D&D 5E Sword & Sorcery / Low Magic

[Ath'kethin]

To me S&S is: heroic martial characters and rare & mysterious magic. We don't find that difficult to do in D&D.

I think that's a good way to put it, and I agree. And while some complain that D&D characters are too super-hero-y for S&S games, I disagree completely.

Part of the reason Conan, Fafhrd, etc al are the main characters is because they can perform superhuman deeds. And it's part of why I have no problem with the full healing on a long rest mechanic. Some may find long convalescent periods fun in an RPG; I prefer to get back to the action.

And I don't think it matters if the mooks can't keep up with the PCs; in fact, that's kind of the point.

Curtail magic as a cheat code for PCs, and you're halfway there. Now, many players don't like doing D&D without the caster options, and that fine. I say this discussion isn't for them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Play a different game really. DnD is OTT Gonzo, as are all published game worlds.

There are literally several low magic 5e based products out there, with the classes from Adventures in Middle Earth being pretty much perfect for low magic sword and sorcery.

 

[Flamestrike]

There are literally several low magic 5e based products out there, with the classes from Adventures in Middle Earth being pretty much perfect for low magic sword and sorcery.

Thats not swords and sorcery

 

[AnotherGuy]

1. Allow Full Caster classes every 2nd or 3rd level only.
2. Make Cantrips your 1st level spells so every spell level gets pushed up and it makes Cantrips have limited slots.
3. Introduce Casting Times modifiers on initiatives, level of the spell = initiative modifier
4. Remove spell foci

 

[Ath'kethin]

1. Allow Full Caster classes every 2nd or 3rd level only.
2. Make Cantrips your 1st level spells so every spell level gets pushed up and it makes Cantrips have limited slots.
3. Introduce Casting Times modifiers on initiatives, level of the spell = initiative modifier
4. Remove spell foci

I disagree with this approach. If you're going to make a class super annoying to play, just ban it. Penalizing casters to disincentivize playing them just tends to frustrate everyone.

We had a game once where we used the multiclass caster spell slots progression instead of the normal progression and allowed casters to use all weapons if they wanted, and it worked out OK overall, but ultimately my group and I decided it was simpler and more enjoyable to just ban classes rather than nerf them into oblivion.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I disagree with this approach. If you're going to make a class super annoying to play, just ban it. Penalizing casters to disincentivize playing them just tends to frustrate everyone.

We had a game once where we used the multiclass caster spell slots progression instead of the normal progression and allowed casters to use all weapons if they wanted, and it worked out OK overall, but ultimately my group and I decided it was simpler and more enjoyable to just ban classes rather than nerf them into oblivion.

1. Taking a class every 2 levels is not a nerf.
2. Sure balance the classes for taking away free Cantrips, i.e. give the class an additional Skill or something.
3. The casting time is relatively easy to incorporate, it is already in the DMG under Speed Factors - include it for all so its a balance across the classes.
4. Replace the loss of spell foci with benefit - when casting a spell, gain +1 bonus on all rolls for an hour as the residue magical energies course through you.

As an example.

 

[Ath'kethin]

T

1. Taking a class every 2 levels is not a nerf.
2. Sure balance the classes for taking away free Cantrips, i.e. give the class an additional Skill or something.
3. The casting time is relatively easy to incorporate, it is already in the DMG under Speed Factors - include it for all so its a balance across the classes.
4. Replace the loss of spell foci with benefit - when casting a spell, gain +1 bonus on all rolls for an hour as the residue magical energies course through you.

As an example.

The fact that I disagree with your approach doesn't affect your using it in any way. Your group is not mine, and you do you.

It's also worth noting that my group and I don't use the optional multiclassing rules anyway, so the every-other-level approach isn't something we would do in the first place. We DID use the feat progression from one of the playtest packets, which builds off the Magic Initiate feat, and that worked OK. It's not too dissimilar.

I actually really like the way cantrips work in 5e, and have no issue with them in S&S games. My only issue with cantrips are the damage-dealing ones, which I generally ban or alter. Of course, if we enforce a multiclassing approach - either through actually multiclassing or the feat tree I used - characters have plenty of at-will damage options anyway and the damage cantrips become less relevant anyway.

We used speed factors in my games, and it worked. Of course, I am a big fan of the speed factors, having started in the 2e days, and my players were all new to D&D as of 5e, so I probably liked it more than them. But nobody complained, and it allows for greater tactical buildups so it was cool.

I also have no issue with spell foci, actually, since a spell focus can be damaged or stolen. Losing a spell focus provides good meat for roleplaying and quest directions, and while it might slow a caster down it certainly doesn't cripple them. As long as a caster requires tools of some kind to cast their spells, I feel it works.

But again, do whatever makes the game fun for your group. It's your game.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The fact that I disagree with your approach doesn't affect your using it in any way. Your group is not mine, and you do you.

...(snip)...

But again, do whatever makes the game fun for your group. It's your game.

We don't do S&S. If we did, I'd switch to another system - I was merely giving a quick and dirty option for the OP since they were specifically asking about a 5e low magic game.

The speed factor is something I have recently introduced and like you love from my 2e days. It has worked great for our table.
The alternate level for full casters is an idea I picked up from these forums in an older thread.
Cantrips. In a world of low magic I just don't see limitless magic even if it is not damage dealing. Again it depends on how low is one's low.
The spell foci removal is not something I'm attached to

Our group have expanded the use of abilities and increased and modified feats. We have plenty of house-rules, predominantly designed by the DM with much player input.

 

[ART!]

If Schwartzengger's Conan movies qualify as S&S for the purposes of this thread, how would you allow for Akiro - the magic-user played by Mako in those films? What kind of 5E spellcaster is he? What changes would you make to 5E to allow a PC to play that kind of spellcaster? Or would you just have him be an NPC?

 

[Ath'kethin]

If Schwartzengger's Conan movies qualify as S&S for the purposes of this thread, how would you allow for Akiro - the magic-user played by Mako in those films? What kind of 5E spellcaster is he? What changes would you make to 5E to allow a PC to play that kind of spellcaster? Or would you just have him be an NPC?

Akiro doesn't do a whole lot in the movies - he's more a source of wisdom/advice than raw magic power. If I was to try an make a character based on him in 5e, I'd just stick to rituals and non-damaging spells - mostly divination with a handful of conjuration and transmutation spells as well.

It would work well in many games, but a player seeking to be a front-liner in combat or a jack-of-all-trades would probably find the concept unfulfilling.