How should i do low Magic: Some ideas

[Greybar]

Albert,

I'm wondering if your frustrations have more to do with the players than the rules. If they don't parlay with big baddies when both sides have magic, and complain about leveled or smart monsters, then won't those same problems really exist in a low-magic world? Plus you'll be dealing with play balance on the fly for any rules changes (which can lead to arguments as well).

That all said, a lot of good low-magic suggestions have been made. There is a key element I'm curious about though. Posters mention that it is important to "restore a sense of wonder to magic". But if your players are just coming off of a high-magic game, will their reactions be:
"Wow! A sword that glows when orcs are near and a salve that heals wounds!"
or
"Finally! It's about time we got a *^$& magic sword and a pitiful potion"

John

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Low Magic is good, but I wouldn't reccomend crippling spellcasters unless you give them something else to work with. If you make it that much harder to cast spells, you can give Wizards or Sorcerors better HD, some fighting ability-- to keep them in balance with other classes-- while still keeping an overall low magic level.

Requiring spellcasters to multi-class , with no more than half their levels in a spellcasting class, was the best idea I've seen on this thread. They still get full value for their levels, but they can't apply nearly as many levels to magic-- forcing Wizards to be competent in something other than magical artillery.

For a good, exotic feel to Magic, nothing beats a Monk/Sorceror.

Another option to keep magic low is to keep spellcasters at full strength-- but don't let the PCs play them. Magic-using NPCs would have to be rare and nearly non-existant, but that also helps explain why there's no magical items floating around.

 

[RogerBacon]

Make all spells automatically include the silent, still, and eschew materials metamagic feats. This boosts their levels up by 2 and not only makes magic weaker at low levels but also makes it subtle. Since spell casters wouldn't even get any spells for the first couple levels that would mean that most would-be spellcasters in that world would quit and change to something else so spellcasters would be rarer.

It would still be cool to play a spellcaster because, technically, they aren't weaker (+2 levels to spells but +3 metamagic feats for free) and they will feel special because there will be less magical opposition. In such a world people wouldn't have defenses ready to thwart every potential magical attack. In fact, many people might go their entire lives without even seeing a wizard. If they do see one, how can they be sure? With silent, still, no material component spells the wizard could do a lot without anyone even knowing it.

Roger Bacon

 

[Shalewind]

I've found that if you "cripple" spellcasters, people play them less, even if their "power" is going to remain relatively the same in the modified setting. I would highly recomend a level cap on spellcasting classes. Either restriction that they can only equal half your level (as was mentioned above) or a flat out cap (say 10th level). This may sound extreme, but perhaps there might be a way to still get those higher level spells, just with a pretty big cost? That way players don't have the "sacrifice" levels on a reduced power class. Just my 2 cents.