Limited magic campaign......has never failed yet!

[Herpes Cineplex]

I don't think I've ever lost a player, or had a player threaten to leave, over something as trivial as the mechanics of the game.

I've never seen it happen, either. But I've seen several games get scrapped in favor of something else because the players and/or the GM weren't having fun. I've even been the player who told the GM that the game wasn't fun.

Our group's pretty sensitive to that kind of thing, though. Most of the time when a game isn't working out, it gets abandoned within three sessions or less for something more fun; it just happens, with very little discussion, and no drama to speak of.

Low magic settings can be fun. You can have great adventures. You can experience amazing role playing. And, yes, all of those things can be acomplished in high magic settings too. Some folks just like a 'different' setting now and then.

This is pretty much the only thing that ever has to be said in any low- versus high-magic thread. Especially the sentence I boldfaced.

There's no better or worse here, there's only what you're currently in the mood for. For every great low-magic game, there's a great high-magic game. For every crappy low-magic game, there's a crappy high-magic game. If you've played a lot of high-magic games, you'll probably get more of a kick out of a low-magic setting, and vice versa.

Now personally, I've slogged through so many mediocre-to-okay low-magic games in my life that I'm almost entirely burned out on the concept: if someone suggests playing D&D and I hear "low-magic," "low-power," "grim and gritty," "realistic," or any of the other buzzwords usually applied to low-magic games, my first instinct is to ask if we can play some other game instead. It has nothing to do with the merits of the game itself and there's certainly nothing wrong with a low-magic game...it's just me wanting something different. But if someone pitches D&D with a high-magic setting, I'll bite; the few high-magic games I've played in were lots of fun, and it still has that "new game smell" to me.


In a perfect world, people would read Aristotle's post above, nod solemnly, and put their low-magic versus high-magic evangelism back in their pants.

--
or at least only take it out in the privacy of their own homes
ryan

 

[shilsen]

In a perfect world, people would read Aristotle's post above, nod solemnly, and put their low-magic versus high-magic evangelism back in their pants.

--
or at least only take it out in the privacy of their own homes
ryan

Oh crap! He just cast summon Hong! *runs to fetch the stick*

 

[Saeviomagy]

True. That's partly my point about what happens in a low magic setting. If you have a ten mile trek to do in a magic setting, you walk it, or get some mounts, or join a caravan, etc. In a high magic setting, depending on level, you either do what you'd do in the low magic setting, or you fly, or you teleport, or you jump on a flying carpet, or you summon up something to help you do it, or you shadow walk, or you jump into a tree and come out ten miles away, etc. The downside to the high magic way is that it becomes a lot easier to do things. The upside is the wealth of options and it gives the DM more ways to make things interesting. Of course, YMMV.

I think that "it becomes easier to do things" is hardly a downside.

Consider:

You're a 1st level character. There's a chasm you need to cross. You have the gear, you have a plan, everyone ties on their safety lines, maybe someone slips, but doesn't fall, because he had a safety line. Possibly someone gets banged up a bit. You make it across.

You're a 10th level character. For about the tenth bloody time, there's a chasm to cross. Sure this one has lava at the bottom, but who cares? That 1st level plan is STILL good. Yawn - yet again, someone slipped to no effect. "GM - we just use the chasm thingy again. Can't we skip this and get onto something interesting".

And there you have it - chasm crossing is boring after the first time.

Keeping track of rations is boring the first time, let alone the 10th.

Overland travel is boring. Why? One encounter a day, that's why. A fight against an equal CR when you're all fully loaded is not a serious challenge. And if you stray too far from that equal CR, then you're looking at the possibility of a TPK with no player input.

Scaling a wall? Boring. Pit traps? Boring. Illusionary walls? Boring. Secret doors? Boring. Finding someone in a city with a +18 gather information check? Boring. Finding someone in any other situation when you've got a +18 track check? Boring.

Once you've encountered these things a few times, you've worked out how to deal with them, and they stop contributing anything meaningful to the game.

And that's why magic makes them non-issues. They'd be non-issues ANYWAY, just from the common sense of the characters involved, and the gear they tend to carry, but magic makes them totally non issues.

If magic can just deal with a situation without requiring any further thought, that's a hint. The hint is "this situation is so mundane, it's likely to be boring for the PC's to solve it. Get over yourself and think of something better".

In my opinion, the only bad high-level magic is the magic that nullifies high level PC's abilities. And most of that isn't even magic - it's monster abilities. Track becomes useless because half the things around fly. Spot and listen become useless because monsters tend to have more hit dice (and therefore skill ranks) than their CR indicates. Move silently and hide become useless because half the monsters out there have non-traditional senses that negate them. Search and disable device become useless because apparently a trap with a CR of more than 10 would be far too deadly to include in the game.

 

[shilsen]

I think that "it becomes easier to do things" is hardly a downside.

I should have clarified that it's not a downside for me. But from a lot of threads that I've seen which are "pro-low magic", so to speak, that's something I've seen people describe as a downside to the presence of magic (or too much magic, however one defines it).

If magic can just deal with a situation without requiring any further thought, that's a hint. The hint is "this situation is so mundane, it's likely to be boring for the PC's to solve it. Get over yourself and think of something better".

Absolutely no arguments from me where that's concerned.

 

[Janx]

I think one of the arguments Low-Magic-lovers often point to is the condition where a PC=their stuff. Basically, all the cool things a PC can do is owed more to his gear than the character's built in features.

Heck I experienced this when my DM tried to take away my precious +3 vorpal sword. Dang that sucked. But I got it back. As his point was, "surely, there's more to your character than his sword.." Yeah, but I want my sharp sword back because I suck without it.

But there's a very real truth to all this. Consider a basic fighter. Assuming the DM pits him against Level=CR monsters all the time, if he has no magic stuff, he's going to ultimately face critters he can't feasibly beat as he goes up in level.

Why?
We he's getting more HP, so he can take the hits
He's getting higher BAB, so he can keep hitting things (barring DR stuff)
His damage is static
His AC is static, that full plate is the best he's going to get.

Meanwhile, the monster is getting more HP, BAB, AC, and Damage.

It's an arms race that the fighter must keep up with.

The only way a fighter can keep up with it in RAW D&D is to get better equipment. That means magic weapons and armor.

Now consider that. If you want a low magic game, but want to keep the fighter in pace with the great arms race (or don't want to recalculate CRs for everything), you've got to supply the need.

So to reiterate:
PCs need damage dealing ability to go up as they go up
PCs need AC to go up as they go up (because everything hits better)

Solution:
Find a formula to increass AC and Damage per level, just like BAB does.
It's easy to justify, if you can hit more frequently, you're probably more accurate, and therefore hitting sensitive spots, thus you should do more damage (the monsters live on this philosophy).
Since you're getting better at combat (and hitting people), you're probably better at not getting hit as well (it's a skill us black belts learn, getting hit sucks, so avoid it). Thus AC goes up with levels.

How frequently? I'd look at it in terms of scale. How high do you want it to get.
Basic 1st level fighter = base AC 10 + full plate 10 = 20 AC
basic 20th level fighter (no magic) = base AC 10 + full plate 10 = 20 AC
normal 20th level fighter (with magic) = base AC 10 + full plate 10 + magic stuff 5 = 25 AC

I'd guess a 20th level PC is trying to get an AC of 30 or so. If you assume no DEX bonus (giving those chaps a real edge), you're gonna want a +10 AC bonus over the course of 20 levels.

That's not bad, basically give fighters +1 AC per 2 levels
For damage, let's stick with a +5 range. That means +1 damage per 4 levels

Assuming you like those numbers for fighters (the extreme combat edge of the classes), simply come up with a slower scale for weaker classes.

Apply the monk-like "I count as a magic weapon versus DR) formulas and you could run a low-magic PC against most of the MM critters.

Janx

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

Understanding high vs low magic...

#1) this thread was started with an example game setting, one that we use from time to time. It tends to allow other than spell casting pc's to shine, Monks, Rogues fighters etc. The idea is to use your skills, tactics and abilities over using magic as a crutch. You still may have found some magicals but no spell casting for pc's. Rangers, Assassins, Palidons may have limited spell abilities must be approved by DM.

#2) Of course anytime you modify a campaign setting, you must modify the creatures in it, lowering DR etc. So you may still have mystical monsters with spells. Dragons & Medusa's will still retain their magic like abilites, albiet the dragons spells will be toned down a bit.

#3) I am not anti magic nor anti high level, I am however anti or at least reluctant to the combination of both. I play wizards, fighters psions clerics whatever I mix it up a lot. So when I say high level spell casting isnt as challenging, what I mean is you need to face really powerfull monsters to challenge, demons devils, a lot of save or die spells and that to me is less entertaining than playing a high level rogue assasin plotting the demise of a wizard...that vs casting a death spell I will take it everytime.

#4) So my opinion does not mean I don't know what I am talking about, and Im somehow ignorant because I have a different opinion. I am in no way telling you that you have a broken campaign, I am however voicing (posting anyways) my opinion on a D&D setting in a forum designed specifically for that purpose.

ThornCrest

 

[VirgilCaine]

by 10th level divine/arcane/psionic
-who needs a rogue. Cast inviso if you need to sneak, teleport for travel, detect traps, read minds for info gather there is a spell for just about everything and this is casting a spell not playing not rolling the dice little to no interaction.

-who needs warriors, rangers, fighters? (in some cases) take a look at the 5th, 6th level astral constructs...they are devestating, summon monster 4,5 or 6th they get pretty damn good. Gate spell whatever you need most of the time there is a spell taylor made. You can beef up a lower level follower or your self for that matter. Cast spells to find people instead of actually using tracking, shadowing etc. I am not suggesting the ranger, rogue or fighter are worthless but their skills become unneeded as you progress to the higher level spells.

Invisibility does nothing for the SOUND and the SMELL the caster makes. Teleport is not useful if you have no idea what the place looks like. Find Traps uses the CLERICS search skill and the insight bonus is pitiful. Reading minds for information would be highly frowned upon and is in fact illegal in civilized areas IMC. Besides, you can only detect surface thoughts, not root through the targets brain.

As for replacing fighters, rogues, and rangers with spell use, having the feet on the ground saves using resources--spell slots, gold, favors, etc. to bring in summoned guardians. And what about slightly lower level casters?

I think that you overestimate the power of magic.

 

[Aristotle]

I am in no way telling you that you have a broken campaign, I am however voicing (posting anyways) my opinion on a D&D setting in a forum designed specifically for that purpose.

And most everyone else is voicing opinions both on your original post and the low-magic vs. high-magic debate. Don't take the posts too personally. People get passionate about certain topics on various message boards. The debate of low-magic vs. high-magic is one such topic that pops up on ENworld every few weeks. There are a bunch of topics like that, and if you're fairly new to the site you'll likely hit a couple of them as you post here.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think one of the arguments Low-Magic-lovers often point to is the condition where a PC=their stuff. Basically, all the cool things a PC can do is owed more to his gear than the character's built in features.

I solve this by giving the characters innate abilities (which I take into consideration when examing wealth and adventure rewards). Bruin, the barbarian, is able to haste himself, although he takes damage while doing so, and Vadan, the ranger, is able to concentrate to add holy damage to her attack. I think it gives them something special about themselves to add to the mix. They still have several magical items, of course, but they're still unique. I run a normal magic power campaign, following the wealth tables fairly well.

#1) this thread was started with an example game setting, one that we use from time to time. It tends to allow other than spell casting pc's to shine, Monks, Rogues fighters etc. The idea is to use your skills, tactics and abilities over using magic as a crutch.

In my experience, non-spellcasting characters are just as powerful as the non-spellcasting ones. Yes, they need magial items to do many things, like fly and such, but once, while the wizard was being grappled by a dragon and about to die, the fighter/barbarian killed that dragon in one round with a full attack. In a low magic campaign, he would have been dragon fodder, but with his boots of flying and magical sword and such, he was a powerhouse to be reckoned with. Defnately not second fiddle to the wizard and cleric.