how things "should" or "shouldn't" be, followed by overt or under-the-breath grumpiness. It makes me think, "Hmmm... Listen? Yes! But... I'll keep my own ideas to myself!" Lol, this place is a little scary!
As for the thread topic, I have a question for the OP: Do you have any requirements or rules about what your party consists of, in terms of the classes the PCs play? I mean, like "We can't have 4 fighters," or "We need at least one caster of some sort," yadda, yadda, yadda. (These are just random examples, not intended to be real rulings.) I'm just wondering how you keep your party balanced -- or if you just let the PCs sort it out and deal with the consequences of whatever they pick. You've obviously put a lot of thought into your campaign setup, especially concerning race and class. I was just curious if you have anything to say/do with party makeup? (And no, not "lip-liner and mascara" makeup, because if you DID have rules about that, I'd be worried!)
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
I would like to ask, why do you even need "restrictions" at all? it sounds like you and your players are on the same page, liking and disliking the same things, why do you even need to restrict anything?
I dont think there is a problem here, not allowing certain races or classes goes a long way towards defining the world, and that is a DM's perogative. As a DM i am also playing he game, sharing in the story and probably have much more invested in the setting than my players do. If you absolutely need to play a banned race or class, i'm fine with you not playing in my game, there are lots of other people who play DnD. The DM is not simply a facilitator for the players-3.5 was ruined for me when a player argues that my placing particular treasure in a dungeon was railroading - they thought all treasure should be randomized.
As a person creating a PC for a game, i should be flexible in my interests and willing to work with the DM. If the DM says "I'm runnning a drow only campaign" then i might simple decline to play in it. That does not make him a bad DM, its just that drow are not my cup of tea typically. On the other hand, years of experience tells me that someone who wants to run a drow only campign might just have an interesting story to tell, and i should make a character that fits the game.
For myself, I am flirting wit the idea of an arthurian campaign where the players are basically knights or paladins - at least until the world gets established and my players have (hopefully) bought in to the logic of the setting. Then I might expand things up to allow wizards clerics and bards. While thieves, druids and barbarians will certainly be part of this world, they won't be player classes, because they don't fit the arthurian tone. Monks, as written, would not fit in at all, and would be excluded. (sorcs warlocks and warmasters all seem to be to be needlessly complex classes that add little in the way of story and a lot in the way of new systems, as a DM would likely ban these classes outright in any campaign, sorry to say, they just aren't that interesting to me). I know that sometimes playing outside the box can make interesting characters, but its also true (espeically in 5e) that you can find interestng characters within the parameters as well. Sometimes the things that define a character are completely outside of the rule book - for example i had a player who played a fat fighter, and much of the fun of the game stemmed from this particular quality.
As a DM i much more likely to restrict races than classes, but this is almost always based on the logic of the world. Sometimes I run sigle race games (usually mini campaigns for fun) where all the players are say Orcs.... But more often than not, i just disallow particular races because including them adds nothing to the world. For example, why have gnomes AND halfings? They are quite similar and seem to fill the same ecological niche. I don't really like the idea of dragonborn or tieflings on the whole, so why include them? (but i have plyed both in other DM's campaigns, where they worked in the setting). Of course I make similar choices with monsters - i typically favor goblinoids in DND over orcs, so I run campaigs that are orcless (the half orc becomes a half-hobgoblin or something). I don't often have giants, and i pick either ogres or trolls, but seldom both (granted, as a miniatures painter, most of my decisions are based on what miniatures i have, or want to make, available).
I guess my bigger point is that I am going to make decsions on what classes or races are allowed based on my vision of the campaign, and this is a natural part of the DM's job. The PHB is a tool box not a mandate, and i use the tools to fashion a world where the group's collective storytelling takes place. As a DM is is my job to sell this vision to the players and make them want to play within the parameters. Of course it is a collective activity, if the players come to me a and say "we want a game with gnomes and halflings" it might open doors to a really interesting world...but the players are not entitlted to play any race or class simply because its in the PHB.
My question is why not try 5e the way it was published, and then go from there? By this I am focusing on the mechanical side of things and not so much on the flavor. If a race/class does not fit for flavor reasons in your world that is fine, but if you're removing them from the game due to a mechanic that seems "over powered", I think you're missing out on some things. Especially when you say that you don't pay attention to encounter guidelines. The game was designed with balance in mind. Yes previous editions had ways to break the game, going back to 2e (my first experience).
I'm sure you're a fine DM, since you have players that want to play in your games. My question to you as a potential player prospect would be, how much are you going to work with me as a player in helping develop things in my story/background and making it a part of your world? I'd ask your players this too, because if you're willing to work with all of them and really develop and make them a part of the world, that would be the only way I'd be on board with your restrictions.
Zardnaar wrote:
spelley wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zyph wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Have not read the entire thread, so someone may have mentioned this, but by 2nd Ed Dark Sun (the real one) canon, monks are part of the setting, they are called Sensei.
I am all for restrictions to enhance campaign flavour (no pixie samurai in my historical Greco-Roman campaign), but a cool thing about my ongoing Planescape campaign of 9 years is, almost literally, anything you want.
So far the campaign has seen: Aasimar, Bauriar, Drow, Genasi (fire), Gnome, Half-Celestial, Half-Giant/Goliath, Half-Orc, High Elf, Human, Mountain Dwarf, Thri-Kreen, Warforged.
Brock_Landers wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
CCS wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
CCS wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
I'm still curious as to why Zard needs restrictions. Sounds like from his descriptions of his group that they are all on the same page. Why "restrict" anything if the people you are playing with arn't going to go all "gonzo"?
Herrozerro wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
First of all, I know Bards and Druids fit the Arthurian world, but as The PCs would be knights (at least initially as I said) the classes don't fit into a party. As the world is more established, there may be good stories that arise out of adding bards or even a Druid into the party, but initially I'd not allow these classes simply to focus the tone.
Secondly, as a DM I want players to buy in to my vision... . I have reasons for disallowing classes and races, as they go against to tone and logic of the world. Or they don't interest me enought to put time and effort into working them into a story. Another time perhaps, I might want to run a campaign where dragonborn warlocks are the only magical option. I'm not making judgments about the relative power of a race or class, it's just that they don't fit my vision.
The reality is as a dm, I don't have the time or desire to invest in some flavor of the month charop punpun who is going to ruin the game for the rest of the party. I'm going to spend way more time on developing adventures and encounters which, with any luck, allow the players and I to tell great stories. I want and need players who buy into my vision and who will expand it and take it places within the framework I have built. As DM I don't owe the players anything beyond an interesting story and a fairly run game. They aren't entitled to any class or race, just because it's in a book somewhere. If they really want to play dragonborn warlocks or gnome barbarians, they can find a game that fits their interests and style, or run one themselves. I know this makes me sound like a tyrant, but really generating a game is a collective experience and I make a lot of effort to get players to buy into what I am doing, but I don't owe them anything. I'd rather not play at all than run a game where players simply wander around randomly with what ever characters give them the most dpr.
The dinner analogy is all wrong...it's more like if you want a Picasso, don't ask Rembrandt to paint it. Go find Picasso.
Jbickley00 wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I saw it asked, and wondered it myself, but haven't seen an answer:
Why move to 5e when you're just going to make it AD&D? It's not like you have to stop playing an edition just because a new one came out.
Yunru wrote:
It's not unexpected at all, you pick your class and race based on the synergy bonuses, and add feats that optimize your damage per round, and then come up with some cocked up background as to why you should have this particular build because a mountain dwarf wizard is so unexpected and exciting and would turn any campaign into the best one ever, especially my Arthurian campaign because it need dragonborn and gnomes to really work..... About 85% of the time players come to me with characters which don't fit the setting because they are min/maxed, not because there is really any interesting thought behind the character. (And yes I have had charop punpuns created by players within the restrictions I set forth as well)
I completely understand the potential of roleplaying. I know how to make stuff fresh and unexpected. The point is I play a setting as much as a game. So the rules of the setting trump the rules in the book. It would be awesome to play a kobold paladin on Athas, riding my warhorse into battle to liberate the people from the tyranny of the dragon-kings. But that's not in keeping with dark sun. How awesome and fresh would it be to wander around the forgotten realms as an Orc space marine with a heavy bolter? Oh wait, that doesn't fit the setting.
it is possible, believe it or not, to work withing restrictions and produce something unexpected and interesting, you don't have to be a dragonborn sorcerer to be interesting. I don't put limits because I am insensitive or un imaginative, I put limits because the campaign creates stories I want to hear...from myself and from my players.
This is not to say DMs don't have to work with players, it just means the tone of he setting is what we are playing. If you don't like the setting don't play that particular game.
Im not saying that more open ended, anything goes worlds are wrong, I enjoy playing with any dm who will let me bring my kobold paladin with his +5 holy avenger, but I don't want to DM that world. There's room to play different styles and different settings...the key is to understand the expectations before you start or join a game. I'm very up front with players and tell them what I am thinking from the get go. I listen to players and sometimes I am persuaded to change my mind, and sometimes not. That being said, if a player or players come to me with characters in mind and say "let's do a kobolds vs dragonborn campaign where my kobold sorcer is the only magic user in the world...well I might run with that too.
Zardnaar wrote:
I remember seeing something mentioned in 4e about an Undead (revenant) Dhampyr Vampire character which I thought was perhaps taking it a little far. 
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Just a few thoughts. It's your game and you can obviously do as you want, but these would be my reactions if I were a player at your table.
Zardnaar wrote:
Herrozerro wrote:
The monk is still out, the other classes are fine. The racial bannings are still in place but the PCs encountered their 1st Dragonborn (major villain race).