D&D 5E Primeval Thule 5e

[S'mon]

Perhaps, but Primeval Thule talks about how the power of druidic/shamanistic magic comes from the spirits of nature rather than deities. There is a primality to their magic that differs from the magic of warlocks, wizards, and such.

Thule has fluff to justify using all the standard 5e classes. Obviously if I wanted that I wouldn't be restricting classes!

 

[Aldarc]

Thule has fluff to justify using all the standard 5e classes. Obviously if I wanted that I wouldn't be restricting classes!

Druids, shamans, and their animistic magic get mentioned in all of the Thule adaptations: 4E, 13th Age, and Pathfinder. Regardless of whether Thule attempts to justify existing classes, I would argue that the druid has an appropriate place in the setting, and one that would arguably be more appropriate than wizards.

 

[S'mon]

Druids, shamans, and their animistic magic get mentioned in all of the Thule adaptations: 4E, 13th Age, and Pathfinder. Regardless of whether Thule attempts to justify existing classes, I would argue that the druid has an appropriate place in the setting, and one that would arguably be more appropriate than wizards.

Well, ok, for the last time - I was looking at using the setting to run modernist S&S in the King Kull mode. Not a setting with Clerics & Druids. Yes the Thule default has Druids & Clerics in every version. IMO this makes it look more like a lightly reskinned regular-D&D world than like the source material. Not a bad thing, I might indeed decide to run it in light-reskin mode.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, ok, for the last time - I was looking at using the setting to run modernist S&S in the King Kull mode. Not a setting with Clerics & Druids. Yes the Thule default has Druids & Clerics in every version. IMO this makes it look more like a lightly reskinned regular-D&D world than like the source material. Not a bad thing, I might indeed decide to run it in light-reskin mode.

I get what you are trying to do, or at least I think that I do. I just think that the D&D "druid" better represents the S&S "wizard" than the D&D "wizard" does. The scrolls and tomes of knowledge that the D&D wizard has represents a far too studied, bookish erudite than I would associate with the S&S genre. The D&D wizard is a defanged snake. It makes arcane magic too domestic, scientific, and controllable.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Druids, shamans, and their animistic magic get mentioned in all of the Thule adaptations: 4E, 13th Age, and Pathfinder. Regardless of whether Thule attempts to justify existing classes, I would argue that the druid has an appropriate place in the setting, and one that would arguably be more appropriate than wizards.

Sure, and the 4e & 13A versions may not even have been as out of place in an S&S setting.
Thule for PF/5e looks a good deal like an S&S world - just one being invaded by D&D characters.

S&S does tend to have priests and maybe a dark take on something like druids - 'old religion' (maybe worshipping something along the lines of Sub-Niggoroth) types - but they don't tend to be in the mold of the undead-turning/frequent-healing/glowy-magic/many-daily-spells D&D Cleric, nor the frequent-healing/many-daily-spells D&D Druid (though the shapechanging would likely be just fine).
S&S Sorcerers (it's in the name of the genre!) are more like D&D Warlocks - and even then, probably have fewer 'spells' and different restrictions on (risks of) using them than n/short-rest. An S&S wizard could be anyone with the Sage Background and maybe Ritual Caster feat.

Well, ok, for the last time - I was looking at using the setting to run modernist S&S in the King Kull mode. Not a setting with Clerics & Druids. Yes the Thule default has Druids & Clerics in every version. IMO this makes it look more like a lightly reskinned regular-D&D world than like the source material. Not a bad thing, I might indeed decide to run it in light-reskin mode.

An NPC Druid or priest need be nothing like the character class...

 

[Psikerlord#]

This +1.

I love the setting, although it certainly isn't unique. That said, they've done a great job with the S&S feel.

However, the setting is begging for some new classes and rules, especially spellcasting. It gives you some basic rules on different materials for weapons and armor but that's about it. Thule was also released previously for others systems and was just converted to 5E. I understand why they didn't want to dive into setting-specific rules for 5E but it really needs it.

For example, the 5E Middle-earth RPG was a "conversion" of sorts of The One Ring but built from the ground up for 5E.

You might consider using Low Fantasy Gaming RPG for Primeval Thule. Or just the Dark & Dangerous magic rules/madness rules.

The bullet point summary for PT says it's low magic, but when you drill down into the detail it isnt so much. It's pretty easy to make it low magic however, easier than FR certainly.

 

[Proyas the Elder]

I LOVE Thule. It's my fave setting, followed by Greyhawk then FR. But are they still supporting Thule? Haven't seen anything come out in a long while.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I LOVE Thule. It's my fave setting, followed by Greyhawk then FR. But are they still supporting Thule? Haven't seen anything come out in a long while.

According to Rick Baker, they only have the resources to publish maybe one thing a year. No real data on a) whether they will or b) what it might be

 

[raleel]

for those of you looking for more Thule-like things, I'd suggest The Design Mechanism's Monster Island. It's for Mythras/Runequest 6 and presents a sword and sorcery island very similar to Thule in many ways. Decadent ancient races, shamanistic savages, and theistic colonists.

I was going to convert PT to Mythras myself, but I can see doing it the other way if you prefer. Frankly, Monster Island is a really excellent supplement in any event if you like sword and sorcery.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I LOVE Thule. It's my fave setting, followed by Greyhawk then FR. But are they still supporting Thule? Haven't seen anything come out in a long while.

I love it too (with a bit of customization, of course!)