Here's something I just realized, Armiger should be a Barbarian.
Carry a bunch of weapons. Have a high Sleight of Hand check (for Free Action Quick Draw). Take the "Wrath of the Ancestors" Rage Power. Then, just rage cycle whenever you want to switch to a new weapon.
This allows you to reset Wrath of the Ancestors to a new weapon, and with presumably new weapon special abilities. Thanks to the numen system, you could theoretically even trade out weapon enhancement bonuses for stuff like feats and whatnot.
This gives you WAY more versatility than a basic Armiger, IMHO. And the Kirthfinder Rage applies to both melee and ranged attacks, so it's perfect for any weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, now that I'm thinking about it, could the Wrath of Ancestors be used to gain numen for armor special abilities as well? If the numen is unrestricted, it should be possible, no? Especially since Kirthfinder doesn't really care about specific slots, and will certainly allow you to have a weapon that boosts your AC or saves or w/e.
If that's the case, then a Barbarian can also theoretically play an Armorist in the same way (especially with a Greater Transformative Weapon). But then things start getting kinda crazy...Kirth, if you're in the thread and have some free time, can you confirm whether or not this works? Or anyone else who has a lot of experience with these rules, of course.
I... I kinda get that, but that's another case of "that just doesn't feel right"
1: With Armiger, the point is that you're basically a (At least as I see it) fighter that learns how to use multiple weapons and customize them to do things you normally could not. And the barb option replicates exactly 1 class feature of customized weapons, Enhanced Customization. It still is missing the most important part of being an armiger which is that you gain 5 customized weapons and can gain 6 combat talents with each to suit a given battle better. (okay 5 with 6 talents is at 20th level bu you get the point)
2: Armorist admittedly seems like it could fit barb a little better (As Ascetic aspects and Ancestor Worship are right at home with them in my book), but only being able to form your magic sword for 4+con modifiers rounds per day looks just plain painful, and still doesn't fix the issue that you can't summon them to hand (Which I feel is the most important aspect. Any character can find or carry a magical weapon, but only the Armorist can summon blades to their hand freely (Okay I will stop and confess that other classes have that ability, like the Soulknife Wudan and the 10th level bonus for arcane foci items, but it's a 'potaato potahto' type of thing to me where it depends on whether you want a sword made of magic or an ancient relic bound to you.) also forming your sword for 4+con mod + level x 2 rounds and taking damage every time you want to use your sword (which you want to use your armorist's bound weaponry in pretty much every battle as far as I can tell/ am concerned whichever of those lines fits better) and taking lethal damage after every fight kinda sucks.
Granted this could be seen as another "WK you're being super picky when KF can do this and we just gave examples" but it just doesn't quite gel for me. Also I think that Ancestor Wrath wouldn't give bonuses to armor because of the fluff fact that it is the WRATH of ancestors, as in "Here we want you to murder them really hard, have some magic enhancement bonuses."
And now to end up saying something silly regarding weaponry and build theory crafting.
I've been thinking about Frog lately, and I want to know exactly how different sizes interact with weapons (and the question of whether there's a decent way for a grippli type to even carry a medium bastard sword in the first place.
for a Small creature if I can tell correctly a small bastard sword would deal 1d8 in small form.
1: Would a small bastard sword go up to 1d10 or 2d6?. I'd assume 1d10 but it also could be a lot more interesting for it to go 2d6.
2: Would a small bastard sword get its increased bonus against Medium creatures instead of Large? I'd assume because I originally assumed that with the highly 'medium centric' wording of KF overall that smaller creatures just assume something a size larger than them as large.
3: could a small creature somehow carry a medium bastard sword reasonably? (like any equipment or skills that would make that work somehow.)
4: Not related to the bastard sword thing, but related to the Frog concept. What would the cost of a constant increase person effect be? I wonder because of the idea that you could go 'grippli' or whatever would fit frog people in kirthfinder most and just increase their size. you'd lose your +2 to dex in exchange for countering your -2 to strength, and be able to fit into the crowd fairly well.
And okay now I see that trying to make Spheres in KF is pointless or OP because full attacking is a standard action now, and making the usual standard attack action is a partial action.
And sorry if I just keep seeming to yabber about spheres and all that. I just get this repeated feeling like I keep getting this nitpicking temptation, keep seeing all of these particular things that I absolutely adore about KF (Equipment; Class Changes like the fighter talents, rogue's new combat and social talent trees; scaling feats; the way these class abilities allow you to basically replace archetypes, etc.) but I also have this sense like I don't want to run or play a game without spheres either (feeling that Power does magic in a simpler and more interesting way, whilst Might gives so much ability to customize martial characters, and made combat less "full attack until the thing dies") (and sorry for that also being a complete and utter repeating the same thing over and over fest) So I'm just caught in this frustrating void where I keep thinking about these two systems and desperately trying to figure out how to make them play nice.
4: Not related to the bastard sword thing, but related to the Frog concept. What would the cost of a constant increase person effect be? I wonder because of the idea that you could go 'grippli' or whatever would fit frog people in kirthfinder most and just increase their size. you'd lose your +2 to dex in exchange for countering your -2 to strength, and be able to fit into the crowd fairly well.
Enlarge Person is a 1st level spell with duration 1min./level so putting it on a custom item as a permanent effect costs:
1000 (base cost) x 1 (Spelllevel) x 1 (Casterlevel) x 2 (duration modifier) = 2000 numenThis theoretically only includes the size increase and the attribute boni would be priced separately but since one is a penalty they should cancel each other out.
And on the subject of spheres: I don't miss them. Between strikes, stances and the higher utility of held actions combat still is very dynamic.
1 not to be dumb but what's a held action
2 I guess I hadn't thought of strikes (just kinda ignoring the existence of strikes and stances because Stances make you unable to move and I just hadn't looked at strikes) Though I still can't help but think about the fact that I still love talents and all of that stuff based on wildly different playstyles and fictional heroes. Do you want to dual wield? just grab the talent. do you want to shoot arrows at people like legolas? grab Barrage. Do you want to be some kinda crazy performance fighter that turns boasting into reality? Grab Gladiator.
I... I kinda get that, but that's another case of "that just doesn't feel right"
1: With Armiger, the point is that you're basically a (At least as I see it) fighter that learns how to use multiple weapons and customize them to do things you normally could not. And the barb option replicates exactly 1 class feature of customized weapons, Enhanced Customization. It still is missing the most important part of being an armiger which is that you gain 5 customized weapons and can gain 6 combat talents with each to suit a given battle better. (okay 5 with 6 talents is at 20th level bu you get the point)
2: Armorist admittedly seems like it could fit barb a little better (As Ascetic aspects and Ancestor Worship are right at home with them in my book), but only being able to form your magic sword for 4+con modifiers rounds per day looks just plain painful, and still doesn't fix the issue that you can't summon them to hand (Which I feel is the most important aspect. Any character can find or carry a magical weapon, but only the Armorist can summon blades to their hand freely (Okay I will stop and confess that other classes have that ability, like the Soulknife Wudan and the 10th level bonus for arcane foci items, but it's a 'potaato potahto' type of thing to me where it depends on whether you want a sword made of magic or an ancient relic bound to you.) also forming your sword for 4+con mod + level x 2 rounds and taking damage every time you want to use your sword (which you want to use your armorist's bound weaponry in pretty much every battle as far as I can tell/ am concerned whichever of those lines fits better) and taking lethal damage after every fight kinda sucks.
Granted this could be seen as another "WK you're being super picky when KF can do this and we just gave examples" but it just doesn't quite gel for me. Also I think that Ancestor Wrath wouldn't give bonuses to armor because of the fluff fact that it is the WRATH of ancestors, as in "Here we want you to murder them really hard, have some magic...
I think you're a bit too married to the fluff. As for the Armiger thing, note that you can spend numen to gain feats. You can literally trade in the enhancement bonuses you gain from Wrath of the Ancestors for numen you can use for feats. As long as the feats you choose don't have a lot of prerequisites and aren't just simple +X bonuses here and there, it's actually pretty cheap to get a suite of interesting feats with each use.
The closest thing similar to that is a Fighter who gets exotic level proficiency with ALL weapons at level 11 or so, but that's at most equivalent to getting 1 talent with every weapon as opposed to multiple talents with a few weapons. Course, nothing is stopping you from sequestering the Fighter's bonus feats to only be used while you have a specific weapon out. Fighters also have access to "Grit" though, which (among other things) allows them to spontaneously gain new combat feats, but their Grit pool is FAR more insanely limited than a Barbarian's Rage, even if they do theoretically have a way to regain Grit.
Lastly, taking lethal damage for Rage Cycling really isn't that big of a deal in Kirthfinder, IMHO. Every character can "Take a Breather" to recover HP in a recent fight, and the Heal skill (which is a class skill for the Barbarian) has a 1 round first aid ability that makes it easy to heal characters up from early levels to late levels. The amount healed for both taking a breather and the heal skill are even DOUBLED for Barbarians, since they get Fast Recovery as a free feat at first level.
I stand by my assertion that Barbarian is the best way to go here, and quite frankly I think it's going to end up being way stronger than anything an equivalent level Armiger or Armorist can accomplish. Though I guess part of the reason for that is that Kirthfinder martials are just plain stronger than Pathfinder ones.
Mentioning being "married to the fluff".. Yes. That is literally my issue and one that I ended up expressing way back when I complained about alchemist. that (Hell not to get too personal but maybe that even has to do with the fact that I'm in the autism spectrum IRL) Something that replicates a certain design or playstyle does not have the same 'feeling' as actually being that thing, and admittedly I feel like that's one of the biggest issues I have with KF. Yes admittedly it does open up a lot more choices for creative players than is normally available by how PF normally handles things, but for some reason something just doesn't sit right with me in it..
It's kinda like J.C. Penneys. Sometime around 2012 or so JC Penney launched "Fair and Square" Marketing. They removed Sales from their listings because of the fact that they tend to deceive consumers anyway (normally something 'on sale' was just at the actual retail value whilst the normal price was at a ridiculous markup), and generally tried to make things fair and treat the customers like an intelligent human being... This plan backfired immensely and they lost millions of dollars.
Kirthfinder is obviously the more fair system in terms of flexibility and building whatever the hell you want, but it doesn't feel like it. Obviously this is MY fault and not the system's, but... There is still that there are so many things from KF that I don't want to play without (Charisma to will saves and intuition saves being their own thing. Classes in general having far more customizability than before, the new Equipment rules and Numen, etc.) but somewhat want that balance that there can be something that is both fair like KF but has that 'feel good' sense that PF has
Ah, Fighter now has the "Personal Weapon, Variable" talent, that allows him to switch which weapon is his personal weapon, or what special properties are given, as an at will immediate action.
He can also select Personal Weapon multiple times for Shields and armor. So an Armorist or Armiger are both pretty easy for the current Kirthfinder Fighter to reproduce using the same "numen buyback" method I mentioned with the Barbarian.
And I'm pretty sure we both agree that Fighter fits that fluff better than Barbarian does.
Is Battle Touch still a feat? Because I can't find it but it is referenced in the paladin doc.
Nice to see that there's more still being made for this system...
Though something still seems a little off for reasons I don't know... Granted without playing it I wouldn't actually KNOW how much of an issue this might be, but something still rubs me the wrong way, even though I love a lot of the designs. (Just that feeling that I'm still stuck on some clinging feeling of trying to combine the systems rather than jumping ship completely to KF.) Granted Granted maybe I'm just a weird person in general for assuming I can only play one exclusively.
Is Battle Touch still a feat? Because I can't find it but it is referenced in the paladin doc.
No, as far as I can tell, it's been replaced with Rapid Strike, which I believe basically does the same thing, but more universally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nice to see that there's more still being made for this system...
Though something still seems a little off for reasons I don't know... Granted without playing it I wouldn't actually KNOW how much of an issue this might be, but something still rubs me the wrong way, even though I love a lot of the designs. (Just that feeling that I'm still stuck on some clinging feeling of trying to combine the systems rather than jumping ship completely to KF.) Granted Granted maybe I'm just a weird person in general for assuming I can only play one exclusively.
Honestly, I can sort of see where you're coming from. Kirthfinder doesn't have the same feeling as a system like Spheres, where you have absolute freedom in your build and everything is incredibly modular.
Instead, Kirthfinder feels more like Pathfinder, where things are still gated by X, Y & Z, but at the same time, it lets you do practically anything, even gaining spellcasting on a Fighter.
It's not a new system, it's a different version of the same system with different paradigms in play. You *feel* like you need an extra system to solve Pathfinder's inherent problems, but Kirthfinder doesn't have those problems.
It's weird. But not bad.
Um... I have the stuff from April 2012. Is there a more recent version?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, Lazaryus:
I saw in that tread that you've got some rework on Houserules and that rework cannot be found on TOZ site anymore - may I kindly ask you (or anyone, who can spend some time) to send me latest revision?Hi, the rules are up on Google Drive now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're ever in doubt, just find Kirth Gersen's profile. He generally always keeps an up to date link to his Kirthfinder work.
are all racial class levels also 1/2 CR, just like NPC class levels? If so, that would make the CR of my revised build...CR 13, lol.
No; they're PC class levels, so your revised CR is 21, in a game that only goes to 20th level.
Hmm, now that I'm thinking about it, could the Wrath of Ancestors be used to gain numen for armor special abilities as well? If the numen is unrestricted, it should be possible, no? Especially since Kirthfinder doesn't really care about specific slots, and will certainly allow you to have a weapon that boosts your AC or saves or w/e.
If that's the case, then a Barbarian can also theoretically play an Armorist in the same way (especially with a Greater Transformative Weapon). But then things start getting kinda crazy...Kirth, if you're in the thread and have some free time, can you confirm whether or not this works? Or anyone else who has a lot of experience with these rules, of course.
That's a great idea! I'd be tempted to make it a separate rage power, in fact, so that you could do both.
1: Would a small bastard sword go up to 1d10 or 2d6?. I'd assume 1d10 but it also could be a lot more interesting for it to go 2d6.
Chapter 1 of KF gives you standardized dice progressions, which PF does not.
Between "Primal Warrior" and "Resilent" is listed "Punishing stance", but when we go down to detailed overview, I cannot find description for this stance.
It was too weak for a fighter talent, so it's a feat now, in Chapter 5. It should be removed from the Fighter Talents list.
Thanks for the catch!
And okay now I see that trying to make Spheres in KF is pointless
I don't know enough about Spheres to comment on that, but I think at some point we had all agreed to move KF Spheres discussion to a separate thread?
Is Battle Touch still a feat? Because I can't find it but it is referenced in the paladin doc.
Like Kaouse said, it got rolled into Rapid Strike, which supersedes a lot of the individual strikes' text about making multiple attacks.
I'll check the Paladin document; thanks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really like the updated files. I love the new equipment examples, and the pics in the weapons section are especially fun. And I can't imagine how much work went into the grimoire, but it's great. I look forward to seeing how the Reroll seed works out.
A question about Rogues and their skill tricks: Is it intentional that skill tricks don't always follow the spells' actual level, or have they just not been updated to match the kirthfinderized spells yet? Like for instance, Shadow Step is now a 0-level spell but a 4th level skill trick, and City Transport is now a 4th level spell but a 7th level skill trick. I suspect the levels are supposed to match up, but I just wanted to check.
Also, for Rangers:
1) Is there a reason the Forest favored terrain only grants a climb speed of 5' while the Mountain terrain grants a climb speed of 5' x bonus?
2) The Shadow Step ability under the Plane of Shadow favored terrain still references the old Reserve Feat rules.
1. I really like the updated files. I love the new equipment examples, and the pics in the weapons section are especially fun.
2. And I can't imagine how much work went into the grimoire, but it's great. I look forward to seeing how the Reroll seed works out.
3. A question about Rogues and their skill tricks: Is it intentional that skill tricks don't always follow the spells' actual level, or have they just not been updated to match the kirthfinderized spells yet? Like for instance, Shadow Step is now a 0-level spell but a 4th level skill trick, and City Transport is now a 4th level spell but a 7th level skill trick. I suspect the levels are supposed to match up, but I just wanted to check.
4. Is there a reason the Forest favored terrain only grants a climb speed of 5' while the Mountain terrain grants a climb speed of 5' x bonus?
5. The Shadow Step ability under the Plane of Shadow favored terrain still references the old Reserve Feat rules.
1. Thanks! I had a lot of fun changing weapons to match actual RL equivalents, but renaming the D&D "longsword" to a more accurate "arming sword," and making the morning star a 2-handed weapon, were bound to confuse a lot of people, so I thought pics would be helpful.
2. LOTS! But it's FUN! And I'm still working on it whenever I get a chance.3. See next post.
4. Yes -- forest already gives you continuous speak with animals and other goodies.
5. Thanks!
A question about Rogues and their skill tricks: Is it intentional that skill tricks don't always follow the spells' actual level, or have they just not been updated to match the kirthfinderized spells yet?
Definitely the latter. Now that spells can be constructed following an actual system instead of just making stuff up, a lot of the old lists will need to be updated. What's more, most cleric granted powers can now easily be replaced with Magical Talent [X], and likewise for most incarnate revelations. I see a lot of work ahead in my future, but having a 4-year-old (and hence no weekends) perforce means that work will progress sloooooowly.
Cool, I'm glad I was on the right track with that!
I'm actually impressed at how much work you've done with this last update, actually. I keep finding changes (the rogue's combat opportunist, for example) that are both kinda small but also far-reaching and must require an annoying amount of proof-reading and double-checking. And honestly,updating the various spell lists should be relatively easy (and fun) to do on my own, so I'm not worried if it takes a while for another update to come out :p
Firearms: once again an unimportant thing and again as I said before it's a purely personal opinion. I'm not a fan of firearms getting essentially turned into wands.
This seems unimportant if you only consider firearms, but it has deeper ramifications. So I can totally understand your feelings about it, but the way I see it, there are really 3 ways to handle firearms (or any other tech gadgets, for that matter) in a tabletop RPG:
1. These devices are weak, with effects comparable to lower-tech devices, and therefore are treated the same. This means that firearms are essentially nothing more than cool-looking hand crossbows that go "bang!", and that cell phones can't exist -- which rankles me, because I have often staged portions of plane-spanning adventures on higher-tech planes.
2. They do everything they can do in real life (or more, for higher-tech items), but are still treated (and priced) as mundane items. This approach is what breaks games like GURPS -- people pay gold for tech devices and save their character-building points for superpowers; every time a new tech gadget is introduced, the power creep ratchets up another notch. I was determined not to go that route, because it undermines the whole idea behind the numen system in KF: that gold =/= personal powers.
3. You embrace Clarke's Law and treat them as magic items. That's the route I took, and don't really regret it. And it works, with the understanding that, for a global cell phone network and internet, each person is not paying the numen cost for an at-will sending spell and knowledge check booster; rather, each of the 7 billion people using it are paying a tiny fraction of the global network cost. And firearms, which are near-ubiquitous here in Texas, for example? The fact that, statistically, people with guns in the house are more likely to be shot to death implies that most can't or don't pay the numen cost there, either, and therefore don't truly control the item (in game terms).
I found a weird rules contradiction: The Extend Spell feat has been applied to a variety of Detect-based spells in the Spells and Grimoire sections, but the Extend Spell feat explicitly says it cannot be applied to spells with a duration of Concentration (which is what the Detect seed has), and doesn't even list a modifier for changing to/from Concentration. This also impacts the Permanent Spell feat, since Detect spells are used as examples of allowed spells, but state their durations must be extended before they can be made permanent. Likewise, there's seemingly no way to make a continuous Detect Thoughts or whatever effect in the item creation rules, because there's no multiplier for Continuous duration effects.
The Extend Spell feat also says it can't affect spells with a duration of Permanent, but that's not even a possible duration under these rules (it always seems to require invested numen), is it? I mean, doubling the duration from Permanent to Permanentx2 doesn't make any sense anyway (to infinity and beyond!), but still.
are all racial class levels also 1/2 CR, just like NPC class levels? If so, that would make the CR of my revised build...CR 13, lol.No; they're PC class levels, so your revised CR is 21, in a game that only goes to 20th level.
When I wrote /Adept 2/ it wasn't me taking two MORE levels of Adept, it was just me taking the second level of Adept, since I took Adept 1 while an Amberite already.
That said, the most current build is as follows:
Amberite Adept 2 / Human Paragon 4 /Prestige Specialist (Necromancy) 1-2 / Vampire 5 / Lich 1 / Prestige Specialist (Necromancy) 3-4 / Lich 2-4 / Prestige Specialist (Necromancy) 5
Ignoring the level-by-level breakdown, it's just:
Amberite Adept 2 / Human Paragon 4 / Vampire 5 / Lich 4 / Prestige Specialist (Necromancy) 5
Altogether, 20 levels, CR 20, BAB 14 (fractional), Spellcasting Capacity 14 (Since Adept starts off as a full caster for the first 2 levels). Correct?
Since Vampire doesn't gain a single new ability beyond level 5, the class synergy from Human Paragon basically gives the same bonuses as Vampire 8, barring perhaps the extra feats, I presume?
Lastly, does natural armor from racial classes stack?
All in all, what do you think of this build? Note that it gets Thaumaturgy (Adept Arcane Bond), Control Undead (Prestige Specialist), and Leadership (Vampire) as bonus feats. Is the build too abusive? Does it even work as outlined? Or have I missed something?
I also considered taking levels in the Undead racial class instead of Human Paragon, but I wasn't sure if I could apply the undead gifts to spellcasting theurgy. None of the examples listed did such a thing, I'm afraid. If it's possible, let me know.
Firearms: once again an unimportant thing and again as I said before it's a purely personal opinion. I'm not a fan of firearms getting essentially turned into wands.This seems unimportant if you only consider firearms, but it has deeper ramifications. So I can totally understand your feelings about it, but the way I see it, there are really 3 ways to handle firearms (or any other tech gadgets, for that matter) in a tabletop RPG:
3. You embrace Clarke's Law and treat them as magic items. That's the route I took, and don't really regret it. And it works, with the understanding that, for a global cell phone network and internet, each person is not paying the numen cost for an at-will sending spell and knowledge check booster; rather, each of the 7 billion people using it are paying a tiny fraction of the global network cost. And firearms, which are near-ubiquitous here in Texas, for example? The fact that, statistically, people with guns in the house are more likely to be shot to death implies that most can't or don't pay the numen cost there, either, and therefore don't truly control the item...
You do have some good points here I guess that what annoys me about firearms is thinking that I don't feel like it's really a weapon anymore. my fighter trying to play gunslinger isn't really fighting like a fighter anymore, he's using UMD in order to use the magic item. (and mechanically, I'd assume that things like Strikes and full attacking doesn't work when trying to use a firearm if it's a magic item) Also...
Is there an actual way to spread out numen costs between hundreds of people? I assumed that it would be that you'd need to pay the full numen cost up front by yourself in both of these scenarios because it is a magical item (And so the player that DOES want to go gunslinger has to wait until they have enough numen to buy a gun, or in the case of a cell phone the same problem.)
I still don't understand how the [charmed] condition and the various Charm Person/Monster/etc. spells are supposed to work under this system. What do you have to do to render a target [charmed], and where is that spelled out?
The combat chapter includes a description of the [charmed] condition, but doesn't actually say how to apply it (or the [befuddled] or [fascinated] conditions, actually.) Likewise, lots of spells protect against [charm] effects, but no spells actually say they apply the [charmed] (or [befuddled] or [fascinated]) condition. I'm guessing once you take a certain amount of CHA damage you get charmed, but if so it's not explained anywhere--although if it is tied to attribute damage, then a fighter with Concussive Strike could stab people into being [charmed], and that would be kinda dumb.
As written, the Charm spells only damage a target's CHA, but don't actually apply the [charmed] condition. They are able to apply the [dominated] condition pretty easily, however, since the [dominated] condition clearly says it is applied when a creature is damaged to 0 CHA, which is what the Charm spells do now.
Beguiling conditions are the only ones that don't seem to be clear in how they're applied; other conditions seem pretty clear. Effects that deal with Debilitation, Fear, Inertia, and Restraint conditions are usually pretty straightforward in how they are applied and how they stack and stuff.
I found a weird rules contradiction: The Extend Spell feat has been applied to a variety of Detect-based spells in the Spells and Grimoire sections, but the Extend Spell feat explicitly says it cannot be applied to spells with a duration of Concentration (which is what the Detect seed has), and doesn't even list a modifier for changing to/from Concentration.
Thank you! That's another example of where I kept legacy language from 3.5/PF without correcting it for the new rules.
- For seeds with a duration of "Concentration," I've been treating that as a duration of 1 round, for purposes of Extend Spell (since Concentration needs to continue from round to round). I'll have to update the wording accordingly.
- For spells with actual durations (e.g., 1 rd./level) that also have Concentration Spell applied, they'd continue last that long after concentration ceases.
P.S. Why do the [list][/list] and * codes no longer work? Annoying.
my fighter trying to play gunslinger isn't really fighting like a fighter anymore, he's using UMD in order to use the magic item.
Per Appendix 6A, firearms are use-activated, rather than command-activated. You therefore don't need UMD (via Spellcraft) for them any more than you do for magic weapons, armor, or shields.
(and mechanically, I'd assume that things like Strikes and full attacking doesn't work when trying to use a firearm if it's a magic item)
Spells with attack rolls specifically count as weapons for most purposes:
SPELLS AS WEAPONS
Spells that require an attack roll or touch attack roll, and deal hit point damage, are considered weapons for purposes of applying feats such as Weapon Specialization and Improved Critical. Treat all “touch attack” spells as a weapon group, and all “ranged touch attack” spells (e.g., rays) as a specific weapon type.
So, yes, [strikes] can be used in conjunction with gunshots.
For iterative attacks, look at the example firearms that incorporate Ray Splitting to allow exactly that.
Is there an actual way to spread out numen costs between hundreds of people? I assumed that it would be that you'd need to pay the full numen cost up front by yourself in both of these scenarios because it is a magical item (And so the player that DOES want to go gunslinger has to wait until they have enough numen to buy a gun, or in the case of a cell phone the same problem.)
Yes, just as you can craft a magic item and allow someone else to bind it to them, transferring the numen cost from you to them.
To start play as a gunslinger, you'd take Fighter 1 and use your 500 numen for "par" (Chapter 6) to maybe pick up a pair of derringers for 250 each (Appendix 6A). At 3rd level, you have enough mojo at par to give a firearm a +1 enhancement bonus. Take Personal Weapon and trade that +1 for an additional 6,000 numen to spend on, say, a really heavy revolver dealing 5d6/shot for single shots, and capable of iterative attacks for when you pick up Manyshot and/or hit BAB +6.
If you trick yourself out with Craft (gunsmith) at 1st level, you can use your full 2,000 max. numen at 1st level for a +1 enhancement, take Personal Weapon, and trade in for the other 6,000 right away. You'd be limited to CL 1st effects, but you can stack up a whole lot of them with that much potential.
I still don't understand how the [charmed] condition and the various Charm Person/Monster/etc. spells are supposed to work under this system. What do you have to do to render a target [charmed], and where is that spelled out?
It works basically like out-Diplomacy-ing them. The Cha penalty makes it much easier for you to beat them by a much higher margin.
The combat chapter includes a description of the [charmed] condition, but doesn't actually say how to apply it (or the [befuddled] or [fascinated] conditions, actually.) Likewise, lots of spells protect against [charm] effects, but no spells actually say they apply the [charmed] (or [befuddled] or [fascinated]) condition.
Yes, that track was tacked together at the last minute and needs to be refined. Originally, the idea was that minor effects would be applied if an attribute is damaged by "X" amount, and moderate by "Y" amount, and serious to 1, and critical to 0, but that proved too unwieldy for some of the condition tracks and was abandoned as a catch-all rule.
I'm guessing once you take a certain amount of CHA damage you get charmed, but if so it's not explained anywhere--although if it is tied to attribute damage, then a fighter with Concussive Strike could stab people into being [charmed], and that would be kinda dumb.
I disagree. Bludgeoning someone into submission is exactly the sort of thing I'd like to allow!
That said, charmed at Cha = 1 would make the Charm spells inflict a Cha penalty as opposed to Cha damage, which would mechanically differentiate them from the dominate spells.
I do confess that I am slowly starting to come around more (Mostly because I only now realize the fact that it IS in fact a weapon and that there are ways to use it as such, And in some cases technically with those that are less of weapons and closer to spell items like the musket could still make an interesting play style, whilst from my first, more cursory readings it looked like you could never use anything other than just a single shot.)
Though there still is some salt that hasn't quite been washed off of my tongue, although I confess that neither is really 'your problem' so to speak.
1: With the fact that I so vehemently use the KF equipment system in every single game I run or design characters for both in PF and KF, trying to make these firearm rules play nice with any of pathfinder's more standard trappings are frustrating (since I'm still not ready to completely jump ship over to kirthfinder just yet and renounce paizo's original forever like I did with 3.5 running over to pathfinder). And my previous blabbery about Spheres compounds this because one might want to ask whether a full round action musket/flintlock shot is an attack action, and whether it should even be allowed to be an attack action since it already deals 4d6 or more damage, And so this idea of trying to compare and balance weapons against each other is where I got to choosing option 1 over option 3, so that they're basically the same (Also it's really simple to say that they're like crossbows, lose their mechanical strength bonus in exchange for gaining the ability to hit touch AC, and change their 19-20x2 to 20x3
2: I tend to stay inside of the lines of fantasy, and so I feel like knowing how to stat out an AK47 or a revolver isn't really going to help. I mention this more because of the fact that this paradigm is what made me assume "OH MY GOD THE GUNS ARE HORRIBLE" before, since I was only looking at the flintlock and musket, which really are the ones that look the least like weapons and the most like glorified wands.
3: Not a problem, but thought I'd mention it here whilst I'm putting a bug in your ear. Admittedly I might steal the idea for Magical Cell Phones for a general/campaign setting of mine. since I will say that Magitech is my jam and think the magical equivalent to a fax machine or something replacing the postal service could be hilarious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just for LOLZ:
Global Cell Phone Network: Mindlink (1st level) + Cascade Spell (skill enhancement: knowledge; +1 level) + Shape Spell (target to emanation; +2 levels) + Widen Spell (20'r. to planetary; ad hoc +11 levels) + Object-Specific Spell (with active phone only; -2 levels) + Restricted Spell (orbital satellites and towers needed; -1 level) + Tenuous Spell (no service areas, no charge, updates needed, etc.; -1 level) + Ritual Spell (to restore service if goes down; -2 levels) = 9th level; continuous cost 9th level x CL 20th x 1,000 x 2 (duration) = 360,000 numen, which divided over say 3.6 billions users, comes to 0.0001 numen each!
And they're not actually magic; they just seem like it to people like me who grew up with land lines, folding maps, paper newspapers, and bound encyclopedias.
I'm guessing once you take a certain amount of CHA damage you get charmed, but if so it's not explained anywhere--although if it is tied to attribute damage, then a fighter with Concussive Strike could stab people into being [charmed], and that would be kinda dumb.I disagree. Bludgeoning someone into submission is exactly the sort of thing I'd like to allow!
Hahaha I get it, it just seems kind of cartoonish to me. I feel like I'd rather see feats such as Staredown and Daunting strike allow the option to browbeat as well as demoralize, which would give the same functional effect (punching them until they're nice to you) but actually require investment in Bluff/Intimidation.
That said, charmed at Cha = 1 would make the Charm spells inflict a Cha penalty as opposed to Cha damage, which would mechanically differentiate them from the dominate spells.
I don't know if that's strictly necessary, but I think I'd prefer it. ALso, if there was something that specified the penalty only applied against the caster? As it works now, Charm Person-ing a social character (politician or bard or whatever) is kind of useless, because their CHA gets nerfed for days, which renders them useless as public speakers, hype men, musicians, negotiators, etc. There's no point in Charming a diplomat if he's then unable to effectively speak on your behalf.
ALso, if there was something that specified the penalty only applied against the caster?
It's implied, because that's kind of what makes charm and dominate different from just straight Cha penalty/damage.
Tenuous Spell and Ritual Spell... Where are these metamagic feats? I don't remember ever seeing them
Tenuous Spell and Ritual Spell... Where are these metamagic feats? I don't remember ever seeing them
Chapter 8. They were needed in the reverse-engineering of spells, along with Creature-Specific Spell and some others.
Hm...
Tenuous Spell I can't say I understand considering mindlink doesn't really have a saving through (for the cell phone bit)
Also... Are there even 3.6 billion people in the average fantasy kingdom? I mean I'm just kinda thinking of the idea that a much less common but still there sort of "Magic Fax Machine" could exist.
Also would it need some heighten/empower spell ability to turn it from a 6 second message to anything that can fit on a 8.5 x 11 inch piece of paper?
Are there even 3.6 billion people in the average fantasy kingdom?
No, I'm trying to map to RL - there are over 4 billion cell phone users on Earth, but I rounded down to make the number come out nicely. Anyway, the spell construction is wonky, because you're not (literally) creating a hive mind over the planet, even if it sometimes seems like it. Might need some new seeds to get it to work right. The point is to show that an ungodly expensive piece of tech or magic is within reach if enough people pitch in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, charmed at Cha = 1 would make the Charm spells inflict a Cha penalty as opposed to Cha damage, which would mechanically differentiate them from the dominate spells.I don't know if that's strictly necessary, but I think I'd prefer it.
See how this looks, then:
Charm Person: Ray of beguiling (1st level) + Shape Spell (ray to target; +0 level) + Still Spell (+1 level) + Extend Spell (1 rd./level to 1 hr./level; +3 levels) + Creature-Specific Spell (humanoids only; -2 levels) + Effect-Specific Spell (attitude towards caster only; -2 levels) = 1st level; target’s Cha is treated as 1d6 +1/2 levels (+5 max.) lower than actual when determining its attitude towards caster (Intuition half, automatically Friendly if reduced to 1).
Charm Monster: Ray of beguiling (1st level) + Shape Spell (ray to target; +0 levels) + Still Spell (+1 level) + Extend Spell (1 rd./level to 1 hr./level; +3 levels) + Effect-Specific Spell (attitude towards caster only; -2 levels) + Accursed Spell (+1 level) = 4th level; target’s Cha is treated as 1d6 +1/level (+15 max.) lower than actual when determining its attitude towards caster (Intuition half, automatically Friendly if reduced to 1). Invest 200 x CL numen to maintain the effect indefinitely.
Charm Monster, Mass: Ray of beguiling (1st level) + Shape Spell (ray to target; +0 levels) + Still Spell (+1 level) + Extend Spell (1 rd./level to 1 hr./level; +3 levels) + Effect-Specific Spell (attitude towards caster only; -2 levels) + Mass Effect Spell (1/level; +3 levels) + Accursed Spell (+1 level) = 7th level (bard 6th); penalty is 1d6 +1/level (+20 max.). Invest 350 x CL numen to maintain effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll have to mull it over, but yeah, I think I like this a lot more. I like that it emphasizes investing in the Diplomacy skill even more, and since the penalty doesn't stack, you can't just spam a few 1st-level Charm Person spells to knock somebody down to CHA 0 and get a dominated slave (which is something a particularly determined 1st level rogue, sorcerer, or enchanter could do with attribute damage.)