How Common Are Casters Supposed to Be in the Assumed 3.5 Setting?

[Amaril]

Okay, so I'm starting up a new world-building effort, and this time I'm in the mood to just go for something very traditional, someplace where players familiar with the tried-and-true D&D fantasy conventions will feel right at home--forgotten ruins of ancient elven civilizations concealing hidden troves of lost magic, gods guiding the fate of the world and granting miraculous powers to followers, you know the stuff I mean. I have a couple ideas for more original spins to put on things, and one thing I was planning on doing was making casters and magic a lot more rare than some settings, to avoid magic becoming commonplace or (God forbid) a commodity. So I'm wondering, just how common are spellcasters assumed to be in the implied setting of 3.5? I know I could probably find information on that somewhere in the DMG, but in addition to not being in the mood to flip through the book just now, I'm also wondering if anyone has any advice on making magic feel cool and special in a game setting that might help with the feel I'm looking for. Any advice?

[Rhynn]

The DMG has guidelines for determining the highest-level NPC of each class in a settlement of a given size. Every time you go down two levels from that, you double the number. So if the highest-level wizard in a settlement is 15th-level, there are two of 13th level, four of 11th level, etc.

You can use this to get averages and get an idea - or could, if the DMG actually provided any guidance for determining e.g. how many settlements of what size a realm with a given population can support, etc.

The answer ends up being "way too common", though...

[WbtE]

The typical distribution of wizards in a 3.x metropolis (25,000+ people) is:

One 16th-level
One 15th-level
One 14th-level
One 13th-level
Two 8th-level
Four 7th-level
Two 6th-level
Four 4th-level
Twelve 3rd-level
Eight 2nd-level
Forty 1st-level

For a total of seventy-six wizards or about .3% of the population.

[holywhippet]

That is, of course, for typical generic settings. Some settings have a greater variance on spell casters of one type or another. If they are feared/hated for example. Dragonlance has most people distrusting mages for the most part and in the early scenarios there were no clerics at all. That was 2nd edition, but the rules don't really affect the setting that much.

For low magic settings you'd expect fewer spell casters, although most players dislike those settings for good reason.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The typical distribution of wizards in a 3.x metropolis (25,000+ people) is:

One 16th-level
One 15th-level
One 14th-level
One 13th-level
Two 8th-level
Four 7th-level
Two 6th-level
Four 4th-level
Twelve 3rd-level
Eight 2nd-level
Forty 1st-level

For a total of seventy-six wizards or about .3% of the population.

Nailed it.

You'd use the same values for sorcerer and very similar numbers for both clerics and druids.

All told, the 4 primary casting classes in the core rule books comprise about 1.25% of the population. Even if you use the same numbers for all of WotC full casters you still slide in under 5%, if I'm not mistaken.

[Amaril]

Well that just won't do, now will it? I'm thinking you'll never find more than one or two wizards in even the largest cities in the world, with possibly a few apprentices just becoming 1st-level thrown in if those particular scholars are feeling like teaching at the time. Of course, not even all the big settlements will have even one wizard, since many of them will prefer to live in seclusion out in the wilderness, or even to hole up in some little backwater village somewhere, likely hiding their true nature in the lattermost case. Also, I'm under the impression that the way wizardry was supposed to work in older editions of the game was that apprentices would study under a high-level wizard in order to learn the most basic spells, and would then have to go out and adventure in order to discover more knowledge for themselves, until they finally reached high level on their own and were able to settle down to study in seclusion, possibly taking on an apprentice of their own. That would mean that pretty much all the non-adventurer wizards in the world would be either new apprentices or among the highest-level ones available.

Clerics and druids I'm picturing as being pretty much just as rare, but for different reasons.

[Slipperychicken]

It's your game. Magicians are as common as you want them to be.

[Amaril]

It's your game. Magicians are as common as you want them to be.

I know, I'm just trying to think about game balance. Some classes will have a harder or easier time for different reasons if you alter the prevalence of certain kinds of NPCs. For example, 3.5e game balance assumes players will be able to pay money at temples to get healing and curative magic above their level, but if I make clerics really rare, that might not be an option.

[AMFV]

I know, I'm just trying to think about game balance. Some classes will have a harder or easier time for different reasons if you alter the prevalence of certain kinds of NPCs. For example, 3.5e game balance assumes players will be able to pay money at temples to get healing and curative magic above their level, but if I make clerics really rare, that might not be an option.

Well if you restrict certain status effects or expand the use of the heal skill, that sort of problem could be obviated, although 3.5 is exceptionally bad at low magic stuff. I've been looking into systems that are better for that, there are a few OGL D20 games that supposedly do this better. And I've been considering a WoD game, since I love WoD's morality system but I absolutely loathe their crapsack setting.

In any case, the point being that if you reduce certain monster abilities you can remove the need for certain abilities at certain levels, this will get worse as you level, but if you are fairly low level it could be fine.

[Amaril]

Well if you restrict certain status effects or expand the use of the heal skill, that sort of problem could be obviated, although 3.5 is exceptionally bad at low magic stuff. I've been looking into systems that are better for that, there are a few OGL D20 games that supposedly do this better. And I've been considering a WoD game, since I love WoD's morality system but I absolutely loathe their crapsack setting.

In any case, the point being that if you reduce certain monster abilities you can remove the need for certain abilities at certain levels, this will get worse as you level, but if you are fairly low level it could be fine.

Well I did already want to include a more developed system for medicines and mundane healing, so that should help somewhat. And I wouldn't say I want to do low-magic, exactly--I just want magic to feel a little more special and cool when it does show up. There are too many D&D settings these days where every town has their own resident wizard and magic items practically come out of the plumbing, but it's entirely possible to have a slightly more high-magic setting without that being the case.

[AMFV]

Well I did already want to include a more developed system for medicines and mundane healing, so that should help somewhat. And I wouldn't say I want to do low-magic, exactly--I just want magic to feel a little more special and cool when it does show up. There are too many D&D settings these days where every town has their own resident wizard and magic items practically come out of the plumbing, but it's entirely possible to have a slightly more high-magic setting without that being the case.

I would make a more complex mundane system or limit monsters with abilities that cause significant diseases or things that are difficult to cure. Also I would give your players ways to find magic items that they'll need as magic starts to become a necessity. The things that are going to present a serious problem are monsters that create certain type of status effects. Have unusual movement modes, or unusual weaknesses. Those are much more difficult to handle in a system with low magic.

Another option is to give your players adaptive magic items or magic items that improve throughout the game, a la Weapons of Legacy, you can give them the feat equivalents for free and have many of the items cover the necessary magic slots, that would allow you to control their capabilities and prevent them from being utterly wiped out by monsters with special abilities.

[Rhynn]

I know, I'm just trying to think about game balance. Some classes will have a harder or easier time for different reasons if you alter the prevalence of certain kinds of NPCs. For example, 3.5e game balance assumes players will be able to pay money at temples to get healing and curative magic above their level, but if I make clerics really rare, that might not be an option.

Pssst... if you think about and care about this kind of thing, check out the link to ACKS in my signature. It's B/X D&D with robust and sensible world-building mechanics (just don't be a slave to them; the creator himself has said that because they are about averages, following them slavishly creates a world that's less incredible than the real world) and economics.

[Slipperychicken]

Well I did already want to include a more developed system for medicines and mundane healing, so that should help somewhat. And I wouldn't say I want to do low-magic, exactly--I just want magic to feel a little more special and cool when it does show up. There are too many D&D settings these days where every town has their own resident wizard and magic items practically come out of the plumbing, but it's entirely possible to have a slightly more high-magic setting without that being the case.

I think that the extreme infrequency of magic-users in the assumed setting serves partly as justification for the costs of spellcasting and magic items. A single cantrip can rake in more money than a peasant makes in a week of hard labor because spellcasters are so hard to find that they have tremendous negotiating power. And bear in mind that only a fraction of the available casters can even cast the spell you want.

Also, I personally don't like the idea of every clergyman being a divine spellcaster. I would prefer for only high-ranking/particularly-devout ones to actually get spells.

And yeah, ACKS has rules for spell availability which might be useful. I should be getting paid for all the free advertising I do for Autarch...

[Amaril]

Also, I personally don't like the idea of every clergyman being a divine spellcaster. I would prefer for only high-ranking/particularly-devout ones to actually get spells.

Way ahead of you. My idea for this world is that true divine magic is a special blessing the gods only give to a few people in a generation, and most certainly not something just any old priest can do. That's part of the justification for PC clerics being adventurers rather than just sitting at home preaching, since they're taught that the gods have blessed them with the power to perform miracles for some great purpose and they should go and seek it out.

[TheCountAlucard]

The ill-fitting of Lord of the Rings into a standard D&D campaign has already been covered rather exhaustively. (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?cat=14)

[Amaril]

The ill-fitting of Lord of the Rings into a standard D&D campaign has already been covered rather exhaustively. (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?cat=14)

I am well familiar with The DM of the Rings, though Darths & Droids is my personal favorite :smallbiggrin: Nonetheless, I actually am taking a fair bit of inspiration from LotR for this world's tone, if not for its actual mechanics. I'm going with a little bit of a more liberal interpretation of what's magic and what isn't in the series, though: for example, I'd peg Galadriel as a spellcaster, and call all the elven swords that glow when orcs are nearby as magic items. Looked at through this lens, it becomes a bit easier to imagine a D&D world with a comparable level of magic.

[Ravens_cry]

Think of Lord of the Rings as an example. In that whole movie trilogy, there was a grand total of TWO spellcasters: Gandalf and Saruman.
In the movie, sure, but in the books, there was three more, though I think two were lost by the events of the books. It should be noted that what is called a wizard in Lord of the Rings is not at all what a wizard is in D&D. A Middle Earth wizard is more an angel or demi-god in disguise. Others could do magic as well, for example Elrond made the river 'rise up against' the Nazgûl , with Gandalf adding some cosmetic touches.
Still, yes, on the whole, it is a low-magic setting in the D&D sense.

[Bogardan_Mage]

Lord of the Rings doesn't have any spellcasters in the D&D sense. But even if you're going through and replacing Tolkienian magic with Vancian magic, the question of "how many wizards in a large city" is not really the right question to ask. Are we talking Minas Tirith or Caras Galadhon? The former might have a low level soothsayer or two, the latter is almost exclusively populated by people with some level of magical ability. What makes magic "rare" in Lord of the Rings is not absolute proportions but distribution. There are very few human magic users, and those that are are servants of Sauron (the difference between elf magic and dark magic is also quite important, but probably beyond the scope of your setting at this point), and the races do not generally mix with one another. So if you're focusing on men (or hobbits or dwarves for that matter) you'll find little if any magic.

[jedipotter]

For example, 3.5e game balance assumes players will be able to pay money at temples to get healing and curative magic above their level, but if I make clerics really rare, that might not be an option.

It does? 3.5E assumes characters can get easy, affordable healing any time any where?

Just wondering, but do the rules say that somewhere? Where does the assumption come from?

[Amaril]

It does? 3.5E assumes characters can get easy, affordable healing any time any where?

Just wondering, but do the rules say that somewhere? Where does the assumption come from?

I may be wrong (it's never really come up in any of my tabletop games, where we always have party healers), but in pretty much every D&D computer game I've played, paid healing has always been an option starting at low levels. Also, since the book has rules for the price of spellcasting according to level, people will assume that that service will usually be available, for the same reason that the listed prices for magic items and stats for finding them in cities will lead people to assume that that will usually be possible. That's an assumption I want to deviate from here, since in my opinion, it's one that totally messes up worlds.

[hymer]

There are very few human magic users, and those that are are servants of Sauron

Beorn was said by Tolkien that Beorn was 'no doubt a bit of a magician'. So I wouldn't be so categorical.
Another issue is what you want to define as magic. Aragorn has been known to be able to see into the future at times. Sounds kinda magical. Hobbits are said to have an everyday kind of magic to help them hide themselves, obviously playing with the word. The elves in Lórien also hesitate to call their uncommonly well-made rope magical, but imply that they might have been able to teach the making of it to Sam. And yet the rope comes when Sam calls it, and its touch is painful to Gollum.
In D&D magic is clearly defined. In Tolkien's work, it is clearly present, but by its nature not well understood. Dwarves make excellent armour and weapons, but are they magical? A Dwarf might consider it merely well made, and a Hobbit think certainly it was magical when it could hold an edge like that. There is a blending of magic and power and skill and knowledge in Middle-earth that is hard to replicate in a game setting that needs fairly firm rules.

[jedipotter]

but in pretty much every D&D computer game I've played, paid healing has always been an option starting at low levels.

Arrgghhh! not computer or video games. Yuck!

I don't think there is the assumption of healing on demand on every corner in D&D.

And even if there was, D&D has lots of gods. You can't just walk into any temple all bloody and beat up and ask for healing. Some gods don't like that.

And saying that something has a price so must be for sale is like saying that any character can take any feat or class ability as they are in the book.

[Amaril]

And saying that something has a price so must be for sale is like saying that any character can take any feat or class ability as they are in the book.

Yeah, that's the point--it's stupid and I want to make it clear that that's not how it works.

[Ravens_cry]

Beorn was said by Tolkien that Beorn was 'no doubt a bit of a magician'. So I wouldn't be so categorical.
Another issue is what you want to define as magic. Aragorn has been known to be able to see into the future at times. Sounds kinda magical. Hobbits are said to have an everyday kind of magic to help them hide themselves, obviously playing with the word. The elves in Lórien also hesitate to call their uncommonly well-made rope magical, but imply that they might have been able to teach the making of it to Sam. And yet the rope comes when Sam calls it, and its touch is painful to Gollum.
In D&D magic is clearly defined. In Tolkien's work, it is clearly present, but by its nature not well understood. Dwarves make excellent armour and weapons, but are they magical? A Dwarf might consider it merely well made, and a Hobbit think certainly it was magical when it could hold an edge like that. There is a blending of magic and power and skill and knowledge in Middle-earth that is hard to replicate in a game setting that needs fairly firm rules.
Not to mention the lambas bread, as well as their wrappings.
Sting, Foe-hammer and Goblin-cleaver would count as magic weapons even in D&D. Still, mainly, magic is very magical in Middle Earth.

[Prime32]

In D&D magic is clearly defined. In Tolkien's work, it is clearly present, but by its nature not well understood. Dwarves make excellent armour and weapons, but are they magical? A Dwarf might consider it merely well made, and a Hobbit think certainly it was magical when it could hold an edge like that. There is a blending of magic and power and skill and knowledge in Middle-earth that is hard to replicate in a game setting that needs fairly firm rules.:smallconfused: D&D only makes it hard by tagging everything as Ex, Su or Sp (or "spells"), and having things like antimagic fields that affect only some of them. Without that there's no difficulty.

Throw out antimagic fields, use weaker casters like adepts and warlocks, make dispelling a function of the Spellcraft skill and item-crafting a function of the Craft skills (with the addition that you can use body parts from thematic monsters to meet spell prereqs, like forging a flaming sword from a dragon fang).

[Amaril]

:smallconfused: D&D only makes it hard by tagging everything as Ex, Su or Sp (or "spells"), and having things like antimagic fields that affect only some of them. Without that there's no difficulty.

And I feel like at least some of that problem can be helped by DM description, as can a lot of the flavor of magic as strange and mysterious. Don't say...

"The enemy wizard casts Evard's black tentacles."

When you can say...

"The orc shaman covered in strange tattoos begins chanting something in a guttural tongue and making strange gestures with his fingers. A few seconds later, the ground beneath your feet splits open and a mass of writhing black tentacles burst forth, wrapping around your legs and holding you in place."

Pretty elementary DMing principle, really, but I feel it bears emphasis here.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It does? 3.5E assumes characters can get easy, affordable healing any time any where?

Just wondering, but do the rules say that somewhere? Where does the assumption come from?

It is plainly assumed by the demographic break-down that any settlement of greater than small city size has at least one of each type of caster and even the smallest of settlements have a greater than even chance of having one or more casters that have most of the healing spells on their list.

Spellcasting has listed price-rates that express what is, at the very least, an average (spell level, squared, times 10gp, BTW.)

It's also assumed that an average party is composed of one each of a skillful character, an arcanist, a warrior, and a divine caster; the last of which almost universally have at least the cure X wounds line of spells.

While a DM is free to muck about with these things (and the players with that last), they make it clear that basic healing is assumed to be readily available and more advanced healing, while not "available any time, any where," is assumed to be reasonably accessible.

[jedipotter]

And I feel like at least some of that problem can be helped by DM description, as can a lot of the flavor of magic as strange and mysterious.

It is a good idea. But note you will have to change the way Knowledge checks work. The way the skill is written (or not) it automatically gives information like spell names. As ridiculous as it is, the skill assumes that with even one rank that the character attended spell 101 and learned the name and effect of all the 2,000+ spells in existence. And they can instantaneously remember it.

So you need to fix the knowledge skills a bit if you want to keep the mystery. Or just get rid of them them.




It's also assumed that an average party is composed of one each of a skillful character, an arcanist, a warrior, and a divine caster; the last of which almost universally have at least the cure X wounds line of spells.

While a DM is free to muck about with these things (and the players with that last), they make it clear that basic healing is assumed to be readily available and more advanced healing, while not "available any time, any where," is assumed to be reasonably accessible.

I wonder where this assumption comes from? There is not rule that says a group must have one of each character type, right?

And players assume that quick and easy healing is reasonably accessible? Well, that just sounds like a wrong assumption. If the rules don't say it, the players should not just assume something is or is not.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I wonder where this assumption comes from? There is not rule that says a group must have one of each character type, right?

It's not a rule but it is explicitly an assumption the game's designers made when designing the game. There are myriad places that this can be found. Off the top of my head, there's a section in complete arcane that suggests how a party comprised entirely of arcanists can fill these four roles, and PHB2 gives advice for how to fill one of these roles if your group is comprised of only three players.


And players assume that quick and easy healing is reasonably accessible? Well, that just sounds like a wrong assumption. If the rules don't say it, the players should not just assume something is or is not.

It's not an unreasonable assumption, at all, that the game will work the way it was designed to work unless the DM explicitly says they're making a change. Part of that is that basic HP healing will be readily available unless the players choose otherwise (nobody rolls a divine caster) and that, until the upper end of low levels, advanced healing is reasonably available most of the time. Beyond low levels it becomes almost as readily available as HP healing unless, again, the players choose otherwise.

[Amaril]

All of which will be solved by various elements of the mundane healing system I want to implement. The disadvantage of which being that it will take much longer to make and administer mundane medicines than magical healing.

[Ravens_cry]

All of which will be solved by various elements of the mundane healing system I want to implement. The disadvantage of which being that it will take much longer to make and administer mundane medicines than magical healing.
Which, because of the action economy is a huge disadvantage.
One idea I had was you could use the treat deadly injury part of the Heal skill a number of times equal 1+ to your wisdom modifier (minimum 0) on an individual, and you healed another +1 hp for every 5 by which you beat the DC. Rather unrealistic, but it does make mundane healing more attractive.

[TuggyNE]

Spellcasting has listed price-rates that express what is, at the very least, an average (spell level, squared, times 10gp, BTW.)

It even lists what settlement sizes will typically have casters willing and able to cast spells of those levels at that rate.

[Slipperychicken]

All of which will be solved by various elements of the mundane healing system I want to implement. The disadvantage of which being that it will take much longer to make and administer mundane medicines than magical healing.

That's the usual tradeoff. Magic healing is quick, but costs a lot. Nonmagical healing is cheap, but takes a long time.


That tradeoff was already in the system, though, since nonmagical medicine simply accelerates the body's natural healing rate (much like medicine actually does), while it takes at least a few days of rest to recover from severe injuries normally. Also, a successful heal check would double healing rates, and even higher checks could accelerate healing even more (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#heal)

[Kelb_Panthera]

Also of some potential note; there are at least two feats that accelerate natural healing; faster healing in CW for HP and ability damage as well as mind over body in XPH for ability damage.

[Amaril]

That's the usual tradeoff. Magic healing is quick, but costs a lot. Nonmagical healing is cheap, but takes a long time.


That tradeoff was already in the system, though, since nonmagical medicine simply accelerates the body's natural healing rate (much like medicine actually does), while it takes at least a few days of rest to recover from severe injuries normally. Also, a successful heal check would double healing rates, and even higher checks could accelerate healing even more (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#heal)

Exactly. As it is, the big thing that mundane healing has trouble with compared to magic is things like poisons and diseases, and this setting would include rules for additional medicines for just such situations (it really only makes sense that such things exist, after all). It'd make Heal a much more useful skill to take, as well as Craft (Medicine), for making the treatments, and Survival, for finding the ingredients. Which I definitely like. So yeah, I don't think it's impractical. And anyway, it's not like anything about the setting prohibits PCs from being healers, it's just that they're not likely to meet very many others.

[Slipperychicken]

Exactly. As it is, the big thing that mundane healing has trouble with compared to magic is things like poisons and diseases

Doesn't a successful long-term care check also recover ability damage faster?

[Amaril]

Doesn't a successful long-term care check also recover ability damage faster?

I'm not sure about that, but regardless, the more important concern is whether it can actually prevent the effects from getting worse. I don't have the rules in front of me right this second, but I'll definitely research it more.

[veti]

How does your planned 'mundane' healing system coexist with clerics?

If clerics are rare in your setting, then it only takes one player to play a cleric/druid, and suddenly your party is even more ridiculously powerful than such parties usually are. Are you planning to put some drastic limitation on healing spells (e.g. '1 hour per spell level casting time, and can only be cast within your own god's temple')? Or put in some sort of parallel damage system (such as, I dunno, ability point damage from wounds, which needs separate treatment)?

Also remember that "mundane healing", at a typical-D&D level of technology, is a very hit and miss business. What you're describing is a world where a significant fraction of all minor cuts, injuries and head colds - will be fatal.

[Tetsubo 57]

Nailed it.

You'd use the same values for sorcerer and very similar numbers for both clerics and druids.

All told, the 4 primary casting classes in the core rule books comprise about 1.25% of the population. Even if you use the same numbers for all of WotC full casters you still slide in under 5%, if I'm not mistaken.

Add in some psionics classes and you will hit levels that I like. I prefer worlds with a lot of casters in them. An all psionics world would be cool though.

[Bogardan_Mage]

Beorn was said by Tolkien that Beorn was 'no doubt a bit of a magician'. So I wouldn't be so categorical.
Ah yes, I'd forgotten about him. I was thinking mainly of a passage where an elf (I think it's Elrond?) expresses confusion about the use of the term "magic" to apply both to the crafts of the elves and the "lies of the enemy". Where Beorn fits with respect to that I have no idea.


Another issue is what you want to define as magic. Aragorn has been known to be able to see into the future at times. Sounds kinda magical. Hobbits are said to have an everyday kind of magic to help them hide themselves, obviously playing with the word. The elves in Lórien also hesitate to call their uncommonly well-made rope magical, but imply that they might have been able to teach the making of it to Sam. And yet the rope comes when Sam calls it, and its touch is painful to Gollum.
In D&D magic is clearly defined. In Tolkien's work, it is clearly present, but by its nature not well understood. Dwarves make excellent armour and weapons, but are they magical? A Dwarf might consider it merely well made, and a Hobbit think certainly it was magical when it could hold an edge like that. There is a blending of magic and power and skill and knowledge in Middle-earth that is hard to replicate in a game setting that needs fairly firm rules.
Well, yes, basically. D&D magic is so different from Tolkienian magic (which itself is divided along lines that aren't always 100% clear) that identifying any character as a spellcaster in D&D terms is at best questionable. A way of looking at that I'm rather fond of says that Tolkienian "magic" is best represented in d20 via very high skill DCs. So if you hit a DC 50 or whatever on your Craft check, you make a "magic" item. Not only does this tend to better reflect what Tolkien seemed to be going for, it works well with d20's tendency to superhuman ability at high levels.

[Rhynn]

I think Gandalf calling down lightning, etc. on Weathertop (and nearby hilltops) when fighting the Nazgul is pretty overt D&D-style magic. There's not a lot of it, but that immediately stuck out to me on my latest re-reading.

[Amaril]

I've been reading The Wheel of Time, and now that I think about it, the tone of magic I'm trying to emulate here is a lot more akin to that--obvious when it happens, but rare enough that most people in the world have basically no idea how it works or what it can do. Another good comparison would probably be the Belgariad (what little of it I've read, at least). Thinking about it now, a good non-D&D example of the magic-as-commodity feel I want to avoid with this is sympathy in The Kingkiller Chronicle, if that makes things clearer.

[Eric Tolle]

Remember, the more rare you make magic, paradoxically the more you weaken the non-spellcasters. Non-spellcasters depend heavily on magic to keep up as much as they can with spellcasters. Go the "magic is rare" route and players will quickly realize that pc spellcasters are even more powerful than before.

Of course there's ways to get around that problem. The easiest way it's to use a different game system. True20 perhaps, or Warhammer, or even Fate work much better for low-magic games than default 3.5.

[hymer]

I was thinking mainly of a passage where an elf (I think it's Elrond?) expresses confusion about the use of the term "magic" to apply both to the crafts of the elves and the "lies of the enemy".

You're thinking of Galadriel in the mirror scene, responding to Sam's wish to see 'Elf magic', I should think. :smallsmile:


Where Beorn fits with respect to that I have no idea.

Only speculation can be done, I'm afraid. His way with animals is a lot like what Elves do. Legolas immediately makes friends with the horse (Arod, IIRC) lent to him by the Rohirrim, and it is said to be the way of Elves with all good beasts. Maybe Elves taught a Man, who taught his son, and so on until Beorn. Or he could have learned it directly.
His skinchanging on the other hand, seems to be non-Elvish, but also not something Sauron taught (though he himself was once a famous shapeshifter, I recall no minion being able to shapeshift, and Beorn showed no signs of corruption). So it seems to have come from some other source. Radagast springs to mind, since he lived nearby and Beorn regarded him fondly. Ulmo once turned Elwing into a bird, so maybe Beorn ('s ancestor) has/had the help of a higher power.


I think Gandalf calling down lightning, etc. on Weathertop (and nearby hilltops) when fighting the Nazgul is pretty overt D&D-style magic. There's not a lot of it, but that immediately stuck out to me on my latest re-reading.

The flashiness and using elemental forces to directly assault one's foes does indeed seem very D&Dish. There's also the attack by not-really-wolves near Redhorn, and Big G uses his power a few times in Bilbo's journey in flashy manner, too. But then, Gandalf doesn't carry a spellbook, nor does he seem fond of spamming his powers (in fact I can't recall him using anything but light on a repeated basis - the long journey in Moria). Using his powers draws attention to himself in ways he doesn't like, and we're rarely sure how much is native to him, how much is learned on his travels and studies, and how much is from the ring he wears - and how these sources of power/knowledge/energy/skill interact. Did he actually hit the Nazgûl with lightning? Aragorn said he thought the lightning was jumping up from the hill. Maybe it was a side-effect, or Gandalf trying to alert or warn off anyone nearby. Or those were attacks aimed at him by the Nazgûl (their leader is described at one point as a 'sorcerer'; and lightning is kinda like fire, which is Gandalf's thing, but not really the same), which he deflects. We never see a knock-down-drag-out fight between Gandalf and any Nazgûl up close.

[Amaril]

Remember, the more rare you make magic, paradoxically the more you weaken the non-spellcasters. Non-spellcasters depend heavily on magic to keep up as much as they can with spellcasters. Go the "magic is rare" route and players will quickly realize that pc spellcasters are even more powerful than before.

Of course there's ways to get around that problem. The easiest way it's to use a different game system. True20 perhaps, or Warhammer, or even Fate work much better for low-magic games than default 3.5.

I'm aware of this issue, and there's one thing about the stories I'm trying to emulate that makes me think I can keep it balanced: in these stories, warriors, not casters, seem to be the only ones who ever get magic items. This setting will have a lot more magic swords, shields and armor than staffs of the magi and rings of spell storing, and although ever fighters will get magic items only rarely, the ones they do get will be powerful artifacts with long and storied histories, and lots of cool powers rather than just a +1 enhancement bonus. I'll recommend that DMs reward players of spellcasters in magical knowledge and ancient secrets, while keeping the magical gear more within the martial classes.

[Prime32]

A way of looking at that I'm rather fond of says that Tolkienian "magic" is best represented in d20 via very high skill DCs. So if you hit a DC 50 or whatever on your Craft check, you make a "magic" item. Not only does this tend to better reflect what Tolkien seemed to be going for, it works well with d20's tendency to superhuman ability at high levelsEh, DC 50 is a bit much, given that LotR was effectively an E6 campaign. There just aren't many human blacksmiths above lv1, and not many dwarven blacksmiths above lv3.

[AMFV]

Eh, DC 50 is a bit much, given that LotR was effectively an E6 campaign. There just aren't many human blacksmiths above lv1, and not many dwarven blacksmiths above lv3.

That's pretty debatable, the mundanes certainly fought more than CR 6 worth of Orcs at a time and won. And the "Gandalf is only level 5" argument, is pretty tired at this point. It's simply not easy to assign levels to any system where they aren't present, particularly one where character's abilities can vary according to the whims of plot, which is what I think we see in most fiction.

[Talderas]

If you take your sample of the distribution of spellcasters from adventuring parties then the results are around 50% of the population has some sort of spellcasting ability.

[Elderand]

If you take your sample of the distribution of spellcasters from adventuring parties then the results are around 50% of the population has some sort of spellcasting ability.

That is possibly the worst way possible to determine how many spellcasters there are.

Adventuring parties are emphaticly not a representative sample of the population.

[Duke of Urrel]

Other commenters have already offered (1) the idea that the total number of spellcasters in one's fantasy world should be limited. I endorse this idea and also offer the following.

(2) Secondly, we can realistically assume that there is a natural rate of attrition, so that most spellcasters don't advance very far. They are contented to find a cozy niche in the economy using their cantrips and orisons to get by. Taking huge risks to become mighty warlords isn't attractive to most spellcasters, and the minority who do take this path have a higher death rate.

So I propose the following attrition system: Approximately 50% of all characters in a population, regardless of class, are of first level. Half this number, or about 25%, are of second level. One quarter of this number, or about 12.5%, are of the third level. Continue all the way up through level 20.

I have an Excel document that calculates whole numbers and adds the surplus to the largest group, the first-level group. As a result, a population of 100 people includes the following characters:

53 of 1st level
25 of 2nd level
12 of 3rd level
6 of 4th level
3 of 5th level
1 of 6th level

(3) Another realistic way to reduce the number of powerful spellcasters is simply to make some expensive material components hard to come by. Should it always be possible to pay 5,000 GP anywhere to get whole diamonds worth 5,000 GP for the purpose of casting the Raise Dead spell? I think not. Scarcity of valuable resources heightens the competition between spellcasters, which causes them to kill each other off, effectively limiting their number.

[Prime32]

That's pretty debatable, the mundanes certainly fought more than CR 6 worth of Orcs at a time and won.A mobDMG2 of 48 orcs is CR 8, against which a four-man lv6 party is assumed to have a 50% of victory in standard conditions. A nine-man party would instead be a match for around 117 orcs.

And in situations like Helm's Deep...

The protagonists have allies.
Characters like Aragorn, Gandalf and Theoden have buffing abilities similar to bards and marshals, which become massively more powerful when applied to an army.
The scale of the battle means they aren't fighting all the orcs at once.
They gain significant bonuses from the siege conditions, which reduce the orcs' Encounter Level.

[AMFV]

A mobDMG2 of 60 orcs is CR 8, against which a four-man lv6 party is assumed to have a 50% of victory in standard conditions. A nine-man party would instead be a match for around 147 orcs.

And in situations like Helm's Deep...

The protagonists have allies.
Characters like Aragorn, Gandalf and Theoden have buffing abilities similar to bards and marshals, which become massively more powerful when applied to an army.
The scale of the battle means they aren't fighting all the orcs at once.
They gain significant bonuses from the siege conditions, which reduce the orcs' Encounter Level.


Well a Balor is CR 20, so I think that we'd have to assume that the scenario isn't exactly in line with E6. Also we have the Nazgul, who are immune to physical harm in most scenarios, but are matched by several members of the fellowship at different times. Smaug who is a dragon of at least huge size, is killed by a single arrow, so we're looking at a probably unusual scenario as far as CR goes. Beorn is able to polymorph into a huge sized bear, which is beyond even the standard rules for polymorph, and if we make a size exemption is still unavailable before 17 HD, so we're definitely looking at some higher level stuff here.

The problem with characterizing any fantasy setting is that the plot controls character abilities, LoTR isn't really a low fantasy setting, not in any real sense, since that sort of conceptualization didn't exist, the characters are certainly capable of some very high heroics at times, such as killing a huge Dragon, facing off against ancient invincible God-kings, I would say that LoTR is poorly represented by any D&D system. Even E6 has more plentiful magic, and less heroic capabilities, the system is just not built to represent it.

[Eldest]

Well that just won't do, now will it? I'm thinking you'll never find more than one or two wizards in even the largest cities in the world, with possibly a few apprentices just becoming 1st-level thrown in if those particular scholars are feeling like teaching at the time. Of course, not even all the big settlements will have even one wizard, since many of them will prefer to live in seclusion out in the wilderness, or even to hole up in some little backwater village somewhere, likely hiding their true nature in the lattermost case. Also, I'm under the impression that the way wizardry was supposed to work in older editions of the game was that apprentices would study under a high-level wizard in order to learn the most basic spells, and would then have to go out and adventure in order to discover more knowledge for themselves, until they finally reached high level on their own and were able to settle down to study in seclusion, possibly taking on an apprentice of their own. That would mean that pretty much all the non-adventurer wizards in the world would be either new apprentices or among the highest-level ones available.

Clerics and druids I'm picturing as being pretty much just as rare, but for different reasons.

Just one question, if I was a wizard and studying, why the deuce would I want to go way out in the country to hide my nature? Far from any center of knowledge?

[AMFV]

Just one question, if I was a wizard and studying, why the deuce would I want to go way out in the country to hide my nature? Far from any center of knowledge?

True, you'd have to make there be some kind of effect that would prevent wizards from being too involved. You could work in some kind of disbelief method, like in White Wolf's magic thing, where if you have a lot of people around who don't believe in magic, it has a failure chance.

You could also do something like have magic have a fundamentally otherworldly quality, where it doesn't work as well in a mundane setting, it also could corrupt the area around it, making it dangerous to use in a populated setting. Although D&D doesn't have mechanics for this you could definitely work some things like this into this sort of setting.

[Prime32]

Well a Balor is CR 20, so I think that we'd have to assume that the scenario isn't exactly in line with E6.Yeah, I remember thinking the Fellowship were screwed when the Balrog greater teleported out of the pit, mind-controlled Aragorn into attacking the rest of the party, drove Legolas permanently mad, created half an Olympic swimming pool of lava above the Fellowship's heads, summoned a dozen more demons and then started throwing boulders with its mind. :smallwink:


Also we have the Nazgul, who are immune to physical harm in most scenarios, but are matched by several members of the fellowship at different times.D&D has CR 2 monsters that are immune to physical harm, but can be damaged by +1 weapons or fire.


Smaug who is a dragon of at least huge size, is killed by a single arrow, so we're looking at a probably unusual scenario as far as CR goes.A single "Black Arrow" that is stated to never fail to kill its target, and is never destroyed on use.


Beorn is able to polymorph into a huge sized bear, which is beyond even the standard rules for polymorph, and if we make a size exemption is still unavailable before 17 HD, so we're definitely looking at some higher level stuff here.Where are you getting Huge size? I could build an lv2 character who can turn into a brown bear as a swift action at will.

[AMFV]

Yeah, I remember thinking the Fellowship were screwed when the Balrog greater teleported out of the pit, mind-controlled Aragorn into attacking the rest of the party, drove Legolas permanently mad, summoned a dozen more demons and then started throwing boulders with its mind. :smallwink:

The point being that it's not a low level encounter.



D&D has CR 2 monsters that are immune to physical harm, but can be damaged by +1 weapons or fire.

True, but still they can be damaged by +1 weapons, which are clearly present, and the Nazgul are not.



A single "Black Arrow" that is stated to never fail to kill its target, and is never destroyed on use.

An item that would be so far out of the WBL guidelines for an E6 character as to be ridiculous.



Where are you getting Huge size? I could build an lv2 character who can turn into a brown bear as a swift action at will.

Huge size as described in the Battle of Five Armies. The point being that D&D isn't particularly a good system for Modeling a low-magic, high fantasy setting. There are games that could model it well, but even E6 D&D isn't exactly very good at that particular type of modeling. It's just a bad model for that setting.

[Thrawn183]

The typical distribution of wizards in a 3.x metropolis (25,000+ people) is:

One 16th-level
One 15th-level
One 14th-level
One 13th-level
Two 8th-level
Four 7th-level
Two 6th-level
Four 4th-level
Twelve 3rd-level
Eight 2nd-level
Forty 1st-level

For a total of seventy-six wizards or about .3% of the population.

I know this thread has gone in the direction of low magic, but I want to put things into perspective, if I can.

I live in Albuquerque, a city of about 550,000. The city's goal is 1,000 police officers in uniform or about .18% of the population. There are more wizards in a 3.% metropolis than police in a modern US one. They really aren't particularly rare.

[Amaril]

Just one question, if I was a wizard and studying, why the deuce would I want to go way out in the country to hide my nature? Far from any center of knowledge?

Largely because the lack of common knowledge of magic will lead to lots of people not wanting them around. Also, the wizards hiding out in remote towers are the experienced ones who want a peaceful retirement from adventuring, which means they have the least to learn from other wizards, and the most tendency to jealously guard what knowledge they have.

[Azoth]

Easy way to handle some of it would be to use the magewright and adept classes. You don't need to straight class them as such, but it would allow for use of magic by NPCs and make it considerably weaker than PCs.

Say the lvl5 head priest of Pelor's abbey is commoner2/adept3. Most he can cast are a handful of orisons and 2-3 1st lvl spells.

Another fun one for healing, which I have done in lower magic games, is to have HP healing abilities cause an amount of subdual damage equal to the real damage healed. This also meals removing subdual healing from existing healing spells. Fluff it as magically healing a wound rapidly accelerates cellular growth and causes immense pain but no real harm to the recipient.

[D4rkh0rus]

Yea I think having adept/commoner multiclasses replace wizards can be a good idea...

Off topic though...

Can someone imagine a city where every citizen (except for a 1%) is a lvl 1 wizard with 10 con?

Civil war against all kinds of household animals, Fully armoured in the most potent bubble wrap, and other kinds of jokes and pun about having an entire populance that can get killed by rain... X D

[AMFV]

Yea I think having adept/commoner multiclasses replace wizards can be a good idea...

Off topic though...

Can someone imagine a city where every citizen (except for a 1%) is a lvl 1 wizard with 10 con?

Civil war against all kinds of household animals, Fully armoured in the most potent bubble wrap, and other kinds of jokes and pun about having an entire populance that can get killed by rain... X D


A city of mostly level 1 wizards with 10 con, could do some pretty significant damage to stuff, particularly if they can import scrolls... They're much better off than a city of mostly commoners.

[ksbsnowowl]

I've been reading The Wheel of Time, and now that I think about it, the tone of magic I'm trying to emulate here is a lot more akin to that...
Just tying WoT into the numbers debate, 2-3% of the world population during the Age of Legends could learn to channel (http://wot.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Channelers), and IIRC, approximately 1% would channel regardless (ie- Wilders), leaving another 1-2% that could learn, but would never start doing so without instruction.

Also, the mortality rate for untrained wilders was thought to be 75% or more (http://wot.wikia.com/wiki/One_Power).

Given those numbers, about 0.25% of the population is composed of Wilders (of both sexes). The male wilders would typically have vastly shortened lifespans, though. I don't think we ever get population totals for the prime continent of Randland in the books, but there are approximately 300 Aes Sedai during the two-year span the 14 books cover. Some of those would have otherwise been wilders, and some would be women who would not have spontaneously sparked.

Someone mentioned having curative magic just convert damage to nonlethal damage. That's exactly what the Heal weave did in the d20 Wheel of Time RPG. It sounds like the OP should check it out if he hasn't already (assuming you can find a copy; it has been out of print for 11 years). It is quite low magic, but the channelers outstrip the mundanes even faster.

[Angelalex242]

I like the campaigns better when there are 75 odd wizards in your average metropolis, and every of age person in a temple is a cleric, depending on city size.

One temple might have a 10th level cleric high priest, 2 8th level clerics, 4 6th, 8 4th, 16 2nd, and 32 first level clerics all running around. And that's a moderate sized temple.

In the biggest cities, I follow the formula, with the highest ranking priest of the temple being equal to the deity's divine rank, and then going down from there. Thus, Pelor's temple has higher ranking clerics (3 of them) then the best Elhonna, Heironeus, and Kord can come up with.

The other deities get one cleric world wide (the pope of their order, more or less), at level 20, and that functions as the god's high temple.

St. Cuthbert, Pelor, and Heironeus all have Paladins too. In Heironeus's case, half the clerics are paladins (And they have a Paladin leader equal to the level of the high priest), in Pelor and Cuthbert's temple, one cleric of 4 is actually a Paladin (and the highest level guy is the Paladin leader). Heironeus's temple always has the highest level Paladins around and a much higher percentage of the clergy being paladins instead of clerics. (which isn't always a good thing for him, considering teir 1 cleric vs. teir 5 paladin. But that's what you get for being known as the ArchPaladin)

[Eldest]

Largely because the lack of common knowledge of magic will lead to lots of people not wanting them around. Also, the wizards hiding out in remote towers are the experienced ones who want a peaceful retirement from adventuring, which means they have the least to learn from other wizards, and the most tendency to jealously guard what knowledge they have.

So your explanation relies on no wizards ever having A) not adventured, and B) valuing guarding their knowledge more than creature comforts while retired.

[Amaril]

So your explanation relies on no wizards ever having A) not adventured, and B) valuing guarding their knowledge more than creature comforts while retired.

All wizards who are not currently adventuring are either low-level apprentices or high-level retirees, possibly teaching the former. It's the same assumption made by 1st edition, created to explain why PC wizards became adventurers. As for keeping secrets, well, it makes as much sense as it ever has in stories (very little, but D&D is a fantasy game).

[TuggyNE]

The point being that it's not a low level encounter.

I think his point was that the D&D balor is only cosmetically similar to the LotR balrog, and has quite different and much greater powers. The LotR balrog is not CR 20 by any means.

[Slipperychicken]

A city of mostly level 1 wizards with 10 con, could do some pretty significant damage to stuff, particularly if they can import scrolls... They're much better off than a city of mostly commoners.

Commoners and Wizards have the same HD and 10 is the average Con for humans. So wizards are exactly as squishy.

[Amaril]

Just noticed the thread was moved. Sorry for having put it in a place that may not have been the best.

Anyway, thanks for all the advice everybody. It's been very helpful, and now I feel like I have a much better idea of what I'm doing.

[Bogardan_Mage]

Eh, DC 50 is a bit much, given that LotR was effectively an E6 campaign. There just aren't many human blacksmiths above lv1, and not many dwarven blacksmiths above lv3.
I basically picked an arbitrary number that is high by the usual D&D standards.

But that whole E6/Alexandrian argument rests on the fact that DCs of 40 and even higher aren't as hard to achieve as people assume. So putting it any lower would put it in the range of what a real world expert could achieve (by Justin Alexander's reckoning), which doesn't really match with how it's described (for good reason, it's one thing to say great skill makes magic armour and weaponry, it's another to just arbitrarily call mundane armour and weaponry magic on the grounds that it was made with great skill).

[AMFV]

Commoners and Wizards have the same HD and 10 is the average Con for humans. So wizards are exactly as squishy.

I wasn't referring to squishyness, Wizards have many options for defense that commoners simply don't.


I think his point was that the D&D balor is only cosmetically similar to the LotR balrog, and has quite different and much greater powers. The LotR balrog is not CR 20 by any means.

Now I'm going to put on my nerd glasses, but if you've read the Silmarilion you'll see the Balors are pretty powerful, probably very nearly as powerful as Balors if not significantly more so. They reshape the world, violently, they're the imbued agents of the representation of the Anti-Christ in the setting, Sauron is one of them. So I think we should account for the possibility that they are that powerful. But again LoTR isn't well modeled by D&D, the fundamental assumptions of the world are too different.

[gomipile]

I know, I'm just trying to think about game balance. Some classes will have a harder or easier time for different reasons if you alter the prevalence of certain kinds of NPCs. For example, 3.5e game balance assumes players will be able to pay money at temples to get healing and curative magic above their level, but if I make clerics really rare, that might not be an option.

In my experience, "game balance" and "fully realized settings that feel alive" are inversely proportional. YMMV

[AMFV]

In my experience, "game balance" and "fully realized settings that feel alive" are inversely proportional. YMMV

It depends on how you create those kind of settings, I don't think there is any really relationship between the two. In 3.5 it is difficult though not impossible to blend the two, in other game systems it's easy in fact.

[TuggyNE]

Now I'm going to put on my nerd glasses, but if you've read the Silmarilion you'll see the Balors are pretty powerful, probably very nearly as powerful as Balors if not significantly more so. They reshape the world, violently, they're the imbued agents of the representation of the Anti-Christ in the setting, Sauron is one of them. So I think we should account for the possibility that they are that powerful.

I have read the Silmarillion several times, though the last was some years ago. (Turin Turambar is not very fun to re-read, y'know.)

Technically, while all balrogs are Maiar, and Sauron is also a Maia, not all Maiar are balrogs, or on the same level power-wise. For example, all five of the Istari were Maiar, as was Melian, Arien* in charge of the Sun, and Telion* in charge of the Moon. But Telion is explicitly stated to be considerably weaker than Arien, who repeatedly fought off multiple attackers (also Maiar, if memory serves) from Morgoth's servants. Melian, on the other hand, single-handedly wove a selective magical barrier around the territory she and Thingol ruled, which stood against all outsiders for millennia.

So yes, Sauron may well be a CR 12-16, but that doesn't mean the balrogs were CR 20 by a long shot.


* I had to look up their names.


But again LoTR isn't well modeled by D&D, the fundamental assumptions of the world are too different.

That I will heartily second.

[gomipile]

It depends on how you create those kind of settings, I don't think there is any really relationship between the two. In 3.5 it is difficult though not impossible to blend the two, in other game systems it's easy in fact.

I guess my point is that the people I've seen who have sought game balance as a primary goal sacrificed what realism could have been had in the attempt.

[AMFV]

I guess my point is that the people I've seen who have sought game balance as a primary goal sacrificed what realism could have been had in the attempt.

I would say that a "fully realized setting that feels alive" isn't necessarily reflective of any particular sense of realism, only of a richness and depth of setting. For example Star Trek isn't really realistic, but very rich, the same could be said of many settings.

[ryu]

For another example look at psychonauts. Realistic? Ah hell nah! Feeling alive and well realized though? At any given moment there are no less than ten side stories that go on at any given time whether you discover them or not. Don't even get me started on the absurd number of dialogue options based on powers, held items, different points in the game, and even basic method of initiating conversation.

[Ravens_cry]

I guess my point is that the people I've seen who have sought game balance as a primary goal sacrificed what realism could have been had in the attempt.
I think the problem is balance is an external goal. In-world, it holds little meaning.

[gomipile]

I would say that a "fully realized setting that feels alive" isn't necessarily reflective of any particular sense of realism, only of a richness and depth of setting. For example Star Trek isn't really realistic, but very rich, the same could be said of many settings.

Maybe "self consistency" or "internal consistency" would be better terms than "realism" for what I am trying to describe. I feel ashamed that I am repeatedly failing to get my point across here.

[AMFV]

Maybe "self consistency" or "internal consistency" would be better terms than "realism" for what I am trying to describe. I feel ashamed that I am repeatedly failing to get my point across here.

There's not really a strong relationship between internal consistency and balance as well. They're mostly different metrics. In 3.5 they are difficult to match up, but in other systems they match up well. Mostly because 3.5 isn't well balanced to begin with, so any attempts to balance it shifts the fundamental assumptions of the setting.

[SowZ]

Most weapon enhancements can be described as awesome craftsmanship. Do that, too.

[gomipile]

There's not really a strong relationship between internal consistency and balance as well. They're mostly different metrics. In 3.5 they are difficult to match up, but in other systems they match up well. Mostly because 3.5 isn't well balanced to begin with, so any attempts to balance it shifts the fundamental assumptions of the setting.

Going back to the post I quoted to get into this thread:

Basically, if powerful character options exist, it would be in a society's best interests to foster NPCs to gain those options. Therefore, wizards would be as common as is practical, because wizards are useful.

Alternatively, going to experiences I've had with balance-obsessed GMs, changing the way an ability works for balance's sake after it has already been used breaks verisimilitude. I have seen instances of balance adjustments where canonical events in the past of the campaign are physically impossible because of nerfs applied by the GM.

[AMFV]

Going back to the post I quoted to get into this thread:

Basically, if powerful character options exist, it would be in a society's best interests to foster NPCs to gain those options. Therefore, wizards would be as common as is practical, because wizards are useful.

The problem with this is that in D&D the society fostering powerful individuals produces a break in verisimilitude. It is impossible for a pseudo-medieval society to exist under those conditions.



Alternatively, going to experiences I've had with balance-obsessed GMs, changing the way an ability works for balance's sake after it has already been used breaks verisimilitude. I have seen instances of balance adjustments where canonical events in the past of the campaign are physically impossible because of nerfs applied by the GM.

That's not really a setting shift though, and such things could be explained, magic is a fickle mistress, and the Gods twice so.

[Eldest]

In my experience, "game balance" and "fully realized settings that feel alive" are inversely proportional. YMMV

I'd argue that a system can be internally consistent and balanced. It's just difficult.

[vitkiraven]

And I've been considering a WoD game, since I love WoD's morality system but I absolutely loathe their crapsack setting.

I've been working on something like this myself, but only with lesser templates only for PC's, in a medieval setting, but I'm kind of jettisoning the strict Morality definitions for a slightly looser. How much thought have you given to lesser vs greater templates, and mixing templates?