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

[LostSoul]

Exactly as heroic as a 1st level fighter. PCs are special by dint of the simple fact that they're PCs.

So 1st level wizards (magic-users) are as mundane as 1st level Fighters in a medium- to high-magic world. This may work for some people, but not everyone. It becomes a matter of taste.

My problem with D&D magic is that 1) the magic presented doesn't fit my tastes and 2) a world where magic is special and out of the ordinary throws party balance off. Whether or not you agree (it's a matter of taste), it doesn't hurt anyone to discuss different ways to change the system so it becomes more appealing to them. In this way, it doesn't matter what the bulk of gamers like, or the bulk of the population would like if they played the game. It matters what you and those in your group like. D&D's magic isn't fulfilling to me or others in my group, and I'd like to see some ideas about how to change that.

 

[hong]

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.

If magic is taken out of the picture, then a lot of d20 classes aren't that different to their D&D counterparts, yes.

I think of the "kill monsters and take their treasure" thing as signifying a certain approach to adventure design and playing style. It means a campaign where issues of world design or realism are second priority compared to straight-out action. The focus is on getting to the dungeon, fighting monstrous enemies, and coming out with nifty rewards for your trouble.

Taken to extremes, this can result in adventures that are almost self-parodies in their illogicality. The same can be said of any approach to gaming, if taken to extremes, though. The good point about such an approach is that it facilitates swashbuckling, fast-flowing action, like in a good action movie.

Note that power level doesn't have anything to do with "killing monsters and taking their treasure", per se. You can have a dungeon crawl at 3rd level, and fight orcs and goblins; or one at 13th level and fight demons. The 13th level adventure will be more spectacular than the 3rd level one, but ultimately, a dungeon crawl is a dungeon crawl. It's the emphasis around the table that determines what sort of campaign you have.

 

[Dougal DeKree]

No, naughty player!

Hi again, have to stop lurking once more i'm afraid...

3. Make players less likely to play magic users because they are less glamorous. As a result of this they are more rare.
4. Ensure that magic can help to guide the story but does not directly solve problems. The mundane sword slinging fighters and quick rogues are indeed the visible heroes of this story, with the mysterious mage pulling strings behind the scenes.

Now, does this sound like you don't want players to play casters at all? i guess yes. Basically you are saying you will guide the story with some drops of magic (npc's i suppose) and rather have a band of fighters&rogues to save the day. But how do your players feel about this? Did you actually ask them whether they like this or no? And to things that made me post again: a) Why are you so sure, that playing magic users is sooo glorious? b) how often are a groups spellcasters "pulling strings"? Aren't they using stuff like bull's strenght and mage armor most of the time? How many campaigns can take, let's say a Telepath with high Cha and allow the player to use him to the most effect? most don't...

How is this issue a problem within the framework of what I am trying to achieve? I am not trying to have wizards that take the limelight. That's the whole point of low magic.

The answer is, i guess: this issue is no problem within the framework of what you are trying to achieve.
BUT.
Are you trying to have the wizards not take the limelight or rather have no wizards at all, and why are clerics left out in this sentence?
And (again, i know) how will your players be feeling about this? Is your group composed of players who all wanna play a stright man of arms? Yes i know, there are clever fighters and yes, Rogues can handle a lot of situations, but having magic appear now and then in a "deus ex machina"-manner sounds to me like it will take some fun off the players.

Just an opinion, again.

Dougal DeKree, Gnomish Illusionist

 

[hong]

So 1st level wizards (magic-users) are as mundane as 1st level Fighters in a medium- to high-magic world. This may work for some people, but not everyone. It becomes a matter of taste.

Well, hang on. I'm not suggesting that 1st level wizards must be as common _in the population_ as 1st level fighters (or 1st level commoners, or 1st level aristocrats, even). The point is that PCs are assumed to be special -- they have that certain something that makes them stand out from the crowd, and marks them as someone with potential. This holds regardless of what it is they do. In particular, 1st level wizards may still be incredibly rare in the population. However, a 1st level wizard _PC_ is special _not_ because wizards are rare, but because they're a PC.

At a stretch, since population statistics are assumed not to matter, this even means that you could have a 1st level commoner PC, and they would be "special". I'd say that there's nothing wrong with that. You don't see commoner PCs simply because most _players_ don't like playing someone who's completely behind the eight-ball in terms of class features.

My problem with D&D magic is that 1) the magic presented doesn't fit my tastes and 2) a world where magic is special and out of the ordinary throws party balance off. Whether or not you agree (it's a matter of taste), it doesn't hurt anyone to discuss different ways to change the system so it becomes more appealing to them. In this way, it doesn't matter what the bulk of gamers like, or the bulk of the population would like if they played the game. It matters what you and those in your group like. D&D's magic isn't fulfilling to me or others in my group, and I'd like to see some ideas about how to change that.

Sure. The following changes would, I think, solve 99% of the problems without having to make any wholesale revisions to the rules:
- limit advancement to 5-7th level
- remove wizards and sorcerers as PC classes
- replace clerics and druids with the OA shaman

This won't result in game that's 100% faithful to myth and legend, but it should be good enough for all practical purposes. And really, myth and legend are moving targets. Different sources will tell you different things about what various legendary characters did, so there's not much point trying for complete fidelity.

 

[S'mon]

Clearly there are different levels of low magic - by D&D 3e default standards, 1st ed AD&D was 'low magic'! Look at the 1e magic item tables for NPCs, which seemed very generous to me, then see the vastly more MI 3e NPCs get. Never mind PCs...

Sample low magic settings:

Lord of the Rings - magic can be flashy, but is held only by powerful NPCs. No fly or teleport at any level. Most magic is crafting of items, Gandalf has a lot of fire spells but they seem restricted to about 2nd level in D&D terms.

Conan's Hyboria - magic wielded only by evil (NPC) wizards who deal with dark powers, wizards powerful but vulnerable to cold steel. Mostly summoning of evil forces, demons etc.

Arthurian mythos - magic rare, mysterious, subtle, non-flashy, held by powerful NPC spellcasters on both sides. Mostly conjuration & enchantment.

Common thread - no protagonists wield magic.

 

[S'mon]

Having said that though, if I'm running a D&D game I'm happy to have PC spellcasters slinging magic missiles - it may be flashy, but really it's quite weak.

I think low magic is where magic does not dominate the setting.
Eg if castles are still an effective defense against most foes, it's a low-magic setting.

High magic is where magic routinely dominates the setting. So a game where a spellcaster can fly over the enemy army, fireballing them into oblivion, is high-magic, with spells that in D&D are only 3rd level.

To have a low-magic setting in D&D, therefore, you need either to have few or no spellcasters over 4th level, or limit the spells that higher level casters can use.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm not suggesting that 1st level wizards must be as common _in the population_ as 1st level fighters (or 1st level commoners, or 1st level aristocrats, even).

I guess I misinterpreted. I figured that, if you have a medium-magic world (like core D&D) or a high-magic world (Forgotten Realms), you would assume a higher level of wizards among the population than a low-magic world would.

(Really, there's no reason why Wizards should be less common than Fighters in D&D; if anything, they should be more common, because they can focus on more than one thing (magic having more applications than just combat). But that's a gripe with D&D's internal inconsistency.)

 

[hong]

Clearly there are different levels of low magic - by D&D 3e default standards, 1st ed AD&D was 'low magic'! Look at the 1e magic item tables for NPCs, which seemed very generous to me, then see the vastly more MI 3e NPCs get. Never mind PCs...

Ahem. A 1E magic-user was _vastly_ more powerful, relative to the other classes, than a 3E wizard. This was to some extent, by design -- EGG didn't see anything wrong with classes being very disparate in terms of power levels. In particular, he saw the mage as being an uber-class, able to shape reality at a whim.

As for the magic items in 3E, they're there essentially so that a mundane fighter or rogue has a chance of keeping level with the wizard. They toned down the spells a bit in 2E, and a lot more in 3E, but the fact is that someone who can break the laws of physics will always be at an advantage compared to someone who can't.

 

[S'mon]

(board ate my first reply - grr)

1e magic-users were weak at low level, powerful at high level. They had very few hp and were highly dependent on protective items - bracers of defense et al. 3e spellcasters are more balanced at all levels, and more resilient.

 

[hong]

(board ate my first reply - grr)

1e magic-users were weak at low level, powerful at high level. They had very few hp and were highly dependent on protective items - bracers of defense et al. 3e spellcasters are more balanced at all levels, and more resilient.

You are quite right, my omission.