Bye Bye Magic

[Eradis]

Might have a better visibility as a thread rather than a later asked question in a completely different place.

For my alternate campaign (the one I will be running when a player is missing mid-plot of the main course), I want to immerse the players in a non-magical world. Or at least, a world where it is so scarce that the PCs won't have any magic built-in their level progression, but through the story-arc instead.

Banning the caster are obviously a requirement, but other than most Fighters and Barbarians, are there other archetype that goes without magic? Possibly some Rogues (I honestly paid more attention to the Arcane Trickster than the other) and possibly Monks? Although I think what makes Monks shine is what goes beyond the traditional martial artist can do.

On top of this, what way would be cool to introduce powers under the form of spells to the PCs? One of my hovering ideas is to make them acquire an artifact that let them capture powers from the foes they defeat (aka experience points, and the occasional spell like thaumaturgy after defeating a powerful enough demon).

EDIT: I am not looking for another game system. I know plenty without magic, I deliberately choose 5th edition of D&D because it is insanely easy to reintegrate magic as I see fit. Plus balancing the encounter with that in mind is a joke. I'd rather have ideas on how I could give magic to the world and the PCs in a role playing way.

[Kane0]

Not gonna lie, removing magic from D&D is not easy. At least not without taking big chunks of the experience with it.

Totally doable of course. A party of Barbarians, Fighters, Rogues, Spell-less Rangers and maybe monks will function just fine but D&D is built on a foundation of high fantasy and magic is a part of that at its core.

[Laserlight]

My first 5e campaign started with the players as martials in the Old World, where magic was unknown. Battlemaster, barbearian, thief, and open hand monk refluffed as a student at an illegal fencing school--swashbuckler wasn't published at the time and she liked monks anyway. The party sailed to the New World and started discovering magic, and somewhere around L6-7 they were able to MC into caster classes. Rogue went Paladin thereafter, Fighter MC'd into Cleric for a level or two, the Monk took a little Druid, and the Barbarian stayed Barbarian.

[Galithar]

I would honestly recommend looking for a different ruleset that is already built around low or no magic for this. Otherwise you are putting (in my opinion) excessive restrictions on character selection that will result in every character being way too similar for my liking.

The only non-caster classes are fighter, barbarian, rogue, and monks. Taking a half caster like the Paladin or Ranger and removing magic makes them useless in my opinion.

[ImproperJustice]

Not gonna lie, removing magic from D&D is not easy. At least not without taking big chunks of the experience with it.

Totally doable of course. A party of Barbarians, Fighters, Rogues, Spell-less Rangers and maybe monks will function just fine but D&D is built on a foundation of high fantasy and magic is a part of that at its core.

Gonna agree here.
You may have more luck with a different system entirely.
I would plug savage worlds as my favorite “modular” system. It would be easy to intoduce powers via a late game edge or unique arcane background if you wanted.
Non-magical characters have a lot they can do via “tricks”, social skills, and certain edges to run a pretty entertaining low fantasy game.

True 20 is ok but fiddly.
Mutants and Masterminds works pretty good for this too.

Otherwise, you have some heavy lifting balancing:
Bards, Monks, Paladins, and Rangers.
With all other casters banned, that leaves you with:

Barbarian, Fighting Man, and Theif.

[R.Shackleford]

Might have a better visibility as a thread rather than a later asked question in a completely different place.

For my alternate campaign (the one I will be running when a player is missing mid-plot of the main course), I want to immerse the players in a non-magical world. Or at least, a world where it is so scarce that the PCs won't have any magic built-in their level progression, but through the story-arc instead.

Banning the caster are obviously a requirement, but other than most Fighters and Barbarians, are there other archetype that goes without magic? Possibly some Rogues (I honestly paid more attention to the Arcane Trickster than the other) and possibly Monks? Although I think what makes Monks shine is what goes beyond the traditional martial artist can do.

On top of this, what way would be cool to introduce powers under the form of spells to the PCs? One of my hovering ideas is to make them acquire an artifact that let them capture powers from the foes they defeat (aka experience points, and the occasional spell like thaumaturgy after defeating a powerful enough demon).

I call it Neolithic Arcana.

http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HJZkXmxGw7

You can directly put more or less magic into the world as you, the DM, want.

Edit: Don't listen to nay-sayers, my groups have loved games where magic is scarce. Not just this type of setting but dark sun too! Low magic games can be a lot of fun and D&D actually lends itself to it just as well as magic-only games.

Edit 2: Forgot to say. You can just allow for classes as normal and then use the spell gems as your magic source. You don't need to use the generic classes that my groups use.

[Kane0]

My favorite way of doing it is playing a mostly low level game with casters becoming accessible after a few levels, usually 2-4. Even wizards benefit from having 2 fighter levels.

[Eradis]

Well... I will not lie, I don't see solid foundation to the argument that PCs of similar classes are similar. D&D is at its core a Role Playing Game, event if its usual setting revolves around magic. So a party of Fighters could be really different because it defines only part of the character. A warrior that fight to prove his might to his gods is really different than a sketchy con man. The fighting skill might be the same, but the former would be more head on in his approach whereas the later would be more sneakier, using distraction before striking...

As I stated, I will implement spells as we go on too. I have a decent collection of tRPG books at my disposal and it's right that some fit best the low magic I'm going for at the start, but they are less on point to feel as heroic and rewarding as D&D. Mutants & Mastermind for example is a great one and the point buy for the skills and power is one if not the best I've seen, but it lacks the excitement of gaining a level that will up drastically your game. Sure if you keep point to get something really strong, but before you get there you might feel your allies way ahead of you. Plus I love how the 5th edition of D&D manages spells. Really easy to balance.

Let's talk specifics:

A. Is there any Fighter Archetype that has magic except Eldritch Knight?
B. Which Rogue Archetypes do not have magic?
C. Which Monk Archetypes do not have magic?
D. Which Barbarian Archetypes do not have magic?
E. Which Monk Archetypes do not have magic?
F. Which Ranger Archetypes do not have magic, if any?
G. How could a PC acquire spells role playing-wise?

[Nifft]

Plus I love how the 5th edition of D&D manages spells. Really easy to balance.... he said, while throwing them away entirely.


Let's talk specifics:

A. Is there any Fighter Archetype that has magic except Eldritch Knight?
B. Which Rogue Archetypes do not have magic?
C. Which Monk Archetypes do not have magic?
D. Which Barbarian Archetypes do not have magic?
E. Which Monk Archetypes do not have magic?
F. Which Ranger Archetypes do not have magic, if any?
G. How could a PC acquire spells role playing-wise?

A. Arcane Archer.
B. The archetypes which are not Arcane Trickster.
C. Open Hand.
D. All Barbarians are able to cast Fist.
E. Asked and answered your Honor.
F. Uh... the casting is in the main class, not the archetypes.
G. Buying the magic in a store. Finding the magic in a chest, guarded by an orc. Stealing a scroll from the boot of an incubus pimp after seducing him. Praying for a miracle and getting one, with crepuscular rays and an angelic choir and all that good stuff. Smashing a bottle of century-old wine over someone's head in a bar-fight, and it turns out the wine bottle also had a wand in it; the wand is intelligent and very drunk. A Wizard appears and creates magic (because the best answer is always "a Wizard did it"); having created magic, the Wizard proceeds to learn magic, and then go back in time to establish the stable time loop which is the origin of magic.

[Luccan]

So, personally, I think 5e is the easiest edition to remove magic from*. Mainly because healing, while it will be rougher, is actually possible without magic this edition and it won't take in-game weeks to get the party back on their feet. Fighters, Rogues, and Barbarians all work in this game (though they all have magical subclasses, so look out for those). Some Monk subclasses might work too, Open-hand probably will and maybe Drunken Master and Kensai? (I actually haven't looked at these recently). Introducing magic in the form of items is fine and Epic Boons can grant some clearly magical effects, so look at those for inspiration. I would say if you want to give them magic not related to their class/race mechanics (oh yeah, you'll need to ban or replace some effects on certain races and subraces), use XGTE's item creation as a guide. If they find the formula and have the skills, they can create magic items themselves if you allow them the time. So when they become "wizards", they'll actually just be the ones with more shiny toys (which fits with some depictions of spellcasters any way).

*Edit: Rephrasing that; Of all the editions I've played, 5e is the one I know of that can actually survive removing casting and other forms of magic from the game. While it will be a larger challenge to stay alive and succeed at certain goals without any access to magic, it isn't required to keep a party alive like it would be in 3.X or AD&D, so long as the foes a party faces has no more magic than they do.

[Angelalex242]

If your world is mostly Arthurian, you can keep Paladins and swap them to non magical variations.

[Arkhios]

If your world is mostly Arthurian, you can keep Paladins and swap them to non magical variations.

Considering this is 5th edition, that's easier said than done, I'm afraid.

I ran a campaign like this for a short while, and I must say that the original ranger variant without spells from UA was a good fit, along with fighters, barbarians, rogues, and monks (excluding all clearly magical sub-classes: arcane trickster, eldritch knight, way of the four elements, etc.) Paladins were a bit too difficult to strip off of their magical abilities, because if you take all of them away, they'd just be worse than a fighter without an archetype.

However, I felt there was indeed a need for a class capable of inspiring and leading their allies, akin to a bard or a knight of sorts, so I came up with this idea to convert 4th edition warlord into 5th edition. I did this by combining battle master fighter with valor bard, and adding a lot of features from the 4th edition class.

The finished Warlord (that I made) can be found on Dungeon Masters Guild with a link to it from my signature. It took almost a year to complete and took a lot of my time, so I feel the small fee I have for it is deserved.

In short, it's a non-magical support class, with combat skills more or less equal to a paladin or a valor bard.

[Kane0]

All slots get automatically converted to smites. Maaaaybe chuck in a feature or two that mimics spell abilities when new spell level would normally be unlocked

[Eradis]

Wasn't sure about the Ranger, with all the rants against them I kinda skip them as you can play a decent "ranger" type of character with either the Rogue or Fighter. There are actually a fair amount of options then. For racial abilities, actually it won't be a problem as it will be a world filled mostly with humans (or so they will think for the first part of the adventure).

Well, thanks folks. That's the remaining details I had to cross off my list and it's now done.

[Asmotherion]

I'll be brutally honest and say it sounds... boring?

Make it Cantrips normally avalable and Spell Slots recharge on a Weekly... or even Monthly Base sounds like the right amount of Low Magic that is still fun for someone who Plays only Casters (speaking about me for example). Make it all about the Moon or something like that.

[KorvinStarmast]

What player character classes are you allowing?
Will you include the spell less Ranger from the WoTC suggested Ranger mod? (No spells Ranger (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/modifying-classes))
How are you going to address the number of creatures that can only be hit by magical attacks? Not use them? Provide clues/quests to get things that hurt them? Increase the availability of fire damage?

Will characters be able to find/use magical items? Can they "unlock" magic as they go up in level?

There are a number of classes that rely on magic to function.
Sorcerer
Wizard
Warlock
Bard
Cleric

Are you just going to ban them?

[Nifft]

*Edit: Rephrasing that; Of all the editions I've played, 5e is the one I know of that can actually survive removing casting and other forms of magic from the game. While it will be a larger challenge to stay alive and succeed at certain goals without any access to magic, it isn't required to keep a party alive like it would be in 3.X or AD&D, so long as the foes a party faces has no more magic than they do. I think 4e would be the best at muggles -- you can have some of the best characters in 3/4 of the roles (Defender, Striker, Leader), the combat bonuses are obvious enough that you can easily just bake them into the automatic level progression instead of giving out magic items, and healing is not balanced around spell-attrition at all.


Wasn't sure about the Ranger, with all the rants against them I kinda skip them as you can play a decent "ranger" type of character with either the Rogue or Fighter. There are actually a fair amount of options then. For racial abilities, actually it won't be a problem as it will be a world filled mostly with humans (or so they will think for the first part of the adventure).

Well, thanks folks. That's the remaining details I had to cross off my list and it's now done. I think 5e can do low-magic in two ways:
- No magic items (easy)
- No magic classes (harder)

A combination of both (no magic items + no magic classes) will mean you as the DM need to be very careful about the opposition. There are some fights which will be much harder than the rules lead you to expect.

[Eradis]

I'll be brutally honest and say it sounds... boring?

Make it Cantrips normally avalable and Spell Slots recharge on a Weekly... or even Monthly Base sounds like the right amount of Low Magic that is still fun for someone who Plays only Casters (speaking about me for example). Make it all about the Moon or something like that.

My guess is that you never played or enjoyed a tabletop rpg that wasn't set in a world of fantasy. Those can actually be great when you emphasis more on the role playing aspect rather than the combat. Plus I did mention a few times that magic will be granted to the PCs every now and then as they venture through the world.


What player character classes are you allowing?
Will you include the spell less Ranger from the WoTC suggested Ranger mod? (No spells Ranger (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/modifying-classes))
How are you going to address the number of creatures that can only be hit by magical attacks? Not use them? Provide clues/quests to get things that hurt them? Increase the availability of fire damage?

Will characters be able to find/use magical items? Can they "unlock" magic as they go up in level?

There are a number of classes that rely on magic to function.
Sorcerer
Wizard
Warlock
Bard
Cleric

Are you just going to ban them?

I will simply limit the classes to the martial ones at start. The magic will come gradually as boon or quest rewards and will emphasis on utility first. As for the magical damage, it's pretty simple: the first levels won't have much and when magic creature will appear, I might tweak them so they have resistance instead of immunity or might just give the PCs magical weapons by then.


I think 4e would be the best at muggles -- you can have some of the best characters in 3/4 of the roles (Defender, Striker, Leader), the combat bonuses are obvious enough that you can easily just bake them into the automatic level progression instead of giving out magic items, and healing is not balanced around spell-attrition at all.

I think 5e can do low-magic in two ways:
- No magic items (easy)
- No magic classes (harder)

A combination of both (no magic items + no magic classes) will mean you as the DM need to be very careful about the opposition. There are some fights which will be much harder than the rules lead you to expect.

I'm not concern too much about the fighting aspect. I never had trouble balancing my encounters and when they are not, it's generally on purpose to either save time or story driven. Magic items will be more common than actual magic as the game advance. It is a side campaign after all so it will go pretty slowly.

Nota: I'm the kind of Game Master that actually use system to facilitate the games, not to use the "original setting" of them. I actually find many elements of the typical D&D world too obvious and cliché. Sometimes it's plain fun anyway, other I'd rather adjust and use what my group will enjoy best. That the whole point. I wouldn't do a this low-magic game with a group that play D&D like a video game to start with. This is why battle are one of the many elements in my games and not the core one depending on my groups.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I've done a bunch of work on the subject here. It's not hard to cut magic stuff; what's tricky is coming up with mundane alternatives so that you still have decent character variety. I wound up making two new classes, a Bard/Paladin Warlord type and a Wizard-esque Scholar.

[Citan]

Might have a better visibility as a thread rather than a later asked question in a completely different place.

For my alternate campaign (the one I will be running when a player is missing mid-plot of the main course), I want to immerse the players in a non-magical world. Or at least, a world where it is so scarce that the PCs won't have any magic built-in their level progression, but through the story-arc instead.

Banning the caster are obviously a requirement, but other than most Fighters and Barbarians, are there other archetype that goes without magic? Possibly some Rogues (I honestly paid more attention to the Arcane Trickster than the other) and possibly Monks? Although I think what makes Monks shine is what goes beyond the traditional martial artist can do.

On top of this, what way would be cool to introduce powers under the form of spells to the PCs? One of my hovering ideas is to make them acquire an artifact that let them capture powers from the foes they defeat (aka experience points, and the occasional spell like thaumaturgy after defeating a powerful enough demon).
Hi!

If you want real extra-low-magic, confer everything everyone else said.

Now, small suggestion: why not allow just the EK and AT archetypes, without cantrips? They have few spell known and few slots as is, so it would not break anything compared to pure martials and in my eyes it's restrictive enough to work.

For Paladin, you could just remove spells and fluff Divine Smite and CD differently, unless you feel Auras too are too magical in essence.
For Ranger, just pick the variant Spellless Ranger and you're done.
For Monk, considering how much people dislike Four Elements due to the high ki consumption of spells it could be considered "low magic enough" for quite a few levels. Or you could just bar the disciplines that are plain spellcasting but keep the original ones like Fang of Fire Snake.

If "a few slotted 1st/2nd spells per day" is still too much for you, forget everything I said.
Otherwise, I think just avoiding fullcasters and cantrips altogether should be enough to make it a low-magic experience. :)

[Knaight]

I'm jumping on the switch systems bandwagon. D&D is very focused on magic - there's three pillars that actually show up in the game, of combat, magic, and getting more powerful, and of these magic is probably the biggest. On top of that you've been talking about wanting to focus on role playing instead of combat. You're basically playing to 5e's weaknesses here.

The reintroduction of magic doesn't help much. At that point you're basically making your own magic system to bolt on, and there's nothing about the chassis that makes it particularly easy to do that to. You can bolt magic on to any game.

[iTreeby]

There are some great systems that are not dnd that have no or limited magic. Try them om your "off" days when some don't show. Personally I like Blades in the Dark or dungeon world because while they have magic, the table sets the power of it as a group and the games tend to be much more player driven (useful when the story you planned isn't even getting run).

[CharonsHelper]

I'll add my +1 that you'd be better off with another system rather than 5e. There are a LOT of them out there where magic isn't so integral.

For a lite one that's easy to jump into, keeping fantasy but giving a very different vibe - I'd recommend Ryuutama. I've heard it described as Miyazaki does Oregon Trail. I haven't actually had a chance to play (though I do own & have read it) but it seems pretty cool.

[Vogie]

Banning the caster are obviously a requirement, but other than most Fighters and Barbarians, are there other archetype that goes without magic? Possibly some Rogues (I honestly paid more attention to the Arcane Trickster than the other) and possibly Monks? Although I think what makes Monks shine is what goes beyond the traditional martial artist can do.

What I would do is:

Remove EK & Battlemaster Fighter subclasses
Use the Spell-Less Ranger base class, which swaps their spellcasting with the Battlemaster Maneuver progression. All of the Subclasses, save Horizon Walker & Primeval Guardian
Refluff "Arcane Archer" to a nonmagical become "trick archer", using with the Hawkeye/Green-Arrow concept of trick arrows, removing Banishing, Seeking & Piercing Arrow, and replacing them with a Disarming Shot, Trip Shot, and probably some sort of Sleeping Shot.
Refluff monk Ki to a nonmystical name, such as "Edge" or "Flow", and replacing Empty Body with an improved critical.
Remove Arcane Trickster Rogues
Use a Spell-Less Paladin base class, which swaps their spellcasting for the Bardic Inspiration, Font of Inspiration & Combat inspiration (Valor Bard) features at 2, 6, & 11 (respective) to create a Warlord-esque class. Divine Smite is just additional damage, rather than radiant; Lay on Hands is proficiencies with, and fast hands for, healing kits; Cleansing Touch is more like a monk's Stillness of Mind. Channel Divinities are all refluffed to mundane equivalents.
If there is any amount of technology, science, or alchemy available, I'd have a single, nonmagical, wizard class. Regardless of what you call it, it'd be a bomb-thrower, which is mechanically a Evocation wizard with very few utility spells. Sculpt Spells feature now reads as "Shaped Charges", Potent Cantrips is now "Deadeye Toss", Empowered Evocation is now "Empowered Explosive", and Overchannel is now "The Fine Line Between Genius and Insanity", because sometimes your bombs are perfection, and other times they literally blow up in your hands. Fire bolt is now a Molotov cocktail, Acid splash is an acid bomb, Color Spray is a Flashbang, fireball is a grenade, your Acid arrow is launched from your crossbow, shatter is a sonic grenade, Burning hands is a flamethrower, and so on. Ritual casting will be pared down to those that could have techonological or mundane explanations: Alarm, Comprehend Languages, Identify, Purify Food/Drink, Tiny hut, Steed, "Telepathic" Bond headsets, et cetera.
Clerics, Warlocks, Sorcerers, Bards, & Druids are not available.



On top of this, what way would be cool to introduce powers under the form of spells to the PCs? One of my hovering ideas is to make them acquire an artifact that let them capture powers from the foes they defeat (aka experience points, and the occasional spell like thaumaturgy after defeating a powerful enough demon).

There's a couple of ways to do this:

Remove the attunement cap, and have the magic that their foes use be tied to magic items. This will take the game in a very 3.5/Pathfinder-y direction where the PCs are collecting a bunch of magic stuff to be deployed in a Batman-esque fashion.
Take a page from NWoD's Hunter the Vigil, specifically the Thaumatechnology portion. The PCs have some way to integrate pieces of their dispatched foes into their bodies that give them spell-like, supernatural abilities.
Give each player an expandable item that absorbs magic. This could be things like the Bioshock Infinite style "Vigor" glove or bracer, a Sword-of-Gryffindor-style weapon, et cetera.

[R.Shackleford]

I've done a bunch of work on the subject here. It's not hard to cut magic stuff; what's tricky is coming up with mundane alternatives so that you still have decent character variety. I wound up making two new classes, a Bard/Paladin Warlord type and a Wizard-esque Scholar.

Rogue with sleight of hand/arcana expertise playing with a liberal use of "use an object" action would give you a great scholar/magician alternative to wizard. A more real world magician.

You could make an alternate class feature that removes sneak attack and expands upon what mundane items do. Perhaps alchemist acid, when thrown, also makes the target nauseated (acid fumes) and causes creatures to have disadvantage on attacks.

Even without this, character variety isn't contingent on class variety. Two champions can play differently based on the player.

[Newtonsolo313]

perhaps consider both loosening the rules for item use and creating “mundane” items that make achieving certain effects either. take for instance the resins in dark souls where you use them to deal elemental damage with your weapon

[MightyK]

I think the main (and maybe only) question how willing are you to reflavor magic abilities?

It is possible to describe many spells and magical effects as mundane stuff. There is a whole Wizard to alchemist reflavoring somewhere, Bard as a "commander" type character, ...

A Paladin's smites can be described as powerful blows, fueled by zeal. Bless can be luck or just not explained at all (adding 1d4 to a save is "meta-knowdledge", the character doesn't have to realise he is being protected at all)
And so on.

OR, do you really want to remove the game mechanic that is represented as magic from D&D?

Both is possible. Reflavoring is more work, but it keeps the variety of mechanics available. Strictly removing magic from the system means a lot of banned classes.
Of course there is a middle path where for example wizards are not possible, but maybe a sorcerer with a very specific spell selection that can be reflavored well into something mundane (gadgets, potions, ...) is playable.

Druids Shapeshifting is btw the only stuff I would really have no idea how to explain without magic.

If a Campaign without Druids is a campaign worth playing is of course a different debate :smallbiggrin:

[Nifft]

Druids Shapeshifting is btw the only stuff I would really have no idea how to explain without magic.

All Druids are Warforged, and you're transformers who hide your robot bits in subspace when you turn into a dinosaur.

[MightyK]

All Druids are Warforged, and you're transformers who hide your robot bits in subspace when you turn into a dinosaur.

Of course, how could I miss this.

[Vogie]

All Druids are Warforged, and you're transformers who hide your robot bits in subspace when you turn into a dinosaur.

Or it's more like Beast Wars, where when they transform, the animals they transform into are of their same size, and their animal shapes are also constructs.

[Millstone85]

Refluff monk Ki to a nonmystical name, such as "Edge" or "Flow", and replacing Empty Body with an improved critical.You would also have to replace Unarmored Movement (at 9th level, can walk on walls and water), Purity of Body (immunity do disease and poison), Tongue of Sun and Moon (no language barrier), and Timeless Body (healthy aging, no need to drink or eat).

Monks are pretty magical.

[KorvinStarmast]

You would also have to replace Unarmored Movement (at 9th level, can walk on walls and water), Purity of Body (immunity do disease and poison), Tongue of Sun and Moon (no language barrier), and Timeless Body (healthy aging, no need to drink or eat).
No need to replace any of that. It's not magic, it's a class feature.

The more I think of it, the original question probably needs to be posted on the general RP forum, and ask which systems are best to run a game like this. As a number of posts have suggested, it would be better to Use a System that Plays this way.

[MightyK]

You would also have to replace Unarmored Movement (at 9th level, can walk on walls and water), Purity of Body (immunity do disease and poison), Tongue of Sun and Moon (no language barrier), and Timeless Body (healthy aging, no need to drink or eat).

Monks are pretty magical.

Well, those could be those magic abilities that get introduced to the world at higher levels.

[Millstone85]

No need to replace any of that. It's not magic, it's a class feature.It is not spellcasting, but I wouldn't buy that it isn't magic.

[Arkhios]

You would also have to replace Unarmored Movement (at 9th level, can walk on walls and water), Purity of Body (immunity do disease and poison), Tongue of Sun and Moon (no language barrier), and Timeless Body (healthy aging, no need to drink or eat).

Monks are pretty magical.

TBH, I don't see anything wrong with the ability to walk on walls. After all, you must still end your turn on horizontal surface, or you fall. The waterwalking treads on mystical, though.

Monk would just be the ultimate parkourist.

ToS&M is, again, mystical feature and I agree it would have to go.

Purity of Body and Timeless Body aren't that strange, really. Someone who has kept their body in perfect shape and eating healthily for their whole life is also better armed against all sorts of ailments; including aging (it's a known fact). Also, ascetism is a thing among real world monks, as well as other martial artists.

[Vogie]

TBH, I don't see anything wrong with the ability to walk on walls. After all, you must still end your turn on horizontal surface, or you fall. The waterwalking treads on mystical, though.

Monk would just be the ultimate parkourist.

ToS&M is, again, mystical feature and I agree it would have to go.

Purity of Body and Timeless Body aren't that strange, really. Someone who has kept their body in perfect shape and eating healthily for their whole life is also better armed against all sorts of ailments; including aging (it's a known fact). Also, ascetism is a thing among real world monks, as well as other martial artists.

Waterwalking could be either removed with no one missing it (I've never seen it come up) or explained as a special type of shoe. Protection against magical aging isn't that powerful when there is no magic, thus no magical aging.


So yeah, if you want to go with "this person knows all languages" as mystical rather than something they have been studying for a long time (which, as we know, is something monks never, ever, do), then sure. Get rid of it, and replace it with:

Tongue of the Sun and Moon
Starting at 13th level, you have mastered all styles of cooking, and learned to understand the food traditions of all cultures. Any creature that can eats cooked food will happily consume what you prepare.

[Arkhios]

So yeah, if you want to go with "this person knows all languages" as mystical rather than something they have been studying for a long time (which, as we know, is something monks never, ever, do), then sure. Get rid of it, and replace it with:

Tongue of the Sun and Moon
Starting at 13th level, you have mastered all styles of cooking, and learned to understand the food traditions of all cultures. Any creature that can eats cooked food will happily consume what you prepare.

No need to be snide.

[Knaight]

So yeah, if you want to go with "this person knows all languages" as mystical rather than something they have been studying for a long time (which, as we know, is something monks never, ever, do), then sure. Get rid of it, and replace it with:

All langauges is a tall order - bonafide polyglots who are also dedicated their lived to learning languages have failed to do this for a good long while. Some of them racked up truly impressive numbers of known languages (700+, on several occasions), which I'm pretty sure would clear every common D&D setting and every tiny language within them even if you count the various "shared' languages between them every time, so it's not that implausible.

[Vogie]

All languages is a tall order - bonafide polyglots who are also dedicated their lived to learning languages have failed to do this for a good long while. Some of them racked up truly impressive numbers of known languages (700+, on several occasions), which I'm pretty sure would clear every common D&D setting and every tiny language within them even if you count the various "shared' languages between them every time, so it's not that implausible.

700+ would be hard to pull off, sure... but this question wasn't about Swords & Spreadsheets, the Planet-Earth Simulation game. Especially since, as far as I can see, there are only 8 standard language and 8 exotic languages:

Common
Dwarvish
Elvish
Giant
Gnomish
Goblin
Halfling
Orc
and

Abyssal
Celestial
Draconic
Deep Speech
Infernal
Primordial
Sylvan
Undercommon
and all of those use only 6 different types of script (Elvish, Dwarvish, Common, Draconic, Infernal & Celestial)

New York Teen learns 20 foreign languages in four years (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/new-york-teen-learns-20-foreign-languages-years-article-1.1315113)

Having a monk know all 16 languages in 5e D&D isn't mystical, it's just fairly difficult. And that's including a bunch of magic-creature-only languages, which may not exist in the OP's setting. Having a monk learn 9 languages (all standard languages & undercommon) probably isn't even 14th level class feature hard.


No need to be snide.

Lets be fair. You're the one who called "knowing languages" a clearly mystical feature and thus should be removed from a class that is subdivided into groups literally called "monastic traditions".

[Knaight]

700+ would be hard to pull off, sure... but this question wasn't about Swords & Spreadsheets, the Planet-Earth Simulation game. Especially since, as far as I can see, there are only 8 standard language and 8 exotic languages:
...
Having a monk know all 16 languages in 5e D&D isn't mystical, it's just fairly difficult. And that's including a bunch of magic-creature-only languages, which may not exist in the OP's setting. Having a monk learn 9 languages (all standard languages & undercommon) probably isn't even 14th level class feature hard.

It's fairly difficult and potentially a bit off focus; where it isn't as a sort of mystical enlightenment benefit with the default fluff. More than that the 16 languages is a rough starting approximation at best. I wouldn't expect that to necessarily hold once setting specifics get in.

[Arkhios]

Lets be fair. You're the one who called "knowing languages" a clearly mystical feature and thus should be removed from a class that is subdivided into groups literally called "monastic traditions".

I wasn't being sarcastic. Tongue of the Sun and Moon is basically a "permanent" Tongues (http://5e.d20srd.org/srd/spells/tongues.htm) cast on you, except it can't be dispelled or suppressed by any means. The whole ability is 100% equal to a spell. In my books, if something is equal to a spell it counts as being "mystical". And I consider mystical equal to magical. There's no reason to be mean, just because you disagree.

[Angelalex242]

I wouldn't sweat the monk much. If you've seen any of Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, or Jean Claude Van Damme do it, it's not THAT magical. As for tongue of sun and moon, I think a lot of Popes seem to know at least 9 or 10 languages. If it can be done in the real world, it's not a big deal. Hell, just replace Tongues with 'You learn any 16 languages of your choice.'

[Millstone85]

Especially since, as far as I can see, there are only 8 standard language and 8 exotic languagesEach monster book adds new languages. From the MM alone, we have:

Aarakocra
Blink Dog
Bullywug
Giant Eagle
Giant Elk
Giant Owl
Gith
Gnoll
Grell
Hook Horror
Modron
Otyugh
Sahuagin
Slaad
Sphinx
Thri-kreen
Troglodyte
Umber Hulk
Yeti
Winter Wolf
Worg

Also, to use TotSaM as written, you would have to justify why the monk can neither read nor write those languages.

So okay, the feature can be kept, but it would have to be modified somehow.

[Nifft]

Also, to use TotSaM as written, you would have to justify why the monk can neither read nor write those languages.

So okay, the feature can be kept, but it would have to be modified somehow.

The monk communicates using charades and interpretive dance, neither of which are conducive to the written format.

[GlenSmash!]

Adventures in Middle-Earth is a 5e OGL product that has no spellcasting (though it does have magic). It also has a bunch of middle earth stuff in it.

But you could look at how they turned 5e into it for inspiration.

[Eradis]

perhaps consider both loosening the rules for item use and creating “mundane” items that make achieving certain effects either. take for instance the resins in dark souls where you use them to deal elemental damage with your weapon

I do like the consumable boost idea.


What I would do is: [...]

Bunch of interesting suggestions there, thanks.



P.S. I edited my first post as many people still don't get that I chose to use the 5th edition instead of the many low/non magic games out there because the magic is initially integrated to the system, so reintegration it is insanely easy. So really, telling me you wouldn't like a game with those restrictions or would rather play another system help in no way here. If you were at my table this setting would simply be dismissed, but I actually have people looking forwards to play this.

[KorvinStarmast]

It is not spellcasting, but I wouldn't buy that it isn't magic.

FWIW, ki is closer to psionics than it is to magic. For the purposes of what the OP is asking for, leaving ki in the game in a quest to go forward with less magic, fits like a glove.

[Eradis]

FWIW, ki is closer to psionics than it is to magic. For the purposes of what the OP is asking for, leaving ki in the game in a quest to go forward with less magic, fits like a glove.

No so much actually. I won't allow Monk for this side campaign especially because it is closer to superhuman powers than it is to reality. I don't mind the fantasy in my usual game, but for this instance ki, psionic power or whatever you would like to call that is too close to magic to be allowed without breaking the whole concept.

[KorvinStarmast]

No so much actually. I won't allow Monk for this side campaign especially because it is closer to superhuman powers than it is to reality. I don't mind the fantasy in my usual game, but for this instance ki, psionic power or whatever you would like to call that is too close to magic to be allowed without breaking the whole concept. ki is a far more limited resource than spell slots. based on your OP about magic growing slowly with your campaign, I'll suggest that it fits your theme well. But if you don't want it, obviously, don't use it.
Happy gaming.

[Millstone85]

FWIW, ki is closer to psionicsI agree. In fact, I hope the 5e psion will end up using neither spell slots nor psi points, but ki points.


than it is to magic.In the spawn of a few UAs and MMHFHs, we have seen psionics as:
* distinct from magic.
* a form of magic distinct from spellcasting.
* another form of spellcasting.

[Arkhios]

I agree. In fact, I hope the 5e psion will end up using neither spell slots nor psi points, but ki points.

In the spawn of a few UAs and MMHFHs, we have seen psionics as:
* distinct from magic.
* a form of magic distinct from spellcasting.
* another form of spellcasting.

IIRC, psionics has always been depicted as a "third source of magic" (where arcane and divine are the other two). Tapping into it is just different than to the others, which in turn makes it feel a lot more different than it is.

However, I kinda agree on psionics as ki, though I'd like to keep ki unique to monks, and psi points as a source of its own (but similar in function to ki; it would cause a whole lot of problems if there was a "full-caster" equivalent amount of ki points from another class, because it would mean that monk/psion would become ridiculously common (if/when multiclassing is allowed), and probably even broken, if the psion's ki points were to stack with monk's ki points.)

[Millstone85]

IIRC, psionics has always been depicted as a "third source of magic" (where arcane and divine are the other two). Tapping into it is just different than to the others, which in turn makes it feel a lot more different than it is.That is my preferred interpretation. To be more precise:
* Divine magic is magic granted by the gods or spirits.
* Arcane magic is ambient magic, a.k.a. the Weave.
* Psionics is inner magic, a.k.a. one's life force or ki.


However, I kinda agree on psionics as ki, though I'd like to keep ki unique to monks, and psi points as a source of its own (but similar in function to ki; it would cause a whole lot of problems if there was a "full-caster" equivalent amount of ki points from another class, because it would mean that monk/psion would become ridiculously common and probably even broken, if the psion's ki points were to stack with monk's ki points.)Would it be that different from a warlock/wizard multiclass? A mix of short-rest and long-rest ressources, with different "spellcasting" abilities.

Edit: I should probably make this its own thread.

[Arkhios]

Would it be that different from a warlock/wizard multiclass? A mix of short rest and long rest ressources, with different "spellcasting" abilities.

I'd prefer them not to be interchangeable. As in, I think being able to use Monk's ki for psion's abilities, and likewise Psion's ki for monk's abilities, would be too strong.

Edit:

Edit: I should probably make this its own thread.

Probably.

[Millstone85]

I made the thread.

Ki and the Psion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?570212-Ki-and-the-Psion)