Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft Houserules


Homebrew and House Rules

3,451 to 3,500 of 3,816 << first < prev | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | next > last >>

wynterknight wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
which was as clear as I could make it

... yep, it doesn't get much clearer than that sentence (clearly emphasized by a bullet point, even.) Thanks so much for the responses!

What were your wizard players' reactions to not getting any free spells known as they leveled up? I haven't done the math yet, but it seems like you either have to spend a ton of money on spells (way more than core costs), or spend every feat you get on metamagic feats. Did it work out okay in play?

The math worked out exactly as FW44 pointed out, so that actually made me feel OK. Then again, the fighter can pick up Personal Weapon now, so the wizard is at a net disadvantage there. And with a lot of spells requiring you to tie up numen to keep them running, he's way behind. I'm also noticing that it's hard to build NPC wizards, because they lack the sheer wealth and end up with empty spellbooks. So I'm currently thinking that one per level or two is more reasonable -- not quite the austerity measure they're currently living under, but a lot more restrained than the 2/level smorgasbord that PF gives them.


wynterknight wrote:
What were your wizard players' reactions to not getting any free spells known as they leveled up? I haven't done the math yet, but it seems like you either have to spend a ton of money on spells (way more than core costs), or spend every feat you get on metamagic feats. Did it work out okay in play?

The math worked out as FW44 indicated, and Andostre's wizard Agun didn't have a lot of gear, so it wasn't a huge issue for PCs -- I figured it was good.

But then again, the fighter can pick up Personal Weapon, putting the wizard behind, and the new spell rules inevitably end up tying up a lot of numen in latent spells and so on, putting you even further behind.

Recently I've been converting some old (1e) modules and noticed that the 0/level makes NPC wizards almost impossible to build, because they don't have the sheer wealth to keep up. So currently I'm thinking one free spell per level or two is about right -- not quite the austerity measure they're currently living under, but a lot less glamorous than the 2/level that PF hands out.


You could have a number of 'free' spells known equal to the spells known table.

I like that idea mechanically (because it's easy to reference an existing table) however that works out to basically the same number of free spells / level as Pathfinder which is 4 of each spell level (assuming specialist). Which is almost certainly too many by your standards :P


P.S. Sorry for the double-post! Boards ate one, then regurgitated it.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'm also noticing that it's hard to build NPC wizards, because they lack the sheer wealth and end up with empty spellbooks. So I'm currently thinking that one per level or two is more reasonable -- not quite the austerity measure they're currently living under, but a lot more restrained than the 2/level smorgasbord that PF gives them.

But should really each wizard be running with spellbooks/memory bursting with spells? Talented casters, Dark Lords and Wizard Kings won't abide by all the rules a normal NPC runs on but an average witch or a wizard won't be anywhere near their level so they probably should not get the same breadth of abilities.


Chapter 7 was a great addition to the rule set, and really helps tie things together. That said, I had some areas of concern after reading over it:

Spellcasting in Combat wrote:

Casting a spell or channeling energy generally involves two steps, each of which requires an action:

 Retrieving material components and/or presenting a focus component requires a partial (move) action. Therefore, if your BAB is less than +6, you cannot take a move action (including a 5-ft. step) while casting a spell unless there is no material or focus component, because your bonus move action is supplying the partial action needed to retrieve the components.
 The verbal and/or somatic components of a spell require a standard action.

Emphasis mine. Why is the section referencing your BAB present? Spellcasting always takes a Standard action + a Move/Partial action. You get the extra Move/Partial action @ BAB = 1, allowing you to cast a spell in one round. @ BAB 6, the amount of partial actions in a standard action increases, but spellcasting still takes up your entire standard, so nothing changes @ BAB = 6.

This is further muddled up by the section on SLAs and Su abilities:

Quote:
Treat the activation of a spell-like or supernatural ability as the casting of a spell by a sorcerer. Spell-like abilities therefore do not have material components, but do generally have somatic components and require a partial action to activate.[

Emphasis mine. So the somatic components and general casting of a spell like ability and a supernatural ability requires a partial action instead of a standard? If so, the BAB = 6 remark would make a bit more sense. But then we'd probably need a limit on how often spells/SLAs/Su abilities can be used in a single round.

On the subject of spell actions, what happens if we lose or don't need specific components? Presumably, a spell without a material or focus component doesn't need the partial action spent on using them, correct? But what about the opposite? What action is it to cast a spell without verbal or somatic components, but with material/focus components, only a partial action? Still Spell seems to suggest that a spell with no components defaults to a standard action, so it seems like that's independent of components, but then the part above about SLAs and Su abilities (barring Channel apparently, which specifically works like spellcasting) being a partial action doesn't really make tremendous sense.

On the subject of spell actions, what about Quickened spells with material components? Is it a Swift action + a partial action? Speaking of Quicken Spell, it's description in Chapter 8 should probably include full-round spells (as it does in Core), not just standard action spells. Otherwise, reducing a spell with full round casting time by half is kinda hard to adjudicate.

On the subject of the Bonus Move thing, is it really necessary to not give it to characters with 0 BAB? It literally only affects a subset of Level 1 characters and NPCs. It honestly seems almost vindictive against early level spellcasters, who now must spend 2 rounds casting a spell that in regular Pathfinder would only be a standard action.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
The math worked out as FW44 indicated, and Andostre's wizard Agun didn't have a lot of gear, so it wasn't a huge issue for PCs -- I figured it was good.

Plus, Kirth loves wizard bad guys, so there were enough free spellbooks available.


Andostre wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
The math worked out as FW44 indicated, and Andostre's wizard Agun didn't have a lot of gear, so it wasn't a huge issue for PCs -- I figured it was good.
Plus, Kirth loves wizard bad guys, so there were enough free spellbooks available.

Do those not count against your personal numen?


I could use a little clarification on the +11 BAB ability of Combat Reflexes. When you interfere with the opponent's action, they can still try it again with no penalty, which I get. But can they abort that action and try something different if they don't feel like being stabbed 4 or 5 times in a row? I assume this is the case, but D&D3e/Pathfinder doesn't really have a precedent for this.


I feel like I should just save up all my questions and make one master post, but I'm not that patient.

Looking at the grimoire, Stoneskin seems to be effective against only a single attack (Spark of Life is instantaneous, Shielding Spell makes it take effect only the next time you're struck unless you apply Extend or Mass Effect.) Is that correct? If not, how does that break down mechanically? The only other spells I can find that grant DR (Iron Body and Righteous Might) use Polymorph as their base spell seed instead of Spark Of Life.


Most of the Google Docs (but not Introduction, Equipment, Combat, or Inspirational Reading) in the Skills, Feats, etc. fail to load beyond the first page.


I found that. Downloading them works fine though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Most of the Google Docs (but not Introduction, Equipment, Combat, or Inspirational Reading) in the Skills, Feats, etc. fail to load beyond the first page.

Right-click the file and select Open in Drive. Or download them as Arakhor suggests.


wynterknight wrote:
Andostre wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
The math worked out as FW44 indicated, and Andostre's wizard Agun didn't have a lot of gear, so it wasn't a huge issue for PCs -- I figured it was good.
Plus, Kirth loves wizard bad guys, so there were enough free spellbooks available.
Do those not count against your personal numen?

I didn't keep them around once I'd learned what spells I could.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure I was always that anal about tracking Agun's numen tied up in spellbooks. Wait, belay that, I AM sure -- I wasn't. To let everyone in on a dark little secret, the whole numen system is only 2/3 about creativity, and the other 1/3 about shifting bookkeeping tasks from the referee to the players!


Yeah, I don't recall it either. I just remember Agun was never really hurting for spell options. This was alpha/early beta, though.


wynterknight wrote:
I could use a little clarification on the +11 BAB ability of Combat Reflexes. When you interfere with the opponent's action, they can still try it again with no penalty, which I get. But can they abort that action and try something different if they don't feel like being stabbed 4 or 5 times in a row? I assume this is the case, but D&D3e/Pathfinder doesn't really have a precedent for this.

Yeah, they can totally try other stuff instead, but at the normal action cost. (Combat Reflexes) + (BAB +11) = stand there and trade your immediate actions to negate the opponent's normal ones (as long as they provoke).


wynterknight wrote:
Looking at the grimoire, Stoneskin seems to be effective against only a single attack (Spark of Life is instantaneous, Shielding Spell makes it take effect only the next time you're struck unless you apply Extend or Mass Effect.) Is that correct? If not, how does that break down mechanically?

Short answer: it sort of didn't. I was never really happy with how stoneskin was constructed, and ended up to revising it to something that makes more sense:

Revised Grimoire wrote:
Stoneskin: Invocation of the knife (0 level) + Variable Spell (Versatile Evocation or Energy Admixture: bludgeoning and/or piercing; +1 level) + Shielding Spell (+1 level) + Extend Spell (inst. to 10 min./level; +4 levels) + Reduce Spell (+20 to +10; -2 levels) = 4th level; bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage against subject is reduced by 1d6 + 1/level (+10 max.) for 10 min./level.
wynterknight wrote:
The only other spells I can find that grant DR (Iron Body and Righteous Might) use Polymorph as their base spell seed instead of Spark Of Life.

I've added a ton of them (ablative barrier, aspect of the deity, Blaise's iron bead, celestial blood, darksoul, exalted raiment, glorious raiment, shield of the tortoise, sublime revelry, subvert planar essence -- most of those recently converted from the Book of Exalted Deeds), but they all reference stoneskin directly.


Kaouse wrote:
That said, I had some areas of concern after reading over it:

Me, too. The more I look it over, the more I realized that I should NOT have rushed it out. Basically, I started with an idea that was too complicated, tried to simplify it, and then ended up with some cases where the loss of granularity actually prevented me from accomplishing what I was shooting for. I'm still a little torn on which direction to go.


Andostre wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
The math worked out as FW44 indicated, and Andostre's wizard Agun didn't have a lot of gear, so it wasn't a huge issue for PCs -- I figured it was good.
Plus, Kirth loves wizard bad guys, so there were enough free spellbooks available.

I won't deny my love for a wizard bad guy, but I'm trying to think now, because, being aware of that preference, I tried to minimize them (also, Derek was still smarting from a nasty total party kill by an enchanter from a different campaign before you joined). From my recollection there were surprisingly few in that campaign...

Spoiler:
The half-azer who was a bit player during d'Ansac's Rebellion was the first one you met. Other than that we had Dame Llewella (cleric), The Master of the Decad (cleric), Llewella's father the ghoul (fighter), Judge Ironthorn (cleric), d'Ansac himself (sorcerer), "Monk" (druid), Cal Styler (rogue), Otto Geraint (ex-cop/minor wizard whose house you guys trashed with a well-advertised party -- that's two!), a bunch of ogres, Estrelle (beguiler sorcerer). We also did that Paizo module that, I guess, had some kind of wizard or sorcerer (the "Sand Sage" at the pyramid dig) whom Cadogan killed almost as an afterthought.

The one main wizard Agun finally met was Yi-Juan, the wu jen who got ambushed in the street right after you returned from paternity leave (and whose spellbooks you never did recover).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kaouse wrote:
That said, I had some areas of concern after reading over it:
Me, too. The more I look it over, the more I realized that I should NOT have rushed it out. Basically, I started with an idea that was too complicated, tried to simplify it, and then ended up with some cases where the loss of granularity actually prevented me from accomplishing what I was shooting for. I'm still a little torn on which direction to go.

Well, take your time. You can't rush quality, and this is still pretty quality work right here.

Also, mind your health. :P


Kirth Gersen wrote:
From my recollection there were surprisingly few in that campaign... ** spoiler omitted **

I'm probably combining the sorcerers and wizards in my recollection, but I see your point. I had forgot Llewella was a cleric, actually. Maybe Agun was still getting two free spells every level, then? Regardless of the number of enemy wizards, you still love them. :)


I was thinking, what if spell components had specific actions associated with them? Verbal components would cost an immediate action, material/focus components cost a partial action, and somatic components w/ associated attack rolls cost another partial action.

In this case, the minimum time for casting a spell with zero components would be a single partial action. This correlates to the casting time of a spell-like ability, which would also have no components and also be a partial action to cast.

With this system, casting a spell requires your entire turn until BAB 6. Beyond BAB 6, casters gain an extra partial action and an extra immediate action, allowing for basic movement and quickened spellcasting in the same round.

For full casters, this is where it ends, but for partial casters with 11+ BAB, stuff like spellcasting + attacking in the same round becomes possible. As long as the once/round restriction on spellcasting is upheld (barring Quickened Spells), it should remain pretty balanced.

With that out of the way, I would also get rid of the distinction between 0 BAB characters and 1 BAB characters, so Level 1 casters aren't totally screwed by this system.


Small error, there is no minimum action to cast a spell with my version of the rules. I'd have to add another partial action or some such specifically for spellcasting, or add it's action to one of the components. The first option (adding another partial action requirement) makes spellcasting pretty rough for casters, since they won't be able to cast spells with multiple components until BAB 6.

An alternative for the second option (adding the "casting" partial action to another component) would be to combine the action requirements of other components. Namely, combining somatic components/attack rolls with the material/focus components. This way, casting will always be relegated to a partial action, and the use of metamagic to erase components makes a bit more sense.

In other words, Casting a spell with S, V, M/DF components takes the following actions:

1 partial action - Somatic + Material/Focus components
1 immediate action - Verbal Components
1 partial action - "Spell Casting"

Use of "Silent Spell" Metamagic erases the immediate action expenditure.

Use of "Still Spell" Metamagic erases the partial action expenditure, but only for spells that have no Material or Focus components.

Minimum cast time w/ no components = 1 partial action.

@ BAB 6+ the caster gains an extra partial action, which can be used for movement, and an extra immediate action, which can be used for quickened spells and other things.

Speaking of Quickened Spells, it might be nice to add Still Spell metamagic and Silent Spell Metamagic as prerequisite feats. This way, in effect, all Quickened Spells are cast without components, with a minimum cast time of a single immediate action.

This split could be further simplified by classifying material/focus components as the same as, or a subset of, somatic components. In this case, spells that require expensive Material/Focus components would be ineligible for use with Still Spell and Quicken Spell.

I think this is a pretty good solution that makes a lot of sense with the action rules you've already written. What do you think?


I like where you're headed!


If you like it, can I get a call out as a Beta Proofreader or something? I'd love to be able to attach my name to this project.

At any rate, I really like the second idea:

S/M/F Components = 1 Partial Action
V Components = 1 Immediate Action
Spell "Assembly" = 1 Partial Action

Between BAB +0 and BAB +5, a spellcaster has to devote their entire turn towards casting a spell with multiple components. But as soon as they reach BAB +6, they effectively revert to standard Pathfinder rules on spellcasting, which should make transition from Pathfinder to Kirthfinder easier.

Plus, partial casters benefit, as they get a built in Spell Combat @ BAB +11. But even regular casters can achieve something similar by using metamagic to erase the action cost of specific components. It also gels nicely with Spell-Like Abilities, which have no components.

I also like the idea of having Quickened Spells use Silent & Still spell as prerequisites, but then also include their effects of getting rid of components.

This means that all Quickened Spells effectively only require mental actions, and thus spells like Surmount Affliction become a hell of a lot more useful.


Kaouse wrote:
Between BAB +0 and BAB +5, a spellcaster has to devote their entire turn towards casting a spell with multiple components. But as soon as they reach BAB +6, they effectively revert to standard Pathfinder rules on spellcasting, which should make transition from Pathfinder to Kirthfinder easier.

I'm on the fence, but could be persuaded.

Kaouse wrote:
Plus, partial casters benefit, as they get a built in Spell Combat @ BAB +11.

This is something I like a lot.

Kaouse wrote:
It also gels nicely with Spell-Like Abilities, which have no components.

This I'm not so crazy about, since KF hands out SLAs like they're going out of style. Also, you do NOT want monsters activating a SLA and a quickened SLA and still biting and/or constricting or swallowing you or whatever -- the CR system wouldn't take it.

Kaouse wrote:
I also like the idea of having Quickened Spells use Silent & Still spell as prerequisites, but then also include their effects of getting rid of components. This means that all Quickened Spells effectively only require mental actions, and thus spells like Surmount Affliction become a hell of a lot more useful.

That sounds pretty good, actually. Let me look at some examples and see how it would work.


If the only issue you have is an inflation of the CR system, how about changing the CR system to reflect a monster's increased CR as a result of added spellcasting ability? You could go one step further and apply such things to the characters as well, where stuff like spell capacity, Base Attack Bonus (1/2, 3/4, 1/1), and Hit Dice (d4, d6, d8, d10, d12) are given certain values that correspond to a set amount of CR.

In the case of spell capacity (which would obviously be worth more that BAB or HD), you could also include a value that corresponds to spell versatility (prepared spells, spells known, preset [i.e. SLAs] spells). This gives GMs additional tools in their disposal to alter existing monsters or set guidelines to curtail strong PCs.

For example:
BAB: 1/1 = CR +0
BAB: 3/4 = CR - 1/2
BAB: 1/2 = CR - 1

HD: d12 = CR +1/2
HD: d10 = CR +0
HD: d8 = CR -1/2
HD: d6 = CR -1
HD: d4 = CR -3/2

Spell Capacity
SC: 20/20 = CR: +5/2
SC: 15/20 = CR: +2
SC: 10/20 = CR: +3/2

Spell Versatility
Prepared = CR +00
Known = CR -1/2
Preset = CR -1

Thus, some examples:
Fighter = CR +0
Wizard = CR +0
Sorcerer = CR +0
Rogue = CR +1/2
Monk = CR +1

Things become a little bit more hairy with stuff like the Rogue's Skill Tricks and the Monk's Ki Powers. To make those guys fit into this paradigm we have to introduce another category: Spell Restrictions

In this case:
Bigger spell list = CR +1/2
Smaller spell list = CR -1/2
Restricted Casting = CR -1/2
Semi-Unrestricted Casting = CR +1/2

The rogue has to deal with a smaller spell list, as well as both restricted casting (cannot use metamagic) and unrestricted casting (infinite casts/day). The monk doesn't really get infinite casts per day in the same way, but does have to deal with the smaller spell list and also cannot make use of metamagic. Thus, both the monk and the Rogue are reduced to CR +0. Note that the specialist wizard deals with both a smaller spell list (due to restricted schools) and a bigger spell list (since they can take specialist spells from any list) so there's no change on their front.

The real problem, of course, is the Cleric. It's at CR +3/2 class normally. If we say that the divine spell list is smaller than our baseline (the wizard spell list) and institute a restriction based on alignment, then it's only reduced to CR +1/2, rather than CR +0. But given the cleric's weaker class features, perhaps that is alright. Plus, the Barbarian is also at CR +1/2 under this system. Though one can argue that it has to deal with it's own restrictions. And if we're being honest, then enemy clerics and enemy barbarians are generally harder to take down than enemy wizards and enemy fighters, at least within the early levels where the CR system is at its best.

At any rate, this system is meant to be a guide, and I think I did a good job with making things fit. What do you think?

Under this system, adding a racial suite of SLAs to a monster increases their CR by 1.5 (+2.5 CR from 20/20 Spell capacity, -1 CR from spells being preset & unchanging). Does that sound about right to you?


Not sure if this is a typo or a mechanics change... Mark of the Wild in the Druid description gives +2 HD as a +1 CR adjustment. The Dire Lion conversion notes in the Bestiary->Animal->Cat section notes that +1 CR is +3 HD. Haven't dug through enough other conversion notes to see if it's repeated.

Edit: Mythical Wolf -> Legendary Wolf and Tiger -> Dire Tiger both have the same 3 HD/+1 CR.
Additionally, a number of creatures call out Uncanny Dodge/Improved in their stat block... Is that simply a notation that Alertness + their perception ranks are providing that effect?


Also, Kirth, if you're still on the fence about the action economy changes to spellcasting based on spell components, note that this means that spellcasters have to put a bit more thought into which spells they cast, as certain spells will come with an inherent advantage of less components, and therefore less actions required to cast the spell.

This also helps differentiate spells with costly material components, since they wouldn't be applicable for use with Still Spell (nor, by extension, Quicken Spell), and thus such spells will always have a substantial opportunity cost.

It also makes Still Spell useful for Divine casters, where previously it's only real benefit was allowing you to cast in armor without arcane spell failure (which really shouldn't exist anymore, IMHO).

In fact, specific build choices matter more now for mages of all calibers. You can't just take Quicken Spell and be done with it. You have to build up into it. It now takes up a substantial portion of a caster's build.

Speaking of which, it also serves as a rite of passage for casters that helps to differentiate high level casters from low level casters. What a high level mage can pull off with an immediate action (Quickened Spell) and a partial action (Silent + Still Spell) would require lower level mages two full turns to accomplish. And while the lower level casters required ancient gestures and ominous latin chanting, the higher level caster did both with but a thought.

If you remain unconvinced, by all means let me know exactly what issues remain for you so that I may be better equipped in subsequent attempts to persuade you.


River of Sticks wrote:
Not sure if this is a typo or a mechanics change... Mark of the Wild in the Druid description gives +2 HD as a +1 CR adjustment. The Dire Lion conversion notes in the Bestiary->Animal->Cat section notes that +1 CR is +3 HD. Haven't dug through enough other conversion notes to see if it's repeated.

The original thought was to try and keep pets from totally dominating the battlefield by virtue of sheet HD (and the feats thus gained), but I suspect the overall effect of +1/3 vs. +1/2 will be small except at very high levels (at which mundane animals aren't really a threat anyway).

River of Sticks wrote:
Additionally, a number of creatures call out Uncanny Dodge/Improved in their stat block... Is that simply a notation that Alertness + their perception ranks are providing that effect?

Yes, exactly. I tried to put the stuff into the stat blocks that I would want to be easily able to reference when running an encounter (I cut-and-paste directly from the Bestiary into my written adventures).


Kaouse wrote:
Also, Kirth, if you're still on the fence about the action economy changes to spellcasting based on spell components, note that this means that spellcasters have to put a bit more thought into which spells they cast, as certain spells will come with an inherent advantage of less components, and therefore less actions required to cast the spell...

All very solid points. I've been on a spree of monster conversions, but when my attention wanders back to the Combat rules, I will most definitely be reading your posts here very carefully in the process.


Ona side note, a previous playtest of the Lycanthrope racial class ended poorly: in essence, the player concluded that he was better off as a single-classed barbarian or druid. In light of that, an amendment might look as follows:

Spoiler:
Saving Throws: Lycanthropes gain a +2 class bonus to Fortitude, Reflex, and Intuition saves.

Bonus Skills: Lycanthropes gain 1 free rank per class level in Athletics, Endurance, Perception, Stealth, and Survival. These are otherwise treated as class skills.
Other Class Skills: Acrobatics, Concentration.
Skill Points per Level: 2 + Int modifier.
Weapon and Armor Proficiencies: Lycanthropes are proficient with their natural weapons. They gain Canny Defense as a bonus feat, but receive no additional weapon or armor proficiencies.

Animal Form (Su): Once per day you can take a standard action to assume the form of an animal. This works similarly to the beast shape I spell, except that if you use the ability at night, it lasts as long as desired or until dawn, whichever comes first. The type of animal depends on the type of lycanthrope you are: werebear—Medium black bear; wereboar—Medium boar; weretiger—Medium cat; wererat—Small dire rat; werewolf—Medium wolf. Starting at 5th level, you can take the form of a Large animal of the appropriate type (e.g., a brown bear, dire boar, or dire wolf) or Tiny animal (rat), as if under the effects of a beast shape II spell (except for the duration).

Damage Reduction (Ex): Starting at 1st level, you gain damage reduction 5/silver when in animal form. At 2nd level, you have DR 5/silver in your human form, and DR 10/silver in animal or hybrid form.

Natural Armor (Ex): Your natural armor bonus increases by +1 per lycanthrope class level you possess. The maximum such bonus in humanoid form is +2; in animal or hybrid form (see below), you receive the full bonus.

Scent (Ex): Starting at 1st level, you gain the scent special quality (you gain the effects of this quality in your humanoid and hybrid forms, not just in your animal form).

Hybrid Form (Su): Starting at 2nd level, you can assume an animal-like humanoid form as a move action. While in this form, you gain a bite or gore attack (base damage 1d6). Starting at 3rd level, your hybrid form also has two claw or slam attacks (base damage 1d4). You can wield weapons while in hybrid form (treating your natural attacks as secondary weapons), but cannot cast spells with verbal components, nor use bardic inspirations that require singing or chanting, unless you also have the Natural Spell feat (q.v.).
While in hybrid form, you receive a profane bonus to your physical attributes (Str, Dex, and Con) equal to your lycanthrope class level.
You can spend a maximum number of rounds per day in hybrid form equal to twice your lycanthrope class level + your (hybrid) Constitution bonus.

Moon Magic (Ex): Lycanthrope levels provide Weak theurgy to any existing druid, ranger, wizard (transmuter), or sorcerer (Bestial bloodline only) spellcasting progression you possess, or to your rogue skill trick progression (if any).

Savagery (Ex): At 2nd, 4th, and 6th levels, you gain a bonus feat appropriate to your animal type, chosen from the list below. In animal or hybrid form, you need not meet the prerequisites to use the feat in question.

 Bear: Fast Recovery, Giant’s Stance, Improved Grapple and grab, Improved Natural Armor, Improved Natural Attack, Power Attack, Toughness, Two-Weapon Strike,
 Boar: Cleave, Defiance, Diehard, Fast Recovery, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Critical (gore), Improved Natural Armor, Improved Overrun, Power Attack, Skirmish, Toughness, Vital Strike.
 Rat: Ability Focus (disease), Combat Expertise, Dodge, Fast Recovery, Improved Feint, Improved Weapon Maneuvers, Toughness, Unclean Strike, Weapon Finesse.
 Tiger: Bleeding Strike, Combat Reflexes, Crippling Strike, Fast Recovery, Improved Grapple, Improved Initiative, Improved Natural Attack, Skill Focus, Skirmish, Weapon Specialization (claws).
 Wolf: Dodge, Fast Recovery, Favored Terrain (plains), Improved Critical (bite), Improved Flanking, Improved Trip, Maneuvering Strike (trip). In place of a feat, you can select sneak attack +1d6 (you may select this more than once to increase the bonus).
Lists for other animal types (for unusual lycanthropes) can be developed similarly.

Class Synergy (Ex): Starting at 3rd level, your bestial nature bolsters the strengths you already possess. Your lycanthrope class levels provide Strong synergy to the following:

 Barbarian: The level of rage of which you are capable, and the number of rounds per day your rage can be used.
 Bard: Your college, and the number of rounds per day your bardic inspiration can be used.
 Cleric or Archivist: Animal or Moon domain powers.
 Druid: Moonspeaker or Wild Shaper druid initiation abilities (both in terms of gaining new powers and the level at which those powers function).
 Fighter: Effective fighter level for determining the effects of level-dependent talents, and weapon training bonus.
 Incarnate: Nature or Rage revelations (both in terms of gaining new revelations, and when determining the effects of existing ones). In the case of a barbarian/Rage incarnate/lycanthrope, keep in mind that synergy to your effective incarnate level does not also improve your barbarian synergy from incarnate levels (as described in Chapter 1).
 Monk: Effective monk level for determining sutra improvements. In addition, your unarmed mastery and ki attack abilities apply to your natural attacks as if they were unarmed attacks.
 Ranger: Effective ranger level for determining the effects of level-dependent lore, and quarry bonus.
 Rogue: Effective rogue level for determining the effects of level-dependent talents, and sneak attack progression.
 Sorcerer: Bestial bloodline powers (both in terms of gaining new powers and the level at which those powers function).
 Wizard: Transmutation school bonus, and Transmutation school powers (both in terms of effects and powers gained).

Curse of Lycanthrope (Su): Starting at 3rd level, your bite in animal or hybrid form inflicts lycanthropy (Fortitude DC 15 negates). If the victim's size is not within one size category of yours, this ability has no effect.

Large (Ex): Starting at 5th level, your animal and hybrid forms are Large sized. The damage from your natural attacks improves by 1 die type (bite 1d8, claws 1d6), your natural armor bonus increases by +3, and you gain a +2 size bonus to Strength and Constitution while in those forms. At 6th level, the bonus to Strength and Constitution increases to +4.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I guess I’ll get to see if I take time learning Kirthfinder or PF2E now. :)


I'm already mentally preparing myself for disappointment when PF 2E comes out.

Hopefully by then my suggestions would have been added to KF, and I get to add KF onto my resume (you know, if the world turns upside down and I randomly decide to go into game development or something for no apparent reason).


Re: SLAs with no verbal or somatic components, for now I'd recommend simply applying Still Spell and Silent Spell to normal spells. A more complex CR system is an excellent goal, but it leads directly to where I've been shying away from -- scrapping the level-based system in favor of a point-buy one. (I prefer point-buy systems, but I'm in a minority.)


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Re: SLAs with no verbal or somatic components, for now I'd recommend simply applying Still Spell and Silent Spell to normal spells. A more complex CR system is an excellent goal, but it leads directly to where I've been shying away from -- scrapping the level-based system in favor of a point-buy one. (I prefer point-buy systems, but I'm in a minority.)

I feel regarding point buys that they can be okay, but if you're going to use a point buy system and throw out levels entirely, you should be playing a different game rather than homebrewing Pathfinder.


Warriorking9001 wrote:
if you're going to use a point buy system and throw out levels entirely, you should be playing a different game rather than homebrewing Pathfinder.

Yes, indeed. Although a 3.5/PF-compatible point-buy game that actually functioned would be cool...


Kaouse wrote:
Hopefully by then my suggestions would have been added to KF, and I get to add KF onto my resume...

Hell, I don't even get to add KF to my resume!

Renee Zellwinger, in Bee Movie wrote:
I was looking at your resume and I don't really think "eat with chopsticks" is a special skill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Warriorking9001 wrote:
if you're going to use a point buy system and throw out levels entirely, you should be playing a different game rather than homebrewing Pathfinder.
Yes, indeed. Although a 3.5/PF-compatible point-buy game that actually functioned would be cool...

Eclipse: The Codex Persona is a good effort. I'd check that out if I were you. It requires a lot of studying, though (more than Mutants and Masterminds, I hear).

On the 2e discussion:
Personally, it seems Kirthfinder's action economy format (with the release of the combat chapter) is moving closer to PF's Unchained action economy anyway (with 3 acts).
Add that to Kirthfinder's parry rules and unified maneuvers, as well as incremental casting in PF2e (Cure Wounds with 1 action heals touch, 2 actions heals range, 3 actions heals burst), and it's easy to imagine that Kirthfinder works better under PF2e.


Hi I'm back again and unsure about something..

It seems that whilst I was gone the Reload mechanic was changed, and something called a Partial action got introduced.. Could you explain to me what the new action economy means?


Check the Combat Chapter (newly released, ch7) for an explanation of the new action economy system


It's not even that new, more an (only partially successful) effort to standardize a bewildering sea of nomenclature and non-uniform mechanics.

  • We had flanking, Aid Another, attacks of opportunity, immediate actions, swift actions, etc. Those are all one thing (immediate actions) now.
  • We had move actions, "move-equivalent" actions, 5-ft. steps, iterative attacks, and so on. Those are all one thing (partial actions) now.

    And that's pretty much it.


  • DM Shade wrote:
    Eclipse: The Codex Persona is a good effort. I'd check that out if I were you. It requires a lot of studying, though (more than Mutants and Masterminds, I hear).

    Sounds to be worth looking at -- thank you.

    Re: the action system and Unchained: most of Ch 7 was written before PU was released, and I still haven't bought or read Unchained, so any similarities are purely coincidental (or, more likely, examples of convergent evolution).


    So, still converting monsters, and this one jumped out at me:

    SCYTALIS (CR 12).
    You can buy one as a pet on the open market for 8,000 gp (or 5,000, if you don't mind waiting for it to hatch).
    This is a monster equal in power to a guy who can resurrect the dead, and it costs the same as a +2 sword. That would maybe be appropriate for a relatively harmless snake that can use hypnotic pattern 1/day (which is the basic monster concept here), but that would be a CR 3 concept.

    The people writing these things have absolutely not the vaguest idea in the world what CR means, do they?

    Because CR is a log scale, they've got a basic monster that is literally twenty-four times more powerful than its concept suggests.

    (For what it's worth, I easily knocked one down to CR 6 by reducing HD to 8 and making slightly more realistic stats, and I still wouldn't let you buy one. An (Advanced, elder) scytalis one like in the Bestiary 5 would weigh in at CR 9 (rather than 12), and I sure as hell wouldn't allow anyone to buy one for mundane coins.)

    Shadow Lodge

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    The people writing these things have absolutely not the vaguest idea in the world what CR means, do they?

    Of course they do. They just don't treat it the same way, because the GM can do whatever they want.


    TOZ wrote:
    Of course they do. They just don't treat it the same way, because the GM can do whatever they want.

    (Nods) And hence things like "character level" and "CR" are totally meaningless to them. Yeah. Which is why a 20th level fighter is "totally equal" to a 20th level wizard.

    But if that's what people want, why not get rid of the numbers altogether? It would be a lot more honest that way.

    Shadow Lodge

    Because the numbers tell them what adventures they can include them in, and how hard it should be for the PCs expected to be playing that adventure to handle it. That's not meaningless, it's just not the meaning you are expecting. The sooner you stop expecting them to write it how you think they should write it the happier you will be.

    I mean, I'm sure 2E will make it clearer, but until then, there you have it.


    TOZ wrote:
    That's not meaningless

    Flying snake that hypnotizes prey = person who can resurrect the dead = 5,000 gp value for one as pet?

    Shadow Lodge

    Again, that's not the meaning they are using. You are ascribing the wrong meaning to it.

    It's entirely reasonable to say it SHOULD be the meaning used, but the reality is that it isn't.

    3,451 to 3,500 of 3,816 << first < prev | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 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.