Hrm..Hidden magic vs. low magic. Hmm...
sometimes it can be the same thing, what makes high magic, high magic? Is it magic is ever present or magic is common or something else?
If you take away the magical presence is it still high magic?
Well, that's a damn good question.
I've never seen spells like Wish cast in Dark Sun fiction, however, I have seen it once or twice in Dragonlance. Both settings COULD be considered low magic by some people, and yet this iconic high-fantasy high-magic setting spell appears in one and not the other.
Also, just because magic is ever present doesn't mean it's exactly common. I would say magic is more common in the Eberron setting than it is in the Forgotten Realms setting, and both settings are quite high magic/high fantasy.
Also, just because magic is ever present doesn't mean it's exactly common. I would say magic is more common in the Eberron setting than it is in the Forgotten Realms setting, and both settings are quite high magic/high fantasy.
But you see in may ways high/low magic is perception. What you see often define what something is. If magic has a common presence then it is common . It does not matter if high level magic or even spellcasters are common.
If however magic is not seen, isn't well known or does not have a presence in the world is it still high magic? Is it still high magic if spellcasters are rare and never seen?
Many people perceive FR as High magic because magic is everywhere. Not because of magic marts but because it's infused in the setting. It is only slightly less common in GH yet many people feel GH is much less magic.
It's not the rules it's merely how the setting is perceived for the most part.
Removed posts. This should be a thread about differing perceptions about what the poster considers low magic and how they would define it. Since this is a subjective topic, everybody posting in this thread should keep that in mind and also remember how to engage in civil discourse.
|
For the campaign I'm trying to develop, I don't want to change classes too much, and I don't think I'll have to. Some "low magic" games restrict classes or require a certain volume of multiclassing to water down the casters. I don't want to do that. I'm going not just for low magic, but low power overall. That means lower ability scores, too.
I'm going to experiment with all the "Low Fantasy" suggestions out of the Core Rulebook first:10 pt ability buy, Half wealth by level, and knowing what's for sale in any given town before the PCs get there, who's selling it, and who's available to buy the PC's stock. Magic Items are expensive, so not just anyone can afford to purchase them.
|
Personally, for me, low-magic means that your average person doesn't possess any magic powers or items, and won't see any magic performed on a daily basis. He might know of a hermitic wizard who lives out in the woods and comes into town to trade once every few months, but he's probably never seen the wizard cast any spells or anything. Even from the wizard's perspective, he might use some cantrips on a daily basis, but otherwise he's not really using magic except when he really needs to.
Most magic items are rare, and are named and probably one of a kind. The magic items that can be made and are slightly less rare are relatively weak in power (a one-time use of a 1st-level spell, or a token that gives a +1 bonus to some skill or ability). Spells above 3rd or 4th level are either rare or nonexistent, and if they do exist they're usually accomplished via complicated ritual instead of simple Vancian spells.
In my vision of "Low Magic", magic is neither common nor is it the solution to every problem.
Removed posts. This should be a thread about differing perceptions about what the poster considers low magic and how they would define it. Since this is a subjective topic, everybody posting in this thread should keep that in mind and also remember how to engage in civil discourse.
But Liz, don't you understand? People are being wrong on the internet! ;)
|
Nobody has ever played Dungeons & Dragons. If you play a published campaign setting, then you're playing that setting, not D&D. If you play a homebrew setting, then you're playing that setting, not D&D. I'm just amazed that D&D continues to be the best-selling RPG on the market, given that nobody plays it (or indeed, has ever played it). Even Gygax and Arneson didn't play D&D, they played Greyhawk and Blackmoor.
Does this also mean if I play Pathfinder in a setting other than Golarion, that I'm not playing Pathfinder?
|
|
Then you are playing "Conan: D20" and NOT "Dungeons & Dragons/Pathfinder."
If you are using the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook as your main rulebook, you are playing Pathfinder. If you are using the Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook / Dungeon Master's Guide as your main rulebooks, you are playing Dungeons and Dragons. If you are using the Conan RPG, then you are playing Conan RPG (or, as you put it, Conan: d20).
It's entirely related. It fully and totally counters you "Why didn't they teleport the ring to Mordor?" Because the whole damn thing was a bleedin' plot device. They could've hopped on some Eagles and flown there. Who would have stopped them? No one, that's who.
The Big Bad with long-range detection abilities and at least some control over weather/flying minions? The Ring itself? Does not work when you can mindshield yourself and teleport, though.
Also, "that is a plot device" is an admission that the story makes no sense, not an excuse to introduce more elements that cause the story to make no sense.
It's entirely related. It fully and totally counters you "Why didn't they teleport the ring to Mordor?" Because the whole damn thing was a bleedin' plot device. They could've hopped on some Eagles and flown there. Who would have stopped them? No one, that's who.The Big Bad with long-range detection abilities and at least some control over weather/flying minions? The Ring itself? Does not work when you can mindshield yourself and teleport, though.
Also, "that is a plot device" is an admission that the story makes no sense, not an excuse to introduce more elements that cause the story to make no sense.
You mean the flying minions that didn't fly anywhere until the Elves killed their perfectly normal horses and when they DID get flying mounts, the Eagles beat them up?
Really, the Big Bad can't have Dimensional Anchor and Disjunction? You know who is teleporting into Mordor? No one.
Dragonlance/Krynn: Low Magic, no shops, magic items are rare, and original rules capped character levels out before the gods would kick you out of the realm.
Which, again, just means that existing spellcasters are gods on earth, the state of affairs explicitly recognized by the setting here. And no one cared about level caps, because PCs had no chance to reach them playing by the rules anyway.
Ravenloft/Demi-plane of Dread: Low Magic, everything in this settings is extremely controlled.
Representative of yet another reason why "Low Magic" has negative connotations. Ravenloft is low magic for the PCs (except when it arbitrarily isn't). Bad guys outside of low level domains often have spellcaster levels up the wazoo. The iconic Darklord is a Wizard 16, besides being a vampire. "Low Magic" is flat-out incompatible with "Wizard 16" in anyone's statblock. Darklords also often wear magical bling even pre-3.0 and are backed by plot device magic.
Dark Sun/Athas (Pre-4.0): Low Magic, because most of the setting is ruled by the few guys who've gotten to 12th level or so.
12th level = magic that is epic. Also, Dark Sun is, once again low-anything for the PCs. Bigshot NPCs have bad-ass magic and throngs of spellcasting servants.
Then you are playing "Conan: D20" and NOT "Dungeons & Dragons/Pathfinder."If you are using the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook as your main rulebook, you are playing Pathfinder. If you are using the Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook / Dungeon Master's Guide as your main rulebooks, you are playing Dungeons and Dragons. If you are using the Conan RPG, then you are playing Conan RPG (or, as you put it, Conan: d20).
But the people describing low magic are not using the PF/D&D rulebooks. Especially when Jansen described.
You mean the flying minions that didn't fly anywhere until the Elves killed their perfectly normal horses and when they DID get flying mounts, the Eagles beat them up?
Eagles didn't. They never even fought each other in the book, and the Nazgul threw the fight in the movie. As about appearance of the flying mounts, they probably were simply unsuitable for a mission that didn't require terrifying the entire countryside and announcing the Nazgul's presence for everyone, but the opposite.n
Really, the Big Bad can't have Dimensional Anchor and Disjunction? You know who is teleporting into Mordor? No one.
How Dimensional Anchor and Disjunction can possibly help with that, I wonder? Also, inventing never-seen abilities for the Big Bad, to counter never-seen abilities for the characters, is a non-argument once again.
|
|
But the people describing low magic are not using the PF/D&D rulebooks. Especially when Jansen described.
Just because it's in the book that doesn't mean you HAVE to use it. Pathfinder RPG lists the Golarion gods in it's Cleric section. 3.X D&D listed the Greyhawk gods (as did 2E, IIRC). Does that mean that if you play a game with different gods it's not D&D/PFRPG?
Using a low magic setting is no different that playing a game with any other general assumption. You like to play games where it's assumed that in any random village you can walk into the local branch of the Krazy Kragnar's Magical Emporium franchise and chose from the different varieties of +5 swords. Some people like to play games where wizards, sorcerers, priests, and the like are very rare, and magical items are all but non-existant. Both of these are a question of the SETTING, not the RULE SET.
D&D 3.5 published a series of environmental-based books: there was, IIRC, a book for desert environments, a book for arctic environments, and a book for underwater environments. There may have been more, but I remember those three. Under your assumption that if it's in the rules it HAS to always exist, you aren't playing D&D if you don't set your adventures in an frozen underwater desert.
Let's assume, for a moment...
Not going into disussion of Tolkien any further (although you should at least learn that Valar and Maiar represent different rungs in the power ladder before trying to discuss it), I think I need a few DnD-related points, that need to be adressed.
You see, you are assuming that "CR 7" somehow means "weak". No, just no. By the standards of people who cannot break the laws of physics and don't have items to help with it, CR 7 critters (with a few weirdly over-CRed exceptions) are terrifying. No human being, remaining within the bounds of what humans are capable of in reality, can be expected to beat a ten-meter tall giant of a living fire a fair fight (although if I'm mistaken in one thing, the balrog is better represented by a magma elemental, as fire elementals apparently are weightless).
Case in point - the party with levels you have described and with the equipment the Fellowship has, will be completely screwed against it. 15' reach, Combat Reflexes and DR = lots of dead lower level humanoids. Unless they have friendly casters or loaded on items in nearby Magic Mart. And a small nation of low-level people in a low-magic world will in dire peril against any CR 7 creature, with a sufficient mobility to avoid being dogpiled by their entire army as well. Unless their few heroes somehow pull off a win against the monster (which, in a low-magic world isn't easy), they are doomed.
This leads us to two points:
1)Power scale of DnD is crazy. You fight ridiculous stuff worthy of legends before getting into two-digits levels. Permainvisible monsters, many-headed firebreathing hydras, giants that are more agile than an average human and have sking tougher than any mundane armor ever devised, armored flying monsters as big as a horse and as fast as a cat that also can breathe fire - you don't see much stuff like thing in fantasy, and when you do, it is not supposed to be challenged directly without magic in one form or another. And this is, again, without getting into two-digit levels - the power of monsters and PCs continues to grow explosively after that.
2)To compete on this power scale, people need superpowers. Period. Unfortunately, in DnD some classes have a vast array of superpowers, and some can only hit things, and not as hard as the things tend to hit back. Therefore if you restrict the access to superpowers universally available through magic items, the whole party might be screwed, and, certainly, the latter classes will be screwed harder than the former.
Also, inventing never-seen abilities for the Big Bad, to counter never-seen abilities for the characters, is a non-argument once again.
Then don't make up never before seen abilities for the characters.
|
|
2)To compete on this power scale, people need superpowers. Period. Unfortunately, in DnD some classes have a vast array of superpowers, and some can only hit things, and not as hard as the things tend to hit back. Therefore if you restrict the access to superpowers universally available through magic items, the whole party might be screwed, and, certainly, the latter classes will be screwed harder than the former.
The martial classes may not have "flashy" superpowers, but I'd have to say that many of their abilities should be considered superpowers. Let's take a look at the fighter...
Bonus Feats: You can do some pretty amazing things with the right combat feats. And the fighter gets an extra feat at level 1, and an extra feat at every even level. Eleven extra "superpowers".
Armor Mastery: The fighter gains DR 5/- if he is using armor or a shield. This isn't limited to certain armors, either. A fighter wearing padded armor? DR 5/-. A naked fighter with a sheild? DR 5/-.
Weapon Mastery: Automatically confirm crits, and increase the damage multiplier by one. He also can NOT be disarmed while using this weapon. Combine this with Improved Crit, Crit Focus, Crit Mastery, and two of your favorite Crit feats (I favor Blinding and Bleeding), and you become REALLY nasty in combat.
The weapon training, armor training, and bravery class features may not exactly be considered "superpowers" but they're damn nice. Especially bravery, since this boosts his weak Will save.
Less flashy...yes. But damn fine "superpowers" nonetheless. The "mundane" fighter is a death-dealing machine.
2)To compete on this power scale, people need superpowers. Period. Unfortunately, in DnD some classes have a vast array of superpowers, and some can only hit things, and not as hard as the things tend to hit back. Therefore if you restrict the access to superpowers universally available through magic items, the whole party might be screwed, and, certainly, the latter classes will be screwed harder than the former.
I think a great many GMs fail to fully realize this last point. Unless you alter casters in low magic item world, then you're hurting the non-caster classes even more.
Let's take a look at the fighter... Bonus Feats: You can do some pretty amazing things with the right combat feats. And the fighter gets an extra feat at level 1, and an extra feat at every even level. Eleven extra "superpowers".
Feats, by themselves aren't superpowers, but when you have access to one Feat per level, that is a pretty super power.
Armor Mastery: The fighter gains DR 5/- if he is using armor or a shield. This isn't limited to certain armors, either. A fighter wearing padded armor? DR 5/-. A naked fighter with a sheild? DR 5/-.
This is a 20th level capstone ability. Now, be honest, how often do you ever get that high? If you're playing APs, you don't (they cap around 16 or 17.) If you're playing homebrew, I bet you still don't get that high. If you're playing low-magic, your Fighter is not going to get past 7th level.
Weapon Mastery: Automatically confirm crits, and increase the damage multiplier by one. He also can NOT be disarmed while using this weapon. Combine this with Improved Crit, Crit Focus, Crit Mastery, and two of your favorite Crit feats (I favor Blinding and Bleeding), and you become REALLY nasty in combat.
Again, never going to get high enough to use it.
The weapon training, armor training, and bravery class features may not exactly be considered "superpowers" but they're damn nice. Especially bravery, since this boosts his weak Will save.
You're not addressing the fact that, without magic goodies, despite all the Feats, the Fighter and his martial brethren hit a wall at some point, say 6th or 7th. The full-caster doesn't hit the same wall, though he probably suffers along with the party as well. He just looks a lot better while he's suffering.
Not going into disussion of Tolkien any further (although you should at least learn that Valar and Maiar represent different rungs in the power ladder before trying to discuss it), I think I need a few DnD-related points, that need to be adressed.
Since you're calling me out specifically on this off-topic issue.
'Valar' refers not only to the 14 'big dogs', but also all of the Ainur that entered Middle-Earth. Since I wasn't actually expecting to get into a Middle Earth theological debate, I was a tad sloppy in my wording, and didn't differentiate between 'Valar', the generic term for the lesser and greater Valar, and 'Valar', specifically referring to the Lords and Queens of the Valar. Sorry.
|
2)To compete on this power scale, people need superpowers. Period. Unfortunately, in DnD some classes have a vast array of superpowers, and some can only hit things, and not as hard as the things tend to hit back. Therefore if you restrict the access to superpowers universally available through magic items, the whole party might be screwed, and, certainly, the latter classes will be screwed harder than the former.I think a great many GMs fail to fully realize this last point. Unless you alter casters in low magic item world, then you're hurting the non-caster classes even more.
Or maybe a great few players don't realize that it doesn't play out that way in peoples games like it does on their hypothetical scenario board play. Or they expect every game to play to level 20 every time they start so they say "You can't do low magic effectively in DnD" despite the fact that the game will end at level 6 because of disparate schedules/jobs/school so it never gets to the levels where the hypothetical disparity is a problem anyways.
Would it be fair to say, then, that "orthodox" D&D is arguably an exaggeration or even a caricature of most literary fantasy, and that those seeking a more accurate simulation are justified in making judicious (or even extensive) adjustments to the holistic level of magic?Power scale of D&D is crazy. You fight ridiculous stuff ... you don't see much stuff like thi[s] in fantasy, and when you do, it is not supposed to be challenged directly without magic in one form or another.
To compete on this power scale, people need superpowers. Period.
Yes, of course D&D Heroes are exaggerations. What else would they be? The game is designed from the standpoint that these PCs are going to rise above it all, save the world and slay the dragon. When you monkey around with the core magic level, outside of the CRB recommendations, you are fundamentally changing the game.
Or maybe a great few players don't realize that it doesn't play out that way in peoples games like it does on their hypothetical scenario board play. Or they expect every game to play to level 20 every time they start so they say "You can't do low magic effectively in DnD" despite the fact that the game will end at level 6 because of disparate schedules/jobs/school so it never gets to the levels where the hypothetical disparity is a problem anyways.
I've never called a straw man argument before, but this sure looks like one to me.
|
|
Or maybe a great few players don't realize that it doesn't play out that way in peoples games like it does on their hypothetical scenario board play. Or they expect every game to play to level 20 every time they start so they say "You can't do low magic effectively in DnD" despite the fact that the game will end at level 6 because of disparate schedules/jobs/school so it never gets to the levels where the hypothetical disparity is a problem anyways.I've never called a straw man argument before, but this sure looks like one to me.
No more like annoyance at overwhelmingly absolutist statements on this thread. A game being low magic does not necessarily always make the caster classes better. At low levels they can actually be negatively effected as I've seen lots of casters "stock up" on potions, scrolls, and wands for when they run out of spells, or so that they don't "waste" their good spells. How many times have I seen a cleric get a wand of cure light wounds so that they didn't have to waste their spells on out of combat healing (granted this has been somewhat mitigated by channeling). Maybe an optimizer has an advantage with a casting class if played smartly, but lots of players aren't optimizers, some players are actually horrible at optimizing no matter how hard they try (just wait till you hear a player claim that playing a blaster evocation wizard is the best way to make a wizard). There's a difference between a possibility and an absolute, and those arguing against low magic settings are dealing in absolutes which can discourage people from trying to run a low magic setting where if they had, they would have had a fun game with none of the "casters running amok" problems that I'm seeing claimed in this thread.
I liked Dragonslayer the movie as an example of low magic. Dragons were a dying breed, magic was leaving the world, and a mage's magic was just as terrifying to the common people as the afore mentioned dragons.
I'd think you could play a wizard in a low magic setting, but finding one to train your character would probably be an adventure in itself, let alone the time it would take, and your magic would probably only be a percentage of your master's.
Sorcerers, not so much for the same reason dragons were dying...magic was fading away. You'd probably need spell-less paladin and ranger variants, etc.
Then again...
At the end of that movie, Galen Bradwarden apparently had a Quickened, stilled, limited wish spell 1/day as an SLA...
I liked Dragonslayer the movie as an example of low magic. Dragons were a dying breed, magic was leaving the world, and a mage's magic was just as terrifying to the common people as the afore mentioned dragons.
I'd think you could play a wizard or druid in a low magic setting, but finding one to train your character would probably be an adventure in itself, let alone the time it would take, and your magic would probably only be a percentage of your master's.
Sorcerers, not so much for the same reason dragons were dying...magic was fading away. You'd probably need spell-less paladin and ranger variants, etc.
Then again...
At the end of that movie, Galen Bradwarden apparently had a Quickened, stilled, limited wish spell 1/day as an SLA...
No more like annoyance at overwhelmingly absolutist statements on this thread.
I think it is an absolute that, if you only alter magic item availability, but not Caster ability, then you are disproportionally effecting Martial-types over Caster-types.
It's pretty simple that over the life of the game, casters need toys less (because of their innate spell ability) than physical combatants. Certainly casters will be limited without toys, and that will hurt the party overall, but they won't be nearly as ineffective as everyone else.
Which, again, just means that existing spellcasters are gods on earth, the state of affairs explicitly recognized by the setting here. And no one cared about level caps, because PCs had no chance to reach them playing by the rules anyway.
Incorrect, mages are highly feared in Dragonlance and have instituted a system to keep themselves under control because the populace had previously nearly killed all of them. Mages actively hide who and what they are from all but their closest friends. They are not as you say gods on earth because they still die easily enough. Your vaunted I'm a mage and can kill anyone doesn't work when it's you verus an army be it peasents or knights.
Representative of yet another reason why "Low Magic" has negative connotations. Ravenloft is low magic for the PCs (except when it arbitrarily isn't). Bad guys outside of low level domains often have spellcaster levels up the wazoo. The iconic Darklord is a Wizard 16, besides being a vampire. "Low Magic" is flat-out incompatible with "Wizard 16" in anyone's statblock. Darklords also often wear magical bling even pre-3.0 and are backed by plot device magic.
Actually all of Ravenloft, 2nd edition mind you I hold no knowledge on the 3rd and 4th versions, was setup for characters maxing out at 6th level. More importantly Low Magic settings are often using a single wizard as their final boss often far stronger than the group fighting them. The only reason that lone mage is ever powerful in most of these settings is they have an army at their disposal to keep them safe. In Raveloft the Lords can just control the land itself and all the inhabitants.
12th level = magic that is epic. Also, Dark Sun is, once again low-anything for the PCs. Bigshot NPCs have bad-ass magic and throngs of spellcasting servants.
Not throngs of spell casters, psionics, there's a difference. And I still don't understand this 12th level is epic magic. He's got two maybe three castings of 6th level magic. Yeah he's got distingrate, Globe of Invunerability and anti magic field. Yes any of those are powerful at that level, but those aren't going to stop anyone actually using their head instead of charging forward. Nevermind in a low magic setting someone, often the barbarian, is taking the needed feats to specialize in anti mage fighting.
Those old Conan modules put out by TSR were considered low magick. They didnt have much in the way of clerics or mages or magick items or spells. Or magickal creatures...
Those old Conan modules put out by TSR were considered low magick. They didnt have much in the way of clerics or mages or magick items or spells. Or magickal creatures...
This might be the most useful bit of info in the entire thread. If I were inclined to run a low-magic campaign, I'd research these modules and see what they did to alter 1e. I'd then try and model those changes to suit PF.
At the very least, my players would have access to the information I would be using to alter out game. It could be a group effort, well worth the undertaking.
No more like annoyance at overwhelmingly absolutist statements on this thread.I think it is an absolute that, if you only alter magic item availability, but not Caster ability, then you are disproportionally effecting Martial-types over Caster-types.
It's pretty simple that over the life of the game, casters need toys less (because of their innate spell ability) than physical combatants. Certainly casters will be limited without toys, and that will hurt the party overall, but they won't be nearly as ineffective as everyone else.
Actually that's easily solved by people doing basic in game research and than performing a dungeon crawl for their original purpose, gaining specialized gear that's not normally available. You didn't dungeon crawl for experience or fame, you went down there to retrieve the lost sword of the fabled mage king to use against GelSadora.
Though in a setting where mages are still as common as they were before they have some change to the magic system like the Defiler system mages used in Darksun. Which for those unfamiliar with it meant to cast any spells they had to drain life from the enviroment around them, people near by, or themselves.
Actually that's easily solved by people doing basic in game research and than performing a dungeon crawl for their original purpose, gaining specialized gear that's not normally available. You didn't dungeon crawl for experience or fame, you went down there to retrieve the lost sword of the fabled mage king to use against GelSadora.
That is kind of purist D&D, isn't it? Since someone in another thread spoke of Gygax, I have to add that any item you find, needs to have a 50% chance of being cursed. heh :)
No more like annoyance at overwhelmingly absolutist statements on this thread.I think it is an absolute that, if you only alter magic item availability, but not Caster ability, then you are disproportionally effecting Martial-types over Caster-types.
It's pretty simple that over the life of the game, casters need toys less (because of their innate spell ability) than physical combatants. Certainly casters will be limited without toys, and that will hurt the party overall, but they won't be nearly as ineffective as everyone else.
This simple fact that you speak of is, in my opinion, an interesting and plausible, but unproven theory.
Frankly, I just haven't seen it play out that way.
Take away all his magical toys and a fighter doesn't hit as hard and gets hit more often. He also has difficulty penetrating against creatures with DR, which become more common at higher levels. He still, however, with feats and combat maneuvers, full BAB and probably a pretty good Str even when not magically augmented, has plenty of options.
The wizard, deprived of his toys, has to spend a lot more time guessing what spells he will need that day, and sometimes he is going to guess wrong, meaning he has wasted a proportion of his potential power. The sorcerer, due to his smaller number of spells known, just flat out loses the ability to cast a lot of the spells he would want if he has limited access to scrolls and wands. And if he doesn't have the right spell for the situation ready, what can the caster do? Run? Hide? Fire his crossbow ineffectually? Pout?
This isn't to say that I don't think your theory has merit, just to say that it isn't simple fact, it's opinion.
In fact, if I were to create another low-magic campaign, I would also take some steps to limit casters rather than just magical items, either through difficulty in acquiring spells. I'd do it because that would make logical sense in a low-magic world, rather than because I've ever seen casters totally dominate the other classes in any campaign, low-magic or high-magic, until you get to the rather silly high levels.
This simple fact that you speak of is, in my opinion, an interesting and plausible, but unproven theory.
Well, I mean, c'mon, it's a fact in my mind!
Take away all his magical toys and a fighter doesn't hit as hard and gets hit more often. He also has difficulty penetrating against creatures with DR, which become more common at higher levels. He still, however, with feats and combat maneuvers, full BAB and probably a pretty good Str even when not magically augmented, has plenty of options.
I agree with much of this, the only you left out is flying creatures. having said that, if he has a bow, I guess he can at least engage from range (while ducking for cover.)
The wizard, deprived of his toys, has to spend a lot more time guessing what spells he will need that day, and sometimes he is going to guess wrong, meaning he has wasted a proportion of his potential power.
I don't know, I could also see the Wizard focusing on 1 or 2 combat loadouts. Sure, he'll lose utility, but that just means the party has linger longer in area, if the want the caster to prepare something specific. This, of course, can be problematic (you're spending the night here, IN the tomb of the Lonely Warrior? Well, okay...)
The sorcerer, due to his smaller number of spells known, just flat out loses the ability to cast a lot of the spells he would want if he has limited access to scrolls and wands. And if he doesn't have the right spell for the situation ready, what can the caster do? Run? Hide? Fire his crossbow ineffectually? Pout?
Pouting is always and option!
This isn't to say that I don't think your theory has merit, just to say that it isn't simple fact, it's opinion.
No, no, you're right. I worded it badly, it is just my opinion.
That is kind of purist D&D, isn't it? Since someone in another thread spoke of Gygax, I have to add that any item you find, needs to have a 50% chance of being cursed. heh :)It did sometimes seem that way back then, didn't it? :)
I think it takes a real flair to give a character a cursed item and not have the player think you're a bit of a schwantz.
The way I see it, if 3x/PF totally opened the magic item floodgate, it was in response to the trickle of items that were available in 1e. And that's probably a little bit of a misconception, fair enough.
As for DM flair, I agree that an appropriately acquired cursed item can be a lot of fun. In Second Darkness, when my already sociopath Fighter picked up the Whip of Abraxus, well, I mean that was just about perfect.
|
|
This isn't to say that I don't think your theory has merit, just to say that it isn't simple fact, it's opinion.No, no, you're right. I worded it badly, it is just my opinion.
Which is all I was trying to say, but earlier absolutest statements about how I'm not playing DnD had already bugged me and I had just let that go which may explain why I was more snarky with you then I may have intended.
Which is all I was trying to say, but earlier absolutest statements about how I'm not playing DnD had already bugged me and I had just let that go which may explain why I was more snarky with you then I may have intended.
Fair enough. If it's any consolation, after we're done with Kingmaker, I think I might suggest that our group look into a Conan-style AP.
Low magic doesn't mean you hate your martial-types, it just means you want to screw 'em really badly. Er, wait, that came out wrong...
The martial classes may not have "flashy" superpowers, but I'd have to say that many of their abilities should be considered superpowers. Let's take a look at the fighter...
Pehaps my wording was too vague. Hitting things as hard as a DnD fighter does after level 4 or so IS a superpower. The problem is, it can't deal with the opponents that move combat beyond the direct number contest (because you don't have much, if any, abilities that grant necessary mobility and perception, for starters), it needs being backed up by magic items to win direct number contests, and at high levels you tend to just straight-up lose direct number contests against monsters that specialize at hitting things.
Note, that settings which postulate scarcity of magic items, but intend to leave PCs some sort of fighting chance, tend to give a lot more inherent superpowers than in normal DnD. Dark Sun in 2E had inborn psyonic powers galore. Mighnight has Heroic Paths.
Which is all I was trying to say, but earlier absolutest statements about how I'm not playing DnD had already bugged me and I had just let that go which may explain why I was more snarky with you then I may have intended.Fair enough. If it's any consolation, after we're done with Kingmaker, I think I might suggest that our group look into a Conan-style AP.
Low magic doesn't mean you hate your martial-types, it just means you want to screw 'em really badly. Er, wait, that came out wrong...
I think low magic suits martial classes well. The games tend to be centered around what martial class can do not so much what a casting class can do. So going from 1st to 20th will be different as you don't throw stuff at the players that require Full casters.
|
|
Low magic to me is a setting (any setting) wherein the normal residents may or may not believe in magic. Heck, they might not even believe in other humanoid races.
Usually, it's much like a setting from Earth's history, plus a little magic that most folks don't know about.
If magic is so pervasive in your setting that only crazy people would deny it, your setting is not low magic. At least, not as far as I'm concerned.
Incorrect, mages are highly feared in Dragonlance and have instituted a system to keep themselves under control because the populace had previously nearly killed all of them.
...But then decided that dying in droves for every mage brought down is not really worth it. Even though mages decided to fight them in a really stupid way that played right into their weakness.
Mages actively hide who and what they are from all but their closest friends.
Or command Dragonarmies, or quest to overthrow the gods.
They are not as you say gods on earth because they still die easily enough. Your vaunted I'm a mage and can kill anyone doesn't work when it's you verus an army be it peasents or knights.
Actually it does. Be they peasants or knights.
Actually all of Ravenloft, 2nd edition mind you I hold no knowledge on the 3rd and 4th versions, was setup for characters maxing out at 6th level.More importantly Low Magic settings are often using a single wizard as their final boss often far stronger than the group fighting them. The only reason that lone mage is ever powerful in most of these settings is they have an army at their disposal to keep them safe. In Raveloft the Lords can just control the land itself and all the inhabitants.
Wait, are you arguing against me, or trying to explain why "Low Magic" is so associated with keeping PCs down, control freakishness, TPK-happiness and other forms of suck and bad GMing?
Not throngs of spell casters, psionics, there's a difference.
Yes, psionic was more broken in 2E. But templars which the setting bigshots had at their beck and call used magic, not psionics.
And I still don't understand this 12th level is epic magic. He's got two maybe three castings of 6th level magic.
In 3.X you are not worthy of your pointy hat if you don't have at least four. In 2E you most likely have two, but with stuff like Geass and Ensnarement being even better than their 3.X equivalent, you can break the game by making people into your slaves, pretty much permanently, while Eyebite and Mass Suggestions allow you to make people instantly lose, now with penalties to enemies' saves, and Chain Lightning tears through most opponents. And Mislead makes anyone without detection spells practically unable to do anything to you. And you also have spells of the five lower levels.
In my book, chainbinding planars, or making people obey your command or die, without save, or just about automatically avoiding nonmagical opponents, while retaining a ton of other abiliies, is pretty awesome.
Nevermind in a low magic setting someone, often the barbarian, is taking the needed feats to specialize in anti mage fighting.
Why anyone would specialize in antimage fighting in a setting, where mages are supposed to be rare? Anti-reason strikes again.
Low magic to me is a setting (any setting) wherein the normal residents may or may not believe in magic. Heck, they might not even believe in other humanoid races.
Usually, it's much like a setting from Earth's history, plus a little magic that most folks don't know about.
If magic is so pervasive in your setting that only crazy people would deny it, your setting is not low magic. At least, not as far as I'm concerned.
This gets to the idea of low magic = hidden magic that seeker and I hit upon earlier. Which is an idea that still intrigues.
I get told my games are low magic, I don't think they are.
I do not allow magical items shops or sale/buying of items to wizards. Items are always given or loaned in return for quests. The item is reward or price of a favour done, so this prompts another adventure to tie into the main or sub plot.
Most people in towns and villagers when elemental or invocation magic is performed in public will run away, afraid of the noise and sights, and suspicious of the people/creatures causing such things.
I use dreams, superstitions, crystal balls, animal recognising planar beasts etc, so that magic is everywhere in different ways, not just X spell/item does Y effect. There should be much about the world that the characters do not know, but through interaction with people they can find out.
1 in 1000 people have knowledge arcana/planes, or be an arcane caster. Most of these are 1st to 5th level.
1 in 200 people have knowledge nature/religion, and be a divine caster. Most of these are 1st to 7th level.
Alot of well travelled people use the special items like tanglefoot bags, alchemists fire however, which appear as magical to uneducated rural folk.
If the PCs are involved in many magical events and have several casters, this will add to their fame/infamy, and attract enemies and allies quicker.
Magical ruins, portals etc are usually from the previous era. PCs can learn to use them but creating copies will take time and research.
One last thing, perhaps inspired by Elric, Wizard don't trust eachother. They may teach eachother a few spells and trade a few items, but they will never give others complete access to their spellbook/tower etc. Trust is earnt by repeated deeds against one's enemies, not buy piles of coins.
|
|
I get told my games are low magic, I don't think they are.
*Snipped for space*
I usually call this "medium-magic" or "middle-fantasy". And I think that D&D at least partly intended to be here, but evolved into something different.
Medium magic to me means that most everybody knows magic exists, but few of them have real experience with it.
High magic is when just about everyone in the world knows about magic, and they've all seen real magic before.
|
|
I get told my games are low magic, I don't think they are.
*Snipped for space*I usually call this "medium-magic" or "middle-fantasy". And I think that D&D at least partly intended to be here, but evolved into something different.
Medium magic to me means that most everybody knows magic exists, but few of them have real experience with it.
High magic is when just about everyone in the world knows about magic, and they've all seen real magic before.
I think by those definitions then my games fall into the high medium-magic/low high-magic area of the scale then.
Because most people in worlds I've set up have seen magic at least once however, most people don't expect magic as part of their daily lives, and most PC abilities even low level ones like channel energy and stunning fist are exceptional, and even the spellcasters have mostly only ever seen a limited # of 1st and 2nd level spells.
for the record though I don't usually scale things that much, I'd say there's low/high magic unless I was dealing with someone who could make the distinction (even most of the people I game with are on a casual gaming level so it's easier to just say I run low magic), then once I've called it low magic, I explain how it's low magic, as lots of different people have different opinions as to what that means.
Oh and I've been forgetting to look up my acolyte class so that I could post it here.
I usually call this "medium-magic" or "middle-fantasy". And I think that D&D at least partly intended to be here, but evolved into something different.Medium magic to me means that most everybody knows magic exists, but few of them have real experience with it.
High magic is when just about everyone in the world knows about magic, and they've all seen real magic before.
I have to disagree with that. Just because you know it's there does not mean it is not a low magic setting.
That is like saying we are a middle space exploring world because well everyone knows about spaceships. So everything to do with space must be common and well known right?
You may know the great wizard Carl is real, but if he is the one and only wizard anyone knows about or has ever seen how is that not low magic?
