Bastions; I feel like there is a sweet spot for the number of times your bastion can be imperiled. Never? You have Skyhold which was a let-down. Once? Well then it has to be epic and feel like the siege at Crossroad Keep in Neverwinter Nights 2 otherwise it feels like you put all this work in for no good payout. Too many and suddenly it's Fallout 4 where you can't actually do your d--- job because you're always running back to save a settlement.
Speaking of too many, as a GM Im not a huge fan of encouraging players to have many personal bastions in separate spaces. I'd much prefer the system to encourage players to build together. I don't want to keep track of a dozen bastions and dozens of NPCs across countless locations and locales. At least if players build together there's some overlap, and potential for interpersonal drama between hirelings at the same location. Im not opposed to having a FEW off-site bastions, but ultimately I find the design of personal bastions to be very tedious
I don't know that I agree that OSR magic is weaker. It's true that you don't get as many spells, but the effects of the spells are more powerful in older games. The Sleep spell can wreck an entire group of enemies. Since it's save or suck with a long duration, putting enemies to sleep lets you go around and one-shot every sleeping enemy at your own pace. And since enemies aren't bloated bags of HP, a fireball is a terrifying thing.
re: low magic. It is a vague term. I tend to roll with low magic = not a lot of magic available in the setting or in the PCs. Low power is basically, low effectiveness/higher deadliness. 5E is high magic and high power, not the highest, that’d be something like a full superhero game. I don’t care about magic, but I tend to like mid to high power games as my default. My obsession with wire fu fight choreography makes that kind of automatic. My brother wants low magic. He wants magic items to rare so they seem special and that very few people are spellcasters, including the PCs. Adjusting magic items is easy, you just don’t give them. But I just did a quick look at my D&D Beyond 5E subclasses (which is really the measure of your options in the long run) and I have 14 subclasses that have no innate magic at all to them. 94 subclasses that require magic to function. And then 11 Monk subclasses that I would classify as magic but some might not. My brother would prefer something like 60 subclasses that use magic and 60 subclasses that don’t but feel equally powerful. A separate issue is related to high magic and niche protection. Spellcasters just basically steal everyone’s niches. Don’t need a rogue, we have knock, pass without a trace, invisibility, silence, scry. Need to charm someone, don’t need a talker, we have charm person, friends, etc. Do you really need a fighter if you have a tanky cleric?
All excellent points. I think the question of "why low magic?" can get into a lot of fiddly bits where a DM can often feel like Magic can be used as an end-run around the plot. Speak with dead, charm person, identify, legend lore, resurrection spells etc. All of these things could easily turn a sprawling epic quest into a five minute formality. I tried doing a lower-magic setting, and I think if I were to try again I would probably say: 5e ruleset, but no PC Artificer or Warlocks, strictly enforce Material components (spell focuses are extremely rare and might be quested for), strictly enforce spellbook rules, and also make sure that the PCs understand if there are any local prohibitions against magic. My players were centered in an urban campaign that took place on sandstone and basalt stacks, and a whole slew of spells were *absolutely no* from a legal standpoint within city limits. No thunderwave or earthquake--that might destabilize the stacks. No mind control spells or anything AoE that might cause a panic. If the players break those rules, there is a whole order of high-powered Paladins whose oath is to put the hurt on you. Sort of like what Ben was saying in last week's pod. Ultimately though you require that player buy-in and that they need to understand that you're doing this for a reason and not just to take away their joy at feeling powerful. Almost like a Session -1 thing.
@@MPonygirl My bro is more into low magic and low power and so I’m mostly trying to solve HIS problems as that’s less my thing. Bro just moved to Shadowdark and added most of the pulp optional rules in and ignored the yay-let’s-all-die-frequently side of it. He seems happy with that. It’s just a VERY familiar convo with my crew. I don’t think I’d use the effort to try and make it low magic. You can reduce magic items, but with 90% of PCs containing magic in their repertoire, you’re fighting an uphill battle. You made an interesting approach with making the worldbuilding be the spell-banning enforcer. The problem is that becomes an in-world puzzle the players will try to figure out how to counter, which is not your intent. If I didn’t like spells, I’d make a list of spells that do not exist anymore and give the players the list in session 0 before they built a character. I’d have a discussion to debate the spells. And if that ruined their fun completely I’d consider running a totally different premise that is good with high magic or get them to DM.
For bastions, I use the Acq. Inc. Book, the 3e book Stronghold Builder's Guidebook, and a mix of follower rules to come up with party base building rules that fit the campaign in question. As a long-time Final Fantasy fan, I rarely run campaigns where I don't eventually give the party an airship or some other mobile base. At the very least, they get a small drop ship or strike craft and a stationary base built around the garage they park the "party bus" in between missions. Nautical campaigns will start with them having a ship and eventually building their own port town or even a small nation on an island chain somewhere. Sci-fi campaigns start with the party already having their version of the millennium falcon. Eventually, they'll take over a space station or a remote planet. For low vs. high magic, I take a page from sci-fi games like Traveler or the old 3e D&D setting Dragon Star. The real defining characteristics are tech and knowledge level. Magic is magic. It's everywhere. If there is life in a region, then there is magic there. What defines the region is access to knowledge. Whether it's knowledge of science, magic, technology, or grinding up herbs mushrooms and fairy wings with a mortar and pestel. The thing that defines a region, setting, or planet is who has the knowledge and who they are granting access to that knowledge. My main setting has a bunch of different regions, each overseen by one of the six goddesses that guard mortal life. The lands of the Str and Con goddesses have mostly medieval high fantasy tech levels because the Slayer and the Hero protect the still habitable lands that border on Wastelands created by cataclysms that nearly ended the world. The lands overseen by the Dex goddess are either higher or lower tech because the Trickster spies on the enemies of mortal life and disseminates their secrets as she sees fit. Meanwhile, the lands of the Int goddess the Scholar are magitech sky cities that look like clusters of the city of Atlantis in the show Stargate Atlantis. It's a high magic setting, but you'll still find countless regions where someone is gatekeeping access to magic, tech, education, and basic living standards. For magic spells and systems, I'm becoming a big fan of the ritualism system in Fabula Ultima. Character classes grant access to the combat spells that deal damage. For everything else, there are guidelines for players to create ritual spells. Pick any spell effect from any edition of D&D that isn't direct damage or summoning and the ritual rules in Fabula Ultima can probably cover it.
I love Keith Baker’s term Wide Magic. Magic is pervasive, but not a very high level. Characters are special because they can reach this crazy high level of magic. But everburning torches everywhere is a great quality of life development but not necessarily born of super high power magic in the world
Agreed. One of my gripes with FR is that it feels like medieval society with wizards, rather than societies that are fundamentally different thanks to available magic. Magic is either Netherese in power or used by only a smattering of folks who don't seem to use it to better society in a meaningful way. Eberron, the Wizarding World (HP) and other settings THINK about how simple magic might change the way everyday people live their lives, while keeping it simple enough that we don't wander into hyper-utopian Netherese solutions to everything
@@mateobarrett6829Listening to Worlds Beyond Number right now and you can tell how baked in magic is to the world. And where it isn't, there's a good reason why (*cough* greeeeeed)
Regarding magic and Shawn's comment about the fate system: Mage the Ascension works more or less this way. The level you have in whichever sphere you're casting from (forces, entropy, spirit, etc) determines how powerful the effects can be, with a few loose descriptions of what that looks like for each power level, but there are no fixed effects. You declare what you're trying to do and it's pretty much up to the narrator to decide what level sphere you need. This was cool in some regards because of the freedom, but it did lead to very heated arguments and extremely OP characters at our table.
Cool conversation about "staying current". 👍🏻 I often stay current with games I really love. D&D is one of these. I've enjoyed 5e since Xanathar's, having waited to adopt it until I felt it had enough mechanical substance to do so. I like what I'm seeing from D&D2024 thus far. I'm excited to read the DMG, and very eager to see the (very important) MM. I stay up to date with Numenera, a setting and system I love; and also keep up with some of MCG's other Cypher System products, since they're so easily hacked and spliced. I am a huge Star Wars guy, and love RPGs, so of course I love to play SW RPGs. That said, I am happy with WotC's "Saga Edition" from around 20 years ago. I have the full 13-book collection and never felt like following the license when it switched hands. Many love FFG's SW RPG, but I couldn't be bothered to spend a fortune on new books and buy fancy new dice when I already love Saga Edition.
The fact that high magic = high power to most people highlights the martial/caster disparity in 5e specifically. So they add weapon properties in 2024. This is great for combat-minded players and generally highlights how starved martial players are for something, anything to try to make up ground with their caster counterparts. But it does nothing for them outside of combat, where spells still dominate the game. As a forever DM, I've only had one player over the course of three campaigns choose a purely martial class and they could immediately (and increasingly, as the campaign goes on) feel how the rules greatly favor casters. Even giving martials more magic items and inherent thematic abilities that help with skills and such, they are just left behind by the sheer depth and breadth of options that magic offers. And with a party full of casters and no dedicated tanks, every combat became life or death stakes because they mostly just didn't have the HP/AC for a well-balanced encounter. And that still wasn't enough to make them give up magic. They still have fun, but it can keep them from exploring other narrative/mechanical choices because they feel like they'll miss out on the power of magic if they do a martial character. I like that you all mentioned that a loose system, though it seems like a great option, leaves players wanting more guidelines though - hard to solve a puzzle if it's open-ended. Catch 22 maybe?
Out of combat both rules as written and intended, any problem that can be solved with a spell can also be solved with player creativity and an ability check. And there are a practically infinite variety of problems that ability checks can solve that spells as written cannot. At most tables, GMs create the ‘martial caster divide’ by treating caster player characters within setting logic like they’re special and heroic, while treating non-casters like they’re just normal people. That’s the real divide.
I agree with most of that, though because the spells are fully fleshed out in writing, I see most players (in my experience) going that route first (when possible) because the limitations are known. That also allows some players the freedom to plan ahead with known quantities. But you make some good points, thank you!
@@theoldgoat3000 you’re 100% right on that point. There are a lot of players that like to have ‘buttons to press’ i.e. very clearly defined abilities that don’t really require any creativity. (Like a walk on water spell). But there are just as many players that prefer to have a creative framework that they can engage with. (Like using carpenters tools to build a raft) I think one of the strengths of 5e is that different classes are designed to be played by different sorts of players, but unfortunately those play style differences also fall along the martial vs. caster line.
Really you've only had one players stay martial the whole campaign? That's wild to me. I always have a mix, and almost always my martials stay martial. They tend to take a fighter or rogue dip, but they mainly stick in the martial lane if that's where they started. I run for some large groups, between 6-8 players, and I've usually got a diverse group, and I don't think any of them who've started martial have tried for a magic dip. I _have_ had many of my martial/casters, my Paladins, my Hexlocks, take some other caster classes. Sorcerer, and Warlock being common dips. I usually have a more casters, I will say, but I've never had a game without at least one pure martial in it. And this is before the new weapon benefits. (I haven't switched to 2024 yet).
It isn't fans who are mad, it's investors. I don't play mtg much anymore, but I have friends who still do (primarily EDH aka Commander), and nobody has ever been mad about bans. Disappointed or confused maybe, but never angry. Plus, its a casual format... If you don't like the ban list, you just ask your friends if they're cool with you playing the card anyway!
If it's anything like the playtest version(at it sounds like it is) then there's nothing stopping you from combining your bastions into a larger whole. Each player just gets narrative control over a different section of the whole. The playtest version was pretty solid, not A TON of crunch or anything but certainly something to sink your teeth into out of game. In large part it looked like a way to give players a taste of what the DM seat is like while also giving some neat benefits to their characters.
@jamesjhaeck Wow, I really hadn't given much thought about the wealth of game play that Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms offers to DM's and Players. Your reply to poster Kyle (55:30) about "snuffing out the weave" reminded me that there have been times in the Forgotten Realms' story-line when magic was broken and/or unavailable. This can offer DM's the opportunity to offer different game styles within the Forgotten Realms. (obviously the realm most loved by me.)
I don’t know much about Bastions, but if Bastions are supposed to be Player controlled why is it in the Dungeon Master’s Guide and not in the Player’s Handbook?
Because including it in your game is a GM decision. If it were in the player's handbook. The players would just automatically assume that it is. Same reason Magic items are in the DMG and not the PHB. Yes, they are for the players, but it is a GM's decision to include or implement them at the table.
I'm looking forward to seeing what theyve done with Bastions as both my groups of players really enjoyed having Trollskull Manor back in Dragonheist. We expanded upon it using the Durnan's Guide to Tavernkeeping from DMsGuild.
It seems to me that Bastions offer a play-style opportunity for those DM's (who allow this in their games) and players (like myself) who are open to playing via text in-between game sessions.
One way to clearly delineate between low/mid/high magic is to ask one question: Is magic pervasive on a societal level? Is it endemic? Low magic: People will go their whole lives without seeing anything magical, and when they do it is terrifying to behold; yet they know the world is magical and the wyrd and the preternatural are out there in the wilds. Mid magic: Every now and again the mage from the tower high in the mountains will pass through the village. Last year he gave us a torch that never burns out. If we save enough money, we can have the druid witch in the swamp bless and multiply our harvest again this year. High magic: Enchanted boxes act as elevators in the 10 story castle. Every other shop in the market uses magic to produce their wares. Any adventurer worth their salt has an enchanted weapon, and the guild hands them out to new recruits on loan. So, to answer James' question as someone who has thought a _lot_ about this, it has to be on both a setting and system level. Primarily setting, with a system that is consonant with that setting. I'll repeat what I wrote last week: In my experience as someone who has been trying to play 5e in a low magic setting for some time, you really need to cripple the 5e system in order to achieve the _feel_ of low magic. Spells and supernatural super hero levels of power are too central to the design.
I strongly disagree... "Its just a game, dont see it as an investment - its only to make the producer money" I think you are right, 100%. Where I disagree is that the company is creating scarcity and other mechanics in the design and sale format that makes them extra money. People would not buy 24 displays at release, if all came in 1 box.
I think 5e is a terrible system for low magic / low fantasy. There are lots of excellent systems out there that allow you to do low magic, and have a ton of fun!!! But they are all very different to each other. Band of Blades is low magic, but you're an awesome squad fighting for your lives, doing awesome things. If you play the One Ring you explore middle earth, and it's all so very very thematic. And I do think Dales point is great - "Low magic" isn't the phrase you want!
In the FR, there are other systems of magic that exist separate than the weave. Ed Greenwood has spoken on some examples. If the weave where to disappear, perhaps other forms of magic could rise to the occasion. Could really make for interesting story telling.
lol (55:00), and here I am all excited because I just got my copy of Broken Weave from Cubicle 7 which depicts a tragic-fantasy setting for D&D where the gods are dead and The Weave is broken, lol.
I'm really not sold on the Grim Hollow Transformed, I've bought the originals awhile ago and what I'm seeing on the page doesn't highlight how much content is actually new or what it is. saying 16 new subclasses doesn't actually hype me up. I'm following the project to see if that changes, but so far... is it just an update to fit within the 2024 rules and background changes?
Anybody significantly hurt by the MTG bans was either a scalper who deserved to be burned or an addict who shouldn’t be engaging with the game at all. Unless you are a con artist, trading card games are not a sound speculative medium, and no game should be catered to ‘speculators’ at the expense of the play experience.
Significantly is a such a subjective word for you to use here friend. Firstly I’m entirely behind the bans , I hated playing against every one of those cards. However, the prices of these cards were kept so artificially high by wizards reprint strategies that many lower class people had to spend a decent portion of their income to purchase them. So I don’t think you’re correct about this. A college student that spent 200 dollars on a jeweled lotus and a dockside extortionist so they could play competitively at a high power table just effectively spent 200 dollars on cards they can no longer play and that is damaging. Edit: instead of rambling I’ll say what I mean more clearly. The fault of this catastrophe is not on the rules committee doing their best to balance the game, nor is it the fault of players who purchased cards to play the game. The problem is the cooperation keeping the prices of those peices of cardboard so artificially high that when balancing decisions are made for the good of the game it deals hundreds of dollars worth of damage to the collections of individuals. Obviously the people lashing out are in the wrong on this one, I just feel like the blame for this situation isn’t being allocated properly.
@@lethe5052 literally all trading card prices are artificially high, because trading cards have no inherent value. If spending $200 on a purely luxury good is going to negatively impact someone’s life, then it’s their own fault for spending it on a trading card. Viewed as an investment, it’s worse than crypto currency, and viewed as game equipment like soccer cleats or a football helmet there’s an accepted consumer risk of it going out of date. People can still play with their favorite banned cards with their friends. They just can’t use them in an officially sanctioned capacity, and no rules organization should be handicapped catering to irresponsible financial actors. If anything, the situation suggests that purchasing trading cards should probably be illegal for people under 21.
@@lethe5052 I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t think it’s really WOTC’s fault either. They’re just playing by the rules. All trading card values are artificial. The real problem is that TCGs are a form of unregulated gambling. There should be laws in place. People under 21 should not be allowed to engage with them financially, and there should probably be minimum printing requirements for cards.
@@hodgepodgesyntaxia2112 I totally agree with you on that. While government enforced regulation is it’s own cave of carrion crawlers, the pack opening, framebreak foil chasing, high financial cost for something that is only tangental to gameplay has always been something I loath about mtg. Although on the topic of WOTC I suppose that stance is fair. The game is capitalism and we all have to play wether we want to or not.
What? When did we talk about Underworlds? Ben, please: I would actually love an occasional Wargaming side-note, since that is the dichotomy (between TTRPG's and Wargaming) I live in 😅
when I think of low magic I think of the Lord of the Rings setting, and if you try to run standard D&D as that setting you need to make some considerable changes on what classes you allow. I haven't read through the 5e Lord of the Rings setting books that are available so not sure how they have dealt with this.
A difference between strongholds and followers vs Bastion is probalby that S&V has defending your stronghold as an essential part of your journy it wouldn't supprise me if Bastion doesn't have any rules for defending your bastion About low magic the short anwere is play a different setting. What I would like to do with my campaign is like there are almost no humanoids above level 10 and above level 5 are rare. So there aren't Liches, there is 1 Lich. So not like in Descent into Avernus where they are like lets send some level 5 guys into hell despite the fact that we have at least 5 archmages walking around Candlekeep. If you want Call of Cthulhu with more power you should try pulp cthulhu
15:38 So WoTC use a battle master maneuver to throw themselves in as the 🛡️. They are used to taking the flack, and a good move to use that for good and not just standard corporate anonymity-supported behaviors
Death threats are bad. Instead wish minor misfortunes or inconveniences upon your rivals. "May you loose the cap from your toothpaste", "I hope you forget to charge your phone."
re: MtG. Just. Reprint. Cards. The Reserved List is an idiotic concession to crybabies. And if you've built a business over speculation of cardboard futures, then I don't think people should lose sleep over your decision.
After getting out of the Marine Corps, I have a distinct appreciation for Dale yelling at me first thing in the morning.
What country\time zone you in? Looking for a DND game? I did ten yrs in army
"you forgot your silverware" (or was it "silver, were!"???)
underrated joke. should've had at least 20 minutes of laughing.
Bastions; I feel like there is a sweet spot for the number of times your bastion can be imperiled. Never? You have Skyhold which was a let-down. Once? Well then it has to be epic and feel like the siege at Crossroad Keep in Neverwinter Nights 2 otherwise it feels like you put all this work in for no good payout. Too many and suddenly it's Fallout 4 where you can't actually do your d--- job because you're always running back to save a settlement.
Speaking of too many, as a GM Im not a huge fan of encouraging players to have many personal bastions in separate spaces.
I'd much prefer the system to encourage players to build together. I don't want to keep track of a dozen bastions and dozens of NPCs across countless locations and locales. At least if players build together there's some overlap, and potential for interpersonal drama between hirelings at the same location.
Im not opposed to having a FEW off-site bastions, but ultimately I find the design of personal bastions to be very tedious
Shawn's summary of how to weave the bastion system in with varying players interests is succinct game wisdom.
I don't know that I agree that OSR magic is weaker. It's true that you don't get as many spells, but the effects of the spells are more powerful in older games. The Sleep spell can wreck an entire group of enemies. Since it's save or suck with a long duration, putting enemies to sleep lets you go around and one-shot every sleeping enemy at your own pace. And since enemies aren't bloated bags of HP, a fireball is a terrifying thing.
In B/X sleep doesn't even have a save.
re: low magic. It is a vague term. I tend to roll with low magic = not a lot of magic available in the setting or in the PCs. Low power is basically, low effectiveness/higher deadliness.
5E is high magic and high power, not the highest, that’d be something like a full superhero game. I don’t care about magic, but I tend to like mid to high power games as my default. My obsession with wire fu fight choreography makes that kind of automatic.
My brother wants low magic. He wants magic items to rare so they seem special and that very few people are spellcasters, including the PCs. Adjusting magic items is easy, you just don’t give them.
But I just did a quick look at my D&D Beyond 5E subclasses (which is really the measure of your options in the long run) and I have 14 subclasses that have no innate magic at all to them. 94 subclasses that require magic to function. And then 11 Monk subclasses that I would classify as magic but some might not. My brother would prefer something like 60 subclasses that use magic and 60 subclasses that don’t but feel equally powerful.
A separate issue is related to high magic and niche protection. Spellcasters just basically steal everyone’s niches. Don’t need a rogue, we have knock, pass without a trace, invisibility, silence, scry. Need to charm someone, don’t need a talker, we have charm person, friends, etc. Do you really need a fighter if you have a tanky cleric?
All excellent points. I think the question of "why low magic?" can get into a lot of fiddly bits where a DM can often feel like Magic can be used as an end-run around the plot. Speak with dead, charm person, identify, legend lore, resurrection spells etc. All of these things could easily turn a sprawling epic quest into a five minute formality. I tried doing a lower-magic setting, and I think if I were to try again I would probably say: 5e ruleset, but no PC Artificer or Warlocks, strictly enforce Material components (spell focuses are extremely rare and might be quested for), strictly enforce spellbook rules, and also make sure that the PCs understand if there are any local prohibitions against magic. My players were centered in an urban campaign that took place on sandstone and basalt stacks, and a whole slew of spells were *absolutely no* from a legal standpoint within city limits. No thunderwave or earthquake--that might destabilize the stacks. No mind control spells or anything AoE that might cause a panic. If the players break those rules, there is a whole order of high-powered Paladins whose oath is to put the hurt on you. Sort of like what Ben was saying in last week's pod.
Ultimately though you require that player buy-in and that they need to understand that you're doing this for a reason and not just to take away their joy at feeling powerful. Almost like a Session -1 thing.
@@MPonygirl My bro is more into low magic and low power and so I’m mostly trying to solve HIS problems as that’s less my thing.
Bro just moved to Shadowdark and added most of the pulp optional rules in and ignored the yay-let’s-all-die-frequently side of it. He seems happy with that. It’s just a VERY familiar convo with my crew.
I don’t think I’d use the effort to try and make it low magic. You can reduce magic items, but with 90% of PCs containing magic in their repertoire, you’re fighting an uphill battle.
You made an interesting approach with making the worldbuilding be the spell-banning enforcer. The problem is that becomes an in-world puzzle the players will try to figure out how to counter, which is not your intent.
If I didn’t like spells, I’d make a list of spells that do not exist anymore and give the players the list in session 0 before they built a character. I’d have a discussion to debate the spells. And if that ruined their fun completely I’d consider running a totally different premise that is good with high magic or get them to DM.
@@nicholasfingazsomething like Shadowdark or DCC sounds perfect for what your brother wants!
For bastions, I use the Acq. Inc. Book, the 3e book Stronghold Builder's Guidebook, and a mix of follower rules to come up with party base building rules that fit the campaign in question. As a long-time Final Fantasy fan, I rarely run campaigns where I don't eventually give the party an airship or some other mobile base. At the very least, they get a small drop ship or strike craft and a stationary base built around the garage they park the "party bus" in between missions.
Nautical campaigns will start with them having a ship and eventually building their own port town or even a small nation on an island chain somewhere.
Sci-fi campaigns start with the party already having their version of the millennium falcon. Eventually, they'll take over a space station or a remote planet.
For low vs. high magic, I take a page from sci-fi games like Traveler or the old 3e D&D setting Dragon Star. The real defining characteristics are tech and knowledge level.
Magic is magic. It's everywhere. If there is life in a region, then there is magic there.
What defines the region is access to knowledge. Whether it's knowledge of science, magic, technology, or grinding up herbs mushrooms and fairy wings with a mortar and pestel. The thing that defines a region, setting, or planet is who has the knowledge and who they are granting access to that knowledge.
My main setting has a bunch of different regions, each overseen by one of the six goddesses that guard mortal life. The lands of the Str and Con goddesses have mostly medieval high fantasy tech levels because the Slayer and the Hero protect the still habitable lands that border on Wastelands created by cataclysms that nearly ended the world. The lands overseen by the Dex goddess are either higher or lower tech because the Trickster spies on the enemies of mortal life and disseminates their secrets as she sees fit. Meanwhile, the lands of the Int goddess the Scholar are magitech sky cities that look like clusters of the city of Atlantis in the show Stargate Atlantis.
It's a high magic setting, but you'll still find countless regions where someone is gatekeeping access to magic, tech, education, and basic living standards.
For magic spells and systems, I'm becoming a big fan of the ritualism system in Fabula Ultima. Character classes grant access to the combat spells that deal damage. For everything else, there are guidelines for players to create ritual spells. Pick any spell effect from any edition of D&D that isn't direct damage or summoning and the ritual rules in Fabula Ultima can probably cover it.
I love Keith Baker’s term Wide Magic. Magic is pervasive, but not a very high level. Characters are special because they can reach this crazy high level of magic. But everburning torches everywhere is a great quality of life development but not necessarily born of super high power magic in the world
Agreed. One of my gripes with FR is that it feels like medieval society with wizards, rather than societies that are fundamentally different thanks to available magic. Magic is either Netherese in power or used by only a smattering of folks who don't seem to use it to better society in a meaningful way.
Eberron, the Wizarding World (HP) and other settings THINK about how simple magic might change the way everyday people live their lives, while keeping it simple enough that we don't wander into hyper-utopian Netherese solutions to everything
@@mateobarrett6829Listening to Worlds Beyond Number right now and you can tell how baked in magic is to the world. And where it isn't, there's a good reason why (*cough* greeeeeed)
Regarding magic and Shawn's comment about the fate system: Mage the Ascension works more or less this way. The level you have in whichever sphere you're casting from (forces, entropy, spirit, etc) determines how powerful the effects can be, with a few loose descriptions of what that looks like for each power level, but there are no fixed effects. You declare what you're trying to do and it's pretty much up to the narrator to decide what level sphere you need. This was cool in some regards because of the freedom, but it did lead to very heated arguments and extremely OP characters at our table.
Cool conversation about "staying current". 👍🏻
I often stay current with games I really love. D&D is one of these. I've enjoyed 5e since Xanathar's, having waited to adopt it until I felt it had enough mechanical substance to do so. I like what I'm seeing from D&D2024 thus far. I'm excited to read the DMG, and very eager to see the (very important) MM.
I stay up to date with Numenera, a setting and system I love; and also keep up with some of MCG's other Cypher System products, since they're so easily hacked and spliced.
I am a huge Star Wars guy, and love RPGs, so of course I love to play SW RPGs. That said, I am happy with WotC's "Saga Edition" from around 20 years ago. I have the full 13-book collection and never felt like following the license when it switched hands. Many love FFG's SW RPG, but I couldn't be bothered to spend a fortune on new books and buy fancy new dice when I already love Saga Edition.
The type of magic system that Ben was talking about at 53:00 exists in Mausritter (inspired by GLOG) and some other OSR games
The fact that high magic = high power to most people highlights the martial/caster disparity in 5e specifically. So they add weapon properties in 2024. This is great for combat-minded players and generally highlights how starved martial players are for something, anything to try to make up ground with their caster counterparts. But it does nothing for them outside of combat, where spells still dominate the game. As a forever DM, I've only had one player over the course of three campaigns choose a purely martial class and they could immediately (and increasingly, as the campaign goes on) feel how the rules greatly favor casters. Even giving martials more magic items and inherent thematic abilities that help with skills and such, they are just left behind by the sheer depth and breadth of options that magic offers. And with a party full of casters and no dedicated tanks, every combat became life or death stakes because they mostly just didn't have the HP/AC for a well-balanced encounter. And that still wasn't enough to make them give up magic. They still have fun, but it can keep them from exploring other narrative/mechanical choices because they feel like they'll miss out on the power of magic if they do a martial character. I like that you all mentioned that a loose system, though it seems like a great option, leaves players wanting more guidelines though - hard to solve a puzzle if it's open-ended. Catch 22 maybe?
Out of combat both rules as written and intended, any problem that can be solved with a spell can also be solved with player creativity and an ability check.
And there are a practically infinite variety of problems that ability checks can solve that spells as written cannot.
At most tables, GMs create the ‘martial caster divide’ by treating caster player characters within setting logic like they’re special and heroic, while treating non-casters like they’re just normal people. That’s the real divide.
I agree with most of that, though because the spells are fully fleshed out in writing, I see most players (in my experience) going that route first (when possible) because the limitations are known. That also allows some players the freedom to plan ahead with known quantities. But you make some good points, thank you!
@@theoldgoat3000 you’re 100% right on that point. There are a lot of players that like to have ‘buttons to press’ i.e. very clearly defined abilities that don’t really require any creativity. (Like a walk on water spell).
But there are just as many players that prefer to have a creative framework that they can engage with. (Like using carpenters tools to build a raft)
I think one of the strengths of 5e is that different classes are designed to be played by different sorts of players, but unfortunately those play style differences also fall along the martial vs. caster line.
Really you've only had one players stay martial the whole campaign? That's wild to me. I always have a mix, and almost always my martials stay martial. They tend to take a fighter or rogue dip, but they mainly stick in the martial lane if that's where they started. I run for some large groups, between 6-8 players, and I've usually got a diverse group, and I don't think any of them who've started martial have tried for a magic dip. I _have_ had many of my martial/casters, my Paladins, my Hexlocks, take some other caster classes. Sorcerer, and Warlock being common dips.
I usually have a more casters, I will say, but I've never had a game without at least one pure martial in it. And this is before the new weapon benefits. (I haven't switched to 2024 yet).
I thought it was wild too. We haven't switched to 2024 either, so maybe that would entice them? Or maybe it's just my group.
Yay! I’m so glad I get to hear your panel here!
I definitely want to fly to Australia for Pax Aus one of these years, though!
It isn't fans who are mad, it's investors. I don't play mtg much anymore, but I have friends who still do (primarily EDH aka Commander), and nobody has ever been mad about bans. Disappointed or confused maybe, but never angry. Plus, its a casual format... If you don't like the ban list, you just ask your friends if they're cool with you playing the card anyway!
This is how new formats have come about for 25 years at least. It's part of the process
Great conversation. I really look forward to seeing that there is a new podcast available. I enjoy everyone’s perspective.
If it's anything like the playtest version(at it sounds like it is) then there's nothing stopping you from combining your bastions into a larger whole. Each player just gets narrative control over a different section of the whole. The playtest version was pretty solid, not A TON of crunch or anything but certainly something to sink your teeth into out of game. In large part it looked like a way to give players a taste of what the DM seat is like while also giving some neat benefits to their characters.
@jamesjhaeck Wow, I really hadn't given much thought about the wealth of game play that Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms offers to DM's and Players. Your reply to poster Kyle (55:30) about "snuffing out the weave" reminded me that there have been times in the Forgotten Realms' story-line when magic was broken and/or unavailable. This can offer DM's the opportunity to offer different game styles within the Forgotten Realms. (obviously the realm most loved by me.)
I don’t know much about Bastions, but if Bastions are supposed to be Player controlled why is it in the Dungeon Master’s Guide and not in the Player’s Handbook?
Because including it in your game is a GM decision.
If it were in the player's handbook. The players would just automatically assume that it is. Same reason Magic items are in the DMG and not the PHB. Yes, they are for the players, but it is a GM's decision to include or implement them at the table.
Perhaps to sell digital DMG's to players now that you can't buy stuff a la carte on Beyond anymore.
if there was a transformation to turn into a bastion would they turn into a werehouse?
I'm looking forward to seeing what theyve done with Bastions as both my groups of players really enjoyed having Trollskull Manor back in Dragonheist. We expanded upon it using the Durnan's Guide to Tavernkeeping from DMsGuild.
It seems to me that Bastions offer a play-style opportunity for those DM's (who allow this in their games) and players (like myself) who are open to playing via text in-between game sessions.
Leporiphobia: fear of rabbits. Ben's visceral, skin crawling reaction to a bastion filled with harengon followers.
To be fair, he's around Aussie rabbits. No telling what kind they have
One way to clearly delineate between low/mid/high magic is to ask one question: Is magic pervasive on a societal level? Is it endemic?
Low magic: People will go their whole lives without seeing anything magical, and when they do it is terrifying to behold; yet they know the world is magical and the wyrd and the preternatural are out there in the wilds.
Mid magic: Every now and again the mage from the tower high in the mountains will pass through the village. Last year he gave us a torch that never burns out. If we save enough money, we can have the druid witch in the swamp bless and multiply our harvest again this year.
High magic: Enchanted boxes act as elevators in the 10 story castle. Every other shop in the market uses magic to produce their wares. Any adventurer worth their salt has an enchanted weapon, and the guild hands them out to new recruits on loan.
So, to answer James' question as someone who has thought a _lot_ about this, it has to be on both a setting and system level. Primarily setting, with a system that is consonant with that setting. I'll repeat what I wrote last week:
In my experience as someone who has been trying to play 5e in a low magic setting for some time, you really need to cripple the 5e system in order to achieve the _feel_ of low magic. Spells and supernatural super hero levels of power are too central to the design.
The Tavern! LUCIAS DEEPFIST REMEMBERS!!!
Dale’s comment on renaiming low/ high magic into shallow/narrow/deep etc is just pure genius
Hope you Aussies are gonna rage for us on the fact only 1,000 exclusive cover phbs shipped to APAC - underfulfilling preorders by up to 90%
I strongly disagree... "Its just a game, dont see it as an investment - its only to make the producer money"
I think you are right, 100%. Where I disagree is that the company is creating scarcity and other mechanics in the design and sale format that makes them extra money. People would not buy 24 displays at release, if all came in 1 box.
I think 5e is a terrible system for low magic / low fantasy. There are lots of excellent systems out there that allow you to do low magic, and have a ton of fun!!!
But they are all very different to each other. Band of Blades is low magic, but you're an awesome squad fighting for your lives, doing awesome things.
If you play the One Ring you explore middle earth, and it's all so very very thematic.
And I do think Dales point is great - "Low magic" isn't the phrase you want!
In the FR, there are other systems of magic that exist separate than the weave. Ed Greenwood has spoken on some examples. If the weave where to disappear, perhaps other forms of magic could rise to the occasion. Could really make for interesting story telling.
It would be nice to get a system to manage a territory not just a bastion
You could make Birthright adapted to 5e. Or any fantasy game. It's easy to just use the framework and plug a system into it
I really liked the headquarters example from the Acq Inc book and mini campaign.
The D6 magic system that Ben described sounded pretty similar to the magic in ars Magica, he should check it out.
lol (55:00), and here I am all excited because I just got my copy of Broken Weave from Cubicle 7 which depicts a tragic-fantasy setting for D&D where the gods are dead and The Weave is broken, lol.
I'm really not sold on the Grim Hollow Transformed, I've bought the originals awhile ago and what I'm seeing on the page doesn't highlight how much content is actually new or what it is. saying 16 new subclasses doesn't actually hype me up. I'm following the project to see if that changes, but so far... is it just an update to fit within the 2024 rules and background changes?
Anybody significantly hurt by the MTG bans was either a scalper who deserved to be burned or an addict who shouldn’t be engaging with the game at all.
Unless you are a con artist, trading card games are not a sound speculative medium, and no game should be catered to ‘speculators’ at the expense of the play experience.
Significantly is a such a subjective word for you to use here friend. Firstly I’m entirely behind the bans , I hated playing against every one of those cards. However, the prices of these cards were kept so artificially high by wizards reprint strategies that many lower class people had to spend a decent portion of their income to purchase them. So I don’t think you’re correct about this. A college student that spent 200 dollars on a jeweled lotus and a dockside extortionist so they could play competitively at a high power table just effectively spent 200 dollars on cards they can no longer play and that is damaging.
Edit: instead of rambling I’ll say what I mean more clearly. The fault of this catastrophe is not on the rules committee doing their best to balance the game, nor is it the fault of players who purchased cards to play the game. The problem is the cooperation keeping the prices of those peices of cardboard so artificially high that when balancing decisions are made for the good of the game it deals hundreds of dollars worth of damage to the collections of individuals. Obviously the people lashing out are in the wrong on this one, I just feel like the blame for this situation isn’t being allocated properly.
@@lethe5052 literally all trading card prices are artificially high, because trading cards have no inherent value.
If spending $200 on a purely luxury good is going to negatively impact someone’s life, then it’s their own fault for spending it on a trading card.
Viewed as an investment, it’s worse than crypto currency, and viewed as game equipment like soccer cleats or a football helmet there’s an accepted consumer risk of it going out of date.
People can still play with their favorite banned cards with their friends. They just can’t use them in an officially sanctioned capacity, and no rules organization should be handicapped catering to irresponsible financial actors.
If anything, the situation suggests that purchasing trading cards should probably be illegal for people under 21.
@@lethe5052 I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t think it’s really WOTC’s fault either. They’re just playing by the rules. All trading card values are artificial.
The real problem is that TCGs are a form of unregulated gambling. There should be laws in place. People under 21 should not be allowed to engage with them financially, and there should probably be minimum printing requirements for cards.
@@hodgepodgesyntaxia2112 I totally agree with you on that. While government enforced regulation is it’s own cave of carrion crawlers, the pack opening, framebreak foil chasing, high financial cost for something that is only tangental to gameplay has always been something I loath about mtg. Although on the topic of WOTC I suppose that stance is fair. The game is capitalism and we all have to play wether we want to or not.
What? When did we talk about Underworlds? Ben, please: I would actually love an occasional Wargaming side-note, since that is the dichotomy (between TTRPG's and Wargaming) I live in 😅
when I think of low magic I think of the Lord of the Rings setting, and if you try to run standard D&D as that setting you need to make some considerable changes on what classes you allow. I haven't read through the 5e Lord of the Rings setting books that are available so not sure how they have dealt with this.
A difference between strongholds and followers vs Bastion is probalby that S&V has defending your stronghold as an essential part of your journy it wouldn't supprise me if Bastion doesn't have any rules for defending your bastion
About low magic the short anwere is play a different setting. What I would like to do with my campaign is like there are almost no humanoids above level 10 and above level 5 are rare. So there aren't Liches, there is 1 Lich.
So not like in Descent into Avernus where they are like lets send some level 5 guys into hell despite the fact that we have at least 5 archmages walking around Candlekeep.
If you want Call of Cthulhu with more power you should try pulp cthulhu
The answer to the bat question, fingers or wings: yes
I feel we should be clear: the death threats were the EXCUSE Wizards used to take control of the Commander format, they jumped at that.
15:38 So WoTC use a battle master maneuver to throw themselves in as the 🛡️. They are used to taking the flack, and a good move to use that for good and not just standard corporate anonymity-supported behaviors
Bastion transformation is just The Master from Fallout 1.
Hot take: Literally no MtG card should cost as much as some of them do. Why do we have people out there living like Yugioh characters irl?
Have anyone seen the book that cubicle 7 just came out with? It's called the Broken Weave. Magic apocalypse setting.
Good intro Dael
I would be more for supporting the new Grim Hollow if I hadn't just purchased the full 3 books back at the end of May :(
I am now so sad that we don't have a movie where Arnold fights off a cadre of horror monsters.
Ben should check out Ars Magica, almost essentially what he describes in terms of that free form magic system but that is an entirely different game.
Good chat!
There are regions of the Forgotten Realms where magic is less common and that lend themselves to low fantasy play. That can be true in any realm.
Death threats are bad. Instead wish minor misfortunes or inconveniences upon your rivals. "May you loose the cap from your toothpaste", "I hope you forget to charge your phone."
Muppet Treasure Island point of reference 😂
S & F is far better. It actually takes player investment to achieve. Bastions are a freebee handout.
Words don't have definitions. They have usages. No two people are going to agree on the same usage of low/high/med magic.
Gee, it's almost like when you don't properly curate a fanbase it can become literally physically dangerous.
re: MtG. Just. Reprint. Cards. The Reserved List is an idiotic concession to crybabies. And if you've built a business over speculation of cardboard futures, then I don't think people should lose sleep over your decision.
Can I get a discord link? Please and thank you 😊
Strongholds and followers was a huge disappointment.
4e did a lot of stupid things, the Spellplague was one of them.