Why low magic?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 770 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

No, without ready access to healing even random orcs or bandits are "the entire adventure"

I have done this. Boring as hell.

It goes like this:
1. Encounter. Any encounter which is challenging enough to lose HP.
2. Rest.
3. Get random encounter during rest.
4. Rest some more
5. Death spiral or boredom ensues.

Yeah. This is the problem. At level 1 an encounter with orcs where one person gets hit you have to wait a couple weeks to continue adventuring.

Dangerous monsters, undead, most status effects are all out because they'll instantly kill the party or put them out of commission for months.


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

Second, not having easy access to healing doesn't make the game unplayable, it makes the game play differently.

Different != good.

Different also != bad.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
And in this case, since the game is designed and balanced around an assumption of high magic, this particular difference is generally pretty bad. If you want to play low magic, why not use a system designed to support low magic?

Perhaps Pathfinder is more flexible than you think it is. Why is there resistance to people playing the game they way they want?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The people who think low-magic can't work in Pathfinder apparently think all that is involved is removing magic, as if there are no other elements to adjust to make the game work. Yes, if all I do is remove all magic, there will be an overabundance of resting after every HP-damaging fight. So instead I reduce the damage caused by encounters and/or speed up natural healing to compensate. Making a low-magic pathfinder game requires some careful planning and consideration, not blanket removal.


DrDeth wrote:
What 1st level spell creates food?

Goodberry doesn't create food, bu it turns negligible sustenance into "no need to care about food" sustenance.

DrDeth wrote:

And yeah, PF is a Fantasy Roleplaying Game. Not a Mundane Roleplaying Game. Most people are bored to hell with survival instead of adventuring, when your encounter for the day is:

3 roots, 25 berrys and a few grubs. (Roll to see if you can keep that grub down!)

If most people want to play Pathfinder High-Magic Fantasy RPG, then most people will play Pathfinder High-Magic Fantasy RPG. This thread was made to ask why some would like to play Pathfinder not-so-High-Magic Fantasy RPG (who's talking about Pathfinder Mundane RPG anyways).

Iron Hero is nothing but a house-ruled version of d20, but low-magic (and published). Why would creating a low-magic version of Pathfinder be less viable than Iron Hero.

"Why don't people play Iron Hero instead" is a valid question however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have not played in a low-magic game. But if I did, it would be either for a challenge or because I want to enhance/evoke a certain mood or gameplay style. Maybe I want a campaign where healing magic is available, but you can't buy a Wand of Cure Light Wounds at the corner store and encounters are thus more challenging. Maybe I'm running a campaign in the Mystara setting's Glantri, where divine spellcasting is strictly outlawed and curative magic is therefore at a premium.

Maybe I'm running a campaign where lost knowledge is a major plot element, thus limiting the world's wizards to a few folk as well as my players.


DrDeth wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
No, I mean stuff like simple survival stories. There are pages and pages of rules about going without food/water, drowning, long distance walking, fatigue, hot/cold environments, etc., but all of those things are easily overcome by spells (level 1 spells or even cantrips for most of those) with a 100% success rate. It's boring, and those spells do nothing else except totally remove...

What 1st level spell creates food?

And yeah, PF is a Fantasy Roleplaying Game. Not a Mundane Roleplaying Game. Most people are bored to hell with survival instead of adventuring, when your encounter for the day is:
3 roots, 25 berrys and a few grubs. (Roll to see if you can keep that grub down!)

There are such game systems. They are fun.

Why try and warp Pathfinder into one of them?

It's like trying to play Monopoly without Monopolies... or money.

I really enjoyed playing Iron Heroes, which is a nice D20 RP game- and which is even Fantasy. Wny not play a game built and intended for Low magic?

Personally I think running low magic is as simple as running expanded Beginner Box rules and not leveling past level 5 which is easier than a whole new system that I may or may not like. That's not everyone's answer but that is my answer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Laurefindel wrote:


Iron Hero is nothing but a house-ruled version of d20, but low-magic (and published). Why would creating a low-magic version of Pathfinder be less viable than Iron Hero.

Quality control and playtesting, primarily. As with almost any published product, the draft manuscript went through several revisions where people poked and prodded at it to make sure that it was going to be a fun and playable game. The Iron Heroes book itself lists no less than 19 playtesters as well as the usual suspects on the cover page.

This means, among other things, that someone actually looked to make sure the boring death spiral described above by DrDeth doesn't happen, for instance by providing characters with non-"magic" to prevent, mitigate, or heal damage. For example, every class has substantially greater hit points. Armor actually prevents damage. All classes automatically have a pool of "reserve points" that act as substitute hit points but can be easily and nonmagically replenished. Furthermore, the Armiger class (e.g.) has an explicit tanking mechanism to prevent damage to the squishier classes.

This didn't happen by accident, and happens in very few homebrew settings. Most game masters aren't willing to spend two years revising the rules line by line to make sure that their low magic game is fun to play.

The results is that their game, as far as I can tell, is probably NOT fun to play. But I guess if you want "fun" you should be playing a game or something.


Further to previous. This is what the Iron Heroes rulebook has to say about the reserve points system:

Quote:


Reserve points make it possible for characters to soak up a fair amount of damage in combat without worrying about healing. Reserve points work too slowly to provide relief during a battle, making a character's maximum hit points as important as ever. However, once a fight ends, injured characters can quickly restore themselves to maximum hit points. [...]

[...] They make it possible to run three or four deadly fights in the course of a day without the action grinding to a halt [emphasis mine] as the PCs seek out healing.

This is a pretty good description of DrDeth's boring death spiral, and the designers have obviously taken great care in identifying this as a problem and offering a "low-magic" solution to issues so that the game momentum can continue and so that the action doesn't "[grind] to a halt."


Personally I would like to play in a low magic campaign so everyone remains relevant throughout the campaign, rather than trudging through mud so to speak until spellcasters can carry the game by themselves, which I've actually seen done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Wny not play a game built and intended for Low magic?

That's a viable option, but if a given table has good system mastery of Pathfinder, and everyone can agree with certain limitations applied to the system to better accomodate a low magic game, why spend money and time learning a new system? Its like running PF exclusively using the Beginner Box - the Beginner Box does exist. It is Pathfinder. Why not play a game you're already familiar with, everybody willing to participate knowing of the limitations and enjoying the game.


gamer-printer wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Wny not play a game built and intended for Low magic?
That's a viable option, but if a given table has good system mastery of Pathfinder, and everyone can agree with certain limitations applied to the system to better accomodate a low magic game, why spend money and time learning a new system?

Because it's generally more fun, because low magic Pathfinder generally breaks. I think a lot of tables agree that a low magic game "sounds fun" until they actually try it, because they're not familiar with (or don't think through) the number of ways that the Pathfinder system has high magic baked into it.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

Because it's generally more fun, because low magic Pathfinder generally breaks. I think a lot of tables agree that a low magic game "sounds fun" until they actually try it, because they're not familiar with (or don't think through) the number of ways that the Pathfinder system has high magic baked into it.

I've run low magic campaigns in both 3x and PF, it was by no means less fun than the standard level of the game, and in 6+ months of campaigning for each attempt nothing ever "broke". In many ways it was more fun, since there were less needs to constanting look at books for in-game reference - it was actually easier to play.

Dark Archive

JoeJ wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
And in this case, since the game is designed and balanced around an assumption of high magic, this particular difference is generally pretty bad. If you want to play low magic, why not use a system designed to support low magic?

Perhaps Pathfinder is more flexible than you think it is. Why is there resistance to people playing the game they way they want?

Because some of us have been down this road and we know where it leads. It's like watching somebody trying to grab a kettle that just came off the stove; it's a PSA that it's generally a bad idea not a pronouncement that "you can't do this ever". If you really want to burn your hand, then be our guest...


Laurefindel wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
What 1st level spell creates food?

Goodberry doesn't create food, bu it turns negligible sustenance into "no need to care about food" sustenance.

DrDeth wrote:

And yeah, PF is a Fantasy Roleplaying Game. Not a Mundane Roleplaying Game. Most people are bored to hell with survival instead of adventuring, when your encounter for the day is:

3 roots, 25 berrys and a few grubs. (Roll to see if you can keep that grub down!)

If most people want to play Pathfinder High-Magic Fantasy RPG, then most people will play Pathfinder High-Magic Fantasy RPG. This thread was made to ask why some would like to play Pathfinder not-so-High-Magic Fantasy RPG (who's talking about Pathfinder Mundane RPG anyways).

Iron Hero is nothing but a house-ruled version of d20, but low-magic (and published). Why would creating a low-magic version of Pathfinder be less viable than Iron Hero.

"Why don't people play Iron Hero instead" is a valid question however.

You need to have fresh picked berries for goodberry, thus you need to hunt for food. And it will take 3 castings a day for most parties.

Why would creating a low-magic version of Pathfinder be less viable than Iron Hero? Well sure, if the Devs want to publish such a book. But usually it's a kludge of houserules.

But since both PF and IH are D20, what do you need from PF to run a D20 low magic game?


DrDeth wrote:


But since both PF and IH are D20, what do you need from PF to run a D20 low magic game?

Presumably, the lack of IH-specific rules. I can understand that, since learning rules is a time-consuming annoyance and you'll avoid the inevitable fights about whether a two-handed weapon is different than a weapon in two hands or whether the circumstance bonus to Athletics I get from my right shoe is different source from the one I get from my left shoe.

This whole messageboard is basically a testament to that.

The problem is the IH-specific rules are also most of what enables a low-magic campaign in D20.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:

Yeah. This is the problem. At level 1 an encounter with orcs where one person gets hit you have to wait a couple weeks to continue adventuring.

Dangerous monsters, undead, most status effects are all out because they'll instantly kill the party or put them out of commission for months.

It's almost like they'll have to treat combat as a life and death situation rather then just a stream of video game style encounters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arikiel wrote:
It's almost like they'll have to treat combat as a life and death situation rather then just a stream of video game style encounters.

It's almost like they're not heroes at all, but just joe schmoe trying to survive.

Dark Archive

Arikiel wrote:
Undone wrote:

Yeah. This is the problem. At level 1 an encounter with orcs where one person gets hit you have to wait a couple weeks to continue adventuring.

Dangerous monsters, undead, most status effects are all out because they'll instantly kill the party or put them out of commission for months.

It's almost like they'll have to treat combat as a life and death situation rather then just a stream of video game style encounters.

And, in the context of a small-scale miniatures war games with some role-playing elements, that is a "Bad Thing"(TM). I'm sorry, but if that is the game you want, then you are using the wrong system. Full stop. D&D 3.0+ and, by extension, Pathfinder is a combat simulation game first and foremost. That is why almost every spell, item, or class ability provides a tangible benefit to combat. That's why everybody seems obsessed with "balance". If you want to play a game where combat is the last resort and "serious business", those systems exist; but trying to use Pathfinder in that role is like trying to use a claw hammer to peel a potato.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
But since both PF and IH are D20, what do you need from PF to run a D20 low magic game?

That's a legitimate question. Iron Hero is a good product.

People like familiarity. Perhaps IH doesn't feel enough like Pathfinder; actually, IH has a very distinct vibe. Would Pathfinder still feel like Pathfinder once you remove X, modify Y and add Z is yet another legitimate question. Still people are attached to their favourite product and well, people are not always rational about that.

I like your posts and you bring some very valid point to the conversation DrDeth, but sometimes it sounds like "you'll fail, don't bother trying".


Laurefindel wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
But since both PF and IH are D20, what do you need from PF to run a D20 low magic game?

That's a legitimate question. Iron Hero is a good product.

People like familiarity. Perhaps IH doesn't feel enough like Pathfinder; actually, IH has a very distinct vibe. Would Pathfinder still feel like Pathfinder once you remove X, modify Y and add Z is yet another legitimate question. Still people are attached to their favourite product and well, people are not always rational about that.

I like your posts and you bring some very valid point to the conversation DrDeth, but sometimes it sounds like "you'll fail, don't bother trying".

But what would a low-magic Pathfinder feel like? I don't think it would feel like Pathfinder to be honest. Pathfinder is more or less defined as a high magic game, and that is one of the things that actually distinguishes it from 3rd edition. Possibly even THE thing.

You are starting from the wrong point, basically.

Silver Crusade

Tarantula wrote:
Arikiel wrote:
It's almost like they'll have to treat combat as a life and death situation rather then just a stream of video game style encounters.
It's almost like they're not heroes at all, but just joe schmoe trying to survive.

Sometimes that's the point, though. Other times it's a mistake. Do you want high heroics but low magic? You'll have a lot of houseruling to do. If all you want is low magic grim, gritty, and deadly then lacking quick healing probably helps with the type of game you're trying to play.

It's been said before, but to sum it up:
People play low magic Pathfinder because they want a different feeling game, but still want to use the Pathfinder rules, whether for familiarity or cost. They also want to be able to convince people to play it by saying, "It's still a Pathfinder game, but X, Y, and Z are different."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Laurefindel wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
But since both PF and IH are D20, what do you need from PF to run a D20 low magic game?

That's a legitimate question. Iron Hero is a good product.

People like familiarity. Perhaps IH doesn't feel enough like Pathfinder; actually, IH has a very distinct vibe. Would Pathfinder still feel like Pathfinder once you remove X, modify Y and add Z is yet another legitimate question. Still people are attached to their favourite product and well, people are not always rational about that.

I like your posts and you bring some very valid point to the conversation DrDeth, but sometimes it sounds like "you'll fail, don't bother trying".

Well, to some extent. I mean, some modifications to the PF magic system can be done without making it "Iron Heroes in Golarion". I dont like "ye Olde Magik Shoppe", but I tend to hand out cool specialized loot. I have put some nerfs on spells and spell casters. I agree that D&D breaks down when casters can do 9th level spells.

I wouldn't mind seeing a PF version of IH.

Bot too often "Low magic' means a DM who is over-reacting to some super-optimized build with some kludgy "fixes" that are worse than the problem.

Or DM's that want to run Iron Heroes type game but when they advert for the game they get no players, so they say "Low magic E2 Pathfinder' instead. To them I say- be honest. Or just try a few small fixes.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
But since both PF and IH are D20, what do you need from PF to run a D20 low magic game?

That's a legitimate question. Iron Hero is a good product.

People like familiarity. Perhaps IH doesn't feel enough like Pathfinder; actually, IH has a very distinct vibe. Would Pathfinder still feel like Pathfinder once you remove X, modify Y and add Z is yet another legitimate question. Still people are attached to their favourite product and well, people are not always rational about that.

I like your posts and you bring some very valid point to the conversation DrDeth, but sometimes it sounds like "you'll fail, don't bother trying".

But what would a low-magic Pathfinder feel like? I don't think it would feel like Pathfinder to be honest. Pathfinder is more or less defined as a high magic game, and that is one of the things that actually distinguishes it from 3rd edition. Possibly even THE thing.

You are starting from the wrong point, basically.

You can cut back the magic. Get rid of Ye Olde Magik Shoppe. Nerf some spells, define others more tightly. Limit splatbooks.


Riuken wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
Arikiel wrote:
It's almost like they'll have to treat combat as a life and death situation rather then just a stream of video game style encounters.
It's almost like they're not heroes at all, but just joe schmoe trying to survive.

Sometimes that's the point, though. Other times it's a mistake. Do you want high heroics but low magic? You'll have a lot of houseruling to do. If all you want is low magic grim, gritty, and deadly then lacking quick healing probably helps with the type of game you're trying to play.

It's been said before, but to sum it up:
People play low magic Pathfinder because they want a different feeling game, but still want to use the Pathfinder rules, whether for familiarity or cost. They also want to be able to convince people to play it by saying, "It's still a Pathfinder game, but X, Y, and Z are different."

Thats like saying, "Pathfinder is still D&D 3.5 but X Y and Z are different." That's how much you would have to change in order to get low magic to work effectively. I guess I don't see the point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarantula wrote:
Riuken wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
Arikiel wrote:
It's almost like they'll have to treat combat as a life and death situation rather then just a stream of video game style encounters.
It's almost like they're not heroes at all, but just joe schmoe trying to survive.

Sometimes that's the point, though. Other times it's a mistake. Do you want high heroics but low magic? You'll have a lot of houseruling to do. If all you want is low magic grim, gritty, and deadly then lacking quick healing probably helps with the type of game you're trying to play.

It's been said before, but to sum it up:
People play low magic Pathfinder because they want a different feeling game, but still want to use the Pathfinder rules, whether for familiarity or cost. They also want to be able to convince people to play it by saying, "It's still a Pathfinder game, but X, Y, and Z are different."

Thats like saying, "Pathfinder is still D&D 3.5 but X Y and Z are different." That's how much you would have to change in order to get low magic to work effectively. I guess I don't see the point.

Actually, a lot more than that, depending on how Low you go.

Ultra-Low magic is more different from PF than PF is different from OD&D.

Silver Crusade

Tarantula wrote:
Riuken wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
Arikiel wrote:
It's almost like they'll have to treat combat as a life and death situation rather then just a stream of video game style encounters.
It's almost like they're not heroes at all, but just joe schmoe trying to survive.

Sometimes that's the point, though. Other times it's a mistake. Do you want high heroics but low magic? You'll have a lot of houseruling to do. If all you want is low magic grim, gritty, and deadly then lacking quick healing probably helps with the type of game you're trying to play.

It's been said before, but to sum it up:
People play low magic Pathfinder because they want a different feeling game, but still want to use the Pathfinder rules, whether for familiarity or cost. They also want to be able to convince people to play it by saying, "It's still a Pathfinder game, but X, Y, and Z are different."

Thats like saying, "Pathfinder is still D&D 3.5 but X Y and Z are different." That's how much you would have to change in order to get low magic to work effectively. I guess I don't see the point.

Emphasis mine. That is exactly how half of the people I game with were convinced to try Pathfinder. Being able to say "It's Pathfinder" is branding, and branding works.


Meh...dealing with out of combat healing is the only major hurdle to playing low magic Pathfinder. The other "stuff" that magic does is often more fun when done the hard way. I don't personally prefer the sort of low magic that entails denying the PCs basic stuff like healing, but some of you make it sound like making low magic work is like calculating the f~!%ing moon landing. It's not.

Use your brain and do a bit of math. It's really not all that hard. As everyone loves to repeat: hit points are an abstraction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have yet to see a problem with low-magic Pathfinder that cannot be solved by simply adjusting the difficulty and/or frequency of dangerous challenges typically overcome by magic.


You have to houserule the hell out of PF to do it. Last time I tried it.

All magic item and metamagic feats are banned. Use AD&D magic item creation rules.

You can't start the game as a primary spell casting class and can only multiclass into at level 3. After finding a mentor.

You can no longer buy magic items

The Red Mantis Assassins kill spell casters or try to. Think Jedi purge with the Red Mantis replacing the Sith. Level 6 spell casters canencounter level 17 red mantis assassins if they are not careful.

Restricted access to non core classes, in effect most are banned.

You can't take levels in classes granting access to level 8 and 9 spells. This means primary spell caster classes are limited to level 14 or lower.

Some spells get banned or restricted in other ways. Raise dead/resurrection magic may not work or have a 1% chance of working per level of the caster.

Various rules from 2E can be used mostly form the historical source books and Spells and Magic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

No, without ready access to healing even random orcs or bandits are "the entire adventure"

I have done this. Boring as hell.

It goes like this:
1. Encounter. Any encounter which is challenging enough to lose HP.
2. Rest.
3. Get random encounter during rest.
4. Rest some more
5. Death spiral or boredom ensues.

In my experience, it goes like this:

1) PCs smartly do everything they possibly can to avoid combat or make it as one sided as possible
2) If they fail, and get into a fight, they might take some damage. But, because I have a ton of experience with this sort of game, I don't use "trash encounters" for the sake of attrition or whatever (in truth, a major goal of my houserules is making it so D&D is no longer a game of attrition and resource counting). And there's rarely more than one fight in a given day unless the PCs screw up somehow or foolishly seek them out.
3) They continue on regardless because, duh, they're heroes, and there's obviously a compelling reason they're doing what they're doing in the first place, but they might be even more careful in the future.
4) When they rest, I double natural healing times (I had to more than double them in older editions, but Pathfinder is pretty generous) and they continue on naturally.

You may not like it, but I've had great success over the decades.

DrDeth wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
No, I mean stuff like simple survival stories. There are pages and pages of rules about going without food/water, drowning, long distance walking, fatigue, hot/cold environments, etc., but all of those things are easily overcome by spells (level 1 spells or even cantrips for most of those) with a 100% success rate. It's boring, and those spells do nothing else except totally remove...
What 1st level spell creates food?

Well, I did say most, but there actually is an easy answer: Call Animal.

Yes, this requires there actually be edible animals within however far, but that's not super hard.

DrDeth wrote:

And yeah, PF is a Fantasy Roleplaying Game. Not a Mundane Roleplaying Game. Most people are bored to hell with survival instead of adventuring, when your encounter for the day is:

3 roots, 25 berrys and a few grubs. (Roll to see if you can keep that grub down!)

There are such game systems. They are fun.

Why try and warp Pathfinder into one of them?

Because Pathfinder is what people are willing to play. I'm going to be honest--I would never play Pathfinder if I had the only vote. But I am part of a gaming group, and the whole group prefers Pathfinder to literally any other game, so what am I going to do?

Now, I started running games like this way back when I was 9, and I did it because I thought AD&D 2e and Tunnels and Trolls were the only RPGs in existence, so it was run those sorts of games with those systems or nothing. It wasn't until I was like 13 or 14 that I had any clue other games existed, and you know what? I mostly stopped playing D&D unless I was with someone that only wanted to play D&D and refused any other game.

DrDeth wrote:
I really enjoyed playing Iron Heroes, which is a nice D20 RP game- and which is even Fantasy. Wny not play a game built and intended for Low magic?

I like Iron Heroes, but I found out about it well after I stopped playing 3rd edition, so, I never had the chance to introduce it to my college group. Now, the people I play with only want to play Pathfinder (I got them to play other stuff for about a year, but they want to go back to Pathfinder), so if I can't make it work in Pathfinder, I don't get to do it.


mplindustries wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

No, without ready access to healing even random orcs or bandits are "the entire adventure"

I have done this. Boring as hell.

It goes like this:
1. Encounter. Any encounter which is challenging enough to lose HP.
2. Rest.
3. Get random encounter during rest.
4. Rest some more
5. Death spiral or boredom ensues.

In my experience, it goes like this:

1) PCs smartly do everything they possibly can to avoid combat or make it as one sided as possible
2) If they fail, and get into a fight, they might take some damage. But, because I have a ton of experience with this sort of game, I don't use "trash encounters" for the sake of attrition or whatever (in truth, a major goal of my houserules is making it so D&D is no longer a game of attrition and resource counting). And there's rarely more than one fight in a given day unless the PCs screw up somehow or foolishly seek them out.
3) They continue on regardless because, duh, they're heroes, and there's obviously a compelling reason they're doing what they're doing in the first place, but they might be even more careful in the future.
4) When they rest, I double natural healing times (I had to more than double them in older editions, but Pathfinder is pretty generous) and they continue on naturally.

You may not like it, but I've had great success over the decades.

When slotted into the majority of my adventuring experiences:

-Most fights start with the enemy right freakin' there, so combat isn't avoidable or controllable, and in fact ranged attacks are kind of difficult because if you roll a low initiative you'll be in melee before you can go.
-WHEN they "fail," they get beaten to heck unless you're throwing trash encounters at them.
-Continuing on regardless means death because 10-50% of the party is at negative hit points.
-Double healing = fully healed in 5 days instead of 10.

So yeah, good luck with that.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
boring7 wrote:
When slotted into the majority of my adventuring experiences...

I cut your quote here because that's really the only part that matters.

Look, you can't just cut Pathfinder down to low magic and keep on like nothing happened. You can't just "[slot it] into the majority of my adventuring experiences." The game is different, and you have to both run and play it differently. Yes, at that point you're only nominally playing Pathfinder, but as mplindustries pointed out, many people won't play something that isn't named "Pathfinder", and some of us don't really have the option to just "find another gaming group".

Removing magic items and spells from Pathfinder then running an AP will be a disaster. Planning out a game without much if any magic in it then adjusting the Pathfinder rules to make that work, however, can totally be done. It is, admittedly, a lot of work, but it is doable.

As a side note, some of us like the idea of making our own system, but can't just make one from scratch. So we start with what is most familiar, usually Pathfinder, and build from there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
(in truth, a major goal of my houserules is making it so D&D is no longer a game of attrition and resource counting). And there's rarely more than one fight in a given day unless the PCs screw up somehow or foolishly seek them out.

Well there's your problem right there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Quote:
(in truth, a major goal of my houserules is making it so D&D is no longer a game of attrition and resource counting). And there's rarely more than one fight in a given day unless the PCs screw up somehow or foolishly seek them out.
Well there's your problem right there.

I'm not really sure why this is a problem?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:
Undone wrote:
Quote:
(in truth, a major goal of my houserules is making it so D&D is no longer a game of attrition and resource counting). And there's rarely more than one fight in a given day unless the PCs screw up somehow or foolishly seek them out.
Well there's your problem right there.
I'm not really sure why this is a problem?

Every single part of pathfinder is resource based. Trying to remove resources is just a different game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
Undone wrote:
Quote:
(in truth, a major goal of my houserules is making it so D&D is no longer a game of attrition and resource counting). And there's rarely more than one fight in a given day unless the PCs screw up somehow or foolishly seek them out.
Well there's your problem right there.
I'm not really sure why this is a problem?
Every single part of pathfinder is resource based. Trying to remove resources is just a different game.

Have to agree on this one. Managing your daily resources has always been a huge part of D&D/Pathfinder. Out of all the Paizo classes, Fighter and Rogue are the only ones who don't have in-class resources to manage (other than HP), and even then they still need to be cognizant of the rest of team's resources.


Every table is a different game. MPL's table is no less Pathfinder than others. The game lends itself to a wide variety of play styles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
Undone wrote:
Quote:
(in truth, a major goal of my houserules is making it so D&D is no longer a game of attrition and resource counting). And there's rarely more than one fight in a given day unless the PCs screw up somehow or foolishly seek them out.
Well there's your problem right there.
I'm not really sure why this is a problem?
Every single part of pathfinder is resource based. Trying to remove resources is just a different game.

If I may be so blunt, I would prefer playing a different game, but sometimes, I must play this one, so I want to change it to be more like what I want. And I've never had a problem doing it, so, I don't see it as a problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:
(in truth, a major goal of my houserules is making it so D&D is no longer a game of attrition and resource counting). And there's rarely more than one fight in a given day unless the PCs screw up somehow or foolishly seek them out.

So, in any pathfinder game, the usual reason for the party stopping to rest for the day is the magic guys are out.

Without magic, the reason is now that the martial guys are out/low on HP instead.

In normal magic pathfinder, your magic is all back the next day, ready to go, after 8 hours and some meditation/studying. This includes the martial's HP because the casters will blow whatever spells left/wands to top them up for the next day.

In your low magic pathfinder, everyone just gets to rest with natural healing (that you double for them) so that their HP tank is full again, and they can continue on.

I really don't see the difference other than all your combats are almost entirely, "I move, and attack" or some variation thereof. While spells can provide some unique effects instead.

All you're doing is making the daily resource PCs run out of HP instead of Spell Slots. Well, and making the PCs have lower to hit/dmg bonuses from a lack of magic items to buff stats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Every table is a different game. MPL's table is no less Pathfinder than others. The game lends itself to a wide variety of play styles.

I'd say there's a distinction between different playstyles and houserules that are so extensive they change fundamental aspects of the game. Obviously YMMV on when house-rules reach the point where the game is no longer recognizable, but it's more than just playstyle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Every table is a different game. MPL's table is no less Pathfinder than others. The game lends itself to a wide variety of play styles.

Playing Project M is not the same as playing Brawl. When you change the rules you change the game. If you are playing Project M you are not playing Brawl. If you are playing Brawl you are not playing Project M. The simple fact is that despite being "houserules" for Brawl, Project M is it's own game. And if you say "We're playing Brawl." no one will know you mean Project M and vice versa.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I couldn't agree more, once you change the parameters of the game severely enough to accomodate a low magic game, it isn't truly PF anymore. That said, as long as playing an adjusted PF rules to work in a low magic game, as long as it works, who really cares what you want to call it, PF or not. That's meaningless, as long as a fun game experience is accomplished doing so. Nobody is keeping tabs whether I'm using PF, D&D, or something else, so who cares if it still qualifies as truly PF or not. All the above responses saying "Its not Pathfinder", I agree its not, but so what.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I once ran a session where I made the party worry about having enough food to make it to the next town.

They nearly passed out from boredom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Every table is a different game. MPL's table is no less Pathfinder than others. The game lends itself to a wide variety of play styles.
Playing Project M is not the same as playing Brawl. When you change the rules you change the game. If you are playing Project M you are not playing Brawl. If you are playing Brawl you are not playing Project M. The simple fact is that despite being "houserules" for Brawl, Project M is it's own game. And if you say "We're playing Brawl." no one will know you mean Project M and vice versa.

If I play monopoly with short trading and mergers am I not still infuriating my friends?


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Every table is a different game. MPL's table is no less Pathfinder than others. The game lends itself to a wide variety of play styles.
Playing Project M is not the same as playing Brawl. When you change the rules you change the game. If you are playing Project M you are not playing Brawl. If you are playing Brawl you are not playing Project M. The simple fact is that despite being "houserules" for Brawl, Project M is it's own game. And if you say "We're playing Brawl." no one will know you mean Project M and vice versa.
If I play monopoly with short trading and mergers am I not still infuriating my friends?

No, but you aren't playing Monopoly anymore either. You are playing Mergers and Acquisitions and you shouldn't expect anyone to know that you are playing Mergers and Acquisitions instead of Monopoly. Then again, I've never met people that play Monopoly correctly. When's the last time your banker auctioned off a property that was landed on but not purchased to the highest bidder? Be honest.


I think it's possible to play PF with low magic.

That doesn't mean NO magic. The clerics can still cast spells, but perhaps the party clerics are the exception to the rule, instead of the norm.

Wizards and all spellcasters can be special, in that they can actually CAST magic, whereas the norm is that most can't.

Instead of +5 weapons everywhere at high level, maybe a +4 weapon is the ultra special weapon a demonslayer once wielded a thousand years ago to put down a demon horde coming from a portal to the abyss. (That is until the spellcaster decides to make an even more powerful weapon...if they have the time and money to do so).

What it does mean is adjusting CR.

Why would one do this, because it was possible to do it in D&D, and they play PF like they would an earlier version of D&D where magic isn't the be all to end all...but an accessory to help the party rather than a necessity to survive.

Plus, if you are familiar with the PF rules already, why should you have to buy and learn a completely NEW rule set, rather than making that simple and small adjustment to CR and playing with one you already are familiar with?


Malwing wrote:

I see this a lot; Someone wants advice on or is describing their house rules for a low magic campaign. In Pathfinder this is a daunting task and there is a ton of different advice on how to go about this, from not leveling past 6th level to banning all full casters. But my question is "Why?"

Basically if you are a person that desires low magic campaign, why do you want this? Especially in a magic-heavy system like Pathfinder?

To clarify I'm not saying "If you like low magic so much get your butt in a different system." I'm trying to understand why there are a lot of attempts at low magic. Is it an innate storytelling desire? Is magic just complicated and overpowered? Are you trying to mimic a book or movie's setting and heavy magic disrupts it? Are you tired of all caster parties?

A few points.

I can think of very few novels, movies, stories, legends, whatever that have as much magic as some people seem to think is standard in PF. That can make it more difficult as GM to come up with a storyline and/or challenges for the party. Think how many stories or movies you have seen where the major plot point can be overcome in 6 seconds with a single PF spell.
I was trying to up-scale a low level module for my group since the story fit in pretty well with what they had been doing. But I found it impossible to make it at all challenging without just starting from scratch. Neutralize poison, remove disease, restoration, dispel magic, fly, teleport, dimension door, invisibility, silence, etc… negate most of the ‘classic’ plot points other than just killing someone else that is nearly as powerful as you.
I was also trying to make some ocean born adventures at their request. I have not figured out a way to challenge them without easily killing all the crew of their ship. But then we also have to try and figure out a reason for them to be on the ship in the first place. One of them has teleport another has scry. The only reason to have the ship is because we want one.

Some people do not like the ‘rocket tag’ effect of high level spells and powerful magic items. They feel this is lessened with lower access to magic. Not entirely sure I agree, but it is a significantly occurring opinion.

I don’t think the PF system requires as much adjustment as many people feel it does. They come up with extensive systems that mostly amount to canceling out the other adjustments. This guy gets a + to hit and the other guy gets the same + to AC. This one gets a + to a casting DC and the other gets a + to saves. If you eliminate all of those things normally provided by the ‘big 6’ there is essentially no change. Against non-classed opponents use APL instead of APL+3 that seems to be the standard.
You just have to be careful about things like DR at low to mid levels. As well as creatures that have powerful SLA’s. Demons and ghosts are a good bit more dangerous in a low magic campaign. But maybe you want them to be so.

Grand Lodge

I was thinking about how in Ultimate Combat they have the DR rules for armor that might help with a low magic campaign and HP loss.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElterAgo wrote:
If you eliminate all of those things normally provided by the ‘big 6’ there is essentially no change.

Standard magic items tend to give more boosts to AC than they do to attack rolls. BAB goes up with level, while AC only goes up with better magic equipment.

Has anyone noticed any problems caused by this in low-magic-equipment games?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElterAgo wrote:
I don’t think the PF system requires as much adjustment as many people feel it does. They come up with extensive systems that mostly amount to canceling out the other adjustments. This guy gets a + to hit and the other guy gets the same + to AC. This one gets a + to a casting DC and the other gets a + to saves. If you eliminate all of those things normally provided by the ‘big 6’ there is essentially no change.

Except that's completely wrong. The Big Six are overwhelmingly defensive in nature, and cutting them out just makes rocket tag even worse. You take away stat headbands max out at boosting a caster's DCs by three, while the cloak of resistance goes up to five, and another three points from stat-boosting items. Magic weapons only go up to +5, while Armor, Ring of Protection, and Amulet of Natural Armor all add up to +15.

If you think +3 vs +8 and +5 vs +15 are things that balance out...

1 to 50 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.