Since the forum mods decided to be difficult instead of remotely helpful, I'm remaking this here.
In the many "OMG - Detect Magic/Create Water/every cantrip is the devil!" thread, all have failed to take into account or otherwise ignored a single, interesting bit of rules pertaining to Detect Magic.
3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Knowledge (arcana) skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura: DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + 1/2 caster level for a nonspell effect.) If the aura emanates from a magic item, you can attempt to identify its properties (see Spellcraft).
From what the spell states, unless the magic aura is being generated specifically from an item or from/by a creature, there is no way to actually discern what the spell is. There is just a magical aura of some order of magnitude. Or that's how I am reading it. A spell without a target (like the Image line) would only ever be identified as a Magic Aura of a strength relative to its caster level. You could never deduce what kind of magic it was. Similarly, if someone shot up a room with a fireball and you walked past and used detect magic, you could discern magic happened there of a particular strength due to lingering aura, but you would never know what the magic was.
Chew on that thought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having chewed on that thought for a while, ever since the previous post, I must say that it has a nutty flavor with subtle and ever so delicate hints of fruit. It also has a strong aftertaste of truth.
And, for once, I agree with you.
Since the forum mods decided to be difficult instead of remotely helpful, I'm remaking this here.
In the many "OMG - Detect Magic/Create Water/every cantrip is the devil!" thread, all have failed to take into account or otherwise ignored a single, interesting bit of rules pertaining to Detect Magic.
3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Knowledge (arcana) skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura: DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + 1/2 caster level for a nonspell effect.) If the aura emanates from a magic item, you can attempt to identify its properties (see Spellcraft).From what the spell states, unless the magic aura is being generated specifically from an item or from/by a creature, there is no way to actually discern what the spell is. There is just a magical aura of some order of magnitude. Or that's how I am reading it. A spell without a target (like the Image line) would only ever be identified as a Magic Aura of a strength relative to its caster level. You could never deduce what kind of magic it was. Similarly, if someone shot up a room with a fireball and you walked past and used detect magic, you could discern magic happened there of a particular strength due to lingering aura, but you would never know what the magic was.
Chew on that thought.
This has been stated in every detect magic thread. The problem is that the GM's assume that the players automatically know the spell in question is an invisibility spell. If the players want to assume that then go right ahead.
I also don't think stopping every 5 feet for 18 seconds happens in anyone's game. If that is how a particular gameworld works then tactics should be in place to set up ambushes.
edit:I misunderstood your point, and I just learned something new.
Senior Software Developer
|
Since the forum mods decided to be difficult instead of remotely helpful, I'm remaking this here.
I think it's the "zomg let's have a rules debate!!!" part that raised my hackles. I've edited the thread title. Rules debates are fun, for some people, I guess, but mostly I think we're just tired of them cluttering up the rules forum.
Since the forum mods decided to be difficult instead of remotely helpful, I'm remaking this here.I think it's the "zomg let's have a rules debate!!!" part that raised my hackles. I've edited the thread title. Rules debates are fun, for some people, I guess, but mostly I think we're just tired of them cluttering up the rules forum.
For what it's worth, Gary, I found the original thread post informative — and I'm not predisposed to defend Cartigan.
Framing it as debate instead of a "Did you know..." type thing is probably not the best way to go about it, but the content is worthy of discussion.
For my part, this line-of-sight clause fixes a number of things, and I wasn't aware of it until today. Hopefully the whole thread is not doomed to controversy by its inception.
Since the forum mods decided to be difficult instead of remotely helpful, I'm remaking this here.I think it's the "zomg let's have a rules debate!!!" part that raised my hackles. I've edited the thread title. Rules debates are fun, for some people, I guess, but mostly I think we're just tired of them cluttering up the rules forum.
Fine. Rule "discussion." It's not really a debate; it's just what the spell says.
For my part, this line-of-sight clause fixes a number of things, and I wasn't aware of it until today. Hopefully the whole thread is not doomed to controversy by its inception.
Line of sight is also an ADDITIONAL interesting tidbit (ie, you can't discern the magical properties of undisplayed weapons, amulets, clothing, rings, or other items), but wasn't really related to what I was talking about.
Since the forum mods decided to be difficult instead of remotely helpful, I'm remaking this here.I think it's the "zomg let's have a rules debate!!!" part that raised my hackles. I've edited the thread title. Rules debates are fun, for some people, I guess, but mostly I think we're just tired of them cluttering up the rules forum.For what it's worth, Gary, I found the original thread post informative — and I'm not predisposed to defend Cartigan.
Framing it as debate instead of a "Did you know..." type thing is probably not the best way to go about it, but the content is worthy of discussion.
For my part, this line-of-sight clause fixes a number of things, and I wasn't aware of it until today. Hopefully the whole thread is not doomed to controversy by its inception.
Agreed, though I am not sure that is the intention of detect magic, I surely would not have ruled it as such if it was a 1st level spell. Now that it is a cantrip I am actually considering wether I should agree with this line of thought or not, I think I rather put it down to slightly clumsy explanation of the mechanics, areas/locations should not be any different than an aura on a creature, though possibly magical items could or should work differently.
I am still more inclined to have the cantrips not be unlimited use and not restrict them so much rather than use a more restrictive interpretation and allow them to be used without limit.
EDIT: I agree with the line of sight ruling, though I think an illusionary object or creature still counts as an item, but not when the creature or object is invisible
EDIT: I agree with the line of sight ruling, though I think an illusionary object or creature still counts as an item, but not when the creature or object is invisible
...
What.An Invisible creature/object would be one of the FEW times where an illusion is emanating from an object or creature. An actual rules question would be how line of sight works with things you can't see.
An Invisible creature/object would be one of the FEW times where an illusion is emanating from an object or creature. An actual rules question would be how line of sight works with things you can't see.
Ah, I see what you're driving at.
Do you think that we should ignore the semantics of "line of sight" and say that you could identify invisibility?
I, for one, think that you need to be able to see something to have line of sight, even if you have line of effect. If we start reducing every phrase to only its defined meaning even if it contradicts its implied meaning, all kinds of craziness ensues (like the dead state not prohibiting actions).
My preference: rules designers should name things carefully, so that implied behavior can assist in rulings. In this case, line of sight means you can see the creature or object. If it is invisible, you do not have line of sight.
An Invisible creature/object would be one of the FEW times where an illusion is emanating from an object or creature. An actual rules question would be how line of sight works with things you can't see.Ah, I see what you're driving at.
Do you think that we should ignore the semantics of "line of sight" and say that you could identify invisibility?
Semantics is only partially important here. Line of sight is a concrete rules concept. The question is how important semantics are.
That is completely unrelated to the fact that Detect Magic can never identify an on-going spell. It can be used to identify the school of magic or a magic item.
If there's any aura not colocated with a visible object there is invisibility. Even if the aura is not an illusion aura, it still proves the presence of invisibility. The level 1 cleric doorguard is just as effective against invisibility as if spell auras were identifiable.
It does make medium security unworkable (prohibit illusions and items with auras, but allow cosmetic stuff like prestidigitation and youthful appearance) but high security is still implementable (no bringing any magic auras into the the potential assassination target's presence)
This does appear to protect illusions that are masquerading as conjurations or evocations from detection based on a cantrip.
Again- What.
You can ONLY identify the school by studying a particular area or creature for 3 round. Concurrently. If said invisible creature stands in a single place for 3 rounds, congratulations, your door guard has found that within a 5'x5'x5' square, there is Illusion magic. Unless the door guard can also beat the Stealth check, he cannot concentrate on the invisible creature so it must stand still for 3 rounds.
For the most part this seems "whats news here?".
Given the impressive number of people who are operating under the assumption that NOTHING I said actually exists in the spell description, I would say "everything."
Are you guys also determining 'line of sight' with
The spell can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it.in mind?
Don't have to. Those block line of effect for the emanation. A simple sheet of silk blocks line of sight.
|
Don't have to. Those block line of effect for the emanation. A simple sheet of silk blocks line of sight.
So are you saying that for the first 2 rounds of observation the bypassing clause applies. But for the 3rd round's info you need actual line of sight?
I can see that, you get the number of auras but if they're behind a wall maybe the wall just has a bit of a blurry glow to it.
For the rest of this discussion can we please use what the book says, instead of what we want it to say. Once the actuality of the rules are figured out feel free to houserule as you wish.
So are you saying that for the first 2 rounds of observation the bypassing clause applies. But for the 3rd round's info you need actual line of sight?
Don't have to. Those block line of effect for the emanation. A simple sheet of silk blocks line of sight.
No, I'm saying for the parts that explicitly say you need line of sight, you need line of sight.
News here for you: You can't identify magic items or the school of an aura unless it is in line of sight.
That's pretty much what I was getting at.
News here for you: You can't identify magic items or the school of an aura unless it is in line of sight.
Except you appeared to be attaching it to the things that said they block Detect Magic. Things that block Detect Magic don't matter. At all. Anything that blocks line of sight blocks the abilities of Detect Magic that say require line of sight.
So, the real question with invisibility is, Does Invisibility block line of sight to the target? That seems worth a FAQ IMO.
Interestingly enough, it appears my group has been playing this one wrong. We have always allows detect magic to identify the school of lingering auras. By the letter of the RAW, this is not possible.
Things that block Detect Magic don't matter. At all. Anything that blocks line of sight blocks the abilities of Detect Magic that say require line of sight.Then we agree it (line of sight) only effects the 3rd round's feedback?
No, we don't. You can still learn strength and location of aura. Line of sight only blocks identifying magical school or magic item properties.
Interestingly enough, it appears my group has been playing this one wrong. We have always allows detect magic to identify the school of lingering auras. By the letter of the RAW, this is not possible.
I think everyone plays it like that. It's commonRAW (see what I did there)
So I am wondering, as I'm chewing through this thread, if the aura for an active Invisibility spell/effect can be spotted in the first place? As long as the individual/object is Invisible, would not the aura it was emitting ALSO be covered by the invisibility (in the same way all objects carried or other active spells like say, Flame Shield, would be covered)?
While it would certainly settle much of the debate, I don't recall ever seeing a discussion or ruling taking that into consideration.
So I am wondering, as I'm chewing through this thread, if the aura for an active Invisibility spell/effect can be spotted in the first place? As long as the individual/object is Invisible, would not the aura it was emitting ALSO be covered by the invisibility (in the same way all objects carried or other active spells like say, Flame Shield, would be covered)?
What?
Invisibility means you can't see them. I'm not sure why that would mask it from Detect Magic. I don't know what you are going for.Fun fact! Unless you can see a creature, you can't concentrate on it, so to even find a creature with Invisibility active, they have to stand still for 3 rounds!
So I am wondering, as I'm chewing through this thread, if the aura for an active Invisibility spell/effect can be spotted in the first place? As long as the individual/object is Invisible, would not the aura it was emitting ALSO be covered by the invisibility (in the same way all objects carried or other active spells like say, Flame Shield, would be covered)?
While it would certainly settle much of the debate, I don't recall ever seeing a discussion or ruling taking that into consideration.
You can get strength and location of an aura even if the aura is behind a half foot of stone. Cartigan's point is that you cannot get the school in that situation.
This leads us to 2 possibilities on invisibility.
1. The invisibility spell blocks line of sight to the subject. In that case, detect magic will give you the strength and location of the magic aura, but you cannot make a knowledge check to get the school. You would know there is a magic aura over there, but you have no idea what kind of aura it is.
2. Invisibility spell does not block line of sight to the subject. In that case, detect magic will also allow you to make a knowledge check to get the school. So you would know that there is an aura of illusion magic over there.
Invisibility blocking line of sight is a thorny issue. I would rule that invisibility blocks LOS, but I don't exactly feel like I am standing on solid ground with that ruling. You cannot see the invisible person, but you can see through their square just fine. Just like a wall of force blocks line of effect, but it does not block line of sight, invisibility blocking line of sight is one of those edge case issues that I could see being called either way.
|
Since Knowledge (arcana) lets you identify a spell effect which is in place, even without using Detect Magic, at most all you need the cantrip for is to find a spell effect... then use the Knowledge Skill to identify it.
The roll to identify the effect's school of magic via Detect Magic is simply giving you a 5pt DC break on your Knowledge check if you happen to not be skilled enough to identify the thing outright.
The challenge to the use of the Knowledge (arcana) skill is the ability to perceive the spell 'effect' in the first place.
Since Knowledge (arcana) lets you identify a spell effect which is in place, even without using Detect Magic, at most all you need the cantrip for is to find a spell effect... then use the Knowledge Skill to identify it.
The roll to identify the effect's school of magic via Detect Magic is simply giving you a 5pt DC break on your Knowledge check if you happen to not be skilled enough to identify the thing outright.
The challenge to the use of the Knowledge (arcana) skill is the ability to perceive the spell 'effect' in the first place.
That's a very interesting fine line in the rules. You can identify auras with a DC15+ or identify a spell effect with a DC20+
So I am wondering, as I'm chewing through this thread, if the aura for an active Invisibility spell/effect can be spotted in the first place? As long as the individual/object is Invisible, would not the aura it was emitting ALSO be covered by the invisibility (in the same way all objects carried or other active spells like say, Flame Shield, would be covered)?What?
Invisibility means you can't see them. I'm not sure why that would mask it from Detect Magic. I don't know what you are going for.Fun fact! Unless you can see a creature, you can't concentrate on it, so to even find a creature with Invisibility active, they have to stand still for 3 rounds!
Ah! Just re-read Detect Magic's description, which clarified another question for me in that while the caster detects, it doesn't specifically state what sense he is detecting with. This implies then that the caster knows things about the aura without necessarily needing to see it (my original assumption).
It's also worth noting that stronger auras in that field of detection may distort or conceal weaker ones, so if the invisible subject has a more potent spell or magical item on (or near) them, that may also confuse results).
<tangent>With all the skills that got rolled together in PF, the fact that Knowledge(arcana) and Spellcraft are still separate boggles my mind. I know some people like to separate it into "theory" and "practice", which is all well and good, but what other skill is like that?</tangent>
Since Knowledge (arcana) lets you identify a spell effect which is in place, even without using Detect Magic, at most all you need the cantrip for is to find a spell effect... then use the Knowledge Skill to identify it.
The roll to identify the effect's school of magic via Detect Magic is simply giving you a 5pt DC break on your Knowledge check if you happen to not be skilled enough to identify the thing outright.
The challenge to the use of the Knowledge (arcana) skill is the ability to perceive the spell 'effect' in the first place.
If the spell effect is not percievable, then you can't ID it with a knowledge(arcana) check.
That use of the Knowledge(Arcana) spell is more applicable to knowing the difference between fireball and pyrotechnics, since both are highly visible spell effects. You cannot make a knowledge(arcana) check to identify the effects of a charm person spell, because there are no visible effects to identify. The upside of knowledge(arcana) is that you can identify the exact spell being cast, not just the school.
Against a spell with no visible effects like charm person, the best you can to is use detect magic and a knowledge(arcana) check to know there is an enchantment spell on that person. It could be charm person or it could be heroism.
|
|
<tangent>With all the skills that got rolled together in PF, the fact that Knowledge(arcana) and Spellcraft are still separate boggles my mind. I know some people like to separate it into "theory" and "practice", which is all well and good, but what other skill is like that?</tangent>
Knowledge (engineering) and Craft (stone mason)? Knowledge (geography) and Craft (cartography)? Knowledge (religion) and Profession (priest)?
What other skill isn't like that? ;)
<tangent>With all the skills that got rolled together in PF, the fact that Knowledge(arcana) and Spellcraft are still separate boggles my mind. I know some people like to separate it into "theory" and "practice", which is all well and good, but what other skill is like that?</tangent>
Yeah, the problem with rolling them together is that it makes knowledge arcana > all other knowledge skills by a significant margin.
Knowledge(arcana) is already one of the most useful of the knowledge skills(ID spells by observing their effects, ID spells cast on you, ID spells by component, ID magic materials, ID constructs, dragons, magical beasts).
Spellcraft lets you ID a spell while it is being cast which is necessary for counterspelling, and is also used when crafting magic items.
I see the arguments for merging the two skills, but you get a knowledge skill that is way more powerful than all other knowledge skills.
If I were going that route, I would actually split spellcraft into arcane and divine, and merge arcane spell craft with knowledge arcana, and divine spellcraft with knowledge religion. I would also move the identification of divine spells effect and spells cast on you into knowledge religion.
<tangent>With all the skills that got rolled together in PF, the fact that Knowledge(arcana) and Spellcraft are still separate boggles my mind. I know some people like to separate it into "theory" and "practice", which is all well and good, but what other skill is like that?</tangent>
Well, Knowledge: Nature & Survival spring to mind.
Back on topic.
By the letter of the RAW, you can never identify the school of a silent image or similar spell, because that spell is cast on an area not a person or object. Since you cannot see what the spell is anchored to, you cannot identify the school. Detect magic would only tell you there is a magic aura in that area. I could be an illusion or it could be the residual aura of a recently cast fireball.
|
|
If the spell effect is not percievable, then you can't ID it with a knowledge(arcana) check.
Yup - that's what I wrote too! ;)
That use of the Knowledge(Arcana) spell is more applicable to knowing the difference between fireball and pyrotechnics, since both are highly visible spell effects. You cannot make a knowledge(arcana) check to identify the effects of a charm person spell, because there are no visible effects to identify. The upside of knowledge(arcana) is that you can identify the exact spell being cast, not just the school.
The Skill doesn't mention anything about 'highly visible effects only', just 'Identify a spell effect that is in place'. What's the effect of a Charm spell? It makes the target more friendly towards the caster. That's hardly an 'un-perceivable' effect...
Muggle: Why's Bob being so friendly towards that hag all of a sudden?
Wizard: [rolls a Knowledge (arcana) check] He got hit by a Charm Person spell... I told him not to dump-stat his Wisdom like that...
Against a spell with no visible effects like charm person, the best you can to is use detect magic and a knowledge(arcana) check to know there is an enchantment spell on that person. It could be charm person or it could be heroism.
Any rules you can point us towards to back-up this theory?
<tangent>With all the skills that got rolled together in PF, the fact that Knowledge(arcana) and Spellcraft are still separate boggles my mind. I know some people like to separate it into "theory" and "practice", which is all well and good, but what other skill is like that?</tangent>Knowledge (engineering) and Craft (stone mason)? Knowledge (geography) and Craft (cartography)? Knowledge (religion) and Profession (priest)?
What other skill isn't like that? ;)
Craft let's you create things, technically. Profession lets you earn a pittance. Spellcraft.. let's you know about spells. Hey, that sounds familiar...
Since Knowledge (arcana) lets you identify a spell effect which is in place, even without using Detect Magic, at most all you need the cantrip for is to find a spell effect... then use the Knowledge Skill to identify it.
The roll to identify the effect's school of magic via Detect Magic is simply giving you a 5pt DC break on your Knowledge check if you happen to not be skilled enough to identify the thing outright.
The challenge to the use of the Knowledge (arcana) skill is the ability to perceive the spell 'effect' in the first place.
An interesting thing I thought up - can you really identify a spell effect in place if you don't know what is causing the spell effect or even that a spell effect is in place? You sense a strong magic aura. Identify the effect!
If the spell effect is not percievable, then you can't ID it with a knowledge(arcana) check.Yup - that's what I wrote too! ;)
That use of the Knowledge(Arcana) spell is more applicable to knowing the difference between fireball and pyrotechnics, since both are highly visible spell effects. You cannot make a knowledge(arcana) check to identify the effects of a charm person spell, because there are no visible effects to identify. The upside of knowledge(arcana) is that you can identify the exact spell being cast, not just the school.The Skill doesn't mention anything about 'highly visible effects only', just 'Identify a spell effect that is in place'. What's the effect of a Charm spell? It makes the target more friendly towards the caster. That's hardly an 'un-perceivable' effect...
Muggle: Why's Bob being so friendly towards that hag all of a sudden?
Wizard: [rolls a Knowledge (arcana) check] He got hit by a Charm Person spell... I told him not to dump-stat his Wisdom like that...
Against a spell with no visible effects like charm person, the best you can to is use detect magic and a knowledge(arcana) check to know there is an enchantment spell on that person. It could be charm person or it could be heroism.Any rules you can point us towards to back-up this theory?
First, in the conversion from 3.5 to pathfinder, this function was moved from spellcraft to knowledge(arcana). From 3.5 spellcraft rules:
DC 20 + spell level - Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.
The pathfinder rules just state that you identify by effect and is silent on whether you must be able to see the effect or not. Backwards compatibility with 3.5 means that I generally assume that pathfinder carries 3.5 rules forward unless the pathfinder rules specifically state something that directly contradicts the 3.5 rules. There is no contradiction here, so I use the 3.5 rule as clarification. Also, the actual printed book may have more information. The SRD is very light on details about the knowledge skill.
Second, because to rule it the other way would be idiocy. If I am wrong, and Knowledge(arcana) CAN be used to identify non-visible spell effects, then you can look at an area of empty space, and make a DC 22 Knowledge(Arcana) check to know there is an invisibility spell in effect in that area. That makes the Knowledge(Arcana) skill even more powerful than detect magic.
There is also the matter of lingering auras to consider. If it has to be attached to a specific person or object, and that person/object must be within line of sight, that would render much of the whole part of lingering auras obsolete, because the whole point of those is that the actual effect, and what is was tied to are long since done and gone from the area.
|
|
Spellcraft lets you ID spells as they're being cast, learn spells, prepare spells, ID magic items (via Detect Magic), decipher scrolls, and craft magic items. I.e. Spellcraft lets you work with spells; Knowledge (arcana) lets you know about magic and magical things in general.
Just like, say, Survival lets you work in the wilds, and Knowledge (nature) lets you know about nature-related stuff.
Yes, there's overlap, but no more between Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) than between other Knowledge Skills and their related 'practical' Skills.
IMHO.
:)
An interesting thing I thought up - can you really identify a spell effect in place if you don't know what is causing the spell effect or even that a spell effect is in place? You sense a strong magic aura. Identify the effect!
Personally I'd always say you need to be able to perceive the spell effect in some way. The spell's effect, of course, is not the same thing as its aura... although having an aura is one effect of the spell being in place...
Needing to know the cause of the spell effect I'd think was completely unneccessary - and kind of the opposite of what the Skill is doing for you in the first place: you perceive the effect, you work out the spell which caused it.
The trick is knowing that there's a spell effect in place at all, and perceiving the effect. In some cases it'll be obvious - a honking great wall of fire in your path, for example. Other cases will be more subtle... but that's where your other Skills come into play, like Perception and Sense Motive... and any extra-perceptive abilities you may be using... like Detect Magic.
@Charender: yes, I keep agreeing (and in fact started by stating) that you need to be able to perceive a spell effect to have a chance of IDing it. What I don't agree with is that perception needing to be completely visual, or that spells like Charm Person have no perceivable effects. Acting in a different manner than normal = perceivable effect. IMHO, natch. ;)
Spellcraft lets you ID spells as they're being cast, learn spells, prepare spells, ID magic items (via Detect Magic), decipher scrolls, and craft magic items. I.e. Spellcraft lets you work with spells; Knowledge (arcana) lets you know about magic and magical things in general.
What part of that couldn't be moved to Knowledge (arcana)? Especially since Knowledge (arcana) also encompasses identify spells cast, spells in effect, and magical auras.
Just like, say, Survival lets you work in the wilds, and Knowledge (nature) lets you know about nature-related stuff.
Survival lets you track. Knowledge (nature) doesn't do anything like that. And knowledge (nature) only covers outside, natural environments. Survival's skills spill over into caves (dungeoneering) and buildings (engineering?)
Yes, there's overlap, but no more between Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) than between other Knowledge Skills and their related 'practical' Skills.
Craft and Profession do specific things that wouldn't make any sense to be covered by Knowledge. Neither Knowledge (arcana) nor Spellcraft have practical functions outside dealing with spells.
Personally I'd always say you need to be able to perceive the spell effect in some way. The spell's effect, of course, is not the same thing as its aura... although having an aura is one effect of the spell being in place...
But at that point you might as well just walk around making knowledge (arcana) checks, you are inevitably bound to run over something magical - seeing nothing is an effect of invisibility, seeing a wall is an effect of Wall of Stone or an Image spell.
Needing to know the cause of the spell effect I'd think was completely unneccessary
Isn't it? There are scorch marks on the floor. What caused it? A glamer to make it seem like scorchmarks are on the floor? A fireball? A lightning bolt? Etc
Spellcraft lets you ID spells as they're being cast, learn spells, prepare spells, ID magic items (via Detect Magic), decipher scrolls, and craft magic items. I.e. Spellcraft lets you work with spells; Knowledge (arcana) lets you know about magic and magical things in general.What part of that couldn't be moved to Knowledge (arcana)? Especially since Knowledge (arcana) also encompasses identify spells cast, spells in effect, and magical auras.
Just like, say, Survival lets you work in the wilds, and Knowledge (nature) lets you know about nature-related stuff.Survival lets you track. Knowledge (nature) doesn't do anything like that. And knowledge (nature) only covers outside, natural environments. Survival's skills spill over into caves (dungeoneering) and buildings (engineering?)
That actually makes a good case for splitting survival over multiple knowledge skills. Nature lets you track and find food outdoors. Dungeoneering lets you track and find food in caves.
The other overlap in survival is perception. Tracking is a place where both survival and perception overlap. I would rather see tracking as a combination of perception and knowledge. Perception finds the traces. Knowledge skills let you know that what you found didn't belong.
I don't like the "you don't know crap about caves without dungeoneering despite your knowledge nature" already. Split Survival over multiple knowledge (skills)? That just makes everything worse.
|
|
Craft and Profession do specific things that wouldn't make any sense to be covered by Knowledge. Neither Knowledge (arcana) nor Spellcraft have practical functions outside dealing with spells.
Knowledge (arcana) is also the skill used to ID constructs, dragons, and magical beasts, as well as letting your character be knowledgable about 'ancient mysteries', 'magic traditions', and 'arcane symbols' - like all the Knowledge skills, it covers a lot of ground.
Craft lets you make stuff or earn ca$h, but also allows you to 'know how to use the tools of your trade, perform the craft's daily tasks, how to supervise untrained helpers, and how to handle common problems.'
Profession lets you earn ca$h, but also allows you to 'know how to use the tools of your trade, perform the craft's daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems.'
In both cases there's the primary, game mechanical, stuff the Skill is usually used for, but there's a lot more stuff the Skill covers... it's just generally stuff which is less likely to crop up in an average RPG campaign, so it's given a lot less space or detail.
If half the core Classes utilised shoe making Class Features, then I'm pretty sure that Craft (cobbler) would get as much detail added to it as Spellcraft has now... but that's just IMHO, of course... ;)
But at that point you might as well just walk around making knowledge (arcana) checks, you are inevitably bound to run over something magical - seeing nothing is an effect of invisibility, seeing a wall is an effect of Wall of Stone or an Image spell.
Yes and no... but mostly no, because that's not really how Knowledge checks funtion. Aside from looking stuff up in books, making a Knowledge check isn't an action. It's not something your character has to actively do - it's only the player who has to roll a check on the Skill, to find out what his character already knows. In theory you shouldn't ever have to ask to make a Knowledge Skill check, or declare that you're making one - the DM should ask you for one (or secretly roll one for you, or whatever method the group uses for such things) whenever something potentially significant, covered by one of the Knowledge Skills your character has ranks in, crops up. Of course, DMs being (mostly) human too often forget that you've sunk a zillion ranks into specific Knowledge Skills, so asking to make a check is basically just gently reminding the guy that you have...
But given that, then yes - a character with ranks in Knowledge (arcana) should have a chance to ID the spell whenever they encounter 'a spell effect that is in place' which they can perceive.
Wall of Stone is an interesting one, of course, since it's an instantaneous duration spell. Is the spell effect still in place a round, a day, or a hundred years after the spell was cast? In the case of the specific application of the Knowledge (arcana) spell then probably not, as that would seem to be verging on a weird level of omnipotence (it's worse if you think about how many Cure Light Wounds characters tend to have cast on them over the course of their careers - allowing Knowldge (arcana) to identify all those spells previously cast on you would be... strange...).
Spells generally have pretty detailed descriptions of their effects - its the bulk of the text. Instantaneous duration spells are going to be hard to ID unless you happen to witness them go off. Most spell effects with durations will have some way to perceive those effects, although it's not always going to be easy. A Charm Person spell, for example, may take a Sense Motive roll to perceive that the target if acting in a unusual manner, even if it's a subtle change. With illusion spells you're generally subject to the effect, rather than perceiving it until you manage to see past the illusion, but once you have seen past it, then Knowledge (arcana) should help you ID the spell effect in question.
Put another way, Knowledge Skills generally don't help you to find evidence, they help you to understand evidence once it's been found.
Isn't it? There are scorch marks on the floor. What caused it? A glamer to make it seem like scorchmarks are on the floor? A fireball? A lightning bolt? Etc
While Knowledge (arcana) could possibly help with IDing that evidence, it wouldn't be via the specific use of the Skill I called out... except in the case of the evidence itself being an active glamer - and then you'd need to beat that glamer first, before IDing the specific effect.
I don't like the "you don't know crap about caves without dungeoneering despite your knowledge nature" already. Split Survival over multiple knowledge (skills)? That just makes everything worse.
So you would be ok with merging knowledge nature/dungeoneering/engineering into knowledge(nature) and knowledge(man-made) and merging splitting survival between those two skills?