A leveling way to limit access to magic?

[Driddle]

Your insight and/or opinions, please.
The DM decrees that PCs (and NPCs, out of fairness) are prohibited from taking two consecutive levels of the same spell-casting class as they gain experience -- if you want to progress in that class, you've got to multiclass with something else inbetween levels.

At the upper bounds, this has the effect of limiting 20th level characters to 10 levels of spells -- or two sets of 10, if alternating between two magic classes.

The goal is a campaign wherein truly powerful magic is harder to come by.

What other effects could be expected or should be considered?

 

[Odhanan]

What other effects could be expected or should be considered?

Other things to look out for and their caveats, besides issues of balance:

- the game becomes boring to the players
- they feel limited in what their characters can do for no other reason than DM control
- the game turns into a cold war between players and DM

Honestly, I wouldn't play in such a game. That screams "The DM is scared of PCs spells" to me, which points out to a paranoid DM and an opposition DM/Player where you have to explain every choice you make on the defensive. I made a rule of not participating in such games - if the DM doesn't trust me, there's no point for me to be at the game table.

 

[Storyteller01]

Things will get much deadlier, as heal spells will be harder to acquire.

Only truely epic characters and NPC's will be able to do what, in standard D&D, is considered normal. A 19th or 20th level caster will be needed just to cast Raise Dead.

Powerful magic items will also be rarer. Fewer people could achieve the spellcasting prereqs. Weapons with +4 or higher total weapon enhancments could only be created by epic characters (You need to be a 12th level caster).

You won't see your basic offensive magic spells until 12th level.

Wish/Miracle and othe 9th level spells will be nonexistant.

Dragons will be EXTREMELY powerful unless you alter them as well.


You may want to look at re-establishing spell levels, depending on what spells you want avaialable. It would be a pain to play if you're used to the standard game, but it will definitely encourage creativity.

 

[Elf Witch]

We are doing this in my game. I wanted a very low magic campign and spellcasters are just to powerful you cannot have a true low magic game with mages at full strength.

The players don't mind it because they understand the time of game I am going for and they wanted to play this style as well.

I have to plan things carefully and their are certain monsters that you will not see in my game and I am careful about CR threats.

 

[Elf Witch]

Other things to look out for and their caveats, besides issues of balance:

- the game becomes boring to the players
- they feel limited in what their characters can do for no other reason than DM control
- the game turns into a cold war between players and DM

Honestly, I wouldn't play in such a game. That screams "The DM is scared of PCs spells" to me, which points out to a paranoid DM and an opposition DM/Player where you have to explain every choice you make on the defensive. I made a rule of not participating in such games - if the DM doesn't trust me, there's no point for me to be at the game table.

I think this is an overreaction.

Does it not depend on why the DM is doing this? What if the DM is runnning a low magic campaign and wants magic to be rare?

I could understand this if the DM ran a world with normal CR threats and NPCs had access to full magic then I would be pissy too.

But from my experience you can not run a low magic game in DnD and not do something about the spellcasters.

 

[Asmor]

If you want a low magic game, why not just ban spellcasters outright?

I know if I were playing in a game with a system like that, I wouldn't even consider a spellcaster playable.

 

[Archade]

If the DM is trying to make magic rare and mysterious, there is a better way to do it. By reducing spell advancement, he is making it less attractive to play a spellcaster over a fighter.

A simpler solution (if this *must* be done) is to only give PC's 50% of the experience and treasure they would normally acquire, and make NPCs of high level more rare.

 

[Odhanan]

I think this is an overreaction.

I agree. Seriously. I'm overreacting.

Let's be clear: I speak of my potential reaction, and thus, I'm trying to give some meaningful advice as to how players who share the same inclinations as I might react.

Let me put it another way: I've come to consider the games I want to be a part of much more carefully over the years. I have many friends running games, I have the opportunity to play or run whatever game I want when the occasion presents itself.

When I'm coming to play a D&D game, I now understand I intend to play D&D. This means I don't want to play some campaign that tries to destroy the D&D feel or not embrace it. Further, I don't want to play D&D with a DM who doesn't like D&D in the first place.

Want to run a low magic game? Other systems abound. I understand why game masters out there do use D&D of course: it's sort of a common denominator to most gamers. If you play RPGs, chances are you know d20, so the DM doesn't have to teach a whole another system. But then, why not use Grim Tales, Iron Heroes, or whatever variations of d20? Run a low magic d20 sure, but don't call it "D&D".

Personally, I'm not a newbie in terms of game systems. Tell me you're going to run a Warhammer game that's going to be grim, with lots of blood spilled and a deadly occult conspiration from the forces of Chaos we should oppose, and I'm all yours. Tell me we're playing a medieval Call of Cthulhu game and I'm all yours. Tell me we're playing an epic Iron Heroes game and once again, I'm all yours. Tell me we're playing a D&D game but you changed the magic system because it stinks, and I'll pass.

 

[Aus_Snow]

No problem whatsoever. All the DM needs to do is factor this into the campaign they set up, the challenges they present to the PCs, that kind of thing.

It's the same with any house rules, no matter how drastic they might appear (or be.) But then, I am of the opinion that the core rules, and the rules from all supplements one might contemplate using, should go through the very same process (i.e., editing and making projections.) Hence, the existence of many of my house rules in the first place.

 

[Elf Witch]

If the DM is trying to make magic rare and mysterious, there is a better way to do it. By reducing spell advancement, he is making it less attractive to play a spellcaster over a fighter.

A simpler solution (if this *must* be done) is to only give PC's 50% of the experience and treasure they would normally acquire, and make NPCs of high level more rare.

This does not work the Pcs who suffer are the non spellcasters ,fighters for example depend on their magic items to be able to be effective without magic items to raise AC or be able to get by damage resistance they fall behind anyone who can cast magic on themselves.

I played in a game like this and as we got higher level it became obivious that the PCs without access to magic fell behind. I played a straight fighter and was supposed to be the tank of the party but usually the cleric/paladin ended up doing the mosrt damage and being able to go toe to toe in combat.

In almost every encounter my fighter with her 18 AC was being hit and taking massive damage while the cleric/paladin with his spells going had an AC of close to 30 and with my non magical sword I could barely do any damage while all the paladin/cleric had to do was cast magic weapon on his weapon and he was good to go.

So your way the PCs would level slower and sure that would mean the spellcasters would not have access to spells as fast and with 50% less treasure they would not have access to as many magical items but they still would be in abetter postion than your non spellcasters.