altering d20/d&d for low magic games

[Desdichado]

Whenever I read enough threads here, it sounds like all campaigns are either FR-based Monty Haul multi-classfest free for alls, or a only fighter and rogue choice no magic maybe cast cantrip by 11th level if you take 3 feats trial.

Doesn't anyone play in between?

Huh, I don't get that impression. It seems only a very few fringe folks are doing the really, really low magic, while most just get rid of a spell or two and cut down on magic items.

 

[Janx]

Here's some luvin for the non-magic users, to balance them out a bit.

AC bonus = 1/2 BAB
Basically AC goes up as your fighting skills goes up (makes some sense in reality). This means that you don't have to hand out better armors and AC boosters. The monk class probably wouldn't qualify for this, as they already get some variant of this. Or you'd want to give Monks a different amount of bonus AC. The main point is that all PCs acquire high ACs via magic items usually, so if they can't do that anymore, and the monsters still have high attack values (and high ACs) then the players need the same help.

Ignore the Magic weapon required to hit rule
Ignore the rules saying you need a +4 weapon to hurt the monster. This rule encourages magic weapon dependency. Considering most GM's won't throw a monster like this att you unless you actually have the right weapons, what's the point? An alternative is to consider the PC as being equivalent to a magic weapon (level / 4).

add modifier to CR = plus of weapon/armor /2
Thus a +2 longsword effectively adds 1 to the CR. This accounts for the impact of the magic item, versus those who don't have them.

Just a few rules ideas to cover the other side of the street.

Janx

 

[drothgery]

Every time I hear about it, I am fascinated by the simplicity of the rule that spellcasters must multiclass. This seems like one of the easiest ways to effect "low magic" in a campaign.

I don't know if this is a problem, because if you're running a low-magic game you might well think it's a good thing, but requiring spellcasters to multiclass pretty much means that offensive spells are only useful against mooks; save bonuses are going to outrun spell DCs pretty quickly.

 

[S'mon]

Every time I hear about it, I am fascinated by the simplicity of the rule that spellcasters must multiclass. This seems like one of the easiest ways to effect "low magic" in a campaign. I am curious about the other tweaks people have made to make this system work:

• Paladins/Rangers: do you just use the non-spellcasting versions from UA, or something similar?
• Bards: do they fall into the multiclass requirement? Seems like you could let them be exempt, as most of their spells are less flashy in 3.5. Or maybe a 2/3 multiclass requirement.
• NPC class modifications: I wouldn't want all wizards to become fighter/wizards or rogue/wizards, seems like the Expert and Aristocrat NPC classes are ideal options. Has anyone added a little something to these classes to make them better alternatives for multiclassing?

Thanks for your responses.

See what I do in my Swords of Imarr game http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquar...eatGristle.html

1. Paladins/Rangers - must multiclass after 3rd, I also use non-spellcasting Paladins who get Spell Resistance, and the Borderer variant-Ranger from Conan RPG.

2. Bards must multiclass, same as Wizards etc.

3. I don't require the 2nd class to be a non-spellcaster class, in fact I allow Wizard/Invoker, Wizard/Illusionist etc. For many character concepts this makes more sense than forcing them to be Wizard/Expert.

4. Currently not allowing Clerics & Druids, but letting Wizards & Sorcs cast the Cure spells.

 

[JoeBlank]

I don't know if this is a problem, because if you're running a low-magic game you might well think it's a good thing, but requiring spellcasters to multiclass pretty much means that offensive spells are only useful against mooks; save bonuses are going to outrun spell DCs pretty quickly.

Good point. What about the Practiced Spellcaster feat? Doesn't that allow some non-caster levels to count as caster levels? I don't have Complete Divine, can someone confirm how the feat works?

Maybe this is a good answer to my third question, I think the Expert class could be modified with a few bonus feats, all of them non-combat. For simplicity, it could be a feat at 1st level and then every 3d level or so, to be choosen from any feat NOT on the fighter bonus feat list. Practiced Spellcaster could be one option.

This would allow for a few more metamagic feats too. Flaws with this idea?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

1) Throw out the DMG demographics and have NPC spellcasters be much rarer. Make most priests Experts or Aristocrats able to call on their god for a magical effect on an as-needed basis with a slight chance of success.
2) Establish that it is not the case that anybody can learn magic. You have to have The Gift or be Chosen by the Gods or some such. Fortunately, all PCs just happen to have this qualification.
3) No magic shops, no magic academies, no NPC willing to custom-make magic items. Make the world old enough that there are as many found items as you want there to be (consider heirloom/signature items that grow in power along with PCs)
4) Eliminate the automatic 2 spells per level for wizards. Make up for it in some way. This is the only change to PC abilities.

When you make NPC magic rarer, you make the PCs relatively stronger in the world - they will become movers and shakers at a much lower level than before. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though their power may make them a few more enemies than would be the norm. But more importantly, you can stick to a medieval-ish society a little more plausibly and by the reactions of NPCs you can make magic seem more awesome and terrifying.

 

[Belegbeth]

... Just out of curiosity, which spells did you eliminate? I know that teleport, time stop, and wish is at the top of many people's lists, but I'd be interested to see what you've done. ...

I can't go through a list right now, but I should have been more precise in my original post: of the spells above 6th level that I have kept, ALL have been transformed into "incantations" (using a modified version of the UA guidelines).

These "incantations" have extremely expensive costs and rare components. Some of the components needed to cast high-level incantations can serve as the bases for quests themselves. Casting times are 1+ days.

The incantation can lead to the spell being cast at the end of the ritual (e.g. limited wish), or can lead to the spell being "infused" into a special scroll that can be used at a later dater (e.g. Prismatic Spray, Energy Drain).(Costs ofsuch scolls: that of a normal "scribe scroll" + special incantation costs).

This makes 7+ level spells rare and difficult, but not impossible. (And it does note excessively affect certain spells, e.g. clone, which require long periods of time as written.)

As for magic items, I have added 5 levels to the prerequisites for all item creation feats (except scribe scroll and brew potion).

And, as some people have mentioned earlier in this thread, I have cut the frequency of spellcasters down quite a bit -- most priests are experts, etc.

The result is a "rarer magic" campaign. Magic exists, but it is rarer than it is in a normal DnD campaign, and tends to be concentrated in the hands of a few powerful individuals.

 

[S'mon]

I don't know if this is a problem, because if you're running a low-magic game you might well think it's a good thing, but requiring spellcasters to multiclass pretty much means that offensive spells are only useful against mooks; save bonuses are going to outrun spell DCs pretty quickly.

Hm - good saves (1/2 level +2) might, but poor saves (1/3 level) won't, surely? Rem the NPCs won't be save-buffed, either.

 

[S'mon]

MacLaren - your recipe would result in PC spellcasters being far more powerful than non-casters, so most likely the group would be nearly 100% spellcaster in a 'rare magic' world.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

MacLaren - your recipe would result in PC spellcasters being far more powerful than non-casters, so most likely the group would be nearly 100% spellcaster in a 'rare magic' world.

Hmm, I don't think so. What the PCs can do hasn't changed much at all. PC spellcasters are more powerful relative to the human NPC's because there isn't the magical arms race to provide defenses. But they may be less powerful than PC non-casters because they only have access to the spells they capture or invent (no libraries or automatic spells). I recognize that fighter-types are a little more dependent on magic items, but if you have a world with tens of thousands of years of history, even a rare-magic world will have many hundred items to be found. The rogue will be better off with rarer magic because there won't be as many alarm spells, wizard locked doors, or other magic means to defeat his abilities. The fighter won't run into as many Will save spells.

I'd love to play a fighter-type in a world where magic is rarer - in fact, I think a fighter would thrive more in that environment because he wouldn't be continually victimized by fly-inv-fireball or hold person-CdG. Multiple fights per day, foes with SR, attacks in the night when the wizards are trying to rest, occasions when you don't want to let people know the party has magical capability (because the one other wizard in the kingdom would try to kill you), etc.

I should say, I'm also envisioning a world where high-level NPCs are rare, not only high-level casters. The PCs are the elite superheroes, facing foes that most mortals never learn of (think X-Men, Buffy, something like that; perhaps more of a focus on monsters than NPCs.). So high-level status as a fighter is also exceptional and rare. I don't like magic to become commonplace and I don't like good-aligned NPC archmages sitting out there as a potential deus ex machina and making the PCs feel irrelevant.