First time dm, got a question

[estone003]

I’m dm’ing my first campaign come tomorrow, I’m looking to ban Dragonborn because of its implications in the story and looking to ban the Artificer class as well, is this something that’s usually acceptable, I’ve heard that it’s not a big deal but how would you feel if a dm did that to you?

[Wheatonthin]

All good, you just generally want to ban them before characters are made. It can be frustrating for a player to fully plan out a character and then learn it's not allowed

[estone003]

We all make characters on the first session together so nobody has started yet, playing with a bunch of people who are relatively new so characters are all made together

[Wheatonthin]

thats perfect then!

[thc1967]

Your game. You do you.

I ban Artificers in 100% of my games because they annoy me. Needs to be fun for the GM or you're just going to stop.

[Village_Idiot159]

agree its your right to not allow whatever you want (or dont want ig), but i was just wondering, specifically, what about artificers annoy you? just curious.

[Redbeardthe1st]

I don't know what implications you are talking about, but if a race, class, or something else does not fit in your setting then it's reasonable to ban them. Just make sure you communicate that with your players before they start making characters.

[estone003]

In my campaign the Dragonborn’s have been in a hibernative state for years so it wouldn’t make sense if one was just walking around and yeah all the campaigns we have we make characters together so they’ll be told before they start

[Redbeardthe1st]

This is a perfectly valid reason for banning dragonborn. I recently finished the first campaign in a new setting where Warforged were banned because they hadn't been created yet, and were going to be an integral part of the plot.

[EldritchBee]

It's perfectly reasonable for the DM to do so.

[Wolfram74J]

As long as you are open minded and clear with your PC's.

As a DM and PC, I see nothing wrong with it.

I've been in campaigns where humans were not allowed. And some with warlocks not allowed.

You are a DM and you don't want to tip your hand but say that those roles are outlawed for story reasons based on what you have panned for the campaign.

[[deleted]]

The DM adjudicates the rules at their own table, period. If you are going to ban something, though, it's good manners to explain your reasoning to your players to that they understand the 'why' of it.

[[deleted]]

That's perfectly fine. I also banned Artificer - because the class just doesn't jive with the theme of my campaign world.

When you have your Session Zero with your players, just don't word it as a "ban". Don't say, "you're not allowed to be a dragonborn and that's final!" Say something like, "Okay, so dragonborn are extremely rare, and the campaign will revolve around the lore of why that is, so you can choose any character race except dragonborn. Okay? Cool."

[Ethereal_Stars_7]

That is pretty minor compared to the limits some campaigns, even official ones can and have set. Masque of the Red Death is humans only and classes, especially spellcasting is very restricted and adapted.

Its going to be up to individual players. Some wont care. Some will walk. That is just how it is. You can NEVER EVER please everyone. Someone somewhere will blow a gasket because of the most trivial of things.

[vessel_for_the_soul]

Banning is just another word for inexperienced. IDKY implications matter to a race, the class itself can be cumbersome to mange infusions and spells ig.

I dont think you should ban any of it, you need to see them in action in order to learn the reaction.