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

[Hussar]

It's mild, but it's still basically a "screw you" to casters, a problem they deal with that the other classes don't. It you want to avoid discouraging casters, maybe consider some similar rule for warriors - perhaps equipment breakage, or lasting injury, or some sort of madness check at the monstrous violence they're perpetuating or something appropriately PT-esque.

Well, to be fair, they do, in the rules, outright lay some screwing to the fighter types- no plate mail, no (or at least very rare) steel weapons, meaning that you are using bronze ones (steel weapons are treated as magic weapons), magic items are cut in about half or less, which has a greater impact on the non-casters. And, yes, the madness checks apply to everyone.

Lasting injury actually wouldn't fit with S&S tropes. S&S heroes only suffer lasting injury at very rare occasions, when it's convenient to the plot. Otherwise, Conan is shaking it off and carrying it on.

Yeah, trying to make full casters unappealing is just making a trap option, an option you don't really want them to take and will punish them for taking. It's like a restaurant serving steak, but if you order it, it will be pre-chewed and mashed up in old bathwater before you serve it. Just take it off the menu. You don't really want to serve it, anyway. If the kind of game you wanna play doesn't include magic-casters as party members, just don't allow 'em.

I get the sense that PT overall isn't necessarily that kind of setting by default (since they don't ban casters or give rules for gimping them), but it is perhaps compatible with that vibe.

You can very much tell PT was written with 3e in mind. Even though they talk about how rare magic is, and how it's supposed to be a very low magic setting, the mechanics are very much falling short in this area. It's one of the weaker parts of PT IMO.

I think in that DL instance, you'll be disappointed if you expect the casters to do the heavy lifting. They nova'd and helped neutralize some of the big guns, but now they're significantly out of juice. We could've neutralized those big guns cheaper if we had some friggin' nets.

We'll see next week. But, I'm thinking that the casters are going to be dropping fireballs and whatnot at a pretty high rate. And, even if they don't, they still neutralized TWO dragons without us taking a single point of damage. Again, something that you shouldn't be able to do in a low magic game.

Put it another way. An 8th level full caster has 12 spell slots per day as a base. Not counting at-wills or ritual casting. If an adventuring day (about 6-8 encountersX3-4 rounds/encounter) is 30 rounds long (give or take), that means your single full caster is blasting away with a spell every other round. Never minding that some casters regain some spells on a short rest. Multiply that by two or three casters in the group, and basically, every single round of every single encounter will see spells being cast. Every single non-combat scenario will see some rituals being cast (or at-wills like Guidance) in a typical group.

Look at the lower level Princes of the Apocalypse campaign. When our group scouts, the druid shape changes into a giant spider (hey, free blindsight and a major boost to stealth) and the ranger goes invisible (again, thanks to the druid). I DO NOT WANT. I do not want my PT campaign to look like this. I do not want every solution to come out of some caster's spell book. This is not a low magic game.

So, yeah, I'm thinking just flat out banning PC full casters is the way I'll be going. Since paladins are already banned in the setting, that leaves most classes with fairly "mundane" magic.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, to be fair, they do, in the rules, outright lay some screwing to the fighter types- no plate mail, no (or at least very rare) steel weapons, meaning that you are using bronze ones (steel weapons are treated as magic weapons), magic items are cut in about half or less, which has a greater impact on the non-casters. And, yes, the madness checks apply to everyone.

No plate mail is close, but that just encourages DEX, and if there's no new stats for bronze weapons, then it's not really any sort of a gimp. Magic items affect everyone largely equally in 5e (there's NOTHING in 5e about non-casters getting more magic gear), and if madness affects everyone, well, that's not a gimp to the non-mages.

If you want to run a game where magic can drive ya bonkers mechanically WITHOUT favoring non-casters, you'll need to gimp the non-casters, too.

Lasting injury actually wouldn't fit with S&S tropes. S&S heroes only suffer lasting injury at very rare occasions, when it's convenient to the plot. Otherwise, Conan is shaking it off and carrying it on.

It's just an option to disadvantage those who get hit more often, anyway, not exactly a strong "martial nerf." Maybe strain for using weapon attacks? Just to preserve the equality - if doing what your class is made to do can give your character a permanent disfigurement of some sort, and you don't want to favor one type of class over another, everyone needs to get some sort of permanent disfigurement for doing regular adventuring actions.

You can very much tell PT was written with 3e in mind. Even though they talk about how rare magic is, and how it's supposed to be a very low magic setting, the mechanics are very much falling short in this area. It's one of the weaker parts of PT IMO.

Well, a low magic setting isn't always the same as a low magic PC party. PC's are typically supposed to be exceptional and unusual and remarkable beings, anyway - so a party of mages in a world of dangerous magic might be OK, and lend a particular vibe to the adventure. It's possible PT's lack of rules for low-magic PC parties is intentional, that the writers were completely OK with wizards and warlocks and sorcerers. They'd be dark and weird, but it seems like everyone is dark and weird in that setting.

But, I'm thinking that the casters are going to be dropping fireballs and whatnot at a pretty high rate. And, even if they don't, they still neutralized TWO dragons without us taking a single point of damage. Again, something that you shouldn't be able to do in a low magic game.

It's something entirely possible in a low magic game. If what you're looking for is "more challenging encounters," going caster-less isn't going to give you that.

Put it another way. An 8th level full caster has 12 spell slots per day as a base. Not counting at-wills or ritual casting. If an adventuring day (about 6-8 encountersX3-4 rounds/encounter) is 30 rounds long (give or take), that means your single full caster is blasting away with a spell every other round. Never minding that some casters regain some spells on a short rest. Multiply that by two or three casters in the group, and basically, every single round of every single encounter will see spells being cast. Every single non-combat scenario will see some rituals being cast (or at-wills like Guidance) in a typical group.

If you have casters in the group, spells will certainly be cast. Spells will not be rare in play. They can still be rare in the world, in the fiction.

Y'know, most of the world in a Typical D&D Campaign is farmers and goatherds, and those are rare in play for PC's, too.

Look at the lower level Princes of the Apocalypse campaign. When our group scouts, the druid shape changes into a giant spider (hey, free blindsight and a major boost to stealth) and the ranger goes invisible (again, thanks to the druid). I DO NOT WANT. I do not want my PT campaign to look like this. I do not want every solution to come out of some caster's spell book. This is not a low magic game.

So, yeah, I'm thinking just flat out banning PC full casters is the way I'll be going. Since paladins are already banned in the setting, that leaves most classes with fairly "mundane" magic.

I mean, it's fair enough, but you might want to ask yourself why the PT designers DIDN'T go this route. Was it that they aren't great designers, and so didn't realize that the game would be played with casters? Or is it because they're cool with a caster-heavy party just like a typical D&D game is cool with dragon-slaying and magic items (things most people don't have in the fiction, even if most PC parties have) - it's rare in the setting, but not necessarily rare for the party? Not that this should decide it for you, just that this might help you think a little bit about how the kind of game you want to run might diverge from the expected path.

 

[Greg Benage]

I mean, it's fair enough, but you might want to ask yourself why the PT designers DIDN'T go this route.

Really, why should anyone care? I mean, I imagine it's because they were designing a D&D setting and want to sell it to as many D&D players as possible, and therefore chose to maintain as many D&D tropes as possible. Or maybe it's that they were designing a setting that could be used with several different-but-related game systems, and therefore chose not to pop the hood on the game design any more than they had to. But what does it matter? When I chose to use the setting, I did so because I want to emulate the S&S genre. If that means I need to do more mechanical tinkering than the setting designers did, so be it. Likewise, I'll be looking for players who like S&S and want to play in a campaign that emulates the genre. Players who want to play traditional D&D spellcasters will want to choose a different game. There really is no problem here to be solved.

ETA: What is this mind-blasting mockery of reality where my response appears before the post I was responding to?

 

[Hussar]

No plate mail is close, but that just encourages DEX, and if there's no new stats for bronze weapons, then it's not really any sort of a gimp. Magic items affect everyone largely equally in 5e (there's NOTHING in 5e about non-casters getting more magic gear), and if madness affects everyone, well, that's not a gimp to the non-mages.

If you want to run a game where magic can drive ya bonkers mechanically WITHOUT favoring non-casters, you'll need to gimp the non-casters, too.

But, I have no interest in balance here. I WANT casters to be gimped. If you want to play a caster in my PT game, you are going to do so with significant disadvantages.

It's just an option to disadvantage those who get hit more often, anyway, not exactly a strong "martial nerf." Maybe strain for using weapon attacks? Just to preserve the equality - if doing what your class is made to do can give your character a permanent disfigurement of some sort, and you don't want to favor one type of class over another, everyone needs to get some sort of permanent disfigurement for doing regular adventuring actions.

Again, you're basing this on the idea that all classes should be equal. I have no interest in that.

Well, a low magic setting isn't always the same as a low magic PC party. PC's are typically supposed to be exceptional and unusual and remarkable beings, anyway - so a party of mages in a world of dangerous magic might be OK, and lend a particular vibe to the adventure. It's possible PT's lack of rules for low-magic PC parties is intentional, that the writers were completely OK with wizards and warlocks and sorcerers. They'd be dark and weird, but it seems like everyone is dark and weird in that setting.



It's something entirely possible in a low magic game. If what you're looking for is "more challenging encounters," going caster-less isn't going to give you that.



If you have casters in the group, spells will certainly be cast. Spells will not be rare in play. They can still be rare in the world, in the fiction.

Y'know, most of the world in a Typical D&D Campaign is farmers and goatherds, and those are rare in play for PC's, too.

I disagree. If the campaign features spells being cast every round, then it is not a low magic campaign, regardless of what's going on in the background. The players couldn't care less about what's going on in the rest of the world. The players care about the campaign they're playing. And if we allow full casters, then it's standard D&D, complete with magical solutions to every problem. I'm not interested.

I mean, it's fair enough, but you might want to ask yourself why the PT designers DIDN'T go this route. Was it that they aren't great designers, and so didn't realize that the game would be played with casters? Or is it because they're cool with a caster-heavy party just like a typical D&D game is cool with dragon-slaying and magic items (things most people don't have in the fiction, even if most PC parties have) - it's rare in the setting, but not necessarily rare for the party? Not that this should decide it for you, just that this might help you think a little bit about how the kind of game you want to run might diverge from the expected path.

They didn't go this route because they want to sell books. If they came out with a setting that flat out negated full casters, no one would buy it. Well, I might, but, most people wouldn't. I mean, good grief, they stripped out all races except elves (which are evil and insane), halflings, dwarves (which almost never leave their homes) and humans. They stripped out paladins and monks already, made magic items about 1/2 less likely to be found, and half as many found when you do. The flavour of the setting is that it's low magic and most of the "Thule" monsters are either low magic critters or weird Cthulu type stuff.

Again, I have zero interest in using this setting for a bog standard D&D game with just a bit of dark added in. Look what happened to the Dark Sun game when we removed the restrictions on casting - every encounter resolved with the use of magic. Other than a bit sandy, and some proper nouns, very little separated that campaign from a standard D&D game.

I want PT to be unique.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But, I have no interest in balance here. I WANT casters to be gimped. If you want to play a caster in my PT game, you are going to do so with significant disadvantages.

Again, you're basing this on the idea that all classes should be equal. I have no interest in that.

All that was based around [MENTION=93321]Psikerlord#[/MENTION] 's idea that they don't don't want to ban or discourage casters, but add some chaos. Adding some chaos to casters alone does discourage casters.

I disagree. If the campaign features spells being cast every round, then it is not a low magic campaign, regardless of what's going on in the background. The players couldn't care less about what's going on in the rest of the world. The players care about the campaign they're playing. And if we allow full casters, then it's standard D&D, complete with magical solutions to every problem. I'm not interested.

If the only way you can convey the low-magic style of the campaign is to enforce low-magic on the party, I think you're selling the setting short. If a party of casters galavanted around PT, they should probably have a very different experience to a bunch of casters galavanting around FR - all resisting their own madness and hiding out from villagers and unleashing their power only when far away from the prying eyes of their enemies. If that's not true, then it sounds like PT is not really set up to make magic different at all. And none of that involves limiting player choice, just using a DM's predilection for inflicting hazards on a party.

They didn't go this route because they want to sell books. If they came out with a setting that flat out negated full casters, no one would buy it. Well, I might, but, most people wouldn't.

That might make sense if PT wasn't a Kickstarted book - they could make exactly the product they want and could judge demand well in advance of having to make anything. There's no reason to suspect they didn't make exactly what they wanted to make, and if that's the case, they wanted casters to be a viable PC choice. Probably because playing a character wrestling with their internal madness or whatever can make a compelling experience - there's Old One Warlocks in standard D&D for much the same reason.

Look what happened to the Dark Sun game when we removed the restrictions on casting - every encounter resolved with the use of magic. Other than a bit sandy, and some proper nouns, very little separated that campaign from a standard D&D game.

That's not a fair characterization of my XP in Dark Sun. The removal of magic taboo had consequences, but we absolutely had characters and fought villains and did things in that game that we could not do in any other setting. It takes more than "it has useful magic" to make a D&D setting the same as any other D&D setting to me.

And if we allow full casters, then it's standard D&D, complete with magical solutions to every problem.

It just sounds a bit like you don't like casters, period. You've got some issue with magic in D&D. I don't think PT is a foot-soldier in the anti-caster wars, and using it like that is bound to leave some stuff on the table. That's not necessarily a problem, but it's something you should be aware of going into it - if you like PT because PT is awesome, you're going to have a different experience than if you like PT because you hate casters and you want to lick the salty tears from the cheek of everyone who ever loved a wizard.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Anyone else see the new "radiant light" Warlock subclass in UA and immediately consider how its one step closer to the idea of having a single warlock-style caster for all the power-sources in PT?

I know I did.

 

[Tony Vargas]

All that was based around [MENTION=93321]Psikerlord#[/MENTION] 's idea that they don't don't want to ban or discourage casters, but add some chaos. Adding some chaos to casters alone does discourage casters.

Only if the player is adverse to said chaos (there's always the 'joker demographic'). Which fits, the idea is that magic is dangerous, unpredictable, unnatural - just witnessing it can drive you crazy, afterall.

But, really, it's very hard to discourage D&D players from rolling up casters. You say 'casters are rare in this setting,' more players will want one, because you just made being a caster more defining and interesting as a concept. Requirements, prerequisites, RP limitations, likewise, will do little to limit interest.

Whatever limitations, restrictions, or consequences you lay on magic, the bottom line is that magic still does things that simply can't be done without it, and making it riskier and less dependable and harder to acquire and rarer only makes it that much more amazing for those few who go through all that and pull it off.

If you're concerned about balance, consider that a low-magic-item campaign where NPC casters will be rare already makes casters more powerful, because they'll have less competition for the spotlight from item-wielding PCs, and because NPCs won't be ready for their abilities they way they would be in more conventional campaigns where spellcasting is common enough for most to have some knowledge of it.
Gimping casters a bit may only partially make up for that advantage.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Anyone else see the new "radiant light" Warlock subclass in UA and immediately consider how its one step closer to the idea of having a single warlock-style caster for all the power-sources in PT?

I know I did.

do you meam radiant warlock could be like a cleric variant?

 

[DeathMutant]

I just took the lazy way out and forbade ALL spellcasting classes -- for PCs -- until I can figure out how to incorporate and maintain the "sorcery is dangerous" feel appropriate to the setting. One undesirable side-effect is that the no-casting restriction also includes Rangers -- which I want as a PC class -- but have not found a non-casting Ranger beyond the one described in Unearthed Arcana #3. Trying not to derail this thread, please PM me any non-casting Ranger class variants that you feel would fit the Primeval Thule setting.

Actually, I like the idea of only NPCs having the ability to cast spells. It serves as a plot device, source for quests ("I need this rare reagent for a spell. . .") and makes casters even more mysterious and dangerous because no one really knows what they are capable of -- or what their motives are. This also means that there is no in-combat magical healing in my game so combat is risky -- and to be avoided, if possible -- plus poisons, diseases and drains are more threatening and resurrections are truly epic (and a potential plot device in itself).

 

[ChrisCarlson]

do you meam radiant warlock could be like a cleric variant?

The campaign sourcebook infers, in several places, that all magic seems to come from the same dangerous sources. That the different casters types (arcane, divine, natural) have learned to access and implement it using different methods and traditions.

For example, divine classes are not granted their powers from deities. Rather, it is through their worship and devotion to their gods, and the rote rituals passed down as part of their faith, that they are able to access these powerful forces.