Zero Magic Campaign

[Jokes]

I'm starting to draw up plans for a game set in early bronze age Britain, and I don't want any magic users or magic items. The items aren't too much of a problem, since 5e has reduced the need for them significantly. So, I need to cull or change some classes.

Barbarian: Stays almost as is. The only thing that needs to change here are the rituals from Totem Warrior.
Bard: Loses spellcasting. Gains the Battlemaster Combat Superiority feature instead.
Cleric: Gone, replaced with a Background.
Druid: Gone, replaced with a Background.
Fighter: No Eldritch Knight, but otherwise stays as is.
Monk: Gone. Martial Arts becomes a feat.
Paladin: Gone. Doesn't fit well with the time period and it has too many supernatural abilities. A non-magic version is pretty much just a Fighter.
Ranger: Loses spellcasting, gains the Battlemaster Combat Superiority feature instead.
Rogue: Thief only, but otherwise unchanged.
Sorcerer: Gone.
Warlock: Gone.
Wizard: Gone.

So I ask of you, is Combat Superiority a decent trade-off? Would anyone play a Fighter if other classes become Fighters+?

[Giant2005]

I personally think giving them Combat Superiority is too powerful, especially on the Ranger.
Maybe just give them the same thing but with half as many superiority dice?

Also I don't know why you are scrapping the Monk... It isn't like Open Handed Monks do anything too crazy or that Monks weren't existent in that time period.

[Stan]

Are you going strict historical or historical fantasy? If the latter, I'd let barbarians keep all their abilities.
I don't think the bard works out as is - replacing full casting with battle master abilities isn't a fair trade. Maybe bump skill related abilities as they are now the only educated class left.

Are you also adjusting the equipment to match? If so, definitely get rid of crossbows, rapiers, scimitars, and plate armor. Maybe chain armor as well depending on the date. Though with no decent heavy armor, that's one less reason to take fighter.

[Yorrin]

The biggest problem I see right now is the Bard- you've taken out his primary class feature and replaced it with a mediocre subclass. I'd toss out Bard altogether, or turn his inspiration into a feat.

[Human Paragon 3]

I'm starting to draw up plans for a game set in early bronze age Britain, and I don't want any magic users or magic items. The items aren't too much of a problem, since 5e has reduced the need for them significantly. So, I need to cull or change some classes.

Barbarian: Stays almost as is. The only thing that needs to change here are the rituals from Totem Warrior.
Bard: Loses spellcasting. Gains the Battlemaster Combat Superiority feature instead.
Cleric: Gone, replaced with a Background.
Druid: Gone, replaced with a Background.
Fighter: No Eldritch Knight, but otherwise stays as is.
Monk: Gone. Martial Arts becomes a feat.
Paladin: Gone. Doesn't fit well with the time period and it has too many supernatural abilities. A non-magic version is pretty much just a Fighter.
Ranger: Loses spellcasting, gains the Battlemaster Combat Superiority feature instead.
Rogue: Thief only, but otherwise unchanged.
Sorcerer: Gone.
Warlock: Gone.
Wizard: Gone.

So I ask of you, is Combat Superiority a decent trade-off? Would anyone play a Fighter if other classes become Fighters+?

Looks good for the most part. I think giving ranger combat superiority might be a little much. Maybe you should get rid of ranger and make its non-combat abilities into a feat instead?

For Bard, maybe boost number of bardic inspiration dice (double?), then at levels where he gains new spell levels (starting with level 3) give him a fighter maneuver that he can spend an inspiration die to activate.

You could also get rid of bard and make it an archetype for Rogue (granting jack of all trades, bardic inspiration, and bardic knowledge).

[WickerNipple]

Sounds destined to be an all-thief campaign, to me.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Ranger: improve the favored enemy feature with combat bonuses - ranger will benefit from meta changes since they're a lot more necessary for bad terrain travel.
Cleric: Make it a leadership-focused class with skill at healing? Someone's gotta do it.

[Malifice]

Rogue: Thief only, but otherwise unchanged.

Why no assasins?

Guerilla fighters against the Romans and so forth.

[Mr.Moron]

I would probably run on a game designed with historical real world RP in mind. Assuming one exists. Certainly I wouldn't try to use the D&D engine for it.

[Shadow]

Certainly I wouldn't try to use the D&D engine for it.

I second that.

[archaeo]

It might also be worth waiting for the DMG, which is almost sure to have some suggestions on low-magic settings. To be honest, 5e as it exists today just isn't really well-suited for this kind of campaign; cutting out all magic, which presumably means cutting all the magical monsters and items as well, means that you're left with very few resources or options. There are almost certainly better systems to use to play this kind of game right now, and there will almost certainly always be a better game for playing an "early bronze age Britain" game.

Here's the first reddit post I could find with a few suggestions (http://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/171xjk/realistic_medievalthemed_rpg/). Personally, I would say that if you want a bunch of rules and simulationism, use GURPS. If you want to role play, use FATE.

[Stan]

It depends on what you're going for. Zero/low magic is still heroic. You could do things like the Trojan war with heroes mowing down common soldiers. But a class system with the majority of the classes gone is going to feel limited to some.

BRP (the system in Call of Cthulhu) is good for low/no magic. Openquest is a free version of the rules for Runequest. There is also a BRP quickstart put out by Chaosium. There are several historical supplements for Runequest.
Link for Openquest download: http://d101games.com/books/openquest/

[Jokes]

Some good stuff so far.


Also I don't know why you are scrapping the Monk... It isn't like Open Handed Monks do anything too crazy or that Monks weren't existent in that time period.

Mostly thematic reasons. I'll be making both Unarmored Defense and Martial Arts separate feats. And since everyone will be Humans, getting an extra feat at level 1 is likely.


The biggest problem I see right now is the Bard- you've taken out his primary class feature and replaced it with a mediocre subclass. I'd toss out Bard altogether, or turn his inspiration into a feat.

I'd like to have a second skillmonkey class that isn't too rogue-like. It's also a good class to represent the clan Sage or Healer, which no other class really does. I also don't want to make inspiration a feat, since -everyone- would take it. The monk ones are good, but can be replicated simply by wearing armor or wielding weapons.


Why no assasins?

Guerilla fighters against the Romans and so forth.

A couple thousand years before the Romans even existed :smallamused: When the timeline gets up to that point, then yeah, Assassin is in. As it is, the poisoners kit is useful, but I can make a background for that. Assassinate is a good ability, but would be the only thing the archetype would get that is even situationally useful. The disguise and impersonate stuff isn't good when few people would travel very far from their home to the point where everyone knows everyone well enough to be able easily pick out the deception.


As for using a different system... My group has already played a lot of different systems this year, and I'd like to not go over to another one right after we've switched to 5e.

[Raxxius]

Some good stuff so far.



Mostly thematic reasons. I'll be making both Unarmored Defense and Martial Arts separate feats. And since everyone will be Humans, getting an extra feat at level 1 is likely.



I'd like to have a second skillmonkey class that isn't too rogue-like. It's also a good class to represent the clan Sage or Healer, which no other class really does. I also don't want to make inspiration a feat, since -everyone- would take it. The monk ones are good, but can be replicated simply by wearing armor or wielding weapons.



A couple thousand years before the Romans even existed :smallamused: When the timeline gets up to that point, then yeah, Assassin is in. As it is, the poisoners kit is useful, but I can make a background for that. Assassinate is a good ability, but would be the only thing the archetype would get that is even situationally useful. The disguise and impersonate stuff isn't good when few people would travel very far from their home to the point where everyone knows everyone well enough to be able easily pick out the deception.


As for using a different system... My group has already played a lot of different systems this year, and I'd like to not go over to another one right after we've switched to 5e.


While a bit old hat, 2nd eds complete fighter handbook and Combat and Tactics might be helpful for you.

Complete fighter has a chapter on running fighter only campaigns in low/no magic settings, and combat and tactics has a detailed weapons and armour for the era. Complete fighters kits could also be used for backgrounds.

Of course they could be no help at all, but I always liked complete fighter, I felt it was one of the better complete handbooks of 2nd

[EvilAnagram]

I suppose giving everyone access to Battle Master is a decent trade off for certain spell lists, but I don't think the Bard is recovered enough. Maybe look through some of the Bard spells and figure out which ones you can translate into purely nonmagical abilities?

[Stan]

Of course they could be no help at all, but I always liked complete fighter, I felt it was one of the better complete handbooks of 2nd

It was good. Aaron Allston knew his stuff. You can probably find a used copy for $5-10.

[Person_Man]

How are you going to handle healing? My gaming experience is that without a designated healer (or two), you can only make it through a relatively small number of combats before needing to take a Long Rest, especially at low levels.

Separately, I would say that 5E does not do a good job in non-magical campaigns. There's even a paragraph in the Basic rules and PHB called "The Wonders of Magic" that explicitly says this.

[Jokes]

How are you going to handle healing? My gaming experience is that without a designated healer (or two), you can only make it through a relatively small number of combats before needing to take a Long Rest, especially at low levels.

Mostly by running fewer combats. Blasphemy, I know. The combats I do run I want to feel deadly.

[Person_Man]

Mostly by running fewer combats. Blasphemy, I know. The combats I do run I want to feel deadly.

Oh, I don't think its blasphemy. Its just that without the DMG, 5E D&D doesn't currently have a lot of good mechanics for roleplaying or exploration. Roleplaying is basically free form with the occasional Skill check. Exploration in the sense of exploring new location/cultures/ideas basically requires you to write your own campaign setting or import an old one, and exploration in terms of survival (traps, environmental hazards, food/water and hit point resource management, etc) is extremely limited. If you want to focus on those things, you might want to try FATE, Dungeon World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Numenera, or any of the many old school D&D clones which focus on dungeon survival/resource management.

The big/interesting thing about 5E is that it lets you use fantastic splashy fun old school Vancian magic in a relatively simple and less game breaking framework. If you're taking that away, there's not much left to play with.