We read all the time about folks running "low-magic" campaigns, but that means something a little different to everybody. I know that ranking systems are basically arbitrary, and in no way definitive. What I'd like to do though, is come up with a list of all the classes from "most magical" to least, or the other direction.
I count 42 classes; 11 core, 12 base, 3 alternate, 10 hybrid, and 6 occult. If I'm missing any, please let me know. Not interested in 3pp for this thread, as it's already unwieldy enough. Also, no desire to factor in race, traits, equipment, or universal feats. Only what the class has to itself should be weighed for consideration. Archetypes can obviously also throw a monkey wrench here. I'm not saying no to them, but the basic class features take precedent.
The goal here is to get a list of 1 to 42, but I doubt we'll all agree. So,the secondary goal here is to get people's ideas on what "feels" magical to them. For instance: who's more magical, a cleric or a druid? I expect we'll see several ties and or opposite views. What I'm really curious about, are the non casting classes that still have SLAs or (su) abilities. How magical is ki, or rage powers?
Where the archetypes will really weigh in is on the 4th level casters (maybe some 6th). Can the class realistically lose it's spells and still feel like the same class? Ranger comes to mind as a yes. Others, I'm not as sure of.
Prejudicial to be sure, but I'd say arcane magic will weigh more than other magic types. Game history wise it's just the oldest, and what most other magics get compared to. Divine vs. occult/psychic vs. natural? Kind of a toss up. For me, most to least, I think arcane, occult, natural, divine. Reasoning that you start with innate access to an omnipresent mystical force, and the more intermediaries you have between you and that force, the less magical you are. Along that same line, I think spontaneous might have an edge over prepared.
Spells trump all. SLAs with spells greater than spells only. 9th level casters over lower. SLAs probably trump (su) abilities. "Traditional" flavor of the class should likely also factor in. So, the innate magic of a sorcerer would make that class more magical than the studies of a wizard.
I dunno man. Like... martials without spells don't really do much more than tie. Why even include them on a list. Hell a fighter could probably find a way to cast more spells than a samurai.
And what's the criteria? Are witches ahead of wizards because they have options both divine and arcane?
Just seems like most people will say wizard then other 9th level casters then 6th then 4th. Any other metric within that is done to taste.
That's sort of my point. I'm trying to get peoples opinions on what criteria matter most to them. There are several ways this list could come out. I give some of my metric thoughts in the OP. I know it's a lot of text, that's why I try to break it into chunks.
Researching so far with my criteria, fighter might be more magical than cavalier. One aspect of AWT lets a fighter imbue his weapon with spiritual power to make it magic, I can't find any comparable ability for the cavalier. However, I haven't yet had the fortitude to look through all the possible orders. Still others might argue that the mount relationship, or banner is more magical, even though both are (Ex) abilities.
For your Witch vs. Wizard question, it comes down to a touch of mechanics, and then flavor for me. Hexes add more SLAs and (su) abilities to a witch. Also a witches magic seems more innate, as that's what draws the familiar to them. A wizard is just someone who craved magical power, and achieved it through study, less innately magical. That's my thought anyway.
Depending on people's criteria and how their lists come out, that could help determine what classes are or are not allowed in their version of a low magic world.
I don't know if it's been long enough to consider this "necroing", but I'm definitely pulling this thread out of hibernation. I took me a while to go through all the classes and archetypes, and even longer to compile some notes. Following though, is my take on this list, hopefully for you all to puruse and pick apart at your leisure.
To reiterate metrics. My first priority goes to wether or not the class has spells. Spells>SLA's>Supernatural>Extraordinary. Secondly, acheivable spell level. 9th level casters greater that 6th, etc. Then there are the more subjective considerations of mechanics and flavor. Generally a spontaneous caster will be "more magical" than a prepared. The "classic" descriptions of how a class recieves, manifests, trains, prepares, and uses its magic also weigh in. Generally Arcane > Psychic,Elemental > Occult > Primal/Natural >Divine >Alchemy >Science/Tech >Martial.
Obviously there room for a lot of subjectivity here, and this is where I welcome discussion. Anything that seems to violate or contradict my above metrics I will *, and try to explain the judgement call.
*(These two could maybe flip. Both are naturalistic, but the Shaman's spirit familiar and magical style feels a bit more occult and spiritual/primal to me.)
**(No actual spells, but the inherent elemental magic of this class, all of it's SLA's that mechanically mimic or match spell levels, and the innate flavor of it all puts it in with the other 9th level casters for me. Honestly, it could almost even jump to the #3 slot, but I put it here because it lacks actual spells.)
***(Bard and Skald are basically a tie, but something about the magical power of perfomance, whatever the medium, felt a little more arcanely magical than the skald's more primal magical feel.)
****(Pure judgement/preference. The magic through bonding with the resonance of an item seems more innate magic than connecting to a seperatat spirit/entity/place. I get that's really hair splitty.)
*****(Tie. I hate/don't get Omduras.)
******(Medium is a special case because of the two spirits that turn them into 6th level casters. So I put them at the bridge point between the 6's and the 4's. Another class I don't love/get btw.)
*******(Another straight up tie. Just put the Pally first because the class is older and the Anit is derrivative.)
********(Cavalier's mount feature and some of the orders give SLA's that feel a bit more magical for this class. Otherwise, basically a tie.)
*********(The Gunslinger only edges the "pure" martials out bechause of the science/techyness of firearms. The last three could all tie, but brawler has some features archetypes that edge it up a bit. The fighter actually has several magicky archetypes, but they feel less like a fighter at that point. However, that one magic/spirit/energy imbuing alternate class feature of the fighter's does put the class over the Swashbuckler for me.)
So, that's it. Thanks to any and all who read through this. Love to hear your thoughts, and see if you'd rank anything differently. If you've got any questions about ones I didn't explain, I'll be happy to clarify. Hopefully, this will help some folks looking to build certian types of campaigns or settings. Thanks again.
I'd put Summoner above Cleric. Sure it's a 6-level caster, but all its class features are magical, arcane, spontaneous and/or very inherent. And its spells are often performing way above their pay grade. The synthesist is actually one with his eidolon, and what cleric can say that about his god? And Summon Monster >> Channeling
Let's see. My criteria from most important to least?
Spoiler:
High spell levels > fewer spell levels; prepared full casters have an edge over spontaneous here. Having multiple forms of magic (spells, hexes, SLAs, supernatural abilities etc.) is more magical than just one form; I'm considering the arcanist to be a big winner here, partly because of the metamagic thing. A longer spell list is more magical than a short one; the shaman's is considered a long spell list because it's so customisable. Considering only the base class first, if there's a tie then consider the most/least magical archetypes.
The kineticist may technically have 9 levels of SLAs but they're generally weaker in magic than any 6 level spellcaster IMO, even the only 6-level part of the time medium class.
Kind of funny that analyzing it this way puts the wizard so far down the list. Maybe I should have weighted the length of the spell list more.
This runs into archetype and feat selection issues pretty quickly. The fighter is clearly near the bottom, but there are fighters with magic, and the fighter item mastery builds are also very magical. Likewise a monk could be near the bottom, or he could take empty body.
If the purpose is creating a low magic world, then it's probably best to focus on specific spell effects rather than classes. I'd put anyone who can teleport or raise the dead in the top category. Those powers are world altering magics. Calling outsiders is middle tier, the fact that they can bring things here is very magical, but at least they aren't being a magical creature on their own. A quick list would look like this I think, though I feel like I'm missing a major class or two of magic power.
1. Raising the dead, wishes
2. Teleportation, gates, material creation
3. Summoning outsiders, any other extra planar contact
4. Magical wingless flight, pure energy attacks like fireball
5. Imbuing items with power
6. Instant Healing
7. Remote Divination
8. Detection
9. Shape shifting
10. Augmenting natural abilities
11. Impossible physical abilities
For a low magic game, I'd keep it at 8 and below. 4 and below is magical but stable.
I think the best way to run a game in pathfinder that is also low magic, would probably to restrict characters to the 0 magic classes but also allow spell casting classes in a way that's halfway between mythic and gestalt, allowing a couple of parallel levels in a casting class, but with throttled advancement. That way you can restrict casting to certain levels without worrying about cutting into the player's base class abilities.
You are using a vastly different definition of "Low magic game" than I am used to seeing. From what I have seen, Low Magic means not very many magic items, not restrictions on which caster classes or spells are available to those classes.
I dunno man. Like... martials without spells don't really do much more than tie. Why even include them on a list. Hell a fighter could probably find a way to cast more spells than a samurai.
And what's the criteria? Are witches ahead of wizards because they have options both divine and arcane?
Just seems like most people will say wizard then other 9th level casters then 6th then 4th. Any other metric within that is done to taste.
I mean, there is a 4th level spell progression fighter archetype.
There's also the "Iron Caster" build, which uses item specialization feats and martial flexibility (which I forget how the fighter gets) to be able to have a fair number of spell per day and casting progression.
So just because a base class might not have magic, you can't completely write it off.
You are using a vastly different definition of "Low magic game" than I am used to seeing. From what I have seen, Low Magic means not very many magic items, not restrictions on which caster classes or spells are available to those classes.
Yep, that's normally how it's used and I hope it wasn't confusing for anyone. I'm not sure what phrase to use when discussing a game world with a limited amount of magic in it though. I'm just trying to introduce a tier system for magic based on narrative impact which to me seems like a better approach than trying to stick to a class based ranking system that can fall apart if as soon as archetypes and feats come into play.
For naming this type of thing, since "limited magic items" has dibs on "low magic", I'll try to come up with something else. Unfortunately the genre names are too sloppy, so I can't just use "sword's and sorcery" or high and low fantasy.
magic dominant, magic subordinate, something like that.
I'd put Summoner above Cleric. Sure it's a 6-level caster, but all its class features are magical, arcane, spontaneous and/or very inherent. And its spells are often performing way above their pay grade. The synthesist is actually one with his eidolon, and what cleric can say that about his god? And Summon Monster >> Channeling
Think I might agree with you. Summoner does feel more inherintly magical to me. Only reason I listed as is is that I was trying to adhere to at least a tiny bit of an objective metric, and my first metric was the level of spells acheivable. But, with the summon monster SLA that summoners get, which gets up to Summon Monster IX, summoner can (and perhaps should) move up for the same reasons that I made a special allowance for the kineticist.
Let's see. My criteria from most important to least? ** spoiler omitted **
And, a very well done list.
Thank you so much for engaging in this little project. I'm glad to see another perspective.
Not saying right or wrong either way, but I'm curious why you rate prepared over spontaneous. If this was a power or utility list, I'd probably be forced to agree. When I speak of "feels" more magical though, I mean a more subjective feel. Akin to "which is softest: a baby bunny, a cotton ball, or a downy pillow?" (Probably the bunny for me). The internalized nature of the spontaneous feels more magical to me. What is it that make the prepared feel more so to you?
Also very much liked your point about the spell lists. I hadn't really considered that before. It speaks to not just the class as an abstract, but the actual reality of a built character. I would guess at higher levels, even if the sorcerer feels more magical at first, the greater spell diversity of the wizard or witch can let them become more magical.
Why shaman so high? Does the branch/brand or magic not matter as much to you (arcane, divine, etc.)?
Lastly, while I can see why you may not have bothered with the more purely martial classes for your list, why skip Vampire Hunter and Monk? The first actually has spells. Do you not see/feel anything magical in a monks' Qi?
No right or wrong; I'm genuinely curious. This is why I started this thread.
This runs into archetype and feat selection issues pretty quickly. The fighter is clearly near the bottom, but there are fighters with magic, and the fighter item mastery builds are also very magical. Likewise a monk could be near the bottom, or he could take empty body.
If the purpose is creating a low magic world, then it's probably best to focus on specific spell effects rather than classes. I'd put anyone who can teleport or raise the dead in the top category. Those powers are world altering magics. Calling outsiders is middle tier, the fact that they can bring things here is very magical, but at least they aren't being a magical creature on their own. A quick list would look like this I think, though I feel like I'm missing a major class or two of magic power.
1. Raising the dead, wishes
2. Teleportation, gates, material creation
3. Summoning outsiders, any other extra planar contact
4. Magical wingless flight, pure energy attacks like fireball
5. Imbuing items with power
6. Instant Healing
7. Remote Divination
8. Detection
9. Shape shifting
10. Augmenting natural abilities
11. Impossible physical abilities
For a low magic game, I'd keep it at 8 and below. 4 and below is magical but stable.
I think the best way to run a game in pathfinder that is also low magic, would probably to restrict characters to the 0 magic classes but also allow spell casting classes in a way that's halfway between mythic and gestalt, allowing a couple of parallel levels in a casting class, but with throttled advancement. That way you can restrict casting to certain levels without worrying about cutting into the player's base class abilities.
An entirely new take. I like it. Though, I did say I was avoiding feat issues, because those cross over classes. I got a little lost in what you meant by the "0 magic" classes, but then allow mythic or gestalt. Could you clear that up some? Also, what makes shapeshifting feel so much less magical to you? It's the only ability on your list that I feel definitely needs to be higher up.
You are using a vastly different definition of "Low magic game" than I am used to seeing. From what I have seen, Low Magic means not very many magic items, not restrictions on which caster classes or spells are available to those classes.
And that in a nutshell, is one of the reasons I started this thread. I've played in games where low magic meant one, the other, or both, or even neither. That's why I'm curious to see how different folks approach the issue. In my groups though, the class issue is usually the primary consideration for low magic.
I dunno man. Like... martials without spells don't really do much more than tie. Why even include them on a list. Hell a fighter could probably find a way to cast more spells than a samurai.
And what's the criteria? Are witches ahead of wizards because they have options both divine and arcane?
Just seems like most people will say wizard then other 9th level casters then 6th then 4th. Any other metric within that is done to taste.
I mean, there is a 4th level spell progression fighter archetype.
There's also the "Iron Caster" build, which uses item specialization feats and martial flexibility (which I forget how the fighter gets) to be able to have a fair number of spell per day and casting progression.
So just because a base class might not have magic, you can't completely write it off.
Totally fair point, and the main reason fighter ended up surprising me and not totally bottoming out the list. However, as I said in either the OP or the next post I made, I did leave some subjective wiggle room when archetypes enter the conversation. The more magical archetypes of fighter lose some of the "feel" of fighter to me. They end up feeling like alternate magi, or various gish prestige classes.
Thanks to you and Txsam88 (forgot to mention in last post)
Vampire hunter and monk off the list is a simple oversight. I'd put both square in the middle of the 4-level casters.
The source of the magic doesn't change how magical the class is to me. Shamans get multiple different kinds of magic including full prepared spellcasting (which gets new spell levels earlier than spontaneous; new spell levels are more magic), hexes, a familiar and spirit abilities. It adds up to a lot of magic in my eyes.
I guess the reality of how much magic is there overrides the fluff to me. A pyrokineticist leaks fire from elemental overflow, but the amount of fire they can throw out intentionally is sufficiently inferior to a sorcerer that they seem something of a fraud.
An entirely new take. I like it. Though, I did say I was avoiding feat issues, because those cross over classes. I got a little lost in what you meant by the "0 magic" classes, but then allow mythic or gestalt. Could you clear that up some? Also, what makes shapeshifting feel so much less magical to you? It's the only ability on your list that I feel definitely needs to be higher up.
0 magic classes are classes without spells, or spell like or supernatural abilities. To clarify the mythic/gestalt comment:
The idea is you have a base class without supernatural abilities that advances at a regular pace. You also have a second class that overlaps with your levels like a gestalt class, but doesn't progress at the same rate like a mythic class. You'd get something like a 10th level brawler whose first level takes the best bonuses from either cleric or brawler and gives him the first level abilities of a cleric without interfering or stacking with his brawler progression.
I should have clarified that I meant shapeshifting into natural creatures. While it's a big magic effect, you don't need to warp a game world to make it fit since you are only emulating abilities that already exist. Winged flight, claws, teeth, all that stuff is easier to account for than the metagame knowledge granted by detection spells.
There are lots of different methods to achieve a "low magic" feel. My preferred method is to straight out ban 9th level casters, possibly 6th level ones as well. The alchemy using classes being exceptions. Go a step further and limit the number of creatures/NPCs with access to this stuff too.
Vampire hunter and monk off the list is a simple oversight. I'd put both square in the middle of the 4-level casters.
The source of the magic doesn't change how magical the class is to me. Shamans get multiple different kinds of magic including full prepared spellcasting (which gets new spell levels earlier than spontaneous; new spell levels are more magic), hexes, a familiar and spirit abilities. It adds up to a lot of magic in my eyes.
I guess the reality of how much magic is there overrides the fluff to me. A pyrokineticist leaks fire from elemental overflow, but the amount of fire they can throw out intentionally is sufficiently inferior to a sorcerer that they seem something of a fraud.
Thanks for the explanations. It sounds like you're taking a quantitative approach to the magic as opposed to my slightly more qualitative, but there is some overlap.
Your last point confused me a bit though. I place Sorcerer over kineticist for other metric reasons I've listed above. But, if we're just talking about how much fire each can throw around, how do you get to the sorcerer having more?
The blast ability of the kineticist is infinite and grows over levels. Even without the various infusions and wild talents, that's going to be more fire output than the consumable spell slots, weaker bloodline blasts (also limited per day), and then tiny cantrips of the sorcerer. Not arguing that the sorcerer is less powerful (and certainly not less versatile), but just on raw fire output, how does the kineticist not win?
By possible extension (question, not a solid assertion) if focusing on blasting in any single element/energy type, doesn't kineticist win for output?
There are lots of different methods to achieve a "low magic" feel. My preferred method is to straight out ban 9th level casters, possibly 6th level ones as well. The alchemy using classes being exceptions. Go a step further and limit the number of creatures/NPCs with access to this stuff too.
3PP stuff can also make this super fun.
Thanks to ErichAD for your response.
Scavion thanks for your input. Based on your take, would you exclude the kineticist or not? Since you were on the fence about 6th level casters, would it be an all or nothing, or case by case. How would you treat those odd 4th level casters that can jump up to 6th (medium, maybe a few others)?
There are lots of different methods to achieve a "low magic" feel. My preferred method is to straight out ban 9th level casters, possibly 6th level ones as well. The alchemy using classes being exceptions. Go a step further and limit the number of creatures/NPCs with access to this stuff too.
3PP stuff can also make this super fun.
Thanks to ErichAD for your response.
Scavion thanks for your input. Based on your take, would you exclude the kineticist or not? Since you were on the fence about 6th level casters, would it be an all or nothing, or case by case. How would you treat those odd 4th level casters that can jump up to 6th (medium, maybe a few others)?
Kineticist is fine. The magic it achieves isn't that spectacular. It can manipulate the elements and specialists can do a few tricks, but it doesn't do anything world changing like bringing back the dead, creating your own demiplane, teleportation, calling magic, etc.
6 casters would be all or nothing. With the exception of the Alchemy using classes. Medium would probably be banned as well.
Consider stuff like Settlement Spellcasting. In a "High Magic" game with 9 casters allowed, every Large Town has a caster who can Teleport. In a "Mid Magic" game where only 6 casters are allowed, this gets bumped up to Large Cities. In a "Low Magic" game where only 4 casters are allowed, no settlement has a caster capable of casting teleport.
Condition Removal like Remove Curse, Remove Disease, Restoration becomes exponentially more difficult to handle. Raise Dead quickly becomes either impossible or incredibly rare.
This is kinda why I like Psionics(Dreamscarred Press 3PP) for producing lower magic games. The "9 caster" equivalent has to specialize as "Teleport" is straight up not on the general list and you need to take a feat or be a specific kind of caster to do so. Now instead of every wizard worth his salt knowing teleport, your "wizard" needs to be a specific person you need to look for and hope he isn't busy doing something else.
Low magic to me, means how common magical items and magical schools/learning is within the setting.
It doesn’t mean limiting what spells can or can’t be known. And what classes can be played should be agreed in session 0.
Also there’s not much point categorising classes below 4th level casting.
That said here’s my system.
9th level casting > 6th > 4th
Self explanatory
Learned > innate
Innate just happens, learned requires schools to teach, learning and research. In a world without those things learned should be the rarest.
Psychic > arcane > divine
Faith is common even in low magic world and psychic is just much less common than arcane so that’s default. I also consider nature more common than straight religion as nature is self taught and religion usually requires an institution.
Science based magic is a bit tricky and depends on the setting, generally I think low magic settings should lean into alchemy so I’m saying that’s more common.
Here’s the ranking. I’m ignoring none casters with magic from archetypes, the above system should make it relatively easy to workout where they fit.
Kineticist and shifter were also weird and tricky to fit. For the sake of argument I treated the kineticist as a nature based 6th level caster with innate power. And the same for a shifter only a 4th caster.
Also I don’t see the logic of acting like each one class must be rare than another. Some could be equally as common as others.
Also I think the main use of this information should be to be used when creating NPCs to populate the world. And also to inform how NPCs react to player characters.
Thanks for the input Chromantic. Interesting ideas, and I can see your point within the context of how accessible magic is to put learned above innate. Just to be clear though, I have no desire to ever "police" character creation; excepting of course those limitations agreed upon by the group when establishing a new game/world in session 0 talks.
I guess for me, when I used the term "low magic" I was thinking in more flavor terms. As though magic was some qualitatively measurable substance ( a contradiction in terms, I know ) that permeates a setting, so that when reduced or absent, certain classes just couldn't or wouldn't exist.
You might word or approach it differently, but as I see it, my original list came from a standpoint where magic is a finite or lesser/weaker force in a world of "low magic". Yours would seem to come from a place where, for whatever reason, the knowledge or utilization of magic is less than in a standard setting. Both interest me and could lead to some fun world building elements. Thanks. These different ideas are what this thread is for.
No worries, you’re welcome and I’m glad you enjoyed it.
I think if you’re setting means magic itself is rarified as a substance I would make the investigator and the alchemist the most common and perhaps swap innate vs learned for arcane and psychic.
Since innate magic to me implies it’s just coming from the aether or the weave or whatever. If there is just physically less of it, that would be much less likely to happen.
For faith magic I wouldn’t swap it since it’s coming from the gods still and I’m assuming they’re still there. So the same logic applies to faith magic as before.
