D&D 5E Sword & Sorcery / Low Magic

[Ath'kethin]

Oh yeah, the Talislanta 5e book has an option for Rangers that removes the Spellcasting trait and gives them proficiency with Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom saving throws as well as an extra attack at 11th level and Expertise (like a Rogue) with a skill of their choice from Animal Handling, Athletics, Medicine, Nature, Perception, Stealth, and Survival.

So that's an option.

 

[Voadam]

This is kinda hard to pull off in 5E considering there are only three classes who are not casters and each of those have caster or specifically magical subclasses. So unless you want the whole party made up of barbarians, fighters, and rogues, we need to either clamp down on magic and casters or start homebrewing a bunch of other classes.

Barbarian, Rogue, and Fighter only parties sounds very Conan/Gray Mouser and Fafhrd to me and can work.

Backgrounds provide a decent avenue for some niche differentiation.

Maybe go with healing surges out of the DMG for the protagonist hero mode.

 

[Don Durito]

It's really hard to do as 5e is so saturated in magic.

Star Wars 5e has a scholar class that could be adapted here.

The Ranger should also be adaptable to a non-spell casting class without too much trouble.

I wouldn't put any penalties on spellcasters. It just throws balance out. Either players are on board with what you want to do or they're not.

 

[Flamestrike]

Any other thoughts or ideas on doing low magic Sword & Sorcery with D&D 5E?

Play a different game really. DnD is OTT Gonzo, as are all published game worlds.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This biggest thing to remember is that no amount of changing how casters work is going to solve your issue... because the amount of magic in a game is 95% going to be represented by the characters in the party that have magic. So as long as you allow some form of casters in the game and then one or more players play casters... magic is going to seem really prevalent regardless.

Really the best way to do it is to do as has been suggested and only allow barbarians, fighters, and rogues... with maybe a monk as the closest thing to a magical person there is.

But let's be honest here... with the Battlemaster fighter subclass, you can have multiple fighters in the party and they all seem different. Same with the rogue. So it shouldn't feel weird at all with a party that consists of a Berzerker Barbarian, a Great Weapon heavily armored Battlemaster tank, a rapier and shield Battlemaster duelist, a archery focused Scout Rogue, a shortsword dual-wielding Thief Rogue, and an Open Hand Monk. They will all play together wonderfully and now you won't see magic almost at all-- except for the times when you the DM decide to introduce it into the game. Which is how you would want it to be anyway.

 

[Laurefindel]

This biggest thing to remember is that no amount of changing how casters work is going to solve your issue... because the amount of magic in a game is 95% going to be represented by the characters in the party that have magic. So as long as you allow some form of casters in the game and then one or more players play casters... magic is going to seem really prevalent regardless.

Really the best way to do it is to do as has been suggested and only allow barbarians, fighters, and rogues... with maybe a monk as the closest thing to a magical person there is.

But let's be honest here... with the Battlemaster fighter subclass, you can have multiple fighters in the party and they all seem different. Same with the rogue. So it shouldn't feel weird at all with a party that consists of a Berzerker Barbarian, a Great Weapon heavily armored Battlemaster tank, a rapier and shield Battlemaster duelist, a archery focused Scout Rogue, a shortsword dual-wielding Thief Rogue, and an Open Hand Monk. They will all play together wonderfully and now you won't see magic almost never-- except for the times when you the DM decide to introduce it into the game. Which is how you would want it to be anyway.

This,

People say 5e is ill suited for low magic because doing so means removing more that 50% of the original content, but the integrity of the game remains 100% intact.

And even with that much of the game amputated, it still offers more customization options than several other games.

 

[TwoSix]

You could also dig around for various homebrew to supplement a lineup of non-caster classes. Kibblestasty's Warlord, Benjamin Huffman's Pugilist, Mage Hand Press' Warden and Craftsman all come to mind as good fits for a low-magic type of game.

 

[Marc_C]

Barbarian, Rogue, and Fighter only parties sounds very Conan/Gray Mouser and Fafhrd to me and can work.

Backgrounds provide a decent avenue for some niche differentiation.

Maybe go with healing surges out of the DMG for the protagonist hero mode.

Indeed. A rogue arcane trickster fits the Gray Mouser's description.

 

[overgeeked]

As part of the reading that spawned the thread, I came across a REH story with what’s definitely a warlock. Thoth-Amon. He’s a villain, so that doesn’t necessarily effect the players’ class choices, but I was thinking being selectively restrictive rather than blanket could help. Removing spell foci, playing up restrictions on components, allowing slower progressing casters of certain classes and playing up their downsides. Like the corruption of draconic sorcerers (restrict it to poison and/or acid and they’re linked to Set), the servitude of warlocks, etc. Or maybe kick the resource recovery down a level, at-will becomes 1/short rest, 1/short become 1/long, 1/long becomes 1 every 2 long, etc. I don’t think monks fit, thematically. Maybe reskin them as pugilists or acrobats.

 

[Dioltach]

I don't play 5E, so I don't know what those mechanics mean, but it sounds like you're nerfing spellcasters. This will either unbalance the game, or discourage players from choosing spellcaster classes. So what's the point? Might as well ban them outright. Like I mentioned earlier, that would suit the theme a lot more anyway.

(In my low-level, low-magic 3.5 game, I've found that a bard fits quite well though.)