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

[Tony Vargas]

I bet there's BONKERS LOADS of PF fans who would be into genuine rules for a low-magic party.

And they're already playing E6, I suppose, and could play PT that way, too.

PT just isn't interested in providing that. It's happy with spells being cast every round and shapechanging druids scouting through the jungles.

I'm sure it's happy with a no-caster party, too. They're selling a campaign setting, they're happy if you buy it, however you might use it.

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.

It helps if magic is in some way fearsome. If choosing a magic-using class just gives you no-strings-attached power, it's not very fearsome. If it carries with it madness and corruption, or runs the risk of failure, ruining your in-character objectives, or outright character loss/death, then maybe it can come off as fearsome. At the very least, it can be a little creepier...

I don't think that's true - a level of magic isn't the only thing that differentiates D&D settings.

It's not the /only/ thing that can, but it's one thing that does so very effectively. Whether any past or current D&D setting really delivers a different level of magic is debateable. As has been pointed out, Dark Sun may not have standard-issue clerics & druids, but virtually everyone in it is psionic, and if you do want to play a mage, you have more choices - because Defiler is added - than in regular D&D, not fewer, and your casting abilities aren't reduced.

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.

Why would a D&D wizard 'truck in dark forces?' He gets all the no-strings-attached power in the universe from morally neutral books. Warlocks truck with dark forces. Standard D&D or otherwise, though mostly only cosmetically.

 

[mrm1138]

First off, the idea that Dark Sun is a low-magic setting is common but simply inaccurate.

Ah. Gotcha.

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.

Sure I can limit classes so that warlocks are the only spellcasters, but it doesn't really give the effect I'm looking for. If, for example, I wanted something like Crypts & Things' white/grey/black magic, I'd have to go through the entire warlock spell list, divide them up, and possibly drop out individual spells that I've decided don't fit the specific subgenre I'd like to emulate.

As it stands, there are other systems/settings that do that without me having to put the work into it. I had just hoped Primeval Thule would do that for D&D 5e because, when pitching a game to players, it's always an easier sell for them not to have to learn a completely new system (such as Barbarians of Lemuria or Savage Worlds) than it is for them to learn some minor tweaks to a system they already know.

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.

As I've mentioned previously, I think those mechanics can go a long way toward affecting the feel of a particular world. There is definitely a lot that I like about Primeval Thule, but if I actually want to run any adventures written for that setting, I'm going to have to put some work into it one way or another. I've already mentioned how I would want to alter D&D 5e to run it with that system. If I wanted to run those adventures with the Crypts & Things rules, I'd need to swap out the 5e NPC and monster stats and replace them with the stats from C&T (or substitute different NPCs/monsters entirely if there are no equivalents in the C&T bestiary because hell if I know how to actually design a creature). Also, because characters level up at different rates in the two games*, the encounters may not be balanced correctly. That means I either have to reconfigure the encounters or arbitrarily level the characters up so they can take on the encounters as written.

If there's something that can do what I want right out of the box, I think I'll just take that. Crypts & Things may not use the 5e system, but it's not a steep learning curve, given that it's still based on a version of D&D. I just wish it had been the Kickstarter I'd backed instead of Primeval Thule. Unfortunately, I was entirely unaware of its existence until just a few weeks ago.

*All 1st-level characters advance to 2nd level after gaining 300 XP, whereas C&T uses the Swords & Wizardry advancement rules, meaning that thieves reach level 2 at 1250, fighters at 2000 XP, and the magician at 2500.

 

[Ath'kethin]

Ah. Gotcha.

Interestingly, magic level aside, Dark Sun did manage to capture the feel of a S&S setting incredibly well. It took place in a desert, mere survival was a daily challenge - heck, in the 2e version, DMs were recommended to start characters at 3rd level instead of 1st just to increase their odds of surviving. Players were encouraged to keep a tree of alternate characters that had specific rules for leveling alongside the "main" character, so that when the main character was killed another was readily available. That setting was pretty hardcore.

Sure I can limit classes so that warlocks are the only spellcasters, but it doesn't really give the effect I'm looking for. If, for example, I wanted something like Crypts & Things' white/grey/black magic, I'd have to go through the entire warlock spell list, divide them up, and possibly drop out individual spells that I've decided don't fit the specific subgenre I'd like to emulate.

As it stands, there are other systems/settings that do that without me having to put the work into it. I had just hoped Primeval Thule would do that for D&D 5e because, when pitching a game to players, it's always an easier sell for them not to have to learn a completely new system (such as Barbarians of Lemuria or Savage Worlds) than it is for them to learn some minor tweaks to a system they already know.

I don't look forward to the task of separating spells as you describe, and it's part of the reason I decided to take a different approach in my adapting the rules to the setting. I don't mind the madness rules in the new GM Companion, actually, but I like the debilitating Taint rules (from the 3.5 Heroes of Horror) better. And if you haven't looked at them yet: no, the new madness rules do not include a system for applying to spells.

As I've mentioned previously, I think those mechanics can go a long way toward affecting the feel of a particular world. There is definitely a lot that I like about Primeval Thule, but if I actually want to run any adventures written for that setting, I'm going to have to put some work into it one way or another. I've already mentioned how I would want to alter D&D 5e to run it with that system. If I wanted to run those adventures with the Crypts & Things rules, I'd need to swap out the 5e NPC and monster stats and replace them with the stats from C&T (or substitute different NPCs/monsters entirely if there are no equivalents in the C&T bestiary because hell if I know how to actually design a creature). Also, because characters level up at different rates in the two games*, the encounters may not be balanced correctly. That means I either have to reconfigure the encounters or arbitrarily level the characters up so they can take on the encounters as written.

If there's something that can do what I want right out of the box, I think I'll just take that. Crypts & Things may not use the 5e system, but it's not a steep learning curve, given that it's still based on a version of D&D. I just wish it had been the Kickstarter I'd backed instead of Primeval Thule. Unfortunately, I was entirely unaware of its existence until just a few weeks ago.

I 100% agree with you on the mechanics affecting the feel of a game aspect. Just earlier today I was lamenting with a friend how so many of the cool kits from the Al-Qadim setting are ill-suited to 5e mechanics. In 2e those kits basically rewrote the way a given class worked, making it into a different class altogether, but 5e lacks the openness to additional classes that was prevalent (and truth be told, abused) in 2nd Edition. It makes adapting a lot of older stuff really difficult.

Did you look at the two new adventures? I was surprised at how easily they looked like they could accommodate a low-magic campaign. Not completely relevant here, but still.

I also don't know how much I'd worry about balance. Smart characters know when to fight, when to run, and when to bargain. I'm not a fan of the videogame-esque "we will never encounter anything beyond our ability to kill" motif that has filtered into the game starting with 3rd Edition. And related to that . . .

*All 1st-level characters advance to 2nd level after gaining 300 XP, whereas C&T uses the Swords & Wizardry advancement rules, meaning that thieves reach level 2 at 1250, fighters at 2000 XP, and the magician at 2500.

I actually feel that varying the XP needed to advance in level is a far more effective balancing tool than trying to make all of the classes somehow "equal" at each level could ever be.
That's the way pre-WotC versions of D&D worked. Which you probably already know, but I don't know your background enough to assume you do. It makes sense to me that a character who can fundamentally alter the fabric of reality at will should take longer to achieve power than the guy who beats on people with a stick.

But I also feel that characters using WotC-era experience progression tables level too fast. I considered reverting to the old TSR XP tables, but given the difference in what monsters are worth now it seemed like more trouble than it was worth. Ultimately I decided to abandon XP altogether and have the characters level every so many sessions. We play infrequently enough now that this method works for all of us.

But I digress.

 

[Hussar]

Just in case I wasn't clear I would like to say that the changes I'm making have nothing to do with the idea of "fixing" 5e. I don't believe that casters dominate in 5e. They don't AFAIC. Heck in our current Dragonlance campaign, the top damage dealer is probably the ranger. So, this isn't about fixing a problem. It's about creating a very specific feel.

And that's the issue I have with casters in PT. Having casters changes, sometimes quite drastically, the "how" of how a scenario is resolved. Take a hypothetical. 4 non-caster PC's are facing a manticore. Add a 5th non-caster PC and that scenario resolves in largely the same way. Dead manticore with lots of arrows and javelins sticking out of it. (Hopefully anyway. ) But, add a caster and a whole new dimension of options opens up. The caster could cast all sorts of spells - web, sleep, hypnotic pattern, polymorph - and drop that manticore to the ground where it gets chopped up by the non-casters. The caster could cast fly or some sort of flight granting spell or power and take the fight to the manticore in the air - either doing it himself or casting it on an ally. The caster could summon a bunch of flying allies. So on and so forth. Adding a single caster completely changes how that scenario resolves. Not that the end result is particularly different - dead manticore is still dead - but, the means by which you achieve that result changes.

Or take a scenario where you're doing hexploration. In a non-magical party, you have to deal with the resource management mini-game. Bringing bearers or pack animals, food, water, shelter, etc. Add a caster or two and now you have Goodberry and Leomand's Hut and you don't need to deal with the resource management mini-game at all. Again, the end result is largely the same - the hexes get explored, adventure is had - but, how you do it changes.

Heck, even something as simple as a Guidance spell means that the majority of skill checks - certainly any skill check made where there is no time limit issue - is made with effectively proficiency. It adds a great deal to the capabilities of the party.

I want this campaign to avoid all of that. I WANT the resource management mini-game. Several of the backgrounds grant company sized forces of followers. I WANT that to be a very big deal. I don't want to have the situation where the casters are adding so many options to the group for any given situation. You have to deal with it with the mundane resources that you have. It makes things like nature challenges more challenging when you aren't a Goodberry spell away from never having to worry about starvation.

I think that it fits with the flavour of the PT much better this way. It makes the flavour of the setting match what's actually happening around the table, week in and week out. It's all well and good to say this is a low magic setting, but, I want to take that a step further and make this a low magic campaign.

 

[mrm1138]

What Hussar said!