why the attraction to "low magic"?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I agree.

I was just saying: "If you are powerful and have something a wizard would want, why wouldn't you have anti-scrying devices and anti-teleport devices set up around you?"

-I can't think of a reason that someone would purposefully leave such a wide avenue of danger open if they could close it.
-I don't like the effects that has on the game.
-I don't want to just "DM Fiat" it away b/c i want to have a reasonable world.
-Therefore - I either need to change the setting from the standard, or change the magic.

Basically i was just explaining why i like low / rare / new magic setting ideas, that's all

Sorry 'bout that.

14th level wizard, spell access as per RAW
9 magic items
- Staff, 4-5 functions, strongest power 4th level spell at 12th level effect
- +2 Ring
- Book that absorbs spell scrolls
- 6 ioun stones, 2 dead, others with a variety of powers

I'm not about to do the math; probably accurate in terms of gp value but amazingly underpowered, IMO.

Why do you have a +2 ring? You should have gotten a +1 ring, +1 amulet of natural armor and you'd still have some cash left over.

Or get a weaker staff and an Amulet of Con. Why didn't you get a scarab of protection instead? Trade the ring and amulet for bracers of armor (or better yet, if your DM let's you use a non-core spell that's better than mage armor...)

Your character looks more fun than most 14th-level laundry-list characters that I've seen, but you'd get stomped more easily than a more min-maxed wizard.

It's easier for your wizard, though, since, unlike a fighter, he's not dependent on his magical equivalent.

 

[Baron Opal]

Why do you have a +2 ring? You should have gotten a +1 ring, +1 amulet of natural armor and you'd still have some cash left over.

Or get a weaker staff and an Amulet of Con. Why didn't you get a scarab of protection instead? Trade the ring and amulet for bracers of armor (or better yet, if your DM let's you use a non-core spell that's better than mage armor...)

The character found the ring. Most of the items in this campaign were either found or made. Items that are bought are usually limited to one-use or charged. Theoretically, any item was available if they could find a wizard to make it for them. At this point in the campaign, my character was one of the movers and shakers in the magical arena. Most of the middling items were either made by me or found.

As far as loot and such, our adventures consisted of goal-oriented missions or archeological digs. If there was a particular item that we were interested in that couldn't be made by the local wizard (me), we could research legends about said item. I found a record of a fallen star for my ioun stones, an ancient menhir grove for the druid, Tales of a general weilding a lightning brand, etc.

Although, one assumption that our DM carried over from RL is that at the higher levels of wealth there is a seperate luxury economy. There are a few jewelry stores in NYC where you can drop $1.2 million on a nice necklace and earring set "off the rack". If you want something specific, it can be ordered, you pay half up front, and you wait until the designer / jeweler can make it for you. These stores don't advertise and are often second floor converted apartments with plain doors. If you can afford it, you can find it. In game, these shops had select items from other royals, high clergy, and advanced adventurers. It was a small, select and expensive list. Unfortunatly, these dealers rarely had what we needed.

I think the key to the campaign, why it was so memorable and enjoyable, was that we had distinctive characters in memorable events. One of the main problems with 1e D&D (sorry, Dialgo) is that each member of a given class was the same. What made you distinctive was the items and quirks that you picked up during play. As games progressed more options became available. Now, with 3e, it is very easy to have a unique 1st level character from a mechanical standpoint. At 2nd level, even more so. Now, items no longer necesarily define the character they enhance their capabilities. However, items can and do add to the distinctiveness of a character. It's cool to have the blade Stormwatch, last wielded by General Fofannen in the Great Troll War. It's also cool to have the Staff of Tower Mist that you made yourself.

I guess where my ramblings take me is thus: with the game as it stands, I can make my character individual enough that I don't need items to define it. And, I get enough choices with advanced level that I don't need the items either. Items become sought after for their flair or prestige rather than for a needed ability boost.

Baron Opal

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I guess where my ramblings take me is thus: with the game as it stands, I can make my character individual enough that I don't need items to define it. And, I get enough choices with advanced level that I don't need the items either. Items become sought after for their flair or prestige rather than for a needed ability boost.

But can you do this with a fighter? Because I think you would have a much harder time doing this for a fighter than for a mage, and still having a character who can survive.

On the issue of items that grow with you, I assume other characters can't use them? Good. This means an NPC can have the same amount of power, without worries of boosting treasure way too much.

 

[Ogre Mage]

Mechanically, I think one of the attractions of a low magic world is that it makes high level play easier to manage for the DM. In typical D&D, 12th+ level characters are running around with extremely powerful items and class/PrC abilities. This makes it very difficult for many DMs to maintain balance and plan adventures because PC abilities may shoot the plot right out the water. Balancing encounters becomes very challenging and if the DM errs in assessing their abilities, a total cakewalk or horrible slaughter of the PCs may be the result. In a low-magic campaign, high level characters are much more manageable. IMO, this makes low magic an attractive choice for a long term campaign or a high-level game.

I think the reason low magic has a bad name in some circles is for two reasons. One is that some players don't like restrictions which limit choices, esp. if it infringes upon the core rules. Second, some DMs run a world where it is low magic for the PCs, but high magic for NPCs and monsters. When beholders are floating around your low-magic world, something strange is going on.

 

[shilsen]

Largely using mythological heroes as your basis for a 'mythic' flavor you want to emulate specifically is deeply flawed.

The reason Odysseus survived his epic quest? DM fiat. Same reason he went on it.

The reason Achilles stayed in Troy? DM fiat. Same reason he went there in the first place.

The reason Frodo could chuck the ring into Mount Doom without getting spotted? DM fiat.

Can you capture the *feel* of Odysseus in D&D's RAW? Absolutely. Your items are bronze. The adventures you went on helped you uncover the items you need because of the Gods' intervention. You are heroic in statistics, in level, and in power. True, it depends upon your items, but so what? If you never take off your +2 codpiece, then no one needs to know that's what's giving you +2 to your saving throws vs. 'shots to teh junk.' Introduce sailing adventuers, and a bunch of 1st level mooks to compare yourself with, and perhaps a vengeful deity, and you're golden.

Can you capture Odysseus himself? Pheh. This is a game, not poetry, I don't want my character's life to hinge on weather the DM decides arbitrarily that Possiedon is having a bad day or not. It might make for an interesting epic poem, but it is crap for a D&D game.

I think my own house rules that keep the high-magic feel, but add low-loot to the pile work especially well for mythological-style battles, because even those who weren't the spawn of gods were their favored. Gilgamesh had Inana, Odysseus had Athena, Achilles had Thetis and Zeus, Heracles had Zeus, Paris had Aphrodite....my rules allow them to gain a bit of loot, and still have powers that depend on the gods that take an interest in them...Gilgamesh would've had the powers of a Belt of Giant Strength even if he didn't wear the belt.

In addition, I think those who see magic as horribly logic-destroying in D&D have either had crappy DM's, or have had a nigh-impossible level of metropolises in their campaign. Heck, even then, the maximum GP you can buy in magic shops is 3,000. You can keep the DMG-recommended level of magic, but make it more useful...look at Eberron: the low-level magic in this campaign is readily available, but that doesn't ruin the scary and intimidating feel of high-level magic at all. The reason is because most people are NPC classes, most people are low level, and only a select few (the PC's, and a few powerful NPC's) have class levels above 10 at all. And Eberron in no way limits the power of magic in it's setting...it just uses the setting to keep everyday magic common, but weak. Read the rules, see how others are doing it, and then maybe your complaints about too much magic will at least be informed with what is actually suggested, rather than the inflated boogeyman of everyone getting cheap +5 swords.

What he said.

 

[nopantsyet]

De gustibus non disputandum est.
Variety is the spice of life.

Need I spout of any more inane cliches?

How about this one, You say tomato, I say tomato; you say potato, I say potato.

No matter how you combine the different elements, it's still a game. And low magic D&D resembles high magic D&D far more than it resembles, say--golf. I like D&D. I like high magic. I like low magic. I like no magic. I like alternate magic systems. I don't like everything that's D&D or compatible with D&D, but I try to run an interesting game whatever it may be. I have run high magic; I have run low magic. My current campaign has both, if you can get your mind around that! ;-) Why? Because it's interesting, it's fun, it adds variety. There is certainly plenty of basis for low-magic in fantasy literature. Granted, that is not the same milieu as OD&D, but D&D has evolved for the very reason that people like variety, people like new challenges. And last but not least, Rule Zero says I can play low magic, high magic, or naked rollerblading whisky magic and it's still D&D and it's still correct.

Point is, when it comes down to quibbling about how people play D&D, the argument has gone way too far. If the community has reached a point where we can't understand why people would play a game any differently than it's been written this time around, we've lost sight of what it's all about.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Keep in mind that I don't mind low magic....it's just that in my mind, there are good, valid reasons for choosing a low-magic campaign, and then there are reasons of spite and misconceptions.

Good reasons: you want a gritty style, you want a 'low fantasy' setting (where every goblin is truly a monster out of nightmares), you want a world where magic operates on rules that destroy most things of magic, etc, etc, ad infinum.

Bad reasons: PC's don't have to think in high magic campaigns!!!, I don't want +5 swords to be valueless!!!!, Plane shift is overpowered!!!, I can't think of how to challenge a party with Teleport!!!, I want epic quests/mysteries/dangerous journeys and there are no epic quests/mysteries/dangerous journeys with high magic!!!

They're still reasons, and if they work for you, fine, have fun. But I believe if they're your main reasons, you're riding the tide of bad DM's/severe misconceptions about the rules. High magic is not a campaign-obliterating bogeyman that only exists because people don't put enough thought into their games. It's a valid, strong campaign style choice. Just like low magic can be. But I guess just as low magic has it's share of "WTF, Fireball is waaay too powerful!", high magic has it's share of "Okay, you've killed God, what do you want to kill next?"

 

[Dark Jezter]

Good post, Kamikaze Midget. I, myself, don't care much for "low magic, grim & gritty" because every time I've sampled that play style it just plain wasn't fun for me, not to mention that many LMGG fanboys can be downright elitist in their attitudes; believing that they are somehow more mature and enlightened than people who play regular or high magic games. I've also never understood the mindset "If I limit spells and the availability of magic items, it will instantly make my group more interested in roleplaying rather than rollplaying. Damn, I'm smart!"

I don't have anything against people who enjoy low magic games, I'm just not very enthusiastic about that type of play myself (although I might make an exception for the Conan D20 RPG, but that's a D20 System RPG rather than Dungeons & Dragons).

 

[I'm A Banana]

The most low magic I've done is "Okay, you know the magewright? You know the adept? Those are your spellcasters. Enjoy."

Since that's lasted basically two weeks, it was fun, but I'm actively going for a different feel, where goblins really are monsters from nightmares and not just short fuzzy guys who like wolves.

 

[Sado]

"Okay, you know the magewright?

What's that from?