What kind of party would you (try to) put together if no-one was allowed to take a class that eventually got 9th level spells. Lets assume a 5 PC party built using what I call the "Superelite Array": 16,15,14,13,11,9.
What kinds of opponents would you throw at such a party?
I'm presenting this as a bit of a thought exercise for people to get out of the "only pure casters are useful" mindset.
The Party
Rogue, Fighter, Paladin, Bard, and Summoner.
Rogue: Skill monkey, decent DPR
Fighter: Tank Good DPR, would probably go Archer
Paladin: Healer/tank
Bard: Buff and debuff, so-so fighter, maybe an archer
Summoner: Eidalon Frontline fighter
The enemies
Golems: Pure spell casters have to work a little to be very useful against their spell immunity.
Demons/Devils: Crunchy for the paladin, challenge for everyone.
In the end, I don't see you needing to modify encounters to allow for a group without pure casters to take it on.
Would you accept a member of a full-spellcasting class if the player never pushed the spellcasting stat above 16 (and so were limited to 6th level spells)?
Would you accept a member of a full-spellcasting class if the player never pushed the spellcasting stat above 16 (and so were limited to 6th level spells)?
Not at the moment. You've gotta think about the mislabled "lower tier" classes. And I'd like to see something other than "Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Summoner, X" over and over again.
From core classes, that eliminates 4: Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, & Wizard.
Leaving 7: Barbarian, Bard, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, & Rogue.
I would want a bard & paladin so that there would be some healing and a handful of useful low-level spells that the game assumes you have. (Detect Magic and Identify come to mind.) I'd want a rogue for traps, locks, and various skills.
I would probably use:
Barbarian
Bard
Fighter
Paladin
Rogue
Adding the APG, we would skip Oracle & Witch, and pick up: Alchemist, Antipaladin, Cavalier, Inquisitor, & Summoner.
I would leave out antipaladin, cavalier, and summoner, possibly substituting Alchemist or Inquisitor into the group in the barbarian's place.
My first thought: five Paladins.
Would make for an interesting crusader style game.
My first thought: five Paladins.
Would make for an interesting crusader style game.
I am planning this kind of setup for a game at PaizoCon.
group of mounted classes, all different too, ranger, barbarian, fighter, cavalier, ect.
|
The Half-Casters
Alchemist
Bard
Inquisitor
Summoner
Magus
The Half-Caste...rs. Magus and Eidolon would take front-line duties. Inquisitor and Alchemist would take ranged attack duties. Bard and Summoner would take mid-fielder/medic duties.
A group like the above begs to have horrible arcane mutants thrown at them. Aberrations and Outsiders thematically fit a group of monster hunters/jacks of all trades.
No Magic No Cry
Barbarian
Fighter
Monk
Rogue
Cavalier
Rogue and Monk scout ahead and return with information about each room ahead. Fighter, Barbarian and Cavalier knowing enemy positions and make up head in and kill everything in sight without blinking. Rogue should take UMD for Cure Light Wound healsies.
A group like this does best against humanoid enemies, especially in a war-time scenario with lots of open spaces. They'd probably be mercenaries out to prove that you don't need magic to get the job done.
|
Commoners and Experts. The goal here is not to win (as that's not happening regardless) but to screw around and mess with the DM until he stops being absurd.What kind of party would you (try to) put together if no-one was allowed to take a class that eventually got 9th level spells. Lets assume a 5 PC party built using what I call the "Superelite Array": 16,15,14,13,11,9.
What kinds of opponents would you throw at such a party?
I'm presenting this as a bit of a thought exercise for people to get out of the "only pure casters are useful" mindset.
Would you have called it absurd if it was about a "Very Low" (or even "No") Magic world, where where caster classes were off the list?
Regardless the "goal" is never "To Win". It is to enjoy yourself while playing a game.
Commoners and Experts. The goal here is not to win (as that's not happening regardless) but to screw around and mess with the DM until he stops being absurd.
I rand a 3.5 game with rules pretty close to this, and the players really enjoyed it. I wrote the game world accordingly and told the players before they made characters, of course.
|
If I were putting together a party where there were no full casters I would love to see: An inquisitor, A rogue, a barbarian, a bard, & a bow focused ranger.
The inquisitor can be very fighty and also help cover healing.
The bard is a good "fifth man" in any party and will be there to act as a performance enhancer for the rest of the party (and also take up some of the healing slack.)
A rogue is good for traps and scouting.
The barbarian will be up front with the inquisitor handing out servings of "the pain."
The ranger will be providing much needed ranged support.
If we're going completely non-magical then it would be 2 rogues, 2 fighters and a barbarian.
The rogues would focus on mobility, one fighter would be melee, the other ranged, the barbarian would again be the front line guy, but everyone would have a range weapon they could use from ambush.
Both parties would eventually want to hire an NCP adept (if possible) to supplement healing. The magic-less party would focus more on surprise, hit & run, ambush tactics, and have generally higher CON scores instead of focusing on having really high STR or DEX.
==
AKA 8one6
1 Bard, 3 Paladins, and...something else? Ranger? Maybe Rogue? Probably a 4th Paladin (possibly a Cavalier, just to shake things up).
(UMD for everybody!)
I'd have them fight hordes of evil outsiders; a small band of holy warriors waging a campaign against the minions of Hell and/or the Abyss. Alternatively 1 Bard and 4 Anti-Paladins (or 3 and a Cavalier, just to shake things up) tackling those horrible angels and crusaders preventing them from reaching their goals.
What kind of party would you (try to) put together if no-one was allowed to take a class that eventually got 9th level spells. Lets assume a 5 PC party built using what I call the "Superelite Array": 16,15,14,13,11,9.
What kinds of opponents would you throw at such a party?
I'm presenting this as a bit of a thought exercise for people to get out of the "only pure casters are useful" mindset.
If you have to limit the opponents, or the monster's tactics you throw at them then it will only further their argument so you won't change their mindset unless you can show how the game can be run without certain spells.
In short. You have to prove the game can be run without X and still work to get your point across.
|
|
However, many DMs don't think to adjust the encounters to meet the characters new power level, making it unfun for the players as they are unable to meet the challenges put before them.
Many players have had fun having a low/no magic game because it runs counter to teh average DnD game.
Generally something rectified early in a campaign that is low on the magic scale. You will come across monsters that have a magic DR early enough, and if the DM is not adjusting it is brought to his attention quickly.
With low/no magic SR is unneeded so coming on a SR monster does nothing to hamper the PC's and thus will generally be a lower CR than normal.
Monsters that have magic themselves might need a slight bump in the CR department, depending on the amount of magic the monster uses, and the magic's power level.
Still my first point stands. The need to adjust monsters will show up early in the campaign and the DM will get a chance to do so before it gets bad.
|
Still my first point stands. The need to adjust monsters will show up early in the campaign and the DM will get a chance to do so before it gets bad.
Unfortunately, not all DMs take the hint. Even when characters are going from full HP to -8 in one round.
No, I'm not bitter or anything.
Edit: Sorry for continuing the threadjack, D. I'm good now, got it outta my system.
|
|
Still my first point stands. The need to adjust monsters will show up early in the campaign and the DM will get a chance to do so before it gets bad.Unfortunately, not all DMs take the hint. Even when characters are going from full HP to -8 in one round.
No, I'm not bitter or anything.
Edit: Sorry for continuing the threadjack, D. I'm good now, got it outta my system.
Not bitter at all...lol..;)
Yeah if the DM is dense there is going to be issues either way, but that is the minority of the DMs as far as I am concerned.
I just hope that it was deliberately brought to his attention in your case sice it seemed to have been missed by him. What level were you guys?
|
|
I just hope that it was deliberately brought to his attention in your case sice it seemed to have been missed by him. What level were you guys?
Worst part was that magic items existed, he just kept them out of player hands. The harpy we fought later had a magic bow. Our pixie Rogue/Warlock chased her down when she fled, and when he finally blasted her out of the sky, she fell into a lake with the bow. Only a quick pointing out of 'shouldn't it float?' allowed my Scout to have his first magic item at around 6 or 7th level.
He was kind of stubborn, so I don't think talking to him would have done any good. He was very old-school, and despite the lethality, the game was reasonably interesting.
2 paladins, one purely offensive, one ranged & healing focused, so we have Selective Channel for in-combat heals to stem bleeding and such, a bard debuffer, a summoner/buffer and an alchemist to deal with rogue stuff and wash away swarms.
Should be viable until level 10 or so when the gestalt monsters take over.
Should be viable until level 10 or so when the gestalt monsters take over.
What means this "gestalt monsters"? Also, what are gestalt characters? I keep seeing them mentioned, but I have no Idea what they are.
|
Well, my two fave Classes are Wizard and Druid, although I usually DM
(And my game is a 'High Magic' one, I suppose.).Those being out, I'd try for something fun, based on some of the PCs that I have played in years past.
Grundy
Gnome Magus (Homage to my 1st Ed Fighter/Illusionist)
Neraka
Lizard Man Fighter (Polearm Wielder), again, homage to one of my Fave characters from 1st Ed.
Silvercat
Elf Rogue- Acrobat
Eventene
Elf Fighter-Archer
Nyiki Igiro
Hobgoblin Samurai (OK, he was actually a Rolemaster character, but still... )
-Uriel
Should be viable until level 10 or so when the gestalt monsters take over.What means this "gestalt monsters"? Also, what are gestalt characters? I keep seeing them mentioned, but I have no Idea what they are.
Gestalt monsters means monsters that can out-fight a fighter, and casts spells as well as the primary caster classes as a side. Most monster with a higher CR than 12 fit into this descriptor. Until then, most monsters tend to EITHER have spellcasting/SLAs OR be big hulking brutes.
Dragons, Outsiders and Undead have lots of gestalts.
CoDzilla's point is that the system does not support low or no magic.
Since 2e, magic has been better than anything else, and often the only way to deal with encounters past a certain level.
A simple look at low level spells and skills proves my point:
Lv10 Rogue with dex 20, max ranks and skill focus (stealth) is just BARELY better (+24) than a mage with dex14 and no ranks casting invisibility in term of skill (+22). But we all know that the invisible mage is allowed to PROPERLY hide, as stealth is foiled so easy it is silly to even have the skill.
A cheapo magic item gives +5 to a skill. Skill focus gives +3 until lv10 IF you have 10 ranks.
A martial character is made impotent if he doesn't have magical weapons by any DR.
Same character NEEDS magical bonuses to get his AC up to a relevant level if you are using the system as is.
Yes, it is possible to circumvent all this, but then you are using some pretty intense homebrew, and then it can hardly be called the same game.
|
|
What kind of party would you (try to) put together if no-one was allowed to take a class that eventually got 9th level spells. Lets assume a 5 PC party built using what I call the "Superelite Array": 16,15,14,13,11,9.
What kinds of opponents would you throw at such a party?
I'm presenting this as a bit of a thought exercise for people to get out of the "only pure casters are useful" mindset.
Probably little. However, I'd adjust my game so that there would be other ways to defeat such foes without having to rely on such spells.
|
|
CoDzilla's point is that the system does not support low or no magic.
Since 2e, magic has been better than anything else, and often the only way to deal with encounters past a certain level.
A simple look at low level spells and skills proves my point:
Lv10 Rogue with dex 20, max ranks and skill focus (stealth) is just BARELY better (+24) than a mage with dex14 and no ranks casting invisibility in term of skill (+22). But we all know that the invisible mage is allowed to PROPERLY hide, as stealth is foiled so easy it is silly to even have the skill.
A cheapo magic item gives +5 to a skill. Skill focus gives +3 until lv10 IF you have 10 ranks.
A martial character is made impotent if he doesn't have magical weapons by any DR.
Same character NEEDS magical bonuses to get his AC up to a relevant level if you are using the system as is.
Yes, it is possible to circumvent all this, but then you are using some pretty intense homebrew, and then it can hardly be called the same game.
His point is limited. The system can easily handle a low/no magic (read Mundane) campaign. Intense home brew not required? In a 3e/PF system it is easy to do. Humanoids + Class levels == ALL opponents.
See when you use a Mundane system you are removing magic and most, if not all, magic items. DR and SR are changed in use. These are not all that hard. AS I said previously SR is not a factor in a no magic system since it is a dead ability. DR of magic type is removed totally, or reduced in use, DRs of a material or weapon damage type are fine as they are completely Mundane.
So comparing the rogue to an invisible mage...
Comparing a magic item boost to feat boost in regards to skills ...
Comparing a fighter in a normal game to one in a Mundane game...
Apples to Oranges...
With NO Invisibility the rogue is the King of Skulk...
With no(or limited) items feat boosts to skills are teh only real way to boost your skills...
If the fighter does not need a magic weapon (nor can he get one) there is no way to compare it to one that does...
It takes a little fore thought, some brain power, but it is hardly intense.
And this is where said poster fails. He thinks the only way to play is Magic out the Wang...and when it is not that style of play he calls it out as impossible to do.
|
|
What kind of party would you (try to) put together if no-one was allowed to take a class that eventually got 9th level spells. Lets assume a 5 PC party built using what I call the "Superelite Array": 16,15,14,13,11,9.
What kinds of opponents would you throw at such a party?
I'm presenting this as a bit of a thought exercise for people to get out of the "only pure casters are useful" mindset.
Ranger ( tracking/stealth/melee focused/range )
Two Kukri / Composite Long BowRogue ( traps/stealth/melee focused/range )
Two Daggers / Composite Short Bow
Bard ( Specal abilitys/Arcane buffs/some melee/social skills )
Rapier / Short Bow
Paladin Hospitaler
( melee focused/some range/specal powers/divine casting )
Falchion
Fighter Phalanx Soldier
( melee focused/combat manuver master )
Halberd / Tower Shield
2 scouts
4 melee
2 range
1 arcane caster
3 divine casters
1 social skills
1 traps
1 tracking
What kinds of opponents would you throw at such a party?
What can't thay do ?
CoDzilla's point is that the system does not support low or no magic.
Since 2e, magic has been better than anything else, and often the only way to deal with encounters past a certain level.
A simple look at low level spells and skills proves my point:
Lv10 Rogue with dex 20, max ranks and skill focus (stealth) is just BARELY better (+24) than a mage with dex14 and no ranks casting invisibility in term of skill (+22). But we all know that the invisible mage is allowed to PROPERLY hide, as stealth is foiled so easy it is silly to even have the skill.
A cheapo magic item gives +5 to a skill. Skill focus gives +3 until lv10 IF you have 10 ranks.
A martial character is made impotent if he doesn't have magical weapons by any DR.
Same character NEEDS magical bonuses to get his AC up to a relevant level if you are using the system as is.
Yes, it is possible to circumvent all this, but then you are using some pretty intense homebrew, and then it can hardly be called the same game.
His point is limited. The system can easily handle a low/no magic (read Mundane) campaign. Intense home brew not required? In a 3e/PF system it is easy to do. Humanoids + Class levels == ALL opponents.
See when you use a Mundane system you are removing magic and most, if not all, magic items. DR and SR are changed in use. These are not all that hard. AS I said previously SR is not a factor in a no magic system since it is a dead ability. DR of magic type is removed totally, or reduced in use, DRs of a material or weapon damage type are fine as they are completely Mundane.
So comparing the rogue to an invisible mage...
Comparing a magic item boost to feat boost in regards to skills ...
Comparing a fighter in a normal game to one in a Mundane game...Apples to Oranges...
With NO Invisibility the rogue is the King of Skulk...
With no(or limited) items feat boosts to skills are teh only real way to boost your skills...
If the fighter does not need a magic weapon (nor can he get one)...
I would call eliminating magic and the entire bestiary a heavy homebrew. And no, that does not seem like much fun, nor a very smart solution to the "I want to play a low/no magic campaign, what do?" question, when there are tons of systems that does historical and LotR style play that much better than PF/D&D. Pendragon stands out, but for the d20 options, Conan and Black Companies and so forth all seem more appropriate, and they ARE fun, as they are designed for just this kind of play, offering much more combat options than what pathfinders' non-casters are kinda limited to.
Though I will agree that CoDzilla is far from the most gregarious forum-dweller. >_>
|
|
Meh. I find it a better solution to the off campaign then spending money on a whole new system or rules. I have these books, why buy a new game when what i want to do can be done with a modicum of work. You got the money to do that...I do not.
Intense homebrew to me is over hauling the mechanics of teh system to have it work in a differing way to how it would normally work. Was it heavily homebrewed,ok. But you were talking about Intense Homebrew, which to me is different. Seems like a petty nit-pick I know, but I see a difference.
Taking magic out of the system does not require much work. Really. It was easy.
Doing a campaign where there were no Divine sources, and thus no divine classes was much harder, or more like much more work.
The no magic was easy. Simply removing options.
Doing the Arcane only one was more intense to do.
Both were heavy in the homebrew.