Thief

Tahlreth's page

104 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Tahlreth wrote:
Is there any way to make a Soulknife have access to the Monk's list of Ki Powers? The only opening I can find is to use Ranger lore to commit a hop-scotch violation.
That's a great idea!

Wait, so performing hop-scotch for numerical bonuses isn't allowed, but performing hop-scotch for non-numerical benefits is legal? Neat.


Is there any way to make a Soulknife have access to the Monk's list of Ki Powers? The only opening I can find is to use Ranger lore to commit a hop-scotch violation.


Talonhawke, for your first question, there should be a 'Saving Throws by Creature Type' table under Ch.1-Intro -> Character Creation -> Saving Throws


Kirthfinder has a metamagic feat called Numbing Cold Evocation. Is that close to what you're looking for?


Arcane Addict wrote:
I'd like to be clever or graceful as I ask the inevitable question, it feels appropriate to do so. I simply don't think I can. I've agonized over it ever since I've read the contents of Kirthfinder, as linked to in the very first post, several months ago. I cannot wait any longer for that creative spark of genius. The pressure to perform built up to the point, now, where I realized that if I didn't act on it, soon I wouldn't be able to express it at all, my desire to possess having reduced me to a gibbering, confusing shell of a man. I can feel it coming, closing in on me. I need salvation, peace of mind, desperately, now, before it is too late. Please, I beg of you, will you save me from myself? Will you send me an updated version?

May you find salvation in the email sent.

Firewarrior44 wrote:
I have a question about Type-less penalties, are they a thing? I know bonuses must have a type but i'm not sure if this also extends to penalties as well.

IIRC, all penalties listed in Kirthfinder are typed as well. If I'm wrong, please post the type-less entry.


Federebus wrote:
Can I get a copy of the rules please?

Sent.


Caimbuel wrote:

It has been a good long time, but my group would love updated rules.

This mod is awesome and we have been using it for years.

Love how all class's have a real role.

Anyway, love updated rules

Sent


Alright, it's more like I use the Leadership feat as a guideline for juggling NPC CRs from encounter to encounter. I'm still trying to find the challenge level sweet spot between tedious steamrolling and horrific TPK.


I second giving a free Leadership feat to every major villain. And I like that the 5th ed. DMG provides a good outline for morale saves. I'll be using that for figuring out when the cohorts would run towards their boss. I'd finally have an excuse to nail down rules for chase scenes.

PirateDevon wrote:
I would love an update too.

Sent.


nevinera wrote:

Can I snag a copy of the final version?

** spoiler omitted **

I have to see how hard it is to convert an adventure path, but the "really early" version google gives me is already very interesting to read. You seemed to pay careful attention to correcting some of the problems that bother me most about the base system, so I can't wait to see where you landed at the end of it :-)

Sent.


Arrius, that sounds like you want to bundle Concentration Spell with Reduce Spell.


wynterknight wrote:
Could I get an updated copy of the ruleset? My most recent version is from 2013!
Aratrok wrote:
I'd like an up to date copy, sounds like Kirth has been doing some awesome stuff. :D

Sent.


A normal character sheet would depend on what your definition of 'normal' is. :P

Last time I printed off sheets for this, I opened up the Excel character sheet and deleted all the zero's. Would that suffice?


CazElrac wrote:

Hi guys, love Kirthfinder and was having some problems with new players to either Pathfinder or Kirthfinder itself with filling out the character sheet. I do not know if the character sheet has had an update since I had requested a copy of the rules. To remedy this problem, I took up the mantle to format the excel sheet with automatic calucations , it can be found here in my google drive, and is updated as I need it.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert in excel or its formulas and I update my master copy on my desktop due to personal internal grievances with my PCs screwing with my formulas

My group prefers pencils and paper character sheets too. If I were to use a digital format, it'd be for Fantasy Grounds on Steam. I'm fairly certain the file types for that simulator aren't compatible with Google Drive.

As for Excel formulas, my own personal number crunching (I'm looking at you, Leadership feat.) has taught me
ROUNDDOWN(number or formula,number of decimal places to round to)
and
ROUNDUP(number or formula,number of decimal places to round to)
are your friends.

JonathonWilder wrote:
Could I have an updated copy of Kirthfinder?

Sent.


ChaoticAngel97 wrote:
This sounds absolutely intriguing. If possible I'd love to see the rules please.

Sent.


Dreaming Warforged wrote:

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

Thanks!

Sent.


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

Sent


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

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

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

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

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


Examples of Mundane Items Built Using Spells wrote:

FIREARMS

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

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


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

Sent.


Sellsword2587 wrote:

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

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

Sent.


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

Sent.


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

Ask nicely and provide an email address. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From the Introduction chapter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Sent.


Arrius wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Okay, sounds reasonable.

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


Earlier in this thread we went over examples of mundane items built using spells. Going over that bit again, I took note of this entry:

this thread wrote:
Holy Water: Cure light wounds (1st) + Planar Channeling (+0 levels) + Splash Evocation (+0 levels) = 1st level; damage on a hit is 1d8 + 1, rather than 2d4.

What rules do/can we follow for adding feats onto the effects of spells?

Also, if say a player wanted to replicate the X-Men character Magneto. Would it be reasonable for them to learn spells pre-modified with Creature-Specific Spell (metal; -2 levels)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since that entry says "(4 or fewer)," I'd say the cost should be multiplied by [uses per day/5], and have '5 uses per day' count as 'at-will.'


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe the Walk in Shadow skill got turned into an Arcane feat called Power Over Shadow, which scales with ranks in Planar Sense.


As another tangent to reformatting/polishing the rule-set yet again, Kirth, at one point you mentioned wanting to make a classless system. Would it be feasible to turn Kirthfinder into such a system if we increased all the values on the numen table by X amount and gave appropriate numen values to all the various class features?

I know all class features that aren't already replicated by feats should be more expensive than feats, but I have no idea what to do about class spell lists and racial abilities.


Arrius wrote:

Mystic Blast [General, Reserve]

You have the unique ability to spontaneously lob balls of magic.
Prerequisites: Must be able to cast Arcane or Divine spells.
Benefit: You may, as a standard action, unleash a ray at close range [30 + 5 ft. per 2 caster levels] as a ranged touch attack, usable at will, dealing 1d6 per highest-available spell level you have prepared. The damage can be chosen once this feat is taken, but it is limited to fire damage, not subject to a save to half. Spell Resistance may block this spell on a failed spell penetration check.
Special: You may also apply positive or negative level adjustments with Metamagic feats, but the total adjustment must be +0 to the spell level.

LolWhat?

Arrius wrote:
Spending a full round during an attack is called 'Full-Attack Action', and it uses the base attack granted for free, and any bonus attacks granted under the following conditions, consuming Standard and Move actions, allowing only for a Swift or 5-foot-step.

Tactical Movement, also in the Introduction chapter, allows for a half-move action on the same round as a full-attack action.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
It might be interesting to treat Iterative Blast as Innate Metamagic (Ray Splitting), and see where that leads us.

That approach would hopefully keep anyone else from having similar confusion as I had pages ago on how Mystic Blast behaves in relation to SLAs and weapons.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'm not really a huge fan of the "spell level = 1 + 1/x levels" thing -- I'd rather have the spell level increase organically through innate metamagic, if that could be done.

That's also my preference for Improved Blast/Innate Metamagic. Allow Innate Metamagic to increase the level of the spell/SLA for heightening spell effect caps, interacting with other spells, and DCs if it's applied to a spell (not SLA).

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I agree -- and, because elimination of extraneous sub-systems is actually a stated design goal, I'd like to see this explored more! One thing, though, is that Flurry of Blows is actually an upgrade to Two-Weapon Fighting, insofar as you can use a single weapon. Manyshot is therefore more akin to the former. Iterative blast, on the other hand, simply works off the existing BAB interative attack rules. To get this to work, then, we'd probably need a 3-tiered system:

I. Basic iterative attacks;
II. Additional attacks (e.g., off-hand weapon);
III. Additional attacks not requiring an off-hand weapon.

So if I'm reading that right, the given abilities would be organized as such?:

I. Iterative Blast, Ray-Splitting +6
II. Flurry of Blows, Two-Weapon Fighting
III. Animal Fury, Haste, Manyshot, Ray-Splitting +0

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Gaining multiple [Strike] effects in a single round would be still a fourth tier, in a sense. Maybe fold that into the Striking Mastery feat?

As a power gamer, if I was really wanting to get multiple [Strike] effects to go off in a single round, the character would be dual-wielding scimitars, flank with someone for the Sneak Attack synergy, and have the feats Two-Weapon Strike and Critical Focus just to be thorough.


Arrius wrote:
Skill focus cannot help (due to the explicit limitation), though feat mastery could.

Oh, Skill Focus' paragraph on 'virtual ranks' seems to have disappeared in this version. Well, this is embarrassing.

Arrius wrote:
It would be the same difference between directly applying metamagic feats to a spell while preparation and taking Innate Metamagic [Same spell; same effect]. Overlapping in the rules is something we unnecessarily shy away from.

I guess that's enough of a difference. Though with that distinction, Improved Mystic Blast sounds like something I'd only use for sorcerer bloodlines. And since that was the whole point, good idea.


Arrius wrote:
Note, Tahlreth, that in my version of Eldritch Blast, the applications of metamagic feats (without Innate Metamagic) are constantly active; a Boreal Bloodline sorcerer's Mystic (or Eldritch) Blast will always have the Flash Frost metamagic applied, and not have it as 3/day as the normal sorcerer would.

A normal Boreal bloodline sorcerer gets Improved Blast [Evocation, Flash Frost] at level 8. The same level said sorcerer gains enough bonus ranks in Concentration for Innate Metamagic [Mystic Blast; Evocation, Flash Frost] to be usable at-will instead of only 3/day.

Arrius wrote:
I assumed that the maximum effective spell level limitation kept it from getting out of hand--but balance is a question we ask after we finish writing an ability, no?

I'm pretty certain 3/day for 6th-9th-level SLAs, and at-will SLAs capping at 5th-level is perfectly reasonable. Now if the 9th-level ones should be restricted to 1/day, I'll accept a ref's judgement on that one. Worse case scenario, someone clever picks up Skill Focus [Concentration], raising their at-will SLA cap to 7th-level. Considering they'd reach that at level 19 at the earliest (level 18 if they pick up Feat Mastery [Skill Focus (Concentration)]), I'd treat it as a nifty multi-classing-compatible capstone feature.

Arrius wrote:
Very astute; such was my intention before. Should we introduce an [Improved Mystic Blast] feat, and [Greater Mystic Blast] feat?

I'm curious to see what the differences would be between Improved Mystic Blast, and Innate Metamagic [Mystic Blast; (metamagic effect)].


Arrius wrote:

In a way, this has existing precedent in the rules; and it is more or less existent (without being spelled out, of course).

Example:
Level 8 Sorcerer gains Mystic Blast as a free feat, and gains a +1 Metamagic adjustment for it.
Damage type starts with Fire; they apply Energy Admixture Metamagic (+0 adjustment) for Slashing or Frost.
At level 8, they gain +1 Adjustment; they can make the damage Sonic with Energy Admixture (+1 level), or keep it as Frost and apply Flash Frost (+1 level), which coincides with the Boreal Bloodline below:

Eldritch Blast (Sp): Your eldritch blast is a ray of frost; it deals cold damage (descendants of frost folk may have this ray emanate from one eye, although this need not be the case for all sorcerers with this bloodline). Improved Blast: Flash Frost Evocation Greater blast: Numbing Cold Evocation.

Oh, I meant the effective spell-level adjustments for each blast improvements each individual bloodline grants. Sorry I didn't specify.

Arrius wrote:
I would have assumed that DCs are based on comparable class abilities; 10 + 1/2 Sorcerer level + Charisma, not the normal (much weaker) formula existing in the rules; DC 10 + level of spell + your Charisma modifier.

Ah, right. I was referring to using Innate Metamagic on actual spells when I said that. For Innate Metamagic on SLAs, you're correct.

Arrius wrote:
Regardless, [Strike] feats treat the blast as a normal melee or ranged attack, as it does touch spells. I don't see why it would help, either.

Not how [Strike] feats treat the blast. The second paragraph of Improved Blast says the improvement is treated as a [Strike] effect. I'd opt for removing that paragraph because Improved Blast is built off of Innate Metamagic, which already has a frequency of use limitation. If that's combined with the use limitations of [Strike] effects, Strike Mastery would practically be a feat tax. Unless I'm reading that paragraph wrong.

Arrius wrote:
Good point; though this is an option to those who are not sorcerers in any rate, as their Blasts would remain as level 1 effects. I would remove it, actually.

I'm in favour of moving the SLA-heightening/metamagic-cap from the class features over to the feats the class features are based on. That way, anyone who picks them up benefit, sorcerers just get them for free.

Arrius wrote:
All in all, I would assume that the only tie Eldritch (or Mystic) Blast has with spellcasting at a whole is that it depends on an empty slot (or reserve) to cast it, and the scaling feature with the highest-level spell.

The funny part is, spell slots aren't exclusive to spellcasting ability.

Ch.6 Equipment - A: Designing Custom Items - Other wrote:
Power Conduits: For when you just can’t get enough spell slots, a personal item might serve as a conduit for raw magical power from the plane of your deity, from a circle of stones at the confluence of ley lines, or whatever. A power conduit provides you with additional “spells per day” slots (Spellcasting Table 2). This costs 2,000 numen x the maximum level of spell slots x the spell capacity level. For example, a 7th level sorcerer could have an item that draws additional magical power, adding six 1st level and three 2nd level spell slots to his total, for 16,000 numen total (2,000 x 2 x 4). Note that there is no reason a fighter cannot take the Arcane Bond feat, choose a wand as a bonded item, and enhance it with this ability in order to power it.


'Usable 3 + your spellcasting attribute/day...' Is Mystic Blast a supernatural ability now? Otherwise, I'd definitely rather spend a feat on Magical Talent than on Mystic Blast.

Before I'd be comfortable with replacing my damage type chooser for Mystic Blast with what you've just submitted, I'd have to see the metamagic spell-level adjustments for the sorcerer's Improved Blast abilities.

'Count the blast as spell level 1 + 1/5 caster levels.' Hmm... Another approach would be to let Innate Metamagic increase the spell level, but only for DCs and heightening, not spell slot expended. I'm not sure if removing the [Strike] effect treatment from the sorcerer's Improved Blast would help.

Now if Innate Metamagic heightens and increases the spell DC, and Improved Blast is already a (slightly modified) bonus Innate Metamagic feat, there wouldn't be a need to adjust the [effective spell level/spell level cap] of Mystic Blast (or any other spell-like ability). I also have no idea how your Mystic Blast's spell-level-scaling works with the sorcerer Improved Blast's +1 to max spell level.


Scavion, the back-and-forth discussion between Arrius, Kirth, and I might yield worthwhile errata that hasn't yet been added to Egg of Coot. I suggest perusing through the past 4 pages. Hopefully, it at least makes for a good read.


For the Illusionist's Shadow Illusion, I'm confused on what the problem is. Arrius is making it sound like clarification is needed (I'm guessing clarification on limitations of use/flexibility, and on interaction). Yet Kirth is making it sound like there's a balance issue.

For clarification, I'd side with Arrius on having Shadow Illusion follow the same interaction rules as Shadow Conjuration/Evocation (interaction is the same as the real thing, except any numbers are reduced to % amount). But I'm not sure if the figments really need to be treated as if 1 level lower considering the balance side.

For the balance issue, I don't see what the problem is.

Because reasons:
  • Yeah a 2nd level Illusionist is better off using figment cantrips with 5% realness instead of Shadow Conjuration/Evocation, but only because the Illusionist is 1 level away from having access to Shadow Conjuration. 3 levels away from Shadow Evocation.
  • At 6th level, Shadow Illusion could fully mimic Shadow Evocation at 10% realness, but Shadow Evocation is still relevant because it gets buffed by Shadow Illusion. Shadow Conjuration, however, can by this point be heightened to being 20% real on it's own.
  • If this was a 2nd level Prestige Illusionist for the 10% realness, then their Spell Capacity is already high enough to heighten Shadow Conjuration/Evocation to being 30%/20% real before Shadow Illusion gets added in, compared to the 10% the figments would get.
  • I'm pretty sure the Heighten rules for Shadow Conjuration/Evocation, and Shadow Illusion already saying it stacks on top the realness of Shadow Conjuration/Evocation would each keep Shadow Conjuration/Evocation from becoming obsolete.
  • As for spamming figment cantrips at a maximum of 25% realness, the damage cap for cantrips is still 1d6.

For Leadership, have either of you checked the CR scaling for having a cohort and retainers be as high-leveled as what Leadership allows for? I've been plugging the formula into Excel, and the scaling looks pretty linear to me. But it's possible I could be plugging numbers in wrong...


My at-will healing is Magical Talent + Feat Mastery &/or Skill Focus (Concentration). I'm guessing that's what you meant by Magical Array.

For Flurry of Blows, I followed your suggestion on class-feat synergy effects and moved Flurry of Blows to the monk's base proficiencies.

Arrius wrote:

To be honest--strictly speaking, I don't like Leadership as a feat. It does not need to be a feat--I can see numerous opportunities my players convinced an enemy to join them, and while I didn't let the player control them, they were loyal as so far as they were being respected. I used the Leadership feat as a guideline--but not everything needs to be turned into a feat.

Especially when it comes to armies. A general rarely interacts with grunts--mostly any Leadership-relevant use is when they interact with their lieutenants. Thus, a general does not necessarily need Leadership to lead.
Especially when we try to replicate anything Danaerys does.

I can picture it now: "Leadership, it's not just a feat. It's a quest reward!"

Considering the general > lieutenants > grunts part, the general can easily have the lieutenants be his cohorts. And since there's nothing stopping cohorts from picking up the Leadership feat themselves, the lieutenants then have the grunts be their cohorts. I think it's a nice way to represent relative rank in virtually any kind of hierarchy.


On Spells, Metamagic, and Mystic Blast:
I appreciate these additional metamagics purely for replicating/breaking down published spells. Measured Spell might need a tidbit pointing out the +1 scaling is ontop of the base 1d6.

Arrius wrote:
I am of the opinion that a Mystic Blast should not be able to inflict status penalties like [Fatigued] (since it can be done at will), except when tied to a times/day mechanic. However, there is no adequate argument I can make against a player who wishes to design a blast such as this. Perhaps we should incorporate saves as well to avoid exploitation.

I'm pretty sure whatever ability that's adding the [Fatigued] effect to the Mystic Blast also allows a saving throw.

Arrius wrote:
I am kind of not fond of infinite healing. I don’t use spell slots, as I previously mentioned, so it is less of a concern for me. Maybe we should add a perameter to prevent abuse here, or discard the spell entirely and refer to GM fiat to prevent such abuse.

There's already a similar at-will healing ability possible in Kirthfinder. If one of my party members actually bothers picking it up, I make them lose interest in abusing it by asking, "Do you really want to spend all of combat being the heal-fountain?"

For my personal use, I'm keeping the name Eldritch Blast instead of renaming it to Mystic Blast. Less editing that way. :P

On Classes, Skills, and Feats:
The exploding from Leadership was meant to be a reference to Skill Focus adding a multiplier to the Diplomacy Bonus, as opposed to Feat Mastery adding a static bonus to the Diplomacy Bonus.

Additional Favored Terrain says the bonus increases in increments of 2.

On Flurry of Blows:
During the recent lull in this discussion, I was editing all the errata I could into my copy/version of the houserules. Amidst that, I merged the Flurry of Blows advanced fighter talent with the monk's Flurry, and moved it to the monk's Armor and Weapon Proficiency, right after the Note about "special monk weapons":

Ch 3 Classes > Monk > Proficiencies wrote:

Synergy: Flurry of Blows: When making a full attack action, you gain the effects of any Two-Weapon Fighting feats you possess even while attacking in conjunction with any combination of weapons, unarmed attacks, and/or combat maneuvers (assuming the weapon(s) are in hand and you have at least Exotic proficiency with them). This applies to number of attacks, Strength bonus to damage, application of Strike feats, loss of shield bonus to AC, etc. You can flurry with ranged weapons, subject to the normal reload times (for projectiles) and Sleight of Hand requirements (for thrown weapons). You may substitute bind, disarm, sunder, trip, and unbalance combat maneuvers for attacks with weapons that permit those maneuvers as normal during a full attack action.

For example, a 1st level monk can attack with two unarmed attacks, or with each of a pair of sickles, or twice with a single sickle, or with a sickle and an unarmed attack, etc., as long as the total number of attacks matches that gained with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. Flurrying with a two-handed weapon limits your damage bonus from Strength and Power Attack to that of a one-handed weapon, however.

Given that the maneuvers listed here can be used as attack actions without Flurry, I'm hesitant to have Flurry cost so much more than the Two-Weapon Versatility feat. Give or take performing a Flurry with a ranged weapon, all the power-gamey differences I can find between Flurry and TWV are simply different character-building resources being spent on the same end result.


I'd say yes, only because it's not as explosive as applying Skill Focus [Diplomacy/pick a flavor] to Leadership.

Now as for applying both, I think they'd stack, but they don't count each other for determining how big their bonuses are. I guess that would mean Feat Mastery gets applied after Skill Focus would.


My DM would say a whole use, and I don't have a solid enough argument against it.


Psisquared wrote:

1. The arcane bloodline sorcerer 9th level ability grants synergy strong synergy for wizard to sorcerer spellcasting, and allows the sorcerer to prepare spells (up to his wizard level) in lieu of spells known?

How does this work exactly? Do the prepared spells
A) Function as swappable known spells, castable multiple times fueled by spells per day slots
or
B) Prepared in lieu of known spells, use spells per day slots, but are also expended once cast
or
C) None of the above

2. Does a synergized wizard/arcane sorcerer gain bonus spells prepared from high attribute?

3. How do the generalist wizard Metamagic Mastery and Sorcerer's rapid metamagic (or any spontaneous casting really) interact with +0 level metamagic feats? Are they useable at will?

1. A) I've been treating that Arcane bloodline/Magus wudan power as swappable known spells.

2. You're giving up Wizard spellcasting so that your Wizard levels provide synergy to your Sorcerer spellcasting. That means your spellcasting attribute (for bonus spells and the like) is Charisma.

3. +0 level metamagic feats are already at-will with spontaneous casting. If you have Rapid Metamagic, Metamagic Mastery is only useful for the spell level adjustment.


The Egg of Coot wrote:

6/28/14: Chapter 6, Numerical Bonuses: Add the following paragraph under "Enhancement Bonuses"

Fortification: Each 5% chance to ignore precision damage and additional effects of confirmed crits is treated as a +1 enhancement bonus. Light fortification (25%) therefore costs 52 x 300 = 7,500 numen; 30,000 for moderate (50%) fortification, 67,500 for heavy (75%) fortification, and a maximum of 120,000 numen for 100% fortification (virtual immunity, except when specific feats or talents are applied).

Delete the later paragraph on Fortification under "feats."

The math here looks funny. Shouldn't the formula here be (%)^2 x 12 so the prices work out?

On another topic, I see with Bane Spell, the specific effect is chosen when the spell is modified, whether prepared or spontaneously cast. And with the Improve Skill spell, the specific effect is apparently chosen when the spell is learned. What about the Damage Attribute spell and the Polymorph spell; is the specific effect chosen when the spell is learned, or when the spell is prepared/spontaneously cast?


Fighter Talents: Thicket of Blades wrote:

Source: This talent supersedes the Knight’s “vigilant defender” class feature from the Player’s Handbook II. It supersedes the Crusader’s stance of the same name from the Tome of Battle.

Source: This talent subsumes the d20 Modern Weapons Encyclopedia feat, and also the

Whack out the second Source entry here too?

@ Ragnarok Aeon -- sending now.


To raise replacement undead, wouldn't you just have to recast the spell that raised them in the first place? If so, I'd be okay with having those necromantic feats apply retroactively.


Chapter 3: Classes - Druid - Appendix B: Druid Feats

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>