The only examples I can think of are where I say things like, "This is specific change from the core rules, in which..." Because after v. 1.0 I got a bunch of requests telling me I needed to provide more design notes as to why some things were changed.
Just goes to show you can't please everyone.
@ 'Rixx: I'm not selling them; I'm using them in my home game, in which I don't believe you are a player. These house rules are terrible. Really, they're horrible. Don't use them, okay?
ECONOMY OF ACTION: ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL
There are a number of instances in the core Pathfinder rules that require a character to “borrow” against the next round’s actions. The most prevalent example involves taking an immediate action, which counts as a swift action the next round. Another example is the Step Up feat as written in the Pathfinder rules, which counts as the next round’s 5-ft. step.
These sorts of Faustian bargains disproportionately inhibit martial characters, and are therefore abolished in these house rules. Unless otherwise noted, actions from a future round do not need to be “borrowed against” in order to take actions in the current round.
This is the most gregious example, I think.
|
Seriously? Um, I can think of a few places where it basically says "we weren't happy with the way this works, so we did this, instead". I don't remember the parts where they say "Pathfinder is a pile of stinking poo".
But, like my DM said, these are just our house rules. Don't like the way they're written? Cool. Don't read them. Problem solved.
Whew.
|
|
For what it's worth, I for one appreciate the amount of "commentary" you've added into the rules. It allows me to understand your thought processes, which is very handy when I'm evaluating the current rules and adding my own houserules on top of them.
See, that's what I don't really understand. Kirth is basically saying "Here is what I use, feel free to poach what you like and ditch what you don't". For example, I'm retaining Dex to ranged attacks, because my group and I can't get our heads around Wis performing that function. That and my skill set is slightly different as I think these rules have contracted the list too much. But I don't think Kirth is going to come to sneer at me and tell me how bad my game is and tell me to go back to playing Pathfinder or whatever just because of that.
(( Side note: I'm going to be making Wisdom the Initiative stat, representing your ability to 'sense' danger, both as a kind of preternatual awareness of your surroundings or "spider sense" and general perception abilities (i.e. hearing a twig snap and spinning around just as the orc ambush jumps out, etc.) ))
And then there's the, erm, superior hybrid whatsit... :) Doesn't strike me as anything too arrogant.
JJ and the rest didn't run their rules past me, so they didn't anticipate the flaws in the game that require me to house rule. My fault! I'm sure they tried to contact me and lost my address...
Kirth,
Few things for the wizard writeup.
You still refer to Read Magic in the spellbook section but I believe you removed that spell and combined it with linguistics now.
Infinite Variety and Disdain Need are still listed in the high arcana table but are not in the descriptions. Did you mean to remove them?
Knowing Stare does not have a description in the high arcana table.
Thanks
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
JJ and the rest didn't run their rules past me, so they didn't anticipate the flaws in the game that require me to house rule. My fault! I'm sure they tried to contact me and lost my address...
Well, they did run their rules past us -- twice -- in the Alpha and Beta playtest phases. The thing is, when most things needing major correction were pointed out to them, they said, "sorry -- can't do it -- backwards compatibility."
Few things for the wizard writeup.
Corrections made. Thanks, as always!
JJ and the rest didn't run their rules past me, so they didn't anticipate the flaws in the game that require me to house rule. My fault! I'm sure they tried to contact me and lost my address...Well, they did run their rules past us -- twice -- in the Alpha and Beta playtest phases. The thing is, when most things needing major correction were pointed out to them, they said, "sorry -- can't do it -- backwards compatibility."
Sigh...
Question on the wizard's bonded object (staff):
Under Staff fighting it states your staff gains an enhancement bonus equal to 1/2 the number of charges in your staff (which can be fully charged to 10 charges). I admit that I am not familiar with the crafting rules but at 6th level I would assume that it is not possible to create a staff with 10 charges (+5 enhancement bonus) correct?
Hey, I just found this from the previous houserules thread:
Again for the benefit of first-time readers, a summary table for feats would be welcome.
3. Andostre made one for the 1.0 rules that the group really liked. Personally, I haven't the patience to make one, especially in light of point #1, above.
I'd be more than happy to whip one up, again. I stopped updating the old one because the updates started coming too fast, especially for the feats. I figured it would be easier to just create a new one later.
When Kirth says he's done (which I hear is soonish), I'll re-do it and see if TOZ can host it.
Question on the wizard's bonded object (staff):
Under Staff fighting it states your staff gains an enhancement bonus equal to 1/2 the number of charges in your staff (which can be fully charged to 10 charges). I admit that I am not familiar with the crafting rules but at 6th level I would assume that it is not possible to create a staff with 10 charges (+5 enhancement bonus) correct?
As far as I understand, the generalist staff functions outside the crafting rules and effectively begins play as a fully charged staff at level 1, so it seems it would be possible to have a +5 staff at level 6 if you chose to not expend any charges on casting spells from it; would make one fine weapon at level 6 for an eldritch knight.
I was also wondering, the Arcane School section of the Wizard Specialist still refers to learning non-wizard spells as if they were non-specialist, non-barred spells but the reference to the previously in place reduced caster level no longer seems to appear. Is it that the caster level loss has been removed and this was just an artifact or vice versa?
Also just wanted to add, I love many of the changes I've seen in "Kirthfinder" and I'm looking forward to getting to see how they feel to play!
1. As far as I understand, the generalist staff functions outside the crafting rules
2. and effectively begins play as a fully charged staff at level 1, so it seems it would be possible to have a +5 staff at level 6 if you chose to not expend any charges on casting spells from it; would make one fine weapon at level 6 for an eldritch knight.
3. I was also wondering, the Arcane School section of the Wizard Specialist still refers to learning non-wizard spells as if they were non-specialist, non-barred spells but the reference to the previously in place reduced caster level no longer seems to appear. Is it that the caster level loss has been removed and this was just an artifact or vice versa?
1. Correct (although in some respects sort of irrelevant insofar as generalists get Imbue Item as a bonus feat at 1st level anyway).
2. I see the dilemma, and raise it one -- I don't really want to see 10/day spamming by 1st level wizards. I'd propose to amend the text to read "A 1st level bonded staff is treated as a Staff magic item, even if you do not have the Imbue Item feat. It has a number of charges equal to 1 + half your class level when fully charged, and can be recharged as normal for a magic staff." That way, a 6th level wizard's staff is a +2 weapon, to a maximum of +5 at 18th level.3. There is no caster level loss because specialists can no longer cast spells from barred schools at all (a reversion to 2e/3e/3.5 rules), rather than casting them at a reduced caster level. Spells outside the school of specialization, that are not from barred schools, are cast at your normal caster level now.
I'd propose to amend the text to read...
Amended text (under the description for this avatar) is as follows: "Spellstaff (Sp): A 1st level bonded staff is treated as a Staff magic item, even if you do not have the Imbue Item feat. At 1st level, choose one 1st level spell to imbue into the staff; this spell can then be cast using a charge from the staff. When you gain access to a new level of spells, you can add one spell of that level to the staff’s repertoire. For example, a 5th level wizard’s staff would have one 1st level, one 2nd level, and one 3rd level spell in it. When fully charged, your staff has a number of charges equal to 1 + half your class level (maximum 10); it can be recharged as normal for a magic staff. Casting a spell from your staff costs 1 charge for 1st – 3rd level spells, 2 charges for 4th – 6th level spells, and 3 charges for 7th – 9th level spells."
|
|
Hi! I'd just like some clarification on the Rogue's Skill Trick ability. According to the table, the 1st-level rogue knows 0 skill tricks, unless they have a suitably high modifier that applies to the skill in question.
Firstly, this breaks all previous standards for giving bonus spells (i.e. bonus spells per day are granted from a high casting stat, not bonus spells known)...
Secondly, I'm confused as to how you even calculate that. Let's say I'm making a human rogue 1 with 10 STR and 15 DEX. Does that mean that if I select Athletics (expeditious retreat) for the skill trick I don't actually know it until 2nd level? But if I picked Acrobatics (feather fall) I would know it at 1st level, AND I'd get another skill trick at 2nd level? And the 2nd level skill trick could indeed be expeditious retreat? What happens with increases to stat bonuses at later levels, say I pick up a belt of giant's strength, do I retroactively gain skill tricks?
Thirdly, while I think I understand the intent--select a trained skill and then you get a single spell that you can use that's related to it--but I don't think it's clearly specified.
Thanks!
1. Firstly, this breaks all previous standards for giving bonus spells (i.e. bonus spells per day are granted from a high casting stat, not bonus spells known)...
2. Secondly, I'm confused as to how you even calculate that. Let's say I'm making a human rogue 1 with 10 STR and 15 DEX. Does that mean that if I select Athletics (expeditious retreat) for the skill trick I don't actually know it until 2nd level?
2a. But if I picked Acrobatics (feather fall) I would know it at 1st level, AND I'd get another skill trick at 2nd level? And the 2nd level skill trick could indeed be expeditious retreat?
2b. What happens with increases to stat bonuses at later levels, say I pick up a belt of giant's strength, do I retroactively gain skill tricks?
3. Thirdly, while I think I understand the intent--select a trained skill and then you get a single spell that you can use that's related to it--but I don't think it's clearly specified.
Thanks for the post, Alice! Very good food for thought.
1. Yes, it does, and it makes me kind of sad. But the tricks also break precenent in that "uses per day" (which almost all of our home group are philosophically opposed to) were replaced with a failure chance(skill check) and opportunity cost (time it takes to make the skill check). I might very well be biting off more than I can chew here (and kind of suspect I am), but it seemed like a neat opportunity to test out a variant system. Suggestions?
2. Yes
2a. No; my intent was that you'd simply get feather fall at 1st level, instead of having to wait until 2nd level to get something different (e.g., expeditious retreat). That could be spelled out a LOT more clearly, though. Or better yet, I could probably get rid of the "0" entries altogether and rework the table.
2b. See 2a, above.
3. Obviously I need to work on the wording quite a bit. Often, what's clear in my head isn't necessarily clear to the reader! Thanks for the heads-up. Also, as always, I'm open to suggestions if anyone sees a better way of handling something.
|
|
I'm not personally opposed to a skill check system myself. I'm actually a fan of a lot of the Tome of Battle material where things are largely tracked per encounter rather than per day. (4E powers do it as well, to a mixed degree of success in my mind, but that's neither here nor there.) My only concern is that a skill system is very difficult to adequately balance.
IIRC, skill tricks require DC 10 + (2 x skill trick level). This is basically not even remotely challenging. At 1st level, at bare minimum, a rogue will have a +4 in a trained skill. It's much more likely that they'll have more than that, considering they're probably going to grab a trick from a skill they're better at, perhaps through racial bonuses, or perhaps through better ability modifiers. I mean, I can pretty reasonably assume a +6 or +7 to Stealth... and if it's a halfling rogue, that's going to be at least +10. There's not even a point in having the DC at that point.
The 3.5e bardic music was wrought with this kind of problem too. It jacked DCs up crazily because it's so easy to get a boost to a skill. And at the other end of things, there's the Truenamer from Tome of Magic, which basically either has an impossible check or auto-success.
While there's not an inherent problem with the rogue pretty much being able to do whatever skill trick he wants most of the time it kind of defies the point of having a skill based system in the first place. A full-round action isn't much of an opportunity penalty for the rogue either, seeing as most of the skills are ones you'd use out of combat.
One alternate system I really liked was the Binder from Tome of Magic (and also a 3PP product, Secrets of Pact Magic). They balance the better granted powers with a recharge system, i.e. you can only use this ability once every 5 rounds. Maybe something like this would be appropriate for the rogue... For example, their highest accessible level of skill tricks requires a 1d6 hour cooldown between uses, the second highest level 1d6 x 10 minutes, and the rest are usable at-will. I'd still keep the full-round action too.
Of course, tracking this can be kind of annoying, but then again, it's only going to come up occasionally anyway, because you usually only need utility spells once or twice an adventure.
The 3.5e bardic music was wrought with this kind of problem too. It jacked DCs up crazily because it's so easy to get a boost to a skill. And at the other end of things, there's the Truenamer from Tome of Magic, which basically either has an impossible check or auto-success.
Bingo -- the problems are inherent in a base game engine in which bonuses are often higher than the range of random numbers generated. This is a strong reason I played D&D using a variant of the James Bond 007 game engine for so many years, and never am happy with d20.
That means a DC of (10 + 4 x trick level) is good for the first case, but falls short by 5 points (more than the arbitrary 4 per level!) for the latter case. (Then again, neglecting skill focus, it overshoots by only 4, which isn't all that bad. Or I could use 10 + (5 x trick level), which means you would be actively required to have Skill Focus for your higher-level trick skills -- ands since you get those as bonus feats, that's not unrealistic at all.
Using a simple exponential scale (e.g., DC 13 + level^2) fails: it hits it dead-on for the first example, and overshoots the target by 19 for the second example. I suppose I could rig up a sliding scale of DCs, but that starts to get really contrived.
My only problem with recharge times for the skill tricks is that I'd sort of like the movement-related ones to be able to be used more consistently (e.g., a rogue spider climbing in combat).
|
|
I spent some time thinking about this, and I think the way I am going to run it will be essentially the following. I'd write it up in a proper mechanical format, but I'm headed out to a restaurant shortly, so it will have to wait for later tonight.
- The current chart of tricks known remains the same. Bonus tricks are learnt based on your Intelligence modifier.
---> This creates an incentive for higher Intelligence rogues. Currently most rogues are probably more likely to go for Charisma (for Will saves and feinting) or Wisdom (for better scouting abilities), and have little need for a higher Intelligence score with the amount of skill ranks they get per level. It also mimics the way Intelligence grants you bonus skill ranks; being smarter lets you learn more and, subsequently, adapt what you already know in special ways. (And the arcane trickster wizard/rogues are likely to be trading their skill tricks away for proper spellcasting anyway.)
- The DC for a skill trick is equal to 10 + trick level + the associated skill's attribute modifier.
---> While it's tempting to base DCs on the skill rank, the 3.5e bardic music gives us an example of why not to do this.
I have two options for what is up next though.
- Skill tricks normally take 1 minute to use/activate/cast. However, you can use them as a full-round action (or as part of movement, for spells such as feather fall or spider climb) by making a DC (10 + 5 x trick level) check in the appropriate skill.
---> Overshoots at the higher levels by an amount that encourages Skill Focus to use it in combat. This gives Skill Focus a true use at higher levels(!): using your best skill tricks in combat or in otherwise stressful situations.
An alternative to the above is to keep them at the present length of "casting" time but add a recharge mechanic:
- The highest level of skill tricks you can use take 1d6 hours to recharge, the second highest 1d6 x 10 minutes to recharge, and the rest take 1d6 rounds to recharge.
- You can attempt to halve the recharge time by making a DC (10 + 4 x trick level) skill check.
- Every (5 or 10?) by which you beat the DC, you halve the recharge time again (minimum recharge time: 1 round).
---> Allows in-combat use of skills like you wanted while still retaining a recharge mechanic. Higher level rogues will be using spider climb and the like with ease, but lower level ones will need to focus on their skill bonuses to do it regularly.
What do you think?
1. The current chart of tricks known remains the same. Bonus tricks are learnt based on your Intelligence modifier.
2. The DC for a skill trick is equal to 10 + trick level + the associated skill's attribute modifier.
3. Skill tricks normally take 1 minute to use/activate/cast. However, you can use them as a full-round action (or as part of movement, for spells such as feather fall or spider climb) by making a DC (10 + 5 x trick level) check in the appropriate skill.
4. An alternative to the above is to keep them at the present length of "casting" time but add a recharge mechanic
1. I like this -- I agree with your logic on all counts.
2. I have to admit that I dislike overtly negating people's attribute modifiers, so that a really agile guy is no better at feather falling than a relatively clumsy one. Unless you mean the attribute mod required to use the trick -- but that can't be right, because that's just half the trick level, more or less. I'd rather set a base DC and then scale by trick level.3. I like this a lot -- and not just because your logic agrees with what I was already thinking.
4. My personal issue with recharge times other than "per day" or "per encounter" is that I, as DM, am too lazy to keep track of them. ("How many minutes have gone by since lunch? Can I use my trick again?" "Hell, I have no idea. 20 minutes? Pick a number!")
|
|
Maybe the base should be 15. Makes it a little harder at low levels (I mean, you are basically trying magic untrained, even UMD is harder for a wand of 1st level spells), but still easy at higher levels after you've had more time to "practice" the skill trick.
And I love rogues, so if I want to make it harder, it must be too easy to me.
|
|
2. I have to admit that I dislike overtly negating people's attribute modifiers, so that a really agile guy is no better at feather falling than a relatively clumsy one. Unless you mean the attribute mod required to use the trick -- but that can't be right, because that's just half the trick level, more or less. I'd rather set a base DC and then scale by trick level.
For this, I'm referring to the saving throw DC (if applicable), not the DC for the rogue to pull off the trick.
4. My personal issue with recharge times other than "per day" or "per encounter" is that I, as DM, am too lazy to keep track of them. ("How many minutes have gone by since lunch? Can I use my trick again?" "Hell, I have no idea. 20 minutes? Pick a number!")
That's exactly why I tried to come up with an alternate workaround, which lead to the "make a check to do it faster" idea.
Maybe the base should be 15. Makes it a little harder at low levels (I mean, you are basically trying magic untrained, even UMD is harder for a wand of 1st level spells), but still easy at higher levels after you've had more time to "practice" the skill trick.
I feel like this penalises low levels too much. The base 10 allows higher multipliers (like 4 * trick level) to be beatable at low levels but the higher levels aren't a complete wash. A DC of 17 (for a paltry 2 * trick level) would be so high that most rogues wouldn't even bother trying it at a low level in a threat situation. And I get the impression that's not what Kirth wants...
1. For this, I'm referring to the saving throw DC (if applicable), not the DC for the rogue to pull off the trick.
2. That's exactly why I tried to come up with an alternate workaround, which lead to the "make a check to do it faster" idea.
3. I feel like this penalises low levels too much. The base 10 allows higher multipliers (like 4 * trick level) to be beatable at low levels but the higher levels aren't a complete wash. A DC of 17 (for a paltry 2 * trick level) would be so high that most rogues wouldn't even bother trying it at a low level in a threat situation. And I get the impression that's not what Kirth wants...
1. Aha! Gotcha. Yes, I agree.
2. And I like that idea. A lot.3. Agreed.
I'll try to come up with a rules-language writeup in the next few days for review and comment. If it passes, we can vote on it.
Also, still soliciting votes from any Kirthfinder players regarding saving throw calculation. It stands so far at 2 - 2 - 1 for (a) standard pathfinder-like stacking, (b) add all "good" save levels together, and (c) good save automatically applies to all classes, respectively.
I noticed that the Fighter's iterative attacks are all at full BAB instead of -5 according to the table. Is this correct?
Yes -- but only for fighter levels, as described under the "Onslaught of Blows" class features.
Also, might have missed it upthread, but the ki powers known and per day don't seem to match up properly.
Ugh. This thing's got more bugs than a NYC motel. I'll take a look as soon as I get a chance.
Where's that editor guy that was catching all this stuff when you need him?
He's probably still waiting for his back pay for proofreading the last edition. Then again, I offered him 25% of everything I raked in for this project, and so far I've paid him every penny of it!
On the topic of Skill Tricks, was it the intent of them that many of the buffs such as Spider Climb, Feather Fall, Water Walk etc to be "self-castable" only?
I didn't notice anything saying that they functioned any differently from any other spell-like ability in this regard, but it seemed that the rogue wasn't meant to spend a few minutes going over the finer points of rock climbing to cast Spider Climb on the party or a 10th level rogue keeping everyone under the effects of Freedom of Movement all day.
On the topic of Skill Tricks, was it the intent of them that many of the buffs such as Spider Climb, Feather Fall, Water Walk etc to be "self-castable" only?
I didn't notice anything saying that they functioned any differently from any other spell-like ability in this regard, but it seemed that the rogue wasn't meant to spend a few minutes going over the finer points of rock climbing to cast Spider Climb on the party or a 10th level rogue keeping everyone under the effects of Freedom of Movement all day.
Excellent point! And, yes, they were for the most part intended to be self-only, like the monk's buffing ki powers. When I redo the usage writeup, I'll include that as well. Thank you for catching that!
|
|
After more conversion work I think I'm going to rescind my vote for an effectively fractional save system. It's just too much mental gymnastics to calculate once you start having multiclass monsters with racial hit die.
I think the problems are solved by simply having two save tracks, good and poor, 1/2 and 1/3...
1st +0/+0/+0
2nd +1/+0/+1
3rd +1/+1/+1
4th +2/+1/+2
...and so on, and have the +2 1st-level bonus be a part of the Great Fortitude/Iron Will/Lightning Reflexes feat, and be a typed bonus. Trained bonus works well for me, like class skills, and allows it to essentially stack with just about everything except for GF/IW/LR selected in another class.
That way we can just add up the numbers as normal, and it's not as big of a headache.
Kirth,
I looked over the introduction section this week. Few things I noticed.
For comeliness, were you planning to incorporate some of the other races you created on the table, such as the centaur, plane touched, etc.
The social class attribute seems... complicated for little benefit. I think a nod to 1st edition is nice, but other than starting gold what game effect does it grant? I am assuming the starting social class attribute is based upon the characters parents rather than their personal abilities and political clout/skills anyways correct?
Under the battle fatigue section you may want to update the "Note:" section, fighters now gain the stalwart ability and paladins can gain "auras" to suppress the fatigued and exhausted conditions.
Under forcing maneuvers, "check" description: you still refer to the improved forcing maneuver feat.
The clever positioning description section refers to its self as a feat rather than a maneuver.
Did you eliminate Tricky maneuvers? I did not see an improved tricky maneuvers feat anymore. If you did you can just place the interrupt action later under the "preemptive action section" and refer to "three" rather than "four" types in the types of maneuvers section description.
In the nonstandard maneuvers section you still refer to improved forcing maneuvers.
Under your elaborate defense table did you just want to eliminate the +1 through +10 section since it is an advanced fighter talent that cannot be gained till 11th level? That way the table matches the fighter section table exactly.
In the casting spells in combat section, I was a little unclear about the “wind and rain or sleet” wording. I assume both wind and rain or wind and sleet must be present, but how much wind? Extreme winds are okay unless there is how much rain. Wind and snow does not require a check?
For casting spells on another plane, did you want to just make it to require a Knowledge (the planes) check rather than also allowing a spellcraft check to substitute for the knowledge (the planes) check. Also will wizards have their standard action spells change to one full round when casting on another plane (if they make their knowledge (the planes) check when they prepare spells).
Question on the skills section.
Do you want to include the casting of spells on other planes in the Knowledge (the planes) skill description? This also applies for spell craft skill and counterspelling. I noticed that you did not give any description for identifying spells in the spell craft skill description.
Finally, in the endurance skill the “run, in combat” frequency given in the table does not match the text description. Also the ignore exhaustion DC in the table is 35 but the text states it as DC 30.
Thanks,
I'd like to use your classes rogue and fighter but I want to keep the APG, UC, and UM classes and essential homebrews (Such as engineers, gun maguses, and artificers) as playable classes. I especially need the alchemist, inquisitor, and witch, as they are essential for the campaign setting's flavor, and the homebrews add options that are sorely needed. Kirthfinder classes look more powerful than Pathfinder classes, so it looks like I can't just add the Kirthfinder fighter and rogue and keep Pathfinder everything else. is this impression true, or can I bring in the Kirthfinder rogue and fighter and expect things to still be balanced?
With spellcasters it's mostly a wash Kelsey. Spellcasting takes longer and is more difficult, but spells are more powerful. If you negate both of those they come out pretty close. As I'm sure you've noticed, the Cavalier has been absorbed into the KF Fighter.
So, if I use the Kirthfinder rogue and fighter but the Pathfinder version of everything else, balance should be just fine? As I said, I can't go full Kirthfinder because the difference between the witch and wizard are important to the history of magic in the setting, so I need the witch, and I need inquisitors because they color the history of the witch a great deal. Alchemists, meanwhile, fit way too well not to be allowed and those homebrew classes fill niches that I want filled.
I'm fine with the cavalier/samurai being disallowed and it's role handed over to the fighter. In truth, I actually rather like that particular idea. It makes certain things I wanted to do (like the direction I want to go in with samurai) easier.
|
The Kirthfinder Rogue and Fighter are pretty much splatbook classes to Pathfinder. If you thought splats were bad in 3.5, you'll probably think the same of Kirthfinder classes in Pathfinder.
In play, I haven't noticed much of a difference. I have a Kirthfinder v1 Fighter in my 3.5 campaign, and he's the character that has died the most out of everyone.
I'm not familiar with the term splat. What does it refer to?
So it shouldn't effect balance too much? Most excellent. I have issues with the PF rogue and fighter, and the Kirthfinder versions look like they fix all of them except the rogue's requirement of having sneak attack, which Cheapy has a fix out for. With the Kirthfinder rogue and fighter (modified with iterative attacks dropped down to CRB values) and Cheapy's opportunist ability being available as an optional sneak attack replacement, my only major complaints with Pathfinder are fixed.
|
|
'Splatbook' is slang for any supplemental book outside of the core rules. Ultimate Combat would be considered 'splat', as would Adventuring Classes: A Fistful of Denarii
I like to think of Kirthfinder classes being more versatile rather than more powerful. They have more options to chose from, but those options aren't much more powerful than others.
Kirthfinder classes look more powerful than Pathfinder classes
The casters have been nerfed a bit; the noncasters are better, because core Pathfinder itself is totally unbalanced in favor of casters after mid-level, given reasonably competent players.
Regarding the witch as part of the wizard class -- a "class" is just a mechanical package; it doesn't dictate fluff in any way. If you want witches to be separate from wizards in terms of your campaign history, you can declare that whether or not the witch appears as a wizard appendix or in a separate writeup.
Using Kirthfinder, you can duplicate the Alchemist exactly by multiclassing rogue/barbarian/wizard and selecting the appropriate talents. Likewise, you can make a very close approximation of an Inquisitor with a cleric/rogue or cleric/ranger.
As a general rule, I prefer single classing over multiclassing. I won't try to stop others from doing it, but I'd rather take the alchemist class than a rogue/barbarian/wizard. Same with the inquisitor and magus. I also want to be able to use the archetypes for alchemists.
As for the witch and wizard, I prefer them as separate classes. In my campaign setting, the two are very, very different things fluff wise.
It's not that I don't like Kirthfinder classes, it's that I don't want to disallow the non-core base classes or the homebrew classes on my list. I want to use the two Kirthfinder classes that fit what I need, and use Pathfinder for the rest. It looks like I can do that just fine.
I love supplements. Just try and get me not to use Libris Mortis or Unearthed Arcana. Same with the Advanced Player's Guide.
As a general rule, I prefer single classing over multiclassing.
Yes, I understand that multiclassing is a particular pet peeve of yours. I prefer to be able to represent ANY character type I'm imagining, without needing to write a whole new class every time. YMMV.
As for the witch and wizard, I prefer them as separate classes. In my campaign setting, the two are very, very different things fluff wise.
You can have two "classes," both represented the exact same way (by, say, the bard class) and have them be very, very, very, very, very, very, totally, extremely, 100% different things fluff-wise. A class is nothing more than a package of game abilities with a name tag.
---
Bear in mind, most of the stuff was designed with the rest of the re-designs firmly in mind. You're free to pick individual pieces as you see fit, but unless your system mastery is a lot more advanced than I think it is, I suggest you proceed cautiously.
I use classes that do have their own fluff, but tailored to my campaign setting. The rogue and fighter are basic enough not to need fluff, but everything else has it. Preferring to play your game without fluffing the classes isn't wrong, and I don't fault you for doing it. It just isn't the route I am going. I prefer everything except a few basic classes to have it's own fluff and place in the world, and I only want to use two of the Kirthfinder classes.
I have a very specific idea for the differences between a witch and wizard. Witches are secretive and have a centuries old magical tradition, wizardry is about 100 years old and a new art. This is because arcane magic has historically been a lot harder to use that it is in the core rules, and that made witchcraft the easiest form of arcane magic. However, arcane magic was also much rarer than divine magic, so it wasn't trusted and usually severely punished. That is why witches are so secretive.
Around a hundred years ago attitudes to arcane magic started to warm a bit and it's research didn't mean burning at the stake anymore (though many still hate and revile arcane magic), but witches chose to remain secretive about their methods. That's why wizardry developed as a separate magical traditions: the witches weren't telling how they do their stuff for fear of the burning starting up again. Then about 50 years ago advancements in casting techniques made magic easier to use, so that it now works the way it does in the core rules. Witchcraft is still secretive and tradition bound, though easier to use if not learn, and wizardry is something brand new and still being developed.
As for the multiclassing thing, you are right that I don't often do it and I'm not a big fan. I'm not about to say it shouldn't be allowed, and as a referee (I am never using the term GM again. I like your idea of using referee very much. It fits what I'm beginning to think I need to be when running games.) I have no intention of forbidding it. I just won't do it myself, and I'm keeping my alchemist, inquisitor, magus, and other base classes that could be built with multiclass builds.
I use classes that do have their own fluff
Never mind -- I'm not getting through. It's not important, though.
Kirth,
Few other things I noticed.
In the races document: the human paragon states they get a bonus feat at 2nd and 4th level, but this is not reflected in the table above (and I suspect that the 4th level feat was turned into ignore condition).
Wizard familiars: For delivering touch spells, the table states they gain it at 2nd level, but the descriptive text states 3rd level.
Sorcerers: Your eldritch blast for the ogre magi and orc do not match the 12th and 16th level progression of your other bloodlines.
Thanks, Christopher! Don't know what I'd do without you -- the rules would be in shambles. I've gone ahead and corrected the errata identified in your last two posts. They should all be considered official changes.
Regarding oddball races and Comeliness -- this would be a potentially endless series of updates, every time a new race gets approved, or someone comes up with a new hybrid combination. I'd prefer not to get bogged down into that at present, instead allowing each referee to set penalties based on those in the table.
Regarding social class -- yes, it's a complex system for little or no benefit, but then again, so is all of 3.X, compared to 1e. Some people like rolling and tables and endless character minutia; Social Class is a nod to them. Everyone else can mostly ignore it, without damaging the game. One mechanical use other than starting wealth -- if you've established a Social Class for your character, you can use that modifier (in addition to your Charisma modifier) when making Administration skill checks.
|
|
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.Woah. Mind = Blown.
I never noticed that part of the targeting restriction for mage hand before!
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.