Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft Houserules


Homebrew and House Rules

1,901 to 1,950 of 3,816 << first < prev | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | next > last >>

Kirth, if this going to be the last update for a while, I'd love a copy. (I mean, I doubt I'll be able to pull my group away from D&D Next before the release of 5E, but why not try.)

Email:
cfc23@cox.net

Well, jeez Toz, that campaign just writes itself, doesn't it? :P

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Don't it just?


Email:
arakhor@gmail.com

I guess I'll be able to make more changes to my Kirthfinderised SWd20 rules without wondering if they're going to change again. :)


Email:
andrewvit92@gmail.com

I'll definitely want this last update. Even if I can't play it with anyone (having trouble finding a group out here), I've quite enjoyed reading it and rolling up characters with it.

Looking forward to your next project. I've always enjoyed classless systems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MYTHIC TOZ wrote:
Each is a separate shard of my persona. We were shattered to limit the terrifying power our whole possesses.

Would it be too forward to band a group of misfits together to try and restore you to your former glory?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Only if destroying reality itself is 'too forward'.


Xarter@yahoo.com would love the final draft.


I saw a few thing on the Monk document:

I do not see light step on the table of monk sutras.

For resistant body did you want to add the energy types force and negative energy?

For improved elusive target should it be ... redirected to an opponent flanking you "or" the attacker?


I would love an update also, I have just been using Tri's google doc's version.

Email:
Ganth_0697@hotmail.com


dear kirth,

i'm playing an evil cleric and I came across the most awesome domain for my animate dead, Death Bound domain (spell compendium) so, how can you house rule the domain to kirth finder domains will keeping the domain spells and the first granted power which instead of controlling 2 HD PER CASTER LEVEL of creatures becomes 3 HD per caster level?

and mind mind my text because I got hit in the eye by a sharp of glass, so you wouldn't mind :P


I would appreciate it if you could send me a copy when you're done.

Email::
czonka1972@verizon.net

Dark Archive

I would love to have a copy as well. Thank you for all the work.

Spoiler:
malhavocblackthorne@yahoo.com


Renn Sanor The Returner wrote:
the first granted power which instead of controlling 2 HD PER CASTER LEVEL of creatures becomes 3 HD per caster level?

This requires some conversion, because in KF it's not 2 HD per caster level with no investment; you need the Command Undead feat, and your control is limited by CR in the same fashion as Leadership.

So, suggested for Kirthfinder:

  • Keep the same bonus spells.
  • Archivist skill: Knowledge: the planes (not applicable for clerics)
  • Domain channeling has to be channel negative energy.
  • 1st level granted power: You gain Command Undead as a bonus feat.
  • 4th level granted power: You gain Skill Focus (Knowledge: the planes) as a bonus feat. If you already have this feat, choose any one [Necromancy] feat from the list of Domain feats (Chapter 5).

    Command Undead allows you to control some undead in the first place, and Skill Focus jacks up your control limit.


  • I'd love a copy of that final version!

    email:
    jamesdavidjohnson<at>hotmail<dot>com


    Hello Kirth, my friends and I have really appreciated your take on pathfinder, but I'm wondering how much has been improved since we've learned of it. would it be possible to obtain a copy of your updated rules please?

    Email:
    magic_guru12@hotmail.com


    Myself too Master Gersen for a copy of Final K-finder:

    Spoiler:
    oceanshieldwolf@gmail.com

    I'm completely understanding and empathising the feeling of being trapped in the framework of PF. I'm not a huge fan of classless systems, though I did enjoy a session of Fantasy GURPS waaaaaaay back in the day, but I'd be very interested in seeing what you personally come up with.


    OK, as of this weekend, it looks like things are wrapping up -- my earlier estimate of April/May probably wasn't far off. With any luck, I'll have the final docs mailed out before the end of May.

    Thanks, everyone, for your interest!


    Getting closer. I massively clarified the rules for stacking class synergies, because that seems to be the #1 area of confusion. However, that started to make the "Introduction" more of a catchall chapter in which it's hard to find stuff, so I added a table of contents.

    And, as a nod to psionics people, I added the 3.5 Soulknife as a battle sorcerer path. (heh)

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

    Yay!


    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    Yay!

    indeed, is the going to be printed advice for handling monsters?


    Yes! I did add a section, which I'll reproduce here in a couple hours. Mostly it's all stuff previously discussed, just together in one place.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Yes! I did add a section, which I'll reproduce here in a couple hours. Mostly it's all stuff previously discussed, just together in one place.

    in that case

    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    Yay!


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    OK, these are really long, so I'll spoiler them.

    MONSTERS

    Spoiler:
    The referee will need to make minor adjustments to existing monsters in order to fit these rules. The easiest thing to do is to simply swap out feats, and as a general rule this should always be done, making sure that the rules in Chapter 5 for feats are used (the Stamina Training feat and ranks in Endurance is a favorite). Adding one or more class levels is also a good way to increase the threat posed by a monster in a way that is consistent with these rules. Other specific adjustments are described below.
    3.5 Edition Attributes: A number of monsters, notably animals (especially primates), griffins, etc., were “downgraded” in Pathfinder, relative to their 3.5 edition stats (in terms of Strength scores, total number of Hit Dice, and so on). In these cases, it is recommended that the 3.5 edition stats be retained.
    Animal Intelligence: To reflect the large differences in intelligence of real-world animals, creatures of the Animal type can have intelligence scores higher than 2 and still be unable to use humanoid languages (due to missing or incompatible speech organs, etc.). Dogs might have Int scores of 4; apes of 6; and dolphins of 10+, for example.
    Breath Weapons: Creatures with breath weapons can use the breath weapon in place of a bite attack with that head, rather than as a standard action.
    Constructs: Much in the way that undead in Pathfinder were given d8 HD/medium BAB and Cha bonus to Fort and hp, constructs in these rules also have d8 HD/medium HD, and use their Strength scores in place of Constitution to determine hp and Fort saves. This supersedes the arbitrary size-based bonus hp constructs receive in PF/3.5.
    Giants: If you make these guys vulnerable to charm person and hold person spells, as in the Pathfinder rules, they get a lot less scary all of the sudden. I’d suggest not doing that.
    Gore Attacks: Like spears, natural gore attacks should have a x3 critical multiplier.
    Iterative Attacks: Monsters whose only attack is a primary natural attack (e.g., bite, slam) should either gain iterative attacks per their base attack bonus, or else should be assigned Vital Strike as a bonus feat.
    Numen: Use the “minimum” (NPC gear) column in Chapter 6 and assign magical bonuses and properties accordingly, even to creatures that do not use items. For example, there is no reason a winter wolf (CR 5; 3,450 gp minimum) could not be given a +1 enhancement bonus to its bite (2,000 numen) and a +1 resistance bonus to saves (1,000 numen).
    Undead Spawn: There are two proposed rules keeping undead spawn from overrunning the world; a combination of the two is recommended.
  • Bound to Location: In this variant, spawn cannot stray more than 100 ft, from where they were created. This is appropriate for haunted grave sites and so on.
  • Bound to Master: Using this variant, no single undead can have more spawn at one time than described under the Command Undead feat (Chapter 5). This is especially appropriate for vampires and the like.
    A referee should break these rules only in the event of an epic campaign-destroying adventure involving a zombie apocalypse or something similar.
  • MONSTERS AND EXPECTATIONS
    The duel with the Hill Magician started with a dream, the night after the Warlock's speech made that duel inevitable. It ended thirty years later.
    ―Larry Niven, “What Good is a Glass Dagger?”

    Spoiler:
    Even modifying monsters as outlined above, it should be patently clear that a 3rd level fighter with PC gear (CR 3) will slaughter a single CR 3 ogre most of the time. This is especially true in these rules—the fighter doesn’t necessarily do more damage than in 3.5/PF, but the means by which he can do it are pretty obvious to anyone, not just hardcore optimizers. Then again, we should remember that, as a fighter, that’s his job. Against an assassin vine (also CR 3), his success is less certain, and the CR 3 shadow might make him flee. The cleric doesn’t worry about the shadow, but the assassin vine eats him for lunch. A 3rd level wizard might shut down the ogres, but within reach of them he can’t cast, and gets smashed to a pulp.
    A 10th level fighter might be 50/50 against a CR 10 bebelith and probably loses against a CR 10 adult white dragon, but a 10th level fighter with a 10th level wizard supporting him demolishes a pair of either of them.
    So what does all this actually mean?
    Fighters will slaughter hordes of martial mooks at low levels, without being too worried about being injured in the process. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; the Tokagawa Shogunate kept order by withholding arms and martial training from peasants, so an armored guy with a halfway decent sword and some rudimentary training (a 1st level fighter) could easily keep order among 100 peasants. Likewise, an Aristocrat 1 (CR 1/3) with a high-powered rifle can kill a CR 4 rhinoceros, because their equipment disparity eclipses their combat disparity. But as you level up, offenses scale faster than defense and equipment, and magical save-or-lose effects come on line, and gradually, the fighter starts to lose. Unless he has a caster friend buffing him and the enemy doesn’t, in which case he kicks ass even more. Ideally, the caster equally needs the fighter to keep the monsters from shutting down his spellcasting—that’s why casting is a full attack action, and why casting while threatened is more difficult.
    With that understanding, intelligent adversaries are NEVER going to want to fight the party 4-on-1. At that point, the game becomes more about tactics: whose buffing/martial combo package outdoes the other side’s? And that leads us to the last piece: if you know in advance what that package will be, or can interfere with it, you win. And that means, ultimately, that strategy is the key determining factor, especially at mid to higher levels.
    I envision a game in which a party that charges in against a prepared foe gets wiped out. TPK. Sorry, guys. But if they ruthlessly exploit their advantages and deny the enemy his own, eventually they’ll tip the scales to the point where the villain goes down like a chump. And I like that.
    Rolling dice for a straight-up fight is sometimes fun, and the game supports that. But these rules, hopefully, also support a Sun Tzu-style game in which the outcome is decided before the fight even begins.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    With that understanding, intelligent adversaries are NEVER going to want to fight the party 4-on-1. At that point, the game becomes more about tactics: whose buffing/martial combo package outdoes the other side’s? And that leads us to the last piece: if you know in advance what that package will be, or can interfere with it, you win. And that means, ultimately, that strategy is the key determining factor, especially at mid to higher levels.

    I envision a game in which a party that charges in against a prepared foe gets wiped out. TPK. Sorry, guys. But if they ruthlessly exploit their advantages and deny the enemy his own, eventually they’ll tip the scales to the point where the villain goes down like a chump. And I like that.

    I approve of this as a possible solution to the mess high-level play becomes.

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Tahlreth wrote:
    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.

    1. What action would it require to use the Alter Self function? I can't tell if it should be a move action, swift action, or per use of the Flame Blade spell.

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Tahlreth wrote:
    In your second example of a use-activated magic item, you have a fixed Searing Light spell made into a sword. Would Searing Light maintain it's medium range even after being made into a use-activated item? If not, would you get the same end effect (give or take damage cap) if you first apply Reach Spell to Searing Light to decrease its range (if that's allowed) to touch, thereby dropping the numen cost from 60,000 numen to (if I'm doing the math right) 20,000 numen?
    Think about it, just for a second. If you could carry around a 150-foot lance of deadly energy everywhere you go... walk into town, and all the villagers die and the buildings catch on fire. Enter the forest, and the trees die and the forest burns around you. Are these desireable outcomes? Possibly in an epic-level game, but not at 5th level or whatever. So, realistically, the effect needs to be sword-sized for you to wield it like a sword.

    2. I take it this means shaping the Flame Blade spell to form a ranged weapon wouldn't count as a "legitimate 1:1 swap," would it?

    3. How would you break down the Energy Wall power (LINK) and the Energy Aura magic weapon property(Link Redacted page 34)? I can tell Ray of Frost and Versatile Evocation are involved, but that's it.


    Tahlreth wrote:
    What action would it require to use the Alter Self function? I can't tell if it should be a move action, swift action, or per use of the flame blade spell.

    If you're sitting there swinging a rapier and you wished it were a greatsword, that would be a command (i.e., standard action) activation -- unless of course you upped the cost and bought a Quickened alter self (6th level) effect, but presumably no one would actually spend that amount (although I might even apply the "contingent" pricing rules to that specific corner-case, because how often do you really need to change weapon types mid-combat?). If you chose the form every time you activated the flame blade, I'd see no reason why you couldn't combine the two activations into a single standard action.

    And, you are correct, infinite flame blade ammunition isn't really kosher in the same way; I'd just stick with a brilliant energy ranged weapon for that, or maybe add the Imbue Missile feat at the appropriate level (and cost).

    I'll look at (3) when I get a chance.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    OK, these are really long, so I'll spoiler them.

    I knew you were just in it for the footnotes! :P


    Energy Wall: Ray of frost (0) + Versatile Evocation (fire; +0 levels) + Reach Spell (Close to Medium; +1 level) + Shape Spell (ray to wall; +2 levels) + Lingering Spell (+1 level) + Extend Spell (1 round to 1 round/level; +1 level) + Concentration Spell (+1 level) + Reduce Spell (-1 level) = 5th level spell, damage cap 10d6.

    That's for the basic fire one. 2d6+2+1/level at 10th level (per the SRD) is 14-24 damage (mean 19); this version does 10d6 at 10th (10-60; mean 35), justifying its higher level (if you want it only 3rd, get rid of Lingering Spell and Extend spell and the damage will be 5d6 (mean 17), with a duration of Concentration).

  • For the cold version, change Versatile Evocation to cold (+0 levels), and we're looking to change the save from Ref to Fort, which there's not a metamagic feat at present to do.
  • For the electricity version, change Versatile Evocation to electricity (+0 levels) and add the Penetrating Spell feat (+1 level) for the +2 vs. SR (the DC is already higher due to the higher level). The final spell level is 6th.
  • For the sonic version, change Versatile Evocation to sonic (+1 level), increasing the level to 6th.


  • Also, please do not post links to non-open content; I'm not going to click "download" on your second link and have flagged your post. I do not support any kind of copyright infringement.


    My apologies for the second link, I only posted it for reference. I understand it's copyrighted, but given the OGL for 3.5, I didn't realize it still doesn't count as open content. I'm also surprised the page requires you to download the file; I was able to scroll to the referred page using just the preview.

    The link in question was the best online presentation I could find of D&D 3.5 Magic Item Compendium. On page 34, the magical weapon property Magic Aura has the price of a +2 bonus, deals 1d6 of the chosen energy type once activated, and takes a standard action to activate or switch the energy type between acid, cold, electricity, or fire.

    It's the energy-choosing feature for Energy Wall and Energy Aura that has me confused.

    Again, I apologize for posting a link to non-open content. I'd take it down if I could edit it.

    Digital Products Assistant

    Removed a link. Links to PDFs like this are not OK here.


    Tahlreth wrote:
    It's the energy-choosing feature for Energy Wall and Energy Aura that has me confused.

    Ah, I see what you're angling at -- not how to do each one as a separate spell, but how to have one spell that you'd prepare (or know), but then choose a different energy type when you cast it.

    For a sorcerer, that's easy enough: if you have the Versatile Evocation feat, you can apply it spontaneously anyway. If you're a wizard, evoker is really the only way to pull this off.

    And no worries about the link now; it looks like Chris took care of it. Thanks, Chris!


    Renn Sanor The Returner wrote:
    ...

    Your title/epithet is meant to be ironic, I take it?


    Kirth, is there a possibility for the Rogue Advanced Combat Talent to be converted into an obtainable feat, and what should the prerequisites be so that it stays relatively distant from the average adventurer?

    Also, what is the current state of the Kirthfinder edition right now, and is it possible to upload a newer version to the Trimegazero website? I, as well as others who did not receive the updated versions, continue to use files over a year or two old.


    Arrius wrote:

    1. Kirth, is there a possibility for the Rogue Advanced Combat Talent to be converted into an obtainable feat, and what should the prerequisites be so that it stays relatively distant from the average adventurer?

    2. Also, what is the current state of the Kirthfinder edition right now, and is it possible to upload a newer version to the Trimegazero website? I, as well as others who did not receive the updated versions, continue to use files over a year or two old.

    1. No. Class features are better than feats, so you can't spend feats for more class features. Noteably, I've removed "additional rage power" from the list of barbarian feats as well.

    2. As repeated in about 3-4 recent posts, the final rules will be out in mid-May. I'm happy to email them out to individual groups using the houserules (re-post email, as I don't keep a mailing list). Again, for a long list of reasons, I prefer not to have them uploaded all over the web, so there won't be a wiki or anything of the sort.


    Send me the latest please, also.

    Spoiler:
    dakryn@cox.net


    Less than a month to go! Thanks.


    gonna repost my email for interest in getting an email of the latest incarnation of your rules.

    email:
    worldofxayrax@gmail.com


    So should we wait to post emails for the final version Kirth?


    Any addys posted after the final announcement was posted (i.e., in the last several pages) are now the new list -- including you, of course. For anyone not sure, best to re-post any time before the email.

    Thanks!


    Reposting just in case:

    Spoiler:
    douglasschaub@comcast.net


    Hey Kirth,
    Have you managed to get anywhere with your classless system? I have been contemplating a sort of classless d20 system for a while now and I would love to hear about the direction you are taking.


    Trogdar wrote:
    Have you managed to get anywhere with your classless system?

    Approximately zero so far. I have GURPS 4e on order and want to look at that and HERO system so I can see where they go wrong and what works, before I even start writing.


    Okay cool. I was thinking about doing a sort of classless system that is close enough to a class system that it doesn't scare off players. To that end, I had considered using a basic chassis divorced from class specific mechanics and having a series of "features" that come online at different levels based on the base chassis.

    I hope to be able to push more utility onto this system so that players that want to have a sort of niche will have access to a feature tree that they chose before starting the game.

    I just realised that this is so general it may not actually describe what I'm thinking... :/

    basically
    step 1. choose a chassis(martial, hybrid, caster)
    step 2. choose from a list of feature packages(combat package, utility package) that come online at different levels based on the base chassis.

    so a martial class might have two combat tracks and two utility tracks. the martial characters combat features come online more quickly, but there is no restriction between chassis and feature package.

    Thoughts?


    I would like a copy of the final version also. I love what I've read and look forward to using it in my home game.

    :
    schmidtjohnt@gmail.com


    If you haven't, look at Savage Worlds. Although classless, it can have a pseudo class system.


    My email again. (Just to be sure.)

    Spoiler:
    vasse.info@gmail.com

    Thanks!


    My email again:

    Spoiler:
    brennanashby at gmail.com

    Thanks Kirth!

    Dark Archive

    Just covering my butt in case. I dont want to miss out on this great job. Please sir a copy as well.

    Spoiler:
    malhavocblackthorne@yahoo.com


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Arrius wrote:

    1. Kirth, is there a possibility for the Rogue Advanced Combat Talent to be converted into an obtainable feat, and what should the prerequisites be so that it stays relatively distant from the average adventurer?

    2. Also, what is the current state of the Kirthfinder edition right now, and is it possible to upload a newer version to the Trimegazero website? I, as well as others who did not receive the updated versions, continue to use files over a year or two old.

    1. No. Class features are better than feats, so you can't spend feats for more class features. Noteably, I've removed "additional rage power" from the list of barbarian feats as well.

    2. As repeated in about 3-4 recent posts, the final rules will be out in mid-May. I'm happy to email them out to individual groups using the houserules (re-post email, as I don't keep a mailing list). Again, for a long list of reasons, I prefer not to have them uploaded all over the web, so there won't be a wiki or anything of the sort.

    I understand.

    In that case, I re-post my E-mail.

    Email:
    Psyblade2010@hotmail.com

    I have a balancing issue that could need your judgement:

    If I permit a player from taking the Templar Talent, what would be a fitting sacrifice to gain Strong Theurgy with the divine spellcasting class? I have thought to bar access to Fighter bonus feats, but that may not be as balanced as I hope.

    Fighters do not have the option for Strong Theurgy. I realize this may be because they are such a powerful class already, but others have had the option. What is the criteria that determines whether or not a class deserves strong theurgy or not? Is it the presence of the option in other core classes? Also, what is a fitting sacrifice for strong theurgy for fighters?


    Arrius wrote:
    What is the criteria that determines whether or not a class deserves strong theurgy or not? Is it the presence of the option in other core classes? Also, what is a fitting sacrifice for strong theurgy for fighters?

    Generally, if a class normally gets good spellcasting by itself, it provides Strong theurgy using multiclass talents. If it normally has poor or no casting, it provides Weak theurgy.

    Accordingly, there is no way for barbarian, fighter, monk, or ranger levels to provide Strong spellcasting theurgy. To make a multiclassed fighter with better casting, you'd simply take more caster class levels and fewer fighter levels (e.g., if you're 10th level, play a cleric 8/fighter 2 instead of a cleric 5/fighter 5).

    1,901 to 1,950 of 3,816 << first < prev | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 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.