I'd also like to say that giving STR as DR/- might also help mitigate some of the late game rocket tag inherent to Pathfinder (and likely exacerbated by Kirthfinder, if we're being honest).
We could also make it so that STR only reduces physical damage while INT reduces magic damage. This way, every stat plays a direct role in a character's defenses.
This could be justified as saying that STR allows you to physically tense up your body on reaction to being hit, with higher STR allowing for greater tension, and thus greater damage reduction. Whereas INT allows you to analyze a magic attack and pinpoint where the attack is weakest and thus orient yourself in the best possible way to mitigate damage. The higher your INT, the faster and more effective you are at mitigating magic damage.
I can see the logic there -- there are other games that do things similarly, allowing high-Str characters to "shrug off" damage.
OK, was thinking about Str-as-DR in the wee hours of the morning, and had a few thoughts:
1. How does this work for monsters? A lot of the really big ones get really big Str scores. If you apply your full Str bonus, that could get crazy fast.
2. If Str < 10 means negative DR (i.e., you take extra damage), than every pinprick is lethal to a familiar. If not, then we're back to there being nothing preventing you from tanking Str.
3. In the campaign I'm running for my daughter, we just hit 4th level. If either PC had dumped Str, they'd both be dead many times over, because of all the need for climbing and swimming and so on.
4. I'd have to redo golems!
In Kirthfinder, damage scales pretty quickly. I think the strongest creature in the beastiary is the Colossal sized CR 23 Hecatoncheires, with a STR of 50, which would give him an equivalent of DR 20/-.
2 handed Power Attack alone gives +18 damage by level 20. Vital Strike deals +6d6 damage, or 21 damage on average.
Then you can also add your DEX mod to damage (in addition to STR) with Weapon Finesse, and can add your INT/WIS/CHA mod to damage (in addition to STR) with Insightful Strike.
And then many of the martial classes also gained specific damage boosts as part of their class. In short, damage is greatly increased in the late game, so I think STR as DR/- helps to partially mitigate that rocket tag issue.
As for familiars, this can be easily countered by just applying templates like Advanced or Giant to your familiar, which you are more than allowed/encouraged to do.
And if you don't boost your familiars while leaving them vulnerable, then an extra 1 - 5 damage per hit likely isn't going to save them. Just like casters rely on meat-shields to prevent themselves from being turned into minced meat, so too must familiars.
As for dealing with AoE damage, just allow familiars to hide on your person and gain total cover for everything in exchange for not taking actions. Such a thing already exists in Pathfinder, under the name, Familiar Satchel.
Lastly, I just realized that instead of having STR apply only vs physical attacks and having INT apply to magic attacks, it makes more sense to have STR apply to all damage, while INT instead applies to Spell Resistance.
Thus, the smarter you are, the harder it is for you to be affected by spells...at least the spells of those lower level than you.
Okay, so this came up recently. My DM whose allowing me to play a Kirthfinder Archivist in his game has created a rather interesting mini-campaign arc set in a maze-like puzzle dungeon. Here's the kicker though, the entire thing is made out of walls of force, and features numerous color-coded coplanar parallel dimensions. Certain colored doors can only be opened (and passed) while on the specific color-coded dimension.
So in this situation, the idea of Dimension Skip and similar abilities came up. As per Kirthfinder rules, generally stone and lead is the enough to deter both scrying and teleportation. But what about force? Do force effects block scrying and/or teleportation?
In the game, I erred on the side of caution though another member of the party (a Highlord) made liberal use of the psionic power, Dimension Swap, without much pushback from the GM.
As an aside, I must say that I'm definitely enjoying my Kirthfinder Archivist, who is now Level 7. The vast majority of my Numen is spent on collecting Metamagic Feats, most of which only cost 2000 gp because I don't think they're considered "scaling" feats.
Eventually, I'll use my Numen to purchase a whole bunch of "Extra Channel Energy" feats. This will fuel my use of the Time Domain's Variant channeling as well as Channeled Spell.
So just wondering as I stumble back through the thread giddy again at just how amazing this work is. Did anyone ever really attempt to intergrate Sop/SoM. Would to see it if they have, I've learned in the last few years that I don't have the right head for doing that kind of stuff.
SoP would be easy by just turning Spell Capacity into caster level and granting 1 talent per caster level.
Bonus spells are a bit harder, but generally it depends on source, IMHO. Specialized Wizards gain a Bonus Sphere, Sphere Focus, and a Spell Specialization. Domain casters gain a bonus sphere for each domain they have access to. Domain feats therefore give talents in those specific spheres. Anything else that gives access to spells instead give access to a single Sphere.
Spheres of Power in combination with Kirthfinder's awesome metamagic system should be pretty sweet, IMHO.
Spheres of Might is a bit harder though, since there's nothing to really inherently "replace" so to speak. I'd probably have them all just be considered combat feats, I suppose.
Although I haven't had a chance to truly evaluate my skill at homebrew, I've given translating Spheres a shot, and what I've found is that it basically isn't necessary.
The core reason behind the Spheres systems' existence is allowing greater flexibility in character creation, and KF already has that in not just spades but clubs, diamonds, and hearts as well. Additionally, KF is built on having basically one or two ways to allow your character to do a thing. Adding Spheres wholesale is like adding five more of those ways.
There are a couple things Spheres can do that KF can't. SoP lets you build your own casting system, for example. I think this could be simulated by allowing a character to give up a certain number of spell slots per level in exchange for the same number of levels of metamagic applied to their spells for free. There are also a couple things an SoM character can do that a KF character can't, but those can just be converted into feats.
Prerequisites: BAB +1, Weapon Specialization (a light- or one-handed melee weapon).
Benefit: As long as you are wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon with which you have Weapon Specialization and you aren't wielding or carrying anything in your other hand, you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC. This bonus increases by an additional +1 per 5 points of your base attack bonus above +1 (i.e., +2 at BAB +6, +3 at BAB +11, and +4 at BAB +16). If you cast a spell, make an unarmed strike, or otherwise use your off hand, the benefits of this feat cease until the beginning of your next turn.
* If your BAB is +16 or higher, you may apply your weapon's enhancement bonus to the shield bonus you gain from this feat.
Synergy: If you possess the Somatic Weapon feat, you may cast spells without losing the benefits of this feat.
Source: This feat supersedes the Equipment Sphere talent of the same name, from Spheres of Might.
5-seconds-later edit: Oh yeah, and spell points can basically be done like psionics' power points. I admit I don't know much about that, but one spell point per spell level for each base spell slot, plus your casting ability modifier, sounds about right.
I'm surprised that there isn't already such a feat in Kirthfinder, given how the similar feat, Two Weapon Defense, already exists:
Two-Weapon Defense
Prerequisites: Two-Weapon Fighting.
Benefit: When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC.
This bonus increases by an additional +1 per 5 points of your base attack bonus thereafter (i.e., +2 at BAB +6, +3 at BAB +11, and +4 at BAB +16). Also, when you are fighting defensively, using the total defense action, or using the Combat Expertise feat, this shield bonus increases by an additional +1.
If your BAB is +16 or higher, apply the enhancement bonus of your off-hand weapon also applies to the shield bonus to AC from this feat as well.
Synergy: If you have the Weapon Finesse feat and are fighting with a finesse weapon in one hand and a light weapon in the other, you may choose to fight defensively with your off-hand weapon, while fighting normally with your primary weapon. The penalty for fighting defensively applies to all attacks with your off-hand weapon only, and you still gain the bonus to AC. You may not use total defense in this manner. This use of the feat supersedes (does not stack with) the normal AC bonus provided by the feat.
Source: This feat supersedes the Two-Weapon Warrior’s “defensive flurry” variant class featureAPG and the Mythic Two-Weapon Defense featMA. The synergy use also supersedes the Dagger Defense featAotD.
If it wasn't for the little blurb about not including unarmed strikes or natural attacks, you could even use this feat in place of Balanced Defense. Alas.
That said, I wouldn't require Weapon Specialization as a feat tax for Balanced Defense, IMHO.
Also, if you're looking for a psionic-like system which may be more compatible with what you have in mind, I'd suggest taking a look at Final Fantasy d20's MP System, which may be akin to what you are suggesting.
Though I note that in my own previous suggestion, wherein Spheres of Power replaces the seed spell system, spellcasters gain spell points at the same rate that spherecasters do, i.e. 1/level + Casting Ability Modifier, with potential for more via tradition and/or feats and/or items.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This seems to have gone quiet. Kaouse and I started a discussion on Discord to work on a new homebrew system based on Kirthfinder called Hexes and Heralds, but with some changes
-3 'generic classes' that can be customized
-skill 'spheres'
-more social combat/downtime options
-combat options like destroying weapons/armor and target locations.
It's still mostly in the just tossing out ideas phase, but we're planning on running some test play coming up if anyone else thinks this sounds interesting.
I can make a discord to share ideas if anyone else who's spoken up here would be interested in potentially contributing.
For my part, I'm very interested in generating mechanical ideas to reflect fluff for a homebrew world I've been working on for a few years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I messaged Kirth Gersen, and he told me that he's alright, he just has a lot on his plate at the moment. No small part of that being that he lives in Texas, which recently had the issue with it's entire power grid pretty much going up in flames due to weather damage.
But I'm still in the process of creating Hexes and Heralds anyway. At the moment, it's sort of a combination of Kirthfinder rules, my personal ideas, and Spheres. By all means though, feel free to contribute if you have ideas!
Also, I've upped the number of classes to 5, if you were wondering.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I mentioned, we're planning on playtesting Hexes and Heralds whenever Kaouse finishes enough -- it's going to be a big document since it looks to me like he's basically folding spheres into his revision of the Kirthfinder classes. If anyone's interested in participating, let me know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I mentioned, we're planning on playtesting Hexes and Heralds whenever Kaouse finishes enough -- it's going to be a big document since it looks to me like he's basically folding spheres into his revision of the Kirthfinder classes. If anyone's interested in participating, let me know.
I'll play!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Update: Today I posted the newest iteration of Humanoids in the Bestiary; this includes revised githyanki, added githzaeri, more types of lizardfolk, etc. etc.
I also made lizardfolk an exotic hybrid race in Chapter 2, rather than requiring a class level; 3 levels in dragonborn now allows them to emulate the half-dragon template. That file has been uploaded as well.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
All files on the Google drive have been updated to the most recent versions (or will be, if they ever finish uploading). Some have little change except maybe more quotes; some of the monsters have been added or substantially revised.
I've been playing a lot of Kirthfinder with my 6-year-old and she LOVES it. I've noticed it's great for teaching her math, map reading, and problem solving (as any version of D&D would be; it's just that this one lets her create exactly the character she wants--in her case, a ranger/rogue that is arguably more effective than her friend the battle sorcerer).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing Kirthfinder in a "Tiered Gestalt" system, where you are given points every level and can spend those points on class levels, or even feats.
I'm currently playing an Archivist. Archivist, as a Divine Wizard, is normally ranked at Tier 1. However, since I'm playing a version from an unrated source (Kirthfinder), I'm effectively paying for it as though it were a Tier 0 class.
What this means is that the amount of points the class costs will scale beyond the total amount of points I have. So after this level (we are currently level 9) I won't be able to level up in this class anymore.
For comparison sake, every level we get a number of points that allow you to safely tristalt three Tier 3 classes, or gestalt one Tier 3 class with one Tier 2 class.
This is all just background to what I'm saying now. Which is, that Kirthfinder is an awesome system, but there are a few things that are slightly unbalancing. Namely, the numen system.
In Kirthfinder, your numen can be spent on feats. You pay an amount of numen equal to 2000 x the minimum number of ranks or BAB needed to get the listed effect. But this restriction can be easily abused, which my character does in 1 of 2 ways.
The first way, is Metamagic. Metamagic doesn't really have any minimum restriction. So I've spent quite a lot of numen simply amassing a large number of Metamagic feats. I really love having so much access to these spell variations, however I think it needs a slight tweak to be balanced.
My suggestion, is that Metamagic now costs 2000 numen x the metamagic level adjustment. +0 level spells count as +1 level spells, and negative cost metamagic count for their absolute value, the same way they do for Spellcraft DCs. Metamagic that has variable spell level costs can be purchased at a lower level, but you cannot adjust the spell level beyond what you paid for.
The second way in which the numen system is a bit unbalanced, is in the "Extra" feats. Namely, "Extra Channel." There's no prerequisite to the feat. So taking said feat only costs 2000 numen, which is a paltry cost outside of the early game.
In order to balance feats that can be taken multiple times, I would simply implement a scaling cost similar to the cost of a magic item. That is you pay 2000 numen x the number of times you've taken the feat, squared. So taking the feat once costs 2000 numen. Taking it twice costs 4000 numen. Taking it 5 times costs 50000 numen. Taking it 10 times costs 200,000 numen. Obviously, the costs wouldn't stack.
That said, even without the abuse of Channel number, there's still the rather potent feat, Channeled Spell, which lets you retain a spell slot or SLA depending on your number of channel dice. Up until now, I had always read the feat as requiring a number of Channel Energy uses equal to the level of the spell, similar to the Time Domain's Versatile Channel ability, Channel Time. However, after looking up both the past and current version, I realized that I was wrong. It only uses up dice of Channel, so as long as you don't multiclass, retaining any spell only ever costs one channel energy use.
At the moment, I'm currently abusing the Extra Channel trick to make use of a ton of Channel Energies for the purpose of powering Channel Time. I was also using it to power Channeled Spell, but by expending Channel Energy uses the same way I do for Channel Time. I probably won't update how I use Channeled Spell unless the Extra Channel feat trick is patched out.
Still, I'm having a ton of fun in this game as a knowledge-focused God Wizard. I don't do nearly as much damage as some of the tristalt 3pp damage dealing monstrosities in my party, but my damage is still decent due to the use of Magical Talent: Bolt of Force and Feat Mastery (which might be worthy of discussion on it's own, heh). So I'm capable of contributing to any and every part of the campaign.
I'm pretty devoted to making sure that this system works, even if I have to pay a slight penalty in order to use it. Also, I just hit Level 9. Do my eyes decieve me, or does the Magic Domain really have the Counterspell from D&D 5th edition? Heh. Speaking of which, the Magic Domain's Variant Channel is still spliced with the Mystic Domain's version, but that matters a lot less now that I get access to 5e's Counterspell, lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there are a few things that are slightly unbalancing. Namely, the numen system.
Great points all around -- I love that someone is finally doing destructive playtesting to find flaws and loopholes. This kind of feedback is absolutely invaluable to me, and I'll be pondering solutions -- either along the lines you suggested, or, if I can, more elegantly with a single rule or rule change that would fix multiple issues.
Re: extra metemagic feats, bear in mind the ranks in Spellcraft prerequisite (2x metamagic cost), which will drive up some of the costs -- albeit not enough to prevent the kinds of abuse you outlined.
there are a few things that are slightly unbalancing. Namely, the numen system.Great points all around -- I love that someone is finally doing destructive playtesting to find flaws and loopholes. This kind of feedback is absolutely invaluable to me, and I'll be pondering solutions -- either along the lines you suggested, or, if I can, more elegantly with a single rule or rule change that would fix multiple issues.
Re: extra metemagic feats, bear in mind the ranks in Spellcraft prerequisite (2x metamagic cost), which will drive up some of the costs -- albeit not enough to prevent the kinds of abuse you outlined.
I also ran into this in your game with Kolmac while planning for higher levels--buying most of your basic metamagic modifiers with numen (e.g. Extend, Shape, Distance) in combination with the spell construction system, and then spending your actual feat slots on the ones with higher prerequisites, makes you really versatile, probably disproportionately to the costs. Is that more/less broken than any other character doing the same with low-cost-of-entry feats? Not sure.
That said, as a player, I was really excited by some of the possibilities that created and the interplay of seeds, pre-modified spells, and metamagic to provide a lot of options off of a fairly limited number of spellbook pages. It's possible that within the seed system metamagic ought to be treated closer to spells known than feats (though with both having numen equivalencies maybe that's a meaningless distinction)? At least for a wizard they feel kinda the same, as building blocks of your spells.
there are a few things that are slightly unbalancing. Namely, the numen system.Great points all around -- I love that someone is finally doing destructive playtesting to find flaws and loopholes. This kind of feedback is absolutely invaluable to me, and I'll be pondering solutions -- either along the lines you suggested, or, if I can, more elegantly with a single rule or rule change that would fix multiple issues.
Re: extra metemagic feats, bear in mind the ranks in Spellcraft prerequisite (2x metamagic cost), which will drive up some of the costs -- albeit not enough to prevent the kinds of abuse you outlined.
Being entirely honest, I don't consider it to be too terrible to spend numen on numerous metamagic feats. However, I should note that I basically ignore the line about seed spells allowing me to gain the augmented versions for free. I only use augments with metamagic that I have access to, as that makes the most sense to me. Effectively, I treat seed spells as just regular spells. In that instance, having access to a ton of metamagic isn't exactly a bad thing, IMHO.
It's not like I'm spending numen on stats or anything else. I think the Extra Channel exploit is of greater concern, personally.
That said, if too much metamagic is an issue, you could just impose a metamagic tax of some sort, where every metamagic costs an additional 1000 numen per metamagic you have access to. This would be due to inherent metamagic synergy.
Re: Strength discussion a while back, consider adding this to the attribute description:
In addition, layers of muscle can help deflect impacts. You gain damage reduction against bludgeoning and nonlethal damage equal to your Strength modifier (if your modifier is negative, you actually take extra bludgeoning and nonlethal damage). For example, a character with a 15 Strength has DR 2/piercing or slashing.
I...don't hate it. First mental image is a big muscular character just barreling their way through, say, a zombie horde, nearly impervious to their attacks. Pretty evocative, flavor matches rules. I'm not sure I'm *as* sold on the nonlethal reduction (that definitely feels more strictly Con to me).
Does this result in no player character ever using a bludgeoning-only weapon though?
Does this result in no player character ever using a bludgeoning-only weapon though?
That's a good question -- I'd think it likely, now that you bring it up. I didn't want to make it DR/-, as was previously suggested, because that would upset the entire DR system of the game.
I added in nonlethal so that unarmed attacks would be affected.
Maybe keep the penalty clause, but have the bonus cost a feat? I'm open to other suggestions.
It may not be right for the design ethos of Kirthfinder, but this is a spot where my first impulse would be to include it as part of a set of 'heroic' rules that distinguish the PCs and notable NPCs from the rest of the world, in the same vein as giving them enhanced attribute generation methods. But maybe it's weird for it to be specific to STR and not spread across all attributes.
Trying to work a complementary piercing/slashing DR in somewhere is a no-go, since the only logical place would be Dex (twisting to the side so a cut isn't as deep or the like) but Dex doesn't need any help.
So yeah, a feat for the upside is probably the most straightforward solution. Since it will scale naturally with Str, I think it's high-enough impact without needing much or anything in the way of higher-level add-ons the way many converted PF/3e->Kirthfinder feats have.
Another secondary concern--I don't recall how you handle nonlethal damage from environmental conditions etc.; as long as Str is playing a complementary role to Con there I don't see a major problem though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I noticed recently that the giant centipede conversions were completely borked -- not sure what happened there. They're much better now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just want to say still find everything you keep bringing to the table amazing work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather it was just DR/Nonlethal instead of Bludgeoning and NOT Slashing or Piercing.
How about this, though? Instead of DR/-, whenever you take lethal damage, you instead turn up to your STR-mod of it into nonlethal damage. This way, you're still taking the damage, but it's less lethal for you.
Negative STR mods could then mean that you take additional nonlethal damage whenever you take lethal damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather it was just DR/Nonlethal instead of Bludgeoning and NOT Slashing or Piercing.
How about this, though? Instead of DR/-, whenever you take lethal damage, you instead turn up to your STR-mod of it into nonlethal damage. This way, you're still taking the damage, but it's less lethal for you.
Negative STR mods could then mean that you take additional nonlethal damage whenever you take lethal damage.
On second thought, I'm using this for my own game. Feel free to carry on as normal.
I've been working on the sorcerer -- eldritch blasts have been standardized as SLAs (1st level at start, as if the character had Magical Talent with Feat Mastery for at-will use) with a damage cap of 5d6. The improved blasts use standard spell construction rules and are 2nd level, for a damage cap of 10d6 vs. a single target. Greater blasts are 3rd level, so they cap at 10d6 even when shaped to affect multiple targets.
I also plan on going through and re-construct some of the wonkier powers using spell construction rules to see if they make sense.
kirth i have a question: in your opinion for a sorceress lvl 20 with the next archetype, feat aand capstone are the best dmg combo: Crossblooded (Archetype), Eldritch Heritage (Mythic) (or normal feat), Sorcerer—Unique Bloodline (Su)
kirth i have a question: in your opinion for a sorceress lvl 20 with the next archetype, feat aand capstone are the best dmg combo: Crossblooded (Archetype), Eldritch Heritage (Mythic) (or normal feat), Sorcerer—Unique Bloodline (Su)
If that's Paizo stuff, I have no opinion. If it's the homebrew stuff this thread is about, I'm unclear on what those choices are.
If you click the link in profile, all files are up to date as of today. I added a barbarian/druid multiclassing option (which weirdly didn't have any support until now), and also clarified the numen costs for putting feats into magic items.
I was looking at the feat rules, and there still seems to be some...grey areas.
Namely this:
For feats that grant additional uses of class features (e.g., Extra Channeling), the cost is 2,000 numen x the minimum level needed to gain the final number of uses. For example, Extra Channeling grants 2 additional uses per day; if you can already channel energy 3/day, the cost would be 18,000 numen (channeling energy 5/day requires a 9th level caster)
Channel Energy uses don't scale with level. Only Channel Energy damage scales by level. You only ever get 3 + Charisma mod in Channels ever. So the example given doesn't exactly make sense.
I checked the cleric and archivist and nothing in those classes changes this, so I'm wondering if maybe you were planning on changing Channel Energy uses to scale with level but didn't push it to live for whatever reason.
Channel Energy uses don't scale with level. Only Channel Energy damage scales by level. You only ever get 3 + Charisma mod in Channels ever. So the example given doesn't exactly make sense.
Ag, you're absolutely right. Brain fart there (I almost never play a cleric, so my memory is always hazy on the mechanics). Hmmm.
The simplest fix would be 2,000 x final number of uses, but that's only half as much.
LOL
Channel Energy uses don't scale with level. Only Channel Energy damage scales by level. You only ever get 3 + Charisma mod in Channels ever. So the example given doesn't exactly make sense.Ag, you're absolutely right. Brain fart there (I almost never play a cleric, so my memory is always hazy on the mechanics). Hmmm.
The simplest fix would be 2,000 x final number of uses, but that's only half as much.
The absolute easiest fix, would be to keep the wording, then just change Channel Energy to scale with level.
You now get 1 + CHA mod uses at level 1, with an extra use every odd level thereafter.
So by level 5, you have the same 3 + CHA uses, but by level 15, you 8 + CHA uses.
That would make sense with the way you've written the new Extra Channel and I'm always down for some more level scaling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Am looking to change the rogue's "sabotage item" talent to "sabotage magic." It would have the same uses, but also allow free use of Disable Device in place of Spellcraft, under the rationale that you see no substantive difference between technology and magic.
Also thinking of adding a "pluck" general talent, allowing the rogue's disposition and temperament to bolster physical stamina. You'd use Cha modifier in place of Con, and Bluff in place of Endurance, when advantageous.
In short, the rogue is slippery enough to find a work-around for just about anything.
Thoughts?
Have you ever thought of setting this up as an SRD that could be updated, and forming a discord community? I feel like you could probably get some additional interest -- as well as growing the system with interested parties submitting/accumulating more homebrew add-ons, if that was something that interested you (beyond the 1200 pages (800,000+ words, I just checked) of the main rule book/items, minus the bestiary (!!!). Someone else might want to, for example, flesh out a psionics/mysticism system for the sorcerer.
I like to keep it close, for personal use, due to copyright issues.
I like to keep it close, for personal use, due to copyright issues.
Release under a liscense similar to the ogl, protects your copyright elements yet encourages use of your system and also allows all the benefits of open wiki.
Am looking to change the rogue's "sabotage item" talent to "sabotage magic." It would have the same uses, but also allow free use of Disable Device in place of Spellcraft, under the rationale that you see no substantive difference between technology and magic.
Also thinking of adding a "pluck" general talent, allowing the rogue's disposition and temperament to bolster physical stamina. You'd use Cha modifier in place of Con, and Bluff in place of Endurance, when advantageous.
In short, the rogue is slippery enough to find a work-around for just about anything.
Thoughts?
I personally never consider technology and magic as indistinguishable, for three reasons, first, technology can be learned at the latest developed level, a new engineer doesn't need to start at the stone age and develop from there but rather can learn the latest and greatest, while magic must be learned from the beginning by every single mage and developed from scratch, for example, a new engineer making a grenade doesn't have to start off by making black powder grenades and only upgrading to C4 after much development as an engineer, but a mage must start with cantrips and build up to fireball (not to mention that technically only those mages comparable to Einstein can cast a fireball, though to be fair, most fantasy worlds have lots more Einsteins than our world). Second, I've always seen magic as being intangible and technology as object designs, and thus only mages can manipulate and use magic while anybody can interact with technology. Of course this also leaves magic items as technology powered by magic. Third, it takes away from magic to say it is just tech reskinned.
Thus, I would never allow a pure tech based skill to work on pure magic.
That said, copying the ability to have a tech based and a magic based version with the magic based version having the requirement of being able to cast magic, such as the minor magic trick or levels in a caster class, etc.
Also, another consideration is how flexible you want it to be for others to use with their own settings. Maintaining a magic split from everything else keeps it open for other GMs to have settings that deal with magic in various different ways, such a setting like Magebreakers where only certain people have even the capacity to use magic regardless of training, or the Dark Sun setting. If you combine the two you are limiting the rules to your own setting and making it hard for changes to be implemented for other GMs to make their own settings with different traits from the default.
I personally never consider technology and magic as indistinguishable, for three reasons
Notice I said "you see no substantive difference," not "there is no difference." Both of these abilities are basically you, as a rogue, lying to yourself so well that some kind of fantasy placebo effect kicks in and you're somehow able to function in some ways as if those lies were true.
Exactly.
I personally never consider technology and magic as indistinguishable, for three reasonsNotice I said "you see no substantive difference," not "there is no difference." Both of these abilities are basically you, as a rogue, lying to yourself so well that some kind of fantasy placebo effect kicks in and you're somehow able to function in some ways as if those lies were true.
If you lie to yourself about being able to jump 3 stories and the end result is being able to jump 3 stories, then it isn't a lie. Either way, my point stands. My point may or may not matter to you and your vision for your system, but it still stands.
If you lie to yourself about being able to jump 3 stories and the end result is being able to jump 3 stories, then it isn't a lie. Either way, my point stands. My point may or may not matter to you and your vision for your system, but it still stands.I personally never consider technology and magic as indistinguishable, for three reasonsNotice I said "you see no substantive difference," not "there is no difference." Both of these abilities are basically you, as a rogue, lying to yourself so well that some kind of fantasy placebo effect kicks in and you're somehow able to function in some ways as if those lies were true.
Happily conceded. But the rogue (and fighter, and so on) needs something to make up for never being able to stop time. Whatever substitutes I can find will have to do, unless better ones are offered.
The thought is that an 18th level rogue (or fighter, or barbarian, or whatever) should be equal to an 18th level wizard. 18 = 18. As it is, when a 9th level wizard > a 9th level rogue, the system is badly broken, at the very base of it, and needs to be redone. I'll take any ideas that lead to that end.
Hey Kirth, Question: For Incorporeal Familiars, they basically just apply the Ghost Template, correct?
Should I assume that the +2 CR increase from the Ghost template isn't applied, because of the inherent downsides of Incorporeal Familiars (can't move from master's square, can't interact with anyone or anything else)?
Presumably, if I did apply the +2 CR increase of the template, then it would gain all of the benefits of the template, while still being able to interact normally with the rest of the world, right?
While I'm at it, let's see if I got this right. I'm a Level 10 Archivist who took Thaumaturgy. I'm looking to create a Protector Familiar based off of the Udaeus. Because I'm level 10, the maximum CR my cohort could be would be 7. Would the following be a legal choice?
Young (-1 CR)
Degenerate (-1 CR)
Wingless (-1 CR)
Half-Celestial (+2 CR)
Shadow Creature (+1 CR)
Arcane Familiar (+1 CR)
Incorporeal Familiar [Ghost Template w/ restrictions] (+0 CR)
Minimum WBL (-1 CR)
Fighter 4 (+4 CR)
Outsider 6 (+3 CR)
Udaeus [HD 10, CR 7, TOTAL]
Did I get anything wrong? Is minimum WBL already baked into any cohort, so "Par" WBL would be considered +1 instead of +0 for them?
Also, any issues with Type changing templates? Thaumaturgy should already cover magical beasts, but I dunno if there are any issues when it comes to using outsiders and then changing THEM into magical beasts as familiars.
At any rate, happy 3,900th post!