Any advice on running a low-magic-item campaign?

[Glyfair]

Isn't that just magic items under another guise?

What's wrong with that?

The issue is why Valesin wants a low magic game. Is it flavor? If so then some sort of "magic item under another name" should be fine, as long as the feel is low magic. Is it dislike of the game paradigm of magic items? Then he'll have an issue with it.

 

[VirgilCaine]

Why not use a d20 system that is built from the ground up for low-magic? Why go to all this work and toil? I really don't see the point.

 

[Agent Oracle]

My reccomendation? Upgrade the span of "masterwork".

We had one DM do this. By itself "Masterwork" is a +1 to hit or -1 ACP.

In his system, there was:
-Normal
-Fine (conventional masterwork)
-Superior (+1 hit / +1 damage or +1 AC -1 ACP)
-Excelent (+2 hit / +1 damage or +1 AC -2 ACP)

unfortunately, I never got much beyond there. Presumably, there was also Grandmaster work... but I never found out.

If you are running a low Magic items campaign, i suggest that you end it in the middle levels. By 10th level, Your typical fighter can hit an opponent in full plate on a (5) or better (assume +10 BAB, +5 Str, opponent has +1 DEX). Once that fighters start hitting every round of combat, it's time to draw the campaign to a close.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I'd save myself the headache and go with a different system. I'm not saying you can't run a low-magic 3E game, because I know you can. I just think it would be easier to use a system that's a better fit from the start.

If you don't want to stray too far off the d20 reservation, then I'd suggest True20. Iron Heroes might be worth a look, too.

 

[sfgiants]

Another method I have found useful is the use of Action Points from Unearthed Arcana. AP can be used to simulate a variety of effects and still keep a low magic games. I have created quite a few different and new uses for AP that simulate magical effects making it less needed to have all that "phat lewt."

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Valesin]

Wow, thanks everyone. Some great advice; clearly lots of people have given this more thought than I have. The points about Defensive Bonuses and 'improved' masterwork items are especially useful and things I haven't thought of.

I have been giving a lot of thought to Iron Heroes, which I like a lot but have never used in a game. Which leads me to another question: in a campaign with a fair amount of 'personal magical effects' (be they spells, incarnum, binding, etc) yet few magic items, do the mundane classes (fighter, rogue) need some sort of boost? IOW, does the lack of magic items hit the non-magic using classes harder or is everyone affected equally?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

WI have been giving a lot of thought to Iron Heroes, which I like a lot but have never used in a game. Which leads me to another question: in a campaign with a fair amount of 'personal magical effects' (be they spells, incarnum, binding, etc) yet few magic items, do the mundane classes (fighter, rogue) need some sort of boost? IOW, does the lack of magic items hit the non-magic using classes harder or does is everyone affected equally?

No, not everyone is affected at the same rate.

There was a campaign I played in from 1st to 13th level (a ranger throuout). We went from low magic to high magic to low magic again (due to time travel). There were obvious differences.

Our most powerful party member was a cleric 11/barbarian 2 - the player was experienced enough to know when to buff (so he greatly outperformed the straight cleric played by a much less experienced player).

Spellcasters can replicate the effects of many magic items for short periods of time. Magic Vestment and Greater Magic Weapon are some of the best buffs in the game under low item settings, whereas in high item settings they're often almost useless since they don't stack well. Spells like Mage Armor become more useful: the +4 AC doesn't stack with a +8 Bracers of Armor, but now it's +4 AC compared to nothing. Given only a round or two, spellcasters will be much more powerful than non-spellcasters. They also get an effective +2 DC boost out of it (cloak of resistance +5 vs stat boost +6 = +3 DC), although that advantage is lower at lower levels.

A high level fighter might do (using a one-handed +5 flaming bastard sword, starting Strength 15, all stat bonuses to Strength, no tomes, and a +6 stat-boosting item) 1d10+17 + 1d6 damage per hit (average 26). A non-magic fighter would do 1d10+9 (average 14.5), a bit more than half the damage. The damage of spells isn't reduced at all (indeed, a slight increase due to worse saves). Damage of both kinds benefit from the lower hit points of not having a Con-boosting item.

 

[Valesin]

What's wrong with that?

The issue is why Valesin wants a low magic game. Is it flavor? If so then some sort of "magic item under another name" should be fine, as long as the feel is low magic. Is it dislike of the game paradigm of magic items? Then he'll have an issue with it.

I want a low-magic-item game for flavor. I would like to run a game where the characters are capable of some pretty impressive magical/supernatural feats yet one where the world isn't littered with magical detritus and where there isn't a magical pawnshop on every corner. I have never read any good fantasy where the buying/selling of magic items was as common as eating in a tavern and would like to run a game where it doesn't happen.

 

[Valesin]

No, not everyone is affected at the same rate.

There was a campaign I played in from 1st to 13th level (a ranger throuout). We went from low magic to high magic to low magic again (due to time travel). There were obvious differences.

Our most powerful party member was a cleric 11/barbarian 2 - the player was experienced enough to know when to buff (so he greatly outperformed the straight cleric played by a much less experienced player).

Spellcasters can replicate the effects of many magic items for short periods of time. Magic Vestment and Greater Magic Weapon are some of the best buffs in the game under low item settings, whereas in high item settings they're often almost useless since they don't stack well. Spells like Mage Armor become more useful: the +4 AC doesn't stack with a +8 Bracers of Armor, but now it's +4 AC compared to nothing. Given only a round or two, spellcasters will be much more powerful than non-spellcasters. They also get an effective +2 DC boost out of it (cloak of resistance +5 vs stat boost +6 = +3 DC), although that advantage is lower at lower levels.

A high level fighter might do (using a one-handed +5 flaming bastard sword, starting Strength 15, all stat bonuses to Strength, no tomes, and a +6 stat-boosting item) 1d10+17 + 1d6 damage per hit (average 26). A non-magic fighter would do 1d10+9 (average 14.5), a bit more than half the damage. The damage of spells isn't reduced at all (indeed, a slight increase due to worse saves). Damage of both kinds benefit from the lower hit points of not having a Con-boosting item.

All good points and I have considered most of them. But won't the spellcasters also be buffing the fighter-types and not just themselves? Making a fighter's weapon magical (or thanks to Greater Magic Weapon uber-magical) is often a better tactic than buffing yourself. You say that spellcasters can mimic almost any magic item for short periods of time; assuming that they are team players and not selfish bastards won't that help everyone equally?

Edit: the point about spell damage being unaffected by the lack of items while a fighter's damage is severly hampered is an excellent point. I have been thinking mainly in terms of buffing/utility spells which can be spread around; spells that deal damage are much more powerful by comparison in the low-item world. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Land Outcast]

2 things:

Action points

and

Take a look at Clay More's http://craftsmanship.pbwiki.com/ Weapons and Armor can be more effective without the aid of magic.