D&D General Greyhawk and "Low Magic" : Why Low Magic is in the Eyes of Beholder

[Hussar]

As I said in my earlier post, Greyhawk is low magic not by right of the rarity of magic items or the number of casters but in the power level of the casters. Yes, some remote places you can see some casters up to level 8. But 8th level has never been considered high level. Usually (or should I say,historically?) high level has always been considered 10+.

I'd say 9th because that's name level and when you get followers. But, that's maybe splitting hairs. The difference between 8th and 10th isn't exactly a huge, particularly in AD&D. 1 5th level spell? And, again, when you start going through the modules, you realize that high level NPC's were pretty much dime a dozen.

Greyhawk has many casters, but the vast majority of them are below level 9. The high level casters are rare and far between. If you compare Waterdeep in its 1ed inception and Greyhawk in its 1ed inception. You'll see that Waterdeep, as a comparable city, has over 10 named wizards over level 12, with one that's level 27+ (depending on the level of the highest player) to a meager 3 named ones in Greyhawk and Tenser does not even live in the city proper.... Only one 9th level cleric in Greyhawk and 9 in Waterdeep.

The difference is not in the power of magic but in the numbers of people able to weild the most powerful spells. Greyhawk has a lot less of those. But my guess would be that the amount of low level casters (under level 9) us about the same.

An arguable point.

You can't also take into account the number of magic items from 1ed vs 5ed. A single magic sword, even without any "+" attached to it has more power than a +4 weapon in 1ed. Why? Because there are no longer any creatures hit by +5 weapons only. Any magical weapon can hit any creatures, this is a big power boost compared to 1ed.

But, you're still hitting far less often and doing less damage per hit. That's a very debatable point.

Also, in the adventure modules, it was expected that the characters might find about half or less of the magical items listed. Some were so well hidden that one group in 10 found them. It was quite rare for a group to find every single magical items of an adventure module. The 5ed assumption is the opposite. There are less magical items but their placement almost make it a certainty that they will be found (almost, there are of course exceptions but they are rare).

This has been discussed and debunked. It's a complete myth. See Quasqueton's adventure discussions on this site for details. You might not find every single item, but, you were most likely going to find the majority of them and far, far more than "half or less". Most were in plain sight and easily found.

AD&D defaulted to over 10 magic items per PC. Proof: Paladin's were limited to 10 magic items. That was a hard restriction which could cost them their status if they went over. If no one ever reached 10 magic items, then it wasn't much of a restriction was it? The presumption is that AD&D PC's would be absolutely dripping in magic items by name level.

This is why I consider Greyhawk to be low level in magic. Not in the power of the welders, but in the amount of of its high powered weilders.

This is a setting where multiple gods walk among the people. Cuthbert, Iuz, Vecna, Kord, just to name a few. Where you have magic items and casters around nearly every corner. Where fantastic monsters appear all over the place. I strongly disagree with this description of Greyhawk.

 

[Helldritch]

I'd say 9th because that's name level and when you get followers. But, that's maybe splitting hairs. The difference between 8th and 10th isn't exactly a huge, particularly in AD&D. 1 5th level spell? And, again, when you start going through the modules, you realize that high level NPC's were pretty much dime a dozen.

Wizards, in particuliar, reached named level at 11th. Thieves at level 10. Priest were named at level 9.
Casting 5th level spells was no small feats. It could take a long just to get there.

But, you're still hitting far less often and doing less damage per hit. That's a very debatable point.

But monsters had a lot less HP to go with. The hill giant had only 8HD +1-2 hp... not per HD, total... If you compare to what they have today. It is a world of difference.

This has been discussed and debunked. It's a complete myth. See Quasqueton's adventure discussions on this site for details. You might not find every single item, but, you were most likely going to find the majority of them and far, far more than "half or less". Most were in plain sight and easily found.

Again, that was not my experience. The real powerful items were often well hidden from the PC. A +1 long sword was just that, a very minor magic item that could not hit a creature hit only by a +2 weapon. And in those times, it meant zero damage. Nada. Nothing done.

AD&D defaulted to over 10 magic items per PC. Proof: Paladin's were limited to 10 magic items. That was a hard restriction which could cost them their status if they went over. If no one ever reached 10 magic items, then it wasn't much of a restriction was it? The presumption is that AD&D PC's would be absolutely dripping in magic items by name level.

Of course it was. As the paladin, if he lost what he was carrying, would lose just about everything. Not having a back up meant a lot of trouble. Just one failed saved against a fire ball could mean the loss of every magic items you had. Most character would wear their best gear and would have "lesser" back. The paladin could not have back up. That was a harsh restriction.

This is a setting where multiple gods walk among the people. Cuthbert, Iuz, Vecna, Kord, just to name a few. Where you have magic items and casters around nearly every corner. Where fantastic monsters appear all over the place. I strongly disagree with this description of Greyhawk.

If you had read my earlier posts, I already assessed that. It the high level NPCs that are rare. Maybe it exactly because you have such treath in the world that high level NPCs are so rare and that Mordenkainen and the Circle tries so hard to keep the balance?

 

[Cadence]

I guess that I would offer a definition of a low-magic game world as something along the lines of "people and societies function more-or-less as you would expect in the real world." If magic is sufficiently powerful and/or ubiquitous, this assumed normalcy becomes logically untenable.

I always start to have trouble when worlds with castles have powerful bad guys with teleport and pass-wall.

 

[Hussar]

Wizards, in particuliar, reached named level at 11th. Thieves at level 10. Priest were named at level 9.
Casting 5th level spells was no small feats. It could take a long just to get there.

Fair enough.

But monsters had a lot less HP to go with. The hill giant had only 8HD +1-2 hp... not per HD, total... If you compare to what they have today. It is a world of difference.

So, you're saying that a weapon that hits more often and deals more damage vs monsters that have less HP is less powerful than a weapon that hits less often, deals less damage against monsters that have more HP?

Again, that was not my experience. The real powerful items were often well hidden from the PC. A +1 long sword was just that, a very minor magic item that could not hit a creature hit only by a +2 weapon. And in those times, it meant zero damage. Nada. Nothing done.

Meh, that's what torches were for. And, those +2 or more monsters tended to show up conveniently when the PC's had weapons that could hit them. The overwhelming majority of monsters though didn't need magic weapons to be hit.

Of course it was. As the paladin, if he lost what he was carrying, would lose just about everything. Not having a back up meant a lot of trouble. Just one failed saved against a fire ball could mean the loss of every magic items you had. Most character would wear their best gear and would have "lesser" back. The paladin could not have back up. That was a harsh restriction.

Think about what you are saying. You're saying that it was common for PC's to have so many magic items that they had back up magic items. Yeah, I lost my +3 sword, just hang on and let me yank out my +2 sword out of my pack.

And, the "fireball save" thing is so overblown. First, the character has to fail the save - I'm a paladin, I don't fail too many saves. Second, then each item has to make saves. Steel vs fire needs something like a 7 or better on a d20. The notion that I'm going to lose all my items is pretty far fetched.

If you had read my earlier posts, I already assessed that. It the high level NPCs that are rare. Maybe it exactly because you have such treath in the world that high level NPCs are so rare and that Mordenkainen and the Circle tries so hard to keep the balance?

But, they aren't rare at all. There's high level NPC's all over the setting. They only look rare if you insist on only using the boxed sets. Once you start looking in the modules and Dragon, there's high level NPC's all over the place.

Hey, the 3e demographics rules were meant for Greyhawk. That was the default setting after all.

 

[Stalker0]

To me high magic comes down to the frequency of higher level casters....really starting at 5th level. 3rd level spells really start to alter the world, and if they become ubiquitous it very much changes the landscape.

A police force that has constant access to divinations would solve tons of crimes easily.

Plentiful access to create food and drink would effectively remove starvation.

Wizards would fabricate would completely alter the construction of items in the game.


In small numbers, these powers are extremely cool but not world changing....but once its becomes even a little bit common its a world changer.

 

[Coroc]

To me high magic comes down to the frequency of higher level casters....really starting at 5th level. 3rd level spells really start to alter the world, and if they become ubiquitous it very much changes the landscape.

A police force that has constant access to divinations would solve tons of crimes easily.

Plentiful access to create food and drink would effectively remove starvation.

Wizards would fabricate would completely alter the construction of items in the game.


In small numbers, these powers are extremely cool but not world changing....but once its becomes even a little bit common its a world changer.

Yes that is one of the paradoxes of a world with to much magic: If anyone had access to clerical healing no one would ever be sick, even someone killed before his time by an accident could be raised again.

But, look at our real world problems; The resources are there - if the whole world would work together - to make it that a earth population slightly reduced by about 25 to 30 % by birth control could be fed so no one ever would hunger or starve . Still, it does not happen just because it is possible.
People produce offspring, no matter if they can feed them.
No one cares if people are starving somewhere, other interests prevail.

It would be the same in your high magic setting, the surplus of magic would be used to make life more comfortable for those who could pay for it. Divining (e.g. future crimes) is a thing on its own: Which judicial system could order the holding or punishing of someone who according to a divination will commit a crime in the future? Would not the knowledge that his plans are known to the authorities, no matter what he plans or does, prevent the actions of the criminal to be?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It would be the same in your high magic setting, the surplus of magic would be used to make life more comfortable for those who could pay for it. Divining (e.g. future crimes) is a thing on its own: Which judicial system could order the holding or punishing of someone who according to a divination will commit a crime in the future? Would not the knowledge that his plans are known to the authorities, no matter what he plans or does, prevent the actions of the criminal to be?

You could make a movie about that.

Wait, I think someone already did...

 

[Hussar]

@Coroc - I'd point out a couple of things. Number one, we already have the resources to feed the world. Population is not a problem. We can do it today. It would be expensive, but, it could be done. Number two, it is largely being done. The number of people living in starvation has been steadily declining year on year for the past few decades. There's still more to be done, sure, but, compared to even fifty years ago, we really are feeding far more of the population than we ever did before.

 

[Coroc]

@Coroc - I'd point out a couple of things. Number one, we already have the resources to feed the world. Population is not a problem. We can do it today. It would be expensive, but, it could be done. Number two, it is largely being done. The number of people living in starvation has been steadily declining year on year for the past few decades. There's still more to be done, sure, but, compared to even fifty years ago, we really are feeding far more of the population than we ever did before.

We could eventually feed nowadays earth population if:

- Everybody and his mother and I mean every last sod would become mostly vegetarian

- Big food tech companies are allowed to run rampart with genetic biologic engineering (w/o care of potential consequences to the ecosystem) to maximize crop output

- And most important: People stop having 10-20 children of which 9-18 survive to adulthood but instead having about 2 to maintain current populace.

I know that all three things are unlikely to happen and I know that just with the available vegetable resources you haven't got enough to feed todays populace, accept that it is a fact. no way around it. For todays food output and style earth population is 150% of what is supported, that is fact.
The underlying numbers assume you need 100yards x 100 yards per person to feed him which is quite accurate, and also that you use all fertile soil available (which is also limited and which is a known size). To give you some additional numbers : Because we want to eat meat also (I for sure do!) today Europeans need about 4,5 x10.000 of said square yards and Americans need about 10x 10.000 square yards.

Edit : Because that seems to be the elephant in the room overpopulation is THE problem number 1 for hunger, disease and environment.

It arises from to little education especially of women in some countries as well as from the fact that in some countries having many children is the only though way of having someone who cares for you when you are old. But this thinking derives from a time when out of 10 children only 3 would make it to adulthood.

The sarcastic thing about that is, that in countries with a working social insurance children are a source of poverty for their parents (who have to pay a lot for their children e.g. education), whereas in countries which rely on children to care for the old they are considered wealth.

 

[TwoSix]

Edit : Because that seems to be the elephant in the room overpopulation is THE problem number 1 for hunger, disease and environment.

It arises from to little education especially of women in some countries as well as from the fact that in some countries having many children is the only though way of having someone who cares for you when you are old. But this thinking derives from a time when out of 10 children only 3 would make it to adulthood.

The sarcastic thing about that is, that in countries with a working social insurance children are a source of poverty for their parents (who have to pay a lot for their children e.g. education), whereas in countries which rely on children to care for the old they are considered wealth.

Most forecasts project population growth to stall out between 10-11 billion people in the back half of the 21st century. It's certainly something to be aware of, but I don't think we're in for some Malthusian devastation ONLY because of population growth. (I think we're in for it based on other environmental factors.)