I've always read the all as simply meaning, that you don't have to pick a specific knowledge, like arcana, or religion, etc, but that the dc10 cap is still there.You do realise that that means that bardic knowledge does nothing then? Anyone can already try a DC10 knowledge(anything) check.
But you get your bonus on all untrained skills, so your trained and untrained knowledges are still fairly close. Even skills you have no training in are half as good as those you do, bards always get the bonuses, making the dc10 automatic at lvl20, you know all the common knowledge without a single roll.
|
I've always read the all as simply meaning, that you don't have to pick a specific knowledge, like arcana, or religion, etc, but that the dc10 cap is still there.
Read my earlier post about how to read the word 'all' and know what it applies to due to plurality.
TLDR though...
The all refers to all checks based on the knowledge skill for that is what that English sentence means. It can not literally mean anything else following the basic set rules for English.
Knowledge skill checks have two considerations. Trained/untrained(make all, or make DC 10 or less) and which knowledge is being checked. Being that the bard can make ALL knowledge skill checks... that includes any and all from either consideration. All knowledge skills and all DCs.
So, if you are asked 'can you make a knowledge skill check above DC 10' you say yes no matter the knowledge skill involved. As you can make all of them.
Remember, 'make a check' does not mean 'succeed at a check'. Make just means you are allowed by the rules to roll the die to attempt the check. You can not attempt a knowledge skill check higher than DC 10 untrained, normally.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But you get your bonus on all untrained skills, so your trained and untrained knowledges are still fairly close. Even skills you have no training in are half as good as those you do, bards always get the bonuses, making the dc10 automatic at lvl20, you know all the common knowledge without a single roll.I've always read the all as simply meaning, that you don't have to pick a specific knowledge, like arcana, or religion, etc, but that the dc10 cap is still there.You do realise that that means that bardic knowledge does nothing then? Anyone can already try a DC10 knowledge(anything) check.
Your explanation does not explain the uselessness of the second half of the sentence in your interpretation. Which is what his reply was about.
They would have no need to say you can make all knowledge checks if it still had the DC 10 limit. As the rules already allows everyone to make all knowledge skill checks DC 10 or below(which includes all their bonuses).|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the scariest thing about this whole topic is that someone is in anyway trying to nerf a BARD.
I mean, come on guys.
I don't think it is a purposeful attempt to nerf bards. It seems more a failure to comprehend english. Either due to not understanding how it works, or some internal notion modifying the literal meaning of the words in their heads as it is read.
The latter is most likely as it happens to anyone who has played by a certain set of rules. It still happens to people who have played Pathfinder since day 1 who accidentally change the rules to 3.5 or earlier DnD versions of those rules as they read them. It's a common psychological phenomenon. We can read what we assume we are reading not necessarily what we are literally reading.
If I am a commoner without ranks in knowledge local, then I can not make a knowledge local check with a DC of 11 or higher. If I get a bard level and a power that says I can make all checks untrained, then why can't I make the knowledge local check untrained? Does the ability say I can make all knowledge checks with a DC of 10 or lower untrained, or that I can make them all untrained?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"..and may make ALL Knowledge skill checks untrained."
Everyone can make SOME Knowledge skill checks untrained... those up to DC 10. However, Bardic Knowledge allows ALL checks to be made untrained... regardless of DC.
If you read my post, you will see my arguments against it.
Untrained checks still have the DC10 limit.I read your post. It does not explain this at all.
If "...and may make all Knowledge skill checks untrained" does NOT mean that you can bypass the DC 10 limit on untrained skill checks then what IS it referring to?
It's now RAW, it's RAI. The rules per se don't allow you to bypass the DC10, unless someone said they so in some occult post 5 years ago, that's how usually goes.
But untrained checks, are still untrained, with a limit of DC10
RAW has to be interpreted. It seems you understand the intent of the rule is to bypass a DC of 10 without being trained.
So I will now ask what is the purpose of this thread. Do you want Paizo to rewrite the rules so the language is tighter?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay let me ask a question to the side of the argument that feels that the rule does not remove the dc 10 limit: What does that statement do? Is it just the devs filling their book with much needed filler (they are always looking for extra to fill the pages because pathfinder is really such a simple system), or was there some other actual benefit gained by bards by this statement? If you could show what this does, then we would probably stop thinking of you guys as flat earth-ers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you get your bonus on all untrained skills, so your trained and untrained knowledges are still fairly close. Even skills you have no training in are half as good as those you do, bards always get the bonuses, making the dc10 automatic at lvl20, you know all the common knowledge without a single roll.I've always read the all as simply meaning, that you don't have to pick a specific knowledge, like arcana, or religion, etc, but that the dc10 cap is still there.You do realise that that means that bardic knowledge does nothing then? Anyone can already try a DC10 knowledge(anything) check.
At 5th level they can take 10 and they don't even need the bonus unless they tanked intelligence hard. I'm sorry this makes no sense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are questions of RAW and RAI even entering this discussion? The ability says Bards may make all knowledge checks untrained. Bards may therefore make all knowledge checks untrained. The RAW clearly and explicitly says that Bards may make all knowledge checks untrained. This includes skill checks with a DC of 11+.
The inference "they intended the DC 10 limit to stand" is unreasonable, because if they'd meant that, they'd have left the entire second half of the sentence off, not added additional language that both a) adds confusion and b) arbitrarily increased word count.
The inference "they intended the DC limit to be bypassed" is unnecessary, because the ability already says it does that (all means all).
This is no different from claiming the sentence "You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round" means you may take TWO 5-foot steps in a round.
Did the writer of the Bardic Knowledge skill know that all knowledge skills can be used untrained for DC 10 and below? I don't know.
Did the writers of Breadth of Knowledge, and other knowledge features read the knowledge skill or just copy the Bardic Knowledge text? I don't know.
Could this be a failure of comprehension of the writers? Yes. Was it? I don't know.
There exist trap options. There exist poor options. There exist nonsense options [original prone shooter and elephant stomp]. Given a playing field with many non-optimal options, why must you assume a class feature must be optimal?
I read the text, and apply what it states. It does not state it counts as trained. It does not state it allows higher DCs to be attempted. Therefore it does not do these things. What is left? Not much. Could this be a poor option rather than an optimal one? Yes. Is it supposed to be? I don't know.
You want to be sure? Get a FAQ/errata or maybe even a dev post.
/cevah
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm already sure, thanks though :)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has to be one of the silliest arguments I've seen for a long time. And, given how silly arguments get on these forum, that is pretty silly.
There is absolutely no doubt that the clear intent of those lines is to allow Bards to make knowledge checks with a difficulty of more than 10 even untrained. To argue otherwise is to take the concept of RAW to absurd lengths AND to essentially accuse the developers of being morons as they add text that has no meaning whatsoever just to confuse things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one has ever played a bard in my games since we started playing Pathfinder. Since no one has, this has not come up. I originally made my ruling without really thinking about what it means.
Now that I have had some time to think about it and to read up more, I was wrong. It clearly means that the bard can make untrained checks with a DC greater than 10. The rule for the bard overrides the rule for Knowledge checks. The limitation being DC 10.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any commoner with at least 10int can take 10 and auto get a DC10 knowledge check.so getting a bonus that goes up to this imagined cap would be stupid. The bard who may have heard a story about this is just as good as a commoner.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did the writer of the Bardic Knowledge skill know that all knowledge skills can be used untrained for DC 10 and below? I don't know.
Did the writers of Breadth of Knowledge, and other knowledge features read the knowledge skill or just copy the Bardic Knowledge text? I don't know.
Could this be a failure of comprehension of the writers? Yes. Was it? I don't know.
There exist trap options. There exist poor options. There exist nonsense options [original prone shooter and elephant stomp]. Given a playing field with many non-optimal options, why must you assume a class feature must be optimal?
I read the text, and apply what it states. It does not state it counts as trained. It does not state it allows higher DCs to be attempted. Therefore it does not do these things. What is left? Not much. Could this be a poor option rather than an optimal one? Yes. Is it supposed to be? I don't know.
You want to be sure? Get a FAQ/errata or maybe even a dev post.
/cevah
Is a DC 11 knowledge skill check a knowledge skill check?
Does any knowledge skill check fall into the category of all knowledge skill checks?Your postulates are not only illogical but may well be utter nonsense.
A character untrained in a knowledge check may make some knowledge checks.(only those with DC 10 or below, any knowledge)
A character with bardic knowledge and untrained may make all knowledge checks.(Any DC, any knowledge)
It says exactly what it does.
So long as the check relates to any knowledge skill you may make a check. This is what all means. It means "used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing." Not some subsection of a quantity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does not state it allows higher DCs to be attempted.
Yes it does.
A bard ... may make all Knowledge skill checks untrained.
Unless you are claiming that specific no longer trumps general, there is nothing more to be said. There is no possible interpretation of the actual wording of the ability that supports the position that a bard can't attempt all knowledge skill checks, regardless of DC. The fact that you're reduced to arguing that "maybe the author didn't know the rules" should make that clear.
If I was arguing that you can take more than one 5ft step in a round, and my only defense was the author of the combat section of the rule book didn't know the rules, would you lend me any credence?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did the writer of the Bardic Knowledge skill know that all knowledge skills can be used untrained for DC 10 and below? I don't know.
Did the writers of Breadth of Knowledge, and other knowledge features read the knowledge skill or just copy the Bardic Knowledge text? I don't know.
Could this be a failure of comprehension of the writers? Yes. Was it? I don't know.
Is it possible that you do not know the meanings of some of the words you wrote above? Yes. Therefore, I must take into account that you could ACTUALLY mean that bards are able to make all knowledge skill checks untrained. As that is the correct answer it is no doubt most likely what you actually mean and you are simply failing to express it well. Glad we are in agreement.
Seriously, 'they may not have meant what they wrote', while theoretically true, is a complete nonsense argument. By that standard, we need a FAQ on each and every sentence of each and every book Paizo has ever published... and then we'd need at least one FAQ on each of those FAQs.
to essentially accuse the developers of being morons as they add text that has no meaning whatsoever just to confuse things.
Please read Trumple (Ex), then come back.
|
Note that Cevah has ignored all comments that have used common sense and asked him why they would even include that text if any class can already make a DC 10 check untrained.
Regardless of his, or anyone's interpretation of RAW, RAI Bardic Knowledge allows a Bard to make knowledge checks untrained above a DC 10 as it has no purpose otherwise.
Also, I will once again state that the OP's original post was asking about RAI, not RAW.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Knowledge states "Training: You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10."
Brdic Knowledge states "...and may make all Knowledge skill checks untrained."
Seems pretty damn RAW that you CAN make checks of any DC untrained.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You want to be sure? Get a FAQ/errata or maybe even a dev post./cevah
Why would I waste everyone's time and effort of an FAQ of the word "all". I'm PRETTY sure I've had a handle on what that word means for a while and I'm actually quite stunned that it seems that some of you in this thread don't.
There exist trap options. There exist poor options. There exist nonsense options [original prone shooter and elephant stomp]. Given a playing field with many non-optimal options, why must you assume a class feature must be optimal?
No, no, no. That isn't the case here. You COULD read this ability as doing something but you choice not to. That's not the same as your examples where the actual choice is poor, trap or nonsensical. So my question is, why MUST you read it as the ability does nothing when it's easy not to and have a usable ability?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Putting aside the issues with whether or not it's right or not, if there are two ways to interpret a piece of text and one of those ways leads to a miserable dysfunction where the ability doesn't function at all and the other makes the ability work completely normally...
Why in the world would you insist the former interpretation is correct?It doesn't make sense on its face to intentionally read the text in such a way as to make the ability not function.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Putting aside the issues with whether or not it's right or not, if there are two ways to interpret a piece of text and one of those ways leads to a miserable dysfunction where the ability doesn't function at all and the other makes the ability work completely normally...
Why in the world would you insist the former interpretation is correct?It doesn't make sense on its face to intentionally read the text in such a way as to make the ability not function.
I was just about to post pretty much exactly this. Really not much more to say on the subject.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Technically, Letric is correct.
In the central bureaucracy, that is the best kind of correct.
In real life fantasy when you are presented with two legitimate readings one of which does something that the flavor text says it does and one of which does absolutely nothing, pick the first one.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if they can't achieve an effective result higher than 10, they can still certainly still attempt the check.
No they can't.
"Untrained: You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10." It's not 'you can't succeed in the roll' but 'you can't make the roll'. So you can't make rolls on a knowledge check of DC 11+... That'd make Letric just plain wrong instead of 'technically correct'. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ACTUALLY the ability says a bard MAY MAKE all knowledge checks untrained. 'Make' implies success. Therefore, if a Bard can never have no possibility of succeeding at a knowledge check, and it's up to the GM to figure out how to make that work. They don't need to have a GOOD chance of success, but it has to be non-zero per a totally valid reading of the ability.
This is fun.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you get your bonus on all untrained skills, so your trained and untrained knowledges are still fairly close. Even skills you have no training in are half as good as those you do, bards always get the bonuses, making the dc10 automatic at lvl20, you know all the common knowledge without a single roll.I've always read the all as simply meaning, that you don't have to pick a specific knowledge, like arcana, or religion, etc, but that the dc10 cap is still there.You do realise that that means that bardic knowledge does nothing then? Anyone can already try a DC10 knowledge(anything) check.
Take 10. Intelligence 10. No skill. Any class.
"all the common knowledge without a single roll."There is no need of a class ability for that.
Bard can take10 on know-roll even stressed. He isn't trained in knowledge. He doesen't know what a goblin is.
|
|
A lot of arguing over nothing and some pretty intentionally wrong things being stated.But this sentence likely takes the cake for most egregious.
No one has ever played a bard in my games since we started playing Pathfinder.MOST EGREGIOUS.
Bards aren't immediate damage dealers and generally the spells they have aren't direct solutions for problems, so some people overlook them and their great capacity for support.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What.
I mean.
What.
This ability does absolutely nothing if you don't have it bypass the DC cap. WTF.
Interesting. So you're saying I can kinda tell how obscure a bit of knowledge is simply based on whether the GM allows me to make a roll? Personally, I'd just let them roll regardless of the DC and give them no info if its DC was too high.
As has been pointed out, take ten means the DM shouldn't be making people roll for DC 10 checks anyway.
As long as the ENTIRE group hasn't dumped intelligence, the DM can just give out DC 10 info as it's common knowledge. So when the DM asks for a roll, you should be sure it's not something the average int 10 commoner could tell you...
On a secondary note, know checks often have levels of information. As in, a DC 10 gets you x info, DC 15 gets you x extra info, ect. As such, you could 'make the roll', but you are clearly limited to the DC 10 info. So you can roll on checks as long as they include a DC 10 option.
Personally, I'd just let them roll regardless of the DC and give them no info if its DC was too high.
You could also make them roll for saves when none are allowed and perception checks when there is nothing there, but I generally don't make people roll just to waste time. Why not cut out the middle man and just give out DC 10 info and then allow people that can make higher rolls to do so?
Personally, I'd just let them roll regardless of the DC and give them no info if its DC was too high.You could also make them roll for saves when none are allowed and perception checks when there is nothing there, but I generally don't make people roll just to waste time. Why not cut out the middle man and just give out DC 10 info and then allow people that can make higher rolls to do so?Hmn, I kinda meant that as a general thing. Players should be allowed to attempt things and not simply be told "sorry, that's just too hard for you".
(saving throws and perception checks aren't a terribly good analogy, either)Note, however, there are some situations where you're not allowed to take 10, such as in combat.
While technically true, the only generally useful combat info is monster lore, and that starts at 10+ unless it's a common monster. Given that, the only people rolling would be those that can actually make a dc 10+ check.
If it happens to be a common monster [DC 5+], it seems a waste of time to not give out the info instead of making everyone roll for it. There is a good chance someone would roll high enough anyway as the info is for "really easy questions" or even easier questions...
Players should be allowed to attempt things and not simply be told "sorry, that's just too hard for you".
The game does this all the time with trained skills. Opening that lock is simply too hard to roll for without training. Handling an animal is too hard to roll for without training. Why is DC 11+ knowledge checks different?