Low Magic World

[Gluteus_Maximus]

In my homebrew setting, there is scarcely a person who can cast even 3rd level spells, and the mightiest spell a human ever cast in the last four centuries was one that was 7th level. That came from an entire lifetime of study, over 90 years of staying indoors and reading. This wizard died only 2 years after, before he managed to write it all down, of old age.

Currently, the strongest wizard in the empire is the king's abjurer, who stays by his side at all times, and whose young grandchildren are training to become diviners and transmitters. He can cast 4th level spells, which he learned in roughly the same time as that other wizard, but instead of researching for a lifetime he devoted himself to making offspring to follow his example when he dies (he's currently 80, so his time is almost come).

Anyway, I have a question- how would you, DM's, manage PC's gaining levels rapidly by defeating powerful monsters, and keep them from quickly becoming the strongest wizard, nay, spellcasters in living memory? Would you hold them back, or lean into it? And how would such a wizard react to someone probably several decades younger casting a mightier spells than he ever grasped?

[jjordan]

Random thoughts:
-Spell learning time. You can't just copy down a spell and cast it, you have to understand how it works. So it could take months of research and practice to learn how to cast a spell. That slows things down and the quest for additional knowledge and/or materials provides additional adventure opportunities.
-Different magic systems. How does magic work? It works however the caster believes it works. This means that different schools of casting, even different individual casters, can have totally different beliefs about how magic works. So it may be impossible for a caster to learn a spell from a different casting tradition or it may require the caster to learn the new system and then figure out how to incorporate the spell into their understanding/system.
-Make magic hard and dangerous. Add a DC to spells based on their level and how much they change the world. If you fail the DC then there are consequences ranging from harmful to fatal. Then allow characters to stack bonuses to help ensure success. Casting as a ritual? Bonus to success. Using a spell focus? Bonus to success. Using multiple foci (material components) that are related to the spell? Bonus to success. Assistant casters/apprentices/students helping you out? Bonus to success. And so on. This makes magic less of an off-the-cuff sort of thing and more of a deliberate action that must be prepared for. It slows things down.
-Increase the costs of performing magic. Where does the magic energy come from? Ley lines? Do you need to be close to a source of magic in order to cast a spell? Does it come from life force/vitality/HP? Do you need a bunch of life force to cast a spell? Do you need to open a connection to another plane of existence to draw on the energy of that world? Higher costs mean less magic use.
-Make magic more esoteric. Instead of players understanding how magic works they are monkeys poking around the remnants of an advanced civilization. I push this button and I get this. So the characters are re-discovering lost tools (the tools of creation? a long-gone civilization?) and the tools do something and the players find a use for that. This reduces the number of spells available.

[Gluteus_Maximus]

Ooo, this is a lot of food for thought. So much so that I almost forgot I didn't eat breakfast!

Especially the 1st and 3rd random ideas. With the first, I imagine I would have to reduce a wizard's starting number of spells from 6 with 3 cantrips to like 2 with 2 cantrips. Though the caster would not learn new spells at each level, they would become more accustomed to the spells that they already knew, and specialize in those. Like the abjurer.

With the 3rd, I can see the party dividing their funds so the wizard can maintain having an apprentice, or a large number of components, so the wizard can cast high level spells. After all, in a world with not many magic items in general, the funds don't need to be saved for the monk's oh-so-precious bracers of defense. I like how if a wizard assassin ran up and cast a simple 1st-level firebolt up at the king, it would take an effort and a risk for the abjurer to counterspell it on his own without any bonuses to his check.

The others, I've already (mostly) thought through.

Also, thanks for bolding your headings for each idea. I was having trouble reading it.

[Mechalich]

Since it sounds like you are using the D&D system for this, you have a couple of options. One is that you can rewrite the spell slot progression for Wizards so that they gain spells very slowly. Another option is to alter the XP progression for the wizard class and make every level taken in Wizard (or sorcerer or any other arcane caster) cost ten times as much (or whatever number you feel is appropriate) as levels in another class. That would make becoming a wizard a slow and cumbersome process.

[Gluteus_Maximus]

Since it sounds like you are using the D&D system for this, you have a couple of options. One is that you can rewrite the spell slot progression for Wizards so that they gain spells very slowly. Another option is to alter the XP progression for the wizard class and make every level taken in Wizard (or sorcerer or any other arcane caster) cost ten times as much (or whatever number you feel is appropriate) as levels in another class. That would make becoming a wizard a slow and cumbersome process.

The purpose of running a low magic setting is not to make arcane spellcasters utterly unfeasible. You can become a "skilled" wizard quickly, just not gain new spells quickly.

[Tvtyrant]

Make levels take much longer so it isn't a problem. If it takes a century to become a mid level character high level magic is going to be nearly impossible.

I also like magic not being a class ability and using rituals for magic instead, and the rituals just open up later in a characters life.

[Gluteus_Maximus]

Make levels take much longer so it isn't a problem. If it takes a century to become a mid level character high level magic is going to be nearly impossible.

I also like magic not being a class ability and using rituals for magic instead, and the rituals just open up later in a characters life.

In the context of combat, a wizard having effectively a fifth of the hit points of the rest of the party is going to get dull for them. I mean, they already have half, why be generous? And of course, make them all spend insane amounts of time on a spell for a combat that would end before a tenth of that time is passed.

And to clarify, the wizard mentioned in the original post was also the first to cast 5th and 6th level spells. And the two example wizards aren't gaining their spells from fighting near death situations and killing monsters, it was from purely research. I never said "they were the first to be a 13th level wizard", did I? Could have gained levels but never cast a spell of 7th level. And in the context of this setting 13th isn't very mid-level. Anyway, I already got what I needed.

[TheHighWayMan]

The purpose of running a low magic setting is not to make arcane spellcasters utterly unfeasible. You can become a "skilled" wizard quickly, just not gain new spells quickly.

The problem with changing the Wizard's spell progression is that you would be weakening it in comparison to the other classes. Why would someone chose to play a nerfed wizard instead of a fighter or rouge? Even if you give the wizard some additional features to compensate for the loss of these higher level spells it is unlikely to balance out in the scheme of things. You would probably be better off just barring the PCs from taking spell-caster classes (going out on a limb here I am going to assume that Divine magics also comes under this low magic world).

[Gluteus_Maximus]

The problem with changing the Wizard's spell progression is that you would be weakening it in comparison to the other classes.

I'm not the one advocating for changing the wizard's Spell Slot Progression, just their known spells. They still can cast their already known spells using their higher level spell slots, but they can't just fabricate 2 new spells out of thin air each level, they have to go research.They would still get their cantrips buffed when they would and stuff.

At least I'm not the one saying that Wizards' level progression should just be slowed in relation to others, thus making their hit points absolutely tiny facing threats that are difficult for their much higher level companions.

[Mechalich]

I'm not the one advocating for changing the wizard's Spell Slot Progression, just their known spells. They still can cast their already known spells using their higher level spell slots, but they can't just fabricate 2 new spells out of thin air each level, they have to go research.They would still get their cantrips buffed when they would and stuff.

At least I'm not the one saying that Wizards' level progression should just be slowed in relation to others, thus making their hit points absolutely tiny facing threats that are difficult for their much higher level companions.

That doesn't make the world low magic though. It makes it marginally less magical than standard D&D, but magic remains both present and quite powerful, especially if you allow characters to utilize metamagic as normal. Banning high-level spells shunts creative players into some unusual builds, but there are a number of methods to squeeze an awful lot of power out of low-level spells like Orbs.

[Tvtyrant]

In the context of combat, a wizard having effectively a fifth of the hit points of the rest of the party is going to get dull for them. I mean, they already have half, why be generous? And of course, make them all spend insane amounts of time on a spell for a combat that would end before a tenth of that time is passed.

And to clarify, the wizard mentioned in the original post was also the first to cast 5th and 6th level spells. And the two example wizards aren't gaining their spells from fighting near death situations and killing monsters, it was from purely research. I never said "they were the first to be a 13th level wizard", did I? Could have gained levels but never cast a spell of 7th level. And in the context of this setting 13th isn't very mid-level. Anyway, I already got what I needed.

My point is you can just make everyone take much longer to get high levels. Low magic and low level go together perfectly fine, no need to make separate level speeds.

[Gluteus_Maximus]

That doesn't make the world low magic though. It makes it marginally less magical than standard D&D, but magic remains both present and quite powerful, especially if you allow characters to utilize metamagic as normal. Banning high-level spells shunts creative players into some unusual builds, but there are a number of methods to squeeze an awful lot of power out of low-level spells like Orbs.

A low power, slow level advancement game is exactly what "Low-Magic" is, though, according to the DMG. As opposed to a medium or high magic campaign where there's a 5th level spellcaster or five in every hamlet.

My point is you can just make everyone take much longer to get high levels. Low magic and low level go together perfectly fine, no need to make separate level speeds.

Ah. I misunderstood (since the post was all about the wizards in the setting, and was kind of leaning in that way) and that's probably what I was going to end up doing anyway.

[jjordan]

Reducing the number of spell slots is really the easiest way to make magic more rare. Leave level progression alone but put gaps between each level of spell slot acquisition. So you get spell slots at level 1, none at 2, at level 3 you'd get the spell slots you would get at level 2 and so on up the line. You'd be 20th level before you'd even have a 7th level spell slot. And if you apply this across the board to all spellcasters it gets rid of a lot of problems with implementation of other ideas.

Add in some flavor to make spells harder to acquire and learn and Bob's your mother's brother.

[Gluteus_Maximus]

Reducing the number of spell slots is really the easiest way to make magic more rare. Leave level progression alone but put gaps between each level of spell slot acquisition. So you get spell slots at level 1, none at 2, at level 3 you'd get the spell slots you would get at level 2 and so on up the line. You'd be 20th level before you'd even have a 7th level spell slot. And if you apply this across the board to all spellcasters it gets rid of a lot of problems with implementation of other ideas.

Add in some flavor to make spells harder to acquire and learn and Bob's your mother's brother.

That's just half casters though, and with half casters like paladin and ranger even if you added getting a new spell level at 20th you would get 2nd level casting at 5, 3rd at 9, 4th at 13 and 5th at 17th, and you would learn 6th level spells at 20th, no 7th level slots involved. And I don't really want magic to be "rare" per se (almost every major town has a wizard from the capitol and a library of up to 2nd-3rd level spells, and the capitol has 6th level spells documented(as mentioned no one can cast above 4th)) just slow.

I can see how that makes it easier to apply other ideas to. Here's an idea that works just the same- make everyone else but Sorcerers and Wizards half casters (Paladins and Rangers become thirdcasters and Arcane Trickster/Eldritch Knight fourthcasters, however that works), and make sorcerer/wiz have difficulty learning new spells? It makes other casting classes weaker physically, and sorcerers and wizards stay the same physically, but have more difficulty learning new magic.

Leaves the problem of the Bard, though. They're an arcane caster, but they don't really need to "study" to gain power. They just... know things. I might just remove the Bard from the class list for the purpose of making the world a little more serious.

And then there's the warlock- they have a pact with their patron, and the patron's in control, so why do they have control over what spells they know? They made a pact with a monster of unimaginable power, of course they can gain their 5th level spells just as fast as normal, but the spells they know are in the patron's control?

[Paleomancer]

I'm curious, what edition are you using? If it's 3.5 edition, you could use a variant of Epic 6. The idea is that you only go up to character level 6, and then advance further by taking feats. You could adjust it to level 8 or so if that works better, but essentially most people would hit a standard upper limit and then if they work hard, might possibly get higher level abilities at the DM's discretion... or just to get better at what you already do. I remember reading some ideas for more powerful high level spells that required feats and material expenses to use once a day at most.

https://www.myth-weavers.com/wiki/index.php/Epic_6

5e probably wouldn't work well that way... But if all casters are essentially reworked warlocks, that might work.
.

[Gluteus_Maximus]

I'm curious, what edition are you using? If it's 3.5 edition, you could use a variant of Epic 6. The idea is that you only go up to character level 6, and then advance further by taking feats. You could adjust it to level 8 or so if that works better, but essentially most people would hit a standard upper limit and then if they work hard, might possibly get higher level abilities at the DM's discretion... or just to get better at what you already do. I remember reading some ideas for more powerful high level spells that required feats and material expenses to use once a day at most.

https://www.myth-weavers.com/wiki/index.php/Epic_6

5e probably wouldn't work well that way... But if all casters are essentially reworked warlocks, that might work.
.

Yeah, it's 5th edition. I experimented with adding magic above 9th level into the world, but the thing is that no one in the world has ever cast 8th or 9th level spells so adding 10th or epic level spells are kinda redundant when 8th and 9th are just as powerful in relation to the spells just below them

[Grek]

Don't run this setting in D&D. D&D's challenges and progression system has certain assumptions in mind and does not handle deviation from those assumptions gracefully. In 5e, for example, cutting back on spell slots makes casters useless (they cast maybe one spell and then become a peasant with a crossbow) while cutting back on spells known just turns it into a question of what first level spell scales best with higher level slots. You'd need to replace all of the caster classes entirely with homebrew that casts only weak spells, but gets class abilities to contribute elsewhere. Ultimately you're better off running a rules system intended for low magic in the first place.

[Gluteus_Maximus]

Don't run this setting in D&D. D&D's challenges and progression system has certain assumptions in mind and does not handle deviation from those assumptions gracefully. In 5e, for example, cutting back on spell slots makes casters useless (they cast maybe one spell and then become a peasant with a crossbow) while cutting back on spells known just turns it into a question of what first level spell scales best with higher level slots. You'd need to replace all of the caster classes entirely with homebrew that casts only weak spells, but gets class abilities to contribute elsewhere. Ultimately you're better off running a rules system intended for low magic in the first place.

Ugh, I'll just put the party in a situation that makes them gain an affinity for magic no one else has. They are the heroes, after all.

[Paleomancer]

Ugh, I'll just put the party in a situation that makes them gain an affinity for magic no one else has. They are the heroes, after all.

I don't know, as a setting idea it does add something significant. It might be as simple as removing defenses of monsters, or providing specific means for the characters to defeat more powerful monsters (admittedly, you might need to reduce the number of them accordingly). I don't know 5e well enough to recommend changes, but in 3.5e I might remove or reduce, say, a golem's damage resistance and blanket magic immunity to account for reduced player options. As a positive, martial characters are more useful. Or focus on support spells for magic and mitigate offense/rebuff options. With 5e's concentration mechanic, that already makes magic a more tactical consideration. Though this does add a lot of work...

[Squire Doodad]

Ugh, I'll just put the party in a situation that makes them gain an affinity for magic no one else has. They are the heroes, after all.

That seems like a viable option, maybe its a scenario where magic was once stronger but not quite anymore, the players interact with remnants of old civilization including a magic enhancing device which naturally breaks after affecting the whole party, or at least the relevant casters and one or two others. It's very old though, so instead of making them have instant magic power it just makes the designated mages have the ability to learn spells more quickly (i.e. at a normal pace).
The idea of a mage needing to understand why a spell works is a useful trick to make a roadblock to prevent overly rapid spell gain.

Another possiblity: The monsters of the world have a natural collection of magicness in them (let's call it Thaumite). When a naturally magically-attuned person fights monsters, they gain a small amount of Thaumite which they absorb and then that is what permits them to learn magic, which naturally amounts to exp gain. The reason where there aren't many mages is that mages are notoriously squishy, and most warriors who obtain a lot of Thaumite have no magical affinity- there are a couple people with magical skills, but most have a strong affinity for magic though they are unable to get Thaumite enough for them to learn high-level skills. In-game it doesn't need to work like this, but that's the explanation for the universe.

[Knaight]

The big thing is to restrict the classes as part of the pitch. If the closest you get to a class like a wizard or cleric is an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster you're good.

[Paleomancer]

The big thing is to restrict the classes as part of the pitch. If the closest you get to a class like a wizard or cleric is an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster you're good.

In that fashion, a 5e warlock might also work well. Sure, they get up to 5th level spells, but only a limited number, and then they get the once per day spells for levels 6 through 9. Perhaps modifying those to grant more basic spell slots instead? Or just powerful magi have limited access to potent magic? I'd also think expanding patrons to include less Faustian alternatives, like cleric domains in a way - warlocks in D&D have always been edgy wizard/clerics by fluff, if not always mechanically. Kind of want to make this class now... :)

[Squire Doodad]

I'd also think expanding patrons to include less Faustian alternatives, like cleric domains in a way - warlocks in D&D have always been edgy wizard/clerics by fluff, if not always mechanically. Kind of want to make this class now... :)

Go dig up a list of minor deities from Greek mythology and the like. Bam! Instant "patron" that won't be chosen as the one worshipped by your Cleric. Not 100% on how the 5e Warlock works, but if it is sort of like a "Summoner" archtype then maybe the revelant play gets a micro-pantheon of those to work from (say, the Anemoi or the Erinyes/Furies) thus allowing them to draw from a domain-like thing. The intention is to give them more diverse skillsets (for instance, the Anemoi would not simply provide wind based skills but also depending on the one the power is drawn from possibly ice and fire to a lesser extent), and might make them come off as being like offensive clerics...but I'm sure you will be able to figure it out.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

-Make magic more esoteric. Instead of players understanding how magic works they are monkeys poking around the remnants of an advanced civilization. I push this button and I get this. So the characters are re-discovering lost tools (the tools of creation? a long-gone civilization?) and the tools do something and the players find a use for that. This reduces the number of spells available.

Along these lines, perhaps cribbing from the 1e Magic-User's rules for learning spells might help, since the underlying setting assumption was that magic-users were uncovering lost magic and using it without entirely understanding its underlying principles. In that edition, Magic-Users start with a random set of spells known (read magic, one offensive spell, one defensive spell, and one utility spell) and every time they gain access to a new spell level they go through the list of spells of that level and roll against a flat percentage chance (based on Int score, in the 45% to 65% range for most low- to mid-level magic magic-users) to determine whether they can understand and attempt to learn each spell. Once you fail a check, that's it, you can't learn that spell until you increase your Int score (or if you fail to get the minimum number of spells for a given level, in which case you can roll again until you reach that many).

The key takeaways here are that (A) once you become, say, a 9th level magic-user, you might go looking for a scroll of teleport or attempt to research cone of cold, but if you didn't succeed on the d% check (which very well may be rolled secretly by the DM) then any attempts to learn those spells would be fruitless even if you found the appropriate resources, and (B) it's a plain d% check, it doesn't get easier as you level and you can't do anything to increase your chances of success, for magic is mysterious and its fundaments unknowable.


So instead of slowing down spell progressions and breaking the spells-available-by-level assumptions, or declaring that the PCs have an arbitrary affinity for spellcasting, or the like, you could posit that there's simply a low percentage chance for a given spellcaster to learn any given spell--maybe it even decreases by spell level, if you want the logarithmic effect described in the OP--and it's not that the 13th-level wizard or king's abjurer were necessarily once-in-a-lifetime prodigies, they were just fortunate enough that the lines of research they pursued were ones that they were able to understand. Perhaps if the king's abjurer had chosen to study Transmutation as an apprentice instead, he would have found that the underlying principles continually eluded him (read: he made most of his checks to learn Abjuration spells at various spell levels but succeeded on few to no checks for Transmutation spells) and given up in frustration.

Why, then, would PCs stand out and be able to reach higher heights of spellcasting? It's not that killing monsters makes you a better spellcaster or anything, it's that adventuring exposes you to lots of different magical traditions. Vanquish a dragon cultist, get a spellbook full of fire and fear spells; stab some drow priestesses, find some scrolls of spider- and darkness-themed spells; (re-)kill a lich, get a bunch of spells relating to death and undeath. (And while non-wizards don't need or use spellbooks and scrolls, the same general principle of "broad exposure means more chances to learn spells" applies: an ancient sorcerer might meditate in a volcano with a dragon for years to unlock certain powers, a bard is going to go around learning particular songs and stories, and so forth, so getting close to lots of spells to feel their mystical resonance, telling tales of your own exploits, and so on helps with the process.)

Where an academic wizard is going to pick a field of arcane research, delve deeply into it, and maybe come out of it with nothing, an adventuring wizard cares more about effectiveness than theory and is going to pick whatever spells they encounter or whatever spells they find to be most useful against their foes, regardless of the eclecticness of their spell repertoire. Which also means that the PCs getting to be the most powerful spellcasters doesn't necessarily have to overshadow or anger the other powerful casters in the setting: "Sure, you can launch cones of cold at monsters and that's more than I've been able to do, but the spell I've actually been trying to learn is one to create teleportation circles because the kingdom needs a better way to trade goods with faraway kingdoms. Can you do that? No? Just combat magic? Well, then, we'll call you if the duchy next door ever invades, but in the meantime I'll get back to trying to discover some useful magic."

[Potato_Priest]

I might suggest getting this moved to the homebrew forum. It's actually one of the exact examples of things that Rich asked us not to put in worldbuilding in this thread.

Also, I'd like to echo the reccomendations to restrict classes. Having run some low-magic games in D&D 5e, that's really all it takes. Once wizards, sorcerers, druids, and bards are out of the picture (I leave clerics in because I love them) the game takes on a different feel.

[sktarq]

well my first thought is...

if that happens to wizard does anything change with other classes?
how about other spellcasting classes?
if you have an XP change how does that apply to

one option is that if you want to reduce spell progression is to push some sort of training requirement.

you (said wizard) may need a mentor (and if really want to mess with them make that mentor sacrifice XP to allow it) in order to bump up to a level that allows a new spell slot.
Druids may do this via ritual combat if you want to revive something from very old DnD druids (and may have options for others to do so)
and you have no mentor?-make it cost something significant like a feat to advance or special quest (quests being especially appropriate for say a cleric or others with a metaphysical and intelligent granter source of spells)

so advancing level will make more HP, those spells they know better etc in all the normal ways (so there is some benefit) but advancing to the big spells is very rare.

may wish to compensate the wizards with more skills or HP etc to be nice.

you may want to look at not casting variants of minor casters (Rangers/paladins etc) which I am not sure they have yet for 5th but could be easily homebrewed from previous editions. as options if those restrictions will also apply to
these characters as casting may not be worth it for them.

if you do this expect casters to be mostly NPC's

also I'd recommend combining this with jjordan's ideas too. mix and match as needed.

[Gluteus_Maximus]

Replying to this before it goes into necromancy to say:

The 13th level wizard was a once-in-a-lifetime prodigy. He proved a fast learner of all that was already known (4th level spells) and when he reached 40 the current king, who had previously been a novice, requested he be taught, and he learned very quickly (Something something half-demon). By the time the 13th level wizard was working on 5th level spells, however, the king was killed by an unknown assassin. Another 50 years pass, as the prodigy spends all of his time researching and writing his notes in books, for it to be enshrined in a library of this magic and copied for the nobles' children to learn. During this time he expanded on the ways of learning the older magics to make it easier.

The Abjurer, on the other hand, did not spend every waking hour of the day eating and researching. He had relationships, friends, drank, etc. If he had focused on research he might have gotten to where he is by age 30 using the prodigy's "new" methods, and to 7th level spells by age 60. But he's an old man now, and must protect the king at all costs. Instead, he gave that role to his children who will hopefully become powerful wizards in time, though one of them is a coward who fumbled his way to being part of the most powerful band of knights funded by the king and the others have disappeared. His grandchildren, however, he protects with his own researched spells etc.