Nope. Wizards and sorcerers are "Hit on a 2" Removing AC and giving them AC 10 is still "Hit on a 2". melee types are "Hit on a 10, 15, 20 for my iterative hits" The game hard caps at "Get hit on a 2" so wizards and sorcerers are equally as squishy while the melee types go to "Hit on a 2, 4, 9."A lot of people say low magic hurts martials more. But just a few posts before this was the comments that most of the magic items are defensive. If you take away the defense of the squishiest characters aren't they even more squishy?
I actually think the wizards and sorcerers are at the most risk in a low magic campaign since they have to be even more careful just to stay alive.Not to mention wizards and sorcerers usually rely on non-AC defenses anyway. Mirror Image, Displacement, Flight, and Invisibility all immediately spring to mind.
Not to mention that in a game where saves are lower across the board, Save or Die/Suck spells pack even more punch than normal.
But depending upon what ever method the GM uses to create low magic, the wiz and sorc may not have as much access to mirror image, displacment, fly, and invisibility. Those are often even more limited than the standard magic items. Also if he is casting all those defensive spells on himself he is burning through his limited number of spells while also not contributing to the combat.
When I've seen low magic systems tried in actual play, I have almost always seen the pure casters at least as affected as the martials. The hybrids are the ones that seem to have it easiest.
Yes, the SoS spells do become more effective. But remember the offensive stat enhancing items, meta magic rods, etc... are also probably not there and the caster has to devote more of his limited resources to personal defense; so it didn't get all that much more effective.
But depending upon what ever method the GM uses to create low magic, the wiz and sorc may not have as much access to mirror image, displacement, fly, and invisibility. Those are often even more limited than the standard magic items. Also if he is casting all those defensive spells on himself he is burning through his limited number of spells while also not contributing to the combat.
No wizard would be casting all of those spells at once; you can't even use Mirror Image and Invisibility together anyway. I was pointing out different options, not suggesting the wizard spends the first rounds of every combat idiotically stacking defensive buffs on himself.
Granted, a low-magic GM might decide to take away all of those spells, and any other good defense buffs (I only listed the first four that sprang to mind; there are many more). But at that point, you start getting into "why not just ban casters completely?" territory.
For SoS spells, they won't go up as much since there won't be the Headbands, but there are still feats to increase saves. Won't be nearly as bad, at least, so you may not need the save boosting baked into leveling. Or at least, not as much.
I actually think it would be easier to run a no-magic game than a low magic game, since the most you would have to do is watch what you throw at players. Though obviously, most of the bestiary would be useless and you'd probably have to use monsters with class levels and focus the higher levels on leading battles and wars. Also, I'd make Pathfinder Unchained's Manuever Pool available so martial combat would be more fun. And I'd use Ultimate Campaign's Downtime System to give players more rewards and such. I do plan on running a no magic campaign that ends with the players unlocking magic at the end of the no magic run. I think it would be fun to try.
|
When I run games I keep a fairly low magic level and the most important thing to remember as you're running the game is to slow down how fast you throw bigger monsters at the players. If you don't have +1 weapons until around 8th or 9th level don't go throwing a ton of creatures with DR or crazy high AC at the party.
To keep the lower midlevel range interesting you tack a few class levels onto the monsters you do use so that they can stand up to the party longer as well. This keeps you from action economy issues with too many low CR creatures while letting them continue to fight good sized battles and challenging enemies. It takes a little more effort from the GM but is well worth it.
The other thing I do is not restrict low level consumables like potions and scrolls. Even in a low magic game there are usually enough low level NPC casters (usually clerics in my game) that make a living off of producing potions. You can run a fairly low magic game as long as potions of cure light are not too rare. Just don't make them so common that everybody has two or three each.
For SoS spells, they won't go up as much since there won't be the Headbands, but there are still feats to increase savesOf note though - in a normal game the average character's cloak of resistance is at least as high as the average caster's stat boost headband.
Especially since cloaks of resistance are a lot cheaper than stat-boosting headbands. And feats for boosting spell DCs exist too.
The easiest way to play a low magic game is to make a low level game.
Higher levels have in increasing dependency on magic regardless of class.
* AC to compete with the increasing BAB
* Magic Weapons to overcome DR or make use of elemental weaknesses
* Once Travel Magic becomes available, everyone always uses it (Overland Flight/ Teleport). Actually this a problem of magic specifically designed to overcome obstacles; there's no reason not to use it. It's not like it has any risks or uses any precious resources, unlike mundane means. Why send a scout when you can scry?
* Stat Increases; headbands and belts
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still doesn't stop me from doing it fairly successfully.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently claw hammers peel potatoes extremely well, as Pathfinder or any game system that one has enough familiarity with can easily be used to make whatever version of the game you want, whether its low magic or way over the top high magic - its not the tool in question rather the wielder of the tool. If you can't swing a hammer, maybe it should be in more capable hands. Some of us may be artists with a hammer.
While my Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) for example, was designed to fit the standard level of magic, it was simultaneously designed to be very gritty and easily accomodate a much lower level of magic. Just look at the archetypes included with Way of the Samurai (PFRPG) and it becomes quite obvious.
i don't get how anyone could call 1st edition low magic...I wasn't calling 1e low magic, rather one of the differences in 1e was that encounters were deadlier, so players had to learn when combat was too deadly and back out to avoid TPK, or avoid combat altogether when possible. These are tactics that a low magic setting might practice to increase survivability.
1E was technically rocket tag. both ways around, it was easy to die, but it was also easy to kill. even with a common +1 longsword.
1E was technically rocket tag. both ways around, it was easy to die, but it was also easy to kill. even with a common +1 longsword.i don't get how anyone could call 1st edition low magic...I wasn't calling 1e low magic, rather one of the differences in 1e was that encounters were deadlier, so players had to learn when combat was too deadly and back out to avoid TPK, or avoid combat altogether when possible. These are tactics that a low magic setting might practice to increase survivability.
No matter the reason, the point is playing a low magic setting involves using different combat tactics than the standard game just to better survive.
I've been playing various iterations of D&D for 30 years and never had a problem tweaking any edition to a different set of parameters to fit whatever theme I wanted to run. Again its not the ruleset that is the barrier, rather it is the lack of imagination on the part of a given GM - we are not all equally skilled.
1st Edition definitely requires different tactics, or a higher initiative roll.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Srsly though, if you're going to make that many changes to 3.PF why not just use a game system designed for such a purpose?
Seriously I'm not interested in giving somebody my money, if I don't know the system and have to learn it. Why not use something that is already in my toolbox, like Pathfinder. When I played D&D I could do low magic/high magic and since Pathfinder is derived from D&D, my assumption is you can do anything with Pathfinder as well. Just because I am an artist with a claw hammer, doesn't mean I'll have any talent with a saw, even if I can learn use one...
You'll spend less time using your incredibly-skilled artistic imagination building game mechanics, that no one else will ever use, and more time having fun with your friend[s].
What do you care how I'll spend my time? As long as I'm having fun. Honestly I get as much fun designing a setting, adjusting existing rules to another paradyme, as I do playing with my friends. If I'm having fun redesigning Pathfinder to fit my needs, why is that a problem.
Many things to consider. One, I'm not married, so the responsibilities I have are only to myself. Two: my day job for about half the year is creating maps for game publishers, so I do RPG related work as my job (and I make decent money at it). Three: I have a lot more free time than many of you, so I have the time and inclination to do what I enjoy. Some of that enjoyment is derived from juggling the system mechanics to fit my needs. Who knows I might eventually publish something along these line. I have a published Pathfinder setting now (many people play it, and even helped fund a KS to create its setting guides). So how do you know that "no one will ever use what I create?"
I have done freelance work for Paizo Publishing doing work on Jade Regent, so I know I can work PF to fit needs. I have a corps of friends that enjoy more than just vanilla gaming - they want me to create PF variations, so I do.
Perhaps you lack the skills and inclination to do what I do, so its not for you, that's fine. I don't have such limitations, nor allow the naysayers to goven my home activities.
Why low magic?
A better question: Why the f&$* not?
[/thread]
For the same reason you shouldn't try to hammer a square block into a circle hole. Sure it will work, but your going to need to force it and chances are it will break.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the bigger questions that keeps popping up is why use Pathfinder for low magic? Apparently there are sooo many other established systems that do it better.
The problem is that it just isn't that easy. Please trust me when I say I've been looking. Yes, there are PLENTY of other systems rules light or rules heavy; I've played White Wolf Games (Mage, Vampire), Shadowrun, Ironclaw, WRM, and multiple versions of D&D. As one of friends have told me, "You're never satisfied with any system you use". For some reason I still come back to D&D despite it not being made for low magic.
The Reason:
1) Everyone knows it. It's just overall easier to get into a system that is really well known rather than try to have everyone relearn a new system that may or may not work but we won't know until we try. There's just a certain value from that legacy.
2) Despite being rules heavy, this game has a simple and easy to remember mechanic that was secured in 3rd edition: the d20 roll. Roll your icosahedron, 1's are bad and 20's are good. Ta-da success.
3) Interchangeable parts. Sure if you add in new things, it might create a broken combination down the line, but in general there are a lot of subsystems in play that can be taken out and replaced if need be: Skills, Classes, Feats, Spells, Hitpoints, etc. This is absolutely horrible for someone not ready to face the daunting challenge, but for tinkerers who have a goal in mind it's an incredible tool. That is why there are so many d20 games including M&M for Superheroes and Starwars for Jedi. 8 in 10 campaigns I've played include houserules of some sort.
4) You can choose your game by choosing your levels. Different levels hold within them to play the game. For super gritty games, go with Levels 1-3, for a truly low magic feeling game try for somewhere between 3-8, for really off the wall and magic dependency go higher. Whether this is a good feature or a bad feature is debatable.
5) It supports multiple play styles. Let's be honest, this game was built upon miniatures tactics with fantasy thrown in. However there is room to evolve it into something more. One can and should be able to apply clever solutions. It depends on how the GM runs it all. You can make more or less player involved for those who just want hack and slash or for those who want a little something more like actual negotiations or puzzles. Sometimes you can even have something in between to allow people of both sides to play in and enjoy the same game.
There actually is support for low magic in this game, it's just difficult to keep it that way. House rules are used to keep it from spiraling into a high magic game. I have actually taken bits and pieces from a bunch of other systems (most house rules I have used are actually from different editions of D&D).
In my experience, d20 and it's variations are far from the perfect system, but it by far the most malleable to people's desires.
I think one of the bigger questions that keeps popping up is why use Pathfinder for low magic? Apparently there are sooo many other established systems that do it better.
The problem is that it just isn't that easy. ...
For me it is largely a matter of the pervasiveness of the PF community.
If at a local PVS event, I mention that I want to start a new PF group with a homebrewed low magic item setting.* I am almost always guaranteed to get enough interest to start a group. (DnD, Cthulu, and Star Wars will also get a lesser though still significant response).
But if I say I want to start a new group with the 'X' game system. There is never enough response to start a group. I can post it on the board. Apply to the online group locators. Etc... It doesn't seem to make a difference. Never been able to get enough people to start a functional group.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the "Right tool for the job" crowd:
It's good ADVICE that certain rule-sets are well-suited to certain campaign themes. It isn't a law.
Success in a low-magic Pathfinder campaign has almost nothing to do with carefully altering the prescribed treasure rates, or building augmented challenge rating lists.
Success occurs when people decide what's available, then play the game. Then they keep whatever worked and remove whatever didn't.
The low-levels of PF are very forgiving for a GM who is balancing via trial and error. The potential for real misfires only occurs later in the campaign, long after things have hit their stride.
I am intimately acquainted with all of the assumptions that govern the rules, and why low magic should instantly break the system. But it doesn't! As long as the GM continues to actively balance sessions, which is his duty, things tend to work out just fine.
Perhaps a better question line would be why on earth do you like low magic is more fun? Even Aragorn has a magic weapon.So did Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gandalf, likely Legolas (Galadriel gave him a "special" bow, but remember the elves rarely say anything is "magic"), and if you beleive the Official Licensed RPG,also Boromir and Gimli.None of them have rings of deflection. None of them have amulets of natural armor.
Middle Earth may be high magic on a scale suitable to literature, but compared to Pathfinder run by the WBL table it's low magic.
Not at all. Note they only talk a lot about the super-powerful artifact level items they carry, those with unique names. They could well be equipped with scads of lower items, not even mentioned.
But let us say they aren't. The fact the the party is equipped with some super high powered great artifacts, and many unique relics gets them into High Magic.
You might as well say the Typical 20th level Pathfinder party is "low magic" since they don't have the One Ring or Narya or Narsil.
1st Edition definitely requires different tactics, or a higher initiative roll.
Not when I played it. Sure, 1st level PC's died a lot, but once you got into level 5 or so, deaths was no more common than it is with PF.
1st Edition definitely requires different tactics, or a higher initiative roll.Not when I played it. Sure, 1st level PC's died a lot, but once you got into level 5 or so, deaths was no more common than it is with PF.
Our GM's always kept the lethality coefficient very high. Regardless of level, a game night without a character death was very rare (and made the DM feel like he was failing).
They were not trying to be mean. It just seemed to be what everyone was doing so we thought it was the 'right' way to play.
I think one of the bigger questions that keeps popping up is why use Pathfinder for low magic? Apparently there are sooo many other established systems that do it better.
The problem is that it just isn't that easy. Please trust me when I say I've been looking.
Except that all of that applies to a D20 system like Iron Heroes.
I think the main reason for really "Low Magic" (I am not talking about a few nerfs, getting rid of Ye Olde Magik Shoppes etc) is that the DM wants to play Low Magic but no one will come to the table unless he sez "Pathfinder'. He really wants to do Iron Heroes or something much like it, but if he thinks if he adverts for that, no one will play. So he runs Iron Heroes but calls it "Pathfinder Low magic".
That's one of my issues. False advertising.
My other issue is the handful of people here on this board that DEMAND Paizo turn PF into a Low Magic game. Some of them also want an end to:
Alignments, Vancian spellcasting, Levels, and Classes. Once you get rid of Magic, Alignments, Levels, and Classes I am sorry but you no longer have Pathfinder or even D&D.
I personally have never advocated making PF a low magic only setting/system. I like the high magic stuff. I just also like the low magic stuff. I really like that I can manage both with the same basic system.
I wouldn't mind getting rid of the alignment system. It just doesn't really work for me. I mean how many people have you known that would classify themselves as evil? Even the most vile people I've ever met would not do that. Compare that to how many people in different religions will declare the other evil and themselves holy. Which is right?
I actually like the levels and classes.
I moderately dislike vancian spell casting. It just doesn't match what nearly anyone thinks of for spells for which ever books, movies, legends shaped your ideas. However, it does work even if a little clunky and is fairly easy to learn. I don't really like it, but am resigned to it sticking around.
I think the main reason for really "Low Magic" (I am not talking about a few nerfs, getting rid of Ye Olde Magik Shoppes etc) is that the DM wants to play Low Magic but no one will come to the table unless he sez "Pathfinder'. He really wants to do Iron Heroes or something much like it, but if he thinks if he adverts for that, no one will play. So he runs Iron Heroes but calls it "Pathfinder Low magic".
That's one of my issues. False advertising.
As someone that wants low magic, yeah, this is pretty much true. I want to run something else, but in the group I have now, they just want pathfinder. It's not false advertising, they know what they are getting. I have mentioned Iron Heroes and heard "can't we just change pathfinder rather than learn new rules?"
This is a group where another guy wanted to run a game set in the world of FFVII, and instead of Zodiac, Exalted, Anima, FFd20, Savage Worlds, or any other game that was better designed to handle anime, or materia, or that specific kind of fantasy/tech blend, he just created an elaborate set of houserules for materia that replaced the normal magic rules completely.
Not everyone connects Pathfinder automatically with high magic in their mind, some people just like what the like and would rather alter a recipe they've cooked before, rather than trying a brand new one (even if the new recipe has more in common with the original than their altered version does).
I moderately dislike vancian spell casting. It just doesn't match what nearly anyone thinks of for spells for which ever books, movies, legends shaped your ideas. However, it does work even if a little clunky and is fairly easy to learn. I don't really like it, but am resigned to it sticking around.
It appears in many fantasy books. But the other systems or "he can cast but it makes him tired' which is the most common Fantasy trope in Lit is rare in games. It just doesnt play well.
"He can cast all day if he REALLY needs to" is more common that many think.
I have NEVER read a fantasy book that had anything like spellpoints.
|
I moderately dislike vancian spell casting. It just doesn't match what nearly anyone thinks of for spells for which ever books, movies, legends shaped your ideas. However, it does work even if a little clunky and is fairly easy to learn. I don't really like it, but am resigned to it sticking around.
It appears in many fantasy books. But the other systems or "he can cast but it makes him tired' which is the most common Fantasy trope in Lit is rare in games. It just doesnt play well.
"He can cast all day if he REALLY needs to" is more common that many think.
I have NEVER read a fantasy book that had anything like spellpoints.
The only game system I've played (though I know that there are 10,000 that I haven't) which is close to most literature is Naruto d20, where once you run out of chakra, you can make checks to start using your HP instead. (I believe just non-lethal damage, but it's been awhile.) It's not that you're stabbing yourself, you're just using up your physical energy. (Since HP is an abstraction combining actually getting hit with physical energy anyway.) It's not a good idea to do regularly, but it does give you the option when you really need it.
In addition, many of the most powerful techniques also deal non-lethal damage to you in addition to the chakra costs.
I moderately dislike vancian spell casting. It just doesn't match what nearly anyone thinks of for spells for which ever books, movies, legends shaped your ideas. However, it does work even if a little clunky and is fairly easy to learn. I don't really like it, but am resigned to it sticking around.
It appears in many fantasy books. But the other systems or "he can cast but it makes him tired' which is the most common Fantasy trope in Lit is rare in games. It just doesnt play well.
"He can cast all day if he REALLY needs to" is more common that many think.
I have NEVER read a fantasy book that had anything like spellpoints.
It appears in a few books I've read. But not the common ones and not the ones most people will suggest if you ask for a magic/fantasy book. Two of the book series I know that have it are pretty obviously heavily influenced by DnD.
I've never met anyone that didn't already play DnD/PF, if asked to describe how magic worked in whatever book or movie would come up with anything very close to vancian.
I feel like the spell points is an attempt to come closer to the "he can cast but it makes him tired." It isn't perfect of course, but it is playable.
But like I said. It works fairly well, is easy to learn, and has a huge amount of inertia to keep it in place. I don't see it going away.
I moderately dislike vancian spell casting. It just doesn't match what nearly anyone thinks of for spells for which ever books, movies, legends shaped your ideas. However, it does work even if a little clunky and is fairly easy to learn. I don't really like it, but am resigned to it sticking around.
It appears in many fantasy books. But the other systems or "he can cast but it makes him tired' which is the most common Fantasy trope in Lit is rare in games. It just doesnt play well.
"He can cast all day if he REALLY needs to" is more common that many think.
I have NEVER read a fantasy book that had anything like spellpoints.
It appears in a few books I've read. But not the common ones and not the ones most people will suggest if you ask for a magic/fantasy book. Two of the book series I know that have it are pretty obviously heavily influenced by DnD.
I've never met anyone that didn't already play DnD/PF, if asked to describe how magic worked in whatever book or movie would come up with anything very close to vancian.
I feel like the spell points is an attempt to come closer to the "he can cast but it makes him tired." It isn't perfect of course, but it is playable.
I got no beef with spellpoints. But using them up does not make you progressively fatigued then exhausted. In fact, generally the caster is 100% physically fit when out of spell points in every game I have seen.
I have NEVER read a fantasy book that had anything like spellpoints.
Charles deLint's bards and druids have a carefully-cultivated pool of inner "taw" -- "the silence at the edges of music" -- that they draw on when casting. It works pretty much like spell points.
When I post interest in low magic using Pathfinder, know that low magic is not some overwhelming goal regarding the direction Pathfinder takes. I just enjoy running low magic settings every once in a while. I also like high magic settings, even over-the-top high magic. I also plan to develop an Old West flavored PF setting as a homebrew with the possibility of developing a published setting for that. I also like what EN Publishing has done with the Santiago setting, bringing sci-fi settings driven by Pathfinder. I don't have a one-track mind. Its just I don't feel the need to play my variated settings with a different game system. Pathfinder can do all those things, and I think it can do those all well.
I moderately dislike vancian spell casting. It just doesn't match what nearly anyone thinks of for spells for which ever books, movies, legends shaped your ideas. However, it does work even if a little clunky and is fairly easy to learn. I don't really like it, but am resigned to it sticking around.
It appears in many fantasy books. But the other systems or "he can cast but it makes him tired' which is the most common Fantasy trope in Lit is rare in games. It just doesnt play well.
"He can cast all day if he REALLY needs to" is more common that many think.
I have NEVER read a fantasy book that had anything like spellpoints.
It appears in a few books I've read. But not the common ones and not the ones most people will suggest if you ask for a magic/fantasy book. Two of the book series I know that have it are pretty obviously heavily influenced by DnD.
I've never met anyone that didn't already play DnD/PF, if asked to describe how magic worked in whatever book or movie would come up with anything very close to vancian.
I feel like the spell points is an attempt to come closer to the "he can cast but it makes him tired." It isn't perfect of course, but it is playable.
I got no beef with spellpoints. But using them up does not make you progressively fatigued then exhausted. In fact, generally the caster is 100% physically fit when out of spell points in every game I have seen.
Sort of like how someone with 1 hp is still 100% physically fit and not at all hampered by their injuries?
Though I'd imagine part of the reason no system does that is that a caster who's out of spellcasting is already in pretty sorry shape. Throwing an exhausted condition on top of that is just kicking him while he's down. An exhausted wizard couldn't even try to run away.
That said, I like the idea Charon's Little Helper brought up that when your magic points are used up/you cast a really big spell, you take nonlethal damage. Seems like a decent way to represent the idea of a spell draining the caster without causing some sort of death spiral.
Perhaps a better question line would be why on earth do you like low magic is more fun? Even Aragorn has a magic weapon.So did Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gandalf, likely Legolas (Galadriel gave him a "special" bow, but remember the elves rarely say anything is "magic"), and if you beleive the Official Licensed RPG,also Boromir and Gimli.None of them have rings of deflection. None of them have amulets of natural armor.
Middle Earth may be high magic on a scale suitable to literature, but compared to Pathfinder run by the WBL table it's low magic.
Not at all. Note they only talk a lot about the super-powerful artifact level items they carry, those with unique names. They could well be equipped with scads of lower items, not even mentioned.
But let us say they aren't. The fact the the party is equipped with some super high powered great artifacts, and many unique relics gets them into High Magic.
You might as well say the Typical 20th level Pathfinder party is "low magic" since they don't have the One Ring or Narya or Narsil.
Yeah, it's worth mentioning that Tolkein didn't have a PF-esque hard line of separation between "Really well-crafted gear" and "Magic gear."
I have NEVER read a fantasy book that had anything like spellpoints.Charles deLint's bards and druids have a carefully-cultivated pool of inner "taw" -- "the silence at the edges of music" -- that they draw on when casting. It works pretty much like spell points.
I dont see it. From what I remember, they get exhausted if they use too much.
Vancian magic is in a great many books. Virtually all of which were either written by Jack Vance (where Arneson and Gygax got the concept from) or are directly inspired by Dungeons & Dragons (and in most cases published by TSR / WotC).
I have covered this before. Actually Vance did inspire quite a few, but do note he was one of the early writers of what is now popular fantasy. It is not surprising that some authors honor him by using his system. Roger Zelazny is not writing D&D fiction. Nor is Lawrence Watt-Evans*, Terry Pratchett*, Patricia C. Wrede*, Diane Duane or Glen Cook*. Fritz Leiber too, sometimes.
But yes, likely Joel Rosenberg is basing his system on D&D magic, not Vance.
* all of these have several magic systems, at least one of which is clearly Vancian.
So, not "Virtually all of" by any means.
Yeah, it's worth mentioning that Tolkein didn't have a PF-esque hard line of separation between "Really well-crafted gear" and "Magic gear."
Very true, and in fact the Elves are a little puzzled (or amused) when Sam tries to make this distinction. But those ropes seemed pretty damn magic to me.
|
But my question is "Why?"
I almost exclusively run low-magic campaigns and here's why: Magic is like frosting on a cake. If you ask someone what their favorite part of a cake is, they'll probably tell you it's the frosting, but if you hand them a can of frosting and a spoon, they'll gag at the thought of eating it that way.
That's because there's a ratio that makes it all work. If your game has too much magic, it starts to get in the way. The entire plot of Lord of the Rings could have been resolved with one casting of Greater Teleport. Once your group has reliable access to things like flight, true sight, resurrection, and teleport, the frosting starts to overpower the cake and it gets boring.
To paraphrase the movie The Incredibles: Saying everything is magical is just another way of saying nothing is magical. In most game worlds, a longsword +1 is just a numerical requirement to fight monsters in the 3-7 level range. It's not a magic sword; it's a mathematical obligation.
Running a low-magic game helps preserve the feelings of mystery, danger, and adventure. High level magic can exist in the world, but it has to be super rare and difficult to find. That's what makes it special! The best cakes have just enough frosting on them to accent the flavor that's already there!
The entire plot of Lord of the Rings could have been resolved with one casting of Greater Teleport.....Running a low-magic game helps preserve the feelings of mystery, danger, and adventure
Nope. First of all, no one would have had the Will to toss the Ring.
Next, the Will and Eye of Sauron seems to act as some sort of barrier.
Next- none of them have ever been there. They dont even have a "least a reliable description of the place to which you are teleporting." since no one but Sauron has ever been to the spot where Sauron made the Ring.
as for "the feelings of mystery, danger, and adventure" I have had plenty of all three for the last forty years, thankyouverymuch, in some very high magic games. Maybe you cant run games with high magic and get those, but many others have been doing so for four decades.
Being able to craft something, to turn iron into steel and into a sword, was considered a magic all of its own.
Thus the step to a magic sword is simply a higher degree of crafting ability. The fact it was iron, is now steel, and is now a sword makes it magical all by itself. A higher degree is just bringing out the magic already there.
I believe that's pretty much the principle for a lot of 'old style' and 'low magic' lit worlds out there.
The Misenchanted Sword turns right around and uses spellcasting to make things magic in a subversion, however.
isn't Vancian magic a trope?
===Aelryinth
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. First of all, no one would have had the Will to toss the Ring.
Why not? You only have to hold it for three rounds. Pick up ring, cast greater teleport, toss ring into lava. Roll credits. Hell, bring Frodo along if he's the only one who can hold it.
Next, the Will and Eye of Sauron seems to act as some sort of barrier.
This is actually a valid point that fortifies my previous post. When you include high level magic in your game, you have to put that same magic everywhere! Now every door in the dungeon needs to be magic proof, every villain's lair needs to have anti-teleportation fields around it, and every dragon needs a ring of mind shielding. It just gets to the point where none of it is really special anymore. Too much frosting!
Next- none of them have ever been there. They dont even have a "least a reliable description of the place to which you are teleporting." since no one but Sauron has ever been to the spot where Sauron made the Ring.
You mean except Elrond, right?
as for "the feelings of mystery, danger, and adventure" I have had plenty of all three for the last forty years, thankyouverymuch, in some very high magic games.
Hey man, it's just how I run my games. It can't hurt you.
Maybe you cant run games with high magic and get those, but many others have been doing so for four decades.
Was that really necessary? You'd think somewhere along the way during your decades long lifespan you'd have learned some manners. I'm more than capable of running high magic games, I just prefer low magic ones instead for the reasons listed above. Once again, the way I run my games can't hurt you. No need to get so aggressive.
The entire plot of Lord of the Rings could have been resolved with one casting of Greater Teleport.....Running a low-magic game helps preserve the feelings of mystery, danger, and adventureNope. First of all, no one would have had the Will to toss the Ring.
Next, the Will and Eye of Sauron seems to act as some sort of barrier.
Next- none of them have ever been there. They dont even have a "least a reliable description of the place to which you are teleporting." since no one but Sauron has ever been to the spot where Sauron made the Ring.
All you'd need to do is teleport the ringbearer above the fires, he doesn't need to get the will to throw the ring in. He'll just fall right in. Of course, no need to tell him that.
I don't know if anyone in LOTR had enough knowledge to teleport to/near Mt Doom. Even if you had to greater teleport near the mountain, and then DDoor to the fires, it would have been much easier/faster to do that than the walking method.