Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TSL" data-source="post: 470114" data-attributes="member: 2528">True - and point of fact - I think there is definitely room for a 'generic' low-magic setting book for 3e.&nbsp; As for using 'established monsters' for a low magic setting, don't the 'established monsters' all presume a high magic setting, making them somewhat intrinsically flawed for use in a low magic setting?O.k., says you, that isn't very useful, T.S. I still want to use a damn (fill in the monster), low-magic or no.Fine.&nbsp; Presume you have an all fighter party in a &quot;standard&quot; game of 3e - following your [jmucchiello's] magic assumptions- what is the difference?Well, their weapons/armor wouldn't have as high a bonus, and special abilities would be unlikely.&nbsp; Their access to healing magic, presumably potions, would be less.&nbsp; Low-magic settings already have to contend with the &quot;hit point&quot; question, long before they worry about magic items.&nbsp; In most cases I would adjust the hypothetical monster by lowering its armor class, BAB, and Str/Dam.Or not - some GMs are cruel that way.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> My thought to you, is what happens to game balance between a fighter and the other classes when you adjust their magic abilities downward without corresponding compensation?Which is why, returning to my first point, I think there is definetly a place for a generic low-magic setting sourcebook - one that redefines all of the core classes for use in a low-magic setting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TSL, post: 470114, member: 2528"] True - and point of fact - I think there is definitely room for a 'generic' low-magic setting book for 3e. As for using 'established monsters' for a low magic setting, don't the 'established monsters' all presume a high magic setting, making them somewhat intrinsically flawed for use in a low magic setting? O.k., says you, that isn't very useful, T.S. I still want to use a damn (fill in the monster), low-magic or no. Fine. Presume you have an all fighter party in a "standard" game of 3e - following your [jmucchiello's] magic assumptions- what is the difference? Well, their weapons/armor wouldn't have as high a bonus, and special abilities would be unlikely. Their access to healing magic, presumably potions, would be less. Low-magic settings already have to contend with the "hit point" question, long before they worry about magic items. In most cases I would adjust the hypothetical monster by lowering its armor class, BAB, and Str/Dam. Or not - some GMs are cruel that way. ;) My thought to you, is what happens to game balance between a fighter and the other classes when you adjust their magic abilities downward without corresponding compensation? Which is why, returning to my first point, I think there is definetly a place for a generic low-magic setting sourcebook - one that redefines all of the core classes for use in a low-magic setting. [/QUOTE]

Verification