Iirc drow fall under Society, as do most sentient beings who form communities (goblins, orcs, giants...).
No idea though wether they touched the skill list. I would like them to add specializations, but at this point either they did or didn't.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure there's basically no chance of the skill list being expanded. Nor do I think expanding it is good or necessary.
There is, IMO, a very good chance that there will be concrete guidelines for which Skill identifies what monster (with room for Lores to also identify them if appropriate).
My guess is that this will map fairly well to PF1 (with Religion covering outsiders and undead, Society covering humanoids, Arcana covering constructs, dragons, and magical beasts, Nature covering animals, plants, monstrous humanoids, and fey, and Occultism covering oozes and aberrations), but it could go slightly differently (I could easily see monstrous humanoids under Society, or oozes under Nature, for example).
Though I must agree, that even in the playtest, I think Drow were really clearly under Society.
If anything, I predict it will be easier to gain training.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anything, I predict it will be easier to gain training.
Well, at the very least, we know that Backgrounds now give training in one specific Skill as well as a free Lore.
I suspect that's in addition to the Skills you gain from Class, making for one more Skill. This part is purely speculation on my part, but I think it's likely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think so too, pretty sure the background skill is in addition to the ones you get from class. So all in all we should be getting more skilled pcs, which is a plus in my book (unless classes give a skill less now... which was perhaps what you were thinking, DMW?)
I would have liked specializations, but I reckon lore skills do some of the heavy lifting for the concept, and skill feats apply to much of the rest.
I hope in the end we don't have too broad skills that occupy different headspaces. I'm thinking about Society in particular. I think a ranger with no training whatsoever in it should be able to tell you all about orcs or hobgoblins or whatever the chief humanoid populations residing in their area are. While a bard who knows about the royalty and history of their country (and very possibly others) doesn't seem like an intuitive candidate for the same type of information.
So I guess I'm rooting for "monster lore" about various sentient species to be under Nature this time around, or something like that.
I think 1e had too many skills, but I also don't want multipurpose skills capable of doing everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if you look at 3.5’s skill list you’ll find almost twice as many, but that’s not what I meant.
I meant that I predict there will be more abundant ways to gain training after level one, both in skills and in armour/weapons.
It’s partially deduced from the new proficiency values, but mostly because of the removal of level from Untrained. You need ways to pump those skills up if nobody in the party has them, and the need is more dire with that factor making it into final.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I certainly hope it will be more of "okay, here are those 4 skills you can't get trained in at level one, choose wisely and bask in the glorious comfort of being poor at those, because we know that being crap at Profession(basketweaving) is something that's very important to you" and less of "okay, here are those 4 skills you can be trained in at level one, well, it's more like 1 skill once you take those with in-combat application, have fun tripping over your own legs, heroic adventurer"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...yeah, I feel like the simplicity of “my character can’t swim because of his background, regardless of what his score might be” was lost on the “I need to dump stats to be coherent, also I want a bonus to compensate” people. But that might be just me being mean.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would have liked specializations, but I reckon lore skills do some of the heavy lifting for the concept, and skill feats apply to much of the rest
Lore does cover specialized knowledge, but frankly I think it's too specialized and too open ended to the point of near uselessness. Look at the lore skills given by the playtest backgrounds: Farming Lore, Alcohol Lore, Labor Lore, Gladiatorial Lore, Circus Lore. How often will any of those actually show up in an adventure? The lore skills are defined as being way too specific to come up often. But because they're also so open ended, when a lore does come up, the odds are nobody will have it. ("Sorry, your Pickle Lore isn't relevant here, I'm looking for a Textiles Lore roll.") It's a problem I've seen with the Profession skills from PF1, which makes sense considering Lore is also being used in their place for performing mundane job. There are a few lores that might be more useful than others in the right circumstances, like Underworld Lore for an urban crime-based game or the specific Deity Lores or animal lore, but all of these could be better filled by a full skill that has more use besides (Society, Religion and Nature respectively for these examples). Why use your skill increases on such a specific use when you can get the same result and more for the same cost? Perhaps one way to help with this is to make the Lore you get from background scale with level the way the one from the Additional Lore feat does, and maybe give two lore skills for the Aditional Lore feat to reflect their reduced likelihood of showing up.
The consolidation of the skills is mostly fine. There could be a few quibbles, but for the most part things work fine. It's Lore that's the odd man out.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, I think Lores are fine if you don't approach them expecting them to be adventuring skills, and if you do you just have people pick adventure specific backgrounds. Which is why it is good you get lores for free.
I think there needs to be some thing to represent skills which fall outside of adventuring, or knowing a lot about dragons without knowing arcana.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(unless classes give a skill less now... which was perhaps what you were thinking, DMW?)
I agree with you that it will be an additional Skill, I was just acknowledging that they could've dropped Classes by one Skill to make up for it. I don't think it's likely, but it's possible.
I mean, if you look at 3.5’s skill list you’ll find almost twice as many, but that’s not what I meant.
I meant that I predict there will be more abundant ways to gain training after level one, both in skills and in armour/weapons.It’s partially deduced from the new proficiency values, but mostly because of the removal of level from Untrained. You need ways to pump those skills up if nobody in the party has them, and the need is more dire with that factor making it into final.
I'm also hopeful for this, though I'm not positive it will occur or to what degree. I think one bonus Skill from Background is very probably (making PCs range from 6 to 11 Trained Skills, plus Int Mod, at 1st level), but I'm not sure how many additional ones we'll gain beyond that.
It is worth noting that by allowing people to help others in a Skill check in Exploration Mode to the tune of making them count as Trained (which is the strong implication of some stuff that's been said), makes it a lot less essential for everyone to have every Skill than it would be without that.
.
.
.
And I like Lore. The default ones will seldom come up, sure, but more often in APs than elsewhere, and it's free. It's basically flavorful rather than useful, but that's not always a bad thing.
You also can take Lores you know will actually be useful based on campaign type. In Chapter 5 of Doomsday Dawn, the Wizard took Lore (Demons), which is totally a reasonable Lore and very useful in that adventure, I assure you. It would be very useful in a campaign like WotR, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everybody is trained in a Lore skill is basically "Everybody had something to do for a job before they became an adventurer". Sure, you might never roll for Basketweaving Lore, but having it granted by your background means "you were a basketweaver before a series of events lead to you becoming an adventurer".
All the lore skills are basically- you can roll it when you come up with a reason it's applicable to the situation.
|
|
I certainly hope it will be more of "okay, here are those 4 skills you can't get trained in at level one, choose wisely and bask in the glorious comfort of being poor at those, because we know that being crap at Profession(basketweaving) is something that's very important to you" and less of "okay, here are those 4 skills you can be trained in at level one, well, it's more like 1 skill once you take those with in-combat application, have fun tripping over your own legs, heroic adventurer"
Right with you.
Incompetent at a few chosen skills and competent everywhere else is much more palatable and fun than competent at a few chosen skills and incompetent everywhere else
Just realized that both exist in PF1 : INT-casters are the first and everybody else (except maybe Rogues) are the second
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You also can take Lores you know will actually be useful based on campaign type. In Chapter 5 of Doomsday Dawn, the Wizard took Lore (Demons), which is totally a reasonable Lore
If that's legal, I think it certainly makes the rest of the background Lore choices immediately sub par.
I get that Lore isn't meant to be defined logistically down to the categories, but there should at least be some governance on what is acceptable to put there.
For instance, Demons as a Lore seems pretty unfair to me. Even if you want to get creative and call it "Demonology" and tie it to the background of "Exorcist" it kind of muddies the water of what is applicable.
For me, Lore should almost never be adventuring based, and when it is it should be a "pleasant surprise" as opposed to something that will always come up in the campaign because you were trying to gain an advantage via your background (i.e. picking "Exorcist" in a Demon campaign).
I also think Lore should be something that is always petitioned to the GM: "Does my Lore (Alcohol) tell me what this mead is created from?" or "Does my Lore (Circus) tell me how many people fit in this arena?"
Never something that would be explicitly defined in a book, unless of course that background was campaign/setting/AP specific to justify it (in which case, you do you I guess).
I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to spend a Skill Increase on Lore, so if there were ways to gain Lore training as you played, that would be welcomed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, assuming this survived from the playtest if you want to be a leading expert on something, you take the "additional lore" skill feat which gives you an area of expertise which auto-upgrades to legendary.
So Circus Lore from your background represents "you ran away to join the circus" and you can do circus things to busk for money. Additional Lore (demonology) or Additional Lore (Cooking) are things you would take if you want to be a leading expert on those things. Since "one skill feat" is probably not a huge cost (much less than 3 skill ups) you can probably afford to do this for both "clearly, this is going to be useful in the campaign" reasons and for "this fits my character" reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed that sucking at most skills isn't exactly my idea of heroic fantasy. Probably not even at 1st level.
I like Lore too, it's a so-called ribbon (controversial term I know) but sometimes you have exactly what's needed in a scenario (Lore: Demons in WotR is an outstanding example, DMW). Also don't think only of the playtest backgrounds, Age of Lost Omens will have more than sixty additional backgrounds (all tailor-made for Golarion, one would presume... Lore: Tattoos for your archetypal Varisian sorcerer would be very nice, and I think useful). And this time around they also give you a more traditional, universally-useful skill (and a skill feat, and a stat bump).
Personally, one of the things I'm hoping for is that we'll be able to know a lot of skills at least at Expert if not higher level, if we decide to focus on them. Not at 1st level of course, but it'd be nice being able to build an honest to goodness polymath at a high enough level.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Midnightoker:
Lore (Gnolls) is an explicitly listed example in Doomsday Dawn. So Lore about a specific creature is clearly intended as available.
And I'd argue that something like Lore (Nobility) or Lore (Criminal) is probably more useful in most campaigns (and every bit as useful in their specific context) than Lore (Demons). Both those are Background-available Lores.
Really, the issue here is stuff like Lore (Alcohol) or the like, not the fairly common Lores that can actually be handy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, assuming this survived from the playtest if you want to be a leading expert on something, you take the "additional lore" skill feat which gives you an area of expertise which auto-upgrades to legendary.
So Circus Lore from your background represents "you ran away to join the circus" and you can do circus things to busk for money. Additional Lore (demonology) or Additional Lore (Cooking) are things you would take if you want to be a leading expert on those things. Since "one skill feat" is probably not a huge cost (much less than 3 skill ups) you can probably afford to do this for both "clearly, this is going to be useful in the campaign" reasons and for "this fits my character" reasons.
I'd hope that backgrounds reflect that as well then, or at the very least taking Additional Lore adds the same effect to your current Lore skills.
Regardless, I still think there needs to be metrics in place that governs what can be chosen.
If you can be as wide sweeping as "<insert creature type>", that's pretty ridiculous IMO. At the very least, they should narrow it down to something like a sub-type.
Otherwise one can just select "Lore: Undead" and all of a sudden you can roll on every creature in Harrowstone.
If Lore is meant to replace Profession, but also add a wider swathe of knowledge, make the Lore: <insert-profession-name>.
Then A Gravedigger might have knowledge of Skeletons/Zombies, and an Exorcist might have knowledge of common Incorporeal and Haunts. A Chef might have knowledge of how to prepare/find/treat meat/vegetables/spices or possibly an expert could detect poisonous/diseased portions.
"Lore: <insert-something>" is basically just a budget knowledge skill that is going to drive a GM nuts (IMO).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lore (Gnolls) is an explicitly listed example in Doomsday Dawn. So Lore about a specific creature is clearly intended as available.And I'd argue that something like Lore (Nobility) or Lore (Criminal) is probably more useful in most campaigns (and every bit as useful in their specific context) than Lore (Demons). Both those are Background-available Lores.
Really, the issue here is stuff like Lore (Alcohol) or the like, not the fairly common Lores that can actually be handy.
Gnolls and "Demons" is a pretty big difference though, wouldn't you agree?
Gnolls is a specific ancestry of humanoid. Demons is a Type, and a pretty substantial one at that.
I noted this in my follow up, but I'm pretty certain Lore: Demon should not be allowed, and if that's not the case, I disagree with that decision.
Also in response to the value of Lore: Nobility/Criminal being better than Lore: Demons, I do not agree in the slightest. The former require a pretty specific set of circumstances and do not directly translate to combat applicable knowledge (as Demons would).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've been running Lore like Backgrounds in 13th Age. 13A, which does not have skills, lets you add your background score to anything you can justify your background applying to. Backgrounds can be literally anything you want. Attempts to justify a background of "good at everything" are expected to be shut down by the GM, but it's going to be more advantageous to pick background which is broadly relevant than a background which is very narrow.
But I figure something like "Lore(Outsiders)" is just something a GM can and should veto.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've been running Lore like Backgrounds in 13th Age. 13A, which does not have skills, lets you add your background score to anything you can justify your background applying to. Backgrounds can be literally anything you want. Attempts to justify a background of "good at everything" are expected to be shut down by the GM, but it's going to be more advantageous to pick background which is broadly relevant than a background which is very narrow.
But I figure something like "Lore(Outsiders)" is just something a GM can and should veto.
To me, this is why it should be codified in some way.
Sure, seasoned GMs might nip it in the bud, but in the case of someone selecting "Lore: (Outsiders)" for their Additional Lore Skill Feat, there is no GM adjudication for the selections, it's a "pick what you want" scenario.
It then doesn't come up until the table, where the GM then has to weigh in on whether that selection is even legal, and whether it applies.
Asking a green GM to make those calls, is kinda going in the opposite direction of "ease of play".
Even if not malicious, a player might not know any better, because why would they when it's never defined what is an appropriate selection vs what is disqualified.
Don't get me wrong, the rule of common sense is king, but I think there needs to be at least a little more here (especially given Backgrounds put Lore into every game people will play). Players are going to want to use these skills because they have them, and there needs to be defined metrics for that given how prominent it is to even the first session of a campaign.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've been running Lore like Backgrounds in 13th Age. 13A, which does not have skills, lets you add your background score to anything you can justify your background applying to. Backgrounds can be literally anything you want. Attempts to justify a background of "good at everything" are expected to be shut down by the GM, but it's going to be more advantageous to pick background which is broadly relevant than a background which is very narrow.
But I figure something like "Lore(Outsiders)" is just something a GM can and should veto.
I agree with this. Demon is, however, as I will go into below, significantly narrower than 'Outsider'.
Gnolls and "Demons" is a pretty big difference though, wouldn't you agree?
Not a huge one, no. Certainly, Demons is no more unreasonable a Lore than 'Dominion of the Black', which is a collection of multiple different creature types (and another example from Doomsday Dawn).
Gnolls is a specific ancestry of humanoid. Demons is a Type, and a pretty substantial one at that.
Uh...'Gnoll' is also a type, check the Playtest Bestiary. It's currently one with less examples than 'Demon', but it's also one easier to add new additions to. I see no meaningful distinction.
And one subtype (ie: 'demons' rather than 'outsiders') is actually ridicuously narrow compared to the actual knowledge skills. It's almost certain that all Outsiders as well as Undead fall under Religion, as do other things. Demons are one of more than a dozen kinds of Outsider, never mind the undead and knowing about the gods that you also get from Religion.
If you think a Lore Skill that's probably less than 1/20 as broad as a normal skill is too broad, I think it's your definitions that need work.
I noted this in my follow up, but I'm pretty certain Lore: Demon should not be allowed, and if that's not the case, I disagree with that decision.
Why? Are Lores supposed to be entirely worthless?
Also in response to the value of Lore: Nobility/Criminal being better than Lore: Demons, I do not agree in the slightest. The former require a pretty specific set of circumstances and do not directly translate to combat applicable knowledge (as Demons would).
They absolutely do translate into combat applicable knowledge if and when appropriate. Anyone who doesn't let Lore (Criminals) tell you the fighting styles of a local gang, or Lore (Nobility) tell you this noble is a noted duelist in a particular style is flatly doing it wrong.
And I'm pretty sure Lore (Nobility) would be vastly better than Lore (Demons) in, say, War for the Crown.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, it is generally not a problem for characters to be able to know things, which is all Lore really does. Certain facts will be kept inaccessible via GM fiat (a la "there is no way your character would know that"), but if someone can just "easily identify every kind of demon they meet" it's not like that breaks the game. It's more useful than "being able to identify every wine they drink" but it's not like we didn't have a similar thing in PF1 with knowledges religion, arcana, nature, and planes being a lot more useful than history, nobility, engineering, or geography.
I mean, "PCs don't have enough information" is much more commonly an issue in my experience than "PCs have too much information."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, lore undead letting you identify every critter in Harrowstone is not a great complaint, because training in Religion would do the same and let you identify demons, devils, angels, and perhaps even elemental. Plus identify magic, perform rituals, and more. The guidelines on what make an acceptable Lore feel preeeeetty clear to me, personally.
I think it is also worth noting that an extremely applicable Lore, per Doomsday Dawn, gets a lower DC. Lore Gnolls would be a lower DC than Society for,a check on Gnolls. I think we could use some more guidance on how much lower the DCs are. Doomsday Dawn suggests only 1 or 2 lower, which wouldn't make up for an item bonus or higher level of proficiency which you are less likely to have in lore Gnolls than Society. On the other hand, with the proficiency bumps of the final version, the additional lore feat could make you really good at a specific field. It would be very good As a late game pick once you know the direction of the campaign. Lore: Thassilon or the Whispering Way for example.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is, IMO, a very good chance that there will be concrete guidelines for which Skill identifies what monster (with room for Lores to also identify them if appropriate).
This issue came up for me during play. What IS appropriate for, say, a Lich? My guess is also Religion, but it could certainly be argued that it would be a creature of Arcane significance. Maybe even occult if you were looking up a sordid ritual or pact to make a lich.
I’m inclined to allow wider interpretations (if they can justify it) at a higher DV, but I’m curious how Paizo will come down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not a huge one, no. Certainly, Demons is no more unreasonable a Lore than 'Dominion of the Black', which is a collection of multiple different creature types (and another example from Doomsday Dawn).
Having knowledge of Dominion of the Black, a specific organization, does not necessarily entail you to the swathes of knowledge of every single alien race that is in that organization.
"Demons", as a generic application, would presumably get you a roll on anything Demon related (since that's a clear application to anything Demon, not specific members of an organization).
Gnoll contains possibly three creatures total, is a subtype Monstrous Humanoid variety, resident to the material plane, with a pretty basic societal structure.
Demon is a class of Outsider and is a sub-type, but is characterized by a much wider selection of associated knowledge, if only for the fact that they aren't from the Material Plane. There are also over 20 different kinds of demons, 10+ demon lords, demon rituals, hierarchy, etc.
If you don't see the difference, consider the debate over.
And one subtype (ie: 'demons' rather than 'outsiders') is actually ridicuously narrow compared to the actual knowledge skills.
And? They aren't supposed to supplement Knowledge skills, that's my whole point, they're supposed to supplement profession (as is evident from the use to make money each provides).
If you think a Lore Skill that's probably less than 1/20 as broad as a normal skill is too broad, I think it's your definitions that need work.
I don't want them to apply to creature types as a choice, since that's not the focal point of the use of Lore anyways (since they are meant to replace Profession). I fail to see how someone could use "Lore: Demon" to produce an income without some mental acrobatics to create this income.
Why? Are Lores supposed to be entirely worthless?
Ah yes, the free Lore skills that are given with backgrounds become entirely useless if we remove broad Monster specific classifications from selection. Definitely not an exaggeration.
They absolutely do translate into combat applicable knowledge if and when appropriate.
Literally every application of the Lore: Demon is translatable to combat. That's precisely how they differ.
Anyone who doesn't let Lore (Criminals) tell you the fighting styles of a local gang, or Lore (Nobility) tell you this noble is a noted duelist in a particular style is flatly doing it wrong
Who is to say who's doing what wrong? There's no governance on anything related to Lore, but I'll move on.
"Fighting styles of a local gang", absolutely. If someone wants to role on the Red Mantis Assassins, that makes sense.
However, your follow up:
"tell you this noble is a noted duelist", is dubious. Maybe yes, maybe it shouldn't. You're targetting an individual, not a group or societal norm. To me, unless that particular Noble family are all notable duelists (like a family tradition), the roll would need to be rather high or just outright impossible in certain cases.
Regardless, you seem to have issues with a lot of the things that I am saying is a problem with Lore. 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.
I mean, "PCs don't have enough information" is much more commonly an issue in my experience than "PCs have too much information."
It's not really about PC's having too much information, it's about GMs not being able to manage a game and leaving ambigious rules completely up in the air for a necessary table side definition.
If I selected "Lore Gnoll" and the guy next to me picked "Lore Evil" (which is a sub-type) I'd be pretty upset.
By DMW's own interpretation, Lore Demon was a poor choice, because Lore Evil would have covered Demon, Devil, and Daemon, and afterall it's just a sub-type!
We can all see the massive difference in what is characterized by the "Evil" sub-type and realize it applies to a massive amount of creatures.
If they plan to allow such a thing, they need to define that the wider your classification, the less you are likely to know at the very least.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lore(Demon) would be used when someone doesn't want to invest in Religion, but still want his character to know demons, like a demon hunter that would focus exclusively on that.
I don't see the problem? It's still weaker than the "full" skill.
I mean, I never really liked how if I wanted to have a monster hunter who knew everything one could know about the undead, but who never had time for gods and stuff, had to take a lot of ranks in Knowledge (Religion).
It feels like I should be able to have a character who knows the difference between a Yuki-onna, a Manananggal, a Vrykolakas, a Gashadokuro, and a Tzitzimiti without also knowing how to perform important rites for several obscure gods.
So Lore (Undead) is a perfectly fine skill to take in my opinion. Being legendary in Undead Lore means you have read voraciously and done considerable field research on Undead creatures, but you don't necessarily even know who Nivvi Rhombodazzle, or Amaznen, or Apep, or Qi Zhong even are.
Lore(Demon) would be used when someone doesn't want to invest in Religion, but still want his character to know demons, like a demon hunter that would focus exclusively on that.
I don't see the problem? It's still weaker than the "full" skill.
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.
If the above are "fine as is", then 90% of all listed Lores in the Playtest Core (except perhaps one or two) are entirely useless by comparison.
It was my understanding those would be closer to the rule than a one off Lore Gnoll from Doomsday Dawn which could be used to apply the above rules globally.
And if the GM is supposed to adjudicate how much you know, or what sub-types are even selectable, that should be codified.
All I'm really saying is that there should be more definition. I think we can all agree that couldn't hurt.
I gave players this tidbit before we started War for the Second Crown:
Suggested Lore categories are Animals, Fiends, Undead (for enemies), Folklore, History, Taldor (for context), Arts, Fashion, Hunting, Mercantile, Military, Nobility, Riding, or any craft or trade-related category (such as Farming, Jewelry, or Smithing). Note that all Lore skills play relevant roles in social interactions.
Additional valuable Lores will be revealed as the story proceeds and I fully expect someone to retrain INTO them, or to take an Additional Lore that will be retrained as the adventure changes location - for example, there is a section where players will end up spending a few months in a specific region. If Lore (that region) doesn't come up, I will be disappointed.
As for monster knowledge, back when I did the playtest there were close to no guidelines, so I assigned every creature TWO main skills and then secondary or useless skills depending not on type but on the monster concept.
Lich, for example, would clearly be easily recognisable by Arcane or Religion. With a slightly higher DC, you could use Occult or Society. Good luck using Nature.
A Drow would be Society or Occult (remember, drows are a hidden nasty secret of the elves!), with some good chance of using Arcana or Religion to know about their abilities or cults. Again, they're not very natural.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Drow would be Society or Occult (remember, drows are a hidden nasty secret of the elves!), with some good chance of using Arcana or Religion to know about their abilities or cults. Again, they're not very natural.
But imagine the answer you’d get from a Nature perspective. “An invasive species originating in castrovel, these melanistic specimens are mostly found underground and show pronounced sensitivity to light and paladins.”
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But imagine the answer you’d get from a Nature perspective. “An invasive species originating in castrovel, these melanistic specimens are mostly found underground and show pronounced sensitivity to light and paladins.”
A Drow would be Society or Occult (remember, drows are a hidden nasty secret of the elves!), with some good chance of using Arcana or Religion to know about their abilities or cults. Again, they're not very natural.
I think this is a lot of fun, and given perspective is everything it could help reinforce roles and further define classes in the world they live in.
It might be something that ultimately comes from the GM, but writing in a rule that lets you roll a Knowledge skill contextually.
Rolling Arcane on Animals reveals what animals are commonly familiars, or your example applied to an industrial town "known for its excessive lumbering of the nearby forest" under Nature.
I'm not going to lie I'll start doing this, it certainly allows more group participation while giving a full perspective of the party. Super cool.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't see the difference, consider the debate over.
Both are subtypes. Indeed, per PF1 they're mechanically identical subtypes, both of which could be taken as, say, Favored Enemy. One is a subtype of Humanoid and the other of Outsider.
Calling them mechanically identical is really well supported.
And? They aren't supposed to supplement Knowledge skills, that's my whole point, they're supposed to supplement profession (as is evident from the use to make money each provides).
Not solely, they aren't. The idea that they're primarily a replacement for Profession is your own. That does not at all seem to be how Paizo uses them.
Paizo uses them much more as supplemental knowledge skills.
I don't want them to apply to creature types as a choice, since that's not the focal point of the use of Lore anyways (since they are meant to replace Profession). I fail to see how someone could use "Lore: Demon" to produce an income without some mental acrobatics to create this income.
You may not want them to, but I'm talking about what Paizo says they actually do work for, and that's very much on the list. Your opinion is not controlling.
By DMW's own interpretation, Lore Demon was a poor choice, because Lore Evil would have covered Demon, Devil, and Daemon, and afterall it's just a sub-type!
This is actually untrue. Alignment subtypes as such no longer exist. Demons have an 'Evil' type, but it's mechanically identical to Gnoll's 'Evil' type. A Lore (Evil) would thus both be overpowered and also make very little sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like encouraging people to use their demonology expertise to make money is a good sort of improv prompt. Perhaps you publish articles, or resolve cases of supposed possession. Perhaps you are paid to go through artifacts confiscated from a local demon worshiping cult in order to find out what is truly dangerous.
Presumably the level of the challenge would dictate a lot. In the skills chapter of the playtest rulebook it gives an example of a high level Bard wanting to earn money during downtime and doing research so they can find a gig performing for outsiders on a different plane. If this is our baseline example, there's no reason our demonologist can't likewise do research to find a binding they could be paid to consult on or a university which would pay them to lecture.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
“How did you spend your downtime?”
“My paladin champion was finally able to sit down and go through the backlog of articles sent to her for peer review and publishing in Demon Hunting Quarterly. It’s published by the Temple of Asmodeus, but honestly its scholarship is unmatched.”
Honestly, I tend to like the idea of Lore being a general profession's knowledge. You know how to find work and go about day to day tasks. You can answer questions about your job and at higher proficiency you treat pretty much all of it as rote.
For the specifics of having a "specialized knowledge" on a particular subject however I would much prefer something like a "Specialized Knowldge" skill feat that lets you focus the normal skills further.
For example.
Specialized Knowledge (Undead) I could see as a Skill Feat for Religion that offers a +2 to Recall Knowledge checks on Undead. You would have a generally broad knowledge on religion but you would definitely have a focus on undead with this.
Technically, you could take Lore (Undead) and be able to answer questions about the Undead with your recall knowledge checks.. but in that regard it should be at the same level as what someone would be able to do with a Religion check.
It just gives you some other options such as being able to practice a trade and make money using your knowledge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I tend to like the idea of Lore being a general profession's knowledge. You know how to find work and go about day to day tasks. You can answer questions about your job and at higher proficiency you treat pretty much all of it as rote.
For the specifics of having a "specialized knowledge" on a particular subject however I would much prefer something like a "Specialized Knowldge" skill feat that lets you focus the normal skills further.
For example.
Specialized Knowledge (Undead) I could see as a Skill Feat for Religion that offers a +2 to Recall Knowledge checks on Undead. You would have a generally broad knowledge on religion but you would definitely have a focus on undead with this.
What purpose does splitting Lore and specialized knowledge into two skills serve? Also, if you went that route, profession checks should just be called profession checks, because lore as a word clearly alludes more to specialized knowledge.
The idea that Lore skills aren't meant to primarily be knowledge checks is baffling to me. Guys, it is called LORE.
Definition of lore (Entry 1 of 2)
1 archaic : something that is taught : LESSON
2 : something that is learned:
a : knowledge gained through study or experience
the lore of religious architecture
b : traditional knowledge or belief
tribal lore
3 : a particular body of knowledge or tradition
the lore of baseball heroes
Profession checks just got rolled into it for similar reasons that knowledge nobility and knowledge local were collapsed into Society.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But imagine the answer you’d get from a Nature perspective. “An invasive species originating in castrovel, these melanistic specimens are mostly found underground and show pronounced sensitivity to light and paladins.”
No, no no no! Drow aren't BLACK, they're... blue?... Purple? Mauve? Indigo?
;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, no no no! Drow aren't BLACK, they're... blue?... Purple? Mauve? Indigo?
Evil magic be darned, I've always insisted that Drow are pale like cave salamanders.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thinking about it, I decided to examine the actual Skill Description of Lore in the Playtest Book. So let's read the first couple of paragraphs of that, shall we?
You have specialized information on a narrow topic. Lore is different than other skills in two ways.
First, the lore skill features many subcategories. You might have Military Lore, Sailing Lore, Vampire Lore, or any similar subcategory of skill. Each subcategory counts as its own skill, so applying a skill increase to Planar Lore wouldn’t increase your modifier with Sailing Lore. You gain a subcategory of the Lore skill from your background. The GM determines what other subcategories she’ll allow as Lore skills, though these categories are always less broad than any of the other skills that allow you to Recall Knowledge, and they should never be able to fully take the place of another skill’s ability to Recall Knowledge. For instance, you couldn’t choose Magic Lore in an attempt to recall the same breadth of knowledge covered by Arcana or Adventuring Lore in an attempt to gain all the information an adventurer would need.
After that it gets into Signature Skills and is no longer super relevant, then focuses on Lores not meaningfully stacking with each other.
So, on to analysis: Those examples include a creature-type based Lore (Vampire Lore), and make the guidelines on how broad a Lore can be very explicit (it has to be less broad than existing skills). That's actually way clearer and more explicit than I was remembering. Evil Lore would thus be disallowed for the same reasons as Magic Lore or Adventuring Lore (it's overly broad).
It also focuses almost entirely on 'Lore as knowledge' rather than 'Lore as profession', which makes it pretty clear which the folks at Paizo intended to be the focus.
Disliking that is fine, and wanting clearer and more explicit is very understandable. But the guidelines we have are actually quite specific in allowing something like Demon Lore.
Fiend Lore is probably a better example. Demon Lore would only apply to Demons specifically and feels very narrow, like Vampire Lore rather than Undead Lore. I'd suggest players take type rather than category.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fiend Lore is probably a better example. Demon Lore would only apply to Demons specifically and feels very narrow, like Vampire Lore rather than Undead Lore. I'd suggest players take type rather than category.
That's reasonable per the rules, but feels overly broad to me personally. The examples listed are more specific than that as well.
Also, on a thematic level, knowing about demons seems to me to have more thematic resonance than 'fiends' in general.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll also point out that there's an Unmistakable Lore feat that protects you from critical failures on Lore Recall Knowledge checks. That feat doesn't exist for the broader adventure knowledge skills, which further cements that Lore is meant to be a knowledge skill. (There's also a similar crit fail feat for practicing trades as I recall, but it feels more comparably to the very narrow feats like Student of the Canon to me.)
Fiend Lore is probably a better example. Demon Lore would only apply to Demons specifically and feels very narrow, like Vampire Lore rather than Undead Lore. I'd suggest players take type rather than category.That's reasonable per the rules, but feels overly broad to me personally. The examples listed are more specific than that as well.
Also, on a thematic level, knowing about demons seems to me to have more thematic resonance than 'fiends' in general.
Agreed.
Just so it's stated the PF1 definition of Profession:
You can earn half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. You know how to use the tools of your trade, how to perform the profession’s daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems. You can also answer questions about your Profession. Basic questions are DC 10, while more complex questions are DC 15 or higher.
Basically, same concept except more codified.
But pretty clearly Profession can be used for knowledge related to your profession, which is not that different from the current state of Lore.
Obviously Lore is related to knowledge, It has Recall Knowledge the action attached to it, but it still did this in PF1.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just so it's stated the PF1 definition of Profession:
You can earn half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. You know how to use the tools of your trade, how to perform the profession’s daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems. You can also answer questions about your Profession. Basic questions are DC 10, while more complex questions are DC 15 or higher.Basically, same concept except more codified.
But pretty clearly Profession can be used for knowledge related to your profession, which is not that different from the current state of Lore.
Obviously Lore is related to knowledge, It has Recall Knowledge the action attached to it, but it still did this in PF1.
Sure, but in Profession it's a side note, with earning money the main point. In Lore the knowledge is very explicitly the main point of the Skill, with the 'earning money' bit as the side note.
As is very explicitly demonstrated by examples like Planar Lore and Vampire Lore. Heck, they've mentioned that in the final game Street Urchin gives (Your City) Lore, so things like Korvosa Lore or Katapesh Lore. That's really obviously primarily a knowledge skill rather than primarily a profession.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.