Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft Houserules


Homebrew and House Rules

1,701 to 1,750 of 3,828 << first < prev | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wouldn't it be easier just to work on removing extraneous bonuses from the system, rather than generating an awful lot of mathematics on the fly? (I say that as someone who likes doing maths in my head.)

For instance, in my Pathfinderised SWd20 game, for which I liberally introduced various Kirthfinder concepts, I introduced your Skill Synergy/Skill Focus ideas and then removed all other skill bonuses from the system.


That would be a LOT cleaner and neater, yes. But, ideally, someone should still be able to pick up existing stuff and play, with a minimum of up-front conversion work. If I totally reworked how all bonuses accrued, then I'd be introducing a total break in translation -- at that point, I'd be better off redesigning a new game from the ground up. Which I'd totally do, but existing Pathfinder players (who right now can sorta kinda follow along, if they just look at changes and make them) would in that case need to learn a whole new system.


That could be more trouble than it's worth, yes. :)


Kirth Gersen wrote:

That would be a LOT cleaner and neater, yes. But, ideally, someone should still be able to pick up existing stuff and play, with a minimum of up-front conversion work. If I totally reworked how all bonuses accrued, then I'd be introducing a total break in translation -- at that point, I'd be better off redesigning a new game from the ground up. Which I'd totally do, but existing Pathfinder players (who right now can sorta kinda follow along, if they just look at changes and make them) would in that case need to learn a whole new system.

Why don't you just continue making Kirthfinder awesome and develop a new game from the ground up? ;-)

I like this idea of dimishing returns and think this is the direction we should be headed, both to preserve compability and to keep things so simple they can be implemented on the spot if necessary.


What I like about the idea is that each table can decide whether they want to bother implementing it, but the basic game system and written rules would be the same. People deciding not to use it keep everything as-is. People who want to use it either jot adjusted bonuses in the margins, or refer to a 2-row table (that could be included at the bottom of a character sheet), or recalculate them on the fly -- whichever method is easiest for them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matrix Sorcica wrote:
Why don't you just continue making Kirthfinder awesome and develop a new game from the ground up? ;-)

Kirth, I would give you a crisp, brand new dollar bill if you did this.


Alas, that would violate my strict "no monetary compensation" policy.
I would accept a frosty beer, though!


I entirely agree i know I would play it if you started a game from the ground up! Under age to buy you a beer though. Lol


Hey Kirth, have you looked at giving the Rogue something like skill tricks from the 3.5 Complete Scoundrel? (not to be confused with your skill tricks)

I've fixed them up to PF skills, adjusted some, and made up some new ones. In the class I have for my home games rogues get 1/2 rogue level plus int mod skill tricks for free (and they aren't an option for anyone else).

Honestly, mechanically, they're such little things (though with your shorter encounters, they become more mechanically relevant) but, at least in my group, they give good warm feelings of accomplishment to the skill-oriented Rogues. Plus the just let the rogue do stuff that others can't that sound neat.


Melasoul, I remember looking at them, and I seem to recall that at least some of them got rolled into the skills themselves. If there are specific things you want the rules to let you do, and they currently don't, let me know and I'll look into it.


Your diminishing returns systems is a brilliant idea. Since you aren't reworking the system from the ground up, this is a great alternative. It's not too hard to do the math on the fly, and giving the players the option of using the system or not is great for backwards compatibility.

Lowering bonuses and DCs is the route I have taken for my homebrew rework, and they are exponentially easier to work with and design around. Small bonuses/penalties become more meaningful and higher DCs, when achieved, seem more fantastical and heroic instead of just something that most people can do.

I think you may have a winner here, Kirth.

I'm also toying with the idea of having AC and CMD rolled each time you are attacked, instead of keeping a static 10 + bonuses. It'll keep players interactive and focused on the game when it isn't their turn. Same for spellcasting; Saves are made against an opposed spell check (d20 + caster's ability score + spell level + modifiers to DC).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, this just ate a big post I had written, so this one might be a bit shorter.

Sellsword,

The issue with a system like that is that if you have players that don't like rolling lots of dice (yes, they do exist, one of them is in my group) then they aren't going to like it. I mean, there is a reason that Skill Mastery was kind of a crowning moment for the old Rogue (though it helps that the Rogue sucked, but still).

I've played that system in the past and it seems to work well for gritty games where every encounter is expected to be a serious fight for your life.

If have players that like to roll and want to do something like that, one thing I have done in the past is to roll multiple dice and take the average (round up). It still give you the same dice range but concentrates the rolls more towards the middle, with the more dice you roll concentrating it even more in the middle. In my experiences, this tends to get the players a good idea of what their normal limits are and removes any kind of luck (or badly crafted die) based hubris. Again, great for gritty games.

Going back to the exploding dice idea, one thing you could do is replace the d20 roll with a roll of 3d6 and let them explode. It averages about the same as a d20 but concentrates a little more in the middle, but the exploding lets you potentially have a higher range, and since you roll multiple dice the chance for exploding is greater.

Or instead of exploding you can change the bonuses to work like the old d6 systems: Give bonuses but every time the bonuses reach a certain point, add another die to the roll instead. So, if you wanted the difficulty to stay about the same, but allow for fantastical results, give bonuses until they total +3 and add 1d6 instead (so a +8 bonus would instead be 2d6 + 2, or a range of 4-14, concentrated towards 9). If you wanted to scale back how easy it is to reach the higher DC add dice every 5 or so (+8 becomes 1d6 + 3, for a range of 4-9, averaging around 6.5).

You might be able to combine the two and exploding, but I'd be careful there and I'd need to do the math and make the spreadsheets before I could properly suggest it.


This system change is really impressive, and I love everything I've seen so far.

Is there a PDF floating around somewhere? I heard that there was a version which included the summoner class in it, and I'd love to have a look.

If someone could please send me a PDF of the newest version available, that would be super cool.

Email Address:
matruttan at gmail.com

Thanks!


Draymius -- October 2013 DOCX files sent (sorry, I don't have a nice PDF yet). The Summoner is a variant sorcerer (Appendix C of that document).


Hi - I have been following this, but I still have a very early version of the rules - is there a more recent one floating around?

thanks

email address:
vectorious at gmail dot com.


I was doing some browsing of other forums recently and I ran across Magic Items and the Wish Economy. It seemed somewhat related to the magic item creation rules and economy rules used in Kirthfinder, and thought you might be interested in seeing if there's anything useful in there you could borrow.


Caedwyr,

Loved it! Conversations with Frank Trollman (who wrote the essay) here during the Alpha playetest are a large part of what shaped a nebulous and disfunctional "pay-for-your-items-but-not-with-gold" idea into a hopefully semi-workable system. I initially had little grasp of most of his arguments, but have since come to understand and agree with him.

The relevant thread

It starts with a repro of his essay, and ends up with general discussion. I popped in about halfway through and promptly got schooled.

Shadow Lodge

I always enjoy those rare moments when someone admits they were wrong on the internet.


Kirthfinder: Battle Sorcerer: Magus wrote:
If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and are wielding your athame in one hand and have the other hand free, as a full-round action you can make all of your attacks with your athame at a –2 penalty, and also cast any spell with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes the -2 penalty).

1. As written, this ability can only be used with spells. But can you also use SLAs like from the Reserve Arcane feats or from Bloodline abilities, or would that be the DM's call?

Kirthfinder: Sorcerer: Eldritch Blast (Sp) wrote:
Because it requires an attack roll, you can apply feats such as Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and ranged [Strike] feats to your eldritch blast.
Kirthfinder: Strike Combat Feats: Spellstrike wrote:
You can deliver spells or spell-like abilities through a weapon.

2. This looks rather funny, but does this mean you can Spellstrike an Eldritch Blast through an Eldritch Blast?

3. Can Unarmed Attacks or Eldritch Blast be chosen for Bonded Weapon, or does Bonded Weapon have a special implied restriction?

4. Your metamagic breakdown of Ride the Lightning has me a bit confused. When using Cascade Spell, do local teleportation spells like Dimension Leap and Dimension Door count as ray effects?

5. What's the correct metamagic for giving an instantaneous spell a duration? I see Concentration Spell, Lingering Spell, Ray Extension, and Repeat Spell. I have no idea why I'd want to use Repeat Spell over Lingering Spell, except to use Concentration Spell as well. But then I'd rather use Ray Extension over Concentration Spell. Am I missing something?

6. I'm glad casters other than Evokers can pick up Versatile Evocation, but as written, the feat looks like you're limited to whichever element you choose when you pick up the feat. Is this true, or does the metamagic feat allow flexibility like Reach Spell and Shape Spell?

7. Can a Volumetric Burst spell reach around corners, or is it still limited to 'line of effect'?

Kirthfinder: Equipment: Magic Items & Wealth: Personal "Mojo" (Numen) wrote:
To bind an item to yourself, you must spend an amount of numen equal to the gold piece value of the item.
d20PFSRD: Magic Items: Cooperative Crafting wrote:

Other Considerations: Once you have a cost figure, reduce that number if either of the following conditions applies:

Item Requires Skill to Use: Some items require a specific skill to get them to function. This factor should reduce the cost about 10%.
Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the price by 30%.

8. Do magical item use restrictions affect numen costs the same way as how they affect the market prices, or do they not apply because of the focus on designing custom items?

Kirthfinder: Equipment: Designing Custom Items: Feats wrote:
An item that allows the user to use a feat is priced based on the prerequisites for use. The base cost is 2,000 numen x the minimum base attack bonus or number of skill ranks, etc. needed to gain the desired feat effects……The user must meet the prerequisites.

9. For the "minimum base attack bonus, number of skill ranks, etc," do you basically mean 'minimum assumed character level'? That would explain your examples that use feats not scaling with either BAB or skill ranks. And how strict is the 'meet the prerequisites' part? The Fortification magic armor property doesn't normally have a class restriction for its use, but as is, having it be built off of a Fighter talent implies you'd need Fighter levels before you could use the Fortification property. Is this correct, or should it be looser in some way?


Talreh,

1. I would allow it, and indeed I probably need to add a note that it's possible. Thanks for spotting that.

2. Eldritch blast is a spell-like ability that can benefit from certain feats that generally apply to weapons. That doesn't suddenly make it a weapon; it's still a spell-like ability. So, no, you can't. Also, things don't stack with themselves unless specifically noted as doing so, so you doubly can't.

3. The restriction that a bonded item has to be an item was implied, but apparently needs to be spelled out. Add this text: "A bonded object must be an actual object; you cannot designate your fist as a bonded weapon, or your heart as a specialist implement, etc., unless the said body part has been severed and is now a separate item from you (removal of your heart would kill you, so this is not recommended)."

4. I cheated a little there, but basically the dimension door effect is linear, and the ray is linear, and it made sense to combine them in a linear fashion.

5. Ray extension only applies to rays.

6. As written, you have to pick one, to support things like "I learned the secrets of flame and can change other energy spells to fire!" A particular table might choose to waive that restriction.

7. Line of effect still applies.

8. Other discounts don't apply specifically because you're making custom items, and it would be stoopid broken to give a bunch of discounts for prerequisites that you know you already meet.

9. Fortification is an exception to general policy, mostly because I couldn't think of a slicker way of pricing it, and the costs using the fighter talent and scaling level came out so nicely in line with what they should be. That should not be taken as general license to start raiding fighter talents for item properties for non-fighters, however. Indeed, I should probably change the example to something that doesn't imply that's OK.


For the people who insist on casting in combat, despite the disincentives for doing to in these rules, here's a possible bone:

COMBAT CASTING [ARCANE, COMBAT, SKILL]
You are adept at casting spells in combat.
Prerequisite: Concentration 1 rank.
Benefit: You gain a +4 insight bonus to Concentration checks made to cast defensively.
In addition, when casting a spell or using a spell-like ability in combat that requires an attack roll or allows a saving throw, you can choose to take a -1 penalty to attack or -1 to the spell’s saving throw DC. For every 4 points of your BAB, you can increase the penalty by an additional -1. For every -1 to attacks or saves you accept, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to Concentration checks to cast that spell defensively or while taking ongoing damage, to avoid losing the spell if hit, etc.

  • If you have at least 6 ranks in Concentration, the effects of the Disruptive fighter talent (Chapter 3) on you are treated as if the fighter were 5 levels lower than is actually the case; the effects of the Disruptive Strike feat (q.v.) are as if the attacker’s BAB were 5 points lower than is actually the case, etc. In addition, you are immune to the effects of the Disruptive Spell metamagic feat.
  • If you have at least 11 ranks in Concentration, reduce the effects of the Disruptive talent and Disruptive Strike feat against you by 10 effective fighter levels/BAB.
  • If you have at least 16 ranks in Concentration, reduce the effects of the Disruptive talent and Disruptive Strike feat against you by 15 effective fighter levels/BAB.


  • Kirth Gersen wrote:
    2. Eldritch blast is a spell-like ability that can benefit from certain feats that generally apply to weapons. That doesn't suddenly make it a weapon; it's still a spell-like ability. So, no, you can't.
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    As a rule of thumb, I'd consider "ranged touch spells" (orbs and rays) a specific weapon type, and "touch spells" another, and "spells requiring an attack roll" to be a weapon group.
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Tahlreth wrote:
    For class features that grant an enhancement bonus to a specific weapon, does it have to be with a manufactured weapon, or anything that can be wielded as a weapon including natural attacks and unarmed strikes?
    You could make it "your claws" or "your fists" or "your bite," but not "all natural attacks" or whatever.
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Tahlreth wrote:
    I remember somewhere in here you could select weapon-like spells/SLAs for weapon-specific feats. For a Sorcerer/Monk, what's their effective proficiency level with their Eldritch Blast?
    I'd have no problem with a sorcerer/monk choosing eldritch blast as their Temple Weapon.

    1. For everything that requires an attack roll to use, but isn't a physically separate item the wielder carries around, could you please spell out which ones count as 'weapons' for what abilities and which things don't count?

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    5. Ray extension only applies to rays.

    2. Blade Barrier, Call Lightning, Flaming Sphere, Haboob, Ride the Lightning, Sunbeam, Death Hail are all non-ray spells with Ray Extension applied to it. Then again, they're all based on Ray of Frost, give or take Death Hail. Death Hail having Ray Extension would depend on Damage Attribute counting as a ray effect. Personally, I'd have 'ray' effects basically be any magical effect with a single target. To me, that makes it clearer on how metamagics like Shape Spell can be applied to melee touch attack spells and spells like Magic Missile (single target, but no attack roll). Unless those metamagics can't be applied to those spells, which might need spelling out. And I don't remember seeing any orbs in this ruleset, just rays.

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    6. As written, you have to pick one, to support things like "I learned the secrets of flame and can change other energy spells to fire!" A particular table might choose to waive that restriction.

    3. I look forward to such a table.

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    8. Other discounts don't apply specifically because you're making custom items, and it would be stoopid broken to give a bunch of discounts for prerequisites that you know you already meet.

    4. Yeah… that potential loophole looked, well, dangerously cheesy.

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    9. Fortification is an exception to general policy, mostly because I couldn't think of a slicker way of pricing it, and the costs using the fighter talent and scaling level came out so nicely in line with what they should be. That should not be taken as general license to start raiding fighter talents for item properties for non-fighters, however. Indeed, I should probably change the example to something that doesn't imply that's OK.

    5. If I understand you correctly, Fortification is an exception because it was already published without use prerequisites. And magic items can be imbued with any feat that requires/works off of character/class level or a stat that scales with character/class level. Feats dependent on Attribute scores or no stat/level at all get left out.


    Tahlreth wrote:
    Stuff about eldritch blast being a weapon.

    OK, to clarify as best as I can:

    (A) Unless otherwise contra-indicated, you can take feats, talents, etc. that improve weapons and apply them to your eldritch blast. All the examples you quoted point to this general rule. That's why I'd allow you to get Exotic proficiency with it (not that that really has varying effects!), or take Weapon Focus or Improved Critical with it, or use Weapon Training with it, or whatever. That said,

    (B) You cannot declare your eldritch blast as your arcane bonded item, because bonded items have to be actual items.

    (C) You cannot channel an eldritch blast through an eldritch blast because things do not stack with themselves unless it is specifically stated that they do. If you want to houserule that you can swing two swords in the same hand and deal double damage, have at it, but that's not how the rules work.


    Tahlreth wrote:
    Personally, I'd have 'ray' effects basically be any magical effect with a single target. To me, that makes it clearer on how metamagics like Shape Spell can be applied to melee touch attack spells and spells like Magic Missile (single target, but no attack roll). Unless those metamagics can't be applied to those spells, which might need spelling out. And I don't remember seeing any orbs in this ruleset, just rays.

    I agree these things need clarification. Also, I agree Concentration Spell and Lingering Spell and Ray Extension need to be reviewed and/or possibly merged into a single feat with varying costs. I just haven't gotten to those things yet; real life is always interfering with my editorial duties!


    OK, I've merged Lingering Spell and Ray Extension into a single feat with both functions. I also redid Repeat Spell, as follows:

    REPEAT SPELL [METAMAGIC]
    Benefit: The target of a repeated spell is subject to its effects again on the next round. For direct-damage spells, this cannot be used to exceed the spell’s normal damage cap. Area-effect spells and spells affecting more than one target cannot be modified with this feat.
    Metamagic Cost: +2 levels.

    In either case, you can then apply Extend Spell and/or Concentration Spell, if 2 rounds isn't long enough.


    ... and another bone for caster lovers:

    SPELL PENETRATION [ARCANE]
    Prerequisite: Skill Focus (Concentration).
    Benefit: When you roll a Concentration check to defeat an opponent’s spell resistance, roll twice and use the better result.


    Setorines wrote:
    I entirely agree i know I would play it if you started a game from the ground up! Under age to buy you a beer though. Lol

    Funny how these laws work. Age to purchase alcohol is a federal law of 21+.

    age to drink alcohol is different from state to state, the youngest being 16+ (with parental supervision and accompaniment, like at a restaurant).

    however... if you two sat at a bar (with no age minimum, like at a family restaurant), and Kirth ordered and drank the beer...then you picked up the tab... technically you just broke a federal law... but I've never heard of this showing up in a courtroom before...

    -

    either way, DOT :)

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

    That's why you bring a $20 and hand it to him when he needs to buy his beer. :P


    I could sure use a beer today. Be nice if someone would take me out for one, for once!


    So...about that cover...and character sheets...


    So, remind me of that email...


    Hi Kirth! I'm still looking at a copy of your rules from Spring of last year, any chance I could get the newest set?

    Email:

    wreid0 at gmail dot com

    OR

    wer_dragan at yahoo dot com

    Thanks!


    WK -- sent -- check your email! Sorry for the delay -- New Year holidays were difficult.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    So, remind me of that email...

    ok i'll give you a small hint

    Spoiler:
    christosmyth@yahoo.com

    Would also love a copy of the rules, whenever it's convenient.

    Liberty's Edge

    I would also love a copy of the most up to date rules please.

    spoiler:
    tom.spaulding001@gmail.com


    Since I have a group that's willing to try out your system an updated version would be great. Thanks in advance.

    eMail:
    insignium@live.de


    Kirth:

    By far the best version of a Rogue I've seen. I especially like how the multi-classing works for it. Your version is one I want to play. Also the Mojo system is great.

    If there is an updated ruleset, please send them my way as I have been looking at what's hosted on the google triomega site.

    email:
    citizen512@gmail.com

    Lastly - ignoring the changes to iterative attack bonuses and skill points, how would you say your rogue would play in a party of standard Pathfinder classes?


    All,

    Thanks for the encouragement! I plan on making a mailing this week -- hopefully tonight, if I get a chance.

    CP, the Kirthfinder rogue is more or less a Pathfinder bard with sneak attack, minus the inspirations, so it should fit in pretty well with a party of standard PF classes. Using [strike] feats will make its sneak attack a LOT more effective, though, so that's something to carefully bear in mind.


    I'd like an updated copy as well, please!

    Spoiler:
    dakryn @ cox . net


    Put me down for an update too please! Thanks!

    Spoiler:
    brennanashby @ gmail . com


    Just to be clear, the "update" will be mostly identical to the October 2013 mailing; potential revisions to the Cleric, for example, aren't in anywhere near good enough shape to send out yet.


    OK, sent! There may be some confusion regarding references to "domain feats," which are an alternative take on Cleric domain powers I haven't quite worked out yet -- in short, I don't have any answers for your confusion yet, except to treat domain powers as they had previously been, for now.


    umm was i gonna get an updated main doc? all i get was the artwork and the character sheet. if not that's fine, but i was just wondering.


    christos gurd wrote:

    umm was i gonna get an updated main doc? all i get was the artwork and the character sheet. if not that's fine, but i was just wondering.

    You asked for a character sheet and artwork. I sent them.

    If you got the October 2013 mailing, you're more or less up to date on the main docs as well.


    ah ok, i think i got it then, thanks.


    I see I have been so slow that there is already a new version out that I missed. The edits below are based off of the summer version of the rules. Kirth when you get a chance can you email me the October version? Thanks, my email is

    email:
    haus48@hotmail.com

    edits for feats:

    P 15 Under familiar evolved, did you want to base it off of Concentration rather than off of wizard levels?

    P 30 under critical focus you state you can apply a strike feat in both the synergy and benefit section, is that redundant?

    P35 mounted combat, dragoon. The +2 bonus to the opponent’s handle animal check is what type?

    P38 On penetrating attacks, selecting it a second time allows you to ignore 5 more points of DR correct? (total of 10)

    P38 Retributive attack grants what type of bonus?

    P39 for the skirmish feat did you want to add the following to the clause You must move at least 5 ft. between attacks “(or pairs of attacks, when using two-weapon fighting)”?

    P40 for the staredown feat should the save for the frightful presence have a DC of 10 + “1/2” your BAB + your Cha modifier?

    P 45 under improved bull rush, it should be CMD rather than CMB in the end of the first paragraph under the benefit section.

    P 47 under crushing blow +11 BAB benefit, the +2 bonus to hit is what type of bonus?

    P48 What caster level is the dimensional anchor ability.

    P 48 impaling attack, under the synergy clause, did you want to say impaled rather than skewered. How long does the opponent move at half speed after the weapon is removed under the synergy effect?

    P49 Improved overrun should be a bonus to your CMD rather than CMB for defense.

    P 51 improved trip uses different language than CMD, is that intentional?

    P61 Can you use skirmish attacks with a point blank shot?

    P54 Under weapon finesse, the +11 and +16 benefits look very similar (in fact the +11 seems better since you can choose to ignore str in case it gives you a penalty).

    P71 Under anchoring blow, you can lower or reinstate “it” as a free action.

    P73 bleeding strike, You take no penalty to attacks, but instead give your weapon the broken condition on a successful hit “if you activate this feat”.

    P73 charge heedless +16 benefit. Should it be BAB not class level?

    P76 Do we need a caster level on dispelling strike?

    P84 Under throat punch, For partial muteness should there be a 50% failure for breath weapons as well?

    P85 for Unclean strike, there are two references to it being a full round action in the description.

    Similar to wolfsbane strike do you want a strike that affects fey (cold iron?). You could also incorporate cold iron affects into wolfsbane strike as well (if you have wolfweres in your game).

    In the divine feats would you like to expand the aligned or avenging strike to work against aberrations, fey, and undead? Or create more feats to do it?

    Change bones to graves mystery for bolster resistance, deadly chill, and nimble bones.

    P89 Baneful channeling and merciful channeling… choose “to” infuse, the “to” seems to be missing.

    P90 For Command elementals would you want the wording to say cleric or archivist level? Also channeler level vs caster level (you switch back and forth in command elementals and command undead). There is also other slight wording differences in those two feats (other than one effects elementals and one effects undead obviously).

    P91 Cursed by the gods, the deliberate and dependent choices have what type of bonus?

    P95 Handle relic refers to inquisitors, do you want to remove it or allow anyone with access to the inquisition domain to be able to take it.

    P95 For Imbued healing it should state necromancy [healing] spells.

    P96 LAMASHTU'S MARK should it be ½ your character level for the save vs the deformity?

    P99 For Turn undead did you want it to state channeler level rather than cleric level?

    p103 for the Earth domain feats would you like to change the prereqs to: Prerequisite: Earth subtype or Deep Earth, Shaitan Genie or Earth Elemental bloodline, Stone mystery, or access to the Earth domain. Also do you want to base the increase in effect of the earth devotion off of concentration rather than caster level?

    P104 Should the fire elemental and genie efreet have access to the fire devotion feats? Also in the special paragraph in fire devotion should it be elemental [fire] energy that can be used to give additional uses?

    P105 Healing domain, Touch of healing should refer to necromancy [healing] spells.

    P106 Under KNOWLEDGE DOMAIN, PARAGNOSTIC DISCIPLE did you want mind over matter to be based off craft construction? And mind over body should state necromancy [healing] spells.

    P107 for LAW DOMAIN, LAW INVIOLATE should power word stun say 8th rather than 15th?

    P108 for MAGIC DOMAIN, ARCANE INSIGHT should moment of prescience say 8th rather than 15th?

    P111 For TRICKERY DOMAIN, WHISPERED SECRETS you have it as 15th for mind blank,should it be 8th?

    P112 For Water Devotion and protection from the waves did you want to add marid genie bloodline as a possible prerequisite?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Reckless wrote:
    +5 Toaster wrote:
    So what is the best method for getting a deadtree version of this, Kinkos?
    I find this site to be quick, inexpensive, and convenient.

    totally bringing this up again.


    Kirth, you're fantastic! There's a lot of great stuff here.

    Could you send me the latest?

    Spoiler:
    psisquared@msn.com


    Ahh, Kirth. You make my life worth living. If I may, too, be graced with your latest copy?

    Spoiler:
    icycool86@hotmail.com

    1,701 to 1,750 of 3,828 << first < prev | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 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.