Comprehensive Education Racial Trait


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

So I was reading human racial traits when I saw this new one from the new book.

"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." PcS:ISR

I have no idea how to understand the following: "they gain a +1 racial bonus on skill checks for each Knowledge skill that they gain as a class skill from their class levels".

Any help in making a rational interpretation is appreciated.


The way I see this is that if your class would normally grant you a knowledge skill as a class skill, you get a +1 bonus in it.
So say you are a cleric with Knowledge (arcana, history, nobility, planes, and religion). You get +1 on these skills, but not, say, knowledge (engineering). The trait grants you knowledge (engineering) as a class skill, as well as knowledge (dungeoneering, nature, and local) but you don't get a +1 in them, because you would not normally get them as a cleric. Hope that makes sense!


Acolyte of Mushu wrote:

The way I see this is that if your class would normally grant you a knowledge skill as a class skill, you get a +1 bonus in it.

So say you are a cleric with Knowledge (arcana, history, nobility, planes, and religion). You get +1 on these skills, but not, say, knowledge (engineering). The trait grants you knowledge (engineering) as a class skill, as well as knowledge (dungeoneering, nature, and local) but you don't get a +1 in them, because you would not normally get them as a cleric. Hope that makes sense!

It does. Thank you.


This is worst case of poor editing in both PF and 3.x

How it's written, it applies the bonus to ALL skill checks. The bonus itself is based on the # of trained class knowledge skills, but doesn't specify the bonus must be applied to only knowledge skills.

It is very obvious that they meant for it to only apply total +1 to a class trained Knowledge skill.


You get everything as a class skill in knowledges.

Then ones that you would have had as class skills already without this feat as class skills, you get a +1 in those.

Quote:
How it's written, it applies the bonus to ALL skill checks.

?

"gain a +1 racial bonus on skill checks for each Knowledge skill that they gain as a class skill from their class levels."


"for each".... not "to each"

"for each" means that the bonus is based on the # of Knowledge skills that you have 1+ class skill in.

"to each" is what they meant.


zook1shoe wrote:

"for each".... not "to each"

"for each" means that the bonus is based on the # of Knowledge skills that you have 1+ class skill in.

"to each" is what they meant.

Fancy meeting you here. ;p

I do believe this is the first time I have see any of your posts on these forums rather than MIN/MAX.


Yeah, it applies to checks you do FOR the knowledge:engineering skill, and to checks you do FOR the knowledge:arcana skill, etc. Each of the ones you gained as a class skill from your class levels.


i guess we'll have to agree to disagree on how the wording works


5 people marked this as a favorite.

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?

Liberty's Edge

zook1shoe wrote:

"for each".... not "to each"

"for each" means that the bonus is based on the # of Knowledge skills that you have 1+ class skill in.

"to each" is what they meant.

Even accepting your fancy interpretation they don't stack, they overlap as they are all "racial bonus". So you get a +1 several times, but they never add up.


In game rules, the construction "a +1 bonus for each [foo]" should usually be read as "a single bonus, it's size being equal to the number of [foo]".

The written rule is terrible. fortunately, RAW, even in PFS play, does not mean "you have to agree with my interpretation".


Quote:
In game rules, the construction "a +1 bonus for each [foo]" should usually be read as "a single bonus, it's size being equal to the number of [foo]".

And why is that?


Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
In game rules, the construction "a +1 bonus for each [foo]" should usually be read as "a single bonus, it's size being equal to the number of [foo]".
And why is that?

Because of the exact issue we're debating, for one. "a bonus equal to the number of [foos]" interacts better with rules like "two bonuses only" or "remove one bonus from an opponent/duplicate a bonus your ally has" than a variably sized stack of individual +1 bonii.

Liberty's Edge

Casual Viking wrote:
Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
In game rules, the construction "a +1 bonus for each [foo]" should usually be read as "a single bonus, it's size being equal to the number of [foo]".
And why is that?
Because of the exact issue we're debating, for one. "a bonus equal to the number of [foos]" interacts better with rules like "two bonuses only" or "remove one bonus from an opponent/duplicate a bonus your ally has" than a variably sized stack of individual +1 bonii.

Can you show some example from the Pathfinder game supporting your interpretation?

AFAIK when something should be multiplied the formatting is:
10 min./level
or
1d6 points of fire damage per caster level
and so on.

In every instance I can recall the multiplier is a single number, never the sum of multiple bonuses from the same source, and a race bonus is a single source.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Casual Viking wrote:
Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
In game rules, the construction "a +1 bonus for each [foo]" should usually be read as "a single bonus, it's size being equal to the number of [foo]".
And why is that?
Because of the exact issue we're debating, for one. "a bonus equal to the number of [foos]" interacts better with rules like "two bonuses only" or "remove one bonus from an opponent/duplicate a bonus your ally has" than a variably sized stack of individual +1 bonii.

Can you show some example from the Pathfinder game supporting your interpretation?

AFAIK when something should be multiplied the formatting is:
10 min./level
or
1d6 points of fire damage per caster level
and so on.

In every instance I can recall the multiplier is a single number, never the sum of multiple bonuses from the same source, and a race bonus is a single source.

I think what is being said is that it is comparable to the Phalanx Fighter feat which gives you a bonus equal the number of adjacent allies with the same feat. Poor wording makes the trait appear to give you a +x to skill checks where x is the number of knowledge skills your class provides. It took me a few reads to parse it that way but i think that is the argument being made.

Liberty's Edge

The problem is that is stating that is it s a common rule, while it nothing like that.
The Phalanx Fighter feat is very celar:

D20PSRD wrote:

Phalanx Fighter (Teamwork)

When battling terrifying hordes of enemies, you find strength in your shield brothers and sisters.

Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +3, good alignment.

Benefit: You gain a sacred bonus to your AC against the attacks of evil creatures and a sacred bonus to saves against the spells and abilities of evil creatures equal to the number of adjacent allies who also have this feat.

It give a clear sequence: you add the number of adjacent allies with that feat and then you add that number as a bonus.

You can read Comprehensive Education as working that way only if you butcher the English language and throw rule comprehension out of the window.


*I* can barely understand what I'm arguing here. Yes, the ability is obviously intended as +1 to some knowledge skills.


From the pfsrd for the trait:

Quote:
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. Source PCS:ISR

What it does:

-Gives all knowledge skills as class skills (agreed?)

-For each knowledge skill granted by the class, the trait as written seems to give a cumulative +1 racial bonus on skill checks. (I say cumulative because of the wording in the ability: "for each")

That's exactly as it is written.

The bonus it gives is between 1 and 13.

What it should have done is allow the character the ability to make knowledge skill checks untrained and/or apply half the number of class knowledge skills (min +1/max +6) to knowledge skill checks.

As it is written, the ability is unbalanced from simply gaining an extra skill point.

As intended, it is still unbalanced but works out better if it just applies to knowledge skill checks.


Diego Rossi wrote:
zook1shoe wrote:

"for each".... not "to each"

"for each" means that the bonus is based on the # of Knowledge skills that you have 1+ class skill in.

"to each" is what they meant.

Even accepting your fancy interpretation they don't stack, they overlap as they are all "racial bonus". So you get a +1 several times, but they never add up.

Racial bonuses stack. Otherwise, templates wouldn't work correctly when they boost stats (template bonuses are usually either size or racial).

Bonus Types wrote:


Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.


Still waiting on any citation supporting this one of two grammatical meanings as THE correct one. Without such citation every GM should and probably will simply choose the equally grammatical option that is NOT super broken and that is obviously intended. Which isn't any less RAW, so who cares?

Liberty's Edge

So racial bonuses can be stacked. You learn something every day.

Grand Lodge

Racial Bonuses always stack.

It's one of the few, like Dodge.


It makes no sense that it would be a one time +1 to eack knowledge skill that would normally be a class skill.

That is, in practice, far worse than skilled which grants a +1 per level to go wherever you want.

It's probably a static bonus to all skill rolls (as the RAW states) based on class skills that are knowledges.

In most cases (Paladin for example) this is +2 to skill rolls. Hardly game breaking.


HWalsh wrote:

It makes no sense that it would be a one time +1 to eack knowledge skill that would normally be a class skill.

That is, in practice, far worse than skilled which grants a +1 per level to go wherever you want.

It's probably a static bonus to all skill rolls (as the RAW states) based on class skills that are knowledges.

In most cases (Paladin for example) this is +2 to skill rolls. Hardly game breaking.

I think the main draw to the trait is that it makes all knowledge skills in to class skills. That is an extra 10 class skills. well in practice probably an extra 7-8 skills but still, more than any feat or background trait will add. It is amusing that is gives you so many extra skills to choose from at the cost of skill points to actually invest. Maybe trading in the bonus feat would have been a better choice... anyway, if there is a knowledge skill you wanted but your class didnt provide than this is a free +3 to it.

I am not sure what characters i would use this with though, the ones who can take advantage of the extra class skills generally already have huge intelligence scores and most knowledge skills. That means the paltry +1 to a skill you already have which is no where near as good as the skilled trait. If it somehow is a +x based on number of class granted knowledge skills than it is awesome... but that seems very unlikely to be the intent.

Maybe a Sage bloodline Sorcerer who has a huge INT score but only one knowledge skill? That is a heck of a small niche for a whole race trait.

Shadow Lodge

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"He brought a present for each orphaned child."

"For each child that was orphaned he brought a present."

The meaning of the two sentences is identical and there is no possibility of it being interpreted differently.

"gain a +1 racial bonus on skill checks for each Knowledge skill that they gain as a class skill"

Can be rewritten two ways:

"for each Knowledge skill that they gain as a class skill gain a +1 racial bonus on skill checks"

or

"on skill checks for each Knowledge skill that they gain as a class skill gain a +1 racial bonus"

the first would give a variable bonus to all skills, the second would give a static bonus to a variable number of skills. Grammatically both are possible interpretations, but overall comprehension and common sense make it clear that the second reading is the correct one.


The second one really doesn't work grammatically.

Dark Archive

The problem with the first reading isn't just that it is OP like crazy(-1 Sp/lvl for +10 to all skills on a bard? I'm down to do that occult ritual at level 10 by myself, along with being better than everyone at every skill.), but also that it is obviously not RAI.


The first one is how it naturally reads, but I'm pretty sure it's not the RAI.

The second one is most likely the RAI but you have to do some gymnastics with the wording to get to that rewrite.

Toss this trait in the HUGE pile of other questionable rule elements with dodgy wording.


I agree with graystone.


Hohoho i was just looking over the humans again because of the military tradition option.

God , this crap is OP.

It is obvious they just wrote it completely wrong , since it is just absurd , still ... if your GM takes anything that is written in RAW , you just got golden until they hit a FAQ.

Grand Lodge

Not "OP".


Let's be honest, if this works the way it's written then this is a pretty good trade off actually. You lose 20 Skill points to gain 10 Skills and a POSSIBLE +10 to all skills. the full bonus comes immediately depending on the class instead of gradually over 20 levels.

So lets do some Math. As Weirdo Stated:
Rogues only get 2 Knowledge Skills, that's only a +2 Bonus to all their skill checks now, yes they now have all Knowledge Skills as class skills and are now at an auto +3 in each of the Knowledge skills, but ONLY IF they put a point into the skill. How many Knowledge Skills is a Rogue going to choose? Maybe Dungeoneering, engineering, local, and possibly Nobility/Geography, so total bonus they have inherently gained is +17 (+3 x # of Knowledge skills put a point into + +2 to all skill checks bonus). hmm 3 short of +20 Sp.

The Same choices of Knowledge Skills can be said about the Ranger, Hunter or Slayer, but because they get 3 Knowledge Skills as Class Skills they get a total +3 bonus to all their skills and an inherent earned bonus of +18. thats 2 short of of +20 Sp.

Alchemists, again will probably only pick, Knowledge Arcana, Nature, Dungeoneering, and maybe Planes/Religion. Thats again only a total inherent bonus of +17. Still 3 short of +20.

Where it becomes ridiculous by your thinking, is the classes that give all knowledge checks as Class Skills (i.e. Wizard). SO yes thats a +10 to all Skill checks. but wizards only get 2+Int of Skill Points. so thats a total of 7 per level at 1st with a 20. they have very few skills to choose from, and since the Knowledge skills were already all class skills then we can't count the +3 from each because it was already there. Thus the Wizard only gets a +10 Inherent bonus from this trait. Albeit to all skill checks but that seems pretty balanced to me. its 10 short of the Skilled trait, and he only has 7 skills he gets that in. and lets still be honest a Wizards Skills are, Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Planes), SpellCraft, Fly, Use Magic Device, and 2 others. all the skills that are pretty much auto wins for a wizard anyway....

Another thought the inherent bonus that the above the wizard example classes get should be less since a couple of those knowledge skills are already class skills and those classes would have gotten the +3 regardless of this trait.

So I believe this trait RAW works just fine and is balanced.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Not "OP".

If your class gives you all knowledges , you just got a solid +10 on all skill checks , again clearly they will FAQ this , still i do think it seems quite OP to me.

Grand Lodge

Nox Aeterna wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Not "OP".
If your class gives you all knowledges , you just got a solid +10 on all skill checks , again clearly they will FAQ this , still i do think it seems quite OP to me.

I thought you were talking about the Military Tradition trait.


Not to mention the benefits this gives to experts.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Not "OP".
If your class gives you all knowledges , you just got a solid +10 on all skill checks , again clearly they will FAQ this , still i do think it seems quite OP to me.
I thought you were talking about the Military Tradition trait.

Ah ic , sorry no.

That one i just consider when im playing a class with only simple proficiency that i want to use on fights.

2 decent weapons for a feat...


Avoron wrote:
The second one really doesn't work grammatically.

I am fairly certain both are grammatically correct. It may be awkward, but I don't see anything actually non-grammatical about it either way.

Which would mean that you would obviously go with the one that isn't ridiculous, and I don't see that choice as being any more or less RAW (but much less ridiculous, thus likely chosen by 99% of GMs)


"Skill checks for each Knowledge skill that they gain as a class skill gain a +1 racial bonus" would be gramatically correct, if a little bit awkward because of the "for".

"On skill checks for each Knowledge skill that they gain as a class skill, they gain a +1 racial bonus" would also work, but still in an awkwardly roundabout way.

But "on skill checks for each Knowledge skill that they gain as a class skill gain a +1 racial bonus" just has too many loose syntactical threads.


The problem here is clearly that they simply ordered the sentence awkwardly.

"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."

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."

Now, this re-wording is far more radically different from the more conservative re-wording, so I would say that the simple +1 bonus is correct. Occam's razor and all that.


Crimeo wrote:
Avoron wrote:
The second one really doesn't work grammatically.

I am fairly certain both are grammatically correct. It may be awkward, but I don't see anything actually non-grammatical about it either way.

Which would mean that you would obviously go with the one that isn't ridiculous, and I don't see that choice as being any more or less RAW (but much less ridiculous, thus likely chosen by 99% of GMs)

I find the seconds wording as ridiculous as you find the results of the first. What do I do when I find both have equally ridiculous parts?


Run.


Avoron wrote:
Run.

LOL That's most likely the best advice in the thread. If you're thinking about taking it, "run"! ;)


I really dont see how it means anything but , you gain +1 for each knowledge class skill you have , which makes a insane +10 racial on every skill check if all of them were class skills.

Ofc it is also too good to be true.

People doing the math need to remember a very obvious thing , there is no leveling on this wording , you gain the +10 at level 1 , while having +20 skill points will take you all the 20 levels.

Hell , if it gave you a +10 on every check at level 20 i wouldnt even think it is that great , the whole thing is how you can grab it level 1 to me.

Shadow Lodge

Alric Rahl wrote:
So lets do some Math.

OK. Let's say you get one knowledge skill as a class skill. With the lax reading, that's +1 to all skills *35 skills = +35 to skills, total.

If you are a bard or wizard you get +10*35 = +350 to skills.

Now, using the strict reading, the maximum theoretical total bonus can be obtained by a character who has no knowledge skills as class skills, and will put at least one rank in each knowledge skill. That's +3 (class skill bonus) * 10 Knowledge skills = 30 > 20 skill ranks.

Realistically, you're likely only going to get about half that; eg the character will put at least one rank in 4 knowledge skills that were not class skills, and will get +1 to three knowledge skills that are class skills, for a total bonus of +15.

That's a little less than the 20 skill points you can get from skilled, but it still might be a good trade for two reasons. First, it's front-loaded. If you plan to retire the character at level 12-15 as in PFS and many APs, you may not even take advantage of all 20 theoretical ranks from skilled. Second, it's a bonus that applies even if you're planning on maxing out your ranks in a particular skill, so if you have 7 skill ranks/level before skilled and you have 5 important skills, 3 of which are non-class knowledge skills, you're going to get more out of +3 to those knowledge skills than an extra rank to put into unimportant skills.

Liberty's Edge

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.


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

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.

In order to have produced the "broken" result some of you guys are arguing for, it would have had to have read something similar to:
"...they gain a bonus on knowledge skill checks equal to the number of knowledge skills they have gained as class skills from class levels"
(the distinction being that the size of the bonus is scaling in this theoretical wording, rather than the number +1 bonuses)


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.

Shadow Lodge

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).

1 to 50 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.