I'm creating a post-apocalyptic campaign setting, where most arcane and divine knowledge is lost, and magic is mainly an innate power. Therefore I want to use mainly sorcerers and oracles, and forbid wizards and clerics.
But I also need to think about the implications this decision has on the game. Will it alter the balance? Give more power to the martial classes? Should I change the encounters in any way?
Thanks.
Shouldn't cause any major imbalance.
Look out for heavens oracles. Color spray is harsh.
Also no rangers or paladins for some reason unless you make your own spontaneous version.
|
Also no rangers or paladins for some reason unless you make your own spontaneous version.APG gives us some spell-less versions, but they don't seem too popular among those I play with.
That's because what they get in exchange (at least for rangers) is utter crap in comparison to the spells. At least, that seems to be the opinion at my table.
|
What about summoners? Maybe you could alter thier concept a bit and make it that the Eidilon is what powers the summoner and allows him access to magic, that might work in your world.
The biggest thing lost I think will be a parties inability to augment themselves with potions/wands ect if there is no temples or local wizards. You might want to broden certain skills to augment this. Like allow some minor healing to be done from the Heal skill immediatly ect.
Is there techonology in this world?
It's not going to be a problem, no different than if players didn't pick those classes in the first place.
That's because what they get in exchange (at least for rangers) is utter crap in comparison to the spells. At least, that seems to be the opinion at my table.Also no rangers or paladins for some reason unless you make your own spontaneous version.APG gives us some spell-less versions, but they don't seem too popular among those I play with.
No Magus is obvious, and I can sort of see an argument for the Paladin, but why no Druid or Ranger? I'd think they'd be obvious choices for a post-apocalyptic game.
Youre going to have to decide about the druid and ranger, but oterwise, if you tone down the pace of encounters, it should be fine. Same as other low magic settings.
No, paladins are not allowed, but I would give another "flavour" to inquisitors. And the APG has skirmishers, rangers without spells.
Also no rangers or paladins for some reason unless you make your own spontaneous version.APG gives us some spell-less versions, but they don't seem too popular among those I play with.
There is a reason for that.
Those we have seen thus far suck.Especially after the UC paladin spells.
I'm currently working on a barbarian setting that has only oracles and sorcerers, and Skirmisher rangers. I don't see any actual problems, except that it would probably quite difficult to get scrolls of more obscure spells.
no one has mentioned the trapper ranger, they give up spells for traps after all.
no one has mentioned the trapper ranger, they give up spells for traps after all.
Which are also underwhelming.
It wouldn't be hard to just do a spontaneous variant for rangers and paladins.
The biggest thing I can see is most sorcerer players sort of assume they can get scrolls or wands of useful spells that they don't need "on-demand", especially for lower-level spells, and that won't be available in your world. So players of spontaneous casters (and honestly the party as a whole) will have to adopt a new mentality. I honestly think it could be a fun challenge to build a sorc on the assumption that your spell list is all you'll ever have.
It's not going to be a problem, no different than if players didn't pick those classes in the first place.
I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. If I say that there's 9th level cleric NPC living in Hobbiton, that means that Hobbiton will have guaranteed access to Raise Dead, Plane Shift and Commune. Whereas if I say that there's a 10th level oracle NPC living in Hobbiton, it will not have guaranteed access to those spells. That could have a significant impact on the game world, I think.
|
|
It's not going to be a problem, no different than if players didn't pick those classes in the first place.I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. If I say that there's 9th level cleric NPC living in Hobbiton, that means that Hobbiton will have guaranteed access to Raise Dead, Plane Shift and Commune. Whereas if I say that there's a 10th level oracle NPC living in Hobbiton, it will not have guaranteed access to those spells. That could have a significant impact on the game world, I think.
IMHO I would never say there is a 9th lvl cleric in Hobbiton.
If their question is "Who could raise our fallen comrades from the dead ?" I could answer that The high priest of Hobbos living in Hobbiton can, in some specific cases, raise worthy mortal souls.Nothing should be granted for the players and nothing should be guaranteed in this world or another.
He may be able to raise dead but not cast commune for "some reasons".
It's not going to be a problem, no different than if players didn't pick those classes in the first place.I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. If I say that there's 9th level cleric NPC living in Hobbiton, that means that Hobbiton will have guaranteed access to Raise Dead, Plane Shift and Commune. Whereas if I say that there's a 10th level oracle NPC living in Hobbiton, it will not have guaranteed access to those spells. That could have a significant impact on the game world, I think.
It could change the dynamics of the game world, but not the game. Hobbiton has access to those things because the dm WANTS them to. Most dms dont spend alot of time worrying about the logical implecations of game mechanics on the world. Some do, and those usually carefully place things like 9th level clerics around for a specific purpose. So they can place 10th level oracles that meet that same purpose as well.
It could change the dynamics of the game world, but not the game.
I think that's a distinction without a difference in this case.
It could change the dynamics of the game world, but not the game.I think that's a distinction without a difference in this case.
There actually is a difference. It wont change the way the PC's play, or how they interact with the world. It wont change the capabilities the dm wants npcs to have. The pcs dont have access to the npc's spells known list. If after the 8th time the pcs meet an npc oracle, the dm suddenly decides he wants that oracle to have raise dead available for whatever reason, he can just say he has access to it when the PC's ask.
The interactions that happen DURING the game, dont have to change if the dm doesnt want them to.
On the flip side, the logical interactions of npcs with eachother away from the table, could change. Maybe certain kinds of healing is less available, so there is greater instances of disease, or death rates are higher, but that is all a dm choice. The dm would not be stretching things to leave out all the potential consequences of changing all clerics to oracles if they dont want there to be any.
There actually is a difference. It wont change the way the PC's play, or how they interact with the world.It could change the dynamics of the game world, but not the game.I think that's a distinction without a difference in this case.
The availability of NPC casters with Raise Dead in the game world won't change the way the PCs interact with the world?
The availability of NPC casters with Raise Dead in the game world won't change the way the PCs interact with the world?There actually is a difference. It wont change the way the PC's play, or how they interact with the world.It could change the dynamics of the game world, but not the game.I think that's a distinction without a difference in this case.
No, because if the dm wanted raise dead available he'll make it available, if he doesn't want it available, doesnt mean that a cleric can or will cast it for the party.
Here is 2 versions of each scenario:
Scenario 1: DM wants the players to be able to get a hold of raise dead.
Version A: The dm has told the party there is a capable cleric in the party (one would hope he never described it in terms of of class level, but lets assume he did).
The party go to the cleric, "Can you and will you raise our friend from the dead?"
"Yes, come back tommorrow with 5,000gp in diamonds, and I will cast it for you."
Version B:
The dm has told the party there is a capable oracle in the local temple (again lets say the players know he is level 10).
Party: "Can you and will you raise our friend from the dead?"
--The dm didnt have raise dead on the oracles list, but decides he is ok with the players being able to raise their friend, and thus makes a change behind the scense that the player's couldn't possibly know about without rediculous metagame knowledge.
"OK, I will help you, come back with 5,000gp in diamonds and I will cast it for you".
Scenario 2:
DM doesnt want players to be able to get a hold of raise dead.
Version A1.
Party: Will you raise our friend from the dead?
Cleric: No, I am not willing to do that at this time, I dont believe in undoing the work of fate.
Version A2.
Party Will you raise our friend from the dead?
Cleric: Sure, please find 5000 gp in diamonds and i will cast the spell
--turns out the party cannot find that value in diamonds and must travel elsewhere in hopes of raising their friend.
Version B1.
Party: Will you raise our friend from the dead?
Oracle: No I am not able to cast that spell OR No i am not willing to do that OR yes but you cant find the diamonds.
In the end there is very little change in the interaction because in the end the dm controlls the interaction, and can easily make the spell as available or not available as he or she wants.
Does raise dead thematically fit a post apocolyptic game that well I don't really think that feels right.