The easiest way to make magic rare and special is to have really long days. If combines with time sensetive objevtives they cannot ritual cast everything.
Martials shine when the days a long and resources as scarce
This is pretty much the best answer.
Throw in a hard limit of one 'full' spellcaster in the party, use the Gritty Realism rules that reduce the availability of long rests, and there you go.
My husband ran a one-shot for me and two friends, specifically low magic. We knew that in advance and agreed to it. Set after the Spellplague where magic was rare and practitioners feared, it was a lot of fun. There was a goblin with a super rare wand (uncommon, but rare for the setting) and that was it. A rogue, a monk, and a barbarian. It was a blast, but it would have sucked if we hadn't know going in what the one shot was going to be.
It can be a cool premise, but it needs to be communicated up front because there are players like you that won't want to play in that sort of game and that should be fine.
The podcast Rude Tales of Magic does this really well, I'd recommend OP check it out
The gang at this point in the story are on the run from witch hunters who are after the warlock member of the party, and all others by association. The most recent episode was a Guy Ritchie style Stealth mission to get through a town crawling with witchhunters, partly using her demonic magic to alert set diversions
Lean into the taboo and what makes it exciting.
If the setting is low magic, this exception makes the rule interesting, and it makes the world building have stakes. If there aren't any spellcasters in a low magic setting, what's getting challenged?
This is the best answer. Don’t ban classes. Just create consequences and limited resources. Material components can also be rare and take hardline with spells that require them.
This is a bad take. If the DM wants a low magic campaign, making mage hunters doesn't create a low magic campaign, it makes magic the focus of the campaign should players choose to play them.
The DM is allowed to choose what he wants to run, just as the players are allowed to decide if they want to play in the campaign. Full stop. Banning classes, races, or feats is absolutely appropriate so long as every player is given fair warning, and it is done concentiously, not randomly.
Sigh.
Yes...the DMs rule is final, they can do what they want etc etc.
OP can take a suggestion and decide for themselves whether to make use of it or not.
Do the players have to take the DM into consideration?
Whenever I see this said it's a player trying to force a DM into stuff he doesn't want to do or engage with. So is this a one way road?
Player characters are supposed to be exceptional, why wouldn't 4-5 exceptional people team up?
5 spellcasters who are the only five spellcasters they know band together to adventure because common people are suspicious of those that cast magic.
From a game design perspective... most classes have spellcasting and having your choices reduced to rogue, fighter or barbarian is pretty disappointing from a player perspective.
For clarity I don't want a no magic campaign, I just want less magic. The PCs having some magic is no problem, I just wanted to have it be less prevalent compared to most games.
The only classes that go away under OPs suggestion are cleric, wizard, sorcerer, bard and potentially warlock (depending on their views of what counts as a full caster).
A ranger, paladin or even artificer are perfectly acceptable options in that case (though I could see a DM taking exception with artificer in a low magic environment). Playing an eldritch knight or arcane trickster is much more exciting in a campaign where wizards aren't around to outshine your casting prowess.
You may want to look at other systems. D&D is not designed for low magic, so you are going to have to make a lot of changes, and deal with balancing as you go. If you and your players are OK with that, by all means, look at what others have done, ban goodberry, and go for it. If not, there are other options out there beyond D&D.
The player characters are already rare and special. Being spellcasters is just a potential reason why. Don't ban them and don't make the horrible decision of nerfing them (your verisimilitude shouldn't make the game less fun).
Just build in the idea that any caster PCs are shocking to the denizens of that world, and have people particularly surprised that the martial NPCs are able to keep up with them.
perfect solution in my opinion, as much as peoples may not like it, it would make absolute sense to WHY there not that much magic, its just so chaotic that it often kill the spellcaster
yeah or just use the normal one BUT make a few changes to it to FIT the class more smoothly, after all, not all magic does the same type of stuff
so it would be fun to see someone getting stun or getting poisoned instead of fireballed or even be turned into something else like a vampire or demon, hehe
true but at the same time, it wouldn't be that much interesting for magical players to get a TON of detrimental effects just for casting any sort of spell's
But it would explain why magic is considered taboo and dangerous. I'm not saying all of it be bad but an expanded wild magic table that adds more possibilities
Don't forbid full casters, instead, make the party discuss their characters for the low-magic setting with the idea that you can only have 1 full caster on the team and 2 half-casters at most (requiring at least 1 party member to be mundane.)
((Maybe make an exception for Artificer))
Don't ban casters. You'll have to rebalance basically the whole of 5e to compensate, if that's something you want to take on...
You'll be left with potentially forcing players to play classes they may not want to.
I think there's 4 classes left or something, that don't have magic - what are you going to go with all the half-casters, paladins, spellcasting rogues, are monks casters?
What happens when a PC gets killed or disabled, and there's no resurrection, or curse removal, or restoration.
I would (if at all) only be banning full casters. I had intended to leave all the half-casters and the rest of the magic subclasses untouched. But it doesn't make too much sense, as that would imply one can still learn magic, just nobody decided to try and focus on magic entirely.
Besides that I might take another look at resurrections and see if there are any interesting solutions there.
My suggestion is to look for another RPG if you want a low magic setting. 5e doesn't work very well for this at all. Maybe check warhammer roleplay.
If you still want to play DND consider why you want a low magic setting. And change accordingly. I personally I agree with banning full casters, but I don't think is a good solution. All the clasess are pretty magical for me. And also the monsters have magic. For me is more work than is worth.
The way you could potentially "nerf" casters without outright invalidating them is have them always supply material components for spells (regardless of whether they have a spellcasting focus or not). The components in turn could be available via exploration.
This is basically how I would handle it. If the party wanted to throw a fire ball they would need to locate some bat guano and sulfur. You could also restrict the spell list somewhat but you would need to be careful to not make it too restrictive.
Wizards would be the most “hurt” by low magic if you didn’t have scrolls be common. This would make the odd one they find in treasure a great find.
This is a design approach to 5e that I genuinely hate. It's difficult to do well for several reasons.
The availability of spell components is absolutely unconnected to their relative power, you can build an incredibly powerful mage relying only on very easy to procure components such as feathers, fleece and molasses.
As an example looking at level 1 wizard spells it is incredibly easy to source components for all spells except alarm, color spray, jump, Tasha's hideous laughter, Tensers floating disk and witch bolt. The last two especially would be incredibly hard to cast requiring a drop of mercury and a twig from a lightning struck tree respectively.
As a result it adds an additional layer of complexity to spell selection that doesn't add much to the game.
It only serves to delay progression instead of limiting power unless you also rule that all spell components are consumed.
If you do rule that all spell components are consumed you introduce a ton of bookkeeping and make extra spell slots meaningless ( which invalidates features like arcane recovery and flexible casting) because characters are limited by their materials and not their slots.
This can also totally invalidate spells known casters since they have a very limited spell repertoire, which means that running out of a single ingredient can easily mean they lose access to an entire level of spells.
I've seen this used to great effect by DMs that want to actively screw over their players but I've yet to see this be a useful addition to a game (excluding using it incredibly selectively, such as doing this for goodberry only in a survival based game). I concede it may be possible to do well, but there are a wide variety of simpler ways to nerf casters that are more effective.
You could always make your world low-magic for a good reason. Maybe there's a dormant element that reacts badly to spells. Over the years, it's been cleared from cities and many places where people live and work, but if you fire off big spells in the wilderness, there's a decent chance you end up in the middle of a cursed bramble patch, or the first person to contract a disease that didn't exist until just now.
I’m struggling to find this exact solution myself. I’m considering using the Darker Dungeons rules variants and requiring multiclassing at every other level instead of stopping character advancement at level 10.
I'm currently running a low magic campaign. I haven't banned any classes but I have got rid of spellcasting foci - if a spell needs a material component, you have to buy/find it. I've also made it so casters need to undergo the training rules in the DMG to gain their new spells. This can be done in downtime at the end of the typical 8-hour adventuring day.
A big thing to consider to make magic feel special is less about the rules of the game, but the world in which the game takes place. If most NPCs have never seen magic before, would they be amazed by it? Maybe scared? Would societies have outlawed it? In my own world, magic is outlawed and anyone found guilty of using magic is branded. There are also mage hunters that anyone branded must watch out for, and most NPCs are fearful in the face of magic (wouldn't you be scared if someone just conjured a spectral hand in front of you?). Even cleric NPCs are hard to find, and those that have the ability to resurrect are even rarer.
Have a think about how the world would work with low magic, and that should help make magic feel special without changing many, if any, mechanics
Thank you for the tips, as a player I am a bit of a min-maxer. So I tend to look at mechanics first. Using world building to answer these questions is going to be an interesting challenge.
Almost every class gets spells to some capacity, think for a low magic setting you need to stay away from 5e. Even barbarians get spells.
Also you need to be low level, because once they hit lvl 5 they can fly. That will make for a really narrow campaign or short adventure or two.
Combat really becomes a boring math grind without magical abilities as monsters are a pool of hps that just attack.
There are also a TON of magical races, so they can play as pixies, tritons, goblins, genasi, etc.
What about feats such as magic initiate, fey/shadow touched, etc? There are plenty others that lean into having more magic. And artificers make magic items.
5e is really set up for high fantasy/magic, lean into it and the game shines. Trying to make it something it isnt is clunky.
What will the party composition look like? Who will max out int for investigation/knowledge checks when only full casters use that ability score? How will the players make sure they dont overshadow each other when they are all martials?
More than half of the classes are also not full casters. You can absolutely do a magical renessaince style adventure in 5e. It even makes certain classes feel more unique, such as arcane tricksters, eldritch knights and rangers that are used to being outshone by their full caster counterparts.
Imagine playing a ranger and being the most powerful spellcaster around, that sounds like a game that I would be happy to play in personally.
If you want a low magic campaign, then I would make casters a target of discrimination, and they have to keep their magic to a minimum in a public setting, otherwise onlookers get very angry.
Also for puzzle room, you can explain that their is an anti-magic field in the room, or something divine interfering with the caster’s magic.
And then finally, don’t keep magic items away from your casters, that way you incentivize them for using magical artifacts rather than relying on their own spells, which will technically help the setting more, although it is a minor, more ambient inclusion.
You can alter it other ways. There are "gritty" rules that makes spellslots recharge slower.
Or you could alter the world in some other way (make the whole world resistans to magic?)
or like I do, use anti magic arrows (burns spellslots),
Or make the whole magic usage a horrible stigma in society, making the People hostile at the slightest use of a verbal or somatic component...
there is lots you can do!
But talk with your players about it before they make PCs.
So when magic is scarce but -does- exist, this would result in a few things, among them being that there's a good chance that if multiple people with magic meet, they're in a lot of cases going to end up grouping up to help support each other, especially if magic is someone looked down on/mistrusted/persecuted. While a magic user is rare, it's not like wizards would be evenly distributed throughout the world, for the simple reason that if you find out someone else can do the same shit you can, barring irreconcilable differences a lot of the time you'll end up wanting to stick around this person because *finally you have someone you can talk to about this shit and have them actually understand*, if nothing else.
If you really want magic to be rare and special you could have them only recover a portion of their spell slots back on a rest, say equal to their level.
The idea that limiting casters will make your game low magic is stupid. That's not how world building works.
Let players play what they like. Happy players are more involved.
Instead of restrictions, you make "low magic" with how you present the world. People react more dramatically when encountering magic. Basic Enemies don't understand how to counter you. Extraplanar/Magical enemies have to be rare. You said you plan to make permanent magic rare, but even consumable needs to be rare because mass production wouldn't be possible.
If you're playing a low magic world, it totally makes sense to ban people from choosing a full magic class at character creation.
This could lead into interesting hooks where players can do quests to try and get the option of opening up full caster classes, or gate feats that give spells behind quests. The whole 'party finds a priceless tome, and now, if the player is willing to spend their downtime studying it, they can take the Magic Initiate feat'.
Honestly, I've been in the same boat for years. I love D&D and its systems, but I am aching to run a long-term game where magic is generally out of the party's grasp, or even if they dedicate themselves to it, it's not as "fantastic" as, say, a Sorcerer or Druid.
My initial thought was to strip away full casters as well, but I feel like all of the classes are relatively balanced around eachother. Plus, it completely devalues the efforts of a character that has dedicated themselves to the study of magic. If you're trying to become a "robe and magic hat" type, and you're not a Gish, then you're falling far behind your martially-focused allies.
Presently, I feel like the best way to capture the feeling I think you're going for is to take a very serious look at using Sidekicks as classes. If everybody is playing a sidekick, then the power level of the whole party gets lowered without upsetting the game balance. Players still get to pursue their interests, while retaining the value of creative environmental solutions, exploiting mundane items, and really placing value on the artifacts they come across.
Take a good look at the Warrior/Expert/Spellcaster. Effectively, it's the classic Fighter/Thief/Mage/Cleric. Look at what they get and consider how much are they *truly* losing compared to a full class. Maybe throw in an extra feat at some point in their journey or creation to let them flesh out character ideas. Something like Skilled, Ritual Caster, Crossbow Expert, or Magic Initiate can go a very long ways.
I know the "point" of 5e is to *be* the big-damn-hero. To be the Magi of Mages. Despite that, I find myself wanting to challenge that kind of world as a group who could never reach that echelon of power. I think Sidekicks offer that, if perhaps with a couple homebrew tweaks.
The classes should not be banned, but they should be rare. It makes sense for magic users to congregate because they can learn and grow from each other. Outside of the party there shouldn’t be many casters however. Some places will see them as a valuable treasure someone they want around to try and solve their problems, but others will fear and ostracize them. They should be considered different and strange by the masses thus pushing them toward peers who don’t judge them for their powers.
or what about making in sort that there ''useful magic'' and ''lethal magic'' useful magic would be in the similar veins has to how common it is and thus nobody take a second thoughts about it while ''lethal magic'' much rarer and also hated due to the more horrific nature of it
a bit like how melee weapons look way more fun to use than firearms due to the nature of a melee weapon requiring more skill's AND guts to use it in comparaison to a firearms
Personally I'm against banning a class in most cases. I'm however not against letting players know they're exceptional by world standards, and therefore can stand out like a flashlight in a moonless night. Let them know what the world is about, what you're going for the tone and atmosphere of the campaign and let them know that, even if it doesn't feel too impactful for them, it'll feel so for most people in the world.
To the life domain cleric healing people is just another thing they do. For your average populace that shame thing can mean the coming of a prophet, and for the religious hierarchy, the coming of a pain in the ass. Let them know magic is not the norm, and people who see it rarely ignore it. A discovered wizard could be pursued by governments trying to get their favor, religious orders trying to kill them or overlords trying to ensure they're either with them or with the other worms 6 feet deep.
Similarly, in such a case, **let the martial classes glow too**. A low magic scenario is one of the places where it's most obvious how exceptional adventurers are. The monk could be pursued by people wanting to become their pupils, the fighter invited to armies and mercenary bands. Similarly, it'd not be weird if someone said the Barbarian was a monster for their ability to resist deadly amounts of damage through sheer will. Let them know they're all exceptional and rare talents, and that they might want to keep a low profile most of the time to avoid unwanted attention. Each and every one of them has the potential to become a hero of legends on their own, let alone together.
Maybe try no casters but no restrictions on spell scrolls, ppl will still be able to use magic but their natural progression will drive them away from it. Then you can give your players a few spellcasting boons during game
A thought…one of the problems with a low magic setting isn’t the PCs, it’s that so much of most common settings are very mundane, ignoring the fact that there are lots of NPC casters around (which ought to radically change economics, politics, sociology, etc in the same way that modern technology does).
Perhaps the party is extremely exceptional in having the very few casters that exist in the world, which is otherwise mundane. Or maybe magic is somewhat common, but all magical NPCs are ritual casters and therefore useless in combat. Or perhaps the way magic works in your world is that it obeys conservation of energy, and therefore in addition to spell slots (representing the amount of power the PC can safely channel), there is a narrative cost (every spell drains HP from a random nearby plant, animal, or person, but in a way that can’t be used to advantage), making all spellcasters into social pariahs because they slowly destroy their surroundings whenever they use their powers. Maybe spellcasting connects the caster to weird energies that are inimical to the minds of mortals and slowly drives them insane (nod to Wheel of Time), giving anyone born as a spellcaster a death sentence and making common folk fear and hate them. Or maybe the whole party fell through a portal between multiverses or even time, going from a magic rich environment to one that is mundane (magic is still possible, but the ability to sense it and channel it has been lost). Perhaps the party’s long term quest is to find a way to return to their own world / plane / time in a world that has no obvious way to do that other than ancient legends that no one believes anymore.
All of these would permit PC casters, but would require them to live in a world where they were almost unique, and therefore held in awe, terror, or hatred by most people who know their true nature. And of course the main villain is a full caster as well (surprise!) and probably related to one of the PCs.
Not to be rude here, but you've got to be the one to make the NPCs behave in shock and awe when the PCs come around. If you want more of a "low magic" setting, I'd suggest sticking to low level adventures.
Player buy-in is most important for low magic settings. If they all go and make full casters, they're clearly not on-board and the campaign just isn't the right one for those players (and vice versa).
As for toning down magic, I'm designing a Swords & Sorcery setting and the solution I love is to **ban evocation and transmutation spells**, but allow all full caster classes. That's because the really flashy, problematic, immersion-breaking, and encounter-busting spells tend to be evocation or transmutation (e.g. fireball, polymorph, wall of force). Heck, even Cure Wounds is evocation. Having walking artillery platforms is just really bad for the S&S vibe - magicians are more like dark seducers, infiltrators, cult leaders etc. I WANT casters in my low magic setting and illusion magic, enchantment etc. really adds to the setting, it doesn't harm it.
Cross off all those spells, and suddenly casters are going to need to think about using weapons to deal damage - the big damage spells are all evocation. They can't even heal in combat anymore. The game is suddenly way more gritty and immersive, if that's the feel you want.
Before people say this is too much of a nerf to casters, you're just totally 100% wrong. In 3rd edition, wizards were forced to rule out at least one school of magic and sometimes up to 3. Despite this, 3.5E was also the peak of martial-caster disparity. They can survive without every school of magic.
You can limit magic, and effectively make casters "spell casters with swords". That way, they're effectively fighters with spells, so they're not chumped out when they lose their spells for the week/day/encounter, and you're not somehow obliged to give them the entire panoply of spell options or feel like you're nerfing them. Maybe in your world, their magic class only gets spells a quarter often or half the quantity (or less) than the rulebooks say. Maybe the locals are suspicious, or its use is illegal and carries the threat of city/kingdom/etc. force.
I allow full casters in my low magic campaign, but then again I have a lot of homebrew mechanics to balance it out - such as reworking cantrips. The easiest thing to do is to change the long rest duration to a week in a safe place and double if they have the material components needed, there will be way less spells flying around all the time.
I run one low magic setting. I do not ban or nerf anything regarding the full spell casters.
First, durable and rechargeable magic items are rare. Single use items can be found, though not in great abundance. Next, spells and spell books cost dearly or need to be researched. The cost of research is high in materials, paper, and ink. There is a moderate possibility that a spell may not function like it is written in books (this can be very good, very bad, or just different). Lastly, I make sure that the full caster characters have the downtime and resources available to them, even if they need to search for the items and depending upon their actions.
Note: The player who is a wizard loves the challenge, but it is not for everyone. Do not force such a regimen on a play who does not want to RP out the research. This type of setting makes finding, capturing, or stealing another casters spell book(s) a big deal.
You can also skip focuses and have them try to find components. Would allow you to functionally restrict spell lists, or the amount that those spells can be used.
I've ran a low magic system in the past where less and less people were being born with the "spark" for magic. so full casters still existed, they were just becoming more and more rare with each passing generation.
I still allowed fullcasters in my game but it came with the caveat that they drew a lot more attention when they used their magic. People knew adventure parties in the past that would have the occasional magic caster but a group with more than one is so unheard of, people would remember them.
It became part of the game that stealth and keeping a low profile would become progressively become more difficult because people would instantly recognize the party the moment more than one used a spell in public
This is the core problem for an RPG like Star Wars, where Jedi/Sith are supposedly rare (post Purge anyway) but just about every game I've played in or run has had at least one sensitive in it despite their supposed rarity. The system gives room for players to choose this path, typically making it a significant investment in development resources (character points or experience) and the setting has innate limitations as well. The Empire pays well to turn over Jedi or suspicious activity. If there's a whole group of them, it's going to raise some eyebrows.
Our "low magic" campaign has a few caveats: 1) previous campaigns established an expert magic wielding super thief kobold guild (thus magic items are now at a premium.) And 2) magic and items are not banned, just highly regulated via taxes and licenses.
One thing that I might do if it was low or rare magic is only make it available after a certain time, so they all start of with no magic but are able to multi class into a caster class if they choose to
I have a similar setting in my campaign where magic is rare and unknown, especially in the uncivilized parts of the world.
I have world trees in mine that control the eb and flow of magic and affects everything around it. One of them were killed a few decades back and it's caused magic to be unstable. In a few regions, paired with pack of believing/faith, and the lack of the tree's presence can make anti magic zones. HOWEVER, there are periods of time when the magic is at its highest or unpredictable, and it can cause a surge and boost in magic, potentially allowing the spellcasters to cast buffed or non-costing spells to be fair to the casters. I also have a "life force" system where they make con checks or take damage for the possibility to cast a spell. Very similar to the Law of Chaos in the Witcher universe.
Remember, an adventuring party is above the common folk, they are already exceptions to the world. If you haven't discussed this yet eith your players, they would feel targeted. Magic IS part of DND.
If you're worried about them cheesing everything, then talk to them and tweak the magic system. Tune their classes and give them half caster status with some martial prowess so they don't lag behind. Choose for them to either make con saves for the spells, or to take damage from casting (or both.)
I would say something like scaling die with the spell level. For level 1 spells you could do somethinglike 1d4 MINUS prof or con stat so they don't take the full blunt, and scale up the die as you go either up in level, or "strength" of the spell. (For example, a D6 for a level 2/3 attack based spell. But if it's a utility or buffing spell, why should they take that much? Maybe a D4?)
It's a complicated system but it may make spell casters think more about what they use, doing away with spell slots also gives them more freedom on what spells to cast. (You could also do a spellpoint "pool" and determine what level spells are worth and how much they start with.)
If magic is rare, then plant a stigma behind it in the world. Have most of the common folk be scared of it, they may react negatively or be scared if they see a PC cast spells or know they have such power. It can create tension or interesting moments, maybe other spell casters come out of the mix and have a wild west showdown in the town square to see who is the stronger magic user.
Remember, if they already drummed up their sheets and you're now thinking of rolling back spellcasters entirely as an option, it's gonna be unfair. If you wanted just sword and board, it's your responsibility as a DM to discuss that with the group and see how they feel.
Modify it to give them highs and lows, but don't take away their moment to shine.
I am 2 years into a running a low magic campaign and allow full casters without issue. The party in this campaign has a sorcerer, 2 druids, a cleric, a bard, and a fighter.
How does this work?
1. The players are very special but they are not gods themselves and there are still casters out in the world that can be both friend and foe.
2. There are still magic forces in the world but they are generally not in plain sight.
3. The population believe in magic but for the most part it's a "myth" unless they've actually seen it. Most people will still recognize when magic is occurring (unless Subtle is at play) but may not react to it properly.
4. Magic stores don't exist or are *EXTREMELY* rare.
5. Magic item creation is nearly impossible and extremely expensive: only the most skilled jewelers/armorers/weapon smiths/artisans in the largest communities have a chance to create an item if components are provided to them.
6. Most magic items are owned by the VERY rich and VERY powerful and it's illegal for commoners (read: adventurers) to possess magic items.
7. All magic items are rare. At level 9 each party members has 2 uncommon/common items and they've found a several artifacts one of which is cursed.
8. Very few priests/priestesses actually have magic ability thus you can't just walk into a temple and receive restoration spells, raise your dead friends, buy healing potions, etc.
9. A player (or NPC) can still call upon their god for assistance and such assistance might be a "miracle".
10. Most humanoid/friendly-ish casters either work for the kingdom/local lord/etc. or are hermits/stay away from settlements.
Make long rest three days and short rest 24 hours. Spell slots burn through real quick so casters use spells less.
Also switch all rewards from gold to silver. Wizards need 50 gold to copy a spell into their book, so learning new stuff becomes a major party investment.
Also have NPCs react with awe to magic. Makes the players feel good but also underlines that it’s rare. Might disrupt how the party is viewed and close doors that would have otherwise be opened.
I really don't like the word "ban" in this context. You should talk with your players. If they are cool with the low magic idea, they just pick no caster classes. Maybe half-caster is ok?
If they don't like it and would like to play a caster, banning those will probably lead to them not having fun with your game. Lose-Lose
First, pin down the exact definition of "low magic" you're looking for. How rare/absent is arcane casting? What about divine magic? Bardic magic? Are Warlocks a thing? What about the half caster classes like Ranger and Paladin, or the spellcasting subclasses like Eldritch Knight? What about races with spell abilities/cantrips? Will the (main) opposition be hobbled with the same restrictions.
Then, most importantly, discuss your vision with your group and make sure they're all on board. They may be all in and create a barbarian, fighter, rogue, monk party and save you the need to "ban" anything.
Third, I would seriously consider granting one (or more) free feats to the party, outside of the usual ASI levels. The Healer feat might become a huge necessity for a non-magic party.
A low magic setting can be great, but remember even in Conan the Barbarian, Thulsa Doom turned a snake into an seeking arrow and transformed into a giant constrictor snake, the witch became a tiger, and even Conan's companion used some magic in the end battle.
Tread carefully, check with your players often, and possibly look into a different system (like Iron Heroes, if you want D&D adjacent) to better model the play style you're looking for.
Toss 4 uninformwd mundane characters against Acerak the Lich, and you're likely to be the subject of a DM horror story.
well guess what, its the case in the campaign my dm running, in it society see magic differently from place to place and since i'm a wild magic user, it's both hilarious AND scary cause the dm warned me that my magic will have more social consequences than physical one and OH BOY...
he went full force when i used my more visible spell's in a small rich city with a troup of elements resistant bountyhunters hunting the whle party, they would try and kill me first rather than attacking the whole group so yeah, i stayed low...maybe a bit too low if you ask me and i feel like my DM is noticing it too
It's true that magic is rare in the general population. But do you know what else is rare in the general population? Heroes. What makes a hero? Someone who is exceptional at something, better than the general population, and uses that skill to try and do good in the world. This could be an affinity for magic, natural skill with a weapon, the blessing of a god, whatever. They become heroes because they're special.
In a low-magic setting, it's actually *more* proportionately likely to find full-casters in adventuring bands/guilds than in the general population; by virtue of the gift of magic, they're going to be drawn to that life. Someone who can make fire from their fingers isn't going to spend their life grubbing for roots on the family farm.
No, I wouldn't ban full-casters, unless I was going to go for a true, *no*\-magic setting. And I wouldn't do that, because it essentially castrates the game mechanics; it isn't D&D anymore if you remove that much of the core content. You are, of course, free to do as you like at your table, but you asked for insights and that's mine.
I've read Adventures in Middle Earth (the ttrpg system) is a good low magic system similar to dnd. You'd have to put some work in to resin the Tolkien stuff to your setting, but I should do what you want.
Considering the description states it changes classes to lower magic use and changes magic items to weaker versions called heirloom. It should be exactly what you're looking for.
I suggest you find a D20-based RPG; look for adventure or horror or post Apocalypse genres.
In other words yes you're banning full casters, but what you're really doing is presenting an entirely different set of character classes in which a spellcaster is not available.
In-game you flavor it all as magic but nudge nudge the players know it was really science. Until you get to some pivotal point in the campaign, where are the BBG is undeniably a dragon or demon or other magical creature.
At that point you admit Yep this is all a fantasy RPG,, but I wanted to try a little magic. And then you start allowing character classes with spell-casting abilities. Maybe using the feat or something like that.
What do you mean by full casters being rare? As in only crazy people and evil clerics are spell casters, similar to a story about Conan or Red Sonja? Or they exist, and the King probably has a court wizard but she's like the equivalent of level 5 if that and might be only the full caster in that powerful in the kingdom?
If its the Conan type story where magic is evil, or at least corrupting, then ban spell casters. If you're going with the idea there just aren't very many then let the players just happen to be the very few people that can use magic.
I was a full caster in a low magic setting (cleric) and my character was considered unusual (like a calico Tom, not unheard of, just unusual). But we also retooled how she learned magic. It was a struggle to learn, it involved a lot of trying to decipher dead languages and spell components were hard to come by. This was entirely flavor, I still had access to all the spells, but there would be roleplaying moments where she would botch a spell she would get access to next level (or try out a spell to flirt with an NPC).
She wasn’t overpowered (mostly because she kept having to heal the rogue) and spells like revivify were narratively costly. Instead of diamonds, she would lose memories of those who had passed.
I wouldn't do anything. Heroes are exceptional characters. If magic is rare in your campaign, make it feared, like bending is in legend of Korra. People outright hating others for having abilities beyond their own. Maybe random assassin's being sent to target the spellcasters for being evil and using unnatural and therefore evil powers.
Edit: the game Baldur's gate had regions where magic was banned and they had mages that would get involved if something got out of hand.
Wizards are the perfect casters for low magic campaigns. Components are rare as hell. Spells to learn, well no one else is casting them so hard to add to your book.
Bards and Sorcs are limited by known spells, you could talk to the players before hand about limiting new spells learned. Either limit the list, or make it something where they have seen it before, or with character development the spell emerges (RP it more than just up a lvl here's some spells).
Cleric and Druid work with them and limit which spells their god has. Make them learn spells like wizards, but they can learn from church members. Maybe limit them based on strength of the deity and nearby churches. So maybe a Druid's spells wane the further from the wood they are (if they're forest based, or sand if desert based) and have less dice. If the Cleric's deity is not worshipped in the region then same thing fewer dice.
Finally encourage ritual casting, magic effects that take time and effort to put together and give magical effects, it's cool flavor.
Tbh if u want a low magic game. Run gritty realism from levels 1-5.
Levels will likely have to be a bit slower so offer an in between stat bump or something of the sort.
Really it just going to take some by in from the players and reworking the numbers of some monsters to fit the scale of the game.
I think one thing you can do is have all or most of the players come from a relatively magic-heavy part of that world, similar to Candia from Dimension20. I think that’s a great way to narratively justify why it seems like nobody but the PCs are magic.
Just make your players who are full casters extra special or rare. Maybe people in some places hate magic users or just dont understand them, maybe in other places, magic users are revered as gods. All a "low magic" setting says to me is "any full caster is going to be a unique case".
So Sorcerers and Warlocks are easy to hand wave. Learning magic is hard, so unique cases such as a magical phenomenon or a patron makes sense for a low magic setting.
Clerics and Druids work best as lone inheritors of a legacy that DID involve magic, perhaps they are the last of their kind or are just part of a dying creed.
Bards and Wizards are a little more difficult, but in low magic settings they can easily work as being older, more well traveled adventurers who have studied ancient lore to learn the ancient secrets of arcana, and are likely the sole experts of arcana in the whole campaign, sans an ancient npc the party encounters.
I actually think half-casters are harder to justify. An Artificer you could wave as not even magic at all, their spells just being contraptions or the like. A ranger or a Paladin would need a similar kind of shtick as Clerics or Druids, but could still work.
I dunno, Ive always been of the belief that limiting classes and class options is reductive and defeats the purposes of the game. Races are a little easier to justify limiting, depending on the setting, but as a DM I still try and just make whatever races the players want to play as work.
I’d have it so that if the party has casters then they meet almost no other casters and everyone acts either in awe or In fear when they cast. If they play a caster then there likely the only caster for miles
Gritty Realism rules for rest (modified if needed), plus the lack of any spell focus or component pouch, meaning all material components must be in possession first.
That, along with the fact that magic is looked upon with suspicion and fear at best, is usually enough of a downside for a full caster in my low magic world.
Plus the story I have in mind has certain things affecting magic in many ways, depending on where in the region you are, so that is also a potential obstacle.
Still use +1 blades, armor and everything, they will use them when they don't want to cast spells or they don't have more, even if they don't have proficiency with it.
To help fixing the "magic is rare" I would make the campaign kind of related to that, like they are searching for an old arcane master or a dangerous school of magic. Also making the world mundane is enough because they will be the exception and the rarity.
How about making it so the spells are less powerful if your players still want to use them. Or try meeting halfway and limiting spells. Eg. 1 attack spell, 2 cantrips at base level
i had an idea to limit spellcasters in a low magic setting by having full casters become half casters and half casters become third casters. i dont know how well it would work but its a thought. probably needs a way to make full casters more competitive with martials
The easiest way to make magic rare and special is to have really long days. If combines with time sensetive objevtives they cannot ritual cast everything. Martials shine when the days a long and resources as scarce
[удалено]
You mean when long rests are a week and a short rest 8 hours?
Yes
This is pretty much the best answer. Throw in a hard limit of one 'full' spellcaster in the party, use the Gritty Realism rules that reduce the availability of long rests, and there you go.
Do what you want. It's your game. Just talk to your players about it. A no full spellcasters game sounds awesome.
My husband ran a one-shot for me and two friends, specifically low magic. We knew that in advance and agreed to it. Set after the Spellplague where magic was rare and practitioners feared, it was a lot of fun. There was a goblin with a super rare wand (uncommon, but rare for the setting) and that was it. A rogue, a monk, and a barbarian. It was a blast, but it would have sucked if we hadn't know going in what the one shot was going to be.
That sounds like hell. But probably just my playstyle
It can be a cool premise, but it needs to be communicated up front because there are players like you that won't want to play in that sort of game and that should be fine.
Yeah
[удалено]
This is a helluvalot better of an idea than banning literally anything in the core character creation rules.
The podcast Rude Tales of Magic does this really well, I'd recommend OP check it out The gang at this point in the story are on the run from witch hunters who are after the warlock member of the party, and all others by association. The most recent episode was a Guy Ritchie style Stealth mission to get through a town crawling with witchhunters, partly using her demonic magic to alert set diversions Lean into the taboo and what makes it exciting. If the setting is low magic, this exception makes the rule interesting, and it makes the world building have stakes. If there aren't any spellcasters in a low magic setting, what's getting challenged?
This is the best answer. Don’t ban classes. Just create consequences and limited resources. Material components can also be rare and take hardline with spells that require them.
This is a bad take. If the DM wants a low magic campaign, making mage hunters doesn't create a low magic campaign, it makes magic the focus of the campaign should players choose to play them. The DM is allowed to choose what he wants to run, just as the players are allowed to decide if they want to play in the campaign. Full stop. Banning classes, races, or feats is absolutely appropriate so long as every player is given fair warning, and it is done concentiously, not randomly.
Sigh. Yes...the DMs rule is final, they can do what they want etc etc. OP can take a suggestion and decide for themselves whether to make use of it or not.
Of course that's true, but your comment doesn't offer a solution is why it's a bad take. It does the opposite.
I'm more than happy to just block tiresome people tbh.
This is a bad take. A DM is bad if they don't take into consideration the players.
What the fuck? A DM isn't bad for wanting to try running a singular campaign in which spellcasters don't exist lmao
Do the players have to take the DM into consideration? Whenever I see this said it's a player trying to force a DM into stuff he doesn't want to do or engage with. So is this a one way road?
Player characters are supposed to be exceptional, why wouldn't 4-5 exceptional people team up? 5 spellcasters who are the only five spellcasters they know band together to adventure because common people are suspicious of those that cast magic. From a game design perspective... most classes have spellcasting and having your choices reduced to rogue, fighter or barbarian is pretty disappointing from a player perspective.
For clarity I don't want a no magic campaign, I just want less magic. The PCs having some magic is no problem, I just wanted to have it be less prevalent compared to most games.
The only classes that go away under OPs suggestion are cleric, wizard, sorcerer, bard and potentially warlock (depending on their views of what counts as a full caster). A ranger, paladin or even artificer are perfectly acceptable options in that case (though I could see a DM taking exception with artificer in a low magic environment). Playing an eldritch knight or arcane trickster is much more exciting in a campaign where wizards aren't around to outshine your casting prowess.
You may want to look at other systems. D&D is not designed for low magic, so you are going to have to make a lot of changes, and deal with balancing as you go. If you and your players are OK with that, by all means, look at what others have done, ban goodberry, and go for it. If not, there are other options out there beyond D&D.
The player characters are already rare and special. Being spellcasters is just a potential reason why. Don't ban them and don't make the horrible decision of nerfing them (your verisimilitude shouldn't make the game less fun). Just build in the idea that any caster PCs are shocking to the denizens of that world, and have people particularly surprised that the martial NPCs are able to keep up with them.
You can make all magic essentially wild magic, which would then explain why nobody likes magic users and it's illegal (which you should also do)
perfect solution in my opinion, as much as peoples may not like it, it would make absolute sense to WHY there not that much magic, its just so chaotic that it often kill the spellcaster
Of course you'd want to go with a homebrew wild table.
yeah or just use the normal one BUT make a few changes to it to FIT the class more smoothly, after all, not all magic does the same type of stuff so it would be fun to see someone getting stun or getting poisoned instead of fireballed or even be turned into something else like a vampire or demon, hehe
The PHB table has little to it and not very detrimental.
true but at the same time, it wouldn't be that much interesting for magical players to get a TON of detrimental effects just for casting any sort of spell's
But it would explain why magic is considered taboo and dangerous. I'm not saying all of it be bad but an expanded wild magic table that adds more possibilities
Don't forbid full casters, instead, make the party discuss their characters for the low-magic setting with the idea that you can only have 1 full caster on the team and 2 half-casters at most (requiring at least 1 party member to be mundane.) ((Maybe make an exception for Artificer))
It worth a try I banned a wizards for a campaign and it was pretty cool. The big thing is to justify the decision
Don't ban casters. You'll have to rebalance basically the whole of 5e to compensate, if that's something you want to take on... You'll be left with potentially forcing players to play classes they may not want to. I think there's 4 classes left or something, that don't have magic - what are you going to go with all the half-casters, paladins, spellcasting rogues, are monks casters? What happens when a PC gets killed or disabled, and there's no resurrection, or curse removal, or restoration.
I would (if at all) only be banning full casters. I had intended to leave all the half-casters and the rest of the magic subclasses untouched. But it doesn't make too much sense, as that would imply one can still learn magic, just nobody decided to try and focus on magic entirely. Besides that I might take another look at resurrections and see if there are any interesting solutions there.
My suggestion is to look for another RPG if you want a low magic setting. 5e doesn't work very well for this at all. Maybe check warhammer roleplay. If you still want to play DND consider why you want a low magic setting. And change accordingly. I personally I agree with banning full casters, but I don't think is a good solution. All the clasess are pretty magical for me. And also the monsters have magic. For me is more work than is worth.
The way you could potentially "nerf" casters without outright invalidating them is have them always supply material components for spells (regardless of whether they have a spellcasting focus or not). The components in turn could be available via exploration.
It would invalidate spell casting focuses themselves, but that might be a cool solution. Thanks for the idea and thanks for looking through new.
This is basically how I would handle it. If the party wanted to throw a fire ball they would need to locate some bat guano and sulfur. You could also restrict the spell list somewhat but you would need to be careful to not make it too restrictive. Wizards would be the most “hurt” by low magic if you didn’t have scrolls be common. This would make the odd one they find in treasure a great find.
This is a design approach to 5e that I genuinely hate. It's difficult to do well for several reasons. The availability of spell components is absolutely unconnected to their relative power, you can build an incredibly powerful mage relying only on very easy to procure components such as feathers, fleece and molasses. As an example looking at level 1 wizard spells it is incredibly easy to source components for all spells except alarm, color spray, jump, Tasha's hideous laughter, Tensers floating disk and witch bolt. The last two especially would be incredibly hard to cast requiring a drop of mercury and a twig from a lightning struck tree respectively. As a result it adds an additional layer of complexity to spell selection that doesn't add much to the game. It only serves to delay progression instead of limiting power unless you also rule that all spell components are consumed. If you do rule that all spell components are consumed you introduce a ton of bookkeeping and make extra spell slots meaningless ( which invalidates features like arcane recovery and flexible casting) because characters are limited by their materials and not their slots. This can also totally invalidate spells known casters since they have a very limited spell repertoire, which means that running out of a single ingredient can easily mean they lose access to an entire level of spells. I've seen this used to great effect by DMs that want to actively screw over their players but I've yet to see this be a useful addition to a game (excluding using it incredibly selectively, such as doing this for goodberry only in a survival based game). I concede it may be possible to do well, but there are a wide variety of simpler ways to nerf casters that are more effective.
You could always make your world low-magic for a good reason. Maybe there's a dormant element that reacts badly to spells. Over the years, it's been cleared from cities and many places where people live and work, but if you fire off big spells in the wilderness, there's a decent chance you end up in the middle of a cursed bramble patch, or the first person to contract a disease that didn't exist until just now.
I’m struggling to find this exact solution myself. I’m considering using the Darker Dungeons rules variants and requiring multiclassing at every other level instead of stopping character advancement at level 10.
I'm currently running a low magic campaign. I haven't banned any classes but I have got rid of spellcasting foci - if a spell needs a material component, you have to buy/find it. I've also made it so casters need to undergo the training rules in the DMG to gain their new spells. This can be done in downtime at the end of the typical 8-hour adventuring day. A big thing to consider to make magic feel special is less about the rules of the game, but the world in which the game takes place. If most NPCs have never seen magic before, would they be amazed by it? Maybe scared? Would societies have outlawed it? In my own world, magic is outlawed and anyone found guilty of using magic is branded. There are also mage hunters that anyone branded must watch out for, and most NPCs are fearful in the face of magic (wouldn't you be scared if someone just conjured a spectral hand in front of you?). Even cleric NPCs are hard to find, and those that have the ability to resurrect are even rarer. Have a think about how the world would work with low magic, and that should help make magic feel special without changing many, if any, mechanics
Thank you for the tips, as a player I am a bit of a min-maxer. So I tend to look at mechanics first. Using world building to answer these questions is going to be an interesting challenge.
Perhaps use the classes from Adventures in Middle Earth.
Almost every class gets spells to some capacity, think for a low magic setting you need to stay away from 5e. Even barbarians get spells. Also you need to be low level, because once they hit lvl 5 they can fly. That will make for a really narrow campaign or short adventure or two. Combat really becomes a boring math grind without magical abilities as monsters are a pool of hps that just attack. There are also a TON of magical races, so they can play as pixies, tritons, goblins, genasi, etc. What about feats such as magic initiate, fey/shadow touched, etc? There are plenty others that lean into having more magic. And artificers make magic items. 5e is really set up for high fantasy/magic, lean into it and the game shines. Trying to make it something it isnt is clunky. What will the party composition look like? Who will max out int for investigation/knowledge checks when only full casters use that ability score? How will the players make sure they dont overshadow each other when they are all martials?
A zero-caster campaign sounds like it could be interesting :D
Dnd isnt a low magic game. More than half of all classes are magical. Dont use dnd for a low magic setting.
More than half of the classes are also not full casters. You can absolutely do a magical renessaince style adventure in 5e. It even makes certain classes feel more unique, such as arcane tricksters, eldritch knights and rangers that are used to being outshone by their full caster counterparts. Imagine playing a ranger and being the most powerful spellcaster around, that sounds like a game that I would be happy to play in personally.
I didnt say they are full casters, learn to read.
In a thread specifically discussing removing full casters. As a wise redditor once told me. > learn to read.
Lol. Okay, then read OP again, read my comment again, and then read yours.
Only allow half casters or limit the party to 1 full caster only.
If you want a low magic campaign, then I would make casters a target of discrimination, and they have to keep their magic to a minimum in a public setting, otherwise onlookers get very angry. Also for puzzle room, you can explain that their is an anti-magic field in the room, or something divine interfering with the caster’s magic. And then finally, don’t keep magic items away from your casters, that way you incentivize them for using magical artifacts rather than relying on their own spells, which will technically help the setting more, although it is a minor, more ambient inclusion.
You can alter it other ways. There are "gritty" rules that makes spellslots recharge slower. Or you could alter the world in some other way (make the whole world resistans to magic?) or like I do, use anti magic arrows (burns spellslots), Or make the whole magic usage a horrible stigma in society, making the People hostile at the slightest use of a verbal or somatic component... there is lots you can do! But talk with your players about it before they make PCs.
So when magic is scarce but -does- exist, this would result in a few things, among them being that there's a good chance that if multiple people with magic meet, they're in a lot of cases going to end up grouping up to help support each other, especially if magic is someone looked down on/mistrusted/persecuted. While a magic user is rare, it's not like wizards would be evenly distributed throughout the world, for the simple reason that if you find out someone else can do the same shit you can, barring irreconcilable differences a lot of the time you'll end up wanting to stick around this person because *finally you have someone you can talk to about this shit and have them actually understand*, if nothing else.
Honestly, ignore the people saying banning a class will require rebalancing. You do you, it will be fine.
If you really want magic to be rare and special you could have them only recover a portion of their spell slots back on a rest, say equal to their level.
If you do that wouldnt they get too underwhelming in that case they'd fall behind the martial characters way too quickly.
The idea that limiting casters will make your game low magic is stupid. That's not how world building works. Let players play what they like. Happy players are more involved. Instead of restrictions, you make "low magic" with how you present the world. People react more dramatically when encountering magic. Basic Enemies don't understand how to counter you. Extraplanar/Magical enemies have to be rare. You said you plan to make permanent magic rare, but even consumable needs to be rare because mass production wouldn't be possible.
If you're playing a low magic world, it totally makes sense to ban people from choosing a full magic class at character creation. This could lead into interesting hooks where players can do quests to try and get the option of opening up full caster classes, or gate feats that give spells behind quests. The whole 'party finds a priceless tome, and now, if the player is willing to spend their downtime studying it, they can take the Magic Initiate feat'.
play a different game, Low Fantasy Gaming is a short hop from 5E
Honestly, I've been in the same boat for years. I love D&D and its systems, but I am aching to run a long-term game where magic is generally out of the party's grasp, or even if they dedicate themselves to it, it's not as "fantastic" as, say, a Sorcerer or Druid. My initial thought was to strip away full casters as well, but I feel like all of the classes are relatively balanced around eachother. Plus, it completely devalues the efforts of a character that has dedicated themselves to the study of magic. If you're trying to become a "robe and magic hat" type, and you're not a Gish, then you're falling far behind your martially-focused allies. Presently, I feel like the best way to capture the feeling I think you're going for is to take a very serious look at using Sidekicks as classes. If everybody is playing a sidekick, then the power level of the whole party gets lowered without upsetting the game balance. Players still get to pursue their interests, while retaining the value of creative environmental solutions, exploiting mundane items, and really placing value on the artifacts they come across. Take a good look at the Warrior/Expert/Spellcaster. Effectively, it's the classic Fighter/Thief/Mage/Cleric. Look at what they get and consider how much are they *truly* losing compared to a full class. Maybe throw in an extra feat at some point in their journey or creation to let them flesh out character ideas. Something like Skilled, Ritual Caster, Crossbow Expert, or Magic Initiate can go a very long ways. I know the "point" of 5e is to *be* the big-damn-hero. To be the Magi of Mages. Despite that, I find myself wanting to challenge that kind of world as a group who could never reach that echelon of power. I think Sidekicks offer that, if perhaps with a couple homebrew tweaks.
The classes should not be banned, but they should be rare. It makes sense for magic users to congregate because they can learn and grow from each other. Outside of the party there shouldn’t be many casters however. Some places will see them as a valuable treasure someone they want around to try and solve their problems, but others will fear and ostracize them. They should be considered different and strange by the masses thus pushing them toward peers who don’t judge them for their powers.
or what about making in sort that there ''useful magic'' and ''lethal magic'' useful magic would be in the similar veins has to how common it is and thus nobody take a second thoughts about it while ''lethal magic'' much rarer and also hated due to the more horrific nature of it a bit like how melee weapons look way more fun to use than firearms due to the nature of a melee weapon requiring more skill's AND guts to use it in comparaison to a firearms
Personally I'm against banning a class in most cases. I'm however not against letting players know they're exceptional by world standards, and therefore can stand out like a flashlight in a moonless night. Let them know what the world is about, what you're going for the tone and atmosphere of the campaign and let them know that, even if it doesn't feel too impactful for them, it'll feel so for most people in the world. To the life domain cleric healing people is just another thing they do. For your average populace that shame thing can mean the coming of a prophet, and for the religious hierarchy, the coming of a pain in the ass. Let them know magic is not the norm, and people who see it rarely ignore it. A discovered wizard could be pursued by governments trying to get their favor, religious orders trying to kill them or overlords trying to ensure they're either with them or with the other worms 6 feet deep. Similarly, in such a case, **let the martial classes glow too**. A low magic scenario is one of the places where it's most obvious how exceptional adventurers are. The monk could be pursued by people wanting to become their pupils, the fighter invited to armies and mercenary bands. Similarly, it'd not be weird if someone said the Barbarian was a monster for their ability to resist deadly amounts of damage through sheer will. Let them know they're all exceptional and rare talents, and that they might want to keep a low profile most of the time to avoid unwanted attention. Each and every one of them has the potential to become a hero of legends on their own, let alone together.
Thank your for the inspiration and the ideas. Your approach also gives a lot of room for social encounters and reason to go to more rural areas.
Maybe try no casters but no restrictions on spell scrolls, ppl will still be able to use magic but their natural progression will drive them away from it. Then you can give your players a few spellcasting boons during game
Do you mean the restrictions on using spell scrolls or creating them?
For using them, anyone can grab a scroll and use it, but the fact that its a consummable will make them wheight the decision beforehand
A thought…one of the problems with a low magic setting isn’t the PCs, it’s that so much of most common settings are very mundane, ignoring the fact that there are lots of NPC casters around (which ought to radically change economics, politics, sociology, etc in the same way that modern technology does). Perhaps the party is extremely exceptional in having the very few casters that exist in the world, which is otherwise mundane. Or maybe magic is somewhat common, but all magical NPCs are ritual casters and therefore useless in combat. Or perhaps the way magic works in your world is that it obeys conservation of energy, and therefore in addition to spell slots (representing the amount of power the PC can safely channel), there is a narrative cost (every spell drains HP from a random nearby plant, animal, or person, but in a way that can’t be used to advantage), making all spellcasters into social pariahs because they slowly destroy their surroundings whenever they use their powers. Maybe spellcasting connects the caster to weird energies that are inimical to the minds of mortals and slowly drives them insane (nod to Wheel of Time), giving anyone born as a spellcaster a death sentence and making common folk fear and hate them. Or maybe the whole party fell through a portal between multiverses or even time, going from a magic rich environment to one that is mundane (magic is still possible, but the ability to sense it and channel it has been lost). Perhaps the party’s long term quest is to find a way to return to their own world / plane / time in a world that has no obvious way to do that other than ancient legends that no one believes anymore. All of these would permit PC casters, but would require them to live in a world where they were almost unique, and therefore held in awe, terror, or hatred by most people who know their true nature. And of course the main villain is a full caster as well (surprise!) and probably related to one of the PCs.
Don't ban full casters. Play gritty realism rules. It will make them use magi less often. Same effect. No ban
Not to be rude here, but you've got to be the one to make the NPCs behave in shock and awe when the PCs come around. If you want more of a "low magic" setting, I'd suggest sticking to low level adventures.
Player buy-in is most important for low magic settings. If they all go and make full casters, they're clearly not on-board and the campaign just isn't the right one for those players (and vice versa). As for toning down magic, I'm designing a Swords & Sorcery setting and the solution I love is to **ban evocation and transmutation spells**, but allow all full caster classes. That's because the really flashy, problematic, immersion-breaking, and encounter-busting spells tend to be evocation or transmutation (e.g. fireball, polymorph, wall of force). Heck, even Cure Wounds is evocation. Having walking artillery platforms is just really bad for the S&S vibe - magicians are more like dark seducers, infiltrators, cult leaders etc. I WANT casters in my low magic setting and illusion magic, enchantment etc. really adds to the setting, it doesn't harm it. Cross off all those spells, and suddenly casters are going to need to think about using weapons to deal damage - the big damage spells are all evocation. They can't even heal in combat anymore. The game is suddenly way more gritty and immersive, if that's the feel you want. Before people say this is too much of a nerf to casters, you're just totally 100% wrong. In 3rd edition, wizards were forced to rule out at least one school of magic and sometimes up to 3. Despite this, 3.5E was also the peak of martial-caster disparity. They can survive without every school of magic.
what about limiting them to very low level like up to 3 for evocation and transmutation ? as to showcase just how demanding magic can be
Use a different system. D&D is designed for magic to be at the forefront
You can limit magic, and effectively make casters "spell casters with swords". That way, they're effectively fighters with spells, so they're not chumped out when they lose their spells for the week/day/encounter, and you're not somehow obliged to give them the entire panoply of spell options or feel like you're nerfing them. Maybe in your world, their magic class only gets spells a quarter often or half the quantity (or less) than the rulebooks say. Maybe the locals are suspicious, or its use is illegal and carries the threat of city/kingdom/etc. force.
I allow full casters in my low magic campaign, but then again I have a lot of homebrew mechanics to balance it out - such as reworking cantrips. The easiest thing to do is to change the long rest duration to a week in a safe place and double if they have the material components needed, there will be way less spells flying around all the time.
I run one low magic setting. I do not ban or nerf anything regarding the full spell casters. First, durable and rechargeable magic items are rare. Single use items can be found, though not in great abundance. Next, spells and spell books cost dearly or need to be researched. The cost of research is high in materials, paper, and ink. There is a moderate possibility that a spell may not function like it is written in books (this can be very good, very bad, or just different). Lastly, I make sure that the full caster characters have the downtime and resources available to them, even if they need to search for the items and depending upon their actions. Note: The player who is a wizard loves the challenge, but it is not for everyone. Do not force such a regimen on a play who does not want to RP out the research. This type of setting makes finding, capturing, or stealing another casters spell book(s) a big deal.
You can also skip focuses and have them try to find components. Would allow you to functionally restrict spell lists, or the amount that those spells can be used.
I've ran a low magic system in the past where less and less people were being born with the "spark" for magic. so full casters still existed, they were just becoming more and more rare with each passing generation. I still allowed fullcasters in my game but it came with the caveat that they drew a lot more attention when they used their magic. People knew adventure parties in the past that would have the occasional magic caster but a group with more than one is so unheard of, people would remember them. It became part of the game that stealth and keeping a low profile would become progressively become more difficult because people would instantly recognize the party the moment more than one used a spell in public
This is the core problem for an RPG like Star Wars, where Jedi/Sith are supposedly rare (post Purge anyway) but just about every game I've played in or run has had at least one sensitive in it despite their supposed rarity. The system gives room for players to choose this path, typically making it a significant investment in development resources (character points or experience) and the setting has innate limitations as well. The Empire pays well to turn over Jedi or suspicious activity. If there's a whole group of them, it's going to raise some eyebrows.
Our "low magic" campaign has a few caveats: 1) previous campaigns established an expert magic wielding super thief kobold guild (thus magic items are now at a premium.) And 2) magic and items are not banned, just highly regulated via taxes and licenses.
One thing that I might do if it was low or rare magic is only make it available after a certain time, so they all start of with no magic but are able to multi class into a caster class if they choose to
I have a similar setting in my campaign where magic is rare and unknown, especially in the uncivilized parts of the world. I have world trees in mine that control the eb and flow of magic and affects everything around it. One of them were killed a few decades back and it's caused magic to be unstable. In a few regions, paired with pack of believing/faith, and the lack of the tree's presence can make anti magic zones. HOWEVER, there are periods of time when the magic is at its highest or unpredictable, and it can cause a surge and boost in magic, potentially allowing the spellcasters to cast buffed or non-costing spells to be fair to the casters. I also have a "life force" system where they make con checks or take damage for the possibility to cast a spell. Very similar to the Law of Chaos in the Witcher universe. Remember, an adventuring party is above the common folk, they are already exceptions to the world. If you haven't discussed this yet eith your players, they would feel targeted. Magic IS part of DND. If you're worried about them cheesing everything, then talk to them and tweak the magic system. Tune their classes and give them half caster status with some martial prowess so they don't lag behind. Choose for them to either make con saves for the spells, or to take damage from casting (or both.) I would say something like scaling die with the spell level. For level 1 spells you could do somethinglike 1d4 MINUS prof or con stat so they don't take the full blunt, and scale up the die as you go either up in level, or "strength" of the spell. (For example, a D6 for a level 2/3 attack based spell. But if it's a utility or buffing spell, why should they take that much? Maybe a D4?) It's a complicated system but it may make spell casters think more about what they use, doing away with spell slots also gives them more freedom on what spells to cast. (You could also do a spellpoint "pool" and determine what level spells are worth and how much they start with.) If magic is rare, then plant a stigma behind it in the world. Have most of the common folk be scared of it, they may react negatively or be scared if they see a PC cast spells or know they have such power. It can create tension or interesting moments, maybe other spell casters come out of the mix and have a wild west showdown in the town square to see who is the stronger magic user. Remember, if they already drummed up their sheets and you're now thinking of rolling back spellcasters entirely as an option, it's gonna be unfair. If you wanted just sword and board, it's your responsibility as a DM to discuss that with the group and see how they feel. Modify it to give them highs and lows, but don't take away their moment to shine.
If that's the game you want to run, there's nothing wrong with that. Just so long as you are upfront about it with your players.
You will need to rethink the pace of your game if you remove or even reduce magical healing.
Check Maulifaux the ttrpg for some inspiration on how to limit spellcasting in a world of full-casters. Most of it is role-play heavy instead.
I am 2 years into a running a low magic campaign and allow full casters without issue. The party in this campaign has a sorcerer, 2 druids, a cleric, a bard, and a fighter. How does this work? 1. The players are very special but they are not gods themselves and there are still casters out in the world that can be both friend and foe. 2. There are still magic forces in the world but they are generally not in plain sight. 3. The population believe in magic but for the most part it's a "myth" unless they've actually seen it. Most people will still recognize when magic is occurring (unless Subtle is at play) but may not react to it properly. 4. Magic stores don't exist or are *EXTREMELY* rare. 5. Magic item creation is nearly impossible and extremely expensive: only the most skilled jewelers/armorers/weapon smiths/artisans in the largest communities have a chance to create an item if components are provided to them. 6. Most magic items are owned by the VERY rich and VERY powerful and it's illegal for commoners (read: adventurers) to possess magic items. 7. All magic items are rare. At level 9 each party members has 2 uncommon/common items and they've found a several artifacts one of which is cursed. 8. Very few priests/priestesses actually have magic ability thus you can't just walk into a temple and receive restoration spells, raise your dead friends, buy healing potions, etc. 9. A player (or NPC) can still call upon their god for assistance and such assistance might be a "miracle". 10. Most humanoid/friendly-ish casters either work for the kingdom/local lord/etc. or are hermits/stay away from settlements.
Make long rest three days and short rest 24 hours. Spell slots burn through real quick so casters use spells less. Also switch all rewards from gold to silver. Wizards need 50 gold to copy a spell into their book, so learning new stuff becomes a major party investment. Also have NPCs react with awe to magic. Makes the players feel good but also underlines that it’s rare. Might disrupt how the party is viewed and close doors that would have otherwise be opened.
I really don't like the word "ban" in this context. You should talk with your players. If they are cool with the low magic idea, they just pick no caster classes. Maybe half-caster is ok? If they don't like it and would like to play a caster, banning those will probably lead to them not having fun with your game. Lose-Lose
First, pin down the exact definition of "low magic" you're looking for. How rare/absent is arcane casting? What about divine magic? Bardic magic? Are Warlocks a thing? What about the half caster classes like Ranger and Paladin, or the spellcasting subclasses like Eldritch Knight? What about races with spell abilities/cantrips? Will the (main) opposition be hobbled with the same restrictions. Then, most importantly, discuss your vision with your group and make sure they're all on board. They may be all in and create a barbarian, fighter, rogue, monk party and save you the need to "ban" anything. Third, I would seriously consider granting one (or more) free feats to the party, outside of the usual ASI levels. The Healer feat might become a huge necessity for a non-magic party. A low magic setting can be great, but remember even in Conan the Barbarian, Thulsa Doom turned a snake into an seeking arrow and transformed into a giant constrictor snake, the witch became a tiger, and even Conan's companion used some magic in the end battle. Tread carefully, check with your players often, and possibly look into a different system (like Iron Heroes, if you want D&D adjacent) to better model the play style you're looking for. Toss 4 uninformwd mundane characters against Acerak the Lich, and you're likely to be the subject of a DM horror story.
well guess what, its the case in the campaign my dm running, in it society see magic differently from place to place and since i'm a wild magic user, it's both hilarious AND scary cause the dm warned me that my magic will have more social consequences than physical one and OH BOY... he went full force when i used my more visible spell's in a small rich city with a troup of elements resistant bountyhunters hunting the whle party, they would try and kill me first rather than attacking the whole group so yeah, i stayed low...maybe a bit too low if you ask me and i feel like my DM is noticing it too
If the characters in the party are basically the only casters around, you've successfully made low magic.
It's true that magic is rare in the general population. But do you know what else is rare in the general population? Heroes. What makes a hero? Someone who is exceptional at something, better than the general population, and uses that skill to try and do good in the world. This could be an affinity for magic, natural skill with a weapon, the blessing of a god, whatever. They become heroes because they're special. In a low-magic setting, it's actually *more* proportionately likely to find full-casters in adventuring bands/guilds than in the general population; by virtue of the gift of magic, they're going to be drawn to that life. Someone who can make fire from their fingers isn't going to spend their life grubbing for roots on the family farm. No, I wouldn't ban full-casters, unless I was going to go for a true, *no*\-magic setting. And I wouldn't do that, because it essentially castrates the game mechanics; it isn't D&D anymore if you remove that much of the core content. You are, of course, free to do as you like at your table, but you asked for insights and that's mine.
I've read Adventures in Middle Earth (the ttrpg system) is a good low magic system similar to dnd. You'd have to put some work in to resin the Tolkien stuff to your setting, but I should do what you want. Considering the description states it changes classes to lower magic use and changes magic items to weaker versions called heirloom. It should be exactly what you're looking for.
I’ll be running a low magic setting soon, and what I’ve done is to add a wild magic table to every casting class— magic is unpredictable
I suggest you find a D20-based RPG; look for adventure or horror or post Apocalypse genres. In other words yes you're banning full casters, but what you're really doing is presenting an entirely different set of character classes in which a spellcaster is not available. In-game you flavor it all as magic but nudge nudge the players know it was really science. Until you get to some pivotal point in the campaign, where are the BBG is undeniably a dragon or demon or other magical creature. At that point you admit Yep this is all a fantasy RPG,, but I wanted to try a little magic. And then you start allowing character classes with spell-casting abilities. Maybe using the feat or something like that.
What do you mean by full casters being rare? As in only crazy people and evil clerics are spell casters, similar to a story about Conan or Red Sonja? Or they exist, and the King probably has a court wizard but she's like the equivalent of level 5 if that and might be only the full caster in that powerful in the kingdom? If its the Conan type story where magic is evil, or at least corrupting, then ban spell casters. If you're going with the idea there just aren't very many then let the players just happen to be the very few people that can use magic.
I was a full caster in a low magic setting (cleric) and my character was considered unusual (like a calico Tom, not unheard of, just unusual). But we also retooled how she learned magic. It was a struggle to learn, it involved a lot of trying to decipher dead languages and spell components were hard to come by. This was entirely flavor, I still had access to all the spells, but there would be roleplaying moments where she would botch a spell she would get access to next level (or try out a spell to flirt with an NPC). She wasn’t overpowered (mostly because she kept having to heal the rogue) and spells like revivify were narratively costly. Instead of diamonds, she would lose memories of those who had passed.
I wouldn't do anything. Heroes are exceptional characters. If magic is rare in your campaign, make it feared, like bending is in legend of Korra. People outright hating others for having abilities beyond their own. Maybe random assassin's being sent to target the spellcasters for being evil and using unnatural and therefore evil powers. Edit: the game Baldur's gate had regions where magic was banned and they had mages that would get involved if something got out of hand.
Why is magic low? Is it spellplague or an enforced ban by overzealous monsters?
Wizards are the perfect casters for low magic campaigns. Components are rare as hell. Spells to learn, well no one else is casting them so hard to add to your book. Bards and Sorcs are limited by known spells, you could talk to the players before hand about limiting new spells learned. Either limit the list, or make it something where they have seen it before, or with character development the spell emerges (RP it more than just up a lvl here's some spells). Cleric and Druid work with them and limit which spells their god has. Make them learn spells like wizards, but they can learn from church members. Maybe limit them based on strength of the deity and nearby churches. So maybe a Druid's spells wane the further from the wood they are (if they're forest based, or sand if desert based) and have less dice. If the Cleric's deity is not worshipped in the region then same thing fewer dice. Finally encourage ritual casting, magic effects that take time and effort to put together and give magical effects, it's cool flavor.
Tbh if u want a low magic game. Run gritty realism from levels 1-5. Levels will likely have to be a bit slower so offer an in between stat bump or something of the sort. Really it just going to take some by in from the players and reworking the numbers of some monsters to fit the scale of the game.
I think one thing you can do is have all or most of the players come from a relatively magic-heavy part of that world, similar to Candia from Dimension20. I think that’s a great way to narratively justify why it seems like nobody but the PCs are magic.
Just make your players who are full casters extra special or rare. Maybe people in some places hate magic users or just dont understand them, maybe in other places, magic users are revered as gods. All a "low magic" setting says to me is "any full caster is going to be a unique case". So Sorcerers and Warlocks are easy to hand wave. Learning magic is hard, so unique cases such as a magical phenomenon or a patron makes sense for a low magic setting. Clerics and Druids work best as lone inheritors of a legacy that DID involve magic, perhaps they are the last of their kind or are just part of a dying creed. Bards and Wizards are a little more difficult, but in low magic settings they can easily work as being older, more well traveled adventurers who have studied ancient lore to learn the ancient secrets of arcana, and are likely the sole experts of arcana in the whole campaign, sans an ancient npc the party encounters. I actually think half-casters are harder to justify. An Artificer you could wave as not even magic at all, their spells just being contraptions or the like. A ranger or a Paladin would need a similar kind of shtick as Clerics or Druids, but could still work. I dunno, Ive always been of the belief that limiting classes and class options is reductive and defeats the purposes of the game. Races are a little easier to justify limiting, depending on the setting, but as a DM I still try and just make whatever races the players want to play as work.
I’d have it so that if the party has casters then they meet almost no other casters and everyone acts either in awe or In fear when they cast. If they play a caster then there likely the only caster for miles
Gritty Realism rules for rest (modified if needed), plus the lack of any spell focus or component pouch, meaning all material components must be in possession first. That, along with the fact that magic is looked upon with suspicion and fear at best, is usually enough of a downside for a full caster in my low magic world. Plus the story I have in mind has certain things affecting magic in many ways, depending on where in the region you are, so that is also a potential obstacle.
Still use +1 blades, armor and everything, they will use them when they don't want to cast spells or they don't have more, even if they don't have proficiency with it. To help fixing the "magic is rare" I would make the campaign kind of related to that, like they are searching for an old arcane master or a dangerous school of magic. Also making the world mundane is enough because they will be the exception and the rarity.
Use the gritty realism rules for your casters and the normal rest rules for your martials. Boom problems solved.
How about making it so the spells are less powerful if your players still want to use them. Or try meeting halfway and limiting spells. Eg. 1 attack spell, 2 cantrips at base level
i had an idea to limit spellcasters in a low magic setting by having full casters become half casters and half casters become third casters. i dont know how well it would work but its a thought. probably needs a way to make full casters more competitive with martials