Summoner, druid or any option with pet are great for that kind of game. That kind of campaign is really hard for pure martials.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Three philosophies:
1. "What can I take that does not rely on high magic/wealth," in which case you are meta-wanting to just be powerful in spite of the DM's setting.
2. "Embrace the challenge," and go for a class that would be hampered by design just to see how that plays out - it's not like the DM is out to kill you because of his setting alone.
3. "Play what you want, who cares," like above, it's not like the DM is out to kill you because of his setting alone.
Personally, I'd embrace the challenge and play something that one would expect to be hampered in that kind of setting. It is obvious the DM/players/game does not rely on any kind of, "optimization," so just have fun with it.
Martial characters tend to be the most gear dependent while casters tend to be the least gear dependent (as they can often use magic to shore up their deficiencies).
A kensai magus would probably do well.
No magic weapon? Greater magic weapon
No magic armor? You can't wear it anyways, but you get int to AC.
Basically your spell casting can cover all your weaknesses, though you'll use up spells very quickly.
But for what it worth, those without magic will be in an even worse place so I think you'll be fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks...
They don't need to buy anything. Yet still very powerful (it is annoying).
Monks.
I disagree. If anything, Monks are more dependant on good gear than other martials - mundane stuff tends to not help them one bit; they need magic to keep up.
I'd pick Cleric myself, or Summoner.
You know, one thing you could do is build as a magic crafter. So that you make all sorts of magic weapons and armor thus letting your team get really buffed armor in a normally not so magical place.
I would say pretty much anything that can cast plenty.
So a summoner would work , so would a fullcaster like cleric/wizard/sorc/witch...
And dont forget to ask your GM if he will allow craft feats , in which case you can help your party a lot by taking.
You know, one thing you could do is build as a magic crafter. So that you make all sorts of magic weapons and armor thus letting your team get really buffed armor in a normally not so magical place.
Chances are high that if the GM is deliberating running a low magic campaign he isn't going to allow a lot of crafting to go on.
Honestly, your limited to 1000 gp per day worth of progress. And half that if travelling (IIRC). That means you spend a lot of time to make some items.
Heck, I think in the Rise of the Runelords Campaign we've been putting out not stop fire after fire. I think only about a month, maybe two months in game time have passed. A fair portion of that was travelling by boat from the starting city to another nearby city.
A GM who wants to inhibit crafting wont have much problem doing so.
I'd personally probably end up playing martial classes that do more than just hit stuff. But that's because I like to do things other than hit stuff. I'd probably also stay away from combat maneuvers, mostly because when I hear low magic / wealth, personally something just rings as "meant to be gritty / difficult". So, things MIGHT be harder to handle maneuver wise. I.e. difficult to grapple, almost impossible to trip (flying, many legs, etc...) All of this is based off of assumption of course, and I could definitely be wrong, but in either case I'd still probably play the classes below.
Investigator: Shouldn't honestly take too much to focus on DEX, but I've heard STR based can work well too. They have tons of skills and are or at least can be extremely good at them what with their inspiration and all. Add in a bit of alchemy which is magic light and you have a decent character to do a bunch of different things with. Granted, I've heard their so-so in terms of battle. Not good, but not too bad. So, if combat is what you want, this may not be it for you.
Alchemist: Alchemists seem very low magic to me, deriving their effects solely from things they've concocted out of "natural" substances and a tiny bit of innate magical ability. They can be built to focus multiple different ways (bombs, mutagens, extract focused) and archetypes can further that specialization. They've got plenty of skills to choose from, and with proper traits, you can still diplomacize with a focus on INT.
Monk (w/ archetypes): Now, monks on their own can be hit or miss, and if the boards here are correct, it's usually miss. However, some of the archetypes for the monk can make them solid if not actually pretty darn good. One example is the Zen archer monk, which is often viewed as one of the top kinds of archers one can play. As a monk, they also have very good saves, and a decent skill allotment. So, they CAN be good, if you build them right.
Rangers: I don't tend to play rangers honestly, but I'm well aware that they have quite a bit going on for them. Lots of feat options, some allowing you to skip prereqs if I remember correctly, along with the option for animal companions, or minor magic. There's also an archetype that does away with magic if I'm recalling correctly. Skirmisher I think it was.
Slayer: Not looked too much into Slayers, but from what I understand they can be good, and offer some fun options.
All that said, what does the rest of the party look like? If you have a lot of martials and skills covered, I'd agree with summoner, focusing on summoning rather than casting.
Monks.I disagree. If anything, Monks are more dependant on good gear than other martials - mundane stuff tends to not help them one bit; they need magic to keep up.
What kind of gear do monks need to keep up?
Outside of something like Mage Armor, most of my monks don't rely on any gear, magic or otherwise. Their unarmed strikes count as magic pretty early on, so they always have a magic weapon on hand. They don't need any armor, speed boosts, save boosts, etc., and their class-based damage and AC both scale with level. With something like a Sensei or a Zen Archer that uses Wisdom for both attacks and AC, and you can even get away without a stat boosting item for a long time.
And Qinggong Monks can replicate several spells with their ki powers.
I had a lot of success in a low magic campaign playing a ranger. In 3.0. But it was wilderness based.
I think a class with lots of (Ex) abilities would work, like the Cavalier or Inquisitor. Teamwork feats.
And what does "low magic" mean? Low items, or any class restrictions? Are the monsters also low magic? NPCs?
Barbarians might be good too. Rage is a nice buff, and a lot of the rage powers are fun and/or utilitarian.
Maybe a class that uses martial weapons, but can also buff themselves without necessarily needing to buy magic weapons.
Warpriests and paladins come to mind.
What kind of gear do monks need to keep up?
Outside of something like Mage Armor, most of my monks don't rely on any gear, magic or otherwise. Their unarmed strikes count as magic pretty early on, so they always have a magic weapon on hand. They don't need any armor, speed boosts, save boosts, etc., and their class-based damage and AC both scale with level. With something like a Sensei or a Zen Archer that uses Wisdom for both attacks and AC, and you can even get away without a stat boosting item for a long time.
There is AC scaling...but it is nowhere near good enough if you aren't a turtled monk when you lack stat boosters. Monks have great AC since they can combine two stats to AC, AC enhancement, and scaling boosts to AC- that means even strength monks can eventually get good AC.
And if you are a turtled monk, then you need an amulet of mighty strikes with the agile property if you want damage if you are melee.
Zen archers get by, since they have the power of archery.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that if you find a design that meshes with what the GM wants from the game, you'll have a nicer time, because you're not trying to fight each other.
So you want a design that's kinda low-magic, low gear but also effective. Not a "this will put the high magic back into your campaign whether you want it or not" build. You don't want to give that impression to your GM.
I would counsel against item crafters for this reason, and be cautious about full casters in general. Even in a normal game they have a heavy impact on flavour. But if NPC casters are supposed to be rare, that'll be even more so.
Paladin could do this pretty well; you get a sword that's magical, but only from time to time. In a low-magic campaign, the mount might even be a very good alternative choice as it's much less at risk from accidental death in area attacks. You also get some spellcasting but for a long time it's just a few spells per day, not something that will change the flavour of the campaign. Lay on Hands will keep you alive and going. But most importantly you get Smite Evil. Despite difficulties getting magical weapons, at least for a couple of important fights, you won't be stumped by DR. All in all a paladin's magic is very useful but also very strictly bounded in what it can do.
Ranger or Hunter, also good. Limited magic, and a lot of out of combat utility which is nice if you can't solve everything with magic. Meanwhile, effective combat styles aplenty.
|
Hunter is a very strong class. In a low magic setting they will excel. However if your doing a city game they will not mesh well.
Bard is a very good class. In a low magic city setting they bring skill points, buffing, and arcane magic. You can build almost any kind of bard that will work well. However I will recommend just plane bard to cover as many things as possible in one character.
Hunter is a very strong class. In a low magic setting they will excel. However if your doing a city game they will not mesh well.
I think it could work well if you lowered your standard for animal companions.
A dog is fairly good when you are just looking for a 'constant flanking for +4 due to outflank' mechanic.
Important question:
Is your DM banning any of the magic classes? Cuz allowing 6 and 9 level casters in a low-magic campaign seems pretty odd to me.
Important question:
Is your DM banning any of the magic classes? Cuz allowing 6 and 9 level casters in a low-magic campaign seems pretty odd to me.
I've done it as a DM several times and it worked fine. The spellcasters are standout exceptional personalities, especially at high level. I think of it like LoTR.. Magic users are either reclusive (cf. Elves) or major players (cf Gandalf etc).
In this sort of campaign when I DM it, the characters are set up to become major heroes that are probably known across many countries even by level 10-12.
Without naming classes or feats, explain what you want your character to be able to do. We should be able to piece in the puzzle with classes and feats for you.
It's not exactly a powerhouse, but the Kineticist is less dependent on equipment than virtually any class in the game *and* you can safely dump half of your stats.
Of course, "I hurl rocks with my mind" may not fit with your GM's vision of "low magic." But in a campaign where nobody can cast any spells or get any magic items whatsoever, if the Kineticist were somehow allowed it (it has no spells, just SLAs and the only magic items that you really want are the same stat, utility, and defense boosters that everyone wants) would be really powerful.
Barbarians are a fun class for smashing stuff. Rage powers can plug a few holes in combat, and come on, what's more fun than smashing things?
Well, maybe doing it without a weapon. Brawlers, monks, and unchained monks can also be fun to beat stuff up with. Pick which one suits your visions best.
Is the campaign overall low magic (aka most probably no Level 9 casters, few Level 6 casters), or just "you're poor, deal with it"-style?
Because while a typical Martial build looses like 50% overall combat power, while a Fullcaster would only loose 10% overall power, because the power of his spells is largely independent of his general equipment level.
As defense is largely based on items, melees who take the beating most of the time will feel their low ACs and lowish Saves much harder, then a hanging back Level 9 caster who can still cast Mirror Image with 100% effect, with or without Bracers of Armor, Ring of Protection or Amulet of natural Armor.
Most important: What do you want to play?
If you have several builds that would interest you i'd choose the one with the most inherent magical abilities, as these guys are least dependent on external support through magic equipment. The more your contribution to the group depends on spells, the less having nearly no magic equipment affects you.
|
A Reach + Summon Focused Evangelist Cleric with the Heroism domain would do REALLY well.
It would boost your team mates and you would have both Magic Vestment and Greater Magic Weapon for your own gear. Summons do not need magic gear and bring SLAs with them and Provide relief for the front lines. That relief might include taking damage...or taking a nasty added effect from the attack. Like Poison attached to a critters attack.
You could take an Animal companion but you do not get Greater magic Fang and would be required to heal the AC when it takes damage unlike a summon which just returns to where it came from.
Also you will be a full 9th level caster who would overshadow all the martial only characters in the game since they are being denied the necessary gear to survive. Pathfinder assumes certain bonuses at each level. Most encounters and creatures are designed with that assumption in mind.
Is the campaign overall low magic (aka most probably no Level 9 casters, few Level 6 casters), or just "you're poor, deal with it"-style?.
Or even "is there more of a dearth of magic stuff or magic people" since if +1 longswords are in short supply, you're seriously better off as a full caster. If it's "full casters don't exist" you're obviously not going to play one of those.
I'm personally assuming something like "no 9 or 6 level casters, very few magic items" but some clarification by the OP would be helpful.
I'm going to chime in and say your GM is probably making a mistake.
The game assumes that everyone who fights in combat has access to reasonable magic. Because of this assumption, the system is built around requiring that magic for martial classes to be effective; without it, they suffer greatly.
This is not true for the classes who cast in combat. Sure, there is some gear that helps them but they do just fine without that gear; without it, they suffer very little.
Maybe that's the game your GM wants to run, where everybody plays full casters just so they don't suffer greatly. If so, then it's probably not a mistake and you should play a full caster.
But, if that's what he wants to run, he could have just said so instead of making arbitrary gear limitations that strongly suggest so. Which makes me think that is NOT quite what he had in mind, so I'm back to probably a mistake because what he has in mind is probably somewhat different than what he's going to get.
And if what he REALLY wants is a Conan game where everyone is a fighter or barbarian, etc., with little or no magic, up against a harsh world, well, then his current list of parameters (limited magical items) is not sufficient to get what he wants.
I think the assumption inherent in the "game assumes" objections is that the GM will be playing the game as outlined in the rulebook except for the lack of magic. While the game assumes that "access to magic items" is useful for balancing different class types against each other, and that CR is estimated based on "what would challenge an appropriately outfitted party of this level", there is no requirement to pay any attention to CR or that "class types that require fewer magic items to be effective" could not be balanced in other ways.
Say, for example, even if your hypothetical "low magic" game allows you to play a wizard, you could simply heavily restrict the Wizard's access to new spells, since these sorts of things aren't known or aren't widely shared in the setting.
I think the real problem that's hard to solve without magic is the lethality of combat if healing isn't common and readily available, but no one says you have to be fighting as much in a low-magic game. Low-magic and low-combat doesn't make use of a lot of the Pathfinder rules, but there are things other than "rules" you might want out of a game. I've run old edition D&D games where there were 3-5 whole sessions between fights.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I am going with the Black Blade Magus, my reasoning is I like to build non-optimized characters to fit a background story but still be able to keep up with the other players who more min/max stats and feat/skill selections. So I like to do selective optimization.
Good choice. You'll at least have a solid weapon at every level without expending resources, and it talks to you! Here's a Magus guide if you want more info.
If the DM wants to combat the Christmastree-Syndrome where everyone is hanged full of magic items, advice him to look up Automatic Bonus Progression.
It makes Magic Items special again, without severly skewing the inherent game balance.
|
|
If the DM wants to combat the Christmastree-Syndrome where everyone is hanged full of magic items, advice him to look up Automatic Bonus Progression.
It makes Magic Items special again, without severly skewing the inherent game balance.
I am a heavy advocate of ABP. It really is a great system. I enjoy shopping again. Going to look for a nice flavorful item or building it.