| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think your post came up while I was reading this page / writing my own post so I missed it and wound up writing some of the same things as you.
My point was that a single skill that did all those things would be overpowered compared to most other skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Throwing my vote behind the "Spellcraft = do, Knowledge (Arcana) = know" concept. It would involve too much rewriting of how various classes, feats, items, and powers worked to consolidate the two skills. These are two of the most useful skills in the game for magic-oriented characters, who don't need any help from further changes. As it stands, the practical vs theoretical divide is workable and sensible in the framework of the game.
<tangent>(It would be so cool, however, if they reverted Knowledge (Local) to Gather Information, since that's what it actually is)</tangent>
I agree ... I'd prefer not to see an uber-skill for magic; I think the skill system doesn't need *more* compaction.
(for example, Acrobatics is now an uber-skill that does everything; I liked it better when it was split up a bit more - heck, I'm surprised they didn't combine Climb in there too)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
99% of Spellcraft rolls are to identify spells. That is to *KNOW* what spell you just saw, most certainly not to *DO* anything. And it can somehow allow a wizard to automatically know the ins and outs of divine magic, even though he knows virtually nothing about the gods (0 ranks in Knowledge: Religion).
If you want to keep Spellcraft around for crafting rolls (as if they were anything but a formality), fine. But identifying spells is definitionally a Knowledge check.
|
I am all for a single Spellcraft/Kn: Arcana skill. And simplified DCs too.
It will make it easier for casters with low skill points and a casting stat that is not INT.
Such as Clerics, Oracles and Sorcerers.
It will also make it easier for GMs and players who are not always sure which skill should be used in such and such case (and what the DC should be).
Also the arcane/divine description of spells has to go. It is hopelessly fuzzy and needlessly complicates things.
In concept, I think the main thing is that while technically anyone can train Spellcraft (because Pathfinder got rid of class restricted skills), Spellcraft is supposed to be the kind of thing that only spellcasters truly train in. It has to do with the art of actual spellcasting and related things.
Knowledge Arcana is supposed to be something anyone can study, and has broader and often more theoretical applications. I think of it as something like "occult lore" for a fantasy world.
At the moment, I don't think the two should be combined (no more than I would combine "Computer Use" and "Knowledge (Technology)" in d20 Modern) but I would like to see certain functions of the skills better described and separated. In particular, Knowledge (Arcana) has several applications that have to do with identifying spells and magic items (look at the sample Knowledge DC table under skills) that really should be functions of Spellcraft, or are redundant WITH functions of Spellcraft.
If in future revisions, however far down the line they may be, if the devs were unwilling to make a broader separation between the two skills, then yes, they should probably just be combined.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone at PFS call for a fly check.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am all for a single Spellcraft/Kn: Arcana skill. And simplified DCs too.
It will make it easier for casters with low skill points and a casting stat that is not INT.
Such as Clerics, Oracles and Sorcerers.It will also make it easier for GMs and players who are not always sure which skill should be used in such and such case (and what the DC should be).
Also the arcane/divine description of spells has to go. It is hopelessly fuzzy and needlessly complicates things.
You know, the entire game is entirely too complex. I mean, we have three types of saving throws, armor classes that differ, different dice for weapons... we should simplify everything to a single die roll. 1d6 for everything. If you roll a 1, you die. If you roll a 6, you die. If you roll a 2-5, then you might succeed but it depends on the GM.
The GM also rolls dice. He gets 10d6 and if he rolls any 1s or 6s then your character dies.
There. Nice and simple. ;)
Gust of Wind used against faeries (or other flying critters). And it technically should be used when someone is flying and is hit in combat.
You know, the entire game is entirely too complex. I mean, we have three types of saving throws, armor classes that differ, different dice for weapons... we should simplify everything to a single die roll. 1d6 for everything. If you roll a 1, you die. If you roll a 6, you die. If you roll a 2-5, then you might succeed but it depends on the GM.
The GM also rolls dice. He gets 10d6 and if he rolls any 1s or 6s then your character dies.
There. Nice and simple. ;)
*cough*Reductio ad absurdum*cough*
In concept, I think the main thing is that while technically anyone can train Spellcraft (because Pathfinder got rid of class restricted skills), Spellcraft is supposed to be the kind of thing that only spellcasters truly train in. It has to do with the art of actual spellcasting and related things.
Knowledge Arcana is supposed to be something anyone can study, and has broader and often more theoretical applications. I think of it as something like "occult lore" for a fantasy world.
At the moment, I don't think the two should be combined (no more than I would combine "Computer Use" and "Knowledge (Technology)" in d20 Modern) but I would like to see certain functions of the skills better described and separated. In particular, Knowledge (Arcana) has several applications that have to do with identifying spells and magic items (look at the sample Knowledge DC table under skills) that really should be functions of Spellcraft, or are redundant WITH functions of Spellcraft.
If in future revisions, however far down the line they may be, if the devs were unwilling to make a broader separation between the two skills, then yes, they should probably just be combined.
The only real overlap is identifing spells, and in truth, there is no overlap. Spellcraft lets you ID a spell by observing the spellcasting(hmm, guano and a throwing motion, crap, FIREBALL!). Knowledge(arcana) lets you ID the spell by the effect(He threw a orange bead at us, and fire erupted all around us, that must have been a fireball). The importance of this is that by the time you are able to ID the spell via Knowledge(Arcana), it is far too late to counterspell it.
If Spellcraft is doing magic, rather than knowing it, then shouldn't it be based off of either INT, WIS, or CHA, depending on which class is using it? Why should a Cleric learn Spellcraft in the same way that a Sorcerer or a Wizard does, and all that?
99% of Spellcraft rolls are to identify spells. That is to *KNOW* what spell you just saw, most certainly not to *DO* anything. And it can somehow allow a wizard to automatically know the ins and outs of divine magic, even though he knows virtually nothing about the gods (0 ranks in Knowledge: Religion).
When you ID a spell via Spellcraft, you are watching someone else DOing the casting. You are recognizing the actions used to bring the spell into being. There are even penalties to the spellcraft check if your perception of the spellcasting is hindered. In short, you can identify someone casting fireball via spellcraft because they are doing a similar set of actions to what you would use if you were casting fireball.
I don't like the overlap between divine and arcane here either, but I play with the old optional rule that arcane casters have a -5 to spellcraft divine spells and vice versa.
If you want to keep Spellcraft around for crafting rolls (as if they were anything but a formality), fine. But identifying spells is definitionally a Knowledge check.
ID spell by observing the spellcasting -> Spellcraft
ID spell by observing the spell's effect -> Knowledge(Arcana/Religion)
*cough*Reductio ad absurdum*cough*You know, the entire game is entirely too complex. I mean, we have three types of saving throws, armor classes that differ, different dice for weapons... we should simplify everything to a single die roll. 1d6 for everything. If you roll a 1, you die. If you roll a 6, you die. If you roll a 2-5, then you might succeed but it depends on the GM.
The GM also rolls dice. He gets 10d6 and if he rolls any 1s or 6s then your character dies.
There. Nice and simple. ;)
Yes, that was the point. Please note, I included a smiley-wink face icon to show I was joking.
The Internet does not need to be dour and serious all the time. Honest!
The only real overlap is identifying spells, and in truth, there is no overlap. Spellcraft lets you ID a spell by observing the spellcasting(hmm, guano and a throwing motion, crap, FIREBALL!). Knowledge(arcana) lets you ID the spell by the effect(He threw a orange bead at us, and fire erupted all around us, that must have been a fireball). The importance of this is that by the time you are able to ID the spell via Knowledge(Arcana), it is far too late to counterspell it.In concept, I think the main thing is that while technically anyone can train Spellcraft (because Pathfinder got rid of class restricted skills), Spellcraft is supposed to be the kind of thing that only spellcasters truly train in. It has to do with the art of actual spellcasting and related things.
Knowledge Arcana is supposed to be something anyone can study, and has broader and often more theoretical applications. I think of it as something like "occult lore" for a fantasy world.
At the moment, I don't think the two should be combined (no more than I would combine "Computer Use" and "Knowledge (Technology)" in d20 Modern) but I would like to see certain functions of the skills better described and separated. In particular, Knowledge (Arcana) has several applications that have to do with identifying spells and magic items (look at the sample Knowledge DC table under skills) that really should be functions of Spellcraft, or are redundant WITH functions of Spellcraft.
If in future revisions, however far down the line they may be, if the devs were unwilling to make a broader separation between the two skills, then yes, they should probably just be combined.
So a Knowledge (Arcana) check will allow me to instantly recognize a Red Dragon, determine its age category on sight, and otherwise call to mind all that there is to know about them immediately to mind, relay it to my allies, and then jog 30 feet away and cast a Shivering Ray at it. But it's definitionally too slow to identify a spell when you see it being cast? This is the same arbitrary distinction of 'Spot' and 'Search' that Pathfinder has otherwise eliminated.
I simply don't see how any skill application which is about whether you *know what something is* can ever NOT be a Knowledge check.
Yes, that was the point. Please note, I included a smiley-wink face icon to show I was joking.
The Internet does not need to be dour and serious all the time. Honest!
D'oh. Yup, completely missed that. *embarrassed*
So a Knowledge (Arcana) check will allow me to instantly recognize a Red Dragon, determine its age category on sight, and otherwise call to mind all that there is to know about them immediately to mind, relay it to my allies, and then jog 30 feet away and cast a Shivering Ray at it. But it's definitionally too slow to identify a spell when you see it being cast? This is the same arbitrary distinction of 'Spot' and 'Search' that Pathfinder has otherwise eliminated.
I simply don't see how any skill application which is about whether you *know what something is* can ever NOT be a Knowledge check.
I think the best way of summarizing it is: Knowledge (Arcana) = encyclopedia, Spellcraft = super-computer. One is more about recalling knowledge, with very little analysis needed. The other is observation of various signs and then applying significant mental processing power to reverse engineer the spell being cast in your head so you know what it is. The base and initial action is the same, observing the target. However, what follows, mentally, are two entirely different ball-games, much like being an expert physicist differs substantially from being an expert chemist, despite the same laws of nature governing both fields.
|
If Spellcraft is doing magic, rather than knowing it, then shouldn't it be based off of either INT, WIS, or CHA, depending on which class is using it? Why should a Cleric learn Spellcraft in the same way that a Sorcerer or a Wizard does, and all that?
How I understand it and have everything make sense is simple.
Clerics, Oracles and sorcerers don't really do magic. It comes from their god or their blood.
Spell craft IDs spells, it's a knowledge like skill. All spells are the same, the source doesn't effect the magic in the spell. That's why wands and the like don't care.
Scrolls are not finished so you need to finish the spell in the same manner it was being cast. A wizard using a cleric scroll would need to petition the correct saint or some such.
Coping spells into your spell book requires spellcraft, as it is your understanding of magic. Same with crafting magic items.
If Spellcraft is doing magic, rather than knowing it, then shouldn't it be based off of either INT, WIS, or CHA, depending on which class is using it? Why should a Cleric learn Spellcraft in the same way that a Sorcerer or a Wizard does, and all that?
Interesting point, but I can still see a distinction being made here. Perhaps you have a very wise, perceptive, intuitive druid who is tuned to nature, picks up on the feelings of those around him, feels changes in the weather, etc. But he didn't pay a lot of attention in druid school and doesn't process book-learning well, so when it comes to recognizing what some other spellcaster is doing (which would require a good memory and having actually studied a bit, especially since not all casters cast like he does), or to crafting an item, which requires some knowledge of and facility with the crafting process and its pitfalls, it's more a matter of his intelligence than his wisdom. Same for clerics, oracles, sorcerers, bards, etc.
So I guess this doesn't bother me too much. But I would also totally understand a houserule that collapsed Spellcraft into Knowledge (arcana/religion) or made it so that Spellcraft could use any of the mental stats as its base. Both seem reasonable, and I can't see them breaking the game.
I think the best way of summarizing it is: Knowledge (Arcana) = encyclopedia, Spellcraft = super-computer. One is more about recalling knowledge, with very little analysis needed. The other is observation of various signs and then applying significant mental processing power to reverse engineer the spell being cast in your head so you know what it is. The base and initial action is the same, observing the target. However, what follows, mentally, are two entirely different ball-games, much like being an expert physicist differs substantially from being an expert chemist, despite the same laws of nature governing both fields.So a Knowledge (Arcana) check will allow me to instantly recognize a Red Dragon, determine its age category on sight, and otherwise call to mind all that there is to know about them immediately to mind, relay it to my allies, and then jog 30 feet away and cast a Shivering Ray at it. But it's definitionally too slow to identify a spell when you see it being cast? This is the same arbitrary distinction of 'Spot' and 'Search' that Pathfinder has otherwise eliminated.
I simply don't see how any skill application which is about whether you *know what something is* can ever NOT be a Knowledge check.
Except, if we're using science as our analogy here, someone with ranks in Spellcraft, but none in Knowledge (Chemistry) would be able to identify chemical reactions by observation, whereas the person who invested no ranks in Spellcraft, but is the greatest chemist the world has ever known is totally unable to do so.
|
|
Except, if we're using science as our analogy here, someone with ranks in Spellcraft, but none in Knowledge (Chemistry) would be able to identify chemical reactions by observation, whereas the person who invested no ranks in Spellcraft, but is the greatest chemist the world has ever known is totally unable to do so.I think the best way of summarizing it is: Knowledge (Arcana) = encyclopedia, Spellcraft = super-computer. One is more about recalling knowledge, with very little analysis needed. The other is observation of various signs and then applying significant mental processing power to reverse engineer the spell being cast in your head so you know what it is. The base and initial action is the same, observing the target. However, what follows, mentally, are two entirely different ball-games, much like being an expert physicist differs substantially from being an expert chemist, despite the same laws of nature governing both fields.So a Knowledge (Arcana) check will allow me to instantly recognize a Red Dragon, determine its age category on sight, and otherwise call to mind all that there is to know about them immediately to mind, relay it to my allies, and then jog 30 feet away and cast a Shivering Ray at it. But it's definitionally too slow to identify a spell when you see it being cast? This is the same arbitrary distinction of 'Spot' and 'Search' that Pathfinder has otherwise eliminated.
I simply don't see how any skill application which is about whether you *know what something is* can ever NOT be a Knowledge check.
I think your analogy is off.
The student who only reads books wouldn't have a good grasp of what the chemical reactions look like. (K. Arcana and 0 or little spellcraft)A world famous chemist would not get that title with out testing his results in a lab.(high in both)
A kid who plays with his lab but doesn't know the science would have high spell craft but little knowledge.
Except, if we're using science as our analogy here, someone with ranks in Spellcraft, but none in Knowledge (Chemistry) would be able to identify chemical reactions by observation, whereas the person who invested no ranks in Spellcraft, but is the greatest chemist the world has ever known is totally unable to do so.I think the best way of summarizing it is: Knowledge (Arcana) = encyclopedia, Spellcraft = super-computer. One is more about recalling knowledge, with very little analysis needed. The other is observation of various signs and then applying significant mental processing power to reverse engineer the spell being cast in your head so you know what it is. The base and initial action is the same, observing the target. However, what follows, mentally, are two entirely different ball-games, much like being an expert physicist differs substantially from being an expert chemist, despite the same laws of nature governing both fields.So a Knowledge (Arcana) check will allow me to instantly recognize a Red Dragon, determine its age category on sight, and otherwise call to mind all that there is to know about them immediately to mind, relay it to my allies, and then jog 30 feet away and cast a Shivering Ray at it. But it's definitionally too slow to identify a spell when you see it being cast? This is the same arbitrary distinction of 'Spot' and 'Search' that Pathfinder has otherwise eliminated.
I simply don't see how any skill application which is about whether you *know what something is* can ever NOT be a Knowledge check.
I think your analogy is off.
The student who only reads books wouldn't have a good grasp of what the chemical reactions look like. (K. Arcana and 0 or little spellcraft)
A world famous chemist would not get that title with out testing his results in a lab.(high in both)
A kid who plays with his lab but doesn't know the science would have high spell craft but little knowledge.
Like a biology student who reads only books might not recognize a specific flower or a lion when seen in reality? No, wait, that's a single skill, Knowledge (Nature).
Don't forget there are times you get a synergistic bonus to skills if you have a sufficiently high skill in a complementary area. Thus a high Spellcraft can boost your Knowledge: Arcana or Knowledge: Religion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tangent: Remember, skill synergies did exist in 3.5, however they were not included in Pathfinder.
As for myself, count me as one of those who always struggles when trying to recall the right time and place to use K: Arcana vs Spellcraft. While I have not consolidated them, I would be perfectly fine with a new iteration of Pathfinder doing so (that or drawing a greater distinction between them).
Ah, my bad. ^^;;
Then again, I probably confuse 1st edition AD&D rules with Pathfinder stuff from time to time as well.