1. For Shadow Conjuration/Evocation: if the spell you're mimicking is premade with metamagic that affects how the spell is cast (Channel Spell, Silent Spell, Still Spell, Quicken Spell), does the metamagic have any effect? Or would they have to be applied to Shadow Conjuration/Evocation itself?
2. For Cascade Spell:
a. Does the cascade effect itself heighten anything?
b. Does metamagic applied ontop of the cascade effect all the cascaded spells? Or does the metamagic have to be applied separately to each individual spell?
c. Do all the cascaded spells have to have the same target?
1. For Shadow Conjuration/Evocation: if the spell you're mimicking is pre-made with metamagic that affects how the spell is cast (Channel Spell, Silent Spell, Still Spell, Quicken Spell), does the metamagic have any effect? Or would they have to be applied to Shadow Conjuration/Evocation itself?
2. For Cascade Spell:
a. Does the cascade effect itself heighten anything?
b. Does metamagic applied on top of the cascade effect all the cascaded spells? Or does the metamagic have to be applied separately to each individual spell?
c. Do all the cascaded spells have to have the same target?
1. If the metamagic specifically alters the manner in which you cast the spell, it would have to be applied to the spell you're actually casting (i.e., the shadow spell). I mean, sure, you could try to mimic a silenced fireball, but to do so you'd still need to pronounce the verbal component of the shadow evocation first, so in essence the Silence Spell feat doesn't do anything at all.
2. (a) No, but I imagine that should probably be spelled out somewhere!
(b) Once you've formed a cascade, the intent was that it would be sometimes possible to treat the resulting cascade as a single spell, especially when the parameters are already the same for all of the components (see examples). However, if one of the spells in the cascade is touch-only, and another is Medium range, for example, you'd generally have to treat the Cascade as a touch spell if you wanted to use Reach Spell to make it long-range.
As with everything, efforts to totally sidestep existing limitation guidelines this way are not permitted. For example, you can't cascade two ray of frost with ray of frost + versatile metamagic (x3: fire, acid, electricity) and then claim the resulting 3rd level spell should deal up to 10d6 each acid, cold, fire, and electricity damage; instead, it would still deal up to 10d6 total. For other attempted exploits, use that same logic.
(c) Yes; the cascade becomes, in essence, a single spell.
As with everything, efforts to totally sidestep existing limitation guidelines this way are not permitted. For example, you can't cascade two ray of frost with ray of frost + versatile metamagic (x3: fire, acid, electricity) and then claim the resulting 3rd level spell should deal up to 10d6 each acid, cold, fire, and electricity damage; instead, it would still deal up to 10d6 total. For other attempted exploits, use that same logic.
I must be missing something. How are you getting a 3rd level spell from cascading together a bunch of cantrips and a metamagic ability with a +0 spell level adjustment? I try the math myself and I end up with a 1st level spell.
I must be missing something. How are you getting a 3rd level spell from cascading together a bunch of cantrips and a metamagic ability with a +0 spell level adjustment? I try the math myself and I end up with a 1st level spell.
Each additional metamagic feat after the 1st applied to a spell has its level cost decreased by 1 (to a minimum of +1).
Ah -- part of the problem may be the Cascade Spell feat -- is the old version still in the PDF ("all spells in cascade"), or the revised one ("apply again for each additional spell")? Looking at the potential for irreparable abuse of the action economy, I'd fixed it so that you used Cascade Spell again every time you added another spell.
I'll check the version and the final wording when I get home.
Just out of curiosity, is the alchemist subsumed in some other class that I have skimmed?
Just out of curiosity, is the alchemist subsumed in some other class that I have skimmed?
It's mentioned in the introduction (p. 7): as odd as this sounds, you can build an almost perfect replica with a barbarian/rogue/wizard. Barbarian rage is your mutagenic form; grab "grenadier" as your 1st rogue combat talent and there are your bombs; and your wizard spells are "extracts." Select the spirit totem and various multiclass synergy talents (arcane trickster, savage outlaw) to take a lot of the sting out of multiclassing.
I have a copy of the rules in an old Google docs account. Is that still valid? If not, may I have a copy? I'm not sure I agree with all of your changes, but I do find them interesting and would like any updates.
I would very much enjoy a copy of the PDF as well. Many of the houserules I've seen presented mirror my own, so I'd love to see what else you have done. Thank you in advanced!
OK, I suspected as much. And thanks, I got it.
1. For crafting magic items, how do you tell which craft skill would apply? Like, for example, when trying to add a magic weapon property onto a ring:
a. Would Craft (Lapidary) work?
b. Would Craft (Smith) work?
c. Would Spellcraft work?
2. Personal Weapon is the one weapon-improving ability that says its effects don't stack with other enhancement-granting abilities. Does this include magical weapon properties in general? Or is it referring to the normal non-stacking of enhancement bonuses?
3. if a non-Wizard gains a Bonded Wand, what's the effect of the Eldritch Blast?
As part of my reading through the rules, I have begun bookmarking this PDF for fun. Would this be of value to the editor?
Didn't see this post, sent a bookmarked pdf to TOZ. Didn't undo mistakes, though.
Ontopic:
Barbarians Bull totem says it's got "dashing step" from a dragon magazine as a scaling bonus, but that bonus is written as inherent bonus to strenght. Doesn't sound like dashing step to me. So, which one is right?
Also, unarmed damage for exotic weapon proficiency is fixed at 1d6, there's no scaling table anymore?
Kirth and TOZ
Would like a copy as well. Sent an email to Kirth but posting for TOZ's visibility as well.
Much appreciated.
If you're still sending them out, I'd love a copy of the PDF. I've loved the rules as they are on the Google sites page. Definitely convinced my group to use them, and will be (hopefully) using them with another group at some point the future. Seems like you fixed what few issues I've had with Pathfinder (namely the rogue and monk issues, but making fighters able to do more is also awesome) while adding even more good stuff to it.
Looking forward to actually playing it.
For those who have run games with Kirthfinder rules, what kind of adjustments, if any, are necessary to monsters and/or their CRs to challenge a party of Kirthfinder PCs?
Was also wondering this, myself. Not sure how much of an adjustment (if any) should be made, beyond the normal adjustments for the particular group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, anyone wanting a PDF of the rules, go ahead and leave your email addy here, and I'll do a mass mailing sometime next weekend, given the opportunity.
Ooh pick me pick me!
Some additional items:
Woth the change making concentration a skill again, and tying caster level to the number of ranks in that skill, do the "virtual ranks" from the Skill Focus feat actually increase a caster's caster level for the purposes of spell effects (and not just to penetrate SR)?
Also, there is a discrepancy in the table and the description on pg. 9 for calculating the Dispel Magic DC. The table says 16+CL, the description says 11+Caster's concentration modifier.
With the change making concentration a skill again, and tying caster level to the number of ranks in that skill, do the "virtual ranks" from the Skill Focus feat actually increase a caster's caster level for the purposes of spell effects (and not just to penetrate SR)?
I'd thought I'd spelled it out that no, they do not. Lemme check the PDF when I get home and I'll cite a reference. If nothing else, there's the statement in its own section in Chapter 7 (spells) that says your maximum CL = your HD, no matter what feats, talents, or anything else you apply.
Also, there is a discrepancy in the table and the description on pg. 9 for calculating the Dispel Magic DC. The table says 16+CL, the description says 11+Caster's concentration modifier.
Ugh, I'll check on that, too.
By the way, it's nagging at the back of my mind, but I'm half-thinking that Mobility (the fighter talent) might be better as a feat that scales with ranks in Acrobatics. I'll have to think about the ramifications, though. Overall I'd like more feats that let you do cool things with more skills ranks.
Also, "Favored Soul" snuck back onto the saving throw progression table in the introduction.
Also, "Favored Soul" snuck back onto the saving throw progression table in the introduction.
(Shoots self in head)
Keep 'em coming, folks! At this rate I'll be in true RPG company form and be ready for an official errata document pretty soon. And I'll be taking a pen to my hard copy as well, I guess!
By the way, I really love the standardization of class feature synergies.
I'm combing through the rules for the next game I start - I've already had my players convert systems once in this campaign (PF -> KF), over a year ago, and I'm not going to put them through another conversion since were close to completion. I expect to get to try these revised rules out in a couple of months. Until then, it will be mostly proof-reading feedback and not playtesting feedback (although I am already using the new rules for my NPCs. Muahaha - ahem!).
And yeah, I'm sure there would be some rabid bidders at that auction :).
Hey Kirth and TOZ, can you send me a copy too?
Reminder to self: this weekend, send copies to Jam, jreyst, the Vulture, and to the Most Excellent PBP player who emailed me last week when I was out. And imaginary e-cookies to all as well! (the chocolate chip kind, not the bad kind.)
These rules are great so if you are still sending copies, would love to receive a pdf as well.
Thanks!
Reading through the pdf, I've noticed multiple references to the Concentration skill, however, I haven't found anywhere in the rules that mention how this skill works
Check the "Skills" section (Chapter 4).
I was trying to stick to the Pathfinder structure as much as possible, even though it seemed fairly illogical, because I didn't want to reprint all the other rules and end up with something even more unmanageable than the monstrosity I produced!
Got it! Thank you!
I read an older version and I must say, Nice very nice. I hoping someone could send me the current PDF.
(shuffles feet)um may I have a pdf as well?
I did some mock battles with 4 Balors in my head using the google docs version (haven't checked the new pdf one proper yet), and a fighter could easily kill two Balors in one round - and he would take out the rest in the round after (if any were left after the rest of the party had their go). Note that the Balors were unable to seriously threaten the fighter.
I'd recommend the following, if you haven't already done so:
Most importantly, Balors have a 24 Int, and if their tactics don't reflect that, their CR should be reduced accordingly. That means that (1) they'll send summoned demons just ahead of themselves; (2) their "other treasure" will be in the form of magic items they use (and mundane javelins -- see below), not coins sitting in a cave; (3) at minimum they'll have unholy aura active, and will use damaging SLAs to knock down flying opponents; (4) quickened telekinesis can throw 15 javelins a round in addition to that. (5) If forced to melee, the monsters' feats will need to be updated to Kirthfinder:
(a) Swap the unholy sword quality for keen and finesse, Cleave for Critical Focus, and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (no longer exists anyway) for Two-Weapon Strike. The Balor's vorpal strike ability would be replaced by Severing Strike as a bonus feat. Now every crit, and every time the Balor hits with both its whip and its sword, requires a DC 32 Fort save to avoid decapitation. Swap Iron Will for Weapon Finesse. With Weapon Focus, the sword's attack bonus is now +41/+36/+36/+36, for 2d6+20/17-20.
(b) At least one Balor should swap out the Two-Weapon Fighting feats for Dodge, Skirmish, Vital Strike, and Dimensional Agility, and simply use its sword for 2d6+20/17-20 plus 6d6 and possible decapitation. They can pop in, attack, and pop out in the same round -- and do this against up to 4 opponents/round.
As much as Kirthfinder intrigues me as a set of houserules, I sadly am not sure if I should pick up a copy. Between Tome (3.5e houserule set from another site, not to be confused with Tome of Battle) and my players not caring about it with the exception of one guy, I doubt they will pick up on this one either. Then again, I don't lose anything if I do take one from here, right?
Between Tome 3.5e D&D (not Tome of Battle)
Frank and K's Tomes are an excellent alternative; if you're already using those, then Kirthfinder isn't really needed -- it fits my group's idiosyncratic preferences better, but isn't a better alternative overall, and in all honesty there are a number of areas in which the Tomes are superior (I really wish they'd finished them, but, meh).
The problem is, I'd want to use either but my group just isn't interested in them except for one player.
However, as I announced that I'd be running a 3.5e Legacy of Fire for them, seems that interest in Tome sparked a bit.
I like what both Kirthfinder and Tome can bring to the table, but I just haven't been given the chance to put them on said table.
Legacy of Fire is an awesome AP!
(I have a party of 4 pregenerated Kirthfinder characters that I've been meaning to solo through it as an extended playtest, but never got around to it.)
Would love a copy
Ureshiichris (at) hotmail.com
Good stuff, snipped for size.
So basically, the main thing is to cover some of the magic item abilities with your new feats, but for the most part it's no worse than the normal amount of fight changing for specific groups. Good to know it works out, that'll keep it a bit simpler for me.
Also, since I haven't seen it explicitly covered in the rules, I figured I could ask: for the purposes of the caster level synergy, do Fist of the Forest and Sacred Fist stack? And if so, would that just make the total synergy Strong?