My Experiment with 5e - No Classes with Cantrips

[Tony Vargas]

Well, that casters have skills doesn't really matter. It's not the skills that are the issue. It's the spells.

It sounds like skills are part of the issue. If casters actually try to preserve their spells, won't they at least try skills, first? ... and if those start succeeding, perhaps habits will change...?

Actually, setting DC's low is fantastic IF you want to let the players use skills. Honestly, I think it's the other way that causes the problems and trains players to always rely on spells. If a DM thinks that an average check should fail 50% of the time, then what's the point of even trying? You are going to fail. Maybe not this check, but, most likely the next one. So, players are trained to not rely on skills. Far better to use Invisibility than stealth. Far better to use Arcane Eye to scout than a rogue. So on and so forth.[/QUOTE] Nod. "Uncertainty" includes "not quite 100%," it isn't just "about 50%," but it seems like that's an intuitive place for people to start, especially if they think it has to be 'challenging.' And, if you think, 95% or 85% "isn't really challenging" then just round off an narrate success.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Sometimes players just wanna cast.

My Thule game has a wizard, a druid, a cleric, and a warlock. Even after I've warned them multiple times bout the low magic the players still act surprised when they cast spells in town and people attack or flee. *sigh*

One Idea I wish I had enforced is the "one caster rule" suggested in the book - the party is only allowed one spellcaster.

Alternatively, the Thule book splits spellcasting into five broad types: Animism (druids, rangers, barbarians, some bards), Invocation (clerics), Arcana (wizards, bards, and a few fighters and rogues), Sorcery (sorcerers), Theurgy (warlocks). I wonder if a game would work where you flat-out ban some of these types. For example, allow PCs only to use animism and invocation. Wizards, sorcerers and warlocks are only for antagonists.

Also, have an AngryGM link Low Magic, No Problem. Oh, Wait, Problem (warning, pretend profanity and attitude).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Also, have an AngryGM link Low Magic, No Problem. Oh, Wait, Problem

Hilarious:

The problem is that my usual answer is: you can’t. It’s like soy milk. You can CALL IT milk all you want, but it’s juice. Because soybeans don’t have nipples. You can try to run a low-magic D&D game, but you probably have to break D&D to do it. And it wouldn’t be D&D. And if you’re willing to break D&D that bad, just grab a copy of

4e! ;P I mean, if anyone still needed proof-positive that 4e was NOT D&D, just try running a 'low-' or even NO- magic game with it. 1) tell everyone to play one of the 4 martial classes. 2) turn on 'Inherent Bonuses.' 3) don't place too many magic items or magical-seeming enemies (though some, because there is a second S in S&S, and it's usually the bad guy).
See, if you'd've actually been playing D&D, that'd've never worked!

And it makes sense, too, because of the soybean reference, above - in 4e, even PC-race plant-creatures can have boobs!

In short, if you want to have some sort of magic in D&D, you can literally choose any class. But if you want to avoid magic – or anything that feels like magic – you’ve got three classes to choose from: fighter, barbarian, and rogue. And two of them cover the same basic team position. You literally can’t create a four- or five-person party without any magic unless you’re willing to overlap.
And that’s actually the main reason why I say that if you want to run low-magic D&D, you can’t do it without breaking D&D.

In 4e, only one more class, but 3 of the 4 roles (the three more important ones, really, controller is ill-defined and the most dispensable role, tragic as the lack of a Martial Controller may have been, the game's playable without one).

But, seriously, add a good enough Warlord to 5e, and you just might be able to pull it off. ;P

 

[Veteran Sergeant]

The problem is that my usual answer is: you can’t. It’s like soy milk. You can CALL IT milk all you want, but it’s juice. Because soybeans don’t have nipples. You can try to run a low-magic D&D game, but you probably have to break D&D to do it. And it wouldn’t be D&D.

I've never bought into the idea what "D&D" is as it changes every edition. Older editions of D&D were definitely "low magic" compared to 5th Edition at low levels. That doesn't make them the soy milk of D&D. So the idea that down-tuning D&D means it is no longer D&D is patently absurd. It might not be 5th Edition D&D, but that's not an inherently bad thing. 5th Edition is as riddled with design flaws as all of its predecessors. Suggesting that D&D is either 5th Edition or "you might as well play Conan" is fairly daft. And I love Conan. Besides, there are a ton of better suggestions for D20 retro-clones or red/white/blue-box inspired games like Dungeon Crawl Classics, LotFP, etc. So why do people try to make Low Magic versions of 5E? Because people own 5E and they know 5E. You can scale back the rules for 5E and still use the Monster Manual, for example. Or the published campaigns. You just reset expectations for damage output and you work in more resource management. These things exist in the game already. People just ignore them.

There has been a marked difference in what we call D&D. So eliminating cantrips doesn't suddenly turn the world on its head and De-D&D the game. It just means that spellcasters get reverted back closer to their 1st and 2nd Edition counterparts. Low power at low-levels. Wizards become forced to approach some problems as mundanely as their counterparts occasionally. And let's be real for a second: People played D&D during those editions, so clearly there is just a difference in expectations in the modern game. Some players may like the new way, some may like the old way. Wizards of the Coast has made the changes to the game they thought would best benefit their revenue and profit margins. Has nothing to do with defining what D&D is, or is not. Even Gary couldn't pull that off. And given how plentiful Ability Scores points are and how great Dexterity is, it's actually easier to make a Cantrip-Free Wizard than ever before and still contribute at low levels.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as you have a medieval-ish fantasy game with D20s, hit point abstractions, SDCIWC ability scores, Fighters/Clerics/Rogues/Wizards and fantasy races, etc you're still playing D&D. Doesn't matter if your wizards are low power, or high power. If your hauls are small or Monty.

 

[Hussar]

You can talk about casters trying to "preserve their slots" but, after a few levels, you just have so many slots that it's not really a problem. Particularly if you have two or three casters in the group. Never minding that things like Guidance are cantrips.

One Arcane Eye spell can scout with more or less certainty a HUGE area. Unless every door is vacuum sealed, it can go anywhere and see everything. The odds of it being discovered are very small and, even if it is discovered, so what? At the absolute worst, you lose the spell.

Compare to a rogue trying to gather the same information. It's just not going to happen. The rogue will get caught and if and when he or she does get caught, there's a fair chance of losing a PC instead of a single spell slot.

Downtime to learn a new language? Tongues lasts an hour and isn't a concentration spell. Dealing with animals? Heck, speak with animals is a ritual, doesn't even cost a slot. On and on and on. 5e is very, very magic heavy. Because many of the utility spells are rituals, you can spam them all day long. And the ones that aren't often have honking long durations, meaning that you will get far, far more bang for your buck than you could ever get from a skill.

I mean, in our other campaign (Giants) we dropped a Divination spell, asked what is the most direct way to our goal, and poof, instant answer. There's no way the rogue could have gained that information so easily and most likely would have died in the attempt.

 

[OB1]

So my group accidentally did this, in that no one planned not to be a full or third caster, it just worked out that way. Starting during the play test, we had Battle Master, Assassin and Four Elements Monk, who were joined by a Hunter Ranger about 6 months after the official 5e release. They are 17th level now and have just ended up in Sigil. They’ve fought Vampires and Demons and Dragons and Litches, occasionally with the help of a Wizard or Warlock NPC, but mostly on their own.

I think it’s one of the design triumphs of 5e that a party need not be comprised of any special combination of roles to make it effective. As long as everyone is on board with no Cantrip classes at session zero, the game can handle it fine.

Another way to reign in magic? Have the ability to cast cantrips first require casting an “Activate Cantrip” spell that requires concentration. Activate Cantrips is 1st level and lasts for 1 minute. Casting at 2nd level lasts 1 hour and at 3rd level 8 hours. At low levels the spell slot cost keeps cantrips in check, at higher levels the concentration mechanic does.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

SDCIWC ability scores,

On the other hand, old fogies like me might say it's not "real d&D" unless the ability scores are SIWDCC.

 

[Ancalagon]

You can talk about casters trying to "preserve their slots" but, after a few levels, you just have so many slots that it's not really a problem. Particularly if you have two or three casters in the group. Never minding that things like Guidance are cantrips.

One Arcane Eye spell can scout with more or less certainty a HUGE area. Unless every door is vacuum sealed, it can go anywhere and see everything. The odds of it being discovered are very small and, even if it is discovered, so what? At the absolute worst, you lose the spell.

Compare to a rogue trying to gather the same information. It's just not going to happen. The rogue will get caught and if and when he or she does get caught, there's a fair chance of losing a PC instead of a single spell slot.

Downtime to learn a new language? Tongues lasts an hour and isn't a concentration spell. Dealing with animals? Heck, speak with animals is a ritual, doesn't even cost a slot. On and on and on. 5e is very, very magic heavy. Because many of the utility spells are rituals, you can spam them all day long. And the ones that aren't often have honking long durations, meaning that you will get far, far more bang for your buck than you could ever get from a skill.

I mean, in our other campaign (Giants) we dropped a Divination spell, asked what is the most direct way to our goal, and poof, instant answer. There's no way the rogue could have gained that information so easily and most likely would have died in the attempt.

Oh, rituals are another thing that might have to be taken out of the game for a proper S&S feel... or maybe make the ritual take longer.

I will caution, however, that rituals are less flexible than people realize. Only the wizard has full free rein with rituals. A lot of other casters need to have the spell memorized to be able to do it - this is particularly relevant for clerics (and maybe druids?)

 

[Hussar]

Oh, rituals are another thing that might have to be taken out of the game for a proper S&S feel... or maybe make the ritual take longer.

I will caution, however, that rituals are less flexible than people realize. Only the wizard has full free rein with rituals. A lot of other casters need to have the spell memorized to be able to do it - this is particularly relevant for clerics (and maybe druids?)

Kinda sorta. I find that clerics and druids get enough slots that they can generally have a few rituals in the bag if they want. But, really, I don't mind rituals all that much. Then again, simply ejecting all the full casters solved all those problems straight out, so, yeah, not an issue in this game.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Honestly, I tend to feel like rituals belong in an S&S game more than most other forms of D&D magic. The long, complex ceremony being the primary (or even only) form of functional magic is quite common in S&S tales.