Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft Houserules


Homebrew and House Rules

2,451 to 2,500 of 3,973 << first < prev | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | next > last >>

Okay, sounds reasonable.

Any thoughts on having Planar Channeling, a divine feat tacked onto a Cure Light Wounds to make Holy Water? It makes me curious about maybe modifying evocation spells with strike feats.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

As referee, it's almost always reasonable to use Creature-Specific Spell, unless it's grossly inappropriate and/or relies heavily on metagame knowledge (e.g., the party is all humans and high elves, and the monsters always have civilized humanoid-specific spells; that's just being a jerk).

For the player, as in almost all things, referee and group agreement is the meter stick for applicability. Personally speaking, it seems entirely appropriate for an Incarnate of metal to pick metal-specific spells as spells known; I might define the category as "creatures made of metal (e.g., iron golems) or fully armored in metal (e.g., a knight in full plate)." Having done so, though, the referee is now obligated not to metagame that knowledge -- for example, giving metal armor to critters when it's wholly inappropriate for them, just to give extra use to the spell and make the player feel better.

It's always difficult to make overarching rules for exceptional cases.

It's better, instead of running this idea through the metamagic adjustment route, to ingrain it into specific class features.

Incarnate Metal Revelation:
Revelations: An incarnate with the Metal mystery can choose from any of the following revelations.
Metal Mastery (Sp): You may code your spells to act with greater effect versus metallic or metal-clad creatures. You may code any number of spells you wish, but such spells (termed Metallic Spells) decrease in efficiency versus non-metallic creatures.
Versus creatures described as if made of metal (such as constructs) or clad in metal (if they gain a total of +5 or more bonus to AC from Shield or Armor bonuses), you may count your spell as if it had a +1 metamagic adjustment for free, chosen during the spell's preparation.
Versus creatures that do not qualify as metallic, the spell's effects are diminished; you do not gain the +1 metamagic adjustment, and the target gains +4 to saves versus the Metallic Spell.

Make a feature like this for Wood mages and demon-slaying evokers, and you're set. During preparing spells, the spell can be described as [Fireball; Widened-Metallic].


Tahlreth wrote:
Any thoughts on having Planar Channeling, a divine feat tacked onto a Cure Light Wounds to make Holy Water? It makes me curious about maybe modifying evocation spells with strike feats.

You mean a metamagic feat?


I mean using a strike feat (for example) to modify a spell as if it was a metamagic feat.

Or would it be better to use Cascade Spell to tack on a spell effect that's close enough?


Tahlreth wrote:
Or would it be better to use Cascade Spell to tack on a spell effect that's close enough?

I'd go that route, personally.


Dragon Bloodline Sorcerer's have their eldritch blast become a breath weapon which allows them to take meta-breath feats. So I have 2 questions

1. Does being a breath weapon give it a recharge timer? If yes no then I assume it still has to recharge between meta-breath uses.

2. Are meta-breath feats available to the Sorcerer as bloodline bonus feats, and if not would it be game breaking to let them be?


Talonhawke wrote:

Dragon Bloodline Sorcerer's have their eldritch blast become a breath weapon which allows them to take meta-breath feats. So I have 2 questions

1. Does being a breath weapon give it a recharge timer? If yes no then I assume it still has to recharge between meta-breath uses.

2. Are meta-breath feats available to the Sorcerer as bloodline bonus feats, and if not would it be game breaking to let them be?

In hindsight, I'd probably get rid of metabreath feats entirely and use Innate Metamagic instead (as we walked through with the hell hound), and leave the "breath weapon" part purely cosmetic. I'd probably also allow Supernatural Ability as a bloodline bonus feat, to make the blast into an actual (Su) breath weapon.


Sounds good.

One other question, when trading in bonuses from Personal Weapon and such for numen, the +1 is set at 6,000. I'm assuming that you have to keep at least +1 on the weapon so your trading in the second +1 which would be about 6,000.


Talonhawke wrote:
One other question, when trading in bonuses from Personal Weapon and such for numen, the +1 is set at 6,000. I'm assuming that you have to keep at least +1 on the weapon so your trading in the second +1 which would be about 6,000.

Exactly right. You'll notice that 6,000 gp is the difference between the cost of a +1 weapon and a +2 weapon.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
In hindsight, I'd probably get rid of metabreath feats entirely and use Innate Metamagic instead (as we walked through with the hell hound), and leave the "breath weapon" part purely cosmetic. I'd probably also allow Supernatural Ability as a bloodline bonus feat, to make the blast into an actual (Su) breath weapon.

To be fair, Meta-Breath is not under the actual rules (instead a reference to the Dragonomicon), so a change wouldn't be viable.

A possible problem (if going the spell-based breath weapon route) is the design conflict; using breath weapons are attack actions under Kirthfinder, while casting spells is not.

As a solution, it is recommended to make a base spell for the draconic base [Breath Weapon Spell], so it may be modified accordingly. Such a spell needs an attack action casting time, and has caster level equal to the HD of the dragon*.

* And d10 damage, pretty far range...the spell might end up pretty high.


Arrius wrote:

A possible problem (if going the spell-based breath weapon route) is the design conflict; using breath weapons are attack actions under Kirthfinder, while casting spells is not.

As a solution, it is recommended to make a base spell for the draconic base [Breath Weapon Spell], so it may be modified accordingly. Such a spell needs an attack action casting time, and has caster level equal to the HD of the dragon*.

* And d10 damage, pretty far range...the spell might end up pretty high.

A base spell with caster level equal to the dragon's HD, d10 damage, and pretty far range? I'm more keen on using a solution similar to what the ruleset already has for players begging to play as a Lich at level 1.

"A level 1 Lich? Sure. I'll allow it, but all the abilities get toned down so that they're appropriate for a level 1 character. *Points them to the Deathwalker Specialist Wizard.*

So in the case of breath weapons, I'd start with finding all the metamagics needed to turn an Eldritch Blast into your ideal breath weapon (at least Quicken Spell [attack action], Magnify Spell, and Reach Spell by my understanding). And either add them to the list of available bonus feats for Draconic bloodline (less likely to disrupt game balance), or somehow work them into Improved/Greater Blast (more likely to disrupt game balance).

On a somewhat related note, after reading through the "What are your favorite things in 5th edition?" thread, I've been pondering the implications of converting all the Reserve feats into cantrips, and then having all cantrips scale to the caster's highest spell level with no cap. Heightening Eldritch Blast would then result in the 'caster level equal to the HD' effect you're looking for.


I would greatly appreciate a copy of the final rule set.

Email:
carlhimaya@gmail.com


Actually, I was mistaken; it's 1d12 damage per hit dice, base range of 30' (tripled if line), usable as an attack action. Rechargable every 1d4, which makes them not exactly usable in a 'flurry of breaths', but not strictly at/will.

The spell might be restricted to dragons--or dragons may have a racial ability to lower the effective spell level to be within their respective level ranges. That would open the door for metamagic alterations to Breath Weapon.
Of course, a simple addition to the breath weapon entry of [This may be altered with a maximum of a +1 metamagic adjustment] per 10 hit dice allows dragon breath to count as the Sorcerer's customizable Eldritch Blast for the purposes of metamagic feats--which is a more elegant solution (which you propose).


CazElrac wrote:
I would greatly appreciate a copy of the final rule set.

Sent.

Dark Archive

For someone new to Kirthfinder, what would you say are the biggest changes from Pathfinder?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From the Introduction chapter:

Rationale & Applicability wrote:
These house rules are not intended for general use. Indeed, for most groups, the Core rules are far superior in many respects. In creating these house rules, there were several design goals which, if not actually achieved, were at least strived for; any failure to attain them is mine. The major goals, and cautions for use, are summarized below.
Character Building:
Kirthfinder wrote:
Base classes are more versatile, filling a variety of concepts, making prestige classes or “archetypes” less important. Multiclass options (see “Class Synergy Features” below) are intended to allow multiclassing of casters as well as martial characters, in nearly limitless combinations. Finally, the rules are extremely mechanically “crunchy,” geared towards players who especially enjoy the various tasks associated with creating or “leveling up” a character. If your group just wants to roll up characters and play, then these house rules are not for you; sticking with the core Pathfinder game (or some other system) is recommended. Likewise, if you consider multiclassing to be “cheesy,” you will doubtless intensely dislike these house rules.

Class Rebalancing:
Kirthfinder wrote:
Not only in combat (e.g., changing of casting rules), but in terms of narrative power: fighters, rogues, etc. are more versatile, and receive class features enabling them to do more than simply fight and disarm traps. The ranger regains his “schtick” as a tracker, scout, locator, and guide―even across the planes. As long as high-level casters can travel to Heaven at will and stop time, there will never be a total balance, but our hope is that the number of levels of which all classes are playable has been expanded upwards a bit. If you, personally, believe that there is no martial-caster disparity in the core rules, then these house rules are not for you; please delete and/or shred your copy.

Fewer “Timmy” Cards:
Kirthfinder wrote:
As much as possible, obviously good or extremely substandard options are obtained automatically, without needing to decide whether to spend a limited resource (feat, talent, etc.) on a “tax” option or on something interesting but sub-par. That means providing bonus skill ranks (to avoid “skill taxes”) and expanded bundling of skills; selective “beefing up” or “nerfing” of talents and feats, and so on. In addition, many feats scale with skill ranks or base attack bonus, so as to remain useful throughout the character’s career rather than becoming obsolescent at some point.

Nostalgia:
Kirthfinder wrote:
In a number of cases, a seemingly bizarre rules change has been implemented as a “nod” to previous editions, especially 1e AD&D. Overall, those rules were mechanically a mess, but they did provide a certain type of experience that these rules use as a reference.

Player Involvement:
Kirthfinder wrote:
Considerable creative power is intentionally shifted from the hands of the “DM” or “GM” to those of the players. Accordingly, the person running the game is now termed a “referee” instead, in order to focus on this shift in role. Custom races, design of personal magic items, expanded leadership options in these rules all very intentionally contribute to player empowerment. If you believe the “GM” should wield absolute authority and exercise sole creative power, stop reading now and delete/burn/shred your copy of these rules. These rules assume that the referee’s job is to design and run encounters, and to impartially facilitate the rules during play. His or her job is not to railroad the adventure, “fix” the rules by fiat, and so on. This implies a correspondingly high level of responsibility required of the players not to intentionally disrupt play or “break the game.”

Rebalanced Attributes:
Kirthfinder wrote:
Uses have been rebalanced so that there are fewer obvious “dump stats” (particularly Charisma).

Rock-Paper-Scissors:
Kirthfinder wrote:
In many ways, a d20 + modifier task resolution system breaks down very quickly when the disparity of modifiers becomes too great. However, abandoning the core d20 mechanic is beyond the scope of these house rules, so the problem noted above becomes a something of a necessary evil. In order to ameliorate this, some “full stop” options are included in order to nullify part of a numerically overwhelming advantage. For example, at low levels AC can be “jacked up” to the point where a target is essentially impervious to attacks except on a natural 20; however, a number of feats and talents are included that potentially allow an attacker to ignore armor bonuses, insight bonuses, deflection bonuses, etc. This in no way eliminates potential disparities, but it re-introduces an element of risk to investing in any “obviously overpowered” ability or feature.

My personal favorite change is characters are allowed to re-flavor any mechanics/abilities they make use of in order to fit their character concept. Earlier in this thread, either Kirth or TriOmegaZero mentioned a duelist character and a holy warrior character who both used Barbarian Rage for their 'battle focus' or 'divine empowerment.'


Where can I find the latest version of the rules?


This ruleset isn't really meant for widespread online distribution, so...

Ask nicely and provide an email address. :)


If someone kind enough to send the rules to me I will be very thankful.

hypermetalsonic at gmail dot com

:)


Metal Sonic wrote:
If someone kind enough to send the rules to me I will be very thankful.

Sent.


I posted me email with a request for the final rules a while back, but it's likely it got missed.

I'd still like a copy, if you would please.

Spoiler:
brennanashby at gmail dot com

Thanks!


Sellsword2587 wrote:

I posted me email with a request for the final rules a while back, but it's likely it got missed.

I'd still like a copy, if you would please.

Sent.


Hey - lurker here - over the past while, I've sent a couple PMs to people who indicated that such things are a fine way of getting the latest version of the rules. I haven't been sent the rules yet though :( Could someone send them to me?

email:
aaedien|gmail

Thanks so much!


I would help if I actually checked my PMs every so often.

Sent.


Gonna start a new campaign soon and my players requested for me to inquire about any new versions since october. (insignium@live.de)


Insignium wrote:
Gonna start a new campaign soon and my players requested for me to inquire about any new versions since october. (insignium@live.de)

Nothing worth sending yet.


I would love a copy when you have a moment.

Thanks!


Gaekub wrote:

I would love a copy when you have a moment.

** spoiler omitted **

Thanks!

same here! My old copy is WAAAAY out of date.


Bwang wrote:
same here! My old copy is WAAAAY out of date.

All copes are WAAAY out of date -- I haven't issued anything substantive since 2012 or so!


Are their any plans to include firarms in Kirthfinder at some point or is that a issue that will be sidesteped?


Examples of Mundane Items Built Using Spells wrote:

FIREARMS

Bullet: Ray of frost (0) + Reach Spell (close to medium range; +1 level) + Versatile Evocation (force; +1 level) + Energy Admixture (piercing; +0 levels) = 2nd level spell.
Pistol: As a wand of bullet: 2nd level spell x CL 3rd x 900 (command-activated) x 0.5 (limited ammunition capacity) = 2,700 numen. If you pack multiple clips, use the personal inventory rules in Chapter 6.
Can be fired once per round as a ranged touch (the main draw of firearms in Pathfinder) for 3d6 damage (half piercing, half force). The cost can be lowered by adding some sort of jam/misfire mechanic with contingent-based pricing.
Glock 17: As pistol + Ray Splitting (+1 level) + +1 enhancement bonus to attacks (simulate Masterwork manufacturing standards) = wand of a 3rd level spell that gives you two attacks per round at 4d6 damage each.
Long-range rifle: As pistol + increase the spell level adjustment for Reach Spell.
Higher-velocity/heavier-caliber guns: As pistol + increase caster level.
Scattergun: As pistol + Shape Spell (ray to cone or line).
Ray gun: As pistol + replace the [piercing] damage with [fire] damage.
Holy Hand Grenade: Ray of frost (0) + Cascade Spell (cure light wounds; +2 level) + Planar Channeling (+0 levels) + Reach Spell (touch to medium range; +1 level) + Versatile Evocation (force; +1 level) + Energy Admixture (holy; +1 level) + Shape Spell (ray to burst; holy & positive energy damage portion only; +2 levels) = 7th level spell
Grenade Launcher: 900 numen (command activated; pull trigger) x 7th level spell x CL 13 x 4/5 (4 uses per day) = 65,520 numen

Firearms have been integrated, but I forget what the formula is for ammo magazines.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Disclaimer: I didn't make up the grenade stuff.
In my home game, every time a player makes a Monte Python reference, the character loses a level.


Funny thing; firearms can't utilize multiple attacks or [Strike] feats.
But I suspect it's too much trouble to make another subsystem if the magic system does its work well.


Arrius wrote:

Funny thing; firearms can't utilize multiple attacks or [Strike] feats.

But I suspect it's too much trouble to make another subsystem if the magic system does its work well.

I always found the firearms-are-special concept kind of silly. Take a careful look at the damage a combat arrow does to a living body. Or worse a spear.

Now look at a bullet wound [ignoring hydrostatic shock from supersonic bullets.] It's totally comparable to an arrow.

I get around this issue by using Wild West Era repeating firearms, given similar stats to bows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The grenade stuff is my handiwork. My DM challenged me to make a holy grenade launcher. He didn't think I'd find a way without munchkining.

Firearms could utilize multiple attacks if you add on either Ray Splitting or Quicken Spell [Attack action].

As for firearms utilizing [Strike] feats... Would it be reasonable to take the Eldritch Blast's 'Because it requires an attack roll, you can apply feats such as Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and ranged [Strike] feats' clause and apply it to Ray of Frost?


kyrt-ryder wrote:


I always found the firearms-are-special concept kind of silly. Take a careful look at the damage a combat arrow does to a living body. Or worse a spear.

Now look at a bullet wound [ignoring hydrostatic shock from supersonic bullets.] It's totally comparable to an arrow.

The design problem this presents is overall flexibility. Advanced technology may require a subsystem of its own to represent the development of firearms and explosives instead of falling in with static weapon groups such as bows.

One could keep firearms from growing by confining them in weapon groups and (in a limited scope) by increasing proficiencies, or can introduce it folded into the spell system or a point-buy 'technology' system.

Tahlreth wrote:
Firearms could utilize multiple attacks if you add on either Ray Splitting or Quicken Spell [Attack action].

I worry if the metamagic increase may not be worth it. It may cripple the system, which (we must admit) didn't work that much on.

Firearms are theoretically tested--we'll need to add a clause for recharging magical items, ammunition, and integrate that into action economy. Individually, not too much work--but...
Kirthfinder has moved away (at least in my perception) from the design phase and into the support phase.

Quote:
As for firearms utilizing [Strike] feats... Would it be reasonable to take the Eldritch Blast's 'Because it requires an attack roll, you can apply feats such as Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and ranged [Strike] feats' clause and apply it to Ray of Frost?

Eldritch Blast follows ray rules, so if it can utilize [Strike] feats, it stands to reason that all ray effects do as well.

Don't they?
Ray and touch spells fall into that weird rule area where they're not really spells, and not really attacks, either. If they're not explicitly stated, they cause ambiguity.


As Tahlreth pointed out, eldritch blasts are rays and can specifically carry [Strike] feats and so on, so the precedent is there (you can also use weapon training with them). In addition, you can use Sneak Attack with rays, which gives additional support to treating them as weapons in general, and applying [Strike] effects to them in particular.

Tahlreth's example of the Glock 17 showed how to get iterative attacks with a gun -- you indeed just use the Ray Splitting feat. For those concerned with costs, it's assumed your theoretical gunslinger is a fighter or ranger, so he'll have the Personal Weapon talent or Favored Weapon lore to cover the bulk of it.

However, in order to underline it, it might not be a bad idea to add "rays" to the weapon proficiency section in Chapter 6. Maybe Simple proficiency applies a -4 to hit (suck it, wizards!), Martial Proficiency allows normal use (and sorcerers would get free Martial proficiency with rays), and Exotic Proficiency allows iterative attacks with Split rays... I'd have to think on that some more.


I think this is the deathblow to the idea of orb effects, Kirth. Orb effects have a place in the game as ray spells that are modified with the Splash metamagic effect instead of being their own category.

As for exotic proficiency granting iterative attacks--I think the more reasonable wording is allowing ray effects to be cast as attack actions instead of standard actions, to integrate with an existing mechanic. But this allows a single level of proficiency to act as a group-wide Quicken Spell effect--but that may be worth a feat after all.

This way, one could 'two weapon fight' with ray effects, as well as use iterative attacks (the significantly higher base damage may be uncomfortable for some, even without adding peripheral increases such as sneak attack/hit).

That is unless we stipulate a clause that prevents targeting the same creature with multiple rays (or at least preventing multiple rays to benefit from multiple precision effects).


I was only worried about how weapon proficiency applied to spells when a class feature actually checks for proficiency level, and I think only the Monk has such features. Making a weapon category just for that would've been a formality.

I wasn't aware Orb spells all had splash damage.

For iterative attack spells, I've been using Eldritch Blast premodified with Measured Spell [-1 level] + Quicken Spell [Standard to Swift; +2 levels, -1 synergy]. 1d6 + 1/2 level seemed reasonable for what would be a bloodline-specific weapon.


Quote:
I wasn't aware Orb spells all had splash damage.

If they don't, there is not a big enough difference to warrant any 'orb' effect types and justify separating them from ray effects. As-is, orb spells don't really exist, but somehow sort of do. It's weird.


Hello I'd appreciate a copy of the "final" rule set

email:
cairney.ryan@gmail.com


Firewarrior44 wrote:
Hello I'd appreciate a copy of the "final" rule set

Sent


Tahlreth wrote:
I wasn't aware Orb spells all had splash damage.

They don't, unless that's a houserule separate from the main Kirthfinder rules. Currently, orbs are just rays with a different "fluff" for visual effects.


Regarding different levels of proficiency with rays, it was a nice idea from the standpoint of integrating mechanics, but overall it's proving to be a nuisance.


P.S. This morning I rolled the Critical Focus feat into Improved Critical, etc. You pick a weapon; at BAB +1 you get the crit confirmation bonus and ability to activate a [strike] effect (that you already have) on a crit. At BAB +6 the threat range expands. At BAB +11 the multiplier is increased by 1.

I also merged Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm also working on animals. Instead of using stats from the Bestiary as-are, I've developed rules for "building" animals, using a racial writeup like the ones from Chapter 2 and an optional "Animal Paragon" class (up to 3 levels that can replace up to 3 of the animal's initial racial HD). So far it's working out beautifully -- producing animals more or less in line with those in the Bestiaries, but with clear construction guidelines. I've done apes, bears, boars, dogs, hyenas, wolves, birds of prey, waterfowl, and a few others, and am very pleased with the results.

Sooner or later I'd like to produce a Monster Manual... but that may be a few years down the line.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
I also merged Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization.

Are you worried that merging these feats will make it easier for non martial classes to out fight the martials?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Are you worried that merging these feats will make it easier for non martial classes to out fight the martials?

No, because the bonuses still scale with BAB, meaning the non-martials get them later and, in some cases, not at all. For example, a cleric or druid maxes out weapon specialization at +3 attacks/+4 damage at 17th level, vs. an 11th level fighter's +3 attacks/+8 damage including weapon training. A wizard with Improved Critical never gets the critical multiplier increase.


I'm really curious about your work. Could I receive a copy? My email is my avatar's ID (in one word) at gmail.com

Thanks!


Dreaming Warforged wrote:

I'm really curious about your work. Could I receive a copy? My email is my avatar's ID (in one word) at gmail.com

Thanks!

Sent.

2,451 to 2,500 of 3,973 << first < prev | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 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.