What level are you doing this at? If it's high level then they can use crazy spells to solve their problems. If it's low then I'd just use the spells that don'g have material/get the blood money spell. Also there are plenty of archetypes to work without "decent weapons"
See here's the real issue. You want an epic struggle, they want to solve it the simplest and most convenient way possible. So they will often bypass the quests or shortcut them. And if you prevent that, they'll likely get frustrated. Also if someone builds a character that doesn't need the gear from these quests and is doing awesome, and another character is severely weakened it might be less fun for them. But biggest thing is that the players will do something crazy to ruin your planning, especially casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am sorry to say this, but
I've been working on a mid-to-low power Pathfinder campaign for some time
is NOT compatible with
Some of my players have raised a (legitimate) concern that some of this might prove boring or frustrating.
It just isn't. It won't end very well.
For a campaign to last more than a month or two, every player AND the GM must all be on the same page about what they want to do. When a GM comes to the table with a grand plan he's been working on for some time and presents it to the players and their initial response is that they don't like the idea, they expect to be bored or frustrated with the GM's grand plan, I can assure you that they will be. They might be talked into it at first, but soon that anticipated boredom and frustration will set in. Then they won't want to play it anymore, so they'll either scrap the campaign and start a new one or they won't show up anymore.
I suggest you listen to your players. Sure, present your counterarguments but if the players are still unwilling, it's time to scrap the grand plan and find a better one that excites and interests the players. If you can't (if the only stuff that excites and interests them are the things that bore and frustrate you) then maybe you're not a good fit for this group. Hopefully, the middle ground where EVERYBODY is excited and interested can be found for your group.
Such a 'survivial' motif only works for one-offs...where you strip the characters down to nothing and have them use teamwork and smarts to overcome challenges.
There whole point is to NOT have to go through this kind of thing ever again, which is going to be confrontational to you.
The only way you can stop this is to drastically limit magic in your campaign world, because if faced with these kinds of challenges characters will simply fall back on magic to save their rears...it's why magic exists. Expect casting classes and item creation feats all over, just so they don't have to deal with the limitations you are imposing on them.
There's a nice one-off that was done for the sword of air 3p series for 7th level parties that has this theme. Historically, the Aerie of the Slave Lords also does this. Technically speaking, the WOrld's Largest Dungeon also encourages this kind of mindset, since you're trapped inside the dungeon.
---------------------
In short, Pathfinder is High Magic. If you want to do this, you basically have to get rid of a great deal of magic. You don't get 'gritty' until you can't use magic to solve problems.
==Aelryinth
|
Imposing penalties (like fatigue or exhaustion) on PCs at low-levels can heighten tension, but only when done at dramatic moments. As a constant, it just makes the players feel like they're constantly trudging uphill. Without getting into details, the first book of Iron Gods has the PCs making multiple Fortitude saves a day at 1st level - this is interesting at first, and then it just makes you realize how fragile a 1st level PC is, and how much more fragile you are when constantly sickened.
This is not a rules problem, it's a table problem. You don't want to play the same type of game as your players. Lets look at some objections and how to deal with them.
Some people think it's too much bookkeeping. This is especially true when you are tracking every possible spell component. One solution is for you to keep up the bookkeeping, but you have to make sure that the players have an easy way to keep track of what they have.
Some people look at it as taking time away from the other parts of the game they enjoy. The social aspects, or the combat. Solution: ensure that you know what parts they like and make sure that those needs are also taken care of. You also need to figure out how much time you spend on your aspects. If it takes all evening to do one day of travel, then you are probably going too far.
Some people look at it as a challenge to make characters that don't have to worry about that. One cantrip can deal with water for a whole group. Handy haversacks get rid of most encumbrance. Endure elements, create food and water, etc. If you are figuring ways around the things that their characters have, then you are invalidating their choices. That pisses some people off.
Some people think that it's not epic enough. They are perfectly willing to die facing down the dragon, but they don't want to starve to death in the woods. One solution is to restart in a different genre. If they are looking at this as Lord of the Rings, then they see an epic fantasy battle. On the other hand, survival is the point of post-apocalyptic games. If you implied one type of game and they are getting another, then that's miscommunication. It can feel like bait and switch.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there are splat books out there called Grittier and Grittier Rules. They might prove useful for your idea.
I also recommend bumping everyone's skills per level by 2-4. Its no fun to play a fighter in a skills game, trust me.
Beyond that here is my experience:
I played in a very successful year and a half campaign that was designed around a low magic world. No one could have a full caster (rangers and paladins allowed but that's it), and we started off with 50 gp worth of stuff.
There were no magic items and any magic in the party was limited but very powerful. Lay on hands was a true miracle for most of the game.
We were mercenaries so we didn't stay poor but with no magic loot to spend money on we built a headquarters and started a merc company with our earnings. It was meager but grew to be exceptional.
For your campaign I would recommend a lot of the same. The more you limit magic, the more powerful it is by comparison. And if you limit to the partial casters they still have lots of abilities when then don't have what they need to make magic work.
The key is that the players feel rewarded even if it isn't the kinda rewards they are used too. A map to a well is a huge reward if you are dehydrated and a shield is more valuable than gold when you have no where to spend it.
I had a GM like you once. He wanted this low wealth high tension survivalist affair.
He ran a campaign of this in PF and it worked really badly. The cavalier couldn't get another horse, the witch couldn't get a new familiar, nobody could get magic anything. The players hated it and just wanted to move on to something fun.
He ran his next campaign in Runequest and it went better. We were scared of everything, most especially archers. We treasured masterwork items. It felt very different. Some players loved it and some hated it.
The type of game you want can work and be fun, but it does have very different expectations from typical Pathfinder. It also doesn't attract the same types within the hobby that PF does, so make sure your players are onboard with the expectations.
I don't mean 'economy' like trading caravans and gold arbitrage...I mean 'economy' in the sense that players struggle to find enough ammunition, spell components and other necessaries to survive. Let me explain.
I've been working on a mid-to-low power Pathfinder campaign for some time which is basically designed to put the PCs in sort of a desperate/survival situation. Basics like food, water, rest, spell components, decent weapons, ammunition, etc. are in short supply.
The goal is to have a lot of the plot be driven by these challenges: You have to get from Point A to Point B to defeat the enemy, but you also have to (along the way) figure out how to find spell components (rabbits feet and butter, say) and enough food and water to keep you going.
I have a great story reason to do this - it serves the theme of the adventure I'm creating - and I also hope that it will bring forward some of the PF rules that I really like, including more of the skills and non-combat feats, also 'condition' rules like fatigue and exhaustion.
Some of my players have raised a (legitimate) concern that some of this might prove boring or frustrating. My hope is to avoid this by making sure that a lot of the challenges will be accompanied by a real sense of adventure (harvesting a spell component out from under the shadow of a dangerous lair, for example...) and a sense that useful skills can solve many of these problems.
("I use my survival spell to search the rocks for bat guano...")
But I'm wondering if others have tried this kind of mechanic and whether you have any advice about how to make it fun, and un-fun pitfalls to avoid.
-Marsh
they count as APL-1 and give them NPC WPL.
What level are you doing this at? If it's high level then they can use crazy spells to solve their problems. If it's low then I'd just use the spells that don'g have material/get the blood money spell. Also there are plenty of archetypes to work without "decent weapons"
See here's the real issue. You want an epic struggle, they want to solve it the simplest and most convenient way possible. So they will often bypass the quests or shortcut them. And if you prevent that, they'll likely get frustrated. Also if someone builds a character that doesn't need the gear from these quests and is doing awesome, and another character is severely weakened it might be less fun for them. But biggest thing is that the players will do something crazy to ruin your planning, especially casters.
it's probably hard to buy a scroll to add to your spell book, so blood money probably wouldn't be that easy to find.
I'm also going to say something different from a lot of people. people think stuff is going to be boring if they have reduced wealth or access to items, but ultimately it's all the same, i got a lot of complaints when i moved PB down to 20 from 25, but i was using less powerful creatures as well so it turned out the same and they saw newish enemies. but yeah fort saves to not starve does get boring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, by actually requiring some attention to spell components, their ability to just be 'magical canons' will diminish a bit. I really want there to be a moment where one of my players says, "I'm almost out of bat guano and sulfur."
Worse and worse. The characters with the highest need for tracking things (spell components) will be the characters with the least ability to actually accomplish anything, because first-level spells suck dead rat. Through a straw.
Reading this thread, it comes across like this.
A: I want to do this, but my players think it's a really bad idea.
B; So don't do it, then.
A: Yes, but they've got good reasons for why they think it's a bad idea, so I want to make it not a bad idea. I don't want to listen to them, I want to overrule them.
B: Well, here's a can of polish and a turd. Have fun.
I'll be the first to say that tracking spell comps is NOT going to be fun.
It's less fun then tracking arrows. Because you have 20 different types of arrows.
If you want to make up 'universal components' and have 'charges' for spells from a component case, that's a little different. But individual spells, tracking comps? Just, ugh.
Although, having a 'cost' to every spell cast IS somewhat grittier. You just have to determine what that fair cost is.
You also have to encourage weaker casting options, and downtone stronger ones. Like, save or dies are less effective, while blasting might be more so (easily done by increasing the damage of blasting spells).
Grim and gritty requires removing some iconic powers to keep things in the realm of hard work. You're probably looking at an E8 game.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eschew Materials (all casters in this game take this) + Birthmark Trait (All divine casters take this) + (Druid + Create Water + Goodberry) [only need one and druid is an excellent class] or + (1 rank in survival + take 10) [this assumes not a class skill and no attribute bonus] = No problems
Basically if you have any intelligent casters a survival game does not work starting at level one unless you ban a whole lot of feats/traits/spells.
I hope this works for you but I feel that pathfinder is a poor engine for a survival game. Have you considered a different system?
Worse and worse. The characters with the highest need for tracking things (spell components) will be the characters with the least ability to actually accomplish anything, because first-level spells suck dead rat. Through a straw.
Also, by actually requiring some attention to spell components, their ability to just be 'magical canons' will diminish a bit. I really want there to be a moment where one of my players says, "I'm almost out of bat guano and sulfur."
kinda have to agree, instead if you insist, use the unchained magic item rules that use generic resources(one or two per school). or just implement the unchained rules that make spells always cast at their weakest.
in the former you're tracking 5-6 substances that all cast various spells cheaper. you can use less materials to cast at a lower caster level or more to boost a spell. likewise if you use it with the other rule i mentioned it makes it so you just use the resources to cast the spells at their full potential and doesn't limit them entirely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that limiting access to spell casting at least early on might work out better than allowing casting classes but then denying them the ability to cast their spells consistently. If you're not going to make them at least meter out their spell use by controlling the flow of material components then saying they have to search for them seems like it could be just a background thing in the story.
I honestly sort of enjoyed the grueling "shipwrecked on a tropical island" adventure the DM of my first 3e campaign ran even though some other players don't remember it as fondly. I was a Fighter with no armor fighting stuff with a stick I found in the jungle (club). If the story transitions from a struggle for survival against the wilderness to a struggle for survival due to poverty and NPC authorities confiscating your treasure things can get sour pretty quickly though.
There was a 3.5 book called Heroes of Horror which might have some good advice for you as far as making things gritty and intimidating goes. I personally think ghouls have a pretty good combination of danger and creepiness though I generally have a house rule removing the Fort save from coup de grace. At low levels the double damage is pretty scary all by itself though.
I think people are probably right, this isn't the best system for this campaign, but you probably don't want to re-write the entire thing, so here's my two cents.
Limiting full casting classes is probably a good idea, it'll sort out a lot of the issues you're likely to have.
Maybe casters have to track materials only for their highest level of spells? This means they don't have to stress about cantrips, but even at high levels, if they want to pull out the big guns, they're going to have to prepare.
Similar with Ranged characters, limiting their arrows generally is likely to just mean no-one makes a particularly good archer, but if you let them have a +1 bow that needs a special oil or it won't work, they're more likely to see it as a bonus (You could do something similar with your melee characters, and then they get something out of the scavenging too).
There are plenty of great spells that don't need materials,
Snowball
Charm Person
Delusional Pride
Burning Hands
Ear-Piercing Scream
Magic Missile
Shocking Grasp
Ray of Enfeeblement
Ray of Sickening
I say that's a pretty fine offensive list there for no materials or focus needed. And as said above, eschew materials feat gets rid of it all together, so a sorcerer has access to all spells. And this isn't only limited to 1st level spells, there's tons of useful spells that don't have materials or focus needed.
Improvised weapon makes it so you don't need gear around. The breaker barbarian, Monk of the Empty Hand monk, Makeshift Scrapper rogue, all work with improvised weapons. Monks, Brawlers, Sacred Fist Warpriests, Unarmed Fighter Fighter, Bloody-Knuckled Rowdy Bloodrager, Iroran Paladin Paladins, Ninja all work pretty well unarmed combat. The bladebound kensai doesn't care about gear. Alchemists, bloodragers, barbarians can go natural attacks. Etc..
This was the point I was making earlier. You make the world "hard and gritty" and the players will trivialize it. Oh I have create water and dream feast, we never need food again. Who needs gear when you can punch with fist or hit with anything that's on hand. Magic really hasn't been weakened by avoiding materials all together, if you don't want to just avoid the need with eschew materials. So unless you ban tons of stuff, or you get lucky and none of your players wants to trivialize the setting, it's not going to work.
I'll be the first to say that tracking spell comps is NOT going to be fun.
It's less fun then tracking arrows. Because you have 20 different types of arrows.
If you want to make up 'universal components' and have 'charges' for spells from a component case, that's a little different. But individual spells, tracking comps? Just, ugh.
Although, having a 'cost' to every spell cast IS somewhat grittier. You just have to determine what that fair cost is.
You also have to encourage weaker casting options, and downtone stronger ones. Like, save or dies are less effective, while blasting might be more so (easily done by increasing the damage of blasting spells).
Grim and gritty requires removing some iconic powers to keep things in the realm of hard work. You're probably looking at an E8 game.
==Aelryinth
Excellent points. Yeah, the "grittier" the campaign, the more resource tracking heavy it tends to get. Last campaign of this style I played spell components were measured in ounces (generic), with a straight up gold piece cost unless I specifically went looking for something, and eventually the DM made me split it up to components for spell level X. Anything with a specific component of value was left alone (a five gold piece item to cast that? You have one??)
I'd say ban certain spells right off as well. Create food/water. Blood money. Anything that makes survival outright guaranteed. Or alternatively, give these spells the specific components.
The real trick is finding the right balance. Spellcasters want to feel useful, but especially at low levels. Maybe give wizards a component free spell per day so long as they have their familiar or bonded item? Maybe alter eschew component to require a roll of some sort to work properly? Or Eschew components costs non-lethal HP to cast as it wears the caster out?
Personally, if I was going gritty, I'd opt for GURPS. Not the easiest translation, but the system is set up for a higher level of "realism".
Of course the REAL trick here is knowing when and how to fudge. In a low power, low resource game it's more important the keep the story going than risk precious resources on a die roll. I don't mean combat, but say the group is sneaking into position to set up a trap or something (spy on orc plans, say. Sabotage a war machine maybe) and someone blows a sneak roll. If the tension is good, go ahead and start a combat, but get creative. Sure, the orc hears one character, but maybe another can K.O. from behind as the orc investigates? missed by less than 3? The characters luck out and a rabbit hops from the bush to a burrow.
I don't remember what system it was, but there was a feat (or the equivalent thereof) called one in the chamber, or some such. Basically it let you have one piece of ammo tucked away on your person for emergencies. In effect it let you have that one shot against a boss (or earlier if it was 'dramatically important') and renewed between stories (re: back at town, with a week of downtime, a couple weeks of travel/other activities other than specifically refreshing it)... The wording was a lot more elegant than I can parse from memory. Maybe give the players something like that so they can feel they have a bit of a fallback strategy? Maybe offer it as a feat or trait choice?
I wish I was near where you play, because I'd love to try something like this from the player's side of the screen.
There's a Feat like that in Pathfinder for Halflings. Can't recall the name ATM though.
There's a grit rule for gunslingers about having reserve ammo, too.
For halflings it's probably a luck feat.
But spell restrictions are definitely going to be a major theme with the grim and gritty.
I don't know if you've noticed, but the Pathfinder novels are dominated by melee types, and spellcasters are either marginalized or decidedly stupid on how they use their spells. Spellcasters allied to the heroes act idiotically, don't use their spells properly, and are killed off before they can make the store more convenient for their less magical primary protagonists.
Its the same problem you're going to have. Not trivializing many of the tropes of heroic fantasy is hard with PF rules.
==Aelryinth
I do recall fondly another game from about 10 years back in 3.5 that did have somewhat of the feel you are going for.
It was a custom setting and the 9 level casters did not exist. Bards, Paladins and Rangers were all seen as masters of magic. The party consisted of Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, 2 Rogues, and 2 Bards.
We had a good time with it for about 6 or 7 levels.
Could be doable in Golarion if you just explain to the players they are on hard mode so no tier 1 or 2 characters are allowed (use your judgement on what will overpower the campaign.)
Could be easily doable in a custom setting for PF.
It sounds like there's at least some interest out there in the concept of games where 9 level casting classes are absent or delayed. I suppose that spell restrictions could accomplish a lot of the same goals though I've generally observed that people react better to not being allowed to play a class than being allowed to play it but then having powers taken away.
If you want to be stingy about ammunition I guess you could probably make that work. Simple stuff like closely tracking encumbrance might make characters reconsider how they're equipped as well. I guess you could consider requiring regular maintenance on armor and weapons and assigning a cost to that. The maintenance might require a Craft or Profession check of some sort along with some time. Stuff which isn't maintained might take penalties or even end up with the broken condition. I suppose you could also consider making a lot of the equipment available at very low levels broken or at least fragile. If rolling a 1 means you broke your weapon then finding/stealing some backup weapons might be more important, and finding a regular or masterwork item could be a significant event.
Of course, you also have to consider what enemies are going to have on them (which will turn into loot at each battle the PCs win, barring enemies escaping). Have enemies be really impoverished too, being a challenge by way of using teamwork (including Teamwork Feats), environment, and any other tricks PCs would use or should use but usually don't. (I have yet to see anybody actually take a Teamwork feat in a PbP, even though these are perfectly legitimate for PCs to use. EDIT: The exception being Teamwork feats awarded as class features, and even then they don't seem to get much use.)
The mention in some posts above of monastic and mystical but non-spellcasting and 4/9 spellcasting characters suggests potential for a monastic party theme.
There's a Feat like that in Pathfinder for Halflings. Can't recall the name ATM though.
Make a Sleight of Hand or Survival check to pull a useful 12 gp or less item out of your ass.
I think the halfling feat he was referring to was 'not exactly fail on a close miss'. The example he gave was missing a stealth check by 3 and a rabbit coming along to distract the guards who 'heard' you.
==Aelryinth
I think the halfling feat he was referring to was 'not exactly fail on a close miss'. The example he gave was missing a stealth check by 3 and a rabbit coming along to distract the guards who 'heard' you.
==Aelryinth
This is the part I was referring to:
don't remember what system it was, but there was a feat (or the equivalent thereof) called one in the chamber, or some such. Basically it let you have one piece of ammo tucked away on your person for emergencies. In effect it let you have that one shot against a boss (or earlier if it was 'dramatically important') and renewed between stories (re: back at town, with a week of downtime, a couple weeks of travel/other activities other than specifically refreshing it)... The wording was a lot more elegant than I can parse from memory. Maybe give the players something like that so they can feel they have a bit of a fallback strategy? Maybe offer it as a feat or trait choice?
I know. When he talked about halflings he was referring to an earlier post denoting "I failed but only by a little bit".
==Aelryinth