I submit, that really, in the end, all of the opinions here mean jack. What really means anything, is what the OP's players think of all this. If his group is onboard with a low-magic campaign, that's great. His group should be working out the details.
So, the OP isn't allowed to look for advice on how to set it up if the players do want it? The OP can't ask for pros & cons before suggesting it? These are the kinds of things forums are for, after all...
So, the OP isn't allowed to look for advice on how to set it up if the players do want it? The OP can't ask for pros & cons before suggesting it? These are the kinds of things forums are for, after all...
Sure he is, but whose opinions matter more? The people you play with, or the people on the internet?
There was one post earlier, that I liked. Someone detailed a list of 5 questions the OP needed to ask. He should take that list and present it to his group. They could discuss the questions and answer them together.
"It's not my game, it's not your game, rather it's our game."
For me I like low magic games as in games where I can't just go an buy any magic item I want. Item Creation feats while the work aren't as simple as drop X gold, spend Y time, make your rolls and get Z item. The creation feats require the right components, the stars must be aligned, and such to create items. The better the item the more hoops to jump through.
I've played in games where we went from level 1-9 and as Ranger I didn't even have magic sword, just masterwork. We had a wizard that made it to 4th before he died in a fight with 3 ogres who hated magic and targeted him. This wasn't a surprise though, we warned that the ogres in the hills were extremely superstitious and killed wizards. We were only there because the wizard wanted a spell book that might have been in their loot. Needless to say the fight didn't go well for the wizard. We got the spell book though. The players replacement Character was a bard the next time around. This game kind of sucked.
Another game we played didn't have casters. You could play a caster but you were limited to 2nd level spells max. For divine caster the Gods were locked out and only could give access to 2nd level spells. For Arcane caster there were lich kings that could detect any spell of 3rd level or higher being cast and they'd come in snuff you if you did cast 3rd level spell as they didn't want competition. There were 6 of them in the world. This was extremely low magic as the lich kings hoarded magic items. You wanted to slip under the radar using low level spells and minor magic items. This actually turned out to a really fun game.
|
For Kthulhu try This book, I think its exactly what you are looking for. I know when someone suggested it to me I took one look at it and fell in love. I am now working on a offshoot of Pathfinder incorporating alot of these rules additions.
.
..
...
- Magic items will be extremely rare.Players may never see a magic item ever.
- Non humans and monsters of all kinds will be considered creatures and things of Myth, they do exists but they are not a every day thing they are extremely rare.
- Hit Points calculated much different. Base hit points is constitution and characters get 1 hit point per level.
- Class system totally revamped. Classes closer to NPC classes with base classes considered Prestige classes with very tough entry requirements.
- Max level 10 with the slow or even slower advancement scheme.
- Fear and Sanity rules.
Those are just a few of the ideas I am planning.And for people who say that "You are setting the party up to fail" I say yes I am. This is not going to be a game where players are super heroes who fling fire and ice out of there hands or have miraculous healing capabilities. This is a game where the players play slightly above average people who take it upon themselves to try to fight the evils in the world. The world is a dangerous place with creatures and things well beyond the knowledge of the common man. Running to live and fight another day is the better part of valor.
This will not be a game where the party runs in to fight the big bad meanie, this will be a more story driven game that requires intelligence and diligence to overcome the foes.
Low magic = 1-3 level spells only.
Any magic item that requires a 4th level spell or higher does not exist.
All the classes remain unchanged, and cleric/druid/wizard & Sorcerers really do have a major reason to take magic feats, as they now have have lots and lots of 4th level +Plus spells slots that they have, but can only use to cast 1-3 level spells.
PS = 1-6th level spells for a medium level fantasy world :)
|
|
Funny how almost everyone has ignored the actual question in favor of telling me that I'm doing it wrong.That should tell you something.Interestingly enough, he and those that doesn't say he's wrong has posted long, detailed post explaining issues and solutions as well as described reasons for wanting that playstyle, while a sound minority have posted a lot of unhelpful BADWRONGFUN-posts.
That should tell you something.
+1!
|
Seems like such a campaign would be a great place to throw the old monster vulnerabilities into sharper focus. DR/whatsits is suddenly more meaningful when magic isn't punching through it all the time as a cure-all.
Granted, I wouldn't go throwing random Achille's heel type monsters at players. Always give them opportunity to do whatever research and preparations when they go on their big scary monster hunts.
Just to make the setting and critters more flavorful and whatnot.
edit-Now I'm imagining PCs throwing salt on the ground to exert battlefield control against incorporeal undead.
After reading/skimming all the posts here and thinking about what my definition of "low magic" is, I realized that I have more than one.
First is the real world low magic versus high magic, where low magic is the "quick and dirty" type of magic and the high magic is the highly organized rituals and such that are not cast on the fly magic. Think hedge magic versus true magick from Mage: The Ascension and Mage: The Awakening.
Second, low magic where there just is not much magic, or at least obvious magic, in the setting, like in The Hobbit and LotR. No limits on the power of magic but casters are rare, magic items are rare and even a simple +2 or +3 sword could be considered an artifact.
Third, low magic where the power level of magic is itself low. In D&D terms, nothing over 3rd level for spells, nothing over +2 for weapons and armor and limits on the powers they can have, no artifacts, limits on the number of caster levels for a character (maybe a max of 5-7 levels of any one caster class per character).
A side note on monsters. Most could be used as is with only one adjustment needing to be made: damage reduction. Be prepared to lower the amounts or remove it altogether if you want the party to survive.
|
|
It's funny, I wasn't really even asking for advice, I just wanted to see how other people defined "low-magic" because of the wide variance it's seen in other threads.
These are the Paizo boards. You will be helped.
;)
Going back to salt vs. ghosts and barbarian-wielded-sword vs evil sorcerer, workable mundane solutions to the fantastic are one cornerstone I usually roll with.
I've seen a lot of poeple talk about low-magic campaigns here. But what do you really consider low magic? I'm just wondering, because some people seem to think that a low-magic world would definately benefit the wizard (as he's a towering source of magic in a world otherwise weak in it). Others take the view that in a world so devoid of magic, he would have a hard time expanding his spellbook beyond the spells he automatically gains as he levels.
For me, the following would be characteristics of a low-magic world:
Magic is very rare. Full casters are rare as hen's teeth. Even partial casters are fairly rare. An adventurer might go his entire career without finding a magic weapon.
Creating magical items / researching spells is much more costly and dificult. I'd suggest making the costs for creating a magical item should be multipled by five, the required caster level doubled, and the time required for creation to be tripled.
Why so harsh? Because otherwise, there's no reason that they would be so rare. Every wizard in the setting would take item creation feats out the wazoo and start flooding the market with magical items, and it would quickly become the default high-fantasy magical world.
I'll go against the popular grain here and say that most monsters should NOT be nerfed. One of the reasons to set a campaign in a low-magic world is to give it a more gritty feel. Nerfing the monsters to make them the same threat level they would be otherwise doesn't accomplish this, it just means that you're fighting weakened monsters. A monster has DR 5/magic ? Too damn bad...it's just so resistant to damage that it absorbes lots of what the party throws at it.
I think Iron Heroes is low magic. They have one casting class and IIRC you have to get the DM's permission to use it. It is very gritty, because there are no cure spells to save you.
I personally ignore such a vague and unhelpful term such as 'low-magic', and think about what I'm actually trying to accomplish. Do I want to limit my player's ability to direct the plot in some way? Do I want to cap their power level? Am I trying to avoid the Christmas tree effect? Am I wanting the town guard to always at least be a vague threat?
Saying it should be rare says nothing other general setting, because the PCs are rare. There's only five of them in the face of an entire world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen a lot of poeple talk about low-magic campaigns here. But what do you really consider low magic?
Well, since you ask...
I've toyed with this concept in a few games. Magic itself is common, but magic items are nearly impossible to make. No item creation feats exist, nor does the permancy spell.
Why? Because suddenly the party's buff casters are much more important. Buff spells are the only way to get a magic weapon, ever, the only way to get a resistance bonus on saves, or an upgrade to armor.
This also eliminates 99% of treasure. Masterwork is as good as it gets, so there's no need to give the PCs enough cash to buy entire nations in any sane economy. It also makes kits and other low-cost non-magical buffs important for the entire game, not just the first several levels before the rogue can buy magical lockpicks of knock or whatever.
Oh, and there's one special exception: artifacts still exist. Usually as plot devices or long-term quest goals, ancient relics forged by the gods themselves or some such.
Oh, and yes, like the OP, no monster downgrades. The magic weapon spell takes care of the first level of DR, and the Align Weapon spell takes care of the next tier. It also creates the wonderful situation where the Cleric has to choose whether to heal in a given round or buff the party fighter to penetrate the demon's DR. Great for drama, and it makes some of these creatures FEEL scarier. I mean, really, demons and devils are supposed to be creatures of terror. Their DR should be difficult to overcome, and doing so should require effort, sacrafice, and being prepared in the first place.
I used this system in a regular D&D setting, and one of my former players who's currently DMing adoped it for a "realistic" historical fantasy game set on Earth in the 1400s (specifically, in France, Italy, and Egypt as the campagin's progressed). My 6th level Oracle owns not a single magic item, and it's never been an issue.
I've seen a lot of poeple talk about low-magic campaigns here. But what do you really consider low magic?Well, since you ask...
I've toyed with this concept in a few games. Magic itself is common, but magic items are nearly impossible to make. No item creation feats exist, nor does the permancy spell.
Why? Because suddenly the party's buff casters are much more important. Buff spells are the only way to get a magic weapon, ever, the only way to get a resistance bonus on saves, or an upgrade to armor.
This works well for a low-level campaign, where spellcasters are usually notably weaker than melees in several areas. Be careful though, if you take this to high levels; at high levels, full spellcasters already have a tendancy to be dominating, and they have far less need for magical items than the more mundane characters. Their biggest weakness, being physically vulnerable, is also lessened a lot due to things like flying, stone skin, elemental resistances and the like. Buff casters are already important; if you look around at a lot of the theorycrafting that is done on both arcane and divine casters, buffing is a major combat role for those (even for the wizard, who is usually seen as far less buffy than the cleric or druid, buffing is one of the three major methods of "god" wizardry). Fighters, monks, barbarians and the like already tend to have a hard time keeping up with full spellcasters at high levels.
There is a very noticable risk that mundane characters and even half-casters such as the bard will feel like sidekicks to the spellcasters. This will most often need to either unhappy players, or a party setup like wizard/wizard/cleric/druid instead of the standard, which doesn't feel in any way low magic.
This can be avoided, but is hard without restructuring a lot.
1. This is the easiest method and the one I would recommend. Give out fake treasure. Instead of the fighter finding a +1 magic sword, he gets 2000 Award Points which can be spent on a bonus of +1 to attacks and damage with melee weapons wielded in the hand of choice. This is actually very easy to do with the WBL; give each player maybe their WBL (or a part thereof and the rest in gold pieces and useful mundane items) in award points. Any basic numerical stat that can be gained by magic items (such as +1 saves, +4 armor bonus, +1 deflection AC bonus, +2 attack bonus/+2 damage bonus and so on) can be bought with these award points.
2. This works for some items, but not for others. Reflavouring. You CAN give the fighter a +3 sword in a low-magic campaign; it's just not a +3 MAGIC sword. It's the legendary Sword of the Seven, forged by seven generations of dwarven smiths out of the hardest dragonbone you will ever see. It's incredibly sharp and well-balanced, and although it carries no magic, it's a sword of myth that is seen as holy by the dwarves. It grants a +3 bonus to attack rolls and damage. You can even do some special effects by reflavoring, such as defending, keen and the like; those are abilities not as well suited for method 1.
3. If you're going for a "magic is a fickle and dangeorus thing" theme, explaining the lack of magic items, you can include some kind of caster level check on casting spells so that there's a very real risk of failing or even miscasting. This is as hard to balance as anything, and I don't recommend it, but it's better than to let the spellcasters get full power and everyone else get nothing.
As said, this is mostly a problem at higher levels. At level 1-6 you should be able to get away with it with no issues, because spellcasters still have something of a drawback in many situations; the rogue is usually the better sneak, the fighter usually climbs faster and can take a punch and the barbarian is still faster. 7-8 is something of a gray zone where spells like Dimension Door and and the more casual access to spells like Fly results in a big boost to the mages, but the big issues start at level 9 where they can practically fly all day, negating their biggest weakness.
Well I'm not really doing "low magic", rather controlled magic...
I guess it's more a cultural thing for me and my players, I'm french, here weapons are heavily controlled, you can't have a gun, in order to buy one you need a lot of legal paper... Or go to the blackmarket of course :p
In a world where magic exist and is a real power I think you HAVE to assume that governments will try to control it.
Do you really think that a government will let everyone have access to let's say a fireball wand ? Without control ? Or let people having access to invisibility so they can go whereever they want without being noticed ?
If the government don't control a minimum magic then you have to assume that people will do themselves (meaning an escalation in magic everywhere), all shops will have a magic way to prevent magic fake gold or invisible stealer, every tavern will have a wizard has guard, and I don't talk of gambling establishment...
So yes, if you think of it you have to control magic...
In my homemade world it's simple : There's only one big guild of wizard and sorcerer. It's located on a group of islands and is a magiocratie, the "queen" is a true dragon. They take every wizard or sorcerer to be when they are childs, every country on the continent (except one who consider magic an heresy and burn everything and everyone related to magic) will send their futur to be magician or sorcerer to these islands, they control magic on the continent.
You can be a wizard out of the guild but ressources such as spell or difficult component will be very difficult to find.
They provide wizard and sorcerer to the other nations, they got "magic mart" but you have to be affiliated, in good term or an official of the country to have access to the more dangerous items.
Same with the different church... You want some potent potion, holy magic object ? You'd better have a good reputation with the church, or credential...
Seriously how can a monarch rule if everyone can go to a shop, buy a powerfull magic item and begin breaking havoc in town with it ?
P.S. : I always use reputation points in my games ;)
As mentioned earlier: Expand the non-magical to mimic the +1-3 tier of "magical items". A +1-3 sword is just REALLY masterwork. +2 stat items are mostly seeped in superstition and grant placebo effects (the +2 int headband is made from a material that helps conduct magic, and makes the wearer feel more connected to it), and so on.
Real magical items are all named things that are spoken of in hushed voices, feared for their potential and ability to inspire people to rally to them. Every real magical item should have a purpose, akin to intelligent items, and get enough spotlight to make the players to realize that they are holding something important.
Also realize that in a world where magic does not exist, technology takes a much greater role unless there is a world-spanning force holding it back. We would likely be in space, have FTL travel and whatnot if it were not for religions/governments/corporations bogging down progress IRL for their own profit.
Conan has been brought up as an example of low-magic. But Conan is also set in the cradle of civilization, people barely into the iron age, having recently (and not universally) evolved into what we consider humans.
As for the whole "keep the monsters as they are" argument; sure. Just bump CR by 1 for the "unfavorable condition" by default, and another +1 for the "Better equipped" if the monster has severe DR/SLA's.
|
Maybe it's just that I'm a fan of Lovecraft and Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu game, but I've always been a fan of monsters that aren't easily solved by head-on combat. Don't get me wrong, I understand that Pathfinder/D&D is a different type of game, with a more heroic bent. But I don't think you need to throw tons of magical items at characters to achieve that.
Anyhow, I didn't come here to defend or justify a playstyle that I may or may not use in approximately six months when I return from my deployment. I just wanted to see what others considered low magic, and maybe hear one or two good ideas that I may or may not choose to incorperate.
All this talk of low magic and the like has made me want to explore The Grand Ducky of Alkenstar, The Magic-dead Scientific Microstate in the Pathfinder setting. I see the basis for an interesting campaign as players from there are forced to venture out into the rest of the magic infused realm.
Maybe it's just that I'm a fan of Lovecraft and Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu game, but I've always been a fan of monsters that aren't easily solved by head-on combat. Don't get me wrong, I understand that Pathfinder/D&D is a different type of game, with a more heroic bent. But I don't think you need to throw tons of magical items at characters to achieve that.
Anyhow, I didn't come here to defend or justify a playstyle that I may or may not use in approximately six months when I return from my deployment. I just wanted to see what others considered low magic, and maybe hear one or two good ideas that I may or may not choose to incorperate.
CoC is a VERY different game. Pathfinder is supposed to be heroic, where your characters are supposed to be able to take on challenges through teamwork and courage. Not luck and lengthy investigation to compensate for the lack of competence and power.
Also, a "magical item" in Pathfinder is definitely not the same as a magical item in, say, Lord of the Rings. The one ring is an true artifact, as is the rings of the kings of men, the elves and dwarves. Sting would be a highly magical (+4 defending keen) and intelligent weapon in my book. Frodo's mithril shirt would be a +5 Heavy Fortification. Aragorn's sword in Return of the King would be a lesser artifact.
Because +1 does not make enough of a difference mechanically to get the "magical weapon of yore" treatment in my book. It carries a basic enchantment that now even blacksmiths with two feats can create. It is just better, not awe-inspiring, and definitely not the stuff of legends.
Also, a "magical item" in Pathfinder is definitely not the same as a magical item in, say, Lord of the Rings. The one ring is an true artifact, as is the rings of the kings of men, the elves and dwarves. Sting would be a highly magical (+4 defending keen) and intelligent weapon in my book. Frodo's mithril shirt would be a +5 Heavy Fortification. Aragorn's sword in Return of the King would be a lesser artifact.
Ehm... Why? Do the weapons ever do something that can be used as evidence to that? I mean, you've probably read the article "gandalf was a 5th level magic user", and even if it should be taken with a handful of salt (does that expression exist in english?) there's no reason to assume they were carrying around stuff like D&D artifacts.
And is the mithral shirt even magic? Was a while since I read them, but I have no memory of them mentioning any special powers beyond being light and strong. And it really doesn't do that much; it protects from a stray javelin and, IIRC, an arrow in book 2 (though I'm unsure on that).|
|
The only equipment of the Fellowship that really stands out as magical are the Rings of Power (although Gandalf never once uses his), a couple of swords that glow when orcs are near, and the amulet of light that Sam carries. Others are debateable, like Gandalf's staff, but are never blatantly seen to be magical in and of themselves.
Also, a "magical item" in Pathfinder is definitely not the same as a magical item in, say, Lord of the Rings. The one ring is an true artifact, as is the rings of the kings of men, the elves and dwarves. Sting would be a highly magical (+4 defending keen) and intelligent weapon in my book. Frodo's mithril shirt would be a +5 Heavy Fortification. Aragorn's sword in Return of the King would be a lesser artifact.Ehm... Why? Do the weapons ever do something that can be used as evidence to that? I mean, you've probably read the article "gandalf was a 5th level magic user", and even if it should be taken with a handful of salt (does that expression exist in english?) there's no reason to assume they were carrying around stuff like D&D artifacts.
And is the mithral shirt even magic? Was a while since I read them, but I have no memory of them mentioning any special powers beyond being light and strong. And it really doesn't do that much; it protects from a stray javelin and, IIRC, an arrow in book 2 (though I'm unsure on that).
Actually, the mithril shirt enables Frodo to survive a direct hit to the guts from a spear wielded by a cave troll (probably equivalent to hill giant or larger in D&D terms) with just a bruise. To put in game terms, that was probably a 20-25 pt. hit that was translated into non-lethal damage (it did knock him out). Pretty good, even if the book never says specifically that it is magical.
As for the ring - definitely an artifact. No possible argument against.
Anduril - again the book doesn't directly say its magic, but it is spoken of as being exceptionally sharp and well-crafted, and even of flames running down it (although that could be just literary license)
As for the Gandalf is a 5th level wizard article, I've read it and it left me completely cold (and yes, the saying exists in English, only we say grain of salt). If you read the backstory of the Istari (wizards) in the Silmarillion, it becomes apparent that Gandalf is actually a demigod who voluntarily accepted limits on his power in order to return to Middle Earth and act as a guide/adviser for men. He doesn't use magic throughout most of the book not because he isn't capable of it, but because he chooses not to. Remember that he solo kills another demigod, the balrog (inspiration for the D&D Type VI Demon/Balor), in the first book. I don't know of any 5th level wizard who could do that.
All this is to say that it is not easy to compare works of fiction to games, as much fun as it is to do so. LOTR was published more than 20 years before D&D first came out. The book, along with other classic works of fantasy, provided much of the inspiration for D&D, but Gygax and Co. did not try and rigorously recreate all elements of the book in the game. And the game has evolved a lot in the nearly 40 years since then, moving away to some detgree from its roots in fantasy literature and incorporating material and influences from other media like video and computer games, movies and anime.
Ehm... Why? Do the weapons ever do something that can be used as evidence to that? I mean, you've probably read the article "gandalf was a 5th level magic user", and even if it should be taken with a handful of salt (does that expression exist in english?) there's no reason to assume they were carrying around stuff like D&D artifacts.
And is the mithral shirt even magic? Was a while since I read them, but I have no memory of them mentioning any special powers beyond being light and strong. And it really doesn't do that much; it protects from a stray javelin and, IIRC, an arrow in book 2 (though I'm unsure on that).
I've never bought into the arguments behind "Gandalf was a 5th level magic user". One thing about magic, it can be very subtle. That's part of the charm of the items that simply give a bonus.
The stuff that the Fellowship tote around in LotR could certainly be defined as artifacts... or not. There's a certain amount of art to translating the book into a game term. Certainly Anduril has an impressive lineage. But would any mundane sword have been able to cut off the finger of Sauron? Maybe, maybe not. You could go either way. I'd consider having the sword have a decent bonus, maybe have a sharpness property, and probably give the rightful wielder a Charisma bonus (not that Aragorn needs it much, but it would seem to fit) or at least a rallying bonus on some kind of command.
As far as the mithril shirt goes, it could easily be interpreted as magical with additional bonuses beyond the protection of a normal chain shirt (in D&D terms, at least). The Dwarves of Lonely Mountain were master craftsmen whose descendents went on to make magical toys. Magic armor seems right in keeping with their peak skill before Smaug.
It's far more art, at this point, than science.
|
I think a great example of a low magic fantasy world is Tolkien's books. Yes, there are magic swords, but you could count them up pretty quickly. Their magic effects are quite subtle anyway. They are just really, really good swords that are really hard to break. Nothing flaming, or eating souls.
Actually, Stormbringer is rather derivative of Anglachel, Eol's sword (The Silmarillion...Including that fact that it moans and curses it's bearer to slay those closest to him.It's a pretty major weapon'
I've been a fan of that particular part of the Silmarillion since I was pretty young.Oh, found the WIki...Ha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglachel#Parallel_in_other_literature
Middle Earth, by the time of the Third Age could be defined as 'Low Magic', certainly, but it was definitely not that way in the First Age, and perhaps even the Second Age, when all of the super mighty Items of Power were created... 'The Rings,' for example.
Who;e armies of elves in 'Elven Cloak&Boots', etc...
-Uriel
Actually, Stormbringer is rather derivative of Anglachel, Eol's sword (The Silmarillion...Including that fact that it moans and curses it's bearer to slay those closest to him.It's a pretty major weapon'
I've been a fan of that particular part of the Silmarillion since I was pretty young.
Since the writing of the core Elric saga predates the publication of the Silmarillion, we have to look to the common source they are both derivatives of - the story of Kullervo.
Oh, look, the kids are awake...
*rolleyes* What's wrong with you?
The OP asked for opinions on Low-magic campaigns,
Not quite. Pay attention. He asked how people define them - you went all wacky.
I submit, that really, in the end, all of the opinions here mean jack. What really means anything, is what the OP's players think of all this. If his group is onboard with a low-magic campaign, that's great. His group should be working out the details.
Finally, something semi-valuable out of your posts. He still asked how other people define "low magic", though.
|
|
Since the writing of the core Elric saga predates the publication of the Silmarillion, we have to look to the common source they are both derivatives of - the story of Kullervo.
Actually, Stormbringer is rather derivative of Anglachel, Eol's sword (The Silmarillion...Including that fact that it moans and curses it's bearer to slay those closest to him.It's a pretty major weapon'
I've been a fan of that particular part of the Silmarillion since I was pretty young.
Oh,I wasn't downing Moorcock, I'm quite a fan, actually ( I agree, both have a common ancestor. Likewise,MM could hardly have 'borrowed' from Tolkien in this respect...even though the resemblance is uncanny: A Black greatsword that moans and sings,curses it's bearer to slay his closest friend and loved ones... and it is destined to slay Gods.).
What I was saying is that Anglechel is not a 'Low Magic' weapon, likewise with many of the First Age weapons (Beleg's bow, Maeglin's spear,Maedros' magic hand,the Silmarrils,etc...).
Again,I would agree with the opinion that the Third Age is rather 'low magic',in that access to spellcasting is limited )One has to find hidden Rivendell to get any healing,and even Gandalf doesn't find it at a DC 10 Survival/Know-Geography check.. :D
Before this, however, Magic was much more common, although Tolkien doesn't write about fancy/flashy fireballs and teleports everywhere,, but rather subtle magics, musical enchantments (Bards), the obvious Necromantic slant of Sauron,as well as Morgoth's breeding experiments, etc...
-Uriel
|
|
Definition... I suppose that If I were to designate a 'Low Magic' game, a few things would have to be in place.
No PC Magic Item Creation, or at least not as the PF/D&D system does it.
I have always been a fan of having to get this rare ingredient for the item,dip it in this enchanted spring, forge it it that volcanic cave, etc... Entire quests based around the creation of an Item.
I would dispense with Clerics (Oracles are actually more in keeping with the feel, as I perceive it). No direct communication with 'the Gods'.
These Gods might not even exist...
Likewise,I would ditch Wizards, at least as a PC option. Limit the number of NPC wizards, and make them more of a source of Knowledge for Quests, etc...
PC races: While I would not just throw out the D&D races,playing anything other than a human would become rare. I suppose that half-orcs and half-elves might be somewhat uncommon, but elves and dwarfs shouldn't be.
However, people in such a World would have to learn how to combat Magical beasts, so I would probably make classes such as Paladins and Inquisitors less rare.Especially Inquisitors, as someone will have gone to lengths to know how to deal with Vampires, Demons, etc...
My friend Kit is about to start a more primative game, set amidst the Realm of the Mammoth Lords (Or similar),
Allowable races are Human, 1/2 Elf,1/2 Orc (We are a family/tribe).
Classes are,IIRC: Barbarian,Bard(Skald),Druid,Oracle,Ranger,
Rogue(Scout or Trapmaster only),Sorc,Witch...
No item Creation Feats(Except for some one-shot fetish stuff from a KQ),
Wemight encounter magic stuff, but it will be rare.
-Uriel
This works well for a low-level campaign, where spellcasters are usually notably weaker than melees in several areas. Be careful though, if you take this to high levels; at high levels, full spellcasters already have a tendancy to be dominating, and they have far less need for magical items than the more mundane characters.
For reference, my playtest of this went from 1st to 21st level. Now, the party leader (a ranger) did manage to pick up an artifact weapon (one specifically designed for fighting her favored enemies) but it required a fairly long and intensive quest to get it. By 21st level, each party member had one (and only one) magical item, that they'd worked and sweated for. None of them were stat or AC boosts either; weapons for the full babs and other melee characters (ie the rogue) and other unique items (often with daily uses) for the primary spellcasters.
It was a fairly gritty and intense game, and I will say for the record that yes, the spellcasters needing to buff more DID mean the party needed to rest more often than Pathfinder standard. But, it also helped to BALANCE the high level spellcasters, because instead of battle field control or insta-kills, they often had to buff the first round or two of combat. Oh, and combats tended to have faster rounds but last more rounds (possibly because of that delay getting the casters into the fight). It also built a lot of teamwork.
This can be avoided, but is hard without restructuring a lot.
1. This is the easiest method and the one I would recommend. Give out fake treasure. Instead of the fighter finding a +1 magic sword, he gets 2000 Award...
Someone else also suggested +3 masterworks. I actually tried that in another game long ago (back in 3.5... no, wait, maybe 3.0) and that worked out okay, but (with spellcasters and the Greater Magic Weapon spell) it was never really necessary.
Oh, and of course, Bonded Items still worked. So, if there'd been a Wizard in the party (there wasn't) he/she could have made a personal magic item. Never came up though. There was a Paladin who had a magic holy sword for a few rounds per day (before she claimed her questy artifact weapon) and even after that she still used the ability if she needed something to overcome elemental regen.
Anyway, not saying that this is everyone's cup of tea. In fact, after 20 levels of this, I was like "okay, time to see how well Pathfinder works in Eberron" which as everyone knows is the land of magic items everywhere. But I liked it well enough to come back to it again a year later and play in someone else's no magic item game. All I was saying is that it worked out for my group with no CR adjustment, just a realization that if the party didn't work together and keep everyone buffed (and rest when they ran out of buffs) they'd end up getting themselves killed.
I've never bought into the arguments behind "Gandalf was a 5th level magic user". One thing about magic, it can be very subtle. That's part of the charm of the items that simply give a bonus.
... personally, I always thought Gandalf was a Druid.
Why?
He makes the sun rise.
He summons Eagels to save him and his party.
He hangs out with Wood Elves, and wears one of the Elven rings (this one's entirely circumstancial).
He stands on a bridge and tries to PHYSICALLY halt a Balor (which is probably the reason everyone makes him Epic level).
He summons a really awesome horse to be an animal companion, or
something similar.
And he has an unspecified evocation duel with a wizard.
These sound like things a Druid would do to me. Or some sort of "Nature Wizard" alt class feature. *shrug* I'm not in love with the idea or anything, just something to think about.
I've been toying with some low magic ideas lately and have turned to the d20 Call of Cthuhlu book for some ideas. IMHO, Low Magic is dangerous, rare and, more often than not, fully corrupting. Those who use it in a good manner have issues staying that way (and thus forms the core struggle for such characters), and the magic itself isn't as flashy as it's high magic cousin.
Spells such as Magic Missile or Prismatic Spray aren't as commonly used as Summons and Divinations. The few offensive spells seem more like life drains and necromantic curses than ones we'd normally associate a fantasy game with. Things like Skeletons & Zombies do exist, but are rare, and creatures like Dragons are unheard of in such a setting. If I were to run a low-magic game tomorrow, I think I would use something like:
• Druids, Witches & Sorcerers are the only spellcasters allowed. Depending on the world, I may also allow alchemists and Bards wouldn't have spells (or perhaps be an archetype for the Rogue). But the rest are off limits.
• Magic Burn & Rituals. Every time a spell is cast, the use must make a Will save vs. his casting DC. Failure means you take 1d6/spell level in damage. In some cases, a spellcaster may have to take damage to cast a spell or make the proper offering (especially the more powerful ones). This would be set up as a Spellcraft check, with a DC (15+Spell Level) to cast.
• Magic Items would be EXTREMELY rare and, at most, might be something mundane or offering a +2 enchantment bonus.
• Literacy would be a 1st Level Feat or Trait. If you don't have it, you don't read.
The only equipment of the Fellowship that really stands out as magical are the Rings of Power (although Gandalf never once uses his), a couple of swords that glow when orcs are near, and the amulet of light that Sam carries. Others are debateable, like Gandalf's staff, but are never blatantly seen to be magical in and of themselves.
I'm fairly certain gandalf's staff is magical. I don't have a quote here, but IIRC the gandalf was a 5th lvl MU has some comments on it.
Actually, the mithril shirt enables Frodo to survive a direct hit to the guts from a spear wielded by a cave troll (probably equivalent to hill giant or larger in D&D terms) with just a bruise. To put in game terms, that was probably a 20-25 pt. hit that was translated into non-lethal damage (it did knock him out). Pretty good, even if the book never says specifically that it is magical.
Why do you assume that the cave troll is equal to a hill giant? Nothing indicates that, or do you know something I don't? From what we know, it could just as easily be equivalent to an ogre or non-regenerating troll. And no, it doesn't have to mean some kind of magic conversion because magic is never mentioned.
I think the best way to compare would be to actually compare it with a troll, since D&D has heavy LoTR influence and a troll might be similiar to a troll (though LoTR trolls are a fair bit shorter)A troll has an attack bonus of +8. Frodo, which likely had at least 12 in dexterity as well as a +1 size bonus, would have a base AC of 12. Add the chain shirt and it bumps up to 16; what could have happened just as well is that the troll rolled a 5 on the attack roll, so that with a combination of luck (not being hit where the chain shirt wasn't, like the head, for example) and a good chain shirt he was kept relatively unharmed. D&D doesn't have armor as damage reduction, so being knocked out by a hit, while quite common in real fights as well as in literature, is very uncommon here.
As for the Gandalf is a 5th level wizard article, I've read it and it left me completely cold (and yes, the saying exists in English, only we say grain of salt). If you read the backstory of the Istari (wizards) in the Silmarillion, it becomes apparent that Gandalf is actually a demigod who voluntarily accepted limits on his power in order to return to Middle Earth and act as a guide/adviser for men. He doesn't use magic throughout most of the book not because he isn't capable of it, but because he chooses not to. Remember that he solo kills another demigod, the balrog (inspiration for the D&D Type VI Demon/Balor), in the first book. I don't know of any 5th level wizard who could do that.
I know that he's a demigod, but first off, we don't know what demigods in LoTR can do, and secondly, the article (and I now) is talking about the power he has in his human form. It's also clear that he COULD have more power - the article points that out - it's just that there's nothing definate to indicate it.
You could replace the whole LoTR saga without giving him more than 5 wizard levels and his magic staff (if it is magic). Though he's clearly more akin to a sorcerer than a wizard, so it would have to be 6th level; the article was written when vancian magic was the only available.
The point is, sure, they could be stronger than what we get to know. Even though Aragorn slays at most a halfscore orcs it could verywell be that he could single-handedly slay a squadron of Glabrezu's; it's just that it in no way has to be that way.
This also eliminates 99% of treasure. Masterwork is as good as it gets, so there's no need to give the PCs enough cash to buy entire nations in any sane economy.
Funny story this reminded me of. I was running a campaign and at one point I didn't notice it but one character stopped buying pretty much anything. She kept taking her share of the loot and kept one or two items, but mostly just took gold or sold the items she got for money. This was around 6th level.
Well sometime around 14th level they got some time off and I asked each character what they were doing with their time off. The conversation went like this:
Me: So what are you doing with your time off?
Player: I want to buy an island.
Me: You what?!
Player: I want to buy an island.
Me: How much do you have?
Player: I have X (I forget the exact amount, but it was enormous)
Me: How did you get that much money?
Player: I haven't spent any treasure for the last 8 levels.
The player looked on the map and found an island at the corner of three nations, two of which still existed. Then she went to each nation and bribed them with a huge some of money to acknowledge her as the lord and soverign of the island. The island was only about 5 miles long and 3 miles wide at it's widest point, so it wasn't that huge. It was where two rivers met and had it been any smaller it wouldn't have shown up on the map.
The villagers accepted her happily when she announced that she was ending taxes. As a druid she kept most of the island still as wilderness, although a couple of creatures were invited to move in. (Some neutral displacer beasts she raised herself, a gold dragon, a mimic that is large enough to be and enjoys the form of a gazeebo)
You're doing it wrong.
If you and your group are having fun, then you are doing it right. Certainly don't mislead a group into playing low-magic without warning. But if that's the sort of game your players want to play, go for it.
You'll have to be able to judge your parties capabilities to design encounters.
I'm currently running a high-magic game at 15th level. I can say you always need to be able to judge what an encounter can do to your group. I've had APL +10 encounters that my group defeated, and APL +2 encounters that they were nearly wiped by. Of course, my group at this point has a staff that can do Resurrection, so if I make a mistake they can usually recover from it. Low-magic you definitely want to er on the side of caution.
OMG DR will ruin your player's life.
My high level group fights stuff they can't break the DR of all the time. It just makes feats like Vital Strike more important. Also, 3.5/PF is much more forgiving about DR. I've played in a low-magic 3.0 game, and fighting DR 40/+4 is way tougher than 20/evil. I say feel free to take advantage of the DR/material monsters more. The research for what material defeats what monster can be a great way to add a bit of the Call of Cthulhu feel to a Pathfinder game. If you are allowing player's to be spellcasters things like Magic Weapon and Greater Magic Weapon can be very helpful in cases like these.
What does low-magic look like to you?
If I were to run a low-magic game I would likely use E6 as my base. If magic items are capped at what a 6th level caster can make, you are looking at things like a +2 sword. Of course, low-magic there are no magic item shops, so as a GM you can control what they find.
I'm also a big fan of improving magic items as people level. Instead of giving them a brand new sword, maybe they learn a new command word that unlocks a previously unknown ability. This is also a good way to run a high-magic/low magic item game. Then you can make that first magic sword they earn really worth something to them, and become as much a part of the story as Stormbringer or Anduril.
|
|
But what do you really consider low magic?
Simply this; every single piece of magic is important to the story/plot/events.
If there's a magic sword that someone starts with, make it an ancestral something, charge a feat (Rightful wielder, or some such), and then make the thing level up as the story progresses.
If there is a spellcaster, make them hyper-specialize their theme.
If that Wizard is a Fire wizard, throwing fire (every spell you can tweak into doing so) is thematically the same capability. I don't really have a problem with them throwing different kinds of fire, say lightning or acid, as long as it's still described closely enough as fire, to fit the theme.
But more importantly, because it's an extension of the wielder's capabilities (or their ties to the past), and because there isn't a lot of them, you invent encounters where it's one of the keys to resolution.
Why do you assume that the cave troll is equal to a hill giant? Nothing indicates that, or do you know something I don't? From what we know, it could just as easily be equivalent to an ogre or non-regenerating troll. And no, it doesn't have to mean some kind of magic conversion because magic is never mentioned.
I think the best way to compare would be to actually compare it with a troll, since D&D has heavy LoTR influence and a troll might be similiar to a troll (though LoTR trolls are a fair bit shorter)A troll has an attack bonus of +8. Frodo, which likely had at least 12 in dexterity as well as a +1 size bonus, would have a base AC of 12. Add the chain shirt and it bumps up to 16; what could have happened just as well is that the troll rolled a 5 on the attack roll, so that with a combination of luck (not being hit where the chain shirt wasn't, like the head, for example) and a good chain shirt he was kept relatively unharmed. D&D doesn't have armor as damage reduction, so being knocked out by a hit, while quite common in real fights as well as in literature, is very uncommon here.
One last post before I stop contributing to this threadjack. The D&D troll is not drawn from the LOTR troll. It's drawn from Northern European mythology, I believe. Tolkien's trolls were not green and skinny, and didn't regenerate. They also turned to stone in full daylight. You could make an argument for ogre, but ogres in D&D are relatively pathetic, whereas cave trolls in LOTR are definitely not. Hill giant is not a good fit, either, but it approximates the power of a cave troll as closely as possible, in my opinion.
You're right that generic D&D magic items don't do damage reduction, but rather decrease your chance of getting hit. Well, he was definitely hit, or he wouldn't have gone unconscious. He didn't faint from the near miss. So, if you were going to translate the item to D&D terms, it would likely be a unique item rather than a standard one, perhaps one that translated all lethal damage into non-lethal damage or that granted near invulnerability. Remember the quote from Aragorn after the Moria scene when his mithril coat is discovered, to the effect that all the arrows of all the hunters in the world would be in vain if Frodo were wearing that shirt? Doesn't sounds like a normal D&D mithril shirt to me, or even one with a few simple plusses on it. Sounds pretty darn powerful.
Well, he was definitely hit, or he wouldn't have gone unconscious. He didn't faint from the near miss. So, if you were going to translate the item to D&D terms, it would likely be a unique item rather than a standard one, perhaps one that translated all lethal damage into non-lethal damage or that granted near invulnerability.
Actually that depends on what you imagine hit points to represent. One way to look at high HP is representing an experienced character's ability to turn a normally fatal blow aside and get bruised instead of stabbed. A slice that would have opened a normal man's gut is just a cut because he pulled back as the blow came in, etc.
Frodo's shirt is probably much easier to explain in a system that has damage reduction for armor (like Warhammer and others) instead of the standard D&D reduced chance to hit. On the other hand, you could make Frodo's shirt grant DR. There are lots of ways to represent it depending on the feel you want for the game.
One of the interesting details in the 3.5 DMG (not sure if PF carried it over, though) is the detail in the magic items section that said that sometimes magic does go bad over time.
Was that core, or in the cursed item section or what?
In my, admittedly not very extensive, experience as a player, "low magic" indeed meant "full casters are rare, but existing ones are gods on Earth".
When I, as a GM, say "low magic", I really mean "low level". I like to start my campaigns in regions without too much crazy stuff, resembling standard pseudomedieval settings. This just means that NPCs above level 5 are seriously rare in these places, and so are monsters that can't be realistically killed by a few dozens archers of level 1-3.
To me, 'low magic' primarily refers to magic items. They're few to non-existent, and the techniques with which they are made have either been lost or never existed in mortal capabilities at all. Powerful magic users exist, but spellcasting takes more time and doesn't last the way that it can in many venues, and even 'permanent' spells need to be maintained, which means that any mage is limiting their own magic by maintaining them. Other creatures are rare, and some are even almost invulnerable to things aside from magic, but they have weaknesses that can be exploited. Like fire.
Much of my view came after going through Anima: Beyond Fantasy, but that is a system in which it works almost perfectly, IMO. I like it, and adjusting Pathfinder to fit it would be difficult, but not impossible, I think.
I'd define low magic as the only kind of campaing that I'm willing to play in.
Screw you Eberron with your Warforged ! :P
|
|
There's also the possiblity of a world that was once high-magic, but some sort of disaster occured, and:
a) magic naturally drained out of the world, or
b) magic and spellcasters were blamed...leading to persecution of spellcasters and spellbook burnings (along with other magic items).
I kind of like the latter option. It gives a perfectly rational explaination for why the world would be in such a low-magic state. While it doesn't rule out PC casters, it does discourage them, and make them less likely to be blatantly obvious about being a caster.