Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1395902" data-attributes="member: 6398">I wouldn't neccessarily agree with this statement.  For example, if I (the GM) create a 10th Level CE Human Fighter with no magic items and put him up against a 10th Level LG Human Fighter PC with no magic items, there is no dispondancy regarding CR as the two are evenly matched.  What the GM needs to assess is resources versus requirements.  If a creature has DR5/Magic, and the PCs have no magic, it's going to be a tougher fight than usual, although this will scale down cosiderably with level gain (multiple attacks, Feats, Sneak Attack, etc.), while a DR20/Magic creature will be significantly tougher because of the increased minimum damage output required. So while I agree that CR should be watched, to say that the PCs will be weaker than any foe CR1+ is essentially incorrect (assuming the GM is being fair and the NPCs are just as lacking in resources).  It would be more accurate to indicate that, whether reducing or increasing the power of the PCs, the GM is taking it into his own hands to determine what the PCs are capable of facing and what they aren't, and should design encounters appropriately.  In reducing the magic level, creatures become more potent based on how supernatural they are and how much supernatural is needed of the PCs to face them. This is similar to mine (although I did tweek stuff you didn't, it seems). Personally, I generally adhere to a 95% humanoid encounter rate (i.e., "Monsters" are the exception, although I consider Orcs, Goblins, Kobolds, and the like to be "Races", not "Monsters"), with 95% of those encounters having not but mundane equipment and (occassionally) alchemical items. Malin Genie:As an alternate to forced multiclassing, have you considered what's called "The Rule of Odds", being that when a die-rolled result influences a spell (such as damage caused), any odd number rolled is read as "1" instead.  Thus a fireball doing 5d6 gets the results 3 4 4 3 5 for 19 points of damage, but it instead read as 1 4 4 1 1 for 11 points of damage.  The reason being that forced multiclassing can really get in the way of overcoming Spell Resistance; Halving SR doesn't really cut it since creatures with Spell-like Abilities have a set Caster Level, making it easier for them to penetrate SR.  It would also make Spell Penetration more powerful. Another possibility (this being one of my own changes) is to turn certain spells (animate dead, raise dead/resurrection/true ressurection, wish, miracle, etc.) into True Rituals (via Relics & Rituals); this keeps the spells around but makes casting them far less convienient, somewhat more expensive, and adds the risk of failure on the part of the caster. Another system I use (although it's hard to implement without using Spell Points) is to have a spell cost more for Casting Level (i.e., the spell has a base cost for its minimum casting level, like 5th for a 3rd Level spell, and then each added Casting Level costs +1 point).  This *could* be implemented with Vancian magic by, let's say, indicating that a spell is cast per the level it is memorized at (i.e., a fireball memorized with a 3rd Level slot is Casting Level 5, while memorized with a 4th Level slot is Casting Level 7), but that's a little book-worky for some folks.  Regardless, the result is that the spell is just as potent but uses another mechanic besides Caster Level to scale upwards, presenting the players with a choice rather than a restriction (and while it doesn't make Heighten Spell more powerful, it does become more attractive). Browse rest of thread... I second Iron Chef's recommendation of Conan, as it provides a solid base-line for you to work from rather than trying to figure out what's "just right" with the Core system and trying to make it happen. Brose some more... tonym, I can understand that railroading DMs are a problem, but it's been my experience that the worst railroading I've dealt with (in fact, thinking about it, the only railroading I've ever experienced as a player) has been in games with plenty of magic and magic items (Core equivalent or higher).  YMMV, and probably has, but attributing railroading as unique or overly-common to low magic games is, well, it's just a very mistaken view point.  Probably influenced by personal experience, I'll grant that, but really, it's not as clean-cut as you think.  Most railroading (which by comparing our differing experiences would seem to be a possible occurance in *any* magic-level campaign) is often the result of a GM that has taken the story-telling part of the GM's task too far; while handling the tasks of setting up the tale/scenario, he's forgotten that he has no control over the main characters of the story (i.e., the PCs) and scripts the encounter beyond the initial starting elements.</blockquote>

Verification