Have you ever tried to draw the Entangle 40-ft radius spread on a battle mat?
Sorry, can't help there -- I hardly ever use a battle mat at all, as described in the Introduction.
I love looking over other people's house rules and conversions, and would like to be added to the mass mailing if possible.
And at 1803 posts, your's seems to be the most active.
1. For crafting magic items, how do you tell which craft skill would apply? Like, for example, when trying to add a magic weapon property onto a ring:
a. Would Craft (Lapidary) work?
b. Would Craft (Smith) work?
c. Would Spellcraft work?
2. if a non-Wizard gains a Bonded Wand, what's the effect of the Eldritch Blast?
I enjoy reading other people's house rules. It tends to give me cool ideas for my own games. I'd love to be added to the mass mailing list so I could take a look at this.
I also would like to see this house rules.
sim_cru@hotmail.se
I too would like to see the house rules, thanks
Is it spring yet?
Not here -- it was 8oF last night.
1. For crafting magic items, how do you tell which craft skill would apply? Like, for example, when trying to add a magic weapon property onto a ring:
a. Would Craft (Lapidary) work?
b. Would Craft (Smith) work?
c. Would Spellcraft work?2. if a non-Wizard gains a Bonded Wand, what's the effect of the Eldritch Blast?
1. There's a table somewhere, I think under the general "Craft" heading. Anyway, "lapidary" is intended as a broad skill including "jeweler" and a whole host of other fine-metal and gem work, so rings, amulets, etc. all use that skill.
So (a) yes; (b) no; (c) never.
Unlike in PF, you do not use Spellcraft to craft magic items; you use the relevant Craft skill.
2. Good question. It hasn't come up, but I'd probably pick an appropriate sorcerer bloodline based on the spellcasting class being used -- a Druid's wand might emulate the Bestial or Verdant bloodline; a bard might use the Maestro bloodline; etc.
I'm not Kirth so this is just speculation Tahlreth, but I imagine a generic 'Craft:Jewler' would do it.
Exactly so. Whether you want to call it Craft (jeweler) or Craft (lapidary) or Craft (small shiny things) is irrelevant; the rules are there.
please add me too!
PS: using some of the initial ones already, mostly to boost the fighter and the monk and bring them more in line with say the barbarian and rogue :)
Hey Kirth! Just saying, you know :)
Yeah, like that would ever happen. Of course, if it did in an alternate universe, I might be willing to take the pay cut to move to Seattle (Mrs Gersen is always nagging about wanting to move there)...
1.
So (a) yes; (b) no; (c) never.
Unlike in PF, you do not use Spellcraft to craft magic items; you use the relevant Craft skill.
Okay, so it depends on the type of item that's being imbued. That makes sense.
Using these guidelines, it is also possible to have a magic item that is, in effect, a permanent spell. For example:
- The 2nd level flame blade spell makes a something of a poor man’s brilliant energy weapon, at a cost of 2 (spell level) x 3 (caster level) x 500 x 2 (duration in min./level) = 5,000 numen (for base fire damage equal to a normal weapon’s; the spell’s level-based bonus to damage would have to instead be purchased separately using the numerical bonus rules). This is conceivably attainable by a 4th level PC with no other items.
- A paladin PC might wield a fixed searing light spell as if it were a sword (base 2d8 damage, or 5d6 vs. undead), at a cost of 3 (spell level) x 5 (caster level) x 500 x 8 (instantaneous spell duration) = 60,000 numen (appropriate for an 11th level PC).
What's the relevant Craft skill for a... um... permanent spell magic item?
2.
It hasn't come up, but I'd probably pick an appropriate sorcerer bloodline based on the spellcasting class being used -- a Druid's wand might emulate the Bestial or Verdant bloodline; a bard might use the Maestro bloodline; etc.
Okay, pick a school/bloodline/wudan that matches the character's spellcasting. Again, makes sense.
Note that there is no reason a fighter cannot take the Arcane Bond feat, choose a wand as a bonded item, and enhance it with this ability in order to power it. Individual spells, activated using the item’s spell slots, can be added for 750 numen x spell level x caster level for the first ability, ¾ that for the second, and half that for additional spells thereafter (as a wand or staff).
Fighter's don't have spellcasting abilities on their own. Would the Fighter in this example pick among the Battle Sorcerer wudans since those would have the most martial flavor?
1. What's the relevant Craft skill for a... um... permanent spell magic item?
I guess it doesn't actually say so, but because there isn't one, that would be something you'd spend numen on rather than crafting. Or you could use the Permanent Spell feat, I suppose, but that still isn't technically "crafting."
2. Fighters don't have spellcasting abilities on their own. Would the Fighter in this example pick among the Battle Sorcerer wudans since those would have the most martial flavor?
I would allow that, especially since the fighter is spending such big chunks of numen -- first on the wand itself, and second on the raw spell slots used to power the wand. With that kind of expenditure, he deserves a broader choice, IMHO!
Should have moved to Phoenix man.
Ugh. I would have just stayed in Houston. I had a cushy job, great restaurants, good roads, cheap liquor, warm weather, a major airline hub for travel, and a great gaming group there!
I guess it doesn't actually say so, but because there isn't one, that would be something you'd spend numen on rather than crafting. Or you could use the Permanent Spell feat, I suppose, but that still isn't technically "crafting."
And here I was hoping to use a poor man's Brilliant Energy weapon as a Bonded Weapon. Is it really just a 'non-feat, non-class feature, yet still magical' ability that costs numen just to have a limiting factor (which sound like you can't be disarmed of it), or does it count as an item in your possession that you fabricate out of force of will/pure awesomeness?
And here I was hoping to use a poor man's Brilliant Energy weapon as a Bonded Weapon. Is it really just a 'non-feat, non-class feature, yet still magical' ability that costs numen just to have a limiting factor (which sound like you can't be disarmed of it), or does it count as an item in your possession that you fabricate out of force of will/pure awesomeness?
Mechanically by RAW, more like the former... but by referee and player agreement, more like the latter. In the case of a flame blade as a bonded weapon, I personally would be all in favor of allowing it if I were running the game. You're manifesting a nonphysical object, so you can't use the Imbue Item feat on it, but otherwise I see no reason it couldn't be a bonded item. Of course, having a bonded weapon that you can be "disarmed" of by a simple dispel magic is sort of risky.
Follow-up: I always thought it would be cool to start with a plain sword hilt, then add an at-will flame blade, just like in "Thundarr the Barbarian." The base item would be a physical object, so you could apply crafting feats and stuff to it.
Follow-up: I always thought it would be cool to start with a plain sword hilt, then add an at-will flame blade, just like in "Thundarr the Barbarian ." The base item would be a physical object, so you could apply crafting feats and stuff to it.
I was actually thinking of having the hilt be a Traveler's Any-Tool. Would that be Craft (Smith) since it's the only one that involves metal-working?
What would it cost to have the Flame Blade form/'be wieldable' as a melee weapon other than a scimitar?
Hello and thank you, Kirth, for consolidating these remarkably useful changes into sharable format.
I myself have been using Kirthfinder rules for about 1.5 years now...
Arriat,
Thank you for the feedback! I'm of course flattered by the positives, but want to focus on the constructive criticism, if I may, because it's absolutely invaluable to me. If you get a chance at some point, if you could provide a quick synopsis of why intuition saves, casting time, and Diligent Prep don't work for your group, I'd consider it a great favor to me (the reasons for your disliking held actions seem to be clear).Let me also thank you for the character examples; the ability to make characters like that -- and not need to be 15th level or whatever to do so! -- was one of the primary goals, so I'm happy to see that was successful.
With regards to your racial levels question, JAM412 started his character with one level of aasimar; Chainsaw's character Wyvurn in my PBP is making use of bugbear and worghest levels for his hobgoblin, and Alice Margatroid's lizardman Tsarok has 2 racial levels as well. One of my former characters, Brut de Corbel, was built around human paragon levels.
I'll make sure you're on the updates list, for when those go out (within a month or so, I hope, if I can get my taxes done quickly enough to get back to them).
I was actually thinking of having the hilt be a Traveler's Any-Tool. Would that be Craft (Smith) since it's the only one that involves metal-working?
Link?
What would it cost to have the Flame Blade form 'be wieldable' as a melee weapon other than a scimitar?
If it's one set form (say, a longsword instead of a scimitar) there would be no cost, because it's a legitimate 1:1 swap. If the blade could take more than one shape, an additional property along the lines of an alter self spell would be needed.
Hey kirth,
I was looking at the feat list the other day and I noted two feats that seem very powerful and I wanted to get your opinion on how they are supposed to interact.
I can't recall the name of one, but the first feat was called beginners luck and they both did similar things. Oh! chaotic mind, thats right!
These two feats seem to be kind of no brainer feats in terms of their ability to shut down a lot of class features, why are they so strong? By that I mean that they are quite capable of shutting down several feats simultaneously if a character is something like a swashbuckler.
Is it a good idea to have one feat that can potentially negate several?
Trogdar,
That's part of the (intentional) rock-paper-scissors aspect in the rules: for every way to jack up bonuses to insanely high levels, there's a means of bringing them back down to earth.
Chaotic Mind negates insight bonuses, so it potentially allows you to ignore Canny Defense (which in general stacks ACs higher than they normally go in 3.5/PF). If someone attacking you has Insightful Strike, it would negate those bonuses, too, but that's not very common.
Beginner's Luck, negating competence bonuses, is potentially a lot broader, since those pop up in all sorts of feats, etc. -- but those bonuses are generally pretty small (+1 to +4 to attacks from Weapon Focus, for example), except in the case of Skill Focus, so it's not maybe as bad as you think, but it's something I plan to look at more carefully.
I've also added a feat that allows you to ignore ONE circumstance bonus or penalty at a time; maybe the others could be modeled more like that.
The key thing to remember is that Chaotic Mind et al. merely reduce numerical bonuses, rather than negating entirely separate abilities; I consider the difference to be fairly meaningful.
I see. I just noted that in the case of chaotic mind, you could potentially invalidate a build with one feat.
I loved the ability to take things like canny defense and intuitive strike to make characters that are more analogous to the ones I imagined. If I were to do that though, my character may find him/herself completely invalidated by one feat.... Which leads me back to swashbuckler is out. :/
Presenting the Traveler's Any-Tool!
Your Equipment chapter lists Heavy Shield, Light Shield, Spiked Armor, and Spiked Shield in the Weapons table as Close Weapons. I found the shield damage in the armor section, but where might Spiked Armor be?
The entry explaining how to use Spellcraft to identify a spell being cast thinks the Counterspelling section is in the Introduction chapter instead of the Spells chapter.
A couple more things I found in the races document section.
Maahiset have endurance listed as both a class and bonus skill.
I do not see the changeling paragon class gaining darkvision, is that intentional or did I miss it?
Under fey touched paragons remove the sense motive.
Grugach with the powerful build option should not get a CMB and CMD penalty for being small correct? Not sure if you want to make a comment to that effect in the description.
I see. I just noted that in the case of chaotic mind, you could potentially invalidate a build with one feat.
I loved the ability to take things like canny defense and intuitive strike to make characters that are more analogous to the ones I imagined. If I were to do that though, my character may find him/herself completely invalidated by one feat.... Which leads me back to swashbuckler is out. :/
Swashbuckler can still work exceptionally well, but just can't be a one-trick pony. Dodge + Combat Expertise (+ Elaborate Parry when available) + Weapon Finesse (allowing you to stack STR and DEX at higher levels) + Flurry (ASAP) makes a seriously powerful offensive combatant with high AC. Combine it with Riposte + Deft Opportunist and a [strike] feat and maybe Vital Strike or sneak attack damage, and attacking you in melee is suicide.
There's a lot you can do within the rules that doesn't require you to rely on one bonus type. Granted, insight bonuses are an easy way to stack modifiers, but it pays to be careful of putting all your eggs in one basket.
Of course, if the DM suddenly starts giving every enemy situational feats just to counter your "build," that's a fairly extreme dick move on his part. Early on in your career, when you're relying on Canny Defense for AC and most opponents don't have the feats to spare on situational stuff like Chaotic Mind, insight bonuses can still be the centerpoint of your assets -- but that said, it pays to diversify later on.
I think I am going to change the feats such that they reduce the bonuses in half for my home games and see how that goes.
I'm just not in love with such hard counter type feats.
The any-tool counts as a set of masterwork artisan's tools for most Craft or Profession skills (although very specialist crafts such as alchemy still require their own unique toolset).
Given the differences in the rule sets, you'd need to price this item at a LOT more than 250 gp. You've got an alter self ability on command, for 2nd level x CL 3rd x 900 = 5,400 numen right off the bat, and you're also gaining a +2 enhancement bonus to a number of skills -- you'd have to list which ones it applies to, and then use the +2 bonus cost x the number of skills.
Remember, one of the core values in PF is that magic >> skills; KF attempts to create less of an imbalance between the two, partly by making skill-boosting magic cost more.
I think I am going to change the feats such that they reduce the bonuses in half for my home games and see how that goes.
Go for it! I'd be grateful for your feedback, once you've implemented that rule. Thanks!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Should have moved to Phoenix man.Ugh. I would have just stayed in Houston. I had a cushy job, great restaurants, good roads, cheap liquor, warm weather, a major airline hub for travel, and a great gaming group there!
"Good roads" = never lived inside the Loop :-)
We miss you, man.
With that out of the way, I have the impression that Incarnates were the newest class to add, seeing as most synergy/theurgy options mentioning divine casters mentioned clerics and archivists only, while some do include Incarnates--something that is not the same way around for wizards and sorcerers. Is that an oversight?
Correct on both counts. I'll have to go through all the multiclass talents and add references. Thanks!
Also, thanks for your feedback on the other items. For what it's worth, here is some of the reasoning:
Pre-game preparation can't do it all, since I come up with some ideas on the fly or forget that I should have added a monster I forgot about during prep time.
I'm an insanely over-prep DM; even when not preparing a specific adventure, I'm converting monsters, statting sample NPCs, constructing encounter tables, drawing maps that may never get used, etc. I've already converted most monsters I use, re-assigned their feats, etc. Sometimes I forget that not everyone is that crazy.
That said, I know Houstonderek is a no-prep, wing-it DM, but he doesn't care that much about +/-2 to a save and to him, using a Bestiary monster's printed Will save for Intuition is probably close enough.
As for casting time--it was a general complaint from my group seeing that most combat took place in large, open areas (not a lot of combat goes in small boxed rooms). When fighting on roofs, burning ships and underwater, the casting time nerf was a little too heavy for my players--especially with the overall buff to martial classes.
When making that rule, we wanted casters to stand back and assist, not wade into the thick of things (reverting HD to d4 and making defensive casting harder were to emphasize this). So when racing along rooftops, a caster can either try and keep up, or else stop and cast spells -- but not both. If your group prefers more action-oriented casters, your change makes sense -- but I suspect that, once they get really high-level spells, they'll be easily able to outfight the martials again, given full mobility.
Diligent preparation didn't make sense for my group. If wizards channel magic through studies, they shouldn't require force of personality to utilize it. This, they said (and I agreed), put a dent in the shy bookworm magician archetype. I do also think that some concerns about MAD was involved.
The MAD aspect of Cha-based spell save DCs was quite intentional, of course -- everyone else has a lot of MAD, except the wizard.
As for casting time--it was a general complaint from my group seeing that most combat took place in large, open areas (not a lot of combat goes in small boxed rooms). When fighting on roofs, burning ships and underwater, the casting time nerf was a little too heavy for my players--especially with the overall buff to martial classes.
I may be partly to blame for this, since I have opted to using a Mana resource system for every spell in the game and allowed martial classes to gain access to maneuvers despite having no spellcasting ability (initiator level/caster level is calculated depending on original HD, attribute and whatnot).
Do you mean the Blade Magic maneuvers from Tome of Battle? I remember those being added into Kirthfinder among Stance feats, Strike feats, a few talents, and class spell lists. I'd only count blame if you were giving martial classes those maneuvers for free, or if those characters were multi-classed.
I can see where the complaint is coming from, but for your given examples, I'd encourage the players to find/plan for ways around their dilemma. I imagine a number of wizards would be crazy-prepared like that. Maybe just a Bonded Item and Sudden/Innate Metamagic (Still Spell) would work. For a more teamwork-oriented solution, the martial characters could try focusing a little on Check maneuvers.
What do you use for a mana system? I've been using a straight Mana Cost = Spell Level conversion (spell slots per spell level per day instead each add their spell level to a single mana pool per day). It's worked smoothly for my groups, but that's probably only because I'm the only one who pays attention to spells (outside of one player who insisted on casting Doom on every single friendly social contact), and I'm not comfortable with spamming anything that isn't an at-will ability.
That got addressed a while back and subsequently fixed in the master docs; use sneak attack +1d6.
Kirth,
I am looking over the ranger document and there are a couple of things I noticed.
For the Favored enemy ranger lore, it now allows you to treat your favored enemies as your quarry, my question is how the favored enemy bonuses one can gain instead of the +1 hit point and skill point for certain races work now? Do they only grant "a competence bonus to Knowledge or related skill checks when attempting to identify favored enemies and their weaknesses." unless you have at least 2 levels in ranger? I would assume it would not grant the various races gaining this the quarry ability automatically. Do they also gain the secondary benefits against undead (you have one reference spelled as indeed in the favored enemy description) constructs, and oozes?
I would assume the quarry bonus would grant the bonus to streetwise checks used to track a quarry right?
Under the forest favored terrain, should the +4 ability treetopper scale like the Mountain +4 ability expert climber does?
Under the Elemental plane earth favored terrain the acid resistance states 2 x your favored terrain bonus, should it not be 5 x your favored terrain bonus?
For the ranger lore combat style feat you changed how the ranger combat style feat is selected, you should likely change the wording of this lore.
For the ranger lore familiar, you now key the abilities of the familiar off of spellcraft ranks (and they can speak with animals of their kind at 6 ranks rather than 7).
Couple more things, did you mean to grant strong synergy under the ranger knight lore to fighter levels (your example does not seem to reflect that) and to barbarian levels under the savage hunter lore?
Also you left trapfinding in the ranger lore table but did not have a description for it, did you mean to delete it?
|
|
(stuff)
That said, I know Houstonderek is a no-prep, wing-it DM, but he doesn't care that much about +/-2 to a save and to him, using a Bestiary monster's printed Will save for Intuition is probably close enough.
When making that rule, we wanted casters to stand back and assist, not wade into the thick of things (reverting HD to d4 and making defensive casting harder were to emphasize this). So when racing along rooftops, a caster can either try and keep up, or else stop and cast spells -- but not both. If your group prefers more action-oriented casters, your change makes sense -- but I suspect that, once they get...
Part one will change with the combination of running 100% KF (when the spring update is sent out) and my new, more domestic, lifestyle (more time to prep when you're not out and about constantly).
Part two was just to address what we thought was the most glaring removal of a check to a wizard's power in the change from AD&D to the 3.x/PF era: mobility. Magic users could move mountains, enslave demon lords, all kinds of things, if they did it right. Spell casting was both the most powerful and the hardest action to make. But, until they had a few ninth level spell slots to fill (into the twenties, level-wise), they were vulnerable. They NEEDED others working with them to succeed. After 3.x, all that "tier" nonsense popped up. You could demonstrate with a straight RAW run through of a standard published adventure that spell casters eventually, at the higher levels, pulled most of the weight and were least vulnerable to harm.
And all of this was due to making casting a spell a standard instead of a full round action. In 1e, magic users could cast lower level spells and still move a bit because of short casting times, but that assumed first in initiative and a spell with a shorter casting time than the next enemy in the initiative went, as melee types DID get to move and execute a full attack at high levels. But with higher level spells, just about the entire other side would act before you finished, leaving you rooted in place, no dex bonus to ac, and vulnerable if you didn't have a couple of impenetrable walls with flamebrands and vorpal blades in their mitts. In 3x, the fighters just get in the way.
So we made casting a bit more like 1e without completely throwing away the 3x defensive casting/concentration concepts. We just made it harder for Mitch Gaylord style gymnast wizards to exist.
Arrius,
The simplest solution by far is to simply give them all civilized races -- that way you don't run into stuff like "Does a 1/8 elf mongrelfolk count as an elf?" Given that only humans, high elves, halflings, mountain dwarves, and some hill dwarves would be included, it shouldn't be too OP.
That said, I've run campaigns that were all-human, and had basically no monsters, either. In that kind of a scenario it would be outrageously powerful, but that kind of thing isn't standard and I'd rather deal with those sorts of campaigns on a case-by-case basis, rather than dealing with all humanoid types on a case-by-case basis in EVERY campaign.
P.S. I wouldn't make them choose "demon" or "devil" either, espcially since PF also has daemons, demodands, divs, etc., etc. "Outsiders (Lower Planar)" is an acceptable favored enemy category.