Alrighty then I'll mastermind it out for my games on my off days then. Thanks again for all your work on this the group is loving it so far.
To continue for cleric
Under the thievery domain, can they gain any skill focus as a bonus feat?
For the time domain, is the variant channeling a swift action, and is there a cap on how high a level spell you can create (it appears it adds one to the spell level due to the metamagic effect, though it is unclear if it is starting with the first extension or further extensions).
I noticed you do not have a void domain, would you consider it something to add?
For the domain feats:
Under animal devotion (serpent's strike) would you want to say injects poison dealing, rather than deals...
For the chaos devotion did you want it to last till your next round rather than next action (since it is a swift action you next action could be very soon). I would also consider rewording the darkness domain umbral shroud to next round also.
Under the umbral shroud you require a darkness domain spell to be available to cast but not all the people qualifying have access to the darkness domain (the shadow bloodline for instance). The same thing is true for charnel miasma.
Also a lot of your domain feats add spells to your "cleric" spell list, but not all the classes taking these feats are clerics.
Also some of the feats allow you to exchange one, two, or three channeling attempts into extra usage, have you considered consolidating these all to be consistent (such as making them all require two channeling attempts to exchange for another use).
For fragile construct do multiple touches stack at lowering hardness or damage resistance?
The shaitan bloodline should likely get access to the earth devotion (same goes for the efreet and the fire devotion and the marid and the water devotion).
For the combat medic when you say cast healing spells to you mean spells of the necromancy (healing) school or just cure spells?
Under your unspeakable cults some of them gain favored terrain abilities, should they stack with other instances of the favored terrain?
For Cyth-vsug the demonic health should grant a bonus against sickness effects also I would suspect.
Under Grazzt the spell betrayal effect is gained at 4th level I suspect.
For Kostchtchie your rage example should likely be 4th not 3rd since you gain the ability at 4th level.
For the Prestige Paladin:
bonus feats kick in at 5th level while the mercy ability is gained at 4th level, so you may consider listing the mercy ability first.
For the 7th level mercy should you also gain the option of fatigued increased to exhausted?
For the monastic crusader, under you lay on hands description is seems to imply you can gain channeled energy even if your original class does not grant it, but the monastic crusader description seems to contradict this.
Under divine weapon when you are talking about the properties you can gain, you reference armor properties rather than weapon properties.
Under symbol of divinity it returned to referencing how many times per day you can call the spirit, but you seemed to have gone away from that route for the divine armor and weapon. Was that intentional?
Under the suite of life greater aura of life ability you say with access to all six auras but there are only 5.
Under the marshal's suite superior aura the soothing performance example does not seem to show up in the current bard document.
Finally should the save DC in debilitating touch reference your prestige paladin level rather than your divine caster level?
Thanks
i was wondering about guns a while ago myself, but kirth said if that shall happen, it would need a lot of work - i think he is unhappy with all those gun systems flying around.
Why is a druid with the Oakheart Brother proficiency swap prohibited from using a light club?
I get that all the two-weapon fighting you get for higher proficiencies is kinda strange for a druid, but simple use and throwing should be ok don't you think?
At least it's in the same spirit of fighting with a stick as the quarterstaff and heavy club.
Why is a druid with the Oakheart Brother proficiency swap prohibited from using a light club?
Sort anwswer: I didn't think of it. Go ahead and add that, too -- as you pointed out, it makes sense.
should a druid gain martial proficiency with light clubs then as well? i think it's fitting.
Also: can a fighter use weapon aptitude to swap which weapon he has exotic proficiency with?
1. should a druid gain martial proficiency with light clubs then as well? i think it's fitting.
2. Also: can a fighter use weapon aptitude to swap which weapon he has exotic proficiency with?
1. Yes, but I'd specify "ranged option only" (not TWF option) as the Martial proficiency default.
2. Yes, you absolutely can.
Another question:
A ranger level 1 who chooses spontanous casting doesn't know any first level spells right?
(since you only get bonus spells per day from high attributes as far as i know, not bonus spells known. And without class bonus spells he lears 0+0 level 1 spells.)
Or did i miss something?
Another question: the feats Insightful Strike and Focused Shot seem to overlap very strongly.
Insightful strike doesn't state anywhere to be only for melee attacks, therefore it sems to be much stronger than focused shot (scaling with bab and also having lighter prerequisites, and usable with any weapon)
Another question:
A ranger level 1 who chooses spontanous casting doesn't know any first level spells right?
(since you only get bonus spells per day from high attributes as far as i know, not bonus spells known. And without class bonus spells he lears 0+0 level 1 spells.)Or did i miss something?
I was just about to ask this same question.
Kirth have you considered any alternative class features for rangers that want to give up spellcasting? Like some bonus feats or the like?
At least pure martial artist monks can be emulated if you stay away from overly splashy and magically looking ki powers :D.
Also: is there a reason a monk cannot select Improved Deep Intuition as a combat feat or is that an oversight from the old version? i assume the later.
A ranger level 1 who chooses spontanous casting doesn't know any first level spells right?
(since you only get bonus spells per day from high attributes as far as i know, not bonus spells known. And without class bonus spells he lears 0+0 level 1 spells.) Or did i miss something?
No; you're correct. You still get 1st level spell slots, though, which can be used to power spell-like abilities (if applicable) or certain feats, so it's not a total loss.
1. Kirth have you considered any alternative class features for rangers that want to give up spellcasting? Like some bonus feats or the like?
2. At least pure martial artist monks can be emulated if you stay away from overly splashy and magically looking ki powers
1. Yes. Take a level or two in ranger. Then multiclass into another martial class and grab the associated multiclassing synergy talent or lore or whatever, and/or the Practiced Tracker feat.
2. Or better yet, multiclass into fighter. Or just play a fighter. Or a barbarian, for that matter, can be a dandy martial artist.
Multiclassing has been intentionally boosted so that you can make essentially any character concept you can come up with. Don't be afraid to use it! You want a Paizo Inquisitor? Try a cleric/rogue or cleric/ranger, for example. A Paizo Alchemist? Try a barbarian/wizard/rogue. A ranger that focuses more on combat feats and less on spells? Try a ranger/fighter, as noted. These sorts of multiclass combos don't work in the core rules, because there's generally no way to improve class features when you do so. But they usually do work (or at least can easily be made to work) in these houserules. Don't be afraid to try them!
yeah ranger/fighter is an option of course, but i'm thinking about the case where someone wants to get all the stuff a ranger gets, only not the spells. A ranger/fighter would get them anyway, just slower.
I mean sure you could just ignore them since rangers aren't the greatest casters anyway, but i'd like your thoughts about a single-class ranger that gets something else instead of spells.
Kind of like the skirmisher archetype from paizo.
You could make a case of allowing this exacly as written for kirthifnder, but maybe you or someone else have better ideas :D.
BTW poor spontanous lvl 1 rangers, they don't get shiny toys :(
yeah ranger/fighter is an option of course, but i'm thinking about the case where someone wants to get all the stuff a ranger gets, only not the spells. I mean sure you could just ignore them since rangers aren't the greatest casters anyway, but i'd like your thoughts about a single-class ranger that gets something else instead of spells. Kind of like the skirmisher archetype from paizo.
If a player REALLY wanted it, I would allow the Skirmisher archetype as written, because the uses per day are also Wis-based*. In essence, you're trading spells for a smaller selection of Wis-based spell-like abilities with (Ex) tags, which is generally a lousy trade. You're a lot better off just picking spells that duplicate the Skirmisher's tricks, and then call them "tricks" instead of "spells" -- which is exactly what I'd do if I wanted to play that archetype. Because the Skirmisher isn't really spell-less; it just pretends to be.
Or, if you really like skills and "tricks," you could take a level or two (or four!) in rogue, and apply the ranger's casting as theurgy towards your rogue skill tricks.
haha that powergamer bit at the end got me laughing. Someone tried that with you once? XD
Also, i'm convinced.
You are right, there are enough spells that can be reflavored as tricks - or going rogue/ranger covers that (especially like the theurgy part).
But i will keep the skirmisher as a viable alternative for my players.
Thanks for the thoughts.
BTW what was the design reason to give rangers spellcasting 3 levels sooner than in pathfinder? just curious. I like it very much ^^
BTW what was the design reason to give rangers spellcasting 3 levels sooner than in pathfinder? just curious. I like it very much ^^
Basically, I wanted the half-casters to actually be half-casters. The bizarre progression in the core rules -- waiting to get 1st level spells until you don't need them anymore, then progressing quickly, then stalling out at 4th level -- seemed needlessly contrived, and didn't fit with the unified types of progression I was looking for.
you are right, that is bizzare when i think about it. I kinda never questioned it but it seems better this way :D
Some more stuff:
1. I had an idea to enable the warlock class as in 3.5 (yes i know the sorcerer can work as a replacement under your rules):
- Variant sorcerer, giving up spell progression, instead gaining lots of Innate Metamagic feats
- Bloodline=pact, still retains pact abilities, resistance etc
- this way he gains "invocations" that work 3/day at first and become at-will later on. seems balanced with all the bloodline stuff.
- Would need to count as CL 2 at 1st level to use 1st level spells for this
- how unnecesarry would this be in your opinion? ^^
2. I have some confusion about the mojo system, hope you can help.
- do i understand correctly that you don't actually aquire mojo when leveling up, just spend more and more of it up to your max?
- regarding craft (alchemy): personal stock
when a potion is declared stock, the text seems to imply you don't have to pay the gold cost for refilling it. Do you really only spend mojo and ignore the repeated crafting?
1. I had an idea to enable the warlock class as in 3.5 (yes i know the sorcerer can work as a replacement under your rules):
- Variant sorcerer, giving up spell progression, instead gaining lots of Innate Metamagic feats
- Bloodline=pact, still retains pact abilities, resistance etc
- this way he gains "invocations" that work 3/day at first and become at-will later on. seems balanced with all the bloodline stuff.
- Would need to count as CL 2 at 1st level to use 1st level spells for this
- how unnecesarry would this be in your opinion? ^^2. I have some confusion about the mojo system, hope you can help.
(A) do i understand correctly that you don't actually aquire mojo when leveling up, just spend more and more of it up to your max?
(B) regarding craft (alchemy): personal stock
when a potion is declared stock, the text seems to imply you don't have to pay the gold cost for refilling it. Do you really only spend mojo and ignore the repeated crafting?
1. I don't see why that wouldn't work, although it seems like a lot of work for comparatively small benefit. You might model the class more after the incarnate, which intentionally focuses less on spells and more on special abilities.
2.
(A) You acquire more mojo when you level up, but only up to your "par." Beyond that, maximum is only used if you find or craft items that cause you to exceed par.
(B) That's essentially correct -- as long as crafting or a trip to the local alchemy shop could reasonably be assumed to have occurred (i.e., not mid-dungeon), you can automatically replace the potion and hand-wave the rest without tracking it or rolling dice for it.
the potion thing is surely convenient, but it's kinda weird, since the stuff has actual cost. The initial crafting still costs gold right?
Or is all crafting mojo-only?
the potion thing is surely convenient, but it's kinda weird, since the stuff has actual cost. The initial crafting still costs gold right? Or is all crafting mojo-only?
No, it costs gold -- but that said, I really don't track gold very closely, because of the mojo system. It's an intentional move away from the "gold = magic power" paradigm in 3.X.
We had a PbP Game going under the kirthfinder rules, but sadly the gm had to cancel his involvement.
anyone interested in taking over?
The campaign is still fresh, the team got sent on the first quest basicaly, so pretty open-ended.
The game in question:
link
I'd be happy to help with questions on rules and setting, but unfortunately even my own PBP is starting to suffer because of frequent business trips.
Possibly going to go over Kirthfinder races with ARG for analysis using Race Builder rules. Any interest in results if I get around to this?
That would be an interesting exercise. Bear in mind that I don't own the ARG, and from what I saw of the playtest/previews, don't have a lot of faith in the balance it purports to lay out. That said, I think it would be worthwhile to see how the two compare.
|
Possibly going to go over Kirthfinder races with ARG for analysis using Race Builder rules. Any interest in results if I get around to this?That would be an interesting exercise. Bear in mind that I don't own the ARG, and from what I saw of the playtest/previews, don't have a lot of faith in the balance it purports to lay out. That said, I think it would be worthwhile to see how the two compare.
Yeah, I'm thinking about it as a way to test the ARG rules more than to test the balance of Kirthfinder :) And to do a side-by side comparison with the point spread they have among the core races (from 8-11 points, qualifying the core Dwarf as an Advanced Race instead of a Standard Race.) I believe this thought excercise will help me when I set about to create my own races for my next homebrew campaign.
Update:
I've been taking a bunch of my old characters from a 007 Hybrid a-la-carte (classless) system, and converting them to Kirthfinder. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of character concepts that were impossible or unwrokable in 3.5 are now easily buildable. Another is that in many cases I can get to more or less the same place using a number of different routes, which I like.
With playtesting sporadic or on hold again (has anyone heard from houstonderek lately?), it's the only way I can think of to get a quick view of how things look across a large spectrum of class levels.
I'm still hoping to get playtest feedback from other people's games.
Thanks!
--Kirth
Continuing consolidation of extraneous sub-systems: rolled Wild Empathy into Handle Animal skill, as a specific task (which subsumes the "calm an animal" task from before). Druids and Rangers therefore simply gain 1 bonus rank per class level in Handle Animal, and it's a wash. The protection from summoned/magically-controlled animals, et al. is represented by a feat, Mark of the Wild, which druids & rangers get as a bonus feat at 1st level:
Prerequisite: Handle Animal 1 rank as a class skill.
Benefit: Magically-summoned or controlled animals will only attack you if you fail a Handle Animal check at DC 11 + the caster’s Concentration bonus (this does not require an action on your part).
Synergy: If you take the Leadership feat, you can attract animals, elementals, lycanthropes, plant creatures, fey, and magical beasts as followers as if they were humans, subject to the normal CR restrictions.
P.S. Christopher -- have made your corrections noted above -- noticed I neglected to let you know earlier. Thanks again!
More standardization -- instead of theurgy working off tables, but other class synergy stuff described ad hoc as "add half your X level to your level in Y" or whatever, I've moved the Theurgy table to the intro, and it's now standard for all class synergy stuff, which will simply reference a Strong or Weak progression.
Theurgy is therefore a specific instance of "Class Synergy."
|
Hey, Kirth.
I am working on my own changes to your system, and I'm thinking of rebuilding the Barbarian as a subclass of Fighter, renaming it Berserker. click on my profile to see what I did so far, if you are interested.
Also, I plan to rename Bluff as Persuasion, and maybe roll Diplomacy in it as well.
Also, I plan to rename Bluff as Persuasion, and maybe roll Diplomacy in it as well.
Yikes! You've probably seen how much social interaction takes place in the games I run, so Diplomacy, Bluff, and Streetwise are all worth taking on their own merits. If yours is more combat-heavy, I can maybe see combining them.
I look forward to seeing what you've done with the barbarian.
I'm using your weapons rules in my campaign, and recently one question emerged. Some ranged weapons have an iterative attack, and it's ok when the user is full attacking. But when he's only single attacking? What's the action to reload it? My feelings tell me it's a swift action, but I want to hear what you guys think.
I'm using your weapons rules in my campaign, and recently one question emerged. Some ranged weapons have an iterative attack, and it's ok when the user is full attacking. But when he's only single attacking? What's the action to reload it? My feelings tell me it's a swift action, but I want to hear what you guys think.
Not a swift action. Off the top of my head, I'd consider that if you're only making a single attack, in essence you've traded your iteratives for the opportunity for another half-move. If you're entitled to only one iterative, your reload would be that movement; if BAB +11 and up, you could simply reduce your half-move proportionately.
Example: A character with BAB +16, speed 30 ft. can normally make a full attack and move 15 ft., or else make a single attack and move 30 ft. You could instead make a single attack, reload (in the place of what would normally be your first -5 iterative), and still move 25 ft. (15 ft. + 2/3 of 15 ft.).
If you didn't plan on moving anyway (for example, you're using a Strike feat), the loss of movement doesn't bother you. However, since you're borrowing against movement you could have made, you lose the opportunity to take a 5-ft. step.
Thanks for the answer. But since I'm not using the movement/attack rules (well, for now), I'll stick with the swift action.
Always looking forward your houserules, cheers!
Thanks for the answer. But since I'm not using the movement/attack rules (well, for now), I'll stick with the swift action.
Always looking forward your houserules, cheers!
You can of course use any ruling that works for you; under standard (Core rules) movement/attacks, I'd make it cost a move action, though, rather than a swift action. A swift action really takes no time at all, which defeats the intent of requiring an iterative attack to reload.
Another option would be to set minimum ranks in Sleight of Hand in order to perform free-action reloading, much like the rules for throwing weapons.
Question during play:
Order of operations for the Shield Other fighter talent?
Split damage before taking resistances and DR into account, but after saves have been determined.
20 damage from fireball - subject saves for half - 5 damage to each character - subtract fire resistance
20 damage from melee attack - 10 damage to each character - subtract DR
That's pretty much what I'm leaning towards as well. Having one save simplifies the hell out of things; applying resistances/DR separately encourages everyone to short up weaknesses, rather than having just one "defense" character.
That timing fits with the timing for just one character.
Enemy cast spell/make attack
Enemy roll damage
*1
Roll saving throw
*2
Apply immunity/evasion
*3
Apply vulnerability
Apply resistance /DR
*4
Take final damage
Shield Ally could apply in any * position.
In 1, both the Victim and the Guard roll saves. I don't like this because the guard is supposed to be jumping 'in' the way of the attack.
In 2, the Victim gets a chance to minimize the damage first, then the Guard helps mitigate it further. If the Victim has evasion or immunity, the Guard still takes his part.
In 3, if the Victim has immunity or evasion, neither take damage. This represents the Guard not jumping in front of an attack that won't harm the Victim.
In 4, the Victim's resistance applies to the damage they both take.
Of these options, I prefer #3.
One consideration is that a Guard's own evasion would apply to his own roll, but not to damage he takes on behalf of the Victim (except in 1). I like this.
Thanks for this ruleset! I've been running Skull & Shackles with the system and had a blast with the most recent ship-boarding fight. The enemy captain is supposed to have 3 levels of ranger, which I kept as is but modified to the Kirthfinder Ranger. He had Favored Enemy (Civilized humanoid) but never got to make use of it due to the group's odd array of races. It was fun to use quarry, cast sleep and stay in the fight longer with fast healing though.
The party consists of a Fey-touched Fighter, a half-Giant with levels in half-giant and barbarian, a wave Incarnate and a Hagborn Battle Sorcerer with the Archon style.
The party consists of a Fey-touched Fighter, a half-Giant with levels in half-giant and barbarian, a wave Incarnate and a Hagborn Battle Sorcerer with the Archon style.
Does your group keep a campaign log? I'd love to read more about how it's working for you!
Epic win.
What is -- their party composition? Or the NPC construction? Or something else?
Yeah, I'm glad to have provided something that proved entertaining to some people.
Another question regarding Shield Ally.
Most combat feats and fighter talents provide some scaling benefit.
Shield other allows the fighter to protect one ally and give them +1 aid another to AC & saves.
Would it be overpowered to allow those bonuses to scale at 1 +1 per 4 BAB. Also once the bonus was +2 or higher, allow the fighter to split the bonuses to cover more people. The people would still need to be within reach as normal.
For example at 8th level a fighter could give:
+3 to one ally OR
+2 to one ally and +1 to another OR
+1 to three different allies.