Jim Callaghan's page

I've long had a system where critically failing against a mind-affecting effect could lead to insanity. Any chance insanity is going to be part of the main rules?

Aroden climbed an awesome vertical incline, deifying eternally the Last (but ambiguous) Azlant.

I concur. Base ki of of Wisdom.

Gain Acrobatics as a class skill whenever you have at least one jump spell prepared.

Gain Stealth as a class skill whenever you have at least one invisibility spell prepared.

(I couldn't find any magus spells to go with Perception, otherwise I'd have suggested that, too.)

Detect magic for Perception? How about daze for Bluff?

Any chance the magus could get additional daily uses of such arcana as empower magic or silent magic as he goes up in level?

Wouldn't you apply the racial bonus first (taking the penalty from -20 to -10) and then the class bonus (halving it to -5)? Don't have the books in front of me, so I don't know exactly how it reads.

The title of the thread makes this matter confusing. You CAN'T use Swift Alchemy to poison a weapon for a AoO because Swift Alchemy is a move action to poison and can only be performed on your turn. You CAN use Instant Alchemy to poison a weapon for an AoO (indeed I'm sure that's the whole point of the ability) as that is an immediate action that can be taken just before the AoO. It's not PART of the AoO, but it can interrupt the series of events that ends with the opponent taking damage (hopefully) from the AoO.

I had the same objection to the term "Tactical Feats". I'm glad I'm not alone.

I'm pretty sure every time they say "potion" what they mean is "potion". I don't see anything that would indicate otherwise.

Extracts, bombs, and mutagens are called extracts, bombs, and mutagens, respectively.

Elixirs are wondrous items that can be drank (e.g. elixir of fire breath).

With Dilution, I assume when they say "potion" they mean "potion".

Likewise with Enhance Potion, Eternal Potion, and Extend Potion.

Never wise to call your DM an idiot where he might hear of it...

Actually, being on fire is not a condition, although it probably should be. And occasionally a condition does stack (certain bleeding effects), but those specifically state they state, so unless burning magic states it stacks with itself, I would say just the highest level one takes effect.

While in wildshape, the Druid used to be an effective addition to melee combat (boosts to Str, Dex, Con, Extraordinary abilities, and special attacks) or an effective scout (Scent, Track, etc.); and he could heal some damage in the changeover. The new version is much less effective and second-classed to any other caster with access to the Beast Shape spells.

In 3.5 the druid did NOT get scent or Track in wild shape (unless he had it in his normal form). In Pathfinder he DOES get scent (and Track has been eliminated). This, in my mind, is a VAST improvement.

Asgetrion wrote:

Jim Callaghan wrote:

Although I initially hated this idea in 4E, I've had time to think it over and now I actually like it: in addition to Ability Damage, what if each poison would also cause HP damage? For example: 1D6 per level of the poison (Arsenic, as a 4th level poison would inflict 4D6) That way even simple poisons would once again pose a more serious threat to all "commoners", and yet posing even a mild threat to the PCs? At the moment, that -1 to CON per failed save is just an annoyance (but still a more elegant solution than 2D6/3D6 CON or STR damage in 3E) but with HP damage added in they would work far better, I think.

Not my quote.

Here's my problem with poisons (and diseases as well): the DCs dont present a challenge. For example, arsenic, which is supposed to be a DEADLY poison, has a DC of 13, which a character of 4th level (it's listed as a 4th-level poison) should have no problem making. And as levels go up, the problem only gets worse. My solution (one I've instituted in my game) is that poisons, diseases, and environmental effects (heat, smoke, etc.) require Constitution checks instead of Fortitude saves. This makes them avoidable, but still dangerous.

I got at least 5 people saying to the contrary.

Who?

Damage is listed if you want to use a hammer, crowbar, or torch as a weapon, but not a shovel or miner's pick.

The blowgun appears on the weapon table and has a brief description, but does not appear listed among the ranged weapons on page 99. Also, it does not fall under any of the fighter's weapon categories.

I think we should go whole hog and make most of the spears and polearms function in this fashion, but that your post title isn't a good indication of it's contents.

Greatest name for a thread EVER.

Conversely, Razor Sharp Chairleg is the greatest name for a feat ever.

You know those feats you have to have fighter levels to qualify for? Why do they get special treatment from the Eldrich Knight?

Why not other similar situations?

It's part of the benefit of the prestige class.

Jim Callaghan wrote:

But you can't get rage powers or rogue talents by going up in eldritch knight levels. You CAN get more feats, and with diverse training, you can choose Weapon Specialization (for example) as one of those feats. So diverse training as it stands is fairly useful. Changing it would make it more complicated without much return. That's my opinion, anyway.

*Blink Blink*

You mean you can't go back to a class you have levels in and get more?

If you do, you're not going up in eldritch knight levels; you're going up in levels of whatever class... well whatever class in which you're getting more levels.

Having one less level in your primary class is a penalty in and of itself.

There is a solution for players who don't want to lose the access to higher level spells:

Don't play a mystic theurge.

If you want to (eventually) cast 9th level spells, play a straight caster of one class.

Other than that I think the versatility gained by a MT makes up for the loss in power and delayed access to higher level spells. The whole point of the Mystic Theurge is trading power for versatility.

Absolutely true. And in my experience, anyone playing a mystic theurge (or similar prestige class) picks up the Practiced Spellcaster feat, which, while non-OGL, has been in enough books that I think most of us are familar with it.

But you can't get rage powers or rogue talents by going up in eldritch knight levels. You CAN get more feats, and with diverse training, you can choose Weapon Specialization (for example) as one of those feats. So diverse training as it stands is fairly useful. Changing it would make it more complicated without much return. That's my opinion, anyway.

An arcane trickster can still use the ranged legerdemain ability with the Open Lock skill, despite the fact that Open Lock no longer exists.

On pg 52 of the Pathfinder book the "Prestige Skills" sidebar states that to qualify for a prestige class requires the number of ranks required in 3.5, minus three, or twice that amount for a cross-class skill. The Prestige Class enhancement doesn't state anything about more ranks in cross-class skills being required. To qualify for a prestige class listed in the enhancement, does it still require twice the listed ranks if a skill is not a class skill?

* Ogre Mage. Ditch, doesn’t fit into Golarion Ogres really.

So?

Cleave was hardly fine the way it was. A feat that's usable ONLY if you drop someone AND you have another opponent adjacent? As for Great Cleave, for that to be useful, you had to drop someone, have an opponent adjacent, drop that opponent TOO, and have yet ANOTHER adjacent opponent. Cleave is better in Pathfinder than it ever was in 3.0 or 3.5. That's my opinion anyway.

Jim Callaghan wrote:

Of the weapons you list, the tonfa does not appear in either the SRD or Pathfinder, the kukri is a martial weapon, and the siangham... Well the siangham is an exotic weapon.

Yes, I meant the kama, not the kukri. Seriously, it's a pick!

You hold the blunt end, and you hit people with the pointy end! How hard is that?

Just checked, the tonfa is in the Arms and Equipment Guide, yet, bizarrely doesn't provide a picture. We appear to need showing what a double scimitar looks like (Hmm, would it, perhaps, be two scimitars?), yet an inexperienced player would have to search for info on this weapon, such as this site HERE.

As can be seen, these are standard issue police equipment. Did all our boys in blue just get given a level of Monk?

First of all, yes, the kama is an exotic weapon, despite being (as someone else, I'm not sure who, pointed out somewhere on these boards) statistically EXACTLY like the sickle, except that the kama counts as a special monk weapon, and is 4 gp cheaper (?!?!?).

Second of all, I must correct myself: the tonfa is in the SRD... in the Modern section, where it is revealed to be a simple weapon that can deal either standard or nonlethal damage. That way our boys in blue don't need that level in monk (although in my area, the collapsable metal baton is more popular; also a simple weapon per d20 Modern).

Your example is an extremely specific example that is wholly contrived. Mine involves, you know, dragons and sh*t.

Specific, yes. Contrived, no. And your example... Well, I haven't actually seen one. The previous "specific" example certainly IS an example of something that could easily come up, and therefore the feats used are perfectly valid.

(And, did you used to be the British Prime Minister 1975-1979?)

Maybe, a compromise could be to have the feats teach broad weapon groups?

One-Handed Blades
One-Handed Concussion
Two-Handed Weapons
Spears and Polearms
Bows, etc?

And these groups should include the likes of kukris, siangham, tonfa, etc. I would be glad to see the end of certain weapons being classed as 'exotic', simply because they have an 'oriental' name, despite being, in design, technique, and intent, virtually the same as their 'western' counterparts.

Leave the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to cover truly difficult techniques.

In fact, no one in THIS family of Callaghans would ever be a LABOR PM. (Thank you, I haven't heard a comment like that since college.) And I disagree that "Exotic" is a euphamism for "Oriental". Of the weapons you list, the tonfa does not appear in either the SRD or Pathfinder, the kukri is a martial weapon, and the siangham... Well the siangham is an exotic weapon. On the other hand: bastard sword, dwarven waraxe, hand crossbow. Exotic weapons fall into that category because they have a little something extra that makes them better than a martial weapon. Really, what is a bastard sword besides a long sword that does more damage?

Yeah, broken. And the guy with Combat Expertise still deals out a respectable amount of damage.

No. You don't know what you're talking about. At all. If it would be so broken to put all armor/weapon proficiencies in a single feat, then why can I gain all of that and get a bonus feat with a single dip into another class?

No, you can't. Tell me what class gives you proficiency with every single exotic weapon.

Uh...no. People becoming proficient with weapons and armor is hardly broken. They're wasting a feat to become proficient in these things. For many classes, that's 10% of their feats.

The player who makes himself impossible to hit with Combat Expertise is going to be ignored by the monsters. The monsters will move on to squishier targets. The character with Combat Expertise can't keep up with the damage output of someone using Power Attack, especially not with the Pathfinder versions.

Yeah, broken. And the guy with Combat Expertise still deals out a respectable amount of damage.

They shouldn't. Having gimped feats in the game forces game mastery. By forcing game mastery, one is left with two possible outcomes:

1. Only "hardcore" players can function against level-appropriate challenges.

2. Players who know the system very well can tear through encounters with ease.

And that's the sad fact. Players who know 3e inside and out are going to dominate the game while players who are new to D&D are going to get pooped on (unless the former make characters for the latter). The end result? Lameness. One shouldn't have to be a veteran fatbeard to play D&D.

Unfortunately, one of the big problems with Pathfinder is that these sub-par choices still remain in the game. For instance, Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization: they're junk. When I was first introduced to D&D, I thought they were awesome because, well, they were fighter-only, which meant that they were obviously special and thus awesome for the fighter class.

/facepalm

Another example of this is the Lightning Reflexes feat. It's a +2 bonus to your Reflex save. Wow. See the barbarian who just picked up Power Attack? He can function. The guy who picked up Lightning Reflexes is crying himself to sleep because he just failed so hard that quantum physics imploded. (That doesn't even make any sense, but I don't care.)

There are a few options to making these sub-par feats up to par. (Please note that I'm not saying that they all have to be equal--they just shouldn't be crap.)

1. Merge feats. For instance, let's take Quick Draw. It's handy, yes, but is it worth a feat slot? Maybe. However, if we took Quick Draw, Lightning Reflexes, and Dodge, and we put them all in a nicely-packaged feat called "Lightning Reflexes," it would definitely be worth a feat slot.

Similarly, let's look at the various combat maneuvers. There are like four hundred different feats, meaning that only the fighter can adequately make use of them. Would it break the game if there was a feat called "Improved Combat Maneuvers" that let...

I've seen plenty of times when a difference of 2 points made or broke a saving throw. As a DM, I've gnashed my teeth in frustration over a player that made himself impossible to hit through judicious use of the Combat Expertise feat. And a feat by which a character gains proficiency with ALL weapons and armor is so good I can't imagine anyone NOT taking it (I believe that's the very definition of broken).

Perform, p69

When listing the 9 categories of perform:

• Act (comedy, drama, pantomime)
• Comedy (buffoonery, limericks, joke-telling)

Should comedy be listed twice? I guess it could be both a genre of play and something akin to stand-up comedy. Seems redundant though.

The second "comedy" should be "buffoonery" or "jesting". There is a HUGE difference between performing Shakespeare's "As You Like It" and Dennis Leary's "No Cure for Cancer".

(Not making a judgement about the superiority of one over the other. Just saying they're different.)

In 3.5, Diligent gave bonuses to Appraise and Decipher Script checks. Pathfinder has no feat to give bonuses to Appraise and Linguistics (the replacement for Decipher Script). Please bring back Diligent.

Improved Initiative comes into play ONCE during combat. After the first round it really doesn't have much of an impact. Is +4 even enough?

The Gnome Hooked Hammer (a martial weapon) weapon proficiency was given to him as a racial trait, and as you know, it is a Double Weapon which can be used in Two Weapon Style if I burn one of my feats into it.

However, with no strength bonus to hit I would have to take the Weapon Finesse feat in order to use my Dex modifier to hit in order to have any chance in succeeding enough times to survive. The reason this is not possible though, is because the Gnome Hooked Hammer is not a Finesse weapon.

For the off-hand attack it is.

I have a dilemma during character generation. I have a Sorcerer Gnome who needs some sort of protection during Melee combat. The spells are ok but his strength for fighting is limited. (of course, hence, the sorcerer!) However, the combination of spells & fighting prowess would seem to help.

Two words: mage armor. One more word: shield. I know its two spells for a character who knows a limited number of spells (but if he or she is Draconic bloodline, mage armor is eventually free) but you're looking at a +8 bonus to AC right there.

Jim Callaghan wrote:

Jay Fisher - LSJ Coordinator wrote:

summon nature's ally VI (13th), summon nature's ally VII (15th), animal shapes (17th)

Not sorcerer spells.

There a precedent for that, see the celestial and fey bloodlines for example.

I see that now. My bad.

summon nature's ally VI (13th), summon nature's ally VII (15th), animal shapes (17th)

Not sorcerer spells.

Why not just have the fire damage be "good-aligned" such that it overcomes the Devil and Demon's damage resistance? And, because it's good-aligned fire, it supersedes their fire resistance or immunities as well...

My two-cents,
--Neil

Because damage reduction is not the issue; energy resistance is. And energy resistance is not overcome by anything except a large amount of damage (from which the appropriate amount of resistance is subtracted).

And nothing overcomes immunity.

Set wrote:

Jim Callaghan wrote:

Or it could pick on something that nobody has a defense against, like Sonic, and represent the Sorcerer channeling the heavenly music of the celestial choir, to assault the eardrums of the unrighteous!

For the record, it was Set who suggested sonic damage, not I. I cannot accept credit for someone else's idea.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: the Celestial Bloodline 1st-level power should NOT do fire damage. Devils are immune and demons have resistance that sorcerers are unlikely to significantly overcome. So please, please, PLEASE change the damage type to "holy" or something that can smack some osyluth butt.

Kevin Mack wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:

Good question, Tarren Dei. What caught my attention was Jacobs' mention of a "bug" instead of a logo. What kind of bug are we talking about here? A miniature Rovagug?

Having just watched Phantasm again earlier, I'd say it was an alien fly the size of an orange that hatched out of a twitching severed finger.

Can I get one of those?

Of course. You get them in 4 easy steps:

1. Sell your soul to a dark entity of your choice (hels, if the entity has ties to necromancy, insects, and unspeakable practises.
2. Cut of your finger
3. ...
4. Profit!

Where does stealing underwear fit into this?

I think this is a great idea, and it is bolstered by other class abilities that use a "1 + relevant ability modifier" formula to figure out "times per day."

The problem with that is, by the time the bard reaches mid- to high-level, he'd have fewer uses per day. And more abilities on which to spend them.

Monk's have had the alignment restriction from advanced I know, back then rangers had to be good aligned too (chaotic good I think), and Druids had to be neutral, assassins (a base class) had to be evil. Paladin's were of course LG. I think that was all the requirements out of the PHB for advanced.

This is correct, but rangers could be any good alignment. Also bards could only belong to a neutral alignment.

KaeYoss wrote:

A cleric that is not religious or spiritual at all?

Oh you mean a cleric dedicated to war and chaos who never prostheletizes but who seeks battle around the globe and exhibits strange powers.

A cleric does not have to proselytize to be religious, and war and chaos is perfectly cromulent (if a bit twisted) as a spirituality.

- Why can't Bards be Lawful? Are Lawful characters automatically less capable of musically entertaining people then characters of other alignments? I would imagine that musicians that work together in orchestras would have a Lawful bent, as would those musicians that devote their lives to writing beautiful, intricate symphonies.

Bards CAN be Lawful, unless that's a typo in the Beta.

Your first "fact" is actually a fact. Your second "fact" is an opinion. Your third "fact" is actually an assertion that would only be accurate if the previous "fact" was correct. Your final "fact" might be true if its predecessors were also all true. Your entire "fact" list is snarky.

Your "fact" list seems snarky to me, too. So does the phrase "patently ridiculous". That, however, is just my opinion, which only matters for opinion's sake, because I don't work for the company...

The bard is not underpowered because he only chooses one Perform skill. If he chooses BOTH, he's not down skill points from 3.5, because HE GETS A FREE KNOWLEDGE SKILL. So that bard converted from 3.5, (assuming of course he had a knowledge skill, a what bard worth his salt doesn't?) gets an ADDITIONAL skill, which, if he likes, he can spend on Perform to get that extra tree of options. The problem with the bard (as I assert on another post) is not options for bardic performance, but limited uses per day of the options he DOES have.