D&D 5E Low magic player characters in D&D 5e

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, if you'd read my entire plan, you'd see that sorcerers would not be a concern at all as they would be banned or too unattractive in NPC interactions to be taken. They can be "shafted" right off the table as far as I'm concerned and, moreover, in a purposely low magic setting/game, they are barely justified as a class at all.

Since I know you have no concept of a D&D game that includes anything but a very specific 3.x mental-image of what a sorcerer is/must be, I think it safe to say you can save us all a lot of hassle by ignoring anything I might suggest regarding them. We all know your views on 5e sorcerers.

Considering that the OP explicitly said...

I'd like to allow player characters to pursue spellcasting options (after all, player characters have the right to become exceptional). [...] I can't just nerf spell-casters, and I don't want to ban them outright.

Your advice ran counter to what the OP requested in the first place, and you knew that it did, you made note of it. A cogent definition of "low magic" was provided (slowing things down or influencing the risk:reward ratio), and you sailed right over it with hardly a by-your-leave. It's true that the additional changes you want to make will shaft Sorcerers--and it's also true that the OP is perfectly fine with the party being made up of "exceptional" people who can cast spells. Why are you responding with such venom?

 

[Nebulous]

First idea to pop into my head: casting a spell of any level does the caster 5 hp in damage. First level PCs generally won't want to pay that price. For higher level PCs it won't be a problem. I would probably make rituals an exception too.

I think you could add a level of exhaustion instead of hit points as well.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Another possible option, if you want to limit magic but not too severely. Have casting spells function the same as energy drain.

Casting a spell reduces your maximum hp by the spell's level + 1. So early on, even the 1 hp for a cantrip may be enough for the player to decide he'd rather use a crossbow. After a few levels, the cost becomes somewhat paltry (at least for cantrips). You'd probably want to add a note that the PCs can only recover from this reduction with rest.

 

[Storminator]

Imx low magic settings with spell casting PCs gives the players enormous power.

 

[redrick]

Thanks for all the thoughts here.

I imagine, at this point, that the question is of interest to people with a different campaign concept than I have, but I'll say a little bit more about what I had in mind. Magic-wise, the world is maybe a little like a slightly less magical Dying Earth? (Which I know is a weird comparison, because almost all of those stories are about spellcasters.) This means that magic existed in the world, and, in fact, still exists, but most humans and demi-humans no longer know the secrets of controlling it. A few wizards have dedicated themselves to unearthing these long-lost rituals and spells, but they have only scratched the surface of what magic was once possible. (ie all still < 10th level.) Magic isn't so much corrupting, a la Conan, but still possibly quite dangerous.

Also, the campaign is meant to be somewhat high-mortality. So, when I say player characters can become exception, I also mean that player characters can die before they reach a level where anybody is going to care about them.

So, the idea of requiring all casters to scribe spells in a spell-book before learning them fits. Possibly reduce the number of spells a starting player character can have in her spellbook. Spell scrolls would be unavailable to purchase in normal settings, but there would be a few places in the setting where a character might be able to buy or steal low-level spells. Spells could also be discovered due to experimentation and research (or devotional activities on the part of divine clerics), with a high material cost and also the possibility of something going wrong. And maybe hold cantrips to the same standard?

Banning or restricting certain classes is ok. Sorcerer seems harder to fit into this system. Druids might have their magic tied to place a little more. A druid can't do much magic in the city, but get her out in a faery wood and she becomes a force to behold.

How about a campaign set in a "low-swords" world?

You know, a world in which over 90% of humanity are peasant farmers, and maybe 2-4% of humanity has learned "sword and board" or equivalent fighting styles?

Would you restrict PCs becoming fighters, rangers, paladins?

Keeping in mind, of course, that historically, Middle Ages Europe was a "low-swords" setting. LotR may also have been a low-swords setting; it's just that the story is about the top 1% of the population, and the bottom 90% are invisible and nameless everywhere outside the Shire.

My point is, deciding that the world AROUND the PCs is low-magic is one thing, and IMO, a good thing, and finding a +1 Chainmail should be "wow, I own a MAGIC ITEM!" rather than "ho hum, one more for the collection".
And you can do that, and still have all the PCs be spellcasters. (See also the Ars Magica TRPG.)

Deciding that the *party* is low-magic, is another thing entirely. In which case, either bar spellcasting entirely, or you're gonna have that one PC who's a super-special snowflake... just as Luke Skywalker was the only Force-Sensitive in the party, and thus the central character.

A warlock, a fighter, and a rogue walk into a bar. Everyone pays attention to the warlock, because he's the first one they've ever seen.
A warlock, a wizard, a bard and a druid walk into a bar. People pay attention to all of them - because they all are spellcasters, though in different ways from each other.

The main idea here is that the party starts low-magic. In this scenario, I wouldn't mind if 5 players showed up with 5 wizard characters. They would all have about as much magical power as Luke in a New Hope. I can't imagine they'd all last very long. And honestly, as for "low-swords" setting, I enjoy minimal starting equipment as well! PCs don't get that 15 gp sword until they take it from the hands of a dead foe.

 

[SirAntoine]

A suggestion I made during the playtest was to make the full spell-casting classes take their first five levels in something else. That way, at 6th level you start introducing magic like 1st level, and 15th level is the maximum level. You can make it even harder, but I don't know what to recommend about the partial casters. Maybe the first two or three levels.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Magic-wise, the world is maybe a little like a slightly less magical Dying Earth? (Which I know is a weird comparison, because almost all of those stories are about spellcasters.)

That's hardly 'low magic.' Magic isn't pervasive in the setting as a whole like in FR or The Magic Goes Away or the plane of Perv in the Myth Adventures setting, but it is very powerful, present in items and in the surviving flora & fauna of the world, and something sufficiently interested and talented people can master if they study it.

Vance was one of the key inspirations for D&D, and while D&D has tended to give mid-level PC casters many more spells than even the greatest Dying Earth magicians ever dreamed of trying to pack into their poor brains at once, it does, in general, go for the same idea of magic: That it's memorized or 'prepared,' activated with a relatively short spoken spell, and present in magic items, mostly of much earlier ages, and that the current age is a relative 'dark' age where adventurers scrounge around for bygone power.

So, really, it's an excellent candidate for what you're going for. Calling it 'low' magic probably confused people.

Also, the campaign is meant to be somewhat high-mortality. So, when I say player characters can become exception, I also mean that player characters can die before they reach a level where anybody is going to care about them.

5e harkens back to the high mortality, but only at the lowest levels, so dole out experience slowly.

So, the idea of requiring all casters to scribe spells in a spell-book before learning them fits. Possibly reduce the number of spells a starting player character can have in her spellbook. Spell scrolls would be unavailable to purchase in normal settings, but there would be a few places in the setting where a character might be able to buy or steal low-level spells. Spells could also be discovered due to experimentation and research (or devotional activities on the part of divine clerics), with a high material cost and also the possibility of something going wrong. And maybe hold cantrips to the same standard?

Cantrips definitely are at odds with the Vancian vision of magic. Spells are meant to be very potent, and a wizard who's emptied his brain of spells is meant to be magically helpless, but for any ancient items he's managed to scrounge up. You might want to do away with Cantrips, or have them use up a 1st level slot in return for being able to cast the Cantrip for an encounter. If you want to cast the more powerful, multi-die-damage cantrip that you get at higher level, burn a higher level slot.

Banning or restricting certain classes is ok. Sorcerer seems harder to fit into this system. Druids might have their magic tied to place a little more. A druid can't do much magic in the city, but get her out in a faery wood and she becomes a force to behold.

Cleaving closely to the Dying Earth would mean Wizards - and arcane tricksters and eldritch knights and perhaps bards. The Sorcerer concept is right out, being a sort of walking 'high magic' event. Warlocks and Divine types could be jacked into some bygone power source, like a Krell Thought Machine or mad immortal wizard who fancies himself a God, but that's flirting with 'higher magic,' as well.

Another possibility, rather than banning a caster class outright, is to allow it only as a later multiclass, after 2nd or 3rd or some other level threshold.

 

[Pling]

As an aside, One Ring sounds interesting and I'd be curious to play it at some point.

The One Ring is probably the finest "low magic" system that I have played, aside from Call of Cthulhu probably. They just came out with the revised rule book that makes things a bit better organized. If you would like to read my short review, you can find it here... http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member..._pr_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

Cheers and good luck!
Matthew

 

[steeldragons]

Your advice ran counter to what the OP requested in the first place, and you knew that it did, you made note of it. A cogent definition of "low magic" was provided (slowing things down or influencing the risk:reward ratio), and you sailed right over it with hardly a by-your-leave. It's true that the additional changes you want to make will shaft Sorcerers--and it's also true that the OP is perfectly fine with the party being made up of "exceptional" people who can cast spells. Why are you responding with such venom?

Not venom at all. Making a statement based on observed fact and experience is not "venom."

I said what I would do to make a "low magic" setting/game. I think at least some of that post (I would like to think "most") might be useful suggestions for the OP or others reading the thread/interested in the topic/idea.

After I did my sailing over without a "by-your-leave" [and why you think I, or anyone, would require such to post a response to a public thread I'm not quite sure, but that's neither here nor there] I went on to say...Well, since you seem to like using out-of-content or partial post quotes to defend/"prove" your point, here's what I actually posted after saying I would remove them:

4a) IF you are going to allow Sorcerers or Warlocks as PC options, I would make it VERY clear and VERY intense in-game that they are pariahs! They are strange/unusual/frightful individuals and if they are caught using their powers, people WILL want put them on the stake. IF a reputation as a "known" Sorcerer or Warlock (the common folk and most nobles will not bother to acknowledge/accept any distinction) you will be persecuted at every turn. This attitude could easily be extended to Wizards...and even Druids if you want. But you need to make the players aware that THAT is the "low magic world" in which they are. That it will happen...just about anywhere/with anyone.

So, again, looking at the whole actual post, I did acknowledge what the OP said and after stating what I thought they should do, I presented an "I don't want to ban classes" option to use them but making it feel/seem appropriate to a "low magic" game.

Another option that occurred to me to present a low magic game was to make ritual spells actual rituals [only]. The fact that the sorcerer has ritual spells does not matter. The fact that the sorcerer, along with any arcane spellcaster, is going to be "reduced" in power by making things rituals, does not matter...and in fact, is pretty much the point! To reduce magic power and impact.

Turns out that's not the kind of 'Low magic" game the OP was talking/thinking about. And, ya know, that's fine. Doesn't make my ideas/suggestions/opinions any more "wrong" or more valid than any others in the thread.

To be fair, it was a bit hyperbolic/misspeaking of me to say "We all know..." Fair enough. Foul on me. Since, clearly, it is not possible that everyone on the forums will have seen any of several threads (going back quite some time) about sorcerers in which KaiiLurker (now "Moonsong") has presented their side/views about sorcerers (and the 5e class in particular). So, apologies for that. I'll go edit that to "Some of us..."