Too much magic in DnD - lets do something about it !

[Deadguy]

Gothmog, you use a rolling mechanic to see if a spellcaster can cast a spell. Do you also retain the "spells/day" mechanic too? It would seem that combining the two means that the spellcaster is left with only a chance of working a spell and only a limited number of times to try per day. That combination, seems to me, very dispiriting to a player. Most systems that require dice rolls to produce effects also tend to remove the limit of X/day attempts. In other words, you either 'fire-and-forget' a la D&D, or you have 'unceratin' magic, but you can at least attempt at will.

I can see that you have players that accept this, but I would see a far wider market where people would not accept playing a character who is neither effective nor reliable.

 

[Gothmog]

Oops, silly me.

Yeah, I did change how many times per day a character can attempt to cast a spell- I just forgot to mention it. I agree that keeping the same progression as given in the PHB would be extremely limiting. Basically, a character has a number of spell points per day equal to the total number of levels of spells he could cas in D&D. For example, a 5th level wizard in D&D has a progression of 4/3/2/1 according to the PHB. This is a total of 12 spell levels, if you count 0 level spells as .5 in the equation. On top of this, the character gets to add twice their Int/Wis/Cha modifier, as well as any spells they would normally get for a high ability score- so it tends to even out pretty well. So a 5th level wizard with a 15 Int has a total of 19 spell points. Spells cost a number of spell points to case equal to their level. Spell points return at the rate of 1 the first hour of rest, 2 the second, and so on until the character gets them all by by the end of 8 hours of rest. Characters can also attempt to cast when they are out of spell points, in which case the character takes a number of temp Con points of damage equal to the level of the spell. These lost Con points come back one per day of bedrest.

This does allow characters to cast on the fly like sorcerers do in D&D, but I have not found that to be a problem. Also, while it might seem like everyone would try to cast higher level spells with this system, I have found that has not been the case. In fact, most players stick to casting their more sure-fire spells (lower level ones) because they have a better chance of working correctly. They save using the more potent spells until the situation really demands it. Also, just because they fail the casting roll by a few points doesn't mean they necessarily lose the spell points- sometimes they simply fail to harness the energy in the first place and nothing happens. Other times, the spell goes off, only weakened, or something odd happens (see my previous post). Alternately, if the DC is exceeded by a large amount, they spell might take effect at 1.5x normal level- magic is chancy, but sometimes its REALLY worth it.

Hope that clears up any ambiguity. Its worked well so far for us, and the players have not complained its hampered their abilities. There is actually quite a bit more to my magic system, but its pretty world specific (different traditions of magic with different spells, spell preparation and mastery, etc) but thats the gist of it. Thanks for pointing out my oversight!

 

[kenjib]

Gothmog, you use a rolling mechanic to see if a spellcaster can cast a spell. Do you also retain the "spells/day" mechanic too? It would seem that combining the two means that the spellcaster is left with only a chance of working a spell and only a limited number of times to try per day. That combination, seems to me, very dispiriting to a player. Most systems that require dice rolls to produce effects also tend to remove the limit of X/day attempts. In other words, you either 'fire-and-forget' a la D&D, or you have 'unceratin' magic, but you can at least attempt at will.

I can see that you have players that accept this, but I would see a far wider market where people would not accept playing a character who is neither effective nor reliable.

Sovereign Stone works something like this. You roll to cast a spell, and the quality of your rolls determines how long it takes to cast the spell. The longer a spell takes to cast, the more you have a potential to take subdual damage and/or botch the spell. It also has void magic, which is powerful but more dangerous to use. It's worth at least taking a look at an alternate system like this since it's playtested (I presume) and has a decent body of support - the Sovereign Stone book and a magic supplement with tons more spells. It will probably run better than house rules. It has the features you want - spell casting is not 100% reliable and there are negative consequences for using magic to do nasty things.

The spells don't seem to get very powerful at higher levels either, which can be good for low magic although some players might feel gimped. I'm not sure how well the rules work in play but it just might be the magic bullet for low magic - maybe someone here knows more than I do about it.

To show how the Sovereign Stone rules might be well suited to a low magic campaign, here is the list of classes available in the setting:

PHB barbarian
PHB rogue
PHB fighter
archer
elemental mage
mounted warrior
noble
sailor
soldier
stalker
void mage
There are only two spellcasting classes and they are very closely related. Some of the fighter variant classes might be a little bit unecessary (although considering the way that prestige classes have been handled by D&D this is kind of a moot point nowdays), but when you remove all of the spell casting classes perhaps opening up a few more character choices keeps the game fun for players.

Perhaps someone who has actually played in the setting can give some more valuable input. From what I can see it appears to be a far more suitable starting point for a low magic variant than standard D&D, but I haven't played in it. I was turned off from the book because it is supposed to be a campaign setting but there is very little info about the actual world in the book. Thinking about how the rules work now, however, is making me really reconsider getting it and using it just for the rules. Is there anyone here who has tried this book in play? I think Arcady uses it. Maybe he'll see this thread.

 

[LostSoul]

I've been thinking about this...

Is it possible to have mystical magic with quantifiable rules?

I think that, since magic represents the unknown and irrational, you can't. You might be able to mirror "historical" spells and magical practices, but without some kind of human intervention, magic is always going to be mundane and boring. This is open for debate, though.

Would there be some way, however, to share the responsibility for determining spell effects throughout the group? Or to impose some kind of order on things, so they don't get too out of hand and offend any one person?

 

[LostSoul]

I think that, rather than saying "this or that rule won't work/is bad design/is flawed", we should stay open to all ideas and suggestions and critique them on thier individual goals.

For example, magic without quantifiable effects may seem like bad design to some people; but if it achieves its goal of making magic mysterious, it is doing its job. And that is the only criteria that should be taken into account.

This way, all DMs can pick and choose the tweaks they want to make to thier games. Individual tastes vary, so accepting all tweaks is a good idea.

 

[Bastoche]

I had an idea to balance spell casting classes in low magic campaign.

Instead of altering the spellcasting classes, give them conscequences when they casts. For exemple subdual damage equal to the spell level of the spell they casts. Maybe even real damage.

Just some thoughts...

 

[reapersaurus]

ahhhh.. it does my heart good to see people thinking outside the box and not swallowing the overpowering magic approach that 3E has.

Actually, I'm very pleased that there are so many people that have a problem with the magic system as written.
I feel like my efforts the past few months have paid off.

Seriously.

I think it's great that so many people are willing to TRY and work with the great skeleton of rules that 3E is, and not be afraid to tweak things to better match your group's idea of fantasy gaming.

Shame on you, those who simply crash the thread and say "You shouldn't be doing that!"
"You shouldn't be discussing this here!"
or "You can't change D&D without destroying it (somehow)!"

As for myself, I have endeavored to point out since December that the default 3E syastem is QUITE unbalanced with regards to magic.
No matter what way you slice it, magic is an over-powering presence that seriously impacts a heroic fantasy approach.

Now there are many people that like playing uber-powerful mages who can crush armies at high levels and make it so that any combat that involves them is going to have to have such a ridiculously high compoment of magic that it strains (my) believability, but...

...I would prefer to not have to tread down that slippery slope.

What's the answer?
Well, for me I would prefer not to re-write the rules for the same reasons many of you have brought up.

I'm only comfortable with minor tweaks: this starts with removing some offending spells from the game, or tweaking them to not dominate the system too much.

 

[hong]

No matter what way you slice it, magic is an over-powering presence that seriously impacts a heroic fantasy approach.

The only way I can make sense of that statement is to assume it means "magic ... seriously impacts a low-magic fantasy approach." Why should fireballing an orc be considered somehow less "heroic" than bashing it with an axe? Or if you think of the fireball as being less heroic because it doesn't expose the caster to any risk, substitute a longbow for the axe, or a vampiric touch for the fireball. The same principle applies. Even in terms of plausibility, why is it any more plausible for a 20th level fighter to kill 100 mooks in hand-to-hand combat, than for a 20th level cleric to do the same with a storm of vengeance?

I'm only comfortable with minor tweaks: this starts with removing some offending spells from the game, or tweaking them to not dominate the system too much.

The thing about D&D as it stands is that it covers the whole spectrum of power levels, as characters advance from 1st to 20th level. At low levels, the conventions of legend and folklore apply; characters are strong, but not overpowering compared to everyday people. They can hold their own against packs of orcs, but large hordes will eventually wear them down. For the same reason, they can be constrained by methods similar to those that existed historically; you don't need to have archmages around every corner to put the fear of God into them, when a group of knights of the realm will do. At high levels, things change somewhat.

Therefore, if you want a low-magic campaign, the easiest solution would seem to be to limit yourself to playing at low levels. Low-level D&D is tailor-made for a campaign along the lines of Arthurian Britain, or even (at a stretch) LOTR. Start at 3rd level, and award 1/10th or 1/20th the usual XP award per encounter. This will keep your campaign in the low-magic arena for as long as you want, or until people get bored, whichever comes first.

 

[Eternalknight]

My contribution

Although I have come late to this thread, I'd thought I'd share my ideas....

How about making the spellcasting classes harder to use? Presently, in order to cast a spell, a wizard must have an Intelligence score of at least 10 + the spells level. What not make it 10 + twice or thrice the spells level? My personal opinion is thrice is better, as it means that a 3rd level spell requires an intelligence of 19 to cast (and a 9th level spell requires a whopping 37!)but it all depends on hpw rare you want magic to be.

This same rule applies to clerics (Wis), druids (Wis) and sorcerers (Cha).

As for bards, rangers and paladins.... Remove their spellcasting abilities. Give bards extra skill points and allow them to use bardic music more times per day. Use an alt.ranger (Woodsman from WoT is a good substitue). For paladins.... well, I'm not really sure. Maybe allow them to lay on hands more in order to get around the lack of clerics?

And seeing as though we are restricting four classes severely, we need something to replace them. The Noble class from WoT is good. And improve the Expert slightly to make him more appealing as an PC class.

 

[reapersaurus]

The only way I can make sense of that statement is to assume it means "magic ... seriously impacts a low-magic fantasy approach."

ummm... no, hong.
It means that magic impacts a campaign based on my concept (and many others) of what _I_ call "heroic fantasy"

I would think the concept of heroic fantasy to be somewhat universally shared, but to be specific: my idea of heroic fantasy does NOT include a party teleporting around the lands as a means of convenience.
My idea does not include a wizard turning invisible and toasting the foes with nigh-invulnerability by conventional means.
My idea does not include a long, involved story being concluded by a power-wizard throwing one spell and defeating the Bad Guy.

I would appreciate it if some people wouldn't make-believe that magic does not dictate a certain type of play which is not conducive to MANY people's gaming sensibilities.
You can say that it's not a problem in your campaign.
You should NOT put your head in the sand and ignore the impact that magic in 3E by the rules can have on a 'heroic fantasy' campaign (NOT low magic, necessarily).


And BTW: a few people have mentioned removing the paladin's spells.
IF you want to do that (why is a question I'm wondering, since the paladin's spells really don't affect the game system that much - detect evil is much more intrusive), than giving them more Lay on Hands and Smites per day would seem to me to be required.