why the attraction to "low magic"?

[mmadsen]

How about a dragon? Single handedly with nothing but a poniard and a single dose of poison? Two frost giants? Read "The Frost Giant's Daughter."

There's no reason to equate that dragon with a typical D&D Adult Red Dragon or those frost giants with D&D's Frost Giants though. If we use a Megaraptor as the dragon, that's a CR 6 creature; if we use a T-Rex, that's a CR 8 creature. Similarly, we could use Ogres or Hill Giants for the frost giants; Robert E. Howard certainly wasn't using the D&D Monster Manual.

The Enworld stats put him at 9th level about that time. Yeah, right. And that's after he'd stumbled away wounded from a major battle where, once again, everyone died but him.

Then either (a) those monsters aren't the high-CR monsters you assume them to be, or (b) Conan is higher level than you (and that web site) assume him to be.

I never said they were completely synonymous, remember? I've read the stories. The dragon he killed with the dagger bound between 3 poles and a poison apple never breathed fire. It wasn't even red. I understand that Robert E. Howard wasn't using the D&D Monster Manual. I'm not the one that is arguing Conan fought challenges appropriate to his CR. On the one hand, you don't want me to say that Robert E. Howard used the monster manual, but on the other hand, you want to use Conan as an example of a single player facing appropriate CR monsters. Make up your mind. Either Howard was operating within D&D parameters, or he wasn't. Personally, I don't think he was. You seem to think otherwise.

You scoff at the notion that any reasonable character could single-handedly defeat Conan's foes, and I point out that many of them are low-CR critters that a mid-level Barbarian could easily defeat.

When you point out that Conan doesn't fight just "mundane" foes, you use a dragon and two frost giants as your example. I point out that those probably weren't a dragon as defined by D&D and frost giants as defined by D&D; they were probably equivalent to lower-CR opponents.

Further, they don't need to be low-CR for my argument to work; they just need to be lower than Conan. Your argument is that there's no way a reasonable PC could defeat the foes Conan defeats. My argument is that a high-level Barbarian (with little magic) could easily defeat many of the foes Conan defeats.

We can agree that Conan is extremely bad-ass -- and more bad-ass than every foe (or group of foes) he beats. He is a high-power character. We can also agree that he doesn't need a laundry list of magic items. (He typically wields one or two bits of magic per story to defeat his supernatural foe.)

What I don't understand is why you claim that Conan's Hyboria isn't low-magic by D&D standards.

I'm claiming that it's not low-magic by the standards of people who appear to be using Robert E. Howard as their example.

So, for the people who define low-magic as "like Robert E. Howard's Conan stories," Robert E. Howard's Conan stories aren't a good example? Huh?

I'm also claiming that using Conan as an example of low-magic is rather silly, since by any standards of magic or fantasy, Conan was a twink powergamer.

What does "a twink powergamer" have to do with low- or high-magic?

 

[Desdichado]

So, naturally, the only viable, enjoyable, imaginative solution is to just NOT deal with the problem. I've played a high-magic, high-fantasy game where our group destroyed just such an artifact. Not only was the creative and intelligent use of high magic helpful, it was REQUIRED. You want to have your characters quake in their boots at the approach of 10,000 orcs? Cool. I'm not going to stop you. But don't pretend that's more imaginative or interesting than staggered armies with war trolls, battlemages, dragons and clerics. I can create interesting and appropriate challenges for characters no matter what their level. Sticking with orcs - lots and lots of orcs - and making characters FEAR orcs (lots and lots of orcs) is not a method of DMing that I find extremely imaginative. Even Tolkien had to up the ante at the Black Gate.

I never said that was the only viable, enjoyable, imaginative solution. Rather, I said your position that having half a dozen PC characters deal with the whole army being "more interesting" was hardly absolute. You seem determined to polarize; if you make an absurd claim and I disagree, then you automatically assume that my position must be equally absurd on the other end of the scale.

That's not a discussion, that's arguing.

Of course I'm making sense. Mass combat can be extremely interesting.

You weren't making sense because it was unclear from your post if you thought mass combat was boring or interesting. I'm not disagreeing with you either way, I'm merely pointing out that I didn't understand which you were trying to say.

Some things truly are a matter of taste. But low magic doesn't necessarily make a better story, or a better game. A good DM with a good group of players makes a good game. Once you've got that, high magic or low magic doesn't matter.

You're arguing that like someone said the opposite. As I recall looking back through the thread, you hinted that a lot of low magic fans say that, but none actually have, on this thread at least. In other words, you're arguing against a position that nobody is defending. Go knock yerself out.

Wow. How many times can I say, "Play whatever you like!" I don't assume anything. But I do know that the solution you advocate is not the only solution to the perceived problem. I'm interacting with what people say, and doing so in a much more thorough fashion than you are. If you want to insist that I'm not paying attention, fine. I see that as lazy argumentation, though. That's like me calling you a big poopie head. It's not really that funny, it's not really accurate, and it's beside the point.

If you ignore the points that are made and then argue against other ones, then yeah, you aren't paying attention. Your response to the fact that a lot of folks saying they don't like the taste of D&D magic is to try and convince us that yes, you can indeed map D&D magic to Robert E. Howard and J.R.R. Tolkien. Fine. However, that sidesteps the heart of the whole matter; if we don't like the taste of D&D magic, not only do we not care, but we still aren't any more likely to use it.

I don't know why you want to refuse to see that you're not arguing against the same things we're saying, and when I point that out you try to claim that I'm effectively just calling you names. That hardly makes your position any stronger to continue to ignore what I'm saying to attack something that I didn't.

If people want to say, "I prefer low-magic campaigns. That's what I like!" then there is nothing anyone can say to that. Nobody should say anything. But when people start saying things like, "Tolkien was low-magic!" or "Conan was low magic!" that creates some problems, because those statements require some unexamined assumptions, and aren't entirely accurate.

Actually, your counter arguments have been much more thoroughly picked apart, I'd say. But it's still a tangential argument. If to me Tolkien feels like low magic, then no amount of D&D style mapping to Tolkien is going to convince me that D&D default magic feels like Tolkien.

 

[Desdichado]

Wow. I point out that using the Book of Lost Tales as an authoritative guide is flawed, as they were abandoned very early drafts, and you respond by supporting my argument with more detail, namely that only one balrog is now attested to have been involved in the fall of Gondolin in The Silmarillion (which is also a flawed document, as it contains a hack-job editing by Christopher, who pulled info from dubious sources, leading him to regret what he did and publishing unedited his father's actual writings later in life, but that's another topic) and yet, despite offering evidence that supports my claim about what Tolkien actually said, you still have the nerve to write:

I'll take Tolkien's version over yours.

You're really something else.

There is no place in any source by Tolkien which I am aware of where the numbers of the balrogs are listed in the single digits. And you have not provided one. You simply say that somewhere somehow that "seemed" to be your impression. Yet I can point to a story by Tolkien which directly, deliberately and unquestionably says otherwise. Also, since even the Silmarillion is a posthumously published collection, arguing that one is a definitive version of events - and naturally, the one you prefer must be definitive - is rather silly, especially since you can't point to any specific examples that contradict what I've provided.

Oh, one exists. I've checked it out from the library and read it more than once. It's also been bandied about on Michael Martinez's mailing list, with the actual quote in question typed word for word in the text of an email.

I don't have the text in front of me, so you can choose to not believe it if you wish, but I've been gradually coming to the conclusion that it doesn't actually matter as you're unlikely to listen anyway.

 

[molonel]

What solution (or solutions) are you recommending for a game that feels like classic fantasy -- either swords & sorcery or high fantasy -- where scry/buff/teleport is not standard operating procedure?

Okay, first of all, I can't create a FEEL that is going to satisfy you, because nobody can quantify a feeling. People complain that D&D 3.0/3.5 doesn't FEEL like 1st Edition D&D. Or it doesn't FEEL like the Conan novels they read years ago. I'm not even going to try to recreate that because I don't know you, I don't know exactly what you're looking for, and I'm not the best judge of what you need for your game. You're the best judge of that.

As far as dealing with the mechanics of scry/buff/teleport, that requires some thought:

Scrying was a real problem in 3.0 because the mechanics behind scrying were poorly written, and easy to break. The problem with making something like scry into a skill, which is what 3.0 rules did, is that (1) the DCs were incredibly easy, (2) skill-enhancing items, using the item creation guidelines, were incredibly cheap, and (3) there was no saving throw or SR check with the spell.

For a review of the scrying skill in 3.0, you can read here:

http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdskillsii.rtf

And here:

http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdspellss.rtf

Note that there is no saving throw, and no spell resistance.

Andy Collins, in an article that used to be published on his web site (and here is shown in a cached Google article) suggested doubling the DCs:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...es/scrying.htm+andy+collins+and+scrying&hl=en

Scrying, like Harm and Haste and Heal, was broken in 3.0. Nobody denies that.

Compare that to scrying in 3.5 rules:

http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/SpellsS.rtf

The spell provides a saving throw. SR does apply. If you've only heard of the subject of the scry, they get a +10 saving throw on the spell. Within the core rules, spells like Detect Scrying and Screen provide protection in certain areas. Powerful foes, in my campaign, may have access to such magic, and I tell that to players ahead of time.

Read the spell Teleport:

http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/SpellsT-Z.rtf

You have to scry the same area for at least an hour in order to teleport there. You cannot scry an area. You must scry a person. Unless you are intimately familiar with that person or monster, the odds are very good that they will succed at their saving throw. A 10th level caster will need to cast scry six times, and the person on the receiving end must fail six successive saving throws, and be in the same area for all that time, in order for the scry/buff/teleport to work.

That's just a start, too. Enemies and NPCs have access to all the same magics that PCs have. Especially in games where political intrigue is the order of the day, wizards who can cast Detect Scrying are in high demand, and well paid.

So, to summarize, the scry/buff/teleport option is not the sure thing easy option it was under 3.0 rules, and in a high magic world I assume that powerful foes and NPCs have access to the same magics and countermeasures that players can use. Successfully scrying someone to port on top of them is a dangerous gambit, as the players in my present campaign are about to find out. An adventuring strike team who makes a habit of it will acquire a reputation similar to that which terrorists in our own world have among powerful foes. I'd give players some healty warnings that their actions will have reprecussions, and if it became a real problem in my game, the players would eventually experience a taste of their own medicine.

And that's just what's possible with the Core rules.

Obviously you can play a lower-level game, but then it's hard to have great warriors like Conan or Legolas. Or you can restrict the level of spellcasters. Or you can restrict the spells available to spellcasters (e.g., remove teleport, or boost its level). Or you can apply a cost to spellcasting (e.g., it causes madness, it alerts your enemies to your presence, it can backfire).

As I've tried to point out, creating a great warrior like Conan is difficult to do even if you remove magic items from the picture. Remove magic items, and then give your players four 18s and a couple of dump stats (but no stats low enough for penalties) and they can create a reasonable fascimile of Conan.

Hmm...As far as I can tell, your argument against "Conan is low magic!" is "Conan is super-powerful!" -- and I don't see how that's an argument at all.

Magic items are simply one form of power. If you look at a LOT of mid- and high-level characters in a standard D&D game, a large portion of their wealth is usually invested in stat-boosting, whether through enhancement bonuses from items or spells ,or inherent bonuses through wishes and tomes. Those are more necessary when you don't have a character who, like most depictions of Conan I've read which are accurate to how he is portrayed in the book, has stats which are less like that of a demigod or archetypal human. Seriously. The guy is typically depicted as a 68-point character build, and I think that's low-balling it. His magic-items are already pre-built into his character. Power is power is power, whether it comes from magic items or DM fiat (or in this case, writer fiat).

 

[molonel]

Joshua Dyal, I'm doing my best to respond to at least three people right now. Each of you is only responding to me, at this point. I ask your patience and indulgence if all of your similar, perhaps slightly different and personally shaded arguments tend to blend together into one steaming morass in my text editor right now. I'm keeping them in separate windows in Editpad, and flipping back and forth between them as I work. So I'm going to ignore all your paragraphs that begin with "you" because I'm not here to argue about me. If you'd like to continue arguing about me, rather than the game, that's your affair. If that's not what you're doing, or don't intend to do, then please do what Drifter Bob and mmadsen are doing, and stick to the game. They are being a bit more professional and polite about this, and if you follow their example, I'd feel more inclined to listen to you. I think you're taking this a bit too personally.

 

[molonel]

You scoff at the notion that any reasonable character could single-handedly defeat Conan's foes, and I point out that many of them are low-CR critters that a mid-level Barbarian could easily defeat ... When you point out that Conan doesn't fight just "mundane" foes, you use a dragon and two frost giants as your example. I point out that those probably weren't a dragon as defined by D&D and frost giants as defined by D&D; they were probably equivalent to lower-CR opponents ... Further, they don't need to be low-CR for my argument to work; they just need to be lower than Conan. Your argument is that there's no way a reasonable PC could defeat the foes Conan defeats. My argument is that a high-level Barbarian (with little magic) could easily defeat many of the foes Conan defeats.

Then I respectfully disagree, and I will probably never convince you otherwise. I think the primary vehicle of Conan's survival in the Robert E. Howard stories is the creative license of the author, not properly balanced CR encounters. I'm content to leave it at that.

So, for the people who define low-magic as "like Robert E. Howard's Conan stories," Robert E. Howard's Conan stories aren't a good example? Huh?

Okay. Stop for a minute, and read this sentence: I do not think that Robert E. Howard's Conan stories provide the necessary evidence for low-magic games because there is, in my opinion, a larger amount of magical wealth in those stories than most people seem to give them credit for. There are more items, more incantations, more spells and a higher level of magic than most people even seem to remember. That is part of the problem with talking about the "feel" of the Conan stories, because oftentimes I think that "feeling" is based more on nostalgia and a creative reworking of the original material in the memories of those who don't quite remember it correctly than in a close and accurate reading of the texts.

This is probably another point where we will have to be content to agree to disagree.

What does "a twink powergamer" have to do with low- or high-magic?

The discussion about magic is ultimately, at least in part, a discussion about power and abilities. Conan is not a good example of a person without magic items because, played as a character, he is vastly overpowered from the get-go. I could make a MUCH more balanced, fair and appropriate character in a standard fantasy setting in D&D using point-buy rules, and standard treasure appropriate to level. As a DM, I'd be less concerned about designing a game around high-magic characters created using tested standards of fairness than I would simply stripping away those items, and replacing them with the stats of a paragon of humanity, which ultimately only replaces one form of power with another.

 

[Sir Elton]

Magic items are simply one form of power. If you look at a LOT of mid- and high-level characters in a standard D&D game, a large portion of their wealth is usually invested in stat-boosting, whether through enhancement bonuses from items or spells ,or inherent bonuses through wishes and tomes. Those are more necessary when you don't have a character who, like most depictions of Conan I've read which are accurate to how he is portrayed in the book, has stats which are less like that of a demigod or archetypal human. Seriously. The guy is typically depicted as a 68-point character build, and I think that's low-balling it. His magic-items are already pre-built into his character. Power is power is power, whether it comes from magic items or DM fiat (or in this case, writer fiat).

Hi! Can I speak up? I agree with molonel in this instance. I can write fantasy stories about people with amazing abilities, either by magic or by item, or by environment (Wuxia, breaks the laws of physics).

There are hundreds of low magic options available to DMs and they can have a satisfying game. The Archtypical low magic environment is the Wuxia/Hong Kong Action Film. I mean seriously, take a look at the Feng Shui sorcerer and compare it to the D&D sorcerer. Yet, they entertain you by having wild high flying stunts. People walking on walls, leaping from roof top to roof top, making high flying whirlwind attacks and then proceed to do a great cleave. And that is some of the stunts in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (CTHD).

Conan seems low magic because scholars wield magic that is remeniscent of Call of Cthulhu. However, the guy is buffed by his magic items. It's like he's Superman, only he doesn't come from Krypton. Well, there's Beastmaster. Dar is also over the top. The stunts on Beastmaster (the T.V. show) probably places Dar somewhere in the range of Barbarian 3/Monk 6/Druid 6 (without Wildshape).

Yet, there isn't any high frequency of sorcery going on in that show; well, yes. But it's subtle. I guess low magic for those who support it want something to be subtle. Magic should be wondrous and subtle, they say. None of the powerful evocations like magic missile or fireball.

One way of limiting magic in your games is keeping track of spell components. Compile the material components and make your wizards keep track of them. some of them will be easy to buy (Sulpher, glass rod and steel wool, etc.); others not so easy (gems worth 10,000 gp. for instance).

 

[Desdichado]

Joshua Dyal, I'm doing my best to respond to at least three people right now. Each of you is only responding to me, at this point. I ask your patience and indulgence if all of your similar, perhaps slightly different and personally shaded arguments tend to blend together into one steaming morass in my text editor right now. I'm keeping them in separate windows in Editpad, and flipping back and forth between them as I work. So I'm going to ignore all your paragraphs that begin with "you" because I'm not here to argue about me. If you'd like to continue arguing about me, rather than the game, that's your affair. If that's not what you're doing, or don't intend to do, then please do what Drifter Bob and mmadsen are doing, and stick to the game. They are being a bit more professional and polite about this, and if you follow their example, I'd feel more inclined to listen to you. I think you're taking this a bit too personally.

Actually, I'm not. You're simply bypassing what I've been saying and arguing something that I'm (and neither is anyone else, really) not. I don't know why that means you're more inclined to continue to not listen, or to wrongfully assume that I'm taking this discussion personally, or to try and pass off the failure to communicate as my "unprofessionalism."

I can speak from long experience of dealing with my children; it's frustrating to say something that is completely disregarded and ignored, and then arguments are made that are completely beside the point. And, just to give you fair warning, if you're going to try and pass off anything Tolkien wrote as high magic and expect to convince me, you're wasting your time. I haven't written a dissertation on Tolkien's work, or anything like that, but I still consider myself a fairly well-versed Tolkien scholar. You can't come up with a laundry list of items that's a conglomeration of Merry and Pippin, and then assume that they are all magical when nothing Tolkien wrote even hints at that. When I refuted this, Mystery Man asks, "what about all the balrogs and dragons?" and when I point out that according to the texts there wern't "all the balrogs and dragons" there were at best a handful of each ever. You decided to get involved again by quoting dubious sources and serving it up with a healthy side of "you don't know what the hell you're talking about."

So, if I appear snappish, I certainly think it's not unreasonable given the way you've treated me in general and ignored my arguments that don't favor your position in particular. But I'm not taking it personally, and I honestly would like to have a decent discussion about this, as it's a topic of great interest to me that's near and dear to my heart. But I can't have a discussion where I'm talking to the wall.

 

[VirgilCaine]

Hi! Can I speak up?

One way of limiting magic in your games is keeping track of spell components. Compile the material components and make your wizards keep track of them. some of them will be easy to buy (Sulpher, glass rod and steel wool, etc.); others not so easy (gems worth 10,000 gp. for instance).

Hi! Can I speak up? This is something I don't understand. People complain about resurrection and raise dead and such and fail to notice that the material component is an amount of diamonds. If I remember correctly, diamonds were expensive and thus hard to find. Seems like a pretty limiting factor on bringing people back from the dead, just on an economic basis alone, irregardless of the spiritual problems.

 

[Sir Elton]

Hi! Can I speak up? This is something I don't understand. People complain about resurrection and raise dead and such and fail to notice that the material component is an amount of diamonds. If I remember correctly, diamonds were expensive and thus hard to find. Seems like a pretty limiting factor on bringing people back from the dead, just on an economic basis alone, irregardless of the spiritual problems.

Exactly. However, I know some DMs don't really use material components. So the Eschew Component metamagic feat is useless.