Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6752229" data-attributes="member: 7635">Calling Bull on this.D&D has never done low-no magic well. AD&D is lower than 3e on in terms of magical saturation, but its never did either well without extensive houseruling. Since my days with 1e are limited, I'll use 2e as my great example. First off, as I just said it had the lowest amount of classes with no spellcasting (2/9). Second, there is no "low magic" setting in official AD&D. Dark Sun, the poster child of "low magic" in D&D, still had preservers (which suffered no penalties other than "can't lay waste to nations with my fireball like defilers can", clerics of the elemental realm, druids, templars, and EVERYONE WAS PSIONIC (either with a wild talent or the psionicist class). There were all sorts of things like life-shaped items (magic other another name) as well. Not very "low" magic to me, and it doesn't get better from there. The majority of non-humanoid/non-animal monsters have magic (be it innately, spellcasting ability, or were created by it like undead or constructs). Every module ever was awash in it. Every setting had at least one high level wizard (most had several) and almost all of them introduced new spells, magic items, and spellcaster classes. And that was 2e. D&D, it seems, has never tried to support nor actually supported, low magic. No magic is practically impossible without severe modifications to the ruleset and huge changes to source material (everything from monsters to math). In that sense, 5e isn't much further off that 2e is. I mean, if your going to limit spellcasting then cutting EK/AT is as easy as cutting wizards and clerics. Unlike 3e, there is no assumption of PC crafting magic items, nor is there an assumed Christmas Tree of items needed to keep the math working (like 3e and 4e). Which brings us back around to the thrust of this tangent; is a warlord needed to do nonmagical? Well, 35 years of D&D before 2008 is asking that question. If you say "yes", then you agree nonmagical play was impossible before 4e. If you say "no", then you agree that a warlord is unneeded (not unwanted, but unneeded) to do nonmagical play.</blockquote>

Verification