Back to Basics D&D campaign

[radmod]

Soon I hope to be running a (3.5) world that I've run several times in the past (hearkening back to 2e). I lived through the whole TSR "let's create anything and everything but don't bother balancing it" period. As such, I've always been leery of races/classes/prestige classes that moved away from the basics (PHB, DMG). Also many of the players I've DM'd did not have access to books beyond the PHB/DMG. So I've mostly limited classes for this world to the PHB and DMG (and a few of my own). For this new instantiation, we have access to pretty much everything but I'm looking to keep the world close to the basics and I'm looking to add a few classes/PrCs that tend to be more like the basic PHB classes. Obviously, anything that is specific to a setting/environment is out. Because of the makeup of the world only the 5+2 basic races of the PHB are allowed (though after encountering other races the players will be allowed, perhaps, to play some of those).
The basic idea is God destroyed most of the world over a thousand years ago. The PCs live in a heavily populated city where no one goes adventuring because it's far too dangerous. They will be the first in over a hundred years. As far as anyone knows there is no civilization in the world beyond the city itself (just bad guys: orcs, goblins, monsters, etc.).

For examples:
While I haven't had time to give it much thought, I believe I will include
Scout
Warlock (I've never actually seen anyone play one, so I'm not sure)
Beguiler
I'm also accepting
Dungeon Delver (due to circumstances)
Master Specialist
I'm considering, but am hesitant on
Ultimate Magus (I play one and I'm darn good - too good in fact)
Holt Warden (not sure it fits)
Favored Soul
WarMage
Definitely out is
Ninja (it doesn't fit the world)
Psion (I don't do psionics)
Wu-jen and the like
Wild Mage
Tribal classes (though I might consider one or two)
Vow of Poverty
Fiendish types and the like (no Fiendish blood available)

So what do you guys think should be included that are pretty close (power-wise/flavor-wise) to the basics? What definitely shouldn't?

 

[steeldragons]

The "basics" of what? Which edition?

"Basics" for races, as far as I'm concerned, are:
Human, half-elf, elf, dwarf, gnome, halfling, hallf-orc.

Dragonborn, Tiefling, Eladrin, Drow, Aasimar, Warforged, ANY goblinoid or "monstrous humanoid"...not basic. Not necessary.

Classes?
Scout: a ranger does this. IS this. If you want a "scout" type character, then the player can construct them to BE a "scout" type of character..."Scout" as a class is not necessary. There's ranger...there's thief/rogue...there's multi-classes.

Warlock (I've never actually seen anyone play one, so I'm not sure):

No reason to start now. WAY overpowered. WAY unnecessary. You have wizards? You have sorcerers? You need "warlocks"...why?

Beguiler: Um...enchanter specialist. Done. Again, another PrC that just doesn't need to be.

I'm also accepting
Dungeon Delver (due to circumstances)
Master Specialist

Dunno what those are...so not considering that "basic". Sounds like more "flavor" stuff that can be done with other classes.

I'm considering, but am hesitant on
Ultimate Magus (I play one and I'm darn good - too good in fact):

You mean a wizard who knows what they're doing? Um, no. Not basic.

Holt Warden (not sure it fits)

Again, ranger or druid guy?

Favored Soul

Cleric...who's, ya know...a really good cleric?!

WarMage

Ok...so let someone have a fighter/mage dual class. Big woo.

Look...If you want "basic" then be "BASIC." You've already listed in here more things than I'D consider basic. Make the players create the characters they want...not rely on special class tricks to get them by. ANY basic class can be ANY of these character classes if played right (and played up in the right areas).

In short, I recommend "cutting back."
Good luck and happy gaming.
--Steel Dragons

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

steeldragons, I think you need more practice with the "quote" feature, it will bring clarity to what you posted.

Though your final point has merit, I think radmod would be well advised to define "Back to Basics" more clearly.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Warlock (I've never actually seen anyone play one, so I'm not sure):

No reason to start now. WAY overpowered. WAY unnecessary. You have wizards? You have sorcerers? You need "warlocks"...why?

Overpowered? Why because it has magic?

Beguiler: Um...enchanter specialist. Done. Again, another PrC that just doesn't need to be.

Beguiler covers traps and spellcasting, unlike Sorceror.

Favored Soul

Cleric...who's, ya know...a really good cleric?!

Actually Clerics are better, but FS are spontaneous.

WarMage
Ok...so let someone have a fighter/mage dual class. Big woo.

Look...If you want "basic" then be "BASIC." You've already listed in here more things than I'D consider basic. Make the players create the characters they want...not rely on special class tricks to get them by. ANY basic class can be ANY of these character classes if played right (and played up in the right areas).

Warmage is spontaneous like a Sorceror and but spells known only blaster. It gives up alot. A decent variant.

Very similar to Class variants back in AD&D.

 

[Dandu]

Warlock (I've never actually seen anyone play one, so I'm not sure):

No reason to start now. WAY overpowered. WAY unnecessary. You have wizards? You have sorcerers? You need "warlocks"...why?

Funniest thing I've seen all day.

Warlocks are medium powered at best.

 

[steeldragons]

steeldragons, I think you need more practice with the "quote" feature, it will bring clarity to what you posted.

Clearly, I do. Think the first time I used it was tonight in some other thread. Yes, really!

Though your final point has merit, I think radmod would be well advised to define "Back to Basics" more clearly.

Thanks.

 

[steeldragons]

Funniest thing I've seen all day.

Warlocks are medium powered at best.

Always happy to provide a laugh, Dandu.

Medium powered, high powered, over powered, low powered...my point remains. If you have/are allowing wizards and/or sorcerers in your campaign...your, as stated by the OP, "basic" campaign...you need/want to allow warlocks why?

--SD

 

[Dandu]

Easier to handle and plan around as a DM.

 

[steeldragons]

Sorry. Occurred to me that I debated radmod's class choices without offering any suggestion.

Given a desire for a "Basic" campaign...if I wanted to be "hardcore" I'd say go all the way back to "the Four" (Fighter, Cleric, Magic-user, Thief). That's a biiiit restrictive though, I think.

So I'd say...as a "basic" list of classes:
Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard (general/universalist), Thief, Bard.

...to add a lil' sumthin' include:

Barbarian, Druid, Sorcerer (Wizard specialists also?), Monk.

There you go. 11 options (not counting the 8 Specialist wizards. 19 options if you want to count those) and not a "Prestige Class" in sight.

Do your players need more than 11 (or 19) options to be creative?

Start your basic campaign with these basic classes...if things get stale or players/characters want to move in other directions after a time, allow/introduce a fewwwww PrC options (like 1 per original class) at higher levels.

Also allows for the fun of throwing the PrC's you ARE considering using as NPCs/foes against the party. Strange evil-doers with strange powers/skills unlike anything they've seen or trained for or heard of...Always good stuff when the party is saying "How did they DO that?!" or "She just did WHAT?! Let's get out of here!"

--SD

 

[radmod]

Though your final point has merit, I think radmod would be well advised to define "Back to Basics" more clearly.

Quite frankly, I thought I defined it adequately with:

So I've mostly limited classes for this world to the PHB and DMG (and a few of my own). For this new instantiation, we have access to pretty much everything but I'm looking to keep the world close to the basics and I'm looking to add a few classes/PrCs that tend to be more like the basic PHB classes.

~And~

So what do you guys think should be included that are pretty close (power-wise/flavor-wise) to the basics?

Scout -> I consider the Scout to be what the Ranger should've been all along which is why I've included it.

From Starbuck:
Beguiler covers traps and spellcasting, unlike Sorceror.

Actually Clerics are better, but FS are spontaneous.

Warmage is spontaneous like a Sorceror and but spells known only blaster. It gives up alot. A decent variant.

I like the flavor of the Beguiler as a Mage/Fhief variant without the required multi-classing. Also it's a better Illusionist, IMO.

FS: Yes, the spontaneity is the plus. I sort of see it as the Sorcerer version of Clerics.

Warmage: That's why I'm iffy on Warmage; it tends to be a blaster and I would prefer more rounded arcanes. If you want to blast things just be a blasted Sorc/Wiz.

Warlock: I've always thought the warlock was more like what a Sorcerer should've been and it seems to naturally fit with Sorc/Wiz. I, too, wonder if it might be too powerful.

Basically, when I see people always point to certain classes to optimize I worry if they are overpowered. Hence, my hesitation.