High magic, low magic, it's all relative.

[jdrakeh]

Generally when I hear "High Magic vs Low Magic" I'm thinking of the relative amount of obvious magic appearing in a campaign setting, such as the vague sorceries of Hyperborea vs. the flying ships and lightning trains of Ebberron.

I think you and I are on the same page, so to speak. For me, the divide between "low magic" and "high magic" is about the availability of magic in a setting versus the magnitude thereof.

Frex, I consider Arthurian Britain as depicted by Malory to be a "low magic" setting, as magic of any notable consequence appears to be known and tamed by three individuals (i.e., Merlin Ambrosious, Morgan le Fay, and Nimue) in all of known creation and magic items seem to similarly be limited to three known examples (a sword, its sheath, and a grail). And monsters of magical origin? We have a few scant mentions of dragons (mostly metaphorical) and the Questing Beast. The magnitude of the magic in Malory's version of Arthurian Britain is incredibly powerful — but it is also incredibly rare.

Conversely, I place all official D&D settings save for Dark Sun into the realm of "high magic" due to the common nature of magic. Most D&D settings are dripping with magic right out of the box. Entire economies are built around magic items, monsters of myth and legend seemingly outnumber normal animals, clergymen are assumed to channel magic from gods by default, and so on. While it's true that magic in D&D is not the epic force of destiny-shaping power that it is in Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, it is far more commonplace and often unremarkable as a result of this saturation.

The idea of increasingly more powerful magic items isn't a huge issue for me in a game predicated on an adventuring economy that assumes the killing of monsters, collecting of treasures, and rising through the ranks of fame. I love "low fantasy" gaming, mind you, but I have other systems for that. For me, D&D is pretty much the anithesis of "low fantasy" and that's why I love it. I mean, 'cmon — this is the game that invented "leveling up!"

 

[Ariosto]

One thing about 3E that's been taken even further in 4E is the extent to which higher levels effectively do mean "just more math". The differences between different levels seem rather flattened out relative to older games (especially OD&D). That comes up in qualitative elements as well, as the original "late game" of power politics (on the Prime Material Plane and beyond) has been marginalized in favor of a sort of perpetual adolescent Wanderjahr.

 

[Mallus]

That comes up in qualitative elements as well, as the original "late game" of power politics (on the Prime Material Plane and beyond) has been marginalized in favor of a sort of perpetual adolescent Wanderjahr.

The aroma of perpetual adolescence hangs heavily around any edition of a game that's about pretending to be an elf.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Sure, I don't know how that is relevant to items received in a campaign unless a DM ran nothing but prepackaged adventures...

Or used the treasure tables. You know... the actual rules for the edition in question.

Just running a standard game left you dripping with +1 swords which were supposedly so rare kingdomws were fought over them yet which inexplicably couldnt be sold for anything useful.

 

[Kask]

Or used the treasure tables. You know... the actual rules for the edition in question.

Apparently, you haven't read page 93 in the AD&D DMG... LOL

 

[Crothian]

Apparently, you haven't read page 93 in the AD&D DMG... LOL

It would be a lot more helpful if you actually quoted the pages instead of just posting page numbers.

edit: Having just read that section it is not all that useful.

 

[Kask]

edit: Having just read that section it is not all that useful.

The admonishment is VERY clear and directly addresses the point.

 

[Kask]

Here's an example PC from a 1st Ed RPGA module:

6th level fighter: longsword +1, Chainmail +2, boots of levitation.

This was pretty typical for that level. Now, by following the 3.5 WBL tables, which would afford more magic?

 

[Crothian]

The admonishment is VERY clear and directly addresses the point.

The section just says that DM's should be the final judge on what magic items should be in the game. I don't see anyone arguing against that. If a DM chooses to use the tables then that is still following that section.

What I find funny is that it says he should have added something before the table s to explain things better which he obviously could have done since the book wasn't done at the time he wanted to make changes. Why write about it instead of just making the changes?

 

[Crothian]

Here's an example PC from a 1st Ed RPGA module:

6th level fighter: longsword +1, Chainmail +2, boots of levitation.

This was pretty typical for that level. Now, by following the 3.5 WBL tables, which would afford more magic?

There is a thread from a few years back that does this exact thing except instead of taking a single example it showcases full modules and the conclusion is clearly that magic was a bit more common in the 1e modules then it is in the 3e modules (the latest edition that was out at the time of the thread).