Monsters and Messiahs

[Selv]

Two disclaimers: 1) "There is nothing new under the sun". Maybe my search-fu is weak, but I couldn't find this idea on the boards. Still, I fully expect someone has thought of this before. 2) Take what context you need for my level of expertise from the first real sentence.

So I opened the DMG out of curiosity...A "large city" should have three wizards of 10th level or higher?

This jars with my sense of what casters should be, which is... well, magical. A large city should not have three people in it who can teleport, or turn you into a frog. Minneopolis should not have three Merlins.

What I am saying is that I want a low-magic campaign setting. I've had a look at Iron Heroes, and I'm prepared to consider it for the title of "Best thing ever", but heck! I do like wizards. I just don't want to go down the road to.. .well, Eberron.

So how about this? The PCs may select from any of the base classes. If they are a full caster, they are the first such people in the history of the world.

(Well, the first magic-users the PCs are aware of. I imagine a campaign in such a world might involve lots of investigating "The Wizard of Witham Wood" who turns out to be an old Expert with lots of Knowledges and slightly effeminate dress sense. Maybe Rangers and Paladins who get past about level 3 are heroes or legend. Maybe somewhere else a similar group of gifted youths are being born, and... OK, I'll move on.)

How would such a world play?

First thoughts: Wands, scrolls and magic items are either a) artefacts or b) made by the party- the Creation feats are suddenly indispensible, unless we elevate an NPC to play Q to the party.

Secondly, the PCs are going to be famous, even at first level. If no-one has ever seen a Cure Minor Wounds before, then a Cleric 1 with a WIS of 10 is a miracle-worker. No matter how grevious the wound, if the patient is alive when help arives then they will make a full recovery.

Some dude walks into town wearing a suit made out of belts, and before anyone knows what's up he's throwing around Dancing Lights and Magic Missiles (missiles which will leave Joe Commoner dying in the dust more often than not). Me, I'd run for it. As in, get the kids and leave town, not even looking back.

Your comments are solicited.

[Iku Rex]

No existing magic would make the core caster classes significantly more powerful. Part of the game's balance is that opponents and authorities understand what's going on when someone uses magic.

[lord_khaine]

D&D really isnt designet as a low magic world, so if you want to run a ultralow magic and lv campaign, i would recomend you try and find another setting.

[Morty]

I'd make rangers use one of the non-casting variants, to reduce the level of "legendary" classes. Paladins are fine that way. Also, in such setting, there should be either no spellcasters in the players' group, or all players should be spellcasters, so that non-casters wouldn't feel overshadowed.
Anyway, it's cool idea. It's ceratinly more interesting that standard, common magic from D&D.


No existing magic would make the core caster classes significantly more powerful. Part of the game's balance is that opponents and authorities understand what's going on when someone uses magic.

I belive that's OP's point.

[Selv]

I'd make rangers use one of the non-casting variants, to reduce the level of "legendary" classes. Paladins are fine that way. Also, in such setting, there should be either no spellcasters in the players' group, or all players should be spellcasters, so that non-casters wouldn't feel overshadowed.


Good idea on the Ranger issue.

Yes, group composition does seem important.
PLAYER ONE: Hi, I'm Mialee, I represent a major ontological break in the laws of nature, resulting in god-like powers.
PLAYER TWO: Hi, I'm Redgar. I used to be a caravan guard.

Though an all-caster party will have some problems at low level- it seems to me that the Rogue position in the team will be vacant until Knock and Trapfinding become available. Still, I guess it sidesteps the balance issue (That no-one in the world knows about Shield or Spell Resistance isn't a problem if all the PCs are on the same side of the arcane/mundane divide.

[draca]

Shouldn't this be more of a home-brew?

[Corolinth]

Actually, the power of a wizard is significantly reduced in that sort of setting. A large amount of a wizard's power comes from scrolls that he finds in his adventures and then scribes in to his spellbook. Sure you get bonus item creation feats, but what spells are you going to use to make those items? Even the spells you get by leveling up assume, in the core rules, that there's some means of studying to learn those spells.

Divine spellcasters, by contrast, have their power ramped up considerably. Here's the wizard who's struggling to learn new spells, meanwhile divine casters get all of their magic by default. On top of that, nobody has any magical items to counteract the cleric.

In such a low magic setting, the wizard should be completely removed, and the sorcerer instead fills that role. Without scrolls to add to his spellbook, he knows roughly as many spells (a few less, actually), and has fewer spells per day. If you want knowledge skills, you're forced to play a bard. Magic items are suddenly much rarer, which turns class balance on its head (you're assumed to have some amount of magical treasure at the upper levels, we just don't know exactly what). Even low CR monsters become much scarier and deadlier. A 4HD vampire spawn will mop the floor with a level 10 party because they can't break its DR.

[Dan_Hemmens]

If you're going to do a "you're the first spellcasters" party, make *everybody* a spellcaster.

There's two important reasons why.

Firstly, there's the power balance issue. Casters own non-casters *anyway*, if the non-casters don't have any items it gets way worse.

The other reason, though, is the plot issue. Heck, your thread title here is "Monsters and Messiahs": if your entire plot is that a small number of people have suddenly developed magical powers, then *every* PC should be a part of that plot.

Heck, you could run it Gestalt and give everybody their base class *plus* full Sorcerer spellcasting.

[nerulean]

Though an all-caster party will have some problems at low level- it seems to me that the Rogue position in the team will be vacant until Knock and Trapfinding become available.

Not if you have a beguiler. Good old PHBII.

[Jayabalard]

There's lots of things you can do, depending on exactly how powerful you want magic to be. Just a few thoughts that I remember being tossed around either in threads here or elsewhere:

Disallow some or all pure casting classes; If there are no schools for wizardry, and wizardry isn't known, then there are probably no PC wizards at character creation (though they might find someone they could train with at a later time).
Use non casting class variants whenever possible
Don't allow casting classes at character creation, and don't allow players to multi-class to them until after level X
Allow casting classes, but slow them down by making their spells know and spells per day as if they were 1/2 (or 1/3, or 2/3, or 3/4 or whatever) of their class level. That means that the highest levels of spells do not exist, and people who can teleport, or raise the dead are pretty close to epic for that world.
Introduce special dangers for casters perhaps the the church /crown /powerful evil wizard /establishment hates magic users and has them hunted down.
make item creation not easy for players, or they'll can introduce way more magic items than a "low magic" world can believably have in next to no time.
stay away from magical monsters as enemies; anything out of the ordinary should be just that... not ordinary.


yes some of these are contradictory... they're just some of the things that I can recall for using D&D as a low magic campaign.

[Diggorian]

1) "There is nothing new under the sun"

Very true. Ideas like yours led me to craft my own low magic setting (see my sig).

It wasnt the DMG demographics that got me. I view the DMG as a big book of guidelines, like the Pirate's Code for DMs :smallwink: It was other settings I played in and have read posters talk about where magic is so cheap, despite costing thousands of GP -- which PC will naturally accumulate over time.

I'm a veteran of 2nd edition where you'd sell out your own mother for a +1 sword, and often might have to. Maybe that just our campaigns.

Many off my houserules mimic what Jayabalard lists. For my setting, arcane magic specifically is socially shunned for historical reasons. Arcane items and spells cost 50% more and require black market contact, lest the Cleansing find you. Divine items, although much more common, are guarded like true WMDs (Weapons of Magical Destruction). Detect Evil and Good is cast to determine your righteousness before they'll even consider selling ya a Cure potion.

Players, even of arcane class, need to make Knowledge checks to have even heard of many DMG items.

[Corolinth]

Each class becomes both weaker and stronger, as their ability to respond to various situations changes. I'll explain this in a minute. Secondly, the caster classes do not flat out "own non-casters anyway." This may be true on paper, if we drop both classes into the arena and tell them to duke it out, however the most effective way to use any spellcaster involves your fighter companions.

A cleric could cast divine power and become "more fighter than fighter", except that he's not. He has no bag of tricks in the form of bonus feats. He has a bag of tricks in the form of his spells. If he's casting spells, he's not fighting, and therefore divine power is not doing him any good. So why did he cast it? Even if it's persistent, he still blew the fourth level spell slot and the seven turn undead attempts in order to not use divine power. Not efficient use of party resources. You have a fighter, you don't need divine power, so instead you prepare spell immunity. You could, in theory, prepare a multitude of spells to prevent your opponent's from getting at you while you take the down with magic, or you can let the fighter keep your enemies at bay and use those spells for something else.

We're not worried yet about level 20 class balance in a low magic setting. Characters aren't getting that far. There's no way you're taking on the higher CR monsters without magic and magical items. It's just not happening. We're only really worried about class balance up until, say, level 8. Spellcasters have a huge advantage on a low magic world, but they also have a major disadvantage. A fighter can have a decent armor class in that level range. Most spellcasters can't. You don't have any magical items to do it with. Your clerics will be alright in a fight, but they still suffer from having their stats distributed differently (16 wisdom and only a 11 or 12 strength, because their other good rolls went into charisma and constitution). A level 8 sorcerer has 11 spells + cantrips, and can cast 20/day + cantrips. A level 8 wizard with a 16 int (now 18 after leveling) has 17 spells + cantrips, and can cast 10/day + cantrips.

This is compared to the wizard in a typical campaign, where scrolls are available for purchase. The level 7 wizard in one of the campaigns I'm running has 32 spells total in his spellbook, not including cantrips. That was purchased with the standard starting gold for a level 6 character. Compare 17 at level 8 to 32 at level 7. That's a big change in the power of a wizard. If we take this wizard (AC10, 18hp) and take away half of his spells, he'll be praying for a fighter. Their party fighter (level 6 earth genasi) would lose 3 points of AC (dropping him to 19), and his magic hammer would become masterwork. He'd also lose his potions. Although, if he hadn't had the option of magical armor, he'd have probably put his 7 into charisma instead of dexterity. The wizard probably still would've put all of his good rolls into the mental stats.

Your low magic wizard is a big surprise to things you fight, and tips the scales by being a wild card. At the same time, he's far less versatile, having far fewer spells to choose from, and is less likely to have the right spell to get you all out of a jam. Fighters still have feats, rogues still have skill points, barbarians still rage, and rangers still have track, combat style, and favored enemies.

[Quietus]

Each class becomes both weaker and stronger, as their ability to respond to various situations changes. I'll explain this in a minute. Secondly, the caster classes do not flat out "own non-casters anyway." This may be true on paper, if we drop both classes into the arena and tell them to duke it out, however the most effective way to use any spellcaster involves your fighter companions.

A cleric could cast divine power and become "more fighter than fighter", except that he's not. He has no bag of tricks in the form of bonus feats. He has a bag of tricks in the form of his spells. If he's casting spells, he's not fighting, and therefore divine power is not doing him any good. So why did he cast it? Even if it's persistent, he still blew the fourth level spell slot and the seven turn undead attempts in order to not use divine power. Not efficient use of party resources. You have a fighter, you don't need divine power, so instead you prepare spell immunity. You could, in theory, prepare a multitude of spells to prevent your opponent's from getting at you while you take the down with magic, or you can let the fighter keep your enemies at bay and use those spells for something else.

We're not worried yet about level 20 class balance in a low magic setting. Characters aren't getting that far. There's no way you're taking on the higher CR monsters without magic and magical items. It's just not happening. We're only really worried about class balance up until, say, level 8. Spellcasters have a huge advantage on a low magic world, but they also have a major disadvantage. A fighter can have a decent armor class in that level range. Most spellcasters can't. You don't have any magical items to do it with. Your clerics will be alright in a fight, but they still suffer from having their stats distributed differently (16 wisdom and only a 11 or 12 strength, because their other good rolls went into charisma and constitution). A level 8 sorcerer has 11 spells + cantrips, and can cast 20/day + cantrips. A level 8 wizard with a 16 int (now 18 after leveling) has 17 spells + cantrips, and can cast 10/day + cantrips.

This is compared to the wizard in a typical campaign, where scrolls are available for purchase. The level 7 wizard in one of the campaigns I'm running has 32 spells total in his spellbook, not including cantrips. That was purchased with the standard starting gold for a level 6 character. Compare 17 at level 8 to 32 at level 7. That's a big change in the power of a wizard. If we take this wizard (AC10, 18hp) and take away half of his spells, he'll be praying for a fighter. Their party fighter (level 6 earth genasi) would lose 3 points of AC (dropping him to 19), and his magic hammer would become masterwork. He'd also lose his potions. Although, if he hadn't had the option of magical armor, he'd have probably put his 7 into charisma instead of dexterity. The wizard probably still would've put all of his good rolls into the mental stats.

Your low magic wizard is a big surprise to things you fight, and tips the scales by being a wild card. At the same time, he's far less versatile, having far fewer spells to choose from, and is less likely to have the right spell to get you all out of a jam. Fighters still have feats, rogues still have skill points, barbarians still rage, and rangers still have track, combat style, and favored enemies.

So what you're saying is that wizards are more balanced in a low magic setting?

*Loves the irony*

[Selv]

Thanks to everyone for the input. You've bought up some interesting points.


Heck, you could run it Gestalt and give everybody their base class *plus* full Sorcerer spellcasting.

I can honestly say I did not think of that option. It does mean everyone gets dealed in on being a plot focus, though...

I had idly thought of the premium spellbooks would now have. If it were not so much that there were no other casters as, say, half-a-dozen in the country. Then again, that puts the "plot balance" issue back on top of the agenda. "Hey, how come everyadventure is about giving Joe more spells?" I know that I, as a player, wouldn't want to hear "Because Joe would suck if I hadn't contrived it that way".

Edit: Oh, and Diggorian; I'm taking a browse through Altear now. You've some interesting ideas (I like Vice Checks!).

[Diggorian]

I had idly thought of the premium spellbooks would now have. If it were not so much that there were no other casters as, say, half-a-dozen in the country. Then again, that puts the "plot balance" issue back on top of the agenda. "Hey, how come everyadventure is about giving Joe more spells?" I know that I, as a player, wouldn't want to hear "Because Joe would suck if I hadn't contrived it that way".

Thanks for the kind words, Selv.

The "plot balance" can be handled I think by just not forgetting the non-casters and making stories that highlight them as well. Getting spell X for Joe will help save Ragnor the ranger's village or spell Y can aid Belvus the Barbarian face the right of passage for chieftains of the tribe. Cant you do A, B, and C plotlines woven together, only one of which is tied to quest for more magic?

[nerulean]

Or replace Joe's spellbook with Joe's notebook. Sure, if he does come across some other wiz-type then he can still crib notes and spells from them, but unless you're running with absolutely no IC downtime then he'd have enough time to experiment with new ideas between times.

One thing to remember is that spells as normal D&D knows them are the product of research and refinement. Dedicated research wizards sat over their crucibles (or possibly just stood in lead-lined rooms trying things out, depending on their style) to come up with the spells in the form we know them today. Why is it that bat guano produces the best fireball? Is it, in fact, the only thing that can do that? There's a reason such a lot of spells have some wizard's name or other attached to them.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Thanks for the kind words, Selv.

The "plot balance" can be handled I think by just not forgetting the non-casters and making stories that highlight them as well. Getting spell X for Joe will help save Ragnor the ranger's village or spell Y can aid Belvus the Barbarian face the right of passage for chieftains of the tribe. Cant you do A, B, and C plotlines woven together, only one of which is tied to quest for more magic?

The problem is that you're still making Joe Wizard the key to everybody's plot.

I'm still on the side of "give everybody spellcasting, possibly through a Gestalt variant." It seems the best way to give everybody a direct role in things.

[Diggorian]

Yeah, bad examples for not centering plot on magic. Should've slept first. Just seems to me that even though the quest for magic is the overall campaign goal, if that's what your saying Selv, not every session/adventure need make it center stage. Plotlines can explore the novel differences between this world and other D&D settings.

I like Neruleans spell innovation idea. A mechanic for creating homebrew spells would be interesting. Combined with the gestalt idea, could have every character creating the type of spells that class would want and design from their point of view: A Rogue trick list, Barbarian spirit list, Fighter technique list. Who says you have to create the same spells and casting systems D&D already has?

There are are many interesting potentials.

[Selv]

...could have every character creating the type of spells that class would want and design from their point of view: A Rogue trick list, Barbarian spirit list, Fighter technique list. Who says you have to create the same spells and casting systems D&D already has?
Now that is interesting. It'd take someone who was more a DM than I am (Heck, I'm barely a PC) and a lot of note-taking- but given how much of D&D's flavour comes from the spell lists, you would almost be writing new alternative handbooks.


Thanks for the kind words, Selv.
I'm English. We may have lost the Empire, but by goodness we can still be slightly more courteous/formal than any given situation demands.
(Fun fact: I have also just read "Watching the English" by Kate Fox, so expect dry self-denigration in every post I make until everyone demands I shut up about my ridiculous culture.)

[Diggorian]

Now that is interesting. It'd take someone who was more a DM than I am (Heck, I'm barely a PC) [<--Self-Denigrating Wit detected] and a lot of note-taking- but given how much of D&D's flavour comes from the spell lists, you would almost be writing new alternative handbooks.

It's been my experience that it's hard a DM to design this for you as they dont have the insdpiration you possess. I'd advise simply becoming a better DM. :smallbiggrin: Just check out the homebrew section to picjk their brains, post your ideas, get feedback.

Creating a new spell is mainly about keeping the same cost/benefit ratio of existing spells at that level. Lets take ... Magic Missle: basically lets ya deal average of 3.5 force damage per odd level to a max of 17.5 at lvl 9 to one or multiple clustered targets within about 100ft. That's the benefit. The main costs are you have to be able to speak, move for the somatic, have a level 1 spell slot, and be able to take a standard action.

Altering benefits and costs in a balanced way produces an equivalent yet different spell than Magic missle. Shocking grasp does more damage earlier in leveling but looses range to touch and versatility to electricity (more things can defend against it). Flaming hands does more damage earlier but less overall, effects a bigger area but looses versatility with fire, requires a Reflex save but may set a target on fire. See the general balance? You want a new spell to be profitable, but not too much so.

[Matthew]

With a low magic campaign, my advice would play low level. Like Diggorian, I cut my teeth on (A)D&D and still play that (an of course heavily modified version) over D&D 3.x for long term campaigns. The thing about (A)D&D, in my experience, was that levels 13-20 only really theoretically existed, and anybody who managed to get there was generally suspected of cheating.

Most of the games I played ended somewhere between levels 6 and 9, and took a damn long time to get there too.

The problem with D&D 3.x and this approach is that many of the high CR critters will simply never be used, being too powerful.

The demographics in the D&D 3.x Books are fairly whacked to begin with, but if you do use a low magic/low level approach you need to have a world that reflects that, which means virtually no NPCs above level 10.

[Diggorian]

Ah, exponentially increasing XP tables, those were the days. :smallcool: Hitting level 7 before ya hit middle age was a life goal, in 3.x you can become demi-godish lvl. 20 in less than a year.

Matt's right. For low magic you gotta tweak published monsters to account for the effective lowering of wealth by level magiclessness creates. DR 5/magic, becomes DR 5/masterwork. Abilities get reigned in to lower DC's for the lack of save boosters. Etc.