NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6752771" data-attributes="member: 7635">I'm sorry, I thought "low-magic" meant "classes didn't get access to spells", not "classes didn't get access to spells until high level, or the spells they got weren't blasty magic". Well by that measure, there is only one spellcasting class since clerics, druids, and illusionists didn't get access to blast magic either! Interesting day when you learn a Paladin, Illusionist, Cleric, and Monk were a "low magic" party...I agreed on that. I mentioned them as magical LOCATIONS. Magic portals, magical traps, strange pools, etc. Not purely on the amount of treasure, but there was definitely some. Now, lets ignore the high-level stuff for a moment: I grabbed three first-level modules I own (T1, L1, U1: Hommlet, Bone Hill, Saltmarsh) and scanned each for magical items (conveniently, they are bolded in most of them). This is what I found...Hommlet: The least amount, but there is a half-dozen potions, an elven cloak, and Lareth's staff of striking if you best him.Bone Hill: Most of the important NPCs (including the bugbear chieftain and several mages) have potions or +1 gear. (Rings, splitmail, or weapons)Saltmarsh: The House has two rings +1 and platemail +1, and a couple NPCs have +1 swords. Low magic? Well, not common (due to level and challenges faced) but certainly 4-6 items per module. And ironically, 5e dragons don't even have spells (unless the DM uses a variant to give them a handful) and demons often lack that. Guess you could say 5e dragons and demons are lower magic than AD&D ones. Oh, so low-magic equals no MAGIC-USERS/MAGES/WIZARDS, not actually "no spellcasters" or "no magic items" or "no magic-using monsters". Gotcha. So lets agree on this: 3e was the "Magic is King" edition and certainly not what we're striving for. But does 5e? Well, its a little higher than AD&D (due to at-will cantrips and rangers/paladins getting spells early), not quite as high as stock 4e (thanks to 4e's over-reliance on +X items to keep the math working) and nowhere near as high as 3e. Heck, 5e has been out for a year and a half already and we have a dozen new elemental spells and four new cantrips, so we aren't even facing hugely expanding spell lists. But almost none of this proves to me you need a warlord to make nonmagical gaming viable. By your own admission, AD&D was "low magic" but still allowed Clerics, Paladins, +1 platemail at first level, potions of healing, etc. Doesn't seem like the warlord is adding much except just another choice of class. So again, I'm not seeing a NEED to have a full warlord class. I'm seeing a DESIRE for one, but no gaping hole left open by its absence, unless AD&D suffered from the same hole (and right now, two people have told me 1e did low magic well without a warlord class, so I'm guessing it didn't).</blockquote>

Verification