Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm getting close to breaking with regards to magic items in 4e. I generally...hate them, particularly in the quantities handed out by the RAW. I thought I saw something about how to run a low magic game at some point - does anyone remember where that was? I must say that I'm surprised (and a bit annoyed) that there isn't a section in the DMG about how to run a low magic campaign.
Well, if you give everyone +1 to hit and to all defenses every few levels you should be fine. The progression can vary, but should top out at +6. +1 at 2nd then every five levels seems like it would work out fine.
I'm getting close to breaking with regards to magic items in 4e. I generally...hate them, particularly in the quantities handed out by the RAW. I thought I saw something about how to run a low magic game at some point - does anyone remember where that was? I must say that I'm surprised (and a bit annoyed) that there isn't a section in the DMG about how to run a low magic campaign.
I've thought about doing this since my 3.5E game is low magic, but I'm not sure the flavor of the 4E powers will work well in a low-magic setting. That's been my mains sticking point so far, though I am working on it.
|
Read through the magic item section and note just how many items give other constant bonuses.
Also note the heavy bonuses that magic weapons and implements add to critical hits.
While the "no magic 4E" concept was widely hyped during the pre-release marketing, I would expect it to cause a long term drain on party power level if not otherwise accounted for.
I must say that I'm surprised (and a bit annoyed) that there isn't a section in the DMG about how to run a low magic campaign.
There's nothing of consequence in the DMG about running any campaign that doesn't fit D&D's new default world/tone/style :/
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
I'm getting close to breaking with regards to magic items in 4e. I generally...hate them, particularly in the quantities handed out by the RAW. I thought I saw something about how to run a low magic game at some point - does anyone remember where that was? I must say that I'm surprised (and a bit annoyed) that there isn't a section in the DMG about how to run a low magic campaign.
Syndrome: "... then I'll sell all my inventions away to everyone, so everyone can be super. And when everyone's super... no one will be."
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Does that mean there are other things you dislike about them?
In general, 4e has a much more low-detail feeling to me, similar to how, say, 1e WoD felt. I've never been in love with that feel, but for the most part I am willing to accept that feel for the sake of the gaming elements it opens up. The place where it sticks in my craw though is magic items. They just feel flavorless and airy. I've never liked the amount of magic assumed in the RAW, and the combination of a large number of magic items with little flavor puts a bad taste in my mouth.
The lack of consumable magic items magnifies this problem. In the early levels of 3e, a significant portion of your magic items consists of potions/wands/scrolls and other consumables.
I could swear that Mearls had a post of some type spelling out how an easy way to ditch magic items (something like give an extra +1 to hit and damage ever N levels, a +1 to defenses ever Y levels, etc.)
I could swear that Mearls had a post of some type spelling out how an easy way to ditch magic items (something like give an extra +1 to hit and damage ever N levels, a +1 to defenses ever Y levels, etc.)
Right, that's pretty much how you do it. You want to max out at +6 to all attacks and defenses, and give the bonus roughly every five levels, with the first plus starting at 2nd so ...
2nd +1
7th +2
12th +3
17th +4
22nd +5
27th +6
That seems about right to me. :)
|
|
Excuse my ignorance of how 4E works, but how about reducing the challenge of encounters to compensate for a party having less magic items? Will that work, or is it not that simple?
That’s pretty much how I handle things in 3.5 – it does screw with the EL / CR system a bit, but they were relatively screwy to start with … and admittedly, I haven’t tried this at high levels yet.
|
|
I'm getting close to breaking with regards to magic items in 4e. I generally...hate them, particularly in the quantities handed out by the RAW. I thought I saw something about how to run a low magic game at some point - does anyone remember where that was? I must say that I'm surprised (and a bit annoyed) that there isn't a section in the DMG about how to run a low magic campaign.
DMG 187 provides a table for level bonus that is designed to keep NPCs in line with PCs without handing out a huge amount of magic items. If you eliminate magic items you could, in theory, use this table to help decide what kind of extra bonus you would give to keep the PCs viable against challenges of their level. I am not certain it could be used as presented, mostly because I haven't really looked at low magic options yet, but it might give you a good idea on where to go.
Excuse my ignorance of how 4E works, but how about reducing the challenge of encounters to compensate for a party having less magic items? Will that work, or is it not that simple?
That’s pretty much how I handle things in 3.5 – it does screw with the EL / CR system a bit, but they were relatively screwy to start with … and admittedly, I haven’t tried this at high levels yet.
You could weaken monsters on the same scale that you boost characters, and you would get the same results.
You could also throw lower leveled opponents at the party more often, but this would be more work (since you'd have to figure out how many levels to drop them without making them totally inefficient) than just giving an across the board bonus/penalty.
Read through the magic item section and note just how many items give other constant bonuses.
Also note the heavy bonuses that magic weapons and implements add to critical hits.
While the "no magic 4E" concept was widely hyped during the pre-release marketing, I would expect it to cause a long term drain on party power level if not otherwise accounted for.
For low magic 4e you could follow David Marks example.
For every increase you deal an extra 6 damage on a critical (Call it Critical Bonus) under the reason that the characters are that much more skilled in placing thier blows(controlling the intensity of the weave of magic, possess more faith, or what ever your want to call it) than lower level characters.
The second problem is the extra powers they get daily. You could make consumable magic items that mimic appropriate level daily powers. You could call them Fetishes.
You would probably want to nix the Artificer from the caimpaign too.
For low magic 4e you could follow David Marks example.
Yeah, except the powers themselves can screw up the verisimilitude of a low-magic setting.
Explain "split the tree" without magic. And if you think you've done that, explain how it can be only used once per day (without resorting to a magical explanation).
The very nature of a lot of these powers flies in the face of a low magic setting.
|
I'm getting close to breaking with regards to magic items in 4e. I generally...hate them, particularly in the quantities handed out by the RAW. I thought I saw something about how to run a low magic game at some point - does anyone remember where that was? I must say that I'm surprised (and a bit annoyed) that there isn't a section in the DMG about how to run a low magic campaign.
Wasn't one of the promised changes far less reliance on the Xmas tree effect in 4ed? I've mostly examined the character creation/option rules, so I haven't looked at the magic items. Are items really that common?
In other words, how substantial do you think the change in magic item prevalence is between the 2 editions?
|
|
I'm getting close to breaking with regards to magic items in 4e. I generally...hate them, particularly in the quantities handed out by the RAW. I thought I saw something about how to run a low magic game at some point - does anyone remember where that was? I must say that I'm surprised (and a bit annoyed) that there isn't a section in the DMG about how to run a low magic campaign.Wasn't one of the promised changes far less reliance on the Xmas tree effect in 4ed? I've mostly examined the character creation/option rules, so I haven't looked at the magic items. Are items really that common?
In other words, how substantial do you think the change in magic item prevalence is between the 2 editions?
Not to answer for Sebastian but from my point of view it looks like the spread might be a bit more even. A party of five is expected to recieve four magic items each level. These magic items have levels and you can expect to recieve a magic items of the following levels:
n+1
n+2
n+3
n+4
Where n=character level.
Early levels might see many more items than 3.x (or it might not, depending on the campaign) but later levels will see the exact same number of magic items as earlier levels, just more powerful ones.
Currently I am running two different campaigns, one is a 3.5 Ptolus game and the other is a 4e sandbox campaign. The last session of the 3.5 game saw the party gaining something like 5 +1 axes, 2 +1 longswords, etc. from an armory in the published Goth Golgamel scenarion. The group is 13th level so these items really just translate in to cash for them. At that point I am not sure why that treasure wasn't just replaced with gold, or valuable art objects. Something I should have taken the time to do.
That aside, it really hammered home the difference. In 4e you won't see that at later levels. There is still dependence on the bonuses magic items give you but how items are distributed is different. I also think this state of affairs isn't entirely the fault of the 3.5 system. Throwing a hoard of low level magic items into a vault is kind of lazy when a more interesting treasure hoard could be developed.
It should also be noted that magic items of the same type follow the same formula for use. Shields don't provide AC bonuses but give a specific use of a special power. Wands have a bonus to attacks and damage for wizard or warlock implement powers and a daily use of a wizard or warlock power. Weapons tend to have a bonus and a daily power with the occasional at-will power. Magic items in generally are a bit less exciting but a lot more reliable in what they do and how they balance. It is possible to break this formula when designing your own items and not screw things up too much.
With that in mind, it is also easy to remove them entirely and replace them with bonuses. If you can justify the powers in a low magic game (and I think you can) then it should be easy to do. Unfortunately the DMG doesn't get real specific about this sort of thing so it is not intuitive to work out at first.
For low magic 4e you could follow David Marks example.
Yeah, except the powers themselves can screw up the verisimilitude of a low-magic setting.
Explain "split the tree" without magic. And if you think you've done that, explain how it can be only used once per day (without resorting to a magical explanation).
The very nature of a lot of these powers flies in the face of a low magic setting.
It all depends on the type of campaign you would want to set up. For example, Record of Lodoss war is a good example of a low magic D&D game. There are a few powers about (Etoh's Healing Word, Slayn's spells and staff implement) but other than that its mostly magical items or artifacts. The twin swords are at least sentient magical items if only empathic. Karla's crown is probably an artifact.
So yes there are wizards, witches, elves and dragons, but only a handful of characters possess these abilities in the world.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yeah, except the powers themselves can screw up the verisimilitude of a low-magic setting.Explain "split the tree" without magic. And if you think you've done that, explain how it can be only used once per day (without resorting to a magical explanation).
The very nature of a lot of these powers flies in the face of a low magic setting.
I see these as two separate issues. I don't mind if the PCs have access to magic abilities, and don't see their existence as automatically implying a high magic setting. I think it's easier to make the claim that the PCs are unique in that they have these abilities because NPCs don't need to be built with the same leveling system. It's a lot easier for me to accept the fact that, say, random NPC villian knows a single powerful spell than it is for me to say that random NPC villian is a 15th level wizard.
Similarly, I don't have any heartburn over the once per day abilities and don't think you need to rely on a magical explanation. Once per day can easily be interpreted as a story telling device. Why did the PC only use his death attack once per day? Because there was only one opportunity to use it during that day. It's a matter of dramatic convenience. I tend to be a simulationist, but I can get comfortable with a certain amount of dramatic convenience, particularly since it has been an inherent feature of every edition of the game (why can monks only use their stunning fist N times per day? Does that destroy verisimilitude?)
Similarly, I don't have any heartburn over the once per day abilities and don't think you need to rely on a magical explanation. Once per day can easily be interpreted as a story telling device. Why did the PC only use his death attack once per day? Because there was only one opportunity to use it during that day. It's a matter of dramatic convenience. I tend to be a simulationist, but I can get comfortable with a certain amount of dramatic convenience, particularly since it has been an inherent feature of every edition of the game (why can monks only use their stunning fist N times per day? Does that destroy verisimilitude?)
This works in some instances, but for something like split the tree it doesn't. Even in other instances, I feel it is strained. There was only an opportunity once per day? Each and every day without fail? No matter how many or few fights the PC is in?
Anyway, I like 4E, but that sort of thing causes me headaches with my low-magic game because the PCs having inherent magic-like powers doesn't sit well with me. I'm thinking that campaign will probably stay in 3.5E. Even there it has been a little bit of a headache as the PCs have gained levels, because not being able to rely on magic has made higher lever monsters particularly tough for the PCs. I wish there was a good game for this type of setting - Warhammer maybe?
Oh well...4E is cool, so I'm not knocking it. But many of the aspects of it set my teeth on edge when I think of them in a low-magic game :)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Wasn't one of the promised changes far less reliance on the Xmas tree effect in 4ed? I've mostly examined the character creation/option rules, so I haven't looked at the magic items. Are items really that common?In other words, how substantial do you think the change in magic item prevalence is between the 2 editions?
Yes and no. They've consolidated a lot of the bonuses and made it streamlined, so that does lessen the Christmas Tree effect. For example, in 3e, there are a number of items that bump AC and at high levels, you are assumed to have most of them. In 4e, the number of items that boost AC are relatively few and far between. You also don't have the annoying stat bumping items, which were always de rigeur for 3e.
That being said, you do appear to need to have a number of different magic items to be at the right power level. And, a large number of items are handed out. I think that probably more items are handed out in 3e, but, as allynbard points out, a lot of those items are just going to be cashed in. I'm not sure how that will work in 4e - it's not clear to me that PCs won't be cashing out their low level magic items once they get to mid and high levels.
Anyway, out of the box, I think the claim that you won't be a magic item christmas tree is not entirely accurate, but I haven't played enough to say for sure. It does seem like I am giving out a ton of magic items and without the complexity they have in 3e, they don't seem to be as exciting of a reward.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
This works in some instances, but for something like split the tree it doesn't. Even in other instances, I feel it is strained. There was only an opportunity once per day? Each and every day without fail? No matter how many or few fights the PC is in?Anyway, I like 4E, but that sort of thing causes me headaches with my low-magic game because the PCs having inherent magic-like powers doesn't sit well with me. I'm thinking that campaign will probably stay in 3.5E. Even there it has been a little bit of a headache as the PCs have gained levels, because not being able to rely on magic has made higher lever monsters particularly tough for the PCs. I wish there was a good game for this type of setting - Warhammer maybe?
Oh well...4E is cool, so I'm not knocking it. But many of the aspects of it set my teeth on edge when I think of them in a low-magic game :)
Yeah, I can see your point - and some of the flavor text on the powers is...bizzarre. The rogue used a power that blinded a creature by throwing daggers at him. I was like "WTF? How'd you blind him temporarily by throwing a weapon at him. Did you put his eye out?" The flavor text was something like "you cut his head and blood gets in his eyes" which seems like a particularly amazing shot to make.
That being said, the way I get comfortable with it is by trying to remember that 4e is much more an action movie simulator than previous games. Action movie heroes do insane bullshit all the time, and rarely perform the same trick twice. That's what 4e sets out to do - let the PCs do those over-the-top action hero things. I can't say that I wouldn't mind the game being a little less over-the-top, but I can live with it. Plus, I think 3e always ended up being over-the-top in its own way under the default magic rules (e.g., the flying invisible party), and that bugged me too. But I do really love a low level 3e game - if I burn out on 4e, I might consider running a 3e game where the leveling machine turns off at around level 10, and instead of getting more powerful, characters get a wider range of abilities.
|
|
I'm not sure how that will work in 4e - it's not clear to me that PCs won't be cashing out their low level magic items once they get to mid and high levels.
This is the one aspect I am uncertain about as well. I have to see what my players will do because I am having trouble predicting how this will fall out. Overall, there is no incentive to ditch heroic tier items even in the paragon tier. A level 5 weapon might still be useful even if the character finds a level 10 weapon later just because the daily power of the lower level item might be worth using every so often. Selling or disenchanting items at only 1/5th their cost also works against this.
Anyway, out of the box, I think the claim that you won't be a magic item christmas tree is not entirely accurate, but I haven't played enough to say for sure. It does seem like I am giving out a ton of magic items and without the complexity they have in 3e, they don't seem to be as exciting of a reward.
I believe it was on ENWorld that I read they had replaced the magic item xmas tree with the magic item shrubbery. ;)
Edit: Of course, I preferred my metaphor, being that 4E's magic item xmas tree was stolen from Charlie Brown. :)
I believe it was on ENWorld that I read they had replaced the magic item xmas tree with the magic item shrubbery. ;)
So now we need a new NPC: Roger the Shrubber.
Yeah, I can see your point - and some of the flavor text on the powers is...bizzarre. The rogue used a power that blinded a creature by throwing daggers at him. I was like "WTF? How'd you blind him temporarily by throwing a weapon at him. Did you put his eye out?" The flavor text was something like "you cut his head and blood gets in his eyes" which seems like a particularly amazing shot to make.
That being said, the way I get comfortable with it is by trying to remember that 4e is much more an action movie simulator than previous games. Action movie heroes do insane b!&#~*~~ all the time, and rarely perform the same trick twice. That's what 4e sets out to do - let the PCs do those over-the-top action hero things. I can't say that I wouldn't mind the game being a little less over-the-top, but I can live with it. Plus, I think 3e always ended up being over-the-top in its own way under the default magic rules (e.g., the flying invisible party), and that bugged me too. But I do really love a low level 3e game - if I burn out on 4e, I might consider running a 3e game where the leveling machine turns off...
Good points. I think 4E serves the cinematic-type game well.
Most of my 3.5E games stayed in the 1-11 or 1-12 level ranges. We have a lot more fun in the lower level ranges as well. In my homebrew setting, no characters have lived past level 9 yet. There are two there now, and one of them is pretty messed up because he uses magic (he's suffering from a skin affliction, mental disorder, and corruption that makes it likely if he screws a spell up, things are going to go boom. The party is leery of him :) ).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Good points. I think 4E serves the cinematic-type game well.Most of my 3.5E games stayed in the 1-11 or 1-12 level ranges. We have a lot more fun in the lower level ranges as well. In my homebrew setting, no characters have lived past level 9 yet. There are two there now, and one of them is pretty messed up because he uses magic (he's suffering from a skin affliction, mental disorder, and corruption that makes it likely if he screws a spell up, things are going to go boom. The party is leery of him :) ).
The more I read your posts, the more I think we like the same type of game. That's what I do too - I rarely get campaigns above 10th level because I hate how complicated and epic they get.
|
|
[ But I do really love a low level 3e game - if I burn out on 4e, I might consider running a 3e game where the leveling machine turns off...
Ever see E6? I can't link to it currently due to workplace firewalls but I can when I get home if you would like. It caps at 6th level and then provides expanded options in the form of feats.
If I hadn't liked 4e so much right out of the gate I would have planned my sandbox campaign around a Pathfinder version of E6.
So now we need a new NPC: Roger the Shrubber.
I believe it was on ENWorld that I read they had replaced the magic item xmas tree with the magic item shrubbery. ;)
I have the chainsaw herring :)
|
|
Most of my 3.5E games stayed in the 1-11 or 1-12 level ranges. We have a lot more fun in the lower level ranges as well. In my homebrew setting, no characters have lived past level 9 yet. There are two there now, and one of them is pretty messed up because he uses magic (he's suffering from a skin affliction, mental disorder, and corruption that makes it likely if he screws a spell up, things are going to go boom. The party is leery of him :) ).
My Ptolus campaign just hit 13 and I find the game becomes such a chore to prepare.
I think most of my problems with 3.5 really have nothing to do with the system at all. Or rather, I think the real issue lies with higher level play. I like to cut my campaigns at about 10th level as well.
In fact, as much as I like 4e I really doubt I will see many, if any, campaigns move past level 20. The idea of epic levels do not appeal to me at all but I want to give the paragon paths a spin before I pass judgment on them.
It seems like the levels are bit smoother in their transitions but there is a big enough jump between tiers that I can more clearly create a stop point depending on the campaign I am running.
|
|
this is starting to move a little off topic here but: I think that the problem isn't arbitrarily higher level games-it's the style of play in those games...For example, why should 12th level characters still be grueling it out in dungeons? Why should they be fighting at all? In 1e, it was assumed that by the time PCs reached those kind of levels, they were essentially well-known heroes that were often in charge of good-sized keep, or even a castle...It would make sense, especially in the default medievelesque setting of D&D, that high-level characters could be more political, more scheming, and let their minions fight for them...If every 12th level battle is like a 3rd level battle but with more powerful monsters, of course things are going to get bogged down...
While I understand what you are saying I don't think that is the assumption the rules make. Or if it is, they should have been a lot more clear. It really wasn't even the only assumption 1e made. Sure, you settled into your own domains but the game still provided combatants and dungeons that challenged characters of those levels. You still adventured to gain wealth and greater fame. It just happened those adventures took you to more exotic locales. Much like what 3e assumes.
Ptolus (and most 3e campaign settings/adventure paths/what have you) assumes that the characters will still be entering places of danger (places the necessitate combat) in the pursuit of their goals. Most of the high level adventure sites in Ptolus are still dungeons. This coming from one of the designers of 3e and applied to a campaign setting created to closely adhere to the assumptions made by 3.x.
If that is how you run your games, great. I agree that such games are highly fulfilling if done correctly. But the game assumes the adventuring never ends and much of the product produced for it reflects that assumption.
Yeah, I can see your point - and some of the flavor text on the powers is...bizzarre. The rogue used a power that blinded a creature by throwing daggers at him. I was like "WTF? How'd you blind him temporarily by throwing a weapon at him. Did you put his eye out?" The flavor text was something like "you cut his head and blood gets in his eyes" which seems like a particularly amazing shot to make.
That being said, the way I get comfortable with it is by trying to remember that 4e is much more an action movie simulator than previous games. Action movie heroes do insane b%**&!@& all the time, and rarely perform the same trick twice. That's what 4e sets out to do - let the PCs do those over-the-top action hero things. I can't say that I wouldn't mind the game being a little less over-the-top, but I can live with it. Plus, I think 3e always ended up being over-the-top in its own way under the default magic rules (e.g., the flying invisible party), and that bugged me too. But I do really love a low level 3e game - if I burn out on 4e, I might consider running a 3e game where the leveling machine turns off...
If you like 3.5 low level play take a look at E6 (warning:PDF file). The idea is that you play 3.5 D&D as written until 6th level and after that you get a feat for every 5000 exp instead of going up a level. I thought it is a neat idea and will be trying it out.
I'm getting close to breaking with regards to magic items in 4e. I generally...hate them, particularly in the quantities handed out by the RAW. I thought I saw something about how to run a low magic game at some point - does anyone remember where that was? I must say that I'm surprised (and a bit annoyed) that there isn't a section in the DMG about how to run a low magic campaign.
TS' 4e Tome of House Rules to the rescue! I just started my 4e game last weekend using the Item Independence rule, and so far so good. The PHB explicitly charts out the basic bonuses that PCs are supposed to get from magical items, so I'm not holding my breath in anticipation of my low magic item game breaking from my house rule.
Your friendly message board house-ruler,
TS
|
|
If you like 3.5 low level play take a look at E6 (warning:PDF file). The idea is that you play 3.5 D&D as written until 6th level and after that you get a feat for every 5000 exp instead of going up a level. I thought it is a neat idea and will be trying it out.Yeah, I can see your point - and some of the flavor text on the powers is...bizzarre. The rogue used a power that blinded a creature by throwing daggers at him. I was like "WTF? How'd you blind him temporarily by throwing a weapon at him. Did you put his eye out?" The flavor text was something like "you cut his head and blood gets in his eyes" which seems like a particularly amazing shot to make.
That being said, the way I get comfortable with it is by trying to remember that 4e is much more an action movie simulator than previous games. Action movie heroes do insane b%**&!@& all the time, and rarely perform the same trick twice. That's what 4e sets out to do - let the PCs do those over-the-top action hero things. I can't say that I wouldn't mind the game being a little less over-the-top, but I can live with it. Plus, I think 3e always ended up being over-the-top in its own way under the default magic rules (e.g., the flying invisible party), and that bugged me too. But I do really love a low level 3e game - if I burn out on 4e, I might consider running a 3e game where the leveling machine turns off...
Yes, thank you. I mentioned that up thread but could not post the document until I got home. Thanks for posting it.
I highly recommend it to anyone who wants a low level game and is deciding to stay with 3.x.
TS - like your house rules. Not complicated and easy to use.
TS - like your house rules. Not complicated and easy to use.
Glad to know that others appreciate simplicity.
TS
To reduce the magic level I may have a campaign in a country where magic use is illegal, even punishable by death, and there are government magehunters trying to detect its use everywhere, like in Guy Gavriel Kay's Tigana.
I am a big fan of the low-magic campaign; I like gritty adventures, swashbuckling action, and magic that is rare and mysterious.
For now, with 4e, I am playing a 'generic high fantasy' game. I am giving out magic items almost as RAW. The only difference is with 4 players I am dropping the highest level item from the list, instead of the 3rd highest.
For my next campaign, I am going to try and run the whole here is a +1 bonus for every 5 levels to replace that. I think I may also allow players to use extra action points (or something similar) to simulate some magic item's powers and the like.
For example, Dirk Kegtapper, cleric of Moradin, has picked up a neat trick through his time adventuring. He can swing his hammer with such intimidating ferocity it causes his enemies to quake in fear (penalizing the enemy with a -2 to all defenses - save ends). This simulates what a terror weapon does in the game.
I just don't know if my players are up for it, as they really like magic items.
And more importantly, messing with magic items essentially skews the whole economy because most players are spending their money on gear.
I just don't know if my players are up for it, as they really like magic items.And more importantly, messing with magic items essentially skews the whole economy because most players are spending their money on gear.
If your players want magic items I'd tend to err on the side of giving them what they want. Its surprisingly easy for a DM to envision a world with few magic items - after all its not like their getting the magic items. Magic Items don't really heavily impact the DMs enjoyment of the game one way or another but they can have a big impact on the players enjoyment of the game.
If your players want magic items I'd tend to err on the side of giving them what they want. Its surprisingly easy for a DM to envision a world with few magic items - after all its not like their getting the magic items. Magic Items don't really heavily impact the DMs enjoyment of the game one way or another but they can have a big impact on the players enjoyment of the game.
Yeah, exactly my point. I LIKE the idea of low-magic, but would have to get my player's consent before I pushed it on them.
If your players want magic items I'd tend to err on the side of giving them what they want. Its surprisingly easy for a DM to envision a world with few magic items - after all its not like their getting the magic items. Magic Items don't really heavily impact the DMs enjoyment of the game one way or another but they can have a big impact on the players enjoyment of the game.
In my low magic campaign, I made it clear when I was recruiting players that it would be low magic. I've had a couple people now and again who were trying to ratchet up the magic level for their characters, but I didn't allow it. Since I told everyone up front it was low magic, I have no qualms about keeping it that way and if it doesn't jive with what a given player wants, well I'm sure there are other games (like my high-magic campaign for example..heh)
In my low magic campaign, I made it clear when I was recruiting players that it would be low magic. I've had a couple people now and again who were trying to ratchet up the magic level for their characters, but I didn't allow it. Since I told everyone up front it was low magic, I have no qualms about keeping it that way and if it doesn't jive with what a given player wants, well I'm sure there are other games (like my high-magic campaign for example..heh)
If your players want magic items I'd tend to err on the side of giving them what they want. Its surprisingly easy for a DM to envision a world with few magic items - after all its not like their getting the magic items. Magic Items don't really heavily impact the DMs enjoyment of the game one way or another but they can have a big impact on the players enjoyment of the game.
Exactly how do you work that?
I mean what with wizards and clerics and all, how do you plan around all of those spellcasters and then explain away the magic items that do exist?
I mean what with wizards and clerics and all, how do you plan around all of those spellcasters and then explain away the magic items that do exist?
My low-magic compaign is 3.5E, just to clarify.
I only have one caster in the group at the moment, the reason being that using magic is inherently dangerous and has negative consequences. Actually, anyone can try to cast a spell if they have the instructions for it (such as in a spell book or scroll) but if they aren't a caster class (meaning they aren't trained in any magic) casting is even more dangerous and the PC could end up killing himself trying to cast the spell (a caster could kill himself too, but only if he's trying to cast a spell way above his level, but I digress).
So not many casters in the game, and when the caster starts to get out a heavy-duty spell the party hits the deck. He's actually saved the party's ass once or twice, but he also has some permanent physical deformity as a consequence of the spells and he's bordering on some mild mental illnesses. The PC just isn't quite right anymore :)
As for magic items that exist - the lore is that as a consequence of a major battle a millenium prior, a powerful artifact was created to keep some of the chief culprits of the evil side of the war in a state of suspended animation. It is this powerful artifact that caused the magic system to go out of whack and created a low-magic world where magic is rare, dangerous, and people are afraid of it.
Prior to that time, magic was more common and less deadly. So the magic items that do exist are all remnants of that previous time. No one in the world currently is creating any magic items, including the PCs (though the caster could probably pull something off at this point).
There aren't many magic items, but in their questing through the nether reaches of the world the PCs have uncovered some of these ancient items.
So I don't have to deal with explaining casters running everywhere, and the magic items that are in the game are rare and are found as remnants of a previous time.
I am a big fan of the low-magic campaign; I like gritty adventures, swashbuckling action, and magic that is rare and mysterious.
For now, with 4e, I am playing a 'generic high fantasy' game. I am giving out magic items almost as RAW. The only difference is with 4 players I am dropping the highest level item from the list, instead of the 3rd highest.
For my next campaign, I am going to try and run the whole here is a +1 bonus for every 5 levels to replace that. I think I may also allow players to use extra action points (or something similar) to simulate some magic item's powers and the like.
For example, Dirk Kegtapper, cleric of Moradin, has picked up a neat trick through his time adventuring. He can swing his hammer with such intimidating ferocity it causes his enemies to quake in fear (penalizing the enemy with a -2 to all defenses - save ends). This simulates what a terror weapon does in the game.
I just don't know if my players are up for it, as they really like magic items.
And more importantly, messing with magic items essentially skews the whole economy because most players are spending their money on gear.
Obviously, you are talking about your campaign and gaming group, and you certainly know the personalities involved better than I do, but ...
In my experience, the low-magic game is not fun for players. As Jeremy mentioned above, it's easy for a DM to toss magic items, as it doesn't affect his gaming experience all that much, but players want to be able to do fun things with fun toys. It's the nature of the game.
Again, it's obvious that there are some players out there who diverge from my generalizations, and I know that lots of folks say they like gritty, hard-nosed, games where magic is rare and mysterious and the characters have to work to survive. What I've found, however, is that they actually like to read about such places, in novels or game supplements, but don't actually want to play in them. Players don't typically want to deal with their characters dying all the time or struggling to survive in the noir world you have crafted*, and they want to shoot lightning bolts from their eyes and swing mighty magical swords that cleave their foes in twain.
Now, there are certainly grades of magical proliferation, and one could certainly go "lower" magic than the RAW, but I urge you to err on the side of more rather than less, even if you have your players' permission and knowledge in going low. You might find out that they don't actually want things as gritty as you think.
O
* Unless you have crafted it really, really well.
That's my point, actually. I would like to play a gritty game, give it a shot, but I doubt my players would. My hope is that I can use flavor to do most of this, and then reduce magic abilities into innate characters abilities, even letting them choose what they want. We shall see.
In my low magic campaign, I made it clear when I was recruiting players that it would be low magic. I've had a couple people now and again who were trying to ratchet up the magic level for their characters, but I didn't allow it. Since I told everyone up front it was low magic, I have no qualms about keeping it that way and if it doesn't jive with what a given player wants, well I'm sure there are other games (like my high-magic campaign for example..heh)
Well I'm certianly not saying its wrong in some kind of absolutist terms. I just feel that its a concept that DMs should give some serous thought to. Essentially I feel that the idea of cool low magic worlds are are surprisingly more attractive to the DMs of such worlds then too the players a lot of the time. Thats a bit of a red flag right there.
I think that part of this is because there is a bit of a disconnect between the DMs and players, in D&D in particular. Essentially the DM generally has an agenda of creating a fantasy world for his players to exist in. Often he has a 'feel' for this fantasy world in his head and he wants to convey that feel to the players, thats the DMs agenda, and low magic with hero's that use one signature magic item or that occasionally yank out their unique and special item of power is a pretty compelling concept.
The players however don't have exactly this agenda. Their agenda is usually to play really interesting characters that exist in a fantasy world and perform entertaining actions. There is a lot of overlap here between what the players want and what the DM wants but its not 100%. Your character is interesting to play in part based on how many choices you have and more magic usually means more choices. Your character is also often more entertaining if your very good at what it is you do and good supporting magic helps in that regard.
As an example we might have the DM want a world that supports concepts like a mighty Barbarian Warrior wielding the the mythical Great Sword Soul Cleaver - heck thats fantasy novel material right there. However for the players there may be a problem right there. Being a Barbarian that wields Soul Cleaver is cool in the 'be really good at one thing department' but just swinging a sword can get a little tedious. If one had a swiss army knife of magic items to back that up there'd be more options to consider at the game table and that'd make things more interesting.
Likewise a DM that has his players running around a fantasy city but only able to occasionally access a few potions may be delivering a great feel for the fantasy city and may be also having loads of fun whenever he throws back the curtain and hands out a rare and valuable magic item for his players to fall all over themselves trying to get their hands on but the players are not necessarily getting exactly what they want from this since without a significant number of items they have less choices and without a few powerful items they are not 'really good' at whatever it is they envision their character as doing best.
Hence, unless your really committed to the idea of low magic, its usually better to play in something more high magic - you don't have to go insane. After a certain point the players have been sated and getting more magic can almost become a cataloguing chore and make it difficult to define their character but a fair bit is a good idea as a default option and the DM is free to make a compelling world with that default option.
Now if the DM does insist on low magic than I think its imperative for the DM to go that extra mile and really sink some blood sweat and tears into the world creation. He's essentially taken away some features of the game that are inherently interesting and entertaining to the players so he has to make it up to them by making the immersion experience of being in this gritty fantasy world really compelling.
I've been in an excellent low magic campaign but it was interesting and entertaining in a large part because the DM was running something that was nearly 'story now'. We'd have some kind of meta game objective (we were a group of 'thieves' but we were working for good) and we had to figure out how to accomplish that objective. Crowbars and Metal Files became the magic items and we had all sorts of options because we would wander all over the city talking to people or casing the objective as we slowly prepped for our most recent 'job'. There were very few rail road tracks in that campaign. It worked but the DM had done a ton of prep - he new the city inside and out and we eventually new it inside and out as well.
Hence, in this case, low magic was justified, it meant that we had to explore the city and become very familiar with it in order to accomplish our tasks because we could not get a hold of a magic item that would solve our problems. However it also meant that the DM had to do a ton of prep and also be willing to sit there and quietly sip coffee while we would literally go into hour and a half planning sessions that only involved the DM when he had to answer a question - and the better we new the city the less questions we asked. As time went on we did not have to ask about shop or service X or Y because we new the answer. Notice that, to a very significant extent, in this game the DM did not tell us a story - we told the DM a story, we just used his fantasy city as the canvas.
Bottom line: Low magic can be justified and it can be highly rewarding but its not a trivial decision. I've played highly rewarding low magic games but I personally run one with significantly more magic and thats because I want to tell my players a story - so I need to give them lots of interesting and entertaining things to do in my story.
In my low magic campaign, I made it clear when I was recruiting players
Well I'm certianly not saying its wrong in some kind of absolutist terms. I just feel that its a concept that DMs should give some serous thought to. Essentially I feel that the idea of cool low magic worlds are are surprisingly more attractive to the DMs of such worlds then too the players a lot of the time. Thats a bit of a red flag right there.I think that part of this is because there is a bit of a disconnect between the DMs and players, in D&D in particular.
Only problem with this is that I'm a DM and a player, and I like low-magic settings as both.
Also, the last sentence in your post implies you can't tell a story in a low-magic setting, which is, of course, b&$&+@%s. If your players need lots of cool magic items just to tell a story, you need new players IMO.
Good players can tell a story in any setting, as I think my group has shown as with the same group of players we've ran high-magic, low-magic, Call of Cthulhu, the annual halloween zombie invasion (modern setting), Warhammer, 3.5E, 4E, etc. and they've never had a problem telling their story in any of them.
Also, the last sentence in your post implies you can't tell a story in a low-magic setting, which is, of course, b@#!~~@s. If your players need lots of cool magic items just to tell a story, you need new players IMO.
Good players can tell a story in any setting, as I think my group has shown as with the same group of players we've ran high-magic, low-magic, Call of Cthulhu, the annual halloween zombie invasion (modern setting), Warhammer, 3.5E, 4E, etc. and they've never had a problem telling their story in any of them.
I think the bigger issue here is not "telling a story" (whatever the hell that means) but, rather, having fun. You seem to be one of the relatively few players I have come across that enjoys low magic, a group of people whose existence I acknowledged in my post.
In general terms, however, players enjoy being able to do many things, do them well, and come up with creative applications for their abilities/tools. Further, they enjoy encountering strange and wondrous settings and enemies. All of these things are harder (though by no means impossible) to do in a low-magic fantasy setting. I think what makes this particularly difficult in D&D, while perhaps easier in something like Warhammer, is the expectation that many players have about the baseline level of magic in D&D and its prevalence among the heroes, the villains, and the world itself.
In short, I think I'm just suggesting that you (as the DM) be absolutely sure that the players will actually have fun playing in a low-magic setting, that they know what they are getting in to, and that you are willing to work extra hard to fill in the missing excitement and wonder. And, for the record, just making the world more lethal and "gritty" doesn't cut it.
O
I can't believe the message board censors the word b o l l o c k s...