Which offical content do you allow/not allow and why?

[Helldin87]

Hey all-

I know in my campaign I allow all official wizards content as long as the players have it on dnd beyond since that's where we keep our character sheets. From a DM point of view it allows me to see their sheets and read their abilities (can't know EVERY subclass off the top of my head). I purchase a lot of the modules as they come out and make them available to my PCs with my DM subscription.

Anyway I have noticed several posts saying where people say they don't allow SCAG or another book. In AL they use the PHB+1 rule and I think that allows for thematic sense I see how you can argue a PC comes from the sword coast and therefore SCAG makes sense or from the universe of Ebberron and that module makes sense. Mixing those two could cause problems I suppose? I personally just don't see a problem with it that can't be solved by DMing.

What's been your experience? Do your PC's all insist on having BB and GFB for their warforged hexblade? If so did it break the game and render it less fun?

[Man_Over_Game]

I think limiting it to PHB + 1 is fine if balance is your concern, but it does make the game a bit less fun while having a bit fewer options.

------------

In my games, the only two things I'm set on is modifying:
Hexblade's level 1 (Making it so it matches the rest of the class as a curse/affliction character, less melee)
Changes to Pact Weapon (To fill in what the Hexblade lost)
GWM and SS (To only be able to -5/+10 on attacks from the Attack action)

After those changes, there's not much that I've seen that really requires much considering of boosts from mixing books. Cantrip sword attacks are cool, but the classes that need them most (Rogue, Bladesinger, Sorcerer) are all in the same book anyway, so not allowing books to mingle isn't doing much.

------------

There is one exception, though. I'm not a huge fan of the Volo's races. It's pretty hard to justify playing a monstrous race in most of my campaigns, so unless it's like some kind of curse, or unless you have a very good reason to be a real monster race, it'll be rare to see one at my games.

That, and level 1 flight from a race is pretty bonkers. It's fun and cool and it has ways of being dealt with, but it can be a bit much.

[MilkmanDanimal]

All official content, no restrictions. Running one campaign where nobody cares about optimization at all and is just playing what they think is fun, playing/DMing in another (one of those big West Marches-type campaigns with 25 players and shifting DMs) where out of the probably 25 characters, there's a grand total of one super-optimized guy who's playing a Champion/Bear Totem GWM murder hobo who crit-annihilates everything, but everybody else is just making whatever fun concepts spring to mind. While I'm leery about that guy's damage output (even though he's a fun character behind the murdering), that's what low-level cleric evil minions with Hold Person are for.

Granted, it's almost entirely long-running D&D veterans who are 40+ so I think we all had our optimization/powergaming days years back so nobody is really trying to do anything crazy, but I've had zero issues at all with allowing everything that's official, and everybody is focusing on creative character concepts rather than spawning SS/XBE deathdealers.

[KorvinStarmast]

Which offical content do you allow/not allow and why? Published books? Check. Published Adventures? Check.
Not allowed when I am the DM:
Yuan Ti PCs. (Should have stayed in UA as currently written).
Tiefling PCs. (Unless we are in Planescape)

Anything to do with MtG ported into D&D: nope, play that at a different table.

UA: on a case by case basis, usually not though.

We did have a PC playing the DMG eladrin but he left the group. (Moved, and new job).

[DrownsInCancer]

I usually allow some of UA's additional content, especially the new subclasses because Draconic and Wild Magic aren't that viable imo and also the revised ranger. I like having more variety and character options because I can develop more nations of that particular race and make a non-generic world. It's ultimately up to you though.

[Rusvul]

Races: all published races permitted in theory, but all PCs have to make sense for the context of the game, so in practice I typically write out a list of races that make sense and then ask my players to run anything not on that list by me first. I'll sometimes do a similar thing with classes: in my current game, all my PCs are enlisted soldiers, so I asked them to run any classes outside of a set list by me first. (Normally I wouldn't do this, but everyone was on board for a military game, and no-one had an issue with the pseudo-restricted classes.)

Everything else: All published books. UA on a case-by-case basis, except for Revised Ranger, which is allowed as-is.

[Sception]

All crunch from any first party published book (fluff may be re-worked to fit whatever setting I'm running), with the exception of flying races

UA, 3rd party, & homebrew stuff on a case by case basis.

Some homebrew adjustments would be implemented for odd interactions (eg: would homebrew away coffeelocks, if my adjusted rest system - short rests take 10 minutes but a character only gets two per long rest - didn't already fix them) if something comes up, but so far nothing really has.

[Laserlight]

I wouldn't allow flying races, nor most monster races in a regular campaign (although "you're all thrown together in a new world and must learn to cooperate" or "you're all goblinkin defending against the evil elves and humans" would be okay). Otherwise, published books, including SCAG, are okay. Stuff from UA I'd have to look into as a case by case basis. No MTG ports although I doubt our group would ever ask for it anyway.

No kender of any sort ever under any circumstances.

Specific campaigns may ban specific races or combinations. Our most recent campaign, the players asked for a ban on elves and dwarves.

[BaconAwesome]

I nerf PC flight, and don't allow Eberron. (Because my campaign is in Faerun, and because I think warforged are OP).

[Nhorianscum]

For homebrew campains: Rolled stats.

I generally blanket ban unlimited level 1 flight and call it a day for published books.

For UA I disallow dipping mystic (3 levels or less) due to wonkyness and headaches on my end.

Past this full optimization (build and or play) is encouraged, but I tend to run 6-8 deadly+ encounters a day so char-op ain't exactly breaking anything.

For official modules: SA or PB.

PHB+1 added to the above with any given UA counting as a +1. No cross-setting material.

[jas61292]

Flying Races, Hexblade and a few of the combat feats are banned at my group's table. Other exotic races are allowed at the DM's discretion, which when I'm DM usually grabs that any non-flying race is allowed so long as there is a good explanation. Oh, except variant humans. But I prefer to think of that as just not using an optional rule, rather than banning something.

[Arctus Tyrvar]

All published material is perfectly fine at my games. Except the unlimited level 1 flight options. Generally they are just disallowed unless someone expresses an interest, then we can work on a compromise.

UA material is a case by case basis, but generally I'll always allow it.

The only other real stipulation at my tables is when I'm DM'ing. All humans are banned. Or more specifically, humans are extinct in my world, thus monstrous races are common place.

[sithlordnergal]

I generally run with the rule PHB+2, a book for classes and spells, and a book for races. If you wish to use UA or Homebrew, run it by me first, outside of that anything goes. I've yet to find a race/class/spell combo that can't be countered.

[Keravath]

All published material is perfectly fine at my games. Except the unlimited level 1 flight options. Generally they are just disallowed unless someone expresses an interest, then we can work on a compromise.

UA material is a case by case basis, but generally I'll always allow it.

The only other real stipulation at my tables is when I'm DM'ing. All humans are banned. Or more specifically, humans are extinct in my world, thus monstrous races are common place.

That might be a cool world to actually play a human brought back by true resurrection by some anthropologist studying the remains of their ancient civilization or alternatively a human who had been caught in an imprisonment spell in a bygone age with the release condition being 1000 years after the last human (other than you) is dead. :) ... perhaps cast by a vindictive elf :)

[Helldin87]

I think limiting it to PHB + 1 is fine if balance is your concern, but it does make the game a bit less fun while having a bit fewer options.

------------

In my games, the only two things I'm set on is modifying:
Hexblade's level 1 (Making it so it matches the rest of the class as a curse/affliction character, less melee)
Changes to Pact Weapon (To fill in what the Hexblade lost)
GWM and SS (To only be able to -5/+10 on attacks from the Attack action)

After those changes, there's not much that I've seen that really requires much considering of boosts from mixing books. Cantrip sword attacks are cool, but the classes that need them most (Rogue, Bladesinger, Sorcerer) are all in the same book anyway, so not allowing books to mingle isn't doing much.

------------

There is one exception, though. I'm not a huge fan of the Volo's races. It's pretty hard to justify playing a monstrous race in most of my campaigns, so unless it's like some kind of curse, or unless you have a very good reason to be a real monster race, it'll be rare to see one at my games.

That, and level 1 flight from a race is pretty bonkers. It's fun and cool and it has ways of being dealt with, but it can be a bit much.

I agree with the volo races. I don't have it unlocked on dndbeyond ( i own the hardcover) and that's OK with me. They aren't that interesting unless of course the whole party is monstrous.

[LudicSavant]

I allow all material in books, except for races with unlimited flight at level 1 and Simulacrum.

[Inscrutable]

What's been your experience? Do your PC's all insist on having BB and GFB for their warforged hexblade? If so did it break the game and render it less fun?

I allow anything from Volo's or Xanathar's, but nothing else. In my latest campaign, I have modified the entire lore of D&D to remove magic and replace it with my homebrewed system and so have to do the same with any additional material. I have a hard time keeping track of even those two extras.

[Helldin87]

I nerf PC flight, and don't allow Eberron. (Because my campaign is in Faerun, and because I think warforged are OP).

How do you nerf flight? I have one aarakroa in my game and he doesn't seem to abuse his flight too hard. It helps that most of our encounters seem to occur indoors. I also took the time to make sure he understood the peril of flying and becoming incapacitated (highly probable death).

[Helldin87]

I generally run with the rule PHB+2, a book for classes and spells, and a book for races. If you wish to use UA or Homebrew, run it by me first, outside of that anything goes. I've yet to find a race/class/spell combo that can't be countered.

I like your answer. It seems to me that most things have a hard counter and if nothing else if a PC is sufficiently threatening they will undoubtedly attract a lot of NPC attention in combat. "Hey look at the flying guy! Better get him with a bunch of arrows to stop that nonsense quickly!"

[MilkmanDanimal]

I'm not a huge fan of the monster races, but I'm playing with a Goblin Paladin in a campaign, and he's made a great character. Essentially adopted by a Paladin when he was lost and young, Paladin dies, he takes up the mantle and tries to fulfill his legacy, but is dumb as a stump and is basically playing Goblin Don Quixote. It's pretty great, but he's worked a backstory to make it make sense.

Perfectly fine with monstrous races, but they need to have a hook like that one for it to work for me.

[sithlordnergal]

I like your answer. It seems to me that most things have a hard counter and if nothing else if a PC is sufficiently threatening they will undoubtedly attract a lot of NPC attention in combat. "Hey look at the flying guy! Better get him with a bunch of arrows to stop that nonsense quickly!"

Oh, you can get far worse with flying then just arrows. Hold Person and Tasha's Hideous Laughter will knock anything that's flying with wings out of the sky, and grappling, Catapult+Net, ranged weapons, moving into cover with a roof works too.

[Man_Over_Game]

Oh, you can get far worse with flying then just arrows. Hold Person and Tasha's Hideous Laughter will knock anything that's flying with wings out of the sky, and grappling, Catapult+Net, ranged weapons, moving into cover with a roof works too.

It's a bit weak and niche, but one spell that is often forgotten about is Earthbind. While it isn't very strong in power (reduces flying speed to 0, doesn't cause fall damage), it does have a ludicrously long range. Having a 30 foot range for Tasha's isn't going to be reliable, but a 300 foot range option will work perfectly.

[EggKookoo]

In theory I allow anything published by WotC. In practice I review everything, even "default" stuff out of the PHB and DMG. I don't do major mechanical homebrewing but I have little tweaks scattered throughout.

In actual experience my players let me tell them what's possible. I don't have the kinds of players who go buy sourcebooks and work on builds. They say things like "can I cast spells?" or "I just want to be the dude who hits things" or "I want to be sneaky" and then I make suggestions. Makes it easy to control content.

[Trustypeaches]

I allow virtually everything at baseline, but filter content through depending on the group or campaign.

[JAL_1138]

I ask people not to make blatant exploit characters like coffeelocks. I also nerf Healing Spirit so it only works once per round, not once per creature per round, instead of allowing conga-lines of absurd amounts of out-of-combat healing. I also ask divine casters and warlocks to work within setting limitations (which can limit what domain is available to what cleric, or how a paladin might interact with their oath and deity, or how a warlock interacts with requirements of their patron).

As for UA, if it doesn’t seem broken or detrimental, I’ll usually allow it, but I ask players to run it by me first, and don’t allow Artificer or Mystic. I replace PHB ranger with Revised Ranger by default. If the published version of a thing comes out and is better than the UA, I’ll allow the player to switch to the published version if they want. If the published version of a thing is extremely underwhelming and the UA isn’t broken, I’m likely to allow the UA version over the published one (and am willing to work with the group to un-break it if it is kinda broken in an easily fixable way that doesn’t require a full-blown redesign and the published version is still problematic for some reason or other).

Homebrew (that the group hasn’t developed fixing a UA or coming up with a way to represent a concept) would probably be a nonstarter.

Never use Dandwiki. Ever. For any reason.

Of course, if I’m running League, I’m limited to what’s League-legal, but I haven’t played or run League since the big changes to treasure and XP in Season 8 dropped.

[sithlordnergal]

It's a bit weak and niche, but one spell that is often forgotten about is Earthbind. While it isn't very strong in power (reduces flying speed to 0, doesn't cause fall damage), it does have a ludicrously long range. Having a 30 foot range for Tasha's isn't going to be reliable, but a 300 foot range option will work perfectly.

Ohhh, I had not heard of that spell before. That is far better then Tasha's. It completely shuts down flying creatures.

[LudicSavant]

It's a bit weak and niche, but one spell that is often forgotten about is Earthbind. While it isn't very strong in power (reduces flying speed to 0, doesn't cause fall damage), it does have a ludicrously long range. Having a 30 foot range for Tasha's isn't going to be reliable, but a 300 foot range option will work perfectly.

Honestly it's still too short to target Sharpshooter Aarakocra and the like.

[sithlordnergal]

Honestly it's still too short to target Sharpshooter Aarakocra and the like.

I mean, if you're beyond 150 feet you're at disadvantage with a longbow, while Fog Cloud and Darkness make it worse since you can't see your targets and you're too far away to hear them clearly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The only thing I restrict from 1st-party published material is races. Specifically, all the races exist, but some haven't been discovered yet (living campaign world).


My current list is

Core:
Gnomes and drow are not discovered, but exist and will be playable once discovered. All others available for play.

Volo's
Aarokocra, firbolg, grung, kenku, lizardfolk, tabaxi, and triton are not yet discovered but exist and will be playable.
Orcs use half-orc stats.
Kobolds exist and are discovered, but haven't come into the light yet. They may get some modifications before seeing play.
Goblins and bugbears are common, but due to heavy homebrew on their origin require DM approval.
Hobgoblins, aasimar, and yuan-ti purebloods are normally playable.

MToF
Gith (both varieties) exist but are undiscovered.
Shadar-kai exist, undiscovered.

Other
*Eladrin, goliath, tortles, and shifters, exist and may be playable soon.
*Instead of warforged I have soulforged (https://www.admiralbenbo.org/index.php/the-council-lands/people-and-places/14-people-places-and-factions/73-soul-forged-living-constructs), a homebrew race that fits the same niche.
*Genasi are playable already.


I allow any published class or spell (with a watchful eye for shenanigans) and allow custom spells, sub-classes, and even base classes with my approval. Although I allow multiclassing and feats, I have yet to have anyone multiclass, and the combat feats (CBE/SS/GWM/PAM) have not seen use. The most common feat taken is mobile, with lucky a close runner-up.

I allow UA on a case-by-case basis.

[Sigreid]

I allow everything released in a book.

[DarkKnightJin]

Last time I ran a game, I allowed everything officially released, besides the Ravnica stuff. That was too new, and I hadn't had a chance to read through it for what the races can do yet.

If it's UA, I might allow it on a case by case basis.

If someone wants to play a monstrous race (bar Yuan-ti Pureblood), I just ask that they have a good reason for being an adventurer.

I as a player make sure that my PC has a good reason to be out being an Adventurer. Or at the very least a reason to meet up with the rest of the party and get the ball rolling.

[LudicSavant]

I mean, if you're beyond 150 feet you're at disadvantage with a longbow

This is wrong. See the very first benefit of Sharpshooter:



Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.

[Spriteless]

I allow most things that don't sound evil. So Yuan-Ti and OoC Palis are banned for non-balance reasons. So are Death domain and eeeevil paladin from DMG.

I prefer UA content when it fills a niche that isn't filled yet by the books, but I still eyeball it. The Dragonmarked feats I split into pairs of feats, since 3-4 spells is a bit much for one feat, even if they are utility. 2 spells and +1 to a stat that you use for casting feels more balanced.

[strangebloke]

Banned:

bugbears. They're silly. +5 foot reach? Who wrote up these noodle-armed weirdos?
Lucky. Too many players agonizing over whether to use it or not. Plus its a little weird on the fiction side, IMO.
Kenku. Too silly for my games.

modified:

GWM, PAM, and a few other feats.

Overall, for balance purposes, I'm a much bigger fan of nerfing things than buffing them. Buffs can create something horrifically overpowered that breaks the game. Nerfs at worst just remove a single option from the game.

[Glorthindel]

I permit only published books (so no UA), ban flying races or anything campaign-setting specific if we aren't playing in that setting (so no elven double-bladed weapon or warforged outside Eberron), and heavily restrict monster races (requiring a discussion regarding how the character will play it, and making clear I wont be pulling punches when it comes to NPC reactions to their character). Most importantly I ban multiclassing that isn't sufficiently justified in character (and make it very clear that I will frown upon class dipping)

[Lance Tankmen]

Multclassing, dont feel like debating i just dont

The ravinca races, they dont fit in my homebrew.

any UA, its hit or miss, either op or underpowered

bout it long as its in the book its in game

[Zhorn]

Published Books: Anything that someone in the group can bring to the table.
Suppliment material: It it's official WotC, then it's good if they can have it on hand to reference (grungs, tortles, etc.)
UA: Subject to DM approval.

If my players want to pick a monstrous or alien race for their character, I'm inclined to say yes, but I let them know that if they want to look the part, the npc's will treat them as such if they don't have some normal looking folk in the party to cover for them.

[Porcupinata]

My campaigns usually have the following:

Every race/class from the non-campaign-specific books (PHB, Volo's, Xanathar's, Mordenkainen's) is used - except for the "monster races" from Volos.
We don't use multiclassing.
We do use feats, but we don't use the variant human.
Material from the campaign-specific books (SCAG and Ravinica) isn't used.
Material from the Elemental Evil Player's Companion is theoretically used, but in most cases it is superseded by book reprinted versions (any EE spells are replaced by their Xanathar's equivalent, and the Svirfneblin is replaced by its Mordenkainen's equivalent) leaving only the Genasi and Aarakocra as things from that booklet that we still use.

[NRSASD]

Anything from any of the official books (except Ravnica, haven't read it yet), plus the Revised Ranger, with the following exceptions:

Races: Drow, Aasimar, and Dragonborn are banned for campaign/plot reasons. You can persuade me on that, but it'll take a lot of work. V. Human is also banned, but that's because all races get a free feat at level 1.

Classes: Grave Cleric and Hexblade. I've got a homebrew critical hit system which makes crits a lot scarier, so any class that can just announce they're getting a crit is extremely strong. If you really want to play that class, I'd allow it, but only after some serious line by line tweaking. (this homebrew crit system makes the champion a lot more viable and popular too!)

UA/Homebrew: Let me review it first, then maybe

[Zanthy1]

For me it depends on the campaign I am running, though typically if its official content then its fair game. UA is a case by case scenario. I almost always have some form of restriction on races, like it may not make sense for a tiefling to be a PC at times.

I use DnD Beyond for almost everything now, so I generally tell them to turn off homebrew and UA content when making their characters, and then once he character is made they can enable certain things.

[bc56]

Hey all-

I know in my campaign I allow all official wizards content as long as the players have it on dnd beyond since that's where we keep our character sheets. From a DM point of view it allows me to see their sheets and read their abilities (can't know EVERY subclass off the top of my head). I purchase a lot of the modules as they come out and make them available to my PCs with my DM subscription.

Anyway I have noticed several posts saying where people say they don't allow SCAG or another book. In AL they use the PHB+1 rule and I think that allows for thematic sense I see how you can argue a PC comes from the sword coast and therefore SCAG makes sense or from the universe of Ebberron and that module makes sense. Mixing those two could cause problems I suppose? I personally just don't see a problem with it that can't be solved by DMing.

What's been your experience? Do your PC's all insist on having BB and GFB for their warforged hexblade? If so did it break the game and render it less fun?

I allow only what I have in print, since that's what I can consider myself familiar enough with to write adventures around. I don't want something I didn't expect to pop up and trivialize an encounter, mainly because I try to write encounters with the characters in mind.

I do restrict certain races and classes for setting reasons as well.

[JBPuffin]

In theory, everything Wizards has produced; in practice, everything Wizards has produced, but I want to glance at it every now and again to make sure it's still balanced, and if they're actually overpowered the rest of the party will get boons of some kind to equalize things (like handing out toys, especially with my current group).

[Biggstick]

Content is allowed from PHB, SCAG, Volo's, Xanathar’s, and Mordenkainen’s. From those books, Players are not allowed to play as Gith, Yuan Ti Purebloods, or Winged Variant Tieflings.
-I dislike the RP of a Gith. I dislike the culture and ease of hiding a Yuan Ti can do among normal society. I don't allow resource-less flying at level 1.

While it's not actually content related, I don't allow Players to build a character that starts out with it's alignment being Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil.
-I don't feel like NE and CE aligntments are conducive to groups I DM for.

Some of the rest of this is homebrew stuff, but it's stuff my Players very much so enjoyed.

Paladins and Aura of Protection: PC’s can receive the benefit of multiple Auras of Protection if within the range of the overlapping areas affected by the Paladin(s).
-I'd love an opportunity to DM for multiple Paladins. While it's definitely a buff to Paladins and party members of Paladins overall, it's worth it to me in regards to what I'm getting as a DM.

Rangers: Now function as prepared spell casters. They work similarly to all other divine spell casters in that they can change out the spells prepared every day. In looking at the Ranger spell chart, spells known will now read, "Spells prepared daily." Ranger’s Land Stride ability at level 8 also grants the Ranger a Bonus Action they can use to Dash.
-I really dislike how strong Revised Ranger is. These 2 modifications to the Ranger class make it much more bearable imo overall.

Intelligence. In order to add more value to this undervalued ability score, additional benefits are gained by the PC once they have a certain Intelligence scores.

12: One additional Intelligence or Wisdom based skill proficiency.
14: One additional common language, tool proficiency, vehicle proficiency, gaming set, or musical instrument proficiency.
18: Expertise in an Intelligence or Wisdom based skill that you’re already proficient in.
20: Expertise in an Intelligence or Wisdom based skill that you’re already proficient in.

For 18 and 20, if you don’t have a proficiency eligible to be upgraded to Expertise, you can instead become proficient in an Intelligence or Wisdom based skill of your choice.
-Intelligence is undervalued. This change to Intelligence makes it more valuable to certain Players. It's lame to me that a Wizard can be outdone by a Rogue or Bard in Arcana or History because of Expertise in a skill. I wanted to give Wizards the ability to be the best at Arcana and/or History (or whatever Int/Wis skill they focused on) if they focused on bumping Intelligence.

Death saves. Will be made by the DM privately. This is to discourage metagaming.
-I hate Playes metagaming Death saves. This prevents it for the most part.

Armor. Small creature armor doesn’t weigh as much as Medium creature armor. Divide the weight of normal armor/shields by 2 to get the weight of armor/shields for Small creatures.
-It always bothered me how a small creature might be wearing Plate armor that weighs the same amount as a 7' tall Dragonborn Paladin. This fixes that.

Two-Handed Heavy Weapons. If you’re using a two-handed weapon with the heavy property with both hands, you can use a 1.5 Strength damage modifier (rounded down) for your damage total. Example, if you have 18 Strength and are using a Greataxe, your damage roll will be: 1d12 + 6 instead of 1d12 + 4. This is to further emphasize the risk one makes in using two-handed weapons versus a one-handed weapon and a shield.
-I want Players to feel like 2h weapons are worth the trade-off of using. While this isn't a huge damage buff, it helps the Players in making a decision between using a 2her or using SnB.

Additional Action Options Available. These options are: Climb onto a bigger creature, Disarm, Overrun, Shove Aside, and Tumble. These Actions open up options for Players to increase their choices during combat, and are fully explained in the DMG (271-272).
-More options in combat isn't a bad thing imo.
Spells. The Wish spell doesn’t exist on any PC class spell list, nor is it available through any item in the game.

You can only ever have one Simulcran in existence.

Healing Spirit can only heal 1 creature per round.

Regarding first level or higher spells that Charm a creature, text that reads, “When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you,” gets removed from the spell description. The text that replaces the removed text will read, “When the spell ends, the creature that was charmed will be allowed to make a Wisdom (Insight) check as an Action against your spell-save DC to determine whether they were charmed by you.”
-Wish is too strong as it is, plus I've never reached a level (as a DM, as a Player, I most definitely have) in which the spell is relevant. I also want to rule out folks abusing Simulcran early on. Healing Spirit is too powerful as written, so my adjustment puts it at a place I'm comfortable it being. Lastly, Charm spells as written are almost never used in games that I DM/play in. This change has made Players who are interested in these spells in the first place much more likely to choose to use them.

PHB and Xanathar Feats allowed. Prodigy, from Xanathar’s, is available to any race.
-I don't like Players feeling like they have to multiclass Rogue to get Expertise. If they want to spend an ASI getting Expertise, go for it!

[opaopajr]

Depends on my setting demographics first and foremost.

Beyond that, usually most of Basic 5e is used, like the 4 Classes and 6 Backgrounds -- sometimes my setting demos don't use all the races, let alone variants, let alone equipment or spells. Sometimes -- if I want more than Basic 5e -- my setting demographics will shift out different allowed races, classes, archetypes, and backgrounds, equip, spells, etc. but usually limited from PHB (or Mordekainen for unusual "monster" races,).

Multiclass is almost always off. Feats are mostly off, and if allowed edited for the campaign. Heal up to full for Long Rest is definitely turned off.

I prefer a far less magical and superheroic campaign mood, one constrained by local setting demographics. I could care less about your mini-game about "builds" and would prefer players to get to playing already. The faster we get there to interact with the fictive world the better, IME. Less widgets is more, for me. :smallcool:

[Naanomi]

Currently allow:

All content from: PHB, VGtM, XGtE, SCAG (except winged tieflings), EEPC (except aarakocra)
Subclasses from: DMG
Subclasses and Spells from: GMGtR
Races from: Tortle Package
Backgrounds from: COS, TOA

Basically, if it is published for player use officially in some way I allow it (including official web-content), except for the Ravnican expanded spell lists and flying races (would allow if starting at higher levels though)... and not officially allowing 'One Grung Above' content currently, but probably would if a player wanted

[2D8HP]

The last time I offered to DM I said:

You may take levels in Barbarian (Frenzy), Fighter (Champion), and Rogue (Swashbuckler and Thief), and the first two levels of Paladin and Ranger for classes only and Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, and Humans for races only.

Steal, but not from other PC's, Fight but not other PC's. No torture, and don't squick me out!

Maybe the "gritty realism" slow healing variant.

For "back-story" write up whatever you want for yourself, or to share with the other players, I'm unlikely to remember much of it

So some of the PHB, maybe some of the SCAG and Xanthar's if it isn't too complex

All to make it manageable for me (the adventure would be "Young Vikings meet Morlocks").

I had no takers.

I've now hung up my DM's hat for good and other than some PbP and buying the books now I'm pretty much out of the game.

A little sad about that.

[tchntm43]

When I started the campaign, to keep things simple I encouraged players to pick only the "classic" races (Halfling, Human, Elf, Dwarf and Gnome). I had one player who wanted to be a Tiefling so I allowed it.

My campaign has some custom rules on resting.

While no classes were banned when players made characters, as I began creating the world afterwards I decided to use the Warlock class as being story-limited. Basically they only exist as evil servants of a specific nation. So I suppose that would imply that PCs don't have the option to switch into Warlock going forward in this campaign.

[MrStabby]

Some spells I rule out. Some in all games, others where there is a specific context. Say a game with strong elements of murder mystery might ban speak with dead.

Classes are generally fine if in a book. No UA or homebrew from outside the table. If you want something we make it together.

I did ban moon druid for a brief campaign that was between levels 2 and 4.

[Callak_Remier]

All PC Races beyond the PHB require spoken permission before hand.
Yuan-ti Pure blood being the exception they, can die in a fire aka Permanently banned at my table. You should NOT get a better Version of a lvl 14 Wizard capstone from race selection.

The Lucky Feat also banned Way too abusable.

[stoutstien]

One hand PaM.

[jaappleton]

No Races that get at-will Flying
No Yuan-Ti Pureblood
No Healing Spirit spell

That’s pretty much it.

[Dienekes]

Only just started GMing 5e and being completely new to the system I asked that the players restrict themselves to Player’s Handbook only.

Though usually once I get my feet under me in the system I tend to allow almost everything. So long as I know the players are not trying to break the game. But my guys are usually good about that stuff.


I'm not a huge fan of the monster races, but I'm playing with a Goblin Paladin in a campaign, and he's made a great character. Essentially adopted by a Paladin when he was lost and young, Paladin dies, he takes up the mantle and tries to fulfill his legacy, but is dumb as a stump and is basically playing Goblin Don Quixote. It's pretty great, but he's worked a backstory to make it make sense.


In Pathfinder I played pretty much this character. Ended up being a fighter though, but same concept. One of my favorites Sir Squeeb, Goblin Ka-nig-it!


The last time I offered to DM I said:

You may take levels in Barbarian (Frenzy), Fighter (Champion), and Rogue (Swashbuckler and Thief), and the first two levels of Paladin and Ranger for classes only and Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, and Humans for races only.

Steal, but not from other PC's, Fight but not other PC's. No torture, and don't squick me out!

Maybe the "gritty realism" slow healing variant.

For "back-story" write up whatever you want for yourself, or to share with the other players, I'm unlikely to remember much of it

So some of the PHB, maybe some of the SCAG and Xanthar's if it isn't too complex

All to make it manageable for me (the adventure would be "Young Vikings meet Morlocks").

I had no takers.

I've now hung up my DM's hat for good and other than some PbP and buying the books now I'm pretty much out of the game.

A little sad about that.

Without trying to sound judgmental why all those restrictions? Because I wouldn’t take that game. Your leaving most of the best character expression off limits for the players.

[2D8HP]

...Without trying to sound judgmental why all those restrictions? Because I wouldn’t take that game....


I don't often play spell casters myself and at my age I now have poor learning snd memorization skills.

I think that I still have some improv skills left over from when I was a good DM (for the standards of those days), but I just don't have as much I once did and the limits I asked for were to make rules adjudication and scenario ideas manageable for me.

As it happens the group didn't like the restrictions I asked for either, and since the previous DM quit and no one else was willing to be the DM besides me the game disbanded.

[Pex]

Oath of Conquest and Oathbreaker: I associate these with Evil and PCs may not be Evil in my game. I will not run such a game. I have done an all Evil one shot adventure for silly fun, but generally I will not run Evil. Fiend Pact for warlocks are refluffed into something else. Players may have the subclass, but their Patron is not a Fiend. Likewise Old One is not Far Realms and Hexblade is not Raven Queen who does not exist in my world.

Death Domain: Also associated with Evil, but more importantly no deity grants the Domain due to campaign plot point. The Evil gods were tricked into losing the Undead portfolio. Evil Undead do exist in the world, but no one can be a true master of it except for the First Lich who controls the portfolio. He uses Undead as a force of Good. If a player chooses the Undying warlock the First Lich is his Patron. Also suitable if someone went with Old One, though other Patrons are possible with Old One.

Bladesinger. The only thing I ban due to I find it too powerful. I've seen it in play. 6th level engaging in melee with 20 AC, 25 with Shield, with Booming Blade and Fireball. No, just no.

Tiefling: I have no place for them in the gameworld. It's a world I developed in 2E. Everything has its place. I know the world backwards and forwards. Tieflings did not exist back then. They do not belong in the cosmology. I barely allow dragonborn, letting them take the place of lizardmen. Thanks to Volo's Guide players can now play orcs, bugbears, kobolds, goblins, and hobgoblins. The other Volo races have no place. The PHB allows for drow PCs. I'm happy to open up these races for PCs, but tiefling and aasimar do not exist.

[DarkKnightJin]

If my players want to pick a monstrous or alien race for their character, I'm inclined to say yes, but I let them know that if they want to look the part, the npc's will treat them as such if they don't have some normal looking folk in the party to cover for them.

That's what my Naga (from Planeshift: Amonkhet) is going to be running into. I went with the Far Traveler background, since it's just too perfect of a fit for someone that pretty much literally half a world away from their home.

[opaopajr]

The last time I offered to DM I said:

You may take levels in Barbarian (Frenzy), Fighter (Champion), and Rogue (Swashbuckler and Thief), and the first two levels of Paladin and Ranger for classes only and Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, and Humans for races only.

Steal, but not from other PC's, Fight but not other PC's. No torture, and don't squick me out!

Maybe the "gritty realism" slow healing variant.

For "back-story" write up whatever you want for yourself, or to share with the other players, I'm unlikely to remember much of it

So some of the PHB, maybe some of the SCAG and Xanthar's if it isn't too complex

All to make it manageable for me (the adventure would be "Young Vikings meet Morlocks").

I had no takers.

I've now hung up my DM's hat for good and other than some PbP and buying the books now I'm pretty much out of the game.

A little sad about that.

I'd play that game! :smallcool:

(Though I would petition to just remove Long Rest full HP heal, leaving us to focus on Long Rest Hit Dice recovery as a resource. This would save time on even more GM bookkeeping, frontloading it onto players for strategic management. "Gritty Realism" is a little slow on SR/LR healing and requires more GM consciencious pacing.)

[MThurston]

PAM only gets you a bonus action second attack at 1d4 damage.


Why? Because no feat should be so good that it's stupid not to take it.

I'd also make it a rule that you can't cast "S" while holding a two handed weapon.

[EggKookoo]

I've now hung up my DM's hat for good and other than some PbP and buying the books now I'm pretty much out of the game.

A little sad about that.

I have a good number of friends who love to play. Damned if we can reliably carve out time, though...

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't often play spell casters myself and at my age I now have poor learning snd memorization skills. I think that I still have some improv skills left over from when I was a good DM (for the standards of those days), but I just don't have as much I once did and the limits I asked for were to make rules adjudication and scenario ideas manageable for me. As it happens the group didn't like the restrictions I asked for either, and since the previous DM quit and no one else was willing to be the DM besides me the game disbanded.
What I'd suggest is that you allow a single spell casting class (cleric or wizard or warlock or sorcerer or druid) so that you only have to deal with one kind of magic/spells. If you start at level 1, you and the player can learn together. Low magic settings still have some magic. But you know what you'd rather, so that's just a brain storming input. (And I'd surely play in your game, sounds like it would work).

[Wildarm]

The last time I offered to DM I said:

You may take levels in Barbarian (Frenzy), Fighter (Champion), and Rogue (Swashbuckler and Thief), and the first two levels of Paladin and Ranger for classes only and Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, and Humans for races only.

Steal, but not from other PC's, Fight but not other PC's. No torture, and don't squick me out!

Maybe the "gritty realism" slow healing variant.

For "back-story" write up whatever you want for yourself, or to share with the other players, I'm unlikely to remember much of it

So some of the PHB, maybe some of the SCAG and Xanthar's if it isn't too complex

All to make it manageable for me (the adventure would be "Young Vikings meet Morlocks").

I had no takers.

I've now hung up my DM's hat for good and other than some PbP and buying the books now I'm pretty much out of the game.

A little sad about that.

Not that surprised that you had no takers. Such heavy restrictions doesn't sound very enjoyable(to me anyway). If you find all the additional content too much keep it simple - Standard point buy and PHB only. No multi-classing. Simple, balanced and playable even for an inexperienced DM(who at least has some player experience).

[Wildarm]

Bladesinger. The only thing I ban due to I find it too powerful. I've seen it in play. 6th level engaging in melee with 20 AC, 25 with Shield, with Booming Blade and Fireball. No, just no.


Bladesingers only have wizard level HP. They go down pretty quick to a crit from a heavy hitter. They'll learn fast to stay out of serious melee after that happens. :)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Bladesingers only have wizard level HP. They go down pretty quick to a crit from a heavy hitter. They'll learn fast to stay out of serious melee after that happens. :)

So you're saying bladesingers' high ac is...a double-edged sword? That they're...swingy? :smallcool:

Sorry not sorry #punlife

[Sception]

Bladesingers only have wizard level HP. They go down pretty quick to a crit from a heavy hitter. They'll learn fast to stay out of serious melee after that happens. :)

Super vulnerable to crits. Super vulnerable to non-AC attacks, especially of the 'save for half damage' variety. Scag Cantrips scale well, but not /that/ well. Most of the good wizard spells don't get better for being on a close up platform anyway.

They're good. 'Wizard but with good AC' is a very strong and good mechanical gimmick (see treantmonk's valor bard videos on youtube), if a bit thematically dull. Frankly a bladesinger who throws themselves into melee to smack things with a green flame blade is taking on a lot of unnecessary risk and wasting their potential.

Not that I think you should allow them in your games if you don't like them, just that they have a fair few weaknesses to go along with their strengths, and someone who plays them as a melee beatstick is maximizing those weaknesses and minimizing those strengths.

[Benny89]

When I DM I pretty much allow anything that my players want, including UAs, as long as it has wirrten rules and it's not fan-made. While it may sounds "OMG, they will break your game", there are some reasons behind that:

1. It's a long-time party, we have been playing with each other for long years. I know they won't be a-holes in game, they won't just play to win with math but actually roleplay while being strong and that if I say I adjust something- it's ok as I don't try to cut wings of a build but focus on some very very details that just mess something up with games. Rarely it happens though.

2. I am myself a min-maxer and powergamer/munchkin much more than my players. So In the end- I can counter anything they come up with with something stronger or equally strong. Never had problems with Socradins etc. as I now what to do to make their day difficult.

3. After so many years of playing RPGs I am more for fun >>> balance/mechanic. If I can I try to not make player roll at all. If they can roleplay something (even a strike in a fight) that is greatly described I will give them pass, auto-crit etc. because I believe we play for fun and for epic moments and story more than mathematic and "DM vs players" thing (which is imo very noobie like in RPGs).

4. As long as it has rules- it can be countered.

I don't however accept custom classes/races/spells etc. as it's too much pain for me to add to it all mechanics etc. to make it usable.

UAs are for me semi-official, so I don't really mind them.

[JackPhoenix]

Anything released by WotC, playtest and 3rd party stuff on case by case basis after review.

That said, restriction apply according to setting. My current game is set in Innistrad, which means no race but humans is available, but I'm willing to handwave certain races as humans, if it makes sense, and the classes should fit the themes of the world.

And in general, I dislike the crapton of PC races D&D has. Five or so sapient humanoid species (humans, because of course, elves and dwarves, because Tolkien and fantasy cliche, some kind of serpentman/lizardman/reptilian, because it's pulpy, and one free spot for whatever strikes my fancy... propably apemen/orcs/deep ones/beastmen/something like that.) should already be more than enough for any setting, why do you need all that other crap? I won't necessary forbid playing something unusual, but I'll express my displeasure if you try that.


The last time I offered to DM I said:

I'd definitely be up for that. Sounds like sword & sorcery and I love that stuff.

[Malifice]

Healing spirit or whatever its called. That's gone. It invalidates all other healing spells of its level (plus some).

Other than that, everything else is fair game.

Rogues can only SA 1/turn on their turn also.

[EggKookoo]

Rogues can only SA 1/turn on their turn also.

OAs come up often enough for a second SA to be a problem?

One thing I may do now that I have a monk in the party is modify the standing-from-prone rule so that it uses half of your race's base ground movement, not your character's overall movement. It probably won't come up in gameplay but it's odd that Mr. McFastyMonk consumes more absolute movement time getting up than a regular slowpoke.

[Pex]

Bladesingers only have wizard level HP. They go down pretty quick to a crit from a heavy hitter. They'll learn fast to stay out of serious melee after that happens. :)

At 6th level with 20 AC he wasn't getting hit. When he was he casts Shield for AC 25 and not be hit. He was not hurting in melee. He was vulnerable to AoE spells like everyone else, so that was a wash. However, now Absorb Elements is a thing.

Still no.

[2D8HP]

I'd play that game! :smallcool:

(Though I would petition to just remove Long Rest full HP heal, leaving us to focus on Long Rest Hit Dice recovery as a resource. This would save time on even more GM bookkeeping, frontloading it onto players for strategic management. "Gritty Realism" is a little slow on SR/LR healing and requires more GM consciencious pacing.)


I have a good number of friends who love to play. Damned if we can reliably carve out time, though...


What I'd suggest is that you allow a single spell casting class (cleric or wizard or warlock or sorcerer or druid) so that you only have to deal with one kind of magic/spells. If you start at level 1, you and the player can learn together. Low magic settings still have some magic. But you know what you'd rather, so that's just a brain storming input. (And I'd surely play in your game, sounds like it would work).


Not that surprised that you had no takers. Such heavy restrictions doesn't sound very enjoyable(to me anyway). If you find all the additional content too much keep it simple - Standard point buy and PHB only. No multi-classing. Simple, balanced and playable even for an inexperienced DM(who at least has some player experience).


Thanks for the encouragement and suggestions!


...I'd definitely be up for that. Sounds like sword & sorcery and I love that stuff.


Cool!

Fritz Leiber is my favorite author (and I've read me some Anderson, Howard, Moorcock, Moore, and Vance) and I was aiming for a "Dark Forest" Fairy Tales meets Swords & Sorcery vibe, and I wanted to keep non-humans and magic somewhat otherworldly (I allowed half-elves and half-orcs because I know players like their PC's to be different and special), and I thought that a couple levels in Paladin or Ranger would be enough to sate a craving for spell casting, the adventure and setting ideas were geared around what I'd like as a player but clearly my tastes are minority ones.

Probably for the best, the previous DM was too good (except for the dropping out part) to match anyway, and I'm not exactly swimming in free time (which is why I was firm about the restrictions)

[Man_Over_Game]

Thanks for the encouragement and suggestions!




Cool!

Fritz Leiber is my favorite author (and I've read me some Anderson, Howard, Moorcock, Moore, and Vance) and I was aiming for a "Dark Forest" Fairy Tales meets Swords & Sorcery vibe, and I wanted to keep non-humans and magic somewhat otherworldly (I allowed half-elves and half-orcs because I know players like their PC's to be different and special), and I thought that a couple levels in Paladin or Ranger would be enough to sate a craving for spell casting, the adventure and setting ideas were geared around what I'd like as a player but clearly my tastes are minority ones.

Probably for the best, the previous DM was too good (except for the dropping out part) to match anyway, and I'm not exactly swimming in free time (which is why I was firm about the restrictions)

I will be honest, though, the restrictions mean that you're playing the simplest of the simple. I like some complexity in my games, and not allowing magic, Battle Masters, or other interesting combat dynamics means that most turns are going to be "I attack. I attack. I attack".

I'm fine not playing a caster, but I still want to play a game where I actively have decisions to make. Anything less just feels like Candy Land (decisions matter less than dice rolls).

[Malifice]

OAs come up often enough for a second SA to be a problem?

Every rogue and his dog dips Battlemaster for action surge (ready action, attack, trigger start of opponents turn) and riposte for 5 x out of turn sneak attacks per short rest.

[Lance Tankmen]

At 6th level with 20 AC he wasn't getting hit. When he was he casts Shield for AC 25 and not be hit. He was not hurting in melee. He was vulnerable to AoE spells like everyone else, so that was a wash. However, now Absorb Elements is a thing.

Still no.

i mean Eknights are similar, with more hp? do you do rolled stats ? as im curious how he has 20 AC though i suppose i should see if its possible at level 6 with simple before asking

[Maxilian]

I allow everything that's official.

UA... case by case, ask me first (will depend on campaign and what UA -NO LORE WIZARD-)

MtG ported stuff, i really like them, but i wouldn't allow them in most games that i DM as i tend to play in the FR setting, so unless i'm in a full homebrew one or one of those MtG Settings, i may not allow them

I may or may not, ban Goblins in my futures FR Campaign, but depends on what happens on the on going campaign, as Goblins may become extint in that realm.

[EggKookoo]

Every rogue and his dog dips Battlemaster for action surge (ready action, attack, trigger start of opponents turn) and riposte for 5 x out of turn sneak attacks per short rest.

I'm assuming you threw Action Surge in there just for completion. It doesn't help with SA unless I'm missing something..?

But yeah, that's why I discourage MCing. That kind of thing would drive me nuts as a DM. Even still, if players are using things like this to shred opponents, you just need to throw tougher opponents at them. I mean, they want to be badasses, they should expect to take on badasses.

[Malifice]

I'm assuming you threw Action Surge in there just for completion. It doesn't help with SA unless I'm missing something..?

Take your action. Take the Attack action. Sneak attack.

Action surge, take take the Ready action (attack action) triggered to go off at the start of your opponents turn. Sneak attack again.

[EggKookoo]

Take your action. Take the Attack action. Sneak attack.

Action surge, take take the Ready action (attack action) triggered to go off at the start of your opponents turn. Sneak attack again.

Wow, I would have never thought to do that. Probably because I don't think in "multiclass."

[stoutstien]

Wow, I would have never thought to do that. Probably because I don't think in "multiclass."
They can do the same with haste or by taken the sentinel feat.

[2D8HP]

I will be honest, though, the restrictions mean that you're playing the simplest of the simple....


Yes, that's the idea, to make it more manageable for me to adjudicate.

[EggKookoo]

They can do the same with haste or by taken the sentinel feat.

Right, I mean it never occurred to me to use your second action to ready. I just kind of assumed readying simply used your reaction in lieu of your action. In other words I never thought of readying as an action that grants you something to do with your reaction but sacrificing your action to attack on your reaction.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/2acd46917cbfeca0d71d1fd0899f992f/tenor.gif

[Pex]

i mean Eknights are similar, with more hp? do you do rolled stats ? as im curious how he has 20 AC though i suppose i should see if its possible at level 6 with simple before asking

Eldritch Knight is fine. He's supposed to be a warrior who casts some spells, but he does not have the breadth of wizard magic.

Bladesingers can add their IN modifier to AC. It's not all the time, but it's enough for when it matters as the character wants to be in melee. Therefore: Mage Armor + 16 DX + 18 IN = AC 20.

[Lance Tankmen]

Eldritch Knight is fine. He's supposed to be a warrior who casts some spells, but he does not have the breadth of wizard magic.

Bladesingers can add their IN modifier to AC. It's not all the time, but it's enough for when it matters as the character wants to be in melee. Therefore: Mage Armor + 16 DX + 18 IN = AC 20.

so some one casting a 1st level spell that buffs them then using a resource and they only get it for 2 fights between short rest? i mean paladin get 20AC at level 2 chainmail shield , shield of faith.

[PhoenixPhyre]

so some one casting a 1st level spell that buffs them then using a resource and they only get it for 2 fights between short rest? i mean paladin get 20AC at level 2 chainmail shield , shield of faith.

The paladin in my group is running 21 AC constantly, due to plate, a shield, and the defense fighting style. He still gets hit quite a bit, even by bandits.

[HappyDaze]

I'm not a fan of SCAG at all, and I'm strongly considering banning Hexblade as it is terribly front-loaded and seems to be dipped far too much.

[Lance Tankmen]

I'm not a fan of SCAG at all, and I'm strongly considering banning Hexblade as it is terribly front-loaded and seems to be dipped far too much.

eh i dont do MC so the only hexblades in my game are pure Warlock. havent had anyone go bladesinger yet, nor anything from SCAG but ive seen green flame n booming blade a ton

[HappyDaze]

eh i dont do MC so the only hexblades in my game are pure Warlock. havent had anyone go bladesinger yet, nor anything from SCAG but ive seen green flame n booming blade a ton

I'm not really opposed to Hexblade in a game that disallows multiclassing.

[Pex]

so some one casting a 1st level spell that buffs them then using a resource and they only get it for 2 fights between short rest? i mean paladin get 20AC at level 2 chainmail shield , shield of faith.

That's a paladin. He's supposed to, not a wizard. It's not the AC. It's the wizard with that AC fighting in melee and having full spellcasting. Isn't this what people complained about in 3E? Instead of CoDzilla it's Wizzilla!

[Lance Tankmen]

That's a paladin. He's supposed to, not a wizard. It's not the AC. It's the wizard with that AC fighting in melee and having full spellcasting. Isn't this what people complained about in 3E? Instead of CoDzilla it's Wizzilla!

except hes geared for melee, he doesn't benefit from any spell casting besides spells a basic wizard gets, no removing teammates from fireball AoE just melee stuff , at level 6 he has 32ish health with simple array compared to 58-60ish the fighter and other melee have. again i dont see it as broken, hes in melee swings a sword hes not casting spells, hes casting spells and not in melee then... hes like all wizards shooting spells. still your table your game, im just saying its not broken or overpower or what ever in the slightest, due to HP and endangering himself in melee, its safer to just be a normal wizard, course he could do it and sit in the back but at that point again hes choosing to use blade singer instead of another archetype better suited to cast spells.

[DarkKnightJin]

OAs come up often enough for a second SA to be a problem?

One thing I may do now that I have a monk in the party is modify the standing-from-prone rule so that it uses half of your race's base ground movement, not your character's overall movement. It probably won't come up in gameplay but it's odd that Mr. McFastyMonk consumes more absolute movement time getting up than a regular slowpoke.

I agree on the speed thing for the Monk.
Drunken Master gets to spend just 5ft to get up, like someone with Athlete, which makes sense. They should probably get that across the board at the same level that Drunken Master gets access to it, I think.
Though the 'half race speed' is a nice in-between to not make DM's feature pointless. Or the Feat that gives it, I suppose.

[Malifice]

That's a paladin. He's supposed to, not a wizard. It's not the AC. It's the wizard with that AC fighting in melee and having full spellcasting. Isn't this what people complained about in 3E? Instead of CoDzilla it's Wizzilla!

Its really not broken. Its a high AC (low HP) Wizard swinging a sword and using slots for defensive buffs.

[Malifice]

except hes geared for melee, he doesn't benefit from any spell casting besides spells a basic wizard gets, no removing teammates from fireball AoE just melee stuff , at level 6 he has 32ish health with simple array compared to 58-60ish the fighter and other melee have. again i dont see it as broken, hes in melee swings a sword hes not casting spells, hes casting spells and not in melee then... hes like all wizards shooting spells. still your table your game, im just saying its not broken or overpower or what ever in the slightest, due to HP and endangering himself in melee, its safer to just be a normal wizard, course he could do it and sit in the back but at that point again hes choosing to use blade singer instead of another archetype better suited to cast spells.

This.

I mean a 6th level Fighter 1/ Wizard 5 has a higher base AC of 21, and he gets to dump Dex, and he's never caught with his pants down, never needing to spend a bonus action to power up, remain non-incapacitated and only able to do it 2/ short rest.

[opaopajr]

Yes, that's the idea, to make it more manageable for me to adjudicate.

Hey, gives you more processing power to make the campaign world cooler, in my book. Less system interaction, more setting interaction, more fun game time for me. :smallcool: I'm no longer young and enamored with complexity for its "widget dial tuning's" sake. I'd rather play with the fictive world more, then put it away for beer & snacks chat time. :smallsmile:

Which obviously means what I am really saying is you and I play the GoodRightFun. And these godless heathens are playing BadWrongFun the itemized tax-shelter game. :smalltongue: They must be naïve whippersnappers.

[EggKookoo]

Which obviously means what I am really saying is you and I play the GoodRightFun. And these godless heathens are playing BadWrongFun the itemized tax-shelter game. :smalltongue: They must be naïve whippersnappers.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3og0IUd5D9Y77EXtRK/giphy.gif

[Sception]

I'm not a fan of SCAG at all, and I'm strongly considering banning Hexblade as it is terribly front-loaded and seems to be dipped far too much.

Before outright banning, consider the simple change: remove hex warrior from hexblade, add to blade pact boon. Resulting hexblade is no longer so front loaded, blade pact works for all patrons, not just hexblades, hexblade no longer pushed into blade pact.

Hexblade's other features are fun and worth salvaging, and bladelock deserves the buff. 3 level investment for melee cha isn't too dippable, and booklocks granted that anyway.

Does make first too levels of a plain old hex-bladelock more of a bother though, so it's not a change I'd impose in games without multiclassing.


In all honesty, bladelock shouldn't have existed in the first place, and hexblade should be a whole separate class, with progiciencies, features, and a custom spell list appropriate for a gish type class, something related to warlock in the same way that paladin is related to cleric or ranger to druid. But that's not an easy fix to implement.

[2D8HP]

.....playing BadWrongFun the itemized tax-shelter game. :smalltongue: They must be naïve whippersnappers.


[a "They Live" Reference]


:amused: Thanks, those made me chuckle!

[Yora]

I just started seriously looking into the game and have not run it yet, but almost immediately decided that I only want to run it with Player's Handbook only. Partly because that's all I have now, though I could easily afford another two or three books if I wanted to.
I really like how 5th edition looks so far like a game where you can pick your class, create the character in five minutes, and then no longer worry about customization other than picking your spells. For the way I run campaigns, with the focus on exploration and investigation, and combat being the thing that happens when something went wrong, this works very fine.
The thing with additional character options is, that my perception of them looks like almost entirely combat options. Telling the players that these are also part of the game sends them a message, and for my intents it's a very wrong one.
I want to run campaigns in which engagement with the rules is rather casual. And making more customzation options available does the opposite.


Hey, gives you more processing power to make the campaign world cooler, in my book. Less system interaction, more setting interaction, more fun game time for me.

Yes, that exactly.

[Sception]

I just started seriously looking into the game and have not run it yet, but almost immediately decided that I only want to run it with Player's Handbook only.

This is an ok idea for new players and especially new dms, though do keep in mind that the phb has been out for several years now, and its entirely possible that a player who plays a lot has already run every character they're actually interested in running out of it, and would really wish to try something new.

Also, its worth noting that some new content post-phb exists as 'stealth-fixes' for phb content th at didnt work particularly well to begin with, such as the hexblade for bladelocks or the stronger ranger subclasses from xanathar's. The phb content isnt so bad as to be unusable on its own, but there's a reason the later content is notably tuned up in these cases, and it isn't rynaway power creep.

As a dm, you have other options to help out a character that starts to lag behind their allies, or who feels they lack interesting or useful ways of contributing, particularly in terms of extra item drops or custom boons. Be willing to make use of these tools if need be to help prop up characters that would otherwise have leaned heavily on post-phb content fixes.


I really like how 5th edition looks so far like a game where you can pick your class, create the character in five minutes, and then no longer worry about customization other than picking your spells.

While 5e can be played this way, it doesnt have to be. Some players really enjoy the crunchwork of putting together a build and tinkering with options, and 5e provides plenty of options in this regard for players who are looking for that, particularly in terms of feats and multiclassing, and while it might be fair to advise new players of the risks of such options (delaying higher level features and delaying primary stat advancement can result in weaker characters that struggle to contribute), i'd advise against disallowing that content outright.

For one, some core content is clearly designed around it (after a fighter has maxed attack stat and con, what else are they even supposed to do with their bonus asi's in a featless game). For another, again, some players *like* to tinker with builds, or come up with off-the-beaten-path character concepts that really want multiclassing to work, and the benefits in simplicity from barring multiclassing dont outweigh the rain you'd be dropping on those players' parades.

Also, be aware that in a featless, MCless game concentration checks end up getting failed a lot more, and while that might be ok for balance, it feels terrible when it happens.

[MinMaxMunchking]

All official materials, except Eberron because screw Warforged when I'm DMing.
Also, I allow all races, even those UA ones, listed on D&D beyond, except Eberron, again.
Also, Revised Ranger, although the more I DM, the more I'm convinced it's a bit imbalanced - not OP, just a bit boring because it makes the whole exploration pillar of the game a walk in the park.

[DaveOfTheDead]

I let my players choose from any official book. UA is a case by case basis.

I'm pretty lenient when it comes to character creation. If my characters can't have the character they want, they won't have fun and that's the main thing.

[Trustypeaches]

I'm not really opposed to Hexblade in a game that disallows multiclassing.I would just move the Hex Warrior feature (minus the Medium Armor proficiency) to Pact of the Blade.

That solved all the problems I had with it.

[Yora]

This is an ok idea for new players and especially new dms, though do keep in mind that the phb has been out for several years now, and its entirely possible that a player who plays a lot has already run every character they're actually interested in running out of it, and would really wish to try something new.
If the interest is in trying out character builds, my campaigns aren't the game for them.

[Misterwhisper]

The only thing I don’t allow is the double scimitar and the revenant blade feat.

Beyond that anything is cool but I remind the players that if they can do it so can the enemies.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Warforged is the only official thing I'd ban with no discussion. For other stuff, it's only certain combinations of races, classes, feats and/or spells that I disallow, rather than any of the parts by themselves.

[EggKookoo]

Warforged is the only official thing I'd ban with no discussion.

For thematic reasons, or something more balance-oriented?

[NorthernPhoenix]

For thematic reasons, or something more balance-oriented?

Yeah for thematic reasons. Maybe some of the Planeshift races too now that I think about it.

[opaopajr]

I just started seriously looking into the game and have not run it yet, but almost immediately decided that I only want to run it with Player's Handbook only. Partly because that's all I have now, though I could easily afford another two or three books if I wanted to.
I really like how 5th edition looks so far like a game where you can pick your class, create the character in five minutes, and then no longer worry about customization other than picking your spells. For the way I run campaigns, with the focus on exploration and investigation, and combat being the thing that happens when something went wrong, this works very fine.
The thing with additional character options is, that my perception of them looks like almost entirely combat options. Telling the players that these are also part of the game sends them a message, and for my intents it's a very wrong one.
I want to run campaigns in which engagement with the rules is rather casual. And making more customzation options available does the opposite.

I just use D&D 5e Basic, which is just 4 races (two subraces each), 4 classes (1 archetype each), and 6 backgrounds. No Feats and Multiclassing content in it. Then all those nicely organized rules, a lovely trinket table, and all this empty design space! :smallcool: If I had a PHB I could pick and choose stuff one at a time to add, like sprinkles!, atop my D&D Cupcake. :smalltongue:

You may want to check out Adventures in Middle Earth. It runs off of a D&D 5e chassis while significantly toning down widgets, like magic, feats, & features. And it has neat Explore & Social party mechanics to focus the game to feel more like Lord of the Rings sagas (with lower stakes naturally). If I remember correctly there is a Humble Bundle or Bundle of Holding special going on for their .pdfs to support a charity -- ending soon I believe? :smallsmile: Check it out!

[Sception]

If the interest is in trying out character builds, my campaigns aren't the game for them.

There's always a tension in role playing games between playing roles and playing games. I prefer campaigns and systems that make room for the former while emphasizing the latter, but that's just my personal taste. That said, there's an awful lot more textual focus in 5e, or really any edition of D&D, put into the game part relative to the role part, so if you're running an "all of the role with none of the game" type campaign, well, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, 5e can absolutely do that, but that's not necessarily the image of the game presented to players by default, so you will want to be extra clear about it up front to be sure everyone's on board to begin with.

And you'll want to make sure that you as the DM understand that, even in a narrative-driven, "role-play not roll-play" campaign, tabletop rpgs are still a *cooperative* story telling experience. The players are active co-authors, not passive audience members. I've had enough good experiences in more limited games to mellow me out these days, but I still have to fight down a visceral negative response to any game with heavily restricted player options due to repeated early experiences of such restrictions coinciding with DMs who tell stories to their players rather than with them. D&D really isn't the system such DMs should be using. The system I would recommend instead is "write a book".

[EggKookoo]

The players are active co-authors, not passive audience members. I've had enough good experiences in more limited games to mellow me out these days, but I still have to fight down a visceral negative response to any game with heavily restricted player options due to repeated early experiences of such restrictions coinciding with DMs who tell stories to their players rather than with them. D&D really isn't the system such DMs should be using. The system I would recommend instead is "write a book".

Man, if this was pithier I think I'd have found my sig. :smallbiggrin:

[Yora]

The GM sets up the world, the players determine what happens.

Ideally. Published material does not seem to agree that you can give GMs useful prepared content without telling the players what they will be doing.

[Sception]

The GM sets up the world, the players determine what happens.

That's pretty much the right of it, though things often go more smoothly if the players have some input into the world as well. Character backstories in particular are an area where the domains of player and DM authority naturally overlap, and embracing that overlap can add extra dimension to a campaign. For instance, a character's backstory might inspire the existence of particular npcs, locales, historical events, or even entire societies within the campaign's setting that might not have otherwise been there, and a campaign overall is often more enriched by their inclusion.


Ideally. Published material does not seem to agree that you can give GMs useful prepared content without telling the players what they will be doing.

Pre-published adventures inherently run into that problem. Printed material simply doesn't have the capacity for free improvisation that a human DM does. It's unfortunate, but it's also something that players ime are *usually* relatively forgiving of and accommodating to.

[Yora]

It can be done, and work very well. It's just that the Paizo style of adventure writing has become so massively popular in D&D circles that few people ever encounter any examples of unscripted modules.

[Zonugal]

Here are the guide-lines I just offered to my group before we start Tales From the Yawning Portal.

-- 1st-level characters
-- Standard array for stats (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 )
-- Your starting gear is determined by your class & background.
-- Everything officially produced by WotC for D&D 5E is open & accessible, with some caveats:
------You can’t play a flying race, so Aarakocra, Aven, Siren, and Winged Tieflings aren’t permitted. Protector Aasimars are okay though.
------Everything from Unearthed Arcana has to be approved on a case-by-case basis (just ask me before going forward in character creation).
-- Guild Spells from Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica aren’t allowed quite yet (the greater D&D community is still assessing them).

[Sception]

Man, if this was pithier I think I'd have found my sig. :smallbiggrin:

I tried very hard to keep the pithiness in the comment to a minimum, as my own bad experiences with a handful of particular DMs in the past, and knee-jerk reactions to restrictive DMs as a result, really don't have anything to do with Yora's games. From the sound of things their games wouldn't really be the style I gravitate to as a player, but apart from personal taste they haven't suggested anything I'd object to.


In terms of personal taste, I'm personally on the far opposite end, of course. I like messy, cosmopolitan settings like Eberron or Ravnica with tons of races, wild fantasy elements, and a more victorian or even modern feel rather than a medieval one. Even when I'm playing something as seeminly arch and generic as a 'human fighter with the soldier background', I want to be playing that character in a wild fantasy world - a human who grew up around elves and half orcs and dragonborn and warforged and various anthropomorphic animal people, the veteran of a war fought in the skies between dwarven airship armadas and the winged legions of sky elves. Playing a mundanish character in a high fantasy setting appeals to me in a way that playing that same character in a setting full of people just like them kind of doesn't. Like how, say, Sokka stood out as a non-bender in AtLA in a way that the same character wouldn't have in a setting where nobody had magic powers.

I like settings with lots going on and room for many kinds of characters in a sort of MCU or Kingdom Hearts style genre mish-mash, where honour-bound knights and zealous crusaders can cross paths with daring swash-bucklers and mad scientists. I like campaigns where intrigue and exploration provide the garnish to main courses of action and combat where the bulk of the system mechanics have the most room to play out. For me, "builds" isn't a bad word, but rather something to embrace, with interesting mechanical interactions sparking unexpected character concepts which in turn bring individual aspects of an otherwise messy, diverse setting into greater focus & clarity.


So naturally, given those preferences, I'm inclined to allow just about any content in my own games as a DM, and as a player I'm inclined to gravitate towards campaigns where just about any content not only can exist but does exist within the game up front, where there are hexblades and shadow monks and celestial sorcerers and paladin ancients and warforged and loxodons and tieflings and dromites and dragonborn and twelve different kinds of elves regardless of whether any player actively lobbies for any specific thing's inclusion.

[Man_Over_Game]

Here are the guide-lines I just offered to my group before we start Tales From the Yawning Portal.

-- Guild Spells from Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica aren’t allowed quite yet (the greater D&D community is still assessing them).

It took a while for me to get to a solution that felt like the guild spells weren't overpowering any other option, but I came up with something that roughly works:

Picking a guild modifies your background. You can only pick one skill proficiency or one tool/language proficiency as part of your background, and you can only pick a background suitable for your guild.
Not picking a guild means you start with an extra feat and your normal background.


It was hard to come up with a solution that satisfied me. The Guild Spells greatly outclass Magic Initiate, so they're better than a feat and required further adjustments past that. My second thought was removing backgrounds for guild members completely, but that cuts down on a lot of RP options for a Criminal Dimir or a Bounty Hunter Boros character. So rather than taking away some of that unique complexity, I think it's better to remove some of their talents from the backgrounds themselves. I did not feel comfortable dropping the background limitations on Guild members to 0 skills/tools/languages, as that's an important part to a background and skill diversity adds more to the game. But at least, this feels like both choices are nearly even.

So a guild member still gets a background, but they just happen to solve their problems via magic rather than with skills. Those that do not take a Guild have to rely on the training they've taken throughout their life to specialize in and to get a leg up in life (as a feat).

[BobZan]

PHB + 1, no UA, no multiclass between any of: warlock, paladin, bard, sorcerer.

[Sception]

no multiclass between any of: warlock, paladin, bard, sorcerer.

I hesitate to ask, but why disallow such a huge swath of multiclass options if you otherwise allow multiclassing generally? It's not like there aren't similar synergies to be found between, say, arcane trickster or eldritch knight & wizard. Like, I *get* disallowing multiclassing generally, even if doing so is very counter to my personal tastes, and I get banning warlock/sorcerer specifically due to coffelock concerns (though frankly the issue there is rest pacing, and imposing common sense policies like a hard limit on short rests per long rest will improve the overall gameplay experience while killing coffeelock abuse, all without infringing on character build options), but allowing multiclassing except for /the entire set of charisma oriented classes/ seems... a bit arbitrarily punitive.

[Man_Over_Game]

I hesitate to ask, but why disallow such a huge swath of multiclass options if you otherwise allow multiclassing generally? It's not like there aren't similar synergies to be found between, say, arcane trickster or eldritch knight & wizard. Like, I *get* disallowing multiclassing generally, even if doing so is very counter to my personal tastes, and I get banning warlock/sorcerer specifically due to coffelock concerns (though frankly the issue there is rest pacing, and imposing common sense policies like a hard limit on short rests per long rest will improve the overall gameplay experience while killing coffeelock abuse, all without infringing on character build options), but allowing multiclassing except for /the entire set of charisma oriented classes/ seems... a bit arbitrarily punitive.

Paladins, Warlocks and Sorcerers all have a large number of combat benefits. Combining something like Arcane Trickster and Wizard adds a lot of utility, but doesn't necessarily make you a greater threat without increasing complexity.

I don't really agree with the decision, either, but that's just my guess as to why.

A lot of it probably also has to do with the issue of Paladin + Warlock (cheesing via Hexblade), Paladins + Sorcerer (cheesing out extra attacks), and Warlocks + Sorcerer (cheesing out spell slots).

Bards are probably just thrown in there because Bards are really strong (but they do that despite multiclassing options, not because of them).

[BobZan]

I ban multiclass between those. One can be Fighter/Sorcerer.

I just think CHA synergies are way stronger then others.

[HappyDaze]

It took a while for me to get to a solution that felt like the guild spells weren't overpowering any other option, but I came up with something that roughly works:

Picking a guild modifies your background. You can only pick one skill proficiency or one tool/language proficiency as part of your background, and you can only pick a background suitable for your guild.
Not picking a guild means you start with an extra feat and your normal background.


It was hard to come up with a solution that satisfied me. The Guild Spells greatly outclass Magic Initiate, so they're better than a feat and required further adjustments past that. My second thought was removing backgrounds for guild members completely, but that cuts down on a lot of RP options for a Criminal Dimir or a Bounty Hunter Boros character. So rather than taking away some of that unique complexity, I think it's better to remove some of their talents from the backgrounds themselves. I did not feel comfortable dropping the background limitations on Guild members to 0 skills/tools/languages, as that's an important part to a background and skill diversity adds more to the game. But at least, this feels like both choices are nearly even.

So a guild member still gets a background, but they just happen to solve their problems via magic rather than with skills. Those that do not take a Guild have to rely on the training they've taken throughout their life to specialize in and to get a leg up in life (as a feat).
As written, don't you have to take the specific Background from a given guild to get the list of guild spells? If you disallow customizing of Backgrounds, this becomes something of a limit itself.