| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, one of the big changes Pathfinder made to the 3.x system was skill consolidation. Hide & Move Silently became Stealth, Look, Listen, and Spot became Perception, and so on. And on a whole, I think those were good changes. Which is why I can't, for the life of me, think why Spellcraft wasn't folded into Knowledge (Arcana). I mean, the two skills are basically knowledge about magic. They both occupy the same thematic space. So why are they both still individual skills?
What about divine casters? Should they be using Knowledge (arcana)? Though I suppose you could say that they should use Knowledge (religion) or (nature). But I suppose one way to run it is the difference between theory and practice. I guess I think of the difference between Knowledge (engineering) and a lot of Craft skills that way. So Knowledge (arcana) gives you lots of book-learning about magic and its traditions, while Spellcraft involves know-how that lets you actually make stuff and recognize what specific arcane activities and effects you're observing. Though I agree, if PF had kept the 3.0/3.5 synergy system, I'd look for a synergy there.
I don't disagree that skills could use some reworking and that spellcraft has some redundancy with other skills like knowledge:arcana, but as Cleanthes points out, spellcraft applies to both arcane and divine magic.
My bigger issue with skills in general is that they are still too closely tied to a single attribute when many of them (spellcraft included) should be tied to multiple attributes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will say this, though: it's always bugged me that a wizard has the same chance of identifying divine spells as arcane spells, and vice versa for a cleric. That's never seemed quite right to me. I've been tempted to create a house rule that you take a big minus when you're dealing with magic of a type you don't practice.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It makes more sense for me for arcane spells to be ID'd with Know (Arcana), Clerical Spells with Know (Religion), and Druidic Spells with Know (Nature).
Having a big skill for knowing about all spells makes about as much sense as a big skill for knowing about all science.
I don't know, there are Spells that could be cast by either Arcane or Divine casters. And Druids are just a different religion, Knowledge Nature is more about the natural world not magic.
The way I think about it is basically the same as Cleanthes, that Knowledge Arcana (Or religion, as the case may be) is the theoretical area of magic, while Spellcraft in more applied, kind of analogous to mathematics, kinda sorta. This is somewhat mirrored in how the spell is used. What to write down a new spell in you spellbook, or determine what that item can do? Spellcraft. What to know what that Construct is, what school that effect you found detect magic is? Knowledge (Arcana). Spellcraft is doing things, and Knowledge is knowing things, if that makes sense. Now, it's not perfect, but it's good enough for me most of the time.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, there is an apparent overlap. An alternative I've worked on was consolidating knowledge skills(and now also Spellcraft)
Knowledge(natural) <- nature, geography, dungeoneering
Knowledge(supernatural) <- arcane, planes, religion, spellcraft
Knowledge(cultural) <- history, local, nobility
knowledge(engineering) would is replaced by appropriate craft or profession checks.
It makes more sense for me for arcane spells to be ID'd with Know (Arcana), Clerical Spells with Know (Religion), and Druidic Spells with Know (Nature).
Having a big skill for knowing about all spells makes about as much sense as a big skill for knowing about all science.
That's basicaly my house rules (I scratch out spellcraft) and ask for Know (Arcana) for arcane magic and Know (Religion) for divine magic (including druidic).
I do allow a -5 roll for one Know. applied to the other magic since I consider some mystick elements could still give clues and Detect Magic and Magic Items still come into play.
It makes more sense for me for arcane spells to be ID'd with Know (Arcana), Clerical Spells with Know (Religion), and Druidic Spells with Know (Nature).
Having a big skill for knowing about all spells makes about as much sense as a big skill for knowing about all science.
Agree with these, except the Druid part. Druid spells are divine and should also be Know(Religion).
A tracker who knows all the leaves and animals of the forest Know(Nature) wouldn't have a clue about spellcasting divine spells.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the premise of the thread, and that Druids should be using Knowledge (religion) for their spellcraft.
The big clue that this is required, is that over the last decade, it's clear that even the adventure writers haven't been able to agree on what skill is required.
The decision to request a Spellcraft DC xx check, or the Knowlege (arcane/religion), appears to be utterly arbitary.
So the PCs effectively have to buy both skills, to cover themselves.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having the relevant skill be a specific Knowledge, allows the creation of an 'agnostic wizard' (very apt for PF's iconic Ezren), or a 'cloistered cleric', who is able to quote chapter and verse of his religious texts, but has never seen arcane magic cast.
And it allows GMs to introduce new forms of magic into the campaign (such as psionics or technomancy), which the PCs will be initially clueless about, but as soon as they level up, can begin educating themselves on, by buying ranks in the associated skill.
If these were all covered equally via Spellcraft, there would be no surprises, or learning curve.
"We have now recovered the cabin from one of the invading tripods, in a less damaged state. With this we now believe they have come from the Red Planet!"
"Most of the riders dissolve when killed, but our agents were able to preserve one within moments of its death. With the knowledge from its mind, we could unlock the secrets of their crafts!"
So, one of the big changes Pathfinder made to the 3.x system was skill consolidation. Hide & Move Silently became Stealth, Look, Listen, and Spot became Perception, and so on. And on a whole, I think those were good changes. Which is why I can't, for the life of me, think why Spellcraft wasn't folded into Knowledge (Arcana). I mean, the two skills are basically knowledge about magic. They both occupy the same thematic space. So why are they both still individual skills?
Agreed. I've often had this thought myself.
I suspect the intent was knowing (avid sports fan) vs. doing (athlete), but in practice the distinction is usually lost.
|
The difficulty I had in making Spellcraft a function of Knowledge is that suddenly casters needed 2-3 skills to cover what previously was only one. Skill points don't stretch as far anymore and make it much more difficult for characters. This may or may not be desirable to you.
(I used Arcana for arcane, Religion for divine, and Nature for druid/ranger divine spells.)
Having the relevant skill be a specific Knowledge, allows the creation of an 'agnostic wizard' (very apt for PF's iconic Ezren), or a 'cloistered cleric', who is able to quote chapter and verse of his religious texts, but has never seen arcane magic cast.
And it allows GMs to introduce new forms of magic into the campaign (such as psionics or technomancy), which the PCs will be initially clueless about, but as soon as they level up, can begin educating themselves on, by buying ranks in the associated skill.
If these were all covered equally via Spellcraft, there would be no surprises, or learning curve."We have now recovered the cabin from one of the invading tripods, in a less damaged state. With this we now believe they have come from the Red Planet!"
"Most of the riders dissolve when killed, but our agents were able to preserve one within moments of its death. With the knowledge from its mind, we could unlock the secrets of their crafts!"
I don't disagree with your view, but I don't think they should be separate skills, I would prefer them to be subjects within a skill, like languages - it's not exactly realistic: "I killed the vampire, now I speak Sylvan." :S
But within the areas of natural, supernatural, and cultural you could choose fields of study: Eg. for know(supernatural):- Arcane magic
- Arcane writing(spellbook-writing: key for wizard/magus)
- Divine magic
- Constructs
- Psychic magic
- Dragons
- Outer Planes
- Undead(Undeads?)
and so on and so forth...
Know(natural) would offer climate zones, terrain types, animals, plants, etc.
Know(cultural) would offer historical periods, countries/areas, peoples, houses, etc.
These fewer knowledge skills would not only be what you know, but also how you study subjects and obtain new knowledge.
If - for example - a character has a racial trait that gives a +2 on Knowledge(history), he instead chooses two areas of study per rank in know(cultural).
It's still a work in progress :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, one could even just do to Spellcraft what they did to Concentration, and make it a caster level check instead of a separate skill. That has a certain appeal to me. That way a fighter9/wizard 1 is not going to have the same understanding of magic as a wizard 9/fighter 1, which seems appropriate to me, and one could create a couple feats that would boost this caster level check in the same way Combat Casting does for concentration checks.
|
|
The difficulty I had in making Spellcraft a function of Knowledge is that suddenly casters needed 2-3 skills to cover what previously was only one.
In practice, though, the casters were already paying twice, to cover Spellcraft (for arcane and divine knowledge), plus Knowledge (their own speciality).
That doesn't change the cost, for arcane or divine casters, if they purchase two Knowledges.
And if skill points are tight, such as for a 2-skill class with no Int requirement, such as cleric or sorcerer, they would now have the option of buying ranks in only their own field of study.
|
|
It really hurts the few characters that want to counterspell, since they may not have the skill to identify the enemy spellcaster's spell.
However, looking at spellcraft again I've been reminded about just how much overlap there is between it and knowledge arcana. :/ I notice that the DCs for identifying a spell are different for each skill too. It very much is a separation of theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge.
Leave it the way it is, increase the difficulties a bit, and give synergy bonuses if you have the appropriate knowledge: nature, religion or arcana.
Knowledge: Religion would be knowing that the dagger with a feather that is dipped in blood is the unholy symbol of a certain entity. Knowledge: Arcana is the knowledge that if you want to block possession or charm spells, you probably want to use Protection from (Insert Alignment Here). Spellcraft is going "oh hell, that person is casting a Fireball! If I cast one back at him, I can block the spell!" or "hmm, I believe the texture and smell of this potion is indicative of a healing potion."
And who's to say a fighter might not have a working knowledge of magical items and the like? He might not be as talented or skilled as a regular wizard, but he still knows how it works. The example of the fighter/wizard and the regular wizard ignores the fact the fighter/wizard probably doesn't have a high intelligence while the straight wizard does... giving the latter a likely +2 or +3 bonus over that of the multiclasser.
Actually, I'd say Knowledge: Arcana would be used to look at an area that was hit by a fireball and realize that a Fireball was used here... or even to realize that the spell cast upon the observer was a Fireball. But it would not be the precise knowledge for that exact moment needed to cast a Counterspell.
The one issue that i dont see being discussed is that spellcraft isnt just a function of knowing about magic, its about doing/making stuff too. You use spellcraft to identify magic items, but also to make them, or to put spells into spellbooks. These are all active things. Knowledges are about knowing, not doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you know, if we're not going to make a distinction between knowing and doing, there are other skills that will get collapsed too. Examples: Survival and Knowledge (nature) or (dungeoneering), Knowledge (engineering) and some Craft or Profession skills, perhaps Diplomacy and Knowledge (nobility) or (local). There's maybe something to be said for this kind of simplification, and I actually do something like this in the game I run for my (small) kids, where I basically have confined skills to Athletics, Magic, Nature, Sneaking, and People. But I find the present system works pretty well for me. It's certainly an improvement over 3.5! (though that's not saying it couldn't be improved still further.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see any overlap at all in play. Spellcraft is specifically about identifying spells and magical effects it's also pretty much the Craft Magic item skill that's teamed with the craft magic item feats.. Knowledge Arcana is about arcane matters other than spells and their artifice for the most part.It really hurts the few characters that want to counterspell, since they may not have the skill to identify the enemy spellcaster's spell.
However, looking at spellcraft again I've been reminded about just how much overlap there is between it and knowledge arcana. :/ I notice that the DCs for identifying a spell are different for each skill too. It very much is a separation of theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge.
Problem is, there really aren't any arcane matters beyond spells and magic items. I guess there are Magical Beasts, but you might as well rename the skill to Knowledge (Magical Beasts) in that case.
also bluff and sense motive are another two skills which needs to put toghether (streetwise from 4thE)Put Knowledge Local in there too.
Knowledge (local) is definitely a problem. Either it is redundant with using diplomacy to gather information, or it magically applies to whatever locale in which you happen to find yourself. *boggle*
I am so for this kind of consolidation. It does sometimes create strange characters who are skilled in some area that doesn't seem to make sense (such as a woodsman being able to identify druid spells as they are cast), but we already have that and having a bit more of it won't break anything.
Linguistics and forgery, for instance, are a pretty good example. Noam Chomsky could probably do some mad forgeries, under the pathfinder ruleset. I don't think this breaks anything.
|
Knowledge (local) is definitely a problem. Either it is redundant with using diplomacy to gather information, or it magically applies to whatever locale in which you happen to find yourself. *boggle*
Knowledge (local) is moronic. I spent a good ten years with the wrong understanding of it, one that made a hell of a lot more sense. Then someone "corrected" me that you don't have to actually chose an area. Knowledge (Sandpoint) would make the skill a LOT weaker, but it would also make a hell of a lot more sense.
Knowledge (local) is moronic. I spent a good ten years with the wrong understanding of it, one that made a hell of a lot more sense. Then someone "corrected" me that you don't have to actually chose an area. Knowledge (Sandpoint) would make the skill a LOT weaker, but it would also make a hell of a lot more sense.
Exactly. that's pretty much how every other RPG handles it. Even if you could pick entire countries at a time (Knowledge: Varisia) it still wouldn't be over-powered.
I can't help but think something about knowledge (local) got "lost in translation" somewhere and they just went with it... :P
Knowledge (local) is moronic. I spent a good ten years with the wrong understanding of it, one that made a hell of a lot more sense. Then someone "corrected" me that you don't have to actually chose an area. Knowledge (Sandpoint) would make the skill a LOT weaker, but it would also make a hell of a lot more sense.Exactly. that's pretty much how every other RPG handles it. Even if you could pick entire countries at a time (Knowledge: Varisia) it still wouldn't be over-powered.
I can't help but think something about knowledge (local) got "lost in translation" somewhere and they just went with it... :P
In the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book, all of the knowledge (local) skills that people had were specified.
Knowledge (local [Moonsea])
Knowledge (local [Rashemen])
Knowledge (local [Mulhorand])
And so on.
Noam Chomsky could probably do some mad forgeries, under the pathfinder ruleset.
Somebody should tell the guy!
Actually, I believe Linguistics does have specifications that need to be done. While programs like Hero Labs don't include it, when you take the Linguistics skill it's EITHER you get a language... or you get Forgery. You have to specify what the point is for.
In my game, I do have Knowledge (Local) function for the region you know about. However, once someone has spent a couple weeks in a new region, it would work for that as well - they know how to listen to the locals and learn various stories in the area.
As for Knowledge (Arcana), think of it this way. Spellcraft is practical magical knowledge. Knowledge (Arcana) is a Master's Degree or PhD in magical theory, and useful in crafting new spells and the like. But really, you as the GM ultimately choose how to interpret these abilities. It's your game!
And if you want to get rid of Spellcraft and use these other skills instead? Go ahead! Houserules happen all the time and are welcome outside of "official" play.
It makes more sense to me for CL + casting mod to replace spellcraft.
Spellcraft can be used to reveal the nature of divine spells, even if your an arcane caster.
Knowledge Local is really just your 'ear to the ground' skill. You pick up on local customs quick, you've heard tales of the city before you got there, things like that. It's not really you studying a single area, but everywhere at once.
How does that differ from using diplomacy to gather information?
Knowledge Local gathers a bunch of rumors. Diplomacy gets specific information. It's the difference between aiming for a specific target and just aiming at random. Seeing that Diplomacy also affects the improvement of how someone views you, they're different enough that they require two separate stats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm jumping on the "Spellcraft -> Practical Magic" & "Knowledge (Arcana) -> Theoretical Magic" bandwagon.
"Knowledge (Arcana) -> ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, constructs, dragons, magical beasts"
"Spellcraft -> the art of casting spells, identifying magic items, crafting magic items, and identifying spells as they are being cast."
Both clipped (and lightly reformatted) from their respective skill pages.
So, based on the descriptions then Knowledge(Arcana) would be more of the culture, creatures, and theory of magic. It would be able to identify a caster's style if it was distinct enough to come from a specific magical academy or perhaps that the locations of recent murders coincide with laylines for some sort of eldrich ritual. Or maybe just, "That's no turtle... that's a Dragon Turtle!"
With Spellcraft, it's more along the lines of "The somatic component had a swish and flick... he's casting levitate!" or "Hrm, there is a moderate transmutation aura surrounding this box. The runes barely legible on this side appear to represent some sort of fabricate spell. Lastly, it tastes like salt water and pine tar. This thing is a folding boat."
So, essentially if the information is flavor, plot, or hints of some variety then it's likely Knowledge(Arcana). If the information is mechanical or technical info then it's likely Spellcraft.
However, the game does let you swap them occasionally for some things that just run straight up the middle such as spell research that mixes the practical with the theoretical.
Knowledge (Arcana) already allows you to identify constructs, dragons and magical beasts, and to know about magical traditions. Spellcraft is useful for all magical crafting abilities and identifies hostile spells and magic items. They're already in the upper tier of useful skills.
Knowledge (Arcana) already allows you to identify constructs, dragons and magical beasts, and to know about magical traditions. Spellcraft is useful for all magical crafting abilities and identifies hostile spells and magic items. They're already in the upper tier of useful skills.
I know... that's why I quoted that part from their skill pages I got from the PRD like I said I did in the message that you posted after...
I'm primarily arguing that they each have a niche and said niche is even explained in the core rule book. I'm also giving examples and expanding on the information given in the book to further round out my argument.