I think that maybe a few people have missed the point about low magic settings. I love low magic settings, but change little. I know I will get some debate here, but hear me out. Generally speaking, I lower the hp etc of monsters in a very slight way so as to balance more. My npc's don't have a ton of magic, so they are equal in effect to those of the pc's. Say what you will, but a lvl 20 fighter and a lvl 20 wizard even w.o. a ton of magic items will still be a decent match, it depends on how you play them. As far as item creation, I allow it as normal except I require actual components to be gathered. Want to make a potion of water breathing, sure you need this and this and this. Go find it. The system doesn't need an overhaul to change one slight aspect. The pc's are heroes and seem more heroic if they cast fireball and the villagers have seldom seen one. Think about it.
Too much magic in DnD - lets do something about it !
- Thread starter bramadan
- Start date
- Status
kenjib said:
I like this, particularily the Bull one. Maybe even have character assume (at least slightly) physique of a Bull. Make it have longer duration and effect on both charisma and strength.
Inspired by your example here is my idea as to Bull's strength spell:
Bull's Strength:
Casting Time: 2 hours
Casting Ritual: Live prime bull is sacrificed by the recepient of the spell. Recepient baths in the Bull's blood. Caster cuts out the Bull's heart for the recepient to eat. Upon eating the heart recepients strength increases.
Duration: Untill the next sunrise or untill crusted bull's blood is totaly washed of the recepient, whatever comes first.
Area of Effect: 1 person
Effect: After eating the heart and finishing ritual washing in blood. Recepient's strength incerases by 4 as his muscles bulge resembling those of the bull. Recepient's physique also changes resembling that of the bull. Rudimentary horns appear and the face assumes some characteristics of the bull. Recepient's charisma decreases by 2 for all purposes except intimidate.
Special cases: If the bull is slaughtered with the ritual axe dedicated to this spell bonus to strength is increased by 1. If the bull (30hp) is killed with one single blow (requiring a crit on an Axe attack) bonus to strength is incresed by 2.
this sort of thing is what I am aiming for...
Last edited:
Gothmog
First Post
Hi,
I too am a big fan of low magic gaming, and I have been running the same low-magic campaign for almost 8 years, playing once a month or so (started in 2nd edition AD&D, transplanted to 3rd D&D). The PCs are about 10th level now, but it has worked well. Here are a few things I found helpful.
1) The hit point concept has to be rethought. Our solution was to lower HP so that they are size-dependent, and each PC gets a set # of hp per level considering their Con score as well. This has worked out well, the 10th level paladin as around 60 hp, as compared with 10d10+40 (avg 95 or so) in 3E. We left the spell damages the same, with a few minor alterations (I'll come to that in a minute). Creatrue hp (such as ogres and trolls) stay mostly the same as in the books, but also accounted for size. Yes, I know this makes monsters really tough, but in a low-magic gritty game, shouldn't monsters actually make even experienced PCs fearful? We also use ciritcal hits, and more recently, DNDChicks Critical Effects (which I wholeheartedly recommend).
2) We used all the base classes from the D&D PHB, but removed the ranger's spellcasting abilities, toned down the paladins abilities, and gave bards only spells that are illusions or charms. There are no sorcerers, and wizards have to find EVERY spell they have- they do not automatically get new spells when they advance a level. Priests have to learn spells too- they don't get the whole list when they go up a level. I found this also personalizes priests a lot more- priests of the same god might have focused on completely different aspects of their deity, and have different spells as a result (contemplative monks vs crusading knights).
3) Magic is much more scarce, and requires PCs to be gifted magically. When we started, we gave a base 10% chance for PCs to be able to use magic, although a feat could also be used in 3E. The biggest pain in the butt was that we had to reorder the spells levels based upon their effects in consideration of a low-magic setting. For example, any damage causing spell had its level increased by at least +1, and if it affected more than one target, its level was +2. Spells like Charm Person are much more powerful than a first level spell should be in a low magic setting, so we bumped it up too. Yeah, it was kind of a pain in the butt to do this, but it made the game more enjoyable in the long run.
Also, most magic in D&D is combat-oriented, and that makes it lose much of its subtlety. Part of it is how you role-play the spell being cast (such as several posters have said here), but magic in this kind of setting should be less combat oriented and more mythical in aspect. We made up a lot of non-combat and utility spells, including about 100 different types of curses. Also, the concept that if you do x and y, z always results in a magical spell is somewhat boring. We used casting rolls, rolling a d20 + spellcraft skill trying to beat a DC to cast a spell (10 + 2x spell level). If you roll over the DC the spell works as normal, but roll under the DC, and the spell might botch completely, go off at lower strength, or do something really odd (depending on how much lower the roll was than the DC). This makes magic a lot less predicatable, and adds back a certain element of mystery to the game.
By the way, magic is scare in my game, the PCs best weapon is a blessed sword that is +2, but once per day can cause all withing 30' to cease hostile activites for as long as the user does not initiate a hostile action, or one hour passes (Will save to negate). No major magic items, relics, etc. The PCs each have one or two minor magic weapons by now, but all of them have some small cool ability like this- after all, in a low magic world, no one in their right mind is going to make a simple +1 weapon with no other qualities.
4) Since magic is less common, there needs to be a way for PCs to heal. Our answer was making up a list of 200+ herbs that do anything from curing damage, to acting as decongestants, strength enhancers, etc. While herbs take longer to work than sure spells (overnight at least as compared to instantly), this has added a whole new aspect to the game too- characters spend time trying to find fabled herbs for their mecidinal (and mystical) effects.
5) Clerics use a system where they are awarded the ability to cast higher-level prayers by demonstrating devotion to their deity (no I don't mean just killing things). Clerics gain something called faith points, which lets clerics access spells equal to their faith point total. Faith points are given out by the DM for acts the PC does, usually in .1 to .3 increments. So a cleric with 3 faith points might be 10th level, but still only able to access 3rd level spells. We found it really helps the players of any religious character put the goals of their faith first, because there is some tangible reward for it now.
Those are the major changes I can think of that I have made over the years. I am sure I am missing lots of little things, but I hope this has helped. Hopefully this can spark some new discussion. Oh, and if you do start a conversion, I'd be happy to help as well.
I too am a big fan of low magic gaming, and I have been running the same low-magic campaign for almost 8 years, playing once a month or so (started in 2nd edition AD&D, transplanted to 3rd D&D). The PCs are about 10th level now, but it has worked well. Here are a few things I found helpful.
1) The hit point concept has to be rethought. Our solution was to lower HP so that they are size-dependent, and each PC gets a set # of hp per level considering their Con score as well. This has worked out well, the 10th level paladin as around 60 hp, as compared with 10d10+40 (avg 95 or so) in 3E. We left the spell damages the same, with a few minor alterations (I'll come to that in a minute). Creatrue hp (such as ogres and trolls) stay mostly the same as in the books, but also accounted for size. Yes, I know this makes monsters really tough, but in a low-magic gritty game, shouldn't monsters actually make even experienced PCs fearful? We also use ciritcal hits, and more recently, DNDChicks Critical Effects (which I wholeheartedly recommend).
2) We used all the base classes from the D&D PHB, but removed the ranger's spellcasting abilities, toned down the paladins abilities, and gave bards only spells that are illusions or charms. There are no sorcerers, and wizards have to find EVERY spell they have- they do not automatically get new spells when they advance a level. Priests have to learn spells too- they don't get the whole list when they go up a level. I found this also personalizes priests a lot more- priests of the same god might have focused on completely different aspects of their deity, and have different spells as a result (contemplative monks vs crusading knights).
3) Magic is much more scarce, and requires PCs to be gifted magically. When we started, we gave a base 10% chance for PCs to be able to use magic, although a feat could also be used in 3E. The biggest pain in the butt was that we had to reorder the spells levels based upon their effects in consideration of a low-magic setting. For example, any damage causing spell had its level increased by at least +1, and if it affected more than one target, its level was +2. Spells like Charm Person are much more powerful than a first level spell should be in a low magic setting, so we bumped it up too. Yeah, it was kind of a pain in the butt to do this, but it made the game more enjoyable in the long run.
Also, most magic in D&D is combat-oriented, and that makes it lose much of its subtlety. Part of it is how you role-play the spell being cast (such as several posters have said here), but magic in this kind of setting should be less combat oriented and more mythical in aspect. We made up a lot of non-combat and utility spells, including about 100 different types of curses. Also, the concept that if you do x and y, z always results in a magical spell is somewhat boring. We used casting rolls, rolling a d20 + spellcraft skill trying to beat a DC to cast a spell (10 + 2x spell level). If you roll over the DC the spell works as normal, but roll under the DC, and the spell might botch completely, go off at lower strength, or do something really odd (depending on how much lower the roll was than the DC). This makes magic a lot less predicatable, and adds back a certain element of mystery to the game.
By the way, magic is scare in my game, the PCs best weapon is a blessed sword that is +2, but once per day can cause all withing 30' to cease hostile activites for as long as the user does not initiate a hostile action, or one hour passes (Will save to negate). No major magic items, relics, etc. The PCs each have one or two minor magic weapons by now, but all of them have some small cool ability like this- after all, in a low magic world, no one in their right mind is going to make a simple +1 weapon with no other qualities.
4) Since magic is less common, there needs to be a way for PCs to heal. Our answer was making up a list of 200+ herbs that do anything from curing damage, to acting as decongestants, strength enhancers, etc. While herbs take longer to work than sure spells (overnight at least as compared to instantly), this has added a whole new aspect to the game too- characters spend time trying to find fabled herbs for their mecidinal (and mystical) effects.
5) Clerics use a system where they are awarded the ability to cast higher-level prayers by demonstrating devotion to their deity (no I don't mean just killing things). Clerics gain something called faith points, which lets clerics access spells equal to their faith point total. Faith points are given out by the DM for acts the PC does, usually in .1 to .3 increments. So a cleric with 3 faith points might be 10th level, but still only able to access 3rd level spells. We found it really helps the players of any religious character put the goals of their faith first, because there is some tangible reward for it now.
Those are the major changes I can think of that I have made over the years. I am sure I am missing lots of little things, but I hope this has helped. Hopefully this can spark some new discussion. Oh, and if you do start a conversion, I'd be happy to help as well.
Re: spells designed concept first
Flavor text is nice, but if you read my post more closely I explicitly said that the game mechanics themselves are lacking. I also explicitly said that changing the non-mechanical flavor of a spell was insufficient for me. What do you think about the fireball and lightning bolt examples? They aren't 100% mechanically sound since I was just writing up a quick example, but perhaps you see my point.
Why is it poor design? What's wrong with a spell effecting one person more strongly than another? All kinds of spells are more useful against certain targets than others. In fact, feeblemind does pretty much exactly what I'm suggesting but just the other way around. On a more abstract level, if you disassociate it from just ability scores and look at the phenomenon across the board, it's pretty ubiquitous. One could argue that heal effects severely wounded people much more than lightly wounded people and endure elements (cold) is worthless to a demon. You look at various weaknesses and strengths and you use spells in the appropriate situations. That makes magic more quirky and more interesting for me.
My point was that I personally would like to see magic be more quirky, situational, and effect oriented. Yes a weak person would benefit more from becoming as strong as a bull. That's fine and I like it that way. I don't want magic to scale up and around every situation. That's precisely my point and it was the reason that I pointed out Chaos Magic as a counterexample in a previous post. I don't want damage spells to scale. I want a spell to have a certain effect and that's that. If it's not useful against a certain target because of it's fixed values then you have to use a different spell. I think that it makes magic more mysterious. If you don't agree though, that's fine. It's just a suggestion that people can take or leave.
You're thinking system design...system design...system design. That's my problem and I feel that's why the magic system in D&D kind of feels like a video game sometimes. I agree with the Diablo syndrome complaint and I think that it's precisely spells like Bull's Strength that cause it. There are many spells there just to bump up some meta-game concept or another, without any care about why or how it connects back to the in-game world.
I understand that you place a high emphasis on solid system mechanics, and that's fine. I'm just expressing an alternate way I would like to see things. I want magic to be quirky and spells to have capricious (although still well defined) results. That's fine too. There's no need to pass subjective value judgements and try to present them as an objective.
Anyway, bull's strength was just one example. If I made a poor decision in making that spell more interesting then that's fine but it doesn't invalidate my argument. I really love Bramadan's version, for example, and that's a +4 increase, not a change to a flat strength score.
Regarding "poorly conceived" house rules vs. official products, my first post was a recommendation of handling this by using the Sovereign Stone rules so I agree with you in some respects, but those other rule sets come along with their own unique sets of baggage. We can still discuss other venues and think about it. I had thought that was what this thread was here for.
Thorin Stoutfoot said:
Flavor text is nice, but if you read my post more closely I explicitly said that the game mechanics themselves are lacking. I also explicitly said that changing the non-mechanical flavor of a spell was insufficient for me. What do you think about the fireball and lightning bolt examples? They aren't 100% mechanically sound since I was just writing up a quick example, but perhaps you see my point.
Thorin Stoutfoot said:
Why is it poor design? What's wrong with a spell effecting one person more strongly than another? All kinds of spells are more useful against certain targets than others. In fact, feeblemind does pretty much exactly what I'm suggesting but just the other way around. On a more abstract level, if you disassociate it from just ability scores and look at the phenomenon across the board, it's pretty ubiquitous. One could argue that heal effects severely wounded people much more than lightly wounded people and endure elements (cold) is worthless to a demon. You look at various weaknesses and strengths and you use spells in the appropriate situations. That makes magic more quirky and more interesting for me.
My point was that I personally would like to see magic be more quirky, situational, and effect oriented. Yes a weak person would benefit more from becoming as strong as a bull. That's fine and I like it that way. I don't want magic to scale up and around every situation. That's precisely my point and it was the reason that I pointed out Chaos Magic as a counterexample in a previous post. I don't want damage spells to scale. I want a spell to have a certain effect and that's that. If it's not useful against a certain target because of it's fixed values then you have to use a different spell. I think that it makes magic more mysterious. If you don't agree though, that's fine. It's just a suggestion that people can take or leave.
Thorin Stoutfoot said:
You're thinking system design...system design...system design. That's my problem and I feel that's why the magic system in D&D kind of feels like a video game sometimes. I agree with the Diablo syndrome complaint and I think that it's precisely spells like Bull's Strength that cause it. There are many spells there just to bump up some meta-game concept or another, without any care about why or how it connects back to the in-game world.
I understand that you place a high emphasis on solid system mechanics, and that's fine. I'm just expressing an alternate way I would like to see things. I want magic to be quirky and spells to have capricious (although still well defined) results. That's fine too. There's no need to pass subjective value judgements and try to present them as an objective.
Anyway, bull's strength was just one example. If I made a poor decision in making that spell more interesting then that's fine but it doesn't invalidate my argument. I really love Bramadan's version, for example, and that's a +4 increase, not a change to a flat strength score.
Regarding "poorly conceived" house rules vs. official products, my first post was a recommendation of handling this by using the Sovereign Stone rules so I agree with you in some respects, but those other rule sets come along with their own unique sets of baggage. We can still discuss other venues and think about it. I had thought that was what this thread was here for.
Joshua Dyal said:
I have constructive suggestions (on AC mods so far) Joshua and am interested in low magic settings. I just don't want play in them with the DND rules. For my uses GURPS or maybe another set of rules would be better.
If I may snark George R.R. Martin is supposed to be a gamer. AFAIK he prefers GURPS. I even heard a rumor on this board about a GURPS Song Of Fire And Ice (great series BTW)
So there
I know this sounds contadictory but for me it is a theoretical problem, how do I mesh Hi Power DND with Low Magic Worlds
From a world building view they are facinating questions .
Now if I were to modify DND rules for Low fantasy I would do the following
Add a WP/VP ala the system in Star Wars or Asgard Magazine
Institute an AC bonus system ala, well several games. I really like the one in Shadow Chasers myself
A few new feats to improve shield use.
Modify the spell list, IMO A low magic enviroment works better with subtle spells Fireball and Fly and stuff like that make magic flashy, Blur is more subtle. Minor Illusions or Buffing Spells are more subtle still.
Restrict the number of spell users in a part to 1 or 2
Impliment some new no magic classes as a few people here have suggested
Consider limiting magic using classes to alternating levels as suggested in the D20 Middle earth project
Alter prestige classes to non magic ones.
Do these things, build your world to suit and go...
Corinth
First Post
If you mean that you seek to offer individual DMs as many options to the existing default ruleset, each aimed at achieving a specific effect upon how the game plays, then I would support you. This is the sort of thing that I'd like to see as a D20 product. Game designers, IMO, would appreciate such a developer toolkit product.
That's not what I said. I said that changing the rules of D&D is risky. If you change too much, then it's no longer recognizable as D&D and what you've created loses its appeal to D&D's fanbase. If your goal is to run a D&D game, this is quite the issue; if your goal is to run a D20 fantasy game, then it's not. (Maybe the reverse is the goal instead.) Compare D&D to WoT; both are D20 fantasy games, but the latter is not the former and does not pretend to be the former. That is what I'm getting at here.
Thanks; Campbell's a man who's contribution to civilization is far underrated, IMO.
kenjib - your alternate spells have a problem you are perhaps not considering - ease of use.
If every single spell has a quirky, unpredictable result, your players and DMs will be havign to refer to the book constantly. Clunky, irregular mechanics mean lots of time at the table spent referencing. That's not fun. The also tend to cause problems in rules interpretations.
If every single spell has a quirky, unpredictable result, your players and DMs will be havign to refer to the book constantly. Clunky, irregular mechanics mean lots of time at the table spent referencing. That's not fun. The also tend to cause problems in rules interpretations.
adndgamer
First Post
I'm interested mainly in alternate magic rules. Does anybody know where there are some?
And I agree, 3e has made magic way too mechanical. I especially don't like the ease of creating new magic items -- or maybe not the ease (the level of ease is up to the DM) but the fact that you can start at 1st level, and make scrolls right away. I love playing wizards, they're my favorite class, but I think that magic is just too common and that there should be more limits on it.
And I agree, 3e has made magic way too mechanical. I especially don't like the ease of creating new magic items -- or maybe not the ease (the level of ease is up to the DM) but the fact that you can start at 1st level, and make scrolls right away. I love playing wizards, they're my favorite class, but I think that magic is just too common and that there should be more limits on it.
Broken Fang
First Post
Looks like many no longer see low magic as D&D...why is this? After all the books themselves do say that they are only a reference. What about a world with no magic? Does that go and throw out the idea for D&D...no...different yes.
I agree that if you start to mess w/ game mechanics you need to play test them and could start moving away from the game itself. Again, to many changes in mechanics changes the game itself, but thereae changes that can be made that do not affect it nature.
Many ideas here have great merit and don't alter the mechanics in any great way. Still D&D...yes!
I agree that if you start to mess w/ game mechanics you need to play test them and could start moving away from the game itself. Again, to many changes in mechanics changes the game itself, but thereae changes that can be made that do not affect it nature.
Many ideas here have great merit and don't alter the mechanics in any great way. Still D&D...yes!
S'mon said:
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.
There really is only one important rule in any RPG
Have Fun
I have an odd prespective on variety
Switch Systems
As I see it each system represents a different flavor FREX
DND: High magic superheroic
Rolemaster: Heroic
GURPS: Realistic
Unisystem (AFMBE/Witchcraft): Story Telling
RISUS (SJohn Ross's free RPG): Very Rules Loose
there are others.
I have tried lower magic versions of DND on several occasions with very poor results, so I guess I am somewhat cynical about the possibilities.
Without going into detail enough for another thread let me say using DND outside of the Back to the Dungeon pardigm has been very frustrating for me as a DM and as a player. This seems to be consistant across gaming groups
All I can say to your experience is
Lucky Bastitch
- Status
Similar Threads
