D&D is best when the magic is high, fast and furious!

[Gothmog]

Maybe I should explain what I mean by low magic. Low magic is where magic is rare, but still potent. In my homebrew campaign, there are no +1 swords, or +5 swords for that matter. All items have a history, and magical weapons and armor ALWAYS have other special properties that make them unique. For example, I have come up with almost 100 extra enhancements for weapons and armor, with adjustments from +1/4 to +5. For example, here is the cleric's longsword from my game:

+1 Noble Blessed Longsword of St. Aegidus
This weapon confers a +2 enhancement bonus on all Diplomacy and Sense Motive checks. Against enemy faiths, this sword inflicts an extra +1d6 of holy damage. Finally, once per day, the user may cast Calm Emotions at 15th level.
Total Bonus is +3.5 (+1 weapon, +1 blessed, +1/2 Noble, +1 Calm Emotion)

This is not a weak item by any means, but it has much more character than a +2 chaotic flaming burst greataxe. I do the same thing for armor, and misc items. Also, many items have quirks associated with them- not necessarily drawbacks, but that give the item more flavor. Another example:

Haakon's Mantle (+1 Leather Armor of Blending)
Worn by the notorious outlaw Haakon, this armor confers upon its wearer the ability to become virtually unnoticable in any environment as long as he moves less than 5 feet per round. For all intents, the user is invisible to anyone else around him unless they make a DC 20 Will save. Once the wearer attacks, makes an obvious action (picking up a large item, etc), or moves more than 5 feet per round, ht becomes fully visible and must remain still for 3 rounds to become unnoticable again. Additionaly, the user suffers a -2 penalty to all Cha checks and skills because of his unobtrusive nature.
Total bonus is +2 (+1 enhancement, +1 Blending)

IMC, I rarely give out magic items. The PCs are 9-10th level now, and most have 3-6 magic items, with a total value of less than 25,000 GP (generally go by 50% or less of DMG suggested wealth per level). I also tend to keep the bonus on items low (below +5 total, and on weapons and armor the enhancement bonus is only +1 or +2 with special qualities). But each item has a history and quirks that make it unique, and the players love it! When they do find a new item, their eyes light up, they get really excited and they feel a sense of awe. I have been in too many games where the attitude has been "Oh, another +3 frostbrand greatsword? Well we already have 2, so we'll sell this one when when we get back to town." (Yes, that has actually happened, and I won't even get into what is wrong with selling magic items). Its just boring at that point, and magic fails to have any impact.

I also limit the spells in my campaign. There are no resurrections, raise dead, teleport, planar travel, or rapid travel spells. Flashy kaboom spells are also rare, and have the potential to backfire. Spells that summon creatures are virtually unknown, and those that do exist require the caster to make a pact with the creature. I have added the "evil" descriptor to several spells (such as Ghoul Touch, Animate Dead, Contagion, Enervation, etc), and casting such spells carry the risk of madness and losing one's soul. Also, spells 6th level and above are ritual spells, and require longer to cast, expensive components, and often multiple casters. Many will claim I have "nerfed" casters beyond repair, but in practice, the casters are the most versatile and potent characters in my game.

I allow fighters, rogues, and barbarians as represented in the PHB. Clerics and druids are mostly the same, except that some of the high level (12+) druid powers are changed, and I reworked the cleric domain system to better fir my world and to make clerics less identical. Wizards, Sorcerers, and Bards don't exist- instead I created 9 different traditions of magic, each with its own quirks and spells lists. Rangers and Paladins are non-magical- if they want spells, they have to pick up levels of cleric or druid respectively. Finally, no monks- they just don't fit my style of play. PCs are only allowed to be humans, although there are 13 different cultures, each with their own stat bonuses and abilities (essentially separate races). Elves, dwarves, and gnomes are mythical or faerie creatures, and seldom encountered. Very rare characters can be half-fey or half-orcs, but they lead lonely, difficult lives.

Most opponents the characters encounter are humans, but when a supernatural beastie is encountered, it really is something memorable. Most opponents are humans who have conflicting motives, are mentally ill, or who are under the control of dark powers (necromancers and diabolists). The mere mention of a draining undead is enough to send the group on the defensive, and demons cause the cleric and paladin to become truly concerned.

Anyway, that is what low magic is to me. Magic is rare, potent, but sometimes unpredictable and dangerous. Most people are rightfully afraid of magic use, and will persecute those who practice it openly. In such a world, magic is much more wondrous and interesting to me, because it is novel, rare, and mysterious.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Ash--Thanks there friend! "High Magic" campaigns are great! They offer unequalled freedom, and a dizzying array of options and choices that quite simply, "Low Magic" by its very nature, precludes. In many ways, "High Magic" expands, adds, grows, and is about many different choices, for both the DM and the player characters. In contrast, "Low Magic" is almost by definition, the precise opposite of "High Magic". Low Magic is all about tight control, restrictions, reducing and narrowing of options and choices--whether it is about races available, magic items, spells, and so on. That doesn't make it bad--but it also doesn't make "Low Magic" definitively superior to "High Magic". What is often implied by many--though not all--"Low Magic" advocates is that really mature, cool, sophisticated campaigns are "Low Magic" while "High Magic" is relegated to the immature, power-gaming munchkins. That assumption, I believe, just isn't true. It's important to remember that "High Magic" campaigns can be entirely mature, gritty, exciting, and engaging games to play in.

Joshua: Hey there! Good to see you! Indeed, your "Low Magic" campaign isn't inferior at all. You might also remember that my favorite authors are Tolkein and Howard, and that my gaming with the Warhammer system has a powerful influence on my current D&D campaigns. So--we share the same love for the same great authors! In addition, I agree that the base D&D rules make running campaigns that simulate Tolkein and Howard difficult to say the least. Cthulhu is, of course, also very cool.

I don't think that Dragonblade had you in mind especially, Joshua, or implying that your campaign is somehow inferior. I'm not saying that necessarily at all, either. I think, rather, that Dragonblade's comments and the context of them, is that he is responding to the widely popular "Low Magic" advocates that essentially turn everything you are saying around and apply it to "High Magic" campaigns. I think you would agree that many people routinely characterize "High Magic" campaigns in such manner--(immature, simplistic, power-gaming munchkins!) and such. Dragonblade, I think, is responding to such routine critiques and expositions against "High Magic" in that context.

Thankyou as well, Joshua, for the greetings and your confidence. I remember well how frustrated Dragonblade was with "Low Magic" D&D, to the point where he was despairing of playing anymore. Fortunately, without sounding too prideful, (wink)--after I talked with him, and he joined my campaigns, it has really made D&D fun for Dragonblade again. He has seen how "High Magic" high-level campaigns can be, and how much fun that you can have with them. Indeed, maybe I'm the odd one, in that I run a very unusual campaign that doesn't subscribe to many of the problems with "High Magic" that many have experienced, so that Dragonblade's experience with me isn't really the norm, and to that, I think it is unfortunate that so many people who run "High Magic" campaigns do so poorly. Maybe that's it. But I also think that while I may be unusual, there are others out there that also run fantastic "High Magic" campaigns that are great, too. Really good "High Magic" campaigns don't get enough credit for the brilliant, fun campaigns that they are, while "Low Magic" campaigns are routinely heralded as the greatest thing since sliced bread, you know? Then, they often proceed to denigrate "High Magic" to boot, and that can get frustrating, and disappointing, especially if you are fortunate enough to play or run a great "High Magic" campaign. Your personal experience tells you that the preconceptions that high-magic critics often operate under are just wrong, and don't apply, or they don't *have to*. Do you see what I'm saying?

Furthermore, how many times do you hear people complaining and talking about how "Low Magic" just sucks, and here's why? Then, proceeding into long discussions about not only the problems of "Low Magic" campaigns, but also discussing the " immature, unimaginative, control-freak" people who play and run such campaigns? I mean, really--it seems like these kinds of discussions critiquing "High Magic" and those who play in them--are very frequently encountered, with few people or discussions defending "High Magic" style campaigns. Do you see what I'm saying?

What do you think Joshua?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Desdichado]

I think that for whatever reason, the language on this thread has been unnecessarily harsh, and like often happens, I've contributed. In real life, I'm somewhat of an argumentative hot-head -- online I'm even worse!

This is a topic that is intensely interesting to me, though. SHARK, you have my utmost respect for actually making a high magic D&D campaign world that is consistent and you've thought through exactly what it means to have D&D style magic and what that would do to a fantasy world.

I, in some ways, took an easier way out, by adapting the rules to the campaign settings I like, rather than going the other way around. And of course, most folks take the even easier way out of not thinking through the consequences of D&D style magic at all, or the effect it would have on a campaign setting.

That way is more interesting to me, though. I'm not particularly fond the D&Disms in D&D that still persist -- in fact, if anything, they are stronger in the new version of the game than they necessarily were in other versions. I came into gaming from reading fantasy fiction, and that's what I've always wanting my gaming experience to emulate, to some extent. That's always been my primary dissatisfaction with the game -- 3e is great, but it still feels like D&D and unlike what you typically read from the authors I listed above.

P.S. Enceladus -- WHFRP stands for Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying.

 

[Barastrondo]

"High Magic" campaigns are great! They offer unequalled freedom, and a dizzying array of options and choices that quite simply, "Low Magic" by its very nature, precludes. In many ways, "High Magic" expands, adds, grows, and is about many different choices, for both the DM and the player characters. In contrast, "Low Magic" is almost by definition, the precise opposite of "High Magic". Low Magic is all about tight control, restrictions, reducing and narrowing of options and choices--whether it is about races available, magic items, spells, and so on.

I've seen a lot of talk of "more options" versus "fewer options", but it strikes me as somewhat disappointing that "fewer options" and "restrictions" are generally seen as a negative thing. For example, SHARK (and I hope you don't mind me quoting you here), you use words like "preclude" and "reduce" and "restrictions" a lot, in kind of a negative tone.

But the fundamental difference between that line of thought and that of, well, folks like me who are unabashedly in favor of "restrictions" over "freedom," is that we don't see the loss of options as an overall loss. You get something back for what you're willing to exclude or restrict, which is why groups like mine tend to do that sort of thing. Precisely what you get as a trade-off for those extra options you're passing on is a matter of opinion, really; you could say "focus," or "accessibility," or whatever it is that you prize in a fantasy setting so much that you're willing to sacrifice the more excessive elements of fantasy to get it. Similarly, you can look at a "more freedom, more options" campaign and see that you're losing something in order to get those extra options — you're losing "focus," or "accessibility," or whatever.

That is, I think, the heart of the whole "High Magic Vs. Low Magic" argument. Both styles of campaign give up something in exchange for something else, and depending how strongly you feel about what you like in a game — be it "options," or "focus," or whatever — you can feel pretty strongly about games that recommend you give up what you like in favor of what you're not as fond of. To me, there will be something missing from all "high magic" games; sometimes I might not miss that ephemeral quality so much, but sometimes I'll pine for it bad. And that really shouldn't be taken as a reflection on the gamemaster or group's skills, any more than I would feel bad if someone who really loved high magic decided my game wasn't much fun. It's just part of the whole nature of choosing a genre — you give up some things so that other things can be stronger, and hopefully you find a gaming group who prioritizes the same genres and elements that you do.

It's true that there are really good examples of both genres (sub-genres?), and I'm sure that some people would have fun in either type of campaign — but, alas, it's probably not true that every gamer would enjoy every style equally, no matter how high-quality the game they joined. A game that's fantastically well-run, but that lacks the vital spark of what you love best about RPGs — be it Magic In All Its Glory, or the accessibility of challenges similar to those your favorite literary heroes face — just isn't going to win your heart in the same way, no matter what it offers in exchange.

But that may just be me.

 

[Fenes 2]

Ah, yes the straw man fallacy. Point out an extreme case of position to better undermine it. As Mr. Burns from Simpsons would say: "Excellent!"

Let me turn that argument around. If low-magic gaming is so much more fun than wouldn't no magic be even more fun? Why not just limit everyone to playing cavemen where sharpened sticks and rocks are the only tools available. Surely, as many of you posit this then becomes the purest form of role-playing where you are not a slave to your gear!

"Down with metallurgy! Down with other races! We should all play Caves and Mastadons for the true role-playing experience where your character's skills really matter! Bah, who wants to walk into a "village" and see people wearing "clothes"! That kind of reliance on gear and the mundane nature of civilization is boring to me! D&D should be about people and not about things!"

Ok, on a serious note I have noticed some trends beginning to emerge. Not all of you are opposed to high magic, just ubiquitous magic. And some of you are opposed to high magic because of the stereotypical baggage you associate with it, such as munchkinism and monty haulism which I'm opposed to as well.

Well, if you post that you find a campaign where you struggle for a +1 sword boring, and find a campaign where you enjoy a +6 holy vorpal avenger much more interesting, then you kind of beg the question if more powerful items would be even more interesting.

As far as lower magic is concerned, I have stated before that I
a) dislike the magic as mundane items/substitute for technology (i.e. everyone has it)
b) am not willing to spend the preparation time to deal with several spells that have far-reaching consequences in a campaign (raise dead etc., divination spells, teleport and a couple more).

As others have said, if the +6 vorpal avenger is THE Vorpal avenger, then I am (mostly) fine with it (save for the vorpal part). But if it is just the latest model in a long line of holy avengers, and each paladin will wield one at one time... not my cup of tea. I want a world where magic, when wielded is something to be held in awe, but also a world where heroes are not defined by magic items - where heroes do not need magic items to be heroes, and I adjust the world accordingly.

I don't take monsters straight from the MM and run them, I tailor them to my party.
As an example, if I want to bring in a vampire I check the vampire template, check my party's abilities, and then build a vampire I can run against my party right now - I don't say "I need to wait until they got Level x with spell y or it will be a massacre". Level drain? Can the party withstand that? No? Does this power add anything to the adventure? Not in my opinion, and off it goes. Can the DR be overcome by the party? If not, it gets adjusted. etc.
Then, after that is done, I design a (hopefully) impressive NPC vampire with character, quirks and goals, add it in an ongoing plot, and mix it with some loose ends.
My goal is not to run the MM vampire exactly as it is written - my goal is to run a vampire that has the "feeling" of a vampire for my players without requiring them to have "items/spells of protection against level drain effects+5" just to go toe to toe with the monster.
I could also take an "epic monster" from the ELH and scale it down to my partys size, preserving the feeling of the monster without requiring massive stat, AC and save boosting items and spells. If neccessary I add one-time boosters to the party like special one-specific-creature-bane weapons etc.

IMHO, boosting the party's saves with items and/or spells serves the same goal as lowering the save DCs of my monsters' special attacks and adjusting their BABs, but I prefer the later - less bookkeeping, less gear-dependency, and more manageable. In the end it all comes down to the number you have to roll with your d20 where stats are concerned.


On another note, SHARK's world description sounds impressive, but I kept asking myself this when I read it: What does one need those levels for? I could run the same campaign (apart from a couple spells) with much lower levels and adjusted monsters. Level 15 to 30 cohorts? Make that level 4 to 8, and scale accordingly. If your opponents are lower level a fireball will have the same impact as a meteor swarm against higher level opponents (You can even call it meteor swarm if you like).

In Everquest I had the same problem: Things got bigger each level, but stayed the same - essentially you were fighting the same monsters at level 50 as you were at level 1, each side just had tons more hit points, did tons more damage, and had a few more options, most of them since level 20 or so. And the novelity of having cool item X went down fast as everyone and their brother had the same item, or comparable items.

Not my cup of tea.

I agree with DragonBlade - playing the grunt struggling for some poor reward against boring monsters all day and game session gets old very fast. I just have another solution - rather than scaling things up stat- and level-wise, starting at higher levels, having better gear I alter the campaign world so that (hopefully) the monsters are not boring anymore, the goals not meaningless, the rewards not poor - relative to the rest of the campaign world.

In order for that to succeed however, the players have to agree (among others) that a +1 Sword with a long history (and maybe some additional powers yet to be unlocked, or some destiny yet to be fulfilled) is a cool item. But if I can't manage to convince the player of that when people wonder at the magic sword, sinistrous organisations seek the blade for nefarious purposes, and he knows that very few people carry a magic sword, then we better part ways - he would probably not enjoy, or not take seriously any adventure I run anyway since it did not conform to DMG standard.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

As far as lower magic is concerned, I have stated before that I
a) dislike the magic as mundane items/substitute for technology (i.e. everyone has it)
b) am not willing to spend the preparation time to deal with several spells that have far-reaching consequences in a campaign (raise dead etc., divination spells, teleport and a couple more).

As others have said, if the +6 vorpal avenger is THE Vorpal avenger, then I am (mostly) fine with it (save for the vorpal part). But if it is just the latest model in a long line of holy avengers, and each paladin will wield one at one time... not my cup of tea. I want a world where magic, when wielded is something to be held in awe, but also a world where heroes are not defined by magic items - where heroes do not need magic items to be heroes, and I adjust the world accordingly.

...

In order for that to succeed however, the players have to agree (among others) that a +1 Sword with a long history (and maybe some additional powers yet to be unlocked, or some destiny yet to be fulfilled) is a cool item. But if I can't manage to convince the player of that when people wonder at the magic sword, sinistrous organisations seek the blade for nefarious purposes, and he knows that very few people carry a magic sword, then we better part ways - he would probably not enjoy, or not take seriously any adventure I run anyway since it did not conform to DMG standard.

Yep, this sums up my views in the matter accordingly.

 

[drnuncheon]

Dragonblade
"D&D assumes that the PC's operate at a level of mid to high magic but that the rest of the world operates at a mid to low magic level. "

This is very perceptive, and I wanted to pick it out of the rest of your post to emphasize it, because it reminded me of some things. You are indeed right, and I think that a lot of D&D players, writers, and DMs either forget this or have different images in their head of how it should be (since it's definitely not explicit).

So why do PCs continually come into contact with other mid-high magic people? They move in the same circles - the same reason celebrities come into contact with other celebs, gamers come into contact with other gamers, etc.

However:
"A world with monsters above CR 10 and PC's who can cast spells up to 9th level is no longer credible if the average NPC is a first level character."

Sure it is - if that's what you set out to create, and you put enough thought into making it come out that way. Maybe the powerful monsters are newly arrived (or sequestered in some way), maybe there's something about the setting that creates 'safe havens' for civilization, maybe the game is set in a more or less mundane world and you actually have to cross over into Faerie when you go adventuring.

As for the PCs, well, if 1 or 2 people in an entire world can cast 9th level spells, the impact is going to be very different than if hundreds of people can.

Ethan Skemp
"But the fundamental difference between that line of thought and that of, well, folks like me who are unabashedly in favor of "restrictions" over "freedom," is that we don't see the loss of options as an overall loss. You get something back for what you're willing to exclude or restrict, which is why groups like mine tend to do that sort of thing. Precisely what you get as a trade-off for those extra options you're passing on is a matter of opinion, really; you could say "focus," or "accessibility," or whatever it is that you prize in a fantasy setting so much that you're willing to sacrifice the more excessive elements of fantasy to get it."

Very well put, Ethan! I took the liberty of emphasizing a bit that I wanted to talk about.

See, really, there's really nothing different between the restrictions Ethan is talking about and the restrictions that SHARK and Dragonblade have on their game.

Wait - what restrictions? Well, not having played it, I'm only guessing here, but from reading their posts I think I have some idea. I doubt, for example, that someone could play a costumed superhero, a cowboy, or the commander of an Imperial Star Destroyer (with ship), even though all of these are possible in the d20 system. Why? Because those things don't fit the high-fantasy genre that SHARK and his group are playing.

Really, it's the same with the people who are imposing restrictions: they want to play a certain kind of game, so they are shaping the rules and the tools they use in order to get it. It's all the same thing - carving away at the block of stone until you get the sculpture you want.

J

 

[kibbitz]

This came about as a recent conversation I had with my friend SHARK and some other friends of mine about the nature of high magic in games and my distate for WotC's emasculation of the Haste spell in 3.5.

--- snip ---

Epic D&D is not just the realm of the munchkin. Epic D&D games are some of the most exciting of all!!

Well, I don't know, I consider Tolkien material pretty Epic, but with little in common with the content you are speaking for. I'm certain this has been said sometime, somewhere, but I'll repeat this anyway: match the campaign to suit that of the players. As for WotC emasculating Haste, well, you sure you're not over-reacting? I've only been reading the material and not playing any of it, but the major outcry over that Haste spell is scary...

 

[mmadsen]

My low-magic PCs will need an artefact to kill him (or may have to bathe their weapons in the pool of blood orcus left when he battled a God of Good in ancient times to be able to wound him), and have to quest for that.

After that they will have to find the legendary portal to the abyss Orcus used when he ravaged the kingdom of X 1000s of years back, use the portal with a key recovered from yet another quest, and descend into the abyss.

The forces of good may grant them some (one-time) protection on their assault to survive the enviroment of the abyss (perhaps a drink from the fountian in the avlley of the gods), and orcus himself will be tailored so that the fight is challenging but not impossible. My PCs don't need boatloads of magic they have access to every day to succeed in such an epic quest.

I think Fenes really nailed how "low magic" is not "low wonder" or "weak magic"; it just doesn't involve "boatloads of magic [the PCs] have access to every day" (at no real cost).

 

[Psion]

Says who?

Indeed.

If the result of the setting seems to follow from the setting assumptions, then the whole experience is more beleivable and it becomes that much easier for me (and judging by the faithful attendance at my games, my players) to transplant ourselves into the game.


That said, I am all about high magic. And variety And repeating myself (but the point keeps getting glossed over, so I will continue to repeat it), keeping spells that are out of line with levels does not facilitate a fantastic feel to me, because using the same spells over and over again because they are clearly superior is redundant, and mutes the feeling of wonder, if anything.