Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft Houserules


Homebrew and House Rules

2,201 to 2,250 of 3,973 << first < prev | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | next > last >>

Arrius wrote:


[Restraint] Minor counts as: [Winded]: Acts like [Fatigued]. Does not escalate to [Exhausted].
[Affliction] Serious counts as: [Nauseated].
[Affliction] Moderate counts as: [Tired]: As Staggered, with bodily function failure rather than actual loss of dexterity.
[Mental]: Minor counts as [Fascinated].
[Mental]: Moderate counts as [Trauma]
[Trauma]: 50% chance to fail an action

Let's see... dazed, fascinated, nauseated, confused, and pinned are all pretty well equivalent, in a sense. They take you out of the fight, but don't leave you totally helpless. I would peg them all as [serious] conditions.

Entangled = move at half speed; that's pretty minor, and I'd leave it there.

50% to fail at an action sounds like a good one, like the 1e fumble spell. I really like that for the moderate [mental] condition.

I'd rather leave fatigued and exhausted as wound-related conditions that relate to hp rather than attribute loss, and likewise not have any more "it's just like this other thing, but not really" than we need, so I'm not sold on "winded" and "tired."

---

Good point re: guarded attributes, etc. If this is implemented, those would have to be looked at carefully.

One thing I like about this is that, potentially, I can see the wizard blasting the enemy with a cone of enfeeblement or something, slowing down or stopping enemy movement, and then the fighter runs in with Crippling Strikes and renders them helpless. The rogue can then mop them up with improved sneak attacks.


Arrius wrote:
For example, [Charm Person] seems to push towards skill uses instead of the spell itself, as the condition [Charmed] does not translate into obedience, but simply taking a penalty to opposed Charisma to convince.

I sort of view that as a feature, rather than a bug. This way, magic and skills are mutually interdependent, instead of one simply trumping the other.


Kirth wrote:
I'd rather leave fatigued and exhausted as wound-related conditions that relate to hp rather than attribute loss, and likewise not have any more "it's just like this other thing, but not really" than we need, so I'm not sold on "winded" and "tired."

I agree; there are simply not enough conditions to spread around.

Perhaps these suggestions may prove useful.

Str [Restraint] - Entangled/Checked/Grappled/Pinned/Helpless
Con [Affliction] - Sickened/Fragile/Nauseated/Dead/Destroyed

[Restrained] Moderate Condition as: [Checked]
[Checked]: Enemy cannot move. Takes no penalties on AC/attack.

[Affliction] Moderate condition as: [Fragile]
This represents internal damage: Broken bones/scarred muscle/punctured organs, etc.
[Fragile]: Takes 1 point of bleed damage when hit. Does not stack.
[Alternative Fragile]: Takes -1 DR.


I think these are on the right track.

"Fragile" has definite potential.

I like "checked," and would like to see it worked in; then again, it overlaps a lot with "grappled," which in turn isn't exactly in the same league as "dazed" --and is more or less on a par with staggered and so on, so I'd like to keep it as a moderate, rather than serious, condition. Likewise, "helpless" isn't really a permanent thing, which is the whole point of attribute drain.

For a minor [mental] condition, I'm sort of leaning towards befuddled: A befuddled creature loses some of its ability to rationally position itself. If you are within reach, it uses one immediate action per round providing you with an aid another bonus in melee (i.e., flanking). If you are not within reach, it spends one immediate action per round deciding where to stand.

(I'm cribbing this from the unwitting ally spell in the APG).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stop changing stuff!!!!!!

I kid. :-)


None of this rambling is official changes or anything -- just "what I wish I would have thought of earlier."


Perhaps not a change...yet.

Methinks it would only be a patch if we reach the point where we agree the changes are balanced, inspiring, polished, and easy to implement.


No one would find a later release of Kirthfinder - Director's Cut or maybe Kirth Gersen's Last Bow. :)


Arrius wrote:
Methinks it would only be a patch if we reach the point where we agree the changes are balanced, inspiring, polished, and easy to implement.

On that note, I'll try my hand at an Eldritch Blast wording.

Eldritch Blast:
Eldritch Blast [Reserve]
Reserve Spell:
1st level evocation.
Benefit: You can unleash a blast of eldritch power as a standard action. The eldritch blast is a ray (ranged touch attack) with close range (25 ft. + 5 ft. per two ranks in Concentration you possess), has no saving throw, allows spell resistance, and deals 1d6 damage per level of the highest-level reserve spell you have available. The type of damage is determined by your sorcerer bloodline, or if you do not have one, it matches the damage type(s) of the highest-level reserve spell you have available.

Alternatively, since we're dropping word count anyways:

Eldritch Spell:
Eldritch Spell [Reserve]
You can use a minor version of a spell at-will.
Prerequisite: Chosen spell not from a barred school.
Reserve Spell: 1st level (any)
Benefit: Choose a spell from the same sub-school as the reserve spell. The chosen spell must have an effect that scales to your ranks in Concentration, not counting range. You can use that spell at-will as a spell-like ability, but all effects that normally scale to your ranks in Concentration (except range) instead scale to the highest-level reserve spell you have available.
Special: In the case of spells cascaded together, each spell in the cascade must have an effect that scales to your ranks in Concentration, again, not counting range.
You can gain this feat multiple times. Each time, choose a different spell.

Any worries about Eldritch Spell? It would potentially subsume even more reserve feats, but I get the feeling there's at least one loophole/exploit.


I would prefer Eldritch Blast over Eldritch Spell.

The areas important to us are the Metamagic aspect, the Scaling aspect, and the Original Design aspect.

The Metamagic aspect (so we may modify Eldritch Blast for various users) is centered around the Innate Metamagic feat (or an alternative feat). It could change around the blast itself with metamagic feats without resorting to making it a simple at-will spell.

The Scaling aspect revolves around keeping the damage as appropriate for the intended level. This lets the ability scale well even if it is a level 1 dip (level-wise), or keeps the feat usable if it is just purchased with a feat slot. Regarding this, we made no changes.

The Original Design aspect is being kept in mind with your modification, Tahlreth. Eldritch Blast has improved from what it used to be, and is consistent and useful.

The target with Eldritch/Mystic Blast is to accurately preserve Eldritch Blast as an ability, but keep it open and standardized. I can safely say that we made some progress towards that goal.

I am more concerned with Status, however.

Kirth wrote:
I like "checked," and would like to see it worked in; then again, it overlaps a lot with "grappled," which in turn isn't exactly in the same league as "dazed" --and is more or less on a par with staggered and so on, so I'd like to keep it as a moderate, rather than serious, condition. Likewise, "helpless" isn't really a permanent thing, which is the whole point of attribute drain.

Grappled, though weaker than [Dazed], does its job of restricting movement but not action, which is the opposite of [Nauseated]. Besides, [Grappled] inflicts attribute and attack penalties.

[Entangled] also inflicts attribute penalties, so perhaps you are right to remove the penalty on attack and Dex (along with disrupting spellcasting). We could shift that to [Checked], and rename it [Suppressed].

Good idea regarding [Befuddled]. Very apropos.

Str [Restraint] - Entangled/Suppressed/Grappled/Pinned/Helpless

[Entangled] : Halves speed.
[Suppressed] : Lowers speed to 0, -1 to attack rolls, -2 to Dex checks.
[Grappled] : Lowers speed to 0, -2 to attack rolls, -4 Dex checks, disrupts spellcasting. Perhaps they could be considered [Flanked] as well.

Attribute drain keeps the target [Helpless] forever (or until healed). The status itself may not be as cool as [Petrified], but when it comes to duration, it serves its purpose.


Regarding Favored Class bonuses, I have a few observations.

Ever since the latest release of Kirthfinder, there have been changes from Quarry. Rangers (as do races like Elves and Dwarves) have the option to use a point from favored class into getting a Favored Enemy bonus.

In the older edition of Kirthfinder, the bonus to attack and damage were static, scaling as +3 for the Quarry ability, and +1 per every Favored Class bonus to the favored enemies specified (which used to be a specialization bonus, but is now insight).

However, since the newest release, Kirthfinder's Quarry has changed, counting 1/2 ranger level as bonus to attack, ranger level to damage.

I have kept the bonus as counting the points in Favored Class as your ranger level to adjudicate the bonuses.

In the same topic, I have had the idea of allowing access to a scaling version of favored terrain, instead of having to take a static version with a feat or talent. One may use a point of Favored Class bonus to apply a +1 bonus to a Favored Terrain. The bonus cannot exceed 1 + Class level (rounded up).

Any thoughts?


Arrius wrote:
The bonus cannot exceed 1 + Class level (rounded up).

Favored terrain bonus cap is spelled out clearly in the Ranger document and elsewhere as 2 + half your character level; it's unclear to me why you're throwing that out and inventing a new one -- can you explain your logic here?


Arrius wrote:
I have kept the bonus as counting the points in Favored Class as your ranger level to adjudicate the bonuses.

Sorry; your meaning isn't clear to me here.


Kirth wrote:
Favored terrain bonus cap is spelled out clearly in the Ranger document and elsewhere as 2 + half your character level; it's unclear to me why you're throwing that out and inventing a new one -- can you explain your logic here?

The intention is to keep it in line with Favored Enemy, as it is my reference point.

Ranger Document wrote:
Favored Enemy: You gain a +1 favored enemy bonus (as the ranger lore of the same name) against one category of favored enemies, or improve any existing favored enemy bonus by an additional +1, to a maximum bonus equal to +1 plus half your class level (rounded up).
Kirth wrote:
I have kept the bonus as counting the points in Favored Class as your ranger level to adjudicate the bonuses.

If a Ranger puts 3 Favored Class points into favored enemy, they gain a bonus to attack of +1, damage +2, as if they had Quarry as a level 2 ranger.

6 Points = +3 attack, +6 damage, etc.
As the previous rules had an upper cap of adding Favored Enemy Bonuses (1 + half class level), but with a static bonus that no longer exists in the original description of Quarry/Favored Enemy Ranger Lore.


Hey Kirth if a player wanted to recreate the Soulbow and already was planning on taking the soulknife bloodline what would you recommend?


When it comes to Manifested Spell, would the spell act as a ranged attack for all means? Standard to activate/no spellcraft(or spell slot)/threatens a critical for x2 (like most touch spells)/and works normally in dead-magic zones?

Should it not have a prerequisite: Can only be applied to spells imbued into items?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The 'no spellcraft (or spell slot)' would make me worried. I'd need that part spelled out.

For working normally in dead-magic zones, I'd have Manifested Spells follow the same guidelines spelled out in the last paragraph of the Soulknife bloodline's Mind Blade ability, if anything.

For your prerequisite idea 'Can only be applied to spells imbued into items,' that would depend on how they're imbued:

  • If it's imbued as a command word activated effect, I think that would go against the idea of using Manifested Spell as a means to replicate Bigby's Clenched Fist, Mordenkainen's Sword, and Spiritual Weapon.
  • If it's imbued as a use-activated effect (like how the Frost weapon property is a use-activated Ray of Frost effect), it shouldn't be allowed because the -1 spell level adjustment would count as a discount from a disadvantage you wouldn't suffer from. Kirth went over that with me earlier in this thread (posts 1719, 1720, 1779, and 1780).
  • If it's imbued as a use-activated effect to make a magic item that's essentially a permanent spell (like the Searing Light example in the Equipment chapter), that would make for interesting magic items. But restricting Manifested Spell to that purpose I think (again) would go against being able to replicate Bigby's Clenched Fist, Mordenkainen's Sword, and Spiritual Weapon.


Tahlreth wrote:
The 'no spellcraft (or spell slot)' would make me worried. I'd need that part spelled out.

Forgive me. I wrote this while under the mindset of using Manifested Spell to make spell-imbued items (namely guns). I had not considered the original intent of the feat (namely to replicate Clenched Fist, etc). Without this spelled out, guns will be (for all intents and purposes) simply renamed wands (charged/using spellcraft/ranged touch/no increments, susceptible to disruption/antimagic fields, etc.).


Ah, I see where you're getting at. Those might fit best in a synergy entry of some sort for crafting a Wand of Bullet. Hard to say for sure right now.

For a Wand of Bullet, I agree on 'using spellcraft' and 'susceptible to disruption.' I'd leave in charged because guns use ammo, but some tweaking would be called for because of ammo magazines. Ranged touch.... I'm iffy on. Taking out the ranged touch would make guns less unfair and make them more in line with d20 Modern guns, but leaving them as ranged touch would match up with Pathfinder guns (and I don't remember armor helping much during musketeer days).

As for 'no increments,' Kirth said his dilemma with standardizing range increments and spell range categories was tactical movement. How to handle races that have a base movement speed of 20ft./30ft./40ft.? If we do something like having tactical movement count as close range, that would potentially take care of the range increment problem of Wands of Bullet.

If we have tactical movement count as close range, we'd have to give characters a -2/+2/+4 as appropriate for their race, the general feat Fleet would be changed to having the character's tactical movement scale to half their ranks in Athletics (on top of their racial modifier of -2/+2/+4), and running would change the range category from close to medium.

Any other ramifications, I don't have the foresight for.


Tahlreth wrote:
As for 'no increments,' Kirth said his dilemma with standardizing range increments and spell range categories was tactical movement. How to handle races that have a base movement speed of 20ft./30ft./40ft.? If we do something like having tactical movement count as close range, that would potentially take care of the range increment problem of Wands of Bullet.

A creature with a base speed of 30 ft. can already force a -2 penalty on short-ranged weaponry with one round of movement in the base game. I don't see why there is an issue here--especially with Kirthfinder's theme of 'Combat can be over before it even begins', when you factor how short combat is.


Arrius wrote:
I had not considered the original intent of the feat (namely to replicate Clenched Fist, etc).

Yep -- that's all I'd meant it for.


As a follow-up, over the weekend I filled in the blanks on condition tracks being tied to attribute penalty/damege/drain (and nonlethal damage forming a similar track for fartigued/exhausted/unconscious/comatose).

I then rewrote the spells accordingly, including almost all the Enchantment spells in the core rulebook.

So, it can be done, but I dislike the final result. I don't want you to have to take a penalty to Con in order to be sickened; I'd rather the conditions could be applied independently of the status of one's attributes (bookkeeping is also a concern).

I still want death spells to deal Con damage and petrification to result from Dex drain, but the minor and moderate (and many severe) conditions should be available without affecting attributes, IMHO.


Talonhawke wrote:
Hey Kirth if a player wanted to recreate the Soulbow and already was planning on taking the soulknife bloodline what would you recommend?

I'll need to read up on the Soulbow before I can reply; just wanted to let you know I'd seen the post.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Hey Kirth if a player wanted to recreate the Soulbow and already was planning on taking the soulknife bloodline what would you recommend?
I'll need to read up on the Soulbow before I can reply; just wanted to let you know I'd seen the post.

Thanks


Kirth Gersen wrote:
As a follow-up, over the weekend I filled in the blanks on condition tracks being tied to attribute penalty/damage/drain (and nonlethal damage forming a similar track for fartigued/exhausted/unconscious/comatose).

I suspect there is also the fear line, though it may not be tied to an attribute.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I then rewrote the spells accordingly, including almost all the Enchantment spells in the core rulebook.

So, it can be done, but I dislike the final result. I don't want you to have to take a penalty to Con in order to be sickened; I'd rather the conditions could be applied independently of the status of one's attributes (bookkeeping is also a concern).

This can possibly undermine the system. If Sickening Strike was Sickening Strike because it dealt constitution damage, it becomes a must-have, as any con damage reduces HP/Fort saves/inflicts status, etc. If descriptors could be just attached, they must be carefully weighed so that they do not undermine existing abilities and spells.

This is why I was concerned with what [Charmed] did (among other descriptors). It was just an abstract naming mechanic that did nothing by itself, but just stood in for any charisma damage, regardless of how much the damage was.

But to be helpful--I have a suggestion.
I seem to have forgotten to add input, so I wanted to throw this along:

Cha [Mind-Affecting] - Mind-Fogged/Charmed/Fascinated/Dominated/Enthralled

[Mind-Fogged]: Target gains -2 to all wisdom-based abilities/saves.
[Charmed]: If one is charmed, they take a -2 penalty to any opposed Charisma-based check, and are considered one step more helpful.
[Fascinated]: The target takes no actions except to observe the target of fascination. -4 to all wisdom-based abilities/saves.
[Dominated]: If one is dominated, they take a -5 penalty to all opposed Charisma-based checks, and are considered two steps more helpful.

With this, descriptors still yet have meaning, and a standardized (and modified) table could help flesh out the rest of this optional mechanic.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
I still want death spells to deal Con damage and petrification to result from Dex drain, but the minor and moderate (and many severe) conditions should be available without affecting attributes, IMHO.

I agree; but how do we do it? The system cannot bear two design concepts (one with status arising from damaged attributes, and one with status arising from exceptional or difficult to arbitrate cases.)


Kirth Gersen wrote:
I still want death spells to deal Con damage and petrification to result from Dex drain, but the minor and moderate (and many severe) conditions should be available without affecting attributes, IMHO.

Maybe the minor, moderate, and severe conditions could be tracked like nonlethal damage is, but with attributes instead of hp?


Arrius wrote:
This can possibly undermine the system. If Sickening Strike was Sickening Strike because it dealt constitution damage, it becomes a must-have, as any con damage reduces HP/Fort saves/inflicts status, etc.

Technically, Sickening Strike would impose a temporary Con penalty, rather than Con damage, so hp would not be reduced. However, Fort saves would still be impacted and conditions would still apply (sickened if penalized to below 10, enervated if below half, nauseated if reduced to 1).

And, yeah, having a penalty to Fort saves -- and far greater susceptibility to Con damage from a death spell, for example -- on top of the condition seems like overkill.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Arrius wrote:
This can possibly undermine the system. If Sickening Strike was Sickening Strike because it dealt constitution damage, it becomes a must-have, as any con damage reduces HP/Fort saves/inflicts status, etc.

Technically, Sickening Strike would impose a temporary Con penalty, rather than Con damage, so hp would not be reduced. However, Fort saves would still be impacted and conditions would still apply (sickened if penalized to below 10, enervated if below half, nauseated if reduced to 1).

And, yeah, having a penalty to Fort saves -- and far greater susceptibility to Con damage from a death spell, for example -- on top of the condition seems like overkill.

We could possibly restrict the con penalty, and not allow it to stack, so that abilities like Staggering Strike, etc. I would prefer to not have strikes that deal attribute penalties whatsoever, and have them inflict the condition outright. Perhaps spells and various abilities previously described as 'Debilitating' are the only ones that deal out penalties/damage.

If penalties from the same source (or type) do not stack (as in Sickening Strike's BAB +16 1d6 Con drain, etc), this will go a long way in preserving the current design philosophy.

The question probably is this: Should attribute penalties in the new system do everything they used to do in the old system?


Arrius wrote:
We could possibly restrict the con penalty, and not allow it to stack

Penalties to the same attribute don't stack, so no problem there -- although damage and drain are cumulative (i.e., they do stack, with themselves, with each other, and with penalties).

Arrius wrote:
I would prefer to not have strikes that deal attribute penalties whatsoever, and have them inflict the condition outright. Perhaps spells and various abilities previously described as 'Debilitating' are the only ones that deal out penalties/damage.

Interesting. My own preference is to have both spells and strikes work the same way -- either penalties leading to conditions, or just conditions.

Arrius wrote:
The question probably is this: Should attribute penalties in the new system do everything they used to do in the old system?

Every -2 in penalties give a -1 on associated d20 rolls. Attribute damage/drain, on the other hand, outright reduce the attribute score.


Under the new system, Sickening Strike would look something like this:

SICKENING STRIKE [STRIKE]
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: As a standard action, make a single attack. A creature damaged by this attack takes a temporary penalty to Constitution equal to 1d6 + half your base attack bonus; this penalty lasts for 1 round per point of your base attack bonus. A successful Fortitude save halves the penalty.
If the penalty reduces the target's effective Constitution to 9 or below, the target is sickened until the penalty is removed.

  • If your base attack bonus is +6 or higher and the penalty reduces the creature's effective Con to less than half normal, the creature is enervated (1d4 temporary negative levels) rather than sickened.
  • If your base attack bonus is +11 or higher and the penalty reduces the creature's effective Con to 1, the target is nauseated rather than sickened or enervated.
  • If your base attack bonus is +16 or higher, the target is automatically sickened for 1 minute, even if no other effects occur.

    Contrast with something like this:

    DEADLY STROKE [STRIKE]
    Prerequisite: BAB +6.
    Benefit: As a standard action, make a single attack. If successful, the attack deals 1d4 points of Constitution damage in addition to its normal effects. A successful Fortitude save reduces the damage by half.

  • If your base attack bonus is +11 or higher, the attack deals either 2d4 Constitution damage or 1d4 Constitution drain (your choice).
  • If your base attack bonus is +16 or higher, the attack deals either 3d4 Constitution damage or 2d4 Constitution drain (your choice).
    Special: If the victim's constitution is reduced to below 10, below half, or below 2, additional conditions may also apply, as described in Chapter 1.


  • Kirth Gersen wrote:

    Under the new system, Sickening Strike would look something like this:

    SICKENING STRIKE [STRIKE]
    Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.
    Benefit: As a standard action, make a single attack. A creature damaged by this attack takes a temporary penalty to Constitution equal to 1d6 + half your base attack bonus; this penalty lasts for 1 round per point of your base attack bonus. A successful Fortitude save halves the penalty.
    If the penalty reduces the target's effective Constitution to 9 or below, the target is sickened until the penalty is removed.

  • If your base attack bonus is +6 or higher and the penalty reduces the creature's effective Con to less than half normal, the creature is enervated (1d4 temporary negative levels) rather than sickened.
  • If your base attack bonus is +11 or higher and the penalty reduces the creature's effective Con to 1, the target is nauseated rather than sickened or enervated.
  • If your base attack bonus is +16 or higher, the target is automatically sickened for 1 minute, even if no other effects occur.

    Contrast with something like this:

    DEADLY STROKE [STRIKE]
    Prerequisite: BAB +6.
    Benefit: As a standard action, make a single attack. If successful, the attack deals 1d4 points of Constitution damage in addition to its normal effects. A successful Fortitude save reduces the damage by half.

  • If your base attack bonus is +11 or higher, the attack deals either 2d4 Constitution damage or 1d4 Constitution drain (your choice).
  • If your base attack bonus is +16 or higher, the attack deals either 3d4 Constitution damage or 2d4 Constitution drain (your choice).
    Special: If the victim's constitution is reduced to below 10, below half, or below 2, additional conditions may also apply, as described in Chapter 1.
  • We did not yet escape your original concern.

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    And, yeah, having a penalty to Fort saves -- and far greater susceptibility to Con damage from a death spell, for example -- on top of the condition seems like overkill.


    Arrius wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Under the new system, Sickening Strike would look something like this:
    ... We did not yet escape your original concern.

    Hence the conditional "would," rather than "will" or "should."


    I do not see the need for enervation. It seems much stronger than any condition as of yet. (5 HP loss/-1 to everything/dies when below HD).

    As of yet, however, I have no suggestion to improve this, Kirth. I apologize.


    Tahlreth wrote:

    Eldritch Blast [Reserve]

    Reserve Spell: 1st level evocation.
    Benefit: You can unleash a blast of eldritch power as a standard action. The eldritch blast is a ray (ranged touch attack) with close range (25 ft. + 5 ft. per two ranks in Concentration you possess), has no saving throw, allows spell resistance, and deals 1d6 damage per level of the highest-level reserve spell you have available. The type of damage is determined by your sorcerer bloodline, or if you do not have one, it matches the damage type(s) of the highest-level reserve spell you have available.

    I like it. This does not set a prerequisite for Arcane spells, I observed.

    I dare think that Channel Energy (as well as the various domain [Reserve] feats) could be considered a divine version of the same Mystic Blast ability (though modified with Mass Spell, Reduced scaling, and limited to times per day as the feat [Supernatural Ability].

    If done, this frees up Versatile Channeling to be modified further when it comes to types of energy channeled, and it makes KF even more standardized.


    Arrius wrote:

    I like it. This does not set a prerequisite for Arcane spells, I observed.

    I dare think that Channel Energy (as well as the various domain [Reserve] feats) could be considered a divine version of the same Mystic Blast ability (though modified with Mass Spell, Reduced scaling, and limited to times per day as the feat [Supernatural Ability].
    If done, this frees up Versatile Channeling to be modified further when it comes to types of energy channeled, and it makes KF even more standardized.

    Being able to roll Channel Energy and Eldritch Blast (and however many other reserve effects) into fewer reserve feats was the intention with Eldritch Spell, but I admit simply tweaking Mystic Blast would have fewer unintended side-effects.

    That said, here's how the feat looks now:

    Mystic Blast:
    Mystic Blast [Reserve]
    Reserve Spell:
    1st level evocation.
    Benefit: You can unleash a blast of eldritch power as a standard action. The eldritch blast is a ray (ranged touch attack) with close range (25 ft. + 5 ft. per two ranks in Concentration you possess), has no saving throw, allows spell resistance, and deals 1d6 damage per level of the highest-level reserve spell you have available. The type of damage matches the damage type(s) of the highest-level reserve spell you have available.
    Synergy:Sorcerers who gain this as a bonus feat have a fixed damage type determined by their bloodline. Clerics who gain this as a bonus feat must choose to have the damage type be determined by either their alignment (positive energy for [good], negative energy for [evil], either one for [neutral]) or by one of their domains. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed. Clerics gain this feat pre-modified (as if it was as pre-modified spell) with Reach Spell (close to touch), Shape Spell (ray to burst), Widen Spell (20 ft. radius to 30 ft. radius), Selective Spell (self only), and Supernatural Ability (spell-like ability to supernatural ability; uses/day reduced to 3 + Cha modifier), but must use their holy symbol as a material focus.

    I'd like to have Mystic Blast include a [Special] section giving the option to pick it up pre-modified (and being able to pick it up multiple times). And it'd probably be the best spot to squeeze in Versatile Channeling. Unfortunately, the best I can think of for a limit on all the metamagic is "the net effective spell level adjustment must be zero."


    Here is a the closest thing to it already pathfinderized kirth


    Tahlreth wrote:

    Mystic Blast [Reserve]

    Reserve Spell: 1st level evocation.
    Benefit: You can unleash a blast of eldritch power as a standard action. The eldritch blast is a ray (ranged touch attack) with close range (25 ft. + 5 ft. per two ranks in Concentration you possess), has no saving throw, allows spell resistance, and deals 1d6 damage per level of the highest-level reserve spell you have available. The type of damage matches the damage type(s) of the highest-level reserve spell you have available.
    Synergy:Sorcerers who gain this as a bonus feat have a fixed damage type determined by their bloodline. Clerics who gain this as a bonus feat must choose to have the damage type be determined by either their alignment (positive energy for [good], negative energy for [evil], either one for [neutral]) or by one of their domains. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed. Clerics gain this feat pre-modified (as if it was as pre-modified spell) with Reach Spell (close to touch), Shape Spell (ray to burst), Widen Spell (20 ft. radius to 30 ft. radius), Selective Spell (self only), and Supernatural Ability (spell-like ability to supernatural ability; uses/day reduced to 3 + Cha modifier), but must use their holy symbol as a material focus.

    This seems a little...wordy. Perhaps the Pre-modified [Positive] Mystic Blast can be detailed in the entry [Channel Energy] in the clerical document. This will, however, do against our initial intent of keeping it as a [Reserve] ability and standardizing things.

    Perhaps, then, there should be a feat that does the premodifing.


    Talonhawke wrote:
    Here is a the closest thing to it already pathfinderized kirth

    If you'd allow me, Talonhawke, Kirth. I may have a fair suggestion.

    Soulbolt (Soulblade comparable).
    Bard Variant, loses Performance/College/Inspiration.
    Keeps Gift of Tongues/Lore-Skill Focus/Tradition Keeper.
    Well-Versed applies to Psionic abilities.
    3/4 BAB; 3/4 Caster (Psionic as Arcane Magic)
    Good Ref/Will/Int.

    Standard Class Features:

    Bonus Feats: As standard KF standards.
    Form Mind Bolt: Modified Mystic Blast (Range/Damage increases)
    Shape Mind Bolt: Can change type of damage of Mystic Blast as full-round action (within limitations).
    Launch Mind Bolt: As Sorcerer's Iterative Blast.
    Blade Skills: Additional modifications to Mystic Blast (Bull Rush/Check; Shape Spell (Burst); Ray Extension; etc.)
    Enhanced Mind Bolt: Enhancement bonuses to the Mind Bolt.

    With a little tweaking, this could be standardized and written up.


    Re: Channel Energy
    I'd thought a long time ago about making Channel Energy follow the [reserve] rules; the reason I refrained was because that would make it a spell-like ability that would provoke attacks of opportunity when used. To get around that, though, we could add Innate Metamagic (Supernatural Ability), at the expense of jacking up its effective spell level.

    Re: Eldritch Blasts
    Anyway, I like where you guys are going with these. It also occurred to me this morning that for sorcerers, having the eldritch blast be a 1st level SLA at the start gives a damage cap of 5d6, but then adding a +1 level ability for the improved blast brings it to 2nd (damage cap 10d6 for a single target), in line with the metamagic rules in Chapter 7.

    Re: Enervation
    Arrius, I agree enervation is pretty strong, even if it's only 1d4 and lasting only 1 round/level. I'll try and think of potential alternatives.

    Re: Spells
    I've been playing with spells and metamagic a lot lately, trying to reproduce spells from various sources and consolidate/standardize the metemagic effects. For example, the system actually works better if you merge Drift Spell and Repeat Spell into Concentration Spell, and merge Lingering Spell into Extend Spell. Ultimately I hope to produce an expanded grimoire of spells that people who are interested can use in lieu of the current system. It would be totally optional (not an "official" change to the rules, whatever that means in terms of house rules that are totally optional to begin with).

    Re: Soulbow
    Work server won't let me look at that, so it'll have to be at home. However, I expect to have no internet service for the next week or 10 days, so it might be a while before I can really sink my teeth into this. Apologies for the delay, although it seems like you're getting pretty good support for the idea without me!


    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    Re: Channel Energy

    I'd thought a long time ago about making Channel Energy follow the [reserve] rules; the reason I refrained was because that would make it a spell-like ability that would provoke attacks of opportunity when used. To get around that, though, we could add Innate Metamagic (Supernatural Ability), at the expense of jacking up its effective spell level.

    I suggested in the previous post a specific entry in the Clerical document, the Channel Energy entry, could modify Mystic Blast by changing damage type, shape, and reach to replicate the original healing ability. It could, instead, be a simple Mass, Shaped (Burst), Widened Mystic Blast, with a restriction of having to need obedience and presenting a holy symbol.

    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    Re: Eldritch Blasts

    Anyway, I like where you guys are going with these. It also occurred to me this morning that for sorcerers, having the eldritch blast be a 1st level SLA at the start gives a damage cap of 5d6, but then adding a +1 level ability for the improved blast brings it to 2nd (damage cap 10d6 for a single target), in line with the metamagic rules in Chapter 7.

    If it is a reserve ability, how could it go above 9d6?

    Unless a fiendish player somehow takes a peek on Feat Mastery and decides to apply it to the [Reserve] ability.
    "My sorcerer has 6d6 Eldritch Blast b/c of feat mastery!"

    #DM_Sympathy.
    #Outmaneuvered_by_your_players.

    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    Re: Enervation

    Arrius, I agree enervation is pretty strong, even if it's only 1d4 and lasting only 1 round/level. I'll try and think of potential alternatives.

    [Withered] condition: Attribute counts as half when calculating bonuses derived from the score.

    Perhaps this could help? Acts as temporary drain.

    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    Re: Spells

    I've been playing with spells and metamagic a lot lately, trying to reproduce spells from various sources and consolidate/standardize the metemagic effects. For example, the system actually works better if you merge Drift Spell and Repeat Spell into Concentration Spell, and merge Lingering Spell into Extend Spell. Ultimately I hope to produce an expanded grimoire of spells that people who are interested can use in lieu of the current system. It would be totally optional (not an "official" change to the rules, whatever that means in terms of house rules that are totally optional to begin with).

    Regarding that...I have allowed previously for concentration effects to move as a Concentration action. This allowed for illusionists to carry their good spells with them and reuse them. I had not thought of combining them together.

    I have also worried about Concentration spells taking standard actions (mostly, without Effortless Trickery, which I allowed for anyone with Spell Focus (Illusion)).

    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    Re: Soulbow

    Work server won't let me look at that, so it'll have to be at home. However, I expect to have no internet service for the next week or 10 days, so it might be a while before I can really sink my teeth into this. Apologies for the delay, although it seems like you're getting pretty good support for the idea without me!

    I just remembered that the Soulknife already exists in the Sorcerer document. Changing the Mind Blade to a Mind Blast is now a non-issue. I rescind my earlier entry.


    Arrius wrote:
    If it is a reserve ability, how could it go above 9d6?

    Sorcerer class feature. "At 19th level, your eldritch blast always deals 10d6 damage, regardless of the level of spell you have remaining." We'd do the same thing for the cleric.

    Arrius wrote:
    I have also worried about Concentration spells taking standard actions

    What I did was vary the cost: +2 levels to maintain concentration as a standard action, +3 as a move action, +4 as a swift action. In any event, a combat-specific Concentration spell ends at the end of the encounter, so that people aren't walking around all day with swift-action attacks on call.


    Soulbolt

    Might work to get by the work filter.


    Rescinding my earlier suggestion. [Withered] as a condition halves damage and healing output, and halves skill bonuses on all abilities.

    Since we are addressing the Status and [Reserve] aspects of KF. What else have we covered only partially?


    Rifles / two-handed Wands of Bullet


    Tahlreth wrote:
    Rifles / two-handed Wands of Bullet

    I counted rifles to be normal wands with longer range, and shotguns to be dual-wielded wands of Bullet.

    With Mechanized Spell, Bullet becomes a level 1 spell that targets AC. The wand becomes cheaper and easier to access.


    Regarding the Shadow Plane favored terrain bonus (+4) Shadowboxing ability. The ability to gain +1 to attack against enemies in dim light/darkness when also in dim light/darkness seems to provoke the same criticism concerning the [Dazzled] condition; too minor to bother tracking.

    I have made Shadowboxing replicate Ultimate Combat's Moonlight Stalker: +2 attack and damage against enemies when attacking from concealment.
    This seems to be what Shadow-based fighting is about (See Shadow Veil/Umbral Shroud [Reserve] feats).


    I have noticed something of a discrepancy in the KF rules. It seems quite intentional, and I wish to address it.

    Flurry of Blows is an advanced Fighter Talent, available to take at level 11 fighter. It allows the use of a the [Two-Weapon Fighting] feat with any weapon used, following the same strength bonus to damage, limitation of attacks, and application of Strike feats with a full attack action. One could also use this ability to substitute [Disarm], [Sunder] or [Trip] maneuvers during the Flurry of Blows.

    Unfortunately, there is also a free synergetic element for the feat [Two-Weapon Fighting] Monks at level 1. To standardize and make the Monk more unique, I introduce a new Sutra, and remove the synergetic element from Two-Weapon Fighting.
    New Sutra:
    Flurry of Blows: You gain [Two-Weapon Fighting] as a bonus feat.
    Improved: You can utilize Two-Weapon Fighting with any combination of weapon/unarmed attacks, and apply the [Two-Weapon Fighting] feat even without using two weapons; you can even attack twice with the same weapon. You can also substitute combat maneuvers as part of the usage of Two-Weapon Fighting, and gain the effects of Maneuver Mastery

    Greater: You gain [Improved Two-Weapon Fighting] as a bonus feat.

    Superior: While executing a Flurry of Blows, you may gain +1 per every three Monk levels to all your CMB and CMD checks.

    Sublime: You gain the benefits of [Pulverizing Blow] when performing a Flurry of Blows.

    With this new Sutra, the Monk gains quicker access to the bonuses of Flurry of Blows than a Fighter (minimum 5th level; 11th for Fighters), but it yet remains as a valid character option and helps clear up obscure synergetic comments and standardize character options.


    Okay, I like your change to Shadowboxing. Though if a group has a non-tedious method of keeping track of the lighting rules, I'd leave the original version in as an option.

    But for your change to Flurry of Blows, the only discrepancy I see is the obscure synergistic comment in the current Two-Weapon Fighting wording. I'm already working around that for my group by setting aside all the [source, supersede, subsume, substitute, & simulate] entries into a side file for converting from Pathfinder/3.5.

    As for your actual change, I'm not fond of it. It delays the base Flurry benefit to level 5 instead of being able to gain it at level 1 through your 1st level feat or through Combat Style Feat, and it delays gaining Improved Two-Weapon Fighting to level 9 instead of being able to gain it at level 6 at the earliest. The Improved Two-Weapon Fighting delay can be mitigated through Kirth's Retraining entry in the Intro chapter, but I still don't like the Flurry delay.

    Adding on Maneuver Mastery has me at a loss. A single-class Monk has a BAB equal to his class level, so he doesn't benefit. Comparing Monk theurgy levels with BABs from other classes, only an Ascetic Druid really benefits from it. If we go word-for-word, with Maneuver Mastery taking effect even if you have a higher BAB than effective Monk level, it actually hurts an Ascetic Hunter, an Ascetic Warrior, an Enlightened Fist/Battle Sorcerer, a Monastic Crusader, a Sacred Fist, and a Sensei.

    I don't mean to rag on you personally, it's just that my gaming experience includes being my group's rules-guru, and dealing with a player who would rather play a Pathfinder Samurai over a Kirthfinder Fighter just so they can get all the signature Samurai features at level 1.


    Tahlreth wrote:

    As for your actual change, I'm not fond of it. It delays the base Flurry benefit to level 5 instead of being able to gain it at level 1 through your 1st level feat or through Combat Style Feat, and it delays gaining Improved Two-Weapon Fighting to level 9 instead of being able to gain it at level 6 at the earliest. The Improved Two-Weapon Fighting delay can be mitigated through Kirth's Retraining entry in the Intro chapter, but I still don't like the Flurry delay.

    Adding on Maneuver Mastery has me at a loss. A single-class Monk has a BAB equal to his class level, so he doesn't benefit. Comparing Monk theurgy levels with BABs from other classes, only an Ascetic Druid really benefits from it. If we go word-for-word, with Maneuver Mastery taking effect even if you have a higher BAB than effective Monk level, it actually hurts an Ascetic Hunter, an Ascetic Warrior, an Enlightened Fist/Battle Sorcerer, a Monastic Crusader, a Sacred Fist, and a Sensei.

    Very reasonable.

    My main issue is that I did not want to have the option of Flurry of Blows hidden, and wanted it to be clearly stated in the Monk document. That is why the (as of yet unresolved) ruling on how Mystic Blast improves with Sorcerers should have a statement in the Sorcerer document itself.
    Having it as a Sutra seemed to be a better choice; after all, if one chooses the Flurry of Blows Sutra at 1st level, they can simulate a Pathfinder Monk easily, right?
    Taking your comments into consideration, here is the new version.

    Take 2:
    Monk Sutra: Flurry of Blows:
    You can utilize Two-Weapon Fighting with any combination of weapon/unarmed attacks, and apply the [Two-Weapon Fighting] feat even without using two weapons. You can also substitute combat maneuvers as part of the usage of Two-Weapon Fighting instead of the normal bonus attacks you gain from the feat.

    Improved: You gain [Improved Two-Weapon Fighting] as a bonus feat, even if you do not meet the prerequisites.

    Greater: You gain a bonus equal to +1 to all CMB and CMD checks when executing a Flurry of Blows, with an additional +1 per every four Monk levels.

    Superior: While executing a Flurry of Blows, you may gain +1 per every three Monk levels to all your CMB and CMD checks.

    Sublime: With each additional successful hit during a Flurry of Blows, you deal an additional +1d6 per hit, until you miss an attack.


    Changing Flurry of Blows from a feat synergy into a sutra doesn't really help facilitate multiclassing, and I'm still trying to figure out if the extra benefits you're adding onto it is enough of an increase in worth to validate it being a class feature rather than a feat. But I see your point about needing to make its availability obvious. Hmm....

    How's this for a compromise?:
    Two-Weapon Fighting feat: Add "You may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for attacks with weapons that permit those maneuvers as part of a flurry of blows," to the end of the synergy entry with Monk.

    Flurry of Blows sutra: Change base effect to "You gain Two-Weapon Fighting as a bonus feat, even if you do not meet the prerequisites."

    Fighter talents - advanced wrote:

    Flurry of Blows

    Benefit: You gain Two-Weapon Fighting as a bonus feat, and gain the synergy benefit as if you were a Monk. While performing a Flurry of Blows, you lose the bonus to AC from any shield you have equipped (except for a buckler if you have at least martial proficiency with it).

    On a side note, I noticed Sudden Jump is a Monk cantrip. I've since then been wondering how your Improve Skill spell works. Improve Skill provides a bonus to the 'chosen skill,' but when do you choose, when you cast it or when you learn it? If you choose when you cast it, it'd need a use restriction to keep the Monk from using Sudden Jump as a Sudden Read Magic or something. Would adding "choose a class skill you are trained in" be enough?

    2,201 to 2,250 of 3,973 << first < prev | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft Houserules All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.