D&D 5E Sword & Sorcery vs. Heroic Fantasy

[JPL]

I would argue that one of the key characteristics of D&D is that it's always been this gumbo of every subgenre of pre-1975 fantasy fiction that ends up tasting like all of them and none of them simultaneously. It has always been Tolkien and Howard and Lieber and Lovecraft and Moorcock all in the pot together, along with everything from mythology to Kwai Chang Caine and Remo Williams.

I am actually not sure how you take a D&D group and get them to do "Adventures in Middle-Earth" --- do about five sessions of walking long distances and fighting orcs and the occasional giant spider, and I think everyone would be ready for a flail snail.

Hey, there's your next campaign, right there. "Adventures in Middle-Earth" Done Wrong. Everyone rolls up hobbits and gets ready for walking and giant spiders, and then a bunch of modrons come out of the woods chased by a minotaur.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I guess its natural to try and define the genre before discussing rules.

If you look at the genre exemplars - Tolkien for 'high fantasy' and REH for S&S, you see nothing remotely like FR or Greyhawk in either case.

D&D has never done a great job of genre emulation, it's mostly done a terrible job. FR's high-magic isn't high fantasy, it's a D&Dism, borderline monty haul, almost. Greyhawk's dungeons full of mismatched monsters and arbitrary magical traps weren't S&S, they were another oddity born of D&D, the game, not of a genre. FWIW.

That said, I think the intent of listing "Heroic Fantasy" for Toril, and "Sword & Sorcery" for Oerth in the DMG was probably to divide the genres between "high magic and fantastical" and "low magic and gritty." Assuming that is the thought process behind why Mearls, Crawford, and Perkins wrote that section the way that they did, how do you think the actual rules be different in a low-magic, grittier setting?

They don't need to vary the rules much - restricting magic will make the game 'grittier,' because, without a sufficiency of magic, D&D just doesn't work that smoothly.

...

To speak more to the sub-genres, themselves, though: emulating either High Fantasy or S&S would require dialing down the magic-use of D&D PCs a lot, and that'd require significant adjustment to keep the game playable.

 

[Hussar]

Actually, Tony V, as an experiment I've run my Thule campaign is pretty low magic. No core casters (all casting is down to rangers and paladins) for the PC's, and zero magic items.

And the game works very well. Surprisingly well actually. You can play 5e at a much, much lower magic level than baseline and the game will function very smoothly.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Actually, Tony V, as an experiment I've run my Thule campaign is pretty low magic. No core casters (all casting is down to rangers and paladins) for the PC's, and zero magic items...

5e's supposed to assume low/no magic /items/ sure, but casting is pervasive. Allowing Paladins, though, would keep sufficient in-combat healing available, which must help some. I don't think hands-laying-on holy rollers fits S&S too well, but it sounds workable enough.

I'd consider taking more extreme measures with casting if I were trying to evoke S&S - like allowing casters, but removing slots: rituals & cantrips only - or just removing PC casters, entirely, 'sorcery' being more the mark of villains in that genre, with the hero providing the Sword.

 

[Hussar]

5e's supposed to assume low/no magic /items/ sure, but casting is pervasive. Allowing Paladins, though, would keep sufficient in-combat healing available, which must help some. I don't think hands-laying-on holy rollers fits S&S too well, but it sounds workable enough.

I'd consider taking more extreme measures with casting if I were trying to evoke S&S - like allowing casters, but removing slots: rituals & cantrips only - or just removing PC casters, entirely, 'sorcery' being more the mark of villains in that genre, with the hero providing the Sword.

Again, that's a very specific interpretation of the genre. There are loads of S&S genre stories where magic is more prevalent. Cook's Black Company and Thieves World as examples. As are Moorcock's works. It's not like Howard and Burroughs are the only writers in the genre.

And, if you go cantrips only then your game will actually be considerably higher magic since you will see spells being cast every single round of every single encounter. As well as utility cantrips like Guidance being used all the time too. No, IMO, you have to go the other way - no cantrips.

As far as Paladins go, Oath of Ancients and very certainly Oath of Vengeance paladins fit in S&S very well. It's not like paladins have to be LG anymore.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Again, that's a very specific interpretation of the genre. There are loads of S&S genre stories where magic is more prevalent. Cook's Black Company and Thieves World as examples

Magic prevalent in Thieves' World? I must've stopped reading it too soon.

And, if you go cantrips only then your game will actually be considerably higher magic since you will see spells being cast every single round of every single encounter.

Thing is, you /do/ see that with "casters" in genre, if they can toss a little magic nasty they can usually do it repeatedly. Maybe until they get tired, maybe until it blows up on them, but also just repeatedly.

No, IMO, you have to go the other way - no cantrips.

To me, that feels more Vancian, more limited-access magic than 'low' magic. Cantrips seem high magic in the context of D&D because magic has always been limited n/day, and unlimited magic would have been 'too powerful' - only because magic was already too powerful. A bolt of flame that doesn't do particularly more damage than a bolt from a crossbow, not so much an issue.

As far as Paladins go, Oath of Ancients and very certainly Oath of Vengeance paladins fit in S&S very well. It's not like paladins have to be LG anymore.

Much magic at all on the heroes' side of the ledger doesn't seem too S&S to me. But, like you say, there's no solid borders to the sub-genre....