Expanded skill list?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 71 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
This feels like a weird hill to die on, Toker. I think you know you're wrong about this-- I think I saw a post you deleted which further argued the point.

I deleted it because we're derailing a thread over a skill that's poorly defined and is not that important in the grand scheme of things.

Saying the skill is a replacement for Profession is true, the fact that it's been expanded to apply to Nouns (since Profession requires you to come up with theoretical jobs to match what "Lore" you want to be savvy too) doesn't change anything.

Paizo even stated it's a replacement for Profession with an expanding to be more than just what Profession was in PF1.

There is nothing to back up DMWs assertion that Lore Evil isn't legal. Or that Lore Undead isn't legal.

Because both of those are less broad than Religion/Arcana/Occult/Nature which is the only stipulation under Lore.

However, it's clear the intent, as evident from the backgrounds, is to apply to less wide niches (Circus/Alcohol/etc)

Even the two written samples for Types apply to Humanoids with a small subset of creatures and knowledge (Vampires and Gnolls)

Both of which exist on the material plane. Both of which are a single type of creature for the most part.

Demons applies to a broad class of 20+ creatures, a whole plane of existence, society, etc

If you want to argue those are equal just because they're both subtypes, feel free, but just like there are different sizes of infinities so too is true here.

There should be some regulations on how powerful a Lore skill is at minimum and at maximum.

And you cant say "Lore is definitely not Profession" when it's literally replacing the skill, has it's old actions, and is tied to the backgrounds (a literal Profession) you get at the start of the game.

I'll post up on this hill all day. It's unclear, badly codified, and leaves to much opportunity for table side conflict. No one in this thread has even fully agreed where it begins and ends in terms of power.

Now that's my last response because as I said before, I don't think it's that important that I be chastised for thinking so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Lore isn't brand new. They have simplified things in the skill system for 2nd edition, and so they chose a single name for the new rolled up skill which consists of multiple previous part.

One of the things that the new Lore skill took over was the Profession skill, it also however took over the LORE skill that already exists (do a search for Background Skills to find it. I believe it came from Unchained. I also potentially think it may also be taking over options under Artistry.

Look up the the definition for Lore in those rules, and you see some wordier explanations for what they indicated was valid choices for Lore. They also point out that the more general a choice you pick, the less details you know about anything you know. The more specific you choose, the more details you know. If you pick Taverns, you don't know many details about individuals taverns. If you know Taverns in Magnimar, I'd guess you could probably give the name of the bartender, and know what type of people go to each tavern you successfully make a check on. In those 1st edition rules, if you choose too broad a topic, it wasn't valid for making a monster check. Lore (Owlbear) or Lore (Vampire) could be used for Monster Identification checks, but Lore (Elves) as a common grouping would not be considered specific enough, as Lore (Dragons) would be too broad for Monster Id checks.

Can't promise that all the same restrictions that came from first edition will apply to the new Lore skill, but it does give you an idea of what they are likely thinking. The Lore skill obviously represents a 'specialized' knowledge set. They generalized that concept, and realized it encompassed Profession choices.

Lore = choose a topic and use applicable subskill(s) abilities below that would apply.
Profession
Lore
Artistry


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
This feels like a weird hill to die on, Toker. I think you know you're wrong about this-- I think I saw a post you deleted which further argued the point.

I deleted it because we're derailing a thread over a skill that's poorly defined and is not that important in the grand scheme of things.

Saying the skill is a replacement for Profession is true, the fact that it's been expanded to apply to Nouns (since Profession requires you to come up with theoretical jobs to match what "Lore" you want to be savvy too) doesn't change anything.

Paizo even stated it's a replacement for Profession with an expanding to be more than just what Profession was in PF1.

And you cant say "Lore is definitely not Profession" when it's literally replacing the skill, has it's old actions, and is tied to the backgrounds (a literal Profession) you get at the start of the game.

No one is saying Lore isn't replacing Profession. We are saying it isn't Lore's primary use. A notion you have put forward that seems to be limiting what Lore can be applied to in ways that nothing in the rules (or indeed, the very dictionary definition of Lore) implies.

Quote:

There is nothing to back up DMWs assertion that Lore Evil isn't legal. Or that Lore Undead isn't legal.

Because both of those are less broad than Religion/Arcana/Occult/Nature which is the only stipulation under Lore.

That isn't true. Evil takes many forms. Evil creatures can be found in Arcana, Religion, Nature, Occult, and Society. Lore Evil would include things like the Dominion of the Black or the Whispering Way.

It doesn't let you do everything Arcana does, but it lets you take a cross section of every other knowledge skill.

Quote:
However, it's clear the intent, as evident from the backgrounds, is to apply to less wide niches (Circus/Alcohol/etc)

Yes, and "demons" is a less wide niche than "Evil" or "Religion."

Quote:

Even the two written samples for Types apply to Humanoids with a small subset of creatures and knowledge (Vampires and Gnolls)

Both of which exist on the material plane. Both of which are a single type of creature for the most part.

Demons applies to a broad class of 20+ creatures, a whole plane of existence, society, etc

Vampires got numerous entries in the bestiary themselves, and have their own societies. Lore: Vampire would be a darn sight more useful in Carrion Crown than Lore: Demons would be. Even Gnolls have a society and 2 entries in the bestiary, and based on Pale Mountain Gnoll Lore can also inform you of the kind of animal companions they use.

Demons are more biologically diverse than Gnolls, but the playtest bestiary also notes there are numerous species of vampires and it only focuses on the Moroi. A quick glance at Dhampirs suggests there are at least 4 species of them, and the the Gnoll example suggests it would also include their various servants as well. Demons probably covers more creatures, but I'd also argue Vampire Lore is denser-- they have a lot more specific weaknesses and abilities, and it is easier to tell a Quasit from a succubus than a Vetala than a Moroi.

The only thing demons really seem to have that sets them apart is being from another plane, and frankly given people do know about other planes I'd probably handle this through rarity, giving demons a higher DC as a rarer creature. Which is what the playtest bestiary already does for many of them.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

And I think the decision at your table to allow Lore Demons is a poor one, personally.

While it in itself might not create an issue, it devalues other Lores by extension to the point where almost all players should just select Lore <insert-creature-sub-type> to cover as many bases as they can.

If that's what's intended, the Lore Circus/Alcohol/Profession is a waste and shouldn't be allowed.

Or not.

Some players actually prefer less optimal choices if it fits their concept better.

And PF2 seems designed to allow both these as well as those who will optimize every aspect of their build to operate within the same party.

Honestly I love this and hope it will work in the actual game as well as intended.

Liberty's Edge

Do we have a skill to identify adventurers' abilities ? Or are we still left to metagaming ?

I always thought it weird that we can know so much about a creature's abilities except when they come from its build.


The Raven Black wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

And I think the decision at your table to allow Lore Demons is a poor one, personally.

While it in itself might not create an issue, it devalues other Lores by extension to the point where almost all players should just select Lore <insert-creature-sub-type> to cover as many bases as they can.

If that's what's intended, the Lore Circus/Alcohol/Profession is a waste and shouldn't be allowed.

Or not.

Some players actually prefer less optimal choices if it fits their concept better.

Exactly. And if you decide that particular lore subskill was a mistake, there’s always retraining.

By the way, was the evil tag given to all evil creatures, or only ones that would have the type evil like fiends and some undead (but not, say, blue dragons)? I’d check myself, but I’m at work and don’t have my copy of the playtest beastiary.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

And I think the decision at your table to allow Lore Demons is a poor one, personally.

While it in itself might not create an issue, it devalues other Lores by extension to the point where almost all players should just select Lore <insert-creature-sub-type> to cover as many bases as they can.

If that's what's intended, the Lore Circus/Alcohol/Profession is a waste and shouldn't be allowed.

Or not.

Some players actually prefer less optimal choices if it fits their concept better.

Exactly. And if you decide that particular lore subskill was a mistake, there’s always retraining.

By the way, was the evil tag given to all evil creatures, or only ones that would have the type evil like fiends and some undead (but not, say, blue dragons)? I’d check myself, but I’m at work and don’t have my copy of the playtest beastiary.

It's a specific subtype given to evil outsiders.

I agree with everything Loreguard mentions about PF1 unchained Lore, the wider the net, the less fish. More than willing to bet that's exactly how it ends up working, where choices like Demon and Dragon might give you the name of the creature, typical alignment, maybe some broadstroke commonalities across them, but rolling for specific "what Spell-like abilities does a Balor have?" Impossible.


The Raven Black wrote:

Do we have a skill to identify adventurers' abilities ? Or are we still left to metagaming ?

I always thought it weird that we can know so much about a creature's abilities except when they come from its build.

I think knowing what the classes are and are capable of is society and/or probably the knowledge skill tied to the spell list in the case of casters. I can also see other knowledge skills being applicable for certain, and often more specific, cases. To figure out what abilities an individual has within that class is a bit more nebulous. Maybe a sense motive equivalent (so unless they changed it, perception) or if they are a somewhat well known individual a gather information or pertinent knowledge skill or lore check. So even then usually society.

In short: in PF1 it was usually knowledge local which is now part of society and also like PF1 other knowledge or investigative skills will work when applicable. Though I admit that there could be a lot of variation between DMs.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

And I think the decision at your table to allow Lore Demons is a poor one, personally.

While it in itself might not create an issue, it devalues other Lores by extension to the point where almost all players should just select Lore <insert-creature-sub-type> to cover as many bases as they can.

If that's what's intended, the Lore Circus/Alcohol/Profession is a waste and shouldn't be allowed.

Or not.

Some players actually prefer less optimal choices if it fits their concept better.

Exactly. And if you decide that particular lore subskill was a mistake, there’s always retraining.

By the way, was the evil tag given to all evil creatures, or only ones that would have the type evil like fiends and some undead (but not, say, blue dragons)? I’d check myself, but I’m at work and don’t have my copy of the playtest beastiary.

It's a specific subtype given to evil outsiders.

I agree with everything Loreguard mentions about PF1 unchained Lore, the wider the net, the less fish. More than willing to bet that's exactly how it ends up working, where choices like Demon and Dragon might give you the name of the creature, typical alignment, maybe some broadstroke commonalities across them, but rolling for specific "what Spell-like abilities does a Balor have?" Impossible.

That was true in PF1, but now Evil is a a trait that is tagged on any evil aligned creature, from humans to dragons.

What were evil outsiders before are now labeled fiends, with demons and devils being subtypes of fiend.


Captain Morgan wrote:

That isn't true. Evil takes many forms. Evil creatures can be found in Arcana, Religion, Nature, Occult, and Society. Lore Evil would include things like the Dominion of the Black or the Whispering Way.

No, Evil is a sub-type specifically for Evil Outsiders which is interchangeable with the term "fiends":

Quote:
This subtype is usually applied to Outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil Outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are evil-aligned.

So it doesn't cover anything outside of Religion, since Religion covers a lot more than just Evil Outsiders.

The big "rebuttal" to this was that "evil is no longer a sub-type".

In regards to how "Demons isn't that strong", it's not about that specific choice it's about the premise of choosing any and all sub-types.

Especially when "Gnoll" and "Vampire" aren't just types they are also named creatures with specific entries for just them.

Of course Lore Gnoll tells you about animals they ride and own and interact with, that's covered since you know about Gnolls.

Vampires, is less specific, but in it might not apply to all vampires, or perhaps it applies tangentially but you know less about those Vampires (higher DC like your proposition for Demons). It could just mean that you know about the default entry "Vampire", as is that's not really clear.

Regardless, applying the concept "sub-types are legal, because Gnoll and Vampire are choices" moves on two assumptions:

1. That those Lores are not defined by the creature (such as Lore Balor)
2. All sub-types are treated equal

And there might not need to be further definition if the Lore definition from Unchained carries.

Then niche choices have their value, you REALLY know your Alcohol, down to the make, region, taverns that carry it, worth, etc.

And you know a slew of general knowledge about Dragons (Wyverns aren't super intelligent, Chromatics are usually evil, etc.)

Which would be perfectly fine.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

But the concept of evil exists outside of planar subtypes. If I was to think of Lore(Evil) that would make me think the person has knowledge of things that are associated with evil; Evil organizations,evil outsiders, liches, villians, evil dieties.

Lore while mechanical feels more like well all ed in lore the mythology of the world. So when I read evil, during this conversation I s reading it in this context(as were most people) but you have been viewing it as purely the mechanical concept. which isnt a bad way but it is different than everyone else which led to miscommunication. Evil would be broad because it isn't tied to one type of creature or even to creatures themselves but groups and actions and concepts that cast a net so large it dips into any other knowledge skill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say one way to manage specific versus general when it comes to lore categories is to make the more specific the category, the more detailed the knowledge you can access with it.

Like Lore (Undead) versus Lore (Vampires). Someone with Undead Lore could tell you about the various kinds of vampires, their abilities and weaknesses. Someone with Vampire Lore could tell you about specific vampires, their political entanglements, enemies, allies, areas of interest, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

One thing I've started doing with very specific lore is not always needing a roll. One if my players has the Sandpoint mercantile league lore from his background, and I've stopped making him roll for basic things he should just know, like how the Sandpoint Glassworks operates. Which is especially nice because at low levels your proficiency bonus is so low that those "gimme" rolls aren't necessarily gimmes.

If he went to MAgnimar and wanted to figure out the workings of a similar business, on the other hand, I'd let him apply the Lore skill but make him roll for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pixierose wrote:
Lore while mechanical feels more like well all ed in lore the mythology of the world. So when I read evil, during this conversation I s reading it in this context(as were most people)

I specifically stated in the very beginning when I made the point of "Sub-types" that it was in reference to the Evil sub-type, so if anyone misunderstood that they glossed over the below post which was where I made the original point of Lore Evil int he first place:

Midnightoker wrote:

Lore (Incorporeal)? All ghosts, wraiths, shadow demons, etc.

Lore (Evil)? All demons, all devils, all daemons, etc.

Lore (Native)? Tieflings, Aasimar, etc.

All of the above are choices available unless of course the Type/Sub-type system has been massively overhauled.

It was outlined alongside Native and Incorporeal (two other sub-types from PF1).

Quote:
Evil would be broad because it isn't tied to one type of creature or even to creatures themselves but groups and actions and concepts that cast a net so large it dips into any other knowledge skill.

Which is probably why it is no longer a sub-type, however, my original point was that allowing any sub-type as a choice creates the above dilemmas.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would say one way to manage specific versus general when it comes to lore categories is to make the more specific the category, the more detailed the knowledge you can access with it.

Like Lore (Undead) versus Lore (Vampires). Someone with Undead Lore could tell you about the various kinds of vampires, their abilities and weaknesses. Someone with Vampire Lore could tell you about specific vampires, their political entanglements, enemies, allies, areas of interest, etc.

100% agree, now put that in the Lore text and there's no issues.

Taking Lore Demon and seeing that all Demons come from the Abyss, are Chaotic Evil, a higher check shows they all have Immunity to Acid/Electricity, and an even higher check says that some have Fast Healing or True Seeing also cool.

Lore Vampire with a relatively reasonable roll should show you a lot of their abilities (almost as good or equal to rolling Religion the same on them)


Captain Morgan wrote:

One thing I've started doing with very specific lore is not always needing a roll. One if my players has the Sandpoint mercantile league lore from his background, and I've stopped making him roll for basic things he should just know, like how the Sandpoint Glassworks operates. Which is especially nice because at low levels your proficiency bonus is so low that those "gimme" rolls aren't necessarily gimmes.

If he went to MAgnimar and wanted to figure out the workings of a similar business, on the other hand, I'd let him apply the Lore skill but make him roll for it.

I would also give him a penalty. He might be able to understand how a business in Magnimar works by comparing an equivalent one from Sandpoint, but they're 2 very different communities (even if Sandpoint is under Magnimar's aegis).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Roswynn wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

One thing I've started doing with very specific lore is not always needing a roll. One if my players has the Sandpoint mercantile league lore from his background, and I've stopped making him roll for basic things he should just know, like how the Sandpoint Glassworks operates. Which is especially nice because at low levels your proficiency bonus is so low that those "gimme" rolls aren't necessarily gimmes.

If he went to MAgnimar and wanted to figure out the workings of a similar business, on the other hand, I'd let him apply the Lore skill but make him roll for it.

I would also give him a penalty. He might be able to understand how a business in Magnimar works by comparing an equivalent one from Sandpoint, but they're 2 very different communities (even if Sandpoint is under Magnimar's aegis).

I certainly would make the DC higher than someone rolling a MAgnimar based Lore, but I don't know that I'd make it harder than rolling Society, which would be the default skill. Society is super broad and having mercantile expertise feels pretty relevant.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
I deleted it because we're derailing a thread over a skill that's poorly defined and is not that important in the grand scheme of things.

I actually disagree with both these statements. How Lore works is pretty relevant, and while some aspects of it are ill-defined, the part you're arguing could not be more explicitly allowed.

Midnightoker wrote:

Saying the skill is a replacement for Profession is true, the fact that it's been expanded to apply to Nouns (since Profession requires you to come up with theoretical jobs to match what "Lore" you want to be savvy too) doesn't change anything.

Paizo even stated it's a replacement for Profession with an expanding to be more than just what Profession was in PF1.

Sure, it replaces Profession, but as Captain Morgan notes, nobody's saying it doesn't. We're saying that replacing Profession is incidental rather than it's primary use. That it is not limited to only things that could've been a Profession in PF1.

Midnightoker wrote:
There is nothing to back up DMWs assertion that Lore Evil isn't legal. Or that Lore Undead isn't legal.

Undead Lore is legal. Nor did I say otherwise. As is Fiend Lore. What wouldn't be legal is Evil Lore because that would apply to all creatures with an Evil Alignment, which covers something like 2/3 of the creatures in the Bestiary, which is thus broader than existing knowledge skills. Something that is very explicitly disallowed.

Midnightoker wrote:
Because both of those are less broad than Religion/Arcana/Occult/Nature which is the only stipulation under Lore.

Again, Evil is not a subtype of Outsider in PF2, it is just listed as a Type on all Evil things. It is thus vastly broader than any of the Skills you list, in terms of monster knowledge.

Midnightoker wrote:
However, it's clear the intent, as evident from the backgrounds, is to apply to less wide niches (Circus/Alcohol/etc)

Or it's the intent for Background Lores to be narrower than those you actually invest a Skill in. Or a hundred other explanations. The Background Lores are certainly mostly on the narrower end, but that's not evidence of anything but what Lores are appropriate to give out for free with a Background, and even that may be being changed in the final version.

Midnightoker wrote:

Even the two written samples for Types apply to Humanoids with a small subset of creatures and knowledge (Vampires and Gnolls)

Both of which exist on the material plane. Both of which are a single type of creature for the most part.

Demons applies to a broad class of 20+ creatures, a whole plane of existence, society, etc

If you want to argue those are equal just because they're both subtypes, feel free, but just like there are different sizes of infinities so too is true here.

I didn't say they were equal. I said they were mechanically identical categories and that any rules system that allowed one necessarily allowed the other. I then found the actual text on what was allowed, which proved exactly that.

Midnightoker wrote:
There should be some regulations on how powerful a Lore skill is at minimum and at maximum.

I don't know how you enforce a minimum on something like that. And there is a mechanically enforced maximum. A very specific one of 'less broad than existing knowledge skills'. That's certainly specific enough to be useful.

Midnightoker wrote:
And you cant say "Lore is definitely not Profession" when it's literally replacing the skill, has it's old actions, and is tied to the backgrounds (a literal Profession) you get at the start of the game.

Again, nobody is saying it doesn't replace Profession. But Society replaces Knowledge (Nobility), too, and yet nobody is saying that it should be limited to the same uses as Knowledge (Nobility), because skills are broader in PF2 than PF1.

Lore replaces Profession, yes, but that's not all it does and nothing anywhere says it is limited to the same categories or usefulness as Profession. Indeed, the examples we have indicate the opposite.

Midnightoker wrote:
I'll post up on this hill all day. It's unclear, badly codified, and leaves to much opportunity for table side conflict. No one in this thread has even fully agreed where it begins and ends in terms of power.

I'm all for more clarity. However, the rest of this is pretty much untrue. The rest of us have, in fact, reached pretty thorough agreement as to what Lores are appropriate. You appear to be the only hold out.

Now, there may be people who agree with you who aren't posting, but the majority of people posting have reached a clear consensus based on the text. That is not 'no one' having agreed.

Midnightoker wrote:
Now that's my last response because as I said before, I don't think it's that important that I be chastised for thinking so.

Well, this all started because you apparently felt the burning need to chastise me for allowing Demon Lore in my game, something the actual text supports pretty unambiguously. Being willing to dish out such criticism but not take it doesn't exactly make me inclined to listen to your complaints in the future and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that.

The Raven Black wrote:

Do we have a skill to identify adventurers' abilities ? Or are we still left to metagaming ?

I always thought it weird that we can know so much about a creature's abilities except when they come from its build.

I think this falls under Society for non-magical stuff and the appropriate Skill for magic (ie: Arcana for Wizard spells), but better guidelines would be super nice.

Midnightoker wrote:
It's a specific subtype given to evil outsiders.

Not in PF2 it isn't. Have a look at the Bestiary. Evil is listed identically for Outsiders and things like Boggards.

This was true in PF1, but it isn't in PF2. Which is what we're discussing. It has, as noted, been replaced with 'Fiend' for things that would've had the Evil subtype in PF1.

In an interesting note, Outisider is also no longer a Type (which is fair, it was always overly broad), with Fiend and Elemental being entirely separate Types with no mechanical overlap. That's cool, and I hadn't spotted it before (I didn't need to check Types much when running Doomsday Dawn).


Midnightoker wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

That isn't true. Evil takes many forms. Evil creatures can be found in Arcana, Religion, Nature, Occult, and Society. Lore Evil would include things like the Dominion of the Black or the Whispering Way.

No, Evil is a sub-type specifically for Evil Outsiders which is interchangeable with the term "fiends":

Quote:
This subtype is usually applied to Outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil Outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are evil-aligned.

So it doesn't cover anything outside of Religion, since Religion covers a lot more than just Evil Outsiders.

The big "rebuttal" to this was that "evil is no longer a sub-type".

Maybe you should stop quoting PF1 while discussing PF2.

Quote:
Evil Evil effects often manipulate energy from evil-aligned Outer Planes and are anathema to good divine servants and divine servants of good deities. A creature with this trait is evil in alignment.


Cyouni wrote:


Maybe you should stop quoting PF1 while discussing PF2.

Quote:
Evil Evil effects often manipulate energy from evil-aligned Outer Planes and are anathema to good divine servants and divine servants of good deities. A creature with this trait is evil in alignment.

Replace Evil with Fiends and the point is the same.

Lore Fiends is legal by the read definition, and covers Lore Demons Lore Devils and Lore Daemons.

What that Lore check reveals is ambiguous, if they classify it like PF1 Unchained Lore, then again as I've said, that makes sense.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Well, this all started because you apparently felt the burning need to chastise me for allowing Demon Lore in my game, something the actual text supports pretty unambiguously. Being willing to dish out such criticism but not take it doesn't exactly make me inclined to listen to your complaints in the future and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that.

If saying that I disagree with your group's decision and that "if that's legal then", all quoted with "for me" and "personally" is chastising you then I don't see how you even participate here without getting "chastised". I never even said I was being chastised, I said I don't think it's that important that I be chastised for my thoughts, which of course, no one does.

I don't really care how my opinion weighs for you, just like you shouldn't care what my opinion of your thoughts are either.

And I agree with several people here, namely the ones talking about degrees of revealed knowledge based on specializing. Nonetheless, I have moved on, if you're willing to let it go.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Replace Evil with Fiends and the point is the same.

Not precisely, no. I wouldn't have argued against Fiend Lore, but did against Evil Lore, because I was assuming you were using the PF2 definitions.

Midnightoker wrote:
Lore Fiends is legal by the read definition, and covers Lore Demons Lore Devils and Lore Daemons.

Yep. I never argued otherwise. I argued against Evil Lore and against you misusing definitions.

Midnightoker wrote:
What that Lore check reveals is ambiguous, if they classify it like PF1 Unchained Lore, then again as I've said, that makes sense.

It is, indeed, ambiguous in this regard and more guidance would be very useful.

Midnightoker wrote:
If saying that I disagree with your group's decision and that "if that's legal then", all quoted with "for me" and "personally" is chastising you then I don't see how you even participate here without getting "chastised". I never even said I was being chastised, I said I don't think it's that important that I be chastised for my thoughts, which of course, no one does.

Ah, okay. I misunderstood then. I didn't particularly feel chastised, but what you said seemed to fall as well under that category as the things that were being said to you. If you didn't feel chastised you have my apologies for misunderstanding what you were saying. My bad.

Midnightoker wrote:
I don't really care how my opinion weighs for you, just like you shouldn't care what my opinion of your thoughts are either.

Well, if we all didn't care at all what anyone else thought, discussions would become pretty pointless. I know I generally make points in discussion in hopes of convincing others. But like I said, I misunderstood what you said, my bad.

Midnightoker wrote:
And I agree with several people here, namely the ones talking about degrees of revealed knowledge based on specializing. Nonetheless, I have moved on, if you're willing to let it go.

I mean, I don't think the conversation has actually moved on from Lore and how it should work. I, too, do agree that letting more specific Lores have lower DCs within their area is a useful and appropriate decision.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, using a sliding scale for the DC based on how appropriate the skill is a best practice for more than just lore. As an example, if you wanted to Recall Knowledge about a Boar Demon:

DC 29 Religion
DC 27 Lore: Fiends
DC 26 Lore: Demons
DC 20 Lore: Boar Demons

Those exact numbers are kind of a shot in the dark, but the idea I want to get across is that if someone has a Lore that is more specifically suited to a check than one of the main adventuring skills, it absolutely should be better for it. The guy who wrote his thesis on dragons should be better off using his dragon knowledge than his general Arcana.

51 to 71 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Expanded skill list? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.