|
That's a good point kyrt brings up.
Another thing would be, for example, a Bard/Sorcerer or similar kind of multiclass. Can you cast spells in light armor? Or Bard/Cleric, can you cast in medium etc. armor? Since, after all, you're not casting as a bard anymore, you're casting as a Sorcerer/Cleric.*
* Obviously without considering the Arcane Armor Training feat or some such.
Ooh! I hadn't thought about that!
In play, I'd probably rule that spells from a class list for a class that can cast armored (bard, cleric, etc.) can be cast in armor. Spells unique to unarmored-caster spells lists (sorcerer/wizard only) would still have a fail %.
|
|
Or you could just make all spells, including divine spells, have a spell failure % with certain classes giving you a reduction to those chances.
So, maybe Rangers, Paladins, Oracles, Clerics, etc. would get a -25% reduction on spell failure, for example, while Bards would get a -10%. These would not stack.
I would appreciate a copy, the next time you do a mailing.
PS, no need to reply to this post, I figure out the mailing when I see it. :)
Or you could just make all spells, including divine spells, have a spell failure % with certain classes giving you a reduction to those chances.
So, maybe Rangers, Paladins, Oracles, Clerics, etc. would get a -25% reduction on spell failure, for example, while Bards would get a -10%. These would not stack.
I'd go with general spell failure chance as well, remove the divide in arcane and divine for most purposes. Just give some classes 'armored casting' as a bonus feat as a bonus, decreasing the penalty by X.
I havent read that far into it yet, but I don't think spell failure system has changed ? If so I would propose to make that equal to the armor check penalty * 5% or just a concentration check penalty, it seems logical to link the two, I kind of like that masterwork armor has less discomfort for casting this way.
I agree with converting ASF to just Spell Failure (SF), and giving divine casters a bonus SF negation feat.
Also Fighters can lower the ACP of their armor, and so I think tying the SF to ACP (I agree that 5% x ACP sounds good) is a good thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Off the current topic, but... MY LULU BOOK FINALLY CAME! And it's more beautiful than I could possibly have imagined! It looks like a college textbook, in fact! Yay me!
An alternative to the spell failure rules might be instead that divine spells gain a bonus to spell failure chances which negates their failures in light or medium armor, but leaves a chance while in heavy armor. Thus the reason why clerics start with Medium Armor Prof. A Cleric with the right domain (War, say) could use such spells in heavy armor without any chance of failure.
==Aelryinth
Hello, all. I'm a long time forum lurker but have been following this thread (and the discussion threads for the past two or three versions of Kirthfinder) very closely. I've continuously liked what I've seen, incorporated it into my own home games, and my players/fellow party members greatly enjoy everything they've picked up from it.
My two groups are playing through the Kingmaker and the Rise of the Runelords adventure paths. We're using Kirthfinder almost verbatim, save for still using Dex for Initiative, having magic items give Big Six stat bonuses that scale with character level, and using a mana pool instead of Vancian magic.
I have a few ruling questions, wondering how certain mechanics work together, and I'm hoping this latest pdf version clears them up.
I'd like a copy of the latest update. I'll check if it already cleared up my ruling questions. If not, I'll post them here.
email is:
rheyob at ameritech dot net
P.S. How do I do the Spoiler tag?
P.S.S. To Heliopolix: I thought the Fighter talent Armor Training already lowers ASF.
Hah, I should get one of my stories into print and lulu one for myself. Heh.
==Aelryinth
@Tahlreth: My point was that if ASF was based on ACP, then that would result in a consolidation of two separate armor traits. Anything that reduced ACP (like the Fighter's Armor Talent or the Endurance skill) would also reduce ASF. In addition, specific ASF reductions or negations (like bard's) would still function.
At the bottom of the post window, there is a button that says
"How to format your text [Show]"
Click that and much will be revealed, including spoiler tag formatting.
Anything that reduced ACP. Like masterwork armor?
Yes. Anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although now I'm thinking about the other suggestion, making ACP also apply to concentration checks, and wearing armor forcing a concentration check. I quite like that as well.
Off the current topic, but... MY LULU BOOK FINALLY CAME! And it's more beautiful than I could possibly have imagined! It looks like a college textbook, in fact! Yay me!
Awesome! Pics, please!
Off the current topic, but... MY LULU BOOK FINALLY CAME! And it's more beautiful than I could possibly have imagined! It looks like a college textbook, in fact! Yay me!
Congrats enjoy man after all the work you've put in on this its gotta be nice to hold that hardcover.
Finally got a look through the rules (although I only skimmed the appendices for each class). Very cool stuff! My group will be testing it out with some low- and mid-level combats to see how it works for us.
Rolling ASF into ACP could be a cool feature. The armor in the book actually sort of does this already: light armor uses 10+(ACP*5), while medium and heavy armor use 5+(ACP*5). I'd make ASF apply to all spells, standardize SF using the light armor formula, and then make an Armored Casting feat to allow you to ignore SF in a single type of armor (light, medium, heavy) in which you are proficient. Druids could have a line of text that specifies that they may not apply the benefits of the feat to metal armor, but would get it applied to all non-metal armor they're proficient in (although they would still have to take Heavy Armor Proficiency as normal).
Sorry to be a bother, but I requested the pdf of the current Kirthfinder rules and I got an email with nothing attached.
Thanks!
can it be posted for download somewhere?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care if people steal my own ideas -- do what you like with them! -- but I don't like the idea of a widely-distributed document out there with my name on it that references and/or summarizes excerpts from copyrighted sources. I support copyright protections, and most definitely don't want feds knocking on my door accusing me of violating them.
If eventually there is demand for it beyond a couple of isolated home games, then I'll undertake the creation of a sanitized version, fully in accordance with all OGL provisions and so on, and people can then distribute that to the moon. Until then, my personal, idiosyncratic collection of home rules is just that -- a private set of house rules, not for profit and not for distribution outside of those home games.
I'd like a copy too.
Thanks!
I came here today with the idea to ask Kirth for updated rules. Yay, for the finishing. I would also like the pdf.
You know, I'll never get my players to agree but I'd love an email of the rules as well!
I'm really excited to see where this has gone. Especially since so many of the houserules I used at the time were already incorporated into Kirthfinder! You people are genius!
Pdf perused, now for my ruling/mechanics questions:
1. If a character uses Flurry of Blows (either the Monk synergy or the advanced Fighter talent) with a single main-hand weapon, does the Multiattack feat apply to all their iterative attacks? Or would they have to have a second copy of Multiattack for it to apply to what would normally be off-hand iteratives?
2. Do Flurry of Blows and the Magus Athame ability have any effect together? Or would the character have to give up what would normally be their off-hand attacks in order to use the Athame ability?
3. When a caster gains a spell know that's pre-modified with metamagic, can the metamagic be affected by the APG magic trait Magical Lineage? Or does that trait only work when preparing or spontaneously adding a metamagic feat onto the spell?
4. When a caster gains a spell know that's pre-modified with metamagic, do they have to have all the prerequisites for the metamagic feat first?
5. Spellstrike says casting a spell through it doesn't provoke an AoO. Battle Touch says if you have both those feats plus TWF, you can Spellstrike with a pair of weapons. Is Spellstrike (and maybe the Monk sutra Enlightened Fist) doing something weird with the spell's somatic component?
6. Channel Spell, Enlightened Fist, and Spellstrike look like they're each trying to do the same thing, but through different methods/restrictions. Could this be cleared up and spelled out so players have an easier time figuring out which of these three fits their character best?
7. Killing Stroke has a synergy entry for Staggering Strike saying they stack. How does this work? Staggering is roll attack, roll damage, save or status effect. Killing Stroke is check status effect, auto-hit, auto-max-damage, SoD. When used together, is it supposed to be roll attack, save or status effect, auto-max-damage, SoD? Roll attack, roll damage, save or status effect, SoD?
On a side note, thank you for spelling out how Shadow Conjuration and Shadow Evocation work with your Heightening rules. The hard part was how to handle the percentages.
|
|
My thoughts on a couple of points.
3. When a caster gains a spell know that's pre-modified with metamagic, can the metamagic be affected by the APG magic trait Magical Lineage? Or does that trait only work when preparing or spontaneously adding a metamagic feat onto the spell?
I think that, yes, it would count. For example, by core you can have mass cure light wounds be affected by that trait, even though that's just effectively a cure light wounds spell with metamagic attached. For the extra effort it takes to make the metamagic a permanent part of that spell (which also reduces flexibility and potentially takes time, money, and spells known slots) I would allow it...
4. When a caster gains a spell know that's pre-modified with metamagic, do they have to have all the prerequisites for the metamagic feat first?
I would say 'no', although it depends. If you're a wizard researching/creating a spell on your own I'd probably want you to have either the metamagic feat or access to a rather large library and possibly a mage's guild to discuss theory with. For a sorcerer I'd consider whether it suits their bloodline to have this spell manifest (e.g., a white dragon bloodline would feasibly learn a pre-modified Flash Frost Evocation spell).
Pdf perused, now for my ruling/mechanics questions:
1. If a character uses Flurry of Blows (either the Monk synergy or the advanced Fighter talent) with a single main-hand weapon, does the Multiattack feat apply to all their iterative attacks? Or would they have to have a second copy of Multiattack for it to apply to what would normally be off-hand iteratives?
2. Do Flurry of Blows and the Magus Athame ability have any effect together? Or would the character have to give up what would normally be their off-hand attacks in order to use the Athame ability?
3. When a caster gains a spell know that's pre-modified with metamagic, can the metamagic be affected by the APG magic trait Magical Lineage? Or does that trait only work when preparing or spontaneously adding a metamagic feat onto the spell?
4. When a caster gains a spell know that's pre-modified with metamagic, do they have to have all the prerequisites for the metamagic feat first?
5. Spellstrike says casting a spell through it doesn't provoke an AoO. Battle Touch says if you have both those feats plus TWF, you can Spellstrike with a pair of weapons. Is Spellstrike (and maybe the Monk sutra Enlightened Fist) doing something weird with the spell's somatic component?
6. Channel Spell, Enlightened Fist, and Spellstrike look like they're each trying to do the same thing, but through different methods/restrictions. Could this be cleared up and spelled out so players have an easier time figuring out which of these three fits their character best?
7. Killing Stroke has a synergy entry for Staggering Strike saying they stack. How does this work? Staggering is roll attack, roll damage, save or status effect. Killing Stroke is check status effect, auto-hit, auto-max-damage, SoD. When used together, is it supposed to be roll attack, save or status effect, auto-max-damage, SoD? Roll attack, roll damage, save or status effect, SoD?
On a side note, thank you for spelling out how Shadow Conjuration and Shadow Evocation work with your Heightening...
Let's see what I can do.
1. That's a good question. Off the top of my head, because Multiattack is assumed to work for up to three (3) iterative attacks, that would be the cap for one application of it. However, if someone were really interested in doing that in the game, I'd probably have to run the math and see how it stacks up against, say, Weapon Specialization, and rule accordingly.
2. Unless otherwise specified, flurry of blows works exactly like Two-Weapon Fighting. The only difference is that you don't actually need two separate weapons. If you have that ability and the magus' spell/attack combo ability, you'd have to pick which one to use.
3. I'd rule that it would work, but would probably use the same "+1 spell level minimum" rule as for all other metamagic.
4. If you get it off a scroll or something already pre-modified, then no -- the person "inventing" the spell already applied the feat for you. If you're doing that as a spontaneous caster, you'd need to know the feat.
5. In that specific case, Spellstrike + Battle Touch lets you pretend your weapons have the somatic property, for that use only.
6. Channel Spell and Spellstrike are two means to more or less the same end. I considered merging them, and you could, but I sometimes like having a couple of ways to get so obvious an ability. Enlightened Fist enables a monk to get it more easily, but with a lot of restrictions -- the rationale there was that pretty much every monk/arcanist would select Spellstrike, so there was no reason not to acknowledge that and provide the ability up front.
7. Roll attack and damage. See if status effect is applied. If so, then see if he dies instantly.
1. If you get it off a scroll or something already pre-modified, then no -- the person "inventing" the spell already applied the feat for you. If you're doing that as a spontaneous caster, you'd need to know the feat.
2. In that specific case, Spellstrike + Battle Touch lets you pretend your weapons have the somatic property, for that use only.
3. Channel Spell and Spellstrike are two means to more or less the same end. I considered merging them, and you could, but I sometimes like having a couple of ways to get so obvious an ability. Enlightened Fist enables a monk to get it more easily, but with a lot of restrictions -- the rationale there was that pretty much every monk/arcanist would select Spellstrike, so there was no reason not to acknowledge that and provide the ability up front.
1. Spontaneous casters need to have the metamagic feat in question to learn a spell pre-modified with that metamagic? I just wanted to know if they had to qualify for the feat. Now it sounds like the first sentence of your Pre-Modified Spells section is lying to me. So confused.
2. Darn, sounds like I'd have to use Shape Spell instead of using Battle Touch with Spring Attack and Skirmish if I want to do crowd control with Dazing Spell. Oh well, no biggie.
3. As written, it looks like Enlightened Fist/strike powers behaves like Channel Spell (unarmed only) with a +0 spell level adjustment. But your answer sounds like it should be closer to Spellstrike (unarmed only). I'm wondering if Enlightened Fist should work with Battle Touch, and if using Enlightened Fist with Versatile Blow (which the character already has) would let the character discharge a melee/ranged touch spell through a ranged weapon without needing Imbue Missile first.
I'm wondering if (1) Enlightened Fist should work with Battle Touch, and if (2) using Enlightened Fist with Versatile Blow (which the character already has) would let the character discharge a melee/ranged touch spell through a ranged weapon without needing Imbue Missile first.
(1) Yes, I'd allow it, but with the same -5 to attacks as Spellstrike + Battle Touch.
(2) Your group can of course modify things as you see fit, but in general, if there's one way to do something that was clearly intended to do that one specific thing (e.g., Imbue Missile to discharge spells through missiles), then trying to circumvent it using things that were clearly intended to do something else (e.g., enlightened fist, which is specifically for melee) is not something I'd allow.
I tried to close a lot of the existing loopholes, and not to write things really carelessly (like the old locate city spell, for which the "range" was listed as the "area of effect"), but with any set of rules of this size and complexity, there will always be unforseen corner-cases that seem like, on paper, good targets for exploitation. The thing is, a game only works if everyone sort of agrees to play on the same page. There's nothing technically stopping the "banker" in a game of Monopoly from charging interest or refusing to hand out currency or whatever, but everyone pretty much agrees that the intent was not to make the banker automatically win. A gentelemen's agreement not to pull ridiculous stuff is pretty much the best you can do.
So, I've recently begun to play Kirthfinder, with the Summoner class from Pathfinder. I have a few questions, which I'm hoping you guys can answer:
1: Can I use Evolution Surge Greater to grant my Large Eidolon the size Huge? I know that it says something about upgrading evolutions, but that wording is just funny-looking, and hurts my brain.
2: Would Empower Spell work on Evolution Surge to make the point pool bigger?
3: Is there any way, through Metamagic or other method, to increase the Evolution points granted by Evolution Surge?
4: If I use the Creature Specific metamagic, what happens? Do I select Eidolon?
(Excuse me if I'm not getting specific enough, I'm usually the Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian/insertmartialclasshere of the group, so spells, spell lists, and the associated items are weird for me.)
So, I've recently begun to play Kirthfinder, with the Summoner class from Pathfinder. I have a few questions, which I'm hoping you guys can answer:
1: Can I use Evolution Surge Greater to grant my Large Eidolon the size Huge? I know that it says something about upgrading evolutions, but that wording is just funny-looking, and hurts my brain.
2: Would Empower Spell work on Evolution Surge to make the point pool bigger?
3: Is there any way, through Metamagic or other method, to increase the Evolution points granted by Evolution Surge?
4: If I use the Creature Specific metamagic, what happens? Do I select Eidolon?
(Excuse me if I'm not getting specific enough, I'm usually the Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian/insertmartialclasshere of the group, so spells, spell lists, and the associated items are weird for me.)
Questions about how Pathfinder spells work on Pathfinder class features are probably better posted in the Pathfinder advice forum, but lemme pull out my copy of the APG and read up on all this stuff and take a shot at it. OK, Is Evolution Surge a spell or something? Ah, yes, here it is:
1.
This spell cannot be used to grant an upgrade to an evolution that the eidolon already possesses.
That seems pretty clear to me, unless I'm totally misunderstanding your question. It means "if your eidolon already has an evolution, you can't just upgrade it using this spell." You can only get new ones.
2. In Pathfinder, the answer would be "no." If I were adapt that line of spells to Kirthfinder, I'd start with lesser evolution surge as written, then increase the boost by +1 per spell level it was Heightened thereafter (see Heightening Spells in Ch 7 of Kirthfinder). Which means that, as a 6th level spell, it would be the equivalent of the 4th level PF greater evolution surge. I also note that PF summoners get 4th level spells at 10th level, and KF ones (the summoner for Kirthfinder is described in Appendix C of the sorcerer) get 6th level spells at 11th, so that scaling is very close. Empower Spell would still not work.
3. See above.
4. You can't apply Creature-Specific Spell on a spell that's already creature-specific. In other words, evolution surge affects only eidolons already -- whoever "invented" the spell already incorporared Creature-Specific Spell into it.
Let me post #4 here as an official erratum. (I'd thought it was so obvious I didn't need to add this, but apparently some clarification is in order):
Spells (Ch 7), p. 12 (p. 622 of PDF):
CREATURE-SPECIFIC SPELL (METAMAGIC)
Special: You cannot apply this metamagic feat to a spell that is already creature-specific -- for example animal growth, hold person, detect undead, or any spell with a target of "you." You cannot apply this feat to a spell that does not target one or more creatures. If you apply this feat to a spell that affects both creatures and objects, only the specified creature type is affected; objects are not.
My group is very VERY hesitant to modify things ourselves. The best we've agreed on for whether or not something should be do-able is to check what the general consensus is outside of our group. The issues I'm asking here are ones my DM answers with, "I don't know, dude. I don't even know where to look"
Nevermind on if a caster needs to have all the prerequisites before learning a pre-modified spell, much less have all the metamagics. I finally noticed only Evokers gain Versatile Evocation. Restricting all other casters to [Cold] evocations would be silly.
Dimensional Agility got noticed. Time for a new set of questions:
TL;DR Does Dimensional Agility and Skirmish basically give the character a teleport speed of double your regular movement speed for one round? i.e....
1. Can you save some of the teleportation for later in the same round, just like normal movement?
2. How does it work with other feats that involve movement, such as Cleave, Whirlwind Strike, and Wind Stance?
So, I've recently begun to play Kirthfinder, with the Summoner class from Pathfinder. I have a few questions, which I'm hoping you guys can answer:
1: Can I use Evolution Surge Greater to grant my Large Eidolon the size Huge? I know that it says something about upgrading evolutions, but that wording is just funny-looking, and hurts my brain.
2: Would Empower Spell work on Evolution Surge to make the point pool bigger?
3: Is there any way, through Metamagic or other method, to increase the Evolution points granted by Evolution Surge?
4: If I use the Creature Specific metamagic, what happens? Do I select Eidolon?
(Excuse me if I'm not getting specific enough, I'm usually the Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian/insertmartialclasshere of the group, so spells, spell lists, and the associated items are weird for me.)
The latest version, available by request (ask them nicely), has the Summoner rolled in as a variant Sorcerer.
1. That spell, as I understand it, can't provide an upgrade to a previous evolution, but can grant an upgraded version of an evolution you don't already have. Think of it like a trial offer for one of those internet + phone bundles: the trial is for the whole bundle, not an internet trial on top of a phone contract you already have.
2. Evolution Surge gives you a specific number of points. Empowered Spell only works on numbers you roll for. So no.
3. Heightening the spell by adding metamagic to it or making a Spellcraft check will do that. Evolution Surge would give you an extra point for each spell level it gets increased. Not sure if a heightened Greater Evolution Surge would give you three evolutions.
4. (Kirth beat me to it.)
P.S. Deleirin/Artass, is that you?
Not sure if you're still emailing copies, but I'd love to test out the polished rules with my own home group.
Thanks for going through all this effort, to all involved. It's a pretty intense amount of time devoted, and I hope it still gives you the warm fuzzies when you cuddle your hardcover at night.
I mean, I assume you cuddle it. I would.
Never mind on if a caster needs to have all the prerequisites before learning a pre-modified spell
No; your ruling is quite right on that. Please disregard my earlier comment; I don't know where my brain was during that moment, but it was obviously not on that question! Mea culpa. The way it was intended is that no, you do not need the feat (as you correctly deduced). Whether you need meet all prerequisites was not specified, but you'll notice that in all but a few specific cases, "prerequisite-less feats" have been removed; I'd recommend continuing that, except of course in the case of Versatile Evocation for those energy spells.
Does Dimensional Agility and Skirmish basically give the character a teleport speed of double your regular movement speed for one round? i.e....
1. Can you save some of the teleportation for later in the same round, just like normal movement?
2. How does it work with other feats that involve movement, such as Cleave, Whirlwind Strike, and Wind Stance?
1. If you have the Skirmish feat (under "synergy"), it spells out that you can take the teleportation in increments, which implies that you could indeed do so. However, the "as a full round action" would imply otherwise. I could see ruling it either way, but if your referee allows it, each use of a held "burst" of teleportation would count as an immediate action/attack of opportunity for that round.
2. As for normal use, you can teleport and then perform a Strike. For Cleave, the 2nd target has to be within reach unless you're Supreme Cleaving using Combat Reflexes; in that case, you'd also need the Skirmish feat, and would have to abide by the rules for dimensional Skirmishing under the "synergy" notes. Wind Stance would work, because you are moving.|
|
Hmm. Just noticed that Creature-Specific Spell metamagic.
Definitely not allowing that. It's basically just a ticket for a caster to get free metamagic on everything, especially spontaneous casters who can change the type/subtype to suit the situation. "I cast fireball that only works on giants... and is explosive, but at the same level as a normal fireball. Also it doesn't affect any of the party because we're not giants."
I understand that you use it in your spells built from basic spells + metamagic thing, but holy hell is that thing easily abused.
... especially spontaneous casters who can change the type/subtype to suit the situation.
Yes -- that needs fixing!!! (My only excuse is that I have played so few spontaneous casters that my mind is stuck in the pre-prepared rut. But that's a lame excuse, and I should have noticed that immediately.)
I'm loathe to just abandon it altogether, but the spontaneous thing needs fixing: e.g., "this feat cannot be spontaneously applied." That way, you can't use it as a free Selective Spell (unless you can somehow predict what type of creature you'll be facing and end up using it on). And you also can't just basically get -2 spell levels on everything.
Thoughts?
|
|
Making it prepared-only solves some issues but not all of them.
- Metamagic rods? Okay, let's assume this counts as 'no spontaneous casting'.
- Adventures where there are a lot of creatures of one type? For example:
* Paizo's Fortress of the Stone Giants;
* Anything in the Underdark involving drow;
* Adventures in Hell or the Abyss where your likelihood of finding a non-evil outsider is incredibly low; etc.
- It also makes certain buffing spells even better, e.g. a civilised humanoids-only haste spell for -2 levels?
It also makes certain buffing spells even better, e.g. a civilised humanoids-only haste spell for -2 levels?
Egad -- I didn't think of that one, either.
Either I've gotten a lot dumber over the last year, or I'm operating at a lot less than full horsepower lately. Either way, I agree with you that there are some nearly-unfixable problems there.
I would therefore strongly recommend that that feat be discontinued from use, either until a workable (read: not totally abusable) version can be hammered out, or indefinitely, otherwise.
P.S. Thank you, Alice -- I owe you one. If you spot anything else that I've that egregiously missed out on obvious implications for, please don't hesitate to let me know and/or beat me severely about the head.
Paizo's Fortress of the Stone Giants
P.S. I would sooner hit myself with a stone club than subject a group to that particular module, but YMMV ;)
In 1e, it was fun to hack through a bajillion giants because (a) monsters had a lot fewer hp and it was quicker to do and (b) because we were still learning the game and didn't want to deal with anything more complicated than that. Fast-forward 30 years, and nostalgia value just isn't enough to make that one do-able!
The problem with creature specific metamagic is that it'll never be balanced within the hands of a character. Not just players, but npcs too. Something that just exists is less powerful, but having something that you can tailor to the situation is inherently more powerful.
It's the similar to feats. Skill Focus (Appraise) is not very powerful, however the free feat that humans get is a highly sought racial feature. Now if that feat were something they could change on periodically it would be even more valuable.
I agree. I got carried away with the idea of metamagic feats as building-blocks-of-spells, but in retrospect some of those "blocks" need to stay opaque/behind-the-scenes, and this is definitely one of them.
Would I be able to get my hands on the updated pdf rules?
I have cookies to offer.... :D