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

Low magic does not reside in the items or the power of some casters but in the availability of high level caster. An 8th level wizard is not high level by standard and historical definition. Name level was the bare minimum to be considered "high" level. This means that in 1ed a wizard had to be 11th level. In the old Greyhawk appendice, 10% of the population was classed. Of these:

From the 1st edition box set of Greyhawk about High level NPC and Random encounters.

View attachment 125337
View attachment 125338
This means that in a castle + village 500, you might see 50 classed NPC. Very few of these might qualify as high level. Perhaps one maybe two? Of these 50% of the time it would be a fighter and 60% chance that this NPC might not even be higher than 12th level. All the rest would be below named level, that is 9th level for fighters, 10th for thieves and so on. This is not what we can see in Eberron or in FR. The occurence of high level characters is staggering compared to what we see in Greyhawk. I could even show the page of High level important NPCs and the list is quite short. 1 page for a whole continent!

The rarity of high level casters was two folds.
1) The requirements for being a caster. The minimum ability to cast a spell was directly related to the stat. There was even spell failure if you had a wisdom stat lower than 13. The minimum to cast spell was 9 but it also meant that you would never cast spell of 5th level and higher as the minimum stat requirement for a spell of level 5 was 10. Then the table would diverge wheter intelligence or wisdom was the stat. With no ASI available, you were stuck with what you had. Without the maximum stat (18) to cast the highest level spells, it meant that your caster might be gimped into not ever be able to cast these spells ever. With no upcast possible, it litteraly meant that some of your spell slots would never be of use, ever. This is one of the reasons many casters would retire at some time. They would not be able to cope with the power creep.

2) Training was a thing. Finding a higher level trainer to train faster and cheaper was also a thing. Otherwise the cost of training between level was astronomical. With access to money and a good trainer, it meant that some casters were effectively stuck at their current level if they could not find the funds to train. This was happening often enough for people to consider retiring. Players were often sharing gold in a manner that would allow everyone to train but it was not all groups.

Today, it would be difficult to emulate these factors. The only way to do it would be by going the gritty way. 5ed can be relatively easy but if you apply the optional rules in the DMG for resting and a few others, it can be quite deadly. But would it be enough? I doubt it. A 5ed Greyhawk would be filled with more higher level NPCs than a 1ed one.

That's still not low magic though. low level workers of magic, while not "common" are not really rare - people know where to find one. Mid level workers are rare - but certainly not unheard of, again people could tell you where one is with some certainty. High level workers of magic are extremely rare, but again, people know they exist and seeing one would be like seeing an A list celebrity not like seeing bigfoot (as in people might be skeptical but not shocked and they certainly would believe it was possible).

Next is the actual magic - as in items etc. - from the PC perspective, unless assumptions from the original writing/modules are changed - these items not only exist but are not that hard to come by while adventuring.

So while I don't dispute your numbers at all - they don't actually strike me as truly low magic.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

So while I don't dispute your numbers at all - they don't actually strike me as truly low magic.

This goes back to the reason I wrote the post.

Since people can't agree on what low magic means, but everyone uses the same terms, people can agree on underlying facts and still disagree whether that means "low magic" or "high magic."

For example, most people would say that Eberron is "high magic," but instead we see that some people would prefer to call Eberron "wide magic" to differentiate if from a "high magic" setting like the Realms.

Which is why I think it's more valuable to look at the style of play, and the campaign setting, as two distinct things, and then further look at the prevalence of magic in difference areas as Minigiant noted.
 

Low magic does not reside in the items or the power of some casters but in the availability of high level caster. An 8th level wizard is not high level by standard and historical definition. Name level was the bare minimum to be considered "high" level.
Isn't the conventional wisdom that Gandalf was a 5th level druid and that Aragorn was probably just a 5th level fighter/ranger/paladin/warlord (matter of perspective)?
 


Is another one of your verbose Greyhawk essay threads really necessary? What's next? Greyhawk adventures? Greyhawk's contribution to D&D's mythos? Because we know that there will be a fourth and fifth spin-off Greyhawk thread where you try to advocate for Greyhawk via some point that could easily be included in your main thread.

Nothing posted on EN World is necessary. If EN World is not to place to discuss the comparative merits of different D&D settings or sharing why you are into one setting over another, then what is the more appropriate forum?

Actually, I would love to read a well-thought and well-written article on Greyhawk's contribution to D&D's mythos.
 

Nothing posted on EN World is necessary. If EN World is not to place to discuss the comparative merits of different D&D settings or sharing why you are into one setting over another, then what is the more appropriate forum?

Actually, I would love to read a well-thought and well-written article on Greyhawk's contribution to D&D's mythos.
But do we need four threads (and possibly rising) from the same poster on the subject matter of Greyhawk? In isolation, I don't mind, but it's getting a bit much in context.
 


March 1977, Dragon.

Gandalf was only a fifth level magic user.

Why? Because the world of LOTR was run by a very tough DM.

Q.
E.
D.

Well, given the destruction he felt compelled to lay out at the end of his "1st Age Campaign" (world was ravaged and the heroic tribe of humans was led off to a new homeland) and end of his "2nd Age Campaign" (the shape of the world was literally changed)... I'm not sure I blame him!
 

That's still not low magic though. low level workers of magic, while not "common" are not really rare - people know where to find one. Mid level workers are rare - but certainly not unheard of, again people could tell you where one is with some certainty. High level workers of magic are extremely rare, but again, people know they exist and seeing one would be like seeing an A list celebrity not like seeing bigfoot (as in people might be skeptical but not shocked and they certainly would believe it was possible).

Next is the actual magic - as in items etc. - from the PC perspective, unless assumptions from the original writing/modules are changed - these items not only exist but are not that hard to come by while adventuring.

So while I don't dispute your numbers at all - they don't actually strike me as truly low magic.

What's your favorite example of a "low magic" world in literature, TV, or Cinema?
 

More importantly, however, the present is a reflection of something we can understand- the medieval/early Renaissance period.
Honestly, that's all there really is to it. Greyhawk appears to be low-magic (in at least one sense of the term) because the world at large looks like medieval Europe. It isn't about the PCs, or the history of the world; it's about what the rest of the world looks like right now. Magic exists, and the PCs have plenty of magic, but none of that has any influence on the setting.
 

Remove ads

Top