Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft Houserules


Homebrew and House Rules

301 to 350 of 3,973 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Kirth,

I have been thinking about the 4 saves change and came up with a few questions/observations:

I looked over the spells and discovered how few spells actually are charm spells, most of the save or suck spells are compulsions. That being said dividing up charm spells to intuition and compulsion spells to will create three saves (Fort, Will, and Intuition) rather than two that are able to knock a player out of the combat with one roll (save or suck). This would seem to weaken the non-spell casting classes more. Allowing spell casters a new weakness to exploit seems to only strengthen them, especially the casters that are able to change out their entire complement of spells each day to vary their offensive options (i.e. the wizard and cleric).

I was also wondering how often making an intuition save would really matter. Yes against charm spells it is key, but I could only find 8 spells designated as charm spells (5 of which are the spells with charm in their name) when I looked through the list of spells I use (Core spells and select others), and honestly if I had to choose to defend myself against compulsion spells (most of the save or suck spells) or illusions and charm spells, intuition would be the minor save to focus on.

Am I missing something or was that intentional?


Christopher Hauschild wrote:
Important thoughts on adding an Intuition save.

Regarding the addition of another avenue of attack for spells: I'm OK with it mostly because, as a balance, wizards, clerics, and druids are faced with increasing MAD and appropriately lower save DCs for all their spells. Also, some element of "rock-paper-scissors" was a design goal overall.

Finally, as Psychicmachinery correctly pointed out, eventually it reaches a point at which prohibiting options to casters becomes less about balance and more about kicking them some more just because we're so used to doing that.

Regarding Will being far more important a save than Intuition in the grand scheme of things: I agree with you, and would very much like to add uses to Intuition saves. One thought I had was that curses would target the Intuition save -- your strong faith or innate tendency to shy away from "icky" corruption would serve better than sheer force of will. I'm definitely open to other suggestions as well.


You say that adding an additional saving throw was unanimous, but honestly, I just went along with it because everyone else seemed to feel it was a great solution. If I'd realized how much extra work for you it would be, I probably would have encouraged more discussion to see if we couldn't come up with a better solution. However, after laying it all out like I did below (necessary because of how my brain works) I see the concern for Wisdom not having enough utility.

This below list is correct as of the latest rules, right?

STR - damage bonus
DEX - melee attack bonus, AC, Reflex save
CON - Fort saves, extra HP, bleeding out limit
WIS - ranged attack bonus and Intuition saves
INT - skill points
CHA - determining all spell DCs, Will saves, all social skills

Also, bonus spells are still tied to the traditional caster stats, right?


Andostre wrote:
This below list is correct as of the latest rules, right?

My list looks something like this:

STR - melee attack and damage bonus, encumbrance
DEX - AC, Reflex saves, initiative, thrown weapons attack bonus
CON - hp, Fort saves, bleed out limit
INT - skill points, bonus spells for wizards
WIS - Intuition saves, projectile attack bonus, bonus spells for clerics and druids
CHA - Will saves, spell DCs, bonus spells/day for spontaneous casters

The above can be substituted/swapped out in a number of ways:

  • Diligent Preparation class feature for Int instead of Cha for spell DCs
  • Serentity feat for Wis instead of Cha for save DCs
  • Weapon Finesse for Dex instead of Str for melee
  • Powerful Throw for Str instead of Dex for thrown weapons
  • Reflexive Shot for Dex instead of Wis for projectiles
    (etc.)

  • Dark Archive

    While I played combat sorcerer, I never once used eldritch blast. The problem is that it is heavily dependent on Dex or Wis, depending on which stat do you use. I can't remember if there's a feat that would allow the Sorc to channel eldritch blast through melee attack. That would be nice.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    My list looks something like this:

    I'm glad I asked. I never caught the division between thrown and projectile attacks. I assumed those bonuses all moved to Wisdom. Thanks.


    1. eldritch blast for sorcerer seems to devalue a lot of spells for that class - something that wasn't a problem when it was a warlock class feature since he didnt have them at all.

    so basically it would mean that some low lvl spells like magic missile or shocking grasp are devalued and become wizard-only selections (unless he uses a wand) and later on when the shape is changed it also eats some area spells as well

    2. Spell save dc modified always by CHA seems to give spontanous casters a little push - is that intentional?
    Regarding this im not sure if it isn't a bit harsh to make Diligent preparation an alternative to arcane bond - isn't it enough to make it a feat?

    3. Wis modifying projectile attack bonus seems good rules-wise - but i really can't get my head behing it. i can imagine it as a special training with zen archery as in 3.5; but archery seems to me to be something mainly controlled by coordinating your hands, and your aim - something ruled by Dex. So i think i would rather keep the the old system + zen archery feat.

    4. To still make Wis relevant i'd suggest to modify Initiative by Wisdom (as someone else already said here) since initiative relfects how you can react intuitivly to danger - combining perception, intuition and experience - and not pure footwork and fast reactions

    thats my 2 cents for now

    btw i asked for cr mainly to get a general feeling, my PCs have a simmilar kicked dog vs jaggernaut experience as yours ^^

    Oh and where do i find rules for bleed out limit? i missed that it seems


    Sertaki wrote:

    1. eldritch blast for sorcerer seems to devalue a lot of spells for that class - something that wasn't a problem when it was a warlock class feature since he didnt have them at all. so basically it would mean that some low lvl spells like magic missile or shocking grasp are devalued and become wizard-only selections (unless he uses a wand) and later on when the shape is changed it also eats some area spells as well

    2. (a) Spell save dc modified always by CHA seems to give spontanous casters a little push - is that intentional?
    (b) Regarding this im not sure if it isn't a bit harsh to make Diligent preparation an alternative to arcane bond - isn't it enough to make it a feat?

    3. Wis modifying projectile attack bonus seems good rules-wise - but i really can't get my head behing it. i can imagine it as a special training with zen archery as in 3.5; but archery seems to me to be something mainly controlled by coordinating your hands, and your aim - something ruled by Dex. So i think i would rather keep the the old system + zen archery feat.

    4. To still make Wis relevant i'd suggest to modify Initiative by Wisdom (as someone else already said here) since initiative relfects how you can react intuitivly to danger - combining perception, intuition and experience - and not pure footwork and fast reactions

    5. Oh and where do i find rules for bleed out limit? i missed that it seems

    1. What eldrtich blast does is free up spells known for things like utility spells, battlefield control spells, and so on -- since sorcerers have a very limited number of spells known, and now they don't have to waste them on blasting.

    2. (a) Yes.
    2. (b) Absolutely not -- then the feat becomes a tax; every wizard character will always take it. It stops being an option. However, arcane bonds (esp. implements and staves) and Eidetic Memory are so good that they're more or less on a par with Diligent Preparation.

    3.-4. We've discussed this ad nauseum, and everyone else will go to sleep if I start quoting Wyatt Earp yet again (there's a summary in the Intro document, if you're interested). If you don't like it, you can of course do whatever you want in your home game.

    5. See Endurance skill in Chapter 2.


    nightflier wrote:
    While I played combat sorcerer, I never once used eldritch blast. The problem is that it is heavily dependent on Dex or Wis, depending on which stat do you use. I can't remember if there's a feat that would allow the Sorc to channel eldritch blast through melee attack. That would be nice.

    You could do it as a standard action by taking the Innate Metamagic feat (and declaring the parameters as eldritch blast ability + Spellstrike feat).

    Add the Battle Touch feat and you can do it as part of a full attack, albeit with a -5 penalty to attacks.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    Regarding Will being far more important a save than Intuition in the grand scheme of things: I agree with you, and would very much like to add uses to Intuition saves. One thought I had was that curses would target the Intuition save -- your strong faith or innate tendency to shy away from "icky" corruption would serve better than sheer force of will. I'm definitely open to other suggestions as well.

    Ooh -- here's another one I forgot: Divination spells that allow a saving throw (e.g., discern lies, scrying) should target the Intuition save, not the Will save (giving rogues good Intuition saves would therefore make them somewhat resistant to divinations, enhancing their "sneaky" feel).


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    2. (b) Absolutely not -- then the feat becomes a tax; every wizard character will always take it. It stops being an option. However, arcane bonds (esp. implements and staves) and Eidetic Memory are so good that they're more or less on a par with Diligent Preparation.

    Plus, it's perfect for a class feature that only wizards get. Each class needs class features that are unique to them, and it seems like diligent preparation is good for that.


    I feel a little better about the intuition addition now, though I still would like to see how play testing treats it (and the work it causes will be huge I fear). Also I think the Bleed out option in endurance did not make it to the document posted online since I did not see it under endurance in my print out.

    Having divination spells target intuition is good.

    Also even with the toning down of the perception skill I still would count it as a benefit under wisdom. Back in 2nd edition I used an old dragon magazine suggestion to make 5% x your wisdom = perception, ever since that time perception had always been a core ability score for all my characters in 1st and 2nd edition.

    Thanks,

    Chris


    Christopher Hauschild wrote:

    1. I feel a little better about the intuition addition now, though I still would like to see how play testing treats it (and the work it causes will be huge I fear).

    2. Also I think the Bleed out option in endurance did not make it to the document posted online since I did not see it under endurance in my print out.

    3. Having divination spells target intuition is good.

    4. Also even with the toning down of the perception skill I still would count it as a benefit under wisdom.

    1. It's as much work as you let it be: I'm a perfectionist DM, so I always make sure my NPCs and monsters follow all the rules, so for me personally it's a lot of extra work (but worth it, if it adds to the players' experience even a little). For someone like houstonderek who likes to DM on the fly, he'd hand-wave the bonuses and never think twice about it -> no extra work at all.

    2. Sorry -- crossed signals there. Remember that in PF/KF, characters die at -Con hp, not at a flat -10. The Endurance skill lets you do important things like ignore fatigue penalties and Diehard, and it's Con-based.

    3. I thought so!

    4. Especially if we include the Endurance skill as a benefit of Con... and we could list Casting Defensively under all the casting stats. But sooner or later we have to abridge the list!


    Andostre wrote:
    Plus, it's perfect for a class feature that only wizards get. Each class needs class features that are unique to them, and it seems like diligent preparation is good for that.

    Hmmm, I guess that means I should re-think adding a bardic lore for skalds that does the same thing?


    1. what's the reason for bards (especially minstrels) being unable to swap armor proficiency for canny defense while unarmored? (like rogues)

    i feel they should be able to - or is it just to give rogues something special?

    2. Why was the iconic bardic knowledge removed? i think it should be represented as a bardic lore choice

    oh and i found an inconsistancy:
    The explanation for spells reads "A bard begins play knowing four 0-level spells and two 1st-level spells of your choice, plus a 1st level bonus spell common to all bards" ; but in the spell table a bard only knows 1+1 spells at first level


    Sertaki wrote:

    1. what's the reason for bards (especially minstrels) being unable to swap armor proficiency for canny defense while unarmored? (like rogues)

    2. Why was the iconic bardic knowledge removed? i think it should be represented as a bardic lore choice

    3. oh and i found an inconsistancy: The explanation for spells reads "A bard begins play knowing four 0-level spells and two 1st-level spells of your choice, plus a 1st level bonus spell common to all bards" ; but in the spell table a bard only knows 1+1 spells at first level

    1. I'll go back and check on this.

    2. It was not removed. It is now the Knowledge (lore) skill, in which every bard receives 1 free rank per class level.

    3. Editor-in-Chief Christopher Hauschild beat you to it! When it comes to tabular discrepancies, non-matching cross-references, alphabetized lists, etc., the man has absolutely no equal.


    Kirth Gersen said wrote:

    1. I'll go back and check on this.

    2. It was not removed. It is now the Knowledge (lore) skill, in which every bard receives 1 free rank per class level.

    3. Editor-in-Chief Christopher Hauschild beat you to it! When it comes to tabular discrepancies, non-matching cross-references, alphabetized lists, etc., the man has absolutely no equal.

    1. so it was not intentional to disallow them the cunning defense swap?

    2. ah right so you are bascially emulating the 3.5 bardic knowledge instead of the many knowledge boni they got in pf?

    3. i almost suspected he would have seen that already :D so the table starts at 2+1 and basically they get 1 spell more per level right?


    Sertaki wrote:

    1. so it was not intentional to disallow them the cunning defense swap?

    2. ah right so you are bascially emulating the 3.5 bardic knowledge instead of the many knowledge boni they got in pf?

    3. i almost suspected he would have seen that already :D so the table starts at 2+1 and basically they get 1 spell more per level right?

    1. I said I would check on it. So that means that off the top of my head I don't recall, but can likely find out by consulting my notes.

    2. Bards get skill focus periodically as a bonus feat, which can be used to duplicate the Knowledge bonuses, or random other skill bonuses, from Pathfinder.

    3. No; the table is correct (1+1) -- there is no reason a bard should get 3 1st level spells known at 1st level. Amend the text accordingly.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Andostre wrote:
    Plus, it's perfect for a class feature that only wizards get. Each class needs class features that are unique to them, and it seems like diligent preparation is good for that.
    Hmmm, I guess that means I should re-think adding a bardic lore for skalds that does the same thing?

    Well, bards should have a decent or high Charisma, so I don't see why it would be necessary.

    In fact, with the exception of wizards, druids, and rangers, all spellcasters have a reason to have a decent Charisma other than the new spell DC rule, right? I'm kind of ok with the lack of synergy for rangers, since they're primarily a combat/skill class. I'm not familiar enough with the Kirthfinder druid to know if that's too harsh for them, although it's worth noting that druids are already more MAD than wizards, usually (or maybe that's only druids that focus on Wild shape combat).


    Andostre wrote:

    1. Well, bards should have a decent or high Charisma, so I don't see why it would be necessary.

    2. In fact, with the exception of wizards, druids, and rangers, all spellcasters have a reason to have a decent Charisma other than the new spell DC rule, right? I'm kind of ok with the lack of synergy for rangers, since they're primarily a combat/skill class. I'm not familiar enough with the Kirthfinder druid to know if that's too harsh for them, although it's worth noting that druids are already more MAD than wizards, usually (or maybe that's only druids that focus on Wild shape combat).

    1. Minstrels do, but skalds (the warrior-poet bard variant) are Int-based, and also need Str, Dex, and Con (in other words, they're already crazy MAD).

    2. Yes, for Will saves if nothing else -- and clerics need Cha for channeling energy. Druids who avoid melee and use their "pet" as a blocker are less MAD and can invest in Cha; on the other hand, melee druids probably don't care much about spell save DCs. Clerics and druids can always pick up the Serenity feat to alleviate their MAD as well, which is one of the reasons that's still just a feat -- it's not single-class dependent (handy for clerics, druids, and paladins, among others) and it's also alleviating MAD as opposed to creating SAD.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    1. Minstrels do, but skalds (the warrior-poet bard variant) are Int-based, and also need Str, Dex, and Con (in other words, they're already crazy MAD).

    I can see creating it for skalds, then.

    Dark Archive

    So Kirth! Where might one find the newest edition of Kirthfinder?


    1. If you give the feaature to skalds you might consider giving it to archivists as well though i've got no idea what to swap for it

    2. the skill section mentions magic tomes several times - what do they do in comparison to scroll? or where can i find the description?

    3. how would you stat out firearms under your equipment rules?
    my first take would be something like

    Pistol
    simple: ranged (10 ft) with -4 competence penalty to attacks, 1d8 x3, Misfire 1, loading with black powder increases misfire value to 5, reload 1 full round
    martial: ranged (20 ft), 1d8 x4, misfire 1, no loading penalty, reload 1 standard action
    exotic: ranged (20 ft), 1d8 x4, misfire 1, reload 1 move action

    4. how does your magic item crafting system play out compared to the standard?

    (feel free to tell me when i'm getting on your nerves with my questions ^^)


    I just had a nice idea

    You might condiser giving minstrel bards the wizard's Practiced Sage favored class choice (possibly with lore as the only choice) to let the bard have a bardic knowledge bonus that is actually higher than just skill focus (Lore) which everyone can take.


    Correction under my wizard and sorcerer edits, the enlarge spell feat should be changed to the reach spell feat, not the widen spell feat.


    Do in your experience Canny Defense and Dodge become feat taxes for arcane casters and any light armored characters?


    Dot for download later ( dame tiny phone brain)


    1. Close-Quarter Fighting is included and therefore superseded in Improved Grapple - though it is implemented only with enough skill ranks, so both could have a justification -- no idea if that was pointed out already

    2. The feat Polearm Parry seems very unbalanced without some BAB requirement, since it's originally a 19th level feature ... i'd suggest something like +10

    3. Flay Foe, Pulverize Foe and Skewer Foe work very simillarily but only Flay Foe gives a synergy with vital strike - either you forgot to add it twice or to remove it from Flay Foe - or is there a specific design reason behind this?


    DΗ wrote:
    So Kirth! Where might one find the newest edition of Kirthfinder?

    If you start with what TOZ linked on the first page of this thread, then look at the errata under the "about" this avatar, you should have a pretty good picture.


    Sertaki wrote:

    1. If you give the feaature to skalds you might consider giving it to archivists as well though i've got no idea what to swap for it

    2. the skill section mentions magic tomes several times - what do they do in comparison to scroll? or where can i find the description?
    3. how would you stat out firearms under your equipment rules?
    my first take would be something like
    4. how does your magic item crafting system play out compared to the standard?

    1. I had the same problem!

    2. See the PRD, under magic items.
    3. If I were to stat firearms, I would be looking at everything from arquebuses to Glocks to fusion guns -- a project far beyond the scope of what I want to get into right now.
    4. No one has crafted anything except scrolls so far in the playtesting.


    Sertaki wrote:
    You might condiser giving minstrel bards the wizard's Practiced Sage favored class choice (possibly with lore as the only choice) to let the bard have a bardic knowledge bonus that is actually higher than just skill focus (Lore) which everyone can take.

    I thought of ita few days ago, and will probably do that.


    Sertaki wrote:
    Do in your experience Canny Defense and Dodge become feat taxes for arcane casters and any light armored characters?

    Not for arcane casters, because (a) Canny Defense doesn't stack with mage armor; (b) Dodge scales with BAB, not level; (c) casters have better defenses with spells (displacement, etc.); and (d) smart casters tend to try and stay back out of harm's way in combat whenever possible anyway.


    Sertaki wrote:

    1. Close-Quarter Fighting is included and therefore superseded in Improved Grapple - though it is implemented only with enough skill ranks, so both could have a justification -- no idea if that was pointed out already

    2. The feat Polearm Parry seems very unbalanced without some BAB requirement, since it's originally a 19th level feature ... i'd suggest something like +10
    3. Flay Foe, Pulverize Foe and Skewer Foe work very simillarily but only Flay Foe gives a synergy with vital strike - either you forgot to add it twice or to remove it from Flay Foe - or is there a specific design reason behind this?

    1. I'll take a look -- thanks.

    2. I intend rewriting it so it scales with BAB. Also, it should be a stance, not a general combat feat.
    3. The Flay Foe synergy note is simply to call out specifically how to replicate that ToB maneuver, for fans of that book. It's not mechanically any different than Vital Strike + Pluverize Foe, etc.

    Liberty's Edge

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Running my first Kirthfinder game (finally) in about 6 hours! I'll make sure to report back once we're done--although I'm not sure if there will be anything especially notable for a while, as the beginning combat encounters tend to use NPC classes and monsters.

    Incidentally, after some discussion, my players are actually happy with 15 point buy, now that they've actually seen the kind of stats they can get out of it. One commented that his character now feels like a 1st level character instead of being really overly powerful. I'm certainly happy to see the numbers back down to where they should be.

    One player who settled on playing a Ranger wanted to wear no armor, so I traded his light armor proficiency for the Dodge feat, as a Monk. Do you think this could become a standard option for those classes that wind up with light armor from trading proficiencies for Canny Defense?


    Alice, do you know yet what character classes your group will be playing?


    Alice Margatroid wrote:
    One player who settled on playing a Ranger wanted to wear no armor, so I traded his light armor proficiency for the Dodge feat, as a Monk. Do you think this could become a standard option for those classes that wind up with light armor from trading proficiencies for Canny Defense?

    The PC in your example would have to give up his shield proficiencies as well? What I'd really like to do is create a table of equivalancies for what can be traded for what, in terms of Canny Defense and Dodge. For example, maybe Heavy Armor + Medium Armor = Medium Armor + Shields = Medium Armor + Light Armor = Canny Defense, or something like that.

    Regarding Canny Defense, I'm more and more thinking the max insight bonus should = your BAB (except for monks, who get it all at once as a class feature). Because you'd end up with gradual scaling that way instead of a quick double-bump, that migth fit in with your recommendation a bit better.

    Liberty's Edge

    Andostre: My players are notoriously ADD when it comes to classes. I think they may have settled on Cleric, Ranger, and Monk (knock on wood). A 4th player will be joining us eventually, but he's in the process of moving houses so is a little too busy for a while. I think he was interested in playing a Druid last I heard, but that may change by the time he has a chance to join in.

    Kirth: A Ranger loses their shield proficiency as well as medium armor for Canny Defense. Even if they didn't, I would certainly make them trade out the shield proficiency as well.

    I always thought a table like that would be a good idea, though! Especially if it let you keep, say, your shield proficiencies, but trade out all your armor for Canny Defense. This could allow for things like an unarmored swashbuckler who uses a buckler and rapier, and I'm certain people could come up with other concepts. For the most part I suspect people wanting to use huge shields would stick to the armor, but options are always nice.

    Also, I agree on the limitation for insight = BAB, except for Monks (or other completely unarmored characters like my game's Ranger). The only problem I could see is in the case of arcane casters who don't normally wear armor anyway. On the other hand, I don't believe any of them can trade proficiencies, and would be spending a feat for the benefit, so perhaps it would be okay.

    Question: Does mage armor now give an insight bonus? I saw upthread that Canny Defense doesn't stack with it, but I thought that mage armor gave an armor bonus..

    EDIT: Nevermind, you covered that in the feat description. Then yes, it'd basically be trading a simple spell casting for an always-on ability.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Sertaki wrote:
    Do in your experience Canny Defense and Dodge become feat taxes for arcane casters and any light armored characters?
    Not for arcane casters, because (a) Canny Defense doesn't stack with mage armor; (b) Dodge scales with BAB, not level; (c) casters have better defenses with spells (displacement, etc.); and (d) smart casters tend to try and stay back out of harm's way in combat whenever possible anyway.

    Ah damn good that you pointed that out, i'll tell my sorcerer player he should look for something else then, since he likes mage armor a lot

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Regarding Canny Defense, I'm more and more thinking the max insight bonus should = your BAB (except for monks, who get it all at once as a class feature). Because you'd end up with gradual scaling that way instead of a quick double-bump, that migth fit in with your recommendation a bit better.

    I think it has to be this way or you get too high AC for the first levels - and the players get another thing that grows with them :D

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    See the PRD, under magic items.

    You mean the SRD? or what is the prd?

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    What I'd really like to do is create a table of equivalancies for what can be traded for what, in terms of Canny Defense and Dodge. For example, maybe Heavy Armor + Medium Armor = Medium Armor + Shields = Medium Armor + Light Armor = Canny Defense, or something like that.

    Yeah i think this is what we need instead of spelling it out for every class again and again - i'd also place it in the beginning of the classes section or reference it in each class description (outside of sorcerer and wizard) once.

    I don't really see a reason why there shouldn't be some monky ranger type :D


    Sertaki wrote:

    You mean the SRD? or what is the prd?

    Pathfinder RPG Reference Document

    Here it is


    ah thx, didn't knew that site, always using d20pfsrd.com


    As a heads-up, I spent the weekend looking at races.

  • I did a separate 8-level Mountain Dwarf Paragon progression, that makes you equivalent to a Midgard Dwarf from Frostburn.
  • New: a 4-level reptilian racial progression (they're lizardfolk from levels 1-2, with optional levels 3-4 progressing into half-dragon).
  • I completed the Sirine (riverfolk paragon) progression up through level 12; that racial "class" can now be used to represent all manner of water fey, from rusalkas to sirines to nereids.
  • I also filled out the vampire abilities and cut off levels 9-12 of the vampire progression, because I really think it's better to have PC class levels after that point.


  • A simple take on the table:

    lose Heavy & medium armor - gain canny defense
    lose Medium armor & Shields - gain canny defense
    lose Light armor - gain unarmored canny defense

    Druids:
    lose Medium, light armor & shields - gain unarmored canny defense

    To enable swashbucklers with a buckler you can take a fighter and trade heavy and medium armor for canny defense, and exotic weapon/shield proficiency for dodge.
    The problem is that a real swashbuckler needs exotic rapier proficiency :D
    (and did Zorro wear light armor?)

    So my suggestion for the dodge swap:

    If you chose to trade any armor and/or shield proficiencies for the canny defense feat, you can choose to also trade all remaining armor proficiencies for the dodge feat. When chosing this option you gain the bonus from canny defense only when unarmored if the last swap only removed light armor (working like the rogue swaping armor for canny defense)
    If your class normaly gives you proficiencies with all armor types and shields you keep martial proficiency with bucklers when chosing this option. (for swashbuckling paladins and fighters)
    Fighters can also chose to give up exotic weapon/shield proficiencies to gain the dodge feat instead of all remaining martial armor and shield proficiencies, retaining proficiency in light armor and shields.

    Armored fighters whose combined armor and shield penalty is -0 gain the scaling bonus of the dodge feat
    I'd also suggest to use this exception for all characters who had kept buckler proficiency after swapping for both feats (for buckler only obviously)

    I have made a more complicated table covering all classes and all combinations of canny defense and/or dodge using my suggestions, keeping fighters and barbarians as the only classes who can give up armor proficiencies to gain dodge without also gaining canny defense

    Table download

    and here is a jpg for people who don't want to go through download pains

    EDIT had a little mistake in the table and reuploaded both files

    Dark Archive

    Sertaki wrote:
    ah thx, didn't knew that site, always using d20pfsrd.com

    Generally the same content. d20pfsrd has prettier presentation, but PRD is generally more up to date.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    The above can be substituted/swapped out in a number of ways:

  • Diligent Preparation class feature for Int instead of Cha for spell DCs

  • In the Class document for the wizard (which I found here: https://sites.google.com/site/triomegazero/kirthfinder) I did a search and could not find the Diligent Preparation Class feature... is this an error, or part of playtesting in progress (in fact are there more documents to use Kirthfinder:))

    Oh and the house rules seems very very excellent :)

    Lastly is there any implementation of the Summoner or the Magus - I think I have found all the other classes or equivalent (excepting the inquisitor which i understand no one was interested in :S)

    On a question of balance a Exotic heavy mace seems superior to many other options (hammers, battle-axes), and The broad sword 19-20/x3 is of similer strength to a x5 critical weapon... (an additional twice your base damage on two attacks in 20... likened to an additional 4 times your base damage one time in 20). This may be fine, but the awesomeness of the weapons seemed to be more balanced (in a good way) than normal :)

    God Bless, Keep up the awesomeness,
    James

    PS In the "Introduction" to the rules, in the section on light wounds there is in "()" a comment on even if the save is passed - but gaining a light wound does not mention saves at all - they are only mentioned in the Heavy wound section

    EDIT: adding the PS, and weapon question

    Liberty's Edge

    Played our first game! Most of it was introduction and roleplaying, so not much to comment about on the combat side, and even when we got to that it felt pretty much like standard Pathfinder. :)

    Only one question arose, about tactical movement. Is it correct that a character with no iterative attacks but who uses two-weapon fighting can essentially now move up to half her speed and attack with both weapons? Or even, say, move 10 feet, attack with both, and then move another 5 feet? This is how I ruled it, at least.

    Could you split up the secondary TWF attacks? i.e., move 5 feet, attack with primary weapon, move 10 feet, attack with secondary weapon?

    This also makes me think about parrying and preemptive actions, I assume that you can't "hold" one of the TWF attacks as part of that.


    JamesHarrison wrote:


    1. In the Class document for the wizard (which I found here: https://sites.google.com/site/triomegazero/kirthfinder) I did a search and could not find the Diligent Preparation Class feature... is this an error, or part of playtesting in progress (in fact are there more documents to use Kirthfinder:))
    Oh and the house rules seems very very excellent :)

    2. Lastly is there any implementation of the Summoner or the Magus - I think I have found all the other classes or equivalent (excepting the inquisitor which i understand no one was interested in :S)

    3. On a question of balance a Exotic heavy mace seems superior to many other options (hammers, battle-axes), and The broad sword 19-20/x3 is of similer strength to a x5 critical weapon... (an additional twice your base damage on two attacks in 20... likened to an additional 4 times your base damage one time in 20). This may be fine, but the awesomeness of the weapons seemed to be more balanced (in a good way) than normal :)

    Hey i'm not one of the guys who designed this, but i think i can still answer some questions.

    1. Dillignet Preparation is not in the documents yet, since it is a feature that is at the time thought about by the designers.
    The idea is to make all Spell Save DCs linked to Cha, instead of the primary casting stat of your class, therefore increasing MAD for Wizards, Clerics and Druids. (to make them more balanced to other classes)
    Dilligent Preparation is a new alternative Arcane Bond for the wizard, giving him the abillity to use Int instead of Cha for his save DCs.

    2. The summoner is not implemented yet as far as i know, the magus on the other hand can be emulated with a fighter/wizard taking the right fighter talents (Eldritch Knight) and feats (for example battle touch), alternatively you can make a battle sorcerer with the magus bloodline and the right feats for a simmilar spontanous experience.

    3. both the exotic mace use, as well as the exotic broadsword use are imported from 3.5 and pathfinder.
    In Complete Warrior there was the exotic weapon Warmace which gave you a 1d12 one-handed weapon (though it also gave some attack or AC penalty - don't remember), and in Pathfinder (look it up in PRD or Advanced Player's Guide) is the Falcata - an exotic sword with 19-20/x3.
    And yes 19-20/x3 is very powerful indeed :)


    Alice Margatroid wrote:

    1. Is it correct that a character with no iterative attacks but who uses two-weapon fighting can essentially now move up to half her speed and attack with both weapons? Or even, say, move 10 feet, attack with both, and then move another 5 feet? This is how I ruled it, at least.

    2. Could you split up the secondary TWF attacks? i.e., move 5 feet, attack with primary weapon, move 10 feet, attack with secondary weapon?

    3. This also makes me think about parrying and preemptive actions, I assume that you can't "hold" one of the TWF attacks as part of that.

    1. Yes, I would have ruled as you did -- generally, I'd envisioned TWF as having the attacks occur in linked pairs.

    2. This looks like a good thing to get with Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat.
    3. Maybe this could be part of Improved TWF or Two-Weapon Defense?


    from an older threat about the magus class:

    Kirth said wrote:

    How does a Magus operate under these rules? Would he be an exception?

    1. Take levels in an arcane spellcasting class (choosing a bonded weapon, preferrably) and in fighter.
    2. Take the Eldritch Knight talent.
    3. Select Spell Strike as a feat, and/or Battle Touch, Energy Infusion, Energy Shield, Arcane Shield, Spell Power, or whatever else you want to be able to do. (Any of them that are directly combat-related should be made available as fighter bonus feats.)

    and

    Kirth said wrote:

    I was working on one, then realized that I'd rather be able to choose how much combat vs. how much spellcasting I put into the mix. For example, I can now play a fighter 18/wizard 2 (BAB +19, CL 11th), or a fighter 2/wizard 18 (BAB +11, CL 19th), or anything in between. A fighter 10/wizard 10 gives you BAB +15, CL 15th (same BAB as a magus, with slightly better spellcasting). I can also pick whether I want spontaneous casting (by simply substituting Sorcerer into the above).

    Or, I could simply play a battle sorcerer. Or a skald.

    i think that explains it better :)


    JamesHarrison wrote:

    1. In the Class document for the wizard I did a search and could not find the Diligent Preparation Class feature...

    2. Is there any implementation of the Summoner or the Magus - I think I have found all the other classes or equivalent (excepting the inquisitor which i understand no one was interested in :S)
    3. On a question of balance a Exotic heavy mace seems superior to many other options (hammers, battle-axes), and The broad sword 19-20/x3 is of similer strength to a x5 critical weapon...
    4. PS In the "Introduction" to the rules, in the section on light wounds there is in "()" a comment on even if the save is passed - but gaining a light wound does not mention saves at all - they are only mentioned in the Heavy wound section

    1. As noted; that feature is new.

    2. Summoner -- not yet, but I'd totally allow one "as-is," right off the PRD. Magus -- I get this question a lot, enough that I made a Magus battle sorcerer (Appendix B of the Sorcerer document). But as a 1e grognard, I personally still prefer a multiclassed fighter/arcanist! ;) You might also check out the high elf paragon racial progression in the Races document. In other words, you can "build" a "gish"-type character in a lot of different ways, depending on what you're going for.
    3. As noted, these uses emulate Exotic weapons that have already appeared in the game. If you prefer, a good "fix" for the broadsword is to allow one-handed use only, not two-handed.
    4. That's a hold-over from a previous edit; delete any reference to a save there.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    As noted, these uses emulate Exotic weapons that have already appeared in the game. If you prefer, a good "fix" for the broadsword is to allow one-handed use only, not two-handed.

    That is actually a very good idea.

    And when we are at it, why have you abolished the 3.5 penalties of using a warmace? i think they are justified since the dmg boosts from 1d8 at martial proficiency to 1d12 at exotic - i'd say either make it 1d10 or 1d12 with some disadvantage (for example get the multiplier down to x2 again)

    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    [quote=Alice Margatroid wrote

    1. Is it correct that a character with no iterative attacks but who uses two-weapon fighting can essentially now move up to half her speed and attack with both weapons? Or even, say, move 10 feet, attack with both, and then move another 5 feet? This is how I ruled it, at least.

    2. Could you split up the secondary TWF attacks? i.e., move 5 feet, attack with primary weapon, move 10 feet, attack with secondary weapon?

    3. This also makes me think about parrying and preemptive actions, I assume that you can't "hold" one of the TWF attacks as part of that.

    1. Yes, I would have ruled as you did -- generally, I'd envisioned TWF as having the attacks occur in linked pairs.

    2. This looks like a good thing to get with Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat.
    3. Maybe this could be part of Improved TWF or Two-Weapon Defense?

    1. makes sense

    2. should absolutely be a feature of Improved TWF
    3. feels more like a thing for TW-Defense, since Improved TWF already gives many benefits (especially if you include 2.)

    And Kirth, i'd like to hear what you think about that table (you may use and modify it in any way you like if you want btw)

    EDIT some things i noticed about monks that intrigue me

    Why were the slow fall and high jump abilities removed? or did they move somewhere else and i just missed that?

    301 to 350 of 3,973 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 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.