Requests similar to this about "low magic", "no magic" or "low power" (I would love a "low magic item but no low power" option) are fairly frequent. It would be great if Paizo makes some book that address that kind of thing. Maybe the Occultism one will talk a bit about that?
|
Despite what some naysayers will insist, this style of game can and does work just fine using the pathfinder ruleset. It certainly requires a lot more thought on the GMs part, and a lot of the bestiary should be left out of the game, but considering the flavor that the OP is suggesting I expect that's his intention.
My advice would be to go for it, give it a shot and see how you and your players like that style of game.
I want to nerf magic items a bit in my games. I already "nerfed" full casters. (Spells after level 6 are "epic" and take great concentration to perform and maintain. Further, they have a once per month limitation to all of them, and can only be prepared once per month. This lowers to once per week after leveling up further, but not for level 9 spells.)
I am still uncertain of whether nerfing magic items is a good thing, but it feels like it.
What I'm doing is making wands have 3 piddly uses, so they are like scrolls++ but not that awesome. Also, the only class that can cast spells out of their spell list are Rogues (custom Spellthief class feature! Can be traded out for a good Will save.)
Probably the most relevant problem is finding enough pathfinder players to want to be in it.
Once you're past that hurdle... every other problem is easy in comparison.
Probably the most relevant problem is finding enough pathfinder players to want to be in it.
Which is likely what Pathfinder is being picked. It's easy to rope a bunch of new players in by saying you are gonna run a new PF game. Then, you announce all your changes.
I am not imagining this. I suggest Iron heros once in a thread like this, and the OP flat out admitted that all his players wanted to play PF, no one was interested in Iron Heros- thus, he was going to take PF and delete most magic until is WAS Iron heroes.
Probably the most relevant problem is finding enough pathfinder players to want to be in it.Which is likely what Pathfinder is being picked. It's easy to rope a bunch of new players in by saying you are gonna run a new PF game. Then, you announce all your changes.
I am not imagining this. I suggest Iron heros once in a thread like this, and the OP flat out admitted that all his players wanted to play PF, no one was interested in Iron Heros- thus, he was going to take PF and delete most magic until is WAS Iron heroes.
Actually, that is not what he said. What he said was that his experience is with D&D and Pathfinder which is why he is choosing to use Pathfinder.
Personally, if it was me, why would I want to use one D&D hack (Iron Heroes), when I can make my own that is tailored to my game?
Back on topic, I know you are going with more science than magic, but does that mean more sci-fi as well? Would psionics be an option?
|
|
I suggest Iron heros once in a thread like this, and the OP flat out admitted that all his players wanted to play PF, no one was interested in Iron Heros- thus, he was going to take PF and delete most magic until is WAS Iron heroes.
I see this suggestion in almost every discussion about low magic or magicless games on this site, so I got a little curious about the system. It sounded like it might be pretty good, and might make it easier to run that type of game, so I started looking for reviews of it... the first thing that caught my eye was this and I didn't really feel like I needed to go farther. Sounds like it's just easier to play pathfinder with no magic and not include monsters that need magic to defeat.
It's too bad really, I would like to see a nice, gritty, low magic campaign setting where I don't have to learn a whole new game to play it.
|
I'm surprised to see a few of the "we hateses WotC and it's evil non-3.x editionses" posters suggest Iron Heroes, give that that vile detestible Mike Mearls, who has been involved with TWO of the blasphemous non-3.x editions that taint the good name of Dungeons and Dragons that Tweet, Williams, and Cook created (ignore the blasphemous lies about some guy named Gygax...nobody with a name that ridiculous could actually exit). Sure, Iron Heroes is slightly redeemed by the "Monte Cook Presents" heading, but it doesn't change the fact that it was penned by someone who would later prove to be a vile traitor to the one TRUE D&D...3.x.
|
I'm surprised to see a few of the "we hateses WotC and it's evil non-3.x editionses" posters suggest Iron Heroes, give that that vile detestible Mike Mearls, who has been involved with TWO of the blasphemous non-3.x editions that taint the good name of Dungeons and Dragons that Tweet, Williams, and Cook created (ignore the blasphemous lies about some guy named Gygax...nobody with a name that ridiculous could actually exit). Sure, Iron Heroes is slightly redeemed by the "Monte Cook Presents" heading, but it doesn't change the fact that it was penned by someone who would later prove to be a vile traitor to the one TRUE D&D...3.x.
Personally I just think Iron Heroes is a poorly put together system, it jumps all over the place in power level and rules, but most of all one of the core things people talk about it fixing, the God caster, is actually not fixed at all, it's simply just as powerful in other ways given even a little imagination.
On topic, one thing you may be better off telling your players is that this is a work in progress, if something you've not thought of crops up mid game and turns out to be a problem you'll work together to find a solution that won't screw over the players and will still let you use your monsters as needed, things will only flow more smoothly if your players are on board and feel included.