D&D 5E Sword & Sorcery / Low Magic

[Greg Benage]

I think that, as mentioned above, Sword & Sorcery is mostly a matter of the protagonists having limited to no ability with magic, and magic being a dangerous and terrifying thing.

That may be one definition, but Elric is a powerful sorcerer from a ten-thousand-year noble lineage of powerful sorcerers. Gods (and other things) do him a solid from time to time, either because he calls them or because of ancient pacts his ancestors forged.

 

[GlassJaw]

Anything that doesn't use standard Vanician casting or standard level-based caster progression can be put under the umbrella of "low-magic". Sure, the style and world-building of LotR, Conan, Dying Earth, Lankhmar, Thieves' World, Black Company, etc, etc vary widely. The low-magic label is quite ubiquitous at this point.

But mechanically, you can pull off any of those if do some combination on reducing/removing caster classes, reduce magic item availability, reduce spell availability, cap spell levels, or rewrite the spellcasting system entirely.

After that it's just window dressing.

 

[ART!]

On the issue of restrictions to spellcasting classes, I wonder how much could be achieved just by increasing the component requirements of spells. It does veer into nerfing, but it would also lend flavor if casting required a personal sacrifice, or a trip to a strange and dangerous place to get just the right component so you can cast invisibility, or whatever.

 

[Don Durito]

On the issue of restrictions to spellcasting classes, I wonder how much could be achieved just by increasing the component requirements of spells. It does veer into nerfing, but it would also lend flavor if casting required a personal sacrifice, or a trip to a strange and dangerous place to get just the right component so you can cast invisibility, or whatever.

This basically requires rewriting the spells as the components are generally easy to find - that's why they are ignored.

If you're going to rewrite the magic system might as well go whole hog.

 

[Don Durito]

There's something to be said for just using the Artificer as the sole spellcaster. You don't have the really high level spells and the magic level of the game is lowered without removing all magic.

A lot of the stuff they do, like brewing potions etc, feels more genre appropriate.

 

[squibbles]

There's something to be said for just using the Artificer as the sole spellcaster. You don't have the really high level spells and the magic level of the game is lowered without removing all magic.

A lot of the stuff they do, like brewing potions etc, feels more genre appropriate.

It makes a sense as the chassis for a S&S PC sorcerer type, but there are a bunch of artificer features that don't work so well.

Alchemist is the only subclass that doesn't need to be heavily modified/reskinned--armor model, eldritch cannon, steel defender, these things don't fit the S&S milieu at all. And, while you can reimagine them as something more fitting, there is a lot of cruft that translates poorly. For example, battle smiths and artillerists heal their pets with the mending spell; that doesn't make sense if you reflavor the steel defender to be a devilish familiar and continue to use mending as a repair spell in other circumstances.

Then there's the emphasis on tools--which isn't incongruous with S&S, but is conceptually limiting if artificer is the only spellcasting class.

And there's the infuse item options to replicate various magic items--which makes total sense for an S&S sorcerer in principle, but looking over the list, it is full of magic as technology conveniences: cap of water breathing, goggles of night, wand of magic detection.

And finally, the spell list is mostly things that go against S&S conventions, which are (to quote myself paraphrasing the Xoth players guide):

• No artillery spells: fireball & friends.
• No convenience spells: rope trick, leomund's tiny hut, water breathing.
• No healing spells or resurrection magic: these things need dark and unsavory costs.
• No instant transportation: teleport, dimension door.
• No low-level divinations: detect magic, comprehend languages.
• No superhero spells: invisibility, fly.

Rope trick, water breathing, cure light wounds, revivify, detect magic, invisibility, and fly are all on their list.

---

I'm not objecting because I don't like the idea, I'm objecting because I did like the idea, did some work reskinning features and modifying subclasses, realized how much stuff needed to be changed to make the class fit, and gave up .

If anybody has written a less Eberron and more S&S Artificer, I'd love to see it.

But I think it might almost be easier to make paladins the sole spellcaster--most of what they do outside of their spell list and weapon & armor proficiencies is actually pretty S&S appropriate.

 

[Don Durito]

It makes a sense as the chassis for a S&S PC sorcerer type, but there are a bunch of artificer features that don't work so well.

Alchemist is the only subclass that doesn't need to be heavily modified/reskinned--armor model, eldritch cannon, steel defender, these things don't fit the S&S milieu at all. And, while you can reimagine them as something more fitting, there is a lot of cruft that translates poorly. For example, battle smiths and artillerists heal their pets with the mending spell; that doesn't make sense if you reflavor the steel defender to be a devilish familiar and continue to use mending as a repair spell in other circumstances.

Then there's the emphasis on tools--which isn't incongruous with S&S, but is conceptually limiting if artificer is the only spellcasting class.

And there's the infuse item options to replicate various magic items--which makes total sense for an S&S sorcerer in principle, but looking over the list, it is full of magic as technology conveniences: cap of water breathing, goggles of night, wand of magic detection.

And finally, the spell list is mostly things that go against S&S conventions, which are (to quote myself paraphrasing the Xoth players guide):

Rope trick, water breathing, cure light wounds, revivify, detect magic, invisibility, and fly are all on their list.

---

I'm not objecting because I don't like the idea, I'm objecting because I did like the idea, did some work reskinning features and modifying subclasses, realized how much stuff needed to be changed to make the class fit, and gave up .

If anybody has written a less Eberron and more S&S Artificer, I'd love to see it.

But I think it might almost be easier to make paladins the sole spellcaster--most of what they do outside of their spell list and weapon & armor proficiencies is actually pretty S&S appropriate.

To be honest I feel like one subclass is enough.

But that's just me - I don't really get why people make such a fuss over subclasses given they do so little and are generally so dull.

But in any case, it's easier to make new subclasses than new classes.

I'm not sure I agree about the spells all being espeically innappropriate. Most of them are the sort of thing I could see fitting in Thieve World. Xoth's take on Sword and Sorcery is basically just the same tired old Conan rehash (and not even all that much in the way of real Conan - more the kind of urban myth Conan.)

 

[squibbles]

To be honest I feel like one subclass is enough.

But that's just me - I don't really get why people make such a fuss over subclasses given they do so little and are generally so dull.

But in any case, it's easier to make new subclasses than new classes.

I'm not sure I agree about the spells all being espeically innappropriate. Most of them are the sort of thing I could see fitting in Thieve World. Xoth's take on Sword and Sorcery is basically just the same tired old Conan rehash (and not even all that much in the way of real Conan - more the kind of urban myth Conan.)

Yeah, one subclass would be alright. What makes it frustrating is that the artillerist and battle smith are almost suitable--a sorcerer with some combat ability, a sorcerer who shoots stuff better, a sorcerer with a tag-along minion, they make sense. Unfortunately, the way they're implemented would make them kludgy to reskin.

On spell selection, I perhaps overstated a bit. They aren't all inappropriate; disguise self, false life, web, tiny servant, animate objects, transmute rock and several others are plenty well suited to S&S. And some of Xoth's restrictions are overly narrow; I don't think invisibility or fireball would be dealbreakers. But detect magic and revivify are really gonna undermine S&S themes.

There are also a bunch of super thematic spells Artificers don't have on their list. There are no enchantment spells, 3 necromancy spells, 5 illusion spells, and no demon conjuring or contacting spells. I'd really want to take the unsuited spells out and put the more suited ones in if I played with it.

I admit, I do think most of Conan when I think of sword and sorcery, but I have also read Lieber, Moorcock, Clark Ashton Smith, and several others (including the Black Company series, which you mentioned earlier). I have not read anything Thieves World and don't know much about it, how is it different?

 

[Don Durito]

Yeah, one subclass would be alright. What makes it frustrating is that the artillerist and battle smith are almost suitable--a sorcerer with some combat ability, a sorcerer who shoots stuff better, a sorcerer with a tag-along minion, they make sense. Unfortunately, the way they're implemented would make them kludgy to reskin.

On spell selection, I perhaps overstated a bit. They aren't all inappropriate; disguise self, false life, web, tiny servant, animate objects, transmute rock and several others are plenty well suited to S&S. And some of Xoth's restrictions are overly narrow; I don't think invisibility or fireball would be dealbreakers. But detect magic and revivify are really gonna undermine S&S themes.

There are also a bunch of super thematic spells Artificers don't have on their list. There are no enchantment spells, 3 necromancy spells, 5 illusion spells, and no demon conjuring or contacting spells. I'd really want to take the unsuited spells out and put the more suited ones in if I played with it.

I admit, I do think most of Conan when I think of sword and sorcery, but I have also read Lieber, Moorcock, Clark Ashton Smith, and several others (including the Black Company series, which you mentioned earlier). I have not read anything Thieves World and don't know much about it, how is it different?

It has powerful wizards, like a lot of post D&D fantasy, (although as the stories are written by different authors what exactly they can do and how powerful they are is inconsisent - and they're not generally major characters). It doesn't really detract from the Sword and Sorcery feel.

Really a big problem for D&D magic is it's not appropriate for any genre. So while it may not fit sword and sorcery particularly well, it doesn't fit any other kind of fantasy better.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This basically requires rewriting the spells as the components are generally easy to find - that's why they are ignored.

If you're going to rewrite the magic system might as well go whole hog.

There is an enormous chasm of difference between adding an additional cost to spells, and rewriting the magic system.