# The Difficulties Of Running Low Magic Campaigns



## Ath-kethin (Mar 10, 2018)

I ran what most would consider a very low-magic 5e Primeval Thule campaign. I banned all caster classes except the warlock, and not a single magic weapon appeared over the course of the campaign. I compromised a bit on magic items in general and allowed _keoghtom's ointment_ as a non-magical healing salve that the PCs learned to make.

The campaign ended up being extremely character-focused (which was my goal and intent from the start). We spent a good deal of time developing relationships with various NPCs, both newly-met and from the characters' history, and threats were actually, you know, threatening. There was a real sense of dread when a wicked priest opened a portal and a bunch of gibbering mouthers swarmed out.

Be upfront with the expectations and make sure everybody is on board, that's all. All three of the players in that campaign remarked that it was their favorite they'd ever played in. Sadly, the campaign came to an end after about 14 months (we tried to play weekly but it ended up being about 3 times a month, and the characters were 5th level at the end) when one of the players got a job in another state and had to move away.

Possibly important footnote: I am in my late 30s, and the three PCs in that group were 42, 23, and 20 years old.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 10, 2018)

Sure, when you're running anything other than "Kitchen Sink" games you need player buy-in, I think that's a given.  I don't think it's the fault of video games that trains people to _expect_ magic in their TTRPGs, every edition of D&D has some with some form of Wizard and some form of Cleric.  Players expect magic in their TTRPG because the TTRPG says there's magic in here!  So it's hardly on the player to look at, read through a book, and come to the conclusion that some elements of the advertised game may not be available.

If you're trying to attract computer gamers to a low-magic TTRPG setting, you're probably going about things the wrong way.  It's like trying to attract a pipeline welder into fixing your garbage disposal.  These things are _related_ but the skills and expectations are completely at odds.  If you're trying to attract video/computer gamers it's probably a better approach to hook them with high-magic or "Kitchen Sink" games and once they're interested in the _system_ they are more likely to be willing to explore more restrictive variants of it.

But I'll posit a bigger concern: video gamers have been trained on a strict DM (the computer).  The rules are the rules.  They are immutable, enforced upon everyone equally.  You're more likely to find objection from video gamers when a system is very "rules light" or "rulings heavy" where a rule may _not_ be equally enforced at all times, where the exceptions are unknowable except to the DM.  

--------

I've run short low-magic games.  There's little leveling.  There's perhaps the occasional evil wizard or witch but never one in the party.  And there's little magical loot.  There's probably one dragon and he's the last thing you'll fight before the game is over.  So, more or less "The Hobbit" but with different flavor.

I think the important element is to keep them _short_.  (6 months is my sweet spot).  Not leveling.  Not getting loot.  Nearly dying every other session, while some people find this fun, most people find it irritating after a while.  Sure, people also have fun, but low-magic campaigns represent high opportunity cost.  Everything you can find in a low-magic game can be found in a high-magic game (except for the low-magic vibe).  The low magic vibe is not usually enough of an offset IME.

With the right sort of people you can certainly go further, but you've got to have a sort of people who primarily want the low-magic vibe over everything else.  You're not gonna find that in video gamers.


----------



## Blue (Mar 10, 2018)

Low magic and low level are not the same thing.  Sure, if you have high level casters they aren't within-themselves low magic, but that assumes the PCs aren't exceptions.  Also high level but non-casters only (or reduced casters allowed, etc.) can be part of a low magic feel while still dealing with epic threats.

Trying to model Gandalf in D&D is problematic because D&D has no mechanism to discourage proliferate use of magic besides a daily full refill, and that's not how magic is represented in the setting of LotR, any more than LotR used Vancian magic.  On the other hand, Gandalf was able to defeat the Balrog one on one, and is a Maiar.


----------



## Dave Goff (Mar 10, 2018)

I ran a 0-level and fairly low-magic campaign where the players rolled 3d6 with a minimum of 7 and then the choices they made as 0-level characters had opportunities to give them skills, stat bumps or story info. It actually went really well. It's great to see characters get excited about learning cantrip-level spells and being totally freaked out by magic creatures that are old hat in normal games.
When they leveled up to 1 they were really stoked, especially since they had built their own special backgrounds rather than just choosing them from a list in the PHB.


----------



## Arilyn (Mar 10, 2018)

The problem of Christmas tree characters and Monty Haul campaigns date back to the origin of DnD. You can't blame the proliferation of magic on video games. Many other rpgs, after all, manage fine with little or no magic. 

DnD is usually about getting stuff, and that stuff is magic because it's more interesting. It doesn't have to be this way. Fewer magic wielding characters, less story lines revolving around killing monsters and taking their stuff, less piles of gold, and more story oriented rewards would allow the game to work just fine as a low magic setting. And I'm pretty sure the video gamers would be happy too.


----------



## GMMichael (Mar 10, 2018)

Blue said:


> On the other hand, Gandalf was able to defeat the Balrog one on one, and is a Maiar.




Yeah, and Maia isn't a D&D playable race 

I'd like to point out that _some_ video games do include low-magic fantasy.  In Skyrim, each hold has just one court mage, none of whom do any significant spell casting.  Then there's Kingdom Come Deliverance, admittedly new, which is a medieval-like game that has zero magic, as far as I can tell.

If you want to run a low-magic campaign, you're better off recruiting Lord of the Rings movie (or book) fans than trying to convert World of Warcraft players.  [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] 's comparison of welder versus plumber sums it up pretty well.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 10, 2018)

DMMike said:


> Yeah, and Maia isn't a D&D playable race
> 
> I'd like to point out that _some_ video games do include low-magic fantasy.  *In Skyrim, each hold has just one court mage*, none of whom do any significant spell casting.  Then there's Kingdom Come Deliverance, admittedly new, which is a medieval-like game that has zero magic, as far as I can tell.
> 
> If you want to run a low-magic campaign, you're better off recruiting Lord of the Rings movie (or book) fans than trying to convert World of Warcraft players.  [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] 's comparison of welder versus plumber sums it up pretty well.




And even though games like Skyrim have "Mage Universities" and the player can also be a spellcaster, they are by-and-large the _exception_.

Low magic can also be about the _approach_ to magic as opposed to sheer numbers.  The Dragon Age series is primarily low-magic, even though casters come in high natural numbers, they are fairly quick to die and most of them will never be more than low-level casters.  Likewise the non-magical members of society have a decidedly negative opinion of magic users, since there's a 50/50 chance any one of them is going to be possessed by a demon at any given moment of the day.


----------



## Unpossible E (Mar 10, 2018)

The _type_ of magic is also a factor. In a _RuneQuest_ campaign every character can wield it, but the effects are more granular than in _D&D_, and there are several flavors of magic to keep things interesting.


----------



## Jon Bradley (Mar 10, 2018)

I have run a 2nd D&D game in college that was low magic. I had to slow down the level progression by a XP multiplier. 

If I were to run/play it again, I would use FantasyCraft by Crafty Games instead of D&D to accomplish it. I could easily emulate GoT more to make it work. 

With FantasyCraft, I can have either arcane or divine magic by itself or have neither if need be. Unlike D&D where magic is baked into the batter, FantasyCraft with magic is like an extra layer of frosting on a multi-tiered cake.


----------



## MarkB (Mar 10, 2018)

The thing is, _Lord of the Rings_ isn't a low-magic campaign. As a setting conceit, magic items are supposedly super-rare, but the protagonists pick them up at a hefty rate. Gandalf and Aragorn come pre-stocked with magic swords, the hobbits get magic weapons out of the first dungeon they raid, Frodo gets magic armour in Rivendell, and magic items are handed out like candy in Lothlorien. That's just in the first book, and I didn't even mention the Rings.

The issues with low-magic campaigns in D&D are largely logistical, a matter of not having the expected tools to deal with certain resistances and immunities. If you have that covered through careful monster choice or adjustment, you should be fine.


----------



## Tranquilis (Mar 10, 2018)

Low magic AND low levels both combine to make my favorite combination.  A natural “governor”, though, is low level.  A level cap of 6 (like in the old d20 E6 game variant) or 10 will naturally curtail some of the magic shenanigans.

I like the resource management aspects, hirelings... and the actual threat and fear of death.

I know we are taking fantasy here, but for me magic can really stress my suspension of disbelief.  Example: clerical healing and commoner death.  If every low-level NPC cleric could cast Cure Light Wounds, peasants would be beating the temple doors down -much less for Raise Dead and Resurrection.

I’m about to the point I don’t like clerical magic at all, and would rather convert what few spells I like from divine to arcane.


----------



## AmerginLiath (Mar 10, 2018)

I think that the problem is that video games and modern action movies, sources from which many fantasy fans draw character inspiration nowadays, focus by necessity on confrontation. That requires the protagonist to have enough power (and that power to be retain or regenerate, not just be one-off). By comparison, classic sword & sorcery fiction, Tolkien, older films, and even games like 1st Edition AD&D look to avoid confrontation by limiting powers and resources and relying on how/when to use those resources.

Running a low-magic D&D game means looking more to heist films than action blockbusters (how the Hobbit “trilogy” recast Tolkein’s own heist as an action romp makes for odd lesson). Consider the party as the sort of experts of an Ocean’s Eleven cast, working together to better the sum of their parts. In this case, a wizard’s magic returns to being a toolkit instead of being artillery — but the story also doesn’t call for him to be artillery. High magic games are just the fantasy version of big weapon games, and those exist when the story calls for the heroes playing Schwarzenegger or Stallone strolling through the dungeon making quips as they blow orcs away.


----------



## CubicsRube (Mar 10, 2018)

Are you aware theres a 5e ogl product out there that addresses most of these concerns?

Adventures in middle earth, by the guys who have the licence to the official lord of the rings rpg


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 10, 2018)

> I should think some readers have tried low-magic medieval-style campaigns. How well did they work out?




I’ve done it in a few systems, and IMHO, system matters.  The more you have to do to “gimp” a game’s system, the more trouble you’ll have.  Since most incarnations of D&D default to medium/high magic...  In contrast, campaigns in RPGs like GURPS or HERO can be set at a wide variety of magic levels.  

Going “low magic” in a D&D type system, I’ve done things like eliminate full casting classes in favor of half casters (sometimes with expanded spell lists) OR houseruled that no PC could take more than half of their levels earned after 3rd in full casting classes.

Also, you need to be careful about how you define “low-magic” and sell it to players.  Some hear “low magic” and think that just means magic is generally rare, but can still be powerful.  There might be only 6 true Artifacts in the world, but they may still harness world-shaking power.

Others, OTOH, might think that “low magic” means magic is relatively commonplace but not very powerful.  A fireball might be the pinnacle of war magic.  “Spellcasters” would need to round out their skill sets to be effective adventurers.

Still others may define “low magic” as being both rare and low in power.  As above, no adventurer worth his salt will be able to rely on magic as his main shtick.  They’ll use it to reinforce strengths, compensate for weaknesses, or have an unexpected trick up their sleeve.


----------



## Mercule (Mar 10, 2018)

Arilyn said:


> The problem of Christmas tree characters and Monty Haul campaigns date back to the origin of DnD. You can't blame the proliferation of magic on video games. Many other rpgs, after all, manage fine with little or no magic.



This is true, as far as it goes -- Monty Haul is as old as the game, itself. I do think, however, that video games have aggravated things, though.

Maybe it's not video games, but there's something. I ran 1E and 2E games that were very low magic and very slow advancement (name level took a couple years) and no one complained. That's in addition to most of the AD&D levels being "dead" levels, so all you got were some hit points. Since 3E, it seems like there's an expectation that PCs will actually hit 20th level and they often seem to have their advancement all planned out, with multiclassing and feat selection.


----------



## Arilyn (Mar 10, 2018)

Mercule said:


> This is true, as far as it goes -- Monty Haul is as old as the game, itself. I do think, however, that video games have aggravated things, though.
> 
> Maybe it's not video games, but there's something. I ran 1E and 2E games that were very low magic and very slow advancement (name level took a couple years) and no one complained. That's in addition to most of the AD&D levels being "dead" levels, so all you got were some hit points. Since 3E, it seems like there's an expectation that PCs will actually hit 20th level and they often seem to have their advancement all planned out, with multiclassing and feat selection.




Could be a positive feedback loop. The old video games had slow level up too, but then as players wanted more from their rpgs, video games increased the goodies, causing rpg players wanting more, and so on.


----------



## Mercule (Mar 10, 2018)

Arilyn said:


> Could be a positive feedback loop. The old video games had slow level up too, but then as players wanted more from their rpgs, video games increased the goodies, causing rpg players wanting more, and so on.



Not sure I find that feedback loop to be positive, but point taken.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 11, 2018)

Tranquilis said:


> I’m about to the point I don’t like clerical magic at all, and would rather convert what few spells I like from divine to arcane.




In my 2E with tons of house rules campaign I'm still running all these years on, the gods are dead. There is magical healing but no raising.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 11, 2018)

MarkB said:


> The thing is, _Lord of the Rings_ isn't a low-magic campaign. As a setting conceit, magic items are supposedly super-rare, but the protagonists pick them up at a hefty rate. Gandalf and Aragorn come pre-stocked with magic swords, the hobbits get magic weapons out of the first dungeon they raid, Frodo gets magic armour in Rivendell, and magic items are handed out like candy in Lothlorien. That's just in the first book, and I didn't even mention the Rings.




Backing you up, there's LOTS of magic in LotR. What there isn't are things like instantaneous travel, magical flight in control of the protagonists, area effect death/control, and other things like that. Magic is all around but it's slow and for the most part has been forgotten or is dying out.




> The issues with low-magic campaigns in D&D are largely logistical, a matter of not having the expected tools to deal with certain resistances and immunities. If you have that covered through careful monster choice or adjustment, you should be fine.




_Adventures in Middle Earth_ by Cubicle 7 is a 5E port of _The One Ring_, designed for Middle Earth. The fact that you can only Long Rest in a sanctuary and that things like area effect death/control are essentially non-existent change the feel a lot.


----------



## Tranquilis (Mar 11, 2018)

Mercule said:


> This is true, as far as it goes -- Monty Haul is as old as the game, itself. I do think, however, that video games have aggravated things, though.
> 
> Maybe it's not video games, but there's something. I ran 1E and 2E games that were very low magic and very slow advancement (name level took a couple years) and no one complained. That's in addition to most of the AD&D levels being "dead" levels, so all you got were some hit points. Since 3E, it seems like there's an expectation that PCs will actually hit 20th level and they often seem to have their advancement all planned out, with multiclassing and feat selection.




Bingo.  It’s not hard to understand players pining for that next level or two, then the next, and the next, so they can unlock feat trees, class abilities, etc.

It feeds into my nascent theory that 3e + games with their myriad character options actually are more restrictive.  Example:  Twenty plus years ago, we’d ask the DM if we could attack every mook surrounding us in a desperate situation.  Now, you have to have three or so feats to do it “by the book”.   Without the “false choices”, players are more comfortable with who their character is in their mind instead of on paper...

... Of course, that bit assumes at least a bit of Theater of the Mind, which, surprisingly (?), sadly (?) isn’t even given a second thought by Paizo’s Bonner in a recent thread regarding PF 2e.  It goes to show you how times have changed (can be found here in one of the PF 2e news threads, or on Paizo.xom itself.


----------



## Arilyn (Mar 11, 2018)

Mercule said:


> Not sure I find that feedback loop to be positive, but point taken.




Positive feedback in the scientific sense, with no value judgement attached.


----------



## CubicsRube (Mar 11, 2018)

Aa others have saod about lotr, moddle earth is a place rife woth magic, but that magic is in items and in places


Also the magoc ogself is much more suntle most of the time, causing fear, making illusions, foretell8ngs of the future and contacting people from afar.

This is a magic id love to see more of in a fantasy rpg as an alternative to d&d style fireballs. AiME seems to have made a solid step in this direction

Op, im not sure if this is derailing the thread and if so i apologise.


----------



## Von Ether (Mar 11, 2018)

Honestly, this is sort of a tempest in a teapot.

IF you insist on using AD&D and beyond, you keep your campaigns short and use lower levels. Better yet, use Basic D&D or one of the OSR versions.

Better yet, don't use D&D. Pendragon is a prime example since it provides a rich game with some of the most hardcore restrictions. Players are knights who only adventure during the summer. Magic is purely NPC and GM effects. Your PCs quickly age and the player has to become more concerned over the legacy, and bloodline, they create than just one dude and his treasures. During college it was one my most popular campaigns.

The "secret" is more than just getting player buy-in. It's by providing more than just the rote gaming experience. Eberron was a good example of that with its motto "High adventure, low levels," with fights on top trains and such.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 11, 2018)

AmerginLiath said:


> I think that the problem is that video games and modern action movies, sources from which many fantasy fans draw character inspiration nowadays, focus by necessity on confrontation. That requires the protagonist to have enough power (and that power to be retain or regenerate, not just be one-off).



That has very little do with it. You just need the ability to support confrontation that isn't resolved through magic.

From a design standpoint, if you want everyone to contribute on a regular basis, then you should never have a character who can _only_ contribute through magic. If there's a wizard class, then they need to be able to do something _useful_ when they aren't casting spells.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 11, 2018)

MarkB said:


> The thing is, _Lord of the Rings_ isn't a low-magic campaign. As a setting conceit, magic items are supposedly super-rare, but the protagonists pick them up at a hefty rate. Gandalf and Aragorn come pre-stocked with magic swords, the hobbits get magic weapons out of the first dungeon they raid, Frodo gets magic armour in Rivendell, and magic items are handed out like candy in Lothlorien. That's just in the first book, and I didn't even mention the Rings.




Absolutely correct.  While in theory 'Middle Earth' is a low magic setting, the story itself does not equate to a low magic campaign.   The protagonists are special, and this specialness is frequently marked by the acquisition of magic items, which then become associated with their characters.



> The issues with low-magic campaigns in D&D are largely logistical, a matter of not having the expected tools to deal with certain resistances and immunities. If you have that covered through careful monster choice or adjustment, you should be fine.




Agreed, though in the long run, this works both ways.   As the PC's level up, even if you are careful to keep magic items out of their hand, if they have spell casters or magic at all, the problem becomes maintaining some sort of parity between the world you've envisioned - with its widespread vulnerability to magic - and the PC's with their salient prowess in it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 11, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> From a design standpoint, if you want everyone to contribute on a regular basis, then you should never have a character who can _only_ contribute through magic. If there's a wizard class, then they need to be able to do something _useful_ when they aren't casting spells.




IMHO, there’s nothing wrong with glass cannons, but I recognize I’m an exception in that regard.  Then again, I don’t mind playing casters who throw a lot of daggers & darts, use crossbows, etc.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 11, 2018)

In 4e, running "low magic" or LotR-style is perfectly straightforward.

Of non-D&D fantasy RPGs that I'm familiar with, HeroQuest revised, Cortex+ Heroic and Burning Wheel all have no trouble with low magic.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 11, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> IMHO, there’s nothing wrong with glass cannons, but I recognize I’m an exception in that regard.  Then again, I don’t mind playing casters who throw a lot of daggers & darts, use crossbows, etc.



I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but the wizard with a crossbow is exactly what I was getting at. If a wizard can still contribute to combat in a meaningful way, by firing that crossbow, then you can have as much combat as you want and the wizard won't ruin the low-magic tone by casting spells non-stop.

If a wizard is not contributing with that crossbow, because they're probably going to miss and a successful hit deals trivial damage anyway, then you're stuck with the design dilemma of raising the magic level so they can always cast spells _or_ turning that character into a bystander for half of the encounters.


----------



## Stef McCarter (Mar 11, 2018)

I'm running a game right now for my son and his brother and sister (ages 6-10) and all of them are new to D&D but they are levels 3/4/4 and they have a total of 3 magic items in their group (not counting potions).  My son who plays a thief/wizard has a staff of spell storing, his sister who is a thief has a dagger of venom and his brother who is a fighter/thief has a short sword of quickness and they all think the world of their magic items.  I have found when the group has fewer magic items they mean more to the group.  I have always run a low magic world.  I originally created this world back in 1989 (senior year of high school) and play it in 1st, 2nd, 3rd and now 5th edition.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Mar 11, 2018)

8th level cleric? Dude, Gandalf was a fifth-level magic user.

It was in Dragon so you know it's true.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 11, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but the wizard with a crossbow is exactly what I was getting at. If a wizard can still contribute to combat in a meaningful way, by firing that crossbow, then you can have as much combat as you want and the wizard won't ruin the low-magic tone by casting spells non-stop. If a wizard is not contributing with that crossbow, because they're probably going to miss and a successful hit deals trivial damage anyway, then you're stuck with the design dilemma of raising the magic level so they can always cast spells _or_ turning that character into a bystander for half of the encounters.





This is a very good point. The late 5E onwards addition of things like "at will" magic blasts was done primarily to allow caster type characters to have something to do in between casting their limited number of Vancian spells. Even crossbow wizard was not a thing in 1E and 2E, though dagger or dart throwing wizard was not. Still they weren't that good at hitting, though overall attacks weren't _that_ differentiated at the time. Still, the popularity of multiclass casters should indicate the issues that single classed wizards faced.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 11, 2018)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> 8th level cleric? Dude, Gandalf was a fifth-level magic user. It was in Dragon so you know it's true.




That was a fantastic bit of satire.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 11, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but the wizard with a crossbow is exactly what I was getting at. If a wizard can still contribute to combat in a meaningful way, by firing that crossbow, then you can have as much combat as you want and the wizard won't ruin the low-magic tone by casting spells non-stop.
> 
> If a wizard is not contributing with that crossbow, because they're probably going to miss and a successful hit deals trivial damage anyway, then you're stuck with the design dilemma of raising the magic level so they can always cast spells _or_ turning that character into a bystander for half of the encounters.




Whether or not they deal significant damage or even hit, I still view _the attempt_ as meaningful contribution.  Ditto the use of grenade like projectiles (which, depending on the caster and his projectile choices, may be even more effective).  Part of that is because 1) nobody hits all the time and 2) by conserving spells until they’re needed, they get a lot more mileage out of their resources.

*Now, that’s in standard D&D mid/high level magic campaigns.*

But in a low-magic setting- depending on the particular type of low magic we’re discussing- that caster may have even fewer magical resources, and therefore must rely more on non-magical actions.  That’s why I used the restrictions I did in low-magic D&D games (mentioned upthread): the half casters are already built with those other resources as part of their classes; the leveling restrictions ensured that the PCs would have more HP and better accuracy in combat.

And, as always, there are build decisions that will have significant long-lasting effects on the efficacy of a given caster.  If you’re taking a lot of spells that require ranged attack rolls, like rays, you’re going to be better with ranged weapons than the typical caster.  If I build a character like that, I try to make sure they have access to LOTS of ranged weapons.  A single class dip to expand weapon proficiencies coupled with a Quiver of Ehlonna filled to the brim makes for a magic-slinger who can at least make enemies reconsider the pros and cons of closing the distance as he flings spears and javelins.

Or remember the Knowledge Devotion Feat?


> Knowledge Devotion:  One Knowledge skill of your choice is a class skills (KS:Religion) regardless of the class you are advancing. Whenever you fight a creature, you can make a Knowledge check based on its type, provided that you have at least one rank in the appropriate Knowledge skill, gaining an insight bonus on Att/Dam rolls against that creature type for the remainder of the combat.
> Arcana: constructs, dragons, magical beasts
> Dungeoneering: aberrations, oozes
> Local: humanoids
> ...




Either dipping into skill monkey classes or just using the amount of bonus skill points due to casters’ general penchant for above average intelligence turns this into a nice boost to attack & damage.

Similarly the Reserve Feats and Alternative Class (or Race) features that granted additional/at-will minor magical options have an outsized effect in low-magic campaigns.  (Once the PC is of sufficient level to gain their benefit, of course.)


----------



## EthanSental (Mar 11, 2018)

Here here for the class of 89!!  Similar edition play for me as well.  Sounds like a fun campaign and passing it along to the next generation too!


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 11, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Whether or not they deal significant damage or even hit, I still view _the attempt_ as meaningful contribution.  Ditto the use of grenade like projectiles (which, depending on the caster and his projectile choices, may be even more effective).  Part of that is because 1) nobody hits all the time and 2) by conserving spells until they’re needed, they get a lot more mileage out of their resources.
> 
> But in a low-magic setting- depending on the particular type of low magic we’re discussing- that caster may have even fewer magical resources, and therefore must rely more on non-magical actions.  That’s why I used the restrictions I did in low-magic D&D games (mentioned upthread): the half casters are already built with those other resources as part of their classes; the leveling restrictions ensured that the PCs would have more HP and better accuracy in combat.




One problem is the fact that D&D, especially 1E and 2E, had very limited ways for such characters to contribute _meaningfully_ because of how niche protected D&D is. Rattling away on a crossbow that misses most of the time isn't that fun for many players. Their defenses were poor, too, so they couldn't take much of a beating either. Grenades---the ever popular flaming oil---and pets like wardogs were the low level single class wizard in those games. Small wonder many people played multiclass wizards. 

In games that simulate genres that don't have casters being strong on the battlefield, such as swords and sorcery, you will often see them picking up some combat abilities. In modern D&D, as you say, half casters. In 2E, bards fit the bill.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 11, 2018)

Part of the “meaningful” equation is situational...as in, dependent on target selection and weapon of choice.  If you’re aiming your crossbow at the Death Knight, no, you’re probably not being helpful.

OTOH, if you fire at its cadre of low-level undead squires using 2-hand swords, you might wind up saving the front-line fighters a handful of potentially seriously damaging hits.

Strategically casting a Grease spell before lobbing a firebomb may mean you don’t even have to get close to your target.


----------



## Fandabidozi (Mar 11, 2018)

‘...as encouraged by video games (where you can never lose).’ 
I must be doing all kinds of things wrong


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 12, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Part of the “meaningful” equation is situational...as in, dependent on target selection and weapon of choice.  If you’re aiming your crossbow at the Death Knight, no, you’re probably not being helpful.OTOH, if you fire at its cadre of low-level undead squires using 2-hand swords, you might wind up saving the front-line fighters a handful of potentially seriously damaging hits.




Certainly the case that this is situational, although I do think that the DM often needed to make sure that there were such targets around. I guess my point is that there was a reason the magical at will dink got invented. 




> Strategically casting a Grease spell before lobbing a firebomb may mean you don’t even have to get close to your target.




Yes, this is old skool wizardry at its best. The wizard really had to wait for their opportunity. The problem I think was that having so limited a resource either meant the DM had to hand out a lot of magical gear, making a low magic game obviously beside the point, or do some very careful encounter design.  

That said, I played in a pretty low magic game more than once. In one 2E game the PCs were a fighter, a bard (custom class modeled on the original _Bard's Tale_ bard, not the book 2E bard), a paladin, and a thief. We often had an NPC or henchman of some sort but that was the core group of PCs. I had intended to play a wizard but he got killed in the first session and ended up playing the bard instead. I really enjoyed that game. There were some notable challenges due to our lack of area effect attacks and general paucity of magical healing; the bard and paladin had some interesting quasi-magical powers that were much more subtle than would have been typical, though. We socially engineered our way out of more than one encounter by playing "let's you and him fight" and of course used things like flaming oil. Again, that was highly dependent on the group of players and DM, all of whom were very experienced.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 12, 2018)

> I guess my point is that there was a reason the magical at will dink got invented.




Sure- player complaints!  There were many who wanted their spellcasters to be doing magic _all the time_ because- to them- throwing a dart or dagger didn’t seem “wizardy” enough.

I mean, it’s REALLY obvious looking at the earliest versions of the at-will magical attacks (besides the Warlock’s) were only marginally better than using a ranged weapon.  And that’s ignoring the resources you needed (Feats, class features, levels) in order to obtain them, in comparison to the weapons that were readily available for mere GP.

Don’t get me wrong- I used some of those for builds.  But I only did it when it fit the PC concept.  Otherwise...look out for my badass wizard wearing twin bandoliers of throwable stuff...


----------



## Von Ether (Mar 12, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sure- player complaints!  There were many who wanted their spellcasters to be doing magic _all the time_ because- to them- throwing a dart or dagger didn’t seem “wizardy” enough.
> 
> I mean, it’s REALLY obvious looking at the earliest versions of the at-will magical attacks (besides the Warlock’s) were only marginally better than using a ranged weapon.  And that’s ignoring the resources you needed (Feats, class features, levels) in order to obtain them, in comparison to the weapons that were readily available for mere GP.
> 
> Don’t get me wrong- I used some of those for builds.  But I only did it when it fit the PC concept.  Otherwise...look out for my badass wizard wearing twin bandoliers of throwable stuff...




Well, that and other thrown stuff use other attributes than Intelligence. There also a reason that 5e finesse weapons "carry" a 3e feat that many said was mandatory for Rogues. And why High Strength/Mediocre Dex Fighters who like swords and axes get pouty if they have to use a bow.

Many players want to capitalize on the attribute they invested their concept in. 

I'm sort of surprised that someone didn't come up with a masterwork "Wind of Mind" bow that you could buy at the shop and used a wielder's intelligence bonus for ranged attacks. In 3e, you could have just made a new material to do the job. 

Either way, it's a bit ironic for some GMs who don't like Primes now. If they had only made up a "Wind of Mind" bow house rule after hearing their players complained about using their +1 or +0 Dex mods to fire bows after using up spell slots.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 12, 2018)

Von Ether said:


> Well, that and other thrown stuff use other attributes than Intelligence. There also a reason that 5e finesse weapons "carry" a 3e feat that many said was mandatory for Rogues. And why High Strength/Mediocre Dex Fighters who like swords and axes get pouty if they have to use a bow.
> 
> Many players want to capitalize on the attribute they invested their concept in.
> 
> ...




Arguably, something like that should have been the core of the Arcane Archer.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 12, 2018)

Heh.  Monty Haul campaigns got brought up earlier as examples of earlier edition campaigns that were hardly low magic.

Funny think is, the term "Monty Haul".  There are precious few gamers alive today who've actually seen Monty Hall outside of a youtube clip.  Ask the majority of gamers out there who Monty Hall is, and they have no idea.  Long, long before their time.  Yet, as a description of D&D campaigns, it shows up pretty much from day 1.  So, the notion of there being any sort of change in how the game is played really ignores history.  "Loot Drops" and tons of goodies for the players was part of D&D right from the start.  

Computer games didn't start this.  They learned this from D&D.

All that aside, we also have the problem of what is actually meant by "low magic".  As was mentioned, LotR is hardly low magic.  It's got lots of magic items, lots of magical creatures, and well, the Macguffin is a highly magical artifact.  The majority of scenes in LotR involves magic of some sort - whether it's the races like Elves and Nazgul, or all the times the Ring is used, or the times that Glamdring or magic glowing orc detection swords pop up.

What does low magic actually mean?


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Mar 12, 2018)

Hussar said:


> All that aside, we also have the problem of what is actually meant by "low magic".  As was mentioned, LotR is hardly low magic.  It's got lots of magic items, lots of magical creatures, and well, the Macguffin is a highly magical artifact.  The majority of scenes in LotR involves magic of some sort - whether it's the races like Elves and Nazgul, or all the times the Ring is used, or the times that Glamdring or magic glowing orc detection swords pop up.
> 
> What does low magic actually mean?




Low magic in terms of Tolkien meant little or no spellcasting. For the most part, magic was passive or from an ancient time. As best I can remember, the only characters in the books who used any actual magic spells/energy/whatever were the three Wizards. And I do not think Radagast used any in the books, regardless of what he did in the movies.


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 12, 2018)

Hussar said:


> What does low magic actually mean?



That's a good question, and one which I sometimes struggle with myself.
E.g. I always think of Ars Magica's Mythic Europe setting as low-magic. Sure, it's a game which focuses on Magic in all its forms and Magi playing a central role. But despite their ability to cast powerful high-level magic, it's not defining the setting. Magi are rare and bound by strict rules, so everyday life isn't affected by them at all.

I think it's somewhat similar with Middle-Earth. Perhaps 'Sparse Magic' would describe it better?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 12, 2018)

Hussar said:


> All that aside, we also have the problem of what is actually meant by "low magic".  As was mentioned, LotR is hardly low magic.  It's got lots of magic items, lots of magical creatures, and well, the Macguffin is a highly magical artifact.  The majority of scenes in LotR involves magic of some sort - whether it's the races like Elves and Nazgul, or all the times the Ring is used, or the times that Glamdring or magic glowing orc detection swords pop up.
> 
> What does low magic actually mean?




Like I said earlier, there are at least 3 flavors of low-magic: rare (but still potentially powerful); weak (regardless of ubiquity); rare + weak.  I’m sure with some thought, more could be defined.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 12, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Like I said earlier, there are at least 3 flavors of low-magic: rare (but still potentially powerful); weak (regardless of ubiquity); rare + weak.  I’m sure with some thought, more could be defined.




I think that's a fairly reasonable starting place.  I mean, Conan is a pretty low magic setting, at least it's primarily rare (but potentially powerful).  D&D has always struggled with this, simply because, unlike most low(ish) magic settings, you have magic using classes.  It's pretty hard to have a low magic campaign when your PC's are about 5th level or higher and half the group (the MU, the cleric and the Fighter/MU) is standing there chucking out spells on a pretty regular basis.

And, of course, while that references magic as in spells, what about fantasy elements?  Are undead "magic"?  Demons?  Orcs?  Medusa?  Even if we have a purely non-caster group, the setting might still be pretty high magic with fantasy races mingling with mundane races on a regular basis.


----------



## Von Ether (Mar 12, 2018)

I think one has to focus on what "low magic" means in relation to the PCs and their capabilities.  The discussion leans more towards the mechanics (what PCs can do with less magic) than what form magic takes in the setting. 

Again, Pendragon is a fairly mythical setting, but powerful magic is something that affects them, not something they can control. In some ways, it's no different than a Conan game where there maybe zero magic in evidence until the last boss fight. 

If the players can't use it as a resource, it's a low magic game. Magic items in this case are more like your levels of technology for the game. The GM controls their access. A Modern game is usually low magic, but there's not much practical difference between a flying carpet and a plane - both let the PCs travel long distances quickly and/or can be affected by outside event (sabotage, weather, etc) for complications. 

In a lot of low level fantasy games, guns are the only difference stopping the campaign from becoming the Wild West.


----------



## MarkB (Mar 12, 2018)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Low magic in terms of Tolkien meant little or no spellcasting. For the most part, magic was passive or from an ancient time. As best I can remember, the only characters in the books who used any actual magic spells/energy/whatever were the three Wizards. And I do not think Radagast used any in the books, regardless of what he did in the movies.




There are a lot of examples of Elven 'magic' in the books that the elves themselves don't consider particularly magical, but which clearly is from the viewpoint of everyone else. Elrond summoning the waters of the Bruinen to sweep away the ringwraiths, then using his powers to draw the shard of the morgul blade from Frodo's wound. Galadriel using her Mirror to peer into the past and future. Legolas running lightly across snow that even the tiny hobbits sink into neck-deep.

Then there are things like Aragorn using Athelas herbs to cure people cursed by Ringwraiths. He'd consider it a skill taught to him and a virtue of the herb itself, but it's at least strongly implied that it would have been nowhere near as effective in anyone else's hands.

And when Frodo cries "O Elbereth! Glithoniel!" to drive back a Ringwraith or Shelob, is he merely invoking a name that causes them fear, or is he empowering those words with his own faith in combination with the One Ring and/or the Vial of Galadriel as his holy symbol to Turn the evil forces back?

Basically, there's loads of magic going on in the books, much of which the D&D rules clearly draw inspiration from, but which isn't explicitly called out as "spellcasting".


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 12, 2018)

MarkB said:


> Basically, there's loads of magic going on in the books, much of which the D&D rules clearly draw inspiration from, but which isn't explicitly called out as "spellcasting".




I think that's the key issue.  Magic is pervasive in Middle Earth, but the idea of magic as it is encapsulated in D&D spellcasting is largely actually superstition in Middle Earth.   Magic as it exists in D&D spellcasting largely does not exist, rather, it is how ignorant people imagine magic works.  This creates a really big problem when you are trying to kludge classes like Wizard or Cleric into Middle Earth.  

It's important to note that most of the most 'magical' seeming beings in Middle Earth either don't understand the word magic or think the word is meaningless and misapplied.  In fact, in order to discuss magic in middle earth with any degree of accuracy, we'd probably need to develop a specialized language that dealt with the different categories of things that the ignorant called 'magic'.

Magic in middle earth is never really explained but as best as we can tell it depends on a combination of authority (what your nature gives you the right to do), skill (how you've developed or trained your nature), and lore.  Lore seems to fall into two categories, either advanced technology or the knowledge of the true names of things which is probably the name they were given in the song of the Ainur that shaped Middle Earth.  Knowledge of those true names seems to be the closest to what we'd recognize in D&D as a spell, and thus Gandalf's assertion that he used to know all the 'spells of opening' combined with the fact the when he performs these 'spells' what he's really doing is just basically saying "open up" in different languages.

It's important to note that not only can people have authority, but they can apparently invest authority into objects.  Ultimately 'The One Ring' is just a bunch of Sauron's authority invested into an object, combined with the fact that it also has authority over all the authority the other races invested in the other rings of power (which was Sauron's scam in the first place).   Gandalf can do fire magic, largely because he has a ring that the elves invested their authority over fine in.   And the elves have authority over fire because there is a sense where they are 'in' the world in the way that humans are not.

The reverse problem with introducing 'spellcasting classes' into Middle Earth is that you are silo'ing off magic as the exclusive domain of some, when in fact most magic doesn't work that way.


----------



## Koloth (Mar 12, 2018)

I would think that a low magic game would be easier to manage then the normal high magic game.  Once spells/abilities like teleport show up, why does anyone bother with fortified locations?  A castle is a several year project.  One mage with teleport easily bypasses.  Death and serious injury become minor inconveniences.  Pull most magic away, either it is only low power and/or very rare, and the game becomes far more Earth medieval in style.  Convincing players that are used to having characters wield castle busting magic that a low magic game can be fun is another issue.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 12, 2018)

Hussar touched on one of the more difficult things about running most forms of “low-magic” in D&D: the innately magical creatures the PCs may face.

Besides making some unique creatures of legend into whole species (thereby decreasing their rarity) some creatures (regardless of origins) are possessed of abilities and- most importantly- defenses that make magic use a requirement to stand any chance against them.  That can be a difficult balancing act to manage.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Mar 12, 2018)

MarkB said:


> Basically, there's loads of magic going on in the books, much of which the D&D rules clearly draw inspiration from, but which isn't explicitly called out as "spellcasting".




Lots of magic item activation or things that are innate to a race or bloodline, but almost no actual spell casting. And many of the magic items were created hundreds, or even thousands, of years in the past.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Mar 12, 2018)

To answer the OP, low magic campaigns work excellent with the right system. They are one of my favourite kinds of games, because they make magic feel "magical" again. I dont think 5e works for low magic however, well, not without removing or modding 75% of it (at which point you're not playing 5e anymore).


----------



## Wrathamon (Mar 12, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but the wizard with a crossbow is exactly what I was getting at. If a wizard can still contribute to combat in a meaningful way, by firing that crossbow, then you can have as much combat as you want and the wizard won't ruin the low-magic tone by casting spells non-stop.
> 
> If a wizard is not contributing with that crossbow, because they're probably going to miss and a successful hit deals trivial damage anyway, then you're stuck with the design dilemma of raising the magic level so they can always cast spells _or_ turning that character into a bystander for half of the encounters.





Give them a cantrip called Throw Darts that uses the wizards Int to hit instead of Dex. They're smart and know how to aim.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 12, 2018)

Wrathamon said:


> Give them a cantrip called Throw Darts that uses the wizards Int to hit instead of Dex. They're smart and know how to aim.



This isn't fourth edition.

And it should go without saying that the _first_ thing you must do to enable a low-magic campaign setting (that still has PC spellcasters in it) is to throw out the whole concept of cantrips. At-will magic has no place in a low-magic world.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 12, 2018)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Low magic in terms of Tolkien meant little or no spellcasting. For the most part, magic was passive or from an ancient time. As best I can remember, the only characters in the books who used any actual magic spells/energy/whatever were the three Wizards. And I do not think Radagast used any in the books, regardless of what he did in the movies.



As I recall Radagast doesn't appear in the books, he's just referenced. Galadriel uses magic when she scries in her pool, although arguably she's one of the most powerful non-Valar in Middle Earth. Less grandiose, the "dwarves of old" who "made mighty spells" after all. In the case of the dwarves, ancient wasn't really that long back, even: Erebor was settled by Thrain only about 400 years before the Hobbit (more or less). There are some other examples, such as Queen Beruthiel of Gondor and of course the many constructions of both the Dunedain, Dwarves, and Elves. What _rarely_ happens is spectacular spellcasting. Really only Gandalf seems to be able to do that. In addition, part of the whole story is the death of magic in the world and the passing of the marvelous and diminishment of the elves and dwarves.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 12, 2018)

Psikerlord# said:


> To answer the OP, low magic campaigns work excellent with the right system. They are one of my favourite kinds of games, because they make magic feel "magical" again. I dont think 5e works for low magic however, well, not without removing or modding 75% of it (at which point you're not playing 5e anymore).



The 5E chassis works just fine for pretty low magic: _AIME_ is definitely recognizable as being 5E without there being any caster classes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 12, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> And it should go without saying that the _first_ thing you must do to enable a low-magic campaign setting (that still has PC spellcasters in it) is to throw out the whole concept of cantrips. At-will magic has no place in a low-magic world.




At-will magic is fine as long as it isn’t significantly more powerful than mundane options.  An at-will darts cantrip can’t easily be negated, and it doesn’t run out, but it’s range is limited.  And if you use it while incarcerated, your jailers may opt to _literally_ disarm you.

Furthermore, if the at-will ability works like a 3.5 Reserve Feat, that means the caster has to tie up resources in order to have it available...it isn’t free, and it probably has an explicit or implied level requirement.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 13, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> At-will magic is fine as long as it isn’t significantly more powerful than mundane options.  An at-will darts cantrip can’t easily be negated, and it doesn’t run out, but it’s range is limited.



That's not low-magic, though. The difference between a darts cantrip and just darts is that one of them is gratuitous magic, which goes against the tone of a low-magic setting. You're not playing in a low-magic setting if your resident spellcaster is literally throwing magic in every round of every encounter.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 13, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> That's not low-magic, though. The difference between a darts cantrip and just darts is that one of them is gratuitous magic, which goes against the tone of a low-magic setting. You're not playing in a low-magic setting if your resident spellcaster is literally throwing magic in every round of every encounter.




It depends on which version of “low-magic” is being used.  If the darts at-will is among the most powerful magical abilities in the world, then yes, that IS low magic.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 13, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It depends on which version of “low-magic” is being used.  If the darts at-will is among the most powerful magical abilities in the world, then yes, that IS low magic.



Eh. I get what you're saying, but I still wouldn't consider that to be low-magic. If magic isn't powerful, but it's very common, then that all balances out and it's still average-magic over all. The last three editions of D&D have all been _absurdly_ high-magic settings.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Mar 13, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> The 5E chassis works just fine for pretty low magic: _AIME_ is definitely recognizable as being 5E without there being any caster classes.




Yes but it needed a whole new book to do it


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Mar 13, 2018)

Psikerlord# said:


> Yes but it needed a whole new book to do it




Yes, but it is a very good book, with only a couple of little flaws in the class ability sections. And the fact that it does it with the OGL/SRD and not all of the 5E rules makes it more impressive.


----------



## Brooding Paladin (Mar 15, 2018)

I think The One Ring has done a great job capturing a low-magic setting.  I haven't quite convinced myself, though, that the mechanics transport well to a different setting.  That is, if you were to try to run a Conan-style setting with it, it might feel a little forced given how wrapped into the Middle Earth setting everything is.  That wasn't what they were going for, obviously, so don't interpret that as criticism; just something I've been musing.

I appreciate the conversation on all this.  I'm a big fan of low-magic, slow progression campaigns and pulled some good ideas out of this.


----------



## CubicsRube (Mar 16, 2018)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Yes, but it is a very good book, with only a couple of little flaws in the class ability sections. And the fact that it does it with the OGL/SRD and not all of the 5E rules makes it more impressive.




Im really impressed with what aime have done with 5e, and i cant wait to run it.

Makes me like to see what else can be done with the 5e ogl. Although itd never happen id love to see an l5r 5e ogl


----------



## Matt Kruse (Mar 16, 2018)

You can very easily run this kind of campaign, in Pathfinder, by giving out a bonus feat at every character level to your player characters and by keeping the characters fairly mundane as far as playable classes go (by limiting the choices of  playable character classes to those with little to no access to "magic" abilities), though this is up to the GM.  It will take some tweeking of rules mechanics.  Essentially the extra bonus feats and leveling can replace the "finding magical drops/ loot". This keeps players interested by still providing something to enable chasing their video-game-learned power-up fix.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 16, 2018)

Matt Kruse said:


> You can very easily run this kind of campaign, in Pathfinder, by giving out a bonus feat at every character level to your player characters and by keeping the characters fairly mundane as far as playable classes go (by limiting the choices of  playable character classes to those with little to no access to "magic" abilities), though this is up to the GM.  It will take some tweeking of rules mechanics.  Essentially the extra bonus feats and leveling can replace the "finding magical drops/ loot". This keeps players interested by still providing something to enable chasing their video-game-learned power-up fix.




Hmmm...

Cutting full casters’ spells known & slot acquisition rates paired with an increase in bonus Metamagic/Reserve(/Crafting?) Feats might work.  The trick is figuring out the balance.  Fewer & less powerful spells reduces punch but is offset by increased flexibility.


----------



## TheSword (Mar 16, 2018)

Cut spell casters out of PC roles completely. Concentrate on balancing classes against each other and then tailor the campaign to their capabilities.

We’re loving AiME and it really isn’t converted much. The spell casting variant classes scholar and warden are very poor and have been ignored.


----------



## Joerg Baumgartner (Mar 16, 2018)

A somewhat heretical way to keep the players engaged is to allow them to accrue magical properties for their existing gear. By using the sword in a heroic way to slay a major monster, the player may inherit a bonus using this sword against this class of monsters.
No idea how well this could sit with a class- and level-obsessed game in the D20 family. Few of my fantasy games had magical artillery, but that was due to the choice of the game system, and some slight limitations to material for the artillery spells. If the material components for your area effect mass destruction spell costs the equivalent of a small castle, you might be glad to have it but reluctant to use it.


----------



## Alexander Kalinowski (Mar 16, 2018)

lewpuls said:


> The fundamental problem with a low magic campaign is that people have been "trained" to expect high magic by video RPGs and MMOs, and by video games in general, that are often designed to reward rather than challenge players. In other words, the low magic campaign will feel much too "tame", too dull, too slow, too "lame". Yes, it can be just as dangerous as any other campaign, but I suspect most players are not looking for danger any more when they play RPGs, again as encouraged by video games (where you can never lose).




And yet Game of Thrones is a raging success, so I have to question your assumption _a bit_. But then again I might not be the right person to ask - I occasionally have to bite my tongue to not openly mock high magic games, particularly when they are reminiscent of World of Warcraft, which I find just corny, tacky, terrible.


----------



## Vanveen (Mar 16, 2018)

Tolkien is a potentially misleading comparison, as the Silmarillion and other early works are full of magic. LOTR represents a world in which much of that magic is gone or slowly leaking out.

The real fun of a low-magic campaign has to come from Wonder/Discovery, which is the players discovering and/or being surprised by the world and its history. For most DMs, especially younger ones, this can be difficult. It takes time and practice, and honestly if your source for this sort of thing is anime or computer games, it's going to be awful. Those are not deep or thoughtful enough, and if you think they are, you need to read more. Tolkien works because Middle-Earth is so firmly based in literature: the Kalevala, the Nibelungenlied, Gawain and the Green Knight, the Lay of Maldon. Or you could go the George RR Martin route or the Robert E Howard route, relying on the interaction of colorful NPCs and political groups to provide that complexity. This is one of the reasons I prefer older editions or OSR over things like Pathfinder. In systems like Pathfinder, the foundational structure of the game is about loot, whether it's magical or the Flying Tornado of Two Swords That's Awesome And I Beat My Brother's Character With It feat.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 16, 2018)

Psikerlord# said:


> Yes but it needed a whole new book to do it




It would not be hard to replicate most of it with 5E just by restricting the playable classes to barbarian, fighter, rogue, and various multiclasses. The more scholarly and leader roles would be hanging open I think one might need to do a bit of work to make a non-caster bard and a scholar of some type, but I don't think that would be too difficult and it's quite possible to do a fair bit just by judicious multiclassing. For a leader-ish rogue type, take the Mastermind archetype, while a leaderish warrior can be done with the Battlemaster. Some useful feat selections, such as Inspiring Leader, also help. These would lead to a "no magic PCs" but ones that felt pretty heroic. 

If you want to allow for some low end magic, allow the more caster archetypes such as the Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster and the Paladin and Ranger. 

One huge thing that probably should be done is to make Long Rests more difficult.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 16, 2018)

TheSword said:


> Cut spell casters out of PC roles completely. Concentrate on balancing classes against each other and then tailor the campaign to their capabilities.
> 
> We’re loving AiME and it really isn’t converted much. The spell casting variant classes scholar and warden are very poor and have been ignored.




I played a warden briefly and there's a scholar in the _AIME _side campaign I run. I think there are some rough aspects to their design that are carryovers from 5E, but they've both been effective and useful and wouldn't need a huge amount of smoothing out. My warden character was missed when I took over the campaign.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 16, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Eh. I get what you're saying, but I still wouldn't consider that to be low-magic. If magic isn't powerful, but it's very common, then that all balances out and it's still average-magic over all. The last three editions of D&D have all been _absurdly_ high-magic settings.




I think one needs to separate out the game effect from the description. If the At Will "Wizard's Darts" was more described as being particularly keen accuracy it wouldn't be too bad. The Wizard would simply be a better shot than one would ordinarily expect given his physicals. 

IMO things like fireball, magical walls, teleport, flight, magical light, and so on are the real feel busters. By contrast, divination, ritual conjuration (especially with potentially dire consequences), enchantment of various sorts, buffs and debuffs, and maybe some limited illusions can fit in nicely.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 16, 2018)

Looking at a different novel series- Harry Turtledove’s _Darkness_ saga that reskinned the events of WWII as a fantasy world’s war- you see a different kind of world that I personally consider a kind of low-magic setting- the rare but powerful kind.  There is seemingly lots of magic, but little of it is flashy.  You won’t se any flying wizards; Tim the Enchanter is right out.

For instance, there are strange beasts we would not deem out of place in a Monster Manual, but few, if any, are above an animal’s level of intelligence, and none speak or use magic.  Even the dragons ridden in war are large and powerful, fire-breathing beasts...and nothing more.

Learning magic itself is not easy.  Spellbooks are uncommon, and are often inaccurate, making the practice fraught with disappointment (from spells that don’t work) and danger (from magical backfires).  Many people can do minor magics a la D&D’s Mending spell if they can learn them.  There are magical means of mass production for some goods, but the items created thusly are cheap and low quality.  There are minor necromantic rituals that let soldiers on the battlefield recharge their “Sticks” (essentially, firearm analogs that are minor magical force-projectile staves) with the life forces of the fallen.  But that’s about the sum total of common magic.  

Serious magic requires arduous study, and takes a lot of time.  As a result, most magic seen in the series is in the form of objects: the aforementioned Sticks of various sizes; the “Eggs” (bombs) dropped from on high by dragons and their riders, flung from catapults, or used like landmines; “Crystals” (radio/videophones) and “Rest Crates” (stasis freezers) are the most common .  There is a gigantic iceberg-like ship similar to the real-world Project Habakkuk. There are no fast and easy “combat” spells.

Flashier spells do exist, but they are time consuming, and often require the cooperation of several mages.  IOW, they are not the purview of the adventuring mage (not that any really exist in the series).  There is an analog for the atomic bomb, for instance, but the spell requires so much time and cooperation, it is done in secret, far behind the front lines.  The Nazi final solution is likewise altered into a necromantic ritual that powers something akin to nerve gas, again as rituals performed by groups of hidden casters.  This makes the use of either both rare and disruptable.

And in one case, the intervention of some seemingly _divine_ but unseen protective force completely foils the attempted spell.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Mar 16, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> It would not be hard to replicate most of it with 5E just by restricting the playable classes to barbarian, fighter, rogue, and various multiclasses. The more scholarly and leader roles would be hanging open I think one might need to do a bit of work to make a non-caster bard and a scholar of some type, but I don't think that would be too difficult and it's quite possible to do a fair bit just by judicious multiclassing. For a leader-ish rogue type, take the Mastermind archetype, while a leaderish warrior can be done with the Battlemaster. Some useful feat selections, such as Inspiring Leader, also help. These would lead to a "no magic PCs" but ones that felt pretty heroic.
> 
> If you want to allow for some low end magic, allow the more caster archetypes such as the Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster and the Paladin and Ranger.
> 
> One huge thing that probably should be done is to make Long Rests more difficult.




Just use the week long variant?


----------



## Age of Fable (Mar 17, 2018)

Does the Game of Thrones RPG do this? From the books and show you'd assume it would.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 17, 2018)

Lord of the Rings fools us into thinking it's low magic compared to D&D because it's mostly a lot less flashy. Gandalf is the only one who's all PEW PEW LAZERZ with his fire and lightning. Galadriel, Saruman and Sauron probably think he's vulgar.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 17, 2018)

Age of Fable said:


> Does the Game of Thrones RPG do this? From the books and show you'd assume it would.




In a sense.

In another sense, Game of Thrones could be seen as a case in point for why low magic doesn't really work in an RPG.

Anyone with a dragon is a world power.   If low magic means rare magic, it just guarantees that anyone with magic can faceroll the ones that don't.


----------



## Von Ether (Mar 17, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I think one needs to separate out the game effect from the description. If the At Will "Wizard's Darts" was more described as being particularly keen accuracy it wouldn't be too bad. The Wizard would simply be a better shot than one would ordinarily expect given his physicals.
> 
> IMO things like fireball, magical walls, teleport, flight, magical light, and so on are the real feel busters. By contrast, divination, ritual conjuration (especially with potentially dire consequences), enchantment of various sorts, buffs and debuffs, and maybe some limited illusions can fit in nicely.




Once you separate out game mechanics, it seems to be a lot more confusion on what a "low-magic" setting is based on a person's sense of disbelief. Most modern games are "low magic," but cell phones and Google can blow most D&D spells about communication and divination out of the water. 

You could give a D&D party a couple of magic items as walkie-talkies and some would say it's high magic. But if you gave them literal walkie-talkies, they'd be cool with it as technology. 

For me, beyond what players can do. Magic=tech and a "low magic" discussion is more relevant to what PCs can do in that setting. It could be a science fantasy setting and PC could access the same "magic items" as everyone else, but if they can't fling fireballs or teleport without a teleport circle, it's "low magic" to me.


----------



## Slit518 (Mar 17, 2018)

I am not going to read all 9+ pages of the thread.

But my suggestion for a low-magic world using D&D 5e rules.

First, allow characters to gain spells up to spell level 3rd if they wish to play a caster.

Second, allow them to cast those spells at higher levels, so for example my Wizard can not access 4th level spells or higher!  But he can cast his Fireball at 3rd - 9th level depending on how powerful he is.

Third, if you allow magic items, I suggest common, uncommon, and maybe +1 for weapons and armor at the highest levels.  These should be sparse things.

Magic casters should be rare!  The part should not encounter enemy Wizards, Sorcerers, Druids, Clerics, etc... all the time.  And the party should be limited to 1 caster, maybe 2 if the 2nd character is a half to third caster.

Offer spell less Ranger and Paladin options.

Bar the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster sub-classes.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 18, 2018)

Von Ether said:


> Once you separate out game mechanics, it seems to be a lot more confusion on what a "low-magic" setting is based on a person's sense of disbelief. Most modern games are "low magic," but cell phones and Google can blow most D&D spells about communication and divination out of the water.




Yeah, that's why I suggest that people think about it, particularly in the sense that magic is often a substitute for technology. The real question is whether there are things like rapid communication, fast travel, area effect control, etc., is possible. If it is, how common is it? If it's super rare and mostly out of reach, that will ensure a more pre-modern feel.


----------



## Eltab (Mar 18, 2018)

The 4e *Ashes of Athas* campaign did a nice job with a setting where Magic Items were rare, highly coveted, and likely to bring multiple Overwhelming Forces down on whoever possessed it - and therefore YOU were low-magic even though there was high magic available.

Approximately 1/level, if you accomplished the scenario goal, you got the opportunity to add a spell-like power to your character that duplicated a magic item's abilities.

I still have a druid that can run atop the Sea of Silt.  (This would be _Wave Runner Boots_ in any other world - or _Silt Runner Sandals_ on Athas.)


----------



## Eltab (Mar 18, 2018)

Doug McCrae said:


> Gandalf is the only one who's all PEW PEW LAZERZ with his fire and lightning.



And Gandalf, stuck up a tree and dropping flaming pine cones on worgs, even grumbles "Now I have just written 'GANDALF IS HERE' in plain words for anybody who can read the signs."


----------



## Jon Bradley (Mar 18, 2018)

Age of Fable said:


> Does the Game of Thrones RPG do this? From the books and show you'd assume it would.




There are only a couple of pages on it in the game. Mostly it relates to being caught up in Omens, Portents, Greensight and the like. There is not much in the game beyond that about it.


----------



## Jon Bradley (Mar 18, 2018)

FantasyCraft takes a different approach. 

One of the aspects of the Crafty game engine is Campaign Qualities where you set up the game you want to run. Two of these options include Miracles (divine magic) and Sorcery (arcane magic). Under both are a cascade of options you can use to flavor them being allowed in the game. 

As an example for Miracles, one is titled Wrathful Universe which basically means if you break your god's oath as a Priest then you get cursed. One of the Curse options involves a permanent negative modifier to all attack checks, skills checks and saves until Atonement occurs.

Some of the examples for Sorcery have some bearing on the discussion here. You can choose to eliminate some schools of magic from being available entirely. They just gone and do not exist which makes finding a school with a single spell from that school so much more worthy. Another could be making it more difficult to cast all magic spells perhaps by doubling the casting time or lowering the save DCs for those resisting. 

I prefer a third option for this discussion. What if Magic was corrupting? What if every time a PC cast a spell they had to make a Save equal to 10 plus double the Spell level so for a 3rd level Spell they have to make a DC 16 Save (or triple it so this would be a DC 19 Save)? Failure means they start gaining levels of Taint that only dissolve after so much time. Too many levels of Taint and your PC suddenly becomes a permanent NPC.

Alternately, you can just not active Miracles or Sorcery and thus remove Priests and Mages along with any associated classes from the game entirely. This is more difficult, as noted above, because higher levels practically require you to have magic or magic items just to survive. Once you cross 10th level, it becomes more difficult. I know I played in a 3.5 game with a fighter who did not believe in using a lot of magic items. In fact, he only had 3 when the game ended around 15th level: a magic flail, a ring of protection and a bag of holding. Yeah, he died quite a bit but I was trying to make it work as best as possible.

FantasyCraft has some differences from both D&D and Pathfinder which make it a better fit for running low magic or no magic campaigns. It uses a spell point system for arcane magic, an actual Spellcasting skill and is multi-attribute dependent for Mages. There is no dump stat in the Crafty engine either so you really pay for min-maxing yourself out. Also, skill heavy or non-combat focused characters can still affect things during combat with regularity including inducing an opponent to suffer stress damage. Yes, this is another type of damage but so worth it.

As an example, there was a story I read of a group of 7 FantasyCraft PCs playing their first game. The group included 4 combat heavy PCs, 2 combat capable and a very non-combat Courtier class (or the most dangerous person in a castle, Cersei from GoT is a solid example). They were making their way down a forest path when they were ambushed by a goblin warband which doubled their number and lead by a goblin shaman. The Courtier, due to a character option taken in chargen, got to act in the Ambush round and won the initiative over the goblins. They used their single action to Threaten (a combat action using the Intimidate skill) the goblin shaman and they crit succeeded. The goblin shaman failed his check, suffered Stress damage and the GM rolled for Morale which the shaman failed. It took off running forcing a general morale check which most of the goblins failed so they followed. Regular initiative order started up with 7 PCs vs 1 lone goblin who made his check. The Courtier still had the highest initiative and reminded the goblin of what happened causing it to run away. 

I used this example because it demonstrates FantasyCraft does allow you to critically succeed using Skills and non-combat characters can use interpersonal options in combat such as Threaten, Distract, Tire, Taunt and Anticipate.

With the options available in FantasyCraft, I very easily can run a low or no magic campaign without worry. On the first page of this discussion, compared magic to be like an extra layer of icing on a cake. It is an apt description.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 18, 2018)

Eltab said:


> And Gandalf, stuck up a tree and dropping flaming pine cones on worgs, even grumbles "Now I have just written 'GANDALF IS HERE' in plain words for anybody who can read the signs."



Definitely, especially given the fact that he's pretty much the only one around who _can_ do that sort of thing, given that he has the Ring of Fire. Beyond that, _The One Ring_ and the 5E port _AIME_ has the "Eye of Sauron" rule.


----------



## Eltab (Mar 18, 2018)

IIRC - and I may not - Gandalf had a ring of healing and endurance*, not of Fire.  What did you use as an information source?

* Cirdan had given him one of the Three Elven Rings.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 18, 2018)

Eltab said:


> IIRC - and I may not - Gandalf had a ring of healing and endurance*, not of Fire.  What did you use as an information source?
> 
> * Cirdan had given him one of the Three Elven Rings.



I’m not a LotR scholar, so I went to the Wiki.



> Narya
> 
> The first ring, Narya, was adorned with a red gemstone, perhaps a ruby. It is seen in the final chapter of The Lord of the Rings, along with the other two Elven rings. But unlike them, it is not said what metal Narya was made of.
> 
> ...





And from what I understand, Círdan looked a bit like this...
View attachment 95363


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Mar 19, 2018)

Eltab said:


> IIRC - and I may not - Gandalf had a ring of healing and endurance*, not of Fire.  What did you use as an information source?
> 
> * Cirdan had given him one of the Three Elven Rings.




Source: I've read _LotR_ and assorted other books many times, but it's in Wikipedia:  Elven Rings. 

Gandalf had Narya, the Ring of Fire, which was given to him by Cirdan the Shipwright in the Gray Havens. It had the ability to strengthen his spirit along with giving him powers of, well, fire. That's why he's able to do all the way-cool fireworks in Hobbitton, too.

The others were held by Elrond and Galadriel and were part of why they were able to maintain Imladris and Lorien as havens.


----------

