PDA

View Full Version : No Magic Party in a Low Magic



cupkeyk
2007-06-20, 05:01 PM
Hi Guys,

Our current campaign is wrapping up. The DM sort of got pissed that everyone is a caster. We have one Druid for primary tank, One Cleric for secondary tank/healer, a Wizard for Batman and a Bard for skill monkey/face.

So the DM, said that in the new campaign, none of the caster classes are available and that the world will be tweaked so that casters are rare and far between and magical items are as rare as artifacts. Healing will be in the form of items like wands, potions and salves.

So with four members to a party, what would fill up the roles the best.

I think:

Tank: THW Fighter
Battlefield Control: Knight
Skill Monkey: Scout
Batman: Non-spellcasting Ranger(CW variant)

Of course I think this is shoddy and will TPK shortly.

We do have TOB: BONS and would welcome suggestions from there.

Dark_Wind
2007-06-20, 05:12 PM
Take a Crusader, since it can heal. Knights are great on defense, which is good because you won't have real magic to protect you. I'd suggest UMD Rogue, but magic items are rare, so... Really, if it were me I'd try and talk everyone into playing something from Tome of Battle, just out of spite, since it's as close to magic as you'll get and doing that would completely nullify the point your GM is trying to make. That's just how I feel about that sort of game, though.

Gerrtt
2007-06-20, 05:17 PM
Get a DM that isn't scared of magic.

Seriously! I'll be honest, the promise of a low-magic game doesn't scare me off, neither does playing in a game with no magic casting party members. It's obvious from your post, however, that your DM doesn't know how to provide an adequate challenge for you and probably got tired of being taken to town in every encounter.

There is a time and place for low magic, there really is. But imposing a world like that on your players just so that you can stand a better chance at winning a combat or two isn't playing nice.

That said. You dont have any characters on that list that can use a wand so you are limited to more costly potions and salves, and lots of them I would guess. If you can convince your scout to switch to rogue then he can max out his UMD and be able to use wands and scrolls for you. It's the next best thing.

Here's the real deal though, if you think that the DM's campaign idea is lame, feel free to a) let him know b) dont play in his game until he plays a way you actually want to play in or c) offer to DM yourself to maybe show him a thing or two about dealing with magic. My guess is he wasn't using it against you in the first place and was intimidated by the wealth of possibilities there are.

Draz74
2007-06-20, 05:26 PM
You could allow Tome of Magic caster classes. The Truenamer and Shadowcaster are versatile but actually very weak. The Binder is stronger ... about as strong as the Bard in your last campaign, perhaps.

But if that's out of the question ...

You should try to get a source of healing besides just items. Crusader is one good idea. Dragon Shaman is the other one that comes to mind.

Besides these two, choose from:

Warblade, Swordsage, Knight, Rogue, Scout, Warlock, Dragonfire Adept. (The last two are pseudo-casters and might not fit well with the setting.)

(Variant) Ranger, (variant) Paladin and Barbarian will be a little weak in mid/high levels, but are not too terrible. If you have a Ranger, I suggest heading for Horizon Walker, if Planar abilities will even be allowed.

cupkeyk
2007-06-20, 06:19 PM
Not that he got pissed about being pwned but he got pissed at the micromanagement: the memorized spells, the daily buffs and twice per day(or more bffs), keeping tabs on so many things and such. We recognized how the all caster party was slowing things down,especially when the druid summons creatures.

I haven't looked into crusader but I will make sure to do so. No one's class is set on stone so everyone will be amenable to changing, and a lot of them are eager to try the TOB classes.

Callix
2007-06-20, 06:28 PM
I'm going into a similar campaign, and I'm playing a crusader. The healing stances/strikes are an absoulte must, particularly if no-one has UMD as a class skill. TWF or Combat Reflexes can give you a lot of extra attacks to boost up the 2 points/hit of healing (martial spirit), or you can grab Goad and Stone Power to keep the fight on you and mitigate the damage with delayed damage, Furious Counterstrike and temporary HP from Stone Power. This works pretty well with a greatsword. Load up on standard action strikes and burn the move actions on goad.

Thoughtbot360
2007-06-21, 04:21 AM
Not that he got pissed about being pwned but he got pissed at the micromanagement: the memorized spells, the daily buffs and twice per day(or more bffs), keeping tabs on so many things and such. We recognized how the all caster party was slowing things down,especially when the druid summons creatures.

I haven't looked into crusader but I will make sure to do so. No one's class is set on stone so everyone will be amenable to changing, and a lot of them are eager to try the TOB classes.

Ah. Thats the problem. I have a similar complaint against the Vancian magic system of the core D&D rules as well. Its a major factor in what drove me to design rules for whats basically a one hit-die world. I mean, of all the things that get out of control and overly complicated in a high-level 3.x game, there is nothing among them that cannot be solved by simply imposing a permanent planet-sized anti-magic field on the game world. Looking up stats for summon monster and polymorph spells, forgetting to add buffs, newcomers asking what the price on some obscure magic item (especially wizards buying scrolls so that they can scribe it later) and grumbling as you look up Otiluke's freezing sphere and Horrid Wilting and other obscure attack spells because the spellcasters are out of the popular ones -huff puff- are all a thing of the past in a no magic world (or at least a no magic party).

Now, there are alternatives to simplifying your world while keeping magic:

1) Say that spellcasting (fire-and-forget/loss mana type spells) doesn't exist, but that Ritualism (basically say that spells are a long-drawn out ceremony usually involving a group of people to perform, sometimes religious) and Alchemy (All magic is in the form of potions or powders or some such) are the only types of magic availible and all magic users are NPCs. If the cleric who resurrects your buddy is just a weedy guy in a robe and a miter, then that explains why he isn't out fighting entire clans of goblins in the name of the Lord (like you might expect a 9th level character with good hit dice and 5th-level spells to do, but illogically he never does because he's not a PC. Cue Matthew to start arguing with me about xp and NPCs.) because like he is, he is no warrior. Or if he is, he will fight like one (as in a lot less Harm spells and a lot more use of the Power attack feat). Also, all magic items still exist, but the Alchemist (or whatever you want to call him) isn't going to be dropping any Meteor Swarms on anyone's house anytime soon. Hence, warrior-types and skill monkeys still become the only adventurers in existence as the magic users need equal parts time, space, and long-term protection to work (heck, even if alchemy is overwhelmingly powerful, a Rogue might find work spying on, stealing ingredients from, sabotaging (subtly spiking a mixture with excess amounts of random animal parts, insects, salt, and alcohol will ruin any potion, just get ready to make a reflex save), extracting (AKA kidnapping), and assassinating various alchemists for various employers (including rival alchemists).

2. Convert to another system of spell casting that is compatible with D20 rules yet simpler to manage. My personal favorite is the elements of magic system (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=2699&). What makes elements of magic so good is that it allows for great flexibility by breaking up all effects into groups called "spell lists" and if you know a spell list (like Evoke Fire, Heal Good, Create Time, or Summon Animal), you can cast any effect in the spell list, limited to your caster level of course. This might sound intimidating until you hear that in the revised edition (the one I put a link to), it takes two rounds to cast a spell "on the fly" and mages that need to act right now have a collection custom spells tailored by the player. You get your caster level + int mod. "Signature Spells" that you can cast as a standard action (instead of two rounds.)

For example: Rummy the mage has the Transform Giant spell list and a signature spell that transforms himself into an Ogre. Now, if he wants to transform into an Ettin, he will have to take two full rounds casting the spell. Next level, he could make a new signature spell that allows him to transform into an Ettin as a standard action (or perhaps a free action if he has a high enough maximum MP and the Quickened spell feat), if he doesn't want a different type of spell. Besides the Ogre-transforming spell, Rummy has 11 other signature spells that he relies on for most combats, and not one of these spells improve with Rummy's caster level (he can rework his signature spells with sufficient downtime, but stronger spells cost more mp to cast.) This means that if the DM knows the basics of how Rummy's spell lists work and reviews Rummy's sig spells on his character sheet, he has much less bookkeeping when it comes to Rummy's magic, despite Rummy's flexibility.

3. House rule that no magical bonuses stack. At all. You can Bull's strength (to boost your Str) and Bear's endurance (to boost your Con) cast on you at one time, but not mage armor and magic vestment (you cheesy Magic domain clerics and your wands).

Rad
2007-06-21, 05:29 AM
Hummm... this seems an out of game problem that should be addressed out of game. If you are pissed at your DM call you should discuss it and sort it out, not try to work around it.

Try tell you DM this:
Unfortunately d20 is magic dependent. take the AB/AC aspect for instance.
A rough estimation of non-magical AB is 20 (BAB) +Str while AC in heavy armor is 20+Dex (allowing for fancy materials that allow more Dex to AC with full plate+Heavy shield). 1d20+Str+20 is never going to miss that. Feats do not improve that.
If you pull items in, you'll realize that Str and Dex boosts even out (sort of), but you can boost attack only with magic weapons (max +5) but you can get a lot of bonuses to AC (deflection, armor enhancement, shield enhancement, natural) which evens out the imbalance.
Unfortunately magic and magic items are a fundamental element in the game that cannot simply be taken away. Naturally (and regretfully) this also applies to Wealth By Level.

This is just a rough argument, but the fact that there are more stackable AC bonuses than AB bonuses does factor in the game. BABs are just too high otherwise. If you're not convinced, take a look at old editions where magic items were usually just an extra and not inherently part of the characters. OD&D fighter had the equivalent of +1BAB/3 levels since AC did not vary that much as levels went up. (not that the rules were balanced, but still the fighters did hit stuff on a rate that was considered "right" or at least acceptable).

Hope this helps

Callix
2007-06-21, 05:42 AM
Another example: Damage Reduction.
Without loading eveyone up with Shards of Granite (an awesome feat, but not really for everyone), you are going to be screwed over by damage reduction. Spells provided a way around this, either through direct damage or save-or-dies, or even good battlefield control letting you take one weakened DR guy at a time. Unles you want everyone to be toting about five different weapons, and no-one to take focus feats so they aren't stuck without them just because this guy has DR/Slashing, this can be a major difficulty. Also, the low-magic aspect makes it hard to get magic weapons and aligned weapons to do this. The luxury of choosing a good-aligned, silver weapon may not be available.

Kurald Galain
2007-06-21, 06:05 AM
you can boost attack only with magic weapons (max +5)
And flanking, and enlarge spells, and divine power, and luck bonus, etc.

At low levels, this does not appear problematic. At high levels, I'm not sure if it's that much of an issue that a good fighter hits nearly all the time (I mean, isn't that what power attack is for, converting a sure hit into extra damage). Plus it is easily fixed by houseruling certain monsters to get AC bonuses, or by introducing a new kind of exotic metal that is tougher.

goat
2007-06-21, 06:37 AM
I imagine he's not planning on taking it to a high level if it's a low magic world. If he does, he might find himself slightly lacking in creatures to throw at you that don't have a wide variety of magical powers.

Is he removing undead? All sorts of magical constructs? If so, it makes sneak attack/skirmish etc much more appealing.

Rad
2007-06-21, 07:25 AM
And flanking, and enlarge spells, and divine power, and luck bonus, etc.
True, but I was just looking at what a fighter type can do alone, so no divine power and such. luck bonus and more weird categories also call for weird AC bonuses, I restricted to "common items" and warned everybody that that was going to be a rough argument.


At low levels, this does not appear problematic. At high levels, I'm not sure if it's that much of an issue that a good fighter hits nearly all the time (I mean, isn't that what power attack is for, converting a sure hit into extra damage). Plus it is easily fixed by houseruling certain monsters to get AC bonuses, or by introducing a new kind of exotic metal that is tougher.
You could do that in a lot of ways, but you need to see the need to houserule it before.

Yes, you can house rule the system and remove the magic; I was just pointing out that just removing magic creates the need for compensating house rules.

Morty
2007-06-21, 07:32 AM
There's already houserule for replacing magic armor here. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm)
Low-magic campaign requires a lot of work to do properly, yes, but lack of magic items is worth it.

Fixer
2007-06-21, 07:44 AM
My mother, a couple years back, tried to run a non-magic setting as her first DMing attempt. It proved to be terribly difficult for her (I tried to warn her against it, really, I was playing a psion and my powers didn't work either). She has been considering restarting the campaign but plugging magic back into it. We will see how that goes.

As a GM, if I have players whose characters regularly cast certain spells I have them prep notecards with the spell effects on them. When they cast the spell, I have them pull the notecard out (with all details, including stats on summoned monsters if needed) and we put it into play and drop a dice onto it with its duration. (Sort of like Magic, the Gathering, actually.) When I ask for someone's AC, they do the calculations not me. If it sounds too high I ask them to tell me where it all comes from and get them to point them out. Miscalculations that benefit the PC result in either an auto-hit or just a temporary drop in AC for the round. When they make attacks or saves I just get them to tell me the result and use the same rules.

Your GM needs to stop trying to micromanage the situation and keep track of everything themselves. Players should be involved too.

cupkeyk
2007-06-21, 03:53 PM
But every thing is worked down to detail.

We have ac tables for buffs, fatigue, entangled, flatfooted and whatever effects in whatever permutation

we have bab tables for power attack, flanking, charging, higher ground, buffed and what have you in whatever permutation.

we have index cards for npc's, summoned creatures, spells, pack animals, common terrain adjustments.

Our gaming is a well oiled engine. we have all agreed that removing magic from the game removes the shiny body off the porche. It's skeletal but it should run just as smooth.


@ Dark wind, hey, would you know what feats and maneuvers a healing Crusader should take?

We are now curious about a Crusade Party: a knight, a paladin(non spellcasting CW variant), a crusader and one more man, but then a bard or a cleric ae full casters, unless there is a nonspellcasting variant out there that I have not seen.

Gavin Sage
2007-06-21, 08:33 PM
Call out the Kensai, Ancestral Relic, and Monk! What.... everybody stop giving me those looks.

Though a campaign with no casters sounds really interesting. I'm curious as to if by magic items being as rare artifacts is being taken literally. Or is this say like a novel, where your party has magic items but its around one per person, and the items have a story to them? As if the latter and the items are weapons and fairly powerful then damage reduction at the most common levels won't be as much of a problem as long as you can beat /magic. And for the others you'd be getting alternate weapons as it is anyways. Biggest concern is healing, since without buffs damage will be plentiful and Con will be a must.

(Oh and ToB anything is putting magic back into the campaign. Even if not called that, it is. The classes in it aren't fighting classes, they are spellsword classes with different fluff. Heck one of the schools shoots fire. Just saying its subverting what seems to be the purpose)

DSCrankshaw
2007-06-21, 10:29 PM
Well, strictly speaking, a d20 game can be played with no magic. d20 Modern is designed to be balanced that way, and designed so you can add magic or psionics or whatever FX you want to include, while still remaining balanced. However, even with all the trimmings in Urban Arcana, it's still a low magic campaign. (So is Shadow Chasers, except for the PCs. They get really low magic.)

Still, that's not D&D. If you want to run a low magic D&D campain, the Complete Warrior has some advice, if I recall.

Tor the Fallen
2007-06-21, 11:02 PM
If you want to do away with the clunkiness of the vancian system, but keep in the power of casting, TOB or psionics would be good.

cupkeyk
2007-06-22, 09:45 PM
I would appreciate more suggestions on party building than criticizing the group's decision to scrap full caster classes.

So far the party is a knight, a crusader, a (Complete Warrior) non-spellcasting variant Paladin with the (Dungeonscape) Divine Spirit subtitution class feature. The skill monkey may go monk so that everyone except the knight can heal themselves. Of course this leaves us incapable of opening locks, bypassing traps but at least we can call ourselves THE PILGRIMAGE, due to the religious sway of our classes.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-06-22, 10:03 PM
If I can make a suggestion, I like the Complete Champions Martial Ranger ( Natures Champion) Better then the Complete Warrior's. It basically gives them extra feats instead of spells, which is really nice.

The Phb II has a scout varient for Dungeons as well, if you need that.

cupkeyk
2007-06-23, 12:10 AM
Hmn, We don't have complete Champion yet,

isn't Dungeon scout the one with a climb speed?

Breaon
2007-06-23, 12:39 AM
Not that he got pissed about being pwned but he got pissed at the micromanagement: the memorized spells, the daily buffs and twice per day(or more bffs), keeping tabs on so many things and such. We recognized how the all caster party was slowing things down,especially when the druid summons creatures.

I haven't looked into crusader but I will make sure to do so. No one's class is set on stone so everyone will be amenable to changing, and a lot of them are eager to try the TOB classes.

He needs to learn a few things like Dispel Magic and stuff to really mess up casters. Like, opposing NPCs with high SR, Psions, and the other weird stuff that you really might want non-casters for.

Crusdaders are quite fun. I'm playing a multi-class Marshall/Crusader in my D&D game and love it.

cupkeyk
2007-06-23, 12:48 AM
Dispel is so staple in our games that we ready actions to counterspell dispells.

T_T

We ready force and creation effects for AMF.

Magic has become tedious.

TheOOB
2007-06-23, 12:52 AM
D&D is high fantasy, high fantasy means magic. If you don't want magic, its not high fantasy, if it's not high fantasy, don't use D&D.

cupkeyk
2007-06-23, 01:09 AM
What?

Don't use terms incorrectly. High fantasy refers to a genre of literature where fantastic events occur in a imaginary world other than earth, regardless of the presence of magic. Low fantasy is the genre where fantastic events happen on an Earth setting, like Arthurian legends, fantastic realism like Esquivel is to Mexico and Murakami is to Japan.

So no, high fantasy does not equate to high magic.

:P

TheOOB
2007-06-23, 01:17 AM
What?

Don't use terms incorrectly. High fantasy refers to a genre of literature where fantastic events occur in a imaginary world other than earth, regardless of the presence of magic. Low fantasy is the genre where fantastic events happen on an Earth setting, like Arthurian legends, fantastic realism like Esquivel is to Mexico and Murakami is to Japan.

So no, high fantasy does not equate to high magic.

:P

Eep, you're right. Alright, add the word magical before every mention of high fantasy in my above post. Magic is essential to D&D, thats why only three classes in the PHB have no magical abilities (and even rogues have UMD).

Tough_Tonka
2007-06-23, 01:19 AM
I don't see the need for these "How dare the GM take magic away from the PCs stance"

He doesn't seem to be angry about his situation and their plenty of ways to have a low/no magic campaign work. Keep in mind he should check and tweak some abilities like DR (making it more type or substance dependant) but this campaign could be primaraly PC vs NPC.

Personally I can see the DMs point on this issue since spells often slow encounters to a snails pace or be misused to easily create game breaking situations. Personally I really dislike the effect spell per day system has for balancing encounters. As we've learned from V, unless GMs put about 2+ encounters in the same day the Spell-Caster can just use up his all his spells in a single fight without worrying about being out of amo. And come on whose gonna put two random encounters in the same day. Thats why I prefer classes like the Warlock and the Magic Ircanum.

Off that tangent now....

I hope this campaign works out pretty good, and I might suggest some of those skill applications in Tome of Battle if you already haven't looked at those. That and you might ask if you can allow the craft alchemy skill for non-caster in this campaign.

Deel
2007-06-23, 01:30 AM
I honestly like my games with little magic much more than ones with a lot. ToB is an awesome idea too, heck, I'd recommend it for everyone in a party, except maybe a party face/skillmonkey, you can cover that with a rogue, but it can cover every other non-magical roll, like crusader for tank, warblade for pure damage, and swordsage for scouting(and still very competant in combat.) It lets you have all the fun of special abilities and not just hitting things with sticks, but it isn't quite as standard and overpowered as magic can be.

TheOOB
2007-06-23, 02:01 AM
The problum is that without magic the D&D rules is fairly static and boring, the combat system for D&D is based around the concept of spells, magic items, and special abilities. Feats can give you some variety, but its still boring.

Also, ToB, incarnum, psionics, doesn't matter what you call it, it's magic, just under a different name. It's not important you have spells per say, but some sort of special ability system.

Deel
2007-06-23, 04:02 AM
The difference is in power level. In that most alternate systems, like ToB and Tome of Magic, are a lot less flexible, and have a lot less ability to be able to always have a way of dealing with something with relative ease, which is what comes with normal magic. Even core, only, heck, especially core only, there are so many ways to just deal with anything in core magic it's ridiculous, and I can't blame a DM for wanting to get away from that and use a system where the players won't be able to have a direct answer for everything.

cupkeyk
2007-06-23, 08:07 AM
It is generally agreed that whatever the PC's can pull out of the Spell Compendium or whatever splatbook, the DM can use too.

As an unspoken agreement, neither the DM nor the party uses Divination, particularly scrying, legend lore, divination, locate object, locate person, arcane eye, simply because it screws up game play.

But we are not removing magic because it saves the day everyday, but because of the micromanagement issues it entails. So far maneuvers resolve immediately, stances don't stack because almost everyone can have only one, leaving dodge bonuses as the only volatile number in the game. Enhancement bonuses of what few magical items we will get will be static until we replace them. It's DnD streamlined, basically.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-06-23, 05:19 PM
The problum is that without magic the D&D rules is fairly static and boring, the combat system for D&D is based around the concept of spells, magic items, and special abilities. Feats can give you some variety, but its still boring.

Also, ToB, incarnum, psionics, doesn't matter what you call it, it's magic, just under a different name. It's not important you have spells per say, but some sort of special ability system.

I disagree entirely. Heroic Fantasy Games that are inspired by older fantasy pulp stories can be quite fun - and things that are old hat in regular games, like many monsters, are dangerous and exciting when the characters have no magic to blast away or heal themselves.

The game can be used for a lot of things, not just your standard high fantasy campaign.

nerulean
2007-06-24, 04:50 PM
The problum is that without magic the D&D rules is fairly static and boring, the combat system for D&D is based around the concept of spells, magic items, and special abilities. Feats can give you some variety, but its still boring.

Also, ToB, incarnum, psionics, doesn't matter what you call it, it's magic, just under a different name. It's not important you have spells per say, but some sort of special ability system.

My opinion would be that a low- or no-magic setting is only boring if the players and DM make it boring. I suppose it depends on how you prefer to play, but personally I could have an excellent time with even a party of statistically identical fighters if the whole group was keen on roleplaying. There are balance issues, but they can be easily resolved, and mechanics aren't everything anyway. If you know the D&D rules and are trying to get away from having to catalogue a hundred different things, then it's a perfectly valid campaign choice and you sound like a group that will enjoy it.

I'm afraid I don't have many suggestions to offer for your party. Personally I would nix the knight, but that is based entirely on my own ungrounded and irrational bias and I could see its usefulness. The CW variant Ranger is also not a personal favourite of mine, but again could work.

One thing I'm considering for my own low-magic campaign is introducing some of the classes (tweaked and tested, naturally) from the Star Wars d20. I don't know how much you want to look at balancing and adapting and stuff, but there are some interesting options in there that might fit the game's flavour.

Premier
2007-06-24, 05:23 PM
A low-magic campaign, when working out well, is a refreshing break from the usual stripe of D&D gaming. However, as some have pointed out above, it takes quite a bit of work to modify any edition of D&D into a working low-magic setting - especially 3.5E, which is inherently less suitable for heavy-duty houseruling than other editions.

Therefore, the original poster might want to look into other systems, which are low-magic from the get-go - such as Sword & Sorcery titles. Barbarians of Lemuria is one such (free) system, or (though I'm not familiar with it personally) the old Conan adventures put out by TSR.

Jayabalard
2007-06-24, 07:20 PM
The problum is that without magic the D&D rules is fairly static and boring, the combat system for D&D is based around the concept of spells, magic items, and special abilities. Feats can give you some variety, but its still boring.It may be boring to you, but you probably shouldn't assume that it's boring to everyone. Personally, I find low magic campaigns quite entertaining, much more so than high magic campaigns (which I generally find boring).

Draz74
2007-06-25, 12:20 PM
Also, ToB, incarnum, psionics, doesn't matter what you call it, it's magic, just under a different name. It's not important you have spells per say, but some sort of special ability system.

What, so Iron Kingdoms is now a "high magic" setting? :smalltongue:

Just because special abilities are involved doesn't mean magic is involved. Heck, with that logic, you'd say Trip and Disarm attacks are magical if you weren't used to them.

Not that I'm arguing with your point as far as psionics, incarnum, or other self-admittedly Supernatural effects go. But Tome of Battle is 70% good old non-magical abilities similar to Iron Kingdoms abilities.

That 70% is pretty easy to turn into 100%. Just ban 90% of Shadow Hand and Desert Wind, and half of Devoted Spirit. Plus one or two other maneuvers from the other disciplines, like Iron Heart Surge.

Note that a Warblade is still able to function at 95% of his usual capacity with all the supernatural-ish maneuvers banned. And he won't even miss that other 5% if it's a no-magic campaign and he doesn't have to fight anybody that's using magic against him. And a Swordsage can still do fine too, even with two of his exclusive disciplines gone; he's still got four disciplines to work from, including a very nice exclusive discipline (Setting Sun, which is great for Monk flavor). And even the Crusader can still be a very good Marshall-type leader, though there's little reason to play a Crusader instead of a Warblade in a no-supernatural campaign.

... Tome of Battle classes are NOT just spellcasters disguised as melee characters. At least, 70% of them aren't.

Matthew
2007-06-26, 09:38 PM
It may be boring to you, but you probably shouldn't assume that it's boring to everyone. Personally, I find low magic campaigns quite entertaining, much more so than high magic campaigns (which I generally find boring).
I would tend to agree.

Roog
2007-06-26, 11:33 PM
What, so Iron Kingdoms is now a "high magic" setting? :smalltongue:

Do you mean Iron Heros?