_Michael_
Explorer
Probably means it was in another book. I've been looking at so many the last few days, they're starting to blend together. lol I'll keep an eye out as I go through them in more detail. Sorry for the confusion.
D&D 3E/3.5 3.5e/PF/OGL Low-Magic Campaign Resources and Ideas
- Thread starter _Michael_
- Start date
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
No worries. I'm going to try the oaths sub-system from Drop Dead Studios' Champions of the Spheres: Study and Practice instead (which you can view for free over on their wiki). An Oath of Poverty grants enough points to be able to get the effects of the "Big Six" magic items and still have some left over.
Edgar Ironpelt
Adventurer
Combat was plenty lethal in Lord of the Rings for mooks, secondary characters, and various characters in the backstories. It was much less lethal for the primary, protagonist characters. Is this distinction what you mean when you call combat in LOTR "cinematic"?
D&D combat out of the box gives (IMHO) about the right level of lethality for those mooks and secondary characters, and then throws heaps of healing magic into the mix to reduce the lethality experienced by the PC's - who many players want to be the equivalent of those primary protagonist characters. But throwing in that healing magic creates world-building issues, and is a big problem if a low-magic game is wanted.
Now many GMs, and some players, are happy with PCs who are those secondary characters experiencing a higher lethality. But that's not a sort of game I'm personally eager to either run or play in.
I don't understand what you are trying to say, here. In D&D, magical healing has always been the province of clerics and alchemists, with wizards generally locked out of it. Also, it's hard to present "potions that speed healing" as anything other than a supernatural - magical - effect, unless the speed increase is a small one.
(As an aside, I have abundant healing magic in one of my non-D&D games, with little of that being in the form of spells or potions. Instead it's a pervasive world-magic that anyone can tap into, to heal injuries at an unrealistic, supernaturally rapid rate. Even injured wild animals licking their wounds tap into this pervasive magical healing.)
I've become chary about using DR in my 3.5e game, because it can quickly become an all-or-nothing effect. Also, it penalizes characters built around high-accuracy/low-damage attacks. When it comes to giving a boost to armor, I'm toying with giving heavier armor a non-magical fortification effect to reduce the chances of critical hits, and/or having it convert a portion of the damage a character receives into non-lethal damage.
Thank you, and you're welcome
_Michael_
Explorer
Well, of course, everyone is gonna have different styles and preferences, and that's okay. I'm a fan of a bit more lethality simply to keep players from doing dumb stuff, at least, not without some forethought and preparation. And we all know how dumb things can get when players have too much time on their hands, or too much money. The FNFF/Interlok system was a good balance because it was very high lethality, but at the same time, you could also do cool stuff and score "cool points" that affected your reputation. I do want to have a reputation system in place so that players can brag about stuff they pull off and get perks for it.
I'm trying to come up with something a bit less magic-based, and more speeding the natural healing process to varying degrees. Something that would likely help is utilizing more the subdual vs lethal damage system where damage could be relatively minor (such as getting knocked about with clubs and whatnot) versus getting stabbed with knives, which would take more effort to heal and stop bleeding. Plus, cribbing from FNFF, I could see higher strengths having a "sandbag" effect against some damage, offering a minor DR just because the muscles themselves would help absorb the impact of weapons a bit more than someone who has a 10 in Strength.
In my world, wizards are a lot less common, though magic retains its high-damage capability. However, minor clerics and various witch doctors, healers, and others exist to fill the void with various concoctions to speed healing, maybe to the equivalent of a minor healing potion, albeit, overnight. "Here, put these plasters on the cut and lay in bed for a night" translating to a 1d6+1 or so healing potion. I mean, that's not perfect or exact, but it gives a start to where I would like it to be without having to rely on over-magicked tropes. Plus, having a player who invests in things like craft (alchemy) and/or knowledge (nature) would allow them to come up with some of this stuff on their own, like using honey and aloe to speed healing and reduce scarring and prevent infection, etc. Speaking of, that's something that never really gets dealt with in-game is infection because it's just, "Oh, I'll down this healing potion!" And that in turn gives players license to do dumb stuff with their characters that they wouldn't otherwise try if they didn't have easy access to healing, which in turn forces them to think more creatively for solutions that don't get themselves injured. I'm not trying to just kill them off, I just want them to be more in the shoes of their character and value them enough to be more cautious in their approach to lethal situations because that seems to me to be ripe ground for better roleplaying.
Oh, I get that. I just often wonder how it would look to have reduced ACs over all (and renamed as Defensive Scores) with armor offering more Damage Reduction, especially with different armor offering different DRs versus different damage types. For instance, chain mail offering higher DR against slashing or piercing weapons, but not much against bludgeoning, whereas plate armor might offer better DR against all three. That in turn would seem (to me) to require more strategy in terms of armor choices depending on your playing style. Like, if you're a ranger who prefers the bow, you're not going to really be taking a lot of damage from bludgeoning or slashing weapons unless you get caught in the front line because you'll most likely be in the back, picking off enemies. More diversity in armor types (and the ability to wear different pieces to protect different parts of the body via using a body hit chart) would seem to offer both more realism and greater potential for strategy.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
Another way to reduce power overall, including for spellcasters, might be to reintroduce level limits along the lines found in 4F Gaming Group's Level Limits For All.
The core idea here is that a character's level limit isn't that certain races have caps on how many levels they can gain in a particular class (or are outright denied the ability to take levels in that class at all), but that each individual has a maximum number of class levels that they can earn, which is determined based on their statistics. Obviously, this cap can be raised if their stats can be raised, so the limits here are somewhat "soft" in nature.
That said, while this is definitely the kernel of a good idea, the overall quality of this product is...not great. For one thing, there's no connection between particular stats and particular character classes. If you're a wizard and you're about to hit your level cap, for instance, it makes sense that raising your Intelligence modifier would raise how many levels you can have, letting you take another wizard level. It makes less sense that raising your Strength score would also raise your cap, letting you take another wizard level. (I can't recall if it deals with issues of your stats going down, e.g. from aging modifiers, but I don't recall that it does.)
Likewise, the "alternate XP generation method" it has is supposed to slow down the rate of advancement, but as I recall it doesn't actually accomplish that much at all.
Still, the core idea of your own personal limitations acting to set how far you can advance is an intriguing one, so I figured it was worth mentioning here.
The core idea here is that a character's level limit isn't that certain races have caps on how many levels they can gain in a particular class (or are outright denied the ability to take levels in that class at all), but that each individual has a maximum number of class levels that they can earn, which is determined based on their statistics. Obviously, this cap can be raised if their stats can be raised, so the limits here are somewhat "soft" in nature.
That said, while this is definitely the kernel of a good idea, the overall quality of this product is...not great. For one thing, there's no connection between particular stats and particular character classes. If you're a wizard and you're about to hit your level cap, for instance, it makes sense that raising your Intelligence modifier would raise how many levels you can have, letting you take another wizard level. It makes less sense that raising your Strength score would also raise your cap, letting you take another wizard level. (I can't recall if it deals with issues of your stats going down, e.g. from aging modifiers, but I don't recall that it does.)
Likewise, the "alternate XP generation method" it has is supposed to slow down the rate of advancement, but as I recall it doesn't actually accomplish that much at all.
Still, the core idea of your own personal limitations acting to set how far you can advance is an intriguing one, so I figured it was worth mentioning here.
rabindranath72
Adventurer
I have toyed with the idea of reproducing the 2e optional level limits system by using XP penalties. So each race will have a defined level limit, which can be exceeded by high enough ability scores tied to the class; but when that limit is reached, you don't stop advancing, you simply pay more XPs to advance.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
I seem to recall that option was actually in the 2E rules, wasn't it?
rabindranath72
Adventurer
Yes, 2e DMG. I never used level limits with 2e, those optional rules worked exceedingly well. Each race paid 2x XP up to their level limit, but based on primary ability scores, those limits could be exceeded. When the adjusted limit was reached, the character started paying 3x XP. Advancement was slow, but it did happen; and it becomes much more relevant past name level, where progression becomes linear (before name level, the slow-down resulted typically in demihumans being one or two level behind humans.) It also provided a good rationale for why long-lived demihumans don't conquer everything.
earthsea_wizard
Villager
Where is this in the 3.0 DMG?
EDIT: Found it, pg 164. It doesn't exactly suggest this. It is under the section for creating "diverging worlds" such as stone age or rennaissance and also has suggestions for running both a lower or higher magic world:
"Another way to create a divergent game is to change the amount of
magic available.
Low Magic: In a low-magic game, spellcasters and magic trea-
sure are about twice as rare as normal. Magic items aren't for sale
because they're too rare to ever think of parting with for mere gold.
The occasional trade of an item or its sale for gold is possible, of
course, but it is a rarity in the economic structure.
Common people almost never see magic. Some might not even
believe in it. A spell or a magic-using creature completely bedevils
the common folk and terrifies them. All magic-using creatures,
including characters, may be thought of as "demons." They might
be persecuted. Witch trials and the like could be a common fate for
wizards and sorcerers. Clerics and other divine spellcasters are
probably safer than arcane spellcasters, but they might not be,
depending on the culture.
High Magic: Spellcasters and magic treasures are twice as com-
mon as presented in these rules, if not more so. Most characters
have a level or two of wizard or sorcerer. Even a shopkeeper might
be at least a 1st-level spellcaster. Magic items are bought and sold in
clearly marked shops like any other commodity. Spells are used to
light homes, keep people warm, and communicate. The function
they serve is as commonplace as modern-day technology is in the
real world.
This sort of campaign can be directed one of two ways. The first
is to take the world of the utterly fantastic route, where magic is
sophisticated and common, and to create a world unlike anything
anyone but you has ever imagined. The second is to take the comi-
cal route, where magic simply becomes technology—little imps in
boxes perform calculations like computers, and people have magi-
cal transmission television sets. The second route can be fun, but
the sort of light-hearted parody it leads to is probably not a good
basis for a long-term campaign."
Perhaps this was removed from 3.5 DMG because, as much as some of us hate to admit it, doubling magic items or halving them with no other considerations recommended will result in some pretty screwed up encounters. Either your party is bulldozing every single encounter with no fear or the opposite is happening to them. This would be true in just about any edition of the game. It just isn't a good recommendation as written.
The defualt assumption the 3.0 DMG gives is this though, which is the same as the 3.5 DMG:
"Unless you are going to run a divergent game (see Differing
Magic, page 164), magic is prevalent enough in the world that it
will always be taken into account by smart individuals. A merchant
wouldn't be flabbergasted by the idea that someone might try to
steal from her while invisible. A swindler would be aware that
someone might be able to detect his thoughts or his lies.
Magic shouldn't be something that common people are unaware
of. Spellcasters may be fairly rare in the big picture, but they're
common enough that people know that when Uncle Rufus falls off
the back of the wagon, they could take him to the temple to have
the priests heal the wound (although the average peasant probably
couldn't afford the price). Only the most isolated farmer might not
see magic or the results of magic regularly."
Last edited:
Similar Threads
