Why low magic?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 770 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Laurefindel wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Also because it was a book or movie and Frodo (...) had on plot armor.
Which in this case takes the form of a physical armour.

Except it doesn't. There's no implication anywhere in the book text that Sauron's eye is a physical shield -- and the Nazgul were literally impotent at the time of Elrond's council, having been deprived of both their steeds and their physical forms at the fords of the Loudwater -- as Elrond and Gandalf were aware.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This has devolved into a Lord of the Rings debate. One that could only be resolved if Stephen Colbert showed up or something.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Also because it was a book or movie and Frodo (...) had on plot armor.
Which in this case takes the form of a physical armour.
Except it doesn't. There's no implication anywhere in the book text that Sauron's eye is a physical shield -- and the Nazgul were literally impotent at the time of Elrond's council, having been deprived of both their steeds and their physical forms at the fords of the Loudwater -- as Elrond and Gandalf were aware.

eh, it was only meant as a smartass comment on the Mithril shirt (literal) armour acting as plot (metaphorical) armour against the orc chieftain who attacked Frodo in the chamber of Mazarbul.

Its worth mentioning however that Frodo was still defeated in this combat, but not killed and without lasting injuries.

*mumbling sulking voice*well I still think Middle Earth is a low-magic setting and that it doesn't stay true to its source when you just port in D&D characters...


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

Also because it was a book or movie and Frodo (...) had on plot armor.

Which in this case takes the form of a physical armour.
Except it doesn't. There's no implication anywhere in the book text that Sauron's eye is a physical shield -- and the Nazgul were literally impotent at the time of Elrond's council, having been deprived of both their steeds and their physical forms at the fords of the Loudwater -- as Elrond and Gandalf were aware.

Your ellipses seems to have removed the context of their discussion, which was on the mithral armor of Frodo and not the Eye of Sauron (see my bold below):

Auxmaulous wrote:

Also because it was a book or movie and Frodo was wearing something better than the finest Mithril Shirt, he also had on plot armor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
This has devolved into a Lord of the Rings debate. One that could only be resolved if Stephen Colbert showed up or something.

The characters in The Lord of the Rings are a bunch of nancy pancy communists!

Keep a watch out for my new and improved version - "The Lord of the Rings - How America Would Have Done It - Kick-A$$!".


Mr.Stephen Colbert wrote:
Malwing wrote:
This has devolved into a Lord of the Rings debate. One that could only be resolved if Stephen Colbert showed up or something.

The characters in The Lord of the Rings are a bunch of nancy pancy communists!

Keep a watch out for my new and improved version - "The Lord of the Rings - How America Would Have Done It - Kick-A$$!".

Actually more for the fact that Stephen Colbert is a master of LotR lore. Last I check he is undefeated in Middle Earth-offs on his show.


It seems to me that the debate is often phrased as high vs. low magic when the real issue is (relatively) cheap magic. LotR had a lot of powerful magic items, but they were almost entirely earned through adventuring. At no point did any character ever go to Ye Olde Magick Shoppe and buy an item of power, nor was there ever even a thought that an item might be traded in for something else that was more useful. This is, I believe, what a lot of low magic advocates are looking for.

There are also, however, some wonderful fantasy concepts that require actual low magic to feel right - which does not necessarily mean low power! A setting inspired by the Knights of the Round Table or Charlemagne's Paladins immediately comes to mind: low magic even though the PCs might be every bit as badass as Sir Lancelot or Count Roland.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:

A setting inspired by the Knights of the Round Table or Charlemagne's Paladins immediately comes to mind: low magic even though the PCs might be every bit as badass as Sir Lancelot or Count Roland.

In Le Chanson de Roland, the titular character wielded Durendal, a holy avenger sword containing relics in the hilt, and cut mountains in half with it. That seems fairly magic right off the bat. Then check out his adventures in Boiardo and Ariosto and so on -- there are enchanters, magic islands, prophecies, invisible prison castles full of illusions, hippogriffs, knights polymorphed into bushes and stones, magic books that dispel magic, horns of panic, horses made of hurricanes, flying flaming chariots, trips to the moon.

So a Charlemagne's Paladins campaign could stand to be much more high-magic than a LotR one.


I quite enjoy low magic games as it often forces the players to be more creative in there game play.
As I've often found players become very dependant on there magic user having just the spell for this occasion , to often have i witnessed interesting and well thought out encounters bypassed or walked over because one of the casters in the group pulls out a wired spell which he's never cast before and probably will never cast again.
Im not say that magic should never be the answer to the problem just it shouldn't be the answer all the time.
And also if magic is a little more rare then it can keep some of its sense of mystery and not become just another thing that players do because they can

Silver Crusade

I'm planing a low-magic campaign where spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities don't work. The only exceptions are scrolls, weapons, armor, and shields. Scrolls can use the activator's ranks in UMD for CL and cha mod for DC, and are effectively charge-limited casting. Magic weapons, armor, and shields need charges to function, gained from what are effectively "magic batteries". Both scrolls and the "magic batteries" are rare, illegal, and largely not available for purchase. Basically, magic is available, but it is limited such that using it is actually a big deal.

The entire goal of the low-magic setting is to encourage more creative problem solving from players. Similar to what Tony Gent said, I've noticed most in-game problem solving follows a formula: 1) identify problem 2) search all player character spell lists for spells that could possibly be useful 3) decide on the best/most efficient spell to fix the problem 4) use that spell. If there is no appropriate spell, the fallback is usually identifying the lowest level spell that could fix the problem, then finding a way to acquire that spell. It's fun, and I don't fundamentally have a problem with it, it just gets old after a while.


Riuken wrote:

I'm planing a low-magic campaign where spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities don't work. The only exceptions are scrolls, weapons, armor, and shields. Scrolls can use the activator's ranks in UMD for CL and cha mod for DC, and are effectively charge-limited casting. Magic weapons, armor, and shields need charges to function, gained from what are effectively "magic batteries". Both scrolls and the "magic batteries" are rare, illegal, and largely not available for purchase. Basically, magic is available, but it is limited such that using it is actually a big deal.

The entire goal of the low-magic setting is to encourage more creative problem solving from players. Similar to what Tony Gent said, I've noticed most in-game problem solving follows a formula: 1) identify problem 2) search all player character spell lists for spells that could possibly be useful 3) decide on the best/most efficient spell to fix the problem 4) use that spell. If there is no appropriate spell, the fallback is usually identifying the lowest level spell that could fix the problem, then finding a way to acquire that spell. It's fun, and I don't fundamentally have a problem with it, it just gets old after a while.

Honestly, in my normal games (not low magic) creative problem solving is what my group does best, and creative most often means solving a problem without ever using a spell, or using a spell as only a partial solution, but the bulk of the problem solving is more than just magic. I don't need a low magic setting to induce such thinking, and don't know if relying on low magic is going to accomplish this. I think you'll need to change the perspective of your players somehow - other than changing the level of magic involved.

Sovereign Court

Riuken wrote:
I'm planing a low-magic campaign where spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities don't work. The only exceptions are scrolls, weapons, armor, and shields. Scrolls can use the activator's ranks in UMD for CL and cha mod for DC, and are effectively charge-limited casting. Magic weapons, armor, and shields need charges to function, gained from what are effectively "magic batteries". Both scrolls and the "magic batteries" are rare, illegal, and largely not available for purchase. Basically, magic is available, but it is limited such that using it is actually a big deal.

Of note - you'll have to tweak the balance to boost ACs somehow - or no one will ever miss past level 5ish.

Each level characters (PC & NPC) gain BAB, but in Pathfinder the only way to boost defense consistently is through magic items. (There are exceptions - some feats - boosting dex every 4th level - and a few class bonuses. Nonetheless, the game assumes that the vast majority of AC comes from magic items.)

Perhaps just have every 2 points of BAB add a point to their AC? *shrug*


How would anyone heal in that game? Just keep rest for days until you're back to full?


tony gent wrote:

I quite enjoy low magic games as it often forces the players to be more creative in there game play.

As I've often found players become very dependant on there magic user having just the spell for this occasion , to often have i witnessed interesting and well thought out encounters bypassed or walked over because one of the casters in the group pulls out a wired spell which he's never cast before and probably will never cast again.

... which raises the question of how/why the caster bothered to learn/prepare that specific spell.


Tarantula wrote:
How would anyone heal in that game? Just keep rest for days until you're back to full?

With skill (heal) and rest, you can go from 0 to full in about 3 days, without houserules, alchemical substances, not-quite-magic-but-almost healing slaves and herbal remedies or campaign specific rules.

That's super slow compared to the fast pace of high-magic games, but still incredibly fast compared to how wounds are healed in the real world, and about the same as other "gritty" RPGs.

Still, I'm not saying a Pathfinder Guide to Low-Magic couldn't have some alternate rules about recovering hp.


Tarantula wrote:
How would anyone heal in that game? Just keep rest for days until you're back to full?

Or do what was done on tough encounters in 1e - if it looks like too much damage is being dealt - runaway. Avoid encounters that are too dangerous, and runaway if you didn't realize it was a too dangerous encounter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just seems like archery is the name of the game at that point. Kill them before you can take damage.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
tony gent wrote:

I quite enjoy low magic games as it often forces the players to be more creative in there game play.

As I've often found players become very dependant on there magic user having just the spell for this occasion , to often have i witnessed interesting and well thought out encounters bypassed or walked over because one of the casters in the group pulls out a wired spell which he's never cast before and probably will never cast again.
... which raises the question of how/why the caster bothered to learn/prepare that specific spell.

Because learning is negligible in cost, and scrolls are insanely cheap.

Silver Crusade

@ gamer-printer: That's true to some extent. I'm hoping to make the "go-to" method to not use a spell simply due to denial, and by leaving in scrolls let spells still be a solution, if the players deem it worthy of using a spell. Still not sure how it'll go, but I'm optimistic.

@ Charon's Little Helper: I failed to mention an important detail in that the game will be E4. I believe that largely fixes most numbers issue from the lack of magic. Some miscellaneous "Christmas tree" magic gear is rolled in with weapons, armor, and shields. I spent quite a bit of effort to check and re-balance hit vs. AC. Part of the fallout was the removal of heavy armor. It was just too difficult to balance low level hit vs. AC with such high mundane AC bonuses. Additionally, magic enhancements to shields don't give an AC bonus, but rather grant defensive boosts to your allies. Honestly, keeping AC under control was harder than hit bonuses.

@ Tarantula: The heal skill got a bit retooled to greater healing capability, but for the most part my plan is to simply increase HP gains from rest. If required, healing scrolls are an option, to an extent.

It's meant to be a different enough feeling game, while still being familiar enough by nature of being built on the Pathfinder system. As far as answering the question, "why not just use a system meant for low magic?", that's my answer. If you're used to playing pathfinder, playing a low-magic game is enough of a change, also changing the system makes it even harder to adjust to.


Arnwyn wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
tony gent wrote:

I quite enjoy low magic games as it often forces the players to be more creative in there game play.

As I've often found players become very dependant on there magic user having just the spell for this occasion , to often have i witnessed interesting and well thought out encounters bypassed or walked over because one of the casters in the group pulls out a wired spell which he's never cast before and probably will never cast again.
... which raises the question of how/why the caster bothered to learn/prepare that specific spell.
Because learning is negligible in cost, and scrolls are insanely cheap.

Or there are some spells which just seem like, "that would be cool if i could use it sometime, and I'm not sure what else to take in that slot today so on the offchance I'll take this spell."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarantula wrote:
Just seems like archery is the name of the game at that point. Kill them before you can take damage.

Or stealth/ambush. Or destroying the bridge on which they stand. Dynamics would change all around. That's kind of the point.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Arnwyn wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


... which raises the question of how/why the caster bothered to learn/prepare that specific spell.
Because learning is negligible in cost, and scrolls are insanely cheap.

In a well run (IMO) campaign, learning may be negligible in cost, but finding someone willing to teach you would be another story. As for scrolls, it's true that given the easy access to gold (another thing that might be reduced in a well run (again, my opinion) game) what is it? 3850 gold for a 9th level spell scroll? is insanely cheap - if you can find one for sale.

I get the impression that in many (most?) PF campaigns, if a player wants to buy a scroll, it [u]will[/u] be in the local magic emporium and every wide spot in the road has such a place. That seems to be a bit much, y'ask me. :)


Ed Reppert wrote:


I get the impression that in many (most?) PF campaigns, if a player wants to buy a scroll, it [u]will[/u] be in the local magic emporium and every wide spot in the road has such a place.

Well, by the official RAW, it has a 75% chance of being in the local magic emporium, and, yes, every wide spot in the road has such a place. A single isolated farmhouse (a "thorp") will sell you a scroll of almost any zero or first level spell.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:


I get the impression that in many (most?) PF campaigns, if a player wants to buy a scroll, it [u]will[/u] be in the local magic emporium and every wide spot in the road has such a place. That seems to be a bit much, y'ask me. :

Well, by the official RAW, it has a 75% chance of being in the local magic emporium, and, yes, every wide spot in the road has such a place. A single isolated farmhouse (a "thorp") will sell you a scroll of almost any zero or first level spell.

And that's ridiculous. Why in Hell would some random farmer have *any* scrolls - or any other magic item?


Sometimes you just want to have people fight using mundane weapons, bows & crossbows, and have a campaign that simulates a medieval or eastern experience. Sometimes you can't deal with conjuration/divination spells mucking up your carefully planned campaign. Spells like find the path, teleport, legend lore, and commune can derail a campaign setting faster than characters without access to those spells. They also put a huge strain on the DM, especially if they don't know every detail about their campaign setting.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
TheMonocleRogue wrote:
Sometimes you just want to have people fight using mundane weapons, bows & crossbows, and have a campaign that simulates a medieval or eastern experience. Sometimes you can't deal with conjuration/divination spells mucking up your carefully planned campaign.

And that, to me, summarizes the problem in a nutshell.

It's not the director's play.

It's not the producer's movie.

It's not the architect's house.

It's not the conductor's performance.

It's not the singer's band.

It's not the starting quarterback's team.

And it's certainly not the GM's campaign.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I've been following this thread off-and-on, with a particular interest in the things people try to accomplish/avoid by going "low-magic". I'd like to summarize what I'm gleaning so far, and hopefully folks can comment or fill in gaps for me:

• Why the frick would [settlement of size X] have [magic item of power Y] for sale?
• It's annoying when the wizard has a scroll of magically bypassing obstacle type 34W (whether because it invalidates non-casters, or because it cheapens the obstacle).
• I want Excalibur/The One Ring/[insert plot item of choice] to feel special, rather than being just one waypoint on someone's character progression.

If I'm following right, it seems like most of the goals of "low-magic" center around magic items and their screwy impacts on the setting, whereas issues with actual spells (at least in the context of why to go low-magic) is mostly restricted to the issue of being able to carry scrolls of mind-bogglingly specific anti-obstacle spells.

Does that more or less sum it up?


Jiggy wrote:


If I'm following right, it seems like most of the goals of "low-magic" center around magic items and their screwy impacts on the setting, whereas issues with actual spells (at least in the context of why to go low-magic) is mostly restricted to the issue of being able to carry scrolls of mind-bogglingly specific anti-obstacle spells.

Not really. There's not that much difference between a scroll and a spell in a wizard's spell book if you're willing to wait twenty-four hours, and an intelligent and intelligently-played wizard finds a scroll of obscure and probably useless spell, she'll probably copy it into her spell book anyway, just on general principles.

The problem is that the spells themselves annoy some people; it doesn't matter if they're from wands, scrolls, or the caster's head.


Riuken wrote:

I'm planing a low-magic campaign where spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities don't work. The only exceptions are scrolls, weapons, armor, and shields.

Try Iron Heroes!


TheMonocleRogue wrote:
Sometimes you just want to have people fight using mundane weapons, bows & crossbows, and have a campaign that simulates a medieval or eastern experience. Sometimes you can't deal with conjuration/divination spells mucking up your carefully planned campaign. Spells like find the path, teleport, legend lore, and commune can derail a campaign setting faster than characters without access to those spells. They also put a huge strain on the DM, especially if they don't know every detail about their campaign setting.

Man, I cannot wait for my wizard to pick up teleport in 2 levels for the campaign we are in. We have had extremely limited access to shops for selling equipment we find (much of it not suited to any characters in particular; mostly generic +1 weapons/armor of various types that aren't anyones focus). So, being able to 1) offload a lot of the junk we are carrying in our bags would be nice, and 2) actually try to use the buying items rules would be nice too. I'm just wondering how our GM will screw with teleporting. "Its too far" or "you can't remember it clearly enough" to make it not worth the risk for long distances.


Laurefindel wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
How would anyone heal in that game? Just keep rest for days until you're back to full?

With skill (heal) and rest, you can go from 0 to full in about 3 days, without houserules, alchemical substances, not-quite-magic-but-almost healing slaves and herbal remedies or campaign specific rules.

Yeah, we tried that. Note, there's random encounters too. So you have an encounter. Rest. Get attacked. Rest for that attack. Death spiral or it takes weeks to do a three day walk.

NOT FUN.


gamer-printer wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
How would anyone heal in that game? Just keep rest for days until you're back to full?
Or do what was done on tough encounters in 1e - if it looks like too much damage is being dealt - runaway. Avoid encounters that are too dangerous, and runaway if you didn't realize it was a too dangerous encounter.

Many monsters have a faster speed.


DrDeth wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
How would anyone heal in that game? Just keep rest for days until you're back to full?

With skill (heal) and rest, you can go from 0 to full in about 3 days, without houserules, alchemical substances, not-quite-magic-but-almost healing slaves and herbal remedies or campaign specific rules.

Yeah, we tried that. Note, there's random encounters too. So you have an encounter. Rest. Get attacked. Rest for that attack. Death spiral or it takes weeks to do a three day walk.

NOT FUN.

Is there any non-spell and non-supernatural abilities that can get you health back?

I can find renewed vigor for the barbarian. Which is 1d8+Con 1/day.
At 6 the barb can add regenerative vigor giving fast healing while raging which could be a decent amount of hp back.

Any other options?


Tarantula wrote:
So, being able to 1) offload a lot of the junk we are carrying in our bags would be nice, and 2) actually try to use the buying items rules would be nice too. I'm just wondering how our GM will screw with teleporting.

There are a lot of GM's that are fond of giving out "Monkey's Paw" or "Blessed with Suck" rewards, for reasons that escape me --- they're generally not that much fun from the player's perspective. A classic if mundane example is the dragon's hoard that consists of 100,000 copper pieces, essentially 200 pounds of stamped metal barely worth the effort to haul back to town. Ten large suits of masterwork plate mail will do it, too, or a vorpal nunchaku that no one can use with proficiency.

One of the things that utility spells like teleport or treasure stitching do, and in fact are designed to do, is to take the Suck out of the Blessing.

So, naturally, those same GM's will often do anything in their power to make sure you can't actually make their rewards,... well, rewarding.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:


I get the impression that in many (most?) PF campaigns, if a player wants to buy a scroll, it [u]will[/u] be in the local magic emporium and every wide spot in the road has such a place.

Well, by the official RAW, it has a 75% chance of being in the local magic emporium, and, yes, every wide spot in the road has such a place. A single isolated farmhouse (a "thorp") will sell you a scroll of almost any zero or first level spell.

A Thorp is not a single isolated farmhouse.

Actually, it means the same as Hamlet, but somehow in D&D it means small hamlet of less than 20 but more than one family.


Tarantula wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
How would anyone heal in that game? Just keep rest for days until you're back to full?

With skill (heal) and rest, you can go from 0 to full in about 3 days, without houserules, alchemical substances, not-quite-magic-but-almost healing slaves and herbal remedies or campaign specific rules.

Yeah, we tried that. Note, there's random encounters too. So you have an encounter. Rest. Get attacked. Rest for that attack. Death spiral or it takes weeks to do a three day walk.

NOT FUN.

Is there any non-spell and non-supernatural abilities that can get you health back?

Not getting hit in the first place.

There's a reason that the CIA doesn't like James Bond, and that the Marines don't like John Wayne. In a "realistic" world, doing that kind of stuff gets you hurt badly if not killed, often with your buddies as well, and those kind of wounds may never heal. Heroic stuff looks great in the cinema but plays badly in real life.

A low-magic game will almost by definition be a lot less cinematic. Which is, I supposed, fine if that's what your group is into, but most people in this hobby prefer the cinematic. People aren't drawn to Batman because of the character of Commissioner Gordon.....


DrDeth wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:


I get the impression that in many (most?) PF campaigns, if a player wants to buy a scroll, it [u]will[/u] be in the local magic emporium and every wide spot in the road has such a place.

Well, by the official RAW, it has a 75% chance of being in the local magic emporium, and, yes, every wide spot in the road has such a place. A single isolated farmhouse (a "thorp") will sell you a scroll of almost any zero or first level spell.

A Thorp is not a single isolated farmhouse.

Cite? In Pathfinder it means a settlement with a population of less than 20. 1 is less than 20.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
So, being able to 1) offload a lot of the junk we are carrying in our bags would be nice, and 2) actually try to use the buying items rules would be nice too. I'm just wondering how our GM will screw with teleporting.

There are a lot of GM's that are fond of giving out "Monkey's Paw" or "Blessed with Suck" rewards, for reasons that escape me --- they're generally not that much fun from the player's perspective. A classic if mundane example is the dragon's hoard that consists of 100,000 copper pieces, essentially 200 pounds of stamped metal barely worth the effort to haul back to town. Ten large suits of masterwork plate mail will do it, too, or a vorpal nunchaku that no one can use with proficiency.

One of the things that utility spells like teleport or treasure stitching do, and in fact are designed to do, is to take the Suck out of the Blessing.

So, naturally, those same GM's will often do anything in their power to make sure you can't actually make their rewards,... well, rewarding.

And yet, he has been exceedingly generous with allowing mules which somehow are conveniently forgotten about when combat rolls around to help drag all this crap around with us. I half expect them to mysteriously vanish on us at any point along with all our collected useless goodies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
gamer-printer wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
How would anyone heal in that game? Just keep rest for days until you're back to full?
Or do what was done on tough encounters in 1e - if it looks like too much damage is being dealt - runaway. Avoid encounters that are too dangerous, and runaway if you didn't realize it was a too dangerous encounter.
Many monsters have a faster speed.

In 1e, we'd keep coin purses and food around for just such instances. While they stopped to eat an MRE, we'd continue to run.


Jiggy wrote:

I've been following this thread off-and-on, with a particular interest in the things people try to accomplish/avoid by going "low-magic". I'd like to summarize what I'm gleaning so far, and hopefully folks can comment or fill in gaps for me:

• Why the frick would [settlement of size X] have [magic item of power Y] for sale?
• It's annoying when the wizard has a scroll of magically bypassing obstacle type 34W (whether because it invalidates non-casters, or because it cheapens the obstacle).
• I want Excalibur/The One Ring/[insert plot item of choice] to feel special, rather than being just one waypoint on someone's character progression.

If I'm following right, it seems like most of the goals of "low-magic" center around magic items and their screwy impacts on the setting, whereas issues with actual spells (at least in the context of why to go low-magic) is mostly restricted to the issue of being able to carry scrolls of mind-bogglingly specific anti-obstacle spells.

Does that more or less sum it up?

That covers some of it, but there are definitely people who ban spellcasting classes because spells themselves are so inherently broken/powerful, or ban specific spells because they're so powerful, or ban all higher level spells because they're so powerful. I'm not one of these people, but these are views I've seen expressed.

Additionally, some people ban mechanics that they don't like (and spells facilitate) and that's their idea of "low magic". No free healing every day, no traveling long distances without encounters, no easy fix to dead people, things like that.

Magic items (especially spell-in-a-can) do exacerbate some of these problems, but if a DM doesn't like the idea of "fast travel" Boots of Teleportation are much less problematic than Teleport.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:


I get the impression that in many (most?) PF campaigns, if a player wants to buy a scroll, it [u]will[/u] be in the local magic emporium and every wide spot in the road has such a place.

Well, by the official RAW, it has a 75% chance of being in the local magic emporium, and, yes, every wide spot in the road has such a place. A single isolated farmhouse (a "thorp") will sell you a scroll of almost any zero or first level spell.

A Thorp is not a single isolated farmhouse.

Cite? In Pathfinder it means a settlement with a population of less than 20. 1 is less than 20.

One person is not a settlement. One family is not a settlement.


DrDeth wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


A Thorp is not a single isolated farmhouse.

Cite? In Pathfinder it means a settlement with a population of less than 20. 1 is less than 20.

One person is not a settlement. One family is not a settlement.

I repeat: Cite?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would rule that some isolated farmhouses are settlements - if they've got a name, some form of government, and regularly do trade. Most isolated farmhouses don't have any characteristics of a settlement, though, and wouldn't count.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Tarantula wrote:
I'm just wondering how our GM will screw with teleporting. "Its too far" or "you can't remember it clearly enough" to make it not worth the risk for long distances.

The minimum range of Teleport, for a Wizard, is 900 miles. At caster level 10, it's 1000 miles. The memory question is handled by the table in the spell description.


Ed Reppert wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
I'm just wondering how our GM will screw with teleporting. "Its too far" or "you can't remember it clearly enough" to make it not worth the risk for long distances.
The minimum range of Teleport, for a Wizard, is 900 miles. At caster level 10, it's 1000 miles. The memory question is handled by the table in the spell description.

I'm aware of that. But, how "familiar" am I with a place I haven't been to in 6 months? Does a place I used to frequent regularly (studied carefully) but haven't been to in months still count as "studied carefully"? I suppose at worst it would be "viewed once" with a 75% chance of being on target.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
DrDeth wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:


I get the impression that in many (most?) PF campaigns, if a player wants to buy a scroll, it [u]will[/u] be in the local magic emporium and every wide spot in the road has such a place.

Well, by the official RAW, it has a 75% chance of being in the local magic emporium, and, yes, every wide spot in the road has such a place. A single isolated farmhouse (a "thorp") will sell you a scroll of almost any zero or first level spell.

A Thorp is not a single isolated farmhouse.

Actually, it means the same as Hamlet, but somehow in D&D it means small hamlet of less than 20 but more than one family.

I just looked at the sample thorp in the Game Mastery Guide (via the PRD) and it suggests a thorp will have 1d4 random minor magical items, and "spellcasting" of only 1st level. Aside from that, the local spellcaster is a 4th level bard. I don't think a wizard can learn anything from a bard (although she might be able to learn something from a scroll made by a bard).

Also, the populations listed in the Settlements section here are apparently number of people, not number of families. The sample thorp seems to have at least three "families", but the full interpretation of the numbers seems to be left to the GM. 16 people, 13 humans, 2 halflings, and a dwarf. Count the dwarf as one "family", and the two halflings as another. The innkeeper would be a third (does she have a husband? Kids?) and there may be a couple more. I'd guess two or three human families, and two non-human. Also - agricultural society. Somebody's got to be growing food.

Apparently the creator of a scroll can set the "caster level" of the scroll to any value between the minimum to cast the spell (1st for a bard's 1st level spell) and the caster level of the creator (4th level in the case of our example thorp). So a scroll available at this thorp will be 1st level (or 0th) and have a caster level between 1st and 4th. Have I got that right?


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Tarantula wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
I'm just wondering how our GM will screw with teleporting. "Its too far" or "you can't remember it clearly enough" to make it not worth the risk for long distances.
The minimum range of Teleport, for a Wizard, is 900 miles. At caster level 10, it's 1000 miles. The memory question is handled by the table in the spell description.
I'm aware of that. But, how "familiar" am I with a place I haven't been to in 6 months? Does a place I used to frequent regularly (studied carefully) but haven't been to in months still count as "studied carefully"? I suppose at worst it would be "viewed once" with a 75% chance of being on target.

<shrug> As you say, GM discretion.


Jiggy wrote:

I've been following this thread off-and-on, with a particular interest in the things people try to accomplish/avoid by going "low-magic". I'd like to summarize what I'm gleaning so far, and hopefully folks can comment or fill in gaps for me:

• Why the frick would [settlement of size X] have [magic item of power Y] for sale?
• It's annoying when the wizard has a scroll of magically bypassing obstacle type 34W (whether because it invalidates non-casters, or because it cheapens the obstacle).
• I want Excalibur/The One Ring/[insert plot item of choice] to feel special, rather than being just one waypoint on someone's character progression.

If I'm following right, it seems like most of the goals of "low-magic" center around magic items and their screwy impacts on the setting, whereas issues with actual spells (at least in the context of why to go low-magic) is mostly restricted to the issue of being able to carry scrolls of mind-bogglingly specific anti-obstacle spells.

Does that more or less sum it up?

That's pretty much it for me. The "upgradíng" of magical items annoys me too, but that's really an aesthetic preference based on the stories I like to read. I can kind of gloss over it without much trouble.

Ultimately, I'd like magic to be rare within the world even amongst the rich and powerful and if you can easily acquire a magical solution (with sufficient wealth) it loses it's specialness to me and becomes more akin to technology.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:

And that, to me, summarizes the problem in a nutshell.

It's not the director's play.

It's not the producer's movie.

It's not the architect's house.

It's not the conductor's performance.

It's not the singer's band.

It's not the starting quarterback's team.

And it's certainly not the GM's campaign.

If you're running a pre-made adventure path or some such, absolutely. If what the DM is doing is reading from a book and implementing someone else's vision, he should probably try to avoid imposing his own preferences on the game.

But your analogy breaks down at that point. It most certainly can be a DM's world, and when we get to the point of crafting one's own setting, personal taste should and must enter the equation. It is effectively impossible to have a setting which exactly duplicates the wild diversity of Golarion without essentially playing in Golarion.

Not everybody wants to play in Golarion all the time. Imposing some constraints on the system (especially the magic system, which could hardly be more laissez faire if it tried) is a big part of how one leaves the core setting for new territory. I gather from the other thread that your group doesn't play this way - that the world you occupy is not unique or living due to player turnover. That's one way to play, but it is not everyone's experience or preference. Don't presume that your experiences are the beginning and end of the discussion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

A setting inspired by the Knights of the Round Table or Charlemagne's Paladins immediately comes to mind: low magic even though the PCs might be every bit as badass as Sir Lancelot or Count Roland.

In Le Chanson de Roland, the titular character wielded Durendal, a holy avenger sword containing relics in the hilt, and cut mountains in half with it. That seems fairly magic right off the bat. Then check out his adventures in Boiardo and Ariosto and so on -- there are enchanters, magic islands, prophecies, invisible prison castles full of illusions, hippogriffs, knights polymorphed into bushes and stones, magic books that dispel magic, horns of panic, horses made of hurricanes, flying flaming chariots, trips to the moon.

So a Charlemagne's Paladins campaign could stand to be much more high-magic than a LotR one.

Low magic means some magic, pretty much by definition. In Chanson de Roland exactly one character has an unambiguously magic item - the sword Durendal. A couple of the other knights have named swords that might or might not have any actual magic. That's pretty much it.

My point about this and the other stories in both the Carolingian and Arthurian cycles is that, even if you count the world as high magic, the heroes are not. They are all exclusively martial characters. Once in a while one of the great knights might gain a single magic item, but they still rely almost entirely on their courage and skill to win the day. Casters fall into one of three categories: 1) court wizards who don't typically adventure, 2) enemies, and 3) ladies who inspire the knights to do great things.

If you want to call that high magic, fine. But a campaign in which none of the PCs can cast spells and where they can expect to obtain just one or two permanent magic items in their entire career is very different from the Magic-R-Us feel that is the default for Pathfinder.

151 to 200 of 770 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why low magic? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.