A. Malcolm's page

I did a quick and dirty conversion of PF to D20 Modern for a Borderlands campaign I ran. It needs a lot of work, not everything is tested, and some things probably seem really off, but it worked really well for what I wanted it to do. I had to do an entire splatbooks worth of work for the Borderlands parts, but this served as a pretty good basis.

D20 Modern v2

Sunder his character sheet.

I couldn't resist.

A. Malcolm wrote:

Why wouldn't the lightning bolt require an action if it functions as call lightning?

Because the Deadly Weather ability does not function as Call Lightning. The Deadly Weather ability creates a lasting storm, one of the per-round effects of which has the same effect as Call Lightning.

I guess we'll agree to disagree. Since it states "as call lightning" I take that to mean that you are using call lightning as the spell, since it references it.

RD - Why don't you worry this much about situations that might actually occur?

It's an uncommon situation that hasn't been touched on. It's at least provided some interesting discussion. Granted, I'm not looking for a mechanic for this situation, but at least we're all talking about things that don't usually get talked about. As a bonus, at least it's not another "x" thread. (Pick your posion for that one.)

A. Malcolm wrote:

Using a supernatural ability is usually a standard action (unless defined otherwise by the ability's description). Its use cannot be disrupted, does not require concentration, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

As for the lightning bolt, since it acts as call lightning, you would use a standard action.

I disagree. The ability is activated as a standard action, but has one of those effects each round for its duration (which was not listed in the OP, but is a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level). Since there's no mention of requiring an action to maintain the ability, I would say that after the first round's standard action to activate the ability, whatever effects it has do not require actions from the cleric.

Why wouldn't the lightning bolt require an action if it functions as call lightning?

Using a supernatural ability is usually a standard action (unless defined otherwise by the ability's description). Its use cannot be disrupted, does not require concentration, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

As for the lightning bolt, since it acts as call lightning, you would use a standard action.

IF a warlock had those invocations in the first place. They only get twelve over the entire course of their career (unless they spend a feat). And with the exception of vitriolic blast and eldritch chain in the games I played in or ran during 3.5, warlocks preferred utility invocations by far.

MA

Was Lesser Globe of Invulnerability used a lot in the games you played? How often were the warlocks shut down and completely ineffective in a combat? If I was playing a warlock and encountering a lot of anti-warlock opposition I would probably start investing in abilities that let me get around them.

A. Malcolm wrote:

To be fair, it clearly states that you use flurry as TWF, it can't be helped if a lot of people assumed that it worked like 3.5. If you reverse engineer flurry in the monk class block you can see the penalties come from TWF. I get that even some of the guys at Paizo made the mistake when writing NPC stat blocks, but it doesn't change that as written it is exactly like TWF. I can't even find a way to misinterpret the wording.

It's the whole "Any combination" part.

At that point, since it says "any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon" would anyone assume you would have to use one or the other? It already says in the monk unarmed strike that it includes "fist, elbows, knees, and feet", so that covers 8 different types of unarmed strikes that you could use any combination of. Wouldn't the word "and" be better suited to indicate that you could interchange them between unarmed strikes and weapons? Since it says "or" that would imply one or the other.

A. Malcolm wrote:

Talonhawke wrote:

A. Malcolm wrote:

Lord Twig wrote:

Is there primary and secondary in Flurry of Blows? There isn't in Two-Weapon Fighting. There is a primary hand and off hand. Flurry has no off hand.

Flurry doesn't state that it doesn't have an off-hand, monk Unarmed Strike does. So if you used your unarmed as your primary and a non-light weapon as your secondary (not saying anyone would, but for the sake of an example where it would matter) then you would be at -4 for the primary and -4 for the off-hand.

Which actually brings up question 3.

3. Are the flurry penalties always -2/-2 or were those numbers assumed since at the time of writhing core only light weapons could be flurried with?

I thought it was fairly obvious that the flurry listed in the monk chart is for unarmed/light. I mean, seeing as at the time of printing the only weapons you could use were the listed speical monk weapons, why would anyone assume otherwise?

The same reason we all assumed that you could flurry with a single weapon it doesn't read that the penalty is for TWF its the penalty for flurrying even if all those attacks came from the same weapon such as thrown shuriken or in the zen archers case a bow.

To be fair, it clearly states that you use flurry as TWF, it can't be helped if a lot of people assumed that it worked like 3.5. If you reverse engineer flurry in the monk class block you can see the penalties come from TWF. I get that even some of the guys at Paizo made the mistake when writing NPC stat blocks, but it doesn't change that as written it is exactly like TWF. I can't even find a way to misinterpret the wording.

Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.

As it reads, you use flurry as TWF. I don't think anyone can argue that. They clearly put that qualifier in there so people couldn't stack it with the TWF feat for more attacks. The zen archer could probably use clarification if so many people misunderstand it. It should probably just state when you get extra attacks and at what penalties. But flurry itself is pretty clear. No where anywhere does it give a "flurry attack penalty" or the like.

A. Malcolm wrote:

Lord Twig wrote:

Is there primary and secondary in Flurry of Blows? There isn't in Two-Weapon Fighting. There is a primary hand and off hand. Flurry has no off hand.

Flurry doesn't state that it doesn't have an off-hand, monk Unarmed Strike does. So if you used your unarmed as your primary and a non-light weapon as your secondary (not saying anyone would, but for the sake of an example where it would matter) then you would be at -4 for the primary and -4 for the off-hand.

Which actually brings up question 3.

3. Are the flurry penalties always -2/-2 or were those numbers assumed since at the time of writhing core only light weapons could be flurried with?

I thought it was fairly obvious that the flurry listed in the monk chart is for unarmed/light. I mean, seeing as at the time of printing the only weapons you could use were the listed speical monk weapons, why would anyone assume otherwise?

Is there primary and secondary in Flurry of Blows? There isn't in Two-Weapon Fighting. There is a primary hand and off hand. Flurry has no off hand.

Flurry doesn't state that it doesn't have an off-hand, monk Unarmed Strike does. So if you used your unarmed as your primary and a non-light weapon as your secondary (not saying anyone would, but for the sake of an example where it would matter) then you would be at -4 for the primary and -4 for the off-hand.

Plus I recall that it was said somewhere that you could replace any attack in Flurry of Blows with an unarmed strike. So if you attack with Haste, Ki, Medusa's Wrath for a base attack of +14/+14/+14/+14/+14/+14/+9/+9/+4/+4/-1 any of those can be unarmed strikes. But which could you use your kama with? Any of them? Some of them? If so which ones? If I use unarmed strike for the first three can I use the kama for the rest? Or just three or four? Which three or four? If I only attack with unarmed strike three times and then get an AoO later that round, can I still use my bodywraps? Or not because now my BAB is only +12?

You don't replace attacks, you declare your primary and secondary attacks first, since it matters for TWF. So you can't simply switch on the fly. TWF requires a single primary weapon and a single secondary weapon and since flurry works just as TWF you would need to figure that out before you make any attacks.

You make an interesting point. But if it is not referring to the Paladin's code of conduct, which by definition is a set of morals (see morals), then to what code of morals is it referring to? Alignments do not have codes unto themselves, so much as general traits that are consistently shared by those of a certain alignment. It specifically calls it out as the paladin's moral code.

While it seems to me a great stretch to assume it means any other code, could you provide some proof to the claim that it is referring to another code entirely?

What makes you say that they're the same? Any other time a rule references another rule it is specifically stated. Why wouldn't they just say "the paladin's Code of Conduct" like the way they specifically state they must keep a LG alignment? To me it seems like they are saying the character's moral code (or how the player feels they should act), otherwise they would have said "anyone who consistently offends her Code of Conduct".

Sorry, there's enough people on this forum that clearly note the Paladin is not overpowered in any sense of the word. While they are extra effective against classical enemies, they are only extra effective up to 5 times per day. The rest of the time they are an NPC warrior with some healing, good saves, and nice immunities. Their channeling eats up their lay on hands, and requires them to burn 2 uses of LoH per use, making it kind of craptastic in most cases and you have to burn a feat to at make it effective for turning undead.

Also the banishment ability is pretty pointless. In fact, many people have commented that it is actually a nerf when you hit 20th level, because instead of dealing extra damage the fiend basically gets a save vs being banished. Either way your smite ends. Many people actively avoid taking Paladin 20, and instead go Paladin 19 / Anything else 1, so their smite doesn't become tragically risky against evil outsiders.

The nicest ability they have is definitely their Lay on Hands which heals an average of 1.75 damage per level, and recovers from status ailments. Paladins are arguably the best tanks in the game. But that's not really your "with great power comes great responsibility" kind of stuff.

Seriously, what is a Paladin going to do if he could go rogue? If none of his abilities stopped working but didn't change, well he's still just a nice tank. He's got some nice immunities, but most of those can be replicated with some simple magic items or low-level spells, but he's not really got a whole lot of room to abuse his power. I mean really, he can heal himself or heal others. It's kind of hard to use that power irresponsibly short of actively trying to heal muggers or something.

Rangers also have a d10 HD, perfect BAB, 2 good saves, spells, a companion, 6 + Int HD, the ability to rock socks on classical monsters and villains via Favored Enemy, and are generally more versatile than Paladins. Paladins are balanced pretty well against rangers.

Which is why, like I said, I don't see Paladins as being the dudes Uncle Ben was talking about with his speech, and its definitely not worth "balancing" with these odd restrictions which are entirely fluff-based.

Your post is confusing. Are paladins glorified NPC warriors or equal to the ranger? Or are rangers just as bad as paladins? You praise the ranger so much and then compare paladins to them, I'm just not sure what side you're on.

Why not petition for a new arch-type rather than a revision of the class entirely? That would probably be much more likely to happen in the grand scheme of things.

Cheapy wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Every time someone votes for the Alchemist in this thread makes my ego swell .2% larger.

BEWARE.

You designed the alchemist?!

I did.

It went through a fair amount of revision by the design team, of course, but the original design of the alchemist as it appeared in the playtest for APG was my design work.

That's pretty neat, I really like the alchemist. I wrote a gnome alchemist up for a campaign, bombs all the way, made him like a little Italian demo-man. Good times.

The only thing I find interesting is that they get mutagens and bombs. Did you ever consider an either/or scenario for them? Like the way rangers choose a combat style. I'm not here to argue balance or anything, just curious if they ever almost turned out this way.

A. Malcolm wrote:

I recently ran a session where the players needed to get this special scroll with a ritual on it to summon Ubtao. The scroll was in a stone chest and the barbarian decided to smash the chest instead of opening it, so she shredded the scroll. I had a backup plan in case something like this happened, but the cleric used mending to fix the scroll. I gave him some major clever points for that one.

Plus, being able to fix broken and magic items is good. For a 0 level spell you can't really ask for much more.

By RAW you can't restore magic to a damaged scroll. A scroll has 0 hardness and 1 HP. Any HP damage at all will destroy a scroll. Neither mending or make whole can restore the magical part of a destroyed scroll.

I never said the scroll was magic.

After reading through this thread, it seems like almost everyone agrees it needs to be changed but not all for the same reasons. One group says it's not realistic enough. The other group says it's not effective even within the game rules compared to the bow. Both parties are correct. I think the problem we're seeing is just HOW real it needs to be. Here's a possible change:

Light Crossbow
1d10 90ft 19-20/x2

Heavy Crossbow
1d12 100ft 19-20/x3

Composite Light Crossbow
1d10+STR Bonus 100ft 19-20/x2

Composite Heavy Crossbow
1d12+STR Bonus 120ft 19-20/x3

Composite Crossbows have a preset strength bonus needed to load and fire them effectively, meaning Rapid Reload will not work with a Composite Crossbow if the user does not meet the strength bonus requirement. However just like composite bows the user adds this bonus to damage.

That ought to give martial characters something to consider, plus make them viable to simple weapon characters. Obviously after you reach a certain point, no full caster should be firing a crossbow, but this wasn't designed for them. It'd be a good weapon for any of the medium BAB classes though. You'd still need Rapid Reload to explain the long reload times (which I think is pretty accurate) but that improved damage die and improved crit bonus on heavy crossbows would make them pretty good. The improved crit bonus and damage would explain how crossbows punched through plate armor so effectively too. Thoughts?

I really like this idea. I'm going to see if the DM in my upcoming campaign will try this out. We happen to have someone playing a fighter with the crossbowman archetype, so it'll interesting to see how it does.

I recently ran a session where the players needed to get this special scroll with a ritual on it to summon Ubtao. The scroll was in a stone chest and the barbarian decided to smash the chest instead of opening it, so she shredded the scroll. I had a backup plan in case something like this happened, but the cleric used mending to fix the scroll. I gave him some major clever points for that one.

Plus, being able to fix broken and magic items is good. For a 0 level spell you can't really ask for much more.