And you don't believe Cha plays an important enough role in UMD. The rest of us disagree.
It only plays a role in 3 out of 8 tasks. The other 5 are purely INT-based. Which is why I think that, depending on the task, you should either use INT or CHA.
|
And you don't believe Cha plays an important enough role in UMD. The rest of us disagree.It only plays a role in 3 out of 8 tasks. The other 5 are purely INT-based. Which is why I think that, depending on the task, you should either use INT or CHA.
Doesn't matter. You can only use one ability with each skill.
Not all Skill points are INT based, just the bonus ones. The points used to make UMD skills can be assumed to be the non-INT ones. Even at -4INT every class, PC or NPC, is assumed to have at least 1 skill point a level.
Every class has an intellectual learning component (some more than others). You learn from experience. This even goes for beings with very low intelligence (an animal for example can learn to hunt or to do tricks). The implied minimum INT score for any PC is 3, since the rulebook says that it is the limit for understanding a spoken language. In fact, earlier editions even explicitly said the minimum INT-score is 3 (while it was 1 for all other abilities).
In the Bestiary (p. 309) the creature type "Ooze" has the following written in it's entry on skills:Skill points equal to 2 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit
Die. However, most oozes are mindless and gain no skill
points or feats. Oozes do not have any class skills.
I think this clearly shows that INT is ALWAYS needed for any skills or class features. In most cases however, it only plays a secondary role behind a different ability. Only the skills that purely depend on knowledge are INT-based.
You forgot the 3rd definition, which, despite being a Computer Science term, is MOST applicable to UMD.
3. (Electronics & Computer Science / Computer Science) to make one computer behave like (another different type of computer) so that the imitating system can operate on the same data and execute the same programs as the imitated system.
In this case, Emulate is effectively 'imitate', which is long held as being a CHA set of skills, such as performance (acting), Bluff ,etc.
Thank you. You have just proven my point. Computers obviously do not have any charisma. Yet they still emulate - via pure knowledge (which is what computer programs are made of).
Computers don't even have the capability to reason, Computers themselves can't learn, though they can be made to look like they can. They certainly don't have the ability to manipulate magic, being non-self aware, which is another CHA requirement. They can only manipulate data. At most, Machine Intelligence, is about random choices being stored with a programmed bias of success/fail. The Random Bias being shunted to stored successes as that grows.
Can a computer be Chaotic Evil? They can't even be Neutral. All of the programming in the world can not bring them past the 'operate using these instructions' phase. They certainly can't, themselves, imitate anything which is beyond their hardware and programming.
All the knowledge(INT) in the world doesn't allow you to 'feel'(CHA) what it is like to be Chaotic Evil, which would be the preq to operating a CE item. All of the knowledge can't fool divine powers into allowing you to use divine magic, unless you can place yourself into a divine caster's state of mind.
We are in complete agreement. Please read these two posts, to see my argument.
Computers just reproduce instructions/knowledge that they were programmed with by programmers. The computers emulate with pure knowledge that comes from human minds. My point is that there are TWO ways to emulate: through knowledge and through acting (or other social/charisma-based methods).Also note that if a character uses a magic item that produces a divine spell, he does not call on the gods to produce the effect (nor does the item). The spell was cast INTO the item during it's creation by a divine caster (who was the one to call on his god).
After all, UMD is arguably the most important (combat-related) skill, so making it a little special wouldn't be too bad.
First of all, it's not.
Plus, just because it might be important to combat doesn't mean it has to be special. In fact, since skills are there to cover things that happen apart from combat, those that are not just for fighting should get the extra treatment - combat already has so much.
Ultimately, it remains an all-or-nothing deal, though.
This thread has run its course. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see little chance that any side will be able to convince the other.
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.**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**
Sorry about confusion, its not about using them its writing them. How do you write down what comes to you through your blood?
Use magic device has always been charisma based. Tis part of a longstanding tradition that many call a sacred cow. wizards never recieved complete access to this ability, nor was it intended for them to use it. especially when they can already achieve godlike levels of power with thier basic spellcasting package. preparing in advance is a huge advantage. especially when they can leave slots open.
After all, UMD is arguably the most important (combat-related) skill, so making it a little special wouldn't be too bad.First of all, it's not.
Plus, just because it might be important to combat doesn't mean it has to be special. In fact, since skills are there to cover things that happen apart from combat, those that are not just for fighting should get the extra treatment - combat already has so much.
Ultimately, it remains an all-or-nothing deal, though.
I just added the "combat-related" in parenthesis, because I didn't want to have the sentence appear to say that UMD is THE most important skill. This would be very hard to quantify, since out-of-combat skills can, depending on the situation, play crucial and adventure-changing roles. I also said "arguably", since I am well aware of the importance of the 'acrobatics' skill.
==========
I agree that pretty much everything has been said on the subject of whether UMD based on charisma makes sense or not. Either we agree or we disagree.
The way I see it, in 3.0 the decision to make UMD CHA-based was only made for balancing reasons and any explanations were just fig-leaf-rationalizations. Back then, UMD was an exclusive skill for bards and rogues, and since 3.0-rogues were all about DEX and not much else, it would have only been detrimental to bards if it had been based on any other mental ability than CHA (especially since bards only got half as many class skill points per level as rogues). Also, in 2nd edition, rogues had a higher failure rate with their 'use scroll' ability than bards (25% vs 15%). That it stayed CHA-based throughout 3.5 and PFRPG had to do with path dependence (definition) and the fact that it was opened to another CHA-based class, the sorcerer.
What I would be interested in, is what people think about the balance-related effects it has on the game, now that with the APG the number of classes with UMD as a class has doubled.
How do you write down what comes to you through your heart?
Scribe Emotions? xp
Anyway just reiterating here, UMD really only really comes into effect when one has failed to meet the qualifications, so they have to will it. Charisma, it's the force. :3
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.
1) Spellcraft only represents knowledge about how to craft and how to identify magic items. It says so explicitly and very clearly in the description. See p.106:
You are skilled at the art of casting spells, identifying
magic items, crafting magic items, and identifying spells
as they are being cast.
Check: Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge
and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting
a magic item comes into question. This skill is also
used to identify the properties of magic items in your
possession through the use of spells such as detect magic
and identify.
UMD is knowledge about how to use magic devices.
BTW, in the whole description of UMD there isn't a single mention of "willing" or "bluffing" the magic item. The only thing it says - and only for certain tasks - is 'emulate'. As the last few posts show, this word can be used as much or even more for dry knowledge as for acting.
2) I agree with your definition of Charisma. However, you are misunderstanding how it works for CHA-based spontaneous casters, like the sorcerer.
See this post.
In short, the sorcerer has an innate (as in "part of his physical body") power source, his bloodline. When he casts a spell, he uses charisma to convince his subconscious self (which is directly connected to his body and power source) to release the power of his bloodline shaped as a certain spell.
Decipher the Writing: The writing on a scroll must be deciphered before a character can use it or know exactly what spell it contains. This requires a read magic spell or a successful Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level). Deciphering a scroll is a full-round action.
Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method
Activation: Staves use the spell trigger activation method
Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell
completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell
finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting
that an appropriate character would know, and a single word
that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone
whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case
even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a
3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is
stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell
trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks
of opportunity.
The Knowledge (arcana) and Knowledge (history) skills might be useful in helping to identify command words or deciphering clues regarding them. A successful check against DC 30 is needed to come up with the word itself. If that check is failed, succeeding on a second check (DC 25) might provide some insight into a clue. The spells detect magic, identify, and analyze dweomer all reveal command words if the properties of the item are successfully identified.
Half of your points are moot.
Deciphering a spell via UMD takes 60 times longer than a spellcraft as well as having a higher DC, it's just not viable in combat at all.
Spell triggers require absolutely no check at unless you don't know what you're doing and end up having to emulate some other class.
Activating Blindly would never have to be used if the character knows what they're doing. It would fall under Spell Trigger or Command Word. Which either requires no check at all or using knowledge to figure out the command word.
So really the only argument you've made that stands is emulating a class feature which is still iffy.
I must say I'm a bit puzzled about your answer...
How does your argument about how long these actions take support CHA-based UMD or refute INT-based UMD tasks?
Also, you're wrong about the durations. From the description of UMD (p.109):
"Action: None. The Use Magic Device check is made as part
of the action (if any) required to activate the magic item."
Read this post of mine, to see how I explain the specific tasks that make up UMD based on INT.
That a character can use knowledge checks to find out the direct word (DC 30) or a clue to where the word might be found (DC 25), doesn't change how an INT-based 'Activate Blindly' would work. As I said, read my explanation under the link.
The gist of it is that INT-based 'Activate Blindly' represents knowledge about how magic items and specifically activation mechanisms function. A character skilled in UMD would know for example, that the only parts of command words that really matter are certain sounds and that it's enough to approximate them to activate the item. A real world analogy is a hacker that exploits backdoors in software. He knows of these backdoors because he knows how the software is programmed.
I must say I'm a bit puzzled about your answer...
How does your argument about how long these actions take support CHA-based UMD or refute INT-based UMD tasks?
Also, you're wrong about the durations. From the description of UMD (p.109):
"Action: None. The Use Magic Device check is made as part
of the action (if any) required to activate the magic item."Read this post of mine, to see how I explain the specific tasks that make up UMD based on INT.
That a character can use knowledge checks to find out the direct word (DC 30) or a clue to where the word might be found (DC 25), doesn't change how an INT-based 'Activate Blindly' would work. As I said, read my explanation under the link.
The gist of it is that INT-based 'Activate Blindly' represents knowledge about how magic items and specifically activation mechanisms function. A character skilled in UMD would know for example, that the only parts of command words that really matter are certain sounds and that it's enough to approximate them to activate the item. A real world analogy is a hacker that exploits backdoors in software. He knows of these backdoors because he knows how the software is programmed.
Decipher a Written Spell: This usage works just like
deciphering a written spell with the Spellcraft skill, except
that the DC is 5 points higher. Deciphering a written spell
requires 1 minute of concentration.
Deciphering a scroll is not the same as activating an item. Using UMD to decipher takes a minute as opposed to a full round action. (though I did mess up with the duration, it's 10 times longer not 60)
Anyway as stated in the Core Rulebook about using magical items (pg 458, read it carefully) you will realize that anyone using a magical item that actually has 'knowledge of spellcasting' that the object is capable of can use it without any checks. This means sorcerer's and wizard's wouldn't be using UMD for wands or staves with spells on their spell list.
The point is UMD doesn't even get used when the character is using their intelligence to use something.
Your example of the hacker is exemplifying how knowledge works to unlock the password. In that same scenario, you can't a hacker to use a password that's a letter off of the right one to get him into a system. It doesn't even help, It's an all or nothing scenario.
Deciphering a scroll is not the same as activating an item. Using UMD to decipher takes a minute as opposed to a full round action. (though I did mess up with the duration, it's 10 times longer not 60)
You are right it does take longer. But what is your point? What does this have to do with CHA vs. INT?
Anyway as stated in the Core Rulebook about using magical items (pg 458, read it carefully) you will realize that anyone using a magical item that actually has 'knowledge of spellcasting' that the object is capable of can use it without any checks. This means sorcerer's and wizard's wouldn't be using UMD for wands or staves with spells on their spell list.
The point is UMD doesn't even get used when the character is using their intelligence to use something.
You're missing the point of my argument. I am saying these tasks should have INT as 'Key Ability', which would mean they are PURELY based on knowledge ( = INT). Being based on CHA means that they are based on knowledge ( = skill ranks, which depend on INT) AND acting ( = CHA).
Read my posts. I am saying that ALL class features and skills are to some extent based on INT. Thus a wizard/sorcerer, that can use scrolls without UMD, is using INT through their class features (which represent knowledge the character gained through experience). And a character using UMD to cast a spell from a scroll is ALSO using INT through their UMD skill.
The specific task of this skill is purely based on knowledge (about using magic items) and thus the 'Key Ability' should be INT.
Your example of the hacker is exemplifying how knowledge works to unlock the password. In that same scenario, you can't a hacker to use a password that's a letter off of the right one to get him into a system. It doesn't even help, It's an all or nothing scenario.
When a hacker uses a backdoor he normally avoids using the password altogether through some method or other. That is exactly what a character usind 'Activate Blindly' does.
Another poster claimed that magic works reliably in this game and, therefore, magic items can be understood and used reliable. They claimed that UMD reflects the ability to figure out how to work the machine.
In reality, though, if a person with a wand relies on UMD to use that wand, every single time he activates that wand, there's a chance he'll fail the UMD roll. The magic of the wand isn't reliable.
The magic of the wand is absolutely reliable. It's the user that isn't.
The proof for that is quite simple. Give the same wand to someone who can use it without UMD and the wand will work perfectly every time.
|
That just goes to show how unreliable magic is. If I have a car and it doesn't always start when I turn the ignition, that means the car is unreliable. The fact that one guy who spent over a decade learning how to fiddle with the car in order to make it work doesn't mean the car is reliable - even when that guy presses on the gas, the car can unpredictably go anywhere from 10 to 60 miles an hour (a tenth level wizard casting fireball can do anything from 10 to 60 points of damage).
While I don't necessarily agree with or understand your analogy here... I have to agree somewhat.
Spellcraft/Spellcasting is a professional, trained classification. It is the same as the mechanic who works on the car. He understand what makes it run and can usually guess what the problem is the first time and correct it in one go. His personal vehicles are likely to run efficiently and smoothly. He may even be able to fabricate his own parts (magic item crafting).
Use Magic Device is like trying to jury-rig the car. You don't have the right parts, you don't necessarily have the right tools. You do the best you can with what you've got, and hopefully it works. It's even harder when you don't have the tools, which is true of UMD in general anyway.
That just goes to show how unreliable magic is. If I have a car and it doesn't always start when I turn the ignition, that means the car is unreliable. The fact that one guy who spent over a decade learning how to fiddle with the car in order to make it work doesn't mean the car is reliable - even when that guy presses on the gas, the car can unpredictably go anywhere from 10 to 60 miles an hour (a tenth level wizard casting fireball can do anything from 10 to 60 points of damage).
Just because there is a damage range for a spell does not mean that magic unreliable. The damage range is due to aiming the spell, miscalculating certain effects the environment has on the spell (air pressure, humidity, etc.) or other effects of APPLYING the magic.
It's the same with a longsword. Although it deals between 1 and 8 damage, it always stays the same piece of unchanged metal.
While I don't necessarily agree with or understand your analogy here... I have to agree somewhat.
Spellcraft/Spellcasting is a professional, trained classification. It is the same as the mechanic who works on the car. He understand what makes it run and can usually guess what the problem is the first time and correct it in one go. His personal vehicles are likely to run efficiently and smoothly. He may even be able to fabricate his own parts (magic item crafting).
Use Magic Device is like trying to jury-rig the car. You don't have the right parts, you don't necessarily have the right tools. You do the best you can with what you've got, and hopefully it works. It's even harder when you don't have the tools, which is true of UMD in general anyway.
I would put the analogies this way:
Spellcraft is theoretical knowledge about cars. Engineering and physics.
A spellcasting class is a trained mechanic.
And UMD is backyard tinkering on cars. And I don't mean this with a negative connotation.
These analogies fit quite well since UMD and Spellcraft are skills that any character can learn. An engineer/physicist does not necessarily know how to repair cars. And a person of any qualification can be a proficient backyard tinkerer.
BTW, I would say that Knowledge(arcana) would be knowledge about cars. Anybody can be a automotive fan who knows lots of trivia about cars (models, horsepower, etc.).
Everything is magic until you understand how it works xp
Charisma is your force of presence. I guess in a philosophical sense it's your will.
You're pushing your will onto the item and forcing it to cooperate. It's the same thing with a diplomacy check, "You will do as I ask." You do the same action when you use charm person, "You will obey me!" You activate the object blindly by naming it or by forcing it with your will, but you're just doing it without words. You're using your perceptions of reality and your will in order to force the object to work.
It's the same thing for Charisma casters and magic.
.
..
...
....
.....
If reality is subjective and perception defines your reality then he/she/it/misc who can influence the percetion of reality defines reality.
So a charismatic caster like the sorcerer or the bard is basically forcing their local perspective of reality (one where they're capable of doing whatever they're trying to do, in this case trigger a magical device/cast a spell) onto the larger, consensually formed perspective of reality, seemingly through personal presence and confidence.
The mundane variation of this effect would be anyone convincing someone they're capable of doing something that they're not capable of - the person so convinced operates within a reality where the convincer is capable of doing what they claim to be able to do.
Example:
Bard: I can punch through walls!
Tavern Drunk: Ooo eck, best not mess with that bugger, he can punch through walls.
Magical Device Example:
Bard: Ok reality/device, I can do this!
Reality/Device: Oh ok!
So aye, it's about force of personality - I *know* I can do this because I CAN DO THIS!
|
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?
Well... This idea is kind of weak. The character focuses their force of personality over the item to unlock the magic. Demanding the magic to be released.
Well... That might be one way to see it. I have no problem with it being a Charisma-based skill.
May be used Intellignce for an arcane item and Wisdom for a divine item if you want. Change it to fit your version of the rules.
You can try to explain away why magic is unreliable just like you might try to explain away why weather prediction is unreliable. At the end of the day, it's unreliable.
No it isn't. It's always the users that are unreliable. Again, proof is the wizard that creates a wand of fireballs. During the creation process he loses a prepared fireball spell, because he casts it into the wand. After creating the wand, there is absolutely NO difference between the spell that comes out of the wand and his prepared fireball spells (at least until he gains a new level). If someone using UMD to cast the spell from the wand fails, it is because he doesn't have enough knowledge on how to use the wand and spell stored within. On the other hand, it is absolutely possible for someone to be so knowledgeable about using magical devices (without being a wizard, just with UMD) that using the wand works every time. This would be the case were a character has such a high UMD skill that even when rolling a natural 1, he succeeds at the the check.
@Jason Ellis 350, IceTitan, BenignFacist & ChubbsMcGee:
First, magic in the fantasy world is just like a natural law. It works just like gravity and electromagnetism.
It is impossible to mentally manipulate (with charisma) a non-sentient object or force such as magic or non-intelligent magic item.
Please read this post. I address all of your points in it.
In fact, the only magical items that are susceptible to persuasion and charisma are intelligent items. An example would be the 'dedicated powers' (p.535) of an intelligent item. These are normally ONLY usable when doing actions that are in concordance with the item's 'special purpose'. It is absolutely possible however to try to persuade the magic item with a diplomacy/bluff/intimidate check to use this power for an action that is not in accordance to it's 'special purpose' or even contrary to it.
Again, I urge you to look at the specific tasks that make up UMD. There is no way that a character can 'decipher a written spell' with charisma.
Also, in the link above I put forth two challenges. Try answering them.
Another thing you could do is explain how all the specific tasks work in detail if they are based on charisma. Just like I did in this post. No one has done this yet in all the over 200 posts.
First, magic in the fantasy world is just like a natural law. It works just like gravity and electromagnetism.
It is impossible to mentally manipulate (with charisma) a non-sentient object or force such as magic or non-intelligent magic item.
Personally I'd say that magic is nothing like natural law. It's vibrant, has character - you could even say it was alive. Sentience is optional and a matter of perspective, one that's defined by us earth monkeys.
However I have no problem with a person 'hacking' a magic item/device (and as a result use a skill based on Int) - if they had the appropriate research, time and correct methods. However doing it 'on the fly' would seem unlikey, which is what UMD + Charisma is all about.
I guess it's a matter of taste - some see a wizards as a programmers and as a result percieve magic as manipulating the 'code' of the universe, while sorcerers are 'idiot savants' who have just happen to have a knack..
..other see sorcerers/bards as beings who's being contains a spark magic itself and as a result percieve magic as almost engaging in a dialogue with this energy that's beyong natural law, wild and unknowable. This is not the same as 'having a power source' - it's sharing an affinity with magic, allowing them to influence and in return be influenced by magic.
Wizards lack the spark. They have no natural affinity with magic. They must rely on careful research of this capricious energy and try and do their best to pin down 'stable, repeatable' results.
Magic items (to wich UMD applies) and magic in general are NOT sentient in any way.
..and this is the main reason why we disagree :) You're applying the human constraints required for influence and manipulation to a non-human element.
'Influencing' magic is not the same as influencing your neighbour. It's closer to influencing your neighbour's dog. Which has an Int of 2.. ..and is perfectly possible, if we assume that we're not using Diplomacy.
Influencing magic is closer to Handle Animal :)
Or painting. If I paint a picture, I'm not trying to influence canvass and paint in the same manner as I try to influence my bank manager. I'm attempting to guide, both consciously and sub-consciously a process.
So yes, to my mind, charisma based casters are true artists while wizards are stuck painting by numbers..
..and yes, magic is art! :)
So, as you can see, for me, charisma based UMD makes perfect sense.
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.
Magic is not sentient, or rather, sentience is not a requirement for manipulation *unless your regarding all sentience in a human-centric manner*.
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).
..because it's magic!
:) Do you see how this works? All your reasoning is stuck on applying human-centric perceptions, conditions and conceptions to a non-human element/source/elephant/misc..
Personally I'd say that magic is nothing like natural law. It's vibrant, has character - you could even say it was alive. Sentience is optional and a matter of perspective, one that's defined by us earth monkeys.
Just because something is wild and vibrant does not mean it doesn't follow natural laws. It is just too complex for a limited brain to reduce to all the laws that are behind the wildness. The wildness is just the illusion of sentience. It's like the weather. A storm might seem capricious and "alive" but it isn't, it follows natural laws.
However I have a problem with a person 'hacking' a magic item/device (and as a result use a skill based on Int) - if they had the appropriate research, time and correct methods. However doing it 'on the fly' would seem unlikey, which is what UMD + Charisma is all about.
Hackers do all the research in advance. Once they know how to hack into systems with a certain operating system or security software, they can do it very quickly.
..other see sorcerers/bards as beings who's being contains a spark magic itself and as a result percieve magic as almost engaging in a dialogue with this energy that's beyong natural law, wild and unknowable. This is not the same as 'having a power source' - it's sharing an affinity with magic, allowing them to influence and in return be influenced by magic.
This is not a question about "seeing" sorcerers that way. It's says so clearly in the description. When you start a sorcerer you HAVE to choose a certain bloodline that is your sorcerers power source. The thing they are engaging in a dialogue with is their subconscious self that is part of their bloodline power. The subconscious self they are influencing with charisma is like their autonomous nervous system. Read the post I linked to in my previous post.
..and this is the main reason why we disagree :) You're applying the human constraints required for influence and manipulation to a non-human element.
'Influencing' magic is not the same as influencing your neighbour. It's closer to influencing your neighbour's dog. Which has an Int of 2.. ..and is perfectly possible, if we assume that we're not using Diplomacy.
Influencing magic is closer to Handle Animal :)
This is not how magic works. Read the post I linked to. The rules clearly have the category of 'mindless' beings that are immune to influencing. These include oozes and vermin. Magic isn't even on an ooze's or vermin's level of sentience. So I'm sorry, the rules and descriptions of magic do NOT support sentient and influenceable magic.
If they do please show me where and I also urge you to respond to the challenges in the post I linked to, especially the one about the 'fire trap'.
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.
+1
Personally I'd say that magic is nothing like natural law. It's vibrant, has character - you could even say it was alive. Sentience is optional and a matter of perspective, one that's defined by us earth monkeys.Just because something is wild and vibrant does not mean it doesn't follow natural laws. It is just too complex for a limited brain to reduce to all the laws that are behind the wildness. The wildness is just the illusion of sentience. It's like the weather. A storm might seem capricious and "alive" but it isn't, it follows natural laws.
Is it? According to who? Granted complex systems may seem chaotic while in reality they're mappable, assuming we have the starting values, but who says magic is a complex system? It doesn't have to be complicated - just utterly capriscous and wild.
Mankind invented maths to understand the universe - the universe invented itself.
Or not. As the case may be - the point is that your relying on a human-centric perception of reality.
Magic doesn't have to follow natural laws because.. it's not natural.
I understand that the human mind will see anything things that it does not understand as incomprehensible but that does not mean that everything is comprehensible just because we don't understand it.
As a Planescape suppliment once stated:
It's chaos berk, you're not ment to 'get it.'
Your arguments are based on the notion that 'this is how this works in reality - so that's how magic should work/not work.'
I'd argue that magic is beyond reality/the laws of the univers/logic - all the things that your rationalising your argument on.
Maigc doesn't have to be rational or conform to rationality - that's what makes it magic.
However I have a problem with a person 'hacking' a magic item/device (and as a result use a skill based on Int) - if they had the appropriate research, time and correct methods. However doing it 'on the fly' would seem unlikey, which is what UMD + Charisma is all about.Hackers do all the research in advance. Once they know how to hack into systems with a certain operating system or security software, they can do it very quickly.
Yes, with a computer and given enough time to bludgeon their way into a system - or they can have the access codes gained from careful viral use which.. isn't hacking. It's Gather Infomation. The key points are - time and resources..
..and they need to know what they're doing. Which is why I can see such a skill being Int based.
UMD doesn't require time, tools or even understanding..
..other see sorcerers/bards as beings who's being contains a spark magic itself and as a result percieve magic as almost engaging in a dialogue with this energy that's beyong natural law, wild and unknowable. This is not the same as 'having a power source' - it's sharing an affinity with magic, allowing them to influence and in return be influenced by magic.This is not a question about "seeing" sorcerers that way. It's says so clearly in the description. When you start a sorcerer you HAVE to choose a certain bloodline that is your sorcerers power source. The thing they are engaging in a dialogue with is their subconscious self that is part of their bloodline power. The subconscious self they are influencing with charisma is like their autonomous nervous system. Read the post I linked to in my previous post.
The bloodline simply explains the flavour and orgins of their affinity. Why should it directly equate to a power source?
..and this is the main reason why we disagree :) You're applying the human constraints required for...
Your assuming that having 'a mind' = sentience...
..and your pinning your entire argument on what you believe you understand sentience to be..
..it's magic.
It doesn't have to abide by any laws or logic.
Otherwise it'd be science.
Is it? According to who? Granted complex systems may seem chaotic while in reality they're mappable, assuming we have the starting values, but who says magic is a complex system? It doesn't have to be complicated - just utterly capriscous and wild.
Mankind invented maths to understand the universe - the universe invented itself.
Or not. As the case may be - the point is that your relying on a human-centric perception of reality.
Magic doesn't have to follow natural laws because.. it's not natural.
I understand that the human mind will see anything things that it does not understand as incomprehensible but that does not mean that everything is comprehensible just because we don't understand it.
As a Planescape suppliment once stated:
It's chaos berk, you're not ment to 'get it.'Your arguments are based on the notion that 'this is how this works in reality - so that's how magic should work/not work.'
I'd argue that magic is beyond reality/the laws of the univers/logic - all the things that your rationalising your argument on.
Maigc doesn't have to be rational or conform to rationality - that's what makes it magic.
This isn't about the "human mind", a "human-centric perception" or reality. It's about how the fantasy world works according to the rulebooks. Your definition of a sentient magic does not correspond to what magic is in the Pathfinder RPG.
Any analogies given are just used to show what the game designers might have based something on.Logic and rationality are used WITHIN the context of a fantasy world. If the description of the world says magic works like a natural force that follows natural laws, then logic dictates it is non-sentient and thus not susceptible to persuasion.
Also, capricious and wild =/= sentient.
And in Pathfinder, magic =/= chaos.
UMD doesn't require time, tools or even understanding..
It requires time and understanding. That's what the skill ranks represent.
The bloodline simply explains the flavour and orgins of their affinity. Why should it directly equate to a power source?
Because that's what it LITERALLY says in the rules? Go read the first paragraph of the sorcerer's class description.
...
Your assuming that having 'a mind' = sentience.....and your pinning your entire argument on what you believe you understand sentience to be..
..it's magic.
It doesn't have to abide by any laws or logic.
Otherwise it'd be science.
I'm not assuming anything. That's what the rules say.
No INT-score = 'mindless' = immune to 'mind-affecting' (which includes charming, persuading, etc.)Magic does abide by laws and especially logic, if the fantasy setting says so.
For wizards and especially anyone with the 'spellcraft' skill it IS science.
In fact the word "art", you used in your previous post, comes from the Latin word "ars". It means "skill, knowledge". Ancient greek mathematicians and philosophers considered themselves artists.
..because it's magic!
:) Do you see how this works? All your reasoning is stuck on applying human-centric perceptions, conditions and conceptions to a non-human element/source/elephant/misc..
"because it's magic" doesn't answer anything. In fact with that answer ANYTHING is justifiable.
Player: "My first level sorcerer adds 'wish' to his spells-known list."
DM: "Sorry, the rules say you can't."
Player: "Why not? It's magic!"
DM: *Facepalm*
You didn't answer my question about the 'fire trap'. If magic were influenceable, anybody with enough charm could persuade the magic not to go off.
As it is, this is what happens:
DM: "Ok, your party found out the door is trapped with a 'fire trap' spell, you need a password to open the door if you don't want it to go off. What are you going to do?
Player(BenignFacist): "My very charismatic oracle is going to persuade the magic to let us pass, just like I used charisma to persuade my command activated cape to work."
DM: "Ok, you give it a try. ... Nothing seems to happen... Maybe it worked? Who wants to try the door?"
Everybody in the party: *Looks at the oracle*
Player(BenignFacist): "Well, I know it worked, it's magic after all. I open the door."
DM: "The oracle puts hand on doorknob, turns... and BAAAANGG. Big explosion. After the dust settles.... No more oracle..."
..and this is the main reason why we disagree :) You're applying the human constraints required for......
Your assuming that having 'a mind' = sentience.....and your pinning your entire argument on what you believe you understand sentience to be..
..it's magic.
It doesn't have to abide by any laws or logic.
Otherwise it'd be science.
*shakes fist*
Well, to be fair, wizards turn magic into a science. But they in no way control the very essence of magic. They're just doing a bunch of hand gestures and speaking the correct words in order to line up the universe to shoot a magic missile, whereas a sorceror just thinks really hard about shooting a missile.
The bloodline simply explains the flavour and orgins of their affinity. Why should it directly equate to a power source?
Exactly. But it also is kind of like a gateway. Without the magical lineage, they wouldn't be able to cast spells. But, it's not powering their magic at all. It's just opening the way for them to be able to cast magic without having to do all of the studying and writing and such.
The bloodline simply explains the flavour and orgins of their affinity. Why should it directly equate to a power source?
Because that's what it LITERALLY says in the rules?
Scions of innately magical bloodlines, the chosen of deities,
the spawn of monsters, pawns of fate and destiny, or simply
f lukes of fickle magic, sorcerers look within themselves
for arcane prowess and draw forth might few mortals
can imagine. Emboldened by lives ever threatening to be
consumed by their innate powers, these magic-touched souls
endlessly indulge in and refine their mysterious abilities,
gradually learning how to harness their birthright and
coax forth ever greater arcane feats. Just as varied as these
innately powerful spellcasters’ abilities and inspirations are
the ways in which they choose to utilize their gifts. While
some seek to control their abilities through meditation and
discipline, becoming masters of their fantastic birthright,
others give in to their magic, letting it rule their lives
with often explosive results. Regardless, sorcerers live and
breathe that which other spellcasters devote their lives to
mastering, and for them magic is more than a boon or a
field of study; it is life itself.
I don't see anything here about a magical birthright fueling their abilities. I see here something about them looking within themselves... being magic-touched souls.... refining mysterious abilities and harnessing their birthrights... but nothing about their birthright powering all of the magic they ever cast. At least, not LITERALLY.
It is quite clear that their bloodline is the source of their power.
It's not just, as BenignFacist puts it, an "affinity".
Also, this is what it says in the section 'sorcerer bloodlines' (p.71):
"The following bloodlines represent only some of the possible sources of power that a sorcerer can draw upon."
It's quite clear.
This is an argument that will go on forever if we let it. Alch may not believe that magic is a living thing and so under that perception charisma controlling magic seems silly. If so he can houserule that UMD use int or even houserule it's existance out.\
To put it simply, charisma is the power to influence. Clerics use it to influence healing or injury, Paladins use it to influence the divine against evil, Sorcerers use it to influence magic, Bards use it to influence the beliefs of others, Necromancers use it to influence the undead, and users of magical devices use it to influence the magic out of the magical item when they don't know how to use the item itself.
Anyway, it's my belief that UMD is just that, willing the magic out of magical items. Sure the name "use magic device" is deceptive especially considering that 90% of the adventures using magical devices hardly ever use it, but that's what the skill essentially does.
Wizards may study and control magic via the books, but that doesn't mean that magic is code. Intelligence uses the item, Charisma wills the magic out of the item. Now the OP may just discard what I say as rubbish, and thus has that right to disagree. However at this point, we both shall be stubborn in our beliefs about this fictional magical system.
Where are you getting your definition of magic from?
All I can see is you attempting to define magic using some examples of game mechanics that you think support your idea of magic..
I'm not assuming anything. That's what the rules say.
No INT-score = 'mindless' = immune to 'mind-affecting' (which includes charming, persuading, etc.)
What has this got to do with magic? How does this support your take on magic?
Magic does abide by laws and especially logic, if the fantasy setting says so.
Aspects of magic can be understood by applying laws and logic but that doesn't mean it has to follow laws or logic.
..and of course, if the setting says so - if the GM says magic is this then it's this. However, you're claiming that magic works in a certain way and have no evidence to support your claim.
So what if Int 0 = mindless? How does Int 0 granting an immunity to mind effecting spells support your argument? Are you honestly thinking 'Well, Sentience = Intelligence, Charisma needs to the target to be Intelligent ...magic has no Int score - therefore, Charisma cannot effect be used to influence magic?
o_O Really? Who's to say Magic hasn't got an Int score of 9,000,000? Why are you trying to apply character stats to a force of that is beyond natural law? >_< As you stated yourself, magic is defined by the setting - I see no evidence that proves magic is logical/definable, only a single class that uses methods that reflect real-world methodologies to control it.
For wizards and especially anyone with the 'spellcraft' skill it IS science.
In fact the word "art", you used in your previous post, comes from the Latin word "ars". It means "skill, knowledge". Ancient greek mathematicians and philosophers considered themselves artists.
Yes... but they weren't spell casters....They could call themselves mushroom kings but they still wouldn't be spell casters functioning in a universe with magic.
You're take on spellcraft may be 'It's like science' but.. that's your take on it. It is not supported by the rules or fluff in any way.
[http=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method] Scientific Method [/http]
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Who's to say spellcraft has any of these aspects? Or none? Just because you decide 'Hey, it's kinda like science' doesn't make it science or even close to being a science.
Of course, you're well within your rights to say 'It works like a science' but.. that's your opinion.. not fact.
Realism + DnD = ?
Yes, wizards treat magic like science but that doesn't mean magic has to abide by natural laws or mean magic is definable in scientific terms.
I stand by the reasoning - magic doesn't have to have rules or be definable because it's magic.
You've provided no evidence that magic is quantifiable.
..and to repeat and expand my answer to your problem with firetrap. It works the way it's meant to work because that is that way it's meant to work.
...because it's magic.
Anyway, we're going round in circles - you believe magic should function in a certain way and I disagree.
You believe magic should work according to a certain set of laws that you believe are supported by your 'evidence'- I believe that magic doesn't have to follow a set of rules or be governed by natural law because that's what makes it magic.
What has this got to do with magic? How does this support your take on magic?
Simple (in fact you seem to get it yourself in your following statements). If magic had an INT score it would be a sentient being that one could influence with charisma.
However, you're claiming that magic works in a certain way and have no evidence to support your claim.
The simplest proof that magic follows laws, is that there are rules in the rulebook that define how magic works. Every spell has a description that says how it works. As my example showed, you can't just have a 1st level spell work like the 'wish' spell. The whole 'spell level' system itself is one of the laws of how magic works.
If magic didn't follow laws, then the rulebook would say it's up to the GM or the players to decide how it works in every case. But it doesn't.As a GM, you're totally free to have magic work like a sentient being and have it ignore the rules in the books, but then you aren't playing Pathfinder or on Golarion. In Pathfinder Society play you couldn't ignore the rules like that. And I hope it is clear that all my arguments are from an official ruleset standpoint.
I see no evidence that proves magic is logical/definable, only a single class that uses methods that reflect real-world methodologies to control it.
A single class (more like "the single most important class in the realm of magic") is more than enough proof.
Yes, wizards treat magic like science but that doesn't mean magic has to abide by natural laws or mean magic is definable in scientific terms.
Uh... yes it does? Otherwise their scientific approach obviously wouldn't work.
I stand by the reasoning - magic doesn't have to have rules or be definable because it's magic.
Maybe in your world, but not in Pathfinder.
You've provided no evidence that magic is quantifiable.
Yes I (and everybody else) have. You cast a fireball as a 10th level wizard, it does 10d6 damage. You cast it as a 15th level wizard, it does 15d6. Unless of course I play in your game, which does not seem to be Pathfinder.
..and to repeat and expand my answer to your problem with firetrap. It works the way it's meant to work because that is that way it's meant to work.
OOOOOOOOhhhhh! I'm dizzy... Everything is turning. Circular reasoning at its best.
You believe magic should work according to a certain set of laws that you believe are supported by your 'evidence'- I believe that magic doesn't have to follow a set of rules or be governed by natural law because that's what makes it magic.
Again, my evidence is the rulebooks. You're evidence seems to be... I don't know... What is the evidence for you claims that magic is sentient and thus susceptible to being influenced by charisma (other than the UMD case we are disputing, obviously)?
Not sure if I mentioned this before, but I wouldn't have a problem with UMD being broken down into two separate skills or Knowledge: Arcana and Spellcraft supplanting the skill entirely. I always felt UMD was trying to do too much.