At your convenience, I would also like a copy.
lowens2008@comcast.net
Thank you!
I'd love to take a look at the compiled copy when you have a free moment.
that_evil_guy@hotmail.com
Thanks!
Holy. Crap.
I can't imagine all the hours of work you put into this.
I just finished the section on races, and I love it so far.
I must have been missed... Oh well.
|
@Valkyn,
For example, if you're a Fighter 4/Monk 4 and you pick up the Ascetic Warrior fighter talent. This gives you:
- Full synergy for level-dependent effects of sutras and unarmed strike damage -- i.e., you function as a Monk 8 for the purposes of your sutras and damage.
- Weak synergy for the Weapon Form damage -- i.e., you function as Monk 6 (Monk 4 + weak synergy level 4 is +2) for the purposes of Weapon Form.
- Full synergy for the level-dependent effects of fighter talents -- i.e., you function as a Fighter 8 for the purposes of the talents.
Does that make sense?
---
By the way, I like the new standardised synergy table. I was not a huge fan of your original spellcasting synergy stuff and much preferred the +1/2 level progression of the... alpha? Possibly? But a unified method like this for everything actually jives much better with me for some reason.
Immensely! Right now I have two questions. Should I post them here or send them off via email to one of you?
If possible, I'd encourage you to post all questions/comments/errata here. First off, you'll get quicker responses (as we've already seen!), and second because it's EXTREMELY useful for me to have a record of the ongoing discussion all in one place. Thanks!
(1) Is there a reason that you went with the font that you did? I ask because when I look at it in 2-page scrolling view with Acrobat the text is a bit hard to read.
Two reasons: (a) to give "Kirthfinder" stuff a standard "look," I picked a slightly unusual font, but one that was widely supported by most systems; and (b) because I personally like Palatino font.
(2) The "Table: Class Synergy Advancement" stops at class level 19. Is there a reason for it to do so and not include level 20?
TOZ has it correct, and Alice posted an excellent example. To be picking up synergy from a 2nd class, you would have had to have had at least 1 level in a previous class; 1 + 19 = 20, which is the maximum level that Kirthfinder supports (let's face it, at 16th you're more or less a demigod, so 21st is full-blown absurd).
By the way, I like the new standardised synergy table. I was not a huge fan of your original spellcasting synergy stuff and much preferred the +1/2 level progression of the... alpha? Possibly? But a unified method like this for everything actually jives much better with me for some reason.
Thanks! I also wasn't thrilled with a table just for spellcasting, and it seemed an obvious next step to roll everything together into a standardized class synergy system. At the time, I wanted to make sure that every +1 on the Strong synergy table fell on levels that 3/4 BAB would provide "+0," but in retrospect I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to treat Synergy exactly like BAB: full, 3/4, half, with a standard table in common?
Got it, love it. I'm going to have to read through it again. Good work.
Looks great so far thanks for the hard work you guys put into it.
Thanks!
Now just gotta clear up some space on my laptop... Still haven't figured out how I filled an entire 1TB Hard Drive in 4-6 Months...
|
|
Two reasons: (a) to give "Kirthfinder" stuff a standard "look," I picked a slightly unusual font, but one that was widely supported by most systems; and (b) because I personally like Palatino font.
Fair enough there.
TOZ has it correct, and Alice posted an excellent example. To be picking up synergy from a 2nd class, you would have had to have had at least 1 level in a previous class; 1 + 19 = 20, which is the maximum level that Kirthfinder supports (let's face it, at 16th you're more or less a demigod, so 21st is full-blown absurd).
See... My brain wasn't latching on to that important fact when I saw the table or read the text. My apologies.
It may seem strange, but my favorite font to type in is actually Droid Serif. Heh!
==Aelryinth
Heh, looks like I forgot to include the bluff in the Bluff roll earlier.
I am totally stoked for this, and can't wait for the copy.
Heh, looks like I forgot to include the bluff in the Bluff roll earlier.
Interesting; I included you in the initial mailing... Check your spam filter, and/or see if the attachment was too large and got kicked out.
Basically, yeah. I don't care if people steal my own ideas -- do what you like with them! -- but I don't like the idea of a widely-distributed document out there with my name on it that references and/or summarizes excerpts from copyrighted sources. I support copyright protections, and most definitely don't want feds knocking on my door accusing me of violating them.
If eventually there is demand for it beyond a couple of isolated home games, then I'll undertake the creation of a sanitized version, fully in accordance with all OGL provisions and so on, and people can then distribute that to the moon. Until then, my personal, idiosyncratic collection of home rules is just that -- a private set of house rules, not for profit and not for distribution outside of those home games.
|
Pirated huh. That's an interesting term for a nonprofit production like KF has been described as. Am I missing something here? (PM is sent btw)
Even non-profits can be sued for copyright infringement. I doubt it would go beyond a cease and desist forcing me to remove the files, but I'd rather it not even go there. (Mail forwarded.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
which I guess proves that if you have a great idea, somebody has already done it. :)
Just think of how much time and effort your lack of initiative has saved you!
Wow my group is really gonna have to dig through this... A lot of wonderful ideas.
Ok, it took me a long while to even look into this thread but after reading halfway through it I am very interested. I'd love to review the Kirthfinder ruleset, can I please have a copy ?
steeltoes@live.nl
Thank you for all the work you guys put into this !
Quick question. How do classes without high end spells ie ranger or to a lesser extent bard use the unified caster chart? Do they receive the higher level slots to fill with metamagic or is it something else
If they're ending up with higher-level slots, that means they're multiclassing with a better casting class. Use that class' spell list.
which I guess proves that if you have a great idea, somebody has already done it. :)Just think of how much time and effort your lack of initiative has saved you!
I know right!? Dodged a bullet there.
Is the Google Doc of the Kirthfinder rules up to date? Or is the PDF being emailed about the best version? If so, sign me up for a copy!
wer_dragan@yahoo.com
This is the best set of houserules that I've ever come across. For something that is free, it is extremely professional and well thought out. It addresses most of my issues with the 3.5/PF ruleset (I use Strain/Wound rules for HP instead). I especially like what was done with skills and attributes. Thanks!
Thank you! Wishing you happy gaming.
I look forward to trying these rules out if I can convince my group to give them a shot.
If you do, please drop back in and let us know how they work out for you! (What things work, which things you found more annoying than helpful, and which things you ignore/change outright). All feedback is greatly appreciated.
You're welcome! Mail sent.
Thanks TOZ, I did not get far in it yet, but I am sure to use a few options and ideas from it I never considered before.
Did I just miss something in the class descriptions that limits it? I know how the multicast system works in your game(absolutely amazing BTW), but I'm stuck on this one snag in my understanding.
In the individual classes, yes. Every class with any spellcasting has a column in the class level table that says "Spell Capacity." You compare that to the tables in the intro. Then, if you get any spellcasting theurgy when mutliclassing, the specific talent/lore that provides that option will tell you how the stacking works (weak, strong, or full). This is all spelled out in the section on "spell theurgy," so if you just looked at the intro tables (and haven't looked at any of the individual classes yet), I can understand it not being real clear. In fact, reading over my response, it even looks confusing to me without an example... but it's really not that bad!
---When I get a chance in the next day or so, I'll post an example, with chapter and page references, to make things (hopefully) a lot more clear.
When I get a chance in the next day or so, I'll post an example, with chapter and page references, to make things (hopefully) a lot more clear.
The following is the most complicated example I could easily think of that involved just two classes, so bear with me. I'll go through the synergy stuff, including casting, step-by-step.
OK, so pretend I'm playing a ranger named Joe, and I've reached 4th level. According to the Ranger Table 1 (Chapter 3, "Ranger" -- p. 269 of the PDF), that means Joe has 4d10 HD, BAB +4, and spell capacity 2nd. In other words, Joe casts spells as a 2nd level caster, preparing 4 0-level spells and 1 2nd-level spell per day (Spellcasting Table 1, in Chapter 7: Spells -- p. 611 of the PDF).
Now pretend that Joe also gets in touch with his musical side and eventually picks up 4 levels in bard, and another level in ranger, so he's now a ranger 5/bard 4. And he doesn't want to be gimped by multiclassing, so he makes sure to select the Harper Scout lore (Ranger p. 17 -- p. 285 of the PDF) as the ranger lore he gets at 5th level. Per the Harper Scout lore description:
Harper Scout (Ex): You can gain this lore only if you have at least one level in bard. Thereafter, you may learn ranger lore in the place of bardic lore, and vice versa. Your effective level in each class for purposes of adjudicating level-dependent effects of lore is equal to your level in the class granting the lore plus half your level in the other class. You may qualify for advanced ranger lore if your effective ranger level derived in this manner is 11th or higher. You gain the following additional benefits.
Your bard levels provide Weak synergy for purposes of determining your tracking abilities and the level at which they operate.
Your ranger levels provide Weak theurgy towards your arcane spellcasting ability. This supersedes your ranger spellcasting, although you still have access to all spells on the ranger list as if they were bard spells of the appropriate level.
Finally, your ranger levels provide Weak synergy for purposes of determining the effects of your bardic inspiration and the number of rounds of inspiration per day you can maintain. You can gain new forms of inspiration in the place of ranger lore; your effective bard level for purposes of qualifying for new types of inspiration is equal to your bard level plus half your ranger level.
So, the 1st bullet point means that Joe gets tracking abilities at +2 levels on the Ranger table (Weak synergy for 4th level = +2). As a 5th level ranger, he already had the Tracker and Direction Sense abilities; as a 7th level equivalent ranger, he also gains the Swift Tracker ability (see Ranger class table).
The 2nd bullet point is where your question comes in. Notice that Joe's ranger spellcasting ability gets superseded -- forget about it. Instead, he follows the base progression for bard casting to start: Bard Table 1 (p. 100 of the PDF) says that a 4th level bard has spell capacity 4th. However, Joe's ranger lore gives him Weak synergy towards that. Weak synergy for 5th level is +2 (per the table in the Intro). 4th + 2 = 6th, so Joe now casts spontaneous spells as a 6th level caster. He picks his spells known from the bard list or the ranger list, as he chooses, because that's what the Harper Scout lore says you can do.
Finally, the 3rd bullet point means Joe's inspiration works as if he were (4th level bard + 2 for synergy =) 6th level, in terms of effects and rounds per day of use. Also, he'll qualify for Doss inspirations (table on p. 102 of the PDF, regarding bardic colleges and minimum levels to qualify), for when he eventually gets his next inspiration.
|
|
The only thing that strikes me odd about the theurgy rules is how you can kind of switch between different "styles" of casting.
Take the ranger/bard for example. He starts out as a prepared divine caster and then becomes a spontaneous arcane caster. Are his ranger spells suddenly arcane spells? Or are they still divine? Is his casting stat Charisma or Wisdom now? Does he have to pick the ranger spells as spells known or are they automatically on his spells known list? Plus the kind of in-character flavour weirdness of it all, going from the guy that prays every morning in the field to the guy that just does whatever comes naturally.
(It also has implications for my own rules where I use Arcana to identify arcane spells, Nature to identify druidic spells, and [my equivalent of] Religion to identify divine spells - but that's another story.)
Unless I'm missing a rule (quite likely!) that allows you to choose whether to be spontaneous or prepared, in which case it's probably a moot point overall, but the abrupt change bothers me a little.
Maybe you could work it like how Pathfinder deals with monk/ninja ki pools - they merge, and you pick a single ability modifier upon getting the 2nd source of it, and stick with that. So you could pick whether to continue to have ranger-style prepared casting or bard-style spontaneous casting.
1. Are his ranger spells suddenly arcane spells? Or are they still divine?
2. Is his casting stat Charisma or Wisdom now?
3. Does he have to pick the ranger spells as spells known or are they automatically on his spells known list?
4. Plus the kind of in-character flavour weirdness of it all, going from the guy that prays every morning in the field to the guy that just does whatever comes naturally.
5. Unless I'm missing a rule (quite likely!) that allows you to choose whether to be spontaneous or prepared, in which case it's probably a moot point overall, but the abrupt change bothers me a little.
6. Maybe you could work it like how Pathfinder deals with monk/ninja ki pools - they merge, and you pick a single ability modifier upon getting the 2nd source of it, and stick with that. So you could pick whether to continue to have ranger-style prepared casting or bard-style spontaneous casting.
1. Moot point, unless you use weird casting ID rules the way you do!
2. Ranger casting is superseded by bard base, so it's Cha (well, unless he's a skald, in which case it's Int).3. Ah -- I see where what I wrote wasn't as clear as what I was thinking. Should be "treat ranger spells as if they were on your bard class list," or "can learn ranger spells as if they were bard spells."
4. That doesn't bother me at all. He gets so good at praying to the dirt gods and trees for spells that it finally just comes naturally to him. For the other way around (spontaneous to prepared), think of how hard it was for Pug to learn Lesser Path magic in Feist's Magician -- but he eventually got the hang of it, and then some!
5. Yes -- both the druid and ranger descriptions specifically say you can pick spontaneous casting instead of prepared, if you want.
6. Most of them work like that -- it's generally only when one class is blatantly inferior to the other in terms of casting that you default to the better one.
|
|
Figured I missed something. ;) And yes, I'm making problems for myself! Guess I'll just default to "whatever your main spellcasting class is". So in this case he'd be an arcane caster (because his bard casting is the 'main' class).
#5 makes me happy though. I hate prepared casting. I'd totally be tempted to ditch prepared casting all together for a certain homebrew setting of mine!
The switch between them still bothers me, but I suspect that it will be largely irrelevant - I think most players with plans to go from a lower 'tier' of spellcasting ability to a higher 'tier' one will probably pick the appropriate casting style to begin with, and those that don't will have to come up with their own explanation of what happened, like what you suggested.