You may wish to consider looking at the E6 rule system variant. Seems to be very in line with what you are hoping for/proposing here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A full caster with metamagic'd lower level spells is not the same as having the actual spells. They would not really be worth playing since most of the metamagic feats are not that good. In short it is likely to cause problems, and you might be better off not going beyond 10th level if spells beyond 4th level are causing problems. The game changes as you level up. That is why some GM's only allow their games to go up to a certain level.
You can also look at Words of Power... they are actually pretty decent..
System as played nominally will fall apart horribly if casters are capped at 3rd level spells. Lack of buffs, lack of debuffs, lack of mobility, lack of ability to undo many harmful status effects, lack of ability to heal with any meaningful ability (no heal is a huge problem after 11-13).
Monsters, encounters, and the entire system is predicated upon access to plentiful magic. If you want a low magic system, go find one. E6 isn't bad, but there are plenty of specifically designed systems that might more neatly align with your desire from the ground up.
I'd recommend E8 over E6, since a lot of classes really come into their own at level 8 through class abilities. A LOT of stuff in Pathfinder either upgrades or becomes active at level 7 or 8, often things that make classes really mechanically unique. You can turn 4th-level spells into rituals like the new Occult Rituals, which make only certain spells actually viable (no black tentacles, for instance, but you get scrying and remove curse, etc.). I've actually played through this with 4th-level spells and it works great, since the spell slots are pretty limited for full casters. It also has the nice side-effect of giving 3/4 BAB classes their second iterative.
Having played through two campaigns so far this way, I'd highly recommend it.
While I can certainly understand the desire to do this... it will most likely just result in blasters that metamagic fireballs and such to hell and back (since few other spells really play that well with metamagics; it will mostly result in a lot of quickened dazing fireballs).
And in that case, why not just restrict them to kinectists? They are balanced around the idea that this is their shtick. Other spellcasters are balanced around the idea that they CAN do that...and they have some other tricks in the wings. (I know, this is more for arcane, especially damage/battlefield control than divine or buffers/summoners/enchanters/etc; just a general perspective)
While there are certainly some fine buffs/debuffs in the 1-4 spell lists that can scale well with caster level... there are certain basic functions that you will miss out on (raise dead being a rather obvious one). You also have to deal with 6 level casters- their spell lists are often compressed (with spells put at a lower level than normal) and as such this will make them better spell casters than pure ones.
Overall, I think that just forbidding all those spell levels will cause serious problems- for all the game breaking stuff thrown in, there are plenty of the core necessities too. You would do better with a vastly curtailed list of available spells, rather than whole sale banning. It will take work, but going through all the spells one by one is probably the 'right' way to do this so you can balance it for your game.
I'd recommend E8 over E6
Me too, though I would also recommend considering E10. Our group has been playing E10 for several years and we find that it works well. Letting the BBEGs be higher than 10th level makes them much more of a challenge.
Most game-breaking stuff in Pathfinder can be found in the 6th to 9th level spell lists. Some of the 5th level spells are problematic; we have dealt with this problem by banning them (that's you Teleport as you make it too easy to escape and bypass long-distance travel). Heal, Regenerate and Greater Restoration are now 5th level spells; characters have to spend experience points to gain access to these spells.
It also helps that our group has several houserules which are deliberately designed to hamper spellcasters whilst giving martials a boost. For example; defensive casting doesn't exist, if you take a 5-foot step and then cast a spell this triggers attacks of opportunity in the square that you left, non-full spellcasters get an additional feat every class level and can pick-and-mix abilities from all class archetypes and can also buy additional feats more cheaply than spellcasters, etc.
As another option i'd give you to remove all Fullcaster-Classes from your setting.
So no Wizards, Clerics, Sorcerers etc. The space of these is taken up by the 2/3-caster-classes like Inquisitor, Magus or Bard. You can leave some of the fullcaster-NSCs in, but refluff them that to besomesuch person you need the personal backup of a higher power. Which is a DM-appointed NSC-thing. makes them even more memorable.
The fullcasters are usually the characters that derail campaigns, even if not even really trying to do.
System as played nominally will fall apart horribly if casters are capped at 3rd level spells. Lack of buffs, lack of debuffs, lack of mobility, lack of ability to undo many harmful status effects, lack of ability to heal with any meaningful ability (no heal is a huge problem after 11-13).
Monsters, encounters, and the entire system is predicated upon access to plentiful magic.
The system will fall apart horrible if casters are allowed all the standard spells. Buffs, debuffs, mobility, ability to undo all harmful status effects and damage... The entire system is predicated on the assumption that you have no full casters controlled by players with high levels of system mastery trivializing all forms of opposition.
(Not true for all games, of course. But suggesting game balance is good with high level magic and will fall apart without it is highly questionable.)
Watch out for Summoners if you do go with this - they get some level 4 spells (like Dimension Door) at level 3.
Also, Dazing metamagic. If you restrict a wizard's options, they'll probably make ruthless use of whatever you leave them with.
As another option i'd give you to remove all Fullcaster-Classes from your setting.
I've been (lucky?) that my players really aren't that into playing full casters, except for one, and outside of unintentionally breaking the game once by playing a Conjuration (Teleportation) wizard--which he just thought sounded like a cool concept--he's been pretty good about just going with the flow. And with E8 it's pretty difficult to break the game as a full caster, since you have 3-4 spell slots for 4th-level spells and spamming them is usually what makes them powerful.
I will say that my favorite games to DM are those with parties stuffed with 3/4 BAB classes. They're usually sooooo much more interesting mechanically than full-BAB or 1/2+full caster classes. I'd much rather see a shaman than a witch, for example, if only because the shaman can play around with buff spells. I also DM for a party of six, so we usually end up with one full caster and one full-BAB class. You might get some mileage out of encouraging all 3/4-BAB classes.
I don't think 4th-level spells are the culprit for spellcaster superiority. 5th start edging into the territory, and while E10 would work out as well, having access to teleport and raise dead are things that have the potential to trivialize certain iconic adventure types. It's really into 5th-level spells where the game stops concerning itself with "Can we get to the top of that mountain?" and more "When we fly up there, how many drakes and lightning bolts from the storm are we going to be contending with?".
I really don't think banning 4th is necessary, though. A lot of 4th-level spells are also super fun, like wall of fire or stoneskin. These are the spells where casters--I think--start to come into their own, and a lot of these are staples. I suppose you could see it as taking away the 2nd iterative for martials; 4th-level spells are the caster's version of the 2nd iterative.
System as played nominally will fall apart horribly if casters are capped at 3rd level spells. Lack of buffs, lack of debuffs, lack of mobility, lack of ability to undo many harmful status effects, lack of ability to heal with any meaningful ability (no heal is a huge problem after 11-13).
Monsters, encounters, and the entire system is predicated upon access to plentiful magic.
The system will fall apart horrible if casters are allowed all the standard spells. Buffs, debuffs, mobility, ability to undo all harmful status effects and damage... The entire system is predicated on the assumption that you have no full casters controlled by players with high levels of system mastery trivializing all forms of opposition.
(Not true for all games, of course. But suggesting game balance is good with high level magic and will fall apart without it is highly questionable.)
Yeah, no. And not clever either. To be blunt, you're wrong, and demonstratively so.
Even playing aside class balance and the effects of only having access to 1/3rd of their normal resources for casters, Pathfinder from a design standpoint assumes access to certain abilities (especially off the divine caster lists). Most noticeably restoration, but also effects like break enchantment, heal, stone to flesh, and raise dead. Even if there is no one in the party capable of casting such spells, monster creation presumes they are available as you go up in levels.
Imagine a campaign in which permanent negative levels and ability damage is actually permanent. You rolled badly against a save or die, feeblemind, or so forth? Have fun with that. It is essentially what is being proposed, and while with great effort you might be fully capable of running a game to 20 that had no spells of over 3rd level, you are playing against the system and making a greater headache for yourself as a GM.
It's sort of like trying to use a bicycle as a wheelbarrow. If you are stubborn enough you can soldier through it and claim that it works, but wouldn't it be easier to just go get a wheelbarrow?
There are plenty of systems designed from the ground up around low magic. I suggest finding one. If you want gritty fantasy in which players are at best rugged heroes, and in which game dynamics in terms of player agency does not meaningfully expand, there are plenty of fantastic options out there.
It's not what Pathfinder is though. Pathfinder is heroic fantasy, in which characters become closer to superheroes as they go up in levels. It involves a transformative nature to adventure and campaigns as you go up in levels, in which getting up a normal mountaintop becomes trivial, but the set pieces change from a mountaintop to an erupting volcano in a planar wasteland swarming with demons.
Of course, if you lack access to the typical heal (restoration, raise dead, stone to flesh, etc.), you could theorically give players access to healers, typically associated with a temple, and just say they have a special divine connection, or that they have access to an item/location/etc. that boosts their abilities.
But then, you have to build your encounter design (as well as story telling) around the idea that the party may really, really need to leave and go to the Pokemon center, basically.
This typically works in videogames, since the story moves at the pace the player wants it to- it never advances until the player gets to the next trigger. So between the start of the final battle (as in when the army goes to mordor, or whatever final dungeon), and the final fight (when you personally fight the BBEG), you could literally spend 5 months doing every side quest, and collecting the infinity+1 equipment from the secret bonus dungeon.
Obviously, in a multiplayer experience, this can be jarring since it messes with the story and breaks immersion.
Other options include making special healing items of the 'essential' stuff (pheonix downs, basically). You would still probably end up underpowered for the typical monster design, but it would not be broken at least. That can also be a problem storywise (there is drama since you have to insure your cleric survives, or you have to retreat so you can find and pay for an NPC cleric to do the raise deads)
I would also remove most 4th+ spells from bad guys as well so there would not need to be as much to counter.
It might be better to start the ban at 5th level though since wizards should be able to animate dead. That or make 4th+ level spells available as feats or rituals or both on a case by case basis.
Yeah, but some monsters just ARE effects that exceed 4th level.
The monster design at high levels is bad enough without tipping th boat that much. A lot of monsters are balanced based on their ability to spell cast, and other monsters without spell casting are balanced because they have big scary effects like high DC auras and such which gets similar levels of effectiveness.
I like the E6 but as far as I can tell the has not yet brought in all the classes or archetypes.
I didn't follow the E6 or even Pathfinder E6 rules/guidelines. I just fiddled with bonus feats and split them into three "tiers." A player can build their own feat chains, like feat LEGO. To take a tier 2, you have to have an open tier 1 to stack it onto. To take a tier 3, you have to have an open tier 2. Once you "stack" a feat onto a lower tier, you close off that lower feat. So, since I play E8:
Tier 1: Any feat the character currently qualifies for.
Tier 2: Any feat that has a level or BAB up to 10 that you meet all other requirements for
Tier 3: +1 BAB, +1 to saves, treat character as level 12 for one class ability, etc.
Let's say you qualify for Weapon Focus. That's Tier-1. Now, you could stack Improved Critical onto this as a T2. Then let's say you take Iron Will as another T1. On your next bonus feat you could take a T2 to stack onto Iron Will, take a T3 to stack onto Imroved Critical, or take another T1.
My players liked this, since it let them essentially make their own feat chains. I liked it because it kept me from having to make up new feats or class features. I also ruled that taking things like "Extra Talent" or "Extra Rage Power" as a T2 let them count as up to level 10 as well, which came in handy for the Investigator and Barbarian in our last campaign.
A big part of this would be to remove easy status removal from the game. If a PC dies then you need a big ritual to bring him back that is only available a few places in world. No more teleport or fabricate or overland flight.
To each his own. Personally I've never seen these spells cause a problem in the game conceptually or mechanically, but I'm also blessed enough to have a GM (maybe two, we'll see) that understands that dynamics change as you go up in levels, and that the wizard spending breakfast in one city, lunch adventuring at a site, and dinner in another city with another powerful figure is par for the course at higher levels.
I would also remove most 4th+ spells from bad guys as well so there would not need to be as much to counter.
You are talking about ripping out a huge number of SLAs and Sus from what I suspect is the plurality of monsters.
Is the heal spell really needed at the upper levels? My games end around 133 and I rarely see it used.
Presumably you mean 13th?
My feeling is that if an 11th+ level cleric filled every slot over 6th level with heal, I don't think they'd be dead weight. The spell is that good, and it is a rare thing that I see the party end the day floating heal's. With it you open up the possibility of trading standard attacks for full attacks, because it can actually keep up with damage most rounds. It also allows for meaningful status removal without caster level checks (poison, disease, etc), and heals a bunch of other abilities where nothing else works. Amazing spell. If I had to pick one spell over 6th level, it might be it.
Now, can you get by without it? Sure, especially if you are (to borrow a friend's expression) 'driving the car at a lower speed' or playing conservatively. But it is transformative in terms of the ability of the party to take risks and recover from tactical mistakes (or just bad rolls), especially since a careless wander into full attack range can often drop a character outright.
I'll repeat my earlier comment one more time though. It seems as though you want to play PF without any game changing magic. You seem to want gritty, but also more linear gameplay. I'd strongly suggest looking at other systems. You can make Pathfinder do whatever you want with enough work, but you're re-purposing a tool in a way that will be grossly inefficient. Just because you can use a hammer to pound in screws with enough effort doesn't mean that you wouldn't be better off with a screw-gun. There are systems from the ground up (including d20) that are magic-light. You should take a look.