Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft Houserules


Homebrew and House Rules

3,351 to 3,400 of 3,817 << first < prev | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | next > last >>

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Psisquared wrote:
About Barbarians in the new version getting automatic Vital Strike damage, it seems to me that this favors dual-wielding builds (for more attacks) over classical heavy two-handed builds.

That's true from a pure damage standpoint, but the increased likelihood to hit counts for a lot. Taking the Backswing feat can also help offset the damage differential.

Psisquared wrote:
While I like the idea of the Barbarian getting a straight (and substantial) damage bonus from rage, bonus precision damage doesn't seem very thematic for barbarians.
I can totally understand this, but remember that one of the primary goals of the system was to eliminate extraneous mechanical sub-systems -- from that perspective, pressing Vital Strike into service seemed appropriate. (To be honest, I'm still annoyed that I couldn't figure out a slick way to merge VS and sneak attack).

I have two suggestions that will solve this elegantly.

1. Making 'enraged' a condition instead of using flat bonuses to rage (as a class feature) or adding Vital Strike.
To scale, the barbarian can have class feature (scaling with improved rage) that improves this condition numerically.

For example:
Enraged (Condition): This character is brimming with fury. They gain a +2 insight bonus to attack and damage rolls, as well as saving throws to Reflex saves, and to all Strength, Dexterity and Constitution-based skill checks that lack precision. The character, however, also suffers a -2 penalty to AC, and must succeed against a DC 20 concentration check to perform any task that requires precision, forethought, or any Intelligence or Wisdom-based skills.

With improved rage could increase the bonus by flat increments.

Note: As an insight bonus, this will benefit intelligent undead (as it is not morale), and will intentionally not stack with insightful strikes and similar effects.

2. Making Rage another term for the bravery positive condition track track.

Confident (Grade 1): You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to all skill checks, versus all emotion effects (such as fear, charm, rage, etc.), and to attack and damage rolls.
Brave (Grade 2): You gain temporary hit points equal to your character level, and your bonus against emotion effects increases to +4, and you suffer no penalty to AC when charging and cleaving.
Valorous (Grade 3): Whenever you charge, you can demoralize enemies within 30 feet of you or the target of your charge as if you possess Frightful Presence. The DC for this ability is 10 + 1/2 level + Charisma modifier. You may add the bonus from confidence to the DC. Enemies that fail the saving throw are shaken for 5d6 rounds. Creatures that were already shaken (such as those who were demoralized earlier) are frightened for the same duration instead.

A good side effect is that rage provides a cushion against fear and demoralizing effects. If the raging barbarian somehow failed a saving throw against the Fear spell (normally becoming panicked for 1 round/level), the rage will soften the fear effect from being Panicked to Frightened (thus the barbarian doesn't drop anything and runs, but instead doesn't willingly move closer).

Both solutions address the end design goal.


In other words, rage is either its own condition, or is bravery.


Leaving aside the issue of Barbarian's bonus damage being precision based, maybe a simple alternative would be for vital strike damage to do damage based on the die of the weapon inflicting it. For example, vital strike with a Greataxe would do additional d12's of damage instead of d6's. It indirectly gives a mechanical reason for barbarians to use iconic BIG two-handed weapons and retains the simplicity of using the vital strike mechanics. If that seems like too much, I suppose that the die progression of vital strike could be reduced to 1-->2-->3-->4, instead of 1-->2-->4-->6.

No matter what, a Barbarian using assassin stance is pretty lethal with a full attack.


I like the decoupling of Vital Strike from weapon damage dice, actually. I don't like having to only ever use a Greatsword if I want to use Vital Strike.

On a completely unrelated note, I'm planning on playing an Army Commander type Bard (via Leadership). I'm trying to make Bardic Inspiration work on any number of people in range. However, it seems that channeling a spell through Inspiration requires one to spend rounds for each person affected if the spell normally affects only person.

My question is, if I take stuff like Shape Spell Metamagic in order to turn a spell into a Burst effect, would that allow the Inspiration to affect anyone and everyone in range?


Kaouse wrote:
I like the decoupling of Vital Strike from weapon damage dice, actually. I don't like having to only ever use a Greatsword if I want to use Vital Strike.

For a normal vital strike by most characters, I agree with you. For a barbarian getting vital strike damage on every hit while raging, I just feel like there should be an incentive to use a big weapon rather than trying to maximize the number of attacks.


Is a "Flurry of Blows" not thematic for a raging Barbarian?

As to my question on the Army Commander Bard, I'm thinking that Communal Spell might be preferable to a Shape Spell - Burst effect. That said, I'm not entirely sure how it works, since the duration of the effect is reliant on the duration of bardic inspiration rather than that of the spell itself.

But theoretically, if I apply Communal Spell metamagic to a spell, can it affect as many people as are in range for the purpose of Bardic Inspiration?


Kaouse wrote:
My question is, if I take stuff like Shape Spell Metamagic in order to turn a spell into a Burst effect, would that allow the Inspiration to affect anyone and everyone in range?

Yes, because you would have modified the spell so that it no longer targets a single person.


Kaouse wrote:
But theoretically, if I apply Communal Spell metamagic to a spell, can it affect as many people as are in range for the purpose of Bardic Inspiration?

Ooh -- that's a tricky one I hadn't thought of. Let me ponder it!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From the PBP game:

heliopolix wrote:
Kirth: I can't find the Steady Aim feat from Exotic short bow proficiency. I'm going to use the latest rules with this new character.
I wrote:

Oops -- the idea for exotic short bow proficiency was to make you an awesome Mongol-like horse archer; Steady Aim originally was going to subsume Mounted Archery and stuff like that. In consolidating things, that in turn became a function of the Concentration skill, though -- and I forgot it was referenced elsewhere.

A simple but inelegant replacement would be Skill Focus (Concentration). A more interesting idea is to have it grant the Skirmish feat instead, allowing you to deal Vital Strike damage with arrows fired from a running mount -- but Skirmish unfortunately also lets you do other stuff that's not really applicable to a short bow. I'm open to suggestions!

heliopolix wrote:

So the Concentration DC for firing from horseback is 15 or 20, depending on if doing so is categorized as violent or extremely violent motion. The DC for firing defensively is 10+Opponents BAB.

Skill focus would directly add to the ability to pass those checks. It is straightforward, but a bit dull, I agree.

Perhaps Mounted Combat should be changed to give some bonus to concentration checks as the feat as written only supports mounted melee. The feat currently provides +1 circumstance bonus to attack and damage rolls (+1 per 5 additional ranks in Handle animal) against adjacent opponents. The feat could easily add double that bonus to concentration checks for firing from horseback: so +2/+4/+6/+8.

A character could then take both the skirmish and mounted combat feat as the synergy between them allows for that horse-archer fighting style, or exotic shortbow proficiency could just grant those feats if you wanted that weapon to be intrinsically used that way. The other abilities granted by those feats are extremely situational for an archer, (ex: you could pounce with a bow, but why would you want to?), thus mitigating the granting of both feats.

Such characters would still need to invest ranks in concentration (and also Skill Focus), distinguishing exceptional horse-archers from mediocre ones.

I wrote:

That's a pretty clever solution, and fits nicely with the design goals of reducing the clog of meaningless feats (which reminds me that I still need to pare down Chapter 5 to about half its current page count!).

I'll repost on the Kirthfinder thread that TOZ started and see what additional feedback rolls in.


I like it and it does fit with both streamlining and bloat reduction.


While you're pondering the Communal Spell-Inspiration conundrum, can you tell me if the document ever fully explains exactly what a "partial action" is? I feel that having a specific section on actions and the like would be great for newer players.


Also, I'm going to be GM-ing a game for like, the first time ever, and I'm going to attempt to use the Kirthfinder ruleset. If any of you guys have any tips, tricks, suggestions and/or ideas, by all means, let me know. It'll start off at level 1, 20 point buy.


I just realized that the reason why there's no section specifically explaining what partial actions are is likely because Chapter 7, which apparently also explains "Preemptive Actions" is conspicuously missing.

Is that part simply not written yet, or was this an accident?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaouse wrote:
While you're pondering the Communal Spell-Inspiration conundrum, can you tell me if the document ever fully explains exactly what a "partial action" is? I feel that having a specific section on actions and the like would be great for newer players.

Yes! A "partial action" will be specifically defined in the updated Combat chapter -- in essence, it's a catch-all for a move action, or an interative attack, etc. (those will be what used to sometimes be called "move-equivalent actions.") 1 standard action = one or more partial actions, depending on your BAB.

I'm working on a Glossary as well, which I think will be handy once it's done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaouse wrote:
Is that part simply not written yet, or was this an accident?

Still working on it. That stuff was originally in the Intro, but as I kept expanding options and standardizing sub-rules so that they would play nicely together, eventually it needed its own chapter. I'm working on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, I'll link my players to the old introduction and have them use that for now, then when the Combat chapter comes out, I'll give them the full rundown.

Thanks for the update, btw.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Warriorking9001 wrote:
(a longswords is a longsword and can't be refulffed to look like blank)

I tend to feel that refluffing should be encouraged, rather than banned.

I do agree about the falchion, which is why I recently subsumeded it into the bastard sword -- how many one-and-a-half-handed slashing swords do you need, after all?

Ah. Admittedly I said more about a 'longsword being a longsword and not being changed' sort of in the way that.. Well admittedly in a backwards way thinking "There are 3 different swords with similar effects and it specifically mentions the falchion OVER the scimitar for refluffing to a Katana, there's surely a reason for that" whilst also calling it out...

2d6 18-20 2-handed will be missed though


Also something doesn't... Oh you changed it. (I'm behind the curve a bit when it comes to kirthfinder)

I was about to say that something bothered me just a bit about the idea that Barbarians gain their barbarian level as a bonus to all stats except intelligence. Not necessarily that I felt there was something truly wrong with this, but Barb was one of the examples that was making me consider creating a system of my own based on these rules. (I doubt it matters, but other parts that started me there were Onslaught of blows when base attack bonus already got massive bonuses, monks getting to punch for like 7d6 as the base damage die with unarmed strikes, and my remembering people saying Leadership was the singular most overpowered thing in existence yet fighters get it for free, and weapons encyclopedia)

I guess that Kirthfinder is still a work in progress (which I thought it was done pretty much), and I'm actually glad to possibly have an active role to respond to it and help out. Which on that last part I statted out firearms in case you'd be interested

firearm rules:
Firearms are all able to pierce armor and use touch AC within the first range increment so long as you have at least Martial proficiency with it.

Coat Pistol/Derringer
Simple Proficiency
light ranged (30 ft.) 1d4 20x3 reload move action
Martial Proficiency
Light Ranged (30 ft. 1d4 20x3 reload iterative attack.
Exotic Proficiency
Light Ranged (30 ft.) 1d4 20x3 Reload free action

Pistol
Like with a Light crossbow, you can fire (bur not load) a Pistol in one hand with a -2 penalty to the attack roll. And can dual wield pistols as though they were one handed weapons.
Simple Proficiency
Two Handed Ranged (80 ft.) 1d8 20x3 Reload: Move action
Martial Proficiency
Two Handed Ranged (80 ft.) 1d8 20x3 Reload: iterative attack
Exotic Proficiency
One handed ranged (80 ft.) 1d8 20x3 Reload: Iterative attack (you now can fire a pistol one handed without penalty)
Special: you can get a Dragon Pistol that changes your range to a 15 foot cone and your damage to a d6 but otherwise has the same stats

Musket
Unlike with a Heavy Crossbow, you cannot hold a musket in one hand, ever.
Simple Proficiency
Two Handed Ranged (120 ft.) 1d10 20x3 Reload: Full Round action
Martial Proficiency
Two Handed Ranged (120 ft.) 1d10 20x3 Reload: Move Action
Exotic Proficiency
Two Handed Ranged (120 ft.) 1d10 20x3 Reload: Iterative attack
You can get a Blunderbuss that changes your range to a 30 foot cone and decreases your damage die to a d8.]

Overload: For the Daring and Adventurous looking to make the absolute most out of your shots, you can choose to accept a chance of a Misfire in your guns. You choose this when buying or crafting the firearm, and increase the damage die of your firearm by one step (coat pistols become d6, pistols become d10, and muskets become d12) and increase the critical modifier by 1 (from x3 to x4)

Munitions

Standard
Bullets and Powder (5 shots): 1 gp (Used for pistol, musket, and coat pistol shot)
Pellets and Powder (5 shots): 1gp (used for dragon pistols and Blunderbuss’s)

Special Shot
Incendiary shot (5 shots): 2 gp (Deals fire damage instead of piercing. Variants exist for both normal and spread guns)
Acid Canister: (5 shots): 2 gp (deals acid damage, variants for both normal and spread guns, but guns need to be reinforced to use acid shots, increasing the price of the gun in question by 50%)
Salt Shot (5 shots) 1 gp (Deals nonlethal damage and is only available for spread guns)
Shrapnel Shot (10 shots) 3gp : Deals slashing damage and applies the weapon’s damage as bleed.
Flare cartridge: 1gp per shot: only deals half damage, but the creature struck is blinded for 1 round (Fort DC 15 reduces this to dazzled), and creatures within a 20-foot burst are dazzled for 1 round (Fort DC 15 negates the effect). Flare cartridges are also useful for sending up signal flares.
Resin Shot: Acts as a tanglefoot bag and deals half damage (5 shots) 2 gp


Firearms have already been statted out along with other alchemical and technological items -- see the Grimoire (Appendix 8B), towards the end. That said, if you want them to be mundane weapons, have at it!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never noticed all that back there, you sir are amazing.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Firearms have already been statted out along with other alchemical and technological items -- see the Grimoire (Appendix 8B), towards the end. That said, if you want them to be mundane weapons, have at it!

Admittedly that does make some sense how it works, (and perhaps somehow some crazy weapons like Witch Guns, which are a real thing, can use your original rules) But I feel like I wanted to make them truly mundane weapons in order to represent them as... Well it feels strange considering what mundane normally means but I feel like them being mundane is what makes them special. The idea that it's how (though you took plenty of time to nerf mages as is so maybe having an in universe way to do it would be excessive) muggles get back at wizards, that a muggle made gunpowder in order to stop the magical monopoly on blowing s*** up.

I also felt it an interesting challenge to try to stat out firearms because of 2 things

1: Crossbows have become powerful enough that they can rival and maybe even surpass bows in the right situations, making it a curious question as to just how one might make a gun balance it out

2: I felt that Pathfinder rules never really did guns justice, since you had to completely dedicate yourself to gunplay, either by taking the gun specific classes, or grab Gunsmithing AND Exotic proficiency (Firearms) AND have to risk blowing up your gun entirely if you get 2 natural 1's in a day AND have to deal that you only can gain its benefits within 20 and 40 feet respectively and then on top of it have grandiose difficulty even getting iterative attacks (since a musket, the one with decent range, takes a full round action to reload and reduced to a STANDARD by rapid reload instead of a move like the h. Crossbow, and the pistol got their down to an immediate action or a free in exchange for a higher misfire chance).

Also I'll say that I am SO allowing/using the "Private stock" grimoire rules for anyone who wants to be a mad bomber, but I was just about to say that it seemed strange to make alchemical items into the equivalent of magic items when you hand rogues the free mad bomber ability, seems redundant to have alchemist's fire be able to be concentrated to the point of being 10d6 AND have sneak attack damage on it.


Also a question... sorry if I'm choking the chat somewhat...

How would you integrate the new Spheres systems (Both Power and Might). I'm curious since I realized Spheres of Might is out and I want to know more about how those abilities can be transferred.

http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/


People keep asking me about spheres of power (I think that's my #1 FAQ, in fact), and I always answer the same way: I designed the magic system independently (indeed, most of the groundwork was done before SoP was released), I don't own the book, and I don't really care to redo everything I've done and start over at this point.

If someone else has integrated that stuff and wants to share their experience, I'd be very grateful indeed.


I've been considering combining the systems for a while now. Off the top of my head, I think the easiest thing to do is to equilibrate Spheres of Power's Caster Level system with Kirthfinder's Spell Capacity system on a 1-to-1 basis.

Each class therefore gets 1 magic talent for every 1 level of Spell Capacity they obtain. YMMV on whether or not you want the Rogue/Monk to keep their pseudo-casting or go with Spheres.

Metamagic can basically work the same, only instead of increasing spell level, you spend a spell point for every level adjustment.

Aside from that, the only thing that really needs work is adjusting feats that rely on Arcane Schools and sub-schools to instead rely on specific Spheres. Like how most of Necromancy applies to the Death Sphere, except for Necromancy (Healing) which applies directly to the Life Sphere.

In those cases, possessing the base sphere and at least 1 spell point remaining may be enough for most reserve feats, but higher level reserve feats may require more spell points in reserve to balance it. Like, 1 spell point in reserve per level of the reserve spell required.

I think these changes are fairly adequate at combining the two systems. What do you think?

As for Spheres of Might, I think it's best to rely on the Extra Combat Talent & feat tradeoffs rather than changing anything in Kirthfinder itself.

I'd have to see the updated Combat chapter before I can suggest anything else.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

People keep asking me about spheres of power (I think that's my #1 FAQ, in fact), and I always answer the same way: I designed the magic system independently (indeed, most of the groundwork was done before SoP was released), I don't own the book, and I don't really care to redo everything I've done and start over at this point.

If someone else has integrated that stuff and wants to share their experience, I'd be very grateful indeed.

... I wasn't trying to ask you to change your casting system entirely, more I just made an assumption that stuff* in SoP would need to be rebalanced to fit with Kirthfinder with just how different KF and Vanilla are.

*That Stuff is
Classes (The classes unique to SoP and archetypes for vanilla, though I'd assume something similar to Kaouse in the latter regard)
Magic items, especially with how Staves for Spherecasters increase CL
General rebalancing to keep it in, though maybe I'm wrong

*As a particular example for classes, for example Mageknight gains a form of Rage from a talent (using the standard pf rage rules) and Armorist gains armor training, but Armor training is very different and just plain more powerful. I thought that a review of sop rules was needed before it could be integrated


It's gonna be infinitely harder to alter Spheres of Power characters into Kirthfinder characters than it would be to alter Kirthfinder characters into Spheres of Power/Might characters.

For one, you'll need to go through all of the SoP classes and redetermine their Will/Intuition saves. This is subjective and takes quite a bit of work. Then there are the abilities here and there that may need to be altered, and then possibly rebalanced. Tons of work all around.

But doing it the other way should be way, way, easier.


Kaouse wrote:

It's gonna be infinitely harder to alter Spheres of Power characters into Kirthfinder characters than it would be to alter Kirthfinder characters into Spheres of Power/Might characters.

For one, you'll need to go through all of the SoP classes and redetermine their Will/Intuition saves. This is subjective and takes quite a bit of work. Then there are the abilities here and there that may need to be altered, and then possibly rebalanced. Tons of work all around.

But doing it the other way should be way, way, easier.

I feel like the fact that it's 'infinitely' harder is part of why it needs to be done, because converting the normal classes to SoP is houserule level easy (Sorcerers gaining destruction and a specific element of blast in place of Eldritch Blast, wizard specializations relating to relevant spheres, etc.) I think it's simple enough to figure out how kf characters work with SoP that it can be left unwritten, but converting things like the Incanter, Fey Adept, Hedgewitch, etc. is what is going to be difficult and worth writing out. Though, on intuition saves here's a bit of help there.

Fey Adepts gain Strong Intuition progression, possibly at the expense of their will saves, they're centered around illusion, so it makes sense that they're among the best at seeing through them.

Incanters have Wizard saves, they're the most similar (and the Wizard is the only vanilla class archetype that goes by incanter sphere power progression) so they have the same.

Armorists have good intuition, since their default casting stat is wisdom, that gives insight to logical minds.

Elementalists have good will saves for the same reason as Armorists, except they use Charisma, telling us they tend to have higher willpower anyway.

Mageknights are a bit awkward in this regard, but I'd say use Battle Sorcerer progression.

Eliciters have will saves for the same reason as fey adepts, They specialize in Mind and manipulation, so they should be able to resist the same that they dish out.

Shifter is based around wisdom, so intuition

Soul Weaver is based around charisma, so will

Symbiats are about having a mysterious extraplanar creature in their heads, so I'd say keeping their minds intact would need strong will saves

Thaumaturge I can't really speak for


On a completely unrelated note,

Kirthfinder Rouge's Trapfinding wrote:
At 11 ranks, you are at home walking through minefields and opening trapped safes. You receive a passive check to avoid setting off any traps you would normally trigger, even if you have not detected them

This passive check, what kind of check is it? It doesn't read like it's giving you a second chance on Perception/Spellcraft/Disable Device. If I had to guess, I'd say it was meant to be a passive Reflex/Intuition check , but I'm not sure.

Can you clarify, Kirth?

EDIT: While we're on the subject of Kirthfinder Rogue, can you clarify the Grenadier talent? Specifically, whether the Rogue always gets his sneak attack damage on splash weapons, or only on attacks that would otherwise qualify as sneak attacks (namely, vs a flat-footed opponent).


Kaouse wrote:


EDIT: While we're on the subject of Kirthfinder Rogue, can you clarify the Grenadier talent? Specifically, whether the Rogue always gets his sneak attack damage on splash weapons, or only on attacks that would otherwise qualify as sneak attacks (namely, vs a flat-footed opponent).

For Grenadier, I'd assume it applied to every attack made with splash weapons, since it's basically trying to replicate Alchemist's Bomb class feature from vanilla.


Kaouse wrote:
This passive check, what kind of check is it? It doesn't read like it's giving you a second chance on Perception/Spellcraft/Disable Device. If I had to guess, I'd say it was meant to be a passive Reflex/Intuition check , but I'm not sure.
Chapter 4 wrote:
Passive Checks: In general, whenever you specifically call for a skill check, you are entitled to roll it (an “active check”). For some skills, you may be allowed a check even without asking for one; in such cases, the referee will generally provide you with a “passive check.” A passive check essentially consists of you continuously “taking 10,” allowing you success against any DC of 10 + your bonus in the relevant skill, without you needing to roll (the referee will simply announce the results). In some cases (as specifically noted), you are entitled to a passive check even if you could not normally Take 10.


Warriorking9001 wrote:
For Grenadier, I'd assume it applied to every attack made with splash weapons, since it's basically trying to replicate Alchemist's Bomb class feature from vanilla.

Yes, exactly. In 3.5 you always bought a ring of blink to enable the same thing; in this case we obviate the need by offering a combat talent.


Regarding the revised barbarian, it occurs to me that rage powers are the actual draw of raging, not the d20 bonuses. That said, taking Extended, Personal blessing with the Magical Talent feat gives you hours per day rage at relatively low levels, which sticks in my craw. I'd therefore recommend two tweaks:

1. Change the rage bonus at 1st level to +2, bringing it back in line with the PF/3.5 barbarian. This makes the bonus a bit more of a draw.

2. Get rid of free raging rounds from morale spells, and instead simply allow the bonuses to stack. Yes, that means at 17th level you can be rocking a +10 bonus to d20 rolls (+6 rage, +4 inspire courage from a bard friend). I'm actually OK with that, because at 17th level you are almost by definition a demigod.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Warriorking9001 wrote:
For Grenadier, I'd assume it applied to every attack made with splash weapons, since it's basically trying to replicate Alchemist's Bomb class feature from vanilla.
Yes, exactly. In 3.5 you always bought a ring of blink to enable the same thing; in this case we obviate the need by offering a combat talent.

Wait... ring of blink gives you bomb bonus!?


Warriorking9001 wrote:
Wait... ring of blink gives you bomb bonus!?

In 3.5 edition D&D, blinking allowed you to make sneak attacks, for some reason. The favorite rogue build was to be a halfling with a ring of blinking and a sackful of acid flasks.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

Regarding the revised barbarian, it occurs to me that rage powers are the actual draw of raging, not the d20 bonuses. That said, taking Extended, Personal blessing with the Magical Talent feat gives you hours per day rage at relatively low levels, which sticks in my craw. I'd therefore recommend two tweaks:

1. Change the rage bonus at 1st level to +2, bringing it back in line with the PF/3.5 barbarian. This makes the bonus a bit more of a draw.

2. Get rid of free raging rounds from morale spells, and instead simply allow the bonuses to stack. Yes, that means at 17th level you can be rocking a +10 bonus to d20 rolls (+6 rage, +4 inspire courage from a bard friend). I'm actually OK with that, because at 17th level you are almost by definition a demigod.

Any thoughts on this?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kaouse wrote:
This passive check, what kind of check is it? It doesn't read like it's giving you a second chance on Perception/Spellcraft/Disable Device. If I had to guess, I'd say it was meant to be a passive Reflex/Intuition check , but I'm not sure.
Chapter 4 wrote:
Passive Checks: In general, whenever you specifically call for a skill check, you are entitled to roll it (an “active check”). For some skills, you may be allowed a check even without asking for one; in such cases, the referee will generally provide you with a “passive check.” A passive check essentially consists of you continuously “taking 10,” allowing you success against any DC of 10 + your bonus in the relevant skill, without you needing to roll (the referee will simply announce the results). In some cases (as specifically noted), you are entitled to a passive check even if you could not normally Take 10.

My problem is, the base Trapfinding ability already gives you a passive check to detect traps, so what exactly are you gaining at level 11? A second passive check? I mean, the way that passive checks work, if you failed the first one, what good is a second one?

EDIT: As for the Barbarian issue, I strongly recommend getting rid of the free rage rounds from morale bonuses. Couldn't somebody just pick up a Flawed Pale Green Prism Ioun Stone and rage forever otherwise? Kinda silly, IMHO. Even if it is only for spells, the system does allow for permanent spells, which yields effectively the same thing here.


Also... I was hoping to make a campaign setting for kirthfinder, I admit I know that this isn't really something I'd need to ask Kirth about, but I was going to ask if there was anything particularly worrying I'd need to take into account regarding making a KF specific campaign setting, Especially since I plan to make a number of races to fit this (Kobolds, some dragonblood races, making Drow great again and allowing two versions of them, etc.)


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I just wanted to say that although it looks like this topic has been a long time in the making, reading over these rules in the last few days has actually made me pretty excited.

However --

- Is there a combat section coming up or that I am missing?
- When playing Kirthfinder, what spell list is generally seen as being available? I see that some classes pull their effects from a wiiiiiide variety of sources. Are we just looking at PF core? 3.5 core + PF core? Every splat book thats been envisioned under the sun?

Thanks for all your effort!

- John


johnnymac wrote:

(1) Is there a combat section coming up or that I am missing?

(2) When playing Kirthfinder, what spell list is generally seen as being available? I see that some classes pull their effects from a wiiiiiide variety of sources. Are we just looking at PF core? 3.5 core + PF core? Every splat book thats been envisioned under the sun?

(1) I'm working on it! Cut me some slack, I have a 3-year-old and a full-time job.

(2) Click on this link. Then click on "Skills, Feats, etc." and open "Ch 8a: Spells Grimoire." If it's not clear how they're being built, click on "Ch 8: Spells" and read that first, especially the "Spell Seeds" section. NOTE: Since uploading the Grimoire, I've doubled its length and am still going, so in a relatively short amount of time you should have most spells from 1e-PF (including a number of 3pp ones) at your fingertips.


Kaouse wrote:
My problem is, the base Trapfinding ability already gives you a passive check to detect traps, so what exactly are you gaining at level 11? A second passive check? I mean, the way that passive checks work, if you failed the first one, what good is a second one?

I see your point -- it would only be an advantage if the "don't set off" DC is less than the "find" DC, which seems like a corner-case. I'll think on that. Maybe "second Passive check with a +5 competence bonus" or something.


Warriorking9001 wrote:
Also... I was hoping to make a campaign setting for kirthfinder, I admit I know that this isn't really something I'd need to ask Kirth about, but I was going to ask if there was anything particularly worrying I'd need to take into account regarding making a KF specific campaign setting, Especially since I plan to make a number of races to fit this (Kobolds, some dragonblood races, making Drow great again and allowing two versions of them, etc.)

The only advice I can offer is to take the "what does character level mean" stuff to heart, and don't make the Baron of East Bumscratch a 20th level paladin, unless he's actually the Immortal God-King of the World. In general, I try to keep the number of demigod-tier NPCs down to one or two at most, and have it so that even meeting a Champion-level character will be a once-in-a-lifetime event for anyone who's not also at that level.

As far as character races, some of my very favorite campaigns were human-only, but I'm well aware that's not a universal preference. Shoot, Monte Cook's Diamond Throne setting is full of Furries as playable races, and those books still sold. So anything you and your players want should be good.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

The only advice I can offer is to take the "what does character level mean" stuff to heart, and don't make the Baron of East Bumscratch a 20th level paladin, unless he's actually the Immortal God-King of the World. In general, I try to keep the number of demigod-tier NPCs down to one or two at most, and have it so that even meeting a Champion-level character will be a once-in-a-lifetime event for anyone who's not also at that level.

As far as character races, some of my very favorite campaigns were human-only, but I'm well aware that's not a universal preference. Shoot, Monte Cook's Diamond Throne setting is full of Furries as playable races, and those books still sold. So anything you and your players want should be good.

Well damn, note taken on character levels, I just thought with the PF stuff where demigod is around cr 26 0-0

And for me, it's not that I dislike human only settings (hell, I admit that as a player I tend to use humans far more than other races in most cases), but I feel like for a Pathfinder game that the "epic fantasy" kind of setting fits best with the multiple races... I also can't help but see it as kind of haughty, here's an example.

Quote:


GM/Worldbuilder: The (insert name here): a nature loving druidic kingdom of humans who are particularly gifted at magic and particularly in tune with the world and tend to be particularly dextrous
Longtime Player: So basically Elves
GM: Nononono they're not elves, they're druidic humans, we're not using elves in this game.
Player: But that description is literally what Elves are in most sett *SMACK*
GM:THEY'RENOTELVES


Warriorking9001 wrote:

I feel like for a Pathfinder game that the "epic fantasy" kind of setting fits best with the multiple races... I also can't help but see it as kind of haughty, here's an example.

GM/Worldbuilder: The (insert name here): a nature loving druidic kingdom of humans who are particularly gifted at magic and particularly in tune with the world and tend to be particularly dextrous
Longtime Player: So basically Elves
GM: Nononono they're not elves, they're druidic humans, we're not using elves in this game.
Player: But that description is literally what Elves are in most sett *SMACK*
GM:THEY'RENOTELVES

Yes, that would annoy me to no end as well. For the Aviona setting, I tried to make elves even more alien from humanity, much like Dunsany and Poul Anderson did.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Warriorking9001 wrote:

I feel like for a Pathfinder game that the "epic fantasy" kind of setting fits best with the multiple races... I also can't help but see it as kind of haughty, here's an example.

GM/Worldbuilder: The (insert name here): a nature loving druidic kingdom of humans who are particularly gifted at magic and particularly in tune with the world and tend to be particularly dextrous
Longtime Player: So basically Elves
GM: Nononono they're not elves, they're druidic humans, we're not using elves in this game.
Player: But that description is literally what Elves are in most sett *SMACK*
GM:THEY'RENOTELVES

Yes, that would annoy me to no end as well. For the Aviona setting, I tried to make elves even more alien from humanity, much like Dunsany and Poul Anderson did.

Got it... and one small issue that I noticed on the mechanical side is that there are no rules for race building in this. since I was planning to create races for this (nothing crazy, but it's important enough for me to mention), what exactly are the rules for making new races?


Warriorking9001 wrote:
Got it... and one small issue that I noticed on the mechanical side is that there are no rules for race building in this. since I was planning to create races for this (nothing crazy, but it's important enough for me to mention), what exactly are the rules for making new races?
Chapter 2 wrote:

Some effort has been made to standardize races in terms of powers and abilities. Accordingly, each basic race now gains a net +2 to starting attribute scores, two racial feats, two traits (each being equivalent to about half a feat), and weapon familiarity. These numbers are not absolute; traits that confer a net disadvantage (such as the gnomes’ small size and slow speed), for example, might allow an additional trait to compensate. In some cases, options are presented, from which the character may choose. Unless otherwise noted (as for gnomes and halflings), PC races are Medium size.

In addition, half-races can be created using the rules in Appendix A; a number of examples are provided.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Warriorking9001 wrote:
Got it... and one small issue that I noticed on the mechanical side is that there are no rules for race building in this. since I was planning to create races for this (nothing crazy, but it's important enough for me to mention), what exactly are the rules for making new races?
Chapter 2 wrote:

Some effort has been made to standardize races in terms of powers and abilities. Accordingly, each basic race now gains a net +2 to starting attribute scores, two racial feats, two traits (each being equivalent to about half a feat), and weapon familiarity. These numbers are not absolute; traits that confer a net disadvantage (such as the gnomes’ small size and slow speed), for example, might allow an additional trait to compensate. In some cases, options are presented, from which the character may choose. Unless otherwise noted (as for gnomes and halflings), PC races are Medium size.

In addition, half-races can be created using the rules in Appendix A; a number of examples are provided.

sorry for being an idiot and not noticing that


On the subject of the Rogue, let's talk Skill Tricks. They generally take a full round action in order to activate, with exceptions being made for "swift" tricks (which are a swift action, but only last one round), and "movement" tricks (which are performed as part of said movement).

What I want to know is, what of the skill tricks that emulate spells with casting times lower than 1 standard action, say 1 swift action (like Litany of Sight) or 1 immediate action (like Lesser Celerity). Do these both default to full round actions? While an argument could be made for at least Lesser Celerity that it's a "movement" trick, it would still be nice to specify if swift/immediate action spells retain their cast time when turned into skill tricks.


Kaouse wrote:
While an argument could be made for at least Lesser Celerity that it's a "movement" trick, it would still be nice to specify if swift/immediate action spells retain their cast time when turned into skill tricks.

Now that I've got the spells rules functioning correctly, I need to go back through all the other chapters (esp. classes, races, equipment, and monsters) and make sure they're playing nicely together. Stay tuned for more details, as I figure them out.


Also on worldbuilding and race building, I've found one more slight difficulty about it... I never thought I'd say these words but I'm worried about accidentally making Kobolds overpowered. this is because of 2 particular reasons.

1: giving Kobolds access to an equivalent to Slight Build as a racial feat (meaning they'd have a total of +8 to stealth and +2 to ac and attack bonus on top of natural armor and a dex bonus)

2: Giving them too many options. I thought that it would be interesting if one of their primary boons is their heritage and their clan's patron dragon, and that Kobolds could select from a unique 'Patron racial feat, with there being one for each color of dragon.. Which means that without even looking at what their second feat would be, they'd have a choice between 10 racial feats (11 considering slight build above) when most others have 4-5 choices each usually


Warriorking9001 wrote:

Also on worldbuilding and race building, I've found one more slight difficulty about it... I never thought I'd say these words but I'm worried about accidentally making Kobolds overpowered. this is because of 2 particular reasons.

1: giving Kobolds access to an equivalent to Slight Build as a racial feat (meaning they'd have a total of +8 to stealth and +2 to ac and attack bonus on top of natural armor and a dex bonus)

2: Giving them too many options. I thought that it would be interesting if one of their primary boons is their heritage and their clan's patron dragon, and that Kobolds could select from a unique 'Patron racial feat, with there being one for each color of dragon.. Which means that without even looking at what their second feat would be, they'd have a choice between 10 racial feats (11 considering slight build above) when most others have 4-5 choices each usually

1. I'd steer clear of making effectively Tiny PC races -- they tend to be too good as full casters.

2. If you want them to have dragon abilities, that's what the lizardfolk/half-dragon racial class levels (Chapter 2) are for (for non-casters), or the Draconic bloodline (for sorcerers).

3,351 to 3,400 of 3,817 << first < prev | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 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.