Is it time for a low-magic setting?

[Aus_Snow]

no lovin' for my response? (see above)

Nope. GO AND STUDY!

 

[Felon]

I put those options up because it's what I think a lot of people in here actually believe, and I notice several people chose the first two options in the poll. If you don't like it, make your own poll. It was very informative to me.

If by "Informative" you mean that you were able construe the results as you please, then sure, highly informative. Seriously, don't you see how adding a lot of qualifiers based on how you believe "a lot of people" think makes the poll hopelessly biased? If by "informative' you mean it provided accurate, objective data, then the poll would've been a lot better off by being kept simple If people want to qualify their "yes" or "no" answer, that's what posting is for.

I will bend the words of Mr. Clarke to my will, and note that any sufficiently advanced character ability is indistinguishable from magic. Which is to say that if the abilities crank up the character power levels to the point that they can still take on the big honkin' dragons without what we now call "magic", and those abilities are still interesting, then they are, in the end, no different than magic.

In some ways I agree, but there are gradients here. Bard the Bowman taking down Smaug with an incredibly accurate shot at a remarkable distance is not quite the same thing as him turning into a human tesla coil and incinerating it with gouts of lightning or fire. Likewise, wuxia characters leaping twenty feet into the air and running across treetops isn't quite the same as a wizard flying around like the Human Torch and raining down fireballs from the sky.

For me, there's a point between being impressed by a character possessing an amazing degree of skill, and a character who just possesses a package of super-powers that put him in a position of advantage over those who don't. D&D is really starting to belong more to the superhero milieu than it does sword-and-sorcery. In the PHB II, notice a new emphasis on immediate spells that can be triggered with a thought. Also notice how many of the non-PHB spellcasters cast spontaneously from a limited repertoire rather than preparing spells from a vast one. Spells are gradually becoming super-powers.

 

[Nyaricus]

Nope. GO AND STUDY!

damn you! NOOOOOOO!!!! (see sig for more details).

"All studing and no EN World makes Nyaricus an angry boy... all studing and no EN World makes Nyaricus an angry boy... all studing and no EN World makes Nyaricus an angry boy... all studing and no EN World makes Nyaricus an angry boy... all studing and no EN World makes Nyaricus an angry boy... all studing and no EN World makes Nyaricus an angry boy... all studing and no EN World makes Nyaricus an angry boy... all studing and no EN World makes Nyaricus an angry boy... all studing and no EN World makes Nyaricus an angry boy... all studing and no EN World makes Nyaricus an angry boy... "

 

[Imp]

Let me come at this from another direction:

It's already relatively easy to change the face of magic-using characters in a setting by changing what classes are available. You can shwack out wizards and sorcerers in your setting and sub in, say, binders, beguilers and dread necromancers for a slightly lower-magic feel, or use psionics instead, or maybe you only have warlocks. There aren't as many other options for clerics, but there are systems like Iron Heroes' reserve points that reduce the need for clerical healing.

But with magic items there's nothing. You want your +1 natural armor, you use your neck slot, or you pray for house rules. You can't, say, develop +1 natural armor as a reward for braving the Trial of the Thousand Lashes, or because you've got a guardian spirit that's looking out for you, or a demon that's bound to you, or as special training from Master Kuchamo of the Black Iron Caves, or because you've used your wealth to shoot yourself up full of alchemical scary that's toughened your skin. Again, you're praying for house rules. +1 natural armor's just a number. There ought to be other ways to get it that reward the player.

(And I sure as heck have played magic saturation D&D, with 36th level fighters and vorpal swords and everything. I just like flexibility.)

 

[genshou]

Gaah, these kinds of discussions always bug me a little. One of these days I'll finish my thesis on the prevalence of magic in "high-magic" D&D, and then perhaps many of you complaining about how "high-magic" the core assumptions are will change your minds.

Really, just look at the demographics. Having one 3rd-level Cleric and two 1st-level Clerics in every village of several hundred is not high-magic. Having every character with a high enough mental ability score capable of casting low-level spells, with characters having PC classes all capable of casting spells alongside other talents? That's high-magic. (And with this assumption, gnomes are a high-magic race.)

It's not possible to roll a 20th-level NPC of most PC classes using the highest-level NPC rolls for communities, even in a metropolis (at least in 3.0). The 20th-level PCs are probably the only such people in the world except for special plot-intrinsic NPCs (the BBEGs of the campaign world and any plot-generated legendary adventuring parties, basically). If the PCs are just about the only ones in the world that powerful, how many 200,000gp magic items are there in the world? The PCs might even the only ones that still exist. High-magic is having a dozen epic-level Chosen of Mystra running around in the campaign world, with all kinds of epic-level magic and magic items floating around in the world.

I voted No, for other reasons.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This, of course, relies on you applying an anology that draws a comparison between the physical meaning of balance and game meaning of balance that does not hold. One class becomes unbalanced, then people are either drawn to it or away from it, as appropriate. It does not "tip over". It is less fun as variety goes down as more people want to play it if it is too powerful, or they feel that their preference got shafted if it is week.

Sounds like tipping over to me.

However, I believe that 3.X weathers changes just fine. I think that, yes, making changes means that you have to pay attention to the effects of those changes -- but I also think that you ought to have been monitering the effects of not making changes (i.e., the base rules themselves) from day 1.

In fact, I think that making some changes improves the game, and improves balance. I do not believe that 3.X is as perfectly balanced as some would claim, nor do I believe that it is "balanced on a dime". The "balanced on a dime" concept is, to my mind, evidence of lack of balance.

Or a poorly aligned car, if you prefer your analogy.

Which is neither here nor there, in my book, because it isn't "balanced on a dime". D20 is a robust ruleset that takes to change like a seal takes to water. A seal doesn't need to be on water, but it isn't truly graceful on land.

 

[Hussar]

Just because you played that way does not mean thats how everyone did. Trying to base your estimate of the Magic saturation in 1ED&D on the amount of treasure in the TSR modules is laughable.

Then, enlighten me. How would you base estimates of Magic saturation in 1e? I would think that OFFICIAL TSR modules would be a far better estimate than Joe's homebrew. Note, that these modules were set forward as standards of play. They were tournament adventures and certainly saw far more play in far more groups than anyone's home rules. By any objective standard I would say that modules are likely the only way to estimate magic saturation.

Never mind that most creatures with a treasure type had at least a 10% chance of having magic items. Given the xp tables of the time, you needed to fight far more encounters to go up a level than in 3e. Simple math shows that magic should be very common.

That it wasn't in a given group meant that the DM was artificially reducing treasure. But, this isn't a discussion about someone's homebrew, but a discussion about the rules as they actually exist. Or, at least that's what I thought.

Anyway, back to the point for a sec. Try this as an experiment:

Create 4 25 point 3.5 characters of 9th level. Equip them as follows: 150% of standard treasure, 100%, 75% and 50%. Now, run 4 EL 9 encounters against each group. Obviously reset each group after each encounter so that they start fresh with full wealth.

Keep track of the number of rounds the fight lasts and the amount of damage suffered by each party. Compare.

Come back when you've done this and you'll see that the "edge of a dime" balance in 3.5 is a myth. You can do a WIDE variation on the wealth by level in the game and not have too much of a breakdown.

In other words, if you simply want a lowER magic level in the game, Core supports that quite nicely.

 

[Raven Crowking]

2) Find a third-party product that has done the modifications for you, or else do the modifications yourself.

Ranting on the Web isn't going to get WotC to change their development standards, regardless of whether one feels they are good or bad standards. You're just pissing in the wind.

Thank you, buzz, for your standard answer to any suggestion that the current edition could be improved or changed in any way.

However, if WotC is really the company that listens to gamers, then discussing this on the web would seem to be a really, really good idea. Of course, if you don't believe that WotC is a company that listens to gamers, this becomes a much less useful idea.

I, for one, don't see the harm in suggesting that the "third-party product" you mention should not actually be "third-party".

I'm sure a book of this nature would sell at least as well as Sandstorm.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Whats sad is the aggression and hostility (passive or otherwise) which any suggestion of any change in D&D brings up in some people.

Quoted for Truth.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The system is fairly balanced as it is, yes. It is NOT perfect, some creatures come out high or low on the CR system and a lot of the problem is that "challenge" is itself a subjective term. What challenges my players could make yours into pate or yawn. But I'd say that for the bulk of players for the wide majority of creatures, the CR/EL system is functional.

It is NOT flexible. It is a 3-way axis between character abilities/loot/critter abilities. Too much of any one throws the other out of whack. The CR system somewhat requires this flaw, but the fact is that it would equally impact the old "experience for defeating monster:x" system. It would require a more dynamic XP system that was based on multiple factors that DMs could recalculate.

Take that flaw as an accepted fact and either come up with a better system or sigh and get on with life.

It is only inflexible if you buy into the theory that "CR = APL = Average Wealth Per Level" means that characters must have average wealth and must face creatures of their CR in order for the game to work. That's simply not the case.

"CR = APL = Average Wealth Per Level" also assumes a party of 4. Does the whole thing get thrown out of whack because Cousin Andrew decides to sit in for a game? Obviously not.

The reason that the old "XP for monster X = Y" system didn't suffer from this problem is not because that system was better, but because the problem itself isn't a systems problem. It's rather a problem of expecting the system to do something that it doesn't do.

"CR = APL = AWPL" sets a standard from which variations can easily occur. It doesn't provide an unmoving, unyeilding balance point that Must Be Obeyed.

If you allow magic, this is a big factor. Social is great for bards and stealth for rogues but neither does jack for the fighter. Fighters primary enjoyment is in whomping on things. Fighters, without access to magical doodads, simply cannot cope well with opponents who can cast spells unless the spell system is heavily overhauled. Improved Invis and fly are able to pretty much nerf a magic-free fighter.

And hacking the combat system.....Blech. It basically turns into writing a low-magic system.

Hacking the combat system to improve fighter playability took me 20 minutes, and so far playtesting has shown that the new system is an improvement on the old. In fact, the new system used to be posted here on EnWorld before the server crash.....

In any event, the sheer number of low magic campaigns out there prove well enough that players in those games don't simply become "clinically depressed" because life isn't cheap and there's no Doodad of Wondrous Flumph Whacking in every home.

RC