Spellcraft as Alternative to Use Magic Device


Homebrew and House Rules


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Plenty of people have touched on this subject, but no one has really gotten into the meat of it. Basically, this:

To start with, Spellcraft is the only way to identify spells as they are being cast. This means that spellcraft focuses on the various components involved in making spells go "boom". Also, it is the basic requisite for MAKING magic items. Lastly, it is the only real way to IDENTIFY any magic item using Detect Magic.

Simply put, Spellcraft possesses all of the necessary abilities and properties to use magical devices, i.e. scrolls, wands, etc. However, it seems like with all of this being fact, it is still unusable to make magic items work. I can understand people not wanting Spellcraft to be a Rogue Class Skill, but it is somewhat strange that Wizards, the only class that is fully dedicated to learning and studying magic, is less intrinsically apt to use magic devices than even the most lowly Paladin. Paladins generally have higher Charisma than Wizards are likely to have. I can get Charisma being key for spontaneous casters to use magical items, but it seems a bit daft to assume that knowing how to identify and CREATE magic items (not to mention be able to accurately identify a spell being cast by observing various obscure words and gestures) would not grant one the ability to use said items.

Example: Cooperative Crafting. A Wizard with Craft Wand can get a Cleric to help him make a wand of Cure Light Wounds, but he still can't use it without high Charisma and countless ranks into a cross-class skill. The basis of Use Magic Device being the only way to use magic devices just ends up turning off-class wands and scrolls into placeholders for gold. So many times a party I am in has found a cool wand or scroll, but nope, can't use it. We don't have a (relevant class), and none of us have Use Magic Device as a class skill. "Well, I guess we can sell it."

I understand that Use Magic Device uses Charisma because you have to "fool" the device, in so many words. However, if you know all the nuts and bolts that go into what makes the spell work, shouldn't that be just as valuable?

In closing, based on the facts of what Spellcraft does, it seems it should be a logical alternative to Use Magic Device. The same way Wizards and Sorcerers both draw on Arcane Magic, though in two entirely different ways. Study Vs. Intuitive.

I assume I'll get plenty of people quoting the rules. I know. I have read the rules. This is one thing I disagreed with in 3.5, and thought should have been amended. Just doesn't make any logical sense to me. And yes, I know that it is a game, so logic isn't a prerequisite.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You don't understand the history and heritage of Use Magical Device. It's original incarnation was the 1st edition Thief ability to get magic items to just work by fooling around with them, which Gygax took straight from Fritz Leiber's Grey Mouser series. It evolved into Use Magical Device in third edition which as you might guess, was made into a class skill for rogues and appropriately sorcerers.

It was never intended as yet another boost for wizards.

Spellcraft has enough uses for it that it does not need another.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:

You don't understand the history and heritage of Use Magical Device. It's original incarnation was the 1st edition Thief ability to get magic items to just work by fooling around with them, which Gygax took straight from Fritz Leiber's Grey Mouser series. It evolved into Use Magical Device in third edition which as you might guess, was made into a class skill for rogues and appropriately sorcerers.

It was never intended as yet another boost for wizards.

Spellcraft has enough uses for it that it does not need another.

Not to be rude, but I really don't care about the history. Originally, mages only got 1 spell to start with. Originally, you had to be Fighter/Rogue/Druid just to qualify to be a Bard. Originally, Stealth was Hide and Move Silently, while Perception was Listen and Spot. Times change, and while we should remember history, it shouldn't be at the cost of common sense. I don't think it is a boost for Wizards any more than it would be a boost for any class that isn't Sorcerer/Rogue. Really, Wizards are pure magicians. More so than any other class. Sure, Wizards have (the potential for) versatility, but Sorcerers get more spells per day, eschew materials, better weapon choices, and Bloodlines which grant them all sorts of bonuses/spells/feats without any negatives attached.

All of the uses for Spellcraft are the reason it makes sense for it to be a functional way to use magic items. Making magic items. Identifying magic items. Identifying all of the aspects of what makes a spell a spell.

A decent example(though plenty of people will foolishly disagree):

Your mechanic is one of the best drivers you know, if not THE best. Why? Because he has spent his life studying cars. Getting his hands all up in them. Learning exactly what they can and cannot do. Knowing the subtle differences between vehicles most people take for granted. Experience in dealing with a broad range of different makes and models. He doesn't possess this skill due to his charisma or force of will. It is learning and experience that makes him a great driver.

History should be appreciated, but if we didn't adapt and evolve, we wouldn't have minor actions or cantrips. We have them because they make sense. Not because of some obscure aspect of D&D lore.


Sure, you can houserule it that way if you want.

Personally I think it is a pretty awful houserule. Moving UMD to spellcraft does nothing for the classes who actually need it (rogues, fighters and other non-casting martials) and gives full casters, especially wizards, another unnecessary boost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe instead some of the Spellcraft functions should be moved over to Knowledge (Arcana)?


Blakmane wrote:

Sure, you can houserule it that way if you want.

Personally I think it is a pretty awful houserule. Moving UMD to spellcraft does nothing for the classes who actually need it (rogues, fighters and other non-casting martials) and gives full casters, especially wizards, another unnecessary boost.

It isn't about removing UMD. It is about letting the people who have learned about magic use that learning. UMD is still there for people who don't want to learn. It is still viable for all classes. You choose. It is, as I mentioned in my first post, like the difference between intuitive and learned casters.

And I still don't get why it is kept being referred to as a "boost" for Wizards. They have plenty of downsides, and their sole purpose is the study and practice of magic. It is logical that they would be able to use that actual knowledge and experience to activate/use magical items. I am using Wizards because they are the most blatant example. If anything, as it stands, it is a huge "boost" for Sorcerers. They get all the versatility of Wizards, and don't have to really suffer in any way. Heck, Bards would fall into that same category. They were pretty brutal in 3.5, and they only got better.

It is kind of a crap shoot for everyone else. All the other skills have variable DCs that don't instantly start at 20+. Sure, sometimes the DCs are high, but not every single time. Say you have a Fighter with only 6 Charisma. He doesn't have UMD as a class skill. He has to be level 2 just to ATTEMPT UMD with a wand. He couldn't even use a scroll. That fighter you were talking about is still unable to actually UMD. Spellcraft would maybe give him an option, if he has some Intelligence.

I just think it is illogical to assume that force of will is viable for UMD, but intrinsic knowledge and experience isn't.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

Maybe instead some of the Spellcraft functions should be moved over to Knowledge (Arcana)?

I don't think that would work, mainly because Spellcraft is basically only for "spells". There are plenty of "functions" for Spellcraft, but they all have to do with the identification and recreation of spells. Item crafting, identifying items/spells, preparing spells, learning new spells. Arcana is more about the "world" of magic, it seems. Dragons, golems, magical beasts, etc. Also, Arcana CAN be used to identify magic under certain circumstances, so the fairly singular function of Spellcraft is already diluted somewhat by Knowledge(Arcana).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

... Did you just try to say bards were better or comparable to sorc/wiz in 3.5? Maybe i'm misunderstanding you. Using the wizard is a very poor example, because it is widely considered to be the most powerful class in the game. Anything that benefits wizards and other full casters is probably bad game inclusion, purely from a balance perspective.

As for casting a spell from a wand or scroll using intrinsic knowledge and experience: a spellcasting class can already do that without needing spellcraft OR UMD. UMD is specifically about 'tricking' an item into thinking you are an eligible target, or 'faking' magical talent in order to cast something you really shouldn't be able to. It's not meant for spellcasting classes at all, outside of the bard and perhaps sorc.

As for your 6 CHA fighter: yes, except INT is also a dump stat for fighters. I guess a lore warden might benefit from an INT based UMD -- although if you were desperate for that you could just spend the trait.


Blakmane wrote:

... Did you just try to say bards were better or comparable to sorc/wiz in 3.5? Maybe i'm misunderstanding you. Using the wizard is a very poor example, because it is widely considered to be the most powerful class in the game. Anything that benefits wizards and other full casters is probably bad game inclusion, purely from a balance perspective.

As for casting a spell from a wand or scroll using intrinsic knowledge and experience: a spellcasting class can already do that without needing spellcraft OR UMD. UMD is specifically about 'tricking' an item into thinking you are an eligible target, or 'faking' magical talent in order to cast something you really shouldn't be able to. It's not meant for spellcasting classes at all, outside of the bard and perhaps sorc.

As for your 6 CHA fighter: yes, except INT is also a dump stat for fighters. I guess a lore warden might benefit from an INT based UMD -- although if you were desperate for that you could just spend the trait.

Sublime chord.


BigDTBone wrote:
Blakmane wrote:

... Did you just try to say bards were better or comparable to sorc/wiz in 3.5? Maybe i'm misunderstanding you. Using the wizard is a very poor example, because it is widely considered to be the most powerful class in the game. Anything that benefits wizards and other full casters is probably bad game inclusion, purely from a balance perspective.

As for casting a spell from a wand or scroll using intrinsic knowledge and experience: a spellcasting class can already do that without needing spellcraft OR UMD. UMD is specifically about 'tricking' an item into thinking you are an eligible target, or 'faking' magical talent in order to cast something you really shouldn't be able to. It's not meant for spellcasting classes at all, outside of the bard and perhaps sorc.

As for your 6 CHA fighter: yes, except INT is also a dump stat for fighters. I guess a lore warden might benefit from an INT based UMD -- although if you were desperate for that you could just spend the trait.

Sublime chord.

3.5 Bards have songs that buff the whole party, and last, by the rules, as long as the Bard decides to sing. No concentration or endurance checks. They can cast Arcane(spontaneous) spells that include Cure spells. They have skills comparable to the Rogue. They have decent weapon selection, and can cast while wearing light armor. So you have a guy who can summon and buff with spells to start the battle, cure after, buff the whole party with song all day, be an adept skill-monkey, and still hold his own in the middle of the fray. Yes. I am saying 3.5 Bard is comparable to Wizards/Sorcerers. Really, Bards in 3.5 can hold their own solo better than any other class aside from maybe Clerics & Druids. Sure he can't cast Fireball. Unless he uses a wand. Which he could. Charisma is important for Bards, and UMD is a class skill. He may not be throwing out massive damage "himself", but he can add +1-4 damage to all his allies attacks while still doing plenty of damage himself. With a multi-class into pretty much anything, the 3.5 Bard could be a monster for a smart player.

That's not the point I am going for, however. This thread isn't about the dump-stat/min-maxing of characters that seems to overtake every discussion. It is about the basic facts of Spellcraft. It is already kind of a catch-all for other skills. Use Arcana OR Spellcraft to identify spells. Use Craft OR Spellcraft when crafting items. Use relevant Knowledge AND Spellcraft to create new spells. Spellcraft or UMD seems perfectly logical for activating/using magic items. It is like this: I dare you to find a computer repair tech who isn't also a wiz with programs and general computer usage, because the knowledge of HOW it works imparts the knowledge of how to MAKE it work.

I dig the civil discourse. I will stick to my opinion, but any and all disagreement is welcome.

Side-note: I agree that Wizards/Sorcerers are WAY powerful in the right hands. No doubt. However, as a DM, I know all it takes is a stealthy Rogue to eat their lunch in short order. Like rhinos: Shoot a rhino with enough tranquilizer to drop an elephant, and he will just get mad. Chase him with a jeep for 5-10 minutes, and he will die of adrenaline shock. Powerful and weak. All classes have strengths and weaknesses. Some more obvious than others.


Jordo13 wrote:
I dare you to find a computer repair tech who isn't also a wiz with programs and general computer usage, because the knowledge of HOW it works imparts the knowledge of how to MAKE it work.

You've never dealt with the "Geek Squad" in my area. Consider yourself fortunate. I've finally convinced my mother in law just to bring her computer issues to me instead, and I'm an amateur.

As far as "common sense" goes, from reading your post and the way you responded to others, we have significantly different perspectives on how things work. Best I can offer is a, "hope it works out for you and good gaming."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since UMD is basically pretending you are someone who should be able to use it, using your force of personality to sell it, I'd be more inclined to roll it up with Bluff than with Spellcraft.


Da'ath wrote:
Jordo13 wrote:
I dare you to find a computer repair tech who isn't also a wiz with programs and general computer usage, because the knowledge of HOW it works imparts the knowledge of how to MAKE it work.

You've never dealt with the "Geek Squad" in my area. Consider yourself fortunate. I've finally convinced my mother in law just to bring her computer issues to me instead, and I'm an amateur.

As far as "common sense" goes, from reading your post and the way you responded to others, we have significantly different perspectives on how things work. Best I can offer is a, "hope it works out for you and good gaming."

Ha! I don't consider Geek Squad to be anything other than hard-drive wiping virus injectors.


Jordo13 wrote:


Ha! I don't consider Geek Squad to be anything other than hard-drive wiping virus injectors.

They're horrible. You'd think they'd be able to properly install a power supply, but nope!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Use Magic Device should be a feat or class feature.


Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Use Magic Device should be a feat or class feature.

I never really thought of it that way before, but it's an interesting idea. Perhaps as a modification, in the case of rogue, to disable device?


Well, consider that (as somebody pointed out well above) Use Magic Device used to be a Thief (later Rogue) class feature back in 1st/2nd Edition.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Da'ath wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Use Magic Device should be a feat or class feature.
I never really thought of it that way before, but it's an interesting idea. Perhaps as a modification, in the case of rogue, to disable device?

Why? for the classes that need it and are appropriate for it, it's a class skill. and those classes have skill points to burn.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jordo13 wrote:

It isn't about removing UMD. It is about letting the people who have learned about magic use that learning. UMD is still there for people who don't want to learn. It is still viable for all classes. You choose. It is, as I mentioned in my first post, like the difference between intuitive and learned casters.

And I still don't get why it is kept being referred to as a "boost" for Wizards. They have plenty of downsides, and their sole purpose is the study and practice of magic. It is logical that they would be able to use that actual knowledge and experience to activate/use magical items. I am using Wizards because they are the most blatant example. If anything, as it stands, it is a huge "boost" for Sorcerers. They get all the versatility of Wizards, and don't have to really suffer in any way. Heck, Bards would fall into that same category. They were pretty brutal in 3.5, and they only got better.

Wizards get to use that learning. For one.... they cast spells. For two,, they can wield any staff or wand or scroll that utilises spells on their spell list.

There is absolutely no reason for wizards to have the built in ability to poach on divine spellcasting which is the ONLY significant impact this rule would have.


LazarX wrote:
Da'ath wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Use Magic Device should be a feat or class feature.
I never really thought of it that way before, but it's an interesting idea. Perhaps as a modification, in the case of rogue, to disable device?
Why? for the classes that need it and are appropriate for it, it's a class skill. and those classes have skill points to burn.

...grazing into another ground of debate. Keep giving skill monkeys skills that no one else can take because they have the skill points to burn; meanwhile that fighter has to choose between swim, climb, or survival this level.

To the topic at hand:
While I agree with the OP's opinion on the mechanics of it, I'd argue the balance of it. "Wizards can't cast divine spells, oh well" seems to be the stance the developers took with this - so that's the complaint? They can do everything else. I've heard of no other "God" class. It seems to me this could all be reconciled with a homebrewed feat or class feature, but as of yet Paizo has no interest in expanding the Wiz's role in a party beyond the physics-defying, ultra gamebreaker that a high level wizard already achieves.

Also, for those interested: Pragmatic Activator doesn't make it a class skill, but builds on that Wizard's already atmospheric casting stat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's purely mechanical. And fair as a mechanic. In theory, I agree with you, it makes zero sense that UMD is not a class skill for wizards. In game, however, it makes perfect sense from a balance perspective. It's the same reason wizards can't cure spells. Makes little sense logically, tons of sense mechanically, so we just live with it.

Besides, if you are a wizard and can't find better things to do than UMD you're not doing it right.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

I'm not a fan of combining magical skils together. Magic has such a large impact on the game that it makes little sense to combine magical skills together. Besides, Use Magic Device has very distinctly different use-cases than Spellcraft, and it's fairly easy for mages to twink their Spellcraft to absurd levels.

Combining Use Magic Device with Spellcraft would be nothing more than an unnecessary buff to spellcasters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jordo13 wrote:
In closing, based on the facts of what Spellcraft does, it seems it should be a logical alternative to Use Magic Device. The same way Wizards and Sorcerers both draw on Arcane Magic, though in two entirely different ways. Study Vs. Intuitive.

Did someone say study? Pragmatic Activator trait


LazarX wrote:
Why? for the classes that need it and are appropriate for it, it's a class skill. and those classes have skill points to burn.

I am, as a general rule, always interested in theory-crafting, whether it results in a dead end or not. To clarify, I'm interested in Cieran's expanded opinion on the topic, assuming he has more to say.


Change "Disable Device" to "Manipulate Device"?


LazarX wrote:


There is absolutely no reason for wizards to have the built in ability to poach on divine spellcasting which is the ONLY significant impact this rule would have.

Not entirely so -- it would also make Thassilonian/Sin Magic Specialist Wizards more viable by allowing them to poach back parts of their own spell list that their heightened specialization puts off limits (as opposed to just making inefficient to use as for normal specialists). Also would allow them to poach certain spells of other Arcane casters that are not on their list (yes, the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list is huge, but it doesn't have EVERYTHING Arcane -- notably some Bard and Witch spells are not on their list, and scattered spells of other Arcane casters are not on their spell list, although only a few of those are ones they would generally want to use on a device).

KahnyaGnorc wrote:


Change "Disable Device" to "Manipulate Device"?

Actually not a bad idea . . . Would also help Rogues and similar characters instead of just helping Wizards.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Spellcraft as Alternative to Use Magic Device All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules