Fellows, I have been thinking and researching a bit about how to make a sword&sorcery 5e campaign. As I have said elsewhere, I find the character builds, and progression, in 5e to be extremely...robust. The spells, the bonus actions, the race and class features and traits...there is a lot going on. Add to that the near limitless varieties of character classes and races. It's a lot.
To make a 5e S&S campaign, the amount of winnowing necessary makes me wonder if it's even possible in 5e. In a human centric, low-magic, low monster diversity game, the GM would have to remove a ton of stuff from character options: races, classes, and a lot of other goodies.
Has anyone attempted anything like this before? 5e has a high fantasy default, and the characters are all juiced by magic as a feature (or with powers and abilities that may as well be magic). I wonder if this is even doable. Even willing players might feel a bit cheated by a DM who constantly has to say, "No, not that. Not that either. Nope. Can't. Don't. No."
All thoughts and observations are cheerfully welcomed.
The answer isn't 'no' but yes you are removing a lot if you want to restrict monster types and player magic.
Of the player classes, bard, cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, sorcerer, warlock, wizard and artificer arguably monk depending on where you fall on ki, are overtly magical. And the other classes have sub classes that are more overtly magical too. I suppose you could try to reflavor artificer as just technology but that's probably more advanced than you want in a relatively grounded setting. That only leaves you with barbarian, fighter, rogue and arguably monk as 'non magical' classes, and also having to regulate their subclasses.
One way around this could be to have magic be rare, but have any pcs with magical abilities exceptions. Which would have consequences for them ic. It could provide them opportunities and unique dangers as people seek to exploit their power, or people who fear it etc.
The monster variety you could get around by being more creative with your foes. Even with just humans you can home brew enemies with unique strategies and abilities. But it will take more work than plopping in monsters from the MM or other books. I think the issue is going to be more on the player side than the enemy side if you're throwing any magic heavy classes/subclasses on the chopping block.
If you're willing to put in a lot of work home brewing I think it could work, but it's going to be a lot of work and it might be worth exploring other games that cater more directly to the type of setting you want to play.
I’ve run human-centric games, where I tell players they can choose any race they want, but they are re-skinned as human. I just treat the race like a package of starting abilities, and there’s different human cultures that can do different things. You might need to ban the ones that can fly, but otherwise this can work.
Then, do what nyr ventus said. Sorcery is right in the name of sword and sorcery. There’s some magic. Let the PCs have magic, PCs are special after all, but make it rare and feared otherwise. And impress upon the players that if their characters use magic, they really need to keep it hidden from the general populace. And warn anyone who might play a wizard that magic is rare, so scrolls will be almost non-existent. Or just ban wizards, since that doesn’t fit the flavor, but allow sorcerers and warlocks for arcane casters.
I've played in a few campaigns (prior to 5e) where the only race option was human. My current DM provided a limited set of races (although still pretty broad). It really didn't change much.
The idea of low magic isn't all that hard to do. Limit magic items and make spellcaster NPCs rare. The PCs are not "average". They are the heros of the story.
If the PCs can be magic classes but magic users/items etc are still rare in the world at large it's fairly easy to do. The main difficulty is going to come if you try to enforce no magic user PCs or if you just want a more grounded realism focused ruleset in general.
There have been a couple of other threads lately on low magic and making magic dangerous that you may want to look at.
In general I would say make at least 3+ human races that are different from one another, then have magic be done by giving PC's feats to cast 1 spell or have magic items with spells (note the magic items are simply pace holders for magic in your game to make it easier to implement in D&DB but in RP sense they are necessary props to make the spell happen and you still have to learn the "spell mechanics/casting mechanics" behind the spell).
In other games spells can take more then 1 round to cast and this lessens the general power of spell casters (depending on what and how many spells you change).
Just from your basic description it sounds like you need to do a lot of work to get your idea off the ground (and play test or talk to your players to say "we may have issues going forward that I may have to change after the game to keep game balance going forward.)
From personal experience in the past I have often found game ideas such as yours a reoccurring them of the GM saying NO!, that can get tiring for the PC's. But again I do know of some groups that hate magic items and they like their play style.
There have been a couple of other threads lately on low magic and making magic dangerous that you may want to look at.
In general I would say make at least 3+ human races that are different from one another, then have magic be done by giving PC's feats to cast 1 spell or have magic items with spells (note the magic items are simply pace holders for magic in your game to make it easier to implement in D&DB but in RP sense they are necessary props to make the spell happen and you still have to learn the "spell mechanics/casting mechanics" behind the spell).
In other games spells can take more then 1 round to cast and this lessens the general power of spell casters (depending on what and how many spells you change).
Just from your basic description it sounds like you need to do a lot of work to get your idea off the ground (and play test or talk to your players to say "we may have issues going forward that I may have to change after the game to keep game balance going forward.)
From personal experience in the past I have often found game ideas such as yours a reoccurring them of the GM saying NO!, that can get tiring for the PC's. But again I do know of some groups that hate magic items and they like their play style.
Yeah, really depends on the table. If you have players that WANT a low magic game and are fine with the restrictions, that's fantastic. As long as the table is having fun you're not 'doing it wrong.' But if you pull in a group of players expecting the traditional high fantasy and expecting to be able to make characters however they want RAW, there's going to be some chaffing. Ultimately a conversation for the DM and players to have at or ideally even before session 0.
Looking at the fighter are the following considered magic in your game and or campaign:
1) Second Wind
2) Action Serge
I picked the fighter as a baseline character to try out your idea and in my mind the two abilities are more magic based then sword and sorcery based, so I would replace them with something else as well as make some martial archetypes for the setting.
If I wanted to do a minimal amount of work I probably would pick the Rogue class as the class for everyone and then make a number of archetypes to fit any social, region and org I needed. I would have race be a main distinction point between PC's with a number options that would help make each PC unique and interesting.
I've played in some, the last one we were limited to human at the start. Other races needed to be unlocked if we met them, depending on how we progressed in the overarching story. Magic, through Wizards, was limited as they were all forced to adhere to the imperial creed and army. Clerics were limited to those approved by the Empire. Magic items were almost non-existent outside highly dangerous ruins/outposts from an ancient civilization. It works, but it gets constricting fast. Not only for the players but also for the DM as he nearly killed us a few times because we just didn't have the strength needed to do certain things he had envisioned in his campaign world. In the end, we had unlocked Dwarves, Tieflings and Orcs before the campaign imploded. We would have unlocked Dark Elves, but we never got to talk with them.
1. I applaud the OP's idea of trying to run a low magic campaign. The logical answer would be to run a non- 5e game, likely a non D&D game. But because 5e is the gorilla, I am sure the OP will have a hard time finding enough players to a critical mass to play another game system.
2. If the OP starts stripping out "magical" classes and subclasses, it can be done. But he already made the telling comment: Many, if not most, 5e players are unwilling to try a low magic game where their chars are not superstars out of the gate. As for me, I love playing Halfling or Human Scout Rogues because they NEVER have magical features. Human Battlemasters, another awesome subclass. Those subclasses are far more challenging to play (I am sure some will say boring) because of the lack of magical features.
Battlemaster seems to generally be praised as a really good subclass from what I've heard.
Personally I wouldn't be opposed to a low magic game but I think I'd prefer to try it in a system built for it. You do have a point that many people would probably not want to venture out of 5E, but if I were to get into such a game I think I would want to branch out for a more fitting experience, one tailored to the idea instead of having to strip down 5E to try and make it something it's not.
I'm currently building out a sword and sorcery campaign in 5e, and I wanted to point out something you all already know: D&D is just a list of suggestions; it's always been a list of suggestions that you tailor to fit the scope of your campaign. You don't have to use everything; I think it would feel too unbalanced to use everything in the first place, as much as that just seems to be the way folks play these days. I want a certain look and feel, and I think things like dragonborns or tieflings or artificers, while cool, would be out of place and kind of ridiculous in my own campaign. I've been playing and DMing since the early 90s, when homebrew was the rule, and using the premade stuff was fine for beginner DMs and players, but if you wanted to craft a unique experience you had to branch out from the premade stuff at some point.
I would argue that 5e makes it even easier to craft unique campaign worlds, like sword and sorcery, simply because of the volume of resources available to pick and choose from. I had to weigh the difference between teaching my group how to use 2e (perfect for Sword & Sorcery) or just modifying 5e, because these folks are more familiar with that, and I'm glad I stuck with 5e instead. I personally love customizing and tweaking the world in weird, fantastic, and unexpected ways though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Fellows, I have been thinking and researching a bit about how to make a sword&sorcery 5e campaign. As I have said elsewhere, I find the character builds, and progression, in 5e to be extremely...robust. The spells, the bonus actions, the race and class features and traits...there is a lot going on. Add to that the near limitless varieties of character classes and races. It's a lot.
To make a 5e S&S campaign, the amount of winnowing necessary makes me wonder if it's even possible in 5e. In a human centric, low-magic, low monster diversity game, the GM would have to remove a ton of stuff from character options: races, classes, and a lot of other goodies.
Has anyone attempted anything like this before? 5e has a high fantasy default, and the characters are all juiced by magic as a feature (or with powers and abilities that may as well be magic). I wonder if this is even doable. Even willing players might feel a bit cheated by a DM who constantly has to say, "No, not that. Not that either. Nope. Can't. Don't. No."
All thoughts and observations are cheerfully welcomed.
The answer isn't 'no' but yes you are removing a lot if you want to restrict monster types and player magic.
Of the player classes, bard, cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, sorcerer, warlock, wizard and artificer arguably monk depending on where you fall on ki, are overtly magical. And the other classes have sub classes that are more overtly magical too. I suppose you could try to reflavor artificer as just technology but that's probably more advanced than you want in a relatively grounded setting. That only leaves you with barbarian, fighter, rogue and arguably monk as 'non magical' classes, and also having to regulate their subclasses.
One way around this could be to have magic be rare, but have any pcs with magical abilities exceptions. Which would have consequences for them ic. It could provide them opportunities and unique dangers as people seek to exploit their power, or people who fear it etc.
The monster variety you could get around by being more creative with your foes. Even with just humans you can home brew enemies with unique strategies and abilities. But it will take more work than plopping in monsters from the MM or other books. I think the issue is going to be more on the player side than the enemy side if you're throwing any magic heavy classes/subclasses on the chopping block.
If you're willing to put in a lot of work home brewing I think it could work, but it's going to be a lot of work and it might be worth exploring other games that cater more directly to the type of setting you want to play.
I’ve run human-centric games, where I tell players they can choose any race they want, but they are re-skinned as human. I just treat the race like a package of starting abilities, and there’s different human cultures that can do different things. You might need to ban the ones that can fly, but otherwise this can work.
Then, do what nyr ventus said. Sorcery is right in the name of sword and sorcery. There’s some magic. Let the PCs have magic, PCs are special after all, but make it rare and feared otherwise. And impress upon the players that if their characters use magic, they really need to keep it hidden from the general populace. And warn anyone who might play a wizard that magic is rare, so scrolls will be almost non-existent. Or just ban wizards, since that doesn’t fit the flavor, but allow sorcerers and warlocks for arcane casters.
I've played in a few campaigns (prior to 5e) where the only race option was human. My current DM provided a limited set of races (although still pretty broad). It really didn't change much.
The idea of low magic isn't all that hard to do. Limit magic items and make spellcaster NPCs rare. The PCs are not "average". They are the heros of the story.
^
If the PCs can be magic classes but magic users/items etc are still rare in the world at large it's fairly easy to do. The main difficulty is going to come if you try to enforce no magic user PCs or if you just want a more grounded realism focused ruleset in general.
There have been a couple of other threads lately on low magic and making magic dangerous that you may want to look at.
In general I would say make at least 3+ human races that are different from one another, then have magic be done by giving PC's feats to cast 1 spell or have magic items with spells (note the magic items are simply pace holders for magic in your game to make it easier to implement in D&DB but in RP sense they are necessary props to make the spell happen and you still have to learn the "spell mechanics/casting mechanics" behind the spell).
In other games spells can take more then 1 round to cast and this lessens the general power of spell casters (depending on what and how many spells you change).
Just from your basic description it sounds like you need to do a lot of work to get your idea off the ground (and play test or talk to your players to say "we may have issues going forward that I may have to change after the game to keep game balance going forward.)
From personal experience in the past I have often found game ideas such as yours a reoccurring them of the GM saying NO!, that can get tiring for the PC's. But again I do know of some groups that hate magic items and they like their play style.
Yeah, really depends on the table. If you have players that WANT a low magic game and are fine with the restrictions, that's fantastic. As long as the table is having fun you're not 'doing it wrong.' But if you pull in a group of players expecting the traditional high fantasy and expecting to be able to make characters however they want RAW, there's going to be some chaffing. Ultimately a conversation for the DM and players to have at or ideally even before session 0.
To the OP;
Some basic questions:
Looking at the fighter are the following considered magic in your game and or campaign:
1) Second Wind
2) Action Serge
I picked the fighter as a baseline character to try out your idea and in my mind the two abilities are more magic based then sword and sorcery based, so I would replace them with something else as well as make some martial archetypes for the setting.
If I wanted to do a minimal amount of work I probably would pick the Rogue class as the class for everyone and then make a number of archetypes to fit any social, region and org I needed. I would have race be a main distinction point between PC's with a number options that would help make each PC unique and interesting.
I've played in some, the last one we were limited to human at the start. Other races needed to be unlocked if we met them, depending on how we progressed in the overarching story. Magic, through Wizards, was limited as they were all forced to adhere to the imperial creed and army. Clerics were limited to those approved by the Empire. Magic items were almost non-existent outside highly dangerous ruins/outposts from an ancient civilization. It works, but it gets constricting fast. Not only for the players but also for the DM as he nearly killed us a few times because we just didn't have the strength needed to do certain things he had envisioned in his campaign world. In the end, we had unlocked Dwarves, Tieflings and Orcs before the campaign imploded. We would have unlocked Dark Elves, but we never got to talk with them.
Battlemaster seems to generally be praised as a really good subclass from what I've heard.
Personally I wouldn't be opposed to a low magic game but I think I'd prefer to try it in a system built for it. You do have a point that many people would probably not want to venture out of 5E, but if I were to get into such a game I think I would want to branch out for a more fitting experience, one tailored to the idea instead of having to strip down 5E to try and make it something it's not.
5e is the big player in TTRPGs. That's where the money is. Makes sense that these small companies want a bit of the apple.
I'm currently building out a sword and sorcery campaign in 5e, and I wanted to point out something you all already know: D&D is just a list of suggestions; it's always been a list of suggestions that you tailor to fit the scope of your campaign. You don't have to use everything; I think it would feel too unbalanced to use everything in the first place, as much as that just seems to be the way folks play these days. I want a certain look and feel, and I think things like dragonborns or tieflings or artificers, while cool, would be out of place and kind of ridiculous in my own campaign. I've been playing and DMing since the early 90s, when homebrew was the rule, and using the premade stuff was fine for beginner DMs and players, but if you wanted to craft a unique experience you had to branch out from the premade stuff at some point.
I would argue that 5e makes it even easier to craft unique campaign worlds, like sword and sorcery, simply because of the volume of resources available to pick and choose from. I had to weigh the difference between teaching my group how to use 2e (perfect for Sword & Sorcery) or just modifying 5e, because these folks are more familiar with that, and I'm glad I stuck with 5e instead. I personally love customizing and tweaking the world in weird, fantastic, and unexpected ways though.