They have so much overlap as to practically be the same skill.
Spellcraft identifies spells as they are cast, but if the spell is cast on you, you can make a Knowledge (arcana) check to identify it.
Spellcraft allows you to identify magical items. Knowledge (arcana) allows you to identify magical materials.
Spellcraft identifies spells as they are cast, but Knowledge (arcana) identifies spells via their components.
See where I'm going with this?
So I ask again, why are they two separate skills? It strikes me as a "skill tax" for spellcasters.
Because you can't have a Lore Warden learning about spells at the same time he's learning about dragons?
In that case, shouldn't ALL of the identification aspects of Knowledge (arcana) (like those I listed above) be moved to Spellcraft, and leave all of the "ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, constructs, dragons, and magical beasts" stuff in Knowledge (arcana)?
Why is there so much overlap between the two?
I see Knowledge Arcana as just having the know how, while Spellcraft is the actual application of it. Hence why you use Spellcraft for crafting magic items.
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.)
Brilliant.
Knowledge/Arcana covers a host of information having nothing to do with spells and spellcasting.
Spellcraft represents expertise in the actual working of magic, and recognising the workings of others.
Yes, there is some overlap between the two skills, but it's disingenuous to assert they don't both have application. Imo.
Knowledge/Arcana covers a host of information having nothing to do with spells and spellcasting.
Spellcraft represents expertise in the actual working of magic, and recognising the workings of others.
Yes, there is some overlap between the two skills, but it's disingenuous to assert they don't both have application. Imo.
Indeed. Commander Shepard has had enough of these disingenuous assertions ;)
So I ask again, why are they two separate skills? It strikes me as a "skill tax" for spellcasters.
Like the skill tax on ship-builders of Profession (shipbuilder) and Craft (carpentry)? Any cabinet maker knows how to join two pieces of wood together, but it takes specialist knowledge about making ships to make a ship that will sail the oceans and not founder at the first wave, and catch the wind well enough to steer it.
In just this way Knowledge (arcana) is knowledge of the arcane - not just spells, but of dragons and arcane societies, arcane history etc. You can know an awful lot about magic without going anywhere near a spell.
Spellcraft is just that: it is how to cast spells, how to recognise spells, how to direct and control arcane energies.
So in what way are these two skills a 'skill tax'? That term does, after all, imply that the skills are absolutely essential and that the character will be nerfed without them.
Does an arcane spell-caster need Knowledge (arcana)? No. Arcane spell-casters have it on their skills list, but they do not NEED it for any particular reason.
Does an arcane spell-caster need Spellcraft? No, but it helps a great deal. A wizard needs it to learn new spells from another, and to recognise spells being cast, or analyse magics, or make magic items. A sorcerer will find it useful, but not essential. It's pretty important, as important as Perception and Disable Device are to a rogue, but I have not heard these called a 'feat tax' that should be combined into a single skill...
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.)
Looks like the way to go to me...
Knowledge/Arcana covers a host of information having nothing to do with spells and spellcasting.
Spellcraft represents expertise in the actual working of magic, and recognising the workings of others.
Yes, there is some overlap between the two skills, but it's disingenuous to assert they don't both have application. Imo.
So all Spellcraft is Knowledge: Arcana but not all Knowledge: Arcana is Spellcraft?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nevertheless, I still think the two should be made into one skill, or made more individual, none of this overlap nonsense. It cheapens both skills.
Unless our goal is reduce the Skills section of the book down to the ultimate; Skillful (anything you want to do, roll this), functional variety is a Good Thing.
When your wizard finds a wand of cure light wounds and wonders "what is this?", he needs a way to figure it out. Knowledge(arcana) doesn't apply because - did I mention - this isn't a bard wand. He needs some way to experiment with, decipher, and master the wand. He doesn't know what it is... he uses his understanding of the craft of spell-working to learn what it is.
Same thing for identifying spells (and psionic powers!) being cast.
I think of Spellcraft as a general background in the fundamentals of all magic. The Knowledge() skills are just that; raw information. Do I or don't I know about X?
Lots of skills overlap, RD. If you merged them you'd be able to do most anything with just a few skill points. Sometimes they have to be seperate because they have very, very different applications.
For example, somebody skilled at making magic items (Spellcraft) is not necessarily as knowledgeable as somebody who has studied the history of the Thassilonian Empire on that subject (Knowledge (arcana)).
Sometimes it's not what the skills have in common that matters, it's what they don't have in common that counts.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still think the identification of magic items and spells should fall directly under Spellcraft and esoteric magic subjects and monsters should fall under Knowledge: Arcana.
RD: At least one of my players assures me that their uses are distinct enough to justify them both being skills. Mind you, I still have to consult the PRD every time such a check comes up in order to make certain I'm asking for the correct one. I'd go with TOZ's solution if it weren't for my players being happy with it as-is.
Edit: +1 to your above suggestion too.
Mind you, I still have to consult the PRD every time such a check comes up in order to make certain I'm asking for the correct one.
And this is EXACTLY why I think they should either be one skill, or more clearly divided.
I still think the identification of magic items and spells should fall directly under Spellcraft and esoteric magic subjects and monsters should fall under Knowledge: Arcana.
Then play it that way. I think that the 'overlap' is perfectly OK - something that requires Spellcraft might allow Knowledge (arcana) at an increased DC, or vice verse.
For the same reason there's Craft and Knowledge (Engineering)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or appraise and perception: "I see this Staff has rubies and emeralds with intricate carvings so it's valuable" v. "I know this Staff is 3 lbs of gold with some jewel work, with gold at it's current prices, it must be worth a hefty amount."
Regardless of if you perceive it, or appraise it you can reach the same conclusion but they aren't always interchangeable and so we have two separate skills.
Going to the extreme, we could merge perception and sense motive (I see the hand slowly shifting to the dagger, he must be hostile), or stealth and slight of hand (I stealthily conceal the dagger up my sleeve), or spellcraft and use magic device (I don't know how to drive a car, but I understand how it works, and therefore whilst being untrained in driving, I can make it function). At this rate, we could reduce the skills considerable, but it's important to remember that X and Y may share similarities but X and Y aren't always interchangeable.
@Dabbler: or just take craft/shipwright? It's listed under the common crafting skills in the Craft skill description...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(grin) Yes it is, but my point remains, being able to work with a material doesn't mean you know how to make a given product normally made with that material.
@Proley
I think the difference between Appraise and Perception is that Perception tells you there are glittery gems in the staff and gold-coloured metal. Appraise is knowing enough to tell whether the gems are valuable or just glass, and that the metal is brass or gold.
I agree, two skills that are similar and may overlap are NOT the same as two skills that are interchangeable.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it, Spellcraft is the way to divine the magical significance of assorted strange gestures, oddly inflected words, and peculiar fragments of assorted grot that somehow come together to weave magical energies and create a spell effect. Knowledge Arcana is knowing the formal name of that magical effect and what might be done about it once it's been put in place.
For example, the party comes thundering through the woods, unexpectedly coming out into a clearing with a tiny cottage, a little old woman with a black cat, and a chicken which the paladin's horse just stepped on. You do not need to make a Heal check to know that the chicken is dead.
The old woman screams, points her finger at the paladin, and says some words in a language you don't understand.
Party: Are we in combat?
GM: You tell me. You can roll initiative if you want.
Party does. Paladin has initiative.
GM: What do you do?
Paladin: Is she casting a spell?
GM: Do you have Spellcraft?
Paladin: No....
GM: Then you don't know if she's casting a spell. All you know is that an old woman is pointing her finger at you and saying words in an unfamiliar language. She sounds angry. She may be casting a spell, she may be cursing you in mundane fashion, or she may be attempting to use Intimidation to threaten you with a lawsuit. If the last is the case, it's not working, because you don't understand what she's saying.
Cleric, Wizard, and Druid: We have Spellcraft. Can we roll?
GM: Go ahead.
(Players roll.)
GM: (to Cleric) You didn't roll well enough to know what the spell does, but you definitely know it's a spell. As a houserule freebie, I'm letting you know that the style of casting is the same as those witches you faces three adventures ago, so you can guess this is witchcraft.
GM: (to Wizard) You fail to identify the exact effects of the magic, but you know it is something of the Transmutation sub-school.
GM: (to Druid) You rolled well. You know that this is a spell that will turn the paladin into a small and harmless animal. The old lady has specified that it it be a chicken, female, and capable of laying eggs. She wants a little red hen like the one that was just killed.
Paladin: But I'm male!
GM: Maybe not for long.
Druid: This seems in keeping with harmonious balance, and also that "Justice" the paladin keeps harping on about. I do nothing to interfere. Do I have to have Knowledge Arcana to know that this is Baleful Polymorph?
GM: Since that spell is also on the Druid class list, I will allow you to roll Knowledge Nature instead.
Wizard: Can I roll Knowledge Arcana?
GM: If the spell succeeds, yes. If it fails, no. Then it's just some transmutation spell that failed or had no obvious effect.
Cleric: Can I roll Knowledge Religion?
GM: You can, but all you'll find is parables about chickens and eggs. Nothing useful as it's not on your class spell list. (To paladin) Unless you want to risk losing your paladinhood over some old granny righteously indignant over the death of her best laying hen, make a Fortitude save, followed by a Will if you fail that.
Rest of the Party: Chicken! Chicken! Chicken!
While that's an amusing scenario, I could really use some sort of mnemonic device to discern between the two. The criteria you gave would still require me checking the PRD and scratching my head. :(
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
While that's an amusing scenario, I could really use some sort of mnemonic device to discern between the two. The criteria you gave would still require me checking the PRD and scratching my head. :(
Spellcraft is to Knowledge Arcana as Painting is to Art History.
If a spellcaster watches another spellcaster at work, they'll understand the technique the other person is using, the same as a painter can understand what another painter is doing by watching them while they paint. The caster understands the techniques to use the various schools of magic the same way the painter understands stuff like underpainting, forced perspective, color balance, and so on.
The person with lots of Knowledge Arcana is like the person with a lot of knowledge of Art History. They can tell you all of the formal names for various things, all the names of the great masters of the art, and so forth. The knowledge doesn't give you any technical skill, but gives you knowledge and perspective to understand the end result.
There are of course overlaps with other Knowledges. If you've got a religious painting, both an art historian and a religious scholar will understand something about it, including the name of a particular saint if he or she was a popular subject of religious icons.
Ah, nice analogy. Thanks, that's helpful. :)
I'm with RD here.
What happens when somebody casts a spell?
Everybody rolls Spellcraft to see if they ID it.
(if they do so correctly, they can Counter Spell using an appropriate spell, not relying on Dispel, if they Readied that Action)
If they fail, but can see the spell effects, they roll Know Arcana to ID the spell.
(this one happens after the spell is cast, so is useless for Counterspelling)
If they fail (or couldn't see the spell effects, but could see the casting) they can roll Know Arcana to ID what spells are cast using those components. This may or may not narrow things down to one specific spell, but even if there are multiple spells with those components, it's often easy to make an educated guess. If there is only 1 spell with those components, or they accurately guess, they can Counter Spell the spell.
This, in PRPG, which made a big deal about boiling down all the sensory perception checks into one skill, Perception.
Other Skill Pet Peave: Knowledge (Local).
Not only is there the wierd vagueness whether it covers Local knowledge in a specific area, vs. knowing the name of street hustlers in cities on planes of existence that you don't even know about... It's also drawn into things to cover knowledge of the racial abilities of Giants and Titans (all Humanoids). I really thing a better split-up could have been done vis-a-vis Know Local and Geography, at the least. Know Local should explicitly be for a specific locale... It's basically stuff you could find out thru Social skills, so in a way it's like Profession vs. Craft skills... I really could see it using CHA if it was restricted to that sense, and knowledge about Humanoids was thrown into Geography instead.
|
Because you can't have a Lore Warden learning about spells at the same time he's learning about dragons?
But both skills are Int skills, so they are both on the Lore Warden's class skills list....
And, to the one going on about wand of cure light wounds not being Bard, I think you need to check RAW. A wand of cure light wounds is no longer Arcane or Divine, you just have to have the spell on your class's spell list to be able to use it (discounting UMD), so aBard and a Cleric can both use the same wand of Cure Light Wounds...
I mostly look at Spellcraft as the application of magic. Knowledge(arcana) is the knowledge of it.
Keeping them separate also keeps knowledge arcana from owning the knowledge skill area, and it keeps it working the same as the others for the most part, since the others are not used in application, but mostly just for recalling information.
You can certainly justify their status as distinct skills, but it's also easy to justify combining them. There's nothing particularly sacred about the number or distibution of skills in pathfinder. You could split "knowing about magic stuff" into five skills if you really wanted to, which would make it hard to know a lot about every kind of magic stuff. You could split it into two skills, like it is (kind of sloppily as a result of legacy issues) divided now. You could make it just one skill. You could nix just spellcraft and parcel out its remains to various knowledge and craft skills, or maybe UMD. If it had always been the case that Know (Arcana) covered most of spellcraft and various other skills covered the rest, I don't think anyone would look at Know (Arcana) and say, "This covers too much stuff that's too different. Let's bust out most of the spell identification and copying parts, make those a separate skill, then pad that skill out by letting it double as a crafting skill."
Spellcraft is to Knowledge Arcana as Painting is to Art History.
You can't make money with a degree in any of them?
Mind you, I still have to consult the PRD every time such a check comes up in order to make certain I'm asking for the correct one.And this is EXACTLY why I think they should either be one skill, or more clearly divided.
Curiously, I found the distinction between them pretty easy to grasp in 3.5, yet in PF we have to look it up every time. And guessed wrong about half those times. :)
Spellcraft is to Knowledge Arcana as Painting is to Art History.
This. It also makes it clear that they do NOT belong in the same skill bracket - while they may overlap, they aren't the same.
Spellcraft is to Knowledge Arcana as Painting is to Art History.This. It also makes it clear that they do NOT belong in the same skill bracket - while they may overlap, they aren't the same.
This would be true if 'painting' determined your ability to 'paint'. Spellcraft does not determine your ability to do spells at all, only to recognise them when someone else does. It doesn't even let you recognise spells that are currently visible unless you saw them being cast.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spellcraft: "That person over there is painting a picture."
Knowledge Arcana: "That is a painting."
Yes, it really is that dumb. ^_^
Same difference as Nature and Survival. One is knowing what things are, the other is how to do things. A bit redundant, but whatever.
|
I always look at it as this:
Spellcraft is Physics: Its the force equations and velocity over time calculations that describe how magic actually works. "Oh, my 16 on my check tells me that fellow over there just invoked a minor evocation, with the [mumbo jumbo mage jargon] factor applied. He's casting Magic Missile!"
K: Arcana is General Science: Its knowing what is what based on sensory observation. "Oh look at that giant exploding ball of fire. Its a fireball! Oh hey, there is a gaseous cloud killing folks, must be creeping doom."
The big difference is that K:A gives you observations, Spellcraft gives you mechanics.
I'm surprised at how much resistance there is to wanting to make these skills a little more intuitive.
I've never had any problems with either/both of them; they really aren't that complicated...
You can't make money with a degree in any of them?Spellcraft is to Knowledge Arcana as Painting is to Art History.
Agreed. You'd need Profession (artist).
;-)
I'm surprised at how much resistance there is to wanting to make these skills a little more intuitive.
It's not intuitive to assume that someone who knows how to make a cabinet also knows the history of Ming furniture. That's the difference between Spellcraft and Knowledge (aracana), and between Survival and Knowledge (nature).
I'm surprised at how much resistance there is to wanting to make these skills a little more intuitive.It's not intuitive to assume that someone who knows how to make a cabinet also knows the history of Ming furniture. That's the difference between Spellcraft and Knowledge (aracana), and between Survival and Knowledge (nature).
No, that's the difference between Craft (Carpentry) and Knowledge (History). One is doing, the other's knowing. Spellcraft and Knowledge (Arcana)/Knowledge (Religion) are both knowing. Moreover, it is utterly ridiculous that the same skill covers identifying both arcane and divine magic. Why the hell should the cleric who doesn't have one solitary rank in Knowledge Arcana be able to identify one solitary cantrip?
I've never had any problems with either/both of them; they really aren't that complicated...
While I can see wanting to weigh in that it already works fine for you, IMO it's rude to trivialize what others have expressed they are having difficulty understanding. I work in IT — a tech telling an end-user that something "is easy" only places unnecessary expectations and fears of failure on the end user. It really isn't helpful at all.
Back to the topic at hand...
OK here's the main thing that confuses me. The Art History vs. Painting analogy seems to help, but then when I go back to reading Spellcraft again, it lists this gem...
Identify the properties of a magic item using detect magic
If K: Arcana is observation, and Spellcraft is doing, then why is the check to identify magic items a Spellcraft check instead of K: Arcana? That seems to run counter to that train of thought. What is the logical connection that I'm missing on why this is Spellcraft and not K: Arcana?
No, that's the difference between Craft (Carpentry) and Knowledge (History). One is doing, the other's knowing. Spellcraft and Knowledge (Arcana)/Knowledge (Religion) are both knowing.I'm surprised at how much resistance there is to wanting to make these skills a little more intuitive.It's not intuitive to assume that someone who knows how to make a cabinet also knows the history of Ming furniture. That's the difference between Spellcraft and Knowledge (aracana), and between Survival and Knowledge (nature).
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.
Moreover, it is utterly ridiculous that the same skill covers identifying both arcane and divine magic. Why the hell should the cleric who doesn't have one solitary rank in Knowledge Arcana be able to identify one solitary cantrip?
Because he knows how spells are cast. Spellcraft is not an encyclopaedic knowledge of spells and items, it's being able to tell the nature of the magic being used. In-game, he knows, for example, that from the gestures and words involved that the spell is an evocation of an elemental force linked to positive radiant energy, through the universal fundamentals of spell-casting. Meta-game, the player is told it's a light spell; just as someone who works in watercolours doesn't need telling that the oil-painter is mixing yellow on his pallet.
Knowing about magical theory varies with the type of magic, arcane or divine. Working magic is universal. Academics knowledgeable in oriental and occidental woodworks will be lost in one another's speciality, but a joiner from France and one from China will each be able to recognise what the other are trying to make at first glance.
If you want to cut down on feat bloat, just make Spellcraft a caster level check. If you're not a caster, you can't do it.
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.