| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it that most people, when they try to come up with a homebrew setting, they always seem to go for the no magic/limited or wild magic/casters are persecuted for performing magic approach?
Seriously, why? I'm not saying there is anything wrong with said settings, but for the love of Gygax, show some originality!
If you insist on applying the age-old formula of "Something taken for granted is missing on a world-wide scale" approach to your campaign setting world, why not fiddle with something else, like gravity, or the very ground beneath the characters' collective feet? Playing Pathfinder in a world that mirrors Baten Kaitos would make for a nice change of pace.
While we're at it, why not shake things up some more and design an entirely different slew of races to take the place of the old stand-bys?
Make everything cubes, make every magic item intelligent and unruly, invent a new pervasive elemental force that affects everything, do something to set your setting apart if you must, but don't rely on such an overused, cheesy trope for your premise.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because no-magic/wild-magic is a simple change that doesn't require re-writing too many rules. It's also something that's a very common desire among players but that doesn't really have a very good published setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agree with Mauril on all points. It's much easier to keep a campaign coherent with low-magic than with zero-grav cube world, and a lot of players would like a more gritty, low-magic setting as a lot of fantasy fiction falls in that category.
That's not to say that crazy re-builds aren't fun, it's just understandable that people don't usually want to go that far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been running home-brew almost exclusively for decades. I don't do low magic and I don't punish magic users. I do have areas in my world of "wild magic" that produce unpredictable results, but those are rare and easy to avoid. Some players enjoy the wild magic places, other players avoid them.
I also have low magic areas, but by low magic I just mean that there isn't much in the way of magical doodads. Spells are not restricted. Just magic items. Most of those places have a lot of unique magical stuff that is tailored to their cultures.
I do actually enjoy a lower magic campaign myself, but I don't force that on my players.
Why is it that most people, when they try to come up with a homebrew setting, they always seem to go for the no magic/limited or wild magic/casters are persecuted for performing magic approach?
Seriously, why? I'm not saying there is anything wrong with said settings, but for the love of Gygax, show some originality!
If you insist on applying the age-old formula of "Something taken for granted is missing on a world-wide scale" approach to your campaign setting world, why not fiddle with something else, like gravity, or the very ground beneath the characters' collective feet? Playing Pathfinder in a world that mirrors Baten Kaitos would make for a nice change of pace.
While we're at it, why not shake things up some more and design an entirely different slew of races to take the place of the old stand-bys?
Make everything cubes, make every magic item intelligent and unruly, invent a new pervasive elemental force that affects everything, do something to set your setting apart if you must, but don't rely on such an overused, cheesy trope for your premise.
Although I run low-magic games, I have found all other DMs I have played with using their own homebrews have ridiculous magic everywhere. Everyone's experience is different, so I don't think your generalization is accurate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm my players prefer high magic settings... though one question what do you call wild magic?
Either way: Casters being persecuted is understandable in a small scale form like a village or kingdom that distrusts arcane or divine magic (not both!) In fact doesn't one of the locations in golarion have something like this?
Also I suggest reading a theory on magic that a historian proposed in the 1930s:
The abridged version is magic existed in our world pre-Dark Ages but during the dark ages the churches hunted down and destroyed all knowledge needed to use magic and slaughtered all wizards/sorcerers. All we have now is fragments that escaped the expulsion of this knowledge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just thought of what if everyone had access to magic?
The Fighters would have some simple spells for buffing themselves such as Lead Blades, Enlarge Person, or Heroism.
The Magic users would have access to more magic on the other hand.
Rough idea, I didn't give it much thought.
I just thought of what if everyone had access to magic?
The Fighters would have some simple spells for buffing themselves such as Lead Blades, Enlarge Person, or Heroism.
The Magic users would have access to more magic on the other hand.
Rough idea, I didn't give it much thought.
I have a setting in the works based off of materia from FFVII, the crystals used in the webcomic Two-Kinds, and a few other settings.
A crystal bears the power of a single spell slot by using multiple crystals a person (not just a caster) can use magic. A spellcaster is the only person capable of using magic without a crystal. The larger the crystal the more power it can release. A crystal recharges every dawn unless the flow of mana is in flux (special circumstances difficult to state). Every non-caster must study to build a spell-list they can draw from. Spellcasters can only cast spells from theit list known, cast spells by reading directly from their spellbook or use the crystals to prepare additional spells. This doesn't effect the level of spells they can cast and a non-caster must meet requirements equally to the class their spells are being studied from.
Rituals are for everyone. They don't rely on special class training. They rely on skills and lots of NPC participants. They also have a drawback, such as allowing undead, outsiders, and abberations access to the prime material.
Wild magic is random magic events. It's often touched off by any magic use of any kind. My best idea for a wild surge is pennies from heaven. A rain of copper pieces. It hurts if you have no helmet, but you can sweep up the loot afterwards.
Where in Gloriatalon is the magic haters. I want to launch a revolution campain. I still hate Keoland.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I DESPISE low magic/no magic campaigns. Wizard is my favorite character and to be honest, magic is the spark that makes role playing interesting.
When I started playing DnD, I played a lot of martial characters because I didn't have a firm grasp of how magic works. But I consistently got bored with characters and campaigns. It got to the point where I would basically take naps in-between combats because I didn't feel like I had anything else to contribute.
It got the point where it was like:
"It's your turn El"
"..."
*gets hit with a pillow*
"Wha-what?"
"It's your turn dude."
"Oh, sorry"
*rolls a ton of dice*
"It's dead.*
*goes back to sleep*
And that's no fun for anyone. I wasn't having fun playing and my party was getting really mad at me. A buddy who brought me in suggested that I try wizard and helped me learn the class, how spells work and how to make magic items.
I really got into it. Unlike martial characters, I had skills to help with RPing and I had spells to help with RPing. In combat, I was forced to pay attention because a God Wizard has to know what's going on at all times. I loved it.
Now, whenever I play low magic campaigns, I really struggle, because there's just no meat for me to sink my teeth into.
Rituals are for everyone. They don't rely on special class training. They rely on skills and lots of NPC participants. They also have a drawback, such as allowing undead, outsiders, and abberations access to the prime material.
Wild magic is random magic events. It's often touched off by any magic use of any kind. My best idea for a wild surge is pennies from heaven. A rain of copper pieces. It hurts if you have no helmet, but you can sweep up the loot afterwards.
Where in Gloriatalon is the magic haters. I want to launch a revolution campain. I still hate Keoland.
Gloriatalon? If you mean Golarion read the background for the pathfinder iconic Oracle. I could be wrong but it sounds like they don't like divine casters to well.
@Elamdri I guess it depends on the edition and player cause my pathfinder martial characters never felt like that. My 3.5 did though i ended up suffering in combat compared to a monk and Paladin combo.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it that when people say "I'm not saying there's anything wrong with ___..." they immediately go on to say something they think is wrong with ___? Is it strictly a spoon-full of sugar to help the medicine? Or is it sincere belief that there's nothing wrong with being unoriginal, overused and cheesy? I hope that is not the case.
I hope that what you mean is, a setting with no magic or low magic or wild magic or persecuted casters is using an unoriginal, overused and cheesy trope. I'd have said tropes, but I see them as distinct things. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with persecuting casters in a no magic world, but by Vance's shiny elbow, can't they at least persecute someone that exists?!
I would guess the reason people fiddle with magic is because it's not something taken for granted, except by those whose only window into fantasy is through PF and the various DnDs. The magic system in PF present rules for a very specific and precisely defined view of what magic is and how it works. It is a view that turns up very occasionally in fantasy. Magic in most fantasy movies and novels is very different from PF, and there are a lot of people who take inspiration from such things and try to make their games reflect that.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can offer a few ideas. Most of these are literary or psychological in nature. Their mileage or releveancy may vary from person to person and group to group.
- If Tolkien is the genesis of fantasy, and middle earth is the original campaign, the pathfinder has its roots in no/low fantasy. Re-doing the idea is ideolizing the genesis campaign and provides a familiar feel and context
- Classic mythology is low/no magic. It has divine intervention abounding. But, not common magic. Again, familiar feel.
- If magic is viewed as a the nature of the world, then removing it forces characters in the story to stand on their own. Think of it as a warped man vs. nature. The characters are given an artifical, nebulous opponent to struggle against in the form of the limitations of magic as it works in the world.
- It provides a grittier feel. Magic can't save your butt. You can't suddenly call out for a heal when you challenge the evil witch to mortal combat and realize she can summon a dragon to protect herself.
- When magic is rare, and it does happen in the world, it provides a sense of wonder. It makes magic special. And, when the few and the proud have sole control over it, it is even more special. So, if you are a person that really loves magic. When you play a magic wielding character in a non-magical world, you are the special snowflake. Everyone wants (and needs) to be recognized for the special person he or she is. Of course, when the whole party is special snow flakes.... then magic really isnt that rare.
- When magic is actively hated and persucuted in a world, it allows gamers to make a psychological tie between the gaming world and the real world. It is no secret that gamers, in general, are not the most popular group in the real world. Some people will be drawn to magic because it is not "popular" in the "general world." So having a campaign setting that fanicifies real world realities is not a bad thing in and of itself. It may draw out (unexpected) role playing.
- The forbidden fruit (magic in a non-magic world) is a tempting treat.
Of course, all of this, and the original question are riddled with the pitfall of authorial intent. Why did a writer write/create it that way? Because he or she wanted to. If you ask the same question twenty years from now, to the same author, you just might get another answer.
@raven1272 very good points... though mythology depends on what culture you are talking about.
A Celtic culture would be primarily druids with the occasional bard and cleric.
A Nordic culture would be primarily bards and wizards with the occasional Druid and cleric.
A Germanic culture would be primarily wizards and witches with the occasional Druid and bard.
A Greco-Roman culture would be focus on clerics and oracles with the occasional bard and Wizard.
All of these cultures would have a small number of paladins, rangers, and other pseudo-casters.
What I'm getting at is it depends on the cultures views of what causes magic. To the Greco-romans magic was purely divine. To the Celts and Gauls(Germanic) it was natural. The Norse it was Arcane.
Heck, Odin gained the ability to use magic only by hanging himself from Yggdrasil and stabbing his spear into his side in order to have an out of body experience.
Clerics wouldn't have been so much given power as sought to harness power and use it based on their God's ideals, portfolio, and domains.
@raven1272 very good points... though mythology depends on what culture you are talking about.
A Celtic culture would be primarily druids with the occasional bard and cleric.
A Nordic culture would be primarily bards and wizards with the occasional Druid and cleric.
A Germanic culture would be primarily wizards and witches with the occasional Druid and bard.
A Greco-Roman culture would be focus on clerics and oracles with the occasional bard and Wizard.
All of these cultures would have a small number of paladins, rangers, and other pseudo-casters.
What I'm getting at is it depends on the cultures views of what causes magic. To the Greco-romans magic was purely divine. To the Celts and Gauls(Germanic) it was natural. The Norse it was Arcane.
Heck, Odin gained the ability to use magic only by hanging himself from Yggdrasil and stabbing his spear into his side in order to have an out of body experience.
Clerics wouldn't have been so much given power as sought to harness power and use it based on their God's ideals, portfolio, and domains.
That is fair. I should have been more specific. I had Greco-Roman mythology in mind.
@raven1272 I figured that was what you meant. And now I want to make a setting where Arcane Magic is rare and illegal in most places.
Low magic has it's merits. In the end it depends on the group. Some people like low magic/alternate magic. Some don't. Heck I have seen a world where full casters were rare (NPC only) and it cause the players to think outside the box.
But most groups I deal with prefer high-fantasy/Sci-Fantasy. Which means figuring out how to make it balanced (easier than one might think).
|
Ehh in the campaign world I've been running for the last 3 years the biggest difference we have is the lack of true gods as they are usually perceived, with all the religions of the world following the teachings of prophets who made some great discovery about the rules of the multiverse or powerful outsiders that seek their worship to fuel their own power.
It's easier.
Players coming up with magical item combos and weird spell tricks that let them crush the souls of their enemies? Gone! No magic shops so go eff yerself.
That covers my main reasons. I can't stand players believing they need any specific magic item.
I want my players to look at other ways to spend wealth taken. Land, titles, women, or whatever else they can think of that isn't magic.
Besides I don't overly hamper the casters. I just keep a reign on what spells are captured in any spellbook taken.
I think most homebrew pretty much follow the base setting guidelines.
Most common I find restricted deities, arcane / divine conflict, wildly varying WBL, restricted magical items, but more than all that it is just flavor of the setting.
I agree with raven's post up there somewhere, and like metioned it is easier to take the campaign to high level without casters casting epic spells that clash with many fantasy settings, there is a significant detach in what can be done in D&D / PF and what characters in fiction can do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm working on a setting where even the peasants are spellcasters and magic is as common as bread.
|
Why is it that most people, when they try to come up with a homebrew setting, they always seem to go for the no magic/limited or wild magic/casters are persecuted for performing magic approach?
Seriously, why? I'm not saying there is anything wrong with said settings, but for the love of Gygax, show some originality!
I've never run a low magic campaign myself. Personally, I got turned off the idea years ago after reading many emails and forum posts from others bragging about they're superior role players because they run low magic campaigns.
My guess is that the reason why many home brewers create low-magic settings is because it's a niche not served by any of the published settings. Most of them are pretty high magic. Forgotten Realms is a world where magic is on steroids and in Eberron, magic is so commonplace that it forms the basis of their economy.
I'm working on a setting where even the peasants are spellcasters and magic is as common as bread.
Sounds very Codex Alera. I approve.
I'm working on a setting where even the peasants are spellcasters and magic is as common as bread.Sounds very Codex Alera. I approve.
I don't know about Codex Alera.
My premise is this:
The gods were evil and brought destruction to the very world they had formed, so man rose up to kill their own creators. They failed to save the world, but killed the old gods while the world shattered around them.
The power of the gods was diminished and distributed, fifteen surviving heroes each taking one fragment and using it to save a fraction of existence. Now fifteen realms exist divided, each drastically different in nature. Over time, new paths have been opened between them and the new gods - those heroes now empowered - struggle to maintain their holdings and extend their power over the realms of others.
The new gods are not the vast, cosmic things that threatened the world long ago. They are physical, limited beings, if impressively powerful. The people of their worlds are no longer humans, influenced by the forging of the realms and the diffusion of the divine powers. Even the least magical would be a supernatural being to a human.
That is, if there were any humans left.
I don't know about Codex Alera.I'm working on a setting where even the peasants are spellcasters and magic is as common as bread.Sounds very Codex Alera. I approve.
Basic premise is that everyone has a "Fury", an elemental spirit, bound to them that manifests at an early age. They grow up most of their lives having at least basic supernatural ability from their Fury; those who hone their talents, or those that just get lucky, end up with multiple Furies of differing elements (Fire, Water, Earth, Air, Wood, and Metal).
Much of the story is focused on what happens when someone doesn't get one, and thus is the one magicless kid on the block, and how he learns to cope. Rather amusing seeing how many things people stop learning how to do on their own when they're used to magic taking care of it for them, which makes sense in a high-magic universe where even the bum on the street can start a fire with his mind.
Similar things happen in my setting, including opposing philosophies thus:
On one side, there are those that believe in personal power and command over the internal magical forces is a supreme expression of self-empowerment, and technology (including some forms of 'scientific' magic) represents lazy reliance on outside powers.
And another side believes that advancement of science and technology are far greater, for reliance on what comes naturally and from your own inner power is the lazy and uncreative route.
And that's only two of many.
Sounds like a fun world, I'd give it a shot.
Azerterith - Grave of the Old Gods
The site includes most of what I've written, which is only a fraction of what's in my head. Suffering from depression means it's hard to get the motivation to work on it (or anything).
There's the beginnings of a non-d20 magic system and ideas therein, but it could just as easily be done in Pathfinder with custom races and just tweak the way magic differs from the norm (i.e. all spellcasting classes are pattern casters, expressing it in different ways; possibly no division between arcane and divine casting)
I think the whole premise of this thread is missing the point. It's not that everybody says "Hur dur low magic how original" the moment they start making their world. Many people make worlds for the purpose of reducing magic.
The vague, nebulous idea of "low magic", if implemented exceptionally well, could solve all of the biggest acknowledged flaws of pathfinder.
It corrects caster dominance, nerfs or outright forbids most of the most problematic options and tactics, makes the game easier to run at high levels, simplifies and speeds up play and sorts out the christmas tree effect.
Of course, in practice it always seems to fall a little short of its goals and introduce some new problems, but that's still the dream. Probably about half of all homebrew is devoted to solving the above problems and "low magic" neatly describes D&D as it might look if we were free of them. People are going to aim for that.
It's also well worth considering that pathfinder is a crazy, high power, high magic system.
The core rulebooks assumes a setting overflowing with magical treasure, powerful mages, hoards of monsters which were originally unique in the myths from which they were taken, commonplace divine intervention and a dozen mighty heroes in every town.
Most fantasy just isn't like that. When people say "low magic setting", they often mean "not quite so OTT as usual", or "I'm using the kind of novels I enjoy as a baseline".
I'm not knocking pathfinder here, but if gold were so common we'd use it like we use lead. That's going to be jarring in many fantasy worlds, no matter how awesome it is in its proper place.
TLDR, Custom settings tend to lower magic because they're trying to solve system problems and magic by default is extremely high.
I've got a few reasons, differing on which setting:
I'm working on a setting featuring Atlantis as historical fact. I've built this out as E8, which is the only sense in which it's low-magic. But it still illustrates one reason nicely; one of the things that is most capable of breaking the game (or at least producing relative character power level issues and slowing down gameplay) is high level magic. (Playing online with a dicebot tends to mitigate any "roll how many dice?" issues.) In that setting, the magic isn't extremely powerful, but it's everywhere. (Moreso in some areas than others, but still, there is no culture that has one 2nd level spellcaster per 1,000 people, and no more than that.)
Avoiding the high-level magic means, I believe, overall simpler gameplay. Many "essential" items aren't available (but the levels where they're essential don't exist either), and with the lack of teleport and not enough spell slots (and caster level) to throw many powerful all-day buffs on the party rather than invest in items, matters should be simpler. (I have a fighter in a 3.5 game who is getting at least 8 points of AC from assumed "standard operating procedure" buff spells.)
Now there's another setting I'm working on (with some elements of the 4th edition "default" "points of light" campaign setting), where I've decided the feel of the setting is that of the old pulp swords & sorcery stories; Conan, for example. In this setting, magic exists, and it's very powerful... but it's also very rare. So in this case, it's not about ease of play, but about meeting the concept of the setting. This setting is to support an entirely distinct system, not Pathfinder (though still d20-based), so it shouldn't have to be concerned about how Pathfinder would break down if you just removed magic. (If you did this comprehensively, also removing magical beasts and monsters with magical capabilities, it would break down less, but still break down some.)
And one nice thing about the design I have for this system, is that it's not inherently a low-magic system. It's, essentially, modular. So for low-magic, you just restrict the "high-magic" options. The old, and brief, notes about the setting for the full system include both substantial magic and technology.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the early days of D&D my biggest concern with the system has been the exponential increase of magical power for the spellcasting classes. This has caused a similar escalation of martial powers to try desperately to "keep up".
Consider some literary comparisons:
Gandalf's greatest demonstration of power in the entirety of LoTR was his battle with five of the ringwraiths on weathertop. You don't even get to see the battle except as Strider reports seeing vague flashes of light in the distance, implying, but not stating, that Gandalf was using some sort of powerful magical spells that we might interpret in a PF sense as casting "Call lightning" or "Fireball." The most powerful spell we see Gandalf perform directly is in the Mines of Moria where his first attempt to "hold" the door closed failed and he was forced to use a "word of power" to stop the Balrog from forcing the door open. The force of that spell was powerful enough that when the Balrog cast his counterspell the energy released knocked Gandalf dozens of feet down the stairs and shattered enough rock to bury Balin's tomb forever.
Merlin, in the King Arthur stories, is even less overt in his abilities than Gandalf. He primarily is seen casting rather limited divination spells.
Such limitations in the magic of literary wizards is common. From a PF perspective a reasonable version of Gandalf can be created as low as level 5.
The reason for those "limitations" is because a level 5 PF wizard let loose in our real physical world would be the most powerful thing on earth by far. Simple spells like "invisibility" or "charm person" would be enough for them to take over entire countries if they wanted to.
I don't know the reason that the early game designers chose to create a power scale for magic users that is god-like. They just did. Spells like "time stop" or "wish" or "teleport" are truly god-like powers.
If I were to create my own version of PF there would be very few spells that were more powerful than "fireball". Maybe none. Fireball is perhaps the iconic wizard spell anyway. It probably SHOULD represent the pinnacle of wizardly power.
However, toning down the spellcasters would also mean toning down the martial classes and magical items.
I actually believe the game would be just as much fun if the theoretical maximum power of a character was more or less where you get by level 7 today, but characters reached that level in much smaller increments. For example, one level increase might do nothing more than advance an attribute value, or add one additional spell.
One of the things that sometimes irks me about the game as it exists today is that if you are leveling up quickly many classes have so much stuff that they are leveling up before they even figure out how to use some of it. That's a shame because the game should be all about learning how to be a wizard, not just grabbing more powerful spells every time you sit down at the table.
Gloriatalon? If you mean Golarion read the background for the pathfinder iconic Oracle. I could be wrong but it sounds like they don't like divine casters to well.Rituals are for everyone. They don't rely on special class training. They rely on skills and lots of NPC participants. They also have a drawback, such as allowing undead, outsiders, and abberations access to the prime material.
Wild magic is random magic events. It's often touched off by any magic use of any kind. My best idea for a wild surge is pennies from heaven. A rain of copper pieces. It hurts if you have no helmet, but you can sweep up the loot afterwards.
Where in Gloriatalon is the magic haters. I want to launch a revolution campain. I still hate Keoland.
I'm having trouble learning the name. I'll reread about Oracles, but hating magic is one of many roleplaying options for them. I asked where, not who.
I'm having trouble learning the name. I'll reread about Oracles, but hating magic is one of many roleplaying options for them. I asked where, not who.Gloriatalon? If you mean Golarion read the background for the pathfinder iconic Oracle. I could be wrong but it sounds like they don't like divine casters to well.Rituals are for everyone. They don't rely on special class training. They rely on skills and lots of NPC participants. They also have a drawback, such as allowing undead, outsiders, and abberations access to the prime material.
Wild magic is random magic events. It's often touched off by any magic use of any kind. My best idea for a wild surge is pennies from heaven. A rain of copper pieces. It hurts if you have no helmet, but you can sweep up the loot afterwards.
Where in Gloriatalon is the magic haters. I want to launch a revolution campain. I still hate Keoland.
The nation of Rahadoum.
The nation of Rahadoum.I'm having trouble learning the name. I'll reread about Oracles, but hating magic is one of many roleplaying options for them. I asked where, not who.Gloriatalon? If you mean Golarion read the background for the pathfinder iconic Oracle. I could be wrong but it sounds like they don't like divine casters to well.
Where in Gloriatalon is the magic haters. I want to launch a revolution campain. I still hate Keoland.
Thank you.
IF you're so miffed, go create your own setting instead of getting worked up on how people create theirs. That's the point after all...doing what YOU want to create, not heeding the rantings of a message board forum poster.Why is it that most people, when they try to come up with a homebrew setting, they always seem to go for the no magic/limited or wild magic/casters are persecuted for performing magic approach?
Seriously, why? I'm not saying there is anything wrong with said settings, but for the love of Gygax, show some originality!
If you insist on applying the age-old formula of "Something taken for granted is missing on a world-wide scale" approach to your campaign setting world, why not fiddle with something else, like gravity, or the very ground beneath the characters' collective feet? Playing Pathfinder in a world that mirrors Baten Kaitos would make for a nice change of pace.
While we're at it, why not shake things up some more and design an entirely different slew of races to take the place of the old stand-bys?
Make everything cubes, make every magic item intelligent and unruly, invent a new pervasive elemental force that affects everything, do something to set your setting apart if you must, but don't rely on such an overused, cheesy trope for your premise.
Actually, as it happens, I AM writing my own.
I think the whole premise of this thread is missing the point. It's not that everybody says "Hur dur low magic how original" the moment they start making their world. Many people make worlds for the purpose of reducing magic.
The vague, nebulous idea of "low magic", if implemented exceptionally well, could solve all of the biggest acknowledged flaws of pathfinder.
It corrects caster dominance, nerfs or outright forbids most of the most problematic options and tactics, makes the game easier to run at high levels, simplifies and speeds up play and sorts out the christmas tree effect.
Of course, in practice it always seems to fall a little short of its goals and introduce some new problems, but that's still the dream. Probably about half of all homebrew is devoted to solving the above problems and "low magic" neatly describes D&D as it might look if we were free of them. People are going to aim for that.It's also well worth considering that pathfinder is a crazy, high power, high magic system.
The core rulebooks assumes a setting overflowing with magical treasure, powerful mages, hoards of monsters which were originally unique in the myths from which they were taken, commonplace divine intervention and a dozen mighty heroes in every town.
Most fantasy just isn't like that. When people say "low magic setting", they often mean "not quite so OTT as usual", or "I'm using the kind of novels I enjoy as a baseline".
I'm not knocking pathfinder here, but if gold were so common we'd use it like we use lead. That's going to be jarring in many fantasy worlds, no matter how awesome it is in its proper place.TLDR, Custom settings tend to lower magic because they're trying to solve system problems and magic by default is extremely high.
You raise a lot of good points, but when you think about it, is low magic really the solution? Think about it, low magic solves the problem by forcing power and combo-focused players to adhere to your rules, but they're still power players at heart. Rather than roleplay, they're going to find some way to reclaim a bit of that power.
This is all tangential, of course, but I find that rather than force someone to not play their pre-planned supercharacter, convince them that its boring to play what amounts to a number-crunching machine that advances a plot they don't care about.I'm talking about converting power-players into roleplayers, turning power fantasies into story fantasies.
Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I'll let everyone get back on topic.
The nation of Rahadoum.I'm having trouble learning the name. I'll reread about Oracles, but hating magic is one of many roleplaying options for them. I asked where, not who.Gloriatalon? If you mean Golarion read the background for the pathfinder iconic Oracle. I could be wrong but it sounds like they don't like divine casters to well.
Where in Gloriatalon is the magic haters. I want to launch a revolution campain. I still hate Keoland.
Thank you.
Sorry I meant to say the nation she was born in...
@AD you might wanna recheck Merlin's power level. I mean he does summon a fireball that destroyed almost an entire 10,000 man army in one part. Plus you might want to check the fact that the average level of the normal real world person would be Commoner 5 with a was veteran being Fighter 1-2/commoner 3-4 and an craftsman such as a architect would be Expert 3-5. And would level as they age.
I believe one of the explanations for the level of power growing so high is based on Merlin, Odin and other figures. Wizards and their ilk are meant to be rare.
The 'every other guys a Wizard campaigns' kinda annoying to me... though I like the concept of everyone have at least the ability to gain access to magic. I think I mentioned above my solution to that.
Also OD&D would probably be more of your thing if you like low-magic... fireball is one of the most powerful spells...
Personally I make it to where my players must earn their new spells via research and treasure unless the campaign is time sensitive. This nerfs them and allows my to monitor their spells. And my players enjoy it as most say something along the lines of "I feel like a true Wizard!"
I have never run a low-magic world, but if I did, it would be for a couple of reasons:
- As raven1272 said, it would make the spellcaster PCs special. I wouldn't restrict their lists, or spells per level, but there would be far less NPC spellcasters and less magic items.
- To avoid the idea of the "magic shop", the one-stop location where the PCs could go and trade in their items to upgrade at will in a big city. Super-buffing and optimising magic item combos would not happen. +2 long sword? Woohoo! What does it look like? Where did it come from? I'm keeping this forever and passing it on to my kids!
- To make the PCs rely on their wits more than their magic. Skill monkeys, have at it!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've learned to avoid low magic homebrew settings. Call me paranoid, but the majority of the ones I have been in have been thinly veiled attempts at constantly screwing over the party and poor attempts at making a +1 whatever sword feel super special.
First issue is, with many of the low magic games I have been in, while we don't have magic or casters, the bad guys seem to. We still end up fighting chimeras and dragons and other casters without a caster or magic weapon. Let me tell you, nothing comes close to frustrating as fighting 3 dread wraiths and having no casters nor magic weapons. I don't mind running, but when the entire dungeon is filled with wraiths and shadows and we need to "get da thing", it ends up just not being worth it. Having permanent negative levels because no one can cast restoration sucked, hands down.
My second issue is, the whole "I want to make a +1 longsword feel special" attempt just doesn't really work. Maybe I'm jaded, but few players are going to be awed by a +1 longsword at level 5+. I found that actually naming the magic item and giving it a history is much better. Suddenly, this +1 longsword becomes "The Longsword of Lady Thybdis, a great and mighty paladin that, in her dying breath, defended the town of Sandpoint against the goblin hoards with this sword." I've found that to be much more effective, albeit a bit more work. But I'm the GM, I'm supposed to do the legwork ;)
Thirdly, like SquirmWyrm mentioned, I find that the low/no magic setting has been an excuse for "stopping powergaming" and "promoting role playing over roll playing". And it doesn't really work. Like my longsword idea, you're only going to get people to really roleplay if you make it relative to their interests. And some people you just won't get to roleplay because it isn't their style. I have a friend I play with that is a straight up roll-player. Cares little about story and more about "loot" and killing bad guys. And that's fine. He doesn't go out of his way to distract the others that are interested in roleplaying. Everyone has fun.
And finally, at least for me... I find low/no magic to be boring. Magic is the spice of the game to me, both as a player and a GM. I love having wizard BBEGs and giving out cool magic items. I actually prefer to play as martial characters, with bards the closest to a caster I've enjoyed as a player, but still, I love magic. Even the cool and non-combat oriented ones, like magic carpets and the apparatus of the crab. But when I hear "low magic" setting, experience has unfortunately taught me to see this as a red flag.
I think I've only played one low magic "mage hunters" game that was fun, but A) we were the mage hunters and B) magic wasn't illegal but you had to be sanctioned in it (think Dragon Age). And I'm currently working on a campaign that revolves around an ancient wizard that was trapped in an animated statue and now holds dominion over his city, where he imprisons all casters, heretics, and rebels with a Flesh to Stone-cursed mask and animates them as his loyal minions. Culls any would-be magic rivals and an interesting take on the mastermind wizard that isn't a necromancer or enchanter.
If I know the GM personally, like someone in my group of friends, I'd consider an E8 campaign. And who knows, maybe it will change my view on low magic. I just feel like these pitfalls should be pointed out before someone sits down and starts banning wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One campaign I had high magic and psionics.
In another, I had normal magic.
In another I had normal magic in terms of available spells, but slightly fewer magical items, making them rare and cherished.
In another, I had no magic at the beginning, and then magic slowly came into the world, plus moderate firearm availability.
In the current one, we have normal magic, plentiful magic items, and very rare firearms.
What is this "everybody always makes the same home campaign" you speak of?
If I get the chance to run a Pathfinder homebrew any time soon (not actually very likely) I'm going to add some feats that allow anyone to learn and use magic and open up item creation and custom items (and maybe even throw in some ritual magic system, though I'd have to find a good one). Naturally, the bad guys play by the same rules.
Exploring what happens among all this magic is part of the fun. Both sides of a conflict will be using divination magic and counter-divination magic and tactics.
The only thing that stops wizards from taking over the world is other wizards?
You raise a lot of good points, but when you think about it, is low magic really the solution? Think about it, low magic solves the problem by forcing power and combo-focused players to adhere to your rules, but they're still power players at heart. Rather than roleplay, they're going to find some way to reclaim a bit of that power.This is all tangential, of course, but I find that rather than force someone to not play their pre-planned supercharacter, convince them that its boring to play what amounts to a number-crunching machine that advances a plot they don't care about.
I'm talking about converting power-players into roleplayers, turning power fantasies into story fantasies.
What I was talking about has nothing to do with roleplay or power-play and everything to do with good game design.
I do agree that low magic not the solution to anything, but if you look at the things homebrewers most commonly want; better class balance, less magic item dependency, special status for heroes and all, they have exactly one thing in common: fixing them would reduce the influence of magic on everyday life in a baseline setting.
Lower magic is not the way to achieve those various goals, it IS those goals. Problems arise when people think they can reach them just by taking things away. And when people don't realise that the problem is in the rules and instead blame the people who play by them.
I make it to where anyone can take Item Creation feats if their craft skill ranks are high enough for it based on the master craftsman feat. Effectively everyone has master craftsman. Though I make them invest in UMD/Spellcraft to use scrolls and wands.
And I think the OP was getting at the fact that for every high/normal magic campaign online there are at least a dozen low magic campaigns.
Wizards especially high level ones are meant to be few and far between with Sorcerers even rarer. Clerics are meant to represent high ranking priests with adepts representing the lower ranking ones. Bards and their ilk are a bit more numerous but again are meant to be rare with most claiming to be bards are really just experts occasionally using magic items to mimic magic. rogues are meant to be master thieves and such. While experts are meant to represented lesser thieves. Pseudocasters are meant to represent trained combatants who use magic as a secondary accent to their martial abilities. Fighters and their ilk are meant to be the Elite of the Elite with Warriors being the majority of the trained army. And finally Druids should be about the same number as Sorcerers but with less being seen most being hidden away in their grove or sacred location.
I think that covers most of the classes. Even the non-casters... hmm makes me wonder how come most people tend gravitate towards their preferred class when building worlds...