| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is a fantasy roleplaying game. Period. There is nothing that says that it has to be played with high magic. You can play it with any level of magic you want. You can include steampunk stuff or not. You can even play it with no combat whatsoever, if you want. You could even run a campaign that is all about farmers battling the elements and trying to bring the crops in. It all depends on what the GM and the players enjoy.
Some people are really, really into magic in rpgs. Some don't like it at all. A lot of people fall somewhere in the middle. Many like to mix it up. Again, it all depends on what the GM and players enjoy.
On a personal level, I don't like the steampunk aspects, at least when it comes to Pathfinder. I prefer no magic, low magic, and medium magic campaigns, but can happily run or play in a high magic one if that's what everyone wants. I absolutely hate Vancian magic, but can still enjoy a campaign where it is being used. That's just me, though - I have no problem with people who have other preferences and ways of playing.
As far as picking a system that reflects a certain style of play, you have to keep in mind that (sadly) a LOT of people are reluctant to learn more than one or two systems. I can happily run or play in a game using any system out there, but if that system isn't Pathfinder (regardless of the style of the campaign) it's going to be very hard for me to find enough players in my area who are willing and able to commit to an actual campaign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Aelryinth:
Some of your "solutions" aren't from PF at all others are so costly that no kingdom could buy it.Regarding the Barbarian vs. Army:
Do you ever tried to hit a level 10 Figther/Barbarian/Paladin etc. with a level 3 character? no chance due to the high AC.
Which means 100 arrows fly.. no hit (even with a lucky shot 5 out of 100 will hit and deal.. no damage due to Magic items/DR/Potions etc).
I'm perfectly aware that defenses are vastly overpriced in Pathfinder and 3E. I'm saying they should be handwaved and their price vastly decreased because they are static and put into effect over long time periods. A ward that takes a month of rituals and some finely carved anchor stalae to cast and raise, and then made Permanent, should not cost 100000 gp to put in place.
Without cheap defenses, offense trumps defense in Pathfinder. It breaks the suspension of disbelief. These defenses should exist, because no military man in their right mind would leave those kind of holes. It's just plain STUPIDITY on their part. Yet, it's an accepted part of the game world.
You can do it in stories where magic is rare and so defenses would be nigh impossible to forge. But PF is rich in magic, and making it so easy to bypass defenses just suspends incredulity.
Example: WHY is it harder to stop something from teleporting, then it is to teleport?
Dimensional hopping takes energy to rip open the dimensions, make a connection to another point, and move you there. It's patently unnatural.
Reinforcing the Veil to make it nigh impossible to do that should be SIMPLE. You're helping reality do what it is supposed to do! Instead, it's a ceremonial clerical spell you can only apply to a place of worship, and 4th level. You can start dimension skipping at level 1!
======================
DR only decreases damage, it doesn't stop it. Nat 20's will eventually wear anything down. And minor damage buffs like bardsong and cast spells aren't hard to come by.
If you have enough dweebs shooting arrows, the barb and the paladin are going to die, it's just simple math. He may inherit 50 arrows through his visor slit to make it happen, but it will happen.
==Aelryinth
I may be late to the thread but... I can answer why. Why go with low magic? Simple; to tell the stories that are impossible with a high magic setting. Survival against the elements or mother nature, murder mysteries, crime dramas, or any other sort of tale that can be solved by casting one spell. Some people miss that part of fantasy and want it back. So they take their favorite fantasy system and tweek it till it can allow such stories.
Well, actually none of them go all that well with the fantasy genre. In any case there are dozens of games (Iron Heroes comes to mind) where you can do that easily.
I am prepping a low magic campaign right now. The particular setting calls for it.
Why low magic with Pathfinder? Because it's hard to find people in my area who will play in another system. I would just as soon run it as a Savage Worlds campaign, but I would have trouble locating players if I did.
Think about this. Why does everyone want to play PATHFINDER? Not Iron Heroes?
Magic is a integral part of PF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if it has been expressed how I'm going to say it:
Pathfinder is a game about killing things and taking their stuff,
See, that's the problem. D&D has never been about "killing things and taking their stuff". If people run/play it like that, sure, you'll have issues.
Have more encounters, fewer combats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Low-magic is desirable because it brings a different kind of resource management. What it does is force players to think more strategically in the long-term and more tactically in the short-term. Perhaps it'd be better to sneak past the guards rather than carry on a frontal assault? Gee, I'm still in the process of recovering from that fight with that orc and I'm not back up to 100% - I think we'll need to plan on attacking from a distance and then running to a new spot, picking off these goblins when their patrol ranges away from their lair.You could get this effect simply by denying resurrection or making it cost prohibitive. That would be easier and not have unplanned side effects across the 3.PF system.
For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.
Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”
Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."
The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.
The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?
@ Aelryinth:
Some of your "solutions" aren't from PF at all others are so costly that no kingdom could buy it.Regarding the Barbarian vs. Army:
Do you ever tried to hit a level 10 Figther/Barbarian/Paladin etc. with a level 3 character? no chance due to the high AC.
Which means 100 arrows fly.. no hit (even with a lucky shot 5 out of 100 will hit and deal.. no damage due to Magic items/DR/Potions etc).
A nat 20 always hits. So there is a 5% per attack to hit. So, of those 100 arrows 5 would hit. Assuming longbows, 1d8 average is 4.5 per hit, x 5 arrows is 22.5 damage on average.
What magic items/potions prevent arrow damage?
DR might come into account, assuming its at least 5 (not something most barbarians get to).
|
Low-magic is desirable because it brings a different kind of resource management. What it does is force players to think more strategically in the long-term and more tactically in the short-term. Perhaps it'd be better to sneak past the guards rather than carry on a frontal assault? Gee, I'm still in the process of recovering from that fight with that orc and I'm not back up to 100% - I think we'll need to plan on attacking from a distance and then running to a new spot, picking off these goblins when their patrol ranges away from their lair.You could get this effect simply by denying resurrection or making it cost prohibitive. That would be easier and not have unplanned side effects across the 3.PF system.
For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.
Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”
Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."
The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.
The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?
Is this something you have saved somewhere? Because I swear I've heard it before.
Regardless, the point is valid. Death in an RPG is a tricky thing, since it's one definite point where the story and the game come into conflict instead of supporting each other.
Magic is a integral part of PF.
Magic is integral to low magic.
Nobody in the entire thread is considering no magic, though it seems like that's what you're insinuating.
Magic is a integral part of PF.Magic is integral to low magic.
Nobody in the entire thread is considering no magic, though it seems like that's what you're insinuating.
Since no one will define "low magic" in a way folks will agree and some have implied that cantrips are too powerful and game breaking, it's hard to tell where "low magic" ends and "for all intents and purposes no magic" starts.
Can you define "low magic" in such a way you get consensus?
|
|
@ Aelryinth:
Some of your "solutions" aren't from PF at all others are so costly that no kingdom could buy it.Regarding the Barbarian vs. Army:
Do you ever tried to hit a level 10 Figther/Barbarian/Paladin etc. with a level 3 character? no chance due to the high AC.
Which means 100 arrows fly.. no hit (even with a lucky shot 5 out of 100 will hit and deal.. no damage due to Magic items/DR/Potions etc).A nat 20 always hits. So there is a 5% per attack to hit. So, of those 100 arrows 5 would hit. Assuming longbows, 1d8 average is 4.5 per hit, x 5 arrows is 22.5 damage on average.
What magic items/potions prevent arrow damage?
DR might come into account, assuming its at least 5 (not something most barbarians get to).
Oh, and 5% of your hits are x3 crits, a 10% damage increase, so 22.5 * 1.1 = 24.75 damage. Easiest math is based on 400 attacks:
Nat 20s: 20, for an average 4.5 damage each, Crits: 1, for an average 9 bonus damageSo without DR, you get an average of (4.5*20+9)/400 = 0.2475 damage per attack.
With DR 5, average damage changes from 4.5 to 0.75.
(0.75*20+9)/400 = 0.06 damage per attack.
With 100 archers against DR 5 and hit-on-nat-20 AC, you get 0.6 DPR. Assuming a 100 HP level 10 barbarian (invulnerable rager), it'll take 60 rounds to drop him. That's a long time (6 mins), but unless he's in light armor, the archers will just keep distance the whole time.
Magic is a integral part of PF.Magic is integral to low magic.
Nobody in the entire thread is considering no magic, though it seems like that's what you're insinuating.
Since no one will define "low magic" in a way folks will agree and some have implied that cantrips are too powerful and game breaking, it's hard to tell where "low magic" ends and "for all intents and purposes no magic" starts.
Can you define "low magic" in such a way you get consensus?
It was determined way up thread - anything less magical than Pathfinder (which all agree is high magic) qualifies as low magic. However, "no magic" is outside of the parameters and not a part of the conversation so anything suggesting "no magic" probably belongs in another thread. "Low magic" still has the word "magic" in it. There's no exact limited definition of low magic, and there doesn't need to be - every table is different.
It was determined way up thread - anything less magical than Pathfinder (which all agree is high magic) qualifies as low magic. However, "no magic" is outside of the parameters and not a part of the conversation so anything suggesting "no magic" probably belongs in another thread. "Low magic" still has the word "magic" in it. There's no exact limited definition of low magic, and there doesn't need to be - every table is different.Magic is a integral part of PF.Magic is integral to low magic.
Nobody in the entire thread is considering no magic, though it seems like that's what you're insinuating.
Since no one will define "low magic" in a way folks will agree and some have implied that cantrips are too powerful and game breaking, it's hard to tell where "low magic" ends and "for all intents and purposes no magic" starts.
Can you define "low magic" in such a way you get consensus?
Less magic then Pathfinder is an incredibly large range most of which cannot really be called low magic.
It depends on upon your own definition, and apparently less than PF is not low enough to you, but it might be perfectly low for somebody else. Consider that using the Harn setting rules for magic versus E6 is a huge range as well, yet both are considered low magic. If need a more specific definition, you're going to need more adjectives than "low".
Since a barbarian at 10th level normally has DR 2, and a f/2 archer can have a 14 default Str for +2 damage, they cancel out nicely.
Now just have some cleric read a scroll of prayer or heroism and the damage picks up nicely.
If the barb is making a nuisance of themselves, have the 100 archers each cast one Fire Seed a lower level druid build up a supply of over the last few days at him for 2d6 fire damage, save for half, and he can die that way.
Seriously, if you're going to do that kind of stuff, at least give the dweebs the brains to figure out a solution.
Throwing a net over him with 20 soldiers each aiding for +40 to the Strength check would probably work, too.
==Aelryinth
I am prepping a low magic campaign right now. The particular setting calls for it.
Why low magic with Pathfinder? Because it's hard to find people in my area who will play in another system. I would just as soon run it as a Savage Worlds campaign, but I would have trouble locating players if I did.
Think about this. Why does everyone want to play PATHFINDER? Not Iron Heroes?
Magic is a integral part of PF.
I agree magic is an integral part of PF—removing it entirely would remove a vast number of options, from classes to monsters—I do not agree high magic is.
The only reason magic/magical items is calculated as part of power level, is to validate CR and make the GMs job easier. If the level of magic is decreased, CR may have to be thrown out the window, but the game remains the game.
|
Can you define "low magic" in such a way you get consensus?
No, because different people have different expectations of what "high" and "low" magic are.
Someone who has really only read Wheel of Time might consider Pathfinder and 20th level wizards laughably weak and definitely "low magic". (From what I hear, I didn't make it through that marathon slog-fest of a series....and remember virtually nothing from the few books of it I did read.)
But compared to Lord of the Rings, Pathfinder is quite definitively "high magic".
I agree with Kthulhu, nearly every table handles magic differently... The best definitions you could probably have are; Low = any magic lower than what you expect; and High = any magic higher than you expect. In my low magic setting where you can have those cool murder mysteries and survival scenarios most non-combat magic is removed or restricted. BUT to the group that simply bans all full casters my low magic seems like high magic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally believe the defining point of low magic is access to healing.
As you slide the scale from no healing magic to frequent healing magic, you move from low to high fantasy. Nothing else is as important.
Take Warhammer RPG. You can throw lightning bolts, fireballs, and end up being able to teleport. But it's still a grim and gritty, low magic setting, because magic is rare, and there simply is not much healing magic around for anyone. People die of dumb stuff all the time in the setting. Warhammer never feels 'high' fantasy because of the healing access.
Having access to healing magic in all its forms allows you to do things you would never, ever dare without it, live through it, and more importantly, get right back into the fight. Worlds with powerful magic but no healing feel less high fantasy then they do hi-tech to me.
If you've another 'break point', please say so. But I believe healing is the magic that, if removed, has the greatest effect on the low/high feel of a fantasy setting.
==Aelryitnh
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about lowering the dice that are healed?
Cure light is 1d6 with a max of +3 instead of +5?
Make it so magic healing takes its toll on the body? You can only receive so much magical healing before you need to rest? Stephen Erikson has an interesting take on healing in his novels, sure the mage can heal you right up but it is "forced" healing, keeps you down and out for a day because it puts a lot of strain on your body to heal that fast. Basically it is more like regeneration instead of just "poof" your healed. They have surgeons and such who deal with the major aspect of healing, cutting off limbs, fixing breaks. Does have magical healing but it is forced and makes the recipient fatigued.
Also I know I will get flammed for this but what about sunder to break limbs? Magical healing doesn't knit bones and such, the Heal ability would be more useful in this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Think about this. Why does everyone want to play PATHFINDER? Not Iron Heroes?
Magic is a integral part of PF.
In my experience they want to play Pathfinder because they don't want to have to learn another system. That seems to be a daunting thing for a lot of people, for some reason. They are happy to play in low magic (or even no magic) campaigns, as long as they use the Pathfinder system.
There is a lot of stress on magic in Pathfinder, but it isn't an absolutely necessary part of play. Most people enjoy having at least some level of magic available, but there is room for a ton of variation within that.
As far as definitions go, I use the term "low magic" to refer to settings where magic is exotic, difficult to learn, and rarely encountered. The Conan stories are a good example of that.
Most real-world magic systems could be considered "low magic," as well. For example, in many "shamanistic" systems, the emphasis is generally on healing, cursing, telling the future, and predicting/controlling weather. There are typically very few people around who know how to do it, and doing any of it takes a lot of effort and is often unsuccessful. None of it would be done during the course of a battle.
|
|
In my experience they want to play Pathfinder because they don't want to have to learn another system. That seems to be a daunting thing for a lot of people, for some reason. They are happy to play in low magic (or even no magic) campaigns, as long as they use the Pathfinder system.
I think some of that may be that people who have no experience with other system probably assume that they're all just as complicated to play/learn as Pathfinder.
For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.
Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”
Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."
The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.
The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?
Fourth alternative:
GM: "Hey Bob, the rest of the party has to go on a quest for about 4 nights of gaming in order to raise you. Would you like to create a temporary character, or would you rather play your character's ghost?
I've actually played my character's ghost in a (non-PF) campaign some decades ago. One of the best RP sessions I've been in.
Tjose things work occacionally as a once in a blue moon thing, but if its the 5th resurrection quest that campaign its often more tedious than engaging, plus in my mind it often os hurtful to the verisimillitude.
But the issue with new characters joining leading to an increase in wealth is real, and based in the issue of pathfinder making gold equal to power in a much larger degree than most games. In low level games this is less of an issue - in an e6 game where no magic items worth more than 10k exists, its irrelevant if the party has 200000 or three million gp.
For games that want to go higher than that it might need other houserules, and theres a plentitude of at least nominally tested rules that decrease the power = gp issue, but its not as simple as mant other chabges.
What is "an e6 game"?
E6, or epic 6, means a set of houserules that limit the max character level to 6; full casters have 3rd levelspells, half casters have 2nd level spells, and martials have their 1st iterative. So its kind of a sweet apot for many to have "sword and sorcery" games. After 6th level you gain additional feats though, every 8000 xp or so. Some peopme also use homebrewed feats that are more powerful,so characters slowly gain power similar to 8th level characters.
Some people also play with other max levels than 6; for pathfinder i generally prefer E7, but for D&D 3.5 i prefer e6. But some play e5, e8, e10 or even e3.
Its kind of an easy way to get a lower magic game that is decently balanced, as levels 1-6 are already part of the game.
I see. Thanks.
I personally believe the defining point of low magic is access to healing.
I don't see a problem separating divine from arcane magic, thus allowing many healing and curative divine spells, at the same time gimping arcane magic much lower - even eliminating arcane magic altogether, depending how low you want magic to be.
Actually you'd gimp divine magic even lower. Arcane magic is less fantastic then arcane when it comes to enduring game effects. Shooting magic missiles is little different then shooting a bow. But cures and restores accelerating the ability to come back from damage has a major effect on how people approach combat.
You could very easily have an e10 game that felt like low magic simply by having NO curative magic. All you have for hit points is what you start the fight with, and it takes DAYS to get them all back. It has a massive effect on how you approach combat that nerfing arcane magic won't reflect.
==Aelryinth
|
Why high magic?For the same reason I imagine some would answer the inverse, because they think it's fun.
Personally I play high magic because I can live a no magic lifestyle I can't live a high one where I change my form on a whim, create my private paradise and enjoy a couple of centuries of doing what I want.
More seriously as I've said you can have high magical potential but low magic available. Contrary to AP's and the like 20th level wizards can easily be removed as the dime a dozen scenario and you can have a world with only stories while the players still rise to the giddy heights of legend.
I agree there's a lot that invalidates common problems food/weather/shelter but that's a result of utility magic and as was mentioned upthread there's a lot of worlds where wizards can hurl fireballs, teleport and do all sorts of amazing things but without healing or the ability to create something from nothing they are still vulnerable to every day concerns. Take the dark jewels series any darker jeweled blood can wipe out an army of landen (non-magical) and even lighter jeweled (less powerful) people on their own without getting a scratch on them. However while they can store/access food they can't create it, only a few can heal (usually women) and there's a price as using too much of their power can break them and drive them insane or kill them. However to simulate that it'd be easier to ban certain schools healing/creation magic but really you may as well take a different game.
Something that has been lost in more modern versions is the whole divine aspect of clerics. Now you can worship a concept and raise dead all die. I houserule in my games clerics have to worship a specific god and that god decides if their miracles will be granted. A prayer for healing/resurection or any miracle needs to be something that god feels will advance their goals and while they may heal the child of a devout parent praying their child doesn't die from being stung by a scorpion rat (cure poison) they may refuse the request from a high level cleric that a king be resurrected because his death is part of their plan.
Something that has been lost in more modern versions is the whole divine aspect of clerics. Now you can worship a concept and raise dead all die. I houserule in my games clerics have to worship a specific god and that god decides if their miracles will be granted. A prayer for healing/resurection or any miracle needs to be something that god feels will advance their goals and while they may heal the child of a devout parent praying their child doesn't die from being...
^This. Paladins too, IMO.
|
|
Something that has been lost in more modern versions is the whole divine aspect of clerics. Now you can worship a concept and raise dead all die.
In 2nd edition AD&D, clerics did not have to worship a deity, they could for example, be a cleric of good, of evil, or of neutrality. So it is not a new concept...
In 2nd edition AD&D, clerics did not have to worship a deity, they could for example, be a cleric of good, of evil, or of neutrality. So it is not a new concept...
Maybe not. It's still messed up.
|
|
It's still messed up.I wouldn't call it "messed up" (I mean it is what it is), but that said, in my games (and I run 2nd edition AD&D), clerics (and yes, paladins too) need to pick a deity to worship. :-)
I consider 2nd ed a modern version and yes that says a lot about me. I lost interest in DnD entirely with 4th edition (didn't like it why I went with pathfinder) and I've not even looked at 5th.
This is a cool topic that I've discussed a little in other threads before. I skimmed through most of the posts because we have fifteen pages of posts here so I apologize if I'm restating something someone has said before.
I prefer low magic campaigns because I feel like they make the game jive with my personal expectation of a good, believable story. High magic presents a situation where characters are able to heal rapidly or reliably alter the parameters of their character. I hate the fact that a Cure Light Wounds Wand is the go-to purchase for everyone in Society Play. I feel like characters have to have believable personalities and, while the Half-Orc Barbarian that ignores pain is an interesting character in one story, it hurts my suspension of disbelief when all the PCs are charging headlong into fights and getting bashed up because they know they'll be healed later. Getting stabbed, cut, or clubbed over the head hurts and I have trouble reconciling a group of adventurers that all have that quality of ignoring self-preservation. I feel that magic healing causes this scenario.
Magic Items are a fun tool to play with. But I feel like they're akin to steroids. When you rely on them all the time then it's not your character doing the work with his natural talent, it's the magic enabling him or carrying him. This can be a fun concept to see in a characters personality at times but I hate that it's universal for all characters and built into the system. Magic Items should be a double-edged sword when you become reliant on them where NPC's should try to steal them or the Big Bad tries to break them when you fight him. But I've never seen an NPC attempt that in the seventeen years I've been playing Pen & Paper Roleplaying Games. I have seen PCs steal magic items from each other, though, in home games and that can be a fun plot point if it resolves well.
Every low magic game I've played in, that I can remember, has addressed these issues in some way and brought the game closer to what I see as an ideal story that I can enjoy and embrace. I've always felt that removing magic as a given makes spellcasters feel more mysterious and makes the party more circumspect in their approach to the game. And that's always been one of my goals as a GM; I want my players to really weigh the costs of their actions as opposed to being able to rapidly recover from an encounter they maybe could have afforded to avoid. I've seen players at games who have stated to me that they expect to win every encounter because they're the hero or they're the good guy. I guess some people enjoy that. But for me it hurts my suspension of disbelief to repeatedly experience the stories of John the Victorious Knight who never made a wrong tactical decision in his life.
I personally believe the defining point of low magic is access to healing.
As you slide the scale from no healing magic to frequent healing magic, you move from low to high fantasy. Nothing else is as important.
I would say the defining point of low magic is the relevance of skills. Heal just happens to be the one that is most often and obviously replaced by magic in most "high magic" games. But as you slide the scale from "no magic" to "high magic" (most) skills become less and less relevant.
I disagree on skills, because skills at high level become magical themselves. Skills become a staple of fantasy at all levels, and are always part of the foundation. You will ALWAYS have skills. Much high fantasy is in fact based around the idea of skills so advanced that they are magical. And magic on top of skills is always, always a powerful trope. That's why you give the magical gear to the most skilled person!
But healing magic is in a very separate class. Same thing with 'insta-mend nanite wound sealant', 'synthiflesh' and similar things. As soon as you start introducing that stuff, you move from science fiction to science fantasy, where the physical limitations of humans become unimportant.
It changes the whole tenor of the novel and storyline. Pathfinders rushing into battle knowing they'll get healed if they survive is EXACTLY what would happen in a normal battle.
If you want an example that's been around forever, look at Wolverine. His entire fighting style tends to minimize defense because he knows he'll get better. He makes himself a target with the savagery and lethal nature of his attacks, gets the )*&^)*& kicked out of him, sparing his teammates, and then just gets better.
Anyone with a healing factor would act the same way. MMO's prove it over and over again. The instant the healer is down or out of mana, the whole tenor of the fight instantly changes.
PF ain't no different. Look at the Pathfinder novels. Healing is almost never readily available, because the protaganists tend to be rogues and warrior types, sometimes wizardly, but rarely having easy access to healing. While this would mirror the reality of the average person in Golarion, it wouldn't mirror what an adventurer would do, knowing what it takes to be at your best.
Meh.
==Aelryinth
except that magical healing doesn't necessarily have that effect. it's any sort of reliable/instant recovery. technology could do the same thing to the feel of a story.
edit: nvm. i missed that paragraph about scifi. anyway, the point is that magical healing only has that problem if it's done in such a way as to always be a reliable way to recover, but since technology can do the same thing it's not what i'm concerned about when i want low magic. when i want low magic it's because i want skills that aren't perception, knowledges, spellcraft, and craft (for fabricate) to matter more. too much magic tends to make other skills less relevant to me.
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.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke, Clarke's three laws
You can very easy have a low magic setting with a widespread magic. Without power, it becomes just another tool and never takes center stage (or maybe it does take center stage with a really clever user of minor effects). I mean, a place where cantrip level magic is possible by large numbers of people is both low and high magic...the effect on combat would be low, but on society as a whole would be high. People would benefit substantially, but adventurers, not so much.
==Aelryinth
If I were to do another low magic setting, I'd make it so that spellcasters are extremely rarer, perhaps requiring them to be like sorcerers - "born into it", and not something learnable, that way it wouldn't be low/high magic. Not that cantrips cannot be cast, rather less than 1% would be able to do so, and it wouldn't be prevalent in society. For the most part, most people would believe that magic doesn't exist, or so unheard of, most people would barely believe in the possibility.
I wouldn't just limit the level of magic, rather, mostly limit the number of users available. With a 0% chance of casters not being adventurers are bad guys. To society in general magic doesn't exist.
|
What i believe people search in low magic settings: The human element. People who like low magic setting believe in the strenght of humanity, their decisions, morality and resourcefulness. They don't like human reliance on technology, magic or money. People must depend on their own worth for survival. Just like real life.
In high magic, people search to change the world. People want to reach the high limit of human might. The believe in technology, magic or emotions. People can't just be good, they should be capable of using every resource around them to reach the top of the world, they need not to prove themselves, they want recognition of everyone as the best and do what the can't in real life.
If I were to do another low magic setting, I'd make it so that spellcasters are extremely rarer, perhaps requiring them to be like sorcerers - "born into it", and not something learnable, that way it wouldn't be low/high magic. Not that cantrips cannot be cast, rather less than 1% would be able to do so, and it wouldn't be prevalent in society. For the most part, most people would believe that magic doesn't exist, or so unheard of, most people would barely believe in the possibility.
I wouldn't just limit the level of magic, rather, mostly limit the number of users available. With a 0% chance of casters not being adventurers are bad guys. To society in general magic doesn't exist.
....Then you would have a few reality bending powerhouses walking around.... A lot of them would probably be persecuted.... A very small portion of them would probably even rule kingdoms because of their power.....
Okay, maybe not all of them are powerhouses, but come on! Dark Sun anyone?
What i believe people search in low magic settings: The human element. People who like low magic setting believe in the strenght of humanity, their decisions, morality and resourcefulness. They don't like human reliance on technology, magic or money. People must depend on their own worth for survival. Just like real life.
In high magic, people search to change the world. People want to reach the high limit of human might. The believe in technology, magic or emotions. People can't just be good, they should be capable of using every resource around them to reach the top of the world, they need not to prove themselves, they want recognition of everyone as the best and do what the can't in real life.
That's actually a good way of putting it.
|
|
If I were to do another low magic setting, I'd make it so that spellcasters are extremely rarer, perhaps requiring them to be like sorcerers - "born into it", and not something learnable, that way it wouldn't be low/high magic. Not that cantrips cannot be cast, rather less than 1% would be able to do so, and it wouldn't be prevalent in society. For the most part, most people would believe that magic doesn't exist, or so unheard of, most people would barely believe in the possibility.
I wouldn't just limit the level of magic, rather, mostly limit the number of users available. With a 0% chance of casters not being adventurers are bad guys. To society in general magic doesn't exist.
....Then you would have a few reality bending powerhouses walking around.... A lot of them would probably be persecuted.... A very small portion of them would probably even rule kingdoms because of their power.....
Okay, maybe not all of them are powerhouses, but come on! Dark Sun anyone?
That's actually a good way of putting it.What i believe people search in low magic settings: The human element. People who like low magic setting believe in the strenght of humanity, their decisions, morality and resourcefulness. They don't like human reliance on technology, magic or money. People must depend on their own worth for survival. Just like real life.
In high magic, people search to change the world. People want to reach the high limit of human might. The believe in technology, magic or emotions. People can't just be good, they should be capable of using every resource around them to reach the top of the world, they need not to prove themselves, they want recognition of everyone as the best and do what the can't in real life.
Actually I think part of my liking for high magic is less of a "I am the strongest, recognize me" mindset (I've seen that down quite well in a manga I'm currently reading actually (not magic, martial arts but the whole you must recognize my skill is there). Anyway the point is for me its not so much that as a desire for escape, to gain that 9th level (or even 7th) and create my own private dimension isolated from the rest of the world. Food, drink, shelter all taken care of and no need to struggle or try to earn enough to get through another day ever again. I have all I need and don't need to deal with people ever again unless I choose when and where. Let the world forget I ever existed I'll still be happy.
As for the healing is common thing my two pathfinder characters are actually very different in their relationship to healing magic although they're both arcane mages. The first one had everything go their way with spell casting, in fact one fight they took more damage from allies trying crazy things than the enemy who they devastated without ever standing up. They never even thought about any form of healing (potion, spell or wand) because as far as they're concerened they just don't need it. Never bought anythiing to speed up their healing from 1st level to 4th when I switched to the second because Arcanist and Hengeyoki both became legal. Second character is only first level (and only had one session) but they're still learning spell combat and since her heavy spells failed (we started a fight with foes who really were too powerful for the party) she tried a touch attack, took an attack that dropped her from full to -8 hp in one hit and only survived because she was next to the party healer. She's never using another touch spell and is looking into healing options already, as well as some training in climbing after falling off the ladder into the ocean 3 times trying to board the ship.