Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft Houserules


Homebrew and House Rules

1,151 to 1,200 of 3,973 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>

The Vulture wrote:
for the purposes of the caster level synergy, do Fist of the Forest and Sacred Fist stack? And if so, would that just make the total synergy Strong?

Depends on what you mean. A monk 6/ranger 6/druid 6 with both of those sutras (and also the ranger/druid spellcasting theurgy) would have spell capacity as a 12th level druid: 6 (druid) + 3 (weak theurgy from ranger levels) + 3 (weak theurgy from monk levels). He would not have 18th (6 + 6 + 6).


Kirth Gersen wrote:
The Vulture wrote:
for the purposes of the caster level synergy, do Fist of the Forest and Sacred Fist stack? And if so, would that just make the total synergy Strong?
Depends on what you mean. A monk 6/ranger 6/druid 6 with both of those sutras (and also the ranger/druid spellcasting theurgy) would have spell capacity as a 12th level druid: 6 (druid) + 3 (weak theurgy from ranger levels) + 3 (weak theurgy from monk levels). He would not have 18th (6 + 6 + 6).

Ah, sorry, I was unclear. I was meaning, say, a monk 6/druid 6 with both those sutras. Would he have +3 (Weak theurgy from only one sutra counting), or would he have +4 (Weak theurgy + Weak theurgy stacking to be Strong theurgy) caster level? Putting him at 9 or 10 caster level, respectively.

Mostly just trying to see if it's worth it to take both for just a monk/druid multiclass or not.


I already have one that isnt bookmarked but could I possibly get a bookmarked one? Would make iPhone reading go smoother.

Xarter@yahoo.com


By Moradin's Braided Beard that was fast thanks TOZ.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm a couch bum right now, so it's not like I have much else to do. :)


Also to whoever did the bookmarking thank you I can now more easily peruse at work.


The Vulture wrote:
Ah, sorry, I was unclear. I was meaning, say, a monk 6/druid 6 with both those sutras. Would he have +3 (Weak theurgy from only one sutra counting), or would he have +4 (Weak theurgy + Weak theurgy stacking to be Strong theurgy) caster level? Putting him at 9 or 10 caster level, respectively.

You would have spell capacity (not caster level) 9th: 6 druid levels + 3 (weak theurgy from Sacred Fist) + 0 (no synergy from Fist of the Forest, because you have no ranger levels). For a more detailed explanation:

Reading Fist of the Forest, it says you can get theurgy from monk/ranger levels. It says nothing about druid class levels, so it doesn't give you theurgy for those. Fist of the Forest is nice if (a) you want to multiclass with ranger, or (b) you just want access to some ranger spells. It doesn't apply in any way to druid class levels; Sacred Fist does. (Nor does it apply to sorcerer levels or wizard levels or incarnate levels. Just the ones specified -- ranger levels.)

There is a fairly lengthy description of what kinds of synergy and theurgy stack, and how, in the Introduction (where class synergy featurews are introduced), with examples. This might help a lot with these sorts of questions. (There is no mention anywhere of "weak theurgy stacking to strong theurgy," because that doesn't happen if you use the synergy class features as written.)


Kirth Gersen wrote:
The Vulture wrote:
Ah, sorry, I was unclear. I was meaning, say, a monk 6/druid 6 with both those sutras. Would he have +3 (Weak theurgy from only one sutra counting), or would he have +4 (Weak theurgy + Weak theurgy stacking to be Strong theurgy) caster level? Putting him at 9 or 10 caster level, respectively.

You would have spell capacity (not caster level) 9th: 6 druid levels + 3 (weak theurgy from Sacred Fist) + 0 (no synergy from Fist of the Forest, because you have no ranger levels). For a more detailed explanation:

Reading Fist of the Forest, it says you can get theurgy from monk/ranger levels. It says nothing about druid class levels, so it doesn't give you theurgy for those. Fist of the Forest is nice if (a) you want to multiclass with ranger, or (b) you just want access to some ranger spells. It doesn't apply in any way to druid class levels; Sacred Fist does. (Nor does it apply to sorcerer levels or wizard levels or incarnate levels. Just the ones specified -- ranger levels.)

Taken from Fist of the Forest in the PDF I have:

Quote:

Fist of the Forest: You have a number of abilities in common with rangers and druids.

 Add all ranger spells of the appropriate level to your class list of ki powers that can be learned. If you actually have levels in druid or ranger, you can choose to give up your ki progression in exchange for Weak theurgy towards your progression in druidic or ranger spellcasting. You retain both lists of powers.

That's where my confusion stems from. If it's not supposed to apply to druid casting, then that makes perfect sense.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
There is a fairly lengthy description of what kinds of synergy and theurgy stack, and how, in the Introduction (where class synergy featurews are introduced), with examples. This might help a lot with these sorts of questions. (There is no mention anywhere of "weak theurgy stacking to strong theurgy," because that doesn't happen if you use the synergy class features as written.)

I definitely made sure to check that first, which is why I was wondering what the official ruling on it was. But if, as above, Fist of the Forest isn't supposed to give theurgy to druid casting, then that would be a good reason why it's not mentioned in the synergy stacking section.


Argh!.... that Fist of the Forest theurgy description seems to have changed from the one TOZ linked -- evidently yet another error creeped into the final. Let me check my notes tonight and I'll provide an official erratum for that.

Sorry for the confusion -- my fault entirely.

In general, the intent is that you'd never have two instances theurgy from one class to the same alternative class.


It did seem a bit odd that it was the only such case of two theurgy bonuses to the same class I could find, but I wasn't sure. I appreciate the clarification. Definitely like having the synergy/theurgy stuff, too. Makes for having a lot of different multiclassing options without penalizing taking a single class.


Thanks again for pointing that out -- stay tuned for official errata!


Would love a Bookmarked PDF, TOZ.

Spoiler:
heliopolix@gmail.com


Toz I "explitive, affectionate term" you man. Thanks tons!


OK, I like what Fist of the Forest does, and I like what Sacred Fist does, and I would like to keep them both as-are, except with an additional note to the effect that the druid-monk spellcasting theurgy from them doesn't stack.

Otherwise, it might be nice to have a druid/monk who grabs FotF for the animal companion boost and access to ranger spells, and also takes SF for the spellcasting theurgy ans synergy to initiations, unarmed damage, and weapon form.

That said, I'll think on it some more, and I'm open to suggestions as well.


Wow, I've only checked the old version in the OP so far (and I haven't gotten to the classes yet), but this is really amazing. Mad props to Kirth and everyone else who helped with this.

I'd like the PDF too, if possible.

Spoiler:
trhvmn.abcn@gmail.com

EDIT: Thank you~ :D


Now that i have the pdf i only have to say one thing, i love what you did with half breeds. I thought it was very inspired.


Crap, now i need a decent printer, 641 pages yeesh.


+5 Toaster wrote:
i love what you did with half breeds.

Thanks! You can tell I read too much Lovecraft, and watch too many old Westerns...


On those subjects, there is never too much.


I've been taking a closer look at some aspects of the rules and was wondering about the reasoning behind certain choices involving scaling of feats. Collapsing certain feat trees (TWF, Vital Strike) makes a great deal of sense, as otherwise it's basically a feat tax to keep having an ability. In other cases, however, the additional feats offer completely different abilities in addition to, rather than building on, the original feat (such as Precise Shot and Improved Precise Shot). This seems to me like it could wind up giving high-level characters an awful lot of abilities from their feats; am I right in presuming this is part of an attempt to close the power gap between casters and martials? And if that is the case, what is the reasoning behind certain combat feats not scaling--for example, Improved Natural Armor only gives +1 to AC, while Weapon Focus scales up to +4?


Vil-hatarn wrote:
I've been taking a closer look at some aspects of the rules and was wondering about the reasoning behind certain choices involving scaling of feats. Collapsing certain feat trees (TWF, Vital Strike) makes a great deal of sense, as otherwise it's basically a feat tax to keep having an ability. In other cases, however, the additional feats offer completely different abilities in addition to, rather than building on, the original feat (such as Precise Shot and Improved Precise Shot). This seems to me like it could wind up giving high-level characters an awful lot of abilities from their feats; am I right in presuming this is part of an attempt to close the power gap between casters and martials? And if that is the case, what is the reasoning behind certain combat feats not scaling--for example, Improved Natural Armor only gives +1 to AC, while Weapon Focus scales up to +4?

Good questions! I'll tell you my reasoning, with the caveat that your group should of course feel free to disagree with any of it.

1. Yes, mostly it was about closing the martial/caster gap. Higher-level combatants not only have more feats, but they can do more and better things with those feats -- and, as you've pointed out, they can sometimes use them in different ways.

2. In a number of cases, abilities that were not ascending "rungs," but which still shared a thematic similarity, were combined into a single scaling feat, with the idea being that if you're really good at "X," it would be logical that you'd also pretty much also want to be able to do "Y" because those are the types of things you want to be able to do. And if those things have different effectivenesses, so that you'd want them to come "on line" at different levels, then viola, you have a scaling feat. This is especially true for some low-level functions that didn't seem to merit feats of their own. Not taking a penalty for shooting into melee is exactly an ability that you want 1st level characters to be able to purchase. Not taking penalties for concealment is something that archers will also want, but it's something that's probably not appropriate as an overall giveaway until higher level.

3. Some feats don't scale -- primarily ones that duplicate existing class talents. For example, a ranger or a fighter or a barbarian can get a scaling natural armor bonus as a class feature, and a druid gets a spell that gives him a limited-duration scaling natural armor bonus. Including a feat that provides a non-scaling bonus is saying, "OK, you can still get one without spending class features on it, but it costs more that way." As it is, with scaling dodge and insight bonus to AC feats, providing a scaling natural AC bonus feat as well is an easy way for the DM to make unhittable monsters, which works contrary to empowering martials. (I could have made it scale with Str or Con, for example, the way Canny Defense scales with mental attributes -- but that would work out for most monsters WAY better than it works out for PCs, and I wanted to keep them on somewhat equal footing.)

Anyway, that's sort of how I approached things in general. If you have other specific examples -- especially ones that don't quite make sense in light of the above -- please don't hesitate to ask about them. It might be that there's a good reason, or it might equally be that I just plain missed something!


Is that right? There is a proper PDF for this system?

I would humbly request a copy. I liked what I saw from the Google doc, but was still confused.

Spoiler:
TheRedArmy21@yahoo.com

Thanks for your time and effort.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Vil-hatarn wrote:
I've been taking a closer look at some aspects of the rules and was wondering about the reasoning behind certain choices involving scaling of feats. Collapsing certain feat trees (TWF, Vital Strike) makes a great deal of sense, as otherwise it's basically a feat tax to keep having an ability. In other cases, however, the additional feats offer completely different abilities in addition to, rather than building on, the original feat (such as Precise Shot and Improved Precise Shot). This seems to me like it could wind up giving high-level characters an awful lot of abilities from their feats; am I right in presuming this is part of an attempt to close the power gap between casters and martials? And if that is the case, what is the reasoning behind certain combat feats not scaling--for example, Improved Natural Armor only gives +1 to AC, while Weapon Focus scales up to +4?

Good questions! I'll tell you my reasoning, with the caveat that your group should of course feel free to disagree with any of it...

Thanks for the detailed reply! In general, your method makes a lot of sense, but I do question how balanced the results are in a few cases. The AC-boosting feats are one, though I definitely understand your reasoning behind making Improved Natural Armor the 'weak' feat of the group. My usual players aren't hugely detail-oriented, so something like that would be a bit of a 'trap' choice for them; but I suppose that's why I'm working on my own simpler set of house rules rather than simply using Kirthfinder.

I was also curious about the reasoning on the skill-related feats. The relative power level of Skill Focus (to gain a class skill), Skill Focus (for up to 1/2 level bonus), and Open Minded (+level skill points) strike me as a bit problematic. Open Minded is definitely balanced if looked at in the context of Toughness and favored class points, so are the Skill Focuses something of a 'diminishing returns' case where additional resources can only get you so much? On a related note, what sorts of skill modifiers do you see at high level play with these rules? It looks to me like you can pretty easily get into +40-45 range by 20th level with Skill Focus, at which point most any DC described in the Skills chapter is trivial, even with the more challenging applications added in.


Vil-hatarn wrote:

I was also curious about the reasoning on the skill-related feats. The relative power level of Skill Focus (to gain a class skill), Skill Focus (for up to 1/2 level bonus), and Open Minded (+level skill points) strike me as a bit problematic. Open Minded is definitely balanced if looked at in the context of Toughness and favored class points, so are the Skill Focuses something of a 'diminishing returns' case where additional resources can only get you so much? On a related note, what sorts of skill modifiers do you see at high level play with these rules? It looks to me like you can pretty easily get into +40-45 range by 20th level with Skill Focus, at which point most any DC described in the Skills chapter is trivial, even with the more challenging applications added in.

Let me start by saying this flat-out: The D&D (and PF) skill system sucks.

It's set up so that pretty much all skills are obsoleted by 6th level or so, so really there's no reason why anyone above 6th level should even track them, like, at all. So I had this idea that skills should have powerful things they can do at higher ranks and DCs... The original intent of the scaling bonus was to partly to match the Epic Skill Focus feat from the SRD and the Paizo additional bonus at 11 ranks, but far more importantly, to allow people who have "X" as a class skill to reach really high DCs, so that I could provide really good benefits. But, unfortunately, that's as far as I got with that idea.

I don't like Skill Focus as it is, in either Pathfinder or Kirthfinder. I don't like the skill system much. I'd like to see skills provide mundane uses for anyone, and awesome uses for people who have them as class skills -- then Skill Focus making something a class skill would be really meaningful. Rogues and bards would really have something going for them! Unfortunately, getting a whole slew of class skills is something you can do with one level in Expert, under the Pathfinder skills rules. So, meh. I'm at a loss.

If I had to go back, I'd ditch scaling Skill Focus entirely, and instead make a whole series of scaling skill-related feats (the current Sixth Sense, Mark of the Wild, and Staredown feats are a move in that direction, for the Perception, Handle Animal, and Bluff skills, respectively). Ultimately, I'd like for ALL skills would have feats like that, or else class features that work that way (like the rogue talent that lets you use Disable Device to sabotage magic items).


Kirth Gersen wrote:

Let me start by saying this flat-out: The D&D (and PF) skill system sucks.

It's set up so that pretty much all skills are obsoleted by 6th level or so, so really there's no reason why anyone above 6th level should even track them, like, at all. So I had this idea that skills should have powerful things they can do at higher ranks and DCs... The original intent of the scaling bonus was to partly to match the Epic Skill Focus feat from the SRD and the Paizo additional bonus at 11 ranks, but far more importantly, to allow people who have "X" as a class skill to reach really high DCs, so that I could provide really good benefits. But, unfortunately, that's as far as I got with that idea.

I don't like Skill Focus as it is, in either Pathfinder or Kirthfinder. I don't like the skill system much. I'd like to see skills provide mundane uses for anyone, and awesome uses for people who have them as class skills -- then Skill Focus making something a class skill would be really meaningful. Rogues and bards would really have something going for them! Unfortunately, getting a whole slew of class skills is something you can do with one level in Expert, under the Pathfinder skills rules. So, meh. I'm at a loss.

If I...

Fair enough. I think adding in more powerful applications for skills is a good start, but I agree that something more needs to be done. For a while, I had been considering a classless system, where all class features and skill ranks were subsumed into simple feat chains, and as part of that, the higher-up skill and saving throw options did have cool powers attached, similar to what you've done with Sixth Sense and the others; for example, Lightning Reflexes gave bonuses to Reflex, but also granted the Evasion abilities at various levels. Conceptually, it worked a bit better for me as a package deal than what you've come up with, but the end result was quite similar. Unfortunately, there were some serious mechanical issues with going classless, and so I wound up switching back.

I've been considering an alternate take on class skills, which could actually address your concerns regarding the Expert (or any class) adding tons of class skills. Basically, at 1st level you would get a certain number (somewhere in the neighborhood of standard skill points per level) of free Skill Training feats, selected from a list similar to the existing class skills list; they would provide a bonus roughly in line with the class skill bonus, and would also enable 'trained only' uses of the skill (something which I feel should be a bit more prevalent). Thereafter, if you multiclass you only gain new Skill Trainings if the new class offers more than the old one, in which case you gain the difference. You would probably also get additional trained skills from high INT, which would not be restricted to the class list. It's a fairly fresh idea--I haven't tested it, and I'm not sure if it's unduly restrictive for multiclass characters, but it does address some of the existing issues. It's possible that using Skill Focus to deliver various special abilities similar to what you've done with Sixth Sense might round out the system fairly well, but I'm not sure.


I started (druing the Beta playetest of Pathfinder) with a classless approach as well, but my players would have none of it. They insisted on classes, and skill ranks, and feats, and all the rest of that baggage, so there you have it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

@Kirth: I sent you a PM with my email address -- I'd like a copy of the PDF when you get a chance. Mostly just posting here since I have a tendency to not notice when I have a PM...


Sent.


So it seems (to me), that the it's very easy to make a much stronger character than an pathfinder. Was this intentional? Not seeing as a problem per se. though it may affect CRs of monsters that don't have class levels.


Stronger martial characters is a goal -- especially at higher levels. Casters have been nerfed pretty heavily in several very important areas, even though they get some shiny new toys.

To some extent, too, they'll be weaker than most people are used to if you stick to the recommended attribute generation methods. If you use 25-point buy or any of that crap, make them +1 effective level.

Remember that monsters get the benefits of scaling combat feats. In fact, you should probably swap out most of their feats (things like Magical Talent and Permanent Spell are a great way to provide nasty "surprises" for the PCs).

Finally, I'm totally ruthless when I play an evil, intelligent villain. Enough so that stronger PCs are sort of needed. And so that the players themselves get kind of scared of me sometimes.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
+5 Toaster wrote:
So it seems (to me), that the it's very easy to make a much stronger character than an pathfinder. Was this intentional? Not seeing as a problem per se. though it may affect CRs of monsters that don't have class levels.

It's not that you can make a stronger character in Kirthfinder than in Pathfinder.

It's that you can make a strong character much easier in Kirthfinder than in Pathfinder.

The difference is that all the good options are right there for players to pick from, rather than hidden in some corner of the rules where you have to stumble over them.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Sent.

Received. Thank you much!

A couple of questions, though, to confirm some assumptions...

1) It looks like each class starts with the appropriate spell list as found in the Pathfinder CRB, with additions pulling from other sources (Paizo or otherwise) listed explicitly. Is that correct?

2) It appears that feats are a more complete list, rather than a supplement. Is this chapter intended to be the definitive list of feats?


Yes, and yes (I'd elaborate, but this goblin's about to turn into a pumpkin!).


Kirth Gersen wrote:

I'd recommend the following, if you haven't already done so:

Most importantly, Balors have a 24 Int, and if their tactics don't reflect that, their CR should be reduced accordingly. That means that (1) they'll send summoned demons just ahead of themselves; (2) their "other treasure" will be in the form of magic items they use (and mundane javelins -- see below), not coins sitting in a cave; (3) at minimum they'll have unholy aura active, and will use damaging SLAs to knock down flying opponents; (4) quickened telekinesis can throw 15 javelins a round in addition to that. (5) If forced to melee, the monsters' feats will need to be updated to Kirthfinder:

(a) Swap the unholy sword quality for keen and finesse, Cleave for Critical Focus, and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (no longer exists anyway) for Two-Weapon Strike. The Balor's vorpal strike ability would be replaced by Severing Strike as a bonus feat. Now every crit, and every time the Balor hits with both its whip and its sword, requires a DC 32 Fort save to avoid decapitation. Swap Iron Will for Weapon Finesse. With Weapon Focus, the sword's attack bonus is now +41/+36/+36/+36, for 2d6+20/17-20.

(b) At least one Balor should swap out the Two-Weapon Fighting feats for Dodge, Skirmish, Vital Strike, and Dimensional Agility, and simply use its sword for 2d6+20/17-20 plus 6d6 and possible decapitation. They can pop in, attack, and pop out in the same round -- and do this against up to 4 opponents/round.

Thanks for the advice. It really just proves my point that you need to modify the monsters, by changing feats at the very least. Takin the monsters from the pfsrd as is and using them at their indicated CR is a recipe for a monster massacre.

I suggest either overhauling each and every monster you are going to use (yuck) or develop some quick guidelines.
I was thinking, at least for high level, to use the 4E paradigm of X number of monsters of lvl Y is equal to a lvl Y encounter (with X being the number of PCs), instead of PF where a CR X monster is an EL X encounter. 5 Balors as presented in the pfsrd might just be an average encounter for a lvl 20 Kirthfinder party.

Oh, and I'd like the bookmarked version when you get around to it :)

Spoiler:
soeder_gris@hotmail.com


May I have the pdfs? (ciretose talked this up enough that I figure I had better take a look).

Spoiler:
coriatsel@hotmail.com

Shadow Lodge

I Would like to take a look at this beast, if you don't mind

Spoiler:
damienvdw@hotmail.com


Matrix Sorcica wrote:
It really just proves my point that you need to modify the monsters, by changing feats at the very least. Takin the monsters from the pfsrd as is and using them at their indicated CR is a recipe for a monster massacre.

The Kirthfinder feats scale; PF feats don't. So, yes, if you leave monsters with non-scaling feats that don't work well together, they'll be less of a challenge for PCs who have access to scaling feats. As far as a mathematical slide-rule for how much less effective, that's not something I'm really interested in spending the time to develop, as long as I'm able to easily bring them up to par on the fly.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Latest batch sent.


+one million to kirths class synergy idea.


Alright, now that I've actually had some time to read through the pdf (though still not as much time as I'd have liked), I have to say that I love your changes. I'd also love to say exactly what I love here, but that'd take too much time and make this post too long, so I'll just say that, if I ever run a campaign for my group, I'll probably be using KF. Yay!

That said, while I especially liked the changes to the Barbarian (because suddenly the class fits a character concept I've had for a while like a glove), there are some rage powers that left me with some questions. Hopefully you won't mind if I ask them here?

Barbarian things:
P. 94, Ogre's Stature: If you're already large (like from having levels in the half-giant paragon class), does this let you become huge?
P. 94, Wrath of Ancestors, Greater: There's no option for an enhancement bonus, unlike the previous two versions of this power? The table seems to indicate that this is intended, but it's a little confusing, especially since the Mighty and Primal versions of this power give that option.
P. 95, Giant's Stature: What happens if you could already become large from Ogre's Stature? I'm guessing that you just get the increased attribute bonuses and such? And what if you're already large to begin with (half-giant paragon class etc.)? I assume that you wouldn't become gargantuan, since that'd be ridiculous.
P. 97, Beyond the Grave: Is this revenantness permanent, then?
P. 98, Titan's Stature: Same stuff as Giant's Stature.

Oh, and something for the Monk as well:

P. 242, Weapon and Armor Proficiency: This part states that Monks have exotic proficiency with one temple weapon of their choice, but it's never specified what a "temple weapon" is.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A "temple weapon" is basically "a weapon that the temple your monk trained at teaches". Or in other words: pick a weapon that is flavourful and suits your monk's backstory.

A player of mine picked quarterstaff, for instance. Her vanara monk was basically Sun Wukong.


Found something in the Sorcerer section that's now confusing me. The Construct bloodline says that they can get the Arcane Bond feat, but has "(heavy armor)" after that and there is nothing for an armor bond in the Wizard section. Is this supposed to function as a prestige Paladin's divine bond, or were there supposed to be rules for an armor bond somewhere in there?


The Vulture wrote:
Found something in the Sorcerer section that's now confusing me. The Construct bloodline says that they can get the Arcane Bond feat, but has "(heavy armor)" after that and there is nothing for an armor bond in the Wizard section. Is this supposed to function as a prestige Paladin's divine bond, or were there supposed to be rules for an armor bond somewhere in there?

Sorry -- I'd meant to flesh that out a bit, and got distracted. My original idea was that it would work exactly like an Arcane Bond weapon -- but it would be a suit of heavy armor instead of a weapon. So, same deal on enhancement and stuff. That said, the Paladin's divine bond is awful close to that, too, so either way it should work pretty well. Thanks for the heads-up: I'll add it to my list of errata.


trhvmn wrote:
some questions. Hopefully you won't mind if I ask them here?

Not at all -- in fact, I appreciate them! Stay tuned and I'll go through them one by one this evening when I get the chance. Thanks for checking in!


trhvmn wrote:


(1) P. 94, Ogre's Stature: If you're already large (like from having levels in the half-giant paragon class), does this let you become huge?
(2) P. 94, Wrath of Ancestors, Greater: There's no option for an enhancement bonus, unlike the previous two versions of this power? The table seems to indicate that this is intended, but it's a little confusing, especially since the Mighty and Primal versions of this power give that option.
(3) P. 95, Giant's Stature: (a) What happens if you could already become large from Ogre's Stature? I'm guessing that you just get the increased attribute bonuses and such? (b) And what if you're already large to begin with (half-giant paragon class etc.)? I assume that you wouldn't become gargantuan, since that'd be ridiculous.
(4) P. 97, Beyond the Grave: Is this revenantness permanent, then?
(5) P. 98, Titan's Stature: Same stuff as Giant's Stature.

OK, I've got my hardbound copy in front of me, so I'm in better shape to answer questions without contradicting myself! Here ya go:

(1) The way it's written, no, it does not. However, ogre's stature is really nothing more than having enlarge person (self only) as a spell-like ability; it's even got the (Sp) tag. I copy-pasted the benefits there so you wouldn't have to cross-reference them elsewhere. So a case could be make that it should otherwise function like that spell, and a kindly referee might allow it on that basis (but is in no way obligated to).
(2) Good catch -- that's a copy error; it should function similarly to the others.
(3)(a) That's spelled out in the last sentence: "The effects of this power supersede those of the ogre's stature rage power (q.v.), which you must have before selecting this one."
(3)(b) As written: no. As a spell-like ability (giant's stature again has the (Sp) tag), it functions exactly like the giant form I spell, which also does not allow that. So, there's really no way to even start to make a case for allowing that.
(4) By that point you're at least 18th level, so it's assumed the campaign will be ending soon. I feel OK leaving the answer up to each individual group.
(5) See (3)(b); it functions as giant form II.


The Egg of Coot wrote:
stuff

Ah, I see! Thanks for the answers.

Hmm... I just realized that a large character wouldn't get much out of Ogre's Stature, since the size bonuses wouldn't stack... oh well.

I'll probably end up reading through the whole pdf, so I guess I'll put any other questions I might find in here as well.


So i havent found the option yet, is it possible to gain additional racial feats in addition to the ones chosen at creation? For example can you choose them as regular feat options.


+5 Toaster wrote:
So i havent found the option yet, is it possible to gain additional racial feats in addition to the ones chosen at creation? For example can you choose them as regular feat options.

Some races have the option to trade a racial feat for two racial traits, as indicated under the appropriate racial feats section. Outside of that, there's not any "official" method, although with referee permission you might be able to trade your 1st level feat for 2 racial traits on a case-by-case basis, after discussion. This needs to be adjudicated carefully, as some of the Pathfinder traits are worth a feat all by themselves (e.g., Reactionary, which I specifically disallowed IIRC), and some are nearly worthless (so no worries about swapping for two of them).

Dark Archive

I would love to have a copy of the PDF if possible. Im running my group through Rise of the Rune Lords with your system. Its been great so far. And thanks again for all the great work you all have been doing

Spoiler:
malhavocblackthorne@yahoo.com

Dark Archive

Thank you So much. The turnaround time blew my mind. Im used to waiting days if not weeks. Thank you again this will come in so handy

1,151 to 1,200 of 3,973 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft Houserules All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.