I use classes that do have their own fluffNever mind -- I'm not getting through. It's not important, though.
I'm confused now. Am I being a thickheaded again and not realizing something I should realize? I do that sometimes.
|
I'm confused now. Am I being a thickheaded again and not realizing something I should realize? I do that sometimes.I use classes that do have their own fluffNever mind -- I'm not getting through. It's not important, though.
We just don't believe that classes need specific flavor. Sure, you can assign specific flavor to them, but you can assign that flavor to ANY class. So when you say 'I need the Witch class' or similar things, we just kind of tilt our heads in confusion, because we can make a witch with the Bard class.
We just don't believe that classes need specific flavor. Sure, you can assign specific flavor to them, but you can assign that flavor to ANY class. So when you say 'I need the Witch class' or similar things, we just kind of tilt our heads in confusion, because we can make a witch with the Bard class.I'm confused now. Am I being a thickheaded again and not realizing something I should realize? I do that sometimes.I use classes that do have their own fluffNever mind -- I'm not getting through. It's not important, though.
I guess it's simply a matter of preference. You prefer your classes one way in your campaign settings, I prefer them another. Nothing wrong with either approach.
From the 'things you don't know about PF' thread.Mage Hand can only pick up non-magical items so it is a crude detect magic spell for light items - and gives GMs a headache of what to do with items that don't detect as magic, but are.I don't think it needs changing, as it is a very minor corner case that could be used cleverly, but I wanted to bring it up.
I added a change to this spell (no longer targets only nonmagic items) to the intro -- because (a) that restriction makes no sense anyway, and (b) I don't like it when one cantrip supersedes another one so easily -- especially another one with a range that's been changed to "touch"!
I guess it's simply a matter of preference. You prefer your classes one way in your campaign settings, I prefer them another. Nothing wrong with either approach.
No; that's not quite it. You seem to be clinging to the idea that a class must be mechanics + flavor, so that there can be only "x" number of character types. TOZ and I understand that mechanics can be decoupled from flavor, and reconstituted at will in order to yield an endless variety of character types. No offense to you -- you seem like a very nice person -- but your way of looking at things, to me, seems pointlessly restrictive and detrimental to creativity; I would not likely choose to play in a campaign you ran.
I guess it's simply a matter of preference. You prefer your classes one way in your campaign settings, I prefer them another. Nothing wrong with either approach.No; that's not quite it. You seem to be clinging to the idea that a class must be mechanics + flavor, so that there can be only "x" number of character types. TOZ and I understand that mechanics can be decoupled from flavor, and reconstituted at will in order to yield an endless variety of character types. No offense to you -- you seem like a very nice person -- but your way of looking at things, to me, seems pointlessly restrictive and detrimental to creativity; I would not likely choose to play in a campaign you ran.
Perhaps we misunderstand each other. I do like to have class fluff, but I try not to make it too restrictive. Here. Take a look. It isn't 100% finished, and I still have some classes to add to it, but that shows my take on classes and fluff for them.
So what would you say if a player wanted to roll a Monk, but was basically a street urchin that taught himself how to fight?
I'd probably allow it, so long as the build isn't too underpowered, which many monk builds in Devaia would be. I'd recommend a zen shooter. We have those in Devaia, and they are good at fistfighting. The idea of a monk who was never in a monastery and maybe isn't lawful is fine with me.
Kelsey -- Just out of curiosity, have you ever played a classless game, like GURPS? I had assumed they would be sort of bland and featureless -- until I tried a couple.
I've played World of Darkness. I like it. Other than that, no. If it isn't D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, World of Darkness, D20 Modern, or Exalted I've never owned a rulebook, and I haven't had a chance to play Exalted yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an example from a conversation Kirth and I had when we were spit-balling character ideas:
I came up with a character who is a great duelist. He achieves his level of skill by intense focus in combat where he puts all other thoughts out of his mind (other than his current combat) until his enemy is dispatched.
Kirth had a character who was sort of a holy warrior. When necessary, his fanatacism allowed him to call upon the powers of his diety to improve his combat prowess to destroy his faith's enemies.
In both of those examples, the characters' class was a barbarian. The barbarian rage was interpreted as my PC's intense focus or Kirth's PC's religious fanaticism. Mechanically similar due to class, but the characters were different because of the fluff we applied to them.
Kelsey, I think what you want is actually more control over what PCs your players can play. While you can use the KF wizard to play a witch (or a shaman, or a hedge wizard, etc.) with a very specific set of abilities (which is what I think you're envisioning), then you might need to grab some abilities from other classes. A witch fluff character that anyone who plays Kirthfinder can create has a wide variety of potential skills and abilities, not all of which are necessarily pulled from the wizard class.
A character who plays a Witch Character Class has a much more narrow set of abilities to select from. I think that this is what you envision, because you want your characters' witches to conform to fluff that fits your campaign. Unfortunately, I don't think that Kirth's system is designed to fit any one campaign (his description of Halflings not withstanding). Characters that fit into a particular type of campaign is something the GM and/or players need to conform to on their own.
My restrictions are about as strict as the vanilla Pathfinder ones. I guess I just worded what I want very poorly. I don't want to be overly strict, but I do want witches and wizards to be separate due to their different histories and spellcasting methods in my world. I don't mind players building characters that break the mold of what their class typically is (I make nonstandard paladins all the time), but I do want the APG, UC, and UM classes available instead of forcing multiclassing, and I do want to be able to say what a class's roles usually are. If someone wants to break them I won't stop them.
In such a case, I would say 'this is the flavor of a witch. I don't care what mechanics you use, but it must match the flavor for you to be a witch in the campaign'.
This makes sense, but the witch spell list and hexes fit the flavor perfectly. That's why I want to keep the class available. I wouldn't say no to a witchy character who was a wizard without a single level in the witch class, but I want the perfectly fitting which class to be available. Same with the alchemist. I won't stop players from building it by multiclassing, but I want the base class to be around.
I want the base class to be around.
Then keep it, by all means; it won't hurt anything to do so. There are only two main cautions I would point out, with regards to using elements from "Kirthfinder" piecemeal:
_____1. If you "port" in one martial class from Kirthfinder, use the others as well. Because if one player is using a Kirthfinder fighter or ranger, and someone else has a monk or paladin from the core Pathfinder rules, the latter player is going to end up being very unhappy.
2. If you use Kirthfinder classes, be aware that feats work differently in Kirthfinder as well. This is critically important for the fighter, monk, ranger, and rogue, and is pretty important for the barbarian and paladin as well. The Kirthfinder rogue in particular won't work at all if you're using the standard Pathfinder feats.
I guess it's simply a matter of preference. You prefer your classes one way in your campaign settings, I prefer them another. Nothing wrong with either approach.No; that's not quite it. You seem to be clinging to the idea that a class must be mechanics + flavor, so that there can be only "x" number of character types. TOZ and I understand that mechanics can be decoupled from flavor, and reconstituted at will in order to yield an endless variety of character types. No offense to you -- you seem like a very nice person -- but your way of looking at things, to me, seems pointlessly restrictive and detrimental to creativity; I would not likely choose to play in a campaign you ran.
Zalgo be praised, the condescending is so thick you actually can't cut it without a +5 chainsword. Here's what you're saying: "No offense, but I'm better than you and your way of playing is wrong and I would never play with you". I could expect TOZ to pull something like that when he gets really far in a troll thread but I expected better from you.
I like what you did to some of the classes, but unless you're Monte Cook using a screen name, you might want to cut back on the 'tude, man.There's no wrong way of playing.
You missed the 'these rules are horrible, don't ever use them' upthread, didn't you VM?
He can make a joke at his own expense, cool.
Doesn't give him the right to act like, well us, to someone that seems actually interested in the ruleset but wants to keep the casters separated for setting reasons.She went as far as saying it's a difference of opinion, nothing wrong with either approach. And Kirth answered with "No you're wrong and I wouldn't like to play at your table, that is how wrong you are". Scratch that 'like us' I said. We usually save it for disscussing with the other trolls. Hitting someone that was being cordial and nice? That is something I would expect from some of the worst posters. It actually turned me from good old troll to white knight. That's how shocked I am.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the KF way of looking at things and I also agree that Kelsey's view is very restrictive. That's not wrong if you want those restrictions and are happy with them.
I like to create a concept first and then find mechanics, be they class, spells, feats or whatever, to construct a character that fits the concept. One of my current characters is a 'witch' that is 100% sorcerer in class. I've had a 'ranger' that was a barbarian/rogue.
|
Personally, I'd like to see the thread back on topic, that is, discussion of the actual Kirthfinder rules. Class-wide flavour versus "building blocks" is an interesting discussion that would probably be better served in a separate thread.
--------
A few things that have come up in the process of my game preparation.
1. Quirkily enough, Monks can enter the Paladin class at level 5 (Monk 4/Paladin 1). I have no problem with this, because the resultant character is possibly the most MAD character ever, but it surprised me when my players came up with that idea. :)
(My player is going to be playing a Monk/Paladin of Shelyn, incidentally!)
2. I'm finding that a lot of the Monk class description about weapons and flurry of blow is actually no longer needed.
Unarmed Mastery: Your unarmed attacks may be with either hand or with elbows, knees, and feet. This means that you may make unarmed attacks with your hands full. You may thus apply your full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all your unarmed strikes. Usually your unarmed attacks deal lethal damage, but you can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on the attack roll. You have the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling. Your unarmed attack is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons (as an exception, the Weapon Form class feature (q.v.) does not apply to your unarmed strikes).
This is entirely covered by Exotic proficiency in unarmed strikes, excepting possibly the corner-case of TWF with unarmed strikes, which is covered later anyway, and the weapon form class feature part.
*Flurry of Blows (Ex): You can use the Two-Weapon Fighting and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feats with unarmed strikes, paired light weapons, a light weapon and an unarmed strike, or a double or two-
handed weapon with which you have at least Simple proficiency. Two-handed weapons with which you are proficient gain extra attacks as if you were using a pair of such weapons, even though one weapon is
used. For example, a 1st level monk can attack at –1/–1 with unarmed attacks, a pair of sickles, or a single spear.You apply your full Strength bonus to damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. You may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks (or attacks with weapons that permit those maneuvers) as part of a flurry of blows.
This is almost entirely all standard TWF rules. There are only some minute differences:
- Full damage with offhand attacks from the beginning rather than picking it up with ITWF- Able to "TWF" with some corner case single-wielding weapons (most polearms, for example, can now use the butt of the pole as a staff, allowing standard TWF as with a double weapon)
- I'm not 100% sure about the substitution of combat maneuvers for iteratives being standard rules, come to think of it... I just assumed they could, but perhaps not.
Not to mention, the fighter talent version of flurry of blows is somewhat different, and confusing to boot (I don't understand how you get the values listed in that talent's example).
It also seems weird that Flurry of Blows is essentially a bonus feat, but only if you take TWF...and only if you take TWF as a monk bonus feat (as written, if you pick it as your standard level-up feat, you don't get flurry of blows!)
Personally, I'd be shortening a lot of this out with something like the following. Note that part of this is personal preference; there's a lot of needlessly repeated information in the rulebooks (my biggest pet peeve are the "If you have X feat, you get +2 to this skill" entries in the Skills chapter).
Combat Mastery (Ex): You deal more damage with your unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown on the table; this supersedes the damage progression for Exotic proficiency in unarmed strikes. The unarmed damage values listed are for Medium monks. You may also apply your full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all your unarmed strikes.
In addition, when using a manufactured weapon with which you are proficient (no non-proficiency penalty) instead of an unarmed attack, you gain an insight bonus to damage equal to half your class level.
This covers the vast majority of three class abilities in a much smaller format. The oddities about flurry are something I'll touch upon later, as I have to go make dinner now...
3. And before I forget - the fighter's Onslaught of Blows ability is very strange and confusing. Fighter 10/Rogue 3 (an example actually in STAP), for example, has a BAB of... what, exactly? +12/+12/+7? I'd just prefer to stick to the standard Multiattack rules than try and figure out what happens in all permutations of this ability.
Looked over the races document:
For high elves: the search check example of (1d20 + INT bonus + rogue level), I thought that searching for secret and concealed doors fell under the disable device skill that anyone could take.
For human, paragon: the table gives them a bonus feat at 2nd level but in the description it states they gain a bonus feat at 2nd and 4th level.
Under gnomes attribute modifiers: the food gnome reference is inaccurate, to think of a race this small as anything more than a snack or possibly and appetizer is wrong (I think you wanted to say forest gnome instead).
Under the gnome magical linguist feat: you still reference read magic but I believe you rolled that spell into your skills section.
Under Halfling Paragons: did you want to change the burglary ability they gain to the sixth sense feat?
Under Orc: is their type changed to monstrous humanoid in your world? It appears that way but I know in pathfinder they are of the humanoid type.
Under fetchlings: I believe you combined hide in plain sight into the stealth skill, also I find the wording for the number of times each spell like ability is usable confusing (each spell like ability could gain quite a few usages a day).
Under the feytouched wild empathy ability: what druid level does it function at?
Under hagspawn: the green widow skill synergy should likely be deceitful rather than deceptive.
Under lycanthrope: Under the savagery ability I could not find some of the feats. Bear – improved wrestling maneuvers (likely improved grapple now), two weapon rend (likely two weapon strike now) and vigilant defender (unknown what it is now); boar – Banzai charge (unknown what it is now), Improved and greater forcing maneuvers (likely improved overrun and bull rush now); rat – Improved tricky maneuvers (unknown, maybe sixth sense or weapon finesse special); wolf – combat advantage (unknown) and improved wrestling maneuvers (likely improved grapple now).
Finally the Vampire entry is missing the listing on a few abilities and I would recommend clarifying the damage reduction progression.
On the barbarian document:
Under the Appendix A heading, change the totem bonus feats to happen at 3rd and 7th (rather than 2nd and 5th) and the special abilities to happen 4th and 8th level (rather than 3rd and 6th).
Under the Bear totem: I do not see increased vigor in the feats document, and the bear totem's powerful build should not stack with the giant's stance feat not rage power (I would assume).
Under the Bull and Elephant totem: I do not see headless charge in the feats document, what was it changed to?
Under the frog totem: the bonus feat disruptive, is it the same as the fighter talent of the same name?
Under the hawk totem: What was rapid shot changed to? I do not see it in the feats document.
Thanks
Hive totem: Under hive toxicity add “At 8th level” at the beginning of the paragraph
The Wolf totem: There are only 5 feats available, was that intentional?
Under the rage powers: In the rage powers table ferocious tenacity should be deleted, it is under greater rage powers instead. The storm bred, powerful blow, penetrating attacks, protective spirits, and quick reflexes are not in alphabetical order in the table.
Under the blood in the water description: the “you’re” is a cut and paste error I think, change to “if”.
Under the improved rage powers table: Ground breaker is subsumed by the earth breaker power, it should likely be deleted.
Under might rage powers: Luck of the Norns and Heroic rage are extremely similar, one could keep them separate but would you like to combine them?
Also does the Chaotic rage power overlap or stack with the barbarians normal DR?
Under Primal rage powers: Delete the Skin turning III power, it is found under the mighty rage powers, also under the primal fortification power change one of the references of greater fortification to mighty fortification.
That's not wrong if you want those restrictions and are happy with them.
Exactly so -- pointing out that something is a more restrictive approach than mine is in no way a prohibition against doing it. Also note the specification that "I would not likely choose," which is extremely different in meaning from the "no you're wrong" that was attributed to me. Finally, having realized the tone might have been misconstrued, I followed up with an explanatory post.
__Overall, please understand that I'm not trying to be a dick here -- I'm pointing out the specific design goals for my personal house rules, which TOZ happened to link to here. If people disagree with those design goals, that's good -- they can stick with Pathfinder, or they're always free to steal pieces that they like, or whatever. But if I'm repeatedly asked "why doesn't your system do this," and I keep replying "it was deliberately intended to do the opposite," I'm not telling you how to play your own game -- I'm pointing out how your approach is very different from mine, and therefore why my personal rules may not be the best choice for your home game. Please remember, I'm not selling anything here!
There's no wrong way of playing.
This is very true, I actually agree completely. However, certain rule sets are more conducive to certain styles of play. I wrote these house rules because the existing Pathfinder rules were not conducive to the type of games that houstonderek and I and some others like to play. Using these rules to play the type of game that core Pathfinder does better is certainly possible, but is something I'm recommending against. See, I'm not in any way competing with Paizo -- I'm providing patches for existing Paizo customers who happen to share my playstyle. For others, the core Pathfinder rules are a lot better, and in general I'd recommend sticking with them for the most part.
AND let's not forget the title of the thread where people chose to post discussions of their own play style and campaign requirements:
Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft HOUSERULES
And that's not a bad thing, Kirth. Never said your way was wrong or anything. I guess we're just different. That, and my coming off as more strict than I am with class roles might have fueled things.
Core rules it is, with melee combat patches from The Book of Experimental Might added once I get my hands on a copy.
1. Never said your way was wrong or anything.
2. I guess we're just different.
3. Core rules it is, with melee combat patches from The Book of Experimental Might added once I get my hands on a copy.
1. I know you didn't; you, personally, been unfailingly polite -- more so than myself.
2. Yes -- but that's not a bad thing. The world would be REALLY boring if we were all alike!3. From what you've said, that sounds like a rules set that would more closely match what you're after.
Alice, Christopher -- I'll make your corrections ASAP and respond here when they've been done. Thank you both!!!
Also, it looks like I'll have enough people at the table on Jan 8th to call a vote on how saving throws will stack.
Kirth, few things for the monk
For the steal ki sutra, did you want to limit it in some way such as stating you can only steal the ki of an individual creature once a day (so monks do not keep striking friends and hostages for non-lethal damage to recover spells after each combat).
for the healing hand sutra, did you mean all cure spells rather than just cure light wounds?
For the bard:
Do bards suffer the 5% spell failure penalty when they are using a buckler?
For bard spells: they start play knowing one rather than two spells of their choice correct?
Under the bardic lore commanding: in the 2nd paragraph you want to add your bard level rather than fighter level to the save DC correct?
(Flurry of blows) is almost entirely all standard TWF rules.
You're right, of course; that's all unfortunate carry-over from the PF monk, which can now be condensed. I'd recommend removing the offending text entirely from the monk writeup, and instead adding the following to the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (which is really where it belongs).
Special: A monk can use the Two-Weapon Fighting feat to perform a so-called “flurry of blows” in conjunction with any combination of weapons, unarmed attacks, and/or combat maneuvers (assuming any weapons are in hand and the monk has at least Simple proficiency with them). For example, a 1st level monk can attack with two unarmed attacks, with each of a pair of sickles, twice with a single sickle, with a sickle and an unarmed attack, etc., as long as the total number of attacks matches that gained with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat."
And before I forget - the fighter's Onslaught of Blows ability is very strange and confusing. Fighter 10/Rogue 3 (an example actually in STAP), for example, has a BAB of... what, exactly? +12/+12/+7? I'd just prefer to stick to the standard Multiattack rules than try and figure out what happens in all permutations of this ability.
Strange, maybe, but not confusing if you view it as four separate class features gained at the indicated level breaks, rather than as a change to BAB. So, yes, a fighter 10/rogue 3 attacks at +12/+12/+7. A fighter 5/rogue 10, on the other hand, attacks at +12/+7/+7.
It's set up the way it is so that more fighter levels almost always means better iterative attacks -- which standard multiattack rules don't do. You can of course do what you like at home, but I'd advise giving it a try. You can also stack it with Multiattack, so that a fighter 10/rogue 3 with multiattack would attack at +12/+12/+10.
So basically any iteratives you get from fighter levels get no penalty, and you add other class BAB to determine iteratives that take the -5.
Exactly so.
Not to mention, the fighter talent version of flurry of blows is somewhat different, and confusing to boot (I don't understand how you get the values listed in that talent's example).
How about this instead?
FLURRY OF BLOWS
Prerequisite: Two-Weapon Fighting.
Benefit: When you make a full attack with any single melee weapon, you gain all the effects of any Two-Weapon Fighting feats you possess, even though you are not fighting with two weapons. This applies to number of attacks, Strength bonus to damage, application of Strike feats, etc. You may freely substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for attacks with weapons that permit those maneuvers as part of a flurry of blows.
For example, an 11th level fighter with this talent and the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat, armed with a longsword and a shield, could attack with the longsword at +11/+11/+11, or could instead make a flurry of six attacks with the longsword at +9 each.
Looked over the races document:
1. For high elves: the search check example of (1d20 + INT bonus + rogue level), I thought that searching for secret and concealed doors fell under the disable device skill that anyone could take.
2. For human, paragon: the table gives them a bonus feat at 2nd level but in the description it states they gain a bonus feat at 2nd and 4th level.
3. Under Halfling Paragons: did you want to change the burglary ability they gain to the sixth sense feat?
4. Under Orc: is their type changed to monstrous humanoid in your world? It appears that way but I know in pathfinder they are of the humanoid type.
5. Under fetchlings: I believe you combined hide in plain sight into the stealth skill, also I find the wording for the number of times each spell like ability is usable confusing (each spell like ability could gain quite a few usages a day).
6. Under the feytouched wild empathy ability: what druid level does it function at?
7. Under lycanthrope: Under the savagery ability I could not find some of the feats. Bear – (a) improved wrestling maneuvers (likely improved grapple now), (b) two weapon rend (likely two weapon strike now) and (c) vigilant defender (unknown what it is now); boar – (a) Banzai charge (unknown what it is now), (b) Improved and greater forcing maneuvers (likely improved overrun and bull rush now); rat – (a) Improved tricky maneuvers (unknown, maybe sixth sense or weapon finesse special); wolf – (a) combat advantage (unknown) and (b)improved wrestling maneuvers (likely improved grapple now).
Again, thanks for your hard work! Simple corrections have been made; also, in answer to your questions:
1. Correct; the text should now read, "Elves receive a +2 racial bonus on Perception skill checks and on Disable Device checks to search for secret doors. They receive passive search checks to notice secret or concealed doors within 5 ft."
2. The table is correct.
3. Yes, that's perfect! Halfling Paragons who already have the 6th Sense feat should gain Uncanny Dodge instead.
4. I've added a "Type" heading to each of the races, in order to clarify things. This will also make it easier to determine which races fall under the ranger's Favored Enemy ability.
5. Shade level is maximum 4th, so the maximum # of uses would be 3/day.
6. Total character level; text clarified in master document.
7. Bear -- (a)-(b) correct; (c) delete.
Boar -- (a) delete; (b) correct.
Rat -- (a) Improved Feint.
Wolf -- (a) delete; (b) Improved Trip.
1. Under the Bear totem: I do not see increased vigor in the feats document.
2. Under the Bull and Elephant totem: I do not see headless charge in the feats document, what was it changed to?
3. Under the frog totem: the bonus feat disruptive, is it the same as the fighter talent of the same name?
4. Under the hawk totem: What was rapid shot changed to? I do not see it in the feats document.
1. Increased Vigor has been rolled into Fight On.
2. See "Charge, Heedless" under Strike feats.3. Yes; a note to that effect has been added.
4. Rapid Shot has been merged into Manyshot.
1. The Wolf totem: There are only 5 feats available, was that intentional?
2. Under might rage powers: Luck of the Norns and Heroic rage are extremely similar, one could keep them separate but would you like to combine them?
3. Also does the Chaotic rage power overlap or stack with the barbarians normal DR?
4. Under Primal rage powers: Delete the Skin turning III power, it is found under the mighty rage powers.
1. Add Improved Flanking.
2. Oops! Delete Heroic Rage.3. DR of non-similar types overlap, not stack.
4. Or add Skin Turning IV, with effects as a beast shape IV spell.
Kirth, few things for the monk
1. For the steal ki sutra, did you want to limit it in some way such as stating you can only steal the ki of an individual creature once a day (so monks do not keep striking friends and hostages for non-lethal damage to recover spells after each combat).
2. For the healing hand sutra, did you mean all cure spells rather than just cure light wounds?
1. Yes! Great catch. I can't believe I missed that!
2. All "personal" spells, not just cure spells.|
|
Your changes to flurry of blows above work well for me. Hope you had a Merry Christmas, Kirth and co!
In the Equipment document, Exotic proficiency with the quarterstaff gives you a feat called "Two Weapon Feint". Is this meant to be Two Weapon Fighting, or Improved Feint? (I could see either working.)
Your changes to flurry of blows above work well for me. Hope you had a Merry Christmas, Kirth and co!
In the Equipment document, Exotic proficiency with the quarterstaff gives you a feat called "Two Weapon Feint". Is this meant to be Two Weapon Fighting, or Improved Feint? (I could see either working.)
Happy Holidays, Alice!
Two-Weapon Feint was meant to be a feat at one point, but got superseded by changes in the Improved Feint feat. For a quarterstaff I'd go with Two-Weapon Fighting as the martial feat, then provide Two-Weapon Defense as the Exotic feat.
For the Cleric:
For bonus feats, I believe that channel smite is now channeling strike correct?
For the Fire and Winter domain’s 20th level ability, I believe that the Enlarge spell feat is now the Reach spell feat.
For the Protection domain, I could not find the defend ally feat, what did it change to?
Under the sun domain: the granted powers heading seemed to be deleted, unsure it if was something I did or if it was on your copy also.
Under the Thievery domain, did you want to treat sixth sense the same way you treated it with the Halfling paragon?
I did not see power over shadow in the feats section anymore, did you just want to grant the 20th level travel domain the shadow walking skill with 20 ranks?
Under Animal Devotion’s special heading, change references to turn or rebuke undead to channel energy and channeling uses.
Do you want to allow sorcerers with the shadow bloodline access to the umbral shroud feat?
Fire devotion under special, change the reference to rebuke uses to channeling uses.
Under merciful healer, do you want the removal of poison and disease to be automatic, or will it just grant the recipient an extra save against the effect that does not harm them if they fail?
For the Knowledge devotions I believe that the Student of War and Battle leader feats have been combined into the skills section, also the dread secret feat is now automatic in the dark knowledge domain.
For the Druid, second to last paragraph in detect spirits erase the “turn to”.
Wild empathy: Can you attract elementals with your leadership feat? At 18th level do magical beasts with an intelligence score less than 3 need to make a will save to attack you?
Hierophant under the animal shaman is misspelled.
Arcane Hierophant: under spell theurgy delete “number of” before druid caster level.
Under ascetic druid under martial artist, I assume their unarmed attacks damage progress like the monks correct?
Sorcerer: I noticed that the table 1 Spells known for the sorcerer (1st level spells) does not match the favored soul’s progression.
Favored soul
Under spells, in the second paragraph favored souls should gain 3 rather than 4 0 level spells and one rather than two 1st level spells of their choice. Also the references to table two in the second paragraph should reference table 1. Finally you do not mention them gaining bonus mystery spells, would you like to add a reference to that fact?
Under divine mystery second paragraph, change the reference to table 2 to table 1.
Under Aspirancy, change divine reflexes to you gain lighting reflexes as a bonus feat for your favored soul class.
Under Athar delete the reference to xp cost under the steal spell like ability revelation.
Under the battle mystery, delete the reference to great bull rush under maneuver mastery.
Under the Cult mystery Madness revelation, delete the reference to using your charisma modifier for Will saves rather than wisdom.
Under the Flames mystery change the cinder dance revelation to granting the surefooted feat rather than acrobatic steps. Under the energy penetration revelation delete reference to the greater spell penetration feat. For heat death, do you want to place a limit to how often this ability can be used a day? Do you want to have the searing flames mystery grain searing evocation as a bonus feat instead, except that spells modified by this feat to not take extra time to cast or a higher level spell slot? For the Elemental focus do you want to remove all the water spells, or still give them a choice of what element to remove from their spell list?
Under the frost mystery: Under the energy penetration revelation delete reference to the greater spell penetration feat (this also should be done in a few other mysteries also). Do you want to turn flash freeze, numbing cold, and piercing cold into flash frost, numbing cold, and piercing cold evocation bonus feats instead? Ice magic should likely require you to remove all the [fire] descriptor spells from your spell list. Finally for the final revelation you should gain improved great fortitude correct?
For the life mystery, did you really only want to grant 1 + the char modifier channeling times a day for the channel revelation?
For the mercy mystery, did you want to combine the combat healer revelation with the battle mystery revelation of the same name, only allowing a mercy favored soul to select it at 1st level instead?
For the Nature mystery: the natural divination revelation can state “as the juju mystery of the same name” since they appear to be the same. For wild speech the wild empathy ability could be as a druid of equal level as your favored soul level.
For the Stone mystery change the 20th level’s reference to the extend spell to the reach spell, do this also for the Wind mystery.
For the water mystery the storm revelation and the frost mystery winter storm revelation are the same, you could combine them.
Fighter: some of the knightly order chanllenge give a morale bonus to attack should this stack with the normal morale bonus to attack the challenge fighter talent grants? The riposte talent's special section still refers to greater weapon maneuvers. Under the banner ability the table's attack bonus and the description's attack bonus does not seem to match.
Happy holidays
There are minor differences between the druid and ranger wild empathy, did you want to combine them?
In the Ranger lore section the table is missing the outlaw ranger choice.
The Ascetic hunter still references the monk’s stunning fist ability which I believe was removed.
For the favored enemy adaptation, you changed a lot of the racial feats for the civilized humanoids, you may want to update the feats allowed (an state which race they are linked to).
For the giants and monstrous humanoids throw anything was updated to catch off guard I think.
For the ordained hunter and ranger mage, did you want to state “minimum zero” after the ranger level -3 when determining caster level?
Runecaster refers to bard level rather than ranger level.
Under combat styles there were a few feats/abilities I could not find: Pinpoint targeting, Great throw, Sleeper lock, decisive strike, versatile student of war, devastating critical, shared shield, vigilant defender, and greater power attack.
Thanks,
Christopher -- thank you!!! Going back and checking cross-references is the hardest part of this effort -- one day I'll have to go through and highlight every feat name in every document, then cross-check them against the final feats document. Until then, I'll gratefully make the corrections you've pointed out, and as always respond below as needed.
Thanks again!
1. For the ordained hunter and ranger mage, did you want to state “minimum zero” after the ranger level -3 when determining caster level?
2. Under combat styles there were a few feats/abilities I could not find: (a) Pinpoint targeting, (b) Great throw, (c) Sleeper lock, (d) decisive strike, (e) versatile student of war, (f) devastating critical, (g) shared shield, (h) vigilant defender, and (i)greater power attack.
1. It should be "minimum 1st," but yes, good catch.
2. (a) Fell Shot; (b) Awesome Blow; (c) Knockout Blow; (d) and (e) remove those entries; (f) Killing Blow; (g) See under Stances, it's there; (h) use Thicket of Blades fighter talent; see description below the table.
Thanks again!
1. For the Protection domain, I could not find the defend ally feat, what did it change to?
2. Under the Thievery domain, did you want to treat sixth sense the same way you treated it with the Halfling paragon?
3. I did not see power over shadow in the feats section anymore, did you just want to grant the 20th level travel domain the shadow walking skill with 20 ranks?
4. Do you want to allow sorcerers with the shadow bloodline access to the umbral shroud feat?
5. Under merciful healer, do you want the removal of poison and disease to be automatic, or will it just grant the recipient an extra save against the effect that does not harm them if they fail?
6. I noticed that the table 1 Spells known for the sorcerer (1st level spells) does not match the favored soul’s progression.
7. For heat death, do you want to place a limit to how often this ability can be used a day?
8. Do you want to have the searing flames mystery grain searing evocation as a bonus feat instead, except that spells modified by this feat to not take extra time to cast or a higher level spell slot? For the Elemental focus do you want to remove all the water spells, or still give them a choice of what element to remove from their spell list?
9. For the life mystery, did you really only want to grant 1 + the char modifier channeling times a day for the channel revelation?
10. Fighter: some of the knightly order challenges give a morale bonus to attack should this stack with the normal morale bonus to attack the challenge fighter talent grants?
11. Under the banner ability the table's attack bonus and the description's attack bonus does not seem to match.
1. Shared Shield stance.
2. Or provide 6th Sense as a bonus feat at 1st level, and Uncanny Dodge as a bonus feat at 4th.3. It's a racial feat; see Amberite under Ch 1. I wouldn't necessarily give automatic skills ranks, however.
4. Yes, and fetchling paragons, too.
5. Undecided. What do people think?
6. The Favored Soul table is correct; correct the sorcerer (and battle sorcerer) tables accordingly.
7. Instead of x/day, I'd make it take a full round of concentration (so it's easy to disrupt) and only 1/day per target.
8. Yes to all.
9. 3 + Cha mod, like a cleric.
10. Make the morale bonuses into sacred (or profane) bonuses, and they stack.
11. Amend the text as follows: "...and also gain a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls made as part of a charge that you lead (this stacks with the normal +2 bonus from charging, as shown in the table)."
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.
For anyone interested, we had a quorum of players last night (Andostre, houstonderek, TOZ, and cyz) and voted on various saves rules after discussion (with me abstaining). TOZ's scheme as outlined above was one of two methods that survived discussion; the other was part of a package suggestion emailed in by Psychicmachinery (who wasn't able to make it in person). PM's ideas got a lot of very favorable comments, and are worth posting here; I'm hoping someone might like to try them out:
1. Determining spell save DCs: Prepared casters use Charisma + casting stat to determine DCs. So 1st level spells from a wizard with 18 Int, 8 Cha would be DC 14 (10 + 1 + 4 -1). 1st level spells from a wizard with 18 Int, 18 Cha would be DC 19 (20 + 1 + 4 + 4).
2. Because of the ability to increase spell DCs, saving throws would stack as in Pathfinder (with the initial +2 "good save" bonuses adding together when multiclassing, without limits).
This very nearly passed, except for some concerns about complexity (two casting DC stats) and possible DM abuse (imagine an advanced succubus wizard 1, who is technically CR 9 but has 1st level spells with DCs of 27+).
In the end, TOZ's plan (as he posted above) for fractional save progressions was adopted by the table, with Charisma being the default determiner of spell saving throw DCs for all casters (thus keeping potential save DCs somewhat lower, and also adding more MAD to wizards, clerics, and druids). However, two major changes were asked for (and granted) in order to make this scheme work better:
1. In lieu of a familiar, bonded object, or eidetic memory, a wizard can now choose the "diligent preparation" ability, allowing him to substitude his Int modifier for his Cha modifier to calculate the save DCs of his spells; and
2. In order that Charisma not become a super-stat at the expense of Wisdom, Will saves are now split into two separate saving throw categories:
In other words, there are now 4 saving throws, not 3.
Not the outcome I expected, but I look forward to playtesting it!
As a consequence of four saves and TOZ's fractional progression system, the feats would look something like this:
DEEP INTUITION
You are especially difficult to beguile.
Benefit: When calculating your base Intuition save, all of your class levels and/or racial hit dice count towards the good progression.
DEEP INTUITION, IMPROVED
Benefit: You receive a +2 feat bonus on all Intuition saves. In addition, If you are affected by a spell or effect as a consequence of failing an Intuition save, you can attempt it again 1 round later at the same DC. You get only this one extra chance to succeed on the saving throw (unless the spell normally allows additional chances).
Also, a tentative listing of good saves, by class and racial HD:
Barbarian - Fort, Intn
Bard - Ref, Intn, Will
Cleric - Fort, Intn
Archivist - Intn, Will
Druid - Fort, Intn
Favored Soul - Fort, Will
Fighter - Fort, Ref, Will
Monk - All
Prestige Paladin - Fort, Intn, and Will
Ranger - Fort, Ref, Intn
Sorcerer - Ref, Will
Battle Sorcerer - Fort, Will
Wizard - Intn, Will
Aberration - Intn, Will
Animal - Fort, Ref, Intn
Construct - None
Dragon - All
Fey - Ref, Intn
Humanoid - Ref
Magical beast - Fort, Ref
Monstrous humanoid - Ref, Will
Ooze - None
Outsider - Ref, Will
Plant - Fort, Intn
Undead - Will
Vermin - Fort.
Sorcerer:
Change you begin play with 4 zero level spells to 3.
The Blast metamagic ability is gained at 4th level and so it probably should come before the rapid metamagic ability that is gained at 5th level.
Under aberrant form: you gain 100% immunity to crits and sneak attack under the unusual anatomy ability, gaining it under aberrant form is redundant.
Under Bloatmage: change the bonus feat enlarge spell to widen spell; under the eldritch blast’s great blast ability I believe the description in the parentheses after fell nausea is redundant; under bloat one should gain bloat once a day at 9th level rather than 8th, and at the end of description of bloat change “begins” to “begin”.
Under celestial: change the bonus feat defend ally to shared shield.
Under dreamspun: change the bonus feat improved tricky maneuvers to improved feint.
Under elemental, earth: change the bonus feat improved and greater forcing maneuvers to something like improved bull rush and improved overrun.
Under the Fey bloodlines: interestingly the fleeting glance ability is a (Sp) or (Su) ability depending on the bloodline, should they be consistent?
Under the Djinn eldritch blast greater blast ability, do you want it to reach hurricane wind force at 19th level?
Under Hag: you state they can gain ogres and hill giants as followers both under the bonus feats and the bloodline arcana.
Under Incantatrix: what do they gain damage reduction to?
Under Maestro: did you want to give them the bonus feat disguise spell rather than the spellsong feat?
Under the sevenfold veil: Should the bonus feat arcane shield be urgent shield instead?
Under the shadow bloodline: change the bonus feat improved tricky maneuvers to improved feint.
Under the spell thief: change the bonus feats improved and greater tricky maneuvers to improved feint and ?? (uncanny dodge is a possibility)?
Under stormborn: change the bonus feat enlarge spell to widen spell, also since the bestiary 2 gives stats for lightning elementals would you like to allow this bloodline to summon lightning elementals rather than air elementals?
Under Verdant: do you still allow the steal maneuver (under the tanglevine ability).
Wizard
You give them the bonus skill spellcraft and it also appears on the wizard class skills, is that correct?
Under the runic wizard ability did you want them to gain a competence bonus to linguistics rather than spellcraft?
For the abjurer protective ward ability: I think the “for one round” comment after the deflection bonus to AC is an error since you state it lasts for a number of rounds equal to your intelligence bonus earlier in the paragraph. Under mental backlash you should gain this ability at 12th level rather than 7th level.
Under the evoker’s counterfire ability: you state they gain this ability at 4th level twice.
Under the elemental fire master specialist ability change the enlarge spell feat to widen spell.
Under the witch hex aura of desecration, do you want the increase to the negative energy and turn resistance DC to scale?
Under the witch hex water lung, do you want it to be 1 hour/level rather than 1 minute, it seems really short otherwise.
Thanks,
Also creating four saves is... much more complicated. Very interesting choice, let me know how it works.