D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

[FrozenNorth]

There's a stark difference between low-magic and no magic. In low-magic you really aren't limited to just 4-5 classes IMO.

For low magic, as far as classes are concerned, remove sorcerer and warlock and all magical subclasses for non-casters. So, for me anyway, I could easily see all the other 10 classes.

I think different people have different interpretations of low-magic. I would definitely not consider a party of a paladin, ranger, cleric and wizard as low magic!

For me, in a low magic campaign you would have maximum 1 half or full caster.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Unless you stay low level as in no fire balls and remove cantrips I am not sure you can call it low magic if you do have spell caster classes. (everyone seems to have their own idea of what "low magic is" )

It depends on if your definition of low-magic is:

1. Magic is low-power AND/OR
2. Magic is fairly rare

We can rank both aspects (Power, Frequency) on a scale of 0- 3: 0 = None, 1 = Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = High.

When I say low-magic, I mean Medium (2) Power (Teleport and Raise Dead would be there, but not until 15+ level) and Low (1) Frequency.

Yes, we play low magic and I don't feel the need to restrict* classes really at all. We hold to the belief that the PCs are special. So right now our 15th level wizard is the most powerful magic user in the whole world. Next most powerful is s 12th level cleric and then most magic users (and classes in general) top out in the 5th-8th lvl range and those are "elites" with most not getting past 3rd.

*I don't restrict classes, but some spells are off the table.

I restrict classes because I think there are too many full casters. We have 4 martials, 2 half-casters (3 if you include Artificer--which I don't ), and 6 full casters!!! By removing Sorcerer and Warlock, I am restoring the balance to the class selection. Frankly, metamagic should not be a class thing, if even in the game at all (I like it better as feats so it is truly rare) and Warlock works well (in concept) as a subclass of Cleric.

Restricting the game to 6th level spells (and consequently slowing down spell progression) is a good measure as well to help create a low-magic feel.

PCs aren't inherently "special" in my games. They are special because of the things they DO, not because of who they are. I keep some NPCs as leveled-humanoids instead of creatures like 5E does. In general, the chance of progressing to the next level is about 1 in 3. So, the chance of getting above tier 1 is less than 5%.

I think different people have different interpretations of low-magic. I would definitely not consider a party of a paladin, ranger, cleric and wizard as low magic!

For me, in a low magic campaign you would have maximum 1 half or full caster.

Rangers and Paladins would be non-casters OR have there spell progression more like 1E (not until tier 2 to tier 3).

With making spells selected by slot as they were in AD&D as well, even having two full casters would feel less magical. Having the ability to cast a prepared spell with any available slot makes magic to adaptable and open. So, that is another issue.

Finally, low-magic is also a lot about the world the PCs are in, as well as what the party itself can do.

 

[Garthanos]

Finally, low-magic is also a lot about the world the PCs are in, as well as what the party itself can do.

Definitely but for me that relates directly to PCs are NOT a direct reflection of the world they are special cases (so I am less annoyed by their being so many classes being magic, except that it feels like less attention was paid on the non-casters abilities)

 

[dave2008]

I restrict classes because I think there are too many full casters.

I don't have to restrict classes because only one or two of my players ever picks a magic using class (thus we have a wizard, 3 fighters , and a rogue).

Restricting the game to 6th level spells (and consequently slowing down spell progression) is a good measure as well to help create a low-magic feel.

We may do something like that for our next game. But honestly the fact that the wizard can cast one 8th and one 7th lvl spell per day hasn't seemed to break anything yet. I have thought of making 7-9th lvl spells ritual only, but it has played fine with the base rules for now.

PCs aren't inherently "special" in my games. They are special because of the things they DO, not because of who they are. I keep some NPCs as leveled-humanoids instead of creatures like 5E does. In general, the chance of progressing to the next level is about 1 in 3. So, the chance of getting above tier 1 is less than 5%.

That is what I mean by special. They, the PCs, are one of the 5% that gets past tier 1 (typically, these are the deadliest levels). I mean we start at 0 level with no classes, just backgrounds and stats. So they really don't start special at all!

 

[Belen]

Because if those classes are there to be chosen and other players at the table choose them, you end up stuck playing in a much more magic-first game and party even though you yourself chose to go with a non-magical character.

Same goes for if they multi-class; if magic-using classes are seen as (or worse, outright are) better and-or more optimal and the option to play them is there, players will naturally gravitate toward that option even with what would otherwise be a non-magical character, just to keep up. Meanwhile your own preference gets squashed.

The easy solution is to find a group that wants to play a low-magic campaign or run one yourself. I have run multiple campaigns where the most powerful NPC casters top out at 3rd level except for PCs and Villains. I have run games that restrict the players and use skill checks and crafting for healing. It is not that difficult.

 

[Scott Christian]

I am sure that is some of it. For example, I have books I loved as a kid to young adult, but now I am middle aged (getting closer to grumpy old man LOL), a lot of those books don't appeal to me anymore. I have found memories of them, but when I've tried reading them over the last 10 years or so, I just can't get into them or enjoy them as much.

I completely understand this, although often times, equate it to good writing. To be sure, Name of the Wind, Lies of Loche Lamora, etc. is great writing that I have enjoyed later in life, but now all I read are science books.

Well we are still on our first characters from the start of 5e and were are only at lvl 15 (though on an extend Covid hiatus). So we haven't gotten tired of our fighters and rogues yet!

Honestly it amazes me how fast some people play. We had one set of characters for the full run of 4e and we are still on our first set for 5e. There is no fear of my group running out of classes to play (they almost always play fighters anyway)

This is a great example of table playstyles. I like my campaigns done in four to six months.

 

[Garthanos]

This is a great example of table playstyles. I like my campaigns done in four to six months.

I know a group that seems that fast... and they are doing full 20 levels with many homebrew elements which seem ahem borrowed heavily from WoW which seem likely to slow things down with side ventures (everyone is a crafter of some sort), LOL.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. My players are pretty careful so it doesn't happen often, but it happens. And since no one ever plays a cleric, and we play in a low magic setting, a death typical means the end of a character. Resurrection of any kind is very difficult in our setting.

That being said, I am not following your logic. Are you saying character death, or the lack thereof, would make one get to know their player better or worse?

I was suggesting that characters that can't die, and are therefore contiguous, might lead to longer campaigns. You said you had the same PCs for the entire long campaign.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't have to restrict classes because only one or two of my players ever picks a magic using class (thus we have a wizard, 3 fighters , and a rogue).

We may do something like that for our next game. But honestly the fact that the wizard can cast one 8th and one 7th lvl spell per day hasn't seemed to break anything yet. I have thought of making 7-9th lvl spells ritual only, but it has played fine with the base rules for now.

That is what I mean by special. They, the PCs, are one of the 5% that gets past tier 1 (typically, these are the deadliest levels). I mean we start at 0 level with no classes, just backgrounds and stats. So they really don't start special at all!

And everyone survived to high level? They are special!

 

[Voadam]

A biggy the ritual magic and a skill check were explicitly supposed to be capable of accomplishing the same amount of story impact. This was not something the DM had to guess, aye the detail of the implementation was a bit of judgement and imagination but the goal was well declared.

I don't remember any explicit goals about the equivalence of the ritual magic system and the skill system. Do you have a reference?