Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="der_kluge" data-source="post: 465685" data-attributes="member: 945">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.</blockquote>

Verification