good books for a low-magic campaign?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

But the "Bestiary" market is amply supported by other publishers; it wouldn't be a good book for me right now. Grim Tales is compatible with any monster book you already own or would care to pick up.

Have to disagree with you there. There are lots of DnD monster books, not a lot of low-magic monster books. Unless high-level Grim Tales characters are also covered with magic items, they'll be outclassed by stuff you could find in the Fiend Folio or MM III.

Are there any low-magic monster books out there other than the Menace Manual?

A lot of the criticisms of low-magic settings is that you need to change everything. Simply changing the character classes without changing the monsters will only lead to weariness on the part of the players as every non-classed creature they run into has a good chance of just stomping them.

 

[Red Spire Press]

Have to disagree with you there. There are lots of DnD monster books, not a lot of low-magic monster books. Unless high-level Grim Tales characters are also covered with magic items, they'll be outclassed by stuff you could find in the Fiend Folio or MM III.

Are there any low-magic monster books out there other than the Menace Manual?

A lot of the criticisms of low-magic settings is that you need to change everything. Simply changing the character classes without changing the monsters will only lead to weariness on the part of the players as every non-classed creature they run into has a good chance of just stomping them.

Definitely true. Even the seemingly innocuous spell-like abilities of core rules creatures can quickly overwhelm a low-magic party. While Dark Legacies promotes investigation, roleplaying, and combat alternatives, it's inevitable that the party is going to get down and dirty sooner or later. A lot of this was hashed out during our extensive playtest period. The forthcoming Campaign Guide will include a complete encounter and monsters section, but in the meantime we're putting together a mini encounter primer available on the website for owners of the Player's Guide to help out with low-magic encounters and will follow up as requested. Cheers.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

A lot of the criticisms of low-magic settings is that you need to change everything. Simply changing the character classes without changing the monsters will only lead to weariness on the part of the players as every non-classed creature they run into has a good chance of just stomping them.

And I disagree right back. I've not found this to be the case in practice. I don't alter my monsters at all; the responsibility lies with the players to avoid monsters they can't hurt (not even with action points).

This is the Call of Cthulhu model, the Conan model, etc.

At any rate, if you can pick and choose a list of monsters that will "break" a Grim Tales game, then you are just as capable of picking and choosing monsters that WILL work in your game.

How you want to spend your GMing time is up to you.

For what it's worth, I'm not sure WOTC is the best source of monster books, because, yes, they assume a "standard" party with spells and magic items.

Fortunately they are not the only source, not by a long shot.


Wulf

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Definitely true. Even the seemingly innocuous spell-like abilities of core rules creatures can quickly overwhelm a low-magic party.

Pish. Innocuous? Overwhelm?

Sounds reasonable as a theory, but it doesn't actually work out that way in practice.

If this were true, no party without at least a 5th level caster would survive-- which would include all parties of 5th level or lower.

Obviously, this is not the case.

I might suggest that running a low-magic game entails a little more work on the GM's part than simply stripping the players of all their magic without changing some fundamental assumptions of the campaign world, one of which is to challenge the players at the appropriate time with the appropriate level of magic and to expect the appropriate response from them.

Wulf

 

[Red Spire Press]

Pish. Innocuous? Overwhelm?

Sounds reasonable as a theory, but it doesn't actually work out that way in practice.

Not sure why you're taking up an attitude with me, but that's exactly how it works out. Dark Legacies also has a very high demon content, however, due to the circumstances of the setting, so that could cause the discrepancy between our findings.

If this were true, no party without at least a 5th level caster would survive-- which would include all parties of 5th level or lower.

Obviously, this is not the case.

I might suggest that running a low-magic game entails a little more work on the GM's part than simply stripping the players of all their magic without changing some fundamental assumptions of the campaign world, one of which is to challenge the players at the appropriate time with the appropriate level of magic and to expect the appropriate response from them.

Wulf

Definitely. A big part of low-magic is less combat encounters and more smarts on the player's part. Our playtesters quickly learned this and had a great time, as combat was suddenly exciting again due to facing real risk.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Pish. Innocuous? Overwhelm?

Sounds reasonable as a theory, but it doesn't actually work out that way in practice.

If this were true, no party without at least a 5th level caster would survive-- which would include all parties of 5th level or lower.

I was talking about higher level.

I might suggest that running a low-magic game entails a little more work on the GM's part than simply stripping the players of all their magic without changing some fundamental assumptions of the campaign world, one of which is to challenge the players at the appropriate time with the appropriate level of magic and to expect the appropriate response from them.

A non-magical stone giant is still going to hurt a low-magic party worse than it will hurt a high-magic party. Spell-casting monsters aren't the only thing different about a low-magic campaign.

Wulf[/QUOTE]

 

[Desdichado]

I've been running low magic for several months now, and haven't had a problem with monsters as is from my books.

But I have a lot of monster books. I've used Monsternomicon and Book of Fiends much more than MM2 or FF.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Not sure why you're taking up an attitude with me,

I'm not. (I have found that, barring access to inflection of voice, for the most part people read into electronic conversations what they bring with them, so I generally try to assume the friendliest possible reading of anyone else's posts/emails.)

but that's exactly how it works out.

I suggest that your experience is not typical.

Dark Legacies also has a very high demon content, however, due to the circumstances of the setting, so that could cause the discrepancy between our findings.

I'm familiar with Dark Legacies (picked it up at GenCon, and it's beautiful...)

If I recall correctly, Dark Legacies also does not use Action Points.

So I can agree that, yes, running a low-magic (players) vs. high-magic (GM's demons) campaign, with no action points, will make things more difficult on the players.

I don't think it's fair to compare your playtest experience with Dark Legacies (a f40K fantasy world essentially set in the Eye of Terror) to the greater experience of low-magic campaigns, which includes many otherwise-unmodified D&D campaigns in which the players simply choose not to play clerics or wizards, and they manage to get along against core monsters.

A non-magical stone giant is still going to hurt a low-magic party worse than it will hurt a high-magic party.

At the risk of dabbling in generalities, can you define "hurt worse" and how the giant's abilities are enhanced by a lack of magic on the party's side? Lack of offense (the giant lives longer to deal its damage)? Defense (the giant hits more often)? What magic in particular would make the giant hurt less?

At any rate it seems to me that any enhancement of the giant's prowess simply reinforces the gritty, low-magic feel of the game. Unless low-magic characters are supposed to be as similarly unconcerned with a giant as a high-magic party ostensibly would be. If that's your goal, run Grim Tales with the "Action Points Refresh Each Session" variant-- low magic, HIGH (pulpy) action.


Wulf

 

[Red Spire Press]

I'm not. (I have found that, barring access to inflection of voice, for the most part people read into electronic conversations what they bring with them, so I generally try to assume the friendliest possible reading of anyone else's posts/emails.)

I like to use these -->
That being said, no worries.

I suggest that your experience is not typical.

Many of pur playtesters were coming from homebrew low-magic campaigns and most of the comments on CR adjustments and so forth came from them.

I'm familiar with Dark Legacies (picked it up at GenCon, and it's beautiful...)

Excellent!

If I recall correctly, Dark Legacies also does not use Action Points.

So I can agree that, yes, running a low-magic (players) vs. high-magic (GM's demons) campaign, with no action points, will make things more difficult on the players.

I don't think it's fair to compare your playtest experience with Dark Legacies (a f40K fantasy world essentially set in the Eye of Terror) to the greater experience of low-magic campaigns, which includes many otherwise-unmodified D&D campaigns in which the players simply choose not to play clerics or wizards, and they manage to get along against core monsters.

No action points, no. And yes, we definitely take things many steps farther than simply eliminating core casters and such. Perhaps it's time for a split in the definition: "low-magic" and "lower-magic." But that's just getting silly.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Many of pur playtesters were coming from homebrew low-magic campaigns and most of the comments on CR adjustments and so forth came from them.

Judging from the number of posters here who are outright hostile to the very words, "Low Magic" my impression is that there are many GMs who don't know how to do it properly who are muddying an otherwise superior (IMHO) game experience.