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

[Corinth]

There's also one other problem with a major change in the game balance calibrations that's required for a low-magic game to become playable, and that is this: change too much of "X" and it ceases to be "X"; it becomes "something like X, but not X" and you run the risk of alienating the bulk of the people you want at your table.

Be careful, whatever you do, to not change the rules of D&D so much that it ceases to possess all that defines D&D in the mind of the fanbase.

 

[S'mon]

I hate to say it S'mon but you game sounds really dull to me.

I think Upper_Krust, who plays Thrin, a Lesser God PC in my campaign, and has literally written the book on deity-level play (see Immortals Handbook/Worship Point System) threads would disagree. I DM all kinds of power levels.

As for my chain-shirted fighter and his 12gp, I'm having a great time playing in that campaign; last week my 2nd level fighter armed with bastard sword, shield and chainmail defeated a village leader who turned out to be an evil priest of a dark god, part of a vast conspiracy we're only starting to unravel, and hacked his way through an entire Innful of evil mercenaries, aided by his trusty cohorts (the other PCs). It didn't need magic item goodies to make it fun.

I guess maybe because I've been GMing 18 years or so I've learnt to appreciate variety.

 

[S'mon]

There's also one other problem with a major change in the game balance calibrations that's required for a low-magic game to become playable, and that is this: change too much of "X" and it ceases to be "X"; it becomes "something like X, but not X" and you run the risk of alienating the bulk of the people you want at your table.

Be careful, whatever you do, to not change the rules of D&D so much that it ceases to possess all that defines D&D in the mind of the fanbase.

I agree with this, it's why I prefer that the rules in the PHB be kept unaltered wherever possible. It gives the players a sense of control and engagement if they can rely on the PHB.

Of course you can always ban magic-using classes if you want - I quite fancy the idea of a Pendragon-setting low magic game using D&D 3e rules and only Fighter PCs...

 

[LostSoul]

There's also one other problem with a major change in the game balance calibrations that's required for a low-magic game to become playable, and that is this: change too much of "X" and it ceases to be "X"; it becomes "something like X, but not X" and you run the risk of alienating the bulk of the people you want at your table.

I think I'd like to see as many possible tweaks and changes as possible. Then DMs out there can pick and choose between the different changes based on what they and thier group like.

Personally, I like opposed defense rolls rather than hit points; I might write up some house rule for that, but I'd never suggest it was the One True Way.

Nice .sig, by the way.

 

[Umbran]

I think this is real problem with GM supervised effects. But if you gave the Players some method of, with thier spells, effecting the plot line or improving the effect of thier spells, it might work ok.

Note what Thorin Stoutfoot said about de-empowering a player. If the players don't have a solid handle on what will happen, they won't like it much. You give the example:

"As well, I'm going to use the 'unforseen benefits' clause so that sometime in the future this will have a positive impact on us that we didn't intend."

This gives the player zero idea of what is actually going to happen. Some unspecified positive impact some unknown time in the future? What magician worth a darn would attempt to operate under such conditions? "Hey, guys, I just cast a spell! Maybe, something good will happen in a week or two!"

In a fantasy novel, mysterious magic is cool. The reader and the characters may not fully understand what's going on, and that adds tension. But playing the game isn't like reading a book. It's more like cooperatively writing a book. And if the author doesn't know what's up when magic is about to happen, then there's a big problem in your book.

As a couple have mentioned, magic in D&D becomes a lot less dry if you just take the effort to be descriptive. If the wizard's player says, "I cast Fireball" nothng special is happening. If he says "A small jet leaps from my hand, and swells into a 20 foot ball of searing mystical flame," things are more entertaining. It isn't the system's fault if the players and DMs aren't descriptive at the gaming table.

Rather than giving the magic system a huge overhaul, try something small to encourage descriptive play. Say the save DC goes up by one if the spell was well described (or give a -1 if it wasn't described, or something similar). Encourage descriptive use of magic, and much of the percieved problem may go away.

 

[Bob Aberton]

Here are My rules, tweak 'em if ya like:

Spellcraft checks vs. the Spell Save DC to successfully cast, otherwise they fizzle, or worse, rebound.

The spellcasting classes use the Witch spell list (DMG). There is only two spellcasters; Wizard and Druid.

NO FLASHY SPELLS!!!! flashy spells are what makes the game seem "high magic," in my opinion.

Clerics need to make Faith checks (Knowledge(Religion), in actuality), to even have a CHANCE of getting the asked for miracle (clerical spell). Plus, "miracles" above third level have a chance of Blinding, Deafening, or Ability Damaging clerics (from such direct contact with God). 1st level cleric gets a 50% base chance (before adding the result of the Faith check) to get a miracle.

No sorcerer class. Characters can, however, roll a % chance @ character generation to get an inborn sorcerous talent.

"Black Magic," which is any offensive magic, causes a Will save or take 1 point of Wisdom drain. Every day, the character can make a Will save to shrug off the drain and restore their Wisdom score. However, with each point of drain beyond one, it adds +1 to the DC, which has a base of 15 for neutral characters, or 12 for good characters. Evil characters are already evil, so they don't have to worry. When a character reaches Wisdom 0, they are completely insane (DM assumes control at this point.).

Paladin & Rangers & Bards no longer get spells. They retain any class abilities, however.

feel free to tweak, or ignore, if you want....

 

[Broken Fang]

GURPS Conan...been out of print for a long time, was a great low magic campaign. We have had many D&D campaigns that have been low magic, and the players have enjoyed them! D&D does not have to be all magic and vorpal blades. Think of all the good fantasy style movies and how many fireball throwing wizardss and magic item laden warriors are there? It is very possible to have a fun low magic campaign. It is a choice the DM and players must decide upon before they start...what level of magic do we want.
As for challenges to the PC's you pretty much have to throw out the CR's in the book. As the DM determine how difficult an encounter was and give XP's. Some monsters might need to be modified...anything with DR makes it tough so lower it.
There are many changes that can be made w/o sacrificing the flavor and style of D&D. Its up to the group not someone else who likes x style over y to decide what you play.

 

[kenjib]

I agree that the spells should have a quantifiable effect. The problem I have is that they are created effect first, then concept second.

For example, consider:

Fireball: 1d6 fire damage per level 20' radius. Save for 1/2 damage.

Lightning Bolt: 1d6 lightning damage per level 5' wide extending to range. Reflects when hitting a barrier until max range. Save for 1/2 damage.

Now consider alternate versions:

Fire Blast: 10' radius. The targets may choose to attempt to leap from the blast radius if they succeed at a reflex save. To succeed at the leap they must also make a jump check. If the results of the jump check are sufficient to place them in an unoccupied square outside of the area of effect they move to that square and take no damage. Failure to escape the blast radius results in 5d6 damage and being knocked prone.

Lightning Arc: An arc of electricity shoots to a selected target holding or wearing a metal object. It will then jump to the nearest target holding or wearing metal within 10 feet of the original target. It will relay in this manner from target to target up to 1d4 times after hitting the initial target or until it runs out of suitable targets. Each target takes 5d6 electric damage and may make a fortitude save for half damage.

I hold that the PHB spells are designed effect first and concept second, whereas my two examples are designed concept first and effect second. I think that the PHB versions of fireball and lightning bolt are wimpy stat munchers compared to my rough draft versions above. There are tons of spells out there with little differentiating them from one another other than damage type, amount, and area of effect. What a waste. Creatively describing the mechanically irrelevant aspects of the spells is great but doesn't fix this problem.

Bull's strength is another great example. Why doesn't it give the strength of a bull??? This would make the spell much more quirky and interesting instead of a stat munchy +2-5 str.

Now think of designing 50+ different curse type spells, all different spells with mechanically quantifyable effects. I think it would be cool: Blighted harvest, strike barren (infertile), irresolution (hands shake uncontrollably when trying to perform certain taboo actions).

There should be obscure spells to do all kinds of strange things to people, and they should be made concept first, effect second.

 

[bolen]

Bob, I like your idea very much. Have you used these in a game? what problems did you encounter. I have always been kind of a coward in twiking rules for fear I would ruin the game.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

spells designed concept first

There should be obscure spells to do all kinds of strange things to people, and they should be made concept first, effect second.

Uh... I don't know, but I suspect that all you're talking about is wanting more flavor text in the PH with the spells. Take a look at Relics and Rituals if you want that. I find that flavor text does nothing for me.

Your example of bull's strength giving the strength of a bull is one example of bad mechanics. So a strong person won't benefit from the spell, but a weak person would benefit a lot? That's wierd! In fact, that's what 2e does with gauntets of ogre strength. It's poor design to have a spell that affects one person but not another.

My poor impression of low magic games is that most DMs aren't half the game designers they think they are, and hence when they try to tweak the D&D rules, they end up making a mess of things and the game ends up not being as much fun. Too bad for them and their players. I work in a challenging, demanding field and juggle system design issues all the time. In my recreation, I don't feel the need to do more system design (and I'm already a good systems designer, so I don't need to boost my ego by pretending to be a good game designer as well --- and I've worked with a lot of game designers before).

My gaming time is limited, and I'm afraid I have better things to do than to test other DMs poorly conceived, badly designed rules for low magic. If you want low magic, why not try the Wheel of Time?