Dr Magister
Explorer
I've been pondering this for a while, and I've decided I want to try really stripping everything back, and running a campaign for my players (all experienced 5th ed. players) using only the free Basic Rules.
They're the complete 5th ed. rules, but with restricted character options, designed as a free taster/intro for new players, but (intentionally or not; I'm guessing the former) one thing they actually do really well is emulate the feel of old Red Box Basic. You're restricted to the four classic races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling) and the four classic... uh.... classes (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard), with only one subclass each, and that the most archetypal for each class (so Champion for the Fighter, Life domain for the Cleric etc). To me it harks back to the days when the Rogue was actually the Thief (the subclass they get in 5e Basic).
It also (I assume unintentionally) reduces the niggle I (and others) have with the proportion of races with Dark Vision. In 5e Basic only half the playable races can see in the dark. Similarly, it automatically makes the whole game feel slightly more low-magic. In the full rules, something like three quarters of classes can cast spells of some kind, and that only increases if you include sub-classes like Eldritch Knight. In 5e basic, only half the classes can cast spells, and for those who can't there's no option to do so.
One caveat: I am intending to allow my players to choose from any of the Backgrounds in the PHB, not just the six given in the Basic rules. My idea is to try and divorce character concepts from class mechanics somewhat. Assuming my players don't just want to play archetypal fighters, clerics etc, the theory is that any character concept can be made using the four core classes and the backgrounds. Want to be a holy warrior fighting for the church? Really, you can just play a cleric, give them a sword instead of a mace and call them Sir Insertname, instead of Brother Insertname. However, a STR-based, high CHA Fighter with the Acolyte background would fit the concept just as well without needing a separate mechanical class for Paladin (This fits into my whole thing about how versatile the Fighter class is, with the right build, background and combat style). Likewise a high CHA wizard with the Entertainer background makes a perfectly good Bard, from an in-game perspective, and works perfectly well within the fiction.
I suppose what I'm saying is that I want my players' characters to be defined first and foremost by their background, not their class. They're not a 'Fighter' they're a hunter from the forest. They're not a 'Rogue', they're a travelling minstrel. I want my players to think about their character concept first, and then decide how they can use a limited set of options creatively to achieve it, not about which one of 12 classes they want to play. In a way I'm hoping this will let them be more creative, not less, with the characters they want to make.
I'm looking at running an old school module for it (currently leaning towards Against the Cult of the Reptile God), to add to the faux-OSRness (fauxSR?). I've discussed the above with a couple of them, and they seem keen to give it a try, so now I just need to try and arrange a session zero
They're the complete 5th ed. rules, but with restricted character options, designed as a free taster/intro for new players, but (intentionally or not; I'm guessing the former) one thing they actually do really well is emulate the feel of old Red Box Basic. You're restricted to the four classic races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling) and the four classic... uh.... classes (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard), with only one subclass each, and that the most archetypal for each class (so Champion for the Fighter, Life domain for the Cleric etc). To me it harks back to the days when the Rogue was actually the Thief (the subclass they get in 5e Basic).
It also (I assume unintentionally) reduces the niggle I (and others) have with the proportion of races with Dark Vision. In 5e Basic only half the playable races can see in the dark. Similarly, it automatically makes the whole game feel slightly more low-magic. In the full rules, something like three quarters of classes can cast spells of some kind, and that only increases if you include sub-classes like Eldritch Knight. In 5e basic, only half the classes can cast spells, and for those who can't there's no option to do so.
One caveat: I am intending to allow my players to choose from any of the Backgrounds in the PHB, not just the six given in the Basic rules. My idea is to try and divorce character concepts from class mechanics somewhat. Assuming my players don't just want to play archetypal fighters, clerics etc, the theory is that any character concept can be made using the four core classes and the backgrounds. Want to be a holy warrior fighting for the church? Really, you can just play a cleric, give them a sword instead of a mace and call them Sir Insertname, instead of Brother Insertname. However, a STR-based, high CHA Fighter with the Acolyte background would fit the concept just as well without needing a separate mechanical class for Paladin (This fits into my whole thing about how versatile the Fighter class is, with the right build, background and combat style). Likewise a high CHA wizard with the Entertainer background makes a perfectly good Bard, from an in-game perspective, and works perfectly well within the fiction.
I suppose what I'm saying is that I want my players' characters to be defined first and foremost by their background, not their class. They're not a 'Fighter' they're a hunter from the forest. They're not a 'Rogue', they're a travelling minstrel. I want my players to think about their character concept first, and then decide how they can use a limited set of options creatively to achieve it, not about which one of 12 classes they want to play. In a way I'm hoping this will let them be more creative, not less, with the characters they want to make.
I'm looking at running an old school module for it (currently leaning towards Against the Cult of the Reptile God), to add to the faux-OSRness (fauxSR?). I've discussed the above with a couple of them, and they seem keen to give it a try, so now I just need to try and arrange a session zero
Last edited:
