A difference between low magic and rare magic?

[FireLance]

Ah, but that is the problem. In a high magic environment, magic becomes more available with level gain, with a result of requiring more, more, more to gain the effect.

Or think of it this way: In Aedon, a person that can fling a fireball is wielding incredible, world-shattering, awe-inspiring, destructive power that will be desired by kings and feared by villains. In Greyhawk, he comes in 12 packs.

Well, in my view, the great thing about the level system is that there is always something to aspire to, even into epic levels. And if the characters get jaded, it may be because they are special enough or fortunate enough to encounter magic of a higher quality and of a greater quantity than most. Speaking for myself, space travel and other worlds fascinate me, but the guy working at the space centre probably thinks, "Ho hum, another day, another eight hours tinkering with the space shuttle/Hubble telescope/Mars rover."

I'm not familiar with Aedon, but is the world also low-power (in terms of character level) as well as low-magic? Otherwise, I wouldn't see a 5th-level wizard or sorcerer as a serious threat to world order, Fireball or no. A 5th-level party comprising a monk, a ranger, a rogue and an archery-focused fighter could probably deal with him even without magical equipment. If he's tossing around Meteor Swarms then yes, but characters of that level, spellcasters or not, ought to be the movers and shakers of a standard campaign setting.

 

[Altalazar]

I'd say low magic and rare magic are basically functionally equivalent - in low magic, magic is rare. It is probably just a variation in phraseology rather than anything meaningful. Like in law - there used to be dozens of strange words that almost meant the same thing. Thankfully, sanity has prevailed and most things have been reduced to a single, unambiguous term wherever possible. If only it hadn't taken them 500 years to to so.

 

[DragonLancer]

As a player, I don't mind what sort of magic-level a setting has so long as the game remians enjoyable.

In my usual role as a DM, I prefer settings/worlds where magic is not technology. Where the everyday commoner or cityfolk have not seen magic performed (except perhaps low-level cleric or druid), and are terrified and awed of any magical effect they see or hear about. And where magical items do not grow on trees or are left (for some unknown reason) in dungeons.

 

[ManicFuel]

I prefer a setting where magic is very rare. Only a few wizards spread across the continent, magic items few and far between. But the difference, I feel, is that the magic, once uncovered, is incrediably powerful. Am I drawing a wrong line here? Is this what people mean when they talk of "low magic"?
~~Brandon

That's what I mean when I talk about "low magic". In game terms, magic users IMC pay a high price for access to spells. All spell using classes are prestige classes with feat and skill rank requirements, so they spend their first 3 levels (usually as Experts) unable to cast spells. Mechanically, they are weaker than the others at this stage. Once they gain access to their class, they start to catch up and can in some ways surpass the other PCs in power. I think this better captures the feel I get from literary wizards, that they have great power but have sacrificed and bear a heavier responsibility for that power.

I think breaking out the "low magic" term as suggested by others is a wise idea. I also like jester47's suggestion to skip the "low magic" descriptor and just talk about your game world and what it's like.

 

[mirzabah]

What is with this low magic world fad going on lately? I think low magic worlds are duller.

I agree with the comments that it is hardly a fad. In fact, I would say that high/ubiquitous magic is the fad. I blame Forgotten Realms. AD&D was already pretty high magic, but FR really upped the ante.