I was inspired by this article.
[spoiler]http://rpgathenaeum.wordpress.com/2009/03/28/deconstructing-the-dd-game-the-tale-of-the-no-dandelion-eaters-campaign/[/spoiler]
I began thinking about fantasy that i loved that had no magic in it. I won't lie, this setting came directly from Redwall. I love those books. I feel no shame.
So I've been scratching my head for a setting for a long time, and I've been having this idea for a setting for a while. As i said before, I love Redwall, I love Mouse Guard, and I love Narnia, heck I also love Rango. So when I was talking to my friend about this, he said he'd love to play, so I'm like sweet! So i've been doodling out a map. Pretty basic. The land's name is Panorah, and up in the north lies a great coast that leads out into the great seas, and from there the rivers cut through the land. The natives (small talking animals such as Mice, Badgers and weasels) are currently being besieged by pirate hordes (other small talking animals) who easily took the northern coasts, and built a kingdom with a constantly shifting king because backstabbing is common practice. And in the southeast is a mighty mountain, and within it's base is a great kingdom, protected by a magnificent wall to keep out the wildli- I mean pirates. The Lord of of the mountain kingdom is an amazing king (yet to be named), and has kept the surrounding land free of hordes and barbarians, but peace is always a fleeting mistress.
The current King of Cope Castle the base of the Pirate hordes is currently ruled by a shrewd Possum (Yeah, I know...) named Captain Ergh, "Scourge of the Rivers". He sank three ships worth of fellow pirates who were under direct command of the last King, Lord Larg who was a spinely crotchety lizard. Then he pinned it on another Captain, who was nearly executed, but when Lord Larg raised his sword, Captain Ergh took his chance and tried to get him in the back. A battle ensued, but Lord Larg was overwhelmed because his forces were previously lost. It's not known what had happened to Lord Larg, They never found his body. However many pirates speculate (never openly in Cope Castle) that he escaped and is out awaiting his revenge. Captain Ergh, and his allies are certainly very paranoid. Even more paranoid than other Pirate kings....
Yeah, I'm not getting a Hugo award for this, but I still love this premise.
Basic Rules
Pathfinder and other 3.x stuff.
E6
No Magic
No Mystical Monsters
All creatures are animals.
So I don't want to burn myself out here, but do you think it would be wiser to re-skin the basic races into small talking animals or just build new races from scratch? I'm not concerned about size mathematics or anything. Since there are no humans, everything is from the animals perspective Medium becomes Gamely sized, and small becomes Pip sized, Etc. But i want a variety of animals in this setting, and I remember that someone once made Dwarves that evolved from badgers, and I love the badgers in the Redwall series so I don't want to tread on anyone's toes or anything.
There's actually a Mouse Guard RPG (http://www.mouseguard.net/books/role-playing-game/) out there although I have no idea how it plays or how easily it might be adapted to different settings.
If you'd rather do Pathfinder, I'd probably just build new races from scratch if it were me (especially because I find building new races fun). There are so many racial traits and alternatives out there that it'd be pretty easy to come up with some good ones. There are already Ratfolk (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-ratfolk). I bet it'd be relatively easy to whip up some others. Maybe like:
[spoiler=Weasel]Weasel
Ability Score Racial Traits: Weasels are cunning and slippery, but are often considered untrustworthy. They gain +2 Dexterity and +2 Wisdom but -2 Charisma.
Type: Weasels are animals with the mammal subtype.
Size: Weasels are Gamely [Medium] sized animals.
Speed: Weasels have a base speed of 30 ft.
Languages: Weasels begin play speaking Common and Weaseltongue (also the language of Badgers, Polecats, Stoats, and Ferrets).
Feat and Skill Racial Traits
Slippery: Weasels are adept at getting out of tight spots and gain +2 on Climb, Escape Artist, Stealth, and Swim checks.
Offense Racial Traits
Bite: All Weasels have a Bite attack, treated as a natural weapon that deals 1d4 damage.
Attach: Weasels can automatically latch onto their targets when it successfully makes a Bite attack. The Weasel is considered grappling (and thus can continue to deal Bite damage each round), but the target is not. The target can attack or grapple the Weasel as normal, or break the attach with a successful grapple or Escape Artist check. The Weasel has a +4 Combat Maneuver bonus to maintain the attach.
Senses Racial Traits
Low-Light Vision: As crepuscular animals Weasels have low-light vision allowing them to see twice as far as diurnal animals in conditions of low light.
Other Racial Traits
Compression: A Weasel can move through an area as small as one-quarter its space without squeezing or one-eighth its space when squeezing.[/spoiler]
Redwall were real favorites of mine as a kid, as well as the surprisingly adult Duncton Wood books ("mole fantasy") and Wind in the Willows... and Brambly Hedge (my god the visual world-building! Seriously, google image search Brambly Hedge...). I don't think there's anything inherently more juvenile about animal-based fantasy games than games about elves and stuff. Heck, a sort of Game of Thrones with woodland creatures sounds pretty badass.
EDIT: If you like I'd be happy to stat up some more of those, if you're not wild about fiddling with crunch. I'm not usually very enthused by crunchy bits myself but there are exceptions...
I think I'd vote that weasels and other middling-sized woodland animals be made Medium so that your badgers/foxes/etc. all become Large and the mice are the bottom of the scale at Small.
Also I'd remove the 'blood drain' ability (which has no basis in biology and is one of those old holdover chestnuts from early D&D) and replace it with that bizarre war dancing behavior that a lot of the weasel family perform in order to confuse and 'hypnotize' their prey.
Those minor race-design quibbles aside, I am 110% in favor of this idea - there's a lot of really great fiction that's been written about animal protagonists. Steerpike's already mentioned two of the classics, but Richard Adams' Watership Down is only the most well-known of a long string of single-species-focused novels (Hunters Moon for foxes, Frost Dancers for hares (both by Gerry Kilworth), A R Lloyd's Marshworld for weasels, Michael Tod's The Silver Tide for squirrels, etc.) that are also potentially inspiring.
And though it's slightly off-topic, the 'no magic' thing is not necessarily a requirement - Robin Jarvis wrote a number of dark fantasy novels about talking mice, bats, squirrels, etc back in the late 1990s that were quite excellent and surprisingly adult for children's books (rats skinning and eating mice, animated corn-effigies choking people to death).
I've taken your comments into account!
I can see the benefits and drawbacks of magical elements. If magic were included you could always to "nature" magic classes like Druid and Witch over Wizards and Clerics.
EDIT:
Quote from: HippopotamusDundeebizarre war dancing behavior that a lot of the weasel family perform in order to confuse and 'hypnotize' their prey.
This seems like it should be a Racial Feat that basically gives them the Bard's Fascinate ability.
Quote from: Steerpike
I've taken your comments into account!
I can see the benefits and drawbacks of magical elements. If magic were included you could always to "nature" magic classes like Druid and Witch over Wizards and Clerics.
EDIT:
Quote from: HippopotamusDundeebizarre war dancing behavior that a lot of the weasel family perform in order to confuse and 'hypnotize' their prey.
This seems like it should be a Racial Feat that basically gives them the Bard's Fascinate ability.
Honestly the Magic restriction is there because I want to see what a game without magic would be like. Plus less of a hassle to deal with mechanics wise (no offense).
I'm not against alchemy as long as it stay's with the realms of actual science.
I want to make a setting where teamwork is what get's stuff done. Not builds, not spells, and not special equipment. Oh special swords help, but if there's no cooperation the bad guys are gonna win. I notice that with regular dnd there's an attitude of "well if I mess up the Cleric can heal my butt, so here goes!"
Quote from: Steerpike
There's actually a Mouse Guard RPG (http://www.mouseguard.net/books/role-playing-game/) out there although I have no idea how it plays or how easily it might be adapted to different settings.
If you'd rather do Pathfinder, I'd probably just build new races from scratch if it were me (especially because I find building new races fun). There are so many racial traits and alternatives out there that it'd be pretty easy to come up with some good ones. There are already Ratfolk (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-ratfolk). I bet it'd be relatively easy to whip up some others. Maybe like:
[spoiler=Weasel]Weasel
Ability Score Racial Traits: Weasels are cunning and slippery, but are often considered untrustworthy. They gain +2 Dexterity and +2 Wisdom but -2 Charisma.
Type: Weasels are animals with the mammal subtype.
Size: Weasels are Medium sized animals.
Speed: Weasels have a base speed of 20 ft.
Languages: Weasels begin play speaking Common and Mustelid (also the language of Badgers, Polecats, Stoats, and Ferrets).
Feat and Skill Racial Traits
Slippery: Weasels are adept at getting out of tight spots and gain +2 on Climb, Escape Artist, Stealth, and Swim checks.
Offense Racial Traits
Bite: All Weasels have a Bite attack, treated as a natural weapon that deals 1d4 damage.
Grab: Weasels have the Grab ability and thus can start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity if they hit with their Bite attack on creatures of Medium size or smaller. They gain +4 to Combat Maneuver checks to start or maintain a grapple.
Blood Drain: A Weasel drains blood at the end of its turn if it grapples a foe, inflicting 1 Con damage.
Senses Racial Traits
Low-Light Vision: As crepuscular animals Weasels have low-light vision allowing them to see twice as far as diurnal animals in conditions of low light.
Other Racial Traits
Compression: A Weasel can move through an area as small as one-quarter its space without squeezing or one-eighth its space when squeezing.[/spoiler]
Thanks for the sampling! My friend wanted to play a weasel rogue so this is really cool! Thank you, Steerpike!
Quote
Redwall were real favorites of mine as a kid, as well as the surprisingly adult Duncton Wood books ("mole fantasy") and Wind in the Willows... and Brambly Hedge (my god the visual world-building! Seriously, google image search Brambly Hedge...). I don't think there's anything inherently more juvenile about animal-based fantasy games than games about elves and stuff....
And thank you for the eye happy that is Brambly Hedge. I take my philosophy on juvenile things from C.S. Lewis. You can't be an adult, till you put away your childish things, including the fear of enjoying childish things (paraphrasing)
Quote
EDIT: If you like I'd be happy to stat up some more of those, if you're not wild about fiddling with crunch. I'm not usually very enthused by crunchy bits myself but there are exceptions...
Eh, I can deal with crunch. It's about time I did some more of it anyway. But I appreciate the offer! Have there ever been any "Large" races that didn't need a Level adjustment?
Quote from: HippopotamusDundee
I think I'd vote that weasels and other middling-sized woodland animals be made Medium so that your badgers/foxes/etc. all become Large and the mice are the bottom of the scale at Small.
Also I'd remove the 'blood drain' ability (which has no basis in biology and is one of those old holdover chestnuts from early D&D) and replace it with that bizarre war dancing behavior that a lot of the weasel family perform in order to confuse and 'hypnotize' their prey.
Those minor race-design quibbles aside, I am 110% in favor of this idea - there's a lot of really great fiction that's been written about animal protagonists. Steerpike's already mentioned two of the classics, but Richard Adams' Watership Down is only the most well-known of a long string of single-species-focused novels (Hunters Moon for foxes, Frost Dancers for hares (both by Gerry Kilworth), A R Lloyd's Marshworld for weasels, Michael Tod's The Silver Tide for squirrels, etc.) that are also potentially inspiring.
And though it's slightly off-topic, the 'no magic' thing is not necessarily a requirement - Robin Jarvis wrote a number of dark fantasy novels about talking mice, bats, squirrels, etc back in the late 1990s that were quite excellent and surprisingly adult for children's books (rats skinning and eating mice, animated corn-effigies choking people to death).
Thank you for the input and recommendations! I watched the Watership Down movie when i was 18 years old and I was shaken up for a week and even had a hard time sleeping. I can't imagine what that would do to a little kid....
Speaking of which..
QuoteHeck, a sort of Game of Thrones with woodland creatures sounds pretty badass.
Funny thing is this was the first idea that came to my mind. The original incarnation of my idea was that a house of otters ruled over the rivers and acted as guardians because there ancestors slew an anaconda-esque snake that had been terrorizing villages around the great river's. Then somewhere else in the land lied a formidable house who were richer than all of the kingdoms in the land because they were rabbits and had access to underground mines that made them wealthy. They tried to take the land in a great war, but the Otters stood in there way. They tried to kill the whole house, but one survived, and is now leading a counter strike, and the players would be animals in his service trying to help bring the rabbits to justice. Yep that's right. Otter Starks vs. Bunny Lannisters. Somehow though "See me Hop" doesn't inspire the same fear as "Hear me Roar"....
Quote from: Love of AwesomeHave there ever been any "Large" races that didn't need a Level adjustment?
To my knowledge, no. That said, I don't think that means Large size should automatically confer an LA, so long as the stats weren't otherwise out of hand. Large comes with a bunch of penalties, and its chief advantages are basically larger weapons and reach.
Personally I'd interpret Medium very broadly. How I'd break it down would be something like:
Small: Mice, Rats, Shrews, Squirrels, Moles, Voles, Hedgehogs, Rabbits
Medium: Weasels, Foxes, Stoats, Ferrets, Skunks, Wolverines, Cats, Badgers, Raccoons
Large: Wolves, Black Bears, Deer, pretty much anything over 100 lbs
Quote from: Steerpike
Quote from: Love of AwesomeHave there ever been any "Large" races that didn't need a Level adjustment?
To my knowledge, no. That said, I don't think that means Large size should automatically confer an LA, so long as the stats weren't otherwise out of hand. Large comes with a bunch of penalties, and its chief advantages are basically larger weapons and reach.
Personally I'd interpret Medium very broadly. How I'd break it down would be something like:
Small: Mice, Rats, Shrews, Squirrels, Moles, Voles, Hedgehogs, Rabbits
Medium: Weasels, Foxes, Stoats, Ferrets, Skunks, Wolverines, Cats, Badgers, Raccoons
Large: Wolves, Black Bears, Deer, pretty much anything over 100 lbs
Treating Medium broadly is what i was thinking.
Are you going to include birds? Those could be trickier to figure out rules-wise, although according to the Creating New Races guidelines (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/creating-new-races)it's do-able.
EDIT: BTW for classes, keep in mind that the Ranger is viable even in a no-magic world so long as you go with the Trapper archetype, which replaces spells with traps. I think that would mean there are basically 4 character choices (Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue) if you stick to Base Classes.
Quote from: Steerpike
Are you going to include birds? Those could be trickier to figure out rules-wise, although according to the Creating New Races guidelines (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/creating-new-races)it's do-able.
EDIT: BTW for classes, keep in mind that the Ranger is viable even in a no-magic world so long as you go with the Trapper archetype, which replaces spells with traps. I think that would mean there are basically 4 character choices (Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue) if you stick to Base Classes.
I tried to make an owl race for my sister. She loves owls. But it's not off the table yet.
So far I've worked out Mice stats, and Frogs.
Mice
[spoiler]Mice
Physical Description: Mice are small rodent's and one of the most common people in Panorah. They tend to be very clever and agile creatures, and they are very swift.
Standard Racial Traits
• Ability Score Racial Traits: Mice gain -4 Str, +2 Dex, and +2 Int.
• Type: Mice are humanoids with the mammal subtype.
• Size: Mice are Small creatures and thus gain a +1 size bonus to their AC, a +1 size bonus on attack rolls, a -1 penalty to their CMB and CMD, and a +4 size bonus on Stealth checks.
• Speed: Mice have a base speed of 30 feet.
Movement Racial Traits
• Swift as Shadows: Mice reduce the penalty for using Stealth while moving at full speed by 5, and reduce the Stealth check penalty for sniping by 10.
• Fleet-Footed: Mice receive Run as a bonus feat and a +2 racial bonus on initiative checks.
Senses Racial Traits
• Darkvision: Mice can see in the dark up to 60 feet.
Other Racial Traits
• Prehensile Tail: Mice have a long, flexible tail that can be used to carry objects. They cannot wield weapons with their tails, but they can retrieve small, stowed objects carried on their persons as a swift action.[/spoiler]
Frogs
[spoiler]Frogs
Standard Racial Traits
• Ability Score Racial Traits: Frogs gain +2 Dex, -2 Con, and +2 Wis.
• Type: Frogs are humanoids.
• Size: Frogs are Small creatures and thus gain a +1 size bonus to their AC, a +1 size bonus on attack rolls, a -1 penalty to their CMB and CMD, and a +4 size bonus on Stealth checks.
• Speed: Frogs have a base speed of 30 feet.They also have a climb speed of 30 feet, which also grants them a +8 racial bonus on Climb checks.They also have a swim speed of 30 feet, which also grants them a +8 racial bonus on Swim checks.
• Languages: Frogs begin play speaking Common.
Movement Racial Traits
• Jumper: Frogs are always considered to have a running start when making Acrobatics checks to jump.
Offense Racial Traits
• Sticky Tongue: Frogs can make melee attacks with their long, sticky tongues. This is a secondary attack. A creature hit by this attack cannot move more than 10 feet away from the frog and takes a -2 penalty to AC as long as the tongue is attached (this penalty does not stack if multiple tongues are attached). The tongue can be removed by the target or an adjacent ally by making an opposed Strength check against the frog as a standard action or by dealing 2 points of damage to the tongue (AC 11, damage does not reduce the frog's hit points). A frog cannot move more than 10 feet away from a creature stuck to her tongue, but she can release her tongue from the target as a free action. A frog can only have one creature attached to her tongue at a time.
Other Racial Traits
• Amphibious: Frogs are amphibious and can breathe both air and water.[/spoiler]
Are these balanced?
I'd say they're pretty balanced compared to one another and existing Pathfinder races. The frog having both a Climb and a Swim speed is quite strong. I might reduce these alternate speeds to 20 ft. (much like the Grippli (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/uncommon-races/arg-grippli)) or make them Water Dependent (like Gillmen (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/uncommon-races/arg-gillmen)).
I'm not sure mice need -4 Strength. Halflings and Gnomes only have -2 and their various traits seem pretty much on par with a mouse's. In a game where casters are possible I'd say this is less of a problem, but with mostly warrior classes that penalty is going to hurt a lot. The great majority of ranged weapons still apply a Strength penalty, so a mouse player pretty much has to be a crossbow-wielder to be effective. The swordsmouse is a strong archetype in the genre (Martin, Reepicheep, Saxon), and I think the crunch here would really penalize players who wanted to play that kind of character.
Quote from: Steerpike
I'd say they're pretty balanced compared to one another and existing Pathfinder races. The frog having both a Climb and a Swim speed is quite strong. I might reduce these alternate speeds to 20 ft. (much like the Grippli (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/uncommon-races/arg-grippli)) or make them Water Dependent (like Gillmen (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/uncommon-races/arg-gillmen)).
Alternatively, limit frogs to a swim speed only and give the climb speed to their land-based cousins the frogs (the distinction is informal rather than taxonomic but is usually recreated in this genre).
Quote from: SteerpikeI'm not sure mice need -4 Strength. Halflings and Gnomes only have -2 and their various traits seem pretty much on par with a mouse's. In a game where casters are possible I'd say this is less of a problem, but with mostly warrior classes that penalty is going to hurt a lot. The great majority of ranged weapons still apply a Strength penalty, so a mouse player pretty much has to be a crossbow-wielder to be effective. The swordsmouse is a strong archetype in the genre (Martin, Reepicheep, Saxon), and I think the crunch here would really penalize players who wanted to play that kind of character.
I'm definitely in agreement with Steerpike here: -2 Strength is more than enough, and you can always give them a reversed equivalent of the 'Powerful Build' trait (count as Tiny for grapples, overruns, etc) if you think there's a need to push the 'weak' angle.
Okay I nerfed them. I gave frogs a +2 to climb checks instead of Climber, and gave mice -2 strength instead of 4.
Also Badgers
[spoiler]Badgers
Standard Racial Traits
• Ability Score Racial Traits: Badgers gain +2 Str, -2 Dex, and +2 Wis.
• Type: Badgers are humanoids.
• Size: Badgers are Medium creatures and thus receive no bonuses or penalties due to their size.
• Speed: Badgers have a base speed of 30 feet.
• Languages: Badgers begin play speaking Common.
Defense Racial Traits
• Stability: Badgers receive a +4 racial bonus to their CMD when resisting bull rush or trip attempts while standing on the ground.
• Hardy: Badgers have a +2 racial bonus on saving throws against poison, spells, and spell-like abilities.
Offense Racial Traits
• Natural Weapons: Badgers have a bite primary natural attack that deals 1d3 damage.
• Ferocity: If the hit points of a badger fall below 0 but she is not yet dead, she can continue to fight. If she does, she is staggered, and loses 1 hit point each round. She still dies when her hit points reach a negative amount equal to her Constitution score.[/spoiler]
I'm not gonna lie. this one probably has issues.
Quote from: HippopotamusDundeeAlternatively, limit frogs to a swim speed only and give the climb speed to their land-based cousins the frogs (the distinction is informal rather than taxonomic but is usually recreated in this genre).
You mean Toads for the drier/terrestrial ones, right?
Quote from: Love of AwesomeI'm not gonna lie. this one probably has issues.
Badgers don't seem too bad to me. Hardy is powerful, but only a bit better than something like Halfling's Luck, and since most Badgers are going to be weapon-users the Bite isn't a big deal (it seems to me that a ton of races are going to have natural weapons).
The only ability I think is a bit powerful is Ferocity. You might consider paring it down to the Half-Orc version: "Once per day, when a half-orc is brought below 0 hit points but not killed, he can fight on for 1 more round as if disabled. At the end of his next turn, unless brought to above 0 hit points, he immediately falls unconscious and begins dying." Orcs have full Ferocity, but it's somewhat balanced by their Light Sensitivity.
I also feel like they should have a (low) Burrow speed, but you might want to keep that special to moles (at the very least moles should have a
better Burrow speed).
>>Ferocity: If the hit points of a badger fall below 0 but she is not yet dead, she can continue to fight. If she does, she is staggered, and loses 1 hit point each round. She still dies when her hit points reach a negative amount equal to her Constitution score.
So no chance to stabilize when Ferocity is activated?
I had a feeling the badgers were going to need work. I'll keep at it.
Weasels
[spoiler]Weasels
Standard Racial Traits
• Ability Score Racial Traits: Weasels gain +2 Dex, +2 Wis, and -2 Cha.
• Type: Weasels are humanoids.
• Size: Weasels are Medium creatures and thus receive no bonuses or penalties due to their size.
• Speed: Weasels have a base speed of 30 feet.
• Languages: Weasels begin play speaking Common.
Feat and Skill Racial Traits
• Skill Bonus: Weasels have a +2 racial bonus on Escape Artist, Perception, and Sleight of Hand checks.
Movement Racial Traits
• Swift as Shadows: Weasels reduce the penalty for using Stealth while moving at full speed by 5, and reduce the Stealth check penalty for sniping by 10.
• Terrain Stride: Weasels can move through natural difficult terrain at their normal speed while in coniferous and deciduous forests. Magically altered terrain affects them normally.
Offense Racial Traits
• Natural Weapons: Weasels have a bite primary natural attack that deals 1d3 damage.[/spoiler]
I like the updated weasel. Personally I'd change Swift of Shadows to something different to avoid overlap with the mouse. What about Silent Hunter (reduce the penalty for using Stealth while moving by 5 and can make Stealth checks while running at a –20 penalty) for a variant of Swift of Shadows? This could just be me though.
Weasels are pretty excellent predators: their diet is pretty much rodents smaller than they are.
Also, nitpick, but since there's no magic there probably needn't be a mention of spells/spell-like abilities in the badger entry.
Yep I'll be removing spell resistance and adding disease resistance and a bonus to healing checks or something.
Also, are there source books (Pathfinder, or 3.x) that have giant tortioses or something?
The SRD has giant tortoises (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/animals/tortoise-giant); they originally appeared in Bestiary 4.
Quote from: Steerpike
The SRD has giant tortoises (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/animals/tortoise-giant); they originally appeared in Bestiary 4.
I meant much bigger. Not carrying a world on it's back, but gigantic. I'm thinking from the perspective of small animals. I had this idea of tortoises being used as war animals and siege weapons that carry soldiers and have big catapults on their backs.
Thank you though!
Quote from: Steerpike
Quote from: HippopotamusDundeeAlternatively, limit frogs to a swim speed only and give the climb speed to their land-based cousins the frogs (the distinction is informal rather than taxonomic but is usually recreated in this genre).
You mean Toads for the drier/terrestrial ones, right?
You caught me, that I did. Climb speed and some kind of racial ability for the whole poison-glands in the back thing.
Quote from: Love of Awesome
I'm not gonna lie. this one probably has issues.
I'd go for Constitution instead of Strength for the badger, personally - save Strength for the wolverine. And I'm doing to disagree with Steerpike - I like Ferocity as written because it very much captures the suicidally-driven beserking warrior angle that Brian Jacques had on them in Redwall what with the bloodwrath.
Quote from: Love of Awesome
Weasels
Weasel's solid, though I'd like to see a climb speed (ferrets can climb like nobodies business) and the Compression ability Steerpike suggested for their ability to squirm through narrow places added in.
Quote from: HippopotamusDundee
Quote from: Steerpike
Quote from: HippopotamusDundeeAlternatively, limit frogs to a swim speed only and give the climb speed to their land-based cousins the frogs (the distinction is informal rather than taxonomic but is usually recreated in this genre).
You mean Toads for the drier/terrestrial ones, right?
You caught me, that I did. Climb speed and some kind of racial ability for the whole poison-glands in the back thing.
Quote from: Love of Awesome
I'm not gonna lie. this one probably has issues.
I'd go for Constitution instead of Strength for the badger, personally - save Strength for the wolverine. And I'm doing to disagree with Steerpike - I like Ferocity as written because it very much captures the suicidally-driven beserking warrior angle that Brian Jacques had on them in Redwall what with the bloodwrath.
Quote from: Love of Awesome
Weasels
Weasel's solid, though I'd like to see a climb speed (ferrets can climb like nobodies business) and the Compression ability Steerpike suggested for their ability to squirm through narrow places added in.
I won't lie, I'm not going to make a race for every possible little animal. I had an idea for a wolverine villian, but i think he's going to be a special case.
I like the Ferocity ability flavour-wise... my only concern is balance. It's the kind of ability that's much more powerful at low levels since, effectively, it doubles a badger's 1st level hp (well, not exactly, but close). But it might not be a problem. Orcs have it and they're supposed to be OK for player races.
There are three options for absolutely huge turtles/tortoises - the Archelon (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/animals/megafauna/megafauna-archelon), the Dragon Turtle (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/dragons/dragon-turtle), and the Immense Tortoise (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/animals/tortoise-immense). The Dragon Turtle is probably the most problematic since it has a breath weapon. I'd say the Immense Tortoise is probably the way to go, maybe using the Archelon for slightly smaller ones.
I could see going either way on Str vs Con on the badger front.
I see moles as being wise as hell and having insane senses (Tremorsense, Scent, etc).
I'm not really sure that Pathfinder is at all the best system for a game like this, but you seem committed to using it, so, that said, my 2 cents about making it work in Pathfinder--
First of all, the no magic thing could get problematic in places, as a lot of what makes the system function is dependent on having magic. It's not quite as bad at low levels, as Fighters and such are still pretty viable, but there are still problems. For example, the system is pretty combat-oriented, but non-magical healing in Pathfinder is actually pretty terrible. The game really is designed around the expectation that every party will have some sort of healer, even if it's just a Rogue who has a Wand of CLW. The other issue is that a lot of the meaningful options to expand character power in Pathfinder are based around magic, like the expectation that everybody's going to be carrying a +1 or more weapon past a certain point, and most of the interesting special weapon properties are also inherently magical. Also a lot of nonmagical ranged attacks in Pathfinder are garbage, unless you sink a few feats into being a longbow master.
Personally, what I'd do to make the swordsmouse viable is give them all Weapon Finesse. Then they're fighting with their Dex bonus instead. If you're pushing the angle that they're not that strong, then they're going to be finesse fighters anyway. Moles could just get darkvision, which isn't completely accurate but probably workable using Pathfinder mechanics.
Quote from: sparkletwist
I'm not really sure that Pathfinder is at all the best system for a game like this, but you seem committed to using it, so, that said, my 2 cents about making it work in Pathfinder--
First of all, the no magic thing could get problematic in places, as a lot of what makes the system function is dependent on having magic. It's not quite as bad at low levels, as Fighters and such are still pretty viable, but there are still problems. For example, the system is pretty combat-oriented, but non-magical healing in Pathfinder is actually pretty terrible. The game really is designed around the expectation that every party will have some sort of healer, even if it's just a Rogue who has a Wand of CLW. The other issue is that a lot of the meaningful options to expand character power in Pathfinder are based around magic, like the expectation that everybody's going to be carrying a +1 or more weapon past a certain point, and most of the interesting special weapon properties are also inherently magical. Also a lot of nonmagical ranged attacks in Pathfinder are garbage, unless you sink a few feats into being a longbow master.
Personally, what I'd do to make the swordsmouse viable is give them all Weapon Finesse. Then they're fighting with their Dex bonus instead. If you're pushing the angle that they're not that strong, then they're going to be finesse fighters anyway. Moles could just get darkvision, which isn't completely accurate but probably workable using Pathfinder mechanics.
I'm designing this around the E6 system, so high levels won't be an issue. The healing thing though is a good point. I was thinking about a "war medic" class, with some combat ability, but specializes in medicine. The weapon finesse thing is a good point. I'll think about it.
Ninja'd by LoA... ah well I'll post anyway.
Quote from: sparkletwistFirst of all, the no magic thing could get problematic in places, as a lot of what makes the system function is dependent on having magic. It's not quite as bad at low levels, as Fighters and such are still pretty viable, but there are still problems. For example, the system is pretty combat-oriented, but non-magical healing in Pathfinder is actually pretty terrible. The game really is designed around the expectation that every party will have some sort of healer, even if it's just a Rogue who has a Wand of CLW. The other issue is that a lot of the meaningful options to expand character power in Pathfinder are based around magic, like the expectation that everybody's going to be carrying a +1 or more weapon past a certain point, and most of the interesting special weapon properties are also inherently magical. Also a lot of nonmagical ranged attacks in Pathfinder are garbage, unless you sink a few feats into being a longbow master.
These are very good points against removing magic from Pathfinder. However, (as LoA points out) since this is E6, the expansion of character power isn't as big a deal, especially since everyone is on an equal playing field. Since there are no casters, the "linear fighter vs quadratic wizard" issue is moot, and since monsters are basically versions of animals, things like DR won't be much of an issue. Overall the Fighter is probably a bit more disadvantaged than the other classes, since they tend to be the most reliant on equipment, but with such a low cap I don't think it'd be too crippling.
The healing thing is a much bigger issue, IMO. There are a few ways of mitigating it: Wounds and Vigor (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/variants/woundsAndVigor.html) are one option, as is simply increasing how many HP a day's rest grants (it could be your Con modifier, or even your Con; or you could rule characters heal 1 HP/hour, or something). All of those methods have flaws - healing in combat becomes basically impossible.
Quote from: sparkletwistPersonally, what I'd do to make the swordsmouse viable is give them all Weapon Finesse.
Weapon Finesse as a racial bonus feat is a good idea for mice, although Weapon Finesse only affects attack bonuses, not damage, so I'd still keep the Strength penalty at -2.
EDIT: Was checking out the Heal (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/heal)skill in Pathfinder... it's actually not
too bad. The "Long-Term Care" and "Treat Deadly Wounds" abilities at least allow for relatively swift non-magical healing. If you have a Healer with a decent Wisdom bonus and a healer's kit you could probably restore most of a low-level character's HP in a day.
Fits rather well with Redwall, actually, where infirmary scenes were quite common.
Oooohhh.... I likey the diehard feat. I might just replace that for the ferocity ability on badgers...
Diehard is awesome, but it has Endurance as a prerequisite. Giving out a bonus feat that "skips" a prerequisite is a bit powerful, in my opinion.
Yes, I know it's E6, but there's still a pretty big difference between level 1 and level 6. At level 6, the expectation is that you can cast see invisibility, glitterdust or some other anti-invisibility debuff. At least a couple party members can cast fly or have items or SLAs that duplicate it, so you can take on flying monsters. You can cast greater magic weapon if you need to, and could've cast regular old magic weapon since level 1. Spells are also a really good way of dealing esoteric damage types. Various obnoxious and dangerous monster abilities aren't a huge problem because you have access to cure disease, lesser restoration, and the like. Of course, it's not that the monsters will have most of their own dangerous powers, because they won't have magic either, but poison suddenly becomes a lot more dangerous in a world where delay poison and/or neutralize poison don't exist; this may be create interesting challenges on some level, but you should also be aware the system is balanced around different expectations.
Without this expansion of magically granted abilities, the main difference between level 1 and level 6 is probably that monsters are just bigger sacks of hit points without interesting resistances or special attacks, and that's honestly kind of boring.
I think that the CRs for things like poison and disease would go up quite considerably, yeah. Generally CRs would become more untrustworthy.
"No magical monsters" does tend to make monsters much more homogenous - not necessarily boring, but it's harder to make them interesting. You need solid GMing and more emphasis on things like terrain and interesting layouts to compensate for the dearth of spell-like abilities and stuff. Like, an encounter with a giant snake is pretty dull on its own, but an encounter with a giant snake in a warren full of tunnels that slope up and down, prone to caves in and collapses - that could be engaging. In a sense it might be a good exercise for a GM.
It's my impression that "monster-fighting" isn't really central to the setting, though? Based on the world described, most of the conflict would be between PCs and NPCs with class levels... is that right LoA?
Quote from: Steerpike
I think that the CRs for things like poison and disease would go up quite considerably, yeah. Generally CRs would become more untrustworthy.
"No magical monsters" does tend to make monsters much more homogenous - not necessarily boring, but it's harder to make them interesting. You need solid GMing and more emphasis on things like terrain and interesting layouts to compensate for the dearth of spell-like abilities and stuff. Like, an encounter with a giant snake is pretty dull on its own, but an encounter with a giant snake in a warren full of tunnels that slope up and down, prone to caves in and collapses - that could be engaging. In a sense it might be a good exercise for a GM.
It's my impression that "monster-fighting" isn't really central to the setting, though? Based on the world described, most of the conflict would be between PCs and NPCs with class levels... is that right LoA?
You know this is really good food for thought. And yeah I definitely had more thoughts towards heroes vs. villians than outright monster hunting.
Quote from: SteerpikeLike, an encounter with a giant snake is pretty dull on its own, but an encounter with a giant snake in a warren full of tunnels that slope up and down, prone to caves in and collapses - that could be engaging. In a sense it might be a good exercise for a GM.
The thing is, this challenge is the kind of thing that could be introduced at
any level. The tactical challenges here are more based on the players' skill and creativity rather than anything on the character sheet-- which is fine, but it is something that would complement a growth of abilities by level, not really serve as a replacement.
Quote from: SteerpikeIt's my impression that "monster-fighting" isn't really central to the setting, though?
Fair enough, but then I stand by my opinion that Pathfinder may not be the best system choice.
That's true, sparkletwist. Most of the level-dependent aspects of monsters would be in terms of HP, saving throws, etc, not special abilities.
I think Pathfinder would work... OK. Adequately. I can see the advantages and disadvantages. The race/class system seems like a good fit for this kind of setting, and you want a lot of detailed choices for things like arms and armour, I think, which some systems don't provide. I agree it's pushing the envelope of what the system is designed for, though. Ideally to simulate the sort of thing that goes on in Redwall and its ilk you'd want a medium-to-heavy crunch ruleset with fairly refined combat mechanics that doesn't assume magic but does have rules for different races. Mass combat rules and rules for domain management would also be a plus. I know there have been a couple of Game of Thrones roleplaying games done (including a d20 version) that might be quite well-suited, actually. I can see why the Mouse Guard people used Burning Wheel.
Alright I'll give. What do you guys recommend system wise? My experience is with 3rd edition, so....
My sisters boyfriend plays Pathfinder, and he told me how the vigor system works. I also told him about this idea for a class based around the cure wounds spell, and treating it as a special class ability for a healing warrior.
Or I could just cave and make some kind of "magic". Maybe some kind of alchemist variant?
Honestly, for my 2cp, despite my description above, I would still probably stick with Pathfinder, personally - it's familiar, free, and fairly versatile. There will be some rough bits, but I think they can be worked around.
I was also thinking Iron Heroes could work decently, if you can get a copy and wanted to stay d20. It's a d20 variant that specifically doesn't use magic. Not a perfect system, but I used it to run my old Cadaverous Earth campaign, with bits borrowed from 3.5. It assumes human-only, but since it's d20 you can add them in seamlessly.
Allowing the alchemist is a good idea, I think. It tends to fit with the lore of stuff like Redwall (poisoners, healers). If you want a healer-focused Alchemist I'd recommend the Chirurgeon Archetype (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist/archetypes/paizo---alchemist-archetypes/chirurgeon). Before 6th level they gain both a cure specialization and pain-killers. Alchemists can brew healing potions. Even at 6th level they only have access to 2nd level Extracts so they can't do anything too crazy. And if you wanted to avoid the wilder magical effects you could prune the Formulae list to remove stuff like Reduce and Enlarge. You could also tweak cosmetic descriptions of formulae to make them seem more mundane.
Picking a system in a vacuum, I think that you should pick a system that handles what you want to emphasize in the game. In my opinion, Pathfinder is geared towards dungeon crawling, monster fighting, zero-to-hero tales, and emulating tropes of high fantasy... and not I'm not sure if that's really what this game is going to be about. On the other hand, the system doesn't provide much support for social intrigue or giving character traits very much mechanical weight. It also has clear system biases for some character concepts being better than others, which can hinder creativity at times and potentially lead to frustration.
My own recommendation, to nobody's great surprise here, would be Fate. It doesn't do so well at zero-to-hero tales and generally leans towards a lot less mechanically rich magic, but on the upside it has stronger social mechanics and lets players' roleplayed traits actually gain mechanical relevance. Different races of animals could be emulated pretty readily with properly chosen aspects and stunts.
That said, while I still contend that Pathfinder may not be the best choice, I should also point out that I'm not saying I think it would be bad, either, if it's the system you all enjoy and are familiar with-- if having to learn a new system would rain on your fun, then don't rain on your own fun.
As for Iron Heroes, though, as I can tell, then you're learning a new system and dealing with the wonky flaws of a d20 system anyway, so I don't really see the gain there. That and the tokens are really fiddly and weird.
Yeah, the Iron Heroes tokens are supper fiddly and annoying. Would make more sense in a miniature skirmish game.
I'm also with Sparkletwist on this one (no surprise). But I can't emphasize enough how important it is to understand what you want and what your players want. I love FATE and Sparkle's Asura (ASURA?) systems, but I've also played Pathfinder for as long as it's been out and enjoyed it as well (it's a love-hate relationship most of the time). There are, of course, other systems out there, but I would ask yourself what you and your players want out of the setting, and be fairly specific. Have you looked into the Star Wars Edge of the Empire system? It's pretty well-tailored to Star Wars, but with a bit of creativity you could fit it to any system. I haven't actually given it the going-over I've been meaning to, but it sort of blends Pathfinder crunchiness with some slightly more FATE impromptu, "rules-light" creativity, especially with combat. I'm not sure if it's free or not online, but maybe it'll be up your alley. Just another option!
This might be a bit of a tangent, but how granular are FATE weapons? Is there an equipment list I'm missing? The most I've found is this (http://fate-srd.com/fate-core/more-examples-extras#weapon-and-armor-ratings) (and this (http://fate-srd.com/fate-system-toolkit/weapons-and-armor-alternatives#armor-and-weapon-aspects)) which basically splits weapons into four groups and gives the option to tie them to aspects. Unless I'm reading things incorrectly, this means (for example) that a mace and a longsword are mechanically identical so far as the RAW are concerned.
I can see that approach working for plenty of games, but I dunno, there's something dissatisfying about it to me when it comes to medieval combat. Maybe I've got a grognard streak and/or I'm just a bit of a cranky simulationist about some things, but I really like it when each weapon is unique - where a shortbow and a light crossbow are differentiated carefully with things like range, critical range, and reloading times, or where a ranseur, a bill, a guisarme, a halberd, and a spear all have slightly different special abilities.
Just a thought, I dunno. We probably don't want to turn the thread into a "Pathfinder vs. Fate" debate.
Quote from: SteerpikeUnless I'm reading things incorrectly, this means (for example) that a mace and a longsword are mechanically identical so far as the RAW are concerned.
You've read it correctly. As you've observed, this is fine for a lot of games but might not be fine for a grognardy medieval combat game. That said, it seems like it'd be perfectly fine for small talking animal fantasy, at least the way I'm envisioning it.
Good point; it's sort of a matter of tone, in a sense.
Okay, so... I think I've made enough races so far. I'm going to focus on classes.
I still sort of like the idea of a fighter who heals as well with medicine. But I'm also not against the idea of alchemy. I was thinking of an Alchemist variant that also acts as a vast wealth of knowledge. Sort of like a Meister from GoT, or a medieval scholar... or something?
Maybe some kind of customized version of the Bard, or a version of the Loremaster tweaked to be a core class?
Fighter Level Base Attack Bonus Fort Save Ref Save Will Save Special
1st +1 +2 +0 +0 Bonus feat
2nd +2 +3 +0 +0 Bonus feat, bravery +1
3rd +3 +3 +1 +1 Armor training
4th +4 +4 +1 +1 Bonus feat
5th +5 +4 +1 +1 Weapon training
6th +6/+1 +5 +2 +2 Bonus feat, bravery +2
So this is the Pathfinder fighting class. I was thinking of an archetype like this.
The
Fighter Level Base Attack Bonus Fort Save Ref Save Will Save Special
1st +1 +2 +0 +0 Grand Medicine, Vow of the Physician
2nd +2 +3 +0 +0 Bonus feat, bravery +1
3rd +3 +3 +1 +1 Extraordinary Medicine
4th +4 +4 +1 +1 Bonus feat
5th +5 +4 +1 +1 Weapon training
6th +6/+1 +5 +2 +2 Lengendary Medicine, bravery +2
Grand Medicine: works like Cure Light Wounds, 1/day
Extraordinary Medicine: Cure Moderate Wounds, 1/day Light wounds 2/day
Legendary Medicine: Cure Serious Wounds 1/day Mod. Wounds 1/day Light wounds 3/day
Vow of the Physician (name pending): Basically a Hypocratic Oath.
Also Diplomacy, and Healing, Skills replace Intimidate, and Profession.
this is probably extremely broken. The wisdom of my Elders is welcome.
Okay so I've just had a change of heart on the fantasy elements. I think that magic could be an interesting element. However I still want to try something a bit different than usual Wizard/sorcerer. I also like the idea of incorporating fantasy monsters into the setting. However I'm tired right now so I'll think it through tomorrow.
In case you're wondering, yes I did just come back from seeing The Hobbit 3... And wow I really........ Don't know what to say....
Though probably not ideal for you, there are racial traits for the Hengeyokai (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/3rd-party-races/rite-publishing/hengeyokai) of the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) that cover: badger, cat, dog, hare, monkey, rat and racoon dog. Also included are henge based archetypes for barbarian (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/archetypes/rite-publishing---barbarian-archetypes/henge-emishi) and ranger (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/ranger/archetypes/rite-publishing---ranger-archetypes/henge-matagi), as well as a mushakemono (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/3rd-party-races/rite-publishing/hengeyokai/mushakemono) (trickster class), though this one has some arcane talents which doesn't fit your "no magic" theme.
Similarly there are Kaidan supplements for Kappa (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/3rd-party-races/rite-publishing/kappa) and Tengu (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/3rd-party-races/rite-publishing/tengu), which could be adjusted for turtles and crows/birds. Regarding kappa, check out the Bone Breaker (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-prestige-classes/rite-publishing/bone-breaker) racial paragon class, which is based off kappa folklore for their renowned wrestling and bone-breaking abilities - for an interesting martial class with a unique combat style, as well as the Tengu Hishoken (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/3rd-party-races/rite-publishing/tengu/hishoken) for fighting from treetops, and limited glide/flight abilities.