Low fantasy setting, no or few full caster classes, suggestions?


Advice

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Ok, so I have the idea to run a campaign after my Second Darkness campaign ends or goes on hiatus that is low fantasy.
I am looking to only have a single full caster class available, while enabling all of the 3/4 casting and 1/2 casting classes (E.G. Alchemist, Paladin, .etc) so my question is thus:
What is the single full casting class that you would recommend (Paizo only)?
My initial lean is towards the Witch since it is versatile, vulnerable, and also very weak without magic. As well as being able to cast the important healing spells as well as the important offensive spells.

Does anyone else have a counter suggestion as to which full casting class should be allowed instead of the Witch?
I am aiming to encourage my players to run with one person being a full caster whose focus is on keeping everyone alive, and then the rest of them being 3/4 or 1/2 casters.
My archetypal composition should switch from Wizard, Rogue, Fighter, Cleric to Witch, Ranger, Inquisitor, Magus.
Both the Magus and the Inquisitor can be front liners, and the Ranger, with the trapper or Urban Ranger archetypes, can detect traps. The witch can go for full healing with extra abilities to ensure that she can keep the group alive while using her hexes for her offensive capabilities.

What are all of your thoughts? Is this a misguided attempt at keeping things interesting both for the players and the DM, or is it something that could end up being gold. I'd like for the campaign to stay with a focus, at least to some major extent, on martials until the end, but inquisitors do not get Raise Dead or any other form of revival so this is why I am thinking a full caster who can cast said spells.


Oracle, perhaps?

If not, Witch is a good choice.


Rather than one, I would be inclined to ban all full casters.


consider using the Words of Power system from UM for your magic. It reduces the scope of what magic can do since you no longer have the massive list of spells from upteen sourcebooks but at the same time opens up some extra versatility once people get used to the system and start combining words effectively. Creates a very different feel to magic in the setting.


I'd say the best solution is to figure out which player will get to be the full caster, then let him or her pick which class. There's no particular reason to mandate one full caster over any other.

EDIT: I like the suggestion of Words of Power. Definitely go with Sorcerer or Oracle if you go down that road; the wordcasting rules are a little clunky for prepared spellcasters in practice.


Druid is a solid choice.

They may just end up wildshaping and slugging it with everyone else, while using their spells to heal.


Cleric.

It has the most amount of spells that the game sort of assumes the players have access to (healing, restoration, remove fear, etc.,).

Scarab Sages

If you're going to only have one full caster I would make it an Oracle, they have a large variety of mysteries and curses that allow a lot of concepts and characters within the same class.

I don't really see the point in banning all but one full caster though. I would rather just see all of them banned.


I'd look at an e6 game instead of banning casters, if it's a low magic, gritty setting you're looking for.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The game sort of breaks down without full-casters at 10th level and beyond.

I would also recommend an e6 or e8 game (then you can keep the casters while lowering their power).

If you do want just one full caster witch is a good choice because it has the combination of healing magic and control magic leaving the damage dealing to the martial classes.


Another vote for E8 here.


You really don't need full casters in the party with the existence of all the nice partial casters from Paizo.

That being said, full casters need to exist in the world for services like teleport, plane shift, and resurrection.


Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Rather than one, I would be inclined to ban all full casters.

The major reason I want to keep at least one type of full caster is so the PCs have access to Raise Dead and other revive spells.

An alternative is to give everyone intelligent items that cast Raise Dead with its own version of Blood Money that damages the player's statistics to bring them back over and over until they die forever.

Doing an epic 6 or 8 is a pretty good idea. I might go for Epic 9 so that everyone gets that last feat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Whichever one fits your campaign setting the best.


Another vote for just ban all 9th level casters, including summoners.


I'd say sorcerer or oracle if you're going for a primal magic feel, and definitely second the word casting suggestion as it negates having to look through 5 different books for a complete list of spells. If you go this route, please post again describing the ups and downs of the system, as I'm interested in it, but can't ever bring myself to sit down and study up.

Scarab Sages

If you are worried about raising PCs you could always use plot magic to make it so there are scrolls of raise dead/reincarnate without there actually being anyone who can cast the spell. These scrolls would be rare, and the only way to raise the dead and thus very valuable. In addition anyone attempting to cast the spell would need a fairly high UMD.

Minimal chance of resurrection is something that I associate with low-fantasy/low-magic settings. I played in a game where magic (mana) didnt regenerate, you had to find and drain mana pools to regain spells or magical abilities, many of which were basically national treasures. About 2 years of weekly 8-hour sessions resulted in an average PC death-per-session of 1.2, there were a total of two characters raised, one of which was a NPC (long story). It was the most fun campaign I have ever played: you knew without a shadow of a doubt that you could die at any moment, and so every action mattered. When a character said "run, I'll hold them off so you can get away" it had real weight because that character was never coming back.
The threat of death doesn't have to be a downside to a setting, it can really add to the enjoyment of the campaign if your players embrace it.


Whichever one you pick says a lot about your setting, so you should really consider what kind of message you want to say about your setting by which caster you use.

I think Druid probably sets the strongest low magic message, though it does some crazy s#%+.

Sorcerer and Cleric both imply a strong magic setting for very different reasons. Sorcerer allowing magic to be so strong in your blood that it allows you to spontaneously manifest magical powers. Cleric suggests a strong organized culture of religious magic.

If you can wait for the Advanced Class Guide, the Arcanist would allow you send the message that not only must magic be in your blood, but you still need to obsessively study it to master it.

The Oracle by contrast says that the only true source of magic is that given by the gods.

I think I would go with both, just for some variety and to say that both type of magic exist and are strong in their own way.


If you wish to achieve the goal, remove all full caster and the summoner, and possibly the magus depending on your preferences.

Let the bard (and maybe the magus) be the wielders of arcane magic, and the paladin and inquisitor be chosen ones harnessing the power of the gods.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like Oracle for this.

Basically, those who are gifted with that much magical power, suffer it, as a form of curse.


If I were to GM a low magic setting I'd increase all spell's levels by 1. This would turn cantrips into 1th level spells and so on.
Most likely this alone would not suffice but it would be a step towards reducing how commonplace magic is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:

You really don't need full casters in the party with the existence of all the nice partial casters from Paizo.

That being said, full casters need to exist in the world for services like teleport, plane shift, and resurrection.

Isn't the whole point in playing a low-magic setting to avoid those spells?


I'd go with Words of Power System plus the Witch. That gives you healing and resurrection magic and adds a sense of mystery and price with magic by playing up the need to bargain with the Witch's Patron for magic. Play up the importance of the Patron and what it wants out of the bargain with the Witch and you can emphasize that Magic comes with a Price.

Plus with the Words of Power system, you can strike out Words you don't want to use (EX: Teleport if you want them walking everywhere) without drastically impacting things because the High level spells can be built as multi-Word spells using the lower level words

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say include the full casters but just don't make them playable to pcs. Full casters in a low magic setting, make impressive npcs, they could easily be the gandalfs/radagasts or Sauron of your world. Wielding such magic and powers that most people don't understand or never will be able to achieve.


In my experiance the "low" fantasy feeling is best achived in games like GURPS.
If you want to di it in pathfinder consider only allowing classes without magic. Or at the max having one half caster in the group.
We had a group going Consisting of only Fighters and rogues at one point and that had the rigth feeling IMOP.
But if you go with the plan you discribed i think witch is a good choice.


Thanks for all of the advice guys, I can tell that you're all giving your all.
The primary intention here is more to emphasize the hybrids while emphasizing the primary casters. Perhaps low magic was the incorrect term and medium magic is more appropriate.

I do like the idea of words of power, but it might be far too complex for my players. The primary intention is to downplay the primary casters, to uplay the classes like Magus(Bladebound), Alchemist, Inquisitor, Bard, and encourage the use of those as opposed to the full casters.

There is the loss of the utility, but to be honest the witch is there quite literally to enable resurrection. As someone else suggested the full casters could just be NPCs, which I do quite like the idea of.

Paizo Employee

I'm on board with E6, but cutting out full casters and many magical items can also work quite well. If you're doing it for balance reasons, I'd strongly suggest cutting all full casters.

If you're doing it for flavor reasons, it obviously depends on your setting. I'd lean towards leaving the oracle and sorcerer, both because I prefer their mechanics to the other full casters and because they carry stories that scream "low magic" to me.

Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
Doing an epic 6 or 8 is a pretty good idea. I might go for Epic 9 so that everyone gets that last feat.

In E6/E8, you typically get another feat every X experience after reaching maximum level. So you don't need to worry about people getting the feats they need.

Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
There is the loss of the utility, but to be honest the witch is there quite literally to enable resurrection. As someone else suggested the full casters could just be NPCs, which I do quite like the idea of.

If you just need resurrection (and related curatives), I'd suggest some sort of ritual magic rather than allowing a full caster.

So instead of going to an NPC and giving them a giant diamond, you go to a sacred site and perform a ritual of similar cost. Some GMs prefer to have it require a quest, but the site could just as easily be in the middle of a city.

If you want to include the quest aspect, I'd actually put that in the prep work getting the components. So maybe it requires the knucklebone of a saint or the burial shroud of a tyrant. But the whole party can work together to get the components for when one of them inevitably goes to the great beyond.

The main reason I'd suggest a ritual rather than NPC is because restricting full casting to NPCs dangles it outside of the players' reach. Making it a ritual keeps the authority in the players' hands, but lets you avoid the other problems of full casters.

Cheers!
Landon


Maybe get rid of all casters that don't rely on a higher power for magic.

You get that "low magic for the setting" because there's no way to get it on your own. You got to get the help of an outsider or some such.

So, ban wizard andmost of the sorcerer bloodlines, and keep oracle, witch, druid and cleric.

This might because problems may arise with bards, magi etc who aren't full casters and they make their own magic.


It does sounds like fun to play the only Wizard (or whatever) in a campaign setting. WOuld be an interesting build experiment.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

i'm with Hark- these kinds of changes to the 'landscape' say a lot about your campaign and its setting...

if your only goal is to emphasize 6/9 casters in the party then present it to your players that way ("hey, for this next campaign i'd really like to try a new challenge... can we see how it goes with no/only-one full caster?") and leave the NPCs normal. paladins can raise dead with a feat, and anyone with a good UMD can do it with scrolls (and, IMHO, it wouldn't be unbalancing to add Raise Dead to the inquisitor spell list).

if you want to create a lower-magic feel, then think about how magic works in your world or what is different about how it works that has allowed for only one full-caster class to exist- each one says something about how your world works

what they say:
here's a list of full casters and what (i think) each says if its your only one...

cleric- only the gods are powerful enough to grant the mightiest magics, and even then they only bestow it to those who are faithful in study and prayer. (likely believed that all magic is granted by the gods)

druid- magic is intrinsic to the natural world and only those truly in touch with nature can access the most potent magicks. (other casters tap into this power but might be seen as 'poachers' by some- could have a dark sun-ish feel toward arcane magic which could be stripping natural resources)

oracle- magic has a divine origin, it can be studied and harnessed but the strongest spells are only available to those chosen/elected/predestined by the divines to wield it.

sorcerer- magic is inherent to creatures/beings: some truly exceptional beings (gods) possess so much they can empower others (paladins/inquisitors), but among mortals only those whose blood carries in it the magic of 'greater creatures' can access the greater spells.

witch- magic is otherworldly and the strongest of it not truly meant for mortal minds, only otherworldly beings willing to consort with earthly agents will allow mortals access to this power (and their motivations for doing so are nearly always difficult to discern).

wizard- magic is a primal force (sort of a 5th element, or 5-7th depending on your cosmology), it can be accessed in lesser forms in a variety of ways but only mastered by those with the discipline and intellect to learn to shape it.

arcanist- this is from the Advanced Class Guide playtest. i actually think this would be an interesting option. the underlying principle/theme would be the same as the wizard except that mastering true magical power would require not only discipline and intellect but also some special magic in the blood.

i know you want to allow access to raise dead- if you want to make your decision based on the practical/mechanical concerns like that, that's fine; just remember, whatever class you select it will shape your setting so be prepared. (and as always- have fun)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

Ok, so I have the idea to run a campaign after my Second Darkness campaign ends or goes on hiatus that is low fantasy.

...What are all of your thoughts? Is this a misguided attempt at keeping things interesting both for the players and the DM, or is it something that could end up being gold. I'd like for the campaign to stay with a focus, at least to some major extent, on martials until the end, but inquisitors do not get Raise Dead or any other form of revival so this is why I am thinking a full caster who can cast said spells.

Witch has probably the broadest access (in terms of arcane and healing) in one package.

If low fantasy is what floats your boat go for it. It may be a breath of fresh air and it certainly doesn't hurt to try.

I do suggest running a one-shot as a test and see how the group likes it. And make it a mid to high-level setting so for when magic is pervasive.

Because even if the players don't have access...monsters sure as heck do. :)


It really does change the landscape, not only in what you choose, but what must move to take the place of what you don't.

For example not using a cleric, makes the Inquisitor your primary divine caster for organized religion. That forces a huge shift in the tone of every organized religion in the setting. Religion suddenly becomes much more aggressive, oppressive, and violent.

Not having a primary Arcane caster leaves you with Magus, which strongly implies that Arcane magic comes not from study, but from mastery of martial skills. Magic being an extension of your swordsmanship.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

Ok, so I have the idea to run a campaign after my Second Darkness campaign ends or goes on hiatus that is low fantasy.

I am looking to only have a single full caster class available, while enabling all of the 3/4 casting and 1/2 casting classes (E.G. Alchemist, Paladin, .etc) so my question is thus:
What is the single full casting class that you would recommend (Paizo only)?
My initial lean is towards the Witch since it is versatile, vulnerable, and also very weak without magic. As well as being able to cast the important healing spells as well as the important offensive spells.

Does anyone else have a counter suggestion as to which full casting class should be allowed instead of the Witch?
I am aiming to encourage my players to run with one person being a full caster whose focus is on keeping everyone alive, and then the rest of them being 3/4 or 1/2 casters.
My archetypal composition should switch from Wizard, Rogue, Fighter, Cleric to Witch, Ranger, Inquisitor, Magus.
Both the Magus and the Inquisitor can be front liners, and the Ranger, with the trapper or Urban Ranger archetypes, can detect traps. The witch can go for full healing with extra abilities to ensure that she can keep the group alive while using her hexes for her offensive capabilities.

What are all of your thoughts? Is this a misguided attempt at keeping things interesting both for the players and the DM, or is it something that could end up being gold. I'd like for the campaign to stay with a focus, at least to some major extent, on martials until the end, but inquisitors do not get Raise Dead or any other form of revival so this is why I am thinking a full caster who can cast said spells.

Why? <----This matters. If it is an issue of controlling players then a one with good system mastery will give you problems no matter what. The idea of telling a player how to play a class is another issue. You should also ask the players if they are interested in this idea. We are just a bunch of guys from the internet, and what is interesting is subjective.


I bounced these ideas around for a while. It's just too complicated to completely strip casting classes from the game without resulting in dealing with massive game changes. I eventually decided on keeping all the classes but focusing the "low fantasy" elements of the game:

- 10 point buy
- NPCs get half gear budget
- Character wealth by level cut in half

(Other than the point buy, I wouldn't mention the NPC/character wealth changes.)

This makes a lot of people "unhappy" with a "low fantasy" system. Many players hate low point buys/lower wealth advancement. But changing other game elements (like limiting the availability of magic items for purchase) just don't seem to work out well.


Just trying to change the class composition to see different classes in use can be fun. Sometimes, groups ignore interesting options in favor of mechanically superior ones.

I actually had a lot of fun back in 3.5 by banning every class and race in the Players Handbook for a campaign. It took the players out of their comfort zone, and everyone produced some of the more interesting characters they ever made. More importantly all of the players from that point on started looking at and using a wider variety of character builds.

You can achieve other interesting setting results by limiting other options. Take a setting with no Fighters, now suddenly martial skill always comes with some kind of special power attached to it. It actually produces a more magical setting, or at least a more action oriented setting.

A setting in which the fighter is replaced by the Magus and the Barbarian with the Bloodrager, means suggests that martial power comes naturally with attached magical powers. Suddenly the game looks more like an anime with everyone running around shooting magical powers out of their sword. Remove full arcane casters, and suddenly the only path to magical mastery comes from martial mastery and the two are inherently entwined such that they become the same thing.


meabolex wrote:
- 10 point buy

Oh God why!?

Anything under 20 is just asking for stat dumping. 10 makes it mandatory.
I wouldn't play in such a campaign. I have a steam library that could use that time.


I think you ought to consider banning certain half-caster classes as well. IMO, it shouldn't be less a matter of crunch and more a matter of flavor in your world. Two questions should guide you:

1) What kind of magic is available in your world (divine vs. arcane); and,
2) Where does magic come from?

Does magic come from investigation and intellect? That is, understanding the world? Then, IMO, you ought to allow clerics, wizards, alchemists, magi, and potentially bards and inqusitors. Witches, oracles, sorcerers, and potentially bards and inquisitors would be banned.

Does magic come from inborn gifts? Then I would allow oracles, sorcerers, witches, and poentially bards and inquisitors. Wizards and clerics would be right out.

You also might want to consider what having less magic in the world means. Have scientists, doctors, and technologists developed alternatives to magic? In a world with few cure potions, have alechmists and herbalists compensated by pushing further the limits of herbs and concoctions? In a world without fireballs, have siege engineers developed more efficient catapults, trebuchets, and ballistas? Has anybody investigated gunpowder?


Consider banning all full casters, but allowing their spell lists as options to some select 2/3 caster (completely or in parts).


Marthkus wrote:
meabolex wrote:
- 10 point buy

Oh God why!?

Anything under 20 is just asking for stat dumping. 10 makes it mandatory.
I wouldn't play in such a campaign. I have a steam library that could use that time.

It's the default rule in the book. If you don't like low-fantasy, then don't play in a low-fantasy game.


meabolex wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
meabolex wrote:
- 10 point buy

Oh God why!?

Anything under 20 is just asking for stat dumping. 10 makes it mandatory.
I wouldn't play in such a campaign. I have a steam library that could use that time.

It's the default rule in the book. If you don't like low-fantasy, then don't play in a low-fantasy game.

@Marthkus: 15 pt buy, as the APs are written for, and is the closest to a rolled average, can work pretty fine. Sure, you might not start with a 20 in your primary, but it isn't really necessary. As far as stat-dumping goes, 15, 20 or 25 doesn't matter, as player looking for min-maxing their abilities is going to do so, no matter what.

@Meabolex: Reducing the point buy and wealth is really not going to affect the game in the way the OP suggests.
Both is going to harm the martial characters more than the full casters, as they are more dependant on multiple stats and gear. Full casters doesn't need more than their primary ability score and the spellcasting ability (although the like the extras).


meabolex wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
meabolex wrote:
- 10 point buy

Oh God why!?

Anything under 20 is just asking for stat dumping. 10 makes it mandatory.
I wouldn't play in such a campaign. I have a steam library that could use that time.

It's the default rule in the book. If you don't like low-fantasy, then don't play in a low-fantasy game.

Most importantly, talk with your players about what would be fun for you and them -- is everyone agreeable to excluding full casters or to limit levels in full casters (e.g., no more than 2/3rds of levels can add to your caster level), or maybe full casters have fewer HP or worse saves than in Pathfinder (and thus lower survivability), or do they want other ways to restrict magic. You also should get their agreement on whether there NPC full casters.

A 10 point buy tends to lead to very one dimensional characters. It also tends to make the partial casters more difficult to design and play and actually would encourage players to look for pure casters. With a low point buy, you may want to also place a limit on maximum stats (e.g., maximum 14 before racial adjustments).

In my experience, the low magic feel tends to come from restricting the availability of magic spells and items, e.g., learning new spells requires actually finding someone with the spell and paying for it, while magic items (beyond +1) require the party to obtain rare components. Alternatively, you can add expensive components to troublesome spells.


HaraldKlak wrote:

@Meabolex: Reducing the point buy and wealth is really not going to affect the game in the way the OP suggests.

Both is going to harm the martial characters more than the full casters, as they are more dependant on multiple stats and gear. Full casters doesn't need more than their primary ability score and the spellcasting ability (although the like the extras).

*shrug* The developers simply disagree with you. All three of those modifications are all explicitly listed as making a low-fantasy game a low-fantasy game. It's not like I made them up or anything (:

Maybe you disagree about the definition of what constitutes low-fantasy?


Greymist wrote:
In my experience, the low magic feel tends to come from restricting the availability of magic spells and items, e.g., learning new spells requires actually finding someone with the spell and paying for it, while magic items (beyond +1) require the party to obtain rare components. Alternatively, you can add expensive components to troublesome spells.

I think a lot of the confusion here is "low-fantasy" versus "low-magic". I think low-fantasy doesn't necessarily imply low-magic -- maybe "higher difficulty"?

I think I've had a lot more problems implementing "low magic" (as opposed to "low-fantasy") without drastically changing the game rules. I'm sure some of the alternative systems presented in this thread do make a "low-magic" game to some extent, but I'm not entirely sure the 3.X system supports the idea of low-magic very well.


HaraldKlak wrote:
meabolex wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
meabolex wrote:
- 10 point buy

Oh God why!?

Anything under 20 is just asking for stat dumping. 10 makes it mandatory.
I wouldn't play in such a campaign. I have a steam library that could use that time.

It's the default rule in the book. If you don't like low-fantasy, then don't play in a low-fantasy game.

@Marthkus: 15 pt buy, as the APs are written for, and is the closest to a rolled average, can work pretty fine. Sure, you might not start with a 20 in your primary, but it isn't really necessary. As far as stat-dumping goes, 15, 20 or 25 doesn't matter, as player looking for min-maxing their abilities is going to do so, no matter what.

Rolling stats is also a monstrous idea. If your group rolls for stats then you have no right to complain about balance issues. You abandon the idea of balance as soon as you rolled stats.

Rolling for stats doesn't even make sense post 2nd edition era. At leat back in 2nd ed a 3 was playable. You can't really say that for 3rd, 3.5, or PF. A 3 in any stat just creates an overly gimped character


Have you considered Iron Heroes? Designed as low magic, not a cludge like E6. Really, E6 is trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. It's a bad fit.

However, the OP has some interesting ideas. Have some sort of game device for Raise Dead, etc, and only allow medium spellcasters.

Or, just ban Tier One classes.


Low fantasy normally meen a low amount of Classic fantasy elements. The devs use it wrong in the point buy table.
Generally low fantasy is less fantastic, just like High fantasy is more fantastic.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

My favorite suggestion for low magic is a quick and dirty method:

Simply require that casters have an caster stat *Modifier* equal to the spell level. Currently you need 10 + spell level Int to cast wizard spells, etc. This would increase it to 10 + 2*spell level.

This is a fairly small change at low level, probably up to 5th-7th level or so. Needing an 18 stat to cast a 4th level spell can be a bit tough/rare early on.

The higher level slots aren't useless - they can be filled with lower level spells, or meta-magicked spells.

This might not be as low magic enough as you want, but I thought I'd share the idea. It also works best in combination with the standard 15 point-buy, or a conservative stat-rolling method (lower than Heroic, no higher than a strict 4d6-drop, 6 times).


That could work, but it seems to force Min-maxing. If you dump like crazy a +9 stat modifier is not that hard @ 17th level.


Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Rather than one, I would be inclined to ban all full casters.

The major reason I want to keep at least one type of full caster is so the PCs have access to Raise Dead and other revive spells.

An alternative is to give everyone intelligent items that cast Raise Dead with its own version of Blood Money that damages the player's statistics to bring them back over and over until they die forever.

Doing an epic 6 or 8 is a pretty good idea. I might go for Epic 9 so that everyone gets that last feat.

e6 gives you a feat every time you'd normally level up, so you don't need to grant extra class levels (aka e9, e10 etc) to give them a feat. e8 is about the max I'd recommend stopping if you want lower magic in a E style game.


Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Rather than one, I would be inclined to ban all full casters.

The major reason I want to keep at least one type of full caster is so the PCs have access to Raise Dead and other revive spells.

An alternative is to give everyone intelligent items that cast Raise Dead with its own version of Blood Money that damages the player's statistics to bring them back over and over until they die forever.

Doing an epic 6 or 8 is a pretty good idea. I might go for Epic 9 so that everyone gets that last feat.

You know, when PCs have Raise Dead as a class ability, I struggle to call it low magic. Could be me, of course. Make it an NPC-only ritual and play E8.

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Low fantasy setting, no or few full caster classes, suggestions? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.