D&D 5E I feel like my world is drifting towards low magic, any tips?

[Krachek]

Remove all magic item, including potions and healer kit.
Limit spell level to 3 or 4.
It will force full caster to MC after level 5 or 7.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've recently given up on 5e exactly because I prefer lower magic. The unlimited, damage-causing cantrips are the reason.

That just strikes me as odd, I guess it illustrates how varied concepts of 'low magic' can be. To me, taking away slots, leaving cantrips and rituals, gives a more 'low-magic' (and more low-fantasy genre) feel to D&D casters.
A caster who has a few tricks, one of them deadly (but not wildly more so than a knife in the heart), that he can pop off with more or less instantly (in combat), and anything more takes time and preparation, not ticking off some imaginary quanta of power.

Though, if it's the at-will issue of cantrips that bothers you, getting rid of them is just as easy. The result isn't really what I'd call /low/ magic - magic is very powerful, readily usable, and systematically available on a daily basis - but it is limited within a short enough time frame, and, with a typical D&D adventuring day, that limitation can be felt, FWIW.

I think it really depends on the sort of players you're playing with. If you describe the world as one where magic is rare and mysterious and those who wield it greatly mistrusted, can you trust them to write and play characters consistent with that description, or not? If you can, then there's no need for any rules changes at all. Even if they're all mages

Sure, if that's the kind of 'low magic' you're going for - low magic in the background setting, high magic readily available to the PCs (and, presumably, equally high-magic, equally 'rare' challenges waiting for them). Like the 'superhero' analogy I made, above. Or like Harry Potter. The world is low-magic, filled with muggles, the characters, the story, and the challenges they face, high-magic. You don't need to change the mechanics, because you're not changing the high-magic default of the game, just the backdrop. Same actors, same plot, same F/X - different matte painting.

OTOH, if the idea of 'low magic' soaks through to the party and the challenges they face, adjustments may be a good idea. If the low-magic ignorant/distrustful-of-magic muggles of a low-magic setting are to provide any of the challenges in the campaign, you have to factor in how much more powerful magic becomes when enemies are unprepared for it. 'Nerfing' magic makes it a little easier to get a party composition that's more representative of casters being 'rare' (truly representative would be no casters in a sample of 5 or 6 people, of course), the rare and more special magic is, the more attractive a character option it becomes - both in terms of RP and power. Nerfing it - beyond the point of merely back into balance with the challenges being faced - can help make up for that, avoiding the 'who gets to be the caster' issue.

(I'm in a campaign like that, by the way.)

That does not surprise me. I expect many campaigns are all-caster, that way, regardless of whether the setting is high or low magic. The PH makes it clear that magic is an expected/vital part of the game, and presents many more magic-using options. If you were to test party compositions against the communities they're drawn from, for instance, the iconic Fighter/Mage/Cleric/Rogue party would be 50% caster. Even in a high-magic setting, 50% of people probably aren't running around casting spells!

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Sure, if that's the kind of 'low magic' you're going for - low magic in the background setting, high magic readily available to the PCs (and, presumably, equally high-magic, equally 'rare' challenges waiting for them). Like the 'superhero' analogy I made, above. Or like Harry Potter. The world is low-magic, filled with muggles, the characters, the story, and the challenges they face, high-magic. You don't need to change the mechanics, because you're not changing the high-magic default of the game, just the backdrop. Same actors, same plot, same F/X - different matte painting.

OTOH, if the idea of 'low magic' soaks through to the party and the challenges they face, adjustments may be a good idea. If the low-magic ignorant/distrustful-of-magic muggles of a low-magic setting are to provide any of the challenges in the campaign, you have to factor in how much more powerful magic becomes when enemies are unprepared for it. 'Nerfing' magic makes it a little easier to get a party composition that's more representative of casters being 'rare' (truly representative would be no casters in a sample of 5 or 6 people, of course), the rare and more special magic is, the more attractive a character option it becomes - both in terms of RP and power. Nerfing it - beyond the point of merely back into balance with the challenges being faced - can help make up for that, avoiding the 'who gets to be the caster' issue.

That's why I said it depends on the type of player you're dealing with. If your players are likely to think, "Oh, this is a low-magic setting, so I'll play a wizard and be a god!", then some nerfs may be in order. But if they're more likely to think, "Oh, this is a low-magic setting, so I should lean towards a low-magic character, and if I do decide to roll a mage I should play them as discreet about their abilities", then trust them to do that.

That said, it's not as if low-magic muggles cannot provide a challenge for a magically-empowered parties. They may not be prepared for magic, but their swords still hurt. Rather than nerf magic to bring it in line, I'm more inclined to let magic be magic and embrace the asymmetrical nature of the challenges. I just ran a session where the PCs were trapped in a fortress against an overwhelming force that had no awareness of their magical capabilities. The PCs had a lot of fun moments of "Surprise! We can do this!" but still had to be careful because the enemy forces had a smart commander who learned from her mistakes and some surprise capabilities of their own. (So they laugh off a knockout gas ambush with the periapt of proof against poison? What are the odds they also have a periapt of proof against fragmentation grenades?)

The PH makes it clear that magic is an expected/vital part of the game, and presents many more magic-using options.

My other campaign was caster-less until very recently (one of the players just rolled a paladin). Works perfectly fine.

Even in a high-magic setting, 50% of people probably aren't running around casting spells!

I think it's misleading to pretend that a party composition is representative of the greater population, or is supposed to be. Even if you've got a no-magic party of fighter/barbarian/rogue, that doesn't mean 66% of the population are mighty warriors and 33% are criminals. D&D characters are exceptional by definition.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's why I said it depends on the type of player you're dealing with.

Yes, I heard you. And, yes, rule changes are one way to slap recalcitrant players into line. That's just not the only purpose they serve. They can also help evoke the kind of setting or campaign tone or genre or whatnot that you're going for.

I think it's misleading to pretend that a party composition is representative of the greater population, or is supposed to be

The point I was making is that party composition isn't likely to to be representative of the general population. In 3e, for instance, the typically party was not 3 commoners and one PC class.

But, when you want to make something 'rare' in a setting, you do have to cope with the fact that you make it more attractive, even you intent is to see less of it. Magic is already that way, by default.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Sorry if this has been suggested in this thread, but you could try "Adventures in Middle-Earth" by Cubicle7 and just not place it in Middle-Earth. Great low-magic variant.

 

[Tranquilis]

That just strikes me as odd, I guess it illustrates how varied concepts of 'low magic' can be. To me, taking away slots, leaving cantrips and rituals, gives a more 'low-magic' (and more low-fantasy genre) feel to D&D casters.
A caster who has a few tricks, one of them deadly (but not wildly more so than a knife in the heart), that he can pop off with more or less instantly (in combat), and anything more takes time and preparation, not ticking off some imaginary quanta of power.

Though, if it's the at-will issue of cantrips that bothers you, getting rid of them is just as easy. The result isn't really what I'd call /low/ magic - magic is very powerful, readily usable, and systematically available on a daily basis - but it is limited within a short enough time frame, and, with a typical D&D adventuring day, that limitation can be felt, FWIW.

It's no odder than the example NPC apprentice wizard in the new Volo's guide: a mere boy who could incinerate every poor sod in a village at will with his fire bolt cantrip. Never in D&D could that possibly happen until 5e.

I've read the argument that "5e cantrip = light crossbow". Fine. I get that, but it's not the flavor I'm looking for.

I'd thought of tinkering with cantrips in a few ways, but was afraid I'd mess up the balance built into the entire system. I've seen only a few concerns by others regarding the at-will, damage-causing, unlimited cantrips, so I'll consider myself an outlier*, and take a few things from the 5e SRD to put into my OSR games!

*C'mon! No one has even a bit of issue regarding 5e cantrips!?

 

[Tranquilis]

Sorry if this has been suggested in this thread, but you could try "Adventures in Middle-Earth" by Cubicle7 and just not place it in Middle-Earth. Great low-magic variant.

You may be on to something there...

 

[Kabouter Games]

It's no odder than the example NPC apprentice wizard in the new Volo's guide: a mere boy who could incinerate every poor sod in a village at will with his fire bolt cantrip. Never in D&D could that possibly happen until 5e.

I've read the argument that "5e cantrip = light crossbow". Fine. I get that, but it's not the flavor I'm looking for.

I'd thought of tinkering with cantrips in a few ways, but was afraid I'd mess up the balance built into the entire system. I've seen only a few concerns by others regarding the at-will, damage-causing, unlimited cantrips, so I'll consider myself an outlier*, and take a few things from the 5e SRD to put into my OSR games!

*C'mon! No one has even a bit of issue regarding 5e cantrips!?

I do, but not because I think they're too powerful. Cantrips have zero to do with "balance" beyond making sure every player has an "I hit it with my axe" option every turn. This in a game where the wizard can have a light crossbow anyway.

My problem is that cantrips take flavor away from a game. You don't have to be clever in how you use your spell slots. Just cast fire bolt. Pew pew pew. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Snore.

You should be casting grease on the hallway, then getting the fighter to throw a torch on it to set set the grease alight and roast the goblins, not just pew pew pewing goblins one by one.

These kids today.

My players use components and no foci. Of course, I make them track ammunition and rations, and enforce encumbrance, too. I suppose I'm an evil old ogre.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It's no odder than the example NPC apprentice wizard in the new Volo's guide: a mere boy who could incinerate every poor sod in a village at will with his fire bolt cantrip. Never in D&D could that possibly happen until 5e.

I've read the argument that "5e cantrip = light crossbow". Fine. I get that, but it's not the flavor I'm looking for.

That's fair enough. In a typical setting, there will be more danger of one of the village hunters going postal than an apprentice. Not just because the hunter does more damage, but also there are probably several hunters in each village, but only one spellcaster amongst several villages.

I'd thought of tinkering with cantrips in a few ways, but was afraid I'd mess up the balance built into the entire system. I've seen only a few concerns by others regarding the at-will, damage-causing, unlimited cantrips, so I'll consider myself an outlier*, and take a few things from the 5e SRD to put into my OSR games!

*C'mon! No one has even a bit of issue regarding 5e cantrips!?

Several people do, for reasons varying from flavour like you to power level because all their players dipped warlock.

Cantrips are there because it lets the spellcasters feel like spellcasters even when they're being careful with their slots. There is nothing to prevent a caster from using a crossbow instead, and in many cases it will outdamage the cantrips. Its just that a lot of people playing a caster class want to play a spellcaster all the time rather than a second-rate archer with occasional bursts of magic.

If you want to run a rare-magic* game, then reducing a spellcaster's ability to cast spells all of the time is probably quite instrumental to the flavour.

*(To distinguish from low-power-magic game. Either might be covered by low-magic game.)

I do, but not because I think they're too powerful. Cantrips have zero to do with "balance" beyond making sure every player has an "I hit it with my axe" option every turn. This in a game where the wizard can have a light crossbow anyway.

My problem is that cantrips take flavor away from a game. You don't have to be clever in how you use your spell slots. Just cast fire bolt. Pew pew pew. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Snore.

You should be casting grease on the hallway, then getting the fighter to throw a torch on it to set set the grease alight and roast the goblins, not just pew pew pewing goblins one by one.

These kids today.

Casting Grease burns one of their spell slots and may not even be flammable. Even though the crossbow might be better at killing the goblins, a lot of wizards are going to prefer the firebolt option: - they're playing a wizard because they want to kill stuff with magic!

The Wizard I've been playing spent well over half his combat rounds using a cantrip, and probably only a third actually casting spells. Having to pull out a crossbow instead would have felt a bit off.

My players use components and no foci. Of course, I make them track ammunition and rations, and enforce encumbrance, too. I suppose I'm an evil old ogre.

If your players are happy in the games that you run, however you run them, then you're doing it right.

 

[Yunru]

Cap classes at level 11?
You've 6th level spells being the new highest-of-high, without upsetting balance.