I feel like "classes" are an abstraction that exist for players, and not something that people in the game world should really have a good grasp on.
To most non-experts, both the character with 8 Barbarian levels and his or her parents that have herded goats in the mountains for decades are "Barbarians". Both the person with 6 Brawler levels and the bravo who likes to start bare-knuckle tavern fights are "Brawlers". Both the 5th level Witch who has made an pact with outer forces of madness and the wise woman who lives near the woods who knows about herbs and keeps bees are "witches".
If there is a cultural bias against "witches" in the campaign setting, the GM might do well to research the root causes of historical witch panics and similar and make it about those things more than about a specific class.
I agree on this. Also a barbarian (class) would say I'm a warrior/mercenary/soldier. A wizard might say he is a student of the unseen/ a craftsman/ a scribe/ a teacher depending how they are themed. I wouldn't say "witch" I would say "person that has powers from nature", "wise old woman" depending.
I'll have to look at the Spymaster's Handbook, but it does seem like a lot of the "observable stuff" isn't going to be able to pin down a class completely. How can you tell the difference between a Brawler using Martial Flexibility and anybody else using the Barroom Brawler feat? If you see someone cast a 3rd level spell from the Cleric List, you would you be able to determine they're a Medium channeling the Hierophant and not any other class who can cast that spell? If you see someone use an Occult Focus Power, how can you tell whether they're an Occultist or a Psychometrist Vigilante? If you see someone use a Hex, how can you tell whether they're a Witch, a Hexcrafter Magus, a Shaman, or a Hexenhammer Inquisitor?
It seems like answering most of these questions would require significantly more observation than would be covered by a single knowledge roll.
Spymaster's Handbook has rules and suggestions for identifying observable class abilities and feats through knowledge checks I believe.
Specifically, it's called "Recall Intrigues", which allows you to make a Knowledge check to determine what class a specific class feature you're observing came from. And since "Spells" is a class feature, you can identify a character's class by observing them casting a spell with a successful DC 11 Knowledge (Arcana/Nature/Religion) check.
|
I'll have to look at the Spymaster's Handbook, but it does seem like a lot of the "observable stuff" isn't going to be able to pin down a class completely. How can you tell the difference between a Brawler using Martial Flexibility and anybody else using the Barroom Brawler feat? If you see someone cast a 3rd level spell from the Cleric List, you would you be able to determine they're a Medium channeling the Hierophant and not any other class who can cast that spell? If you see someone use an Occult Focus Power, how can you tell whether they're an Occultist or a Psychometrist Vigilante? If you see someone use a Hex, how can you tell whether they're a Witch, a Hexcrafter Magus, a Shaman, or a Hexenhammer Inquisitor?
It seems like answering most of these questions would require significantly more observation than would be covered by a single knowledge roll.
Well since neither MF nor BB have observable effects I don't think it would work on them. You could identify the combat feat they get when they use it, but not where it came from.
Just like you can identify someone using Power Attack, but not say, identify Power Attack and that they gained it from a ranger combat style bonus feat instead of from a normal feat.
It also specifically does not have an option to identify classes by their spells.
As for the similar class abilities the DC is determined by when they gained that ability, and it only identifies the ability. not the class.
None of the Recall Intrigue uses identifies Classes. Just abilities and feats.
PossibleCabbage, there can be any number of 'roleplay reasons' for you to be able to tell the difference between any and all of those things. Your imagination is the limit.
Example of one possible reason: Fighting style differences between different classes even if those classes have the same ability.
For spellcasters, how about 'different types of spellcasters do things just a bit differently relative to each other'?
The fact is, with enough imagination you can come up with just about any 'in-game' reason you want to justify identification of the classes.
|
|
Spymaster's Handbook has rules and suggestions for identifying observable class abilities and feats through knowledge checks I believe.Specifically, it's called "Recall Intrigues", which allows you to make a Knowledge check to determine what class a specific class feature you're observing came from. And since "Spells" is a class feature, you can identify a character's class by observing them casting a spell with a successful DC 11 Knowledge (Arcana/Nature/Religion) check.
I don't believe it works that way. What with the same spells showing up on multiple lists and ways to get other spells on other lists. So a Flat DC 11 to identify any caster ever seems meh to me.
For spellcasters, how about 'different types of spellcasters do things just a bit differently relative to each other'?
What would be the observable difference between a wizard casting Mage Armor and a kensai magus casting the same spell?
If anything, Mage Armor is not normally a magus spell.
For spellcasters, how about 'different types of spellcasters do things just a bit differently relative to each other'?What would be the observable difference between a wizard casting Mage Armor and a kensai magus casting the same spell?
If anything, Mage Armor is not normally a magus spell.
In fantasy tropes it is a pretty common thing that different types of spellcasters use magic differently even if they accomplish the same exact effect. A different twist of the hand, different inflection of the words, whatever.
There are no rules on the 'in-game' differences, that would be up to the GM and players to work out. But, if there are rules that identify such differences (and I am not saying there are, I don't have Spymasters Handbook) then the 'in-game' rationale is relatively easy to come up with.
Frankly, I find it surprising that most people don't think along these lines. Even IRL people who have the same fighting style have differences based on who taught them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PossibleCabbage, there can be any number of 'roleplay reasons' for you to be able to tell the difference between any and all of those things. Your imagination is the limit.
Example of one possible reason: Fighting style differences between different classes even if those classes have the same ability.
For spellcasters, how about 'different types of spellcasters do things just a bit differently relative to each other'?
The fact is, with enough imagination you can come up with just about any 'in-game' reason you want to justify identification of the classes.
I feel like when we're introducing a "tell" for various classes that uniquely determine them, we're making all sorts of unwarranted assumptions about people's characters and limiting people's creative freedom to define their own characters' unique styles.
I get you can look at a swordsman and say "based on her footwork, you can tell she's an accomplished fencer" but that wouldn't tell the difference between fighter levels, swashbuckler levels, or anybody else who wants to fight with a rapier and weapon finesse.
If you see someone cast a spell invoking divine forces, it shouldn't be particularly hard to figure that out, but it should be pretty hard to figure out if it's being cast by a Cleric, Oracle, Inquisitor, Paladin, Shaman, Hierophant Medium, et al. There should probably be more distinction between how Clerics of Iomedae and Clerics of Norgorber cast than between how Clerics of Iomedae and Inquisitors of Iomedae cast.
Plus you're getting into issues with archetypes that try to hybridize two classes. If the Hexenhammer inquisitor casts a witch spell and uses a witch hex, should they ping as a witch or an inquisitor? How many people are even aware that Hexenhammers exist?
Arcane tradition? Perhaps Wizards have a certain academic long-form of the spell (which is easier to embellish with metamagics?), while Magi have a one-handed version that can be cast without requiring as many complex movements that might be hindered by armor or unduly disrupt your ability to chop someone up with a katana. This sort of interpretation would venture into houserulesy territory, although I suppose a reasonably intelligent player would take a good long look at the katana and figure that most Wizards don't use them.For spellcasters, how about 'different types of spellcasters do things just a bit differently relative to each other'?What would be the observable difference between a wizard casting Mage Armor and a kensai magus casting the same spell?
If anything, Mage Armor is not normally a magus spell.
Arcane tradition could just as easily be region as opposed to class based. An arcane caster schooled in Qadira might do things in a completely different manner than a student of Old Man Jatembe.
This is strongly supported in the lore of Golarion.
The point here PossibleCabbage is that IF a rule exists (or were created) which stated you could identify a class (perhaps based on it's abilities) then there is easily an justifiable in-game rationale for it.
Whether you feel it is appropriate or not would be for you to decide for your game, but such a rationale is not only possible, it is pretty easy to conceive and work into the roleplay.
There is in-game precedent that it's not entirely obvious or is otherwise fakeable via the Razmiran "priests" and the False Focus feat. That leads me to think the difference in inflection or special effects is probably subtle if it even exists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arcane tradition? Perhaps Wizards have a certain academic long-form of the spell (which is easier to embellish with metamagics?), while Magi have a one-handed version that can be cast without requiring as many complex movements that might be hindered by armor or unduly disrupt your ability to chop someone up with a katana. This sort of interpretation would venture into houserulesy territory, although I suppose a reasonably intelligent player would take a good long look at the katana and figure that most Wizards don't use them.For spellcasters, how about 'different types of spellcasters do things just a bit differently relative to each other'?What would be the observable difference between a wizard casting Mage Armor and a kensai magus casting the same spell?
If anything, Mage Armor is not normally a magus spell.
Arcane tradition could just as easily be region as opposed to class based. An arcane caster schooled in Qadira might do things in a completely different manner than a student of Old Man Jatembe.
This is strongly supported in the lore of Golarion.
And this would be a good reason for Knowledge Local to identify the differences. Old Man Jatembe teaches 'X' to 'Y' class while the Qadiran school of wizards teaches a different way.
So not only have we identified the teacher, we have identified the class by virtue of that teacher. (Ie: the teacher teaches specific information to a specific class.)
The point here PossibleCabbage is that IF a rule exists (or were created) which stated you could identify a class (perhaps based on it's abilities) then there is easily an justifiable in-game rationale for it.
As I understand it, the issue is that the ability lets you identify a class *feature* not a class. Class features are often times not unique to a class by the time archetypes start coming into it.
For example any class via a VMC Barbarian can get Rage, you see them raging and make your check and say "They're using the Rage class feature". That doesn't, however, tell you whether they're a Barbarian 5 or a VMC Barbarian. It definitely doesn't tell you that they're a Barbarian, a VMC Barbarian Magus 5, and definitely not that they're Barbarian 4/Sorcerer 1 angling to be a Dragon Disciple.
You can identify the use of the Misfortune hex, but shouldn't be able to immediately tell whether it was used by a Witch, Shaman, Hexcrafter Magus, or Hexenhammer Inquisitor.
Obviously every character class comes with some built-in flavor (I'm a rogue, I have light fingers. I'm a barbarian, I go nuts in battle. I'm a cleric, I am a champion of my deity). It's perfectly acceptable to embrace some or all of them, but it is also fine to have the mechanics of one class and the trappings of another. A ranger with a breastplate who foregoes "nature" skills playing the part of a fighter. A magus with a sword calling himself a wizard (Hello? Gandalf?).
Sounds like a smidgeon of a maturity problem on the part of one or more of the people in your party. When you want a character with a little (hopefully harmless) mystery, it sucks when another player endeavors to ruin that. In my experience, the motivation for doing this is often "because I can".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like a smidgeon of a maturity problem on the part of one or more of the people in your party. When you want a character with a little (hopefully harmless) mystery, it sucks when another player endeavors to ruin that. In my experience, the motivation for doing this is often "because I can".
It also sounds like a blatantly poor GM. It wasn't just a player who had an issue with PC mystery, but the game master. While I understand that some GMs have issues with that, the time and place to discuss it is out of game at character creation. I'm sure there was a worse way for the GM to have handled it, but I'm not coming up with any actual candidates.
For a GM to go out of his/her way to screw over one of the PCs is fun-destroyingly poor form.
While you might not want to quit that group, I'd strongly advise suggesting that someone else, someone with actual GMing skills and the maturity level of at least an 8 year old, should run the game. And be prepared to volunteer and show everyone else what a game looks like when it's run by someone competent.
|
And this would be a good reason for Knowledge Local to identify the differences. Old Man Jatembe teaches 'X' to 'Y' class while the Qadiran school of wizards teaches a different way.
So not only have we identified the teacher, we have identified the class by virtue of that teacher. (Ie: the teacher teaches specific information to a specific class.)
No, you could *assume* the character class by virture of the teacher. Just like you could *assume* A's on your daughter's report card meant that she was doing her homework and learning the class material (rather than sleeping with her college professors and getting A's on that merit, or hacking the grading system via her secret computer goddess skills).
But you don't really *know* what character class they are, just who they studied under. And it really doesn't matter much, all things considered, provided they can do what you needed them to do.
Seriously, when would knowing the PC was a witch instead of a wizard, actually matter in game? Both arcane casters. Both intelligence based casters. Neither have very good reputations for responsible magic use.
The only real reason it would matter is you have non-pathfinder related preconceptions about witches and wizards. Witches aren't evil in this setting, and certainly no worse reputation than wizards. And I'm not really seeing any good reasons that a witch couldn't join a wizard's guild, or wizard join a witch's guild (because how would you prove the difference, and more so, why would it matter?).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If, as a GM, you have an issue with a player's choice of character, the time to make that clear is "before the game starts." If you want to say "no Witches" or "no evil characters" or whatever, you do that before the game starts. Saying "hey, that sort of character doesn't really fit the kind of campaign I was going to run, is there anything else you'd like to run" is reasonable, polite, and within the GM's prerogative.
Even if it's something like "this is a campaign inspired, in-part, by the Salem witch trials, so if you're going to play something Witchy this is going to be especially tough on you; are you okay with that?" is preferable.
Let people know when something they're doing either doesn't fit with a game or if this will make things tougher for them than if they chose something else, just as a matter of etiquette.
|
|
If, as a GM, you have an issue with a player's choice of character, the time to make that clear is "before the game starts." If you want to say "no Witches" or "no evil characters" or whatever, you do that before the game starts. Saying "hey, that sort of character doesn't really fit the kind of campaign I was going to run, is there anything else you'd like to run" is reasonable, polite, and within the GM's prerogative.
Even if it's something like "this is a campaign inspired, in-part, by the Salem witch trials, so if you're going to play something Witchy this is going to be especially tough on you; are you okay with that?" is preferable.
Let people know when something they're doing either doesn't fit with a game or if this will make things tougher for them than if they chose something else, just as a matter of etiquette.
Very much agree.
Asked my old GM, a long while back (not pathfinder), if I could make I wanted to make a firearm user in his setting. He said I could, but that gunpowder was extremely rare in his setting and that I could start with a gun, but that I wouldn't likely be able to fire it very often. He instead, allowed me to treat my gun as a club without improvised weapon penalties. Never did end up finding gunpowder with that PC (he died), but I knew what I was getting into when I started, and that made it work just fine for me.
|
|
hexs have no components how are you identifying it. if your stopping to watch the party in the middle of battle to study what they are doing means your not doing what you need to be doing. and just because a person stops for 4-6 seconds to reach his or hand in their pack while watching an enemy mess up and drop its weapon or slip on a banana which causes that person to laugh as pull out a potion or their other weapon or spare component pouch. there is not much different between a laugh or giggle and a cackle. i spent quite a while listening to both they all sound the same and some people just have a cackle for a laugh.
You can identify the use of the Misfortune hex, but shouldn't be able to immediately tell whether it was used by a Witch, Shaman, Hexcrafter Magus, or Hexenhammer Inquisitor.
1) Knowledge checks take absolutely no action so you're not stopping in the middle of what you're doing to figure it out.
2) The ability has to have an observable effect. So you could identify Cackle by the, ya'know, cackling. Evil Eye and Misfortune/Fortune? Probably not.
|
|
but how do you tell a cackle from a laugh. yea sure you can use knowledge to tell that another is laughing but is that person laughs because he or she finds the situation amusing or laughing nervously because he or she thinks they might die or because they are a crazy murder hobo or he or she is using an ability that is supernatural. knowledge lets you know something but it does not let you sense power or a persons motive nor is it mind magic.
How do you tell an attack from a Power Attack, or a second attack from having high BAB to a Cleave?
You observe, and you make a Knowledge check. Knowledge aka you know things. Maybe you studied about witches and their abilities and that why you have ranks in a skill that can identify them, that's the point of putting ranks into Knowledge skills, so your character knows things. Just like they can use Knowledge checks to differentiate between similar looking but different creatures.
That's how you can tell the difference from a normal laugh and a Cackle Hex
|
|
hexs have no components how are you identifying it. if your stopping to watch the party in the middle of battle to study what they are doing means your not doing what you need to be doing. and just because a person stops for 4-6 seconds to reach his or hand in their pack while watching an enemy mess up and drop its weapon or slip on a banana which causes that person to laugh as pull out a potion or their other weapon or spare component pouch. there is not much different between a laugh or giggle and a cackle. i spent quite a while listening to both they all sound the same and some people just have a cackle for a laugh.
You can identify the use of the Misfortune hex, but shouldn't be able to immediately tell whether it was used by a Witch, Shaman, Hexcrafter Magus, or Hexenhammer Inquisitor.1) Knowledge checks take absolutely no action so you're not stopping in the middle of what you're doing to figure it out.
2) The ability has to have an observable effect. So you could identify Cackle by the, ya'know, cackling. Evil Eye and Misfortune/Fortune? Probably not.
If someone is staring you down, and you feel your to-hit bonus weaken without a save, they may be a:
A. Witch, using Evil Eye on you
B. Shaman, using Evil Eye on you
C. Inquisitor, using Evil Eye on you
D. Magus, using Evil Eye on you
E. Mesmerist, using Hypnotic Stare (on you)
F. Psychic caster, casting a spell without a save (on you, of course)
G. An... enemy, nonverbally using Intimidate. On you.
And that's where the Knowledge checks come in, to differentiate between getting Evil Eyed and Intimidated. While I don't think you could identify it being used on other people (the section specifically calls out not being able to identify the internal determination granted by Iron Will), if you got Evil Eyed I believe you could roll to tell the difference between feeling that and Intimidated.
|
|
yes but its not being used on you. so how do you know whats going on? the persons laughing from your perspective. why in all sam hell would a team mate hex (debuff) a fellow team mate. and the enemy who is being messed with is about to die.
That's why I said (in the case of Evil Eye) if it was being used on you.
As for telling Cackle from someone non magically cackling that's, again, where Knowledge Arcana comes in. You can tell the difference. You know stuff.
I don't quite understand your last two points.
Also keep in mind that just because there are no components doesn't mean there's nothing observable. Silent, still spells and SLAs still have flashy magical effects (a result of explaining how spellcraft works). That doesn't extend to Su abilities, but it does mean that there's no reason to assume that an externally-directed hex is unobservable. Cackling in combat is "cackling madly", not nervous laughter. Presumably to use the Evil Eye hex, you give somebody the evil eye. Yeah, that's hard to prove in a fair court, but an observant target might get suspicious, and it probably won't end up in a fair court. As for Misfortune, anybody who makes their save knows they've been targeted by something.
|
Nothing prevents characters from having researched spells that don't exist in a rule book or are on other spell lists. That is a GM call. There are spells designed to be misidentified so you can never be certain what you ID is correct.
Witch is a class name, nothing more. I wouldn't assume it was a term in general use by characters in game. If it is, it's probably just an insult to spell casters, not tied to a game mechanic(class levels).Sounds like some in game background exists, but doesn't make sense.
The paladin can easily tell if you are evil or not. Assuming you are a high enough level to be detected. Weather invading your privacy is moraly correct is debatable. Even if you are evil, If you behave the paladin cannot do much against you without falling.
Why do you think it is just a mechanic? Why do you think it is not a term in use by characters?
Clearly, there would have to be some way for characters in a game to identify that there are different types of spellcasters. Why not simply use a name that everyone can easily reference?
People have this idea that 'terms used in a book are not used by the characters' but this makes no sense other than trying to create an artificial 'player knowledge vs character knowledge' barrier.
Whatever term the characters use, it is analogous to the one we use to describe the same concept. So lets not make work for ourselves. It is a witch in game and out of game. Just like a wizard is a wizard and a cleric is a cleric.
Its not a term used by characters because they exist in many different cultures who do not share a comon background. The term 'witch' means different things to people here on earth, it will not have the same meanings on Golarion.
Perhaps an organization has titles for its members based on their skills, but a class is not important its what the character can do. The lines are very blured on what a class is. Archetypes, prestigue classes, 100s of class options, a 'wizard' with a living spell book and some reuseable tricks is not going to stand out if these differences are even noted.
|
|
the enemy might get a chance to figure out that the person laughing is prolonging his bad luck. but he or she is about to die so there's a slim chance of that getting out.
... so?
if your laughing nervously because your afraid your guna die are you not cackling madly? you might need to see a doctor if terrible stuff makes you giggle like a school girl.
Uh, no. People react to horrible stuff in all manner of ways, from nervous laughter to chuckles to freaking out and everything inbetween.
Nervous laughter is not cackling MADLY, cackling madly is BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH!
Nothing prevents characters from having researched spells that don't exist in a rule book or are on other spell lists. That is a GM call. There are spells designed to be misidentified so you can never be certain what you ID is correct.
Witch is a class name, nothing more. I wouldn't assume it was a term in general use by characters in game. If it is, it's probably just an insult to spell casters, not tied to a game mechanic(class levels).Sounds like some in game background exists, but doesn't make sense.
The paladin can easily tell if you are evil or not. Assuming you are a high enough level to be detected. Weather invading your privacy is moraly correct is debatable. Even if you are evil, If you behave the paladin cannot do much against you without falling.
Why do you think it is just a mechanic? Why do you think it is not a term in use by characters?
Clearly, there would have to be some way for characters in a game to identify that there are different types of spellcasters. Why not simply use a name that everyone can easily reference?
People have this idea that 'terms used in a book are not used by the characters' but this makes no sense other than trying to create an artificial 'player knowledge vs character knowledge' barrier.
Whatever term the characters use, it is analogous to the one we use to describe the same concept. So lets not make work for ourselves. It is a witch in game and out of game. Just like a wizard is a wizard and a cleric is a cleric.
Its not a term used by characters because they exist in many different cultures who do not share a comon background. The term 'witch' means different things to people here on earth, it will not have the same meanings on Golarion.
Perhaps an organization has titles for its members based on their skills, but a class is not important its what the character can do. The lines are very blured on what a class is. Archetypes, prestigue classes, 100s of class options, a...
You are too attached to the term 'witch'. I clearly stated that whatever the term it would be analogous to the term we use.
You seem to be missing that point. Call it a gafulbrakenzork, it doesn't matter. But whatever term is used it would be the same MEANING as the term we, in the 'outside world' use for witch.
So, do characters have a term to describe a certain person with all the abilities of the class witch? Almost certainly. We could make up a name for that, but it would be pointless. Do you require that players start speaking elven when they are roleplaying their elves speaking elven? Of course not. So why are you effectively asking people to do the same thing here?
With respect to Recall Intrigues: I found it in the www.d20pfsrd.com Knowledge page (you have to scroll down to find it), but it references a table of how to determine which Knowledge skill can identify which feat or class feature, but that table isn't there. Anyone have the real thing handy to say what else is missing?
A character’s class is a game mechanic that should not be directly referenced by a character. What class would Hermine Granger be? The books list her as a witch but that class really does not fit her at all. How about Batman? There have been a number of discussions of the boards about how to build Batman. How about a real life person? Try determining the class of a Chris Kyle.
Also considering that are feats like Detect Expertise that allow you to gain information on a spell casters abilities I don’t think all you need is spell craft, or knowledge arcana. Spell craft allows you identifying magic items and spells. You can probably figure out if the spell is a divine spell or an arcane spell and the effects of the spell and that is about it.
With respect to Recall Intrigues: I found it in the www.d20pfsrd.com Knowledge page (you have to scroll down to find it), but it references a table of how to determine which Knowledge skill can identify which feat or class feature, but that table isn't there. Anyone have the real thing handy to say what else is missing?
Direct [no scroll] link: Recall Intrigues (Knowledge)
At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell. A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds. While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range.
3rd Round: The power and location of each aura. If an aura is outside your line of sight, then you discern its direction but not its exact location.
"you walk into the room and you sense an evil aura in the direction of the rat (playing a ratfolk)in the room."
Since the Paladin did not use the special action to determine if the character was evil, then since the spell indicates you know exactly where the evil is unless you do not have line of sight, the OP quote is telling the Paladin that there is unseen evil in that direction. Since the character is seen, it is clearly not the character.
wizard who is not in the room in another part of the building with five walls and a large courtyard between us states "i roll knowledge arcane identify what class you are.
you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast,
Obviously, he does not have line of sight, so can not even make the check.
i spend the next 20 minutes being interrogated by the old lady under my own truth spell.
zone-of-truth on the PRD
If you cast it on yourself, then you are hosed. If you cast it somewhere where you would be in the area, then you can just walk away.My suggestion is to make it clear to all that the Paladin would have know you did not ping evil, and that Spellcraft cannot identify a class. Then tell the GM to retcon the NPC interrogation to not have happened and that no on knows your class.
I agree with Gauss who said your reaction should be: where is it?
/cevah