Rogue emailed. Sorry for the gaffe.
Houstonderek pointed out the following missing text from the Rogue:
Surprise Attacks (Ex): Starting at 4th level, opponents are always considered flat-footed to you during a surprise round, even if they have already acted. You can take a move action, a standard action, and a swift action during a surprise round, rather than being limited to a move action or a standard action.
Also, with the latest revisions out, I've cleared all the previous "Egg of COOT" errata listings and started with the above.
SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!!!
If you have a caster, the rest of your team becomes awesome, because of buffs and battlefield control spells. But by himself, with no bodyguards, a wizard is a sitting duck.
Agun (the wizard) is pleased that his role in the first beatdown (buffing Cadogan) went unnoticed, but he's disappointed that you've given him the recognition for his role in Skjorn's duel. If the party's enemies target Agun like we targeted the 14th level wizard, he's a dead man. He needs to do a better job at staying under the radar.
Kirth as always good work.
I did notice that positioning attack is listed in the rogue combat talents but its description seems to have been dropped.
I did notice that positioning attack is listed in the rogue combat talents but its description seems to have been dropped.
I'll take a look at it -- thanks.
Kirth, is your Spelltouched class an official part of your unofficial system, or did you just send that out to see how people liked it?
Personally, I think it is a great option to have for people with specific character concepts in mind. For full spell casters, I imagine it's a tough choice between that and taking levels that advance spells, but I can see more melee-centric and skill-centric classes liking that option.
Kirth, is your Spelltouched class an official part of your unofficial system, or did you just send that out to see how people liked it?
I would totally allow it, but since no one thought it merited any playtesting, it sort of fell out of the main documents (like the Inquisitor did) due to lack of general interest.
So I was wondering, why do the Greater Save feats require the Improved Save feats still? The Improved Save feats have no benefit if you already have a good save in that category.
The Improved Save feat IS the good save in that category; the two are inextricable. Wizards, as a class feature, gain Improved Iron Will as a bonus feat -- that's where their good Will save comes from.
|
Ok, so how does the saves thing interface with multi-classing? If I take a fighter level, but already have "good saves" in two categories as a rogue, do I only benefit by gaining the third save as a "good" save? In other words, in regular Pathfinder multiclassing, I add whatever the saves are for that level to what I already have. Would I only gain a "good save" in the third, or do I still get to add +2 for each with the fighter level?
I actually think just doing the save tables the old way would be less mentally taxing, actually.
Several ways we could do it, and I'm open to suggestions: none of them are obviously "better."
I have no strong preference, although I sort of like the 1st two options better than the 3rd. I motion for discussion followed by a vote.
|
|
I just did what Kyrt-ryder suggested. Basically, Cadogan has all good saves now, so I lost a point in both Reflex and Fort (as opposed to doing it the Pathfinder way).
Any way you want to do it is fine with me, though, my saves are still pretty damned spectacular any way you slice it. Hooray Charisma meaning something!
I sort of don't like Kyrt's suggestion, because then a 1-level dip in monk (for example) then gets you all good saves in everything forever. I'd prefer a monk 20 to have a better Reflex save than a monk 1/wizard 19.
Seems like the simplest way to me is to just have the good save progression of your favored class. If you want good saves for other saving throws, then you can take the feats for them.
Incidentally, there are a lot of situations where this plays out, and I can't think of any that are broken.
However, "not broken" =/= "best solution" in all cases. In the interest of mathematical analysis, here's an example I might actually use as referee:
Frost Giant Fighter 1
Method 1: Fort +14, Ref +5, Will +6
Method 2: Fort +16, Ref +5, Will +6
Method 3: Fort +14, Ref +5, Will +6
Your Method: Fort +14, Ref +8, Will +9
The net effect of buffing the brutes' Reflex and Will saves by 50% (per your method) or more is that it's harder to clear out brute mooks with AoE spells (further devaluing fireball) and it's harder to bypass brute guards using mind-affecting spells. Neither is a particularly desireable outcome, given the types of games I prefer to run (although YMMV).
Or, just go back to the way standard 3.5/Pathfinder did it. Sometimes things don't need to be changed. Not saying that giving fighters all good saves and stuff like that isn't awesome sauce, just saying the method of stacking when multi-classing was fine in 3.5/Pathfinder.
That's Method 2, outlined above, and I'm sort of leaning that way myself.
|
|
Or, just go back to the way standard 3.5/Pathfinder did it. Sometimes things don't need to be changed. Not saying that giving fighters all good saves and stuff like that isn't awesome sauce, just saying the method of stacking when multi-classing was fine in 3.5/Pathfinder.That's Method 2, outlined above, and I'm sort of leaning that way myself.
Yeah, I just think that would be easier. The important change is which classes get what good saves, not how they interact when multi-classing. Change for the sake of change can just get complicated.
Hm. For your classes, that method 2 might actually work. The problem I tend to have with that (under more normal 3.x/pathfinder rules) is that it exaggerates the character's saves - making good saves better, and bad saves worse.
For example, consider a fighter 2 / barbarian 2 / ranger 2. (Under 3.x/pathfinder rules where fighter just gives fort save)
Fortitude: +9, Reflex: +3, Will +0
Compared to a straight fighter 6:
Fortitude: +5, Reflex: +2, Will +2
The good save - fort in this case - is massively higher. But the bad save - will - is notably lower.
The best solution I ever came up with was essentially your method 3: 1/2 of all your levels with good save, plus 1/3 all your levels with a bad save, plus two if you've got it as a good save ever, round fractions down at the end. I'm not entirely happy with it, but it makes the numbers come out mostly reasonably.
Under that rule, the fighter 2 / barbarian 2 / ranger 2 has:
Fortitude: +5, Reflex: +4, Will: +2
----
For your rules, I'd suggest thinking about un-linking the feats from the classes. If someone actually spends a (non-bonus) feat on, say, Improved Fortitude, then that feels to me like it should mean that they get good fort progression for all of their classes. And then maybe make the Greater save feats require a base save of just +2 or +3 or something like that?
Not sure how this would mesh with the rest of your rules, though; I've read through the whole thing (and it's neat!) but I won't claim to have grokked all the ways things interact.
Pick any set of classes with the same bad save, and you'll see the same problem, on a larger or smaller scale depending on how many classes and exactly what level they're all at.
For example, a rogue/wizard will - by default save calculations - have a fort save that's lower than a single-classed rogue or wizard. (Unless one has a level that's a multiple of three, but needing exactly three levels to not be extra-weakened by multiclassing is, imo, an annoying meta-game mechanic that shouldn't happen.)
I do see your point about complication, and it is one of the things I try to take into account when designing my own houserules... but sometimes the simple method just doesn't work for what I'm trying to accomplish.
|
I'm not sure which of the methods mine falls under. Probably 3, but counting the poor save as well.
Basically, count all levels that grant good saves, and all that grant poor save, and determine total levels for each. Use that to determine where they are on the save progression, and add the two bonuses together.
Maybe not completely simple, but it avoids a character getting a super high save while another save remains +0. It just depends on if you think multiclass characters should be able to get super high saves or not, and if you think poor saves shouldn't get worse than they already are.
Basically, count all levels that grant good saves, and all that grant poor save, and determine total levels for each. Use that to determine where they are on the save progression, and add the two bonuses together.
I could probably go for that as well. It's quite similar to Method 1, but gives you a smoother progression. From purely an adventure-writer's standpoint, it would be a royal pain in the ass when I assign a monster class levels and then have to redo saves (instead of just adding on), but for PCs it would work very nicely.
|
|
In converting stats using the "Kirthfinder" rules for an upcoming Savage Tide campaign, I've been using the 3.5e way, and I can't help but think that it allows for absolutely crazy imbalances in saves (case in point: a bullywug barbarian/ranger with +14 Fort, +5 Ref, +0 Will!). I like TOZ's solution, and it doesn't strike me as too complicated, really. I guess if you wanted a mathematical/numerical system where you could just add values, you could use a fractional save system. Which I guess is what that is emulating, except without having to think about it!
A thought: if you have saves that progress on a "global" scale rather than individual scales (if you get my drift), what about using that idea for BAB as well? I.E. Rogue 10 has BAB +7, Rogue 5/Bard 5 has BAB +6. Your answer is probably related to whether you see this as a feature or a problem... :)
Something a player of mine noticed when building his character: The Evoker Wizard's bonded wand eldritch blast power doesn't scale. It gives Force damage, but nothing at 4th and 16th(?) levels. My solution was to offer the Kensai Battle Sorcerer eldritch blast.
Also, I think the Elemental Wizard's bonded wand eldritch blast has an error in it, as it allows only for the Elemental Earth bloodline. Obviously I understand the intention of this (i.e. Fire Wizard gets the Fire Bloodline eldritch blast, etc.) but I felt I'd best point it out.
In converting stats using the "Kirthfinder" rules for an upcoming Savage Tide campaign
Welcome to "Kirthfinder"! I hope it adds enjoyment to your campaign -- it probably bears mentioning that a lot of it was designed with the lessons learned from my 3.5e Savage Tide campaign firmly in mind. It's a great AP, and I hope it will be even better with the houserules in place.
I've been using the 3.5e way, and I can't help but think that it allows for absolutely crazy imbalances in saves (case in point: a bullywug barbarian/ranger with +14 Fort, +5 Ref, +0 Will!). I like TOZ's solution, and it doesn't strike me as too complicated, really.
Total vote tally to date:
So far the fractional save (total good levels, total poor levels, add) method is ahead, but we don't have quorum yet.
A thought: if you have saves that progress on a "global" scale rather than individual scales (if you get my drift), what about using that idea for BAB as well? I.E. Rogue 10 has BAB +7, Rogue 5/Bard 5 has BAB +6. Your answer is probably related to whether you see this as a feature or a problem... :)
Part of me really likes that. Another part of me is very hesitant, because some class features were assigned based on whether the class got a BAB bump at certain levels (the skald's "tradition keeper" is a prime example), and I'd hate to have to find and redo all of that.
1. Something a player of mine noticed when building his character: The Evoker Wizard's bonded wand eldritch blast power doesn't scale. It gives Force damage, but nothing at 4th and 16th(?) levels. My solution was to offer the Kensai Battle Sorcerer eldritch blast.
2. Also, I think the Elemental Wizard's bonded wand eldritch blast has an error in it, as it allows only for the Elemental Earth bloodline. Obviously I understand the intention of this (i.e. Fire Wizard gets the Fire Bloodline eldritch blast, etc.) but I felt I'd best point it out.
1. Ag! How did I miss that? I think your solution is an excellent one, btw, and I'll think on it as well. Thanks for calling that out.
2. Corrected -- thanks!
Dotting
I don't know if I have the right to vote
The way I see it, everyone who actively plays Kirthfinder gets a vote.
|
|
I don't know if I have the right to voteThe way I see it, everyone who actively plays Kirthfinder gets a vote.
The way I see it, anyone that agrees with me gets a vote.
;-)
Oh, and when am I going to get my Joachim feedback? :-)
Edit: and is the foebane change to "favored enemy scaled to fighter levels" an official change? I want to finish up my character sheet, and I think that's the last unresolved part (other than how to calculate saves, that is).
Edit: and is the foebane change to "favored enemy scaled to fighter levels" an official change? I want to finish up my character sheet, and I think that's the last unresolved part (other than how to calculate saves, that is).
Since you and I agree with it, and since no one else has ventured an opinion, I'm going to say that yes, it is!
Oh, and when am I going to get my Joachim feedback?
At first glance: he has too many channeling options. He won't get his second Versatile Channeling feat until 6th level (gained the first at 2nd), so he currently has two (2) of the following: positive energy, dark knowledge domain, luck domain, trickery domain.
Did you consider taking a few levels of rogue? As an archivist 3/rogue 2, using the Sacred Outlaw multiclass option he'd still cast spells as a 4th level archivist. By grabbing the appropriate skill talent, he'd also channel energy as a 4th level archivist and have sneak attack +2d6.
|
|
Oh, and when am I going to get my Joachim feedback?At first glance: he has too many channeling options. He won't get his second Versatile Channeling feat until 6th level (gained the first at 2nd), so he currently has two (2) of the following: positive energy, dark knowledge domain, luck domain, trickery domain.
Did you consider taking a few levels of rogue? As an archivist 3/rogue 2, using the Sacred Outlaw multiclass option he'd still cast spells as a 4th level archivist. By grabbing the appropriate skill talent, he'd also channel energy as a 4th level archivist and have sneak attack +2d6.
For some reason I didn't think "channel positive" was an option, but I'll probably still just go with two of the domain channels.
Hmm, I'll have to look at everything again and ponder on the multiclassing, could be interesting.
For some reason I didn't think "channel positive" was an option, but I'll probably still just go with two of the domain channels.
It wouldn't be at 1st level, but the Versatile Channeling feat doesn't specifically disallow it for archivists, so it would theoretically be possible to pick it up that way.
|
|
For some reason I didn't think "channel positive" was an option, but I'll probably still just go with two of the domain channels.It wouldn't be at 1st level, but the Versatile Channeling feat doesn't specifically disallow it for archivists, so it would theoretically be possible to pick it up that way.
Ok, I dropped the Dark Knowledge domain channel, and I forgot to add in his traits (basically just gives him another +1 in Bluff and his Fort. save).
I'll have to meditate on giving him rogue levels, I really didn't design him with optimisation in mind, as he's more of a "class feature" right now (if I optimise my Leadership feat, I think that's a bit much, personally).
On first blush, though, he's really not a "combat" guy, so him just having the trickery channel provide the sneak attack is plenty good for the way I envision him.
Few things I noticed.
In the rogue document
Unflinching in not listed in the skill talents table.
The strafe bomb description is a little confusing, I think you wanted to say "You designate one creature in the line to be the target of the bomb and make your attack roll against that creature; all other squares in the line take splash damage."
Was it intentional not to give rogues zero level spell slots, I know rangers (and I think monks) get them?
Skills:
For forgeries in the Craft: Fine Art description, appraise was taken over by the Knowledge (Lore) skill, should that skill be what opposes the forgery?
In the Profession sailing description the table states a DC of 25 and 30 for tropical storms and hurricanes respectively, but the text description states them as 30 and 40 respectively. Which do you prefer?
Thanks,
Chris
1. Unflinching in not listed in the skill talents table.
2. The strafe bomb description is a little confusing, I think you wanted to say "You designate one creature in the line to be the target of the bomb and make your attack roll against that creature; all other squares in the line take splash damage."
3. Was it intentional not to give rogues zero level spell slots, I know rangers (and I think monks) get them?
4. For forgeries in the Craft: Fine Art description, appraise was taken over by the Knowledge (Lore) skill, should that skill be what opposes the forgery?
5. In the Profession sailing description the table states a DC of 25 and 30 for tropical storms and hurricanes respectively, but the text description states them as 30 and 40 respectively. Which do you prefer?
1. Added. And the description should be amended so the bonus is +1, with an additional +1/3 levels.
2. Poor editing on my part; your amended text is correct.3. Yes, for a variety of reasons including limiting the sheer number of skill tricks.
4. Yes. Also, an Administration* check should also work for forged documents.
5. The table is correct; text amended.
* N.B.: I've rolled Knowledge (law) and Knowledge (business) into the Administration skill, and added a table of DCs for being able to cite/understand regulations and red tape.
|
Kirth, what do you think of feats or traits that allow you to replace Strength with another attribute when determining attack and damage bonus?
Here is an example, a trait from Iron Kingdoms
Here is a feat from Midnight:
Prerequisites: Int 13, Clever Fighting, Weapon Finesse, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When using either a light weapon or any weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse, such as a rapier or whip, you deal an extra 1d4 points of damage with each attack per point of your Intelligence bonus. For example, a fighter with an Intelligence of 15 and wielding a cedeku deals an extra 2d4 points of damage with each successful hit. As with other bonus damage dice, this damage is not multiplied when a critical hit is confirmed. You cannot use this ability when wearing medium or heavy armor or when carrying a medium or heavy load. Targets immune to sneak attacks or critical hits are immune to damage from Canny Strike.
Source: Star and Shadow, p. 51
Kirth, what do you think of feats or traits that allow you to replace Strength with another attribute when determining attack and damage bonus?
Open the Feats document and take a look at Weapon Finesse, Power Throw, Reflexive Shot, and especially Insightful Strike.
|
|
Kirth, what do you think of feats or traits that allow you to replace Strength with another attribute when determining attack and damage bonus?Open the Feats document and take a look at Weapon Finesse, Power Throw, Reflexive Shot, and especially Insightful Strike.
Excellent. A question: Does Practiced Bond feat stack with Spellsword fighter talent?
I think what's keeping me from enjoying this is the parts where it takes jabs at the core game and setting. A game system that toots its own horn a lot is pretty insufferable.
If these houserules are so much better than the core game, they'll stand on their own.