Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft Houserules


Homebrew and House Rules

2,601 to 2,650 of 3,972 << first < prev | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | next > last >>

Yeah, it definitely would! As a rule of thumb, unless it's really obviously due to some quirk of circumstances, I try to fit other stuff first -- because "circumstance" really can get to seem like an overly-broad cop-out.


Yea definitely if everything is circumstance then you have the issue of it letting you ignore a huge amount of penalties which is probably too powerful for a single feat.


Tahlreth wrote:
May you find salvation in the email sent.

You have my immeasurable gratitude! Sadly I am certain I will need your sanity saving services in the future as I try to create complicated multiclass characters. Or when I'm just being dumb. That is also a definite possibility...


Stupidity is setting in already -_- I have a couple of questions. I already have an idea on how I would rule, common sense and all, but I would like to see if my common sense is really all that common.

1. Regarding Ascetic Warrior, and other features like it. This Fighter Talent specifically mentions Weapon Training superseding the Monk's Weapon Form. Through multiclassing, stacking synergy, it is possible for Weapon Form to be superior, numerically, to Weapon Training. In such a case Ascetic Warrior effectively weakens you in that particular department. Is this intentional or should we simply use the better bonus? If it is intentional, why?
My idea: Use whichever is better.

2. A similar situation occurs with substitution feats like Serenity. SAD CHA casters who multiclass with monk suddenly find themselves with MAD (beyond what multiclassing already demands of characters)? Is this an unfortunate side-effect of an intentional design choice or should the character be able to ignore Serenity if it isn't beneficial?
My idea: Use whichever is better.

3. Can Sorcerers benefit from Eldritch Heritage, like in PF? If so, what happens when you multiclass with, again, the monk taking the Bloodline Disciple Sutra? P.S. That particular sutra isn't found in the table at the beginning of the section, thought someone here must want to know that.
My idea: Yes, Sorcerors can have both. The sutra applies to bloodlines gained through class, not through feats.

4. The Ki Powers feature has a component functioning like Spellstrike, with a few notable differences. Is it reasonable to allow for Ki Powers to provide the same synergy as Spellstrike does (i.e. with Battle Touch and Imbue Missile)?
My idea: Yes, its fine.

Sorry for the mess of questions. The search function isn't as helpful as I'd like it to be :/ Worse, more is likely on the way...


Great catches! I'm sincerely indebted to you for pointing out places where what I thought was clear needs to be spelled out better. PLEASE keep the questions coming!

Arcane Addict wrote:
1. Regarding Ascetic Warrior, and other features like it. This Fighter Talent specifically mentions Weapon Training superseding the Monk's Weapon Form. Through multiclassing, stacking synergy, it is possible for Weapon Form to be superior, numerically, to Weapon Training. In such a case Ascetic Warrior effectively weakens you in that particular department. Is this intentional or should we simply use the better bonus? If it is intentional, why? My idea: Use whichever is better.

I agree with your ruling. Part of this can be explained if I were more careful in using "you can" constructions in the rules, vs. "you do." (See (2), below, for what I mean here.)

Arcane Addict wrote:
2. A similar situation occurs with substitution feats like Serenity. SAD CHA casters who multiclass with monk suddenly find themselves with MAD (beyond what multiclassing already demands of characters)? Is this an unfortunate side-effect of an intentional design choice or should the character be able to ignore Serenity if it isn't beneficial? My idea: Use whichever is better.

I just had this come up over the weekend, when I was building an NPC. The key is that Serenity says you "can" use your Wis modifier, not that you are required to. You can choose not to do something you can do; if you stick with Cha, you still keep Serenity as a free feat (which has no effect until someone hits you with a bunch of ego whips, for example, and drops your Cha to below your Wis, as which point you can start using Wis until your Cha damage gets healed).

Arcane Addict wrote:
3. Can Sorcerers benefit from Eldritch Heritage, like in PF? If so, what happens when you multiclass with, again, the monk taking the Bloodline Disciple Sutra? P.S. That particular sutra isn't found in the table at the beginning of the section, thought someone here must want to know that. My idea: Yes, Sorcerers can have both. The sutra applies to bloodlines gained through class, not through feats.

(a) Thanks for spotting that! I'll add it to the table. (b) Yeah, if you spend the feats, you should get the benefits. And, yes, typically as a rule class synergy is a 1:1 proposition in terms of the number of class abilities, not 1:2.

Arcane Addict wrote:

4. The Ki Powers feature has a component functioning like Spellstrike, with a few notable differences. Is it reasonable to allow for Ki Powers to provide the same synergy as Spellstrike does (i.e. with Battle Touch and Imbue Missile)?

My idea: Yes, its fine.

Not only is it fine, it's something that should be clarified in the Monk class description, along the lines of "Ki strike function as if you had applied the Spellstrike feat, although you need not have that feat in order to use this feature."

Arcane Addict wrote:
Sorry for the mess of questions.

Again, the more questions people ask, the better the rules can get. Please ask away!


I have a question about the Lust Incarnate's Beguiling Look.

"Beguiling Look (Su): As a standard action, you can make eye contact with a single target up to 300 ft. away. The targeted creature must succeed at a Will save or move towards you at its normal speed, taking no other actions but to defend itself if attacked. You can maintain this effect as a standard action each round. The victim stops within 5 ft. of you, whereupon it must succeed at an Intuition save or be charmed (as if by a charm monster spell). Success frees the victim from the effect and renders it immune to further uses of this ability for 24 hours. This is a mind-affecting ability."

Do they take the most direct route to you, or do can they take a serpentine route to avoid leaving any threatened areas and taking AOOs (or trigger traps / walking off cliffs and whatnot)?

As someone wanting to play one, I'm having difficulty seeing what I'm supposed to do in combat (especially at low levels) as you can run out of spells / options really fast. My friend suggested Lust Incarnates are supposed to be melee brawlers, but I can't see their revelations lending to that (aside from Instant Daze & Charm's Aegis).

The analog I see with this ability is the Harpy's Captivating Song, but that allows extra saves when they're moving to a dangerous spot.

Thanks & Happy Holidays!

P.S. It seems to be heavily implied that you also must have Line of Sight (as you're initially 'Gazing' at them) to the target at least once per round after the spell is established (as you're spending a standard action) to keep it going. Is this so? In either case, is this treated like a gaze attack in some respects? Such as if they closed their eyes they'd be blinded, but wouldn't have to make that initial save if they knew what was coming?


Fluffylove wrote:
Do they take the most direct route to you, or do can they take a serpentine route to avoid leaving any threatened areas and taking AOOs (or trigger traps / walking off cliffs and whatnot)?

They are compelled to move towards you, not commit suicide, so they can detour just enough to avoid obvious traps. What they can't do is say, "I'm going to detour around that trap!" and then just go somewhere else and not really try to get to you.

Fluffylove wrote:
As someone wanting to play one, I'm having difficulty seeing what I'm supposed to do in combat (especially at low levels) as you can run out of spells / options really fast. My friend suggested Lust Incarnates are supposed to be melee brawlers, but I can't see their revelations lending to that (aside from Instant Daze & Charm's Aegis).

In these rules, most full casters are poorly-suited to being direct combatants. Lust incarnates in particular make great party buffers and of course party faces. In combat, you can use beguiling look + fighter with [stance] active standing right next to you. If you're going to get into fights, make sure you have a bodyguard -- a martial party member and/or a dominated slave.

Fluffylove wrote:
P.S. It seems to be heavily implied that you also must have Line of Sight (as you're initially 'Gazing' at them) to the target at least once per round after the spell is established (as you're spending a standard action) to keep it going. Is this so? In either case, is this treated like a gaze attack in some respects? Such as if they closed their eyes they'd be blinded, but wouldn't have to make that initial save if they knew what was coming?

(a) Unless otherwise noted, all spell effects require line of effect, and all targeted spells need line of sight to target. (b) Eye contact is specifically required, so, yes, they can avert their eyes.

Dark Archive

Hmm, Kirth any chance you know anyone running a campaign using your rules who might be willing to take on a new player?

Maybe I can see the rule in play myself so I can figure out what works for me and what seems to be a problem. There are parts of Kirthfinder that I have a gut reaction to disliking while being unable to explain why per say... at least not yet. I'm still trying to figure out how to explain myself.

I do already have a character in mind, one that works quite well using your rules especially in taking the rule that allows be to play a Bard/Wizard multiclass and keep strong magic progression. A storyteller and mage focused on becoming a master of illusion, a charmer and manipulator who I would work to become a strong party face.


JonathonWilder wrote:
Hmm, Kirth any chance you know anyone running a campaign using your rules who might be willing to take on a new player?

You might PM heliopolix (who uses them all) or nightflyer (who uses some but not others). Also, Alice Margatroid mostly uses/used them, but her group has changed some stuff (Wis to initiative, etc.).

JonathonWilder wrote:
Maybe I can see the rule in play myself so I can figure out what works for me and what seems to be a problem.

Previous PBP here (levels 1-5); you can see if it came up.

JonathonWilder wrote:
I do already have a character in mind, one that works quite well using your rules especially in taking the rule that allows be to play a Bard/Wizard multiclass and keep strong magic progression. A storyteller and mage focused on becoming a master of illusion, a charmer and manipulator who I would work to become a strong party face.

Sounds like the character that Andostre is playing in my Savage Tide PBP.


So my players Just discovered the "Talent, Magical" feat and it looks awesome but i have a few questions.

Q1: Does this feat improve / scale once you take it? As in do you get to keep selecting spell levels as you level up. My assumption is no as that is what "Talent, Magical Array" does.

Q2: Assuming i'm interpreting this right a character could take this feat at 10 ranks in concentration and gain 5 1st level spells at will? If done in this way do they have to follow a theme like the Magical Array feat? My assumption is they should probably have at least an attempt at cohesion and not be a menagerie of random things.

Q3: Can a player choose a metamagic'd version of a spell for use with the magical Array (As it states the spell MUST be of a level = 1/2 your ranks in concentration)? For example an Versatile Shocking Grasp [Negative Energy / Sonic (once chosen cannot be changed)] as their 2nd Level racial spell.

Sidenote: Fighters manifesting laser sword's is freaking amazing!


Springboarding of Firewarrior's question,

I make the assumption the "Talent, Magical" feat improves when you level based on these sentences in the introduction (under "Level Advancement"):
"In general, when leveling up, players should be given reasonable latitude to re-assign feats, talents, etc.—or even proportions of class levels—in order to best fit the character as currently played. Changes that are not obvious in play, or that actually underline and support recent campaign events, can generally be made without consultation."

I utterly fail to see why someone should be rewarded for taking the feat at a high level, and punished for taking it at a low level. Furthermore I don't understand why it gives potentially more than one spell-like ability when "Talent, Magical Array" exists.

"Talent, Magical Array" seems to imply that "Talent, Magical" only gives one spell-like ability...Do you lose the extras you gained for taking "Talent, Magical" at a high level upon taking the second feat?

Finally, you retroactively gain all the spell-like abilities from "Talent, Magical Array" of levels you qualify for on taking it right?

Thanks again in advance : )


Firewarrior44 wrote:
Q1: Does this feat improve / scale once you take it? As in do you get to keep selecting spell levels as you level up. My assumption is no as that is what "Talent, Magical Array" does.

Regretfully, the wording is overly-ambiguous and needs to be fixed. When I wrote it, I indeed had in mind one spell -- as you gained ranks in Concentration, you'd choose to keep it as-is and gain more uses per day, or else retrain it to a metamagicked version of the same spell and have fewer uses per day (so in neither case are you "punished" by taking it early). That said, the way it's written, you'd continue to gain more. If used that way, note that it scales linearly in terms of spell levels, so Magical Array still gives you a lot more spells. For example, a person with 10 ranks in Concentration could have one 1st and one 4th level spell with Magical Talent; upon taking Magical Array he'd also get one spell each of 2nd, 3rd, and 5th levels (note that the existing spells become part of the array, per the feat description). So allowing Magical Talent to apply retroactively, while not actually intended, probably won't really hurt anything too much and doesn't actually supersede Magical Array.

Firewarrior44 wrote:
Q2: Assuming i'm interpreting this right a character could take this feat at 10 ranks in concentration and gain 5 1st level spells at will? If done in this way do they have to follow a theme like the Magical Array feat? My assumption is they should probably have at least an attempt at cohesion and not be a menagerie of random things.

Yes, you could totally do that. As far as choosing a theme, while strongly encouraged, it's not strictly necessary. The general rule of thumb for resolving ambiguity -- agreement of the participants in the game -- applies here as well.

Firewarrior44 wrote:
Q3: Can a player choose a metamagic'd version of a spell for use with the magical Array (As it states the spell MUST be of a level = 1/2 your ranks in concentration)? For example an Versatile Shocking Grasp [Negative Energy / Sonic (once chosen cannot be changed)] as their 2nd Level racial spell.

Yes, definitely.


So i've been working on a character sheet for kirthfinder in googledocs inspired by This Glorious Sheet

It's mostly done, except for a few of the more complicated things like specalist class skills and the seccondary skills. But I figured i'd share in case anyone has use for it.

Here's What i have so far

Still a WIP though, but mostly finished. Feedback apreciated!


Firewarrior44 wrote:

So i've been working on a character sheet for kirthfinder in googledocs inspired by This Glorious Sheet

It's mostly done, except for a few of the more complicated things like specalist class skills and the seccondary skills. But I figured i'd share in case anyone has use for it.

Here's What i have so far

Still a WIP though, but mostly finished. Feedback apreciated!

Oh, I'd be very interested in this. I'll plug in some of my old/current Kirthfinder characters and see if our numbers match up. When I have time, of course. Thanks for your effort!

Dark Archive

Oh, I thought I would let you know, something I strongly disagree with is how you handle Alignment... though I understand this is more of a personal preference as I have never had any trouble or problems with alignment and even feel it improved the game.

I also attribute this to how my first experience roleplaying was with an old fashioned AD&D 2e group, along with how my favorite campaign setting was and is Planescape.


JonathonWilder wrote:
I also attribute this to how my first experience roleplaying was with an old fashioned AD&D 2e group

I come from a 1e background, so alignment was definitely a thing then. I also felt that the various alignments, for the most part, were an incoherent mess, rife with internal contradictions, etc.

That said, if you like for everyone to have alignments, not just people who actively serve aligned causes, just add them back in. It's not hard to do. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Interesting anecdote: In my current RL group, some people use them and some don't, and we're all sitting at the same table playing in the same game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pricing for custom items comes up a lot in the PBP discussion thread, and I'd written a clarification but I'm not sure if it ever made it into the rules. If not, here goes:

Chapter 6 should have wrote:

ORDER OF OPERATIONS FOR PRICING

In order to close a number of obvious avenues of abuse, there are “ground rules” in item pricing that must be followed. The following order of operations in terms of costing items is non-negotiable:

1. For items that provide a numerical bonus of any kind, you must use the numerical bonus pricing rules below. Bonuses are priced using a multiplier x the bonus squared, as in the core rules. Numerical bonuses are always priced using this method; never as spells or feats. Therefore, a weapon with the true strike spell simply ignores miss chances due to concealment (i.e., has the seeking weapon property); pricing to gain an insight bonus to attacks is 2,500 x the bonus squared, per the “Other Numerical Bonuses” table below.

2. For items that provide a spell effect other than a numerical bonus, use the spell effect pricing rules in preference to the feat pricing rules, especially if the spell level and effects follow the rules outlined in Chapter 8.

3. Use the feat pricing rules only if the item cannot be constructed using numerical bonuses and/or spell effects, or if the spell effect is from a non-Core source and has not been checked against the standardized spells rules in Chapter 8.

For example, assume a player wants a sword that automatically hastes its wielder in combat, as per the spell. The haste spell provides a +30-ft. increase to movement speed, a +1 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves, and an additional attack during a full attack.

  • The speed increase counts as an enhancement bonus, per the table, for 32 x 1,000 = 9,000 numen.
  • A +1 dodge bonus to AC, under “other,” would cost 12 x 5,000 = 5,000 numen.
  • A +1 dodge bonus to Reflex saves would cost 5,000 (“other”) x ¼ (only 1 save category affected) = 1,250 numen.
  • Finally, the additional attack can be handled as a use-activated spell effect: spell level 3 (haste) x CL 5th x 500 x 4 (1 rd./level duration) = 30,000 numen.

    The total price is therefore 9,000 + 5,000 + 1,250 + 30,000 = 45,250 numen. A player might be tempted to say, “I would like to price it per the Permanent Spell feat, which requires 11 HD for a 3rd level spell, so the cost is 11 x 2,000 = 22,000 numen!” However, that logic results in an item priced at half its actual value, and is therefore specifically disallowed by rule.


  • Copy/paste error: The +1 dodge bonus to Reflex saves (above) would be 1^2 x 5,000, not 12 x 5,000.

    Dark Archive

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    That said, if you like for everyone to have alignments, not just people who actively serve aligned causes, just add them back in. It's not hard to do. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    Good to know.

    What is kind of funny about me insisting on keeping on keeping alignment, even defending its purpose and use, is that I have a character I enjoy building no matter the system or setting which I feel would be 'true neutral' in D&D/Pathfinder. With him taking a more middle ground view on alignment and avoiding the extremes.

    More detail on why:

    Spoiler:
    He will follow the laws and traditions of different nations when covenant or beneficial, yet values his own freedom and at times others. He wont honor a leader he doesn't respect, no matter how legitimate, nor follow others rules if he feels he has a better path. If he respects a leader and believes they are on a path of greatness, he will offer his support and loyalty.

    On good and evil, he often takes a more selfish path and puts himself before others unless he valued them as friends and allies worthy of his support. He may use or manipulate others, he may help and protect, or he may leave them behind. The one thing that pushes him somewhat towards good or law is that he always keeps his promises and will, even at the risk of his own life, go out of his way to defend from harm women or children. Also, he would prefer good aligned neighbors/allies/friends then the company of those evil aligned, if perhaps more because they can more often be trusted and of use.

    As a PC, he would travel and fight with the party largely because of wishing to be apart of their story and be the hero alongside them... or out of convenience and personal gain. As an NPC, he could be a benefactor, source of information, even an ally... yet could also be the antagonist, in that he believes great heroes need a villain in which to face or defeat. If they don't have the potential to be great and fail, well they would fade from memory.

    Dark Archive

    A few errors and rewrites, but it should be okay now.


    Any chance I could get the updated rules?

    Spoiler:
    Bobcatcrusader@gmail.com

    Liberty's Edge

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    JonathonWilder wrote:
    I also attribute this to how my first experience roleplaying was with an old fashioned AD&D 2e group

    I come from a 1e background, so alignment was definitely a thing then. I also felt that the various alignments, for the most part, were an incoherent mess, rife with internal contradictions, etc.

    That said, if you like for everyone to have alignments, not just people who actively serve aligned causes, just add them back in. It's not hard to do. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    Interesting anecdote: In my current RL group, some people use them and some don't, and we're all sitting at the same table playing in the same game.

    What alignment would you consider Cadogan to be?

    "Out of whack" is an acceptable answer.

    Pretty sure Fiachra would be straight up NE or CE, depending on your POV.


    Cadogan tried hard to pass for CN, but his player kept making him serve the story despite himself, so TN would be my assessment -- if I had to have one, which thankfully I don't!

    Dark Archive

    houstonderek wrote:

    What alignment would you consider Cadogan to be?

    "Out of whack" is an acceptable answer.

    Pretty sure Fiachra would be straight up NE or CE, depending on your POV.

    Links pleases? I can't make a judgement or call without seeing the characters.

    Edit: Checking their profile pages gives me nothing, so that didn't help.


    JonathonWilder wrote:
    Links pleases?

    Our 2009-2012 home game, up through 8th level or so.

    Liberty's Edge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    You'd have had to be at the table, the retelling of the tale leaves a lot out. Mercifully, in some estimations.


    Can I get a copy?

    Spoiler:
    ballamarshall@gmail.com


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Sent.

    Dark Archive

    houstonderek wrote:
    What alignment would you consider Cadogan to be?

    Honestly, I might need to go with True Neutral as well... though interestingly, perhaps with 'Good tendencies' given some of his actions and decisions. There was a surprising number of times I saw him do a more noble act or did something for the benefit of another given the alignment you were trying to go for.

    Liberty's Edge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I wasn't going for an alignment, never wrote one on the sheet. I don't want to roleplay in a predetermined box, mere mortals aren't that simple.

    Now, my elvish wizard was a straight evil, narcissistic, vindictive, arrogant basket case. ;-)


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    HD, if you never read that copy of Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell I gave you, at least check out the BBC miniseries. Fiachra was a perfect Man with the Thistledown Hair wanna-be.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    That series was awesome. I enjoyed that immensely, and wish it was longer.
    Do they hint in the books what has happened to Jonathan?

    Dark Archive

    I have read Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, loved it very much. I liked the extra details and footnotes that gave the story a more... hmm, researched or thorough feel. Not sure how to explain it, but I hope you might get what I mean. The author went the extra mile in building the world of the story and its history, with extra details and side stories that technically weren't necessary but for me appreciate.


    Kryzbyn wrote:
    Do they hint in the books what has happened to Jonathan?

    Susanna Clarke royally subverts his "most awesome magician" trope in the title story of The Ladies of Grace Adieu.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    In a way that makes sense, or are you warning me away from reading it :P


    I really liked all the other stories in the collection, so it's totally worth the read.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    OK, thanks for the recommendation. I'll add them to the list :)


    I looked through the other posts but couldn't seem to find anything about this question so sorry in advance if it has been asked or i'm missing something really obvious in the rules.

    Leadership!

    How do the multitude of leadership feats / abilities interact with one another? As an example a 9th level fighter (or any class with a leadership esq ability) takes Leadership. Does he get 2 separate leadership pools (one off of diplomacy and, another off of know warfare? Is having multiple cohorts possible?

    Question also applies to someone who say takes any number of Leadership, Command Undead or Thaumaturgist.


    Firewarrior44 wrote:
    How do the multitude of leadership feats / abilities interact with one another? As an example a 9th level fighter (or any class with a leadership esq ability) takes Leadership. Does he get 2 separate leadership pools (one off of diplomacy and, another off of know warfare? Is having multiple cohorts possible?

    Yes, and yes.

    As an extreme example, I could play a fighter 9/necromancer 1/druid 1, max out relevant skills, and keep a full assortment of warriors (from Warlord), and undead (from Command Undead), and outsiders (from Thaumaturgist and Knowledge: the Planes), and animals (from Mark of the Wild and Handle Animal), and other general followers (from Leadership and Diplomacy). I'd have 5 cohorts and innumerable followers.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Yes, and yes.

    ... Well looks like I'll have at least one very happy fighter player :D


    Howdy Kirth,

    I have some strange questions..

    I was wondering about "Heighten Spell" in Spellcraft. By itself is it considered "applying a metamagic feat"? As it's implied in several places spontaneous casters can used it (not just prepared casters), it would increase their casting time if they used it...Except...

    "Casting Time: Spells with a listed casting time of “1 standard action” or greater (this includes most spells) are difficult to cast if they have somatic and/or material components. You may take a 5-ft. step while casting, but not a full or half move. Spells with a casting time of “1 standard action” with only verbal and/or focus components can be cast as a standard action, allowing a full move in the same round."

    It seems pains were taken not to state that the spell becomes a "Full-Round Action", which means that the casting time WOULDN'T be meaningfully affected by the application of metamagic for most spells (which is great, as it doesn't shaft spontaneous casters who want to apply metamagic and are not sorcerers). However, if treated as a metamagic feat it would still increase the spontaneous cast time of Summon Monster spells to 2 full rounds...As I'm plotting to heighten Summon Monster I to Summon Monster II (etc) I'm really curious.

    Thanks!

    P.S. I'm blown away by how fast you typically reply to forum posts. Hats off to you good sir.


    Fluffy,

    Your question/concern is part of a larger problem that I had intended to rectify some time ago, and sadly got sidetracked into other things.

    My plan was to make sense of the insane hash of action types (attack, free, full-attack, full-round, immediate, move, standard, swift, etc...) by just having free actions, immediate actions, and partial actions. You'd get more as your BAB increased, and spend them on stuff like movement, iterative attacks, strike effects, spellcasting components. (This was before Unchained was announced, much less released.)

    I ran into trouble almost immediately, largely in reconciling it with how [strike] and [stance] feats work, which were written with the old (3.5) action paradigms in mind.

    In answer to your question, spontaneously applying metamagic was intended to cost 1 partial action, except for sorcerers with a "spontaneous metamagic" class feature.

    Sadly, I never did get to work out the problems with strikes and stances, which are now an integral part of the system and in a lot of ways the centerpieces of armed combat, so changing them is in a lot of ways more work than changing the action system.

    So, yeah, I don't have a good answer for you because the answer depends on stuff that, unfortunately, never happened.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    If I can ever get the action system squared away, clear up the constriction of spells other than evocations, and standardize condition-track effects, I intend to release a new version.

  • Chapter 7 will be a whole chapter on Combat, including the action revisions, changes to the maneuver system, and condition tracks.
  • Chapter 8 would include guidelines on spell construction, with pretty much all the spells in all the rulebooks as examples.

    I'm working on that now, but having a baby at home has reduced my time and attention to a tiny fraction of what they used to be, so what would have taken me a few months before might take several years now.


  • Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    Use ghost writers :)


    Hey Kirth back again. I have a question about Diplomacy, is it intended that it can be used against PC's by NPC's to convince / befriend them (for lack of a better word) forcibly?

    I know it's use is barred against PC's in vanilla Pathfinder (or at least am under the impression that it is due to how the skill is worded) but there seems to be no such restrictions in place (except for mutual friend ability).

    Although diplomacy is far less potent in this due to how the Dc is no longer a static number and in an absolute worse case you are still allowed a will save. So in most cases it is not as good as charm spell.

    The way i see it from my perspective one hand it allows the more gregarious NPC's to actually influence player action without player/dm fiat. On the other hand it limit's or can limit player agency (although
    it is possible to be resistant/vulnerable to it via narrative positioning and mechanical character creation choices)

    Am I missing something?


    We use it so that NPCs can influence PCs -- in exactly the same way that PCs are not automatically immune to charm person spells. Typically, if a PC will be influenced in a way the player dislikes, that's a good time to use a hero point, invest in better social skills, and/or call for backup.

    I do understand that some groups might prefer plot immunity, though (per the core rules), so that's something that's best decided on from table to table.

    If you look at the home game campaign writeup, there was one point at which Cadogan (houstonderek's rogue) was trying to get information from an NPC, and vice versa. They rolled opposed Diplomacy checks -- and each of them rolled a natural 20. Houstonderek and I ruled that it was love at first sight, and we both played it that way.

    Between two PCs, mutual high rolls can also be a handy way to explain why PCs choose to adventure together when they meet in a bar: "I just met this guy, and I already can't wait to see him again!"


    Thanks Kirth! That's what i figured. I know i'd never spring something like that on my table without full disclosure social contract and all that.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Understood.

    Part of the design philosophy was that the game rules should adequately model how the world works, the dice should determine how luck plays into things, and the DM does neither -- he's simply a referee that decides what the NPCs are up to and how they choose to react to what the PCs are doing. Having the same rules apply equally to PCs and NPCs is part of that, but one that makes a lot of people queasy.


    I understand completely. I prefer the view of everyone is at the mercy of the dice / everyone plays by the same rules. It reinforces the philosophy that it's a group effort on either side of the screen opposed to each side having special exceptions and caveats to the laws of reality.

    I always justified Diplomacy not working on PC's in vanilla pf due to how difficult it is to build up any sort of resistance to it. A diplomancer can more or less mind control everything without extensive fiat. But in Kirthfinder it's effectively a charm spell that can take massive negatives to the 'DC' if you ask something ludicrous. Also I adore how it quantifies in mechanical terms how having a high/low charisma score impacts your ability to influence/be influenced. I could go on about how much i like it but this is already rant-ish ^_^


    Question about favored terrains, you made a post not too long ago.

    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    Since it's not specified, it's technically anywhere. Originally it was going to be limited to forest critters, but then you end up in this whole weird series of corner-cases: e.g., "If it's only when I'm in a forest, why does my ability to talk to this bird cut off when I take a 5-ft. step? Does it end if the bird flies above the treetops? How high are they, anyway?" or "If it's by critter, well, European badgers live in the woods and meadows, but American badgers live in hills and badlands. Do dire badgers count? Is that an American dire badger or a European dire badger?" It's a lot simpler to make it a blanket ability.

    Also, at-will speak with animals doesn't break the game.

    For abilities that only work in a specific terrain, that's spelled out in the ability description.

    Which seems counter to what it says in the Rangers Favored Terrain (Ex) Class Feature. It says as a blanket statement that they only apply in the terrain specified (Emphasis mine).

    Favored Terrain (Ex): wrote:

    At 1st level, select a type of terrain from the list provided below. While in your favored terrain, you have the following advantages.

    >Lists advantages including additional terrain abilities

    Is this (the Favored Enemy quote) not indicative of the intent of the ability?

    The four bullet points (Skills, Sight, Movement and, Additional Abilities) Seem to indicate that only Additional bonus would apply as it is the only of the 4 Paragraphs lacking a line like the other 4, this interpretation is more inline with your previous post:

    • "when in this terrain" (Skills)

    • "In general, you ignore concealment due to natural conditions within your favored terrain, " (Sight)

    • While in your favored terrain (Movement)

    Does that mean the line preceding these 4 bullet point's can be ignored safely. Or changed to something like:

    Alternate Text:
    At 1st level, select a type of terrain from the list provided below. You gain a number of bonuses associated with your terrain(s) (see bellow).

    2,601 to 2,650 of 3,972 << first < prev | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 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.