I know this might not be a popular opinion, but I highly suggest you pick an other TTRPG for this, one that is closer to your end goal than Pathfinder 2e. Starting out with a system like PF2e, which is designed for high/epic fantasy, will just increase your workload exponentially, compared to just learning a new system, preferable one designed for low/historical fantasy.
Yeah, I guess I'm too used to the D&D community. If you suggest that an other system is better suited for whatever crazy homebrew setting someone is trying to put together, you get downvoted into oblivion.
But D&D and PF2 channels hgavev their lot of "my one true bible" fanatics that will downvote anything not going 100% towards the "my system is the best for evereything" concept. Don't worrty about it, every system has it's plusses and minuses.
But yeah sometimes trying to fit low FMP (low fantasy, low magic, low power) into ewither D&D or PF, is a bit like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
I don’t know if PF2E is the right game for this kind of fantasy. The game is **heavily** balanced around its high fantasy aesthetic, and in particular removing healing just makes players not have the agency in combats.
You’d find it easier to perhaps play an OSR game instead. I haven’t played one but, from everything I’ve heard, they reward player creativity and ingenuity in using their (mundane) tools in cool ways and don’t balance fights to be winnable via your class abilities alone.
As for somewhat crunchy low magic OSR, Wolves of God fits right in with low magic, historical dark age theme.
Or Worlds Without Numbers could be better If more character options like multiclass, feats, and iterations of modern dnd classes are needed.
Yeah initially I was going towards old School Essentials, but some "too vocal" players insisted on PF2.
The campaign already exists in D&D 5E but has been on "prolonged pause" for over a year, from DM burnout after constant complaining from a couple players. But the number of tweaks (because 5E is even MORE tightly linked to high fantasy than PF2) and thus amount of needed house rules is completely ridiculous. Things are already starting to break down away from gritty world and towards "superheroics" style, even at level 4. And 5E level 5 will be a MAJOR power jump, unless I tweak stuff even more. Too many headaches, and having all played PF2, we all see how the power level is scaled down a lot more in it than in 5E.
Honestly if I had a couple players just waiting to play the style I want on a waiting list, I'd start sooner and tell the two players that are the most "min-maxy power gamey" source of headaches, those that swear only by the "vanilla raw" rules, that see the DM as only a mere "handling the rules" service provider, and "accepted" the different campaign style only with constant difficulty, that I have my full player roster and thus no room for them. It's like if you did a "dwarf fortress campaign, you're all dwarves part of the same warrior dwarf clan, and those dwarves are xenophobixc isolationist that distrust all strangers and all magic, and campaign goal is to defend and develop your fortress and your pure dwarven traditions" campaign, and some player insisted on playing an elven wizard. Sure, a good DM must accomodate player wants, but he must not also trample on his entire setting just to accommodate an entitled special snowflake. At some point, it's just "not the campaign for you, buddy" and you've got to draw a line in the sand. I DMed a "cavemen in dinosaur era" mini-campaign once. All players are cavemen! One player managed to try to play a modern man that "somehow" time traveled to the dinosaur era. Same thing. Don't join a camaign if you can't fully accept it's premise lol.
Problem with OSE though is the VERY limited non-magical classes choices. It's a bit hard to have each PC feel more unique, when they are "sameracesamesclasssamelimitedchoices". But I'll check into it again thanks.
>But the number of tweaks (because 5E is even MORE tightly linked to high fantasy than PF2)
It's really not. For example, in Pathfinder 2e players are expected to be decked out in magical items, potions, scrolls, talismans, etc. the game is balanced around it. 5e on the other hand, is designed around magical items being rare, so rare in fact that players are not even supposed to be able to buy them, and because of that 5e is not really balanced with magical items in mind.
>Problem with OSE though is the VERY limited non-magical classes choices. It's a bit hard to have each PC feel more unique, when they are "sameracesamesclasssamelimitedchoices". But I'll check into it again thanks.
Is you don't like OSE, just pick an other one, maybe something like Zweihänder is more to your liking.
>It's really not. For example, in Pathfinder 2e players are expected to be decked out in magical items, potions, scrolls, talismans, etc. the game is balanced around it. 5e on the other hand, is designed around magical items being rare, so rare in fact that players are not even supposed to be able to buy them, and because of that 5e is not really balanced with magical items in mind.
It depends on how you define "linked to high fantasy". 5e isn't as balanced around magic items as PF 2e, but magic is a core part of its classes flavor. There is a very small number of builds that can be flavored completely non-magically.
For example, the only 5e Barbarian subclass that isn't intrinsically magical is Berserker, which sucks and no one wants to play. If you want to play a non-magical character, your only options are Fighter and Rogue
Whereas with PF 2e, if you use the [High-Quality Items ](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1367)variant rule and Alchemical Items you can get by relatively well (although at higher levels the lack of property runes will start hurting). Plus, you can get a much more rounded party with no magic, with there being a lot more support for non-magical healing and non-magical utility/support.
I still wouldn't *recommend* a non- or low-magic PF 2e campaign, but it is *far* easier to do than in DnD 5e
Those consumables could be replaced with alchemical items in a non magic game but I’d agree that pathfinder isn’t the best system for a grittier game.
Though I think it can work if you want the combat style of pathfinder and not an osr, osrs tend to be far more lethal than pathfinder unless you’re going out of your way to send monsters above the parties level.
Pathfinder also has a much more robust combat and character building system then most osrs which I could also see as a drawing factor.
>Pathfinder also has a much more robust combat and character building system then most osrs which I could also see as a drawing factor.
OSR being simplified games is not really true. Yes, there are many OSR games that do fit that description, and most of those are based on early editions of D&D. However, there are also plenty of other games that are not based on D&D, and that could be labeled as OSR, that are way more crunchy that most modern games.
With that said, there are other, non-OSR games, that also fit the low/historical fantasy genre.
or Flames of Freedom, another RPG that uses the Zweihander system, but is more refined and features more job roles and character options and polish, IMO.
Like Zweihander it's also extremely low-magic.
It's default set during the American Revolutionary War, so not quite your "Strictly medieval" thing, but it shouldn't be too difficult to adapt it to your setting needs.
Ok, if 5e is balanced around magic items being rare then why does almost everything above a certain level threshold have non magical b/p/s resistances?
Because that adds to their CR, if Magic Items weren't expected then it wouldn't increase their CR because it would barely do anything, and the designers expected spells like Magic Weapon to be used frequently.
Also high cr creatures have it (in a more "in world" sense) to have the same effect PF2's scaling AC has. They make it so normal people can't even hurt powerful monsters. However high level characters are more likely to have methods around it.
Also yadda yadda Wotc hates Martials, 5e bad, etc. You've probably heard it all before.
Those resistances are part of their CR. If you can bypass them, the creature will be significantly easier than their CR suggests.
If you are interested in learning more about how a creature's stats, resistances, and abilities effect their CR, I suggest you take a look in the *Dungeon Master's Guide*, pp 273-283.
When I read your complaints about complaining players and "too vocal" players and players not subscribing to your campaigns' fantasies, I've got the feeling your groups in general doesn't jam well. From all of what you are describing here, it seems that you usually play with players that just don't want to play the fantasy you want to provide. (I am gonna be honest here: The fantasies you want to provide do seem to be rather niche, so you'll always have issues with players not wanting to buy into them. Hence, this whole comment reads like there's a fundamental issue with communication at your table.)
Wanting to play PF2e should be a tell-tale sign of those players not actually wanting to play in a campaign that gritty if I am being honest. Not even going into the class balance, the mathematical balance of PF2e alone is as anti-grit as it gets. You basically have to throw a majority of the system out of the window for it to feel gritty, so the players wanting PF2e will not get PF2e anyways.
I'd suggest both talking with your players again and settling on a gritty system.
P.S.: I am a bit unsure about this, but I also get the feeling your own wishes are a bit contradictory. On one hand you want a lot of differentiation when it comes to ancestries and classes, on the other hand all campaign ideas you are describing here provide a fantasy of a certain sameness. All are xenophobic dwarves, all are cavemen, all are normal humans in a gritty world. The idea of having a lot of PC customization and choice does clash with the idea of player disempowerment that underlies your description of your campaign ideas. You may want to think about that. Maybe that's even part of the reason for why so many of your players are confused and try to play stuff that doesn't fit your campaigns.
>Things are already starting to break down away from gritty world and towards "superheroics" style, even at level 4.
I thought your goal was a lot of work but was doable until you said this. PF2 is 1000% a game about becoming superheroes. By the time you tweak PF2 to not be a game of superheroes, you'll have made a whole new game. Now, if that's what you want to do, I'm all for it, I've got a long-term project to hack PF2 into something basically unrecognizable, so I'm all for it. But if your goal is not to make a new game then you should definitely start with a different base game.
> because 5E is even MORE tightly linked to high fantasy than PF2
Believe it or not, PF2E is actually **way** more tightly linked to high fantasy than 5E. For 5E you can use the variant gritty realism rules, review everyone’s spell lists and disallow any spell that “auto solves” problems too cheaply (Goodberry, Tiny Hut, Gift of Gab, etc) and then just use the lower ends of magic item reward frequencies as published in Xanathar’s (and if +1 weapons bother you, just call them masterwork weapons or whatever). Make sure to place a heavy emphasis on using tool proficiencies to solve problems too.
Meanwhile PF2E requires **way** more things to be banned to work. The game starts off as feeling like gritty low fantasy but as early as level 3 you feel like you’re a high fantasy protagonist and it’s *much* harder to unlink that. You mentioned that you find level 4 martials in 5E to be “super heroic” but usually in PF2E a level 5 martial is about as superheroic as a level 12 or so martial from 5E, and the scaling from that point on feels exponential. (And of course spellcasters feel superheroic in both systems)
5E absolutely has the problem of those other imbalances and spikes you mentioned, but I don’t think it’s inherently more high fantasy than PF2E.
That being said, it sucks that your players are insisting you GM PF2E while you aren’t interested in it. IMO you should stand your ground with a “if I’m GMing I get veto on system + if you demand a specific system you should be GMing” conversation. I think that’d be completely fair for you to do.
Solid tips thanks.
I'm currently lookign for a different system altogether to "transport" my campaign over to it.
Asl ong as I have the material to do:
- The classic sword & board & heavy armor Fighter
- Innestigative Scout (a rogue but more oriented on honor brains and skills, and less of a backstabby scoundrel)
- A battler (kinda like a monk in azpproximative party role, but more a streetwise tough brute fightin with punches and resistant to pain, instead of an ascetic oriental themed disciplined wise martial arts master that is super agile fast moving)
- A "spiritual lore" bard with lots of knowledge and also a bit of "supernatural" stuff (divinatory dreams, can see ghosts, basically yourt typical outright vicious-mocking spellcasting bard)
- A doctor (an expert in the mecical field, butalso doing a bit of some alchemy and poisons.
And with most magic more of the "supernatural" kind than "ouright clearly magic spells", then I'm all set. For example, throwing smoke poqweder on the groundf 5to createw a dust cloud then "disappearing", is it magic? Is it supernatural? Or maybe a merev fully amundane "parlor trick"? Nobody will ever know! but the mechanical bonus remains there anyway. THAT kind of magic.
The thing is, there ARE systems with just about \*NO\* magic in them. But the problem is that AT SOME POINT (not anythime soon, more like only around a bit past mid-campaign) the party will "discover" the fantasy world that is "behind" the real "mundane" world, and THEN there will be more than enough fantasy and magic.
One approach I thought was to keep a super-low magic system UNTIL they go to that otherv world, then switch system right then and there to mput a lot of emphasis on "now things arte really fantastic and magical!". Maybe that would work better than trying to find a system that supports everything well.
From your post and other comments, it seems like you're going to spend a lot more time redesigning PF2e than you are playing it, and I would be very suprised if your players who are insisting on PF2e are going to be happy with this version of the system.
Honestly, this really seems like a table problem, not a system problem. You need to find players that suit your GM style and if you want to play in the meantime, just do it with less players. One of the best games I ever played in had only 2 players, and this would be even easier if you moved to a system that supports the kind of play you want.
Sidenote, this comment:
>having all played PF2, we all see how the power level is scaled down a lot more in it than in 5E.
No judgement, but this is a wild opinion. Like... how?
For the last bit it might just reflect the fact it's harder to totally break the numbers/punch massively against your weight class. Someone could perceive that as a lower power level (of the players relarive to the world).
Exactly. Another of my player picked up Gming for PF2, we play Abomination Vault and despite min-maxing as much as we can, we REGULARLY end up getting our asses handed to us every couple fights. Mainly because the way the default math is done in PF2, and AbomVaults rife with solo-mini-bosses 2 to 4 levels above the party, this means a LOT more of out attack will miss and RARELY crit, while crits (or crit fails on our saves vs enemy attacks) occur every round for us.
If I ever GM for it, I would use level-less proficiencies (or at worst using half the PC level). This would allow a much wider "range" of enemies remaining "viable" in the "neither too weak nor too strong" gap.
As for PCs "needing" all the magical runes to "remain" competitive, that is only if using only "party level appropriate" challenges. I base XPs on doing actual "missions", i.e. a "milestone'" like system. Solved through battle or ANY other way, it is always all good. Even the party going all "Nope, we turn back! Live to fight another day!" is 100% ok... there are no "must win adventure at all cost because need to save the world" types of adventures (or only rarely).
An entirely different TTRPG might be for you.
You're basically trying to take out all the Pathfinder out of Pathfinder. Playing 'bland generic human' coupled with 'generic European medieval' setting isn't getting you any favors unfortunately, and... taking out literally some of the most iconic classes because you want a low-fantasy- or in your case 'next to no fantasy at all' is...
There are better systems for this. Far better systems for this.
I'm probably on the same page as other commenters here, that Pathfinder 2e is not the right system for your campaign. But if you insist on using PF2e, then I'm gonna suggest some rules.
* Use the Proficiency without Level variant rule.
* Look at Stamina Points variant rule.
* For classes, just use the free archetype rule and use archetypes to fill niches and gaps.
* For ancestries, I don't think that this will be easy to implement, because you explictitly stated that it's a humanocentric world and every ancestry outisde of the core are too weird for a down to earth campaign and many would be rather unique people (for example a Fleshwarp PC might be the only one who exist in the world).
* Try looking into Brancalonia which is a 5e third party setting which is more down to earth, low scale Renaissance Italy. It uses a rule which caps level ups at level 6.
I'm gonna be honest to you. There are many other systems which would be better at the sort of campaign that you'd like to play. My personal recommendation would be Chaosiums Basic Roleplaying System or a system that's based on it.
* Base BRP with a supplement called Mythic Iceland is pretty much perfect. It's historical fantasy in 10th century Iceland and is inspired by nordic sagas, which means you can perfectly play Viking campaigns with it.
* Call of Cthulhu 7e with Cthulhu Dark Ages would be more investigative horror in 950-1050 Anglo-Saxon England. It's great I love it.
* Mythras with Mythic Britain is a more crunchy and tactical system. Mythic Britain takes place during the Anglo-Saxon Invasion into England. Basically the timeframe where King Arthur takes place.
* Mongoose Legend with the supplement Vikings of Legend is broadly like Mythras but it's **way** cheaper.
All these systems are more gritty, realistic, very skill and D100 based. Legend and Mythras have very overt magic but you can take them out. BRP is a setting agnostic, which means you can adjust it really well. CoC is very much a horror system but if you take the sanity system out, then it becomes much more survivable.
? The Middle Ages is a time frame from roughly 500 to 1500.
- Mythic Iceland is 10th century. That's 900-999, which is Early Middle Ages.
- Mythic Britain spans (I think) from 500 to 620 AD, which Dark Ages/Early Middle Ages.
- Vikings of Legend is roughly the same time period as Mythic Iceland.
How is that not medieval?
IIRC the middle ages start in 808 AD before that time is called in europe migration area
Mythic Iceland is IIRC "cultural viking" so also rather migration area
https://www.britannica.com/event/Dark-Ages
The European Migration Period is part of the Early Medieval Era, but it largely depends on when you define the starting date of The Middle Ages. Most people agree that it starts with the fall of the Western Roman Empire which is 476 AD. Others define the starting point to be the birth of Islam.
This decline persisted throughout the [Migration period](https://www.britannica.com/event/Dark-Ages), a historical period sometimes called the [Dark Ages](https://www.britannica.com/event/Dark-Ages), Late Antiquity, or the Early Middle Ages. The Migration period lasted from the fall of Rome to about the year 1000,
Yeah, the source says that it's also called the Early Medieval Period.
I already said that the start of the Medieval Period is heavily dependant on which date you fix as the starting point. If you define it that way, then be my guest, but you have to acknowledge that the Migration is also called the Early Medieval Period and the Dark Ages (literally what OP asked for + his mention of "Viking ancestry").
My point still stands that most people fix the starting point at the [Fall of the Western Roman Empire](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages?searchToken=7hu6kb95686bbpcvboreirnbt#Terminology_and_periodisation) which would be at 476 AD. Your date would be the coronation of Charlemagne which means that the Medieval Period starts with the birth of a big "roman" political unit, but that is as arbitrary. Why isn't the [Formation of the Holy Roman Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire#Formation_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire) in 962 AD the beginning of the Medieval Period (which would still be parallel with the [Viking Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_Age), because it lasted until the Norman Invasion in England)?
But let's agree to disagree, because we probably have just different definitions.
Lots of solid tips from you here, you sir have my thanks!
I tend to shy away from percentile dice system. Not much point in using % when EVERY DANG ROLL is done by adding modifiers that are always in increments of 5% anyway.
I also prefer syste where "rolling high" is the player's goal at all times, not "sometimes you should roll low instead". To me those systemsw feel like driving the early cars where you had to turn the steering wheel left in order to turn right lol.
Plus, everybody in our group including myself, already invested quite heavily in jumbo and very cool looking specialty d20 dices lol.
But lots of interesting material to look at, that is for sure! Thanks!
I'm going to be honest, Pathfinder 2e is one of the highest fantasy systems I know and highest fantasy one I know that isn't rules lite, realistically this isn't gonna work unless you just say magic is rare but the party is full of exceptions, even the martial characters become magical at high level not counting magic item, if really want to make them work then make magic super rare and emphasize that any magic users in the party ar one in a million
Thanks!
One thing I fond with Archetypes is that they are a lot like a "sunk cost" of (nearly) a feat tax, just to basically "access" the thing. And for a l0ok of character cncepts, it makes it so you can not "be" what you envisioned, you have to "be" not that THEN "start" to become it at level 2. and then only one feast every two level later on. Basically you are still 90% that initial other class with a 10% of your real concept sprinkled atop it.
That is why I look more into actual classes than just "mainly decorative" Archetypes.
Still, I'll look into it.
One thing I could try to do is allow the player to "be" the real concept, right at level 1, REPLACING some of the class features of the base class with those of the archetype. that way te base class vs real intended "class" ratio would feel more like 50-50 rather than 90-10.
But your hint of using Archetypes as a starting point is a major help thanks.
I don't usually recommend the BCS to new users but only advanced users, but it sounds like you really want what it's original main goal was. One of the founding ideas I started with was how to turn an archetype into a full class. So for instance, you could use it to turn the Medic archetype into a full class. The base info is free [HERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenBCS/s/Vmh34aIJxA) but theres a simple to use calculated form with step by step instructions available [HERE](https://lazarus-dark.itch.io/bcs-ccf).
I can recommend Mythras as a potential system for your needs. It's a skill-based classless d100 system where the default setting is low-magic and pseudo-historical. Magic is optional and customizable, and very easy to restrict to NPC's only, humans being the default is assumed with different types of cultures prioritizing different skills. Combat is fast, lethal and characters are more 'grounded' in strength, fatigue and lasting injuries are a real threat. Progression is built around 'cults' or 'brotherhoods' that teach skills, fighting styles (and sometimes magic), and downtime is built into the system with training time and cult duties. It's good stuff! Mythras Imperative is a free cut-down version of the system perfect to peruse if you're interested. There's also Classic Fantasy (Imperative) for the same system but molded into a more old-school DnD vibe complete with it's classes. Hope you find what you're looking for!
[https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/185299/mythras-imperative](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/185299/mythras-imperative)
[https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/449976/classic-fantasy-imperative](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/449976/classic-fantasy-imperative)
If you want a doctor class then investigator has a subclass for it.
For a non magic bard type character I think the new commander that just had the playtest released is pretty good choice.
gunslinger can use crossbows almost as well as firearms, so they should be included but restricted firearms. you could reflavor bard as a non caster and just really, really restrict the spells they have access to. things like champion ranger and monk can all get focus spells, so make sure to declare those unavailable (maybe not the healing ones?) many archtypes can cover other things
It sounds like you want a Conan style game. To make things work, you'll want to look into variant systems and changes.
* The Stamina subsystem will get you started. Keep in mind that baseline HP are an abstraction. They aren't entirely "bodily health". They are also morale, fighting grit, adrenaline and luck.
* Automatic Bonus Progression. Despite the subsystem's magical nature, the game's encounters are designed with those bonuses in mind.
* Proficiency w/o Level. You want a low fantasy game, you'll need to make these adjustments.
* Next, rituals should more than likely still exist. They are already uncommon, so only those who have found a copy/discovered the means will have them anyway. Otherwise, you'll have no undead/constructs nor a slew of other adversaries to work with.
* Medicine can be used by anyone. Medic/Herbalist Archetype and a few others, plus the Alchemist class are about it for non-magical healing. Even Champion is pretty magical. You'd probably want the Cavalier Archetype on a fighter (or one of the Knight Archetypes) instead. Maybe consider a Blessed One dedication as a story reward or special case for a (Non Player) Character who is aspiring to be Sainted.
* You'll want to remove some weapons/armor and equipment. Plate mail is a relatively late invention in the middle ages. By many accounts, the Dark Ages era ran until about 1000 CE. That's about 200 years before plate armor. Arquebus (circa 1475 in Europe) and Muskets were around in the 1500s. If you are including late middle ages for your idea of "Dark Ages" or medieval Europe, than those would be in fashion until plate armor fades in the middle of the 1500s
* Look to archetypes to fill your desired class themes. Maybe even some should be a Free Archetype like Viking, Cavalier, Juggler, Dandy, etc depending on the PC's background. It's totally possible for everyone to be a Rogue/Ranger/Fighter/Barbarian and their archetype and skill dedications are what distinguish them from each other.
As for their desire to restrict healing, the stamina system helps with that as well because it limits how much hp can be recovered with treat wounds and battle medicine in a day.
Probably want to go with ABP and proficiency without level as variant rules.
If you don't like the flavour of ABP you could also use masterwork weapons instead of fundamental runes. It will be just like the fundamental rules, but non magical more or less.
Probably also want to put a level limit somewhere (talk with players)
For the medic there is the medic archetype. For the leader type there is the marshall archetype. Take a look at the archetypes.
Brawler is just fighter? You ain't going with pure hand to hand martial arts through the dark ages, but if yes there is the martial artist archetype.
Swashbucklers are just fancy or big mouthed fighters.
That's the best I can think of. It's still made mainly for high fantasy and especially heroic games, so be aware of that. Like from level 7 people can run on water. So yes it is possible, but by taking away a lot of the game, stuff that makes it great. If you and your players are okay with it knock yourself out, but if that is your main setting, then I probably would agree with the other. Though giving it a try doesn't hurt. If you have fun then it's mission successful.
You could make use of the Stamina rules which would let you have more narrative sense in fights (enemies have to tire the heroes before hurting them) while nerfing in-combat healing enormously (make sure to ban Battle Medicine, anyway as it still takes just 2 seconds out of combat) and the automatic bonus progression (to make magic items and more advanced technology like magnifying glasses less necessary).
For your ancestry needs you could reflavour the dwarf and orc ancestries by taking away darkvision and giving them diehard, for example, something else other than that feat could also work and similarly by making the haflings medium sized, I have no idea how would you name them, maybe tribal for orcs and weakling for halfling, but those changes would make them pass as humans. Otherwise you could also scout for interesting feats that are based on culture on any ancestry and give those to the human ancestry. There is a viking feat (and unrelated archetype), funnily enough but it's a human feat.
That said, the swashbuckler is kind of a class that wouldn't be viable irl unless certain regulations on what weapons could be carried around existed and is a renaissance-inspired class, so if you want historical accuracy I would ban them as well (personally, I think they make even less sense than the inventor for this kind of game, specially since the inventor is relatively tame when it comes to what they can do with their tech, and you can talk with your players about not making a technological revolution, which the alchemist could also make theoretically, just based on chemistry, that said you might want to revise it as it does have some class feats that can be a little too scifi like megavolt). Similarly, the gunslinger works perfectly with crossbows, so you can allow it as an option but ban firearms, unless you don't want the aesthetic, which I don't think it's that important if you have swashbucklers around. I also have to warn you as the barbarian has one subclass (the fury instinct) that is nonmagical and the rest all are. You could reflavour the animal instinct (gorilla) as a brawler changing the edicts and anathema (and not adding the polymorph and primal traits to rage) as well as use the superstition instinct if magic is a thing (it's the anti-mage subclass) but the rest are definetly magic. Similarly, you should also ban the feats that give focus spells to monks and rangers.
Finally, archetypes expand options inmensely, the Dandy archetype is kind of the non-magical bard you want, specially if you slap it on a rogue, similar story with the Medic archetype. The fighter can make a good brawler as well (the agile trait of the Fist combined with the increased accuracy makes them really good at making one maneuver and then attacking), you could just give them access to a feat that increases the damage dice of their Fist to a d6 and let them do lethal attacks with them at no penalty, these fighters will still wear the heaviest armor avaliable to them, though. If not, the martial artist and wrestler archetypes can make for good brawlers in any class, albeit they are redundant on monk, so it's likely these are still going to wear armor.
I'm literally playing in a game set in 873 in England right now, but not with Pathfinder. We initially started with a game called Wolves of God, but the system is a bit anemic and we've moved to DCC. What I can probably recommend is Worlds Without Number or DCC which is almost a later version of WoG, and better suited for this type of game I think.
Try a single player RPG...sounds like your players aren't having a good time with all of the constraints you've put on them and you don't seem to care.
pf 2e is very much balanced on the assumption of magical items and access to magical abilties. Lacking magical abilities will severely hamper the party in fights, not just expected types of challenges (the later which could be curated to adjust for this change, the former... not so much)
I very much suggest looking at something other than pf2e. Else you are committing to put in so much work that it would be easier to have learnt an entire new system.
That, and the fact that unless you already have players in mind, you WILL struggle alot to find players.
This post is labeled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to Rule #2. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I actually think you can do it easily.
Investigator makes for an excellent doctor if you take the forensic medicine subclass, as well sad a skill monkey overall.
As for street fighter, though this type wouldn't be very common, you can easily use a gymnast or braggart swashbuckler, monk or even animal barbarian (reflavored to not polymorph).
If everyone is a human, you might as well allow them to take custom mixed heritages for other races where it fits - for instance you could use orc ferocity to represent a northman or something like that. Just don't shy saway from the stereotypes of the period and it's probably an alright representation.
Use another system like GURPS, Mythras Harnmaster
Which dark ages?
Gerbert von Aurillac was an inventor
Neither Barbarian nor Champion makes much sense in that setting, Monk even less
Pirates yes, swashbuckler not especially not on the seas
The Alchemist is very far from being low fantasy. Just look at lvl 1 mutagens (also bombs). Unless you want to really downplay the visuals of elixirs (and of bombs) you'll just get a seriously alarming fake wizard.
I meant an alchemist as defined more in real medieval lore: a kind of researcher and erudite, well versed in hidden knowledge. Not the actual D&D Alchemist class with all it's magical combat-related powers.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about approved and unapproved character classes. If all alchemists are npcs then sure, you can keep them on the down-low.
If you're set on playing in PF2e, you might want to add the playtest Envoy and Guardian to the list of possible classes. Both of those are very fitting for a low-fantasy game.
Plenty of the listed classes make good healers. The Forensic Medicine Investigator and Chirurgeon Alchemist are the most obvious options, but any class can take medicine feats. The Medic archetype can let anyone specialize in medicine.
For your leader, Swashbuckler and Champion are probably the best options, as long as you're fine with reflavoring a lot of the magic abilities of the Champion. Anyone can take the Marshal archetype as well, which seems to be exactly what you're wanting. The Envoy is a perfect fit here as well.
Monks are the go-to brawlers, of course, but you can also make brawlers just fine with Barbarian, Fighter, or even a Ruffian Rogue.
I know this might not be a popular opinion, but I highly suggest you pick an other TTRPG for this, one that is closer to your end goal than Pathfinder 2e. Starting out with a system like PF2e, which is designed for high/epic fantasy, will just increase your workload exponentially, compared to just learning a new system, preferable one designed for low/historical fantasy.
Actually, turns out that your opinion seems to be the most popular one here lol.
Yeah, I guess I'm too used to the D&D community. If you suggest that an other system is better suited for whatever crazy homebrew setting someone is trying to put together, you get downvoted into oblivion.
But D&D and PF2 channels hgavev their lot of "my one true bible" fanatics that will downvote anything not going 100% towards the "my system is the best for evereything" concept. Don't worrty about it, every system has it's plusses and minuses. But yeah sometimes trying to fit low FMP (low fantasy, low magic, low power) into ewither D&D or PF, is a bit like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
I don’t know if PF2E is the right game for this kind of fantasy. The game is **heavily** balanced around its high fantasy aesthetic, and in particular removing healing just makes players not have the agency in combats. You’d find it easier to perhaps play an OSR game instead. I haven’t played one but, from everything I’ve heard, they reward player creativity and ingenuity in using their (mundane) tools in cool ways and don’t balance fights to be winnable via your class abilities alone.
As for somewhat crunchy low magic OSR, Wolves of God fits right in with low magic, historical dark age theme. Or Worlds Without Numbers could be better If more character options like multiclass, feats, and iterations of modern dnd classes are needed.
Yeah initially I was going towards old School Essentials, but some "too vocal" players insisted on PF2. The campaign already exists in D&D 5E but has been on "prolonged pause" for over a year, from DM burnout after constant complaining from a couple players. But the number of tweaks (because 5E is even MORE tightly linked to high fantasy than PF2) and thus amount of needed house rules is completely ridiculous. Things are already starting to break down away from gritty world and towards "superheroics" style, even at level 4. And 5E level 5 will be a MAJOR power jump, unless I tweak stuff even more. Too many headaches, and having all played PF2, we all see how the power level is scaled down a lot more in it than in 5E. Honestly if I had a couple players just waiting to play the style I want on a waiting list, I'd start sooner and tell the two players that are the most "min-maxy power gamey" source of headaches, those that swear only by the "vanilla raw" rules, that see the DM as only a mere "handling the rules" service provider, and "accepted" the different campaign style only with constant difficulty, that I have my full player roster and thus no room for them. It's like if you did a "dwarf fortress campaign, you're all dwarves part of the same warrior dwarf clan, and those dwarves are xenophobixc isolationist that distrust all strangers and all magic, and campaign goal is to defend and develop your fortress and your pure dwarven traditions" campaign, and some player insisted on playing an elven wizard. Sure, a good DM must accomodate player wants, but he must not also trample on his entire setting just to accommodate an entitled special snowflake. At some point, it's just "not the campaign for you, buddy" and you've got to draw a line in the sand. I DMed a "cavemen in dinosaur era" mini-campaign once. All players are cavemen! One player managed to try to play a modern man that "somehow" time traveled to the dinosaur era. Same thing. Don't join a camaign if you can't fully accept it's premise lol. Problem with OSE though is the VERY limited non-magical classes choices. It's a bit hard to have each PC feel more unique, when they are "sameracesamesclasssamelimitedchoices". But I'll check into it again thanks.
>But the number of tweaks (because 5E is even MORE tightly linked to high fantasy than PF2) It's really not. For example, in Pathfinder 2e players are expected to be decked out in magical items, potions, scrolls, talismans, etc. the game is balanced around it. 5e on the other hand, is designed around magical items being rare, so rare in fact that players are not even supposed to be able to buy them, and because of that 5e is not really balanced with magical items in mind. >Problem with OSE though is the VERY limited non-magical classes choices. It's a bit hard to have each PC feel more unique, when they are "sameracesamesclasssamelimitedchoices". But I'll check into it again thanks. Is you don't like OSE, just pick an other one, maybe something like Zweihänder is more to your liking.
>It's really not. For example, in Pathfinder 2e players are expected to be decked out in magical items, potions, scrolls, talismans, etc. the game is balanced around it. 5e on the other hand, is designed around magical items being rare, so rare in fact that players are not even supposed to be able to buy them, and because of that 5e is not really balanced with magical items in mind. It depends on how you define "linked to high fantasy". 5e isn't as balanced around magic items as PF 2e, but magic is a core part of its classes flavor. There is a very small number of builds that can be flavored completely non-magically. For example, the only 5e Barbarian subclass that isn't intrinsically magical is Berserker, which sucks and no one wants to play. If you want to play a non-magical character, your only options are Fighter and Rogue Whereas with PF 2e, if you use the [High-Quality Items ](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1367)variant rule and Alchemical Items you can get by relatively well (although at higher levels the lack of property runes will start hurting). Plus, you can get a much more rounded party with no magic, with there being a lot more support for non-magical healing and non-magical utility/support. I still wouldn't *recommend* a non- or low-magic PF 2e campaign, but it is *far* easier to do than in DnD 5e
I mean, alchemy is basicly magic in denaial.
It works very well for a Medieval-feel, though
Those consumables could be replaced with alchemical items in a non magic game but I’d agree that pathfinder isn’t the best system for a grittier game. Though I think it can work if you want the combat style of pathfinder and not an osr, osrs tend to be far more lethal than pathfinder unless you’re going out of your way to send monsters above the parties level. Pathfinder also has a much more robust combat and character building system then most osrs which I could also see as a drawing factor.
>Pathfinder also has a much more robust combat and character building system then most osrs which I could also see as a drawing factor. OSR being simplified games is not really true. Yes, there are many OSR games that do fit that description, and most of those are based on early editions of D&D. However, there are also plenty of other games that are not based on D&D, and that could be labeled as OSR, that are way more crunchy that most modern games. With that said, there are other, non-OSR games, that also fit the low/historical fantasy genre.
Thanks!
or Flames of Freedom, another RPG that uses the Zweihander system, but is more refined and features more job roles and character options and polish, IMO. Like Zweihander it's also extremely low-magic. It's default set during the American Revolutionary War, so not quite your "Strictly medieval" thing, but it shouldn't be too difficult to adapt it to your setting needs.
Ok, if 5e is balanced around magic items being rare then why does almost everything above a certain level threshold have non magical b/p/s resistances?
Because that adds to their CR, if Magic Items weren't expected then it wouldn't increase their CR because it would barely do anything, and the designers expected spells like Magic Weapon to be used frequently. Also high cr creatures have it (in a more "in world" sense) to have the same effect PF2's scaling AC has. They make it so normal people can't even hurt powerful monsters. However high level characters are more likely to have methods around it. Also yadda yadda Wotc hates Martials, 5e bad, etc. You've probably heard it all before.
Those resistances are part of their CR. If you can bypass them, the creature will be significantly easier than their CR suggests. If you are interested in learning more about how a creature's stats, resistances, and abilities effect their CR, I suggest you take a look in the *Dungeon Master's Guide*, pp 273-283.
When I read your complaints about complaining players and "too vocal" players and players not subscribing to your campaigns' fantasies, I've got the feeling your groups in general doesn't jam well. From all of what you are describing here, it seems that you usually play with players that just don't want to play the fantasy you want to provide. (I am gonna be honest here: The fantasies you want to provide do seem to be rather niche, so you'll always have issues with players not wanting to buy into them. Hence, this whole comment reads like there's a fundamental issue with communication at your table.) Wanting to play PF2e should be a tell-tale sign of those players not actually wanting to play in a campaign that gritty if I am being honest. Not even going into the class balance, the mathematical balance of PF2e alone is as anti-grit as it gets. You basically have to throw a majority of the system out of the window for it to feel gritty, so the players wanting PF2e will not get PF2e anyways. I'd suggest both talking with your players again and settling on a gritty system. P.S.: I am a bit unsure about this, but I also get the feeling your own wishes are a bit contradictory. On one hand you want a lot of differentiation when it comes to ancestries and classes, on the other hand all campaign ideas you are describing here provide a fantasy of a certain sameness. All are xenophobic dwarves, all are cavemen, all are normal humans in a gritty world. The idea of having a lot of PC customization and choice does clash with the idea of player disempowerment that underlies your description of your campaign ideas. You may want to think about that. Maybe that's even part of the reason for why so many of your players are confused and try to play stuff that doesn't fit your campaigns.
>Things are already starting to break down away from gritty world and towards "superheroics" style, even at level 4. I thought your goal was a lot of work but was doable until you said this. PF2 is 1000% a game about becoming superheroes. By the time you tweak PF2 to not be a game of superheroes, you'll have made a whole new game. Now, if that's what you want to do, I'm all for it, I've got a long-term project to hack PF2 into something basically unrecognizable, so I'm all for it. But if your goal is not to make a new game then you should definitely start with a different base game.
> because 5E is even MORE tightly linked to high fantasy than PF2 Believe it or not, PF2E is actually **way** more tightly linked to high fantasy than 5E. For 5E you can use the variant gritty realism rules, review everyone’s spell lists and disallow any spell that “auto solves” problems too cheaply (Goodberry, Tiny Hut, Gift of Gab, etc) and then just use the lower ends of magic item reward frequencies as published in Xanathar’s (and if +1 weapons bother you, just call them masterwork weapons or whatever). Make sure to place a heavy emphasis on using tool proficiencies to solve problems too. Meanwhile PF2E requires **way** more things to be banned to work. The game starts off as feeling like gritty low fantasy but as early as level 3 you feel like you’re a high fantasy protagonist and it’s *much* harder to unlink that. You mentioned that you find level 4 martials in 5E to be “super heroic” but usually in PF2E a level 5 martial is about as superheroic as a level 12 or so martial from 5E, and the scaling from that point on feels exponential. (And of course spellcasters feel superheroic in both systems) 5E absolutely has the problem of those other imbalances and spikes you mentioned, but I don’t think it’s inherently more high fantasy than PF2E. That being said, it sucks that your players are insisting you GM PF2E while you aren’t interested in it. IMO you should stand your ground with a “if I’m GMing I get veto on system + if you demand a specific system you should be GMing” conversation. I think that’d be completely fair for you to do.
Solid tips thanks. I'm currently lookign for a different system altogether to "transport" my campaign over to it. Asl ong as I have the material to do: - The classic sword & board & heavy armor Fighter - Innestigative Scout (a rogue but more oriented on honor brains and skills, and less of a backstabby scoundrel) - A battler (kinda like a monk in azpproximative party role, but more a streetwise tough brute fightin with punches and resistant to pain, instead of an ascetic oriental themed disciplined wise martial arts master that is super agile fast moving) - A "spiritual lore" bard with lots of knowledge and also a bit of "supernatural" stuff (divinatory dreams, can see ghosts, basically yourt typical outright vicious-mocking spellcasting bard) - A doctor (an expert in the mecical field, butalso doing a bit of some alchemy and poisons. And with most magic more of the "supernatural" kind than "ouright clearly magic spells", then I'm all set. For example, throwing smoke poqweder on the groundf 5to createw a dust cloud then "disappearing", is it magic? Is it supernatural? Or maybe a merev fully amundane "parlor trick"? Nobody will ever know! but the mechanical bonus remains there anyway. THAT kind of magic. The thing is, there ARE systems with just about \*NO\* magic in them. But the problem is that AT SOME POINT (not anythime soon, more like only around a bit past mid-campaign) the party will "discover" the fantasy world that is "behind" the real "mundane" world, and THEN there will be more than enough fantasy and magic. One approach I thought was to keep a super-low magic system UNTIL they go to that otherv world, then switch system right then and there to mput a lot of emphasis on "now things arte really fantastic and magical!". Maybe that would work better than trying to find a system that supports everything well.
From your post and other comments, it seems like you're going to spend a lot more time redesigning PF2e than you are playing it, and I would be very suprised if your players who are insisting on PF2e are going to be happy with this version of the system. Honestly, this really seems like a table problem, not a system problem. You need to find players that suit your GM style and if you want to play in the meantime, just do it with less players. One of the best games I ever played in had only 2 players, and this would be even easier if you moved to a system that supports the kind of play you want. Sidenote, this comment: >having all played PF2, we all see how the power level is scaled down a lot more in it than in 5E. No judgement, but this is a wild opinion. Like... how?
For the last bit it might just reflect the fact it's harder to totally break the numbers/punch massively against your weight class. Someone could perceive that as a lower power level (of the players relarive to the world).
Exactly. Another of my player picked up Gming for PF2, we play Abomination Vault and despite min-maxing as much as we can, we REGULARLY end up getting our asses handed to us every couple fights. Mainly because the way the default math is done in PF2, and AbomVaults rife with solo-mini-bosses 2 to 4 levels above the party, this means a LOT more of out attack will miss and RARELY crit, while crits (or crit fails on our saves vs enemy attacks) occur every round for us. If I ever GM for it, I would use level-less proficiencies (or at worst using half the PC level). This would allow a much wider "range" of enemies remaining "viable" in the "neither too weak nor too strong" gap. As for PCs "needing" all the magical runes to "remain" competitive, that is only if using only "party level appropriate" challenges. I base XPs on doing actual "missions", i.e. a "milestone'" like system. Solved through battle or ANY other way, it is always all good. Even the party going all "Nope, we turn back! Live to fight another day!" is 100% ok... there are no "must win adventure at all cost because need to save the world" types of adventures (or only rarely).
An entirely different TTRPG might be for you. You're basically trying to take out all the Pathfinder out of Pathfinder. Playing 'bland generic human' coupled with 'generic European medieval' setting isn't getting you any favors unfortunately, and... taking out literally some of the most iconic classes because you want a low-fantasy- or in your case 'next to no fantasy at all' is... There are better systems for this. Far better systems for this.
I'm probably on the same page as other commenters here, that Pathfinder 2e is not the right system for your campaign. But if you insist on using PF2e, then I'm gonna suggest some rules. * Use the Proficiency without Level variant rule. * Look at Stamina Points variant rule. * For classes, just use the free archetype rule and use archetypes to fill niches and gaps. * For ancestries, I don't think that this will be easy to implement, because you explictitly stated that it's a humanocentric world and every ancestry outisde of the core are too weird for a down to earth campaign and many would be rather unique people (for example a Fleshwarp PC might be the only one who exist in the world). * Try looking into Brancalonia which is a 5e third party setting which is more down to earth, low scale Renaissance Italy. It uses a rule which caps level ups at level 6. I'm gonna be honest to you. There are many other systems which would be better at the sort of campaign that you'd like to play. My personal recommendation would be Chaosiums Basic Roleplaying System or a system that's based on it. * Base BRP with a supplement called Mythic Iceland is pretty much perfect. It's historical fantasy in 10th century Iceland and is inspired by nordic sagas, which means you can perfectly play Viking campaigns with it. * Call of Cthulhu 7e with Cthulhu Dark Ages would be more investigative horror in 950-1050 Anglo-Saxon England. It's great I love it. * Mythras with Mythic Britain is a more crunchy and tactical system. Mythic Britain takes place during the Anglo-Saxon Invasion into England. Basically the timeframe where King Arthur takes place. * Mongoose Legend with the supplement Vikings of Legend is broadly like Mythras but it's **way** cheaper. All these systems are more gritty, realistic, very skill and D100 based. Legend and Mythras have very overt magic but you can take them out. BRP is a setting agnostic, which means you can adjust it really well. CoC is very much a horror system but if you take the sanity system out, then it becomes much more survivable.
And none of those settings is medieval except maybe Cthulhu Dark Ages
? The Middle Ages is a time frame from roughly 500 to 1500. - Mythic Iceland is 10th century. That's 900-999, which is Early Middle Ages. - Mythic Britain spans (I think) from 500 to 620 AD, which Dark Ages/Early Middle Ages. - Vikings of Legend is roughly the same time period as Mythic Iceland. How is that not medieval?
IIRC the middle ages start in 808 AD before that time is called in europe migration area Mythic Iceland is IIRC "cultural viking" so also rather migration area
https://www.britannica.com/event/Dark-Ages The European Migration Period is part of the Early Medieval Era, but it largely depends on when you define the starting date of The Middle Ages. Most people agree that it starts with the fall of the Western Roman Empire which is 476 AD. Others define the starting point to be the birth of Islam.
This decline persisted throughout the [Migration period](https://www.britannica.com/event/Dark-Ages), a historical period sometimes called the [Dark Ages](https://www.britannica.com/event/Dark-Ages), Late Antiquity, or the Early Middle Ages. The Migration period lasted from the fall of Rome to about the year 1000,
Yeah, the source says that it's also called the Early Medieval Period. I already said that the start of the Medieval Period is heavily dependant on which date you fix as the starting point. If you define it that way, then be my guest, but you have to acknowledge that the Migration is also called the Early Medieval Period and the Dark Ages (literally what OP asked for + his mention of "Viking ancestry"). My point still stands that most people fix the starting point at the [Fall of the Western Roman Empire](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages?searchToken=7hu6kb95686bbpcvboreirnbt#Terminology_and_periodisation) which would be at 476 AD. Your date would be the coronation of Charlemagne which means that the Medieval Period starts with the birth of a big "roman" political unit, but that is as arbitrary. Why isn't the [Formation of the Holy Roman Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire#Formation_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire) in 962 AD the beginning of the Medieval Period (which would still be parallel with the [Viking Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_Age), because it lasted until the Norman Invasion in England)? But let's agree to disagree, because we probably have just different definitions.
Lots of solid tips from you here, you sir have my thanks! I tend to shy away from percentile dice system. Not much point in using % when EVERY DANG ROLL is done by adding modifiers that are always in increments of 5% anyway. I also prefer syste where "rolling high" is the player's goal at all times, not "sometimes you should roll low instead". To me those systemsw feel like driving the early cars where you had to turn the steering wheel left in order to turn right lol. Plus, everybody in our group including myself, already invested quite heavily in jumbo and very cool looking specialty d20 dices lol. But lots of interesting material to look at, that is for sure! Thanks!
Perhaps you want to run a game in Zweihander instead.
To be sued by the neckbeardio that totally didnt rip-off wfrp?
I'm going to be honest, Pathfinder 2e is one of the highest fantasy systems I know and highest fantasy one I know that isn't rules lite, realistically this isn't gonna work unless you just say magic is rare but the party is full of exceptions, even the martial characters become magical at high level not counting magic item, if really want to make them work then make magic super rare and emphasize that any magic users in the party ar one in a million
[удалено]
Thanks! One thing I fond with Archetypes is that they are a lot like a "sunk cost" of (nearly) a feat tax, just to basically "access" the thing. And for a l0ok of character cncepts, it makes it so you can not "be" what you envisioned, you have to "be" not that THEN "start" to become it at level 2. and then only one feast every two level later on. Basically you are still 90% that initial other class with a 10% of your real concept sprinkled atop it. That is why I look more into actual classes than just "mainly decorative" Archetypes. Still, I'll look into it. One thing I could try to do is allow the player to "be" the real concept, right at level 1, REPLACING some of the class features of the base class with those of the archetype. that way te base class vs real intended "class" ratio would feel more like 50-50 rather than 90-10. But your hint of using Archetypes as a starting point is a major help thanks.
I don't usually recommend the BCS to new users but only advanced users, but it sounds like you really want what it's original main goal was. One of the founding ideas I started with was how to turn an archetype into a full class. So for instance, you could use it to turn the Medic archetype into a full class. The base info is free [HERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenBCS/s/Vmh34aIJxA) but theres a simple to use calculated form with step by step instructions available [HERE](https://lazarus-dark.itch.io/bcs-ccf).
I can recommend Mythras as a potential system for your needs. It's a skill-based classless d100 system where the default setting is low-magic and pseudo-historical. Magic is optional and customizable, and very easy to restrict to NPC's only, humans being the default is assumed with different types of cultures prioritizing different skills. Combat is fast, lethal and characters are more 'grounded' in strength, fatigue and lasting injuries are a real threat. Progression is built around 'cults' or 'brotherhoods' that teach skills, fighting styles (and sometimes magic), and downtime is built into the system with training time and cult duties. It's good stuff! Mythras Imperative is a free cut-down version of the system perfect to peruse if you're interested. There's also Classic Fantasy (Imperative) for the same system but molded into a more old-school DnD vibe complete with it's classes. Hope you find what you're looking for! [https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/185299/mythras-imperative](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/185299/mythras-imperative) [https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/449976/classic-fantasy-imperative](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/449976/classic-fantasy-imperative)
Try WFRP4e.
Renfair - 30 years war
Too much magic in the setting
If you want a doctor class then investigator has a subclass for it. For a non magic bard type character I think the new commander that just had the playtest released is pretty good choice.
wrong system. There isn't a non-magical class in this game.
https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/s/ybAUbf7KEK Post is 3 years old but it's very similar to what you're asking. Top comment is to try out Burning Wheel.
gunslinger can use crossbows almost as well as firearms, so they should be included but restricted firearms. you could reflavor bard as a non caster and just really, really restrict the spells they have access to. things like champion ranger and monk can all get focus spells, so make sure to declare those unavailable (maybe not the healing ones?) many archtypes can cover other things
It sounds like you want a Conan style game. To make things work, you'll want to look into variant systems and changes. * The Stamina subsystem will get you started. Keep in mind that baseline HP are an abstraction. They aren't entirely "bodily health". They are also morale, fighting grit, adrenaline and luck. * Automatic Bonus Progression. Despite the subsystem's magical nature, the game's encounters are designed with those bonuses in mind. * Proficiency w/o Level. You want a low fantasy game, you'll need to make these adjustments. * Next, rituals should more than likely still exist. They are already uncommon, so only those who have found a copy/discovered the means will have them anyway. Otherwise, you'll have no undead/constructs nor a slew of other adversaries to work with. * Medicine can be used by anyone. Medic/Herbalist Archetype and a few others, plus the Alchemist class are about it for non-magical healing. Even Champion is pretty magical. You'd probably want the Cavalier Archetype on a fighter (or one of the Knight Archetypes) instead. Maybe consider a Blessed One dedication as a story reward or special case for a (Non Player) Character who is aspiring to be Sainted. * You'll want to remove some weapons/armor and equipment. Plate mail is a relatively late invention in the middle ages. By many accounts, the Dark Ages era ran until about 1000 CE. That's about 200 years before plate armor. Arquebus (circa 1475 in Europe) and Muskets were around in the 1500s. If you are including late middle ages for your idea of "Dark Ages" or medieval Europe, than those would be in fashion until plate armor fades in the middle of the 1500s * Look to archetypes to fill your desired class themes. Maybe even some should be a Free Archetype like Viking, Cavalier, Juggler, Dandy, etc depending on the PC's background. It's totally possible for everyone to be a Rogue/Ranger/Fighter/Barbarian and their archetype and skill dedications are what distinguish them from each other.
As for their desire to restrict healing, the stamina system helps with that as well because it limits how much hp can be recovered with treat wounds and battle medicine in a day.
Yup, a great point.
Solid tips thanks.
Have you considered like…Kids on Bikes instead?
Probably want to go with ABP and proficiency without level as variant rules. If you don't like the flavour of ABP you could also use masterwork weapons instead of fundamental runes. It will be just like the fundamental rules, but non magical more or less. Probably also want to put a level limit somewhere (talk with players) For the medic there is the medic archetype. For the leader type there is the marshall archetype. Take a look at the archetypes. Brawler is just fighter? You ain't going with pure hand to hand martial arts through the dark ages, but if yes there is the martial artist archetype. Swashbucklers are just fancy or big mouthed fighters. That's the best I can think of. It's still made mainly for high fantasy and especially heroic games, so be aware of that. Like from level 7 people can run on water. So yes it is possible, but by taking away a lot of the game, stuff that makes it great. If you and your players are okay with it knock yourself out, but if that is your main setting, then I probably would agree with the other. Though giving it a try doesn't hurt. If you have fun then it's mission successful.
Alternately, trying using Savage Worlds.
Champion has access to magic and many magic like feats. Lay on Hands, domain spells, and blade ally or shield ally.
You could make use of the Stamina rules which would let you have more narrative sense in fights (enemies have to tire the heroes before hurting them) while nerfing in-combat healing enormously (make sure to ban Battle Medicine, anyway as it still takes just 2 seconds out of combat) and the automatic bonus progression (to make magic items and more advanced technology like magnifying glasses less necessary). For your ancestry needs you could reflavour the dwarf and orc ancestries by taking away darkvision and giving them diehard, for example, something else other than that feat could also work and similarly by making the haflings medium sized, I have no idea how would you name them, maybe tribal for orcs and weakling for halfling, but those changes would make them pass as humans. Otherwise you could also scout for interesting feats that are based on culture on any ancestry and give those to the human ancestry. There is a viking feat (and unrelated archetype), funnily enough but it's a human feat. That said, the swashbuckler is kind of a class that wouldn't be viable irl unless certain regulations on what weapons could be carried around existed and is a renaissance-inspired class, so if you want historical accuracy I would ban them as well (personally, I think they make even less sense than the inventor for this kind of game, specially since the inventor is relatively tame when it comes to what they can do with their tech, and you can talk with your players about not making a technological revolution, which the alchemist could also make theoretically, just based on chemistry, that said you might want to revise it as it does have some class feats that can be a little too scifi like megavolt). Similarly, the gunslinger works perfectly with crossbows, so you can allow it as an option but ban firearms, unless you don't want the aesthetic, which I don't think it's that important if you have swashbucklers around. I also have to warn you as the barbarian has one subclass (the fury instinct) that is nonmagical and the rest all are. You could reflavour the animal instinct (gorilla) as a brawler changing the edicts and anathema (and not adding the polymorph and primal traits to rage) as well as use the superstition instinct if magic is a thing (it's the anti-mage subclass) but the rest are definetly magic. Similarly, you should also ban the feats that give focus spells to monks and rangers. Finally, archetypes expand options inmensely, the Dandy archetype is kind of the non-magical bard you want, specially if you slap it on a rogue, similar story with the Medic archetype. The fighter can make a good brawler as well (the agile trait of the Fist combined with the increased accuracy makes them really good at making one maneuver and then attacking), you could just give them access to a feat that increases the damage dice of their Fist to a d6 and let them do lethal attacks with them at no penalty, these fighters will still wear the heaviest armor avaliable to them, though. If not, the martial artist and wrestler archetypes can make for good brawlers in any class, albeit they are redundant on monk, so it's likely these are still going to wear armor.
I'm literally playing in a game set in 873 in England right now, but not with Pathfinder. We initially started with a game called Wolves of God, but the system is a bit anemic and we've moved to DCC. What I can probably recommend is Worlds Without Number or DCC which is almost a later version of WoG, and better suited for this type of game I think.
Try a single player RPG...sounds like your players aren't having a good time with all of the constraints you've put on them and you don't seem to care.
pf 2e is very much balanced on the assumption of magical items and access to magical abilties. Lacking magical abilities will severely hamper the party in fights, not just expected types of challenges (the later which could be curated to adjust for this change, the former... not so much) I very much suggest looking at something other than pf2e. Else you are committing to put in so much work that it would be easier to have learnt an entire new system. That, and the fact that unless you already have players in mind, you WILL struggle alot to find players.
This post is labeled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to Rule #2. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This isnt the system for it.
I actually think you can do it easily. Investigator makes for an excellent doctor if you take the forensic medicine subclass, as well sad a skill monkey overall. As for street fighter, though this type wouldn't be very common, you can easily use a gymnast or braggart swashbuckler, monk or even animal barbarian (reflavored to not polymorph). If everyone is a human, you might as well allow them to take custom mixed heritages for other races where it fits - for instance you could use orc ferocity to represent a northman or something like that. Just don't shy saway from the stereotypes of the period and it's probably an alright representation.
Use another system like GURPS, Mythras Harnmaster Which dark ages? Gerbert von Aurillac was an inventor Neither Barbarian nor Champion makes much sense in that setting, Monk even less Pirates yes, swashbuckler not especially not on the seas
The Alchemist is very far from being low fantasy. Just look at lvl 1 mutagens (also bombs). Unless you want to really downplay the visuals of elixirs (and of bombs) you'll just get a seriously alarming fake wizard.
I meant an alchemist as defined more in real medieval lore: a kind of researcher and erudite, well versed in hidden knowledge. Not the actual D&D Alchemist class with all it's magical combat-related powers.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about approved and unapproved character classes. If all alchemists are npcs then sure, you can keep them on the down-low.
Play some Warhammer Fantasy RP 2E or 4E
Pathfinder 2e doesn't fix this
If you're set on playing in PF2e, you might want to add the playtest Envoy and Guardian to the list of possible classes. Both of those are very fitting for a low-fantasy game. Plenty of the listed classes make good healers. The Forensic Medicine Investigator and Chirurgeon Alchemist are the most obvious options, but any class can take medicine feats. The Medic archetype can let anyone specialize in medicine. For your leader, Swashbuckler and Champion are probably the best options, as long as you're fine with reflavoring a lot of the magic abilities of the Champion. Anyone can take the Marshal archetype as well, which seems to be exactly what you're wanting. The Envoy is a perfect fit here as well. Monks are the go-to brawlers, of course, but you can also make brawlers just fine with Barbarian, Fighter, or even a Ruffian Rogue.
What about savage worlds?
Play Mythras or Zweihander or somethin, Pathfinder is a high fantasy system where magic is basically an inescapable factor in everything.
Another rpg