D&D 5E Considering "taking the 5th" (Edition); questions for those more experienced.

[Li Shenron]

My chief concern is of how well the system will work with my campaign world. The campaign is intended to be low magic, a setting in which arcane casters and magic items are a rarity. Divine casters are somewhat less rare, but still a very uncommon occurrence. How well would 5E support such a world? As I understand it, 5th edition characters are a lot less reliant on magic items to maintain an appropriate power level (correct me if I'm wrong), so I'm not too concerned on that front. However, I have seen a lot of character examples in which classes that I would not normally associate with magic by default have some level of casting abilities. I understand that there are a lot of options with how characters are built, and taking different paths will give different abilities of different natures, but in not knowing the specifics I don't have a grasp of how prevalent these magical paths are. Would it be possible or even reasonable in 5th to have a party of six players with only one character among them who has access to arcane spells? And one with full access to divine, or maybe two with limited divine ability? Can rogues, fighters, etc. be played completely without any magical ability? Would placing such restrictions on a group severely limit character options, or does 5th give enough non-magical choices for characters to still offer some variety? This alone is probably the issue that will determine whether I convert over to using 5E.

You have separate issues here: magic items, and spellcasters.

First of all, 5e should work also in complete absence of magic items, so that's settled.

As for spellcasters, you need to be very sure what do you mean by "low-magic". You mention that you want spellcasters to be rare, not necessarily you want their power to be low, which is an independent issue. This is good, because it means you don't need to do any change to the existing classes or other material.

Now that we've narrowed the problem down to mere rarity of spellcasters, consider also the separation between PC spellcasters and NPC spellcasters... Because you can totally have a party of ALL spellcasters, and then have ZERO spellcasting NPCs ever, and you'll still have a world where spellcasters are nearly non-existant, the only ones just happen to be concentrated in the player's group

Personally, if I want to set a campaign's theme to "low-magic" in terms of spellcasters rarity, I wouldn't necessarily restrict the races and classes available to the PC, but I strive to make the PCs feel truly alone and different from the rest of the world.

Among other things this could mean to assume:

- they'll never find another of their kind
- they'll never find scrolls or spellbooks to copy spells from
- they'll never find magical training or knowledge through RP
- the rest of the world will strongly react to them (fear, awe, hatred, anything...)

Still, it's for the best to discuss with your players, because the final thematic result will be very different from having truly no spellcaster in the party. Ask them which "theme" would they prefer from the game, between being unique marvels in a near-magic-free world, or magic-free heros in a near-magic-free world.

From the point of view of capabilities (i.e. lacking spells to save the day) I wouldn't worry at all. The game will work just fine, and if anything, it might actually force the players to think more than usual about how to solve certain challenges that can be traditionally bypassed with spells.

While not nearly as pressing of an issue, I did have another concern with one 5th Edition mechanic I had been reading about: the Advantage/Disadvantage system. I don't think I've read a single bad thing about this system, and from what I've seen it seems to be universally liked as a useful simplification over previous systems (which is a good thing). I understand the basic mechanics of it (roll 2d20, use higher or lower depending on situation), but I admit I don't have a good knowledge of what all determines advantage or disadvantage. That may color my perception, but as I see it the game loses something in this mechanic.

...

Is the Advantage/Disadvantage system a part of the rules that can be omitted in favor of something else? Or can anyone who has played the system offer some encouragement or clarification as to why it may not be as bad as I am expecting?

My suggestion is not to worry about when it's appropriate to grant (dis)advantage, just grant it ONLY when the written books tell you so.

Thus when a PC has a spell/ability that says "grants (dis)advantage to someone", then do it, but don't do it by your own volition in any other case. Don't even worry much about whether some conditions or environmental circumstances grant (dis)advantage: if you happen to remember that, then yes proceed as by the book, but if you forget, it's not a big deal.

I think (dis)advantage has some built-in flexibility, but mostly only in the direction of making it more common by granting the benefits to reward a player's creativity or tactical thinking, but it also carries the danger of going very easily overboard.

 

[Shiroiken]

Thanks for your patience with my long-windedness. I suppose the condensed version of this post would be: 1) Does 5th Edition work well with a low magic/rare caster campaign, and 2) does "Disadvantage" really rob players of those epic "one crit saves the day" moments? I'd really appreciate any input, advice, or feedback that can be offered.

First of all: Welcome Back! As a fellow grognard, I can say that 5E can easily give you the same kind of feel that AD&D did back in the day. Unlike 3E & 4E, there is no assumed wealth by level nor assumed magic items, so you can run any kind of game you want (high magic, low magic, treasure poor, monty haul, etc.).

1) It can, but it's a bit tricky. Every class has some options that allow for spellcasting of some variety (even if very limited). You can limit or change those options as well, keeping things as low magic as you like. You could remove full casters completely (bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard), leaving only half-casters and the warlock (which fits the theme of low magic quite well, if not quite mechanically). You can limit the number of casters in the party, say 1 full casters and 2 half casters for a party of 6. You can also go in and rework the classes to have much lower magical options (see the most recent Unearthed Arcana article for details), but this is a LOT of work.

It really depends on what you mean by low magic. If by such you mean few casters in the world, who are generally hated and feared, along with limited magic items, then 5E is perfect for it. If you mean to weaken casters, it still works, but you have to put in more effort.

2) I've generally found that everyone loves Advantage and hates Disadvantage... until they actually play. They work quite well in game, especially when you realize that with Bounded Accuracy (the game design philosophy where weaker characters have a chance to succeed on the same roll that powerful characters have a chance to fail) you don't have those "need a crit" moments at all. You might need a high roll (say 16+), but you should never actually need a 20 to succeed, unless you are very outclassed or attempting something insanely hard. Disadvantage is actually a great mechanic to give that same feel of needing a great roll, without needing an actual 20 to succeed (16+ with Disadvantage is really hard).

All in all, I'd say run a one-shot with your group before starting your actual campaign. See if 5E if for you before you begin, and if a few things need modified, then I suggest doing so. 5E is meant to be modular, just like 2E's many optional rules. Tweak it and make it your own.

 

[SkidAce]

As for spellcasters, you need to be very sure what do you mean by "low-magic". You mention that you want spellcasters to be rare, not necessarily you want their power to be low, which is an independent issue. This is good, because it means you don't need to do any change to the existing classes or other material.

Now that we've narrowed the problem down to mere rarity of spellcasters, consider also the separation between PC spellcasters and NPC spellcasters... Because you can totally have a party of ALL spellcasters, and then have ZERO spellcasting NPCs ever, and you'll still have a world where spellcasters are nearly non-existant, the only ones just happen to be concentrated in the player's group

Personally, if I want to set a campaign's theme to "low-magic" in terms of spellcasters rarity, I wouldn't necessarily restrict the races and classes available to the PC, but I strive to make the PCs feel truly alone and different from the rest of the world.

Among other things this could mean to assume:

- they'll never find another of their kind
- they'll never find scrolls or spellbooks to copy spells from
- they'll never find magical training or knowledge through RP
- the rest of the world will strongly react to them (fear, awe, hatred, anything...)

Still, it's for the best to discuss with your players, because the final thematic result will be very different from having truly no spellcaster in the party. Ask them which "theme" would they prefer from the game, between being unique marvels in a near-magic-free world, or magic-free heros in a near-magic-free world.

Low(rare) magic in the WORLD is the method I use also. Well said.

 

[Tony Vargas]

While I'm sure the OP knows this from having run low-magic in other editions, I'll just comment that a low-magic game that has few/no items and few/no NPC casters in the world, but has no particular restrictions on PC casters makes PC casters much more powerful, relatively speaking. Both relative to the non-casters in their party (who lack magic items), and relative to the world at large.

If you were running a game, say, in Forgotten Realms or another high-magic setting, you can assume that most of the potential enemies/victims the PCs might use magic against are to some extent prepared for magical assaults and tricks. Money-changers won't easily or often be taken in by large sacks of Fool's Gold, sentries will be alert for signs of invisible intruders, important people who have reason to think they're targets will have magical protections, crimes will be investigated using Divinations, and so forth.
But in a low-magic world, the sentry who sees a door open and close by itself will think it's the wind, or badly-hung door, or simply won't sound the alarm for fear everyone will think he's drunk or crazy; magical attacks will rarely ever be countered; high walls will be counted an adequate defense; and so forth. Casters will be able to get away with almost anything, at least the first time, possibly for quite a while.

But that's nothing new or specific to 5e, it should all be familiar to those of us who have run such games in classic D&D (and it's even more pronounced in modern D&D where magic items are an assumed part of leveling, especially 3.x where those items are still very powerful - though both versions of modern D&D did eventually add 'inherent bonuses' to fix the math part of the problem). Just thought I'd mention it.

 

[S'mon]

In my 5e game most sessions have been played with no casters in the party, and it works fine to level 4 (so far) - typical group is Barbarian, Rogue, and maybe a couple NPC warrior types.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Based on what you described of your background and preferences, you will love 5e.

 

[Rhenny]

I agree with many. Advantage/disadvantage plays well. It's a mechanic that plays much better than it reads. In fact, most of 5e plays better than it reads. It is fun, fast and flexible. I'm a 1e/2e old timer and I'm loving 5e

 

[GX.Sigma]

So if I were to limit which subclasses can be taken, or limit the number of players that can take magical subclasses, are there still enough choices and variety to go around? Or will I be cutting out a significant portion of the choices available and leaving each class with (for example) only one subclass to choose?

"Enough" is a relative term. If you want no magic at all, these are the class options you have left:

• Fighter
  • Battle Master
  • Champion
• Rogue
  • Thief
  • Assassin
• Barbarian
  • Berserker
• Spell-less Ranger (untested variant from a recent article)
• • Hunter
  • Beast Master
• Ranger (1st level only)
• Monk (1st level only)

There's also the Monk and the other Barbarian (which have a bit of a magical flavor), and the standard Ranger (which you can kind of wink-nudge away by restricting the spell list and calling them "talents" or something).

You could also use multiclassing to limit the number of caster levels a given character can take--for example, you can pick up one level of [Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock], or two levels of [Paladin or Ranger], but the rest of your levels have to be one of the above, "muggle" classes.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

"Enough" is a relative term. If you want no magic at all, these are the class options you have left:

[*]Fighter

• Battle Master
• Champion

[*]Rogue

• Thief
• Assassin

[*]Barbarian

• Berserker

Traditionally fighter, rogue, assassin, and barbarian have been the only non-magical classes anyway, so this edition allows the same non-magical choices as prior editions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Traditionally fighter, rogue, assassin, and barbarian have been the only non-magical classes anyway, so this edition allows the same non-magical choices as prior editions.

Well, and Cavalier, Marshal, Knight, Scout, Warblade, Ranger, Warlord, Thief, Slayer, Knight (again), & Berserker if we're being less traditional and allowing in things from post-Essentials, Essentials, 4e, 3.5, 3.0 Miniatures Handbook, and, er, 1e UA.