| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth noting that under the Technology Guide, creating tech items follows the same rules as magic item crafting - except that in addition to having an appropriate feat, you need access to a lab that can create the fine components necessary.
A wizard trying to bypass the lab with fabricate is going to be sad panda, because well...
You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material. Creatures or magic items cannot be created or transmuted by the fabricate spell.
First off, fabricate fails outright because trying to make tech items follows the same rules as making magic items. Making a laser gun with fabricate is beyond the scope of the spell.
Assuming the wizard actually has technologist and the other appropriate feats...
Well, think of how many different types of materials go into just making a cell phone.
A wizard trying to build a modern item without a proper lab might be casting fabricate dozens of times just to try get all of the components together. And then be left cursing, because your final product is both metal and plastic, and fabricate is going to go nope at trying to combine the two.
Huh.
Wizards putting dwarf smiths out of business with fabricate is a non-issue, because most armor is actually too complicated (i.e., has leather and cloth components) for a fabricate spell to handle.
Hell, a spear is actually too complicated for fabricate to handle!
Knowledge allows you to research a topic and find and answer.
If that answer is unknown by default, the Knowledge check fails.
That's it.
There's no 'discovering' new Knowledge with a simple knowledge check. IT's not in the rules.
I'm sorry, but it's EXTREMELY MUNCHKIN to say "The rules don't say I can't, so I can." It's the exact same reason you can use for "I died? I get up and start attacking again. The rules don't say I can't."
You look at what the rules permit, and that's pretty much it.
And there's nothing in the rules about discovering new knowledge.
================
Zhangar, there's nothing in Fabricate that restricts you to raw materials. So, if you have the requisite leather and metal as part of the raw materials, you can indeed make armor...or a sword, for that matter. You can even have it ornamental if you include the precious metals and gemstones.
Fabricate is basically the entire Crafting process for one item bound up in a shell. Unless you have Crafting checks for different disciplines involved, it works.
VERY Good catch on the assembly of tech items, i.e. putting together a tech item is like creating a magic item, and Fabricate can't do that.
Therefore, we now have an absolute answer...no, you can't create high tech items with Fabricate.
You could create the secondary 'raw material' items that go into the tech item, but otherwise, you need the lab just like an artificer needs magic.
==Aelryinth
Find it for me.
Prove it IS.
The closest you get is researching brand new spells (or extra spells), which is not the same thing.
==Aelryinth
...
You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material. Creatures or magic items cannot be created or transmuted by the fabricate spell.First off, fabricate fails outright because trying to make tech items follows the same rules as making magic items. Making a laser gun with fabricate is beyond the scope of the spell.
Assuming the wizard actually has technologist and the other appropriate feats...
Well, think of how many different types of materials go into just making a cell phone.
A wizard trying to build a modern item without a proper lab might be casting fabricate dozens of times just to try get all of the components together. And then be left cursing, because your final product is both metal and plastic, and fabricate is going to go nope at trying to combine the two.
Huh.
Wizards putting dwarf smiths out of business with fabricate is a non-issue, because most armor is actually too complicated (i.e., has leather and cloth components) for a fabricate spell to handle.
Hell, a spear is actually too complicated for fabricate to handle!
I don't think people here are wanting fabricate the manufacture the end item, but allow for the refinement of the component parts for later assembly.
No, the burden is on you.
The rules permit what the rules permit. What is outside the rules is completely DM fiat.
You are asking if something is possible.
It is possible if the rules say it is.
You are attempting to challenge me to prove that the rules say it is NOT possible.
I'm refuting that. I don't have to answer that. You have to prove the rules say it IS possible, for it to be a part of the rules.
Otherwise, it's a DM Fiat house rule add on.
Understand the difference?
The rules say you can research a bit of knowledge. IF that knowledge does not exist, then no amount of research will find it.
There are no rules for the discovery of totally new knowledge.
So, no. You prove it to me. Otherwise, it's not possible if it's not in the rules, and you're making a DM Fiat.
==Aelryinth
I don't think people here are wanting fabricate the manufacture the end item, but allow for the refinement of the component parts for later assembly....
You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material. Creatures or magic items cannot be created or transmuted by the fabricate spell.First off, fabricate fails outright because trying to make tech items follows the same rules as making magic items. Making a laser gun with fabricate is beyond the scope of the spell.
Assuming the wizard actually has technologist and the other appropriate feats...
Well, think of how many different types of materials go into just making a cell phone.
A wizard trying to build a modern item without a proper lab might be casting fabricate dozens of times just to try get all of the components together. And then be left cursing, because your final product is both metal and plastic, and fabricate is going to go nope at trying to combine the two.
Huh.
Wizards putting dwarf smiths out of business with fabricate is a non-issue, because most armor is actually too complicated (i.e., has leather and cloth components) for a fabricate spell to handle.
Hell, a spear is actually too complicated for fabricate to handle!
No, the OP wanted to Fabricate laser guns. Since you can't Fabricate tech, the unmodified answer is no.
The best you could do is purify/refine the completely raw materials, but by extension of the above rule, you can't even Fabricate the technological components used in the lab where you make your stuff.
==Aelryinth
You realize you are asking me to find where in the rules a rule does not exist? :)
Let's turn around the question.
Where in the rules does it describe the DC of using a Knowledge Check to learn something that is completely unknown?
If you can find that, congrats, you win.
But I believe the rules only go up to 'obscure.'
==Aelryinth
Untrue.
A knowledge check represents that something is known about the creature/entity, you've done the research, and you know what is known. If anyone in the campaign world knows the fact, then it can qualify as 'Obscure' and you're off to the races.
If the fact qualifies as 'unknown', there's no DC for the check, and hence you can't make the check to know something about it, because nothing is known!
This has nothing to do with the 'character' potentially 'knowing nothing', it has to do with "nobody knows." Therefore, there IS no knowledge about it, it's rated as 'unknown', and you can't make a DC for it.
see how that works? What you're thowing at me are at best 'obscure' checks, and I'm giving you a category that literally doesn't exist, so there's no DC set for meeting it.
And if there is nowhere on the world that anybody knows how to make a technological instrument from nothing, then it's 'unknown', there's no DC, and knowledge checks don't help you a bit.
=+Aelryinth
@ Aelryinth -
Fabricate has a really critical restriction on it - "You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material."
Putting a pile of different sorts of materials together still doesn't let you fabricate an product utilizing all of the types - it just lets you make an item utilizing the one category.
So I guess it comes down to how broadly you interpret "material of one sort." If you take it just mean "all inorganic matter" then yeah, fabricate works very broadly.
But I don't think that's how it works. I certainly don't think, say, metal, wood, rock, and plastic are all "material of one sort."
If you have a big enough block of steel, you could fabricate a sword (though you'll need someone to put some leather around the hilt later), because that's still all metal. But if you have a block of steel and a pile of gems, then you wind up with a steel sword and a bunch of gems lying on the table, not a sword with gems incorporated in it.
Spears are hilarious, because you could convert ingots of steel into spear heads, or convert piles of lumber into spear shafts, but you can't actually combine the two with fabricate. You'll still need someone to manually assemble your pile of spears. (Though now that I'm thinking about it, you only make one object per casting. So it takes two castings of fabricate just to get to the point where you can assemble a single spear.)
Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not sure fabricate can even handle making steel, because that requires combining metal (iron) and rocks (carbon).
A wizard who really wants to do this probably needs to research a stronger version of fabricate, because the limits on that spell are significant.
It's worth noting that under the Technology Guide, creating tech items follows the same rules as magic item crafting - except that in addition to having an appropriate feat, you need access to a lab that can create the fine components necessary.
A wizard trying to bypass the lab with fabricate is going to be sad panda, because well...
You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material. Creatures or magic items cannot be created or transmuted by the fabricate spell.First off, fabricate fails outright because trying to make tech items follows the same rules as making magic items. Making a laser gun with fabricate is beyond the scope of the spell.
Assuming the wizard actually has technologist and the other appropriate feats...
Well, think of how many different types of materials go into just making a cell phone.
A wizard trying to build a modern item without a proper lab might be casting fabricate dozens of times just to try get all of the components together. And then be left cursing, because your final product is both metal and plastic, and fabricate is going to go nope at trying to combine the two.
Huh.
Wizards putting dwarf smiths out of business with fabricate is a non-issue, because most armor is actually too complicated (i.e., has leather and cloth components) for a fabricate spell to handle.
Hell, a spear is actually too complicated for fabricate to handle!
That is quite interesting. And sadly effectively makes the spell not only useless, but actively unable to perform the examples given in the old Player's Handbook*. While the rules may well have changed since then (I'm not looking at present), I don't believe so.
It seems that, in this case, the spell actually functioning should take precedence (unless the only thing it can make is quarterstaffs).
While I salute this interpretation for maintaining why the spell doesn't trump the world, it doesn't really satisfy for the spell actually doing anything.
* I went ahead and did so.
You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material. Thus, you can fabricate a wooden bridge from a clump of tress, a rope from a patch of hemp, clothes from flax or wool, and so forth. Creatures or magic items cannot be created or transmuted by the fabricate spell. The quality of items made by this spell is commensurate with the quality of material used as the basis for the new fabrication. If you work with a mineral, the target is reduced to 1 cubic foot per level instead of 10 cubic feet.
You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship (jewelry, swords, glass, crystal, and the like).
Casting requires 1 round per 10 cubic feet (or 1 cubic foot) of material to be affected by the spell.
Material Component: The original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created.
You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material. Creatures or magic items cannot be created or transmuted by the fabricate spell. The quality of items made by this spell is commensurate with the quality of material used as the basis for the new fabrication. If you work with a mineral, the target is reduced to 1 cubic foot per level instead of 10 cubic feet.
You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship.
Casting requires 1 round per 10 cubic feet of material to be affected by the spell.
Since they changed it, it can be presumed it was intentional, though that doesn't automatically follow. I do have a question for those who put forth this interpretation, however: can anyone point out a set of items that fall under the bolded part? How does that work?
Also, the very first sentence does not limit the "material" to a single substance. It can easily be read, "You convert material of one sort (such as iron, coal, and wood) into a product that is created of the same material (such as a dagger)."
I see the argument "of one sort", however the definition includes,
of one sort or another; of an indefinite kind.
Also, of a sort.
With this, and the clear history of term (the exact quote from which the text was taken), it seems entirely legal, but kind of "meh" to claim that fabricate doesn't do exactly what it says it does (make "products").
|
The rules say you can research a bit of knowledge. IF that knowledge does not exist, then no amount of research will find it.Where in the rules is this specified?
Note, this restriction is nowhere to be seen anywhere--even in the downtime rules. This is your restriction--not mine.
Lets look at the Knowledge skill shall we?
Theres nothing actually about research in the base rules, knowledge represents only what you know. The only exception is if you have a library, in which case the knowlege check still only represent knowledge KNOWN (to the makers of the books) not researching new knowledge.
This is where you're deviating from RAW--when you're addressing the argument at hand. The 'answer a question' function does not specify that things must have been researched beforehand to be eligible to answer.If it's not known on Golarion it's unknown and no knowledge check whatsoever is going to help you, which is entirely the problem here.
And finding a nameless entity out there who knows the science and can convey it to you in a reasonable manner within the confines of a contact other plane or Commune is well nigh impossible, given the limitations of the spells.
The key line is actually in the Try again block:
Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn't let you know something that you never learned in the first place.
This explictly state that the skill is intended to represent what you KNOW, not something your are actively trying to discover. Research does not fall under the knowledge skill.
A knowledge check represents that something is known about the creature/entity, you've done the research, and you know what is known. If anyone in the campaign world knows the fact, then it can qualify as 'Obscure' and you're off to the races.You'll have to bring me the 'If anyone in the campaign world knows the fact' clause in Knowledge as proof. So far, I look at the monster/mineral/hazard identification DCs, and I'm not seeing it.
What you're thowing at me are at best 'obscure' checks, and I'm giving you a category that literally doesn't exist, so there's no DC set for meeting it.The problem here is that you assume that knowledge comes as a single batch that is disconnected from previous experiences. There is a category for 'lasers'. It's right there far below 'minerals/history/engineering' as smaller parts that make a big whole.
In the copper/zinc example--are you telling me that one cannot know that there is some inherit electric property with the two?
And now you need to give me a category for knowledge about lasers.
Given the resources of your game world (i.e. the knowledge base), does the knowledge to make lasers exist in that base as something for you to potentially have learned in order to make the check?
If the answer is 'no', then that Knowledge is now in NO category, it is 'unknown.' Since it's not in a category, there's no DC you can attempt to make the check.
What you're trying to do is go back to Munchkinism again. "The rules don't say there's nothing I can't know, so obviously I can make a knowledge check to know anything!"
And that's not how the rules work.
You have to first determine the classification of the knowledge. Monsters is 10+CR. Others are based on rarity. The highest category there is 'obscure'.
If the knowledge you are seeking doesn't fall into one of those paradigms, it's unknown and you don't Know it, because it doesn't even have a DC. It's impossible to Know it already.
And that's how the rules work. How is that so difficult?
Your mineral example is an example of probably a difficult check (DC 20 or so). But is probably something known by many alchemists and chemists in the game world.
The knowledge that galladium becomes a superconductive store of electrons when purified to eight decimals and worked at the nanometer level?
Nobody in the game world knows this, there's nothing to Know. No DC can make the knowledge check...it's undiscovered by anyone, and you can't learn it without going to someplace where it goes from 'unknown' to some other category.
Now, if your GM wants to say the knowledge of how to make lasers from nothing is 'obscure', that's his fiat. But we're specifically talking about stuff that people don't know how to do, and you're saying that a Knowledge check can somehow spin that knowledge out of nothing and bam, you Know it, in effect being able to invent new Knowledge on the spot, that has never existed, with one check.
Which is not what Knowledge does. There is no DC for 'Make new Knowledge.'
==Aelryinth
Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn't let you know something that you never learned in the first place.This explictly state that the skill is intended to represent what you KNOW, not something your are actively trying to discover. Research does not fall under the knowledge skill.Ah--but what do you know, if you didn't already make the check? The DM is not told to 'shut down illogical knowledge results'.
If I make the DC 15 check and I succeed to identify a monster I have never heard, encountered, or learned about before--then I learned about it retroactively as per the rules.
I'm not saying it makes sense. I'm saying that's an issue with abstract mechanics--and I'm saying there's your answer.
But hey--if you were to ask the developers 'how would research work', I guess they'd give you something alongside 'didn't your GM just make you roll a relevant Knowledge check?'
The Knowledge check means that you DID know about it, it just wasn't important until right now. There's nothing 'retroactive' about it. I know about owlbears, and I don't live in Golarion, either! But I can't remember all the details about a Tzi-Tzi undead mayan whatever off the top of my head, either.
==Aelryinth
<snip>You'll have to bring me the 'If anyone in the campaign world knows the fact' clause in Knowledge as proof. So far, I look at the monster/mineral/hazard identification DCs, and I'm not seeing it.
Burko quoted the relevant text.
Now you need to set the DC.
Setting the DC follows category or CR.
Unknown is not a category, therefore there is no DC, and its unknowable.
==Aelryinth
<snip>You'll have to bring me the 'If anyone in the campaign world knows the fact' clause in Knowledge as proof. So far, I look at the monster/mineral/hazard identification DCs, and I'm not seeing it.The Knowledge check means that you DID know about it, it just wasn't important until right now. There's nothing 'retroactive' about it. I know about owlbears, and I don't live in Golarion, either! But I can't remember all the details about a Tzi-Tzi undead mayan whatever off the top of my head, either.Yes--but how did I know about it? If I didn't encounter, read about, or learn about it and still made the check, that means that Knowledge is working exactly as intended; you don't need to know about it.
You made the check, you knew about it. It's called hitting the right DC.
What is so hard about that? It seems to me that you are truly confusing what the player knows with what the character knows, which are two different things.
==Aelryinth
Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn't let you know something that you never learned in the first place.This explictly state that the skill is intended to represent what you KNOW, not something your are actively trying to discover. Research does not fall under the knowledge skill.Ah--but what do you know, if you didn't already make the check? The DM is not told to 'shut down illogical knowledge results'.
If I make the DC 15 check and I succeed to identify a monster I have never heard, encountered, or learned about before--then I learned about it retroactively as per the rules.
I'm not saying it makes sense. I'm saying that's an issue with abstract mechanics--and I'm saying there's your answer.
But hey--if you were to ask the developers 'how would research work', I guess they'd give you something alongside 'didn't your GM just make you roll a relevant Knowledge check?'
And what do you mean by 'research'?
Researching something known? That's done with a library with a bonus to the check based on resources.
Researching something UNKNOWN is now completely in DM Fiat territory, as you must go and discover the answer yourself, and literally make the new knowledge. For spells, that's the spell research rules.
For technology, that's going to be at LEAST as intensive, if not moreso. We're talking labs, experiments, etc etc. The DM will set the DC, and for final end products of tech it's probably going to be impossible, because you don't have the supporting technology underneath it yet.
==Aelryinth
Good question. What is so hard about that? You're adding restrictions.<snip>You'll have to bring me the 'If anyone in the campaign world knows the fact' clause in Knowledge as proof. So far, I look at the monster/mineral/hazard identification DCs, and I'm not seeing it.The Knowledge check means that you DID know about it, it just wasn't important until right now. There's nothing 'retroactive' about it. I know about owlbears, and I don't live in Golarion, either! But I can't remember all the details about a Tzi-Tzi undead mayan whatever off the top of my head, either.Yes--but how did I know about it? If I didn't encounter, read about, or learn about it and still made the check, that means that Knowledge is working exactly as intended; you don't need to know about it.You made the check, you knew about it. It's called hitting the right DC.
What is so hard about that?
No, I'm following the rules. Rules, by their very nature, are restrictions.
What are you doing?
==Aelryinth
<snip>You'll have to bring me the 'If anyone in the campaign world knows the fact' clause in Knowledge as proof. So far, I look at the monster/mineral/hazard identification DCs, and I'm not seeing it.Burko quoted the relevant text.
Now you need to set the DC.
Setting the DC follows category or CR.
Unknown is not a category, therefore there is no DC, and its unknowable.
==Aelryinth
Unknown is not a legal category via Knowledge rules in the first place. That's DM Fiat.
And you're wrong--there is a DC for monsters that may have been created just three minutes ago. It's 10 + CR.
With a probable DM penalty because it IS unknown, but you can render a lot about a creature simply by observation based on your pool of knowledge.
As in, you're describing a unique situation, and there's a unique circumstance modifier for it.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know I don't even want to make super-science stuff like a laser. Just stuff like concrete, plastic. Things we already have.
Sort of wanted to make a flying castle and need strong materials that are light yet strong.
@ Tacticslion - a victim of poor wording perhaps? "You convert material(s) into a product that is of the same material(s)" would probably do the trick.
Though interestingly, the 3.X PH examples all work as a like to like conversions - raw wood to a wooden bridge, raw hemp to a hemp rope, raw cloth to clothing.
A fabricate that's restricted to "like-to-like" can still do a lot (clothing, gemcutting, goldwork, leather armor, chainmail, dragonhide armor, swords, etc.) but hits some amusing limitations.
(Notwithstanding the limitation of 11th+ level wizards who can sit around and cast a few fabricates a day are actually pretty damn rare, outside of doomsday organizations designed to challenge PCs.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love when I can quote a rule that says "the check represents what you know", and people tell me it means you can learn information previously unknown from it.
How about this: can I roll knowledge (Machavelli) to learn the Big Bad's plan? All i need is a DC and the knowledge magically falls in my lap right?
The knowledge skill represents what the character knows in a specific field of study. Its stated in the f!+&ing text. I quoted where the rule said exactly that!
You know I don't even want to make super-science stuff like a laser. Just stuff like concrete, plastic. Things we already have.
Sort of wanted to make a flying castle and need strong materials that are light yet strong.
Your best bet is to find said raw materials, carry them to your location and fabricate the building blacks you need. That might require a trip to Numeria and/or off world to get them. it's be trash/ruins to most anyone else.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know I don't even want to make super-science stuff like a laser. Just stuff like concrete, plastic. Things we already have.
Sort of wanted to make a flying castle and need strong materials that are light yet strong.
Well, concrete was used by the romans, so there is a possibility that a similar aggregate building material exists in your campaigns world....subject to the DM. That said, its an aggregate material, so taking a bunch of raw stuff and making concrete might be out.
Plastic is strange because it depends on what you mean, scientifically. Organic plastics existed for a long time (chewing gum and Shellac are considered plastics). Rubber is considered a plastic made of chemically treated natural materials. You probably mean the fully synthetic plastics we use today however, which originated around the 1900s. While Fabricate might be capable of making them, the knowledge of the chemical structure is probably not going to be discovered by a fantasy wizard.
If your the DM simply apply the rules from spell research and extend as needed for your belief of how long you think it should take.
If your the player sit down and talk to your DM there are no hard coded rules for this short of you researching a spell like transmute rock to concrete.
|
|
Yeah. The check represents what you know. Is it impossible for you to know something that is not tied to other people's knowledge?
If you wish to say it's 'inherently unknown', be my guest, man. That seems how Aelryinth is heading.
I was responding to a long argument about how to use Knowledge (Something) to perform research into knowledge unknown by anyone in the world. Not knowledge you might have come across in fighter collage, or the mage academy, or if you just had a big enough library, but completely unknown knowledge. Scientific discoveries aren't just 'known'. Someone doesn't just happen to sit and think on the nature of oil and discover the means to create synthetic plastics. That take research, something wholly not modeled by the knowledge skill.
It would require the GM designing a new system to express progress over time. If you model it after the downtime system for researching a previously unknown to anyone spell, it might fly. But it would still be homebrew and not the rules, which is what is being discussed in this forum.
The knowledge skill is not based on the Discworld method. You don't just suddenly have knowledge not based upon past developments. for instance, plastics evolved. Making modern synthetic plastics without the knowledge developed making weaker, less effective plastics would be quite difficult. Kevlar seems useless unless you know that spitting it through a microscopic hole creates an amazing resilliant fiber. It is unlikely a middle ages scholar would stumble upon it as DuPont did. And therefore, it can't be known to someone performing a knowledge check.
|
Dot. But, uh...
... this is correct.You can use fabricate to craft anything that has a DC to craft or that the DM sets a DC to craft, so long as it's within the volume limit.
But there aren't any DCs for modern materials that I'm aware of, so any such DC-setting would be entirely homebrew.
Fabricate
...
You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material.
So, with the right skills, you can convert one plastic object to another plastic object, but can't turn petrol into plastic.
In theory you can produce diamonds from coal (but the DC would be horrendously high) but you can't produce steel from iron and coal as it would turn 2 materials into one.
If you look the ramifications of that simple limit you will see that fabricate isn't so powerful as some people say.
|
|
Scientific discoveries aren't just 'known'. Someone doesn't just happen to sit and think on the nature of oil and discover the means to create synthetic plastics. That take research, something wholly not modeled by the knowledge skill.
It would require the GM designing a new system to express progress over time. If you model it after the downtime system for researching a previously unknown to anyone spell, it might fly. But it would still be homebrew and not the rules, which is what is being discussed in this forum.
Spot on. I stated before that knowledge does not model what it should do accurately. It does not 'do research' very well.
However, I stand by what I said: knowledge checks to learn things 'bit by bit' are rules-legal, and have DCs. Knowledge checks to know anything is rules-legal. It just needs a DC roughly equivalent to the required task.
If a person said 'it wasn't known before, therefore it can't be known with a knowledge check' against something that can exist under the normal DC (see my zinc/copper argument), I'd point out that the rules do not require this.
A GM may make it a requirement--but that's another question entirely.
I have cited rules supporting my position in this thread. Knowledge, by the a literal read of the skill in the core rule book, only represents what is known by the character. The only type of research modeled by knowledge is the possible (subject to GM fiat) bonus for having a library, and the ability of someone without rank to beat a DC 10 Knowledge check. Its not that it doesn't do research well, its that it doesn't do research. That is not the point of the skill.
As for your Zinc and Copper example, you have an interesting couple steps all sumed up as one step:
A: Make a knowledge check to learn how to create energy by chemical reactions (to take a example).
Knoweldge check to 'learn' how to create a chemical reaction. Not technically legal, but we can replace learn with determine your character knows and I have no problem with it.
Learn that when copper and zinc are connected and touch a muscle, a current runs through it. That's a Fabricate check.
And how does this discovery take place? A fabricate check won't teach you this. Why are you touching zinc and copper together and then to you bicep? Seems a bit contrived. Again...Fabricate check? I don't see how either a knowledge or fabricate check tells you about the previously nonexistant concept of current (finding the rules of which took years) Please cite a rules supporting how this is arrived at outside of GM Fiat.
Observable and simple. Develop this idea further with people who have 20+ intellect and 6+ ranks in Knowledge, and you have the foundations of batteries.
"Develop this idea". That sounds like a narrative event, which would be the realm of GM fiat. That certainly seems to be something that you do outside the knowledge check system. A plain reading of the rules does not provide for how a knowledge check 'develops' an idea. Please show me rules supporting this claim. And what knowledge are we talking about here? Engineering & chemistry maybe?
Craft (Alchemy) covers basic chemistry--and galvanic cells are not that complicated when you have at least +20 on the check at level 10.
If you've managed to get this far sure...
Don't get me wrong, if my player wants to waste years of in-game time during my campaign investigating the strange feeling he gets when touching random metals together, sure. Ill develop a system for research. I might even base it on a combination of knowledge and craft checks. But its not what the base skill is written to do.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, Profession can be used to answer questions about their field of expertise.
