First 5e campaign questions

[TheShrike47]

Hi all! So I'm just learning the ropes of 5e, but campaign ideas are already flooding through me! For the first time ever, I'm considering some major house rules to give the setting a bit more flavor, but I'm unsure if the impact will be too negative on my hypothetical players.

The biggest one I'm thinking about is a regional feel for magic; 'Northern' magic would be represented by Warlocks (or Witches, as they're sometimes called) and 'Southern' magic would be taught in ancient schools (i.e. Wizards).

Sorcery...would not exist.

I know this would really change the campaign, but if there were no PC or NPC sorcerers then at least both sides would be equally impacted.

Thoughts on this?

[Rysto]

There's nothing wrong with saying particular classes don't exist in your setting. You just have to make sure that your players are on board with that coming into the campaign.

[RedMage125]

The regional magic idea is less of a houserule and more "setting". But it sounds cool.

I mean, banning sorcerer as a class is about the only "rule" you're inputting. And since it will have no further impact than a game where no PC took that class, I say "go ahead".

[MrStabby]

So a few things to be careful of - you said "both sides"- just don't fall into an adversarial mindset of PCs vs NPCs. If you want a geographical feel to magic consider delaying it - let the players pick their characters and then assign the type of magic to the region based on their choice. For example Bob plays a warlock from the south, so warlock magic is southern magic. Sarah plays a sorcerer from the North, so in this case it is Wizard magic that doesn't exist.

Just check what people want to play first.

[DivisibleByZero]

It's your world. Do what you want to create the world you envision. If players think they're entitled to have a say, then you can tell them to create their own world and they can DM.

[TheShrike47]

Oh, I don't favor an adversarial relationship between player and DM; I think it's one of the worst traditions in all of gaming.

To be honest, this might be something I only get to run at cons with pregens, so I feel a little bit better about implementing this sort of thing. I was mostly concerned that removing sorcery might unbalance the game somehow.

Thanks for the advice! I will keep popping in here as more ideas come to me.

[Estrillian]

As the other posters have said, there is nothing at all wrong with what you propose.

I've played mundane games where the only allowed classes are Barbarian, Rogue, Fighter, Spell-less Ranger, restricting what part of the world Warlocks and Wizards come from is nothing :)

[Joe the Rat]

Bladesingers have to be elven or half-elven. Them's the rules. Let anyone do it, that's a setting rule. Let only one type of full-blooded elf do it, also a setting rule. I think you're going to be fine. What about Bards?

You should put together a setting brief - enough to give the players an idea of the tone and themes, and specific restrictions (or removal of said restrictions) in play. Also include some thoughts to why this is the case. What are the cultural traditions or historical events that drive the differences? You might consider doing a "session zero" world/character building session. Your players may have their own ideas to fill in details. It gets a little more player buy in, and can give you new ideas to work with.

Example: My Elves are Different. One player came in wanting to take a "standard" high elf. So we cooked up a homeland for them (Totally-not-Avalon), and a reason why he doesn't have WoW/Anime ears or echolocation (They're really not from around here). He came up with a reason to be in the area (questing to resolve a "mysterious illness") which ended up giving me an idea for major plot coupons, and an Endgame scenario.

[TheShrike47]

What about Bards?

Ah, good question! I think I would allow bards to be universal, which voukd have some really interesting implications.

A little more detail about the setting may help here. I'm sort of going with a weird mix of Howard's Hyperboria and Scott's Ivanhoe, which in turn came from the idea of only using the four real world pantheons (Celtic, Egyptian, Greek and Norse). The game is set in the Kingdom of Albion (name subject to change), which is series of islands inhabited by a Celtic people; fifty years ago, the Northmen invaded from the mainland, bringing thier own culture, customs and religion.

The Old Faith (druidism) is now illegal, meaning all druids are now in hiding or operating discreetly; temples to the New Gods (Aesir and Vaenir) are like the great wooden churches of Norway. Many people still practice the Old Faith (which has no temples) in their homes or in the wild places, frequently wearing animal masks to hide their identities. The Lords of the North are aware of these practices, but mostly let them slide unless they're looking for an excuse to arrest someone; mostly their trying to break the power of the druids, who they see as instigators and rebels.

(It should be noted now now that the two peoples come in all shades of black, white and gray; there are many good Northmen and many evil Celts)

To the south lie the Great Empires (still working on the names) of the Egyptian and Greek peoples; both are seen as very old, wise and rather decadent, but also great sailors and traders. Most of the great towns of Albion have a Merchant's Quarter where Southerners work, pray and love, and their strange ships with triangular sails ply the seas.

The Empires are the homes of the Schools of the Magi, where ancient secrets are passed from master to apprentice; on rare occasions, a Northerner of great promise may train in the Southern style of Wizardry, but they are viewed as quite strange in both North and South.

Traditionally here are no clerics of the Old Faith, and no druids of the other pantheons, though again, exceptions may occur. Paladins typically serve one of the gods of light (Apollo, Ra or Baldur, perhaps others), and wear armor appropriate to their culture, so Myrmidon-style paladins are thing.

Bards might play lyres, panpipes, bagpipes or any number of instruments, so I think making them universal makes the most sense. Still trying to figure out where rangers fit in.

So those are some preliminary thoughts; everything is, of course, still very much in development.

[TheShrike47]

Oh, and Druidcraft, Prestidigitation and Thaumaturgy are all free cantrips that don't count towards a spellcaster's cantrip limit.

[Contrast]

I was mostly concerned that removing sorcery might unbalance the game somehow.

I would imagine very few parties are 12 members, each a different class. Most parties are going to be missing most of the classes so nothing is going to be unbalanced by removing any one class.

That said definately talk to your players. Also - is there a definite need to remove sorcerors? Could you not just let players know they'll need to work with you to explain where their magic powers are coming from? Doesn't seem there is a reason you couldn't just fluff a sorc as a 'warlock' who had made an agreement/bargin with a powerful entity of some sort which fits in your setting giving it power to its lifeblood. Or decide dragons aren't a thing and only wild sorcerors are and they're extremely rare and considered to be cursed by the gods.

Basically I don't think there's any reason balance wise why you can't ban sorcerors however I'm not particularly convinced that there's a good reason to do so either.

[TheShrike47]

Basically I don't think there's any reason balance wise why you can't ban sorcerors however I'm not particularly convinced that there's a good reason to do so either.

Full disclosure here: I *really* don't like the 5e take on sorcerers, either in terms of flavor or rules, and I think it's inferior to both the 3.X and Pathfinder versions of the class; more complex than 3.X, but less flexible than PF. It seems like a compromise between the two that somehow keeps the worst elements of both. So originally I was just trying to avoid the class, and then decided to build on that omission in a bit of interesting world-building.

(For the record, I skipped 4e entirely, so I can't weigh in on that edition's take one way or the other.)

Seeing as I have yet to play a single session of 5e, I realize this is extremely unfair on my part, and more and more I'm thinking this setting would be great for con play but perhaps too limiting for a regular hometown game group. Regardless, I will keep developing the setting and see where it takes me :)

[Vogonjeltz]

Hi all! So I'm just learning the ropes of 5e, but campaign ideas are already flooding through me! For the first time ever, I'm considering some major house rules to give the setting a bit more flavor, but I'm unsure if the impact will be too negative on my hypothetical players.

The biggest one I'm thinking about is a regional feel for magic; 'Northern' magic would be represented by Warlocks (or Witches, as they're sometimes called) and 'Southern' magic would be taught in ancient schools (i.e. Wizards).

Sorcery...would not exist.

I know this would really change the campaign, but if there were no PC or NPC sorcerers then at least both sides would be equally impacted.

Thoughts on this?

RedMage125 is right that this is more along the lines of designing a setting.

That being said, I'd definitely give your hypothetical players a heads up in case anyone had their heart set on playing a Sorcerer.

Actually, that would be an interesting way to introduce Sorcerers. Imagine this: For untold ages there have been only two major schools of arcane magic, the Professional Southern Colleges (Wizards) and the Self-Taught Hedge mages of the north (Warlocks, Bards, Eldritch Knights, Arcane Tricksters).

Now however in various towns and cities some children on reaching the age of adulthood (call it 18-21) are displaying magical prowess without any previous study or apparent effort!

Maybe have an entire campaign around Sorcerers who take control of the kingdoms they are born into to become Sorcerer Kings, or perhaps one exploring the fear and hostility that might accompany such a sudden shift in the normalized world for everyone else.

Sorcerers might all have the Wild Magic Origin, where every casting presents a potential threat to anyone around them making them even more feared and (By some) hated.

Anyway, food for thought, it would be a very events driven campaign, and probably take place near the dawn of heroes or something like that. If your party has a player who wanted to be a Sorcerer you could include them that way (or have an NPC) as someone the rest of the party becomes friends with and vows to protect against the hostile forces of the world.

On the other hand, if nobody wants to play a Sorcerer, I don't think it would matter a lick if the setting had none. Really it'd be no different than if the party just never encountered a Sorcerer and didn't have one. Same as if they never met a Druid, etcetera.

[CaptainSarathai]

Full disclosure here: I *really* don't like the 5e take on sorcerers, either in terms of flavor or rules, and I think it's inferior to both the 3.X and Pathfinder versions of the class
Doesn't matter - you're not the one playing the class, your players are. I'd hate to show up interested in playing a Warlock, only to be told that the DM doesn't think Warlocks are "right" so he's banned them.
Especially if said DM hasn't used or watched the class in action, in 5e...



more and more I'm thinking this setting would be great for con play but perhaps too limiting for a regular hometown game group. Regardless, I will keep developing the setting and see where it takes me :)
I think the opposite. For Con-play, you barely even need a setting, because you only have a few hours to even explore it.
My last con-style game was literally just Lawrence of Arabia in Eberron Calimshan. That was all the setting amounted to. The players didn't need to know what the "proxy-french" were doing in the region, beside knowing that they were French and acting against the mission at hand.

On the one hand, go ahead and expand your setting. On the other hand, don't think that you need to drop a setting with the size and scope of Forgotten Realms onto your players. Bear in mind that the WotC material is meant to be "worth your money," and so while they give you these huge and deep settings like FR, the point is to provide enough material for several different campaigns.
There are social campaigns involving Waterdavian guilds
There are wilds campaigns along the sword coast and triboar
There are campaigns to stop the Netherese apocalypse
There are campaigns to stop the rise of Tiamat
--And then there's all of that, but in Cormyr now
(or elsewhere, really)

Try to plan out your campaign arcs, and figure out how much you expect your PCs to really see and interact with. Anything outside of that scope can be minimally fleshed out - a name, a description, and a vague location. That's all you need. If they decide to explore there, then you go ahead and flesh it out in depth. Otherwise, just make the world feel alive, and feel like you've got an entire in-depth world mapped out - but don't actually do all the work to make it true.

[TheShrike47]

Doesn't matter - you're not the one playing the class, your players are. I'd hate to show up interested in playing a Warlock, only to be told that the DM doesn't think Warlocks are "right" so he's banned them.
Especially if said DM hasn't used or watched the class in action, in 5e...

I would never pop something like that on players; I'm a firm believer in discussing the setting with players before play commences, either face-to-face or via email.


I think the opposite. For Con-play, you barely even need a setting, because you only have a few hours to even explore it.

When I do con events, I use pregenerated characters in a setting I evolve over time, using the same PCs year after year; that's why I meant it might be better to use it at cons where people won't be rolling up characters, and thus won't have their style cramped.

If it was more of an 'orgainzed play' sort of thing, either rolling up characters at the start or bringing their own characters, than yes, what you said would be true.