Wouldn't the Path of War possibly be a better choice to look for maneuvers, or do you have a different view of ToB then many people?
I don't own Path of War. Chapter 5 (in particular) of KF should make it clear that I was rather a fan of ToB, given how many of those strikes and stances got ported over as [strike] and [stance] feats!
Yep we have even taken the time to work several of the PoW strikes over in the same was as your Kirth. Iron Tortoise's shield throwing ones for sure. If you want to look over it the PFSRD has most of the base book up here.
I'll take a look -- thanks!
I had a question about magic items in general. Is it intended that all items be created via the item creation guidelines?
Also as a specific example a ring of sustenance, much a staple of adventuring due to it's general amazingness an be crafted using the Kirthfinder item rules (albeit at a significantly increased price):
using psudo endurance ranks(12 = 2 hours of sleep): (12^2)x200 = 28,000 Nu
Dream Feast 1/Day (Command word) 900x1x1 / 5 = 180 Nu
Total 28,180 Nu for an item that lets you never eat and only need 2 hours of rest
In your opinion should the general rule of thumb be when including an item from another source be to try and replicate and or price via the KF rules(either using skills / spells or both)?
In the case of things like a ring of sustenance or mule-back cords (effective +8 to endurance for carry capacity) I'm inclined to think yes. As including those items for their extremely cheap pathfinder prices devalues the skill(s) they emulate (endurance in these cases). Which is counter to the "Spells that supersede skills" philosophy.
tldr: is it recommended to use magic item creation rules for all items whenever possible?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it intended that all items be created via the item creation guidelines?
In your opinion should the general rule of thumb be when including an item from another source be to try and replicate and or price via the KF rules(either using skills / spells or both)?
is it recommended to use magic item creation rules for all items whenever possible?
Yes, yes, and yes.
Remember, the general guidelines are to revert to the Core rules ONLY for things that aren't already spelled out in KF. And the number of such cases is constantly shrinking as I incorporate more stuff. Ultimately I hope to end up with a rule set that requires no reference to PF except a general idea of how the game is played, and/or as a source of APs to modify.
Awesome! I will keep that in mind going forward.
Also Thank you for putting so much effort into Kirthfinder and, for sharing it =) . It really is fantastic.
Is it intended that all items be created via the item creation guidelines?
In your opinion should the general rule of thumb be when including an item from another source be to try and replicate and or price via the KF rules(either using skills / spells or both)?
is it recommended to use magic item creation rules for all items whenever possible?Yes, yes, and yes.
Remember, the general guidelines are to revert to the Core rules ONLY for things that aren't already spelled out in KF. And the number of such cases is constantly shrinking as I incorporate more stuff. Ultimately I hope to end up with a rule set that requires no reference to PF except a general idea of how the game is played, and/or as a source of APs to modify.
Just to ask Kirth if the powerball were to get back in the billions and if I were to be the sole winner what price range would we be needing to look at for you to quit work and do Kirthfinder full time?
Just to ask Kirth if the powerball were to get back in the billions and if I were to be the sole winner what price range would we be needing to look at for you to quit work and do Kirthfinder full time?
Guaranteed annual income of $100K for life. At a 1% rate of returns, that's a mere $10M after taxes.
I dunno about you, but I'd be quite happy with just half that, assuming you converted it into pounds sterling first. :)
I dunno about you, but I'd be quite happy with just half that, assuming you converted it into pounds sterling first. :)
That's $71,500US/year, and in the U.S. you'd constantly be getting hit with the penalty for having no health insurance, so deduct that and all health care costs... no thanks.
Ah well, yes. I constantly forget what a crazy non-system of healthcare you have across the pond.
Our salaries are also listed as pre-tax, which really confuses Austrians, among others. If your salary is $70000US, you really make something closer to $56600, less whatever the state and local taxes come to.
Question: When a monk flurries with a 2 Handed weapon do they take a -4 for the offhand weapon not being light?
Reading of the feat seems to indicate yes
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your offhand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each (an unarmed strike is always considered light). Activating a wand is a standard action.
Mostly yes.
There is a problem with the TWF rules themselves, insofar as using a quarterstaff or 3-section staff as a double weapon would technically call for the larger penalty, but isn't intended to. Saying something like "if you get TWF through an Exotic weapon proficiency, you also get Oversized TWF" is really clumsy, and also prevents a person with Simple staff proficiency from effectively using it as a double weapon when they pick up TWF for something else. I'm certainly open for suggestions there; it's one of the things I'd say has to get cleared up before a new edition can be issued.
In my case it's a monk flurrying with a longbow. Other cases i can think of are using a falcion or great-sword.
Is there a problem? Under the current rule set double weapons are treated as light for the purposes of what is in your offhand. A 3 section staff/quarterstaff fall under that category so they get a reduced penalty.
** spoiler omitted **
That's exactly the quote I needed -- I had just forgotten it was in there. Thanks!
Follow up on the twf Bit the fighter's flurry is worded differently
In this case the fighter is using a 1 handed (non light) weapon but is only taking a -2 to the roll (instead of the expected -4). Is this a result of legacy text? Or is always taking a -2 specific to the fighters Flurry of blows?
It's intentional. An advanced talent > a feat.
Weapon types and damage modifiers.
Under Mithral in Chapter 5 Equipment it references that light weapons add only 0.5x Str and Power attack to damage rolls.
In the case of mithral weapons, the lighter weight gives the weapon the Finesse special property (even if it did not already possess it). However, the light weight means that, for purposes of adding your Strength modifier to damage, two-handed mithral weapons are treated as one-handed (1x Str modifier), and one-handed mithral weapons are treated as light weapons (0.5 x Str modifier).
So is this the general rule for all weapon types (Light, 1 Handed, 2 Handed)?
I ask because this is the only place I can really find it referenced/spelled out.
Also i'm curious if it's intended to extend to Dexterity damage from Weapon finesse. As RAW you run into a strange situation where wielding a dagger in a single hand does 0.5 Dex damage.
So is this the general rule for all weapon types (Light, 1 Handed, 2 Handed)?
Sorry -- I don't understand the question. The text is referring specifically to mithral weapons, and how they differ from regular ones, and 2-handed and 1-handed differences are spelled out. These are all specific rules. What "general rule" are you referring to?
Also i'm curious if it's intended to extend to Dexterity damage from Weapon finesse. As RAW you run into a strange situation where wielding a dagger in a single hand does 0.5 Dex damage.
If that were intended, it would say so -- e.g., "for purposes of adding your Strength and/or Dexterity modifier to damage..." But Str modifier and Power Attack are the only things mentioned as changing, so they're the things that are affected.
and one-handed mithral weapons are treated as light weapons (0.5 x Str modifier).
Do all light weapons deal 0.5x Str modifier damage and 50% power attack or is that specific to only Mithral weapons?
Parts of the two weapon fighting feat allude to reduced power attack damage with light weapons but power attack itself does not actualy indicate that it is reduced (only mentioning off-hand and secondary natural attacks)
A single polearm held in both hands (taking the off-hand attacks with the haft; treat as a staff). Secondary attacks gain ½ your Strength modifier for damage, as normal for two-weapon fighting, and gain damage bonuses from Power Attack as if using a light weapon.
...This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon.
Do all light weapons deal 0.5x Str modifier damage and 50% power attack or is that specific to only Mithral weapons?
Ah! OK, I see now. Apologies -- Chapter 6 neglects to spell out how light/one-handed/two-handed weapons work, which is something that I need to remedy, rather than pointlessly sending people to the core rules.
For Str modifier, they get 1x Str max; never 1.5x Str in two hands.
Parts of the two weapon fighting feat allude to reduced power attack damage with light weapons but power attack itself does not actually indicate that it is reduced (only mentioning off-hand and secondary natural attacks)
Now I see the problem! Thanks, that is a glaring omission on my part.
The original intent was for light weapons to be treated as off-hand/secondary weapons, for purposes of the Power Attack feat: i.e., the damage bonus would be equal to the attack penalty, not 2x or 3x. However, for critters with primary claw attacks (light natural weapons), that would contradict the "primary natural weapon" clause. So Power Attack should probably read as follows:
"This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with a light manufactured weapon, an off-hand weapon, or a secondary natural weapon."
That said, eventually I'd like to have natural weapons and manufactured weapons to follow the same rules, not drastically diverging ones -- I just haven't worked out all the details yet.
Awesome, thanks! I figured it was probably something to do with combat being in a transitional stage at the moment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Awesome, thanks! I figured it was probably something to do with combat being in a transitional stage at the moment.
Sadly, that's exactly the case. Every time I sit down to work on it, Baby Gersen toddles in and demands that I read her dinosaur book to her.
Awesome, thanks! I figured it was probably something to do with combat being in a transitional stage at the moment.Sadly, that's exactly the case. Every time I sit down to work on it, Baby Gersen toddles in and demands that I read her dinosaur book to her.
Well maybe the dinosaur book will give you some great ideas come bestiary time. ; )
I'm done with animals (including dinosaurs)! And plants and vermin! And (mostly) constructs, magical beasts, and monstrous humanoids.
It's the oozes and dragons and (especially) fey that are giving me headaches.
Arrius,
Good points, and, yes, I'm trying to make sense of them. Planar binding might have to work more like a cohort, in terms of max CR, so it would tie more snugly into the Thaumaturgist feat. Overall, I'd like to make spells more skill-dependent.
Thank you, Juda! We're very glad you like it -- happy gaming!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, someone posted a somewhat more up-to-date version HERE. These are a lot further along than the Beta playtest rules that TOZ has up.
Are those from the July 2013 PDF?
No idea - found them by accident.
By the way, someone posted a somewhat more up-to-date version HERE. These are a lot further along than the Beta playtest rules that TOZ has up.Whoa, I might be wrong, but I believe that is a link to my folder in Google Drive. Kinda crazy to stumble upon!
Anyways, got the files from Scavion's Profile while one of my good friends and I boiled down the feat list into an easier to reference doc (He did most, I only filled in the Strike and Domain feats and some editing. I'll need to get around to finishing the Metamagic ones.) I had placed them together to make it easier for my group see the rules.
Not sure how it ended up to you, but I am glad it did!
*Pokes* If you reformatted the feats, I would love to see it since I was rather unsatisfied with how the end of the feats pdf came out.
One thing I noticed about those links is that the Numen table is missing the 'Maximum' column.
Kirthfinder has a metamagic feat called Numbing Cold Evocation. Is that close to what you're looking for?
For example--if the spell deals more than 25% hit points of the target in one hit, they are grappled by the ice, and need to make a Str check (DC = half damage taken) as a move action to break out.
There's a metamagic feat to impose the entangled condition (or grappled, for a higher cost). No reason you couldn't to apply it to a [cold] spell and claim the condition is a result of the cold. What I do NOT want to do, though, is start adding all kinds of automatic effects to spells that don't have a metamagic cost and don't increase spell level.
sacrificing damage points to impose an effect
That's what the Reduce Spell feat, and reduced metamagic costs when stacking, are already doing.
As you working on the bestiary anything you could share to help along with personal work? Mostly what I am wondering is
1. What saves (mostly wondering about Intuition) should different creature types get.
2. What free skills per HD should the different types get.
3. And any advice for working abilities that can't be copied by the existing spell system such as Swallow Whole?
Talonhawke, for your first question, there should be a 'Saving Throws by Creature Type' table under Ch.1-Intro -> Character Creation -> Saving Throws
Talonhawke,
Remind me your email addy and I'll send you more files than you ever wanted to see...
I'd love to see whatever you've been cooking up in the last couple of years, Kirth.
Did someone say free stuff? :3
Thanks