Low magic rulebook anyone?

[der_kluge]

I've heard a couple of theories on low magic worlds, and Turjan is right - it means different things to different people.

You have almost no magic kinds of settings, which would be (oddly enough) more like a Lord of the Rings kind of a world, where magic is mysterious, and seemingly held by few. Or, Excalibur, where magic is powerful, but costly - Merlin says in one scene "For nine moons I slept".

For some, magic means maintaining spells, but removing magic items. I've heard people complain that a 20th level PC is nothing without their magic items. Which is true to an extent. So, limiting magic items certainly changes the scope of things quite a bit. This is one thing that kind of irks me with the current system. I think most people don't come near approaching the "suggested" levels of magic items and so it tends to skew all the CR ratings at the higher levels. So, unless my party of 10th level has tens of thousands of gp worth of magic items, they're not in any position to challenge EL 10 encounters.

One solution, that I'm considering trying out next time I run a campaign, is to make the wizard spell progression "top-heavy", which means that a first level wizard gets more 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells than normal, but the progression slows dramatically. So, at 20th level, he gets 0 9th level spells, rather than getting 1 9th level spell at 17th level using the current system. So, it makes wizards more useful and more powerful in the lower levels, but it gives them access to fewer and fewer higher level spells.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Since Greg Benage first mentioned it in his Behind the Curtain column a while back, I have been looking forward to Midnight to fulfill my low-magic needs:

MIDNIGHT

Scroll down to the 8/16/2002 entry.


Wulf

 

[MThibault]

For some, magic means maintaining spells, but removing magic items. I've heard people complain that a 20th level PC is nothing without their magic items. Which is true to an extent. So, limiting magic items certainly changes the scope of things quite a bit. This is one thing that kind of irks me with the current system. I think most people don't come near approaching the "suggested" levels of magic items and so it tends to skew all the CR ratings at the higher levels. So, unless my party of 10th level has tens of thousands of gp worth of magic items, they're not in any position to challenge EL 10 encounters.

If you are looking for accross the board compensation for taking away the magic items there are two main ways (off the top of my head) to approach the problem.

1) Change Monster CRs. At low levels, equipment isn't much of a factor so there isn't any change needed. As levels increase, equipment becomes more and more important to the balance. A Fi 20 without a +5 Keen Flaming Burst Sword, and +5 armor and shield is probably a few levels behind in pure combat ability. The lack of other types of magic to boost saves, increase mobility, resist energy effects, enchantments or whatever drags him down another few increments of power. So at low levels (levels 1-4), I would leave CRs as is but by high levels (level 17 or so) I would hike them up by +3 or +4. CR isn't a finely honed instrument so there will always be a judgement call, unfortunately.

2) If you still want players to be able to go after the big dragons and demons at high levels then you are going to have to increase the class-powers. Call them extraordinary abilities if you want, or just leave them un-names like BAB or base saves.

An AC bonus, by class and level, is a start. You won't need your rings, bracers and magic armor and shields as much if you get a significant compensation through the simple act of leveling up. Likewise a faster rate of ability score increases -- again I would start this progression as normal and then speed it up after level 6 -- will compensate by granting better attacks and damage, more bonus spells and higher spell DCs, and better Skill modifiers without magical assistance. Finally, I would start adding in optional class abilities that are available after level 6. These will allow character customization as well as pure power increases. These powers should focus on non-combat, non-spellcasting powers as compensation for the lack of wonderous items and rings that make a party extremely versatile. One significant power every other level starting around level 7 should allow your monk to have a effects such as a Boots of Striding and Springing, Gloves of Swiming and Climbing and Cloak of Hiding by around level 11. She won't have the actual items, but she naturally gain the power that is associated with them.

The second option is sort of a low-magic/high-heroism version. If you don't want the players to be doing the things that magic usually allows then just increase the CRs and take the power away from the PCs. Or you might want to combine the two options and only increase the CRs a little bit and give the PCs a Power every 3 levels.

This is all off the top of my head, more or less, so take the details with a grain of salt. It really needs more development.

Cheers.

 

[Turjan]

Maybe you can use some "one way" artefact in order to defeat a dragon, specially constructed in a long ritual for this epic task .

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.

Just for clarification: I am the original poster. But I've learned from the other posters that a toolbox system might be impossible, because it's seen to be too complicated. Therefore, I'm left, more or less, with the task of writing my own campaign setting.

One solution, that I'm considering trying out next time I run a campaign, is to make the wizard spell progression "top-heavy", which means that a first level wizard gets more 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells than normal, but the progression slows dramatically.

Well, I like the solution, but do you think it's balanced? Why do you give them more spells at lower level? There is no problem at low level as it is, I suppose.

Since Greg Benage first mentioned it in his Behind the Curtain column a while back, I have been looking forward to Midnight to fulfill my low-magic needs: MIDNIGHT

Thanks for the link. Although I seem to be the only one who actually likes Vancian magic as a principle . The Midnight preview page with a download can be found here, btw

 

[jmucchiello]

If you are looking for accross the board compensation for taking away the magic items there are two main ways (off the top of my head) to approach the problem.

1) Change Monster CRs.

2) If you still want players to be able to go after the big dragons and demons at high levels then you are going to have to increase the class-powers.

You left out:

3) Get rid of impossible monsters. In a low-magic world, there are no liches, no arch-devils, no greater demons, no vampires, no mind flayers, no beholders, etc. They cannot exist. They need high-magic foes or else they just take over the world. Monsters in a low-magic world must be like Rakshasa: they have inherent flaws that make them easy to defeat. 1st level characters can take out a Rakshasa if they have blessed crossbow bolts. Wicked witches (to replace the liches) must be defeatable with buckets of cold water. (or something similar yet less inane)

You have to rethink what a monster is in a low-magic campaign. Sending a Wraith after 8th level characters lacking magic is just mean. If one wraith is introduced to such a world, why hasn't it gone through every backwater village spawning hundreds and hundreds more wraiths? In a normal-magic world there's an adventuring band in every inn who will eventually stop it. In a low-magic world, you end up with a world full of wraiths.

This is another reason why this cannot be a rulebook. You would need that sliding scale to include the red flag "This monster cannot scale down, do not include it in your world."

Joe

 

[MThibault]

That a cool take on it: the Brothers Grimm Low-Magic Campaign Setting. But in a fantasy world, you can just alter the ecology of the monsters to keep their numbers or power low.

Outsiders might be bound by divine laws when on the material plane, even the evil ones risk starting a divine war in the heavens if they cross certain lines (i.e. try to directly take control of the material plane). Beholders were created in an arcane mishap involving the flesh golems and beach toys, there are only 4 known in the world and they don't reproduce. Dragons are even more rare and they sleep for centuries between feedings.

I agree that a low-magic feel will be broken if there are tons of magical monsters around. But not everyone will agree, so a generic system should account for it. Altering CRs is one way to go. Beowulf died killing the dragon (Oops, should have put in a spoiler alert.) but there was a hero that could and did kill the dragon. As long as there is one hero per generation who can smack down the magical beasts when they get uppity, you won't have the magical beasts dominating the land.

If you take the high-heroism out of the game along with the magic, then it becomes even more difficult to rationalize not prostrating in front of the cloud giant Overlords. If the PCs aren't heroic, then there shouldn't be monsters that are -- unless of course you want an Elminsterish deus ex machina to handle the crowd control while the PCs just nab the buried treasure.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a sourcebook/rulebook that has 10 or 15 premade low-magic "plug-ins" for D&D. Each would be setting neutral, but would be based on a specific set of assumptions. If you put these assumptions up front and clearly stated then DMs might be able to pick the one that is closest to their vision and do a final tweak before applying it to their campaign world. It would be a lot of work, still, to retrofit your campaign setting with any new assumptions (you'd have to change many of the NPCs, monsters and perhaps even politics and sociology). But if you are just starting on your setting (or you work from the "inside out" while the campaign is in progress, it might be a very useful tool. If you included a mini-setting (a detailed country or region) to illustrate the rules plug-in (and which could be dropped into an existing setting) then it might even be an interesting read for those who never end up using the material in a game.

Cheers.

[edited my sourcebook/rulebook nomenclature]

 

[Turjan]

If you included a mini-setting (a detailed country or region) to illustrate the rules plug-in (and which could be dropped into an existing setting) then it might even be an interesting read for those who never end up using the material in a game.

Well, that's some great idea . You could take about the same mini-setting to illustrate each ruleset, with the appropriate changes of course, thereby making comparison very easy .

 

[jmucchiello]

Originally posted by MThibault
If you included a mini-setting (a detailed country or region) to illustrate the rules plug-in (and which could be dropped into an existing setting) then it might even be an interesting read for those who never end up using the material in a game.

Well, that's some great idea . You could take about the same mini-setting to illustrate each ruleset, with the appropriate changes of course, thereby making comparison very easy .

Where in this 10-15 different settings do you rewrite all of the monsters? Would it just be some rules (like those I included in an earlier post: SR divide by 2, DR divide by 2 and remove magic requirements, etc)? Or would you chart the SRD monsters by new CR?

What about class elements? Low magic rangers and bards might have no spells. Monk may not get some of the weirder supernatural abilities (does not age, immune to poison, etc). How are you going to include all of these changes in the 10-15 settings and make each of them feel unique?

MThibault, in a 128 page book, the 10-15 settings only get 8-12 pages each. If you can write 6,000 words* that satisfies exactly what you want I'd be surprised. You could easily spend 6,000 words on the core classes, changing spells and spell progressions, updating feats, updating equipment price lists, restating monsters. Where will the setting fit in here?

Joe

*6,000 words is low for 8 pages but I'm assuming there has to a few pictures and a map or two in each campaign setting. I went with the 8 page low end because I realize some of the class tweaks can be done outside the settings and just referenced in the settings.

As a PDF, I don't see it making any money though because it needs a lot of artwork and maps. I wouldn't write it because low-magic isn't really my thing but I'd be happy to edit it for you if you want.

 

[Turjan]

Well, actually, about 4 different approaches should be sufficient to illustrate the principle types of low magic settings. The sense behind the setting is to depict different rulesets, so there is no real need in detailing a lot more settings just for flavour.

 

[MThibault]

Well, 10 to 15 was a high estimate. I shouldn't really guess until I sit down and map out the possibilities.

I tmight be as low as 4 it might be as high as 20. In the latter case, you'll never see it published.


Where in this 10-15 different settings do you rewrite all of the monsters? Would it just be some rules (like those I included in an earlier post: SR divide by 2, DR divide by 2 and remove magic requirements, etc)? Or would you chart the SRD monsters by new CR?

What about class elements? Low magic rangers and bards might have no spells. Monk may not get some of the weirder supernatural abilities (does not age, immune to poison, etc). How are you going to include all of these changes in the 10-15 settings and make each of them feel unique?


These details would be different for each conception of low-magic. For some a simple formula or conversion table and a paragraph explaination will handle all of the monsters. For others, it will be more concerned with reworking Special Attacks and Special Abilities, which will take much more space and thought. Same deal with classes. Some conceptions will keep the classes more or less as is, and will focus more on Magic Items and monsters.

I think that the details would determine the viability of the work.

One suggestion for whomever does tackle it: organize from easiest changes to more difficult. Books are linear, so if you can reference earlier concepts and mechanics in later sections that will reduce your word count and writing time, but for the reader it is probably best to be eased into the subject.

I like the idea of using the same mini-setting for each low-magic concept to really highlight the difference in each plug-in.

[BTW I'm not planning on writing this, I've got other projects on the go. Unless, of course, someone wants to send me a letter of intent to publish it. Then I will reprioritize.]

Cheers.