Limited Levels? A solution for low magic worlds

[handforged]

I am fond of low magic worlds where true magic is incredibly prestigious, but even if you aren't I think you might like my idea.

What if all core classes were limited to 5-6 levels. After that multi-classing is a must. This way prestige classes would truly be prestigious since they would be the only way to gain access to higher level spells and class abilities.

Just a thought.

~hf

 

[Crothian]

I think it would actually make prestige classes less prestigious since all high level characters would need one to continue in what ever they are doing.

d20M does something like this, their core classes all end after level 10 and they have no multi classing penalties.

 

[Piratecat]

A better solution might be the one that Col. Hardisson devised: spellcasters (and spellcasters only) must have equal or more non-spell-caster levels than spellcaster levels. Thus, in an 11th lvl party, there might be a 11th lvl rogue and fighter, but the wizard and cleric would each be limited to 5th lvl in that class and 6 levels in another class. Voila! Low magic with a minimum of house rules.

 

[Drawmack]

I like the concept of the split levels rule but I handled if a bit differently.

Spell caster progression is halfed (i.e. 1st lvl as normal, 2nd level no progression 3rd level as second)

Then on the levels where they get no spell progression they get a bonus feat or 2 skill points (i.e. skill focus) to spend on a single skill.

 

[handforged]

thanks everyone,

I agree with you Crothian now that I think about it that way, I think that the system PC mentioned will probably be the solution that I utilize. Drawmack, I think your system might lead to some pretty interesting knowledgable wizard types. I think that 3 skill points would be more appropriate. Maybe 4 if applied to a knowledge skill.

~hf

 

[Desdichado]

A better solution might be the one that Col. Hardisson devised: spellcasters (and spellcasters only) must have equal or more non-spell-caster levels than spellcaster levels. Thus, in an 11th lvl party, there might be a 11th lvl rogue and fighter, but the wizard and cleric would each be limited to 5th lvl in that class and 6 levels in another class. Voila! Low magic with a minimum of house rules.

This still doesn't feel very low magic to me, as even most of the "non-spellcasting classes" actually have a limited spell progression. Unless you truly mean they have to multiclass with fighter, rogue or monk only. Magic is ubiquitious in third edition. I suppose it always was, but I'd prefer ranger and paladin archetypes, for example, that weren't spellcasters.

 

[dren]

A different take on low magic worlds

I use a low magic world, but I wouldn't limit level advancement. I think that cheats the players of their full potential. Instead, I just make magic items rare and replace their need for these items.

Silver in my world hits the equivalent of +2; thus a majority of warriors don't have magicly enhanced weapons until 10th level. Potions can be created quickly and cheaply but they last for one day per level. There are other "natural magics" that can be created by non-spellcasters to give small but useful bonuses. And the biggest house rule: magical craft skills to create permanent items are unavailable until characters reaches 10th level!

This all replaces the magic item build up that happens, which I find is the biggest blunder of most non-homebrew campaign worlds. But there is a balance given so the players are not lacking in the items they need to do the job. They just don't have an arsenal.

 

[S'mon]

I've been creating a low magic swords & sorcery type campaign world.

While the split-levels rule is a nice one, I decided that most spellcaster classes just didn't fit with the world I envisioned, so I've eliminated them and created a new, weaker one, the Black Wizard. See:

http://www.geocities.com/s.t.newman/TWILIGHT.htm

A nice presentation of my Black Wizard is at:

http://hyboria.xoth.net/prestige-classes/black_wizard_npc.htm

The idea of rejigging what spell levels are gained by caster level came from these boards, sorry I can't recall whose idea it was.

Basically, I created a spellcaster class balanced not against a non-spellcaster such as a Fighter or Barbarian with standard magic, but against a non-spellcaster with little or no magic. Not that it's perfectly balanced by level - the Black Wizard is very weak below 3rd level, and still scarily powerful at higher levels vs a non-magical foe, but it's not like trying to use unmodified Clerics or Sorcerers in a low-magic game, where they totally dominate other classes.

 

[ichabod]

This still doesn't feel very low magic to me, as even most of the "non-spellcasting classes" actually have a limited spell progression. Unless you truly mean they have to multiclass with fighter, rogue or monk only. Magic is ubiquitious in third edition. I suppose it always was, but I'd prefer ranger and paladin archetypes, for example, that weren't spellcasters.

Yeah, but if you have a wizard 10/ranger 10, he's only got maybe two first and two second level divine spells in addition to his other stuff. That doesn't strike me as much of a difference from wizard 10/fighter 10.