Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 1748471" data-attributes="member: 94">So they say!There's no yardstick-- there's certainly not just "three skulls" to apply here.But I understand the need to tell players up front what to expect. Here's what I would do before starting a "low magic" campaign with players who are used to D&D. I'm going to address a lot of issues.1) Healing. Let them know how their characters heal. Be very explicit-- don't just point them to the Heal skill and the rate of magical healing. Make sure you mention that Action Points can be used to heal after a fight.2) Action Points. Explain the importance of Action Points. THEY ARE VITAL. Their defensive uses include bumping your AC, making your Massive Damage saving throws, and healing after a fight. For the first few sessions, remind the players at each of these opportunities to spend an action point until they get used to using them.3) Explain how monsters critical hit. Remember, YOU as the GM don't have to confirm a critical threat (by awarding an action point) if you don't want to. You have a lot more control over "accidental" character deaths.4) Undead. Let the players know if undead exist. If the undead exist, then holy symbols (which strike DR as /holy) and holy water should not be difficult to find and should not be considered "magic."5) Magic-Using Creatures. Let the players know of any magical creatures that are rumored to exist. Decide up front if you want to use Weaknesses (I recommend it) and what weaknesses the players may be aware of. If they're hunting werewolves, they should know to bring silver. If they're hunting the Blood Demon of Varguul, they should know to bring white roses... etc. (Finding a monster's weakness is an adventure in itself.)The quickest and easiest weakness to implement is to strip such monsters of their spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary abilities (including DR) in the presence of their weakness source. (See the end of Chapter 13).Now on to spells. I hate to do it, but I'll give you a three-skull yardstick. Let's right away toss out two ends of that yardstick: the high-magic end of D&D, and the zero magic end. We're going to narrow down our yardstick to something in between.*** (very low magic) The PCs may discover one or two spells total through the campaign. (But they are more likely to be devastating spells.) This is the Call of Cthulhu model.** The PCs may discover 6-10 spells throughout the campaign; most of them will be minor, low-level, informational spells, with a couple of higher-level whizz-bangs. This is my favorite. Adding a new spell to your repertoire every 2nd level or so is a major accomplishment. For the most part, the repertoire of spells is chosen by the GM because of how they can be used to advance his campaign. Regardless, finding a new spell isn't guaranteed and the GM can use a new spell as a major item of "treasure."* (high-magic, for a low magic campaign) Magic is rare, but known and controlled by certain groups in the campaign. Magical Adepts have some reliable source of "player's choice" spell gain: Arcane Adepts have academies and (with time and money) may learn one new spell each time they gain a caster level (most likely within a specialty school). Divine Adepts choose a domain and (through ritual initiations/heirarchies) may learn one spell from their domain list each time they gain a caster level. In this model, the structured approach to the existence of magic is innappropriate for wild adepts. If you want to be a wild adept in this model, you are still at the whims of the GM.To me, that last * is still too high magic, but it seems to be the most likely thing you or your players will be gunning for. Personally, I don't think any player should enter a low magic game with the expectation of "I'm going to be the wizard!" If you've already lost that battle, you've lost the low-magic war. Expectations will be set higher than you should be delivering in a low-magic game, and I would expect things to break down quickly.EDIT: One last thing. The thing I don't like about the * option is this: the player gains a caster level and expects a new spell. Again, that's backwards. You should give the players a spell or two first. But the PCs should not have ANY impetus to improve their caster level until such time as they feel they know enough spells to make it worth spending that talent.Wulf</blockquote>

Verification