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

[Dispater]

I have thought about this myself, and decided that the current rules themselves didn't need that much tweaking. Here's the few changes I made to my campaign:

First of all, the campaign was to continue to have a fair share of magic, but the magic itself was going to be more dangerous and mysterious:

- Concentration check rolls needed every time you cast a spell (DC 15 + spell level). If you fail, you take 1d3 + spell level in Con damage.
- My players dont see magical items too often, but when they do, these items are often highly potent, and comes with a signifigant drawback or curse. This makes them more aware of abusing these items.
- Each time you cast a spell, depending on its spell level, you may attract the attention of other magic-users (and creatures with spell-like abilities) in the near vicinity, which is often quite unfortunate. The system I used for this, was the often neglected Scry skill.
- In addition top this there is a large group of people hunting wizards and sorcerers, with the ability to detect magic.

And then there's sometimes my DM calls, when something unexpected happens to magic. To balance this, I always give the players a fair chance to survive the danger.

 

[Virginia Wilde]

I personally like low magic settings....as for making sorcerers, wizards, clerics, etc.. NPC classes, I would still say no to this. Probably limit the classes to one of a sort sort per party ( one divine, one arcane), seeing as how this will be the only magic the players are likely to get reliably. Watch the others do their darnedest to keep the casters alive from monsters and even angry mobs of commoners.
This sort of thing leads to lots of roleplaying for all involved, in my experience. It may not be the best thing for new players, but veterans may enjoy this kind of thing.

 

[S'mon]

I personally like low magic settings....as for making sorcerers, wizards, clerics, etc.. NPC classes, I would still say no to this. Probably limit the classes to one of a sort sort per party ( one divine, one arcane), seeing as how this will be the only magic the players are likely to get reliably. Watch the others do their darnedest to keep the casters alive from monsters and even angry mobs of commoners.
This sort of thing leads to lots of roleplaying for all involved, in my experience. It may not be the best thing for new players, but veterans may enjoy this kind of thing.

I've rarely seen a party with more than 1 cleric anyway, they just don't seem very attractive to most people - but parties without any generally don't last long. I do see occasional rashes of sorcerers or wizards, and it does seem reasonable to limit the numbers of these to 1 per party for low-magic settings. I'm not that strict but I discourage groups with more than 2 arcane spellcasters.

 

[hong]

I've rarely seen a party with more than 1 cleric anyway, they just don't seem very attractive to most people - but parties without any generally don't last long.

I think that's a very good point, and one possibly missed by people who advocate low-magic settings. Fantasy roleplaying can be thought of as a way for the participants to recreate the hero's journey, as described by Joseph Campbell (among others). This journey, or "quest" might be a more familiar term, can be summed up as: the hero ventures forth from a world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.

The thing about most of the common myths and legends concerning heroes is that the wielders of magic are not the ones who make the journey. The Arthurian legends speak of the exploits of the _knights_ of the Round Table; Merlin is a figure of wondrous power, but he himself rarely leaves Camelot. Similarly, the heroes of Greek legend -- Perseus, Theseus, etc -- were not magic-users themselves, nor were Charlemagne's paladins. If magic-users are encountered in these tales, it's only in how their actions affect the main protagonists. The role that spellcasters play is essentially secondary -- they're _facilitators_, or intermediaries. The quest itself is not something that they play a leading role in.

Translate this to RPGs, and what it means is that if you want to emulate myth faithfully, you're essentially relegating spellcasters to the role of supporting cast. Who really wants to spend session after session buffing up the party fighters with blessings and auguries, and then patching them up with cure spells afterwards? There's precious little glory or spotlight time in that. Even if you take into account the casting of hexes and curses in combat, that's still nowhere near as spectacular (or as satisfying) as inflicting 20 points of damage with a greataxe, and cleaving an orcish champion in twain. Characters in myth and legend don't care about spotlight time, but players of RPGs do -- at least, I'm sure most of them do.

You can say what you like about the D&D wizard, but the fact is that it gives the player of the wizard a chance at grabbing some limelight, which IMO is a good thing.

 

[Desdichado]

If by "gamist" you mean the philosophy that D&D is all about "going into dungeons, killing monsters and taking their treasure", I'm all for it.

If that's your philosophy, you are obviously opposed to the philosophy that this thread is based on. I have to wonder why you keep posting attempts to hijack the thread, if it's so counter to the way you play.

 

[hong]

If that's your philosophy, you are obviously opposed to the philosophy that this thread is based on. I have to wonder why you keep posting attempts to hijack the thread, if it's so counter to the way you play.

Why do you believe that "killing monsters and taking their treasure" requires high magic?

 

[Desdichado]

Why do you believe that "killing monsters and taking their treasure" requires high magic?

It doesn't, per se but it's greatly facilitated by it.

What I'm working on for my low magic campaign that I hope to run soon (my groups is getting ready to go through the Witchfire trilogy with another DM, but it'll probably be my turn to DM again relatively soon) is to develop skill-based mages, probably based on the Force Adept and the Jedi Consular. These classes are already balanced with other classes that are very similar to D&D classes in balance, without the assumption of lots of "treasure" or magic items.

I might even swap some of the D&D classes out for modified Star Wars classes, or Wheel of Time classes: especially any D&D classes that have a spell progression. I realise that in many ways this is more of a d20 game than a D&D game, but to me the difference is too subtle to matter much.

 

[S'mon]

I think that's a very good point, and one possibly missed by people who advocate low-magic settings. Fantasy roleplaying can be thought of as a way for the participants to recreate the hero's journey, as described by Joseph Campbell (among others). This journey, or "quest" might be a more familiar term, can be summed up as: the hero ventures forth from a world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.

The thing about most of the common myths and legends concerning heroes is that the wielders of magic are not the ones who make the journey. The Arthurian legends speak of the exploits of the _knights_ of the Round Table; Merlin is a figure of wondrous power, but he himself rarely leaves Camelot. Similarly, the heroes of Greek legend -- Perseus, Theseus, etc -- were not magic-users themselves, nor were Charlemagne's paladins. If magic-users are encountered in these tales, it's only in how their actions affect the main protagonists. The role that spellcasters play is essentially secondary -- they're _facilitators_, or intermediaries. The quest itself is not something that they play a leading role in.

Translate this to RPGs, and what it means is that if you want to emulate myth faithfully, you're essentially relegating spellcasters to the role of supporting cast. Who really wants to spend session after session buffing up the party fighters with blessings and auguries, and then patching them up with cure spells afterwards? There's precious little glory or spotlight time in that. Even if you take into account the casting of hexes and curses in combat, that's still nowhere near as spectacular (or as satisfying) as inflicting 20 points of damage with a greataxe, and cleaving an orcish champion in twain. Characters in myth and legend don't care about spotlight time, but players of RPGs do -- at least, I'm sure most of them do.

You can say what you like about the D&D wizard, but the fact is that it gives the player of the wizard a chance at grabbing some limelight, which IMO is a good thing.

This seems like a good argument for banning PC spellcasters in a low-magic game - low magic games being the point of this thread.

 

[mmadsen]

Ya know, given how much you want to make over arcane spellcasters, you might be better off just dropping the entire class. That's not an entirely facetious suggestion; the basic "aid of the gods" role that you see magic as playing is filled perfectly well by divine spellcasters.

"Aid of the gods" role?

I was addressing the problem of flashy healing, that's all. The game, with its reliance on ablative hit points, doesn't work well as a game without healing. Currently that healing's offered up by Clerics with instant-healing powers. Alternatives are Vitality/Wound systems or (my suggestion) spells like Aid that offer temporary hit points before any damage is done.

I wasn't making a general statement that all magic should be "aid of the gods".

In fact, if you replace the cleric with the shaman from OA, you would go a long way to achieving the feel you want, I bet.

Agreed.

In a typical 1st level dungeon crawl, a wizard will probably cast magic missile ONCE. Maybe twice, if he really wants to blow both his spell slots on the one spell. I hardly call this overpowering in any way.

You didn't answer the question. The question was, "In a typical 1st-level dungeon crawl, which spell would you use more often, Bestow Curse or Magic Missile?" If Bestow Curse is so powerful that it must stay at 4th level, and Magic Missile is so weak that it belongs at 1st level -- for game balance, in a standard dungeon-crawling campaign -- then naturally spellcasters would choose Bestow Curse over Magic Missile if they were both offered up as 1st-level spells. Right?

But I don't think that's the case. In a typical campaign, Bestow Curse is less "powerful" than Magic Missile or Sleep. So is Polymorph Other, at least when used "destructively" (e.g. to turn someone into a toad).

 

[Corinth]

Folks, I perceive a certain amount of confusion borne of vague definitions. Please, define your terms. (Especially "low-magic")