You can cast spell X, you don't need skill Y...

[TheCorsairMalac]

I've read a lot of build guides and handbooks on these forums, and it's common to hear that "you don't need skill X because of spell Y". As if somehow a spellcaster's ability to briefly imitate skills invalidates them entirely.

This isn't so! Spells are short duration, in limited supply, are at least one standard action less efficient, prone to tampering, and generally have to be used predictively rather than reactively. (To clarify: I'm talking about casting, not constant effect items.) At low levels they can replace skills in some ways, but the true feats are reserved for people with both skills and spells.

A few examples (These have been edited, so some replies may seem misplaced. This is my fault.):
Climb: If replaced by spider climb(lv 2) the caster has used his standard action for the round. During combat opportunities are shortlived. You need that standard action at the top of your climb to accomplish whatever you climbed for. The spell offers faster climb speeds, but does not work in antimagic fields, and is likely to be disastrously dispelled if used in combat.

Decipher script: Can be largely replaced by comprehend languages(lv 1). Generally a truth, but the skill can be used to decipher coded messages, the spell cannot. (If your DM won't let you use DECIPHER script to DECIPHER script, then you should hit him with a brick.)

Disguise: Obvious spells are disguise self(lv 1) and major image(lv 3). Neither is applicable against various true-seeing monsters and wealthy rulers. Also, you can't do anything that requires concentration or physical contact with people, so you'll have to miss your dance with beautiful Carmelita Fox. Tricking dragons into believing you're their henchman before the opening sneak attack is particularly delightful.

Heal: No argument. Get a cleric.

Hide: Invisibility(lv 2) is a +20 to hide, but has a pitiful duration if you're using it to scout a dungeon or burgle a mansion.(Greater invisibility lv 4, lasts only rounds!) Also must be re-cast if you encounter a guard that just has to be dealt with. Again, true-seeing and arcane sight prevent its use against more powerful enemies.

Jump-skill: Most likely replaced by fly(lv 3). Which works wonders out of combat, but you'll get dispelled above a lava pit if you use it in combat. Can't be used to take advantage of momentary opportunities in battle, because casting time. And many monsters get dispel magic as a spell-like ability. The skill can be used spontaneously when the need arises, and makes for some truly awesome charge attacks.

Move Silently: Probably replaced by silence(lv 2). The spell silences everything within a 20ft radius. You are mistaken if you think guards won't notice absolute silence when you try to sneak past. Also does bad things to your ability to sense them before they come around corners. Did I mention you won't hear the alarm? The duration isn't so hot either.

Open Lock: Replaced by knock(lv 2). Knock will not get you out of D&D prison. They jail wizards, they know about this spell. It will also not get you into wizard lairs, they know about this spell. Verbal spell component means you're granting nearby enemies extra listen checks. Overall the spell works, assuming you don't have any other level 2 spells you want to cast that day.

Swim: The spell alter self(lv 2) can be used to take on a form with a swim speed, and possibly water breathing. I'll be honest, this one is good. Possibly an issue if you have to cast it while being slammed against rocks by the tide or are drowning in a storm.

As an aside... Do you guys actually have DMs that let you pull off all this scry and teleport BS? Banks don't ward their vaults, nor wizards their laboratories, dragons don't set minions around their hoard, kings don't have armed guards on station? You live in a world where demons, devils, sorcerers and even musicians can teleport REGULARLY. This shouldn't work.

[TheCountAlucard]

First of all, pretty much all your examples are wrong, mechanics-wise. Climb requires insane DCs if you want to move faster than one-quarter your move speed, off the top of my head.

Decipher Script doesn't work on codes either.

Makeup runs or rubs off in ways that magic doesn't; alternatively, a hat of disguise is pretty damn effective.

Casting invisibility doesn't make a flash. Don't even know where you got that one. Pretty sure at this point you're just making stuff up.

The Jump skill doesn't do anything to prevent attacks of opportunity.

Read lips on the captain. Or alternatively just be immaterial and make no sound that way instead of casting a spell that creates a zone of silence.

For Open Lock, the obvious solution is a wondrous item of at-will Knock.

As for swimming, you've picked the wrong spell - heart of water is far better, since with water breathing you still need to make Swim checks.

[Balmas]

You know, I can't help but feel that you're deliberately choosing the worst examples of each spell, and then matching them to boosted examples of skills. For example:

Climb-skill: After investing the absurd amount of skill-points to be able to climb a wall, and hoping I make the check in a tough situation, I slowly clamber up the wall at 1/4 movement, and lose my ability to fight or defend myself. The Cleric, taking advantage of my immobility, rains down blows on me while I approach.
Climb-spell: Having taken advantage of the 10-minutes per casting level duration of my spell to buff myself before I entered combat, I nimbly scale a wall and attack the cleric (in melee combat, for whatever reason). On my next turn, after he counter attacks, I laugh and start climbing another wall, where I taunt him, casting spells at him while hanging from the ceiling.

I note that this example requires that the magic user have only second level spells, instead of the +10-15 someone would need to have an even chance of succeeding on a climb check. So, available at 3rd level, instead of at ~level 10 if you have good strength or a climber's kit.

Furthermore, climb checks and spider climb are made obsolete by fly, which provides five minutes of full on flight when it's first available.


Decipher script-skill: "I pull out my notes and am quickly able to decipher the stolen enemy message."


It may be just me, but I wouldn't call a day of uninterrupted effort, and a week for subsequent retries, quick by any means. (Complete Adventurer, page 98.)


Disguise-skill: "With carefully applied makeup and a wig I impersonate the bandit scout, leading his band into an ambush."
Disguise-spell: "I cast disguise self, but must make awkward excuses to hide myself and re-cast every hour, quickly rousing suspicion."

Oh, this has so many potential options, but Disguise self is not the best. All it does is provide a +10 to your disguise. Personally, I'd prefer something more concrete--maybe a major image which doesn't require a skill check to use, lasts as long as you want, and allows you to use it from long range. The less subtle or higher level could just dominate the scout to do what you want.


Hide-skill: "I slip into the corner, patiently waiting until the sorceress leaves her office so I can steal her research."
Hide-spell: "I slip into the corner, invisible, but must re-cast several minutes later. The sorceress sees the flash of my magic."
"Using a ring of invisibility, a permanence'd invisibility, or greater invisibility, I hide in the corner until the sorceress leaves her office so I can steal her research."

Or, if you feel like being cheeky, scry on her until she's gone, and then dimension door in and out.


Jump-skill: "I leap over the mob of goblins coming down upon their chief with my heavy flail."
Jump-spell: "I step back and cast jump. The goblins surround me, and when I jump I provoke 8 attacks of opportunity."

I assume you're talking about someone other than a wizard, because jumping into the goblin chief, where you're then surrounded by the goblins and the chief sounds like a suicidal plan anyway. But even if you were, fly does the job better, more efficiently, and faster.


Move Silently-skill: "I quietly tail the captain, listening in on his plans."
Move Silently-spell: "I cast silence and follow the captain... but can't hear a word he says through my zone of silence."

"I scry on the captain from my camp. Putting yourself at risk is for people who don't know divination spells."


Open Lock-skill: "I skillfully open each door, and quickly find the vault."
Open Lock-spell: "There were more than five locked doors, and I must turn back or risk 8 hours of rest inside a guarded mansion."

"Having scried on the house the day before, I teleport into the vault, take my pick of the loot, and teleport out."


See? For most of these examples, there's a spell that does it better, more efficiently, and / or with less risk. And yes, these require some amount of preparation. However, as a magic user, you generally have the time to prepare, to find out, and--barring low level wizardry--you have enough spells to do what you need to do.

Furthermore, with magic you're more versatile. If--because you for some reason didn't prepare, or use divination, or any of those tricks--your spell selection isn't useful for that day, then you can come back the next day with what you need. Or buy a scroll, or use a magic item.

Can you change your skills from day to day?

[goto124]

OP might be trying to say that the spells SHOULD have drawbacks such that mundane methods aren't irrevelant.

And this seems like a DnD thing. Do other systems have these problems?

[Keltest]

OP might be trying to say that the spells SHOULD have drawbacks such that mundane methods aren't irrevelant.

And this seems like a DnD thing. Do other systems have these problems?

Im sure you could find at least one other system where mages can replace skillmonkeys.

[JeenLeen]

To the OP: I think part of the idea is that this 'magic replaces skills' assumes that the wizard has time to rest & prepare spells between challenges, and that time isn't an issue. It is true that a good skillmonkey will be more reliable (more often to perform the skill great), but a wizard might be able to do it better and still do a lot more (most spellcasting). If you are in a time- and spell-slot-sensitive situation, then having a skillmonkey is good because the wizard might not be able to invest prep, spell slots, and possibly gold-for-magic-items to have things like Spiderclimb and Knock prepared.
Edit: just to be clear, I'm trying to say I think the OP has a point in that skillmonkeys are still useful and, in some situations, better to have for these purposes than wizards.


Im sure you could find at least one other system where mages can replace skillmonkeys.

I can think of two where this isn't the case, sorta. For both of these, skills are ranked 1-5.

In oWoD mage (and probably nWoD, but I haven't read it thoroughly), mages need mundane knowledge to be able to cast their spells. There's nothing mechanical limiting it, (although there is an optional rule for doing skill checks), but the idea is that you can't adequately manipulate stuff like gravity or radiation without knowing some Science to know what to do. Likewise, you might need some Medicine ranks for anything beyond the most basic healing magic, because otherwise you don't know how the body needs to be to function properly. For most wizardy wizards (Hermetics), this would probably be knowing Occult to reflect knowing how to cast your spells. However, maybe this doesn't count as its not mechanically enforced and is at the GM's whim.

In an in-between way, Exalted requires minimum skills to be able to learn magic (at least for the default PC type). So you might know a magic spell (in this system, Charm) to persuade a village to believe you, but you can't learn that spell unless you have enough skill in Socialize. BUT I do admit this is an example where the spell does do far more than one could quickly do with the spell, and sometimes a spell requiring just 1 point in a skill could let you roll well enough that you don't need to get better skilled. My face-type has Socialize 3 and Presence 4, and that unlocks all the Charms I want, so I have no reason to buy more ranks.

[Mastikator]

Entire adventure: I do a long and perilous adventure where I meet many exciting people and see amazing and terrible things, I finally track down the BBEG and through a series of confrontation I finally defeat him through the power of friendship.
Wizard adventure: I cast Contact Outer Plane to find out who the BBEG is, use cast Scrying to observe him. Cast Improved Invisibility and Teleport into his bedroom while he's asleep. And before killing him I make sure to teabag him first.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is obviously a 3.X thread.

That being the case, I think it's hilarious that people assume the enemies of the PC's have no magical defenses against magical assaults, especially those that call for scry-and-die tactics against a target in his own base of operations. Any BBEG dumb enough to fail at warding himself against such tactics deserves to fry so he can make room for more competent foes.

Skill users are not remotely rendered obsolete by spells.

Take a rogue: he's expected to open locks, find traps, move stealthily around battles and through enemy territory, and maybe a couple other things. Now a wizard can mimic some of these abilities with spells, sure. He generally does so in a less detailed manner though.

A wizard has no spell to locate traps at all without setting them off. Knock has sharp limits and the rogue can buy and UMD an item just as easily as the wizard. Stealth effects are either short duration or cause their own hiccups; being immaterial is usually a rounds/level affair while silence and invisibility (two spells) last plenty long enough but invisibility can be pierced with a lucky spot check even at the dc 30-ish mark a hide-untrained wizard will set by a trained guard of a similar level and silence creates a noticeable area as the caster moves while removing his ability to cast spells with verbal components and make listen checks of his own.

It's -always- better to have a dedicated skill user than to parrot one with spells because even if the spells can do it better, the game is set up so the skill user can use those spells through magic items to even greater effect than the spellcaster could ever hope to use them. The rogue can give his picks a shot before wasting a charge on that wand of knock, can hide while wearing a ring invisiblility and be a ghost to even the most skillful of spotters, can move silently for days without arousing suspicion by turning off background noise around him or limiting his own ability to affect the world around him or hear what's going on.

People like to pretend magic items don't count and that only spellcasters can use magic but that's simply not the way the game was built. If you limit item availability, don't blame the system when your own tweaks to it are what further the imbalance to a more noticeable, less acceptable place.

[AmberVael]

Not all skills are obviated by the presence of spells, but some skills are quite blatantly and clearly dwarfed by magical effects, regardless of who is using those magical effects. For example, what use do you really have for climb or jump when you can fly? Is Heal all that great a skill when its so much simpler to cast the appropriate spell to clear out a condition? Do you really need to invest in that obscure knowledge skill that you'll only use once or twice when you can just put one rank in it and cast Divine Insight to boost it to acceptable levels the few times you'll need it?

Now, some skills that compete with magical effects still remain relevant. Hide is a superb example of this simply because there are so many defenses against Invisibility. Knock is very useful, but its a pretty inefficient spell since you have to spend one casting per lock, so Open Lock is a passable alternative.

But this ability of spells to replace or notably decrease the need for a skill is indicative of what is wrong with many fullcasters. Sure, a wizard might not manage to be as stealthy as a rogue, they might spend a lot of resources trying to pick locks with magic- but they can do it or make a reasonable attempt at it. And they can simultaneously do many other things. By contrast, other classes have much more difficulty moving very far beyond their role even if they have magic items to assist them in doing it. In short, a spellcaster frequently holds too many answers to any given problem, and those answers are often auto-successes (such as with Knock).

[sleepyphoenixx]

You seem to have missed the fact that skill points are limited. Even a changeling rogue with 18 int can't take all the skills he wants.
At the same time most of the skills in your example are pretty far on the situational side. Hide, Move Silently and Open Lock are good to have skill points in.

The rest is stuff not even dedicated skillmonkeys spend skill points on except to fulfill PrC requirements.
You can get a lot more benefit a lot more often spending your skill points in Diplomacy, Bluff, Disable Trap, Use Magic Device, Listen, Spot, Search, the various Knowledge skills, Autohypnosis, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand or Tumble.
Swim, Climb, Disguise and the like are pretty far down the list, and the situations where they come up are easily taken care of by low-level magic or cheap magic items.

[Masakan]

This is obviously a 3.X thread.

That being the case, I think it's hilarious that people assume the enemies of the PC's have no magical defenses against magical assaults, especially those that call for scry-and-die tactics against a target in his own base of operations. Any BBEG dumb enough to fail at warding himself against such tactics deserves to fry so he can make room for more competent foes.

Skill users are not remotely rendered obsolete by spells.

Take a rogue: he's expected to open locks, find traps, move stealthily around battles and through enemy territory, and maybe a couple other things. Now a wizard can mimic some of these abilities with spells, sure. He generally does so in a less detailed manner though.

A wizard has no spell to locate traps at all without setting them off. Knock has sharp limits and the rogue can buy and UMD an item just as easily as the wizard. Stealth effects are either short duration or cause their own hiccups; being immaterial is usually a rounds/level affair while silence and invisibility (two spells) last plenty long enough but invisibility can be pierced with a lucky spot check even at the dc 30-ish mark a hide-untrained wizard will set by a trained guard of a similar level and silence creates a noticeable area as the caster moves while removing his ability to cast spells with verbal components and make listen checks of his own.

It's -always- better to have a dedicated skill user than to parrot one with spells because even if the spells can do it better, the game is set up so the skill user can use those spells through magic items to even greater effect than the spellcaster could ever hope to use them. The rogue can give his picks a shot before wasting a charge on that wand of knock, can hide while wearing a ring invisiblility and be a ghost to even the most skillful of spotters, can move silently for days without arousing suspicion by turning off background noise around him or limiting his own ability to affect the world around him or hear what's going on.

People like to pretend magic items don't count and that only spellcasters can use magic but that's simply not the way the game was built. If you limit item availability, don't blame the system when your own tweaks to it are what further the imbalance to a more noticeable, less acceptable place.


That's what I never understood....you are gonna limit when and how people get magical items or make them non existent all together...but make it so spellcasters get every single perk they get for free? To keep up with magic users...you need magic items.....and a lot of times, They need to be common place to a degree, Allow ToB, implement Psionics, **** anything. But don't go and take away everything that makes front-liners and non casters relevant and then turn around and talk about how much they suck. Anything skills can do, spells can do better that much is true....does that mean that its ALWAYS better to use spells over skills? Not unless your metagaming like crazy.

[Flickerdart]

For many casters, spells are a negligible resource - you prepare it one day, then forget about it the next. Skill points, on the other hand, require permanent investment. Dumping 23 ranks into Open Lock means that every day that you opened no locks, you wasted 23 ranks that day. Scribing some scrolls of knock carries no cost to a wizard's build beyond some easily replaceable XP and GP.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's what I never understood....you are gonna limit when and how people get magical items or make them non existent all together...but make it so spellcasters get every single perk they get for free?

That is the single most common screw up made by new DM'S; limiting items without limiting casters because they don't have a clue about the metagame.


To keep up with magic users...you need magic items.....and a lot of times, They need to be common place to a degree.

Even then you can't really keep up fully. You can get to the point where you're capable of facing level appropriate challenges without issue but in a game where magic reigns supreme you'll never get ahead of the guys that tap it directly.


Allow ToB, implement Psionics, **** anything. But don't go and take away everything that makes front-liners and non casters relevant and then turn around and talk about how much they suck

ToB helps but it's not enough, you still need items. Psionics is just casting by another name. For ToB, so too for incarnum and binding while shadowcasting and truenaming lag behind almost as badly as normal non-casters.


Anything skills can do, spells can do better that much is true....does that mean that its ALWAYS better to use spells over skills? Not unless your metagaming like crazy.

Spells can't do everything skills can do. Several of the spells touted as replacements for skill use are just massive bonuses to the relevant skill while others ape the skill use somewhat poorly. They're best used as supplements to trained skill use and always were. Using magic to replace a skill should be reserved for when that skill is otherwise unavailable.

Re, fly obviating jump and climb; stealth. Unless you're going to be invisible too, flying makes you an obvious target and draws attention from any onlookers. It's also useless in high winds and stormy weather while climb is rendered more difficult but not impossible. Jump, by itself, is largely moot in the face of flight but it is required for a number of melee options to function and can save spell slots if you're a gish who had skill ranks to spare anyway.

This, "skills replaced by spells," is one of those things that gets blown way, way out of proportion by the community at large. Knock being the ur-example.

[AmberVael]

Re, fly obviating jump and climb; stealth. Unless you're going to be invisible too, flying makes you an obvious target and draws attention from any onlookers. It's also useless in high winds and stormy weather while climb is rendered more difficult but not impossible. Jump, by itself, is largely moot in the face of flight but it is required for a number of melee options to function and can save spell slots if you're a gish who had skill ranks to spare anyway.

Stealth? Really? The need to cling to a wall doesn't make you more stealthy. If anything its quite opposite situation- with climbing you have to be traveling in a specific way, through a specific area, and its a method of passage that anyone can attempt, so its going to be more watched. Flight gives you substantially more options in how you approach things- you can drift in with the clouds, or approach from otherwise impassable angles. And if clinging to a wall really is the most stealthy option, there is nothing preventing you from just flying really close to that wall, or in fact just fake climbing by letting your flight do the real work while your hands just kinda make motions.

As for weather, its not useless there either. It has a slight penalty to it in relation to walking, but generally if someone flying is in danger from weather someone climbing or walking will be in about as much danger (for example- a flying elf is in exactly the same situation as a climbing halfling). Or in fact, more- if you're flying you might be pushed around more, but if you can't fly and you're climbing, being flung off the side of a wall or cliff negates all your progress and deals damage to you.

[Der_DWSage]

To build off Flickerdart's last post, you're overlooking how commonly you need those skill checks, and whether or not the spell performs even better for a longer period of time than you would need the skill check for. If you put full ranks in Climb and only once come across a wall that needed climbing, and spider-climb lasted more than long enough for the Wizard to climb it and throw down a rope...you've wasted your ranks in Climb. And that's without getting into Overland Flight.

In some of those cases, I agree with you. But let's go through them with that criteria in mind...

Climb:Uncommon to come up, Spider Climb and Overland Flight do it faster, better, and last for more than long enough to climb a few cliffs.

Decipher Script:Very rarely comes up, is usually GM bait regardless. Though to be fair, I can't think of a spell off the top of my head that can decipher a code.

Disguise:Depends on campaign, but can be common. Arguably useful to get ranks in disguise. Nystul's Magic Aura can hide the illusion aura of the spell, but the spells that add onto disguise checks are 10 min/level, when you might want to keep a cover for hours or days. +10 from a Hat of Disguise doesn't quite completely negate the need for ranks in Disguise, as that number can nearly be reached by a 1st level PC. Further caveat:Really needs Bluff to work successfully.

Hide:Depends on campaign, but can be common. Ranks in Hide are superior for long-term stealth missions, Invisibility is far superior for short-term stealth missions until high levels. One of the few examples I agree with, aside from Invisibility 'making a flash of magic.'

Jump:Rarely comes up. You need to make a DC 16 check just to jump over a single goblin. Only useful if you're using Tome of Battle, but if you really needed it, Overland Flight does it better.

Move Silently:Depends on campaign, but can be common. See Hide, except silence is easier to detect when others come across it. ('Why don't my footsteps make noise anymore?')

Open Lock:Commonly comes up. If you don't have an at-will item of Knock, ranks are typically superior to needing to use all your 2nd level spell slots for the day. However, doors are overcome in a variety of ways, so Open Lock is typically only used by those that can't otherwise destroy the door, or if you really need to close doors behind you.

Swim:Depends on campaign, but tends to be rare. Don't cast Water Breathing, cast Alter Self into something with a swim speed. You're fine for 10 minutes/level. I'm sure there's an even better spell for it, too. Can be useful for when you're unceremoniously dropped into the water, however.


Notice a trend? Most of the 'you really don't need these' skills are pretty uncommon to come up, and the few times they do, there's a spell that does it faster and better. The opportunity cost of putting skill points into them just aren't worth it, because the one time it comes up, the Wizard can spend a few minutes to make it a moot point anyway.

[Segev]

So the question arises: is the correct solution then to rethink skills? To combine them (Pathfinder does this to an extent), to change what they do? Or is it perhaps to change how DMs run games, introducing more opportunities to use them?

To some extent, I could see encouraging some of these skills by having more dynamic worlds with more open approaches. If a character has a climb skill, walls stop being quite so much of an impediment unless the DM designs his setting with interior ceilings and most things happening indoors. But climb can be used to break and enter as much as open locks. But at the same time...unless you can force it to be useful, it won't be, and that's just not a great way to spend skills.

So, what should be done about it?

[Flickerdart]

So the question arises: is the correct solution then to rethink skills?
My quick and dirty fix was aggressive consolidation:

Athletics (Str) - Jump, Climb, Swim
Acrobatics (Dex) - Balance, Tumble, Escape Artist
Stealth (Dex) - Hide, Move Silently
Survival (Wis) - Survival, Use Rope, Heal
Legerdemain (Dex) - Sleight of Hand, Open Lock, Disable Device
Awareness (Wis) - Spot, Listen, Search
Linguistics (Int) - Speak Language, Forgery, Decipher Script
Deceive Device (Cha) - Use Magic Device, Use Psionic Device
Knowledge (Magic) (Int) - Spellcraft, Knowledge (Arcana)
Knowledge (Crystals) (Int) - Psicraft, Knowledge (Psionics)
Knowledge (Cosmology) (Int) - Knowledge (Religion), Knowledge (Planes)
Knowledge (Society) (Int) - Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty), Knowledge (History), Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering), Knowledge (Local)
Knowledge (Wilderness) (Int) - Knowledge (Geography), Knowledge (Nature), Knowledge (Dungeoneering)


This makes it a lot less likely that your 23 points go to waste, and helps mundanes cover all the bases that a competent individual should. With only 13 skills, it's actually possible for a character (like a Factotum with 24 Int) to max out every skill.

The quick and dirty skill potency fix is this: Throw out the entire Skills section and consult the generic table, which I reproduce here sans examples:

Very easy (0)
Easy (5)
Average (10)
Tough (15)
Challenging (20)
Formidable (25)
Heroic (30)
Nearly impossible (40)


How easy should it be for a hero to scale a wall? Pretty tough. DC 15. How hard is it for a hero to unlock a lock made by an alien race? Pretty damn heroic, DC 30. This works well with a DM that isn't on your case about guys at the gym.

[TheCorsairMalac]

So the question arises: is the correct solution then to rethink skills? To combine them (Pathfinder does this to an extent), to change what they do? Or is it perhaps to change how DMs run games, introducing more opportunities to use them?...

I like that you're solution oriented.

Personally I don't like having boatloads of houserules(and am staying with 3.5 for now), so I would tend to choose DM style as a good solution. It's clear that many people in this thread have never had success with skills, and this is probably because of DMs who focus too much on magic. DMs need to learn to 'say yes' when a player wants to use a skill, and to 'say no' to magical solutions sometimes.

[ScrambledBrains]

I like that you're solution oriented.

Personally I don't like having boatloads of houserules(and am staying with 3.5 for now), so I would tend to choose DM style as a good solution. It's clear that many people in this thread have never had success with skills, and this is probably because of DMs who focus too much on magic. DMs need to learn to 'say yes' when a player wants to use a skill, and to 'say no' to magical solutions sometimes.

While it's entirely possible to make 'Say Yes' to skills at least a partial solution, from what I know, 'Saying No' to spells is considered bad because you're taking away the one thing a primary spell-casting class can do. And the ways to say no without saying no(Anti-magic fields, high/infinite SR enemies, wild magic zones, etc.) are still too easy to work around.*

*: Might contain mistakes. I'm still not a expert on DnD like the majority of our excellent community. :smallsmile:

[Necroticplague]

And the problem is, how do you say no to some magical solutions without it sounding like BS? Jump, climb, and swim will be forever of questionable utility because Alter Self and Polymorph can give you flying and climb speeds for reasonably long amounts of time. "Instead of climbing, I'm just gonna turn into a bird-person and fly up the cliff." is kinda hard to say no to without either also shutting down mundane ("Winds too strong") or sounding like heavy-handed BS ("Entire place is AMF").

[TheCorsairMalac]

While it's entirely possible to make 'Say Yes' to skills at least a partial solution, from what I know, 'Saying No' to spells is considered bad because you're taking away the one thing a primary spell-casting class can do. And the ways to say no without saying no(Anti-magic fields, high/infinite SR enemies, wild magic zones, etc.) are still too easy to work around.*

*: Might contain mistakes. I'm still not a expert on DnD like the majority of our excellent community. :smallsmile:

Sorry, miscommunication on my part. By 'say no' I don't mean to literally say "No". I mean for the DM to do things that make magic difficult or unfeasible at times. Perhaps the wizard who's tower they're invading has warded his locks against the knock spell, or the guardians have arcane sight, as well as those things which you mentioned.

We make challenges tailored to the characters, and the spellcaster needs to struggle too.

[tadkins]

If there's both a skillmonkey and a wizard in the party, wouldn't it be better to let the skillmonkey handle all that stuff while the wizard can free up spell slots for other stuff that the skillmonkey can't cover?

[TheCountAlucard]

If there's both a skillmonkey and a wizard in the party, wouldn't it be better to let the skillmonkey handle all that stuff while the wizard can free up spell slots for other stuff that the skillmonkey can't cover?No; as we pointed out, some of these "skills" are outright inferior to spells. If we rely on the Rogue to Climb instead of the Wizard to Spider Climb or Fly, the bad guy gets away; if we let the Rogue Jump past eight goblins he's gonna get AoO'd to death; in the time it's taken the Rogue to Decipher Script (and realize he's got nothing useful), the Wizard has figured out the message is useless to him via Comprehend Languages, and probably gone on to another adventure.

[tadkins]

No; as we pointed out, some of these "skills" are outright inferior to spells. If we rely on the Rogue to Climb instead of the Wizard to Spider Climb or Fly, the bad guy gets away; if we let the Rogue Jump past eight goblins he's gonna get AoO'd to death; in the time it's taken the Rogue to Decipher Script (and realize he's got nothing useful), the Wizard has figured out the message is useless to him via Comprehend Languages, and probably gone on to another adventure.

What about stuff like stealth, trap clearing and lockpicking? Based off what I'm reading here, stealth is more reliable in the hands of someone who has trained in it (lots of stuff can ruin an invisibility spell), spellcasters can't set off traps without making a lot of noise, and a lockpicking rogue can go all day if need be over burning a ton of spell slots or scrolls over multiple Knocks.

[Troacctid]

There's no need to prepare Knock when you can just teleport past the door and unlock it normally from the other side. There's also no need to disarm the trap when you can teleport past it. Oh, you need to sneak past some guys too? Just teleport! Teleporting is totally OP. Like seriously.

[TheCorsairMalac]

There's no need to prepare Knock when you can just teleport past the door and unlock it normally from the other side. There's also no need to disarm the trap when you can teleport past it. Oh, you need to sneak past some guys too? Just teleport! Teleporting is totally OP. Like seriously.

Teleporting is awesome! But what if you've never seen the other side of the door?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Isn't it much easier to be incorporeal, ethereal, immune to damage, astrally projected and only acting through mindraped ice assassins of ice assassins of swarms of fine-sized wizards?

Well, the first two anyway. If you're only going to teleport through a door, and all.

[Balmas]

Skillmonkeys have the benefit of working consistently, and in most situations. Invisibility can be countered or dispelled, while Hide cannot. And as has been noted, some magic spells are flat bonuses to skills. The problem is that, unless there's some heavy home-ruling, no skill-monkey can adequately cover all bases--a rogue could be an expert trapsmith, hider, but miss out on stuff like Jump, UMD, or move silently.

By comparison, casters--especially wizards--have a much greater versatility with how they can approach things. However, this often requires preparation or foresight. Many spells are outright better than what skill monkeys have (eg. Fly, Teleport).

[Troacctid]

Teleporting is awesome! But what if you've never seen the other side of the door?

Then you can cast Clairvoyance to check it. Or just teleport blind—most teleports don't require line of sight.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Skillmonkeys have the benefit of working consistently, and in most situations. Invisibility can be countered or dispelled, while Hide cannot. And as has been noted, some magic spells are flat bonuses to skills. The problem is that, unless there's some heavy home-ruling, no skill-monkey can adequately cover all bases--a rogue could be an expert trapsmith, hider, but miss out on stuff like Jump, UMD, or move silently.

By comparison, casters--especially wizards--have a much greater versatility with how they can approach things. However, this often requires preparation or foresight. Many spells are outright better than what skill monkeys have (eg. Fly, Teleport).

Magic is an integral part of D&D. There is no such thing as a nonmagical skillmonkey. There's a reason almost all of them have UMD as a class skill, because that is how you cover those situations that don't come around all that often or that require exceptional effort. Scrolls, wands, potions and magic items are standard equipment that your character is expected to have, just as martials are expected to have magic weapons, armor and other gear.

Sure, a pure wizard can overcome some of the challenges that skills deal with, and often better. But his spells are limited, and unless your DM is very lax you have to fit your spell allotment to your adventuring day, not the other way around.

The biggest examples of that are the archetypical rogue skills - hide & move silently and open lock & disable device & search. Those are things that you need continuously, not just once or twice, so you invest skill points.
A caster can somewhat emulate those, but Invisibility is rather easily countered and the spells used for trapfinding are both less reliable than a skilled rogue and an enormous resource drain, especially at lower levels when you can't really afford to spend your 2nd level slots on Knock because you need them to survive your encounters.

The same applies to the social skills. Charm can help sometimes, but once the spell runs out someone is going to ask questions about people having unexplained personality shifts around you. And that's nothing on the trouble you'll be in if someone catches you casting compulsions on an important goverment official or noble.


The only skills that have this problem are those that are both situational as hell and not really all that strong to begin with. Swim isn't really used much unless you're aquatic, and in that case you'll probably have a swim speed and won't need it - why would anyone spend skill points here?

[Triskavanski]

To make skills useful.. Skills need to do things. I know it sounds silly, but when you get down to it, many skills don't do a thing.

To make them needed, they have to be a matter of life and death.

Perception, Sense motive for example. Those are life and death skills (perception over Sense motive) Its something I rarely ever dump, cause not getting surprised is better than getting surprised. And you never know when you'd need to really use a spell to enhance your perception unless your perception lets you know you need to enhance your perception.

Knowledge checks, another possible life or death skill, as it lets you know not to use that spell of lighting bolt on the flesh golem. (though metagaming helps as well.. :/)

I wouldn't just focuse on 'condensing' skills. In Dnd there is those skill tricks, in Pathfinder they have skill unlocks. This is kinda more of what I'd go through. Being skilled that you can do things quicker, and better than a magical surragrate.

[Kelb_Panthera]

There's no need to prepare Knock when you can just teleport past the door and unlock it normally from the other side. There's also no need to disarm the trap when you can teleport past it. Oh, you need to sneak past some guys too? Just teleport! Teleporting is totally OP. Like seriously.


Then you can cast Clairvoyance to check it. Or just teleport blind—most teleports don't require line of sight.

So you're spending how many spell slots/ wand charges/ arcane scrolls per locked door/ unfortunate placed hole/ what have you? Your daily spell allotment is not limitless and those alternatives are available to everyone willing to spend the gold and (maybe) skill points. Meanwhile the rogue is breaking a set of picks far, far less often than 1:1 per door and no resources at all scaling cliffs with a climbers kit or jumping over holes in the ground before he just buys those spell effects to use as necessary.

Seriously, how frequently do you run into a locked door or other physical obstacle? If you're expending cash and xp on every single one of them it's going to start adding up. If you're burning spell slots on it, you may well find yourself in a situation where you really needed that slot for something more important and have to either take the rest of the day off, if you're lucky enough it's a non-aggressive problem, or get wrecked, if you're not.

[Troacctid]

So you're spending how many spell slots/ wand charges/ arcane scrolls per locked door/ unfortunate placed hole/ what have you? Your daily spell allotment is not limitless and those alternatives are available to everyone willing to spend the gold and (maybe) skill points. Meanwhile the rogue is breaking a set of picks far, far less often than 1:1 per door and no resources at all scaling cliffs with a climbers kit or jumping over holes in the ground before he just buys those spell effects to use as necessary.

Seriously, how frequently do you run into a locked door or other physical obstacle? If you're expending cash and xp on every single one of them it's going to start adding up. If you're burning spell slots on it, you may well find yourself in a situation where you really needed that slot for something more important and have to either take the rest of the day off, if you're lucky enough it's a non-aggressive problem, or get wrecked, if you're not.

Dimension Leap is only a 2nd level spell, so you can probably do it a bunch of times.

Psionic Dimension Door is only 3 pp for yourself and others. Very cheap. Remote Viewing is also 3 pp if you want to scry first.

Warlocks can Dimension Door at will, like a boss, so that's one of the more efficient options.

Incarnates get to Dimension Door a number of times per day equal to their meldshaper level, so they have a pretty good number of charges.

[Psyren]

There's no need to prepare Knock when you can just teleport past the door and unlock it normally from the other side. There's also no need to disarm the trap when you can teleport past it. Oh, you need to sneak past some guys too? Just teleport! Teleporting is totally OP. Like seriously.

It's only OP for GMs who willfully ignore the drawbacks the designers built into the spell. Like seriously.

1) Familiarity is the first hurdle - the other side of a solid door or wall is not even going to fall under "seen once." Since you still must have a "clear idea of the location and layout," you either have to burn additional resources and time on scrying, put your lives in the GM's hands or find another way.
2) Then there's "areas of strong physical or magical energy" which make it "more hazardous or even impossible." Translation - stick the bad guy's fortress behind a waterfall or in a volcano, or hell just run wires everywhere, and suddenly porting all over the place can mess you up big time, if it works at all.

Now, Greater Teleport I agree with you is OP. And even then, if you don't have "sufficient information" about where you're going, the spell is simply wasted without hurting you. 7ths are pretty valuable slots.

[Troacctid]

It's only OP for GMs who willfully ignore the drawbacks the designers built into the spell. Like seriously.

1) Familiarity is the first hurdle - the other side of a solid door or wall is not even going to fall under "seen once." Since you still must have a "clear idea of the location and layout," you either have to burn additional resources and time on scrying, put your lives in the GM's hands or find another way.
2) Then there's "areas of strong physical or magical energy" which make it "more hazardous or even impossible." Translation - stick the bad guy's fortress behind a waterfall or in a volcano, or hell just run wires everywhere, and suddenly porting all over the place can mess you up big time, if it works at all.

Now, Greater Teleport I agree with you is OP. And even then, if you don't have "sufficient information" about where you're going, the spell is simply wasted without hurting you. 7ths are pretty valuable slots.

I was talking about teleportation spells in general, not the actual spell Teleport, which is pretty useless for bypassing doors. Dimension Door doesn't have any of those problems.

[AmberVael]

Incarnates get to Dimension Door a number of times per day equal to their meldshaper level, so they have a pretty good number of charges.

Isn't Blink Shirt (the at will Totemist soulmeld) the usual dimension door soulmeld? I'm not sure which one you're referring to.

[Psyren]

I was talking about teleportation spells in general, not the actual spell Teleport, which is pretty useless for bypassing doors. Dimension Door doesn't have any of those problems.

That beats the familiarity (though you can still end up in a wall, take damage, and get dropped right onto a trap), but it's still a [teleportation] effect and therefore the rule about teleportation being affected by energy still applies.

[Troacctid]

Isn't Blink Shirt (the at will Totemist soulmeld) the usual dimension door soulmeld? I'm not sure which one you're referring to.
Cerulean Sandals is the one that lets you bring other people with you. Blink Shirt works for just you, as does Phase Cloak. Still good, since you can presumably just unlock the door from the other side.


That beats the familiarity (though you can still end up in a wall, take damage, and get dropped right onto a trap), but it's still a [teleportation] effect and therefore the rule about teleportation being affected by energy still applies.
That's a specific effect of Teleport, not a general effect of Conjuration (Teleportation) spells.

[AmberVael]

Ah. I guess I've always just ignored Cerulean Sandals because who cares about walking on water.

I suppose Apparition Ribbon could serve a similar purpose, but that seems wasteful.

[ryu]

Isn't it much easier to be incorporeal, ethereal, immune to damage, astrally projected and only acting through mindraped ice assassins of ice assassins of swarms of fine-sized wizards?

Well, the first two anyway. If you're only going to teleport through a door, and all.

Which, lets be real here, is actually a very viable way of playing the game. I view the difference between that and what most would call normal D&D as similar to the difference between checkers, and playing three games of chess at the same time each with a skilled opponent while also taking a good old fashioned test in calculus. It's more work granted, and rarer to find a group willing to play to that level of effort, but so worth it when you do.

[daremetoidareyo]

Ah. I guess I've always just ignored Cerulean Sandals because who cares about walking on water.


Easy there, don't want to get the thread locked :biggrin:

[Psyren]

That's a specific effect of Teleport, not a general effect of Conjuration (Teleportation) spells.

Debatable - the line says "teleportation," not "teleport." It wouldn't be the first time a general rule was placed inside one spell's text.

[Troacctid]

Debatable - the line says "teleportation," not "teleport." It wouldn't be the first time a general rule was placed inside one spell's text.

Descriptive text details what the spell does and how it works.

Descriptive Text
This portion of a spell description details what the spell does and how it works. If one of the previous entries in the description included "see text," this is where the explanation is found.
It doesn't have any rules authority over other spells or effects that don't refer back to it. Generally speaking, reading an individual spell's text as a general rule breaks the game, and should pretty much never be done unless the spell very clearly instructs you to do so (and I can't think of any examples of that off the top of my head).

[Kelb_Panthera]

Dimension Leap is only a 2nd level spell, so you can probably do it a bunch of times.

Four. You can cast it four times. You can cast it more often -if- you're willing to burn higher level spell slots on it. 6 if you're a sorcerer. Also, every time you use it for a door, that's one less time it can snatch you out of the proverbial fire in combat.


Psionic Dimension Door is only 3 pp for yourself and others. Very cheap. Remote Viewing is also 3 pp if you want to scry first.

Just over half a 3rd level psion's pp for the day. For one door. Good job. This does become a negligible expenditure eventually though.


Warlocks can Dimension Door at will, like a boss, so that's one of the more efficient options.

There's a winner. Of course, the warlock is an arcane skill monkey for the most part. Sneak attack-value primary attack, magical effects to boost or supply actions usually associated with skillful types, etc; all that's missing is trapfinding.


Incarnates get to Dimension Door a number of times per day equal to their meldshaper level, so they have a pretty good number of charges.

Hey, another winner..... on a skillful class..... I'm seeing a pattern. Heck, this one's even got trapfinding when he wants it.

Nobody cares when a rogue replacement class can bypass challenges associated with skill use. That's what those classes are designed to do. What gets people's dander up is when the dedicated magic classes actually -do- render another character in the same party redundant.

Even so, skills are very useful if you're proactive in their use. People say "why use the skill when a spell does it better?" A better question is, "why use a spell when a skill is adequate?" If there's no one in the party with a relevant skill but an appropriate spell is available, use the spell. If there's a skilled character that can get the job done, let him and save the expendable resources.

On a separate note; jump is not -generally- a combat skill. It's most common uses are bypassing obstacles and reducing fall damage. When it is used in combat, it is used in conjunction with an offensive effect that counter-balances any associated risks, -if- it doesn't eliminate those risks partially or entirely, or it is used for one of its more general applications because of the terrain on which the fight is taking place. Nobody just jumps around in a fight all willy-nilly "just because." The argument that someone who jumps in combat will get AoO'd to death is a straw-man. Any character who makes ill-advised or random tactical movements shares the same risks regardless of their mode of movement, be it running, jumping, flying, swiming, swinging on vines, or what-have-you.

[AmberVael]

Just over half a 3rd level psion's pp for the day. For one door. Good job. This does become a negligible expenditure eventually though.
Not that this improves the argument for psionic dimension door, but its a 4th level power, so you can't get it until level 7. Complete Psionic just added these weird augments that actually decrease its cost, so you can manifest it for 3 power points.


There's a winner. Of course, the warlock is an arcane skill monkey for the most part. Sneak attack-value primary attack, magical effects to boost or supply actions usually associated with skillful types, etc; all that's missing is trapfinding.
Uh. This is a really weird and inaccurate way to look at warlock, especially given its relatively poor skill list and minimal skill points. Yeah, it does get a few skill boosting invocations, but its hardly a skill monkey class. Its power comes from packages of magical abilities rather than skills, and most have only minimal impact on skills and their use.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Not that this improves the argument for psionic dimension door, but its a 4th level power, so you can't get it until level 7. Complete Psionic just added these weird augments that actually decrease its cost, so you can manifest it for 3 power points.

Meh. Whatever the case, used up resources aren't availble for later, possibly more important use. High enough levels and enough optimization make basic obstacles trivial regardless of which of the alternatives to getting past the obstacle you're using.


Uh. This is a really weird and inaccurate way to look at warlock, especially given its relatively poor skill list and minimal skill points. Yeah, it does get a few skill boosting invocations, but its hardly a skill monkey class. Its power comes from packages of magical abilities rather than skills, and most have only minimal impact on skills and their use.

It's power is arcane but that's about as much as it has in common with other arcanists altogether. It doesn't use the actual skill point based mechanics like most other classes in this category do but it -is- in the same category. Always on, minor abilities that allow it to sneak, scout, talk, and offer combat support coupled with middling damage capability. This is functionally very similar to a rogue whose pumped his skill use and makes good use of alchemy and magic items. It's also even more similar to a spellthief; minor magics with the ability to bypass or overcome fairly mundane obstacles and offer combat support rather than front-lining or acting as an auxiliary or artillery.

A warlock just doesn't have the staying power to stand up front with the warriors or the reality bending might to stand in the back with the arcane powerhouses or the flexibility to do both with the priestly types. If you're replacing the classic four* then the warlock replaces the rogue, not the wizard.

*I'm aware that the classic four is no longer strictly necessary but it's still the reigning paradigm on which D&D and many other games, both P&P and electronic, were built.

[TheCorsairMalac]

Then you can cast Clairvoyance to check it. Or just teleport blind—most teleports don't require line of sight.

Hm! It seems you're right. Probably the lowest level teleport spell, dimension door, does not in fact require line of sight.(At least, not in the online SRD.) I had thought that it did.

If it's what you have memorized it will work, but it seems a waste to burn level 4 slots for 1 door each.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Overland Flight obviates Climb, Jump, Balance, Tumble, and Swim at a minimum. And is 24 hour duration. Possibly also obviates Sneak since you aren't walking.

Prying Eyes obviates Spot. Greater Prying Eyes is in every way superior to Spot checks because it has built in True Sight and lasts Hours/level.

Charm/Dominate Monster replaces Diplomacy, however Diplomacy is so good that it's worth taking despite this fact.

Use Magic Device is obviated by... having the spell already on your spell list. Umm... that's kind of inherent in being a caster.

Silent and Shadowed are two very cheap armor enchantments that can go on your clothing for +5 to +15 (depending on level) to your Sneak and Hide skills. Furthermore, this is a Competence bonus, and thus stacks with most of the other types of bonuses you get, further obviating the skills. Slick does the same to Escape Artist, but really if you are having a problem with being grappled, just DimDoor out. Etherealness beats all of these options as long as you are willing to stay Ethereal all day (since it explicitly states that you can stay ethereal as long as you like). Since a caster is also likely to have abilities that work even while ethereal (Force effects, for example), this is not a significant imposition.

Most of the scouting skills can be obviated with Scry, since you no longer need to send in a scout to observe anymore. Alternatively, Summon Nature's Ally for some kind of indigenous animal with good movement ability works just as well, if not better.

And if worse comes to worse, Charm/Dominate Monster can replace darn near any skill check because it lets you get someone else to do it for you.

[AmberVael]

It's power is arcane but that's about as much as it has in common with other arcanists altogether. It doesn't use the actual skill point based mechanics like most other classes in this category do but it -is- in the same category. Always on, minor abilities that allow it to sneak, scout, talk, and offer combat support coupled with middling damage capability. This is functionally very similar to a rogue whose pumped his skill use and makes good use of alchemy and magic items.

So you're saying, Warlocks can cast invocation X, so they don't need skill Y to be skill monkies. :smalltongue:

[TheCorsairMalac]

Overland Flight obviates Climb, Jump, Balance, Tumble, and Swim at a minimum. And is 24 hour duration. Possibly also obviates Sneak since you aren't walking.

Prying Eyes obviates Spot. Greater Prying Eyes is in every way superior to Spot checks because it has built in True Sight and lasts Hours/level.

Charm/Dominate Monster replaces Diplomacy, however Diplomacy is so good that it's worth taking despite this fact.

Use Magic Device is obviated by... having the spell already on your spell list. Umm... that's kind of inherent in being a caster.

Silent and Shadowed are two very cheap armor enchantments that can go on your clothing for +5 to +15 (depending on level) to your Sneak and Hide skills. Furthermore, this is a Competence bonus, and thus stacks with most of the other types of bonuses you get, further obviating the skills. Slick does the same to Escape Artist, but really if you are having a problem with being grappled, just DimDoor out. Etherealness beats all of these options as long as you are willing to stay Ethereal all day (since it explicitly states that you can stay ethereal as long as you like). Since a caster is also likely to have abilities that work even while ethereal (Force effects, for example), this is not a significant imposition.

Most of the scouting skills can be obviated with Scry, since you no longer need to send in a scout to observe anymore. Alternatively, Summon Nature's Ally for some kind of indigenous animal with good movement ability works just as well, if not better.

And if worse comes to worse, Charm/Dominate Monster can replace darn near any skill check because it lets you get someone else to do it for you.

I don't want to come across as rude, so I'll only argue a few things.

Item enchantments are beyond the scope of my argument. The skill-user is intended and expected to make use of them(Thus having their bonus on top of an existing skill rank). We are speaking of spellcasting.

I just read prying eyes and its greater version. Cool spells! I like the image of a wizard with a cadre of floating eyes spying for him. They've got pretty much everything you mentioned. Their spot skill is okay, and you get a lot of them. I think you might be overlooking some of the caveats though. They always replay EVERYTHING they've seen, and they take a full round to do it... per hour they've been active. That's honestly kind of awful if you're hoping to prevent ambushes. :\

[Psyren]

Descriptive text details what the spell does and how it works.

It doesn't have any rules authority over other spells or effects that don't refer back to it. Generally speaking, reading an individual spell's text as a general rule breaks the game, and should pretty much never be done unless the spell very clearly instructs you to do so (and I can't think of any examples of that off the top of my head).

Ethereal Jaunt contains the general rule about both force effects and abjurations extending to the ethereal plane. It and Blink also note that ethereal creatures are invisible and incorporeal.
Magic Jar contains two general rules about undead - that they are powered by negative energy, and that only intelligent undead have souls.
Barkskin contains the general rule that a creature with no natural armor is treated as having a natural armor bonus of +0.
Magic Vestment contains the general rule that clothing is treated as having an armor bonus of +0.
Invisibility contains the general rule that light never becomes invisible even when a light source is made invisible.
Rope Trick contains the general rule about nesting extradimensional spaces.
Detect Magic contains the general rule that elementals and outsiders are not themselves powered by magic unless summoned.
Enlarge Person contains the general rule that projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them, regardless of the projectile's size.

I could go on; all of the above apply to situations outside of those specific spells (e.g. abjurations and force spells affect ethereal creatures that don't use ethereal jaunt, like Ghosts, and nonsentient undead lack souls whether you're using Magic Jar or not.) But even putting all that aside, "Teleportation" is a defined game term - a subschool of conjuration in the magic chapter. The onus is on you to prove that the reference made in the Teleport rule was not to the game term, but to something else.

[Troacctid]

Meh. Whatever the case, used up resources aren't availble for later, possibly more important use. High enough levels and enough optimization make basic obstacles trivial regardless of which of the alternatives to getting past the obstacle you're using.

There's an abundance of ways to get either unlimited teleports or a buttload of charges' worth of teleports, whether as a caster or otherwise, if that's what you want. In general, the amount of investment required to do so isn't any higher than the amount of investment it would take to max out the various skills that are rendered obsolete by readily-accessible teleportation, and the amount of value you get in return is usually greater.

Sure, Open Lock might be useful for opening locked doors at low levels, when your build resources might be too tight to invest in other solutions. But it becomes obsolete fairly quickly, and it was always situational to begin with--not all doors are locked, not all doors that are locked can be picked, and it doesn't usually take much creativity to find a different way through the door.


Ethereal Jaunt contains the general rule about both force effects and abjurations extending to the ethereal plane. It and Blink also note that ethereal creatures are invisible and incorporeal.
Magic Jar contains two general rules about undead - that they are powered by negative energy, and that only intelligent undead have souls.
Barkskin contains the general rule that a creature with no natural armor is treated as having a natural armor bonus of +0.
Magic Vestment contains the general rule that clothing is treated as having an armor bonus of +0.
Invisibility contains the general rule that light never becomes invisible even when a light source is made invisible.
Rope Trick contains the general rule about nesting extradimensional spaces.
Detect Magic contains the general rule that elementals and outsiders are not themselves powered by magic unless summoned.
Enlarge Person contains the general rule that projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them, regardless of the projectile's size.

I could go on; all of the above apply to situations outside of those specific spells (e.g. abjurations and force spells affect ethereal creatures that don't use ethereal jaunt, like Ghosts, and nonsentient undead lack souls whether you're using Magic Jar or not.) But even putting all that aside, "Teleportation" is a defined game term - a subschool of conjuration in the magic chapter. The onus is on you to prove that the reference made in the Teleport rule was not to the game term, but to something else.

The general rules for etherealness are found in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Ethereal Jaunt and Blink merely re-state them.

None of the others you mentioned need to apply beyond their specific case, so there's no reason to believe that they do, and the rules work more smoothly if they don't.

I already quoted the rule that says the spell's description describes how that individual spell works. If the property were common to all spells of the teleportation subschool, it would say so under the rules for the subschool.

[Psyren]

The general rules for etherealness are found in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Ethereal Jaunt and Blink merely re-state them.

None of the others you mentioned need to apply beyond their specific case, so there's no reason to believe that they do, and the rules work more smoothly if they don't.

I already quoted the rule that says the spell's description describes how that individual spell works. If the property were common to all spells of the teleportation subschool, it would say so under the rules for the subschool.

Where in your quote is it stated "it is not possible for general rules to be stated in spell descriptions?"

And of course the examples quoted apply outside these spells, and have to do so. Detect Magic's rule for instance explains why an Air Elemental can fly into an antimagic field.

Where they put a rule doesn't matter unless another rule somewhere else contradicts it, in which case we would evaluate which one is the primary source or more specific. If the subschool says nothing while another location says something, then we go with something. It's simple.

[Kelb_Panthera]

So you're saying, Warlocks can cast invocation X, so they don't need skill Y to be skill monkies. :smalltongue:

More or less, yes. Rather, the abilities granted by invocations allow a warlock to serve the same function as one of the classes that normally fulfills that function through skill use.


Overland Flight obviates Climb, Jump, Balance, Tumble, and Swim at a minimum. And is 24 hour duration. Possibly also obviates Sneak since you aren't walking.

Climb and jump still have niche uses. Clinging directly to a wall tends to offer better concealment than flying close to it and you can't trigger jump related combat options by flying. Jump also lets you mitigate some damage from falling when your method of flight is disabled suddenly. Balance is only obviated if you never touch the ground. You can't fly to the bottom of a lake, you have to swim. And you can tumble while flying to avoid AoO's from both flying and ground-locked opponents when circumstance demands you move past them rather than circling widely around them. The example in the DMG for a high DC listen check is an owl swooping in for a kill at DC 30 so flight is not perfectly silent unless it's by being incorporeal and flying does nothing to obviate the need for concealment, rather it exacerbates that issue since good sources of concealment don't usually float in the air.

Also, overland flight is hours/level, not 24 hours.


Prying Eyes obviates Spot. Greater Prying Eyes is in every way superior to Spot checks because it has built in True Sight and lasts Hours/level.

This is just nonsense. They're certainly great divinations but the created constructs, aside from being easily destructable, only playback what they've seen. When you see it you still have to make any relevant spot checks to glean any relevant information from those images as though you were there at the time it saw whatever it saw. They're also dramatically slower in getting the info to you than actually being there; recorded playback rather than live feed.


Charm/Dominate Monster replaces Diplomacy, however Diplomacy is so good that it's worth taking despite this fact.

Charm makes a target friendly, not helpful much less fanatic. This can certainly help with social circumstances but it can also cause issues if it becomes known that you charmed someone. Dominate is not only easier to detect but carries far graver repercussions when it's discovered/broken. Both are easily thwarted by simple, low-level abjurations and most creature types.

Now, diplomacy itself is broken but that's a whole discussion on its own.


Use Magic Device is obviated by... having the spell already on your spell list. Umm... that's kind of inherent in being a caster.

And when the spell isn't on your list? 'Cause, ya know, not all spells are on one list.


Silent and Shadowed are two very cheap armor enchantments that can go on your clothing for +5 to +15 (depending on level) to your Sneak and Hide skills. Furthermore, this is a Competence bonus, and thus stacks with most of the other types of bonuses you get, further obviating the skills. Slick does the same to Escape Artist, but really if you are having a problem with being grappled,

That's not obviating those skills, it's augmenting them. The effects would be far more useful for those trained in the skill than not. Their opposites can be augmented just as much, bringing the skill ranks back to primacy as the chief difference between the opposing characters.


just DimDoor out.

But you already used all your DD's getting past locked doors or other relatively trivial obstacles skills could've handled. Whoops.


Etherealness beats all of these options as long as you are willing to stay Ethereal all day (since it explicitly states that you can stay ethereal as long as you like). Since a caster is also likely to have abilities that work even while ethereal (Force effects, for example), this is not a significant imposition.

When your ethereal, as opposed to incorporeal, you cannot affect the material world at all. Not even force effects or abjurations go ethereal to material without transdimensional spell, they only go material to ethereal. Check DMG 151 for details.

The ethereal also has its own inhabitants that can mess with the caster's day. Ethergaunts anyone?


Most of the scouting skills can be obviated with Scry, since you no longer need to send in a scout to observe anymore. Alternatively, Summon Nature's Ally for some kind of indigenous animal with good movement ability works just as well, if not better.

You have to know who the target is to scry them and animals have a very limited ability to relate what they've seen based on their own perceptions and understanding of reality. Also, a rounds/level spell for scouting starting from your own position, really? I guess if you're only concerned with extremely short-range scouting or obscenely limited aerial recon.


And if worse comes to worse, Charm/Dominate Monster can replace darn near any skill check because it lets you get someone else to do it for you.

Again, charm is limited. It can only compel the creature if it's something he -might- do for a friend anyway. Anything self-destructive is ignored outright and any aggression on the part of your allies breaks the effect instantly.

Dominate monster is a 9th level spell. If you're willing to wait that long to obviate skills by getting something else to do it, have fun with that.

[Troacctid]

Where in your quote is it stated "it is not possible for general rules to be stated in spell descriptions?"
It says the text in the spell description explains what the spell does. That restricts the scope. It's important that spells don't create general rules because if the text of a spell could apply in cases where the spell itself isn't involved, many spells that are written in general terms (e.g. "You can do X" without appending "...while this spell is in effect") would break the game.


And of course the examples quoted apply outside these spells, and have to do so. Detect Magic's rule for instance explains why an Air Elemental can fly into an antimagic field.
No, that rule is found in the Dungeon Master's Guide's Glossary, under Antimagic, page 290.

[Psyren]

It says the text in the spell description explains what the spell does. That restricts the scope. It's important that spells don't create general rules because if the text of a spell could apply in cases where the spell itself isn't involved, many spells that are written in general terms (e.g. "You can do X" without appending "...while this spell is in effect") would break the game.

Still not seeing it. If a spell is the first place a general rule becomes relevant (like the Rope Trick thing) then it's perfectly fine to introduce it there. Unless the spell itself restricts the scope explicitly (like saying "it's hazardous to bring a bag of holding into a rope trick" rather than "it's hazardous to bring an extradimensional space inside another extradimensional space) then the scope is not restricted. This interpretation is still valid.



No, that rule is found in the Dungeon Master's Guide's Glossary, under Antimagic, page 290.

And the rules introduced in Magic Jar? Where are those rules found in the DMG?

[Balmas]

And the rules introduced in Magic Jar? Where are those rules found in the DMG?

...What rules introduced in magic jar?


By casting magic jar, you place your soul in a gem or large crystal (known as the magic jar), leaving your body lifeless. Then you can attempt to take control of a nearby body, forcing its soul into the magic jar. You may move back to the jar (thereby returning the trapped soul to its body) and attempt to possess another body. The spell ends when you send your soul back to your own body, leaving the receptacle empty.

To cast the spell, the magic jar must be within spell range and you must know where it is, though you do not need line of sight or line of effect to it. When you transfer your soul upon casting, your body is, as near as anyone can tell, dead.

While in the magic jar, you can sense and attack any life force within 10 feet per caster level (and on the same plane of existence). You do need line of effect from the jar to the creatures. You cannot determine the exact creature types or positions of these creatures. In a group of life forces, you can sense a difference of 4 or more Hit Dice between one creature and another and can determine whether a life force is powered by positive or negative energy. (Undead creatures are powered by negative energy. Only sentient undead creatures have, or are, souls.)

You could choose to take over either a stronger or a weaker creature, but which particular stronger or weaker creature you attempt to possess is determined randomly.

Attempting to possess a body is a full-round action. It is blocked by protection from evil or a similar ward. You possess the body and force the creature’s soul into the magic jar unless the subject succeeds on a Will save. Failure to take over the host leaves your life force in the magic jar, and the target automatically succeeds on further saving throws if you attempt to possess its body again.

If you are successful, your life force occupies the host body, and the host’s life force is imprisoned in the magic jar. You keep your Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, level, class, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, alignment, and mental abilities. The body retains its Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, hit points, natural abilities, and automatic abilities. A body with extra limbs does not allow you to make more attacks (or more advantageous two-weapon attacks) than normal. You can’t choose to activate the body’s extraordinary or supernatural abilities. The creature’s spells and spell-like abilities do not stay with the body.

As a standard action, you can shift freely from a host to the magic jar if within range, sending the trapped soul back to its body. The spell ends when you shift from the jar to your own body.

If the host body is slain, you return to the magic jar, if within range, and the life force of the host departs (it is dead). If the host body is slain beyond the range of the spell, both you and the host die. Any life force with nowhere to go is treated as slain.

If the spell ends while you are in the magic jar, you return to your body (or die if your body is out of range or destroyed). If the spell ends while you are in a host, you return to your body (or die, if it is out of range of your current position), and the soul in the magic jar returns to its body (or dies if it is out of range). Destroying the receptacle ends the spell, and the spell can be dispelled at either the magic jar or at the host’s location.

All I'm seeing is a description of how the spell works. Nothing here seems to apply to things outside the spell's power except maaaaaybe saying that possessing someone using this spell is a full round action.

[Psyren]

...What rules introduced in magic jar?

"(Undead creatures are powered by negative energy. Only sentient undead creatures have, or are, souls.)"

This general rule applies, and has implications elsewhere, whether you are casting Magic Jar or not.

[Cirrylius]

Did somebody already point out how stacking the disguise skill on top of a magical disguise can really ruin the day of a creature that's used to True Seeing its way through every deception? Fun blind spot to play with. Also a good backup against disguise purges via Dispel or Antimagic.

Worth investing in a skill your whole career for that moment? Up to you.

[Amphetryon]

I just love the amount of "everyone who plays this game at a different power level than I do is WRONG" in this thread.

[Zancloufer]

I'm surprised at all the excessive abuse of spells to overcome skill challenges. Why not use Planar Binding (or a similar spell) to just SUMMON a Rouge. That would be the real efficient way to replace the skill monkey with a spell.

[Threadnaught]

Why not use Planar Binding (or a similar spell) to just SUMMON a Rouge.

Wouldn't that just give a Racial bonus to Disguise checks? Did someone actually stat Rouges?

[Denver]

Wouldn't that just give a Racial bonus to Disguise checks? Did someone actually stat Rouges?

Disguise, certainly, but also probably certain Perform and Profession checks, I would think.

[Crake]

People in this thread talking about zone of silence (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/zoneOfSilence.htm) like it's the silence (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/silence.htm) spell. 1 hour/level duration, a mere 5ft radius (so you wont accidentally catch people in it) and you can hear everything outside of the zone. Sure it's a 4th level bard spell, but it's also a 3rd level beguiler spell :smallbiggrin:

Or just convince the DM to let you make an item of it.

[Troacctid]

"(Undead creatures are powered by negative energy. Only sentient undead creatures have, or are, souls.)"

This general rule applies, and has implications elsewhere, whether you are casting Magic Jar or not.

What implications elsewhere? Nothing cares except for Magic Jar.

The general rule can be found in Libris Mortis.

[Kelb_Panthera]

People in this thread talking about zone of silence (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/zoneOfSilence.htm) like it's the silence (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/silence.htm) spell. 1 hour/level duration, a mere 5ft radius (so you wont accidentally catch people in it) and you can hear everything outside of the zone. Sure it's a 4th level bard spell, but it's also a 3rd level beguiler spell :smallbiggrin:

Or just convince the DM to let you make an item of it.

The flaw there is actually worse than silence. If you stray too close to someone then they can hear you just fine and a lack of move silently skill will have you detected quite quickly. The spell is certainly better than silence in the overall, generally speaking, but it's not as good as simply being able to move quietly either.

Of course, certain wondrous architecture renders magical stealth almost worthless. Chambers of seeing are a mere 7500gp and render any form of invisibility useless, for example. This shouldn't be used as an every time, no magical stealth ever option but it is a thing worth noting. If you're really cheap you can get a several adjacent rooms warded with hallow keyed to invisibility purge for 4600gp for a year's worth of protection.

[ericgrau]

It basically comes down to three things:
1. Spells aren't at will. That's just fine when you need to deal with one thing, but when you want to check everything as you very often do that's close to useless. Detect secret doors for example is one of the most useless spells ever and does not compare to search. We enter the first room. I cast detect secret doors! Nothing? Ok, look around the room a bit, deal with whatever's there, better keep moving before the bandits get away. Now rooms 2-20. Aw, crud.

2. Spells have a casting time. This causes an unacceptable delay during combat until you get 24 hour or swift action spells. This is why overland flight, swift fly and ongoing flight magic items are amazing while the fly spell is frankly a weak 3rd level spell. You can rain death from above next turn in a gaming system where most of the fight is determined in 2-3 turns and your allies are still on the ground. Thanks for cutting your fight contribution nearly in half while directing enemies to us jerk.

3. Some spell effects are trivial and don't actually replace anything. You can open a lock with a knock spell? So can a hammer, or heck a large rock. Doors are trivial for any class to bypass in D&D. Opening one quietly is another matter. What you really want are 3-4 eternal wands of silent knock for around 35,000 gp. Preparing a single knock spell is usually a waste of a spell slot.

Scry and die is another matter entirely. Yes anything super major in the world should be magically protected against scrying and teleportation as obviously as you locking your doors at night.

[TheCorsairMalac]

People in this thread talking about zone of silence (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/zoneOfSilence.htm) like it's the silence (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/silence.htm) spell. 1 hour/level duration, a mere 5ft radius (so you wont accidentally catch people in it) and you can hear everything outside of the zone. Sure it's a 4th level bard spell, but it's also a 3rd level beguiler spell :smallbiggrin:

Or just convince the DM to let you make an item of it.

You make a strong point. Zone of silence is much better, particularly since it doesn't make the caster deaf to the outside. Not perfect, but definitely an acceptable skill replacement for most uses. Thanks for bringing this up.

[Psyren]

What implications elsewhere? Nothing cares except for Magic Jar.

For starters, anything that cares about souls cares about this information.


The general rule can be found in Libris Mortis.

LM is a splatbook repeating a general rule that originally came from a core source - the spell in the PHB. This is perfectly acceptable.

[Masakan]

So have we established that every skill that isn't concentration is completely useless yet?

[TheIronGolem]

So have we established that every skill that isn't concentration is completely useless yet?

No, because nobody's trying to. "Spell X makes Skill Y obsolete" is a very different claim than "Skill Y is completely useless".

[Psyren]

So have we established that every skill that isn't concentration is completely useless yet?

Your GM can certainly run their game that way, sure.

In mine though, coming across multiple locks in a day (doors, chests, chains etc.) would not be uncommon, as would being in situations where chanting verbal components in a strong voice or even casting spells at all can be detrimental to stealth infiltration. Similarly, enemies can be expected to employ mundane disguises/forgeries as well as magical ones, teleportation can't get you everywhere you need to go in a dungeon with laser-like precision, and relying on magic as the only means to hide yourselves from a superior foe can have disastrous consequences.

In short, it's the GM's job to make skills matter, and while they can certainly opt instead to let spells subsume everything, they forfeit the right to complain about caster supremacy if they do.

[AmberVael]

So have we established that every skill that isn't concentration is completely useless yet?

Don't be silly. Your god wizard should never be outside of a hermetically sealed magic warded secret demiplane, interacting with the world only through simulacrums and projections. So you don't really need to make concentration checks either.

[Masakan]

Don't be silly. Your god wizard should never be outside of a hermetically sealed magic warded secret demiplane, interacting with the world only through simulacrums and projections. So you don't really need to make concentration checks either.

so EVERY skill is completely worthless, thank you for clarifying.

[Kelb_Panthera]

so EVERY skill is completely worthless, thank you for clarifying.

95% sure ambervael's comment was a sarcastic one.

Even in the face of many of the spells that supposedly render the skills obsolete, skills remain useful. Hells, most of 'em are just spells that give the skill a solid boost. There's a rather glaring logical flaw there since skill users can access those spells through magic items and still be far more capable with those skills than a caster who only has the spell. Even the spells that garner the desired effect by going around the skill mechanics frequently have just as many flaws as the skill mechanic they supposedly obviate. Those latter spells are also almost always more effective if you're trained in the skill too.

The circumstance the thread's title suggests is a myth. Skills and spells working together has always been more effective than either alone and a skilled DM won't render either obsolete by failing to account for it in his setting up the game world.

[Masakan]

95% sure ambervael's comment was a sarcastic one.

Even in the face of many of the spells that supposedly render the skills obsolete, skills remain useful. Hells, most of 'em are just spells that give the skill a solid boost. There's a rather glaring logical flaw there since skill users can access those spells through magic items and still be far more capable with those skills than a caster who only has the spell. Even the spells that garner the desired effect by going around the skill mechanics frequently have just as many flaws as the skill mechanic they supposedly obviate. Those latter spells are also almost always more effective if you're trained in the skill too.

The circumstance the thread's title suggests is a myth. Skills and spells working together has always been more effective than either alone and a skilled DM won't render either obsolete by failing to account for it in his setting up the game world.

It just baffled me how there are actually people who have this mindset, That just the mere concept of spell-casting makes everything else completely pointless.

I understand that this is a high optimization forum, but I didn't think that the general consensuses of high optimization basically amounted to "Use a Spellcaster" /endthread.

It's one thing to use spellcasting to augment what you can already do, and another thing to use spellcasting to replace what everyone else can do.

It also makes you wonder what kind of garbage Dm's you must have played with to come to this conclusion?

[torrasque666]

Your GM can certainly run their game that way, sure.

In mine though, coming across multiple locks in a day (doors, chests, chains etc.) would not be uncommon, as would being in situations where chanting verbal components in a strong voice or even casting spells at all can be detrimental to stealth infiltration.

Hell, knock can be beaten by a pull-door that's roped to the far wall as "Knock does not raise barred gates or similar impediments (such as a portcullis), nor does it affect ropes, vines, and the like." If that is literally the only thing holding the door closed, it can't open it.

[Jack_Simth]

Overland Flight obviates Climb, Jump, Balance, Tumble, and Swim at a minimum. And is 24 hour duration. Possibly also obviates Sneak since you aren't walking.

Hours/level, not 24 hours. Note that it only replaces swim for going across the surface of the water. I don't think it lets you fly underwater. You'll need a different spell for that.


Prying Eyes obviates Spot. Greater Prying Eyes is in every way superior to Spot checks because it has built in True Sight and lasts Hours/level.
Not quite.

First:
Prying Eyes only have a modifier equal to your caster level. A dedicated sense monkey will have significantly better spot modifiers than that. If nothing else, it'll be three points higher simply due to full ranks. Better when you factor in Wisdom and items that boost the skill.

Second:
Prying Eyes have an absolute vision limit (120 feet). Regular Spot does not have this restriction.

Third:
Prying Eyes must be able to return to you for you to gain the information you were after. They're fragile (1 HP, no hardness, AC 18... for a 5th level spell), and only have a +16 Hide modifier (vs. what on the dedicated scouting rogue, now?). The prying eyes that ran across the bandit camp may very well be picked off by the watchmen, and never return. That'll still tell you where it is in the forest by process of elimination, but you may not get other information.

Edit: Fourth:
It takes a round to read any given eye. Not very useful if you're trying to avoid being surprised by that ambush.


Charm/Dominate Monster replaces Diplomacy, however Diplomacy is so good that it's worth taking despite this fact.
Plus Diplomacy is no save and forever, Charm/Dominate are Will Negates and of limited duration. Oh yes, and mind-affecting immunity is one of the more common ones.


Use Magic Device is obviated by... having the spell already on your spell list. Umm... that's kind of inherent in being a caster.
Note that you don't generally have both Wizard and Cleric spells on your list.



Silent and Shadowed are two very cheap armor enchantments that can go on your clothing for +5 to +15 (depending on level) to your Sneak and Hide skills. Furthermore, this is a Competence bonus, and thus stacks with most of the other types of bonuses you get, further obviating the skills. Slick does the same to Escape Artist, but really if you are having a problem with being grappled, just DimDoor out. Etherealness beats all of these options as long as you are willing to stay Ethereal all day (since it explicitly states that you can stay ethereal as long as you like). Since a caster is also likely to have abilities that work even while ethereal (Force effects, for example), this is not a significant imposition.

Force effects on the Material affect the Ethereal. It doesn't go the other way by default (although there are feats for that, as well as a few spells). Note, of course, that a skillmonkey will probably pick up the armor enchantments too, so stuff that's strictly from equipment is probably a wash.


Most of the scouting skills can be obviated with Scry, since you no longer need to send in a scout to observe anymore. Alternatively, Summon Nature's Ally for some kind of indigenous animal with good movement ability works just as well, if not better.

Catch being that if your target saves... you don't get to try again for 24 hours. The rogue can probably run away.


And if worse comes to worse, Charm/Dominate Monster can replace darn near any skill check because it lets you get someone else to do it for you.

Nah. The real offender is the combination of Wieldskill (Player's Guide to Faerun: Grants the ability to use a skill untrained, and a +5 Competence bonus on it), Divine Insight (Spell Compendium: Grants an Insight bonus of +6 to +15 on one skill check in the hours/level duration), and Improvisation (also Spell Compendium: Grants a luck pool that can be burned on lots of things, including skill checks). Getting them all on one character is slightly tricky, but it does mean that a caster can be more skillfull than a skill based class while making actual skill checks without the ranks.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It just baffled me how there are actually people who have this mindset, That just the mere concept of spell-casting makes everything else completely pointless.

The game's designers, in a rare stroke of wisdom*, put more than one option in place for solving certain obstacles; hiding or being invisible for example. This is a good thing -most- of the time. The problem comes from people seeing only the much lower opportunity cost of the spell option in most cases and declaring it superior without considering how it might be foiled -differently- than the use of skills and a general, inexplicable tendency to let the PC's have whatever magic they can muster without giving the NPC opposition access to just as much magic. A lack of any real magical defense in the face of casters and a glut of nonmagical defense against noncasters makes it look like the casters are inherently better at solving tasks long before that becomes true.


I understand that this is a high optimization forum, but I didn't think that the general consensuses of high optimization basically amounted to "Use a Spellcaster" /endthread.

This is a high caster optimization forum. Most such forums are now. The kinds of people that frequent such forums tend to enjoy complexity for its own sake and it doesn't get much more complex than high op casters. There was a time, a few years ago now, when noncasters were optimized just as heavily. One of the few bad things to come from ToB, as much as I like that supplement, was the death knell of such work. Why build a 7 class monstrosity that can take its specialized skills; be they damage, tripping, stealth, what-have-you; into the stratosphere when a martial initiator is good enough at one of those things and can do a whole slew of other things besides? Because they -don't- do them well enough to keep up with dedicated builds or casters and their non-combat options are nigh non-existant (I have no idea why people think crusaders and warblades are T3).


It's one thing to use spellcasting to augment what you can already do, and another thing to use spellcasting to replace what everyone else can do.

There's nothing wrong with casters being able to do things that other classes would normally do. The problem is that some people believe they can do those things better than specialists and that simply isn't true unless they specialize themselves to do that thing better than anything else they might've chosen to do. The best stealth character certainly has levels in both a caster class and a skillful class with a PrC that blends the two. The best warriors have levels in both warrior classes and caster classes with tricks and PrC that blend those skills and the best dedicated casters, ironically enough, regularly use PrC's and other options that get them spells and features of other casting classes.

On the whole, casters beat non-casters in terms of overall power and versatility but they virtually never outstrip a specialist in his field without becoming specialized in that field themselves.


It also makes you wonder what kind of garbage Dm's you must have played with to come to this conclusion?

Not everyone is suited to thinking on this game's highest orders of strategy and tactics and almost no one is familiar with all of the utterly massive amount of material available. The DM of a group has blind-spots the same as anyone else. Given just how much knowledge and skill is needed to keep casters in check it's no wonder a large number of gamers aren't up to it. That doesn't make them garbage.

What makes a DM garbage is failing to recognize his faults and getting into an arms race with a player (that he will inevitably win) and letting the others at the table suffer for his pissing contest instead of just asking the caster player to tone it down and stop stepping on toes. DM's that know how to handle casters are just as capable of being bad at DM'ing as those that don't.

*not sarcasm

[Troacctid]

For starters, anything that cares about souls cares about this information.

Pretty sure that's just Magic Jar.

[torrasque666]

Pretty sure that's just Magic Jar.
Sanctify the Wicked is another.

[Psyren]

Pretty sure that's just Magic Jar.

You haven't read far enough then; there's souls as crafting materials (BoVD), souls as spell components (BoVD again), souls as currency (FC2) etc. Knowing you can't simply mock up a bunch of statues, stone-to-flesh them into corpses, animate them and trade them for favors is pretty handy data to have. Thanks Magic Jar!

[Troacctid]

You haven't read far enough then; there's souls as crafting materials (BoVD), souls as spell components (BoVD again), souls as currency (FC2) etc. Knowing you can't simply mock up a bunch of statues, stone-to-flesh them into corpses, animate them and trade them for favors is pretty handy data to have. Thanks Magic Jar!

For that, you can use the general rule in Complete Divine that says constructs and undead don't have souls.

[Psyren]

For that, you can use the general rule in Complete Divine that says constructs and undead don't have souls.

1) The point is that it's a rule that was introduced in core. I don't particularly care where they decided to repeat it after that, nor is it relevant. The spell entry introduced it.
2) Your citation is incorrect in any case; intelligent undead, like ghosts and vampires, do indeed have (or are) souls, just as Magic Jar says. The soul might be twisted or trapped inside them (or both), but it's there.

[ryu]

1) The point is that it's a rule that was introduced in core. I don't particularly care where they decided to repeat it after that, nor is it relevant. The spell entry introduced it.
2) Your citation is incorrect in any case; intelligent undead, like ghosts and vampires, do indeed have (or are) souls, just as Magic Jar says. The soul might be twisted or trapped inside them (or both), but it's there.

Actually at this point it would default to the most recent splat. Sources more specific and primary have arisen since that spell, some of which contradict it. Therefore the most specific and primary source takes point.

[Psyren]

Actually at this point it would default to the most recent splat. Sources more specific and primary have arisen since that spell, some of which contradict it. Therefore the most specific and primary source takes point.

A specific rule trumping doesn't make a general rule stop being general. And LM, which also repeated/supported this rule, is more recent than CDiv anyway.

[Troacctid]

Complete Divine elaborates a little more on the subject of certain types of intelligent undead and the whereabouts of their souls.

[Psyren]

Complete Divine elaborates a little more on the subject of certain types of intelligent undead and the whereabouts of their souls.

I'm aware, and none of it contradicts Magic Jar. I was saying that your specific statement was incorrect (or at least incomplete), not that what Complete Divine had to say on the subject was.

Also, the rule's presence in core means it applies to core-only games as well. Obviously there are fewer uses for the rule in core-only, but it does matter - say, if you try to Soul Bind a zombie, you will fail.

[Troacctid]

Is there even a rule in core that says that creatures, in general, have souls? I mean, that souls exist is clear, but does it say what creatures have them?

[Psyren]

Is there even a rule in core that says that creatures, in general, have souls?

You mean living creatures, right? Constructs don't have souls either.

[Troacctid]

You mean living creatures, right? Constructs don't have souls either.

Is there a rule in core that says constructs don't have souls?

[Psyren]

Is there a rule in core that says constructs don't have souls?

PHB 171:


When a living creature dies, its soul departs its body, leaves the Material Plane, travels through the Astral Plane, and goes to abide on the plane where the creature’s deity resides.

All living creatures therefore have souls.

MM 307:


Since it was never alive, a construct cannot be raised or resurrected.

Constructs aren't living.
Both core.

[Troacctid]

If that's the relevant rule, then it also functions as a general rule for undead (which are also nonliving), so there you go. Undead are covered just fine without Magic Jar.

[ryu]

If that's the relevant rule, then it also functions as a general rule for undead (which are also nonliving), so there you go. Undead are covered just fine without Magic Jar.

Actually it specifies that the creature must never have been alive in that clause. Not merely non-living.

[Troacctid]

Actually it specifies that the creature must never have been alive in that clause. Not merely non-living.

I meant the other clause. We don't need another rule to tell us undead can't be resurrected, since it's already listed as a property of the creature type. RC clarifies well enough that a "living creature" refers to any creature not of the construct, deathless, or undead type.

[Psyren]

I meant the other clause. We don't need another rule to tell us undead can't be resurrected, since it's already listed as a property of the creature type. RC clarifies well enough that a "living creature" refers to any creature not of the construct, deathless, or undead type.

Which doesn't contradict core so... thanks for agreeing with me?

[eggynack]

PHB 171:



All living creatures therefore have souls.

MM 307:



Constructs aren't living.
Both core.
I don't think that strictly implies that constructs don't have souls. It implies it normal style, pretty hardcore, but it doesn't look like your citations provide a complete logical chain. So far, you only have, "If living, then soul," and, "Constructs are not living." But, of course, the negation of an antecedent does not imply the negation of the consequent. The only thing you've shown is therefore that the rules don't indicate that constructs do have souls, rather than that the rules positively indicate that they lack them.

To the main issue at hand, I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding as applies to the way that non-skills "replace" skills. It's not that spells somehow completely obsolete skills, or that putting someone with knock in the same party as someone with open lock will leave the latter struggling. That's a trivial thing to disprove because skills have a number of advantages over their replacement in a number of areas. For example, where invisibility tends to fail against alternate vision modes, hide plus darkstalker bypasses the majority of such abilities, or the more obvious argument, that knock is limited where open lock works all day.

So, this thing over here, where the rogue should leave their lock opening niche because the wizard's got it covered, is blatantly ridiculous. What's not so ridiculous is the alternate scenario, where the party lacks a rogue altogether, and has to see what resources it can put together to do a capable rogue impression. And, as it turns out, the impression that casters can do is pretty frigging good, one that has some solid advantages against the skill method despite those aforementioned disadvantages. What this means isn't that rogues are completely pointless, or to extend it out, that the skill system is largely meaningless against the sheer weight of casting. Indeed, a wizard would quite prefer a party with a skill monkey to a party where that's just an empty slot. Instead, it means that casters are really awesome, and that the non-preferred party without a rogue will probably do well enough in most situations. The point is that, while knock almost certainly shouldn't be prepared when you have a party member that's really good at that, just for efficiency's sake rather than for some caster nobility, it's a spell that's very good at doing its job, where that job is the same job that rogues tend to have.

[Psyren]

So far, you only have, "If living, then soul," and, "Constructs are not living."

This is just "the rules don't say they don't have a soul," or put in its more common form, "the rules don't say I can't." Which is widely accepted to be specious logic in an exception-based system.

The general rule tells you what does have souls - living creatures. Then another, more specific rule over here says sentient undead also have souls. For anything else to have a soul, the rules need to say so somewhere, otherwise chairs and potions and molecules have them too. After all, why not? Nothing says they don't.

[Deophaun]

I believe with the expanded uses from Tome and Blood, Open Lock can be largely made irrelevant at low levels with minor wish. You just use it to turn a belt buckle into a tiny adamantine sword and give it to the BSF to put his Strength bonus to use. Lasts for an hour and works up until they start putting adamantine locks on everything--in which case, free treasure!

Which is actually the problem with Open Lock; it has a very niche usage where you have to break in somewhere, no one can know you've been there, and there are a ridiculous amount of locks to your target (and this can actually work against Open Locks in some circumstances, as knock can take out multiple locks on the same item in a single action). Otherwise, not only do spells make it irrelevant, melee characters do as well. Heck, having a third level Warblade on hand is often as good or better than a rogue for these sorts of things.

[Masakan]

I believe with the expanded uses from Tome and Blood, Open Lock can be largely made irrelevant at low levels with minor wish. You just use it to turn a belt buckle into a tiny adamantine sword and give it to the BSF to put his Strength bonus to use. Lasts for an hour and works up until they start putting adamantine locks on everything--in which case, free treasure!

Which is actually the problem with Open Lock; it has a very niche usage where you have to break in somewhere, no one can know you've been there, and there are a ridiculous amount of locks to your target (and this can actually work against Open Locks in some circumstances, as knock can take out multiple locks on the same item in a single action). Otherwise, not only do spells make it irrelevant, melee characters do as well. Heck, having a third level Warblade on hand is often as good or better than a rogue for these sorts of things.

This is one i have to agree on, why put some skills in open lock when a few vials of acid get the same job done?

[eggynack]

This is just "the rules don't say they don't have a soul," or put in its more common form, "the rules don't say I can't." Which is widely accepted to be specious logic in an exception-based system.

The general rule tells you what does have souls - living creatures. Then another, more specific rule over here says sentient undead also have souls. For anything else to have a soul, the rules need to say so somewhere, otherwise chairs and potions and molecules have them too. After all, why not? Nothing says they don't.
What's specious reasoning is asserting that the absence of a rule is somehow itself a rule. You would have been just as well off saying, "There's no rule that says constructs have souls," and leaving it at that, because the logic you presented in that post is just as persuasive. As for the assertion that this somehow falls into "the rules don't say I can't", that only really applies when you're trying to say that you can, in fact, do something. As is, the rules are apparently silent on the issue of constructs having or not having souls, and that's pretty much the end of it. The soul isn't seemingly much of a game object, at least in most cases, so if someone wants to say that chairs have souls, or do not have souls, that seems to be up to them with no rules providence involved. Doesn't seem that far out of a claim to me. Soul just isn't an especially well defined term in any context.

[Thurbane]

Late to the conversation, but for me, Beguilers are poster boys for this type of redundancy.

So many of the skill on the great skill list made redundant by low(ish) level spells that they instantly know when they get access to that spell level (or 2 levels early, if you count Versatile Spellcaster shenanigans):

Bluff - Glibness
Climb - Spider Climb
Decipher Script - Comprehend Languages*
Disguise - Disguise Self
Hide - Invisibility, Invisibility Sphere
Move Silently - Silence, Zone of Silence
Open Lock - Knock
Speak Language - Comprehend Languages*

...oh, and on top of that, let's give them 6 skill points a level AND make Int their primary casting stat.

So many redundant skills.

[Florian]

As a side note: I know some fellow gamers who are of the opinion that a caster is solely defined by using magic at all time, for everything, every round. Magic items like wands nearly never count for those guys and they run out of spell slots very quick, as you can imagine. It's finny that these are the same gamers that consistently have trouble finding groups to play with.

[sleepyphoenixx]

This is one i have to agree on, why put some skills in open lock when a few vials of acid get the same job done?

In case you want to break in somewhere without leaving evidence? In case the lock is made of something sturdy enough to stand up to acid? So you don't have to lug around a vial of acid for every single lock you encounter? So you don't destroy whatever the lock is attached to?

It should be pretty obvious why you'd go for the skill solution over just smashing your way through everything.
It should be equally obvious that no caster gets enough Knock spells to deal with a normal adventuring day and open all the locks you may encounter until he can afford a wand of it at the higher levels.


Late to the conversation, but for me, Beguilers are poster boys for this type of redundancy.

So many of the skill on the great skill list made redundant by low(ish) level spells that they instantly know when they get access to that spell level (or 2 levels early, if you count Versatile Spellcaster shenanigans):

Bluff - Glibness
Climb - Spider Climb
Decipher Script - Comprehend Languages*
Disguise - Disguise Self
Hide - Invisibility, Invisibility Sphere
Move Silently - Silence, Zone of Silence
Open Lock - Knock
Speak Language - Comprehend Languages*

...oh, and on top of that, let's give them 6 skill points a level AND make Int their primary casting stat.

So many redundant skills.

Glibness only covers one use of the bluff skill.
Invisibility is hilariously easy to counter if you're actually on guard - it's only good for sneaking past enemies who are either too poor or too lax to bother.
Zone of Siilence/Silence will fail and give you away the first time you need to sneak past a person in a corridor or narrow street.
Knock was already adressed above - it's useful if you know you have only one lock to deal with. By the time you get enough uses for general locksmith duties you've already missed half the game.

I'll give you the others, at least mostly. There may be a spell for everything in theory, but in practice you won't be able to prepare all of them. Especially not at the level you get access to them, because that's when you need these spell slots to actually survive combat.
Having the relevant skill for something that comes up often isn't just a lot more efficient and comfortable, it's also the only realistic way to get access to these abilities before you're high level enough to have spell slots in abundance.

[Psyren]

What's specious reasoning is asserting that the absence of a rule is somehow itself a rule. You would have been just as well off saying, "There's no rule that says constructs have souls," and leaving it at that, because the logic you presented in that post is just as persuasive. As for the assertion that this somehow falls into "the rules don't say I can't", that only really applies when you're trying to say that you can, in fact, do something. As is, the rules are apparently silent on the issue of constructs having or not having souls, and that's pretty much the end of it. The soul isn't seemingly much of a game object, at least in most cases, so if someone wants to say that chairs have souls, or do not have souls, that seems to be up to them with no rules providence involved. Doesn't seem that far out of a claim to me. Soul just isn't an especially well defined term in any context.

Again, this is not how exception-based rules systems work. "These things have souls" means that you are supposed to assume things not stated don't, unless you have evidence to the contrary; just like "wizards can cast spells from the sorcerer/wizard list" means you assume that other classes can't unless they say so (like sorcerers do.)

If someone wants to say chairs have souls, they need a rule that says so. I can safely say constructs don't, because we know living creatures do, they are not living creatures, and there is no exception written anywhere for them to "living creatures have souls."

[eggynack]

Again, this is not how exception-based rules systems work. "These things have souls" means that you are supposed to assume things not stated don't, unless you have evidence to the contrary; just like "wizards can cast spells from the sorcerer/wizard list" means you assume that other classes can't unless they say so (like sorcerers do.)

If someone wants to say chairs have souls, they need a rule that says so. I can safely say constructs don't, because we know living creatures do, they are not living creatures, and there is no exception written anywhere for them to "living creatures have souls."
The problem with this claim is that it assumes that soul lacking is the neutral state for any given thing. Why am I to assume that things not stated don't, as opposed to assuming that things not stated do? While you've more recently cited text that positively indicated the existence of souls in certain beings, you also previously, through magic jar, cited text that positively indicated the non-existence of souls in certain beings. It is unclear, in other words, where the onus lies, whether creatures in particular are assumed, without evidence to the contrary, to have souls or lack them.

[Psyren]

Why am I to assume that things not stated don't, as opposed to assuming that things not stated do?

Because, again, this is how exception-based rules work. A rule says what you can do, and if it is silent then you can't. Chairs can't cast wizard spells because there isn't a rule saying they can, and chairs don't have souls because there isn't a rule saying they do. "Living creatures have souls" means the non-living ones (and non-creatures) don't, unless otherwise stated (as Magic Jar did in core for "sentient undead," and CDiv did in splat later.)

[Deophaun]

It should be equally obvious that no caster gets enough Knock spells to deal with a normal adventuring day and open all the locks you may encounter until he can afford a wand of it at the higher levels.
If you're running into a lot of locks, you're not anyplace someone has to live besides a prison. Bash away.

[ryu]

Because, again, this is how exception-based rules work. A rule says what you can do, and if it is silent then you can't. Chairs can't cast wizard spells because there isn't a rule saying they can, and chairs don't have souls because there isn't a rule saying they do. "Living creatures have souls" means the non-living ones (and non-creatures) don't, unless otherwise stated (as Magic Jar did in core for "sentient undead," and CDiv did in splat later.)

And now I am tempted to build a wizard casting chair out of sheer contrariness. Easiest way would probably be using one of the fourteen billion mimic variants as a base race, or perhaps make a chair out of plant followed by awakening it. It can be done. We all know it.

[Flickerdart]

And now I am tempted to build a wizard casting chair out of sheer contrariness. Easiest way would probably be using one of the fourteen billion mimic variants as a base race, or perhaps make a chair out of plant followed by awakening it. It can be done. We all know it.
Okay, let's do this.

Step 1: Find or grow this chair (http://assets.inhabitat.com/files/graden_chair_03.jpg).
Step 2: Since it is still a tree, awaken (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/awaken.htm) it.
Step 3: Take Surrogate Spellcasting.
Step 4: Wizard levels ahoy!

[Psyren]

And now I am tempted to build a wizard casting chair out of sheer contrariness. Easiest way would probably be using one of the fourteen billion mimic variants as a base race, or perhaps make a chair out of plant followed by awakening it. It can be done. We all know it.

Make a wagon of them into bards. That way you can play musical chairs :smallbiggrin:

[ryu]

Okay, let's do this.

Step 1: Find or grow this chair (http://assets.inhabitat.com/files/graden_chair_03.jpg).
Step 2: Since it is still a tree, awaken (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/awaken.htm) it.
Step 3: Take Surrogate Spellcasting.
Step 4: Wizard levels ahoy!

Huh. That first image almost had to be photoshopped right?

[Flickerdart]

Nope. It's not super hard to grow a tree into different shapes.

[AmberVael]

Tree Shaping. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_shaping)
The chair pictured is apparently done by Peter Cook. His art studio (or whatever it is) is apparently called Pooktre, (http://pooktre.com/) which seems real enough because what kind of liar would make up a name like that.

Also, you could probably mimic Craft (Tree Sculpture) with Fabricate, to keep things on topic. :smalltongue:

[ryu]

Heh. Science. Our world's universally available actually existent alternative to magic.

[eggynack]

Because, again, this is how exception-based rules work. A rule says what you can do, and if it is silent then you can't. Chairs can't cast wizard spells because there isn't a rule saying they can, and chairs don't have souls because there isn't a rule saying they do. "Living creatures have souls" means the non-living ones (and non-creatures) don't, unless otherwise stated (as Magic Jar did in core for "sentient undead," and CDiv did in splat later.)
But this isn't about what you can or can't do. It's just about what is. Either constructs have souls, or they don't. There's no bias intrinsic to that question in one direction or the other.

[Keltest]

But this isn't about what you can or can't do. It's just about what is. Either constructs have souls, or they don't. There's no bias intrinsic to that question in one direction or the other.

Sure there is. Living creatures have souls that are lost on death. The rule then clarifies that no, constructs do not count as living and are therefore not affected by that rule. Another rule then indicates that undead of a specific nature do not lose their souls on death (specific trumping general in their cases).

[eggynack]

Sure there is. Living creatures have souls that are lost on death. The rule then clarifies that no, constructs do not count as living and are therefore not affected by that rule. Another rule then indicates that undead of a specific nature do not lose their souls on death (specific trumping general in their cases).
The way that living creatures work with respect to souls doesn't really create a general bias in terms of how souls operate. As I pointed out at the beginning of this, the logical line being taken here is a fallacious one, because living creatures having souls does not imply that non-living creatures do not have souls to any extent.

[Keltest]

The way that living creatures work with respect to souls doesn't really create a general bias in terms of how souls operate. As I pointed out at the beginning of this, the logical line being taken here is a fallacious one, because living creatures having souls does not imply that non-living creatures do not have souls to any extent.

That's where the exception based rules come into play. In this case, the bias is that nothing applies at all unless the rules say they do. Nothing has a soul by default.

[Psyren]

That's where the exception based rules come into play. In this case, the bias is that nothing applies at all unless the rules say they do. Nothing has a soul by default.

Precisely. "living creatures have souls" is supposed to tell you that "non-living creatures don't" and "non-creatures don't."

I get where you're coming from eggy, it's indeed an ambiguous prohibition in terms of the English language, but not in terms of the D&D game rules. No rule = doesn't exist or can't be done (without fiat.)

[eggynack]

That's where the exception based rules come into play. In this case, the bias is that nothing applies at all unless the rules say they do. Nothing has a soul by default.
But, again, its not clear that soul having is a "thing that applies". Soul having could easily be a default trait of creatures, with the inverse requiring affirmative claim. This isn't like an ability, where lacking is the automatic default, and instead comes down to the fundamental nature of creatures, a thing that is lacking in this particular case

[Sayt]

The way that living creatures work with respect to souls doesn't really create a general bias in terms of how souls operate. As I pointed out at the beginning of this, the logical line being taken here is a fallacious one, because living creatures having souls does not imply that non-living creatures do not have souls to any extent.

So, here's an argument for the constructs having no souls thing:

Premise one: Raise Dead and Resurrection do not allow the resurrection of Outsiders, Elementals, and Undead. [Source] (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/raise-dead)
Premise Two: Outsiders cannot be resurrected because their corporeal body is their soul: it cannot be called back. [Source] (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/creature-types#TOC-Outsider).
Argument One: Raise Dead and Resu'rrection function by restoring the soul of the dead to the body.
Premise Three: Unintelligent Undead do not have souls (Has already been sourced in this thread)
Premise Four: True Resurrection can restore outsiders and creatures who have been turned into the undead and then destroyed.
Argument Two: True Resurrection can heal damaged or destroyed souls.
Posit Four: Constructs lack some thing which is required for Raise Dead et al. to function. They cannot be restored with True Resurrection.
Argument Three: The thing which constructs lack is a soul

That's my shot, anyway, been a while since I took a philosophy class.


Anyway, informally, I'd probably peg 'soul' at "Possesses, or while alive possessed, an Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma score, each of which was not a null-score (Eg: Int - )."

[Kelb_Panthera]

Late to the conversation, but for me, Beguilers are poster boys for this type of redundancy.

So many of the skill on the great skill list made redundant by low(ish) level spells that they instantly know when they get access to that spell level (or 2 levels early, if you count Versatile Spellcaster shenanigans):

And they're all flawed in some way or augment rather than obviate or both.


Bluff - Glibness

Augments rather than obviates. A skilled bluffer with glibness is still better than an unskilled person subject to the same spell. Also, useless for feinting in combat.


Climb - Spider Climb

Reduces rather than eliminates the chance of being knocked off of a surface compared to climb alone. Still better to have both than just spider climb. Outside of combat it's burning a daily resource to do something faster when time isn't sensitive.


Decipher Script - Comprehend Languages*

Decipher script is also used for decoding. Comprehend languages can't do that at all.


Disguise - Disguise Self

Augments rather than obviates. A skilled spotter can see through both and mundane disguise isn't negated by true seeing or dispel magic.


Hide - Invisibility, Invisibility Sphere
Move Silently - Silence, Zone of Silence
Open Lock - Knock

Don't feel like repeating myself. All three have been thoroughly dismantled.


Speak Language - Comprehend Languages*

Comprehend language gives you no ability to speak that language. You'd have to go all the way up to tongues. Both are subject to dispelling and expend daily resources when you could just know the language for a skill point. Not that any of this is useful outside of eaves dropping since everything speaks common anyway.

Besides, with all these skill points you're saving on everything else why not drop them on a few dozen languages.


...oh, and on top of that, let's give them 6 skill points a level AND make Int their primary casting stat.

So many redundant skills.

They're not redundant. Most of them are useful even with the spells that "replace" them and you've got to spend those skill points anyway.


If you're running into a lot of locks, you're not anyplace someone has to live besides a prison. Bash away.

Really? How about a political office? A secure storehouse? The mansion of a paranoid? A prison where you intend to replace the prisoner you're rescuing with a double? The list goes on.

[Troacctid]

Also, useless for feinting in combat.
Ha! You know what else is useless for feinting in combat? The entire mechanic of feinting in combat, because feinting sucks. You could auto-succeed on the check and it wouldn't be worth doing. :smalltongue:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ha! You know what else is useless for feinting in combat? The entire mechanic of feinting in combat, because feinting sucks. You could auto-succeed on the check and it wouldn't be worth doing. :smalltongue:

Martial initiators beg to differ.

[Amphetryon]

And they're all flawed in some way or augment rather than obviate or both.



Augments rather than obviates. A skilled bluffer with glibness is still better than an unskilled person subject to the same spell. Also, useless for feinting in combat.



Reduces rather than eliminates the chance of being knocked off of a surface compared to climb alone. Still better to have both than just spider climb. Outside of combat it's burning a daily resource to do something faster when time isn't sensitive.



Decipher script is also used for decoding. Comprehend languages can't do that at all.



Augments rather than obviates. A skilled spotter can see through both and mundane disguise isn't negated by true seeing or dispel magic.



Don't feel like repeating myself. All three have been thoroughly dismantled.



Comprehend language gives you no ability to speak that language. You'd have to go all the way up to tongues. Both are subject to dispelling and expend daily resources when you could just know the language for a skill point. Not that any of this is useful outside of eaves dropping since everything speaks common anyway.

Besides, with all these skill points you're saving on everything else why not drop them on a few dozen languages.



They're not redundant. Most of them are useful even with the spells that "replace" them and you've got to spend those skill points anyway.



Really? How about a political office? A secure storehouse? The mansion of a paranoid? A prison where you intend to replace the prisoner you're rescuing with a double? The list goes on.

All these answers represent one way to play in regards to Spells and Skills. I dare say it isn't the only way.

[Jack_Simth]

Nope. It's not super hard to grow a tree into different shapes.
It is, however, rather time-consuming.

[AmberVael]

Comprehend language gives you no ability to speak that language. You'd have to go all the way up to tongues. Both are subject to dispelling and expend daily resources when you could just know the language for a skill point. Not that any of this is useful outside of eaves dropping since everything speaks common anyway.

Languages are surprisingly expensive, being cross class for the majority of classes, and there are a lot of languages. There are 20 listed under the skill, but the full list of languages in D&D greatly multiplies that. Even if you're say, a gray elf factotum, you're going to be past level 5 (the level at which you get Tongues) before you know most languages unless you're investing truly prodigious amounts of skill points, and even then you pretty much will never know them all.

Or you could just pop a level 3 spell and know any language you might need to know, when you need to know it. Are there downsides? Yeah. But the downsides of investing heavily into speak language are generally way worse- the likelihood of spending skill points on something you will never use is incredibly high.

[Troacctid]

Martial initiators beg to differ.

Please. Martial initiators aren't wasting feat slots to optimize cross-class skills.

[Kelb_Panthera]

All these answers represent one way to play in regards to Spells and Skills. I dare say it isn't the only way.

They represent facts. Bluff +50 is higher than bluff +30. Spider climb doesn't remove the need to make climb checks when struck while climbing and +10 is higher than +8. Whether these facts are relevant at any given table is a function of playstyle but they -are- facts.


Please. Martial initiators aren't wasting feat slots to optimize cross-class skills.

Bard/warblade characters and bard/crusader characters focused on white raven are both things; rather popular things if the frequency with which I've seen them discussed is any indication.

Even outside of such characters, sense motive is also cross-class for most creatures/characters. Getting bluff to where it needs to be for feinting doesn't require it to be a class skill and getting it on your class skill list is trivially simple anyway.

An initiator's full attack, outside of a charge, won't differ drastically in potential damage from his strongest strike maneuver and if he's already adjacent to his foe there's nothing better to do with his move action if he picked up improved feint. It's not as though initiators are feat starved unless they're something with only a dip in one of the thee initiator classes anyway.

Is it a more niche use of the bluff skill? Sure. Is it completely worthless forever? Not at all. Is it easily replaced by a spell? No.

[Keltest]

But, again, its not clear that soul having is a "thing that applies". Soul having could easily be a default trait of creatures, with the inverse requiring affirmative claim. This isn't like an ability, where lacking is the automatic default, and instead comes down to the fundamental nature of creatures, a thing that is lacking in this particular case

Everything is a "thing that applies"

Everything. Yes, even that.

[Troacctid]

Bard/warblade characters and bard/crusader characters focused on white raven are both things; rather popular things if the frequency with which I've seen them discussed is any indication.

Even outside of such characters, sense motive is also cross-class for most creatures/characters. Getting bluff to where it needs to be for feinting doesn't require it to be a class skill and getting it on your class skill list is trivially simple anyway.

An initiator's full attack, outside of a charge, won't differ drastically in potential damage from his strongest strike maneuver and if he's already adjacent to his foe there's nothing better to do with his move action if he picked up improved feint. It's not as though initiators are feat starved unless they're something with only a dip in one of the thee initiator classes anyway.

Is it a more niche use of the bluff skill? Sure. Is it completely worthless forever? Not at all. Is it easily replaced by a spell? No.

Bardblades and Bardsaders are very much feat-starved, there are lots of other things to do with your move action that don't require a feat (or that do require a feat but are better), and FYI, yes, it can be "replaced" by a 1st level spell.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Bardblades and Bardsaders are very much feat-starved

I said initiators in general were not feat starved not that the archetypal bardsaders and bardblades weren't.


there are lots of other things to do with your move action that don't require a feat

Move to a new location: nope, you're already adjacent.

Stand up from prone: nope already standing.

Sheath a weapon: that seems like a bad idea.

Draw an item from storage: maybe, depends on the item. Also why are you doing this inside a threatened area?

Pick up an item off the ground: what item?

Special class feature: I don't recall any of the initiators having a feature that activates on a move action.

I'm not seeing much here.


(or that do require a feat but are better),

Different? Sure. Better? Maybe; depends on the feat in question.


and FYI, yes, it can be replaced by a 1st level spell.

Oh? You can't mean true strike because that's a standard action and would stack with the results of a successful feint. Do tell.

[TheCorsairMalac]

Languages are surprisingly expensive, being cross class for the majority of classes, and there are a lot of languages. There are 20 listed under the skill, but the full list of languages in D&D greatly multiplies that. Even if you're say, a gray elf factotum, you're going to be past level 5 (the level at which you get Tongues) before you know most languages unless you're investing truly prodigious amounts of skill points, and even then you pretty much will never know them all.

Or you could just pop a level 3 spell and know any language you might need to know, when you need to know it. Are there downsides? Yeah. But the downsides of investing heavily into speak language are generally way worse- the likelihood of spending skill points on something you will never use is incredibly high.

I'll agree to this, but with a clause. I agree that speak languages has diminishing returns. The first few languages you learn are the most important. Once you speak common, undercommon, draconic, and a campaign-dominant racial language, you're not gaining much from learning more languages.

The time for the skill is when it's a language you will use often. Casting tongues every time you interact with locals is unsustainable.

The time for the spell is when you bump into an unexpected social challenge. Speaking with a Kuo-Toa shaman may be a once in a lifetime occurrence, and not worth permanent skill points.(Honestly, it's probably not worth a spell slot either. I'd just carry a scroll or two.)

Thanks for bringing this up!

[Troacctid]

Move to a new location: nope, you're already adjacent.

Stand up from prone: nope already standing.

Sheath a weapon: that seems like a bad idea.

Draw an item from storage: maybe, depends on the item. Also why are you doing this inside a threatened area?

Pick up an item off the ground: what item?

Special class feature: I don't recall any of the initiators having a feature that activates on a move action.

I'm not seeing much here.
Handle an animal and demoralize an enemy (with Fearsome armor) are the main ones. Warblades can also recover maneuvers by full-attacking.


Different? Sure. Better? Maybe; depends on the feat in question.
Psionic Meditation, Wild Cohort, and Cloak Dance, just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are plenty others I'm forgetting. Certainly there are better general feats that could go in those slots and wouldn't require any action at all to use, so the opportunity cost is very real either way.


Oh? You can't mean true strike because that's a standard action and would stack with the results of a successful feint. Do tell.
Insightful Feint gives you +10 to feint and makes it a move action.


I'll agree to this, but with a clause. I agree that speak languages has diminishing returns. The first few languages you learn are the most important. Once you speak common, undercommon, draconic, and a campaign-dominant racial language, you're not gaining much from learning more languages.

The time for the skill is when it's a language you will use often. Casting tongues every time you interact with locals is unsustainable.

The time for the spell is when you bump into an unexpected social challenge. Speaking with a Kuo-Toa shaman may be a once in a lifetime occurrence, and not worth permanent skill points.

Thanks for bringing this up!
My preferred solution for arcane casters is to get a celestial familiar as a translator. Telepathy is always a good one as well.

[eggynack]

Premise Two: Outsiders cannot be resurrected because their corporeal body is their soul: it cannot be called back. [Source] (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/creature-types#TOC-Outsider).
Is there a source for that in not-pathfinder?

Posit Four: Constructs lack some thing which is required for Raise Dead et al. to function. They cannot be restored with True Resurrection.
Argument Three: The thing which constructs lack is a soul
I don't see any support for this conclusion from the listed premises. It's clear that there is some sort of whatever keeping constructs from true resurrecting, but what is not present is a rules foundation for that thing being a lack of soul. There is support for that thing possibly being a soul, certainly, but that's not an explicit thing.



Everything is a "thing that applies"

Everything. Yes, even that.
Fair enough. Then "lacking a soul", as a subset of "everything", is also a "thing that applies".

[Kelb_Panthera]

Handle an animal and demoralize an enemy (with Fearsome armor) are the main ones. Warblades can also recover maneuvers by full-attacking.

So, two options that -also- require investment of a different kind, notably two other expenses of skill points and some cash and/or time on acquiring necessary parts, and a non-option since you can't recover on the same turn you initiate a maneuver. The supposed scenario here was using a move action to empower a standard action strike by making it more likely to hit/ generating a few more points of PA fuel. You wouldn't have a move action left to use on anything else after a full attack or full round strike either.



Psionic Meditation, Wild Cohort, and Cloak Dance, just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are plenty others I'm forgetting. Certainly there are better general feats that could go in those slots and wouldn't require any action at all to use, so the opportunity cost is very real either way.

Psionic meditation is nearly useless on an initiator unless he's spending more feats on getting something to do with it, wild cohort gives you that animal you were talking about above but also costs you serious money on keeping that animal alive since you have to provide it with gear or watch it get eaten, and cloak dance is a defensive option which is different but not necessarily better than any offensive option, including feinting, that can only be properly weighed in light of the other defenses the character has. A 20% miss chance doesn't mean much if the target could only hit you 30% of the time anyway.



Insightful Feint gives you +10 to feint and makes it a move action.

That's augmenting, not replacing. Again. +10 is going to get you to about even odds on most foes with 10~ish HD. You still need ranks in the skill for anything stronger and anything that's invested in sense motive. It's also, get this, better if you have improved feint making the feint a free action and allowing you to stick it in a full attack so that one of those low chance iteratives has a better shot if it sticks.

[nyjastul69]

Is there a source for that in not-pathfinder?


Originally posted by the SRD:
Unlike most other living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don’t work on an outsider. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection to restore it to life. An outsider with the native subtype can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be.

They can't be resurrected, but they can be truly resurrected.

[ryu]

And yet the animal companion is still higher value than the feign. Why? It can discourage movement, block movement by occupying space, restrain people, act as a secondary threat, and even good old fashioned damage because it's basically a free fighter. Well as free as the fighter would be anyway. They also have a habit of demanding food, shelter, and gear. Actually the companion is cheaper. It doesn't demand an equal share of loot.

[Kelb_Panthera]

And yet the animal companion is still higher value than the feign. Why? It can discourage movement, block movement by occupying space, restrain people, act as a secondary threat, and even good old fashioned damage because it's basically a free fighter. Well as free as the fighter would be anyway. They also have a habit of demanding food, shelter, and gear. Actually the companion is cheaper. It doesn't demand an equal share of loot.

You're comparing the opportunity cost of the feinting option to only a small fraction of the opportunity cost of the wild cohort option.

The cohort doesn't demand a share of the loot. It demands a share of your loot. The enhancements of being a wild cohort just plain don't keep up with level appropriate numbers for the challenges the party faces. To cover the gap you have to buy it gear.

Wild cohort is a more powerful -and- more expensive option. The overall weight of its cost vs its benefits may or may not be better than imp. feint's comparatively lower costs and benefits.

[atemu1234]

Can I cheekily suggest a StP Erudite using Astral Seed and Fusion with Ice Assassin and retraining rules to learn every spell and power in existence, then using an infinite pp trick to use everything whenever?

[Troacctid]

So, two options that -also- require investment of a different kind, notably two other expenses of skill points and some cash and/or time on acquiring necessary parts, and a non-option since you can't recover on the same turn you initiate a maneuver. The supposed scenario here was using a move action to empower a standard action strike by making it more likely to hit/ generating a few more points of PA fuel. You wouldn't have a move action left to use on anything else after a full attack or full round strike either.
5000 gp is cheaper than a feat, class skills are cheaper than cross-class skills, and Handle Animal is a flat DC 10 check without any feat requirements. Since you don't need Combat Expertise or Improved Feint anymore, you can spend those slots on feats that improve your attack bonus all the time, without requiring a move action. (Or with requiring a move action, e.g. Psionic Meditation + Deep Impact.)


That's augmenting, not replacing. Again. +10 is going to get you to about even odds on most foes with 10~ish HD. You still need ranks in the skill for anything stronger and anything that's invested in sense motive. It's also, get this, better if you have improved feint making the feint a free action and allowing you to stick it in a full attack so that one of those low chance iteratives has a better shot if it sticks.
It's the same bonus as 17 levels' worth of cross-class skill ranks. If that's not good enough to succeed, then you'll have an even worse rate just plonking Improved Feint on an initiator.


You're comparing the opportunity cost of the feinting option to only a small fraction of the opportunity cost of the wild cohort option.

The cohort doesn't demand a share of the loot. It demands a share of your loot. The enhancements of being a wild cohort just plain don't keep up with level appropriate numbers for the challenges the party faces. To cover the gap you have to buy it gear.

Wild cohort is a more powerful -and- more expensive option. The overall weight of its cost vs its benefits may or may not be better than imp. feint's comparatively lower costs and benefits.
Wild Cohort is one feat instead of two, and a flat DC 10 skill check (with a +2 bonus, even) where feinting is an opposed check against your opponent's BAB, Wisdom, and Sense Motive combined (with massive penalties if they're the wrong creature type and an auto-fail if they're mindless). The animal is cheap to equip, and if it dies, you can get a new one. So it's cheaper in feats, it's cheaper in skill ranks, and it's much more powerful and reliable.

[Deophaun]

Really? How about a political office? A secure storehouse?
There you have to deal with guards. You get two, maybe three locks where you have to worry about subtlety from a practical layout. Remember: locked doors also keep out patrols.

The mansion of a paranoid?
The fact that he's in a mansion means he's not paranoid.

Besides, aside from maybe the front door which will have enough locks to make knock a superior choice, paranoids won't rely on locks. They want devices that tell you someone was there. A lock doesn't do that. They certainly don't want to have to be unlocking doors to get away from the people hiding in the closest come to kill him.

A prison where you intend to replace the prisoner you're rescuing with a double? The list goes on.
Yes, the list of contrivances needed in order to pretend Open Lock is a good investment goes on. And better handled with Slight of Hand anyway.

[Kelb_Panthera]

5000 gp is cheaper than a feat, class skills are cheaper than cross-class skills, and Handle Animal is a flat DC 10 check without any feat requirements. Since you don't need Combat Expertise or Improved Feint anymore, you can spend those slots on feats that improve your attack bonus all the time, without requiring a move action. (Or with requiring a move action, e.g. Psionic Meditation + Deep Impact.)

Combat expertise isn't much cost. You're probably going to want it anyway for improved trip which is an extremely common melee feat. Gods forbid, you might even use it to give yourself a bonus to AC.

CC skills are only more expensive if they were once class skills but aren't for the current level. If they never were a class skill then they cost the exact same to keep maxed out as a class skill. Options that get it for a class skill, outside of multiclassing, usually make it a class skill forever.

5000gp is pretty cheap but -2 AC isn't much return even if it does apply to attack rolls too. -Dex can get a -lot- bigger and using expertise's basic function along side a succesful feint allows you to scale how much gain is had round by round to both how likely you are to hit and to be hit. -2 to skills and saves is only helpful if they have a useful skill or you force a save. Different, not better. Arguably, cheaper for a lesser effect, as well depending on exactly what you're shooting for.



It's the same bonus as 17 levels' worth of cross-class skill ranks.

True but also only part of the picture. Someone who knows they want to use a skill does more than just put ranks in it and call it a day. They put a little effort in. For example, the lovely mask of lies gives a +5 competence bonus to bluff alongside a couple of other -very- nice effects for a piddly 4500gp. Now the spell is only keeping up with seven levels of cross clas skill. There's also nothing keeping a warblade from getting the spell effect as well.


If that's not good enough to succeed, then you'll have an even worse rate just plonking Improved Feint on an initiator.

You don't get a reward without any investment. That +10 is nice and shiny at level 1 but it will quickly pale when compared with someone who actually spent some time and resources getting good at bluffing. Also, and this has been my running theme throughout posting in this thread, it benefits a skilled feinter more than an unskilled character, just like most other such spells.


Wild Cohort is one feat instead of two, and a flat DC 10 skill check (with a +2 bonus, even) where feinting is an opposed check against your opponent's BAB, Wisdom, and Sense Motive combined (with massive penalties if they're the wrong creature type and an auto-fail if they're mindless). The animal is cheap to equip, and if it dies, you can get a new one. So it's cheaper in feats, it's cheaper in skill ranks, and it's much more powerful and reliable.

Gotta make that +9 before handle animal is guaranteed. The feat gives you 2 but unless you're spending cross class ranks it's going to fail. Frequently. It's an NPC that may well balk at fighting the same kinds of creatures feinting doesn't work on unless you "push" it, DC 25 full round action, or waste a trick learned on attack for a second time. You also have to spend down time training it unless you're content with it only getting bonus tricks and every copper you spend on the animal is money not spent on your own gear. There's also not word one in that article about replacing a cohort that's slain.

So that's barely a higher feat cost, still probably picking up combat expertise as a feat tax, similar skill ranks cost until you get that +9, and likely far higher GP cost. This is not a clear cut case of one option being superior to another.

Imp. feint has long been considered trash because it's a very sub-par feat when you're reliant on full attacks for damage like most noncasters always were until ToB. When you can do level appropriate damage and other things besides on a standard action, options that call for a move action need to be reexamined. Most such options had been written off as trash for so long by that point that such reexamination was done half-heartedly, if at all, and initiators shinies got even more people on board with the (old) noncasters suck band wagon. Discarding nearly everything not printed in ToB unless it was already a proven option became the default. That so much material is discarded out of hand is really kind of sad.


There you have to deal with guards. You get two, maybe three locks where you have to worry about subtlety from a practical layout. Remember: locked doors also keep out patrols.

Poppycock. Locked drawers are a thing too, for one, and autonomous defenses are a thing such that certain, highly classified areas don't need to be guarded by intelligent patrolmen but do need to be as secure as possible. You also may or may not know exactly which room a target is in, requiring that you search who-knows-how-many rooms or time constraints or booming city business may require you to move through the place while it is still active.


The fact that he's in a mansion means he's not paranoid.

Because people born to noble families never suffer mental deffects, right? Not every paranoid is a batman wizard who holes up in his private demiplane, something even those TO experiments can't do before mid teen levels.


Besides, aside from maybe the front door which will have enough locks to make knock a superior choice, paranoids won't rely on locks.

More locks make knock the -inferior- option. Not the superior one. Each casting releases only Two locks. If it's from a wand that's 90gp for every odd lock on the same door, 150 from scrolls, and one potential butt saving from every spell slot.

[Quote]They want devices that tell you someone was there. A lock doesn't do that.

But locks do slow them down and keep them in each room longer so that whatever defense you have against intrusion have more time to get to and remove them. Given the cost of locks, this is hardly an either/or thing anyway.


They certainly don't want to have to be unlocking doors to get away from the people hiding in the closest come to kill him.

That's not paranoid. That's paranoid with delusions. Someone thinking there are people out to get them or that the world is full of danger who hole up in their home for safety don't usually think that those threats are also -in- their home. If they did, they would have long since fled that home for somewhere more secure. Also, hidden passages are a thing.


Yes, the list of contrivances needed in order to pretend Open Lock is a good investment goes on. And better handled with Slight of Hand anyway.

For the former, delicate political missions and misinformation campaigns are things. Just because they're not things your group is into doesn't make this less true.

For the latter, is it so hard to imagine a port authority storehouse for high value shipments that are individually locked within a secured warehouse? How about a bank's safety deposit room? Secure rooms and buildings full of very similar, very secure boxes are things that exist.

If you don't get that there is sometimes a need for subtlety or that a null cost long-term option is better in the face of frequent necessary use than a low-cost, limited option then I really don't know what else to say.

[Troacctid]

Sure, Crusaders take Improved Trip all the time as a battlefield control tool. They also pair it with Combat Reflexes, and of course they want Extra Granted Maneuver, and probably Power Attack or Stone Power, so that's five feats spoken for right there. Assuming you're a human, that'll take you through level 12. Past that, you're going to want Robilar's Gambit and Defensive Sweep, of course, if you're running the guisarme plan, although Shape Soulmeld + Open Lesser Chakra is attractive as well, and you may need Martial Stance to get your stances on time. If you do have spare feats from flaws, you can use them to grab Dodge and Karmic Strike to get that plan online sooner. Bottom line is, you're not exactly rolling in feat slots. But let's say you have a free feat for whatever reason. Why not pick up Imperious Command instead? It denies Dex to AC and takes away their actions, and it runs off a class skill. Or heck, even Improved Disarm—gives you a use for your move action (picking up what they dropped), primarily good against humanoids, synergizes with your AoO-based style, works great on tripped enemies, doesn't require any skill ranks, and even has some minor noncombat utility as "Fighter's Sleight of Hand".

And you can't complain that a flat DC 10 check is difficult when you're proposing an opposed check as the alternative. How often is the opponent going to roll less than a 10, do you think? At the absolute minimum, with +0 to their mod, it'll happen 50% of the time, and the vast majority of enemies will have more than +0 on their mod.

As for this storage locker silliness, sure, Open Lock might be good there. Similarly, if you need to work a siege weapon, you may need Profession (Siege Engineer), but how often is that likely to come up?

[Amphetryon]

If you don't get that there is sometimes a need for subtlety or that a null cost long-term option is better in the face of frequent necessary use than a low-cost, limited option then I really don't know what else to say.
Could you clarify what this 'null cost long-term option' is, pray tell? It's not Feats, because those have a clearly defined opportunity cost, and are precious, precious things (some of them also have actual monetary costs). It's not Skills, because those are also in limited supply, and any Skill points spent in one slot limit the option of spending them somewhere else. Obviously, it's not monetary cost, because that has 'cost' right in it.

What's the null-cost option?

[Keltest]

Could you clarify what this 'null cost long-term option' is, pray tell? It's not Feats, because those have a clearly defined opportunity cost, and are precious, precious things (some of them also have actual monetary costs). It's not Skills, because those are also in limited supply, and any Skill points spent in one slot limit the option of spending them somewhere else. Obviously, it's not monetary cost, because that has 'cost' right in it.

What's the null-cost option?

Rolling up a wizard, obviously :smalltongue:

[Flickerdart]

What's the null-cost option?
Sending another PC down the corridor first. :smallamused:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Sure, Crusaders take Improved Trip all the time as a battlefield control tool. They also pair it with Combat Reflexes, and of course they want Extra Granted Maneuver, and probably Power Attack or Stone Power, so that's five feats spoken for right there. Assuming you're a human, that'll take you through level 12. Past that, you're going to want Robilar's Gambit and Defensive Sweep, of course, if you're running the guisarme plan, although Shape Soulmeld + Open Lesser Chakra is attractive as well, and you may need Martial Stance to get your stances on time. If you do have spare feats from flaws, you can use them to grab Dodge and Karmic Strike to get that plan online sooner. Bottom line is, you're not exactly rolling in feat slots. But let's say you have a free feat for whatever reason. Why not pick up Imperious Command instead? It denies Dex to AC and takes away their actions, and it runs off a class skill. Or heck, even Improved Disarm—gives you a use for your move action (picking up what they dropped), primarily good against humanoids, synergizes with your AoO-based style, works great on tripped enemies, doesn't require any skill ranks, and even has some minor noncombat utility as "Fighter's Sleight of Hand".

Extra granted maneuver, power attack, stone power, and all the AoO stuff are -options- for a crusader. None of them are mandatory for being an effective crusader. That's the better part of a full lockdown setup. Imp. trip is worthwhile all by itself and combat reflexes is a frequent pairing. That's 3 feats, doable by level 3, 6 if you're not human, and combat reflexes isn't strictly necessary -unless- you're going full lockdown.


And you can't complain that a flat DC 10 check is difficult when you're proposing an opposed check as the alternative. How often is the opponent going to roll less than a 10, do you think? At the absolute minimum, with +0 to their mod, it'll happen 50% of the time, and the vast majority of enemies will have more than +0 on their mod.

I didn't say it was difficult I said it would fail frequently. Without ranks it will fail 35% of the time unless you have a wisdom bonus and that's if the action you want it to take is a trick it knows rather than the much more difficult DC 25 "push" for getting it to do something outside its limited skillset.

CC ranks in bluff will match or exceed average BAB until level 10. Up to that point, feinting is no less likely to succeed than trip for the same investment in items, feats, etc.


As for this storage locker silliness, sure, Open Lock might be good there. Similarly, if you need to work a siege weapon, you may need Profession (Siege Engineer), but how often is that likely to come up?

It wasn't intended to be taken alone but as part of a list of examples of situations in which open lock was superior to knock. If you're not concerned with subtlety, at all, simply smashing open whatever locked portal you have with weapon attacks is easier on the overall opportunity costs than either. A serpent tongue arrow with an adamantine tip is absurdly cheap and anyone with hands can use it.

@Amphetryon:

Open lock has zero daily cost, no monetary cost, and the opportunity cost is negligible since you had to spend those skill points somewhere. You've still got far more than enough to cover the other skills usually paired with it; hide, move silently, disable device, and search. 5 skills make you a competent infiltrator, leaving you enough skill points for at least one more in most cases and often as many as five or even more for a dedicated skill user. The magical and alchemical options have ongoing costs, the mundane options do not, thus my referral to one of the latter as -loosely- null cost. Also, needless pedantry was needless.

[Amphetryon]

@Amphetryon:

Open lock has zero daily cost, no monetary cost, and the opportunity cost is negligible since you had to spend those skill points somewhere. You've still got far more than enough to cover the other skills usually paired with it; hide, move silently, disable device, and search. 5 skills make you a competent infiltrator, leaving you enough skill points for at least one more in most cases and often as many as five or even more for a dedicated skill user. The magical and alchemical options have ongoing costs, the mundane options do not, thus my referral to one of the latter as -loosely- null cost. Also, needless pedantry was needless.

Ah. So when you said "null cost" that wasn't what you actually meant, at all, and you were presuming a dedicated skill user as further mitigation. That's substantially moving your goalposts from how you originally phrased it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ah. So when you said "null cost" that wasn't what you actually meant, at all, and you were presuming a dedicated skill user as further mitigation. That's substantially moving your goalposts from how you originally phrased it.

Because characters who aren't skill users put ranks in open lock -all- the time, right?

[Troacctid]

Extra granted maneuver, power attack, stone power, and all the AoO stuff are -options- for a crusader. None of them are mandatory for being an effective crusader.
No, but all of them are better than Improved Feint on basically any build. There's a serious opportunity cost involved. It's not like you can afford to throw them away for such a small benefit. Even Weapon Focus is probably a more efficient use of your feat slot.


I didn't say it was difficult I said it would fail frequently. Without ranks it will fail 35% of the time unless you have a wisdom bonus and that's if the action you want it to take is a trick it knows rather than the much more difficult DC 25 "push" for getting it to do something outside its limited skillset.

CC ranks in bluff will match or exceed average BAB until level 10. Up to that point, feinting is no less likely to succeed than trip for the same investment in items, feats, etc.
There is no point in the level progression where cross-class feinting is more likely to succeed than a flat DC 10 cross-class Handle Animal check. And frankly, being as likely to succeed as a trip is abysmal when you consider that the benefit of feinting is so much worse than knocking them prone.


Because characters who aren't skill users put ranks in open lock -all- the time, right?
Please. Even on skill-users I wouldn't put ranks in Open Lock. It's never as good as the next-best skill you could be investing in.

One rank to use it trained is okay. That's a pretty small investment, and you can probably at least hit a DC 25 if you take 20.

[Chronos]

The example that gets me is when people say that you don't need skills to disarm traps; just use summoned monsters to trigger them. The problem is that there are a great many traps for which that doesn't work: A trap might be auto-resetting, in which case triggering it doesn't help you get through at all. It might affect a large enough area (lightning bolt down the hallway, maybe) that it'll zap you and the summon at the same time. It might cause something else to happen that you don't want to happen, without directly affecting the triggerer at all, like set off an alarm that gets all the monsters in the dungeon to attack you at once.

[Flickerdart]

Open lock has zero daily cost, no monetary cost, and the opportunity cost is negligible since you had to spend those skill points somewhere.
That's not what opportunity cost is.

[ryu]

That's not what opportunity cost is.

Very true. Would've brought that up myself if I wasn't so thoroughly out of it from gorging on caramel apples right now.

[Psyren]

Ah. So when you said "null cost" that wasn't what you actually meant, at all, and you were presuming a dedicated skill user as further mitigation. That's substantially moving your goalposts from how you originally phrased it.

This is just naked pedantry. Yeah Skill Points aren't precisely "null" but the difference could starve a dormouse when you're rocking 6+Int or 8+Int, especially in Pathfinder. What's your rogue investing in instead, Appraise? Perform? Profession?

[Eldariel]

Because characters who aren't skill users put ranks in open lock -all- the time, right?

TBH I rarely bother with Open Lock even on skillmonkeys. There're so damn many skills to max and the ranks are precious enough that I feel I can't vindicate investing in the marginal, especially if I'm anything but 18 Int Rogue (and 18 Int Rogue needs a bloody generous point buy or insane rolls if you don't want to dump Dex/Con/Wis/Cha). Rather use Scrolls such as Divine Insight and Guidance of the Avatar to fake it when you need it with one rank to make using it possible than to try keeping up with the ranks. I'd say the same for most situational skills - with the skill point allotment the system gives skill monkeys, if you want the basic utility skills like Tumble/UMD/Hide/Move Silently/Spot/Listen/Search/Disable Device/Knowledges/Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate/Sense Motive maxed (and I do like having access to Spellcraft/Psicraft; your immediate actions do care about what's being cast at you), you aren't gonna have that many for the rest.

At that point I rather prefer faking it where I can (1 rank for Trained-only skills, 5 ranks for Balance & synergies, unranked on the rest), splitting the skill load in the party (but I find skillmonkeys and casters both easily end up in situations others can't really help them in so I find I need at least the defensive skills maxed to have a chance of pulling through the secret negotiations/traps/whatever) and focusing on the ones I'm most likely to need to supplement my magic and to properly act in dead magic/wild magic/anti-magic areas. If I end up absolutely needing some of the more esoteric skills, I'd generally feel inclined to just look for an alternative solution to the problem or to magically boost that skill to the point where I can make it.


I love skill monkeys and I hate playing characters with low skill points (particularly Knowledges and Socials really enrich one's ability to contribute to the campaign in a positive, experience-enriching way) but in default D&D with 2-8+Int skills per level and limited class skill lists, I can't really feel vindicated in investing deeply in a bunch of Crafts/Movements/Fringes (Decipher Script, Disguise, Use Rope, etc.) and I do think even skill monkeys, let alone caster parties should be looking to maximize the amount of problems they can solve with daily resources as opposed to permanent character resources (i.e. skills). As a 3.X DM I always houserule a ton of extra skillpoints for everyone and I've yet to have any of my players complain about it. I feel with the default 3.5 list, Rogues should have closer to 20 base skill points per level than 8, and even martials should have 8-10 (with the game having 40+ skills and then all the Crafts/Performs/Professions/etc. which I allow buying at ½ points each rank).

[atemu1234]

This is just naked pedantry. Yeah Skill Points aren't precisely "null" but the difference could starve a dormouse when you're rocking 6+Int or 8+Int, especially in Pathfinder. What's your rogue investing in instead, Appraise? Perform? Profession?

How about playing a Wizard / Spellthief / Incantatrix?

A more optimized character is just better, especially for skills.

Plus, we're forgetting a couple spells that make skill checks practically unnecessary. Spells that give massive boosts to checks, in particular. It makes playing an artificer fun.

[Psyren]

Incantatrix is banned (and rightfully so) in my groups so I wouldn't know :smalltongue:

To me, the only thing that can truly be called "better" is what's more fun to play. My character concept might just be someone who can pick a lock without needing to have gone to Hogwarts first; I ackknowledge that that's much harder to do in 3.5, but I don't really play 3.5 anymore, so...

[atemu1234]

Incantatrix is banned (and rightfully so) in my groups so I wouldn't know :smalltongue:

To me, the only thing that can truly be called "better" is what's more fun to play. My character concept might just be someone who can pick a lock without needing to have gone to Hogwarts first; I acknowledge that that's much harder to do in 3.5, but I don't really play 3.5 anymore, so...

I rather like Incantatrix. With the extra skill points, getting an Item Familiar is a far better option than investing in Open Lock.

And we aren't suggesting you can't open locks as a mundane. We're just saying you don't need to spend the skill points on that if you're a wizard.

Also, can you say 'Complaining about a game you don't play'?

[Psyren]

Also, can you say 'Complaining about a game you don't play'?

I'm not complaining about 3.5. I'm complaining about the notion that "spells exist, therefore skills are useless," which is an edition-agnostic sentiment. It's easy to make skills matter if the DM isn't being totally lazy.

[Keltest]

I'm not complaining about 3.5. I'm complaining about the notion that "spells exist, therefore skills are useless," which is an edition-agnostic sentiment. It's easy to make skills matter if the DM isn't being totally lazy.

I don't think that is a sentiment that exists outside of systems such as 3.5 where spells can replace the functionality of skills.

[TheIronGolem]

"Skills are useless because magic exists" is a statement that's not worth the straw it's made of.

However, "Skills are too easily and frequently made redundant by magic" is a legitimate assessment of one of 3.P's flaws.

[Troacctid]

This is just naked pedantry. Yeah Skill Points aren't precisely "null" but the difference could starve a dormouse when you're rocking 6+Int or 8+Int, especially in Pathfinder. What's your rogue investing in instead, Appraise? Perform? Profession?

Probably Spot, Listen, Bluff, Diplomacy, Use Magic Device, Tumble, Escape Artist, Knowledge, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Intimidate, or cross-class stuff. If you're a Spellthief or other casting Rogue, then Spellcraft and Concentration and Craft (Alchemy). Skill tricks and their prerequisites are also worth picking up.

[Amphetryon]

This is just naked pedantry. Yeah Skill Points aren't precisely "null" but the difference could starve a dormouse when you're rocking 6+Int or 8+Int, especially in Pathfinder. What's your rogue investing in instead, Appraise? Perform? Profession?

This is 3.X, where the difference between "null" and "0" is significant, where "+1 of existing spellcasting class" means something substantially different than "+1 level of existing arcane spellcasting class," in a discussion where, upon investigation, "null" as used meant some number larger than "0". Pedantry isn't just par for the course in 3.X, it's a requirement for informed discussion.

I was not aware that the discussion was limited to those Classes (and Prestige Classes) that have 6+INT Skill points or Pathfinder; could you point to where this was previously clarified?

For what I'd personally pick in a Skillmonkey over Open Lock: Appraise, Balance, Climb, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Forgery, Hide, Intimidate, Jump, Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Local), Knowledge (Religion), Listen, Move Silently, Tumble, and Use Magic Device would all be preferential picks, before even considering what might be needed for a PrC. That's 17 different Skills. Personally, I rarely see Characters who are rocking 18 Skill points per level. Perhaps they're common at your table.

[Psyren]

This is 3.X, where the difference between "null" and "0" is significant,

To non-abilities, not opportunity cost, which is what was being discussed.



For what I'd personally pick in a Skillmonkey over Open Lock: Appraise, Balance, Climb, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Forgery, Hide, Intimidate, Jump, Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Local), Knowledge (Religion), Listen, Move Silently, Tumble, and Use Magic Device would all be preferential picks, before even considering what might be needed for a PrC. That's 17 different Skills. Personally, I rarely see Characters who are rocking 18 Skill points per level. Perhaps they're common at your table.

Appraise, really? Forgery? Surely you're not maxing Jump and Climb, when most PCs start flying around level 5? A few points to get you through low levels is more than sufficient. And you're right, this is 3.x, where Tumble DCs are static. Why is the rogue covering Arcana and Religion, does the rest of the party not exist?

[Troacctid]

And you're right, this is 3.x, where Tumble DCs are static.

Well, yes, but like Diplomacy, the static DCs are pretty high. You need to hit DC 35 to stand from prone as a free action or tumble through an enemy's space at full speed. There's also difficult terrain and slippery or angled surfaces, which can raise the DC if you're land-bound (as many Rogues are). Tumble checks made to reduce falling damage also scale without limit, although, of course, that use of the skill is made obsolete by a casting of Feather Fall.

[ryu]

To non-abilities, not opportunity cost, which is what was being discussed.



As previously stated in the thread you don't know what that term means. Opportunity cost doesn't care how cheap a resource was to obtain or how much of it you have. It only cares about what the next best option you'd allocate the resource to is. It's literally impossible to have null opportunity cost short of having absolutely no other option than what you're doing. In other words it's literally impossible to have null opportunity cost. No matter how narrow the resource is there is some alternative use you could make of it.

[Chronos]

Wait, people actually take knowledge skills on a skillmonkey? That's what the wizard is for. And who takes both Diplomacy and Intimidate on the same character, for anything but a specialized face? Those two skills are usually interchangeable in when they can be used.

[Psyren]

As previously stated in the thread you don't know what that term means. Opportunity cost doesn't care how cheap a resource was to obtain or how much of it you have. It only cares about what the next best option you'd allocate the resource to is. It's literally impossible to have null opportunity cost short of having absolutely no other option than what you're doing. In other words it's literally impossible to have null opportunity cost. No matter how narrow the resource is there is some alternative use you could make of it.

Thank you for perfectly demonstrating my point.


Well, yes, but like Diplomacy, the static DCs are pretty high. You need to hit DC 35 to stand from prone as a free action or tumble through an enemy's space at full speed. There's also difficult terrain and slippery or angled surfaces, which can raise the DC if you're land-bound (as many Rogues are). Tumble checks made to reduce falling damage also scale without limit, although, of course, that use of the skill is made obsolete by a casting of Feather Fall.

The main use - moving past enemies without AoO - is DC 15. The rest are merely tassels on the skill bike.


Wait, people actually take knowledge skills on a skillmonkey? That's what the wizard is for. And who takes both Diplomacy and Intimidate on the same character, for anything but a specialized face? Those two skills are usually interchangeable in when they can be used.

Exactly.

[bekeleven]

How about playing a Wizard / Spellthief / Incantatrix?

A more optimized character is just better, especially for skills.Sometimes I just want a cheeseburger and some fries.

On semi-topic: In a campaign last year, the party stormed a small country keep. One party member made it to the lookout while the others were intercepted by the hastily-scrambled mercenary defenders. The lookout, a rogue, dropped her 6th-level foe in 2 rounds due to improved feinting 4D6 extra sneak attack dice each attack. The party member was, of course, a tier 3 PC-wealthed character while the NPC was lifted almost straight out of an official adventure.

[Florian]

I'm always fascinated that diskussions like this always run along the more technical/economical lines of thought and tend to never touch on the social part of gaming. It's like listening to a bunch of engineers talking about how to built a car without ever asking the potential customers what they want to actually drive.

Did you ever come across the terms "flag", "flag framing" and "spotlight management"?

"Raising/Waving a Flag" means anouncing what parts someone wants to emphasize, see in the game and have no infriction/intrusion by fellow gamers.
"Framing the Flag" means that things that got named as flags will come up and there will be an opportunity to shine.
"Spotlight management" means in this context that it is wanted and part of the social contract to not want to good at anything and to refrain from wanting to make a meaningful contribution in any possible scene, especially of someone else flagged that kind of scene.

Working with this mode, there are no wasted opportunity costs because the stuff you invested in is exactly the stuff that is relevant at the table and it would simply be rude to use magic to meddle with someone elses spotlight.

Addendum: Before someone feels the need to point it out, there naturally are limits to this technique.Flags should be chosen to be relevant to the type of game you'll play (Dungeon crawl, intrigue..), therefore having a chance to come up naturally.

[eggynack]

I'm always fascinated that diskussions like this always run along the more technical/economical lines of thought and tend to never touch on the social part of gaming. It's like listening to a bunch of engineers talking about how to built a car without ever asking the potential customers what they want to actually drive.
There are no potential customers, is the problem. Sure, one could theoretically anticipate the desires of endless potential gamers, but those folk know what it is they want better than anyone, and more to the point, there's no one here to cater to. These discussions don't take place in a vacuum with no basis, and instead are in that environment by forum necessity. We cannot assume that a given player will have a personal affinity for open lock over diplomacy any more than we can assume that they'll have a personal affinity for diplomacy over open lock. Thus, we can only operate based on the objective value of the game objects in question, and assume that players will come into the thread with their own modifiers in mind.

As for whether there are enough skills to make the cost of open lock a real thing, I'd say yes, even if you toss out a bunch of stuff. Spot, listen, move silently, and hide are all great, so that's four skill points right there. Add diplomacy, use magic device, search, bluff, and maybe gather information, and we're already hitting nine points, which is around the ceiling. Not a strict ceiling by any means, and one or more of these skills can be ditched, but they're all valuable skills to have, and ditching them represents the very opportunity cost being spoken of. That's not even accounting for every skill that's useful, and, notably, even skills worse than open lock still represent an opportunity cost, for such is the nature of that metric.

In fact, if you consider open lock a thing to be valued, and then consider the next best skill only a bit less valuable, then you are essentially losing about the value of open lock unless you have the extra skill point to pick up that skill. Yes, you wind up in a better spot, but this is far from costless. As for the assertion that rogues shouldn't pick up knowledge (local) because of wizards, first, I'm not even sure that a party wizard is a necessarily available thing (and if not, then we're now tailoring the party and class alike to make skills costless, which seems like a great cost in and of itself), and second, while wizards are great at knowledges, its not like they can necessarily afford them all. Even if you lop off all knowledges that can't identify a monster, you're still left with something like seven knowledges, and that's on top of the just about necessary concentration and spellcraft. It is entirely possible that a wizard, with their limited base skill points, wouldn't have the ability to cover knowledge (local), making it a viable pick for a rogue even with the party tailored in this way.

[TheCorsairMalac]

I like this idea by Florian(Which I've abbreviated, see his post for the full thing.):

...Did you ever come across the terms "flag", "flag framing" and "spotlight management"?

...Working with this mode, there are no wasted opportunity costs because the stuff you invested in is exactly the stuff that is relevant at the table and it would simply be rude to use magic to meddle with someone elses spotlight....

But let me make sure I'm understanding correctly. Basically, the DM asks the players what kind of campaign they want, and what role they each want to play in the group. Then each of them lets the others be the best in their chosen roles(Whether or not their own character could do better.). Thus it doesn't matter whether the infiltrator/scout is a rogue or a wizard--or whether rogues are better than wizards--because either way, he's the best person available for stealth challenges.

Is that what you're saying? Because if it is, then you deserve a medal. That is brilliant and beautiful! Where does the idea originate and where can I read more?

[Florian]

@TheCorsairMalac:

You understood it right and this is how this mode of gaming should be done.

A decade ago, I followed the "Forge" discussions with great interest, and that was the best thing I could learn from it, especially concerning "storygaming" before the whole thing steered of in very esoterical directions.
For sake of your own sanity, don't go recherching deeper in this direction.

@Eggynack:
Please don't be absurd. Outside of organized play, the only people that matter are the ones you actually game with.

[Eldariel]

@Eggynack:
Please don't be absurd. Outside of organized play, the only people that matter are the ones you actually game with.

People who frequent conventions or gameshops with large customer bases or enjoy Play-By-Post/E-Mail/online play in general tend to game with a vast number of strangers regularly though. So it does matter. Same with people who run premade scenarios or campaigns, oneshots, sandbox worlds or whatever; not every game style caters to customizing the game with the PCs in mind, and not every player necessarily wants to have their character catered to - e.g. to me it feels like my character is just being spoonfed instead of coming onto its own and earning his spurs on his own merits. So while your sentiment might apply to a subset of games being played with likeminded people, I'd be wary of generalizing the idea to everyone playing the same system or even worse, trying to generalize it to everyone playing tabletop in general.

[Florian]

@Eldariel:
Should I rant a bit? Well, it's after midnight and I'm a bit exhausted. Let's cut a deal: You call D&D homeland security that I give a eff about the technical parts of the system and if I'm not in rpg prison by tomorrow morning, I'll rant aboutnit a bit. Deal?

[eggynack]

@Eggynack:
Please don't be absurd. Outside of organized play, the only people that matter are the ones you actually game with.
There are essentially two modifiers to any decision you can make in a game. First, there is the objective value modifier, which is the degree to which any given decision is optimal. Second, there is the subjective value modifier, which is the personal opinions and group stuff you bring to any given decision. Both of these factors are important, and you may sometimes sacrifice a small quantity of one modifier for a large quantity of another. So, if you have a slight preference for open lock, but use magic device is massively more powerful, then you might go with use magic device, but if you have a massive preference for open lock from a number of sources, then you might go with open lock. We, in a forum, can only speak to the objective value modifier, and it is an important factor. It is, in no way, an absurd thing to discuss.