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

[mrm1138]

I'm not really sure what you're looking for...

I was hoping for something that would actually make Primeval Thule feel like the sword and sorcery subgenre in terms of mechanics rather than just setting fluff. (Crypts & Things' rules for magic are pretty fantastic in this regard, making magic dangerous to the caster and adding in the possibility that the magic user could become corrupt.) I do think that mechanics can go a long way toward establishing the proper feel for a particular setting.

...or why you need the Sasquatches to provide it.

The long and short of it is that I'm not a game designer, and I find my free time to tinker around with house rules and the like is in short supply. I tend to prefer things that have already been play-tested and work pretty much right out of the box. I'm lucky if I get two game sessions per month.

And we still have the Players' Guide upcoming, and from the reference to it in the GM Companion (which mentions new spells by name), that book might have more in the way of what you're seeking. I don't really know why that material would be deemed more "player" info than "DM" info, but I guess you could say the same about a lot of thuff in the Player's Handbook/DMG.

This is actually a good point because it might be optional new class information. I'll take the wait and see approach.

I'll admit that I'm being a bit hard on Primeval Thule. I had pretty high expectations that weren't met, but that's my problem, not Sasquatch's.

 

[Ath'kethin]

I feel your pain. My group went from playing weekly to playing monthly if we are lucky, and as a full time student with a full time job and a toddler, my time is not unlimited. It would have been nice if the GM guide had some hard advice on adapting the rules to the feel of the setting, but I honestly don't think that was ever on the table. Like Grayhawk in 2e, the world has to just exist as presented with the ruleset we have, and leave it to DMs to adapt it as they will.

And if you havent been to the Thule forums I mentioned before, it's worth a visit. There's some decent stuff on there in terms of caster limitations and ideas. I don't want to sell you a rainbow here - there is very little on the forums right now - but most of what is there is pretty good, I think. Depending, of course, on what you're after. A lot of the discussion on making the game grittier, for example, is never hlgoing to be applicable at my table. But its still interesting to read.

 

[dmnqwk]

In low-magic, banned spellcaster classes one thing a lot of people don't do is give options to make it a worthwhile change.

If you eliminate magic you have to change Rangers and Paladins to enable sufficient variety in classes, or else everyone is stuck playing a Barb, Fighter or Monk. Once you do this you're still left with few choices, so you need to offer a carrot for the stick of playing a caster.

One thing to consider is making spells more powerful - If people are not used to magic being in the air then why not eliminate saves/rolls on spells? A Fireball does 8d6 without a save or Charm Person automatically works - the drawbacks now have something to counteract and offer people the choice of playing one of these casters.

If you decide not to go down that path, you need to ensure spellcasters are just as proficient with weapons and armour as others, because they would train in mundane defences were they unable to rely on the mystical:

Bards might have no spells, but access to more support options such as Inspiration once each round with no limit, or supernatural abilities to charm and fear which are not magic based (remember, rage was supernatural, which wouldn't work in a low-magic environment). Wizards and Sorcerers would be proficient in simple, martial weapons and at the very least light armour, if not medium. Warlocks might wear heavy armour on top of things.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Personally I have come round to the view that at-will cantrips in 5e makes it very difficult to accommodate the Primeval Thule fluff.

The older versions of DnD with daily spells only suit sword & sorcery better I think. Which I why I expect to be using Crypts & Thigns remastered for my Primeval Thule campaign - with some tweaks/add ons, no doubt.... just waiting for the book to be released!!

 

[Hussar]

Cool, didn't realize it came out today. Thanks.

 

[Hussar]

In low-magic, banned spellcaster classes one thing a lot of people don't do is give options to make it a worthwhile change.

If you eliminate magic you have to change Rangers and Paladins to enable sufficient variety in classes, or else everyone is stuck playing a Barb, Fighter or Monk. Once you do this you're still left with few choices, so you need to offer a carrot for the stick of playing a caster.

One thing to consider is making spells more powerful - If people are not used to magic being in the air then why not eliminate saves/rolls on spells? A Fireball does 8d6 without a save or Charm Person automatically works - the drawbacks now have something to counteract and offer people the choice of playing one of these casters.

If you decide not to go down that path, you need to ensure spellcasters are just as proficient with weapons and armour as others, because they would train in mundane defences were they unable to rely on the mystical:

Bards might have no spells, but access to more support options such as Inspiration once each round with no limit, or supernatural abilities to charm and fear which are not magic based (remember, rage was supernatural, which wouldn't work in a low-magic environment). Wizards and Sorcerers would be proficient in simple, martial weapons and at the very least light armour, if not medium. Warlocks might wear heavy armour on top of things.

Even with just those three classes, you have, what, about twelve or fifteen classes (you still have rogues remember) with subclasses. That's hardly a "few" choices.

And, since paladins and rangers don't get at-will spells, I'm not really seeing a problem with including them.

It's a fairly easy change and means that the game will play a LOT faster. Going to be test driving the whole thing very soon.

 

[DeathMutant]

My Primeval Thule "campaign" (actually, it is more like a series of episodic adventures with re-occurring characters) starts next week and I have large number of race and class restrictions/changes plus house rules to help shape the setting into what *I* want it to be. The most significant restriction is: no spell-casting classes -- for PCs -- initially. I *intend* to add some, once I see or create some classes with the right "feel", but they will be like Prestige classes (from 3e; with requirements) and no PC can start as a spell-casting class. Two things are certain, however, there will be NO cantrips and the closest 5e class to what I envision is a Warlock with spell "slots" recharging after short rests -- not Vancian magic -- which makes it nearly impossible for me to incorporate existing 5e spell-casting classes without *major* rework.

I have created a "Skald" class, based on a Valor Bard with "songs" and "shouts" instead of spells, that I am quite happy with but it is still untested in actual play. I will post it to http://mythopoeiathule.freeforums.net/ once it gets out of "beta."

 

[Tony Vargas]

I was hoping for something that would actually make Primeval Thule feel like the sword and sorcery subgenre in terms of mechanics rather than just setting fluff. (Crypts & Things' rules for magic are pretty fantastic in this regard, making magic dangerous to the caster and adding in the possibility that the magic user could become corrupt.)

The long and short of it is that I'm not a game designer, and I find my free time to tinker around with house rules and the like is in short supply.I tend to prefer things that have already been play-tested and work pretty much right out of the box.

As much as 5e tries to be for everyone, being that flexible meant punting a lot of fine-tuning to the DM, so you might find it frustrating at times if you really need a plug-and-play sort of experience from your RPG.

One approach is to delete from the rules rather than homebrew or re-jigger them. As has been suggested, while you might not have time to homebrew and balance novel magic rules to get the tone you want, you can simply ban casters as a PC option at low level. When the rare monster or NPC uses magic, it can just arbitrarily do whatever you need it to do. There's no need for consistency.

When a PC finally uncovers some magical secrets and gets to take a level in a caster class, his magic needn't work anything like NPC/monster magic has been.

And, since paladins and rangers don't get at-will spells, I'm not really seeing a problem with including them.

there will be NO cantrips

Personally I have come round to the view that at-will cantrips in 5e makes it very difficult to accommodate the Primeval Thule fluff.

The older versions of DnD with daily spells only suit sword & sorcery better I think.

It think it's a little odd that in trying to get a 'lower magic' feel, one of the first things on the chopping block is the least powerful of PC magics. Cantrips are few, not that flexible (you learn them and that's it, you don't change 'em out each day) and are already designed/balanced to avoid being systematically abuseable.

Spells, OTOH, get very powerful, varied, and flexible, and are designed with the idea that there will always be pressure on the slot resource, preventing systematic use/abuse. The moment you have a slow day or some downtime, though, spells /can/ be cast systematically.

A character who can throw a bolt of fire whenever he likes (and occassionally starts a fire without meaning to) and not much beyond that is a bit more S&S than one that can 'only' cast six powerful, dependable spells a day, every day, and can decide that morning what each of those spells will be.

The versatility, power, and relative dependability and, well, safety, of Vancian magic is much more at odds with S&S than a small number of relatively minor, specific, magical effects, even if they are mechanically 'at will.'

the closest 5e class to what I envision is a Warlock with spell "slots" recharging after short rests -- not Vancian magic

I agree that the Warlock, sinister, and not so Vancian, is the best fit of the caster classes. Eldritch Blast & all, IMHO.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It certainly doesn't address my problems with the lack of guidance for altering the magic system for the setting.

The more I read, the more I think that Thule is not really intended to be played as low magic among the PC's:

From the Travelers' Guide:

A useful way to think
of magic in Thule is:
“rare among NPCs,
but not necessarily at
your table.” Spellcasting
characters are special--
with all the benefits and
drawbacks that entails.
—Dave

I think they'd be entirely content with an a party made up of a sorcerer, a wizard, a warlock, and a cleric tromping about through the jungles with ZERO rules alterations. But such an adventuring group would need to be careful around the paranoid locals, and will face antagonists of their own making, and may risk destroying the world as they save it.

That's a cool campaign - one that Thule makes uniquely possible due to its low-magic setting. I don't think the designers would have a problem with that campaign.

While you can twist Thule to be low-magic if you want, and the world won't think such a party exceptional, I don't think it's designed to favor low-magic parties. Playing a spellcaster is like...playing a battelrager, or playing a wild mage or playing a warlock in standard D&D. The fluff of the character is: you're dangerous, trucking in unknown things, destructive, unpredictable. Locals don't like you, your party keeps you at arm's length, you hide your powers much of the time because you just can't slaughter EVERY village that comes down on you like a ton of bricks.

The restrictions on Thule's classes - no monk, no paladin - seem based more in ideas of those classes' typical examples being culturally irrelevant. There's no ki-wielding pseduo-asian kung-fu masters or chivalric knights out of Aurthurian legend. (Though I might say that even that restriction seems probably more heavy-handed than is strictly necessary) There are, however, mages who bend the forces of the cosmos to their whim - they are just things that people are TERRIFIED of. No one's setting up magical barge operations or magical forges at the heart of cities or anything.

I think this might be the reason the design of the setting doesn't embrace a low-magic party. It's not really meant to. Thule, as the designers intended, is totally cool with a magic-heavy party in a low-magic world.

Which isn't to say that twisting it to require a low-magic party is invalid or anything, it's just to say that, as it would be in a standard D&D game, it's a choice you opt into as a group, not something the setting is really going to do for you. Thule isn't particularly invested in your party not having a spellcaster in it. Thule would be fine with your entire party being primary spellcasters, if that's what you wanted. To forbid that is fine, just as it is in regular D&D, but it's also going to be some work, just as it would be in regular D&D.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's a good point. Thule is marketed as a D&D setting, and D&D is very high-magic - 5e particularly so when it comes to PCs as casters (players have far more character choices if the concept uses magic than if it doesn't). It could well be that the intention is to have a traditional high-magic D&D party rampaging through an unsuspecting S&S-ish low-magic setting. There's certainly specific sorts of fun to be had with that kinda of thing.