why the attraction to "low magic"?

[kigmatzomat]

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.
....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.

Very true. I started a "low magic" campaignshortly after 3.0 came out simply because it meant I could introduce more advanced magics gently, without rocking the setting from an unused and (at the time) untested system. I had a good instinct for balancing encounters in 1e and 2e but I didn't trust the CR system yet. good in theory but the implementation could easily be "teh sux."

My initial goal was to have zero impact on a campaign that lasted to 5th-7th level. After that was up to the players since I dropped hints that higher magics were out the but only to secretive organizations.

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.

I'll agree with this too. I was low-magic before any of the splat books so I had no idea what impact my changes would have on the PrCs. I got lucky and guessed the right breakpoint so it really only affected a small list of PrCs that weren't compatible with my gaming group.

I've also been in games where every third monster had DR or regen and nine times out of ten we ended up beating things to death using torches because nobody had a magic weapon yet.

I will say my low magic game has beholders floating about because they don't have feet and would look rather being pulled about in a little red wagon. Though there is only one beholder they are aware of (but have never seen) despite being 16th level.

 

[MaxKaladin]

I suspect some of it is an over-reaction to campaigns and settings wherein magic is an all too convenient answer to evey problem, and the presence of easily available magic can often interfere with the creation of interesting scenarios by making them devolve into magical arms races and start contemplation about why with X magic, people don't do Y, etc.

/raises hand

That's a big part of it for me.

 

[der_kluge]

-Only spells of 0-2nd level function
This elminates res/raise, remove blindness/deafness, regenerate, and only paladins get cure disease. Paladins are far more cultivated by the nobility and have a more hospitaler feel. Nations with rulers that dislike paladins have to keep them around to try and stop plagues before they happen.

So, I'm curious. What happens to a 5th level wizard? Does his 0-2nd level spells only increase, and he gains nothing above 3rd? Or does he gain 3rd level and above spells, but they have a chance for failure, or what?

 

[der_kluge]

I think one of the reasons why I'd like to see low-magic is for a better economic system. I'd like to see players actually raise funds for masterwork weapons. I'd like to see the fighter beg, borrow, steal money for a set of mundane full plate armor. I'd like to see the characters scrimp their money together to see if they can afford a room at the inn.

The closest I ever got was an Al-Qadim campaign where an NPC that was with the party had to bail them out from a restaurant because they quite literally didn't have any money with which to pay the tab.


I think all of this talk about low-magic encouraging more role-playing is true to a limited degree. I don't think it necessarily promotes more role-playing, but I do believe that it encourages more outside-the-box thinking. It encourages MacGyver-ism. I mean, if the party faces a powerful foe, and they are 2nd level with only mundane equipment, they'll find a use for that grappling hook and a rope that might not have even been considered if they all have magic weapons and wondrous items. The end result is that a better story is told. IMHO, of course.

 

[I'm A Banana]

U

If a fighter just picked up Great Cleave, it's time to hit him with a swarm of relatively low-HP monsters so that he can feel like a stud.

That's true regardless of the magic level, though.

Just because you put lots of exclamation points after each of those to make it look silly doesn't mean those are all bad reasons to prefer low magic.

IMHO, they are. They're misconceptions or misinterpretations of the rules as they're written. They're not accurate. If those are the main reasons, I'd argue you need a better DM before you need low-magic D&D.

Don't let my opinion stop anyone from having fun, but to me, yeah, those are bad reasons, because they don't accurately reflect the true nature of default-magic D&D at all, and/or they are misconceptions of the nature of character power. If someone said "my campaign is low magic because in normal D&D you can't have an epic journey quest," I'd say that's a fallacy, the DM doesn't understand normal magic D&D, and I wouldn't trust them to DM a variant which, by it's very nature, is something that requires a caution and understanding of an almost collossal nature.

 

[Ogre Mage]

Magical monsters aren't the issue, IMO. You can have magical creatures in your low-magic game. With low-magic, items should be rare and not easily purchasable, and some of the higher level spells that affect the game (teleport. teleport circle, ressurection, wish ...etc) are not all that prevalent.

So long as the game being run, is not over-balanced in favour of the NPC's and monsters, magic-wise then the nature of the monster is irrelevant.

That make any sense?

I could buy the idea of beholders or dragons in a low magic world if they were VERY unique entities, as in singular or very few exist. They are creatures of legend. If they are common as they are in, say, FR, that doesn't work. That is an extreme violation of versimilitude. If the world is low magic, how could an abundance of highly magical creatures exist?

As you alluded to, creatures with DR, regeneration, etc. are much more deadly in a low magic world where needed items are hard to get. Remember that the Monster Manual assumes a certain level of magic and equipment. Low magic alters CRs significantly in many cases.

 

[DragonLancer]

In a low-magic setting, monsters even magical ones, would still exist. Perhaps not in the same numbers as most worlds, but would still exist. The idea of a low-magic world is one where magical treasures are not weilded by every farmer and warrior, where cities are not linked by teleport circles, and castles are not protected from magics. Its reducing the magical level from contemporary technology to regular pseudo-medieval.

Of course, different campaigns, different low-magic feel.

 

[Chimera]

If a fighter just picked up Great Cleave, it's time to hit him with a swarm of relatively low-HP monsters so that he can feel like a stud. (Actually, I'm prone to letting the PCs run into encounters that they can easily handle now and again simply so that they can really feel how they've improved over the years; sometimes you just wanna plow through some mooks.)

I agree. Can be quite fun and satisfying. But then again, with leveled monsters, having a 10th level party run into 30 normal Kobolds can be a lot of fun for a GM as the players shake in fear at the thought of Kobold Fighters and Sorcerers, not believing you'd simply let them mop up 30 regulation Kobolds.

 

[Chimera]

I've also been in games where every third monster had DR or regen and nine times out of ten we ended up beating things to death using torches because nobody had a magic weapon yet.

Ah yes. One of the reasons I quit one of my game groups was because the GM wanted a "grim n' gritty" low-magic campaign that ended up being him killing us all off with monsters with DR when we had only one magic weapon in our group. We reached a point where every freaking monster we ran into (3.0) had damage reduction and it was simply no fun watching our characters die left and right while his favorite walked through them with his +2 holy hammer.

Stupid GM Trick.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Ah yes. One of the reasons I quit one of my game groups was because the GM wanted a "grim n' gritty" low-magic campaign that ended up being him killing us all off with monsters with DR when we had only one magic weapon in our group. We reached a point where every freaking monster we ran into (3.0) had damage reduction and it was simply no fun watching our characters die left and right while his favorite walked through them with his +2 holy hammer.

Stupid GM Trick.

That's not grim-n-gritty, that's "slaughter the players" or munchkinism from behind the DM screen, and it gives grim-n-gritty a bad name.

Not that low-magic is always grim-n-gritty, those two adjectives just get tied at the hip.