PDA

View Full Version : D&D rules in a low-magic system brainstorming



amanodel
2006-11-21, 12:19 PM
I invite you to a brainstorming.

Recently a lot of campaign setting ideas crossed my mind, and I wanted to create something like the Giant's working on: Dark Ages feel with low technology and low magic levels, with only rare magic items.

To achive low-magic-ness, quite a few changes has to be made. (the Giant instead switched system to d20 modern. I want to go the hard way :) )

How to stop the wizards from creating matter from nothing, and making +1 swords and bags of holding? Simply disallowing primary caster classes and magic items at all without thinking hurt the game a lot.

At higher level, fighters and rogues rely on their magical stuff completely. They have +5 Greatswords to hit and Belt of giant strengt +6 damage the dragon, +5 Armors to avoif being nuked in the first round, Animated Shields for extra protection while using the greatsword. Rougues have Boots of speed, bracers of disarm trap +15, and fire-resistant leather armor if they fail to disarm the fire trap, and cloak of invisibility.

So first, I need to create low-magic-ness, and then I need to replace it with something else.

What happens if I disallow magic item creation feats? Pretty simple. I screw up the character wealth by level guideline, and shift the balance in the casters' direction.

First of all there wont be our beloved +1, +2 weapons and armors. A great loss for the fighter. To counteract this, it may be wise to come up with some feat to bolster the figher, like the ones the Giant created. link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/../articles/ruIuiKxNerFBCOi5fK8.html). Altough it doesn't solve anything. The simple +1, +2 stuff could be replaced, in my opinion, with mundane, special materials. Here's my idea about metal weapons and armours, somewhat borrowed from the Morrowind game:
Items without a bonus are supposed to be from iron.
+1 could be a very special and good steel alloy, like Damascus steel.
Mithral should be +2. It's a light alloy, so low enhancement bonus feels right.
Cold Iron shoud be +3. It's a deadly alloy, so +3 seems okay.
Adamantine should be around +4. It's a kickass material.
Something really unique, like "Starmetal" should be the +5.Their prices should be the special material, the magic weapon/armor, or the standard magic+material price? It's a hard call. Also, they should retain their standard properties such as DR.

To please the rogues and druids, here's an attemt on non-steel materials.
+1 wood stuff (like clubs or shields) could be made out from Darkwood.
+2 wood stuff... perhaps Ebony, or some other home-made material.
+1 leather could be made out of lion skin.
+2 leather... rhino hide, perhaps? Maybe even *the* Rhino Hide (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm#rhinoHide).
Since leather and wood usually not used in high-level fights, there's no need to do +3 materials.Perhaps there could be a feat like "Forge adamantine, prereq 10 ranks in blacksmithing"...

But that was just the weapons and armor +1 - +5. The majority is still ahead. I got an idea about legendary weapons, imbued with the spirit of their former owner. Like Shanthallar's Orcbane, the mithral longsword of the elf champion who killed a thousand orcs with it. When he finally died, the sword inherited a small part of his spirit, and it became a +5 Orcbane Flaming mithral longsword. They should only exist in +5 version with at least one special ability (min +6). These shouldn't be at shop's at any rate, and must be obtained from a really tough encounter. No flaming swords at level 5.

(Before I forget: some monser's DR/stg may need to be altered to fit in the modified rules.)

Combat mainly taken care of with all these stuff. Altough I'm not sure what kind of bonus should these items grant... enhancement, circumstance, unnamed?

Okay, what's left? Potions and oils, wands, rings, rods, staffs, scrolls, wondrous items, intelligent items, cursed items, artifacts.

Potions and oils are in, that makes sense for wizards, clerics and druids to brew. Scrolls are fine, too.
Wands are out, mainly to hinder somewhat the spellcasters too.
Staffs... every proper wizard needs a staff.
Artifacts are fine, but rings and wondrous items cause too much a mess.
Intelligent items fit into the scheme, but cursed items are just wrongly functioning wondrous items, so they're out.

So the big issue are the rings, wondrous items and wands. We need another way to get those +5 bonuses, +4 ability score enhancements and resistances...

Masterwork tools grant +2 circumstance bonus. Perhaps there are better masterwork stuffs too, granting +5 bonus... or even +10? And I could adept the method with powerful weapons and armors. ...once upon a time, lived Nine-finger'd Fred, a master thief, whose glove was found on the road near the tree were he was hanged. The glove bestows the skill of his previous famed owner to the current user (perhaps +10 pickpocket and +10 lockpick).

The main idea about these magic items that they exist only on a high level where non-magical attempts do no good. Their (would-be) price should never be lover than 20-30.000 gp or so, and only the GM could give them to the players, they can't be purchased at stores. These items blur the line between intellignet items and wondrous items.

After that, the only thing remaining is to narrow down the spell lists.

Oh, and before I forget, alter the monsters list too. You are not likely to encounter ethereal maraduers, golems, invisible stalkers and owlbears in a low-magic setting. Dragons and undeads at the best.

Suggestions? Is there any chance this will work at least moderately? The balance is still shifted towards the casters' favor.

(At low levels, the non-casters outshine the casters, I didn't really change anything that'd affect low-level chars. High-level wizards are superior to high-level non-casters, but I did my best not to further this gap, by adding the "pseudo-intelligent" items. At mid levels, however, the casters gain a significal advantage. So people are more likely to play a powerful caster, which goes directly against the original aim.)

:thog: thog does not understand rules-talky-man.

Thomas
2006-11-21, 12:35 PM
Use the rules from Conan d20.

That is all.

Morty
2006-11-21, 12:46 PM
Limiting magic items is good thing, but you need to seriously slow down spellcasters if you do that. It'd require major changes in spell lists and maybe some other rules. Plus, if it's going to be low-magic setting, I'd make potions and oils need time to take effect, let's say 1d3 rounds after using.

amanodel
2006-11-21, 12:46 PM
I sort of a don't have the rules for Conan d20. Unless they can be found somewhere on the net, I have to invent them for myself.

I could use d20 modern and d20 past, too, but I'm trying to do it under d&d.

Mewtarthio
2006-11-21, 01:09 PM
You'll have to severely limit the spell lists. You may even go so far as to eliminate full casters entirely.

oriong
2006-11-21, 01:24 PM
Honestly, I'm not certain if a lot of the solutions you listed really take care of the problem. Sure, you can make non-magical substitutes for magic items, using exotic materials or exceptional craftsmanship, but does that really do anything? All you're really saying is that now the magic items can't be dispelled and detect magic isn't worth much anymore. I don't think giving the player a +5 sword and saying it's +5 due to adamantine alloy infused with alchemic strengtheners is really going to make the player feel any different than having a +5 sword due to infused enchantments and rune-carving. To them it's pretty much the exact same thing, operating in (almost) the exact same way. If you want to keep balance these uber-crafted or exotic weapons will have to be about as common and easily accessable as magical versions, so is it really going to make a PC feel any different?


And frankly, any setting with the D+D spellcasters can't be called low magic. Even if the rest of the world is fairly magic-light, when you're walking around with someone who can shoot fireballs or call down divine powers you're dealing with high magic. How is a PC playing a wizard going to feel like it's low magic when he's lobbing spells, it just means he has to worry less about wizards shooting him back. Or if you're a monk who can punch through steel and leap 30 feet into the air.

Monte Cook's Iron Heroes does create a character-focused system (minimizing magic buffs and magic items and focusing on PC abilities), but obviously that takes getting a whole new system.

Matthew
2006-11-21, 01:39 PM
It is true. Really bringing the game into a Low Magic scenario is a lot of work, especially with regard to rebalancing the game. Conan D20 does a good job of it, but if you aren't willing to purchase that Rule System then you are going to have to take a fairly hard line. Reducing Spell Availability and Spell Slots is often the easiest method.

amanodel
2006-11-21, 02:56 PM
@ Oriong:

That's it. I can't change radically the system without losing balance. I can't just say it's a low-magic world, because that doesn't influence the PC's in any way. If I wan't to change the feeling of the game, I have to alter the rules as much as possible. The changes between +5 sword or adamatine +5 sword is mostly flavor-vise. The only thing is that there are no options for PC to have thundering goblin-bane +1 sword. There's a need to be such good weapons in the game, othewise the PC's couldn't kill a really tough monster.

I was thinking on eliminating primary casters outright. One don't need cleric when he can go paladin (both are armored divine warriors healing others), don't need druid when there's the ranger (both are divine wilderness WIS casters), sorcerer can be substituted with bard (both are spontaneous CHA arcanists). The only class without a smaller cousin is the wizard. Perhaps I'll throw a modified wizard class together. My other idea was to make the wizard cast his two highest spell levels from a spellbook as a full-round action, and can only memorize lower level spells.



It's an experient, to see if it's possible at all. I know it's nearly impossible and it would be much easier to use a system already designed for low-magic settings. Curiosity.

Yakk
2006-11-21, 03:07 PM
First, the most important part of magic in a D&D game is healing. Healing magic is more powerful than a disintegrate spell.

Split magical items between item quality and "mastery".

-1 items are "Bronze" or "Pine" etc.
+0 items are "Iron" or "Oak" etc.
+1 items are "Masterwork"
+2 items are "Fantasy Material"

Have multiple Fantasy Materials with different properties -- mithril, adamantium, starmetal, truesteel, white gold, darkwood, dragonbone, dragonskin, etc. Each should do something interesting to both weapons and armor.

Restrict Spellcasting to the "Bard", "Paladin" and "Ranger" classes -- all relatively low magic.

Provide an alternative to healing, so it doesn't dominate the game.
1> Healing spells take 10 minutes to cast (so can't be used in combat).

2> Healing salves exist. They take 1 hour to work, and heal (character level +xd6) damage, with exponentially increasing costs for more effective salves. The weakest healing salves can be put together via foraging and heal skills.

3> Replace "Lay On Hands" with something.

4> "Every character has 2 luck points/level. Luck points can be spent to halve the damage from any damage done to the player at a cost of 1 luck point per point of damage prevented. Luck points refresh after each scene."

Add in "Masteries" to take the place of some of the magical stuff. Use the GP progression table to figure out a good rate to pass out masteries.

+1 sword mastery should cost as much as going from +1 to +2.
+2 sword mastery should cost as much as going from +2 to +4.
+3 sword mastery should cost as much as going from +2 to +5.

Use the above "costs" to figure out how hard each level of mastery is to learn.

So +2 comes from the higher quality gear, and +3 comes from the "mastery", adding up to +5.

Find some system to give players access to the masteries at the appropriate times. (Quests? Points to spend as they gain levels?)

Spells that temporally enchant weapons do not stack with either Mastery or Weapon Quality.

Possibly toss together a "Mystic Scholar" class if you really want a robed spell caster. But I'd just restrict Wizard/Sorcerer/etc characters to NPCs.

...

I thought of this when I was tossing together a campaign setting. The idea was "dawn of the era of magic".

The Royal Elves had Druidic magic (but where beyond player-ken).

There was an empire being forged by a Sorcerer half-dragon. His spawn (1/4 dragons and less) had Sorcerous abilities and long life.

The Dwarves had Paladins, but no Clerics.

The Halflings (still barbarous) had Rangers.

Weapons where crude. The Empire's expansion was resting on it's access to some magic and superior weapon and armor technology.

Bone/Obsidian was +0
Bronze was +1.
Dwarf Steel was +2.
Elven Mithril was +3.

Most heavier armors didn't exist.

Grey Paladin
2006-11-21, 03:22 PM
Its not half as hard as you think,

Before you think of the mechanics, you must write the setting for the mechanics, then base the mechanics upon the setting, an not vice-versa.

When you write the setting, pay attention to every single detail, think of the day to day life of a commoner, think of the politics, and most importantly, think of what problems exist.

When you start writing a setting, you assume that all possible problems exist, and as you define the setting, the number of possible problems decreases, What defines any given story is conflict.

Then, when you see what problems you have, and what problems you want the setting to have, simply remove the sources that solve certain problems, and add sources that solve unwanted problems.

For example, you want the commoners in a certain area to hunger, but when you have casters that can conjure food out of thin air, this problem is immediately solved, removing a huge number of possible conflicts.

So you simply remove the source- in this case, the spell Create Food and Water, and viola, your problem is restored.

Once you finish thinking of every possible scenario, you simply attempt to fit as closely as possible to the favor of the setting, then throw in some balancing factors, for example, wizards may recuire a number of rounds equal to the level of the spell they are casting to cast it, or have to pay for spells with their HP instead of having proper spellslots.

Khantalas
2006-11-21, 03:25 PM
Read Complete Warrior.

Me, I eliminated most of the caster classes, replacing them with ToM classes and Warlock (yes, I love Warlock, I'm biased).

NullAshton
2006-11-21, 03:28 PM
Simply scale down the CR of encounters, and the XP for defeating the encounters accordingly. Only allow half-casters, such as paladins, rangers, and bards.

You will also probably want to remove most(if not all) of creatures magical abilities, such as a lot of the abilities of demons.

Scrolls and wands could still be given to your party, just as ancient loot that's few and far between, though. The casters in your party will probably be very useful(Bard even more so than other because of arcane casting). Might be a good idea to limit any offensive spells as well...

amanodel
2006-11-21, 03:50 PM
@ Yakk: Thank, you gave me some interesting ideas. Though I wound't remove Lay on hands, I feel like I need a holy man in the playground. Masteries sound well, nut perhaps will be hard to handle. I'll se to that. The radical class/race restrictions make a lot of sense, I'll see to that.

The Mystic Scholar. I'll be doing that. It'll be a tweaked wizard with less arcane power. Perhaps a bit mixing with the warlock.

@ NullAshton: Good ide on the CR and XP, and I already decided half-casters.

@ Grey Paladin: Thanks. I have some pseudo-campaign setting, and I want this to work with any of them, so I don't want to be setting-specific.

@ Khantalas: Once I'll have the money, I'll buy books, until then I try to suck with the core.

oriong
2006-11-21, 03:55 PM
Its not half as hard as you think,


I don't agree with a lot of that, it may work well story wise but it doesn't adress the balance problem, which is really the core of removing magical items and spells. Modifying the flavor and the story is easy, keeping it balanced is the tough part.


I agree, eliminating the primary casters does help a lot, that way you can have non-uber equipped fighters without them totally falling behind. Lower the number of encounters per day, and the severity a little (shouldn't be too hard since most of the powerful monsters wouldn't be easy to run into in a low magic setting.)

You might make some effort to make Adepts into a PC-viable class, having them serve as some sort of wizard substitute, keeping their spells low but giving them other abilities.

Also, for the 'wizards' you might check out the Incantation rules, long, powerful ritual magic that requires high level of Knowledge (arcane lore) to use. set up some relatively non-painful way for those who want to use them to obtain and research them.

Stick to DR/something rather than things like DR/magic, come up with new special materials (wood, blessed objects, flint, obsidian, meteoric iron, bone, etc) but use them sparingly so you don't have PCs walking around looking absolutely insane with one weapon of every type.

NullAshton
2006-11-21, 04:24 PM
Or one weapon WITH every type.

amanodel
2006-11-21, 04:30 PM
So it's pretty settled that we can't let primary caster romping through the land. One thing we need to make, is to create the wizard-adept-warlock thingy.

Low BAB progression, Good Will, Bad Ref and Con.
Spells/day like bard's. Int-based, needs to prepare spells.
Skills 2+int/level
Special:
1st: Skill focus: Knowledge (arcana)
2nd: Summon familiar
4th: Ritual incantation (need to be worked on, connected with knowledge arcana)
6th: Spell familiarity (level 0) Choose a cantrip, from now you can cast it at will.
8th: Spell familiarity (level 0)
12th: Spell familiarity (level 1)
16th: Spell familiarity (level 1)
20th: Spell familiarity (level 2)

Khantalas
2006-11-21, 04:33 PM
Good Ref, Bad Ref and Con.

Sorry, but huh?

amanodel
2006-11-21, 04:36 PM
I meant Good Will save. Don't even know why I wrote that.

Ikkitosen
2006-11-21, 04:39 PM
I don't have access to the books to check the viability of this, but could you give all non-primary-caster characters the effects of the Vow Of Poverty feat without any of the drawbacks? It's an end-run around the problem, but it prevents all the fantastic flying fighters and such, especially if you also limit the spells available.

Grey Paladin
2006-11-21, 04:42 PM
First of all, I apologize for the spelling, I am extremely tired, mildly seek, and definitely know English as my third language.

Oriong:
Each and every object in a given setting effects all other objects, as long as the setting's mechanics fit the flavor and logic of the setting, how it plays will follow, if it does not plays as it should the problem is either A) mis-portrail of the setting or B) logical flaws in the setting itself.

I have a lot of experience in writing fantasy settings and completely custom systems, and in my experience, writing a fantasy gaming setting is nearly the same as writing a setting for a book.

As long as you translate the logic of the world to mechanics perfectly, it should play as written.

Yakk
2006-11-21, 05:44 PM
For a "replace magical items mastery" system...

Start with the treasure system:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/treasure.htm#standard
Now, in the dark ages, portable wealth doesn't matter much. What matters is land and the backing of a noble.

In effect, you want to replace almost all gold with a mix of "mastery points" and "status points". If your players are doing something to help out someone, their adventure will be worth "status points" with that group.

And as they gain levels, players gain "mastery points".

Random crunching of numbers follows:

300 x EL xp per encounter
1000 x CL xp to ding

3.33 100% shares of encounters per ding.

Gold for someone at the end of each level: (and 1/3 that value @ 1000 gp per MP)
L 1: 1000 (0 MP) (+0)
L 2: 3000 (1 MP) (+1)
L 3: 6000 (2 MP) (+1)
L 4: 10000 (3 MP) (+1)
L 5: 15333 (5 MP) (+2)
L 6: 22000 (7 MP) (+2)
L 7: 30666 (10 MP) (+3)
L 8: 42000 (14 MP) (+4)
L 9: 57000 (19 MP) (+5)
L 10: 76333 (25 MP) (+6)
L 11: 101333 (33 MP) (+8)
L 12: 133000 (44 MP) (+11)
L 13: 176333 (58 MP) (+14)
L 14: 233000 (77 MP) (+19)
L 15: 306333 (102 MP) (+25)
L 16: etc


Magic item prices:
+1 2,000 gp
+2 8,000 gp
+3 18,000 gp
+4 32,000 gp
+5 50,000 gp
+6 72,000 gp
+7 98,000 gp
+8 128,000 gp
+9 162,000 gp
+10 200,000 gp

So +1 to +2 has a delta-cost of 6,000 gp
+2 to +4 has a delta cost of 24,000 gp
+3 to +6 has a delta cost of 54,000 gp
+4 to +8 has a delta cost of 96,000 gp
+5 to +10 has a delta cost of 150,000 gp




Cap "Mastery" raw bonus's at +3, and another +2 of "special move" bonuses.

Each "Mastery Stance" is analagous to a weapon. A player can have more than one "Mastery Stance". Mastery Stances are weapon-type and wield-type specific (but not weapon-quality) -- so "Mastery: longsword main hand DW" is a different mastery than "Mastery: longsword with shield".

Price for a mastery, in gp, works out to:
+1: 6,000
+2: 24,000
+3: 54,000
+4: 96,000
+5: 150,000
... or just charge half the cost of a bonus twice as large?
+1: 4,000
+2: 16,000
+3: 36,000
+4: 64,000
+5: 100,000

Cute how close that is -- I think I like the second, cheaper, table better. It lets stances and gear have the same "cost" table in points.

Have "status points" and "mastery points" each worth, say, "1000 gp".

Then
+0.5 mastery stance: 1 Mastery Point (roughly the same as "masterwork" in standard D&D)
+1 mastery stance: 4 Mastery Points (3 over +0.5)
+2 mastery stance: 16 Mastery Points (12 over +1)
+3 mastery stance: 36 Mastery Points (20 over +2)
+4 mastery stance: 64 Mastery Points (28 over +3)
+5 mastery stance: 100 Mastery Points (36 over +4)

but no "mastery" stance can have greater than a raw +3 on to hit/damage.

Mundane-enough Modifiers from standard D&D for stances:
Defending(+1), Bane(+1), Keen(+1), Wounding(+2), Speed(+3), Vorpal(+5)

Some others: (based off frost/burst/etc type enchantments)
Brutal(+d6 damage)(+2), Finishing(+d10 damage on a crit (or more, based off the crit multiplier)(+2)

In effect, have a system to fold magical effects from weapons into the player's stances. Players could learn to advance stances.

Change "Gold" rewards into "Status" rewards and "Mastery Points". (leave some gold/item wealth).

You could just split the reward 3 ways (1/3 in gold, 1/3 in status points (each "worth" 1000 gp), 1/3 in mastery points (each "worth" 1000 gp).

See the drift? It isn't easy, but it might work.

Anyhow, off to my weekly game. :)

Before I go, biblio:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#tableMeleeWeaponSpecialAbilities
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/treasure.htm#standard

Note: 3.33 "full shares" of encounters per level (13.33 EL-equal encounters for a party of 4).

Parting thoughts: stacking of Mastery Stance and Item Effects, other "magic item" skill bonus items.

Reputation and Status.
Status can be spent on favours from a patron.
Reputation is the sum of all Status earned for that patron. Spending Status on Favours doesn't cost you Reputation.
Rep (and Status) can be lost by doing things against that patron.
A "Merchant Rep" equal to +1 for every 1000 "gp" ever spent maybe. (Wealth Rep.)

Possibly a Reputation "Level" table?

Mike_G
2006-11-21, 05:48 PM
Iron Heroes is an alternate PHB, with some interetsing classes, and expanded feats, new skill uses and mechanics for stunts and using skills to enhance combat.

It's designed for a low-to-zero magic world, but the expanded feats and skills make the characters compatible with the normal CRs for 3.5. In theory. At lower levels it definatly works. I'll know about higher levels when we get there.

It has a spellcaster class, but it's very nerfed.

amanodel
2006-11-21, 06:15 PM
@ Yakk: The idea behind making the usually weapon enhancements into character ability is intriguing. Now they're like feats to buy, but it can be still good. I'll think on that. It's good for fighters, but doesn't work for skill-monkey classes. I can imagine an analogue method, spending mastery points on enhanced skill focus, extra saves, or ability increasement.

I especially like that players earn mastery points and status point from encounters, not random loot. I like this idea more and more every second.

This could even work together with an alternate (lesser) form of my special material idea.

@ Mike G: I suppose there's no chance that Iron Heroes is Open Game Content?

Mike_G
2006-11-21, 06:20 PM
@ Mike G: I suppose there's no chance that Iron Heroes is Open Game Content?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

I don't think so, but there is a bunch of free material on it at www.montecook.com/ironheroes

oriong
2006-11-21, 06:21 PM
Oriong:
Each and every object in a given setting effects all other objects, as long as the setting's mechanics fit the flavor and logic of the setting, how it plays will follow, if it does not plays as it should the problem is either A) mis-portrail of the setting or B) logical flaws in the setting itself.

I have a lot of experience in writing fantasy settings and completely custom systems, and in my experience, writing a fantasy gaming setting is nearly the same as writing a setting for a book.

As long as you translate the logic of the world to mechanics perfectly, it should play as written.


Well, first and foremost, saying translating the logic of the world to mechanics perfectly is a lot easier than actually doing it, and I'm not talking about the setting, I'm talking about the system. Specifically the *game* system.

I completely agree that writing the setting for a game is very similar to writing a setting for the book. That isn't the problem. The problem is the actual *rules* which must be A) balanced and B) playable. So they must be simple enough to work well and they must be balanced enough so that each player is just as viable as the other players. This is something that, while not entirely divorced from setting, is not the same thing.

For example, take the star wars universe. Almost by definition, a jedi is superior to any other form of warrior, they have the force after all. They're not invincible, but one on one, with all factors set equal they're simply superior within the setting. However, when making a game out of the star wars setting this is a problem, since anyone playing a jedi will automatically steal the spotlight from anyone who isn't, this is a case where the setting conflicts with the creation of a balanced game system. The various star wars RPGs I've seen have attempted to weaken the jedi sufficiently to make them more usable by players, with limited sucess.

In this case the problem is not the creation of a low magic *setting*, that's easy. The problem is creating a low magic *game* with the D+D rules, and making it so each player is balanced sufficiently, and capable of operating within the rules.

Ambrogino
2006-11-22, 05:10 AM
Well I'm going to back up the "This is a lot of work, just buy Conan or Iron Heroes" technique. They're not available free, but I'm preety sure Conan has a "Stingy-Gamer Edition" which takes out all the bells and whistles like art to bring the price (and size of the book) down.

Pegasos989
2006-11-22, 06:07 AM
I am gonna go with saying it is not nearly as big of a problem you make it. I am DMing currently a game with no arcane caster and only one character multiclassed with favored soul to provide caster.

amanodel
2006-11-22, 06:12 AM
@ Pegasos: but the party does own verious magic items that help them overcome tougher monsters, don't they? The lack of primary casters only toughens high-level games somewhat. But really, who need a caster when all their benefits can be made into various items?

Pegasos989
2006-11-22, 06:38 AM
@ Pegasos: but the party does own verious magic items that help them overcome tougher monsters, don't they? The lack of primary casters only toughens high-level games somewhat. But really, who need a caster when all their benefits can be made into various items?

Well, they are currently low level but yes, at higher levels not having +2 greatsword means 2 points of less damage and to hit, so one would need to put monsters with slightly less hp and acc. Maybe nerf both by 10% or so. If enemies don't have invisibility, they won't need see invisibility either, if you put less flying enemies with DR, they don't need flight but can use ranged weapons when such attack, etc... It is all about monster choices.

Healing is a problem to some degree but here have already been several suggestions for that.

Grey Paladin
2006-11-22, 06:48 AM
Oriong: The wisest thing to do in the case of Starwars is to limit the access to the Jedi class, the same method can easily solve the balance problem in low magic D&D, Simply make the Wizard a prestige class that can only be taken at level 10 and has steep prerequisites.

If you wish to use D&D as a basis for your system, you must understand that D&D is inherently unbalanced, Wizards are supposed to be more powerful then any other class at higher levels, its part of the design, in fact TSR has acknowledged this in AD&D and made different classes level in different rates.

For the last 4 years I have been writing a system from scratch, along with a setting, perhaps this is untrue for redesigning existing inherently unbalanced systems, But from my experience this is the way it works, at least for me.

amanodel
2006-11-22, 06:55 AM
@ Pegasos:Yes, it should work well. However, look the monsters above CR15. By that time, the party should face dragons, devils and demons. Even nerfed down, these moster require the party to have some special equipment and ability. And that's the thing that gives me headache.

@ Grey Paladin: Yes, coming up with an entirely new d20 (or non-d20) system is probably much more easier than all these stuff. But that's not d&d anymore, and I was trying to do it under d&d rules.

Dausuul
2006-11-22, 08:18 AM
You can buy a .PDF version of Iron Heroes for $14.00 at: http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=2371

I highly recommend the Iron Heroes system, but if you don't want to shell out for it, I would just go with the "bonuses replacing magic items" option. Give the characters "bonus points" according to the wealth-by-level guidelines in the DMG, and then let them buy appropriate bonuses:

+1 enhancement bonus to attack/damage with specific weapon type: 2000 bonus points
+2 enhancement bonus to attack/damage with specific weapon type: 8000 bonus points
+3 enhancement bonus to attack/damage with specific weapon type: 18000 bonus points
+4 enhancement bonus to attack/damage with specific weapon type: 32000 bonus points
+5 enhancement bonus to attack/damage with specific weapon type: 50000 bonus points

+1 armor bonus to AC with specific armor or shield type: 1000 bonus points
+2 armor bonus to AC with specific armor or shield type: 4000 bonus points
+3 armor bonus to AC with specific armor or shield type: 9000 bonus points
+4 armor bonus to AC with specific armor or shield type: 16000 bonus points
+5 armor bonus to AC with specific armor or shield type: 25000 bonus points

+1 deflection bonus to AC: 2000 bonus points
+2 deflection bonus to AC: 8000 bonus points
+3 deflection bonus to AC: 18000 bonus points
+4 deflection bonus to AC: 32000 bonus points
+5 deflection bonus to AC: 50000 bonus points

...et cetera, replicating the effects of magic items for an appropriate cost in bonus points. Obviously, you'd want to pick and choose your magic items. Things that give flat bonuses to combat abilities are fine; things with special powers, like boots of levitation, you probably want to leave out.

At one point I sat down and made a list of types of magic powers, and sorted them into categories for restrictions in a low-magic world, based on how much they interfere with the plot. The categories were "Unlimited" (no need to restrict their use except for reasons of combat balance), "Restricted" (some limitation needed to keep players from using them freely), and "Forbidden" (too much of a problem to allow at all). I made this list as the first step in designing a new caster class for a low-magic world, but you might find it useful too... or not, I don't know. Anyway, here it is:

Unlimited

Direct Damage: All the usual array of fireballs, lightning bolts, acid arrows, and general zorchery. While these abilities need some restrictions so that the user doesn't overshadow the party warriors, and may need to be limited on the basis of "atmosphere," they hardly ever threaten a plot.

Generic Bonuses: Spells that do things like making the party fighter stronger, or making yourself harder to hit, or improving the party diplomat's negotiating skills. Since these just improve abilities that the party already has, I have no problem with them. This does not include spells that give people abilities they didn't have before--for instance, making somebody immune to fire damage.

Ordinary Minions: Conjuring up minions to do your fighting for you and handle other grunt work. I include this one under Unlimited because it's not a problem in and of itself; however, such a power does bear watching. If the wizard can conjure up, say, a griffon, and can order it to do whatever he/she wants (like carry the wizard into the air), then you've moved beyond "Ordinary Minions" to "Special Minions." An ordinary minion should be limited to assisting in combat, using Unlimited powers, and performing tasks that an ordinary human hireling could do.

Ordinary Shapechanging: Assuming another form to improve your combat prowess. As with "Ordinary Minions," this is limited to forms that improve the caster's combat prowess or provide Unlimited powers. Any form that grants Restricted powers, including flight, is "Special Shapechanging."

Style: Spells that don't do much in terms of plot or game mechanics, but enhance the wizard's personal style--for example, the wizard might have the power to look clean and elegant even after slogging through a swamp for a week. This sort of thing is just fun, and it also encourages roleplaying, always a good thing. Such abilities should, of course, be limited to the caster only.

Restricted

Invisibility (Caster Only): Being able to turn invisible is a big advantage, since it lets you sneak past guards, steal unnoticed, spy on people, and so forth. This is tolerable as long as only the wizard him/herself can turn invisible, since the rest of the party will still have to figure out a way past. Even so, its potential for wrecking stuff means it still needs limitations on how often you can use it.

Short-Distance Transport (Caster Only): Spells that let you fly for a short time, teleport for a short distance, or move extra fast for a while. Again, you can go past a lot of barriers with these spells, so I feel they ought to operate under restrictions. And, again, they should apply to the caster only--anything that lets the entire party bypass a major obstacle is right out.

Scrying: Anything that lets you spy on people or places that are far away. I was of two minds about whether to put this in Restricted or Forbidden, because anything that lets you communicate over long distances can cause horrible problems (notably the "Hey, why isn't our powerful NPC wizard mentor bailing us out?" issue). I think it's okay as a Restricted ability, though, as long as it doesn't allow two-way communication. That way, the party can't use it to call for help; and because it's Restricted, the NPC wizard can't just scry on the party every day and watch for red flags.

Mind Control: The venerable charm spell. Wizards are prone to using this one to make friends and influence people everywhere they go, enabling them to extract vital information from all and sundry, and avoid paying for anything. Hence, naturally, I feel it ought to be Restricted. I would also put some limitations on how much willing cooperation you can get out of a subject. I'd say that a charm spell deprives victims of initiative; they help you out when you ask for it, but they don't volunteer assistance on their own.

Supplies: All the spells that conjure up food, water, horses, tents, and Thneeds to supply the wants of the party. These spells can be obnoxious because they more or less negate difficult environments. For a party without supply magic, a blistering desert poses a formidable challenge. For a party that can conjure up thirty gallons of water a day, the only challenge is how to get the sand out of your boots. Supply magic is not a hardcore plot-breaker like some of the other powers in this list, but it can ruin the atmosphere of a game world. Hence, I would restrict it to a last-ditch tool for survival when all else fails.

Healing: Spells to heal wounds, cure diseases, neutralize poisons, and so forth. I might consider making simple hit-point healing Unlimited, but anything beyond that should definitely be Restricted. Otherwise poison and disease just lose their sting. And, frankly, I like the idea that sometimes you need some time to heal up after a big fight.

Protection: Spells that grant resistance or immunity to things that would normally Mess You Up, such as fire. I might make these Unlimited if they target the caster only, but the wizard should have to think carefully before enabling the entire party to stroll across the lava pit.

Illusions: Spells that make people think you look like someone you're not, or that you have a gigantic howling demon at your command when in fact what you have is an anemic rat. These can lead to very entertaining situations. However, they can also get really obnoxious if used too freely, since they can be used to bypass major fights (bluffing the enemy into fleeing) and as a substitute for invisibility (make the guards think you're their boss). Thus, Restricted.

Divinations: Spells that let you talk to unusual people in order to get answers to your questions--e.g., speaking with the spirits of the dead. This can definitely be a plot-breaker if allowed too often, and it might even end up in Forbidden; anything that can totally destroy a murder mystery is bad. Still, with suitable limits on whom you can bespeak and what answers you can get, I think it could be okay.

Special Minions: Magic to conjure a minion possessing one or more Restricted powers; for example, a flying mount.

Special Shapechanging: Magic that lets the caster assume a form which possesses one or more Restricted powers.

Forbidden

Resurrection: Spells that bring back the dead. From a game-world perspective, making death reversible causes massive plausibility problems. From a role-playing perspective, character death becomes much less significant and scary if it can be undone by a spell. And from a plot perspective... I shudder to think.

Invisibility (Group): Anything that turns the entire party invisible. Forbidden for reasons outlined in "Invisibility (Caster)."

Short-Distance Transport (Group): Any transport spell that takes the entire party along for the ride. Again, reasons in "Short-Distance Transport (Caster)."

Long-Distance Transport: Anything that lets you cover many miles at high speed, including both long-duration flight spells and teleportation. Even if limited to the caster only, this offers too many chances to bypass whole quests. It's out.

Mind-Reading: Spells that allow the caster to scan the thoughts of another person or to detect lies. Wreak too much havoc with plots that revolve around intrigue and deception.

Instant Death Magic: Spells that kill on a single die roll (or without a die roll at all), regardless of hit points, armor, or anything else. Whether it's the player doing it to the big villain, or an NPC doing it to a player, it's a horribly lame way to end a fight.

Infallible Divinations: Spells that let you ask questions of God, the Universe, or some other entity that knows everything and is never wrong. This has unrivalled potential to annihilate a major plot line, simply by having the wizard ask, "Okay, what exactly do we have to do in order to beat the Bad Guy?" Just. Fricking. No.

Yakk
2006-11-22, 11:19 AM
@ Yakk: The idea behind making the usually weapon enhancements into character ability is intriguing. Now they're like feats to buy, but it can be still good. I'll think on that. It's good for fighters, but doesn't work for skill-monkey classes. I can imagine an analogue method, spending mastery points on enhanced skill focus, extra saves, or ability increasement.

I especially like that players earn mastery points and status point from encounters, not random loot. I like this idea more and more every second.

*nod*. Glancing at the Iron Heroes, it seems we both came to roughly the same conclusion.

Except I decided that rather than give out ability points on a per-level basis, to give them out on a per-encounter basis. And I aimed for "your bonuses are split between your high-quality gear and your innate masteries", while iron hero places them all into the masteries (it seems).

For skill-based classes, you just need to look up magic items. 1 mastery point is "1000 gp" of magic items.

Going more down the rabbit hole:
For weapons, Mastery should cap out at +3 to hit +2 to damage.
Weapon Quality should cap out at +2 to hit +3 to damage.

Feats (like focus and spec) should add to that.

Some (capped) ability to purchase extra "mundane-esque" features.

I'm personally feel that "vulgar" magic like fireballs hurts the feel of a low-magic setting.


This could even work together with an alternate (lesser) form of my special material idea.

*nod*, split the bonus between the weapon quality and the heroes stance.

I say "stance", because that implies it takes effort to change which bonus's you are using. With the price set up, it makes sense for a player to one "top of the line" stance, and then some "lesser" special-purpose stances.

Sort of like how some D&D characters carry around both their best magic weapon, and cheaper alternative special-purpose magic weapons. :)

amanodel
2006-11-22, 11:32 AM
@ Dausuul: The idea behind selcting the spells avaible sounds good, it'll be a good work to categorize all the spells :) I was trying to symply ban or disencourage schools of magic, but it won't work.

@ Yakk: Minority of d&d characters carry less than a dozen weapons, the temptation of having special weapons and back-up weapons is just to big. With wise decisions with the "stances", the gap between high-level casters and non-casters may even shrink.


Once I have a bit of free time I'll rework all the suggestions into a hopefully working sub-system of d&d.

oriong
2006-11-22, 12:10 PM
Oriong: The wisest thing to do in the case of Starwars is to limit the access to the Jedi class, the same method can easily solve the balance problem in low magic D&D, Simply make the Wizard a prestige class that can only be taken at level 10 and has steep prerequisites.

If you wish to use D&D as a basis for your system, you must understand that D&D is inherently unbalanced, Wizards are supposed to be more powerful then any other class at higher levels, its part of the design, in fact TSR has acknowledged this in AD&D and made different classes level in different rates.

For the last 4 years I have been writing a system from scratch, along with a setting, perhaps this is untrue for redesigning existing inherently unbalanced systems, But from my experience this is the way it works, at least for me.

First of all, are you on the same edition as the rest of us? you seem to be referring to second edition, 3rd edition uses entirely different rules.

And no, D+D is supposed to be balanced, if not precisely in terms of ability to pump damage/solve problems (although they certainly want that as close as they can get) then in the ability to be generally useful and not be completely overshadowed by the other PCs.

My point was that your claim that it was extremely easy was wrong, and honestly the advice on what to do with wizards doesn't work either. That just kills their usefulness altogether, no one would want to be a wizard if it took 10 levels to achieve and you started your spellcasting career at 11th level.

I'm certainly not saying such modifications aren't possible, but I am saying it takes a lot more work than just throwing something out there without giving a thought to balance.

Roethke
2006-11-22, 01:07 PM
Just a quick suggestion (haven't seen it in the thread, yet)

One tack to take (where a lot the work has been done for you) is to steal from the Midnight campaign setting.
check out

http://www.againsttheshadow.org/

I ran this for a while, and magic, while existent, was hard to come by, and boy were the PC's nervous about using it.

Puck
2006-11-22, 02:52 PM
Yuck!

Way too complicated to be fun. I also hate it when people replace "+1 magic sword" with "+1 super duper steel sword." It's magic, by another name.

Just cut the standard party wealth to 70 percent of what it says in the DMG, and remove permanent stat-enhancing items like inherent tomes/wish stat bumps and +2/4/6 permanent items.

Give players a feat every odd level, instead of every three levels, and a stat bump every even level, instead of every four levels.

One of the main reasons I dislike most "low magic" campaigns is because it's more about what they take away from the players, rather than what they give them.

Also, look at the Conan d20 and Midnight campaign settings, and then Monte Cook's Iron Heroes. Those are the best low-magic D&D campaign settings, to date.

Yakk
2006-11-22, 04:20 PM
L 20 fighter in a high-magic campagn:

+5 hit/damage weapons
+d6 elemental damage weapons

+5 strength from advancement
+5 from tome (inherit)
+6 from belt
----
+16 strength

Total, above starting, not counting BaB etc:
+13 to damage, +13 to hit, "5 more points" of magic item specials.

If you gave a player +1 to strength every level, they would have +20 strength at L 20. That is +10 damage and +10 to hit.

This leaves up to +3 damage and +3 to hit room to put somewhere else.

...

So, here is another proposal.

What if player's stats went through the roof?

Even as crazy as "+1 to every stat every level". (that might, actually, be too much...)

Pegasos989
2006-11-22, 04:24 PM
L 20 fighter in a high-magic campagn:

+5 hit/damage weapons
+d6 elemental damage weapons

+5 strength from advancement
+5 from tome (inherit)
+6 from belt
----
+16 strength

Total, above starting, not counting BaB etc:
+13 to damage, +13 to hit, "5 more points" of magic item specials.

If you gave a player +1 to strength every level, they would have +20 strength at L 20. That is +10 damage and +10 to hit.

This leaves up to +3 damage and +3 to hit room to put somewhere else.

...

So, here is another proposal.

What if player's stats went through the roof?

Even as crazy as "+1 to every stat every level". (that might, actually, be too much...)

+1 to every stat at every level is really too much... But +1 to two stats (player chosen each time at levelling) at each level might work

Grey Paladin
2006-11-22, 05:44 PM
Oriong: I have played all the editions save the very first version of the first one.

Perhaps D&D is supposed to be balanced, but its really isn't, a level 13 wizard can take on a level 20 fighter without sweating., and if the wizard gets a few rounds to buff, a couple of them.

Level 20 wizards can create life, reweave reality, command others to cease to exist, and what can a level 20 fighter do? kill stuff. Not very efficently, at that.

Heck, even broken monstrousities that were created to be melee fighters that are as strong as spellcasters (AKA Swordsages) that can deal over a 1000 points of damage in a full round attack assuming you build the guy right, still die to a wizard of a much lower level.

The only time that any class can outshine a wizard is in low levels, and even then, Clerics remain better then Fighters, not to mention the poor bards and rogues that are worse even then poor ol' Fighter.

D&D is not, and never was, balanced.

Secondly, if you think desigining the logic of your world is easy, then you are severly wrong, an extremely undetailed logical setting would recuire at least 3 months of work to work-out every possible scenario within it's scope.

about the wizard fix,
I've actualy tried that out back in a low magic setting in 3.0, and it worked out fairly well, In a world where no other class can threaten to destroy a whole town on a whim, by casting Cloudkill in this case, about half of my players wanted to be wizards.

Though I've forgotten to mention I've allowed spellcasting in light armor.

Yakk
2006-11-22, 05:52 PM
+1 to every stat at every level is really too much... But +1 to two stats (player chosen each time at levelling) at each level might work

+1 to two stats, cannot choose the exact same pair of stats you chose last level, is something I looked into once.

You end up with up to +20 to one and up to +10 to two others (you can drop the +20 on one to increase the +10 ones).

What this actually does is give a huge swing on your spell strength and resistances.

Wizards get +20 int, for +10 spell power.
Clerics get +20 wis, for +10 spell power, and +10 will save
Rogues get +20 dex for +10 AC, and +10 reflex save.
Tanks get +10 to +20 con for +100 to 200 HP and +5 to 10 fort save

You can see how this might cause problems.

...

Well, how about this. Strip out the "saves by level by class". Everyone gets +1 to every save for every 3 levels.

Change the save modifiers:
Fort saves: Str Bonus + Con Bonus
Will saves: Wis Bonus + Cha Bonus
Reflex saves: Int Bonus + Dex Bonus

This makes player saves go up as they gain levels to make up for the lack of +save gear...

Fixed HP: give 3 HP per level, plus con mod.
Flesh Wounds Points give:
d4: 1 per level
d6: 2 per level
d8: 3 per level
d10: 4 per level
d12: 5 per level

Flesh wound points can be used to reduce the damage of an attack down to the minimium damage for the attack.

Flesh wound points are recovered after each "encounter".

This is intended to help mitigate the lack of a "divine healing battery" that almost every real D&D group drags around with them.

Make HP curing spells only work on "flesh wound points", and you prevent healing from dominating the game (which is pretty magical).

So, L 10 fighter.
Starts out with 14 str, 13 dex, 13 con, 10 int, 12 wis, 8 cha

Adds +10 str +5 dex +5 con

24(+7) str, 18(+4) dex, 18(+4) con, 10 int, 12(+1) wis, 8(-1) cha

HP: 70 HP + 40 Flesh Wound.
Saves:
Fort: +14 = +3(level) + 7 (str) +4 (con)
Will: +3 = +3 +1 -1
Reflex: +7 = +3 +4 +0

L 10 paladin
18 str 10 dex 16 con 10 int 18 wis 18 cha

HP: 60 HP + 40 Flesh Wound
Saves:
Fort: +10 + Paladin Specials
Will: +11 + Paladin Specials
Reflex: +3 + Paladin Specials

Hmm.

The L 10 bard will be casting L 4 spells and have a charisma of 26.

That's +17 spell power. Blows the saves of the characters away.

Maybe +1 save/2 levels (boosting all of the above by +2).

Maybe if you did the "double d20" for spells: d20+spell power vs d20+save.

Because otherwise the gap gets too large (by using 2d20 in the roll, the effect of a +10 difference between saves and spell power is reduced).

The_Werebear
2006-11-22, 05:56 PM
Rather than change the system totally, why don't you just drop the class Sorcerer, limit the wizard spells known to the Sorcerer Spells Known Limit(They still have to prepare them), and finally, drop the full casting classes to Bard progression.

So, 6th level spells are the highest there are. And they can't cast them until level 16 with high abilities.

oriong
2006-11-22, 05:58 PM
My point was that you were mixing your system rules pretty badly, wizards don't advance at different rates anymore.

And as for a 13th level wizard beating a 20th level fight, absolutely untrue unless the fighter is very badly equipped, and if the fighter is loaded for mage then the wizard is absolute toast.


That said, I agree there are many things that make D+D unbalanced, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a concern, especially when doing something that could potentially make the balance gap even bigger. Of course you're also working under the fallacious assumption that 'balanced' classes means 'X can beat Y in a fight half the time'. Of course the wizard wins in a single, battle to the death combat, because they can unload all their spells at once without worrying about the conseqeunces later. It's a stupid comparison. I'm not saying that there aren't problems with the wizard, I'm saying that the fact that a wizard beats a fighter in some mock arena battle is pretty meaningless. The goal of game balance isn't 'who can beat who in a knock down drag out fight' it's 'try and make sure each class can contribute'.

And you were the one who claimed it was easy first, not me. Also, I completely disagree on your estimation on how long it takes to create a good and proper setting, but that's an entirely different issue.

foil_fedora
2006-11-22, 07:44 PM
Since we're just brainstorming here, let me question the basic approach... is there really a need to tweak the rules and ban character classes to make a low-magic campaign, or is this just a matter of how the campaign world is designed?

I ran a low-magic campaign (back in the 80's, using AD&D rules), and I didn't change any rules to do it.

Political control was held by a theocracracy, dominated by the priests of a goddess of magic. They had held control for the past few centuries, mainly by restricting all use of magic by outsiders. There was magic to be had, as long as you were willing to pay up to the temple for it. Unlicensed practitioners were outlaws.

Since this theo/magocracy was lawful evil (despite their protestations of "protecting" the common people from "dangerous" magic), the common folk lived in a dingy mix of fear and poverty.

Since the group had been in power for a long time, and made it a point to gather up and hoard magic items for themselves, so there's just not much left lying around. The general population viewed spellcasters with varying degrees of suspicion / fear / hatred... whether you bought the Temple propganda or not (and many did... brainwashed since birth, after all) you knew that loose spellcasters were trouble. The party's sole mage had to keep a *very* low profile.

Needless to say, you couldn't be able to walk into a shop and buy magic... you could walk into a temple and petition for the right to buy some, but the price will be high, and there will be questions... so many questions, and far too much attention.

This gave me a nice background reason to limit magical items in any treasure found by the party, and also made it easy to make honest PCs outlaws... The party's Paladin was the first to be featured on a wanted poster... for posession (of an enchanted blade).

Since the temple was a large, entrenched organization, they provided a nice long-running range of opponents. As the character levels increased, there was always another level of the heirarchy to take notice. Of course, the temple-associated baddies always had easier access to magic than the party, though it was on the order of potions and scrolls, skewed heavily in the direction of detecting magic (and goo... I mean heresy). As a temple priest, you wouldn't want any *durable* magic getting out there where it could fall into the wrong hands, so you'd be careful how you armed your minions.

Unfortunately, the player group didn't hold together long enough to allow the PCs to bring the whole temple down... though they did have a good start on building an underground resistance. Kind of an interesting twist when setting up a mage's guild starts to strongly resemble setting up a thieve's guild.

As always, run your campaigh your way, but I just thought I'd add some random thoughts to the mix. My philosophy was always to let the players use any character class/race they wanted to... but I always reserved the right to make it difficult.

amanodel
2006-11-23, 05:06 AM
@ foil fedora: Of course this variant would need a setting apppropiate for it. Either by commoners fearing magicians, or scarce magic sources, it's up to the DM. However, I (unfortunately) found that even the most basic setting restrictions are often forgotten by the players and DM's (half-dragon half-minotaurs go in the tavern without any problem, etc). And since d&d rules are meant to be fool-proof, I must try to create something along that line.

@ Yakk: bumping up stats insanely might couse problems, yes. But remember, high-level wizards always have those headbands of intellect, pearls of power and other stuff to increase their spelcasting abilities. As for the various "points" handled out at the end of encounters instead of static growth in power: At the end the encounters define the charater's level, so there's no need to go the harder way. The idea is still great, but I'd simply put these bonuses as "feats-stances" for level advancemnt.

@ Werebear: decisions like that have already been made. Paladins took the role of clerics, bards took the roles of sorcerers, and rangers took the roles of druids. Only the wizard is left to deal with. There was an attemp on the previous page on an int-based acane caster with bard's spell progression. That's make the bard and the new wizardish class as the most potent spellcasters.

@ oriong: I wholeheartedly agree with that opinion on balanced-ness.


Menatime, I was thinking. Making the magical weapon and armor properties into feats can be a good idea. Put 'em a prerq of at least +10 BAB, so mostly fighters will use them. They could be similar like the monk's +1 unarmed attack or AC bonus. (Note that'd make the monks the uber-class, so maybe disallowing them isn't a bad idea.)

So my idea: feats at every odd level, ability increases at every even level, skill focus (any class skill) in every third level. That's three extra feats, five extra ability score, and 6x3 extra skill. That should cover much of the loss from the disallowing of the magical items.

I'd keep three levels of material upgrade (mainly for the monsters with DR or high damage). Mithril +1, adamantine +2, "starmetal" (I stick to that name for now) +3. They could be issued as semi-magical minerals, and their price could be set as special material price + nominal enhancement bonus. That way characters could get them only some level later.

And before I forget, I also need to cut the character wealth by level guideline.

Grey Paladin
2006-11-23, 01:16 PM
Note that I've said "In AD&D" before that paragraph, I wasn't mixing anything up.

The only reason each character can contribute to a party is because even a high level commoner can contribute, the classes aren't balanced, the mere presence of another ally with magical items and time to take actions empowers the party, that fighter could very well be an Expert or an Aristocrat.
(Also, I am not going to bother and try to convince you Wizards are much stronger then any other class. just run a search on "The Logic Ninja" and search for a thread called "Being Batman" or something along these lines. )

oriong
2006-11-23, 01:36 PM
You brought up AD+D in the first place, there's no reason to be discussing it here. 2nd and 3rd edition are very different animals.

And your assertion about commoners and experts is absolute bull.

Like I said, I agree the wizard has balance issues, but most of the problems come from the fact that DM's play the game in a way that favors the wizard, not the way it's designed for. And like I said, the fact that a wizard wins in a mock arena battle is a stupid way to compare power levels.


I do think Gray Fedora's idea has some potential, a setting which doesn't just limit how much magic the characters run into, but actually encourages them not to use it isn't a bad idea (such as dark sun). But, of course it's also very setting specific. And I agree with Amanodel that it can very easily break down if the PC's don't take it seriously enough (or are just weird enough all on their own), especially since many PrC's cause just about everyone to develop magical abilities eventually.

Grey Paladin
2006-11-23, 04:38 PM
I brought up AD&D because it was, doubtlessly, the D20 system where the most offical low magic settings were ever published, While third edition has returned to its hack n' slash roots in 1st edition, and combined it with many of the lessons learned from AD&D.

While the pair of systems are extremely different, there are many things to be learned about low magic worlds from a system that was designed to be played in such a fashion.

Anyway, on to your second point, Most of the time, as a wizard, I would stay back and do absolutely nothing, perhaps I would cast a spell or two durning each battle, given the fact most of my spells were buffs and utility. until level 11 or so, after that point, anything another character could do, I could do better. I out melee'd the fighter thanks to buffs and polymorph, outstealthed the rogue thanks to a couple of low level utility spells, While the cleric could heal and I could not, I would simply prevent the party from taking any damage using Stoneskin and Protection from Energy.

When a single character can do anything that any given character of the same level can, something is wrong in the balance.

I do not compare their performences during a duel, I compare their general capabilities, and a wizard, if played correctly, is literaly omnipotent.

oriong
2006-11-23, 05:13 PM
uh...no.

First of all, since when is AD+D low magic? It's not. It's just as high magic as 3rd edition, hell if anything by the time it was done it had several times as many spells and magic items, and that's not even counting setting specific magic. Sure, it had some settings that were lower-magic than the 'default' but that's not what the system was designed for. And seeing as all you pointed out was that wizards advanced at a different rate of experience than other classes you aren't making much of a point. The old experience system was a bad thing, not something we should be learning from.

Second, you DID compare their performance during a duel. In fact, that was your only comparison: A wizard is better than a fighter because a low level wizard can beat a high level fighter (which is, again untrue).

Third: Again, I've said wizards have balance problems, I'm not making the claim that they're perfect. However, your points are still flawed. Sure a high level wizard can buff himself up enough that he can melee better than a fighter, if he's an idiot. Maybe during that one combat he'll shine, maybe even during the second combat. But by the time the 3rd or 4th fight rolls around (or after a single dispel magic) he'll have vastly reduced his effectiveness, not to mention the fact that by the time he's buffed himself up to be strong enough to match the party fighter then several rounds have passed and whatever monster you're fighting is already dead. The same is true with your stoneskin example, unless the wizard has several rounds of preparation or some very expesive quickened spells he's not going to be protecting the whole party from much of anything until several rounds into the battle (and given most high level battles probably last about 3-6 rounds that's not a good thing). Meanwhile, the fighter is just as effective from start to finish (with some healing help) and remains effective right off the bat.

Wizards are excellent if they are facing few and known threats, a couple of battles a day against enemies with known strengths and weaknesses. However, D+D is designed, explicitly for many encounters a day. Unfortunately towards higher levels DM's often forget this.


Let's take each of your examples:

The melee fighting wizard: okay, assuming you're high level (13th) let's say you throw on a Tenser's Transformation, a good Polymorph, Greater Magic Weapon, and Haste, You might come close to being as effective as the party melee master. So, that's a mere 4 turns of casting, and you've used up two 3rd, one 4th and one 6th level spell. You're ready to fight! You might even be as strong or stronger than a 13th level fighter with mediocre equipment! By this time the fighter's already gotten off 12 attacks before you even move into melee range. Even if the enemies are still alive to fight, who do you think managed to contribute more to the battle? The wizard? yeah right. Not only that, but unless you memorized several copies of those spells (badly hurting your flexibility) you're not going to be able to do it more than once. But guess what, the fighter can, he can do it all day long.

The protection scenario: Protection from energy (level 3) and Stoneskin (level 4). On a party of 4 people. unless you quicken some of those that's 8 rounds spent buffing, and guess what? you've used up all but one or maybe two of your 3rd and 4th level spells just to buff the whole party for one combat. You certainly are the master of protection, assuming the group never runs into another encounter that day and you never feel the need to use any of the useful 3rd or 4th level spells you might have memorized.
So, here again, the wizard falls short, he's no ultimate defender. And you know what? Who cares? buffing isn't taking away the spotlight from everyone else, it's helping them out. That's part of what being in a party is all about, synchronicity. The meat shields help bear the frontline damage, the spellcasters buff and heal them, it's not 'unbalanced' it's the purpose of the game. And I assure you, you aren't stealing the cleric's thunder one bit, there are still plenty of wounds that need patching up, you're just helping by assuring that the cleric won't run dry of cure spells.

On the rogue example I agree with you, rogues are far too easily rendered unnecessary by magic. At least in terms of stealth. When it comes to things like disarming traps though, the wizard had better let the rogue take over, seeing as the only spell capable of doing that at all is on the cleric list, and seeing as cleric's don't have Search as a class skill they won't be doing much to help even with it.

If anything, the danger of a wizard is not their ability to blow the other classes out of the water, they aren't that great at it. It's their ability to simply short circuit problems and complications with spells like teleport, etc.

amanodel
2006-11-23, 05:35 PM
Erm... Many Cleric or Druid fans would actually argue with the wizard named as the most powerful class.

But yes, wizards are Batman. They can beat everyone, but only if they are prepared to beat that foe. If they know their foe before dealing with they'll have the upper hand. If they have four turn before the combat then they're a formidable enemy. If they have a day to prepare, they are invincible.
But if they prepare for a fighter and get a sorcerer (or vica versa), they can make their first-round action to start digging their grave.
Further, if a rogue knew that he'll be facing a wizard, as sure as hell he'd steal his spellbook as soon as possible. Without that, the wizard is just a commoner with a familiar and a funny hat.

So let's not dwell on this further. Wizards have the potential to be the best, but they are not the uber by definition.

The issue wizards were brought up anyway was the fact that fighters and rogues depend on their magic stuff completely at later levels, and without those, the wizard and spellcasters will have a significant advantage on them.

Grey Paladin
2006-11-24, 06:18 AM
Sorry for hijacking your topic, I'll make this one last post and then stop.

AD&D -is- (mostly) low magic, by about 70% of the treasure generation by level I've seen, most characters would've been lucky to get a +1 weapon by level 5. Unless its Forgotten Realms, the only truly high magic I can recall from these days.

Now, All a wizard needs to outfight a fighter is a single Greater magic weapon, perhaps Flame weapon/Darkfire/however its called now, (each lasting 1 hour/level) And polymorph (lasting 1 minute/level)
So assuming the standard 4 fights/day, all a wizard would need to do is buff his weapons once for 13 hours, and cast Polymorph at the beggining of each fight. At the worst case, he can recast Greater Magic Weapon and Flame Weapon, then, in the worst case scenario, its 8 spells for being more effective then the fight for a whole day.

Protection from Energy and Stoneskin each last one hour/level

All I am saying is that there is absolutely nothing another class can
acomplish that a wizard can't do better.

Back on topic (finally):

Another question you should ask yourself is this: Are you aiming for a high powered low magic setting, meaning, standard D&D with less magic and other things to balance this, or are you aiming for a generaly low powered setting, where level 9 characters are the stuff of legends and slaying a Troll will make you a part of folklore for ages?

If you are aiming for the first, I believe the suggestions you were given so far are supreb, Although if you are aiming for that approach, you should not weaken the monsters, only balance them against the new capabilities of the characters.

If you are going for the second approach, do not bother to empower the classes, only nerf spellcasting into manageable levels, and make sure that the party only ever gets magical equipment as treasure in ancient ruins and the like, in such a setting getting a fullplate by level 4 would be considered lucky.

amanodel
2006-11-24, 07:10 AM
(And what a drud needs to accomplish such combat prowess is only to take the natural spell feat. And the barbarian only needs one thing to beat the wizard: to win the initiative. Wizards can be powerful, but far from invincible.)

(Mid-level characters should be stuff of legends even in d&d, compared to commoners. Salvatore's Bruenor Battlehammer, according to the FRCS, is ftr13. And in the eyes of a commoner, even killing a five goblins is deed to remember for past of his life. It's all depend on the gaming style of the group.)

So let's say I'm aimig for a mid-powered game. I don't like the concet of the party going to kill a hundred trolls and some red dragons just for excersise. I'd like to half-empower the classes, handle out "magical" items only on very rare ocassions, and nerf down spellcasters.

The "handing out magical items" needs to be specified, or the individual DM can just kick it, and thus unbalance the whole system. The system designer's got two tools: the Character Wealt By Level, and the "magic item prices". (I say magic item prices, but still belive that they aren't supposed to be found in the local shop near the tavern. It's only to simplify treasure calculation.)

And by no means I want to weaken the mosters. Brutal monsters + less supplemental magic + lack of healing = a really bloody outcome.

oriong
2006-11-24, 01:19 PM
okay, resisting urge to keep arguing...resisting...but...he's so wrong...completely wrong...polymorph isn't that good...resisting...done.


Okay, one question. I'm starting to get the distinct impression that
you're doing this with more than just you in mind. is this meant to be the start of a campaign setting you want spread? Several of your concerns seem to be over what other DMs might do.

the_tick_rules
2006-11-24, 02:07 PM
you want the ultimate weapon in low magic games. Pick a human monk and pick vow of poverty at first level. (book of exalted deeds if you don't know). It doesn't get any more low-tech than vow of poverty, and your one helluva badass.

Morty
2006-11-24, 03:56 PM
A little question: how advanced technology are you going to have in your setting? Some technology-that replace magic- might be good way to limit magic. Not some high-end technology, but some crude Gnome/Goblin inventions...

amanodel
2006-11-25, 08:05 AM
@ oriong: I want it to work without me too. Not just some quickly hombrewed stuff to go with a single campaign. When I create something I like to do it good. So if I want to create a low-magic system (for whatever purpose), that system does have to work with any fantasy setting with low magic level. (note: I like to homebrew settings, and usually I like to do them low-magic. Currently I'm working on a medieval Europe based setting, but I don't want these rules to only work with that specific settings, so others who do something like this perhaps can steal ideas about a low-magic rules set.)

@ the tick rules: With so much alterations to the core system, the majority of splatbooks will possibly became non-working or broken. In post #45 I already mentioned that the monks could rule the world with the current alterations, so I'm going to disable them, or sligthly tune them down. (Simply disallowing is somewhat easier, but it'd hurt oriental folks and manga fanboys disallowing their favourite core class.) As I imagine, a setting in a low-magic wolrd automatically disallows splatbooks such as BoED, BoVD, CompMagic-stuffs, and so on.

@ MOrt: I prefer low-tech settings, but perhaps I could include the gnome/goblin crafts as the superior masterworks I mentioned before. Not a wall-breaking idea, I know.


Once the rules are settled, I might ask some opinions on one my current settings, that finally inspired me to settle down the house-modificated rules.

Yakk
2006-11-25, 12:08 PM
Gathering data: Need costs of magic effects (if we want to go this route) in order to figure out an advancement system that mirrors D&D's treasure aquisition.

So here is some data.

Buying "magic effects":

Dodge Bonus (no magic items)
Insite (no magic items)

Armor Bonus (restrict to actual armor!) (+1 to +8 for 1k to 64 k)
Deflection Bonus to AC (+1 to +5, 2k to 50k)
Circumstance Bonus to Skills (+10 for 2 k?!)
Competence Bonus to Skills
Competence Bonus to Attack/Damage: (+2/+1 for 5 k)
Comp. Bonus to Atk, Saves, Checks (+1 for 20 k doubled already)
Enhancement to Armor (+1 to +5...+10, 1k to 25k...100k)
Enhancement to Shield (+1 to +5...+10, 1k to 25k...100k)
Enhancement to Attack/Damage (+1 to +5...+10, 2k to 50k...200k)
Enhancement to Stats (+2 to +6, 4/16/36k)
Inherent to Stats (+1 to +5, 27 k to 137 k -- flat cost?)
Luck to Atk/Dam/AC/Save/Checks
Morale to ATK/Dam/Checks/Saves
Natural Armor to AC (+1 to +5, 2 to 50k)
Resistance bonus to Saves (+1 to +5, 1k to 25k)
Sacred/Profane bonus to AC/Saves/Checks
Enlargement to Str/Con (naw)
Haste to AC

grinner666
2006-11-25, 12:13 PM
There was a 2E supplement called "A Mighty Fortress" that was a setting for play in the European Renaissance. In that setting even the highest-magic campaign nerfed the primary spellcasters pretty severely. They remained useful and powerful because ... well, because they were all the party had for magical backup. In lower-magic campaigns, spellcasters were either only encountered as mysterious villains, or they didn't exist at all. At the same time, there were very few purely magical monsters ... in fact, most (not necessarily all) opponents were human.

Here's how AMF nerfed the spellcasters. First, there were no obvious magical effects like Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Flame Strike, etc. A spellcaster could enchant a weapon, or charm a foe, or slow him, or cause him to flee in panic ... but not blast him to pieces. Second, casting a spell took roughly ten times as long in that setting as in standard AD&D campaigns. A one-action spell would take a full round. One with a casting time of 1 round would take a turn.

A system like that, with some additional restrictions (for instance, no Item Creation feats for player characters ... with the exception of Brew Potion, Scribe Scroll and (maybe) Craft Wand ... would make a very effective low-magic campaign. I know; I've been running one like that myself since 3.0 first came out.

Morty
2006-11-25, 01:03 PM
Here's how AMF nerfed the spellcasters. First, there were no obvious magical effects like Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Flame Strike, etc. A spellcaster could enchant a weapon, or charm a foe, or slow him, or cause him to flee in panic ... but not blast him to pieces. Second, casting a spell took roughly ten times as long in that setting as in standard AD&D campaigns. A one-action spell would take a full round. One with a casting time of 1 round would take a turn.
Yes, but in 3.0 most game-breaking effects aren't 'blasting to pieces', but slowing down, causing fear, or those idiotic 'battlefield control' spells. Making casting time longer is good idea, though.

oriong
2006-11-25, 01:18 PM
Making the casting time longer will pretty much relegate any casters to NPC status, except maybe clerics. They'd be completely unable to act in combat, especially since most combats last less than 10 rounds, and would pretty much be limited to out of combat utility spells. Obviously, that might be the goal.


Question to amanodel:

When you say low-magic, what precisely do you mean?

A) a "magic is really difficult" or "magic is weak" idea? The reason it's not common is just because it's rarely useful?

B) a "magic is not to be used lightly or frivolously" idea? Like Lord of the Rings or Discworld?

C) A "Magic is just plain not common" theme? spellcasters and magic users are simply too rare to have an impact.

D) "Magic is forbidden!" where the impetus for the world being low magic is actual oppression or persecution?

or E) something none of the above.

grinner666
2006-11-25, 01:44 PM
Yes, but in 3.0 most game-breaking effects aren't 'blasting to pieces', but slowing down, causing fear, or those idiotic 'battlefield control' spells. Making casting time longer is good idea, though.

There's no such thing as a "game-breaking" effect ... at least not written by WotC. Some of the ridiculous, twisted stuph I've seen here, on the other hand ... :smalltongue:

But the idea in AMF wasn't to completely nerf the spellcasters ... it was just to make magic more subtle, harder to come by, more difficult to use in combat, and to make it reflect the belief at the time that magic required terrible concentration and lengthy ritual.

(besides, if you scare an opponent away and five rounds later he comes back, you've still got to defeat him :smallbiggrin:)

And again, I'd seriously recommend disallowing Craft Item feats ... that way the DM, not the players, controls access to magic items in the game.


Making the casting time longer will pretty much relegate any casters to NPC status, except maybe clerics. They'd be completely unable to act in combat, especially since most combats last less than 10 rounds, and would pretty much be limited to out of combat utility spells. Obviously, that might be the goal.Nonsense. How many spells require a full round to cast in 3E? The only combat spells I can think of offhand ... I don't have a PH handy ... are Call Lightning and the various Summon spells, all of which have obvious physical effects and wouldn't work with this system anyway.

oriong
2006-11-25, 01:54 PM
You're pretty much ignoring the system difference there, if you multiple effects by 10 then it takes 10 standard actions, i.e. 5 rounds (sacrificing both your standard and your move action each round). (as opposed to 10 rounds, my bad there)

Now, if you were to say that the system pushed everything up one rank (standard to full round, full round to one minute, one minute to one hour, etc.) then it might be more feasible, but I still don't know that it's whats needed here. I don't think it's a very balanced solution, although it does render the wizard much less desirable.

grinner666
2006-11-26, 01:00 AM
You're pretty much ignoring the system difference there, if you multiple effects by 10 then it takes 10 standard actions, i.e. 5 rounds (sacrificing both your standard and your move action each round). (as opposed to 10 rounds, my bad there)

Now, if you were to say that the system pushed everything up one rank (standard to full round, full round to one minute, one minute to one hour, etc.) then it might be more feasible, but I still don't know that it's whats needed here. I don't think it's a very balanced solution, although it does render the wizard much less desirable.

Don't be a jackass. I never said the 2E system should transposed, verbatim, onto 3E. In fact I'm fairly certain I already explained what should be done in 3E.


A one-action spell would take a full round. One with a casting time of one round would take a turn.

And if that wasn't enough, my response to your last post but one should have made my meaning clear ... to anyone, that is, but a rules lawyer determined to urinate all over the idea without regard for its actual merits:


Nonsense. How many spells require a full round to cast in 3E? The only spells I can think of ... all of which have obviousl physical effects and wouldn't work with the system anyway.

Your responses and critiques thus far are, frankly, both not responsive and insulting. Kindly take the time to understand what I'm saying in future.

oriong
2006-11-26, 01:14 AM
Don't be a jackass. I never said the 2E system should transposed, verbatim, onto 3E. In fact I'm fairly certain I already explained what should be done in 3E.

You're being a little pissy over a misunderstanding, perhaps you should calm down before resorting to name calling. You used some second edition terminology, specifically the use of the word 'turn' for 10 rounds, and so I thought you were referring directly to the second edition rules, not to their conversion into third edition.



And if that wasn't enough, my response to your last post but one should have made my meaning clear ... to anyone, that is, but a rules lawyer determined to urinate all over the idea without regard for its actual merits:


Again, I was under the impression you were referring to 2nd edition earlier, perhaps you should make an attempt to clear up confusion before lobbing insults and accusations. I made a mistake in your meaning, maybe you could treat the situation like an adult.

As for the accusation of being a rules lawyer, I have no qualms about labeling that pure stupidity.


Your responses and critiques thus far are, frankly, both not responsive and insulting. Kindly take the time to understand what I'm saying in future.

yes...I'M insulting. Of course.

Now, I admit several of my responses were due to a misunderstanding of what exactly you meant, but I was never insulting (you on the other hand..). Now, I still stand by my statements, I think that the solution isn't the best way. Obviously you disagree with me but maybe you could avoid throwing a tantrum over a disagreement in the future.

grinner666
2006-11-26, 02:05 AM
*YAWNS* You've yet to provide a single argument, or critique, against my ideas. Kindly provide a critique, ANY kind of critique, or shut the fark up.

I'd like to hear criticisms of the system I've proposed, from ANYBODY, instead of your rules-lawyering bull****.

Yakk
2006-11-26, 02:37 AM
Grinner, under your system the CRs of creatures don't match up with what your party can defeat. Your party, lacking magic items and magic backup, will be weaker than an equivilent group of "standard" D&D characters.

Given you described how Wizards/Sorcs are nerfed, how are Divine spellcasters nerfed? Are instant-heal spells also removed (the rough analogy to direct-damage spells for Wizards/Sorcs)?

Mike_G
2006-11-26, 05:03 AM
CR is always a bit tricky, and the DM should look at the party's specific strengths and weaknesses, not just the level. Certain calsses and builds are better or worse in certain situations.

I had a party of a traditional Fighter, a Swordsage, a Barabarian, a Monk and a Beguiler recently. Needless to say, they were not the usual D&D party. They could hand out and soak up melee damage all day, and bluff/charm their way through a lot, but some encounters well below their level would eat them alive, with the lack of any Divine help and a very sepcialized Arcane catser. Undead were really tough on them.

You can run the party with nerfed casters and no magic, but look over the bad guys. Any DR will be tougher, for one thing.

amanodel
2006-11-26, 10:31 AM
@ Yakk: That's a lot of work put in that "pricing up" all the magical abilities. However, I think it can be done easier ('cos as you write down it may look confusing to rookies). An avarage encounter gives the characters XP and GP. From XP you level and get feats, from GP you buy magic items. It could be done with the additional gained points/encounter, but in the end, it'll be analogue with level-up bonuses. Counting all that stuff without corresponding magic item could be hard. I'm still favouring "feat-isize" magic item abilites (with appropriate prerequsites) and handing out feats and ability increases more often. That can cover armor and weapon bonuses very easily. (And giving the magical abilities for only one weapon could be a bad idea, since in original d&d you could sell the +3 sword when you're going to buy the +4 axe. But one cannot sell abilities.) Skills and saves are covered partially, maybe they need some more love. (I don't play high-level games often, but I'll look up avarage skill and save bonuses a 15-20th level character gathers up in magic items and try to create a steady progress per level solution.)

@ grinner666: As I figured out, the real power of the mages is not the ability to cast fireball and roast some kobolds, but the charms and other subtle ways. Buffing spells have much more potential than direct damage spells. I'm not so good with casters, but this is roughly what TLN described in his "Being Batman" thread. Banning fireball and his friends modifies the atmosphere of a game for sure, but it's not really the way to nerf down casters.
About the round/turn variation:
By "turn" I guess you were saying "full-round action", right? That could be accomplished, but with the metamagic feats already screwing up that thing, maybe it's not as good. I'll look up the details. Full-round action spellcasting will maybe work, but making casters to choose to either move or do some casting can be really awkward. With them nerfed down other ways as well, that'd be maybe too much. That'd mean that a caster with an enemy meelee fighter on him is good as dead.
Item creation feats were disallowed previously, save for potions and scrolls. Wands are just a way to blatantly increase the spells/day of a caster, and making rogues into a magic-user class.

@ oriong: A: difficult to master, and somewhat weaker than the standard (lacking 8th and 9th level spells). B: I like the not to be used lightly idea, but that one really depends on the actual setting. C: That's pretty useless. The party will have them and ancounter them anyway, just saying they're rare doesn't make them rare, but spoils the campagn setting. (I tried it before, it just plainly doesn't work.) D: Making divine magic allowed for certain social classes and forbidding arcane magic can create a medieval atmosphere, if used correctly. So a mixture of them.

@ Mike_G: A low-magic setting probably has humanoids as the main encounter, instead of magical monsters. To bypass DR's, we have some ideas: 1: the semi-magic metals, such as mithral, could by-pass low DR's. And we're going to incorporate magical item abiliteis (such as +1 weapons +1) to "mundane" feat-like things (like the monk's unarmed damage).


Another topic: I said that clerics as primary spellcasting class will be disallowed, and their role replaced by the paladins. However I'd miss the preacher-style characters, so I'm currently looking over the cloistered cleric variant to "nerf it down". What I currently have in mind is that the cloistered clerics, being a non-combatant class, have a great potential to go with the "make spellcasting longer" idea.

Yakk
2006-11-26, 12:48 PM
amanodel, I agree -- a feat type system might be better. But we first need to know "at what level should a warriors have access to +3 swords? +3 flaming swords?"

"How valueable should the '+5 bonus to move silently' feat be?"

To do this, we need to play with the cost of magical items and the wealth by level rules.

...

You could forbid Divine Magic and have Arcane Magic allowed by certain social classes.

Idea:

The Dragon Emperor's descendants have a trace of Dragonblood in them. This allows them to spontaniously cast spells (as a sorcerer). Your Sorcerous potential is determined by how much Dragonblood you have -- so it isn't a matter of class level.

The accepted cult in the lands is Emperor-worship (he or she is still alive), with some secondary worship of the Imperial family. Worshipping other dieties is illegal -- hence, Divine magic is illegal.

Use of any magic without being a noble is illegal, and is considered proof of demon worship. This doesn't stop people from doing it completely, but drives it underground.

Certain Bards have figured out how to reverse engeneer Sorcerer magic. Bards shouldn't be spontaneous -- have them encode their spells in their songs. Hence Bard arcane spellcasting.

Almost all higher nobles will have a certain level of Sorcerer attached. The Emperor himself could have a ridiculously high level of Sorcerer (like 10 to 15+), plus half-dragon race, and some class levels (maybe barbarian, given that he did build the empire before civilization came along).

Were-Sandwich
2006-11-26, 02:09 PM
Heck, even broken monstrousities that were created to be melee fighters that are as strong as spellcasters (AKA Swordsages) that can deal over a 1000 points of damage in a full round attack assuming you build the guy right, still die to a wizard of a much lower level.

Two points:

Firstly: Swordsages aren't broken

Secondly: How is this feat achieved?

amanodel
2006-11-26, 07:47 PM
@ Yakk: I guess I start with the "+1 feat" having a prerequisite of cca 8 BAB (I'd calculate the should-be-lvel tomorrow). +5 bonuses to skills: I'd give them out like skill focus feats, maybe at every three levels. that's 3x6=18 bonus skills (too much for a fighter or mage, too few to a rogue, maybe need some alteration) Also, along with MOrt's idea, some "better masterwork" stuff would allow the rogue to shine a bit more.

Your second idea is good, but it's rather campaign-speific. But still good.

oriong
2006-11-26, 08:55 PM
Keep in mind if you use feats to replace magic you're goign to need to give everyone a LOT more feats, since the normal rules assume you get the benefits of feats alongside your magic items.


I do think that 'restricted magic' in game can work, it just requires that whatever force keeps magic restricted have some teeth to it, and the DM be willing to enforce it, not to mention limiting crazy exotic characters and PrCs.


But, here's my reccomendation. You shouldn't simply nerf spellcasters, since the primary goal here is to retain playability, so probably the best thing is to restrict their spellcasting but alter them in such a way that it keeps them a feasable PC class (and not something someone just chooses because there has to be a wizard in the party).

Even without stealing directly from d20 modern (which you said you'd rather not do) I think it's not a bad idea to look at what they did and consider the possibilities.

Namely, restricting primary casters to prestige classes.

There are already variant rules for 'prestige' core classes in unearthed arcana and the SRD, they just need to be modified to fit primary casters. Sorcerers might be eliminated entirely, prestige bards already exist (although their requirements will need to be tweaked) so let's focus on the wizard.

Should be a 15 level PrC, enterable at 5th by a focused character. Probably limit it to sorcerer level advancement so that by 20th level ( 5 X/ 15 Wizard) it gets 7th level spells.

Now, there need to be a few ways to make them more feasible as PC's, the first thing I'd reccomend is giving them a d6 HD, maybe 4 skill per level, that alone might make them much more attractive. If you're removing primary divine spellcasters then someone really, really, really needs to be a healer. Giving wizards healing spells (even at a one spell level 'penalty' like cure light wounds at 2nd level) will probably seal the deal.

Otherwise additional options might include extra bonus feats, or a more powerful familiar, or using one of the alternate, slightly stronger magic systems.

Clerics, if you decide to include them, could work on a similar system or paladins and rangers (non-prestigious) might pick up the slack there.

the main problem with the prestige wizard is getting something other than an NPC class which can qualify by 5th level. To that end you might make a new core class, something like the Arcanist. A non-caster but an expert in magic, getting a ton of skills, possibly a Bardic Knowledge like ability, and if you include them I'd strongly suggest including Incantations, they're good stuff for low magic campaigns anyway. Maybe give the arcanist something like his level in a bonus on Arcane lore checks to use incantations.

Of course, that's very rough and nothing like a full-20 class so it needs a bit more thinking. Mostly just throwing out the possibility.

Mike_G
2006-11-27, 04:06 PM
I think you're over complicating it.

I'd eliminate the magic as you have planned, but instead of substituting stuff involving a lot of math, I'd borrow from Iron Heroes and give out feats every other level instead of every third, and maybe give out an extra few skill points per level.

D20 Conan give stats points like D&D, but gives a "+1 to all stats" boost every so many levels as well.

Both Conan and IH give a Defense Bonus which rises like BAB, since there is no enchanted armor or bracers or rings or amulets, which is how D&D charcters generally raise AC. A good quick and dirty way to emulate this is give a competence bonus to AC equal to one half of BAB. Better fighters will be harder to hit, even without the +5 plate they won't be able to get.

Look at the longer feat trees fom the supplements, and allow expanded skill use :

"I want to use my Feint/ tumble/ jump/ etc to get past his reach/ make him open us a vulnerable spot, kick sand in the Ogre's eyes, etc." Say a DC of 15 at base to gains some advantage, modifid upwards for more advantage or opposed by the enemy's BAB in combat (like the Feint skill, but allow more simlar oprions)

This allows the PCs more effectiveness against tougher foes without needing magic items and spells.

amanodel
2006-11-28, 11:13 AM
@ Mike_G: The defense bonus is a grand idea. There's an AC progressive rules variant in the SRD. It uses the armor type as the base to depend AC bonus progression, but I like the BAB based theory better.
The expanded feat/skill usage from spaltbboks is a good idea, but I wouldn't like this to be splatbook-dependant.

@ oriong: The prestigious casters idea crossed my mind several mind, but I'd rather go with base classes. But your ideas inspired me and now I do have something in my mind, I'll write it on the end of this post. When I re-read your stuff any mine, I noticed that they are almost the same around the Arcanist class.


Here are my current thoughts:

Figthing stuff, based on BAB:
PC's get an extra (unnamed) armor class bonus whenever their BAB hits +4, +8, +12, +16, +20.
Attacks considered magical (similar to monk ability): +2 cumulative (unnamed or enhancement) bonus to damage rolls every fifth BAB gained.

Feats at every odd levels. Feat list should contain feats like Armor or Shield Mastery (adding AC bonus), or high-level feats like Brutal Strike (+d10 on crits. Damage type should depend on flavour fluffy bits, like a follower of a storm god could receive +10 lighting damage instead of normal damage).

Ability increases at every even level. Two bonus ability scores, cannot be placed onto the same stat.

Skill bonuses (as in Skill Focus) at every third level, starting with level 3.

Removing magical items, save for artifacts, scrolls and staffs, and item creation feats save for Brew Potion.

Adding high-quality materials and mastwerworks (just to preserve something from the "materialism" of d&d) Masterwork (weapons and equipment) should grant a +1 (to attack rolls), +1 (AC) or +2 (skill checks). There sould be two further classes of masterwork stuff, multiplying the bonus. In case of weapons and armors mithral should double the bonuses, and adamantine should triple them. In case of tools a dwarven masterwork should double them, and a gnome masterwork should triple them.

Limit caster classes. Disallowing sorcerers and regular clerics (and classes I did not mention here). Alter wizard spell-list significally. Leave paladins, bards, and rangers as they currently are.
Creating a new class, mage apprentice, and making wizards, druids and cloistered clerics as a PrC of that class.

Hereby I present Mage Apprentice:
Hit die d6, BAB bad, Saves bad/bad/good, Skills 6+int (skills depending on what kind of apprentice the PC is.)
INT-based spellcasting, preparation not required.
Spells/day as Adept

1st: Brew potion
2nd: Arcane Lore (bardic knowledge about magic)
3rd: Summon familiar (type of familiar depeind on mage school)
5th: Incantations (I dunno how they should work)

Spell list: 0-detect magic, prestidigitation, arcane mark, mage hand, mending, light. 1-any wiz, 2-any wiz

Wizards, Druids and Cleric classes have a prerequisite of 5 levels of Mage Apprentice. At fifth level the PC finsh mage school and may become a primary caster. He will be able to cast a single 8th level spell at 20th level.

oriong
2006-11-28, 12:19 PM
Another 'basic' magic class might be an Alchemist, maybe someone with no actual spellcasting abilities, but the ability to emulate it (perhaps with a level check) for the purposes of making potions, and maybe even an artificer style craft reserve for the purposes of making potions, bonuses on checks to craft alchemic items (which could be quite useful if there are minimal magic items) and perhaps something akin to the Enhanced Alchemy feat which allows them to eventually make more potent versions of existing alchemic items.

Also, another good way to keep them viable to 20 (in case someone would rather go straight alchemist than advance to wizard/druid/whatnot) might be to give them an ability to brew higher than 3rd level potions, there's already a prestige class somewhere that does that so the ability can probably be stolen from them.


Here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm are the rules on incantations, probably a good idea to come up with a fair amount of new ones. They tend to be moderately powerful but very slow, unrelaible, and unsafe. Not to mention that the strong ones tend to require tons of help.

Yakk
2006-11-28, 12:34 PM
If you want to do away with the need for a divine-healing battery...

Split character HP into Wounds and HP.

When you are hit, you take (damage/10, rounded up) as HP, and the rest as wounds.

So a 5 point attack is 4 wound, 1 HP. A 11 point attack is 2 HP 9 wounds.

When you run out of Wounds, you start taking pure HP damage.

WP are recovered quickly (it is only a flesh wound!). If there is time to rest up and bandage between events, players recover all of their WP. If there is just a short breather (say, players finish a fight, beat up some orcs, and are frantically chasing after the orc that fled), players heal half of their lost WP. DM's call.

Magical healing doesn't work on HP, it only works on WP -- as such, it is mainly useful in-combat.

If the player runs out of BOTH HP and WP, they go unconscious.

Players can be at up to negative (CON+LEVEL) HP before dieing.

Toss in salves (which can be produced via Heal skill, and collected via Survival checks) that increase natural healing to something reasonable, and your players should be able to deal with about as many fights as if they had a divine healing battery.

A L 5 fighter with 16 con would have:
23 HP 22 WP.

In a fight that did ~20 damage, he'd take 4 or 5 HP of damage. Do this 4 times and he's be running short of HP.

Then rest, use "healing salves" to accellerate the healing process (say, 5+(LEVEL+CON_MOD)*2), and he'd be able to do the same thing tommorrow.

I'd find "healing salves" that accellerate natural healing less vulgar magic than cure light wounds healing batteries. :)

oriong
2006-11-28, 12:45 PM
Actually that's a really good idea, although I'd suggest the VP/WP system in UA already. You have a supply of Vitality Points that acts like normal hp except it recovers much faster. You also have Wound Points that recover like normal hit points. You only take WP damage if your VP has been depleted, or on a critical hit.

You have a number of WP equal to your CON, maybe plus a modifier for size.

Taking Wound damage is fairly nasty since whenever you have Wound damage you're treated as exhausted, and you have to make a fort save to avoid going unconcious when you take it.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm

amanodel
2006-11-28, 01:44 PM
UA Wound and Vitality Points is a good way to make any setting more lethal and grimmer. I guess it's up to DM preference whether to use it or not.

But there should be a fair amount of healing in the game (save for low level, when characters really need it). There are potions, bards, rangers, paladins, and the Whatever-Wizard/CloisteredCleric/Druids.

I must admit that WP/VP system is much fun, but not many players/dm's feel like learning it.

Yakk
2006-11-28, 03:09 PM
Low level healing will be sorely missed. At higher levels, in standard D&D, a cleric is worth 3 to 10+ fighter's worth of HP every day.

One of the things that makes Healing so important is how it reduces "downtime" do to injury. A single cleric being able to heal up an entire party multiple times from next to nothing massively boosts the ability of the party to take damage and continue.

I'm afraid with the lack of healers your adventures will consists of "fight, camp and heal up for 2 weeks, fight". D&D uses an attrition system -- and without easy cheap heals, it will take some time to get back those HP.

Note that a Ranger can't cure HP until L 8 (assuming sufficient wisdom).
A Paladin can start with lay on hands, and then spells at L 4.

A L 4 paladin with 16 cha and 2 bonus first level spells can heal a grand total of...
12 LoH + 13 (cure light) = 25 HP.

A L 4 paladin with 14 con has 33 HP.

So she cannot quite heal herself.

A L 4 cleric with modest stats is healing 104 HP

A Figher/Fighter/Fighter/Cleric party has more healing than a Paladin/Paladin/Paladin party. Paladins are quite weak at healing.

I'm just argueing if you want to remove "Vulgar" magic, healing is a good target. And, in any case, at low levels you need some kind of downtime reducer.

amanodel
2006-11-28, 03:17 PM
Yes, you're right about that. Between encounters, wound treatment or herbs could heal damage, around 2xHDhp/hour or something similar.

WP/VP is much more better, tough. Maybe I just include it along witht the other rule modifications. I prefer UA variants to core rules, but I don't want to force my preferences to anyone else. (I'm a big fan of hex grinds and facing rules, armors as half DR half AC, and various others.)

Jinnai
2006-12-05, 02:20 PM
Wow! This is pretty much what I was looking for!

I want to create a low-magic system (but still mostly without nerfing enemies).

I haveto agree, spellcaster as are played by most DMs are overpowered because they allow time for rest. Even DMs that try to not allow this have their hands tied by players who insist on resting. Sure you can tell them there will be consequences, but you also want to have group to RP with at the end of the day.

I've been thinking about this a lot. I've actually looked at Iron Heros system and overall i think its good. However, I also like a lot of the variant class options D&D allows, specifically oriental flavored ones, but in general any of the not uber powered ones, aka artificer with a DM who doesn't worry about time lag (but then i believe an artificer is probably broken in any system outside Eberon...maybe even in FR, because its already broken to some extent in its native realm).

The problem, as has been pointed out, is that if you just restict items it just makes the system more lop-sided than it already is since wizard can do anything anyone else can, except heal (and most DMs do get time to rest between major encounters because players would whine and would just not play otherwise, thus making them unbalanced).

As i said, Iron Heros goes a good way to balancing things, but it doesn't allow for much flavor of something like a ninja class, not unbalancing compared with other classes, but it is a lot of flavor-specificness.

One way I thought about dealing with magic is to add stamina and remove non-leathal damage by default. Casting spells and maintaning them eats up stamina.

Of course you could just simplify this and use D&D's current HP system, but imo that system is broken.

I'll post more details later as i haveto go, but basically casting spells would eat up hp/stamina that can only be healed naturally, ie no heal spells.

amanodel
2006-12-05, 03:46 PM
You might want to look into the Vitality and Wound Point System (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm) of the UA. That could be used together with your idea. As someone pointed out earlier, it also helps to overcome the lack of healing in a low-level system.

However, when I conseidered the changes need to be done, I was only paying attention to the very core classes, other magic-users will need to be considered by the DM who actually uses them.

Jinnai
2006-12-05, 05:27 PM
Obviously trying to come to grips with every class out there (as well as every prestige class) and covert them or decide what to at them is not very productive since most of your player's won't ever use most of those classes.

I was just pointing out that:

1> While Iron Heros is a good concept, the overly generic class structure makes it quite difficult to do some fantastic elements into it that aren't magic and are a bit too specific or a bit too powerful to be allowed as feats, but are not overpowering.

2> A system based on stamina (or vitality) where casting spells uses up them does work well for balance, imo better than mana points. Why? Because a spellcaster must worry about casting to many spells or endager his life. He can cast prebuffs to reduce damage during an upcoming battle, but if those points he lost can only be recovered naturally, he is really screwed if he starts slamming off fireballs left and right like there's no tomorrow. Not only that but its more storyish as well (outside WotC/TSR related settings) since you see stories where a powerful wizard casts tons of spells, but after a while he starts becoming winded and maybe even fatigued.



However, ultimately a DM needs to press the issue of time. IE every time you take time to rest, it has the potential to cause problems. This works best in a dynamic world, but even a static world it can work with increased random encounter rates, respawning of various monsters after you leave, etc. Again a dynamic world is better, but its more work.

Unless you deal with resting & prebuffing, you will never be able, without serious overhaul of the system, deal with unbalances.

amanodel
2006-12-05, 06:54 PM
That idea with casting weakening a character is good. (There was a variant requiring some kind of check, and the caster would become fatigued or stg if he fails.)
I just say there's no need to create an entriely new system for your stamina/mana system, the vitality points should replace them just fine. That system would bring back that "wizards collapsing after a maximized fireball" feeling you miss so much :)

About the last part: the more encounter per day, the harder the gmae becomes, especially for mages, that's true.

Mewtarthio
2006-12-05, 07:16 PM
*pouf!* (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm#spellPointVariantVitalizing)

Note that this is designed to work with the Spell Points variant system (listed above in the linked page), which basically turns everyone into a psionic manifester with different spell lists and no augmentation, but it shouldn't take much work to adapt to a more traditional game.

paigeoliver
2006-12-06, 06:58 AM
One easy way to low magic the world and maintain balance is to simply make all the full casting classes into prestige classes requiring the character to be a character level 5 before entering the class.

Do the same with all those classes that later get spellcasting, such as Paladin and Ranger, although I would change the requirement for to character level or 4.

This would have the effect of making most clerics into characters with heavy fighter or marshall backgrounds, while making most wizards into characters with a long rogue background.

As for magic items. There is no need to change their prices at all, just remove the idea that they can be purchased at all. No magic item shops, no place sells magic items at all. You can also give out far less magic items and still keep up with wealth by level by instead giving out far better magic items far less often.

In a normal game an 8th level fighter might have Full Plate+1, a shield +1, ring of protection +1, a +2 weapon, a pair of +2 stat bump items, a bag of holding, 1000 gp worth of potions and 1000 GP worth of mundane items.

In a low magic world that same fighter might have a suit of non-magic fullplate, a flametongue sword and a barded warhorse and still be at wealth by level with just one magic item.

Removing magic items completely works as well, although I believe that should be coupled with removing non-humanoid monsters as well.

amanodel
2006-12-06, 07:20 AM
@ mewtarthio: Yes, that's a viable solution, but it's easier to simply ban core casters and bring in psionics imo. I still prefer the WP/VP system, perhaps combined with this. Basically it'd go like substracting VP points after casting spells, depending on the spell's level. No need to create a "mana pool", when now we have a quickly regenerating VP bar already.

@ paigeoliver: Yes, a low-magic setting needs to remove the vast majority of non-humanoid monsters. Encountering a Xill, an Achireai, an Allip, an Aboleth, or a gelatinous cube makes much less sense in such settings anyway.

The problem with giving out magic items only as quest rewards or battles, is that when creating a non-first level character, the player will explain in his background the horrid quests the character has to take for gaining his bag of holding, animated shield, and all the things to spoil the atmosphere. There's no need to change their prices, but saying that "this is a very low-magic world" sounds weird when all the characters have belts of ogre power, rings of jumping, cloaks of resistance, and boots of elvenkind.

Prestige class-isize the cleric and wizard works technically, but I find the idea behind it a bit bad. Until first level I opened locks and I backstabbed everyone, and now I cast fireball... weird. The fighter goes cleric scheme already has a class, it's called paladin. That's why we were thinking on a similar way, but with "mage apprentice" base class for five levels. Characters could go wizard, cleric or druid, after completing their magical training in five levels. That should give them some extra power, but still bans them from higher level spells.



Cleared idea: WP/VP system is now "official". Casting spells need a will save versus 10 (or 15) + the spells level, or lose Vitality Points equal the spell's level.

Dausuul
2006-12-06, 08:44 AM
Obviously trying to come to grips with every class out there (as well as every prestige class) and covert them or decide what to at them is not very productive since most of your player's won't ever use most of those classes.

I was just pointing out that:

1> While Iron Heros is a good concept, the overly generic class structure makes it quite difficult to do some fantastic elements into it that aren't magic and are a bit too specific or a bit too powerful to be allowed as feats, but are not overpowering.

Well, nobody says you can't introduce class variants into the system, or add to the lists of class abilities. Then, too, if an ability is too good for a single feat, you can break it up and build it into a feat tree, or put limitations on it to prevent abuse.

I'm actually working on a new magic system for IH right now; I have a character class, the Mystic, for those who want to use magic in battle, while noncombat magic is handled through a set of feat trees. I'll probably post it in the Homebrew forum when I'm done. I have not found that IH's approach limits me in developing this system... rather the reverse, in fact.


2> A system based on stamina (or vitality) where casting spells uses up them does work well for balance, imo better than mana points. Why? Because a spellcaster must worry about casting to many spells or endager his life. He can cast prebuffs to reduce damage during an upcoming battle, but if those points he lost can only be recovered naturally, he is really screwed if he starts slamming off fireballs left and right like there's no tomorrow. Not only that but its more storyish as well (outside WotC/TSR related settings) since you see stories where a powerful wizard casts tons of spells, but after a while he starts becoming winded and maybe even fatigued.

IMO, the real question in any magic system is "what limits the use of magic?" D&D limits it with "you only get X many spells per day," which is really not a very good approach. As you noted, it demands that the DM rigorously manage the players' time, which is a big headache. It also creates perverse incentives for players to stop and sleep all the time rather than pressing on with their supposedly important quest.

Vitality can work, but it still has potential problems with time management, since healing takes place over time.

My approach is to limit combat magic on the basis of actions. Each combat spell takes a move action, a standard action, or 1 full round. Durations are extremely limited, usually only a single round, so you have to keep re-casting every round if you want to maintain an effect. I'm also trying to avoid pyrotechnics and direct-damage in favor of battlefield control and save-or-suck effects.

Noncombat ("ritual") magic, on the other hand, is limited on the basis of level advancement. Each time you gain a level, you get X ritual tokens to power noncombat spells. If you spend them all, that's it, you don't get any more until next level. This means that players are always very careful about using ritual magic. It also means that ritual spells can be far more powerful without breaking the game.

amanodel
2006-12-06, 11:15 AM
@ Dausuul: Ritual magic could have much role-playing potential, like incantations. I'd mix the two if I were to introduce it to a campaign. Maybe not based on level advancement, but on other, mostly fluffy factors, like it's only avaible on new moon, under a certain star sign, in a vicinity of a dragon, at a sacred place, etc. Both would have nearly the same effect. (altough this approach could be broken, since it's not based on game mechanics.)

For fluffy reasons, again, I wouldn't exclude fireballs and ligtning bolts... every proper wizard should know how to cast a fireball.

But you got me. Once I'll have money I'll probably buy IH :)

Mike_G
2006-12-06, 02:06 PM
If you want to use Cleric and Wizard as PrC's but not have them staret as Rogues or Fighters, why not make an apprentice class based on the NPC Expert class. Or use the NPC Adept?

Much weaker than a wizard, but not as incongruous as needing to gain 5 levels of Rogue before learning to be a Wizard (1e Bard, anyone?)

GymGeekAus
2006-12-06, 02:54 PM
If I might make a suggestion, the first step in building a low-magic world should probably be to figure out why it's a low-magic world.

I've been seriously brainstorming on this topic for the past couple of weeks, and have some stuff I'll post for the peanut gallery when I get home.

By the way, I vehemently oppose fantasy settings that penalize characters for using their class features. Never a good thing to force players to make saves for simply doing that which they've been trained to do....

Dausuul
2006-12-06, 03:27 PM
@ Dausuul: Ritual magic could have much role-playing potential, like incantations. I'd mix the two if I were to introduce it to a campaign. Maybe not based on level advancement, but on other, mostly fluffy factors, like it's only avaible on new moon, under a certain star sign, in a vicinity of a dragon, at a sacred place, etc. Both would have nearly the same effect. (altough this approach could be broken, since it's not based on game mechanics.)

Actually, I'm planning to add some "fluffy" factors as well--probably in the form of reducing the token cost of a ritual when you cast in the right place and/or at the right time.


For fluffy reasons, again, I wouldn't exclude fireballs and ligtning bolts... every proper wizard should know how to cast a fireball.

Ahh, there you and I differ. I prefer that wizardry should be either subtle or cataclysmic. But that's a matter of personal taste. If you wanted, it would be quite easy to take the Mystic as I'm building it and give it some straight-up blasting magic.


But you got me. Once I'll have money I'll probably buy IH :)

Excellent... more converts to the cause. *rubs hands together*

amanodel
2006-12-06, 04:45 PM
@ Mike_G: I already made it with the help of the others. Read through the whole thread.

@ GymGeekAus: Why it's a low-magic world? Simply because I'm interested in it. All the current settings were made to function under an (obscenely) high-magic world, think of eberron, or the forgotten realms. But if someone is interested in a different aspect of the game, but still loves the d&d ruleset, it might be a good thing to try this out. About penalizing: do you think fighters are penalized? Whenever they go to combat, they lose a ton of HP, for using their class feature, fighting.

@ Dausuul: Fireball vs Charm Person :) The eternal question. I like both types of mages. Since legends about fireballs are as old as ones about invisibility or enchantments, it doesn't seem right to outrule them.

Dausuul
2006-12-06, 06:05 PM
@ Dausuul: Fireball vs Charm Person :) The eternal question. I like both types of mages. Since legends about fireballs are as old as ones about invisibility or enchantments, it doesn't seem right to outrule them.

Sheesh, now you've got me planning out an Alchemist class, too. This project ain't never gonna be done. I hope you're happy. :)

amanodel
2006-12-06, 07:12 PM
Alchemist class? Just take the "Brew Potion" feat :)

Dausuul
2006-12-06, 08:17 PM
Alchemist class? Just take the "Brew Potion" feat :)

Nah, the Alchemist is the direct-damage specialist. Lots of bangs, flashes, smokes, et cetera.

Jinnai
2006-12-06, 10:43 PM
An engineer class imo would be better.

GymGeekAus
2006-12-06, 11:03 PM
@ GymGeekAus: Why it's a low-magic world? Simply because I'm interested in it. All the current settings were made to function under an (obscenely) high-magic world, think of eberron, or the forgotten realms. But if someone is interested in a different aspect of the game, but still loves the d&d ruleset, it might be a good thing to try this out. About penalizing: do you think fighters are penalized? Whenever they go to combat, they lose a ton of HP, for using their class feature, fighting.
I meant why it's a low magic world, within the world's paradigm. Has magic been taken from the world? Has it died out, or is it in the process of doing so? Is the world new, and magic has yet to be discovered? These kinds of questions can help you figure out how magical you want or need the world to be.

In the system I am working on, I'm using as base classes the adept, aristocrat, commoner, expert, scholar, and warrior. I wanted magic to be even weaker than the adept, so I watered down the adept spell progression and sharply limited their spell list (and made them more of a mystic class I suppose). Nobody even gets a first level spell until 4th level, I removed the distinction between arcane and divine magic (all arcane in my variant here), and I changed spellcasting so that all three mental characteristics were used, and no class gains access to 6th level spells or higher, barring epic progression. Skills became much more relevant, so I fleshed out some lists, created the scholar, and put some bonus feats into the nonspellcasting classes. The D&D base classes are converted to 15-lvl prestige classes (except the barbarian, rogue, and fighter, which I didn't bother with).

The races were largely fine for the level of magic in the world I wanted, except for the elf and the gnome. So I made them exotic, and then beefed them up some to reflect their connection to magic in a low-magic world. Elves became a 2HD fey with a +2 level adjustment, for example, but cast spells as 4th level adepts with access to the Wizard spell list.

I've gotten most of the rules written for this. About to start on backstory and geography. Gosh, I am such a geek!

GymGeekAus
2006-12-06, 11:08 PM
Here's the spellcasting baseclass in my low-magic campaign.

Base Class: Adept
Adepts spend their time seeking to unlock internal power; meditating to awaken their avatars and experimenting understand the relics of the previous age. As full-time adventuring is practically unheard of in Genera, many adepts multiclass in order to pick up enough skill ranks in profession or craft skills to survive, while those born to privilege typically have levels in aristocrat.
Hit Dice: d6
BAB: Poor.
Saves: Poor Fortitude, Good Reflex and Will.
Class Skills: Concentration, Craft (bookbinding, calligraphy), Handle Animal, Knowledge (arcana, nature, religion), Profession (boater, porter, scribe), Search, Spellcraft, Use Magic Device. 2 + Int modifier skill points per level, x4 at 1st level.
Weapon and Armor Proficiencies: Club, Dart, Dagger, Quarterstaff. No armor proficiencies.
Bonus Feats: At 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter.
Spells: Adepts are spontaneous casters that prepare spell knowledge from a spellbook. The table below gives both the number of spells an adept may cast per day, as well as how many different spells he may select from his spellbook as his current spells available. At first level, an adept gains a 0-level spell every 2 days rather than per day.
Adepts must have an Intelligence score equal to ten plus the spell level to learn a spell, receive bonus spells based upon their Wisdom score, and their Charisma modifier sets the save DCs. All spells in Genera are arcane spells, so arcane spell failure applies. Adepts cannot cast spells of an alignment opposed to their own (nor can any other spellcasting class).
Adepts keep spellbooks. They begin with three 0-level spells in their spellbook plus a number equal to their Wisdom modifier, and may add one spell of any level they can cast at each level they attain. They may also inscribe spells learned from scrolls or other spellbooks.
The adept spell list is very limited, typically containing spells available to all the basic spellcasting classes. Adepts multiclass into prestige classes to gain access to specialized spell lists, the available ones being cleric, druid, and wizard.
Adept Spell List: 0—amanuensis, arcane mark, create water, dancing lights, detect magic, detect poison, light, mending, prestidigitation, purify food and drink, read magic, resistance, touch of fatigue.
1st—cause fear, comprehend languages, detect chaos, detect evil, detect good, detect law, detect undead, endure elements, identify, magic weapon, obscuring mist, protection from chaos, protection from evil, protection from good, protection from law, summon monster I, summon nature’s ally I.
2nd—bear’s endurance, body of the sun, bull’s strength, cat’s grace, darkness, eagle’s splendor, frost breath, owl’s wisdom, resist energy, see invisibility, shatter, summon monster II, summon nature’s ally II,
3rd—air breathing, blade of pain and fear, blindness/deafness, circle dance, clairaudience/clairvoyance, continual flame, daylight, dispel magic, energy vortex, hold person, greater magic weapon, protection from energy, summon monster III, summon nature’s ally III, water breathing, wind wall,
4th—assay spell resistance, attune form, detect scrying, minor creation, remove curse, scrying, summon monster IV, summon nature’s ally IV,
5th—break enchantment, contact other plane, dismissal, major creation, permanency, summon monster V, summon nature’s ally V, symbol of sleep, symbol of spell loss, wall of stone.

(didn't take my cut-n-paste table! Suffice to say, it's restrictive!)




Then as an example of a prestige class....

Prestige Class: Druid (Adept/Commoner)
Alignment Requirement: Any neutral.
Skill Requirements: Knowledge (nature) 6, Spellcraft 6, Survival 6
Spell Requirements: Able to cast spells.
Special Requirements: Acceptance into the druidic order.
Druids are an order of adepts dedicated to studying and protecting the natural places of the world. They maintain a hierarchy and network across the globe. While it is the nature of the world that conflict might arise between two druids, nonetheless the members of this order are well-known for cooperation.
Hit Dice: d8
BAB: Average
Saves: Good Fortitude and Will, Poor Reflex.
Class Skills: Concentration, Craft (basketweaving, bookbinding, bowmaking, calligraphy, carpentry, cobbling, leatherworking, painting, pottery, sculpting, shipmaking, stonemasonry, weaving), Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Heal, Knowledge (nature), Listen, Profession (boater, brewer, cook, driver, farmer, fisher, guide, herbalist, herder, hunter, lumberjack, miller, miner, rancher, sailor, scribe, stablehand, tanner, teamster, woodcutter), Ride, Spellcraft, Spot, Survival, and Swim.
Weapon and Armor proficiencies: Proficient with all simple and martial weapons not typically made of metal. Proficient with light and medium armors not typically made of metal.
Spells: A druid gains access to the Druid spell list. At each level, the druid gains an effective level of adept for the purposes of spells known and spells per day. A druid’s intelligence no longer determines what spells she may learn, but instead she must have a Wisdom of 10 + the spell’s level to learn it. Druids may cast spells from the adept and druid spell lists in light and medium armor without chance of arcane spell failure, as long as she is proficient with those armors and they are not made of metal.
Upon attaining her first level in the prestige class, a druid adds two additional spells to her spellbook of each level she can currently cast. Druids add three spells to their spellbook per level gained, as opposed to the one spell gained by an adept. A druid gains the summon nature’s ally spell chain to her spellbook as part of her druidic training, and is always treated as having prepared the spells of that chain. These spells do not take up a preparation slot.
Bonus Language: Druidic. Druids are forbidden to teach this language to nondruids.
Animal Companion: As the standard druid ability.
Nature Sense: As the standard druid ability.
Wild Empathy: As the standard druid ability.
Woodland Stride: At 2nd level, as the standard druid ability.
Trackless Step: At 3rd level, as the standard druid ability.
Resist Nature’s Lure: At 4th level, as the standard druid ability.
Venom Immunity: At 8th level, as the standard druid ability.
A Thousand Faces: At 11th level, as the standard druid ability.
Timeless Body: At 15th level, as the standard druid ability.
Wild Shape: As the standard druid ability, except 1/day at 1st level, 2/day at 4th level, tiny at 6th level, 3/day at 7th level, plant at 9th level, 4/day at 10th level, elemental 1/day at 11th level, huge at 12th level, 5/day at 13th level, elemental 2/day at 13th level, elemental 3/day at 15th level, huge elemental at 15th level.

Dausuul
2006-12-06, 11:23 PM
I meant why it's a low magic world, within the world's paradigm. Has magic been taken from the world? Has it died out, or is it in the process of doing so? Is the world new, and magic has yet to be discovered? These kinds of questions can help you figure out how magical you want or need the world to be.

Or, perhaps, just because the world was never high-magic to begin with? You're starting from the assumption that high-magic worlds like Eberron and Forgotten Realms are normal. We're challenging that assumption, positing a world in which magic is rare because, well, magic is rare. That's the nature of magic.

I would add that one of my beefs with D&D is the way it approaches magic as being essentially the same as technology; you do X, and Y is the predictable result. Eberron takes this to its logical conclusion with its magic-driven machinery. I prefer that magic have a different feel. I like settings in which magic is mysterious, unpredictable, difficult to learn and dangerous to use; a force far too tricky and unruly to found a society upon.

GymGeekAus
2006-12-06, 11:32 PM
Or, perhaps, just because the world was never high-magic to begin with? You're starting from the assumption that high-magic worlds like Eberron and Forgotten Realms are normal. No, I am suggesting that you take the assumptions you are working with into consideration.
We're challenging that assumption, positing a world in which magic is rare just because, well, magic is rare. That's how it is. Which is fine. This is a good place to start. For example, it means Use Magic Device would disappear from some of the skill lists I was playing with. Understanding what you're trying to build is essential to building it.
I would add that one of my beefs with D&D is the way it approaches magic as being essentially the same as technology; you do X, and Y is the predictable result. Eberron takes this to its logical conclusion with its magic-driven machinery. I prefer that magic have a different feel. I like settings in which magic is mysterious, unpredictable, difficult to learn and dangerous to use; a force far too tricky and unruly to found a society upon. See? This is the kind of information I wanted to hear! So consider incorporating "activation checks" on spellcasting, expand mishaps to spells, get rid of divine magic or at least it's broad spell access, and start thinking "why would any player actually want to take levels in this class again?"

Jinnai
2006-12-07, 12:45 AM
For mine it was that magic was suppose to be dangerous. That's why people don't practice it that often, ie why put yourself in needless risk. Something like my example before of casting spells drain from the user's hp (or vitality if you go with that system), but also I was thinking of using a wild magic chart with only neutral or negative effects and have the chance increase as you cast higher level spells.

At the same time i might still want some permenant magical stuff, but not really where a mage or cleric could make it. IE where magical items are created by significant actions or personalities or by constantly using them for a specific task of a specific nature, however even then it would be the stuff of legends.

amanodel
2006-12-07, 06:26 AM
To get rid of machine-driven technology, like the one in eberron, one only needs to disallow permanent magical items. I like Jinnai's idea about magic items, basically allowing only artifact-like magic items. The Holy Redeemer of Sir Patrick O'Shassenbury, the +5 Holy Keen Vorpal greatsword of thundering demon-bane asskicking? Yes. Standard issue +1 Shortsword? No.

Again, I say that this project wasn't intended to be campaign-specific. That's why I don't care why magic is at a low level. The standard d&d ruleset work with greyhawk, eberron, or the realms, so the alternete ruleset should work with Jinnai's, GymGeekAus', Dausuul's world just the same. Smaller alterations can be made setting-specific, but I don't want to get lost in the details. I want it to work with any setting, only with minor alterations. For example, when I think of something, I check how it would work in one of my homebrews, or the Giant's new world he's building. I'm not creating a ruleset for a certain setting, but a basic guideline which can be used for many low-magic settings.

I think I'll post my ideas about such possible low-magic setting, with "fluffy" stuff mostly in the homebrew forum soon.


No, I am suggesting that you take the assumptions you are working with into consideration. That's where we differ. I'd leave assumptions at the hands of the setting designer. I'd prefer this remained a ruleset design. Just as the mechanism of basic d&d rules work with any number of high-magic setting (note that individual homebrewers could still disallow certain classes in their homebrewed settings without kicking the game balance in the face), I want this to work with any number of lower magic (not no-magic) homebrewed settings.


Deem me mad if you think it's not posibble, or just simply wrong. I'm not sure if it could work, it's a pioneering project.

Jinnai
2006-12-07, 01:15 PM
I don't think your mad. I think its quite sane and should have been how D&D was made. I've always said if I really want to campaign a high-magic campaign it will be BESM version. For a low-magic campaign I'd rather use D&D d20, mostly because of the specialized classes as opposed to Iron Heros.

Dausuul
2006-12-07, 02:26 PM
Personally, I'm a big fan of the "broad-based" Iron Heroes classes; I find D&D's focus on "a class for every tiny sub-variant of everything you could want to be, ever" to be irritating and limiting. So I plan to stick with IH and the system I'm building for it... though I'm certainly going to keep monitoring this thread for ideas. :)

I do wonder how "setting-neutral" it is possible to be, though. No matter how you design it, you do have to make certain basic assumptions about how magic works. D&D magic may look setting-neutral at first glance, but it actually has a pile of assumptions built in. For example:

#1. Spells are formulaic, involving the use of a prescribed set of gestures and words to trigger a predictable effect. Most spells have little or no room for variation from one casting to another.
#2. Casters have a reserve of magical power, which is reduced by casting and must be replenished through rest and concentration.
#3. With a few exceptions (spells with expensive material components or XP costs), spells make no particular demands on their casters and can be re-cast over and over without penalty, as long as the power reserve from #2 holds out.
#4. Except in unusual circumstances, there is no risk of failure involved in casting a spell, aside from the possibility of the target resisting its effects.

These assumptions are inescapable in classic D&D--they are built into the game mechanics. I think the same will be true of any magic system. So we should perhaps be asking, "Upon what assumptions should the mechanics of the new system be built?"

Yakk
2006-12-07, 02:26 PM
Here is an attempt to create a low-magic Wizard base class.

It is a cross between a skill-monkey and a weakened spell caster.

It starts out with lots of cantrips, and caps out with L 6 spells. By not giving the class spontaneous learning, the class must either find musty tomes containing spells, or experience with monsters who approximate the ability in question.

Edit: I forgot the Bardic Lore type skill, and changed name to Arcane Scholar

Base Class: Arcane Scholar
Arcane Scholars are bookish types who stubled accross the secret of magic. They either spend their time searching through tomes for more secrets, or searching the real world for magical phenomina to learn about.
Hit Dice: d4
BAB: Poor.
Saves: Poor Fortitude, Reflex, Good Will.
Class Skills: Concentration, Craft (*), Knowledge (*), Profession (*), Search, Spellcraft, Use Magic Device, Gather Information, Speak Language, Appraise, Bluff, Decypher Script, Diplomacy.
10 + Int modifier skill points per level, x4 at 1st level.
The Arcane Scholar may pick an additional int, wis or cha based skill at L 1, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 to consider as a class skill.
Weapon and Armor Proficiencies: Club, Dart, Dagger, Quarterstaff, Light Crossbow. No armor proficiencies.
Bonus Feats: At 1st level, 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter.
Special Abilities:
Language Lore: A magical scholar can attempt to decypher spoken languages they do not know. Use Decypher Script difficulty table, and the Scholars' class level in place of the Skill. Beating the DC by 10 gives immediate understanding, otherwise understanding is significantly lagged.

Scholarly Knowledge: See Bardic Knowledge.

Spontaneous Metamagic: The Arcane Scholar can memorize a metamagic-modified spell in her spells known list, and then cast it spontaneously.

Spells: Magical Scholars are spontaneous casters that prepare spell knowledge from a spellbook. They use the Bard spells/day and spells known -- a Magical Scholar can change spells known by studying for 10 minutes per level of the spell changed, so long as the Scholar has it in his spellbook.

Scholars must have an Intelligence score equal to ten plus the spell level to learn a spell, recieve bonus spells known and per day by their Intelligence, and Wisdom sets the save DCs. Their Intelligence bonus increases the number of cantrips known and per day.
Arcane Scholars begin play with as many Cantrips as they know. Arcane Scholars do not learn new spells spontaneously.

Witnessing Spells:
Arcane Scholars who witness and identify (via spellcraft) the use of Arcane Magic can make an arcane scholar caster level check vs DC 10+spell level*3 to figure out how to inscribe a copy of the spell (the cost and time of inscribing the spell must be paid in the event of failure). Failure on this check means the Arcane Scholar needs to witness the spell being cast again. An Arcane Scholar can spend 10 times the time and cost of scribing a spell to gain +5 on this roll.

An Arcane Scholar may not attempt to scribe a spell that is too high in level for the Arcane Scholar to cast.

The DM may allow a Arcane Scholar to "reverse engeneer" a magical ability (be it spell-like, supernatural or extrodinary) that is similar to a Wizard spell, and scribe it with a DC 15+spell level*3, but is otherwise identical to Witnessing Spells above (including the option to gain a +5 on the check). If the DM does not want the spell to be researched from a particular effect, it will not work.

Spells warped with Metamagic, or other equivilent means, are harder to reverse engeneer. For every level of Metamagic in the spell that the Arcane Scholar does not have the feat for, add 10 to the DC. For every level of Metamagic in the observed spell that the arcane scholar does have the feat for, add 5 to the DC.


The Arcane Scholar uses the Wizard spell list, but which spells the Arcane Scholar is able to aquire is up to the DM. Players who want to play a Magical Scholar should first talk to their DM about what kind of magic is likely to be availiable.

Matthew
2006-12-07, 03:07 PM
I think Arcane Scholar would sound better... just my opinion, though

Jinnai
2006-12-07, 07:54 PM
Personally, I'm a big fan of the "broad-based" Iron Heroes classes; I find D&D's focus on "a class for every tiny sub-variant of everything you could want to be, ever" to be irritating and limiting. So I plan to stick with IH and the system I'm building for it... though I'm certainly going to keep monitoring this thread for ideas. :)Iron heros really falls flat when it comes to oriental and psuedo-oriental classes though, which i defiantly want to use.

#2. Casters have a reserve of magical power, which is reduced by casting and must be replenished through rest and concentration.I seem to remember Sorceror in 3.5 gets his spell slots back automatically without any special requirements other than rest (if that).

So at the very least, concentration isn't required.

#3. With a few exceptions (spells with expensive material components or XP costs), spells make no particular demands on their casters and can be re-cast over and over without penalty, as long as the power reserve from #2 holds out.Which imo isn't how it should be.

These assumptions are inescapable in classic D&D--they are built into the game mechanics. I think the same will be true of any magic system. So we should perhaps be asking, "Upon what assumptions should the mechanics of the new system be built?"
Actually in 2nd edition Player's Option books did have some ways around #1 as well.

Mewtarthio
2006-12-07, 09:52 PM
I seem to remember Sorceror in 3.5 gets his spell slots back automatically without any special requirements other than rest (if that).

So at the very least, concentration isn't required.

Arcane casters require eight hours of rest to "clear out" their expended spell slots. Wizards must spend an additional hour of study to refill them; Sorcerors must spend fifteen minutes of concentration to open them for use.

Jade_Tarem
2006-12-07, 11:12 PM
You don't have to cut the poor wizard entirely... use the "restrictions" categories that someone came up with on page 2 to be sure... but to balance the wizard:

1) Magic costs more: Since you're already determining that certain substances provide bonuses to items, then other substances are required to cast spells. Give every spell a focus and maybe a material component as well. It's much harder to nuke enemies if the wizard has to cough up some much sought after volcanic gemdust for every fireball (replacing the far more common bat guano). It's more difficult to turn invisible if you need a ring forged in the fires of Mount Doom to do it. See the picture? Magic becomes less accesable, but still there, and still beyond average joe.

2) Magic takes longer: Magic missile, a little zapper spell, can be cast in one round. Now, however, fireball takes not six seconds to cast but three or four rounds. It's easy to just go by the Baldur's Gate system: one round per spell level. That way, devastation spells like meteor swarm take nearly a minute to cast. If that's to be the case, however, then meteor swarm really does need to eliminate your opponents. This can lead to interesting "defend the wizard" fights later on in the game, where the party can try to let the wizard blast all the enemies to orange paste but they have to protect him for 54 seconds so he can do it. Eliminate quicken spell. Heck, eliminate all metamagic. Keep the times on spells requiring greater than one round too, so control weather still takes a while.

3) Magic sparks superstition: When you have less magic, people are more intimidated by the magic there is. Wizards are less welcome and more feared than they were before, and are seen as bad luck to boot. "Eat your peas, Timmy, or the wizard will get you!" This can also be used to the party's advantage if they're clever enough. "You don't really want to spend the rest of the week as a ferret, do you?" Wizards also provide a conveniet scapegoat. Bad Crops? Wizard did it. Bad Weather? Wizard did it. Girlfriend dumped you? Wizard did her - um...it. Mayor dies? Wizard did it. You get the idea.

4) Magic doesn't always work: "S*** happens, it's his fault for being so flammable." At least that's what you say when you accidently blow the rogue's head off while trying to conjure blueberries. Magic is rarer and as such is less understood. When a spell fizzles, it doesn't just fizzle but produces an effect similar to what may happen if you put a rod of wonder in the hands of a hyperactive monkey.

The balance for making magic so much less accessible is built-in, or should be. Magic that there is should have a greater effect, since in a low-magic universe there's no reason for the creatures and people to have built up resistances to it. Certainly if you're going to have the wizard spend time and money on a spell it needs to really work when it works, especially if there's a chance that it will fail out of the blue.

Hope that helps. I would hate to see the wizard go completely due to balance issues.

Ambrogino
2006-12-08, 04:49 AM
Iron heros really falls flat when it comes to oriental and psuedo-oriental classes though, which i defiantly want to use.


How so? The existing fluff isn't very oriental, sure, but wipe the fluff clear then the mechanics are perfectly usable for an oriental setting game. Samurai - Weapon Master, Mongol's - Archer or beserker, Chinese Style Imperial guards - Armiger, Ninja - Harrier or Executioner.

I find the defense bonus by class level perfectly suits a mythic japan feel, as characters aren't totally hosed by not wearing armour unless they're preparing for massed battle.

amanodel
2006-12-08, 05:56 AM
@ Yakk: Nice work with the arcane scholar! But, imo, 10+int skills / level sounds horrific! I'd rather give them an ability to cast certain cantrips unlimited times a day. It's unlikely that a mighty and powerful wizard could not use telekinesis or prestidigitition whenever he wants. "Oh I cannot do that easy trick. I'm out of spells." That just sounds lame. But good work on the class, tough.

Yakk
2006-12-08, 11:02 AM
It is aimed to be balanced with the d20 SRD wizard. The character is a scholar first (hence lots of skill points) and a magician second.

Possibly 8+int would be enough (matching the rogue). But practically, the Arcane Scholar would be a very weak combat class -- possibly the worst damage dealing class in your campaign.

So in exchange, you get an assload of skills. :)

Jinnai
2006-12-09, 05:20 PM
How so? The existing fluff isn't very oriental, sure, but wipe the fluff clear then the mechanics are perfectly usable for an oriental setting game. Samurai - Weapon Master, Mongol's - Archer or beserker, Chinese Style Imperial guards - Armiger, Ninja - Harrier or Executioner.

I find the defense bonus by class level perfectly suits a mythic japan feel, as characters aren't totally hosed by not wearing armour unless they're preparing for massed battle.
True the defense bonus fits well with a Japanese or other setting, but FE: their magic user class isn't since they clearly had divisions of powers between various religions that did not always cross over with spells and abilities (of course IH isn't much in the way of magic which is good thing imo, but only having one magic-user would be too little)..

The problem is it also doesn't lend itself to easily to a mix of the two. Sure i could rename classes, do a bit of tweaking, and i'd have an oriental version of IH, but then i'd not be able to easily incorporate both aspects into a game without just merely a name change.

Jinnai
2006-12-09, 05:28 PM
It is aimed to be balanced with the d20 SRD wizard. The character is a scholar first (hence lots of skill points) and a magician second.

Possibly 8+int would be enough (matching the rogue). But practically, the Arcane Scholar would be a very weak combat class -- possibly the worst damage dealing class in your campaign.

So in exchange, you get an assload of skills. :)I would also probably restrict those spells he can learn by witness to not include meta magic feats of ones of quicken, silent and/or still. It just doesn't seem the scholar would be able to learn a spell so drastically different and without all the usual cues.

Yakk
2006-12-09, 07:53 PM
Added to the DC for metamagic. Knowing the metamagic feat makes a silent magic missile a bit tougher than a L 2 spell to scribe.

Tweaked the DC calculation so a L 20 wizard can actually learn L 9 spells.

So:
Cantrip: DC 10
L 5 spell: DC 25
L 9 spell: DC 37

Quickened Magic Missile: (4 levels of metamagic)
DC 53 without knowing Quickened feat
DC 33 if the Scholar knows how to Quicken himself

Silent Fireball: (1 level of metamagic, L 3 spell)
DC 29 (without knowing Silent Spell)
DC 24 (knowing Silent Spell)

Etc.

Ambrogino
2006-12-10, 02:31 AM
True the defense bonus fits well with a Japanese or other setting, but FE: their magic user class isn't since they clearly had divisions of powers between various religions that did not always cross over with spells and abilities (of course IH isn't much in the way of magic which is good thing imo, but only having one magic-user would be too little)..

The problem is it also doesn't lend itself to easily to a mix of the two. Sure i could rename classes, do a bit of tweaking, and i'd have an oriental version of IH, but then i'd not be able to easily incorporate both aspects into a game without just merely a name change.

Don't rename the classes - classes are a mechanical construct that has no input on the playing and personalities of the characters within the game. Think of Miko in the comic - her character is a Samurai, but her classes are Monk and Paladin. You don't need to rename the classes - just decide when someone wants to play character x what class would suit that best and suggest that to them.

Why is one magic user too little? Oriental fantasy (IME) has a lot less focus on huge and powerful blasty wizards and a lot more on the guys with swords being the important part of their own story. Wizards are either NPCs who stay at home or bad guys, which means since their combat stats are only relevant for a few encounters rather than every single one you can gen them using normal D&D rules, with items, and as long as you maintain the feel of not having to loot the bodies after the fight, everything's golden. '

I'm not quite following you on the divisions of powers with religions thing. Are you saying that their should be different systems of magics or so basedon the different culturesand religions? Why does there need to be magic at all in an oriental setting? Can't the religions be differentiated by their religious actions and beliefs? Isn't that part of the point of it being a low-magic setting?

If you want to run a classic D&D party dungeon game it doesn't work, sure, but if that's what you want why do you want a low-magic setting anyway?

amanodel
2006-12-10, 09:46 AM
Yakk, good stuff with the caster!

It seems that we're mostly done. It now only needs some decent playtesting to see where it's "leaked".

So we removed nearly all magic items, save for high-end ones, and replaced them with superior materials and masterworks, and new abilities. We made primary caster classes into PrC's avaible at level 5 of Archane Scholar. Altough I insist changing cleric into cloistered cleric.

We give out 1+1 ability increases every even level and feats every odd level. AC increase with BAB, as well attack considered magical with the increase of BAB.

We went with useing the WP/VP variant of hit points.


Figthing stuff, based on BAB:
PC's get an extra (unnamed) armor class bonus whenever their BAB hits +4, +8, +12, +16, +20.
Attacks considered magical (similar to monk ability): +2 cumulative (unnamed or enhancement) bonus to damage rolls every fifth BAB gained.

Feats at every odd levels. Feat list should contain feats like Armor or Shield Mastery (adding AC bonus), or high-level feats like Brutal Strike (+d10 on crits. Damage type should depend on flavour fluffy bits, like a follower of a storm god could receive +10 lighting damage instead of normal damage).

Ability increases at every even level. Two bonus ability scores, cannot be placed onto the same stat.

Skill bonuses (as in Skill Focus) at every third level, starting with level 3.

Removing magical items, save for artifacts, scrolls and staffs, and item creation feats save for Brew Potion.

Adding high-quality materials and mastwerworks (just to preserve something from the "materialism" of d&d) Masterwork (weapons and equipment) should grant a +1 (to attack rolls), +1 (AC) or +2 (skill checks). There sould be two further classes of masterwork stuff, multiplying the bonus. In case of weapons and armors mithral should double the bonuses, and adamantine should triple them. In case of tools a dwarven masterwork should double them, and a gnome masterwork should triple them.That remained unchanged in the latest dicussion, so I assume it seems good for everyone who contributed?

New additoins are the WP/VP system, and Yakk's Arcane scholar as the base mage class. Cloistered clerics, Wizard, sorcerors, bards and druids are now a PrC avaible at Arcane/Divine Scholar level 5.

Jinnai
2006-12-10, 09:59 AM
Why is one magic user too little? Oriental fantasy (IME) has a lot less focus on huge and powerful blasty wizards and a lot more on the guys with swords being the important part of their own story. Wizards are either NPCs who stay at home or bad guys, which means since their combat stats are only relevant for a few encounters rather than every single one you can gen them using normal D&D rules, with items, and as long as you maintain the feel of not having to loot the bodies after the fight, everything's golden. '

I'm not quite following you on the divisions of powers with religions thing. Are you saying that their should be different systems of magics or so basedon the different culturesand religions? Why does there need to be magic at all in an oriental setting? Can't the religions be differentiated by their religious actions and beliefs? Isn't that part of the point of it being a low-magic setting?For wizards....yes in some settings, no in others. However for clerics and pirests its far more important. However, I don't think either should be seperated like it is in D&D since the role of a Taoist Priest usually might also be a wizard or powerful warlord.

However, its important to understand that culture will shape the type of powers one would use. Many things are common throughout, but just because that is the case, does not mean everything can fit into everything else.

If you want to run a classic D&D party dungeon game it doesn't work, sure, but if that's what you want why do you want a low-magic setting anyway?I simply don't like high-magic systems unless they're going to go to the absurd, like BESM Slayers game with it.

It's not that i think IHs is a bad system, i think they just went to far with their system. It reminds me a lot of the core classes in the Unearthed Arcania which i didn't care for because it didn''t allow for innovative systems.

Sure you could piece together what you wanted, but you had to do so within a very tightly controlled framework. That's what the class system of IH feels like. That, and they have only one magic-using class, which also must conform to this. I'm not saying the magics of it need beefing up, i'm saying its leaving it with no real variety.

Finally, I'm the only one who has access to IH book since this is a net-based game...

stainboy
2006-12-11, 06:21 PM
First thing you need to do is figure out how to make armor class keep up with attack bonus at high levels.

Over the course of 20 levels, a fighter gains +20 to hit and + nothing to armor class. RAW D&D makes up for that with magic items. A 20th level fighter most likely has one item item buffing his attack bonus - his magic weapon - and 3-4 buffing his AC - magic armor, magic shield (dancing if necessary), and at least one of his amulet, boots, and 2 rings. If you're not going to have characters start getting decked out in magic items at mid-to-high levels, you're going to see a lot of problems with with melee types hitting each other on every swing. It's especially bad if you go by the "one magic item per character" rule of thumb that so many DMs use. For a fighter, that one item's going to be his weapon, not his armor.

In low magic games I usually give everyone an unnamed AC bonus equal to half their base attack bonus (or half their level for rogues). That's just one suggestion though. The important thing is just that you have some house rule to address the problem.

amanodel
2006-12-11, 06:30 PM
Stainboy:
PC's get an extra (unnamed) armor class bonus whenever their BAB hits +4, +8, +12, +16, +20.

Plus there are feats that add AC bonus, armor mastery and shield mastery. If there are not, then we'd make it.

Plus special materials like adamantite or mithral give some bonus too. Not as good asa standard 20th level fighter, but not totally bad.

Yakk
2006-12-11, 06:46 PM
Attack: +20/+15/+10/+5
+5 magic item
+str bonus
+feats

Defence:
+10 (non-magical armor & shield)
+5 (shield)
+5 (armor)
+5 (deflection)
+5 (natural armor)
+3 dex bonus if you are lucky
+feats
Total Defence: +33 +feats

Total Attack: +25/+20/+15/+10 +str bonus +feats

8/13/18/23 defence edge, minus strength bonus, assuming feats balance out.

A L 20 player might have 17 + 4 + 5 + 6 strength = 32, or +11

So -3/+2/+7/+12 defence edge.

5 of the attack bonus comes from magic.
20 of the defence bonus comes from magic.

----

What if you used the "roll to attack and defend" rules? (ie, d20 + attack vs d20 + defend).

Options:
1> Change armor to DR. No more AC. Full Plate is 8 DR (damn nice), leather is 2 DR, etc.

2> Add in "dodge" stat equal to Reflex + Dodge Dex Bonus. Your Dex bonus to dodge is 5+dex mod. This value is capped by your armor's "max dex bonus to AC".

(5+dex mod is 0 if and only if you have 0 dex...)

Armor makes it harder to dodge and easier to hit, unless you are a brick.

Up the max dex bonus by +2, so Armor doesn't completely suck. :) Practically, if you are wearing armor, you really want to parry/block more than dodge.

3> Add in "parry/block" stat equal to BaB +Strength
Shield Block: Parry + (1 buckler, 2 light, 3 large, 4 tower)
1 handed weapon, no offhand: Parry-2
2 handed weapon, no offhand: Parry
1 handed weapon, offhand shield/weapon, with standard feats: Parry-4 each.
two weapon fighting with two weapon defence: Parry-2.

When attacked, you pick parry/dodge. You can't parry an arrow, but you can block one.

The second defence with a given skill is at -5, cumulative. You can parry then dodge with no penalty, and you can mainhand parry then offhand parry with no penalty.

Defenders cannot roll lower than a modified 10.


Viola -- your characters can now fight each other without always hitting. And as a bonus, flurries of attacks really beat down a player's defences.

Weak Reflex:
+0 dodge at L 1. With 12 dex, +6 dodge.
+6 dodge at L 20. With 20 dex, +16 dodge
Strong Reflex:
+2 dodge at L 1. With 16 dex, +10 dodge
+12 dodge at L 20. With 30 dex, +27 dodge

...

I may have made two-handed weapons too weak compared to two-weapon fighting. Oh well.

Jinnai
2006-12-12, 12:39 AM
Armor = DR is good. Except, for shields which are generally all-or-nothing. However, it should not add DR to specific damage (like fire, electricity, ice, etc. depending upon the armor. Leather Armor could certainly reduce electric damage, but Full Plate???

As for the rest...i'm not so sure. I do like the idea of AC (if the current AC from armor = DR as per my suggestion, ie not just global) is done) is increased as each character gains levels, but it should be based upon the class. However, certain armor would also have to have a "subtract from AC bonus" as well, especially the higher ones, similar to dexterity penalty.

Shield's would just add to AC as they do now and would also not be counted toward any AC reduction.

Jinnai
2006-12-12, 12:52 AM
Actually based on this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29348) I think DR as a percentage or increasing the amount of reduction based on current AC might be best. Even if you were to do something like even removing all spells above level 6, you'd still have plenty of damage dealing ones as well as monsters. Without a total rewrite of the system, i think that might be the best option.

Matthew
2006-12-12, 04:25 AM
I wouldn't go along with that. Making DR a percentage is a pain in many ways.

amanodel
2006-12-12, 04:28 AM
I, personally, like the idea described at d20srd.org. There's a variant which gives half of the armor's AC into DR. Shield and magical enhancements would add straight AC without DR. Combined with facing rules it works pretty well. Once I ran a playtesting about a bunch of variant rules, and it came out pretty good.

Hoggmaster
2006-12-12, 02:46 PM
in the Conan D20 Armor is only DR... The class defense bonus only adds to AC. Two modes of defense; Dodge- dex based can be used vs missiles; Parry - str based cannot be used vs missiles. Shields add to Parry vs Melee and Dodge vs Missiles. Works with a VERY limited magic setting.

amanodel
2006-12-12, 04:46 PM
Hm, I've considered the variant used for swashbuckling, where classes are given AC bonus depended on level and the type of armor they're likely to use. With armors as DR, it can be good to compensate somewhat the loss of magic items.

Errata
2006-12-12, 09:33 PM
I like the idea of making all full caster classes into prestige classes, then adding a new base class that leads to it. For balance you could take away the caster levels from hybrid casters, but allow them to meet the prereqs for full caster classes (at a lower rate than the new base class), so if they want they can multiclass for some casting ability. If the new base class requires a certain number of levels, then it would effectively limit the maximum spell level in the game to 7 or so, with very low magic at mid levels.

The base class (apprentice for arcane or acolyte for divine) would have a good skill list and base skill points, but low hit points and base attack bonus, and no spells. The maximum spell level you can cast in your prestige caster class is limited to your class level in apprentice/acolyte or (class level/3) in a hybrid caster class. Caster prestige classes require 5 spellcraft, 5 concentration, plus 8 ranks knowledge (arcane/nature/religion as appropriate for the class). Maybe a new feat to unlock casting in your campaign, just for good measure. You don't technically need the prereq classes, but you'll be a useless caster limited to level 0 spells without it.

I think that would be a reasonable compromise for a low magic setting. With low magic items, they would still play a valuable role. But since it requires so much up front investment, it would allow you to make the characters highly unusual in the world without too much further explanation.

amanodel
2006-12-13, 04:43 AM
Yes, that's already been done by Yakk :) The prereq for full caster classes is 5 levels of that class.

Yakk
2006-12-13, 10:33 AM
You don't really need the full caster classes as prestige classes, do you?

amanodel
2006-12-13, 10:45 AM
Well, I don't really need them, but they can be done. Depends on taste, I guess.

Tola
2006-12-13, 10:45 AM
That depends on who you ask.

Whilst more classes is hardly a good idea(It's been noted about the 'classes for everything'. Add EXP penalties into it, and it's just bad news however you look at it. For example, to fully show the depth to which one might know a terrain, they have to go into Horizon Master and take the Terrain Mastery. Even though they've lived there all their lives, they still have to take the prerequistes, and take the class, just to get something they, by rights, should ALREADY HAVE.), the amount of power they have makes it seem like a decent idea. Not that I'm for or against it.

amanodel
2006-12-13, 11:24 AM
Realism wasn't d&d's strongest advantage never, so I just work what I've got :)

Errata
2006-12-13, 12:54 PM
Yes, that's already been done by Yakk :) The prereq for full caster classes is 5 levels of that class.

As I said I like the idea. But in your mage apprentice post you suggested that hybrid casters remain unchanged. In a world where theirs is the only magic, this makes them extremely powerful. My idea was to strip their magic and integrate them into the apprenticing system.

amanodel
2006-12-13, 01:05 PM
Hybrid casters? Rangers and Paladins? I don't think rangers are scary for they can cast three barkskins a day, but to disappear in the forest in a moment. Hybrid classes have their spell-caster abilites as their third or fourth most important ability, their spells don't do nothing remarkable. For most of them it's lucky if they have the wisdom to even cast third level spells.

Jinnai
2006-12-13, 03:06 PM
Maybe, but it might still be better to strip them. Starting out at higher levels when playing and its easier to build where the spellcaster

Easier just to remove them and give those classes some other small bonus.

Errata
2006-12-13, 06:27 PM
A bard can cast cure serious wounds at level 7. A cleric can normally cast it at level 5, but in your world maybe level 10. By level 10, the bard will be casting cure critical wounds, greater invisibility, dominate person, summon monster IV, hold monster, etc. Having played in settings with no healing but rest, even that lower level of healing can make a big impact. Imagine thinking of bards as clerics.

Hybrid casters are weak casters only compared to full unmodified casters. In a world where the full casters were crippled, the hybrid casters would be extremely powerful. And the fact that they get magic as almost an afterthought to their characters would undermine the low magic feel. They cast so easily and casually, that it would be hard to think of magic as rare.

My idea was to remove their spell levels, but in place of it, make it so they are building up to the requirement of taking levels in a full caster prestige class (the same way as the apprentice, except slower). So maybe a level 10 bard instead of automatically having 4 levels of sorcerer-like spells could instead qualify at level 10 to take a couple of levels of sorcerer to supplement their abilities.

Matthew
2006-12-13, 07:23 PM
I have to admit I am finding Yakk's Combat System Plug In a little hard to follow. I like the idea of having Parry / Block / Dodge as alternate defences (hell, I use that kind of system for my own Homebrewed and Houseruled games), but I'm not sure how this ports onto a D&D Combat Round.

I would try and do it like this

Parry = 10* + Weapon Attack Bonus
Block = 10* + Shield Attack Bonus + Shield AC
Dodge = 10* + Reflex Save + (something, maybe 5 as suggested or maybe + Armour Bonus)

*or 1D20 if using opposed rolled AC

Should there be a limited number of times you can declare these defences in a given round?
Should they be declared before or after an opposing Attack Roll?
How is this going to affect the game as it currently stands?
How far are we looking towards mirroring Conan D20?

Hoggmaster
2006-12-14, 12:11 PM
very much so...

in conan

parry AC = 10+str+class/lvl bonus+ parry feat (like dodge)+shield (vs melee )-size (rare in conan)

Dodge AC = 10+dex+class/lvl bonus+dodge feat(if had) +shield bonus vs missile fire-size

Jinnai
2006-12-14, 12:38 PM
A bard can cast cure serious wounds at level 7. A cleric can normally cast it at level 5, but in your world maybe level 10. By level 10, the bard will be casting cure critical wounds, greater invisibility, dominate person, summon monster IV, hold monster, etc. Having played in settings with no healing but rest, even that lower level of healing can make a big impact. Imagine thinking of bards as clerics.

Hybrid casters are weak casters only compared to full unmodified casters. In a world where the full casters were crippled, the hybrid casters would be extremely powerful. And the fact that they get magic as almost an afterthought to their characters would undermine the low magic feel. They cast so easily and casually, that it would be hard to think of magic as rare.

My idea was to remove their spell levels, but in place of it, make it so they are building up to the requirement of taking levels in a full caster prestige class (the same way as the apprentice, except slower). So maybe a level 10 bard instead of automatically having 4 levels of sorcerer-like spells could instead qualify at level 10 to take a couple of levels of sorcerer to supplement their abilities.Persoanlly some of the bards spells need to be looked at as well. The progression might be fine, but the list imo sounds a little too powerful for a low-magic world.

Errata
2006-12-14, 02:26 PM
Persoanlly some of the bards spells need to be looked at as well. The progression might be fine, but the list imo sounds a little too powerful for a low-magic world.

Which is of course the point of my post, in the context of my previous posts. I think leaving hybrid casters untouched while reducing all other forms of magic will unbalance them. :smallsmile: However, I disagree that it can be fixed just by modifying the spell list rather than the progression. I picked a few examples, but most of them will be overpowered. If casting is rare, it shouldn't be an afterthought to these classes.

amanodel
2006-12-14, 02:38 PM
How about simply slowing their spell progression? Bards, Rangers, Paladins would begin the spellcasting two levels later. Rangers and paladins at 6th, bard at second. That would also cut down their high-level spellcastin abilities a bit, too.

Yakk
2006-12-14, 03:57 PM
Restrict the spell casting hybrid classes to alien, non-human races.

Only Dwarves have a god that grants Paladinhood.

Only Low Elves know enough about nature-magic to be Rangers.

High Elves (NPC race) might know Druidic magic.

Gnomes need to be redone (illusion magic, as a racial ability?)

You could even require non-human races to take levels in their Paragon classes. This would require redoing the Elf paragon (no levels of wizard!) and the Gnomish paragon.

Ie, class progression can be:
L 1: PC class L 1
L 2: Paragon class L 1
L 3: PC class L 2
L 4: Paragon class L 2
L 5: PC class L 3
L 6: Paragon class L 3
L 7+: PC classes

It would encourage racial diversity, and delay and dilute some of the higher level class abilities.

amanodel
2006-12-14, 07:33 PM
And would bring back old AD&D feeling with the class restrictions. It's a viable way.

Paragonism can either be done, an din certein setting it would be the best choice, without question.

Jinnai
2006-12-14, 09:28 PM
Restrict the spell casting hybrid classes to alien, non-human races.

Only Dwarves have a god that grants Paladinhood.

Only Low Elves know enough about nature-magic to be Rangers.

High Elves (NPC race) might know Druidic magic.

Gnomes need to be redone (illusion magic, as a racial ability?)

You could even require non-human races to take levels in their Paragon classes. This would require redoing the Elf paragon (no levels of wizard!) and the Gnomish paragon.

Ie, class progression can be:
L 1: PC class L 1
L 2: Paragon class L 1
L 3: PC class L 2
L 4: Paragon class L 2
L 5: PC class L 3
L 6: Paragon class L 3
L 7+: PC classes

It would encourage racial diversity, and delay and dilute some of the higher level class abilities.I've never been in favor of hard exclusions.

I think instead each class should have a list of classes they can play without any further restictions, but other classes they'd need to double the XP to level in it, similar to the opional system in AD&D 2nd.

I mean some of the best players I've had are ones who wanted to do a half-orc bard or a dwarven wizard.

The other reason it removes your possibilities as a DM because you are either hamstrung by those rules and can never have an exception to them or you're going to have an argument with your players about why an npc can be that, but they can't when they are suppose to also be exceptions to the rule.

Yakk
2006-12-15, 09:44 AM
I've never been in favor of hard exclusions.

I think instead each class should have a list of classes they can play without any further restictions, but other classes they'd need to double the XP to level in it, similar to the opional system in AD&D 2nd.

I mean some of the best players I've had are ones who wanted to do a half-orc bard or a dwarven wizard.

The other reason it removes your possibilities as a DM because you are either hamstrung by those rules and can never have an exception to them or you're going to have an argument with your players about why an npc can be that, but they can't when they are suppose to also be exceptions to the rule.

It depends on your world's culture.

Do your players bother you why NPCs can be Ogres, but the DM won't let PCs be Ogres?

Ambrogino
2006-12-15, 09:59 AM
It depends on your world's culture.

Do your players bother you why NPCs can be Ogres, but the DM won't let PCs be Ogres?

If the Ogres are a respected part of society, and interact with the other civilized races, hell yes my players do. Even if they're not, I don't see why any kind of restriction to what's available in a game based on imagination can ever be a good thing. If someone has a good concept, it works with the world, and the other players are cool with it it should be allowed, not arbitrarily ruled out with no real basis.

Jinnai
2006-12-15, 02:21 PM
It depends on your world's culture.

Do your players bother you why NPCs can be Ogres, but the DM won't let PCs be Ogres?Occasionally. It's mostly when I've resticted classes and they've asked later why an npc of that class combo can exist when they can't for the above reasons i listed.

Mostly they complain they can't be dragons or half-dragons in human or elf form.

amanodel
2006-12-15, 06:18 PM
Players always complain about something. Can't play a beholder, can't play a high elf barbarian, can't have that feat from that book... Unless you allow everything, they'll complain about the restrictions. Once you allow everything, they will complain about you not letting them use stuff they made. It's the nature of the homo ludens dungeonsanddragonsensis. :)

Machete
2006-12-15, 10:51 PM
With a lot of previous "Low magic " threads, I've seen cutting down on wealth as one option to prevent players from having all that wealth and nothing to spend it on. Dropping challenge CRs goes with that as well as disallowing spellcaster classes. Making Craft: Alchemy open to anyone who wants it. Dwarvencraft Items. Stuff from Splatbooks, when added up is pretty boss. Making themost of feats and perhaps handing out a bonus feat to everyone at say, second level? +1 or +2 skill points for everyone each level or base it on Int. It is a different kind of game. One where booby traps, exotic weapons and armor, pimped weapons and armor, alchemy, poison, and strategy are the big weapons the PCs have. Usually this slows the pace down, but it must feel awesome to destroy a big bad monster without magic but with cleverness.

Jinnai
2006-12-16, 10:48 PM
Players always complain about something. Can't play a beholder, can't play a high elf barbarian, can't have that feat from that book... Unless you allow everything, they'll complain about the restrictions. Once you allow everything, they will complain about you not letting them use stuff they made. It's the nature of the homo ludens dungeonsanddragonsensis. :)True, but its a different story when you won't allow them to be a high elf barbarian, but you then go ahead and place a high-elf barbarian into the game.

Gwenfloor
2007-07-16, 07:45 PM
Sheesh, now you've got me planning out an Alchemist class, too. This project ain't never gonna be done. I hope you're happy. :)

Or you could find the multitude of home-brewed Alchemist classes amid the Internet.

Yakk
2007-07-16, 10:36 PM
Or you could find the multitude of home-brewed Alchemist classes amid the Internet.

Or you could cast animate thread:

Previous post:

12-16-2006, 10:48 PM

CASTLEMIKE
2007-07-17, 01:00 PM
Use NPC wealth guidelines. Less wealth less magic. Hey an average house is 1,000 GP and a Grand House is 5,000 GP a Keep is 150,000 and a simple Bailey Castle is 500,000 GP according to the DMG.

Moderate Diplomacy as suggested here at Giant or like in A Game of Thrones.

Limit spellcasting to Adepts, Bards, Magewrights, Sorcerers and Witches but modify the sorcerer and witch so they receives a feat at levels 5, 10, 15 and 20 instead of gaining a level in spellcasting and modify the Magewright so that they can use spell books and use their their spellmaster feats for something else. If PRCing lose the bonus feat but keep the delayed casting level.

Control PRCs limit access and dipping.

Make clerics, druids, wizards and Tome of 9 Swords classes PRCs which can be taken after level 5 and limit other PRCs to the DMG.

Make Crusader a Paladin PRC, Make Sword Sage a Monk PRC and let Warblade be for other fighter types.

Control campaign magic. Use standard demographics with 90% of the population living in Thorps, Hamlets and Villages with a 1 - 6% chance of finding a low level cleric, druid or Wizard occasionally. Have most of the other high level casters affiliated with a government, religion or noble with demands on their time as they are busy important people normally. Most NPCs wil be Adepts and Magewrights most who will only be able to cast cantrips and level 1 spells with an occassional spellcaster who can cast a level 2 spell. The only common magic should be level 1 spell items with level 2 spell items available in limited quantities with level 3 spell items uncommon anywhere but small towns or greater and in limited quantities. Magical items that are valued more than 2,000 GP should be Rare.

No magic stores make acquiring a specific item take time and cost a premium. Let the PCs sell adventuring magic items for 50 - 80% of market price.