Campaign Ideas

[The_Jette]

Alright, so I'm looking at starting a campaign in a world where magic is completely a thing of myth and legend. I'm building the world to be similar to Europe in the mid-1400's, so the end of the "Dark Ages" of Europe. People are beginning to learn things like reading and arithmetic, but the majority of people are still unlearned commoners. Magic exists, it's just that nobody knows how to use it. As such, there are magic items, but not the wands/scrolls variety, and they're very rare, and the party will be very magic poor.

I'm sticking with the core races, too. Elves have ancient stories of their ancestors wielding great magics and such, but they're mostly believed to be ancient stories that have no truth to them because why would they be living in squalor now if their ancestors had powerful magic. No racial spells or spell like abilities are allowed.

Here's my question: Are the non-casting variants of the Ranger, Paladin, and Bard good enough (given the setting) to be used in a setting like this? Would this setting be better for a 3.5 game, or a Pathfinder game? I'm not entirely sure. I plan to eventually let them discover tomes, and such, that will allow magic to be used again. But, it'll be far into the game, and take time to figure out. So, chances are they won't be discovered until level 10, or so. Players who don't use Intelligence and Wisdom as dump stats will be rewarded in this way.

Without going too far into the details, the game is designed for play from levels 1 to 15, and they'll be facing traditional mythological enemies once they get past level 5, like werewolves and vampires.

[AnimeTheCat]

In my opinion, which I'm sure many will disagree with, the Ranger, Paladin and Bard should work just fine IF you only remove their spells, but allow them to keep their class abilities otherwise.

For instance, the Ranger only has Extraordinary abilities, no spell likes or super natural at all, just keep the animal companion within reason. The Bard has the bardic music and such, but the performance could be something akin to a storyteller. I usually play bards with perform oratory and the way that I flavor my bardic performances is that he's welling up those latent abilities and courage or what have you within his target (the listener) which causes them to be better, like adrenalin. It doesn't have to seem magical. Then you've also got a party face ready and waiting with the social skills to back it up. The Paladin is just fine as well, but requires a bit more flavoring. It doesn't have to be magic in nature for them to smite something. Imagine you're deathly afraid of spiders and you see one on the floor. You're going to smite that thing with the most absolute fervor of a thousand warhammers crashing on the shields of your enemy, but if it's an ant, you're just going to kind of squish it (unless those terrify you too then... all bugs are evil so smite away). The immunities, lay on hands, etc... could just be latent ability and an excuse for you to have a smattering of "Oh Crap" healing in the game (since they will likely be a good character). Paladin is up to you, but the bard and ranger 1000% should be good to go even if you just removed spells entirely and didn't replace them. It doesn't sound like there will be any sort of full progression, 9th level spell caster present at all so I think the three classes will hold up just fine.

[Fouredged Sword]

You are going to need to do a lot of messing about with the rules for the players to function past level 6 or so without magic. There is a lot of stuff the game assumes you will have magic to address.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I was under the impression that the non-spellcasting variantvariants of those classes were awful.

What about Psions, Warlocks, and Binders?

Those last two have a "bargaining with forces beyond your kin," kinda vibe going for them.

[The_Jette]

I don't plan on removing any of the other abilities of the Bard or Ranger. I'm not sure about the Lay on Hands ability of the Paladin. But, I'll probably leave it as is. No magic means no "not magic" magic, either. No psionics. No Warlocks. No arranging to have magic without calling it magic, essentially. The party will have magical weapons from days past, but only a few, and of the weaker variety. I may allow them to "unlock" stronger abilities if it seems like the challenges they're facing are too strong. But, it'd be like Excalibur. Was Excalibur an amazing, powerful super-weapon, or just an +1 Adamantine Longsword? We don't really know because there's not much to compare it to.

Really I was worried that the removing spell casting would completely invalidate the class. Can a Bard who can still inspire courage work if they don't have spell casting to improve their other areas of weakness? It's looking like yes, they can. So, I'm going to give it a try. I'll worry about Paladins if someone wants to play one.

[Fouredged Sword]

I don't plan on removing any of the other abilities of the Bard or Ranger. I'm not sure about the Lay on Hands ability of the Paladin. But, I'll probably leave it as is. No magic means no "not magic" magic, either. No psionics. No Warlocks. No arranging to have magic without calling it magic, essentially. The party will have magical weapons from days past, but only a few, and of the weaker variety. I may allow them to "unlock" stronger abilities if it seems like the challenges they're facing are too strong. But, it'd be like Excalibur. Was Excalibur an amazing, powerful super-weapon, or just an +1 Adamantine Longsword? We don't really know because there's not much to compare it to.

Really I was worried that the removing spell casting would completely invalidate the class. Can a Bard who can still inspire courage work if they don't have spell casting to improve their other areas of weakness? It's looking like yes, they can. So, I'm going to give it a try. I'll worry about Paladins if someone wants to play one.

Bard should do OK. Maybe bump up the HD a step and give them medium armor prof so they can be dashing fellows in breastplates. Paladin should be decent when compared to the fighter or barbarian. I would still give them a mount, just remove the ability to be called. It's just an unusually smart horse.

[The_Jette]

Bard should do OK. Maybe bump up the HD a step and give them medium armor prof so they can be dashing fellows in breastplates. Paladin should be decent when compared to the fighter or barbarian. I would still give them a mount, just remove the ability to be called. It's just an unusually smart horse.

I like both of those ideas. Reminds me of the horse from Tangled.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by The_Jette
Can a Bard who can still inspire courage work if they don't have spell casting to improve their other areas of weakness? It's looking like yes, they can. So, I'm going to give it a try.

A spell-less bard variant is something I’ve wanted for a long time. Is there a published version somewhere?


Originally Posted by The_Jette
Reminds me of the horse from Tangled.

Be sure to have plenty of apples.

:smalltongue:

[Fouredged Sword]

A spell-less bard variant is something I’ve wanted for a long time. Is there a published version somewhere?



Be sure to have plenty of apples.

:smalltongue:

At one point i had someone with a bard cohort with crusader martial maneuvers with white raven, devoted spirit, and coins edge schools. I upped the hd to 8s and gave medium armor prof.

[The_Jette]

At one point i had someone with a bard cohort with crusader martial maneuvers with white raven, devoted spirit, and coins edge schools. I upped the hd to 8s and gave medium armor prof.

:smallannoyed: I'm going to have to invest in the Tomb of Battle...

[ColorBlindNinja]

:smallannoyed: I'm going to have to invest in the Tomb of Battle...

Where melee goes to die...

Are you planning to have a "the magic comes back" scenario?

[Fouredged Sword]

Tob is a lot of fun. Once you have read into it take a look at some of the well made homebrew schools. Coins edge is a luck based homebrew school. Black rain is an archery homebrew ( something tob lacks)

[AnimeTheCat]

BLUF: Play the game you want to play. Going past level 6 in a humanoid dense world is easy, just give the opposition class levels. Low Magic worlds are easy and fun, as long as the group is down for it and know they're never getting magic. Bards should be your "Smart Guys" and can double as your party faces. Only change I would make would be giving them skill points like a rogue. Last, TOB is totally unnecessary and you might find that it doesn't really fit for what you're looking for unless you're looking for something that makes your sword burst in to flames or lets you starts running in to the air on puffs of cloud. Your call, just didn't think that was what you were looking for.

Personally, I don't find that having challenges past level 6 is that difficult. No, you can't use stock monsters from MM, but it sounds like this won't have too much monster mashing anyway, except for goblins, kobolds, meta humanity and the like which can be given play character levels and scale up nicely without stepping on anyone's toes.

Making a very low magic world is easy really, just remove the things that are magical in nature except for the rare weapon or oddity that is immediately labeled "Witchcraft" or "Sorcery" which leads to "Burn the witch". If something is never allowed to flourish, how can it possibly hope to become powerful?

With the bard deal, maybe don't bump their HD. Make them more scholarly. Bards do, after all, get every Knowledge skill AND bardic Knowledge ability. Instead, I would give the Rogue skill points and give them a reason to invest in knowledge skills. Have the bards be the wandering minstrels, scalds, and wise men who can also poke with a sharp pointy thing when necessary. Make a trippy bard even, that would be fun. The knowledge skills can come in handy in a myriad of different ways when you don't have "Scrying" looming over your shoulder.

My opinion on ToB, I don't think you'll find it necessary. Your PCs will be plenty strong enough without casters in the group, it doesn't add anything except "here are better martial characters" which in a normal, high magic game, is very welcome. If you allow your PCs to have TOB classes you'll find yourself having to explain away even more magical effects. The book does, after all, introduce them as "Sword Magic" and "Martial Spells" basically.

[Pleh]

Really, the characters only have to be powerful enough to overcome the problems they face.

If they don't have access to magic like the game assumes they will, then don't send them up against stock monsters the way the monster manual sets them up. Animals (and Dire Animals) are fine, but you should expect most of your NPC aggressors to likewise be humanoids with magic-less class levels (or NPC levels). Your standard non-casting Ranger should do more than fine against enemies who have the right number of levels to be a challenge, as long as neither side has a magic advantage.

Now, you say they'll get their magic at around 10th level. That's the time to gently reintroduce classic monsters that have supernatural abilities. However, be very careful with this balance and try to scale threats up slowly. Even the seemingly smallest magic abilities can accidentally trivialize combat.

[The_Jette]

It's not a plan, so much as a possibility, that in the late stages of the game I could introduce ancient spell books with a very limited number of spells in them, and further writing that basically allows someone to take a level or Wizard. At that point, if someone has been worshiping a particular deity, I'd allow them to become a Cleric. If a Paladin wants to, they can go Cleric, too. If a Ranger has been very strong in their connection to Nature, I'd let them take levels of Druid. And, if the Bard wants to, they can take levels of Sorcerer. If that doesn't really feel like something that would add to the game, then I'll cut it from the plans. I figured, the PC's will be exploring ancient tombs, and ruins, so it'll be fun to have some normal orc encounters inside a forgotten lair, that leads to an area with zombies and skeletons. The party will have never encountered anything like them before, so I plan to play up the horror in those bits. And, if they're strong enough, they'll have a huge boss battle with a really strong undead, like a vampire or a lich. But, it won't be an optimized lich, since I don't wanna wipe a party of mundanes by using a powerful caster against them. Just a base, out of the book lich, to give them a huge challenge at the end of a dungeon crawl, late game.

[Aracor]

One of the big things you'll need to consider is healing, unless after a grueling battle the players are expected to have days of downtime while their hit points recover from being depleted.

Something I did in my games to make the heal skill more relevant is allow it to convert lethal damage to nonlethal damage. That means the recovery time is down to hours rather than days as long as one of the characters is a dedicated "medic". I'll post the rules I came up with if you're interested.

[ColorBlindNinja]

One of the big things you'll need to consider is healing, unless after a grueling battle the players are expected to have days of downtime while their hit points recover from being depleted.

Something I did in my games to make the heal skill more relevant is allow it to convert lethal damage to nonlethal damage. That means the recovery time is down to hours rather than days as long as one of the characters is a dedicated "medic". I'll post the rules I came up with if you're interested.

The Crusader should help a lot in the healing department.

The Incarnate I hear, is also good at healing, but is probably to magical for this campaign.

[The_Jette]

One of the big things you'll need to consider is healing, unless after a grueling battle the players are expected to have days of downtime while their hit points recover from being depleted.

Something I did in my games to make the heal skill more relevant is allow it to convert lethal damage to nonlethal damage. That means the recovery time is down to hours rather than days as long as one of the characters is a dedicated "medic". I'll post the rules I came up with if you're interested.

The campaign should be a bit more realistic with its timeline, so taking a few weeks to recover from an adventure and relax won't be too much of an issue. However, there won't be a lot of healing available. I was thinking of going with the Vitality/Wound system, where they only have so many hit points, and crits take from that pool, but normal attacks take from Vitality before Wounds. It provides a few more hit points, and makes Lay On Hands more into a Shiatsu massage than magical healing. But, I'd be interested to see your system, too. I might change my mind.

[The_Jette]

The Crusader should help a lot in the healing department.

The Incarnate I hear, is also good at healing, but is probably to magical for this campaign.

Yeah, I think I'm going to avoid the Incarnate. Crusader seems like a variant Paladin. I don't think I'd deny a player if they requested it, but I don't think any will.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Yeah, I think I'm going to avoid the Incarnate. Crusader seems like a variant Paladin. I don't think I'd deny a player if they requested it, but I don't think any will.

A shame, I hear the Crusader is a lot more effective than the Paladin. Well, unless you stack ACFs like mad.

[AnimeTheCat]

Yeah, I think I'm going to avoid the Incarnate. Crusader seems like a variant Paladin. I don't think I'd deny a player if they requested it, but I don't think any will.

Bear in mind that the Iron Heart line of manuvers/stances are available to the Crusader which means that you'll eventually have the "I flexed my muscles and turned off the sun" ability that a lot of threads reference on this forum. Not saying it's bad, but it seems more like you'll want Paladins to prestige in to crusader as opposed to allowing it as a base class. My opinion, nothing more.


A shame, I hear the Crusader is a lot more effective than the Paladin. Well, unless you stack ACFs like mad.

In my experience (so yes, we're going anecdotal here) I've found that the Crusader and the Paladin fill two different roles. Not necessarily in combat, but in general. The crusader is fun to play but I wouldn't call it a Paladin by any means. It doesn't have the same divine flavor text or divine powers that the Crusader has. Again, this is an opinion and is anecdotal so it is very much subjective to countless variables. :smallsmile:

[The_Jette]

A shame, I hear the Crusader is a lot more effective than the Paladin. Well, unless you stack ACFs like mad.

I'm playing with really new players. Starting out with really low magic, meaning magic is almost completely missing from the world, seemed like a good way to introduce them to the system. They love shows like Supernatural, where it's a mundane person using a few minor magical items, but mostly mundane items, to fight off supernatural threats. I figure that by the end of the game, which I'm already planning out to take about a year, they'll be introduced to the magic system a bit, and allowed to play around with it a bit at the end if they want. Then, the next game, they'll be able to try out all the classes, with a strong idea of the base system already in hand. So, it'll be a very low optimization game, with probably very few ACF's, if any.

[Aracor]

I made this variant with a couple of things in mind. First, it always bothered me that the heal skill couldn't...well...heal. Second, I wanted the skill to actually be useful even at high levels. It seems rather silly when characters have an average of a hundred hit points or more and the skill would heal little more than a first level spell. However, I also didn't want it to be a full heal at low levels. Here was my compromise: Make the amount of healing partially based on the target.

Heal(Wis): Triage (trained only): Triage is a more advanced and complicated form of first aid closer to field surgery than simple bandaging. With a successful heal check, a character with the heal skill can convert hit point damage to nonlethal damage instead. The amount converted is based upon the result of the heal check:
DC 20: The character converts 1d6 hit points of damage per two hit dice (minimum 1d6) to nonlethal damage.
DC 30: The character converts 1d6 hit points of damage per hit die to nonlethal damage.
DC 40: The character converts 1d10 hit points of damage per hit die to nonlethal damage.
Nonlethal damage is recovered normally at a rate of 1 hit point per hit die per hour.
Special: Providing triage to yourself applies a -5 penalty to the heal check
Action: Providing triage takes ten minutes.
Try Again: Triage can only be performed on a target once every 24 hours.

This system was also built with magic in mind, along with skill bonuses and high constitution modifiers. It would be pretty easy to simply change the amount of healing by altering the DCs or the amount that healed either to a fixed number or simply change the dice used.

[The_Jette]

Bear in mind that the Iron Heart line of manuvers/stances are available to the Crusader which means that you'll eventually have the "I flexed my muscles and turned off the sun" ability that a lot of threads reference on this forum. Not saying it's bad, but it seems more like you'll want Paladins to prestige in to crusader as opposed to allowing it as a base class. My opinion, nothing more.

I'm a lot more strict with my reading of rules than some of the forumites here. Let's just say that Iron Heart wouldn't be able to turn off the sun, or anything beyond what it was intended to do in the text. But, again, I'll be playing with new players so that situation would never come up anyways.

[AnimeTheCat]

I'm playing with really new players. Starting out with really low magic, meaning magic is almost completely missing from the world, seemed like a good way to introduce them to the system. They love shows like Supernatural, where it's a mundane person using a few minor magical items, but mostly mundane items, to fight off supernatural threats. I figure that by the end of the game, which I'm already planning out to take about a year, they'll be introduced to the magic system a bit, and allowed to play around with it a bit at the end if they want. Then, the next game, they'll be able to try out all the classes, with a strong idea of the base system already in hand. So, it'll be a very low optimization game, with probably very few ACF's, if any.

If this is the goal, don't let them use ToB to start. The book is very poorly written and organized and even for me it was confusing for the first couple times I wanted to reference anything. Give them some basic system mastery, then add things like ToB (around level 10 like you were planning).

This is, again, a subjective opinion that I urge you to simply take in to consideration when you're planning it out. If you're going to use a source, make sure you know it well enough to help your players, especially if they're new.

[ColorBlindNinja]

If this is the goal, don't let them use ToB to start. The book is very poorly written and organized and even for me it was confusing for the first couple times I wanted to reference anything. Give them some basic system mastery, then add things like ToB (around level 10 like you were planning).

This is, again, a subjective opinion that I urge you to simply take in to consideration when you're planning it out. If you're going to use a source, make sure you know it well enough to help your players, especially if they're new.

That is interesting. I've heard others say that ToB classes are great for beginners. To each, their own, I guess.

[The_Jette]

If this is the goal, don't let them use ToB to start. The book is very poorly written and organized and even for me it was confusing for the first couple times I wanted to reference anything. Give them some basic system mastery, then add things like ToB (around level 10 like you were planning).

This is, again, a subjective opinion that I urge you to simply take in to consideration when you're planning it out. If you're going to use a source, make sure you know it well enough to help your players, especially if they're new.

That's actually what I meant when I said that I need to invest in it. I don't have the book, and have never read through it. A lot of people on this forum swear by it, so picking it up as a possible resource won't hurt, even if I don't use it. At the very least, if one of my players is at a book store and pick up a copy for themselves, I'll be able to answer any of their questions about it.

[AnimeTheCat]

That is interesting. I've heard others say that ToB classes are great for beginners. To each, their own, I guess.

the classes are pretty good for beginners I guess. there's nothing too complicated and it does give them a small manageable taste of a per day ability or per encounter ability set. My primary reason for saying no go is the book. The organization of the book is poor, at best IMO. the writing is confusing a lot of ways and takes a solid discussion to figure out the true meaning (exhibit A, Iron Heart Surge. Just search it in the forums and you'll see that clearly some people think it does way more than others.) and that creates a lot of problems especially for new players.

It's not the classes or anything specifically that I think is bad or not good for beginners, it's simply that the book isn't really intuitive to read.

[ColorBlindNinja]

the classes are pretty good for beginners I guess. there's nothing too complicated and it does give them a small manageable taste of a per day ability or per encounter ability set. My primary reason for saying no go is the book. The organization of the book is poor, at best IMO. the writing is confusing a lot of ways and takes a solid discussion to figure out the true meaning (exhibit A, Iron Heart Surge. Just search it in the forums and you'll see that clearly some people think it does way more than others.) and that creates a lot of problems especially for new players.

It's not the classes or anything specifically that I think is bad or not good for beginners, it's simply that the book isn't really intuitive to read.

I recall finding the Tome of Battle a bit confusing, but honestly, I think that Magic of Incarnum is far worse.

[The_Jette]

I want to give a big thank you to everyone who added comments to this and gave me ideas for how to run, or just solidified my reasons for choosing or avoiding certain options.

[AnimeTheCat]

I want to give a big thank you to everyone who added comments to this and gave me ideas for how to run, or just solidified my reasons for choosing or avoiding certain options.

Always here if you need assistance.


I recall finding the Tome of Battle a bit confusing, but honestly, I think that Magic of Incarnum is far worse.

Maybe I'm just slow :smallbiggrin: or maybe I'm just weird. The Jury is still out on that one.

[Fouredged Sword]

That is interesting. I've heard others say that ToB classes are great for beginners. To each, their own, I guess.

TOB is great for beginners in that there are no really bad choices. You can almost roll randomly for all character choices and make a solid build. That said, if I was introducing a new party to the game I would be very tempted to stick to ranger/paladin/fighter/barbarian/rogue and calling it a day. Strip out 60% of all the books and do the basics until they have a solid understanding of how combat works and how to roleplay.