Kirthfinder - Sovalles

Game Master Kirth Gersen

This is a KIRTHFINDER campaign.


301 to 349 of 349 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3
Cayden Moore wrote:
I also realize that a blacksmith might not quite have the knowledge to soothe a wild beast)

A smith should probably be able to shoe a horse... also, Handle Animal covers riding, not just handling.


M Human Wizard 2 | HP: 12 | AC/T/FF: 16/11/15 | Saves: F +2 | R +2 | I +6 | W +5 | CMD: 12 | Init: +1 | Per: +3
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kolmac wrote:
So what would be the effect of, say, a ray of bind with fell entangle applied (envisioning something like a force lasso)? Does hit/miss just stand in for a failed/passed save? Or is there no effect on a miss, rendering the fell modifier useless?
This is something I'd need to think on, as touch attack no-save effects can get stoopid crazy later in the game. So far, I'd been keeping the save allowed, since you're normally piggybacking on another ray -- something like "ranged touch for 5d6 acid (no save) plus sickened 1 rd./level (Fort 1 rd.)."

That sounds the most reasonable, and yes, this is mostly intended for Cascading onto magic missiles where it will also benefit from Ray Splitting, so that probably offsets the downside of a miss chance. I've also started looking at ways to tack on an attack bonus as an alternate approach to mimicking the auto-hit feature of magic missile, which perhaps highlights how broken not allowing the save could become.

Started working out when Ray Splitting/my bonus missiles come online...looking forward to level 6.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3
Kolmac wrote:
Verification regarding numen cost of metamagic feats: an item granting knowledge of a metamagic feat (essentially a reference text) would cost 2000 numen x 2x the metamagic cost (i.e. ranks in Concentration required for the feat), right? So, for example, a tome of Fell Binding would cost 4000 numen, and allow me to apply Fell Binding during spell preparation?

Look at it this way: to cast a 5th level spell, you need a CL 9th. Therefore, to cast a 4th level spell with a +1 level metamagic feat tacked on, you'd be looking at (9 ranks x 2000) = 18,000 numen.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3
Cayden Moore wrote:
1. I'd need to know more about what skill synergies I can actually select.

Pick any 2 primary skills except Perception. Or pick all of one category of secondary skills (e.g., all Knowledge (X), or Craft (X), etc.

Quote:
Also just realized that if I already have Personal Weapon that I shouldn't have needed to spend the 400 numen on a masterwork weapon.. right? (again not metagaming, just noticing)

Yeah, with Personal Weapon you can claim any old sword as your favorite weapon and suddenly it's a +1 sword.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3
Cayden Moore wrote:
1: Yeah, Heart of the Wilderness doesn't fit the flavor since I'd assume heart of the wilderness would be the ones that spend most of their time away from civilization, hunters, trackers, those who need to survive for weeks or months at a time.

Per Chapter 1, flavor text is only that; you can re-flavor at will if the mechanics are the same. Rename it "heart of the forge" and keep the same mechanics and, voila, it fits now.


M Human Wizard 2 | HP: 12 | AC/T/FF: 16/11/15 | Saves: F +2 | R +2 | I +6 | W +5 | CMD: 12 | Init: +1 | Per: +3
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kolmac wrote:
Verification regarding numen cost of metamagic feats: an item granting knowledge of a metamagic feat (essentially a reference text) would cost 2000 numen x 2x the metamagic cost (i.e. ranks in Concentration required for the feat), right? So, for example, a tome of Fell Binding would cost 4000 numen, and allow me to apply Fell Binding during spell preparation?
Look at it this way: to cast a 5th level spell, you need a CL 9th. Therefore, to cast a 4th level spell with a +1 level metamagic feat tacked on, you'd be looking at (9 ranks x 2000) = 18,000 numen.

Okay, so in the case of something as narrow as Fell Binding, I'm better off just buying premodified spells for a few thousand numen instead. Not sure I can spare the feat slot, I have my eye on about three times as many feats as I can actually take...

I definitely missed the order of operations/no discount on first metamagic clause. So, when possible, you want your first metamagic to be a +1 modifier so you can maximize discounts on others; in the case of flare, this has to be Reach at +1 because you can't apply the Extend +1 until the dazzle Augment has been applied. Better go recheck all my custom spells...

Back to blindness effects, my light-based build still compares fairly well with blindness/deafness with Accursed Spell removed. I see blindness is supposed to require a 2nd level spell minimum, which technically makes shadow veil illegal, and invalidates my point about a 1st level 1 round/level version. Sadly I'll have to wait until 4th level at least to have enough metamagic to build blinding halo, and then only if I trade in my magic missile turning. Which I'll probably do, I resist force damage anyway and a niche advantage vs other arcane casters isn't much compared to a whole metamagic feat.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3
Kolmac wrote:
Not sure I can spare the feat slot, I have my eye on about three times as many feats as I can actually take...

THAT was the intent! Design goal: no trap options...


M Human Wizard 2 | HP: 12 | AC/T/FF: 16/11/15 | Saves: F +2 | R +2 | I +6 | W +5 | CMD: 12 | Init: +1 | Per: +3

Playing around some more...I'm guessing the intent is that Fell Entangling must be applied after Augmenting bind, since the effects depend on which condition []i]bind[/i] inflicts? Otherwise, you can create fell grapple = bind + Fell Entangling (1) + Augment (grapple, 1) = 2nd level, which is the same level as grapple = bind + Augment (grapple, 2) = 2nd level, and that seems wrong.

As far as 'free' metamagic via synergy, consider the following: bind + Fell Entangling (1) + Reach (close to medium, 1) + Extend (round/lvl to 2 rounds/lvl, 1) = 3rd. Both Reach and Extend can be discounted, but can't be reduced below 1, so at no additional cost you can have Reach to medium and Extend to 1 minute/level. Right? Not that this is necessarily a problem, the latter is a more appropriate 3rd level spell than the former, just something interesting to watch for when using some of the scaling metamagic options.

Proposed revision to the Fell X feats make sense, spell seeds already control which conditions are available from which schools so there's not much need for the [necromancy] tag on the feats.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3
Kolmac wrote:
Both Reach and Extend can be discounted, but can't be reduced below 1, so at no additional cost you can have Reach to medium and Extend to 1 minute/level. Right? Not that this is necessarily a problem, the latter is a more appropriate 3rd level spell than the former, just something interesting to watch for when using some of the scaling metamagic options.

Exactly! And that kind of metamagic synergy was a direct product of reverse-engineering the spells in the CRB (with some obvious exceptions for things that are more powerful given the revised action economy -- e.g. haste and slow--and for things that were very weak for their level -- e.g., cone of cold).

Similarly, using these rules to re-construct them, I'm finding that a lot of splatbook spells I always thought were weak, are coming in at lower level than they're listed -- and vice-versa for some of the "must take" ones. So, yeah, the seed + metamagic system probably still has a lot of bugs in it -- hence my gratitude for you and Eshkeval testing it -- but it also, for the most part, seems to be doing its job.


M Human Wizard 2 | HP: 12 | AC/T/FF: 16/11/15 | Saves: F +2 | R +2 | I +6 | W +5 | CMD: 12 | Init: +1 | Per: +3
Kirth Gersen wrote:
So, yeah, the seed + metamagic system probably still has a lot of bugs in it -- hence my gratitude for you and Eshkeval testing it -- but it also, for the most part, seems to be doing its job.

Mad props for coming up with it in the first place, it's brilliantly done. Not something I'd recommend to a new player, perhaps, but I'm sure having a blast with it.


If you were able to move all spellcasters into the seed spell system, couldn't you basically call Kirthfinder it's own system at that point, since it wouldn't rely on copyrighted spells?

I know Rogue Skill Tricks might need an overhaul, but it might be worth it, IMHO. You could probably get the Spheres Wiki to host it at that point, and thereby garner a lot of free publicity for the system.


M Half Dwarf Ranger Barbarian 2 | HP: 16 | AC: 17 | FF: 16 | TAC: 14 | Saves: F: +2 | R: +2 | I: +3 | W: +0 | CMD: 16 | Init: +0 | Per: +5 (Eagle Eyes) | DV 70' | Speed: 30' | Alertness +1 | See Ethereal 10’

FYI: traveling this weekend with limited access to the net.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3
Kaouse wrote:
I know Rogue Skill Tricks might need an overhaul, but it might be worth it, IMHO. You could probably get the Spheres Wiki to host it at that point, and thereby garner a lot of free publicity for the system.

Don't care about publicity - just want a game whose rules lead to the kind of stories my friends and I enjoy making, without us having to fight them for it.

Yes, skill tricks need to be revised, but I'm so bogged down in revising cleric domains and sorcerer bloodlines and incarnate mysteries that I may never get to it! (And when I'm not doing that, I still want to convert all the 1e/2e spells I used to like so much...).


Would you like some help on converting specific spells?

While you might not care about publicity, it certainly helps those of us who are trying to get our own group of friends to try a new system.

Moving Kirthfinder out of the "Homebrew" category and into the "3rd Party" category would be a tremendous change in terms of how Kirthfinder is viewed and how willing people are to try it, IMHO.


M Human Wizard 2 | HP: 12 | AC/T/FF: 16/11/15 | Saves: F +2 | R +2 | I +6 | W +5 | CMD: 12 | Init: +1 | Per: +3

In-game...we're definitely still missing a motive for these killings, beyond protecting the secret of this building and its hidden contents. Cayden, maybe you make a roll with your new Construction knowledge and determine whether this cellar predates the construction on top of it? Knowing whether this is something that was stumbled upon and covered up, or built with the express purpose of hiding an unholy site could be useful. Failing that, we can continue with the plan of conversationally interrogating some of the people involved in the project.


M Human Wizard 2 | HP: 12 | AC/T/FF: 16/11/15 | Saves: F +2 | R +2 | I +6 | W +5 | CMD: 12 | Init: +1 | Per: +3

Question on modifying the resist energy construction. I gather Expedient Spell reduces the effect from immunity to resistance; was the resistance value just picked to match the existing spell? How should it scale if the spell level is changed by additional metamagic?

Specifically, wondering if it's legal to create a family of level 0 resist energy spells by stripping off Extend and Variable, Cascade 5 of them together, and then reapply Extend for a 5th level spell granting resistance 30 (or more?) to all 5 energy types. And what resistance would be granted by the level 0 versions, if used on their own?

Does the swift action condition on the redirect of Bouncing Spell apply to effects recreated with it, such as dispel magic? Does Bouncing Spell work with rays--looking at the specific case of manaspear, does Bouncing only apply to the dispel attempt or does it work on both halves of the spell? Finally, if I apply Ray Splitting to manaspear...does each hit drain a spell slot?


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3
Kolmac wrote:

Question on modifying the resist energy construction. I gather Expedient Spell reduces the effect from immunity to resistance; was the resistance value just picked to match the existing spell? How should it scale if the spell level is changed by additional metamagic?[/qiuote]I actually made a new seed, "inure," for making resist energy, stoneskin, and so on. Will post that soon.

Quote:
Does the swift action condition on the redirect of Bouncing Spell apply to effects recreated with it, such as dispel magic? Does Bouncing Spell work with rays--looking at the specific case of manaspear, does Bouncing only apply to the dispel attempt or does it work on both halves of the spell?

I'll have to read up on it tomorrow - got a 4-year-old clamoring for the compute now!

Quote:
Finally, if I apply Ray Splitting to manaspear...does each hit drain a spell slot?

You'd take total slots it drains, add the level of the spell, and divide that total among the different rays, just like you do with damage dice.


M Human Wizard 2 | HP: 12 | AC/T/FF: 16/11/15 | Saves: F +2 | R +2 | I +6 | W +5 | CMD: 12 | Init: +1 | Per: +3

Neat, I'll hold off on defensive options until that's ready then, I expect I'll be making quite a lot of use of that one.

I think I need some clarification on how the spell draining function of dispel works. Does it require an opposed Concentration check like other uses of dispel? And how do you determine the number of slots/levels affected for the effect?


Male Human Archivist 2 | HP: 13 | AC/FF/T: 17/13/17 | Saves: F +3 | R +5 | I +6 | W +6 | CMD: 15 | Init: +4 | Per: +3 | See Ethereal: 10 ft.

I wonder if Inure works with Versatile Evocation? But then, I wonder what the base seed effect would be. Either way, I'm somewhat excited about the possibilities of such a seed spell.

Also, I'm still not sure I can see the new rules on preparing spells on the google drive. I'm guessing Kirth is compiling a bunch of changes to make one massive update, then?


M Human Wizard 2 | HP: 12 | AC/T/FF: 16/11/15 | Saves: F +2 | R +2 | I +6 | W +5 | CMD: 12 | Init: +1 | Per: +3

Working on mid-level spells and came up with this little gem using true strike as a model. I wanted a way to boost my attack rolls for rays, especially while using Ray Splitting, and true strike only applies to one attack roll (based on PF version and the Strike feat it's built off of), so I had to look for alternative ways to build the effect. Blessing was right out, since Enchantment is a barred school, so I turned back to bestow feat and did some gymnastics with the order of operations...

1st level: Kolmac's arcane aim—self, VSF. Rays gain +2 attack and ignore concealment, cover, melee penalties for 1 round. bestow feat Weapon Specialization ray (1) + Extend 1 round (-1) + Cascade bestow feat Precise Shot Extended to 1 round (+1) + Augment BAB +6 WS (+1) + Effect-Specific Spell attack only (-1) + Augment BAB +11 PS (+2) + Effect-Specific Spell melee, concealment, cover only (-1) + Personal Spell (-1).

Tweaks:
+1 level for +2 damage per missile.
+1 level for additional +1 attack/(damage), or +2 for +2/(+3).
+1 level to shoot into grapple without penalty.
-1 level to only ignore concealment, not melee or cover.
+2 levels to cast as a swift action (via Sudden Spell), for use without Cascade Spell.

Kirth, are the Effect-Specific modifiers I've applied here reasonable? I've left out both the BAB +6 benefit and the re-roll vs. total concealment for the -1 on Precise Shot.

I also came up with a version using enhancement as the base, but that felt like it was skirting the intended use of that effect? It only gives the ignore concealment clause from Precise Shot, but gives a higher attack bonus at higher levels, equal to +1 attack, +1 per 2-4 levels depending on the final spell level.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3
Eshkeval, the Card Archivist wrote:
Also, I'm still not sure I can see the new rules on preparing spells on the google drive. I'm guessing Kirth is compiling a bunch of changes to make one massive update, then?

In a word, yes. But I'll try and remember to post the "inure" seed in the homebrew thread soon.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

Your cascaded bestow feat is still your first >+0 metamagic, and therefore doesn't get the discount. But if you did a Mass Effect instead of Cascading the feats, you might be able to piggyback the BAB adjustment:

Bestow feat (Weapon Specialization: rays; 1st level) + Effect-Specific Spell (attack only; -1 level) + Mass Effect Spell (also Precise Shot; +2 levels) + Effect-Specific Spell (PS allows only concealment/cover effects; -1 level) + Augment Spell (BAB +11 effects; +2 levels) + Extend Spell (1 rd./level to 1 rd.; -1 level) + Personal Spell (-1 level) = 1st level; +3 to attacks with rays, and they ignore cover and concealment.

To make it a swift casting, Extend to 1 min./level instead of 1 rd. (+3 levels) and then add Sudden Spell.


M Human Wizard 2 | HP: 12 | AC/T/FF: 16/11/15 | Saves: F +2 | R +2 | I +6 | W +5 | CMD: 12 | Init: +1 | Per: +3

Ooh, that's a nice trick with the Augments, I figured they had to be applied separately. Do you not still need bestow Precise Shot though, I'd figure Mass Effect just allows you to 'target' both seeds with the Augment but they still have to be there first?

I'm not quite sure what was illegal with the first construction--maybe my shorthand was a little unclear. Step 1: make a level 0 bestow Precise Shot with Extend (-1) applied. Then start with the level 1 bestow Weapon Specialization and Cascade the level 0 Precise Shot. I don't think that violates anything specific in the Cascade rules, nor the spirit of the Cascade/Reduce spell interaction.

That said, I see both versions have room for an initial +1 metamagic, it would make sense to apply Unskittering Spell and bypass deflection bonuses as well. That would make my version (fixed by dropping the Precise Shot cover benefit) +2 attack, ignores concealment, ignores deflection; and your version either +3 attack, ignores concealment, ignores cover, ignores deflection, or +3 attack/damage, ignores concealment, ignores deflection; all coming out to 1st level.

Have I mentioned I'm excited for 6th/7th level? Ray Splitting shenanigans will abound.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3
Kolmac wrote:

Ooh, that's a nice trick with the Augments, I figured they had to be applied separately. Do you not still need bestow Precise Shot though, I'd figure Mass Effect just allows you to 'target' both seeds with the Augment but they still have to be there first?

I'm not quite sure what was illegal with the first construction--maybe my shorthand was a little unclear. Step 1: make a level 0 bestow Precise Shot with Extend (-1) applied. Then start with the level 1 bestow Weapon Specialization and Cascade the level 0 Precise Shot. I don't think that violates anything specific in the Cascade rules, nor the spirit of the Cascade/Reduce spell interaction.

I get it now. Yeah, you could apply Extend Spell separately to each instance of bestow feat, and it would be 0+1=+1, and then you'd have to Augment separately. Or you could Mass Effect the number of feats as I did (0+2), but then double-dip on the Augmentation. As you've shown, it sort of comes out in a tie.


M Human Wizard 2 | HP: 12 | AC/T/FF: 16/11/15 | Saves: F +2 | R +2 | I +6 | W +5 | CMD: 12 | Init: +1 | Per: +3

They're close, but your way is ~2 spell levels stronger (+1 atk, + either damage or cover negation), depending on whether it's bestow + bestow + Mass + Augment or bestow + Mass + Augment. It's one I'll be purchasing pre-modified with numen rather than building with my own metamagic, so no reason for me not to take the stronger version as long as you're okay with that application of Mass Effect.

Here's the final version: Kolmac’s arcane aim—self, VSF. Rays receive +3 attack and damage, ignore deflection bonuses to AC, and ignore the miss chance from anything less than total concealment for 1 round. bestow feat Weapon Specialization (1st) + Unskittering Spell (+1) + Mass Effect (add Precise Shot, +1) + Augment BAB +11 (+2) + Effect-Specific Spell (ignore concealment only, -2) + Extend 1 round/level to 1 round (-1) + Personal Spell (-1).

Repeating from above: How does the spell draining function of dispel work? Does it require an opposed Concentration check like other uses of dispel? And how do you determine the number of slots/levels affected for the effect? It looks like the original manaspear drained 1/2 CL spell levels with no roll or save; so my first guess at a Kirthfinder translation would be Heighten: spells levels drained = final spell level, with an opposed Concentration check? And based on dark lightning, you can apply Mass Effect as a multiplier on spell levels affected?


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3
Kolmac wrote:

Repeating from above:

1. How does the spell draining function of dispel work? Does it require an opposed Concentration check like other uses of dispel?

2. And how do you determine the number of slots/levels affected for the effect? It looks like the original manaspear drained 1/2 CL spell levels with no roll or save; so my first guess at a Kirthfinder translation would be Heighten: spells levels drained = final spell level, with an opposed Concentration check?

3. And based on dark lightning, you can apply Mass Effect as a multiplier on spell levels affected?

1. Yes, opposed check needed unless you apply Irresistible Spell.

2. You affect one spell/spell slot, unless you use Mass Effect Spell or some other means to increase that number. As written, the level of that spell slot is immaterial; provisionally you'd affect the highest one. Your suggestion isn't a bad one, though, to keep things under control.

3. Yes, dark lightning in Appendix 8A shows exactly how to affect more than one spell slot. As written, you'd start with the highest-level and work your way down, but again, your suggestion might alter that.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3
Kolmac wrote:
Does Bouncing Spell work with rays--looking at the specific case of manaspear, does Bouncing only apply to the dispel attempt or does it work on both halves of the spell?

Not intended to work with rays - I'll alter the wording in the master documents to clarify:

BOUNCING SPELL
[METAMAGIC, TRANSMUTATION]
You can direct a failed spell against a different target.
Benefit: Whenever a bouncing spell targeting a single creature has no effect on its intended target due to spell resistance or a successful saving throw, you may, as a swift action, redirect the full effect to another eligible target within range. The redirected spell behaves in all ways as if its new target were the original target for the spell.
Spells that affect a target in any way (including a lesser effect) on a successful saving throw may not be redirected in this manner, nor can touch spells or spells requiring an attack roll.
Metamagic Cost: +2 levels.


M Human Wizard 2 | HP: 12 | AC/T/FF: 16/11/15 | Saves: F +2 | R +2 | I +6 | W +5 | CMD: 12 | Init: +1 | Per: +3
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kolmac wrote:

Repeating from above:

2. And how do you determine the number of slots/levels affected for the effect? It looks like the original manaspear drained 1/2 CL spell levels with no roll or save; so my first guess at a Kirthfinder translation would be Heighten: spells levels drained = final spell level, with an opposed Concentration check?

2. You affect one spell/spell slot, unless you use Mass Effect Spell or some other means to increase that number. As written, the level of that spell slot is immaterial; provisionally you'd affect the highest one. Your suggestion isn't a bad one, though, to keep things under control.

Low-level dispel feels quite abusable, otherwise, though I suppose you can't punch up that far before the checks start failing. The rate is effectively 1/2 levels (offset by 1 level), so extending to Ray Splitting a level 4 spell could create two rays (three with a force seed for Kolmac), each targeting a 3rd level spell slot (base 4 + 1/2 spell level, split two ways), which seems like plenty of effect for a +1 Cascade. Splitting does become slightly worse at higher levels (level 2-4 splits to hit spell level -1, level 5-8 splits to hit spell level -2, splitting to three rays is not advisable without applying Mass Effect first), so it might need a little tuning.

Taken to extremes, you'd get the following:
mana leak: dispel + Disruptive (+1) + Reach (medium, +1) + Mass Effect (1/level, +3) = 5th level, drains 5 spell levels/level and gives -5 on forced Concentration for a turn, if they somehow have any spells left.

Yikes! Maybe disallow Heightening on Mass Effect levels? So a +1 Mass Effect would give you a 3rd level spell hitting 4 spell levels (=2nd before Mass, two targets), a +2 gets you 2+2/3 levels at 4th, and a +3 gets you 2/level at 5th. So mana leak cast at 10th level would drain up to 20 levels as a 5th level spell, which after Concentration checks means you probably took their two best spells to your one, which is approaching reasonable. I'll work on alternative approaches and some test cases..

As written dispel appears to have effectively have Variable Spell written in. Is there any discount to be had for restricting it to one use as with manaspear?


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

Bracing for tropical storm, so apologies if I drop off the earth for a day or two.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bracing for tropical storm, so apologies if I drop off the earth for a day or two.

Stay safe.


Hope you're staying dry down there.


M Human Wizard 2 | HP: 12 | AC/T/FF: 16/11/15 | Saves: F +2 | R +2 | I +6 | W +5 | CMD: 12 | Init: +1 | Per: +3

Back to the drawing board on the targeting spell...my specialist bonus for force missiles is a competence bonus and won't stack with Weapon Specialization. An insight bonus would make sense, but I'm not seeing an obvious way to gain insight on multiple attacks. The only other option would be the enhancement seed, but there's not usually a way to apply enhancement bonuses to rays so I'm not sure that's valid?


Hey again, sorry for yet another disappearance, life happened yet again and then I was in another state for a few days.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3
Kolmac wrote:
The only other option would be the enhancement seed, but there's not usually a way to apply enhancement bonuses to rays so I'm not sure that's valid?

Per Chapter 8, you can treat rays as a weapon type. Therefore they can receive enhancement bonuses.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

Sorry to be gone last week - power was knocked out overnight, but otherwise I'm OK.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
M Human Wizard 2 | HP: 12 | AC/T/FF: 16/11/15 | Saves: F +2 | R +2 | I +6 | W +5 | CMD: 12 | Init: +1 | Per: +3
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kolmac wrote:
The only other option would be the enhancement seed, but there's not usually a way to apply enhancement bonuses to rays so I'm not sure that's valid?
Per Chapter 8, you can treat rays as a weapon type. Therefore they can receive enhancement bonuses.

Perfect, I'll rebuild it on that basis then.


Male Halfling Rogue 2

Would it be at all possible to adapt Twilight Knife into a skill trick?


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3
Dairkal Nimblecloak wrote:

Would it be at all possible to adapt Twilight Knife into a skill trick?

Per the Grimoire (Appendix 8A), this is as close as I could get when I converted it a couple years ago:

Twilight Knife: Bolt of force (2nd level) + Cascade Spell (bestow feat: Improved Critical; +2 levels) + Augment Spell (BAB +6 effects; +1 level) + Extend Spell (inst. to 1 rd./level; +2 levels) + Tenuous Spell (manifestation can be destroyed; -1 level) + Reduce Spell (20d6 to 5d6; -3 levels) = 3rd level; one ranged touch/rd. (against same target) for 5d6/19-20 force. Since it's within Close range, you'd be able to sneak attack with it if within 30 ft. (or anywhere in close range, if you have Point-Blank Shot).

So, now that it's KF-legal by way of spell construction rules, for it to be a skill trick, we'd need a skill to pin it to, and some rationale for that choice. I'd suggest Sleight of Hand, implying that, while fighting, you're also juggling an extra dagger. I'm open to other suggestions.


M Human Wizard 2 | HP: 12 | AC/T/FF: 16/11/15 | Saves: F +2 | R +2 | I +6 | W +5 | CMD: 12 | Init: +1 | Per: +3

Eshkeval--as per Kirth's clarification in the main rules thread, I'll be switching my dispel to the spell draining version, so you can stick to the dispelling version without overlap.


M Human Wizard 2 | HP: 12 | AC/T/FF: 16/11/15 | Saves: F +2 | R +2 | I +6 | W +5 | CMD: 12 | Init: +1 | Per: +3

Oddball spell idea to run by you Kirth. I want to build a spell drain variant (let's call it mana burn) that causes damage only on a successful drain, similar to the damaging effect on Improved Dispelling. My thought was to cascade bolt of force and dispel, and then substitute the Concentration check in place of the regular save. I wasn't sure if I should also apply Resistible Evocation; the damage potential falls in between a normal save (roughly 50% full damage, 50% half) and a resistible ray (roughly 50% miss, 25% full, 25% half), whereas this spell would be about 50% miss, 50% full, more closely matching a standard ray attack. Maybe I've answered my own question, the actual substitution is using the Concentration check in place of an attack roll.

Alternatively, I suppose it could allow a save vs the damage (Will, probably) and then Resistible works as written.

Note this also depends on how you decide to handle scaling on the drain effect, if the maximum damage is less than 1d6/level (i.e. tageting 1 slot, or cap other than 1 spell level drained/level with rollover to additional slots) then maybe Resistible or Reduce are a fair adjustment again.


M Human Wizard 2 | HP: 12 | AC/T/FF: 16/11/15 | Saves: F +2 | R +2 | I +6 | W +5 | CMD: 12 | Init: +1 | Per: +3

Looping back to arcane aim, I see that most prebuilt spells built off of enhancement include a -2 Item-Specific Spell modifier. Given that my version will apply only to rays, is it valid to include that in the construction? If so, does that rule out Personal Spell, as stacking the two seems a tad abusive?

Here's what I had in mind:

arcane aim: enhancement 2nd + Extend (1 min/lvl to 1 round/lvl; -1) + Unskittering Spell (+1) + Cascade (bestow feat Precise Shot; +1) + Augment (BAB +11; +2) + Effect-Specific Spell (ignore concealment only; -2) + Extend (1 round/lvl to 1 round; -1) + Personal and/or Item-Specific (-1/-2/-3) + Augment (+X enhancement) = 1st, grants +1+X enhancement (Heightens to +1 per 2-4 levels) to attacks (rays, if restricted) for 1 round (or current spell, if Cascaded) and ignores deflection (must be a ray) and partial concealment (must be ranged).

The ray restriction would eliminate the caveats on the additional effects.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

(Moving discussion to House Rules thread, so that all KF participants can see.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male Weremonkey Rogue/Ranger/Trickster

Posting to all my games:

This Tues(the 1st) I'm heading down to NYC to work at New York Comic Con, and returning home on Mon(the 7th).

I will have my both my laptop and cell phone with me, so I'll be able to keep up with my games, but may not be able to post much. Please bot me when and where necessary.


M Human Wizard 2 | HP: 12 | AC/T/FF: 16/11/15 | Saves: F +2 | R +2 | I +6 | W +5 | CMD: 12 | Init: +1 | Per: +3

*poke*poke* anyone home?


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

I'm here!


Male Human Fighter 2

I'm around, What's up with things.


Male Halfling Rogue 2

Here, but very busy. New York Comic Con was just a week+ ago, and that was insane as always. Took me a few days to fully recover. Tomorrow I leave for Baltimore Comic Con, that I'm also working, but it should be less crazy and I'll have my laptop.

Dairkal went to the tavern the group is staying at to get something to eat, and 'chill' a bit from his two near death experiences.


M Human Wizard 2 | HP: 12 | AC/T/FF: 16/11/15 | Saves: F +2 | R +2 | I +6 | W +5 | CMD: 12 | Init: +1 | Per: +3

I think we're waiting on a skill check from Eshkeval, and some investigation on the part of Cayden's half of the group?


Male Halfling Rogue 2

Posting to all my games: I leave tomorrow to work Baltimore Comic Con this weekend.

I will have my laptop and phone with me so I can keep up to date, but I am hoping that since it's a lot less of an insane convention than NYCC, I will be able to get some posting done.

If I am unable to post, I will return next Mon(the 21st), but may be overly tired due to travel and might not be able to post till Tues.

301 to 349 of 349 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Online Campaigns / Play-by-Post Discussion / Kirthfinder, Anyone? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.