D&D 5E Middle Earth and aSoIaF martial campaign

[S'mon]

Just to say I very much like the idea of using AiME PC classes in a homebrew low magic world. The published AiME adventures all look like railroads, which is not what I want in an RPG, but it seems like the classes & stuff could be used to run a game in a wide variety of settings, especially the kind of 'literary fantasy' settings that tend to borrow a lot from Tolkien. Heck even a lot of the Forgotten Realms would suit the AiME classes very well - something like Darkwalker on Moonshae never felt very D&D-high-magic to me.

I'm strongly tempted to use AiME for a 1987 Gray Box Forgotten Realms campaign.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Just to say I very much like the idea of using AiME PC classes in a homebrew low magic world. The published AiME adventures all look like railroads, which is not what I want in an RPG, but it seems like the classes & stuff could be used to run a game in a wide variety of settings, especially the kind of 'literary fantasy' settings that tend to borrow a lot from Tolkien. Heck even a lot of the Forgotten Realms would suit the AiME classes very well - something like Darkwalker on Moonshae never felt very D&D-high-magic to me.

I'm strongly tempted to use AiME for a 1987 Gray Box Forgotten Realms campaign.

I originally bought it imagining I might just steal some classes and feats for homebrew, but then this idea just kinda poped in.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Just to say I very much like the idea of using AiME PC classes in a homebrew low magic world. The published AiME adventures all look like railroads, which is not what I want in an RPG, but it seems like the classes & stuff could be used to run a game in a wide variety of settings, especially the kind of 'literary fantasy' settings that tend to borrow a lot from Tolkien. Heck even a lot of the Forgotten Realms would suit the AiME classes very well - something like Darkwalker on Moonshae never felt very D&D-high-magic to me.

I'm strongly tempted to use AiME for a 1987 Gray Box Forgotten Realms campaign.

The Survivor Authors thread has reminded me that I would love a Chronicles of Prydain RPG. Running one with AiME would be pretty easy now that I think about it.

 

[AkaKageWarrior]

Adventures in Middle Earth is really nice.
It gets the Tolkien feel.
Journey rules are great and make the travelling an adventure by itself.

I currently DM an AiME campaign, players are at level 6.
The only problem I see in the rules is the barbarian rage (okay, it's slayer's fury) resistance to all weapon damage, so the magic is mostly missing on the NPC and monster side.
Okay, rage only comes back after a long rest, still it feels compared to the other frontliners that the barbarian is about 5 levels higher.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Adventures in Middle Earth is really nice.
It gets the Tolkien feel.
Journey rules are great and make the travelling an adventure by itself.

I currently DM an AiME campaign, players are at level 6.
The only problem I see in the rules is the barbarian rage (okay, it's slayer's fury) resistance to all weapon damage, so the magic is mostly missing on the NPC and monster side.
Okay, rage only comes back after a long rest, still it feels compared to the other frontliners that the barbarian is about 5 levels higher.

Yup. It's compounded by high AC being very achievable by any Slayer, and very high AC being achievable by a Foehammer.

As a Loremaster, consider things that would knock a Slayer out of a Battlefury like Sleep or Hold Person. I know those spells aren't in the game by default, but I say use the best tools for the tasks at hand. Also be liberal with Poison damage on your goblins. It makes sense for them to target the big scary guy with more nefarious means than trying to stick em with a spear.

Also, you can beef up the rest of the party with Magic items. If your Slayer is great at defense, consider just letting him do that, but beefing up the rest of the party in some other way.

 

[ciubec]

In battle for me the warrior is better. Has more or less the same CA as the slayer, but has a bonus to hit higher and do more damage.
Ok, the slayer has the damage reduction, but only in the barbarian rage.

 

[BookBarbarian]

In battle for me the warrior is better. Has more or less the same CA as the slayer, but has a bonus to hit higher and do more damage.
Ok, the slayer has the damage reduction, but only in the barbarian rage.

As you start out this is true, as you level up the Foehammer can get +Dex to AC in Heavy armor for 25 AC without any magic items affecting AC, and still get Half Damage during a Battle-Fury. However the the Rider is more balanced.

The Warrior can get what 21? That's a massive difference.

 

[ciubec]

As you start out this is true, as you level up the Foehammer can get +Dex to AC in Heavy armor for 25 AC without any magic items affecting AC, and still get Half Damage during a Battle-Fury. However the the Rider is more balanced.

The Warrior can get what 21? That's a massive difference.

Fighter has more bonuses to hit and do more damage... for example at the 7th level, a duelist warrior weapon master with 18 of strength, can have +9 to hit and +8 to damage and can ignore the enemy reductions damage. I agree the barbarian is much more tank, but fighter is more complete imho.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Fighter has more bonuses to hit and do more damage... for example at the 7th level, a duelist warrior weapon master with 18 of strength, can have +9 to hit and +8 to damage and can ignore the enemy reductions damage. I agree the barbarian is much more tank, but fighter is more complete imho.

Oh the Weaponmaster is very solid. Turning Damage into radiant is a big plus. If Going Weaponmaster I think I'd take Great Weapon Fighting over Dueling. I'm just a sucker for on demand advantage, and I think the vast majority of monsters I'd encounter are going to be Medium or smaller.

It's not just that Slayers are better tanks, it that they can have moth better AC than the 5e Barbarian counterpart and expect to not face nearly as much non-physical damage as their 5e counterpart. It's like a quadratic defensive increase as opposed to baseline 5e.

Still the Slayer also gets bonuses to hit and damage, just in the form of Reckless Attack and bonus damage from Battlefury. And with that big bonus to AC makes Reckless Attack kind of a no brainer. More-so than in 5e anyway.

Back on the old AiME forums I commented that If I wanted to go 2-Hander I would go Warrior and Sword and Shield I would go slayer, which was the opposite of what I would have thought would be the case.

I bandied around a houserule for a while that said a Fohammer in a Fury couldn't get an AC bonus from a shield. I never got a chance to try it though.

 

[ciubec]

Oh the Weaponmaster is very solid. Turning Damage into radiant is a big plus. If Going Weaponmaster I think I'd take Great Weapon Fighting over Dueling. I'm just a sucker for on demand advantage, and I think the vast majority of monsters I'd encounter are going to be Medium or smaller.

It's not just that Slayers are better tanks, it that they can have moth better AC than the 5e Barbarian counterpart and expect to not face nearly as much non-physical damage as their 5e counterpart. It's like a quadratic defensive increase as opposed to baseline 5e.

Still the Slayer also gets bonuses to hit and damage, just in the form of Reckless Attack and bonus damage from Battlefury. And with that big bonus to AC makes Reckless Attack kind of a no brainer. More-so than in 5e anyway.

Back on the old AiME forums I commented that If I wanted to go 2-Hander I would go Warrior and Sword and Shield I would go slayer, which was the opposite of what I would have thought would be the case.

I bandied around a houserule for a while that said a Fohammer in a Fury couldn't get an AC bonus from a shield. I never got a chance to try it though.

Thx for tips!!
So in your experience what would you recommend to play? barbarian or fighter (weaponmaster). What is the funniest to play?
Bardings swordmaster looks interesting as culture!! Otherwise a nice dwarf