|
I would like my solution or TOZ's.Of course you would -- and you can have it; all you need to do is implement it! I've tried to be clear that I am not willing to do so for my own home game, however (at least not without a unanimous request from the players).
Heh. I'm not making requests as to how you should change your own ruleset. If I want changes, I will just make them myself. I was simply commenting on the alternate magic systems mentioned and saying which ones I liked more.
That and pointing out that replacing the magic system doesn't require rebalancing everything else, just balancing the new magic system.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be honest. I'm kind of a "roots" player. The reason I go along with so many of Kirth's houserules is I have a lot of familiarity with more than a few of the '80s rpg systems he steals from. If you look closely enough, there's a lot of Bond 007, Hero System, Rolemaster and AD&D (1e) integrated into the Pf/3x framework.
Hell, half the reason I even agreed to meet him in the first place is because of the Vance reference in his nick. I see a lot of people sling the term "Vancian magic" (because, you know, Gygax stole it nearly whole cloth for OD&D/1e), but I doubt 1% have ever actually READ a Jack Vance novel.
People dis the iconic D&D magic system with little to no understanding of why it's even in the game in the first place (not saying you do, DH, but I've run across it quite a bit in my thirty three years of gaming), and, frankly, I ignore most of them. Big reason why 4e will never be a game I play.
D&D = Vanican magic, and I don;t care if I'm playing 1e, PF, KF or whatever, I want to play D&D. If I wanted to use Shadowrun's system, I'd play Shadowrun (and do, it's my second favorite system). If I want to play D&D, I play 1e or Kirthfinder, for the most part. I'm even in the process of converting my 27 year old 1e campaign to Kirthfinder, because I dig it.
Bottom line, if Kirth changed the magic system to something else, I'd probably not be as enthusiastic about the game (but still amazingly enthusiastic about the company) as I am.
I'm old school. I am proud of it.
2. Evokers get some nice perks, too!
They look very cool... one question tho-at 12th, 16th and 20th level they can apply a "evocation" metamagic to all there evocation spells (which qualify)... at 12th level they could choose irresistible evocation-this would mean ever after no saving throws are allowed from there evocations - it is awesome... Should this perhaps be restricted from that list of auto metamagic, or limited to only at 16th/20th level?
They look very cool... one question tho-at 12th, 16th and 20th level they can apply a "evocation" metamagic to all there evocation spells (which qualify)... at 12th level they could choose irresistible evocation-this would mean ever after no saving throws are allowed from there evocations - it is awesome... Should this perhaps be restricted from that list of auto metamagic, or limited to only at 16th/20th level?
Excellent spot, and I'm torn on that... because yes, it is awesome, but then again, you're stuck being an evoker. I'd need to see it in play (preferrably after houstonderek gets done screwing around with the spells!) to make a call one way or the other.
However, I've set myself a tentative goal of April 1st of this year to finalize the rules as "good enough, unless we find something that's totally broken." (Spells and magic might become a separate set of rules sometime in the future.)
That would be really good. I was talking with Lobachevskii (our GM) and he was worried about converting our campaign to kirthfinder when the rules are in such flux - Having a month before they will be "practically stable" is brill and will hopefully result in us using this.
He has got one question - Given the increase in power of classes (from the better feats etc) what changes need to be made to the monsters - do we simply apply scaling feats to them, are the encounters meant to have higher CR's; or do we use the vanilla pathfinder ones (we don't have 3.5 books etc.)... Any simple fixes?
Also are all the classes considered balanced? Or do you consider them all balanced?
God bless, and thanks
James
He has got one question - Given the increase in power of classes (from the better feats etc) what changes need to be made to the monsters - do we simply apply scaling feats to them, are the encounters meant to have higher CR's; or do we use the vanilla pathfinder ones (we don't have 3.5 books etc.)... Any simple fixes?
We had about a pagelong discussion of that at some point, which I can't seem to locate now. The TL;DR answer: (a) re-assign monsters' feats to take advantage of the new stuff, and/or (b) give them one or more class levels. (c) Also, for animals, etc., I like to use the 3.5 stats instead of the weakened PF ones.
Finally, I like a big mix of ELs, some way too low, some too high. Keeps the PCs on their toes!
|
|
I'm kind of a "roots" player. I have a lot of familiarity with more than a few of the '80s rpg systems he steals from. If you look closely enough, there's a lot of Bond 007, Hero System, Rolemaster and AD&D (1e) integrated into the Pf/3x framework.
out of that list I've played Rolemaster and AD&D 1e. Rolemaster is kindof neat. Pretty lethal.
I see a lot of people sling the term "Vancian magic" (because, you know, Gygax stole it nearly whole cloth for OD&D/1e), but I doubt 1% have ever actually READ a Jack Vance novel.
People dis the iconic D&D magic system with little to no understanding of why it's even in the game in the first place (not saying you do, DH, but I've run across it quite a bit in my thirty three years of gaming), and, frankly, I ignore most of them. Big reason why 4e will never be a game I play.
I'm aware of who Jack Vance is, and I've read exerpts from a couple of his novels, but I have not gone and actually picked up a Vance novel and read it.
I get why its in the system, but I don't feel its necessary. Additionally, if one went with TOZ's suggestion, and say, took the levels off of the slots, I think you'd still be able to copy the vance novels pretty reliably. It would certainly be good enough to copy the magic in the 1e-3e based forgotten realms novels.
And the system I mentioned would likely also be good enough to copy the FR novels magic. They mention spells, but they almost never make references to spells being forgotten in the style of Vance.
D&D = Vancian magic, and I don;t care if I'm playing 1e, PF, KF or whatever, I want to play D&D. If I wanted to use Shadowrun's system, I'd play Shadowrun (and do, it's my second favorite system). If I want to play D&D, I play 1e or Kirthfinder, for the most part. I'm even in the process of converting my 27 year old 1e campaign to Kirthfinder, because I dig it.
I dont think D&D needs to have vancian magic. I just think it needs to be able to emulate my D&D branded novels. (which 4e ceases to be able to do).
I'm old school. I am proud of it.
Whatever works for you. :)
It would certainly be good enough to copy the magic in the 1e-3e based forgotten realms novels.
Ugh -- Forgotten Realms (shudder). Just when I had succeeded in forgetting them, too!
|
|
It would certainly be good enough to copy the magic in the 1e-3e based forgotten realms novels.Ugh -- Forgotten Realms (shudder). Just when I had succeeded in forgetting them, too!
*shrug* Personally, I like all the novels I've read in the FR that dont have Drizzt Do'Urden in them.
And FR is still my favorite campaign setting.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never got very into any of the campaign settings. I run a generic world with Greyhawk deities, and flesh it out in game.
I do understand the draw of an established setting, however. One of my players ran a game in a setting from one of my favorite book series, and once I realized it I was pretty pleased.
Recommended name change: If no one objects, I'm going to change the name of the "favored soul" class to "incarnate" instead. There are a couple of reasons for this:
1. It more accurately portrays the intent of the class; and
2. It's a single word, vs. 2 words (all the other core classes have single-word names).
The name is from the Ultimate Classes docs, and (IMHO) is a much better fit than "oracle" for what Paizo was going for.
Thoughts?
Also in favor. "Favored soul" was always pretty clunky, and oracles are Classical Greek fortune-tellers in my mind. I don't have any predispositions about incarnate, so the change seems fine to me.
Name changed. I'm also thinking of adding resistances or other stuff at even levels, to represent your growing connection with your mystery -- maybe DR/magic at 4th, immunity to disease at 6th, favored planar terrain at 8th, XX at 10th, immunity to poison at 12th, XX at 14th, SR at 16th? And at 20th you'd become a living embodiment of your mystery, with the native outsider type. Thoughts/suggestions?
Name changed. I'm also thinking of adding resistances or other stuff at even levels, to represent your growing connection with your mystery -- maybe DR/magic at 4th, immunity to disease at 6th, favored planar terrain at 8th, XX at 10th, immunity to poison at 12th, XX at 14th, SR at 16th? And at 20th you'd become a living embodiment of your mystery, with the native outsider type. Thoughts/suggestions?
XX at 10th... DR change to alignment?
XX at 14th... immunity to level drainOthers could be immunity to death effects or stat damage/drain... oh and the ever popular fatigue and exhaustion.
This would also mean you could tone down there current 'energy' immunity - just because it seem very high very quickly; being almost invulnerable mostly negates the point of them increasing.
I was thinking about favored soul last night (and yes incarnate is much nicer) - Could something like "Divine Invocation" help them - once per day at 4th +1/day per 4 class levels thereafter they can use a spell slot to cast any spell on the standard cleric/incarnate spell list of an appropriate level (or one very linked with the portfolio of there incarnation)... basically giving them a little extra umph (given the cleric's omni-access to there spells).
:D
1. XX at 10th... DR change to alignment?
2. XX at 14th... immunity to level drain
3. Others could be immunity to death effects or stat damage/drain... oh and the ever popular fatigue and exhaustion.
4. This would also mean you could tone down [their] current 'energy' immunity - just because it seem very high very quickly; being almost invulnerable mostly negates the point of them increasing.
1. I'd rolled that into the 20th level "grab bag" of goodies for becoming an Outsider.
2. Yeah, I like that!3. Stat damage/drain is cool -- I want to leave death immunity to the [death] domain/mystery guys, and fatigue immunity to the martials, though.
4. 5 x (half level) is a pretty steep ramp, although it's comparable to resist energy, which hits 20 at 7th level (vs. the incarnate's 10th) and 30 at 11th level (vs. 12th).
2. Yeah, I like that!1. XX at 10th... DR change to alignment?
2. XX at 14th... immunity to level drain
Sweet!
4. 5 x (half level) is a pretty steep ramp, although it's comparable to resist energy, which hits 20 at 7th level (vs. the incarnate's 10th) and 30 at 11th level (vs. 12th).
Cool, I think it was seeing something growing up to resist 40 and beyond daunted me - I didn't realize it was comparable... in that case I retract my comment :P (And it's a specific, non changeable, type.)
On the upcoming 1st April version - what will be the major changes you are expecting to make by then. Charasma being the spellcasting stat, combined spell tables, theurgy and the incarnate... roughly what else - having an idea will help seeing how much going ahead with the current system will need to be tweaked, what we'll need to wait on etc.
God Bless, and Thanks
james
Don't forget fractional saves, and the inclusion of the Intuition save.
The other main thing is that the Prestige Paladin has been rehauled -- the level progression cleaned up, the stacking previous class features listed clearly, and the auras codified. The mercies now have limited scaling up the "effect chains" as you level as well (shaken -> frightened, etc.), rather than forcing you to select each condition separately. And I hope to add an appendix on converting the Prestige Paladin mechanics for use in making Blackguards, Champions of Freedom, Hellknights, etc.
Don't forget fractional saves, and the inclusion of the Intuition save.
Is this basically for each save I add "1/2(my levels of good save)+2" and 1/3 "levels of bad save" yes..? so a "fighter 5/commoner 2" would have save bonuses of '(5 x 1/2) + 2' + (2 x 1/3) = 2.5 + 2 + 0.67 = '+5' Rather than the traditional 4 + 0 = '+4' Or am I completely off target?
Cool, Knowing the other things (apart from tweaks) I think we will be good to go! :D Awesome-sauce!And on a complete tangent today I have found how to have an avatar - This is awesome and makes me happy! :D:D:D
Is this basically for each save I add "1/2(my levels of good save)+2" and 1/3 "levels of bad save" yes..?
Yes, exactly.
|
|
The light/heavy wound conditions are brutal at low levels. With a hard combat and some (un)lucky rolls, the PCs were absolutely suffering in our latest session. (We actually needed to retcon a TPK - one that shouldn't have happened, but the players kept rolling <6 and the enemies kept critting, alas...)
Not really complaining, as I love the concept, but level 1 PCs could do with a bit of a HP boost in some way to deal with it (one hit sends them directly to fatigued half the time, for example).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a feature as well, to an extent--but I guess it's just part of the swingy nature of early levels. It just kind of exacerbates the problem somewhat.
I'm not sure how you could tone that swinginess down either. 4e's solution of giving everyone a tonne of hit points just made low level mooks feel extremely weird. :/
I think we also have to factor in that a more experienced party might make more sound tactical decisions than we did, and the penalties are just as much of a boon as a bane when you manage to finally deal that damage to the enemy.
Personally, even while doing 1d6-3 damage, I enjoyed the concept that while bleeding out/extremely battle fatigued things weren't quite as easy for a character to pull off.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, these rules are designed with bringing a bit of the deadliness of earlier editions back into the game. Now, Kirth isn't as into resource management as I am when I run a game, so a lot of that is handwaved, but he does put the pedal to the metal when it comes to tactics and whatnot, so being reckless will get you dead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we also have to factor in that a more experienced party might make more sound tactical decisions than we did, and the penalties are just as much of a boon as a bane when you manage to finally deal that damage to the enemy.
What's worked really well for us in Kirth's campaign is to be the aggressor. When the bad guys are split up, pick them off singly. Set up situations where you buff and attack first. Basically, get the bad guys to fatigued/exhausted before you get there.
What's worked really well for us in Kirth's campaign is to be the aggressor. When the bad guys are split up, pick them off singly. Set up situations where you buff and attack first. Basically, get the bad guys to fatigued/exhausted before you get there.
That's my love for the Bond 007 game showing through again -- fire combat in that system was absurdly deadly, so you had to carefully set things up in advance, so that there was nothing even vaguely resembling a level playing field, and then *blam!blam!blam!* all the bad guys get mowed down like weeds. If you gave them an even break, you rolled the dice and took your chances, and they ususally weren't all that good.
Spent the weekend cleaning up the Incarnate, and still have a ways to go.
Kirth, my understanding is that spellcasters got nerfed some. How was this done?
Kirth, my understanding is that spellcasters got nerfed some. How was this done?
Mostly through the changes in spellcasting in combat rules, as detailed in the Introduction document that TOZ linked. Without bodyguards, getting a spell off while people are trying to kill you is extremely difficult. Also, spell save DCs using Cha instead of the primary spellcasting stat is a nerf. Finally, one fewer spell/level for clerics is a nerf.
Kirth, my understanding is that spellcasters got nerfed some. How was this done?Mostly through the changes in spellcasting in combat rules, as detailed in the Introduction document that TOZ linked. Without bodyguards, getting a spell off while people are trying to kill you is extremely difficult.
How does this effect clerics, Fighter/Mages, and other melee spellcasters?
How does this effect clerics, Fighter/Mages, and other melee spellcasters?
It makes them a lot more careful about casting, vs. fighting. In the playtesting, Silevrhair's cleric used spells before and after combat, but relied on his glaive in the thick of things. Same with Jess Door's fighter/wizard. If you want to fight in combat, you could invest in Combat Casting (if you still want to try casting defensively), or just eat the attack of opportunity every time you cast. Another option would be to use the Still Spell feat a lot (to get rid of those pesky somatic components), coupled with some way to eliminate material components (usually by having a focus object instead, or by means of the Eschew Materials feat) -- then there's nothing to disrupt. Another option is to simply play a skald.
There are ways, but they're all ones that you have to invest in.
How does this effect clerics, Fighter/Mages, and other melee spellcasters?It makes them a lot more careful about casting, vs. fighting. In the playtesting, Silevrhair's cleric used spells before and after combat, but relied on his glaive in the thick of things. Same with Jess Door's fighter/wizard. Another option would be to use the Still Spell feat a lot (to get rid of those pesky somatic components), or invest in Combat Casting, or play a skald.
So, the Magus and Eldritch Knight would get a heavy nerf if I borrowed these rules for Pathfinder?
So, the Magus and Eldritch Knight would get a heavy nerf if I borrowed these rules for Pathfinder?
Not necessarily. They'll get huge benefits from the way combat feats and actions in combat work in these rules (both differently than in Pathfinder), but will have a harder time casting in combat, unless they use one of the strategies outlined above (eliminate M/S components, take Combat Casting, or accept the AoOs and cast anyway).
Again, and I can't say this enough, there are a lot of basic system changes here that all interact with each other. I would NOT recommend grabbing individual pieces without first taking a careful look at how the rest of things will be affected.
I guess that's why I mine Kirthfinder for ideas instead of using it wholesale. I want to maintain compatibility with Paizo archetypes.
Here is what I do. I was considering porting over your caster nerfs, but I ended up using my own.
Pretty happy with Incarnate mysteries and revelations now. Curse is a feat; incanates can select it as a bonus feat if they want it, or not if they don't.
Prestige paladin: Added antipaladin/blackguard/champion of slaughter and hellknight/champion of tyranny as example variants.
Sorcerer and Wizard:
Corrections made (finally!). Thanks, Christopher!
About the arcane feat Warmage: the prerequisites are Int 13, and eldritch blast. The bonus damage to spells and SLA's is also Int based. Given that it requires the blast, which all sorcerers now get, is there any reason not to allow it to be based off any mental stat, similar to Canny Defense?
Jeff
About the arcane feat Warmage: the prerequisites are Int 13, and eldritch blast. The bonus damage to spells and SLA's is also Int based. Given that it requires the blast, which all sorcerers now get, is there any reason not to allow it to be based off any mental stat, similar to Canny Defense?
A very strong reason: if it were Cha-based for sorcerers, it would simply be a feat tax (i.e., pretty much all sorcerers would always take it), which under the design guidelines of these rules would mean that it should be a class feature, and not presented as an "option."
However, by making it Int-based, it remains a true option: you can "build" for it by taking high Int at the start, or you can neglect Int and also not worry about the feat, either, but you'll make up for it elsewhere (like pumping Wis for a good ranged attack bonus).
About the arcane feat Warmage: the prerequisites are Int 13, and eldritch blast. The bonus damage to spells and SLA's is also Int based. Given that it requires the blast, which all sorcerers now get, is there any reason not to allow it to be based off any mental stat, similar to Canny Defense?A very strong reason: if it were Cha-based for sorcerers, it would simply be a feat tax (i.e., pretty much all sorcerers would always take it), which under the design guidelines of these rules would mean that it should be a class feature, and not presented as an "option."
However, by making it Int-based, it remains a true option: you can "build" for it by taking high Int at the start, or you can neglect Int and also not worry about the feat, either, but you'll make up for it elsewhere (like pumping Wis for a good ranged attack bonus).
That makes a lot of sense.
Are rays and other ranged touch attacks grouped with projectile weapons, or are thrown weapons the only ranged attacks still based on dex?
Are rays and other ranged touch attacks grouped with projectile weapons, or are thrown weapons the only ranged attacks still based on dex?
Yes and yes.
And part of me really, really wants to move thrown weapons to Str, to give some love to the iconic spear- or ax-throwing barbarian, for example. I may yet end up doing that.
Couldn't you allow some thrown weapons to get their STR damage bonus while you still use Dex for the accuracy. From what I've seen Barbarians are still going to want to have decently high Dexterity even under Kirthfinder.
That's how it currently works -- but if you've ever tried the hatchet toss, you're sometimes more likely to hit the target (and make it stick) by simply heaving the daggone thing than you are by trying to be all nimble about it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Judging from my hatchet tossing experiences, if I were a barbarian, the hatchet would be a bludgeoning weapon when thrown.
|
|
Kirth, picked up a supplement called Lorefinder, and it's got an interesting idea or two. Just FYI.
Reading the product discussion on the site here may give you all you need to know.
TOZ -- looks interesting; I'd have picked that up for sure a year and a half ago, when we were in the early stages of the Alpha playtest. Now... I'm too tired to add in too much more, unless it really adds a lot to the game.
1. Putting everything in Strength also seems to go against your goal of making all stats wanted by most classes.
2. Have you seen any problems come up in play where having it rely on two stats causes problems?
1. Dex is still pretty valuable (initiative, AC, Reflex saves), so I'm not too worried about this.
2. Other than giants who are supposed to be great rock throwers and can't hit anything with them? (That's a major pet peeve, BTW.) But no -- not really -- which I suppose is a good reason to leave it alone.