wanders through thread
Why should a wand powered by divine magic be able to be figured out by Int?
Because INT represents knowledge. In the case of UMD it represents knowledge about magic items (only those to which UMD applies to). In the case of using UMD to make a divine wand work it represents knowledge about divine magic items (to which UMD applies) and the spells that could be stored in them.
I think a major point of confusion here is the idea that magic items operate like machines. There's nothing in the rules which support this contention. Machines, as we know them, operate according to scientific principles. Wands are, of course, magical.
Magic items absolutely work like machines. For someone who can use them, they work as mechanically/reliably as, say, your calculator does.
Magic is a natural force in the fantasy world which obeys natural laws. This is why, under normal circumstances, a wizard can cast a fireball 4 times and each and every time the spell comes out the same way.Wizards have reasons to not drop CHA. Many spells, from Charm Person to Planar Binding, explicitly work better in the hands of a high-Cha character. Many spells such as illusions implicitly work better in the hands of a high-Cha character.
Charm spells and Planar Binding are the only ones I know that profit from high CHA and for both of them there are alternatives. Also, "implicitly better" won't help much if you have a Balor breathing down your neck ;)
|
Because INT represents knowledge. In the case of UMD it represents knowledge about magic items (only those to which UMD applies to). In the case of using UMD to make a divine wand work it represents knowledge about divine magic items (to which UMD applies) and the spells that could be stored in them.
I would argue this is the failed premise in your argument- that UMD is short for Understand Magic Item. UMD is like a bluff roll vs a magic item, tricking it into believing you meet the class/race/level/alignment requirements to correctly trigger its effects. Its not that you have to learn some complicated instruction list to use it, or understand that it taps power from the Plane of Fire, its that you have to "register" to the item as a "qualified user". The quote from the Core Rulebook says "you must consciously choose what requirement to emulate" and uses the word emulate for the rest of the page and a half of details. You are emulating something, not deciphering or learning it. It is closer to bluff, disguise, or diplomacy than a knowledge roll.
|
I don't think the APG invalidates Lazar's response. Cha-based casters having an advantage over Int-based casters in UMD is countered by Int-based casters having the advantage in skill points. And you cannot really claim unfairness between classes without also complaining about casters being allowed to break the rules over their knee while non-casters cannot.
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).
The Undead's hit points and the Cleric's Channel both work the same way as Sorcerer's charisma-based powers. In all these cases the characters have an innate power source that provides the energy needed for their abilities (the fact that an Undead exists without being alive is obviously an ability itself). For the Undead it is their negative energy "lifeforce" (as the Core Rulebook puts it), for Clerics it is their positive energy "faith" and for Sorcerers it is, as I mentioned in my previous post, their magical bloodline.
This brings us to the important question of what charisma exactly is and how it works in these cases.
There seem to be two misconceptions about these points and I'm going to try and clear them up by explaining as precisely as possible and by quoting or referring to the rulebooks as much as possible.
The first misconception seems to be that charisma is understood as an innate force in the sense of a power source. This is false. Read the first paragraph of ANY class that is even remotely charisma-based. In every case it says what the character's power source is and it is most definitely NOT their general charisma. The interesting thing here is that most charisma-based classes (with the exception of the bard) have an innate power source ("innate" as in connected to their body), unlike other classes that either need to acquire power through physical training or need to intellectually learn how to manipulate external (arcane or divine) powers.
[Note that while intellectual learning always depends on INT, some caster classes without an innate power source are not INT-based. This is because another ability is EVEN MORE important for the way they manipulate the external powers and takes precedence over INT. Bards are CHA-based because they use CHA-based skills (music, song, dance, theatrics) as an intermediary for this manipulation of external powers (unlike wizards that do it directly) and clerics are WIS-based because they need to have insight into the ways/goals/motivations of their gods].
The reason for this parallelism between innate power sources and charisma-based classes lies in the true nature of charisma and the way it really works.
Charisma is not a power source, but the ability to manipulate sentient beings. This includes the character himself. Or more specifically the character's subconscious self. The subconscious controls the bodily processes which the conscious self does not (real world analogy: autonomous nervous system), including the innate power source (or more specifically the release of energy from that source). When a sorcerer casts a spell, his conscious mind persuades the subconscious mind to release a certain amount of arcane magic from his bloodline power and shape it in a certain form.
The only class with an innate power source that does not use charisma to release it, is the Monk (whose power source is his Ki). The reason for this difference is that the monk has learned through hard training and discipline to directly access the power source with his conscious mind.
This leads us to the second and far more widespread misconception, that non-sentient things such as magic items (to which UMD applies) or magic in general would be sentient and thus manipulable through charisma.
Magic items (to wich UMD applies) and magic in general are NOT sentient in any way. It does not say so anywhere in the books. In fact the rulebooks set the bar for susceptibility to manipulation quite high.
Two types of creatures (Oozes and Vermin) have, as part of their creature traits, the following trait (p. 309 of the Bestiary):
• Mindless: No Intelligence score, and immunity to all
mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms,
patterns, and morale effects). An ooze with an Intelligence
score loses this trait.
Further proof is in the descriptions of the Diplomacy skill (p. 94) and the Feint (p. 201) special attack (part of the Bluff skill).
You cannot use Diplomacy against a creature that does
not understand you or has an Intelligence of 3 or less.
When feinting against a nonhumanoid you take a –4
penalty. Against a creature of animal Intelligence (1 or 2), you
take a –8 penalty. Against a creature lacking an Intelligence
score, it’s impossible.
Final proof - and also directly applying to our case - is the entry on intelligent items in the core rulebook (p. 532).
Magic items sometimes have intelligence of their own.
Magically imbued with sentience, these items think and
feel the same way characters do and should be treated as
NPCs. Intelligent items have extra abilities and sometimes
extraordinary powers and special purposes. Only permanent
magic items (as opposed to single-use items or those with
charges) can be intelligent. (This means that potions, scrolls,
and wands, among other items, are never intelligent.)
If you are still not convinced, I challenge you to show me anything from the rulebooks that hints at magic items (to which UMD applies) and magic in general to be sentient and susceptible to manipulation.
I further challenge you to explain to me, why a fire trap, created by the spell of the same name, cannot be bypassed with UMD or any other CHA-based skill. It is a magic effect that must be interacted with via a password, and following your rationalization, it should be no problem to persuade/bluff it (as in your explanation of how Activate Blindly works).
In this post I will give a detailed explanation of how I think the 8 tasks that make up UMD work and why I think that 5 of them are INT-based and 3 of them are CHA-based.
Activate Blindly:
A trigger item that requires a word, thought or action can still be activated with an approximation of the activation condition. This is a fact as it is written in the description and rules-wise it means you still have to take the same type of action to activate it. Why is this task INT-based? Because through fundamental/theoretical knowledge about how magic items (to which UMD applies - and only those) work, you might know how the different activation methods make the items look or that the detailed workings of the activation methods actually only react to specific parts of words, thoughts or movements. A real world analogy would be a hacker using backdoors of a program.
The whole "acting like somone who knows the activation condition" doesn't make any sense, because if it were that way, the item wouldn't need any activation condition in the first place, since it would just recognise a valid user on its own (which is exatly what intelligent items do).
Decipher a Written Spell:
This task lets you read the script of a scroll. This means you only understand the written content, which is independent of any magic the written spell contains. 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 magic is written. Since UMD is knowledge focused on magic items (to which UMD applies, which includes magic scrolls), a character skilled in UMD has some knowledge of scripts found on scrolls; it's just not quite as thorough as if he had knowledge of spellcaft. That this skill is INT-based doesn't even need an explanation, since it does the same thing in the same way as a different INT-based skill (spellcraft).
Emulate Class Feature:
This task let's you emulate a skill that a member of a different class learned (at least in part) through intellectual effort. Any ability acquired through experience (that is through repetitive use and possibly under pressure to survive) has an intellectual learning component. This component can vary greatly (barbarian's rage vs wizard's spell), but unlike features acquired outside of the character's direct conscious control (birth, upbringing as a child, social/emotional pressure or physical development), it is present and may be approximated through rough knowledge. Especially if this knowledge concerns the interactions between class features and magic items. Hence INT-based.
Use a Scroll and Use a Wand, Staff or Other Spell Trigger Item:
Both of these tasks work in the same way. They represent the fact that a character, without a specific spell on his class spell list, does not have any experience with that specific spell stored in a magic item. That is, how to aim it, if he needs to be wary of certain effects that influence the spell under certain conditions, if there are interactions with other magic and so on (this is knowledge that doesn't have any specific consequences rules-wise, but belongs to the fluff of being a caster). Since these are the details someone, who could use the spell, learns as a part of his class, the argument for basing this task on INT is the same as for "Emulate Class Feature". The only difference is that the spell-specific knowledge required for firing the spell from the item is purely (and not only partly) intellectual. This also goes for items created by a sorcerer for example, since while creating the item he already cast the spell (in his CHA-based way: persuading his subconscious self) into the item. What is left to do is based on purely intellectual knowledge: aiming, spell interactions and whatnot.
Emulate Ability, Emulate Alignment and Emulate Race:
I readily concede that these are CHA-based tasks. They emulate features that a character does not acquire through direct conscious involvement, but through birth, upbringing as a child, social/emotional pressure or physical development. This emulation works because the magic in the item checks for certain mental characteristics (ie certain levels of INT/WIS/CHA, alignments and racial mindsets) that the character acts as if he had. [As a side note: if the magic checked for physical characteristics (for example elven blood), even acting wouldn't help.] You might wonder why acting works for abilities, alignment and race, but not for activation conditions (as in Activate Blindly). The answer is that there is always only one specific way to act out the needed ability score, alignment (assuming the needed alignment is known) or race, whereas the activation condition could be anything. The spell checks for a predetermined feature in a mechanical way.
|
|
Emulate basically means to pretend to be something you are not, or to strive to be something you are not. Pretending to be someone or something you are not, is not an intellectual or knowledge skill, it is a social skill. Just like being as smart as Einstein would not fool his wife and friends into believing you were him, unless you talked like him, dressed like him, and adopted his mannerisms. If you use your intellect to pretend to be another class for example, you basically are studying how to be that class, which either leaves you shy of the understanding of the class skill, or you just took a level in it. Otherwise, all the fighters out there could just take Knowledge(Cleric) and know how to cast cure light wounds.
Watch all the spy movies, its not the lack of knowledge that trips them up, its little social things or practiced routine things they should know that give them away, ie- social mannerisms.
Smurf Magic Device should be smurfed on Smurfidity. What is wrong with you people?
Emulate basically means to pretend to be something you are not, or to strive to be something you are not. Pretending to be someone or something you are not, is not an intellectual or knowledge skill, it is a social skill. Just like being as smart as Einstein would not fool his wife and friends into believing you were him, unless you talked like him, dressed like him, and adopted his mannerisms. If you use your intellect to pretend to be another class for example, you basically are studying how to be that class, which either leaves you shy of the understanding of the class skill, or you just took a level in it. Otherwise, all the fighters out there could just take Knowledge(Cleric) and know how to cast cure light wounds.
Watch all the spy movies, its not the lack of knowledge that trips them up, its little social things or practiced routine things they should know that give them away, ie- social mannerisms.
Emulate just means to copy. It is the result of an action. Depending on what you want to copy, you can do this by acting or by using rough knowledge.
I totally agree that fooling people about your identity is charisma-based, but this isn't at all what we're talking about.
Having knowledge that is (just) shy of the understanding of the class skill is exactly what I mean. It is just enough for a character to emulate the class feature in order to use a magic item.
In the spy movies it is most definitely lack of knowledge that trips them up. Think about the situation where the spy is impersonating someone and he is asked a specific question to which he doesn't have the answer or he makes a statement about something and by chance his counterpart is an expert on just that (often eclectic) subject. That's when his cover blows and things start getting ugly.
Funny you're talking about spies and knowledge. Check out the "Master Spy" prestige class in the APG. I just looked over it yesterday and it actually has a class feature called "Superficial Knowledge" that represents exactly what I'm talking about. In the description it is implied that the spy prepares for an undercover mission by acquiring superficial knowledge about subjects that might be important for his cover story.
I don't think the APG invalidates Lazar's response. Cha-based casters having an advantage over Int-based casters in UMD is countered by Int-based casters having the advantage in skill points. And you cannot really claim unfairness between classes without also complaining about casters being allowed to break the rules over their knee while non-casters cannot.
You are right, the argument goes both ways.
However, I'm presuming that specific skills (and the abilities they're based on) are not taken directly into account when classes are balanced out, since (especially in Pathfinder) every class has easy access to all skills (remember, I'm just using the fact that a class has UMD as a class skill as an indicator that it needs/depends on it).Also, most of the resistance I'm encountering seems to be because people want to prevent the wizard from becoming even more powerful.
I fully understand that (I totally agree that the wizard is overpowered), but that problem should be separate from the problem that UMD based on CHA is unbalancing for the classes that depend on it and that it doesn't make sense for 5 of the 8 tasks it is made up of.
Why are you assuming this wasn't accounted for in class design? The Witch is pretty powerful even without UMD as a class skill. It might be the most powerful class in the APG, it doesn't need the help by changing UMD to use their primary stat.
This leaves 2 other we need to account for in the new book. The Summoner isn't ever going to see play in my gaming group, we took a look at the nerfs it was overloaded with and no one is willing to play one.
The Alchemist isn't really a spellcaster when you get down to it. Why are they going to be as good (or better) at activating magical items than people who actually have some understanding of magic?
The witch is NOWHERE near as powerful as the wizard or even the sorcerer. It isn't even the most powerful class in the APG.
Both the summoner and the alchemist are bard-level spellcasters and therefore need UMD even more than the sorcerer or the witch. This goes doubly for the alchemist, since by the rules he isn't considered a spellcaster and thus doesn't qualify for item creation feats.Why are they going to be as good (or better) at activating magical items than people who actually have some understanding of magic?
Following this logic, wizards should be the first ones to get UMD, since they are by far the most knowledgeable of magic. And rogues, who were the only ones in 3.0 to have this skill, shouldn't have it at all.
The truth however is that UMD is a skill like any other, which means you can learn it as any class.Again, I'm taking the fact that these 6 classes have UMD as a class skill, as an indication from the game designers that they consider that these classes depend on using magic items.
We could always change knowledge(religion), knowledge(Planar), and knowledge(Nature) to use wisdom as the primary stat, seeing as how those are used primarily by WIS based classes and not INT. It makes as much sense, and messes with the game balance just as much as changing UMD to INT based.
No, we couldn't. Knowledge skills always depend on INT. They represents the facts that a character learned about a subject. For the skills you mention this could the names of different planes in the multiverse and their denizens, names of gods and their portfolios/home planes, names of herbs, etc. (just read their descriptions in the rulebook).
My argument is NOT that UMD should be partly INT-based because INT-based classes are the primary users of magic items (they aren't). What I'm saying is that 5 of the 8 tasks that make up UMD represent knowledge about magic items and are thus INT-based. Further, I argue that this change is also necessary because half of the classes that depend on UMD are not CHA-based and thus at a disadvantage.
Ah, here is the thing. The 'knowledge about magic items' comes from the skill ranks themselves. That is what they represent, your training or experience in jerry-rigging magic devices. The Cha bonus to it represents your natural ability to get it to work, not to know how it works.
If the skill only represents knowledge about something, then the ability it is based on is INT.
|
|
'Trained at working with animals'
I represent knowledge about healing.
Knowledge about the wilderness.
Edit: If you're going to point out you said 'only represents knowledge', UMD does not only represent knowledge, it involves the act of using the device.
'Trained at working with animals'
I said if a skill "only" represents knowledge.
The skills you list represent knowledge (hence the skill points that are based on INT) about a task that necessitates some OTHER ability on top.
EDIT: Ninja'ed ;)
The *physical* act of using the device is quite minor (it only appears in the task "Activate Blindly" and even there it is only for items that have a certain movement as an activation condition) and thus not based on any ability (if it were, it would have to be DEX).
The skills you list represent knowledge (hence the skill points that are based on INT) about a task that necessitates some OTHER ability on top.Use Magic Device requires an ability to emulate something you don't have.
As I mentioned in my response to redcelt further up, emulating can be based on knowledge OR acting.
In the case of UMD it is only in 3 times out of 8 that it is based on acting (and in these 3 cases I'm all for basing UMD on CHA).|
|
Problem with that is that Paizo is not willing to have more than one stat per skill. After all, climbing can involve certain dexterous acts, but Climb is still tied to Str. Appraise requires you to examine an object in detail, and Perception is based on Wis, but Appraise is Int. Ride is a Dex check but you need to be able to make your animal trust and accept you, which is Cha.
In any event, an excellent discussion.
Problem with that is that Paizo is not willing to have more than one stat per skill.
That's one thing. The other is "Why would UMD get several key ability when everything else won't?"
Either this is done as a systemic change, or it isn't done at all. Everything else is just messing around.
Problem with that is that Paizo is not willing to have more than one stat per skill.That's one thing. The other is "Why would UMD get several key ability when everything else won't?"
Either this is done as a systemic change, or it isn't done at all. Everything else is just messing around.
In principle I'd agree. On the other hand, it's not that much of a stretch to make it 2 key abilities, depending on the task. After all, UMD is arguably the most important (combat-related) skill, so making it a little special wouldn't be too bad.
|
|
In principle I'd agree. On the other hand, it's not that much of a stretch to make it 2 key abilities, depending on the task. After all, UMD is arguably the most important (combat-related) skill, so making it a little special wouldn't be too bad.
Except when you go to explain it to a new player.
"Why does my sheet say Int/Cha for UMD? Which do I use? Why do I have to look up the skills section, can't you just tell me what happens when I roll, DM? Can I use my Dex for Climb and Str for Intimidate as well?"
Except when you go to explain it to a new player.
"Why does my sheet say Int/Cha for UMD? Which do I use? Why do I have to look up the skills section, can't you just tell me what happens when I roll, DM? Can I use my Dex for Climb and Str for Intimidate as well?"
Well, new players ask all sorts of questions non-stop. Adding these wouldn't change much ;)
Also, UMD is so complex that most people have to look up the details all the time anyway...
I think attack rolls should be INT based because you have to KNOW where to hit them. Damage too. Also acrobatics since you have to UNDERSTAND physics for it to work.
Alch your arguments are utterly baffling and nonsensical. No one agrees with you. Think for a second, maybe that's a clue?
I think attack rolls should be INT based because you have to KNOW where to hit them. Damage too. Also acrobatics since you have to UNDERSTAND physics for it to work.
Alch your arguments are utterly baffling and nonsensical. No one agrees with you. Think for a second, maybe that's a clue?
First of all, if you had bothered to read some of my posts, I wouldn't even have to reply to this. I've responded to the specific argument you bring up at least 4 times already (the last time being only a few posts away).
Fact is (independently of my argument) that skills that are SOLELY based on knowledge are INT-based. All other skills and also class features are partly INT-based (to varying degrees), but mainly based on other skills (such as STR for melee attack rolls, etc.).
I'm just saying that 5 of the 8 tasks that make up UMD are solely based on knowledge about magic items and thus should be INT-based.
I'm just saying that 5 of the 8 tasks that make up UMD are solely based on knowledge about magic items and thus should be INT-based.
IN YOUR OPINION. There have been plenty of people showing how, flavor-wise, it can be said otherwise but you ignore them or tell them they are wrong. Me included. All you have done is dismiss their arguments and continue to assert your opinion as fact. I have read this thread in its entirety. I disagree with your assertion that UMD is based on knowledge of the item in question or knowledge of magic in general. So does everyone else it seems.
I'm amazed this thread isn't dead. It has devolved into people coming here with rational explainations, clearly and concisely stated, as to why UMD is cha-based. And your response is to spit out the same argument you wrote pages ago, stamp your feet, and so NO YOU'RE WRONG.
You are in a minority of 1. We cannot convince you, and you cannot convince us. You are free to run your game how you see fit however. There is nothing really at stake in this argument so why doesn't it end there?
I'm amazed this thread isn't dead. It has devolved into people coming here with rational explainations, clearly and concisely stated, as to why UMD is cha-based. And your response is to spit out the same argument you wrote pages ago, stamp your feet, and so NO YOU'RE WRONG.
I have clearly shown that the arguments given are not consistent with what is written in the rules (for the latest example see here).
Also your argument from authority (a majority in a single thread) is what is called a deductive fallacy.
If you are so sure about your opinion, how about answering the 2 challenges I put forth at the end of the post I linked to.
|
A feat that allows folks to use INT on top of CHA for UMD could be cool.
But you're bluffing the magic item into thinking you can use it when you really can't. CHA works just fine for that.
Knowledge of arcane devices is called Knowledge: Arcana and Spellcraft, and they already use INT instead of CHA. If your character wants to know everything about magic items and how they work, then your character should get both of those skills. If your character wants to use magic items in ways that the laws of magic decree are illegal, you'll need a charisma-based skill to sweet-talk magic into looking the other way.
There are two problems here
1) The ignorance of Spellcraft; all the Int based attempts of using a magical item fall under spellcraft.
2) A misunderstanding of what Charisma is; Charisma is more than just your personality (though that's part of it), it's your personal magnetism, and it's the ability to control others to your will. That's why having a high charisma helps sorcerers cast magic, clerics control the undead, and other characters to get others to believe and follow them.
In my opinion the skill is fine as it is. Int based classes gain little from changing UMD to Int because they already have Spellcraft; The only thing you're doing is taking away charismatic characters' ability to will the magic out of items.
A feat that allows folks to use INT on top of CHA for UMD could be cool.
But you're bluffing the magic item into thinking you can use it when you really can't. CHA works just fine for that.
Knowledge of arcane devices is called Knowledge: Arcana and Spellcraft, and they already use INT instead of CHA. If your character wants to know everything about magic items and how they work, then your character should get both of those skills. If your character wants to use magic items in ways that the laws of magic decree are illegal, you'll need a charisma-based skill to sweet-talk magic into looking the other way.
You said it yourself Knowledge(arcana) and spellcraft are about arcane magic. Magic items can be of all kinds of magic. UMD represents specialized knowledge about magic items of all sources.
You said it yourself Knowledge(arcana) and spellcraft are about arcane magic. Magic items can be of all kinds of magic. UMD represents specialized knowledge about magic items of all sources.A feat that allows folks to use INT on top of CHA for UMD could be cool.
But you're bluffing the magic item into thinking you can use it when you really can't. CHA works just fine for that.
Knowledge of arcane devices is called Knowledge: Arcana and Spellcraft, and they already use INT instead of CHA. If your character wants to know everything about magic items and how they work, then your character should get both of those skills. If your character wants to use magic items in ways that the laws of magic decree are illegal, you'll need a charisma-based skill to sweet-talk magic into looking the other way.
I thought spellcraft was a skill used for all magic, not just arcane. On top of that, the skill is, after all, called use magic device, not knowledge (items and artifacts).
I'm amazed this thread isn't dead. It has devolved into people coming here with rational explainations, clearly and concisely stated, as to why UMD is cha-based. And your response is to spit out the same argument you wrote pages ago, stamp your feet, and so NO YOU'RE WRONG.I have clearly shown that the arguments given are not consistent with what is written in the rules (for the latest example see here).
Also your argument from authority (a majority in a single thread) is what is called a deductive fallacy.
If you are so sure about your opinion, how about answering the 2 challenges I put forth at the end of the post I linked to.
1st challenge-self defeating. UMD itself does precisely what you ask.
2nd challenge-it is a TRAP not a magic item, and uses a different subset of rules. I don't disagree with you in theory, but the rules are an abstraction and don't always follow logic. Deal with it.
|
|
Is this still going on...?
For the record:
Intelligence-based casting: "Now align the cardinal vertices of your right hand with the eigenharmonics of that phantasmagorical manifold and continuously yet energetically propel it towards... I said continuously! Good grief... Alright, let's start over."
Wisdom-based casting: "I am but a conduit for a force infinitely far beyond my comprehension. I need but clear my mind of all obstructions and let it fill me, guide me, and work its righteous deeds through me."
Charisma-based casting: "I AM POWER INCARNATE! HEAR ME ROAR! TREMBLE AND DESPAIR! MUAHAHAHA!"
Using a magic device in the first two fashions requires years of studying, either in a dusty library or in contemplative solitude. Neither of those are acceptable solutions to a rogue. As for the third fashion... it's just about wanting it enough. Rogues are experts at wanting things. So there.
Something in this thread reminded me of the (3.0?) DMG advice that you can swap out ability scores in certain circumstances. The example I believe was that you could decide (as long as you're consistent) that Will saves for illusions use Intelligence instead of Wisdom.
Another example, Rules on intelligent items: "When a personality conflict occurs, the possessor must make a Will saving throw (DC = item's Ego)." This could be a Will save based on Charisma instead.
**thread jacking**
This is an amazingly redundant and self-defeating thread.
Nobody is going to agree so i have an interesting thought reguarding Sorcerers and scrolls... how is it that they can do it exactly.
I get how the wizard can, but I and many of my current and past players have wondered this.
I understand that it does as per the Rules As Written, but flavor wise it makes my brain hurt to try to figure it out.
Thoughts?
**end thread jack**
|
|
You said it yourself Knowledge(arcana) and spellcraft are about arcane magic. Magic items can be of all kinds of magic. UMD represents specialized knowledge about magic items of all sources.
All right, KN:Arcana and Spellcraft are for arcane devices and magic, and KN:Religion and Spellcraft are about divine devices and magic. There, I fixed it for you.
UMD doesn't represent any knowledge, actually. Knowing things won't help you convince the paladin's +3 Holy Avenger sword that your CN bard is really LG.
|
|
**thread jacking**
I understand that it does as per the Rules As Written, but flavor wise it makes my brain hurt to try to figure it out.
Thoughts?
**end thread jack**
How do you mean? They take the spell Read Magic, cast it to understand the spell, and then do so. What part of the flavor troubles you? That sorcerers aren't trained, so how do they know how to cast from a scroll? I would posit instinct.
|
|
This whole thread sounds like the Nature vs Nurture argument for how people end up when they are adults. Each side is firmly convinced they have the right of it, and all the arguments the other side make start with what appears to their opponent to be a fallacious premise. Guess we will have to agree to disagree. All I can say is thankfully, UMD is CHA based in the RAW for Pathfinder Society Games that I occasionally play in, and not up for debate.
I thought spellcraft was a skill used for all magic, not just arcane. On top of that, the skill is, after all, called use magic device, not knowledge (items and artifacts).
I stand corrected. Spellcraft is for all types of magic. But with regards to magic items, it only represents knowledge about how to craft them and how to identify them. It says so very clearly in the description.
UMD is knowledge about how to use magic devices. This is undisputed. It is a skill that uses skill points, which are based on INT.
What I'm saying is that 5 of the 8 tasks that make it up are SOLELY based on knowledge and thus should be INT-based.
>>>>>>>>>>
1st challenge-self defeating. UMD itself does precisely what you ask.
In the entire description of the skill there isn't a SINGLE mention of any persuading, faking or bluffing magic items or magic in general.
Instead of persistently and vaguely saying that "it's charisma-based and that's it", why don't you explain to me - in detail - how every task that makes up UMD works, if it is based on charisma (just like I did in this post). Not a single poster has done this yet, even after almost 200 posts.>>>>>>>>>>
Let's put aside the fact that you're wrong (INT doesn't represent knowledge, it represents the ability to reason).
Sorry, you're wrong. Core Rulebook, p. 16, paragraph: Intelligence(Int), first sentence: "Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons."
Learning is obviously what knowledge is all about.Is divine magic powered by knowledge? No. It's powered by faith. A Bard can have a 22 Knowledge (religion) and not be able to cast divine spells that a 1st level Cleric can cast easily.
As I have now repeatedly said, divine spellcasting is about knowledge AND insight into a god's will/motivation/plans/power (WIS-based). [BTW: Faith is CHA-based and powers a cleric's channel ability]
Knowledge(religion) is pure knowledge (ie facts) and thus based on INT (which is exactly why this skill won't help if you're trying to cast divine magic).That's a pretty bold statement considering that there is absolutely nothing in RAW to support it.
It IS supported in RAW. For someone who meets all requirements, a magic item works perfectly and without the chance of any mishaps, every single time he uses the item, just as if he cast the spell himself. Couldn't be any clearer.
If magic is so subject to the laws of reason, then why don't the majority of casters need INT to cast spells? Clerics, Druids, Bards, Sorcerers, Paladins, and Rangers should, if you are right, require INT as a prime req. There's only one class out of seven spell casting classes which requires INT.
Already answered. Read here.
>>>>>>>>>>
I would argue this is the failed premise in your argument- that UMD is short for Understand Magic Item. UMD is like a bluff roll vs a magic item, tricking it into believing you meet the class/race/level/alignment requirements to correctly trigger its effects. Its not that you have to learn some complicated instruction list to use it, or understand that it taps power from the Plane of Fire, its that you have to "register" to the item as a "qualified user". The quote from the Core Rulebook says "you must consciously choose what requirement to emulate" and uses the word emulate for the rest of the page and a half of details. You are emulating something, not deciphering or learning it. It is closer to bluff, disguise, or diplomacy than a knowledge roll.
Read here as well.
"Emulate" just means "to equal". Depending on what it is you want to emulate, this can be done by acting (CHA-based) or with knowledge (INT-based). Check out the definitions 1 and 2 in the Merriam-Webster for "emulate" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emulate).>>>>>>>>>>
If magic worked like science, then why is it always referred to as an "art" by practitioners over and over again in countless works of fiction? I think we all know what stat art would be based on.
The original definition of "art" is learning, scholarship and skill. It comes from the Latin word "ars", which means skill. The mathematicians and philosophers of Ancient Greece considered themselves artists.
The guy who knows nearly everything about magic (the wizard) gets very little use out of the UMD skill, since he can already do 75% or more of it already without a roll.
Absolutely, that's why he doesn't bother/spend time learning a skill that represents knowledge about how to use magic items powered by all kinds of magic. This is the reason UMD is not a class skill for wizards.
I have a problem with this statement. Because in this case 'Emulate' does not mean 'equal'. That is a truth in the fact that based on how UMD works. If you are Neutral Good you can use a magic item that requires Neutral Evil. Your alignment is not NE, you are pretending to be NE in your thoughts and feelings.
If you are human and the magic item can only be used by an elf, you are obviously not an elf, but you can still use it, if you can convince yourself enough to convince the item.
If you are a rogue, you do not have 'smite evil', but you can pretend to have it to the point to make a magic item work.
Also, if you are a rogue, you do not have Cure Light Wounds in any sense of being in your 'spell list'. You don't even have a spell list. But you can convince yourself to pretend that you do in order to operate the Cure Light Wounds wand in your hand.
In all of these cases, you do NOT have the requirements. The CHA check is to master yourself enough to emulate the emotions or thoughts behind the requirements. So you can not say Equivalent is the same as Equal.
All right, since people can't be forced (and apparently not even bothered) to visit an external site, I'll just copy the definition.
==========
Merriam-Webster: EMULATE
em·u·late
transitive verb
em·u·lat·ed - em·u·lat·ing
Definition of EMULATE
1a : to strive to equal or excel
1b : imitate; especially : to imitate by means of an emulator
2: to equal or approach equality with
==========
As for the specific tasks you mention, I've already explained them in depth in this post.
|
|
UMD is knowledge about how to use magic devices. This is undisputed. It is a skill that uses skill points, which are based on INT.
By this reasoning all skills should be INT based.
Could we please let the former be the case?
By this reasoning all skills should be INT based.
In a way, they are. They all use skill points, which are INT-based.
What I'm saying is that, specific skills that are INT-based, are purely based on knowledge. All others are based on knowledge but have an additional ability that plays an important role, which is why they are based on that ability.