Which setting books would you suggest to pick up to get a good handle on the setting?
The boxed set for 1e perhaps 2e how would you rate the 3e version?
Well, sure, but what I'm saying is the modification needed would result directly in poor sales. Your average player wants to be flinging Fireballs after a few game sessions.I don't agree that's particularly important. And if the individual group feels it is, it's simple to introduce by modifying the advancement rules. Just put the sidebar in the setting book.
But my point was, nothing is baked in to low level adventuring. Plenty of Greyhawk modules that go well above level 10.
I don't disagree on the "feel" of it. I totally agree that by 10th level (or well before actually) PCs shouldn't be mooks of any kind. But that wasn't what I was quibbling about - it was the assertion that 10+ leveled characters (and NPCs) were extraordinarily rare.
ps- whatever you do, don't get WG7.
I didn't realize until quite a bit later and after getting the "real" Greyhawk material that the entire book was, essentially, a big middle finger to Gygax. So while it leaves a bad taste in my mouth now, it at least got me into the setting.
No, we've played 5e from the beginning and we have only used 3 classes and 4 subclasses (for 6 players).The issue is, if you throw out 90% of the rulebook, it's not 5e at all, is it? It's more of a reskin, like The One Ring or Esper Genesis.
There is no one definition of "low magic." If you allow magic using classes, the assumption would be the characters are special. Like a Witcher. There is not much magic in the world to speak off, but a very few have access to it - those are special NPCs and the characters. That fits a definition of low magic to me.I wouldn't call "everyone has a little bit of magic" low magic. I would say "no more than one party member has any magic whatsoever" would qualify.
I have not read the books or played the games, I've just read some wikis and watched the netflix show. That is not the impression I get from the sources I am familiar with. However, that is not really relevant to the discussion. If it is a bad example, so be it.I wouldn't call The Witcher low magic. The place is stiff with bloody sorceresses!
He never stated that the old material wasn't good.
Ironically, as a 2E kid, I have no connection to Greyhawk whatsoever other than thumbing through a friend's copy of From the Ashes. I'm just think the core argument of the thread is interesting.Thus my questions. I don't actually see what's compelling about Greyhawk itself at this time.
And, btw, I say this as a gamer who cut his teeth on Greyhawk. I didn't touch FR until I ran Phandelver for a friend's kid.
No, you have played a very tiny part of 5e.No, we've played 5e from the beginning and we have only used 3 classes and 4 subclasses (for 6 players).
Fighter - battlemaster
Wizard - ???
Rogue - Thief & Scout (we call him our ranger)
That's not even near "low magic". That's just the D&D default. The PCs are superpowered heroes, they fight superpowered villains, the rest of the world are powerless "normal people".There is no one definition of "low magic." If you allow magic using classes, the assumption would be the characters are special. Like a Witcher. There is not much magic in the world to speak off, but a very few have access to it - those are special NPCs and the characters. That fits a definition of low magic to me./
I've done all three. It's pretty much D&D standard.I have not read the books or played the games, I've just read some wikis and watched the netflix show. That is not the impression I get from the sources I am familiar with. However, that is not really relevant to the discussion. If it is a bad example, so be it.
I think that's going too far the other way.And yes, consigning Greyhawk to the trash can of history is quite possibly the best commercial approach, no argument there.