The way I see this is that if your class would normally grant you a knowledge skill as a class skill, you get a +1 bonus in it.
So say you are a cleric with Knowledge (arcana, history, nobility, planes, and religion). You get +1 on these skills, but not, say, knowledge (engineering). The trait grants you knowledge (engineering) as a class skill, as well as knowledge (dungeoneering, nature, and local) but you don't get a +1 in them, because you would not normally get them as a cleric. Hope that makes sense!
This is worst case of poor editing in both PF and 3.x
How it's written, it applies the bonus to ALL skill checks. The bonus itself is based on the # of trained class knowledge skills, but doesn't specify the bonus must be applied to only knowledge skills.
It is very obvious that they meant for it to only apply total +1 to a class trained Knowledge skill.
"for each".... not "to each"
"for each" means that the bonus is based on the # of Knowledge skills that you have 1+ class skill in.
"to each" is what they meant.
"for each".... not "to each"
"for each" means that the bonus is based on the # of Knowledge skills that you have 1+ class skill in.
"to each" is what they meant.
Fancy meeting you here. ;p
I do believe this is the first time I have see any of your posts on these forums rather than MIN/MAX.
i guess we'll have to agree to disagree on how the wording works
|
"for each".... not "to each"
"for each" means that the bonus is based on the # of Knowledge skills that you have 1+ class skill in.
"to each" is what they meant.
Even accepting your fancy interpretation they don't stack, they overlap as they are all "racial bonus". So you get a +1 several times, but they never add up.
In game rules, the construction "a +1 bonus for each [foo]" should usually be read as "a single bonus, it's size being equal to the number of [foo]".
The written rule is terrible. fortunately, RAW, even in PFS play, does not mean "you have to agree with my interpretation".
In game rules, the construction "a +1 bonus for each [foo]" should usually be read as "a single bonus, it's size being equal to the number of [foo]".And why is that?
Because of the exact issue we're debating, for one. "a bonus equal to the number of [foos]" interacts better with rules like "two bonuses only" or "remove one bonus from an opponent/duplicate a bonus your ally has" than a variably sized stack of individual +1 bonii.
|
|
Because of the exact issue we're debating, for one. "a bonus equal to the number of [foos]" interacts better with rules like "two bonuses only" or "remove one bonus from an opponent/duplicate a bonus your ally has" than a variably sized stack of individual +1 bonii.In game rules, the construction "a +1 bonus for each [foo]" should usually be read as "a single bonus, it's size being equal to the number of [foo]".And why is that?
Can you show some example from the Pathfinder game supporting your interpretation?
AFAIK when something should be multiplied the formatting is:10 min./level
or
1d6 points of fire damage per caster level
and so on.
In every instance I can recall the multiplier is a single number, never the sum of multiple bonuses from the same source, and a race bonus is a single source.
|
|
The problem is that is stating that is it s a common rule, while it nothing like that.
The Phalanx Fighter feat is very celar:
Phalanx Fighter (Teamwork)
When battling terrifying hordes of enemies, you find strength in your shield brothers and sisters.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +3, good alignment.
Benefit: You gain a sacred bonus to your AC against the attacks of evil creatures and a sacred bonus to saves against the spells and abilities of evil creatures equal to the number of adjacent allies who also have this feat.
It give a clear sequence: you add the number of adjacent allies with that feat and then you add that number as a bonus.
You can read Comprehensive Education as working that way only if you butcher the English language and throw rule comprehension out of the window.
*I* can barely understand what I'm arguing here. Yes, the ability is obviously intended as +1 to some knowledge skills.
From the pfsrd for the trait:
Comprehensive Education: Humans raised with skilled teachers draw upon vast swathes of knowledge gained over centuries of civilization. They gain all Knowledge skills as class skills, and they gain a +1 racial bonus on skill checks for each Knowledge skill that they gain as a class skill from their class levels. This racial trait replaces skilled. Source PCS:ISR
What it does:
-Gives all knowledge skills as class skills (agreed?)-For each knowledge skill granted by the class, the trait as written seems to give a cumulative +1 racial bonus on skill checks. (I say cumulative because of the wording in the ability: "for each")
That's exactly as it is written.
The bonus it gives is between 1 and 13.
What it should have done is allow the character the ability to make knowledge skill checks untrained and/or apply half the number of class knowledge skills (min +1/max +6) to knowledge skill checks.
As it is written, the ability is unbalanced from simply gaining an extra skill point.
As intended, it is still unbalanced but works out better if it just applies to knowledge skill checks.
Even accepting your fancy interpretation they don't stack, they overlap as they are all "racial bonus". So you get a +1 several times, but they never add up."for each".... not "to each"
"for each" means that the bonus is based on the # of Knowledge skills that you have 1+ class skill in.
"to each" is what they meant.
Racial bonuses stack. Otherwise, templates wouldn't work correctly when they boost stats (template bonuses are usually either size or racial).
Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
|
Rogue gets 8+Int skill points/level, and only 2 knowledge skills as class skills.
Ranger, Hunter, and Slayer all get 6+Int skill points and 3 knowledge class skills.
Alchemist gets 4+Int (with lots of Int) and 2. Note that the Mindchemist - the knowledge-focused alchemist archetype - doesn't actually get extra class skills.
Most characters will prefer the skill point a level but there are a good assortment of characters that might get more use out of +3 to 7 or 8 knowledge skills and +1 to the rest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"He brought a present for each orphaned child."
"For each child that was orphaned he brought a present."
The meaning of the two sentences is identical and there is no possibility of it being interpreted differently.
"gain a +1 racial bonus on skill checks for each Knowledge skill that they gain as a class skill"
Can be rewritten two ways:
"for each Knowledge skill that they gain as a class skill gain a +1 racial bonus on skill checks"
or
"on skill checks for each Knowledge skill that they gain as a class skill gain a +1 racial bonus"
the first would give a variable bonus to all skills, the second would give a static bonus to a variable number of skills. Grammatically both are possible interpretations, but overall comprehension and common sense make it clear that the second reading is the correct one.
The first one is how it naturally reads, but I'm pretty sure it's not the RAI.
The second one is most likely the RAI but you have to do some gymnastics with the wording to get to that rewrite.
Toss this trait in the HUGE pile of other questionable rule elements with dodgy wording.
Hohoho i was just looking over the humans again because of the military tradition option.
God , this crap is OP.
It is obvious they just wrote it completely wrong , since it is just absurd , still ... if your GM takes anything that is written in RAW , you just got golden until they hit a FAQ.
Not "OP".
If your class gives you all knowledges , you just got a solid +10 on all skill checks , again clearly they will FAQ this , still i do think it seems quite OP to me.
I thought you were talking about the Military Tradition trait.Not "OP".If your class gives you all knowledges , you just got a solid +10 on all skill checks , again clearly they will FAQ this , still i do think it seems quite OP to me.
Ah ic , sorry no.
That one i just consider when im playing a class with only simple proficiency that i want to use on fights.
2 decent weapons for a feat...
The problem here is clearly that they simply ordered the sentence awkwardly.
"and they gain a +1 racial bonus on skill checks for each Knowledge skill that they gain as a class skill from their class levels."
Should be
"each knowledge skill that they gain as a class skill from class levels gains a +1 racial bonus."
Shorter, more clear.
but if the cumulative was meant, it should read:
"All skill checks gain a racial bonus equal to the number of knowledge skills that they gain as a class skill from their class levels."
Now, this re-wording is far more radically different from the more conservative re-wording, so I would say that the simple +1 bonus is correct. Occam's razor and all that.
The second one really doesn't work grammatically.I am fairly certain both are grammatically correct. It may be awkward, but I don't see anything actually non-grammatical about it either way.
Which would mean that you would obviously go with the one that isn't ridiculous, and I don't see that choice as being any more or less RAW (but much less ridiculous, thus likely chosen by 99% of GMs)
I find the seconds wording as ridiculous as you find the results of the first. What do I do when I find both have equally ridiculous parts?
Run.
LOL That's most likely the best advice in the thread. If you're thinking about taking it, "run"! ;)
I really dont see how it means anything but , you gain +1 for each knowledge class skill you have , which makes a insane +10 racial on every skill check if all of them were class skills.
Ofc it is also too good to be true.
People doing the math need to remember a very obvious thing , there is no leveling on this wording , you gain the +10 at level 1 , while having +20 skill points will take you all the 20 levels.
Hell , if it gave you a +10 on every check at level 20 i wouldnt even think it is that great , the whole thing is how you can grab it level 1 to me.
|
|
So lets do some Math.
OK. Let's say you get one knowledge skill as a class skill. With the lax reading, that's +1 to all skills *35 skills = +35 to skills, total.
If you are a bard or wizard you get +10*35 = +350 to skills.
Now, using the strict reading, the maximum theoretical total bonus can be obtained by a character who has no knowledge skills as class skills, and will put at least one rank in each knowledge skill. That's +3 (class skill bonus) * 10 Knowledge skills = 30 > 20 skill ranks.
Realistically, you're likely only going to get about half that; eg the character will put at least one rank in 4 knowledge skills that were not class skills, and will get +1 to three knowledge skills that are class skills, for a total bonus of +15.
That's a little less than the 20 skill points you can get from skilled, but it still might be a good trade for two reasons. First, it's front-loaded. If you plan to retire the character at level 12-15 as in PFS and many APs, you may not even take advantage of all 20 theoretical ranks from skilled. Second, it's a bonus that applies even if you're planning on maxing out your ranks in a particular skill, so if you have 7 skill ranks/level before skilled and you have 5 important skills, 3 of which are non-class knowledge skills, you're going to get more out of +3 to those knowledge skills than an extra rank to put into unimportant skills.
|
|
Rogue gets 8+Int skill points/level, and only 2 knowledge skills as class skills.
Ranger, Hunter, and Slayer all get 6+Int skill points and 3 knowledge class skills.
Alchemist gets 4+Int (with lots of Int) and 2. Note that the Mindchemist - the knowledge-focused alchemist archetype - doesn't actually get extra class skills.
Most characters will prefer the skill point a level but there are a good assortment of characters that might get more use out of +3 to 7 or 8 knowledge skills and +1 to the rest.
Magus, int based and 3 knowledge skills as class skills.
Racial bonuses stack, as has been stated earlier in this thread. Might as well bold it for your convenience :)
With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works.
|
|
Magus, int based and 3 knowledge skills as class skills.Rogue gets 8+Int skill points/level, and only 2 knowledge skills as class skills.
Ranger, Hunter, and Slayer all get 6+Int skill points and 3 knowledge class skills.
Alchemist gets 4+Int (with lots of Int) and 2. Note that the Mindchemist - the knowledge-focused alchemist archetype - doesn't actually get extra class skills.
Most characters will prefer the skill point a level but there are a good assortment of characters that might get more use out of +3 to 7 or 8 knowledge skills and +1 to the rest.
I considered the magus, but they've only got 2+Int skill points so even with a high Int I think they're a little more likely to value the skill point over the class skills. I could still certainly see a magus taking that alternate trait but I think it's overall a little less beneficial for them. Flavour is potentially good, though - my group likes magi with aristocratic backgrounds which would be well reflected by a decent Knowledge (Nobility) and Knowledge (History).