First off, this is NOT a recruitment thread. I am only interested in polling interest in a new campaign with House Rules.
To start, let's just say I am old school. I started playing in elementary school with the Basic boxed set before moving onto AD&D (1e). I played a lot of systems Fantasy & Sci-Fi RPG in the early and mid-80's, as well as some 2e. And well, I miss the feel of danger that the older systems instilled, I miss what we used to call the Gygax-Grinders (If that Kobold hits the Wizard with a wet noodle, he may die). That's not to say I am out to kill characters, but if you jump off a 100ft cliff I don't care what you roll on a skills check, your dead. Its only a question of how good of a corpse you leave!
So, in that spirit, I would like to start a campaign with a more AD&D feel, and even some of the old modules brought in. This would mean nerfinga lot of 5e with homebrew rules, class and race restrictions, racial/species relations, resource management, etc. If you think that goblins are just misunderstood and shouldn't just be killed on sight, or Elves and Dwarves would just get along if the talked out their difference, then this isn't likely to be the campaign for you. Sure their might be a misunderstood goblin out there, but more likely he was killed early by members of his tribe for being weak. And, yes, papa-Tolkien proved individually Elves and Dwarves can get along and be friendly, there is a lot of baggage to get over first.
If and when the time comes to play this campaign, I will be recruiting players, not characters. I fully expect characters to die, but want players that are going to take that in stride and roll up another and keep going. Even players that are willing to play multiple characters at the same time. (AD&D modules were written for large parties, but a large number of players doesn't work that well in PbP campaigns.)
In AD&D (1e), there was an expectation that higher level characters would establish a residence and “improve” the world around them. For example: Clerics would establish churches, Paladins & Fighters would establish castles, Theives/Assassins may establish guild. This is also something I would encourage.
With that, here is a list of possible general homebrew rules I would consider (but not set in stone or complete, yet):
Ability rolls will be the standard 4 drop lowest, no re-roll 1’s
Will limit to races/classes/specialities/backgrounds to at least only PH & DMG
Only Human (non-variant), Wood Elves, Mountain Dwarves, Forest Gnomes and Lightfoot Halflings are allowed player races, I may entertain the 2 old school “half-races”
Classes available may be limited.
Cantrips may only be used a maximum of your spell bonus per short rest period.
A “short rest” period is at least 8 hours in a non-safe setting (room in a dungeon, camp in the woods), and only resets cantrips, 1 HD of damage. (Basically, your 5e short rest, becomes a long rest and there are no “short” rests)
A “long rest” is 1 play week in a safe setting (room in a respectable tavern, boarding house, etc.)
Magical sub-class/specialization is forbidden for non-caster types. For example, no Arcane Archer or Eldritch Knight as I would look to a high fantasy/low magic campaign.
Leveling will require both time and money
You must have >= 12 in your primary and saving throw abilities, and >=15 where the ability is both a primary and saving throw ability
Some monsters will do XP damage
Players will need to do resource management (count arrows, provisions, expensive spell components, etc).
Languages: At character creation, we will roll (with modifiers) for how “well” you speak/read any learned language, from basic to fluent. This will increase over time and usage.
Some spells will be verboten, such as “Comprehend Languages”
Upon reaching 3/4 tier, characters may attract followers or hire hirelings (such as mercenaries or specialists). One follower may be designated as an heir and optionally played, should the character die. Loyalty rules will be in place for non-heir followers and hirelings.
There would be some specific class restrictions (based on AD&D), such as a Paladin can only have X weapons and keep only X percent of treasure or Druids/Monks must win ritual combat to advance to the next level, etc. But not all are compatible with 5e as a basis (such as Rangers not getting spells till 7th level).
I like some of these ideas. I've always wanted to play a "gritty" campaign just to see how the extended rests worked, and I like the idea of languages being important (even though I suspect having degrees of fluency will just wind up being tedious.) But there's too much in that list that seems unnecessarily, even arbitrarily detrimental to my taste (and ironically, I actually am more into the combat than the roleplay.)
Now, you didn't actually ask for details as to which house rules others would consider deal-breakers, so I won't volunteer that, but... from my perspective, there are several.
(EDIT: Also, I'm not sure I see much difference between 02 and 03 on your poll, so I guess I'd fall into one of those?)
I second RodTheBard, I also would like a more gritty campaign but I'm not sure how the rules affect the balance between magic users and physical combatants. I suppose that if the campaign goes in hand with the rule alterations, it may work. As an example, if a wizard only has very few spells (they will have to choose spells for the spell slots a sin Ad&D, too?) and must resort to a dagger or light crossbow most of the time, most people (I for one) would probably go fighter or rogue, if the number of encounters between rests corresponds to what is normal for 5E standards. I guess if the campaign is balanced for the changes and it is as motivating to play a wizard as it is to play a rogue, then I think it is fine.
Most of all, I think it is paramount that the changes to the rules are very clearly stated at the beginning to minimise the frustration of a player that thought a concept would work where it later turns out that it doesn't, or allow for character changes if this is going to be more experimental when starting.
Ability rolls will be the standard 4 drop lowest, no re-roll 1’s
Wasn't it typically rolled with just 3d6? And you actually rolled for each stat without being able to move the values around and you had to play a class that fit your rolls? I remember that was why Paladins and some other classes were very rare. I wouldn't mind going that far. I feel that this can make for more interesting characters but it requires flexibility and adaptability on the player side and a DM that can bend their campaign to create highlights also for a challenging character.
I would be interested -- I started with 3.5, and didn't get very far, so I'm interested to see if older editions would work for me -- at signup I'd want to know specifics of what classes or subclasses are allowed or not allowed, especially in light of the clarifications cyreon's asking about rolling. Also, are Paladins required to be LG?
The only thing I'm hesitant about is the requirement to have 15s in an ability that is both primary and is a save. Without being able to reroll 1s during attribute generation, you may find some players having rolls that are unusable. And if you happen to need a pair of 15s, some people may not even get beyond attribute generation, having to bow out because they don't meet the minimum requirements.
I never did understand why all the "gritty" campaigns want to limit how many times a wizard can cast but never want to limit how many times a fighter can swing. Fights are tiring... Battle Axes are heavy... But sure Mr. Fighter, you never need to rest or catch your breath even if the fight goes 100 rounds.
Personally I have no problem limiting races playable or even classes available to suit one's world. To me though it seems you would really be happier running a different edition of the ruleset instead of trying to make your concept fit into 5e. I think you would maybe be better off just running AD&D or some of the OSR stuff I hear about or such. I'm not sure if they have platforms for PBP though... Still, good luck finding players. This isn't for me but I hope you all have fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We're doing one small murder-y thing for a bigger, better reason. The ends justify the means.
I never did understand why all the "gritty" campaigns want to limit how many times a wizard can cast but never want to limit how many times a fighter can swing. Fights are tiring... Battle Axes are heavy... But sure Mr. Fighter, you never need to rest or catch your breath even if the fight goes 100 rounds.
Agreed. I have been asking this question since reading the basic rules back in the early 80s. Why is it that every other class can use their abilities at will, but for some reason wizards can't.
I'm an old-school RPG player, still got my AD&D 2nd edition manuals from way back when. It's been ages since I played pen and paper, but I'm still a big fan.
I'd love to give this type of campaign a shot. I'm looking for a DM who's good at creating their own campaign, so this could be a great way for me to get back into it. I've also got the 5e books.
If you're cool with taking on a new (but old) player, I'm totally down to join in.
I never did understand why all the "gritty" campaigns want to limit how many times a wizard can cast but never want to limit how many times a fighter can swing. Fights are tiring... Battle Axes are heavy... But sure Mr. Fighter, you never need to rest or catch your breath even if the fight goes 100 rounds.
Agreed. I have been asking this question since reading the basic rules back in the early 80s. Why is it that every other class can use their abilities at will, but for some reason wizards can't.
My assumption has always been that it has to do with the world building, where magic, being an unnatural or supernatural endeavor, is far more taxing than natural activities such as running or fighting. Not every world understands magic as being normal or easy to sling around. It might require an inherently unfair pact with a terrifying extraplanar entity. It might require humbling oneself and letting go of one's personal goals before a deity. It might require years of study and sacrifice to be able to build up the psychic energy to cast a single cantrip. I know I've read fiction where these elements are true about the magic in the world. Really the DM can decide what the world is like... but I always assumed that rule was to capture this spirit. You're a wizard, you've made a serious sacrifice, because you were just that engrossed by magic. That's why there aren't many wizards in the world!
Anyway, I LOVE old school, and gritty, where who and what you are makes a huge difference in the world, where actions have (sometimes steep) consequences, where there are heavy restrictions on race and class (and especially ability rolls). All of your proposed homebrew rules look excellent to me. I feel like it brings out a ton of creativity working within these limitations. I would be really interested in a game like this! I've been dying to play an old-school paladin with all the old-school restrictions. I think it would be such an incredible challenge.
I never did understand why all the "gritty" campaigns want to limit how many times a wizard can cast but never want to limit how many times a fighter can swing. Fights are tiring... Battle Axes are heavy... But sure Mr. Fighter, you never need to rest or catch your breath even if the fight goes 100 rounds.
Agreed. I have been asking this question since reading the basic rules back in the early 80s. Why is it that every other class can use their abilities at will, but for some reason wizards can't.
AFAIK, the mechanicalreason for this was supposedly to balance the game. Since at higher levels, wizards were supposed to be slinging spells that could destroy entire armies, the initial response to try to keep non-magic casters from feeling left out was to make casters pretty much useless early on, and just give martials followers later on.
Personally, I think this is a terrible game design decision, and I think decades of hindsight (and numerous other attempts at such balance in other systems) justifies my opinion. Nerfing casters so hard during the lower levels only sorta addresses the actual issue in the first place. It also creates entirely new problems, and winds up requiring that you pretty much mold your entire game world (and magic system) around that attempt at "balance."
But, some people are familiar and comfortable with it, so... yeah.
I think the rules like that can work mostly. It just comes down to what the campaign offers and the players. Many players will be used to having a fighter more powerfull at lower level and casters vastly overpowered at high level so thats likely why there is some shock for players about limiting cantrips but the reality is spellmodifier of cantrips depending on statrolls should be plenty and at low level a sling or crossbow should be fine. At higher level a caster will have plenty of spellslots so wont need the cantrips as much unless they are facing an enemy that is not really a problem and the caster just wants to 'do something but not invest anything' so at that point a regular weapon would also be fine. This would actually give casters back the wow effect on doing certain spells since they are not spamming them all the time, so it has rp value for the setting.
I would actually argue the 1 HD per short rest can be more of a problem. Like most of these rules it really depends on how often players have the option of going back to a safe zone. This can make or break the game using these rules. As far as the 1 HD, for a lvl 1 char this is big (perhaps 2 hits worth), for a level 10 character it is almost meaningless for a frontliner (maybe half a hit worth). So i think these should scale based on level (like level / 3 and round it somehow so it will scale). HD are already limited between long rests so this would simply mean all combats should be fairly similar in difficulty. Regular rules allow a deadly fight after a longrest without needing to longrest or do multiple shortrests before becoming viable again due to being able to choose how you portion the HD between long rests. Since again for a higher level they wont be able to use most of them between longrest most likely unless each fight is not difficult on its own and just to slowly chip away at party hp where they have to rotate frontliners.
For hirelings/heir i like that idea, i was actually thinking of sidekicks when you mentioned players perhaps having multiple characters. Using sidekicks for that will keep focus on a main character but will give them something to get a bigger group without making the main characters just one of many. Tier 3/4 might be a bit late for it though. But yes i think making an impact on the world is underused, sadly Acquisitions Incorporated was never that great for it.
As mentioned in the end it comes down to how many encounters/rp is between rests to determine if it will work out. And most importantly having players that will want to focus on teamwork and rp and not just their own character(s). Because imo a gritty campaign mostly means you have to pay more attention and work together which can often be lacking in campaigns. But also rp makes the campaigns more interesting so you dont want to end up with players that only make minmaxed purely combat focussed builds to increase the likelyhood of survival at the cost of rp.
First off, this is NOT a recruitment thread. I am only interested in polling interest in a new campaign with House Rules.
To start, let's just say I am old school. I started playing in elementary school with the Basic boxed set before moving onto AD&D (1e). I played a lot of systems Fantasy & Sci-Fi RPG in the early and mid-80's, as well as some 2e. And well, I miss the feel of danger that the older systems instilled, I miss what we used to call the Gygax-Grinders (If that Kobold hits the Wizard with a wet noodle, he may die). That's not to say I am out to kill characters, but if you jump off a 100ft cliff I don't care what you roll on a skills check, your dead. Its only a question of how good of a corpse you leave!
So, in that spirit, I would like to start a campaign with a more AD&D feel, and even some of the old modules brought in. This would mean nerfing a lot of 5e with homebrew rules, class and race restrictions, racial/species relations, resource management, etc. If you think that goblins are just misunderstood and shouldn't just be killed on sight, or Elves and Dwarves would just get along if the talked out their difference, then this isn't likely to be the campaign for you. Sure their might be a misunderstood goblin out there, but more likely he was killed early by members of his tribe for being weak. And, yes, papa-Tolkien proved individually Elves and Dwarves can get along and be friendly, there is a lot of baggage to get over first.
If and when the time comes to play this campaign, I will be recruiting players, not characters. I fully expect characters to die, but want players that are going to take that in stride and roll up another and keep going. Even players that are willing to play multiple characters at the same time. (AD&D modules were written for large parties, but a large number of players doesn't work that well in PbP campaigns.)
In AD&D (1e), there was an expectation that higher level characters would establish a residence and “improve” the world around them. For example: Clerics would establish churches, Paladins & Fighters would establish castles, Theives/Assassins may establish guild. This is also something I would encourage.
With that, here is a list of possible general homebrew rules I would consider (but not set in stone or complete, yet):
"ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"
1st Edition DMG
I like some of these ideas. I've always wanted to play a "gritty" campaign just to see how the extended rests worked, and I like the idea of languages being important (even though I suspect having degrees of fluency will just wind up being tedious.) But there's too much in that list that seems unnecessarily, even arbitrarily detrimental to my taste (and ironically, I actually am more into the combat than the roleplay.)
Now, you didn't actually ask for details as to which house rules others would consider deal-breakers, so I won't volunteer that, but... from my perspective, there are several.
(EDIT: Also, I'm not sure I see much difference between 02 and 03 on your poll, so I guess I'd fall into one of those?)
Whistler
Titus - V. Human Battle Master Fighter 3 - [Pic] - [Pic2] - [Traits] - in Shadowglass
Locke - V. Human Shadow Monk 3 / Undead Warlock 2 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in FOW - DMless West Marches
Flèche - V. Human Swords Bard 10 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in The Scarlet Mist
Sterling - V. Human Bard 1 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
I second RodTheBard, I also would like a more gritty campaign but I'm not sure how the rules affect the balance between magic users and physical combatants. I suppose that if the campaign goes in hand with the rule alterations, it may work. As an example, if a wizard only has very few spells (they will have to choose spells for the spell slots a sin Ad&D, too?) and must resort to a dagger or light crossbow most of the time, most people (I for one) would probably go fighter or rogue, if the number of encounters between rests corresponds to what is normal for 5E standards. I guess if the campaign is balanced for the changes and it is as motivating to play a wizard as it is to play a rogue, then I think it is fine.
Most of all, I think it is paramount that the changes to the rules are very clearly stated at the beginning to minimise the frustration of a player that thought a concept would work where it later turns out that it doesn't, or allow for character changes if this is going to be more experimental when starting.
Wasn't it typically rolled with just 3d6? And you actually rolled for each stat without being able to move the values around and you had to play a class that fit your rolls? I remember that was why Paladins and some other classes were very rare. I wouldn't mind going that far. I feel that this can make for more interesting characters but it requires flexibility and adaptability on the player side and a DM that can bend their campaign to create highlights also for a challenging character.
|| Tryncaryn - Halfling Monk/Wizard - Dragon of Icespire Peak || Berry - Fairy Barbarian - Deathworld: Lost Mine of Phandelver || Taya - Mysterious Fighter - Echoes of Empire || Myrla Stardust - Wood Elf Rogue - After the Fall ||
I would be interested -- I started with 3.5, and didn't get very far, so I'm interested to see if older editions would work for me -- at signup I'd want to know specifics of what classes or subclasses are allowed or not allowed, especially in light of the clarifications cyreon's asking about rolling. Also, are Paladins required to be LG?
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
The only thing I'm hesitant about is the requirement to have 15s in an ability that is both primary and is a save. Without being able to reroll 1s during attribute generation, you may find some players having rolls that are unusable. And if you happen to need a pair of 15s, some people may not even get beyond attribute generation, having to bow out because they don't meet the minimum requirements.
Beyond that, I'd be in for this.
Jesus saves. Everyone else takes damage.
Maybe interested, pending further discussion on the thread here and elaboration.
I never did understand why all the "gritty" campaigns want to limit how many times a wizard can cast but never want to limit how many times a fighter can swing. Fights are tiring... Battle Axes are heavy... But sure Mr. Fighter, you never need to rest or catch your breath even if the fight goes 100 rounds.
Personally I have no problem limiting races playable or even classes available to suit one's world. To me though it seems you would really be happier running a different edition of the ruleset instead of trying to make your concept fit into 5e. I think you would maybe be better off just running AD&D or some of the OSR stuff I hear about or such. I'm not sure if they have platforms for PBP though... Still, good luck finding players. This isn't for me but I hope you all have fun.
We're doing one small murder-y thing for a bigger, better reason. The ends justify the means.
-- Eleanor Shellstrop
Agreed. I have been asking this question since reading the basic rules back in the early 80s. Why is it that every other class can use their abilities at will, but for some reason wizards can't.
Jesus saves. Everyone else takes damage.
I'm an old-school RPG player, still got my AD&D 2nd edition manuals from way back when. It's been ages since I played pen and paper, but I'm still a big fan.
I'd love to give this type of campaign a shot. I'm looking for a DM who's good at creating their own campaign, so this could be a great way for me to get back into it. I've also got the 5e books.
If you're cool with taking on a new (but old) player, I'm totally down to join in.
My assumption has always been that it has to do with the world building, where magic, being an unnatural or supernatural endeavor, is far more taxing than natural activities such as running or fighting. Not every world understands magic as being normal or easy to sling around. It might require an inherently unfair pact with a terrifying extraplanar entity. It might require humbling oneself and letting go of one's personal goals before a deity. It might require years of study and sacrifice to be able to build up the psychic energy to cast a single cantrip. I know I've read fiction where these elements are true about the magic in the world. Really the DM can decide what the world is like... but I always assumed that rule was to capture this spirit. You're a wizard, you've made a serious sacrifice, because you were just that engrossed by magic. That's why there aren't many wizards in the world!
Anyway, I LOVE old school, and gritty, where who and what you are makes a huge difference in the world, where actions have (sometimes steep) consequences, where there are heavy restrictions on race and class (and especially ability rolls). All of your proposed homebrew rules look excellent to me. I feel like it brings out a ton of creativity working within these limitations. I would be really interested in a game like this! I've been dying to play an old-school paladin with all the old-school restrictions. I think it would be such an incredible challenge.
AFAIK, the mechanical reason for this was supposedly to balance the game. Since at higher levels, wizards were supposed to be slinging spells that could destroy entire armies, the initial response to try to keep non-magic casters from feeling left out was to make casters pretty much useless early on, and just give martials followers later on.
Personally, I think this is a terrible game design decision, and I think decades of hindsight (and numerous other attempts at such balance in other systems) justifies my opinion. Nerfing casters so hard during the lower levels only sorta addresses the actual issue in the first place. It also creates entirely new problems, and winds up requiring that you pretty much mold your entire game world (and magic system) around that attempt at "balance."
But, some people are familiar and comfortable with it, so... yeah.
Whistler
Titus - V. Human Battle Master Fighter 3 - [Pic] - [Pic2] - [Traits] - in Shadowglass
Locke - V. Human Shadow Monk 3 / Undead Warlock 2 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in FOW - DMless West Marches
Flèche - V. Human Swords Bard 10 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in The Scarlet Mist
Sterling - V. Human Bard 1 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
I think the rules like that can work mostly. It just comes down to what the campaign offers and the players. Many players will be used to having a fighter more powerfull at lower level and casters vastly overpowered at high level so thats likely why there is some shock for players about limiting cantrips but the reality is spellmodifier of cantrips depending on statrolls should be plenty and at low level a sling or crossbow should be fine. At higher level a caster will have plenty of spellslots so wont need the cantrips as much unless they are facing an enemy that is not really a problem and the caster just wants to 'do something but not invest anything' so at that point a regular weapon would also be fine. This would actually give casters back the wow effect on doing certain spells since they are not spamming them all the time, so it has rp value for the setting.
I would actually argue the 1 HD per short rest can be more of a problem. Like most of these rules it really depends on how often players have the option of going back to a safe zone. This can make or break the game using these rules. As far as the 1 HD, for a lvl 1 char this is big (perhaps 2 hits worth), for a level 10 character it is almost meaningless for a frontliner (maybe half a hit worth). So i think these should scale based on level (like level / 3 and round it somehow so it will scale). HD are already limited between long rests so this would simply mean all combats should be fairly similar in difficulty.
Regular rules allow a deadly fight after a longrest without needing to longrest or do multiple shortrests before becoming viable again due to being able to choose how you portion the HD between long rests. Since again for a higher level they wont be able to use most of them between longrest most likely unless each fight is not difficult on its own and just to slowly chip away at party hp where they have to rotate frontliners.
For hirelings/heir i like that idea, i was actually thinking of sidekicks when you mentioned players perhaps having multiple characters. Using sidekicks for that will keep focus on a main character but will give them something to get a bigger group without making the main characters just one of many. Tier 3/4 might be a bit late for it though. But yes i think making an impact on the world is underused, sadly Acquisitions Incorporated was never that great for it.
As mentioned in the end it comes down to how many encounters/rp is between rests to determine if it will work out. And most importantly having players that will want to focus on teamwork and rp and not just their own character(s). Because imo a gritty campaign mostly means you have to pay more attention and work together which can often be lacking in campaigns. But also rp makes the campaigns more interesting so you dont want to end up with players that only make minmaxed purely combat focussed builds to increase the likelyhood of survival at the cost of rp.