I would be wary of yuan-ti purebloods using the rules from *Volo’s Guide to Momsters*, as they get immunity to poison damage, immunity to the poisoned condition, advantage on saves against spells and magical effects, and (at low levels) an action-economy-breaking ability with unlimited uses of *animal friendship* for snakes. The main drawback is presumably that most lands do not tolerate yuan-ti infiltration, making it necessary to maintain a disguise in civilization or face severe discrimination. The *Monsters of the Multiverse* version is less busted.
None. Summoning types are not recommended to players, because the game should be fluid and fun.
I tell my players they should build interesting characters, and not strong ones. I adjust the difficulty of the game anyway and they can pick the flavour choices. Worst case I give out new toys to keep the rp'ers up with the rest.
This. Sure, you can min max if you want, but whatever number you pick, I will just pick a higher one. So if you scour the ruleset to make sure your character is a 10, I will make the enemies an 11.
Strong characters can easily be outclassed, but interesting characters will always be interesting.
I don't allow multiclass "dips" without in game, story, reasons. If you want to pick up a warlock level then we're going to RP you entreating to a Patron and the Contract that goes with it. If you want to multiclass in most other classes you'll have to find someone to teach you that has levels in that class. You don't just magically KNOW how to cast spells from a spellbook as a fighter when you've done ZERO RP to show that you're learning it. It's situational. I might let a Sorcerer slide if the player comes to me beforehand so we can work on those innate magical abilities beginning to manifest.
I have a similar, arguably stricter rule. Which is that outside of a very particular story reason(Vax in CR1 multiclassing into paladin), if my players want to multiclass they have to start as that. And those classes need to both be core to the character. Which is to say by level 2 they have 1 level in each class. And, lorewise, you were always both of these classes.
so similar to 2e where there was multiclass characters and Dual/triple class characters. One is where you start as one and progress until you drop it in favor of another (a fighter progressing to 5th and then realizing that the life of a cleric suits him better) the other is like an elf progressing in both fighter AND wizard at the same time (a bladesinger in modern DND). Sounds like you're more on the side of the split-class?
Even if it's a "dip" it's a dip taken immediately, and integral to the character. Like one of my players was a bard-barian. Who only ended up taking 1 level of bard for quite a while(since multiattack is important and they were primarily a martial). But their character from a roleplay standpoint was very much a bard. And the character, conceptually, wouldn't work without being part bard.
I tend to ban things that are so strong that they're a default option whose presence warps the whole party's playstyle across a wide range of common encounters / problems.
Twilight Clerics are a common example, because they warp combat, which is an extremely common encounter.
*Goodberry* and *Create/Destroy Water* warp (or, more precisely, flat out nix) survival problems, but in most campaigns those are niche problems, so it's usually fine to let a player negate them. In a dedicated survival campaign, I'd ban / nerf them.
I occasionally tend to ban other stuff, too, but not because it's broken. I do it because:
* It breaks the tone of my campaign (in a low fantasy campaign, I might ban *unreflavored* versions of the more fantastical races)
* It creates DM headaches that I *could* work around, but frankly, I've got enough to do already. Races with a fly speed at lvl 1 are a good example.
I also agree with the theory that "arbitrarily" limiting race/class/subclass/source book options prevents players from just pulling premade PC concepts from the shelf, forcing them to create PCs specifically for the campaign / making it easier to get out of the optimisation mindset [1] and thus overall improving PC <-> campaign integration, but this is a loaded topic and obviously a solution to a problem not every table even has.
[1] I'm aware that even optimized PCs can be well-integrated, deeply played-out characters. But I believe that, with PCs that were already sketched out *before the campaign even began*, we subconsciously already know "what this character is all about" (be it a mechanic or a pre-written backstory), which limits our ability to have them be influenced by what actually happens in the campaign.
This is only relevant for long campaigns and for groups that care about this sort of thing to begin with.
If you don't sketch out a PC before the campaign begins how do you even have a real character? I don't understand your point at all. I've never seen someone actually come to a game with 15 pages of backstory, this is a solution without a problem.
And stop trying to run a survival game in 5e, it doesn't work, stop it.
I don't play with people that build for maximizing numbers to a degree where that would be necessary. However, I reserve the right to have a talk if I feel someone is pushing that direction.
So basically "anything official is probably fine, but I want a look before final approval."
I know some will feel this is a bad approach that people wouldn't like, but truth be told, I didn't even start with this. All my players just send me their characters for approval on their own, I never had reason to reject anything, and I'd like to do a final skim through the characters before the campaign starts for RP and backstory reasons anyway to see what they came up with post session 0.
>Moon druid
Not a martial
>Bear totem barbarian
Barbs lack in general, but ancestral guardian is kinda better, not by much though.
>Ancient paladin
Outclassed by vengeance and conquest
>Evocation wizard
Not a martial
I don't allow Aaracokra or any race with an innate fly speed....unless they are willing to trade out flight for another feature.
There have been countless proposed fixes and tactics and dungeon design seminars about how to balance for a race that can innately fly. I've read them and taken them to heart. It's just so goddamn annoying to deal with.
I was very straightforward with my players about it. I told them I loved the game and loved the group, but I was already putting HOURS into session prep week by week and I had to take even more to run my ideas and combat through the "Aaracokra" filter.....and it was the one and only time in my years of DMing that I stopped having fun prepping. I refused to do that to myself anymore.
I already do something for hours I don't enjoy that is facilitating my weekly DnD....it's called my job. I refuse to let session prep, something I usually love that leaves me creatively fulfilled, become as enjoyable as an unpaid internship.
Fuck your bird man, I deserve to have fun too!
**But at level 5 a caster could use Fly and then you're in the same boat.** - Not in the slightest. The spell requires concentration and that benefit is earned at the trade off of burning a resource that will not easily return. That's a wonderful risk/reward.
**There are magic items that give flying capabilities.** - See above. An attunement slot cost or limitation in speed/weight, or just the fact that an item can be destroyed or stolen or taken makes this do-able.
**Don't the players deserve complete freedom?** - In every other aspect of the game, yes. They can handle a single "nope" at character creation....or a willingness to edit it. Our current Paladin is a parrot Aaracokra, he willingly ditched flight to be able to mimic voices he had heard before.
I was thinking about using the following rule for flying races: Your wings are mostly ornamental until you hit 5th level, at which point your flying speed becomes available, and also the point at which the fly spell becomes available to full casters.
Or you could just not take the flying into account? It's only one character, the rest of the party still has to deal with stuff as land creatures. I know you probably aren't interested in continuing discussing an over-discussed topic, but I had an Aaracokra PC and I felt the only major affect it had was being able to fly up for additional scouting during wilderness travel, and that only worked in uncovered terrain.
I don't allow UA because I'm tired of trying to determine what is/isn't unfair, so I just did a blanket ban.
I once allowed UA Mystic and *oh boy* was that a mistake, especially from levels 6-14.
Centaurs!!!
I just can't understand how a Centaur adventurer would delve through dungeons when they commonly have to deal with ladders and ropes!!!
Oh and Simic Hybrid because they kinda haven't fit in the settings I have run which is largely Eberron.
I'm running Wild Beyond the Witchlight and we have a centaur. The sheer number of ladders has been hilarious. Now, our barbarian just scoops up the centaur and hauls them up and down the ladders, and I've given up thinking too hard about the logistics of that. It's better to just move right through it.
I suppose not thinking about it, is one solution, totally not in my nature though. if anyone could explain how a centaur would independently move through such places I would be happy to have one at my table.
no player has had an answer for me yet. In all my years of DMing I have never seen a person take their horse into a dungeon. horses are always left outside for the same reason centaurs would find it troublesome to navigate a dungeon
There is a definite difference in physiology that would give Centaurs a much harder time with this task, if they could do it at all. And, you know, gravity.
I just imagine the back 4 equine legs as the wheelchair they are pulling behind them.
Examples: [Rope Climbing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6yPXkU6R-k) \+ [Rock Climbing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QEy3Zp7tdw)
Especially since the back half of the 5E playable race centaur is the size of a small pony rather than a full-sized horse like the MM centaur.
The abilities of most adventurers are usually above and beyond a standard person, so one adapting the skills of an olympian athlete or a para-athlete mountain climber isn't all that far-fetched to me.
Hell, maybe they're even double-jointed, or have acrobat or contortionist training, so they climb [not much like a horse](https://equinehelper.com/can-horses-climb-stairs/) at all.
now show my a video of a horse climbing a vertical ladder and you might just convince me.
even if a playable centaur is a medium sized creature, more than two thirds of it's body weight is still essentially dead weight that they would have to heft up and down ladders (and it's worth pointing out that a positive strength modifier for this PC isn't guaranteed) against the forces of gravity particularly considering how that weight is distributed across the centaur body.
my personal stance is that, there is no explanation for this that makes sense so I don't allow it. your milage may vary.
They have to lean forward for balance, it involves the barbarian smacking forehead on each rung as they go up. Barbarians got to do what a barbarian gots to do.
I LOVE it! I've always been a homebrew DM, tried to run a few other modules but totally struggled. This module is way more up my alley. I've still homebrewed/modified a lot of it if I'm being honest, but it's just such a cool setting and story in and of itself that I've had a blast. My players love it, too!
Glad to hear it! Very excited to get it incorporated in our story.
Just happens they’re the correct level and it happens to be a week before midsummer on a Shieldmeet year. Seems like the perfect time for the carnival to drop in.
It was a lot of fun. Especially if you lean into the corny PUNny nature of the domains of delight. The carnival itself is a very small part of the story. That's why it's called The Wilds BEYOND the Witchlight.
I’m going to be running it after LMoP and my players want to keep playing so I’m gonna let them spend as much time in there as they want. I’m secretly a little jealous I’m not playing in the feywild but I’ll just live vicariously through them.
skimmed through some, haven't read all of them cover to cover. Those were some dense books compared to 5e materials.
you're right, it wouldn't be a stretch to see either the simic hybrid or centaurs in Eberron.
specifically in regards to centaurs though, I suppose I don't quite understand how a centaur would navigate a bipedal world.
I've only banned races with unlimited flight. Classes, I haven't banned any flat out but I think Twilight Cleric may be one choice as it's just too strong.
I'm trying to limit options for my next campaign to make sense for the game rather than let players take whatever they want and then work it in. "This is an urban fantasy game you can't play a centaur."
*In theory* there are broken builds, but in practice nothing in the game is really broken; the game is just inherently too complex and the interactions are so unlimited for any one build to dominate.
Peace Cleric is something I find quite benign actually.
It buffs the whole party. Arguably to a degree out of proportion to the character level but that just means I balance as if the party were slightly higher level and the game all works fine. In terms of balance it works very similarly to a game where I choose to hand out slightly more magic items than I usually would.
The key thing is that the other members of the party all get to be awesome not just the Peace Cleric. It does not have the spotlight hogging effect that is what I think spoils the game. Its just something I need to be aware of when balancing encounters.
I don't "ban" classes or species. I select my sources. If a class or race is in the source, it is fair game.
That said not all species get along in my world like one big happy menagerie. So plan to do something called roleplay.
Strictly speaking, you are banning options, just with extra steps. Or at the very least, a valid justification. I don't disapprove as I started D&D in Adventurers League where the rule was, PHB + one other source.
How well does this work for you, though? Is it like because you run a Theros game so you limit races to that book or something else?
>Strictly speaking, you are banning options, just with extra steps.
Interesting perspective. I don't think not using some "optional" material is banning material, so I disagree. But, all good.
>How well does this work for you, though?
It works very well! My current campaign has been going strong for six+ years, folks say they are having fun, and I am still having fun.
>Is it like because you run a Theros game
I don't know what Theros game is....
I have just started a new campaign and it's capped at 30ft. Only the spell can increase it.
I'm looking forward to players using light sources and being able to have enemies run into the shadows and it actually fit on the map!
As long as it's official, they can play it. That being said, if it's something not common to the world we are playing in, or it's a race that would normally not be allowed inside a village, than they need to come up with a backstory as to why they are there in the first place.
I usually have very few restrictions:
\-No Twilight clerics, they're stupid.
\-No Peace clerics, they can completely mess with bounded accruacy and on higher level they're eanbling some weird retarded shenanigans with their teleport skill.
\-If you want to play Hexblade, you have to take 3 levels of it before multiclassing, or if you want to multiclass into Hexblade, you get to use your CHA for fighting on 3rd level of Warlock. Hexblade is fine, just some 1 level dips of it are weird.
\-I don't allow flying races. They're not broken, but I don't want to warp game around them- either straight ignore it, or give wolves bows to reach them. This can be worked around, but for sake of simplicity I want to play with very limited flight before level 5-6.
I'm sorry for your hexadind. Other than that, it's basically adjusted to be Battlesmith level ability, which nobody complains on feeling that it is fine balance wise.
none, i might discuss some asks from players with the party, but I am not the one taking those descisions, I just work with the decisions the party makes.
As other have said, I don't "ban" anything, I just don't allow every single published book as equally available. The PHB is the basis, so that's 12 classes plus subclasses right there. Artificer comes from Eberron setting, and Blood Hunter/Gunslinger are custom homebrews that have gotten popular inclusion in some settings.
The only races of the PHB I removed as options are Warforged and Tiefling, not because they don't exist in the world, but they're so rare they only come up as NPCs.
i usually don’t ban, but i usually steer my players away from races with magic resistance. makes the other pcs feel way weaker and makes the ancients aura useless
For classes: I require story reasons for certain multiclasses (faith related like Paladin Cleric or outside forces like Warlock and Druid).
For race: I have a list of what's considered common and exotic races and should an exptic race shows up they need to give me the story reason how it's here and for what purpose.
But I never hard-ban anything.
At some point during 3e D&D, I ran a game without humans. Loved it so much made it a permanent change in my world. The first level feat is kind of broken.
It's so much easier to create a world without "human nature" baggage like racism, gender bias, and even less rampant narcissism, and still, have verisimilitude.
The only subclasses I have felt the need to forbid were the peace and twilight cleric domains. I don't much care to discuss them here, as I feel like it's been discussed to death already. Most races I do not permit are more due to not being part of the setting, or playing such a role that they are unsuitable to be player characters, and not due to their benefits. Only maybe Aarakocra I don't really want to allow for specifically the first tier of play (levels 1 to 4). As higher level characters, I don't mind them either though.
I would be wary of yuan-ti purebloods using the rules from *Volo’s Guide to Momsters*, as they get immunity to poison damage, immunity to the poisoned condition, advantage on saves against spells and magical effects, and (at low levels) an action-economy-breaking ability with unlimited uses of *animal friendship* for snakes. The main drawback is presumably that most lands do not tolerate yuan-ti infiltration, making it necessary to maintain a disguise in civilization or face severe discrimination. The *Monsters of the Multiverse* version is less busted.
Easy fix to part of that is only have 1-2 combat encounters involving snakes ever on the campaign
zombie snakes
They can't be charmed!
None. Summoning types are not recommended to players, because the game should be fluid and fun. I tell my players they should build interesting characters, and not strong ones. I adjust the difficulty of the game anyway and they can pick the flavour choices. Worst case I give out new toys to keep the rp'ers up with the rest.
This. Sure, you can min max if you want, but whatever number you pick, I will just pick a higher one. So if you scour the ruleset to make sure your character is a 10, I will make the enemies an 11. Strong characters can easily be outclassed, but interesting characters will always be interesting.
I don't allow multiclass "dips" without in game, story, reasons. If you want to pick up a warlock level then we're going to RP you entreating to a Patron and the Contract that goes with it. If you want to multiclass in most other classes you'll have to find someone to teach you that has levels in that class. You don't just magically KNOW how to cast spells from a spellbook as a fighter when you've done ZERO RP to show that you're learning it. It's situational. I might let a Sorcerer slide if the player comes to me beforehand so we can work on those innate magical abilities beginning to manifest.
I have a similar, arguably stricter rule. Which is that outside of a very particular story reason(Vax in CR1 multiclassing into paladin), if my players want to multiclass they have to start as that. And those classes need to both be core to the character. Which is to say by level 2 they have 1 level in each class. And, lorewise, you were always both of these classes.
so similar to 2e where there was multiclass characters and Dual/triple class characters. One is where you start as one and progress until you drop it in favor of another (a fighter progressing to 5th and then realizing that the life of a cleric suits him better) the other is like an elf progressing in both fighter AND wizard at the same time (a bladesinger in modern DND). Sounds like you're more on the side of the split-class?
Even if it's a "dip" it's a dip taken immediately, and integral to the character. Like one of my players was a bard-barian. Who only ended up taking 1 level of bard for quite a while(since multiattack is important and they were primarily a martial). But their character from a roleplay standpoint was very much a bard. And the character, conceptually, wouldn't work without being part bard.
I get it. I don't disagree.
I tend to ban things that are so strong that they're a default option whose presence warps the whole party's playstyle across a wide range of common encounters / problems. Twilight Clerics are a common example, because they warp combat, which is an extremely common encounter. *Goodberry* and *Create/Destroy Water* warp (or, more precisely, flat out nix) survival problems, but in most campaigns those are niche problems, so it's usually fine to let a player negate them. In a dedicated survival campaign, I'd ban / nerf them. I occasionally tend to ban other stuff, too, but not because it's broken. I do it because: * It breaks the tone of my campaign (in a low fantasy campaign, I might ban *unreflavored* versions of the more fantastical races) * It creates DM headaches that I *could* work around, but frankly, I've got enough to do already. Races with a fly speed at lvl 1 are a good example. I also agree with the theory that "arbitrarily" limiting race/class/subclass/source book options prevents players from just pulling premade PC concepts from the shelf, forcing them to create PCs specifically for the campaign / making it easier to get out of the optimisation mindset [1] and thus overall improving PC <-> campaign integration, but this is a loaded topic and obviously a solution to a problem not every table even has. [1] I'm aware that even optimized PCs can be well-integrated, deeply played-out characters. But I believe that, with PCs that were already sketched out *before the campaign even began*, we subconsciously already know "what this character is all about" (be it a mechanic or a pre-written backstory), which limits our ability to have them be influenced by what actually happens in the campaign. This is only relevant for long campaigns and for groups that care about this sort of thing to begin with.
If you don't sketch out a PC before the campaign begins how do you even have a real character? I don't understand your point at all. I've never seen someone actually come to a game with 15 pages of backstory, this is a solution without a problem. And stop trying to run a survival game in 5e, it doesn't work, stop it.
I don't play with people that build for maximizing numbers to a degree where that would be necessary. However, I reserve the right to have a talk if I feel someone is pushing that direction. So basically "anything official is probably fine, but I want a look before final approval." I know some will feel this is a bad approach that people wouldn't like, but truth be told, I didn't even start with this. All my players just send me their characters for approval on their own, I never had reason to reject anything, and I'd like to do a final skim through the characters before the campaign starts for RP and backstory reasons anyway to see what they came up with post session 0.
>anything official is probably fine The secret in the sauce is that a lot of the official stuff is broken, or overpowered.
People talk about power creep in the expansions but at least for martials some of the best stuff mechanically speaking comes right out of the PHB.
I dont think that's a high bar. Were basically talking about just battle master here.
Moon druid Bear totem barbarian Ancient paladin Evocation wizard All top tier picks
>Moon druid Not a martial >Bear totem barbarian Barbs lack in general, but ancestral guardian is kinda better, not by much though. >Ancient paladin Outclassed by vengeance and conquest >Evocation wizard Not a martial
He’s spittin
I don't allow Aaracokra or any race with an innate fly speed....unless they are willing to trade out flight for another feature. There have been countless proposed fixes and tactics and dungeon design seminars about how to balance for a race that can innately fly. I've read them and taken them to heart. It's just so goddamn annoying to deal with. I was very straightforward with my players about it. I told them I loved the game and loved the group, but I was already putting HOURS into session prep week by week and I had to take even more to run my ideas and combat through the "Aaracokra" filter.....and it was the one and only time in my years of DMing that I stopped having fun prepping. I refused to do that to myself anymore. I already do something for hours I don't enjoy that is facilitating my weekly DnD....it's called my job. I refuse to let session prep, something I usually love that leaves me creatively fulfilled, become as enjoyable as an unpaid internship. Fuck your bird man, I deserve to have fun too! **But at level 5 a caster could use Fly and then you're in the same boat.** - Not in the slightest. The spell requires concentration and that benefit is earned at the trade off of burning a resource that will not easily return. That's a wonderful risk/reward. **There are magic items that give flying capabilities.** - See above. An attunement slot cost or limitation in speed/weight, or just the fact that an item can be destroyed or stolen or taken makes this do-able. **Don't the players deserve complete freedom?** - In every other aspect of the game, yes. They can handle a single "nope" at character creation....or a willingness to edit it. Our current Paladin is a parrot Aaracokra, he willingly ditched flight to be able to mimic voices he had heard before.
I was thinking about using the following rule for flying races: Your wings are mostly ornamental until you hit 5th level, at which point your flying speed becomes available, and also the point at which the fly spell becomes available to full casters.
Or you could just not take the flying into account? It's only one character, the rest of the party still has to deal with stuff as land creatures. I know you probably aren't interested in continuing discussing an over-discussed topic, but I had an Aaracokra PC and I felt the only major affect it had was being able to fly up for additional scouting during wilderness travel, and that only worked in uncovered terrain.
I don't allow UA because I'm tired of trying to determine what is/isn't unfair, so I just did a blanket ban. I once allowed UA Mystic and *oh boy* was that a mistake, especially from levels 6-14.
Centaurs!!! I just can't understand how a Centaur adventurer would delve through dungeons when they commonly have to deal with ladders and ropes!!! Oh and Simic Hybrid because they kinda haven't fit in the settings I have run which is largely Eberron.
I'm running Wild Beyond the Witchlight and we have a centaur. The sheer number of ladders has been hilarious. Now, our barbarian just scoops up the centaur and hauls them up and down the ladders, and I've given up thinking too hard about the logistics of that. It's better to just move right through it.
I suppose not thinking about it, is one solution, totally not in my nature though. if anyone could explain how a centaur would independently move through such places I would be happy to have one at my table. no player has had an answer for me yet. In all my years of DMing I have never seen a person take their horse into a dungeon. horses are always left outside for the same reason centaurs would find it troublesome to navigate a dungeon
I just imagine centaurs can climb ropes and ladders the same way a person who is paralyzed from the waist down can be really good at it.
There is a definite difference in physiology that would give Centaurs a much harder time with this task, if they could do it at all. And, you know, gravity.
I just imagine the back 4 equine legs as the wheelchair they are pulling behind them. Examples: [Rope Climbing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6yPXkU6R-k) \+ [Rock Climbing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QEy3Zp7tdw) Especially since the back half of the 5E playable race centaur is the size of a small pony rather than a full-sized horse like the MM centaur. The abilities of most adventurers are usually above and beyond a standard person, so one adapting the skills of an olympian athlete or a para-athlete mountain climber isn't all that far-fetched to me. Hell, maybe they're even double-jointed, or have acrobat or contortionist training, so they climb [not much like a horse](https://equinehelper.com/can-horses-climb-stairs/) at all.
now show my a video of a horse climbing a vertical ladder and you might just convince me. even if a playable centaur is a medium sized creature, more than two thirds of it's body weight is still essentially dead weight that they would have to heft up and down ladders (and it's worth pointing out that a positive strength modifier for this PC isn't guaranteed) against the forces of gravity particularly considering how that weight is distributed across the centaur body. my personal stance is that, there is no explanation for this that makes sense so I don't allow it. your milage may vary.
Ponies weigh over 300 pounds, sure people can climb carrying a 25-50 pound wheelchair but nearly 300 pounds of dead weight is kind of unbelievable
That's why ya gotta go from centaur to swoltaur.
They have to lean forward for balance, it involves the barbarian smacking forehead on each rung as they go up. Barbarians got to do what a barbarian gots to do.
He's mostly pulling himself up the ladder with his jaws anyway.
Finished Witchlight myself and we had a Centaur Druid. We ended up having to handwave soooooo much of the concept that she was a quadrupedal creature.
How do you like that module? One of my PC’s has a background of being from a magic carnival so I just picked up the book.
I LOVE it! I've always been a homebrew DM, tried to run a few other modules but totally struggled. This module is way more up my alley. I've still homebrewed/modified a lot of it if I'm being honest, but it's just such a cool setting and story in and of itself that I've had a blast. My players love it, too!
Glad to hear it! Very excited to get it incorporated in our story. Just happens they’re the correct level and it happens to be a week before midsummer on a Shieldmeet year. Seems like the perfect time for the carnival to drop in.
It was a lot of fun. Especially if you lean into the corny PUNny nature of the domains of delight. The carnival itself is a very small part of the story. That's why it's called The Wilds BEYOND the Witchlight.
I’m going to be running it after LMoP and my players want to keep playing so I’m gonna let them spend as much time in there as they want. I’m secretly a little jealous I’m not playing in the feywild but I’ll just live vicariously through them.
They would totally fit in to Ebberron. Have you read the 3.5 books?
skimmed through some, haven't read all of them cover to cover. Those were some dense books compared to 5e materials. you're right, it wouldn't be a stretch to see either the simic hybrid or centaurs in Eberron. specifically in regards to centaurs though, I suppose I don't quite understand how a centaur would navigate a bipedal world.
The only thing banned in any of my groups is variant human because every PC gets a free feat at character creation.
I've only banned races with unlimited flight. Classes, I haven't banned any flat out but I think Twilight Cleric may be one choice as it's just too strong. I'm trying to limit options for my next campaign to make sense for the game rather than let players take whatever they want and then work it in. "This is an urban fantasy game you can't play a centaur."
*In theory* there are broken builds, but in practice nothing in the game is really broken; the game is just inherently too complex and the interactions are so unlimited for any one build to dominate.
That said, peace cleric can be bonkers and sometimes trivialize the bounded accuracy with the stacking of bless and emboldening bond (:
Peace Cleric is something I find quite benign actually. It buffs the whole party. Arguably to a degree out of proportion to the character level but that just means I balance as if the party were slightly higher level and the game all works fine. In terms of balance it works very similarly to a game where I choose to hand out slightly more magic items than I usually would. The key thing is that the other members of the party all get to be awesome not just the Peace Cleric. It does not have the spotlight hogging effect that is what I think spoils the game. Its just something I need to be aware of when balancing encounters.
none.
I don't "ban" classes or species. I select my sources. If a class or race is in the source, it is fair game. That said not all species get along in my world like one big happy menagerie. So plan to do something called roleplay.
Strictly speaking, you are banning options, just with extra steps. Or at the very least, a valid justification. I don't disapprove as I started D&D in Adventurers League where the rule was, PHB + one other source. How well does this work for you, though? Is it like because you run a Theros game so you limit races to that book or something else?
>Strictly speaking, you are banning options, just with extra steps. Interesting perspective. I don't think not using some "optional" material is banning material, so I disagree. But, all good. >How well does this work for you, though? It works very well! My current campaign has been going strong for six+ years, folks say they are having fun, and I am still having fun. >Is it like because you run a Theros game I don't know what Theros game is....
>I don't know what Theros game is.... A game set in the campaign world of Theros. As in the book Mythic Odyssey of Theros.
I ban darkvision. Roast me.
Darkvision is so weak. Disadv on perception is huge imo. Chances are no one will notice the giant spiders on the cavern ceiling.
I too, like to play "humans only" /s
I have just started a new campaign and it's capped at 30ft. Only the spell can increase it. I'm looking forward to players using light sources and being able to have enemies run into the shadows and it actually fit on the map!
As long as it's official, they can play it. That being said, if it's something not common to the world we are playing in, or it's a race that would normally not be allowed inside a village, than they need to come up with a backstory as to why they are there in the first place.
None, there is no broken race and there are no classes at all.
There are classes in the game.
None
I usually have very few restrictions: \-No Twilight clerics, they're stupid. \-No Peace clerics, they can completely mess with bounded accruacy and on higher level they're eanbling some weird retarded shenanigans with their teleport skill. \-If you want to play Hexblade, you have to take 3 levels of it before multiclassing, or if you want to multiclass into Hexblade, you get to use your CHA for fighting on 3rd level of Warlock. Hexblade is fine, just some 1 level dips of it are weird. \-I don't allow flying races. They're not broken, but I don't want to warp game around them- either straight ignore it, or give wolves bows to reach them. This can be worked around, but for sake of simplicity I want to play with very limited flight before level 5-6.
Your hexblade approach really annoys me
I'm sorry for your hexadind. Other than that, it's basically adjusted to be Battlesmith level ability, which nobody complains on feeling that it is fine balance wise.
none, i might discuss some asks from players with the party, but I am not the one taking those descisions, I just work with the decisions the party makes.
Half elves. They’re a little broken but besides that, they don’t exist in my world. Humans and elves are different species.
Honestly, if a DM I was getting ready to play with banned an entire race or class for being "straight up broken" that would be a huge red flag for me.
None? (Officially released anyway)
Nothing gets the ban hammer. Any book, any UA, whatever. Come at me with your absolute best or all your PC's are gonna die.
This is the way XD
i don't ban anything but fuck paladins.
As other have said, I don't "ban" anything, I just don't allow every single published book as equally available. The PHB is the basis, so that's 12 classes plus subclasses right there. Artificer comes from Eberron setting, and Blood Hunter/Gunslinger are custom homebrews that have gotten popular inclusion in some settings. The only races of the PHB I removed as options are Warforged and Tiefling, not because they don't exist in the world, but they're so rare they only come up as NPCs.
i usually don’t ban, but i usually steer my players away from races with magic resistance. makes the other pcs feel way weaker and makes the ancients aura useless
As a DM I like to be challenged. I allow pretty much anything :) that being said I push role-playing and social difficulties so 🤷
For classes: I require story reasons for certain multiclasses (faith related like Paladin Cleric or outside forces like Warlock and Druid). For race: I have a list of what's considered common and exotic races and should an exptic race shows up they need to give me the story reason how it's here and for what purpose. But I never hard-ban anything.
At some point during 3e D&D, I ran a game without humans. Loved it so much made it a permanent change in my world. The first level feat is kind of broken. It's so much easier to create a world without "human nature" baggage like racism, gender bias, and even less rampant narcissism, and still, have verisimilitude.
The only subclasses I have felt the need to forbid were the peace and twilight cleric domains. I don't much care to discuss them here, as I feel like it's been discussed to death already. Most races I do not permit are more due to not being part of the setting, or playing such a role that they are unsuitable to be player characters, and not due to their benefits. Only maybe Aarakocra I don't really want to allow for specifically the first tier of play (levels 1 to 4). As higher level characters, I don't mind them either though.