Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 6999502" data-attributes="member: 6683613">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?)My other campaign was caster-less until very recently (one of the players just rolled a paladin). Works perfectly fine.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.</blockquote>

Verification