Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 squidyak Jul 15, 2009 12:53:29	I am finding it really hard to find a 3e group after moving to Arizona (I actually did find a 2e game though.) As much as a lot of 4e grinds my gears, I may have to switch over. On the plus side, there are things I do like about 4e. There would be minor tweaks to races (mainly stat adjustments), and I think the 3e skill system can be plugged in quite easily. The thing that just completely turns me off of 4e is the spellcasting classes. The very first class I get to in the PHB is the cleric and it seems like combat has become Laser Floyd. The other casters have the same problem. I actually like the non-casters for the most part. My question is this, has anyone tried 4e without any caster classes? My thought is actually to throw classes out completely and simply allow characters to choose freely from the fighter, ranger, rogue, and warlord exploits. I only have the PHB I, I'm sure there's more class abilities that can be added from PHB II, but I'm sticking to the first book for now. Has anyone ever tried a low magic game, with the only magic available being ritual magic? Has anyone ever removed the classes and simply allowed characters to choose class abilities freely? If so, did it run ok?
#2 ff6shadow Jul 15, 2009 14:05:19	I haven't tried it, throwing out the casters should not adversely affect balance. You'll still have access to a defender, two strikers, and a leader, so the most vital roles are covered. None of these classes are particuarly good at ritual magic, though Tactical Warlords and some rangers should be able to cover it. Choosing class features and/or powers freely is a whole different ball of wax, and I wouldn't touch it with a 10ft pole.
#3 vebrandsson Jul 15, 2009 14:21:37	Just a question, given that the terms of caster and non caster are now archaic where would you place some 4e classes. The barbarian is not martial, its considered to use primal magic, and what do you do with the avenger? The paladin also could be questionable if built right. See in 4e its not really caster or non caster, its more implement user vs. non implement user, the difference is subtle but its still there. The biggest problem with trying a low magic campaign is first the entire 4e system is very very dependent on magic items more so than previous editions, and that you loose one of the major party roles, the controller, and that can hurt you more than you expect.
#4 Rustmonster Jul 15, 2009 14:43:06	The biggest problem with trying a low magic campaign is first the entire 4e system is very very dependent on magic items more so than previous editions Nope. For one, they tell you right in the DMG how to give out the +X bonuses that usually come from magic items as inherint level bonuses, so you don't need to rely on +X weapons and armour. That already removes a huge part of the item-dependance. On top of that, you no longer need ability score boosting items, so you don't need to lug around items of +X Str or +X Int. 4E is the easiest D&D edition, in my opinion, for reducing reliance on magic items. Compare a Fighter in 4E, who relys mainly on his own powers, to a Fighter in 3E, who is completely defined by his magic items.
#5 slobo777a Jul 15, 2009 15:09:37	I have not tried anything so radical, but I think yes you could make it work. You could base it on the Power sources, and the rituals might be the only ways to access the Arcane or Divine sources. The "re-balance" of inherent versus magic bonuses can also help, as Rustmonster points out. D&D has gone further into high fantasy with v4, at least fluff-wise. I'm quite fond of low-magic, low-powered campaigns myself, so wish you luck!
#6 Hebitsuikaza Jul 15, 2009 15:52:56	As others pointed out, 4E is the first edition you could ever do what you want to do here without huge negative repercussions. Warlord gets rid of the need for the Cleric, magic items are no longer required and the nonmagic classes have martial arts abilities that replicate necessary magical effects more or less. Also, now, unlike in the beginning, you have the Barbarian, Bard (it is magic, but most of the abilities could be refluffed as not being), and Monk. You might also consider the Artificer as a "magic" class that isn't really magic.
#7 undrave Jul 15, 2009 17:31:41	I'm not sure I get your beef with the Cleric and the other 'casters'? Laser Floyd?? You're not happy because they inflict damage?? Well good luck finding a group though. I'm sure people wouldn't mind trying a Martial-only group. Are you going to be the DM or a player?
#8 Chimerasame Jul 16, 2009 0:04:26	Out of curiosity, what would you prefer the casters be like? You like 3e, and the main difference I can think of is that casters in 3e are limited in how much magic they can toss around, whereas in 4e you can do magic at-wills every round... If that's your issue, then how would you feel about using the classes as-written with the exception of replacing their at-wills with at-wills of a more martial nature? Some of them already have these (e.g. strength cleric), and others would need more tweaking... the wizard would probably be the hardest to re-do that way. If you're really focused on allowing only the martial power source, you may wish to note that it doesn't have a Controller, at least not yet. Many people argue that this is the least necessary role, but I've also seen some convincing arguments that--although it's the worst to double up on--it's still ahead of striker for the "third role parties should have." Controller also gets much more useful in the high levels. The game is definitely playable without, but it's suboptimal (depending on party size.)
#9 squidyak Jul 20, 2009 7:09:50	As I was in the middle of posting 4 days ago before the web site crapped out. Choosing class features and/or powers freely is a whole different ball of wax, and I wouldn't touch it with a 10ft pole. My reasoning is that the exploit breakdown makes absolutely no sense to me. Why shouldn't a fighter have access to a ranger's two-weapon fighting ability? I see no logical reasoning for a two weapon fighter to have to be a good woodsman. And why couldn't a lightly armed fighter wielding a rapier and dagger shouldn't be able to have reaping strike, two-fanged strike, and trick strike; they all fit well within the duelist theme. The division of exploits seems absolutely arbitrary to me. Just a question, given that the terms of caster and non caster are now archaic where would you place some 4e classes. The barbarian is not martial, its considered to use primal magic, and what do you do with the avenger? The paladin also could be questionable if built right. See in 4e its not really caster or non caster, its more implement user vs. non implement user, the difference is subtle but its still there. The biggest problem with trying a low magic campaign is first the entire 4e system is very very dependent on magic items more so than previous editions, and that you loose one of the major party roles, the controller, and that can hurt you more than you expect. I only have the first 3 books. I bought them and was extremely unhappy with what I saw and went back to 3e. I liked a lot of the ideas, but the style of play is pretty much the opposite of what I like. The paladin is out because it suffers from many of the issues the cleric does. As others pointed out, 4E is the first edition you could ever do what you want to do here without huge negative repercussions. Warlord gets rid of the need for the Cleric, magic items are no longer required and the nonmagic classes have martial arts abilities that replicate necessary magical effects more or less. That is one of the things that first jumped out at me, and to me the single best aspect of 4e. I'm not sure I get your beef with the Cleric and the other 'casters'? Laser Floyd?? You're not happy because they inflict damage?? Well good luck finding a group though. I'm sure people wouldn't mind trying a Martial-only group. Are you going to be the DM or a player? I call it laser floyd because the battlefield is now completely overwhelmed with beams of light every round from multiple sources. The cleric is simply the first class in the PHB and was a huge speed bump every time I decided to give the rules another chance. I'm hoping to play and DM. I always prefer groups that switch the DM chair. Whether this means multiple DMs in one campaign or alternating campaigns weekly, either way works for me. I wouldn't expect anyone else to want to run a low-magic game though. Out of curiosity, what would you prefer the casters be like? You like 3e, and the main difference I can think of is that casters in 3e are limited in how much magic they can toss around, whereas in 4e you can do magic at-wills every round... If that's your issue, then how would you feel about using the classes as-written with the exception of replacing their at-wills with at-wills of a more martial nature? Some of them already have these (e.g. strength cleric), and others would need more tweaking... the wizard would probably be the hardest to re-do that way. If you're really focused on allowing only the martial power source, you may wish to note that it doesn't have a Controller, at least not yet. Many people argue that this is the least necessary role, but I've also seen some convincing arguments that--although it's the worst to double up on--it's still ahead of striker for the "third role parties should have." Controller also gets much more useful in the high levels. The game is definitely playable without, but it's suboptimal (depending on party size.) The at-wills every round is an issue. Replacing them with martial exploits would actually go a long way towards "fixing" 4e for me. I would prefer casters be more along the lines of what you see in classic fantasy, and ritual magic accomplishes this really well. 3e to me was already too flashy, and I usually house-ruled the casters down a peg to try to keep it more under control. 4e took a lot of the aspects I don't like about earlier editions and took them into overdrive. My preferred system would be 3E E6, but I've been fishing for a group for months with no success. I'm simply exploring the possibility of low-magic 4e in hopes it'll be easier to find a group. The newest, shiniest edition is always the easiest to find players for.
#10 Dark_Stryke Jul 20, 2009 13:19:25	The at-wills every round is an issue. Replacing them with martial exploits would actually go a long way towards "fixing" 4e for me. I would prefer casters be more along the lines of what you see in classic fantasy, and ritual magic accomplishes this really well. 3e to me was already too flashy, and I usually house-ruled the casters down a peg to try to keep it more under control. 4e took a lot of the aspects I don't like about earlier editions and took them into overdrive. My preferred system would be 3E E6, but I've been fishing for a group for months with no success. I'm simply exploring the possibility of low-magic 4e in hopes it'll be easier to find a group. The newest, shiniest edition is always the easiest to find players for. Here's an idea for you: Remove the at-will powers from caster classes, and give them the Melee Training feat from PHBII for free. Basically, this lets them use their main attack stat for their basic attacks, rather than strength. So, the wizard, warlock, cleric, and paladin (though with the last two, I might suggest that you keep the strength-based at-wills) all have some basic effectiveness when they run out of encounter powers, but not as much as the melee characters. To compensate, I'd suggest giving them an extra encounter power of their lowest level. For example, at level 1 they'd have 2 level 1 encounter powers. At level 3, 2 level 1 encounter powers and 1 level 3 encounter power. At level 13, they'd have 2 level 3 (one of which replaces a level 1 encounter power) encounter powers, 1 level 7 encounter power, 1 level 11 encounter power, and 1 level 13 encounter power (replacing one of the level 1 powers). I'm pretty sure this will screw with game balance, but it might give casters the feel you're looking for.