|
I played my first-ever Pathfinder game last night and was surprised that "Use Magic Device" was not a class skill for Wizards. Does anyone else find this strange? And what would the game balance considerations be for this? It only seems to make sense to me that a Wizard would be familiar with the properties of magic items - Sorcerers have UMD as a class skill, after all...
My adventuring group doesn't have a Cleric in our party, and so our GM, knowing this, made sure we got a Wand of Cure Light Wounds. But CLW is not a spell on the Wizard's spell list. So that means I need to use my UMD skill to operate the wand, and the DC for operating a wand is 20! Because Charisma is not one of my highest scores, that would mean I would need to roll an 18 out of 20 to use this simple healing wand! Therefore, it would seem that the ONLY reliable solution for healing in our party, since we don't have a Cleric or Druid or Paladin, is to stock up on a bunch of CLW potions...
That seems a bit out-of-whack to me. Is there anything I'm missing?
Well, I would say the first problem is not having anyone in the party who can heal. It is easy enough to find some class which has cure spells available on their spell list. You can build divine casters which fill any role easily enough.
If you just want to have UMD as a class skill though there is a trait which gives you a +1 and makes UMD a class skill, Dangerously Curious. I have used it on several builds of different classes in which I wanted to have the option of using random wands. I usually also get skill focus if I want to wield wands which do not match my classes spell list.
|
Can't a wizard just normally use a lot of the items that other classes would normally be UMDing in the first place? I don't really see them having a whole lot of use for the skill since they can already activate a huge host of magic items without it.
I don't really see why Sorcerers needed to picked it up, suppose that's just something from the beta to help them be a bit better then they were in 3.5. The skill list back then was pretty bleak.
Unless you guys really are just complaining because a wizard isn't that great at activating a wand of cure light wounds or something. Don't be like that if you are, Wizards are already plenty awesome.
|
|
I guess I look at it like the Wizard doesn't need the skill. I wonder why the Sorcerer even has it. Sure being able to use a wand of Cure Light is nice but hardly worth skill point investment. Now if you are rogue this skill is a definitely worth it.The sorcerer has it because they ARE magic in a way. Plus the limited spells known makes it more likely they would use wands and such than wizards. In our about to start Kingmaker game our sorcerer has taken the UMD skill to make up for the lack of a cleric. We have a witch as the only healer in the party, so 3 of the 5 characters have the UMD skill, just in case.
I agree that the skill is best for a non-caster or a limited caster, such as a bard. Actually, bards are the kings of the UMD skill due to it using their primary stat.
Now I am confused. Would a sorcerer who doesn't know magic missile need UMD for a wand of magic missile? The spell is on the sorcerer spell list, even if the sorcerer does not know the spell. I would use the analogy of the wizard's spell book - the wizard doesn't need UMD for a spell not in his book.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the first problem is that the healing skill is worthless. It forces somebody in the party to play a class they may not want to take. Even with dangerously curious, without a charisma based class, first level party has a 75% chance of wasting a charge and it screws with WBL.
To put this in perspective, the skill recreates the ability of the Thief class from 1st Edition, who gained the ability to use most scrolls (wizard, illusionist and druid, but not clerical - the gods know you're a fake, after all) at 10th level (not a moment before), and even then, had a 25% failure chance, that never improved.
The 3rd Edition UMD skill is far, far more generous than that 1st/2nd Edition ability ever was, being accessed much earlier, applicable to a wider variety of items, opened up to every class (though it was restricted in 3.0), able to be improved via stat boosters/skill focus, and possible to eventually buy off all chance of failure.
If you're not aware of that legacy ability, that is being recreated, it's perhaps understandable that your impression is 'That skill sucks, it doesn't give reliable results until higher level', whereas the older, shall we say, more grognard members of the boards, see the current iteration, and remark 'My God, they let people do that, at 9th level or below?'.
I think the first problem is that the healing skill is worthless. It forces somebody in the party to play a class they may not want to take. Even with dangerously curious, without a charisma based class, first level party has a 75% chance of wasting a charge and it screws with WBL.
I disagree with this -- a healing kit is definitely worth it. Works on poisons, disease, deadly wounds after a fight(once a day granted).
At higher level it's just as useful for curing afflictions instead of wasting magic on them.
A healer's kit is 50 gp and gives a +2 on heal checks, class skill and a rank puts you up to +6, and having a wisdom of 14 would put you at +8, that's better than most characters are going to have for their fortitude save for quite a bit, and that's just at level 1, without being 'specialized' for it.
Heal is a wonderful skill that too many people under appreciate for what it can save them in money, time, and magical resources.
A wonderful skill???
It can, once per day, heal 1hp per level. What it needs to do is be as good at healing as a divine class - so that players aren't forced to play something they don't want to play.
Someone is ignoring curing disease and poison, something casters can't do until level 5 and 7 respectively.
Heal is wonderful -- it's the only non-magical way that any character can restore HP, and increase the rate of natural healing from rest, it can cure poisons and diseases, remove bleeding, fix wounds from stuff like caltrops, spiked stones and what have you, and all for 5 gp a try (10gp a try on deadly wounds) and that's all available at level 1.
As you gain more levels this remains extremely useful for saving the mid level spell slots and preventing loss of ability points to ability damage from diseases, and poisons (which can honestly be much more of a problem than simple HP damage).
Look at what the skill can actually do -- at level 1 I've easily shown it can give you a +4 on save throws for disease and poison. Spells can't do that by themselves, can fail (only having the caster level instead of the skill bonus) and cost more to use.
And if you think you are 'forced' to play a healer... well you simply aren't trying very hard.
For the very cheap investment it represents Heal is an excellent skill to have.
Someone doesn't want a wisdom of 14 and to spend a skill point a level? Granted the trait might be tough -- how could we live without rich parents?
Poison and disease might not be the most common form -- but they are one of the most common ways of taking one of the most serious forms of damage: Ability damage. Heal offers a way to prevent and mitigate that.
All in all that's still just first level, even if it isn't a class skill for you having it as a skill is an excellent choice for what it can do for the party, and yourself.
Personally I tend to make it a point to have the skill, as I have found it just as useful as perception, UMD, and acrobatics.
I will repeat myself though just once: Having a healer isn't necessary.
But heck if all you want to do is be agreed with I'll get out of the way of your rant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And again, thread necromancy results in nothing but confusion and arguments.
Just want you to admit that it has a very low opportunity cost threshold for a high ability to save people on wasted resources that's all.
I never said it was perfect -- but it isn't an useless skill -- it's simply not a pancea either.
Gee it's almost like you expect magic from it.
Healer classes do not exist -- there are classes that can heal -- but having a 'healer' isn't needed, or even warranted. Acting otherwise is setting up false expectations.
If you want UMD as a class skill, take the dangerously curious trait or the underlying principles trait.
Thank you, underyling principles really fits well with my character concept anyway.
I think it's messed up that even if I made the wand, I still don't know how to use it.
I'd argue that wizards, with their constant practice at creating magic items and deep understanding of the workings that are involved, would have an innate understanding of how the things function.I don't think the word innate means what you think it does. A Sorcerer has an innate understanding of magic. A wizard does not.
Which is part of the reason I think it's b*~$@+@@ that wizards get earlier access to new spell levels than sorcerers. If anything, that should be reversed.
You're right. Intimate is the word I should have used.
I'm glad that we can agree that the heal skill does not solve the healing probl em faced by a group of players who want to play, for example, a Barbarian only party and, really, that's the only relevant point about the heal skill in this discussion.
You want healing barbarians? Renewed vigor, Regenerative Vigor, Renewed Life and Renewed Vitality combined with the heal skill will see you through.
Honestly though if you are expecting magic without doing magic you deserve the disappointment you get.
Otherwise consider things like trolls septic.
Honestly I'm not even breaking out the good stuff yet -- getting HP back is easy -- now curing disease and poisons are easy.
Play the party of barbarians -- you don't need a healer.
DnD sorcerers being based on Twilight style bloodlines predates DnD in your opinion? How do you figure?Could you please define what a "Twilight-style" bloodline is? 'Cos honestly, I don't have a clue what you're banging on about.
He may be talking about the book series, but as I am not a 12 year old girl I'm not overly familiar with them. Perhaps the vampiric bloodlines lend themselves to various power sets, like pathfinder sorcerers.
You still haven't addresssed the core problem with the heal skill. It can not replace a healer class.
The problem isn't with the skill. It's that you want it to be something it isn't.
The Climb skill can't replace a healer either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I can't replace a class with a skill -- the skill is borked!"
Sorry I'm done -- if that is really your position and you can't manage a dungeon without a magic user holding your hand and making the booboos go away there isn't any help I can render that you'll accept -- obviously you are simply one disaster from a TPK since you can't make it without a healer, and if something happens to that healer you are completely hosed.
I would suggest looking into versatility, diversification, and not wanting your cake and eating it too.
"I don't want a healer but I want all the abilities of a healer and I want it in a single skill!"
Is sheer lunacy, (as is the thought that you need someone in the party who's sole purpose is allowing to you not have HP damage).
Honestly, its easy for a wizard to get UMD, my advice is you lock it in as one of your headband of intellect skills, grab a rod of splendor at higher levels and kick back. Eventually you will be able to use pretty much any magic device.
Using Cosmopolitan for Perception/Use magic device or just taking Magical aptitude is another viable option for wizards.
The problem is that, while the game is intended to provide fun, it requires a player to potentially play something they don't want to (that isn't fun to them) so that the party has healing. Either that or the game suffers the heavy hand of the GM's Deus ex Machina.
No it doesn't.
You don't need a healer. You need someone that can throw some HP on people occasionally -- like say the wizard with a wand of infernal healing (or the sorcerer), or the bard with a wand of cure light wounds, or a paladin, or a ranger, or a fighter with UMD, or a rogue with UMD, or a monk with UMD (possibly instead going Sensei and playing a monk healer/buffer if you want to) or one of the thousands of other options.
A healer isn't mandated or even encouraged as a class choice and certainly isn't needed.
|
|
I am confused by your post. Apparently, when I wrote,
I think the first problem is that the healing skill is worthless.it led you to write three paragraphs on a completely different skill (UMD) and about how, you think, I might better understand UMD if I understood the game history better than you think I do. What I'm confused about is what, if anything, you wrote about UMD is relevant to my comments about the heal skill.
Your thread is based on your belief that UMD should be more reliable, for more classes.
One of your justifications for that position, is that, without UMD being a class skill, the chance of success at activating, for example, a wand of CLW is rather low.You believe that the designers have made a mistake, in leaving UMD off the class skill for wizards, as their ability to provide mundane healing (via the Heal skill) is so poor (which is a topic in itself).
Therefore, you conclude that leaving UMD off class skill lists must be a mistake, and the designers must have intended for more classes to be popping charges off CLW wands with a greater chance of success than ended up in the RAW.
My reference to the legacy ability was to illustrate the evolution of the ability, from its highly-restricted origins (open only to a single class, at high-level, scrolls only, limited lists, capped at 75%, secret tables in the DMG for mishaps).
This was never an ability for low-level PCs to count on, but for high level Thieves only (maybe Assassins, too, I forget).
10th level isn't remotely impressive nowadays, but back then, it was hardcore. You had to play for months, maybe years to earn the xp for that, given that most DMs threw out the 'xp for gp' assumption.
Most classes were expected to have settled down into semi-retirement by level 9, built a castle or home base, and had subjects to rule. A level 10 Thief would be the Godfather of a small town.
Which all points to the fact that, though the ability has had many of its restrictions loosened, it still remains an ability that is intended to pay off in the long-term, and that far from being a typo, or not playtested, the low chance of success with UMD, at low levels, is totally intentional.
A 1st level fighter with UMD has a 75% chance of failing his UMD roll off a wand (assuming 0 Cha and that trait which makes UMD a class skill). A 75% chance of doing nothing during a round is terrible, particularly at first level. Go ahead and deny it, but you'll still be wrong.
Alternately a 25% chance of being able to do something that has absolutely nothing to do with your class is pretty good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A 1st level fighter with UMD has a 75% chance of failing his UMD roll off a wand (assuming 0 Cha and that trait which makes UMD a class skill). A 75% chance of doing nothing during a round is terrible, particularly at first level. Go ahead and deny it, but you'll still be wrong.
If you have a fighter that is trying to use a wand in combat at level 1 with UMD with only a +5 bonus on it you are doing it wrong.
You might as well complain the wizard can't hit in melee when he has a strength of 7, and goes squish because he has no armor, a dex of 12 and only 8 hit points.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you have a fighter that is trying to use a wand in combat at level 1 with UMD with only a +5 bonus on it you are doing it wrong.That's my point. And, yet, the fact remains that it is often needed that healing be done in the middle of combat. Which is why somebody is going to have to play a healing class whether they want to or not.
And that is a problem.
Really hung up on the 'needs a healer in combat' part aren't you?
While this was written with 3.5 in mind it's still every bit as relevant today "A player's guide to healing.
Healing in combat is typically one of the worse possibly uses of your action you can possibly make, unless you can manage to heal more than is being done, or it is using actions that can't be used to further end the fight (such as a paladin using lay on hands for himself as a swift action).
Heal after combat, kill during, it works better.
When your meat shield has only two or three hit points left and the party isn't high enough to have breath of life available and the enemy isn't dead yet, you want to be casting a healing spell in the middle of combat.
Healing in combat is typically one of the worse possibly uses of your action you can possibly make,
No... I want the thing that is going to kill him in the next round regardless of the 1d8+1 I'm going to possibly give him dead before it has a chance to do so -- much more effective that way.
Healing never keeps up with damage -- you are better off killing the enemy than trying to out pace his damage with a limited resource -- use the 'meatshield' for flank while you have a chance and beat the enemy down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When your meat shield has only two or three hit points left and the party isn't high enough to have breath of life available and the enemy isn't dead yet, you want to be casting a healing spell in the middle of combat.
Healing in combat is typically one of the worse possibly uses of your action you can possibly make,
You're not wrong in this statement, but you miss the point entirely.
If the fighter hadn't lost hit points the healer could put his actions to more productive uses, such as smiting the bad guy with his holy warhammer (or whatever).
In combat it's more costly to conserving resources (like the fighter) than winning the battle.
A wounded soldier takes both that soldier (fighter) and the medic (cleric) out of the fight and causes that side to have to commit greater resources (action economy and spells in the case of D&D). However, if that soldier had avoided injury both the medic and the grunt could be shooting at the enemy. That's why guerrilla warfare touts maiming the enemy over outright killing them. This is warfare 101.
How are you going to know that he's even killable in the next round (hint: you don't). And if you don't kill him in the next round and he kills your meat shield (who only has 2 or 3 hit points left), then the combat can very quickly shift in the enemy's favor.
If you have 4 on 1 and losing 1 shifts favor -- he already had it.
I don't know for sure what his HP total is... but I know what has been done, and I know what I can do, and if everyone does what they can do to him it's more likely to drop him than simply healing the meatshield.
In all likelihood he will go down faster if I'm dropping his HP than if I'm giving an average of 4~5 hp to the fighter (most creatures do more than 8 damage a round).
I can get two swings in reducing the monster's HP by 8~12 hp total while the fighter is finishing dropping (my action this round and my action after the round the fighter drops), or I can heal and then only get one when the fighter still drops.
However, if that soldier had avoided injury both the medic and the grunt could be shooting at the enemy. That's why guerrilla warfare touts maiming the enemy over outright killing them. This is warfare 101.You expect the fighter (who is skill point starved) to invest enough in stealth to routinely avoid fights?
easily especially at lower levels. You got 2 to start with 3 if human. Human fighter favored class bonus is worth more than the skill points, but an Int of 12 isn't insane, and a 14 is easily acceptable, meaning another 1~2 skill points a level.
So I take: Stealth 1, Heal 1, Perception 1, Profession 1.
Because you might ask I would probably have the following stats with a 20 point buy:
Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 14, Cha 8 before stat adjustment for race. With human, half orc or half elf I would probably put my racial adjustment into strength, and depending on the race (like dwarf) I might start with something a little different (dwarf would be str 14 dex 14 con 14 int 14 wis 12 cha 8 before racial adjustments).
Weapons would probably be a cold iron gauntlet (4gp), silver gauntlet(22gp), a long sword (10gp), a buckler(15gp), a sling, dagger(2gp), a short bow (30 gp) with arrows (meh lets call it 40 so 2 gp) and a club at 85 gp total. Armor would be depend on if the piece armor rules are in effect. If not I would start with Scale Mail (50gp) a buckler (15 gp) and maybe a suit of leather to back it up (10gp) which is 75 more GP leaving me with about 10 gp for 'stuff' -- not quite what I would want for the rest of my equipment but certainly not a bad starting point: I can fight at ranged, with either bludgeoning or piercing damage, fight in melee with either sword and board, or two handed fighting with bludgeoning, piercing or slashing damage as I need having an AC of 17 or 18 before anything else enters into the picture.
However, if that soldier had avoided injury both the medic and the grunt could be shooting at the enemy. That's why guerrilla warfare touts maiming the enemy over outright killing them. This is warfare 101.You expect the fighter (who is skill point starved) to invest enough in stealth to routinely avoid fights?
I was thinking he should invest in the best armor possible actually. If you're talking skill specific I think Acrobatics to avoid attacks of opportunity would be a better investment than stealth.
I think I may have forgotten my question now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You believe that the designers have made a mistake, in leaving UMD off the class skill for wizards, as their ability to provide mundane healing (via the Heal skill) is so poor (which is a topic in itself).
what the hell are you talking about???
Seriously, I have no clue. Where do you think I said anything about whether wizards not getting UMD is a mistake?
I must obviously be misinterpreting your intent, when you wrote;
A 1st level fighter with UMD has a 75% chance of failing his UMD roll off a wand (assuming 0 Cha and that trait which makes UMD a class skill). A 75% chance of doing nothing during a round is terrible, particularly at first level. Go ahead and deny it, but you'll still be wrong.
Substitute 'fighter' for any class without CLW on its spell list.
Such as the wizard, the topic of this thread.it led you to write three paragraphs on a completely different skill (UMD) and about how, you think, I might better understand UMD if I understood the game history better than you think I do. What I'm confused about is what, if anything, you wrote about UMD is relevant to my comments about the heal skill.
I fail to see how me being on topic constitutes 'writing about a completely different skill'.
The topic of this thread is 'why do wizards not get UMD as a class skill'.
If you enter a thread with that topic, complaining that the Heal skill is ineffective, and the chance of succeeding at the UMD skill is too low, then you cannot complain, if readers interpret that to mean that you believe the chance of success with UMD should be much higher.
My post (or "the hell I am talking about") explained why the current low chance of success was deliberate.
It was a post addressed to all the posters to that point, who had expressed several ideas, that a) wizards (among others) should get UMD as a class skill, and b) not having it as a class skill made any PC's chance of successfully using wands and scrolls non-viable, c) that UMD is essential to all non-divine classes since they are unable to keep up with the expected level of healing without frequent use of UMD to take up the slack, and d) that this could not possibly be the designers intent.
Your post was simply the nearest to have expressed one or more of those ideas.
If it is, however, not your intention to engage in a discussion of whether wizards should have UMD as a class skill, then may I respectfully request that you remove yourself from a thread devoted to the subject of whether wizards should have UMD as a class skill, rather than engaging in an increasingly nasty threadjack about the value of performing healing during combat, the need for a dedicated healer, or any other off-topic irrelevancies, so that those who wish to discuss the actual topic, of whether other classes should have UMD as a class skill, can be allowed to get on with it?
As ever,
politely yours,
Snorter.
Ok I can't seem to understand the problem here. Se here are some things I'd like people to clarify for me.
First of all, a wizard could NEVER be able to cast Cure spells, so I don't see why there is actually a debate here. I'll copy/paste the rules so you clearly understand what I mean.
"Use a Scroll: Normally, to cast a spell from a scroll, you must have the scroll's spell on your class spell list. Use Magic Device allows you to use a scroll as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. The DC is equal to 20 + the caster level of the spell you are trying to cast from the scroll. In addition, casting a spell from a scroll requires a minimum score (10 + spell level) in the appropriate ability. If you don't have a sufficient score in that ability, you must emulate the ability score with a separate Use Magic Device check. This use of the skill also applies to other spell completion magic items.
Use a Wand, Staff, or Other Spell Trigger Item: Normally, to use a wand, you must have the wand's spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. Failing the roll does not expend a charge."
Second of all, I really don,t get why a wizard, which is most of the time the character entitled to magic item use and creation, would not be able to use such goods.
There is also a paradox between the fact that a wizard can't make UMD checks BUT may still start the game with a wand or staff... WTH? It doesn't work! This would be the worst choice ever if we fallow the logic of most writers here.
My GM and I agreed once that could naturaly use any magic item that was on his spell list (as it is suppose to be) if he has the spell in his spellbook. What I would also propose is this : you can allow your players (or propose your GM) that if you have the item creation feat, you can use the item.
I also read the problem about players wanting healing but not wanting a healer... If my players would like to play that kind of party I would kindly agree. I don't know if some GMs make their homework, but if you read a little bit the game mastering guide (which I haven't read entirely BTW), it is easy to build a dungeon easy enough for a group with no healer or support casters to get trough at 1st level. You just put A LOT of easy monsters so the CR is still high and the battle still tricky but it is easy to get trough. For instance, making a dungeon with 500 goblins to kill in separated groups of 5 is really easy for 1st level players and it boosts your XPs.
So you, if you want to play a group of barbarian, go for it. You don't have to change the concept of you character. Your GM should change according to your desires.