I haven't done low-magic in a while, but there's a certain 'itch' for that sort of game, more for a world where magic is there but not necessarily the full on high fantasy level of wigglefingers dominance. More, not to name drop, but swords'n'sorcery. Which can be fun, if magic is more ritualistic and unpredictable, or else focused in the direction of things like (shameless plug) Akashic Mysteries types of magics.
Consider it the magic-analog to why melee weapons and not so much the guns. I like guns in my fantasy, if I'm playing at the point where they are introduced; if I'm doing a quasi-classical Grecian fantasy, in a Hercules or God of War pastiche, where the Gods and spirits may be slinging spells willy-nilly and the heroes are already beyond most mortals by being able to even understand magic as a thing while not being adept at it necessarily, then it's not going to be the codefied pseudo-scientific hierarchy of magical knowledge we're used to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like low magic because in my experience, it has always ended terribly from either GM malice or GM ignorance.
However, I hate it when people want something in a game and the only response is "Play a different game." The game has room for guns and asian setting and psionics. So it'll have plenty of room for low magic gaming. It may take some work, but it's doable. I've been contemplating it some myself. Thought about running a no magic campaign in Pathfinder, where the PCs unlock magic in the world at a certain point. If someone wants to play low magic in Pathfinder, then they should (preferably with some advice). And if you don't like that, well, play a different game.
I can see the allure of a low magic campaign, although I only ever played in one that broke down horribly. It was kind of fun that without magic I was able to play a skilled blacksmith crafting masterwork weapons and armor(I actually was contracted to make the crown for a king after he saw the craftsmanship of the parties weapons, which was one of my favorite moments in any game I ever played). Without healing magic to rely on, a girl in our party focused on herbalism(alchemy that used the prof:Apothecary skill) to heal. Without spells to ..well..magically get us past obstacles we had to be cautious and creative in nearly every situation.
Although this failed as we when higher level, and led me to the conclusion that while low magic is fun, eventually magic can/should be slowly introduced to keep it fresh. After a while at e6 the game becomes kinda bland. In standard play you progressively fight greater and greater threats, eventually taking on high powered devils, gods and most terrifying of all....wizards. In low magic games the tools for fighting such beings must rely on arbitrary macguffins or massive depowering.
It gets stale fighting npcs, or beasts at the same mundane level after a while; although I could totally see this as a problem with our dm. I am really conflicted. As for the why; it can be incredibly fun to carry a dying comrade to town while the other party members collect herbs, agreeing to smith some weapons and tools for the villagers in exchange for letting us stay until the rogue's broken leg is healed. Things like this are hard to implement in games where the cleric can cast cure light wounds, the wizard can cast fabricate, or the whole thing is avoided because someone had fly prepared.
I feel that standard play should be a mix of both, that low magic should be the game, and very very slowly it should get more magical as you progress. That way you can have those low magic moments and then have the high magic spectacles. Some might even argue this is how the game is now, but even cantrips like Create Water can set the magic bar fairly high out of the gate.
If you eliminate all of those things normally provided by the ‘big 6’ there is essentially no change.Standard magic items tend to give more boosts to AC than they do to attack rolls. BAB goes up with level, while AC only goes up with better magic equipment.
Has anyone noticed any problems caused by this in low-magic-equipment games?
Yes, it's always been frustrating.
Various ways we have handled it:
1) Lots of AC optimization, which I am ok with (tons of monks and swordsages in 3rd).
2) I tried a houserule that scaled ac with level and it ruined iterative attacks, so, I only did that once. I tried another where attacks pretty much didn't scale with level and iteratives were at their full bonus. That was really successful (like a proto bounded accuracy) but too complicated and most people refuse it without trying it.
3) Acceptance that high level attackers WILL hit on their early attacks, and that AC is eventually just for iteratives.
4) Lots of lower level enemies are viable threats for people with essentially static ACs, so the PCs can face level <6 warrior types the entire game, at any level and still be in danger.
5) E6, so attack bonuses don't really outscale AC too much and there are more ways to gain AC via feats than hit bonuses.
My preferred method is 5. Usually, we end up with a combo of 1, 3, and 4.
I don't like low magic because in my experience, it has always ended terribly from either GM malice or GM ignorance.
However, I hate it when people want something in a game and the only response is "Play a different game." The game has room for guns and asian setting and psionics. So it'll have plenty of room for low magic gaming. It may take some work, but it's doable. I've been contemplating it some myself. Thought about running a no magic campaign in Pathfinder, where the PCs unlock magic in the world at a certain point. If someone wants to play low magic in Pathfinder, then they should (preferably with some advice). And if you don't like that, well, play a different game.
I think you certainly can play Pathfinder with low-magic. The game system's flexible that way.
That said, it might be a lot simpler and more fun to play a game that's built from the ground up around low-magic assumptions, instead of trying to shave the corners off of the square peg that is Pathfinder until it'll fit into a round hole
If you eliminate all of those things normally provided by the ‘big 6’ there is essentially no change.Standard magic items tend to give more boosts to AC than they do to attack rolls. BAB goes up with level, while AC only goes up with better magic equipment.
Has anyone noticed any problems caused by this in low-magic-equipment games?
Yes, it's always been frustrating.
Various ways we have handled it:
1) Lots of AC optimization, which I am ok with (tons of monks and swordsages in 3rd).
2) I tried a houserule that scaled ac with level and it ruined iterative attacks, so, I only did that once. I tried another where attacks pretty much didn't scale with level and iteratives were at their full bonus. That was really successful (like a proto bounded accuracy) but too complicated and most people refuse it without trying it.
3) Acceptance that high level attackers WILL hit on their early attacks, and that AC is eventually just for iteratives.
4) Lots of lower level enemies are viable threats for people with essentially static ACs, so the PCs can face level <6 warrior types the entire game, at any level and still be in danger.
5) E6, so attack bonuses don't really outscale AC too much and there are more ways to gain AC via feats than hit bonuses.
My preferred method is 5. Usually, we end up with a combo of 1, 3, and 4.
I know everyone hates it but 4e had a really good system of inherent bonuses for the dark sun campaign. Basically every so many levels you got +1 Attack/Damage/Defenses. It lets the DM set the pace of the game and handles the problem of the games assumption that you have these bonuses anyways. Seems simple enough and the way to go for low magic campaigns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I admit my experience is anecdotal at best, much of "calibrating" a low-magic game is done by choosing the player's opponents wisely.
The quickest element to "break" in a low-magic game is the CR of monsters, which does not always consider some of their abilities that would otherwise be easily circumvented with magic (like flying, high DR, etc). A certain balance can be kept by judiciously choosing adversaries.
In my case that was not a problem, because one of the reasons I went for Low-magic was to be able to use "basic monsters" longer. With AC remaining somewhat stable, your orcs are still going to be a threat even if the players are now much more efficient to kill them and withstand their attacks.
When a giant shows up, the players know better than to face it in melee without some kind of strategy. When the wivern attacks, they know they'll have to play it defensively and ready attacks until it comes within reach.
The magic that do exist is much more fearsome because saves are that much lower. In low magic, you need to assume that spells affect their target in general, but sometimes target make their save (rather than the other way around).
In most cases, the solution to the problems raised by low-magic exist within the system, except they are not often used because they are seen as sub-optimal. Only in a low-magic game will you see a ranger wear full plate for a battle because the boost to AC is worth the non-proficiency penalty and the loss of features...
I have a question. Would Beginner Box rules (expanded when nessesary) or E6-E8 qualify as an adequate low magic game?
I see a lot of argument about how much you have to change pathfinder to get the effect of a low magic campaign but is it changing much at all if you simply stop leveling? I say this because there is some mechanical/realistic dissonance when it comes to leveling. Between entering and leaving a dungeon you can suddenly know a new language, cast drastically more powerful spells, leap tall buildings, know more about history. The difference between levels feel like at least a year of training not thirty minutes in cave full of monsters, so levels seem more like a measure of general power than actual progression. By that logic I think stopping at some point isn't that much of an extreme, especially since at higher levels you are able to just casually drink poison with no effects without the aid of magic.
I have a question. Would Beginner Box rules (expanded when nessesary) or E6-E8 qualify as an adequate low magic game?
I see a lot of argument about how much you have to change pathfinder to get the effect of a low magic campaign but is it changing much at all if you simply stop leveling? I say this because there is some mechanical/realistic dissonance when it comes to leveling. Between entering and leaving a dungeon you can suddenly know a new language, cast drastically more powerful spells, leap tall buildings, know more about history. The difference between levels feel like at least a year of training not thirty minutes in cave full of monsters, so levels seem more like a measure of general power than actual progression. By that logic I think stopping at some point isn't that much of an extreme, especially since at higher levels you are able to just casually drink poison with no effects without the aid of magic.
The problems is that even at level one magic rules the game. You speak about casually drinking poison while a cleric at level one can use Purify Food and Drink a cantrip that reads-"This spell makes spoiled, rotten, diseased, poisonous, or otherwise contaminated food and water pure and suitable for eating and drinking." They can also create light, infinite amounts of water, and fix broken objects instantly as many times a day as they chose. This is all just core as well.
These are just cantrips, actual spells (up to 3rd level for e6, 4th for e8)are much more game changing. In a normal game they are not overpowered, but I would argue you can't have a low magic campaign reminiscent of most literature with even cantrips available. E6 or e8 seems great for maintaining power balance but that is about it.
I have a question. Would Beginner Box rules (expanded when nessesary) or E6-E8 qualify as an adequate low magic game?
I see a lot of argument about how much you have to change pathfinder to get the effect of a low magic campaign but is it changing much at all if you simply stop leveling? I say this because there is some mechanical/realistic dissonance when it comes to leveling. Between entering and leaving a dungeon you can suddenly know a new language, cast drastically more powerful spells, leap tall buildings, know more about history. The difference between levels feel like at least a year of training not thirty minutes in cave full of monsters, so levels seem more like a measure of general power than actual progression. By that logic I think stopping at some point isn't that much of an extreme, especially since at higher levels you are able to just casually drink poison with no effects without the aid of magic.
The problems is that even at level one magic rules the game. You speak about casually drinking poison while a cleric at level one can use Purify Food and Drink a cantrip that reads-"This spell makes spoiled, rotten, diseased, poisonous, or otherwise contaminated food and water pure and suitable for eating and drinking." They can also create light, infinite amounts of water, and fix broken objects instantly as many times a day as they chose. This is all just core as well.
These are just cantrips, actual spells (up to 3rd level for e6, 4th for e8)are much more game changing. In a normal game they are not overpowered, but I would argue you can't have a low magic campaign reminiscent of most literature with even cantrips available. E6 or e8 seems great for maintaining power balance but that is about it.
True, but I would argue that when the game stops at level 5/6 there isn't much to run with the assumption that these classes are very prevalent.
Well when I ran a low magic PF game, it was basically no full casters allowed - neither PCs nor the bad guys has such a thing. Slow XP progression so leveling doesn't happen quite as often, and adjusted CR monsters. Somethings had to be adjusted on the fly when appropriate leveling down of some ability wasn't considered until encountering it. But all and all, it was a fun, playable game. Resource management became more important.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually do like magic. There are even many 4th level spells like Dimension Door and Haste that I really like the party to have. It's the broad spells that are too broad and powerful spells that can be cast at any time that actually bug me.
Broad spells include Summon Monster (I feel it should be limited to certain monsters and that learning to summon other creatures should be separate spells, I also like it being the same creature every time so the more you use that creature the better rapport with it) and Polymorph (I seriously feel like each polymorph should be it's own thing, learning each new shape should feel like an adventure, also that picking something out of a bestiary is just silly)
I also have a weird thing against prestidigitation for it's broad and general use. I feel that it's uses should be separated (cleaning things, changing the taste of something, creating a crude object) for their lack of cohesion, but I also feel that none of those things should really be a spell but just things you can do as a wizard of a certain school.
I like teleport in my game... through the use of gates. Limited by the crystalline bases etched with runes. Not something you can just take about and do whenever, there is a process to it and rare components.
I'm the similar with resurrect, which is a ritual which requires powerful people and any delay or inferior materials lowers the chance of successfully bringing someone back.
I would prefer Breath of Life be a lower spell, but requires an important spell component.
As far as "low magic" not being Pathfinder, well it's kind of subjective. Pathfinder does have all these rules that slip into the void with even low magic. Maybe you're talking about Golarion? It's definitely got plentiful magic with powerful characters, but there is much of it that can be presented with even low magic. How often do generals get resurrected? Why would the desert bother people if they can just go with any old cleric (Protection from heat and constant supply of water)?
In fact the only settings that feel like they're actually high magic are in the southeast of Golarion where two legendary wizards dueled and created the mana wastelands. One went missing but the other runs a successful undead country. But then, they go and make those wizards feel like one of a kind.
Cayden Cailean's trial of the gods is a mystery... Even though we all know how well mysteries and high level magic play out...
How often is magic spoke of in it's aid to help win the battles in the legends of pathfinder? Even though it is almost always prevalent with fly and haste, resurrections and protections, a creative use of an odd spell that has lasted through the ages?
I mean there's always the binding of demons, but that's usually with a macguffin not a specific spell for some reason. With a high magic world, shouldn't there be a legend for every spell or at least a good number of them?
Even the stories of pathfinder don't always resonate with the quite the same kind of high magic world.
I have a question. Would Beginner Box rules (expanded when nessesary) or E6-E8 qualify as an adequate low magic game?
I see a lot of argument about how much you have to change pathfinder to get the effect of a low magic campaign but is it changing much at all if you simply stop leveling? I say this because there is some mechanical/realistic dissonance when it comes to leveling. Between entering and leaving a dungeon you can suddenly know a new language, cast drastically more powerful spells, leap tall buildings, know more about history. The difference between levels feel like at least a year of training not thirty minutes in cave full of monsters, so levels seem more like a measure of general power than actual progression. By that logic I think stopping at some point isn't that much of an extreme, especially since at higher levels you are able to just casually drink poison with no effects without the aid of magic.
While I prefer high magic, I have played in some low magic settings. The only one that was good did the following:
- We continued to level beyond 6 because being stuck at 6 is lame. However, full casters didn't learn 4th or higher spells. Instead, the spellslots could be used for metamagic stuff.
- Full casters would take a single feat to learn 4-6th level spells. In addition, some of those spells would be cast as rituals and take longer and require preparation. So Scrying would take an hour or two with proper preparation from the caster and anyone with K(Arcana/Religion) or Spellcraft. It actually pushed Fighters to take spellcraft to help with rituals. You'd prepare them as normal in their slots and cast them when they are done. There was also a feat for 7-9th level spells. Some spells, generally offensive or defensive ones meant for combat, were not turned into rituals.
- Some spells were toned down, but not a lot of them were.
- This might be a killer for some, but our group preferred making magic items. So there were no magic marts, but potion stores and the odd collector would have some stuff. But we prefer making magic items, so we were okay with that.
- Keep a close eye on monsters. For our game, it was fine, but if you remove more magic, you'll want to definitely watch what you throw at players.
While not as low magic as some may want, this worked fairly well to evoke a certain feel of ritual magic I liked from Conan. It also made the whole party involved in the ritual, so everyone felt like they were being the stars of high level. If I ran a lower magic (or no magic), I would do all of this in addition to other simple house rules.
I don't include magic shops in my high magic/standard PF games, magic items are created on commission one item at a time, even scrolls and potions. You'll never see a "magic mart" in any setting I play, no matter the level of magic. But then the same applies to mundane weapons and items as well. There are no stores per se, only work shops. "Store owners" don't have to worry about theft or shop lifting, if everything is created per client.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what this would be classified as as far as magic range, but I ran a campaign where there were no Magic Item shops per se, and even then it was limited to a few items in a type of shop (a few potions at the Alchemist, etc. There were no item creation feats, and characters had to train before they went up a level (usually in town for a week, which really focused on RP in-town). I ddint restrict caster levels, and we played until around level 15. I used a reward system where their weapons got better by the person they were questing for rewarding them with a certain enhancement to their weapon/ armor/ item. The players really enjoyed it, and have been pushing for an urban-based same type of game. So i've had alot of sucess with it, and nothing got OP because the players seemed to keep themselves in check with each other. It was fun to DM as well, and I didnt change the CR's or monsters. I guess it starts with players that want somethign like that, and delivering it in a way where they don't feel underpowered or left out.
I don't include magic shops in my high magic/standard PF games, magic items are created on commission one item at a time, even scrolls and potions. You'll never see a "magic mart" in any setting I play, no matter the level of magic. But then the same applies to mundane weapons and items as well. There are no stores per se, only work shops. "Store owners" don't have to worry about theft or shop lifting, if everything is created per client.
I generally don't mind magic marts. I do like the Grand Bazaar of the Bizarre as much as the next person. But they won't always have the items people are looking for, just some rolled items or items I think look cool.
I actually limit city sizes more often than magic marts.
I don't include magic shops in my high magic/standard PF games, magic items are created on commission one item at a time, even scrolls and potions. You'll never see a "magic mart" in any setting I play, no matter the level of magic. But then the same applies to mundane weapons and items as well. There are no stores per se, only work shops. "Store owners" don't have to worry about theft or shop lifting, if everything is created per client.I generally don't mind magic marts. I do like the Grand Bazaar of the Bizarre as much as the next person. But they won't always have the items people are looking for, just some rolled items or items I think look cool.
I actually limit city sizes more often than magic marts.
I do the same thing in my shops, or I'll give the PC's a strange item as a quest reward that is useful, but they normally wouldnt go out of their way to try to get. But in the world i made they go to the proper shop for the item (smith for weapons/armor, apothecary/alchemist for potions, etc). It makes the players actually interact with the civilization more, which seems to be another problem entirely with RPG's in general (I blame Video Game RPG's for this), but that's another conversation entirely
I actually limit city sizes more often than magic marts.
Well considering I created the original hand-drawn map of the City of Kasai for The Empty Throne module of the Jade Regent AP, a city with a population of 164,000+, I generally limit city sizes to my setting needs or commission requirements.
Fair enough. In my Caribbean setting, I just have one metropolis and most capital cities in my settings average on small cities. I also do the Core RB version of spellcasting service availability, not the GMG version. Most cities in my game are small towns or lower.
This isn't meant to be a shot at people but for people who want a low magic game. Have any of you had successful combat oriented games at levels >14?
Do you mean with full magical stuff or without? Because I've had both. In college, during the heyday of 3.5--about a decade ago--I ran a game that went from 1st to 30th, complete with Epic stuff and Deity Ranks (the end was killing gods and taking their divinity for themselves).
It was complicated--it would take a lot to explain it all. But the PCs go to acquire and shift around class levels back and forth several times. They started as a Rogue, a Fighter, and a Monk. Somewhere in the middle they were all granted Psionic class levels of different kinds. They reshuffled again and one of them was an evil cleric (actually, I think it was a Favored Soul) that, during one particularly noteworthy encounter against an Inquisitor (a 3rd edition Inquisitor), literally teleported his heart into her hand...three times (because you died from losing your heart in 1d4 rounds or something and he would just use his own healing spells to heal up and grow a new one). She kept his three hearts preserved in a box for the rest of the campaign as a keepsake. In the end, though, they disliked the spells and psychic powers and during the final pre-epic reshuffle, they closed out as a Rogue/Swashbuckler/Invisible Blade/Assassin, a Fighter/Dwarven Defender/Some other obscure fighting type prestige class I don't remember, and a Monk/Samurai/Master Samurai/probably some other Oriental Adventures thing I forget.
So, yeah, in a single game, I had experience both with and without magic during high level combats, though the party never had any magic items except an artifact weapon that did absolutely nothing except be capable of killing gods and a crystal head that had a chance to be able answer just about any question once per day, but always tried to twist and manipulate the party down the path of killing gods.
If you eliminate all of those things normally provided by the ‘big 6’ there is essentially no change.Standard magic items tend to give more boosts to AC than they do to attack rolls. BAB goes up with level, while AC only goes up with better magic equipment.
Has anyone noticed any problems caused by this in low-magic-equipment games?
Yes, this is absolutely an issue in low-magic Pathfinder settings. I fix it with feats that grant scaling AC bonuses, though I'm sure there are other ways to go about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, this is absolutely an issue in low-magic Pathfinder settings. I fix it with feats that grant scaling AC bonuses, though I'm sure there are other ways to go about it.If you eliminate all of those things normally provided by the ‘big 6’ there is essentially no change.Standard magic items tend to give more boosts to AC than they do to attack rolls. BAB goes up with level, while AC only goes up with better magic equipment.
Has anyone noticed any problems caused by this in low-magic-equipment games?
I. will admittedly very drunk still ask how this meshes with the 4e dnd inherent bonus system, as it seems to at this moment in my inebriation to fix it, you just have ac increase along with atk and defense saves as inherent bonuses for being high level instead of magic. You say that certain levels are inherently powerful instead of pure magic while reaching the same basic power level. I while drunk see this as the best answer
|
Yes, this is absolutely an issue in low-magic Pathfinder settings. I fix it with feats that grant scaling AC bonuses, though I'm sure there are other ways to go about it.If you eliminate all of those things normally provided by the ‘big 6’ there is essentially no change.Standard magic items tend to give more boosts to AC than they do to attack rolls. BAB goes up with level, while AC only goes up with better magic equipment.
Has anyone noticed any problems caused by this in low-magic-equipment games?
Do you give each class the same bonuses, or do they vary by class? (like modern d20's class defense bonuses) And what bonuses do you give them? Armor? If it's just inherent, your char's touch ac would be as high as a monk's normally is eventually.
For AC, if I were doing really low to no magic that continues into high levels, I'd reflavor the Armor enchantment bonuses to just being better armor. That's about it really.
I don’t think the PF system requires as much adjustment as many people feel it does. They come up with extensive systems that mostly amount to canceling out the other adjustments. This guy gets a + to hit and the other guy gets the same + to AC. This one gets a + to a casting DC and the other gets a + to saves. If you eliminate all of those things normally provided by the ‘big 6’ there is essentially no change.Except that's completely wrong. The Big Six are overwhelmingly defensive in nature, and cutting them out just makes rocket tag even worse. You take away stat headbands max out at boosting a caster's DCs by three, while the cloak of resistance goes up to five, and another three points from stat-boosting items. Magic weapons only go up to +5, while Armor, Ring of Protection, and Amulet of Natural Armor all add up to +15.
If you think +3 vs +8 and +5 vs +15 are things that balance out...
I've never seen anyone buy the max of all those items and for both the offensive and defensive ability scores. Not saying it can't happen, but not in any game I've ever played. Most people pay for a few +1 or +2 defensive items save up for the +2 or +3 offensive items.
Have them fight it out. Take all those away from both sides and have them fight it out.Results tend to be comparable.
I'm not saying they balance out perfectly. But You are taking away a bit more defense than offense from both sides of the conflict. That tends to even things. In my (admittedly limited experience) it wasn't the horrific imbalance that many people seem to imply. Our trials without the 'Big 6' only got to about level 12-13. It took a little adjusting in creature selection, but not so much of an effect. It might have a bigger effect at higher levels, but most campaigns seem to end around level 14 anyway.
The +1 shield and +1 armor give a +2 to AC. The +1 sword gives a +1 to both attack and damage. Exactly the same? No. Roughly in the same ballpark? Usually. Especially since you are doing that to both sides.
Yes, you probably want your PC to be a bit more defensive minded. Things like combat expertise, fighting defensively, careful positioning, knowledgeable tactics, not dumping a save stat, and not leading with your chin all become slightly more important. But most of the people that are interested in a lower magic setting seem to already be that category of player.
Again, I'm not saying it is perfectly simple, just 'Eliminate them and play as usual' will probably have problems. I just don't think it requires as extensive an adjustment as most people seem to think. I especially don't think it is necessary to replace all the 'Big 6' with automatically giving all of those bonuses to every character.
... High levels involve absurdities that require the GM be capable knowing the magic system. The value of high level game play is 100% dependent on the capacity of the GM to handle the magic system, being a better GM solves most of the major issues with only a small number of spells being truly a problem (Simulacrum springs to mind). ...
Granted. Never said a more capable GM won't make a better game or that you can't have a good game with high magic.
The question was why do some people like lower magic settings.I also have yet to see a GM that can learn all the possible magic in umpteen books better than some players can learn what they need for their single specific PC.
... This isn't meant to be a shot at people but for people who want a low magic game. Have any of you had successful combat oriented games at levels >14?
I'd guess that they're either short lived or not great from most people I talk to. I've not had that problem. I've had wizards reshaping worlds and clerics returning legends to life who have no business being alive. It still was some of the more memorable encounters ever. ...
You're going to have to define 'successful' for a question like that. I would tend to use words like exciting and memorable. And my answer would be "Not usually."
I haven't played in many games that got beyond 14th level for very long. Most campaigns end about that point.From what I have seen most combats at that level are not exciting or memorable (though there have been a few that were excellent). They mostly instantly over before many PC's or NPC's even have a chance to act or they are tedious while everyone is trying to keep track of all the umpteen possible effects and trying to consider all their multitude of possibilities.
I am not sure if high or low magic will have much effect on any of that.
... If you start at a low level and the game goes to high levels you should let the PC's do memorable awesome things even if it breaks your prewritten tactics.
I always try to give the players something memorable. But it is difficult to make anything memorable out of a single spell ending the BBEG fight in round 1. The players don't seem to find it special when 14 magic items means they are almost guaranteed to win no matter what class, build, or tactics are used.
The players/PC's demolish my pre-written tactics nearly every encounter. I have zero problems with that.
Though I do sometimes have a bit of trouble figuring out what my monsters would do next with the shambles the PC's have made of the battlefield.
With no magic items and using all of the trap abilities above you will surely die at 15+ unless the GM softballs.
Most low magic settings never go above 12th level, so something that ensures death at 15+ would never happen - no need for softballing.
Each 1 point differential is extreme due to the huge number of attacks on a full attack at higher levels. Having 8 points of AC to 4 points of to hit is effectively unhasting the opposition.
Again, "high level" generally never happens in low magic games. So all the inherent problems of low magic and high level as you're pointing out are anamolous to the discussion as they really don't happen.
Usually in my low magic games we use either the slow XP progression or we include an even slower progression than slow. If reaching 10th level takes as long as a normal game reaching 20th, then why worry about problems that occur at level 15. The campaign would most likely end before ever reaching such a level.
No full casters isn't a game breaking problem if you allow for example the WP and the magus but not the wizard or cleric. If you allow only 4th level or less casters (Paladin/blood rager) You're going to have a bad time because monsters are horribly limited.
Not if you're careful about monster selection, or adjusting monster abilities to fit better. Unadjusted, straight out of the bestiary, monsters will be problematic sure. But if you're making the effort to build low magic PCs, adjusting the monsters is an expectation as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not if you're careful about monster selection, or adjusting monster abilities to fit better. Unadjusted, straight out of the bestiary, monsters will be problematic sure. But if you're making the effort to build low magic PCs, adjusting the monsters is an expectation as well.
When it comes to balance in low-magic games, I'm not worried about the GMs who carefully pick their monsters and adjust stats to be appropriate to the party. The problem is, GMs who carefully consider all the ramifications of running a low-magic game seem a lot less common than GMs who think they can cut out most of the magic without it fundamentally shifting the game's balance points.
Another aspect of low magic settings is that PCs are less likely to fight to the death, except in instances where it the big boss fight. Far more likely is situations common to 1e D&D, where more often than not, combat is deadlier, and parties have to either avoid fights that are inherently more dangerous, or learn to do a fighting retreat when they see the odds are against them and escape combat until such time that they are better prepared or have the tools to overcome the encounter. The standard PF concept of once combat begins you fight to the death everytime (usually the opponents death being a result) is not condusive to low magic adventures. Because you don't have magic to protect you and recover as quickly from combat, you have to be a lot smarter in how you approach combat. If the situation is getting out of hand, then getting out of that combat is a more common result.
Encounters getting stale is usually not the problem.
And again, your point about "with enough severe changes you're not playing Pathfinder anymore" is a given. But why does that matter? If you're not truly playing Pathfinder anymore due to the changes - who cares? That's a meaningless point. The point of the thread is can we adjust the PF rules to accomodate a low magic. It isn't, can we do that and still be called Pathfinder. It doesn't need to be Pathfinder, it only needs to work mechanically and be fun to play.
I didn't modify hardly any of the monsters (if you mean down grading them), I just used them at a slightly higher level and in smaller numbers if they had lots of special defenses.
Level 1-2 are tough to make memorable by the creatures encountered. Most memorable stuff at that level is RP. I agree high or low magic will have no real effect at that level.
At level 3-4 you can start putting in some weird stuff if you are careful. A shadow and quasit(?) were 2 of my almost boss encounters. They were tough but the PC's had plenty of warnings and were able to take them despite having virtually no magic.
Those players still talk about trying to kill a shadow without a magic weapon. Multiple light sources, trying to be sure of the location for their limited holy oils and 2 magic arrows.
Or trying to catch the little outsider that kept turning invisible. Bags of flour, grappling something with a poisonous bite, etc...
Pretty damn memorable and exciting.
I did not take away the mummy's powers. A mummy is now horrifically dangerous and the party better take it seriously. Curses, drain, and diseases need some effort to get rid of.
To me (and at least some other people) just encountering a creature I haven't fought yet this campaign does not make it memorable or exciting.
The kobold dragon disciple, kobold half-dragon, and kobolds riding lizards were very memorable. (Though not too exciting since they were cut down pretty fast.)
The orcs sniping from the top of an icy slope was very exciting (Almost too much, so I didn't have the 3rd and 4th wave arrive).
I would say that to a certain extent, most encounters at most levels are nothing new. One demon, creature, or undead is much like another. Until you start adding a few class levels, weird tactics, innocent bystanders, need to take alive, unusual locations, terrain/weather effects, etc...
Not if you're careful about monster selection, or adjusting monster abilities to fit better. Unadjusted, straight out of the bestiary, monsters will be problematic sure. But if you're making the effort to build low magic PCs, adjusting the monsters is an expectation as well.When it comes to balance in low-magic games, I'm not worried about the GMs who carefully pick their monsters and adjust stats to be appropriate to the party. The problem is, GMs who carefully consider all the ramifications of running a low-magic game seem a lot less common than GMs who think they can cut out most of the magic without it fundamentally shifting the game's balance points.
If that was aimed at me, I never said no adjustments are necessary. I said I don't think the necessary adjustments are nearly as dramatic as many other people seem to feel.
Not if you're careful about monster selection, or adjusting monster abilities to fit better. Unadjusted, straight out of the bestiary, monsters will be problematic sure. But if you're making the effort to build low magic PCs, adjusting the monsters is an expectation as well.When it comes to balance in low-magic games, I'm not worried about the GMs who carefully pick their monsters and adjust stats to be appropriate to the party. The problem is, GMs who carefully consider all the ramifications of running a low-magic game seem a lot less common than GMs who think they can cut out most of the magic without it fundamentally shifting the game's balance points.
Now that would be silly. Any significant change to the system must be considered carefully. Low-magic is certainly a significant departure from the norm and requires considerable rebalancing of encounters.
Do you give each class the same bonuses, or do they vary by class? (like modern d20's class defense bonuses) And what bonuses do you give them? Armor? If it's just inherent, your char's touch ac would be as high as a monk's normally is eventually.Yes, this is absolutely an issue in low-magic Pathfinder settings. I fix it with feats that grant scaling AC bonuses, though I'm sure there are other ways to go about it.If you eliminate all of those things normally provided by the ‘big 6’ there is essentially no change.Standard magic items tend to give more boosts to AC than they do to attack rolls. BAB goes up with level, while AC only goes up with better magic equipment.
Has anyone noticed any problems caused by this in low-magic-equipment games?
The base feats are open to all classes, but two of the three require armor/shield proficiency, which obviously makes it tough for arcane full casters to gain the benefit. I'll post the relevant feats below, but before I do I should note two other rules changes:
1) The Arcane Armor feats are actually useful, but have a STR prereq, meaning STR for a wizard is not just t%&$ on a boar.
- prereq: STR 13, Class Level 3rd
- grants Light Armor proficiency, and proficiency with bucklers and light shields
- does not require a swift action
- Arcane Armor Mastery: -20% to spell failure chance
- prereq: Arcane Armor Training, STR 15, Class Level 5th
- grants Medium Armor proficiency, and proficiency with heavy shields
- does not require a swift action
2) Shields are buffed in my house rules. Shields automatically grant a bonus to touch AC, and the base bonus (before enchantments, etc.) is doubled vs. ranged attacks.
So defense against the most typically cheezed attack forms (ranged and especially ranged touch) is higher across the board for shield wielders, which is a big step in the right direction with or without low magic.
Now, as far as the specific feat chains I have to address the problem of low magic AC scaling, here they are:
Armor Mastery: adds 1 + 1/6 levels to AC while wearing a certain class of armor [eg. light, med, heavy] and not denied DEX bonus to AC (combat)
- prereq: BAB +5, armor proficiency
- Fighter applies this to all classes of armor
Greater Armor Mastery: grants DR 3/- while wearing a specific type of armor [eg. banded mail] (combat)
- stacks with Armor Mastery
- prereq: Fighter 11th, Armor Mastery
Shield Mastery: Adds 1 + 1/7 levels to base shield AC bonus when wielding a shield or buckler (combat)
- prereq: BAB +6, shield proficiency
Greater Shield Mastery: shield grants +3/4/5/6 bonus to Reflex save vs burst spells and effects, for buckler/light/heavy/tower, respectively (combat)
- prereq: Fighter 10th, Shield Mastery
Shield Superiority: gain evasion when carrying a tower shield or a heavy shield + helm, arm and leg greaves (combat)
- prereq: Fighter 14th, Greater Shield Mastery
So, for example, a human Fighter with a 16 DEX who took Dodge, Armor Mastery and Shield Mastery as soon as he could would have the following AC bonuses, by level:
2nd: +1, +1, +1
3rd: +1, +1, +1
4th: +1, +1, +1
5th: +1, +1, +2 (Dodge)
6th: +1, +2 (AM), +2
7th: +2 (SM), +2, +2
8th: +2, +2, +2
9th: +2, +2, +3
10th: +2, +2, +3 (Dodge)
11th: +2, +2, +3
12th: +2, +3 (AM), +3
13th: +2, +2, +2
14th: +3 (SM), +3, +3
15th: +3, +3, +4 (Dodge)
...etc.
The numbers scale pretty well, though it costs feats to get there and for one of the feats you need a shield, so martials have to decide if the tradeoffs are worth it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I think few games of whatever level of magic are played a lot beyond 14th level.
Our main game got to 15th, then ended.
I did have a 3.5 game get to 18th, and a 3.0 game get Epic.
And of course some of our early AD&D and OD&D games got crazy high.
This is why I am not terribly concerned there are some issues with very high level games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that what you call "Low magic" is poorly defined.
This right here is the biggest issue with trying to talk about "low magic" games in general. It seems like every GM running a low magic campaign has their own version of what exactly low magic is.
Now that would be silly. Any significant change to the system must be considered carefully. Low-magic is certainly a significant departure from the norm and requires considerable rebalancing of encounters.Not if you're careful about monster selection, or adjusting monster abilities to fit better. Unadjusted, straight out of the bestiary, monsters will be problematic sure. But if you're making the effort to build low magic PCs, adjusting the monsters is an expectation as well.When it comes to balance in low-magic games, I'm not worried about the GMs who carefully pick their monsters and adjust stats to be appropriate to the party. The problem is, GMs who carefully consider all the ramifications of running a low-magic game seem a lot less common than GMs who think they can cut out most of the magic without it fundamentally shifting the game's balance points.
You'd be surprised at how well trial-and-error works as a guiding principle for encounter balance. Not just in low magic campaigns, but in general.
Given the amount of effort we put into dissecting these systems, you'd imagine that anything less than total understanding would create a complete collapse of the game...
But it's not so. A good rapport between players and GM is what a game really needs. The balance rules are spaced widely enough that even a clueless GM has to go WAY off the mark to accidentally crush a low level party. By the time things get swingy, they've generally found they're balance, even if it means certain monster types are more lethal than their CR would imply.
CR is, after all, an imprecise metric. It's best used as a relative ranking of monster power. The part that tracks to party level needs constant maintenance and adjustment.
What we cook up in terms of theory, the armchair GMing, doesn't matter nearly as much as what the oblivious GM picks out of the bestiary on that day. Who cares if he's considering the 15-point a priori adventuring party that's exactly on track for WBL?
All that matters is that the players fight a troll, and it's kinda hard, but not so hard that they all die.
You want to run a low-magic game, that's what you need to do. Decide what's available, and be prepared to compensate. Like any kind of campaign, be aware of the party's capabilities, and challenge them but don't murder them.
We can all sit around and discuss the theoretical things that must change in such a world, but there's the planning and the doing. I find that a lot of people seem to have great success by focusing on the latter.
Those players still talk about trying to kill a shadow without a magic weapon. Multiple light sources, trying to be sure of the location for their limited holy oils and 2 magic arrows.Just so we're clear unless 2 magic arrows killed it they got TPK'ed without house rules. They can't hit it, period. Holy water would let them do a minor amount of damage but holy weapons aren't automatically magical. This gives me the impression you use far more house rules than you realize. ...
No there was no TPK. No one even died though it was close. A shadow only has 19 hitpoints. The second arrow hit from a high strength character for I think 8 points of damage. The other 11 points of damage were done by holy water application at high risk. One by the wizard with a true strike to guarantee a hit.
Every GM I have ever talked to except 1 has agreed that even though the rules aren't terribly clear they all interpret that holy water sprinkled through it will damage an incorporeal undead.I do not think that fits into "far more house rules than you realize."
...
I did not take away the mummy's powers. A mummy is now horrifically dangerous and the party better take it seriously. Curses, drain, and diseases need some effort to get rid of.No it's binary. You either can remove it before it kills the PC or you can't. If you can then you've avoided the problem of low magic by not making it low magic. ...
Ok, then every single aspect of the game is binary. You succeed or you don't.
But in this case the players went to a lot of effort to make sure it was unlikely to hit them and if it did only the character with the highest fort save, strength, and constitution. Then they killed horses and eventually left a couple of PC's behind trying to get the afflicted character to one of the few clerics who was capable of lifting the curse.The group came up with at least 3 tactics for the combat and 4 strategies for getting the afflicted PC to the priest. They probably picked the riskiest tactic because they didn't want to chance destroying any treasure and they picked the second safest strategy because it would have cost almost all their wealth for the safest.
We did not avoid any problem by making it not low magic. I don't know what you actually mean by that.
...
I would say that to a certain extent, most encounters at most levels are nothing new. One demon, creature, or undead is much like another. Until you start adding a few class levels, weird tactics, innocent bystanders, need to take alive, unusual locations, terrain/weather effects, etc...Or encounters which are defined by magic. Black tentacles, wall of stone, summons, stinking cloud. All of the effects of magic make memorable encounters. Especially when they're overlapping. ...
Black tentacles is memorable. The first time you use it. After it gets to be a standard tactic to cast it every other fight, it becomes less memorable.
...
The problem is that what you call "Low magic" is poorly defined. Do you ban all spell casting? Just 9th level casters? 6th level casters? 4th? Crafting?The game assumes you have a magic weapon, usually with a specific bonus. Low magic games actually hurt martial more than casty types if they aren't house banned. ...
I know it is poorly defined. That wasn't the thread topic. I've tried it several different ways. Some work better than others. That wasn't the point of the thread.
A lot of people say low magic hurts martials more. But just a few posts before this was the comments that most of the magic items are defensive. If you take away the defense of the squishiest characters aren't they even more squishy?
I actually think the wizards and sorcerers are at the most risk in a low magic campaign since they have to be even more careful just to stay alive.
The ones hurt the least and in fact relatively strengthened are the combined caster/martials. A magi, cleric, oracle, or druid in a low magic campaign are nearly unstoppable. They have decent magic, defensive capabilities, and martial skills.
Well, ok maybe the summoner is strongest. But he is already the strongest and no one played one in our trials.
......
Perhaps a better question line would be why on earth do you like low magic is more fun?
No, that isn't a "better question." That was the whole point of the thread. "Why Low Magic?"
I already gave 3 reasons why I and some others sometimes like to play a low magic campaign. Others have given many more reasons.
... Even Aragorn has a magic weapon....
Yes. 'A' magic weapon.
By the end of our last campaign, our party was carting around bags of holding full of 'useless' magic items that we couldn't sell because we kept running into the wealth limit of the communities we encountered.......
Do you understand the magic system well enough to know that basically everything can be countered with other parts of the magic system (which 20+ int casters would definitely do)?
Yes. I never said a high magic can't be fun. I never said the magic can't be countered. I usually play high magic. I have fun. It is not the end of the world. I never said it was.
The OP asked why people liked low magic even though it was such a huge modification to the rule set.
I gave reasons why I sometimes liked it and expressed my opinion that it is not necessarily such a huge modification as many feel that it must be.
The problem is that what you call "Low magic" is poorly defined.This right here is the biggest issue with trying to talk about "low magic" games in general. It seems like every GM running a low magic campaign has their own version of what exactly low magic is.
Agreed.
But I wasn't trying to justify any particular low magic system. The OP asked why some of us liked low magic and we gave reason. Some others responded that it has to be a huge modification of the rules. I disagreed.
I have seen several different methods.
* Non-mechanical limits to casters - Such as. Casters are hated and lynched whenever discovered. Divine and Arcane casters are at war and basically attack each other on sight.
* Banning or limiting casters - Can't play wizards or can only take half of your class levels as wizard the others have to be expert.
* Limiting of spells/casting - Casting time is 3 rounds minimum. Increase all spell levels by 2. Eliminate some of the most powerful spells (teleport, seek thoughts, haste, etc...).
* Limiting magic items - PC's can't make items. Items cost x4 the book price. No permanent magic items. No one sells items, so you have to use what you find.
I'm sure there are others that I don't remember out there.
Some work better than others depending upon what other changes the group makes.
Perhaps a better question line would be why on earth do you like low magic is more fun? Even Aragorn has a magic weapon.
So did Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gandalf, likely Legolas (Galadriel gave him a "special" bow, but remember the elves rarely say anything is "magic"), and if you beleive the Official Licensed RPG,also Boromir and Gimli.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. Wizards and sorcerers are "Hit on a 2" Removing AC and giving them AC 10 is still "Hit on a 2". melee types are "Hit on a 10, 15, 20 for my iterative hits" The game hard caps at "Get hit on a 2" so wizards and sorcerers are equally as squishy while the melee types go to "Hit on a 2, 4, 9."A lot of people say low magic hurts martials more. But just a few posts before this was the comments that most of the magic items are defensive. If you take away the defense of the squishiest characters aren't they even more squishy?
I actually think the wizards and sorcerers are at the most risk in a low magic campaign since they have to be even more careful just to stay alive.
Not to mention wizards and sorcerers usually rely on non-AC defenses anyway. Mirror Image, Displacement, Flight, and Invisibility all immediately spring to mind.
Not to mention that in a game where saves are lower across the board, Save or Die/Suck spells pack even more punch than normal.
Nope. Wizards and sorcerers are "Hit on a 2" Removing AC and giving them AC 10 is still "Hit on a 2". melee types are "Hit on a 10, 15, 20 for my iterative hits" The game hard caps at "Get hit on a 2" so wizards and sorcerers are equally as squishy while the melee types go to "Hit on a 2, 4, 9."
This is absolutely correct. Removing AC bonuses through magic items hurts the martials much more so than the casters, and is therefore something that one must correct in a low magic setting that is not meant to descend into farcical nonsense.
There are, of course, mechanical ways to make life harder (read "more lethal") for casters vis-á-vis combat and getting hit, but they are tricky to implement in Pathfinder. To give an example, the Rolemaster system in which armor type plays a large role in determining where a given blow lands on the various gory crit tables makes wearing armor quite beneficial whether or not one actually avoids a given blow.
Bottom line is that the base D&D/Pathfinder combat system is a ludicrously binary and primitive representation of what happens when people attempt to kill one another with sharp, heavy, and pointy objects. The hit/not hit duality of the attack roll and the dead/not dead duality of hit points both tend to render combat random, bizarre and cartoonish. Simply placing oneself outside of the system (which is the mid-high level wizard's standard tactic) is the best defense of all. Fixing this aspect of the game (and the inherent advantages that the wizard derives from it) without wholesale rebuilding is very, very hard, indeed.
Nope. Wizards and sorcerers are "Hit on a 2" Removing AC and giving them AC 10 is still "Hit on a 2". melee types are "Hit on a 10, 15, 20 for my iterative hits" The game hard caps at "Get hit on a 2" so wizards and sorcerers are equally as squishy while the melee types go to "Hit on a 2, 4, 9."This is absolutely correct. Removing AC bonuses through magic items hurts the martials much more so than the casters, and is therefore something that one must correct in a low magic setting that is not meant to descend into farcical nonsense.
There are, of course, mechanical ways to make life harder (read "more lethal") for casters vis-á-vis combat and getting hit, but they are tricky to implement in Pathfinder. To give an example, the Rolemaster system in which armor type plays a large role in determining where a given blow lands on the various gory crit tables makes wearing armor quite beneficial whether or not one actually avoids a given blow.
Bottom line is that the base D&D/Pathfinder combat system is a ludicrously binary and primitive representation of what happens when people attempt to kill one another with sharp, heavy, and pointy objects. The hit/not hit duality of the attack roll and the dead/not dead duality of hit points both tend to render combat random, bizarre and cartoonish. Simply placing oneself outside of the system (which is the mid-high level wizard's standard tactic) is the best defense of all. Fixing this aspect of the game (and the inherent advantages that the wizard derives from it) without wholesale rebuilding is very, very hard, indeed.
This reason is why for low-to-no magic games, even with no magic weapons, I still allow magic armor (refluffed as just better armor) and give all character the bonus to saves as they level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i don't get how anyone could call 1st edition low magic, you had low level warrior centric magical equipment flooding even the 1st level modules. nobody cared if you had 2 +1 longswords, a ring of protection +1, an amulet of natural armor +1, a +1 heavy shield, a suit of +1 fullplate, boots of elvenkind, a cloak of elvenkind, a +1 compound longbow and gauntlets of ogre power. everybody who played a 1st edition module to its end, would end up with a full set of those items.
boots of elvenkind in 1st edition, outright boosted your dexterity score and muffled the sound of your footsteps. they were the same thing as gloves of elvenkind, and well, the boots were better and more common. dime a dozen
cloak of elvenkind was essentially a cloak of infinite use invisibility. the cloak was a dime a dozen
gauntlets of ogre power gave you a strength of 18/00, regardless of how low you had it, even if you were a rogue or wizard. these guantlets came at least thrice in the loot piles of one dungeon room
and rings of protection, like cloaks of resistance and vests of resistance back then, provided both a deflection bonus to armor class and a resistance bonus to saving throws. rings of protection were a dime a dozen
+1 longswords were more common than gold pieces, +1 full plate and +1 compound longbows where also pretty easy to come by. yes, you had a chart of 100 polearms, but you were still more likely to get them longswords.
you could gear up a raiding party of 15 fighter henchmen that way by playing 1st edition published 1st level or higher modules until you were third level.
elven chain was pricey and a pain to upgrade, and only really mattered if you couldn't wear armor, like a wizard or monk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i don't get how anyone could call 1st edition low magic...
I wasn't calling 1e low magic, rather one of the differences in 1e was that encounters were deadlier, so players had to learn when combat was too deadly and back out to avoid TPK, or avoid combat altogether when possible. These are tactics that a low magic setting might practice to increase survivability.
No there was no TPK. No one even died though it was close. A shadow only has 19 hitpoints. The second arrow hit from a high strength character for I think 8 points of damage. The other 11 points of damage were done by holy water application at high risk. One by the wizard with a true strike to guarantee a hit.So they didn't kill it and you ignored my point. ...
HOLY WATER
Price 25 gp; Weight 1 lb.
Holy water damages undead creatures and evil outsiders almost as if it were acid. A flask of holy water can be thrown as a splash weapon.
Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet. A flask breaks if thrown against the body of a corporeal creature, but to use it against an incorporeal creature, you must open the flask and pour the holy water out onto the target. Thus, you can douse an incorporeal creature with holy water only if you are adjacent to it. Doing so is a ranged touch attack that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
A direct hit by a flask of holy water deals 2d4 points of damage to an undead creature or an evil outsider. Each such creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of damage from the splash.
Temples to good deities sell holy water at cost (making no profit). Holy water is made using the bless water spell.
Yes, they did kill it with holy water. Yes, the holy water can effect incorporeal undead. The specific rule of that item trumps the general rule of the creature subtype.
The only question is whether or not to use 50% damage instead of 100% damage. I honestly don't remember (3+ yrs) if the GM at that time used 50% damage or not. Even if he used 100% and you feel it should have been 50% the party still would have killed it eventually. Our supply was not that limited.Last spring when I discussed it on these boards. Almost everyone that responded agreed that though the rules are vague, we should read it as consider the holy water a positive energy source and have it deal full damage.
When almost everyone that reads agrees 'this' is what the text means, I do not consider that a house rule.
I did not ignore your point. Your point in that tiny section seemed to be that I have 'far more house rules than I realize.' If you had some other point in that section I completely missed it in the snark.
However, you completely ignored my point that a couple of low level encounter with fairly standard common opponents were quite memorable and exciting to the entire play group.
...We did not avoid any problem by making it not low magic. I don't know what you actually mean by that.Having access to clerics in towns is not low magic in any way. ...
There was 1 single cleric in the entire country that was capable of casting remove curse successfully. That caster could not be a PC. I would call that low magic.
In that campaign the GM was limiting magic by having casters (and hence the items they create) be extremely few in numbers and mostly not available to PC's. Not completely non-existent no magic, just low magic....Black tentacles is memorable. The first time you use it. After it gets to be a standard tactic to cast it every other fight, it becomes less memorable.It's also memorable when it's on top of a stinking cloud. Or boxed in with a wall of force. As you go up levels spells combo in strange and cool ways which cause fights to be more memorable. ...
Agreed, that could be cool and memorable. I virtually never see that kind of thing happen in any memorable fashion. Almost every fight especially the high level ones are over in 2 rounds tops. There is no time to see these fantastical combinations of spells having any significant effect on the game.
Look, I'm really not that concerned with the effects at those levels since nearly every campaign ends about them and very little of the play time (if any) takes place at those levels. But you asked a specific question. How many of our high level fights (>14) were good. I responded for my particular definition of good, not very many. That is my opinion of my experiences. You really don't need to attack it so vehemently.
...Nope. Wizards and sorcerers are "Hit on a 2" Removing AC and giving them AC 10 is still "Hit on a 2". melee types are "Hit on a 10, 15, 20 for my iterative hits" The game hard caps at "Get hit on a 2" so wizards and sorcerers are equally as squishy while the melee types go to "Hit on a 2, 4, 9." ...A lot of people say low magic hurts martials more. But just a few posts before this was the comments that most of the magic items are defensive. If you take away the defense of the squishiest characters aren't they even more squishy?
I actually think the wizards and sorcerers are at the most risk in a low magic campaign since they have to be even more careful just to stay alive.
I was not intending to directly refute that point. Sorry if it came across as such. But it doesn't quite match my experience. In our low magic campaigns, the wizards and sorcerers have a very difficult time surviving without any defensive magic items or easy access to lots of buff spells.
In our current high magic campaign; the single straight martial has the lowest AC, saves, no DR, and no SR. He knows he can survive many hits/blasts and he knows the many casters can protect him from or remove the effects of magic that he fails to save against.
The casters have extremely high AC and saves since they know they can not survive many hits/blasts, so they concentrated on it. An APL appropriate opponent usually can't hit them unless it rolls a 17+ on the first attack. Since they are the casters they can less rely on someone else to protect them from or remove conditions, so they made sure their saves are also very high.
The highest AC, saves, DR, and SR is on the hybrid inquisi-tank.
That is not refuting you. I can see your reasons that you feel martials are affected more. I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not sure I disagree either.
* Non-mechanical limits to casters - Such as. Casters are hated and lynched whenever discovered. Divine and Arcane casters are at...
The rest of that you are quoting out of context.
A different person asked about methods of creating low magic. I gave several examples. They are not all mine and I don't consider all of them to be good.The statement of not necessarily a huge modification of the rules is what is needed to make things function not the extent of their effects. Specifically it was in relation to removing the 'big 6' and what rules have to be changed to allow for their lack of availability.
However, it is also applicable to most of those examples I mentioned.
Not having wizards or sorcerers is not a huge modification of the rules. The players and GM can still know all rules and how they interact from that simple change.
Having people hate casters is not a rules change at all.
PC's can't make magic items is removing a very tiny subset of the rules and is easily understood.
Etc...
Having to take non-caster levels or increased casting times are pretty big changes. And I didn't think they were particularly successful methods of limiting magic in a campaign. But they are methods that I have seen mentioned fairly often as ways to create a low magic setting.
-------------------------------------------------
I am attacking the way you play the game. I usually play in a high magic campaign. I have fun. I never said a high magic campaign can't be fun.
The OP asked why many people enjoy a low magic campaign. I gave my opinion of the reasons I (and some others) occasionally enjoy a low magic campaign.