Game Balance: possible without magic items?

[Endur]

Well, I think I suggested severe restrictions.

1. Eliminating item creation feats.
2. Eliminating one class: wizard
3. Restricting access to Evocation spells for Sorcerors
4. Making Divine Casters dependent on a focus (which could be stolen or destroyed)

The focus restriction is quite limiting for divine casters. If an enemy fighter sees you wave a wand and a column of fire come down, that enemy fighter will try to swing his sword at the wand and see what happens. Or the enemy rogue will steal the ancient ring your high priest wears while he is a asleep. etc.

For sorcerors, I quite agree that other schools have powerful spells (confusion, improved invis, flying, haste, etc.), but from a GM perspective, those spells are fine. I'm not worried about those spells at all. I am worried about the evocation spells in a low magic campaign.

Think of it this way. There are spells that Control, Destroy, Enhance, and Trick. I want to eliminate the destroy spells from Sorcerors. Sorcerors can Control enemies, they can Enhance allies, and they can Trick enemies. The control/trick also kind of fits in with their high charisma.

That will leave the Destroying to be done by the Fighters in the party (who may be reduced in capabilities because of no magic weapons, armor, belts of giant strength, etc.).

Tom

If you're going to do a low magic campaign, you need to severely restrict the casting classes, or that's all your going to see within a few levels.

 

[TroyXavier]

12th level party with no magic items....Young Dragon.....dead. You can do it, but it's going to be really difficult.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think you will have a hard time using sorcerer NPCs against the party.

The party doesn't get a Cloak of Resistance, and even though the sorcerer doesn't get his Cha boosting item, he still gets an advantage.

Besides, a sorcerer can make himself immune to "destruction" in a huge number of ways. Casting Fly, for instance, will likely save the sorcerer from a lot of damage.

 

[Olive]

restictign spell lists is a great one, especially for wizards... the idea that a wizard should have every spell is bunk...

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Well, first and foremost, changing the magic level absolutely requires that Core CR to be essentially ignored. Many of the creatures are assigned CRs with the assumption of magic, and thus the numbers are no longer correct.

The key element to a successful low magic game is having a DM that is capable of properly assessing the actual potency of the party members, their strengths, their weaknesses, damage output in a round, standard tactics, and so forth. Even the DMG points out that the integral quality of balance isn't magic items or damage output, but scenarios that are simultaneously difficult and possible.

As such, I've found almost no need to refer to CR until after an encounter has occured, awarding Experience Points based on the average for party level and adjusted for the actual difficulty of the challenge as it played out in the game.

Considering that this is close to how I designed encounters prior to 3E, I've had little difficulty in making a balanced game without a large amount of magic items or constant "upgrades" of lower-level gear.

 

[LuYangShih]

Well, I think I suggested severe restrictions.

1. Eliminating item creation feats.

This doesn't really change much. This hurts the non magic using classes more than those with inherent magic.

2. Eliminating one class: wizard

It's good of you to make it easier for the powergamers in your group. A Sorcerer is a much better choice in a low magic world, since their magic is almost purely inherent. Wizards, on the other hand, have a tough time if they can't find scrolls, if they can't afford scribing costs, and so on.

3. Restricting access to Evocation spells for Sorcerors

Evocation isn't the best choice for Sorcerers, anyway. They do much better with Transmutation and Enchantment effects, from what I've observed. And so do most Arcane casters, period.

4. Making Divine Casters dependent on a focus (which could be stolen or destroyed)

That already exists in Holy Symbols. Most DMs simply do not enforce the rules regarding them. Enforcing the rules for Holy Symbols is one of the best ways to interfere with Clerics effectiveness, in fact. Of course, once you do this, Clerics will begin carrying six to nine Holy Symbols at all times, at the least.

The focus restriction is quite limiting for divine casters. If an enemy fighter sees you wave a wand and a column of fire come down, that enemy fighter will try to swing his sword at the wand and see what happens. Or the enemy rogue will steal the ancient ring your high priest wears while he is a asleep. etc.

Yeah, and you can already do that.

For sorcerors, I quite agree that other schools have powerful spells (confusion, improved invis, flying, haste, etc.), but from a GM perspective, those spells are fine. I'm not worried about those spells at all. I am worried about the evocation spells in a low magic campaign.

Errr... it would be much easier to curb the effectiveness of Evocation spells than the spells you just mentioned. How are melee Fighters or Rogues supposed to deal with a flying Sorcerer if they don't have access to magic items or a caster friend themselves? The range increment for several spells have a much greater range than bows. And even if those spells aren't used, do you really want to force every non caster character in your campaign to become a ranged combatant?

Haste and Improved Invisibility are so powerful they have been nerfed or outright banned by several DMs. And that's in campaigns where magic is readily available.

Think of it this way. There are spells that Control, Destroy, Enhance, and Trick. I want to eliminate the destroy spells from Sorcerors. Sorcerors can Control enemies, they can Enhance allies, and they can Trick enemies. The control/trick also kind of fits in with their high charisma.

That's a nice flavor element, but how is it going to be balanced? Why should a person ever pick a non caster class in your campaign, if they are going to be much more powerful when they pick a caster class?

That will leave the Destroying to be done by the Fighters in the party (who may be reduced in capabilities because of no magic weapons, armor, belts of giant strength, etc.).

They will be greatly reduced in capability. And who needs a Fighter around when you can cast all of these spells, in a world where little to no people have the power to counteract them?:

Sleep.
Color Spray.
Burning Hands.
Summon Monster I through IX.
Expeditious Retreat.
Acid Arrow.
Web.
Mirror Image.
Rope Trick.
Bull's Strength.
Cat's Grace.
Endurance.
Flame Arrow.
Stinking Cloud.
Displacement.
Vampiric Touch.
Fly.
Haste.
Stoneskin.
Confusion.
Lesser Geas.
Improved Invisibilty.
Polymorph Self.
Polymorph Other.


Etc., etc. And those are spells from just the first four levels of the Sorcerers list. Casters are already amazingly powerful, and if you remove the magic items that Fighter and Rogue types are so heavily reliant upon, they will become practically invincible if you do not place real, heavy restrictions upon them.

 

[Ravellion]

Re: Re: Re: low magic campaign balance ideas

A defense bonus would make sense, but I don't think its necessary.

The Power Attack feat will use up the extra BAB. And PA also allows the higher level fighter types to hit much harder than the lower level fighter types.

[sarcasm]Yes, it is always a good idea to make a feat completely mandatory, and scrap the idea of the finesse fighter with less than 13 strength while we are at it, that never archetype never deserved a place in my world anyway.[/sarcasm]

It also completely fails to take into account Archers, who can't power attack. Ever. They'll just hit, and hit lots. 90% cover? they will laugh at you.

A no magic world without defense bonusses is a laughable proposition.

Rav

 

[Gothmog]

I have been running a low-magic world for almost 11 years, from 2E translated into 3E. The way I have handled this is in 3e is:

1. Spellcasters have access to only 1st-5th level spells. They gain one level of spells every 3 levels, but gain more spells per level. Level 6-9 spells are ritual spells that require multiple casters to perform. In addition, spellcasters must make a spellcraft check to cast a spell equal to 10+2(spell level +1). Otherwise, with lower magic item counts, spellcasters will dominate over other classes. This progression seems to be fair, and the players have liked it so far.

2. Add half base reflex save to AC.

3. Cut magical items back by 1/3 to 1/5th.

4. NO monks, and classes that have innate magical abilities are scaled back as well (druid, paladin, etc).

5. Monsters with DR are rare, as are monsters in any form- I use mostly human and humanoid opponents.

6. Use a WP/VP system. At lower levels, characters are somewhat more hardy, while they are not walking tanks at higher levels. Characters also can take the Toughness feat, which grants +3 WP each time it is taken.

 

[Ace]

To make a low magic item world work you need to do a few things

#1 Restrict spellcasters.

#2 Have a level based defense bonus ala star wars or wheel of time

#3 have more skill points to make up a little for thr lost skil boost items. I suggest 2 per level (Ie fighter becomes 4)

#4 Have more feats to make for magic items a bit. I suggest a progression of 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19 instead of the usual

Alternatly you can allow stronger feats into the game

#5 restrict certain spells. This includes almost everything thats movement, summoning, and some mind control or blasting related

#6 restrict many monsters. If it requires magic to fight it it won't work basically

If you mix those combos you should be OK

 

[Endur]

Re: Re: Re: Re: low magic campaign balance ideas

PA is pretty much a mandatory feat in high level melee D&D (level 10+) with magic items. So there is no reason to think it would be any less of a mandatory feat in high level D&D (level 10 + ) without magic items.

And yes, it doesn't account for archers, but I never see archers miss anyways (stacking GMWs on bow + arrows + tons of feats), so I don't see how this changes the situation.

Tom

[sarcasm]Yes, it is always a good idea to make a feat completely mandatory, and scrap the idea of the finesse fighter with less than 13 strength while we are at it, that never archetype never deserved a place in my world anyway.[/sarcasm]

It also completely fails to take into account Archers, who can't power attack. Ever. They'll just hit, and hit lots. 90% cover? they will laugh at you.

A no magic world without defense bonusses is a laughable proposition.

Rav