PDA

View Full Version : Why low magic?



Starsinger
2007-08-30, 06:28 AM
I've noticed that there's alot of buzz (not lately necessarily) about low magic games, low magic settings, etc. etc. Why? Is it a thematic thing, do people just like low magic? Or is it more of a "magic is broken in 3.5 so we'll go away from it?" I'm just curious as to your guys' thoughts about this.

Funkyodor
2007-08-30, 06:35 AM
Some people also want magic to be special and unique, as opposed to common and manufactured (I'm sure that every +1 longsword has Made in Taiwan stamped on it somewhere). A way to do this is reduce magic so that when it plays a part in the game it is noticed with awe. "As the armored figure approaches, his sword comes alight with fire!" is more impressive than "His sword lights up with magical fire, oh, just like the one you didn't want back in town, you know the +1 flaming sword you decided to pass up for the spell storing one."

Sir Enigma
2007-08-30, 06:36 AM
I like low-magic because it lends some mystique to magic - if magic is too common, it stops being special. I feel that a vorpal sword loses a lot of its excitement value if you can go buy one at the magic-swords shop, regardless of how expensive it is. I prefer a setting where, if the PCs want major magical items, they have to make them themselves or go out and find them, and if they want high-level spells cast, they've got to cast them themselves - there's more of a feeling of accomplishment when you do it.

KoDT69
2007-08-30, 06:36 AM
Simply put, WotC did a horrible job in D&D 3.X by playtesting a 30 year-old party concept that is rarely used anymore. They balanced the game for "blaster casters" then overcompensated ultility spells not fully understanding the impact it would have. The result is increasingly useless non-caster classes as the campaign progresses if playing by the book. A low magic setting takes a lot of the magic "win buttons" and actually utilizes tactics, battlefield control, and other things normally shrugged off by your friendly neighborhood studious wizard. I like low magic settings personally, but I also have a few houserules in place so high magic doesn't leave the non-casters behind. The best thing to do is disallow any spells that trump a specific class feature or skill. WotC obviously is biased and thinks a wizard should be able to do it all alone. Hah, at least there is no arcane versions of Heal, Mass Heal, or Resurrection etc... :smallconfused:

Journey
2007-08-30, 06:54 AM
Simply put, WotC did a horrible job in D&D 3.X by playtesting a 30 year-old party concept that is rarely used anymore. They balanced the game for "blaster casters" then overcompensated ultility spells not fully understanding the impact it would have.
This is right in some respects but for all the wrong reasons, and wrong in others. D&D 3.x isn't modeled on a 30 year old party concept. It's modeled on a very modern, MMORPG party concept, and the mechanics are all designed to support the MMORPG playstyle.

The game itself is not balanced at all. Balance is something that, beyond a certain point, is the responsibility of the DM. No design team is capable of designing a class-based system such that any one class can substitute in for any other class in a given scenario and have the outcome be mechanically identical. It's just not possible.

Anyway, my reason for preferring low-magic (or, more accurately, moderate-magic, but relative to D&D 3.x, "moderate-magic" is "low-magic") is that high-magic tends to break verisimilitude. When "studies of the mystical, eldritch forces in the universe" becomes, oh, Eberron (for example), there's a large degree of self-contradiction that just breaks the fluff (and often the crunch).

Kurald Galain
2007-08-30, 06:57 AM
The prime example of a "high magic" campaign is the Forgotten Realms, in which every lowly inkeeper is a tenth-level bard and every town council has at least a twentieth-level wizard on it. This begs the question that, if there are so many uber-powerful casters around, why on earth do they need to hire a bunch of 4th-level player characters to do mundane tasks for them?

For instance - I'm sure some of you have played Eye of the Beholder II, but the principle holds for many other adventures, whether on PC or not. In EOB2, Elminster (yes, that Elminster) is aware of an evil temple nearby, and asks the (approx 7th level) player characters to investigate and, presumably, kill the BBEG at the end, a semi-ancient red dragon. Given the nature of the game, the player will want to rest often to replenish spells, and given that the game strictly enforces 2E memorization times (8 hours of sleep + 10 min per spell level memorized/prayed for) this is a task that takes months.

An easier way of resolving this story would be this:
(1) Elminster casts some scrying spell to find out what's going on.
(2) Elminster buffs himself for a few rounds, then teleports to the BBEG's sanctum.
(3) In a single round, Elminster casts Time Stop, plus multiple energy substituted admixted maximized quickened Delayed Blast Sonic Balls.
(4) BBEG explodes, Elminster casts an Earthquake to demolish the temple, and teleports back to his mansion to drink a cup of tea.

Given his epicness, this requires extremely little effort, takes all of five minutes, and has a failure chance of practically zero. So why on earth would he hire a bunch of 7th level wimps to do it for him?

And that is why some people believe high-level magic settings are implausible to play in.

Morty
2007-08-30, 07:00 AM
There are few reasons. As said above, some people want magic to be something more special, without +1 swords lying everywhere. There are also balance issues; with low magic it's harder for wizard to break the game. Not to mention that in high magic setting there's always a question "why bother when there is magic"? Low magic setting solves that problem.

Funkyodor
2007-08-30, 07:10 AM
An easier way of resolving this story would be this:
(1) Elminster casts some scrying spell to find out what's going on.
(2) Elminster buffs himself for a few rounds, then teleports to the BBEG's sanctum.
(3) In a single round, Elminster casts Time Stop, plus multiple energy substituted admixted maximized quickened Delayed Blast Sonic Balls.
(4) BBEG explodes, Elminster casts an Earthquake to demolish the temple, and teleports back to his mansion to drink a cup of tea.

Given his epicness, this requires extremely little effort, takes all of five minutes, and has a failure chance of practically zero. So why on earth would he hire a bunch of 7th level wimps to do it for him?


Well, you're mixing up your editions somewhat. In 2nd Ed there was no "multiple energy substituted admixted maximized quickened Delayed Blast Sonic Balls." There was Teleport & Time Stop, uh, and there was Meteor Swarm that took 10 combat rounds to cast. There was plain old Fireball and the slightly improved spell Delayed Blast Fireball. There was Uh, Wish! Yeah Wish... IMHO Elminster has a perverted sense of humor in throwing under armed and the inexperienced, but persons with high potential, against soon to be very evil beings so that he can progress with his plans to loaf around and spy on other evil beings.

hamlet
2007-08-30, 07:48 AM
I think the real question isn't "high vs. low" but "scarce vs. plentiful." That's my biggest complaint about 3rd edition (and later 2nd edition) is that the world had magic verily dripping from every orifice and if the PC's didn't have a certain amount of magic on them, they are crippled.

At higher levels (i.e., above 5th), a non-caster's entire worth is tied up in his magical equipment or, barring that, in the party wizard. Without either, he's just a soon to be cool corpse on the field. Not to mention that magic has become dime a dozen in so many places that it's all but assumed by the rules system.

That, of course, doesn't even begin to take into account the "Forgotten Realms Issue" mentioned above wherin every scullery maid is really a 7th level bard, the local cobler is a 10th level assassin, and the pot boy is, in fact, the reincarnation of Bane. Obviously there's more experience to be had serving drinks and fixing shoes than there is in slaying demons and dragons, so it's a wonder anybody ever leaves home!

You can have High Magic all you want. While exploring, the PC's can find an extremely powerful magic item, or a spell book abandoned by a dying wizard loaded with the knowledge to destroy entire realms of existance. There's a lot of fun to be had in giving a second or third level party access to an artifact level item that has significant drawbacks, but when that stuff is so common that people use it to prop up the short leg of the kitchen table, it gets old fast.

There's nothin' better, though, than a bunch of 5th and 6th level characters finding some minor item (last game session it was a Ring of Protection +1) and literally coming to blows over who gets to keep it!

Fhaolan
2007-08-30, 08:24 AM
Thematic reasons, mostly. I like campaigns that seem more like the movie Willow, for example. Magic is something relatively rare, hard to master, and the characters rely more on wit and skill. Magic is still there, it drives the campaign in many cases, but it's not 'OMG! WIZZZZARD!' like 3.x D&D seems to be geared towards.

In high-magic campaigns, and high-tech campaigns as well, the characters tend to get defined by the equipment they carry, and the sheer amount of magical equipment they carry at that. Especially if they're a non-caster. It's just not the style I like to play in. So, most of the games I deal with are 10th level or lower for the PCs.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-30, 08:36 AM
In 2nd Ed there was ... Teleport & Time Stop, uh, and there was Meteor Swarm that took 10 combat rounds to cast

In that case, I believe I've read a few more 2E splatbooks than you have...

The edition mix is irrelevant. Wizards were nearly as uber in 2E as in 3E (note lower monster HP, so blasting is actually viable), and in 3E, high-level casters still hire low-level PCs to do things they could do way faster on their own.

Journey
2007-08-30, 08:41 AM
In that case, I believe I've read a few more 2E splatbooks than you have... Do tell. If you're referring to the "Players Option" books, that's more like 2.5E. Moreover, the introduction of splatbooks always expands the system itself beyond the core rules, and it's a bit of a farce to claim them as canon.


The edition mix is irrelevant. Wizards were nearly as uber in 2E as in 3E (note lower monster HP, so blasting is actually viable), and in 3E, high-level casters still hire low-level PCs to do things they could do way faster on their own.Not it is not irrelevant. Pretending that past editions were anywhere near 3.x in terms of power levels or the like is an extraordinary claim, and I would like to see the extraordinary evidence behind it.

Person_Man
2007-08-30, 08:46 AM
If your home brew game world is historically based, it tends to make more sense to make it a low magic world. After all, think through the sociological impacts of magic. The rich would never die. Wizards would be highly successful businessmen, dominating transportation and building trades. Every town and country would be ruled by a theocracy or mageocracy.

I've played high magic, no magic, and everything in between. And having seen it all, I now personally prefer restrained magic - magic exists, but the PC's use it in a mature and reasonable fashion. For example, I normally ban Polymorph, because its game breaking. But I prefer to play in a game where Polymorph exists, but PC's are smart enough to use it only for scouting (I Polymorph into a bird), roleplaying (I Polymorph into a Drow so that I can infiltrate them), or dire emergencies (Wow, we're fighting Tiamat! I Polymorph into an 11 headed cryohydra), but not normal combat (Huh, four Ogres? You guys take a break, I'll just Polymorph and kill them myself).

Funkyodor
2007-08-30, 08:58 AM
Eh, I've always been a Core basis and make up specifics kinda person. So limited and / or no splat books for me. It's all about the multi-tasking. Hiring low lvl goons to do alot of differient things is alot like corporate buisness. One exec could probably do any one of the lower paid "goons" jobs easily and with better results but not all at once. So a less quality, but higher volume product is produced and as work progresses, the low-bies get better and quality improves, yet, the volume stays at higher than individual levels. They try and slam this foundation within a medieval polythestic monarchy and things go awry. It works alot better in limited magic access where you take things and imagine what would be accessable to Upper Upper class and what would be Black Marketable.

Zim
2007-08-30, 08:59 AM
The best low magic, mechanics independant campaign setting I've ever played in is Harnworld. It's got a real 10th century Earth feel where magic is more rare than gold. Good, gritty setting.

elliott20
2007-08-30, 09:04 AM
again, this all comes down to availability vs. strength.

I don't mind games where there is high availability but low strength or high strength but low availability. This means that you can still run some kind of medieval game and actually still justify why people would still do things through mundane means.

But in the standard high powered, high availability game? You have to ask yourself why ANYBODY would NOT learn how to use magic. When the only thing that you need to learn even a little bit of magic is an 11 INT or 11 CHA, it's STILL better to do that than say, be a commoner. And in many cases, it's still better than being an expert. Or, they would still at least all have use magical devices as a skill, seeing as magic is so prevalent. (If not all be casters themselves)

But the way D&D is set up, it makes little to no sense. It implies a highly magical world where everyone has access to magic. But only a handful of people actually has the common sense to integrate it into their skill sets. And of course, no explanation is EVER given for this.

The result? Out of the box, 3E will make no logical sense when you start examining some of the implications.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-30, 09:47 AM
Do tell. If you're referring to the "Players Option" books, that's more like 2.5E. Moreover, the introduction of splatbooks always expands the system itself beyond the core rules, and it's a bit of a farce to claim them as canon.
2.5E is a made-up term.

Also, I have never claimed I was talking about canon in the first place. Where did you get that idea? Note that "energy substituted admixted Sonic Balls" are not core either.


Pretending that past editions were anywhere near 3.x in terms of power levels or the like is an extraordinary claim
So it is, but again that is not even remotely what I'm talking about. My claim is that in many stories or games regardless of setting, there are very powerful spellcasters that send low-power PCs out on a task that they could easily have accomplished on their own, and that for this reason, some people prefer not to have all that many very powerful spellcasters in their setting.

This is what we call a "straw man".

elliott20
2007-08-30, 09:57 AM
My claim is that in many stories or games regardless of setting, there are very powerful spellcasters that send low-power PCs out on a task that they could easily have accomplished on their own, and that for this reason, some people prefer not to have all that many very powerful spellcasters in their setting.

I usually try to explain that phenomena away by just saying that powerful people tend to be manipulative pricks who just like to watch people struggle.

Roderick_BR
2007-08-30, 10:13 AM
Other than 3.x having a broken magic system, some people like the "Lord of the Rings" feel, where magic is rare, but powerful.
Take Gandalf, for example. He is powerful, but he can't beat everything on his own. In a one-on-one battle, he forces himself against powerful enemies, but against some challenges, he needs help. In D&D, a typical wizard can solo most adventures. Before breakfast.

@elliott20: A trick I read on a magazine once, is to make high level characters busy with others things.
NPC: "You need to sneak into the invading forces' HQ, and retrieve the magic gold sword"
Player: "Why don't you just teleport in there, and get it, or go invisible, or, heck, destroy it all at once?"
NPC: "Sorry, no time for that. And get going because I'm already late. There's an demon invasion from the elemental plane of fire happening right now, and I need to join the defense team."

Closet_Skeleton
2007-08-30, 10:15 AM
Also, I have never claimed I was talking about canon in the first place. Where did you get that idea? Note that "energy substituted admixted Sonic Balls" are not core either.

Uhm... Archmage is core...

Bye...

Kurald Galain
2007-08-30, 10:28 AM
Uhm... Archmage is core...

But the feats "energy admixture" and "energy substitution", both of which I specifically mentioned, are not.



I usually try to explain that phenomena away by just saying that powerful people tend to be manipulative pricks who just like to watch people struggle.
Cue Sarda the Omnipotent Bast Sage from 8-bit :smallsmile:

Sir Giacomo
2007-08-30, 10:55 AM
Low magic campaigns are verrryy alluring to play and DM. Since, magic tends to get highly complicated, the more you have of it.

- Giacomo

elliott20
2007-08-30, 10:56 AM
yeah, exactly. Just like Sarda.

Every time I play a game where a powerful mage asks our party of dinky level 1's to go do something for him, I usually mentally add the words "cuz I don't have TV and am in desperate need of entertainment" to end of all of their requests.

The "got no time" thing does work too. But there are only so many times you can have a wizard who is too busy before it just gets old.

Kiero
2007-08-30, 10:57 AM
I prefer my fantasy to be of the Howardian sword-and-sorcery stripe, rather than Tolkein-esque high fantasy.

Besides which I hate magic items so commonplace as to be magitech gadgets.

slexlollar89
2007-08-30, 11:23 AM
When i DM my setting (low powered and low magic availability), all the NPCs are defeatable within reason. For example, the 25HD demonprince NPC is defeatable because he ties to repent and will refuse to harm the PCs, or the 12th level warlock can be killed if the PCs attack him with prior planning and tactics. I dislike using the all powerful guys to dish out quests, and if i do, i make it entirely beleivable. My favorite scenario invlolves a former Archdevil who cannot destroy the artifact himself because Asmodeus woul catch wind of his existance, and he'd be killed, or the artifact is holy.

Basically, low magic availability also translates into there being less 20th lvl wizards to dish out quests, and moe regular people lke kings or celestials (which also become more important with the low mgic).

elliott20
2007-08-30, 11:26 AM
well, in a low power, low availability game, most people won't even believe in the existence of magic, much less use it. But then again, magic is so weak in this world, it is a sideshow gimmick at best.

Krellen
2007-08-30, 11:34 AM
I prefer my fantasy to be of the Howardian sword-and-sorcery stripe, rather than Tolkein-esque high fantasy.
Tolkien wasn't high-fantasy. He was crafting myth, and had about as much magic as your average myth - meaning it was mostly in the hands of the bad guys. Sort of like Howard's series.

I don't know where people got this idea that "high magic, high fantasy" is "Tolkien-esque". It's not. The only place I can think of where "high fantasy" was somewhat of a norm before D&D is in superhero comics.

slexlollar89
2007-08-30, 11:36 AM
Thats exactly right! the commoners will ask the 2nd lvl wizard: "Sir, why dont you conjure demons to sly the ogres atacking us? or you could hurl Flames at them all" The common people dont understand mahgic, and even other casters need spellcraft to figure out other people's spells. If a wizard meets a cleric in my setting, they would pobably spend a few hours arguing about hte natre of magic, and comparing spells. The same holds true for any type of casting/invoking/Su abilities. And like I mntioned, extraplaner creatures become more frightneing and muystical in suh a setting as well, so when the palladin removes disease, th villigers are like "HOLY CRAP GOD IS AWESOME!", and when a cleric summon a celestial, people grovel and beg for forgiveness.

Even the BBEG is afraid of casters in my campaign, and i dont mean the 20lvl wizard, i mean the 3rd lvl warlock o the 4th level sorcerer.

Draz74
2007-08-30, 11:38 AM
Most cool fantasy literature is low-magic. Coincidence? I think not ...

SilverClawShift
2007-08-30, 11:41 AM
I don't know where people got this idea that "high magic, high fantasy" is "Tolkien-esque". It's not.

Exactly. Take the ring for example. It was a frighteningly powerful artifact of immense pull, but for all PRACTICAL intents and purposes, all it really did for the character who had it was turn them invisible, and even then there were 9 unkillable monsters who would see you BETTER while you were using it. Sting glowed blue when orcs were around. And a mithril shirt was enough to make everyone in the room stop with their jaws dropped.

I love the lord of the rings and all, but magic in it was subtle, it's not like Samwise had cloak that let him walk through walls and turn into a dragon at will or something.

elliott20
2007-08-30, 11:43 AM
that's because high fantasy when forced into a certain frame just comes across as goofy and unbelievable.

Telonius
2007-08-30, 12:04 PM
In Middle Earth, magic was extremely powerful but extremely rare. It's actually rather similar to Howard's stories about Conan or Solomon Kane in that regard. Elrond could command a river to flood, but only because he had a Ring of Power. The only magic you ever saw Gandalf casting regularly was doing minor things like making smoke rings change color, or throwing exploding pinecones (and that was in The Hobbit). Sauron could break your brain, but only if you put on the Ring of Power or had a Palantir.

(That said, Tolkien's world also doesn't really translate very well into D&D terms. Power is based on race and birth - elves are more powerful than humans, period. Orcs are always, no exceptions, evil. Humans can't use magic. Wizards are basically angels or demigod-like beings.)

I think the reason some people are looking for a slightly lower-magic setting isn't just to bring a little more "realism" into the game, though there is an element of that. I think that part of it is that they want the game to be a little harder. That's as much of a fluff issue as a crunch issue. Fluff-wise, the characters are a little more adrift. Life is dangerous, even for Kings and high-ranking adventurers. Crunch-wise, you can't just pull a Batman spell out of your hat to solve all of your problems. Lower-magic settings lend themselves to more thoughtful ways of attacking problems (metaphorically or actually).

Neither way is the "correct" way of playing. I love both sorts of settings - Eberron and Faerun are great to play in, but so are lower-magic settings.

Saph
2007-08-30, 12:05 PM
Low-magic settings are generally much less of a headache to play in and administer. With normal D&D rules, it's quite feasible for a 10th-level character's magic items to run to a full A4 page of single-spaced text. Not everyone minds that, but some people do.

Also, many people don't realise just how dependent mid-to-high D&D characters are on their magic items. Beyond level 5 or so, a character without a basic set of magic items is crippled. DR/magic makes creatures impossible to hurt without magic weapons, and virtually all of your AC and save bonuses will come from magic clothing and armour.

Finally, there's the issue that the more different magic effects you put into a setting, the greater the number of world-shatteringly-powerful combos you can come up with.

- Saph

Decoy Lockbox
2007-08-30, 12:59 PM
I have played in several low-magic games in D&D, and I generally find that it makes certain types of characters, those dependant on gear, a lot worse than they would normally be.

That being said, I love the flavor of low magic, as it makes magic special again. As has often been said, when magic becomes predictable and overly controllable in it's use, it becomes more of a science...and I don't know many people who are enthralled by reading physics textbooks (I do know one person like that, but he is sorta weird).

One issue with a low magic game that we can never seem to resolve is the difficulty in healing people without the using of healing magic. On the other hand, the regular amount of healing magic available to D&D PCs makes the spells seem bland and utilitarian. Our group even got to the point where, after combat, the fighters would "place an order" with the cleric (i.e. "I need 34 HP over here"), who would then start casting heals until the order was filled, not even needing to tell the wounded character which spells he was using. It really sucked the uniqueness out of magic.

One thing that we have started doing to make magic items unique and cool again is to begin using what I call "ritual items", which are sorta like the weapons of legacy (in that you have to unlock their powers with some sort of quest/deed/ritual), but actually usable and cool. For example, in the AD&D game we are playing one of the fighters just purchased a mysterious book from a curiosity shop (without even knowing what it was), and it turned out to be a bound angel (in book form apparently). The book asked us to submerge it in a font of holy water in a ruined temple of it's god (a whole quest right there), and after doing so it became the equivalent of a +1 medium shield that can cast cure light wounds 1/day....and of course talk with the party.

slexlollar89
2007-08-30, 01:32 PM
The othr side of low magic, or rare magic, is that not only do you have the mystic feeling and wonder associated with magic, but you also have the difficulty with regular people. Now we cant cast silent portal via scroll, so you have to kill the noble very quietly. Now we cant use the firebal to decimate the ambush partol, we have to ambush and geurrila them to death.

Magic is great in DnD, but the way that it is setup socially doenst make any sense, and is rediculously fun stealing (sometimes). Low magic adds a lot of umph into magic when people do use it, and adds a lot more use to those guys that throw swords and metal at other guys. However, this is just my opinion.

Matthew
2007-08-30, 01:42 PM
High fantasy and High Magic are not the same thing. By genre convention, Middle earth is High Fantasy and Low Magic. Conan is Low Fantasy and Low Magic. Low Magic is the important part.

Anyway, I just find it much easier to deal with Low Magic Campaigns than High Magic Campaigns, particularly with regard to building long lasting consistant Campaign Worlds. That said, I like to play Spelljammer from time to time and Forgotten Realms as well, but they're just one end of the spectrum to me.

It's just a preference thing, for the most part, though. My favourite Fantasy Books and Films are Low Magic.

Ralfarius
2007-08-30, 02:08 PM
Concerning uber powerful people delegating tasks to schlubs:

Sure, Elminster could go and wreck up the dragon's place in a few minutes. However, in doing so he expends resources and spell slots (of which he only has so many in a day). Elminster is no dummy, he's caught a lot of attention of things as big and powerful as him over the years, and knows it.

Were he to just drop everything and wreck up every single world-threatening evil that crops up, even if it took just a few minutes of his day, he would be directing attention away from the even scarier forces out there. A man as big and powerful as he is probably more paranoid than a lower level nobody.

It's much less effort to simply delegate these tasks to a ragtag band of misfits who just might make it through, and learn a little about themselves along the way. When you're Elminster, an Ancient Red Dragon is usually not worth your time.

The same reasoning can be scaled down to the 10th level wizard council of Whereversville on the Sword Coast. They've got bigger, more 10th level things to deal with, better to delegate the 5th level nuisance to the party of 5th level patsies.

Josh the Aspie
2007-08-30, 04:27 PM
There are some variations of Low magic, that I think are worth exploring, and in one of my custom campaign worlds on another board, I do.

In that world, everyone has at least the potential to learn a little bit of magic, equivalent to prestidigitation. It makes life easier, cheerier, and a whole lot less messy. Of course, the weaker your talent, the harder it is to do anything via magic. It also takes a lot of time out of the day for someone who might just rather sit down and rest their aching feet and back.

On the other hand, true magical talent is rare, and has to be built up over generation. If a farmer forces themselves to be an expert prestidigitator, their kid can probably learn more powerful cantrips with a lot of hard work, and so forth.

In this campaign world, most mages know "General magic" which basically means that if you are a potent enough mage to cast the spell, you can (it's roll based, not learned spell slots, or the like).

Those who get skilled enough, or had a skilled enough fore-barer, often develop specialties. That is, one mage might be especially skilled with fire spells, while another might be especially skilled with time/space magic.

If the magical specialty gets strong enough, a blood line power is often generated. This blood line power is, of course, related to the general magical specialty.

While general magic is draining, the blood line power usually isn't as draining, and it can be further boosted by the magical casting. This represents a serious magical edge.

Most nations, and tribes are indeed ruled by a particular bloodline, thus combining the royalty and magocracy forms of government.

Yet even the most powerful mages cannot replicate, without a blood line ability, anything close to higher level D&D spells. And such mages are relatively rare. Yes, there are mages guilds, but that is one guild among many in each nation.

In addition, magical items are rare, and special, and often have their own names, and legends associated with them. For example, the Crown Prince of Cademon recently managed to trick the Crown Prince of Embers out of a sabre known as "The Mountain Cat's Tongue" This particular sword is likely worth as much, by it's self, as several supply caravans, and so represents a rare and special resource. It also carries with it a legend of a mountain raider somewhat similar to the revolutionary swamp raider from America's past, the "Swamp Fox"

_____________________________________

I'd also like to point out that I'm pretty certain there are few executives out there that can do the work of even an entry level engineer.

MrNexx
2007-08-30, 07:48 PM
I prefer what my character can do to be more important than what my character owns.

slexlollar89
2007-08-30, 07:49 PM
Hear Hear!

Starsinger
2007-08-30, 07:58 PM
Thank you everyone for responding, your responses were delightful, although, and I admit, this was my fault for purposely using a vague phrase... What does Low Magic mean to you? Are we talking no more than 1/2 your class levels in full spell casting class? Spell-less variants for Paladin, ranger, and possible bard? No magic items? Magic items at 1/100th the WBL in the DMG?

slexlollar89
2007-08-30, 08:05 PM
I believe you signatuer sums up how magic works: the higher the level, the more magic one mut have in order to keep gaining levels.

Matthew
2007-08-30, 08:07 PM
For me, in D&D, it generally means low level play (topping out at around Level 10), removal or rewriting of certain Spells and a de emphasis on the role of Magical Items (especially Attribute enhancers and Animated Shields). The number of Sentient Races, especially the playable ones, tends to be tighter, the mundane Classes dominate numerically and the world itself behaves at a mythical, but firmly recognisable medieval or ancient level. This quite often leads to the implementation of an Optional Rule or two.

Pokemaster
2007-08-30, 09:15 PM
I think the problem with magic is that it quickly starts replacing abilities rather than enhancing them. A level 5 Bard doesn't need any ranks in Bluff if he can cast Glibness, Invisibility is better than Hide, the energy damage enhancements on weapons will almost always do more damage on average than the weapon itself...

It eventually reaches a point where what the characters can do becomes less important than what their magic items can do.

KillianHawkeye
2007-08-30, 09:50 PM
I was wondering, are there any resources or guides or anything that gives tips on how to convert to a low-magic setting? i.e. Something that gives ideas on changing spells, spells-per-day progressions, damage reduction, monster stats, etc.? I'm starting to work on a low-magic campaign setting and am still trying to decide how much I need to change.

Mike_G
2007-08-30, 09:58 PM
I was wondering, are there any resources or guides or anything that gives tips on how to convert to a low-magic setting? i.e. Something that gives ideas on changing spells, spells-per-day progressions, damage reduction, monster stats, etc.? I'm starting to work on a low-magic campaign setting and am still trying to decide how much I need to change.


The easiest thing to do is use a low magic system, like D20 Conan, or Iron Heroes. D&D has some problems since the assumed magic items in the WBL are a part of the whole balance and challenge rating system.

If you want to use D&D, I'd suggest adding a defense bonus to AC based on BAB, since the PCs won't have access to magic armor and shields and amulets and rings, etc, and I'd increase the base save bonuses. Maybe hand out more fetas. Conan, Iron Heroes and D20 Modern all do this already, since they are geared toward the characters being competent without any magic.

The biggest problem is coping with casters. If nobody can use items to defend against or counter or replicate spells, they become far more powerful. Not that they aren't already, but it just gets worse. The magic using classes in the other systems I mentioned are very different for just that reason.

Starsinger
2007-08-30, 10:02 PM
The biggest problem is coping with casters. If nobody can use items to defend against or counter or replicate spells, they become far more powerful. Not that they aren't already, but it just gets worse. The magic using classes in the other systems I mentioned are very different for just that reason.

What about a blaster caster? Are they bad in low magic too?

EvilElitest
2007-08-30, 10:24 PM
[QUOTE]The prime example of a "high magic" campaign is the Forgotten Realms, in which every lowly inkeeper is a tenth-level bard and every town council has at least a twentieth-level wizard on it. This begs the question that, if there are so many uber-powerful casters around, why on earth do they need to hire a bunch of 4th-level player characters to do mundane tasks for them?
Ugg, this is such an over done stereotype, country to the poplar's belief FG is really quite well done.
1. even though low magic fans low to point this out and wave this point about, most innkeepers tend to be low level commoners, and the adverage town council has a level 10 mage at best. Even in major cities their aren't that many ubers, lots of magic, but their is still only 1 mage in 15



For instance - I'm sure some of you have played Eye of the Beholder II, but the principle holds for many other adventures, whether on PC or not. In EOB2, Elminster (yes, that Elminster) is aware of an evil temple nearby, and asks the (approx 7th level) player characters to investigate and, presumably, kill the BBEG at the end, a semi-ancient red dragon. Given the nature of the game, the player will want to rest often to replenish spells, and given that the game strictly enforces 2E memorization times (8 hours of sleep + 10 min per spell level memorized/prayed for) this is a task that takes months.


A good FR game is Baldur's Gate if you want a good example.

An easier way of resolving this story would be this:
(1) Elminster casts some scrying spell to find out what's going on.
(2) Elminster buffs himself for a few rounds, then teleports to the BBEG's sanctum.
(3) In a single round, Elminster casts Time Stop, plus multiple energy substituted admixted maximized quickened Delayed Blast Sonic Balls.
(4) BBEG explodes, Elminster casts an Earthquake to demolish the temple, and teleports back to his mansion to drink a cup of tea.

I'm pretty sure Elminster spends his tme fighting hte many other high level villians in the world.


And that is why some people believe high-level magic settings are implausible to play in.
Then why do Ebberon and FR have so much popularity?
from,
EE

Crow
2007-08-31, 12:19 AM
Then why do Ebberon and FR have so much popularity?


Because they are still supported by the parent company?

horseboy
2007-08-31, 12:27 AM
Well, I personally prefer the medium to high range of magic. However, D&D is just such a busted up mess. For the medium magic I much prefer Rolemaster and as far as high level goes, you just can't beat Earthdawn.

Yeah, If I was to play a low power campaign, I'd much more be interested in Harn than I would D&D 1-6.

Fhaolan
2007-08-31, 12:42 AM
In reply to the rephrased question...

For my version of 'low magic' (Which may not be low enough for many) means keeping the game at below 10th level or so for the PCs. Most of the party should be composed of non- or semi-casters.

When the party finds a magic item, it needs to be really hyped. Not powerful, just... pimped out. It's not a +2 longsword with a minor light enchantment, it's Reverberar, the legendary Sword of Reflection! Is that +2 scale armor with fire resistance? No, it's the legendary armor of the King of Bronze! Wow! Impressive! Cool! And if you get more magic items, the old ones need to go away in some manner. Sundered, or drained of magic, in a suitably dramatic moment. If someone casts 'Detect Magic' and your character looks like a neighborhood award-winning holiday display, something's gone badly wrong. :smallsmile:

That's pretty much it. If you want to play 25th level Wizard/Druid/Arcane whatevers who wears enough magic items to turn his poo into delayed blast fireballs, that's fine. That's the kind of game you want to play. Me, I like playing Madmartigen, Conan, the Gray Mouser and so on. Not Superman. Even when I play superhero games, I don't play Superman. It's just not what I find fun.

heretic
2007-08-31, 12:55 AM
Because the world we live has no magic, we find low magic more plausible and natural than high magic.

elliott20
2007-08-31, 01:18 AM
generally, I define magic levels by the spell levels, since most magical effects stem from the spells that they were cast from.

Arbitrarily, this would mean something like, low = 1-3rd level spells, mid = 4-6, and high = 7+. Using these guidelines, generally, this means that if I want a low magic campaign, casting tops out at 3rd level, where you don't get access to these spells until lvl 15+. If you will, mages acquire new spells at the rate that most half-casters like paladins and rangers acquire new spells, while paladins and the like acquire almost no magic at all. (Or in some cases, full caster classes would be done away with entirely)

apply the same logic to a mid and high level magic.

the second thing you have to consider is availability, and construct houserules around that.

in a game where there is low availability, you don't CHOOSE to play a caster. You have to discover you have the talent to do so and then choose to develop it. (depending on what kind of strength magic has in the world, this might or might not be a worth while pursuit) what this means is that nobody can START as a mage. at least, not without getting some major boons from the GM. most people must multiclass into it.

in a game with mid availability, entrance to casting would be a little less stringent but I would still require the characters give up something to gain the ability to level as a caster. (this could be in the form of burning a feat or two)

high availability just uses default.

Kiero
2007-08-31, 04:06 AM
I prefer what my character can do to be more important than what my character owns.

Precisely the reason for my hatred of abundant magic items.

I note that even my favourite setting which features a fair bit of magic (Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen) has few magic items. A few artifacts, but not really any magic items to speak of. Everyone uses ordinary gear, and what matters is their skills, not the gear they're carrying (explosives aside).

Plus as people have said, high-level magics are a headache to GM, and frankly I find a lot of more powerful stuff boring. "I can stop time!" *yawn* I prefer the sorceror archetype to the bookish nerdy wizard too.

Kiero
2007-08-31, 04:09 AM
I was wondering, are there any resources or guides or anything that gives tips on how to convert to a low-magic setting? i.e. Something that gives ideas on changing spells, spells-per-day progressions, damage reduction, monster stats, etc.? I'm starting to work on a low-magic campaign setting and am still trying to decide how much I need to change.

It doesn't directly answer your question, but there's Bill King's Sword and Sorcery Toolkit (http://www.swordandsorcery.org/toolkit.htm), which is aimed at a different genre to D&D's core assumptions. In that the only caster of any stripe is the Sorceror, and they're rare. No Wizards, no Clerics, no Druids or anyone else. Only other classes are Barbarian, Fighter and Rogue.

Calsan
2007-08-31, 04:38 AM
The thing is with low magic play in D&D that the DM needs to balance out the encounters. Because if the Bad guys are using magic left and right and the party has no appropriate spells/items/weapons then the game is not really balanced.
3.x is balanced on the fact that magic is not uber rare.

You could do it off course, but you probably need some house rules concerning healing skills and such. Maybe even alchemy.

And the normal encounter rules? You need to revise those a "tiny" bit.

It's all about flavor, make the wizard special not unplayable, same as the rest of the spellcasters.

Matthew
2007-08-31, 05:10 AM
What about a blaster caster? Are they bad in low magic too?

Yeah, they are, but not to the degree they were in previous editions. As long as they are few and far between, it's no big deal, but squads of them may ruin the feel of the setting.

Zincorium
2007-08-31, 05:23 AM
As to FR: I don't mind so much when there are strong cultural trends away from commonly used magic (from the phearimm [sp?] destroying the old empires where such common magics were the case) are at least a part of the setting mythology.

Essentially, the forgotten realms is an example of very, very rare magic that is incredibly powerful, whereas Eberron is very weak magic overall but magic that is omnipresent in society.

Personally, it depends on what kind of game I'm trying to run at the time, but mostly I prefer high magic that can accomplish pretty much anything if given sufficient resources. Floating castle? Yep, but it'll take you years of working hard on it, and you don't even want to know how much gold.

Magic items for PC's are either a bane or a blessing, with my experience tending towards the blessing. A lot of times, you can't depend on the casters of the party having the right spell prepared, and my groups are very antagonistic towards the 'narcoleptic caster' idea. Magic items are a very useful stopgap.

But I do admit to going for the 2nd edition style of magic item aquisition, i.e. you find 99% of any items in the group, adjudicated by the DM, and purchasing any sort of real magic is both treacherous and expensive. Most regular people have (to the PC's) overstated ideas of how powerful magic items can be. Compared to the other merchants in the square, a simple +1 sword can make you a champion. So the general opinion of the NPCs is that magic items are incredibly valuable.

Kiero
2007-08-31, 06:03 AM
Way we always played 2nd edition was that you couldn't buy magic items. You got whatever was churned out by the random treasure tables, and liked it.

hamlet
2007-08-31, 08:44 AM
Way we always played 2nd edition was that you couldn't buy magic items. You got whatever was churned out by the random treasure tables, and liked it.

Dang straight! Though that doesn't stop us from harrassing most wizards in the world we meet to try and pawn off some magic items from them.

MrNexx
2007-08-31, 09:49 AM
Dang straight! Though that doesn't stop us from harrassing most wizards in the world we meet to try and pawn off some magic items from them.

Oh, you might be able to trade a bit, but not really BUY. One of our best days was after completing the adventure Fires of Dis, we were allowed to pretty much create a magical weapon of choice... but we had the best of all possible outcomes (retrieved the holy avenger, killed the pit fiend twice, got the paladin off of charges, transitioned the city to Arcadia as a result of our inspiration).

One option for capping the power you play at is calling, alternately, Ry20 or E6. It plays just like D&D, but the maximum level is 6. After that, you gain a new feat every 5000 experience points (and there are a few feats that have been included which work specifically for E6, making it a bit more flexible at that level). It keeps the power level to around what's standard for 8th level characters, according to the playtesters.

Zincorium
2007-08-31, 10:02 AM
One option for capping the power you play at is calling, alternately, Ry20 or E6. It plays just like D&D, but the maximum level is 6. After that, you gain a new feat every 5000 experience points (and there are a few feats that have been included which work specifically for E6, making it a bit more flexible at that level). It keeps the power level to around what's standard for 8th level characters, according to the playtesters.

I've honestly never seen this as being a necessary change. You have essentially cut yourself off from using any of the higher CR monsters in the form they are presented in, and also giving the players little to no reason to really gain more experience. Yeah, they get more feats, but the changes mechanically in the adventures they go on are going to be miniscule. They'd have to be. One feat does not an adventure make.

Really, if you don't want the adventurers to grow in power, why use D&D or stick with the same characters? There are a lot of systems which handle relatively static power levels much better than D&D does, and after 16 adventures with a character that hasn't meaningfully changed, I'd be itching to try a new character.

That wasn't intended as a rhetorical question by the way, I honestly don't see why those aren't significantly better alternatives, as they would be for every group I've played in.

Matthew
2007-08-31, 10:41 AM
It's really a 3e thing, though. In previous editions that gap between Character levels wasn't anywhere near as severe and one of the aims of 4e is apparently to reduce that gap (not that I think they will).

MrNexx
2007-08-31, 11:10 AM
The name is somewhat telling; E6 stands for "Epic 6"; it makes post-sixth level into epic levels. The difference between levels 7 and 11 is huge, especially for spellcasters; you've got tons of new spells that are an order of magnitude more powerful, you have scads of new magic items, etc. However, the difference between levels 27 and 31 isn't so huge... a few feats or abilities, but rarely the order of magnitude improvement that you see at the lower levels.

The idea is to make characters who do improve, but not at the meteoric pace of a standard 3.5 game, and to cap the level of power that players have access to. Raising someone from the dead isn't easy, because it's a Ritual, not just a minute of prayer. Level drain is feared, because Restoration isn't easy to come by. More powerful creatures CAN be used, but the players have to overcome them with guile, not brute force.

Kiero
2007-08-31, 11:10 AM
Really, if you don't want the adventurers to grow in power, why use D&D or stick with the same characters? There are a lot of systems which handle relatively static power levels much better than D&D does, and after 16 adventures with a character that hasn't meaningfully changed, I'd be itching to try a new character.

What's meaningfully changed? Are you saying if you've got no new mechanical toys to play with, there's no meaningful change?

Starbuck_II
2007-08-31, 11:17 AM
Other than 3.x having a broken magic system, some people like the "Lord of the Rings" feel, where magic is rare, but powerful.
Take Gandalf, for example. He is powerful, but he can't beat everything on his own. In a one-on-one battle, he forces himself against powerful enemies, but against some challenges, he needs help. In D&D, a typical wizard can solo most adventures. Before breakfast.

This isn't the same Gandalf that uses fireball, lightning bolt, Searing Light, and other spells?!
The one in the books.

The Movies under cut his magic prowess. In the Hobbit he called forth eagles (sending) and used Lightning bolt (or a lightning bolt effect).
He was absolutely powerful: he wasn't even human though (in D&D he'd be a solar). He was an Outsider.

And yes, if he didn't dare to alert Sauron or other dangerous forces to him he could single handedly defeat anything (except Sauron who was stronger, also a corrupted Solar or stronger version).


But Gandalf knew too much magic might corrupt him like it did Suron so he tried not to use it (keeping to only low level spells if needed, lighting his pipe, etc).

Magic is reserved for Elves, Miair (Ganfalds race), Tom Bombardi (Druids), and very little else (except demons like Balrog).

Now, Tom seems to be a rarity: he wasn't elven but he had magic. So Druids seemed to be the only human possible casters.

Dwarfs can only create magic weapons through crafting (basically they can take Craft magic weapon and armor without needing caster levels).

Really, there are no full human casters. Even Aragorn was 1/2 elf by heritage.

Zincorium
2007-08-31, 11:23 AM
What's meaningfully changed? Are you saying if you've got no new mechanical toys to play with, there's no meaningful change?

Please don't put words in my mouth. By meaningful change I mean that it doesn't seem as though the tactics and strategies of non-feat based characters would change much once you reach the epic sixth level. What, exactly, is the sorcerer spending feats on? Metamagic is unusable without cheese, combat feats generally go to waste, and you're never getting more spells (unless you have a feat especially for E6).

Casting fireball may be entertaining over the normal course of a game, but when it's the only spell of real power, it's going to get used in almost every battle where you aren't going to hurt someone by doing so. Over and over again. 6d6 area affect. And when, I dare ask, is that sorceror going to get to replace fireball with something else? It looks like never.

Again, my problem is not with the early levels, it's that capping it seems to turn a meteoric rise into a level slope very abruptly, and feats don't seem to be an even improvement for all characters.


Generally when I'm aiming for a slower advancing game, I reward experience in lesser amounts, keeping the same rules overall but removing the apparently horrible rapid rise of power.

Roxlimn
2007-08-31, 11:33 AM
It's questionable whether Tom Bombadil can be classed as a Druid, and even then, it's only as a D&D mechanical trope. In the books, it would seem that he's some kind of nature spirit akin to a Maiar.

horseboy
2007-08-31, 12:24 PM
This isn't the same Gandalf that uses fireball, lightning bolt, Searing Light, and other spells?!
The one in the books.

The Movies under cut his magic prowess. In the Hobbit he called forth eagles (sending) and used Lightning bolt (or a lightning bolt effect).
He was absolutely powerful: he wasn't even human though (in D&D he'd be a solar). He was an Outsider.

And yes, if he didn't dare to alert Sauron or other dangerous forces to him he could single handedly defeat anything (except Sauron who was stronger, also a corrupted Solar or stronger version).


But Gandalf knew too much magic might corrupt him like it did Suron so he tried not to use it (keeping to only low level spells if needed, lighting his pipe, etc).

Magic is reserved for Elves, Miair (Ganfalds race), Tom Bombardi (Druids), and very little else (except demons like Balrog).

Now, Tom seems to be a rarity: he wasn't elven but he had magic. So Druids seemed to be the only human possible casters.

Dwarfs can only create magic weapons through crafting (basically they can take Craft magic weapon and armor without needing caster levels).

Really, there are no full human casters. Even Aragorn was 1/2 elf by heritage.
Mortals could do magic in Middle Earth, especially the Duneadain. You don't see it in the trilogy because Sauron had put the kibosh on it. He had either converted, corrupted or killed off anyone "competent" in magic. This plus how there were no "Magic Schools" in ME means it was rare to start off. Mages were almost like the Illuminati.

Jayabalard
2007-08-31, 12:35 PM
It's questionable whether Tom Bombadil can be classed as a Druid, and even then, it's only as a D&D mechanical trope. In the books, it would seem that he's some kind of nature spirit akin to a Maiar.Not just questionable... he's not a druid, nor is he a human. Gandalf calls Tom Bombadil the eldest being in existence;

When a reader confronted him with the theory that Bombadil is Eru (the creator, who is called Eru Ilúvatar in Tolkien's legendarium), Tolkien said that he was not...

Kurald Galain
2007-08-31, 12:44 PM
This isn't the same Gandalf that uses fireball, lightning bolt, Searing Light, and other spells?!
The one in the books.
You're making a lot of assumptions that don't really match with Tolkien's storytelling. Simply put, LOTR is not a D&D novel, so it does not follow that Gandalf casts such spells as Sending and Lightning Bolt (let alone memorize them in a Vancian way), nor does it follow that he's an outsider (i.e. extraplanar).

Furthermore, Tom Bombadil is emphatically not a druid. He is a bit of an enigma, but some people claim he's Iluvatar. He is certainly not human.

Fhaolan
2007-08-31, 12:51 PM
What Bombadil was, was jarring. It's like an entity from some completely *other* mythos just wanders through the scene, waves cheerily at the reader, and then wanders away never to be seen again. Every time I read through that book, I get a 'WTF?' reacion to that set of scenes.

Krellen
2007-08-31, 12:53 PM
When Tolkien wrote Bombadil, he was still writing a sequel to the Hobbit, a children's story. By the time he got to Bree, he was writing a different story, but it was too late to take Bombadil out (besides, his daughter adored Bombadil), so he left him in. So Bombadil is, in fact, a character from a different mythos.

....
2007-08-31, 12:55 PM
And a mithril shirt was enough to make everyone in the room stop with their jaws dropped.

To be fair, Mithril wasn't just a better type of metal for your armor. It was an unbreakable substance that would turn a spear wielded by a troll into a bruise. And deflect arrows like nothing.

Always though it was funny how only Frodo ever seemed to get hit with orc arrows, just so they could bounce off his armor.

And the mithril shirt was worth more than the Shire.

Fhaolan
2007-08-31, 12:57 PM
When Tolkien wrote Bombadil, he was still writing a sequel to the Hobbit, a children's story. By the time he got to Bree, he was writing a different story, but it was too late to take Bombadil out (besides, his daughter adored Bombadil), so he left him in. So Bombadil is, in fact, a character from a different mythos.

Okay, that is the first time someone managed to explain Bombadil to me in a way I could completely understand. That makes perfect sense.

Jayabalard
2007-08-31, 12:59 PM
When Tolkien wrote Bombadil, he was still writing a sequel to the Hobbit, a children's story. By the time he got to Bree, he was writing a different story, but it was too late to take Bombadil out (besides, his daughter adored Bombadil), so he left him in. So Bombadil is, in fact, a character from a different mythos.While it was just published afterwards, the story/poem about Bombadil was in fact written first, before The Hobbit.

The later stories place him firmly in the middle earth mythos (with him taking a trip down the brandywine)

Draz74
2007-08-31, 01:36 PM
Long ago, I saw a very well-written article that detailed many reasons why it would make sense if Bombadil was actually Aulë (the Vala who created the dwarves).

No, he doesn't seem very dwarven himself. But a lot of his attitude would make sense (along with his power).

Riffington
2007-08-31, 03:05 PM
Well, I like castles. If I want to play in a fantasy world, I want them in. But why do people go to the trouble of building them? Three possibilities:

a. They are idiots
b. They are just bling
c. The world is low-or-no magic.

If a world has loads of magic, castles have no military purpose.
Consider: what good are walls/towers/parapets if people can fly or teleport or fireball the archers? Not much.
Further, why don't the enemies just walk around the castle? On Earth, the answer is: they can temporarily, but then their supply lines are cut. An army marches on its belly, and castles control the roads, so it's hard to get food.
Thus, it made good military sense to build strong castles for defense.

But if an army can supply its own food via magical means, there are no more supply lines. Castles are useless. Military strategy is changed in extremely complex ways.

A DM must either a: figure out how magic would really impact society.
b: ignore all kinds of ridiculous contradictions
or c: say that magic is rare.

The easiest solution is to assume that 99.5% of people are 1st-2nd level NPC-class. And that the PCs are really quite special.

WhiteMonkey
2007-08-31, 03:30 PM
I've often considered that comparing anything Tolkien with DnD is similar to comparing Monopoly to Life (the board game). Or perhaps if I'm feeling forgiving, comparing Risk to Axis and Allies.

In any case, in my opinion low magic (meaning not everyone has it and and magic items are precious) campaigns are great. I agree with the reasoning of the previous posters whom have pointed out the flaws inherent with most magic saturated campaigns.

It's important to point out though that I'm a fan of core-book campaigns with extreme limitation of splat propaganda. So generally speaking I like playing in much 'weaker' campaigns. If you get my meaning.

However I also feel that just as crippling as making magic too easy to come by is making money too easy to come by. I'm a fan of keeping players poor and requiring training for levels in such a manner as that it costs time (pc time not necessarily game time) and money and at the same time greatly reducing the magic items at their disposal.

In this manner, when faced with an infestation of werewolves, instead of just purchasing the +4 silver sword from the local blacksmith who just happens to be skilled in making magical silver weapons for a bargain price of 100000 gold which is chump change; the players must instead quest for the rare sword made for a famed werewolf slayer of legend before tackling the infestation at hand or at the very least search out a smith whom can actually craft such a weapon. The sword instantly has greater value, the magic instantly has greater value and since they are likely still scrounging for some cash, the monetary rewards will also have greater value.

I'm not saying never let them get ahead financially, but how bout you let them struggle through the first 8-10 levels and wait till level 16 before they can afford to maintain a hamlet.

KillianHawkeye
2007-08-31, 05:23 PM
@ Mike_G and Kiero: Thanks for the tips and the link! That really helps me out a lot.


The easiest solution is to assume that 99.5% of people are 1st-2nd level NPC-class. And that the PCs are really quite special.

Actually, that assumption is already part of the core rules of D&D. If you take a look at the town creation guidelines in the DMG, you'll find that about 90% of the people in any given town are 1st level Commoners, and about 5-8% are 1st level Warriors, Experts, Aristocrats, and Adepts.

It's hard to see it when playing D&D, because the players primarily don't really interact directly with any of these people in such a way that takes their statistics into account. (i.e. "That'll be 5 gp." or "Thanks for saving me, mister!") Really, anyone with more than 1 non-racial HD or any levels in a PC class is one of the elite.

mostlyharmful
2007-08-31, 05:48 PM
Which makes players beyound level three not just unique but positively freakish, I much prefer the insinuation of pforgotten realms that you can gain xp outside of combat in that high PC class NPCs exist from bouncing off each other and having non-violent "encounters"


The idea that the fighter can take more damage than the entire village combined or that the bard knows more about everything than anyone in the kingdom of ten milllion people rather strains credulity

Rex Blunder
2007-08-31, 08:50 PM
The idea that the fighter can take more damage than the entire village combined or that the bard knows more about everything than anyone in the kingdom of ten milllion people rather strains credulity

Agreed, but the idea that the merchant can take multiple stab wounds because he's done a lot of haggling also strains credulity, as does the existence of castles earlier mentioned. You have a choice of nonsensical options.

Kind of sums up the whole game, I think. "Dungeons and Dragons: You have a choice of nonsensical options!"

Mike_G
2007-09-03, 09:30 AM
What about a blaster caster? Are they bad in low magic too?
They're not as bad. They become more of a glass cannon than the superhero that a Batman caster can be. Blasting is just lots of damage, often without needing to roll a successful attack, or at most a touch attack, and often can be area of effect, so it's much better than a sword, but not as game breaking as the invisble, flying, save or die/suck/lose caster can be in low magic.

If the noncasters want to compete at all, they need things like Boots of Flying, items of resistance and mindshielding, items to see invisible, Rings of Free Action and so on.

If you take away most items, and make magic rare and unique, but still let the wizard fly around invisibly and cast the full list, you've made the balance issue even worse. Sure, he'll lose most of his AC, and need to cast a few spells to
make up for his lack of items, but he won't be gimped the way a Fighter with nothing better than Masterwork would be.

Attilargh
2007-09-03, 09:46 AM
'Course, if you don't want absurd hit points or skill checks, you could play at really low levels. But then you get dangerous housecats, which leads us to...


"Dungeons and Dragons: You have a choice of nonsensical options!"
Sig'd. Totally.

Serenity
2007-09-03, 10:04 AM
To be sure, I don't think you should just be able to walk into a store and buy a +4 silver sword. For something like that, you surely should have to quest for it. But a straight up silver sword, maybe even a +1 silver sword, I don't think it's unreasonable for that to be available.

I've played in a lot of low-level campaigns where the DM was devoted to the idea of grim and gritty. I had fun, but now I'm a littletired of the idea of the PCs being losers. I'm ready for even a first level prestige class to be something impressive because its beyond the capabilities of most NPCs.

Mike_G
2007-09-03, 10:27 AM
PCs should be able to be exceptional without a magic item in ever slot.

Iron Heroes, for example, makes the PCs tougher than 3.5, with more feats, more skill points, better saves and an AC bonus that scales with level. Stripped naked, a 5th level IH character will beat the snot out of a 5th level D&D character.

The idea behind IH, Conan, Black Company, or D20 Moden (all D20 systems fairly comparable to D&D) and similar systems is that PCs should get better without depending on magic items. Without magic, a D&D 20th level Fighter, a near epic swordsman who has trained in combat his whole life to fight, will be hard pressed to get an AC over 20, which is hardly more than a decent 1st level build.

I prefer low magic, where items are rare and interesting, rather than the Magic Walmart, where you walk in past the discount bins of +1 longswords to get to the good stuff in Aisle 3, and the average PC has multiple magic weapons, armor, an animated shield, two rings, an amulet, a cloak, boots, headband and a handful of stat boosting items.

I always wanted to play the Grey Mouser, or Aragorn, or Conan, who could survive on skill and strength and reflexes, not Inspector Gadget, so the Five and Dime Magic Shop concept irks me, and the fact that the challenges are scaled to assume you do have all that bling makes it tough to be a miserly DM and hand out less loot.

Dausuul
2007-09-03, 04:49 PM
Please don't put words in my mouth. By meaningful change I mean that it doesn't seem as though the tactics and strategies of non-feat based characters would change much once you reach the epic sixth level. What, exactly, is the sorcerer spending feats on? Metamagic is unusable without cheese, combat feats generally go to waste, and you're never getting more spells (unless you have a feat especially for E6).

They do, in fact, have such a feat. It's called "Expanded Spell Knowledge," and it lets you add one extra spell to your list of spells known.

For the full E6 system, see this thread (the new feats are in the second post): http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=200754

Basically, once you hit that 6th-level cap, your advancement becomes horizontal rather than vertical; you keep adding new options and talents to your character, but you don't experience the eruption of raw power that comes to normal characters advancing through the mid-range.

(If I were going to use E6, I'd also consider that feat that gives you more skill ranks to be a vital one. I forget which sourcebook it was from, but the rogue would get really, really bored without it.)

MrNexx
2007-09-03, 05:52 PM
(If I were going to use E6, I'd also consider that feat that gives you more skill ranks to be a vital one. I forget which sourcebook it was from, but the rogue would get really, really bored without it.)

Open Minded. 5 more ranks, and from the XPH, given its location in the SRD.

Incidentally, they also like skill focus feats in E6. It lets you exceed the maximum of Ranks + Stat Bonus by adding another bonus.

Felius
2007-09-03, 09:47 PM
I personally prefer some mix of high magic, low availability and low magic, high availability.

I mean: That +1 sword when your characters are in the middle of Amn, one of the biggest metropolis of the Sword Coast, or in the capital city of Thay, a country ruled by wizards who DO sell magic items to help with accounts (evil wizards, but anyway...), sure, principally if your characters are around 7th or more, goes to the shop, get the money, and give the character the sword.

Now that +6 vorpal holy avenger of DOOM, make it's acquiral an entire adventure. But if doesn't break the game, and it's fun for the player, give it to him afterwards.

Plus, it feels a little bad when the Holy Sword of the Last King of the Free People of the Greatest Kingdom That Ever Was is just a +1 sword with a +1d6 fire damage bonus.

Also, this is one of the reasons I do want to play high powered games: I'm interested in that epic feel where your characters don't merely lightly influences the result of a local skirmish against bandits, but lead themselves the armies to protect the kingdom against the biggest and meanest orc army ever reunited under a single banner. Where the characters don't merely save the farmer's daughter's dog from a blind kobold, but save the princess from the Necromantic Lich with a black dragon as a pet. I want my character to be a Hero, not a sidekick. I want him to influence the history of my world, and even carve his name into it's (history's) stone.

Dausuul
2007-09-03, 10:39 PM
Also, this is one of the reasons I do want to play high powered games: I'm interested in that epic feel where your characters don't merely lightly influences the result of a local skirmish against bandits, but lead themselves the armies to protect the kingdom against the biggest and meanest orc army ever reunited under a single banner. Where the characters don't merely save the farmer's daughter's dog from a blind kobold, but save the princess from the Necromantic Lich with a black dragon as a pet. I want my character to be a Hero, not a sidekick. I want him to influence the history of my world, and even carve his name into it's (history's) stone.

E6 certainly allows you to carve your name into history. As a 6th-level character in E6, you are one of the biggest, baddest heroes the world has ever known. You can withstand six times as much punishment as any normal mortal, perform extraordinary feats of skill, take on a dozen trained soldiers and slaughter them all without even breaking a sweat. The DM has to scale down the high-end monsters, but otherwise there's not a problem with epic storylines.

Think of it this way. What level were Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon? Probably not higher than 6th. That didn't stop them from carving their names into history--hell, they blasted them into history's surface with high explosives.

Now, there are certainly attractions to a high-powered game which E6 doesn't offer. If you want to wade through that entire orc army all by yourself, sweeping foes out of your way like Sauron in the Lord of the Rings movies, you obviously won't get that in E6. But I do want to counter the idea that E6 limits you to getting kittens out of trees and helping little old ladies cross the street.

Journey
2007-09-04, 04:38 AM
Also, this is one of the reasons I do want to play high powered games: I'm interested in that epic feel where your characters don't merely lightly influences the result of a local skirmish against bandits, but lead themselves the armies to protect the kingdom against the biggest and meanest orc army ever reunited under a single banner....
You don't have to have high-magic to do these things, though. Conan didn't beat up the avatar of Dagoth in "Conan: The Destroyer" by having anything much more than brute strength and determination.

It just seems to me that high-magic just isn't done very well in most table-top systems. It almost always is paired with high-fantasy, where the heroes aren't heroes by virtue of grit and guile and determination, but because the world itself is simply powerful. That, to me, destroys the "epic feel" of characters. When the heroes can walk into any "magic shop" and buy something in almost every class of equipment that has an enchantment, they aren't "epic" when they take on that lich or orc army; they're just doing their jobs--jobs that almost anybody else would and could do if the PCs weren't around.

Hence the "Elminster effect" in Forgotten Realms--where 4th level PCs are asked to do "dangerous" tasks that in reality the 6th level Fighter Captain of the Town Watch, his 6th level Rogue spy, the 6th level wizard town advisor and the 6th level Priest of Tyr would be more capable of handling, not to mention more likely to tackle, since it's their home under threat. Not that it matters, much, because the 4th level PCs can likely just buy the magic they'd need to fill in whatever gaps in power might potentially exist from the same wizard and priest.

If it doesn't end up that way, what happens is a sort of "magic is technology" kind of world that is usually either not very internally consistent or just campy and (poorly) cliched, unintentionally or not. This is one reason why I don't care for, e.g., most "Final Fantasy" games or Eberron.

Dervag
2007-09-04, 05:56 AM
WotC obviously is biased and thinks a wizard should be able to do it all alone. Hah, at least there is no arcane versions of Heal, Mass Heal, or Resurrection etc... :smallconfused:Maybe the company name is the problem.

I wonder what D&D would look like if it had been sold to Fighters of the Coast?


2.5E is a made-up term.Yes, but it's a term with some basis in reality.


@elliott20: A trick I read on a magazine once, is to make high level characters busy with others things.
NPC: "You need to sneak into the invading forces' HQ, and retrieve the magic gold sword"
Player: "Why don't you just teleport in there, and get it, or go invisible, or, heck, destroy it all at once?"
NPC: "Sorry, no time for that. And get going because I'm already late. There's an demon invasion from the elemental plane of fire happening right now, and I need to join the defense team."You can only do that so much before it starts to get old.

It's probably better to come up with ways to not have 'your mission is assigned to you by a high-level character' plot hooks all the time.


What Bombadil was, was jarring. It's like an entity from some completely *other* mythos just wanders through the scene, waves cheerily at the reader, and then wanders away never to be seen again. Every time I read through that book, I get a 'WTF?' reacion to that set of scenes.I actually like it somewhat. Bombadil gives you a sense that the world of Middle-Earth is one with a full history, rather than being nothing but the clashes between a few Designated Great Powers. The real world is full of things that, if you wrote a novel about the great events of the world, would not fit into the plot.

Having elements that don't fit into the main plot (like Tom Bombadil, or Caradhras's resistance to the heroes' crossing it) makes the world feel more real to me, somehow.

As for the actual topic, I'd say that there's a lot to be said for making it possible for PCs to be effective without magic. That way, you can have a low-magic campaign without (as some people object) crippling the characters and making them too weak to fight and win epic battles. As Journey observes, Conan was fighting in a low-magic universe, at least in terms of magic available to the characters. And yet he accomplished lots of big things- toppled kingdoms, slew monsters, the works.

Riffington
2007-09-04, 08:06 AM
Well, if you were playing with this assumption, you'd see it very easily in campaigns. If the characters went to the high priest of Pelor, he would be a 2nd level expert rather than a high-level cleric. If they were running from the town guard, a competent one might be a first level warrior. Few campaigns run like this.


@ Mike_G and Kiero: Thanks for the tips and the link! That really helps me out a lot.



Actually, that assumption is already part of the core rules of D&D. If you take a look at the town creation guidelines in the DMG, you'll find that about 90% of the people in any given town are 1st level Commoners, and about 5-8% are 1st level Warriors, Experts, Aristocrats, and Adepts.

It's hard to see it when playing D&D, because the players primarily don't really interact directly with any of these people in such a way that takes their statistics into account. (i.e. "That'll be 5 gp." or "Thanks for saving me, mister!") Really, anyone with more than 1 non-racial HD or any levels in a PC class is one of the elite.

Dausuul
2007-09-04, 08:18 AM
Well, if you were playing with this assumption, you'd see it very easily in campaigns. If the characters went to the high priest of Pelor, he would be a 2nd level expert rather than a high-level cleric. If they were running from the town guard, a competent one might be a first level warrior. Few campaigns run like this.

I think the problem is that when the campaign reaches higher levels, DMs are in a Catch-22. If the campaign world has lots of high-level NPCs, then the DM must constantly find excuses for why these NPCs can't be bothered to help with whatever the PCs are doing. If it doesn't, then the PCs tend to run roughshod over the campaign setting, since any one of them can take on the entire town guard of a medium-sized city and wipe the floor with it.

Journey
2007-09-04, 08:34 AM
I think the problem is that when the campaign reaches higher levels, DMs are in a Catch-22. If the campaign world has lots of high-level NPCs, then the DM must constantly find excuses for why these NPCs can't be bothered to help with whatever the PCs are doing. If it doesn't, then the PCs tend to run roughshod over the campaign setting, since any one of them can take on the entire town guard of a medium-sized city and wipe the floor with it.
This isn't necessarily true. It might be in 3.x where there isn't any significant support for things that might actually hurt characters, such as fatigue, swarms/mobs, etc., but in general there's nothing specific about either low-magic or high-magic that implies the PCs should be able to run roughshod over any large gathering of people.

Yakk
2007-09-04, 10:11 AM
Please don't put words in my mouth. By meaningful change I mean that it doesn't seem as though the tactics and strategies of non-feat based characters would change much once you reach the epic sixth level. What, exactly, is the sorcerer spending feats on? Metamagic is unusable without cheese, combat feats generally go to waste, and you're never getting more spells (unless you have a feat especially for E6).

Casting fireball may be entertaining over the normal course of a game, but when it's the only spell of real power, it's going to get used in almost every battle where you aren't going to hurt someone by doing so. Over and over again. 6d6 area affect. And when, I dare ask, is that sorceror going to get to replace fireball with something else? It looks like never.

Again, my problem is not with the early levels, it's that capping it seems to turn a meteoric rise into a level slope very abruptly, and feats don't seem to be an even improvement for all characters.


Generally when I'm aiming for a slower advancing game, I reward experience in lesser amounts, keeping the same rules overall but removing the apparently horrible rapid rise of power.

As a twist, start granting "metamagic points per day" at level 6 -- these are points that can only be spent on metamagicing spells. You could have every metamagic feat grant one of these points, or you could just grant them at roughly the same speed as feats (so the caster doesn't have to buy metamagic feats).

You could also try to warp the level progression of D&D so that E6 is spread out over more levels.

L 1 to 2: 1 level
L 2 to 3: 2 levels
L 3 to 4: 3 levels
L 4 to 5: 4 levels
L 5 to 6: 5 levels
---------------
15 levels.

And once at level 6, you stop gaining levels, and start gaining feats and other small perks.

That, however, requires some work -- dividing a single D&D level into 5 smaller slices isn't easy, and removes some of the elegance of E6.

It would, however, result in a smooth slowdown of character advancement.

Kantolin
2007-09-04, 01:52 PM
I've played in a lot of low-level campaigns where the DM was devoted to the idea of grim and gritty. I had fun, but now I'm a littletired of the idea of the PCs being losers.

Honestly, I think this is my usual opinion on the matter.

In experience, it seems like low/no-magic games are almost never set up that way for theme reasons, or are as a secondary effect to mechanical balance reasons between the classes - most low-magic worlds say 'wizards are overpowered, so let's fix this by running a low-magic world'.

Theme-wise, honestly, I don't have a tremendous problem with it in theory. I enjoy playing high-magic, I enjoy playing low-magic. *Shrug* Depends on my mood.

As an addition to it, however, most people seem to significantly love the 'And you can't do anything' portion of most settings like that. Sure, there are people in reality who've done a whole lot of important things without magic, but in most low-magic worlds I've played in, you don't get to be those people. You get to be the comparative mook who, through mostly luck with very little skill involved, might end up doing an event that, in the overarching scheme of things, is exceptionally minor.

That's something I am in no way fond of, at least not most of the time. And, while I do understand that it is not strictly limited to low-magic campaigns, it tends to exist there while scope tends to increase dramatically otherwise. Sure, I've played the bodyguard-for-someone-important and had a blast with that, but that's an exception, not the rule I prefer.

horseboy
2007-09-04, 02:26 PM
You don't have to have high-magic to do these things, though. Conan didn't beat up the avatar of Dagoth in "Conan: The Destroyer" by having anything much more than brute strength and determination.

True, but it's not like Conan didn't have his share of magic items. He went through his "low level" era with a star metal sword (that conveniently disappeared later on). Then in The Phoenix on the Sword (The first Conan story printed) the ghost of a wizard enchants his blade so he can battle a demon.

The problem that seems to come up the most is that if you're a millionaire, you'll know and hang out with all the other millionaires. The PC's (usually) are magically oriented or magical item users. As such, they see society from a completely different side as what the "average" person would see. All they see are the magical items/users side of town. How often do they interact with "normal" people other than to save their daughter or buy more supplies from them?

Indon
2007-09-04, 02:27 PM
I like the concept of low-magic because it might one day let me actually use the cover and concealment rules in the rulebook to good use in combat.

Matthew
2007-09-04, 02:49 PM
Honestly, I think this is my usual opinion on the matter.

In experience, it seems like low/no-magic games are almost never set up that way for theme reasons, or are as a secondary effect to mechanical balance reasons between the classes - most low-magic worlds say 'wizards are overpowered, so let's fix this by running a low-magic world'.

Theme-wise, honestly, I don't have a tremendous problem with it in theory. I enjoy playing high-magic, I enjoy playing low-magic. *Shrug* Depends on my mood.

As an addition to it, however, most people seem to significantly love the 'And you can't do anything' portion of most settings like that. Sure, there are people in reality who've done a whole lot of important things without magic, but in most low-magic worlds I've played in, you don't get to be those people. You get to be the comparative mook who, through mostly luck with very little skill involved, might end up doing an event that, in the overarching scheme of things, is exceptionally minor.

That's something I am in no way fond of, at least not most of the time. And, while I do understand that it is not strictly limited to low-magic campaigns, it tends to exist there while scope tends to increase dramatically otherwise. Sure, I've played the bodyguard-for-someone-important and had a blast with that, but that's an exception, not the rule I prefer.

This just strikes me as the extreme end of Low Magic Campaigns. The problem is always relative values of 'Low' and 'High'. There's no two ways about default 3e, it's High Magic, but that doesn't make it more epic than default Iron Heroes, which is supposed to be Low Magic.

I pretty much only play, what I would consider, Low Magic AD&D and I have never noticed the game suffer from what you describe. Indeed, it has been my experience that the Characters accompish much greater deeds at lower levels than their 3e equivalents.

Dausuul
2007-09-04, 04:37 PM
This just strikes me as the extreme end of Low Magic Campaigns. The problem is always relative values of 'Low' and 'High'. There's no two ways about default 3e, it's High Magic, but that doesn't make it more epic than default Iron Heroes, which is supposed to be Low Magic.

I pretty much only play, what I would consider, Low Magic AD&D and I have never noticed the game suffer from what you describe. Indeed, it has been my experience that the Characters accompish much greater deeds at lower levels than their 3e equivalents.

Low magic/high magic and low fantasy/high fantasy are two quite separate issues. You could have an epic quest in Middle-Earth, or a gritty low-level adventure in Eberron.

Journey
2007-09-04, 04:53 PM
Low magic/high magic and low fantasy/high fantasy are two quite separate issues. You could have an epic quest in Middle-Earth, or a gritty low-level adventure in Eberron.
"Gritty" and Eberron don't belong in the same sentence, sorry. It's high-magic, low-fantasy magitech pulp, even with hefty house-ruling barring artificers, warforged, and dragonmarks.

Matthew
2007-09-04, 05:27 PM
Low magic/high magic and low fantasy/high fantasy are two quite separate issues. You could have an epic quest in Middle-Earth, or a gritty low-level adventure in Eberron.

Uh yeah, I know, I think I noted that on page 2 of this Thread. Not really sure what that's got to do with anything. I'm talking only in terms of High and Low Magic and with reference to the Post I quoted. Which is to say, I haven't found that the level of magic limits the deeds that can be accomplished in AD&D.

Kantolin
2007-09-04, 07:01 PM
I pretty much only play, what I would consider, Low Magic AD&D and I have never noticed the game suffer from what you describe.

I do suppose it, in large part, depends on the group you're with. I have indeed, after all, played in several successful games that never got terribly high level that were also low magic, and in one my character ended up becoming world-known.

It's just that in general, low-magic games tend to be... well, low-do-stuff games. They tend towards doing a lot of keeping your head down and explicitly not doing anything except existing, then possibly doing a small sequence or two.

Now, this is not something firmly joined to low-magic games - not all low-magic games run that way, and not all high-magic games are free from it. After all, one of my friends who likes to DM simply loves throwing around Elminster to, as far as I can tell, prove to us that we're not relevant in the overarching scheme of things. But honestly, the vast majority of low-magic games I've been in have been... eh. I think low-do-stuff is a good comparison.

The only mild problem I have strictly with low-magic and low-level games is that you generally stop getting new tricks to utilize, or hardly ever get them. If your level 1 feat is Dodge, or Combat Expertise, or even two-weapon fighting... you, at level 1, can say you hit it over and over again. Mild thought is involved in Combat Expertise or Power Attack, but it's extremely, extremely mild.

It's fun and preferable to get past that so you can, well, opt to spring attack, or disarm things, or whatever. I'm using fighter-y abilities as an example, but it also applies to wizards - Bull's Strength is fun for the first six runs, then it'd be nice to have something new.

But then again, this is a 'low-level' problem more than a low-magic in general. Low-magic (Or low-level) games which are not low in the do-stuff area can be very fun, it's just different.*Shrug*

Matthew
2007-09-04, 07:12 PM
Sounds like you may be letting Feats ruin your game, a Classic 3e problem. Spring Attack in particular makes people think their Character cannot move, attack and move without the appropriate Feat Chain or that the rules legislate everything a Character can possibly do.

The thing is, if you want your Character to move, attack and move, the only person stopping you is your DM. I almost always allow Player Characters to attempt any action they please with appropriate drawbacks and consequences. In the case of Spring Attack, I would allow a Character to move, attack and move, but with an attack penalty.

Mind you, I know what you're saying. It really is a case of playing with the right group. Some groups like to be limited by the printed rules and some DMs do think that the latest Kobold crisis is all that a Level 1 Party is capable of facing. Fact is, though, given the right scenario, a Level 1 Party can have an encounter with a Balor. The trick is just making sure that they don't face it directly.

Low Magic/Low Level Games are not for everyone or for every occasion, but the limitations are mostly illusory (though not entirely).

Kantolin
2007-09-04, 07:27 PM
Mind you, I know what you're saying. It really is a case of playing with the right group.

Yeah, I think we're agreeing with each other. ^_^ Oh well... it sounds like you'd be a fun person to play a low-magic game under.

About spring attack, that was more of an example about... well, player-thinking. If I only have dodge, I don't really have to think in combat besides picking a dodge target, which is usually obvious or even odds. If I have dodge, mobility, and spring attack, that gives me more things to think about, and therefore more things to do.

Granted, I personally tend to spend a lot of effort describing my sword swings so I don't 'I hit it I hit it I hit it', as I like being graphic with my descriptions, but it's still dull when all you can do is swat things. At least, more than when you can do other things.

Anyway, that is also a 'depends on the group' thing, so I suppose that's that.

Winterwind
2007-09-04, 07:59 PM
After all, one of my friends who likes to DM simply loves throwing around Elminster to, as far as I can tell, prove to us that we're not relevant in the overarching scheme of things. I find this interesting. It's precisely the opposite of what my group feels about this stuff. I tend to confront them with the most powerful people of the world very, very rarely - and if I do, they know that whatever it is they are doing must be exceedingly important in the overarching scheme of things, for else these people would surely not show up.

Also, low magic and low importance of the PCs' deeds have nothing to do with each other. Consider, for example, the following situation: The PCs could discover and stop a dangerous intrigue, which was about to take control of the most powerful kingdom of the world, throwing the entire world into chaos. This could well be an almost or entirely social adventure, with little to none combat, and require neither high levels nor high magic. On the other hand, it's definitely most crucial for the well-being of the entire world.

Kantolin
2007-09-05, 12:01 AM
Also, low magic and low importance of the PCs' deeds have nothing to do with each other.

Oh, I know this is true in theory. I have, after all, played competent low-magic and low-level games where the PCs have been relevant. The trouble is that most people, in an attempt to keep a somewhat more realistic gritty feel, end up with a lot of low-do-stuff campaigns when they're focusing on low-magic. Low-do-stuff campaigns can happen regardless of magic level, but they tend to happen far more frequently in low-magic.

I'm really liking that term. Low-do-stuff campaigns.


I find this interesting. It's precisely the opposite of what my group feels about this stuff. I tend to confront them with the most powerful people of the world very, very rarely - and if I do, they know that whatever it is they are doing must be exceedingly important in the overarching scheme of things, for else these people would surely not show up.

Meh, if this particular DM wasn't my good friend, and if I couldn't admittedly have a generally good time playing with him and my other friends, I'd probably not play under him. Exceptionally high level NPCs tend to show up whenever you feel like you're wanting to try something to prevent you from doing so. My roomate and I, in fact, have the plan that next time one of us plays a rogue and attempts to pickpocket someone, the other will play a Paladin and ready an action to smite the someone who is pickpocketed, as that seems to be the most reliable method of finding the head of the thieves' guild.

Not to mention the billions of times where teleportation to a location has been stopped by Elminster personally, who I guess has nothing better to do with his time.

:P But either way, he tends to run theoretically high-magic campaigns, and thus has absolutely nothing to do with this debate at hand, so I should probably stop being off topically ranty.

Dausuul
2007-09-05, 05:42 AM
:P But either way, he tends to run theoretically high-magic campaigns, and thus has absolutely nothing to do with this debate at hand, so I should probably stop being off topically ranty.

Well, it would be relevant as evidence that high-magic campaigns can also be low-do-stuff, but everyone already agrees on that point, so evidence is not really required. :smallbiggrin:

My biggest reason for liking low-magic campaigns is that it's less of a headache coming up with non-combat challenges for the PCs. I still remember the Iron Heroes game where the bad guy's fortress was surrounded by a deep chasm with lava at the bottom. That was a big obstacle and required a lot of ingenuity for the PCs to get across unseen. In regular D&D, a couple of fly and invisibility spells (and maybe protection from energy if I'd wanted to make their lives difficult) would have solved that in short order.

Tormsskull
2007-09-05, 05:45 AM
But then again, this is a 'low-level' problem more than a low-magic in general. Low-magic (Or low-level) games which are not low in the do-stuff area can be very fun, it's just different.*Shrug*

This is the truth of it. It isn't low-magic that you aren't fond of, it is low-level due to the fact that you feel like your characters involvement/importance in the world is next to nil.

To be honest though, I'm the opposite. I can't STAND when my character or the group I am apart of are the next great saviors of the world. I want to be a normal person, with normal capabilities, that gets to make choices and then have the world react to those choices.

I can't tell you how many times I've gone through the situation of a DM telling me that the PC party is the last chance for humanity (or the world!). That kind of stuff should only be occuring when the group is like level 20+ (or lower if the power level is generally lower in the world).



About spring attack, that was more of an example about... well, player-thinking. If I only have dodge, I don't really have to think in combat besides picking a dodge target, which is usually obvious or even odds. If I have dodge, mobility, and spring attack, that gives me more things to think about, and therefore more things to do.


I think that you must be accustomed to fighting in a campaign run by an uncreative DM. In my campaigns I throw in many different situational modifiers including terrain, morale, weather, odd objects, etc.

So instead of simply picking a target and swinging, you can actually attempt to bull-rush the opponents into the shallow water there. And what does that do? Never know, maybe it is worth it, maybe not. There could be a couple of large boulders that would serve as cover, or possibly can be pushed down onto enemies.

Or maybe the forest you are fighting in has a rare species of thorn plants, and if you step on them Reflex save or suffer damage and - movement similiar to a caltrop.

The point is, the DM has to bring the game to life, and the players have to help him. The DM does so by using colorful, vivid descriptions, and the players do so by explaining how they react to those things in the world, and providing their own colorful, vivid descriptions.

Serenity
2007-09-05, 07:43 AM
I personally prefer some mix of high magic, low availability and low magic, high availability.

I mean: That +1 sword when your characters are in the middle of Amn, one of the biggest metropolis of the Sword Coast, or in the capital city of Thay, a country ruled by wizards who DO sell magic items to help with accounts (evil wizards, but anyway...), sure, principally if your characters are around 7th or more, goes to the shop, get the money, and give the character the sword.

Now that +6 vorpal holy avenger of DOOM, make it's acquiral an entire adventure. But if doesn't break the game, and it's fun for the player, give it to him afterwards.

Plus, it feels a little bad when the Holy Sword of the Last King of the Free People of the Greatest Kingdom That Ever Was is just a +1 sword with a +1d6fire damage bonus.

Tank you for making my point far more eloquently than I did. Special material weapons, mild enchantments, mildly powered situational items such as the Hat of Disguise or Cloak of the Mountebank--all should be able to be found in cities of sufficient size, or perhaps even slightly more powerful ones in a magocracy. Anything with at least a +3 enchantment level is something really special.

Kyle
2007-09-05, 07:50 AM
Personally, as a player, I dislike a lot of magic running around because I generally prefer to play combat monkeys, and I find a lot of magic slows the game down considerably.

A typical conversation at my table immeadietly after initative has been rolled is something like this:

Wizard: Uhm, I refocus to the end of the order. I have to look up exactly what this spell does....

Rogue/Ranger: I use my ring to go invisable, and climb the wall to find a good sniping position. Next round I'm going to cast some buffs to increase my chance to hit. I just have to look them up....

Paladin: I'm going to cast bless weapon this round, and then just wait to see what happens. I can't find where I placed my spell sheet and I can't remember what I prayed for today.

Fighter (myself): I declare my dodge bonus against the big dude there, and I might as well bump up my AC with combat expertise while we're at it. I'll charge the big guy and cast 'sharp object to the face'; I memorized it a lot today.

*dice get rolled, damage gets delt*

Cleric: Hold on a moment, I just need to look up this spell....

Ten minutes later, after all the spells have been looked up, their effects have been debated, some discarded for others, some cast, my fighter gets to swing his bastard sword again. I've occasionallyt fallen asleep between combat rounds

Yeah, that sort of thing likely wouldn't happen if we were a bit more organized, or cohesive as a group, but we're not. We're there to hang-out and have fun, and unfortunetly the way we play, magic often slows down the game considerably.

Also, I like having gear that means something to my character, which in a campaign where if the local magic shoppe doesn't have what you're looking for, it can get it in six to eight weeks, simply isn't possible. Sure, a Barbarian character might have an emotional attachment to the axe which has been handed down in his family for generations, but looting the coffers of that evil chruch whom he just helped to vanquish has his money pouch feeling heavy, and that +3 flaming burst greatsword on sale down at Ye Olde Walled Market looks somewhat awesome.

And where are all the magic item shoppes getting their stock from anyway? Is there some continent overseas without labour guilds where children are being forcibly leveled up to 5th, and then chained to a table to enchant swords and armour. And where are they getting the experiance required to raise them up to fifth in the first place, let alone earn the steady supply of experiance that would be necessary for them to continue crafting magic arms and armour? Perhaps they also factor farm low level monsters and force the workers to slaughter them for experiance and sell the meat off as a delicacy.

Huh...I may use all that as a campaign idea.... Of course, knowing the guys I play with, they'd have no problem with a magic item sweat shop. The bastards actually bought slaves in a pervious campaign once they found it it was legal, and then wanted to argue with me regarding whether or not it constituted an evil act.

Anyways, as a player, I feel that every magic item, no matter how mundane, should be special, and hard earned. Devine magic should be uncommon to rare, and arcane magic largely the stuff of myths to all but the most cosmopolitian and experianced of citizens.

As a GM, I'm even more annoyed by magic. Not just because it slows down the game, but also because, again, I rarely play spellcasters, and I find difficult to properly balance my encounters to deal with the strengths and weaknesses of primary spellcasters. Perhaps it's my failing as a GM, but while I know the combat rules frontwards and backwards, I'm not nearly as familar with the rules for magic use.

I do love denying them sleep, though. If it's only noon in game time and I hear, "Alright, we're all out of spells, so we're going to rest." "Not for eight hours you don't," replies the evil little voice in my head.

Serenity
2007-09-05, 08:03 AM
Well, your barbarian could instead take his family axe to his wizard friend and get that enchanted to be as powerful. Well, all right, it would have to be Masterwork. But I don't think it would be unreasonabe for the DM to allow him to have the blacksmith reforge it to be so if it wasn't.

Nor does a magic shop have to have whatever you want, or get it in six weeks if you don't. A DM is always able to tell the player that no, you can't find that in town. As for where it comes from, many settings have entire countries controlled by mages.

It's a bit cumbersome true, and yes, ideally 4.0 will make characters more powerful without magic, and make magic items generally more unique. But the 'magic shop' paradigm is ultimately what you make of it. And I think some monsters you definitely should have some magic backup to be able to tangle with.

Starsinger
2007-09-05, 08:06 AM
Again, I want to thank everyone for their input, with the exception of the "great" Tolkein debate, this has all been really helpful, and I suppose if I cared anything for his writings outside of the Hobbit, I'm sure that would've been helpful too.

We've covered the thematic reasons, and mechanical. Now, what does this mean? How do you envision a low-magic world? What sets it apart from Greyhawk as presented by the PHB? What are the mechanical differences in the classes to suit this low-magic feeling? How are monsters affected by these changes? What about the Planes themselves? And are the gods effected?

Kyle
2007-09-05, 08:25 AM
Nor does a magic shop have to have whatever you want, or get it in six weeks if you don't. A DM is always able to tell the player that no, you can't find that in town. As for where it comes from, many settings have entire countries controlled by mages.
Oh, if only my GM would do that. Instead, everytime we get some down time, out come the DMGs and the Magic Item Compendiums, as we browse the magic shop for trinkets.

Well, the GM has put his foot down a time or two, but still. And I am just as guilty as the other players, but there isn't much choice if my fighter is going to be able to contribute on the same level as the rest of the party.


It's a bit cumbersome true, and yes, ideally 4.0 will make characters more powerful without magic, and make magic items generally more unique. But the 'magic shop' paradigm is ultimately what you make of it. And I think some monsters you definitely should have some magic backup to be able to tangle with.
Oh, how I look forward to 4th Edition if what they've said about limiting the reliance on magic, and customizing warrior characters based on their weapon selection is true.

Starbuck_II
2007-09-05, 10:54 AM
Personally, as a player, I dislike a lot of magic running around because I generally prefer to play combat monkeys, and I find a lot of magic slows the game down considerably.

A typical conversation at my table immeadietly after initative has been rolled is something like this:

Wizard: Uhm, I refocus to the end of the order. I have to look up exactly what this spell does....

That is why I do my prepared list and get extra paper to write out descriptions or pg numbers if long descriptions for spell.
I make short notes for the spell so i at least get the gist.

Example MM (magic missile) 1d4+1, extra as level, 100+10/level. Max 1 (changes later)
Now at level, I know exactly what it does. As I level change amount max.



Rogue/Ranger: I use my ring to go invisable, and climb the wall to find a good sniping position. Next round I'm going to cast some buffs to increase my chance to hit. I just have to look them up....

Tht shouldnt be hard Rangers have so few spells/day prepared. He hs to write them down.


Paladin: I'm going to cast bless weapon this round, and then just wait to see what happens. I can't find where I placed my spell sheet and I can't remember what I prayed for today.

Again, pg numbers + short descriptions.


Cleric: Hold on a moment, I just need to look up this spell....

Again, bad players for memory.



Ten minutes later, after all the spells have been looked up, their effects have been debated, some discarded for others, some cast, my fighter gets to swing his bastard sword again. I've occasionallyt fallen asleep between combat rounds

Debated?
DM should have told them at start when they got it (if arcane).


Yeah, that sort of thing likely wouldn't happen if we were a bit more organized, or cohesive as a group, but we're not. We're there to hang-out and have fun, and unfortunetly the way we play, magic often slows down the game considerably.
[/quoye]
Laziness reduces your fun (the fighters) so ask them to not be disorganized.
If they are your friends they will try better.
[quote]
Anyways, as a player, I feel that every magic item, no matter how mundane, should be special, and hard earned. Devine magic should be uncommon to rare, and arcane magic largely the stuff of myths to all but the most cosmopolitian and experianced of citizens.

You must feel yor friendfs are greater than you. After all, they are the stuff legends are made of (according to you).



As a GM, I'm even more annoyed by magic. Not just because it slows down the game, but also because, again, I rarely play spellcasters, and I find difficult to properly balance my encounters to deal with the strengths and weaknesses of primary spellcasters. Perhaps it's my failing as a GM, but while I know the combat rules frontwards and backwards, I'm not nearly as familar with the rules for magic use.

I do love denying them sleep, though. If it's only noon in game time and I hear, "Alright, we're all out of spells, so we're going to rest." "Not for eight hours you don't," replies the evil little voice in my head.


Yes, if you have never tried as class one can't determine how to play it. This is why we get the Warlock syndrome "Overpowered", once the DM tries it out they learn it is nothing special for its level.

horseboy
2007-09-05, 12:24 PM
We've covered the thematic reasons, and mechanical. Now, what does this mean? How do you envision a low-magic world? What sets it apart from Greyhawk as presented by the PHB? What are the mechanical differences in the classes to suit this low-magic feeling? How are monsters affected by these changes? What about the Planes themselves? And are the gods effected?

Granted, I haven't read the Greyhawk setting since it came in a folder. The problem would the the lack of verisimilitude between the campaign setting and the mechanics. The setting itself, from what I remember, is pretty low magic. Though not as low magic as Harn.

Matthew
2007-09-05, 01:34 PM
Hmmn, yeah Greyhawk was originally a relatively low magic setting for the most part and even in 3e there is something of a disconnect between Greyhawk as a setting and what appears to be possible in Greyhawk. It's hard to say anything from just the PHB, the DMG gives us more of a hint as to how the 3e Greyhawk works as the default 3e Setting, but it's hard to say. I think that, probably, the demographics, wealth by level and economic models in the DMG are the things that need to be addressed for a 'low magic' Setting to work.

A major change I would make is to the Spell Lists. Certain Spells need to be altered or removed from the game entirely.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-05, 04:13 PM
Tht shouldnt be hard Rangers have so few spells/day prepared. He hs to write them down.

Again, pg numbers + short descriptions.

Again, bad players for memory.
Guy has a point, though. Not everybody has a clear memory for semi-arbitrary D&D rules.

Arbitrarity
2007-09-05, 04:51 PM
I do! :smallbiggrin:

Hmmmm...

Kyle
2007-09-05, 06:19 PM
That is why I do my prepared list and get extra paper to write out descriptions or pg numbers if long descriptions for spell.
I make short notes for the spell so i at least get the gist.
And if my group would do that, it would be awesome.

The next time I GM, I'm going to be encouraging them to speed things up anyway possible. I may even skip over them if they're taking too long.


Debated?
DM should have told them at start when they got it (if arcane).
Our currant GM's pretty good with the story telling, less so with rules lawyering, and our group enjoys debate quite a bit. As I mentioned, I know the combat rules front to back, but there's still debate every time someone attempts a bullrush. Which ends in my being right.


Yes, if you have never tried as class one can't determine how to play it
It's not that I haven't tried it--one of my favourite characters from days gone past, Merek the Cleric was actually a mystic theurge--but rather, I don't do it very often, and I need to write a bunch of notes for myself to play primary casters with any sort of skill.

Kantolin
2007-09-05, 08:29 PM
I think that you must be accustomed to fighting in a campaign run by an uncreative DM. In my campaigns I throw in many different situational modifiers including terrain, morale, weather, odd objects, etc.

Now, first of all, I actually do spend a good deal of time describing my actions. I dislike saying 'I hit it again' unless it's 1am, the fight vs the Lich Cleric has gone on entirely too long as is, and I'm exhausted. :P Therefore, I tend to do creative things with my swings... when my group played a game of White Wolf's Exalted, I end up stunting per-action just out of habit.

At any rate, a problem is, "I am bored, as I have no options other than to hit it. So I'll try to dress up 'I hit it' to make things more interesting for myself". And I can do that for awhile, but it's greatly preferable when I have the capability to cleave and trip or sommat, so I can at least decide, "Let me go to this location, that way I can cleave through to this person if I miss, and... nah, I shouldn't trip this time." That gives me more actual thought and strategy, moreso than someone who lacked both cleave and trip, who... wouldn't have that. Or anything similar.


So instead of simply picking a target and swinging, you can actually attempt to bull-rush the opponents into the shallow water there. And what does that do? Never know, maybe it is worth it, maybe not.

Unless you very constantly end up fighting alongside ravines or at the edges of lakes, and unless they very constantly end up killing or incapacitating your opponent, and unless you picked up the improved bull rush feat (Which would suggest a campaign where you're earning things, and not one where you're stuck in low-do-stuff), then that's soaking up an attack of opportunity to very likely do nothing even if you succeed when you could be actually contributing. I suppose it's an amusing one-in-a-million gamble for no reason, but eh.

Keep in mind that I've played a bull rusher as it sounded really nifty, and well... there just aren't very many situations where you'd want to bull rush something instead of stab at it. The DM can put the token and-one-of-them-is-at-the-edge-of-the-cliff enemy around a few times, but... well, eh again. I will admit, though, that bull rushing is at least something else to do. And if you have bull rush, and cleave, and power attack, and combat expertise, with a side of a tanglefoot bag, season to taste... you can do something in a lot more situations beyond 'I hit it'.


There could be a couple of large boulders that would serve as cover, or possibly can be pushed down onto enemies.

Cover, now, is indeed an example of tactics that can still be used without any abilities. But well... then what? That actually doesn't do a great job of having options to do for very long, as it's something you deal with real quick then halt.


Or maybe the forest you are fighting in has a rare species of thorn plants, and if you step on them Reflex save or suffer damage and - movement similiar to a caltrop.

That is actually an overall interesting idea - I have realized that we've never run into briars of any sort in my games for no particular reason.

Anyway, I use things like problematic terrain, weather effects, and the like to add some spice to battles, and they certainly make them more memorable, but they don't (in most cases) give the PCs more options... they, in fact, tend to take a few options away (I could use my bow, but it's pouring rain... yeah, I go hit it again).

But eh. I actually think this whole point was answered beforehand, though... it's not specifically low-magic campaigns, just campaigns where the PC's actions are limited.


~~

Edit: Re-noticed this part of the post, and that I didn't reply:


I can't STAND when my character or the group I am apart of are the next great saviors of the world. I want to be a normal person, with normal capabilities, that gets to make choices and then have the world react to those choices.

While I do prefer a larger scope to a smaller one, I'm referring more to... well.. campaigns where you don't do anything at all. If the scope of the game is 'saving this village from demons', that can be fine as well; you don't have to be the chosen ones or whatever.

It's just the ability to do things. I don't want to play - or feel like I'm playing - a mook. (Or rather, if I /do/ want to play a mook, I want to consciously decide to play a mook, and not make a character who's shoved into being a mook). If the sum of my actions is that of a completely irrelevant character to the story, then I'm displeased unless I manually selected to be as such.

I mean, even in more realistic modern-day games, you're encouraged to attempt to become someone of interest, so an omniscient someone reading/viewing the game will note your character by name as someone who existed. This can, now, happen in low and high magic games alike, but low-magic games tend towards do-nothing far more frequently.

:P I'd rather the chosen hero than more or less sitting around for several hours.

Winterwind
2007-09-06, 01:56 AM
Sounds like it's your GM's fault, and nothing else. Have you tried talking it through with him, pointing out how he could, in your opinion, improve his GMing and make the game more fun for you? In my opinion roleplaying games are about pretty much nothing except for character decisions, so if you feel as player as if you could not change anything the GM fails at the most basic level possible.
You have said before you wouldn't play under that GM if he wasn't your friend; if he is your friend, though, you should be able to talk freely with each other, and the only goal of RPGs is for everyone to have as much fun as possible, so I think you should discuss this calmly with him.