My subscription copy of Harrowstone finally made it up to my remote corner of the Great White North, and I'm delighted with the promise of this AP. By the time all 6 of the installments have been published, my Crimson Throne AP will be complete, and I've tapped Carrion Crown as a welcome change of pace for my players.
I got this idea from some of the other CC threads, and it continued to bloom in my mind as I read through Harrowstone: would the AP more successfully evoke its Gothic horror roots if a GM were to dial down the flashy magic/high fantasy elements?
I'm sure a NO-magic campaign would be a disaster, but what about a LOW-magic campaign (dialing back the power of both the PCs and the encounters)? Specifically, I'm intrigued by the idea that the PCs consider magic, undead, etc. to be mere superstition, and only gradually realize how wrong they are.
Potential changes might include:
1) Restricting the number of non-human PCs and NPCs (especially elves, gnomes, and orcs, which smack of high fantasy).
2) Restricting the use of character classes whose tone clashes with Gothic horror (I'm thinking specifically of paladin here, but barbarian, bard and monk also feel a bit out of place).
3) Transporting Ustalav into a campaign world more like early-Enlightenment Europe, so that the PCs can arrive from "civilized," magic-free countries.
4) Making arcane magic forbidden (branded "dark arts" even if there are, in fact, good-aligned spellcasters), so that spellcasting PCs would have to hide their talents from common folk.
5) Imposing a monotheistic religious structure (maybe with an anti-magic inquisition), and making divine spellcasters into a sort of open secret within the church.
The overall goal here would be to bring the campaign more closely in line with classic literary models of Gothic horror, and to provide new opportunities for role-playing.
Thoughts? Would players find these changes too restrictive? Do GMs see places where these modifications would break the AP?
In principle, I really like this idea. It's something I would propose for any of the Ravenloft modules I tried to run back in the day. As a GM, it just sounds great.
However, I've found that PCs tend to have a toxic reaction to it. At least the ones in my area. Once you remove the elves and put in a Catholic-style inquisition it's not "fantasy" anymore. People are attracted to D&D for a certain reason. If you take away the reason, they get grumpy. If you really want to do this though, you may want to seek out Steampunk or WoD players, they may be more receptive.
On a mechanical level, you run into issues where the PCs don't have access to magical healing, ability to dispel magic, etc. It's not just an issues of "lowering the CR" - you'll have to rebuild a lot of rules. Specifically, look at book 1, how do you damage haunts?
Personally, I'm going halfway for my campaign (starting up in late April looks like). No monks. Severely downplay any of the PC's racial choices. Really, I think most of it will be just describing people in trechcoats, tophats, and other Victorian-era garb. (Even if they cast spells.)
- my 2 cents
My subscription copy of Harrowstone finally made it up to my remote corner of the Great White North, and I'm delighted with the promise of this AP. By the time all 6 of the installments have been published, my Crimson Throne AP will be complete, and I've tapped Carrion Crown as a welcome change of pace for my players.
I got this idea from some of the other CC threads, and it continued to bloom in my mind as I read through Harrowstone: would the AP more successfully evoke its Gothic horror roots if a GM were to dial down the flashy magic/high fantasy elements?
I'm sure a NO-magic campaign would be a disaster, but what about a LOW-magic campaign (dialing back the power of both the PCs and the encounters)? Specifically, I'm intrigued by the idea that the PCs consider magic, undead, etc. to be mere superstition, and only gradually realize how wrong they are.
Potential changes might include:
1) Restricting the number of non-human PCs and NPCs (especially elves, gnomes, and orcs, which smack of high fantasy).
2) Restricting the use of character classes whose tone clashes with Gothic horror (I'm thinking specifically of paladin here, but barbarian, bard and monk also feel a bit out of place).
3) Transporting Ustalav into a campaign world more like early-Enlightenment Europe, so that the PCs can arrive from "civilized," magic-free countries.
4) Making arcane magic forbidden (branded "dark arts" even if there are, in fact, good-aligned spellcasters), so that spellcasting PCs would have to hide their talents from common folk.
5) Imposing a monotheistic religious structure (maybe with an anti-magic inquisition), and making divine spellcasters into a sort of open secret within the church.
The overall goal here would be to bring the campaign more closely in line with classic literary models of Gothic horror, and to provide new opportunities for role-playing.
Thoughts? Would players find these changes too restrictive? Do GMs see places where these modifications would break the AP?
If you want to do this it is better run as an Iron Heroes or D20 Modern(but set in the past) type game. Low magic in pathfinder requires just as much work as converting it to another system.
I'd like to state that I've had minor forays into Iron Heroes and the system does lend itself very well to low-magic games. It puts more emphasis on the characters and their abilities and less on their magic items. I myself am not switching to low-magic but I am reflavoring magic to be more mysterious and dangerous. I don't care so much how it mechanically works, it's the feel that I'm going for. The to practice my showmanship.
However, if you're really set on a low magic system, I think it would be easier to simply to adapt the AP. Run it through the rules of another system (like Iron Heroes) that works well with low-magic instead of trying to make Pathfinder do something is isn't meant to.
I got this idea from some of the other CC threads, and it continued to bloom in my mind as I read through Harrowstone: would the AP more successfully evoke its Gothic horror roots if a GM were to dial down the flashy magic/high fantasy elements?
I'm sure a NO-magic campaign would be a disaster, but what about a LOW-magic campaign (dialing back the power of both the PCs and the encounters)? Specifically, I'm intrigued by the idea that the PCs consider magic, undead, etc. to be mere superstition, and only gradually realize how wrong they are.
Thoughts? Would players find these changes too restrictive? Do GMs see places where these modifications would break the AP?
This is very, very close to what I have in mind for my CC+nonlinear Ustalav goodness campaign. So far the changes will entail...
- moving Ustalav to a sort of Ravenloft setting and bringing along Lastwall, Cheliax, Isger, Nidal, Varisia, Galt, Brevoy, Mendev, the River Kingoms, Andoran, Numeria, Taldor, Worldwound, Mammoth Lord Realms, Nirmathas, Molthune, Irrisen, and what little I know of Tian Xia; everything else from Golarion won't exist.
- completely removing orcs/half-orcs, elves/half-elves (and drow), and halfings.
- removing gnomes as a PC race, while offering tieflings, aasimar, changelings, dhampir, fetchlings, and tengu.
- realigning Pharasma's church as LN with a slight bias against arcane magic; the priesthood seeks to control casters rather than stamping out arcane magic completely. This is a severe reaction to necromantic predations. Treated as monotheistic.
- realigning Iomedae's church as LN with a significant bias against arcane magic; the priesthood rejects wizardry as an accepted career unless the wizard submits to a brand and pledges loyalty to the Iomedean church. Sorcerers, witches, and summoners are believed to be cursed and are treated as such; bards somehow manage to escape similar stigmas. Treated as monotheistic.
- realigning the Asmodean church as LN; Asmodeus is a fictional villain elevated to psuedo-godhood and exists in a raw, amorphous form as a force rather than a personality. The church remains otherwise untouched. Treated as monotheistic.
There's a great deal more, but this isn't the Homebrew section. Much of this is due to my players' preferences, while being something I've had in mind for awhile. Be aware that this sort of alteration is extensive and requires some serious prep time. I anticipate running CC around Halloween.
Iron Heroes or d20 Past both seem like good matches for what I'm imagining, and as GM, I don't mind the extra conversion work. However, some of my PCs only recently learned Pathfinder, so I might face mutiny if I forced them to learn a whole new system -- especially if the only reason I can offer them is "less magic." That's a hard sell.
Instead, I'm considering more subtle and gradual changes to the campaign and rules. The following have occurred to me so far:
1) Restrict spell acquisition to scrolls, so that I could better control what type of magic enters the game (less evocation, more enchantment, divination, necromancy).
2) Remove item creation feats, and introduce more one-use items (potions & scrolls, or new types of items that consume themselves -- ex. candles, pigments, dust), rather than letting PCs collect dozens of rings, helms, belts, boots, etc.
3) As suggested in the GM Guide, ask starting PCs for "wishlists" of magic items. That way, when I *do* reward them with magic arms/armour/wondrous items, I can give them the *right* ones. (There won't be magic shops where they can exchange three +1 short swords for a +2 flaming burst mace, so why not work the mace right into the adventure?)
I was also considering a system of +1 tokens: awarded as bonuses for role-playing or heroics, the PCs could add these to their d20 rolls without needing to rely on magic boosts. This might help to balance the game (although I might still need to dial down some of the encounters).
Thoughts?
1) The spell restriction may rile a few players. Make sure you let them know about this beforehand. While I can't say much about the AP so I don't know how useful different schools will be, the players guide does caution against specialization into enchantment as it may not be as useful. So long as I know about it beforehand I'd be alright with this as a player.
2 & 3) I'm going to be doing something similar. I'll be removing magic-marts in favor of allowing players to improve existing items through 'power points' at a rate of 1PP = 1,000 gold. They simply pay the appropriate amount and perform a subsequent appropriate act (getting it blessed, bathing it in the blood of an ogre, going on a small quest) and they get it. This way anyone can ceate what they want but they still have to earn it.
As far as the +1 tokens go, if you're going this route then be sure to be generous. If you're going to seriously restrict what they can use magic wise then it would be better to err on the side of awarding too many than not enough. Also, consider versatility. Can they only be redeemed as a (cumulative?) +1 to d20 rolls or can they also be used for untyped bonuses to AC for a round or damage to a single attack? Perhaps you can spend a predetermined amount to regain uses of class abilities with x uses per day like barbarian's rounds of rage or paladin's smites? Things like this will determine how much of an impact this mini-system will have.
Iron Heroes does use similar token systems for almost every class. Again, this may be what you're looking for.
Iron Heroes or d20 Past both seem like good matches for what I'm imagining, and as GM, I don't mind the extra conversion work. However, some of my PCs only recently learned Pathfinder, so I might face mutiny if I forced them to learn a whole new system -- especially if the only reason I can offer them is "less magic." That's a hard sell.
Instead, I'm considering more subtle and gradual changes to the campaign and rules. The following have occurred to me so far:
1) Restrict spell acquisition to scrolls, so that I could better control what type of magic enters the game (less evocation, more enchantment, divination, necromancy).
2) Remove item creation feats, and introduce more one-use items (potions & scrolls, or new types of items that consume themselves -- ex. candles, pigments, dust), rather than letting PCs collect dozens of rings, helms, belts, boots, etc.
3) As suggested in the GM Guide, ask starting PCs for "wishlists" of magic items. That way, when I *do* reward them with magic arms/armour/wondrous items, I can give them the *right* ones. (There won't be magic shops where they can exchange three +1 short swords for a +2 flaming burst mace, so why not work the mace right into the adventure?)
I was also considering a system of +1 tokens: awarded as bonuses for role-playing or heroics, the PCs could add these to their d20 rolls without needing to rely on magic boosts. This might help to balance the game (although I might still need to dial down some of the encounters).
Thoughts?
Both are D20 so it is not a lot of extra things to learn, and to be honest you would have to change so many things with a low magic version of pathfinder that it would be like playing a different game anyway.
Another issue is that the items that add bonuses are assumed to be availible for the players. What you could do was look at the party's bonuses to attacks, and saving throws as an example, and power the bad guys down.I do want to know how you will handle the PC's or characters wanting to know how the bad guys got powers such as _____ and ______ while they don't from an in world consistency point of view. What if the PC's capture a bad guy and try to force him to teach him certain spells?
PS:I know that if the bad guys kept having spellcasters with powers I did not I would try to capture them. I might not have the idea of them teaching me spells at first, but it might come up later.