Search Posts
Received a bottle of Lagavulin 8 as a 'divorce gift' a little while back. Cracked it to share with some new friends and found it very enjoyable, might join the rotation alongside my favorite Laphroaigs.
It may not be right for the design ethos of Kirthfinder, but this is a spot where my first impulse would be to include it as part of a set of 'heroic' rules that distinguish the PCs and notable NPCs from the rest of the world, in the same vein as giving them enhanced attribute generation methods. But maybe it's weird for it to be specific to STR and not spread across all attributes. Trying to work a complementary piercing/slashing DR in somewhere is a no-go, since the only logical place would be Dex (twisting to the side so a cut isn't as deep or the like) but Dex doesn't need any help. So yeah, a feat for the upside is probably the most straightforward solution. Since it will scale naturally with Str, I think it's high-enough impact without needing much or anything in the way of higher-level add-ons the way many converted PF/3e->Kirthfinder feats have. Another secondary concern--I don't recall how you handle nonlethal damage from environmental conditions etc.; as long as Str is playing a complementary role to Con there I don't see a major problem though.
I...don't hate it. First mental image is a big muscular character just barreling their way through, say, a zombie horde, nearly impervious to their attacks. Pretty evocative, flavor matches rules. I'm not sure I'm *as* sold on the nonlethal reduction (that definitely feels more strictly Con to me). Does this result in no player character ever using a bludgeoning-only weapon though?
there are a few things that are slightly unbalancing. Namely, the numen system. I also ran into this in your game with Kolmac while planning for higher levels--buying most of your basic metamagic modifiers with numen (e.g. Extend, Shape, Distance) in combination with the spell construction system, and then spending your actual feat slots on the ones with higher prerequisites, makes you really versatile, probably disproportionately to the costs. Is that more/less broken than any other character doing the same with low-cost-of-entry feats? Not sure. That said, as a player, I was really excited by some of the possibilities that created and the interplay of seeds, pre-modified spells, and metamagic to provide a lot of options off of a fairly limited number of spellbook pages. It's possible that within the seed system metamagic ought to be treated closer to spells known than feats (though with both having numen equivalencies maybe that's a meaningless distinction)? At least for a wizard they feel kinda the same, as building blocks of your spells.
I don't think this would fly. Magical Talent specifies that the spell comes from a primary class list, and Bolt of Force is only available as a level 1 spell to certain specialist and variant casters.
And while we're on the subject, is it just me or is Augment Spell something of a feat tax? Wouldn't it be better to have the spell augmentations tied directly to Heightening? If I understood it correctly while building Kolmac's spells out, Augment effects listed as part of the spell seed (e.g. changing the brightness of a light spell) do not require the Augment Spell feat to use. The Augment Spell feat is a separate effect that modifies scaling numerical effects.
I'm sure it was a sacrilegious use of good scotch, but nonetheless the Christmas pudding my stepmother doused with The Macallan was delicious.You're not alone, I've been using Speyside in a brown butter 'bourbon' chocolate pecan cookie recipe. Wasn't drinking it, and the cookies are something else. Here you go! Brown Butter 'Bourbon' Pecan Chocolate Chunk Cookies
Part 1
Part 2
Original recipe calls for 2T bourbon, twice as much cinnamon, and gives the option of semi-sweet chocolate, so feel free to adjust to your own taste, but the above is what I've liked best and the whiskey comes through beautifully.
I'm sure it was a sacrilegious use of good scotch, but nonetheless the Christmas pudding my stepmother doused with The Macallan was delicious. You're not alone, I've been using Speyside in a brown butter 'bourbon' chocolate pecan cookie recipe. Wasn't drinking it, and the cookies are something else.
Sounds like an improvement to me! Almost all of my time in the grimoire was looking for ideas for modifying spell seeds I already have, so that arrangement will be far more efficient.
Yes, that was actually my intention, I was calling it hinder. It's a bit of a non-bo as augmenting past staggered renders the terrain effect irrelevant unless you've made it an area effect, but it's cheap and will be useful for quite a while (raising to extended stagger results in alternative slow) so makes much more sense than trying to pick up the feat itself.
New favorite spell base: electric arc + Conductive + Cascade a status effect. Replacing the Reflex save with the status effect's save lets you target non-Dex-based defenses (otherwise challenging for some spell lists e.g. evokers), and Conductive provides a major boost to your success rate against most humanoid enemies. The status effect improves the effectiveness of your allies (especially rogues) and may help further spells connect. Scales well to higher levels with Mass Effect or Shape for more targets, and/or by modifying the secondary effect. Electrocute: electric arc [0th] + Conductive [+1] + Cascade (inertia + Residual Spell) [+1] = 2nd level, close range, target suffers 1d6/level (max 10d6) electricity damage, is flat-footed for 1 round, and treats all terrain as difficult for 1 round/level. Fortitude half and negates status effects, at +4 DC vs. metallic foes, metal weapons or armor. Also, was looking at Cascade in prebuilt spells to make sure instantaneous damage+status effects worked around the duration matching of Cascade Spell (e.g. shout) and believe I found an error: stinking cloud includes a -1 for Extend Spell (fog, 1 min/level to 1 round/level) but the fog effect would have already been reduced to 1 round/level when it was Cascaded with sickening touch, and it can't be reduced prior to Cascading because it would result in a negative spell level.
[Jack Sparrow]But why is the Scotch gone?[/Jack Sparrow]
The main interaction I'm aware of is that Shaping a target spell to a ray removes the Reflex save, if any (e.g. bind), but not other save types (noted in area-of-effect notes in C8 introduction). I'm not sure going in the opposite direction is covered anywhere.
Guess I just don't have a great sense for Kirthfinder's target power level for spells above 4th or 5th, both of those effects are pretty scary. Will have to do some theorizing with drain to see where the sweet spot is (definitely not as a standalone or single slot effect), figure out whether it's worth spending a feat or two on Concentration or dispelling buffs. Any chance we could get an Improved X feat for spell draining to match Countering/Dispelling (or extend the effects of Dispelling to drain, if possible)? For most non-damage and non-Reflex effects, it seems the only reason you'd use ray instead of target would be if you were building off the seed and lacked Shape Spell? I haven't looked at the particulars of what fighters can do in that regard (other than smacking said caster around), so maybe I'm just missing something.
Not exhaustive, but here's a few thoughts. One way to look at it is compel "waste highest spell" ~= compel "do nothing" + Cascade dispel (+1) + Reach (touch to close; +1) + Creature-Specific Spell (spellcaster; -2). 1. compel "waste highest spell" is slightly worse than the Cascade construction since it depends entirely on a Will check which most spellcasters will have an above-average chance of passing, compared to roughly even odds on a Concentration check.
For dispel alone, as you have it here, (and this depends partly on whether the Concentration check for drain incorporates the relative spell levels, which I'm still unsure about), you can also consider the calculus of when it's better as a counterspell vs. drain. Counterspell has the advantage of causing loss of a turn, but can only affect spells of equal or lower level, whereas a level 1 drain spell can strip a level 9 spell, assuming you're closely matched enough to make the Concentration check. However, by the time this level differential is large enough to offer any value, your target has so many spell slots as to render the drain effect a completely ineffectual use of a turn (this goes double if they're spontaneous, as it removes the chance of hitting a specific high-value spell). So, as I outlined before, you turn to Mass Effect (if allowed), which gives you a 4th level spell (Reach1, Mass3) that drains 1 slot/level, and that seems problematic to the other extreme.
As noted in its description, Creature-Specific Spell exists in order to make it possible to reverse-engineer a lot of existing spells. It's not really intended for player use, and would have to be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis. For example, it would be totally inappropriate to make all your buff spells Creature-Specific (humanoids) for, basically, a free -2 level discount on all of them. Of course; in that specific case, would it be fair to consider it as a special variation on Cascade, seeing as it modifies the way the spells interact with each other? 1. enhancement (2nd) + Item-Specific (rays; -2) + Augment (+1) + Extend (min/lvl to round/lvl) = 0th May I request a further clarification, in that case--does this apply equally to Augment Spell (the feat) and Augment (options built into the spell seed)? My intention there was to use the latter (+1 spell level for a flat +1 enhancement), rather than (as in your example) the former (+1 spell level to increase Heightened effect by one step). Or, for another example which I believe caused me some confusion earlier--for the bind seed, must you apply Fell Entangling before Augmenting for a grapple/pin effect? I was under the impression Fell Entangling had to come after the Augment, as its effects depend on which condition the modified spell inflicts. May follow up later with a closer look at sources of attack/damage bonuses and yet another attempt to make a targeting add-on spell, am curious now how they all stack up.
Breaking down arcane aim for my own benefit...looking at each component separately first. 1. enhancement (2nd) + Item-Specific (rays; -2) + Augment (+1) + Extend (min/lvl to round/lvl) = 0th
So you can take (1) and Cascade (2) and get a 1st-level spell that lasts 1 round/level, which I believe can be Extended to 1 round for 0th level, and optionally Augmented another +1 back to 1st level. Where it gets tricky is when you take (1) and Cascade both (2) and (3) for either a 2nd or 3rd level product depending on whether you apply synergy retroactively to the Precise Shot Augment, which I believe you do. Why can that 2nd-level spell not be Extended down to 1 round and 1st level? In any case, your version should add a +1 Augment from reducing the enhancement duration pre-Cascade to match that of bestow feat.
How can the "not really a feat" metamagic options such as Creature-Specific Spell be applied during spell preparation (such as the use above for the effect-contingent damage)? Does it have to be part of a full pre-modified spell, or can it be added without a feat like an Augment? When Cascading spells with different saves, do I pick which one applies?
Woo, geo buddies! Makes sense, the precons all read that way now that I look.
An additional stray thought on the dispel seed... The modality of the seed introduces some awkwardness when it comes to metamagic effects, namely, a good drain spell (Empower, Reach, Irresistible) will generally make a lousy dispel spell (Augment, Shape, Widen, Mass Effect) and vice versa. Maybe, like other seeds with multiple effects, dispel should have versions chosen when learned/prepared, one for spell drain and one for dispel/item suppression? Either version could still be converted into a counterspell, as the only variable that matters there is the spell level.
I have a geo/chem background, so I'm 100% on board with the valence terminology (or something similar e.g. 1st sphere, 2nd sphere). Still think Mass Effect probably shouldn't apply here--if you think of spell drain as a sort of alternate damage, like ability damage, then it follows that the target is a single creature. You're basically sending a blast of countermagic at their spell 'cloud' and stripping off whatever you can, rather than targeting X specific electrons, so it should be treated the same as other direct damage and/or drain spells for targeting purposes.
I love doing this type of analysis, though my tendency to go overboard with it is probably half the reason you have a complete set of rules and I don't, haha. Feel free to point me at any specific areas you'd like stress-tested. In the vein of disruption being more powerful...here's a solution that might help at both the high and low ends of the spell drain spectrum. Instead of targeting spell slots (and having to potentially set limits on what level slots can be hit, etc.), what if spell drain targeted 1 spell level/level (automatically continuing to additional slots when legal), with caps equivalent to the number of dice on the evocation table? This would drastically improve the value of the basic drain effect, generally allowing you to 2-for-1 the target on spell slots which helps justify the poor action economy. It works cleanly with Ray Splitting (treating as 'other effect', you get an extra ~50% spell levels to split amongst your rays). It basically turns off Mass Effect though. For that matter--maybe Mass Effect just shouldn't work with spell drain? It makes sense for a dispel effect since you're targeting multiple ongoing spell effects, but for drain you're ultimately targeting a creature. Specifically 'targeting' spell slots is very meta. This shuts down the 'neuter an opposing caster' shenanigans, but you still have some options between Ray Splitting and Empower Spell for increasing the number of affected spell levels to a point where you can wipe out an equally matched caster's highest spell level in one shot.
Yeah, the +2s are kinda funny that way. Seems fair anyway, the attack penalty makes the extra damage/targets a pretty fair trade (especially since you don't see the benefits until high levels), you don't start seeing real payoff without additional feats or class bonuses that benefit each ray separately.
Hope you're staying dry down there.
Sorry in advance, I got a little carried away... Analysis of the Dispel Seed Discussing details of the spell slot drain effect of the dispel seed with Kirth in our game thread inspired me to dig deeper into some of the corner cases. I’ll start with some notes on dispel as a whole, then break down where spell drain goes off the rails and make some suggestions on how to address it. The basic premise of dispel’s counter and dispel modes is using your action and spell slot to reactively negate an enemy action and spell slot, with a default chance of success near 50% (see below: inconsistencies in counter/dispel checks). Comparable effects targeting action economy include 2nd level daze monster, 3rd level dazing, or a 3rd level bind effect (pinned for 1 round), all of which leave the target with spell slots intact but can be used proactively and against non-casters for a significant net advantage. Still, a 2nd level dispel+Reach isn’t an unreasonable use of a spell slot if you’re expecting to use it, and the metamagic cost to Cascade dispel onto your AoE spells for an action-efficient debuff is minimal. Unlike the other spells listed, all of which offer a saving throw, the success rate of dispel is readily shifted in the caster’s favor. Improved Dispelling and Improved Counterspell offer a +4 bonus (~70% success); Skill Focus Concentration grants a similar bonus which scales up to +10 (>90% success) by 20th level; one can also get +10 for +1 spell level via Cascade skill enhancement (Concentration, 0th) + Maximize (+3), Extend 1 round (-2), and Effect-Specific (counter/dispel only, -1); and for +2 spell levels (with synergy) Irresistible Spell bypasses the check entirely. This makes counterspelling and dispelling a strong option for characters willing to invest the feats, and both scale reasonably well with level (dispelling via Bouncing, Mass Effect, or Shape Spell metamagic; counterspelling via the improved action economy of Improved Counterspell). dispel checks and DCs:
Counter: Concentration + counterspell level vs. 10 + enemy Concentration + spell level, and counterspell must be equal or higher level, and -4 penalty if counterspell from different school (no penalty for dispel. Automatic for identical or opposed spell.
Dispel/Suppress Item: Concentration vs. 10 + enemy Concentration. Drain: Unspecified, assumed as counter. Penetrate SR (modified dispel): Concentration vs. 14 + CR + Cha. The interesting tension here is that counterspells want to be as high level as possible (more valid targets and higher chance of success), while dispel effects want to be the lowest level possible, or at least tacked onto other spells to save slots and casting time (zero dependence on spell level). I had actually assumed all of these checks used the counterspell formula and was quite surprised when I realized that wasn’t the case. Unsure if this is intentional, or something Kirth might prefer to unify to a single formula?
Moving on to my main point. Spell drain, as originally written, removes one spell slot (default highest) from the target on an opposed Concentration check (see above: checks and DCs). It has the significant drawback of having no impact on the enemy’s action economy (as compared to using the same dispel as a counterspell), but you get to use it on your own terms. Regardless, this mode should never be used except when Cascaded onto more impactful spells, or when modified itself to hit multiple spell slots—wiping out an opposing mage’s entire stock of top-tier spells is real damage. Let’s look at some sample spells; I’ll use the same constructions as benchmarks for suggested alternatives. Spell Constructions:
drain spell, 1st level: dispel + Reach (close, +1).
mana bolt, 4th level: bolt of force + Cascade (dispel, +1) + Reach (medium, +1). spell shatter, 4th level: sound lance + Cascade (dispel, +1) + Reach (medium, +1) + Ray Splitting (+1). dark lightning, 5th level: electric arc + Cascade (dispel, +1) + Reach (medium, +1) + Shape (line, +1) + Mass Effect (1/3 levels, +2). mana leak, 5th level: dispel + Disruptive (+1) + Reach (medium, +1) + Mass Effect (1/level, +3). mana drain, 7th level: dispel + Disruptive (+1) + Reach (medium, +1) + Mass Effect (1/level, +3) + Irresistible (+2). Spell Effects As Written:
drain spell: opposed check removes highest spell slot, increased spell level increases failure chance but a character with maxed Concentration can seriously abuse it to punch up.
mana bolt: ray deals 1d6/level (max 15d6) and opposed check removes highest spell slot. spell shatter: rays deal combined 1d6/level (max 14d6) and opposed checks drain highest spell slot on each ray. Ray miss chance offsets the extra drain effect on average for 2 rays, but 3 rays starts to look quite strong. dark lightning: line deals 1d6/level (max 15d6) and opposed check removes 1 spell slot/3 levels, starting with highest. That’s 3 slots at minimum CL, enough to (potentially) wipe out an equally matched character’s entire highest spell level. Also note the absence of miss chance as compared to spell shatter thanks to the AoE. mana leak: opposed checks remove 1 spell slot/level, starting with highest. Oh, and they’re at -5 to cast spells next turn too. That’s 9-20 of the target’s best spells. Note that you still only get 1 attempt per slot, so you probably don’t wipe out all of their best spells, but it’s enough to seriously mess with any prepared caster. mana drain: target loses their 13-20 best spells, no rolls required. Plus the Disruptive rider in their following turn. Magical rocket tag all the way! So we start to see some issues in multiple areas. I think the following adjustments bring everything into a semblance of balance:
2a could also reasonably be applied to Ray Splitting, in which case spell shatter would hit two 3rd level spell slots or 3 2nd level. Ray Splitting at any level would result in a 1-level reduction of the spell level drained (assuming synergy) when split across two rays, which sounds more correct to me. Altogether: spell drain effect targets one spell slot (default highest valid), maximum spell levels drained equal to final spell level, drains on Concentration check as for countering (maybe benefit from Improved Counterspell?). Metamagic: Irresistible (no check required), Ray Splitting or Mass Effect (subtract metamagic modifier, including synergy discount, from final spell level when determining spell level affected, may redistribute spell levels between target slots up to final spell level). As a final check, I tallied the total levels drained for all combinations of spell level and multi-targeting metamagic; the 8th and 9th level totals for 1 slot/level are a bit much but I know Kirthfinder tends to embrace such extremes at high levels. Total Levels Drained (minimum level for mass2, mass3)
That's helpful, I was just looking at rays of bind since I realized the attack roll replaces the Reflex save. Is the change to the metamagic cost intentional (used to be +2)?
Following from my investigations into resist energy...I find the use of Irresistible Spell to expand coverage to non-spell effects a little...odd? It feels like something that would be an augment on most other spell seeds, and it's not high on the list of metamagic feats I would want to give an abjurer.
Here's some test cases for that suggestion, since I'm not immediately seeing any spells in C8 that would be affected directly. So, to be specific, let's say that metamagic with a +1 modifier receives a -1/3 synergy adjustment, but the final spell level always round up, so you need to have three +1 adjustments, not counting the first, to see any benefit. electric arc (0) + Reach medium (+1) + Shape line (+2/3) + Conductive (+2/3) + Cascade inertia (+2/3) = 3rd level. ~100 ft line deals 1d6/level (max 10d6), Reflex half at -4 vs metal, failed save inflicts flat-footed for 1 round. inertia (0) + Extend 1 round/level (+1) + Cascade bind (+2/3) + Fell Entangle (+2/3) + Disruptive Spell (+2/3) = 3rd level. Target at close range is entangled and flat-footed for 1 round/level, Reflex entangled 1 round. Target makes Concentration checks at -3. bind (0) + Augment grappled (+2) + Reach medium (+2/3) + Fell Entangling (+2/3) + Extend double (+2/3) = 4th level. Target at medium range is grappled for 2 rounds/level, Reflex reduces to entangled. scorching ray + Transdimensional Spell (+2/3) + Still (+2/3) + Silent (+2/3) + Quicken (+1) = 5th level. Swift action scorching ray with full effect on incorporeal beings. The first two would make pretty sad 4th-level spells, and the third is identical to the currently legal construction Reach (+1) Augment (+1) Fell (+1) Extend (+1). The fourth highlights an edge case that might require special treatment, much as Quicken Spell already specifies that it does not synergize with Still or Silent Spell.
I'll fool with lightning bolt and see what I can come up with - maybe something along the lines of what I did with cone of cold. Maybe add Cascade inertia? You're still stuck applying that first and getting no synergy discount on Reach and Shape though, so you can't even Extend the flat-footed condition. Maybe there needs to be some kind of fractional synergy discount on +1 effects, netting -1 for stacking 3-4 of them? So you could make electric arc + Cascade inertia (+1) + Extend inertia (+1) + Reach medium (+1) + Shape line (+1), but have it come out at 3rd level? Or use Conductive instead of Extend. My gut sense is that compares reasonably well with fireball (more targets/easier to aim), Explosive lightning bolt (extra damage/relocation instead of status effect), and cone of cold (Dex penalty, lingering damage = +2 levels).
Next up: entangled/grappled/pinned conditions derived from bind spells. 1) are victims of these effects able to break free in later rounds (as with Pathfinder's entangle)? 2) how are the Concentration DCs set for affected spellcasters--non-magical grapple is set at 10+CMB, should the caster's Concentration be substituted as per push, or do these fall under the general header of 'non-damaging spell' and use the spell's DC as the baseline (in which case it becomes utterly ineffectual against high-level casters)?
Yet more metamagic/spell construction questions, figured I'd stop cluttering up the game's discussion thread. How do you handle metamagic synergy cost reductions when applying metamagic to a premodified spell (i.e. any non-seed spell)? Here are a few test cases to demonstrate the issue:
fireball + Explosive Spell (+2) = 5th level
Is this intentional, to encourage casters to 'start from scratch' when possible? If not, it may be worth a note in the metamagic rules. I'd also like to talk about lightning bolt. Your attempt to bring it in line with other 3rd-level spells did not go unnoticed, though you left out Variable Spell in the writeup--I think it should be: electric arc + Variable Spell (+1) + Reach and Ray Splitting (+2) or Reach and Shape ray to line (+2). Unfortunately, it's still suboptimal. With the metamagic synergy rules, either the Reach or Shape on the classic bolt mode can be increased a step without changing the spell level, to unfortunately poor effect--cones don't benefit from Reach (though sample constructions e.g. caterwaul suggest a spell should have range close before conversion to a standard 60-ft. cone), and there's little obvious application for a 500-ft. long line effect. Maybe that's okay--a 120-ft line sounds fair enough for a 2nd-level AOE, and a 500-ft. line is honestly pushing it--but maybe there's some way to clean up some of the rough edges between range and shape of spell effects...
Found another conflict: Skills chapter states Spellcraft DC to apply metamagic is 20 + spell level, Spells chapter says the base is 15. Latter is an auto-succeed while taking 10 for anyone with reasonable bonuses, former isn't until somewhere in the 5th-8th level range. Does this affect spell preparation time for characters unable to make the check while taking 10, or is it intended primarily for combat application of metamagic?
Typo to report: the Reach Spell metamagic feat specifies Close range as 25 ft. + 5 ft/level, everywhere else has 5 ft/2 levels as base PF rules.
Kolmac's relatively resilient as long as he's got mage armor up, but a buffer between him and foes is still quite useful since his abilities are all limited to close range (25 ft) at the moment.
Anybody have any trouble opening up the Kirthfinder google drive documents? Or is it just me? No problems here.
Reporting back as requested re: Laphroiag Lore following a visit from some friends made during my time in Scotland. In a word: wow. Everything that's great about regular Laphroiag but turned up to 11, and very drinkable neat despite the peat and higher proof. I'll be treasuring that bottle.
Speaking as a frequent GM, I wouldn't worry too much on that front. A skilled GM has nothing to gain from arbitrarily murdering their players' characters. Even if the narrative dictated that you come across a party-level encounter on your own, most GMs will usually adjust to provide some kind of out--maybe you see the encounter coming and can back off and gather reinforcements, or maybe there's a noncombat resolution or some other creative angle you can take. That said, there are limits; I wouldn't recommend challenging the Baron to a duel, for example. And of course, GMing styles range wildly, but I think from what I've seen that Kirth's philosophy is closer to what I've written here than not.
That makes sense... Although that does make things slightly difficult for my character since I am / he is waiting for a big moment that says "It's hero time", and he doesn't want to just run off in the totally wrong direction even though technically there is no wrong direction... Also is now a bad time to mention this is basically my first campaign? Disclaimer: I realize this is unsolicited advice; if you don't want it, feel absolutely free to ignore it. There doesn't necessarily have to be that kind of moment, at least not right away. How you decide to characterize it is obviously up to you, but to use Kolmac as an example, he's not here to be a hero, he's just trying to do his job. Simultaneously, he's in a new land and hearing about events which call to mind the stories he's heard of the Days of Darkness, so that's piquing his curiosity. In his mind, he's not going looking for danger--anything really bad got cleaned up years ago (this may be naively optimistic, but that's his thought process anyway). I'm sure eventually he'll fall into bigger events, but right now he's just a young mage trying to make a living. As you said, there's no wrong direction. Even 'bad' decisions can be narratively interesting, especially with a skilled GM. If I remember correctly, you earlier characterized Cayden as being concerned about the disappearance of his neighbors. You could easily play up on that and have him decide to do some investigating of his own, given that the official stance on the matter seems to be downplaying the potential severity of the issue--maybe he's questioning his trust in the Baron and the local law enforcement, or maybe he just thinks they could use some extra help even if they don't think they need it.
Tactical considerations aside...if you're going to split the party, it runs a lot better in play-by-post than in a live game.
I was thinking about KF's Endurance skill recently and how it overrides most (all?) Con checks from the base PF rules and was wondering: have you considered creating an analogous skill (let's call it Might) for Strength checks, potentially allowing for elimination of the attribute check entirely and addressing the weirdness of physical characters not improving significantly in this area at higher levels? The flipside is that it would be somewhat narrow, applying mostly to attempts to break or force an object, or playing a similar role as Escape Artist as an alternate way to break out of certain conditions, but perhaps additional applications could be found.
My thought was to unlock additional domains over the course of leveling; a cleric would start with two domains and a handful of generic spells as they are now, but by level 20 they would have unlocked all of the domains associated with their deity as their faith and understanding grew. That's a decent way of handling it as well, particularly the flexibility to include two tiers of domains.
I was leaning towards a similar treatment of clerics in my own house rules, alongside a heavier emphasis on alternate modes of channel energy. Felt like it gave a great deal more character to the gods and what it meant to worship a god of battle vs a god of healing, for example. Also helped by my adoption of a strain/injury healing variant reducing the necessity of all clerics having access to healing spells. My thought was to unlock additional domains over the course of leveling; a cleric would start with two domains and a handful of generic spells as they are now, but by level 20 they would have unlocked all of the domains associated with their deity as their faith amd understanding grew.
Had the opportunity to do some proper tasting a few months back courtesy of a good friend of my parents. His collection is heavily American-centric but he was kind enough to break out a few Scotches for myself, including a Laphroaig 15 and a few rarities I unfortunately don't recall the names of. Provided a solid confirmation that I am all about that Islay peat. Received a bottle of Laphroaig Lore for the holidays--have yet to crack it, but I'll be sure to report back once I do!
Kirth, given Kolmac's recent encounter with elvish customs, is there anything established as far as Northwind customs/real-world cultural analogues that might be useful for me to know?
Well would you look at that, we wound up in a bar after all.
Don't see it specified anywhere, does Kirthfinder use the standard +1 to an attribute every 4 levels? Kolmac's profile should be good for a final review, just need to add mundane equipment of negligible value.
I won't be much help...necromancy is one of my barred schools. Kolmac, at least early on, would be opposed on principle but could probably be brought around depending on how events unfold.
Appreciate it! I'm assuming it's reasonable to take bolt of force as a level 1 spell similar to the evoker? That all looks functional, looking forward to Ray Splitting! My only remaining quibble is the overlap between at-will sudden shield (gained at 6th level) and the 6th level abjurer's wand ability (1-round shield after eldritch blast). Any chance I could substitute Unskittering Spell applied to the blast instead, or is that too powerful?
Appreciate it! I'm assuming it's reasonable to take bolt of force as a level 1 spell similar to the evoker?
Almost-complete draft of my character. Does pre-modifying mage armor preclude me from preparing the augmented (+5 AC) version in my 2nd level bonus slot once that becomes available, since it's no longer just the seed? Is the bolt of force seed actually level 0? Chapter 8 has it at wizard2/evoker1... Think I'll just take light as my last seed. Language and hp are good, think I must have applied Toughness twice. Think I'll use my mojo to make my wand +1 attack, and I'll use craft(alchemy) to start with a stock of alchemist's fire as a backup weapon. Copying over a few questions I left in the recruitment thread:
Might swap out Spell Focus for Imbue Item, it'll be a while before I get much use out of it. Might switch lore for linguistics as well, cover all my crafting bases... Working on some more characterization and such today, will post that and updated stats later.
|
