Oh yeah... I forgot. Lest we forget, Gandalf, Saruman, Ragast, and a few others aren't wizards. They are Lesser Gods. . . .Not even close. The closest thing would be lesser angels. Celestials.
In the Silmarillion, the intro reads like the Bible of Middle Earth. There was God/Eru who made the Angels/Ainur and when they went down onto the earth to continue the act of creation, the more powerful became know as the Valar and the weaker became known as the Maiar.
“. . . Many Ainur descended, taking physical form and becoming bound to that world. The greater Ainur became known as Valar, while the lesser Ainur were called Maiar. The Valar attempted to prepare the world for the coming inhabitants (Elves and Men), while Melkor, who wanted Arda for himself, repeatedly destroyed their work; this went on for thousands of years until, through waves of destruction and creation, the world took shape.
Valaquenta ("Account of the Valar") describes Melkor and each of the 14 Valar in detail, as well as a few of the Maiar. It also reveals how Melkor seduced many Maiar, including those who would eventually become Sauron and the Balrogs, into his service. . . . ”
Tolkien drew inspiration from both the stories of Christians and the Norse and possibly others. Melkor (Lucifer) an Ainur (angel) and Valar (god) wanted to set himself up as overlord, while the other Ainur (angels) both Valar (gods) and Maiar (lesser gods) fought him. Some turned to his service. Since that is the case, let's look at a few quotes from some source material then...
“Then the angel of the LORD went out and struck 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians; and when men arose early in the morning, behold, all of these were dead.”
“...in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see....”
Hmm. The first shows an angel doing something pretty intense, almost god-like, while the second actually refers to an angel as “the god of this world”.
So back to Middle Earth, consider that Maiar didn't start out as weak. They all voluntarily gave up large chunks of power after the Valar and many Maiar left after the war with Melkor was over. So these angels wielded the power of gods as some cases and lesser gods in others, but in both cases the angels of Tolkien's Middle Earth could be considered gods, or at least started out that way.
No. They note that there is an Effing Necromancer and several of the Lesser Gods go to check it out, leaving a group of dwarves without magical help on a mission to fight a Creature of Legendary Power. I don't think Gandalf would have left unless a spellcaster was a Big Thing.Not quite. The existence of the Necromancer had been known for some time, long enough for his evil deeds to become legendary (as Gandalf related to Bilbo when they were discussing why they had to go through Mirkwood instead of around). The first "shadow of fear" fell over southern Mirkwood in about the year Third Age 1000, and Gandalf first investigated him in T.A. 2063, nearly a thousand years before the events of The Hobbit.
Hmm. This I did not not know. As I've said someplace else, I've only read The Hobbit, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and The Silmarillion. So, yes, not as pressing as I originally thought.
Gandalf -- who, as Dr Deth pointed out is not a lesser god, but merely a celestial spirit
Artificial distinction.
-- discovered that the Necromancer was not, in fact, merely a spellcaster but Sauron himself, in T.A. 2850, but still waited until T.A. 2941 before doing anything about it.
So he knew that a creature that aided the major deity/angel Melkor in a war against other major deity level players, because he was even in on that war, was now up and around, and delayed because everyone kept saying, “Oh no... it can't be Sauron, because I really don't want it to be...” in a very common self delusion sort of way... Then waited some more because he wanted back up.
I'd want backup, too.
So, basically, there had been an evil spellcaster around for a thousand years before anyone bothered to check it out, and for another thousand years before anyone cared enough to actually figure out who it was, at which point they acted. Hardly a high-priority task, even by Elvish standards.
You also misunderstand Thorin's mission; the point was NOT to fight the dragon (which is why they needed a burglar).
The idea might have been to burgle things... but in that case, why need so many dwarves who where completely tertiary to things?
No. On some level he hoped it would be easy, but he expected for it to go sideways. If he didn't, he was a fool.
Back to low magic.
Making things low magic for Pathfinder means limiting the power of spellcasters to some (to create less player agency) and having less selection in magic items to others (to preserve the excitement at getting nifty things). Some would want both.
Several options have been mentioned to bring about that effect in game, some even in this thread. Personally, E? seems to be the easiest to me, but there are plenty of other ways to want to try to achieve a low magic feel.
It seems like a lot of "low magic" desires would be solved if you simply did away with the basic magic items, and only had artifacts available. This keeps magic items to have that awesome feeling, and they are indeed rare. As a player, I wouldn't mind playing in such a low magic game if I knew it was likely for all the PCs to end up with artifacts to be able to beat the big baddy with. Since that tends to be the way of those kinds of stories.
I would rule that some isolated farmhouses are settlements - if they've got a name, some form of government, and regularly do trade.
Smade's Tavern certainly qualifies, for example.
Magic only goes up, along with everything else in this game. Adventuring wizards are assumed to be constantly studying between adventures, so they always get new spells when they level. More spells, more WBL; onwards and upwards.
So what if you just simply had a mechanic for loss?
Non-artifact magic items faded over time; adventurers can take months of downtime but they might lose xp; spellcasting weakens if not constantly maintained.
I don't know, I'm just spitballing. It just seems like alongside the astute observation that a lot of low-magic desires stem from ridiculous amounts of magic items, the other piece of it is "gritty" versus "glittery" style and if you're shooting for realism, why not just have things get worse once in a while?
So what if you just simply had a mechanic for loss?
Non-artifact magic items faded over time; adventurers can take months of downtime but they might lose xp; spellcasting weakens if not constantly maintained.
Applying something resembling "conservation of energy" rules to magic can have interesting consequences. Where, exactly, does the energy that powers magic items come from? Certainly not nowhere. The idea of magic items as perpetual motion machines is pretty whacky if you think about it. What are the consequences of the use of magic, in general? Does throwing a fireball make the room cold? What about powerful or widespread magic?
I know in the Forgotten Realms, they introduced the idea that the abuse of magic in Netheril was putting the world in jeopardy, and was eventually what caused the Phaerimm to attack them. There's plenty more that could be done with this idea. Just as "magical realism" has been a thing in literature for some time now, "realistic magic" could just as easily become a thing in RPGs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like a lot of "low magic" desires would be solved if you simply did away with the basic magic items, and only had artifacts available. This keeps magic items to have that awesome feeling, and they are indeed rare. As a player, I wouldn't mind playing in such a low magic game if I knew it was likely for all the PCs to end up with artifacts to be able to beat the big baddy with. Since that tends to be the way of those kinds of stories.
You also have to remove Item Creation feats. Otherwise, why wouldn't there be a proliferation of magical items in a world where, starting at 3rd level, you can begin to craft them?
Low-magic requires a LOT of house ruling.
Personally I don't care if magic is low or high.
But it should be risky, uncertain, mysterious.
It should be dangerous both for user and everyone around.
I would like to see a world when failed concetration check while casting cantrip in peaceful enviroment makes wizard's eyeballs explode (or his infant son 34 miles away).
I'd like to see a world when cleric doesn't have perfect spells but prayers, and gods are capricious and unwilling to act every time they called.
Where pact magic is a terrible risk for your very soul, and using magical armour can cause kidney tumor.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I don't care if magic is low or high.
But it should be risky, uncertain, mysterious.
It should be dangerous both for user and everyone around.I would like to see a world when failed concetration check while casting cantrip in peaceful enviroment makes wizard's eyeballs explode (or his infant son 34 miles away).
I'd like to see a world when cleric doesn't have perfect spells but prayers, and gods are capricious and unwilling to act every time they called.
Where pact magic is a terrible risk for your very soul, and using magical armour can cause kidney tumor.
So play Call of Cthulhu. Why try to develop a set of house rules to make Pathfinder into CoC instead of just playing CoC in the first place?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So play Call of Cthulhu. Why try to develop a set of house rules to make Pathfinder into CoC instead of just playing CoC in the first place?
Because some people might like the core 'chassis' underlying d20. d20 + modifiers vs. AC or a DC, cyclical initiative, move/standard/full-round actions, easy to use movement system, a class-based system, straightforward and easy to understand/implement multiclassing... that sort of stuff.
Some people (inexplicably) forget that the above stuff has value to some people. The ubiquitous magic doesn't have to go along with the rest of the basic mechanics of d20. Why learn a whole new action/resolution/movement/etc system when the basic core works exactly how you want it to... and when WotC did close to no analysis of the impacts of magic when they released the 3.0 PHB?
(With all that said - is there a CoC d20? I thought I heard that that might exist...? If that is a real thing, then yeah, I'm with Orfamay Quest - why not play CoC d20?)
It seems like a lot of "low magic" desires would be solved if you simply did away with the basic magic items, and only had artifacts available. This keeps magic items to have that awesome feeling, and they are indeed rare. As a player, I wouldn't mind playing in such a low magic game if I knew it was likely for all the PCs to end up with artifacts to be able to beat the big baddy with. Since that tends to be the way of those kinds of stories.You also have to remove Item Creation feats. Otherwise, why wouldn't there be a proliferation of magical items in a world where, starting at 3rd level, you can begin to craft them?
Low-magic requires a LOT of house ruling.
not as many as you might think.
Totemic components is a good way of handeling Magic item creation for a low magic setting. Yes your players can make any item they want, but they can't just buy the materials at the market because they have a lot of extra coins on hand. They have to go out there and get things on their own, then refine those components in special ways. You turn getting the components for the item into an adventure.
The One Ring wasn't made in some dingy basement, it was Forged in the Fires of Mount Doom.
In the Ice Wind Dale novels Brunar went all out making Wulfgar his hammer. Even in the context of D&D it wasn't a simple matter of spending coin.
Its head is made from pure Mithril with a diamond coating magically adhered during the forging and an adamantite shaft. Its head is engraved with the magical inscriptions of Clangeddin, the dwarven god of battle, as well as the symbols of Moradin, the dwarven god of creation, which covers the symbol of Dumathoin, "keeper of secrets under the mountain".
Personally I find Fluff text helps. If you as DM know how magic works in the world it helps you add a lot of mystery to things. It a matter of avoidling letting things boil down to the rules in the book. The Rule book gives you the game mechanics for it all but how does magic actually work in the setting. What is the wizard actually doing when he casts Fireball.
High and Low Magic often comes down to the idea of "How much Effort does magic take."
Are only a chosen few able to use it or can anyone who picks up a spell book manage a few cantrips
How much maintanence does magic require off screen. Does a Wizard have to constantly check and recheck the spells he has "hanging" in memory to keep them from breaking down?
Take the Discworld
Is the Disc High or Low magic?
Spells in the Disc are living things. Spellbooks bite people. One character once memorized a particularly high level spell and was stuck with it because all the lower level spells were afraid to go in his head while it was there.
Lots of Books in one place can actually distort Space Time, unless you are a professional librarian you risk getting lost forever.
But it is also a setting where Wizards and Witches understand that the best way to use magic is not to use it at all. You don't need to do magic as long as people respect the Pointy Hat. Also too much magic in one place attracts attention from....things
They understand that just because something can be done with magic doesn't mean it's worth the effort. Yes a Wizard could master a spell that creates a delicious apple pie, but the amount of effort that would take to master such a spell is the same as the amount of effort it would take a professional baker to make the pie in his kitchen.
Far simpler to just buy the pie at the shop.
|
So play Call of Cthulhu. Why try to develop a set of house rules to make Pathfinder into CoC instead of just playing CoC in the first place?Because some people might like the core 'chassis' underlying d20. d20 + modifiers vs. AC or a DC, cyclical initiative, move/standard/full-round actions, easy to use movement system, a class-based system, straightforward and easy to understand/implement multiclassing... that sort of stuff.
If you want the d20 system sans magic - you'd be better off dusting off the old d20 modern. A thouroughly underrated system in my opinion actually. Though I suppose you could add in some Pathfinder mechanics (CMB/CMD etc) pretty easily.
Pathfinder is balanced with the assumption of magic. d20 modern is balanced with the assumption of little to no magic.
If you're going for a campaign where there is no reliable magic - I think it's pretty obvious which you'd be better off using as a baseline.
So play Call of Cthulhu. Why try to develop a set of house rules to make Pathfinder into CoC instead of just playing CoC in the first place?Because some people might like the core 'chassis' underlying d20. d20 + modifiers vs. AC or a DC, cyclical initiative, move/standard/full-round actions, easy to use movement system, a class-based system, straightforward and easy to understand/implement multiclassing... that sort of stuff.
Some people (inexplicably) forget that the above stuff has value to some people. The ubiquitous magic doesn't have to go along with the rest of the basic mechanics of d20. Why learn a whole new action/resolution/movement/etc system when the basic core works exactly how you want it to... and when WotC did close to no analysis of the impacts of magic when they released the 3.0 PHB?
(With all that said - is there a CoC d20? I thought I heard that that might exist...? If that is a real thing, then yeah, I'm with Orfamay Quest - why not play CoC d20?)
Yes, there is a CoC D20 and also Iron Heroes which is very low magic D20 D&D.
It seems like a lot of "low magic" desires would be solved if you simply did away with the basic magic items, and only had artifacts available. This keeps magic items to have that awesome feeling, and they are indeed rare. As a player, I wouldn't mind playing in such a low magic game if I knew it was likely for all the PCs to end up with artifacts to be able to beat the big baddy with. Since that tends to be the way of those kinds of stories.You also have to remove Item Creation feats. Otherwise, why wouldn't there be a proliferation of magical items in a world where, starting at 3rd level, you can begin to craft them?
Low-magic requires a LOT of house ruling.
If you remove the basic magic items and only have artifacts, then the item creation feats serve no purpose, as the items they allow you to create do not exist in that world. It would be nice to give your wizards something to replace scribe scroll with though.
How about a no-magic setting? Instead you use psionics.
For me low magic is just a game where you aren't tripping over +1 sword that you just add to you bag holding full of +1 swords already and take to nearest town sell it all and buy something better.
So it doesn't have to be no magic just less of it. I've run quite a few APs and by book 4 you usually are tripping over useless magic items. So when I go low magic I make so this isn't the case. If I need a higher level bad guy in armor to have higher AC he has a oil of magic vestment. After the fight the breast plate is just a breast plate but during the fight it might be a +5 breast plate. The players will have magic items. They would gain them through quests as there wouldn't be magic shops but potions and scrolls would be avialable. Casters would rare though and you'd have to track them down. That's what low magic is to me.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been following this thread for awhile now, and I've noticed that one person's "low-magic" usually isn't the same as another person's "low-magic". Because of this I think it would be useful to develop metrics to describe the nature of a "low-magic" setting.
The manifestations of magic are casters (C), spells (S), and magical items (I). Before each metric of "magical-ness", I'll indicate which manifestations are expected to vary along that metric with the symbols C, S, or I.
Availability (C S I): How frequently the PCs encounter a manifestation.
Power (C S I): How powerful a single manifestation is, both as an average of all manifestations of that type and the maximum.
Applicability (C S I): How often a single manifestation is useful in a way that uses the majority of its perceived power.
Permanency (S I): How long a manifestation will last after it is created or encountered.
Reliability (S I): Both how frequently the manifestation functions as intended and how much it deviates when it doesn't.
There may be more manifestations and/or metrics than these, and as such I don't claim for this to be an absolute list. I'm hoping that this can be a starting point to help us all better communicate what we mean when we say "low-magic" by specifying which metric is being altered for which manifestations.
If you remove the basic magic items and only have artifacts, then the item creation feats serve no purpose, as the items they allow you to create do not exist in that world. It would be nice to give your wizards something to replace scribe scroll with though.It seems like a lot of "low magic" desires would be solved if you simply did away with the basic magic items, and only had artifacts available. This keeps magic items to have that awesome feeling, and they are indeed rare. As a player, I wouldn't mind playing in such a low magic game if I knew it was likely for all the PCs to end up with artifacts to be able to beat the big baddy with. Since that tends to be the way of those kinds of stories.You also have to remove Item Creation feats. Otherwise, why wouldn't there be a proliferation of magical items in a world where, starting at 3rd level, you can begin to craft them?
Low-magic requires a LOT of house ruling.
I allow Brew Potion and Scribe Scroll in my campaigns. It's the permanent magic items (wondrous items, etc.) that I don't allow - unless the character undergoes a quest to unlock those Feats. Not every hedge wizard can start cranking out magical items on request. Only those who are the masters of their magics can do so.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did anyone read any of the Dragon Lance books? The original trilogy?
To me that would always felt low magic, I know there were the towers of magic where potential Magi went and took their tests but the other characters didn't seem to have an over abundance of + whatever magical items.
Yes I have looked through the WoTC book for that campaign world and the stuff that Raistlin Majere had was pretty high up there. Magic in that would is based on the stamina of the Magi casting it, fail consecutive fort saves and your done for the day, yes you may be able to cast 42 spells per day. Those 5th level spells take a real toll on your body and then your no good to anyone once your unconscious.
Maybe just a fatigue system for low magic or magic in general would be a good balancing idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you want a FANTASY game that is more mundane than the real world?
Maybe just a fatigue system for low magic or magic in general would be a good balancing idea.
Pretty good idea. Something like:
all caster must suceed a will save of 10+ 2xspell level. If it fail, the spell happen but the caster is fatigue. If it fail by more than 5, the spell fail.That way, no more SAD caster class and they will be less happy to use spell for utility, giving back some glory to the skills.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if people who want low magic live in real life.
To the people who like low magic have you...
Been on a plane? Flight?
Used a Phone? Communication across great distances?
Used Gas? Fireball?
Used electricity at all?I could go on but only about 1/2 of all magic are things we don't have in real life and unfortunately some of that is the most absolutely REQUIRED for the system to function, Cure spells, Remove disease/Curse, Heal, restoration and so on.
If you want your fantasy setting to be arcane examples of modern technology, then perhaps PF Core fits. However, if you want to play Conan style games, or something emulating the Roman Empire where formations of soldiers are a threat and not an easy target for a fireball spell (or other area of effect spells.} Some themes of fantasy cannot be best achieved using the standard level of magic. Low magic can better fit the kind of stories that many fantasy settings are based. Standard levels of magic doesn't best fit every theme.
While other systems exist that more easily portray low magic, however, if you like the PF rules and are familiar with them, what's the issue on making some tweaks to alter the level of magic to help play the kind of story a given GM wants in their game?
As someone who took the Academea Graduate feat this is not the case. I just walk around exhausted.
Maybe just a fatigue system for low magic or magic in general would be a good balancing idea.
Pretty good idea. Something like:
all caster must suceed a will save of 10+ 2xspell level. If it fail, the spell happen but the caster is fatigue. If it fail by more than 5, the spell fail.That way, no more SAD caster class and they will be less happy to use spell for utility, giving back some glory to the skills.
It depends of your level with that feat. My option wold get a save of 12 for a first level spell at level 1 (so, you get it on 8 easily). Academea Graduate give you a save of 16 (good luck).
I had +7 at level 1. It's not hard. It eventually becomes auto succeed but not until like level 7ish.
To be fair it is never auto-succeed. There is always a 5% chance of failure (natural 1).
Think of wizards as magical catapults. Devastating entire formations in moments. Catapults accomplish the same as a fireball at that point.[/QUOTE}
If the game were set in a Gaul/Britain Roman analog, the Romans are fighting Celts, thus unlikely to encounter mundane or arcane catapults in the first place. The Roman army was effective for hundreds of years, obviously catapults didn't make them obsolete for quite a while. Militaries have fought in massed combat for over a thousand years.
You can literally not play the game without healing magic, at least not in any significant capacity. Restoration is a pretty much mandatory spell to exist.You could limit the healing to cure light wounds and lesser restoration, at the same time you could limit or eschew any monster that causes level losses or other serious and permanent conditions that would require a full restoration to fix. A low magic game would probably never encounter a vampire, wraith, wight, banshee nor demi-lich. Low magic is not for that kind of game. Most opponents are NPCs with monsters as a rarity for the big encounter, and even then they would be CR appropriate and considerations of abilities requiring restoration to fix might be removed as a monster ability.
Without remove disease/curse a simple CR 5 mummy will kill at LEAST one member of the group.Two things here. One we're talking about a low magic setting here, not a no magic setting. Looking at E6 as a low magic base, that means 3rd level spells should be available, but nothing higher.
Heck you can't even HAVE a mission in hell/the abyss/another plane.Its an assumption that low magic settings mean adventuring on the prime material only. Extra-planar travel does not fit low magic. Adventurers would never go to Hell/Abyss in a low magic game.
The problem with low magic is the game simply doesn't function without access to specific removal/healing spells. You could...Yep, that's what would take to downgrade the level of magic for such a game. Obviously low magic is not the kind of PF game you'd play, and that's fine, but its not such a stretch of the imagination and a little rules tweaking to run a low magic game that is still based on Pathfinder.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've run "low magic" games for 20 years worth of D&D and Pathfinder, from AD&D 2e to 5e.
Now, by this, I mean:
1) Either no magic items at all (including potions, wands, and other consumables) or only MacGuffin style magic items
2) Only the PCs and extremely rare NPCs have magic at all, and no full spellcasters. The vast majority of opposition would be NPCs with non-spellcasting class levels. This has been helped by the fact that for the first 18 years of my time roleplaying, nobody I gamed with could stand vancian magic, and so, I went almost two decades without any PC spellcasters (the closest was the 3.5 Warlock). I also hated vancian magic, so there were really no NPCs with spells, either.
3) Magical stuff happened, but it was always mysterious and weird, and didn't match up with spells, exactly. Big magic effects were rituals and other complicated processes that couldn't just be done on the fly with little consequence. They were plot devices, not resources.
The reasons for this are many:
1) Obviously, none of us liked the magical mechanics, so, we avoided them when possible.
2) I know I prefer the feel of being non-magical. It feels more impressive and heroic. Magic in D&D has always just felt so easy and mundane. Being non-magical, but still succeeding, feels much more special. Plus, the coolness of Conan staring down the evil wizard, awesoming out of his charm spell, and punching him in the face.
3) Magic kills potential challenges. I don't mean clever uses of spells to circumvent puzzles or whatever--that kind of thing is cool. Using a spell in an unconventional way is what I want. No, I mean stuff like simple survival stories. There are pages and pages of rules about going without food/water, drowning, long distance walking, fatigue, hot/cold environments, etc., but all of those things are easily overcome by spells (level 1 spells or even cantrips for most of those) with a 100% success rate. It's boring, and those spells do nothing else except totally remove those dangers from play. There's nothing interesting or clever about their use, just bean counting. In all fairness, uUbiquitous wifi and smart phones tend to ruin a lot of modern/urban fantasy stories, too.
4) Magic items (and spells being commonly for sale) ruin the economy, which is a lot like #3. Money loses meaning for PCs unless it's counted in thousands. Each PC is wearing a belt worth more than most entire towns. What a bizarre world that would be, and one I have no interest in.
Ultimately, it's not the existence of magic, or even the power of it. As someone mentioned before, JRPG characters can drop meteors on bad guys by mid levels and it's totally fine. The problem with magic is the scope of it. Magic just solves everything in D&D. If magic just did one thing--or a few things--it'd be totally fine (well, unless that thing was something insanely versatile, like polymorphing).
Even low level spells that seem harmless are problematic. I mentioned above Endure Elements, but its hardly the only offender.
So, yeah, ideally, I'd have another game to play entirely. If I have to play Pathfinder (and I do, because its the game others in my group know best), I'd rather E6 or E8. Barring that, I'd like either games with the houserules I use when I GM or a better balanced game in general.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you want a FANTASY game that is more mundane than the real world?For some very contrived definition of "mundane."
Just want to point out that you can have amazing games without them having to be the least bit fantastical.
I've run "gutter-punk" level games of cyberpunk without any magic and barely any cybertech available to the players. You never know when a beer run (truck hijacking), game of street golf (involving a pycho-booster gangs), or trip to the mall to buy some ammo (from the "eccentric" gun store owner) might turn into an unforgettable adventure. Just going out for a cup of coffee can be a life changing experience sometimes.
Really GOOD coffee IS a life changing experience!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obligatory link
Really GOOD coffee IS a life changing experience!
Good one!
Heterodyne Coffee anyone? (be sure to read the following two pages!)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I can think is, in a no/low magic game, why wouldn't everyone be an archer? Healing takes up to 3days after a bad fight. And there is no resurrection around the corner for you. So why wouldn't every martial focus on ranged attacks where they are less likely to be attacked back?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that some spells are required for the game to function on a basic level. You can literally not play the game without healing magic, at least not in any significant capacity. Restoration is a pretty much mandatory spell to exist. You can play without raise dead/breath of life but high level monsters sort of expect to kill at least one player sometimes (Take a look at banshee's or demiliches). Without remove disease/curse a simple CR 5 mummy will kill at LEAST one member of the group. Heck you can't even HAVE a mission in hell/the abyss/another plane without sufficiently high magic but those are not something for everyone. The problem with low magic is the game simply doesn't function without access to specific removal/healing spells. You could however build a nearly functional system banning ARCANE magic.First of all, low magic does not mean no magic.
Second, not having easy access to healing doesn't make the game unplayable, it makes the game play differently. Powerful monsters like the mummy, demilich and banshee you cited become challenges that require preparation and clever tactics.
Without ready access to healing, a mummy or a banshee isn't just an encounter, it's the entire adventure....
No, without ready access to healing even random orcs or bandits are "the entire adventure"
I have done this. Boring as hell.
It goes like this:
1. Encounter. Any encounter which is challenging enough to lose HP.
2. Rest.
3. Get random encounter during rest.
4. Rest some more
5. Death spiral or boredom ensues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Second, not having easy access to healing doesn't make the game unplayable, it makes the game play differently.
Different != good.
And in this case, since the game is designed and balanced around an assumption of high magic, this particular difference is generally pretty bad. If you want to play low magic, why not use a system designed to support low magic?
No, I mean stuff like simple survival stories. There are pages and pages of rules about going without food/water, drowning, long distance walking, fatigue, hot/cold environments, etc., but all of those things are easily overcome by spells (level 1 spells or even cantrips for most of those) with a 100% success rate. It's boring, and those spells do nothing else except totally remove...
What 1st level spell creates food?
And yeah, PF is a Fantasy Roleplaying Game. Not a Mundane Roleplaying Game. Most people are bored to hell with survival instead of adventuring, when your encounter for the day is:
3 roots, 25 berrys and a few grubs. (Roll to see if you can keep that grub down!)
There are such game systems. They are fun.
Why try and warp Pathfinder into one of them?
It's like trying to play Monopoly without Monopolies... or money.
I really enjoyed playing Iron Heroes, which is a nice D20 RP game- and which is even Fantasy. Wny not play a game built and intended for Low magic?