| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like some feedbacks on the following set of rules to remove magic items from the game. I've been aiming for something that doesn't change too much the rules from a player's perspective. Also, I've been working towards improving melee types instead of trying to hinder caster types.
I am not looking for feedback on whether it is a good idea to remove magic items from the game, but whether the following rules would help a DM (or not) maintain a certain balance between players and not completely break (just a little) the CR system, while allowing him to remove most magic items from his game.
Many thanks in advance!
Item Creation Feats
No access is granted to magic item crafting feats. The knowledge has been lost aeons ago. Creation feats that are part of a class progression are treated using the PFS rules.
Magic Items
Magic items are very rare and mostly owned by governments or powerful groups or individuals. They are considered artifacts of infinite value.
DR/Magic
There is no damage resistance that is only negated by magic items. DMs can replace these by other types.
Incorporeal Opponents’ Resistance to Damage
Incorporeal opponents should be vulnerable (50 % damage) to mithral weapons.
Magic Item Creating Spells
All spells creating temporary or permanent magic items are unknown (Magic Weapon, Magic Fangs, Magical Vestment, etc.).
Generous Point-Buy
25 or 30 point-buy for character creation.
Ability Updates
Every two levels, each character can raise one physical and one mental attribute by one point.
Improved AC Bonuses for Armors and Shields
All armors and shields offer an additional bonus to their rating. Medium armors and light shields receive an additional +1. Heavy armors and shields receive an additional +2.
Free Feats
All characters start with the following feats:
- Combat Expertise: Also, the bonus granted varies by the type of armor. For light armor: -1/+1; medium armor: -1/+2; heavy armor: -1/+3. In addition, you gain an additional -1/+1 bonus if using a shield for defense.
- Power Attack.
- Combat Reflexes.
Progressing Feats
The following feats stack automatically and do not require an additional feat.
- Weapon Focus to Greater Weapon Focus.
- Weapon Specialization to Greater Weapon Specialization.
- Iron Will/Lightning Reflexes/Great Fortitude to their Improved version.
- Vital Strike to Improved Vital Strike to Greater Vital Strike.
- Two-Weapon Fighting to Improved Two-Weapon Fighting to Greater Two-Weapon-Fighting.
- Improved (Combat Maneuver) to Greater (Combat Maneuver).
Hero Points
All characters use Hero Points.
True Masterwork Items
All items have a true masterwork version. These usually cost 3 times the masterwork cost. Weapons can be made +1 damage or keen. Armors and shields can grant +1 AC, +1 saves or +1 hp per character level. Other items can support skills by giving a +5 bonus instead of a +2 bonus.
Healing
Hit points are a measure of resistance and stamina. They are recuperated at the rate of the character’s level times his Constitution modifier (min 1/2), per hour. The character needs to have at least 1 hp to recuperate. Ability damage is recuperated at the rate of the character’s Constitution modifier (min 1/2) per day.
Optional: Mythic Levels
Half the character levels are also mythic levels.
|
Interesting... these rules look a lot better than most attempts to downplay magic items. I do have some concerns though.
1) You focus a lot on weapons and armor, and your go-to solution is heavier armor; notice how Combat Expertise benefits those in heavy armor more. While this goes a long way towards helping out fighters that have to survive without magic items, I fear that it's very painful for classes that rely on lightweight armor, such as the shapechanging druid (no Wild enchantment) and the rogue. Formerly they counted on things like the Amulet of Natural Armor and Ring of Deflection, and light armor with substantial enhancement bonuses. You remove those in your system.
2) Saving throws: there's no Cloak of Resistance. Armor that grants bonuses to saving throws helps, but that's only for the heavy-armor classes. Arcane spellcasters will be in deep trouble.
3) True Masterwork armor: granting +HP? What happens if someone takes it off? It might be an awkward mechanic.
4) Stat-boosting items. Spellcasters rely on these to push up saving throw DCs. While other humans may have lower saves (because less magic items), monster saves become relatively better this way. OTOH, you mention using a more generous point buy, that may compensate this a bit.
On the whole, I think this looks interesting. It's a significant shift, and I think there'll be surprising consequences. But I'd be willing to play under those rules, at least as a warrior. It's a bit sketchier for a rogue...
Thanks Ascalaphus. You make a good point regarding light armour, as all other bonuses scale the same way regardless of armour type, while my system does favour heavy armour...
As for the saves, the much higher ability increase rate will probably solve that part, as you add +1 on a mental and a physical stat every two level.
It's true the hp for true masterwork armour might be too clunky...
So, how best to help the rogue, the ranger and the monk, and do they need help? (Druids, less so imo, as they have spellcasting).
I like the approach that magic items are few and far between, and those encountered are special and storied.
In GURPS, they have weapons that are of fine quality and very fine quality. If I recall correctly, fine gave a +1 and very fine a +2, but the weapon cost was 4 times normal and 20 times normal respectively.
For saving throws, the lower DC of casters would help offset no resistance items. It makes mundane items like poisons and alchemical weapons more powerful.
DM, I am still not convinced about the saves. You may want to change the save increase by +1 for all the characters. So instead of fighters being Dex/Fort/Wis Slow/Fast/Slow, they would be Med/Fast/Med.
Monks may have to get Super Fast/Super Fast/Super Fast to retain their uniqueness in saves.
Incorporeal opponents should be vulnerable (50 % damage) to mithral weapons.
The trick is that you see shadows pretty early (CR3). I think that you can make them 50% vulnerable to silver weapons and be good...plus I think silver is more thematically correct as a "pure" material vs the evil incorporeal creatures.
DR/Magic to DR/Mithral makes sense...
Generous Point-Buy
25 or 30 point-buy for character creation.
I don't know if you really need this for the characters to work. I think that it would unbalance the earlier levels pretty badly too.
Ability Updates
Every two levels, each character can raise one physical and one mental attribute by one point.
I do like this idea though. The increased ability progression allows for focus and customization while not providing that great a benefit too early. It makes it more "special".
Improved AC Bonuses for Armors and Shields
All armors and shields offer an additional bonus to their rating. Medium armors and light shields receive an additional +1. Heavy armors and shields receive an additional +2.
I don't really like it. I do like changing the feats for armor so that they reduce penalty and increase AC to align with levels. So light armor gets extra fast dex penalty reduction and slow +AC at 5/10/15/20. Something like -2 Dex penalty/+2 AC at each of those levels. Medium would get -1 Dex/+3 AC and heavy would get -0/+4 AC.
That way the armor isn't increased, its the character's abilities that improve.
Free Feats
All characters start with the following feats:•Combat Expertise: Also, the bonus granted varies by the type of armor. For light armor: -1/+1; medium armor: -1/+2; heavy armor: -1/+3. In addition, you gain an additional -1/+1 bonus if using a shield for defense.
•Power Attack.
•Combat Reflexes.
If I am a wizard, I could care less about those feats. And they would be completely useless to my character. However, if you want to give everybody a feat or two extra at 1st level...that would be fine. That way the meleers get what they want, and everybody gets a little something.
Or don't. Just give all melee classes an extra feat and casters get nothing. Fighter/barbarian/rogue/ninja/gunslinger/monk...and whatever else in that vein
Progressing Feats
The following feats stack automatically and do not require an additional feat.•Weapon Focus to Greater Weapon Focus.
•Weapon Specialization to Greater Weapon Specialization.
•Iron Will/Lightning Reflexes/Great Fortitude to their Improved version.
•Vital Strike to Improved Vital Strike to Greater Vital Strike.
•Two-Weapon Fighting to Improved Two-Weapon Fighting to Greater Two-Weapon-Fighting.
•Improved (Combat Maneuver) to Greater (Combat Maneuver).
Perhaps. I think it still would be unbalancing towards melee. Give them an extra feat at every other level so +2 at lvl 3/5/7.... Or just give the melee classes the +1 feat. Again, it allows customization.
Hero Points
All characters use Hero Points.
Never used them, so no comment.
True Masterwork Items
All items have a true masterwork version. These usually cost 3 times the masterwork cost. Weapons can be made +1 damage or keen. Armors and shields can grant +1 AC, +1 saves or +1 hp per character level. Other items can support skills by giving a +5 bonus instead of a +2 bonus.Healing
Hit points are a measure of resistance and stamina. They are recuperated at the rate of the character’s level times his Constitution modifier (min 1/2), per hour. The character needs to have at least 1 hp to recuperate. Ability damage is recuperated at the rate of the character’s Constitution modifier (min 1/2) per day.
I like the true masterwork idea. It should align nicely. As for the healing...isn't that the vitality system or a close approximation?
|
|
Thanks Ascalaphus. You make a good point regarding light armour, as all other bonuses scale the same way regardless of armour type, while my system does favour heavy armour...
As for the saves, the much higher ability increase rate will probably solve that part, as you add +1 on a mental and a physical stat every two level.
It's true the hp for true masterwork armour might be too clunky...
So, how best to help the rogue, the ranger and the monk, and do they need help? (Druids, less so imo, as they have spellcasting).
Don't pass over druids. While they're "full spellcasters", their spell list isn't as good as that of the cleric (let alone wizard), and they get fewer spells per day. Fighting in wild shape is pretty core to the class, but if your AC gets drastically lower, that's a big problem.
Druid AC is a tricky affair in normal times; losing armor and shield in wild shape can cost 4-8 AC. While the wild shape gives some natural AC, that's offset by Size and Dex penalties for the larger shapes. And you don't get barbarian HD to just take it like a man.
Normally druids try to overcome this with Amulet of Natural Armor and Ring of Protection, but if you remove those, it gets rather dicey.
---
Also, as has been pointed out by ZetaGilgamesh, your free feats favor melee classes rather heavily, particularly full BAB classes (which have some to-hit to spare on Power Attack and Combat Expertise and so on).
Maybe a solution can be found by giving people a choice, between more AC while not wearing a lot of armor (for rogues, druids etc), or some of those free feats (more relevant for full martial classes).
That way there's the interesting situation that martial classes can grab a feat advantage because they can throw money at the AC problem (those hefty armors), while the "nimble" classes work too.
Thanks for the comments so far.
ZetaGilgamesh:
Regarding the saves, I was wondering, since I would allow a mental and a physical stat to be increased every two levels, if it wouldn't be enough, with the progressive feats, to solve the issue. Could it be that the low saves being too low is an issue already?
I like your suggestion to go with silver for incorporeal and use mithral for DR/magic.
I'll think some more about the importance of the starting point buy. Not sure still, as it affects a lot of rolls...
I understand your issues for the Armor bonuses, but I find your suggestion too good... I'll think some more on it. I also need something for unarmored people, as others have suggested.
The whole point of giving a little more to the non-casters, is to reduce the difference between them and full casters, as equipment is removed from the equation. So yes, I agree that there isn't much for your wizard, but that was my point. May be it's too much?
Don't know about Vitality, but sounds like I would like it!
GerainElberion
I had read it a while back. It has certain advantages, but it also requires a whole bunch of reading and selecting. I was looking for a system that was a bit simpler in what it added and removed. The strong point in Kolokotroni's system was the choice. I didn't wish to go that route.
Also, I don't wish to exactly give back what was available through Christmas Tree Syndrom. I build a little system for this that I posted a while back. It tried to give the same kind of advantages, but without having to buy them, find them or split them among your companions.
Kimera757
Regarding stats: A fighter, in the current system, could use every increase (five of them) and a +6 belt, to get to +11. There isn't a big difference, except that he then can't do much about his other physical stats because he can't buy the +6 str and dex belt...
Regarding incorporeal: As mentioned earlier, you're right. I like the suggestion to go silver for incorporeal.
Regarding Armor: I see your point, but what you suggest sounds a lot like what the fighter already has, no? On the other hand, it would help everyone. Perhaps I should do both? Should it be based on BAB or level?
Regarding saves: Don't forget the stats are moving up faster than before. Still, it might not be enough... Perhaps then increase how many times per day you can reroll. Would every time be waaaaay too much?
I really like your suggestion regarding hp. Going for a fraction of total instead of a number. Might be easier to manage too. I'll think more on it.
Ascalaphus
Good point on the druid and all the light armoured people out there. We need something that gives them a boost when wearing no or little armour. Other people have mentioned a defensive bonus. It could be that characters have a certain level of defensive skill that they get from experience, so it would be tied to level or BAB?
Other thoughts:
Should all characters get two more skill points?
How about giving mythic levels? Say half of a character's level in mythic ones?
I talked about an inbalance between casters and non casters when you remove magic items. Do you think there is one and that it would make sense to gove more to the non casters?
I like the approach that magic items are few and far between, and those encountered are special and storied.
In GURPS, they have weapons that are of fine quality and very fine quality. If I recall correctly, fine gave a +1 and very fine a +2, but the weapon cost was 4 times normal and 20 times normal respectively.
For saving throws, the lower DC of casters would help offset no resistance items. It makes mundane items like poisons and alchemical weapons more powerful.
How are save DCs going to be lower if stat bonuses are increased and feats are still available? The casters would be the only players with access to inherent bonuses at later levels as well.
Reducing magic items vastly increases the power of the caster classes as items helped offset their power. How powerful is a hold spell when a fighter will never obtain a freedom of movement ring? Monsters with extreme strength will far exceed players abilities without magic weapons and strength boosting abilities.
I've tried tinkering with the rules to accomplish what Dreaming wants to try to accomplish. All it ever does is cause a lot of extra work for the DM while causing unforseen issues with a game balanced with magic items in mind. It would require a complete reengineering of the game to balance every factor that magic items provide.
ACs of creatures are built with the idea that a fighter will have a magic weapon of a certain level. Hit points are the same way. Every factor of the game is built with a certain challenge level involved. Modify that level and you modify the game in ways you can't always anticipate. Don't even get me started on CMB/CMD. Grappling will become an end game kill scenario for almost every class. Better hope the cleric has a bunch of freedom of movements memorised and doesn't get grappled first. Then there is all the additional modification required to build the NPCs and monsters in line with the modified rules.
It seems like a lot of extra work for not much gain in entertainment. Might as well play a different game like GURPS to get that low magic, gritty feel. In a game like Pathfinder, all this does is disempower the melee classes and turn casters into even greater powers than they were prior. Then you'll probably have to go through and nix all types of spells like flying, invisibility, polymorph spells (Can you imagine a caster becoming a dragon when a fighter has no or few magic items?), and summoning spells. Allowing a wizard to summon in creatures that will often exceed the melee classes capabilities with much higher stats than they can obtain, built in better modes of movement, and spell-like abilities would vastly overshadow the melee classes.
If you want to play GURPS, I'd rather play GURPS. Modifying Pathfinder to this extreme is looking to change the entire game in a way it was not built for. I might give this a shot if you completely eliminated casters as that is what the rules set up for. I don't much feel like playing a gimped melee class that is only going to become more gimped as we rise in level. I get the whole trying to capture the fantasy story feel with rare magic items and regular people fighting. That usually requires a party with no cleric (They don't much exist in fantasy stories) and wizards usually make everyone else around them their puppet. Do I want to be a wizard's puppet? Not sure I do, unless you're going to let me be the Dragon Reborn or a martial arist from Wuxia movies.
Let me toss out what I see as a simpler way to accomplish what you want to accomplish:
1. Take the wealth by level. See what magic items a person could purchase with wealth by level.
2. Convert the wealth by level in a point system or use gold, whichever is easier.
3. Then create a table where a character can purchase the same things it would standardly need to survive a given level with a given number of magic items.
For example, Let's say a character's wealth by level is 2000 gold. With that a character could purchase a +1 sword. So instead of making sure the character has a +1 sword, give them the ability to purchase an ability or item:
Skill with blades: The character gains a +1 to hit and damage with longswords.
Family Heirloom: The character has a family heirloom that is magical. It provides a +1 bonus to hit and damage.
Basically something that customizes the character why providing an equivalent bonus a character would receive from a magic item.
You take the time to extrapolate what a character might have at a given level for magic items, then come up with an analogous ability that doesn't require a magic item.
As an example:
Heroic Resilience replaces Cloak of Resistance: A person spends some of their wealth by level points to obtain a +1 bonus on saves. You can buy this up to five times and they stack.
Armor training: You know how to deflect blows and use armor effectively. Add a +1 enhancement bonus to armor class due to your training. You can buy this up to five times. (Replaces armor enhancement bonus).
At the end of the day what you are trying to do is change the aesthetics of the game by modifying the mechanics. You have an existing mechanism called Wealth by Level that gives you a rough guide for magic item progression. By converting this into a point system that allows a player or DM to further customize a character, you accomplish the aesthetic change you seek while not causing a serious reengineering of game mechanics.
I think you should focus your modifications on wealth by level and leave the other parts of the game alone. It changes too much. Whereas some flavorful modifications that allow for balanced power progression while changing only the aesthetics of the game will accomplish the sme end goal without requiring the investment in reengineering changing so many rules would require.
|
|
I don't know about mythic levels, I haven't looked into that development. I really have no clue what mythic levels do. I'm inclined to be against, purely because it probably adds a lot more complexity. It's nice if your system will run for players who read only CRB and maybe APG/UC. Make sure it works for the basic game.
Stat increases push up both save DCs and saves, but favor the DCs, because a caster can dedicate all his mental stat increases to his prime casting stat. What I do like about stat increases is that you give both a mental and a physical stat increase, so that you somewhat limit overspecialization. The barbarian can't put ALL the points into Strength.
---
Feats: I like merging some of the feat chains (particularly the maneuvers). I'm less certain about the free feats. Let's go through them one by one.
Power Attack: it's a pretty strong feat. Should it really be free? It's particularly good for full martials; a rogue may not be able to afford the to-hit penalty. Useless for arcane casters.
Combat Expertise: same story about affording the penalty. Doesn't work while spellcasting. And I don't really follow the logic behind giving a bigger bonus if wearing bigger armor. Why?
(On the other hand: I'm in favor of eliminating CE as a feat altogether, and just pretending it doesn't exist. Erase it from all feat prerequisites as well.)
Combat Reflexes: risky. AoOs will become far more plentiful; I rather like that you can "take one for the team" by provoking, so that another PC can do a risky action without AoO. You're eliminating that tactic, which I think is worth keeping. Also, do monsters also get it for free? Monsters with one class level? It makes monsters with Reach quite terrifying. My advice: just don't give this one for free.
Also, why isn't Improved Unarmed Strike in this list? Two of your free feats are in the notorious category of requirements for maneuvers that have no mechanical synergy with their prerequisite feats. Likewise, Imp. Unarmed has so-so synergy with Disarm, particularly if you plan to disarm using a weapon.
Proposal: don't give these feats for free, instead remove them from the requirements of maneuvers (except maybe keep Imp.Unarmed for Imp. Grapple).
---
I do think the liberal direction you're going in vis-a-vis maneuver feats will be very enticing to druids, monks and even rogues. Druids use a lot of maneuvers granted by animal forms, but the feats make them better; but qualifying for maneuver feats is quite a chore for druids. Rogues thematically suit maneuvers, but also have feat problems. Monks have an easy time qualifying, but getting the follow-up feats for free is a nice bonus.
Actually I think on the whole your system would be reasonably palatable to monks; the bonus to stats helps them a lot (being MAD). They're a bit ahead of other low-armor classes in the AC department as well. The feats are nice because monks actually use a lot of those.
---
So AC. I'm not entirely sure how to proceed here. Maybe you should look into the Bestiary, it has tables in the back to help you construct monsters. Those give an indication of "model" to-hit scores for monsters of each CR. Also look at this. I think that a PC that puts a moderate amount of work into defense should avoid hits at monsters' primary to-hit around 75% of the time; extreme defense builds go beyond 100% under RAW, but that's not necessarily something that has to be preserved at all costs. But a 75% miss rate for monsters strikes me as reasonable. A dedicated defensive character could go into the 90% or so, while 50% is squishy.
So that gives us numbers to compare with. Then make a chart based on wealth+feats+stats per level to see what classes can get; make sure to model different classes (at least wizard, rogue, monk, wildshaped druid, fighter, barbarian, cleric).
What form should the AC "compensation" to low-armor PCs take? I don't think it should be entirely free - martials use armor which isn't free, and I like the idea that armor is the cheapest path to AC, but not the only path.
Maybe you can make feats like Dodge scale with level somewhat? +1 bonus per 3 levels or so? (I haven't done the math on this.) Dodge is a feat that can be squeezed into a lot of low-armor builds.
---
You talk about boosting martials because you think casters will have an advantage using these rules. But I think that in fact casters will have significant problems: running out of fuel really fast. With no scrolls, wands or potions, a caster will vote to shorten the 15 minute workday to 10 minutes.
They also now need to reserve more spell slots for buffs they would previously replace with magic items at some point, like Bull's Strength.
Proposal: don't eliminate consumable magic items. Keep wands, potions and scrolls.
Raith and Ascalaphus, you're both right about save progression and attribute progression. It won't solve the issue...
Also, I agree with you Raith, that non casters will probably be outshined, perhaps too much so, by casters, but this issue also pops up from time to time about normal high level play. It might exacerbate it.
Regarding advancement bonuses that mimic items, I created this a while back.
It tried to remove common magic items by giving flat "Big Six" bonuses at certain levels. I liked the idea of Marks (from Eberron) as it allowed some spellcasting for non casters, though the feat cost was, as always, heavy. Perhaps if they progressed naturally, instead of requiring a new feat?
Besides using that system, it might be true that removing magic items pushes towards E6 or "no caster allowed" systems... But then it becomes low magic in general instead of low magic items...
I will see what the mythic system will look like, but you have a good point Ascaphalus when you say it would bring a lot more complexity to the game.
Other thoughts?
My biggest problem is why use the Pathfinder game for a low magic setting when there are other games built for low magic games. Pathfinder is specifically built to be a high fantasy game. I never understood the desire to turn it into something it is not.
What is your motivation for turning a Pathfinder game into a low magic setting? Wouldn't it be easier to find an alternate game setting and use that? What's the motivation? Is it the Adventure Paths? If you make this many changes, you have to completely redo the majority of encounters in the Adventure Paths regardless of the system.
I've been playing this game a long, long time. This seems to be a phase everyone goes through to capture a certain feel to the game. It is rarely successful. It takes so much work for a DM to modify everything, that it slows the game to a crawl. Then issues always arise that weren't foreseen. The DM often burns out making all the modifications and trying to change the entire game as the characters advance. Players also throw monkey wrenches into the mix with their character choices.
Is there not much pleasure in running the game as it is? Why a lack of focus on story and such a major focus on magic items? We already saw the effect of attempting to reengineer D&D with the idea of lowering magic item reliance and magic in general, it was called 4E.
I guess at this point in my gaming time, I no longer see the allure of modifying the game to fit an aesthetic. I enjoy the game as it is. I learned that lesson very well when 4E came out.
I understand your concern Raith. As I've said in my OP:
I am not looking for feedback on whether it is a good idea to remove magic items from the game, but whether the following rules would help a DM (or not) maintain a certain balance between players and not completely break (just a little) the CR system, while allowing him to remove most magic items from his game.
So let's leave this simply to a vague question of exploring and style! We can discuss it in our game thread if you wish.
Regarding saves issues:
I wish to start by looking at the situation at level 11. Bad saves are at +3, while good saves are at +7. We know it gets better at lower levels and worse at higher. For the sake of argument, let's say the attributes for these saves are 10, and no feats were taken.
In the meantime, 11th level casters have access to 6th level spells and probably have tsarted with an 18, with a regular increase every two levels (it leaves them in trouble for their saves, but it's what they chose to do this time) for a nice 23, or +6.
So we have a caster with save DCs going from 17 to 23, while the receiving end rolls with a +3 or +7... Bad. Very bad.
Of course, if the player has invested a bit in his low save, and he got the feat for his low save, he gets about +4, and a free reroll every day. So now we have DCs from 17 to 23, vs +9 to +11. Much better.
Now, the caster could also get Spell Focus, but that wouldn't apply to all spells. Metamagic would also hinder him...
I don't know, looking at these numbers, I'm not sure whether there is such a big issue. The game become extreme when players max a stat, leaving wide gaps elsewhere. Am I missing something?
Regarding 10-minute day adventuring
It's a good point Ascalaphus. But would it not reduce the difference between casters and non casters? Furthermore, they would need to rely more on their middle and low level spells, which would work towards solving the save issue.
All in all, I'm not sure whether there is a real issue. For sure, they'll loose something from not having easy access to scrolls, potions and wands, but they'll have to work the game differently, no?
Regarding saves issues:
I wish to start by looking at the situation at level 11. Bad saves are at +3, while good saves are at +7. We know it gets better at lower levels and worse at higher. For the sake of argument, let's say the attributes for these saves are 10, and no feats were taken.In the meantime, 11th level casters have access to 6th level spells and probably have tsarted with an 18, with a regular increase every two levels (it leaves them in trouble for their saves, but it's what they chose to do this time) for a nice 23, or +6.
So we have a caster with save DCs going from 17 to 23, while the receiving end rolls with a +3 or +7... Bad. Very bad.
What you're not taking into account is that when a caster casts a spell, she is expending a non-renewable resource, unlike a martial who gets to swing again next round and the next and the next. It ought to be more difficult for an enemy to avoid it because once the caster's spell slots are expended she's just following the party around a dungeon, while the martials can fight all day. How is it at all fun for the PC caster to have less of her limited options have any effect at all?
Your system gives stuff to martials and takes away from casters. More, it gives stuff to tanks in heavy armor and takes away from mobility-focused light-armor wearers. It caters to a specific playstyle I have no interest in, where everyone stumps around at 15-feet-per-round in full plate and pounds on each other. (In my RL group, even the fighters won't wear medium armor because they don't like being slow and having armor check penalties.) I would never play a spell-casting character in a system like this. (And since I never play martial characters, that pretty much means I would never play in a system like this.) I'm already discouraged from playing a caster in Pathfinder as is because people save against my spells too much.
t's a good point Ascalaphus. But would it not reduce the difference between casters and non casters? Furthermore, they would need to rely more on their middle and low level spells, which would work towards solving the save issue.
All in all, I'm not sure whether there is a real issue. For sure, they'll loose something from not having easy access to scrolls, potions and wands, but they'll have to work the game differently, no?
Low and mid-level spell slots have even lower save DCs and so are even more useless than high-level slots. What would happen is that casters would be forced into the support role of walking around behind the people who are allowed to be awesome (tanks) and buffing them instead of ever getting a chance to shine themselves. Might as well play a bard if all you're doing is giving other people pluses to do something interesting.
This...
All it ever does is cause a lot of extra work for the DM while causing unforseen issues with a game balanced with magic items in mind. It would require a complete reengineering of the game to balance every factor that magic items provide.
And this...
It takes so much work for a DM to modify everything, that it slows the game to a crawl. Then issues always arise that weren't foreseen. The DM often burns out making all the modifications and trying to change the entire game as the characters advance. Players also throw monkey wrenches into the mix with their character choices.
Says it in a nutshell.
It strikes me as a great deal of chaos, especially if you're use to the Pathfinder rules as they are.
You're using standard DCs. Why not hit someone with a save lowering effect like enervate? No save, just a hit roll with no AC bonus against armor. Fly and enervate or magic missile and in a world with no magic items, watch the melee die. No potions of flying or scrolls to use with Use Magic Device, just get hammered by casters.
Then there is the higher level spells like Dragon Form. I pump my physical strength up as a wizard and my intel, then take wizard form. Or perhaps I take Abyssal Bloodline as a sorcerer with Strenth of the Abyss granting me a +6 inherent bonus to strength. I pump my strength up with stat bonuses, get my inherent bonus, turn into a dragon, and make mincemeat of Mr. Warrior Guy. I can even turn invsiible to top it off since I have Eschew Materials.
Then there is the lack of evasion for most classes and a great many have weak reflex saves. I can hammer with half-damage guaranteed spells against lower saves. Pump my fireballs up with Empower and toss in a Quickened magic missile. The cleric and wizard have to expend a bunch of slots to get resist energy on the party or they are dead meat. Heavens help you if a dragon attacks. No wands, scrolls, or potions? Talk about hard to buff the party with protective spells.
There are so many unforseen factors involving spells and spell combinations that saves are only one of many concerns. The melee characters I play with spend time accumulating consumables like potions of flying and the parties I'm in usually chip in for resist energy wands and restoration scrolls. Energy drain would be a ton more powerful in a low magic campaign, especially from incorporeal creatures.
These are the kinds of things that will come up if the characters are denied from planning counters with magic items. Every fighter and his mother seeks out the ring of freedom of movement because in a world with paralysis, hold spells, and difficult terrain it's a survival essential or a warrior might as well sell himself as a slave to the nearest caster.
I see it as far too difficult to balance out every factor of the game without magic items. Very, very difficult.
Remember that at 5th level, PCs have access to game-changing abilities like fireball, fly, multiple attacks per round, speak with dead, and water breathing. A gang of goblins or orcs isn’t much of a threat, even a few ogres are an easy fight, and murder mysteries are easily solved by talking to the corpse. You need to tailor your adventure, its encounters, and its challenges assuming a well-built group of 5th-level PCs. The judges will hit you hard if your proposal isn't an appropriate challenge for these PCs.
These are the assumptions that published Paizo APs make about the resources available to a lowish-level party. I've seen James Jacobs post that their adventures assume that everyone in a party will have access to flight by 5th level, by scroll or potion or wand if not by a party caster. I can see a no-to-low-magic game working if you're homebrewing your own adventure, but there's no way a party without magic items will be able to keep up with an adventure that assumes WBL and high-magic.
On the subject of high point buy, my RL group rolls dice and cheats horribly for character creation. They routinely have between 50 and 80 point-buy. At low levels, yes, they can steam-roll over the combat encounters in a published adventure, but running Second Darkness, I had to start fudging dramatically to avoid TPK by book 4 simply because they didn't have the magical resources the campaign expected (no full casters in the party). Point-buy in and of itself will not compensate for the lack of magic. What do you do when someone fails a save vs. flesh to stone and you don't have a caster who can break the enchantment? Or when someone is bullrushed off a cliff and no one has feather fall learned -- or only has one and more than one person is falling? High point buy does nothing to solve these dilemmas; magic items like scrolls and rings do.
Not to mention the difficulty of adjusting the published APs. Monsters have innate Sp and Su abilities (and Spell Resistance), but you'd have to go through and strip out all the magic gear off humanoid NPCs, making the former much stronger than expected and the latter weaker.
And Raith's post just before Joana's is only ONE example.
And when you have different minds coming up with various other creations, the variables are practically endless.
It would truly be a massive undertaking. You would basically have to create your own world, with your own rules, which pretty much equals creating a whole new game, in my opinion.
|
|
Regarding 10-minute day adventuring
It's a good point Ascalaphus. But would it not reduce the difference between casters and non casters? Furthermore, they would need to rely more on their middle and low level spells, which would work towards solving the save issue.All in all, I'm not sure whether there is a real issue. For sure, they'll loose something from not having easy access to scrolls, potions and wands, but they'll have to work the game differently, no?
I'm afraid that parties will either adopt a 10-minute adventuring day because the wizard is out of spells that can actually affect level-appropriate enemies, or the wizard has to be so stingy with spells that he's spending most of the combat waiting for the fighters to fight it all.
It's okay not to cast a spell every round, but is your strategy is "don't cast spells unless you absolutely have to", you should probably bring a newspaper along in case combat occurs. You'll be trying not to get in the way and otherwise avoid it.
Likewise I think disposing of scrolls is unwise on the utility front; the wizard-sorcerer balance is carefully crafted with scrolls in mind. Wizards know more spells, but can't really prepare situational spells. Instead they put them on scrolls, which means that having immediate access to a niche spell costs money, but it's possible. Sorcerers on the other hand get past the most painful restriction, not knowing many spells, with scrolls.
---
Also, I don't think you should be trying to get rid of consumable items in general. You can certainly make the point that permanent magic items are special (buying a car), while consumable magic items are basically an extension of normal spellcasting (packing lunch or putting leftovers in a tupperware box).
I'll agree with you all that changing such a fundamental element of the game would mean you can't keep playing it the same way.
I also hear loud and clear that some people would not like to play that way.
Now that this has been said, I would like to hear suggestions.
For example, I see people's points regarding heavy armour, but up to a point :) as they should be really good when you have a poor dexterity, and shields should give more to their wielders.
Perhaps it would be best to give a Defensive Training +1 natural or deflection AC every four levels? That would give everyone some more protection. They would have to choose between the two.
Also, as a free feat, how about Weapon Finesse? Anyone should be able to use certain weapons differently if they're more dextrous than strong?
Finally, I was also thinking of giving every class with no spellcasting two more skill points. Would that be too much? Too little?
Regarding spellcasters being nerfed: yes, but indirectly, as they will know less spells and will not be able to rely on scrolls, potions and wands. But someone still has to show me how miserable they would get compared to other classes, that would loose magic armours, weapons, boots of flying, etc.
Regarding spellcasters being nerfed: yes, but indirectly, as they will know less spells and will not be able to rely on scrolls, potions and wands. But someone still has to show me how miserable they would get compared to other classes, that would loose magic armours, weapons, boots of flying, etc.
You know who else can't fly? Alchemists, bards, clerics, druids, inquisitors, paladins, and rangers. If you're not a sorcerer, wizard, or witch and you don't take fly as one of your very limited spells you get as you level up (remember, no scrolls means wizards can't buy extra spells for their spellbooks or witches for their familiars, either), then no one in your party can fly. And if you are an arcane caster with fly, then you're forced into playing the part of boots of flying for everyone in your party, thus expending most or all of your spell slots of that level. The caster just turns into a walking wondrous item for the party's use, constantly having to learn and cast spells on behalf of the other party members because there's no other way for the martial characters to get into the air and fight the dragon or whatever. I'm not interested in playing the selfless wind beneath someone's wings.
As for magic armor and weapons, you're taking those from the casters too: no more bracers of armor for arcane casters who literally cannot wear armor. No more rings of protection for deflection bonuses. Suddenly your witch or wizard is walking around with an optimized AC of 14, 18 if you still allow mage armor, and no way to raise it other than putting more points into Dex. No more magic weapon to make up for the fact that they have no Str bonus to hit or damage.
Honestly, I don't have any suggestions to change the rules, because for the most part, I like playing the Pathfinder ruleset. Magic items are fun. I wouldn't want to play a game without them.
|
|
Finally, I was also thinking of giving every class with no spellcasting two more skill points. Would that be too much? Too little?
Regarding spellcasters being nerfed: yes, but indirectly, as they will know less spells and will not be able to rely on scrolls, potions and wands. But someone still has to show me how miserable they would get compared to other classes, that would loose magic armours, weapons, boots of flying, etc.
You compensate the non-casters with all sorts of replacements for most of the bonuses you're taking away. It's true that they don't get boots of flying, but that means either investing in bows and/or readied actions when flying creatures come near, or badgering the wizard into casting Fly on the fighter.
And why give only non-casters more skill points? Are you really convinced spellcasters have it better under these rules? Spellcasters are just as item-reliant under normal rules, just different items. Items which you're not replacing.
You should be wondering "would I want to play a spellcaster under these rules?" I wouldn't.
You probably can't remove all the magic items, as they bring something important to the game, but my aim is to offer a way to avoid the Christmas Tree Syndrome. It beings the level down, for sure, and CRs need to be read differently, but is it a way that limits inevitable discrepancies between casters amd non casters? And if someone feels it doesn't do that, then what could be improved?