D&D 5E (2014) banning Create Food & Water spell in Thule?

[ChrisCarlson]

That's not the issue though.

But it is.

It's not the players doing this.

Why would the DM be concerned with what NPCs under his control may/may not do?

It's the setting changing effects of spells like this.

Have you read how magic is handled by this setting? I have and do not believe we are seeing the same things.

If a barbarian tribe has a spell casting druid, they never starve. A 3rd level druid can feed 60 people a day with goodberries. A 5th level cleric can feed 30 people per day. None of this actually costs anything. And 30 people is a decent sized settlement in Thule. 60 people is a decent sized tribe.

Your math doesn't make sense. Or did you just not read my entire post before replaying?

These kinds of spells have a major impact on the setting. It's not like a 3rd level druid is that difficult to come across.

Again, not how spellcasters are described in the setting. Like, at all.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Thule is a poor fit for D&D, 5E in particular. It might work with 4E, where you can limit the classes to martials and maybe a few primals. It works for Savage Worlds, Iron Heroes, etc. But D&D is a high magic game the moment you allow a PC caster, because then there's easy magic present EVERY SINGLE DAY.

 

[Raloc]

I like the idea of making arcane spellcasting incur madness for this setting. I'd probably combine that with making ritual attempts modified by environment, as well as reducing the effectiveness of survival-enhancing spells in general.

You could also throw in random conditions for the survival spells, such as making the summoned food and water subject to being poor quality, poisoned, etc.

 

[Tanaka Chris]

That's not the issue though. It's not the players doing this. It's the setting changing effects of spells like this. If a barbarian tribe has a spell casting druid, they never starve. A 3rd level druid can feed 60 people a day with goodberries. A 5th level cleric can feed 30 people per day. None of this actually costs anything. And 30 people is a decent sized settlement in Thule. 60 people is a decent sized tribe. These kinds of spells have a major impact on the setting. It's not like a 3rd level druid is that difficult to come across.

The campaign I'm currently in makes divine classes very rare. The regular populace shun them because of a cataclysm that happened which people blame the gods for abandoning them, so that suited our campaign well. So even if you play a cleric or paladin, you would not receive the usual boons and handouts from your parent church.

In this campaign, I can see the divine classes being rare as well, by virtue of the gods not picking many players to exalt. I'd set rules on the divine player which bind them to their god's philosophy or holy quest, easier to fall from grace etc.
On the NPC side where one druid could feed 60+ people, that person would be a heavily guarded resource. Whole quests to rescue a village's food source or even quests to assassinate or kidnap such people will be fun

 

[Hussar]

But it is.


Why would the DM be concerned with what NPCs under his control may/may not do?


Have you read how magic is handled by this setting? I have and do not believe we are seeing the same things.


Your math doesn't make sense. Or did you just not read my entire post before replaying?


Again, not how spellcasters are described in the setting. Like, at all.

You're missing the point. The flavour doesn't really dovetail with the mechanics, mostly because from 3e onwards, D&D has climbed ever higher on the high magic scale. As you said, limiting the number of goodberries per casting is probably a good idea. And that's my point. If you don't start taking a pretty heavy axe to the mechanics, you wind up with just another D&D setting. Goodberries as written feed ten people per casting. A 1st level druid can feed 20 people a day. By 3rd level, he can feed 60. So, in order for the mechanics to dovetail with the flavour, the mechanics need to change.

Otherwise, it becomes pretty inconsistent. Yes, we have these spells, but, no, no one actually uses them because of ... reasons?

I'd rather tone down the mechanics so that they don't over shadow the setting. Heck, they actually talk about this in the Primeval Thule Guide - you can play Thule as just another D&D setting:

At first glance, the world of Thule is much like the fantasy settings you may be used to presenting to your players. After all, the world is filled with mon- sters and villains, and the player characters include brawny warriors, sly rogues, and clever wizards. In fact, you can run a perfectly conventional fantasy roleplaying game in this setting, and the results will be just fine. However, this choice overlooks subtle but important differences in the setting. First, Thule is ancient, not medieval. Second, it is a world strongly influenced by fantastic horror. And finally, Thule it is not epic fantasy—its roots lie in the traditions of pulp sword-and-sorcery tales.

I very much agree with the above statement. But, in order to emphasize the differences in this setting, I'm going to take a pretty strong stance on magic. I WANT a truly low magic campaign. Which means that a lot of the standard magic in the PHB is going to get left on the cutting room floor. Casters at my table are going to get HOSED.

Actually, i like the taboo idea. Any divine magic cast by someone you don't worship is taboo. Characters will refuse to be healed by, and refuse to heal, unbelievers. Clerics in Thule aren't limited by their deity - they cast exactly the same as arcane casters, they just draw on "god stuff" rather than "the weave". A cleric isn't granted healing by his god, he casts healing by accessing the same forces a god would. So, in my game, they will be subject to the same limitations as arcane casters - anything with strong visual effects (basically anything that would make Michael Bay happy) is going to draw a madness check.

Poof, low magic campaign. Now, I just hope that someone bangs out a warlord subclass (I'm rather hopeful that we'll see one in SCAG) or I'll have to make my own, and I'll be able to play a perfectly good Sword and Sorcery game using the 5e rules.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

You're missing the point. The flavour doesn't really dovetail with the mechanics, mostly because from 3e onwards, D&D has climbed ever higher on the high magic scale. As you said, limiting the number of goodberries per casting is probably a good idea. And that's my point. If you don't start taking a pretty heavy axe to the mechanics, you wind up with just another D&D setting. Goodberries as written feed ten people per casting. A 1st level druid can feed 20 people a day. By 3rd level, he can feed 60. So, in order for the mechanics to dovetail with the flavour, the mechanics need to change.

I'm confused. I was "missing the point", but you agree with me. Huh. Weird. <shrug>

Poof, low magic campaign. Now, I just hope that someone bangs out a warlord subclass (I'm rather hopeful that we'll see one in SCAG) or I'll have to make my own, and I'll be able to play a perfectly good Sword and Sorcery game using the 5e rules.

The Myrmidon narrative is a warlord.

 

[iserith]

My experience with this sort of thing is that if the players truly buy into the survival premise, they just won't take spells or other options that totally negate that part of the game. As DM, I don't have to do anything except seek their buy-in at or before Session Zero.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You're missing the point. The flavour doesn't really dovetail with the mechanics, mostly because from 3e onwards, D&D has climbed ever higher on the high magic scale.

One thing I've noticed over the years... er, decades... is that people often say 'low magic' when they mean 'magic items are few/far-between/weak' and/or 'NPC casters are few/low-level/secretive.' So you can have a 'low magic campaign,' where every PC is a Tier 1 primary caster, and they prettymuch take over the world if they feel like it.

Me, I'm not really fussed since I don't apply the PHB to the game world. The PHB is for players, not NPC's. But, I do know that that POV is contentious.

That saves the setting - where the PCs aren't interacting with it, sure.

Now, as far as 5e being low magic - that's another issue. When the clear majority of classes have spells, it gets a bit wonky to run a low magic campaign.

All classes either actually cast spells, or have mechanics that reference at least a few spells, in at least one sub-class. The Berserker, Champion, Battlemaster, Thief, Assassin, and Open-Hand Monk are spell-free, but the Monk's 'ki' is explicitly magical. That leaves you 5 classes, all of them focused on DPR, if you don't want magic being used every day.

I don't believe it's a low magic campaign if the party is using magic every encounter.

You might be able to squeeze in a few more sub-classes at low level.

So, I'll definitely be redacting the PHB in many ways to force the game down to a more mundane level with some magic, rather than a magic game with some mundane.

I mean, good grief, my current group has 6 PC's. 4 fighter types and two wizards. Five out of the six characters have spells or spell effects. I can see having some work cut out for me to make the campaign stick to genre....I'm going to take a pretty strong stance on magic. I WANT a truly low magic campaign. Which means that a lot of the standard magic in the PHB is going to get left on the cutting room floor. Casters at my table are going to get HOSED.

PrCs are in the offing. Starting with just the few non-caster sub-classes, and making casting only available through higher-level PrCs, with much more limited powers, would be a way of implementing a genuinely low-magic campaign.

Now, I just hope that someone bangs out a warlord subclass (I'm rather hopeful that we'll see one in SCAG) or I'll have to make my own, and I'll be able to play a perfectly good Sword and Sorcery game using the 5e rules.

That gets you a support class (possibly including action grants) to go with the DPR types. Hey, short combats.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I think, in order to keep the campaign (not the world, but, the actual campaign where the players interact) a low(er) magic game, I'll do the following:

• Outright ban campaign changing spells below about 4th level - no Goodberry, no Create Food and Water, no Create Water, and others. I'll have to make a list.
• All "arcane" casters get disadvantage on all social skills except Intimidate
• Casting any Michael Bayesque magic from any source causes Madness checks - pretty much anything that summons from another plane (any other plane, so druids get hosed here), evocation and other direct damage spells, Necromancy is right out, and possibly a lot of Transmutation as well - shape shifting is taboo.
• Make magic taboo for most cultures so that visible casters get ostracised by the people around them.
• Limit or outright ban casting subclasses, so no Eldritch Knight, no Totem Barbarian, no Moon Druid

IOW, I'm going to have a pretty lengthy list of house rules for this campaign.