Why the desire for low magic?

[danielxcutter]

I just think +x swords and armor should have utility uses that make them more interesting.

5e's take on Shatterspike is pretty good: it's a +1 sword that auto-crits when used against objects and can deal bludgeoning or slashing damage against objects (just slashing against non-objects). It's mostly a +1 sword, but it's really good at breaking things and cutting through objects/environment.

That's pretty cool, yeah. 5e has weaker magic so you can't punch holes in walls like you could in 3.5e with just one or two spells, and there isn't anything like a WBL system so breaking loot isn't as much of a problem.

Some parts of 5e still feel like what Xervous said about "wielding it as a bludgeon to keep their players powerless and on the rails", though.

[Segev]

That's pretty cool, yeah. 5e has weaker magic so you can't punch holes in walls like you could in 3.5e with just one or two spells, and there isn't anything like a WBL system so breaking loot isn't as much of a problem.

Some parts of 5e still feel like what Xervous said about "wielding it as a bludgeon to keep their players powerless and on the rails", though.

Frankly, having a sword that can do interesting things with the environment would be cool in 3.PF, too; my sole point was that giving +x weapons and armor little tricks they can do that set them apart will make them more interesting.

Shatterspike, for instance, could be billed as a sword that cuts things better than other swords, and the +1 enhancement to hit and damage just is the combat representation of that.

In 2e, there was a sword called "Susk, the Silent," that hovered in the air when you let go of it. I believe it also never made a sound even when hit on things. It was +2, IIRC, and you could bill its +2 as a representation of it being so light and easy to maneuver to strike at vitals.

It might improve 3e's magic weapon design significantly to have a list of cool, but not overpowering combat effects that a +x weapon can have, based on its x value. Maybe even make having a +2 to +5 weapon worthwhile, rather than just having a +1 with a bunch of +-equivalent tags that generally make the weapon better. If you need it to be a +4 weapon before it can have the property of Thor's Hammer that makes it immovable except by its chosen wielder, for instance....

[Tvtyrant]

Largely because most people I know play for a specific aesthetic and feeling, and high magic settings don't it the right beats. If you want Medieval Folkism where it looks and plays like the folklore and myths of Europe are real it is absolutely contrary to that, and if you want to play a modern story is requires massively more work to make magic as tech work right then just using technology.

The setting that high magic does best IMO at is the Darksun/Lost Empires of Faerun style where it is grimdark super sorcerer kingdoms and you Conan your way to the top, or openly fantastic settings like Planescape and Spelljammer.

[Quertus]

The knee jerk response of no tools, no toys, low magic too frequently lines up with incompetent GMs that wield it as a bludgeon to keep their players powerless and on the rails.

Yeah, that's the second thought I had when I read the thread title. Why low magic? Because, if you give players tools, they'll jump off the rails, and then the GM's story falls apart.

Some parts of 5e still feel like what Xervous said about "wielding it as a bludgeon to keep their players powerless and on the rails", though.

Care to elaborate? What parts of 5e feel railroad oppressive?

[Doctor Despair]

Care to elaborate? What parts of 5e feel railroad oppressive?

I'd speculate they were commenting on the disparity between player/DM agency in 5e vs 3.5. In 3.5, players have a lot more freedom to create and do what they want by RAW without asking for permission, whereas much in 5e redirects to "ask your DM." Obviously everything is ultimately subject to DM fiat, but for a player who is used to having a list of "You can do these things unless the DM says no" to be sent to "You can do anything as long as the DM says yes," I'd imagine the transition can turn out to be less than satisfying.

Edit: To further elaborate: fewer tools available for players (whether they be feats, items, spells, etc) means less freedom / player expression and more power to the DM.

[Crake]

It might improve 3e's magic weapon design significantly to have a list of cool, but not overpowering combat effects that a +x weapon can have, based on its x value. Maybe even make having a +2 to +5 weapon worthwhile, rather than just having a +1 with a bunch of +-equivalent tags that generally make the weapon better. If you need it to be a +4 weapon before it can have the property of Thor's Hammer that makes it immovable except by its chosen wielder, for instance....

I think the issue with 3e's magic weapon design is actually the notion that you need rules to come up with this stuff. There's so much content that people feel obligated to use what exists, rather than make things of their own.

You don't need rules to come up with these effects, you can just do it.

[danielxcutter]

There are literally summoning spells that have the DM choose what comes out instead of you, not even a random roll or anything. Of course, a DM who chooses a bunch of seahorses that instantly die because you’re on dry land is a DM you shouldn’t be playing with in the first place, but still...

[Psyren]

I understand the point of D&D and Pathfinder being games and systems familiar to many people and I know they're versatile, but at least for me, I'd rather play higher magic in these systems since they're intended to be played with the assumption that magic, at least for PCs, is fairly common. Action RPGs like Diablo were inspired by Monty Haul campaigns with lots of magic items!

I would argue that the assumption is the bonuses are intended to be common/expected, as well as specific defenses and utility abilities (e.g. flight or freedom of movement.)

By using an alternate WBL system, e.g. Automatic Bonus Progression, you can keep the math of the game mostly functional without having everyone in the party decked out in "christmas tree equipment."

[danielxcutter]

I would argue that the assumption is the bonuses are intended to be common/expected, as well as specific defenses and utility abilities (e.g. flight or freedom of movement.)

By using an alternate WBL system, e.g. Automatic Bonus Progression, you can keep the math of the game mostly functional without having everyone in the party decked out in "christmas tree equipment."

Honestly if it's a fantasy game, I'd expect to get magic items of some sort eventually, even if it's not strong. Of course, I guess going full Goblin Slayer has its merits too...

[Segev]

I think the issue with 3e's magic weapon design is actually the notion that you need rules to come up with this stuff. There's so much content that people feel obligated to use what exists, rather than make things of their own.

You don't need rules to come up with these effects, you can just do it.

I dislike this line of reasoning because it logically leads to equal application to spells, skills, combat maneuvers, and really anything that has rules. You don’t need rules for any of it; you can just do it. There’s no need for grappling rules. Just say you do it. There’s no need for combat rules; just describe what you do and judge its effectiveness narratively.

It seems arbitrary to use this argument for creating magic items not needing rules but not for anything else in the game.

[danielxcutter]

Being extensive without being exhaustive does have its problems though - how much does a sword that shoots razor wind when I swing it cost?

I actually agree with you Segev, I just don’t think the weapon rules were that well thought out.

[Crake]

I dislike this line of reasoning because it logically leads to equal application to spells, skills, combat maneuvers, and really anything that has rules. You don’t need rules for any of it; you can just do it. There’s no need for grappling rules. Just say you do it. There’s no need for combat rules; just describe what you do and judge its effectiveness narratively.

It seems arbitrary to use this argument for creating magic items not needing rules but not for anything else in the game.

I think it's a false equivilence to compare creating custom magic items to grappling rules. Firstly, custom magic items are, by RAW, entirely within the DM's purview, and secondly, all of the rules surrounding creating a custom magic item are explicitly guidelines. Feeling the need to stick to the established guidelines when creating a custom magic weapon is pretty much the definition of thinking inside the box when it comes to such things.

The only time you'd ever have an issue with lack of rules in this department is if you're a player who wants to create a custom item, but need to defer to your DM for such a thing, and your DM just flat out says no, but then, that sounds more like a DM problem. I've created plenty of custom magic items for my games, and worked together with players to create such items as well, things that were completely outside of the guidelines of dnd's item creation system. If you're saying "Damn, I wish there was this cool extra system added ontop of magic items", when there's nothing stopping you from making up and using such a system, that to me sounds like a problem you've made for yourself.

Being extensive without being exhaustive does have its problems though - how much does a sword that shoots razor wind when I swing it cost?

I actually agree with you Segev, I just don’t think the weapon rules were that well thought out.

This is another issue that I imagine people have with higher magic worlds, the fact that the magic effects items have are all quantified and valued within a strict system, that there's little to no room for barter or looking for sellers who would be interested, the fact that an item has some sort of set, universal value that everyone is immediately aware of.

[Biggus]

@OP:

There was a thread a while ago where somebody asked if anyone could think of a fantasy series which was as high-magic as D&D. I think one or two were eventually found, but the vast majority of fantasy, even that normally regarded as high magic, is nowhere near. D&D is extremely high-magic. So I think the question makes more sense if you ask it as

"why the desire for non-ultrahigh magic?"

as then it becomes clear that it's not that most people want to be highly restrictive with magic, they just don't want the "anywhere larger than a hamlet probably has at least one resident magic-user, and probably other people able and willing to buy and sell magic items too" which is the default D&D setting.

[AnimeTheCat]

@OP:

There was a thread a while ago where somebody asked if anyone could think of a fantasy series which was as high-magic as D&D. I think one or two were eventually found, but the vast majority of fantasy, even that normally regarded as high magic, is nowhere near. D&D is extremely high-magic. So I think the question makes more sense if you ask it as

"why the desire for non-ultrahigh magic?"

as then it becomes clear that it's not that most people want to be highly restrictive with magic, they just don't want the "anywhere larger than a hamlet probably has at least one resident magic-user, and probably other people able and willing to buy and sell magic items too" which is the default D&D setting.

this is more in line with my thinking. And to be fair, if you're creating cities and such using the rules as presented, there won't be a spellcaster capable of casting 9th level spells generated in your metropolis (Community Modifier of 12 and wizard level roll of 1d4, maximum possible level of 16). Faerun, Eberron, Golarion (for all you Pathfinder guys, gals, and non-binary pals), etc... those settings don't follow the city building rules in the 3.5 DMG. If the city presented has a level 17 or higher spellcaster, they're not following those rules as presented. That's not necessarily bad, but it's something to keep in mind. When I've created my "low magic" worlds, I take special care to stat out my spellcasters and give them personalities consistent to why they would be there. If the power center is magical, then that city will likely have lots of magic items and magic item crafters all about. If the Power center is conventional (most common) then there may not be a magic item crafter at all, with the wizards or sorcerers choosing primarily to settle there due to it's connection to trade, locale near a magical anomaly, as a teacher, or some other reason. Not every town will have a magic crafter, so not every town will have magic items easily obtainable (or at book cost even). Nonstandard power center towns are more likely to have these crafters, especially if they are merchant towns or similar. Regardless of any of that, magic items are more limited in my world just by the nature of how I build them. In fact, in most of my worlds, magic items are more likely to be crafted by Adepts and Magewrights (I stole them from Eberrron I think? NPC Class Arcane Spellcaster) rather than the Actual Wizards and Clerics. The Wizards and Clerics tend to be non-adventurer focused as well, settling in to motivations of their own (or dictated by religion etc).

What I would call "Low Magic" on these forums is really more like "reasonable magic" in my mind. It's there. It's strong. It can be accessed (if the area, situation, circumstances are correct). But it isn't in every fiber of every civilization like it is in so many published settings. If there's no spellcaster in the town that can craft a particular item, there's a small chance that it will be there based off of how big the town is, how much trade exists within the town, and how far away the town is from another town that could reasonably produce that item.

[Gnaeus]

This is another issue that I imagine people have with higher magic worlds, the fact that the magic effects items have are all quantified and valued within a strict system, that there's little to no room for barter or looking for sellers who would be interested, the fact that an item has some sort of set, universal value that everyone is immediately aware of.

Oh I think this is absolutely correct. Of course the 5e alternative of “magic items can’t be bought” makes even less sense.

But really the entire economic system is messed up and this is just a symptom. If we went to no magic, we would still be in a world where it cost the same to build a tower in a remote island as by a major trade route. Where you can demand any single 200 GP item in a settlement of 21 people, whether that is 2 longbows or a warbeast. Where a gallon of ale or wine costs the same in a lush trading city surrounded by vineyards or a strict theocracy in a desert. Why should magic items make more sense.

[Quertus]

This is another issue that I imagine people have with higher magic worlds, the fact that the magic effects items have are all quantified and valued within a strict system, that there's little to no room for barter or looking for sellers who would be interested, the fact that an item has some sort of set, universal value that everyone is immediately aware of.

That's a big issue I have with 3e, sucking the fun out of the game, discouraging creativity. But you can play high magic Monte Haul 2e without having a price tag on everything. So it's not an inherent problem of high magic, merely one of commoditizing magic.

[gijoemike]

This thread is getting a bit long, and I may have missed where someone else has said this but...

The reason I like low-magic premise for a game is to solve the horrible problem of Mage/Cleric or bust.

I have played in games where a player decides to play a mega cool batman wizard or sometimes CODZilla. S/He solves all encounters 2 rounds before another party member even has a chance to realize there is an issue to solve. I have sat through dozens of encounters at those tables and not taken an action or been given a chance to take action. Those games SUCK. Being a waste of space in the party feels terrible. The GM fixes the problem after a session maybe 2 but still that is a waste of 6 to 10 hours of ones life. And it was because you decided to play a gish, or bard, or rogue. Limiting the mage/cleric gives players who aren't the BATMAN or CODZILLA a chance to actually play. Sometimes I want to play a multiclassed character or not a mage.

With that said I have sat down a tables where the mage helps the party solve the encounter. Those work quite well. Roleplaying games in general are a social game. Try to work as a team.

D&D does have issues with low magical items but as long as a few weapons and maybe some armor exists to obtain (notice i didn't say buy) it can work. There can be 1000's of relics of the old high magic city/country and be readily available, and yet the game can feel low magic as the active magic to the party is limited.

[H_H_F_F]

(guys, gals, and non-binary pals)

My new favourite way to address people.

[Crake]

Oh I think this is absolutely correct. Of course the 5e alternative of “magic items can’t be bought” makes even less sense.

But really the entire economic system is messed up and this is just a symptom. If we went to no magic, we would still be in a world where it cost the same to build a tower in a remote island as by a major trade route. Where you can demand any single 200 GP item in a settlement of 21 people, whether that is 2 longbows or a warbeast. Where a gallon of ale or wine costs the same in a lush trading city surrounded by vineyards or a strict theocracy in a desert. Why should magic items make more sense.

I think arguing "Other things are messed up, why should this thing not be" is a pretty terrible angle to argue. In a game where such trades actually matter, the DM should definitely shore up such lackluster rules/guidelines. The thing about magic items though is they matter almost universally in 3.5 games because of the way that magic items are so intrinsically tied to character progression and maintaining the expected math.

That's partly why I think automatic bonus progression helps a lot, it lets you remove the homogenized mess of stat boost items, and allows you to introduce unique and interesting items, without the need to even worry about their pricing, because players aren't gonna sell them for stat boost items, and if magic items are a rarity, selling it for a small fortune doesn't mean they'll necessarily be able spend the money they DO get from a magic item. It makes it so that magic items themselves become more the currency, and you trade directly with what you have for what you want, maybe you can trade a wand to a wizard who happens to have a sword, the wand has more value to the wizard and the sword more value to you as a martial.

I think separating magic items from a monetary economy is a very vital step in a low magic world, because such things should be rightfully values in the same way artifacts are valued in a standard dnd game, in that they're practically priceless.

That's a big issue I have with 3e, sucking the fun out of the game, discouraging creativity. But you can play high magic Monte Haul 2e without having a price tag on everything. So it's not an inherent problem of high magic, merely one of commoditizing magic.

Oh, definitely, I think I've kinda drifted onto two different topics here though. One about the fact that 3.5 actually stifles creativity on the DM's part by not wanting to homebrew anything, and instead using published material, and one about how such items fit into a low magic world. I kinda think the first topic should get a thread of it's own though, and let this thread about low magic continue it's own path.

[Segev]

I think it's a false equivilence to compare creating custom magic items to grappling rules. Firstly, custom magic items are, by RAW, entirely within the DM's purview, and secondly, all of the rules surrounding creating a custom magic item are explicitly guidelines. Feeling the need to stick to the established guidelines when creating a custom magic weapon is pretty much the definition of thinking inside the box when it comes to such things.

The only time you'd ever have an issue with lack of rules in this department is if you're a player who wants to create a custom item, but need to defer to your DM for such a thing, and your DM just flat out says no, but then, that sounds more like a DM problem. I've created plenty of custom magic items for my games, and worked together with players to create such items as well, things that were completely outside of the guidelines of dnd's item creation system. If you're saying "Damn, I wish there was this cool extra system added ontop of magic items", when there's nothing stopping you from making up and using such a system, that to me sounds like a problem you've made for yourself.

Or a DM who wants to know how to price a player doing item creation, or how much gold an item is equivalent to when he custom builds it. If you’re complaining about guidelines limiting people to thinking inside the box, then you’re also disregarding people who want guidelines because they have an issue when told to draw a map on a blank piece of paper. The whole point of rules is to give a structure from which to work.

Yes, you can just add anything you want, but it’s harder to figure out the gp price such additions should have. And giving ideas of ways to expand the box is also useful.

[Crake]

Or a DM who wants to know how to price a player doing item creation, or how much gold an item is equivalent to when he custom builds it. If you’re complaining about guidelines limiting people to thinking inside the box, then you’re also disregarding people who want guidelines because they have an issue when told to draw a map on a blank piece of paper. The whole point of rules is to give a structure from which to work.

Yes, you can just add anything you want, but it’s harder to figure out the gp price such additions should have. And giving ideas of ways to expand the box is also useful.

I mean, I personally fix that by instead making the players hunt down/harvest exotic materials rather than just handwaving "spend X gold in a city for the stuff you need". The whole system is just set up to completely commercialize the notion of magic, and clearly ruins the feeling of a setting for a lot of people.

[Segev]

I mean, I personally fix that by instead making the players hunt down/harvest exotic materials rather than just handwaving "spend X gold in a city for the stuff you need". The whole system is just set up to completely commercialize the notion of magic, and clearly ruins the feeling of a setting for a lot of people.

You still need an idea what kind of effort a given item should require. If you can spitball it, that’s great for you, but I know many, including myself, need more guidance than that.

[Crake]

You still need an idea what kind of effort a given item should require. If you can spitball it, that’s great for you, but I know many, including myself, need more guidance than that.

That is, itself, only an issue for the DM to worry about, and only comes into play when it's a player making a custom item, rather than a DM dropping a custom item.

[Yahzi Coyote]

I agree with most of the answers but I think preserving the medieval flavor is the biggest. The DM can't possibly put out as much information as a movie or even a book, so the players have to color in most of the world on their own. And to do that they need a common source to draw from. We've all seen King Arthur movies, so we all know what it looks like.

At higher levels of magic, this world falls apart. I have managed to meld both classic feudalism and D&D with one simple rule change (namely, making XP a physical substance) to the point where even the economy works (1 cp = 1 lb of wheat). But it starts to break above 9th level or so.

So after that it becomes increasingly hard to maintain a world and create adventures. My group is now 5th level and starting wars, and I've been stuck for the last two months trying to prepare for the next adventure.

(If you're interested in how my word works, DriveThruRPG has Lords of Prime for free.)

[danielxcutter]

My new favourite way to address people.

Same, totally stealing that.

[Segev]

That is, itself, only an issue for the DM to worry about, and only comes into play when it's a player making a custom item, rather than a DM dropping a custom item.

Since WBL is actually an important balance consideration in 3.PF, I strongly disagree. Knowing roughly what the gp value of the custom item the DM is making is helps immensely in knowing if he's over- or under-doing it.

[tiercel]

Since WBL is actually an important balance consideration in 3.PF, I strongly disagree. Knowing roughly what the gp value of the custom item the DM is making is helps immensely in knowing if he's over- or under-doing it.

Yes and no; you definitely do want to have an idea of what an item is worth in gold to start with, but at the same time, there is a world of difference between “your defeated enemies had a portable hole, quarterstaff of battle, ring of invisibility, and staff of healing” and “your defeated enemies had an...apparatus of Kwalish.”

[Bohandas]

So after that it becomes increasingly hard to maintain a world and create adventures. My group is now 5th level and starting wars, and I've been stuck for the last two months trying to prepare for the next adventure.

You could try dumping multiple low level adventures on them at once, all with time limits, so that they don;t have time to rest in between

[Segev]

Yes and no; you definitely do want to have an idea of what an item is worth in gold to start with, but at the same time, there is a world of difference between “your defeated enemies had a portable hole, quarterstaff of battle, ring of invisibility, and staff of healing” and “your defeated enemies had an...apparatus of Kwalish.”

I'm not really sure how this refutes my point from earlier. I agree this is the case, but if you want your Siphon of Permeability to be about the value of the Quarterstaff of Battle in your pile of loot, you want to know how to price it.

[Bohandas]

I'm watching this chinese drama show about gods and they have magic items, but they are so few and far between that any non-utility magic item (like military issue armor worn by 10,000 other people, or letter delivery services) is totally unique and immediately recognizable by large swaths of immortals, and even random Taoists (wizards) on the street.

Is a +1 magic sword worthy of being a magic item?

Yes and No.

If you are using creatures/effects which can only be damaged by magical weapons, then the difference between a +1 and a non magic item is a vast gulf that changes plot.

But if you are using it for its numerical DPS factor, then no.

Magical items in the plus range are actually inferior in gradation than the various qualities of weapons using different alloyed steels, smithing quality, damascus, fit and finish, edge geometry, etc.

For example, in Forged in Fire, the competition weapon show, I saw one large blade chop a pig in half with one hit... the identical class competitor did NOT succeed in cutting the pig in half. It's gashes were literally half as deep. In another episode, one blade lacerated deeply, while the other snapped in half on the first hit.

Again and again, in this series, you can see how 2 weapons of the same name, and same form, can be vastly different in performance and material strength. There really are weapons that can chop a man in half. But there's also common variations of those same weapons that would lose their tips on a few layers of leather or gambison padded armor.

This begs the question:

is a whole pig chopped in half vs. 1/3rd of a pig requiring 3 strokes --- is this the same as +1?

No. This is more like double or triple the damage dice.

Factoring in the whole d8, d10, and d6 as obvious dice for weapons,
you are looking at +3, +4, and +5 differences.

But are they magical?

Mythology is sometimes a story about a normal person with exceptional talent or crafting ability, and how that talent or item was demonstrably superior to the others on the battle field. Thus, instead of RAW strict "this is not magic"

it's more about how you want to see what makes something exceptional, vs. magical.

Items of quality in the old days only allowed either a +1 to hit, or a +1 to damage. I assure you, the performance Gap in competition weapons is much, much larger than that +1 half the time.

As a tangent to this, does anybody else find it troubling that mudane crossbows don't get damage plusses? Because you can get that on a mundane longbow that's built for someone with high strength, and the whole bloody point of a crossbow is that it's a bow that's too powerful for a normal person to draw that's been attached to a stirrup, or lever or crank so that anyone can draw it, and then attached to a locking mechanism so that anybody can keep it drawn.