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).
Good catch! Thanks, I'll have to go back through and correct that. Some of the other terrains (e.g., Plane of Earth) have abilities that spell out whether they're in-terrain only or outside as well, so I might need to go with an "unless otherwise specified" kind of thing.
Thanks again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that's two for two! Then again, given how much I used to read, it's not a shock that it's easy for me to find literary parallels.
|
Considering the number of books I've read, lifetime, it's surprising we haven't overlapped more. But, to be honest, I read less genre fiction and more non-fiction since I was in my twenties. Just a focus thing, really, I have less reading time now, and other media fill my fiction entertainment time allotment now.
I did start reading the book you gave me a couple days ago, though, and am a few chapters in. I'll give you my book report when I'm done. ;-)
Getting more into nonfiction, but I tend to pick depressing examples and go back to escapist stuff in between. Machete Season (a collection of interviews with with some of the people who participated in the Rwandan genocide) had me re-reading a bunch of Vance afterwards, and I'm re-reading some old John D. MacDonald now, steeling myself to work through Jared Diamond's Collapse.
|
|
I reread Watership Down over the Christmas holiday, and I'm reading Charlie and the Chocolate Factory a few chapters at a time to the girls for bed time (haven't read it in decades, and after watching the Wilder movie so many times - I have it on BluRay - I forgot how darned good the book is). Most of my reading lately, other than that, has been history, philosophy, and psychology though.
|
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.
This I admit was something I was never on board with. In my eyes the DM is more then just the referee he was also supposed to bring life to the world and campaign, creating the NPCs and scenarios, with the players adding to the story as well with their characters.
It would often be a lot of work but I would rather have more work then less of a place. The idea that the DM is 'just the referee' was always something that bothered me with how you viewed things though I put is aside as differing of opinion.
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 ^_^
Questions involving Diplomacy and how powerful it is part of what lead me to grab Ultimate Charisma by Everyman Gaming. Especially since it allowed me put Leadership to use in a balanced way, and make use of Antagonize. It is I feel the smoothest and most balanced system for such.
I reread Watership Down over the Christmas holiday, and I'm reading Charlie and the Chocolate Factory a few chapters at a time to the girls for bed time (haven't read it in decades, and after watching the Wilder movie so many times - I have it on BluRay - I forgot how darned good the book is). Most of my reading lately, other than that, has been history, philosophy, and psychology though.
I loved Watership Down, it was a very facinanting read. I have also read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, enjoying it. Neither movie fully captures what the book is about, though they each gave an honest effort. Neither Willy Wonka in the movies was really good with children though, unlike the one from the book.
|
|
You're confusing prep, worldbuilding, and the ability to bring something to life through narrative ability with adjudicating the game.
If you're not "just a referee" as a GM, impartiality flies out the window. Players are going to destroy whatever you have planned, it's what they do if they have a shred of ability to play the game, but if you're too emotionally involved with your setting or NPCs, some players are going to be turned off by that.
I, for one, am a "let the chips (or dice) fall where they may" player. If I suspect a DM is fudging or influencing things because of some story he's attached to, I find another table. I WANT an "impartial referee" so I know everything is kosher. I don't want to think you're "cheating" to keep a pet NPC alive, or railroading the party to fit your narrative. The "collective storytelling" part of the game is secondary to the "I'm playing a game with rules and dice that determine success or failure" part of the game. Otherwise, why use the dice at all? Just play Amber or something.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And, seriously, if you think that Kirth's impartial referee style of GMing takes anything away from his ability to make a setting you can immerse yourself into, or roleplay memorable NPCs, or any of the other things you mention, I'm here to tell you you're far from correct.
Aviona, Aramni, etc, were living, breathing places with tons of intrigue, amazingly fleshed out and compelling NPCs (particularly d'Ansac, he was a hoot, and Monk, who made the PLAYER behind Cadogan seethe with anger and a tinge of fear).
|
|
You're confusing prep, worldbuilding, and the ability to bring something to life through narrative ability with adjudicating the game.
If you're not "just a referee" as a GM, impartiality flies out the window. Players are going to destroy whatever you have planned, it's what they do if they have a shred of ability to play the game, but if you're too emotionally involved with your setting or NPCs, some players are going to be turned off by that.
I, for one, am a "let the chips (or dice) fall where they may" player. If I suspect a DM is fudging or influencing things because of some story he's attached to, I find another table. I WANT an "impartial referee" so I know everything is kosher. I don't want to think you're "cheating" to keep a pet NPC alive, or railroading the party to fit your narrative. The "collective storytelling" part of the game is secondary to the "I'm playing a game with rules and dice that determine success or failure" part of the game. Otherwise, why use the dice at all? Just play Amber or something.
Who said anything about fudging rolls or cheating? I sure didn't. I just felt limiting the DM to being 'just the referee' kind of missed the point of what a DM was supposed to be. D&D and Pathfinder are a collaborative effort, a group storytelling even, and the DM has a much greater role then that.
|
|
It's almost like the whole "Stormwind" thing. I optimize the living crap out of my characters, but I don't "min/max", I take my rolls and make something incredible out of them. But, just because Cadogan was dropping Shadowrun numbers of d6s every time he hit something doesn't mean he wasn't roleplayed to the hilt, as well.
|
|
You're missing the point of his statement. It isn't that the GM is "just a referee". It's that, during GAMEPLAY, his job is to be the impartial arbiter of rulings, and he isn't playing "against" the party, he's setting up a world and scenarios and letting the party to what they will. As in, he's the referee, he just happens to be doing the talking and dice rolling for the NPCs and whatnot.
"Impartial" means not taking sides. "Referee" means person adjudicating the rules fairly and consistently.
Nothing in the statement says "unimaginative", "boring", or "lazy about world building and creating an immersive game".
|
|
I'm sorry, but I got the idea that he was saying a DM should only be a 'Impartial Referee", and I was arguing a DM is much more then that. Also I never believe that a DM should be against the party. It isn't a game to win or be in competition, or how one can one up the other. It is a game that mixes storytelling and roleplay with dice rolling and rules.
|
|
The problem is that you think 'impartial referee' and 'living breathing world' are mutually exclusive when they are not.
The problem is being a Referee, and just a referee, is different from being a Game Master/Dungeon Master. One focuses more of the rules of the game while the other adds focus to the world building/NPC/story planning. One makes sure the rules are fair and are followed, while the other adds attention to many more things.
What is a referee?
"A referee is the person of authority in a variety of sports who is responsible for presiding over the game from a neutral point of view and making on-the-fly decisions that enforce the rules of the sport, including sportsmanship decisions such as ejection." In such a case we would count Pathfinder as a 'sport'
Yes being a referee is important, as to being an impartial one, but it isn't the only thing a DM is.
What is a Gamemaster?
"A gamemaster (GM; also known as game master, game manager, game moderator or referee) is a person who acts as an organizer, officiant for questions regarding rules, arbitrator, and moderator for a multiplayer role-playing game. They are most common in co-operative games in which players work together and are less common in competitive games in which players oppose each other. The act performed by a gamemaster is sometimes referred to as "Gamemastering" or simply "GM'ing".
The role of a gamemaster in a traditional role-playing game is to weave the other participants' player-character stories together, control the non-player aspects of the game, create environments in which the players can interact, and solve any player disputes. The basic role of the gamemaster is the same in almost all traditional role-playing games, although differing rule sets make the specific duties of the gamemaster unique to that system."
The second paragraph is what I am focusing one, while the first is more what you are focusing on.
|
The problem is that you think 'impartial referee' and 'living breathing world' are mutually exclusive when they are not.The problem is being a Referee, and just a referee, is different from being a Game Master/Dungeon Master. One focuses more of the rules of the game while the other adds focus to the world building/NPC/story planning. One makes sure the rules are fair and are followed, while the other adds attention to many more things.
False dichotomy.
|
|
False dichotomy.
If you see such, it is unintended. I am merely making the point I find calling the DM, 'the referee' as limiting and not fully giving attention to all I feel is the responsibility of the gamemaster... you seem to fairly clearly disagree. I also feel Kirthfinder may unfairly or unnecessarily limit the DM, especially in forcing them into just the role of referee.
|
|
The role of a gamemaster in a traditional role-playing game is to weave the other participants' player-character stories together, control the non-player aspects of the game, create environments in which the players can interact, and solve any player disputes. The basic role of the gamemaster is the same in almost all traditional role-playing games, although differing rule sets make the specific duties of the gamemaster unique to that system."
Actually, in the very first RPG ever published, and the AD&D edition that followed, the Dungeon Master was specifically told to be an "impartial referee". Most games, until 2e was released, expected the GM to be an "impartial referee".
Sorry, but you're factually wrong about what "traditionally" was the role of the GM in RPGs.
Edit: or whatever you're quoting. Sounds like someone revising the wargaming roots of the first and second wave of RPGs.
|
|
False dichotomy.If you see such, it is unintended. I am merely making the point I find calling the DM, 'the referee' as limiting and not fully giving attention to all I feel is the responsibility of the gamemaster... you seem to fairly clearly disagree. I also feel Kirthfinder may unfairly or unnecessarily limit the DM, especially in forcing them into just the role of referee.
How about "impartial arbiter of the rules and maker of the rulings at the table, while gaming, a game generally preceded by hours upon hours of prep, world building, and scenario crafting".
Better?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find calling the DM, 'the referee' as limiting and not fully giving attention to all I feel is the responsibility of the gamemaster...
Being a referee instead of a "DM" is actually the #1 factor that ENABLES me to bring the world and the NPCs alive. That was, in fact, the primary impetus for me to rewrite the game. My attention and capacity to multitask are incredibly limited. If I'm having to worry about making everyone feel special, I have less attention to spend on keeping track of all the NPCs' voices and quirks, and the game suffers for it.
By putting more narrative power in the hands of the players, I free myself of a lot of the burden of playing railroad conductor. By putting magic item creation in the hands of the players, I free myself to spend more time on interesting places and NPCs during prep, and less on making sure the loot is evenly distributed. And so on and so on.
It's quite likely your ability to multitask far surpasses mine. It wouldn't take much. But for me, the less effort I spend fighting the game and forcing the story to fit the rules, the more effort I have left over to make the game world a vivid, exciting, memorable place.
|
|
Sighs, I believe the problem here is I am getting hung up on simple word choice. Being a bit OCD and also an Aspy I tend to pay attention to or focus on minute details or exact usage of words. I admit that I could be turning something small, what to call the DM/GM/Referee/Storyteller/what have you, into something big. I apologize for the back and forth. I'm starting to think there is less we are disagreeing with and more we agree on.
I loved Watership Down, it was a very facinanting read. I have also...I agree about the movie. The Gene Wilder one, the Depp one doesn't exist in my old mind. My girls want to watch it, I have it on blu-ray, but I'm waffling a bit, they're only five, and parts are kinda scary, I guess.
Do you mean this movie? It is the only one that I know of, and if this is the one you are considering I would honestly hold off on showing the daughters the movie if they are only five. That is unless you are certain they could handle all the death and violence, as I personally feel it would be too scary at parts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you mean this movie?
I think he's talking about this classic movie, as opposed to this cruel travesty.
@Thewms, buzzqw.
Sent
"Command Word Activated: 900 x spell level x caster level. If limited (4 or fewer) uses per day, multiply cost by (1/uses per day)."
This wording doesn't seem right. A 1/Day item (1/1) would be more expensive than a 4/Day Item (1/4).
I assume it should be (or was intended to be) like pathfinder's Charges per day calculation?
So 1/Day is at 1/5th the price, Nx(1/5) and, 4 per day is Nx(4/5) is at 4/5th's the price and, of course a 5 charge item (so more than 4 charges) is full price Nx(5/5)
*Disclaimer i'm bad at math so my 'solution' might still be wrong >_>
That's been errata'd about six times now, and keeps creeping back in. Yes, it's "multiply by number of uses per day/5," if less than 5.
Pedantic Answer: The size bonus is a consequence of being a different size; the spell makes you a different size. So that bonus is being indirectly granted by the spell, not "directly" per the description.
Short Answer: The size bonus is still a size bonus. I should add another sentence to clarify direct vs. indirect.
Random Thought: All questions get the same amount of attention regardless of whether someone "favorites" them, so "favoriting" your own question has no actual effect in that regard.
If we're getting to that level of granularity, I'd be tempted to make the distinction different: druids, incarnates, sorcerers, wizards, etc. all provide enhancement bonuses, clerics can provide sacred bonuses, and bards provide morale bonuses...
But that's maybe reading too much into an "in general" statement for this point in time. That is something I need to clear up before any new edition is released.
Suggestions?
I didn't actually write any rules for the [polymorph] subschool that I can think of; mostly I've been using them as-is from the core rules. Until such a time as I actually put the time and energy into reworking them into a more coherent system, it might be better to direct questions about [polymorph] spells directly to Paizo, rather than here.
Howdy again,
Questions about the Incarnate feat "Spirit Magic".
If you "choose to be prepared" do you prepare like a Pathfinder Shaman? You commune with your familiar then have access to the cleric, shugenja, and spells appropriate to your mystery?
Or are you prepared like a Witch with spells known and stored on your familiar?
Is the familiar even involved in preparation?
This has been really bugging me, so thanks in advance!
are there any more copies of the rules that can be sent out if so can I get a copy of the rules please.
Noticed an odd omission:
The Striking Mastery feat is referenced several times in the document, but doesn't actually exist.
Here I uploaded the Kirthfinder files onto one drive. I believe you can download the zip file
Noticed an odd omission:
The Striking Mastery feat is referenced several times in the document, but doesn't actually exist.
It got moved to fighter talents (p. 19, Advanced Talents) at some point, but I was too dumb to catch all the references to it. Mea culpa. It does exist -- just not where I keep telling you to look!
Questions about the Incarnate feat "Spirit Magic".
If you "choose to be prepared" do you prepare like a Pathfinder Shaman? You commune with your familiar then have access to the cleric, shugenja, and spells appropriate to your mystery?
Or are you prepared like a Witch with spells known and stored on your familiar?
Is the familiar even involved in preparation?
This has been really bugging me, so thanks in advance!
Per the text,
You give up your arcane spellcasting ability in exchange for Full theurgy towards your incarnate casting progression.
So, technically you no longer cast spells as a witch, so each day you're picking cleric/incarnate/shugenja spells and preparing them, with no familiar needed in the process, but subject to the incarnate spells restrictions.
However, the section on Theurgy tells us this:
Spell List Access: Theurgy generally grants access to both class spell lists, subject to any limitations specified for the class feature granting it. For example, the Arcane Hierophant druid (Chapter 3) can cast arcane spells only if the spell level is less than or equal to his or her arcane class level.
So you can still prepare witch spells as well, in place of incarnate spells, subject to that limitation. Those spells would need to be stored in your familiar, as usual for witch spells.
Awesome thanks!
ANOTHER question sorry!
Spirit Magic does NOT increase your familiar's HD correct? My assumption is the loss of HD could be made up with "Bond, Practiced" (feat; which needs some serious rewording, but it's not hard to know what it's supposed to say), or that if you had "Bond, Arcane" (Feat) you could pay the difference (in a manner favorable to you, subtracting your wizard levels off the top so you'd pay at a numen lower level).
Is this so?
Thanks again!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wonders if one day it's Hit dice / CR may be tied to knowledge: The Planes ranks like with Thaumaturge.
I like the idea of having the familiar just be the cohort that you get via the Thaumaturgy feat and a short ritual, which has resummoning rules like an Eidolon, and has a CR appropriate to what you could have with Mark of the Wild / Leadership. It's ability to store spells could then be eliminated, and the familiar ability template truncated severely to be more in-line with Mark of the Wild's.
Eliminating it as an option for Arcane Bond and combining both Intelligence-To-Casting-DCs and Booklessness so they can compete with the Bonded Item option (which itself CANNOT compete with a familiar).
Wonders if one day it's Hit dice / CR may be tied to knowledge: The Planes ranks like with Thaumaturge.
That's exactly my plan, one of these days. "Familiar" would be a +1 CR template that gives it the fun abilities like granting a bonus feat, concentrating on your spells for you, etc.
How does Theurgy work w/ Wizards gaining spells known?
It seems obvious that they should gain +2 spells known per level of actual casting progression, but is this not so?
Additionally, what of Mystic Theurges and "Shaman" who "give up" wizard casting progression? I don't see a compelling reason they'd gain more spells known for their wizard side.
How does Theurgy work w/ Wizards gaining spells known?
It seems obvious that they should gain +2 spells known per level of actual casting progression, but is this not so?
Additionally, what of Mystic Theurges and "Shaman" who "give up" wizard casting progression? I don't see a compelling reason they'd gain more spells known for their wizard side.
For the sake of simplicity, I'd rule that if you "give up wizard spellcasting," then you get no more wizard spells known. On the other hand, if you're getting theurgy towards your wizard level, then you do. That said, restricting the number of free spells known that wizards get is almost never a bad thing.
Alright question(s) time:
In the heal skill the ability "Restore Limb DC 40 (27 with diminishing returns)" is noted in the table of actions. There is no reference made to restoring a limb anywhere else in the skill.
In the Heal Class Skill section at 16 ranks and a DC 27 (same as the diminished restore limb option) Re-attach a limb is mentioned. Are these supposed to be the same thing. My assumption is yes as otherwise (if using diminishing returns) a level 1 commoner / expert could restore (which could be interpreted as re-grow) a missing limb 1/20 attempts which while humorous also offends my sensibilities.
Assuming it's a typo is the intended non diminished DC for re-attaching a limb supposed to be 40 or 27?.
Soulcrafting: I'm confused on how much Mojo/Numen a soul gives, is it maximum/minimum/par?
Also how does one obtain souls outside of soul trapping magic or trade? I assume live sacrifice is acceptable (this strikes me as a referee discretion question).
Soulcrafting, a request for advice / insight.
- Love: It's thematically awesome! Mechanically provides an incentive to harvest and forge weapons from souls, or fuel wishes with human sacrifice which has quantifiable benefits over a magical tea party hand waive of: "they are sacrificing people because... evil/arbitrary."
- Hate: Hate might be too strong a word, more of concern. It appears to let you break the wealth cap imposed by "Mojo/Numen". If i'm wrong about this then please ignore the next section
Normally my concern wouldn't be an issue as mass harvesting of souls is kinda difficult normally if you have any morals / arn't tying up women on traintracks. My problem is that i'm currently reffing an evil game (Way of the Wicked) and, I'm concerned that a mass harvesting of souls may be induced.
I'm fine with mass soul harvesting but i fear allowing them to break their Mojo/Numen cap will create a situation where they are significantly more powerful than they should be (this remind's me of blood money in a lot of ways honestly). I REALLY want to allow this feat but i'm unsure if it will get as 'bad' as I fear. Or if you have a suggestion on how to allay this "problem" without unduly compromising the feat i'd be happy to hear.
My thought is to maybe just have soul-forged items function like the Artificer ability and only cost 50% mojo/numen against your total. Or maybe a separate pool of soul numen or something so it cannot be banked indefinitely.
That's been errata'd about six times now, and keeps creeping back in. Yes, it's "multiply by number of uses per day/5," if less than 5.
Add it to your errata profile then >_>