Unintended(?) Consequence of No More X-Mas Tree?

[Njall]

Perhaps, but the group as a whole will have used up resources. Nor is the wizard's ability to get off those two spells assured. Of course, you are also assuming the ability of all those goblins to attack immediately, which isn't feasable.

I don't see why all the attacks shouldn't be feasible, since short bows have a 60ft range increments, goblins have darkvision 60 ft, and the cave is 60ftx60ft.
Furthermore, the ones armed with melee weapons could just charge and attack. That's 40ft they're moving, and some of them have reach weapons. (Edit: actually, they can move 60ft before they charge, I messed up with their speed )
And those values are average, which means that as soon as a goblin can attack, he'll score his average damage.
Thus, as long as half the goblin can attack at least once during the encounter, the results are those shown.
And I'm not even taking a surprise round into account.

There is no difference between "We heal the fighter so he can travel with us" and "We wait for the fighter to heal so he can travel with us" from a metagame standpoint. None.

RC

Yeah, there's a lot of implications.
If you break into a guarded dungeon, there's simply no way you can rest in a room for 8 hours, unless you want all the guards in the dungeon to come and wait right out of said room.
Furthermore, you may have a time limit. The party may not simply be allowed to rest every 1 or 2 fight in a dungeon.
As you said, they may be interrupted.
If they're interrupted, and they have a wounded teammate, he'll probably die in the following combat.
Furthermore, this makes spellcasters able to nova during every encounter, since they'll have to rest anyway because of the wounded characters in the party.
So, again: the game doesn't work under these assumptions. Unless, of course, you limit combat to 1/week, you avoid dungeons ( as exploring a dungeon with a dozen encounters might take 10-15 days to one full month, depending on the encounters ), remove traps, and, of course, don't use mid to high level NPCs that have the same terrible defenses as the PCs, but that often have much better offensive capabilities ( and could probably kill at least one party member in a fight...).
In short, unless you remove adventuring from the game.

Oh, sure, you may say: "well, what's wrong if a character dies every session? the game is just harder."
The fact is that it's not harder, it's just silly, because staying alive stops being a matter of cleverness and becomes a matter of time.

 

[Njall]

Still sure that charms and countercharms don't belong in a low/no magic world?

RC

Ok, now care to show us how the US marines, any local police force or any bodyguard organization uses such countermeasures in our world?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Ok, now care to show us how the US marines, any local police force or any bodyguard organization uses such countermeasures in our world?

No need. With mundane counters to magic being so readily available, nobody bothers using magic anymore. And so relatively few people need bother with the counter-charms.

I'm being facetious. But still, the concept allows for a low-magic game to work exceptionally well. You allow mundane materials to counter magic, and then you don't need as much magic to counter magic.

A gold crown blocks mental control and mind reading.
A line of salt across a doorway prevents undead from entering a building.
The blood of a white bull mixed into mortar prevents teleporting into a building.
A black hen baked before an open fire will exorcise spirits and curses from a home.
The smoke from burning sage will seek out any who are invisible.

 

[Njall]

No need. With mundane counters to magic being so readily available, nobody bothers using magic anymore. And so relatively few people need bother with the counter-charms.

I'm being facetious. But still, the concept allows for a low-magic game to work exceptionally well. You allow mundane materials to counter magic, and then you don't need as much magic to counter magic.

A gold crown blocks mental control and mind reading.
A line of salt across a doorway prevents undead from entering a building.
The blood of a white bull mixed into mortar prevents teleporting into a building.
A black hen baked before an open fire will exorcise spirits and curses from a home.
The smoke from burning sage will seek out any who are invisible.

Sure, but these sound like more house rules to me. (BTW, this is an interesting concept and would make for a fine theme in a low magic campaign...consider your idea stolen, if you don't mind )
The assumption was that this game only needs one house rule: spellcasters gain half the level dependant benefits.
(something that, just to reiterate, doesn't fix the christmas tree effect IMO, since item creation rules are still in place, and with such low CRs, the spellcaster is in fact encouraged to stay low level for a while, since he'll be the only one in the party that gets more than 0xp from most challenges, and unbalances the game, meaning that you're not really playing a mid-high level low magic campaign, but just a low level campaign where your PCs are the only ones with more than 3 levels in the world).

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't see why all the attacks shouldn't be feasible, since short bows have a 60ft range increments, goblins have darkvision 60 ft, and the cave is 60ftx60ft.
Furthermore, the ones armed with melee weapons could just charge and attack. That's 40ft they're moving, and some of them have reach weapons. (Edit: actually, they can move 60ft before they charge, I messed up with their speed )

OK, first off the encounter is in a cavern. If you flip open your DMG, you'll note that cavern floors generally make charging impossible.

We obviously differ quite a lot as to how this encounter would go, suggesting that our gaming experiences are quite different. For example, the party may position themselves to eliminate whole avenues of attack, thus reducing the damage potential that they face. The wizard, who may already have protection from arrows cast (because the spell lasts a while), might be able to take out a number of those goblins with an area effect. Goblins are not the brightest bulbs in a dim room, and should not be played to best tactics....but they should try to avoid shooting each other (meaning that archers might have to wait for a shot if the party is mobbed, or face the chance of reducing their own side, which are acting as soft cover).

Furthermore, this makes spellcasters able to nova during every encounter, since they'll have to rest anyway because of the wounded characters in the party.

Again, my experiences vary greatly from your expectations, and if I am forced to choose between the two, I will accept that my experiences (being rooted in actual game play) have to be given more weight.

YMMV.

It seems to me that you hold a higher "threshold of proof" that this system works than can be met short of playtesting it yourself.

RC

 

[Njall]

OK, first off the encounter is in a cavern. If you flip open your DMG, you'll note that cavern floors generally make charging impossible.

We obviously differ quite a lot as to how this encounter would go, suggesting that our gaming experiences are quite different. For example, the party may position themselves to eliminate whole avenues of attack, thus reducing the damage potential that they face. The wizard, who may already have protection from arrows cast (because the spell lasts a while), might be able to take out a number of those goblins with an area effect. Goblins are not the brightest bulbs in a dim room, and should not be played to best tactics....but they should try to avoid shooting each other (meaning that archers might have to wait for a shot if the party is mobbed, or face the chance of reducing their own side, which are acting as soft cover).

Well, protection from arrows works "until discharged", and in a game where a spellcaster can't buff his AC through magic items, I don't see how such a buff could last long
Furthermore, as I said, I assumed average damage.
So, even if they're not focus firing one character, there's still a significant chance that the rogue will be attacked 30+ times in the course of the encounter.
As for the fireball, firing it in melee might not be a great idea. And the bulk of the goblins will probably be in melee in the first place, since 2/3 of them are armed with melee weapons.
Furthermore, if the wizard doesn't use his fireball to blast people around, there's a good chance that the melee goblins attack him. And he has no defenses against melee.
( it should also be noted that if the wizard enters such a combat unbuffed, he'll probably get slaughtered outright...20d4 average to 52 HP, so unless he has a good CON score-hard without magic items- his AC of 14/15 won't be of great help).

Again, my experiences vary greatly from your expectations, and if I am forced to choose between the two, I will accept that my experiences (being rooted in actual game play) have to be given more weight.

YMMV.

It seems to me that you hold a higher "threshold of proof" that this system works than can be met short of playtesting it yourself.

RC

Well, as I said, I did playtest some low magic campaigns. And they didn't work ( barring heavy house ruling ).
So, I can accept that you trust your experience in actual play, as far as your games go; but you'll understand that it doesn't bear any relevance to me when my experience differs greatly, at least not in the context of this discussion.
What we can discuss are the actual numbers provided by the rules system. Maths, after all, can't be argued.

 

[LostSoul]

A gold crown blocks mental control and mind reading.
A line of salt across a doorway prevents undead from entering a building.
The blood of a white bull mixed into mortar prevents teleporting into a building.
A black hen baked before an open fire will exorcise spirits and curses from a home.
The smoke from burning sage will seek out any who are invisible.

Those are really cool elements for a low-magic game.

Is it house-rule stuff?

*
A gold crown duplicates the effect of a Protection from Evil (the blocking part) and provides Spell Immunity to Detect Thoughts.

A line of salt duplicates the effect of a Turning attempt from a Cleric (whatever level).

A black hen baked before an open fire casts Dismissal and Remove Curse on a home (caster level whatever).

The smoke from burning sage cancels Invisibility (as Dispel Magic) in a certain radius.
*

Since the economy often works differently in low-magic games, you don't have to worry about the gp value of these items.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, I can accept that you trust your experience in actual play, as far as your games go; but you'll understand that it doesn't bear any relevance to me when my experience differs greatly, at least not in the context of this discussion.

Did you try what I suggested? Trying something else, even if another attempt to do low magic, doesn't give you any insight into whether or not what I suggest will work.

What we can discuss are the actual numbers provided by the rules system. Maths, after all, can't be argued.

Math is only part of how a role-playing game rules system works, even in the most math-heavy part of the game. In actual play, players can do all sorts of things to sway the math in their favour (and do). Having run 60 goblins against 3rd and 4th level PCs, with the PCs gaining a rather easy victory, I am well aware of how smart thinking against dumb opponents can work to the players' advantage.

Within the encounter as described, the wizard is very likely to take out a quarter of the goblins in his first go. If he is smart, he will center his area effect in the back, where the archers are located. The rogue's sneak attack ability is almost useless in this position, but each rogue will take out three goblins each round, all the while trying to protect the wizard as much as possible. The figther is taking out a minimum of 4 goblins each round, and his Great Cleave and Combat Reflexes, there is a good chance that he is taking out quite a few more. The rogues also have Combat Reflexes, which limits the goblin's mobility.

Fighting defensively doesn't affect the number of goblins these guys can kill per round too much, but the +2 to AC certainly helps them. The wizard, of course, can use Total Defense on any round he doesn't otherwise need a standard action.

Finally, if the party can clear a path to a tunnel, and then use the tunnel as a "choke point" to prevent themselves from being surrounded, they can do quite well indeed.

No matter what they do, however, they are going to use up resources....and those lost resources will mean that the encounter was meaningful.

RC

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Those are really cool elements for a low-magic game.

Is it house-rule stuff?

A mix of folklore, 1e stuff (it was gorgon's blood that blocked teleports IIRC), and imagination. Why do kings wear gold crowns? Give gold a *reason* for being valuable.

 

[Njall]

Did you try what I suggested? Trying something else, even if another attempt to do low magic, doesn't give you any insight into whether or not what I suggest will work.

I tried a game without spellcasting classes in the party at all, and no "magic mart".
I'd say that it's exactly how your house rules would play if nobody chose to play a spellcaster in the party.

Math is only part of how a role-playing game rules system works, even in the most math-heavy part of the game. In actual play, players can do all sorts of things to sway the math in their favour (and do). Having run 60 goblins against 3rd and 4th level PCs, with the PCs gaining a rather easy victory, I am well aware of how smart thinking against dumb opponents can work to the players' advantage.

Sure, but it's a huge part. A DM can generally make anything happen, so you can say that your game worked because your DM decided to make it work. But that doesn't mean that the ruleset worked, just that the DM decided that it had to.
There's a huge difference.

Within the encounter as described, the wizard is very likely to take out a quarter of the goblins in his first go. If he is smart, he will center his area effect in the back, where the archers are located. The rogue's sneak attack ability is almost useless in this position, but each rogue will take out three goblins each round, all the while trying to protect the wizard as much as possible. The figther is taking out a minimum of 4 goblins each round, and his Great Cleave and Combat Reflexes, there is a good chance that he is taking out quite a few more. The rogues also have Combat Reflexes, which limits the goblin's mobility.

Well...assuming that the wizard wins his initiative roll, he may well take out a lot of goblins, as long as they're all in the same zone.
They could be scattered, or the bulk of the group may be in melee.
Now, either the goblins could charge and attacked first ( and this means most of them already attacked in the 1st round ) or the rogues couldn't unleash a full attack, since they'd have to to move to attack in melee. Same goes for the fighter, anyway I assumed he killed 8 goblins on his own, due to great cleave.

Fighting defensively doesn't affect the number of goblins these guys can kill per round too much, but the +2 to AC certainly helps them. The wizard, of course, can use Total Defense on any round he doesn't otherwise need a standard action.

Finally, if the party can clear a path to a tunnel, and then use the tunnel as a "choke point" to prevent themselves from being surrounded, they can do quite well indeed.

No matter what they do, however, they are going to use up resources....and those lost resources will mean that the encounter was meaningful.

RC

Again, it was meaningful ( or just risky ), but it could potentially kill at least one party member, and it awarded 0 xp.
(Just to clarify, sure, you *could* award some xp, and in this context, you probably should. However, I'd argue that this is more a low level campaign played with high level characters than a mid-to high level characters )