|
Well my 2 cents here...
I don't make "low magic worlds" i make you make realistic gold worlds. You work as a merc? book says pay is 2 sp a day. Out adventuring... guess your not working... Only the very rich can afford magical items and their are not tons of magical shops everywhere. Only a good sized city could have them and i make them Auction Houses for items to be bid on a few times a month...
If you are running a campaign with low magic, reduce the base value and the number of items in each community by half. Campaigns with little or no magic might not have magic items for sale at all. GMs running these sorts of campaigns should make some adjustments to the challenges faced by the characters due to their lack of magic gear.
No changes to the class, no restrictions on the players choices of classes, seems pretty straight forward, magic items aren't as abundant.
b) magic and spellcasters were blamed...leading to persecution of spellcasters and spellbook burnings (along with other magic items).
In Soviet DnD, spellcasters persecute the world.
I mean, the only official settings that aren't basically owned by spellcasters or spellcasting monsters have gods or almighty Dark Powers f#$%ing with the world all the time. Even though the authors tend to downplay the power of magic.
While it doesn't rule out PC casters, it does discourage them, and make them less likely to be blatantly obvious about being a caster.
On the contrary. Unless the GM pulls a ton of world-shaping plot devices out of his behind, that's basically an invitation to come and and steamroll everything
|
While it doesn't rule out PC casters, it does discourage them, and make them less likely to be blatantly obvious about being a caster.
On the contrary. Unless the GM pulls a ton of world-shaping plot devices out of his behind, that's basically an invitation to come and and steamroll everything
I'm sorry, but no. Given the world I described, any caster that was blatant about being a caster would quickly find himself lynched. Even high level casters have the weakness of needing 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep. And given the back-history that I gave, most casters aren't going to make it to high (or medium) levels. They're going to be executed in the low levels...most of them before they could even reach 2nd level.
|
I'm sorry, but no. Given the world I described, any caster that was blatant about being a caster would quickly find himself lynched. Even high level casters have the weakness of needing 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep. And given the back-history that I gave, most casters aren't going to make it to high (or medium) levels. They're going to be executed in the low levels...most of them before they could even reach 2nd level.
While it doesn't rule out PC casters, it does discourage them, and make them less likely to be blatantly obvious about being a caster.
On the contrary. Unless the GM pulls a ton of world-shaping plot devices out of his behind, that's basically an invitation to come and and steamroll everything
I honestly didn't take the time to read this whole thread so forgive me if I speak from ignorance but I agree with some of the previous posts that it seems like you wana make a really hardcore tough adventure...
Depending on your players attitude / if they want low magic too... I wouldn't do it.... low magic is boring. Albeit it's a great arena to rp in but beyond that... I'm not going out side with FN incorporeal monsters and brain eaters and illithids and dragons if i don't have my shield and full plate +3.... period.
Essentially i'd make sure your players know what they are getting in to... really make sure.
Well as far as low magic goes, i am planning a post "apocalyptic" setting for my players if they fail in RoTR.
Practically, Golarion wise, Mana Waste expanded, so now there are more countries in which magic is a no no, so rifles, etc. are more common and not counted as exotic weapons. As for PC's, casters get 1/2 progression, so a level 20 Wizard/Sors/Cleric are only a level 10 caster level netting them 5th level spells, while Bard and all 6th spell level casters end up with 4th level spells, etc. There are only few true casters left around (4 of them) and they got much more productive things to do than create magic items for market. Mind you, there are still pockets where magic is at its fullest, but there are already a) BUNCH of magical monsters there b) its part of the community that over time become too paranoid to let anyone in. c) think something up.
As for crafting, my group always banned it cause it wrecks havoc on the system. As for low magic = crap on balance, it really doesn't upset the balance anymore than full casters do past level 15. As for monsters, well there are still spells like magic weapon greater, but it ends up on +2, so they can still pass through some DR, etc.
Last but not least, class abilities will be nerfed, but its on class by class basis, mostly in same way i nerfed spell progression.
Oh and yea, for this i will be giving my players 40 Point Buy.
Dunno if any of this is really helpful. You could also look at Iron Heroes, dunno how much work there will be converting classes to Pathfinder, but everything in there is MADE for extra low-magic setting.
Low Magic for me is defined in games that aren't D&D, quite frankly.
If I want realistic, gritty, and/or low magic, then there's a lot of games perfect for it, like GURPS.
I'm sorry, but no. Given the world I described, any caster that was blatant about being a caster would quickly find himself lynched.
Lynch mobs stop being a problem once you can cast a Fireball. Or convincingly threaten to do it. People, particularly dirt farmers who got uppity because numbers are on their side, are not mindless zombies, and the possibility of eventually dogpiling the wizard will not make those in the first ranks be any more willing to die horribly for this possibility. That's the main reason why quality usually trumped numbers throughout human history, until the age of gunpowder, except in DnDworld the quality is turned to eleven.
Case in point: in every goddamn fantasy setting which had magic users with useful enough magic to actually make them a viable career choice, and persecution against these magic users; said persecution was/is actually carried out by other magic users. Clerics in Dragonlance, Templars in Dragon Age, Inquisitors in World of Darkness, and so on.
Even high level casters have the weakness of needing 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep.
High level casters don't.
And given the back-history that I gave, most casters aren't going to make it to high (or medium) levels. They're going to be executed in the low levels...most of them before they could even reach 2nd level.
And this back-history doesn't make an ounce of sense. Particularly in a DnDland, where all countries are surrounded by ridiculously dangerous stuff. It's like attempts to persecute superheroes in comics verses - a success can only result in supervillains rolling into the town and taking over.
|
|
Even high level casters have the weakness of needing 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep.
High level casters don't.
Well, those 40-odd spells won't last for the rest of their life, and beyond that, they DO need it. Otherwise they're the equivalent of a high-level commoner. Plus, there's the added fact that without sleep, they will eventually go insane and die. Nothing wizard specific about that, it's just what happens when you don't sleep.
The only 'Low Magic' world I have seen of D&D that actually worked was a spell point system where the recovery rate was low in most places and spell saves (long pre-DC days) were better. Magic using monsters were rare or limited in their own use of magic (eg: a gorgon could breathe about once per encounter and the save bonus got higher the further you were away). The aforementioned recovery rate for spell points required as much as a month for a high end wizard to get back to 100%, though it was faster for lower levels. I took about 3 days with my level 5 elf to get back to full strength, a human would take about 4. On the flip side, normal people knew little about magic and there was no 'we know he has to sleep 8 hours' chatter over the gossip fence. When I popped off my 'lesser fireball', a level 2 spell that you HAD to know and cast before being eligible for the REAL one, it made the Orcs cut and run. Shame it was no better than a ranged version of Burning Hands.
Every other attempt usually winds up with only the players being gimped, their opponents being fully prepped to expend every bit of their own resources in a one-off encounter. One game I witnessed part of recently had a CR 10(?) beastie trash a 5 player party of levels 9 to 13(?) because they were playing low magic and that was the only effective way to beat it was magic. They lucked out with a DD spell and either a wizard lock or hold portal to seal their escape. The 'dm' actually whined that they should have been able to finish it off easily, according to the book. If they had had access to better than +1 weaponry (as 'the book' assumed they would), perhaps they might have.
High level casters need to rest, but they also have teleport and rope trick and a thousand other ways to more or less rest safely on demand.
Hell, low level casters can do things to more easily ensure an un-molested rest, too.
I've seen a lot of poeple talk about low-magic campaigns here. But what do you really consider low magic? I'm just wondering, because some people seem to think that a low-magic world would definately benefit the wizard (as he's a towering source of magic in a world otherwise weak in it). Others take the view that in a world so devoid of magic, he would have a hard time expanding his spellbook beyond the spells he automatically gains as he levels.
For me, the following would be characteristics of a low-magic world:
Magic is very rare. Full casters are rare as hen's teeth. Even partial casters are fairly rare. An adventurer might go his entire career without finding a magic weapon.
Creating magical items / researching spells is much more costly and dificult. I'd suggest making the costs for creating a magical item should be multipled by five, the required caster level doubled, and the time required for creation to be tripled.
Why so harsh? Because otherwise, there's no reason that they would be so rare. Every wizard in the setting would take item creation feats out the wazoo and start flooding the market with magical items, and it would quickly become the default high-fantasy magical world.
I'll go against the popular grain here and say that most monsters should NOT be nerfed. One of the reasons to set a campaign in a low-magic world is to give it a more gritty feel. Nerfing the monsters to make them the same threat level they would be otherwise doesn't accomplish this, it just means that you're fighting weakened monsters. A monster has DR 5/magic ? Too damn bad...it's just so resistant to damage that it absorbes lots of what the party throws at it.
There are many ways to define low magic. My world, for example, would probably be called low-magic by many and even I sometimes default to calling it that, but in reality it is very high magic. Rather, I would say that it is a rare-magic item world. The magic item creation rules are different in my world, so there is no concern of 'people taking creation feats and flooding the market'. In essence, the magic items in my world tend to be rarer than standard, but much more powerful on average. Potions, wands and other charge-based or single-use items, for example, which make up a significant portion of magic items normally, are not easy to come by in my world. That said, although I don't track wealth by level at all, I would guess that the PCs might even exceed it, because the items they do gain, although rarer than normal, also tend to be more powerful than normal.
Well, those 40-odd spells won't last for the rest of their life, and beyond that, they DO need it.
Don't be intentionally obtuse. You know that high level casters always can rest safely, therefore needing rest is not a weakness for them.
You also know, that most high-level characters need only 2 hours of sleep per day (Ring of Sustenance), if that.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the mistake here is to think of all these different fantasy worlds as being on a one dimensional continuum of low to high magic.
Before I begin let me say when I bring up real world that I'm not addressing anyone's religious beliefs or what not, just that a large majority of people in Western nations don't commonly belive in magic.
I'd agree that it isn't just one dimensional. I've been working on this off and on for a long time and it seems that low magic has five basic axis. 1 is common, 2 is accepted as fact, 3 is unwanted consequences/costs, 4 is power, and 5 is discernible.
1. Common can run from real world (most people will say they have never seen magic/supernatural creature) all the way to Eberron were almost everyone has seen both.*
2. Goes from hard core sci-fi (everything that ever happens has a rational explanation and no one doubts this) all the way to Walking Dead (anyone alive admits that there are things happening they can't explain).
*Should be noted that many settings with common magic still have it as not being very accepted (i.e. the Buffyverse, Supernatual).
3. Starts at the seldom used magic is easy/has no bad results up to a Call of Cthulhu Game (magic slowly eats your soul/mind away and might get you killed). In between you have the common alters you, is complicated/hard to learn how to use, unintended results, others treating you poorly, etc.
4. Power can run all the way from most D&D (very powerful in a lot of areas) down to Big (one very narrow, very specific, and not all that limiting alteration to what are otherwise normal reality).
5. This can go all the way from no way to prove it (What Women Want) up to being in the room with the mystical creature shows that it bends the laws or reality (Ghost Rider).
Most fantasy worlds from fiction have magic that is in some way more rare or subtle than the magic in D&D worlds. Even if the magic can be very powerful, it is usually more rare. D&D defaults to ultra powerful, quite common magic that is prevalent to such an extent that warfare is more like 30th century star trek than medieval warfare.
Instead is is intresting to examine the magic cosmologies from various great works for fantasy literature, and see what it would take to make a D&D world with something like that magical cosmology.
I honestly don't know if they would make that big a difference. It would matter of course but if you have a Roman Legion of 5 or 6 thousand fighting men how many can a wizard really kill? Even if every spell kills the max number of people possible, which seems unlikely. It would make things more bloody but not it would be world changing.
Consider the following disparate works and the way magic presents itself in them: The Elric Series by Micheal Moorcock, The Lord of Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, Perdido Street Station by China Mieville, The Dying Earth Stories by Jack Vance.
Although some of these might be a great read, I think that it's often missed that they would be CRAP to play though. Just look at LotR - If that was your party you'd have one low level character with some balling gear, a mid level elf ranger, a mid level Dwarf fighter, a mid level human ranger, high level wizard, and 3 low level characters who are always just not as cool as the rest of the party. Unless you had more then one character who have fun with that as an adventure?
"Okay what does Aragorn do?"
"Can I try to control these undead with the Artifact?"
"Yeah, Diplomacy role DC 20. You get +2 circumstance for being the heir."
"21! Just made it!"
"Great, what does Pippin do?"
"I'd like to hide."
|
|
Although some of these might be a great read, I think that it's often missed that they would be CRAP to play though. Just look at LotR - If that was your party you'd have one low level character with some balling gear, a mid level elf ranger, a mid level Dwarf fighter, a mid level human ranger, high level wizard, and 3 low level characters who are always just not as cool as the rest of the party. Unless you had more then one character who have fun with that as an adventure?
I'd actually put both Merry at a respectable level by the end of the trilogy. Merry became a knight of the Mark, fought in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, and was instrumental in the defeat of the Witch-King. He he led the Hobbits in the Battle of Bywater, and personally killed the leader of the opposing forces. Pippin was was less accomplished, but he did get knighted by King Elessar and fought in several battles. Sam would still be fairly low, but stil higher than Frodo. Let's face it, Frodo didn't really do crap other than have a high will save...and even that failed at the very end.
There's a reason there's a full webcomic that was devouted to making a joke out of the whole "play LotR as a tabletop game" thing ;p
|
|
There's also the fact that in such a low magic world, wizards would invariably kill each other off. Face it, there's no scrolls, so no good way to add spells to your spellbook. What's a wizard to do? Best answer is go out, kill another wizard, take his spellbook, and add his spells to your own.
A low-magic world does not make wizards all-powerful. It makes them canibalize each other.
Low magic world
Ha, arcane magic is the woke of the devil.
All spell books need to be burned.
All spell scrolls need to be destroyed.
Any magic items not created by our divine god, needs to be destroyed.
Death to magic, death to the infandells, burn the spell books, burn the witch's !!!
There's also the fact that in such a low magic world, wizards would invariably kill each other off. Face it, there's no scrolls, so no good way to add spells to your spellbook. What's a wizard to do? Best answer is go out, kill another wizard, take his spellbook, and add his spells to your own.
A low-magic world does not make wizards all-powerful. It makes them canibalize each other.
Or they might act more like modern scientists and collaborate. Or governments might sponsor them by establishing university-like systems or make them an arm of their military as it were.
I'd actually put both Merry at a respectable level by the end of the trilogy.
You mean, level 3 or so? No one in LotR does anything that indicates his level is above 5 (replace that with 7-9 or so in the movie version) on-screen. Gandalf has some hidden powers, but ultimately the most impressive thing he does - using these powers - is beating up a Huge fire elemental (CR 7), which also kills him.
There's also the fact that in such a low magic world, wizards would invariably kill each other off. Face it, there's no scrolls, so no good way to add spells to your spellbook. What's a wizard to do? Best answer is go out, kill another wizard, take his spellbook, and add his spells to your own.
A low-magic world does not make wizards all-powerful. It makes them canibalize each other.
Or you know, use their primary stat and cooperate to become all-powerful.
I'd actually put both Merry at a respectable level by the end of the trilogy.You mean, level 3 or so? No one in LotR does anything that indicates his level is above 5 (replace that with 7-9 or so in the movie version) on-screen. Gandalf has some hidden powers, but ultimately the most impressive thing he does - using these powers - is beating up a Huge fire elemental (CR 7), which also kills him.
LotR being a level 3-5 adventure depends on how you scale the monsters. If you put the Balrog (a minor god) as a CR 7 Fire Elemental (which makes no sense at all, but ok), then yes you've set the power level. You can certainly say the Nazgul are CR3 shadows, Uruk-Hai are CR 1 orcs, etc.
However, you could also say that the Balrog is a Balor, all Uruk-hai have class levels, and Sauron, Saruman, and Gandalf are demigods. It all depends on your point of view.
|
I had a low magic Campaign. I didn't change any of the rules at all. How would I describe the low magic? I simply declared the world is young. Magic is still in it's infancy. There are level 20 wizards and what not, but like any one with an unfair advantage they keep it to themselves. Why would they share something that could end up destroying them? This is what I did and we all enjoyed the game a lot.
|
|
I'd actually put both Merry at a respectable level by the end of the trilogy.You mean, level 3 or so? No one in LotR does anything that indicates his level is above 5 (replace that with 7-9 or so in the movie version) on-screen. Gandalf has some hidden powers, but ultimately the most impressive thing he does - using these powers - is beating up a Huge fire elemental (CR 7), which also kills him.
LotR being a level 3-5 adventure depends on how you scale the monsters. If you put the Balrog (a minor god) as a CR 7 Fire Elemental (which makes no sense at all, but ok), then yes you've set the power level. You can certainly say the Nazgul are CR3 shadows, Uruk-Hai are CR 1 orcs, etc.
However, you could also say that the Balrog is a Balor, all Uruk-hai have class levels, and Sauron, Saruman, and Gandalf are demigods. It all depends on your point of view.
I think FatR is referencing this essay by Justin Alexander, which illustrates how "no one in LotR does anything that indicates his level is above 5". Scroll down to about 3/4 of the way down to the part titled "Analyzing Aragorn".
His essay doesn't explain what I call the "cat dilemma". A common housecat can pretty regularly kill a level 1 commoner with all 10s and 11s.
I also think it's clear from the Silmarilion that Sauron, Saruman, Gandalf, and the Balrog are all angels/demons. You could argue that they aren't high CR creatures, but I think you can reasonably argue that they are. I wouldn't put all of the characters at 20th or epic levels, but I could see some as being 10th+.
I also think it's ridiculous that he argues that Aragorn failing to treat the cursed wound means he failed a DC 15 heal check. The wound was obviously inflicted by some sort of magic. You could model it as a clay golem's wounding property or a negative level effect, which are completely untreatable without magic.
|
|
\
The game depends on having access to the right tools. Don't deny your players what they need to have a reasonable chance to succeed. And, while you're at it, save yourself some paperwork.
No, it doesn't. At all. The game hangs together on a set of assumptions, but changing one assumption (the role of magic) doesn't make it "not" D&D. It just means there is a natural ripple effect -- the nature of casters changes (you trim spell list, you limit their choices of spells, and you probably strictly enforce the existing limitations -- concentration checks, costs and requirements for components, etc. You probably change item feats to explain *why* magic items are more rare), magical monsters become less prevalent and intrinsically more dangerous, etc.
But it is perfectly possible. I could define a "low magic" game in... less than 3 pages of house rules? You mostly prune a few things, and then prune the other stuff that still sticks out. Adjust as needed as the game goes forward.
Anyway, to answer the actual OP rather than thread-shit... low magic to me means there are no Ye Olde Magic Shoppes. +1 weapons are rare and possibly non-existence -- the magic items that do exist are kept special so they are meaninful, and getting one is a major quest. Casters are rare, and the traditional casters may not even exist at all. I could live in a game with no wizards, clerics, or even druids -- and making the partial casters serve as the only casters wouldn't offend me (the archetype rules allow for plenty of easy variants to develop that mix partial casting with other abilities).
It's a different game. Could still be a fun game, by changing the assumptions and injecting a fresh perspective. I've certainly had plenty of fun in games like MERP where magic is implicitly pretty low.
I'm kind of amazed at the viscerally negative reactions some are having towards "low magic". You can cut the entitlement mentality with a knife.
To the OP: Low magic to me means that magic is either taboo or driven so far underground (societally or because magi are greedy bastards who attempt to hoard all knowledge and items for themselves, locked in their great towers or lairs). Nothing is purchasable at stores, only parsed out by the DM with notable PC efforts. Even what they have is on the "lower" spectrum of items. The mundane world is in it's prime (Fighters, Rogues, are well known and keep world events moving). Simple men can rise to the top. Divine magic is generally reserved for those of great piety, who tend to lock themselves up in cloisters - driven in their quiet, solemn reverence to their god. Alchemy and Herbalism are in ascendance, with many of the standard low "magic" potions being actually of mundane construction via these skills.
Correspondingly, many absurd creatures or creature defenses are toned down as well, and fairness and balance are paramount.
That's it in a nutshell.... I have much more thoughts on the discussion but that's for another time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have DM'ed some pretty low magic campaigns. Personally i prefer low magic, for several reasons.
-Magic in standard DnD is a commodity and there is nothing magical or fantastic about it.
-i like to encourage creative skill use, psychology, roleplaying and real tactics - not just creative spell combos.
-i like the gritty feel, DnD/PF isn't a cartoon.
My definition of low-magic is simply that magic should never be a commodity or taken for granted.
Other typical low-magic campaign traits (I've never been accused of setting the players up for failure, but i have been accused of forcing them to play smart just to survive):
1- My low-magic campaigns tend also to be low power (I love E6)
2- there are no puny magic trinkets: there are Palantirs and +3 flaming longswords with names and stories, but no anonymous +1 swords or bracers of armor +1.
-masterwork items (up to +2 weapon/armor/tool), herbal potions (cure light wounds etc) and other 'nonmagical' equipement exists.
3- religion is typically big, but very few priests are acutally casters.
-Healing and raising the dead can be done, but only by selected 'saints' or by a circle of priests (ie you need to be liked by the church)
4- arcane magic is typically regarded as evil, suspicious or dangerous, and society has measures to restrict it.
-In one campaign a strong wizard guild hunted down all 'illegal magic use', in another it was a paladin orders sworn to protect society from 'the evils of magic'.
5- anti-caster poison (ie. forkroot from Wheel of time) balances the game and explains why wizards dont rule the world but rather live as hermits.
6- all challenges can be overcome with the tools available / are appropriate for the party.
It's all about the flavour of the game you want. Some players love effortless wins and uber pwnage, I prefer having my character's life on the line in every encounter. Some people want to ride dragons and wield falchions of pure light, I'm happier with a light horse and a steel blade - at least then it feels like my decisions matter more than the stat bonuses.
finally, a comment to a comment
...Whole dynasties are wiped out when adventures teleport into the banquet halls and slaughter them. Its a turkey shoot for a wizard with a staff of fire, fly, a minor globe of invulnerbility and improved invisibility. Warfare is all about elite commando raids once the characters are 5th level or higher.
This is not an argument that low-magic campaigns are set ut for failure, this is an argument that standard-magic worlds cannot retain medieval flavour and still make sense (except in E6). In low-magic world said wizard would be very rare, regarded as a weapon of mass destruction, and quite infamous (enough to attract the bravest/stupidest assassins at least). In a standard magic world, the dynasty should have the banquest in a pocket dimension, use antimagic wards, contingency spells, be protected from fire and failing all else be raised the next morning...
|
Low magic for me personally is simply restricting access to acquiring, making, and purchasing magical items. It technically isn't low magic in that magic is very rare. It's magical items are rare and hard to come by and the best way to get them is to go out and find them or find someone/something that already owns one and take it. It's a nod toward how magic items were handled in 1E (which I prefer over 3.5/PF).
+1
Although some of these might be a great read, I think that it's often missed that they would be CRAP to play though.
I disagree. The worlds' themselves could be very cool milieus for a roleplaying game. In fact, Jack Vance's Dying Earth became a very cool game, Bas Lag would be an awesome roleplaying world, and Ice's 'Middle Earth' was quite popular in its day. Conan is also a cool role eplaying world. The stories themselves can be great inspiration for a D&D adventure, but yes, they would not be so good if they were played close to the text.
None of the worlds work good in D&D. They are best when inspiring rifts that translate well into D&D.
You see this is changing the argument. Most fantasy settings cover thousands of years of history with magic going from weak to strong and back again with quite a few stops in between.
Regardless of the settings they are in these adventures as presented almost all included very prominent characters who would either be PCs who are way under/over powered compared to the rest of the part or make you wonder why the runner is giving a NPC so much face time.
I'm kind of amazed at the viscerally negative reactions some are having towards "low magic". You can cut the entitlement mentality with a knife.
To the OP: Low magic to me means that magic is either taboo or driven so far underground (societally or because magi are greedy bastards who attempt to hoard all knowledge and items for themselves, locked in their great towers or lairs). Nothing is purchasable at stores, only parsed out by the DM with notable PC efforts. Even what they have is on the "lower" spectrum of items. The mundane world is in it's prime (Fighters, Rogues, are well known and keep world events moving). Simple men can rise to the top. Divine magic is generally reserved for those of great piety, who tend to lock themselves up in cloisters - driven in their quiet, solemn reverence to their god. Alchemy and Herbalism are in ascendance, with many of the standard low "magic" potions being actually of mundane construction via these skills.
Correspondingly, many absurd creatures or creature defenses are toned down as well, and fairness and balance are paramount.
That's it in a nutshell.... I have much more thoughts on the discussion but that's for another time.
It's not entitlement, it's understanding how things work.
If there are wizards - period - then it isn't "low magic." If there are full casters at all, then you do not have a low magic game.
Low magic, 99 times out of 100, it means "low magic item but casters still do whatever they want." That's the problem.
It's not entitlement, it's understanding how things work.
How things work "out of the box" is not necessarily how things work in the OP's game, my game, or the guy next door's game.
The entitlement mentality comes into play when these people feel compelled to insist that the game setting must mimic the power potential of the unrestrained ruleset, and with all the stops fully out. I've seen it insisted upon that it is how it should be played, in all instances and cases; i.e. ultra-pervasive magic. You can see this when it's said that players are being "cheated" in campaigns where you can't walk into Magus Joe's Magic shop and pick up a +5 sword of whatever simply because it's listed in a gamebook somewhere.
Also, who says wizards can do whatever they want? A lot of assumptions there.
Cirno, out of curiosity, have you ever played Ars Magica?
|
|
If there are wizards - period - then it isn't "low magic." If there are full casters at all, then you do not have a low magic game.
Low magic, 99 times out of 100, it means "low magic item but casters still do whatever they want." That's the problem.
In my upcoming game, I plan to limit magic. The "Big Six" items will be inherent bonuses gained through experience instead of actual magical items. Typical magical items will be rare and often one of a kind. The only casters I'm allowing are bards, druids, rangers, witches, and adepts. We're starting at level 1, and won't advance past level 10. Magic (especially arcane magic) is not looked upon kindly by the ruling class/church in this setting, so casters are taking some social penalties there.
Would you classify this as low-magic?
I don't see how a setting that allows full caster PCs with unrestricted level advancement could be a low-magic setting.
Like I mentioned before, these are some powerful assumptions. If one did allow all these assumptions to stand, they would have a harder time claiming a low magic setting.
It is really all in what you mean by unrestricted. Sure mr level 20 wizard is a badass but if he doesn't get spells free and has a grand total of 11, not as bad ass as you might think.
There are all kinda of ways to control a wizards power he is just plan easy to control. Druid/cleric however need some big changes to limit however.
Precisely.... but the word "restriction" is anathema to many, it seems.
If there are wizards - period - then it isn't "low magic." If there are full casters at all, then you do not have a low magic game.
Low magic, 99 times out of 100, it means "low magic item but casters still do whatever they want." That's the problem.
In my upcoming game, I plan to limit magic. The "Big Six" items will be inherent bonuses gained through experience instead of actual magical items. Typical magical items will be rare and often one of a kind. The only casters I'm allowing are bards, druids, rangers, witches, and adepts. We're starting at level 1, and won't advance past level 10. Magic (especially arcane magic) is not looked upon kindly by the ruling class/church in this setting, so casters are taking some social penalties there.
Would you classify this as low-magic?
I would play a druid. Using the 1st or 2nd most powerful class in the game is not a bad idea. The witch is not bad either. The issue is that any full casting class has a supreme advantage since they don't need items as much as the melee classes will. Around level 7 the ranger wont be needed, and the adept most likely won't make it out the gate.
Take 1 combat druid, 1 controller druid, 1 witch, and 1 bard. If the point buy is high enough don't even focus with the druids. The issue with low magic campaigns is that it gives the casting classes even more of an advantage. Using something like iron heroes as a basis is not a bad idea. There is one casting class, and every spell has a chance to fail.
I don't see how a setting that allows full caster PCs with unrestricted level advancement could be a low-magic setting.
Just like I don't see how a setting that allows cyborg PCs with unlimited-battery laser-weapon implants could be a low-tech setting, no matter how primitive you make the technology that cyborg PCs are able to buy on the open market.
Think Lord of the Ring. Very few wizards and in group with a wizard that wizard is Gandalf. Still a low magic game and the Wizard is powerful but the game is still low magic. I just don't think playing frodo would be fun.
The best low magic games I've played capped casters to certain level of spells.
One of the best campaigns I've ever played in was low magic, using Iron Heroes. In that one, PCs were not allowed to have magic, period. The rules adjustments made us competitive up to about 7th level (where it ended), and we had a blast. I think a big part of that was facing primarily enemies that weren't spellcasters, as well.
My only problem with low magic is trying to do it without adjusting the rules significantly and assuming that all CR appropriate foes remain CR appropriate. I've seen that tried and it was a train wreck. Granted, it was in 3.0, but I don't really think PF would be a lot different.
I don't see how a setting that allows full caster PCs with unrestricted level advancement could be a low-magic setting.
Just like I don't see how a setting that allows cyborg PCs with unlimited-battery laser-weapon implants could be a low-tech setting, no matter how primitive you make the technology that cyborg PCs are able to buy on the open market.
Think Lord of the Ring. Very few wizards and in group with a wizard that wizard is Gandalf. Still a low magic game and the Wizard is powerful but the game is still low magic. I just don't think playing frodo would be fun.
The best low magic games I've played capped casters to certain level of spells.
Think DM of the Rings. The rest of the party hates the game and the wizard is either the DMNPC or hated by the group because he can just solve every problem for them, rendering them utterly useless.
Low magic to me is
1-3 level spells only, Classes use 4-9 level spells slots for magic enchantment feats like widen spell, enlarge spell, etc.
Magic items can only be made with 1-3rd level spells, so if a item requires a 4th level spells for its creation, then it can not be created.
(( +1 to +5 swords can still exist, but you just do not find them loaded down with other effects ))
Makes for a cool world, were you can still fight magic creatures. Magic still exists (low), is less flashy, but is not rare.
Now med magic would be 1-6 th level spells :)
Ok, after reading this tread, many people sound like they are not looking for a low magic world. They are looking for a Rare magic world. To each his own.
The rest of the party hates the game and the wizard is either the DMNPC or hated by the group because he can just solve every problem for them, rendering them utterly useless.
The prof has a point here: Low Magic with unchecked spellcaster classes leads to one logical conclusion: wizards rule the world or can only be stopped by another wizard...
Personally however, I do think that there is a possibility to run such a game and have fun with it.
As for The DM of the Ring, the DM's over the top, the players are horrible; not the best reference RPG game ever... nor is The Lord of the Ring for that matter; its a novel, and not one that translates easily in a RPG either.