Comprehensive Education Racial Trait


Rules Questions

51 to 82 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pounce wrote:

Racial bonuses stack, as has been stated earlier in this thread. Might as well bold it for your convenience :)

Quote:
With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works.

Hunh. I stand corrected. Thanks.

This actually makes the question of what the RAI is relevant...

Liberty's Edge

Weirdo wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Weirdo wrote:

Rogue gets 8+Int skill points/level, and only 2 knowledge skills as class skills.

Ranger, Hunter, and Slayer all get 6+Int skill points and 3 knowledge class skills.

Alchemist gets 4+Int (with lots of Int) and 2. Note that the Mindchemist - the knowledge-focused alchemist archetype - doesn't actually get extra class skills.

Most characters will prefer the skill point a level but there are a good assortment of characters that might get more use out of +3 to 7 or 8 knowledge skills and +1 to the rest.

Magus, int based and 3 knowledge skills as class skills.
I considered the magus, but they've only got 2+Int skill points so even with a high Int I think they're a little more likely to value the skill point over the class skills. I could still certainly see a magus taking that alternate trait but I think it's overall a little less beneficial for them. Flavour is potentially good, though - my group likes magi with aristocratic backgrounds which would be well reflected by a decent Knowledge (Nobility) and Knowledge (History).

If, like me, you generally put 1 point in several knowledge skills early in your career, having them as class skills is good. You get a +3 or +1 in several skills early on. By level 7 I would have at least 1 point in 6-7 Knowledge skills, that is something like 15 points when the skilled bonus at that time would have net me only 7.

Not e that the Occult books have added the Know. (Psionic) skill, so now they are 11. And your master can use some custom Knowledge skill too.


Byakko wrote:
To those saying it could grant a +10 bonus, sorry, that's not how it works.

Sorry Byakko, that isn't how it works.

Quote:

Even if you ignore the RAI, RAW says:

"gain a +1 racial bonus on skill checks for each Knowledge skill"

You would thus logically gain the following if you had 3 qualifying skills:
+1 racial bonus on skill checks
+1 racial bonus on skill checks
+1 racial bonus on skill checks

As these are all racial bonuses, they won't stack with each other.

Racial bonuses actually do stack with each other, for one, one of the few kinds of bonuses that do. For two, if it were simply a +1 to each skill that the class was granted then it would not say:

"gain a +1 racial bonus on skill checks for each knowledge skill"

It would say

"gain a +1 racial bonus on skill checks made with each knowledge skill"


I think we can all agree that, whichever they meant, the wording could be clearer. When I first read it* I was convinced that con-cumulative bonuses were what it meant, but I am not so sure now.

Cumulative bonuses would mean that the less you get from the first part, the more you get from the second and vice versa, which makes sense. I do think that the bonus was almost-certainly only supposed to apply to knowledge skills though, so even if they did men it to be cumulative they dropped the ball there!

_
glass.

(* Partly because I was mixing up Racial Trait and Race Trait again.)


My point is that when the wording can go either way, the way that is 5000% less powerful of an option is the way to go. As someone else put it, +10 to every skill at level 1 is just far too powerful, whether it scales later or not. Hell, an extra +10 to every skill is too powerful at level 10, especially just for a race trait.

The more conservative wording is comparable in power to the base human skilled trait, and thus I am wholly convinced that the more conservative interpretation is 100% correct and people who try to argue with me at my table the other way would be given a firm "no, stop asking."


Johnny_Devo: My issue here is that there is only really one good reading in this instance and on the other side is RAI. The "5000% less powerful" version of the reading just takes too much verbal gymnastics to get to to be an accurate read IMO. So I'm either left with an option that's 5000% more powerful or an option that's 5000% less readable from the text.

"The more conservative wording" IMO is ignoring the actual text for the RAI. That's not a bad option and it's most likely what they meant but it's not what I'd call RAW. It needs an FAQ/errata before it can be used without house-ruling it.


graystone wrote:

Johnny_Devo: My issue here is that there is only really one good reading in this instance and on the other side is RAI. The "5000% less powerful" version of the reading just takes too much verbal gymnastics to get to to be an accurate read IMO. So I'm either left with an option that's 5000% more powerful or an option that's 5000% less readable from the text.

"The more conservative wording" IMO is ignoring the actual text for the RAI. That's not a bad option and it's most likely what they meant but it's not what I'd call RAW. It needs an FAQ/errata before it can be used without house-ruling it.

I guess it's just a difference of opinion, then.

From a previous post of mine:

Quote:


Should be

"each knowledge skill that they gain as a class skill from class levels gains a +1 racial bonus."

Shorter, more clear.

but if the cumulative was meant, it should read:

"All skill checks gain a racial bonus equal to the number of knowledge skills that they gain as a class skill from their class levels."

By my reading, you have to change a lot more to make it only readable as the cumulative bonus, and change a lot less to make it only readable as the single bonus. This makes it even more in favor of the more conservative reading. Again, in my opinion, but I'm pretty convinced of it.

Shadow Lodge

Pretty sure I know what went wrong with the writing:

"Comprehensive Education: Humans raised with skilled teachers draw upon vast swathes of knowledge gained over centuries of civilization. They gain all Knowledge skills as class skills, and they gain a +1 racial bonus on skill checks for each Knowledge skill that they gain as a class skill from their class levels. This racial trait replaces skilled."

"Comprehensive Education: Humans raised with skilled teachers draw upon vast swathes of knowledge gained over centuries of civilization. They gain all Knowledge skills as class skills, and they gain a +1 racial bonus on skill checks to each Knowledge skill that they gain as a class skill from their class levels. This racial trait replaces skilled."

The latter is perfectly clear and not clumsy at all, but if you're not paying attention to prepositions you end up with the decidedly odd actual text.

Diego Rossi wrote:

If, like me, you generally put 1 point in several knowledge skills early in your career, having them as class skills is good. You get a +3 or +1 in several skills early on. By level 7 I would have at least 1 point in 6-7 Knowledge skills, that is something like 15 points when the skilled bonus at that time would have net me only 7.

Note that the Occult books have added the Know. (Psionic) skill, so now they are 11. And your master can use some custom Knowledge skill too.

I usually only train 3-4 knowledge skills by level 10 or so, and most of those are already class skills, to the typical payoff for me would be more in the +5 to +8 range. But of course I wouldn't use it for the typical character. I'd use it for a scholarly alchemist or monster hunter slayer or a similar character that called for a broader knowledge base. Which, for an alternate racial trait, is exactly what you want - not obviously better than the default but still worthwhile to a significant subset of characters.


So let me see if I get this right.

A wizard gets a couple knowledges, adds a few points cumulative at level one to his knowledge skills and ALSO gets +3 to any other knowledge because they are all now class skills, and that's somehow equal to +1 skill point a level?

Or a bard getting plus 10 to everything at level one to all his skills (on top of being a bard and getting a massive class bonus anyways but not 10 UNTIL he's level 20) and that's the same as +1 Skill point per level?

Yup seems balanced here.

Not +1 to things originally class skills and all others treated as class skills instead of +1 skill a level because yes that's obviously not the intent, or even as it's written.

In case people can't see what I'm writing here or its intent, being sarcastic.

Class skills get +3 when you put a point in. That's the big pay off. If they were already class skills you get plus one. Which, while it's not the same as 20 skills overall, it's vastly more than you'd get off the bat.

Original intent AND as written seems clear. Good bonus at the start, in exchange for more variety later. Even trying to screw this up to see the other way I just can't do it.


Cavall: You can't go by relative values of alternate traits and those they replace. Some are of wildly different values. Sacred Tattoo and Dual Minded are good examples off the top of my head.


Perhaps but 100 skill point boost at level 1 vs 20 over 20 levels wildly different?

Sacred tattoo is great because of a trait to add to it, but it does seem a good option regardless.

Shadow Lodge

Yeah, Sacred Tattoo would not be nearly as good a trade for orc ferocity without Fate's Favoured (which is, really, the more unbalanced part of the combo).

As for Dual Minded, while +2 to Will saves (Iron Will) is generally better than Skill Focus, it's not as crazy-fantastic as +10 to all skills at level 1.


Weirdo wrote:

Yeah, Sacred Tattoo would not be nearly as good a trade for orc ferocity without Fate's Favoured (which is, really, the more unbalanced part of the combo).

As for Dual Minded, while +2 to Will saves (Iron Will) is generally better than Skill Focus, it's not as crazy-fantastic as +10 to all skills at level 1.

But +1 to 10 knowledge skills is crap. You have to spend 10 skill points to even use that, for one, and for two +1 skill point per level in what you want is better.

When was the last time you used something other than:
Nature, Religion, Dungeoneering, Arcana, or Planes in a game?

Even Paizo admits those skills are crap which is why they are "background skills" in optional rules.

Maybe +1 to each knowledge for each knowledge you get as a class skill... For +10 to each of the 5 common ones


HWalsh wrote:
Weirdo wrote:

Yeah, Sacred Tattoo would not be nearly as good a trade for orc ferocity without Fate's Favoured (which is, really, the more unbalanced part of the combo).

As for Dual Minded, while +2 to Will saves (Iron Will) is generally better than Skill Focus, it's not as crazy-fantastic as +10 to all skills at level 1.

But +1 to 10 knowledge skills is crap. You have to spend 10 skill points to even use that, for one, and for two +1 skill point per level in what you want is better.

When was the last time you used something other than:
Nature, Religion, Dungeoneering, Arcana, or Planes in a game?

Even Paizo admits those skills are crap which is why they are "background skills" in optional rules.

Maybe +1 to each knowledge for each knowledge you get as a class skill... For +10 to each of the 5 common ones

Well that isnt all it does , it also turns all of them into class skills , which in itself might have value ... to someone i guess.

That would give you a +3 on the ones you dont have , since they just became a class skill plus the +1 on the ones you do.

Personally i agree that is what it is meant to do , now we need an errata to fix the absurd RAW.

Anyway , most of these trades are crap unless used on certain builds , this becomes another one of them , like usual , instead of being clearly the best choice ever.


Cavall, Weirdo: My point is that trades aren't equivalent ones when trading out racial ones a lot of the time. That makes looking at a traits strength for correctness a gamble/guess at best.

To put this in perspective, you're trading out a 4 RP trait. For that you can get [+2 to any stat], [immune to paralysis, phantasms, and poison. They also gain a +2 racial bonus on saving throws against spells and spell-like abilities.], [DR 5/magic], [free feat], [Flight], [nonmagical spider climb], [automatically proficient with swordlike weapons], [See in Darkness], [Blindsense 30 Feet], [All-Around Vision], [Multi-Armed].

So does getting a bunch of bonuses on skills seem more powerful than 4 arms, spider climb, flight, DR 5/magic or ect at first level?

Shadow Lodge

First, we all know the race builder is broken. Developers making alternate racial traits aren't necessarily using those guidelines. As proof, note that dual talent, an additional +2 to any stat, trades away both skilled and the human bonus feat, not just skilled.

In fact, even if they were using those guidelines most of those substitutions would not be valid. Only one of the abilities you listed is considered a "standard" trait suitable for all races. Four are considered "advanced" meaning that they should be used cautiously because they can in some cases be unbalanced in a player race. The core races do not qualify for them, except the dwarf which barely sneaks into the advanced category but has no advanced traits. Five are "monstrous" meaning that they should not be used with standard player races.

breakdown:
Immunities: standard

+2 to a stat: advanced
Flight (clumsy): advanced
Swordtrained: advanced
See in Darkness: advanced

Blindsense: monstrous
All-around vision: monstrous
Multi-armed: monstrous
DR 5/magic: monstrous
Spider climb: monstrous

So no, 4 arms, spider climb, flight, and DR 5/magic aren't balanced with Skilled, but paizo has never indicated that a human could make that trade.

And I honestly would take +10 to all skills over both spider climb and clumsy flight, and maybe over 4 arms and DR depending on the character.

HWalsh wrote:

When was the last time you used something other than:

Nature, Religion, Dungeoneering, Arcana, or Planes in a game?

Local is possibly our most commonly rolled knowledge skill. History we roll more frequently than Dungeoneering (maybe once every other session), and the other three are used at least occasionally and are nice to put a point or two in if they are class skills.


Yes, if it's plus 10 to 10 skills.

It's actually easy to do the math. The suggestion is that if I make a bard I get 10 ranks in 10 skills at level 1. That's equal to having 33 feats of skill focus AND one point.

33 feats and a skill point seems more than all of those.

So yes. When you list the equivalent of 4 points is a free feat and I show you its 33 feats...it's more.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Cavall: It's even more extreme than that. If read the grammatically correct way, this racial trait gives a bonus to all skills, not just to knowledge. So with all knowledge skills as class skills, you've got a +10 to every single skill in the game. Grab Fast Learner and Improvisation, and suddenly you're the expert on everything.

Thought experiment: what happens if we give this trait to an NPC? How about a level 1 human expert.
They have all knowledge skills as class skills, Basic Skill NPC stats, Fast Learner, and Improvisation.

Here's what they can do (taking 10 when possible):

Run at full speed down a bar two inches wide with no chance of falling.
Jump 23 feet forward or 5 feet in the air every try.
Determine the value of a common item or find the most valuable item in a pile at a glance.
Fool an average commoner with a believable lie almost 100% of the time, an unlikely lie 75% of the time, or a far-fetched lie 50% of the time. If the commoner is taking 10 on Sense Motive, all of this will be certain.
Have a secret message understood.
Climb a typical dungeon wall or typical building's upper story wall. Or anything else easier than that, such as a rope.
Earn 11 or 12 gp per week.
Craft almost any common item.
Make an average indifferent or friendly commoner helpful.
Make an average unfriendly commoner indifferent.
Get an average hostile commoner to give you simple advice or directions.
Get an average unfriendly commoner to give you detailed advice or simple aid.
Get an average indifferent commoner to reveal an unimportant secret or give lengthy or complicated aid.
Get an average friendly commoner to give dangerous aid or reveal secret information.
Get an average helpful commoner to give aid that could result in punishment.
Disable or rig a difficult device, including traps.
Open a simple lock.
Open an average or good lock by taking 20.
Open a simple lock without tools by taking 20.
Fool average commoners with an ordinary disguise almost 100% of the time.
Fool average commoners taking 10 on Perception with almost any disguise 100% of the time.
Escape a rope tied by an average commoner or escape a net.
Escape manacles or squeeze through a tight space by taking 20.
Teach an animal a trick or rear a wild animal.
Push an animal by taking 20.
Provide first aid, long term care, or the treating of deadly wound.
Intimidate the majority of NPCs into acting friendly.
Identify most spell effects and magical materials on sight.
Identify cantrips and orisons targeting you.
Identify spells based on material component used.
Identify minerals, slope, and depth underground.
Determine a structure's danger, style, age, and weakness.
Identify ethnicities, accents, terrain features, and nearby locations.
Know historical events and their dates, even obscure and ancient ones.
Know local rumors, traditions, laws, rulers, locations, and organizations, even if they're hidden or secret.
Identify plants, animals, unnatural weather, and artificial objects.
Know current rulers, symbols, etiquette, and lines of succession.
Identify the names of planes, the current plane, and a creature's plane of origin.
Identify symbols, clergy, mythology, and tenets, even of obscure deities.
Identify the names, abilities, and weaknesses of every monster you will meet.
Forge and identify forgeries quite well.
Notice the pickpocketing or nearby sneaking of an average commmoner with almost no chance of error.
Hear a key being turned in a lock 10 ft away, a whispered conversation 60 ft away, a creature walking 110 ft away, a conversation 160 ft away, or a battle 210 ft away.
Find a secret door.
Make a great performance of any type.
Answer complex questions about any profession.
Perform pretty much any riding task.
Get a hunch about a situation or sense a dominate spell.
Determine if a random commoner is lying or interpret their secret message with almost 100% accuracy.
Steal or palm a small object.
Identify most spells as they are being cast.
Hide and be stealthy, with almost no chance of an average commoner finding you.
Survive in the wild without getting lost, and support six other people.
Predict the weather two days in advance.
Swim in rough water indefinitely.
Use a wand successfully about 55% of the time.

All this with one level in an NPC class.
You know what? Go ahead and allow this racial trait for experts. It would be fun.
"Well, of course I can do that. I have a +11 bonus in Profession (underwater basket weaving). Not to mention my +12 in Swim and my +13 in Craft (baskets)."


Avoron wrote:
It's even more extreme than that. If read the grammatically correct way

I'd just like to point out that both readings are grammatically correct because the trait itself is grammatically ambiguous.


Fair enough.
Mainly, I meant that there's no reading that will have it give a +10 bonus to Knowledge skills and not others.
Also, I haven't yet heard a good explanation of the parsing for the version that's most likely RAI.

Liberty's Edge

Crimeo wrote:

It's not that I don't see what you are talking about. It's that both are grammatically feasible, yet one yields a pants-on-head ridiculous conclusion, and the other yields a perfectly reasonable expected conclusion.

So why on earth would anybody go with the pants-on-head resulting one, given the choice?

If text can be interpreted to say something then it is guaranteed that someone will interpret it that way. No matter how implausible.

Indeed, there are plenty of rules interpretations which don't work grammatically, but people still insist on them.

In this case it seems clear to me that the +1 racial bonus applies only to "skill checks for each Knowledge skill that they gain as a class skill". That is, only to skill checks for those particular skills. The belief that the bonus instead applies to ALL skills, and increases for each Knowledge skill, seems grammatically unsupportable to me. The 'for each' is clearly a modifier to 'skill checks' not '+1 racial bonus'.


Weirdo: the categories are pretty meaningless. Not even all the core races are "standard", and it's simply a scale of how many points are spend on the race. As the substitution of traits raises/lowers these points most "standard" races can easily fall into "advanced" by counting the actual RP cost.

Even if we ignore that, Flexible stats gain a +2 bonus to any two ability scores for only 2 RP.

Shadow Lodge

Flexible Stats, as I said in the opening of my post, basically proves that you cannot use the race builder to justify an unbalanced reading of an alternate racial trait because the devs don't use the race builder.

The standard/advanced/monstrous categorization only matters in that anyone who actually was using the race builder would still not be able to add flight etc to humans in exchange for skilled, because humans are at 10 race points arbitrarily considered "standard."

If you're going to use the broken race builder rules to suggest that alternate racial traits can be broken, at least don't misinterpret the race builder to be even more broken.

Grand Lodge

For completeness, since this thread came up first, here's official clarification on Comprehensive Education.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Until there is an errata or FAQ, that's not official at all. The PDT itself has to make it so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azten wrote:
Until there is an errata or FAQ, that's not official at all. The PDT itself has to make it so.

You're correct. There is no official word that your obviously unintended, broken, interpretation of the rule is incorrect. Without FAQ or errata, you are quite free to continue using it as you wish.

In fact, even with FAQ or errata, you're quite free to play it however you want. You can decide the trait gives +100 to all skills, class or not, if you want. In your game, no one can stop you.
Expect Judges in PFS to laugh in your face if you try to rules lawyer this in on them.

The fact is, one of the designers who worked on the book has clarified what was meant. Plenty of people already interpreted it that way. The PDT is not obligated to formally correct every misreading of the rules. House rule it or play it that way.


So making a useful thing less useful is a good thing? Guess all the changes to make things useful need to be reversed, and all the good things need to be made worse. So what if it's +10? How many of the skills will anyone actually use? Or, more likely, how much more likely are they to put ranks in something? Rise of the Runelords starts with DC 30 history checks. Without something like this so why even have them? Not even the researcher in Sandpoint can make those checks.

There are characters in all kinds of media that use the knowledge they've gained to be great at anything they try. Why not in pathfinder? Because people dont want an ability to work as it was written? Sometimes even mistakes are better than something done on purpose.


Azten wrote:

So making a useful thing less useful is a good thing? Guess all the changes to make things useful need to be reversed, and all the good things need to be made worse. So what if it's +10? How many of the skills will anyone actually use? Or, more likely, how much more likely are they to put ranks in something? Rise of the Runelords starts with DC 30 history checks. Without something like this so why even have them? Not even the researcher in Sandpoint can make those checks.

There are characters in all kinds of media that use the knowledge they've gained to be great at anything they try. Why not in pathfinder? Because people dont want an ability to work as it was written? Sometimes even mistakes are better than something done on purpose.

No. Clarifying what the rule actually is, is a good thing.

If you want to argue that skills are in general not good enough, I'd likely agree with you. The fix for that is system redesign, not patching it with a mistake in one rule.

More to the point, I don't even really care about the rule. As I said, house rule it back in if you like it. It's the idea that we should all ignore the developer's clarification just because it's not delivered in the proper format. Especially when it's not an actual change, but a clarification. As I said before, many people read it as intended.

Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Azten wrote:

So making a useful thing less useful is a good thing? Guess all the changes to make things useful need to be reversed, and all the good things need to be made worse. So what if it's +10? How many of the skills will anyone actually use? Or, more likely, how much more likely are they to put ranks in something? Rise of the Runelords starts with DC 30 history checks. Without something like this so why even have them? Not even the researcher in Sandpoint can make those checks.

There are characters in all kinds of media that use the knowledge they've gained to be great at anything they try. Why not in pathfinder? Because people dont want an ability to work as it was written? Sometimes even mistakes are better than something done on purpose.

No. Clarifying what the rule actually is, is a good thing.

If you want to argue that skills are in general not good enough, I'd likely agree with you. The fix for that is system redesign, not patching it with a mistake in one rule.

More to the point, I don't even really care about the rule. As I said, house rule it back in if you like it. It's the idea that we should all ignore the developer's clarification just because it's not delivered in the proper format. Especially when it's not an actual change, but a clarification. As I said before, many people read it as intended.

Actually, it's not a Pathfinder RPG product, so it can't ever get an FAQ (it's only due to a fluke that the designers worked on it, since it needed more people to make schedule so Jason loaned us out to the development team). However, if you ever see the construction "skill check for/with the X skill", that's pretty much always going to have been edited from "X check". So, if we wrote "Acrobatics check", it would usually be edited to read "skill check with the Acrobatics skill" or "Acrobatics skill check" depending on readability and copyfit. It's one of our editing styles, just like saying "1d6 points of damage" instead of "1d6 damage", and like the distinction between when we say "on" vs "to" (on something you roll, to something static, so on attack rolls but to AC). In this case, the style wound up making the ability more confusing.


The real question now is if this is something with an emotional component, which not only seems like it is, considering it's based off of mental skills, which leads to a FAQ on such acuity being shut down by shaken. Heyo an actual use for smart monsters using intimidate in combat.


I would like to bring something to light, and that is the Phantom Thief rogue archetype. They get all knowledge skills as class skills, and these are class levels so they trigger Comprehensive Education. An immediate +10 to all skills on a class known for being a skill monkey. Add in if it is an unchained rogue, you will have so much skill it will not be funny in the slightest.

51 to 82 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Comprehensive Education Racial Trait All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.