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

[Tony Vargas]

This also means that there is no in-combat magical healing in my game so combat is risky -- and to be avoided, if possible

Which isn't really very S&S in feel, actually, though it doesn't hurt too much because you can always just rest an hour and get some hp back. If you take it all the way and use the DMG modules for slower natural healing, you can definitely get players needing to avoid combat most of the time. At that point, between combat being nigh-suicidal and casters being banned, you'd be down to rogues and whatever non-casting ranger you come up with as worthwhile classes....

(Conversely, though, I suppose you could have fighters seeking out trivial combats every hour to re-use Second Wind.)

 

[Psikerlord#]

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.

Yeah I think I understand what you mean. It's interesting I kind of got mixed messages on that front when I read the pdf. The overall "magic is dangerous/not meant for man to know" is awesome, and my preferred blanket approach.

... But then they go and talk about nature spirit magic, which to me kinda places nature magic in it's own category. Divine is murky enough, really not clear where that's coming from.

But I was thinking, for my campaign, that I would make an overt change to the fluff to make it clear that whatever category of magic (arcane, divine, nature), it was the great old ones who first awakened/accessed magic on Thule, and that dark influence has tainted all magic since. So in my game, I will have all casters susceptible to roll on a dark magic table (or whatever mechanic I end up using), as a result of that underlying "taint" that applies to all spells, whatever their source.

On the other hand, I do also like the idea of simply saying there is only the one source, just harnessed in different ways. I find that a bit harder to reconcile with the finer detail in the pdf. But if I'm going to change the fluff a bit anyways.... why not take the simpler route? I shall ponder this further!

 

[DeathMutant]

Not trying to derail this thread about spellcasting in Primeval Thule but here are my (current) House Rules regarding healing:

In-Combat:
* Healing Surge: (All classes) Can use an Action to regain Hit Die + CON (modifier) Hit Points. Can use up to 1/2 maximum Hit Dice (rounded up) *once* between Short Rests. This healing is independent of the Fighter's Second Wind ability
* Use of a Healing Kit in combat (as an Action) auto-Stabilizes but does not heal Hit Points
* (Magical) Healing Potions work like Healing Kits but can be used in combat (as an Action): they use Hit Dice to determine Hit Points restored and come in various strengths: Normal (x2 HD) and Greater (x4 HD)

While resting:
* Use of a Healing Kit doubles the effect of Hit Dice used to restore Hit Points during Short (or Long) Rest
* Slow Healing: Must use Hit Dice to restore Hit Points, resting alone does not restore Hit Points. A Long Rest recharges all Hit Dice

Most combats are trivial or easy and resolved quickly with, usually, only one challenging battle per day that requires the party to either go all-out or play smart and cautiously.

 

[Psikerlord#]

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).

I don't mind this idea either. I just don't know if I could get my players on board with it. Some of them really like using spells.

So with a no casters rule, the available PHB classes would be: fighter, rogue, barbarian. I think I would have to adopt some kind of spell-less herbalism ranger too.

We need the Thule Player's Companion to have a spell-less variant of the ranger and bard!! If you're listening Sasquatch Team, pretty please!!

 

[DeathMutant]

In addition to (non-casting) Fighter, Rogue and Barbarian classes I am using Chris Perkins' spell-less Ranger variant and Open Hand Monks.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Yeah I think I understand what you mean. It's interesting I kind of got mixed messages on that front when I read the pdf. The overall "magic is dangerous/not meant for man to know" is awesome, and my preferred blanket approach.

... But then they go and talk about nature spirit magic, which to me kinda places nature magic in it's own category. Divine is murky enough, really not clear where that's coming from.

But I was thinking, for my campaign, that I would make an overt change to the fluff to make it clear that whatever category of magic (arcane, divine, nature), it was the great old ones who first awakened/accessed magic on Thule, and that dark influence has tainted all magic since. So in my game, I will have all casters susceptible to roll on a dark magic table (or whatever mechanic I end up using), as a result of that underlying "taint" that applies to all spells, whatever their source.

On the other hand, I do also like the idea of simply saying there is only the one source, just harnessed in different ways. I find that a bit harder to reconcile with the finer detail in the pdf. But if I'm going to change the fluff a bit anyways.... why not take the simpler route? I shall ponder this further!

Very cool.

I spoke a bit more about my idea for a single caster in a thread I posted a few days back (shamelessly bumped moments ago). I'm still juggling ideas around in my head, so nothing concrete yet. This UA article though, has me closer to something. What, I'm still not sure yet.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not trying to derail this thread about spellcasting in Primeval Thule but here are my (current) House Rules regarding healing:

Not derailing at all, since spell resources have a major impact on total available healing.

In-Combat:
* Healing Surge: (All classes) Can use an Action to regain Hit Die + CON (modifier) Hit Points. Can use up to 1/2 maximum Hit Dice (rounded up) *once* between Short Rests. This healing is independent of the Fighter's Second Wind ability
* Use of a Healing Kit in combat (as an Action) auto-Stabilizes but does not heal Hit Points
* (Magical) Healing Potions work like Healing Kits but can be used in combat (as an Action): they use Hit Dice to determine Hit Points restored and come in various strengths: Normal (x2 HD) and Greater (x4 HD)

While resting:
* Use of a Healing Kit doubles the effect of Hit Dice used to restore Hit Points during Short (or Long) Rest
* Slow Healing: Must use Hit Dice to restore Hit Points, resting alone does not restore Hit Points. A Long Rest recharges all Hit Dice

Not bad. Potions might be obligatory, since they seem the only way to get an ally up in combat, aside from that, it seems workable, though not for 6-8 combats/day...

Most combats are trivial or easy and resolved quickly with, usually, only one challenging battle per day that requires the party to either go all-out or play smart and cautiously.

So a given character will like as not make it through any given combat unscathed, but for the occasional Challenging Battle.

Between not having casters (so few daily resources and encounters/day isn't as critical for class balance), re-jiggering natural healing, and emphasizing easy-to-trivial encounters, that sounds doable.

I'd quibble that healing potions (at least 'common' ones, needed to keep combats workable) don't feel too S&S or low-magic to me. Maybe if they were less magical (a drug that temporarily restored hps) or more sinister (addictive or had side effects)?

I don't mind this idea either. I just don't know if I could get my players on board with it. Some of them really like using spells.

When spells are the only way to do really cool things, that's understandable. It'd take time to re-train players by giving non-casters more opportunities to shine (more 'agency'), too.

So with a no casters rule, the available PHB classes would be: fighter, rogue, barbarian. I think I would have to adopt some kind of spell-less herbalism ranger too.

GCS has Banneret (PDK), Swashbuckler, and Mastermind sub-classes, add that to the UA spell-less ranger, and we've almost doubled the number of non-caster sub-classes, all the way up to nine! (Out of maybe up to 50 now).

We need the Thule Player's Companion to have a spell-less variant of the ranger and bard!! If you're listening Sasquatch Team, pretty please!!

A spell-less primary caster (Bard) would be quite a re-design...

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I get the impression that PT doesn't cater well to the mischief-makers, what with the dark tones and the madness putting a particular kaibosh on "whimsy." I don't think my Lewis Carroll-inspired gnome would go down well there, even if he was a rogue instead of a sorcerer.

But for my stance, suffice it to say that there's significant cause to doubt the received wisdom that "casters rule in D&D" when it comes to the most recent edition. That doesn't mean one shouldn't play a low-magic party in 5e, but that DOES mean that if your reason for doing that is because "casters dominate the play experience" (or something to similar effect), you might not really get the dramatic difference you're looking for by doing that. It might be like taking off your shoes at an airport or taking homeopathic remedies - a pointless solution for a problem that looks worse than it really is and that also doesn't actually do much to functionally improve your game, but maybe makes you feel better. Not that that's inherently a problem (we all do our thing), just that it might not wind up actually achieving the goal you're looking to achieve.

For PT specifically, it doesn't sound like the setting really wants to gimp casters, per se. Playing a caster in PT might be like playing a warlock in regular ol' D&D - you're a dark character who trucks with dark forces. That doesn't mean you have to be punished for the choice. It's not like Fiend warlocks have to roll on a random chart or be evil for a while, anymore than fighter characters have to roll on a chart to see if they're affected by PTSD from all the orcs they murder or whatever. Totally fair to add those elements, but it's also probably worth examining why the designers didn't do it, and specifically asking the question, "What if they meant to do it this way? Why would they make that choice? How do they expect the game to be used by your hypothetical Average Table?" If only because then you can more accurately judge the costs for going against their design decisions at your own table.

My point here isn't to say "don't force low-magic parties" it's to say, "be honest about WHY you're forcing low-magic parties, and try to look objectively about if your goal is actually served by that action."

Meanwhile, if you just want to add some fluff to make spellcasting more meaningful in PT's context, consider a chart of minor cosmetic effects, like "when you cast an enchantment, everyone hears the voices of their dead loved ones pleading for release for a moment...and the victim hears these voices the entire time they're under the influence of the spell." Or "While maintaining concentration on a spell, you babble in tongues and wormlike creatures are seen moving under your skin." Appropriately ookey, and definitely cause for the locals to sharpen their pitchforks, but not "SCREW YOU, MAGIC-USER!"

 

[DeathMutant]

I'd quibble that healing potions (at least 'common' ones, needed to keep combats workable) don't feel too S&S or low-magic to me. Maybe if they were less magical (a drug that temporarily restored hps) or more sinister (addictive or had side effects)?

I am adapting Chris Perkins' spell-less Ranger variant so, perhaps, their herbal remedies could have similar effects of a magical healing potion but would be less powerful (and safer)?

Yes, using *anything* magical should have a "dark side." I like the potential addiction or unpleasant side-effects aspect -- especially if you do not trust the "source."

I would also like to see a Skald class or something similar (4e Warlord-ish?) that could inspire their allies during combat by giving them temporary hit points in addition to combat bonuses.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would also like to see a Skald class or something similar (4e Warlord-ish?) that could inspire their allies during combat by giving them temporary hit points in addition to combat bonuses.

Like the HotFw Skald - but without so native Arcane bard stuff. The Skalds Aura would dovetail nicely with the Variants you're already using. If you recall, the Skald could inspire back hps much like a Warlord w/in the Aura, but his allies could also restore hps for eachother well within the aura, but only if they were adjacent. So you could introduce a Skald, and it could give out temp hps w/in it's aura, but /also/ let an ally who stabilizes another trigger his fallen comrade's HD.

I get the impression that PT doesn't cater well to the mischief-makers, what with the dark tones and the madness putting a particular kaibosh on "whimsy."

I still don't see that discouraging gamers too broadly.

But for my stance, suffice it to say that there's significant cause to doubt the received wisdom that "casters rule in D&D" when it comes to the most recent edition.

About 38 out of 40 years of D&D tradition, though, it was pretty solid, especially out of the lower levels - and the current ed does cleave to tradition, FWIW. But, 5e also gives the DM carte blanche to run the campaign he envisions, and keep his game fun for his players... If anyone 'rules' in 5e, it's the DM, and banning or modding classes is part his purview.

That doesn't mean one shouldn't play a low-magic party in 5e.

Good.

For PT specifically, it doesn't sound like the setting really wants to gimp casters, per se. Playing a caster in PT might be like playing a warlock in regular ol' D&D - you're a dark character who trucks with dark forces. That doesn't mean you have to be punished for the choice.

Figuratively 'punishing' magic-use (it's dark & terrible, with more than cosmetic consequences) sure fits with the tone of S&S, though. Plus, in a low-magic setting, casters are more powerful and higher-impact even if you do nothing to them, at all. So you can have a win-win, there, both setting-appropriate, and balance-maintaining.