D&D General Greyhawk and "Low Magic" : Why Low Magic is in the Eyes of Beholder

[the Jester]

I think kind of the point of Greyhawk is that the people with classes are in a casino. You play the game until you cash out (retire) or go broke (die). Most NPCs cash out early hence are at low levels. Some keep going, hit the jack, and cash out with enough to create a stronghold or set themselves up for a life of luxury or power. A few jackpot several times, get kicked out the casino, and are the epic NPCs you never get to meet.

I think this style of play is a great way to use enhanced downtime rules- you retire until you downtime yourself out of money.

But I could see houserules

• No cantrip. Bonus weapons for ever 2 lost cantrip.
• Instead of a feat or ASI, you can rank up in your class's organization for in world benefits.
• No automaticlearning of spells, you must find spells or research them. Priestly characters must go to church or rank up in church to access new spells.
• Maximum number of revivals based on Con score

I agree with limiting or eliminating cantrips and autolearning spells (for wizards, anyway). I also like the limit to resurrections. I don't like taking out ASIs; limiting stats to 20 already kind of caps their power. And making increasing your rank in an organization equal in value to a feat or ASI would be tricky, especially since not all pcs would be tied to an organization. I prefer keeping a renown system in place to handle that as a separate area of advancement. But that's just me.

 

[Ancalagon]

@Minigiant

2 main arguments against this.

So it seems that we settled on 1 in 100 000 "ish" as the number of wizards in Altdorf (college wizards), which I think is reasonable. You seem to implicate that this isn't rare.

I think it is very rare. Let us do a thought experiment. Let us think of a profession that is rare. At first I thought "doctor", or "scientist" but that didn't feel rare enough. I picked "geologist".

I don't know any geologist, although it's quite possible that I have met a few without being aware they were geologist. In the USA, there are 32 000 geologist. Conveniently, there is about 328 million people in the USA. That means that there is roughly 1 geologist per 10 000 people, or ten times more than the per capita ratio of college wizards!

second argument:

Magic in warhammer is dangerous. Every spell cast can backfire, hurting you, turn you insane, embarrass you, mutating you, causing a demon to appear.... So those rare casters are going to use their magic a lot less than in D&D!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yeah, but being appointed by a council including the 16th level Guildmaster of Thieves is from Gygax's 1980 Greyhawk folio

Fascinating! I've only been using the Box Set (1983) for major references, but I went ahead and just checked the '80 and '83 Greyhawk versions.

That final paragraph is identical with two differences-

First, the reference to the City of Greyhawk is omitted (it's like a sad joke at this point).

Second, all the level references are gone.

I have to do a deep-dive textual comparison some day!

 

[Minigiant]

I agree with limiting or eliminating cantrips and autolearning spells (for wizards, anyway). I also like the limit to resurrections. I don't like taking out ASIs; limiting stats to 20 already kind of caps their power. And making increasing your rank in an organization equal in value to a feat or ASI would be tricky, especially since not all pcs would be tied to an organization. I prefer keeping a renown system in place to handle that as a separate area of advancement. But that's just me.

I wouldn't be taking out feats and ASI, the class rank system would be an option. For example, 1 rank would let you learn higher level spells without downtime and gold. 2 ranks would get a class organization to grant you a magic item appropriate to your class or a campanion of your class. Etc

 

[Voadam]

At a fundamental level, 5e is a "high magic" system compared to the editions of D&D that gave rise to Gygaxian Greyhawk. Only four classes (Fighter, Rogue, Monk, and Barbarian) aren't spellcasters by default, and the newest official class (Artificer) is a spellcaster as well. That means that almost every basic class is a spellcaster. When you add in the subclasses (like Eldritch Knight, etc.) that allow you to turn the martial classes into casters, or the feats (magic initiate, etc.), or the multiclassing, or the many races that provide you access to cantrips or spellcasting, then it quickly becomes apparent that 5e (in comparison to, say, the OD&D - 2e line, or the B/X - BECMI line) is high magic in terms of PC spellcasting ubiquity.

I do not think it is that different.

OD&D from just the original box had only fighters, as noncasters. (edited because I remembered thieves did not show up until Greyhawk).

Basic only had four classes, fighters, thieves, dwarves, and halflings as noncasters.

1e PH had only four classes, fighters, thieves, assassins, and monks, as noncasters.

2e had only two thieves and fighters.

5e has four noncaster classes and adds in caster sorcerers and warlocks that were not already available in AD&D. prior edition assassin and cavaliers get folded into subclasses.

3e had the barbarian, the fighter, the monk, and the rogue.

4e had the fighter, the ranger, the rogue, and the warlord as non magical classes.

Four or fewer non caster classes seems pretty standard throughout D&D.

 

[Helldritch]

I'd like to point out that OD&D had a grand total of 7 classes (8 if you include the mystic). So 4 out of 7-8 means that half or more of the classes were entirely non magical... That is a lot compared to 5ed.

 

[Voadam]

Fascinating! I've only been using the Box Set (1983) for major references, but I went ahead and just checked the '80 and '83 Greyhawk versions.

That final paragraph is identical with two differences-

First, the reference to the City of Greyhawk is omitted (it's like a sad joke at this point).

Second, all the level references are gone.

I have to do a deep-dive textual comparison some day!

Only one god gets mentioned in the folio, Iuz.

Even Xagig Yragerne is only known as the Mad Archmage who disappeared.

There are clerics and cleric run states, but no mention of specific gods other than Iuz.

 

[Minigiant]

2 main arguments against this.

So it seems that we settled on 1 in 100 000 "ish" as the number of wizards in Altdorf (college wizards), which I think is reasonable. You seem to implicate that this isn't rare.

I think it is very rare. Let us do a thought experiment. Let us think of a profession that is rare. At first I thought "doctor", or "scientist" but that didn't feel rare enough. I picked "geologist".

I don't know any geologist, although it's quite possible that I have met a few without being aware they were geologist. In the USA, there are 32 000 geologist. Conveniently, there is about 328 million people in the USA. That means that there is roughly 1 geologist per 10 000 people, or ten times more than the per capita ratio of college wizards!

I think we are disagreeing on what we consider rare. 1 out of 100,000 doesn't match how the setting describes spellcasters in full on magic schools.

But even so, There are TONS of mages all over the planet. Kislev is run by a witch and the witch control everything behind the scenes. Each elven nation has dozens of wizards. Lizardmen are run by super magic frogs.

The thing is WH RPG is mostly Tier 1. You tend to die before you meet any friendly casters. But if youreached the equivalent of mid Tier 2, you would know at least1 spellcaster.

Magic in warhammer is dangerous. Every spell cast can backfire, hurting you, turn you insane, embarrass you, mutating you, causing a demon to appear.... So those rare casters are going to use their magic a lot less than in D&D!

Well that's my point. The average adventurer dies before they become important enough to ask a wizard for a magic favor.

But the wizards matter. Warhammer is a grimdark war setting afterall. The mages are walking talking war machines. They matter a lot.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

One example is Game of Thrones; in GOT, magic is beyond uncommon. But when there is magic, it is incredibly powerful. Most people would refer to GOT as "low magic" yet would also acknowledge that magic is insanely powerful.

You know, I wouldn't say that.

I would say magic in ASoIaF is relatively weak in terms of power, if we look at the literary fantasy genre as a whole. If we include RPGs, it's extremely weak, certainly less powerful than most fantasy settings.

I don't disagree with the general thrust of your analysis, I just don't think that particular example holds up. I say this as someone who reads an awful lot of fantasy. If we ignore all other aspects and rate magic in a novel merely on its power to impact the world, relative to magic in other novels (and kind of relative to physical force), then I don't think magic in ASoIaF is powerful (though note I wouldn't really count the Others or dragons as "magic" in the conventional sense).

 

[Jeff Albertson]

Is another one of your verbose Greyhawk essay threads really necessary? What's next? Greyhawk adventures? Greyhawk's contribution to D&D's mythos? Because we know that there will be a fourth and fifth spin-off Greyhawk thread where you try to advocate for Greyhawk via some point that could easily be included in your main thread.

I enjoy them, and one on Greyhawk/D&D mythos sounds cool.