What's your magic level preference?

[Dreaddisease]

I enjoy high magic. The only problem with high magic in campaign settings is that I find that DMs really seem to 'screw' their players over. THe NPCs have all the best stuff and the characters are left with things they could do without. "Oooo that Storm Giants Composite Long Bow +5 is SOooooo useful to my halfing archer". High magic worlds are more interesting, but harder to play. My main problem with low and even medium magics is that the monsters in the MM are twice as difficult when you don't have the right stuff. Damager Reduction 10/+3 is wonderful, especially to a party that has +1 weapons only.

My friend who is running a concept past me (who also frequents this board so I apologize in advance for my comments to him) about a non-magic society where the PC start off and then can go and discover magic much later (I think 5th+ level). The only problem I find is that the adventures have to be suited to the characters. Once you hit 4th level and you don't have a magic weapons or magic at all the CR4 monsters are much harder than they should be.

So I like high magic. It works if you allow everything to be high magic.

 

[John Crichton]

I enjoy high magic. The only problem with high magic in campaign settings is that I find that DMs really seem to 'screw' their players over. THe NPCs have all the best stuff and the characters are left with things they could do without. "Oooo that Storm Giants Composite Long Bow +5 is SOooooo useful to my halfing archer". High magic worlds are more interesting, but harder to play. My main problem with low and even medium magics is that the monsters in the MM are twice as difficult when you don't have the right stuff. Damager Reduction 10/+3 is wonderful, especially to a party that has +1 weapons only.

That's just a bad DM, IMO. I've run into it, too. Very annoying. It's even worse when it seems like the NPC's have an unlimited suppy of +5 weapons that the PC's can't use when the world is supposedly low-magic. Feh.

But anywho, it is up to the DM to be responsible and make the encounters competitive for the PC's. I agree with other posters that low-magic runs require some extra work by the DM to make certain that the PC's can have a fighting chance against foes (lowering the stats of monsters, tweaking things, etc). High-magic is the same way. The DM has to make sure that the PC's have the items to combat NPC's properly. It's all about balance and knowing the rules.

:: edited to add to the last paragraph ::

 

[kenjib]

I don't think you CAN make 3E into a low-magic game without SOME work - even the suggestions people have made here would have to be applied equally to all monsters and NPCs for it to be (fair) - that seems like more work for me.

I agree that NPCs will need modification to be on par with the PCs. However, if you are playing low magic you don't want to take NPCs in standard form anyway, since according to standard rules they have tons of magic items. You need to modify NPCs anyway so it's not really an issue. My suggestion was made to be 100% compatible with monsters however, and individual monsters need no changes whatsoever. In fact, with the changes I suggested, monsters are actually *more* compatible with low magic PCs because the CRs are closer to matching character power as intended (unlike your "wing it" method).

As for higher level or game-breaking spells - in-game regulation of what spells are available and how easily gained (and strict use of material components) curbs such abuses.

Why is this qualitatively any different from the other sets of suggested changes others have mentioned? You are changing the rules of the game to balance casters vs. non-casters. That's exactly what the other suggestions do. I think this is a good idea though -- tweaking the spell list and availability rules.

 

[hong]

I've compared the stats you get from using this method to the NPC sample character charts in the DMG and a character with these extra benefits is pretty close to one decked out with tons of magic items. The difference is that the ability is the character's and not dependent on his gear.

1) NPC wealth != PC wealth

2) Magic is not just about getting ever-bigger bonuses, but also abilities that couldn't be obtained otherwise. A high-level character who can't fly and teleport is meat against most equivalent-CR monsters.

I say again, read the nemuranai chapter in Magic of Rokugan. Solves all these niggling problems with magic items being "external" to a character or whatnot.

 

[Razuur]

I am with Kenjib. Magic Rare. Rare but powerful.

I would have voted for that.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

The poll sucks, low magic doesn't mean swords suck etc.

But anyways my preference is towards an Earthdawn style, where everyone is magical. The warriors, and archers etc. just use there magic to be more butt kicking in the their own ways without spells. Also I'd say the spellcasters are in some ways weaker than in D&D, while they don't fire and forget, it cantake multiple round sot cast a sinlge spells, and the spellcasting classes ar emore specialized than in D&D so no one spellcaster can come close to solving all the problems the aprty may face.(and they are much lower on solve every problem style spells even when you add all the spellcasting clases together)

I'll check out the nemuranai chapter in Magic of Rokugan to see if it covers what I want.

 

[dead_radish]

My favorite magic level is nearly none.

I'm dm'ing a high-magic FR campaign, where my players complain if there aren't three or four magic emporiums in every city. It's interesting, but annoying. A recently set of 3 gladiator fights (one on one battles, with pre-buffing) ran to 2 hours, as we recalculated values over rounds, added different bonuses, etc.

I play in a very very low magic world, which I love. There are no clerics, wizards, sorcs or druids. The bard is trimmed down, and the adept is the only other "casting" class. To cast spells, you have to have 15+Level in your stat, and the spell list is restricted. Spells are also reduced in duration (Cat's Grace et al are 10 mins/level, not 1 hour, etc). To cast a heal spell, you have to make a heal check dc 10+damage healed-spell level. That's the maximum amount of damage healed (The amount over 10), and that happens over the span of 24 hours. Heals don't stack.

It's a blast.

The things we've added in to balance it: A "parry bonus" of half your BAB to your AC. Feats at 10th, 12th, 14th, etc. And a "familiarity bonus" to weapons - every two levels you use your primary weapon (or instrument, for bards), you gain a +1 bonus to hit and to damage. If you use another weapon more than your main weapon, it resets.

There's also the concept of "fate points" - you get 1d4 fate points (+1 for halflings, +2 for humans) at creation. You can use them to get a +30 on a roll, auto-threaten, etc. You can also craft items using fate points, but it's obscenely hard (You need about a +30 on your check to do a minor item), or spend them for various feats (Lucky - spend X fate points, and gain 3X points to add to your saving throws as you wish. Only at 1st level/Silver Spoon - spend one fate point to gain 2000 gp starting gold. Only at 1st level). But they can only be spent in heroic actions - spending a fate point to get +30 on your climb check to scale the walls and beat back the orcish raiders is fine. Spending a fate point to get +30 to a barter roll to rip off a shopkeeper is not.

It makes things much more gritty, imho. You can't come back from the dead. Taking damage scares you. Getting poisoned is deadly. The few spellcasters are treated with awe and fear. It's fun.