Is it possible to make up for less magic with higher ability scores?

[Grog]

Stephen “Shoe” Schubert, Developer
It’s You, Not Your Gear: Treasure is reduced 10-15% and permanent ability score boosting items are banned. Instead, characters get a stat increase at every even level (instead of every four levels) and a feat at every odd level.

It seems to me that this system would really screw over characters with MAD. You're giving up all stat-boosting items for 5 extra ability points by 20th level. Now, if your class only has one critical ability, it's basically a wash, but if you have three or four, you're screwed. You could probably play a wizard under this system, but god help anyone trying to play a monk.

 

[delericho]

IME the circumstances matter a lot in the case of PvP-type thought experiments

Oh, absolutely. But every tactic the rogue can come up with, the wizard can at least do something about. The reverse is not true.

for example, you're assuming 2 free rounds of spell casting AFAICT.

One round. On the first round, the Wizard casts Imp Invis, and then moves. This makes it highly unlikely that the Fighter/Rogue/whatever will find them but, just in case, pile on a Fly as well and take to the air. So, in fact, the Wizard need win initiative.

I think it would go a lot differently if you gave the rogue two free rounds instead. After all, Spot and Listen are not class skills for wizards.

It is true that if the Rogue wins initiative he can ready a missile attack on the Wizard should said Wizard start casting. That's probably his best option. However, even then he has to beat the Wizard's AC to hit him, and the Wizard has to fail a Concentration check to complete his spell. Neither of which is guaranteed.

In a party-type environment (non PvP), fighters have more endurance. If, as a DM, you're accustomed to running a "1 encounter per day" type game, then that's way different than a more dungeon-crawl type setting where a wizard who instinctively burns his higher level spells with every encounter is going to be in trouble.

That's no different from a regular-magic game, though, except that spellcasters are now unique in having the ability to craft their own magic items. Even with only Scribe Scroll, the Wizard has the means to extend his usefulness significantly.

In any case, it has been my experience that as soon as the Cleric has exhausted his healing, and the Wizard has used up his 'big bang' spells, the party will seek to retreat, rest and recover. The DM has the option of attacking them in the night, or otherwise preventing this, but there's only so many times you can do it before it strains credibility, and before it becomes apparent that the DM is deliberately messing with what should be SOP amongst sane adventurers in a Vancian universe.

I should point out that while low-magic is pretty far from my preferred style, it is a valid style, and it's certainly one that can work. But, unless something is done to curb them, spellcasters will come to dominate such a game. So, I'm not saying "don't do that", I'm saying "be aware of this issue".

 

[gizmo33]

However, even then he has to beat the Wizard's AC to hit him,

What's the expected AC of a wizard in a low-magic campaign world? IME it's not very good. Basically, I think the chance exists that alot of assumptions made in trying to compare apples-to-oranges aren't really valid. In the case of a 7th level wizard burning up a 4th and 3rd level spell just to begin to engage a rogue - it becomes a question of whether or not you can really take down a 7th level rogue with the remaining spells. There's a chance that a few unbalanced spells, like magic missle and web maybe, would have to be house-ruled.

That's no different from a regular-magic game, though, except that spellcasters are now unique in having the ability to craft their own magic items. Even with only Scribe Scroll, the Wizard has the means to extend his usefulness significantly.

Aren't spellcasters always unique in that ability normally? I'm not sure what the foundation is for this - maybe we need to agree on what "low magic" means. It could mean that magic items are more expensive to craft (and/or some are impossible to craft), or that spells are harder to find for your spellbook - which, BTW, consider that in a low-magic world a wizard might not even be able to find the Improved Invisibility and Fly spell in the example.

In any case, it has been my experience that as soon as the Cleric has exhausted his healing, and the Wizard has used up his 'big bang' spells, the party will seek to retreat, rest and recover. The DM has the option of attacking them in the night, or otherwise preventing this, but there's only so many times you can do it before it strains credibility, and before it becomes apparent that the DM is deliberately messing with what should be SOP amongst sane adventurers in a Vancian universe.

IME it mostly strains credibility that creatures don't respond to adventurer's forays into their lair. Most adventures that I can think of involve battles against intelligent, organized foes. Plus, there's the element of surprise, which PCs lose if they go outside and camp. I think most DMs just don't take advantage of this because it would involve them having to think and make changes to the adventure on the fly. IME it's usually about midnight by the time this is happening and most DMs would just rather wave the magic time-wand and get the PCs back in the dungeon as written, not really realizing the somewhat unrealistic tactical advantage that they're giving the PCs. Plus there's no real codified set of rules for NPCs searching an area in a way that keeps the DM in an impartial role.

I should point out that while low-magic is pretty far from my preferred style, it is a valid style, and it's certainly one that can work. But, unless something is done to curb them, spellcasters will come to dominate such a game. So, I'm not saying "don't do that", I'm saying "be aware of this issue".

IME spell casters dominate to some degree regardless of whether it's a low magic world or not. The wizard in the "wizard vs. rogue" hypothetical above is already forcing the rogue to deal with the fly/invisibility. Presumably you're thinking that in a high-magic world that the rogue would have some item that would see invisible. But in an apples to apples comparison, while the rogue is activating that item, the wizard is probably summoning some monsters or using his repeated wand of quickened fireballs, or whatever. Unless you're thinking that magic items are completely redundant to spellcasters (and I don't think they are, consider a wizard's AC issues, or example), then I don't really see how magic items equalize anything. If wizard > rogue, then wizard+items > rogue+items, it seems to me.

 

[Crysmalon]

No one's mentioned Iron Heroes yet?

Ok, I'll second that. Caveat that I have not used it or looked at it closely but from what I understand it takes d20/standard d&d and retools combat, etc. to assume low or no magic. I've also heard that it's a tad more complex, but I think it's worth checking out. If nothing else you could beg/borrow from this book and meld with standard D&d.

 

[delericho]

What's the expected AC of a wizard in a low-magic campaign world? IME it's not very good.

It's not. But it's still not a given that the Rogue will hit and do enough damage for the Wizard to fail the Concentration check.

In the case of a 7th level wizard burning up a 4th and 3rd level spell just to begin to engage a rogue - it becomes a question of whether or not you can really take down a 7th level rogue with the remaining spells. There's a chance that a few unbalanced spells, like magic missle and web maybe, would have to be house-ruled.

The Wizard doesn't have to cast those spells to begin to engage the Rogue. The Wizard has the option of casting those spells to gain an unassailable advantage against the Rogue. And, with Web, Magic Missile, Scorching Ray, various Summons, Deep Slumber, Hold Person, and various other spells, the Wizard absolutely should be able to take down the Rogue.

The problem is not the 'unbalanced' Magic Missile and Web. The problem is that two fairly low-level spells provide the Wizard with what is essentially an unbeatable defense.

Aren't spellcasters always unique in that ability normally? I'm not sure what the foundation is for this - maybe we need to agree on what "low magic" means.

Typically, it means that access to magic items is curtailed. Very often, it also includes a house rule that for every X spellcaster levels you must take a non-spellcaster level.

The ability to craft items is indeed unique to spellcasters. However, in a 'normal magic' game, it is generally understood that PCs have reasonable access to whatever magic items the player deems appropriate. As such, if the Rogue in our example knows he's going up against a Wizard BBEG, he has reasonably easy means to acquire a potion of see invisibility and a potion of fly, thus equalising the scenario. (Okay, can't get a potion of see invisibility. But you get the idea, I'm sure.)

BTW, consider that in a low-magic world a wizard might not even be able to find the Improved Invisibility and Fly spell in the example.

Then the DM has, in fact, dealt with the very problem I've been warning about.

IME it mostly strains credibility that creatures don't respond to adventurer's forays into their lair. Most adventures that I can think of involve battles against intelligent, organized foes.

Of course, but how often do you do that? Logically, what the monsters should be doing is concentrating their forces into a single strike against the PCs (who together they surely outnumber and can overwhelm). Thus, pretty much every adventure, if run purely pragmatically, is an almost guaranteed TPK.

IME spell casters dominate to some degree regardless of whether it's a low magic world or not.

Somewhat. Removing magic items makes the 'imbalance' more noticable sooner, because the spellcaster classes become somewhat less powerful, but the non-spellcaster classes completely lose access to certain approaches and tactics.

Presumably you're thinking that in a high-magic world that the rogue would have some item that would see invisible. But in an apples to apples comparison, while the rogue is activating that item, the wizard is probably summoning some monsters or using his repeated wand of quickened fireballs, or whatever.

Indeed. And that's fine. But, in the high-magic world the Rogue now has the ability to target the Wizard, and can therefore attack effectively. In the low-magic world, the Rogue is SOL - there's nothing he can do to stop the Wizard just flying around casting spell after spell at him.

 

[gizmo33]

The Wizard doesn't have to cast those spells to begin to engage the Rogue.

Time is not on the side of the wizard with improved invisibility, but I agree that most everything else is. If I were a wizard-hunter though, I'd make sure that combat began with a sneak attack. Then I'd probably have some smoke-sticks and a trained hawk or two handy. Basically though, I still think you'd have your work cut out for you in a high-magic world, because a flying magic item that wouldn't have the activation issues (time, AoO) of a potion is as expensive as something that the wizard could use to kill me.

Typically, it means that access to magic items is curtailed. Very often, it also includes a house rule that for every X spellcaster levels you must take a non-spellcaster level.

IMO it doesn't make sense to curtail magic items and not curtail any of the factors that govern the creation of them. in the case of requiring non-spellcaster levels, then it's not a 7th level rogue vs. 7th level wizard situation either. IMO multi-classing issues would work out in the favor of the single-classed (ie. rogue or warrior) characters.

As such, if the Rogue in our example knows he's going up against a Wizard BBEG, he has reasonably easy means to acquire a potion of see invisibility and a potion of fly, thus equalising the scenario.

I would think that even in a low magic world (as in mine, if you can call it that) such items are available. They're just more expensive.

Logically, what the monsters should be doing is concentrating their forces into a single strike against the PCs (who together they surely outnumber and can overwhelm). Thus, pretty much every adventure, if run purely pragmatically, is an almost guaranteed TPK.

Much like the "rogue vs. wizard" example, this is all a matter of what the NPCs know and how much time they have. It's more than running things pragmatically, the NPCs have to have such things in their favor. If for some reason, they've sent out a lot of scouts and the PCs have managed to slip by those defenses, then the PCs have a certain amount of time to seek out the BBEG before the scouts are recalled, reinforcements can come from other areas, and specialized tactics (such as smokesticks and trained hawks) can be devised for the abilities shown by the PCs.

PCs can counter these tactics with their own, but if a DM doesn't have his NPCs react this way, then players aren't usually in the habit of doing much else than sleeping outside of the dungeon and then going back in the next day.

Indeed. And that's fine. But, in the high-magic world the Rogue now has the ability to target the Wizard, and can therefore attack effectively. In the low-magic world, the Rogue is SOL - there's nothing he can do to stop the Wizard just flying around casting spell after spell at him.

If, for arguments sake, we even agreed on that (and I agree with you that it's true under a wide variety of circumstances), then I guess the helpful thing is to define what you need to do to rebalance things. If improved invisibility/fly is really the cornerstone of the issue, then that's easy enough to fix. If invisibility is at the root of the problem, then it's worth changing for a low-magic campaign I guess - invisibility has a duration of 1 round/3 levels for instance.

If the problem is so entrenched in the rules as to not easily be fixable, then I don't see why the imbalance doesn't already exist in a normal magic world. I can buy a wand of dispel magic pretty cheaply and I suppose blast a rogue with it anytime I see him quaff a potion. That goes back to the issue of whether magic items are redundant for spellcasters, and I don't believe that they are. Give the rogue and wizard equal GP to buy magic items, and while the rogue is buying stuff to counter what the wizard can already do, the wizard can buy stuff to cause the rogue a whole new set of problems.

 

[Desdichado]

It seems like AC would lag way behind where it needs to be after a few levels. AC progression is already a problem in D&D as is, IMO.

You might want to add a class/level based AC progression from Unearthed Arcana to the mix too.

 

[Emirikol]

IMHO, a simple bump in point buy at chargen will make up the difference for PC's up to about 10th level.

I like to use 7th level as an example.

I think your post sums it up. What is the base before the bump though? 25 point buy?

jh

 

[Hussar]

I would say 25 point buy is standard. Although, I think, a lot of games play with higher than that. If the base assumption is 25, drop magic, stick to about 10th (ish) level and use a 35 point buy and you should be fine. There aren't an awful lot of DR/magic critters at those levels, and, even if they do appear, Power Attack and the extra damage from the higher point buy will take care of it anyway.

 

[Emirikol]

As a DM, I rarely use Power Attack for the monsters. If I eliminated that ONE FEAT from monsters, i could probably pretty much end any worries about AC eh?

jh