Under the UMD skill for wand use it says to to use a wand normally it must be on your classes spell list.
For classes like Bard who have limited spells known does that mean even if I do not know CLW, I can still use a wand of CLW with no checks?
On your spell list means on the list of spells available to your class. It's not the same as spells known.
Your bard doesn't need to know CLW to be able to use the wand.
Your bard doesn't need to know CLW to be able to use the wand.
It's not just that, a 1st level ranger can use a wand of CLW.
I think there should be some sort of check involved when characters do not have the spell actually known.
While a valid opinion, the designers of Pathfinder disagree with you. And most other game designers, I would wager.
for additional icing on the proverbial pudding consider this:
the same 1st level Ranger can use a Wand of Maximized Cure Serious Wounds with no check.
I love Pathfinder!
Ne he can't. Wands are limited to 4th level spells max. A maximized cure serious wounds is a 7th level spell (6th for a cleric). But, if a wand could hold a spell of that level, then yes. The ranger could use it without a check.
|
Ne he can't. Wands are limited to 4th level spells max. A maximized cure serious wounds is a 7th level spell (6th for a cleric). But, if a wand could hold a spell of that level, then yes. The ranger could use it without a check.for additional icing on the proverbial pudding consider this:
the same 1st level Ranger can use a Wand of Maximized Cure Serious Wounds with no check.
I love Pathfinder!
Actually, the MCSW spell is still a 4th level ranger spell, it only take the slot of a 7th level spell. Heighten Spell is the only metamagic feat that actually changes the level of the spell.
Actually, the MCSW spell is still a 4th level ranger spell, it only take the slot of a 7th level spell. Heighten Spell is the only metamagic feat that actually changes the level of the spell.
No, its treated as a 7th level spell when creating an item. Core rulebook, the description of metamagic feats:
Magic Items and Metamagic Spells: With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell's higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn't need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell.
|
I think there should be some sort of check involved when characters do not have the spell actually known.
Think of it this way: If you started to study a foreign language, learned a few hundred words, how to conjugate some of the verbs, etc, but weren't fully fluent, don't you think you'd have an easier time trying to understand native speakers than if you had never studied the language at all?
It's the same way with wands. If the magical concepts are similar to what you've studied, you'll have an easier time using them than some guy with no magical training whatsoever. The Use Magic Devices skill includes some minor magical training to help you fake it, but the difference is like someone with a 100 word vocabulary in a language trying to understand vs someone with a 1000 word vocabulary in that language.
The fact that it isn't as simple as just knowing the command word always throws me for a loop after I sit down and look at first and second edition again.
Not a huge deal honestly but just enough for me to go 'huh?' all over again.
I think there should be some sort of check involved when characters do not have the spell actually known.Think of it this way: If you started to study a foreign language, learned a few hundred words, how to conjugate some of the verbs, etc, but weren't fully fluent, don't you think you'd have an easier time trying to understand native speakers than if you had never studied the language at all?
It's the same way with wands. If the magical concepts are similar to what you've studied, you'll have an easier time using them than some guy with no magical training whatsoever. The Use Magic Devices skill includes some minor magical training to help you fake it, but the difference is like someone with a 100 word vocabulary in a language trying to understand vs someone with a 1000 word vocabulary in that language.
This. Good explanation.
What disturbs me most about UMD is that it is Cha based and not Int based.
UMD is all about knowledge of the principles of magic applied to magic items. What does Cha have to do with it?
Cha represents how well you can influence sentient beings. Neither magic nor magic items are sentient. In fact the special rules for handling intelligent magic items do not include UMD.
I think there should be some sort of check involved when characters do not have the spell actually known.Think of it this way: If you started to study a foreign language, learned a few hundred words, how to conjugate some of the verbs, etc, but weren't fully fluent, don't you think you'd have an easier time trying to understand native speakers than if you had never studied the language at all?
It's the same way with wands. If the magical concepts are similar to what you've studied, you'll have an easier time using them than some guy with no magical training whatsoever. The Use Magic Devices skill includes some minor magical training to help you fake it, but the difference is like someone with a 100 word vocabulary in a language trying to understand vs someone with a 1000 word vocabulary in that language.
This. Good explanation.
What disturbs me most about UMD is that it is Cha based and not Int based.
UMD is all about knowledge of the principles of magic applied to magic items. What does Cha have to do with it?
Cha represents how well you can influence sentient beings. Neither magic nor magic items are sentient. In fact the special rules for handling intelligent magic items do not include UMD.
Replace the bolded section with "impose your will" and it makes perfect sense. Handle Animal's also a Cha skill and it expressly does not work on sentient beings. Basically, UMD isn't "I know all these little tricks to get things to work" - think of it as the Fonzie touch. Then it makes sense.
Replace the bolded section with "impose your will" and it makes perfect sense.
Not really. "Imposing one's will" on a non-sentient object means physically manipulating it (like the Fonz hitting a jukebox). This doesn't have anything to do with Cha.
[OTOH, imposing one's will on a sentient being is obviously all about Cha.]Handle Animal's also a Cha skill and it expressly does not work on sentient beings. Basically, UMD isn't "I know all these little tricks to get things to work" - think of it as the Fonzie touch. Then it makes sense.
Handle Animal expressly ONLY works with sentient beings. Which is exactly why it is Cha based. Just like Diplomacy and Intimidate.
And if you read UMD's description, "I know all these little tricks to get things to work" is exactly how it works.
Define sentient.
Anything with an Intelligence score. The opposite to "Mindless" beings/objects, which are defined by not having an Int score.
Define sentient.Anything with an Intelligence score. The opposite to "Mindless" beings/objects, which are defined by not having an Int score.
I'll give you that, based on the standard dictionary. The sci-fi and fantasy genres tend to use it for what would be Int 3+ (or Int 6+ even, if you define it as "human-level"), which is how I was using it. So we're both right, and its use is unhelpful here. :p
And if you read UMD's description, "I know all these little tricks to get things to work" is exactly how it works.
I don't see that in the skill description at all.
Please note that poster Alch was the person who insisted Sneak Attack be limited to piercing weapons, and nothing else made sense to him.
Forum Foul -- just because he's wrong in a different thread doesn't mean he's wrong in all threads.
Not that I agree with him here either, but still that's not the same as saying, "Oh it's just Alch you can ignore him."
I'll give you that, based on the standard dictionary. The sci-fi and fantasy genres tend to use it for what would be Int >= 3, which is how I was using it. So we're both right, and its use is unhelpful here. :p
I wasn't quoting any dictionary. I'm talking about the Pathfinder rules. You have "Mindless" beings and objects and you have sentient beings. The difference is whether they have an Int score or not.
The only difference between beings with an Int score of 3+ and those with less is that they can't understand, speak or read language.
I don't see that in the skill description at all.
From the skill:
"You are skilled at activating magic items, even if you are
not otherwise trained in their use."
|
|
Alch, while I agree with you that it would make more sense for UMD to be int based, if it were based on specific training, I also agree with Bobson's method for explaining why charisma works in this case. Charisma is about imposing your will on things that can be influenced by human behavior. Usually, that's just humanoids and other animals, but apparently in Pathfinder, magic itself also has just a tiny bit of sentience behind it, so it can also be influenced that way. It's magic, so the rules are whatever the game designers want them to be.
|
UMD seems to be a skill that would benefit from a "luck" stat.
With the lack of said "luck" stat, I am good with CHA filling in it's place. Int does not represent the "magic touch" as much.
Remember, if it was based on "knowing the tricks", then you should be able to get a bonus to it by having high ranks in either Kn: arcana or spellcraft.
Back to the OP. Best to think of it this way. As long as the spell is available to your class, you can use the wand. I view it as, "The magic is there, you just have not learned to harness it yet." A 5th level plus bard could choose to unlearn some other 1st level spell to learn CWL, showing that the magic was there, they had just not learned the poem/song to activate it yet.
Can you find a source for that anywhere? I don't think it's expressly defined, even though it's used extensively in monster descriptions. Here's a quote from a monster from PF Adventure Path #34I'll give you that, based on the standard dictionary. The sci-fi and fantasy genres tend to use it for what would be Int >= 3, which is how I was using it. So we're both right, and its use is unhelpful here. :pI wasn't quoting any dictionary. I'm talking about the Pathfinder rules. You have "Mindless" beings and objects and you have sentient beings. The difference is whether they have an Int score or not.
Despite their intellects, the plants’ psyches prove distinctive and alien in comparison to those of animals and sentient creatures.
Does it prove anything? No. Is it suggestive of the way it's used in general? Yes. Try this search.
I don't see that in the skill description at all.
From the skill:
"You are skilled at activating magic items, even if you are
not otherwise trained in their use."
I see nothing there about knowing lots of tricks to get items to work. It could just as easily be due to having an innate affinity for magical items, having the ability to fake a mindset convincingly enough for magical items to pick up on it, or just a Holmes-like ability to make assumptions from tiny clues and think the way the creator would have. It doesn't preclude having a set of tricks, it just doesn't require that explanation either.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
It could just as easily be due to having an innate affinity for magical items
This is it exactly. Think Sorceror. They don't learn how to use magic, they just know how to do it. The ability that allows them to do this is Charisma, as all of their DCs and other spell-dependent abilities rely on this ability. Same thing with Bards.
Pathfinder (and D&D 3E before it) extended Charisma beyond its original meaning and added a magical affinity aspect to it. Innate arcane casters draw upon Charisma when they cast their spells - they don't learn spells like Wizards, they have an innate talent for using magic and harnessing it. This part of the game-specific Charisma trait is what UMD is based on. The more Charisma your PC has, the easier it is to tap into his/her natural affinity for magic, making it easier to use a magic device they are unfamiliar with.
I don't know if there is a official definition. It really isn't important. My point was that there are "mindless" beings and "non-mindless" beings (which I dubbed sentient).
"Mindless" beings and objects can't be influenced by "human behaviour". They are immune to mind-affecting effects, language dependent effects and any other effects that require understanding by the opponent (you cant intimidate or bluff a mindless being for example).
And if magic had sentience, then why is it only influenceable by UMD and not any other Cha-based skills? Why can't one Intimidate a Fireball flying one's way?
Remember, if it was based on "knowing the tricks", then you should be able to get a bonus to it by having high ranks in either Kn: arcana or spellcraft.
Check out the 'Magical Aptitude' feat. It gives a bonus to both Spellcraft and UMD. Also, there aren't any synergies between Spellcraft and Kn:arcana either.
This is it exactly. Think Sorceror. They don't learn how to use magic, they just know how to do it. The ability that allows them to do this is Charisma, as all of their DCs and other spell-dependent abilities rely on this ability. Same thing with Bards.
Pathfinder (and D&D 3E before it) extended Charisma beyond its original meaning and added a magical affinity aspect to it. Innate arcane casters draw upon Charisma when they cast their spells - they don't learn spells like Wizards, they have an innate talent for using magic and harnessing it. This part of the game-specific Charisma trait is what UMD is based on. The more Charisma your PC has, the easier it is to tap into his/her natural affinity for magic, making it easier to use a magic device they are unfamiliar with.
There is no such definition of Charisma in the rulebooks. Charisma is simply your ability to influence "non-mindless" beings.
The only exception are undead, for whom Charisma has an additional meaning as a measure for their "lifeforce".Sorcerers have a bloodline that is the source of their magical power. Their Charisma let's them influence their subconscious selves which is part of their bloodline.
Bards cast their magic by performing art. How well you perform your art is dependent on how well you influence your audience. Hence, just like the Perform skill, it is based on Charisma.
In both cases magic itself isn't influenced.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
And if magic had sentience, then why is it only influenceable by UMD and not any other Cha-based skills? Why can't one Intimidate a Fireball flying one's way?
While I don't agree at all with the idea that magic has sentience, your question about why other Cha-based skills don't influence magic can be answered if you take each skill individually, as opposed to grouping them by ability score.
Bottom line: Intimidate draws on a different aspect of Charisma than UMD.
All ability scores have multiple layers to them. They are more complex than they appear at first glance.
Let's look at each ability score and how the different aspects of each ability impact the game:
Strength - Melee accuracy (to hit/attack rolls), damage (armed and unarmed), Tensile Strength (Encumbrance, Break Checks), Gross Motor Skills (Swim, Jump and Climb Skills).
Intelligence - Knowledge (knowledge skills), ability to learn (Skill Ranks), Spell Retention (Bonus Spells/Spell Slots for Wizards)
Wisdom - Willpower (Will Saves), Observation(Perception Skill), common sense/self-preservation (Survival Skill).
Dexterity - Quickness/Reaction Time (Reflex Save), Ranged Accuracy (to hit/attack rolls), fine motor skills (Disable Device, Sleight of Hand Skills), Agility (Acrobatics Skill).
Constitution - Resistance to Foreign Substances (Fort Save), Health (Hit Points), Overall Fortitude (Holding Your Breath, Enduring Elements).
Charisma - Force of Personality (Diplomacy, Intimidate Skills), Deception (Bluff Skill), Innate Arcane Spell Use (Sorceror/Bard, UMD Skill), Perception by Others (Perform, Disguise Skills, NPC Reactions)
Each ability score has at least 3 in-game aspects (I'm sure there are more, but these are the ones that immediately come to mind) to it that apply separately to different situations.
Applying this to your question: The reason UMD applies to magic, but Intimidate doesn't (even though they are both Charisma-based skills) is the same reason Knowledge (Arcana) doesn't influence the number of Bonus Spells a Wizard obtains at each level - they are different aspects of the ability.
Your argument that Intimidate should be able to influence a Fireball (or other magic effect) just because another Charisma-based skill influences your ability to use magic is simply not a valid one.
Saying all skills based on the same ability should apply equally to all situations where the ability itself can apply defeats the entire reason for skills in the first place.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
This is it exactly. Think Sorceror. They don't learn how to use magic, they just know how to do it. The ability that allows them to do this is Charisma, as all of their DCs and other spell-dependent abilities rely on this ability. Same thing with Bards.
Pathfinder (and D&D 3E before it) extended Charisma beyond its original meaning and added a magical affinity aspect to it. Innate arcane casters draw upon Charisma when they cast their spells - they don't learn spells like Wizards, they have an innate talent for using magic and harnessing it. This part of the game-specific Charisma trait is what UMD is based on. The more Charisma your PC has, the easier it is to tap into his/her natural affinity for magic, making it easier to use a magic device they are unfamiliar with.
There is no such definition of Charisma in the rulebooks. Charisma is simply your ability to influence "non-mindless" beings.
The only exception are undead, for whom Charisma has an additional meaning as a measure for their "lifeforce".
Sorcerers have a bloodline that is the source of their magical power. Their Charisma let's them influence their subconscious selves which is part of their bloodline.
Bards cast their magic by performing art. How well you perform your art is dependent on how well you influence your audience. Hence, just like the Perform skill, it is based on Charisma.In both cases magic itself isn't influenced.
Your argument that Charisma is merely the ability to infuence non-mindless beings is not supported by RAW either, so playing that card to trump my interpretation is still not valid. This is your interpretation based on an out-of-game definition of Charisma that you have applied in game.
While the Core Rules don't spell out Charisma in this way, you can definitely imply this to be the case when you compare the spell-casting ability of each type of class. To further support this, Bards also use Charisma as their base ability to use magic and cast spells. If Bloodlines are the only thing that Sorcerors use to cast spells, how do you explain the Bard's reliance on Charisma to cast spells?
|
|
There is no such definition of Charisma in the rulebooks. Charisma is simply your ability to influence "non-mindless" beings.
The only exception are undead, for whom Charisma has an additional meaning as a measure for their "lifeforce".Sorcerers have a bloodline...
Your definition there is also not in the rule book. It says nothing at all about mindless or non-mindless. It just states:
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
If you go by the dictionary definition of Charisma you end up with this:
1.Theology . a divinely conferred gift or power.2.a spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people.
3.the special virtue of an office, function, position, etc., that confers or is thought to confer on the person holding it an unusual ability for leadership, worthiness of veneration, or the like.
Looks like it would work quiet well for UMD to me.
...but apparently in Pathfinder, magic itself also has just a tiny bit of sentience behind it, so it can also be influenced that way.
When I read this, it made me think of Discworld. The idea that magic itself almost has personality/sentience.
Applying this to your question: The reason UMD applies to magic, but Intimidate doesn't (even though they are both Charisma-based skills) is the same reason Knowledge (Arcana) doesn't influence the number of Bonus Spells a Wizard obtains at each level - they are different aspects of the ability.Your argument that Intimidate should be able to influence a Fireball (or other magic effect) just because another Charisma-based skill influences your ability to use magic is simply not a valid one.
Saying all skills based on the same ability should apply equally to all situations where the ability itself can apply defeats the entire reason for skills in the first place.
I was answering to the statement that magic has some sort of sentience.
But for your argument, let me reformulate my question.
Why can't one use UMD on an oncoming fireball? OR Why isn't there a charisma based skill for manipulating magic other than in magic items (since, as you say, it is part of the aspect of charisma)?
Your argument that Charisma is merely the ability to infuence non-mindless beings is not supported by RAW either, so playing that card to trump my interpretation is still not valid. This is your interpretation based on an out-of-game definition of Charisma that you have applied in game.
That interpretation of charisma is absolutely supported by RAW. Look at the description of Charisma and the description of the skills and checks related to charisma. They all support that interpretation.
To further support this, Bards also use Charisma as their base ability to use magic and cast spells. If Bloodlines are the only thing that Sorcerors use to cast spells, how do you explain the Bard's reliance on Charisma to cast spells?
As I said, Bards cast their magic by performing art. The ability to perform and how good a performance is, depends on how well one can influence sentient beings. Thus, by the proxy of artistic performance, bardic casting is Charisma based.
Your definition there is also not in the rule book. It says nothing at all about mindless or non-mindless. It just states:
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
All these qualities are things that influence other sentient beings, but do not affect mindless ones.
If you go by the dictionary definition of Charisma you end up with this:
Looks like it would work quiet well for UMD to me.
1.Theology . a divinely conferred gift or power.2.a spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people.
3.the special virtue of an office, function, position, etc., that confers or is thought to confer on the person holding it an unusual ability for leadership, worthiness of veneration, or the like.
Really? I don't see anything about magic or magic items.
What I DO see are 2 definitions that directly apply to sentients ("large numbers of people", "leadership" and "veneration").
|
|
Your argument that Charisma is merely the ability to infuence non-mindless beings is not supported by RAW either, so playing that card to trump my interpretation is still not valid. This is your interpretation based on an out-of-game definition of Charisma that you have applied in game.That interpretation of charisma is absolutely supported by RAW. Look at the description of Charisma and the description of the skills and checks related to charisma. They all support that interpretation.
Only if you try to make Use Magic Device as a bluff skill versus a non-mindless force. The RAW does not state anything about mindless or non-mindless, and not all the skills deal with non-mindless only.
Not all skills use the attribute like you would expect. For example, why is disable device a dex based skill and not a int based skill. Having quick fingers does not help you to figure out how to disable a complex trap, it just makes it easier. CHA may not help you figure out the words to use, but it is the "touch of power" needed to make the power work.
you say that Sorcs power comes from their bloodline. Where does a dragons power come from? They are a CHA based caster also (they cast as sorcerers).
Pathfinder uses CHA as the stat for raw manipulation of magic power (thus the spontaneous casters use CHA for the most part). This is why it is used for UMD. Since UMD is showing the raw/brute force manipulation of the magic powering a magic item, and why it is a class skill for sorcerers and not for wizards.
But for your argument, let me reformulate my question.
Why can't one use UMD on an oncoming fireball? OR Why isn't there a charisma based skill for manipulating magic other than in magic items (since, as you say, it is part of the aspect of charisma)?
For the same reason you can't use Diplomacy on someone having insulted you, or the text of an arrest order. You can use it on the person who insulted you, or the person who issued the arrest order (or the arresting officer). But you can't block an insult if someone decides to speak it, and you can't use it on things it doesn't cover. Likewise, you can't use Use Magic Device on ongoing spell effects or things that aren't actually devices/items.
Your argument that Charisma is merely the ability to infuence non-mindless beings is not supported by RAW either, so playing that card to trump my interpretation is still not valid. This is your interpretation based on an out-of-game definition of Charisma that you have applied in game.That interpretation of charisma is absolutely supported by RAW. Look at the description of Charisma and the description of the skills and checks related to charisma. They all support that interpretation.
Assuming you ignore UMD. And ignoring UMD because it doesn't fit your definition of Charisma, if your definition of Charisma only works because you ignore UMD is circular.
To further support this, Bards also use Charisma as their base ability to use magic and cast spells. If Bloodlines are the only thing that Sorcerors use to cast spells, how do you explain the Bard's reliance on Charisma to cast spells?As I said, Bards cast their magic by performing art. The ability to perform and how good a performance is, depends on how well one can influence sentient beings. Thus, by the proxy of artistic performance, bardic casting is Charisma based.
How do you perform blur, light, cat's grace, or so on? One of those changes where you appear to be even if there's no one around to see. The next makes a physical object glow. It expressly can't be cast on creatures, let alone influencing them. Cat's grace certainly affects a being, but you can cast it on a construct, an animated object, mindless undead... All things that aren't sentient even by your defintion.
So how does a bard's performance (and a bard can choose to have no skill ranks in any perform skills) affect his spells?
Only if you try to make Use Magic Device as a bluff skill versus a non-mindless force. The RAW does not state anything about mindless or non-mindless, and not all the skills deal with non-mindless only.
They most certainly do. "Mindless" is a creature trait of all oozes and vermin and many constructs, plants and undead.
"Mindless" creatures don't have an Intelligence score, they are immune to mind-affecting effects and all effects that require understanding of language (or understanding of anything else for that matter), they get no skill points and they don't have any feats.Not all skills use the attribute like you would expect. For example, why is disable device a dex based skill and not a int based skill. Having quick fingers does not help you to figure out how to disable a complex trap, it just makes it easier.
Disable device is indirectly Int based since you can only gain skill ranks if you have intelligence. So it is primarily based on dex and indirectly on int.
UMD only uses intelligence. So it should also only be based on int.CHA may not help you figure out the words to use, but it is the "touch of power" needed to make the power work.
There is no mention of any "touch of power" in either the description of Charisma or the description of how UMD works.
Explain to me how your "touch of power" enables you to 'decipher a written spell'?
you say that Sorcs power comes from their bloodline. Where does a dragons power come from? They are a CHA based caster also (they cast as sorcerers).
Eeeh... their bloodline? (Which is the same as the draconic bloodline of a sorcerer btw.)
Pathfinder uses CHA as the stat for raw manipulation of magic power (thus the spontaneous casters use CHA for the most part). This is why it is used for UMD.
If that is so, why is it not mentioned in the descrption of Charisma?
And why isn't there a cha based skill like UMD for magic that doesn't come from items?Since UMD is showing the raw/brute force manipulation of the magic powering a magic item, and why it is a class skill for sorcerers and not for wizards.
Wizards don't have it because they already have all the knowledge required to manipulate all magic items. Why would they take a skill that represents knowledge they already have?
I'm glad I found this thread. I have a different question about wands. Suppose you have a character who is *not* a spellcaster of any sort. And this character has UMD as a skill. My understanding is that he can use a wand, provided that he makes the skill check. Is this correct?
Number two, it appears to me that the difficulty for this character to use a wand is always "20". It doesn't matter what type of spell it is (i.e. what class) or what *level* spell (1-4), the difficulty remains the same. Is this correct?
Thanks in advance for any clarity!
@ Kelvar:
1. Yes.
2. No, always 20.
Bards don't always channel their magic through their art. That's only for bardic performance, not spellcasting.
From the Bard's 'Spells' class feature:
Every bard spell has a verbal component (song, recitation, or music).
And there are other classes that cast spells based on charisma (sorcerer, oracle, paladin). Obviously, charisma is directly tied to magic in Pathfinder.
All classes with charisma based casting have an (external) source of their magic that is outside of their mind (the sorcerers bloodline is in their body and not in their mind). When they cast or prepare spells they influence the power source to give them the magic.
Here is a list of the sources and who is influenced for every class:
Paladin: their patron god
Sorcerer: their bloodline which is controlled by their subconscious.
Inquisitor: their patron god
Oracle: the gods that connected to their 'mysteries'
Summoner: their eidolon
The only exception to this is the Bard. He is cha based because he performs art to cast his spells. And performing art is cha based.
|
|
Going to tackle these as I can.
They most certainly do. "Mindless" is a creature trait of all oozes and vermin and many constructs, plants and undead.
"Mindless" creatures don't have an Intelligence score, they are immune to mind-affecting effects and all effects that require understanding of language (or understanding of anything else for that matter), they get no skill points and they don't have any feats.
Use Magic Device is a skill that the devs stated works off of CHA which is not restricted to non-mindless things. I do not think that you have a complete understanding of what the developers mean when they talk about the CHA stat. This may be due to poor wording on their part. The RAW for some of the skill state that the skill can only be used against non-mindless things, but the RAW for the stat does not.
Eeeh... their bloodline? (Which is the same as the draconic bloodline of a sorcerer btw.)
But where does that get it's power. It is not "Turtles all the way down!" There is some logic in the system. Dragons do not use their vast intellects to manipulate magic in Pathfinder, they use their force of personality to bend it to their will. A sorcerer does too, they just get the ability to from their bloodline.
If that is so, why is it not mentioned in the descrption of Charisma?
And why isn't there a cha based skill like UMD for magic that doesn't come from items?
Why is there not a skill that allows another character to apply their wisdom to their AC? Instead there is a class that does that (monk). In this case there is a whole class (several actually) that is(are) allowed to use their CHA to work magic not stored in items.
Wizards don't have it because they already have all the knowledge required to manipulate all magic items. Why would they take a skill that represents knowledge they already have?
Even with a wizard vast knowledge of magic, they cannot manipulate a magic wand of cure light wounds. They do not have the knowledge to manipulate all magic items, maybe not even all arcane ones, and certainly not all divine ones. In fact, these "masters of magic" cannot even cast a basic "create water" spell.
So, I ask again, if wizards are supposed to have all this knowledge, why is UMD not a class skill for them? Or an int based version as a class feature?
|
|
Bards don't always channel their magic through their art. That's only for bardic performance, not spellcasting.From the Bard's 'Spells' class feature:
Every bard spell has a verbal component (song, recitation, or music).And there are other classes that cast spells based on charisma (sorcerer, oracle, paladin). Obviously, charisma is directly tied to magic in Pathfinder.
All classes with charisma based casting have an (external) source of their magic that is outside of their mind (the sorcerers bloodline is in their body and not in their mind). When they cast or prepare spells they influence the power source to give them the magic.
The only exception to this is the Bard. He is cha based because he performs art to cast his spells. And performing art is cha based.
And strangely they use their CHA to manipulate this possibly non-sentient power source to give them the magic. Since you are separating the sorcerers body and mind, you are also stating that their source of power is, by default, mindless.
Not all skills use the attribute like you would expect. For example, why is disable device a dex based skill and not a int based skill. Having quick fingers does not help you to figure out how to disable a complex trap, it just makes it easier.Disable device is indirectly Int based since you can only gain skill ranks if you have intelligence. So it is primarily based on dex and indirectly on int.
UMD only uses intelligence. So it should also only be based on int.
By that logic, Acrobatics, Ride, Bluff, and Disable Device are all equally Int based. Which then negates the "Having quick fingers does not help you to figure out how to disable a complex trap" bit. An idiot savant orc (20 dex, 5 int) who puts his single skill point per level into disable device is going to be much better at understanding and disabling highly complex mechanisms than a genius wizard (20 int + stat boosters).
Pathfinder uses CHA as the stat for raw manipulation of magic power (thus the spontaneous casters use CHA for the most part). This is why it is used for UMD.If that is so, why is it not mentioned in the descrption of Charisma?
And why isn't there a cha based skill like UMD for magic that doesn't come from items?
There is - it's called sorcerer levels. Seriously - asking why there isn't a skill to UMD without the D is like asking why there isn't a skill to Ride without a mount.
Wizards don't have it because they already have all the knowledge required to manipulate all magic items. Why would they take a skill that represents knowledge they already have?
Since UMD is showing the raw/brute force manipulation of the magic powering a magic item, and why it is a class skill for sorcerers and not for wizards.
How does that wizard use a Cure Light Wounds wand?
Assuming you ignore UMD. And ignoring UMD because it doesn't fit your definition of Charisma, if your definition of Charisma only works because you ignore UMD is circular.
First of all, I am not ignoring UMD. Nothing in the description and working of UMD supports charisma.
The only thing I am disputing is that UMD is charisma based. You cant use the very thing I am criticizing as an argument against it. Talk about circular reasoning...How do you perform blur, light, cat's grace, or so on? One of those changes where you appear to be even if there's no one around to see. The next makes a physical object glow. It expressly can't be cast on creatures, let alone influencing them. Cat's grace certainly affects a being, but you can cast it on a construct, an animated object, mindless undead... All things that aren't sentient even by your defintion.
So how does a bard's performance (and a bard can choose to have no skill ranks in any perform skills) affect his spells?
It is the ability to perform art (well) that is dependent on charisma. Not the single performance.
A world renowned musician can make his best performance with nobody present.
Even with a wizard vast knowledge of magic, they cannot manipulate a magic wand of cure light wounds. They do not have the knowledge to manipulate all magic items, maybe not even all arcane ones, and certainly not all divine ones. In fact, these "masters of magic" cannot even cast a basic "create water" spell.
So, I ask again, if wizards are supposed to have all this knowledge, why is UMD not a class skill for them? Or an int based version as a class feature?
It doesn't matter if it is a class skill or not for the wizard. The only thing Pathfinder class skills do is give a +3 bonus. Nothing stops a wizard from putting ranks into UMD.
Why isn't it a class skill though? Wizards are already capable of using the majority of items. Why bother with the few that are left? They would rather spend their time bettering their own spell casting. The ones that want to learn to use divine scrolls or wands do - by putting ranks into UMD.
(Just be glad they even have the option of putting ranks into UMD. When the skill was written for 3.0, only bards and rogues could ever use the skill. Everyone else was prohibited from putting ranks into it.)
|
|
Even with a wizard vast knowledge of magic, they cannot manipulate a magic wand of cure light wounds. They do not have the knowledge to manipulate all magic items, maybe not even all arcane ones, and certainly not all divine ones. In fact, these "masters of magic" cannot even cast a basic "create water" spell.
So, I ask again, if wizards are supposed to have all this knowledge, why is UMD not a class skill for them? Or an int based version as a class feature?
It doesn't matter if it is a class skill or not for the wizard. The only thing Pathfinder class skills do is give a +3 bonus. Nothing stops a wizard from putting ranks into UMD.
Why isn't it a class skill though? Wizards are already capable of using the majority of items. Why bother with the few that are left? They would rather spend their time bettering their own spell casting. The ones that want to learn to use divine scrolls or wands do - by putting ranks into UMD.
(Just be glad they even have the option of putting ranks into UMD. When the skill was written for 3.0, only bards and rogues could ever use the skill. Everyone else was prohibited from putting ranks into it.)
I agree. But was using that as part of the argument against it being an int based skill. If it was meant to be int based, then the wizard (int based maser of magic) should have it as a class skill, as it would help to represent their "vast knowledge of magic".
Personally, I understand and like the fact that it is a CHA based skill that anyone can take.
I agree. But was using that as part of the argument against it being an int based skill. If it was meant to be int based, then the wizard (int based maser of magic) should have it as a class skill, as it would help to represent their "vast knowledge of magic".
Then why DO alchemists and witches have it as a class skill?
And why DON'T oracles, paladins and inquisitors have it?As I see it, having UMD as a class skill has nothing to do with how it works, that is, if it should be dependent on cha or int.
And strangely they use their CHA to manipulate this possibly non-sentient power source to give them the magic. Since you are separating the sorcerers body and mind, you are also stating that their source of power is, by default, mindless.
Sorry, you are right, I slipped up on that one.
I meant: "their bloodline is controlled by their subconscious and not their mind". And their subconscious is sentient, although on a low level.An alternative explanation would be that, although magic by itself isn't sentient, when it is mixed with a bloodline it does get some sort of sentience and can thus be influenced. This obviously only works if said bloodline is present (ie not in items).
The RAW for some of the skill state that the skill can only be used against non-mindless things, but the RAW for the stat does not.
It does. The RAW for the charisma stat say:
"Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."These are all properties that do not affect "mindless" beings.
But where does that get it's power. It is not "Turtles all the way down!" There is some logic in the system. Dragons do not use their vast intellects to manipulate magic in Pathfinder, they use their force of personality to bend it to their will. A sorcerer does too, they just get the ability to from their bloodline.
It doesn't matter where their bloodline get's its power. What matters, is that sorcerers can use their charisma to influence their bloodline (ie the subconcsious that controls it) to make it release its power.
Why is there not a skill that allows another character to apply their wisdom to their AC? Instead there is a class that does that (monk). In this case there is a whole class (several actually) that is(are) allowed to use their CHA to work magic not stored in items.
Yes, and my question remains: Why could they use their charisma to influence magic in items with UMD, but not magic outside of items with a different skill?
I think the answer is that one can't influence magic inside or outside of items with cha and that UMD should thus be based on int.
By that logic, Acrobatics, Ride, Bluff, and Disable Device are all equally Int based.
Exactly. They all require theoretical knowledge and learned experience AS WELL AS the other abilities.
Which then negates the "Having quick fingers does not help you to figure out how to disable a complex trap" bit. An idiot savant orc (20 dex, 5 int) who puts his single skill point per level into disable device is going to be much better at understanding and disabling highly complex mechanisms than a genius wizard (20 int + stat boosters).
"Disable Device" is about disabling devices with your hands. Knowledge on how the devices work is required, but just as important is the ability to have is dextrous hands. Knowing how the trap works only gets you that far. You need dextrous hands to disable it.
And the fact that the idiot orc spent all his skill points on disable device means that he spent his ENTIRE life learning one single skill. In the end (that is, if his low intelligence even enables him to get to such a high level) he most likely disabled every type of trap and lock that exists. Think of a tracking dog, it isn't really smart but it excels at one skill because it was intensely trained in it.
|
|
Actually, the MCSW spell is still a 4th level ranger spell, it only take the slot of a 7th level spell. Heighten Spell is the only metamagic feat that actually changes the level of the spell.No, its treated as a 7th level spell when creating an item. Core rulebook, the description of metamagic feats:
Magic Items and Metamagic Spells: With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell's higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn't need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell.
Well, would you look at that. Huh, well, i'll give you a nod toward the "spirit" of the citation; I understand that completely, but being one areound a slew of people who will mince words with the best, the RAW says "the spell's higher spell level" and the feats indicate that they increase the spell "slot" necessary to cast the spell, not the spell's actual spell level.
I understand the intent, but wanted to point out the way it was written.
FW