RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Or "Inquisitors and Magi and Bards, oh my!"
I'm just wondering how difficult would the game be if the PCs were limited to the 'sixth level bunch' as their primary casters? (And Rangers and Paladins of course.) There would still be NPC Mages/Witches/Oracles/Clerics/Druids but they're going to be a) rare, b) tied to locations or c) Villians. High level spells would still be available via scrolls and UMD
One immediate consequence I can see is (short of UMD) Death is scary.
Has anyone tried this?
I've considered leaving those casters in the game but giving them the shortened spell list and progression. So a cleric is still there, can still cast all the cleric spells, etc. ... but he only gets up to 6th level spells. Ditto for Wiz/Sorc/Witch/Druid/Oracle. And they use the Bard/Inquis/Magus spells known/spells per day charts.
I like my high-level magic though so the idea's never gone farther than a thought experiment.
That's where wands and scrolls come in. The latter I know is limited, while the former there is a chance of failure. With no magic though, it will just mean the players will have to find alterior ways to accomplish certain task.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@gnomersy
There *are* still 'full caster' NPCs. You can buy a scroll of True Ressurection from the 18th level Cleric/Pope. It's just the PCs can't be a cleric.
@ Lazar
Then it's a good thing I'm not talking about E6, anymore than someone who says 'No summoners is.'
I'm just wondering how not having those 7-9th level spells would affect high level play. Can a party using an 18th level Inquisitor, Bard, and Magus as their 'primary casters' take on the Runelord of Greed at the same level of difficulty as if they had a Cleric and Wizard?
No offense to any one but the idea that you "need" a full caster is absurd. It's purely theory-craft to say that a full caster dominates the game so much that other classes can't compete.
I assure you that you can indeed advance into the high levels without a full caster.
Also the game does not assume anything. The CR's are balanced for 4 PCs, it doesn't quite matter what there classes are, as long as it's a PC class.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@gnomercy
Well most of my high level experience (15+) is theorycraft. That's why I'm wondering.
Also don't forget, Pathfinder-nomics isn't affected by supply and demand. That's why at first level selling that +1 sword only nets you 1.5k GP or so, even though it's the only one available. At 15th level dumping the 10 +1 swords you took from the mooks has no impact on their sale price. :-)
That's just wrong man. I mean really are you trying to say that a group of 4 melee fighters are just as powerful in just as many situations as a proper varied group?No offense to any one but the idea that you "need" a full caster is absurd. It's purely theory-craft to say that a full caster dominates the game so much that other classes can't compete.
I assure you that you can indeed advance into the high levels without a full caster.
Also the game does not assume anything. The CR's are balanced for 4 PCs, it doesn't quite matter what there classes are, as long as it's a PC class.
Well that's not what i meant exactly. I wouldn't recommend 4 of the exact same anything.
Though i could see a party of 4 Fighters succeed if they varied themselves.
Here is an example;
1. Melee Fighter (Two- Handed Archetype)
2. Ranged Fighter (Archer Archetype)
3. Controller/Skills Fighter (Lore Warden Archetype)
4. Tough Fighter (Unbreakable Fighter)
Has anyone tried this?
Honestly a good referee can make any group make up work. Just plan the encounters and adventure/campaign accordingly.
Most of the utility magic is still pretty avaiable from other classes (especially say bards). And a lot of the recovery/remove spells or effects can be done by bards, paladins and rangers.
Not having access to the more powerful core spells can be daunting at higher levels (say 12+) where Teleport or planar travel spells become very useful. But, again, a good referee can fashion a game where those are not critical, and if certain magics ARE critical to the story or game, magic McGuffins can often replace casters for critical spells.
Example: We had a game once with 2 fighers, a rogue and a paladin all dwarves (in a home brew world where dwarves could not be arcanists). Eventually we got to higher levels and our quest needed us to travel great distances very quickly. We eventually found an ancient item that would allow us to teleport once per day.
It was a mithril chain with 20 links and a ring at each end of the chain. You would have one person hold one ring and another would take the second ring and walk around all those to be teleported, surrounding them in the chain. Once the rings touched you would choose your destination and teleport. The 'chain' would magically always be long enough to go around whatever group you were choosing.
The balance was if the chain ever went around more than 6 medium creatures at once it lost a link in the process. If it ever exceeded the chains 'teleport' range (which we never exactly knew) it would work but lose a link as well. And it ALWAYS had a chance to land incorrectly as per teleport.
We actually used it once to teleport a small army across an entire continent to reinforce our homeland and it lost two links in the one jump. By the time that campaign ended we had 8 links left.
But I think you get the general idea.
We never got any damaging items but we got utility items from time to time as the story required.
Actually I've played with several groups that almost never include a wizard or cleric. Wizards (and sorc) are considered to squishy to survive to high level. And almost no one want to play a straight cleric, almost always a ftr/cleric/battle priest.
The lack of AoE and major healing hurts somewhat, but they were also much better in martial combat. Probably was a bit more difficult, but tended to mostly equal out.
This is just a variation on the "the game becomes broken at level 12 or so". Except it allows non-caster classes to continue to advance, which will just break the game a different way.
This is just a variation on the "the game becomes broken at level 12 or so". Except it allows non-caster classes to continue to advance, which will just break the game a different way.
Not necessarily. This could be an interesting idea for a world and world-crafting, though I can see how it could look like what you're suggesting too.
Matt: there are lots and lots of consequences for this, in addition to the relative lack of raise dead. A few, as I can think of them:
First of all, undead are now nightmarish and healing is suddenly more rare. Lacking a clerical ability to deal with undead, a party made up of non-primary casters aren't going to have the resources to have all the positive energy spells and effects that make healing rapid and complete. No regenerate for lost limbs, and unless that bard and/or inquisitor sacrifices much to the healing game, you're going to come up short. It's not that the inquisitor lacks healing spells (asides from regenerate, and the dead-raising ones), it's that they (and bards) have a limited number of spells known. Also worth noting is that, due to delayed spell-level acquisition, inquisitors will get the same healing spells as clerics... later. All this combines to make undead truly formidable. Paladins will still function well against them, and inquisitors will too with the right choices, but it's going to be less of a shoe-in than otherwise. This is at least partly because things like the various diseases and curses that undead deal won't have as many optional counters. Paladins will help with this - a lot - but it's still going to be less common in many cases. Either that, or you're going to see paladins, inquisitors, and bards suddenly become some of the favored classes. Eventually paladins and rangers will become the default healers for "low" things (poisons, disease, and the like), but that'll be quite some time in coming, and in the meanwhile your group is strapped for spells.
The virtual requirement of at least one of (but probably any two) bards, inquisitors, and paladins also means something else interesting: you've basically got three social Juggernauts, one of which is effectively required for a well-rounded party (i.e. a healer). Suddenly, you don't have just one party face... you've got three. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's something to keep in mind. You're going to have two high charisma classes (and thus super-social) classes and one potentially super-social class (the inquisitor). This means that you've got to prepare for overwhelming amounts of bluff/diplomacy/intimidate. Again, not a bad thing, but it's a thing to think about.
Another thing is item creation. This heavily depends on your play style, of course, but a lack of full casters means that it's likely you won't have item creators in your party. That might mean nothing, but unless you, as a GM, are careful what and how you give them things, they may very well end up with the wrong stuff, stuff they don't want or need, and other item-related problems. Yes, there are NPCs. Yes, they can make stuff. But buying stuff from the NPCs is expensive - far more so than making it yourself (or having your full-caster buddy make it). Also, if you really want some verisimilitude, this is logically going to heavily impact the availability of magic items in a game... otherwise you get things like: "Those extremely rare NPC full casters in the mysterious "out there" who're cranking out random magic items sure are useful to every local village and/or have a strange propensity to make exactly what we want, eh?" Sure, you can go for that, or you can explain it away in some manner, but it's something that worth thinking about before you sit down and design your campaign.
Finally, ask yourself why certain classes are available to NPCs that aren't to PCs. Maybe you already know. Maybe "because it makes a neat story." Maybe it is something like what Adamantine Dragon suggested. Regardless, have a decent answer, and come up with a decent answer in story too. You don't have to, but it'll help sell players on the world at large.
Again, these are just a few thoughts I had, as I'm distracted running after my son. (No joke, this silly post took two hours to make, as I've followed him around the whole house, and only paused here to add briefly! If some things seem disjointed... sorry!)
I'll try and think through further ramifications later.
By the way, Matthew: I've done something very similar before, but we never got far past 5th level (and we started at 3rd), so we didn't see the full impact there. Anyhoo, still mulling away. Can't guarantee I'll come up with anything, but I'm still thinking on it!
Hey, hey, OP.
Death isn't supposed to be scary like you think it is in DnD/Pathfinder. Your reaction is somewhat troubling. 'My PC's are too badass, I'll nerf them until they show the proper fearful tremblings!'
What's going to f~~% them over is that there aren't too many nonmagical ways (besides time) to remove a lot of status ailments in DnD/PF. Other than that... their damage potential will be off the hizzy. Of course. Full BAB classes tend to deal damage. But somehow I imagine that your game won't be set up to allow them to shine at that, either - no piddly non-full spellcaster should be beating up monsters with impunity, after all.
Basically, if you're going to have full spellcasters in the setting, you should allow PC's to play them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, hey, OP.
Death isn't supposed to be scary like you think it is in DnD/Pathfinder. Your reaction is somewhat troubling. 'My PC's are too badass, I'll nerf them until they show the proper fearful tremblings!'
What's going to f%$$ them over is that there aren't too many nonmagical ways (besides time) to remove a lot of status ailments in DnD/PF. Other than that... their damage potential will be off the hizzy. Of course. Full BAB classes tend to deal damage. But somehow I imagine that your game won't be set up to allow them to shine at that, either - no piddly non-full spellcaster should be beating up monsters with impunity, after all.
Basically, if you're going to have full spellcasters in the setting, you should allow PC's to play them.
Terraneaux, you're making a very great deal of presumptions about his motives, ideas, attitudes, and playstyles here. That's... kind of rude.
Also, inquisitors and bards do gain access to many of the magical ways of healing, but if they focus on that they'll lack in other things. The cleric's (and druid's!) ability to prepare spells is a tremendous power source, and the thing that's most hampered by this system of doing stuff.
Still mulling this over, but I'm not coming up with too much right now. Kind of been distracted with my own game stuff. Sorry!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Hey Terrannaux,
You might want to avoid inferring too much into my posts.
The question is "How well would the game work if the heroes were just 'second and third tier casters'?" I can understand if your first reaction was to be "How can I screw the party over." It may well be a reflection on your GMing style, but I'd never imply your skills as a GM are lacking in a post I made.
@Tacticslion, I had not considered the 'diplomancer' effect of people playing the 'second tier' I find it interesting that the Inquisitor/Bard/Magus gets their 6th level spells at the time the full casters get their 8th level spells. Also some of the 7th level cleric spells (the Holy Word series, Repulsion) are 6th level inquisitor spells. Irresistable Dance is a Wizard 8, so the sorcerer and the bard get it at the same time. You've given me a lot of food for thought. Thank you.
Death isn't supposed to be scary like you think it is in DnD/Pathfinder.
Could not disagree more.
@Tacticslion, I had not considered the 'diplomancer' effect of people playing the 'second tier' I find it interesting that the Inquisitor/Bard/Magus gets their 6th level spells at the time the full casters get their 8th level spells. Also some of the 7th level cleric spells (the Holy Word series, Repulsion) are 6th level inquisitor spells. Irresistable Dance is a Wizard 8, so the sorcerer and the bard get it at the same time. You've given me a lot of food for thought. Thank you.
I'm glad I could help at all!
Would do interesting things with higher tier monsters and save assumptions once the game was higher level as the DC to save vs. the PCs would be somewhat lower.
Would make Globes of Invulnerability much more effective. Ditto with Spell Turning effects & the various "Absorb Spells" IOUN stones.
Having specialized spell lists would make it more difficult to get to "utility spells".
If you're still allowing the items around and as common death wouldn't be scary so much as more expensive.
-TimD
Just my two coppers, but I feel there are no classes that are required in my experience with one exception: a melee fighter. As long as the group has a damage sponge to go toe to toe with adversaries and let the ranged fighters/sneak attackers/casters do their thing they will succeed. It has also been my experience that groups will have more difficulty without a rogue but one is not required.
I ran a game in 3.5 that was a halfling rogue, a human ranger (archer), and an elf fighter (tank). We played that game from 1st to 25th level and they never had too much difficulty aside from the fact that there were three of them meant they handled stuff just a little lower EL than a group of 4 would have but that would happen even if one was a caster.
Alternatively, I played in a 3 person party game that went from 3rd to 12th level where I played an elf sorcerer, and the others were an elf ranger (archer) and a halfling rogue. In every fight we ended up falling back so we could get a couple rounds as the enemies closed and then falling back again. Around 6th level we had a couple others join us and one was a human two-handed fighter and the other a human cleric. At that time our front line was in place so the rest of us got to do our thing.
So I say no, a caster is by no means necessary ever, even at high levels.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Another good side effect* would be some items would only be available from the Pope, Hogwarts, etc. or found in troves. This could allow a 'company store' type scenario. "Well sure we'll raise dead your buddy, he died on a mission for us after all. Oh, wait, your credit only covers 4th level spells. Tell you what, we'll do it, and put it on your tab."
*
One other benefit for that kind of control-thing (and very similar to the situation you just described), you could also use the Faction Guide. That provides some serious motivation for them.
One other thought to keep in mind, though, is that, more than scrolls, for higher level spells, staffs will likely be more common. You can make a staff without having the spell - thus reducing the need for full-level casters even more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The company store thing will probably piss off your players.
Depends on the campaign style. Been in very very many "company store" type games. Though, I will admit most have been in the espionage genre and the least in the sword and sorcery fantasy genre. But, I can remember a very fun FR setting Harper group that did a "company store" type game.
Treasure tables became very mission oriented and major equipment was returned to the quartermaster.
Greg
EDIT: Come to think of it, the Harper game was fantasy espionage :P
One other possibility, Mr. Wasson's story brings to mind, Mr. Morris, is that you actually allow them to touch and use weapons and items that they'd otherwise never have a chance to... all owned, of course, by the Faction/"Company Store" that you have to return, or fork over immediately upon return.
Such successful raids and returns would up their credit (CPA) to allow them to deal with healing/raise dead stuff.
If you use the Faction Guide-style mechanic, I'd recommend a suggestion for altering it slightly.
Prestige Awards ("PA")
They get some PA every time they do something for the company and one or more (your choice) every time they level up (either +1 per level, or maybe even something like +1d4, your choice). Give it an effective "value" (the book's probably about right at 1 PA roughly equal to 375 gold-worth of services). That seems like a lot, buuuuuuuuuuut, keep in mind that they're going to be using this PA for everything.
CPA - current prestige awards
This is how much they currently have to spend "freely". They can use anything they have here without any sort of penalty, and there's lots of great services that are available here!
TPA - total prestige awards
This is how much they have collected over time. Every time they gain CPA, this increases. This is basically how valuable they've been, over the course of the entire campaign, to their Faction. The higher this number is the more "special" services they can access. It doesn't decrease... except in certain circumstances. One of those circumstances may be having to go out on "credit"... Basically allowing them to go "negative" on their CPA might put a penalty on their TPA, temporary or permanent, as you decide (this might be a great GM "push" tool - "we've got to do X valuable thing, quickly, before are reputation is tarnished")!
MPA - maximum prestige awards
This is completely my own invention (as far as I know) - it's not in the book. This is how much they can spend at any one time, that is, on any one instantaneous service (so you don't get them doing ridiculous things like spending collectively 500 PA to summon wish-granting genies or something). I'd suggest a value based off their level (maybe no more than four per level?), or something like that. That way, even if they had, say 30 CPA at fifth level, they'd still only be able to spend 20 at a given time.
Just for some perspective:
Second highest required is the Hell Knights. At a whopping 45 TPA required (that costs 1 CPA, if you've paid CPA previously to get certain titles), the character becomes a "Master of Blades" (either called a "lictor" or, if a spellcaster "vicarius"), gaining a large number of followers "for free" (many of which have "free" followers of their own); it is unclear whether or not they automatically gain a free "base of operations" by attaining this position, they need to have one in order to attain this position, or they need to establish it after attaining this position - it simply states that all those who attain this position do have one.
The third highest amount of TPA-required is split between the Kusari-Gama and the Pathfinder Society. You need 40 TPA, and it costs 1 CPA for the Pathfinder Society and 5 for the Ksari-Gama. Pathfinders gain a reputation as a famous and successful Pathfinder (effectively, you become a celebrity adventurer, and gain a minor circumstance bonus to bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate checks to those who know of you.) Kusari-Gama learn how to craft "Ki-Crystals" (an item in the appendix of the book).
The fourth highest amount of TPA-required is generally 30 (though there are a few 35s) and vary in the amount of CPA required, ranging from the 35 TPA/35 CPA Cult of Razmir bonus to saves v. mind affecting and suggestion once per week, to the Eagle Knights' 30 TPA/10 CPA rank of Major, granting followers very similarly to the Hell Knights' more expensive title "Master of Blades". Most factions do not have anything that requires more TPA than 30.
So that's TPA. But what about CPA? It goes even higher.
While 50 is the highest amount of required TPA (and most factions keep it 30 and under), several factions require... more of their members, and TPA is effectively ignored for this.
Anyway, the second most expensive - equal with the Aspis Constortium and Cult of Razmir in cost - is the Prophets of Kalistrade. For a "mere" 50 CPA, you gain 2 acres in Druma, buildings, furnishings, a "small staff", access to all Kerse's public buildings, and are treated as if living a wealthy lifestyle for no cost. You get one additional acre per 10 CPA you spend. It notes, helpfully, that once you spend a jaw-dropping one hundred CPA on this, you're treated as if living an extravagant lifestyle, but still with no gp/month payment.
Here's the kicker about all this stuff. It genuinely expects you to make this kind of CPA/TPA within a game. Further, the "Grand Masters", "Rulers", etc (at least the ones that are noted)? They're never above the 14th-18th level range, as described, and that's even for some of the most expensive ones. And theoretically, you're never supposed to really match them or be their equal, per se. So it really looks like all this is supposed to happen... by 13th level.
I'm telling you that to explain what, exactly, seems to be the "expected" norm for a given campaign using those rules. My MPA system that I describe above wouldn't allow the Green Faith boons to occur until 19th level - that's far above what I'm guessing is normally expected.
Of course, if you've ever played Serpent's Skull, you'll have seen that stuff in action. Let me tell you, though, the stuff they provide as granting PA in Serpent's Skull? Lousy. Super-lousy. The last adventure has a sum total of just about 12 PA that you can attain through the course of the whole thing.
Now, I will grant that they indicate that these PA are in addition to whatever "normal" boons they get. I still was never pleased with the way it sussed out in-play, and neither were my players. They were getting equivalent PA for doing amazingly epic things as they were for simply leveling up, and it wasn't really enough to do anything too useful for them. I generally doubled the bonus PA they were supposed to receive for the adventure milestones, and started to see them value (and use) their PA much more thereafter.
Your mileage may, of course, vary, but that's something worth thinking about, if you go with a mechanic like this (either this one or another to reflect what you're thinking for your campaign).
(Also, I didn't think to mention it or look it up, but the lowest CPA costs and lowest TPA requirements are both "0" for various groups, but usually presume around 1 for most groups, with a high around 30T/25C for most groups.)
EDIT: for word choice
I think this is a much better way of limiting spellcasting than say a Low Magic campaign or a E6 game.
I had the same idea- "No Full Spellcasters". The problem arises with healing, mostly. Maybe allow every class to do a limited number of personal only Lay On Hands.
Could not disagree more.
Death in Pathfinder can be existentially terrifying, but not really atavistically terrifying.
They will still get by. No class is required. A properly built Inquisitor and Magus can fill the roles of a Wizard and Cleric. The game will just be different.
They will still get by. No class is required. A properly built Inquisitor and Magus can fill the roles of a Wizard and Cleric. The game will just be different.
We have found that Channel is just about a "must have". Now, yes, a Pally does have that, but a Inquisitor does not. Mind you the Inquisitor is a great class, I agree.
They will still get by. No class is required. A properly built Inquisitor and Magus can fill the roles of a Wizard and Cleric. The game will just be different.We have found that Channel is just about a "must have". Now, yes, a Pally does have that, but a Inquisitor does not. Mind you the Inquisitor is a great class, I agree.
I'm just saying an Inquisitor or Bard who mems all healing spells, can keep the group alive like a cleric can.
One immediate consequence I can see is (short of UMD) Death is scary.
Death is always scary, unless you find those 5,000-25,000 gp diamonds under your pillow each morning.
I'm just saying an Inquisitor or Bard who mems all healing spells, can keep the group alive like a cleric can.They will still get by. No class is required. A properly built Inquisitor and Magus can fill the roles of a Wizard and Cleric. The game will just be different.We have found that Channel is just about a "must have". Now, yes, a Pally does have that, but a Inquisitor does not. Mind you the Inquisitor is a great class, I agree.
True, but then they turn into a heal-bot, which is boring. Mind you I have played both and as a back-up healer they are quite nice.