So I'm about to start a game that's set in a very low magic world. The GM has asked that we not play casters. The kicker is there will only be two players, so me and the other player were wondering what would be a good match-up? Specifically what two martial classes/archetypes will play off and compliment each other well?
The GM will be scaling things down but we're still going to have some pretty big holes to fill.
Any advice would be appreciated.
When he says caster, does he mean full casters, 6th level spell casters, any one with the ability to cast spells?
Honestly my top recommendation will be (assuming he's not banning 4 spell level progresion):
1) Paladin
2) Ranger
3) Barbarian
If 6th spell level progression caster aren't out then I would definitely include Inquisitor as well.
Paladin has great healing ability with Lay on Hands, and some condition removal. If the campaign is primarily against evil opponents the paladin can really excel.
I think a Paladin Inquisitor combo could be very good and still effective when not casting spells.
One other thing: Neither of us want to really play a Paladin.
If 6th level casters aren't banned, I'd go with Summoner or Synthesist Summoner for sure. Extremely powerful and well rounded, and doesn't need magic items much. Alchemist would also be pretty solid.
You're going to need healing, so someone should probably play Paladin (but neither of you want to) or Inquisitor. Or both play Synthesists and use Lesser Restore Eidolon as your healing.
If you can't have any spells at all...that's really rough. You really can't afford to get hit much at all and you need to kill things dead quickly. I'd suggest an archer ranger (take trapper or skirmisher to get rid of the spellcasting) and a Zen Archer monk, both picking up the Target of Opportunity teamwork feat as soon as possible, and just try to shoot everything to death. If you do want a melee type, your only decent options are either Invulnerable Rager Barbarian (go with the superstitious rage power line...you have no friendly spells to get anyway) or Lore Warden Fighter that's focused on reach-tripping.
So here's the deal: technically it isn't low magic, just that magic (and it's users) have been severely suppressed by the government. There are magic users but they are few and far between. Any that aren't killed outright when they are seen using it are captured and sent... somewhere else.
So there will be mages, clerics, etc, but he wants them to be NPCs or enemies. I might be able to talk him into something like a magus since they could "hide" their abilities.
The paladin thing is because, honestly, both me and the other guy are pretty fresh at this (we've dabbled in 3.0 and 4e but very little), and paladin rules seem very strict and non "newb-friendly".
How magical does he think an alchemist is? The alchemist doesn't have any true arcane abilities and can be flavored as just being Sufficiently Advanced Technology. A team of crack alchemists would make a great anti-magic squad for your wizard hater government, actually.
A Sensei (Monk archetype) miiight be a viable option. That way you get Inspire Courage without having to play a Bard. Monks can be kinda difficult to deal with, though.
Follow-up question: If I can talk him into allowing casters, which two classes would be best for a two character group?
Paladins are only as strict as the GM wants them to be. If you feel like playing a hero who does good (and follows the rules of their god, which you should talk about with the GM), a Paladin should be fine. A lot of groups house rule Paladins to be any of the flavors of good. Of course if you want to play a neutral character, they aren't ideal.
I would stay away from wizards/sorcerers in a 2 player game - cleric or druid would be best.
Then I'd go for a Inquisitor. Decent in combat, does some healing and nice buffs, good skills.
The other PC could be a Barbarian with the superstition & Guarded Life rage powers.
Also the qinggong monk.
What's the name of that Ranger archetype that gives up spells for 'tricks'? One of those teamed up with a Cavalier could be fun. (Sadly, though, most of my favorite cavalier orders work better with a large party.)
Inquisitor is a good pick... Summoner, Druid, and Bard are also very flexible classes. Pick two of Inquisitor, Summoner, Bard, and Barbarian.
Paladins don't even have to be spellcasters...I'm playing a Stonelord...who's very rough around the edges...
Dwarf waraxe-and-board CRB fighter with Steel Soul: solid AC and saves means you shouldn't need healing/unscrewing often.
STR:15 (all bumps)
DEX:14 ...20pt buy
CON+16
INT:14
WIS+14
CHA-05
Feat at 1st: Quick Draw (to cycle dwarven longhammer, bows, and axe + light quickdraw shield)
Hmm. June 4th, and then July 9th,
Sir Thugsalot wrote: you are a powerful necromancer!
Originally i was goin to say paladin and magus. That would provide healing and some magic.. but not interested in paladins I guess might ahve to go with inquisitor for heals, can still hide their magicness. I'd love to go with bladebound magus. The idea of hiding my bladebound knife (cause I love knives) and spellbook is really amusing. But if I wasn't worried about magic detection that blade is gold and plenty amusing.
Alchemist would have also been nice but again 6th level caster stuff going on; and it's a lot harder to hide stuff.
pure non magic wise..
Barb or fighter-gonna wanna kill them as fast as possible to avoid damage. So either all doom and gloom Barb, or a pretty durable/defensive sword and shield fighter.
Then your gonna need something with a little bit of skills.. so trapper ranger is what I'd go with. less killl inclined and more Int inclined.. so I'd also give them a bow. good to have range, and later you can slap supernatural traps on arrows for added effects (the damage ones are pretty worthless, but the stat effect ones are ok)
Healing is going to be a serious pain in a no-low magic game. Quite often you might end up getting hit once and having to sleep for a few days to heal up a wound.
|
