@Dabbler re: Revan: I've always had the understanding that Arcane spells are cast in a much different fashion than Divine spells. For the sorcerer or wizard, they are manifesting the effect themselves whereas a deity actually manifests the effect that their cleric asks of them. After all, isn't that basically the reason why clerics don't have to worry about armor interfering with somatic components?
Going by the example that Kevin provides of a wizard vs. a sorcerer, if they can't understand what the other is doing, it seems even less likely that a mage and a priest would.
Is my understanding dated to a prior version of the game maybe?
You are confusing academic knowledge with working knowledge. Spellcraft is not knowing about magic, it's working with magic. Just as Craft (carpentry) is not knowing about the history of woodworking, it's knowing how wood is worked. A carpenter will not know the age of a cabinet, but he'll know a dovetailed joint and a drawer when he sees them.
I'm curious. If Spellcraft is likened to "working knowledge of magic," then why can any Fighter or Cavalier pick it up? I'm not seeing any requirement of having the ability to cast spells, but how else are you really going to "work" with magic, other than maybe Master Craftsman (which bypasses Spellcraft)?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think, while the painting and art history analogy is good, a better one might be to look at music.
Casting a spell is like singing a song. Some are untrained naturals (sorcerers), some are highly trained if not naturally talented and sing by rote (wizards), and some download their favorite tunes every morning for playback later while lip synching and playing air guitar (clerics). The end result is the same: You hear a song/spell coming out of someone's mouth.
Spellcraft is like having perfect pitch mixed with training in sight reading and writing music. You hear someone singing. You can recognize the notes, and that it's in 3/4 time, and before someone has sung more than a bar, you can recognize that they're singing a waltz.
Knowledge Arcana is like Music History. Music History does not let you know how to read sheet music, nor can you tell a B flat from a C sharp, but you know that "The Waltz of the Flowers," used in Disney's Fantasia, is originally from "The Nutcracker" by Tchaikovsky.
Using Detect Magic with Spellcraft to analyze a magic item without operating it is like using a screwdriver to open a music box to read the pattern of the pins. You open the music box, look at where the pins are and what notes they strike, and you recognize that this music box when wound will play a waltz. Knowledge Arcana is like Music History, letting you know that this particular waltz is the Waltz of the Flowers.
As for Concentration, this is a separate skill because you use Concentration to stay on key when some starts trying to whack you with a sword while you're singing "The Waltz of the Flowers."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious. If Spellcraft is likened to "working knowledge of magic," then why can any Fighter or Cavalier pick it up? I'm not seeing any requirement of having the ability to cast spells, but how else are you really going to "work" with magic, other than maybe Master Craftsman (which bypasses Spellcraft)?
You are confusing academic knowledge with working knowledge. Spellcraft is not knowing about magic, it's working with magic. Just as Craft (carpentry) is not knowing about the history of woodworking, it's knowing how wood is worked. A carpenter will not know the age of a cabinet, but he'll know a dovetailed joint and a drawer when he sees them.
Spellcraft is basically Music Appreciation mixed with sight reading music. Just because you can sight read music doesn't mean you have any talent singing, nor does it mean you know anything of music history.
Or you can use a baseball analogy. A baseball fan has spellcraft. He can analyze the play-by-play, see how the game is going, and so on. A baseball player actually plays the game. A baseball historian is like the person with Knowledge Arcana, giving you endless lists of batting averages, who won the Pennant race in 1932, and all sorts of stuff that has nothing to do with having the athleticism and training to actually hit the ball.
A fighter or cavalier can pick up Spellcraft if they're around people who cast spells a lot, either their friends or their enemies or both. You learn how to distinguish between the old lady pointing her finger at you and cursing and the old lady pointing her finger at you and throwing a Curse with a capital C. It's the difference between someone loosing a crossbow at you and someone loosing a loaded crossbow at you.
@Dabbler re: Revan: I've always had the understanding that Arcane spells are cast in a much different fashion than Divine spells. For the sorcerer or wizard, they are manifesting the effect themselves whereas a deity actually manifests the effect that their cleric asks of them. After all, isn't that basically the reason why clerics don't have to worry about armor interfering with somatic components?
Going by the example that Kevin provides of a wizard vs. a sorcerer, if they can't understand what the other is doing, it seems even less likely that a mage and a priest would.
Is my understanding dated to a prior version of the game maybe?
I would surmise that all magic works along similar principals - even divine spells are described by their school and sub-school, after all. Evocation is calling on the power of another entity to manifest an effect, so while a priest might not recognise, the similarity between: "Lord of elemental fire, smite the one I indicate with your flames!" and "Lord God {insert name here}, smite this infidel with your holy fire!" are close enough to figure out what's going to happen.
I'm curious. If Spellcraft is likened to "working knowledge of magic," then why can any Fighter or Cavalier pick it up?
You can watch a carpenter working with wood even if you have no hands. I mean, knowing it isn't much help to you, but you can watch and learn about it even if you cannot do it.
I'm surprised at how much resistance there is to wanting to make these skills a little more intuitive.
IIRC you asked why they were separate skills. You did not ask for suggestions to make them more intuitive.
I'm curious. If Spellcraft is likened to "working knowledge of magic," then why can any Fighter or Cavalier pick it up? I'm not seeing any requirement of having the ability to cast spells, but how else are you really going to "work" with magic, other than maybe Master Craftsman (which bypasses Spellcraft)?
You are confusing academic knowledge with working knowledge. Spellcraft is not knowing about magic, it's working with magic. Just as Craft (carpentry) is not knowing about the history of woodworking, it's knowing how wood is worked. A carpenter will not know the age of a cabinet, but he'll know a dovetailed joint and a drawer when he sees them.
Understanding how to work with it could also be fluffed as the application of magic. It does not mean you have to use it. Not all magic equals spellcasting.
As an example spellcraft allows you to identify the properties of a spell as it is cast. You would not need to be able to cast a spell to recognize or figure out a spell. I am not an engineer, but I have a decent knowledge of schematics, and math. Don't ask me to design anything though. :)
Meh. Too many fiddly sub-skills remain, especially in light of Pathfinder's consolidation of Perception (now an obscene juggernaut of uber-skills).
So I rolled Knowledge (Arcana) into Spellcraft.
I rolled Knowledge (Nature) into Survival.
I rolled Knowledge (Nobility) into Diplomacy.
I rolled Knowldge (Religion) into Knowledge (the Planes).
I rolled Knowledge (History) and Appraise into Knowledge (Lore).
I rolled Knowledge (Local) and Gather Information into Streetwise.
The game doesn't seem the worse for wear.
|
Personally, though, I like it in. That way you can have the wizard with high spellcraft and the sorcerer with low or zero spellcraft or vice versa. The wizard with zero spellcraft is like a paint by numbers painter who knows absolutely nothing of technique but can follow the recipes he's memorized, though he has real trouble learning new ones. The sorcerer with zero spellcraft is the kid with natural talent in painting who would look at you cross-eyed if you talked about forced perspective and so on and would just shrug and say, "I dunno, I just do it." Neither would understand what the other was doing at all.
Couldn't you do the same, using the same justification, but using Knowledge (arcana)?
|
I'm definitely thinking Spellcraft should be more about doing magic than knowing magic if I'm going to keep it around. Why aren't Concentration checks Spellcraft checks again?
Balance.
You really want casters to laugh about how easy it is to make concentration checks? Just Skill Focus would make concentration checks much easier again.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is like saying a modern plumber would be able to ID specifically when a sink was made in the Renaissance. Or a "sandwich artist" at Subway can cite how the Earl of Sandwich created the food because he wanted to be able to eat with one hand while playing cards with the other.
Knowledge and practical application are generally different.
Balance. You really want casters to laugh about how easy it is to make concentration checks? Just Skill Focus would make concentration checks much easier again.
They're still absurdly easy in Pathfinder, once you reach mid- to high- levels. The only people who worry about them now are low-level casters. Instead of a static DC 15, try DC 10 + BAB of threatening opponent, and then the casters will stop laughing.
This is like saying a modern plumber would be able to ID specifically when a sink was made in the Renaissance. Or a "sandwich artist" at Subway can cite how the Earl of Sandwich created the food because he wanted to be able to eat with one hand while playing cards with the other. Knowledge and practical application are generally different.
The question is, are they enough different to clutter the game and negatively implact playability? I say no; YMMV. To my mind, "realism" sometimes needs to take a backseat to implementability.
Knowledge and practical application are generally different.
Neither spellcraft, nor knowledge (arcana) are 'practical application' though.
The way I see it, Spellcraft is specifically knowledge about spells. As in, anything you find in the Spells chapter. Knowledge (arcana) is knowledge about magical stuff that isn't spells. Rituals, properties of magical critters, etc.
While this would be a fairly intuitive divide, I don't think it's quite accurate in PF. I believe they shuffled some things around to make the two skills more 'balanced'.
The question is, are they enough different to clutter the game and negatively implact playability? I say no; YMMV. To my mind, "realism" sometimes needs to take a backseat to implementability.
I wasn't aware that they had any negative impact on playability in any way at all. Neither clerics, wizards, or sorcerers or their derivatives are MAD characters, so if they want to be knowledgeable they can just invest in intelligence (well, the cleric and the sorcerer do anyway) and have the skill-points to be knowledgeable about both magical theory and it's practice.
Of course not. It doesn't bother YOU, it bothers others.
I wasn't aware that they had any negative impact on playability in any way at all.
Yes, but I was trying to figure out why, other than a desire to condense the skills list down yet further.
Don't look at me, I axed Spellcraft and use the appropriate knowledge type for each caster. (Arcana for arcane, Religion for paladin/cleric, Nature for ranger/druid.)
Actually, I really like this idea. It would mean that divine spellcasters wouldn't always be able to identify arcane spells, and visa versa. You know... because they'd probably have all their ranks in the skill that fits their class. It makes so much more sense.
|
|
You really want casters to laugh about how easy it is to make concentration checks?Wait, they don't already?
Edit: Ninja'd by Kirth.
Doesn't seem easy.
In the Hallowing, the night hag tries to cast a level 7 or 8 spell-like (I think it was an Empowered Cone of Cold) ability, but since I was adjacent with Step Up, the GM calculated and figured out it wasn't likely to make the concentration check, so he did something else instead.
Matrixryu, TOZ: I actually kind of like that solution too. I think it would fit the concept of how I envision magic working in my world much better. Perhaps that's where some of the mental disconnect I've been experiencing comes from — a difference in expectations from the "Fluff As Written".
Yes, but I was trying to figure out why, other than a desire to condense the skills list down yet further.Of course not. It doesn't bother YOU, it bothers others.
I wasn't aware that they had any negative impact on playability in any way at all.
Because the distinction between them is overly fine, containing far too much conceptual overlap, and because we don't want clerics to automatically be good at identifying arcane magic, or wizards to be automatically good at identifying divine magic.
Because the distinction between them is overly fine, containing far too much conceptual overlap, and because we don't want clerics to automatically be good at identifying arcane magic, or wizards to be automatically good at identifying divine magic.Yes, but I was trying to figure out why, other than a desire to condense the skills list down yet further.Of course not. It doesn't bother YOU, it bothers others.
I wasn't aware that they had any negative impact on playability in any way at all.
That's like saying theoretical physics is enough to be a professional engineer. It isn't. Practical vs theoretical knowledge, they are very different skills. It's not a fine distinction, it's a huge gap from where I'm sitting.
As for why you don't want clerics identifying arcane magic, or wizards identifying divine magic, why not? They are all magic, they use the same components, the spells belong to the same schools.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for why you don't want clerics identifying arcane magic, or wizards identifying divine magic, why not? They are all magic, they use the same components, the spells belong to the same schools.
That's the thing. The understanding that some of us may have of the Fluff may differ from the understanding that you have. I for one would have never seen them as being "the same thing".
To me it's like comparing an internal combustion engine located within itself (arcane) to a [theoretical] electric car being moved by an external power source in the roadway (cleric). The effects of people being moved from point A to point B may be the same, but they are powered in completely different ways.
In otherwords, this differs from Kevin's earlier example of a priest calling upon a deity to smite an enemy with fire and a wizard calling upon an elemental being to do it. By my understanding the cleric calls upon a being that cannot be seen, whereas the wizard is NOT calling upon another being — they are manipulating the leylines of the universe directly and their doing so can be observed.
Edit: FWIW, this discussion IS helping me to identify some issues that I need to actually define and describe in my campaign setting. I didn't realize until now that some of us were laboring under different paradigms.
As for why you don't want clerics identifying arcane magic, or wizards identifying divine magic, why not? They are all magic, they use the same components, the spells belong to the same schools.That's the thing. The understanding that some of us may have of the Fluff may differ from the understanding that you have. I for one would have never seen them as being "the same thing".
They are both magic spells. Looks similar to me!
To me it's like comparing an internal combustion engine located within itself (arcane) to a [theoretical] electric car being moved by an external power source in the roadway (cleric). The effects of people being moved from point A to point B may be the same, but they are powered in completely different ways.
And a mechanic would still recognise both as a car, be able to fix a flat tyre, tell you how to drive it, change the engine, identify the majority of problems in each etc. This is the difference between practical and theoretical knowledge.
In other words, this differs from Kevin's earlier example of a priest calling upon a deity to smite an enemy with fire and a wizard calling upon an elemental being to do it. By my understanding the cleric calls upon a being that cannot be seen, whereas the wizard is NOT calling upon another being — they are manipulating the leylines of the universe directly and their doing so can be observed.
Evocation: an act or instance of evoking; a calling forth; from Evoke: to call up; cause to appear; summon. In a magical context, you call forth mystical energy from elsewhere to achieve a goal, typically by calling upon spiritual beings of great power.
That's not a book definition, it's what the term means in the English language and how it is used in actual magical texts.
In another way, the cleric is calling on his deity directly as the subject of the Evocation, the wizard is calling on intermediary entities. Both are manipulating energy in the same way, using the same controls (to use the car analogy above) so an observer can tell what they are going to do.
Edit: FWIW, this discussion IS helping me to identify some issues that I need to actually define and describe in my campaign setting. I didn't realize until now that some of us were laboring under different paradigms.
Perhaps - you are postulating a set of explanations as to how magic works that can fit the descriptive text for divine and arcane magic, but not with the rules, then you are asking why the rules do not say what you think they should.
I am postulating an explanation that fits the RAW to explain why the rules are the way they are that also fits the fluff of the descriptive text. It may not be what the developers had in mind, but it's a context that works for both rather than just one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While the power sources may be different, however, the end result is the same and the mechanism is the same as well. Some power turns an engine which in turn turns the wheels that runs the car along the ground.
Spellcraft generally doesn't look at what the power source is. It studies the mechanism of the spell to see what the end result will be.
Let's say we've got a wizard, a sorcerer, a bard, and a cleric. The first three are arcane while the last is divine. All of them can cast Hold Person. One expects the wizard is saying arcane phrases while making mystic gestures, the sorcerer is doing the same thing but with a more organic and personal style, the bard is strumming power chords on his lute while singing "Stop! In the name of Love!" and the cleric is raising his holy symbol and thundering, "By the power of -INSERT GOD'S NAME HERE-, I command thee, hold!"
Spellcraft lets the various casters recognize the foreign magics by means of analyzing the words, gestures, and material components used. This is done to let the casters counterspell spells as they recognize the effects, especially if they have that same spell memorized or otherwise available.
Obviously the words used, the gestures made, and the material components can vary, but there's still a certain commonality of form that a person with spellcraft can recognize. It's like taking some medieval woman and dropping her in a kitchen where a 1950s housewife is using all the conveniences and wonders of the modern age. While the medieval woman would probably be taken aback at seeing the blender and the electric skillet, she'd recognize that the first appears to be some sort of glass jug and the second is some sort of griddle, and the eggs the 1950s housewife is cracking into the blender still look an awful lot like the eggs they had in the middle ages, the flour still looks like flour, and while the milk is coming out of a waxed carton instead of a crock, it still looks like milk. Throw a bit of butter in the skillet and the medieval woman realizes, "Oh, you're making crepes." The 1950s housewife may call them pancakes instead, but the medieval woman has used her Craft (Cooking) or Profession (Cook) to reasonably figure out what the other woman is doing well before the batter is even poured into the pan.
Same thing with the wizard watching the cleric and making his Spellcraft. The props may be a little different, the style certainly is, and the power source may be completely different, but there is enough in common with the spells from his spellbook that he can figure out whatever "miracle" this cleric is invoking and how to short circuit it if he deems it necessary.
|
Can I say i just don't care for how to skill system works. I mean it is fine I don't think it should be scrapped or anything, I just think there might be better ways to handle it.
Maybe some skills should be easier or harder to use? Maybe your BAB should be a skill you can choose to add points to? IDK.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the Hallowing, the night hag tries to cast a level 7 or 8 spell-like (I think it was an Empowered Cone of Cold) ability, but since I was adjacent with Step Up, the GM calculated and figured out it wasn't likely to make the concentration check, so he did something else instead.
I need more information to parse this, because as I read it, you're telling me an 8th level caster with a +15 or 16 Concentration bonus decided not to try casting a spell with a Concentration DC of 29 or 31. Somehow, I'm not surprised.
Make it an 16th level caster (you know, one who regularly casts 7th or 8th level spells) with a Concentration bonus of +26 and suddenly he doesn't care about you threatening him.
I may have missed something, but I thought PF did away with the Concentration skill... ergo, no Skill Focus for it?