They should be one in the same.
But in this case you are putting unity of mechanics above Spider Climb working the way it is expected to work.
I know you do. If PF was consistent in the way that it preserves the niche of spellcasters, while ostensibly bringing mechanical balance, I'd understand that more. So your players will complain that spider climb doesn't let you climb like a spider, but no complaint that finger of death doesn't actually kill you, and no comment at all on the fact that flesh to stone works just like it always did.
I dislike that Finger of Death went from “Kills you” to “probably kills you”, but I have a much stronger dislike for Spider Climb going from “lets you walk walls in a manner consistent with real world spiders (completely regardless of how RAW handles spider movement)” to “makes you a bit better at climbing in a normal human way”. One is a nerf that I don’t think is needed, the other is a destruction of the very flavor of the spell.
You know I really think the PF rule for regeneration is beyond horrid. My point is not that no example of PF is bad to me. My point is that, as an overall philosophy, PF seeks to make the rules catch the spirit of the intent. TB tends to be much more authoritarian about mechanics and will sacrifice the spirit of the flavor if that spirit runs at odds with a mechanical element elsewhere.
But back to the point: How did Pathfinder change the RAW for Climbing?
Don’t know that it did off hand. Don’t see the relevance.
No, I'm not. If you care to make changes to the RAW to explore the different flavors in which creatures real and fantastic climb, do so. I personally don't see a need for a separate mechanic to describe the way in which spiders, monkeys, oozes, or even snakes may traverse a wall.
If we're going to pick nits then you and I both know there's a distinct difference between the way that 6" spiders crawl across a ceiling and 40-foot spiders crawl across a ceiling-- which is to say, of course, not at all.
That is an accurate description of the difference between the spell spider climb and the way that the rules dictate that spiders (and monkeys) actually Climb.
Here is where I am failing to express myself. I may or may not care whether spiders and monkeys climb walls in the same manner by RAW. But, while I did bring up monkeys, I never brought up the RAW of their modes of movement as an issue. When I mentioned spiders and monkeys, I was talking about actual spiders and monkeys and the commonly understood nature of their movement.
The name of the spell spider climb is not a reference to the D20 climb mechanic of spiders. Spider Climb is named such because it lets a character move in a manner that models the movement of real world spiders.
Spiders can hang upside down and stick to the surfaces. Monkeys grab on. It may be fine that for monsters the difference is waved off. But for the spell it is very important that it function as the name would lead someone who has never heard of D20 mechanics to presume.
Under the RAW, the spell makes the subject a better climber than a spider.
Does Pathfinder bring that text into the spider description? (My review of the online PF-SRD says no.)
No. But that only means that by RAW 3.5 and RAW PF spiders can not walk on walls the same way they can walk on floors. The ability to take 10 allows them to effectively do this in many circumstances, but it is not truly the same thing if push comes to shove. Again, for a monster is probably just doesn’t make a big difference.
Uhh... why not? I guess that's the part I'm not following here. I don't know what rules you're using.
As I admitted before, I’ve been house ruling this. I honestly didn’t realize I was house ruling it until this conversation. I have always just assumed that spiders in D&D functioned like spiders in real life (at least the wall walking part), and I’ve also run them this way.
But before you jump in an claim that this house rule is the problem, I’ll point out that it irrelevant. Rather than using the climb rules, in effect I have always run spiders as if they had the spell Spider Climb as an extraordinary ability. I have run the spell Spider Climb correctly as presented in RAW. As you pointed out, this is better than spiders by RAW. But, it also does a much better job of capturing the intent of walking like a spider. Which is the goal.
I am defending RAW Spider Climb here against your proposed house rule.
I've not looked at its intended level. That discussion has nothing to do with unity of mechanics. Whatever it is that the spell does (or ends up doing) it will certainly be the case that a character trained in Climbing will be better with the spell than without, and better than an untrained climber without. The untrained climber might be better than the trained character depending on what bonus the spell grants.
If the spell makes walking on a wall no different than walking on the floor, then what does Climb have to do with it? He is not climbing, he is walking on the wall.
The rogue is still better at climbing if that comes into question. But it isn’t very likely to matter.
I suppose technically this falls under the purview of "fewer absolutes." Rather than have the spells instantly transport the subject to "infinitely good," a point at which all subjects are equal, I would prefer the spells work within the existing d20 system and-- regardless of what crazy bonuses they end up granting-- preserve the skill gap between the trained and untrained.
Ok, then you do want to nerf the spell. I disagree, but I won’t argue preference. I would urge you to rename the spell so it doesn’t fail to live up to its name.
It should be easier to bull rush the spider climbing wizard off the wall than it is to do the same thing to the rogue who has a +15 head start on climbing.
Agreed. Though Climb has nothing to do with it. The Rogue simply has a better CMD.
Dude. Deep breath. You're ranting.
Apologies. Trying to make a point. But ranting or not, Fly is more “infinitely good” than Spider Climb for climbing and has the same unity of mechanics issues, if not more.
I don't have a nerf agenda. If the necessary baseline is that wizards are really really good with their spells, my goal is that rogues would be really really really good with spells.
Again, I agree with the core idea. But it must be carefully considered case by case. I like Spider Climb as it is by RAW now. In the Spider Climb case this core idea is inapplicable. It may appear applicable on simple inspection, but looking at what the spell really does shows that it is not.
A rogue and a wizard are walking down a street.
A rogue and a wizard are both under the effect of spider climb and walking along a wall.
In both cases the rogue is much better at climb. In the second case the difference in climb is no more relevant than the first. In neither case are either of them making climb checks. A evil sorcerer throws an antimagic area on them and the rogue grabs hold and watches his wizard buddy plummet.
