ok let's make UMD the only skill that use no stat just ranks,
Unfortunately no one has the same idea in regards to that, as evidenced by this very thread.
Ah yes, the good ol' "internet hyperbole" (heh, it even rhymes). There have been several supportive comments in this thread. Also this thread is no way near representative for all gamers. But I'll readily admit that I'm charging up a steep hill, since as KaeYoss pointed out, the developers have had a different opinion (so far).
However, I started this thread, because I think that the new APG changed the background for the UMD skill (by adding 3 new classes that depend on UMD). Through everybody's input, I came to a sound and consistent reasoning for a change in the rules.
So I'm not complaining.
Could anyone explain this to me?
It doesn't make any sense to me... What does personality have to do with using magic devices? Wouldn't intelligence or maybe wisdom be the obvious choice?
It's like when Fonzie thumps something and makes it start working. It's not because he's an electrical engineer or has any technical knowledge, it's because Fonzie is cool so things just tend to work for him.
Intelligence is mental Dexterity.
Wisdom is mental Constitution.
Charisma is mental Strength.
Use Magic Device, more accurately Force Magic Device to Work for You Anyway, is very much an application of mental force to a stubborn mental object, and is very reasonably Charisma.
It can be thought of as Item Bluff and Item Diplomacy. Again, both Charisma.
The "real" answer is that it's what happens when game history (1st Ed Thieves getting to cast spells from scrolls at high levels) collide with game balance and a skill system (divvying up based on commonly important stats and the APG expanding the "core" classes.
That is, a class that is able to use a magic item normally (without UMD), does so because of class specific skills the character learned by gaining experience. This represent an intellectual (ie intelligence-based) task. Not an abstract one (necessitating high INT), but one that anyone could learn, if his survival depended on it and he repeated it often enough. Replacing these class specific skills through UMD is easier with high INT, because what effectively happens is this: the character makes an approximation of the skills, based on his rough (ie less than perfect) knowledge of them.
Wouldn't that be Wisdom, as a matter of experience and pragmatic know-how? I mean, outside of the general way in which all skills are based on capacity to learn, which is reflected by INT giving extra skill points to begin with.
I'm also wondering to what extent this doesn't correspond to an argument that doesn't allow for CHA as the primary attribute for any spellcasting.
|
I think one problem is that a lot of people assume magic works according to some mathematical or scientific principals. I think that can be a part of it, but I see it as also using elements of sentient beings such as emotion, art, and social forces.
I like the one poster's argument that said, in essense, anyone with a high charisma has a sort of divine or magical presence in a fantasy game. This jives with the idea that anyone with a decent charisma can become a sorcerer, able to cast spells on a whim, without "studying" per se. Perhaps someone using magic device is practicing a sort of sorcery. Charisma includes "inherent magical talent".
Another thing to consider is that all devices were created by sentient beings. Someone trying to "figure out" how to use such a device would use insight into the creator's thoughts to help do this. This is an inherently social ability, so charisma makes sense for it.
That's not to say there's no place for intelligence in UMD. But by game rules, one skill uses one ability; and as mentioned earlier, for game balance they chose charisma for this one, backed by a number of arguments.
|
I have a proposal, we make UMD an INT based Skill and then award characters their skill points based on CHA instead of INT because you are more personable, which makes other people like you and want to teach you things..or based on CON or WIS because you perservere and have the tenacity to keep practicing..you can argue a million different ways, but the fact of the matter is the game designers who decided UMD was a class skill for some classes, also made it CHA based. You can't question the logic of one decision without questioning both.
The main reason, in my games at least, that I can see NOT having UMD INT based is because INT based characters already clean up on skill points and in all the knowledge skills, and I would prefer to not have my wizards also casting cleric and druid spells out of staffs, etc. all day long. The fact that its CHA based makes it just a little hard for them to achieve world domination by 14th level :)
|
UMD is a skill, not a spell source. You're not the one casting the spell, the item is, and you're convincing that item to work.
It works flawlessly.
If I want to convince a wizard to cast fireball on a kobold, I use my charisma to do it, not my intelligence.
Actually I use psionics but you get the picture.Problem is - obviously - that, unlike the wizard casting his fireball on a kobold, a magic item is an inanimate, non-sentient object. You can't persuade it.
wrong. Use Magic Device is the exact skill that does this. it is persuasion, acting, and mimicry all rolled into one and it only works on magical items.
That is what it is.
Contrast this with the fact that you can (and often even have to) persuade INTELLIGENT magic items (using diplomacy, bluff, intimidate and NOT UMD).
And here you actually admit that magic items can be persuaded in some instances. Right after saying the exact opposite!
Now you could retort that, given my position that a character can't persuade an item, why do I still admit that 3 of the 8 tasks that make up UMD are charisma based? My reasoning is that the spells, that are stored in the magic item, "check" the mind of the caster for a mindset associated with a specific ability score, alignment or race (if required). These mindsets can be faked by a charismatic character, but are independent of the intellectually learned activation methods that the other 5 tasks represent.
No, the spells stored in the magic item ALWAYS use the stats of the character that created it. When you create a wand of fireballs you are literally casting the spell into the wand, and each time it is activated, it is cast with the stats you had when you created the wand. The dc for the save doesn't increase as you level up, and the person wielding the wand does not affect it by anything. the only question is whether they can activate the item and that requires breaking the security of the magic wand. Figuring out its password. Swiping your finger. scanning your eyeball. speaking your passphrase in your tone of voice. emulating your walk, your talk, your grammer, your style, and lastly, speaking "and guest." [/etnamode]
Use magic device DOES NOT CAST THE SPELL. It persuades the magical item to cast the spell.
irrelevant. if the campaign I'm in revolves around swimming, classes that get swim as a class skill have an advantage. roll with it.You're missing the point. I'm only and specifically talking about the classes that have UMD as a class skill and the unbalancing between them. The reason I'm limiting myself to these classes is that, since the game designers gave them UMD as a class skill, they supposedly think these classes need/depend on that skill.
That's completely baseless. Classes that get umd as a class skill don't have an advantage. they still lose out on another skill if they take that.
Anyone have have it as a class skill with traits. IMHO, if you are going to change something like this, its either a no-brainer and you houserule it or there is some compelling argument to change it. I have yet to hear a good argument as to why it should be INT based.If you take it as a trait, you miss out on something else, this isn't a valid point. Also, as I explained in my post, I'm taking "class skill" as an indicator from the game designers, that UMD is important/necessary for the class.
If you take UMD at all you miss out on other skills, class skill or not.
What would be a good argument? Personally, I can't see what would make this more obvious. You simply can't persuade an inanimate, non-sentient item to work, not even in fantasy.
In fact, if you could, why bother with the whole UMD business. Just *persuade* it to tell you it's activation mechanism (or to accept you as a race you aren't) once and be done with it.
Please tell me how that fits your explanation.I'm just curious, are you the GM, or are you a player that is playing a non-CHA based character with UMD as a class skill and looking for justification? Because honestly, I can't see why you keep pushing your point so hard when the consensus here seems to disagree with your assessment...I'm both player and GM in our group (we periodically switch).
Then houserule it. That is what rule 0 is for.
|
|
I've always thought it using the force of your personality to direct the magic stored or controlled by the item.
The three core classes that have UMD as a class skill; bard, rogue, and sorcerer all gain some of the primary skills from personality, i.e. their influence on those around them.
Magic is an entity that is left up to the DM to devise what exactly it is. While the mechanics that surround it are succinct the fluff is just that fluff. In my games, magic can be influenced as a semi-sentient force by those that have strong personalities which usually means those with UMD. They coax the magic out of the device by use of sweet words, cajoling, or outright threats (which is of course why you have the chance for failure and mishap).
Later,
Greg Volz
|
|
No, the spells stored in the magic item ALWAYS use the stats of the character that created it. When you create a wand of fireballs you are literally casting the spell into the wand, and each time it is activated, it is cast with the stats you had when you created the wand.Not true acording to the RAW. Wands always use the MINIMUM caster stat required to cast the spell in question for purposes of saving throw DCs.
That's why Staves are UNIQUELY distinctive in using the caster's casting stat AND LEVEL if they are greater than the minimum required.
Core Rulebook, page 496.
"Table 15-17 gives sample prices for wands created at the lowest possible caster level for each spellcasting class. Note that some spells appear at different levels for different casters. The level of such spells depends on the character crafting the wand."This is the closest I could find. It says nothing of the sort and by specifying "at the lowest possible caster level" pretty strongly implies that these values are used for quick and dirty loot generation and price estimation, not a carved in stone rule.
|
|
No, the spells stored in the magic item ALWAYS use the stats of the character that created it. When you create a wand of fireballs you are literally casting the spell into the wand, and each time it is activated, it is cast with the stats you had when you created the wand.Not true acording to the RAW. Wands always use the MINIMUM caster stat required to cast the spell in question for purposes of saving throw DCs.
That's why Staves are UNIQUELY distinctive in using the caster's casting stat AND LEVEL if they are greater than the minimum required.
Core rulebook page 496.
"The price of a wand is equal to the level of the spell x the creator's caster level x 750 gp. If the wand[sic] has a material component cost, it is added to the base price and cost to create once for each charge (50 x material component cost). Table 15-17 gives sample prices for wands created at the lowest possible caster level for each class..."It's pretty obvious here that when you create a wand it uses your stats. There are example prices given for quick and dirty loot distribution but not as a carved in stone rule.
|
|
No, the spells stored in the magic item ALWAYS use the stats of the character that created it. When you create a wand of fireballs you are literally casting the spell into the wand, and each time it is activated, it is cast with the stats you had when you created the wand.Not true acording to the RAW. Wands always use the MINIMUM caster stat required to cast the spell in question for purposes of saving throw DCs.
That's why Staves are UNIQUELY distinctive in using the caster's casting stat AND LEVEL if they are greater than the minimum required.
Core rulebook page 496.
"The price of a wand is equal to the level of the spell x the creator's caster level x 750 gp. If the wand[sic] has a material component cost, it is added to the base price and cost to create once for each charge (50 x material component cost). Table 15-17 gives sample prices for wands created at the lowest possible caster level for each class..."It's pretty obvious here that when you create a wand it uses your stats. There are example prices given for quick and dirty loot distribution but not as a carved in stone rule.
Actually, look on Page 459 of the Core Rulebook.
Saving Throws Against Magic Item Powers
Magic items produce spells or spell-like effects. For a saving
throw against a spell or spell-like effect from a magic item,
the DC is 10 + the level of the spell or effect + the ability
modifier of the minimum ability score needed to cast that
level of spell.
Staves are an exception to the rule. Treat the saving throw
as if the wielder cast the spell, including caster level and all
modifiers to save DCs.
Most item descriptions give saving throw DCs for various
effects, particularly when the effect has no exact spell equivalent
(making its level otherwise difficult to determine quickly).
Emphasis mine. I don't care about many of the points, but thought I'd clarify since I knew where the rule was.
Ate my post, let's try again...
Actually, look on Page 459 of the Core Rulebook.
Saving Throws Against Magic Item Powers
Magic items produce spells or spell-like effects. For a saving
throw against a spell or spell-like effect from a magic item,
the DC is 10 + the level of the spell or effect + the ability
modifier of the minimum ability score needed to cast that
level of spell.
Staves are an exception to the rule. Treat the saving throw
as if the wielder cast the spell, including caster level and all
modifiers to save DCs.
Most item descriptions give saving throw DCs for various
effects, particularly when the effect has no exact spell equivalent
(making its level otherwise difficult to determine quickly).
Emphasis mine. I don't care about many of the points, but thought I'd clarify since I knew where the rule was.
A triple post followed by a double post? These boards are buggier than a roach motel.
I think one problem is that a lot of people assume magic works according to some mathematical or scientific principals.
That's a big, cosmic joke at the wizards' expanse.
Indeed, if you use Int because you have to know how magic items work, why do sorcerers and bards not need to know how spells work to cast them?
I'm also wondering to what extent this doesn't correspond to an argument that doesn't allow for CHA as the primary attribute for any spellcasting.
Because wizards don't have to know this, either: Knowledge(arcana) and Spellcraft (especially Spellcraft) represent knowledge about spells, and wizards don't have a Spellcraft requirement!
Ate my post, let's try again...
Actually, look on Page 459 of the Core Rulebook.
Emphasis mine. I don't care about many of the points, but thought I'd clarify since I knew where the rule was.Saving Throws Against Magic Item Powers
Magic items produce spells or spell-like effects. For a saving
throw against a spell or spell-like effect from a magic item,
the DC is 10 + the level of the spell or effect + the ability
modifier of the minimum ability score needed to cast that
level of spell.
Staves are an exception to the rule. Treat the saving throw
as if the wielder cast the spell, including caster level and all
modifiers to save DCs.
Most item descriptions give saving throw DCs for various
effects, particularly when the effect has no exact spell equivalent
(making its level otherwise difficult to determine quickly).
Writing in disappearing-and-reappearing ink again?
|
|
This thread does suggest that people have differing views about the nature of magic itself.
Some see it as science, obeying universal laws and requiring specific formulae to harness. AKA Intelligence-based.
Others see it as divine, borrowing the power of the gods through prayer and obedience. AKA Wisdom-based.
Others see it as art, an energy without law or boundaries harness by creativity and personality. AKA Charisma-based.
Each of these aspects of magic can be found in traditional fantasy literature. In Pathfinder, all three aspect exist simultaneously. In the future more may exist as the game expands.
UMD simply helps integrate these aspects by providing a mechanism for Charisma-based magic users to use Intelligence/Wisdom-based magic items.
|
Because wizards don't have to know this, either: Knowledge(arcana) and Spellcraft (especially Spellcraft) represent knowledge about spells, and wizards don't have a Spellcraft requirement!
What you say?! You don't need to know how magic works to cast spells? You only need to have an ability score high enough to cast the spell? Stop poking holes in the argument that UMD should be Int-based!
Writing in disappearing-and-reappearing ink again?Ate my post, let's try again...
Actually, look on Page 459 of the Core Rulebook.
Emphasis mine. I don't care about many of the points, but thought I'd clarify since I knew where the rule was.Saving Throws Against Magic Item Powers
Magic items produce spells or spell-like effects. For a saving
throw against a spell or spell-like effect from a magic item,
the DC is 10 + the level of the spell or effect + the ability
modifier of the minimum ability score needed to cast that
level of spell.
Staves are an exception to the rule. Treat the saving throw
as if the wielder cast the spell, including caster level and all
modifiers to save DCs.
Most item descriptions give saving throw DCs for various
effects, particularly when the effect has no exact spell equivalent
(making its level otherwise difficult to determine quickly).
Evidently! I mean...I came back to the thread, didn't see my first post, so I went and Lazerous'd my first post, hit post again, and then the new post showed up. Who knows how that happened?
I'm having a very busy week, so I'll only respond to two points that were raised since my last post.
First, the argument that magic items don't work like mechanical objects (@NOMNOMNOM: and when I say magic items, I am obviously implying those that UMD applies to, NOT all magic items).
Here are some quotes to this effect:
I think that's a very important point - magic items are not purely mechanical objects that have a strict action in - result out process
[...]
a purely theoretical skill would not even be a skill in its own right - but would be an off-shoot of either knowledge:Arcana, or spellcraft
Something that may help make sense of this.
Give a guy with UMD a wand which requires a command word.
If UMD represented the ability to figure out the command word, the guy could use the skill to figure out the command word. Then he could give that wand to someone else and tell them the command word.
UMD doesn't work that way.
Magic items work absolutely like mechanical objects, albeit like very complex ones. They are crafted according to very specific designs and each item has a specific way it is to be used. In the hands of a character that has the knowledge how to use it, it works very mechanically. Any character that doesn't know how to use it needs the UMD skill, which is (in part) a purely theoretical skill, focused on magic items. The argument that, because it deals with theoretical knowledge on magic it shouldn't be a skill in it's own right, doesn't work. For one, it is separate because it is used for a specific task. And secondly, it would also mean that knowledge(arcana) and spellcraft would have to be combined.
The "command word" argument falls completely flat. It is perfectly possible for a character to know the command word (which means he doesn't need to use the "activate blindly" task); this doesn't change the fact that he still needs to make at least one UMD check. In your example of a wand, this would be the "use wand" task (because he doesn't have the spell on his spell list). It represents the fact that the character does not have any experience with the specific spell stored in the magic item, that is, how to aim it, to be wary of certain effects that influence the spell and whatnot.
Also, even if UMD is (partly) a theoretical skill, that doesn't mean it isn't a skill in it's own right. It fulfills a specific and distinct role: using magic items (also your argument implies, that knowledge(arcana) and spellcraft aren't separate skills in their own right).
Yet again, I urge you to look at the specific tasks that make up the UMD skill. 5 of them represent activities that are based on intellectually learned knowledge. Take "decipher script" for example. This task lets you read what is literally written on a scroll. No amount of persuasion will let you understand a written script. The skill check is higher than if you did it with the spellcraft skill, because spellcraft represents fundamental knowledge about how magic works, which obviously includes the different scripts in which it is written. As noted above, UMD is knowledge focused on magic items, but is also applicable to deciphering scripts, because magic scrolls are considered magic items. A character skilled in UMD thus has some knowledge of scripts found on scrolls, but it's not quite as thorough as if he had knowledge of spellcaft.
In fact, if you ask me, it is proof that UMD should be (at least partly) INT-based if a character can use it to do the same thing in the same way as with the INT-based spellcraft skill.
The second point I want to respond to, is that my whole argument somehow invalidates how sorcerous and bardic magic work.
Here are some quotes to that effect:
Because wizards don't have to know this, either: Knowledge(arcana) and Spellcraft (especially Spellcraft) represent knowledge about spells, and wizards don't have a Spellcraft requirement!Indeed, if you use Int because you have to know how magic items work, why do sorcerers and bards not need to know how spells work to cast them?
I'm also wondering to what extent this doesn't correspond to an argument that doesn't allow for CHA as the primary attribute for any spellcasting.
In order to address this, let's look at how these two types of charisma-based spellcasting work.
First, sorcerous magic: The sorcerer's power is based on his magical bloodline, that he inherited from his forebears (or maybe gained because he was part of a magical experiment). In the original version this was a draconic lineage, but the Pathfinder RPG gives you a wide array of alternatives. When a sorcerer casts a spell he persuades his subconscious self - his hidden bloodline power - to manifest itself. This is obviously charisma-based, because a person is being influenced. There is no persuasion of the universe at large or some general magical force.
Bardic magic works through music, poetry and song. In the fantasy world it is implied that specific rhythms, melodies, rhymes and tonalities contain magical power. The bard unleashes this power through precise performances which, although they also require intelligence (as any other skill of any other class), are mainly based on charisma. The reason for this is that the bard uses an instrument to produce this magic (either his voice or an external instrument). The skills for instruments are charisma-based, because learning an instrument is not mainly theoretical/intellectual knowledge, but an experience gained in front of an audience (which is what charisma is all about).
The comment that wizards don't need to learn the skills "knowledge(arcana)" and "spellcraft" is absolutely correct. These two skills represent theoretical and fundamental knowledge on how arcane magic works. The knowledge a wizard gains while leveling up is focused on the specific spells he uses. What the exact words are, which hand signs to use and the material components required. This "practical" knowledge is independent of the fundamental knowledge.
An analogy from the real world is engineering: a structural engineer studies statics and general physics. He does not necessarily need to learn (highly theoretical) particle physics (string theory etc.), even though the knowledge he acquired is based on that.
Let me also explain why I'm doing all this arguing. I think that with the advent of the APG, the whole premise of basing UMD on CHA has changed dramatically. Before, even though it didn't make any sense, it was acceptable for balance reasons, since most classes with UMD as a class skill were CHA-based. Now we have problems with balance AND the explanation.
|
|
Damn I just knew that would happen. Can we get a mod in here to disintegrate these dupe posts?
Namely, every one of them that disagrees with me? thanks.
Oh by the way,
Aharrgrsdpob923ng od86 igiiu sd 9b9buv nbsuf8. Heighkd7v kweu223 tynvid. Arugghadin Spaghetti!
Allhug R'hillyup yeh N'hvvzvpipi Talgniddrdpt.
The explanation for Charisma as the force of someone's ability to influence others, lends itself to describe Charisma as a force of someone's personality or ego. To me, Undead use Charisma to maintain their existence and Clerics use Charisma to use Channel Energy in the same way that Use Magic Device works in PFRPG; by exerting their ego over the very thing they are attempting to control or maintain (i.e. if you really, really, really believe that it might work, it will work....pending the outcome of the dice vs the DC).
That is why the Rogue should always have first dibs on a Holy Avenger :P Or at least not be afraid to pick it up and use it after the Paladin has fallen.
That is why the Bards should always have first dibs on a Holy Avenger :P Or at least not be afraid to pick it up and use it after the Paladin has fallen.
Edited for clarity :D
Allhug R'hillyup yeh N'hvvzvpipi Talgniddrdpt.
Ia! Ia! Nyarlathotep fhtagn!
That is why the Bards should always have first dibs on a Holy Avenger :P Or at least not be afraid to pick it up and use it after the Paladin has fallen.
Can't they trade it in for an unholy avenger once they are fallen?
By now i think we all know what wisdom and intelligence are supposed to mean. The issue is charisma (assuming its not an argument being made by wizard players who want more power, your already damn powerful enough) and what does charisma mean? It's not just how pretty or attractive you are, its also how well you relate to others. This can be seen as effective leadership skills, ones ability to empathize with others, how well you manipulate others by imposing your personality on them.
It's also A person's inner strength of character, their inner fire, that power that you can sense inside them. Those who can harness that inner strength have learned that all magic items, though crafted by man, have a sort of dormant sentience. It's magic after all, there's no memory stick that says only discharge 12000 volts when command word spoken. A wizard uses the command word and his own knowledge of the spell make the wand work. A bard, sorcerer or rogue (or anyone else who takes ranks) has learned that magic items respond to that inner power, the stronger the magic the harder it is to get it to respond.
Wizard picks up wand of lightning bolts "I am Volo and I command thee"
W.o.L.B. "No, you never bothered with lightning bolt, why should I work for you?"
Volo cries knowing that the wand is right, he should have skipped learning nondetection.
Bard takes wand form wizard "hey W.O.L.B. hows it going?"
W.O.L.B "Ok,kinda bored, haven't friend anything in a long time?"
Bard "Do you know what happens when you hit a wizard with a lightning bolt?"
W.O.L.B. "No, never tried"
Bard "Want to?"
Wizard hit with lightning bolt.
Bard sings song praising his new wand.
Really it's a matter of why fix what isn't broken? It worked in the past, so they didn't bother with it.
However considering that Magical Devices are created and thus artificial, it's just more consistent to have them based off of Int and not Cha. Now If the item was intelligent or had some kind of will, I could see the plausibility of basing UMD off of your Cha score, but most magical devices are just devices. Why would a wizard put so much work into a device that everyone was more effective with than her?
Really it's a matter of why fix what isn't broken? It worked in the past, so they didn't bother with it.
However considering that Magical Devices are created and thus artificial, it's just more consistent to have them based off of Int and not Cha. Now If the item was intelligent or had some kind of will, I could see the plausibility of basing UMD off of your Cha score, but most magical devices are just devices. Why would a wizard put so much work into a device that everyone was more effective with than her?
You clearly don't know how UMD works. A wizard makes a wand...and can activate it without any sort of roll whatsoever. UMD is for if you're NOT a caster, or want to use magic items not created for your kind of caster. Since it all has to do with speaking command words and having the right intonation, it makes PERFECT sense to me for it to be CHA based.
You clearly don't know how UMD works. A wizard makes a wand...and can activate it without any sort of roll whatsoever. UMD is for if you're NOT a caster, or want to use magic items not created for your kind of caster. Since it all has to do with speaking command words and having the right intonation, it makes PERFECT sense to me for it to be CHA based.Really it's a matter of why fix what isn't broken? It worked in the past, so they didn't bother with it.
However considering that Magical Devices are created and thus artificial, it's just more consistent to have them based off of Int and not Cha. Now If the item was intelligent or had some kind of will, I could see the plausibility of basing UMD off of your Cha score, but most magical devices are just devices. Why would a wizard put so much work into a device that everyone was more effective with than her?
><; I feel so embarrassed now. I had never actually used a magical item. I didn't realize that you used spell craft check to be able to use magical items as well. In the case of UMD, it was rather misleading for me. UMD is for emulating magic that you shouldn't be able to cast, so really it's like bluffing the magic, in which case it really does make much more sense to use Cha.
><; I feel so embarrassed now. I had never actually used a magical item. I didn't realize that you used spell craft check to be able to use magical items as well. In the case of UMD, it was rather misleading for me. UMD is for emulating magic that you shouldn't be able to cast, so really it's like bluffing the magic, in which case it really does make much more sense to use Cha.You clearly don't know how UMD works. A wizard makes a wand...and can activate it without any sort of roll whatsoever. UMD is for if you're NOT a caster, or want to use magic items not created for your kind of caster. Since it all has to do with speaking command words and having the right intonation, it makes PERFECT sense to me for it to be CHA based.Really it's a matter of why fix what isn't broken? It worked in the past, so they didn't bother with it.
However considering that Magical Devices are created and thus artificial, it's just more consistent to have them based off of Int and not Cha. Now If the item was intelligent or had some kind of will, I could see the plausibility of basing UMD off of your Cha score, but most magical devices are just devices. Why would a wizard put so much work into a device that everyone was more effective with than her?
S'ok. Wizard actually doesn't have to make any sort of roll. It just works. Like, um, waving a magic wand :P. At least for spell trigger (wand/staff) of arcane spells.
S'ok. Wizard actually doesn't have to make any sort of roll. It just works. Like, um, waving a magic wand :P. At least for spell trigger (wand/staff) of arcane spells.Provided those spells are on the wizard class list. That arcane wand of cure moderate wounds isn't going to do anything in the hands of a wizard, but a bard or witch won't have to make a roll for those either.
Ugh. I guess that's what I guess for not speaking with exacting language on these boards. Yes I should have said wizard spells not arcane spells. I guess that makes me a retard.
S'ok. Wizard actually doesn't have to make any sort of roll. It just works. Like, um, waving a magic wand :P. At least for spell trigger (wand/staff) of arcane spells.Provided those spells are on the wizard class list. That arcane wand of cure moderate wounds isn't going to do anything in the hands of a wizard, but a bard or witch won't have to make a roll for those either.
A side note: There are no arcane wands. There's just wands.
Lets just take a look at it from a game perspective. Because what I sense here is that we have a Wizard player who's carping on the fact that UMD is not only not Int-based, it's not a class skill for a single-classed wizard.
UMD was designed at the get go to keep it out of the Wizard's hands.
In it's first incarnation it was a thief only skill. Only it wasn't a skill it was a percentage chance to activate a magic item based on the class level.
In 3.0 it became an exclusive skill for rogues.
In 3.5 it was opened up generally but made cross-class skill for everyone but rougish types.
Pathfinder opened it up as a class skill to some spontaneous spellcasting classes.
The clear intent here was not to give a Wizard who'd have a monster Int stat easy opening to the magic items he'd normally not be able to use by having both the Int stat and a class skill bonus on top of that.
This IS a good balance-related argument, however a few points need to be made to put it into perspective.
First of all, I readily agree that if it weren't for the arrival of the APG, this argument would be quite decisive. However the situation is different now that we have the APG.
Inside the group of 6 classes that now have UMD as a class skill (ie the classes that need/depend on UMD), the CHA-based ones have an unfair advantage over the INT-based ones (since taking CHA as an INT-based class is a quasi-complete loss, while taking INT as a CHA-based class at least gives you extra skill points). Of the 3 new ones only 1 is a spontaneous caster (summoner), the other 2 (alchemist and witch) are not.
The second point is that, even though it is a fact that a partly INT-based UMD would overpower the wizard, it is part of a different issue. The issue I'm talking about arose earlier, with the introduction of the new Pathfinder RPG rules and concerns the new rules for class skills. The difference between class and cross-class skills is almost negligible now, especially at high levels. In 3.5 a wizard would only have half the skill ranks in UMD as, say, a bard, while now it is only a 3 point difference.
Now I don't wan't to open a discussion about the new class skill bonus rules, what I'm saying is, that the UMD-problem is taken as a hostage by a separate issue.
In fact, I actually am in favor of the new class skill rules. If you ask me the issue should be solved with a wizard-specific rule. Like giving them a penalty on UMD. The reasoning for this could be that they are so specialized in arcane magic that they lack the skills for other types (this is in a similar vein to the "knowledge sacrificed" on the opposition schools in the arcane school specialization).
I am in the middle of writing two lengthy posts for this thread - more later.