The extreme proliferation of magic in D&D

[JoeGKushner]

I should clarify--I want to integrate locales, NPCs, monsters, adventure hooks, etc., but not the magical gear that usally accompanies them. So for each new bit I use, I'm tweaking it before I use it by throwing out magic weapons and potions, etc. It's the constant tweaking to scale back the magical proliferation--purely self-imposed--that's becoming tedious.

Gotcha. That can be annoying, especially if you're using something like Harn where such magics would be very rare or doing the standard Sword and Sorcery stuff where once a gain, it's rare.

For me though, magic items, like +1 swords, don't rerpesent a huge problem. They're not much better than masterwork items, sometimes not as useful as items made of certain materials (cold iron and silver come to mind immediatly) and have no history. I tend to like the unique items as rewards for players though so I could just be weird.

 

[Imperialus]

For me though, magic items, like +1 swords, don't rerpesent a huge problem. They're not much better than masterwork items, sometimes not as useful as items made of certain materials (cold iron and silver come to mind immediatly) and have no history. I tend to like the unique items as rewards for players though so I could just be weird.

That's one thing I rather like about the weapons of legacy book. It turns the weapons into living breathing (well not really) inhabitants of the world that the PC's can interact with and develop along with their characers.

 

[Wombat]

I run into problems with the percieved level of magic in D&D. The base rules-as-written require a lot of magic. Not only are very few of the character classes spell-free, but there is a large assumption built in about magic items necessary to complete tasks appropriate to one's level. This is the whole basis of the CR. In the end, the RAW has a large amount of Magic Creep built into it.

This does not mean, however, that a D20 (as opposed to D&D) game cannot be lower magic. Certainly this is something that I strive for and enjoy quite a bit; this probably also explains why I pick up so for WotC books any more -- the material in them is rarely conducive to expanding any campaign that I have in place due to the reliance on percieved requirements of magical aid. By removing prices for magical items, instead having them very rare, usually created through the coming together of multiple individuals (great craftsmen, priests, and suchlike), there are no magic shops. This means that fighting types in particular are going to be at a disadvantage at higher levels compared to the built-in magical oomph of spell-using classes. This then requires another adjustment, removing many combat-oriented spells (which is the vast majority of the list to begin with) from the list for example, making them available only through specific groups who require allegiance to them, and all allegiances come at a price. Equally it is easy enough to place restrictions on the ability to rise in spell using classes -- every third level, for example, must be as a non-spellcrafter.

So, yes, it is possible to tinker with the rules and create something with a much lower magic power curve. To do this, however, does take a lot of thought, much more than simply removing a few magical weapons. Sometimes a specific set of D20 rules (Grim Tales, for example) makes the calculations a bit easier; these are not thought embraced by WotC, true, but at least they are possibilities, if that particular set of rules works for your particular campaign. Then again, I am a gaming cobbler, so it is always easy for me to use ideas from many sets of rules.

The problem that those of us who prefer lower assumed magical levels run into constantly is that we are "not playing the game right" or "not really playing D&D". I'll cop to the latter, though not the former. I don't play D&D. I do play D20. I'm good with that and so are all of my players. The basic mechanics are not bad at all, but they need a lot of tinkering to form the precise game we are going to find enjoyable.

Amongst other things, that means scouring down magic quite a bit.

 

[Greg K]

As a DM, it is easy enough to circumvent this issue, unless the player(s) in question get upset about paying money for a book you won't allow them to use or feel you are "limiting" their character development.

My answer to those players would be "If you only bought the book so that you could use it in my campaign, too bad. You should have asked me first." Then again, I do tell the players upfront that just because WOTC or another company put out a book does not mean that I will any part of it, let alone the whole thing, to be used.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

So reading about the new magic book by Wizards, and I see someone note "the extreme proliferation of magic in D&D" and think to myself.... inherently, there's really nothing forcing magic to "extreme proliferation".

As a matter of fact, there are now several low magic variants out there like Black Company, Thieves World, Grim Tales, Dark Legacies, and Iron Heroes to name a few.

But even in just basic D&D, there is nothing forcing "the extreme proliferation of magic in D&D." They're options. They don't have to be on every corner.

Am I looking at it the wrong way?

The "tons of magic" thing is baked into the reccomended equipment levels which balance fighter types vs spell casting types and the whole party against enemies. If you go low magic then your have to rebalance the class abilities and CRs.

The PC's having tons of magic while no one else in the world does would lack versimillitude for me, so yes I would say "tons of magic" is built into the rules.

 

[JoeGKushner]

The "tons of magic" thing is baked into the reccomended equipment levels which balance fighter types vs spell casting types and the whole party against enemies. If you go low magic then your have to rebalance the class abilities and CRs.

The PC's having tons of magic while no one else in the world does would lack versimillitude for me, so yes I would say "tons of magic" is built into the rules.

I'd argue against even that as the PC's could have the same equipment in cash but only have a few items. Some of the magic items of the upper levels are extremely expensive.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

The "tons of magic" thing is baked into the reccomended equipment levels which balance fighter types vs spell casting types and the whole party against enemies. If you go low magic then your have to rebalance the class abilities and CRs.

The PC's having tons of magic while no one else in the world does would lack versimillitude for me, so yes I would say "tons of magic" is built into the rules.

I'd agree but in the publishjed low magic setting I've seen they have changeds the magic system as well. Thieves world which rocks by the way uses the same spells but the system to cast spells is radically different.

Not necesarrily weaker since you can cast more spells, but different since it can take a few rounds to get a single spell off. What I've seen is spellcasters going with there low level spells more often so they can get them off in a single round and rarely using the high level spells in a fight. For me the reduced magic item types which weakes fighters and other equip focusse classes is balanced by the spellcasting system.

 

[genshou]

I run into problems with the percieved level of magic in D&D. The base rules-as-written require a lot of magic. Not only are very few of the character classes spell-free, but there is a large assumption built in about magic items necessary to complete tasks appropriate to one's level. This is the whole basis of the CR. In the end, the RAW has a large amount of Magic Creep built into it.

This does not mean, however, that a D20 (as opposed to D&D) game cannot be lower magic. Certainly this is something that I strive for and enjoy quite a bit; this probably also explains why I pick up so for WotC books any more -- the material in them is rarely conducive to expanding any campaign that I have in place due to the reliance on percieved requirements of magical aid. By removing prices for magical items, instead having them very rare, usually created through the coming together of multiple individuals (great craftsmen, priests, and suchlike), there are no magic shops. This means that fighting types in particular are going to be at a disadvantage at higher levels compared to the built-in magical oomph of spell-using classes. This then requires another adjustment, removing many combat-oriented spells (which is the vast majority of the list to begin with) from the list for example, making them available only through specific groups who require allegiance to them, and all allegiances come at a price. Equally it is easy enough to place restrictions on the ability to rise in spell using classes -- every third level, for example, must be as a non-spellcrafter.

So, yes, it is possible to tinker with the rules and create something with a much lower magic power curve. To do this, however, does take a lot of thought, much more than simply removing a few magical weapons. Sometimes a specific set of D20 rules (Grim Tales, for example) makes the calculations a bit easier; these are not thought embraced by WotC, true, but at least they are possibilities, if that particular set of rules works for your particular campaign. Then again, I am a gaming cobbler, so it is always easy for me to use ideas from many sets of rules.

The problem that those of us who prefer lower assumed magical levels run into constantly is that we are "not playing the game right" or "not really playing D&D". I'll cop to the latter, though not the former. I don't play D&D. I do play D20. I'm good with that and so are all of my players. The basic mechanics are not bad at all, but they need a lot of tinkering to form the precise game we are going to find enjoyable.

Amongst other things, that means scouring down magic quite a bit.

I'm with you here, Wombat. Pledge of Tyranny uses the 3E rules as a base, but there are enough modifications that the ruleset really isn't D&D anymore. It's d20.

 

[Crothian]

Its not built in I imagine the people who complain either don't realize they can remove it or have DMs that want it but they do not.

 

[scourger]

I agree with much of what has been posted in this thread. I find that my ability to run D&D is impaired by the magic proliferation. I don't really mind if the PCs have more magic as the foes can always have greater numbers or special abilities. What strains my brain is trying to figure out the foes' strategies when they have magic--and they often do. Even when the bad guys' tactics are presented in a module, it really takes a lot of work to figure out the new bonuses, etc., when spells and magic items come into effect. I just get tired of keeping track of it all, especially on top of all the non-magic rules that I have to track as a DM.

Reducing the magic level presents the balance issues between spellcasters & non-spellcasters noted above. It's probably not an issue at low levels, but higher level spellcasters would outstrip the non-spellcasters without the smorgasboard of magic items. That may not be very fun for the players, especially the ones with non-spellcasting PCs.

The best answer to this dilemma I've found is to play games without magic. Even a d20 game with other powers, like Omega World or Judge Dredd, is easier and more fun for me to run. I've also recently tried Tour of Darkness for Savage Worlds and find it to be a much easier game to run without being that much more simple as far as options go--the mechanics are just a bit simpler. These solutions unfortunately leave D&D un-run by me, which is a shame since most of my firends who game prefer it to other games. It is the lowest common denominator. It's to the point that I would really rather run D&D modules (i.e. The Age of Worms) as Omega World conversions just so I can cut down on the bookkeeping.

The other solution I've realized and expressed to the other DM in our group is to keep D&D at low levels. That way, the magic proliferation never gest too far out of hand. The PCs still get to do lots of cool stuff, it's just the low level stuff. Perhaps a game in which the replacement PCs start over at 1st level would be better to keep the levels low. Players with ralatively higher level survivors would have to shoulder a greater adventuring load, but that is a social dynamic not a rules issue.

Bottom line: there's got to be a way to play D&D as a DM without so much work.