I'm beginning to feel like I'm having a discussion with a religious fundamentalist.
Funny, I had the exact same thought.
Look, it makes no difference whether something is unreliable because there is a limit to our understanding or if it is unreliable because it is inherently unreliable. And, like I pointed out earlier, even a Wizard can't reliably cast a fireball.
You don't seem to understand my reasoning. Just because there is some randomness in the spell (within a defined frame, since the damage is defined as "nr. of levels"d6), does NOT mean that casting magic is unreliable.
Especially when what we're talking about is JUST the question if the caster or user of a wand can get the spell off or not. The wizard can always cast his spell reliably, just as someone with a high enough UMD skill can always cast a spell from a wand.I think, though, that we're dancing around the real issue here. The real issue, I suspect, is that you see everything, in the real world or not, as operating mechanically.
The problem with that kind of philosophy is that it is ultimately arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Many systems scientists have talked at great length about the fact that there is a fundamental limit to how many variables we can factor in to a system. So, claiming that we can fully understand something if we could just account for more variables is a flawed way of thinking because we -can't- just accont for more variables. To try to do so would take longer than the lifespan of the Universe to compute.
If you want to discuss this issue at greater length, I'm happy to do so. I studied systems architecture at one of the best programs in the nation. We spent a lot of time studying Bayesian inference, econometrics, Operations Research, etc. But we always kept in mind that there is a fundamental limit to where math can take you because of that limit on computability.
And, of course, there's the whole problem of whether you can conceive of a perfect copy of your mind-brain. That gets downright Alice in Wonderland-ish, but, again, would take us away from the topic.
The point is, you -can't- leave everything to reason because reason simply isn't, even under the most ideal circumstances, powerful enough.
Yet again you're missing a crucial point. In the fantasy setting everything DOES work mechanically, if there are specific rules for it in the rulebook. Things in the fantasy setting that DON'T work mechanically are left out or described as being under the direct purview of the GM.
And please don't make any assumptions about my real world views, thank you. As it is I am working on my PhD in economics, so I know more than enough about the limits of rigid models when applied to a complex reality.
Yet again you're missing a crucial point. In the fantasy setting everything DOES work mechanically, if there are specific rules for it in the rulebook. Things in the fantasy setting that DON'T work mechanically are left out or described as being under the direct purview of the GM.
And please don't make any assumptions about my real world views, thank you. As it is I am working on my PhD in economics, so I know more than enough about the limits of rigid models when applied to a complex reality.
Incorrect. Things represented by rules are ABSTRACTIONS. Things like being able to move 24 miles in a day overland, or breaking objects, may be objectively better and more useful abstractions because they are reasonable and can be applied to real life physics we are familiar with. However, since there is no magic in real life, the abstraction is based on a concept rather than modeled after reality. Therefore, while the rules NEED to have a rigid system in place in order for magic to function in a fantasy world, it does not logically lead to the conclusion that magic works in said fantasy world as abstracted.
In other words, there is no actual description of how magic works in the world, only how the system works. We fill in the blanks on how the rational things work. The break object rules model something we are familiar with, but even in that situation there are crazy corner case abberations like an average joe not being able to chop firewood. How does magic work? In my world you pull energies from neighboring elemental planes, who touch the prime material in a complex fashion thereby creating ley lines, to create the desired effect. Mechanically it's unchanged. However, the modeled mechanism is wholly different than that of Forgotten Realms for instance.
You say that Wands are like a remote control, you just need to push the right button (Int). I say that wands are a totem that attracts sentient motes of elemental energy, thereby enhancing the connection with the border elemental planes and allowing a specific magical effect to take place (as dictated by the specific offerings within the totem) and the totem only helps to focus the user's will. If you know the right ritual (spell) you can incant it (use the wand WITHOUT a skill check) but if you don't you need to BS those sentient motes of elemental energy to do what you want them to. Since the rules say that CHA is the key ability for UMD, which you don't dispute you just want it changed, I would say that my mechanical explaination more accurately describes what the rules abstract.
Basically, UMD is modeling something you can't comprehend in real life terms, largely because ITS MAGIC something we can't readily quantify dispite your refusal to accept Fonzie as a viable example (which he is) and insisting that uses are based on Knowledge. If that was the case it would be a Knowledge skill. It is based on being able to rekijigger an item to work the way you want it to, and since that item is magic (the art of enforcing your own will upon reality) and you don't know the right incantations (not a spellcaster or not the right kind) it defaults to your force of will/personality. It makes perfect sense to me and everyone else here.
Here is the compromise I offer you. UMD can be int based ONLY if everyone has to make a check in order to use it, including spellcasters who previously could make it work without any kind of check.
Yes, there are rules in the rule book regarding spell casting. And these rules make heavy use of dice to reflect how unreliable magic is. The example I gave earlier is that a 10th level wizard will do any where from 10 to 60 points of damage with a fireball.
That's enough of a range that it cann merely scorch a bastard sword or turn it into slag in an instant. It's a huge variation.
Are you even reading what I write?
Using a sword has exactly the same variation, yet nobody is going to say that it's because the sword is unreliable.And even if the damage of a spell is unreliable, the casting isn't and that's all that matters. Where's the problem?
Yes, there are rules in the rule book regarding spell casting. And these rules make heavy use of dice to reflect how unreliable magic is. The example I gave earlier is that a 10th level wizard will do any where from 10 to 60 points of damage with a fireball.
That's enough of a range that it cann merely scorch a bastard sword or turn it into slag in an instant. It's a huge variation.Are you even reading what I write?
Using a sword has exactly the same variation, yet nobody is going to say that it's because the sword is unreliable.
And even if the damage of a spell is unreliable, the casting isn't and that's all that matters. Where's the problem?
No it doesn't. A sword has a variation of 1-6 with a heap of flat numerical modifiers. At level 20 I'm doing somewhere between 100 and 105 on a swing. A statistically insignificant spread. A 20th level caster throwing a fireball (intensified for purposes of hyperbolic example) is doing between 20 and 120.
You're trying to rationalize the mechanics of MAGIC and make it fit the way real world physics works i.e. predictable. It really isn't. Magic makes physics do backflips on command, how that that be rational or quantifiable?
Incorrect. Things represented by rules are ABSTRACTIONS. Things like being able to move 24 miles in a day overland, or breaking objects, may be objectively better and more useful abstractions because they are reasonable and can be applied to real life physics we are familiar with. However, since there is no magic in real life, the abstraction is based on a concept rather than modeled after reality. Therefore, while the rules NEED to have a rigid system in place in order for magic to function in a fantasy world, it does not logically lead to the conclusion that magic works in said fantasy world as abstracted.
In other words, there is no actual description of how magic works in the world, only how the system works. We fill in the blanks on how the rational things work. The break object rules model something we are familiar with, but even in that situation there are crazy corner case abberations like an average joe not being able to chop firewood. How does magic work? In my world you pull energies from neighboring elemental planes, who touch the prime material in a complex fashion thereby creating ley lines, to create the desired effect. Mechanically it's unchanged. However, the modeled mechanism is wholly different than that of Forgotten Realms for instance.
I don't agree. The more mechanical anything works in the fantasy world, the more there are rules about it. Things that don't work mechanically are explicitly left to the GM to decide or are given very abstract rules.
Magic takes up almost a third of the core rulebook. So it works quite mechanically. You can't ignore that a fireball does damage in a 20ft radius. That is mechanical.You say that Wands are like a remote control, you just need to push the right button (Int). I say that wands are a totem that attracts sentient motes of elemental energy, thereby enhancing the connection with the border elemental planes and allowing a specific magical effect to take place (as dictated by the specific offerings within the totem) and the totem only helps to focus the user's will. If you know the right ritual (spell) you can incant it (use the wand WITHOUT a skill check) but if you don't you need to BS those sentient motes of elemental energy to do what you want them to. Since the rules say that CHA is the key ability for UMD, which you don't dispute you just want it changed, I would say that my mechanical explaination more accurately describes what the rules abstract.
Basically, UMD is modeling something you can't comprehend in real life terms, largely because ITS MAGIC something we can't readily quantify dispite your refusal to accept Fonzie as a viable example (which he is) and insisting that uses are based on Knowledge. If that was the case it would be a Knowledge skill. It is based on being able to rekijigger an item to work the way you want it to, and since that item is magic (the art of enforcing your own will upon reality) and you don't know the right incantations (not a spellcaster or not the right kind) it defaults to your force of will/personality. It makes perfect sense to me and everyone else here.
Here is the compromise I offer you. UMD can be int based ONLY if everyone has to make a check in order to use it, including spellcasters who previously could make it work without any kind of check.
You neglect how wands are created in Pathfinder. In Pathfinder you are REQUIRED to expend the wand's spell you prepared in advance, effectively casting it into the wand. Thus the user of the wand releases it from the wand (the fact that you can use it multiple times represents the extra power of the wand that it gets through the expensive materials it is made of).
If a character has a very high rank in his UMD skill he can actually pass on the check, because even with a natural 1 he would succeed. This would represent a character whose knowledge about using a wand is equal to a wizard's, who knows this as part of his class.
Yet again, I challenge you to explain to me in detail how the specific tasks work when they are based on charisma.
Also, if as you say one is able to persuade the item or magic why can't one persuade the 'fire trap' spell or the 'arcane lock' spell or for that matter a 'fireball' spell. If one is able to persuade magic there should be a system of counterspelling based on opposed charisma checks.
Seriously? I mean, you might have had a point if the wizard were rolling damage individually for each target. A fighter rolls damage to determine if he, for example, got a blow against the opponent's leg or against his xyphoid process Are you seriously arguing that when the wizard rolls damage, he's rolling to see if he hit everybody in the leg or in the xyphoid process? "oh crap, I only rolled a 13 damage! Okay, that fireball which covers the six of those targets only hits each of them in the left shin"
Sorry to break this to you, but WHERE you hit is decided by your attack roll (hence the possibility of a critical hit). The damage roll just indicates how effectively you hit.
I always thought it was the rationale as charisma as a sheer force of personality allowing for the manipulation of such energies.
And for obvious game balance reasons previously discussed.
Seriously? I mean, you might have had a point if the wizard were rolling damage individually for each target. A fighter rolls damage to determine if he, for example, got a blow against the opponent's leg or against his xyphoid process Are you seriously arguing that when the wizard rolls damage, he's rolling to see if he hit everybody in the leg or in the xyphoid process? "oh crap, I only rolled a 13 damage! Okay, that fireball which covers the six of those targets only hits each of them in the left shin"Sorry to break this to you, but WHERE you hit is decided by your attack roll (hence the possibility of a critical hit). The damage roll just indicates how effectively you hit.Maybe in your seemingly endless list of house rules they are, but I know of no RAW which makes that claim. Frankly, it doesn't even make sense.
But I'll save that for another thread. The point I'm making is that rolling to determine the effect of a fireball isn't comparable to rolling damage of a sword. It might if damage were rolled seperately for each target, but it isn't.
+10
Alch, you're reading the rulebook, interpolating real world ideas, and callling them PF mechanics. If you don't know how wrong you are then there is no helping you, in this matter or in life.
Maybe in your seemingly endless list of house rules they are, but I know of no RAW which makes that claim. Frankly, it doesn't even make sense.
It really does make sense. If and where you hit is determined by the attack roll. Says so in the rulebook. A critical hit (normally on a natural 20 followed by a confirmation roll) means you hit the foe in an important part of the body.
But I'll save that for another thread. The point I'm making is that rolling to determine the effect of a fireball isn't comparable to rolling damage of a sword. It might if damage were rolled seperately for each target, but it isn't.
You roll damage for every SINGLE attack. A fireball is a single attack. And it's exactly the same with a sword. The only difference is that the sword's damaging edge is so small that it can only hurt the attacked enemy. For 2 examples of physical attacks (like the sword) that deal damage to several foes, take the 'crush' and 'tail sweep' attacks of dragons. You also only roll damage once for those.
EDIT: Here's a fact to put the whole "magic is unreliable" argument into perspective: If a wizard casts the spell 'Tiny Hut' it will be EXACTLY the same every single time he casts it. And that is just one of many examples. Please explain to me where the unreliability is here?
Alch, you're reading the rulebook, interpolating real world ideas, and callling them PF mechanics. If you don't know how wrong you are then there is no helping you, in this matter or in life.
I see that you have reached the point where you are out of arguments and resort to making ad hominem attacks (or should I just call them plain insults?).
Congratulations.
I guess there's one thing we can all remember about this - arguing on the Internet is like participating in the special olympics.
Everyone's a winner?
If there's one thing I learned, it's that flaming trolls doesn't work quite as well on the internet as it does in RPGs. xP
Anyway Alch, read the rules preferably page 458 of the core rulebook. Magic items do work reliably for people who know how to use them. Influencing magic items don't. It's like someone pressing random buttons on a remote, sometimes they actually hit the right button. For someone who knows how to use it, it's like whatever, done.
Let's all be winners! :3
If there's one thing I learned, it's that flaming trolls doesn't work quite as well on the internet as it does in RPGs. xP
Anyway Alch, read the rules preferably page 458 of the core rulebook. Magic items do work reliably for people who know how to use them. Influencing magic items don't. It's like someone pressing random buttons on a remote, sometimes they actually hit the right button. For someone who knows how to use it, it's like whatever, done.
Let's all be winners! :3
Group hugs all round - for everyone - last one to the pub buys the beers!
Interesting topic Alch all said and done!
..and the next person to try and apply realism to magic gets shot.
Whoever said there HAS to be a winner?
The "as is" rules-situation for UMD is quite clear - it's charisma-based.
For me this was never about winning an argument.
I found this one specific rule to be inconsistent with the rest of the rules in the rulebook. So I developed and put forth my arguments, with the intention of comparing them to the arguments of the opposite position.
So far none of the arguments put forth by others have convinced me and I was always able to find things in the RAW that contradict them.
NOBODY is forced to agree with my position or even argue with me.
Finally, let me point out that "realism", in the sense of directly comparing a fantasy world to the real world, does not make any sense. The only realism that exists in a fantasy world, is the consistency within its own fantastic context, which is defined by the rulebooks and campaign settings.
What is important to note, is that the fantastic context contains certain elements and concepts from the real world. Thus the real world analogies we use are merely examples of elements and concepts that the game designers might have used to base the fantasy elements and concepts on. That's all.
"Force of will" isn't quite right. "Force of personality" makes more sense.
Wisdom is mainly a "resistance" ability - you do not buckle under mental onslaught.
Charisma is a "power" ability - you impose your will upon others.
This is an interesting POV, one I hadn't considered before.
I think the trouble the OP is having is discerning why an object or basic non-intelligent magic (it was argued how do you know it's not intelligent, but if it were what is the force you are reasoning with?) could be bent by someone's force of personality. Bending a sentient creature makes sense, manipulating an object doesn't really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Charisma is the stat for "flying by the seat of your pants" magic, dabblers, and natural ability, all of which is what you're calling on when you don't really have the training to use the item.
"Force of will" isn't quite right. "Force of personality" makes more sense.
Wisdom is mainly a "resistance" ability - you do not buckle under mental onslaught.
Charisma is a "power" ability - you impose your will upon others.
This is an interesting POV, one I hadn't considered before.
I think the trouble the OP is having is discerning why an object or basic non-intelligent magic (it was argued how do you know it's not intelligent, but if it were what is the force you are reasoning with?) could be bent by someone's force of personality. Bending a sentient creature makes sense, manipulating an object doesn't really.
of course it makes sense... show them metachlorians who's boss! (speaking of force)
|
Lord help us, not this thread again.
I'll echo the poster above; "Who says magic is non-sentient?"
There are may belief systems that allow for 'spells' being self-aware.
There's the Arabian Nights model of the sha'ir petitioning the djinn, to perform a miracle on his behalf. Each djinn may only know a limited type of miracle, which are represented in game as 'spells'.
As the sha'ir grows in power, his repertoire grows, more spells known, metamagic effects can be applied, effects increase tied to caster level; this could all be internal factors (the caster better understands the magic), or external (his allied djinn are growing more knowledgeable, and/or he has a wider network of allies).
Al-Qadim was the setting that explicitly described casters working in this manner; but the exact same flavour can be used in a generic setting to describe a charismatic caster.
It's not what you know, but who you know. And whether you can persuade them to enter a pact with you for mutual gain.
I'm not sure who used animate thread...
Anyway, if you can't accept that magic can be manipulated by charisma you might as well ban sorcerers and oracles from your game.