Why low magic?

[Malwing]

I see this a lot; Someone wants advice on or is describing their house rules for a low magic campaign. In Pathfinder this is a daunting task and there is a ton of different advice on how to go about this, from not leveling past 6th level to banning all full casters. But my question is "Why?"

Basically if you are a person that desires low magic campaign, why do you want this? Especially in a magic-heavy system like Pathfinder?

To clarify I'm not saying "If you like low magic so much get your butt in a different system." I'm trying to understand why there are a lot of attempts at low magic. Is it an innate storytelling desire? Is magic just complicated and overpowered? Are you trying to mimic a book or movie's setting and heavy magic disrupts it? Are you tired of all caster parties?

[lemeres]

What is not to get? They like the game balance shown in the early game, but they don't want to do E6 since they also want to play around with the cooler late game abilities you find with some classes.

Essentially, the reason why people want to do low magic is due to the fact that they are more used to the low magic nature of early levels.

Plus, while magic can be cool, a lot of people are in love with sword. Or axes. spears. just beating guys down with their bare hands. ETC.

And you can't discount the fact that you need more ingenuity and roleplaying to pull off crazy stunts without magic. It is a MacGuyver vs. James Bond thing. Sure, James bond always has some gadget to solve a problem....but there is just a romance to using only gum, string, and a nail file in order to make a jet engine.

[born_of_fire]

The one low magic campaign I built a character for was a PBP that was intended to be as historically accurate as the DM could manage. When making the character, I learned a ton about Europe, as such, right around the time of the Battle of Hastings. Sadly, I was not selected for the game so all that learning has done for me is ruin the TV series "Vikings". It is horrendously inaccurate in so many ways LOL

So, to answer your question: simulation-type games are a reason to opt for low magic.

[Lakesidefantasy]

For me, magic is so common that it has no sense of mystery and resembles something more like technology--it's modern magic rather than mystical magic.

Using a low magic setting is an attempt to make magic special. Whether it works or not is another question.

[dwayne germaine]

Some ideas are better suited to a world without magic everywhere. It's not that surprising that people don't want to buy and learn an entirely different system just to accomplish this.

I believe that the challenges of running a low magic game are greatly exaggerated by the nay-sayers out there.

[Te'Shen]

Malwing wrote:

. . . Basically if you are a person that desires low magic campaign, why do you want this? Especially in a magic-heavy system like Pathfinder?. . . .

I always assumed they liked the system or that's what their friends play, but they want to emulate a grittier fantasy story, like Conan or Lord of the Rings.

[heliodorus04]

I try to take a 'realistically anthropological look' at Golarion. In doing so, I immediately deviate from Pathfinder Society's Golarion, because it's very different from what I envision Golarion would be.

I like low-magic because human beings are inherently fearful of things they don't understand, and I think people/things that can really do magical things would be exterminated by the mass of normal people, so magicians would have to be rare, and somewhat secretive about their craft.

I conceive that arcane magic would be more hostilely received than divine (with the exception of bards, who could fool people as entertainers quite easily), because people always believe in gods, and special powers of the faithful. In addition, curative magic would be highly thought of in a world of disease and violence. I would think all of the things that you and I did that required a lot of stitches or setting a broken bone would be handled by the first level clerics of our village, who would be somewhat common even in small settlements.

By the time a divine caster reaches 6th level or so, he would probably be in a city, and his higher level magic wouldn't be commonly seen.

But guys who can cast Flame Strike, or Charm Person or Magic Missile would be guys you'd want to keep from taking too much power for themselves.

Further, I envision a world with curative magic being very violent, because the physical consequences of violence are not permanent. So physical violence isn't particularly frowned upon in this violent world, further explaining why men and women who can cast Magic Missile are understood to be guys from your childhood nightmares, who steal souls, animate the dead, etc., so society would weed those out.

Now, Golarion is supposedly a human-dominated society, but if you look at PFS, that's not really what you see players showing up as. Tieflings, Undine, Efreet ... Humans are racists. We met Neanderthal and within 5,000 years, Neanderthal's 200,000 year reign as masters of central Europe were ended. I don't see those weird races as surviving, and Golarion already accounts for the common enslavement of the small races (except dwarves). Elves and Dwarves there even keep to themselves, further reinforcing my view that Golarion humans would be highly discriminatory. Elves are one of the more comfortable races regarding arcane magic, and dwarves are similarly open to the practice.

Human history is one of poverty being the norm prior to industrialization. In an impoverished world, where magic itself is rare, magic items would have to be similarly rare, special, and heirlooms in nature, near priceless.

I don't like my players to run away with a story-line that is inconsistent with my game world. I probably can't share my campaign website here on the message board, but if you want to read it, send me a PM and I'll send it to you. But it more or less explains what I've said here.

[TriOmegaZero]

lemeres wrote:

Essentially, the reason why people want to do low magic is due to the fact that they are more used to the low magic nature of early levels.

I don't even find the low levels to be low magic, just low power. There is still plenty of magic in the early game, it's just not as concentrated in te PCs hands.

[Lakesidefantasy]

Let me recount a personal story.

I am a fan of Conan the Barbarian and I was very excited to play the Age of Conan online game. At one point in the game I was visiting the local blacksmith to purchase a new sword, when I noticed a demonic beast had invaded the smithy. I was taken aback and off guard. Quickly I pulled out my battleaxe and hacked at the hideous beast. But, to my surprise, my efforts did not effect it. It seemed to take no notice of me.

I stood there dumbfounded and watched it leave--following a man dressed in red robes. I followed the pair for some time before it dawned on me that this foul beast, this demon from hell was the simple summons of a necromancer, just going about town doing the same things I was doing, buying supplies, visiting the pub. Nothing special--just a simple summoning spell.

It's a world of modern magic.

[Bob Bob Bob]

Pathfinder is popular. That's the only reason it gets chosen. Rounding up people for Swords and Sorcery or Gurps or whatever other system has a better handle on low magic is hard. Telling people "it's Pathfinder, but without this this and this" is easy. The hard part is choosing what the "this" is.

The kitchen sink nature of Golarion also means you can usually find an area to run your gothic horror/sci-fi/heart of darkness/whatever, so that helps if you want to flesh out backgrounds. Also gives you archetypes and prestige classes appropriate for what you want to run. It's a very big, all-inclusive setting.

As for why people want low magic, well, that's actually really simple. They want a world with low magic. I know, a pointless answer, but it's the only accurate one. Some want gritty realism, some want pseudo-historical realism, some want magic to be wondrous and rare so people "ooh" and "aah" over it. Of course, there's also people who just want to restrict what players can do because they "don't like" certain things, like healing for low level players or magic letting you bypass obstacles. Never assume that unless the words "munchkin", "powergamer", or "cheese weasel" come up in their reasons.I just wanted to use the word cheese weasel.

Spoiler:

My recommendation for trying to shoehorn anything into a system that won't take it is Mutants and Masterminds. It handles wildly disparate power types well by divorcing the actual effects from what generate them. You can run pretty much any type of game with it, it's a very flexible system, and removing magic is as simple as requiring that they give you nonmagical descriptions of their powers.

[Ed Reppert]

If you want a low magic, realistic game, try HârnMaster.

[Malwing]

I'd like to ask. When people say "low magic" do they mean Low caster power or low magic items? Do full casters make magic mundane or the abundance of magic items?

[Ascalaphus]

I get the desire for a different, low-magic flavor of the game.

And then sometimes people argue the game would be more balanced by making it more low-magic. But when you look at the proposed house rules, they're rarely more balanced; they yank the balance around, screw over one or more classes, but the end result usually isn't actually balanced. For example:

Martials suffer a lot if there's no magical healing available to "refuel" them.

You can no longer use many cool monsters that require magic to fight effectively.

Without fog and wind spells, archers will probably be even more OP compared to melee types.

If a PC does have magic, he'll be at a huge advantage vs. NPCs, who will rarely have magic to counter it.

Overhauling PF to yank out big elements is quite hard. So why do people try? I think Bob's outlined the major reasons on that.

[Bob Bob Bob]

Malwing wrote:

I'd like to ask. When people say "low magic" do they mean Low caster power or low magic items? Do full casters make magic mundane or the abundance of magic items?

Depends on who you ask and what their idea of low magic is. I've seen both. I've seen "no spellcasters and therefore all magic items have to be made by level 7 NPCs with Master Craftsman". I've seen "rare magic items because spellcasters are hunted down on sight". I've seen "replace all magic users with alchemists/something vaguely scientific and treat magic like science". That one can be either Dark Ages or Renaissance (no/rare magic items or lots of magic items). And that's not even including "After the End" type stuff (original Greyhawk had shade of this, I think) where magic items are rare and special because the people who made most of it are dead and nobody can make more of it.

From what I've seen gritty realism tends towards no or low magic users and magic items, pseudo historical can go either way on magic users but has rare magic items, and making magic wondrous people tend to prefer rare magic items and most spellcasters are either high level or PCs. They're not rare or restricted, per se, but they're treated as wondrous by the populace (for good or ill).

[Pendagast]

Malwing wrote:

I'd like to ask. When people say "low magic" do they mean Low caster power or low magic items? Do full casters make magic mundane or the abundance of magic items?

In my definition, Low magic = low NPC caster levels and limited access to magic items.

No magi-marts, if there's a high level mage it's whispered rumors, not some dude in a pub.

Likewise, PC classes for NPCs are fairly rare and if they exist are mixed with the Core NPC classes, like aristocrat 6/cleric 4.

characters must travel far and wide to meet a heirophant, high priest or master wizard.

[Dreaming Psion]

Malwing wrote:

I'd like to ask. When people say "low magic" do they mean Low caster power or low magic items? Do full casters make magic mundane or the abundance of magic items?

I would say that to have low magic items you'd sure as shootin' better bring down the casters with them, considering how much less casters depend on gear than everybody else.

As for why there is a desire for low magic, there's a few possible things one can think of:
1)Variety is the spice of life. Some worlds and campaigns might call for a lower realm of magic.

2)With magic as prevalent as it is, it's a lot of bookwork to keep up. Every majr NPC enemy carrying around several potions or other expendables, as well as once you get up there 2-4 minor magic items can be a lot to keep track of.

3)Some might want players to depend less on having the right spell (or scroll) at the right time and more on thinking of weird and unusual ways of solving problems in subomptimal conditions. Being able to go to a store and having a 75% chance of finding whatever scroll or some such you're looking for is a bit galling.

4)They want more things for martials and the other mundanes to do. As it is, magic is a fairly go-to solution to handling problems. You can look at some of the stuff the ancient and medieval people did without magic and wonder how nice that would be to translate into a game. But that would require considerably more logistics and technical finesse than plopping down some items and saying they function because they're magic.

5) Some people have commented on the Christmas tree effect and expressed how characters rely too much on their gear instead of their own character's innate abilities.

6)Somewhat related to #6, it's not necessarily that they want low magic so much as they want rarer but more powerful/concentrated magic. Instead of half a dozen cloaks of resistance and a quarter dozen nameless +1 items. The "Big Six" weighs on the mind of a lot of people, how much players look for it, and how much it can eat out of WBL. I could see from a GM's perspective that it would be fun to give the players the weird stuff and see how they put it to work solving problems, and as a player I can see how finding a few fairly significant magic items with unusual abilities etc.

[MMCJawa]

my opinion:

Low magic, in the sense of what casters can pull off, or the amount of magic items available, is often pretty far removed from the stories and settings of fantasy literature, movies, and other mediums

Abundant magic items become boring. Those fancy powerful magic swords start becoming boring after your PC's stumble upon the 12th one.

[ShadowcatX]

Many campaign settings, even from dnd, are not suited to the amount of magic pf and 3.x has bent over backwards to create. Look at Ravenloft and Dark Sun, both settings that are generally well loved and low magic, yet full of amazing adventure. It is that feeling that I think people are trying to reclaim with low magic settings.

Beyond that, magic in 3.x and pf isn't all that magical, it is largely a matter of pluses and gold pieces. Even spell magic doesn't have much of an air of wonder to it. Honestly, I'd rather have pretty much any form of magic over dnd magic, mage the ascenscion, exalted, even paladium fantasy.

[Ed Reppert]

Dreaming Psion wrote:

5) Some people have commented on the Christmas tree effect and expressed how characters rely too much on their gear instead of their own character's innate abilities.

"There are no dangerous weapons, there are only dangerous men." -- Fleet Sergeant Zim

[Arikiel]

It's pretty simple really. A lot of popular fantasy is low magic (the Conan series, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, etc). Pretty much everyone having access to magic on a whim doesn't really fit the mood for many campaign settings. There's nothing wrong with the over the top anime style action if that's what you're going for, but it doesn't always work. In my personal setting I do like higher end magics to be pretty rare and exotic. Normal humans have a level cap of 10th (Not that players are necessarily normal humans). The more down to earth "realism" appeals to me.

[Lakesidefantasy]

Malwing wrote:

I'd like to ask. When people say "low magic" do they mean Low caster power or low magic items? Do full casters make magic mundane or the abundance of magic items?

For me, it is more the abundance of magic items. But, also the availability of spell casting 'services', and the psuedo-technological manifestations of magic.

I don't think I mind casters being powerful, but I'd like to think that my player's wizards and the villains I pit them against are rare and unique rather than just one among many.

[the secret fire]

My own version of "low magic" is similar to Lakeside's, in the sense that I like magic to be rare, not nerfed or capped in any profound way. Similarly, I think magic items should be wondrous and hard-earned things, and find the "magic mart" or "build" style of gaming that is the Pathfinder default banal and boring.

If one really takes seriously the default status of magic in Golarion, it would lead very quickly to a magic-as-technology steampunk (or even more high-tech) sort of game in which the machines are driven by arcane rather than chemical forces. I don't want to play in that sort of world, so I don't.

Why Pathfinder? Because I don't have the energy to teach a bunch of people Rolemaster.

[bookrat]

In my experiences, low magic has meant low-to-no magic or magic items for the player characters, but normal magic for NPCs and monsters. From the low magic games I've been in to the low magic campaigns I've seen others in to the low magic games I've conversed with other GMs about, it has always been about the GM finding a way to gain greater control over the players because they don't like that the player can use the rules of the game to "outwit" or overrule the GM. One thing I have noticed that every low magic GM I've seen or talked with have had in common - they all do not like to be questioned about anything they say or dictate. Their word is law and it is final, and you do not deserve to know why they made a particular ruling on the rules; what they say goes. So in my experiences, GMs want low magic games because they have control issues and need to have greater control over their players. A sort of "My table, my rules" sort of thing. As a wa to test this, ask the GM of they'd be willing to hand over control of the game to someone else and play in the low magic setting - most of the GMs in my experience either say no or reluctantly give up control (but that usually only lasts a few gaming sessions before they demand it back).

Conversely, players I've seen who want a low magic game tend to want a more nitty-gritty gaming experience. Since players tend to not have as much control over the game, the issue of power control goes away.

So I will always give warning if a GM wants a low magic game - especially if it is a GM you're unfamiliar with; but if the whole table wants to play it, then by all means have your fun! Pathfinder is a game and it should be fun (for everyone involved).

Spoiler:

One low-magic style GM I talked with even went so far as to say that he would kill of a character's horse if the player dared to use math to prove his point.

[Saigo Takamori]

Malwing wrote:

I see this a lot; Someone wants advice on or is describing their house rules for a low magic campaign. In Pathfinder this is a daunting task and there is a ton of different advice on how to go about this, from not leveling past 6th level to banning all full casters. But my question is "Why?"

Basically if you are a person that desires low magic campaign, why do you want this? Especially in a magic-heavy system like Pathfinder?

To clarify I'm not saying "If you like low magic so much get your butt in a different system." I'm trying to understand why there are a lot of attempts at low magic. Is it an innate storytelling desire? Is magic just complicated and overpowered? Are you trying to mimic a book or movie's setting and heavy magic disrupts it? Are you tired of all caster parties?

First reason: the setting. I have been the DM of a Lord of the Ring campaign before and let's face it: magic is not that important (even if my game was in the Second age). In that case, sure you try to keep it at low magic level (few caster, few magic item and, for LOTR, low level).

Second reason: the world logic. If magic is that present it can make some problem, especially in the economy (where adventurer can destroy the economy of a small town with their magic item). If you keep it at low level magic, the world will just be more logical.

[Jaelithe]

bookrat wrote:

In my experiences, low magic has meant low-to-no magic or magic items for the player characters, but normal magic for NPCs and monsters.

And see, I've never seen this. In most low magic games with which I've been associated, the player characters tend to have and encounter quite a bit of the magic in the game, and their items tend to be the most interesting, if not of world-shaking power.

Quote:

So in my experiences, GMs want low magic games because they have control issues ...

Your experiences are anecdotal, as are mine.

Another person with a different set of experiences could just as easily say that players want high-magic games because they're self-indulgent little brats. Both are equally valid and useful—that is to say, not ... at ... all.

[Greylurker]

Low magic can mean different things to different people. Sometimes it just requiers small changes.

For example what if Spellbooks could only contain a single spell?

You haven't really removed anything from the game and it's not even all that big of a limitation if you aren't removing things like Bags of holding or portable holes, but it does change some of the feel of arcane magic.

[bookrat]

Jaelithe wrote:

bookrat wrote:

In my experiences, low magic has meant low-to-no magic or magic items for the player characters, but normal magic for NPCs and monsters.

And see, I've never seen this. In most low magic games with which I've been associated, the player characters tend to have and encounter quite a bit of the magic in the game, and their items tend to be the most interesting, if not of world-shaking power.

So if they have and encounter "quite a bit of magic," how is that a low magic game? I think we're taking about different things. Your game sounds like a "moderate magic" game. The "low magic" I've most often encountered are the games where you should feel lucky if you get a +1 weapon of any kind by level 8 or so (and extremely lucky if it is a weapon you're proficient in). And yes, I've been told that I should feel lucky for getting that +1 dagger at higher levels. Meanwhile, we face enemies who can only be harmed by magic weapons. Or enemy wizards with full access to the spells in the game (and some new ones the GM made up) when the players aren't alowed to play magic users at all.

I've seen this time and time again, in games I've been in, in games I've witenessed, and here on the forums from GMs advocating low magic games.

Quote:

Your experiences are anecdotal, as are mine.

Another person with a different set of experiences could just as easily say that players want high-magic games because they're self-indulgent little brats. Both are equally valid and useful—that is to say, not ... at ... all.

This entire thread is about anecdotes. The OP's question was "why do people play low magic games with pathfinder?" This isn't a comprehensive scientific study looking objectively at why people play a fantasy game this way or that. It is a collection of anecdotes from different people who elect to respond to this question. You might as well say that every post in this thread is a useless anecdote and close the entire thread down as worthless.

And yes, the people who I've witnessed claim that players are self-indulgent because they want magic items or to be able to play magic users are so the people who tend to have the attitude I described in my last post.

[RDM42]

Actually you have that almost entirely backwards for me. I like low magic because it makes the party casters seem more special. When there is a fifth level caster under every tree then saying ''I'm a fifth level wizard" is like saying 'I played intramural football'. You, as a caster, are unusual. Concurrant with reducing magic items to rebalance casters against martials you also have to place some rstrictions on casters in general and reduce the preponderances of creatures with magic only resistances.

[Flawed]

So what makes people think magic should be scarce? Without looking to the new hybrid classes 14 of 22 player classes can cast spells. That's overwhelmingly in favor of a high magic world. The NPC classes have 1 of 5 classes being able to cast spells. Assuming a normal distribution you'd expect about 20% of the population of Golarion to know how to use magic. So 20% of the NPC population CAN cast spells with another portion of the population knowing about magic. None of this really indicates low magic.

If it's not a point of logic and merely your own vision of how the world would be in some cases mentioned above, what do you do to provide low magic without having to change an abundance of the system? Easiest solution seems to be make the big 6 into inherent bonuses gained through leveling and just allow the other items slots to become your uniques or allow weapons and armors to be enchanted with abilities instead of enhancement bonuses while still gaining the enhancement bonus inherently.

[Saigo Takamori]

Flawed wrote:

So what makes people think magic should be scarce? Without looking to the new hybrid classes 14 of 22 player classes can cast spells. That's overwhelmingly in favor of a high magic world. The NPC classes have 1 of 5 classes being able to cast spells. Assuming a normal distribution you'd expect about 20% of the population of Golarion to know how to use magic. So 20% of the NPC population CAN cast spells with another portion of the population knowing about magic. None of this really indicates low magic.

If it's not a point of logic and merely your own vision of how the world would be in some cases mentioned above, what do you do to provide low magic without having to change an abundance of the system? Easiest solution seems to be make the big 6 into inherent bonuses gained through leveling and just allow the other items slots to become your uniques or allow weapons and armors to be enchanted with abilities instead of enhancement bonuses while still gaining the enhancement bonus inherently.

There is not 20% of the population that is adept: the vast majority is villager and expert.

[Malwing]

My general view of the world assumed by the hardcovers is that either

1. leveling is exceedingly rare and difficult. One skill rank can grant you an entire language and that's just part of what you get from leveling, so I imagine one level is at least a year of intense study. Normal people have nowhere near the amount of gold or class levels that players get.

2. Magic is everywhere and pretty much is the technology of the universe. I don't mind this and will play it up in some campaigns. I took an interest in third party magic mostly so that I have a stable of magic that players have to discover to use to keep things interesting in a world full of magic. Heck even fighters have access to magic feats in those campaigns.

But Bookrat is correct, I'm mostly asking for feelings behind wanting to play low magic. I understand why I would want to play low magic and how I would go about it, and I know why I would do that in Pathfinder rather than play a different system, (full disclosure; I don't really. I keep other systems around specifically to play low magic, because I like 'magic as technology' Pathfinder and find it hard to play something like say Game of Thrones with Pathfinder. Well outside of Playing E6 or the Beginner Box rules.) but I wanted to know how other people felt since it's a common thing that pops up.

[Jaelithe]

bookrat wrote:

So if they have and encounter "quite a bit of magic," how is that a low magic game?

Because the players are the exception—the movers and the shakers at the locus of unusual occurrences. Thus, it's a low magic game/campaign, but the player characters, as preeminent heroes, are going to see much of the magic as a matter of poetic license and dramatic necessity.

Quote:

I think we're taking about different things. Your game sounds like a "moderate magic" game.

We may have differing definitions. See above.

Quote:

The "low magic" I've most often encountered are the games where you should feel lucky if you get a +1 weapon of any kind by level 8 or so (and extremely lucky if it is a weapon you're proficient in). And yes, I've been told that I should feel lucky for getting that +1 dagger at higher levels. Meanwhile, we face enemies who can only be harmed by magic weapons. Or enemy wizards with full access to the spells in the game (and some new ones the GM made up) when the players aren't alowed to play magic users at all.

If these are your experiences, you have my sympathies.

I have, indeed, played games in which the only arcane magic available throughout 1st and even 2nd level are the arcane spells the wizard and/or bard have managed to scrounge, steal, barter, buy, create or find, as opposed to simply perusing various spell-lists and saying, "Me likee dis one!" ... in which the first magical weapon or object found happened well into 3rd level ... in which clerics, paladins, druids and other divine casters do not always and exclusively receive the ones they choose, but instead at times those granted them by the gods.

Those have been, in my experience, the best campaigns by far.

In addition, I do think the bad guys should on occasion, if not always, be more powerful than the good guys. Adapting and overcoming is what makes a hero, not being able to constantly overpower your opposition and grind him under your heel.

If you're in a campaign, though, where it's always the NPCs who get the cool stuff, that just sucks, and shouldn't be tolerated. A DM who runs a low-magic game has a responsibility to make certain that the players encounter intriguing, even unique, items and spells. Sometimes it'll occur as a result of taking them from a defeated and deceased foe, as it should.

Quote:

I've seen this time and time again, in games I've been in, in games I've witnessed, and here on the forums from GMs advocating low magic games.

I'd categorize your experience as exceedingly unlucky.

Quote:

This entire thread is about anecdotes. The OP's question was "why do people play low magic games with pathfinder?" This isn't a comprehensive scientific study looking objectively at why people play a fantasy game this way or that. It is a collection of anecdotes from different people who elect to respond to this question. You might as well say that every post in this thread is a useless anecdote and close the entire thread down as worthless.

Nope. Just took amused exception to the tone and assertions about the motivations of those who enjoy low-magic games. Struck me as disrespectful and a tad embittered.

I'm sure sometimes it is about control. On more frequent occasions it's about duplicating the ambiance of literary fantasy, which Pathfinder's hyper-powerful spell-casters and creatures make exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.

Quote:

And yes, the people who I've witnessed claim that players are self-indulgent because they want magic items or to be able to play magic users are so the people who tend to have the attitude I described in my last post.

Players who want neat magic items and cool spells are not self-indulgent; they're there to have fun, and that's part of the fun.

Those who want them of a power level they deem adequate, in a certain abundant quantity and on a schedule to which the DM should accede no matter the campaign's contrary tone and timbre are worse than self-indulgent. They're demanding, bratty little twerps.

Works both ways. That's why it's best to find a group of like-minded individuals.

The title of the thread is "low magic," not "low magic in Golarion." Perhaps that's part of the disagreement here. To clarify: I would never try to make Golarion a low-magic setting. It's just not structured for that. I would also never play in Golarion, because it's precisely the kind of "everything and the kitchen sink" kind of setting I loathe.

[Kthulhu]

bookrat wrote:

In my experiences, low magic has meant low-to-no magic or magic items for the player characters, but normal magic for NPCs and monsters.

Any magic items that NPCs or monsters have is a magic item the PCs can take from them.

[Pan]

I agree with you Malwing that if I want a particular experience, like say low magic, I would probably use another system. Though I think the fact so many try and ram the PF peg into the low magic hole is because of its popularity. It may seem strange to only play one game but its a common occurrence. PF/D&D game ads fill and disappear twice as fast as any other. Just how it is. Also, why the community fights constantly about simulation/narrative and caster martial disparity issues. There can be only one!

Personally, I fall a little more on the simulation combat as war side of things. Resource attrition is a huge part of the game. Dungeon crawls are about survival any which way you can. Magic is great but it also powers the players up. I like more mundane approaches to problems and solutions and magic should be break open in case of emergency only. This is why I prefer low magic.

After a decade of fighting the system and getting to know my tables play styles, I have settled on a stable compromise. We just know how to make 3E/PF work for us even though it is not perfect. I will admit though playing different systems does wonders for finding out what you want out of the game. YMMV.

[Malignant Manor]

Lots of fantasy has the hero having a magical sword if any magic items at all. Magical items are rare and to be coveted not mass produced items imported from China and India.

For prd material (not counting the Technology guide), up the cost to make magical items (or just have them be found), tinker with cr after a few levels, and limit to prestige classes and these

pc base classes:

Adept
Barbarian
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue

Gunslinger (if you want guns)
Cavalier
Antipaladin
Ninja
Samurai

Bloodrager
Brawler
Slayer
swashbuckler

Spells above 5th are gone. Adept could be flavored to take the place of the typical mage or priest and would be a pc class. Most classes with spell casting get spells at level 4. Ninja can get (minor) mirror image or invisibility at level 2, bloodragers have some nifty level 1 stuff, paladins start healing at level 2, and barbarians have rage powers starting at level 2.

You could increase 8 hour rest healing to 1 hp per d6, 1.25 per d8, 1.5 per d10, 1.75 per d12. Toughness and favored class hp could could heal an extra .25 per level they apply. The healing skill could use a similar increase.

[gamer-printer]

IME, low magic settings, mean no full casters in the game, perhaps only half-casters like paladin, ranger, and an arcane version, perhaps bard. Often there are no casters whatsoever. Rather magic items were created before some cataclysm where casters were hunted out of existence, and now can only be found in dungeons, buried somewhere, or in rare caches under tight lock and key. So a game of martials only with rare, found magic items as the only source of magic. Of course the rarity of magic applies to everyone, not just the PCs.

In Conan-like settings sorcerers may exist, though might be limited like E6 and never as PCs these are only BBEGs.

[Flawed]

Saigo Takamori wrote:

Flawed wrote:

So what makes people think magic should be scarce? Without looking to the new hybrid classes 14 of 22 player classes can cast spells. That's overwhelmingly in favor of a high magic world. The NPC classes have 1 of 5 classes being able to cast spells. Assuming a normal distribution you'd expect about 20% of the population of Golarion to know how to use magic. So 20% of the NPC population CAN cast spells with another portion of the population knowing about magic. None of this really indicates low magic.

If it's not a point of logic and merely your own vision of how the world would be in some cases mentioned above, what do you do to provide low magic without having to change an abundance of the system? Easiest solution seems to be make the big 6 into inherent bonuses gained through leveling and just allow the other items slots to become your uniques or allow weapons and armors to be enchanted with abilities instead of enhancement bonuses while still gaining the enhancement bonus inherently.

There is not 20% of the population that is adept: the vast majority is villager and expert.

Where is there a listed percentage anywhere?

[the secret fire]

Flawed wrote:

Saigo Takamori wrote:

Flawed wrote:

So what makes people think magic should be scarce? Without looking to the new hybrid classes 14 of 22 player classes can cast spells. That's overwhelmingly in favor of a high magic world. The NPC classes have 1 of 5 classes being able to cast spells. Assuming a normal distribution you'd expect about 20% of the population of Golarion to know how to use magic. So 20% of the NPC population CAN cast spells with another portion of the population knowing about magic. None of this really indicates low magic.

If it's not a point of logic and merely your own vision of how the world would be in some cases mentioned above, what do you do to provide low magic without having to change an abundance of the system? Easiest solution seems to be make the big 6 into inherent bonuses gained through leveling and just allow the other items slots to become your uniques or allow weapons and armors to be enchanted with abilities instead of enhancement bonuses while still gaining the enhancement bonus inherently.

There is not 20% of the population that is adept: the vast majority is villager and expert.

Where is there a listed percentage anywhere?

You don't need published percentages to draw that conclusion. Even in wild and wooly Golarion, most normal people are going to be grubby turnip farmers and the like.

[Grey_Mage]

Low magic campaigns are my preferred version to GM.

I like magic to mean something. I don't give out +2 swords. I give out the "Arvos Defender" - a Longsword with the Arvos family crest. Local superstition credited it with the safe return of its family members from several war zones in the past 4 generations - at least until they find it on a dead body...
(only I know its +2 or maybe +1 w/ +1 Deflection AC) They just know its higher quality than most other blades.

Basically: I arm my characters well but all items have flavoring rather than being cookie cutters right out of a book.

#1 Rule for players having fun in my book? Keep 'em guessing.

Unfortunately, this leads for more tracking on my part so fewer items helps me adjudicate combat. That being said, as the campaign progresses they are more well armed than most armies. I have found they tend to value their items more so than other campaigns.

I don't limit casters, as adventurers are always the exception to the rule. Finding other mages to steal spells from may be problematic though...

[Under A Bleeding Sun]

I like to do "Mid-Magic" sometimes.

My current game I'm doing it because it fits the setting. Mid level magic-psionics and high technology. Magic and Psionics fell after a pretty cataclysmic event and then we saw the rise of technology. With the rise of technology, magic hasn't made as much as a comeback as before.

Magic is still very powerful, but casters loose the highest level spells, so its not quite as earth shattering, more just the creation of the universe type stuff goes. Also, certain spells just don't exist, mostly because the trivialize the "technology" of the setting.

But I also enjoy high magic campaigns, both work fine.

[boring7]

Malwing wrote:

But Bookrat is correct, I'm mostly asking for feelings behind wanting to play low magic. I understand why I would want to play low magic and how I would go about it, and I know why I would do that in Pathfinder rather than play a different system, (full disclosure; I don't really. I keep other systems around specifically to play low magic, because I like 'magic as technology' Pathfinder and find it hard to play something like say Game of Thrones with Pathfinder. Well outside of Playing E6 or the Beginner Box rules.) but I wanted to know how other people felt since it's a common thing that pops up.

Oh but there are so MANY reasons, and it's never just one reason for anyone...

Off the top of my head, the reasons provided by people doing it, and the reasons they don't mention but still manage to convey:

-Swords are cool. Here's a simple exercise: watch Revenge of the Sith (I know, fast-forward the stupid talky bits) and the two concurrent fight scenes between Yoda/Palpatine and Kenobi/Skywalker. One is a sword fight, one is a mage fight. Chances are you think the sword fight is more fun to watch. Statistics and audience polls show most folks think the sword fight is more fun to watch. To do "magic = technolgy" compare exciting infantry charges (which lose) to holding well-defended trenches and calling in artillery/air strikes. To bring it back around, in a fight between casters, archers, and warriors it is the warrior that gets most of the bonuses and obsessive assistance from nulling the magic level.

-Players are terrible people. They eat your food, kill your monsters, ruin your dungeons, unravel your plots, and don't act grateful enough when you give them treasure. They need to be punished by not giving them as much treasure, because that will teach them a lesson. I mean that's the idea, in practice they tend to just get frustrated and annoyed. We players are stupid creatures, we cannot learn your lesson of appreciation.

-Magic needs to be magical. If you make a +1 sword really hard to get that will make it totally appreciated and awesome. It will be as game-changing as That One Ring because there ain't no magic anywhere but there. In theory making a +1 sword rare will make it super-awesome and more appreciated. In practice a player look at the +1 longsword and look at how they get +5 from having a really good (yet still normal) strength and toss it in favor of a non-magical greatsword (still does more net damage).

-Magic is feared and distrusted! In theory anybody with "the craft" or "foul, magical tools" will be mistrusted, ostracized, and mob-violenced out of the picture. Therefore it is nowhere to be found because anyone who finds it destroys it in a rage. In practice (actual history) anybody with any tricks or the appearance of power attracted cult-like followings and the "burning times" where witches were burned or hung inevitably targeted people who DIDN'T have power. The harmless and helpless were specifically murdered BECAUSE they didn't have power to protect themselves and groups like the Mennonites or people who declared new technology/technique "taboo" always lost to the people who didn't. Rome fell because the barbarians figured out how to steal Roman tech, not because Rock actually beats Laser. This doesn't stop it from being a common trope, of course, see Song of Ice and Fire where magic is a game-changer that wins battles and wars but nobody respects or trusts it because...reasons. Bur even in aSoIaF some magic (dragons, gods, magic face-dancing assassins) is largely accepted and trusted, the only question is which batch of magic people put stock in and which batch of magic they refuse and hate/dismiss. They always have something they believe in (like Jesus) that is supposed to be more powerful.

-Limiting options limits a party's ability to RUIN your carefully-crafted narrative (sorry, cheap shot) by doing things that are too stupid or too smart because they have access to lots of power. See a thread a while back where a dumb dwarf decided to get rid of a magic soul-trapping mirror and in doing so released 2 ancient evil dragons. THAT'S a plot-derailer right there, and heaven help you if evil PCs get ahold of a dragon corpse to zombify.

-I can't get anyone to not play Pathfinder! I honestly haven't run across anything even related to this problem, but all the people complaining loudly about how Pathfinder is "too popular" imply this. This seems more likely to come from players than GMs, since finding a GM is generally the deciding factor in whether a game runs or not. At least in my experience.

-I want more attention! Sometimes the casters annoyingly steal the spotlight by ending fights, solving puzzles, and doing amazing things with their amazing powers leaving the melee martials bored, alone, and overshadowed. Sometimes they just get equal screen time but the martials just can't stand any time where they aren't in front. This is linked heavily with "swords are cool." Statistically the best combat style has casters doing buffs, but when the caster has a laundry-list of buffs and the martial has "kill stuff hard" or "kill stuff hard" you have a lot of time to think and get bored with your job, even though you still get bragging rights to most of the party kills and tend to be seen as party leader because you walk in the front and decide whether things progress or stop.

-A high power party is hard to challenge! I mean, CRs go up, but a well-oiled combat machine of a party can mincemeat a LOT of different kinds of monsters, and as the line between "tough fight" and "TPK" gets thinner and thinner and spells you don't have a lot of experience with (because you don't do high-level games much) start coming into play and wrecking things it gets harder to craft an adventure. Alternatively, adventures are JUST as high-mortality at 1st level as 15th because a d20 roll can be cruel and hateful (example; had a party fight the same Kasatha Juju zombie twice, first time was minor damage, second time was nearly a wipe even though the party was in better shape the second time) and you just don't notice because the barely-introduced characters and their unknown backstories are less traumatic to lose.

That's all I can think of right now.

[Oliver McShade]

Malwing wrote:

I see this a lot; Someone wants advice on or is describing their house rules for a low magic campaign. In Pathfinder this is a daunting task and there is a ton of different advice on how to go about this, from not leveling past 6th level to banning all full casters. But my question is "Why?"

Basically if you are a person that desires low magic campaign, why do you want this? Especially in a magic-heavy system like Pathfinder?

To clarify I'm not saying "If you like low magic so much get your butt in a different system." I'm trying to understand why there are a lot of attempts at low magic. Is it an innate storytelling desire? Is magic just complicated and overpowered? Are you trying to mimic a book or movie's setting and heavy magic disrupts it? Are you tired of all caster parties?

Because the world has changed since the early 70 and 80.

People are more into Reality, and less into Fantasy.

They keep talking about balance, when the game was designed, not for balance, but for cool adventure. Where most melee character shined at early level, were caster were 1 arrow away from death at most times. This would of course flip flop the other way around after 10th level, if the game every lasted that long.

Anyway, i miss the age of Flying Castles, Magic Jar used to still people bodies, and Haste aging you a year but giving you great advantages in combat. ..

Anyway, life is not fair, and i hate balance.. but then again, i miss the day's of having just 4 classes: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Sorcerer (( ok it was Wizard, but would choose Sorcerer over Wizard any day now..... to many DM, starting the game off at 1st level, Imprisoned, Chained, and NO spell book...has made wizard a NO option )).

Oh well, i want Star Trek or Doctor Who, but using Magic instead of Technology :-D level 6+ spells please :-D

[Steve Geddes]

Malwing wrote:

I see this a lot; Someone wants advice on or is describing their house rules for a low magic campaign. In Pathfinder this is a daunting task and there is a ton of different advice on how to go about this, from not leveling past 6th level to banning all full casters. But my question is "Why?"

In my case, it's all about magical items. I dont care about casters being super-powerful (I prefer games where magic is usually strictly better than mundane).

Very few of the fantasy stories I read have characters with oodles of magical gear and none of them have the main characters "upgrading" regularly. I generally like to play in games which are like the stories I read in trashy fantasy novels.

[Flawed]

the secret fire wrote:

Flawed wrote:

Saigo Takamori wrote:

Flawed wrote:

So what makes people think magic should be scarce? Without looking to the new hybrid classes 14 of 22 player classes can cast spells. That's overwhelmingly in favor of a high magic world. The NPC classes have 1 of 5 classes being able to cast spells. Assuming a normal distribution you'd expect about 20% of the population of Golarion to know how to use magic. So 20% of the NPC population CAN cast spells with another portion of the population knowing about magic. None of this really indicates low magic.

If it's not a point of logic and merely your own vision of how the world would be in some cases mentioned above, what do you do to provide low magic without having to change an abundance of the system? Easiest solution seems to be make the big 6 into inherent bonuses gained through leveling and just allow the other items slots to become your uniques or allow weapons and armors to be enchanted with abilities instead of enhancement bonuses while still gaining the enhancement bonus inherently.

There is not 20% of the population that is adept: the vast majority is villager and expert.

Where is there a listed percentage anywhere?

You don't need published percentages to draw that conclusion. Even in wild and wooly Golarion, most normal people are going to be grubby turnip farmers and the like.

A warrior could retire as a turnip farmer. Does that make him a commoner now?

'Most normal people' equates to how much? 50-80% of the population? Who decides what's 'normal people'? In a world where people can cast create food or create items like sustaining spoons is there really a need for that many turnip farmers?

Since I couldn't find any demographic percentages I chose to state "assuming a normal distribution". The point being that a large portion of the population would know about magic and what it is and capable of doing. So why should magic be scarce?

[Orfamay Quest]

Flawed wrote:

A warrior could retire as a turnip farmer. Does that make him a commoner now?

'Most normal people' equates to how much? 50-80% of the population? Who decides what's 'normal people'? In a world where people can cast create food or create items like sustaining spoons is there really a need for that many turnip farmers?

Since I couldn't find any demographic percentages I chose to state "assuming a normal distribution". The point being that a large portion of the population would know about magic and what it is and capable of doing. So why should magic be scarce?

I don't think "normal distribution" means what you think it does.

But simple economics suggests that most of the population are indeed farmers. Pre-Industrial revolution, about 75% of the population in the real world was involved in agriculture, so we'll take that as our base. The price of a "good meal" in the equipment list is 5sp (per day). Most people, of course, aren't going to be eating "good" meals, so this is a conservative calcuation.

The price of spellcasting (for example, of create food and water, which is a third-level spell) is 10gp x spell level x caster level, or 30gp x caster level.

The spell creates enough food for twenty-four hours for three people per caster level, so it costs 10gp to feed a person per day via spells. In fact, that 10gp meal represents the total cost of a month's living for a person living an "average" lifestyle, meaning you basically have a choice between buying a single one of those meals or buying shelter, clothing, warmth, and food for the rest of the month.

The conclusion is obvious; most people aren't fed via spells, since you can buy "good" food for twenty for the price of such a spell. And, yes, there is a crushing need for turnip farmers because magical turnips can't supply the public need at anything approaching a reasonable cost.

[Orfamay Quest]

Further to previous. The sustaining spoon produces enough gruel to feed four people and costs 5400 gp, or 1350 gp/person. There's no way anyone would consider gruel that "tastes like warm, wet cardboard" a "good" meal, so it's competing against a "poor" meal costing 1 sp.

For the 1350 gp, I could buy 13,500 days worth of poor meals, roughly forty years worth of food. People don't buy items that take forty years to pay for themselves, so the idea of using sustaining spoons as a large-scale form of subsistence is economically ludicrous. This is doubly true when you realize that people generally don't voluntarily subsist long-term on food that tastes like that unless they have no other choice.

[williamoak]

To the OP:

The general reason I think people play low-magic pathfinder is player availability. There are a LOT of people who like pathfinder (it is currently the best-selling RP system), so it can be hard to have inherently low-magic systems accepted by players. Examples I know are dungeon world & warhammer fantasy roleplay. Those systems work well with low magic, but very few people know of them or are willing to play them. Thus, GMs cant recruit players, so they have to get back to pathfinder. (Note: I know roll20 is a possible solution, but GM-ing a table in RL is much easier/pleasant than online, so I can understand some folks not wanting it).

Mini-rant:
However, it's hard to really integrate the players in the "truth" of the world. By my estimations, PC-type characters represent at MOST 5% of the population in any given setting, and in most of mine represent less than one percent. Naturally, those folks will focus a lot of power (here magic items) creating a skewed impression of the spread of magic. But that's my perception. So low-magic settings are generally "impossibly rare" magic settings. Rant over.

(Note: if I wanted to go low-magic, I would go quick-fix: nothing above a 4/9 caster class allowed, no monsters, only NPC (and some animal) enemies)

[Helaman]

No monsters etc etc - Thats not low magic as much as low fantasy.

I dig on Low Magic pathfinder simply because the rules are well known and understood even if players have familiarity with one form of D&D or another.

E6 (or E7) scratches my itch in a fmiliar game system

[Quark Blast]

Flawed wrote:

<snip> ...The point being that a large portion of the population would know about magic and what it is and capable of doing. So why should magic be scarce?

So because everyone "knows" about quantum mechanics in this world means quantum physicists are as common a grass. There'll be a cheese maker in Hoboken who pieces together the final puzzle for magnetic-containment nuclear fusion any day now. Yep.

[TriOmegaZero]

That's a nonsensical comparison. People in fantasyland are actually doing magic, with common applications. Quantum mechanics are nowhere near as prevalent in the real world.