All of these attempts to compare magic in Middle Earth to Pathfinder or other RPGs is pointless.
Tolkien had a rather unusual view of magic compared to most gamers. Magic in his world was usually very subtle and highly specific. In many ways Tolkien's "magic" items were mundane things that had achieved some sort of power through years of use. Boromir's horn and Bard's arrow are great examples of items which achieved some sort of legendary status and ability strictly through their history and the reverence that they inspired.
Most of the "magic swords" or "magic armor" are mostly described by Tolkien as being items crafted by extremely skilled craftsmen using rare and special materials. In that sense they are "magic" in the way that a master craftsman might make a "magic" sword, purely through mundane mastery of the craft.
If I had to really dig down and identify the "magic items" in Lord of the Rings that were clearly "magical", meaning they were created with magic, using spells and gaining supernatural abilities through those spells, that's a pretty short list indeed.
The rings, the palantirs, the Phial of Galadriel, Galadriel's mirror, Grond, the sentries at the Morgul Vale...
Yeah, there's still quite a few, but in Pathfinder terms I think every one of them would probably qualify as an "artifact" not a mere "magic item".
|
See, in a setting like that the only class I would be able to will myself to play is a Wizard or MAYBE a Sorcerer if they didn't get screwed too much by 'not getting a proper education.'
You just have to be aware that the DSA wizard isn't nearly as powerful as his D&D equivalent. While there are no level limitations, the Manapool heavily restricts your ability to cast spells. The example wizard from the 4E PHB has 37 mana points. Each point of damage she causes with the Ignifaxius spell costs 1 mana point, so as a level 1 wizard, she probably can't cast this spell more than 4 or 5 times before she runs out of mana points.
That is if she successfully casts the spell. Because for each spell, she has to successfully pass a little skill challenge (basically she has to make three attribute checks in related attributes and may in sum not fail those checks for more than the number of talent points she has invested in the respective spell. And if she fails, she loses mana points as well), so the success isn't a given thing.
It's quite complicated (that's the reason I prefer D&D/PF over DSA though I really like the DSA setting), but it makes sure that the other classes have plenty of opportunities to shine even at high levels,while magic still has this little extra which makes it special enough to be attractive.
Tolkien had a rather unusual view of magic compared to most gamers.
That's kind of a funny statement to me--I actually feel the same way as Tolkein because we both based our feelings on magic in mythology an legend.
I actually have a hard time adjusting to D&D's magic item mindset, and well, I mostly haven't--when I run games (and I run 95% of the time), I don't use magic items at all unless they are super special named items or MacGuffins (pretty much like Tolkein), and the items always grow with the PCs if I use them (you don't ditch the duke's ancestral sword because the king's ancestral sword is nicer).
Frankly, I have a hard time understanding where the D&D item mindset even came from.
Frankly, I have a hard time understanding where the D&D item mindset even came from.
Legend of Zelda
j/k it was already established by then.
It's no mystery to me where the D&D magic item concepts came from. If you look at the progression from the very earliest versions of the game the steady progression towards a "standard" set of magic items is clear. It starts with the +X progression on swords, armor and a few items like the Ring of Protection. Then it takes another branch with the categorization of items into "slots", which then led to restrictions on how many "slot items" could be worn, and then to the quantification of what sort of magic items belong in each slot. Throughout all of this there was the need and expectation to introduce new items, so you get things like Ioun stones that break the slot metaphor, and then become mainstream so end up with "standard" style attributes for the stones themselves.
In a nutshell it's simply power creep on a steady path towards a world where magic items are commodities and because they are commodities they are assumed to be available by the game designers and are thus baked into the challenge rating system, meaning if you DON'T HAVE THEM at the appropriate levels, you will suffer in terms of power. And if you have them TOO EARLY, then you will be overpowered. And that explains the pricing and WBL guidelines.
|
|
Its important to distinguish between special to the PCs and special to the players. Its very easy to make spell casters seem special to the characters. The DM just says "spell casters are rare in the world."
That's a good point, by the way. Magic doesn't necessarily needs to be rare to feel special. Even when running a game in the Forgotten Realms it's not as if there's an archmage or a mythal to find at every street corner. So for a lot of people, the party wizard may well be the first wizard they've ever seen in their whole life. It's their reactions what will make the wizard feel special not the behaviour of the other player characters.
Same goes for magic items. The +1 longsword you get after slaying the Dungeon's end boss may well feel special to you if it's the first or the only +1 longsword you encounter. It will feel a lot less special if every opponent you encounter seems to wear one.
Do you allow players to be casters?
I actually have a hard time adjusting to D&D's magic item mindset, and well, I mostly haven't--when I run games (and I run 95% of the time), I don't use magic items at all unless they are super special named items or MacGuffins (pretty much like Tolkein), and the items always grow with the PCs if I use them (you don't ditch the duke's ancestral sword because the king's ancestral sword is nicer).Frankly, I have a hard time understanding where the D&D item mindset even came from.
I've never stopped them, but nobody I've run games for could stand Vancian magic, so they never wanted to be them. I actually talked about it yesterday here.
|
I would say that Radagast the Brown was more of a Druid.Radagast, like the other wizards, came from Valinor around the year 1000 of the Third Age of Middle-earth and was one of the Maiar.
Radagast had a strong affinity for – and relationship with – wild animals, and it seemed his greatest concern was with the kelvar and olvar (flora and fauna) of Middle-earth. He was wiser than any Man in all things concerning herbs and beasts. It is said he spoke the many tongues of birds, and was a "master of shapes and changes of hue".
Do you allow players to be casters?I've never stopped them, but nobody I've run games for could stand Vancian magic, so they never wanted to be them. I actually talked about it yesterday here.Sorry, I forgot that was you. Things blur together.
Given what you've said about you and your group, I'm happy you guys apparently enjoy Pathfinder, but I'm a little baffled by why. It seems like a system dedicated to smashing the atmosphere you crave in the face.
It's not really my favorite game (I prefer Savage Worlds), but it's pretty good. Honestly, I like AD&D, 3.5, Pathfinder, and the Next playtest all about equally. I do not like to run 4e, though I'd happily PC in it if it was offered.
My Tolkien-fu is somewhat limited to the main published books, but I've read a bit here and there of unfinished notes and interviews with JRR and Christopher Tolkien.
As I understand it Radagast's original name meant something like "bird-friend" and his task in being sent to Middle-Earth was specifically to help protect the plants and animals of the realm. If Gandalf is an example of a literary character being described in Pathfinder terms as a "wizard" then Radagast can very much be described equally "accurately" as a "druid."
This is pretty similar to this thread, so I'll just re-post the relevant part of what I said there.
It's certainly possible to create a house-ruled setting that restricts spellcasting PC classes (alchemist, bard, cleric, druid, inquisitor, magus, oracle, sorcerer, summoner, witch, and wizard; possibly also paladin and ranger) to those from a "magical" heritage (possibly even specific heritages for certain classes).
One possibility is to require the Eldritch Heritage feat before the character can take a spellcasting PC class (which also means that spellcasters are required to be multiclassed). Combined with adepts or those with the Master Craftsman feat who create low-grade magical items, as well as using slow advancement and limiting the campaign to 10th level, you can simulate a "low-caster, high magic item" type of world similar to Tolkien's Middle Earth.
Middle Earth is somewhat misleading for many, in that it's pretty much what would be considered a low-level (1st-5th) level campaign during the Third Age (i.e., The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings), with a handful of medium-level characters (Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf, etc.) acting as rulers/patrons. Read Calibrating Your Expectations and The Many Games Inside the World's Most Popular Roleplaying Game for a more detailed discussion of this.
I'll go on a slightly different trend from LotR.
I grew up in the 80s (when I started playing D&D). I watched a Cartoon, the Dungeons & Dragons Cartoon. The "Dungeon Master" handed out pretty impressive Magical Items to all the "Kids". I'd say Magic Weapons & D&D do actually go back some time. K, I agree, not the "Best" example, but since it was the 80s, its still an early example. But they did only really have 1 magical item each.
So for better examples, if you played high levels of 1e/2e (85-88), the Bloodstone Pass Series (H1-4), which was a High Level campaign, allowed you to get Magical Weapons to equip your Army (since it was part of the Battlesystem rules).
Again, enough Magical Weapons to equip your ARMY (Of course, if you spent that much on those weapons, you're army was going to be quite a bit smaller than you'd probably want/need).
So while it might be nostalgic to think that the older editions didn't have as many magical items, when you start outfitting your ARMY with them, I'd say they were pretty prevalent in the system. I'm not saying my "Personal Campaign World", I'm talking about TSR published materials for AD&D (that's 1e btw).
Magic was less common than in D&D 3.5+, but it wasn't rare.You are splitting hairs and ridiculously so.
A *few* of the most 'heroic' characters in Middle earth had magic items, many did not. The magic items there were were prized highly and never bought or sold. These characters weren't even run-of the mill heros either, these were the guys who were saving the world and in some cases essentially royalty.
If I placed the number of magic items Frodo and Bilbo encountered in my PF game, my players would consider it exceedingly rare. I can just see it now. "We're 8th level and all we have is a stupid magic short sword, some elven chain, and a cursed ring of invisibility? For the whole party?! And 'orc-bane'? We haven't encountered an orc since 5th level."
This is because of modern D&D's absurd glut of magic items. Everybody in the fellowship except Gandalf had at the very least a +stealth cloak. Four people had magic daggers. At least two had magic longswords, and combining Boromir's rank with the known magic weapon crafting in the Arnor successor states it's likely three did. Legolas received a bow that was not mundane crafted by the same people who made ropes that came when called. Then there are the aforementioned ropes -- no way they weren't magic. Then there are the ring and the phial. Oh, and Gandalf had Narya. That's 18 or 19 magic items.
Two magic items per party member is slim pickings for 3.5 or Pathfinder, but not, from what I understand, out of line with first or second edition.
Of course you're no more going to read this than you apparently read the last post. You haven't bothered to dispute my points about what sting and the barrow daggers imply, simply ignoring them.
It's actually very much in keeping with D&D 3.x/PF for the level ranges that those characters would have been if directly ported to D&D 3.5/PF. It's doubtful that characters of 5th level and below would have more than 1-3 permanent magic items. Nothing they do during the entire Hobbit->LotR would require them to be higher than maybe 6th level at the most.
I would say Aragorn at the Black Gate of Mordor would be 7th to 9th Level in Abilities but 5th to 6th in Wealth. Though mostly do to the fact that he didn't get any items since receiving Anduril.
My campaigns use the Armour as DR, Class Defense Bonus, and Wounds & Vigor.
I actually had a Missed Ray described as being sliced and deflected by the Fighter's Blade.
I also have Higher Level Casters be Rare. Typically you will only encounter 1-5 Adepts. 6-10 casters are typically teachers & such.
Unearthed Arcana had one but it made things... Complicated... So I homebrewed it to where it is based on B.A.B.
Here it is in a google doc. Playtested thoroughly.
I have it apply even when Flat-Footed but you can do however you like.
I explain it as the training in your class gives you reflexes to deflect attacks and such.
I would say Aragorn at the Black Gate of Mordor would be 7th to 9th Level in Abilities but 5th to 6th in Wealth. Though mostly do to the fact that he didn't get any items since receiving Anduril.
Reminds me of the WBL thread when I was talking about how WBL fluctuates, such as when my PCs ended up with lots of WBL but then went several sessions of Wilderness Adventure with no big payloads.
Of course it's my understanding that he became a King afterwords so I imagine his bling skyrocketed after that. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The majority of the D&D games I've run (across all editions) have been without magic users. Note that this is not because I banned them or anything, but simply because the majority of my players had no interest in them (generally because vancian magic is tedious, mechanically).
I've had a decent number of psionic classes in 3rd, as well as Warlocks and Binders, but true spellcasters? In 20 years, I've run games for only two:
1) An evil cleric that eventually requested a rebuild to ditch her spells because vancian magic is tedious
2) A hexblade in 3.5 who pretty much never cast any spells anyway (because Vancian magic is tedious)
Interesting thread, but this caught my eye.
Do you really mean to tell us that all your players in all the games you've run just haven't had the inclination to play by far the most powerful classes in the game (prepared spellcasters) because preparing spells is tedious??
I'll ask that you forgive me for assuming that there was something else going on — some other reason (perhaps a house rule, perhaps a feature of your campaign worlds, perhaps some feature of your adventures that prevented character power from being rewarded in general) why all your players shied away from playing wizards, clerics, and druids. "Bleh, I have to pick my spells for the day? Too much work :(" does not strike me as anything resembling a believable motivation for giving up on THAT much power. I'm genuinely curious what the actual deal here is...
He technically was a king before that. Heck, he was a king before he laid down the law to the Oathbreakers.
This whole thread is predicated on the (bizarre) assumption that because something is common among players, it is common in the world (see also: Magic using classes). As opposed to magic shoppes, which explicitly make magic items common IN THE WORLD.
*sigh* That's not really that a hard distinction, is it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh...
Magic items are only as common as the GM wants them to be. The existence of "magic shops" has almost nothing whatsoever to do with how "common" or "uncommon" magic items actually are. Especially magic items other than basic scrolls, potions and trinkets.
How can it be possible that people cannot understand that in the real world there are all kinds of shops for all kinds of things that are uncommon or even rare.
I can go to just about any significantly sized city and buy a Rolex watch. Or a ring that costs as much as a house. Or a car that costs more than a house.
To say that magic shops automatically makes magic "common" or "not special" is to say that nothing in this earth that you can go to a store and purcahse is "rare" or even "unusual".
And yet people do it every single day. All over the world.
"What you bought a Ferrari from a dealer? How utterly common. *sniff*"
I mean please.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"What you bought a Ferrari from a dealer? How utterly common. *sniff*"
If you were really a Ferrari enthusiast you'd have one custom built for you from scratch.
Peasant.
"What you bought a Ferrari from a dealer? How utterly common. *sniff*"If you were really a Ferrari enthusiast you'd have one custom built for you from scratch.
Peasant.
Heh, I'm more of a Maserati guy anyway....
The majority of the D&D games I've run (across all editions) have been without magic users. Note that this is not because I banned them or anything, but simply because the majority of my players had no interest in them (generally because vancian magic is tedious, mechanically).
I've had a decent number of psionic classes in 3rd, as well as Warlocks and Binders, but true spellcasters? In 20 years, I've run games for only two:
1) An evil cleric that eventually requested a rebuild to ditch her spells because vancian magic is tedious
2) A hexblade in 3.5 who pretty much never cast any spells anyway (because Vancian magic is tedious)
Interesting thread, but this caught my eye.
Do you really mean to tell us that all your players in all the games you've run just haven't had the inclination to play by far the most powerful classes in the game (prepared spellcasters) because preparing spells is tedious??
I'll ask that you forgive me for assuming that there was something else going on — some other reason (perhaps a house rule, perhaps a feature of your campaign worlds, perhaps some feature of your adventures that prevented character power from being rewarded in general) why all your players shied away from playing wizards, clerics, and druids. "Bleh, I have to pick my spells for the day? Too much work :(" does not strike me as anything resembling a believable motivation for giving up on THAT much power. I'm genuinely curious what the actual deal here is...
Yeah, no, it was really "too much work." I never implemented any special rules about prepared spellcasters--I never had to--because nobody wanted to deal with that baggage. It's a huge pain, especially for divine casters who get their whole list to pour through.
The ones I did have just memorized the same few spells in all their slots just to get it over with before switching.
On the one hand, I was shocked like you that they didn't want the power. On the other, I was kind of relieved, since I never had to deal with the power.
I've just always had the sort of players that just want to "get to the roleplaying already." They don't like sitting around, preparing spells, itemizing their inventory, making plans, etc. They just want to sit at the table and play.
Vancian magic is a huge pain for those sorts of players--they can just prep the same spells over and over, but they know doing so is not as good as they could be and it gets boring, but actually reading through all the spells and picking the right ones, etc., just takes too long for their interest.
I never claimed this was typical, just my experience.
Oh, and to be honest, even recognizing the power, I still personally hate playing prepared casters, and will play Spontaneous ones instead, every time, if I can. I do like pouring through spell lists and all, but only between sessions, not delaying everyone at the table while I decide for the day.
Hexblades aren't even prepared casters, they're spontaneous.
Maybe it was a Blackguard or Duskblade, then. Something evil and only partial casty. It's been like 8 years, give me a break.
Duskblades are also spontaneous :P
Blackguard might be it though.
I went back and found the old sheet in my files--it was a "Shadowknight." I remember now--it was basically a homebrewed anti-paladin, so Blackguard was the closest. The sheet I have actually doesn't list spells, because I remember by the end, he asked to homebrew an evil version of the spell-less Holy Warrior paladin option from Complete Champion (because, as I said, he never cast the spells).
there is a common misconception that a low magic game simply means low magic items. that isn't a proper low magic game, that is a low wealth game.
a proper low magic game requires you to restrict access to spellcasting classes, restrict what bestiary monsters you utilize, and fold multiple smaller items together to make fewer but larger items.
Lumi's Easy Steps to capturing Low Magic
Play the Legend RPG, it does low magic perfectly.
Legend also uses d20. it makes multiclassing easier, makes homebrewing easier, is easier to understand, and the PDF can be downloaded for free.
but most people aren't going to want to pick up a new RPG
Yeah, no, it was really "too much work." I never implemented any special rules about prepared spellcasters--I never had to--because nobody wanted to deal with that baggage. It's a huge pain, especially for divine casters who get their whole list to pour through.
The ones I did have just memorized the same few spells in all their slots just to get it over with before switching.
On the one hand, I was shocked like you that they didn't want the power. On the other, I was kind of relieved, since I never had to deal with the power.
I've just always had the sort of players that just want to "get to the roleplaying already." They don't like sitting around, preparing spells, itemizing their inventory, making plans, etc. They just want to sit at the table and play.
Vancian magic is a huge pain for those sorts of players--they can just prep the same spells over and over, but they know doing so is not as good as they could be and it gets boring, but actually reading through all the spells and picking the right ones, etc., just takes too long for their interest.
I never claimed this was typical, just my experience.
Wow. Well, that's definitely a play style I'm not used to, despite having gamed with people of all levels of RPG experience. Though as a DM, I can certainly sympathize with feeling a measure of relief that no one is taking the low-hanging fruit of overwhelming power. There's a reason the prepared spellcasters are considered to be "tier 1" classes — and the flip side of that is that higher-tier classes are harder to design adventures and encounters for than lower-tier ones. (Which can make for some DM frustration.) The fewer options a character has, the easier it is to present a predictably-balanced challenge (this isn't snark, just an observation).
Out of curiosity, do your players (I know you were referring to multiple gaming groups, so I guess I'm asking about typical tendencies) prefer to avoid optimization and delving into game mechanics in general, or is it just spell preparation that irks them?
Also, to what levels do your games typically run?
Oh, and to be honest, even recognizing the power, I still personally hate playing prepared casters, and will play Spontaneous ones instead, every time, if I can. I do like pouring through spell lists and all, but only between sessions, not delaying everyone at the table while I decide for the day.
Yeah, I definitely hear you there. Though in my gaming groups, there always tends to be someone, or usually multiple someones, who is willing (or eager) to play a prepared caster. Also, it's easier to eschew the Vancian casters, I think, when there are powerful spontaneous-casting options available (as is not the case in e.g. core 3.0 or even 3.5, the systems of the first campaign I ran).
Legend also uses d20. it makes multiclassing easier, makes homebrewing easier, is easier to understand, and the PDF can be downloaded for free.
but most people aren't going to want to pick up a new RPG
Link to the Free Download.
it's got the main game for free, and some free bonus content.
it's got the main game for free, and some free bonus content.
Thanks! Though it seems more like a 3.5/4e cross...
Out of curiosity, do your players (I know you were referring to multiple gaming groups, so I guess I'm asking about typical tendencies) prefer to avoid optimization and delving into game mechanics in general, or is it just spell preparation that irks them?
I generally end up optimizing their characters for them, because most of them don't want to bother too much with the rules. The ones that do, still ask my advice. They tend to prefer to avoid any "daily" abilities.
Also, to what levels do your games typically run?
It runs the gamut. The longest went from 1-30 (and yeah, that was 3.5, not 4e), but usually from about 3-16 or so.
Having Gandalf as a playable character type would be like saying, "Yeah, we've got an elf, a dwarf, and a Pit Fiend starting out on an adventure..."
Sounds like it would make for a pretty short adventure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I were playing in a strict, no-magic campaign, I wouldn't play as a rogue or a fighter. I'd be a ranger (skirmisher) and make them both cry.
I'm better than the rogue because of my full base attack bonus. I'm better than the fighter because I actually have skills. I also get all kinds of cool class abilities that neither of the others have access too (such as favored enemy, which is MUCH more valuable in a campaign with limited creature types).
