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

[Ashrym]

Well yes I didn't bother to go back and check whether 1e bards could do that because really...they were a joke.

I never saw anyone play a bard in 1e and they were pretty much impossible to play by legal character creation rules.

The bard didn't really become a class (as opposed to a bizarre rules quirk like psionics) until 2e.

lol, I stuck out the dual classing rules for them a couple of times.

Going from that to 2e's advancement was nice.

The point was AD&D did hide dice based checks hidden in that option and checks continue to exist along with those spells. Those spells aren't needed in a low magix campaign.

 

[Hussar]

Holds up hand

I played a 1e bard. It wasn't that hard. Easier than a paladin to roll up, and really, not that much harder than a ranger. Half elf to do the first two classes up and then become a bard. Wasn't a big deal.

 

[Don Durito]

It wasn't even clear how Half-elves could be bards.
I mean it specifically says they can but once you try and work out how it works you run into trouble.

Edit: Yeah here it is.

Spoiler

"Bards begin play as Fighters and they must remain exclusively fighters until they have achieved at least the 5th level of experience." Then it says they must change their class to thieves before they hit 8th level. Then they have to change to druid (but are also bards).

So, even though it says Half-elves can be bards it seems to imply that bards can only be achieved by dual classing which is exclusively the province of humans.

Of course dual classing requires higher stats - 17 in the class you are changing into. So you'd need two 17s and 2 15s and a 12 and 10.

But of course Half-Elves can't dual class - so perhaps we don't use the rules for dual classing here - perhaps there is a special rule here that applies under the vague intention of someday being a bard. (I don't know what happens if you change your mind).

And of course the rest of the party has to drag you along while you're doing the whole dual class thing of now using your higher level abilities - multiple times.

It often seemed, with a lot of AD&D rules material, that the designers were so used to their own house rules that they'd frequently seem to forget how the published rules were actually supposed to work.

 

[Dausuul]

So, it seems like you've got a handle on the cantrips, which leaves the "spellification" of 5E as the remaining problem. I don't know that this can be completely eliminated from 5E, but it can at least be mitigated. Obviously, there is no need to de-spellify the actual full casters, except possibly bard (more on that in a bit). Barbarians, fighters, and rogues are also okay. So that leaves the ranger, the paladin, and the monk.

For rangers, I would probably convert their spell slots into a) a handful of utility abilities related to tracking, party-wide stealth, observation, and setting traps, and b) the ability to mark a quarry as a bonus action and get +1d6 to damage on it.

For paladins, I'd probably just give them X smite attacks per day. It's not like paladins use their spell slots for anything else anyway.

Monks are interesting because their subclasses are a mix of "all spells," "some spells," and "no spells." The Way of the Open Hand is the no-spell option*, and also happens to be mechanically the best of the three. The Way of Shadow has a few spells, but I think that they could be converted to non-spell abilities without too much pain. The Way of Four Elements, as the all-spell subclass, is not practical to convert. But it's also a terrible, terrible subclass which nobody should take.

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).

*Edit: Okay, I was wrong, they get to cast sanctuary at high levels. But this is purely a ribbon ability. They could lose it altogether and it wouldn't hurt them noticeably.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[dave2008]

5. Paladins, Bards, and Rangers re-done to remove casting. For obvious reasons, as you point out, bard would be tough. And Paladins could just be removed.

I'm thinking this would be a good start.

AIME might give you a good place to start for non-magic Bards (Wardens) and Rangers (Wanderers). Paladins, just use the knight (UA?) or Cavalier subclass for the fighter?

 

[Oofta]

So this is the post that is closest to what I am trying to get at.

First, I truly appreciate the many great comments and ideas that people have already come up with. That said, addressing a few that are helpful to others, but not to me:

A. Yes, while I am a maniacal and tyrannical despot who lives to ruin the fun of other people, this is driven by player demand as well. Without addressing this issue, I have a feeling that my "core" group will be returning to 1e or B/X in the future, and I'd like to stick with 5e.

B. Titles need to be pithy; that said, this isn't about having a "low magic" game. If the table just wanted low magic, there are very easy (if unsatisfying) fixes- like the party of 6 champions.


This is about removing cantrips (at will magic) and fixing the spell-equivalency system. In short, this post comes closest to what I've been thinking:

1. Remove cantrips.

2. Fighters, Monks, Barbarians, Rogues are restricted to non-spellcasting subclasses. Any incidental uses of spells or cantrips are removed or re-written as class abilities.

3. Wizards, Clerics, Druids remain relatively unchanged (other than loss of cantrips).

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

5. Paladins, Bards, and Rangers re-done to remove casting. For obvious reasons, as you point out, bard would be tough. And Paladins could just be removed.


I'm thinking this would be a good start.

The one change I would consider would be making cantrips a 0 level spell that still requires slots (a few more than level 1 spells). Instead of automatically improving with leveling, you can up-cast.

Get rid of spells recovered on a short rest. Get rid of bonus action spells.

I'd probably just get rid of warlock, thematically they kind of make sense for a low magic world but the mechanics ... eh.

Keep paladins because they need nothing more than the power of awesome. Keep the auras, give smites instead of spells. Probably take a look at some options from fighter sub-types to balance them out a little bit.

I'd have to look at bards again. Maybe go back to the old books for inspiration.

 

[dave2008]

Keep paladins because they need nothing more than the power of awesome. Keep the auras, give smites instead of spells. Probably take a look at some options from fighter sub-types to balance them out a little bit.

Watch out, you clearly don't know @lowkey13

 

[Oofta]

Watch out, you clearly don't know @lowkey13

But ... but ... it wouldn't be D&D without Sir McStabsalot!

 

[jayoungr]

My point was that magic in Tolkien’s 3rd age is commonplace (“high” in quantity), but subtle, and often more closely resembles what modern people would consider technology than the magic of D&D (“low” in impact, I suppose?) Sure, nobody is shooting fireballs or lightning, but most everyone practices and/or benefits from some form of magic in their daily lives.

Not sure what you're thinking of here--can you be more specific?