Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft Houserules


Homebrew and House Rules

3,751 to 3,787 of 3,787 << first < prev | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | next > last >>

Vil-hatarn wrote:
1. enhancement (2nd) + Item-Specific (rays; -2) + Augment (+1) + Extend (min/lvl to round/lvl) = 0th

When you Augment a spell to, in essence, Heighten the effects, the intent was that it would work similarly to Reduce Spell -- i.e., get applied at the end (except for Restrict Spell, which is really the only thing you should be able to tack on afterwards). Otherwise, you'd do Enhancement (2nd) + Augment (+1/4 to +1/3; +1) + Item-Specific (-2) + Extend (-1), and have a 0-level spell that acts as if it were 5th.

I see that I definitely have some clarifications to make to the text; thank you very much for your help in finding them!


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Vil-hatarn wrote:

How can the "not really a feat" metamagic options such as Creature-Specific Spell be applied during spell preparation (such as the use above for the effect-contingent damage)? Does it have to be part of a full pre-modified spell, or can it be added without a feat like an Augment?

When Cascading spells with different saves, do I pick which one applies?

As noted in its description, Creature-Specific Spell exists in order to make it possible to reverse-engineer a lot of existing spells. It's not really intended for player use, and would have to be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis. For example, it would be totally inappropriate to make all your buff spells Creature-Specific (humanoids) for, basically, a free -2 level discount on all of them.

Of course; in that specific case, would it be fair to consider it as a special variation on Cascade, seeing as it modifies the way the spells interact with each other?

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Vil-hatarn wrote:
1. enhancement (2nd) + Item-Specific (rays; -2) + Augment (+1) + Extend (min/lvl to round/lvl) = 0th

When you Augment a spell to, in essence, Heighten the effects, the intent was that it would work similarly to Reduce Spell -- i.e., get applied at the end (except for Restrict Spell, which is really the only thing you should be able to tack on afterwards). Otherwise, you'd do Enhancement (2nd) + Augment (+1/4 to +1/3; +1) + Item-Specific (-2) + Extend (-1), and have a 0-level spell that acts as if it were 5th.

I see that I definitely have some clarifications to make to the text; thank you very much for your help in finding them!

May I request a further clarification, in that case--does this apply equally to Augment Spell (the feat) and Augment (options built into the spell seed)? My intention there was to use the latter (+1 spell level for a flat +1 enhancement), rather than (as in your example) the former (+1 spell level to increase Heightened effect by one step).

Or, for another example which I believe caused me some confusion earlier--for the bind seed, must you apply Fell Entangling before Augmenting for a grapple/pin effect? I was under the impression Fell Entangling had to come after the Augment, as its effects depend on which condition the modified spell inflicts.

May follow up later with a closer look at sources of attack/damage bonuses and yet another attempt to make a targeting add-on spell, am curious now how they all stack up.


Power out again today, but back on line now.

Was thinking more about the dispelling of spell slots. Compare:

Compel ("dump highest spell") = 2nd level; save or spend next turn intentionally fizzling your highest-level spell/spell slot.

Dispel (0 level) + Reach Spell (touch to close; +1 level) + Shape Spell (ray to target; +0 levels) = 1st level; opposed Concentration check or lose highest spell slot (no loss of actions).

Granted, losing a turn is a VERY big deal, but the fact that it's [mind-affecting] to some extent counterbalances that. So with that in mind, is it worth more than +1 spell level?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not exhaustive, but here's a few thoughts. One way to look at it is compel "waste highest spell" ~= compel "do nothing" + Cascade dispel (+1) + Reach (touch to close; +1) + Creature-Specific Spell (spellcaster; -2).

1. compel "waste highest spell" is slightly worse than the Cascade construction since it depends entirely on a Will check which most spellcasters will have an above-average chance of passing, compared to roughly even odds on a Concentration check.
2. 'spellcaster' may not be specific enough to justify a -2 reduction?
3. the overwhelming majority of spellcasters are not immune to [mind-affecting] so that's not a major factor.
4. whether or not a turn is lost, and how that's valued, is a major factor.
5. whether the drain effect is an effective trade of resources is also a key factor.

For dispel alone, as you have it here, (and this depends partly on whether the Concentration check for drain incorporates the relative spell levels, which I'm still unsure about), you can also consider the calculus of when it's better as a counterspell vs. drain. Counterspell has the advantage of causing loss of a turn, but can only affect spells of equal or lower level, whereas a level 1 drain spell can strip a level 9 spell, assuming you're closely matched enough to make the Concentration check. However, by the time this level differential is large enough to offer any value, your target has so many spell slots as to render the drain effect a completely ineffectual use of a turn (this goes double if they're spontaneous, as it removes the chance of hitting a specific high-value spell). So, as I outlined before, you turn to Mass Effect (if allowed), which gives you a 4th level spell (Reach1, Mass3) that drains 1 slot/level, and that seems problematic to the other extreme.


For the same cost, Extend the compulsion version to 1 min./level -- lose 70 spell slots, plus that many turns.

Re: Will saves, yes, casters tend to have them. The intent of this system is that they should absolutely need fighter friends, too, to spend immediate actions to intercept rays targeting them.


Guess I just don't have a great sense for Kirthfinder's target power level for spells above 4th or 5th, both of those effects are pretty scary. Will have to do some theorizing with drain to see where the sweet spot is (definitely not as a standalone or single slot effect), figure out whether it's worth spending a feat or two on Concentration or dispelling buffs. Any chance we could get an Improved X feat for spell draining to match Countering/Dispelling (or extend the effects of Dispelling to drain, if possible)?

For most non-damage and non-Reflex effects, it seems the only reason you'd use ray instead of target would be if you were building off the seed and lacked Shape Spell? I haven't looked at the particulars of what fighters can do in that regard (other than smacking said caster around), so maybe I'm just missing something.


A character with at least one immediate action and enough movement left over can, even when it's not his turn, interpose himself between an ally and an incoming ranged attack.


Vil-hatarn wrote:

1. Any chance we could get an Improved X feat for spell draining to match Countering/Dispelling (or extend the effects of Dispelling to drain, if possible)?

2. For most non-damage and non-Reflex effects, it seems the only reason you'd use ray instead of target would be if you were building off the seed and lacked Shape Spell?

1. Offhand I don't see why not. I'll think on that.

2. Ray of enfeeblement is a good example; 1d6+10 no save has a chance of making a warrior too weak to wear his own armor, but with Fort save and it's only a minor impediment. Also, the intent was that Shaping a ray effect with Save: Partial to a target would reset it to Save Neg. (e.g., Reach damage attribute); not sure if that language ever made it in. I'll check when I get a few minutes in a row to actually concentrate on stuff!


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Vil-hatarn wrote:

1. Any chance we could get an Improved X feat for spell draining to match Countering/Dispelling (or extend the effects of Dispelling to drain, if possible)?

2. For most non-damage and non-Reflex effects, it seems the only reason you'd use ray instead of target would be if you were building off the seed and lacked Shape Spell?

1. Offhand I don't see why not. I'll think on that.

2. Ray of enfeeblement is a good example; 1d6+10 no save has a chance of making a warrior too weak to wear his own armor, but with Fort save and it's only a minor impediment. Also, the intent was that Shaping a ray effect with Save: Partial to a target would reset it to Save Neg. (e.g., Reach damage attribute); not sure if that language ever made it in. I'll check when I get a few minutes in a row to actually concentrate on stuff!

The main interaction I'm aware of is that Shaping a target spell to a ray removes the Reflex save, if any (e.g. bind), but not other save types (noted in area-of-effect notes in C8 introduction). I'm not sure going in the opposite direction is covered anywhere.


Question on Phantasmal Spell

Benefit: The effects of a Phantasmal spell are not
real. Those potentially affected receive an Intuition
save to avoid all effects entirely. If this save is failed;
the target is subject to the original spell (and can roll
an additional, normal saving throw against that spell,
if applicable), and also suffers 3d6 nonlethal damage.
The school of the spell changes to Illusion.
Metamagic Cost: -1 level.

So the way I understand it, this spell grants an additional save for the character, giving them an extra chance to avoid the ill effects.

One of my players have been wondering about the extents to which this spell can be applied, and I'm wondering what happens when it interacts with some spells.

Ex: Explosive runes or some other damage spell: Is the 3d6 nonlethal damage on TOP of the normal damage of the spell? If so, how do you reconcile this not insignificant boost of damage with the reduction to spell level?

Ex 2: Buffing spells: how it it work with beneficial spells? What about spells that don't necessarily have a positive or negative effect, like other illusion spells (Such as major image)

My gut instinct tells me this spell could greatly benefit from clarified wording as well as restrictions for what kind of spells it can be applied to. This is enforced by looking at Shadow Spell, which in many ways, is strictly worse that its prerequisite Phantasmal Spell.


Clarified wording is something I'm always in favor of,
I'm in the process of revising Shadow Spell, and I'll look at Phantasmal Spell next.

Thanks!


Tarek Alatrach GRC wrote:


Ex 1: Explosive runes or some other damage spell: Is the 3d6 nonlethal damage on TOP of the normal damage of the spell? If so, how do you reconcile this not insignificant boost of damage with the reduction to spell level?

Ex 2: Buffing spells: how it it work with beneficial spells? What about spells that don't necessarily have a positive or negative effect, like other illusion spells (Such as major image)

My gut instinct tells me this spell could greatly benefit from clarified wording as well as restrictions for what kind of spells it can be applied to. This is enforced by looking at Shadow Spell, which in many ways, is strictly worse that its prerequisite Phantasmal Spell.

In the meantime, some quick answers to your specific questions:

1. Yes, in addition. And no, I don't see a problem, because if you make the save against normal explosive runes, you still take half damage. If you make the Intuition save against phantasmal runes, there is no effect at all, and even if you fail it you're still entitled to the Reflex save.

2. I wouldn't apply this to beneficial spells; why force your allies to take 3d6 damage for a buff?


I was curious for the purposes of Monk multiclassing with a fighter for example would 3 fighter with ascetic warrior/ 1 monk give me my first 1d6 of unarmed mastery?

Also if I multiclass into 4 fighter/1 monk/ 1 incarnate and take the sacred fist sutra would my fighter's ascetic warrior scale the sutra to an effective level of 4 for scaling my incarnate revelations?


Obligator wrote:
Also if I multiclass into 4 fighter/1 monk/ 1 incarnate and take the sacred fist sutra would my fighter's ascetic warrior scale the sutra to an effective level of 4 for scaling my incarnate revelations?

No -- Chapter 1 (Under "Class Synergy") has detailed rules, with examples, as to how that works.


New favorite spell base: electric arc + Conductive + Cascade a status effect. Replacing the Reflex save with the status effect's save lets you target non-Dex-based defenses (otherwise challenging for some spell lists e.g. evokers), and Conductive provides a major boost to your success rate against most humanoid enemies. The status effect improves the effectiveness of your allies (especially rogues) and may help further spells connect. Scales well to higher levels with Mass Effect or Shape for more targets, and/or by modifying the secondary effect.

Electrocute: electric arc [0th] + Conductive [+1] + Cascade (inertia + Residual Spell) [+1] = 2nd level, close range, target suffers 1d6/level (max 10d6) electricity damage, is flat-footed for 1 round, and treats all terrain as difficult for 1 round/level. Fortitude half and negates status effects, at +4 DC vs. metallic foes, metal weapons or armor.

Also, was looking at Cascade in prebuilt spells to make sure instantaneous damage+status effects worked around the duration matching of Cascade Spell (e.g. shout) and believe I found an error: stinking cloud includes a -1 for Extend Spell (fog, 1 min/level to 1 round/level) but the fog effect would have already been reduced to 1 round/level when it was Cascaded with sickening touch, and it can't be reduced prior to Cascading because it would result in a negative spell level.


Vil-hatarn wrote:
Electrocute: electric arc [0th] + Conductive [+1] + Cascade (inertia + Residual Spell) [+1] = 2nd level, close range, target suffers 1d6/level (max 10d6) electricity damage, is flat-footed for 1 round, and treats all terrain as difficult for 1 round/level. Fortitude half and negates status effects, at +4 DC vs. metallic foes, metal weapons or armor.

Residual is +1 level, as is Cascade (inertia), so that's provisionally a 3rd level spell, not 2nd. I mean, yes, you could claim that you're Cascading a (1st level) Resisualized inertia, but that smacks of gaming the system unless you've recorded that 1st level modified spell in your spellbooks like that, as one of your spells known.

Stumble = Inertia (0 level) + Residual Spell (+1 level) = 1st level; target flat-footed one round and treats all squares as difficult terrain for 1 rd./level. Spend numen to add to spellbooks. Then:

Electrocute = Electric arc (0 level) + Conductive Spell (+1 level) + Cascade Spell (stumble; +1 level) = 2nd level.

Quote:
Also, was looking at Cascade in prebuilt spells to make sure instantaneous damage+status effects worked around the duration matching of Cascade Spell (e.g. shout) and believe I found an error: stinking cloud includes a -1 for Extend Spell (fog, 1 min/level to 1 round/level) but the fog effect would have already been reduced to 1 round/level when it was Cascaded with sickening touch, and it can't be reduced prior to Cascading because it would result in a negative spell level.

Thanks! I'll edit that on Monday.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, that was actually my intention, I was calling it hinder. It's a bit of a non-bo as augmenting past staggered renders the terrain effect irrelevant unless you've made it an area effect, but it's cheap and will be useful for quite a while (raising to extended stagger results in alternative slow) so makes much more sense than trying to pick up the feat itself.


My latest project, now that the Spells Grimoire is >300 pages long, is grouping the spells that do almost the same thing. For example, there are over a dozen minor variations on sanctaury alone. Rather than listing them all individually alphabetically, I'm now listing the main spell (Sanctuary), then describing the variations as a bullet list under that entry.

Advantages: If you kind of have an idea what you want a spell to do, this format gives you all the variations at your fingertips. It also cuts way down on the amount of cross-referencing, which was getting ridiculous.

Disadvantage: If you want to look up a specific spell, you might need to use the Search function instead of just scrolling for it alphabetically.


Sounds like an improvement to me! Almost all of my time in the grimoire was looking for ideas for modifying spell seeds I already have, so that arrangement will be far more efficient.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Tarek Alatrach GRC wrote:


Ex 1: Explosive runes or some other damage spell: Is the 3d6 nonlethal damage on TOP of the normal damage of the spell? If so, how do you reconcile this not insignificant boost of damage with the reduction to spell level?

Ex 2: Buffing spells: how it it work with beneficial spells? What about spells that don't necessarily have a positive or negative effect, like other illusion spells (Such as major image)

My gut instinct tells me this spell could greatly benefit from clarified wording as well as restrictions for what kind of spells it can be applied to. This is enforced by looking at Shadow Spell, which in many ways, is strictly worse that its prerequisite Phantasmal Spell.

In the meantime, some quick answers to your specific questions:

1. Yes, in addition. And no, I don't see a problem, because if you make the save against normal explosive runes, you still take half damage. If you make the Intuition save against phantasmal runes, there is no effect at all, and even if you fail it you're still entitled to the Reflex save.

2. I wouldn't apply this to beneficial spells; why force your allies to take 3d6 damage for a buff?

The issue I had was that phantasmal spell reduced the spell level. This allows a significant potential increase to the number of buff or damage spells that one can cast. 3d6 nonlethal damage is much more easily dealt with as a penalty as non lethal damage heals at a much faster rate than lethal damage. Either way, my bigger concern is that shadowspell is worse in many, if not most ways to phantasmal spell.


Is there any way to make a Soulknife have access to the Monk's list of Ki Powers? The only opening I can find is to use Ranger lore to commit a hop-scotch violation.


Tahlreth wrote:
Is there any way to make a Soulknife have access to the Monk's list of Ki Powers? The only opening I can find is to use Ranger lore to commit a hop-scotch violation.

That's a great idea!


Tarek Alatrach GRC wrote:
Either way, my bigger concern is that shadowspell is worse in many, if not most ways to phantasmal spell.

Shadow spell should probably be +1 to Illusions, -1 to others. Will work on it.


Here's where I am:

  • Clerics and druids gain their spells by domain, a la 2e.
  • Cults have been massively updated and expanded. No DM will have trouble about introducing a cult of just about any evil power as campaign villains.
  • Spells Grimoire is being massively updated to put like spells together.
  • I will update the Incarnate (as I have the cleric) when I get the chance.
  • Accursed Spell is split into 2 feats: Hex Spell to make bonuses into penalties (+0 levels); Accursed for anti-dispel and cheap maintenance (+1 level).
  • "Positive Conditions" are now a thing. If you Extend a remove condition to reduce [fear] by 1 step, and if the spell recipients aren't under a [fear] condition, they become "emboldened" instead. There's a lot of work to be done on this concept, but I love it, and it's a thing.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Tahlreth wrote:
Is there any way to make a Soulknife have access to the Monk's list of Ki Powers? The only opening I can find is to use Ranger lore to commit a hop-scotch violation.
That's a great idea!

Wait, so performing hop-scotch for numerical bonuses isn't allowed, but performing hop-scotch for non-numerical benefits is legal? Neat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tahlreth wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Tahlreth wrote:
Is there any way to make a Soulknife have access to the Monk's list of Ki Powers? The only opening I can find is to use Ranger lore to commit a hop-scotch violation.
That's a great idea!
Wait, so performing hop-scotch for numerical bonuses isn't allowed, but performing hop-scotch for non-numerical benefits is legal? Neat.

No, I mean directly opening some ki powers to the Soulknife specifically, legally.


Does natural armor from racial classes stack?


Kaouse wrote:
Does natural armor from racial classes stack?

Yes, unless noted otherwise.


Well, that certainly helps my Vampire Lich build. I'm amazed at how well he approximates Castlevania's Dracula. Though there was the one snag - his compatriot, Death.

Throughout his levels, my Vampire Lich gains access to Command Undead, Leadership, and Thaumaturgy. All of these give access to a cohort/familiar, with all of them being pretty liberal as to what you can choose. The best approximation for Dracula's companion, Death, would be a Grim Reaper. As an extraplanar undead, a Grim Reaper basically checks all of the boxes. The only problem is it's CR of 22. Th
is makes it impossible to have as a cohort until level 25, which basically doesn't exist in a Kirthfinder setting.

My question then is, would it be possible to "split" the CR of the cohort between multiple leadership pools?

Barring that, could multiple of the same template be applied to a cohort? In particular something like "Degenerate Creature" which reduces CR by 1 (the reversed Advanced Template, for all intents and purposes), could that be applied multiple times to a cohort and thus reduce their CR by a commensurate amount? Could reverse versions of other templates also be applied, even if they don't legally exist (like a reverse Mighty Template)?


Kaouse wrote:
My question then is, would it be possible to "split" the CR of the cohort between multiple leadership pools?

Sure, but the final CR of the cohort would still need to be at least 3 less than yours.

Kaouse wrote:
Barring that, could multiple of the same template be applied to a cohort? In particular something like "Degenerate Creature" which reduces CR by 1 (the reversed Advanced Template, for all intents and purposes), could that be applied multiple times to a cohort and thus reduce their CR by a commensurate amount? Could reverse versions of other templates also be applied, even if they don't legally exist (like a reverse Mighty Template)?

Yes; that could work. What I'd recommend, though, is NOT taking Paizo monsters straight out of their Bestiaries, but rather construct them using the monster rules in the KF Bestiary. That leaves you lots of freedom to get something just right, and at the right CR. (P.S. outsiders have just been updated and are in the process of uploading as we speak.)


Odd question for an Ebberon based game how would you handle a shifter.


Talonhawke wrote:
Odd question for an Ebberon based game how would you handle a shifter.

And as I just realized Warforged.


Ebberon? Warforged? Are you on the right thread?

As for building a Shifter with Kirthfinder rules...pretty sure Druid's got you covered. Mix in Fighter/Monk/Ranger levels as necessary.


I've been asked to GM a game of D&D 5E and I am planning on borrowing a few things from Kirthfinder. The main one that is in for sure is the rules around Teleportation and Scrying being blocked by Stone/Earth/Wood/Metal and why Castles/Dungeons/Mage Towers exist.

I've been considering using the Kirthfinder magic item creation rules as a framework when designing magic items for the party in order to maintain a somewhat consistent power level. I realize that there are different balance inputs between Kirthfinder and 5E, so I may not copy it wholesale or may not use it at all. I do have a few thoughts, however, after spending a couple of days poring through the magic item and spell creation chapters.

1. When the next draft of this system is assembled, a huge amount of this material should be moved to an appendix. A lot of it is aimed at GMs and power players and the density and complexity of the material hides the stuff that less invested players just want to flip through to choose their new piece of gear or new spell. Unfortunately, the item descriptions have most of their wordcount taken up in a proof of how the item was built and not focusing on what it does and how it works. If you really want to keep all the construction information here (and not in an appendix), then you might need to play with the formatting a bit to bring out the information relevant to players/GMs a bit more.

2. The complexity of these systems also makes me think that one would ideally want a spreadsheet/programmed system as a tool for building an item/spell. I'm guessing that no one has done it to date, but the incredible flexibility and extent of the design space means that a player is going to lose track of all the various options easily without something to keep them honest.

What you've created is an extremely impressive codification of the various item and spell construction components that have existed in the game, but I do wonder how playable it would be for many groups. This is why I've suggested that the information be presented in a slightly different way that is more player use focused, and less mathematical proof aimed at GMs. I know the Numen system means that players are expected to take more responsibility for building their own weapons/armor/items, but what you've got is pretty intimidating to most players as well.


I think the action to speak verbal components and the action to direct/release the spell should be separated. The reason for this being parity with other components, which each take their own specific action.

Currently, material components take a partial action, which can be mitigated by the feat Eschew Materials, or better yet, the skill, Sleight of Hands. Either of these two options can completely negate the action cost of material components.

Somatic components currently also take a partial action. And they too can be mitigated through the use of Still Spell Metamagic, which again completely erases the associated action cost.

Verbal components however, are different. They come mixed with the action of directing/releasing the spell itself. This means that even if you take Silent Spell, there is no commensurate change in action economy. It still take a partial action with or without Silent Spell. This, I believe, is a problem, as it devalues Silent Spell in comparison to the previous options.

Now, to be frank, I don't think that a wizard should have to spend 4 partial actions on a single spell, effectively taking two full round actions to do what used to be a standard action. Instead, what I propose is that verbal components (as well as command words, if applicable), require an immediate action to use.

What this does, is tie each component to a specific action, without requiring a full extra turn to complete. This means that players with Silent Spell also manage to save an action. Furthermore, it means that Quicken Spell no longer needs to rely on the spell not having verbal components, since it only acts on the partial action of directing/releasing the spell.

With this, I would also suggest that 0 BAB characters get a free immediate action, same as they would if they were 1 BAB. I don't think the first level distinction is a meaningful one.

Even if it's meant to replicate the average untrained citizen, there are always stories of people managing to accomplish herculean feats when pushed to the extreme. There's always the trope of pushing somebody out of the way of oncoming danger, after-all. Pretty sure that requires an immediate action.

So under my proposed change, casting a spell with all the components would require:

1 Partial Action - (Material Components) - Reduced to Free Action by Eschew Materials / Sleight of Hand
1 Partial Action - (Somatic Components) - Reduced to Free Action by Still Spell
1 Immediate Action - (Verbal Components) - Reduced to Free Action by Silent Spell
1 Partial Action - (Directing/Releasing the Spell) - Reduced to Immediate Action by Quicken Spell

Each component is separate and the action cost is entirely up to the player. What do you think, Kirth?

At level 12, a wizard without Eschew Materials or ranks in Sleight of Hand could cast a Quickened Spell, spending both of his immediate actions and the two partial actions in his standard action, leaving him with a move action remaining.


Also, I like the idea of "command words as immediate actions" as it affects martials, such as with enhancements like Flaming. I'm not sure if Kirthfinder changes this, but in base Pathfinder, you technically need to activate flaming and similar enhancements with a command word, which takes a standard action. If command words were changed into an immediate action, this would greatly aid martial characters in making such weapons easy to use.

As an immediate action, it also has the rather nice ability to activate in between other actions, or even on the enemy's turn. You could then use said command words to surprise the opponent, who would otherwise be unsure of which enhancements your weapon has.


Kaouse wrote:

Ebberon? Warforged? Are you on the right thread?

As for building a Shifter with Kirthfinder rules...pretty sure Druid's got you covered. Mix in Fighter/Monk/Ranger levels as necessary.

Yes I love the setting and like running in it. Warforged and Shifter are both races.

Shifters are similar to pathfinders skin walkers and warforged similar to androids

3,751 to 3,787 of 3,787 << first < prev | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 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.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules