Has anyone tried to run a campaign or one shot in which magic was reduced? Not so much removed all together, but a little bit more difficult to use at full capacity. How did you design your system.
What I was thinking was maybe some rules along the lines of:
No full caster classes (bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, wizard).
No component pouches and arcane focuses are rare (no one starts with one).
Magic items and scrolls exist, but may require you to have spell slots of a certain level available to your character before you can attune to them.
The purpose of the first rule is basically to cap the level of spells at 5th level. The second rule means that characters who do want the be magic focused need to think about collecting items early on in the campaign. The third rule gives room for powerful magic (beyond 5th level) to still be used, but requires the players to find an artifact of some sort first, and be trained to some degree in magic in order to use them.
Obviously these rules nerf magic pretty hard, but still leaves the options available to players. What do you think? Are these rules too harsh? Are there any ways you can think of that might help to boost casters in a campaign like this so that they aren't completely outshined by the martial classes?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
If you want a low magic world, I think it's a better angle to simply say "the party can only have one wizard" and "no bards or druids".
Here's my worry about nerfing magic: How much are you punishing the mage in the party when it comes to game balance? How much do you want to make them regret being a wizard? The more you make it hard mechanically to be a wizard the more you're just punishing the player. If you believe the game is generally balanced, then you run into some potential stress as that one wizard is gumming up the game.
Another angle is that some "Magic" doesn't have to be magic. You might have to review spells but a lot of divine spells in particular and a many bardic effects can be written off as literally the power of Charisma or even true Divine interventions.
In theory you can keep the mechanics the same but you work with the players to find the balancing point for the theme of the world. Someone else hit the "magic is mistrusted". That can theme can run through without changing mechanics and you still have a lot of good Role play to remind players that this is a low magic world.
One change to soften magic would be to require hit dice to be expended to regain spell slots. Roll one or more hit dice during an appropriate rest (short for warlock, long for everyone else), regain that number of total spell slot levels. Hand in hand with that, I would:
1) Only allow hit dice from spellcasting classes to be used on these spell recharge hit dice rolls (no rolling a barbarian d12 to refuel your slots, but ok to roll ranger/paladin/eldritch knight d10's).
2) Really enforce the rule that you only regain up to half your level hit dice (round down, minimum 1) with a long rest, you don't just reset EVERYTHING to full. And on top of that, I would enforce it by class level, not by character level: a Wizard 2/Barbarian 2 would get up to1 d6 wizard die back on a long rest, even though the normal long rest rules would allow them to regain both based on total character level.
This would have the effect of making spellcasters less prevalent, without actually nerfing their combat effectiveness or the balance of any spells and abilities as written. It just makes it much more likely that players and characters in the world gravitate towards non-spell-slot dependent professions.
You might want to balance magic's rarity by also making it more effective due to people's limited exposure? Maybe have spell DC's start at 9 or 10 +proficiency+attribute, instead of at 8+.
In a campaign that one of my friends is running, she is made the game universe one where something like a Wild Magic surge can happen with every spell above a cantrip. The way to bypass the surge potential in-game is to get your hands on special gems and expend those instead. She is also using the rule variant where short rests take 8 hours and long rests take 3 days.
An idea I'm working on is a campaign where the only magic that the PCs get access to is Bard magic. However, I would also be further nerfing them by turning them into farm animals early in the game. They know this is going to happen, so it's not so much unfair as it is an opportunity to push other means of problem-solving. Part of their challenge is to find out which of their spells they can cast without being able to manipulate objects with hands or speak like they did as humanoids.
I think the problem I have had since I have started playing 5e more often is everyone and their grandmother can cast spells. It seems like every class has spell casting subclasses. I seem to remember back in the day you wanted to be a fighter with magic you would multiclass. I think if you nerf magic to much players will not even want to play a magic user, I would never be a magic user in a world I had to be a sheep :/. The best way is to limit what people can play. If you ran a star wars RPG you wouldn't expect everyone to play a Jedi.
In a campaign that one of my friends is running, she is made the game universe one where something like a Wild Magic surge can happen with every spell above a cantrip. The way to bypass the surge potential in-game is to get your hands on special gems and expend those instead. She is also using the rule variant where short rests take 8 hours and long rests take 3 days.
The variant you speak of is called "Gritty Realism", it's in the DMG, and the long rests are supposed to be a week long.
I'm planning on doing a campaign with these rules (gritty realism I mean). As a general result, everyone will probably rely more on martial aptitude and skills than spells, because a full week to regain your spell slots is quite a lot. Except Warlocks, but I like it that way (and it fits the campaign very well). Spellcasters can still cast ritually, which is something I really like, and that goes well with the idea of "slower magic". I was of the idea that 1 week a long rest is too much, and I read on reddit that it's nice, because it gives a different pace, and it allows more uses of downtime activities (which are 1 week long quite often)
I think it's a nice way to implement "low-magic" only by using approved rules. I will probably use some homebrew rules as well, such that prepared spell casters can change their list of known spells at the end of a short rest (of 8 hours) because I think they would loose a lot of the benefits of the prepared spellcasting otherwise.
An other good idea I had for magic items (in this world) is that they are not found, but "magic item scrolls" are found instead. These scrolls are recipes (using the rules from XGtE) to create a magic item, but are destroyed when used.
I think if you nerf magic to much players will not even want to play a magic user, I would never be a magic user in a world I had to be a sheep :/. The best way is to limit what people can play. If you ran a star wars RPG you wouldn't expect everyone to play a Jedi.
What I meant was that, for this one campaign, Everybody would be turned into a farm animal, not just the magic-users. So that part is not a special limitation to choosing classes. Also, it's intentionally an all Bard/Rogue campaign anyway.
I think if you nerf magic to much players will not even want to play a magic user, I would never be a magic user in a world I had to be a sheep :/. The best way is to limit what people can play. If you ran a star wars RPG you wouldn't expect everyone to play a Jedi.
What I meant was that, for this one campaign, Everybody would be turned into a farm animal, not just the magic-users. So that part is not a special limitation to choosing classes. Also, it's intentionally an all Bard/Rogue campaign anyway.
ohhh ok that would make a big difference, in that case yeah that would be kind fun to have to figure out how to do things.
I would love to play in or even run this style of campaign. Off the top of my head I think I wouldn’t allow full casters, that way players still get to have magic, just not the game breaking magic. Or maybe allow martial classes only but anyone can cast a spell if they find an ancient ritual book or take the magic initiate feat.
I’ll have to give this more thought for the next campaign I run.
If I was going to change anything I would take every spell that is on the wizard spell list of every other class spell list. The only class who can cast fireball the wizard. Can can charm a person. The wizard. All the other classes could still have there flavor spells like healing for clerics. That way magic would be real magic. Every thing else would be from a god or innate powers. The only way another class can get wizards spells is a dip in wizard. And they would get spells based if there wizard lvl only when they cast them at higher lvls or to get anything else based off levels saves ect this would also make magic items not only more rare but be able to be a little more powerful to accomadte the magic shift. I think doing this would make it like earlier editions of D&D. Is just an thought. Thanks
A low magic campaign is something I've always wanted to try but never had the chance. As far as whether your ideas for such a campaign are "too harsh", that simply depends on what you and your players have agreed upon. Of course, before starting any campaign a DM and their players should discuss what everyone wants and expects from the campaign. Make sure everyone understands what the new rules are and how their characters will be affected. This way everyone can make an informed decision and everyone will be in agreement beforehand.
BigLizard's five rules are a great start. I would like to offer a few more possibilities, all of which are of course just my two cents:
* Perhaps consider reducing the number of magic items a character can attune to to just one.
* Maybe only allow one arcane caster and one divine caster per group. So - one wizard and one cleric or druid. No more.
* Also, anyone playing one of the casters must write out and submit to you in advance a backstory explaining how their character acquired their magical powers.
* Enforce downtime required for attaining new spells and new levels. Even if you earn enough XP during an adventure to advance a level and learn new spells or gain new spell slots, you won't actually get to use those new powers until you have returned to your Temple or your Academy and spent time training and learning to harness those new powers. Let's say one week of downtime per spell slot level. So when a wizard earns enough XP to make 5th level, they'll still only have access to 4th level capabilities until they have spent at least 6 weeks at the Magic Academy learning to harness their two new 3rd level spell slots.
* For rangers and paladins, I would recommend not delaying their magic, but rather flattening it out. What I mean is, at each level where they gain access to a new level of spells, they instead gain access to just ONE spell of that level. So they each gain access to one new spell at levels 2, 5, 9, 13, and 17. To balance this reduction I would consider making a few of their abilities into standard class abilities. For example, just give rangers Hunters Mark for free. Not as a spell, but rather as just a non-magical ability honed from years of hunting. Paladins are already O.P.A.F. so they don't really need any other boost.
* Even for full casters, perhaps establish a maximum spell level. For example, there simply are no spells above 5th level. At higher levels the casters instead gain only skills or feats or some other homebrew special ability.
* The idea of strictly enforcing exact spell components needed for each casting of every spell will seriously impact casters! Also, all spell components are always consumed by the casting of the spell. "Jump" is only a 1st level spell, but... how many grasshopper's hind legs do you have? "Identify" requires a pearl worth at least 100 gp. How many 1st level characters have 100 gp to spend?
* Regarding spell components... This one's fun!!! Certain components simply require time and effort to find. Sure, roll a Survival check to locate some grasshoppers, then roll a Dex check to see if you can catch one. Cool, you can now cast "Jump". If you want to cast "Fireball" you have to drudge through caves harvesting bat guano. But you also need sulfur. Where do you get sulfur? Maybe from an alchemist. Where do you get a pearl worth at least 100 gp? Probably from a jeweler. These are unusual purchases that may arouse suspicion. "What do you need it for?" is something your casters will hear a lot. And maybe since magic is so rare and dangerous most people are suspicious and fearful of casters. So maybe if you're not careful in acquiring your spell components, one of your sources might tell the town guard what you tried to buy. And maybe you get hauled in for questioning... or worse. Maybe you arrive in a new town and see a Wanted poster bearing a likeness of your caster and offering a 100 gp reward for turning the "witch" over to the authorities. Playing up the superstitious fears of the general populace will not only make the casters feel special, it will teach them to keep their powers hidden.
A lot of great ideas have been shared on this thread already, but the bottom line is this: as long as your players are all aware of the new rules, and they all agree to it, you're fine. It's a game. Have fun!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tayn of Darkwood. Lvl 10 human Life Cleric of Lathander. Retired.
Ikram Sahir ibn Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad, Second Son of the House of Ra'ad, Defender of the Burning Sands. Lvl 9 Brass Dragonborn Sorcerer + Greater Fire Elemental Devil.
Viktor Gavriil. Lvl 20 White Dragonborn Grave Cleric, of Kurgan the God of Death.
I find the table presence of 5e to be very disruptive to role-playing because every situation seems to have a spell based solution and because most everyone is a caster, whatever spell is needed, someone usually has. I find it rather frustrating as a GM and what makes it worse is that modern gamers are really touchy about creating any kind of restrictions or alterations to the core rules in particular when it comes to class options. The wierd thing is that 5e is actually a pretty great system for alteration. Its super modular to a point where even using the core optional rules in the DMG, I can turn a 5e game into a 1e game. The problem is that whatever core rules there are, the expectation is that they will all, always be used. Modern gamers are ok with adding stuff, but not removing or altering official core rule stuff. As an old school GM, I find that situation frustrating to the point that I just generally rather play in a 5e game rather then run one unless its for my kids who couldn't possibly care any less about what the rules are.. they just do what they want and I apply the rules as I see fit and they are fine with it. Kids make great role-players in that way.
I feel your pain.
I am not DMing right now, but in my group that is about to start a campaign we have one player, a very old friend of mine, who has always been a fan of more options. Now, options are not bad, per se, but they are options, and as such, allowing them is up to the DM/GM/referee/etc. And the thing about this friend is, if it's option, he wants it. There are 5 subclasses in the core rules but one in the optional rules? He will want to play the optional one, just because it is new, different, rare, etc. It's not about min-maxing necessarily (although it is often the case that optional things are such because the designers realize they could be potentially unbalancing, and the DM needs to be aware of it). I remember when UA first came out back in the day, he got it and immediately campaigned that we should add all of it -- 100% -- unaltered, into our existing campaign. We rotated DMs in those days and nobody else even had the book... and the options may not have even mattered for his character. None of that mattered -- it's more options so let's add them! More is always better!
Probably the biggest difficulty with all the various options and especially the incredible proliferation of magic in 5e, is that if everyone just uses all of them as written, then every campaign, every game world, ends up being essentially the same. It should be possible to tell you are on Middle-Earth because divine magic doesn't exist here... or in The Land because there are only Transmutation and Evocation spells but no other types. Yet, as you say, if I were to outlaw clerics or Conjuration spells, long before anyone even came up with a character concept that needed those things, this friend (and probably many other players) would object. The idea that you take a subset of the rules and use them to make your universe as part of the world-building process... seems to have fallen more and more by the wayside with each passing year.
As a player I always loved customized worlds with special rules restrictions. Tell me that divine magic is allowed but arcane is outlawed so my wizard had better hide his magic skills or risk arrest, and I will salivate at the RP opportunities. I'd make up an arcane character on purpose, just to experience the uniqueness. There are no halflings on this world? OK... I don't have to make one. I'll do a gnome instead. But I have come to see that I am a rare breed. Most players bristle at such restrictions -- apparently seeming not to realize how much more unique and coherent a world can be when you have them.
For my money, I have always preferred low-magic worlds. I would not want to necessarily restrict player classes (though I might restrict races depending on the world). But as an Old School player, I would keep nearly 100% of magic items in dungeons/crypts and other exploration areas, and almost always guarded by something. And if possible the guardian would use the item against the party - you'll have to take that Rod of Lordly Might out of the cold dead hands of the Lich who was using it against you, and so forth. And you're not going to be able to sell it for coin if no one in the party wants it, because magic is not generally sold at a typical storefront. The player characters may be able to cast spells but they'd be the "superheroes" of such a world -- rather than just one of hundreds or thousands of sorcerers, bards, and druids. But that's my preference -- and I realize hardly anyone shares it these days.
* The idea of strictly enforcing exact spell components needed for each casting of every spell will seriously impact casters! Also, all spell components are always consumed by the casting of the spell. "Jump" is only a 1st level spell, but... how many grasshopper's hind legs do you have? "Identify" requires a pearl worth at least 100 gp. How many 1st level characters have 100 gp to spend?
* Regarding spell components... This one's fun!!! Certain components simply require time and effort to find. Sure, roll a Survival check to locate some grasshoppers, then roll a Dex check to see if you can catch one. Cool, you can now cast "Jump". If you want to cast "Fireball" you have to drudge through caves harvesting bat guano. But you also need sulfur. Where do you get sulfur? Maybe from an alchemist. Where do you get a pearl worth at least 100 gp? Probably from a jeweler. These are unusual purchases that may arouse suspicion. "What do you need it for?" is something your casters will hear a lot. And maybe since magic is so rare and dangerous most people are suspicious and fearful of casters. So maybe if you're not careful in acquiring your spell components, one of your sources might tell the town guard what you tried to buy. And maybe you get hauled in for questioning... or worse. Maybe you arrive in a new town and see a Wanted poster bearing a likeness of your caster and offering a 100 gp reward for turning the "witch" over to the authorities. Playing up the superstitious fears of the general populace will not only make the casters feel special, it will teach them to keep their powers hidden.
This is an amazing idea. Having adventures just to get material components just to have certain spells available against the big bad!
As weird as it sounds, you don't have to consider all spells to be magical.
Hunter's Mark for rangers can be seen as focusing on your prey, using your knowledge of weaknesses to increase the lethality of your attacks against it, and subconsciously remembering details to track it better.
And, to me, low magic settings implies that (NPC) spell casters either don't survive long enough to reach high levels, or just retire before doing so. And they (the NPCs) do not use their spells often.
@BigLizard: the Forgotten Realms had multiple large scale disasters because of magic, I guess it validates your point?
I have a rule that when you run out of spell slots you have to make a save or gain one level of exhaustion and you might not be able to cast cantrips or scrolls for a bit. Another one is that when you run out of spell slots, you can still cast magic but you will take damage and take another level of exhaustion. Say, casting a second level spell will deal 2d8 damage and a 3rd level spell would deal 3d8 damage to you. Maybe adjust the level of exhaustion depending on the level of spell too, so if you wanted to cast a 6th level spell when you had no 6th level slots left, you would die.
I’m in a campaign where the DM limits the number of cantrips you can cast. He uses 1/level plus your spellcasting ability modifier. The number resets after a long rest. You have to think a little more tactically and while I had my doubts at first I’ve come to like it. Makes things interesting and less videogamey.
I can understand limiting martial characters to limited magic, but how do work out a Magic user’s ability to cast. That’s how they do everything they are supposed to do in the game. If you take away a fighters magic he can still fight or a clerics he can still fight A magic users magic and he left with a dagger and light crossbow and 20 hit points.
I mean I don't recommend running AD&D, but philosophically it had a pretty cool magic level that I think is very attractive to people and I think that is why the OSR is alive and well today. Its this aspect that keeps people playing AD&D. For the wiser among us, I would say, 5e altered is going to produce a much better game, but it helps to understand the AD&D philosophy and design approach if you are really trying to achieve low magic, low fantasy because that is where it was done best.
Once I got a taste of other games like Champions and Rolemaster, for a while I detested AD&D and its many, often arbitrary-seeming limitations. Having gamed for a much longer time now, I have come to see the wisdom of Gygax and the original designers. By placing all of those seemingly-arbitrary restrictions on nearly every class, not only pure spellcasters, they were keeping the power level down enough that magic always felt special. The balance may not have been perfect, but the limitations were far from arbitrary -- they had their reasons. I've gained a lot more respect for what you (correctly) term "the philosophy and design approach" of the old AD&D system.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
5e however is very flexible and with a little adjustment, its not particularly difficult to bring the game into focus and allow it to represent fantasy as its defined by the books and myth on which the game is based, rather than what it is today, a game based on its own invention.
True but as you pointed out earlier in the thread... players are very touchy about losing options or powers or abilities in any game. On top of that if you are playing with people who got their start in 5e, it is going to be a very tough sell to get them to let you dial back their abilities.
Heck just tonight I was having a text exchange with a friend who is about to start playing in the same online campaign I am. He is making up a sorcerer and is grumbling about how "few" spells Sorcerers get. I had to bite my tongue (fingers) not to remind him what "Magic-Users" were like back in 1st edition. Which he played right along with me back in 1982-83 when we got our start in D&D.
I have not actually played 5e yet... just made up a Bard in prep to play the upcoming campaign. Before that the last I played was whatever amount of 3e they got into NWN... and table-top, last I played was AD&D. But to get ready I have watched some YouTube videos of sessions people have streamed (Chain of Acheron, Critical Role, a few others). One thing that has repeatedly left me in awe is just how much a 1st or 2nd level character can do... between actions, moving, bonus actions, reactions, attacks of opp, etc. I come from a tradition in which moving, attacking, heck even talking -- you could do one thing per melee round. Period. And if you were a spellcaster at 1st level, you had like one spell. For the day. I see these level 1 or 2 characters firing off burning hands, then moving, then taking a bonus action to do something else, then getting a reaction later on in the round, and I'm like -- that's what my 1st level magic-user would have done for an entire play session (OK, I exaggerate, but only a little) and you just did it in one round.
I get why they designed it this way -- it lets new players feel powerful and capable right from the start, and it's more fun to fire off your cantrips than to swing a freaking dagger at an enemy while hoping not to die with your 1d4 hit points and your AC of 10.
But...
I can't help wondering where there is to go from here if characters are doing all this at level 2. The ability to shoot off half a dozen spells in a single battle was something that came after significant learning in AD&D, but it happens on day 1 in 5e. Not sure how much I'm going to like that...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Has anyone tried to run a campaign or one shot in which magic was reduced? Not so much removed all together, but a little bit more difficult to use at full capacity. How did you design your system.
What I was thinking was maybe some rules along the lines of:
The purpose of the first rule is basically to cap the level of spells at 5th level. The second rule means that characters who do want the be magic focused need to think about collecting items early on in the campaign. The third rule gives room for powerful magic (beyond 5th level) to still be used, but requires the players to find an artifact of some sort first, and be trained to some degree in magic in order to use them.
Obviously these rules nerf magic pretty hard, but still leaves the options available to players. What do you think? Are these rules too harsh? Are there any ways you can think of that might help to boost casters in a campaign like this so that they aren't completely outshined by the martial classes?
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I like the idea of a world with less magic in it. It makes magic more magical.
If you want a low magic world, I think it's a better angle to simply say "the party can only have one wizard" and "no bards or druids".
Here's my worry about nerfing magic: How much are you punishing the mage in the party when it comes to game balance? How much do you want to make them regret being a wizard? The more you make it hard mechanically to be a wizard the more you're just punishing the player. If you believe the game is generally balanced, then you run into some potential stress as that one wizard is gumming up the game.
Another angle is that some "Magic" doesn't have to be magic. You might have to review spells but a lot of divine spells in particular and a many bardic effects can be written off as literally the power of Charisma or even true Divine interventions.
In theory you can keep the mechanics the same but you work with the players to find the balancing point for the theme of the world. Someone else hit the "magic is mistrusted". That can theme can run through without changing mechanics and you still have a lot of good Role play to remind players that this is a low magic world.
"Teller of tales, dreamer of dreams"
Tips, Tricks, Maps: Lantern Noir Presents
**Streams hosted at at twitch.tv/LaternNoir
One change to soften magic would be to require hit dice to be expended to regain spell slots. Roll one or more hit dice during an appropriate rest (short for warlock, long for everyone else), regain that number of total spell slot levels. Hand in hand with that, I would:
1) Only allow hit dice from spellcasting classes to be used on these spell recharge hit dice rolls (no rolling a barbarian d12 to refuel your slots, but ok to roll ranger/paladin/eldritch knight d10's).
2) Really enforce the rule that you only regain up to half your level hit dice (round down, minimum 1) with a long rest, you don't just reset EVERYTHING to full. And on top of that, I would enforce it by class level, not by character level: a Wizard 2/Barbarian 2 would get up to1 d6 wizard die back on a long rest, even though the normal long rest rules would allow them to regain both based on total character level.
This would have the effect of making spellcasters less prevalent, without actually nerfing their combat effectiveness or the balance of any spells and abilities as written. It just makes it much more likely that players and characters in the world gravitate towards non-spell-slot dependent professions.
You might want to balance magic's rarity by also making it more effective due to people's limited exposure? Maybe have spell DC's start at 9 or 10 +proficiency+attribute, instead of at 8+.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
In a campaign that one of my friends is running, she is made the game universe one where something like a Wild Magic surge can happen with every spell above a cantrip. The way to bypass the surge potential in-game is to get your hands on special gems and expend those instead. She is also using the rule variant where short rests take 8 hours and long rests take 3 days.
An idea I'm working on is a campaign where the only magic that the PCs get access to is Bard magic. However, I would also be further nerfing them by turning them into farm animals early in the game. They know this is going to happen, so it's not so much unfair as it is an opportunity to push other means of problem-solving. Part of their challenge is to find out which of their spells they can cast without being able to manipulate objects with hands or speak like they did as humanoids.
I think the problem I have had since I have started playing 5e more often is everyone and their grandmother can cast spells. It seems like every class has spell casting subclasses. I seem to remember back in the day you wanted to be a fighter with magic you would multiclass. I think if you nerf magic to much players will not even want to play a magic user, I would never be a magic user in a world I had to be a sheep :/. The best way is to limit what people can play. If you ran a star wars RPG you wouldn't expect everyone to play a Jedi.
The variant you speak of is called "Gritty Realism", it's in the DMG, and the long rests are supposed to be a week long.
I'm planning on doing a campaign with these rules (gritty realism I mean). As a general result, everyone will probably rely more on martial aptitude and skills than spells, because a full week to regain your spell slots is quite a lot. Except Warlocks, but I like it that way (and it fits the campaign very well). Spellcasters can still cast ritually, which is something I really like, and that goes well with the idea of "slower magic".
I was of the idea that 1 week a long rest is too much, and I read on reddit that it's nice, because it gives a different pace, and it allows more uses of downtime activities (which are 1 week long quite often)
I think it's a nice way to implement "low-magic" only by using approved rules. I will probably use some homebrew rules as well, such that prepared spell casters can change their list of known spells at the end of a short rest (of 8 hours) because I think they would loose a lot of the benefits of the prepared spellcasting otherwise.
An other good idea I had for magic items (in this world) is that they are not found, but "magic item scrolls" are found instead. These scrolls are recipes (using the rules from XGtE) to create a magic item, but are destroyed when used.
My homebrew feat for thrown weapons, feat to help DMs extend Sorcerer's spells known list, and my homebrew combo monk subclass (diablo inspired)!
What I meant was that, for this one campaign, Everybody would be turned into a farm animal, not just the magic-users. So that part is not a special limitation to choosing classes. Also, it's intentionally an all Bard/Rogue campaign anyway.
ohhh ok that would make a big difference, in that case yeah that would be kind fun to have to figure out how to do things.
I would love to play in or even run this style of campaign. Off the top of my head I think I wouldn’t allow full casters, that way players still get to have magic, just not the game breaking magic. Or maybe allow martial classes only but anyone can cast a spell if they find an ancient ritual book or take the magic initiate feat.
I’ll have to give this more thought for the next campaign I run.
If I was going to change anything I would take every spell that is on the wizard spell list of every other class spell list. The only class who can cast fireball the wizard. Can can charm a person. The wizard. All the other classes could still have there flavor spells like healing for clerics. That way magic would be real magic. Every thing else would be from a god or innate powers. The only way another class can get wizards spells is a dip in wizard. And they would get spells based if there wizard lvl only when they cast them at higher lvls or to get anything else based off levels saves ect this would also make magic items not only more rare but be able to be a little more powerful to accomadte the magic shift. I think doing this would make it like earlier editions of D&D. Is just an thought. Thanks
A low magic campaign is something I've always wanted to try but never had the chance. As far as whether your ideas for such a campaign are "too harsh", that simply depends on what you and your players have agreed upon. Of course, before starting any campaign a DM and their players should discuss what everyone wants and expects from the campaign. Make sure everyone understands what the new rules are and how their characters will be affected. This way everyone can make an informed decision and everyone will be in agreement beforehand.
BigLizard's five rules are a great start. I would like to offer a few more possibilities, all of which are of course just my two cents:
* Perhaps consider reducing the number of magic items a character can attune to to just one.
* Maybe only allow one arcane caster and one divine caster per group. So - one wizard and one cleric or druid. No more.
* Also, anyone playing one of the casters must write out and submit to you in advance a backstory explaining how their character acquired their magical powers.
* Enforce downtime required for attaining new spells and new levels. Even if you earn enough XP during an adventure to advance a level and learn new spells or gain new spell slots, you won't actually get to use those new powers until you have returned to your Temple or your Academy and spent time training and learning to harness those new powers. Let's say one week of downtime per spell slot level. So when a wizard earns enough XP to make 5th level, they'll still only have access to 4th level capabilities until they have spent at least 6 weeks at the Magic Academy learning to harness their two new 3rd level spell slots.
* For rangers and paladins, I would recommend not delaying their magic, but rather flattening it out. What I mean is, at each level where they gain access to a new level of spells, they instead gain access to just ONE spell of that level. So they each gain access to one new spell at levels 2, 5, 9, 13, and 17. To balance this reduction I would consider making a few of their abilities into standard class abilities. For example, just give rangers Hunters Mark for free. Not as a spell, but rather as just a non-magical ability honed from years of hunting. Paladins are already O.P.A.F. so they don't really need any other boost.
* Even for full casters, perhaps establish a maximum spell level. For example, there simply are no spells above 5th level. At higher levels the casters instead gain only skills or feats or some other homebrew special ability.
* The idea of strictly enforcing exact spell components needed for each casting of every spell will seriously impact casters! Also, all spell components are always consumed by the casting of the spell. "Jump" is only a 1st level spell, but... how many grasshopper's hind legs do you have? "Identify" requires a pearl worth at least 100 gp. How many 1st level characters have 100 gp to spend?
* Regarding spell components... This one's fun!!! Certain components simply require time and effort to find. Sure, roll a Survival check to locate some grasshoppers, then roll a Dex check to see if you can catch one. Cool, you can now cast "Jump". If you want to cast "Fireball" you have to drudge through caves harvesting bat guano. But you also need sulfur. Where do you get sulfur? Maybe from an alchemist. Where do you get a pearl worth at least 100 gp? Probably from a jeweler. These are unusual purchases that may arouse suspicion. "What do you need it for?" is something your casters will hear a lot. And maybe since magic is so rare and dangerous most people are suspicious and fearful of casters. So maybe if you're not careful in acquiring your spell components, one of your sources might tell the town guard what you tried to buy. And maybe you get hauled in for questioning... or worse. Maybe you arrive in a new town and see a Wanted poster bearing a likeness of your caster and offering a 100 gp reward for turning the "witch" over to the authorities. Playing up the superstitious fears of the general populace will not only make the casters feel special, it will teach them to keep their powers hidden.
A lot of great ideas have been shared on this thread already, but the bottom line is this: as long as your players are all aware of the new rules, and they all agree to it, you're fine. It's a game. Have fun!
Tayn of Darkwood. Lvl 10 human Life Cleric of Lathander. Retired.
Ikram Sahir ibn Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad, Second Son of the House of Ra'ad, Defender of the Burning Sands. Lvl 9 Brass Dragonborn Sorcerer + Greater Fire Elemental Devil.
Viktor Gavriil. Lvl 20 White Dragonborn Grave Cleric, of Kurgan the God of Death.
Anzio Faro. Lvl 5 Prot. Aasimar Light Cleric.
I feel your pain.
I am not DMing right now, but in my group that is about to start a campaign we have one player, a very old friend of mine, who has always been a fan of more options. Now, options are not bad, per se, but they are options, and as such, allowing them is up to the DM/GM/referee/etc. And the thing about this friend is, if it's option, he wants it. There are 5 subclasses in the core rules but one in the optional rules? He will want to play the optional one, just because it is new, different, rare, etc. It's not about min-maxing necessarily (although it is often the case that optional things are such because the designers realize they could be potentially unbalancing, and the DM needs to be aware of it). I remember when UA first came out back in the day, he got it and immediately campaigned that we should add all of it -- 100% -- unaltered, into our existing campaign. We rotated DMs in those days and nobody else even had the book... and the options may not have even mattered for his character. None of that mattered -- it's more options so let's add them! More is always better!
Probably the biggest difficulty with all the various options and especially the incredible proliferation of magic in 5e, is that if everyone just uses all of them as written, then every campaign, every game world, ends up being essentially the same. It should be possible to tell you are on Middle-Earth because divine magic doesn't exist here... or in The Land because there are only Transmutation and Evocation spells but no other types. Yet, as you say, if I were to outlaw clerics or Conjuration spells, long before anyone even came up with a character concept that needed those things, this friend (and probably many other players) would object. The idea that you take a subset of the rules and use them to make your universe as part of the world-building process... seems to have fallen more and more by the wayside with each passing year.
As a player I always loved customized worlds with special rules restrictions. Tell me that divine magic is allowed but arcane is outlawed so my wizard had better hide his magic skills or risk arrest, and I will salivate at the RP opportunities. I'd make up an arcane character on purpose, just to experience the uniqueness. There are no halflings on this world? OK... I don't have to make one. I'll do a gnome instead. But I have come to see that I am a rare breed. Most players bristle at such restrictions -- apparently seeming not to realize how much more unique and coherent a world can be when you have them.
For my money, I have always preferred low-magic worlds. I would not want to necessarily restrict player classes (though I might restrict races depending on the world). But as an Old School player, I would keep nearly 100% of magic items in dungeons/crypts and other exploration areas, and almost always guarded by something. And if possible the guardian would use the item against the party - you'll have to take that Rod of Lordly Might out of the cold dead hands of the Lich who was using it against you, and so forth. And you're not going to be able to sell it for coin if no one in the party wants it, because magic is not generally sold at a typical storefront. The player characters may be able to cast spells but they'd be the "superheroes" of such a world -- rather than just one of hundreds or thousands of sorcerers, bards, and druids. But that's my preference -- and I realize hardly anyone shares it these days.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
This is an amazing idea. Having adventures just to get material components just to have certain spells available against the big bad!
As weird as it sounds, you don't have to consider all spells to be magical.
Hunter's Mark for rangers can be seen as focusing on your prey, using your knowledge of weaknesses to increase the lethality of your attacks against it, and subconsciously remembering details to track it better.
And, to me, low magic settings implies that (NPC) spell casters either don't survive long enough to reach high levels, or just retire before doing so. And they (the NPCs) do not use their spells often.
@BigLizard: the Forgotten Realms had multiple large scale disasters because of magic, I guess it validates your point?
My homebrew feat for thrown weapons, feat to help DMs extend Sorcerer's spells known list, and my homebrew combo monk subclass (diablo inspired)!
I have a rule that when you run out of spell slots you have to make a save or gain one level of exhaustion and you might not be able to cast cantrips or scrolls for a bit.
Another one is that when you run out of spell slots, you can still cast magic but you will take damage and take another level of exhaustion. Say, casting a second level spell will deal 2d8 damage and a 3rd level spell would deal 3d8 damage to you. Maybe adjust the level of exhaustion depending on the level of spell too, so if you wanted to cast a 6th level spell when you had no 6th level slots left, you would die.
I’m in a campaign where the DM limits the number of cantrips you can cast. He uses 1/level plus your spellcasting ability modifier. The number resets after a long rest. You have to think a little more tactically and while I had my doubts at first I’ve come to like it. Makes things interesting and less videogamey.
I can understand limiting martial characters to limited magic, but how do work out a Magic user’s ability to cast. That’s how they do everything they are supposed to do in the game. If you take away a fighters magic he can still fight or a clerics he can still fight A magic users magic and he left with a dagger and light crossbow and 20 hit points.
Once I got a taste of other games like Champions and Rolemaster, for a while I detested AD&D and its many, often arbitrary-seeming limitations. Having gamed for a much longer time now, I have come to see the wisdom of Gygax and the original designers. By placing all of those seemingly-arbitrary restrictions on nearly every class, not only pure spellcasters, they were keeping the power level down enough that magic always felt special. The balance may not have been perfect, but the limitations were far from arbitrary -- they had their reasons. I've gained a lot more respect for what you (correctly) term "the philosophy and design approach" of the old AD&D system.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
True but as you pointed out earlier in the thread... players are very touchy about losing options or powers or abilities in any game. On top of that if you are playing with people who got their start in 5e, it is going to be a very tough sell to get them to let you dial back their abilities.
Heck just tonight I was having a text exchange with a friend who is about to start playing in the same online campaign I am. He is making up a sorcerer and is grumbling about how "few" spells Sorcerers get. I had to bite my tongue (fingers) not to remind him what "Magic-Users" were like back in 1st edition. Which he played right along with me back in 1982-83 when we got our start in D&D.
I have not actually played 5e yet... just made up a Bard in prep to play the upcoming campaign. Before that the last I played was whatever amount of 3e they got into NWN... and table-top, last I played was AD&D. But to get ready I have watched some YouTube videos of sessions people have streamed (Chain of Acheron, Critical Role, a few others). One thing that has repeatedly left me in awe is just how much a 1st or 2nd level character can do... between actions, moving, bonus actions, reactions, attacks of opp, etc. I come from a tradition in which moving, attacking, heck even talking -- you could do one thing per melee round. Period. And if you were a spellcaster at 1st level, you had like one spell. For the day. I see these level 1 or 2 characters firing off burning hands, then moving, then taking a bonus action to do something else, then getting a reaction later on in the round, and I'm like -- that's what my 1st level magic-user would have done for an entire play session (OK, I exaggerate, but only a little) and you just did it in one round.
I get why they designed it this way -- it lets new players feel powerful and capable right from the start, and it's more fun to fire off your cantrips than to swing a freaking dagger at an enemy while hoping not to die with your 1d4 hit points and your AC of 10.
But...
I can't help wondering where there is to go from here if characters are doing all this at level 2. The ability to shoot off half a dozen spells in a single battle was something that came after significant learning in AD&D, but it happens on day 1 in 5e. Not sure how much I'm going to like that...
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.