Low magic rulebook anyone?

[thg jim]

While this doesn't cover monsters and encounters, we are releasing, early next year, the Artificer's Handbook. In it, we rewrite the magic creation rules, having them finally make sense. We also have ways to adapt this to low, medium, and high magic settings. Once we get closer to the actual release date, which is tentatively February or March, I will post some parts to give you an idea as to what you can actually expect.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I think that Damage Resistance would become incrementally more powerful in a campaign where fighters don't have magic weapons (or magic to boost attacks/damage) and the spellcasters don't have boom spells. A DR 10/+1 would be very powerful.

Quick fix: Base a character's DR penetration on his wisdom or charisma bonus. "Gotta have faith." Personally I would lean towards Charisma as it's the governing stat for turning undead, it fits the concept better.

While this doesn't cover monsters and encounters, we are releasing, early next year, the Artificer's Handbook. In it, we rewrite the magic creation rules, having them finally make sense.

Jim, in all seriousness: What specifically "doesn't make sense" about the magic item creation rules as written?


Wulf

 

[philreed]

Magic Item Creation

Jim, in all seriousness: What specifically "doesn't make sense" about the magic item creation rules as written?Wulf

What bothers me is that the rules are "guidelines." I would have been happier with rules that are actual rules.

This is an area of the D20 System that gives me the most trouble . . . I like high-powered stuff so by using the rules as guidelines I'm going to price stuff at a point others disagree with.

 

[jmucchiello]

Re: Magic Item Creation

What bothers me is that the rules are "guidelines." I would have been happier with rules that are actual rules.

Only because spell levels are determined by guidelines. If there were rules about spell levels, there could be rules about spells. Short of creating a GURPS or HERO-like system behind the spell and monster system, there is no way to fix the D&D magic system.

Haste once per day (from a wizard who wishes to do more than just haste) is a great 3rd level effect. Haste 5-6 times per day (from a sorcerer with only one 3rd level effect) is abusive beyond all reasoning. Boots of Speed are essentially haste, so they should cost 2,000 x 3 (spell level) x 5 (caster level) / 5 (once per day) = 6,000. This is bumped up a bit (8,000) because the haste can be activated and deactived every round up to 10 times per day. How much should that bumping up cost? How do you make rules for that kind of alteration to an effect? It doesn't exist in many other items.

Rules require a uniform context. Magic has none.

Joe

 

[Darrin Drader]

What is so hard about doing this yourself, really? Multiple the formulae by some factor. ... This sounds more like a sourcebook than a rulebook. It doesn't work without releasing a set of books containing monsters and settings wheere they roam.

I never said that I couldn't do this myself. No game designer worth their weight in salt wouldn't be able to. Regardless of this, I don't necessarily have the time or the desire to write this book myself, and it would be handy to have a unifying system to handle varying degrees of low magic worlds.

I don't actually see that there is a big difference between sourcebooks and rulebooks. Each handles new rules or scenarios to add to a game. I also don't see why it would justify an entire new line of books. It would be a very simple thing to make some suggestions on how monsters are handled in such settings. Low magic can potentially apply to any world of the DM's chosing, from home bew to even the Forgotten Realms, and this would not require a separate setting just to accomodate low magic. It might change much of what we take for granted in published settings, but it can be done.

 

[Red Spire Press]

You may find your solution in our upcoming product line, slated for late 2003.

It is a low magic, dark fantasy setting with many characteristics that distinguish it from the current batch of released campaign settings.

You'll find completely modified/replaced core classes, prestige classes, feats, equipment, spells, systems of divine and arcane magic and monsters; all built to give the system a dark and gritty atmosphere and play style that is missing from the plethora of high fantasy/high magic systems out there.

You will love priests.
And I guarantee you'll love gnomes.

Website and more info coming soon...

 

[der_kluge]

Jim, in all seriousness: What specifically "doesn't make sense" about the magic item creation rules as written?

Wulf

Two things that pop to mind immediately -

XP costs
Rings of Evasion

 

[Turjan]

Okay, I see the general problem. As there are obviously as many concepts of "low magic" as there are people, it will be difficult to please everyone. I, for instance, certainly don't want to play in a setting that resembles our modern days, as far as magic goes. I don't have problems even with the more powerful illusions (like "invisibility", maybe with greater penalties), but would certainly exclude "teleport". Even "my" alternate ranger (forgive me for mentioning this topic ) is still able to cast spells. I just want to tone down power advancement, with much less and less powerful magic items, and with less powerful spells, although I even might replace some powerful spells with more atmospheric (but less powerful) ones . I see that this is a very special take on "low magic", and I see now that I probably have to do that myself. No conferring with gods, no planar travel, no monster summoning, but maybe spirits (they might come if they wanted ).

In addition to these atmospheric changes this would make the difference between class levels much smaller than they are at the moment. And of course the monsters have to be changed. But, in the end, it will be easier to get EL's right.

Well, looks as if I will have quite a lot of work to do during the following months .

@die_kluge: Right. Producing items should yield experience, not cost any. Although I see the mechanical reasoning behind it.

 

[MThibault]

Quick fix: Base a character's DR penetration on his wisdom or charisma bonus. "Gotta have faith." Personally I would lean towards Charisma as it's the governing stat for turning undead, it fits the concept better.


That's a good one. But in a really useful general supplement, it couldn't be the only one. This assumes 1) DR is something that is not tangible or physical (a tough hide) and 2) Bards should be better at penetrating DR than Barbarians.

If youwant to keep the first assumption, but not the second, you could give "Spiritual Bonuses" to overcoming DR. This would be similar to Ki Strike. Each class would have a different progression so paladins would get this bonus first (this would assume that would be losing or significantly delaying their spell progression) and fastest, and wizards and sorcers would get it last and lowest. I would allow it to stack from various classes (but not with actual magic items) so a multiclassed Fighter/Wizard won't be too screwed.

This way, a 1st level bard can't overcome DR20/+4 and a 20th level Fighter won't be too weak against DR10/+2.

This complicates the system a bit, so if there were a way to reuse this progression for other compensatory features of the low-magic classes, that would be a benefit.



I don't actually see that there is a big difference between sourcebooks and rulebooks. Each handles new rules or scenarios to add to a game.


I guess the big difference is that the former provides rules in context, so the in-game and metagame ducks are all in order. When you create a setting sourcebook you are defining the assumptions (magic works in this way, divine intervention works in this way, gravity works in this way, etc.). DMs are free to change or ignore those assumptions, but the reason you purchase a campaign setting is for the integrated flavor and rules. So, if it is done well, if you like one you'll probably like the other (or at least be able to live with it).

A rulebook doesn't have the in-game and metagame information all tied together in a neat package. It has to be either generic enough that it can be dropped into any setting or it has to present a series of less generic options, of which there will be at least one that will suit the customer's needs.



Low magic can potentially apply to any world of the DM's chosing, from home bew to even the Forgotten Realms, and this would not require a separate setting just to accomodate low magic. It might change much of what we take for granted in published settings, but it can be done.


Sure. But they would have to be very generic. That isn't very exciting to read and still might not satisfy the in-game assumptions of the DM. The more generic the setting (i.e. Greyhawk, FR, et al.) the easier it will be, unless of course your definition of low-magic just doesn't fit (low magic = low level, for example) in which case you probably won't even try to apply those rules to a high-level setting like FR. You would probably appreciate a few pointers on how the game changes without higher level spells (even from NPCs) such as Teleport, Raise Dead, Atonement, etc.

It can be done. But whether it could be done well and thoroughly remains to be seen. I would like to see it done, though.

Cheers.

 

[jmucchiello]

Okay, I see the general problem. As there are obviously as many concepts of "low magic" as there are people, it will be difficult to please everyone. I, for instance, certainly don't want to play in a setting that resembles our modern days, as far as magic goes. I don't have problems even with the more powerful illusions (like "invisibility", maybe with greater penalties), but would certainly exclude "teleport". Even "my" alternate ranger (forgive me for mentioning this topic ) is still able to cast spells. I just want to tone down power advancement, with much less and less powerful magic items, and with less powerful spells, although I even might replace some powerful spells with more atmospheric (but less powerful) ones . I see that this is a very special take on "low magic", and I see now that I probably have to do that myself. No conferring with gods, no planar travel, no monster summoning, but maybe spirits (they might come if they wanted ).

In addition to these atmospheric changes this would make the difference between class levels much smaller than they are at the moment. And of course the monsters have to be changed. But, in the end, it will be easier to get EL's right.

Well, looks as if I will have quite a lot of work to do during the following months .

Well at least you understand though that this is not a rulebook. This is a particular world. A sourcebook.

The original poster wants something that has never been produced. A game system that works in more than one manner as written. D&D is a medium-high level magic game system. They picked that level since they felt that was where the core game was. They didn't create a game system that could vary from medium to high or low to very high. They picked one level: "Characters gain abilities and supplement those abilities with magic items. They need X amount of magic items per level to be average." That is D&D. It has no variation. Now you want someone to put variation into and still have some kind of balance? I don't think it can be done without be setting specific. Or so vague that you, the DM, still would have to run the numbers for your world.

@die_kluge: Right. Producing items should yield experience, not cost any. Although I see the mechanical reasoning behind it.

If producing items gave XP, then how could there be a low-magic world. Every mage would be churning out as many more and more powerful magic items as they could. There has to be a limiting factor that really hurts. Nothing hurts the player more than XPs. As for the Ring of Evasion, what's wrong with it?