Dinja's page

The listing is: Versatile Performance (Ex): At 2nd level, a bard can choose one type of Perform skill. He can use his bonus in that skill in place of his bonus in associated skills. When substituting in this way, the bard uses his total Perform skill bonus, including class skill bonus, in place of its associated skill’s bonus, whether or not he has ranks in that skill or if it is a class skill. At 6th level, and every 4 levels thereafter, the bard can select an additional type of Perform to substitute.

The types of Perform and their associated skills are: Act (Bluff, Disguise), Comedy (Bluff, Intimidate), Dance (Acrobatics, Fly), Keyboard Instruments (Diplomacy, Intimidate), Oratory (Diplomacy, Sense Motive), Percussion (Handle Animal, Intimidate), Sing (Bluff, Sense Motive), String (Bluff, Diplomacy), and Wind (Diplomacy, Handle Animal).

The debate is:
Does Versatile Performance Automatically allow a bard to substitute his Performance skill rank in place of the related skill rank automatically or does he have to actually 'perform' to get the increased value (assuming he jacks his performance skill up)? That is...does he actually need to sing, dance, string, wind, etc.... or just automatically substitute his Versatile Performance skill anytime? All it states is: "He can use his bonus in that skill in place of his bonus in associated skills."

For example, let's say that a bard maxes out his perform skill and does not put any skill pips into specific skills like Dance or sing. Now in combat he wants to bluff (total rank is say 5), but using Sing (total rank is say 15) under versatile performance, he wants to substitute his bluff and jack it to a 15 (without actually singing) because his argument is that is the whole point of Versatile Performance.

I would contend that you would need to actually perform an act of singing (Bluff or sense motive) to gain the Versatile Performance rank or dance in order to gain the performance level of acrobatics or fly.

His argument for dance would be that since his performance skill is so high, Versatile Performance means that his dancing is so high (took at 6th level)therefore he is so skilled, that he can always use Perform in place of a normal acrobatics check since dancers are just more agile.

Please see if we can get a clarification. Thanks.

The question in point is, does the caster have the know it all to judge that kind of distance? So the blast is a 20 foot radius and the caster wants to drop a fireball exactly 20 feet behind the zombie. He just automatically does it? No DC Spellcraft Check to see if he guessed it correctly? It is a standard action so he casts the spell in 3-4 seconds and he can look up and very accurately do it? It seems to me that there must be some mechanic to have a chance for error when casting or measuring it. Same would hold true for dropping a Flamestrike in 10 foot radius or any area of effect spell. Because there is not touch attack, it seems like you could incorrectly guess the spot of detonation.

My thought would be to do a Specllcraft DC check of like 15+spell level + modifiers (like moving etc) or DC 10+ spell level + distance modifiers.

I am looking out my window now 300 feet(a football field) away as to launch my fireball…I can not tell 300 feet from 310 feet from 290 feet. There is a chance for error.

Every DM I played with always had a house rule of some sort to accomplish this. Just looking for direction within Paizo rules.

It is amazing to me to read these boards and see all the Anti Druid bleeding out of so many.

The Quintessential Druid of D&D is a subset of Cleric (so anyone suggesting removing spellcasting doesn't want to play D&D) that shape shifts (so anyone wanting to nerf/remove Wild Shape doesn't like D&D) among other things.

If you ask me, the Druid has been nerfed so bad that it needs a boost.

We need to go and pluck some of the old abilities from 1st and add them to the Druid:

1) Master of Languages (+17 extra languages at 20th level)
2) Identify plants, animals, pure water at will.
3) Non Combat Shapeshifting forms (as the current Beta PRPG rules on Wild Shape.)
4) Spell Casting (since it was a "subclass of Clerics.")
5) Immune to Charm spells.
6) Immune to all poisons except mineral or gas.
7) Long life with excellent health.
8) Alter Self at will in 1/10th of a round (so about half a second now.)
9) Able to Summon the largest (most HD) elementals than any other class, so a powered up (superior) version of Elemental Monolith from Complete Arcane?
10) Plane Shift self at will to the following Planes (Earth, Fire, Water, Air, all para planes, Shadow, all inner planes, 7th dimension, Concordant Opposition.)
11) 14 hit dice, so basically statistically more hit points than any other class could accomplish. Every other class stopped at 9 or 10 hit dice. Only fighters got +4 from CON, everyone else got +2 max from CON.
So 14th Druid with ok CON will have 14d8+14*2 = 91 hp. A 14th Fighter with good CON will have 9d8+14*4 = 105.5 hp. Basically the 2nd highest hp in game.

So I ask you Druid haters, why do you not enjoy playing D&D?

Where is the Druid's Innate at will Alter Self?

Where is the Druid's Innate plane shifting? The plane shifting that took 3 seconds to perform (roughly a standard action now.)

If anything the class needs to get back some of it's old luster. I never like the Druid since 2nd forward. I've never played a Druid since 1st edition.

Where is my "2nd highest...

I totally agree with James. In our campign we have a player that consistantly plays druids of all varying races. They function kinda like clerics only without good healing or channeling energy and have a much poorer spell list. They are a jack of many trades, but masters of none except wildshape. The Animal Companion is not bad, but not great either. Not once in 3e, 3.5, or PF have we said...wow...that is one tough character. Their strength is in the outdoors and natural shape is a help in those scenerios. Put the druid in a city or dungeon...ya...monsters have lunch.

I do know that there are a lot of druid 'haters' and that is why 4e dropped them from their core book. I have never understood why as there is nothing overbalancing about the druids at all. As a matter of fact the druids in the campaigns tend to be one of the least useful characters in the group in terms of combat. They are a good outdoor utility character.

Personally I would not play a druid in its current form...nothing that stands out and goes...YA BABY! A boost to the Animal companion would be in order to affect creatures with DR.

I did not wait for a new print run, I just printed the Beta on my printer and am sure glad I did. With the additions of the new magic items, prestige classes, and the changing of the paladin, I just punched holes and inserted them into the binder. Our whole gaming groups is doing this and works well. So at least there are optioins out there.

I see the above example as proof as to what Mildew was saying...

7 WIZ/3 CLER/10 MT
Wizard Spell Level 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Spells per day 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1
Bonus Spells 2 1 1 1 1
Total per day 4 6 5 5 5 5 4 3 2 1
Base Save DC 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Evoc Save DC 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Cleric Spell Level 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Spells per day 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1
Bonus Spells 2 1 1 1 1
Total per day 4 6 5 5 5 4 2 1 0 0
Base Save DC 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Evoc Save DC 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Total
Total Spells Spells
Per Day 8 12 10 10 10 9 6 4 2 1 72 Total Spells

Total Spell
Total Spell Levels
Levels 0 12 20 30 40 45 36 28 16 9 236 Total Spell Levels

Now on to the 20th Level Wizard using the same stats:
20 WIZ
Wizard Spell Level 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Spells per day 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Bonus Spells 2 1 1 1 1
Total per day 4 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4
Base Save DC 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Evoc Save DC 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Total
Total Spells Spells
Per Day 4 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 46 Total Spells

Total Spell
Total Spell Levels
Levels 0 6 10 15 20 25 24 28 32 36 196 Total Spell Levels

Level 20 Wizard can cast 9th level spells (4 of them) with DC of 24 and can cast a total of 46 spell levels in a day (not including zero levels). The Straight Wizards casts 196 total spell levels per day. Caster level is 20.

Level 7 WIZ/3 CLER/10 MT can cast 9th level spells (1 of them) with DC of 24,also can cast 5th level Cleric spells, and can cast a total of 72 spell levels in a day (not including zero levels). The MT casts 236 total spell levels per day. Caster is 17 for the Wizard and 13 for Cleric spells.

The way I see it if you want the straight on punch of having to have the most powerful spell (and can cast it 4 times) then the straight caster is the way to go.

If you want to have a larger repertoire of spells and be more diverse then the MT is it. You can still cast your 9th level spells although less of them but you also have great other abilities added. Combined spells and spell Synthesis are great additions.

What I am trying to say is the in this thread it seems to me like others are saying we need to fix the MT and more it stronger. I would argue that if anything it is already too strong when compared to the Wizard UNLESS your focus is needing to have 4 9th level spells cast as a 20th level caster. If the MT gets more powerful then it eliminates the need for the Straight Classes...and I would disagree with that.

This is an interesting topic.

Here is a sample of why a Mystic Theurge is way over powered as it stands. I made a sample 'vanilla' character with the following Stats using the Paizo 25 point buy for Epic:
Human 20 total levels
S10/D10/C11/I20/W20/CH10
Feats:Empower Spell, Enlarge Spell, Extend Spell, Spell Focus(Evoc), Spell Penetration, Spell Mastery, Widen Spell, Greater Spell Focus (Evoc), Greater Spell Penetration, Heighten Spell,Eschew Materials, Quicken Spell.

I configured him 4 different ways and calculated the number of spells known as well as the number of total spell levels each combination can cast.
I configured him as a level 5 Wizard/Level 5 Cleric/ Level 10 MT
5 WIZ/5 CLER/10 MT
Wizard Spell Level 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Spells per day 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1
Bonus Spells 2 1 1 1 1
Total per day 4 6 5 5 5 5 3 2 1 0
Base Save DC 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Evoc Save DC 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Cleric Spell Level 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Spells per day 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1
Bonus Spells 2 1 1 1 1
Total per day 4 6 5 5 5 5 3 2 1 0
Base Save DC 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Evoc Save DC 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Total
Total Spells Spells
Per Day 8 12 10 10 10 10 6 4 2 0 72 Total Spells

Total Spell
Total Spell Levels
Levels 0 12 20 30 40 50 36 28 16 0 232 Total Spell Levels

Notice only max of 8th Level Spells for both Cleric as well as Wizard which seems to be an issue. So lets take a different approach and using the same stats lets look at going Level 7 Wizard, Level 3 Cleric, and level 10 MT. that would give access to 9th level wizard spells (or you can transpose them and go 7 levels of cleric for same result)

7 WIZ/3 CLER/10 MT
Wizard Spell Level 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Spells per day 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1
Bonus Spells 2 1 1 1 1
Total per day 4 6 5 5 5 5 4 3 2 1
Base Save DC 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Evoc Save DC 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Cleric Spell Level 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Spells per day 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1
Bonus Spells 2 1 1 1 1
Total per day 4 6 5 5 5 4 2 1 0 0
Base Save DC 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Evoc Save DC 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Total
Total Spells Spells
Per Day 8 12 10 10 10 9 6 4 2 1 72 Total Spells

Total Spell
Total Spell Levels
Levels 0 12 20 30 40 45 36 28 16 9 236 Total Spell Levels

The results are very Close, gaining only 4 total Spell Levels but now being able to cast up to 9th level Wizard Spells and 7th Level Cleric Spells. All of this seems in line until we compare it with a 10th level WIZ/10 CLERIC as well as a straight 20th Level Wizard. Lets compare them now using the same information.

10 WIZ/ 10 CLER
Wizard Spell Level 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Spells per day 4 4 4 3 3 2
Bonus Spells 2 1 1 1 1
Total per day 4 6 5 4 4 3 0 0 0 0
Base Save DC 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Evoc Save DC 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Cleric Spell Level 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Spells per day 4 4 4 3 3 2
Bonus Spells 2 1 1 1 1
Total per day 4 6 5 4 4 3 0 0 0 0
Base Save DC 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Evoc Save DC 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Total
Total Spells Spells
Per Day 8 12 10 8 8 6 0 0 0 0 52 Total Spells

Total Spell
Total Spell Levels
Levels 0 12 20 24 32 30 0 0 0 0 118 Total Spell Levels

Notice the 10wiz/10cler can only cast 5th Level Spells in each, loses 20 Spell levels compared to the MT and 114 Total Spell level as well! That is a huge disparity.

Now on to the 20th Level Wizard using the same stats:
20 WIZ
Wizard Spell Level 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Spells per day 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Bonus Spells 2 1 1 1 1
Total per day 4 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4
Base Save DC 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Evoc Save DC 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Total
Total Spells Spells
Per Day 4 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 46 Total Spells

Total Spell
Total Spell Levels
Levels 0 6 10 15 20 25 24 28 32 36 196 Total Spell Levels

The Epitome of of spell casters...the wizard at 20th level gets only 46 total spells per day and 196 Total Spell Levels. Compare that to the level 7 WIZ/3 CLER/10 MT and you will see that the MT casts 72 spells per day compared to a wizards 46 or 52 of the 10wiz/10 Cler. The MT also casts 236 Spell levels (zero level still count as 0 as they are unlimited for all examples) compared to 118 for the 10wiz/10 cler and 196 for the straight level 20 Wiz. For Pure Spell casting the Mystic Theurge dwarfs any other core casting in the game. Now the question is what do you gain or lose by going MT?

Losses: Depending on the level of cleric you take you will lose a number of Domain powers. On the wizard side you will lose some of the School Powers if you got that route and some bonus feats (3-4 depending on how many wiz levels you take).

Gains: Massive increase in the sheer volume of spells you can cast is the biggest. Also the Combined Spell abilities abd the Spell Synthesis at 10th Level MT. Being able to cast 2 spells at the same time (one from each class) is a fantastically powerful ability.

So why is this so overpowered? Well let me ask this...after looking at this after I made 4 characters...all middle of the road...what spell caster would NOT choose this presgtige class? IMHO this is still the most overpowered class in the entire game dating back to the 3.5 rules.

Now you can min/max with stats in each example and tweak feats etc...to slightly alter the final character, but to me this is a no brainer when playing a spell caster as you are the most powerful caster in the game bar none. Who would play a loremaster after this? Or really any straight class! The bumping of the Core classes was needed to balance the game, but this goes above and beyond any bumps given to the core spell casters!

Some ideas we had before the Paizo conversion was to alternate class progression (arcane one level and Divine the next) and add more abilities. Another was to only let it be a 5 level Prestige class. Yet another is to have 'dead' levels were you do not progress levels on either class. All I know is that if I wanted to add a broken class to play, I would stick with WOC. I do know that as it stands now, I would not allow this class into my Pathfinder game.

Am I right on this or missing something?

Kaisoku wrote:

Well, it depends.

Here's what a 16th level Druid's animal companion stats would look like. This is assuming he spend some spells on boosting stats, Animal Growth, and getting an amulet of might fists with speed/holy enhancement on it (since both the druid and the animal companion could use that).

Too bad that magic item is impossible to do as the Max Bonus for the amulet is +5 including the pluses for speed (+3) and Holy (+2) thus using up any damage bonuses. The base cost is 125,000. Now you were saying one for the druid and one for the campanion and you are now out 250,000. This is ok if I make a char starting at this level and can pick his gear, but it is not realistic to try to save and buy these if I had started at a lower level.

as per beta :

Alternatively, this amulet can be enchanted with melee weapon special
abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. See Table
15–7 for a list of abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses. An amulet of mighty fists cannot have a modified bonus(enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +5. An amulet of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability.

Great point I totally agree about the magic item limits. I guess my point is that even in a monte hall type of campaign were +5 amulets and such were plentiful...the animal would still be the last to get it...unless of course that the Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, and Rogue all already had such an amulet...then if I had a 6th one (druid has one too) I may give it to my animal.

It seems people are trying to tone down the animal and therefor the druid class themselves as a result. An idea to throw out would be:

Weaken the animal companion, but then make the druid able to do spontaneous casting like sorcerers do. They have a limited list anyway so it that were to happen I could see weakening the animal companion.

I agree, if you feel you need a mechanically crunchy method to track player's reputation, thats fine, but its far from a "needed" component.

There does not have to have a mechanic, but in Star Wars as well as the Game of Thrones, it is a nice feature to have...even if an optional rule. It helps on the Role-playing aspect in situations.

If I ever played in such a campaign where such uber magic was given out to animal companions...maybe. This example is too extreme to be considered normal. I have never played nor have DMed such an adventure where there was soooooo much mega magic equipment that we can hand them out to our animal companions. Take magic items out of the equation and go based on the class and the companion itself. A totally different picture. I would be open to the idea of gaining extra abilities via feats much like wizards to with the improved famailar feat.

I would be strongly in favor of a write up for optional rules on playing Monks and Paladins of varying alignments in the core rules. Thus preserving the original flavor of the classes but allowing a clear and well thought out way to change them with an economy of page space ( it might raise the page count by 2 at the most). You still can have a full write up for a Blackgaurd as a specific class down the line with abilities that differ from a standard paladin that happens to be lawful evil.

We really dont need many write ups for various rules. The one thing about Paladins and Blackguards is that they should both be Lawful...both should have a code of conduct that they need to follow. Paladins are Lawful Good and follow the code of thier religion and Blackguards should be Lawful Evil and follow their church's code of conduct...just with sinister intentions. Is there a need for Lawful neutral? I dont think so.

Green Ronin put one out i belive it was called a holy warrior that had variuos abilities based on alignment...couldbe an option, but this is simpler IMHO.

I agree that this can be handled on a case-by-case basis. However, from a "realism" standpoint, it is often possible to recognize an illness even if the observer can do nothing to treat it.

If someone wanted to add a layer of detail, I would suggest giving diseases a seperate, lower DC to allow for diagnosis, while keeping the higher DC for treatment. This effectively codifies the recommendation that the DM adjudicate "close" rolls as proper diagnosis with improper treatment.

I agree with this option. Maybe diagnosis should be a -5 to the check or even -10 since you cant treat it without knowing what it is.

Well the folks that want to run evil games done switch it around anyway. While they would fit in fine in a 2nd book, evil classes really do not have a place in the core as they are only useable in a certin type of game unlike the other 11.

That is because the other 11 are not absolute classes in terms of alignment. Fighters, clerics, Wizards etc...can all be evil or good for that matter. Paladins can not, so the idea of the anti-paladin is needed. Remember that while the classes are for players they are also the base for important NPCs and a paladin would have a great nemesis in the class of a blackguard. So mechanics would be great!

Animal companions are indeed near useless against tough opponents with Damage Reduction. The need to have a way to overcome this shortfall unless of course the Druid is suppose to be merely a spell caster against tougher opponents.

I wasn't a big fan of Assassin spells, but that doesn't mean that Supernatural abilites are off limits. Look at monks. They have supernatural powers, but doesn't study magic. Instead, they manifest supernatural power via a mastery of the art of physical perfection and combat. An Assassin is a master of the art of Death.

I totally agree with this...the class should be all martial based although the supernatural ability would be fine to add. This makes a lot more sense then the Rogue's Master Strike ability (too overpowered) as the assassin at least has to study this target for 3 rounds. To me only an Assassin should have this cool ability...no to thieves and no to Bards.

As a player of a multitude of paladins as well as a DM of an Evil campaign, I agree the Blackguard would be a great base class and was surprised it was not included in the Beta release. I do like the old 'Anti-Paladin' title better. It is not easy to play Lawful Evil, but if done properly it is a great experience!

So the question is, would it not make sense to streamline all of the Item Creation feats and word them the same as:

The creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard)

As it stands now, the Craft Wand is worded differently.

I have a question in regards to the creation (crafting) of magic items using the metamagic feats. Craft Wand states:
Prerequisite: Caster level 5th. Benefit: You can create a wand of any 4th-level or lower spell that you know.

This implies that you can only imbue a wand with a spell that you know and have in your repertoire of spells.

Craft Wondrous items as well as the Craft rods, staves, etc… all state:
Prerequisite: Caster level 3rd. Benefit: You can create any wondrous item whose prerequisites you meet.

So lets take one as an example:
Hat of Disguise: Construction Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, disguise self; Cost 900 gp

To me this implies that you need to be able to cast the Spell disguise self as well as meet the other costs. The wording in these feats though make it seem that you could use a scroll, using the skill Use Magical device, and cast the disguise self from the scroll to make the hat.

I think the wording should be altered to reflect the proper meaning of these feats. My issue is that if you can make magical items my casting off of a scroll, then I see Bards as being the best Crafters in the game and that does not sit right with me. It seems more likely that the wizard needs to have the spell in his/her book or the sorcerer needs to have the spell as a known spell. I have read other threads that state you can ‘tag-team’ and have someone else cast a spell into the item to enchant is. This seems wrong to me, but can not find the wording in the rules to say ya or nay to these.

Can anyone help with these clarifications?

I love the whole Shield set of feats...greatly needed! However, the feats also need to be opened up to paladins. Many paladins exemplify the entire sword and shield approach and as such a player see the benfit of this. As it stands now only fighters can take anything beyond the shield focus.

Or think about adding something like Divine Shield from the complete warrior or divine book – Std action – uses 1 Turn attp: adds Charisma Bonus to shield bonus for half paladin LVL in rounds.

The one thing that has been missing from the WOC DND is some way to track reputation. Reputation should have a bearing on the characters as they gain renown for either being famous or infamous thus impacting bluff, intimidate, and diplomacy checks. Other systems include simple version that just increase per character level such as Star Wars Revised Core rules. Others have detailed systems such as the Game of Thrones d20 RPG that allow a lot of options but are a bit more cumbersome. Other games incorporate it much more integrally, such as 7th Sea.

Personally I like the idea of event based reputation. “Rather than determining reputation increases purely by class levels, the DM can enhance characters' reputations based on the characters' actual adventures. At an adventure's conclusion, he can hand out awards to the characters who were known to have participated, representing how much more famous (or infamous) their recent actions have made them.
This variant doesn't change much about the game (beyond what the reputation variant does in general). Characters have a slight incentive to choose adventures that will earn them more fame, because their later social interactions will be more likely to succeed. But reputation is a double-edged sword in the D&D game, because it can turn into notoriety with a simple twist of the plot.

The same peasants who buy the PCs drinks at the tavern one night might try to turn them in for a reward later after the sheriff frames the PCs for murder.

If the characters earned public acclaim for ending a threat to the community's safety, aware each PC a 1-point increase in his or her reputation score at the adventure's conclusion. If the accolades came from a narrower circle of people, then each character gets a 1/2-point increase. A single 1/2-point increase has no effect on reputation-related skill checks, but two such increases combine to provide a fill 1-point increase. Of what the characters accomplishes in the adventure directly affected, or came to the attention of, only a few (or no) other people, the PCs don't get a reputation boost. This determination is obviously a judgment call.“

No matter the final version, I think this type of system is a necessity of the game to add more ‘roleplaying’ in lieu of just more combat abilities. These make for great plot and story devices.

Sound off and let me know what you think and how it would work best in the Pathfinder mechanics.

While testplaying it was pointed out that this version of the Beta lists the toughness as 3 HP +1/HD. Can you take this feat multiple times and does it stack? It does not state one way or another. My ruling was you could only take it once unlike the 3.5 PHB version. Any thoughts? The toughness feat on page 95 should be clarified one way or another.

One interesting skill that I was wondering if it would get a second look at is the heal skill. The rules state about how to apply first aid, long term care, how to treat poison as well as diseas. But one thing that concerns me is how does a character diagnose an illness, disease, or poison short of detect poison? The skill description does not allow you determine a type of disease...only treat it.

One suggestion may be to treat it more like the new identify, where the heal skill can 'diagnose' an ilness or poison but at a higher DC and the Detect poison spell can either be a guaranteed result or add a +10 to the heal skill.

How else would and adventuring party or a village healer (natural) be able to diagnose the vast number and types of illnesses, diseases, or poisons?

Any thoughts or am I missing something?