Got your email Kirth. I have only glanced over a few things (particularly equipment and a bit of feats) but so far I'm liking what I see. I'm especially pleased to see how you worked out the weapon proficiencies. I'll give some real feedback after I've had a chance to actually review things.
Great! I look forward to it. I'm especially keen to see if anyone notices anything broken/not doing what it's intended to do/not workable in play (in other words, constructive criticism welcome unless it's obnoxious).
Got your email Kirth. I have only glanced over a few things (particularly equipment and a bit of feats) but so far I'm liking what I see. I'm especially pleased to see how you worked out the weapon proficiencies. I'll give some real feedback after I've had a chance to actually review things.Great! I look forward to it. I'm especially keen to see if anyone notices anything broken/not doing what it's intended to do/not workable in play (in other words, constructive criticism welcome unless it's obnoxious).
Aw dang! And here I was getting prepped to be a complete jackass!
Anyway, I will definitely get you some feedback. One thing I noticed while briefly skimming, to get things started - I thought the limiting BAB penalty to max -5 seemed like quite a large bump. I know you guys have been playtesting somewhat and I wanted to know how that decision was reached.
I received your email Kirth, and though I have only read through the prestige paladin and the rogue, both look really good (and I was interested to see you went with a d4 for hit dice for the wizard but keep the sorcerer hit dice at d6, I will be curious to see how that works out).
The only error I noticed on the prestige paladin is that the prerequisite is still knowledge (religion) instead of knowledge (the planes). Otherwise I was really happy to see that you have expanded the class beyond just fighter/bard or fighter/cleric.
The rogue is even more impressive now and I am a fan of how you incorporated the alchemist class in. The only errors/clarifications I noticed for rogue were
“another” is missing the “o” in the first paragraph of the skill focus section
maligned performance in the skill excellence section (under perform acting) is missing the ranks 14.
In the first paragraph after talents would your rather say “into 3 types” rather than just “into types”.
The enforcer talent references an intimidate check, would you want to say a bluff check to browbeat instead?
Ninjitsu training references stunning fist, did you decide to keep it in your monk and feats documents?
Ledge walker references climb checks, did you want to say acrobatic checks to climb instead?
Thanks and have a good weekend.
|
Got the email, dl'ed the files. Took a brief look at some things. Very interesting collection of houserules so far. I'm sure there will be bits that I add into my own Houserules.
Can I get a quick summary of changes to your rogue perchance? it seems to be mostly just adapted to be compatible with your feats.
The rogue kindof sucks in PF. did you beef it up a little? what are the main changes that add to the rogue's power?
I am sure Kirth can add quite a few other things here but I can summarize a few nice things that rogues gain in Kirthfinder.
One is skill excellence which turns them into full casters being able to use their skill ranks to cast some (very nice and high level) spells.
They are given enough free feats to help them be effective in combat (weapon finesse and improved feint).
Sixth sense and evasion are an upgrade.
Finally the talents are much better (especially the advanced talents). I especially like dexterous fortitude and dexterous will allowing them to use their reflex save in place of their fortitude or will save once a round. There are talents which allow them to make their sneak attack more effective (like a talent granting low light or darkvision). Also if you take a look most of the rogue options in the APG are changed to talents allowing you to mix and match (like enforcer or scout's charge).
Finally, the full spell casters have been toned down a little, which makes the rogue (and other non full casters) get beefed up a little by default. Kirth did an extensive rewrite and without checking out the other classes, feats, and even the new and improved skills one cannot make a full assessment of the changes.
Going to need to put in a note on saving throw progressions somewhere. While I like not having them repeated in every chart, I did have trouble making sure nothing had changed without a table to reference. Finding it in the Iron Will description is a little out of the way.
It's in the main houserules document, which is meant as a summary and catch-all. Each class then has a little section on saving throws below the table.
Kirth, did I show you this yet?
Ha! I saw that years ago (and the psychic assassin they did) and we quickly rebranded them as "arcane rogue" and "arcane assassin" and allowed them for use.
Hi all - this is my very first post here...
Kirth, may I join the club "Please, could you send me your last rules pack, because I truly love them"?
My email is: ** spoiler omitted **
Thanks in advance and keep your terrific job!P.S. Sorry if I make some mistakes - my English is not so good, I suppose...
Chefo,
Welcome to the boards!I probably won't have internet access this weekend, but I'm not ignoring requests. I'll send out another mailing in maybe a week or so, if that's OK.
I am also interested in receiving the new versions, please.
ben.podborski@hotmail.com
Please and thank you to TOZ and Kirth
dragonsong@gmail.com
I've been browsing through the documents on page 1 for ages. Lots of food for thinking.
Wouldn't mind an updated version however.
By the way Kirth, you'll find much of my own stuff here. You'll find we take different directions in a few places, but perhaps you can find some inspiring concepts to port into your system like your stuff did for mine.
Don't feel like you need to leave feedback (although it would be welcome), I simply remember you asking if I had posted my system in some other thread.
regards
'findel
[edit] ...would be good to leave address: [my user name] (no caps) [at] yahoo [dot] ca
(oh no! now they'll all know I'm Canadian eh?)
I fancy a peek. You can catch me at shag.grenade@live.com
Cheers.
Thanks a bunch. Giving the equipment a look over now and liking what I see. The rest will have to wait til I finish this english paper. :P
|
I'd love a copy of the updated rules, if you wouldn't mind. My group and I love most of your changes. :)
As an aside, I've been setting up a private SRD-type site on Google Pages of the "Kirthfinder" material. Generally speaking, I've been proofreading and tweaking as I go, to suit my own needs and to clarify some (imho) ambiguous wording. I'm also throwing some of the standard PRD material on there so I can eventually easily hyperlink things around the place, as well as other stuff of my own brewing. I much prefer a web-based system than a collection of PDFs or word documents simply for convenience of access.
I hope you don't mind I'm doing this! At this stage the page is only visible to myself and my players, but I'd be willing to give others access eventually if Kirth-and-co don't have an issue.
I wanted to read all about them but the links on the first post don't work for me for some unknown reason.
Nevertheless, I would very much like to receive a copy of the Kirthfinder Core Rules, if you don't mind me asking for it.
Hi Kirth and TOZ
Thanks for the docs. Can't say that I've read it all in minute details, but here are my firsts impressions (well, not quite first since I was already familiar with some of your work from page 1).
First, the unhelpful yet flattering praise: Good work, seriously!
Now with the more constructive comments:
More to come soon, bit tired atm...
[edit] one thing that made me smile :)
Longsword - exotic: 1d8/19-20 and 1d12/19-20 vs. opponents of size Large or larger.
'findel
|
The 'loaded with abilities' effect comes from stripping the classes down to nearly completely modular frames, nothing but empty talent slots to select from class specific lists. After awhile, it became obvious that certain choices would be rarely taken, if ever. It also made the classes kind of bland, and harder to feel different from one another. So, certain talent options became permanent class features that did not take up talent slots. Thus each class has identifiable characteristics, and you don't have talent choices no one ever takes.
At least that's my excuse, not having looked at the updates yet. :)
Kirth, in case you haven't heard, Ultimate Combat has stance feats that might be worth cribbing. Haven't looked at them closely myself, tho.
1. The concept of feat synergy has great potential. It makes me want to see a lot more of it, as unfortunately only a minority of feat seem to synergize as such.
2. Many classes are loaded with abilities, to the point where it is hard to get a good overview at first glance. I haven't spotted any obvious superfluous material, so I'm a bit lost as to what to suggest. I understand how frustration this comment might be, as this would be helpful to anyone BUT you.
3. Again for the benefit of first-time readers, a summary table for feats would be welcome.
1. I agree, and hope to do more with that. There are a number of nitpicky small feats that could be turned into synergy effects, but I haven't gotten to merge them yet.
2. TOZ's explanation is right on the mark -- we took the talents that either (a) everyone always took, no matter what, and that (b) no one ever took, ever, because they were flavorful but substandard -- and made all of those into class features instead. The remaining talents, hopefully, are a bit better-balanced.
On the whole, I kind of like the fact that leveling now automatically gives PCs more breadth of capabilities, instead of mostly just more depth.
One important effect that you allude to is that it's very hard to learn all of your character's capabilities using rapid level advancement. Rather than level 2-3 times per adventure, I normally have the PCs level once per 2 adventures. This unfortunately means that playtesting a larger level range is a lot slower -- we still haven't gotten past 7th or 8th.
3. Andostre made one for the 1.0 rules that the group really liked. Personally, I haven't the patience to make one, especially in light of point #1, above.
As an aside, I've been setting up a private SRD-type site on Google Pages of the "Kirthfinder" material. Generally speaking, I've been proofreading and tweaking as I go, to suit my own needs and to clarify some (imho) ambiguous wording. I'm also throwing some of the standard PRD material on there so I can eventually easily hyperlink things around the place, as well as other stuff of my own brewing. I much prefer a web-based system than a collection of PDFs or word documents simply for convenience of access.
I hope you don't mind I'm doing this! At this stage the page is only visible to myself and my players, but I'd be willing to give others access eventually if Kirth-and-co don't have an issue.
That's cool! And I'll be happy to send an updated set of documents, once the current crop of revisions is done.
I'd like to make two or three requests, though, if I may:
1. I want re-iterate that these rules are for personal home use only, and that I'm against copyright infringement of any kind. If I reference non-OGL source material, I expect the group to own that source if they use that particular material.
2. I'd love it if you'd share some of the wording corrections -- sometimes what reads OK to me makes no sense at all to anyone else.
3. I'd love to be able to access your Wiki when you're done with it!
|
I forwarded the docs to everyone that has asked for them Kirth, no need to trouble yourself. :)
Hey TriOmegaZero or Kirth, I was wondering if I could get a copy of your rules, feats,classes, etc. I try to download the ones at the beginning of this thread, but no luck. Thanks, Ximmrik
Here is my e-mail: ximmrik@yahoo.com
Didn't mean to ditch your efforts Kirth. On the contrary, I'm well positioned to appreciate the incommensurable hours of work you have put it it. I was simply stating my first impressions aloud...
One another note: I like what you have done with the bard.
Interestingly enough, the bard was also the stepping stone for the divorce of class and spell list in my houserules. I see you've done something similar with spell-theurgy (or have I done something similar to you?).
I wanted to give the bard the option to cast druid spells (à la 1e AD&D) or wizard spells (à la 2e AD&D) instead of the default bard spell list. Then I always caressed the idea that elven magic was based on songs and music, but somehow preferred to keep their favored class as wizard (or perhaps sorcerers). Thus the extension of the concept to the wizard (who could choose between wizard spells and bard spells). From then it became simply more logical to divorce all class of the spell list and incorporate spellcasting traditions, with the advantage of incorporating new spell lists and magical themes without making new base classes or prestige class.
anyhow, enough rambling...
'findel
|
|
1. I want re-iterate that these rules are for personal home use only, and that I'm against copyright infringement of any kind. If I reference non-OGL source material, I expect the group to own that source if they use that particular material.
This is the primary reason why I've made the page private, i.e. only viewable by people whose emails I've added. My intention is to have a single sources page where I reference everything appropriately as well. My group has a large stack of various books/PDFs between us, so personally there's no problem (at least so far), but I'll add a line to this effect somewhere on the page if other individuals are given access to the material eventually!
2. I'd love it if you'd share some of the wording corrections -- sometimes what reads OK to me makes no sense at all to anyone else.
Certainly! It's a labour of love, though, much like your own, and I have just moved overseas, so it might be a while before I can do this.
Some of the 'corrections' might be more around the lines of a personal disagreement of power level or playing style, anyway. And I have to catch up with the new versions now too!
3. I'd love to be able to access your Wiki when you're done with it!
For the reasons I said above, it's pretty much a very big "work in progress" at the moment, and is likely to be that way for some time! But if you'd like access to the "beta" version, feel free to provide me with an email address at your leisure (you can email it to me if you prefer).
...this will be much easier when we find a new webhost. XP
I've got pretty much limitless webspace I can offer if you need it. I could even set up a subdomain that you could update yourself, if you preferred/know how to use an FTP client!
---
On the updated material itself, my group and I are gushing over what you've done with the Wizard. Fabulous! One complaint I've got is Necromancy pretty much excluding the possibility of the so-called "white" Necromancer with its focus on undead... but I've got a mind to either add a couple of more PC-friendly school powers or just make white Necromancy an esoteric school, so not too much of a problem for me.
Hey guys, I was wanting to know if I could grab a of your houserules. My e-mail is atmaweapon6982@yahoo.com. Thanks!
|
|
Christoph, I'll get it sent to you soon, was asleep when you posted. (FFVI represent!)
Have you considered using Google Sites? It's fairly easy to load .doc and other wordprocessor documents into the site, and it allows you to share or lockdown material as you wish. You can also use site templates like this to help organize and customize things. (It's also free)
I'll look into it, thanks! And thanks to Alice for the offer, but my wife needs a webhost for her artwork and the like, and we like having control over our own stuff.
|
|
I think I have that capability somewhere on one of my machines, but until we're finished revising things (which may be NEVER. :D ) making PDFs doesn't make a whole lot of sense for our purposes.
Understood. I'll keep them to myself then. I understand the feeling of never being done with house rules as I have my own for set for Pathfinder.
Hello! Am interested in the documents as well, could you possibly email them to me?
likegreyskies at gmail dot com
Been looking at Ultimate Combat and integarting some of those options -- although most of them were already available in one form or another.
Per TOZ's request, I've added a feat that lets you treat your prerequisite score (skill ranks or BAB) as 5 higher for purposes of determining the effects of one scaling feat you possess. Thus, a BAB +1 fighter could take this Feat Aptitude (Power Attack) and would then Power Attack with his greatsword as if his BAB were +6 for purposes of that feat (-2 to attack, +6 damage, in his case -- rather than -1 atk and +3 damage for BAB +1). The same fighter, when he hits 20th level and isn't getting any more benefit out of his Feat Aptitude, can then use the fighter's retraining option to pick something else useful to him.