Historical campaign setting

[Dankus Memakus]

So i had the idea that a historic d&d session would be really cool. Like just humans no magic, set in the middle ages with like real influence from our world. Ive been thinking it should either be set during a crusade or right after rome ceases to be a superpower around 500 AD. Id like to do two things in this thread:
1. Talk about the setting and flesh it out a bit (go ahead and tell me what poijt in history you would do)
2. See if anyone has historical homebrew so not all my pcs gotta be fighters or rouges because magic isnt real.

Please yell your opinions at me so i can steal them for my campaign :)

[Cybren]

I'm not sure that D&D is a great system for literal historical fantasy with no supernatural elements, but Spellless Ranger definitely seems like an appropriate variant. I'd probably look at the DMG variants for injuries and slower healing and such, too.

(as an aside, come on, Odoacer forces Romulus Augustulus to abdicate in the 5th century but the Eastern Empire is still a hyperpower until at least the first Caliphate)

[Dankus Memakus]

I'm not sure that D&D is a great system for literal historical fantasy with no supernatural elements, but Spellless Ranger definitely seems like an appropriate variant. I'd probably look at the DMG variants for injuries and slower healing and such, too.

(as an aside, come on, Odoacer forces Romulus Augustulus to abdicate in the 5th century but the Eastern Empire is still a hyperpower until at least the first Caliphate)

Yeah but i planned on focusing on western Europe and the Franks and Celts and such. The East Romans kind of bore me and i like the idea of the absolute chaos in the west with all those barbarians.

[Laserlight]

I did something similar except set in AD1600 in central America. Players were barbarian, fighter, rogue, and monk-refluffed-as-fencing-school-student using rapier. As the campaign progressed, they discovered that magic existed and they had to deal with Mayaztecan myths. The fighter eventually dipped cleric and the rogue multclassed into paladin.

[BW022]

I wouldn't use 5E for that.

Magic is a massive part of the system. There are only a few classes which don't have innate magical powers -- barbarian, fighter, monk, and rogue -- and even these would need to ban various subclasses. Then you remove many feats, skills, etc. which deal with magic. What you end up with is an extremely poor simulation system and rules which don't play specifically well -- saves make little sense without magic, healing becomes a 'how to rest' game, the entire CR system makes no sense, there are virtually no monsters, etc.

Other systems would be a better simulation system.

[Aett_Thorn]

While magic isn't "real", a lot of people back in the day believed that it was. Certainly for the area that you're looking at, Druids would be possible, if kept low-magic (perhaps only allowing a dip). Otherwise, you are pretty much stuck with modifying some of the existing classes to balance them for not having spells.

Paladins could keep their smites, but be unable to cast spells. Fairly balanced still, but maybe giving them a boost in their aura range wouldn't be horrible to help out.

Barbarians are fine, and even the Totem Barb rituals seem to fit fine despite the magic.

Rangers could go the spell-less variant, or restrict them to certain spells that can be fluffed away (most of their archery spells could be done by just saying they're shooting multiple arrows)

Warlocks could be refluffed to have low magic, or pushed towards more enchantmenty-type spells and effects. The effects of making a deal with the devil weren't exactly foreign back then. But you could refluff Eldritch Blast to shooting a weapon of some sort, and Hex isn't exactly a visible spell. A wild (stereotypical) gypsy lady hexing people wouldn't exactly be out of line.

Valor Bards could be okay, if they kept to mostly buffing/debuffing spells, and played it off as actual music doing the effects.

[Dankus Memakus]

I wouldn't use 5E for that.

Magic is a massive part of the system. There are only a few classes which don't have innate magical powers -- barbarian, fighter, monk, and rogue -- and even these would need to ban various subclasses. Then you remove many feats, skills, etc. which deal with magic. What you end up with is an extremely poor simulation system and rules which don't play specifically well -- saves make little sense without magic, healing becomes a 'how to rest' game, the entire CR system makes no sense, there are virtually no monsters, etc.

Other systems would be a better simulation system.

I think ill use the adventures in middle earth system so i have non magic verisons of most classes

Edit: as mentioned in the post above i may keep warlocks specifically on fiend pact with some refluff

[CaptainSarathai]

I've been running Arthurian Britain as a setting. I can tell you - you can give a campaign a very historical feel, while also entertaining ideas of magic and spell-play. My campaign does this by starting with a base layer of historical England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France and Rome, and then layering the fantastical elements over top of this. So Queen Guenevere is heavily based on Boudicca, including an emphasis on the Icenii tribe. Arthur and his men represent Romans who have settled the island, although Rome in this is based more on Roman-Catholic Byzantine. Goliaths stand in as Saxons, with Orcs as Picts, and then you have Fey living in the forests based on Celtic folklore, a mythological smith-god named Calibyr who forged magical weapons and armor in a bygone era, etc.
It's a very "low magic" setting, the only full caster classes available are Clerics and Bards. Arcane magic and even some Cleric and Paladin magic is considered witchcraft in the setting, and the Grail Church (I'm not about to call Christianity by name) will send out goon-squads to hunt down any witches that the angry mobs don't pitchfork first.
Of course, for the most recent run of the setting, my players picked almost anything but human knights, and I ended up with a Goliath Barbarian, Wood Eld Dexadin, High Elf Straladin, Dwarf Forge Cleric, and Human Rogue.

One of the things that really helps with the flavor is to get the population of NPCs to feel right. Medieval Europe for example, was more populous that you think. You could find a "population hub" by going just about a day's travel by foot, on a road, in any direction. You'd have a large city supported by 3-5 towns, and each town supporting a few outlying villages. These would extend outward in a spider-web, until the border of to kingdom can be reached by a day's ride. At the border you have your traveler Inns, on major roads. No king wants to build a taxable village right on the border, as that makes it easy pickings for neighboring kingdoms. For their parts, peasants don't want to live that far outside the protection either.
Over top of this, you place your castles at strategic locations like mountain passes, river crossings, along good roads, etc. Many of your larger towns will have sprung up around castles, usually placed on a prominent hill in the area, or other naturally defensible positions.

This makes travel rather interesting. For starters, I changed my Resting mechanics so that a Short Rest was a full-night's sleep. This way, I don't have to cram days full of encounters and also, the party doesn't get to have "5 minute days" when traveling between towns (since there's rarely need to camp).
Also, it means that your random encounters are a bit different in their logic. It's unlikely, for example, that there is a proper "bandit camp" out along the road. More likely, the bandits are based in a nearby town, and they ride out to the open road and ambush travelers as highwaymen, before returning back to the town. This can actually make for interesting Player/NPC interactions, when they find the bandits drinking in the next town's tavern, and the townsfolk are prepared to defend their friends and neighbors from these outsider ruffians. This can also be coupled with the fact that news travels fast along a well-traveled road.

Just make sure that your players are willing to play a game like this. Some people just want to be wizards and fling spells, and kill dragons. D&D really isn't that good at having "man to man" fights all the way up to the high levels. Eventually, even the party Fighter is going to be godlike in his abilities.

[qube]

So i had the idea that a historic d&d session would be really cool. Like just humans no magic, set in the middle ages with like real influence from our world. Ive been thinking it should either be set during a crusade or right after rome ceases to be a superpower around 500 AD. Id like to do two things in this thread:
1. Talk about the setting and flesh it out a bit (go ahead and tell me what poijt in history you would do)
2. See if anyone has historical homebrew so not all my pcs gotta be fighters or rouges because magic isnt real.

Please yell your opinions at me so i can steal them for my campaign :)

I would like to point out that magic (kinda) is real in a historical context: just consider the whitch trails, the use of seers & oracles, Churches & temples are build to favor God/the Gods, etc ...

As such, I perhaps would even (partial) spellcasters, as long as their spells get converted into pseudomagic. (a ranger with cure wounds, could use herbs and such).


Likewise, you could reflavor all races into human, just being racial traits (the men & women who live in the mountains are usually taller then normal humans and quite tough (enter goliath) ) ...

[MarkVIIIMarc]

In France after the fall of Rome you would hear of Justinian and the Empire coming back only to have to deal with the dark ages for a thousand years.

Its a pretty neat if dark time.

[Cybren]

I would like to point out that magic (kinda) is real in a historical context: just consider the whitch trails, the use of seers & oracles, Churches & temples are build to favor God/the Gods, etc ...

Which is a copout answer, because "people thinking magic is real" is different from "magic is real"

As such, I perhaps would even (partial) spellcasters, as long as their spells get converted into pseudomagic. (a ranger with cure wounds, could use herbs and such).

The Spell-less ranger literally has an ability that lets them gather poultices for this purpose. I like the suggestion of paladins that can only smite with their slots, and lay-on-hands could be reinterpreted as some kind of medical training. Maybe there's something to a spelless bard that makes a lot more use of inspiration and expertise stuff, with a handful of class features to mimic the function of some of their more useful spells.

Likewise, you could reflavor all races into human, just being racial traits (the men & women who live in the mountains are usually taller then normal humans and quite tough (enter goliath) ) ...

You could do that, but the already problematic intrepretation of what "race" is used in D&D would be amplified 100x, so I'd do so cautiously.




In lieu of using the standard classes at all, you could just take all the class features you think are appropriate to the game, put them into a list, figure out how powerful they are relative to each other to assign a cost, and let people play a classless game where they mix and match based on some arbitrary point cost. I tried something similar in a d20 modern hack of 5e but I am incredibly lazy so it never went anywhere.

[Thrudd]

Just use GURPS or D6 Fantasy. D&D needs too much alteration, it's too much work.

[Cybren]

Just use GURPS or D6 Fantasy. D&D needs too much alteration, it's too much work.

To be fair, to someone without experience in GURPS, learning the system and setting up the campaign to play exactly as you want will probably take at least half as much effort as hacking D&D to do it, and that's before you spend the effort to teach 3-5 other humans the basics of the game. GURPS is a great game, arguably my favorite tabletop RPG, but it demands a level of system mastery that few other do.

[Zardnaar]

Buy one of the 2E historical books and adapt it for 5E. They are available as pdfs.

[MrFahrenheit]

There are two problems with an AD 500 campaign:
1) Christianity. It was a centrally organizing force after OTL fall of Rome, and prevented the Dark Ages from becoming even darker for that reason alone. This can be solved by getting rid of the pantheons, but it doesn't make sense in game when two clerics (especially if they share the same domain) go up against each other and have full access to their spells.
2) Magic. Specifically, arcane magic. You face one of two (if not both) situations: either A, an alternative to Christianity's organizing power is developed, or B, "IT'S A WITCH! STONE THAT PC!"

You may want to consider a much, much earlier time period, and just have steel developed much, much earlier. Bronze Age collapse works well. I've been thinking of doing something like that myself.

[Armored Walrus]

There are two problems with an AD 500 campaign:
1) Christianity. It was a centrally organizing force after OTL fall of Rome, and prevented the Dark Ages from becoming even darker for that reason alone. This can be solved by getting rid of the pantheons, but it doesn't make sense in game when two clerics (especially if they share the same domain) go up against each other and have full access to their spells.
2) Magic. Specifically, arcane magic. You face one of two (if not both) situations: either A, an alternative to Christianity's organizing power is developed, or B, "IT'S A WITCH! STONE THAT PC!"

You may want to consider a much, much earlier time period, and just have steel developed much, much earlier. Bronze Age collapse works well. I've been thinking of doing something like that myself.

Except that OP specifically called out that there is no magic. So neither cleric would have spells, and witches would be as real as they are in our world.

If you can find a home-brewed artificer without spells, that would be something that could fit. An artificer would be an individual who retains some of the ancient technological knowledge that those around him have lost. I think I remember someone having a home brewed herbalist, too, which could be your potential druid. Bards would have existed, but I have no idea how you would rework them to not have spells.

[Estrillian]

There are two problems with an AD 500 campaign:
1) Christianity. It was a centrally organizing force after OTL fall of Rome, and prevented the Dark Ages from becoming even darker for that reason alone. This can be solved by getting rid of the pantheons, but it doesn't make sense in game when two clerics (especially if they share the same domain) go up against each other and have full access to their spells.

Not at all. Christian history is full of religious schisms, and full blown wars, with priests on both sides. There are Popes and Anti-Popes (and false Popes, and fake Popes, and she Popes), rival Bishops, warring sects, conflicts with Christians armies on both sides - each accompanied by their priests, Christian on Christian genocides (e.g. the Crusaders at Constantinople), and of course Christian sects like the Cathars and the Gnostics.

All of those conflicts, in history, featured people on both sides who were sure that God was with them. Indeed the idea that the side of the righteous was also the side of the victor was widespread; i.e. if you won, God was with you all along. There is no reason that both side's Clerics can't be granted divine spells simultaneously. Perhaps God cares for both sides (or neither). Perhaps God will back the side that wins. Perhaps God grants such powers via lesser Angels (and the Angels are divided). Perhaps the Clerics have magical powers through force of will and personal conviction alone.

If the thought of Christian casters vs. other Christian casters doesn't work for you, you can always use Moors, Cathars, Heathens, Witches, etc. as your rival side (a crusade era game where God lends aid to both sides is very much in keeping though).

But you do need *less* magic. There are certain things that D&D gives to spellcasters that just don't work, things like resurrection, cure disease, most evocations (though bolts of lightning and fire are very biblical). You can probably do that just by having few witches/cultists/priests be actual spellcasters. Just reserve it for PC's and a few major other characters.

[Thrudd]

Not at all. Christian history is full of religious schisms, and full blown wars, with priests on both sides. There are Popes and Anti-Popes (and false Popes, and fake Popes, and she Popes), rival Bishops, warring sects, conflicts with Christians armies on both sides - each accompanied by their priests, Christian on Christian genocides (e.g. the Crusaders at Constantinople), and of course Christian sects like the Cathars and the Gnostics.

All of those conflicts, in history, featured people on both sides who were sure that God was with them. Indeed the idea that the side of the righteous was also the side of the victor was widespread; i.e. if you won, God was with you all along. There is no reason that both side's Clerics can't be granted divine spells simultaneously. Perhaps God cares for both sides (or neither). Perhaps God will back the side that wins. Perhaps God grants such powers via lesser Angels (and the Angels are divided). Perhaps the Clerics have magical powers through force of will and personal conviction alone.

If the thought of Christian casters vs. other Christian casters doesn't work for you, you can always use Moors, Cathars, Heathens, Witches, etc. as your rival side (a crusade era game where God lends aid to both sides is very much in keeping though).

But you do need *less* magic. There are certain things that D&D gives to spellcasters that just don't work, things like resurrection, cure disease, most evocations (though bolts of lightning and fire are very biblical). You can probably do that just by having few witches/cultists/priests be actual spellcasters. Just reserve it for PC's and a few major other characters.

If it's a historical setting, there is no magic, period. There should be no abilities that allow superhuman/unrealistic results as well. That means some of the things high level characters can do need to be removed. Many of the feats removed. D&D needs to be absolutely gutted in order to work for a true to life historical game. It's a fool's errand. Learn a game that can actually do this. If GURPS is too complex, which it might be, use the D6 system. Simple, customizable by default, classless, free. Avoid all the hassle of rewriting a game from the ground up, which is what you need to do to get D&D as a historical game.

[ZorroGames]

How historical is "historical"?

I ask this as I look at two if the AD&D/2e campaign sourcebooks.

I have Age of Heroes (Greeks) and Charlemagne's Paladins.

I lost out on Ebay the "A Mighty Fortress" book and I have handled a friends one on the Celts plus seen online one for Vikings.

There are also ones for Rome and the Crusades.

Also have used Amazon as a source for campaign sourcebooks for friends.