Does anyone do non-overpowered anymore?

[Protean]

While it can be done in D&D, I prefer to depend on other systems for low-magic campaigns. To a certain extent, the current edition of D&D requires quite a bit of harranguing in order to use it for low magic campaigns. Without sufficient magic-item support the class infrastructure breaks down as does the CR infrastructure. While I prefer to avoid treasure tables, and judge adversaries by the actual merits of their abilities it is a lot of work. It is neccesarry in my opinion to introduce magic items that help to balance out the major caster or manifester classes with the other base classes.

Barsoomcore I'd like to say I really appreciate the efforts of your great experiment and was at one time excited to try something similar. I might still try it some day. Just a quick question due to my interest: How did you balance the escalation of attack bonuses with the static nature of AC, which for the most part is pretty heavily dependent on magic in the higher levels in order to keep pace.

To get back to my point, it just seems to me that too many DMs make attempts at low powered settings without thinking through the ramifications
of the effect changes would have on the system. If there's anything that bothers me, it's seeing mistakes I've previously made being made by other people.

If I come off as being overly harsh, it's probably because I'm a rather passionate person, and the topic hits rather close to home for me, on both sides of the screen.

If I could be positive, here are a few suggestions that might be useful if you are willing to spend a little money:

1. The Wheel of Time RPG can easily be adopted to other settings, and the magic system seems to be lowered in power significantly, as well as getting away from Vancian magic. It even helps solve the BAB glut problem with defense bonuses by level. Don't be fooled by the power level of the characters in the book series, I've used it for such in the past. I also dig the Reputation rules.

2. d20 Modern: While requiring a bit more design work the base classes here can be used to fit a number of fantasy archetypes, espicially those that mix brawn and brains. You'll likely have to create a number of advanced classes on your own, but it can jumpstart the design process.

3. Ask diekluge about the Artificier's Handbook. This magic item customization tome has helped me in the process of designing magic item economies that fit the worlds my group plays in, over and over again.

Please take everything I say with a grain of salt. Goiders can be nasty.
Also keep in mind that I speak with the voice of a 19-year old. When you're 19 it seems as if the world is your kingdom.

 

[Piratecat]

I never said Planescape was high powered (that's my Namea campaign), only "above-average". And Planescape is somewhat higher powered than Greyhawk (cool faction abilites and resources).

I misread it. Whoops!

 

[Saeviomagy]

...and IMO, players who feel that a larger amount or a "standard" amount of magic items is a necessity (read: fewer magic items given as rewards is a detraction from the game's enjoyment) are players who are turned on by the big numbers and kewl powurz of the game instead of compelling role-playing and captivating stories.

The big problem is that if you limit magic items, classes which get magical effects as part of their reportoire rocket upwards in power. The classic invisible flying wizard is not too tough with normal levels of magical items, but if you're not a magic-using class, and you've got no items, you're toast.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Since when did D&D start becoming collaborative novel writing and stop being a game.

I'm mostly kidding. I've made NPC-class-only starting PC's as well. But really, I prefer Nfft's method of power control. You just have to assume there's people out there who are more powerful than the PC's. Even if they're epic level, they're not the first mooks to do that, and they certainly won't be the last.

I mean, low-power is fun for a while...but standard or even high power (from the "low magic is a good game!" perspective) I think makes a more satisfying long-term, 20+ level campaign. I don't have fun writing adventures for average mooks, or for even 'above average mooks when everyone else is average,' as much as I do for people with kewl powerz and the wherewithal to use them in a world where those kewl powerz aren't nessecarily above and beyond the mien of most anyone...or maybe even anyone.

I tend to like the idea of a world where you can cast Acid Arrow, and have the monsters say 'okay, move in for the kill, these guys are obviously new to the field!'. Much better than the idea of a world where you can wow a tri-county area by casting Glitterdust, anyway.

Still, low-power has it's place, and I've played it for fun diversions occasionally.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Yep, and add to this the fact that many of us here have played and/or run all three types (low, medium and high-magic campaigns), and the whole "your way of doing things is inferior" tone starts to look pretty silly. It doesn't have anything to do with one's skill as a DM. Creating adventures appropriate to characters' abilities is a challenge for any campaign type.

Agreed. My preference is purely based on the needs of whatever story I am trying to tell.

 

[Nifft]

I think that the conflict stems from the dissonance between the low-power Default D&D Setting and the high-power Default D&D Power Level.

Some people solve the conflict by making low-magic rules, to fit the Default Setting.

Others (including myself) solve the conflict by making a high-power setting, to fit the Default Power Level.

Yet others probably alter both.

-- N

 

[Cbas10]

The big problem is that if you limit magic items, classes which get magical effects as part of their reportoire rocket upwards in power. The classic invisible flying wizard is not too tough with normal levels of magical items, but if you're not a magic-using class, and you've got no items, you're toast.

I strongly disagree with that. Every class, race, and concept has strengths and weaknesses. Playing with low-magic (in my experience) really gets players to play their characters (instead of playing their collection of magical items) and to play more truly to the core of what their character is.

So a group is trying to kill or capture a wizard that is capable of going invisible, flying, and unleashing death and destruction from above? I know the easiest solution is to either have a spellcaster in the group or endeavor to hire one (or whatever would be most appropriate in the game) so that he could cancel the invisibility & flight while the rest of the group unleashes their own death and destruction. Maybe the group did not know about the Flying Invisible wizard with the perfectly anticipated set of spells for player-killing. Obviously, the group messed up and allowed said wizard to know they were coming for him (or you have a sadistic DM that enjoys killing player characters more than telling good stories).

Besides; I never said a NO magic setting. I was talking about LOW magic setting. For example, if at any given level (I don't have my book handy) player characters "should" have about 20,000gp worth of magical items, I like to run games where they have about 10-15,000gp value of items that are all unique and have more purpose than generic +1 longswords of boring repetition. In keeping with context with your example, even though spellcasters would have more access to magic than others, they must also expend more of their own spells (or experience to create items) for protections than they normally would. Otherwise they are quite fragile and vulnerable.

 

[A'koss]

A lot of our new campaign has been player driven in regards to the style of play they wanted to see. The general feeling was that higher level and epic level play wasn't... what they thought it should be like.

You can make it a lot of fun and very challenging but D&D magic-laden tactics created a setting and a very particular style of play that was... I'm not sure if I can really put it into words... perhaps just hard to identify with? Or one that has just gotten a little grating over the years. It's very... D&D. Scry-Buff-Teleport, easy Resurrection & Improved Invisibility-Fly-Bombard are just a few examples. High level battles that were over very fast and were highly initiative dependent just didn't possess that... Epic Battle! feel to them. And then there is the impact of magic on a campaign setting which is a whole other matter...

Magic became (for us) perhaps just a little too versitile and too effective in some respects. And there is a trap where you can begin to identify yourself more by what you have and less with who you are. This problem is obviously one that is shared by others in the thread by the looks of it. I tried to alieviate some of this by encouraging players to set a long-term "character" goal for themselves... To use all that power, wealth and influence they've accumulated over their careers to create something in the campaign that will outlast the character who made it (and not just to accumulate power for power's sake). This has proven very successfully in the past and it can be quite rewarding for players who often remember their achievements of a particular character even when they can't quite remember the character who did them...

That said, who's to say that this lower-magic setting won't just be another phase and we'll go back to a higher powered game in a few year's time...

A'koss.

 

[Numion]

And there is a trap where you can begin to identify yourself more by what you have and less with who you are. This problem is obviously one that is shared by others in the thread by the looks of it.

Problem for you maybe, not for me. Roleplaying purists will no doubt see identifying with the characters possessions a bad thing. For me it's not. I consider my PC to be the whole package: everything thats on the character sheet. Including my stuff.

While what works in literature necessarily doesn't work in games, there are many examples of characters being, if not defined, at least very much identified by their possessions. Certain swords and fighters just go hand-in-hand, and so do certain rings. Furthermore, if we stray from fantasy literature there are even stronger examples. Batmans utility belt and crazy stuff comes into mind.

So stripping characters from their equipment to better roleplay isn't the universal solution. Some people like to consider the whole package to be their alternate ID - including the nice magic toys. The purists stance is more easily defended from a high horse, but I'm quite sure that the elusive average joe gamer would rather indentify with the whole package of stuff and stats, rather than the naked adventurer who relies on his wits.

 

[Darklone]

I usually prefer low level game stuff...

Right now I got a newbie group (since 3 years) and they are around level 8-10 now. I didn't use all my usual houserules with them to avoid major confusion.

Normally, I let people start with an NPC class. Most NPCs in my world have approx 3 levels, soldiers range from level2 to level 6, officers till level 10.

Spellcaster classes are rare... except for the players. Magic items: I don't give out many, but these are handwritten and usually more powerful than normal items for the appropriate level.