D&D 5E 5E Without Magic (PCs)

[Tony Vargas]

In short, if in your game PCs are regularly slinging spells left and right, and the world around them doesn't bat an eye, the setting is not in fact "low magic", no matter how few NPC casters there are.

Sure, it's a low magic setting if the NPCs &c out there don't get much magic. It's just still a high-magic game, if the players choose a bunch of full casters (and that would certainly be a powerful choice on their part).

I guess that's some ludo-narrative dissonance, there or something.

And, yes, I agree that if you don't want the PCs to be special, and do want to run a low-magic setting, you'll have to force the PCs to conform and be similarly low-magic. That's just not something 5e (nor most other eds of D&D) lends itself to.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, it's a low magic setting if the NPCs &c out there don't get much magic. It's just still a high-magic game, if the players choose a bunch of full casters (and that would certainly be a powerful choice on their part).

I guess that's some ludo-narrative dissonance, there or something.

And, yes, I agree that if you don't want the PCs to be special, and do want to run a low-magic setting, you'll have to force the PCs to conform and be similarly low-magic. That's just not something 5e (nor most other eds of D&D) lends itself to.

I would argue that non-WotC versions of D&D do lend themselves to this, because its actually hard to be a spellcaster, and there are actual downsides WotC largely eliminated.

4e is also conducive to this style, for very different reasons. Its 3.x and 5e where the problem lies.

 

[Tonguez]

Medicine actually becomes a useful skill!!

Lots of Ranger Spells should be made in to skills and abilities, so its easy-ish to get a non-magic ranger.
Ironically the way they're set up Barbarian has the most 'magical subclasses' (though arguably Zealot gets a pass), Rogue is the least magical of classes.

I'd also allow Way of Mercy Monk and argue that Hand of Healing is just massage/pressure points (though Ultimate Mercy has to go), other Monks might work based on similar argument.

oh and I wouldnt change the monsters at all

 

[Baron Opal II]

Would a bard that simply knows a lot of lore, history, & and has a lot of contacts and friends be an option? Or would that be too much work? If it's a tough world, being able to make friends easily seems like a useful skill.

 

[CreamCloud0]

how much could you get out of the three half-casters if they existed with no spell slots? would they be worth playing?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Spoiler

TSR-era had more restrictions, and more hard/arbitrary restrictions, than WotC. But, it was still very high-magic, and necessarily so. There was really no way to get by without magical healing, for instance, and it's not like potions were for sale in quantity, either. So you either had a Cleric (at least) in the party, and magic items were found in many treasure hoards so you got a +1 weapon or two before you encountered a monster that was utterly invulnerable "hit only by" non-magical ones (and not slower than the slowest party member), or your adventuring career would not be successful.

The stated conceit back in the day was that the world was still much like medieval Europe, because casters were rare, and, in warfare "canceled eachother out." I don't think it held together too well back then, either. But, y'know, it was the 70s when 0D&D was out and the core three 1e D&D books being written, and the hobby was still very new.

Sorry, this is a 5e thread, and I was goin' on about the olden days.

Few D&D adventures end without something magical happening. Whether helpful or harmful, magic appears frequently in the life of an adventurer...

In the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons, practitioners of magic are rare, set apart from the masses of people by their extraordinary talent. Common folk might see evidence of magic on a regular basis, but it’s usually minor—a fantastic monster, a visibly answered prayer, a wizard walking through the streets with an animated shield guardian as a bodyguard.

For adventurers, though, magic is key to their survival. Without the healing magic of clerics and paladins, adventurers would quickly succumb to their wounds. Without the uplifting magical support of bards and clerics, warriors might be overwhelmed by powerful foes. Without the sheer magical power and versatility of wizards and druids, every threat would be magnified tenfold.

That's what the 5e PH comes right out and says about magic, early on. It's unavoidable and indispensable.

That's backed up by the fact that every class in the PH casts spells. IIRC, that's 12 classes: 6 full casters, 2 half-casters and 4 sometime-casters with at least one sub-class that uses spells in some way, or 40 sub-classes, with only 6 that cast no spells whatsoever (and one of those still uses supernatural Ki, so more like 5). 7 out of 8 sub-classes are magical.

 

[Micah Sweet]

TSR-era had more restrictions, and more hard/arbitrary restrictions, than WotC. But, it was still very high-magic, and necessarily so. There was really no way to get by without magical healing, for instance, and it's not like potions were for sale in quantity, either. So you either had a Cleric (at least) in the party, and magic items were found in many treasure hoards so you got a +1 weapon or two before you encountered a monster that was utterly invulnerable "hit only by" non-magical ones (and not slower than the slowest party member), or your adventuring career would not be successful.

The stated conceit back in the day was that the world was still much like medieval Europe, because casters were rare, and, in warfare "canceled eachother out." I don't think it held together too well back then, either. But, y'know, it was the 70s when 0D&D was out and the core three 1e D&D books being written, and the hobby was still very new.

Sure there was. It was called strategic retreat followed by downtime, with a side order of hirelings and a second PC per player if time was an issue.

I would expect a caster or two in every party, but nothing like the spell-apolooza that is modern D&D.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Spoiler

Sure there was. It was called strategic retreat followed by downtime, with a side order of hirelings and a second PC per player if time was an issue.

Seriously, you could have a Cleric in your party, and withdraw from the Dungeon (or whatever), and cycle through re-gaining and casting healing spells for a few days (worst case one week if someone was dropped to 0 under the 1e DMG 'death's door' rule), or you could spend weeks (up to 6 weeks, maximum) healing naturally.

Old-school, time-pressure was a prominent feature. The longer you left the dungeon alone, the more likely it changed on you, remaining enemies strengthening defenses, re-locating their important treasures, recruiting re-enforcement - or being displaced by more terrible monsters - or the whole thing being cleaned out by a rival party (especially if "PCs aren't special" ;P).
And, seriously, if you have a huge troupe of henchlings and hirepersons and backup PCs (for Cuthbert's sake, roll a Cleric, already), just take the objective by storm! ;D

That said, I do agree that, especially at low level (and you had to pass through low level, generally speaking), the Magic-user's d4 HD and armor proscription (and the Cleric's profound unpopularity) pushed many players in another direction, though, very often Elf Fighter/Magic-user or half-Elf Fighter/Cleric/Magic-user. 8)

I just can't seem to control my inner Grognard, today.

I would expect a caster or two in every party, but nothing like the spell-apolooza that is modern D&D.

Yes, modern D&D, 3.x/PF1 & 5e anyway, elevate casters by removing restrictions (without commensurate reduction in power) and making them overly attractive, mechanically, especially the better you understand the game. And that's, like, 'overly attractive' even for a game that's meant to be Fantasy....

 

[Micah Sweet]

Spoiler

Seriously, you could have a Cleric in your party, and withdraw from the Dungeon (or whatever), and cycle through re-gaining and casting healing spells for a few days (worst case one week if someone was dropped to 0 under the 1e DMG 'death's door' rule), or you could spend weeks (up to 6 weeks, maximum) healing naturally.

Old-school, time-pressure was a prominent feature. The longer you left the dungeon alone, the more likely it changed on you, remaining enemies strengthening defenses, re-locating their important treasures, recruiting re-enforcement - or being displaced by more terrible monsters - or the whole thing being cleaned out by a rival party (especially if "PCs aren't special" ;P).
And, seriously, if you have a huge troupe of henchlings and hirepersons and backup PCs (for Cuthbert's sake, roll a Cleric, already), just take the objective by storm! ;D

That said, I do agree that, especially at low level (and you had to pass through low level, generally speaking), the Magic-user's d4 HD and armor proscription (and the Cleric's profound unpopularity) pushed many players in another direction, though, very often Elf Fighter/Magic-user or half-Elf Fighter/Cleric/Magic-user. 8)

I just can't seem to control my inner Grognard, today.


Yes, modern D&D, 3.x/PF1 & 5e anyway, elevate casters by removing restrictions (without commensurate reduction in power) and making them overly attractive, mechanically, especially the better you understand the game. And that's, like, 'overly attractive' even for a game that's meant to be Fantasy....

It's ok. There's nothing inner about my grognard.

 

[Tonguez]

Would a bard that simply knows a lot of lore, history, & and has a lot of contacts and friends be an option? Or would that be too much work? If it's a tough world, being able to make friends easily seems like a useful skill.

Charismatic Mastermind Sage?