Where has all the magic gone


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 317 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:

...

Essentially, by the time characters are running level 20 apparent power, they are likely level 13 in actual power.

I guess that makes things like level 20+ critters back into the terrifying creatures they are meant to be. But it also limits what the group is going to tackle...

It actually gets better than that.

Against a dumb beatstick*, the party is probably closer to CR17 or CR18. However, a CR7 Succubus or Shadowdemon will probably cause a TPK unless there is an appropriate caster type around.

On a similar note, tier 1 classes (and to a lesser extent tier 2-3 classes) will be much less hurt than tier 4-5 classes.

*Yes, there are some of those at stupidly high levels, as sad as it is. See the Kraken, for example.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You could go with automatic bonus progression of some kind, meaning everyone has the standard bonuses and abilities to fight CR7 demons, while keeping real magic items as rare artefacts.

But if you allow full casters in your game, the gritty low magic flavor is already gone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Wrath wrote:
Games like World of Warcraft, Rift and Everquest all have amazingly high magic worlds and have a magic mart setting. Nothing about those settings diminishes how magical the world is, yet all of them basically encourage you to continually upgrade gear.

I think there are two conflicting goals being considered here. The more fantastical we make the world, the less fantasical any given aspect of the world will be.

A city where everyone travels around on magical beasts and flying carpets, and most rich people have a genie servant of some kind, might be an evocative place, but in that city, acquiring a magic lamp will become a relatively mundane event.

Or we could go in the low-fantasy direction. You can have a world where magic potion that gave someone the ability to turn invisible was an incredible and shocking discovery, as long as you first make the world a gritty Game-of-Thrones type place.

There's probably a Conservation of Wonder effect at work here.

It's not just the amount, but also how codified the magic is. Whether in world or in the game rules. It's hard to evoke the wonder when the details of the spell are laid out on page 357.

Even in the low-fantasy world, that potion of invisibility may be a wonder to the characters, but it won't be to PF players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:

Yep. The problem with making it more gritty, low magic, is you also have to make your opponents the same.

The challenge of creatures factors in the expected WBL of characters they go up against. If you drop gear from that equation, then the CR of creatures needs to go up, or you drop the actual level of the group accordingly. Level 10 Pcs are likely functioning at level 6 power without correct gear.

And that means equal power level drop too. None of this " but mages will just make stuff". If you want to keep any form of balance, or justify a setting of low magic gear, then crafting rules need to probably be dropped. Also the purchasing rules from the book that outlines what can be done and bought in a city.

Essentially, by the time characters are running level 20 apparent power, they are likely level 13 in actual power.

I guess that makes things like level 20+ critters back into the terrifying creatures they are meant to be. But it also limits what the group is going to tackle...

If you play a low magic ('gritty') game like GoTish - why on earth would you continue to use the bestiary for enemies?

Yes GoT has a few monsters - however 90% of the enemies in that series are human. If you are making human NPCs for enemies to begin with - they should (by example) be just as low magic as the players. That kind of game should never have the wealth by level issues you point out.

The only time you have those kinds of issues is when you use the CRB and GMs guide to create encounters and follow the CR advice to the letter but ignore the treasure and WBL advice 100% - and yes, chucking any system in the game out the window without taking care to see how it affects the game will cause problems.

WBL shouldn't affect a gritty game - the entire point of gritty/low magic is low magic - if the players can be level 8 and have a single +1 sword they shouldn't be fighting packs of vampires and gargoyles as enemies ....

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
I think there are two conflicting goals being considered here. The more fantastical we make the world, the less fantasical any given aspect of the world will be.

Not necessarily. Middle-Earth is a highly magical world, but the magic as used by the characters is still something extraordinary. The World of the Weel of Time is another example for a world where mundane characters (as well as the Aes Sedai) don't run around as magical christmas trees and magical items are cherished (or cursed) treasures.

It's also not that I don't like high magic settings. I like the Realms, I like Eberron, for example. And I even don't think that it's the description of those settings that leads to the problem as suggested by the OP. It's the application of the rules to the adventures in those settings, because it's then that suddenly +1 longswords are so common that you stumble about them at every corner of a dungeon and half of the world population seems to actually have one.

I can live with all of that quite well in general and with only a bit of tinkering. And I even use magic shops to a certain degree in my games. But noone at my table tends to assume that just because it stands in any of the books, you'll get a specific magic item right at the next bigger settlement's magic mart. Especially as far as wondrous items are concerned.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the real problem with Pathfinder compared to those other settings in regards to "acting like magic christmas trees" is that mechanically, Pathfinder characters do not keep up with the math of the game through intrinsic boosts gained through leveling. Something like ABP largely fixes this, but a thing that Pathfinder has to deal with that Middle Earth does not is "Can Legolas make that shot without a +4 Cyclonic Bow? Will it do enough damage if he's not using Oliphaunt bane arrows." It's not a question because the characters in the books are assumed to be sufficiently awesome to be doing the thing they need to do when it's time to be awesome.

You can have absurdly high magic settings without having the players walk around like magical christmas trees, you just have to give them intrinsic bonuses so they can keep up with what they're up against, and there are a bunch of ways to do that.

One of the settings I run games in has sentient dungeons, interdimensional statecraft, and every single magic item is intelligent and has a will so they're not easy to come by or necessarily amenable to cooperating with the PCs (or each other). As long as the math keeps pace with the expectations of the game, the players don't mind that they don't get to write "+3" after "flaming sword".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
I think there are two conflicting goals being considered here. The more fantastical we make the world, the less fantasical any given aspect of the world will be.

Not necessarily. Middle-Earth is a highly magical world, but the magic as used by the characters is still something extraordinary. The World of the Weel of Time is another example for a world where mundane characters (as well as the Aes Sedai) don't run around as magical christmas trees and magical items are cherished (or cursed) treasures.

It's also not that I don't like high magic settings. I like the Realms, I like Eberron, for example. And I even don't think that it's the description of those settings that leads to the problem as suggested by the OP. It's the application of the rules to the adventures in those settings, because it's then that suddenly +1 longswords are so common that you stumble about them at every corner of a dungeon and half of the world population seems to actually have one.

I can live with all of that quite well in general and with only a bit of tinkering. And I even use magic shops to a certain degree in my games. But noone at my table tends to assume that just because it stands in any of the books, you'll get a specific magic item right at the next bigger settlement's magic mart. Especially as far as wondrous items are concerned.

I still think a lot of that is that the magic in those extraordinary highly magical settings isn't clearly codified, either by the characters or by us. Tolkien goes into this in a couple of places, with the inability of the elves to understand what humans (or hobbits) meant by "magic". Magic is more of a craft or an art, than a set of explicit rules. The world is magic, it doesn't so much have magic.

Or in WoT, consider the difference between how even the normal Aes Sedai treat the Power compared to how the Forsaken treat things or to our few glimpses back into the Age of Legends. There it was science & technology, not wonder and the Forsaken treat it that way.

If you want magic to really have that sense of wonder in a game, I think you have to actually make it work differently. Hide the mechanics from the players. Let them run into things they don't understand, that shouldn't be possible. Make it alive.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think the real problem with Pathfinder compared to those other settings in regards to "acting like magic christmas trees" is that mechanically, Pathfinder characters do not keep up with the math of the game through intrinsic boosts gained through leveling. Something like ABP largely fixes this, but a thing that Pathfinder has to deal with that Middle Earth does not is "Can Legolas make that shot without a +4 Cyclonic Bow? Will it do enough damage if he's not using Oliphaunt bane arrows." It's not a question because the characters in the books are assumed to be sufficiently awesome to be doing the thing they need to do when it's time to be awesome.

Absolutely, this goes even for settings like the Realms, Eberron or Golarion. At least if you look at most of the novels, they are not about [insert name], the walking christmas tree.

thejeff wrote:
If you want magic to really have that sense of wonder in a game, I think you have to actually make it work differently. Hide the mechanics from the players. Let them run into things they don't understand, that shouldn't be possible. Make it alive.

I agree, but that's not as easy in a Pathfinder environment, where the rules are clearly laid out. So part of the sense of wonder will simply go away over time with the growth of experience. And, as already said by others in this thread, part of it depends on how the players interact with the system, their characters and the game world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
I think there are two conflicting goals being considered here. The more fantastical we make the world, the less fantasical any given aspect of the world will be.
Not necessarily. Middle-Earth is a highly magical world, but the magic as used by the characters is still something extraordinary.

Well, maybe.

The Fellowship had three artifacts, several powerful named weapons, a chain shirt that was unique and more or less the Invulnerable Coat of Arnt (another artifact), elven cloaks all around, a staff of power of some sort, some sort of Gem of Light Holy item, 4 bane weapons, a magic horn, ropes,The walking sticks Faramir gave to Sam and Frodo, Aragorns sheath, ...
not to mention several things like Aragorns Ring and Amulet that werent spelled out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
I think there are two conflicting goals being considered here. The more fantastical we make the world, the less fantasical any given aspect of the world will be.
Not necessarily. Middle-Earth is a highly magical world, but the magic as used by the characters is still something extraordinary.

Well, maybe.

The Fellowship had three artifacts, several powerful named weapons, a chain shirt that was unique and more or less the Invulnerable Coat of Arnt (another artifact), elven cloaks all around, a staff of power of some sort, some sort of Gem of Light Holy item, 4 bane weapons, a magic horn, ropes,The walking sticks Faramir gave to Sam and Frodo, Aragorns sheath, ...
not to mention several things like Aragorns Ring and Amulet that werent spelled out.

Yes and no. ("go not to elves for counsel")

If you're counting the elven cloaks & rope for example, then everything made by elves is magic. Similarly the walking sticks, if you want to count them and more than likely all or most dwarf work.
Remember that the elves didn't understand when asked if they were magic cloaks.
Quote:
‘I do not know what you mean by that,’ answered the leader of the Elves. ‘They are fair garments, and the web is good, for it was made in this land. They are Elvish robes certainly, if that is what you mean.

Which is how Middle-Earth worked in terms of "magic": craftsmanship and art raised to the level of magic.

And 3 artifacts? 2 rings. What else? Or are you counting one of the swords?


The light of Elendil.

EDIT: for fun! XD


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, TL, DrDeth mentioned the light elsewhere, so it's not that.

The thing is, those weren't really "artifacts" in our understanding of the term. The thing is, in LOTR, any magic item is some sort of "artifact", because magic items are not common. That you guys are treating a glorified everburning torch like an artifact is a testament to how well Tolkien kept up their mysticism. Even something as minor as that was a big f&@%ing deal.

Also, it's unfair to include the DMPC when you discuss the party's magic level in LOTR. :P

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

They're sort of artifacts in the sense that you couldn't purchase most of them. But in the sense of "the sorts of legendary relics that whole campaigns can be based on," Lord of the Rings probably only has a one or two artifacts (the One Ring, and Narsil - the elven rings could count, but were never the focus and none of the PCs ever got them). In the sense of not being able to buy items, the world is more low-magic than replete with artifacts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


And 3 artifacts? 2 rings. What else? Or are you counting one of the swords?

Narsil/Anduril.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Was Narsil even an artifact? I never saw any indication it was more than a really well-made and important sword.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Actually, TL, DrDeth mentioned the light elsewhere, so it's not that.

The thing is, those weren't really "artifacts" in our understanding of the term. The thing is, in LOTR, any magic item is some sort of "artifact", because magic items are not common. That you guys are treating a glorified everburning torch like an artifact is a testament to how well Tolkien kept up their mysticism. Even something as minor as that was a big f!$%ing deal.

Also, it's unfair to include the DMPC when you discuss the party's magic level in LOTR. :P

Phial of Galadriel was at least a gem of Brightness, with added Morale bonuses.

And since the Elves did trade in lembas at times and used to sell their wares before they shut themselves in, yes, you could buy "magic items" in Middle earth. The Dwarves would also make items on command.

According to MERP, other items, like Gimlis Ax, chainmail, etc were also "magic" but so low power they were unremarkable.

I mean, Aragorn (Or Bombadil) didnt make a big deal of the bane daggers handed out to all the hobbits, "but but feared to keep the, knowing them for what they are: work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor" " and only blades with special spells could harm him". so forth. Pretty strong stuff to hand out like party favors. And there were four of them. Not one of the Fellowship mentioned how powerful and old they were, they were not remarkable, despite their obvious age and power.

Sting was considered totally unremarkable by Gandalf and Elrond, but it detected orcs and was thrust into a solid oak beam like a knife into butter. And was well over 6000 years old. But of no real note.

So, just like adventurers might note they had a Vorpal sword or a Staff of Power, no one talks about their +1 sword.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Was Narsil even an artifact? I never saw any indication it was more than a really well-made and important sword.

According to the books, when wielded in battled it was bathed in white flame, and could tear through shields and armor with incredible ease. (They took that out in the films)

"But even as the orc flung down the truncheon and swept out his scimitar, Andúril came down upon his helm. There was a flash like flame and the helm burst asunder. "

Not to mention it took out Sauron.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:


The Fellowship had three artifacts, several powerful named weapons, a chain shirt that was unique and more or less the Invulnerable Coat of Arnt (another artifact), elven cloaks all around, a staff of power of some sort, some sort of Gem of Light Holy item, 4 bane weapons, a magic horn, ropes,The walking sticks Faramir gave to Sam and Frodo, Aragorns sheath, ...

See the difference hides behind exactly those three points. Because while all those things exist, that's in no way comparable to what an average group of adventurers finds throughout the cours of a single AP. A well-equipped adventurer of a higher level alone might hold more magic items than the whole fellowship together. And while those bane weapons might not be something special to Tom Bombadil, they are clearly to the folks that wear them. And they are ages old, while in Pathfinder you might find someone crafting them in every bigger city.

I also mentioned the world of the Wheel of Times. Lots of Angreals and Ter'Angreals, for example, but most of the people don't even know about them and even those who wield and use them regularly treat them as something special. It's not like someone finding a +1 weapon and immediately thinking: "Oh great, another 1000 gp to spend on more valuable stuff."


4 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a good reason that fiction can pull off the "magic is amazing" effect while having magical characters in the party, but games can't: An author can write all the support characters to react as though magic amazes them despite regular exposure to a magical character. Players, much like any real person, become inured to the wonder after repeat exposure.

In other words, magic in a game can only remain amazing when it is not in the hands of the characters. Otherwise it becomes the new normal. So, no full casters, no 6 level casters, and even 4 level casters are not advisable. If you have a party of fighters, rogues, cavaliers, and maybe a spell-less ranger only, magic will be amazing. Although, the party will not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Rerednaw wrote:

Purely IMHO...the magic lies in a duel between story vs. stats.

Story: "By this wand of power I banish thee to nothingness!!"
vs.
Stats: "Eat hot photons, martian slime! "-granted there's still a bit of story here...but when the magical becomes mundane and commonplace...*shrug*

So...sci-fi is stats, fantasy is story?

Only for those who take and believe the first half without the second or for that matter skip the other three quarters which put it in context....which is a problem for many.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rerednaw wrote:

Purely IMHO...the magic lies in a duel between story vs. stats.

Story: "By this wand of power I banish thee to nothingness!!"
vs.
Stats: "Eat hot photons, martian slime! "-granted there's still a bit of story here...but when the magical becomes mundane and commonplace...*shrug*

But to follow up that old What's New exchange

Quote:

Phil: ...One is just more romantic than the other.

Girl: Where'd you get it?
Wizard: Why, this wand was forged for me by Noo-Nah the Demon King after
I saved his bacon at the battle of Squa-Tront...

Girl: Where'd you get it?
Tech 1: Sears. $28.35.

Pathfinder magic is often closer to the second paradigm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Question, does anyone else actually use the rules for how many magic items are actually in a settlement?

It puts a rather big damper on "Magic Marts" in my experience if you actually use the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Was Narsil even an artifact? I never saw any indication it was more than a really well-made and important sword.

It was effing magical enough to cut off Sauron's finger when striking at him normally still had shivered it into several pieces... and Andùril was itself a highly magical sword, though likely a lesser weapon.


Fairy Tales used to be amazing, and enduringly so.

We live in a time of madness and marvel, and, as we get older especially, it is hard to cultivate an air of mystery.

Add to this, this game, and this forum in particular, is very much wargame focused. When your playstyle breaks everything down to numbers, of course you are going to lose the mystery. If you are a good adherent to The Rule, then you will pretty much actively appose Mystery in your playstyle. Not only will you only see things only in terms of their numerical advantage, you will avoid and decry anything that exists outside of those numbers, after all, how stupid and useless is an a sword that sings, unless it has a written down quantifiable (in game) effect. Beauty, mystery and style don't really have a meaning in and of themselves in a wargame. They certainly have no value.

As I am writing this, I am looking out at a fresh fall of midnight snow. I understand the science of it, and know it will go away tomorrow, but if I don't focus on that, it is still beautiful and magical.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------

A huge cup of cocoa and a conversations later I return to this. I realize the thread has meandered away from where I am here, ah well.

I have been reminded that my facility with maths is "scary". The math part of this game is apparently not trivial to many, if not most, players, so many must choose between focusing on a complex math system, or on the often more complex roll-play aspects.

Forehead smack for me here.

I guess you need to decide if you want mystery and magical wonder, or if you want the maths to be the important part, assuming the math part isn't trivial for you. The magic went away because the system attained a complexity that most people cannot have the rules effectively running in the background in their heads. Much makes sense, not in a happy way though. This is why "promising roleplayers" turn into "soul-less number crunchers".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Was Narsil even an artifact? I never saw any indication it was more than a really well-made and important sword.
It was effing magical enough to cut off Sauron's finger when striking at him normally still had shivered it into several pieces... and Andùril was itself a highly magical sword, though likely a lesser weapon.
All we actually know about that conflict and Narsil's role in it is:
Quote:
I was at the Battle of Dagorlad before the Black Gate of Mordor, where we had the mastery: for the Spear of Gil-galad and the Sword of Elendil, Aiglos and Narsil, none could withstand. I beheld the last combat on the slopes of Orodruin, where Gil-galad died, and Elendil fell, and Narsil broke beneath him; but Sauron himself was overthrown, and Isildur cut the Ring from his hand with the hilt-shard of his father’s sword, and took it for his own.

It didn't break when striking Sauron, but when Elendil fell on it. And yeah, the broken part was still sharp enough to cut off Sauron's finger. Not clear if magic was needed for that or not.

And KC: In Tolkein's world "really-well made" is "magic". Craft raised to the level of magic. Whether it was an "artifact" or not is a question of definition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Remember that sauron was a maia, of a power greater even than that of a balrog, I doubt a common, non magical tool of war could have scratched his armour, much less hurt the semi divine being in it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:
Remember that sauron was a maia, of a power greater even than that of a balrog, I doubt a common, non magical tool of war could have scratched his armour, much less hurt the semi divine being in it.

Perhaps.

Narsil was certainly not common.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
And since the Elves did trade in lembas at times and used to sell their wares before they shut themselves in, yes, you could buy "magic items" in Middle earth.

Do you have a reference for that? IIRC, there is a line saying it was rarely given to mortals, probably in "Of Lembas" in Peoples of Middle Earth.

Do Tolkien's elves even have money? Never really thought about it before, but there are some hints they work more like a gift economy. Which doesn't preclude trade, of course.
The only actual hiring that comes to mind is Thingol hiring dwarves to forge the Nauglimir, which turns to disaster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I remember talking with one of my friends about Middle-earth. After the exposition was done (I hadn't read the Silmarilion), the conversation drifted towards figuring out what to do with the world-state. It wasn't very long before we realized that it isn't entirely infeasible for a clever group to amass enough power to go a lot more northeast than Mordor.

There does not exist magic that cannot be strengthened by effective application of science.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:

Question, does anyone else actually use the rules for how many magic items are actually in a settlement?

It puts a rather big damper on "Magic Marts" in my experience if you actually use the rules.

In my experience it doesn't. at a fairly low level spellcasters can summon/call outsiders that can greater teleport to go around the world searching for their gear at all the largest cities of the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:

Question, does anyone else actually use the rules for how many magic items are actually in a settlement?

It puts a rather big damper on "Magic Marts" in my experience if you actually use the rules.

In my experience it doesn't. at a fairly low level spellcasters can summon/call outsiders that can greater teleport to go around the world searching for their gear at all the largest cities of the world.

And at even lower levels the party can *gasp* walk. Or buy some horses to ride.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Magic items have never excited me. Magic locations, people and creatures excite me. Action excites me. Items are tools and extensions of the character. IMHO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
In my experience it doesn't. at a fairly low level spellcasters can summon/call outsiders that can greater teleport to go around the world searching for their gear at all the largest cities of the world.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
And at even lower levels the party can *gasp* walk. Or buy some horses to ride.

With the giant amount of item types and the percentages of different items chances to actually be generated, that's just going to accomplish seeing a lot of different potions and scrolls to be honest and maybe a handful of random wondrous items that isn't that your players were looking for. You are not going to find the specific item you're looking for through that method.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You need buy in from your players, or your have unhappy players...
or your campaign becomes derailed while they go searching for that one item they want...
etc.

You can't force the magic.

Me, I'd rather let the players have whatever toys they want (subject to veto) and get on with y'know the actual story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
In my experience it doesn't. at a fairly low level spellcasters can summon/call outsiders that can greater teleport to go around the world searching for their gear at all the largest cities of the world.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
And at even lower levels the party can *gasp* walk. Or buy some horses to ride.
With the giant amount of item types and the percentages of different items chances to actually be generated, that's just going to accomplish seeing a lot of different potions and scrolls to be honest and maybe a handful of random wondrous items that isn't that your players were looking for. You are not going to find the specific item you're looking for through that method.

Or you just go to a city big enough to have the 75% chance of whatever it is you're looking for.

If you blow the roll, try another one.

Once you're past the point where the largest cities around only get it as a random roll, then you're kind of stuck, but you're at a decent level by then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Doesn't having items conveniently available make them seem less valuable as well?


Not if they continue to be very valuable by their nature or power.

The Exchange

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
And at even lower levels the party can *gasp* walk. Or buy some horses to ride.

Yeah, but that takes time the PCs might not really have, because they need to save the day.

And I'm not even talking about putting hard time limits into the game. But making things personal for the PCs goes a long way to make them think twice about what's really important.

With teleport, those opportunity costs suddenly go away. And I think the game suffers for it.


thejeff wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
In my experience it doesn't. at a fairly low level spellcasters can summon/call outsiders that can greater teleport to go around the world searching for their gear at all the largest cities of the world.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
And at even lower levels the party can *gasp* walk. Or buy some horses to ride.
With the giant amount of item types and the percentages of different items chances to actually be generated, that's just going to accomplish seeing a lot of different potions and scrolls to be honest and maybe a handful of random wondrous items that isn't that your players were looking for. You are not going to find the specific item you're looking for through that method.

Or you just go to a city big enough to have the 75% chance of whatever it is you're looking for.

If you blow the roll, try another one.

Once you're past the point where the largest cities around only get it as a random roll, then you're kind of stuck, but you're at a decent level by then.

Also seems really metagamey. If powerful items with unique effects are rare, how is it that the PCs know they exist and can be bought?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
In my experience it doesn't. at a fairly low level spellcasters can summon/call outsiders that can greater teleport to go around the world searching for their gear at all the largest cities of the world.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
And at even lower levels the party can *gasp* walk. Or buy some horses to ride.
With the giant amount of item types and the percentages of different items chances to actually be generated, that's just going to accomplish seeing a lot of different potions and scrolls to be honest and maybe a handful of random wondrous items that isn't that your players were looking for. You are not going to find the specific item you're looking for through that method.

Or you just go to a city big enough to have the 75% chance of whatever it is you're looking for.

If you blow the roll, try another one.

Once you're past the point where the largest cities around only get it as a random roll, then you're kind of stuck, but you're at a decent level by then.

Also seems really metagamey. If powerful items with unique effects are rare, how is it that the PCs know they exist and can be bought?

Knowledge (Arcana)?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Also seems really metagamey. If powerful items with unique effects are rare, how is it that the PCs know they exist and can be bought?
Knowledge (Arcana)?

I would argue a mix of Knowledge (Arcane) and Knowledge (Geography), the first to see if the character knows about the magic item and the latter to know if any cities it might have it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

It didn't break when striking Sauron, but when Elendil fell on it. And yeah, the broken part was still sharp enough to cut off Sauron's finger. Not clear if magic was needed for that or not.

And KC: In Tolkein's world "really-well made" is "magic". Craft raised to the level of magic. Whether it was an "artifact" or not is a question of definition.

Or it broke because Sauron was the one doing the smiting. Basically what it seems that when a master crafter crafts an item of worth he essentially gives it a true name, and as a result you have an item whose potential can be woken by deeds. Turambar's sword Gurthang, for instance only speaks once..

Túrin: "Hail Gurthang! No lord or loyalty dost thou know, save the hand that wieldeth thee. From no blood wilt thou shrink. Wilt thou therefore take Túrin Turambar, wilt thou slay me swiftly?"

Gurthang: "Yea, I will drink thy blood gladly, that so I may forget the blood of Beleg my master, and the blood of Brandir slain unjustly. I will slay thee swiftly."

that's the only time the blade speaks in it's entire existence, or shows any sign of sentience. Turin had mistakenly slain the sword's owner who was his best friend. Prior to that Beleg had been warned about the sword's curse by Melian when he had chosen the sword as a reward from Thingol.

Frequently swords like Gurthang are reforged weapons. Gurthang being Anglachel and the shards of Narsil being reforged into Anduril.


WormysQueue wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

IMO they say the game is flexible enough but (as explained by thejeff and Jiggy and others up thread), it really isn't without way, way, way, too much other fiddling.

And while it could be argued that I like fiddling with game mechanics as much as the average gamer, it is certainly true that this isn't the way I like to fiddle.

Well, what you like is your prerogative. Telling me that I can't do it because you (general you) don't want to is not. Apart from that, how much fiddling it really is highly depends on what you exactly want to have in your game and what compromises you are willing to accept.

For example for the homebrew I'm working on, there is a lot of fiddling involved, probably so much that it never comes to fruition (doesn't matter because I'm doing it for my own pleasure, not for anyone else's). If it does it probably comes in the form of a variant rules handbook

But if it's just about having a bit more down-to-earth approach in your games, there's actually not much fiddling necessary.

You keep saying people are "telling you" stuff. Interesting... back to the thread topic.

Matthew Downie wrote:
But if you allow full casters in your game, the gritty low magic flavor is already gone.

Not so. You just make the cost in the setting appropriately high to achieve the level of "wow!" PCs/players get from the presence of magic.

So for example, psionics.
In my campaign there are consequences to using psionics. The main one being you attract the attention of other psi users ala Lovecraft. Generally it's a good idea to never attract the attention of the Great Old Ones.

As another example, "regular" magic, the arcane kind, is expensive to do right. "Wild" or "chaos" magic exists but it is not a viable option to pursue it as with a prestige class or the like. Magical chaos is dangerous, and you can get away with it from time to time, but to pursue it regularly leaves one vulnerable to the law of large numbers.

Now to do what I do with my campaign in 3.PF takes a lot of rules fiddling, and so I find it almost automatic to adapt the setting of my campaign to the 5E rules system.

Oh, and what PossibleCabbage has said up a few posts.

To adapt Scythia's phrase for my own:

Quote:
In other words, magic in a game can only remain amazing when it is costly for the characters to have in hand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To illustrate how the game has become "unmagical" to me.
**Grabbing the closest 3.PF rulebook to hand, let me quote something out of it.**

Quote:

Challenge: A cavalier of the order of the flame becomes ever more emboldened with each glorious victory. As an immediate action after reducing the target of his challenge to 0 hit points or fewer, the cavalier can elect to issue a glorious challenge to an opponent within 15 feet.

Glorious Challenge: A glorious challenge does not count against the cavalier's number of challenges per day, but otherwise acts like a cavaliers challenge class feature. When he issues a glorious challenge, the cavalier takes a -2 penalty to AC for the duration of the glorious challenge (this penalty stacks with the usual -2 penalty against opponents other than the target of the cavalier's challenge). The cavalier gains a moral bonus on melee damage rolls against the target of his glorious challenge equal to 2 x the number of consecutive glorious challenges he has issued thus far. As long as he continues to defeat targets of his glorious challenges and there are more opponents in range, the cavalier can continue to issue glorious challenges indefinitely, with the penalty to AC and the bonus on damage rolls increasing with each subsequent foe. For example a 5th level cavalier that has just issued his third glorious challenge after defeating the original target of his challenge takes a -6 penalty to AC (-8 against creatures other than the target of his glorious challenge) and gains a +11 bonus on melee damage rolls (a +5 bonus from his base challenge ability plus a +6 morale bonus for three consecutive glorious challenges).

OMG! WTH! Let me instead read the practice exams for the bar please, oh please, oh please!

I just want to play a game. With friends. Not memorize great gobs of confounded rules just to be able to turn the right trick for my PC to "win".*

* And only to have that moderate success foiled with a single swingy die roll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:

To illustrate how the game has become "unmagical" to me.

**Grabbing the closest 3.PF rulebook to hand, let me quote something out of it.**
Quote:

Challenge: A cavalier of the order of the flame becomes ever more emboldened with each glorious victory. As an immediate action after reducing the target of his challenge to 0 hit points or fewer, the cavalier can elect to issue a glorious challenge to an opponent within 15 feet.

Glorious Challenge: A glorious challenge does not count against the cavalier's number of challenges per day, but otherwise acts like a cavaliers challenge class feature. When he issues a glorious challenge, the cavalier takes a -2 penalty to AC for the duration of the glorious challenge (this penalty stacks with the usual -2 penalty against opponents other than the target of the cavalier's challenge). The cavalier gains a moral bonus on melee damage rolls against the target of his glorious challenge equal to 2 x the number of consecutive glorious challenges he has issued thus far. As long as he continues to defeat targets of his glorious challenges and there are more opponents in range, the cavalier can continue to issue glorious challenges indefinitely, with the penalty to AC and the bonus on damage rolls increasing with each subsequent foe. For example a 5th level cavalier that has just issued his third glorious challenge after defeating the original target of his challenge takes a -6 penalty to AC (-8 against creatures other than the target of his glorious challenge) and gains a +11 bonus on melee damage rolls (a +5 bonus from his base challenge ability plus a +6 morale bonus for three consecutive glorious challenges).

OMG! WTH! Let me instead read the practice exams for the bar please, oh please, oh please!

I just want to play a game. With friends. Not memorize great gobs of confounded rules just to be able to turn the right trick for my PC to "win".*

* And only to have that moderate success foiled with...

Have you heard about FATE? Cause it sounds like you would enjoy it more. It's not rules heavy and very narrative focused. Or Munchkin. Have you played Munchkin? No need to worry about complex rules there, just shuffle up and play! Or D&D 5E, with it's simplified ruleset, bounded accuracy, non-reliance on magic items and limited content, might be more in line with the kind of style you like.

Really though 3.5/PF sounds like a terrible choice for the kinds of games you appear to enjoy, in the sense that the system is actively working against what you want. 3.5/PF is a dense, rules heavy system, that rewards stacking all the +1's you can, with an in built assumption that PCs are acquiring an entire Christmas Tree worth of magic items. And that sounds like something you are explicitly not looking for.


Anzyr wrote:

Have you heard about FATE? Cause it sounds like you would enjoy it more. It's not rules heavy and very narrative focused. Or Munchkin. Have you played Munchkin? No need to worry about complex rules there, just shuffle up and play! Or D&D 5E, with it's simplified ruleset, bounded accuracy, non-reliance on magic items and limited content, might be more in line with the kind of style you like.

Really though 3.5/PF sounds like a terrible choice for the kinds of games you appear to enjoy, in the sense that the system is actively working against what you want. 3.5/PF is a dense, rules heavy system, that rewards stacking all the +1's you can, with an in built assumption that PCs are acquiring an entire Christmas Tree worth of magic items. And that sounds like something you are explicitly not looking for.

Thanks Anzyr.

I do know myself that well at least :p

Srsly though, I do use 5E for my campaign. I would try something like FATE but I don't know how to bring all my players along with me.

I also play in a 3.PF homebrew Eberron campaign and we have a great GM and an outstanding rules lawyer in the group to bounce ideas off of and cover my lack of crunch knowledge skill. All of my other 3.PF gaming experiences have been terrible. In fact if it weren't for a couple of grognards "mentoring" me through the painful learning curve, I would never have successfully gotten into TTRPGs. The entry bar is too steep. The ROI too far out.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
You keep saying people are "telling you" stuff. Interesting... back to the thread topic.

Dunno what's so interesting about it? Maybe I miss something as English is my second language, but just in case, I didn't mean it as in "to order/advise someone to do something" but as in "to give information".

But yeah, this specific bit of information is really aggravating to me, because if I ask how I can change something to make it better fit my taste, the answer should never be "use something else instead". Especially if this "something else" doesn't even exist.

And no, there isn't. There is no such system that combines all the things I like about Pathfinder, and removes just those things I don't, without adding other things I also don't like. E6 might come near, but even that I would have to modify to perfectly fit my taste.


WormysQueue wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
You keep saying people are "telling you" stuff. Interesting... back to the thread topic.

Dunno what's so interesting about it? Maybe I miss something as English is my second language, but just in case, I didn't mean it as in "to order/advise someone to do something" but as in "to give information".

But yeah, this specific bit of information is really aggravating to me, because if I ask how I can change something to make it better fit my taste, the answer should never be "use something else instead". Especially if this "something else" doesn't even exist.

And no, there isn't. There is no such system that combines all the things I like about Pathfinder, and removes just those things I don't, without adding other things I also don't like. E6 might come near, but even that I would have to modify to perfectly fit my taste.

At least you seem to know your own tastes :)

I try to make my campaign into what my players want to play, with the exception that I don't want to adjudicate the melange of rules that is 3.PF - that's too much work. But otherwise, whatever they want to do, so far, I seem to be able to make 5E do that for them. And away we go.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
3.5/PF is a dense, rules heavy system, that rewards stacking all the +1's you can, with an in built assumption that PCs are acquiring an entire Christmas Tree worth of magic items.

It seems like this ties into the 2.0 thread, but I have to wonder "does it need to be this way"? It seems like it's possible to have a Pathfinder that accomodates rules light and rules heavy play (and stuff like "core only" doesn't do this, since the CRB already has all sorts of messy stuff in it).

No game can be everything to everybody, but it seems like a game ought to be able to accommodate multiple styles of play. When it can't, it's worth asking whether it's a rules issue or a cultural issue.

201 to 250 of 317 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Where has all the magic gone All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.