3e/3.5e has been noted as being designed for a very particular level of magic, of spells and items in the world and in the possession of the PCs. This can cause problems when the GM wants to run a setting with a different magic level. One thing I'd like to see in the 4e DMG is support (or at very least, accommodation) for a variety of magic levels, so I can run D&D in a high magic setting like Mystara's Alphatia, or in a low-magic setting like Arthurian Britain, without balance problems or the rules straining at the seams. Do you think this is achievable or desirable?
support for variable magic levels
- Thread starter S'mon
- Start date
Doug McCrae
Legend
Desirable? Very much so. Achievable? That's the tricky part.
frankthedm
First Post
Hard. Every class is most likly going to have over the top abilities that just won't feel at home in a toned down mythic earth setting.
SiderisAnon
First Post
I think the only way to accomplish the different levels of magic would be to have a totally different set of classes for each of the levels of magic. A wizard in a high magic setting is going to have access to a lot of spells. You put that same wizard in a low magic setting and you either have to take away most of their spells, which nerfs the class in comparison to others, or you have to face the wizards throwing off the whole "low magic" thing.
There was a book called "Swashbuckling Adventures" by AEG, which was the d20 version of their Seventh Seas campaign setting. It was quite well done. However, if you mix the classes from that world, which are balanced for low magic, with the classes from the PHB, which are balanced for high magic, then it gets really ugly. I know this from experience as we made that mistake in one campaign.
I think, however, that a well designed core system would allow for the core campaign setting and then others which are at a much different magic setting, and still allow the game to be played reasonably well. Right now, we do not have that. Too many high level encounters are based around the idea that everyone has oodles of magic and magic items. This dependence means that classes designed for a low magic world might find themselves unable to compete when facing high level challenges. I am hoping that 4e is actually going to move away from the current magic toy dependence, which hopefully change the dynamic enough to make the choice of setting more flexible. I do still think that you'd need to make new classes, especially spellcasters for low magic and possibly fighters for really high magic.
There was a book called "Swashbuckling Adventures" by AEG, which was the d20 version of their Seventh Seas campaign setting. It was quite well done. However, if you mix the classes from that world, which are balanced for low magic, with the classes from the PHB, which are balanced for high magic, then it gets really ugly. I know this from experience as we made that mistake in one campaign.
I think, however, that a well designed core system would allow for the core campaign setting and then others which are at a much different magic setting, and still allow the game to be played reasonably well. Right now, we do not have that. Too many high level encounters are based around the idea that everyone has oodles of magic and magic items. This dependence means that classes designed for a low magic world might find themselves unable to compete when facing high level challenges. I am hoping that 4e is actually going to move away from the current magic toy dependence, which hopefully change the dynamic enough to make the choice of setting more flexible. I do still think that you'd need to make new classes, especially spellcasters for low magic and possibly fighters for really high magic.
Irda Ranger
First Post
Based on the concept of "+6 wands" and Bo9S type maneuvers for the Martial characters, I actually think 4e will very easily support any level wealth and/or magical items. If both a Fighter and Wizard are balanced as classes (independent of their gear), then a Fighter at 20th level with mundane weapons and armor should be "fun and fair" compared to a 20th level Wizard who doesn't have any wands or other magical gear either. Similarly, if they have a +6 sword and +6 wand (respectively), they should still favorably compare to the other.
If this is the case, it would be very easy for the DMG to have a table that says "This is how much "stuff", at each character level, we assumed when we generated the XP awards for the Monsters. Divide your PC's actual wealth by this number to get xx%. Multiply XP by the same (-)xx% to get the appropriate rewards. Now you can be as "low item" or "monte haul" as you like."
Toning down class abilities would probably be much, much harder. If I wanted to go that route I'd probably just start with a game better suited to that milieu (e.g., Conan, Iron Heroes, Grim Tales, etc.) and import any 4e-isms necessary.
If this is the case, it would be very easy for the DMG to have a table that says "This is how much "stuff", at each character level, we assumed when we generated the XP awards for the Monsters. Divide your PC's actual wealth by this number to get xx%. Multiply XP by the same (-)xx% to get the appropriate rewards. Now you can be as "low item" or "monte haul" as you like."
Toning down class abilities would probably be much, much harder. If I wanted to go that route I'd probably just start with a game better suited to that milieu (e.g., Conan, Iron Heroes, Grim Tales, etc.) and import any 4e-isms necessary.
Kaodi
Legend
I think it really depends on whether you define magic level as including types of abilities, or just power of abilities.
If multi-classing works as well as they have claimed in 4e, I imagine it would be relatively easy to make an effective and fun character that has only half or less of their level in any one spellcasting class. A cleric/warlord, rogue/wizard or even cleric/wizard if you can allow lots of lower powered abilities.
If multi-classing works as well as they have claimed in 4e, I imagine it would be relatively easy to make an effective and fun character that has only half or less of their level in any one spellcasting class. A cleric/warlord, rogue/wizard or even cleric/wizard if you can allow lots of lower powered abilities.
Actually, there's a comment from someone at WoTC out of GenCon (I'll see if I can track it down) that addresses whether 4e will allow for a Grim and Gritty campaign. If I recall, the answer was that "Grim and Gritty opitons might be dealth with in the DMG."
In any event, I think it might easily be done: provide a chart with three columns ("no magic items", "few magic items", and "normal magic items" [the default being the last]) and then simply increase the frequency of attribute increases and feat/talent slots for the first two kinds of campaigns (or whatever character power currency seems appropriate).
All of this does, of course, depend on the newly defined norm for magic items in the default system. By all indications, their impact seems to be decreasing, and so devising a chart such as this does not strike be as difficult as it would to be to do currently with 3.5.
Similar Threads
