D&D 5E How to De-Magic 5e

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, pretty much that.

OK, good. I want to be helpful, but I /need/ to understand the issue.

Probably not. I mean, definitely NOT extra attack or weapon proficiencies.

OK, so a lower at-will baseline.

To a certain extent, by getting rid of magic elsewhere, that both increases awesomeness of non-magic characters (by weakening the magic characters) as well as increasing the awesomeness of magic characters (scarcity).

I don't see lowering casters' at-will baseline to be making anyone more or less awesome. But, for purposes of this discussion, I'll accept that's how you feel about it, and part of the reasoning of the objective, sure.

Yes, kinda, but no. To be clear, the main problem is when everything is given in terms of actual spells.
I don't find abilities (such as the Monk's or Fighter's, to use two) problematic.

So, Ki, which is magic, but not spells, is OK, but a problem, when modeled by spells, as in the case of the shadow & elemental options. Maneuvers/CS dice, though, are fine? Rage, I assume, as well. OK, that's an additional layer beyond what I was considering, above.

So by spell-equivalence, you mean an ability that is modeled by the mechanics of an actual spell, called out as such. Not just something that uses MM's spell-damage/healing formulae for rough balance?

Maybe. I think when people have different conceptions of what they are looking for, they will find different solutions. I think that you might have a slightly different idea of the issues vis-a-vis "magic" and "not magic" than I might, given your experience with later editions that I did not share.

For me, personally, my conception of magic vs not-magic, given my experiences (that I also assume we didn't share) with /other games/ that weren't D&D,as far back as, oh '84, I guess, like Champions! and Fantasy Hero, is that the critical difference is not what they accomplish nor how often, but /how/ they operate, how they look, and how they interact.

So, wand of fireballs with six charges and grenade launcher with six WP grenades might both do fire damage in an area down range, six times before you go back to your home base to recharge them, but one's magic and one's not. Dispel Magic makes no impression on a grenade, white phosphorus won't stick to an intangible spectre "hit only by magic."

I was just trying to understand your perspective: that the /scarcity/ of magic was part of what made it magical. And thus come up with options that might deliver what you were after. (And, in D&D, limited-uses /are/ consistently compensated with greater power, and especially in the case of spells, versatility... and, yeah, that combination makes them more important, as well, especially in terms of the decision to use or not use them, so that seemed an important aspect).

But, if it's not mainly about scarcity, then, say it's fine for a Barbarian to Rage 1/day, plenty scarce, but not magical?
...
So, not scarcity = magic, but scarcity = specialness in some other way?

Spells are special, because scarcity - undercut by Cantrips.
Rage is special, because scarcity.
CS dice are special, because scarcity.
Ki is special, because scarcity.

(Heck, HD must be fairly special, too - they're the only resource that recovers even slower than slots.)

Have I got a better grasp of it, now?

If so, then, yeah, I guess changing the Bard into an at-will aura-singer wouldn't really be what you're looking for.

 

[DWChancellor]

To those recommending it: how cross-compatible is Adventures in Middle-Earth with core D&D? Could you just drop the classes into a D&D campaign?

Not really -- Many AIME classes are noticeably weaker than core D&D classes. Like someone said, a bunch of the classes are built for traveling phases AIME has that core D&D doesn't too... so some class powers were bled off into that too.

This gets to Lowkey's predicament: how do you drop cantrips and make magic feel "special" without de or overpowering magic-users. The AIME solution is a big rewrite of D&D into a new game.

I do wonder if dropping most cantrips (and allowing some utility ones as short rituals like one-minute casting for mage hand) and having all other spells go off at level+1 effects would go towards making the feeling without unbalancing things too much.

The loss in damage from losing a decent to-hit cantrip power would be made up by amping bigger damage spells and making them splashier in addition to their secondary effects. Maybe get another +1 level boost for 1-3 level spells when you hit PC level 11?

Push off the X + a little magic classes and you've gone a long way to achieving what I think I'm hearing Lowkey looking for without having to carefully rebalance the whole game.

 

[snickersnax]

4. Sorcerer (to a lesser extent) and Warlock (to a greater extent) ... I don't know. Not sure how easy that they would be.

Here's a thought about Sorcerers and Warlocks. Eliminate them as classes and replace them with feats.

I think it fits the fluff better. A sorcerer is someone who has access to raw magic, they don't have to progress or gain skill as a sorcerer. A warlock is someone who takes the easy path and cuts a deal for power. They aren't striving and gaining experience to be a better warlock. I mean that was the whole point of their pact in the first place to trade for power rather than study.

Its off topic for a low magic thread, but while we're at it, throw in barbarians. How is this a class anyway? Raised by wolves or born to a barbarian tribe sounds like background to me. I mean how is it even possible to skill up at becoming more feral?

 

[Tony Vargas]

A sorcerer is someone who has access to raw magic, they don't have to progress or gain skill as a sorcerer. ...
Its off topic for a low magic thread, but while we're at it, throw in barbarians. How is this a class anyway? Raised by wolves or born to a barbarian tribe sounds like background to me.

Heck, Sorcerer could be a background: Whatever magic you have (or eventually discover), it comes from innate power. Enjoy.

 

[not-so-newguy]

@lowkey13 Have you checked out Into the Unknown? “Book 1: Characters” sounds very similar to what you’re describing. The PDF costs $5 on DriveThruRPG.

 

[Yaarel]

I mean how is it even possible to skill up at becoming more feral?

Historically, the berserkar ‘advanced’ in becoming more and more feral, by becoming better and better at the animalistic aspects of shamanic magic.

D&D 4e got it right when making Barbarian a Primal class.

 

[Blue]

Y'know, if D&D had had skills from the start, detecting magic or identifying an item might've just been arcana checks - one % with lotsa modifiers, of course, and the other roll 1 or 2 on a d6.

Infidel! One would have been 1-2 on a d6, and the OTHER would have been a chart of modifiers to the %.

Sheesh, some people have no sense of history.

 

[Yaarel]

Well, at least the slot-level-5 spell, Legend Lore, has become a routine History skill check!

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Historically, the berserkar ‘advanced’ in becoming more and more feral, by becoming better and better at the animalistic aspects of shamanic magic.

D&D 4e got it right when making Barbarian a Primal class.

"Historically"

 

[Ashrym]

And then there's the bard. Making bards into full casters never quite sat right with me, and I would guess you feel the same way. But I don't think it's feasible to rewrite the class as a half-caster or even a two-thirds-caster. So maybe the solution is to take a page out of AD&D and make bard into an "advanced class." You may only take levels in bard once you have reached 5th level in another class(es).

Naw, bards were always full casters. This was demonstrated with lack of restrictions on caster levels like other non-full casters would have, and also hidden by using a modified progression with additional supplemented magical abilities.

The original and AD&D had near top level spell slots (6th level spells compared to the cleric or illusionist 7th level spells) plus level-per-day uses of mass charm. There was also a revised Dragon Magazine version that used druid and illusionist spells instead. 2e's supplemental abilities were pretty weak in comparison but they were solid spell casters because of the spell caster level mechanics and their progression rate. 3.x went back closer to the AD&D version with a lot of spells, 8th level spells that were 6th level spells for bards, and a ton of magical songs. 4e was 4e so the power structure was similar all around, and bards continued to be arcane casters.

5e (and PF2) just takes away the massive magical power AD&D and 3.x charm abilities / songs had and replaces that potential with spells. Bards always cast spells at full power, and in 2e's example that easily made them better than wizards in a lot of ways. Given the area of effect of AD&D's charm ability or the DC of 3.x's fascinate or mass suggestion abilities I would say the conversion weakened bards in some ways. ;-)

The only real change is bards know high level spells now that they didn't before. That's the equivalent of complaining clerics, druids, and illusionists were upgraded from 7th level spells to 9th level spells and weren't real casters before that point. ;-)

Even that was covered in 3.x pre's where swapping in spells from other classes was popular in bard pre's, as well as advancing up to 9th level spell slots on a bard chassis. We cannot have forgotten sublime chord's already.... ;-)

I'm in the "bards should be full casters" group. If a group doesn't like that version, just don't allow it and players can make bards how they want as flavor in other classes, or a subclass of rogue or fighter patterned after AT / EK can replace it without much effort. The arcane trickster is already pretty close to some of the concepts, with the right background and skills to theme it out.

I would have loved to see the original as I am not fond at all of 5E's version.

Getting 6th level spells at a time when clerics get 7th level spells, plus a lot of charm power. It was a lot like 2e bards with more rogue abilities, plus the AD&D charming power. Or a lot like the AD&D version but using magic user spells instead of druid spells, and without the massive amount of hit points.

The original bard (Strategic Review, V. 2 No. 1, ) was written by David Schwegman, and was based off of the skalds, the bards, and the minstrels- and you started as a bard.

Elves, dwarves, and hobbits could be bards, but had restrictions (because of course).

A 20th level bard had 120% chance to charm any 20th level character within 60' other than monks. There were a lot of odd things about that like undead being resistant instead of immune and Balrog's getting a flat 200% resist (which gave a 50/50 chance for the bard at 25th level). Then they got a save vs magic for the suggestion power that came free with the charm. The 3e bard song was surprisingly similar to the original version effect.

1e and 3.x had that jedi mind trick running rampant at times. ;-)

Nostalgia.

As for the topic, I would just cut what I don't want, tbh. Often, I prefer a more S&S feel and that means restricting cantrips and not the spell casters so much as the spell available. No class is required, and spell selection is easy to limit.

I find it less work to trim than to flat out change.