Solve my grim and gritty debate

[dontpunkme]

OK, so here's a debate that has arisen in my current campaign. I run a grim and gritty low-magic campaign. That being said how do I treat creatures with spell-like abilities. I, being the DM believe that just because the world has low-magic (which results from a rarity of arcane spellcasters coupled with tight restrictions for entry into arcane academies) it should not impact the abilities of creatures who gain the spells as part of their nature as opposed to years of practice and study. The players on the other hand insist that low-magic implies that creatures would also suffer from these drawbacks. Any help settling this debate is welcome as the players and I have agreed to allow the non-partial jury of EN World settle this.

 

[LRathbun]

I voted yes, but I think that monsters should be encountered much less often.

 

[d4]

i agree. their abilities don't necessarily need to be nerfed, but they should be much, much rarer.

on the other hand, some spell-like abilities (particularly higher level ones) probably do need to be nerfed if your low-magic party is to survive them.

 

[heimdall]

Third vote for leave 'em alone but make 'em rarer. They can truly be frightening to encounter and are good for extreme challenges.

 

[Fieari]

Again, leave them alone, but make them rarer. Consider their CR to be higher than printed. If magic is rare, then magic is special. If magic is special, than seeing a magical beast is a TREAT, and should be treated as such.

 

[Capellan]

Copy/Pastes everyone else's answers.

 

[shilsen]

What everybody else said. After all, there's also a question of verisimilitude, since monsters with a number of spell-like abilities would be much more powerful in a low magic world, and if there are a large number of them around questions arise of how the PHB races survive, what kind of influence and power the creatures with Sp abilities have, etc.

 

[rbingham2000]

What everybody else said. After all, there's also a question of verisimilitude, since monsters with a number of spell-like abilities would be much more powerful in a low magic world, and if there are a large number of them around questions arise of how the PHB races survive, what kind of influence and power the creatures with Sp abilities have, etc.

If you're throwing the PCs up against powerful monsters without the help of magic or magic items, it is imperative that these monsters have some kind of weakness that the PCs can discover and exploit.

I believe mmadsen's Little Changes with Big Flavor thread mentioned this as one of the first options.

 

[DM-Rocco]

G&G is really a tight game to begin with and if you are using the updated rules, it is more insane. I am playing in one right now, under the first rules, and it is fun, but the most we have fought is skeletons, kobolds and humans. Magic should be more restricted and the same goes for spell like abilities. Hell, an Ogre is just nuts to fight, an Ogre-Mage is insane and if you leave his spell abilities the same, might as well buy tombstones now.

 

[Ourph]

Any help settling this debate is welcome as the players and I have agreed to allow the non-partial jury of EN World settle this.

I voted for "monsters to retain their abilities".

However, if given the opportunity I would have voted for "you're the DM and whatever you say is true in your world is true in your world".

It surprises me very much that your players are being so presumptuous as to tell you how things should work in a world of your own creation. Input on rules interpretations I can understand, but I'd never presume to tell my DM what he should and shouldn't be doing in designing his campaign world. :\