D&D 5E (2014) [Primeval Thule] House rules for spellcasting

[Psikerlord#]

I suspect Tony and Banana are correct - that the devs intended parties with magic users not too different to standard dnd parties - it's just the rest of the world that is low magic. And.... it is there that I think the setting falls down really.

A high magic party in a low magic world is going to be... kinda OP?

Anyhoo, I still like PT a lot. And I understand the devs want to appeal to the big 5e crowd.

I just will probably play it with a modified OSR game like Crypts & Things for a more solid S&S feel.

 

[DeathMutant]

My main objection to using cantrips in a PT setting is that they are too "casual." I want magic to be a challenge to learn, an effort and potential risk to use and impossible to master (for mortals, at least).

I want a PC to be required to find and convince an in-game mentor to teach them how to cast spells of a specific class. All spellcasting classes are prestige classes with minimum ability scores and skill proficiency requirements. This works in my game because I have new ways for PCs to gain skill proficiencies including use of downtime days.

Spells are not automatically learned from class lists as the caster levels-up. Each spell must be acquired individually and they are granted as rewards, adventure objectives or (risky) researched/discovered. This also gives me, as DM, some control in which spells PCs can use.

I want a PC spellcaster to feel like they can reasonably safely cast 1 or 2 spells low-level spells per encounter but, if they really need to, they can push the envelope and cast higher-level spells , more spells or add "effects" to spells (metamagic). There is a risk of "backlash" but only when they push the envelope for their class level. The basic mechanics for casting a spell -- in all spellcasting classes -- would be the same and resemble a combination of Warlock and Sorcerer.

I am even considering incorporating something like "Vis" (a physical manifestation of magic) from "Ars Magica" to allow spellcasters to boost, alter or power their spells plus Vis makes a nice reward, quest objective and plot device.

Some people may balk at the limited number spells of per encounter but, I believe, it will be ok because there are no "pure" spellcaster PCs (all spellcasting classes are prestige classes) so they can always fall back upon their "old skills" when it is too dangerous or are otherwise unable to cast.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I suspect Tony and Banana are correct - that the devs intended parties with magic users not too different to standard dnd parties - it's just the rest of the world that is low magic. And.... it is there that I think the setting falls down really.

A high magic party in a low magic world is going to be... kinda OP?

Anyhoo, I still like PT a lot. And I understand the devs want to appeal to the big 5e crowd.

I don't get the sense that they were forced into this decision. I mean, PT was born out of a kickstarter, there's zero reason to suspect that they didn't make exactly what they set out to make, and recognized the appeal of playing dealer in dark and forbidden arts as an appealing character choice (a la a standard D&D warlock). If they wanted to make something else, presumably, they would've kickstarted that other thing. That's one of the benefits of kickstarter: you don't HAVE TO make anything, and you can try weird things with a niche audience!

I also don't think that magic-use in a low magic setting is inherently powerful. For PT, I get the sense that if you refuse to play by the setting's fiction - magic is dangerous - than the DM can have that fiction fall right on top of you. While you can use cantrips as much as you want out in the dungeon to slay the lich or whatever, if you're casting charm person on the local innkeep, your party is going to be run out of town with pitchforks, or you're going to have a campaign about slaughtering townsfolk. It wouldn't be much different if an assassin came to town and started wearing a sign that says "I Kill Nobles": you're dangerous, you're unpredictable, you need to leave. Players do need to consent to that fiction (and those that don't probably wouldn't be big PT fans!)

But playing a caster in PT seems, at least from the default assumptions of the setting, like essentially telling the DM, "I want to play a character who trucks in dark forces. I want my power to be dangerous. I want to be feared. I want stories that involve the Great Old Ones." As a baseline, that seems to be an acceptable kind of character in a grim setting like PT - certainly you can be a heartless murderous mercenary who is dangerous to cross and who kills people at the drop of a hat and who maybe fights a squid monster from space at some point.

Rather than banning spellcasters, some house rules more in the PT mold as the setting is written might be a few variant flaws for your spellcaster character (like "I pursue knowledge no matter the cost" or "I hear whispers of bizarre creatures in my dreams, and they terrify me...but I don't want to be rid of them...") .

That is, if you're looking to flow in the mold set by the designers, and not just use PT as firewood for your awesome low-magic-setting bonfire. In that latter case, just ban classes with cantrips, and run with it!

 

[Hussar]

No one's setting up magical barge operations or magical forges at the heart of cities or anything.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...se-rules-for-spellcasting/page9#ixzz3ti0atp8g

Actually... there are a couple of places where you might find something like that.

OTOH, you are completely right. The setting itself isn't necessarily meant for low magic campaigns. And, genre wise, Moorcock is as Sword and Sorcery as Howard and Elric is set in a VERY high magic world. As are pretty much all of Moorcock's worlds. So, it's not breaking genre to have a sword and SORCERY setting.

Me, I just don't want it. I want a SWORD and sorcery setting instead. So, the first thing that has to get chopped is the 5e mechanics that let casters cast spells every single round of every single encounter. Regular spells are probably okay, simply because you don't cast that many of them. It's like the old AD&D games where you just can't blast away every single round, plus many times in non-combat encounters as well.

I mean, I'm a Banana, we're in one campaign with six characters and only two casters, and every single encounter features someone casting spells every single round. Sure, it might just be Fire Bolt, but, who cares? That's Harry Potter, not S&S. Our other campaign is even more ridiculous with the druid dropping Guidance spells on virtually every skill check that gets made, scouting while invisible AND shapechanged and then summoning hordes of critters to attack the enemy or dropping a Moonbeam on them to fry them. And that's just one of the three casters in the group.

5e is extremely high magic. Of course the writers of PT didn't start restricting that. They are in the business of selling books after all. But, for my campaign, I want a specific feel, and Harry Potter isn't it.

 

[Hussar]

I don't get the sense that they were forced into this decision. I mean, PT was born out of a kickstarter, there's zero reason to suspect that they didn't make exactly what they set out to make, and recognized the appeal of playing dealer in dark and forbidden arts as an appealing character choice (a la a standard D&D warlock). If they wanted to make something else, presumably, they would've kickstarted that other thing. That's one of the benefits of kickstarter: you don't HAVE TO make anything, and you can try weird things with a niche audience!

Well... PT was born out of a Kickstarter for Pathfinder. And they're not going to shoot themselves in the foot by limiting casters when you're using Pathfinder for a base.

I also don't think that magic-use in a low magic setting is inherently powerful. For PT, I get the sense that if you refuse to play by the setting's fiction - magic is dangerous - than the DM can have that fiction fall right on top of you. While you can use cantrips as much as you want out in the dungeon to slay the lich or whatever, if you're casting charm person on the local innkeep, your party is going to be run out of town with pitchforks, or you're going to have a campaign about slaughtering townsfolk. It wouldn't be much different if an assassin came to town and started wearing a sign that says "I Kill Nobles": you're dangerous, you're unpredictable, you need to leave. Players do need to consent to that fiction (and those that don't probably wouldn't be big PT fans!)

But, the problem with this is, if I, as the DM, actually start enforcing this, it makes the caster PC the center of attention all the time. Every town you go into, every urban center, the townsfolk start getting antsy about this one PC.

But playing a caster in PT seems, at least from the default assumptions of the setting, like essentially telling the DM, "I want to play a character who trucks in dark forces. I want my power to be dangerous. I want to be feared. I want stories that involve the Great Old Ones." As a baseline, that seems to be an acceptable kind of character in a grim setting like PT - certainly you can be a heartless murderous mercenary who is dangerous to cross and who kills people at the drop of a hat and who maybe fights a squid monster from space at some point.

Rather than banning spellcasters, some house rules more in the PT mold as the setting is written might be a few variant flaws for your spellcaster character (like "I pursue knowledge no matter the cost" or "I hear whispers of bizarre creatures in my dreams, and they terrify me...but I don't want to be rid of them...") .

That is, if you're looking to flow in the mold set by the designers, and not just use PT as firewood for your awesome low-magic-setting bonfire. In that latter case, just ban classes with cantrips, and run with it!

Yeah, I'm going with the second option. Going the other way makes PT just another D&D setting and I've been there, done that.

 

[Psikerlord#]

It's interesting (er, to me at least), that I had a funny feeling, a nagging disquiet about 5e, and I couldnt put my finger on it until recently. Having gone back and read much of the OSR games, I now realise I dont want common magic.

As Hussar indicated above, I dont want Harry Potter. I dont want "at will" magic, really. I want it to be powerful and mysterious and dangerous when it's used. And 5e really doesnt allow for that. Cantrips are an intrinsic part of the balance for full casters, but alas, they kinda kill the "tone" for magic that I'm after.

As it happens, older editions are closer to what I want, magic wise, because there is no easy at will magic. Casting a spell is a big deal, you have few of them, and when you do cast one, it's generally a big deal.

I think, on reflection, what I want is a more "realistic" kind of fantasy. And I think that extends also to races: ideally I think I want human only, but PT does elves and dwarves well enough. I do not want dragonborn, or tieflings, or anything remotely like those... too... gonzo?

Just ruminating.

 

[mrm1138]

I think you make some excellent points, I'm A Banana, but I do have to agree with Hussar. First, while it's true that Sasquatch wasn't forced into making the game what it ended up being, I do think that they might have decided to go with what would be most easily funded on Kickstarter. In that sense, I wouldn't be surprised if people like myself who want a new campaign setting that effectively turns a high fantasy game into a low fantasy game are most likely a niche market.

Hussar's point that adjusting the NPC reactions to magic using PCs making that character the center of attention much of the time is also a good one, as is his comment that, as it stands, PT is just another D&D setting. (I don't really have any experience with Dark Sun, but from the way it sounds, it works better as a low-magic S&S setting than Primeval Thule.)

I guess I'll just have to make peace with the fact that PT is just not the setting for me. I just wish I'd known that before I backed the Kickstarter.

 

[Ath'kethin]

(I don't really have any experience with Dark Sun, but from the way it sounds, it works better as a low-magic S&S setting than Primeval Thule.)

I guess I'll just have to make peace with the fact that PT is just not the setting for me. I just wish I'd known that before I backed the Kickstarter.

First off, the idea that Dark Sun is a low-magic setting is common but simply inaccurate. It's true that actual wizards ("magic-users") are rare and generally persecuted, and that "magic" is dangerous and environmentally destructive, but almost every creature - not just characters and NPCs, but creatures, like bears and alley cats - has some level of psionic ability. And every PC and NPC does. Calling this "magic" or not is semantics, but the fact is that the world is suffused with supernatural capabilities. In 4e this was a "DM option," but in 2e it was the rule. And since 3.x decided to erase the effect distinction between magic and psionics (making psionic powers basically just spells by another name), and every edition since has stuck to that approach, the semantic argument holds even less water.

Secondly, I'm still having some trouble seeing why you need to abandon the entire setting because the designers didn't limit character options the way you like, when as a DM it is simplicity itself to do just that yourself. And a magic-capable party doesn't seem to overpowered to me in a low-magic setting, based both on my own campaign experience and looking at the two new 5e Thule adventures that just came out.

At the end of the day, your campaign is your campaign and your game is your game; I'm certainly not going to try and tell you how to play. But I think it seems odd to throw out the 90% of the setting you really like because of the 10% you don't.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Actually... there are a couple of places where you might find something like that.

Those were both examples from FR, so I hope that those places are more filled with gibbering horrors than "that small town on the coast."

OTOH, you are completely right. The setting itself isn't necessarily meant for low magic campaigns. And, genre wise, Moorcock is as Sword and Sorcery as Howard and Elric is set in a VERY high magic world. As are pretty much all of Moorcock's worlds. So, it's not breaking genre to have a sword and SORCERY setting.

Me, I just don't want it. I want a SWORD and sorcery setting instead. So, the first thing that has to get chopped is the 5e mechanics that let casters cast spells every single round of every single encounter. Regular spells are probably okay, simply because you don't cast that many of them. It's like the old AD&D games where you just can't blast away every single round, plus many times in non-combat encounters as well.


I mean, I'm a Banana, we're in one campaign with six characters and only two casters, and every single encounter features someone casting spells every single round. Sure, it might just be Fire Bolt, but, who cares? That's Harry Potter, not S&S. Our other campaign is even more ridiculous with the druid dropping Guidance spells on virtually every skill check that gets made, scouting while invisible AND shapechanged and then summoning hordes of critters to attack the enemy or dropping a Moonbeam on them to fry them. And that's just one of the three casters in the group.

5e is extremely high magic. Of course the writers of PT didn't start restricting that. They are in the business of selling books after all. But, for my campaign, I want a specific feel, and Harry Potter isn't it.

That's a fine preference and aesthetic choice, but it doesn't seem like PT was necessarily built with that in mind. Doesn't mean a DM can't beat it into whatever shape they want, though! Just means that expecting the Sasquatches to do that work for you might be like expecting that popular girl from high school to call you for a date - they're just not that into it.

Well... PT was born out of a Kickstarter for Pathfinder. And they're not going to shoot themselves in the foot by limiting casters when you're using Pathfinder for a base.

I bet there's BONKERS LOADS of PF fans who would be into genuine rules for a low-magic party. PT just isn't interested in providing that. It's happy with spells being cast every round and shapechanging druids scouting through the jungles.

But, the problem with this is, if I, as the DM, actually start enforcing this, it makes the caster PC the center of attention all the time. Every town you go into, every urban center, the townsfolk start getting antsy about this one PC.

If you have a player who can't play in line with the fiction, then you have a problem independent of the setting. One of the conceits in PT is that magic is feared. If you can't follow that as a player, then you're just not buying into the setting as a player and you'd be better off with bog-standard D&D anyway.

That's what something like the additional flaws might help with - reminding the player that this isn't standard D&D. A DM just saying, "Remember, if you cast that spell within sight of these NPC's, they aren't likely to react well" falls into the same camp.

If the player goes ahead and does it all the time anyway, then the player isn't buying into the setting. Or they're just playing a disruptive character for no good reason.

Going the other way makes PT just another D&D setting and I've been there, done that.

I don't think that's true - a level of magic isn't the only thing that differentiates D&D settings. The stories you tell and the heroes you can be differentiate them. One of the heroes you can be in PT is a wizard who trucks in dark forces, and that doesn't make the game like every other D&D game.

First, while it's true that Sasquatch wasn't forced into making the game what it ended up being, I do think that they might have decided to go with what would be most easily funded on Kickstarter. In that sense, I wouldn't be surprised if people like myself who want a new campaign setting that effectively turns a high fantasy game into a low fantasy game are most likely a niche market.

The important bit is that they made what they wanted to make. If they wanted to have a low-magic party, they'd have made that. As far as the designers are concerned, that's not the need that PT is designed to fill. Not incompatible, just not one of the design goals.

 

[Tony Vargas]

As Hussar indicated above, I dont want Harry Potter. I dont want "at will" magic, really. And 5e really doesnt allow for that. Cantrips are an intrinsic part of the balance for full casters, but alas, they kinda kill the "tone" for magic that I'm after.

Intrinsic, perhaps, but really, not all that significant. The balance formula, such as it is, for neo-Vancian casters is the same as it is for Vancian. The caster gets to be more effective than the non-caster when he casts spells, once he's out of spells, that's balanced by being less effective until the next rest. In 5e, cantrips mitigate against the 'less effective' side of that equation, requiring the caster to be w/o spells longer before balance is achieved - thus those 6-8 encounter workdays. Removing cantrips simply lets the neo-Vancian caster pay back his overpoweredness over a slightly shorter 'day.' It still has to be long enough to run him out of spells (or see him managing his spells carefully enough that he simply doesn't cast on some rounds), but, because the gap between wizard plinking with a light crossbow and grinding out fighter DPR is wider than the gap between the latter and fire bolt, doesn't have to force as many non-casting rounds.

But that's all theoretical. Unless the DM is ready to be the conductor on the D&D express railroad, the party is going to have at least some say in the decision of when to rest, and that'll generally be well before that balancing point is reached.

I want it to be powerful and mysterious and dangerous when it's used. As it happens, older editions are closer to what I want, magic wise, because there is no easy at will magic. Casting a spell is a big deal, you have few of them, and when you do cast one, it's generally a big deal.

Well, that's one out of three (powerful). But there's very little danger to casting most old-school D&D spells (fireball & lightning bolt being the two notable exceptions, out of hundreds of spells), and nothing remotely mysterious about them, since they're all right there in the PH, and can be purchases as services.

I think, on reflection, what I want is a more "realistic" kind of fantasy.

As in true-to-genre, or in some theoretical sense? Like, "if there were magic how would things play out?"

And I think that extends also to races: ideally I think I want human only

Humans certainly prove more than capable enough of providing dramatic conflict all on their own. ;P

but PT does elves and dwarves well enough.

Maybe if they were more like the Norse versions...?

I do not want dragonborn, or tieflings, or anything remotely like those... too... gonzo?

A half-fiend/half-human or a hidden enclave of draconic humanoids left over from a forgotten empire could certainly fit the S&S genre. Not so much as protagonists, but as a villain or as stage-dressing for a single story.