OK. Schools finally out and I can find the time to read. And I would like a copy of your PDF to read :)
|
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).
I think he's asking if, for example, you could spend your feat gained at level 3 to pick up another racial feat (e.g., a human could select Heart of the Fields, or a gnome could select Gnome Magic, if they didn't have them already). Although trading a feat for more racial traits would also be a possibility.
Personally I'd allow it. I don't think there are many options that are so strong that it would be better than, for example, getting a normal feat (and if there are options like that, they're probably problematic in the first place).
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).
actually what i was looking for an option for say for example a mountain dwarf picking azer-blooded and arcane resistance, but wanted to pick up elemental affinity. it's not exactly essential but it always makes a nice option.
Ah, yes, I had misunderstood. And I agree with Alice (as usual) -- the referee can adjudicate it on a case-by-case basis, but if I did my job correctly, a feat should be worth a feat -- so I'd see no problem with what you're proposing.
This seems interesting, lots of good ideas.
The one thing that reallt worries me is the usability of pathfinder modules and monsters with Kirthfinder.
Anyways I will pm TriOmega for the pdf.
The one thing that really worries me is the usability of Pathfinder modules and monsters with Kirthfinder
I've generally found that they're fairly quick to convert. I ran Hook Mountain Massacre, for example, and actually had a lot of fun picking talents and rage powers and such for the ogre fighters and barbarians (who ended up being a lot tougher in Kirthfinder than they were in 3.5). For a somewhat less optimized party, I ran GameMastery Module E1 ("Carnival of Tears") as written, with stats straight out of the Bestiary.
some errata in the genie paragon should be put in. Natural Armor and Telepathy both reference reaching level 12 and the given math reflects that. Also invisibility mentions becoming at will at level 7.
I've generally found that they're fairly quick to convert. I ran Hook Mountain Massacre, for example, and actually had a lot of fun picking talents and rage powers and such for the ogre fighters and barbarians.
That's good too hear.
I actually have some experience with converting monsters for my 3.5 houserules in which I intentionally kept the changes to skills and feats minimal, but still it was a bit of a headache.
For a somewhat less optimized party, I ran GameMastery Module E1 ("Carnival of Tears") as written, with stats straight out of the Bestiary.
I am thinking of giving the players 25 point buy and simply decreasing the monsters CR by 1.
I am thinking of giving the players 25 point buy and simply decreasing the monsters CR by 1.
Personally, I would discourage a 25-point buy, if using this system; the whole thing was written assuming a 15-point buy and/or 4d6 drop lowest, and I'm unable to predict what kinds of adjustments you'll need to make with that much of a power boost right out of the gate.
If monsters are a problem for people, let me know here and I'll post some recommended conversions.
I think you actually start running into diminishing returns at that point Kirth. It would mean that some classes with more diverse attribute requirements will be better off, but it seems as though there are a few feats available that will give single attribute classes a chance to leverage those other ability scores(intuitive strike etc.).
You know I always wanted to run a campaign with no magic items shops and random loot. Maybe with these rules and the ultimate equipment random tables, this will be possible (without the pc's being weaksauce vs team monster).
Hey guys, just a question about some of the racial levels. If you were making a kind of religious bard along the lines of a dervish of dawn and you wanted to add celestial levels as part of the characters development, would you be able to maintain any of its effective casting somehow? Is there a feat that could add weak theurgy to racial levels or something?
Well every class has a feat that treats them as four levels higher, up to your current level.
really? I saw the one for performance, but I haven't seen a spells known one.
Kirth any chance you are going to run another play by post?
Whoops correct on the DCs only, though i suppose that could be made into a feat easy enough.
Please send me a copy of the .pdf to jeleinen -at- gmail.com. Thank you.
Hey guys, just a question about some of the racial levels. If you were making a kind of religious bard along the lines of a dervish of dawn and you wanted to add celestial levels as part of the characters development, would you be able to maintain any of its effective casting somehow? Is there a feat that could add weak theurgy to racial levels or something?
I'd allow the character to trade the celestial spell-like abilities in exchange for weak theurgy. The spells duplicated by the SLAs would then be added to the bard spell list as well.
Not for spells known, just for spell DCs.
Kirth any chance you are going to run another play by post?
I wish! Probably not in the near future, but things may change. I'll let you and the others from the original know as soon as it happens (if ever) -- consider your spot reserved!
Kirth a quick question on sneak attack. Under synergy it's says that one strike feat even if the normal activating conditions ae not met. So for killing stroke does this allow a rogue to force a CdG save on any sneak attack?
Kirth a quick question on sneak attack. Under synergy it's says that one strike feat even if the normal activating conditions ae not met. So for killing stroke does this allow a rogue to force a CdG save on any sneak attack?
No, because the BAB-based scaling of the feat still applies. (Needing "base attack bonus +X" is a prerequisite, not an "activating condition.") To force a CdG on a sneak attack, you'd need to be at least 21st level (which the system doesn't really support), or else spend a number of rounds studying the opponent before attacking (which duplicates the assassin's death attack, BTW).
That said, a 16th level rogue can be forcing a CdG every other round...
That's what I was thinking thank you very much
As an aside I'm really trying to get back into gaming but short on time to write up everything from scratch. Which if any AP might you all suggest would work best with the rule set?
I'm not sure offhand -- usually I write my own adventures. I did use RotRL episodes #2 and #3 ("Skinsaw Murders" and "Hook Mountain Massacre"), the former heavily-modified to fit the ongoing story line, and they seemed to work pretty well. That said, there's still a bit of work to do in assigning talents to the ogre fighters and making sure their saving throws are up-to-date.
I also ran "Carnival of Tears" and "The Whispering Cairn" straight out of the box, as it were, and had no problems with either one.
In general, fewer class levels = less work to convert, and also
lower-level adventures = MUCH less work (this is partly because of the number and breadth of options, but it also has to do with the fact that most high-level adventures are written for groups who obediently follow the story line and don't really use the casters' potential, so I'd need to redo them even for straight 3.5/PF).
Well sounds like I might just break out RotRL then since I have those. I can straighten them out during my graveyard downtime.
Well sounds like I might just break out RotRL then since I have those. I can straighten them out during my graveyard downtime.
Recommendation: Unless your players are gluttons for boredom -- or just really want a lot of fights to test out the new combat mechanics -- I'd skip the stone giant adventure (#4?) entirely. And you'll have to insert a bunch of reasons in #6
Ill keep it in mind at least too of them love the combat end of the game
I do think that a CR adjustment for some creatures is in order, depending on the given feats of course.
I do think that a CR adjustment for some creatures is in order, depending on the given feats of course.
Agreed -- and I'm finding that to be especially true of a lot of the 3.0 monsters. I'm in the process of "rebuilding" some of the MMII, FF, ELH, and CC critters, starting in each case with a Bestiary monster as a base and adding templates. In general, I end up with much stronger monsters, and/or with lower CRs, that way. Evidently CR wasn't a very mechanically-sound system, although it definitely wanted to be.
If anyone has any specific favorites you'd like me to look at, let me know and I'll be happy post 'em under spoilers here (for ones I haven't already done, allow a few days for me to get to them).
In the end I don't sweat CR that much, because I award levels by adventures completed and not XP per encounter overcome, and because my home game is usually very sandbox-y -- it's OK for the PCs to wipe the floor with some encounters, and to run away from and/or opt not to get into others.
Are you meaning as far as covering there worth in xp or how difficult they will be.
If your meaning that I should gauge that they might be tougher or weaker based on feats and talents yeah ill defiantly be running some comparisons.
I have taught my players a healthy fear for templated displacer beasts, so your thoughts on them would be welcome. ;)
Are you meaning as far as covering there worth in xp or how difficult they will be.
I mean the latter -- see edits above. Frank Trollman put it better than I can:
Adventurers respond very rapidly to incentives. If you give incentives for painstakingly stabbing minotaur after minotaur in the face the players will do that. If you incentivize running past the horde of minotaurs and rescuing the princess the players will do that instead. So if the XP comes from quest completion, players will complete quests. If XP comes from Final Fantasy style XP dancing in the woods – the players will do that instead. Since one of them makes for awesome stories, and the other is a rote repetition of the worst kind of World of Warcraft nonsense, we know what has to be done.
If your meaning that I should gauge that they might be tougher or weaker based on feats and talents yeah ill defiantly be running some comparisons.
Awesome! I'd like to see your feedback, if you don't mind posting your observations here.
seconded, talonhawke you go dude!
Yeah as I put monsters together ill let you know the outcomes.
The hard part will be the more heavily classed things. I might post some on here for suggestions.
Actually the hard part will be updating to kirthfinder from 3.5
OK, just for fun:
This will annoy a number of people, but some of you might find it interesting. The overall HD and basic attacks are identical, but the monster gains more attacks, vastly better defenses, slightly more hp, and comes in at a CR 5 (1 higher than in the MM). Its combat stats are more or less in line with what the Bestiary recommends.
Note that I just took a critter straight out of the Bestiary, chucked one template on it, and gave it the non-elite attribute array (+2,+2,+0,+0,-2,-2) to better match the rulebook stats.
Half-farspawn leopard
3.5 edition Monster Manual; Pathfinder Bestiary, Lords of Madness
NE Medium outsider
Init +4; Senses blindsight 60 ft., low-light vision, scent; Perception +11
AC 20, touch 16, flat-footed 14, miss chance 50%
(+4 Dex, +2 dodge, +4 natural, displacement)
hp 57 (6 HD; LW 23/HW 11); DR 5/magic
Immune poison
Resist acid 10, electricity 10; SR 16
Fort +10, Ref +9, Int +7, Will +1
Spd 40 ft., climb 20 ft.
Melee bite +9 (1d6+5 plus grab) and 2 claws +9 (1d3+5) and 2 tentacles +9 (1d6+5)
Base Atk +4; CMB +9 (grapple +12); CMD 23
Special Atks pounce, rake (2 claws +9, 1d3+5)
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 6th)
Continuous—displacement
Attributes Str 20, Dex 19, Con 21, Int 5, Wis 15, Cha 8
SQ favored terrain (plains) +2
Feats Dodge, Improved GrappleB, Improved Natural Attack (tentacles), Lunge
Skills Acrobatics (4/+8), Athletics (2/+10), ConcentrationB (6/+8), Perception (6/+11), Stealth (6/+13; +15 in grass)
Change Shape (Su) As a standard action, a displacer beast can take the form of a grotesque, tentacled mass. The creature's movement modes do not change. The creature retains the tentacle attacks granted by this template and gains two additional tentacle attacks when making a full attack. The creature becomes amorphous. It cannot be flanked, and is not subject to extra damage from critical hits. Creatures native to the Material Plane take a -1 morale penalty on attack rolls against a displacer beast in its amorphous form.
OK, just for fun:
This will annoy a number of people, but some of you might find it interesting. The overall HD and attacks are identical, but the monster has more attacks, vastly better defenses, and comes in at a CR 5 (1 higher than in the MM). Its stats are more or less in line with what the Bestiary recommends.
Note that I just took a critter straight out of the Bestiary, chucked one template on it, and gave it the non-elite attribute array (+2,+2,+0,+0,-2,-2) to better match the rulebook stats.
** spoiler omitted **...
I only have one thing to say...
Doesn't look like you gave it quite everything from the half-farspawn template (missing SLAs and true strike; though it has continuous displacement, so I suppose it probably balances out), but it looks good all the same.
I'd certainly agree with your assessment on CR. I like having some measure of roughly how difficult an encounter should be for a party, but it's not enough on its own. I've definitely had similar experiences with templates and CR.
Doesn't look like you gave it quite everything from the half-farspawn template (missing SLAs and true strike; though it has continuous displacement, so I suppose it probably balances out)
That's more or less what I was thinking.
Hey guys, just a question about some of the racial levels. If you were making a kind of religious bard along the lines of a dervish of dawn and you wanted to add celestial levels as part of the characters development, would you be able to maintain any of its effective casting somehow? Is there a feat that could add weak theurgy to racial levels or something?I'd allow the character to trade the celestial spell-like abilities in exchange for weak theurgy. The spells duplicated by the SLAs would then be added to the bard spell list as well.
Thanks for the reply Kirth. Just out of curiosity, how did you decide on the number of levels for your template levels? It doesn't seem to be an abstract of the CR adjustment.. Is there some other measurement system in place?
Thanks for the reply Kirth. Just out of curiosity, how did you decide on the number of levels for your template levels? It doesn't seem to be an abstract of the CR adjustment.. Is there some other measurement system in place?
In a lot of cases, I took the old level adjustment (LA), attached a Hit Die (and thus a corresponding class level) to each "+1," and called it good. In some other cases, it's based on racial HD of a "target" monster (in the case of the vampire, I'll admit made it 8 levels long because all vampires in 1e had a default 8 HD... and houstonderek would notice crap like that and appreciate it).
EDIT: The problem with using straight CR is that sometimes, stuff that's totally reasonable for 2-encounter monsters, doesn't really work for permanent PCs.
fair enough. I just noticed that the level range was way out of wack for a CR adjusted level, so I was curious as to the actual means.
Was statting up kuo-toa and incidentally noticed that a number of the Domain feats are trap options (for example, Water Devotion as written was worse than simply taking Magical Talent). Fixes are posted under this avatar's profile; more on the way.
Also revisited fighter talents, with a noted disparity in some of the effects. I'd recommend the following:
Kirth,
I looked over the introduction section. Very minor edits.
Do you use insanity saves? I do not see them listed and would suspect they would end up being intuition saves modified by wisdom (since a 0 wisdom leads to insanity).
For Alignment, do you rule that clerics and archivists must have an alignment just like paladins?
ACTIONS
Attacks of Opportunity and Immediate Actions: In these rules, an attack of opportunity is specifically defined “as” an immediate action. Page 8
(the as is missiing)
CMD is equal to 10 + CMB “+ plus” the following AC modifiers (if applicable): page 11
(two pluses)
Clever Positioning: When using the Reposition maneuver (see below), page 12 (the reposition maneuver is above).
An enemy being moved by a reposition does not provoke an attack of opportunity because of the movement unless you possess the Improved Bull Rush feat “and a +11 BAB”. (greater bull rush states you need a +11 BAB to provoke attacks of opportunity)
I noticed that as written fighting defensively and the total defense option seem to give an equal penalty to attacks of opportunity, I was wondering if the total defense penalty should be higher.
These rules supersede the normal Pathfinder rules for Readied Actions and Delay. Duplicate wording on page 14
Under take a breather, the +1 bonus to attack, damage, or saves is what type of bonus?
Thanks, I am looking at equipment next and will post anything I notice as time (which I seem to have very little of) allows.
Thanks, Christopher! Great catches, as always, and I agree on saves vs. confusion/insanity -- I'll mark that in.
Re: cleric/archivist alignment, I ususally rule that being devoted enough to an extraplanar being (or group of beings, etc.) to actually receive spells and powers from it/them is a close enough connection to give you an aura of that type.