Reshuffling Skills ...

[Greg K]

I like the changes ( Now, if they would remove the +3 bonus for class skills or limit it to skills taken at first level).

I agree with the idea of removing appraise and making a function of having either the appropriate craft or profession skill (I'd also add Handle Animal for appraising the quality of an animal).

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The arguments that sabotage is INT and lock picking is DEX is too simplistic. The things INT covers are just as important in picking a lock as manual dexterity. Perhaps more so. [Bl]ending these two and making the result Dex based feels like the appropriate D&D thing to do.

I'm a little confused, as your conclusion doesn't seem to follow from your statements.

Best of all, Monks get Observe Twice! Viva le Monk!

Clearly, I have ranks in neither Notice nor Observe ...

Fixing that mistake in my post.

I would remove Appraise all together and fold that skill description into Craft/Profession. Don't you need some knowledge of an item to appraise it?

I dunno. Does a museum curator know how to make a katana or paint an impressionist masterpiece?

I'd consider giving a +2 for synergistic use of Craft or other appropriate skills, but I think Appraise fits just fine under Observe.

 

[Krensky]

I'm a little confused, as your conclusion doesn't seem to follow from your statements.

Let me approach this from a different angle.

The premise you use to inform your decision to make disable device and open lock separate skills with the former being Int and the later being Dex is erroneous.

You make lock picking a Dex based activity. In reality, while manual dexterity has some importance, the major component is intellectual. Knowing what type of lock you're picking, how it's constructed, what it's weakness are, etc. This is true whether you are using brute force, manipulation, bumping, or any other technique. Lock picking is far more of an intellectual activity then a dexterity issue.

However, we make the skill Dex based in game.

Lock picking is a specialized form of sabotage, which means it falls under Disable Device. A lock is a device, defeating it without the key or combination and without relying on brute force is disabling it. So lock picking should be part of the Disable Device skill.

Now, by the logic you say that means Disable Device should be Int based, so should the act of opening a lock illicitly. However you left Open Lock as Dex, which is where it belong if only to prevent people asking why it's Int based.

In essence: Combine the two and leave it Dex based.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

However you left Open Lock as Dex, which is where it belong if only to prevent people asking why it's Int based.

Um, no, I didn't. I think you must have misread.

I like Open Lock folded into Disable Device, just as Pathfinder did, and nothing I wrote indicated I was seaparating the skills again. I just don't like the combo being DEX-based, so we changed the skill (the combo) to be INT-based.

I'm still confused. You seem to be arguing that the skill Disable Device should be INT-based, but then you conclude that it should be left as DEX-based. Which is it?

 

[Krensky]

Um, no, I didn't. I think you must have misread.

Um... yes.. I did.

I'm still confused. You seem to be arguing that the skill Disable Device should be INT-based, but then you conclude that it should be left as DEX-based. Which is it?

The general argument is based in the logical break I thought was there with the two skills not being combined. As for changing the stat base, if it works for your table and you enjoy the flavor change, cool. It's a house rule I might even use in some campaigns. However, I believe Paizo should leave it as Dex based in the core rules for both compatibility reasons and for tradition. It also does make a certain amount of sense considering the primitive nature of locks in medieval Europe.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I believe Paizo should leave it as Dex based in the core rules for both compatibility reasons and for tradition.

Mostly fair enough.

But ... isn't Disable Device with INT just as "compatible" as Disable Device with Dex? One way or the other, you're changing the stat-base of one of the underlying skills. In fact, I'd argue that Pathfinder making Disable Device INT-based is more compatible with 3.5, simply because of the name of the skill. In 3.5, Disable Device is INT-based. Keeping the skill INT-based, even though Open Lock has been folded into it, is one less thing for a DM to remember to change on-the-fly, right?

I of course agree that "thief" skills have traditionally been DEX-based. It just doesn't bother me to change things when they make sense and (arguably) play better, so "tradition" isn't particularly persuasive to me, unless all else is equal.

As I said to one of my players -- playing a rogue -- "As a high-INT, low-DEX person in real life, I believe I could learn to pick a lock or defuse a bomb. On the other hand, I'd be crappy at sneaking around or picking pockets." He found that pretty convincing.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Note that I've updated the OP in this thread, making some additions and clarifications based on feedback from various sources.

 

[Kaisoku]

Seriously folks.. have you checked the new rules for Appraise?

Under Appraise:

If you are trained in Appraise, you can use it in
conjunction with detect magic or identify to determine
the properties of a magic item in your possession. The
DC of this check is equal to 15 + the item’s caster level.
If successful, you determine the item’s properties and
command words. You cannot determine the powers of
artifacts through the use of this skill. You must be the
caster of detect magic to use this skill in this way.

Under Identify Spell:

This spell functions as detect magic, except that it gives you a +10
enhancement bonus on Appraise checks made to identify the properties
and command words of magic items in your possession. This spell does
not allow you to identify artifacts.

A high end magic item could be looking at a DC 30!

So even with a high Int score and the Identify spell, you will need some ranks in Appraise to reliably find out what magic items you have.


This seriously ups the value of Appraise, as it's the new mechanic for Identifying magic items.

Trust that the designers know what they are doing... they simultaneously fixed the hassle of magic item identification, as well as make a rarely used skill have a point in the game.


At the very least make sure you know the impact of the change you propose... rolling it into the craft and profession skills would be a nightmare with the new Identify spell mechanic. At least Observe can keep the mechanic, but I'm not sure it's required, or even makes thematic sense (knowing an object's worth is very different from just looking at it).

 

[Jeff Wilder]

[Observations on Appraise.]

Yes, the new use for Appraise has been considered.

In those cases where I want to give my players a mysterious magic item, I will. In most cases, I make magic items available in the hopes that they'll use them, which means making players jump through more hoops to identify them -- specifically and especially, expecting them to devote ranks to an entire skill -- doesn't thrill me. (That's why the Magic Item Compendium has the artificer's monocle.)

The reason Appraise is a rarely-used skill is that it's lame in concept, not that it isn't useful. It's not a skill that deserves to stand on its own, IMO, in a heroic fantasy game.

FWIW, I agree with you about using Craft and Profession for appraising items.

("Observe," BTW, means a lot more than "looking at something." That's why it's a skill.)

 

[Kaisoku]

"Active" is actually *trying* to find or perceive something. It's based on how well you put clues together and quickly make sound deductions.

Observe, even as you state it, is still pretty much "finding things, and putting 2 and 2 together", not "having a knowledge base on the value of items".

A country bumpkin might be able to make out the tripwire that is attached to the doorframe that will set off a trap... but not be able to tell the difference between pyrite and gold, or cubic zirconia and diamond. Or a gem and colored glass... or even cooking beans and a magical item that will lead to the realm of the giants in the sky.


As for the case of "Appraise is lame".. well, you could say that about a good number of skills. For a regular dungeon crawl, kill things and take their stuff, campaign you could honestly knock out Appraise, Craft, Diplomacy, Disguise, Forgery, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Heal, Knowledge, Perform, Profession, Ride, Sleight of Hand and Speak Language (hell, languages in general) and feel little to no effects.
Hell, if Bluff and Intimidate didn't have in-combat applications, they'd be on that list too.

So yeah... in a game where you never need to use most of those skills, you could just take them out or wrap them into something else and be done with it. Adventures have to go out of the way to find reason for putting these skills into a dungeon crawl.. so really, why have any of them, right?

Well, core rules aren't there so you can play only dungeon crawls... it's so other people can play any game style they want. Appraise isn't lame in a game that has a living economy, or is heavily based in a theme around valuable items (such as a Thief based campaign setting).


About the only thing you've convinced me is that you could roll the magic item identification into your Observe and write Appraise out of the game. Just like you can go the "Star Trek" route and write Languages out of the game and just tell the players they either understand what's being said by default, or they are speaking "in some foreign language" so you need to cast the right spell or just can't understand it, etc.

That's an awesome House Rule that would make standard dungeon crawl, high action gaming a little less messy. However, for a Core Rules book it would be neglecting a game style that was possible with the 3.5e rules.