What it says on the tin.
I'm inclined to run/play 5e 'straight' to get a feel for the system, but the idea of a low magic game really appeals to me. I'd like AP about any issues ...
Then again, I suspect a lot of people are also trying to play as-is at first, too.
I'm SORT-OF running a low-magic setting: pseudo-Ancient Greece. My players understand that the only "magic users" in the world (other than the PCs) are Oracles and Prophets.
One of my players chose to be a Warlock because he could tailor it well to making a pact with the Titan Oceanus (and re-skinning his spells to be water and storm themed).
That being said, there are a lot of strange things going on (gods mucking about, mostly). So yeah, there are still fantastic creatures, but they're unique and special. No random encounters with orcs or such.
So... I guess that doesn't really fit the bill, but by no means is this campaign high fantasy. Casting a spell will confuse and mystify 99% of the population.
Counts enough.
My inclination is to limit magic to a few gifts and plot-level stuff, while skipping the '4 fireballs a day' range of magic.
Have you felt any lack of magical healing?
Does non magic imply grittiness? The DMG has some rules about rests taking a whole week.
I think it implies it in RPGs due to past history and tastes, but I don't think it's necessary.
I mean, heck, if you consider most adventure fiction/movies, you can have 0 magic and very little grit (Three Musketeers, to pick an easy example).
Personally, I'm pretty happy with high adventure type games. My objection is more that a lot of D&D-esque magic doesn't mesh well with a lot of fantasy I've read/seen/am interested in.
Quote from: Will;816677Have you felt any lack of magical healing?
We're only two sessions in so far and combat has always led to at least one character down to zero HP.
Times may change now that the Ranger has mastered the use of healing herbs (Cure Wounds).
I would hate a no-magic D&D; it seems to be the epitome of pointlessness. Sadly, the rules continue to support the notion of magic as somehow tacked on and extra (an anti-magic field should be as nonsensical in the game setting as an anti-physics area in our own world would be; sentience and the strong nuclear force are probably both magical) rather than an intrinsic part of everything, and that is bad enough. If you want a no-magic world, maybe you should play a different game.
Low-magic D&D? I'm not sure what it means, but I'm against it anyway as a potential gateway to no-magic D&D.
That's one of the stupidest, most pointless posts I've seen in a while. Congrats, Rawma!
Playing in one as a side diversion sporatically since the PHB came out.
Just Fighters, and Rogues. Barbarians and Monks were an option. But no one took one. Theres an NPC Bard with no magic and we are pretty sure we met a NPC ranger also with no magic.
Also humans only and no monsters aside from possibly dinosaurs and giant animals in a "Gwangi" style valley. North are "Northmen" and east is an Arabian Knights style land. West is trackless and hostile forests and south is the ocean.
Interesting so far. I am playing a Rogue. The other three are Fighters. Two sword users and one armed with a whip.
I'm not exactly sure what low-magic means either in this context, though I think the HOTDQ campaign I'm in qualifies. We're at the beginning of Episode Six (?), Naertyr Castle, and so far, the only magic we've encountered is from the PCs and NPCs, with the exception of some potions of healing.
It seems to be working out well though: fighter types can hit and kill things, mages cast spells. We're all getting along. One of the tougher fights was a pair of Perytons, (resistant to slash/pierce/bludgeoning from non-magic weapons,) but they were eventually defeated.
I'm anticipating some actual magic items now that all the party members are level 5.
Culain: Mostly absent of spellcasting in the traditional D&D sense.
3e was very frustrating for me because if you removed, say, Clerics, or Wizards, or whatever, encounters would start to get really unhinged by mid levels. It was difficult to get around that -- remove clerics, and a bunch of effects became character-enders (because of the lack of Restoration or similar), remove Wizards and a bunch of encounters resistant to nonmagic became much harder, plus the magic item dependency.
Mainly asking how well 5e isn't that, in actual play.
Quote from: Will;816731That's one of the stupidest, most pointless posts I've seen in a while. Congrats, Rawma!
What, even counting the entire kerfuffle over your joke that rpg.net's drop in traffic coincided with your being banned? And all those thread derails? At least my post was on-topic.
One issue you would face is that D&D is not really designed for no-magic, even if "magic" is viewed as in most fantasy RPGs as an add-on and not an intrinsic quality of the world, and people who want to play D&D generally want magic. Does your current group share your enthusiasm for eliminating magic from D&D? Why haven't you discussed other sets of rules with them? Is this some end run where you recruit people to play D&D because it's popular but then end up really playing something else? Do you also want to play no technology Traveller or mythos-free Call of Cthulhu (OK, that would be BRP, which I think of as a different game)?
You could always keep all the magic but refluff it as non-magical abilities.
Well, my personal inclination is to allow a few specific 'gifts' (basically, model it on the magic feat), and then allow a plot-ish ritual magic thing.
Maybe give each character some sort of Gift, which is seen as magic (though arguably is/isn't in some cases).
So, some characters might be 'sensitive,' and be able to scry uncertain fortunes, or get an occasional 'vibe' of the supernatural. Others might be able to bind or reveal spirits/undead.
In the background there might be things like 'this cult is trying to summon an elemental to serve them, better stop them.'
My purpose in this thread was more along the lines of 'does 5e break in ways like previous games, in AP?' But if people want to explore lower/no magic ideas, that's cool, too.
Running a low magic game IRL. Very conversational, not much in the way of combat. Hard to really tell from that perspective.
From mid-level actual Adventure League play, magic weapons are rather expected by then. Everyone shoots their wad, find a suitable bunker, takes a Leomund nap, wake 'n repeat. But that's Organized Play.
That said, the Silvered Weapons bit in the Equipment chapter is useful.
If you worry about PCs feeling helpless v. monsters resistant to non-magic weapons, you can just expand this for your setting. So you can fiddle with Immunity, Resistance, Vulnerability, and 'sacred' material components as weaknesses. Only 100 gp per weapon (or 10x ammo).
You could expand that material list and adjust prices, too. Even make temporary bonuses, like "crushed mistletoe berries rubbed on a weapon, good for 1 hour against fae."
You're going to have to alter your approved MM list along with other things when you make a big setting shift like that.
Quote from: rawma;816765One issue you would face is that D&D is not really designed for no-magic, even if "magic" is viewed as in most fantasy RPGs as an add-on and not an intrinsic quality of the world, and people who want to play D&D generally want magic.
Um. Have you actually ever played D&D? Because from nearly the get-go people have been playing in low to non-magic settings with D&D. TSR even put out some campaign books geared to that.
3 or 4e may be the exceptions. But O, A, 2e, BX+, all could handle it.
You might need to make some slight adjustments but depending on just how NON your low to non setting is then it is certainly playable.
Now if we are talking about low/no magic only pertaining to the players. But all the regular D&D monsters are still there. THEN you may well run into some severe problems. You have to adjust everything accordingly.
If I am in whats been presented as a low or no magic setting and all of a sudden I am fighting a whatziz hit only by +1 weapons then I am likely going to be pretty irked if we have nothing to deal with that. Or something only killed by a lightning bolt, frost, whatever and no alternatives.
Its up to the DM to use some common sense with encounters then.
Quote from: Omega;816848Um. Have you actually ever played D&D?
Yes.
QuoteBecause from nearly the get-go people have been playing in low to non-magic settings with D&D. TSR even put out some campaign books geared to that.
If you depend on the vagueness of "low magic" (from Will's comments in another thread, my current game apparently is "low magic" or at least pretty close to it), then, well, anything is low magic.
OD&D has over a third of its pages taken up with spell lists and magic items, which would be meaningless in a no-magic world. A lot of monster descriptions hinge on magic (either the characters needing it to deal with them or the monsters using it; depends on the campaign whether the player characters could ever ally with magic using monsters). Aerial combat in a medieval campaign with no magic is not likely to happen.
People adapted OD&D to all sorts of genres, just because there weren't very many RPGs then. But the popular part of Chainmail was the Fantasy Supplement.
Obviously, if it's a low magic setting, you wouldn't use the monsters that the players would have no chance against.
If there are no magical weapons at all, you wouldn't introduce an enemy that can only be hurt by magic. Because that presupposes the existence of magic in a setting without it, so why is such a monster there?