D&D 5E Players, would you play in a multi-year campaign that used only the 5.1 SRD?

Fanaelialae · Friday at 12:38 PM

Absolutely. With the caveat that the campaign would have to be pretty good.

I've played in lackluster campaigns and still had fun because I enjoyed the character I was playing. Given the restrictions, that's significantly less likely to be the case in this scenario. As such, the campaign itself would need to be of a sufficient quality as to make up that difference.

Reynard · Friday at 1:24 PM

MuhVerisimilitude said:
No. If I wanted a simple system with few options, I'd go for one that is fundamentally better designed from the get go. The attraction of D&D itself is options. No options? No fun.

I don't feel like D&D is well enough designed to function well long term with few options.

I think there is some truth to this. A game like Shadowdark, Dragonbane or even B/X that is intentionally built around more limited options for characters, with that baked into the game as a whole, is probably going to fare better over the long haul that one obviously built for lots of options that is trimmed down.

On the other hand, something weird about 5Es "lots of options" that is different than say 3.x/PF1 or PF2 is that by and large in order to try new options in 5E, you need to make a whole new character. There are not a lot of feat choices. You need 3 levels of a class to make a multiclass "dip" worthwhile. There are no prestige classes or archetype paths. So in that way, 5E's options don't really appear beyond chargen, especially if death is rare.

Moonsoon · Friday at 1:49 PM

Well, I generally prefer more options, so it would depend on the DM.
If he's amazing and the group is great, hell, I'll play a group solely composed of one SERD class and race!
A group of thief rogues creating a guild and running it, 4 draconic sorcerers brothers looking for their father, or a group of circle of land druids fighting the greed of mining guilds and kingdoms all sound like lots of fun to have

Reynard · Friday at 1:58 PM

Moonsoon said:
Well, I generally prefer more options, so it would depend on the DM.
If he's amazing and the group is great, hell, I'll play a group solely composed of one SERD class and race!
A group of thief rogues creating a guild and running it, 4 draconic sorcerers brothers looking for their father, or a group of circle of land druids fighting the greed of mining guilds and kingdoms all sound like lots of fun to have

This is where a robust system of secondary build options would be nice: feats and skills and drawbacks or whatever, so that all 4 of your dwarf rogues look different.

DEFCON 1 · Friday at 2:04 PM

To answer the question myself, I would have no issue with doing so. From my perspective... once a player has made a selection for what they are playing, you really don't have many "options" after the fact that you'd be losing out on by using the SRD.

In other words... if I have the full Player's Handbook and choose to play a Life Cleric... where's the difference or the loss of anything if I instead had the SRD and decided to play a Life Cleric? I'm playing the same Life Cleric in either case. Thus the only thing I'm "losing" by using the SRD rather than the PHB are the Feats I would no longer get to take. But for me personally... I don't really have a preference between Feats and ASIs, so if my only option was taking just the ASIs every four levels, that's perfectly fine.

Now of course, my answer is colored by the fact that through the entirety of 5E I've pretty much only DM'd (and gotten to play in one-shots and con games only a handful of times)... and thus for me the singular subclass available to me in the SRD for all 12 classes would still all be "original" options, which is why I'd be fine with them. Whereas someone who has played more often than I have and has already played all those SRD subclasses for all 12 classes might be more inclined to want the other subclass options. Which I get.

Marandahir · Friday at 3:20 PM

Not anymore.

Sorcerers Apprentice · Friday at 3:22 PM

Reynard said:
I think there is some truth to this. A game like Shadowdark, Dragonbane or even B/X that is intentionally built around more limited options for characters, with that baked into the game as a whole, is probably going to fare better over the long haul that one obviously built for lots of options that is trimmed down.

On the other hand, something weird about 5Es "lots of options" that is different than say 3.x/PF1 or PF2 is that by and large in order to try new options in 5E, you need to make a whole new character. There are not a lot of feat choices. You need 3 levels of a class to make a multiclass "dip" worthwhile. There are no prestige classes or archetype paths. So in that way, 5E's options don't really appear beyond chargen, especially if death is rare.

Spells are the major exception, casters get to pick new spells at regular intervals, and when a new books add more spells it can have a significant impact.

Umbran · Friday at 3:24 PM

My choice to play a game is generally based on who is running and who else is playing, whether it fits my schedule, and such. The details of the ruleset are a distant concern.

Adamant · Friday at 4:30 PM

I didn't know how to vote, because my answer is yes under 1 very specific circumstance. I would pretty much only play an open hand monk in this type of campaign. One thing I just can't get past is that the only available feat is Grappler, a feat so weak that you can do the same thing but better without it. I like martials with some choices to make in combat, and without feats only the monk, paladin, and ranger have anywhere near enough options. Of those, ranger is really frustrating to play without extra books, and while paladin might be a somewhat decent second choice I much prefer monk. Paladin needs charisma, which means I have to dump either intelligence or wisdom, whereas monk uses wisdom as a secondary stat and that lets me dump charisma instead (I'm not that good at talking anyway, so I'd rather have my character be decently smart).

humble minion · Friday at 11:51 PM

I’d do it.

The lack of feats would be my biggest complaint, it really makes it hard to build a character towards your vision without those sometimes. But I could do it.

Plenty of race options. The subclasses are restrictive, and unfortunately include lots of many bad or boring options. Champion. Berserker has obvious mechanical issues with exhaustion, and I doubt I’d play a sorcerer subclass that didn’t get bonus spells. Evoker and life cleric don’t do much for me, I haven’t played either of those classes yet and if I did, I’d want to play a subclass that interests me more. Devotion paladin is great but I’m already playing one in another campaign.

I’d probably look at a halfling or gnome fiend warlock (inspired by midgard’s devil-worshipping gnomes) or a high elf rogue. Dwarven mountain druid or open hand monk could work too. Fortunately, I haven’t played so much 5e that I’ve had time to get bored with the base options yet!

It wouldn’t be my preference, but I could make it work if the rest of the group could.

D&D 5E Players, would you play in a multi-year campaign that used only the 5.1 SRD?

Would you play in a multi-year campaign that only used the 5.1 SRD?

Yes.

No.

Fanaelialae

Legend

Reynard

Legend

Moonsoon

Villager

Reynard

Legend

DEFCON 1

Legend

Marandahir

Crown-Forester (he/him)

Sorcerers Apprentice

Hero

Umbran

Mod Squad

Adamant

Explorer

humble minion

Legend

Similar Threads

Voidrunner's Codex