RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Combat maneuvers are attacks, not checks.
Check: A check is a d20 roll which may or may not be modified by another value. The most common types are attack rolls, ability checks, skill checks, and saving throws.
(Note, however, that SKR's comment makes it clear that the circlet is not supposed to apply to attacks or saves. Speaking more generally than for that one item, however, attacks and saves are indeed "checks".)
I disagree. Checks are the rolls actually called checks. That line is from getting started and is just generic explanation. There's a reason they're not called "attack checks."
CMB is essentially just an attack roll. Feels weird coming from 3.5 that they were normally checks, and things that added to checks were taken into account.
But in PF, it's better to look for things that increase just attacks instead.
Now I keep my eye out for True Strike instead of Heroism for special occasions.
That line Jiggy mentioned is unfortunate, but it clearly isn't the intent.
Saves are not checks.
Checks are d20 rolls that are labeled as "checks" -- skill checks, ability checks (note, initiative is a dexterity check), caster level checks, etc... Note all of them are called checks.
|
Wait. Wait wait wait. If I have something that lets me add Charisma to my Initiative instead of Dexterity, like the Noble Scion (War) feat from the ISWG.... Can I use this for a +3 on initiative? Leave out the milk, it's time to make some cheese! (Begins searching for any RAW reference to intiative as a "check".)
EDIT: I just now read the post directly above mine. Aha. Ahaha. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So if you are a paladin and have divine grace, does the circlet give you a bonus to your saves as well?
If it does for Concentration rolls, then there is no way to reject the assertion that it also helps with Saves when Cha is added to saves.
Saves are not checks.
Check: A check is a d20 roll which may or may not be modified by another value. The most common types are attack rolls, ability checks, skill checks, and saving throws.
Again, since Check and Concentration Check are separate entries, if the logic is that Concentration is a "Check" then there isn't any way to argue that a Save or Attack roll isn't a Check and doesn't get the Circlet bonus added if Cha is also being added.
So if you are a paladin and have divine grace, does the circlet give you a bonus to your saves as well?If it does for Concentration rolls, then there is no way to reject the assertion that it also helps with Saves when Cha is added to saves.
Other than SKR stating that it does not affect attack or saving throw rolls, but I see where you are going and why. Allowing it to work beyond skill and ability checks is going to create a lot of probably unintended consequences, but going with RAW and SKRs comment it seems legit.
Combat maneuvers are attacks, not checks.Check: A check is a d20 roll which may or may not be modified by another value. The most common types are attack rolls, ability checks, skill checks, and saving throws.(Note, however, that SKR's comment makes it clear that the circlet is not supposed to apply to attacks or saves. Speaking more generally than for that one item, however, attacks and saves are indeed "checks".)
What I read was thus:
Checks are this -- the most common types (of Checks) are...
Seems to me the are checks too.
Ravingdork, to me it looks like RAW is the circlet helps on concentration checks -- I don't think it's a huge deal.
Wait. Wait wait wait. If I have something that lets me add Charisma to my Initiative instead of Dexterity, like the Noble Scion (War) feat from the ISWG.... Can I use this for a +3 on initiative? Leave out the milk, it's time to make some cheese! (Begins searching for any RAW reference to intiative as a "check".)
EDIT: I just now read the post directly above mine. Aha. Ahaha. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!
Just for the sake of throwing a wrench into things...
At that point are you making a charisma check, or a dexterity check that allow you to use charisma in place of dexterity? ;)
|
|
Wait. Wait wait wait. If I have something that lets me add Charisma to my Initiative instead of Dexterity, like the Noble Scion (War) feat from the ISWG.... Can I use this for a +3 on initiative? Leave out the milk, it's time to make some cheese! (Begins searching for any RAW reference to intiative as a "check".)
EDIT: I just now read the post directly above mine. Aha. Ahaha. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!
Just for the sake of throwing a wrench into things...
At that point are you making a charisma check, or a dexterity check that allow you to use charisma in place of dexterity? ;)
Why, I believe I am making a Charisma-based Dexterity check!
|
|
Here is my list of what
Initiative with Scion of War=Cheese Stamp, but yes.
Charisma Based Skill Checks=Yes (No Cheese)
Opposed Charisma Checks=Yes (No Cheese)
Concentration Checks=Yes (No Cheese)
Spells that use Charisma as an attack modifier=Cheese Stamp, but yes.
Saves are not checks.Check: A check is a d20 roll which may or may not be modified by another value. The most common types are attack rolls, ability checks, skill checks, and saving throws.Again, since Check and Concentration Check are separate entries, if the logic is that Concentration is a "Check" then there isn't any way to argue that a Save or Attack roll isn't a Check and doesn't get the Circlet bonus added if Cha is also being added.
That's in the getting started section and is a mistake that should be errata'd.
Everything that is supposed to be a check is called out as a check.
Looks like yet another bit of confusion PF's editing to 3E has caused. *sigh*
Looking in the D&D 3.5 glossary in the PHB, it says this of checks:
Man, that's beautiful. It's as clear and helpful as that PF quote on checks is broad, murky, unclear, and awful.
I don't think concentration can be classified as a "Charisma" check, because while SOME classes might use charisma for concentration checks, not ALL classes do. It certainly doesn't say under the description for concentration check that it is an "ability check" and that the type of ability check it is varies among the different classes. No other ability check works this way either, with some classes using one ability for the same check while another uses something else. Thus, its far different from any other type of "ability" check, and more accurately should be considered a caster level check, albeit one with a bonus based on the ability score.
Also, if concentration checks are ability checks, then we have some other issues that arise. For instance, a luck stone would provide a +1 luck bonus to it. Furthermore, the shaken and sickened conditions would impose penalties to concentration checks. However, these do not provide bonuses or penalties to checks to overcome SR or to dispel magic (the other checks that rely primarily on caster level), so why should concentration be different from these?
Ability checks are essentially skill checks for which there is not appropriate skill, such as using strength to break through a door (as there is no Break Object skill). They are doable by anyone regardless of class or level. Concentration however is different, as its primarily dependent on caster level, and some characters who have no caster levels can't even make concentration checks. You can make a concentration check with a +0 modifier to your ability, or even a negative modifier, but you can't make one without a caster level.
So it seems counter intuitive to call it an ability check, and it can make for some odd and probably unintentional results if it is treated as such.
An ability check is d20 + ability and may include some miscellaneous modifiers as well (such as Imp. Initiative for an initiative check, which is a dexterity check), but is ultimately supposed to be a direct test of that ability, such as a strength check or force open a door.
An ability-based check is one which applies an ability modifier to the d20 roll, but is primarily focused on some other criteria. For example, skill checks (where rank is the main contributor to the check) and concentration checks, which is a caster level check modified by ability score.
Luck Stone would not improve a concentration check, because it is an ability-based check, not an ability check:
"This small bit of agate grants its possessor a +1 luck bonus on saving throws, ability checks, and skill checks."
While as a circlet of persuasion has this covered:
"This silver headband grants a +3 competence bonus on the wearer's Charisma-based checks."
It doesn't say ability checks -- it says checks, which include concentration as an example...
Display of Charisma only works on skill checks and ability checks.
|
My 2 copper
Check: A check is a d20 roll which may or may not be modified by another value. The most common types are attack rolls, ability checks, skill checks, and saving throws.
Plus:
What kinds of d20 rolls does the game have you make that (1) are called "checks" rather than saves or attacks, and (2) involve your Charisma modifier?
Equals the following:
1) Did I roll a d20? (Per definition of a check). If Yes, move on to 2. If No, Circlet of Persuasion has no effect.
2) Did I add my Charisma Modifier (re: SKR comment)? If Yes, move on to 3. If No, Circlet of Persuasion has no effect.
3) Was the d20 roll the specific form of check (per the definition of Check) known as an Attack roll (re: SKR comment)? If No, move on to 4. If Yes, Circlet of Persuasion has no effect.
4) Was the d20 roll the specific form of a check (per the definition of Check) known as a Saving Throw (re: SKR comment)? If No, move on to 5. If Yes, Circlet of Persuasion has no effect.
5) Circlet of Persuasion +3 Bonus applies.
Edit: Holy Thread Necromancy!
|
RD I'm kind of on the fence on this, but I'm leaning towards a no on applying the bonus to concentration checks. They aren't called out as an ability check. Reading the quote above containing the description of concentration checks I would say it is more in line with a caster level check that includes an ability score.
However, this bonus would completely help with spells like Charm Person.
(Bolding mine.)
The circlet says nothing about needing to be an "ability check". Just a check that is CHA-based.As referenced a few posts above yours, designer Sean K Reynolds frames it as being a simple question of "Is it a check?" and "Is it CHA-based?", and a sorcerer's concentration checks fit the bill.
I am late to the game but this is a classic logical fallacy, such as 'All mothers are women, thus all women are mothers.' Incorrect of course, and just because a few women are mothers does not make them all mothers.
In this case, a concentration check is not a charisma-based check. Just because in a few cases it becomes a check partially based on a charisma bonus does not make concentration check charisma checks.
|
|
You're thinking of the other thread, Jiggy (but here they are again to save people clicking a link):
Does this help?
To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell. When you make a concentration check, you roll d20 and add your caster level and the ability score modifier used to determine bonus spells of the same type. Clerics, druids, and rangers add their Wisdom modifier. Bards, paladins, and sorcerers add their Charisma modifier. Finally, wizards add their Intelligence modifier. The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC (see Table: Concentration Check DCs). If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect.I might be missing an aspect of the question, but I'd say it's a Charisma-based check.
...and...
What kinds of d20 rolls does the game have you make that (1) are called "checks" rather than saves or attacks, and (2) involve your Charisma modifier?
|
|
With all due respect to the aforementioned designers' comments from 2010, I believe they are completely wrong. There are many reasons why this is wrong: Price, inequity, and balance being three.
When the designers rewrote the rules for Pathfinder, they specifically changed the concentration skill into something new because concentration was problematic. In no way, shape or form, do I believe those designers had any intent for the circlet to suddenly become more powerful for only certain Charisma-based casters. Nor do I believe that this was an issue that was raised at the time that would cause them to review the circlet's specific wording that was 3.5-specific and suddenly change into something more exacting that would prevent this interpretation.
In all fairness and all the respect to Adam, a person that I actually have never met and do not know, he issued his own personal opinion did not state an official ruling.
Sean Reynolds' comment was provocative and could be implied that he agreed with that type of ruling. However he also has not stated it was an official ruling or that he fully agrees with the context.
I can't tell if Jiggy is being snarky or not, but if Sean goes to the next Gencon, I will do us both a favor and bring this very case up to Sean and try to get him to agree with me. I have followed Sean for many years on various message boards long before Paizo and have met him on multiple occasions. He is a very considerate, knowledgeable and reasonable person. Hopefully he will agree with me.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't tell if Jiggy is being snarky or not
Yeah, long day, sorry. :(
...and try to get him to agree with me.
Hopefully it's possible for what I'm about to say to be read in a non-snarky, entirely trying-to-be-helpful way:
That is the first folly of rules interpretation. If you want to understand the rules properly, and become skilled at interpreting them correctly, the first thing you have to do is give up on any notion of championing for a specific answer. You've always always always got to be ready to change your mind at a moment's notice and feel nothing as a result. As long as you're starting with "It should obviously be X" and then progressing to trying to find support or get someone to agree with you, you'll only be correct as often as you're lucky. When instead you start with "What do the rules say?" and then extrapolate from there regardless of what that answer might be, your skill will multiply.
I just had this come up today, and then I saw this thread and I thought how appropos....
Does an Oracle with the "wasting" curse take a -4 penalty to concentration checks?
Is it a check? Yes.
Are you adding charisma modifier? yep.
Circlet of persuasion applies.
Why does the circlet not apply to paladin saves? Because paladins don't add their charisma modifier to their saves, of course. Paladins add a bonus equal to their charisma bonus. Technically, they don't actually add their charisma bonus, they add a bonus (untyped) equal to their charisma bonus.
Are attacks checks? yes.
Are saves checks? yes.
Is every d20 in the game a check? Yes...
Did you roll a d20, and add your charisma? Yea? Add +3 to it if you're wearing a CoP.
This is 'really' simple. We can argue semantics all day long, but ... the answer is always the same, very simple, answer.
Is it a really awesome item, that is probably way to cheap? Yeah, it is. Does it add +3 to ALL cha checks? Yeah, it does.
Yeah, this is language/wording I would like to have cleared up. A few (similarly) confusing examples:
The "master chymist" "burly" discovery, which says you can add your level to all "strength checks". Does that include attacks? They specify CMB, but not attack, so I will tend to think no. But if any d20 roll is a check, is this added to attack?
Similar language is in the "divine power" spell. It gives a bonus to attack/damage & strength checks. I'm pretty sure they shouldnt stack, but the language is akward.
The item is underpriced for what it does, even if you do not allow it to affect concentration checks. It is priced the same as a +3 to 3.67 skills. It affects charisma checks (used for enchantments and high level summons) and 7 different skill checks. Now, you most likely wont be focusing on all of those skils, but based off this alone, I would not increase its power to affect concentration as well, which has no magical way to increase other than boosting the casting stat.
I agree that it is worded poorly all arround.
If you go with the wondrous item method, you add extras at +50%.
If you go with the staff method, you discount 25% then 50%.Can you use two checks at the same time? Not easily, and likely rarely.
Staff usage might be the right way.
7 skills @ +3 = (1 + 0.75 + 0.5*5) * (3 * 3) * 100 gp = 3825 gp.
Add a little for the other extra provided, and it might be correctly priced.
/cevah
Once again, attacks and saves are not checks. Only d20 rolls called "checks" are checks. And they all share the trait that they do not auto-fail/succeed on a 1 or 20. The single line of extremely broad text in the getting started section is unfortunate, but not the RAW, and blatantly conflicts with other, more specific sources, including designer comments on the issue.
With all due respect to the aforementioned designers' comments from 2010, I believe they are completely wrong. There are many reasons why this is wrong: Price, inequity, and balance being three.
When the designers rewrote the rules for Pathfinder, they specifically changed the concentration skill into something new because concentration was problematic. In no way, shape or form, do I believe those designers had any intent for the circlet to suddenly become more powerful for only certain Charisma-based casters. Nor do I believe that this was an issue that was raised at the time that would cause them to review the circlet's specific wording that was 3.5-specific and suddenly change into something more exacting that would prevent this interpretation.
And in all due respect, your argument is completely illogical.
The circlet's wording has not changed since 3.5, nor what it applies to, which is ALL charisma-based checks. IIRC, there's even a 3.5 FAQ or designer comment confirming that it benefits Turn Undead checks (which in 3.5 was a d20 + cleric level + charisma roll that clerics got instead of PF's channel energy).
The intent *and* RAW of the circlet has not changed.
What did change is the Concentration check side of the house. They used to be Con-based (and a skill the caster had to actually pay ranks for) only.
Now in PF, they are mental-based and can be cha-based.
If the interaction is a problem, it is not the circlet's fault, nor is anything wrong with how it was "intended." And if it is an issue, they can always use the FAQ or errata to change the RAW any day they want, they do that plenty.
I personally just see it as a nice side-boon for what is the worst stat to have casting based off of the three. Int-based means you get great skill points. Wis-based means your will saves are unbeatable and you're good at the best skill in the game even w/o ranks. Cha-based means...you're great at concentration checks by mid-levels. *Shrug*
Wow, so this HAS been debated before. Ok I can see that some of you ruled out saves just cause. So Here's my two cents on the matter.
[b]Divine Grace Saves=Cheese Stamp, but yes[b]
Initiative with Scion of War=Cheese Stamp, but yes.
Charisma Based Skill Checks=Yes (No Cheese)
Opposed Charisma Checks=Yes (No Cheese)
Concentration Checks=Yes (No Cheese)
Spells that use Charisma as an attack modifier=Cheese Stamp, but yes.
I would have to take issue with your reading of Divine Grace.
At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all Saving Throws.
This does not make the paladin's saving throw Charisma based, it simply adds a bonus to their throws that is equal to their Charisma modifier. Fortitude is still governed by Constitution, Reflex by Dexterity, and Will by Wisdom.
On the other hand. If you were to say... find a way to substitute charisma in place of another ability modifier for a save like..
Prerequisite(s): Charisma 13, kobold.
Benefit(s): You use your Charisma, Intelligence, or Wisdom in place of Constitution to determine your bonus to Fortitude saves and your maximum negative hit points before death. Once this choice has been made, it can't be changed.
...Then the argument could be made that a circlet of persuasion would apply because the save is now dictated by Charisma instead of it's original modifier. It is in effect, a Charisma-based check by at least a certain definition. The same could be said for other methods like... Irrepressible
I'm just adding that in there for the sake of argument. Most of the people here clearly made up their minds a while back. Personally, I think concentration checks should get the bonus, and I could go either way on allowing them for saves in CERTAIN circumstances. It's not like getting a save to be governed by charisma is easy to do.
Concentration checks are not ability based they are caster level based with a bonus gotten from the casting ability score, so no.
Without any sort of working definition for "based" I can't see how you're splitting that hair.
Circlet of Persuasion modifies social skills, that's it. This excludes using Bluff to feint in combat, as well as any use of Use Magic Device.
And that's ... completely arbitrary. There is nothing to say that use magic device is less a charisma based check than diplomacy, much less that feinting in combat is less charisma based than asking the sheriff to let you off with a warning.
When you make a concentration check, you roll d20 and add your caster level and the ability score modifier used to determine bonus spells of the same type.They are both caster level-based and ability-based.
Circlet of Persuasion works.
Yup, it works. I think its dumb personally (there are items that are more expensive and only boost you concentration) but RAW it works.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
according to the d20pfsrd, see link)
I can't find that in the book, so I don't know whether or not that is "helpful" additional documentation for beginners written by d20pfsrd or is actually in a book written by paizo.
Book page reference? Otherwise I'll choose to ignore it, as it doesn't exist except on d20pfsrd.