I would like opinions on a couple items with regard to PF magic.
First, does anyone run low magic campaigns with PF? By low magic I mean magic items are few and far between (kind of like a Conan world). If so, how did it work?
Second item, I have read and heard from many sources that casters are still overpowered compared to non-caster in PF. Does anyone do anything to nerf casters? Anyone have any opinions on the following:
1) Does the low magic item world above nerf casters more than non-casters (assuming an inherent bonus system like 4e D&D)?
2) Restricting Wizards and Sorcerers to 2 or 3 schools of magic.
3) Restricting the Cleric's spells to his god's domians.
4) Eliminating the Druid's companion.
|
If you just give the players inherit bonuses rather then access to magic items, all your doing is saving them money. If you don't want there to be piles of magic items laying about then as the GM you just don't offer to sell them any and don't put them in treasure piles.
What is it exactly your group wants to do here? Spell casters at higher levels are able to deal with dangerous threats in ways that don't involve hitting them with a piece of steel if that's what your talking about in terms of power, but non-casters have plenty of options of their own.
I would like opinions on a couple items with regard to PF magic.
First, does anyone run low magic campaigns with PF? By low magic I mean magic items are few and far between (kind of like a Conan world). If so, how did it work?
I have run and played in low magic games in 3.5, and am playing in one in pathfinder now.
It has its issues. Namely revolving around 2 major issues. First, non-magical characters not having access to 'big six' items (magic weapon, magic armor, stat boosting items, cloak of resistance, amulet of natural armor and ring of protection). These items represent the straight numbers boost that characters get from magic items to vital areas. Without them once you get past around level 8 all characters suffer, especially the martial ones. The CR system breaks down almost completely by the early teens, and you have to judge each monster/enemy for yourself as dm to determine if your party can deal with it.
The second is magic focused characters having the resources to do their jobs. Presumably scrolls, wands and such will be less available or not at all. These are assumed to be present in the system, and without them casters lose quite a bit (especially wizard's who's main strength is variaty of spells in their spellbook). It tends to make the 15 minute workday a much bigger problem, and also means some very basic problems (like disease or poison) require alot more game time to resolve.
Second item, I have read and heard from many sources that casters are still overpowered compared to non-caster in PF. Does anyone do anything to nerf casters? Anyone have any opinions on the following:
1) Does the low magic item world above nerf casters more than non-casters (assuming an inherent bonus system like 4e D&D)?
Not sure what you mean by an inherent bonus system, but I would say it nerfs everyone, considerably, and it is actually non-casters that hurt the most.
2) Restricting Wizards and Sorcerers to 2 or 3 schools of magic.
This more or less invalidates the two classes, particularly wizards. If you want to do something like this, eliminate the wizard and sorceror, and create or use specific classes. For instance the Super Genius Death Mage and the 3.5 classes warmage and beguiler, as well as the APG summoner. Maybe create something similar for transmutation and divination. The sorceror and wizard's design assume the versatility of their admittedly massive spell list. If you want to restrict that, create new classes instead of gutting existing ones.
3) Restricting the Cleric's spells to his god's domians.
Assuming you mean all the domains and not just the ones he takes, again you are better off creating new classes here. The cleric assumes the versatility of the list. Particularly since not all domain lists are created equal. Some gods would be overwhelmingly better then others if you took this route (have more and more varied domains available). I would just cut out clerics and use oracles only.
4) Eliminating the Druid's companion.
Not sure what this has to do with low magic? But if you mean requiring the other choice for natures bond (the domain) this wouldnt be crippling, but it certainly weakens one of the druid's best combat options.
1) in my opinion low magic makes casters more powerful, since they are one of the relatively few sources of magic, many other classes depend on minor magical items to get a significant edge.
2) If you go there, I advise to put some work in it and make new classes for magic users in your campaign, possibly relying more on class abilities than usual since they have fewer spells. Basically a very focused specialist wizard, with nicer abilities by level but less raw spellpower and versatility.
3) Much like wizards and sorcerers I'd make a small general list of spells that every cleric has and add some spells appropriate to the god for each level, you might also require them to learn prayers instead of knowing them all by default.
4) Druid's animal companion is not really an issue for a low magic campaign by default.
For an easier option, you could consider allowing players no more than half their levels in a caster class, so a sorcerer might be a rogue 6 / sorceror 6 for example, make magical items more costly possibly 2 to 5 times as expensive and creating them might age the crafter.
What is the situation?
I keep seeing these threads and wonder what is going on....
possibilities...
1. Dm hates magic and never plays magic users, so would rather not learn those rules and adjudicate them....
2. DM wants a low magic world....
3. Casters are too powerful....(see item #1 on the list)
4. DM would like to use magic for villians and evil....
(see item #2 on list)Make your game the way you want it!
Want an all barbarian campaign go for it!If you are going to DM rule 0 is to have fun...
How can you make sure your players have fun within the boundaries you are wanting?
;)
Anyone who thinks casters are too powerful has obviously never seen what an optimized fighter can do. . .
Thanks for the replies. Here are a few responses for questions posed to me.
1) What am I trying to do?
My experience with 3.5 and Pathfinder is limited and I am interested in playing Pathfinder sometime so I am asking those that play it a series of questions so that I can better understand it.
2) Why am I anti-magic?
First, I am sort of anti-magic items. I prefer games that have few and unique magic items. I don't care for games where everyone has a bunch of magic items. The items don't seem special (as I think magic items should) if they are all over the place. Just a personal preference and me saying anyone is playing wrong.
Second, the caster nerfing part is a reaction to most people I know (including those athat are fans of 3.5 and PF) telling me that casters are overpowered compared to non-casters. This part isn't about restricting magic but nerfing casters so that they are better balanced with non-cssters.
3) What are 4e Inherent Bonuses?
The inherent bonus system automatically gives characters the basic bonuses that they would normally get from magic item so that they don't need the items. For example, if you use this system in 4e then at 2nd level all attacks get a +1 to hit and damage, at 7th they all get +2, at 12th they all get +3, etc. Similar bonuses are given to AC and defenses (i.e. saves) starting at 4th level.
I'm currently in a low magic campaign (two magic items I'm aware of so far, one of which we had to trade to the church of Erythnul - but it was probably cursed anyway). The ref puts a lot of work into things and rules-as-written only applies to PCs, if a monster uses magic, we have no idea what it may be capable of. This makes things more exciting, but sometimes frustrating for those of us who know the RAW inside out. PC magic uses the most restrictive interpretation of any spell and the ref makes a yes/no call on every spell. So far, it works fine, although I think it's mroe work for the ref to balance enounters.
I have always had reservations about the ease with which magic items are accumulated in 3.x/pf. In original D & D, the only thing which distinguished two fighters of equal level was what magic weapon they had managed to gain. Now, it's the reverse problem, the fighters are completely different, but their equipment is exaclty the same (+x ring, armour, shield, weapon with energy damage, amulet natural armour). Magic isn't special any more, it's just a form of portable wealth. In one high level campaign, the party have just about managed to make a suit of chain mail in which every link is a +1 ring of protection. (OK, I exaggerate a bit). I've never liked ye olde magick shoppe and my own players get frustrated that I don't always let them buy the magic item they want. And I get frustrated that they just try to sell the 'interesting but not optimum' magic items I give them in order to buy the 'boring but optimum' items they want. Plus the cost of some magic items is vastly in excess of their value, and the value of others is way in excess of their cost. (e.g. "boots of permanent expeditious retreat", "bracers of permanent shield", both of which are potential game breakers at mid-level).
2) Why am I anti-magic?First, I am sort of anti-magic items. I prefer games that have few and unique magic items. I don't care for games where everyone has a bunch of magic items. The items don't seem special (as I think magic items should) if they are all over the place. Just a personal preference and me saying anyone is playing wrong.
You arent alone in this. The problem is the system doesnt easily represent this. Particularly as a new dm you will have some serious trouble dealing with the difficulties tha arised from getting away from the system's assumptions on the availability of magic items. I am actually working on a high magic setting that has few magic items (magic is prolific everyone can cast a little, but magic items are few and far between and those who have them at all have one or two)
Second, the caster nerfing part is a reaction to most people I know (including those athat are fans of 3.5 and PF) telling me that casters are overpowered compared to non-casters. This part isn't about restricting magic but nerfing casters so that they are better balanced with non-cssters.
A lot of people feel this way, and a lot do not. Personally I dont think casters need nerfing but I am very familiar with the magic system and plan around what my party casters can do. As a new dm that can be challenging. I assumed this was part of your goal which is why I recommended importing or creating new classes rather then gutting existing ones. Wizards especially get very little else because of the strength of their spell list, gut that spell list and the class becomes alot less fun to play. Use specialized classes instead, and you will have far less versatile (the real problem with casters) but still fun to play characters.
3) What are 4e Inherent Bonuses?
The inherent bonus system automatically gives characters the basic bonuses that they would normally get from magic item so that they don't need the items. For example, if you use this system in 4e then at 2nd level all attacks get a +1 to hit and damage, at 7th they all get +2, at 12th they all get +3, etc. Similar bonuses are given to AC and defenses (i.e. saves) starting at 4th level.
I see, there has been a fair amount of discussion on this. I would recommend taking a look at this threat. After you get past the initial argument on the first page, there are a fair number of good ideas on how to implement such inherent bonuses.
2) Why am I anti-magic?First, I am sort of anti-magic items. I prefer games that have few and unique magic items. I don't care for games where everyone has a bunch of magic items. The items don't seem special (as I think magic items should) if they are all over the place. Just a personal preference and me saying anyone is playing wrong.
Second, the caster nerfing part is a reaction to most people I know (including those athat are fans of 3.5 and PF) telling me that casters are overpowered compared to non-casters. This part isn't about restricting magic but nerfing casters so that they are better balanced with non-cssters.
Lack of magic items (or some non-magical equivalent) can hamper the martial classes compared to spellcasters. That's the nature of the beast. You need to do more than just restrict magic items in order to provide equivalent limitations for the spellcasters. Gutting the spell lists to a more tailored list that fits your conception of a low-magic world is an important step to getting that done. If swords and armor are a fighter's tools, spells are a wizard's. Cut down what the fighter gets, you had better do the same to the wizard. I would recommend making the lists heavy on buffs, semi-reliable divinations, and single target enchantments/attacks spells.
Limiting spellcasting class levels is another good idea. It keeps the spell levels relatively low and away from the broader-powered wahoo spells later on. For example, limiting to 4th level spells allows dimension door (nice and not too crazy) while not allowing the game-changing teleport in the door.
One alternative to really cutting out all magic items is to keep the +bonus items like magic swords, armor, rings, cloaks, etc. And just keep them subtle and non-flashy. They can still improve the abilities of the characters who rely on them, providing a better fit with the CR system's assumptions, without making them seem quite so super-powered. Really - items that give straight bonuses like the Big 6 are great items for a "low-magic" campaign. You can even reskin them as simply better materials (for swords and armor) to items that bestow a god's blessings or luck on the wearer. None of them do outlandish things. They just make a character a bit better at what they do.
3) What are 4e Inherent Bonuses?
The inherent bonus system automatically gives characters the basic bonuses that they would normally get from magic item so that they don't need the items. For example, if you use this system in 4e then at 2nd level all attacks get a +1 to hit and damage, at 7th they all get +2, at 12th they all get +3, etc. Similar bonuses are given to AC and defenses (i.e. saves) starting at 4th level.
I would not try to go an inherent bonus route in PF (or 3.5). It works to a degree in 4e because the system is so much more constrained around a fixed set of modifiers. All characters get the same attack bonus per level, all get to pick their offensive stat for attacks and so can all have that stat maximized, monster defenses are pegged at a level appropriate to the party's level and thus only vary from PC attack bonuses by a set amount. With all of that, it's easy to work up a schedule of bonuses needed to keep pace between PC attack and monster defense. PF and 3.5 have no such schedule. They have some general trends but much more variability based on a player's own choices and strategies.
|
It can be done. I have not done it with Pathfinder yet but I did with 3.x edition and the gap is smaller between casters and non-caster now than it was. A few things you need to tweak and remember.
1) Adjust the CR of monsters, things like DR becomes MUCH more powerful of a ability for monsters. All monsters after the first few levels would be tweaked up in CR rating to a magic light party.
2) Crafting feats. Making crafting magic items harder, much harder.
3) Wizards, wizards are the easiest of the casters to deal with. Just limit how many spells they can aquire. If it is a low magic game means new spells are hard to come by.
4) Clerics and Druids. Basically you need to turn them into Sorcerers or Oracles on how they gain spells.
5) Hybrid casters rangers, pallies etc. See 3 and 4 above.
So it can work, just takes a bit of work and make sure you talk to your group about it first. You also might want to add minor magic being more common in the form of alchemy and herbalism to help make up for the lack of other things. One shot devices they can carry and use and any class can use.
|
|
It can be done. I have not done it with Pathfinder yet but I did with 3.x edition and the gap is smaller between casters and non-caster now than it was. A few things you need to tweak and remember.
1) Adjust the CR of monsters, things like DR becomes MUCH more powerful of a ability for monsters. All monsters after the first few levels would be tweaked up in CR rating to a magic light party.
2) Crafting feats. Making crafting magic items harder, much harder.
3) Wizards, wizards are the easiest of the casters to deal with. Just limit how many spells they can aquire. If it is a low magic game means new spells are hard to come by.
4) Clerics and Druids. Basically you need to turn them into Sorcerers or Oracles on how they gain spells.
5) Hybrid casters rangers, pallies etc. See 3 and 4 above.
So it can work, just takes a bit of work and make sure you talk to your group about it first. You also might want to add minor magic being more common in the form of alchemy and herbalism to help make up for the lack of other things. One shot devices they can carry and use and any class can use.
DM, could you share some of your more specific rules in your campaign?
|
|
DM, could you share some of your more specific rules in your campaign?It can be done. I have not done it with Pathfinder yet but I did with 3.x edition and the gap is smaller between casters and non-caster now than it was. A few things you need to tweak and remember.
1) Adjust the CR of monsters, things like DR becomes MUCH more powerful of a ability for monsters. All monsters after the first few levels would be tweaked up in CR rating to a magic light party.
2) Crafting feats. Making crafting magic items harder, much harder.
3) Wizards, wizards are the easiest of the casters to deal with. Just limit how many spells they can aquire. If it is a low magic game means new spells are hard to come by.
4) Clerics and Druids. Basically you need to turn them into Sorcerers or Oracles on how they gain spells.
5) Hybrid casters rangers, pallies etc. See 3 and 4 above.
So it can work, just takes a bit of work and make sure you talk to your group about it first. You also might want to add minor magic being more common in the form of alchemy and herbalism to help make up for the lack of other things. One shot devices they can carry and use and any class can use.
Yes and no, My last computer died the harddrive did and I didn't back up some of my notes. I still remember vaguely what I did. I am working on a new version for a future Pathfinder game down the road.
But 3 is easy but requires GM work. Just limit how many spells they gain access too. 4 and 5 is also easy, give them spells known like a Sorc/Oracle and it goes a long way.
Number 1 was a trial and error thing. It seemed roughly about ever 5 levels monsters needed to have their CR boosted by one. Then some abilities like DR was worth at least a 1 or more CR boost all in it's self, depending on how good and what all the DR effected.
Number 2 is the one i don't recall after playing for awhile we made some adjustments to crafting magic. We placed a type of limit on how good of items you could make based on level. But I honestly don't remember exactly what it was. It was done after months of tweaking it. But it was something like you could only put spells in things like wands and scrolls etc if they was not your highest level spells. Meaning you had to be 3rd level to make 1st level scrolls. Plus we tweaked the cost but I no longer remember what we did there at all.
It has been about 4 or 5 years since that low magic game ended.
Thanks for the replies. Here are a few responses for questions posed to me.
2) Why am I anti-magic?
First, I am sort of anti-magic items. I prefer games that have few and unique magic items. I don't care for games where everyone has a bunch of magic items. The items don't seem special (as I think magic items should) if they are all over the place. Just a personal preference and me saying anyone is playing wrong.
The easiest and far less headache inducing way of dealing with this is to pick the treasure you hand out and control the access to items the party has directly. If you don't put in a magical boutique then the party won't be loading up on magic items.
Second, the caster nerfing part is a reaction to most people I know (including those athat are fans of 3.5 and PF) telling me that casters are overpowered compared to non-casters. This part isn't about restricting magic but nerfing casters so that they are better balanced with non-cssters.
Sir, I'm sorry but that is just not true. This is Pathfinder/DnD. Balance between the classes is not necessary. Your parties fighter does not need to kill your parties wizard. It's a team effort. The truth of the matter is any character, be if fighter, mage rogue or cleric is only as strong or as weak as the player behind it. This line of thinking that caster's are OP is a symptom of a much larger topic I won't derail your thread with. I will only say.. if as a DM you feel the caster's in your party are OP it is you that are failing at designing encounters to challenge them, not the rule set or some inherent OP-ness in the caster classes.
3) What are 4e Inherent Bonuses?The inherent bonus system automatically gives characters the basic bonuses that they would normally get from magic item so that they don't need the items. For example, if you use this system in 4e then at 2nd level all attacks get a +1 to hit and damage, at 7th they all get +2, at 12th they all get +3, etc. Similar bonuses are given to AC and defenses (i.e. saves) starting at 4th level.
So it's not the bonus that offends you? it's the fact that it comes from an item? No snark intended. Just not sure why it bothers you or why you would give these bonuses out. If you want your pcs to be low magic that's fine. No problem. but then stick with the low magic monsters.
Denying your party access to a +4 weapon and then stocking the adventure with DR/+4 monsters is not low magic. It's jerk DMing.If you run low magic and the party is running around at 9th level lucky to have a +1 sword and a single wand there is nothing wrong with that. But then let them fight Manticores and giants, not beholders and iron golems.
You might want to try E6.
Or E7, or E8. Personally, I think E7 works best for PF.
And, don't forget, as the GM, you're in charge of magic items. Don't give out a lot, and what you do give out, you can make memorable. Don't just tell the party they find a +2 Flaming Longsword. Tell them they find thin bladed longsword made of grey metal, a worn leather grip and red runes that run down it's blade. Deciphering the runes tell them the ancient blade is named Ashbringer, and bursts into magical flame when it's name is spoken.
First, does anyone run low magic campaigns with PF? By low magic I mean magic items are few and far between (kind of like a Conan world). If so, how did it work?
Well, characters will be weaker than they're supposed to be. That means the CRs will be off just because of that.
This part can be countered relatively easy: Be a lot more generous during character generation (add another 10 points or so, maybe more, to the purchase point value, or, if you're rolling for stats, let them use a more generous rolling method). Also, give them a feat every level instead of every other, and instead of 1 ability score increase every 4, give them 2 every four (but don't let them put both in the same score). Maybe even 2 every other level!
The other part is that some things will be a lot harder to accomplish without magic items, like overcoming damage reduction. Either do away with DR, or introduce new spells, feats, or other options to let them deal with that stuff.
1) Does the low magic item world above nerf casters more than non-casters (assuming an inherent bonus system like 4e D&D)?
No. If anything, it does the opposite. The casters still get their magic, which gives them a lot of options, while warriors don't get anything. Some things you can do with magic items you can also do with magic, so the casters get yet another advantage.
2) Restricting Wizards and Sorcerers to 2 or 3 schools of magic.
Expect a lot of people not playing any wizards or sorcerers. If they still play them, they'll be a lot less interesting since they lose a lot of their versatility and appeal. Plus, people will probably stick to the most powerful schools, so schools that don't offer as much will go out of style.
3) Restricting the Cleric's spells to his god's domians.
Expect nobody to play clerics. That's right: Nobody. No reason to be a cleric. You get two spells per level? They can't even fulfill one of their primary roles, since cure spells are on hardly any domain.
And you are going to need healing casters, since healing potions fall under "magic items"
4) Eliminating the Druid's companion.
They'd become the best casters in the game. In fact, they might become the most powerful class in the game, since their wildshape (combined with magic) will let them buff their ability scores in ways no other class will be able to.
Personally, Ive found that those who think casters are overpowered make poorly constructed melee characters and have no grasp of tactics, especially once 3rd+ came out.
Chain-o-chea...I mean feats can devastate multiple lines of powerful enemies every turn.
A good fighter can pull 4 chains, and have a "mook", "ranged", BBEG, and another of choice all developing at the same time, same as a floofy spellcaster can. Add in small unit tactics, traps, terrain control... you know, the basics of combat, and you almost dont need a pointy hat in the way, until its time to summon the R&R afterward.
Can you explain this again in regular terms?
What is the situation?
I keep seeing these threads and wonder what is going on....
possibilities...
1. Dm hates magic and never plays magic users, so would rather not learn those rules and adjudicate them....
2. DM wants a low magic world....
3. Casters are too powerful....(see item #1 on the list)
4. DM would like to use magic for villians and evil....
(see item #2 on list)
As a fan of "rarer magic than PF default" & as a GM, here's the issue:
Many of us want magic in the game, hence a FRPG. However, we don't necessarily don't want magic to be the "tried and true" tech replacement it often gets portrayed as (limitation of game mechanics in many cases). Most importantly, however, from a GM-perspective particularly, we don't necessarily want the "tier-shift" that CAN sometimes undermine the setting. Some of us have no interest in planar travel or relegating overland and sea travel to irrelevance by shifting to a Star Trek-like system of teleporting everywhere.Some people advise a take-it-or-leave-it approach "it's a high-fantasy game, play it as written or pick another system". However, the sheer number of d20 and OGL books that came up with alternatives to scaling the "wahoo factor" (Grim Tales, Thieves' World, Game of Thrones, Conan, Black Company, Iron Heroes, etc.) would suggest that it's not an insignificant segment of the gamer population who is looking to scale the high fantasy back a bit.
For those of us who are really digging Pathfinder, we're looking for "slider bars" if you will, much like the experience table has fast-medium-slow progressions.
Personally, Ive found that those who think casters are overpowered make poorly constructed melee characters and have no grasp of tactics
Truer words were never spoken. . .
|
In 2nd edition there was a source book about playing in mideval or renaissance Europe. Arcane magic was made weaker by moving the casting time of all spells up to the next increment. So in PF standard became round round became minute, hours became days etc.
It made for more planning. Divine magic was same "casting" time but was severly limited in available spells.
It was a fun game. We role played our characters to be really superstitious and religious.
It can work, but it takes the right group to make it work.
To be honest, this isn't even the first question you should be asking. You should be asking your players the question "do you want to play in a low magic game?" If the answer is no, to be frank you should dismiss the idea.
I've played in a few low magic games, in 3.0, 3.5, and it was toyed with in pathfinder. The end result is almost always the same... Things go ok for a few levels, and then you start getting into the range where primary attack bonus progression starts out-accelerating AC development (especially without magical items), and AC becomes more important to preventing iterative attacks from hitting. Once you hit this point and your players don't have access to reliable healing magic, the concepts of a dungeon crawl become impossible in the system, because your party goes from the "15 minute work day" to the "30 minute work week".
The proposed "Inherant Bonuses" system is not really a viable solution, because it diminishes the value of magical items. It's hard to get excited over a +1 longsword when you're already getting all the same bonuses just from leveling anyway. Plus, to any player who has played in a standard environment, getting a +1 longsword at 10th level is pretty much going to be "wooo.. something I should have had 7-8 levels ago. woop-de-doo."
|
I also feel frustrated when cool flavorful magic items get dumped to buy more of the big six. It's especially annoying when the PCs are killing tons of gnolls wearing rings of protection +1 and the players are just pocketing the rings to sell. I mean, just how common are these things? (It's even worse when they quit pocketing them and refer to them as "chump change.")
I've been toying with the idea of giving other humanoid races alternatives to the usual items. Instead of rings of protection, maybe they are tattooed with a special rune in some ceremony which gives them their +1 bonus to protection. What do you think? Anybody?
I think a player builds his character based on how the DM runs his game. If a DM were to make the big six less necessary then some players might go for the cool item, but as an adventurer I am going for practical over cool which means that if the DM makes the game difficult I am going for the stat boosters.
|
|
I think a player builds his character based on how the DM runs his game.
Absolutely and I really want my players to go after the best equipment they can get their hands on. I just don't want every low-level humanoid they meet to have the same gear. My players are working hard for all that stuff. I'd just like to return a bit of specialness to the big six.
I think a player builds his character based on how the DM runs his game.Absolutely and I really want my players to go after the best equipment they can get their hands on. I just don't want every low-level humanoid they meet to have the same gear. My players are working hard for all that stuff. I'd just like to return a bit of specialness to the big six.
I will also add players might not have the same fascination with the items that you do, unless it is a new item. I would ask the group do they feel that magic items are special or could they ever feel special.
I have some experience running a low magic setting. In Midnight, magic is outlawed (as are weapons, armour, travelling and a lot of stuff that makes adventuring fun) and the bad guys can detect it at great range. So continuous effects like magic items are usually non-viable.
Midnight solves this in two ways. The first is called heroic path. Each character has one, they usually follow a theme, for example Charismatic, Earthbonded, Giantblooded. They grant special abilities at each level; most of them grant bonuses to a specific ability score at regular levels. You could work out something like that easily, tailored to your characters.
The second option are magic items called covenant items that work by forming a bond between themselves and the wielder. They grow in power with the characters, graining new bonuses and abilities at several character levels. They usually have a special backstory and are items of legend, even if the characters do not realize that at first.
Both ways can be combined. It is easy to build them into the setting. In Midnight, heroic paths are hinted at being a gift of the land itself, a last, desperate attempt to empower heroes to fight against the overwhelming evil that conquered the world. In more standard games they could be special bloodlines, or gifts from the gods and so on.
The basic covenant items are nice and full of flavour, but they can be improved easily. In my campaign, each one is tied to the backstory of a character, connecting that character to pivotal moments in history and to their ancestors. Each time the items gain new abilities, the characters experience visions of the events that made the items legendary, slowly painting a picture of the greater history of the setting and the personal history of their forebears. This could easily be expanded, for example like using the Earthdawn-style of magic items and requiring characters to find out more about the history of an item before they can unlock more powers.
Both options tend to make character feel more special. They can also help bonding in the group - the chosen assemble to face a threat. Both can be kept mysterious at lower levels and can be great adventure hooks. They can be as great or small in the campaign world as you choose. In high fantasy, having a special destiny is a common theme, and heroic paths and covenant items can represent this.
It's especially annoying when the PCs are killing tons of gnolls wearing rings of protection +1 and the players are just pocketing the rings to sell. I mean, just how common are these things?
If gnolls can wear them, they have to be pretty common. I mean, gnolls!
Plus, we're talking about a ring that makes it harder to murder you with all kinds of things, like sharp, pointy things made of metal and majick rays that turn you into less than a handful of dust. Not to mention irate farm animals and a number of other everyday hazards.
The only reason governments don't make those things mandatory is that they're so damn expensive by commoner standards.
As I understard, OP is not looking for a low magic setting, but mostly to get rid of Ye Ol' Magic Shop.
In order to do that I would suggest giving items a unique name and allow for item customization, either by the by the PCs or by a few NPCs. I would however limit item creation by extending the times and requirement to create one. Upgrade to an existing item, would take the same time, + a quest object related to the upgrade wanted, and new object will took 10 to 20 times longer and competent npc will be few. Items don't need to cost more than in the core book.
This will requiered the GM to work a bit more, but I think it may solve the problem.
The core d20 mechanics can support a low magic game. Conan, the old Game of Thrones, etc. Pathfinder isn't low magic as written. If you rebuild every class from the ground up you could come up with a new iteration of a low magic game, and it'd probably be pretty sweet.
Pathfinder works beautifully as is. But I wouldn't try to play Dark Heresy with the Pathfinder core rule book. I mean sure I could build a version from the ground up using the game mechanics...but why? Dark Heresy is cool as is. Same goes for d6 West End Star Wars, Call of Cthulhu, etc.
I guess the short of it is that you can't toss out half a game system and then expect it to work as intended. You wouldn't drive half a car. Don't hit Pathfinder in the head with a baseball bat and expect it to flow well. BUT...use the Pathfinder mechanics to build a low magic game. I just don't envy the amount of work that'll be :)
It can work, but it takes the right group to make it work.
To be honest, this isn't even the first question you should be asking. You should be asking your players the question "do you want to play in a low magic game?" If the answer is no, to be frank you should dismiss the idea.
I've played in a few low magic games, in 3.0, 3.5, and it was toyed with in pathfinder. The end result is almost always the same... Things go ok for a few levels, and then you start getting into the range where primary attack bonus progression starts out-accelerating AC development (especially without magical items), and AC becomes more important to preventing iterative attacks from hitting. Once you hit this point and your players don't have access to reliable healing magic, the concepts of a dungeon crawl become impossible in the system, because your party goes from the "15 minute work day" to the "30 minute work week".
This is the real challenge. The game is built around magic, and so is the setting. Without it you face obviousl pacing problems. Other games, even d20 games like Game of Thrones expect that you will take days if not weeks to recover from a single fight or encounter, if you do that with Pathfinder the system breaks down since endurance is a balancing factor between classes.
The proposed "Inherant Bonuses" system is not really a viable solution, because it diminishes the value of magical items. It's hard to get excited over a +1 longsword when you're already getting all the same bonuses just from leveling anyway. Plus, to any player who has played in a standard environment, getting a +1 longsword at 10th level is pretty much going to be "wooo.. something I should have had 7-8 levels ago. woop-de-doo."
What I do for my inherent bonus system is eliminate the +x entirely. There is no such thing as a +1 long sword. I just have flamming, or holy or what have you. So you are getting the +x from the inherent bonus system, but the magical properties of the weapon stay special, and stay useful.
I have ran a few low magic games. I've found wizards suffer the worst in games like this. Sorcerer don't seem so bad depending on the blood line as their blood abilities can really help them out. Cleric get really tough because they could use things like Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment to gain the equivalent of magic weapons and armor that may be lacking.
|
My experience with running "low magic" games is that they don't really need to BE low-magic, they just need to FEEL low-magic. You need to start with some basic assumptions:
1) The PCs are exceptional. They are the wondrous heroes of the tale. They have potential far beyond that of any NPC and can eventually attain godlike heights in your setting if they last that long. This is THEIR story. Most of the NPC population is level 0-3.
2) Arcane Spellcasters are rare and are jealous of their power. Most of them are probably not friendly people, and the majority of the population views them with suspicion. The arcane spellcasters in your party are the exception, not the rule. If you have more than one arcane spellcaster in your party, then people will remark on it. Local authorities will feel threatened by it. Other NPC spellcasters will be paranoid about it. When a bunch of arcane spellcasters ride into town, it's like a gang of dangerous gunslingers coming into a town in the old west - everybody gets out of the way. How far you as a DM take this attitude depends on your mood and taste. Usually, less is more.
3) Divine casters are rare and people hold them somewhat in awe. Most village priests either are not spellcasters, or are level 1-3. When the party brings a real cleric to town, people will turn out asking to be healed, cured, blessed, etc. True clerics who perform divine magic in front of the villagers will be asked for guidance and counsel. Again, less is more with regards to how far you take this.
4) People are poor. Not necessarily the PCs, but the world in general is poor and not swimming in cash. The world isn't swimming in magic items because the general populace can't afford them. The PCs will probably eventually be the wealthiest people in your world. They don't HAVE to be, but it's okay if that's the way things work out. Wealthy PCs will attract sycophants, opportunists, and enemies.
5) When giving out treasure, award the PCs the magic items they need, but not necessarily in the forms they expect. Instead of a cloak of resistance, give them a awesome bandanna that grants saving throw bonuses. That kind of thing. Also: maybe the treasure of a lower level monster doesn't contain the +2 Sword of Awesome that would be perfect for the fighter, but it does contain a book detailing the last known location of that sword, and clues on how to find it in the next adventure. Instead of a magic shop, give them the equivalent of a quest shop. Instead of spending money to get exactly what they want, they need to spend time and energy.
6) Coins and gems as treasure are overrated. That basilisk the party killed did not have a huge diamond in its gizzard, but it's bones and bile are worth X,000 gp towards the creation of certain magic items. PCs don't need to have thousands of gp in liquid assets if you give them the means to get or make what they want, and then the getting and the making thereof provides the basis for their adventures.
7) There are no magic shops, but the PCs are welcome to craft what they need. Don't make it harder than it needs to be, but don't make it easier, either.
Basically - you don't need to change the rules. You just need to change the presentation. The PCs are the source or focus of magic in their world, and as a result they will become involved in lots of strange, weird, adventurous stuff as their reputations grow. The magic will feel more, well.. "magical".
I've been toying with the idea of giving other humanoid races alternatives to the usual items. Instead of rings of protection, maybe they are tattooed with a special rune in some ceremony which gives them their +1 bonus to protection. What do you think? Anybody?
That's actually a pretty cool idea. Not only does it limit what you are giving the PCs in terms of wealth to manageable levels, but it also encourages the PCs to do think about similar things for themselves rather than relying on the standard descriptions and default presentation. Like Wolfsnap said above me, changing the presentation can be all it takes to revive the "special" feel of magic in the world.
The 3rd edition psionicst's handbook had a section on "magical tattoos". It had a feat tied to it and allowed you to place powers into the art. Could easily be modified for magic.
You could run it as scribe scroll with the body as the paper.
Or for more permanent effects craft wondrous item-tattoo.
|
|
Uh...by the NPC wealth guidelines, a Gnoll with a Ring of Protection +1 is at least 3rd or 4th level in a PC class...probably more like 6th or 7th. He's likely the champion/leader of an entire tribe, and probably looted his one magic ring (one of maybe two real items he has) off a skilled warrior he slayed in personal combat.
How is this insufficiently epic? I mean, really, if the PCs are high enough level that all their minion-level foes are 4th-8th level...well, maybe you shouldn't be using Gnolls. Lamias, driders, or succubi having such rings makes a great deal more sense, now doesn't it?
|
|
My experience with running "low magic" games is that they don't really need to BE low-magic, they just need to FEEL low-magic. You need to start with some basic assumptions:
1) The PCs are exceptional. They are the wondrous heroes of the tale. They have potential far beyond that of any NPC and can eventually attain godlike heights in your setting if they last that long. This is THEIR story. Most of the NPC population is level 0-3.
2) Arcane Spellcasters are rare and are jealous of their power. Most of them are probably not friendly people, and the majority of the population views them with suspicion. The arcane spellcasters in your party are the exception, not the rule. If you have more than one arcane spellcaster in your party, then people will remark on it. Local authorities will feel threatened by it. Other NPC spellcasters will be paranoid about it. When a bunch of arcane spellcasters ride into town, it's like a gang of dangerous gunslingers coming into a town in the old west - everybody gets out of the way. How far you as a DM take this attitude depends on your mood and taste. Usually, less is more.
3) Divine casters are rare and people hold them somewhat in awe. Most village priests either are not spellcasters, or are level 1-3. When the party brings a real cleric to town, people will turn out asking to be healed, cured, blessed, etc. True clerics who perform divine magic in front of the villagers will be asked for guidance and counsel. Again, less is more with regards to how far you take this.
4) People are poor. Not necessarily the PCs, but the world in general is poor and not swimming in cash. The world isn't swimming in magic items because the general populace can't afford them. The PCs will probably eventually be the wealthiest people in your world. They don't HAVE to be, but it's okay if that's the way things work out. Wealthy PCs will attract sycophants, opportunists, and enemies.
5) When giving out treasure, award the PCs the magic items they need, but not necessarily in the forms...
+1
These are some awesome ideas.