Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft Houserules


Homebrew and House Rules

2,051 to 2,100 of 3,812 << first < prev | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | next > last >>

If it helps, this one's from a 98 printing :)

Liberty's Edge

LoneKnave wrote:

Got that book on my shelf.

Thought it was just some pulp from my dads collection but it actually had some nice ideas.

All that pulp from your dad's collection is a lot of what inspired the whole reason you're on these boards. I'd give dear old dad's bookshelves another look ;-)


Certainly, as the literary quotes will attest, a lot of pulp ideas and flavor are what informed the "Kirthfinder" houserules as well. I think Gygax's Appendix N is fairly well represented in KF.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Gotta dig my Zelazny out of storage and see if that's one that survived the two floods. That and Lord of Light are two books I really have to get around to reading.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I was a kid I got my first set on DnD and that appendix was my library list for a good while.

Kirth I feel that you might be older then me but you definitely not to old to game.

I ran red box rules and keep on the borderlands for two guys in their 50s, 1 lady in her 30s and her 12 year old daughter.

Only 7 deaths in 7 hours but that happens when they get to characters with sleep in the party.


First of all, thank you Kirth, and thank all of you who helped put this together.
I am overwhelmed by the myriad of great options you have put before us, and I am sure that segments of these rules will live on, and may even be adopted by formal publishers, so that this becomes part of an enduring role-playing legacy.
I know as a fact that these rules are expansive and intricate, and I have opted to add my comments and observations, as seen below.
I would also like to express the positive feeling I experienced upon finding actual quotations for each class (some for races, feats, and skills as well). I realize it must have been hard to find good ones, and I happen to like many of them. They help the mood immensely.

Spoiler:
Minor Errors:
Critical Dodge (Feats chapter) refers to Uncanny Dodge. I have replaced it with Alertness.
Eye [Illusion] (feats chapter): Does not refer to respective spell levels. I have made it scale by 4, 6, and 8 Spell Levels.
Invisibility cap is +5; while under spell rules it should be +7 (being a 2nd level spell). <-Of course, Disguise Self should also follow the same rule (+5, can be heightened).

Saves:
Saves progression changes leads to overall much easier-to-calculate saves. Good work on adopting 4E into Kirthfinder. The static bonuses do not scale, however. I have yet to apply it to high HD characters/monsters. Do appreciate its synergy with diminishing returns rule. I intend to use this, but I fear the long-term effects, especially with the more emphasis and importance of abilities that do scale (other than attributes, of course) like Divine Grace, Twilight Luck, among others. I have, because of this, begun to reuse Intuition saves, a concept which I originally liked, but was tedious to calculate on-the-fly.

Spells:
Modifying spells by metamagic feats gives an excellent standard to creating spells. Changing save-or-lose spells into giving penalties/damage/drain is an overall positive addition to the 3.5/Pathfinder legacy.

I have some feedback regarding save or lose spells: Currently a charm (even dominate) spell simply lowers the enemy's will save on a failed save. This is a long way from magical compulsion. May I suggest opening skill uses under certain conditions?
For example, a character with a charisma penalty (effectively charmed) must make a will save vs. a diplomacy check (or opposed charisma checks) or treat the caster as a friend, effectively doing what Charm already does? Charisma damage makes the target dominated, and does most things without question--while drain is enthralled?
I realize of course that you have already given the /names/ of these conditions on page 7 of Spells, but it is confusing when I ask 'how much damage results in mindless? Int 0? What if Int didn't reach 0 but is still always--feebleminded, but that is the penalty, not damage.

Basically my question is: How much constitutes the condition name?

Regarding spell schools:
I suggest that the final spell's school be decided not only by the base spell (necromancy, evocation and enchantment alone), but by the metamagic feats used as an additional calculating factor. Inflict spells under these rules are all modified evocation, but due to their Versatile Evocation attachment, become necromancy, and Flesh to Stone needs...help. Honestly, I don't know how I can make this transmutation and not necromancy.
Of course, one could make additional spells by modifying from other 'base spells', like a Sanctuary with Protection from Evil (Cascade Spell) that repels enemies (Pushing Spell on failed save), but it seems that there are not enough metamagic modifiers for non-necromancy /enchantment/ evocation.

I do have some additions, however, ones that facilitate the modification and creation of new (or the redesigning of old) spells.
New Metamagic Feats:

Augment Illusion (Metamagic)
Prerequisite: Illusion not a barred school
Benefit: You may add additional qualities to an illusion. Sound, scent (includes taste), heat/cold, and visual. An augmented illusion uses up a spell level +1 for each additional quality used.
Note: I have not made the abstract choice between intelligible speech and ‘random noises’, mostly because I feel that the discrimination is superfluous.

Tactile Illusion (Metamagic)
Prerequisite: Augment Illusion
Benefit: You can create illusions that give a false sensation of being tactile. A creature that fails its disbelief cannot walk through the illusion. The illusion spell gains the [Mind-affecting] descriptor if it does not have it. A tactile illusion uses up a spell slot +3 levels higher than normal.

Subjective Reality (Metamagic)
Benefit: Your [mind-affecting] illusion spells add a debilitating condition upon a failed disbelief, chosen between [Debilitation], [Fear], [Inertia], [Restraint], and [Sensory], chosen when modified by the feat. The step of severity depends on the levels heightened by the feat, up to a maximum spell level of +4 for Critical, or +1 for Minor. On a successful save, the condition is negated to the lowest step (or ignored, if the step is the minor condition).

Fascinating Spell (Metamagic)
Benefit: This feat can only modify a damage-dealing or a mind-affecting spell. A spell modified by this feat fascinates the enemy on a failed will save for the duration of the spell. This feat increases the final spell level by +1.

Modified Descriptors (Metamagic)
Benefit: You can transform illusion spells into other forms of illusions. Figments can turn into Patterns; Patterns can turn into Glamers, and Glamers into Phantasms. Shadow spells cannot be modified. Figments and Glamers turning into Phantasms or Patterns gain the [Mind-affecting] descriptor. Spells originally [Mind-affecting] cannot turn into Figments or Glamers.
This feat modifies non-mind-affecting spells and increases the spell level by 1. Spells originally mind-affecting receive no increase in spell level/. This is a GM-only feat, and cannot be taken by players.

To help facilitate these modifications, I have chosen Phantasmal Whisper as a base for Phantasm spells, as well as the Improve Skill spell as a baseline.
New Base Spells: Improve Skill + Phantasmal Whisper:

Improve Skill
School Enchantment (mental attributes) or Necromancy (physical attributes)
Level cleric 1, druid 1, sorcerer/wizard 1
Components V, S, M/DF
Casting Time standard action
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration 10 minutes/level
Saving Throw Fort or Will half; Spell Resistance yes
This spell provides a bonus to a chosen skill equal to +1 per caster level, maximum +5. It can be heightened according to the bonus scaling table on page 11 (Spells)

Phantasmal Whisper
School: Illusion (Phantasm) [Mind-affecting]; Bard 0, Sorcerer/Wizard 0
Casting time: 1 standard action
Components: S, V, M
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft. /2 levels)
Targets: One creature/level
Duration: Concentration.
Saving throw: Will disbelief; Spell Resistance: no
You send illusionary message to a target's mind. This spell works in magic silence, and is audible to the creatures targeted only. The creatures receiving a message can whisper back through the link. This spell transmits meaning, not sound, and is not language-dependent.

In practice, let's try these out:

Major Image:
Ghost Sound (0); + Augment Illusion (Scent, heat/cold, visual; +2 levels) + Shape Spell (close to cubes; +-?) + Reach Spell (Close to Long; +1 levels) + Concentration Spell (+1 level) + Limited Combat use (Ad Hoc; -1 level) = 3rd level illusion spell creating heat, scent, sound and visuals.

Hypnotic Pattern:
Phantasmal Whisper (0) + Augment Illusion (-Sound, +visual; +0 levels) + Reach Spell (Close to Medium; +1 level) + Fascinating Spell (+1) +Modified Descriptors (Phantasm to Pattern; +0 levels) = 2nd level spell that fascinates on a failed save.

Cause Fear:
Phantasmal whisper (0) + Augmented Illusion (-sound; -1 level) + Subjective Reality ([Fear], 2 levels; +1) + Concentration Spell (-1), Repeat Spell (+1), Extend Spell (to 1 round/level; +1) = 1st level spell causing enemies to become frightened for 1 round/level, or be shaken for 1 round on a successful save.

Fear:
Phantasmal Whisper (0) + Augmented Illusion (- sound; -1 level) + Subjective Reality ([Fear], 3 levels; +2) + Concentration Spell (-1), Repeat Spell (+1), Extend Spell (to 1 round/level; +1) + Shape Spell (Close to Cone; +1 level) = 4th level spell that inflicts [Panicked] on enemies on a failed save for 1 round/level.

Invisibility:
Improve Skill (Stealth) (1) + Invisible Spell (1) (From Cityscape) = 2nd level spell that makes the touched creature invisible, and gives them +1/level enhancement bonus on Stealth (Max +7).

Disguise Self
Improve Skill (Perform (Acting)) (1) = 1st level spell providing +1/level enhancement bonus on Perform (Acting), (Max +5).

Interesting note: These metamagic feats also allow for gamers to be part of an improving chain: As in Disguise self, Disguise other, Greater Disguise Self, Mass Disguise (or veil).

Disguise Other
Improve Skill (Perform (Acting)) (1) + Reach spell* (Personal to Touch; +1 level) = 2nd level spell providing enhancement bonuses to Perform (Acting), maximum +7.

Greater Disguise Self
Improve Skill (Perform (Acting)) (1) + Augment Illusion (Smell, heat/cold, sound; +2 levels) = 3rd level spell changing appearance, smell, sound (voice) and emitting body heat. Perfect for undead, I daresay.

Mass Disguise (Veil)
Improve Skill (Perform (Acting)) (1) + Mass Effect Spell (+3 levels) + Reach Spell (Personal to Long; +3 levels) + Repeat Spell (+1 level) + Concentration Spell (+1 level) - Limited combat use (Ad Hoc; -2 levels) = 7th level spell that disguises 1 target/level.

New one:

Dreadful Guise **
Improve Skill (Perform (Acting)) (1) + Subjective Reality ([Fear], 2 steps; +1) + Modified Descriptors (Glamor to Phantasm; +1 levels) + Lynchpin Spell*** (+1) = 4th level spell that disguises the target, and can carry with it a fearful illusion that works once the illusion is discharged.

* Under current rules, Personal cannot be modified be Reach.
**Inspired by those crazy panther-like creatures whose skin rolls off. Can’t recall their name.
***Mostly a modified version of the feat. Curiously it was removed. I guess it proved too unbalanced.

Note: HD restrictions are unaccounted for. It is regrettable, but ultimately it may be better for HD restrictions to not be a part of the ongoing Kirthfinder legacy. It is my ambition that we may be able to construct any spell, and such abstract concepts as Hit Dice are better left behind when it comes down to spells and magical effects.

Which brings me to another observation: I do notice that there are no rules for reshaping spells into Gaze or Cubes (Except a small piece on Bursts having rearranged squares).

There is no rule that specifies whether or not a Fortitude/ Reflex/ Will/ Intuition save will be better than another save. For instance, spells based on Ray of Frost could not possibly be stopped by a Fortitude save, but some do. Perhaps it is up to the GM to rule, but a few guidelines will be more standard.
I have thought of adding Gaze rules as a base shaper, as like Ray of Frost (for Evocation), Ray of Enfeeblement and Touch of Idiocy are to Necromancy and Enchantment respectively, as seen below.

Burning Gaze: Gaze (1) + Cascade Spell (Ray of Frost; +1 levels) + Versatile Evocation (fire; +0 levels) + Burning Evocation (+1 level) + Lingering Spell (+1 level) + Reduce Spell (-2 level) = 2nd level spell dealing 5d6, plus 1d6 burn for reflex half.

Or instead, it can be as so:

Burning Gaze: Ray of Frost (0) + Versatile Evocation (Fire; +0) + Repeat Spell (+1) + Concentration (+1) + Extend Spell (+1) + Reduce Spell (-3) + Burning Evocation (+1) + Lingering Spell (+1)= 2nd level spell dealing 1d6 fire, concentration, with 1d6 burn risk for every round. I also suppose the target suffers from concealment 20% from the flames. Of course, the original spell (APG) stipulates that this is not an actual gaze attack. It is now.

Gaze
School Any
Level cleric 0, druid 0, sorcerer/wizard 0
Components V, S, M/DF
Casting Time standard action
Range Personal
Target You
Duration instantaneous (or 1 round/level until discharged; +1 level to base)
Saving Throw Fort or will negates; Spell Resistance yes

Concentration spells do not have an upper limit. I have opted to use the most common iteration of the rules which is a maximum of 1 round/level. The hidden rule in the Skills chapter stipulates that one can only concentrate on a spell for 10 + endurance bonus, but it seemed better for it to scale with concentration ranks.

Reduce spell has no lower limit as well. I have found that very interesting, but have not opted to modify it. It makes for very creative spells.

Quests:

The suggestion of focusing EXP on quests is one I began to utilize recently, only with the difference that quests also gave other non-EXP rewards, like items, gold, or boons (such as a permanent bonus to a skill in a certain topic/place, or maybe even traits or feats). These quests, thus, are not solely chosen by the referee, but agreed upon. This will open venues to expand upon backstory and personal goals, while still including others' participation as questers.

Feats:
Death Devotion: Perhaps access should be controlled. This is a 1/day ability (minimum 2/day if using channeling) that kills any 1 or less HD for a save- or-die at first level. I have restricted access until BAB +3, so that Journeyman clerics will be able to use it as a mini-capstone, so to speak.

Healing Light's scaling qualities is too far-reaching. I have limited it to medium and increased casting time, and when it scales to Long + Planar I have decreased casting time from a full-round action to a standard action, as appropriate.

Leadership being taken from level 1 is...interesting. I have not counted the ease in which mass armies could be made with taking a bard/fighter (good charisma, class skill, skill focus, add fighter levels to score), but I like the ability for leadership to work with other skills, as in Knowledge (Planes).

Classes:
I have modified Grace (the fighter talent) has a prerequisite that is devotion-based, or access to abjurative magic or protective domains/disciplines. It scales with BAB, up to a maximum of a mental stat, with varying names: Divine Grace (Charisma), Graced Body (Wisdom), or Higher Grace (Intelligence). This allows Spellswords or Magi with a focus on Abjuration to also boost their saves with a passive application of persistent wards.

Bards have a standard for performance is a good idea; it standardizes the class feature. I find it interesting that you have chosen to make Inspire Courage a separate performance, and as a modified (or heightened) bless spell, as stipulated by the rule on page 3 (BARD)

"To conduct a bardic inspiration, choose any bard spell you know (of maximum level equal to your college bonus) that affects one or more creatures. You can use Heighten Spell or other metamagic on a lower-level spell, as long as the final spell level is less than or equal to your college bonus. "

Bards have also received and lost a bit: Good additions to Bardic Lore, and lost the Dervish dancer. Perhaps taking levels in fighter or barbarian is the new kirthfinder alternative?

Monk scaling Sutras, as well as plethora of bonus feats has been negatively received from my group (except perhaps the Monk). I myself found myself uncomfortable with the ability for the Monk (and Monk alone) to be able to purchase evasion with a sutra, and have it also upgraded for free to Greater Evasion (unlike Fighters, Rangers, etc.) same goes to Bloodline powers.
That is in addition to his excellent hit dice, saves and BAB, as well as the ability for Canny Defense and Dodge (which are for free for Monks) to be used even with armor (when ACP reaches 0), can lead to undesirably unbalanced capabilities. Therefore, I have cut many of the sutras in half when scaling to Superior and Sublime. An ability purchased should not be as good as an inherit ability.

I do notice a nerf of sorts; unarmed mastery has become precision-based, and not inherits. The logic is sound; unarmed arts are about targeting weak points. With the Ki Attack ability, one can emulate how attacking weak points in armor can be done or attacking and destroying solid objects with a well-aimed blow.

Personal modifications:

I have moved the 'Fear' chain into the Illusion school as a [Phantasm] (see above), so to preserve the ability of Necromancers to induce unnatural fear from one hand, as well as to reflect its mind-dependency and give Illusionists a debilitating ability (Perhaps too much considering the new metamagic feats. I have contemplated making it Enchantment, but with Enchantment as a barred school for necromancers, I have rethought it.

I have been inspired by your comment on the Specialist Wizard table, on the School Powers ability:
"Other substitutions may also be possible with referee approval (for example, a thematically-appropriate 9th level sorcerer bloodline power might be substituted for an 8th level school power)."

I have thus been contemplating a standard rule, and I have applied it with no unbalanced ramifications (so far...), and it is a rule you may find interesting:

1- A character can acquire a purchasable ability (not a class feature) by replacing a purchasable ability from one of his own classes, but any new ability acquired this way functions at a level equal to the HD of the purchased class-2.

Example: Rogue9/Sorcerer3 wants the Fighter Talent Iaijutsu Stance. He replaces his Combat Talent (level 9) to gain Iaijutsu at an effective fighter level equal to 7 (or counts his effective scaling modifier to be at -2), for an effective BAB (in this case) to be 7 (counting Opportune Strike).
For this ability, I have judged to not allow for Practiced Talents that increase effective level to apply, as the talent is supposed to be weaker than that of a proper fighter.

Of course, when it comes to abilities that do not scale with level and instead with attribute, the ruling is one of two:
A- The ability comes into play in two HD,
B- The attribute is two points lower for purposes of the ability.

This will hopefully free up class-shifting a bit, and make for more flavorable characters. I do perhaps need to restrict access to purchasable abilities that are deemed too powerful, as the -2 to HD may not seem significant if you could replace a normal Fighter Talent with the Bloodline Disciple Sutra, but the keyword is perhaps.

2- I have also ruled for a bonus feat by removing a class feature, but I admit to have not studied the ramifications, so to reduce class dependency and allow players some freedom and flexibility to gain appropriate skills and abilities for their overall flavor.

3- Not many of my players have utilized Called Shot rules, so I have given them the chance to retroactively apply them to a critical threat, only with the normal reduction to hit applied to the threat confirmation. This seems to be a more accurate representation of a good hit in combat; a result of luck and good circumstance, or deliberate skill (as shown by targeting called shots normally).


Arrius,

Thanks for the feedback! I'll try reply to all your individual questions and comments sooner or later, but it won't be pretty or all at once. (Breaking up your posts by topic, and spoilering things like spell descriptions, would have forced me to be a lot more organized in replying!)

So, in no particular order:

1. I like where you're going with illusions and metamagic. Ideally, I wanted to go there, too, but just ran out of energy and ambition.

2. Good point on flesh to stone, and broader point on conditions vs. penalties/damage/drain. Those are, also, things I'd meant to hash out and never quite got to. My vision was to have a single coherent whole system incorporating attribute penalties/damage/drain, conditions, and condition chains (per the new intro) -- I just ran out of steam before I was able to close the circle there.

3. I'll take a look at the monk sutras and devotion feats you called out and potentially issue errata.

In any event, thanks again for the quality and quantity of your feedback; it means a great deal to me. Also, I should mention (and this echoes responses 1 and 2, but also applies to your new rules): you seem to have intuitively grasped very accurately what I was thinking and where I was headed in general, in places where I don't think my writing was clear enough to make those things obvious. So if anyone were to expand on these rules and finish what I started, I'm thinking that you and Alice Margatroid (who displayed a similar ability to read my mind vis-a-vis the intent behind the rules, and a willingness to break off and make her own) would be a good core for a team.


Oh, and a heads-up, lest we forget: the last mailing will be this weekend. Any addies received between the last mailing (~2 weeks ago) and this one will be on that list.

Starting Sunday (01 June 2014), more requests for copies will not be honored by me; you'll have to hit up someone who was on the list and beg them!


Email Address PM'd


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If anyone is unable to get the rules by June 1st, I'd be happy to help you out. Pop me a PM.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kirth I wanted to thank you and everyone involved for all the work that you have put into this. This has changed the way my group runs games. Thank you so much.


Last mailing sent.
Happy gaming!


How bizarre. This mailing came through successfully, but in doing so, it popped up the one you sent two weeks ago, which had mysteriously been deleted. Thanks anyway! :)

Liberty's Edge

Hey Kirth, I posted my email right after the last mailing, on page 40, but I didn't get an email today. Checked Spam folder and everything. Any chance of getting a copy?

For the record, email is:

Spoiler:
codenameduckfin@gmail.com

Thanks :)


I've forwarded you the email, Austin.


Dangit Kirth I cant read the rules for all the awesome quotes everywhere.

Its a great read and as always thanks.


I'm in the same boat as Austin I posted mine on page 40, but didn't get the e-mail. If someone could please forward me a copy.

misanthrope17@hotmail.com


Same. I got the mailing before, but not today's.


If you were unable to get the rules, PM me an email and I'll be more than happy to forward it to you.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
christos gurd wrote:
If so, if i pick it and select option. A(which is weak arcane spellcasting synergy) and select the enlightened fist sutra, would they stack into strong synergy?

The new Intro has a long section, with examples, spelling out when synergy features (including theurgy) stack and when they don't.

In general, it has to say "this stacks with X from Y," or it doesn't.

thank you for the clarification, as the synergies were coming from the sama class i felt a bit iffy. Again i appreciate it and all you've done.


Anyone else having issues with any of the files. Using open office and the sorcerer file opens as one page with only the intro section.


I have no idea what the sorcerer's problem is.
I sent out a mass email on Sunday (p. 40, 16:56); emails submitted both before and after should be covered. If you think you were skipped, look for a large untitled email from "egoldma" -- that's it.

A couple of people in the 2nd mailing have indicated that there was no attachment in the email they received -- is anyone else having that issue?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
A couple of people in the 2nd mailing have indicated that there was no attachment in the email they received -- is anyone else having that issue?

There wasn't an attachment in mine. What's the filesize anyway?


The Filesize should be about 4.59 MB.


While you're here, I got the attachments in the mail you sent Scavion.

Liberty's Edge

Talonhawke wrote:
Anyone else having issues with any of the files. Using open office and the sorcerer file opens as one page with only the intro section.
Ravenblack wrote:
Firstbourne wrote:

Received mine - thank you. It looks great.

One thing though, when I open the Sorcerer file, it is only one page. Is it just me, or are others seeing this as well?

«

Look which software you use to read the file. For me, the Incarnate was only one page with OpenOffice, but I could see the complete document with Wordpad.


Scavion was able to get the attachments to me. Thanks again.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
A couple of people in the 2nd mailing have indicated that there was no attachment in the email they received -- is anyone else having that issue?

The second email didn't have attachments for me, but it did reveal the (somehow deleted) first email, which did have them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To all those that have worked on this thank you very much, I truly appreciate these house rules as they fix 99% of my issues with the base game.

My group has been a little reluctant but the melee jumped to yes shortly after a quick Q & A. The only negative feedback is combat is a lot more deadly, and I am not sure that is a negative.


The forwarded email I received (06-01-14) didn't have any attachments either. I was sent the files from Scavion.

Question: I don't have Microsoft Office to view the files and Libre Office is messing them up.

Can anyone make good pdfs for me? Would really appreciate it.


amberkat wrote:

The forwarded email I received (06-01-14) didn't have any attachments either. I was sent the files from Scavion.

Question: I don't have Microsoft Office to view the files and Libre Office is messing them up.

Can anyone make good pdfs for me? Would really appreciate it.

I recommend Apache Open Office.

PS. It's free!


I upgraded Open Office and that fixed the issues i was having.


Using an XP machine, can't really upgrade my programs :(


So evidently sbcglobal doesn't play nicely with some platforms/email servers/whatever when it comes to attachments in forwards. Given a chance later in the week, I'll resend Sunday's email as a new email rather than a forward, and see if that helps.


amberkat wrote:

The forwarded email I received (06-01-14) didn't have any attachments either. I was sent the files from Scavion.

Question: I don't have Microsoft Office to view the files and Libre Office is messing them up.

Can anyone make good pdfs for me? Would really appreciate it.

You can also open them via Google Drive/Google Docs.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
So evidently sbcglobal doesn't play nicely with some platforms/email servers/whatever when it comes to attachments in forwards. Given a chance later in the week, I'll resend Sunday's email as a new email rather than a forward, and see if that helps.

Thanks Kirth. Can't wait!


Well, I tried Google Docs and it is messing up the files more than Libre Office. Good idea, it just doesn't seem to like opening and rendering the files. :(


Does no one but me actually use Microsoft Office? I hadn't realized I was missing the boat.


I tend to favor pure text files wherever possible (though formatting does have its benefits.)

RTF is probably the best filetype Microsoft Office supports if you're planning to distribute the file.


Meh, I'm a full-time scientist and part-time game designer, not a computer file protocol expert. I know how to use Word and Excel, so I use Word and Excel!


Trying not to be too picky, but I do love these files.

My problem - I am trying to create *nice* PDFs that I can read on my Kindle Fire Tablet.

I can *read* the files with Libre Office (2 column format, but some tables messed up), and Google Docs (1 column format with some tables messed up) but neither are making decent pdfs for me.

Sorry about being a pest ;)


OK, here's the deal:

I work in Word, and format in Word, and put a fair amount of effort into the work and formatting. If you open the files in .docx format, you see them how they were intended to appear, but can also edit them for your home game. I'd assumed Word was fairly universal, insofar as I've never had a work computer without it, across any number of companies in three different professions now -- but given the feedback here, evidently my experience is not indicative of most people's.

A PDF would preserve the appearance, but not the editability.
A TXT file would preserve the editability, but not the appearance.

For those reasons, I elected to send out the files in Word. Although I did combine and PDF them once as a special favor for a player in my home game, that's not something I want to make a habit of. Yeah, I'm aware some people prefer it for tablet-y things, just as I'm aware that some people have Mikroware Werd for Komputers instead of Microsoft Word for Windows, and can't open .docx files. I'm also aware that some people prefer a single document to one document per class/chapter. I simply don't have the time, energy, or ability to individually send out documents in everyone's preferred format, however.


Hi Kirth :)

I'm not asking for you to do it. Was wishing someone/anyone with the proper program to open these files would help out and create some PDFs. Nothing I have is working.

{go disappear into a dark corner for a while}


amberkat wrote:
Well, I tried Google Docs and it is messing up the files more than Libre Office. Good idea, it just doesn't seem to like opening and rendering the files. :(

I'm looking at the files right now in Google Docs. Don't just use the viewer, load the file fully in the editor.

@Kirth: I use Word as well and appreciate all the formatting you've done. I might generate a bookmarked PDF later. If I do so, I'll send you a copy if you are interested.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Meh, I'm a full-time scientist and part-time game designer, not a computer file protocol expert. I know how to use Word and Excel, so I use Word and Excel!

Please forgive me if I came off as having any expectations Kirth. I was just explaining my own thoughts on the subject.


Caedwyr wrote:
amberkat wrote:
Well, I tried Google Docs and it is messing up the files more than Libre Office. Good idea, it just doesn't seem to like opening and rendering the files. :(

I'm looking at the files right now in Google Docs. Don't just use the viewer, load the file fully in the editor.

@Kirth: I use Word as well and appreciate all the formatting you've done. I might generate a bookmarked PDF later. If I do so, I'll send you a copy if you are interested.

if you do a pdf compilation, may i have one? my preferred print on demand only does pdf's, and online singular ones. shamefully i lack the proper skills to edit and put them together in a pretty fashion.


amberkat wrote:

Hi Kirth :)

I'm not asking for you to do it. Was wishing someone/anyone with the proper program to open these files would help out and create some PDFs. Nothing I have is working.

{go disappear into a dark corner for a while}

I'll look into it.


Managed to transfer the files to a Windows 7 machine with Libre Office on it (no Microsoft Office on any machines I have access to). The Pdfs are a bit more readable, but they look completely different from my XP machine. Not sure what these files are supposed to look like in Microsoft Word. :(

Would still like to see PDFs created from Microsoft Word if anyone is up to the challenge....


amberkat wrote:

Managed to transfer the files to a Windows 7 machine with Libre Office on it (no Microsoft Office on any machines I have access to). The Pdfs are a bit more readable, but they look completely different from my XP machine. Not sure what these files are supposed to look like in Microsoft Word. :(

Would still like to see PDFs created from Microsoft Word if anyone is up to the challenge....

Im working on something, I'll email the files to you so you can see if those work for you. Should be done in the next 10 minutes.

Is it alright if they're not all combined into one super PDF?

Liberty's Edge

amberkat wrote:

The forwarded email I received (06-01-14) didn't have any attachments either. I was sent the files from Scavion.

Question: I don't have Microsoft Office to view the files and Libre Office is messing them up.

Can anyone make good pdfs for me? Would really appreciate it.

I run Libre in Ubuntu and have zero problems with the files. I think running Libre on an MS product is the issue. Try Open Office, it plays better with Windows.

2,051 to 2,100 of 3,812 << first < prev | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 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.