Pathfinder, No Magic Items

[cellingwood]

Some of my friends and I are playing a Pathfinder campaign with no magic items. What classes do you think will excel and what classes do you think will be terrible. Obviously caster classes have a major advantage as martial classes rely on magic items to keep up, but I'm working with the GM to fix that. Any thoughts?

Edit: As a reminder, the title of this thread quite clearly says "PATHFINDER". We are using the Core book, the Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Magic. Potion creation is allowed. I'm not sure if scrolls are, I don't see why not, it just hasn't come up yet.

[Callyn]

Well, you've just hit it right there. Casters will be even better compared to non-casters. I would never use 3.5 or Pathfinder for a low magic campaign, it's just not built to handle it.

[cellingwood]

That's why I'm working with my GM to fix the problem. We're only level two right now, so magic items aren't a major problem yet, but I'm thinking of using a leveled defense bonus from the back of DND 3.5's Unearthed Arcana.

[The Glyphstone]

Well, you've just hit it right there. Casters will be even better compared to non-casters. I would never use 3.5 or Pathfinder for a low magic campaign, it's just not built to handle it.

This.

You can kludge it a bit for low levels by having multiple grades of masterwork items (masterwork for +1, super-masterwork for +2, super-duper-masterwork for +3, give your own names as you see fit), but your AC will suck even more than normal, your saves will be atrocious, and you'll have none of the random bonuses mundanes depend on items for like flight. Alternatively, everyone has inherent bonuses a la how 4E does it.

If you don't have either, mundanes aren't just bad, they become unplayable. 3.X and Pathfinder's already fragile math depends on PCs having level-appropriate items and bonuses to be able to hit and hurt monsters. Take those away and the characters will miss too often, do too little damage, and die too quickly.



Also, moved to 3.x subforum where it belongs.

[cellingwood]

Also, moved to 3.x subforum where it belongs.

Sorry about that, I thought Pathfinder stuff went under "Other"

I already mentioned leveled defense bonuses, and the GM is already making unique, non-magical items, like masterwork armor with lower penalties, a bow that gives a +1 damage bonus if within 30 ft that stacks with Point Blank Shot, things like that. Do you think this will be enough though?

[Dusk Eclipse]

it might work it you are fight enemies in similar conditions such as goblins with class and stuff like that; but once you start fighting more esoteric things like say outsiders, their SLAS and special protections such as DR/Magic or miss chances you and your friends more likely by SoL and won't even scratch your enemies.

[MukkTB]

Is your DM going to allow casters to create items?

[The Glyphstone]

Sorry about that, I thought Pathfinder stuff went under "Other"

Pathfinder uses the d20 system as a derivative of 3.5, so it belongs under the 3.x subforum. Other games is for 2e and older, or non-WotC products.



I already mentioned leveled defense bonuses, and the GM is already making unique, non-magical items, like masterwork armor with lower penalties, a bow that gives a +1 damage bonus if within 30 ft that stacks with Point Blank Shot, things like that. Do you think this will be enough though?


Only till level 5-10 or so, if that. The armor matters for its AC boosts, so reducing penalties won't actually help you fight things, and extra damage is worthless if you can't hit anything. The difference between level 1 and level 10 from gear is typically +2 to hit and +3-5 AC (with a shield).

And yeah, the instant you run into anything with DR/Magic, you're hosed, and those tend to pop up by level 5 or so (because the game expects you to have a +1 weapon by 5th level). You're stuck with humanoids using class levels or low-level brute grunts for enemies you can be a threat to.

[cellingwood]

Is your DM going to allow casters to create items?

Probably not. They allow potion creation, but that doesn't help out much.

[Alefiend]

I'd be interested in seeing what adjustments your GM makes to the game to make it playable, but I agree with the others that you're using the wrong system for this kind of game.

D&D 3.5 / Pathfinder bad. Conan D20 good.

[Tyndmyr]

Sorry about that, I thought Pathfinder stuff went under "Other"

I already mentioned leveled defense bonuses, and the GM is already making unique, non-magical items, like masterwork armor with lower penalties, a bow that gives a +1 damage bonus if within 30 ft that stacks with Point Blank Shot, things like that. Do you think this will be enough though?

Not really, no.

Play a caster, take Vow of Poverty or the like. Gleefully trash everything.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Not really, Eldariel posted a campaign journal of a game set in a low/almost no-magic world using 3.5 as a base and from what I read it worked pretty well, of course the were some serious adjustments done.

From what I recall they increased the amount of skill points by a huge margin like 3 or 4 times the normal amounts, that way almost every character could actually do something with their skills.

They used the wound and vitality systems presented in UA/SRD

The monsters were more like the actual mythological beasts, they were rare and stuff of legend, no-one was sure if they even existed as such the most common enemies were humanoids with classes.

Some enhancements were "mundane", for example a keen greatsword was just a really good sword.

And finally there was no magic allowed for the player, no not even then and it was greatly restricted for the enemies too.

Obviously there are some playstyle considerations to take into account for this kind of game.

[Tyndmyr]

I honestly just wouldn't play it. I have no interest in games with such relatively limited option sets. If I'm going to play a mundane char, it'll be somewhere outside of the D20 class/level paradigm where I can actually do relatively interesting things.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I have to agree with you on that, I have never seen the appeal of low-magic games myself; but I do know some people who do and showing that there is a way to do so just felt right.

[Tyndmyr]

Oh, they're just fine in some systems, like 7th Sea. They just don't translate to D&D at all well. Requires a lot of work, most the material can't be used, or has to be changed, and then you end up with what... a few viable classes, and inflexible martial chars. Meh. Being the second skillmonkey or third bruiser in the party is not a particularly fun role.

[DrDeth]

I have to agree with you on that, I have never seen the appeal of low-magic games myself; but I do know some people who do and showing that there is a way to do so just felt right.

Mostly DM’s who aren’t very good, and are worried that the PC’s will get too powerful to control.

[cellingwood]

To clarify: There is magic, there are magical classes. There just are no magical items. That's it.

[Prime32]

I already mentioned leveled defense bonuses, and the GM is already making unique, non-magical items, like masterwork armor with lower penalties, a bow that gives a +1 damage bonus if within 30 ft that stacks with Point Blank Shot, things like that. Do you think this will be enough though?So... why can't he go all the way, and say that a +5 keen sword is just fine craftsmanship? That makes way more sense than the original anyway. :smallconfused:

Otherwise, a campaign like this works best when everyone (including the enemies) are members of common races with low-tier classes, so that everyone is hurt equally. Spellcasters and monsters (even animals) throw things out of whack, since the former can duplicate the effects of items and the latter are balanced for fighting PCs with level-appropriate gear. Something like a medusa would annihilate a low-magic party since their saves are abnormally low and they don't have alternative senses or a way to cure poison.

[Dusk Eclipse]

That is the problem, non-magical classes need magic items in order to stay competitive, the clearest example would be a fighter and a wizard fighting against a "common" CR 5 enemy, let's say a Wraith (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/wraith.html#_wraith) which is incorporeal, the wizard can use say magic missile to autohit and not even care of it's incorporeal-ness or if he banned evocation use another spell, even with a 50% miss chance he can do something without relying on magic items. The fighter on the other hand can't even have that 50% miss chance.

See where this is going? And the trouble just keep getting bigger as the magic-wielding classes get more powerful spells while the mundanes can't even damage their enemies.

[SowZ]

Basically, keep most magic items without calling them magic. Most enchantments to Armor or Weapons, (including +1 to +9 to AC or to Hit,) can be explained by better crafting or better materials. A Keen weapon is just insanely sharp, made by a Hatari Hanzo equivalent. A Vicous weapon has a bunch of razor chains attached to it that hit the wielder and the target. Ghost Touch is made with crystal or a metal that resonates with the astral plane. Mighty Cleaving is just a freaking huge, heavy axe! A Wounding weapon has serrated edges. A Speed weapon is just really light.

Fortified armor is armor made without any real chinks in it. Slick armor is a scaly, slimy materialed armor. SR armor is a special kind of metal that naturally resists magic. Lava Beetle Carapace armor? Fire Resist! DR armor? It is made with thick or absorbing materials. Shadow? The armor is camoflaged! Silent moves? It is quietly made armor. It is put together so as not to clang around and such.

It's harder to do with non weapon/armor enchantments. But it is possible. Just be clever! Keep magic effects. Just fluff them differently.

[Ernir]

You might try something like ericgrau's Balanced Low Magic Item System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134805). Should be better than just throwing the magic stuff out, at least.

[Big Fau]

To clarify: There is magic, there are magical classes. There just are no magical items. That's it.

As if Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards wasn't prevalent in this system before...

[gomanfox]

I don't see the point of banning magic items if casting classes are allowed. I would think the reverse situation of banning casting classes and focusing on magic item use would be more fun and make more sense.

[cellingwood]

This isn't a question of whether or not we should play Pathfinder or some other system. This isn't a question of whether or not we should even use magic classes. This isn't even a question of whether or not I should even play this game.

It is much simpler than that.

ALL I want to know is what classes will do better than others when there are no magic items.
YES, I am QUITE aware that magic classes will be better than non-magic classes.

[SowZ]

This isn't a question of whether or not we should play Pathfinder or some other system. This isn't a question of whether or not we should even use magic classes. This isn't even a question of whether or not I should even play this game.

It is much simpler than that.

ALL I want to know is what classes will do better than others when there are no magic items.
YES, I am QUITE aware that magic classes will be better than non-magic classes.

The less casting a character has, the more it will be hurt without magic items. Artificer will disappear entirely. Warlock loses one of it's good class features. Rogue, (or any martial class with UMD as a class skill and good skill points,) also takes a hit.

Druid will probably be hurt the least with other full casters coming in behind. It shouldn't change the 'tiers' much but simply widens existing gaps. There are ways around this. Inherent bonus to martial classes, refluffing magic effects as mundane effects, etc.

[Fax Celestis]

ALL I want to know is what classes will do better than others when there are no magic items.
YES, I am QUITE aware that magic classes will be better than non-magic classes.

Get your hands on Psionics Unleashed (http://paizo.com/products/btpy8i42?Psionics-Unleashed) and Psionics Expanded (http://paizo.com/products/btpy8krr?Psionics-Expanded-Advanced-Psionics-Guide-Work-in-Progress) (or, if you're cheap, just get PsiEx and use d20pfsrd.com for the core psionics stuff). Play a soulknife/aegis/metaforge, and be the bastard offspring of Iron Man and Psylocke in a world of Indiana Joneses.

[Killer Angel]

ALL I want to know is what classes will do better than others when there are no magic items.
YES, I am QUITE aware that magic classes will be better than non-magic classes.
It depends on what do you want to do.
If you want to be effective in melee, pick something like a Summoner. You won't use some good skills (UMD) but you don't have to divide your magical items between yourself and the eidolon. Plus, the eidolon will be effective in cc and, thanx to evolutions, will have an edge Vs standard fighters with no magical gears.

[Big Fau]

ALL I want to know is what classes will do better than others when there are no magic items.
YES, I am QUITE aware that magic classes will be better than non-magic classes.

Druid, Sorcerer, Erudite, Psion, and Spirit Shaman all excel by comparison to most. Wizards suffer a little without magic items (no Scrolls), and the Cleric misses out on a few tricks (DMM, specifically). Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Ardent also come out ahead.

Without magic item crafting, the Artificer is little more than an inefficient Bard/Rogue hybrid. Bards, however, are quite capable without magic items.

[Infernalbargain]

If spell casters are going to be present, you need to do a lot of work to bring them in line. You'll have to look at the stuff that just stops melee from contributing and get rid of it (hint: if you think you've found it all, there's probably still a dozen left).

[Callyn]

ALL I want to know is what classes will do better than others when there are no magic items.
YES, I am QUITE aware that magic classes will be better than non-magic classes.

Sorcerer gets a bit of a boost compared to Wizard because the Wizard can't buy all the spells he wants, though the Wizard can still get most of the good ones. Druids are perfectly happy with no magic items, though they do miss out on a few things. Basically any class with casting comes out ahead of any class without. The more casting a class gets, the more it comes out ahead of the normal balance, which is already weighted in favor of people with casting.

[Killer Angel]

Sorcerer gets a bit of a boost compared to Wizard because the Wizard can't buy all the spells he wants, though the Wizard can still get most of the good ones.

That's true: without scrolls, the wiz. will have a garder time adding new spells to it's spellbook and in addition, thanks to bloodline and expanded arcana, the sorc can easily fill the gap for the number of spell known.

[Tyndmyr]

To clarify: There is magic, there are magical classes. There just are no magical items. That's it.

Then the magical classes merrily break the game while the non magical people forever suck.

Roll a primary caster. DR/Magic is now amazing. I would personally play a wizard, but a human sorc is also a good choice.

I would suggest divination or necromancy for specialization. The former makes you a skill monkey as well, and means you never, ever get ambushed. The latter gives you turn undead for giggles, and life sense...so again, you basically will never be taken unawares.

Universalist is also always a solid option.

[The Glyphstone]

This isn't a question of whether or not we should play Pathfinder or some other system. This isn't a question of whether or not we should even use magic classes. This isn't even a question of whether or not I should even play this game.

It is much simpler than that.

ALL I want to know is what classes will do better than others when there are no magic items.
YES, I am QUITE aware that magic classes will be better than non-magic classes.

Ironically, this may be the only situation ever where Monks can actually be relatively useful, because they can break DR/Magic.

In a nutshell, though, every nonmagic class will just suck equally bad, within a small range. Half-caster classes will do better. Full casters will rock even more hardcore than they already do. Offhand, I'd rank them best-worst:

Good:
Wizard
Druid
Cleric
Sorcerer

Mediocre:
Ranger
Paladin

Awful:
Rogue
Barbarian
Monk
Fighter

[Tyndmyr]

And also Bard, there with the other half casters.

And yeah, there are HUGE gaps between each rank of casting.

[The Glyphstone]

Right, everyone forgets Bard in core.:smallbiggrin: Would it sit above or below the melee half-casters? A big part of Bard strength is UMD with Charisma primary, which isn't an option here.

[Grendus]

Don't forget the summoner, oracle, and witch (this is PF after all) who go in the first category. Magus and alchemist go in the mediocre, though Magus will have the advantage of being able to, at least temporarily, make his weapons magical.

[The Glyphstone]

Don't forget the summoner, oracle, and witch (this is PF after all) who go in the first category. Magus and alchemist go in the mediocre, though Magus will have the advantage of being able to, at least temporarily, make his weapons magical.

Oh yeah. Magus and Alchemist go into Mediocre - Magus above Ranger/Pally for its more varied self-buffs, Alchemist below because it can't make potions and so loses a good portion of versatility. Though since it's PF, I'm moving Sorcerer above Druid and Cleric, due to WS/AC nerfs and the cleric's minor dependence on gear to be true T1 all-axis doom machine. Sorc just goes to town in slightly fewer ways than a wizard/witch does.

Good:
Wizard
Witch
Sorcerer
Druid
Cleric
Summoner
Oracle

Mediocre:
Magus
Bard
Ranger
Paladin
Alchemist

Awful:
Rogue
Barbarian
Monk
Cavalier
Fighter
Gunslinger

[Tyndmyr]

Right, everyone forgets Bard in core.:smallbiggrin: Would it sit above or below the melee half-casters? A big part of Bard strength is UMD with Charisma primary, which isn't an option here.

I actually went back and forth on that rather a lot. I think I'd actually position it Paladin, Bard, Ranger, but they're all really close. I mean, PF bards kind of got a bit hosed on singing, but the singing is still quite valuable in a magic-less environment. Melee are really quite reliant on magical types to be at all effective. A casting of a buff spell and a bard song, and your melee has become at least basically effective. Also, their enchantment based effects are likely to be reliable for longer. Guy looks like a human melee type? Safe target.

[Fax Celestis]

Am I the only one who thinks that duskblades would be the only ones to make competent fighters? (aside from, you know, your typical Tome of Battle badassery)

[Tyndmyr]

Am I the only one who thinks that duskblades would be the only ones to make competent fighters? (aside from, you know, your typical Tome of Battle badassery)

Duskblades would be aright, yeah. Probably just below the half casters. Any gish build would likely dominate mundane builds. VoP becomes increasingly practical. It still limits you a bit, but it's a much better tradeoff.

[cellingwood]

As a reminder, the title of this thread quite clearly says "PATHFINDER". We are using the Core book, the Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Magic. There are no Psionic classes, and there are no Warlocks or Dread Necromancers or Duskblades.

[Siosilvar]

As a reminder, the title of this thread quite clearly says "PATHFINDER". We are using the Core book, the Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Magic. There are no Psionic classes, and there are no Warlocks or Dread Necromancers or Duskblades.

As a reminder, Pathfinder is generally backwards-compatible with 3.5, so the discussion of which 3.5 classes would do well is still on-topic.

[Fax Celestis]

As a reminder, the title of this thread quite clearly says "PATHFINDER". We are using the Core book, the Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Magic. There are no Psionic classes, and there are no Warlocks or Dread Necromancers or Duskblades.

Jeez, don't have to get so snooty. First off, there ARE psionic classes (http://paizo.com/store/games/roleplayingGames/p/pathfinderRPG/dreamscarredPress). They're even on the SRD (http://www.pathfindersrd.com/psionics-unleashed). Secondly, it's pretty easy to mentally replace "duskblade" with "magus" since they effectively fill the same role.

[cellingwood]

As a reminder, Pathfinder is generally backwards-compatible with 3.5, so the discussion of which 3.5 classes would do well is still on-topic.


Jeez, don't have to get so snooty. First off, there ARE psionic classes. They're even on the SRD. Secondly, it's pretty easy to mentally replace "duskblade" with "magus" since they effectively fill the same role.

*sigh* But I just stated that we are only using Pathfinder, not bits and pieces of DND 3.5. I also said which books we are using (the Core book, the Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Magic), none of which contain Psionic classes. I'm not saying these things don't exist, I'm saying we're not using them.

[SowZ]

*sigh* But I just stated that we are only using Pathfinder, not bits and pieces of DND 3.5. I also said which books we are using (the Core book, the Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Magic), none of which contain Psionic classes. I'm not saying these things don't exist, I'm saying we're not using them.

The discussion has taken a life of its own. It is about the general topic, not just your group specifically anymore. That's not a bad thing. Take from this thread what you can.

[Big Fau]

*sigh* But I just stated that we are only using Pathfinder, not bits and pieces of DND 3.5. I also said which books we are using (the Core book, the Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Magic), none of which contain Psionic classes. I'm not saying these things don't exist, I'm saying we're not using them.

Dreamscared Press did a Pathfinder-compatible Psionics book, intended to replace the XPH.

[DrDeth]

Which is not "the Core book, the Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Magic".

[Infernalbargain]

Oh yeah. Magus and Alchemist go into Mediocre - Magus above Ranger/Pally for its more varied self-buffs, Alchemist below because it can't make potions and so loses a good portion of versatility. Though since it's PF, I'm moving Sorcerer above Druid and Cleric, due to WS/AC nerfs and the cleric's minor dependence on gear to be true T1 all-axis doom machine. Sorc just goes to town in slightly fewer ways than a wizard/witch does.

Good:
Wizard
Witch
Sorcerer
Druid
Cleric
Summoner
Oracle

Mediocre:
Magus
Bard
Ranger
Paladin
Alchemist

Awful:
Rogue
Barbarian
Monk
Cavalier
Fighter
Gunslinger

Actually if we're assuming no scribing possible for the wizard and witch, then human sorc is absolutely #1. In terms of spells (excluding cantrips) known, the human sorc is ahead by level 9 and never looks back assuming the wizard started with a 20 int. Then there's the whole casting spontaneously thing.

Edit: by the way, [PF] is Pathfinder, [3.P] is Pathfinder mixed with 3.5. Since this is clearly a Pathfinder, not a Pathfinder + 3.5 thread, it is probably best to stick [PF] not [3.P].

[chaos_redefined]

If playing 3.5 (yeah, yeah, I know... OP said they aren't), then you can play a wizard with the feat for it.

If there are multiple wizards in the party, then they can share spellbooks, although they will have redundant spell lists, obviously.

[Infernalbargain]

If playing 3.5 (yeah, yeah, I know... OP said they aren't), then you can play a wizard with the feat for it.

If there are multiple wizards in the party, then they can share spellbooks, although they will have redundant spell lists, obviously.

Well even then, team wizard will effectively get 8 spells per level, which is more than enough.