D&D 4E 4E and the Low-Fantasy Campaign

[Emirikol]

We just finished our CONAN D&D campaign (not the shoddy d20RPG by mongoose). A couple house rules were all that were really necessary there to "disincentivize utility magic." I think 4e is going to be an awesome fit for a Conan-type world. WHen you've got magic, but it isn't always available at the drop of a hat, that's nice

I've moved our group to a Warhammer D&D campaign until we get the new system learned and then I presume that we'll be back to a "reasonable amount of magic" type house ruled world

jh

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

I use the same rules for Exploits. Frankly, I don't like the idea of players churning out a lot of "powers" that exceed the basic "I roll to hit" methodology. It's how I've always measured levels of endurance/fatigue and know-how of characters for 1-3e with a blood cost (2hp/level of spell) to equalize the output of spells to weapons, and how I intend to impliment it into 4e.

To my players and I, it makes much more sense. That way, they have to "manage" their powers ranging from their At Wills to Daily, Encounter and Utility abilities. Plus, it helps my players better understand the mechanics, the value of healing surges and ability management, which inevitably returns to roleplaying fatigue in combat.

Totally OT, btw.

 

[Vorpal Sword]

I use the same rules for Exploits. Frankly, I don't like the idea of players churning out a lot of "powers" that exceed the basic "I roll to hit" methodology. It's how I've always measured levels of endurance/fatigue and know-how of characters for 1-3e with a blood cost (2hp/level of spell) to equalize the output of spells to weapons, and how I intend to impliment it into 4e.

To my players and I, it makes much more sense. That way, they have to "manage" their powers ranging from their At Wills to Daily, Encounter and Utility abilities. Plus, it helps my players better understand the mechanics, the value of healing surges and ability management, which inevitably returns to roleplaying fatigue in combat.

Totally OT, btw.

If it makes you and your players happy, go for it!

I always avoided low-magic in 3.x, because it was pretty clear from the get-go that the game mechanics didn't support it. (The first long-term campaign I played in was a homebrew update of the original Temple of Elemental Evil, and when we finally fought Zuggtmoy, the best magic item in the party was a +2 longsword.)

One of my first reactions to 4e was that with viable high-level sword-swingers, I might finally be able to run a fun, cinematic low-magic campaign.

And, now that I'm back on-topic, what do you all think of this: rule out the base arcane and divine classes, but allow multiclassing to borrow a handful of their powers?

 

[Korgoth]

I'll be doing something similar, except I'll allow Arcane classes (possibly no Wizards... I'm not sure, but Warlocks will be there and are eeeevuhl and filled with hubris). They'll be rare in the world but probably relatively common PCs. I guess it depends on how many special effects you want being thrown around.

 

[Drammattex]

I've always trimmed the magic pretty simply: magic exists in the hands of the PC spellcaster and in the hands of the villains, rarely inbetween.

Thus magic is rare, the only magicians of note being those using it for evil, the protagonist at odds with that evil (if there is one in the party), and the ones who exist purely for story purposes.

*shrug* It works for me anyway.

 

[Dausuul]

Finally, if you're penalizing spells and prayers this way but not exploits, martial classes have a huge advantage.

Martial classes have a huge advantage anyway. The warriors can always fall back on basic attacks; the same stats that improve their at-will powers (Strength for melee, Dexterity for ranged) also improve their basic attacks, and the enchantments on their weapons apply as well. Meanwhile, the casters have absolutely no synergy between their stats/equipment and the crossbow/dagger attacks they'll be relying on most of the time.

 

[Blackeagle]

And, now that I'm back on-topic, what do you all think of this: rule out the base arcane and divine classes, but allow multiclassing to borrow a handful of their powers?

That's kind of similar to what I'm planning on doing. I'm keeping arcane magic in my campaign, but divine magic is right out. However, I still want to have the possibility of religiously based characters, so I'm going to let them "multiclass" into a priest class (which will be more of an inspirational type like the warlord, rather than a divine magic user). The priest class won't have a full class writeup, just a multiclassing feat and a few powers they can pick up (probably some Inspiring Warlord powers with different flavor text).

 

[Grimstaff]

That's kind of similar to what I'm planning on doing. I'm keeping arcane magic in my campaign, but divine magic is right out. However, I still want to have the possibility of religiously based characters, so I'm going to let them "multiclass" into a priest class (which will be more of an inspirational type like the warlord, rather than a divine magic user). The priest class won't have a full class writeup, just a multiclassing feat and a few powers they can pick up (probably some Inspiring Warlord powers with different flavor text).

I was thinking along the same lines, as in not allowing spellcasting classes, but allowing the multiclass options.