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

[Psikerlord#]

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

True, that's too much isn't it.

How about instead, a spell less bard like rogue subclass? Or could be a fighter variant too (warlord, hello!).

 

[Psikerlord#]

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.

Yes for me healing potions in Thule are potent non-magical herbalism concoctions, made of rare ingredients. Well, perhaps there is something inherently magical in one of the ingredients involved, but most would not understand such.

 

[DeathMutant]

How about instead, a spell less bard like rogue subclass? Or could be a fighter variant too (warlord, hello!).

I would love to see this too!

 

[Tony Vargas]

How about instead, a spell less bard like rogue subclass? Or could be a fighter variant too (warlord, hello!).

Less re-design than a spell-less bard. Bannarets and battlemasters and masterminds are possibilities if you don't want to put in a lot of what amounts to game-design work. A full class warlord would be a boon to low/no- magic campaigns, but it's not even in the offing.

I was thinking that Bannaret didn't really fit the setting, but what about a Barbarian sub-class like the 4e Thaneborn (minus the primal magic, presumably) or one that incites rage in his allies?

 

[Psikerlord#]

Less re-design than a spell-less bard. Bannarets and battlemasters and masterminds are possibilities if you don't want to put in a lot of what amounts to game-design work. A full class warlord would be a boon to low/no- magic campaigns, but it's not even in the offing.

I was thinking that Bannaret didn't really fit the setting, but what about a Barbarian sub-class like the 4e Thaneborn (minus the primal magic, presumably) or one that incites rage in his allies?

I'm not familiar with the swordcoast book subclasses, but I will have to check them out. I don't remember the Thaneborn either, but yeah I can see inciting rage as working well.

The more I think about it the more I like a warlord for a low magic setting. That inspirational non-magical healing capability is a great fit (putting side the "what are HP?" debate!)

 

[Hussar]

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.

I'd largely agree with that.

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.

This isn't what I said though. The issue isn't that casters dominate play experience. It's that casters can increase the party power level to the point where it becomes fantasy Avengers. Again, we're assaulting a fortified position with 2 dragons with 6 PC's. And the ONLY reason we can do this is because of casters. A non-caster party simply couldn't even consider doing this. Not without bringing about fifty or a hundred drinking buddies anyway. And PT does allow you to gain small armies as followers.

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!"

The text is a bit schizophrenic. On one hand wizards and other casters are virulently hated by all and sundry and are extremely rare, and on the other, half the bloody NPC's are casters. Sigh. But, your last idea about the minor cosmetic effects are pretty much why I would use the Madness checks whenever spells get cast.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not familiar with the swordcoast book subclasses, but I will have to check them out.

They're a very small, but very interesting portion of the content.

I don't remember the Thaneborn either, but yeah I can see inciting rage as working well.

It was 4e PH2, and it's really only the concept - a Barbarian Thane (lord, so leader-type), the implementation was very much a secondary leader and used primal invocations, so magic-using after a fashion. Probably just be concept that'd resolve the seeming conflict in Noble background combined with Barbarian class. Inciting Rage was an idea that goes all the way back to 2e Complete Priest Handbook (Incite Berserk Fury, was an alternative to Turn Undead), but I could see a non- or less- magical version for a Barbarian leader-type. And Thane just sounds cool, IMHO.

The more I think about it the more I like a warlord for a low magic setting. That inspirational non-magical healing capability is a great fit (putting side the "what are HP?" debate!)

Glad to hear it.

The text is a bit schizophrenic. On one hand wizards and other casters are virulently hated by all and sundry and are extremely rare, and on the other, half the bloody NPC's are casters. Sigh.

What was I saying about "casters are rare" and "casters face RP challenges" only making them more interesting? Characters with built in specialness and conflict. The temptation applies to developers as well as players.

 

[JohnTitusRenzi]

The Enchantment and Illusion Schools need to be rewritten.

Here are some suggestions for your house rules to fix them.

Enchantments.
low level enchantments, the target just leaves the enchanter alone and attacks another
higher level enchantments, the enchanter can cause the target to attack itself or its friendlies but require a wis save before each attack
Crown of Madness is good.
Forcing the target to follow an unreasonable command leading to grave damage should require 2 failed wisdom or charisma saves.
a Held target should take automatic yet normal damage and get a wis save after taking damage from each attack
a sleeping target should take automatic yet normal damage and wake up after the damage

Illusions.
So much time is spent on the sight, sound and even smell of an illusion. SO WHAT.
Minor Illusion - Just a basic Investigation check Vs Spell DC to detect.
Major Illusion - the Investigation check is made at disadvantage.
higher level illusions - cause psychic damage
illusions that lead to grave damage should require 2 failed investigation checks

Any spell that renders the target incapacitated should require 2 failed saves.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not sure why that's needed? To be honest, I would prefer that most casters focus on these two schools as well as perhaps necromancy as they fit best with source literature.

My problem is much more with the blasty and setting defining stuff. In our last session the wild Mage turned a young dragon into a pig to drop it out of the sky. Very very cool scenario and it was a great moment in the game but totally not what I think of as s&s feel.

I'm not worried about casters dominating in 5e. We've played enough to see that everyone shines. That's cool. But it does tend to make the game very wahoo. It means that the group can face these really high heroic challenges on a regular basis. And the more that happens, the less like S&S it feels to me. No one would mistake a Dragonlance game for S&S. Nor, say, a Hoarde of the Dragon Queen game.

I want my Thule game to stand apart from standard DND.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think S&S gets distorted in the gaming community. It's not old-school D&D, and it's not 'gritty' or 'low fantasy,' which tends to dwell on less fantastic details and problem-solving. S&S is a genre with it's roots in the pulps, it borders on horror as well as adventure and is firmly a sub-genre of both fantasy /and/ pulp. REH all but single-highhandedly created S&S, and laid the foundation for 'fantasy' being considered it's own genre at all (something which is still iffy, today, where it's often folded into sci-fi/fantasy, something hard sci-fi fans hate with a passion), he was writing pulps, and was influenced by Lovecraft. So there's a darkness to S&S, but it's not the dark shades of grey of gritty realism, but a more fantastic, primeval darkness. Thrilling & horrifying rather than grueling & depressing.

D&D does lend itself, even when the setting is low on magic items and/or NPC casters, to that 'wahoo' feel of magic being readily available to solve many problems. You have to restrain PC casting to get away from that, not just because casters are broken/OP/dominant (though they'll tend to be moreso the less magic is available outside of PC casting resources), but just for the sake of the desired feel.