That does make a lot of sense. Charisma is even weirder to emulate...so you manage to convince the paper that your personality is more forceful...and it cares? o_O
Also, check the APG - there's your Charisma-based divine caster in the Oracle.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It seems that the issue is more of a stat to casting issue rather than a type of casting.
For what it's worth, I've always seen the mental abilities parallelling the physical like this.
Strength = Charisma (Strength of body, Strength of personality)
Dexterity = Intelligence (think of it as 'mental agility' Being able to assemble clues, make leaps of logic, etc.*)
Constitution = Wisdom (Both have to do with resistance, fortitude etc.)
While it's not perfect, it does 'map' to how I view the stats as casting.
Matthew's theory of stat based magic.
Intelligence = Finesse. Casting is a matter of running a 'simple' equasion against the universe. Think, "By my understanding of this forumlae I can apply my will to make X happen."
Wisdom = Fortitude and insight. Fortitude for clerics of a deity "Use me as a conduit for your will, oh god, and give me the insight to know when to use it." Optionally it could also mean deeper insights into the universe. If the intelligence based caster is solving a mathmatical proof to cast a fireball, the Wisdom (insight) caster is knowing the forces are already there, and just need a 'nudge' of being in the right place at the right time. "Yes, you are injured, but I will show you the pain is an illusion and reality itself wants you whole..."
So to use your example above, the first roll is Charisma to force the reaction from the item. The second roll (emulating an ability score) is drawing on the training/blind luck/good karma the character has aquired to channel that reaction correctly. Rather than 'having the mental strength to withstand the power flowing through him' It's using his strength of will and training to force the power into the target, without it going through him like someone with the requisite class/stat would.
Now I'll admit my theories are biased by psionics as much as magic, but that's my two C-bills.
*
At our table I play a character that uses UMD quite a bit, and we have always assumed that using UMD is one roll, and that relevant casting attribute really didn't factor into activation. A strict reading of the RAW dictates otherwise. On the other hand two skill rolls for one action seems like bad form. It would be better if it was just a penalty to the roll or just ignored all together.
As for how UMD works, I have always thought of it like a cross between acting and empathy. The user is trying to coerce the item into working by conjuring the right emotional cue. To someone watching with detect magic, perhaps the subject's mundane aura shifts to match item somehow, and BANG! the magic happens.
1.<stuff about spellcraft being too generic>2.But that really doesn’t make much sense for Clerics. What are divine scrolls really but prays to a specific god. It makes little real sense that they such scrolls are then divorced from the patron deity as soon as they are written. It defies logic that a Cleric of Iomedae should invoke his god to gain Iomedae’s blessing that at some future time life will be restored to a recently fallen comrade only to have that prayer fall into an enemy cleric of Asmodeus hands and used to bring back an Antipaladin. It defies logic, but I’m willing to go with it for game convention.
3.bard comment
4.In the Pathfinder system, each class understands magic in its own way. A Cleric, a Wizard and a Sorcerer all cast Charm Person as the exact same spell but each is interacting with magic in his own way using his own prime requisite. This only makes sense if we say that each individual class is able to access magical powers on his own terms and understandings. Otherwise, why would a Sorcerer be able to cast a Fireball off of a Wizard’s scroll just because it’s “Arcane”? It just doesn’t make sense.
5. So, for magic casting classes, I’ve decided to allow Use Magic Device to add the spell to a individuals spell list on a successful check, and have that particular class’s prime requisite for magic be the necessary check. This not only allows substandard classes such as the Bard and Sorcerer to become slightly more powerful, but it also avoids the future book keeping headache of having to note for each scroll whether it is a Divine v. Arcane....
1. I agree that spellcraft is too generic, but it could be that all magic follows the same laws regardless of where it came from. I understand that it does not make sense for a caster to be able to cast a spell, but can not spellcraft it and vice versa. I would fluff it as putting ranks in spellcraft allows you to be so proficient in your magic that you recognize a spell before it is even completed, which is kind of what it does.
2. The scroll is not the prayer itself. You are basically capturing the magic for later use. If your deity does not trust you to use the magic wisely they should not be giving it to you, and that includes letting it fall into enemy hands. Of course these things happen, but no deity assumes his spells will be used for things he does not stand for. It is also good for times when you are cut off from your deity.
3. Bards cast these healing spell as arcane spells so the deity is not even needed. This leads back to my point that even though there are different spell list that on some level magic has basic fundamental workings.
4. It does make sense. Sorcs have a natural understanding of magic so they don't need to study to learn spells. Wizards don't just know it so they have to practice. In other words the wizard and sorcerer don't gain access to the spell in the same manner, but they cast it the same way. Your logic is like saying if I learn that 2+2=4 from school, and I work on a math problem with someone that figured it out on their own we can't understand each other. Once you know the spell, you know the spell, and as long as the magic is the it should not matter since it is cast the same way.
5. Most DM's ignore the arcane/divine thing for scrolls. Even published adventures don't normally specify which type it is. I know by the rules they should, but the scroll type is something that just leads to more booking keeping. I don't think it should matter how you complete the spell as long as it is completed.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
As for how UMD works, I have always thought of it like a cross between acting and empathy. The user is trying to coerce the item into working by conjuring the right emotional cue. To someone watching with detect magic, perhaps the subject's mundane aura shifts to match item somehow, and BANG! the magic happens.
So can you make a UMD check to hide from Black Lantern Rings? ;-)
2. The scroll is not the prayer itself. You are basically capturing the magic for later use. If your deity does not trust you to use the magic wisely they should not be giving it to you, and that includes letting it fall into enemy hands. Of course these things happen, but no deity assumes his spells will be used for things he does not stand for. It is also good for times when you are cut off from your deity.
3. Bards cast these healing spell as arcane spells so the deity is not even needed. This leads back to my point that even though there are different spell list that on some level magic has basic fundamental workings.
I agree sort of.
Technically (in what is probably the most ridiculous use of the term), the magic part of divine magic is divorced from the divine part. Otherwise, how could Clerics of two inverse gods cast the same spell?
2. The scroll is not the prayer itself. You are basically capturing the magic for later use. If your deity does not trust you to use the magic wisely they should not be giving it to you, and that includes letting it fall into enemy hands. Of course these things happen, but no deity assumes his spells will be used for things he does not stand for. It is also good for times when you are cut off from your deity.
3. Bards cast these healing spell as arcane spells so the deity is not even needed. This leads back to my point that even though there are different spell list that on some level magic has basic fundamental workings.
I agree sort of.
Technically (in what is probably the most ridiculous use of the term), the magic part of divine magic is divorced from the divine part. Otherwise, how could Clerics of two inverse gods cast the same spell?
I have always looked at it as the deity is giving you the power to cast the spell. Once he passes it to you it is your. Others look at it as you the power is being channeled from the diety through you, which would make the scroll situation very questionable.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
[
I have always looked at it as the deity is giving you the power to cast the spell. Once he passes it to you it is your. Others look at it as you the power is being channeled from the diety through you, which would make the scroll situation very questionable.
Not automatically. In my example above, the power is stored in the scroll, but still requires a conduit (the divine caster) with the mental endurance (wisdom) to let the power flow through him. That's how you can take a scroll of cure light wounds off of a cleric of asmodeaus and the cleric of Desna can use it.
(Golarion specific aside: Did all the scrolls written by clerics of Aroden go inert with his death?)
Monte Cooke addressed this in his book of Eldrich Might by suggesting that DMs assign a -5 to Spellcraft checks when you were trying to determine magic that was of the kind different that your class gave you.
I know it's not your rule, but I wonder what that does to the non-caster who takes it as a cross-class skill. I'd guess that by extending the argument to say all magic is "different" from your own class's kind (i.e. none), you'd get a -5 on every check. which actually puts you at -8 on every check behind someone who has it as a class skill. I can see it as a "patch" on a system that is already odd, but I can't think of any other examples where your skills take such a bad hit just because you're the wrong class.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
This logic would run afoul of the rules because, as I understand it, an Oracle can use this scroll despite having a low Wisdom.
Not automatically. In my example above, the power is stored in the scroll, but still requires a conduit (the divine caster) with the mental endurance (wisdom) to let the power flow through him. That's how you can take a scroll of cure light wounds off of a cleric of asmodeaus and the cleric of Desna can use it.(Golarion specific aside: Did all the scrolls written by clerics of Aroden go inert with his death?)
Goes back to using Charisma. Mental strength to grab the scroll by the short hairs and MAKE it do what it is supposed to. (assuming you're talking UMD, if you're talking casting stat, then think of the Oracle's curse as the 'cost' of using magic.)
|
I view "Use Magic Device" as one roll.
If you want to use a wand or a staff, yoru stat does not matter you have to emulate the class at level 1 so 20 (class) + 1 (level) target 21.
If you want to use a 5th level clerical scroll.
Target is (20 (class) + 9 (Minimum level cleric to cast 5th level spells)) = 29 Now to cast a 5th level spell you need a wisdom of 15, however that would require a skill check of 30 (15 (base) + 15 (stat)) thus to use a scroll your target would be 30 rather than 29 (the highest of the two).
If instead it was a 9th level spell on the scroll the target would be 37 (20 (base) + 17(min level)) vs 34 (15 (base) + 19 (minimum stat)) and thus a single roll of 37 would suffice.
One action - one roll.
So you make the DC the hardest one of all of the changes needed to allow use of the item. Nice and simple - I like it.
I view "Use Magic Device" as one roll.
...and examples
One action - one roll.So you make the DC the hardest one of all of the changes needed to allow use of the item. Nice and simple - I like it.
I like it too as it's one roll, however you still do the math for both rolls so you're not saving much time, it's only a couple of seconds for the extra roll. But I do still like it!
What about adding (15-UMD score, min 0) to the difficulty check?
|
Another idea is to view it as this:
The UMD skill states this:
Use Magic Device allows you to use a scroll as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list.
Once you have virtually added the spell to your list for casting it off of this one scroll, then you use your casting stat (if you have one) to cast it. If you do not have a casting stat (aka a rogue) or your casting stat is not high enough (aka bard with a charisma of 15 trying to cast a level 6 spell) then you would also need to fake that.
Note, with the way that UMD is written, you can make staves must more powerfull. Sine a staff's abilities are based off of your casting stat. A sorcerer with a staff of charming , for example, could use "Use Magic Device" to fake the staff into thinking that he had a much higher Charisma then he really does, and thus make the DC for saves from the staff higher.
I'm trying really hard to understand the OP here.
OK, we have a little problem. It looks like soemone might need to roll twice to use scrolls, once for UMD and once for a Caster Level check in case their "primary casting" ability score is lower than the spell requirement on the scroll.
That's a really minor problem. Are we sure we need to rewrite the entire magic system, right down to the very core mechanic of arcane/divine magic, just to solve it?
Isn't that sort of like declaring a State of National Emergency because a tree fell over on a road somewhere? Can't we just hire a guy with a chainsaw and a flat-bed truck to get rid of the tree?
Can't we just fix the roll for UMD to solve this problem? Must we rewrite the entire magic system?
As for me, I like the fact that Arcane magic works differently from Divine. I wish it worked even more differently. The last thing I want is to smoosh it all together into one big lump of "magic stuff" and then ship it out, the same thing going to each class, just with different labels on it.
Yuck.
So why not just on the little problem?
Do the one UMD roll to activate the scroll and simply rule that success on that roll activates it, no further rolls or ability scores needed. That's quick and easy, and it makes activating the scroll:
1. Simple to figure out
2. Reasonable enough that people like the OP's fiancé can actually succeed
3. Comparable to activiting a wand (why should activating a scroll you don't understand really be any harder than activating a wand you don't understand?)
Sounds easy enough to me.
Then should I assume that we are agreeing with my saying that UMD need only be used to treat the spell as if it where on your spell list for spellcasting classes and not have the added penalty that you need a separate roll to try to emulate a different ability?
Goes back to using Charisma. Mental strength to grab the scroll by the short hairs and MAKE it do what it is supposed to. (assuming you're talking UMD, if you're talking casting stat, then think of the Oracle's curse as the 'cost' of using magic.)
We all realize this makes Rogues utterly terrible at UMD, right?
|
A divided magic system is a legacy artifact of the fact that Gary Gygax originally had only two magic casting classes. It is not elegant nor worth defending. It is a consider headache and just gets worse as more and more magic classes get added because, as I wrote above, now you conceivable have to have each scroll discovered sorted into one of four categories. It's just goofy and wonky, but if you like it, keep it.
So are Alignments, Hit Dice, Saves, Magic Missile always hitting and thousands of other little artifacts of Gary's imagination.
The mere fact that they are 30 years old does not invalidate them and the nostalgia value attached to them is tremenderous. See what happened when WotC decided to throw it all upside down in 4e ?
The scroll mechanics could change - but even if you try to simplify them by removing the arcane/divine divide you are left with the good old "hey, what CL is this scroll after all" question.
A divided magic system is a legacy artifact of the fact that Gary Gygax originally had only two magic casting classes. It is not elegant nor worth defending. It is a consider headache and just gets worse as more and more magic classes get added because, as I wrote above, now you conceivable have to have each scroll discovered sorted into one of four categories. It's just goofy and wonky, but if you like it, keep it.
So are Alignments, Hit Dice, Saves, Magic Missile always hitting and thousands of other little artifacts of Gary's imagination.
The mere fact that they are 30 years old does not invalidate them and the nostalgia value attached to them is tremenderous. See what happened when WotC decided to throw it all upside down in 4e ?
The scroll mechanics could change - but even if you try to simplify them by removing the arcane/divine divide you are left with the good old "hey, what CL is this scroll after all" question.
4E's complaints were not mostly from nostalgia(things like thac0, yes I know that was 2nd edition). That is all I can say here to avoid a flame war. I wish this board had PM's.
Having a magic system for two classes would be ok. Having a magic system for every class that comes out, not so much. That is one reason Piazo is sidestepping psionics for the time being.
each scroll discovered sorted into one of four categories
Why four?
- arcane / intelligence- arcane / charisma
- divine / wisdom
- divine / charisma
Is that why ?
...and that's not considering the fact that other classes might exist (now or later) with a different set of abilities. Remembering when the APG preview came out: I was all "wow, look at those not-quite-spellcasters!"
|
|
Also, check the APG - there's your Charisma-based divine caster in the Oracle.
Do you one better.... have you checked out Paladin(Core Class) lately?
Spells: Beginning at 4th level, a paladin gains the ability
to cast a small number of divine spells which are drawn
from the paladin spell list presented in Chapter 10. A
paladin must choose and prepare her spells in advance.
To prepare or cast a spell, a paladin must have a
Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The
Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a paladin’s spell
is 10 + the spell level + the paladin’s Charisma modifier.
Like other spellcasters, a paladin can cast only a certain
number of spells of each spell level per day.
If that's not Divine Magic I don't know what is...
|
arcane / int / prepared
arcane / cha / spontanous
divine / wis / prepared
divine / cha / spontaneous
divine / cha / prepared......? Stupid paladins... ;)
The divide between arcane/divine always struck me as odd and for my campaign setting I'm working on a way to fuse all magic into one "true" magic.
Divine/arcane distinctions do not exist, there is only one spell list, divine casters drop to d6/low and lose their armor proficiencies and exemption from spell failure (though they don't lose casting if they go ex-, just other features). They can optionally keep their original HD and BAB but drop to a 6-level caster.
6-level casters instead cast at "1/2 level + 1" caster level. 4-level instead cast at "1/2 level - 2, minimum 0" caster level. Spontaneous is no longer a staggered progression. All casting classes add together for your casting ability. Class abilities that modify spellcasting or grant new spell slots only function if someone who was ONLY that class, but had the same number of levels of it as you do, could take advantage of it.
Mystic Theurge dies in a fire-... err.. no longer exists.
The list of changes goes on... idk, maybe it'll be cool, maybe it'll suck royally, but I'm at least going to *try* and push it for my next campaign.
As for UMD.. never had much of a problem with it, except for the multiple rolls thing (I use the "roll highest" as most do). My main gripe is that you generally end up at a place where higher UMD doesn't matter, but that's relatively minor as that happens with other skills too.
The divide between arcane/divine always struck me as odd and for my campaign setting I'm working on a way to fuse all magic into one "true" magic.
** spoiler omitted **
Total threadjack: I've been trying something similar, with only a single mage class that can duplicate any/all other spell-casting classes, but I think this one darn paragraph is easier and more streamlined than the 30+ page monstrosity I've constructed. Have you managed to playtest this at all? Do spontaneous casters just use the sorcerer's progression? Can bards drop to poor BAB/d6 and get full casting progression? Can I steal your idea and pretend it was mine?
|
|
Note that at first I was trying to split it into prepared and spontaneous as separate (but possibly adjacent) tracks. Then I (in the last sub-section) went into a single track.Total threadjack: I've been trying something similar, with only a single mage class that can duplicate any/all other spell-casting classes, but I think this one darn paragraph is easier and more streamlined than the 30+ page monstrosity I've constructed. Have you managed to playtest this at all? Do spontaneous casters just use the sorcerer's progression? Can bards drop to poor BAB/d6 and get full casting progression? Can I steal your idea and pretend it was mine?
The divide between arcane/divine always struck me as odd and for my campaign setting I'm working on a way to fuse all magic into one "true" magic.
** spoiler omitted **
And sure, go ahead and use it, though I'd appreciate it if you emailed me (ClDumbass, gmail) your feedback on it or something so I could make it better. It's very "note-y" and disjointed at the moment.
</threadjack>
I think part of the trouble here is that you're looking at scrolls, which are of course written, and one consequently expects the scroll created by a wizard have all sorts of magical sigils all over it and assorted arcane gobbledegook, the cleric's scroll will look like some prayer or invocation to their god, and a bardic scroll will likely be a nice page of poetry or a ballad or something of that sort.
Instead look at something similar but simpler: wands. Let's say a cleric, a wizard, and a bard are all commissioned to make wands of Dispel Magic with the command word "Begone." The first wand is divine, the second two are arcane. Despite the wizard being an intelligence caster and the bard being a charisma caster, they can trade wands all day long and not have to worry. The clerics wand can only be used by the cleric or maybe by his friend the paladin who's also a divine caster, even though he uses charisma.
Then a rogue then gets hold of the wands. The Divine wand is apparently activated by Wisdom or Charisma (or Intelligence if you bussed an Archivist in from 3.5 for an intelligence-based Divine caster). The Arcane wands are activated either by Intelligence or Charisma. All this just to point a stick at something and say "Begone"?
I think the first thing to do here is to just say that you can pick which of the three stats you want to use for an item: Wisdom casters say "Begone" at precisely the right moment which is wisely chosen; Intelligence casters say "Begone" with utterly precise Julie Andrews-level crisp diction; Charisma casters say "Begone" with a dramatic flair.
The scrolls are a little more problematic. While mechanically the wizard and the bard can trade scrolls of Dispel Magic and use each others equally arcane scrolls, having the bard doing a dramatic reading of the wizard's "Arcane Proof of Why This Particular Spell Will Now Cease to Exist" is about as ridiculous as the wizard using his perfect school-educated accent to read in a dry monotone the bard's "Ode to the Banishment of a Spell to be Named Later." And the cleric's scrolls will be chock full of ritual invocations to their god like "O Asmodeus, Most Unholy, Our Father Who Wert in Heaven, Prince of Lies, King of Tyranny, etc." Rather hard to have a cleric of Iomedae reading that without going into a conniption fit.
Probably the best thing to do is to allow some variety of Spellcraft check to sort out the relevant bits from the irrelevant frills and identify what bits can be substituted where, so when the cleric of Iomedae gets the scroll of Dispel Magic prepared by the cleric of Asmodeus, what she's looking at is something like this:
O {insert name of divinity}, {insert formal address for divinity}, {insert kinship title of divinity and plane of residence}, {insert favorite alias of divinity 1}, {insert other alias of divinity}, I beseech thee to lend me thy power to dispel all magics as thou didst once in {insert divinity's relevant miracle or heroic deed where they dispelled magic} and once granted to {insert name of prominent cleric of divinity who famously used this spell to good effect} etc.
What would also be useful is if Arcane and Divine magics were put on the same continuum but with a particularly difficult spellcraft check to figure out the other, and the same thing for psionics if they're ever put into the mix. Something like this:
Spellcraft
Understanding a scroll written by a wizard of your own specialist school, a sorcerer of your same bloodline, or a cleric with the same domain: +5
Understanding a scroll written by another wizard of an unopposed school, by a fellow sorcerer of a different bloodline, a cleric with a different but unopposed domain, or a bard reading a scroll by a fellow bard: +0
Understanding a scroll written by a wizard of an opposed school, a sorcerer of an opposed bloodline (opposite elements, for example), a cleric with an opposed domain, or understanding any scroll penned by a member of a different class but the same type of magic (arcane or divine): -5
Understanding a scroll written by a practitioner of a different form of magic (arcane or divine): -10
Understanding a psionic thingy which is not called a scroll but operates remarkably similarly when one is an arcane or divine caster: -15
The same would true with wands, staves and other spell completion devices so you wouldn't have stuff like the wizard looking at the cleric's wand of Dispel Magic then having to ask for the rogue or bard to wave it around because he doesn't understand this divine stuff, even if it's still a magic stick that otherwise apparently operates just like his regular one, even down to the same command word.
You can always leave your comments on my blog at prestonpoulter.com.
4E's complaints were not mostly from nostalgia(things like thac0, yes I know that was 2nd edition). That is all I can say here to avoid a flame war. I wish this board had PM's.
Having a magic system for two classes would be ok. Having a magic system for every class that comes out, not so much. That is one reason Piazo is sidestepping psionics for the time being.
I will probably try to find some of my old post when 4E was first announced. I am to lazy to think of all the old arguments again. It won't be until either tomorrow or Sunday though.