Low-magic campaign help.

[death390]

Before i start, YES I KNOW DND IS NOT DESIGNED TO DO THIS! looking for help not "do something else".

my group enjoys playing extreme low tier characters, mostly fighters, monks and 1-2 rangers, and myself the 2ndary GM and only real caster. due to this they have a LOT of trouble with casters and major magical monsters. so to this i am going to pitch to the Main GM that we do a straight low magic campaign mixed with E6 (to reduce magic mobs).

so far what i have figured to help with this are the following:
ban all normal 9s casters: wizard, sorc, cleric, druid, favored soul, ect.
Psionics are banned (group rule) but i would like to allow psi-focus as a "concentration" idea.
ESPECIALLY BAN ARTIFICER!
Binding banned (group rule, nothing from truenamer book allowed)
Book of Exaulted Deeds banned (group rule: stupid VoP broken @E6)
magical non-casters banned: warlock, DFA, ect
Sword of the arcane order not allowed for Mystic ranger.

half casters are possible to be played: bard, duskblade, Factorum, mystic ranger, ranger, paladin, hexblade, ect


incarnum & ToB allowed (actually going to encourage it)

when it comes to items:
masterwork is standard, magic gear very rare but will be tailored to characters.
house rule heal skill to actually heal based on roll since potions are rare, as is healing magic.
magic item crafting banned.
loot will be 90% non-magic or useless magical.
enemy focus on undead/humanoid/least-magical. difficult monsters will have magic though.

not using multi-class penalty
will be using food/water tracking, sleeping in armor fatigue,
thoughts and help?

[Falontani]

Warning... I get kind of.. ranty?

instead of banning casters or making half casters etc I suggest:
CL only increases by 1 for every 2 levels in a full caster class. So a level 20 wizard would have 10 CLs. Meaning at level 20 they could cast 5th level spells.
In E6 this means that a level 6 wizard gains access to second level spells.
Its called low magic for a reason.

This all also helps provide an in lore reason why magic items are rarer. Craft Wondrous Items requires a wizard to be level 6 to take it. Craft Arms and Armor requires a wizard to be level 10! A lich requires you to be at least level 24!!!!

I would suggest allowing full casters to get 1st level spells at second level.

Warlocks are fun, they get the Eldritch Blast at level 2 (score!) but at level 6 their eldritch blast can finally do 2d6 damage.

Actually use the rest rules in the game. (you heal 1 HP/HD per day)
Speaking of healing
Make it so that all healing spells only heal nonlethal damage. Only Supernatural abilities can heal lethal damage. (so a paladin's lay on hands, a monk's Wholeness of Body, etc)

Great you have screwed over everyone now. You've made the game pretty gritty. What next??? Oh yea. Sanity rules and taint. Add them in. Restoration cures taint, nice! What level does a cleric get restoration? Oh right, level 14. Raise Dead? Level 18! Truly powerful clerics can raise the dead... wait aren't we in E6? Oh yea there aren't any clerics that can raise you normally. Guess you have to ask a Solar for help. They have cleric 18 casting dont they?

Okay how do we cure the Insanity spell? Oh riiiight that spell Heal. That clerics get at level 1122. Guess your hoping you find an actual Healer class that is level 18!

[Tvtyrant]

Before i start, YES I KNOW DND IS NOT DESIGNED TO DO THIS! looking for help not "do something else".

my group enjoys playing extreme low tier characters, mostly fighters, monks and 1-2 rangers, and myself the 2ndary GM and only real caster. due to this they have a LOT of trouble with casters and major magical monsters. so to this i am going to pitch to the Main GM that we do a straight low magic campaign mixed with E6 (to reduce magic mobs).

so far what i have figured to help with this are the following:
ban all normal 9s casters: wizard, sorc, cleric, druid, favored soul, ect.
Psionics are banned (group rule) but i would like to allow psi-focus as a "concentration" idea.
ESPECIALLY BAN ARTIFICER!
Binding banned (group rule, nothing from truenamer book allowed)
Book of Exaulted Deeds banned (group rule: stupid VoP broken @E6)
magical non-casters banned: warlock, DFA, ect

half casters are possible to be played: bard, duskblade, Factorum, mystic ranger, ranger, paladin, hexblade, ect


incarnum & ToB allowed (actually going to encourage it)

when it comes to items:
masterwork is standard, magic gear very rare but will be tailored to characters.
house rule heal skill to actually heal based on roll since potions are rare, as is healing magic.
magic item crafting banned.
loot will be 90% non-magic or useless magical.
enemy focus on undead/humanoid/least-magical. difficult monsters will have magic though.

not using multi-class penalty
will be using food/water tracking, sleeping in armor fatigue,
thoughts and help?

E6 mystic ranger is a full caster.

What is the goal here? What style are you trying to go for?

If you want LotR style just have no magic at all, and magic items are all artifacts from a fallen world. Let masterwork+ and ++ weapons and armor exist and call it a day.

If you want King Arthur, magic is hard. No casting allowed, use the Incantation rules for all magic. Making a zombie or golem us likely going to get you killed, summoning devils sucks you into hell, etc.

[Karl Aegis]

It sounds like you want to play a level 3 game. Play at level 3. No need for mass bannings. Just have fun poking animals with sharp sticks.

[Venger]

It sounds like you want to play a level 3 game. Play at level 3. No need for mass bannings. Just have fun poking animals with sharp sticks.

Until a shadow comes along and kills everyone because you wouldn't give them items they need to survive.

PMdeath390, you know there's an actual reason we tell you not to use 3.5 if you want a low magic game. The game is written with the understanding that you have access to magic right from the beginning. If you do not give your players magic weapons and ban wizards and other ways of getting force effects by 3, a shadow will instantly kill them with no way of them defending themselves. This is but one example. Many monsters are like this and will kill your party if you prevent them from having access to 99% of the game, even if you're not maliciously trying to tpk them.

This is a bad idea. Do not do this.

[Goaty14]

Until a shadow comes along and kills everyone because you wouldn't give them items they need to survive.

I'm willing to conclude that the DM is a jerk if he starts a campaign "let's go poke a few animals with sticks", and then sends a shadow at the PCs.

[Venger]

I'm willing to conclude that the DM is a jerk if he starts a campaign "let's go poke a few animals with sticks", and then sends a shadow at the PCs.

This is the only conclusion for "low magic games" where the gm insists on using 3.5 for whatever reason

[Falontani]

This is the only conclusion for "low magic games" where the gm insists on using 3.5 for whatever reason

Unless the DM specifically makes sure that Shadows aren't the norm, and if shadows are to be expected give the party some sort of chance. Low Magic in and of itself is fine. Remember that creating the FIRST shadow required Create Undead or the spontaneous creation of it. If the whole world is low magic and shadows were spontaneously created at some point then the world has already been consumed and there is no world. (or you looking at the Plane of Shadow) If it requires Create Undead then you have to wait until a creature creates the first shadow for shadows to start to become abundant. In high magic or normal magic campaigns a Shadow exists, and knows that it can be slain. Thus they haven't attempted to kill everything in the world yet. Adventurers just happened to stumble upon it (or it's master sent it after the adventurers.) Shadows should not be common in any world other than high magic where shadows are created for no reason!

TLDR: Low Magic Settings should not have shadows as there isn't an in game lore reason why shadows exist! I mean they only exist because a wizard did it.

[Venger]

Unless the DM specifically makes sure that Shadows aren't the norm, and if shadows are to be expected give the party some sort of chance. Low Magic in and of itself is fine. Remember that creating the FIRST shadow required Create Undead or the spontaneous creation of it. If the whole world is low magic and shadows were spontaneously created at some point then the world has already been consumed and there is no world. (or you looking at the Plane of Shadow) If it requires Create Undead then you have to wait until a creature creates the first shadow for shadows to start to become abundant. In high magic or normal magic campaigns a Shadow exists, and knows that it can be slain. Thus they haven't attempted to kill everything in the world yet. Adventurers just happened to stumble upon it (or it's master sent it after the adventurers.) Shadows should not be common in any world other than high magic where shadows are created for no reason!

TLDR: Low Magic Settings should not have shadows as there isn't an in game lore reason why shadows exist! I mean they only exist because a wizard did it.

Shadows can be created by create undead, but they also just exist in the world as monsters.

They are a useful example to explain why low-magic 3.5 is not a viable concept because they're core monsters, they come online at level 3, and they're very likely for the gm to come up with either using a module, an encounter calculator, or their own initiative, and they will kill the party full stop.

They are hardly unique in this regard. Many monsters are like this. If you block pcs from having magic and have them fight a cockatrice (again, a cr3, core monster) then they're up a certain creek without a certain implement.

[Nifft]

Shadows can be created by create undead, but they also just exist in the world as monsters.

They are a useful example to explain why low-magic 3.5 is not a viable concept because they're core monsters, they come online at level 3, and they're very likely for the gm to come up with either using a module, an encounter calculator, or their own initiative, and they will kill the party full stop.

They are hardly unique in this regard. Many monsters are like this. If you block pcs from having magic and have them fight a cockatrice (again, a cr3, core monster) then they're up a certain creek without a certain implement.

There's an unstated assumption here that the published CR system works fine without extra DM oversight if the party has WBL and access to magic.

That assumption is wrong.

The CR system is imperfect, to the point of risking TPKs from allegedly level-appropriate encounters. Citation with the most fun name: That Damn Crab (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040221a).

To use the CR system in a high-magic, full-caster game, the DM needs the skill to evaluate monster appropriateness in the context of the party's capabilities.

To use monsters in a game with low-magic / few-casters, the DM also needs the skill to evaluate monster appropriateness in the context of the party's capabilities.


Discarding the CR system imposes no extra skill requirements -- just a bit more work, using the same skill you'd need to run a vanilla 3.5e or Pathfinder game.

[Venger]

There's an unstated assumption here that the published CR system works fine without extra DM oversight if the party has WBL and access to magic.

That assumption is wrong.
Did I say that? No? Then you don't get to act like I did.


The CR system is imperfect, to the point of risking TPKs from allegedly level-appropriate encounters. Citation with the most fun name: That Damn Crab (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040221a).

To use the CR system in a high-magic, full-caster game, the DM needs the skill to evaluate monster appropriateness in the context of the party's capabilities.

To use monsters in a game with low-magic / few-casters, the DM also needs the skill to evaluate monster appropriateness in the context of the party's capabilities.


Discarding the CR system imposes no extra skill requirements -- just a bit more work, using the same skill you'd need to run a vanilla 3.5e or Pathfinder game.

Right, but people who want to run "low magic games" never seem to be interested in doing this work, just in taking away necessary tools from the pcs and letting the monsters continue to have unfettered access to them.

Is it a problem if one of you gets turned to stone in normal D&D? of course it is, but at least in theory you could quest for a scroll of stone to flesh or get someone to help you. not so in "low magic" D&D

[Nifft]

Did I say that? No? Then you don't get to act like I did. Did you say the unstated assumption? Of course you didn't. But it's right there, and anyone can see it.


Right, but people who want to run "low magic games" never seem to be interested in doing this work Did they say that?

Why do you think ~you~ get to act like they did?

[Venger]

So you just chose to ignore the majority of my post where I agreed with everything you were saying. That's a weird choice.

Of course CR is crap. Everyone knows that. look at the op of this or any other similar thread. monsters explicitly keep all their goodies. this is the reason we always tell people to use a different system when they say "I want to play a low magic game" is because it always just means low magic for the pcs.

[NerdHut]

Right, but people who want to run "low magic games" never seem to be interested in doing this work, just in taking away necessary tools from the pcs and letting the monsters continue to have unfettered access to them.

You seem to have a dramatically different view of low-magic campaigns than I do. I ran E6 for a few months, and the players were not powerful casters. Neither were their opponents.

Because there was some magic, they could heal just fine and pick up a few minor magic items.

Their primary enemies were warrior-type goblinoids. Because I understood that you can't just put low magic rules on the players without also putting those rules on the NPCs.

If you believe that low-magic games simply cannot be run using D&D, then I can only assume you've only played low-magic games run by a terrible DM.

To the OP, if all you want is Low-magic, you should actually be alright running E6 with only a few minor changes. Just remember your party's capabilities before you throw a monster at them.

[Venger]

You seem to have a dramatically different view of low-magic campaigns than I do. I ran E6 for a few months, and the players were not powerful casters. Neither were their opponents.

Because there was some magic, they could heal just fine and pick up a few minor magic items.

Their primary enemies were warrior-type goblinoids. Because I understood that you can't just put low magic rules on the players without also putting those rules on the NPCs.

If you believe that low-magic games simply cannot be run using D&D, then I can only assume you've only played low-magic games run by a terrible DM.

To the OP, if all you want is Low-magic, you should actually be alright running E6 with only a few minor changes. Just remember your party's capabilities before you throw a monster at them.

I don't have a problem with E6, because E6 is not "low magic."

You play the game normally in E6 for both pcs and monsters, and you don't take away all the pcs' necessary tools for survival such as affecting incorporeal monsters or being able to recover from petrifying attacks.

If you understand that you can't put low magic rules on the pcs without putting them on the monsters, then you are agreeing with all my points. That's what I say in all of these threads.

I've played E6. It's fine. op says the campaign will be "mixed with e6," but without specifics we can't be sure what exactly that means.

[Falontani]

@Venger: I apologize of I made it sound like an attack on you; my intent was to put an in lore idea for why Shadows should not be a concern. However it is contingent on a DM who actually gives a crap and does reevaluate CRs based on the low magicness of the system, which is something I do when I DM. I am trying to defend the possibility of a low magic 3.5 campaign as I am actually running one myself, and stating that it is not feels like an attack on my person (even though you could not have known that I was doing a low magic campaign.) I believe that it can be done albeit with work and a close look at what monsters are used. With all that said, even in a low magic or even no magic campaign it *is* possible to kill a shadow. Shadows are not immune to fire. A non ghost touch torch has a 50% chance to deal 1d4 points of fire damage. In low magic a non ghost touch flask of Alchemist Fire has a 50% chance to deal 1d6 points of fire damage and light them on fire. A monk gains ki strike (I believe by level 6.) Will it be difficult? Oh yea it will, definitely harder that CR3, but possible.

[Nifft]

So you just chose to ignore the majority of my post where I agreed with everything you were saying. That's a weird choice. I read the parts that I quoted. They were an angry rebuttal.


Of course CR is crap. Everyone knows that. No, some people are inexperienced. Those people need better advice than "don't bother".


look at the op of this or any other similar thread. monsters explicitly keep all their goodies. this is the reason we always tell people to use a different system when they say "I want to play a low magic game" is because it always just means low magic for the pcs. Some people don't think of using other systems because, again, they're inexperienced.

Also, they didn't actually say that, did they? So, again, why do you think ~you~ get to act like they did?

[Venger]

@Venger: I apologize of I made it sound like an attack on you; my intent was to put an in lore idea for why Shadows should not be a concern. However it is contingent on a DM who actually gives a crap and does reevaluate CRs based on the low magicness of the system, which is something I do when I DM. I am trying to defend the possibility of a low magic 3.5 campaign as I am actually running one myself, and stating that it is not feels like an attack on my person (even though you could not have known that I was doing a low magic campaign.) I believe that it can be done albeit with work and a close look at what monsters are used. With all that said, even in a low magic or even no magic campaign it *is* possible to kill a shadow. Shadows are not immune to fire. A non ghost touch torch has a 50% chance to deal 1d4 points of fire damage. In low magic a non ghost touch flask of Alchemist Fire has a 50% chance to deal 1d6 points of fire damage and light them on fire. A monk gains ki strike (I believe by level 6.) Will it be difficult? Oh yea it will, definitely harder that CR3, but possible.

you're fine. it didn't come off that way at all.

good luck with that. I assume you have to either omit or greatly rewrite a lot of monsters. what is your process for that? do you mostly have your party fighting monsters like dinosaurs or zombies, who don't have magical powers, or do you carefully vet and remove magic from other enemies, such as demons?

you seem to be confused about how incorporeal monsters work. incorporeal monsters are immune to all nonmagical attack forms. a nonmagical, non ghost touch torch has a 0% chance to do anything. alchemist's fire is also nonmagical, so cannot affect them.

monks gain ki strike (magic) at level 4, but this has no bearing on their ability to affect incorporeal monsters, as it's only treated as magic for overcoming dr. monks can be enchanted as +1 weapons through effects like permanent magic fang, but in a low magic setting, it's unlikely this is one of the goodies you'll allow players.

to kill a shadow, you need force damage like magic missile or a +1 weapon.


I read the parts that I quoted. They were an angry rebuttal.

No, some people are inexperienced. Those people need better advice than "don't bother".

Some people don't think of using other systems because, again, they're inexperienced.

Also, they didn't actually say that, did they? So, again, why do you think ~you~ get to act like they did?

Wow I've never had anyone actually admit they didn't read whole posts before. How's that working for you?

When did I say "don't bother?" It sure is easier to beat down strawmen than actually address any of the points I'm making, isn't it?

Well, despite using a different system clearly being the best answer for anyone who wants a "low magic" game, death390 has made it clear they're not going to actually listen to this suggestion, so I didn't make it.

death390 did say this. You get to learn all kinds of neat stuff if you read peoples' whole posts:



difficult monsters will have magic though.
pcs lose magic, monsters keep it. pretty typical "low magic" campaign.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Before i start, YES I KNOW DND IS NOT DESIGNED TO DO THIS! looking for help not "do something else".

my group enjoys playing extreme low tier characters, mostly fighters, monks and 1-2 rangers, and myself the 2ndary GM and only real caster. due to this they have a LOT of trouble with casters and major magical monsters. so to this i am going to pitch to the Main GM that we do a straight low magic campaign mixed with E6 (to reduce magic mobs).

so far what i have figured to help with this are the following:
ban all normal 9s casters: wizard, sorc, cleric, druid, favored soul, ect.
Psionics are banned (group rule) but i would like to allow psi-focus as a "concentration" idea.
ESPECIALLY BAN ARTIFICER!
Binding banned (group rule, nothing from truenamer book allowed)
Book of Exaulted Deeds banned (group rule: stupid VoP broken @E6)
magical non-casters banned: warlock, DFA, ect

half casters are possible to be played: bard, duskblade, Factorum, mystic ranger, ranger, paladin, hexblade, ect


incarnum & ToB allowed (actually going to encourage it)

when it comes to items:
masterwork is standard, magic gear very rare but will be tailored to characters.
house rule heal skill to actually heal based on roll since potions are rare, as is healing magic.
magic item crafting banned.
loot will be 90% non-magic or useless magical.
enemy focus on undead/humanoid/least-magical. difficult monsters will have magic though.

not using multi-class penalty
will be using food/water tracking, sleeping in armor fatigue,
thoughts and help?

In some regards this is more restrictive than my own low-magic setup, in others it's a bit looser.

Lose mystic ranger. It's in direct opposition to what you're trying to do here.

Otherwise, this looks workable as long as you keep a close eye on what enemies you use. First rule; don't throw something at the PCs if you don't know how you would beat it in their place, with their characters. Second rule; get -really- familiar with the various alchemical and special substances and special materials and be willing to help your players find them as needed.

Maybe consider lifting the ban on BoED and just nix VoP? There's some useful stuff in there, like serren wood which is a natural wood that can be used to attack incorporeal foes for example.

Good luck.

[Nifft]

Wow I've never had anyone actually admit they didn't read whole posts before. How's that working for you?
From a time perspective? It filters out a lot of bad posts & uninspiring posters, so it's working great. :amused:

Anyway, enough attention has been spent on your derail.

Back to the thread topic:


Before i start, YES I KNOW DND IS NOT DESIGNED TO DO THIS! looking for help not "do something else".

my group enjoys playing extreme low tier characters, mostly fighters, monks and 1-2 rangers, and myself the 2ndary GM and only real caster. due to this they have a LOT of trouble with casters and major magical monsters. so to this i am going to pitch to the Main GM that we do a straight low magic campaign mixed with E6 (to reduce magic mobs).

so far what i have figured to help with this are the following:
ban all normal 9s casters: wizard, sorc, cleric, druid, favored soul, ect.
Psionics are banned (group rule) but i would like to allow psi-focus as a "concentration" idea.
ESPECIALLY BAN ARTIFICER!
Binding banned (group rule, nothing from truenamer book allowed)
Book of Exaulted Deeds banned (group rule: stupid VoP broken @E6)
magical non-casters banned: warlock, DFA, ect
Sword of the arcane order not allowed for Mystic ranger.

half casters are possible to be played: bard, duskblade, Factorum, mystic ranger, ranger, paladin, hexblade, ect


incarnum & ToB allowed (actually going to encourage it)

when it comes to items:
masterwork is standard, magic gear very rare but will be tailored to characters.
house rule heal skill to actually heal based on roll since potions are rare, as is healing magic.
magic item crafting banned.
loot will be 90% non-magic or useless magical.
enemy focus on undead/humanoid/least-magical. difficult monsters will have magic though.

not using multi-class penalty
will be using food/water tracking, sleeping in armor fatigue,
thoughts and help?

- As mentioned, you'll need to keep a closer eye on PC capabilities vs. monster defenses & attacks. The base system was already pretty bad, but if you change things this much, you'll need to compensate more than usual.

- Incarnum and ToB can go a ways to making gear less necessary -- Stone Dragon strikes can penetrate DR, and Shadow Hand teleportation can overcome some pretty significant obstacles which would otherwise be in the domain of spellcasting.

- Incarnum is WEIRD. Do your players already know & love the subsystems?

- E6 "epic" progression can be handled in various ways. Which are you using?

[Sm3gl]

Warning... I get kind of.. ranty?

instead of banning casters or making half casters etc I suggest:
CL only increases by 1 for every 2 levels in a full caster class. So a level 20 wizard would have 10 CLs. Meaning at level 20 they could cast 5th level spells.
In E6 this means that a level 6 wizard gains access to second level spells.
Its called low magic for a reason.

This all also helps provide an in lore reason why magic items are rarer. Craft Wondrous Items requires a wizard to be level 6 to take it. Craft Arms and Armor requires a wizard to be level 10! A lich requires you to be at least level 24!!!!

I would suggest allowing full casters to get 1st level spells at second level.

Warlocks are fun, they get the Eldritch Blast at level 2 (score!) but at level 6 their eldritch blast can finally do 2d6 damage.

Actually use the rest rules in the game. (you heal 1 HP/HD per day)
Speaking of healing
Make it so that all healing spells only heal nonlethal damage. Only Supernatural abilities can heal lethal damage. (so a paladin's lay on hands, a monk's Wholeness of Body, etc)

Great you have screwed over everyone now. You've made the game pretty gritty. What next??? Oh yea. Sanity rules and taint. Add them in. Restoration cures taint, nice! What level does a cleric get restoration? Oh right, level 14. Raise Dead? Level 18! Truly powerful clerics can raise the dead... wait aren't we in E6? Oh yea there aren't any clerics that can raise you normally. Guess you have to ask a Solar for help. They have cleric 18 casting dont they?

Okay how do we cure the Insanity spell? Oh riiiight that spell Heal. That clerics get at level 1122. Guess your hoping you find an actual Healer class that is level 18!

This sounds like an awesome idea. Seems to fit perfectly with what is wanted in a low magic campaign. Maybe at least give cantrips to those level 1 primary casters. The healing only through resting (influenced by heal skill) seems a great way to encourage conservative play.

[BowStreetRunner]

Consider this house rule, as a replacement for the magic items that players would have access to and in order to help them keep up with encounters whose CR expects them to have these magic items.


All masterwork items provide circumstance bonuses (not enhancement bonuses). This is important because once the PCs eventually do gain access to item enhancements from magic, those enhancements will stack with the masterwork bonuses.
Not every masterwork item provides the same bonuses. One sword might have a +1 attack bonus while another has a +2 bonus to disarm. A chain mail shirt might have a +3 bonus to AC against slashing weapons and a leather shirt might have a +1 bonus to AC against bludgeoning weapons. A single item might even have multiple different bonuses, such as thieves tools that give a +1 to disable device and a +3 to open lock.
Circumstance bonuses from masterwork items are all considered to be from the same source. So using two different masterwork items with different bonuses, you just get the best bonus. This bonus still stacks with other circumstance bonuses from another source.
There are also alchemical items that provide alchemical bonuses, as well as pseudo-magical effects (such as a temporary coating that allows a weapon to overcome DR/magic for 1d4 hits).
Alchemy is strictly speaking not magical, but can accomplish things that border on magical.
Masterwork items and Alchemical items are all created using the Craft skill and not Item Creation feats or magic of any kind.


These sorts of additions can fill the void left by a reduction in magic while still leaving the feel of a low magic setting.

[Tvtyrant]

I don't think not having magic is problematic with the D&D system, D20 modern works "fine" (guns are broken). Just don't use monsters/NPCs that require magic to beat, problem solved.

As long as magic is low everywhere it doesn't cause any problems.

[death390]

thanks for the help so far, i did edit in a ban on sword of the arcane order and am leaving mystic ranger in. if you actually look at rangers spell list there is nothing in there that is "horrible" and is equivilent (kinda) to duskblade but more skills based?? if that makes sense. yes it has lvl 3 spells but they are not very usefull, most powerful might be arrowsplit for damage and idk for utility.

i am sticking with E6 due to the fact that most monsters past that point become more and more magical (not that CR 3-6 are short any mind you). i personally am fine using any of the books (i love Psi) but the table as a whole banned them due to a couple broken uses/ percieved threat (DM fears a truename magic, not truenamer just truename in general).

the entire reason for this is that i had to poke and prod several members to get one to pick a "magic" class level to pick up some slack, fighter with a cleric level for healing. as it is they are non-magical in their entirety beyond that one level and my character. i am leaving the half-casters alone so if my main DM wants to take a break and i run it, it would leave him options beyond beatstick (he could basically be the "gandalf" if you will).

my character is pretty high optimization so that i can cover many roles (DPS, trapfinder, skill-monkey, ect) because they are all playing T4-6 and thus can't fight their way out of a paper bag most of the time. so my pitch to my GM will be to let him have some down time to work on the main campaign and have some fun while i try and "show" the group dnd tactics and such.


all the clerics for temples and such will be replaced with monks or healer class from Miniatures book. so curing ailments will still be possible. i am considering allowing healer class for PC's but its so underwhelming that idk if they could pull off a good character with it.

as for the subsystems, the idea is to introduce to them ways to go about things other than "i hit it". i have one guy (the guy with 1 cleric lvl) who uses the healing on hit stance and he loves it. i think if i can introduce the subsystems to them (as bonuses if nothing else, totemist soulmeld for killing different magical creatures maybe?) they will enjoy them.


for in dungeon healing, the heal skill i am thinking will give TempHP (with a long duration) based on the skill check, still fleshing this out but thinking DC10 for 1 pt +1 pt per 2 above 10 for 3 hours. to a max of their HP total, no going over.

for enemies like i said i will be going humanoid/ non-magical mostly, bosses/ hard encounters can be magical though. i want them to understand that standing in a room and just beating on enemies is not the only way to play. drop a patrol and come back? larger groups (splitting small group to add members) that are more alert. Mobs dieing? they run away and ambush you another time. you setup defense in a hallway? they wait for you to come to them/ sleep. ect ect ect.

[Feantar]

half casters are possible to be played: bard, duskblade, Factorum, mystic ranger, ranger, paladin, hexblade, ect


incarnum & ToB allowed (actually going to encourage it)

when it comes to items:
masterwork is standard, magic gear very rare but will be tailored to characters.
house rule heal skill to actually heal based on roll since potions are rare, as is healing magic.
magic item crafting banned.
loot will be 90% non-magic or useless magical.
enemy focus on undead/humanoid/least-magical. difficult monsters will have magic though.

not using multi-class penalty
will be using food/water tracking, sleeping in armor fatigue,
thoughts and help?

I think that mystic rangers and bards are too spellcasting orientated for low magic games. Suggestion: get rid of the M. Ranger, remove the bards spellcasting and give him an essentia progression. Incarnum is perfect for what you're trying to do, especially with E6 where you can get more essentia through feats.

I'd suggest making up more special substances that allow penetrating DR types or allow striking incorporeal; or just picking some appropriate substance to do that (example: Shadows can be hurt by silver blades that have never seen the light of the sun) - make things more legend-like and less high-fantasy. Also, don't forget alchemy - it gets really useful in low magic cases.

To address the lack of healing, using Vitality and Wound (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm) points might be a good idea. It essentially gives you a non-lethal damage buffer that refreshes between encounters. Also, there's Healing Salve; it is a DC 25 to craft alchemical item (has synergy with profession Herbalist) that heals 1d8 HP. I can't remember the crafting cost though... But it is essentially, a non magical healing potion. Arguably, it should get a synergy bonus from heal as well.

The borderline complete lack of utility spells in the beginning might cause problems; if so, use incantations. They keep the low magic feel, they take research to get so they are not easy to access, and if you want to have any hope of hitting their DCs in early levels you need to make them too specific to be an issue.

Finally, I think there was a dragon magazine article that allowed the crafting of more advanced armour & weapons (advanced as in sharper, not laser) with increasing crafting checks - a masterwork+, of sorts. Not particularly strong, but could be useful.

[Nifft]

In terms of adapting Bardic effects into low-magic E6 without Bards, note that Crusaders get Smite 1/day at level 6.

There's a feat, Smite to Song, which allows a character to turn Smites into Bardic Music... though it says "smite evil", a nice DM can gloss that over.

The Crusader is a very good flavor-fit for the inspiring battle-leader, too, and there's Song of the White Raven to get all the Inspire Courage effects of a level 6 Bard.

Alternately and more RAW-legally, a Paladin (of Freedom?) with the appropriate feat could do the Bard thing, and the Paladin would also be a decent flavor-fit. Just not as much fun as a Crusader in my opinion.

[Crake]

I've run a low magic e6 game quite successfully for the past year. Armor as DR (without actually reducing the armor bonus) combined with class defense makes the players far hardier, allowing them to also have a good touch AC against the inevitable magical encounter as well, while wounds/vitality makes healing far less of an issue, since you'll recover most/all of your vitality over the course of a single night's rest, while wounds take a little longer to recover (recovering at the same rate as normal HP). To replace magic items, we made use of pathfinder unchained's automatic bonus progression system, using the "no magic items" variant which treats you as 2 levels higher for determining what bonuses you get. By level 6, this provides players with: +2 to a mental and physical ability score, +2 to saves, +1 to natural armor, +1 deflection, and the ability to attune two weapons to +1 and two armors (or shields, or combination therof) to +1. These aren't actually magical bonuses, so they don't bypass DR/magic, which is where prolific use of mundane resources comes into play.

There are a lot of mundane materials in 3.5 to cover most of your issues. Taking a page out of pathfinder's book as well, you can grab weapon blanches to be able to deal with things like shadows with completely mundane weapons, as long as you're prepared and you know what you're going after. This makes information gathering far more important. When getting turned to stone is practically a death sentence, a medusa or basilisk becomes far more dangerous. The archer is fine if he can maintain distance, but the melee guy may instead need to tank by literally picking up a tower shield he's never used before, and holding himself between the medusa and the party, doing nothing but total covering to prevent her from approaching the archer who's peppering her with arrows.

I honestly maintain that dnd can be played in low magic, as long as both you and your players are aware that the combat becomes significantly more dangerous, and they can't just rush in like they do in standard dnd and deal with the consequences after the fight, because in e6 low magic, there is no fix to getting turned to stone.

Also, regarding bans: I wouldn't ban anything, but I made magic literally carry the death penalty, so playing a wizard with a spell component pouch and a spellbook? Good luck. Cleric, druid, and sorc with eschew materials are much easier to play, but still, if anyone sees you casting magic, you're in trouble.

[Luccan]

If you're allowing Bards and others like them (and someone actually picks up a casting class) that shouldn't be to bad. I was going to try a tier 4/5 game at one point, with the point of making it clear Adepts and a buffed up Magewright were valid options. You might not be able to take on many "ECL appropriate" encounters, but if you stick to what you can handle, it should be fine.

Also, part of the point of E6 is that you can run with just about any class/party combo and be fine. So, you could always just suggest E6 and let your players do their normal thing.

Edit: If you're looking for low-magic, discuss it with your whole group. Discuss what it means to you and if that's what you all want. It sounds like your group tends to play half-casters at best, so maybe they'd be ok with it. Or maybe they like being warriors taking on big magical threats.

[Malroth]

Ban mundanes, it works better.

[JyP]

for arcane classes : you gain xp toward arcane classes only by reading arcane tomes, inventing spells, or being trained by a mystic. Stealing grimoires for the win :smallbiggrin:

for divine classes : you gain xp toward divine classes only by completing divine objectives - convert people, find relics, do crusades, or for druids restoring forests.

for half caster classes, it also means half xp must come from arcane / divine objectives.

For incarnum and ToB : as these are part supernatural, I would also ensure that half xp come from supernatural objectives.

Et voilà.

[Falontani]

for arcane classes : you gain xp toward arcane classes only by reading arcane tomes, inventing spells, or being trained by a mystic. Stealing grimoires for the win :smallbiggrin:

for divine classes : you gain xp toward divine classes only by completing divine objectives - convert people, find relics, do crusades, or for druids restoring forests.

for half caster classes, it also means half xp must come from arcane / divine objectives.

For incarnum and ToB : as these are part supernatural, I would also ensure that half xp come from supernatural objectives.

Et voilà.

Actually. This might work.
To level up a casting class you must use spell paraphernalia. (Like he said) however mundane experience is still being awarded. So you can still take levels in mundane classes, in fact your being encouraged to.

Incarnum is soul stuff, so contemplating the soul that you possess while fighting will work

[Eldariel]

How about No Magic? The campaign journal in my signature describes our journey through one with a few houserules (most saliently "vitality/wound points" and "everybody has maneuvers" with PFesque poisons) and it's been a blast thus far. VP/WP is about the only alteration you need to make to run a game with no healing. And ToB has enough depth and interesting internal interactions that it's worth a game all by itself, particularly with homebrew disciples. Though nowadays I'd consider doing the same with Path of War instead.

[King of Nowhere]

Isn't E6 enough already to have a low magic world? no spells above 3rd level is pretty low magic.

Alternatively, you want to restrict even those spells? well, halving the level progression of full casters is too bad for them. You get 2nd level spells, at level 6? Sucks to be a caster. I suggest an alternative idea: you can't have more than 3 levels in a full caster class. So you could be a wizard 3/cleric 3, providing a lot of utility but not much world-altering power.


Finally, I don't see what your group has against vow of poverty. It gives you less than what normal equipment gives you. Even in E6, as long as you allow at least +1 weapons. Even if you restrict yourself to nonmagical gear, by level 6 an ascet is getting

- +6 armor AC, +1 deflection AC. Total +7, less than full plate.

- +1 to hit and damage, which are offset respectively by masterwork weapons and by the greater damage capacity of martial weapons (which an ascet cannot use) and

- endure elements, which you can get from a good coat (or its lack thereof in hot climate)

- 3 bonus feats, which would be great if the vop itself didn't already cost 2 feats.

- sustenance, now here's actually something you can't get in mundane fashion. But unless you want to create an adventure based on being stuck in a desert without food, then not needing food doesn't come into play. In 99.99% of cases, you can get the same benefit of sustenance with nonmagical gear: just buy food.

I... get the feeling that you have a very skewed idea of what is broken and what is not.

[Nifft]

for arcane classes : you gain xp toward arcane classes only by reading arcane tomes, inventing spells, or being trained by a mystic. Stealing grimoires for the win :smallbiggrin:

for divine classes : you gain xp toward divine classes only by completing divine objectives - convert people, find relics, do crusades, or for druids restoring forests.

for half caster classes, it also means half xp must come from arcane / divine objectives.

For incarnum and ToB : as these are part supernatural, I would also ensure that half xp come from supernatural objectives.

Et voilà.

That reminds me of ye olde editions where we'd focus on stealing the treasure and didn't worry so much about killing the dragon, because stealing 1 GP => 1 XP and that was awesome.

I could see this working pretty well.

[Luccan]

That reminds me of ye olde editions where we'd focus on stealing the treasure and didn't worry so much about killing the dragon, because stealing 1 GP => 1 XP and that was awesome.

I could see this working pretty well.

It's why in early editions, the focus was dungeons and later the focus shifted to killing monsters. Player actions will follow the XP.

[death390]

Isn't E6 enough already to have a low magic world? no spells above 3rd level is pretty low magic.

Alternatively, you want to restrict even those spells? well, halving the level progression of full casters is too bad for them. You get 2nd level spells, at level 6? Sucks to be a caster. I suggest an alternative idea: you can't have more than 3 levels in a full caster class. So you could be a wizard 3/cleric 3, providing a lot of utility but not much world-altering power.


Finally, I don't see what your group has against vow of poverty. It gives you less than what normal equipment gives you. Even in E6, as long as you allow at least +1 weapons. Even if you restrict yourself to nonmagical gear, by level 6 an ascet is getting

- +6 armor AC, +1 deflection AC. Total +7, less than full plate.

- +1 to hit and damage, which are offset respectively by masterwork weapons and by the greater damage capacity of martial weapons (which an ascet cannot use) and

- endure elements, which you can get from a good coat (or its lack thereof in hot climate)

- 3 bonus feats, which would be great if the vop itself didn't already cost 2 feats.

- sustenance, now here's actually something you can't get in mundane fashion. But unless you want to create an adventure based on being stuck in a desert without food, then not needing food doesn't come into play. In 99.99% of cases, you can get the same benefit of sustenance with nonmagical gear: just buy food.

I... get the feeling that you have a very skewed idea of what is broken and what is not.

like i said I am fine with all the splats as long as i can read them first. VoP is broken bad not broken good in my opinion. my group saw what a VoP monk was able to do when i helped build one for my friend who loves monks but kept dieing (dies 28 times in about a year of weekly sessions) so i figures VoP would be enough to keep him alive. kept him too alive even when he did stupid crap, so table bans the entire book. *facepalm

i am a power gaming rules traditionalist munchkin, i just don't bring my "good" builds to the table. i know the general gist of what i want to pitch for the campaign but knowing thier preferences for low/no magic in the group a standard system won't work well for them, hence low magic campaign.

the thing is if ruling magic as rare then the explanation for those allowed needs to be made. the pious classes (that are allowed) can get what they do have from their god, while the rangers magic is more "how did he do that" skill, the bard is enchantment/illusion, hexblade has next to nothing, duskblade is your evoker mage, the assasin is skill like the ranger, ect ect.

[Aotrs Commander]

I myself went with the option of "work out an approximation of what flat Bonus to Stuff Gear (i.e. weapons, armour, AC (natural/deflection) and stats) would give you every level (by WBL), then convert that to a progression of level-based abilities common to all PCs. NPCs and monsters." Thus, everything that can use a weapon treats that weapon as being a +1 weapon at a certain level. Further, I changed "enhancement bonus" to being non-magical, and that masterwork and magical items were altered to untyped. (And made an estimation that cost and rarity wise, magical gear was effective two pluses higher.) I also then allowed +0 magical gear (which basically is just like having a new material type for bypassing DR x/Magic).

This allowed me to move magic items away from "gives bonus" to "does stuff" and thus make them less mandatory for noncasters. I also added some medicinal herbs (which work a bit like potions) to allay the healing issue a little bit; this allows the campaign to run relatively low magic. (If I want to - said campaign in question is more "low magic around but not as much for the PCs" in terms of the parties that have actually played in it thus far!)

Obviously, this is a pretty extensive solution, but I was also replacing the bestiary wholesale, so stuff like the bonuses were being factored into the new monster stats already.

[JyP]

That reminds me of ye olde editions where we'd focus on stealing the treasure and didn't worry so much about killing the dragon, because stealing 1 GP => 1 XP and that was awesome.

I could see this working pretty well.
well, we could go even farther for mundane classes also, with rogues gaining xp by stealing & backstabbing of course ^^

Bards could gain xp by performing music to audiences, etc. Martial classes should gain xp through combat - as is the main way in D&D 3.5 for now.

[ericgrau]

I have something in my sig but it basically equates to: give out 75-100% WBL as points, let players use only to buy static bonuses like ability scores and AC. You get the points at level up rather than from treasure hordes.

Utility stuff like flight and anti-invisibility is another high level issue. You'll need to go down the list of some essential magic item thread and find ways around it.

Flight: Allow flight bilities as an exception, allow climb abilities instead, or give ridiculously high jump and/or climb bonuses.
Anti-invisibility: Allow see invisibility abilities as an exception, give huge listen bonuses (beating DC by 20 gives you the creature's square but does not negate miss chance), allow improved versions of blind fight to reduce or negate the miss chance.
Etc., etc.: Just find a list of essential utility items and decide which ones are truly essential and what your solution will be for abilities.

Let the player likewise buy these abilities with points for a price similar to the related magic items. Fluff as extraordinary abilities and/or senses. Superhuman athleticism, sixth sense, etc. For crazy high skill bonuses price similar to the utility item that makes the skill obsolete, not the crazy high skill price. If including utility then give out something like 100-125% WBL as ability points, on top of limited mundane treasure, to make up for the limited options.

[death390]

does anyone have any other suggestion?

[AnimeTheCat]

At some point the tread became people arguing about shadows and it became difficult to read.

As I'm sure others have stated, if you're going to be playing low-magic, the level of magic inclusion needs to remain standardized across all parties. If there are creatures that are inherently magical that you really want to use, you'll need to ensure that some inherent magic (of approximately the same power and application) is in some way available to the party. For example, if the party is facing opponents with DR/Magic you need some way for the party to get that without having a real spellcaster. Some examples of this are special materials, like spellstone (something I just made up that is stone that had some naturally magical influence gradually seep in to it over many years. Very rare, but stronger than steel and very heavy.) Or allow non-magical characters to use craft (alchemy) to create oils that give weapons different attributes without changing attack and damage values. For example, an emulsion of blue tree fungus found growing on subterranean trees and a chickens egg can be smeared on a weapon to allow it to strike through magical resistance. The concoction is only good for about a week at which point it turns Brown and can be used as a poison or grenade type attack that deals acid damage.

Secondly, you'll need to make decisions about the creatures that inhabit your world. It will take a fair bit of work, but actually building out orc tribes, hobgoblin warbands, goblin raiding parties and strongholds, etc will give you tons of viable, non-magical enemies to use. You don't need to use dragons, shadows, skeletons, devil's, demons, angels, or anything of the sort if you don't want to. The most success I had with low magic included a singular red Dragon that was the primary antagonist, but I removed his spellcasting and gave him some fire-based spell like abilities and a dominate spell-like ability. I used adepts freely as the primary spellcasters in the game. These were anything from temple healers to court wizards. Since nobody in the party wanted to play a wizard or sorcerer and only one person was interested in playing a healer, I just had it baked in to the game that this person grew to become a legendary healer that was known across the world for their amazing abilities, surpassing even the best priests and court wizards. You could essentially make the same case for clerics, wizards, and sorcerers. If you do that though...

You'll need to make sure the players are acquainted with the risk for being so well known. That level of knowledge and ability is a threat to someone, somewhere, and they won't stand for it. Assassination, dead end or never ending quests, and dangerous missions are some ways you can do this.

The last part is to read the group and play it by ear. If the group is growing tired of mundane grind, drop a magical quest and see how it goes. If the group enjoys it, just keep going and see where you end up. Along with this is constant evaluatuon. If you have a wizard or sorcerer in the party, pick books and spells ahead of time that simply don't fit the game and then check the spells as you go to make sure you know what's in store. Don't drop scrolls of spells you wouldn't want the party to have.

There's more, but I think that's enough food for thought for now.

[ZamielVanWeber]

The general reason that low magic is bad in DND is that the designers assumed players would have access to certain magic items and tailored monster encounters under that belief. (A very strange system in some ways: those bonuses were made insanely expensive, but the devs believed a fighter would have multiple +5 weapons, a +6 Str item, and a tome of +x Str but seemed to think access to flight was so rare as to be a non-factor).

If you bake a bunch of those number assumptions into the classes a low-magic setting can work nicely OR you can stay far away from moderate+ CR monsters and use a lot of class levels to fluff their power instead. Admittedly there are other issues but those can be fixed as well.

The reason people knee jerk "don't do low magic DND" is that too often a DM will simply kick out a pile of stuff and fail to acknowledge that a lot of monsters go from "easy" to "nightmarish" without the ability to smack their AC reliably.

Some other top of the head issues: no magic means the game can get annoyingly granular with things like tracking daily eating/drinking, so think about stream lining that.
Healing: I would accelerate it honestly, like 1 HP an hour in addition to normal healing. The problem is that without magical healing too often, I find, groups will just plop down and do nothing or proceed at an incredibly risk averse pace unless there is a hard time limit. After all, four days to the characters may be a little as four minutes to the players/

[death390]

yes as stated i know that lacking magical gear (or extreemly little quantity) makes things difficult. the reason as stated for this is that my group is already low-magic, but monsters and such have not been altered to account for it. if i end up running it i plan on mostly using low CR monsters scaled up to correct levels, large size increase here, better tactics there, ect ect.

i do like the 1hp/ hour bit though it would help maintain HP for the group but that would mean that most low/mid level PC's would get a full heal 1-2 times a day. perhaps a % rounded would be better, though 10% per 4 hours perhaps? either way i already am planning have the heal skill give temp HP up to their max to help prevent risk aversion.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The general reason that low magic is bad in DND is that the designers assumed players would have access to certain magic items and tailored monster encounters under that belief. (A very strange system in some ways: those bonuses were made insanely expensive, but the devs believed a fighter would have multiple +5 weapons, a +6 Str item, and a tome of +x Str but seemed to think access to flight was so rare as to be a non-factor).

This is somewhat exaggerated but it's also mostly true. There's a reason that every monster has a "treasure" line in its stat block, the WBL table exists, and the world building chapter of the DMG gives settlement GP limits rather than telling you how to generate magic item shops.

The devs designed the game with the -intention- that magical gear would be freely available but gave the GM options for vetoing or at least delaying acquisition of certain types of things if he was concerned over the effect they might have on the game.

The MIC went into further detailing what the expectations for +X items where by assigning level values to given amounts of GP. It's expected that a character who primarily fights with a weapon will have a +5 (or equivalent) weapon by level 18 at the latest, though more likely by 16, for example.


The problem with "low-magic" in regard to this issue is that most GMs say low-magic when what they mean is low wealth and rare magic items then leave the casters as-is.

As long as they're aware of and understand this expectation, and the expectation that the designers also thought the PCs would have access to the effects of spells that cure status ailments from the wizard and cleric lists at the level they become available to those classes, and they then select monsters accordingly or compensate, low-magic can be perfectly viable.

[Crake]

The problem with "low-magic" in regard to this issue is that most GMs say low-magic when what they mean is low wealth and rare magic items then leave the casters as-is.

As long as they're aware of and understand this expectation, and the expectation that the designers also thought the PCs would have access to the effects of spells that cure status ailments from the wizard and cleric lists at the level they become available to those classes, and they then select monsters accordingly or compensate, low-magic can be perfectly viable.

It's always good to define your terms. Personally when I refer to a low magic setting, I don't mean that magic is weaker, I mean that it's rarer, generally with an attached superstitious reaction from most people when seeing magic. Whenever I run low magic games though I typically replace wbl with pathfinder's automatic bonus progression, and make sure the players are well aware of the mundane alternatives to deal with things that they otherwise would be unable to fight.

[EldritchWeaver]

I doubt that this will sway the OP, but if players a problem with the Vancian magic, a solution would be to replace the Vancian casting completely. Psionics would be an option (banning it because it contains broken options is overkill - just disallow those). Another way would be to backport Spheres of Power to 3.5, which seems to be easy to be done. SoP has more specialized magic, can be reduced in power more easily in specific ways, if you wish to accommodate a low magic setting even further and the best thing - it is is easy to learn and to play. Even casual players can work with it.


The CR system is imperfect, to the point of risking TPKs from allegedly level-appropriate encounters. Citation with the most fun name: That Damn Crab (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040221a).

If you assign an ancient dragon the CR of 1, is CR system wrong or the CR of the ancient dragon?

[Crake]

If you assign an ancient dragon the CR of 1, is CR system wrong or the CR of the ancient dragon?

It's more an issue that CR assumes all things to be equal. Parties are not all made equal, so what may be a challenge to one party would be an easy curbstomp to another.

But the monster advancement system built into the CR system can also produce some pretty borked results too.

[EldritchWeaver]

It's more an issue that CR assumes all things to be equal. Parties are not all made equal, so what may be a challenge to one party would be an easy curbstomp to another.

But the monster advancement system built into the CR system can also produce some pretty borked results too.

I suppose you would need to have an explicit standard party (or several), against which you could measure enemies. That way deviations of difficulties can be more easily seen.

[Nifft]

If you assign an ancient dragon the CR of 1, is CR system wrong or the CR of the ancient dragon?

If you argue invalid premise using a false binary, is your argument wrong, or is the use of a false-binary fallacy wrong?

The answer is that both are wrong, obviously.

[ZamielVanWeber]

If you assign an ancient dragon the CR of 1, is CR system wrong or the CR of the ancient dragon?

Is it possible to get a CR 1 ancient dragon within the rules? Also the CR system does not work because it relies on just a cavalcade of assumptions that have no real truth value. They cannot be true/false because the system is just too open to accept an endless string of switches. It was a nice attempt but it is next to useless much of the time and bad others.

[EldritchWeaver]

If you argue invalid premise using a false binary, is your argument wrong, or is the use of a false-binary fallacy wrong?

The answer is that both are wrong, obviously.

So which option does my "false binary" actually miss? Attacking my argument without providing an argument is also a fallacy.


Is it possible to get a CR 1 ancient dragon within the rules?

That is irrelevant. You are assuming that certain rules have to be followed to arrive at a CR, but for The Damn Crab they most certainly have been (partly) ignored.


Also the CR system does not work because it relies on just a cavalcade of assumptions that have no real truth value. They cannot be true/false because the system is just too open to accept an endless string of switches. It was a nice attempt but it is next to useless much of the time and bad others.

Actually, someone derived a CR calculation system which worked relatively well (it did reconstruct that dragons have been deliberately undervalued by 2/3s). You simply had to input the numbers and got a CR out of it. How useful a CR number is in relation to your party is another question. If you are immune to some attack or particular vulnerable to a certain tactic will skew the numbers.

[Nifft]

So which option does my "false binary" actually miss? Attacking my argument without providing an argument is also a fallacy.

You attacked my argument with an analogy; also, your analogy contained a false binary. I made an analogy to your analogy, and pointed out the false binary. If my argument was an "attack", then so was yours. If my argument was "without providing an argument", then neither was yours.

What's the name of the fallacy you think I'm committing?

Why do you think ~your~ analogy wasn't a fallacy, but my analogy somehow is?

[death390]

I doubt that this will sway the OP, but if players a problem with the Vancian magic, a solution would be to replace the Vancian casting completely. Psionics would be an option (banning it because it contains broken options is overkill - just disallow those). Another way would be to backport Spheres of Power to 3.5, which seems to be easy to be done. SoP has more specialized magic, can be reduced in power more easily in specific ways, if you wish to accommodate a low magic setting even further and the best thing - it is is easy to learn and to play. Even casual players can work with it.



If you assign an ancient dragon the CR of 1, is CR system wrong or the CR of the ancient dragon?

Their problem is not that they dislike vanician casting, myself and the DM have thrown out ways around it to let them build casters they just don't want to play casters. UA spontaneous divine system applied to both arcane and divine, spell point system, even just gave them access to their entire spells known list (wizard would still learn by scroll & lvl but cleric/ druid has complete access). they want to play fighters, rangers, rouges; well not rouges i have to fill that niche too since they don't want to deal with traps, monks, monks are the other one they like.


Is it possible to get a CR 1 ancient dragon within the rules? Also the CR system does not work because it relies on just a cavalcade of assumptions that have no real truth value. They cannot be true/false because the system is just too open to accept an endless string of switches. It was a nice attempt but it is next to useless much of the time and bad others.

you can make a CR 1 dragon. it inviolves doing things that are a detriment or removal of features, for example reduction of size from Gargantuan to Tiny? -5 CR because it loses a LOT: claw/ tail damage, str, con, natural AC, but gains attack bonus & Dex. then doing things like reducing then to non-elite array, removal of natural armor, ect ect.

[EldritchWeaver]

You attacked my argument with an analogy; also, your analogy contained a false binary. I made an analogy to your analogy, and pointed out the false binary. If my argument was an "attack", then so was yours. If my argument was "without providing an argument", then neither was yours.

What's the name of the fallacy you think I'm committing?

Why do you think ~your~ analogy wasn't a fallacy, but my analogy somehow is?

I conferred with a friend and he explained that I both misunderstood your answer and did indeed leave out the option, that both - the CR system and TDC - are wrong. Still, even if right, this helps little in practice: A party which is expected to win against the TDC suffers a TPK. Which parts of the equation were wrong is then merely academic. But TDC offers another insight: The Pathfinder version is rated higher and I can't recall having seen people complaining about the PF version. Which means that the CR system (in PF) doesn't have enough influence to make this encounter more deadly beyond expectations. So it seems to me that even if the CR system is flawed, it isn't enough to be completely useless.

[Nifft]

So it seems to me that even if the CR system is flawed, it isn't enough to be completely useless.

Did someone in this thread say that the CR system was completely useless?

Maybe you could get your friend to help explain my original argument, which was that a DM needs to develop the skill to evaluate monsters due to the fact that the CR system isn't perfect.

This same skill will see more use, and the DM will need to expend more effort, if the assumptions which underlie the CR system are invalidated -- since the CR system usually helps somewhat, but not always, since it's imperfect.

[Dys Dogeater]

I have tried almost exactly what OP prescribed. It was a disaster for me and my group personally. I did basically give up on the idea being doable in pathfinder so take what I have to say with a grain of salt.

What I wish I had done instead:
No PCs can start as casters and Have very few/no Magical NPCs and monsters. (perhaps have casters be a type of prestige class)
Magic is still available and possible but is only accessible via rituals (no spells on tap)
Everything is still the same but casting times are incredibly long, complex or expensive like taking a minute per caster level or something.

In theory if you can stick to this, magic still exists and is powerful but being a mage in a combat or tactical situation is not feasible.

[EldritchWeaver]

Did someone in this thread say that the CR system was completely useless?

Maybe you could get your friend to help explain my original argument, which was that a DM needs to develop the skill to evaluate monsters due to the fact that the CR system isn't perfect.

This same skill will see more use, and the DM will need to expend more effort, if the assumptions which underlie the CR system are invalidated -- since the CR system usually helps somewhat, but not always, since it's imperfect.

I'm sorry if I came over as aggravating in some way. It might not be obvious, but I am not a native speaker and also suffer from a form of autism. I'm not trying to be challenging, instead I attempt to clarify issues I have with my understanding. All in all, I do agree with your assessment of the CR system, as you explained it now.