Why the desire for low magic?

[Tiktakkat]

You're comparing adventure paths with just regular adventures. The WBL table is listed for when you're making a new character, so say your DM wants to run a published adventure that's meant for level 7 characters, and he gets the players to make new characters for the adventure. That's the use case in question, not for "We're running this 1-20 adventure path, this is what I expect your wealth to be at any given level". In a 1-20 adventure path, the loot is pre-planned the whole way through, so it's rather different.

Well, no.
I am citing published adventures - both the adventure paths and the individual modules, and comparing that to the WBL tables and the text that accompanies them.

"Table 12–4 lists the amount of treasure each PC is expected to have at a specific level."
(Table 12-4: Character Wealth By Level)

"Table 12–4 can also be used to budget gear for characters starting above 1st level, such as a new character created to replace a dead one."
(emphasis mine)

WBL is not merely for characters created above 1st level, but a guideline/suggestion/whatever you want to call it for characters at all levels.

"Table 12–5 lists the amount of treasure each encounter should award based on the average level of the PCs and the speed of the campaign’s XP progression (slow, medium, or fast)."
(Table 12-5: Treasure Values Per Encounter)

If you multiple those values by the number of encounters, you get a number about equal to the numbers in Table 12-4.

BUT!
"Encounters against NPCs typically award three times the treasure a monster-based encounter awards, due to NPC gear."

That is where the system falls apart since it was introduced in 3E. Especially with all the monsters that get class levels.

AND!
"Although you should generally place items with careful consideration of their likely effects on your campaign, it can be fun and save time to generate magic items in a treasure hoard randomly. You can “purchase” random die rolls of magic items for a treasure hoard at the following prices, subtracting the indicated amount from your treasure budget and then rolling on the appropriate column on table 15–2 in Chapter 15 to determine what item is in the treasure hoard. Take care with this approach, though! It’s easy, through the luck (or unluck) of the dice to bloat your game with too much treasure or deprive it of the same. Random magic item placement should always be tempered with good common sense by the GM."
(emphasis mine)

So whoever planned all the excess loot in modules AND adventure path installments apparently ignored that bit of advice, or was not restrained by an editor.

[Segev]

Maybe back in the day when DR was /+1/+2/+3 etc, but in 3.5, the bare minimum you need is a +1 weapon to overcome DR/magic, and really you don't even need a magic weapon for that, cyrite overcomes DR/magic too and is a relatively cheap, mundane metal.

The shift from DR/+X to DR/magic was one of those things I think was a mistake in the 3.0->3.5 shift. I like that /silver is not overridden by 'magic,' but that didn't need to remove the gradation of +Xs.

I did like that 3e had DR rather than immunity; immunity's re-introduction in 5e means they definitely need it to be merely "magic weapons" that pierce it, because otherwise it's too powerful. Immunity to damage of weapons that aren't +3 or better made vampires nigh-unkillable for lower-level parties in 2e. In my 5e ToA game, they used a Trident of Fish Command and a common magic item level shortsword that had the magical property of never getting nicked or dirty when they needed to hit things immune to damage from nonmagical weapons.

3e having a distinction between "weapons that are magical" and "weapons that do magic damage" is good, too, but not essential. I think 3.5 should've kept "DR 10/+3" for vampires, for example.

[Crake]

The shift from DR/+X to DR/magic was one of those things I think was a mistake in the 3.0->3.5 shift. I like that /silver is not overridden by 'magic,' but that didn't need to remove the gradation of +Xs.

I did like that 3e had DR rather than immunity; immunity's re-introduction in 5e means they definitely need it to be merely "magic weapons" that pierce it, because otherwise it's too powerful. Immunity to damage of weapons that aren't +3 or better made vampires nigh-unkillable for lower-level parties in 2e. In my 5e ToA game, they used a Trident of Fish Command and a common magic item level shortsword that had the magical property of never getting nicked or dirty when they needed to hit things immune to damage from nonmagical weapons.

3e having a distinction between "weapons that are magical" and "weapons that do magic damage" is good, too, but not essential. I think 3.5 should've kept "DR 10/+3" for vampires, for example.

Pathfinder has a middle ground in that it allows weapons of varying +x to count as more and more things for overcoming specific kinds of DR, covering different metals, and eventually even alignment type DRs.

I do think +X DRs were interesting, but the DR numbers in 3.0 were also significantly higher, to the point where some monsters were practically immune to weapon damage if you didn't have the appropriate weapon on hand. Succubi and Vrocks had DR20/+2 for example, and a bebilith had 30/+3.

[MR_Anderson]

I wrote too much, but in short...

D&D while being a game, is Role Playing. Role Playing is acting. D&D is merely acting out the creation of a story before it is written down. A low magic setting allows for a more dramatic development in the story on the magic items or a setting change to a high magic setting.

Spoiler: In-depth backing of that statement...

Show

Having DM’ed and played both high magic and low magic games, the ones that stick out to me have always been the low magic ones for the most part.

Because of the struggle and challenge to use everything from the character’s classes, successful role play, and the creativity of the players, to overcome challenges, it makes it so they can’t just power through something. They rarely think wow, if I didn’t have magic item A, B, or C we wouldn’t have made it. And if they do, they usually recognize that they only had that item, because they previously did X, Y, and Z.

When you run a high magic world as a DM, in order to make it memorable you need to toss out some very unique items, and face some very unique challenges. I once had characters running around in a mobile stone Sphinx that was basically a 4-legged motorhome command center for the party. I took rust monsters, and created a version that instead of metal, they would feed on magic items. The party once faced a cross between nightmares and centaurs. These unique things made it memorable, but it took additional work in addition to the normal story line and adversaries of the story, but the players still talk about that after 20 years.

I am currently running a world that is low magic and low on technology, character’s are approaching 4th level and have come across three magic items. The first wasn’t useful to them so it set the stage that magic isn’t always what you need and they sold it, one they received a finder’s fee for returning, and the last they detected in the possession of an adversary.

Additionally, the only quality blades of use have been knives and daggers. Spears, Metal Rods, Quarter Staffs, and Clubs have been the main weaponry of all party members and adversaries. Last adventure they saw a sword for the first time while traveling, and heard a story of a man who has knowledge of such craft, now they want to travel the world to find this man which will lead right to where I want the story to go, and the crafter is merely a side note in the adventure.

The world also has a limit on casting that no individual can cast any spell higher than 2nd level by himself/herself. While seemingly a very horrible and unfair rule to implement, the players it will affect are aware of it. I spoke with them, and they know it will not be a permanent feature of the game, as it is only temporary, but they don’t know why. Once they learn of space travel and leave the crystal sphere, that limitation will be lifted, and they will be in awe of the first Spelljammer Adventure to hit our table.

Living and adventuring in a low magic world set’s the stage to raise the importance of the characters themselves, and the story behind each magic item. One merely has to look at Chronicles of Narnia, Stardust, The Neverending Story, Harry Potter, Labyrinth and so many other stories to see that the magic isn’t the story, but the amazing change of reality from what the main character(s) were living to what the new/other world is.

Even some other stories like Princess Bride, Lord of the Rings, Willow, and a few others don’t have a separate world, but even then magic isn’t common place. If everything is filled with magic, the story can lose some of the chances of awe and amaze the audience.

The audience and actors are one in the same, they are the players, so a low magic setting allows the actors to immerse themselves in the role better.

If your players don’t care about a story and just want to roll dice for the thrill of winning or losing with a little strategy, try Risk.

Edit:

Action RPGs like Diablo were inspired by Monty Haul campaigns with lots of magic items!

Diablo is not a true RPG, you aren’t Role Playing.

I’m not trying to be mean, just saying that D&D has much more to offer than a Game Show Loot Give-away and that low magic is just the main facet of what it was designed to do.

[danielxcutter]

I might be able to accept other parts of that, but “Diablo isn’t a true RPG” smacks of... well, I don’t like that anyways. Maybe the term was originally used for tabletop games, but it’s changed now. Jeez.

[MR_Anderson]

I might be able to accept other parts of that, but “Diablo isn’t a true RPG” smacks of... well, I don’t like that anyways. Maybe the term was originally used for tabletop games, but it’s changed now. Jeez.

I meant it in the most honest understanding of the term of Role Playing.

I see Diablo as a MMOG, however I can understand all the people who call similar games RPG’s or MMORPG’s, as I once did, but I realized unless you count walking through a Renfaire in jeans but talking in a Scottish accent while calling the drink ladies “wenches“ to be LARP’ing, Those games as much as I like some of them are not true RPG games.

I understand any disagreement on this, but thank you for reading what I wrote.

[Darg]

RPG is a broader term than people like to believe. The way I like to picture game classification is a multidimensional venn-diagram with all the elements of each genre overlapping with eachother. Diablo is definitely a dungeon crawler with role-play elements. Diablo II is definitely harder to classify as the player has significantly more role involvement along with the roleplay mechanical elements. At this point it isn't much different than a JRPG with a huge grind element.

Classifying games is harder than we like to admit, but we all do like our simple labels regardless of how accurate.

[Quertus]

Pardon my ignorance / senility, but my limited recollection of Diablo ii involved Barbarians turning enemy corpses into potions, Sorceresses raining lightning down on their enemies, and Necromancers with forces which brought new meaning to the term "mindless undead".

Exactly what "role-playing" elements does this game supposedly have?

If you tried to classify… darn senility… "War. War never changes. … Life in the vault is about to change." … that series as an RPG, at least I could see that it gives you choices of approaches at times… which at least comes closer to approximating role-playing, if you happen to be playing a character who exactly matches their limited selection of rails.

But I don't really remember Diablo ii allowing even that. There was no "character" to any of the characters I ever saw or played - less so than even the classic example of two chess pieces being in love.

So… what did I miss?

[danielxcutter]

And "nice" apparently used to mean "ignorant". Words change.

[Batcathat]

If you tried to classify… darn senility… "War. War never changes. … Life in the vault is about to change." … that series as an RPG, at least I could see that it gives you choices of approaches at times… which at least comes closer to approximating role-playing, if you happen to be playing a character who exactly matches their limited selection of rails.

You're thinking about Fallout.

So… what did I miss?

I don't think you're missing anything, as much as having a different definition of "role-playing game" from those who label Diablo as such. I think the idea is that you are playing a role in that every Diablo character is (theoretically) different depending on the choices of the player. While I don't necessarily agree with the definition, it's probably too established to change much (though it feels like descriptions like "action game with role-playing elements" or whatever is getting more common).

[Mechalich]

With regard to video games and the high magic/low magic situation, it's important to recognize that in the case of video games most of the 'high magic' effects are just so many pretty lights. They're a bunch of dressed up visuals that make dealing damage to enemies look pretty, but they are totally divorced from any interaction with the setting whatsoever. This often takes the form of battles that happen in specialized bounded fields that are separate from the setting backdrop environment, or in weapon effects that are completely incapable of impacting the environment in any way despite the fact that you'd expect wooden doors to fare rather poorly when hit with an RPG at point-blank range.

This level of control splits apart the natural link between character powers and setting impacts by simply fiat banning all such impacts through programming that does not let them occur. The problematic trait of high-level characters walking into a city and simply slaughtering the entire population can't happen in a standard JRPG, because the townspeople simply cannot be targeted with attacks in the same way you can't target the ground.

Many video game RPGs, especially JRPGs, go even further to the point that the RPG elements are completely divorced from a scripted story that the player cannot impact in any way whatsoever and the actual gameplay is just a series of benchmarks that much be reached to hit the next cutscene. In such circumstances none of what your characters do onscreen can even be considered real actions in the game world at all, it's just an abstracted representation of what's happening in world (probably with a vastly inflated body count too).

[danielxcutter]

Okay, would you guys say that Undertale is closer to the old-school "role-playing game" than Diablo? At least in terms of "you do things besides hit things with big numbers so you can get items that give you bigger numbers", I dunno.

[Xervous]

Okay, would you guys say that Undertale is closer to the old-school "role-playing game" than Diablo? At least in terms of "you do things besides hit things with big numbers so you can get items that give you bigger numbers", I dunno.

And where does Zork fall in this?

Undertale (never having played it) sounds somewhat like it follows the patterns of visual novels while implementing more gamey mechanics. The plot flows regardless, you merely alter its trajectory.

[danielxcutter]

And where does Zork fall in this?

Undertale (never having played it) sounds somewhat like it follows the patterns of visual novels while implementing more gamey mechanics. The plot flows regardless, you merely alter its trajectory.

I legitimately don’t know, I’ve never even heard of that I think.

Edit: I mean Zork.

[Xervous]

I legitimately don’t know, I’ve never even heard of that I think.

Edit: I mean Zork.

Zork is IMO best described as a puzzle game where it’s a matter of learning to avoid fatal run ending hazards and what item leads to the next area. There’s exploration in a sense when you don’t know the game, but it can be 100% memorized. What’s the qualifier for a computer RPG?

[Bohandas]

With regard to video games and the high magic/low magic situation, it's important to recognize that in the case of video games most of the 'high magic' effects are just so many pretty lights. They're a bunch of dressed up visuals that make dealing damage to enemies look pretty, but they are totally divorced from any interaction with the setting whatsoever. This often takes the form of battles that happen in specialized bounded fields that are separate from the setting backdrop environment, or in weapon effects that are completely incapable of impacting the environment in any way despite the fact that you'd expect wooden doors to fare rather poorly when hit with an RPG at point-blank range.

Pun intended?

[noob]

I literally only had one videogame that involved really high power magic and it is by using a really weird mod and it is so majorly unbalancing it is silly: you could turn entire landscapes in holes, come back to life each time you are killed for an hour, teleport around even through walls, fly, breath in water and change weather and many other sillinesses I did not mention.
I can understand right after playing that mod the decision of saying "nope it makes everything so much pointless" and restart playing the game without.
A similar mentality with dnd 3.5 have the major problem that you also need to remove 80% of the monsters most of them being monsters with strong slas or supernatural abilities (some of them even being beatstick monsters that just had too much high stats like the colossal scorpion that have a deadly poison and strong enough that you can not escape its grapple without extreme cheese, silly stacking or magic) because magic is an integral part of the game and some people does not likes "high magic but only for the opponents" because you then start relying on the dumbness of your opponents to get anywhere and it also makes the setting a lot weirder(you might as well play warhammer 40K dark heresy and fight chaos for a "smart and magicless vs dumb and overpoweringly magical and also strong physically").

[danielxcutter]

Please tell me I’m reading into much and that isn’t actually on the lines of “either Goblin Slayer or hurdurdur magic” or anything.

[Lucas Yew]

Pathfinder has a middle ground in that it allows weapons of varying +x to count as more and more things for overcoming specific kinds of DR, covering different metals, and eventually even alignment type DRs.

Apparently this seems to have rolled back in PF2; I can't find any references of bonuses substituting rare material in my PDF (alignment is now handled by alignment typed extra damage).

And I wish somebody refute me of this ASAP...

[Crake]

Apparently this seems to have rolled back in PF2; I can't find any references of bonuses substituting rare material in my PDF (alignment is now handled by alignment typed extra damage).

And I wish somebody refute me of this ASAP...

Its definitely been around since longer than 2e has been out, I believe it's under the description of damage reduction itself, i'll try and find the page number in my pdf. Yeah, here it is, p561-562 in the core rulebook. +3 overcomes cold iron/silver, +4 overcomes adamantine, and +5 overcomes alignment based.

Note that the weapon actually needs to be enchanted with said bonuses, the greater magic weapon spell specifies that it does not grant weapons the ability to overcome any DR other than magic.

[danielxcutter]

That provides some incentive to get weapons that actually have the bonus instead of cheesing it with GMW like everyone has since 3.0e, but it still sounds more like a nice bonus than anything required since I'd imagine you can just, y'know, use weapons that typically bypass that DR.

Actually, how easy are those to get in PF2? I hear they did a better job of balancing than the original 3.x editions while still having more variety of character options than 5e.

[Azraile]

Being a caster in a low magic game makes you really have to think about how you use your magic.

Depending on the rulles you won't have as many spells, spell slots, or your magic might be outlawed....

It makes you have to stragitize everything.

[danielxcutter]

Being a caster in a low magic game makes you really have to think about how you use your magic.

Depending on the rulles you won't have as many spells, spell slots, or your magic might be outlawed....

It makes you have to stragitize everything.

That isn't always something that high-magic casters can ignore either, though. "How to use your magic properly" is something 3.5e casters need to consider as well.

[Calthropstu]

There is appeal to me for both high and low magic.
Compare the following:
Belgarath
Gandalf
Elminster

Gandalf is low magic. His greatest feats in lotr include summoning great eagles, creating a beam of light to chase away the nazgul and killing a balrog with a sword. Very low magic, but comprises the greatest amongst high fantasy stories.

Belgarath is mid magic. Describing powerful abilities generally held by d&d druids, very few high level spells are cast. The most powerful spells, Imprispnment and the summoning of a demon lord, are extremely rare occurences. Most spells are in the 3rd to 6th level spell range. This covers most campaigns.

Elminster is high magic. He wields immense powers on a daily basis, casting 8th and 9th level spells on the regular.

All of their stories are enjoyable to me. The appeal of Gandalf type stories is the long trudging through harsh wilderness, tough terrain and dealing with everyday life on the road. 3.5 virtually trivializes such adventures with spells like create food and water, endure elements, fly, teleport, magnificent mansion...

Low magic gets rid of most of these abuses and allows a trudging grueling campaign getting from one place to another.

[danielxcutter]

That sounds fair, but who the bloody hell is Belgarath?

[Tiktakkat]

I enjoy "low magic" stuff as well, however:

Gandalf is low magic. His greatest feats in lotr include summoning great eagles, creating a beam of light to chase away the nazgul and killing a balrog with a sword. Very low magic, but comprises the greatest amongst high fantasy stories.

The eagles are the servants of a greater power, so lesser planar (or equivalent) ally at the least for calling them.

The nazgul are several thousand year old wraiths with class levels, including caster levels. Merely chasing them away is far from just some ordinary light.

The balrog is not just a D&D balor, despite the appearance. It is a demipower in its own right. And Gandalf used both magic and the sword against it.

Of course Gandalf himself is a demipower in a reduced form himself, so his mere existence is far from low magic.

If you want low magic, you likely want something like Conan. Even then, there are liches and curses and revenants left and right.

One element to note in a lot of otherwise low magic stories is the occurrence of rather power ritual-type magic. Spells that require multiple casters and tens of minutes or hours to cast, along with supporting foci and materials and the like.
Which makes them "low magic" in the fight scenes, but rather high magic in the overall structure, as potent forces exist and affect things, despite not showing up in the action narrative.

[Tvtyrant]

That sounds fair, but who the bloody hell is Belgarath?

A miserable pile of secrets!

He's a 9000 year old priest from the Belgeriad by David Eddings, the most generic fantasy story ever told. The magic is called the Wish and the Word, and you basically just tell reality what to do (with certain rules like no destroying or making matter.)

[H_H_F_F]

A miserable pile of secrets!

He's a 9000 year old priest from the Belgeriad by David Eddings, the most generic fantasy story ever told. The magic is called the Wish and the Word, and you basically just tell reality what to do (with certain rules like no destroying or making matter.)

7,000.

And whil David Eddings may be cliche and somewhat generic, I've read far, far worse. The series (and its sequels) are IMO excellent reading for children and young teens.

[Crake]

The balrog is not just a D&D balor, despite the appearance. It is a demipower in its own right.

I mean... Yeah, it kinda is. If I recall correctly, the first edition balor was literally called a balrog, and was only renamed for copyright reasons, same as how hobbits were renamed into halflings. Another thing to remember is that Balor was originally the name of a specific type 6 demon, it wasn't until 3rd edition that type 6 demons were just straight up renamed balors.

But this is kinda the issue with 3rd edition I think, people's skewed perception of things. A 3e balor is a demipower in it's own right. But in 3e people think, if it's a demipower, it needs a divine rank, or it has to be epic levels, etc etc.

[NigelWalmsley]

That isn't always something that high-magic casters can ignore either, though. "How to use your magic properly" is something 3.5e casters need to consider as well.

There's a certain tendency to assume that only low-magic characters can be meaningfully challenged, and to conflate "meaningful challenges" with "low magic" as a result. It's entirely inaccurate, but it infects a lot of thinking, because accepting that you need high-magic challenges for high-magic characters would mean accepting that low-magic characters (like the Fighter) can't contribute to every challenge.

The eagles are the servants of a greater power, so lesser planar (or equivalent) ally at the least for calling them.

The nazgul are several thousand year old wraiths with class levels, including caster levels. Merely chasing them away is far from just some ordinary light.

The balrog is not just a D&D balor, despite the appearance. It is a demipower in its own right. And Gandalf used both magic and the sword against it.

Of course Gandalf himself is a demipower in a reduced form himself, so his mere existence is far from low magic.

None of that is really detailed in the text of LotR or The Hobbit, which is all that most people are going to be familiar with. If you look at the text of those books, the things Gandalf does mostly aren't that impressive. In terms of actual on-screen action, the most dramatic things he does are from the descriptions of the fight with the Balrog. It's true that The Silmarillion is higher-magic, but that's a different book.