Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft Houserules

[Firstbourne]

Does anyone have a list/table of the Kirthfinder feats like the one in the Pathfinder Core Rules?

I love the Kirthfinder system (we are using it for Way of the Wicked right now), but when my players need to choose feats, they have a lot of page turning and hunting to do.

Thanks in advance.

[Arrius]

@Firstbourne: I do not, and do not think that anyone else does; it is a difficult endeavor to consolidate them.

@Kirth: Regarding the possible addition of a Combat chapter; do you have the time and energy to devote your energies to this task? \

If so, the following online sourcebook (Feats Revamped) makes use of good terms that can open way to mechanics we haven't considered (qualifying limbs for TWF, definition of visual impairment, etc.)

Link.

[Kirth Gersen]

Arrius wrote:

@Kirth: Regarding the possible addition of a Combat chapter; do you have the time and energy to devote your energies to this task?

I wish! I have a new baby (our first), and am looking to move and/or change jobs, and am trying to find work for Mrs Gersen's sister as well, so my plate is pretty full. I still dabble in the rules occasionally, and have cut-pasted some stuff for a Combat chapter, but I can't really guarantee any output at all, going forward.

[Kirth Gersen]

Arrius wrote:

If so, the following online sourcebook (Feats Revamped) makes use of good terms that can open way to mechanics we haven't considered (qualifying limbs for TWF, definition of visual impairment, etc.)

Link.

I love this link. I wish I could have pulled from it from the beginning, instead of duplicating their efforts.

[Arakhor]

That does look like a good link. :)

[Arrius]

Kirth Gerson wrote:

I still dabble in the rules occasionally, and have cut-pasted some stuff for a Combat chapter, but I can't really guarantee any output at all, going forward.

I will try to contribute as much as possible to expedite the release of this ghost chapter.

Grounding floating terms like 'Concentration' (for spells), 'Mount' (for the purposes of mounted riding feats), 'Metamagic Cap' (for abilities like Mystic/Eldritch Blast), and clarifying action economy are our first probable objectives.

I propose we add a 'qualifying limb' clause with action economy; such a clause would clarify what climbs qualify for multiple weaponry, and would clear the way for a clearer re-write of Two-Weapon Fighting, in the vein of the terminology in Feats Revamped (the link I provided).

I also propose we add a 'Base Attack' term, that describes the melee/ranged basic attack roll at BAB +0, and gather all feats, abilities, and class features that use a differing term for bonus attacks, and form a list (as you proposed earlier).

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I wish! I have a new baby (our first), and am looking to move and/or change jobs, and am trying to find work for Mrs Gersen's sister as well, so my plate is pretty full.

How rude of me; I did not congratulate you. I was unaware. If you feel that it is not possible to devote enough effort for this in any reasonable amount of time, I am willing to volunteer to write the chapter instead.

[Arrius]

Speaking of floating terms that have ties to mechanics, I have found the following additional terms:

Limb:
We add qualifying limb and non-qualifying limb; arms and legs are qualifying limbs for creatures with them, and heads are non-qualifying limbs. One cannot also move on a limb that bears a weapon, which can eliminate any possible ludicrous optimization tricks of a monk with a kukri in both hands and legs.

Half Land Speed:
We should add a base mechanic interacting with this, so that any feats that interact with this mechanic seem more integrated, like Wind Walk.
I suggest +2 dodge bonus to AC against ranged attacks.

Off-Hand:
And difference in relation to Main-Hand and/or Limb suggestion in my previous post.

Secondary Attack:
We eliminate this term, and roll it under the Limb suggestion.

Trained and Untrained Animals:
All animals have proficiency with their attacks, except when fighting in the initiative under the command of another creature.
Untrained animals (all animals) suffer non-proficiency in their attacks when fighting under another creature's initiative.
Trained is a +0 CR template that allows all animals to have proficiency in their attacks.

I'll be sure to add any more terms that can be consolidated and standardized.

[Andostre]

Firstbourne wrote:

Does anyone have a list/table of the Kirthfinder feats like the one in the Pathfinder Core Rules?

I love the Kirthfinder system (we are using it for Way of the Wicked right now), but when my players need to choose feats, they have a lot of page turning and hunting to do.

Thanks in advance.

I created a feat tree list for an earlier version of Kirthfinder (whatever version it was when I came onboard in 2009), and it was tricky.

The main problem is that there are (or were?) quite a few feats that required prerequisites from unrelated feats. The challenge I faced was knowing which sub-tree to put a feat in.

In searching for an example in the latest version for this response, it looks like this issue might not be nearly so prevalent if you wanted to give it a shot.

[Firstbourne]

Andostre wrote:

Firstbourne wrote:

Does anyone have a list/table of the Kirthfinder feats like the one in the Pathfinder Core Rules?

I love the Kirthfinder system (we are using it for Way of the Wicked right now), but when my players need to choose feats, they have a lot of page turning and hunting to do.

Thanks in advance.

I created a feat tree list for an earlier version of Kirthfinder (whatever version it was when I came onboard in 2009), and it was tricky.

The main problem is that there are (or were?) quite a few feats that required prerequisites from unrelated feats. The challenge I faced was knowing which sub-tree to put a feat in.

In searching for an example in the latest version for this response, it looks like this issue might not be nearly so prevalent if you wanted to give it a shot.

If you are willing to share it, I'd love to take a look at it. Even if I had to do some editing, it would at least be a solid start.

My contact info is cjmizanin at sbcglobal dot net.

[Tahlreth]

As another tangent to reformatting/polishing the rule-set yet again, Kirth, at one point you mentioned wanting to make a classless system. Would it be feasible to turn Kirthfinder into such a system if we increased all the values on the numen table by X amount and gave appropriate numen values to all the various class features?

I know all class features that aren't already replicated by feats should be more expensive than feats, but I have no idea what to do about class spell lists and racial abilities.

[Arrius]

A way this could be done (note; I do not advocate a classless system, and prefer simple polish and clarification on existing rules), is determining all class abilities, and tying them directly with a scaling mechanic, and establish scaling increments.

For instance:

Classless System wrote:

A B I L I T I E S___ Full HD; 3/4 HD; Half HD;
Sneak Attack________ 10 N; 7 N; 5 N

For example, Sneak attack at full hit dice (rogue) gains 1d6 at level 1, gaining +1d6 per every 2 levels (max 10d6).

Sneak attack at 3/4 hit dice gain 1d6 at level 1.5 (round to level 1), +1d6 every 3 levels (max 7d6).
Sneak attack at 1/2 hit dice gain 1d6 at level 2, +1d6 every 4 levels (max 5d6).

If we establish ability gaining at level 1 according to the list, and add scaling, it would make a beginning to the system.

However-there is great difficulty in establishing balance in existing classes; circumstantial and constant abilities make class features uneven, and thus, pricing them is subject to question. Besides, this way, we sort of lose Kirthfinder itself in the process.
An easier way for cross-class learning is to add a mechanic by which one can 'purchase' a class ability, consolidating all the 'rage as a barbarian equal to your level-3' into one neat system.

Of course, this is back in my priorities after finishing reserve spells and fixing 3.5/3.75/Pathfinder mechanics. We could set precedent, however, and that could be a reference point later on.

[Andostre]

Firstbourne wrote:

Andostre wrote:

I created a feat tree list for an earlier version of Kirthfinder (whatever version it was when I came onboard in 2009), and it was tricky.

The main problem is that there are (or were?) quite a few feats that required prerequisites from unrelated feats. The challenge I faced was knowing which sub-tree to put a feat in.

In searching for an example in the latest version for this response, it looks like this issue might not be nearly so prevalent if you wanted to give it a shot.

If you are willing to share it, I'd love to take a look at it. Even if I had to do some editing, it would at least be a solid start.

My contact info is cjmizanin at sbcglobal dot net.

Surprising myself immensely, I found the file and the e-mai I wrote in 2010 explaining it. Look for an e-mail from me called "Feats List".

[Arrius]

Also a helpful term to ground is 'Drawing Weapon' and 'Reloading Weapon'.
Consolidating all action economy terms related to drawing weaponry from light and thrown weaponry to two-handed and reloading could and possibly should be rolled under one mechanic.

[Kryzbyn]

Is there an updated file since 10/2013?

[Andostre]

Yes, the "final" version. Post an e-mail to send it to if you want it.

[Kryzbyn]

[e-mail] please!

[Andostre]

Sent!

[Arrius]

Regarding the Alchemy entry, it may be wise to establish targeting restrictions. As of yet, Alchemy can be used to 'potion-ize' every and any spell, and I am in fact o-k with that. Perhaps we should specify that some spells (Burst, cube, etc.) take effect when a container containing the potion in question explodes, or generally allow the following possibilities:

Mudfoot in the Dysfunctional or Silly Rules Thread wrote:

- Stinking Cloud in a bottle: throw it to smash by your enemy
- Dunk your arrows into this vial for Flame Arrow
- A block of wax that casts Keen Edge on your sword when rubbed on the blade
- Daylight in a bottle: pour it out.
- Illusions in a bottle: paint it on the wall
- Dispel Magic in a bottle: pour it on the target
- Hypnotic Pattern in a bottle
- Web in a bottle
- Glue that will Make Whole
- Goodberries that stay fresh

My first inclination is to classify potions via their origin spell targeting qualities; Rays effect as normal; burst as splash weapons, touch and self are oils or elixirs, etc.

[christos gurd]

email:

[e-mail]

i would love an update.

[wynterknight]

email:

[e-mail]

I would also love an update, if anyone can help!

[Maxximilius]

Spoiler:

rombeaut.benjamin [at] gmail [.] com

I'd love to see an update, our group is using the awesome Kirthfinder Weapon Proficiencies subsystem, but it seems it has been updated several times and the only version available online is badly outdated...

[Jam412]

Maxximilius wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

I'd love to see an update, our group is using the awesome Kirthfinder Weapon Proficiencies subsystem, but it seems it has been updated several times and the only version available online is badly outdated...

Sent the latest copy!

[Jam412]

Christos and Wynterknight, just sent a copy to each of you as well.

[Maxximilius]

Thanks, awesome !

Just a question about weapon proficiencies : is there any difference I'm missing between the garrote cord and garrote wire ? The wire has exactly the same properties as the cord, except that it deals much more damage...

[Vil-hatarn]

Could I get it also?

Spoiler:

[e-mail]

[houstonderek]

Andostre wrote:

I created a feat tree list for an earlier version of Kirthfinder (whatever version it was when I came onboard in 2009), and it was tricky.

I think you were in on the original play test. The idea pretty much started when we realized the Beta test was just for show, and the "we can fix it at the table" camp won.

[christos gurd]

Jam412 wrote:

Christos and Wynterknight, just sent a copy to each of you as well.

thank you sir.

[Arrius]

@Kirth:

Any update on how the combat chapter is going?

[Jun Tijax]

I just ran across an older version of this (in an attempt to locate a more fighter-y fighter for a player), and didn't realize it was still being updated! Could I get a copy of the latest as well?

Spoiler:

sombrerogalaxy [at] gmail.com

[JonathonWilder]

Why in Tartarus does a wizard have this?
"Skill Ranks per Level: 0 + Int modifier"

It is arguably bad enough a wizard only gets 2 skill points per level since they are supposed to be a highly educated class but 0 skills points per level is just silly. Even with a high Intelligence that is very limited number of skills.

[Andostre]

JonathonWilder wrote:

Why in Tartarus does a wizard have this?

"Skill Ranks per Level: 0 + Int modifier"

It is arguably bad enough a wizard only gets 2 skill points per level since they are supposed to be a highly educated class but 0 skills points per level is just silly. Even with a high Intelligence that is very limited number of skills.

All the classes get fewer skill points per level. There are fewer skills needed, and many of the class and race abilities are skill-based, so a character will get more points from those sources, also.

[TriOmegaZero]

JonathonWilder wrote:

Why in Tartarus does a wizard have this?

"Skill Ranks per Level: 0 + Int modifier"

Because an Int-based caster gets more skills than the rogue does otherwise.

[JonathonWilder]

Hmm, less skill points in general... okay then, I would have to study the resource more closely before giving my thoughts on such.

Also what of a Rogue that actually has a high intelligence, could not such allow them to have more skills then an Int-based caster? Admittingly whether Rogue, Bard, or wizard I normal tend to divide between Dex, Int, and Cha.

[Scavion]

JonathonWilder wrote:

Hmm, less skill points in general... okay then, I would have to study the resource more closely before giving my thoughts on such.

Also what of a Rogue that actually has a high intelligence, could not such allow them to have more skills then an Int-based caster? Admittingly whether Rogue, Bard, or wizard I normal tend to divide between Dex, Int, and Cha.

This system grants ranks in a few skills automatically as appropriate to your chosen class.

A Wizard actually gains 5 skill points per level already in Concentration, Knowledge (linguistics), Knowledge (lore), and Spellcraft.

The 0+Int Skill Points per level reflects what Skills your character pursues outside of what the Class demands of you to be that Class.

[Kirth Gersen]

JonathonWilder wrote:

Why in Tartarus does a wizard have this?

"Skill Ranks per Level: 0 + Int modifier"

Scavion has it exactly. The wizard already gets 5 skill ranks/level, with his "skill taxes" pre-loaded into the class, plus his free secondary skill. He gets 0 + Int modifier on top of that (which usually comes out to a pretty respectable number).

[Kirth Gersen]

JonathonWilder wrote:

Also what of a Rogue that actually has a high intelligence, could not such allow them to have more skills then an Int-based caster?

Yes. Cyz's rogue had that going on. I'm fine with that -- more than fine with that, in fact.

[Kirth Gersen]

Arrius wrote:

Any update on how the combat chapter is going?

Zero progress. (I fly out to Houston tomorrow to start my new RL job, so that's kind of been my focus right now, along with taking care of the new baby.)

However, I did manage to start with the Leopard stats in the Bestiary and independently derive the lion, tiger, dire lion, dire tiger, lynx, caterwaul, arctic cat, and swamplight lynx using existing templates and/or class levels. I was so pleased with the results that I went on to do bears, wolves, octopuses, squids, and a few others. It's incredible how much more satisfying it is to use existing rules to construct monsters, rather than just throwing some abilities together and ballparking some numbers on a general table (as in Pathfinder). If the combat chapter ever gets done, I'll for sure need to write a Chapter 9: Monsters.

[UnArcaneElection]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Houserule documents can be viewed/downloaded at my Google Site.

Previous discussions can be found here.

Design work by Kirth Gersen.
Playtesting by myself, houstonderek, Andostre, Jess Door, and silverhair2008.
Proofreading and editing by Christopher Hauschild and too many others to list.
{. . .}

Haven't had time to read any bit the first and last little bit of this thread, but good job of putting together another D&D 3.x/PF variant that has some real advantages of its own.

[Arrius]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Arrius wrote:

Any update on how the combat chapter is going?

Zero progress. (I fly out to Houston tomorrow to start my new RL job, so that's kind of been my focus right now, along with taking care of the new baby.)

However, I did manage to start with the Leopard stats in the Bestiary and independently derive the lion, tiger, dire lion, dire tiger, lynx, caterwaul, arctic cat, and swamplight lynx using existing templates and/or class levels. I was so pleased with the results that I went on to do bears, wolves, octopuses, squids, and a few others. It's incredible how much more satisfying it is to use existing rules to construct monsters, rather than just throwing some abilities together and ballparking some numbers on a general table (as in Pathfinder). If the combat chapter ever gets done, I'll for sure need to write a Chapter 9: Monsters.

@Monster Design: I know how it is.

I have found that designing monsters follow no specific steps. I have considered applying (when creating my own) some form of variant of order. Usually done by changing feats, creating new ones, or (as you did) applying templates. I have always felt cautious from adding class levels (even when I did add them), because of balance or CR concerns.

@Progress: Congratulations on the new job!
RL takes priority, of course. I do hope that you might find time to work on it after you've settled in.

Regarding the combat chapter, there is a topic on standardizing mechanics:
As of now, Arcane Spell Failure depends on the equipment designer's fiat.
I've started playtesting tying ASF with ACP, with a rate of 5% Arcane Spell Failure per point of Armor Check Penalty.
That would (in my assessment) eliminate the need for introducing synergistic feats and abilities like Arcane Armor Proficiency, and class-specific casting exceptions and restrictions.
Since arcane casters by default have no armor proficiency, they would require feats to use them effectively--which is exactly what they are doing now.
This also relieves the designer from adding an additional column to every entry for armor or shields.

Quick Edits: Removal of Arcane Spell Failure from the entries under equipment chapter, and instead define the term as tied to Armor Check Penalty.
Arcane-casting classes that possess armor proficiency lower their ACP by 2 points for the purposes of spellcasting (minimum 0; or 10%). This value can be altered.
This also allows a multiclassed fighter/caster to replicate heavily-armored magic knights, exploiting the Armor Training Combat Talent.

[Kirth Gersen]

Arrius wrote:

I've started playtesting tying ASF with ACP, with a rate of 5% Arcane Spell Failure per point of Armor Check Penalty.

The only reason I haven't do that yet is because of the much higher cost for ASF reduction (Chapter 6), derived from 3.5 sources. One thing I started was to standardize armor costs based on Ch6 costs so that mundane armors "zero out" at 0 numen net cost. I never did get the values to work out, though, and eventually got sidetracked on other stuff.

[Arrius]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Arrius wrote:

I've started playtesting tying ASF with ACP, with a rate of 5% Arcane Spell Failure per point of Armor Check Penalty.

The only reason I haven't do that yet is because of the much higher cost for ASF reduction (Chapter 6), derived from 3.5 sources. One thing I started was to standardize armor costs based on Ch6 costs so that mundane armors "zero out" at 0 numen net cost. I never did get the values to work out, though, and eventually got sidetracked on other stuff.

Can you elaborate further on armor costs? Do you mean that you tried to recreate existing armors with some purchasing calculation?

[Kirth Gersen]

I mean that I took the armors as listed at the beginning of Ch 6, and I took the bonus costs from the custom gear section, and I tried to reconcile them so that every armor would cost 0 numen when you added up the +/- costs for armor bonus, ASF, check penalty, etc. At some point I want to apply a "best fit" macro to solve for it or something.

[Aratrok]

Andostre wrote:

Yes, the "final" version. Post an e-mail to send it to if you want it.

I'm interested. :)

Email:

[e-mail]

[Arrius]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I mean that I took the armors as listed at the beginning of Ch 6, and I took the bonus costs from the custom gear section, and I tried to reconcile them so that every armor would cost 0 numen when you added up the +/- costs for armor bonus, ASF, check penalty, etc. At some point I want to apply a "best fit" macro to solve for it or something.

I see.

It seems there is a hint of design in the chaos, regarding light/medium/heavy categories.

According to the Core Rulebook
Reality
Padded Leather, with Armor+1, Dex+8, and -0 ACP
Hide, with Armor+4, Dex+4, and -3 ACP
Full Plate, with Armor+9, Dex+1, and -6 ACP

Possible design:
Standard is 0 Points in Armor, +9 maximum Dex, and 0 ACP when wearing clothes.*
1 point of armor corresponds to -1 Dex, and +0.75 ACP.
Armor Category:
At every increment of a +4 bonus base Armor (not enhancement), the weight category increases, according to the Light/Medium/Heavy order.
Like in most calculations, round down with ACP (unlike, however, most categories, round to a minimum of +0).

*This will limit characters/monsters with 28+ Dexterity, but please humor me.

Theoretical
Padded Leather, with Armor+1, Dex+8, and -0 ACP
Hide, with Armor+4, Dex+5, and -2 ACP
Full Plate, with Armor+9, Dex +0, and -6 ACP

All this considered, exact values are indeed (as you reported) difficult to divine--if they were charted to a standard at all--but an effort to replicate them is not impossible.
And if we tag the Arcane Spell Failure idea to this system, we get the following:
Theoretical, ASF
Padded Leather: 0% Arcane Spell Failure
Hide: 10% Arcane Spell Failure
Full Plate 30% Arcane Spell Failure

A GM Fiat can bump it up by +5% can bring up the curve. Padded and Plate will follow the exact same value as the Core rulebooks, and Hide will be 5% off.

These values are dependent on the core rulebook.

According to Chapter 6:
Leather: Armor+2, Dex+6, and -0 ACP
Hide: Armor+4, Dex+4, and -3 ACP
Plate: Armor+8, Dex+1, -6 ACP

Leather would be: Armor+2, Dex+7, and -1 ACP if it kept the +1 to AC. It will have 5% ASF (5% less)
Hide: Would gain +1 in Dex. It will have 15% ASF (5% less).
Plate: Would remain exactly the same. It will have 30% ASF (10% less).

Would this shortened formula be worth the reduced space, against tweaks in armor values?

[Sellsword2587]

Aratrok wrote:

Andostre wrote:

Yes, the "final" version. Post an e-mail to send it to if you want it.

I'm interested. :)

** spoiler omitted **

Also interested in the "final version." Thank you in advance.

Spoiler:

[e-mail]

[JonathonWilder]

I am interested in the 'final version' as well, perhaps you can sent it to me?

Spoiler:

[e-mail]

[Scavion]

I'm a magic PDF Goblin. If you're willing to sell your soul, I made some Kirthfinder PDFs.

I also have the editable documents just let me know which ones you want in a PM.

[Obligator]

I am also interested in the final version.

Spoiler:

[e-mail]

[Arrius]

@Kirth: With the introduction of the Spellcasting Capacity and its synergy with multiclassing, have you not thought of adapting Trailblazer's Base Magic Bonus instead to streamline progression?

[Kirth Gersen]

Arrius wrote:

@Kirth: With the introduction of the Spellcasting Capacity and its synergy with multiclassing, have you not thought of adapting Trailblazer's Base Magic Bonus instead to streamline progression?

I thought of it, but ended up preferring to leave it as a talent rather than a freeby, kind of like 5e did with the eldritch knight and mystic theurge.