I completely agree. A low magic game feels even more low magic if the only magic available is ritual magic. It gives magic more gravitas. You have to plan how and when and where to make the best use of a ritual. You can't just fly by the seat of your pants and cast whatever spell you need to save your ass. I have never really cared for the high magic aspect of D&D, especially once you get past low levels. I guess that is why I prefer E6 or E8 games when I play D&D.
My Experiment with 5e - No Classes with Cantrips
I completely agree. A low magic game feels even more low magic if the only magic available is ritual magic. It gives magic more gravitas. You have to plan how and when and where to make the best use of a ritual. You can't just fly by the seat of your pants and cast whatever spell you need to save your ass. I have never really cared for the high magic aspect of D&D, especially once you get past low levels. I guess that is why I prefer E6 or E8 games when I play D&D.
I think a skill system can handle this pretty well. The key feature of skill resolution rather than spell resolution that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is pointing to is (i) the need to engage the fiction in action declaration and resolution, and (ii) the lack of auto-success.
You can get those features while allowing high level PCs to do things with their skills that are superhuman in capability.
Aldarc
Legend
Are you familiar with Mike Mearls's Iron Heroes book that he did as part of Monte Cook's Malhavoc Press? It was just a heavy Sword and Sorcery game with a lot of mundane classes and only one spellcaster*: the Arcanist.
* At least until a Companion released the Spiritualist.
I'm fairly certain that this was the book that got Mearls the job at WotC too.
Ancalagon
Dusty Dragon
In my campaign (which isn't S&S) there is an individual known as the Archmage of Ras-Bolon.
He's a fighter/champion subclass with all his feats devoted to magic, including ritual casting. http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...EK-or-an-option-for-low-magic-game&highlight=
He's a fighter/champion subclass with all his feats devoted to magic, including ritual casting. http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...EK-or-an-option-for-low-magic-game&highlight=
Hussar
Legend
Yeah, I could get behind that. And, really, the barbarian didn't faze me too much, despite getting some built in rituals. Makes the whole "nature priest" thing work pretty well.
Honestly, it just never came up.
And, note, while PC's couldn't be full casters, NPC's certainly could. So, you could go find a wizard to do something for you (hopefully) and the setting does have clerics.
Not a Hobbit
Explorer
Did you adjust your monsters as well? Did you not use monsters with at will spells, or did you just cut the at will part and keep the rest of the monster?
I apologize if this has already been discussed.
Thanks.
I apologize if this has already been discussed.
Thanks.
jgsugden
Legend
How? Inherently your options are static. You might be able to jump slighylyvfarther or break down a slightly thicker door, but your problem solutions remain substantially the same.
Hussar
Legend
No, not particularly. I tended to use more "beast" type monsters and a LOT of weird stuff like gibbering mouthers and whatnot, but, no, I didn't really need to change anything. Why would I? And, note, NPC's could and did have at-will magic. Blasting away at the party is perfectly fine.
Not sure why I would need to remove at-will effects from the baddies.
Hussar
Legend
Not really the point though. Sure, magic can be evocative. But, in a S&S game, magic should never be the go-to solution of problems. It should be the absolutely last resort. Certainly not the first option. In vanilla D&D? Go for it. But, in order to get the kind of feel in the game that I wanted, I needed to get rid of a lot of magic out of the system.
If you're tired of 25 foot chasms, then you aren't trying hard enough.
But, even without those spells, there are far easier ones. A Mage Hand to send a rope across, or Unseen Servant. Or, one character Jumps across with a rope and then the rest of the party crosses with no challenge. A Fabricate spell to create a bridge. Or any of a dozen other options as well. In other words, when you have a full magic party, most challeges become trivial. Every chasm, every locked door, every interaction with an NPC, and so on. Magic becomes the first and then only solution to every problem.
But, by the same token, in a full caster party, that conversation about how to cross the Silt Sea becomes, "I cast this and that spell, we ignore the major elements of the setting, what happens when we get there" and becomes that in very short order.
Look, it's fine to love the vanilla flavor of D&D. I do too. I just wanted a different experience and this is how I did it. It's actually a lot of fun when you are forced to think about things instead of just knocking off a couple of spell slots. At least it was fun for our group. I'm certainly not going to try to say that this is a better way of playing. Just different. A nice change of pace. But, please, don't think I'm trying to say that this is the way I will always be playing going forward.
jgsugden
Legend
Understood. I was just pointing out the cost of taking that approach.
Not really - a 25' chasm is a 25' chasm. I know you're being tongue in cheek, but I wasn't - mundane problems can easily become repetitive.If you're tired of 25 foot chasms, then you aren't trying hard enough.
One of my points was that in a typical campaign there is an evolution. I think of it in three tiers, but it is actually more of a spectrum going from magic being of no assistance in solving a problem to magic trivializing that same problem at higher levels. Different solutions become available that reduce the challenge over time,
To this I strongly disagree. Mundane challenges become trivial, but you escalate the challenges as the party capability escalates. I can run a trap dungeon for 20th level PCs with no monsters that will be fun for the players, even if they are the ones playing a rogue or fighter.[/quote]But, by the same token, in a full caster party, that conversation about how to cross the Silt Sea becomes, "I cast this and that spell, we ignore the major elements of the setting, what happens when we get there" and becomes that in very short order.[/quote]It shouldn't. D&D is an RPG - a role playing game. PCs are characters in a story. At times you want to advance that story a few days without covering what takes place in the middle - but I rarely do that when there is an opportunity for something interest. I'm not a huge fan of Dark Sun, but continuing to use it as an example - a short trip across the silt sea at low levels might require the PCs to stretch their survival skills. At medium levels they may have capabilities (psionic, elemental priest, preserver) that allow them to trivialize the survival risks by making water and shelter. However, you can throw other threats at them that are an escalation - a silt storm, perhaps. Then they get strong enough to control the weather... at which time you might force them not to just sail the silt, but instead venture down into it to find a ruined city buried by the silt.
And that's fine. I was just saying there is a cost to these limitations.
However, I would still like a specific example of how one might differentiate adventures for the 1st level fighter with a 16 Strength and a 13th level +5 Athletics with 20 Strength fighter/rogue with a +15 Athletics. Beyond fighting different monsters, what is different about the challenges they face that escalates the story. pemerton was the one that said there could be escalation, but I'd like to hear your thoughts, too. Or anyone else. How is the venture into the kobold caves different than the demon temple venture 12 levels higher when the monsters are not on the table?
