|
It's your world. You can do whatever you want. You just can't publish it without permission from Paizo and if you use any of their names, descriptions, etc, it is highly unlikely that you would get permission. So if all you want to do is use it for your home games, then have a blast.
Also, this forum is for the Pathfinder Society GM discussions, which follow very strict rules and would not allow what you are asking. I'm guessing this thread should be in a different forum.
A good way to give your world a "more magic" feeling is to have more NPCs with spellcasting abilities.
If it isn't unusual for a simple peasant to be a spellcaster, then you already have achieved a big difference from regular fantasy worlds.
I wouldn't advise you to grant non-spellcasting classes any spellcasting abilities. Just adding spellcasting would make those classes too powerful.
What you can do however is to strongly suggest that your players play spellcasters. If they're interested in a barbarian, have them play a bloodrager. If they're interested in a fighter, have them play a magus. A rogue might want to take the 'Minor Magic' or 'Major Magic' rogue talent (or make the Eldritch Raider archetype available to rogues of any race, not just gillmen).
But if your players still want to play a non-spellcaster, let them. They should still understand that they are quite rare and most people in that world will think of them as "untalented" or something like that. ;)
Thanks for getting the Disney's Aladdin song in my head.
hakuna matata ;)
|
I think I need more description to aid you with your question. What do you mean by "more magic oriented". Are you making a campaign where everyone is a wizard or something? Let me make it clear that playing only spellcasters is not easier, infact, it's pretty hard. If everyone is a spellcaster, who takes the hits? With no barbarians, paladins, and fighters, who will face the Siege Owlbear and survive? Without rogues, who will disarm the traps, or do the stealthy bits?
Here is the thing... you don't need to fight an Owlbear or disarm a trap for your campaign to be exciting. You can do away with most forward challenges and place more intelligence or social based challenges in the way.
I playtested TWO mini campaigns where every one was a wizard, and another where everyone was a rogue. They where AWESOME! But I knew ahead of time that the challenges and appeal of this campaign should be different. Not everyone wants to be an infiltrator killing guards and disarming traps while moving like shadows in the night. Not everyone wants to feel like a powerful spellcaster who can shoot rays and summon powerful creatures to the field or conjure powerful magics at will. Some people just want to cleave through kobold heads and take a hit from an ettin to the chest and survive.
Also, if I would've make my rogue clan fight a pack of ogres, I bet they would've died. Or if I made my wizards try to face a hulking monster... well, their flimsy HP would've drained in a second. If a guy wants to swing an axe, don't force him to shoot a ray. Variety is one of the reasons Pathfinder is so great, cause in the heat of the moment, that barbarian cant deal with that charm spell from that evil nymph, and suddenly he is hitting the party with his axe. Who will be there to save us from his low will save?... that is where casters come in!
Another way to include more spellcasting is to allow each player to choose a spell of, for example, up to 2nd level (but maybe disallow any spells with costly material components), and gain that spell as a spell-like ability, maybe 1 or 3 times per day.
Then, do the same with all (or maybe most) of your NPCs.
By basically 'upgrading' all races to have a spell-like ability, you don't give your PCs too much power.