Semi-Historical games, any help?

[ArqArturo]

I'm thinking of using the Fall of Rome as a the basis for a next Pathfinder campaign, I've got some basics up, except for the map, but that's an easy thing to do.

Has anyone tried to play a game in a fantasy historical setting? What have been (or would be) the major issues/bits/tips to running one, particularly with non-human races and magic in general? Can the Byzantines survive a group of magical murderhobos?.

The only houserules I'm planning so far are these:


Samurai/Monks/Ninjas restricted as Diplomats, or 'Diplomats' and must be Human
Raising PCs/nPCs/DMPC (If I make one), crafting any items other than potions, and teleportation can only be done in Rune Circles (think of Stone Henge).
Replacing Christiany with Mithraism (I'm doing this to avoid issues).
Nonhuman races are rare, and keeping only the Core


Are these houserules too restrictive?.

[Werephilosopher]

Restrictive? Not really. They make sense with regards to the setting, and if the players like the setting, it looks ok to me. What's the expected level range of the PCs? When you say "raise" PCs etc. in stone circles, do you mean raise level?

[Ellowryn]

Instead of making non-human races rare, you could apply a race to a given civilization. Elves make good Celts, and orcs would be good Germanic barbarians, and so on. You may have to play fast and loose with a few historical details, but then again the point is the feel not the minor points.

[Slipperychicken]

Instead of making non-human races rare, you could apply a race to a given civilization. Elves make good Celts, and orcs would be good Germanic barbarians, and so on. You may have to play fast and loose with a few historical details, but then again the point is the feel not the minor points.

The OP could also try using the Race Builder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/creating-new-races) to differentiate between groups. So Goths and Germans might get their own race, desert peoples might get bonuses on saves against desert conditions, Huns and Scythians might get bonuses to ride and survival, and so on.

[VoxRationis]

I'd argue that the restrictions might not be restrictive enough if you intend on keeping the setting anywhere near "semi-historical." Having magic in a setting provides fodder for huge shifts from how things happened historically, where logistical issues magic can get rid of have largely defined historical trends.

[Alent]

On point #1, I would suggest telling the players that Samurai, Monk, and Ninja are allowed under the caveat that they can't be roleplayed as those things, because they don't exist yet in history. (or just outright making that a setting rule: "the following classes are refluffed and renamed... (details) ...for the sake of this campaign")

For example, there's nothing wrong with rolling up a PF Samurai and roleplaying him/identifying his class as a gladiator. Single combat? Check. Martial Weapon Prowess? Check. Where'd he learn his powers? "A lifetime fighting in the pit."

Note that for Ninja, since it is just a rogue archetype in PF, I would just call it rogue.

E6 might also be a good idea, just to limit the amount of world-reshaping possibilities that magic can have.

[ArqArturo]

Restrictive? Not really. They make sense with regards to the setting, and if the players like the setting, it looks ok to me. What's the expected level range of the PCs? When you say "raise" PCs etc. in stone circles, do you mean raise level?

From the dead, as in 'Oh crap, the fighter is dead again, time to visit the ol' Stone Circle!".

And yes, I'm thinking in E6, as well as a slower XP progression.

[Jeff the Green]

From the dead, as in 'Oh crap, the fighter is dead again, time to visit the ol' Stone Circle!".

And yes, I'm thinking in E6, as well as a slower XP progression.

Edit: Actually, I just read the forum rules again and they're more stringent than I remembered. So I'm deleting what I said. In lieu of that, I suggest that each religion have its own resurrection spots. PM me if you want suggestions.

Has the world been magical all along or is this a recent development? That could matter a lot.

[rockdeworld]

Has the world been magical all along or is this a recent development? That could matter a lot.
There's an interesting thought. On the other end of the spectrum, you could create a Tippyverse setting and make Rome a bunch of the cities.

[Jeff the Green]

There's an interesting thought. On the other end of the spectrum, you could create a Tippyverse setting and make Rome a bunch of the cities.

Not in E6. But Tippyesque developments could happen and could make it very unlike Rome. You could do away with slavery and eliminate the famines that plagued Roman society, there'd be more urbanization and living in the city would be much more pleasant, the Romans would have had less need to continually expand their empire, and a number of other things, particularly if you go all-in.

Of course, you could also make restriction on magic so it can't be used that way and you just have Rome with magic. The legions are still there, but instead of medici they have priests of Asclepius and instead of onagers they have warmages. The haruspices, oracles, and augurs still read omina, but now they are actually prescient. The emperor is still a monster, but not just in that he's a pedophile or a rapist—he actually turns into a hyena every full moon. The borders are dangerous, but not because of attacks by barbari but due to rampaging manticores and murderous sphinxes. The religious conflict is still going on, but not because none of the high priests can manage spectacular physics-defying miracles—in fact, all of them can. And the wealthy and educated still look down on superstitio among the pagani—not because it's been proven laughably false by Lucian and other Epicureans, but because hedge magic lacks the subtle control and refinement shown by the high mages of the patricii.

[The Random NPC]

I was in a game loosely based on the War of the Roses once. Once I got Craft Construct, I was able to build self building constructs that could cooperate to build one million gold worth of constructs per day, and cast permanent Telepathic Bond. You have to be very careful about magic or the setting will quickly stop making sense.

[ArqArturo]

Magic started to kick it up right after the last Caesar disbanded the Western Empire (Byzantium is there, as a Mithraic capital), but that's for reasons the players might find out later :smallamused:, before that, smaller miracles were only possible.

[Ratatoskir]

Those houserules don't seem particularly restrictive to me, I actually like the "spots of resurrection" idea. Maybe, as someone else suggested, run different cultures as different races.

I've played in a pseudo Japanese setting before, where everyone had to choose humans. Dwarves, halflings, and gnomes were in the setting as invading forces from pseudo-china (the three different races inspired by the rigid class system that Confucius promoted - halflings were merchants, gnome's were craftsmen, dwarves warriors I believe. Don't remember who ruled or farmed). Also had goblins/hobgoblins as mercenary barbarians, probably based of mongols.

[Ellowryn]

The thing with different cultures being different races is that it actually plays very well with Romanesque history. Part of what made rome the power that it was is that with every people it conquered it then added its culture and ideas to its own, its hard to hate the people that kicked your teeth in when they suddenly turn around and start practicing your beliefs (well, you would still hate them, but at least you wont try and revolt). The roman rulers and upper nobility would all be human, but going down the layers there would start to be a mix of various other races who at various times in the past been absorbed to make rome the most powerful city, and nation, in the world at the time.

[ArqArturo]

That sounds good, so far, here's what I have:

Humans: Romans/Greeks/Egyptians

Gnomes: Mesopotamian

Halflings: Phoenician/African

Dwarves: French Galia/Scandinavia (a friend is insisting on playing a cleric of Thor ¬¬).

Half-Orcs: Germanic Tribes

Elves: Celts/Picts

Half-Elves: Descendants of the Romans in the former colonies of Britannia.

Also, I'm playing orcs and scratching their name and call them 'fomori'.

[Jeff the Green]

At the time of the fall of Rome, there weren't really Mesopotamians as a distinct people. They'd be Persians.

[ArqArturo]

Also, it is my understanding that the Goths, Visigoths, and Vandals were, to a point, Germanic tribes, right?.

Also, anyone has any experience using the Pathfinder Words of Power variant? I'm considering to use it as an option, rather than a rule.

Finally I did a small feat that might benefit spellcasters, especially those with high HP:

Blood-boost.
Prerequisites: Constitution 14, Able to cast 1st level divine or arcane spells.
Benefit: You inflict 3 damage/level of the spell cast, and you do not lose the prepared spell or spell slot. However, spells cast this way cannot be affected by any metamagic effects, save for those of a Metamagic rod.

[sabelo2000]

When running or playing historical-inspired sessions, I find it preferable to use the game system to augment the historical flavor, rather than limiting game mechanics to suit the setting. Magic, especially divine magic, could play a HUGE part in a Historical Roman campaign. After converting to a monotheistic empire it becomes a bit trickier, but can still be done. And since you've already mentioned incorporating other cultures as various races, don't forget to incorporate these other cultures' magic and folklore. Druids are the OBVIOUS choice for your Celtic Elves, for instance. Persian magicians could present a significant threat to your Roman priests. And don't forget, many of the Greek superstitions (such as the Amazons and the Witches of Thessaly) persist in Roman culture.

As was mentioned, running E6 limits the scope of magic and it potential effects on your setting. Regarding your raise dead restrictions, in mechanics terms you could rule that such spells can only be cast within a hallowed or consecrated area. Tinkering with the requirements for consecrate would ensure that such areas only exist in temples or gathering circles.

The greatest risk regarding game-breaking magic, in my opinion, comes from game-breaking magic items. Askilled GM could allow most magic spells and classes, but restrict magic items without significantly damaging either setting or gameplay. Of course, depending on your players it may become necessary to allow more powerful "mundane" items, such as using a high Craft skill to create +2 Keen Swords or +3 Fortification Armor. The difference is, of course, semantic but it can help preserve the feel of a low-magic setting. This way, any legitimately magical items become legendary treasures.

Depending on the maturity of your group, you can us slavery very effectively as either a story or character driver. The idea of abolitionism would be totally alien to a Roman; if your characters want to become abolitionists, they face new and interesting challenges. Alternately, one of your NPCs or PCs could own some slaves, or even be a slave themselves. A large number of Roman slaves were not born that way; they were captured in military conquests, or were sentenced to slavery for a crime, or indentured to absolve a debt. A mature group could use this to put an intriguing spin on a character.

[Jeff the Green]

The idea of abolitionism would be totally alien to a Roman; if your characters want to become abolitionists, they face new and interesting challenges.

The first part isn't exactly true. The second is only true if you consider "being crucified" a new an interesting challenge.

There were absolutely those in the Roman Empire who opposed slavery. Spartacus may have been one of them. A few early Christians also opposed it. A number of philosophers (mostly Stoics) also were opposed to slavery except in a platonic form that has never existed and never could exist. And there were almost certainly those (including some of said philosophers) who would have been opposed to slavery in any form if it weren't for the fact that calling for an end to slavery was not treated any differently from inciting a slave revolt. Which, as I implied, was punished with crucifixion.

[Flickerdart]

Magic started to kick it up right after the last Caesar disbanded the Western Empire (Byzantium is there, as a Mithraic capital), but that's for reasons the players might find out later :smallamused:, before that, smaller miracles were only possible.
Given that the Roman myths all have tons of magic in them, this isn't exactly a huge stretch.

The thing about magic, though? Magic is expensive and hard. In a state that's weakened enough to collapse, institutionalized study isn't going to be super effective, and is probably just a front to give prestige to noble sons and line the pockets of prominent public figures. As a recent development, there wouldn't be any formal magical study worth talking about, and it may be even scoffed at by the wealthy literate elite who is most well positioned to learn it, for being beneath their station. Without a history we're also looking at a lack of craftsmen.

Divine magic would exist, probably, but it would be turned mostly inwards to beautify temples and perform rituals. Are the gods more real now that spells are granted? Or are they exactly as responsive as they were historically?

I'm thinking that most spellcasters would be third sons - denied a good chance at inheritance but still brought up with a good education, whether they're sent off to join the clergy or leave to pursue their passions. Of course, solitary travel is dangerous at a time of upheaval, and many of these men will either die or turn to banditry.

[ArqArturo]

They were active enough to respond to some curses (http://youtu.be/Az4P2EXH5x4). Having more active part in the world (as in granting divine magic the way PF/3.5 grants it) could mean the gods might be afraid that they might lose worshipers :smallwink:.

Arcane magic does seem to be an odd bit, considering that magic in ancient times consisted of pacts and/or divine favor, so maybe witches (I am using PF) are much more common than wizards and sorcerers.

And of course, no gunslingers.

[Flickerdart]

And of course, no gunslingers.
You have no trouble imagining gods granting magic to humans, but an explosive powder in a metal tube is stretching it too far?

[ArqArturo]

You have no trouble imagining gods granting magic to humans, but an explosive powder in a metal tube is stretching it too far?

One must have limits :p.

Then again, China did have gunpowder.

[VoxRationis]

You have no trouble imagining gods granting magic to humans, but an explosive powder in a metal tube is stretching it too far?

That's a ridiculous comparison. Limiting technology is an integral part of developing the setting, just like the availability of magic. A world can have high magic and almost no technological capability. Having anything called a "gunslinger" suggests a very different style of world than a world without gunpowder.

[Flickerdart]

That's a ridiculous comparison. Limiting technology is an integral part of developing the setting, just like the availability of magic. A world can have high magic and almost no technological capability. Having anything called a "gunslinger" suggests a very different style of world than a world without gunpowder.
You're a ridiculous comparison. Take a tube, enchant it to shoot metal pellets, now you have a gun. High magic, low tech, took me literally five seconds to type. Next time, put in a least a little bit of thought before complaining.

[VoxRationis]

How many magic systems do you know of (D&D/E6 certainly isn't one of them) where enchanting a tube to accelerate objects placed in it is a rational thing compared to making fireball or fireball-equivalent enchantments that are 50 times as efficient at the intended job of killing people? Doing that is an elaborate way of propping up a character concept drawn from a spaghetti western, rather than medieval fantasy or history, which are the two sources this concept is drawing from.
Not to mention that having such things lying around will vastly impact the setting in a way which will prevent it from being even semi-historical. You could have them be super-expensive, I suppose, but then that's just being rough on anyone who wants to use one, despite the fact that you're bending over backwards to allow John Wayne in your Ancient Rome setting.

[Slipperychicken]

You have no trouble imagining gods granting magic to humans, but an explosive powder in a metal tube is stretching it too far?

Gunpowder wasn't even invented until the 9th century AD in China. Europe only got it around the 1200s.


How many magic systems do you know of (D&D/E6 certainly isn't one of them) where enchanting a tube to accelerate objects placed in it is a rational thing compared to making fireball or fireball-equivalent enchantments that are 50 times as efficient at the intended job of killing people?

Gunpowder becomes a lot more attractive when everyone isn't throwing around 3rd level spells. It also helps defend against pesky "heroes" and dragons when all your cannon-fodder units are swinging against Touch AC for decent damage. And (in PF at least) you can get a 5d6 blast for just 10gp by taking Gunsmithing to craft a powder-keg.

[Flickerdart]

Not to mention that having such things lying around will vastly impact the setting in a way which will prevent it from being even semi-historical.
Again. Magic.

Gunpowder wasn't even invented until the 9th century AD in China. Europe only got it around the 1200s.

Full plate and rapiers weren't a thing until the Renaissance. Repeating crossbows never even made it to Europe. But that never seems to bother any "history buff" up in arms about "realism."

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Flickerdart
Take a tube, enchant it to shoot metal pellets, now you have a gun.

This is irrelevant, since the OP has already stated firearms aren't part of his concept for the campaign.

At this point further discussion of magic guns only derails the thread. Personally I'd rather respect the OP's preferences.

[Slipperychicken]

Full plate and rapiers weren't a thing until the Renaissance. But that never seems to bother any "history buff" up in arms about "realism."

I was just trying to correct whoever said that china had firearms at the time.

[ArqArturo]

I was just trying to correct whoever said that china had firearms at the time.

That would be me, and yes, I'm thinking of limiting some weapons/armor.

[Alent]

That would be me, and yes, I'm thinking of limiting some weapons/armor.

They may not have had guns, but I'm pretty sure they had crossbows. I thought Pathfinder had a set of rules for adapting the Gunslinger to use Crossbows or more recent weapon types like rapiers for those people who don't like guns? Perhaps make them a Pilum/Javelin specialist?

Actually, did the Romans have a specialist for Pilum tossing? I know the regular legionnaires started things off with a good pilum toss and brought out the gladius after they were out, but I know less about any specialty positions they might have had.

[ArqArturo]

I know the Romans had a particular bit of troop that served to harass their enemies, and pilums were made in such a way so they were bent when they landed, so they could not be used again.

[Jeff the Green]

I know the Romans had a particular bit of troop that served to harass their enemies, and pilums were made in such a way so they were bent when they landed, so they could not be used again.

You're right on both counts. The skirmishers were called velites (s. veles), and pila did have a long metal tip that would (ideally) stick in the enemy's shield and make it really awkward, but in any case would bend so they couldn't be thrown back again.

On crossbows, Greeks definitely had them—they were called gastraphetes. The Romans mostly used ballistae, giant crossbows used as siege weapons, but they also had the manuballista. I don't think there's a lot of evidence about them, but it implies a hand-held crossbow.

[ArqArturo]

I fear looking like an idiot, but are you a historian?.

[Jeff the Green]

Nope. Actually, I never even took a history class after high school. I just have an amateur interest in the religions of the Roman Empire, particularly the mystery religions and the context of the rise of Christianity. (The military stuff I picked up from Age of Mythology and Rome: Total War and confirmed with some googling. :smalltongue:)

[VoxRationis]

You're right on both counts. The skirmishers were called velites (s. veles), and pila did have a long metal tip that would (ideally) stick in the enemy's shield and make it really awkward, but in any case would bend so they couldn't be thrown back again.

On crossbows, Greeks definitely had them—they were called gastraphetes. The Romans mostly used ballistae, giant crossbows used as siege weapons, but they also had the manuballista. I don't think there's a lot of evidence about them, but it implies a hand-held crossbow.

Weren't those sorts of units primarily pre-Marian? I got the impression their infantry became more standardized (none of that "three lines" stuff) after Marius.
As for the gastraphetes, do you know why they didn't use it? Was it just too difficult to mass-produce?

[Jeff the Green]

Weren't those sorts of units primarily pre-Marian? I got the impression their infantry became more standardized (none of that "three lines" stuff) after Marius.
As for the gastraphetes, do you know why they didn't use it? Was it just too difficult to mass-produce?

Yes, that's mostly pre-Marian. However, under the Marian reforms there were auxilia who sometimes were basic infantry like the legion proper (except with worse training and equipment, and a greater chance of being used as cannon catapult fodder), but they also had archers, slingers, javelin skirmishers, and cavalry.

I'm not sure why gastraphetes were abandoned, but I suspect it's because the manuballistae that supplanted them had metal arms, which provides a greater draw strength and is easier to produce and store. (A few times in history someone actually used iron bows; they're much better for rainy and humid climates if you care for them properly and, like the manuballistae, are easier to produce and store..)

[VoxRationis]

Were the noble cavalry also pre-Marian? I also keep hearing about how the cavalry were auxiliary forces, but there were all those equestrians who were definitely citizens.

[ArqArturo]

I think they were basis for the Equites, which in turn I think they also became the precursors of the Cataphracts.

[Jeff the Green]

Equites were the pre-Marian noble cavalry. Even after the reforms the lowest level of the patricians were called equites. (It's sometimes translated "knights".) After the reforms cavalry were in auxilia units called alae (s. ala).

Cataphracts originated in the east—Scythians, Parthians, Persians, Seleucids, etc. and weren't adopted by Rome until the 3rd or 4th century. Actually, the name is a hint: it's actually kataphractoi, which is very Greek and very much not Latin.