"low" magic campaign using D&D rules

[Celebrim]

Really?

Really.

Because if you want I can dig up a bunch of 1st edition modules with tons of mooks running around with +1 gear.

But the contrary to that is not what I asserted, was it? Nor for that matter is that exactly your original assertion. I don't have to assert that modules like 'Against the Giants' where low magic in order to make my point. All I have to do is demonstrate that at least one possibility of following the rules that generated low magic existed, and that in and of itself calls into question assertions like 'Magic items have never been rare' and that people are not trust worthy to remember and report thier own experiences.

 

[el-remmen]

And to keep things on topic, I'll re-post some of my own houserules from another recent that help me run what I consider a "moderate" magic game:

There are a variety of ways I regulate stuff, though mostly through having a pretty strong consensus among my group of that is how we want to play. Of the six current players, two would probably prefer slightly less magic, two would prefer slightly more and two are just fine. . . so it averages out and everyone is having fun, which is the important part.

As for the rules I have implemented, it would probably take its own thread to get into detail (which I might be convinced to create in House Rules if anyone is interested), but among them are:

• Limit the number of spells wizards learn as they advance in level (1 every 2 levels instead of 2 every 1 level)
• Giving each priesthood its own custom spell list
• Required training for certain class abilities, feat and skills
• Magical item creation requires power components and special "recipes" - when you learn an item creation feat you are learning how to make something specific - which then can be applied to create other things with more research/time (this applie mostly to wonderous items, rings, staves)
• Certain kinds of magical items can only be made by certain magic types (i.e. wands are only arcane)
• Base Defense that improves AC for all classes as they advance (depending on class) to make up for lack of magic armor
• A general reinforcement of the setting's view on magic. both in terms of character background, but the consequences of public abuse of magic

 

[Celebrim]

El-remmen: Good ideas.

Limit the number of spells wizards learn as they advance in level (1 every 2 levels instead of 2 every 1 level)

In my own campaign for many years, I've simply ruled that you don't gain any new spells automatically as you level. I started doing this when I elimenated mandatory training (and the associated fees) when you wanted to level. If you want spells, you have to find them in some fashion. Now, I tend to be pretty generous about including spell books as part of the treasure, so its not like the player is suffering for spells necessarily, but it does mean that every spell that they may want is not immediately available.

Giving each priesthood its own custom spell list

I haven't gone that far, but I do tend to think that you either need to do that, or else have spells known for clerics, or else limit clerics to core spells only. Otherwise, the flexibility that clerics attain is just too great.

Required training for certain class abilities, feat and skills

I find that this ends up punishing me as a DM more than it helps me. I don't really want the story to be interrupted regularly by long periods of down time. A period like that every few levels is ok, but not desirable in all cases.

Magical item creation requires power components and special "recipes" - when you learn an item creation feat you are learning how to make something specific - which then can be applied to create other things with more research/time (this applie mostly to wonderous items, rings, staves)

I use to do that for 1st edition, but it was tedious work as a DM. On the other hand, it meant that recipes could be found as (highly desirable) treasure. I haven't reintroduced the idea of recipes since 3rd edition, but I have been toying with the idea.

Certain kinds of magical items can only be made by certain magic types (i.e. wands are only arcane)

Yoink. That is a great idea.

Base Defense that improves AC for all classes as they advance (depending on class) to make up for lack of magic armor

Something that I've been toying with doing, but I'm worried about how it will effect balance since eventually the magic armor will arrive in some form. How is it working out for you?

A general reinforcement of the setting's view on magic. both in terms of character background, but the consequences of public abuse of magic

This ought to be an important consideration in any campaign setting, whether high magic or low magic. In fact, there are very few settings where I think that enough consideration has been given to the consequences of magic and how it would shape society. I'm not a big of Eberron, but one thing I do like about it is that it does seem like the creator did think long and hard about this subject. Someone who wants to take magic in the other direction ought to think equally long and hard.

 

[AllisterH]

Celebrim was referring to the treasure tables from the DMG -- Treasure Type A, B, C, etc. Not the treasure from published modules.

It is my sense that, according to these tables, most monsters would have considerably fewer magic items (and often considerably less useful magic items) than were present in modules. For example, dragons in the Basic Set were Treasure Type H, the most generous treasure type, but even so were more likely than not to have NO magic items IIRC.

I would agree with this. For example, treasure type H (pg 180. Black cover DMG) you had Any 6 items but it was only a 15% chance. Of course the fact that the adventures REGULARLY ignored this kind of disproves the assertation that 1E was low-magic. Go by the DMG and you get low magic. Go by what TSR published and 1E was magic item heavy.

The difference was they would have alot more gold/silver pieces compared to the current edition and which, depending on campaign style was either easy or not so easy to convert into magic items.

 

[Celebrim]

I would agree with this. For example, treasure type H (pg 180. Black cover DMG) you had Any 6 items but it was only a 15% chance. Of course the fact that the adventures REGULARLY ignored this kind of disproves the assertation that 1E was low-magic.

It disproves the assertion that 1E was necessarily low-magic, in the same way that the guidelines in the DMG and the 1E random treasure tables disprove that it was necessarily high magic - even without considering the variaty in play styles and house rules.

Go by the DMG and you get low magic. Go by what TSR published and 1E was magic item heavy.

What I was trying to assert was that 1E players could have had a variaty of play experiences that were not only valid (duh?) but even within the rules depending on what example from TSR's published works the players/ref emphasised and what you had experienced. As I've said many times before, there is nothing really like 'default' 1E play, because every table was so different (even in the rules they used).

In any event, this is a red herring. How things were done in the past has no real bearing on the viability of doing them one way or the other. Arguing about how someone's 1st edition experience is invalid is just a way to derail the thread with edition wars.

 

[Remathilis]

• Limit the number of spells wizards learn as they advance in level (1 every 2 levels instead of 2 every 1 level)

Curious, how do you balance this against a sorcerer? Cleric? Esp with the cost of scribing a spell being 200 gp. It means a wizard has to outlay a large amount of gold to be good at what he should be doing anyway: Casting a spell. Do you require the fighter to buy a new sword evertime he levels? Or the rogue has to shell out for new lockpicks? No. But the wizard has to pay gold to remain constantly relevant (having new spells for every new spell level he acquires) . Makes sorcerers and clerics (who get there stuff for free) mighty tempting choices...

 

[mmadsen]

Do you require the fighter to buy a new sword evertime he levels?

Didn't a moderator just come on here and ask everyone to lay off the snarky comments and negative attitude?

 

[el-remmen]

Curious, how do you balance this against a sorcerer? Cleric? Esp with the cost of scribing a spell being 200 gp. It means a wizard has to outlay a large amount of gold to be good at what he should be doing anyway: Casting a spell. Do you require the fighter to buy a new sword evertime he levels? Or the rogue has to shell out for new lockpicks? No. But the wizard has to pay gold to remain constantly relevant (having new spells for every new spell level he acquires) . Makes sorcerers and clerics (who get there stuff for free) mighty tempting choices...

Well simple. . . No sorcerers. . . I only use sorcerer levels as quick short hand for monsters I want to have innate spell-ability.

Scribing a spell cast 25 sps / level (we use a silver standard, not gold)

Training w/ someone for a new spell level usually comes with two spells of that level included in the price (though all of that stuff is in-game negotiable)

Clerics have custom spell lists depending on the priesthood - also, they have a reponsibility to use their spells in the interests of their god/church and consequences if they abuse stuff (I know some people don't like RP restrictions to crunchy benefits, but I have never had a problem with it (within reason)

 

[el-remmen]

Didn't a moderator just come on here and ask everyone to lay off the snarky comments and negative attitude?

Hey mmadsen, I appreciate the sentiment - but I did not take it as snarky. . . Maybe it was, and if so, then he should breath a sigh of relief that he got away with it. .. for now. . . and we can continue with the topic at hand.

And if he didn't mean it that way, well then, no harm, no foul. . . and now he knows to be more careful.

 

[el-remmen]

In case you are curious about the specific rule we use:

Wizards are not guaranteed more spells as they gain each level. Instead, it is dependent on these characters to find more spells to learn more (either through discovery or trading), or to apply their experience over time to research spells they know of that are of the same magic schools as others of the wizard's spells.

Beginning at character creation the wizard may choose one spell he does not already know, of a school of a spell he already knows (or of his specialty school) and of a level he can already cast or lower and declare he is developing it over time. After gaining his 2nd level, he may roll to successfully learn/develop the spell(Spellcraft check against a DC equal to 15 + the spell’s level). Whether the roll succeeds or fails, the wizard may then declare another spell to develop that would be rolled for when gaining another 2 levels. In the case of a failure, the wizard may choose the same spell again, if he likes.

Failing to learn a spell from a scroll (or other spellbook) means you cannot try again until you have gained at least one more rank in the Spellcraft skill or one more wizard levels. A spell that is copied from a scroll vanishes from the scroll whether the attempt to learn succeeds or fails.