Would You Play In This Campaign?

Let's say time was not an issue. If you had plenty of time to join a new D&D campaign would this idea appeal to you?

The campaign would be set in a very generic world designed to allow any and all possibilities for characters of all types. (It is possible I may choose Forgotten Realms since it fits the criteria quite well, however I may also use a homebrew world.) The theme of the campaign would be episodic with occassional story arcs.

At the start of the campaign, the characters would be 1st level with an elite array for ability scores. They get average starting wealth and max hp at 1st level, but fixed hp (average) every level thereafter. Taking a level in a brand new base class or prestige class requires training down time. The game uses core D&D 3.5 rules except as noted with the following variants.

-Upkeep (DMG 130) to reduce minutiae in book-keeping
-Action Points (UA 122) to a) enable a mechanic for balancing extra options and b) encourage use of core races and base classes (see below)
-Level-Independent XP Awards (UA 213) to make XP calculation simpler

Players would be allowed to use any base class, feat, equipment, magic item, psionic item, spell, power, manuever, or soulmeld from the following books: Player's Handbook, Player's Handbook II, Dungeon Master's Guide, Dungeon Master's Guide II, Monster Manual, Expanded Psionics Handbook, Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, and Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords. Players could choose any race from the Player's Handbook.

Players may spend action points permanently to use rules contained in other WotC books (as long as they are not setting-specific like Eberron) and even Dragon magazine on a case-by-case basis. Players may spend 1 action point to gain access to any single feat, spell, power, manuever, skill trick, equipment, or magic item. To play as another base class costs 3 action points per class. To play as another race costs 3 action points plus the ECL of the race. To play a prestige class costs 2 action points per 3-level class, 3 action points per 5-level class, and 5 action points per 10-level class.

I would consider adjustments on a case-by-case basis for options that are almost universally considered to be underpowered (like the hexblade). There would be a very small list (comprising perhaps a dozen items) that I consider to be unbalancing or disruptive that would be restricted from the campaign. Character retraining from the PHII would be allowed at each level, and character rebuilding would be available after completion of an appropriate quest (but no more than once every 5 levels as a general rule of thumb).

In general, I would follow the gp limit guidelines in the DMG, however, the only items considered to be on-hand would be those valued under 3,000 gp. Additionally, for a magic item to be available, there must be a spellcaster capable of creating the item in the community (e.g. scrolls of 8th level spells would not be available in a large town). Finally, items not on-hand (i.e. those valued at 3,000 gp or under) must be commissioned by paying the full price up front and waiting for the item to be crafted. Players would occassionally find more valuable items for sale "off-the-shelf," but this would be the exception rather than the rule.

New players could join at any time, but they would be required to play a character one level lower than the average level of the other player characters. The same would apply to old players who wish to play new characters. They would be allowed to construct their characters like any other player and use item crafting feats to craft items they meet the prerequisites for if they desire. Their wealth would be based on the recommended wealth from the DMG.

So what do you think? I am trying to decide what I want to run for my next campaign, and I am interested in whether or not this would be an idea that a lot of players would go for. It is not at all typical of the kind of campaign I tend to run, but I am interested to see how it would turn out. I wanted to make things as simple and balanced as possible, but allow for a wealth of character options. If you voted "maybe" or "no," then what are the minimal changes that would get you interested? Please bear in mind I have no interest in running a "no-holds-barred" campaign as they typically get out of hand. Also, if you would be interested in the campaign, please list one single item (e.g. the Leap Attack feat) or class of items that are all similar on a fundamental level (e.g. metamagic rods) that you would like to see on the restricted list, bearing in mind that any toys available to the players are available to the DM.

-Level-Independent XP Awards (UA 213) to make XP calculation simpler

New players could join at any time, but they would be required to play a character one level lower than the average level of the other player characters. The same would apply to old players who wish to play new characters.

Click to expand...

These don't fly together. It means that anyone who comes in late, or someone who just grows truly tired of a character and wants a change, can never catch up with the rest of the party. I don't insist on everything being 100% equal, but knowing that I'm always going to be the smallest fish in the pond is a deal-breaker for me.

Mouseferatu said:

These don't fly together. It means that anyone who comes in late, or someone who just grows truly tired of a character and wants a change, can never catch up with the rest of the party. I don't insist on everything being 100% equal, but knowing that I'm always going to be the smallest fish in the pond is a deal-breaker for me.

Click to expand...

I think I can convince you otherwise. The UA variant has a much greater differential than the standard D&D XP curve, making the difference in XP between one level almost unimportant by the time you are five levels higher. Consider an example where a player wishes to join the campaign when the other characters are 5th level. At 4th level, he will be 4,000 XP behind. However, by the time the original party reaches 80,000 XP, everyone is 10th level, and will remain so for another 40,000 XP. This equates to the character who came in late being behind less than 10% of the time. At that point, you will almost never be behind in level because usually the XP you earn will be much greater than that differential. So you might be the smallest fish in the pond, but you are a 96,000 XP fish compared to a 100,000 XP fish, which for most intents and purposes is mechanically identical.

Edit: I think you will find it often takes at least 3-4 levels for most PCs to "catch up" using the core rules anyway.

Mouseferatu said:

or someone who just grows truly tired of a character and wants a change

Click to expand...

Note I allow retraining and rebuilding. Making a new character is the easy way out. But for most players, I doubt it will be an issue when they can change their character up in small ways every level or in major ways every 5 levels.

It looks like there is enough flexibility to create practically any character I would want to play, so this is a campaign I would consider playing in (unless there is another one that offers me more flexibility and control over my character, of course ).

Just a few comments and questions:

1. I assume actions points accumulate instead of refreshing every level? If so, the cost of additional options may not be very significant once the PC has had the chance to accumulate several action points.

2. Is the AP cost to play another base class the cost to play a second base class (e.g. a fighter multiclassing into wizard pays this cost) or the cost to play a non-core base class (e.g. a pure-classed warmage pays this cost), or both? If it is both, does multiclassing into a non-core base class cost double? The same question applies to the AP cost for prestige classes.

3. How much downtime can PCs generally expect between adventures for training, making magic items or having them made? Or is this simply dependent on how much upkeep they are willing to spend?

FireLance said:

It looks like there is enough flexibility to create practically any character I would want to play, so this is a campaign I would consider playing in (unless there is another one that offers me more flexibility and control over my character, of course ).

Click to expand...

Like the Kayso campaign?

FireLance said:

Just a few comments and questions:

1. I assume actions points accumulate instead of refreshing every level? If so, the cost of additional options may not be very significant once the PC has had the chance to accumulate several action points.

Click to expand...

The action points rule is used exactly as described in UA. However, action points spent to access new rules are spent permanently; they do not refresh. Hence, even a 10th level PC would only have 10 action points to spend. If that PC is playing a drow wizard/loremaster, then he only has one action point to spare (4 APs for drow and 5 for loremaster)! So he could have one more feat, spell, or magic item, but that would be it.

FireLance said:

2. Is the AP cost to play another base class the cost to play a second base class (e.g. a fighter multiclassing into wizard pays this cost) or the cost to play a non-core base class (e.g. a pure-classed warmage pays this cost), or both? If it is both, does multiclassing into a non-core base class cost double? The same question applies to the AP cost for prestige classes.

Click to expand...

Oops. I meant a base class other than those on the list of approved sources (PH, PH2, DMG, DMG2, MM, EPH, MoI, ToM, ToB:BoNS). You could be a cleric/psion/incarnate/warblade if you wanted to and it wouldn't cost any action points (the effectiveness of such a character would of course be debatable). You only incur the base class cost if you want to play, say a hexblade (Complete Warrior), a battle dancer (Dragon Compendium), an assassin (Green Ronin Assassin's Handbook) or such.

FireLance said:

3. How much downtime can PCs generally expect between adventures for training, making magic items or having them made? Or is this simply dependent on how much upkeep they are willing to spend?

Click to expand...

Since the campaign is episodic, they can generally expect as much downtime as they want between episodes. When I say "episodes," I mean about 1-2 levels worth of adventuring (the typical time it takes to begin and end a standard published adventure; i.e. not an adventure path or mega adventure). And that is not to say there may not be downtime within an episode. Upkeep would merely affect whether or not they received circumstance modifiers/penalties in social situations.

I voted "Yes, I'm mildly interested, but it wouldn't be my first choice".

The reason for this has little to do with your list of house rules and more to do with this:

The campaign would be set in a very generic world designed to allow any and all possibilities for characters of all types. (It is possible I may choose Forgotten Realms since it fits the criteria quite well, however I may also use a homebrew world.)

Click to expand...

I am exceedingly sick and tired of traditional, generic Tolkienesque fantasy. It doesn't matter to me how wide open the possibilities are when the setting is rooted in exhausted high fantasy tropes. Playing, say, a pentifex monolith from Magic of Incarnum is not exciting when the world is full of elven rangers and orc barbarians, because the "different" ideas that my character represents would only be a footnote to the same old conventions.

That said, I agree with Ari that requiring new characters to come in at a level lower than the other characters, especially for players new to the game, is another problem. I've never understood the rationale for this; as a player, I've never resented someone bringing in a character just as powerful as ours because of their not having "earned it" or some other competitive nonsense.

The single item that I would ask be banned from the campaign would be the Natural Spell feat. Druids are already a strong class, and the choice to wildshape into a combat monster ought to be exclusive of spellcasting ability.

I would consider playing, but I would worry the DM had bit off way more then they could chew. No offense, but when I join online gmaes, wide-open character creation is a big red flag for me. Most of thsoe games fold in a big hurry due tp DMAbsentitis. On the other hand, DMs who restrict options generally last longer. My experience, your milage may vary.

And some of the stuff you are allowing and forcing people to pay for don't make much sense, frankly. Why pay for Complete stuff, when you allow Tome, 9 swords and Incarnum, plus psionics for free. I am a big fan of psionics, but you are really diluting the magic of your world with those four books, plus Core. Plus you are biting off a lot IMHO by trying to fit all of those in a single world. Maybe you re a better DM thatn me and can pull it iff smoothly, but I seriously doubt I could.

As for level, level 1 is always a turn-off to me as it tkes so long to go up, and the game is so fragile with one critical being enough to kill even the front line guys, let alone a mage.

So i would probably let it pass if it were an online gmae. If it were face to face I would probably give it a try.

Sounds a little too open for my tastes. I prefer campaigns with more definition, even it if means some severe character restrictions.

I guess I am just not a fan of "generic" worlds.

mhacdebhandia said:

I am exceedingly sick and tired of traditional, generic Tolkienesque fantasy. It doesn't matter to me how wide open the possibilities are when the setting is rooted in exhausted high fantasy tropes. Playing, say, a pentifex monolith from Magic of Incarnum is not exciting when the world is full of elven rangers and orc barbarians, because the "different" ideas that my character represents would only be a footnote to the same old conventions.

Click to expand...

Well I actually never run these kind of games which is why I am thinking about trying. I typically run Greyhawk and am fairly draconian about what I allow. Plus, it is hard to drum up interest for a campaign locally when I say the criteria is that it is core rules only plus magic on incarnum. I might attract the one guy around here besides myself who owns magic of incarnum and no one else. Online is a different story, but online games are different for other reasons.

mhacdebhandia said:

That said, I agree with Ari that requiring new characters to come in at a level lower than the other characters, especially for players new to the game, is another problem. I've never understood the rationale for this; as a player, I've never resented someone bringing in a character just as powerful as ours because of their not having "earned it" or some other competitive nonsense.

Click to expand...

The following scenario has happened twice in campaigns I have either run or played in. When I was a player, it annoyed the snot out of me. When I was a DM, it annoyed the snot out of me that it annoyed the snot out of the other players. A new player joins, and because he has not had to endure pink ninja levels, he can try out a more effective build without actually surviving through those tough levels. The mystic theurge is a chief offender. It is not a broken class really, but built right it can be damn powerful. And to build it right you often have to make some sacrifices early on that limit your effectiveness at lower levels. The player gets the bonus of not having to deal with those levels and therefore I think a one level penalty, especially when he will be able to catch up later, is perfectly fair. There is no denying that it is easy to optimize a build when you start at a higher level. Of course, this is one reason why I normally suggest a gestalt character who receives half XP for people who want to play a mystic theurge.

Thank you for the feedback.