| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a perfectly reasonable view. Honestly, I just expect the GM to set the checks ahead of time (this uses Arcana DC 30, or Vampire Lore DC 25). However, doesn't the fact that Child of the Puddles gives Absalom Lore kind of directly contradict mister Sayre's statement? Absalom is very much an extant nation.Absalom is a city-state. He specifically notes cities as the largest thing you can have a modern Lore about, and even gives the example of Magnimar (also a city-state). So...it's nations larger than a city that are actually forbidden.
So that's entirely consistent with not having Lore for anything bigger than a city. His language was perhaps imprecise, but the meaning is clear.
Magnimar has a population of 16,428 and is listed as a large city in the nation of Varisia.
Absalom has a population of 303,900 and is listed as both a metropolis and a nation, so I'm not sure they're really comparable.
Hermea Lore also exists in published 2E materials.
I'm not really clear on what the intent is. Abyss Lore covers an entire Plane of Existence. Surely that's larger than a settlement.
He also seems to be saying that Lore HAS to be specific. So Vampires in Magnimar Lore would be fine, but larger Lore, like Undead Lore would be a problem, as it's a much larger category.
Bird Law Lore
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are there any other Nation/Cities out there?
I can't think of any, and since Absalom Lore is printed, we know it exists.
I think it's a perfect exception.
Goka is another city-state that is its own nation.
Also, Katapesh is the name of a country as well as its capital city, which I guess could cause confusion someday.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magnimar has a population of 16,428 and is listed as a large city in the nation of Varisia.
Varisia is an area, not a nation. Likewise, Absalom is listed as on the Isle of Kortos, which is also a large area rather than a nation.
Absalom Lore is also a listed examp[le of a 'settlement lore' in the core rulebook alongside Magnimar Lore.
Absalom has a population of 303,900 and is listed as both a metropolis and a nation, so I'm not sure they're really comparable.
It's a bigger city, sure, and evidence that even the biggest cities in Golarion can have a Lore devoted to them...but Osirion and other large nations have way more people than that.
There's no inconsistency here.
Hermea Lore also exists in published 2E materials.
It does? Where? It's not in the AoA Player's Guide, nor does the 'Hermean Expatriate' Background grant it, and those are where I'd expect to see it.
I did a search on AoN and came up with nothing that grants or lists this.
I'm not really clear on what the intent is. Abyss Lore covers an entire Plane of Existence. Surely that's larger than a settlement.
Abyss lore covers the nature of the abyss, not the individual cultures or regions, for the most part. It's more like 'Forest Lore' than it is 'Absalom Lore'.
He also seems to be saying that Lore HAS to be specific. So Vampires in Magnimar Lore would be fine, but larger Lore, like Undead Lore would be a problem, as it's a much larger category.
Undead Lore is explicitly fine (it shows up in a couple of Backgrounds). The limitation, per the core rulebook, is that it has to be narrower than a non-Lore skill (which Undead Lore is, being notably narrower than the Religion skill). That's the inherent 'broadness' limitation on such skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does? Where? It's not in the AoA Player's Guide, nor does the 'Hermean Expatriate' Background grant it, and those are where I'd expect to see it.
AoA Book 6 offer Hermea Lore as an alternative to a Diplo check and also contains a few NPCs with the skill.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would it be fair to summarise where we have landed on this discussion then as:
"Yes, Clever Improviser does allow access to all applicable Lore subcategories, however, the the applicability of Lore is not infinite. Lore Subcategories cannot be too specific nor too general, both contemporaneous, specific, individuals and whole nations would be off limits. Everything in between is negotiable."
Something like that?
I still think that a feat named for improvisation ("the activity of making or doing something not planned beforehand, using whatever can be found") shouldn't apply to lore skills. You can't really improvise your knowledge (that's called "b&%&&##+ting").
But yes, that's an accurate description of where this thread went.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still think that a feat named for improvisation ("the activity of making or doing something not planned beforehand, using whatever can be found") shouldn't apply to lore skills. You can't really improvise your knowledge (that's called "b@%++@#%ting").
So would you say it shouldn't work with Arcana, Nature, Occultism, Religion and Society either?
I still think that a feat named for improvisation ("the activity of making or doing something not planned beforehand, using whatever can be found") shouldn't apply to lore skills. You can't really improvise your knowledge (that's called "b@%++@#%ting").So would you say it shouldn't work with Arcana, Nature, Occultism, Religion and Society either?
I'd be less concerned with those, as they are skills that are Skills that don't fall under the "write whatever you want here" Lore category (what would that header be, "Named Skills" vs. "Lore Skills"?). Also, what Claxon says below about the DC.
Its the Bardic Lore that works for Lore skills, as it explicitly says so.
But I wouldn't be opposed to forbidding Untrained Improvisation on any Recall Knowledge check, but other applications would be fine (e.g. Earn Income. You want to preach BS to a congregation at the church? Go right ahead. You want to go gather herbs from the forest and just make it up as you go along? Be my guest. Research the Cult of the Dawnfollower in the library? Why not.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still think that a feat named for improvisation ("the activity of making or doing something not planned beforehand, using whatever can be found") shouldn't apply to lore skills. You can't really improvise your knowledge (that's called "b@%++@#%ting").So would you say it shouldn't work with Arcana, Nature, Occultism, Religion and Society either?
I'm absolutely okay with using Untrained Improvisation/Clever Improviser to recall knowledge using Arcana/Nature/Occult/Religion/Society or Lore of What-Have-You. But the DC for the Lore recall knowledge check is going to be the same as using untrained improvisation with one of the "core" knowledge skills.
|
|
"Now I'm no big city lawyer... But it seems to me that if the city of Absalom see's it fit not to charge the plain and simple folks in this here room, a tax on their personal property and possessions, AND it also being true that our great God Andoran did degree that each Human is a free and individual persons - in possession and control of their own body and mind... Then what the court alleges my client did, i.e the free and open exchange of her personal possessions, i.e her body, for a small remuneration for her time while it was it otherwise indisposed, would not only be NOT a crime, but the fine imposed on her by this here court is in fact an illegal tax of her property!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't really have beef with Untrained Improv being used for lore as is being described by Draco - I don't think earning an income as a "Troll Expert" with your trashy modifier is an issue at all. The contentious part for me has always been the DC reduction.
|
Smart Fighter (INT 14) is Level 3 and rolls a trained Arcana check vs DC 20, or 1d20+7 vs 20, succeeding on a 13 or better on the die.
Smart Fighter (INT 14) is Level 3 and rolls Untrained Improvisation "Troll Lore" vs DC 20 reduced to 18, or 1d20+5 vs 18, succeeding on a 13 or better on the die.
Problem?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Smart Fighter (INT 14) is Level 3 and rolls a trained Arcana check vs DC 20, or 1d20+7 vs 20, succeeding on a 13 or better on the die.
Smart Fighter (INT 14) is Level 3 and rolls Untrained Improvisation "Troll Lore" vs DC 20 reduced to 18, or 1d20+5 vs 18, succeeding on a 13 or better on the die.
Problem?
The second roll from 18 to 15 DC depends the task.
So it could even be better.
And the feat applies across everything while Arcana has its limits.
So 1 general feat gives every skill, from 7th level on, with a roll comparable to being Trained -2. I'm not knocking -2, since that's about 1/3 worse in most situations (those w/ crit success/crit fail).
Yet the PC also gets Lore at effectively Trained since it should be simple to find a Lore w/ a DC adjustment of 2 (if not 5, making it superior to Expert).
The only comparable abilities have limited access (Bardic Lore, Master Monster Hunter) or are Legendary (Unified Theory).
The feat already borders on "must-have", especially at high levels. For a PC w/ Int (or Dubious Knowledge), it likely is already.
|
|
Skill Level Ramp keeps the Versatility in check as -2 balloons to -4 (missing expert) to -6 (missing master) to -8 (missing legendary).
Mathematically, Untrained Improvisation is claiming Mediocrity at Everything.
Working as intended!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Smart Fighter (INT 14) is Level 3 and rolls a trained Arcana check vs DC 20, or 1d20+7 vs 20, succeeding on a 13 or better on the die.
Smart Fighter (INT 14) is Level 3 and rolls Untrained Improvisation "Troll Lore" vs DC 20 reduced to 18, or 1d20+5 vs 18, succeeding on a 13 or better on the die.
Problem?
Here's my issue with this though; if I player with "Linnorm lore" used it to try and identify a Linnorm, I would give them the full reduction of DC. It's that player's chance (possibly for the entire campaign) to be rewarded for their investment into that lore. That feels great.
If an Untrained Improv user tries to do the same thing, are you suggesting I just lower the DC by 2 even though I would have lowered it by 5 for someone who actually had the lore?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Smart Fighter (INT 14) is Level 3 and rolls a trained Arcana check vs DC 20, or 1d20+7 vs 20, succeeding on a 13 or better on the die.
Smart Fighter (INT 14) is Level 3 and rolls Untrained Improvisation "Troll Lore" vs DC 20 reduced to 18, or 1d20+5 vs 18, succeeding on a 13 or better on the die.
Problem?
Yes, as a GM I'm not giving a reduction to the DC for the person using Untrained Improvisation to fake having a relevant lore.
Untrained improvisation will let them make a check at all, since they don't have the appropriate skill.
Smart Fighter (INT 14) is Level 3 and rolls a trained Arcana check vs DC 20, or 1d20+7 vs 20, succeeding on a 13 or better on the die.
Smart Fighter (INT 14) is Level 3 and rolls Untrained Improvisation "Troll Lore" vs DC 20 reduced to 18, or 1d20+5 vs 18, succeeding on a 13 or better on the die.
Problem?
Here's my issue with this though; if I player with "Linnorm lore" used it to try and identify a Linnorm, I would give them the full reduction of DC. It's that player's chance (possibly for the entire campaign) to be rewarded for their investment into that lore. That feels great.
If an Untrained Improv user tries to do the same thing, are you suggesting I just lower the DC by 2 even though I would have lowered it by 5 for someone who actually had the lore?
You set the DC, and anyone who wants to roll, rolls, with whatever modifiers they have. Don't go changing the DCs for each PC, that's not how the game works.
Recall Knowledge is an Untrained use. Even someone who is Untrained and doesn't have Untrained Improvisation can roll against the same DC.
You don't raise a Swim DC because someone is Untrained, you shouldn't raise this DC either.
If someone made an investment in Lore, they are at least Master, which is a minimum of 4 points ahead of Untrained Improvisation. That's a lot. The free Lore you get from your Background is not an investment. It's a mostly useless bonus bonus you got from the Background you picked for a much better reason, either the Skill Feat it grants, or an RP reason. If you get to use it even once, you're ahead of the curve.
You set the DC, and anyone who wants to roll, rolls, with whatever modifiers they have. Don't go changing the DCs for each PC, that's not how the game works.
No? What? That is 100% how the game works, what are you talking about.
The rules for creature identification are quite clear that PCs using appropriate lore get a lower DC than PCs using a more general skill.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You set the DC, and anyone who wants to roll, rolls, with whatever modifiers they have. Don't go changing the DCs for each PC, that's not how the game works.No? What? That is 100% how the game works, what are you talking about.
The rules for creature identification are quite clear that PCs using appropriate lore get a lower DC than PCs using a more general skill.
No, the rules are quite clear the GMs can choose to lower the DC for people using a lore versus a more generic skill (and it's not about monster identification but anything that might apply to a lore).
It's not an innate feature of using lore, though seems to be heavily encouraged.
But what people are arguing is that while Clever Improviser is simulating all skills, it shouldn't reward people with lower DCs as the reward (for taking the feat) is being able to make the check at all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
By RAW, you have to get a "Subcategory" of the Lore skill to be able to use it
From Recall Knowledge Skill Uses: https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=5&General=true
"[Lore] Recall Knowledge about the subject of your Lore skill’s subcategory."
https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=8
It tells us that you gain a specific subcategory of lore from your background, and that the GM gets to decide what else can qualify. We know you would normally gain lores through feats like "additional lore." The page also alludes to 'having subcategories' of a Lore. The having sounds like something improvisor wouldn't do but then...
"Even if you’re untrained in Lore, you can use it to Recall Knowledge."
That's pretty specific and it tells us outright you don't have to be trained in the lore to use it, e.g. i can always use undead lore when faced with undead to find out more, because of it, even without being trained in undead lore.
So it sounds like if say, undead lore would apply, not only can I roll it without having it trained, but Improvisor would apply (on the subject of improvising knowledge- it would be inference, comparison, and observation of the subject of the knowledge check, synthesizing old knowledge to construct new knowledge.)
But since the GM decides what constitutes what 'else' is an acceptable lore skill, both at character creation, and in play, they can just reject made up ultra specific lores in play. It would be pretty common sense that if your character's field of study is actually hyper specialized, they'd be trained (in which case you would have approved it before).
Gating a check behind training is explicitly presented as a possibility in the rules So it stands to reason that relying on improvisor in place of say, Bardic Lore, would have a disadvantage if the knowledge is just something someone not-initiated couldn't know. So its possible to have a deep knowledge on an Undead foe require something like "Vampire Lore: Trained, DC 22" to represent something a layperson would never know regardless of bonus, but someone with Bardic Lore could-- it would simply represent a difference in formal training, where the layperson would never have encountered a source of that information.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You set the DC, and anyone who wants to roll, rolls, with whatever modifiers they have. Don't go changing the DCs for each PC, that's not how the game works.No? What? That is 100% how the game works, what are you talking about.
The rules for creature identification are quite clear that PCs using appropriate lore get a lower DC than PCs using a more general skill.
Right. So if you say it's a DC 25 Arcana Check, or a DC 23 Some Lore Check, anyone can roll a DC 23 Some Lore Check. The DC doesn't suddenly increase because you don't like that the PC has Untrained Improvisation.
Right. So if you say it's a DC 25 Arcana Check, or a DC 23 Some Lore Check, anyone can roll a DC 23 Some Lore Check. The DC doesn't suddenly increase because you don't like that the PC has Untrained Improvisation.You set the DC, and anyone who wants to roll, rolls, with whatever modifiers they have. Don't go changing the DCs for each PC, that's not how the game works.No? What? That is 100% how the game works, what are you talking about.
The rules for creature identification are quite clear that PCs using appropriate lore get a lower DC than PCs using a more general skill.
And the DC does neither decrease because some player made up an however obscure lore but because you as a GM already set all possible DC's.
So if you as the GM set Religion to DC19 and Undead Lore to DC17 for the enemy Vampire Spawn thats it. Use one or the other.
If however you as the GM set Religion to DC19, Undead Lore to DC17 and Vampire Lore to DC15, then of course anybody with the correct lore skill or Untrained Improvisation could use the lower value.
Right. So if you say it's a DC 25 Arcana Check, or a DC 23 Some Lore Check, anyone can roll a DC 23 Some Lore Check. The DC doesn't suddenly increase because you don't like that the PC has Untrained Improvisation.
Usually, what ends up happening at my table is;
Player: "I want to identify this Linnorm"
GM: "Okay, roll an Arcana check"
Player: "I have dragon lore, can I roll that instead?"
GM: "That seems totally reasonable. Go ahead. The DC will be a little lower as a result"
And the DC does neither decrease because some player made up an however obscure lore but because you as a GM already set all possible DC's.
This seems like absolute madness to me. Why would the GM set DCs for lores in advance if the PCs doesn't even have those lores? Even if the GM uses only lores the party has, what if someone in the party goes "Actually, I have dungeoneering lore, can I use that to examine this adventurer's pack we just found?"?
Does the GM just go "Nah, I didn't set that as a DC, so nope"?
Isn't the purpose of these quick DC adjustments to increase flexibility in the first place?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right. So if you say it's a DC 25 Arcana Check, or a DC 23 Some Lore Check, anyone can roll a DC 23 Some Lore Check. The DC doesn't suddenly increase because you don't like that the PC has Untrained Improvisation.Usually, what ends up happening at my table is;
Player: "I want to identify this Linnorm"
GM: "Okay, roll an Arcana check"
Player: "I have dragon lore, can I roll that instead?"
GM: "That seems totally reasonable. Go ahead. The DC will be a little lower as a result"And the DC does neither decrease because some player made up an however obscure lore but because you as a GM already set all possible DC's.This seems like absolute madness to me. Why would the GM set DCs for lores in advance if the PCs doesn't even have those lores? Even if the GM uses only lores the party has, what if someone in the party goes "Actually, I have dungeoneering lore, can I use that to examine this adventurer's pack we just found?"?
Does the GM just go "Nah, I didn't set that as a DC, so nope"?
Isn't the purpose of these quick DC adjustments to increase flexibility in the first place?
I create DCs for everything ahead of time, yes. If someone wants to use a Lore that isn't the one I set a lower DC for, I decide if that Lore is applicable at all, and if it is, I decide whether to use the standard DC, or the lower DC, based on how applicable.
If you planned for Religion and Zombie Lore, and someone has Ghast Lore, maybe you say no, or maybe you say yes, but it's the same DC as Religion, as it isn't especially applicable.
This seems like absolute madness to me. Why would the GM set DCs for lores in advance if the PCs doesn't even have those lores? Even if the GM uses only lores the party has, what if someone in the party goes "Actually, I have dungeoneering lore, can I use that to examine this adventurer's pack we just found?"?
Does the GM just go "Nah, I didn't set that as a DC, so nope"?
Isn't the purpose of these quick DC adjustments to increase flexibility in the first place?
Because the trick is to set max/norm/min skills and lores in advance (as in setting the DC, not the lore). This way a player can not simply haggle down DC's by inventing too focused lores via UI every single time.
If a player comes up with a suitable lore you did not think of before just rate it within the given boundaries.
Right. So if you say it's a DC 25 Arcana Check, or a DC 23 Some Lore Check, anyone can roll a DC 23 Some Lore Check. The DC doesn't suddenly increase because you don't like that the PC has Untrained Improvisation.Usually, what ends up happening at my table is;
Player: "I want to identify this Linnorm"
GM: "Okay, roll an Arcana check"
Player: "I have dragon lore, can I roll that instead?"
GM: "That seems totally reasonable. Go ahead. The DC will be a little lower as a result"And the DC does neither decrease because some player made up an however obscure lore but because you as a GM already set all possible DC's.This seems like absolute madness to me. Why would the GM set DCs for lores in advance if the PCs doesn't even have those lores? Even if the GM uses only lores the party has, what if someone in the party goes "Actually, I have dungeoneering lore, can I use that to examine this adventurer's pack we just found?"?
Does the GM just go "Nah, I didn't set that as a DC, so nope"?
Isn't the purpose of these quick DC adjustments to increase flexibility in the first place?
I view it as a "Simulated pre-set" where i set it on the fly, but in such a way that it's whatever i would have set had i infinite time and patience for prep. In the case of this its just "would X lore have had a reduced DC?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the trick is to set max/norm/min skills and lores in advance (as in setting the DC, not the lore). This way a player can not simply haggle down DC's by inventing too focused lores via UI every single time.
If a player comes up with a suitable lore you did not think of before just rate it within the given boundaries.
I feel like the lores don’t even need to be some invented super focused lore to reach a low DC. If a PC has linnorm lore (or any other monster-type lore), I’m probably giving them that full -5 to the DC when they run into an appropriate monster. If not then, when would I do it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the lores don’t even need to be some invented super focused lore to reach a low DC. If a PC has linnorm lore (or any other monster-type lore), I’m probably giving them that full -5 to the DC when they run into an appropriate monster. If not then, when would I do it?Because the trick is to set max/norm/min skills and lores in advance (as in setting the DC, not the lore). This way a player can not simply haggle down DC's by inventing too focused lores via UI every single time.
If a player comes up with a suitable lore you did not think of before just rate it within the given boundaries.
Sure. Arcana: Base DC. Dragon Lore: -2. Linnorm lore: -5. (I’d probably do the same breakdown for Relgion/Undead/Vampire).
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll expose my bias as well, which points the opposite direction.
As GM, I want PCs to succeed at information checks, because in- or out- of combat, it's an opportunity to further explore the game world.
When PCs roll Recall Knowledge, I let them ask me a question, and try to challenge myself to explain the answer to the question "in-world".
Perhaps my bias impacts my position with respect to this ruling too?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good Lord y'all are making this more complicated than it needs to be.
I'll expose my bias as well, which points the opposite direction.
As GM, I want PCs to succeed at information checks, because in- or out- of combat, it's an opportunity to further explore the game world.
When PCs roll Recall Knowledge, I let them ask me a question, and try to challenge myself to explain the answer to the question "in-world".
Perhaps my bias impacts my position with respect to this ruling too?
Well, I have a similar bias. I'm a massive fan of information checks, especially monster identification - and I often do the same thing, letting players ask questions about a monster.
However, I don't want monster identification to be "solved" by a single feat. At level 7, the best proficiency you can reach is master, and you can only have a single master skill at that point. If The Untrained Improv PC is getting -5 to their recall knowledge DCs, that's an effective 1 point behind the best you could possibly be at that level. I do want PCs to succeed at recall knowledge, but I also want to actually reward people who invest heavily into it.
Right. So if you say it's a DC 25 Arcana Check, or a DC 23 Some Lore Check, anyone can roll a DC 23 Some Lore Check. The DC doesn't suddenly increase because you don't like that the PC has Untrained Improvisation.You set the DC, and anyone who wants to roll, rolls, with whatever modifiers they have. Don't go changing the DCs for each PC, that's not how the game works.No? What? That is 100% how the game works, what are you talking about.
The rules for creature identification are quite clear that PCs using appropriate lore get a lower DC than PCs using a more general skill.
No, the DC is 25 if if a PC who actually is trained in a relevant lore is making the check I'll decrease the DC for them by 2, or maybe even as much as 5. For someone who has Untrained Improvisation the DC remains 25.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the DC is 25 if if a PC who actually is trained in a relevant lore is making the check I'll decrease the DC for them by 2, or maybe even as much as 5. For someone who has Untrained Improvisation the DC remains 25.Right. So if you say it's a DC 25 Arcana Check, or a DC 23 Some Lore Check, anyone can roll a DC 23 Some Lore Check. The DC doesn't suddenly increase because you don't like that the PC has Untrained Improvisation.You set the DC, and anyone who wants to roll, rolls, with whatever modifiers they have. Don't go changing the DCs for each PC, that's not how the game works.No? What? That is 100% how the game works, what are you talking about.
The rules for creature identification are quite clear that PCs using appropriate lore get a lower DC than PCs using a more general skill.
That's not how DC's work. That's just a house rule. One which unduly penalizes player for the feat that they took.
Where are people getting the -2 and -5 values for the DC's?
I've seen people use those numbers on several occasions now and I can't figure out where they are coming from.
Relevant rule:
"The skill used to identify a creature usually depends on that creature’s trait, as shown on Table 10–7, but you have leeway on which skills apply. For instance, hags are humanoids but have a strong connection to occult spells and live outside society, so you might allow a character to use Occultism to identify them without any DC adjustment, while Society is harder. Lore skills can also be used to identify their specific creature. Using the applicable Lore usually has an easy or very easy DC (before adjusting for rarity)." (CRB 506, Creature Identification)
The easy and very easy adjustments are -2 and -5, respectively.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really a house rule if you read untrained improvisation and clever improviser as feats which give just non lore skills.
Lore is a skill. Untrained Improvisation gives you a bonus to all untrained skills, without qualification. Deciding that it suddenly doesn't apply to Lore is a house rule, until such time as errata drops.
So, yeah. "If I house rule this thing, then this other thing isn't a house rule." That's certainly a take.
That's not how DC's work. That's just a house rule. One which unduly penalizes player for the feat that they took.No, the DC is 25 if if a PC who actually is trained in a relevant lore is making the check I'll decrease the DC for them by 2, or maybe even as much as 5. For someone who has Untrained Improvisation the DC remains 25.Right. So if you say it's a DC 25 Arcana Check, or a DC 23 Some Lore Check, anyone can roll a DC 23 Some Lore Check. The DC doesn't suddenly increase because you don't like that the PC has Untrained Improvisation.You set the DC, and anyone who wants to roll, rolls, with whatever modifiers they have. Don't go changing the DCs for each PC, that's not how the game works.No? What? That is 100% how the game works, what are you talking about.
The rules for creature identification are quite clear that PCs using appropriate lore get a lower DC than PCs using a more general skill.
No, the player is rewarded by being able to make the check at all.
And the GM gets to decide if DCs are adjusted down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not really one to argue about what is and isn't a house rule - and I don't think that argument is really going to lead anywhere.
I contend two things;
A) If I allow lores as part of the Untrained Improvisation "package", then I'm granting an UI-user an effective +5 to all monster identification checks. This doesn't require any custom-made hyper-specific lores like "Unusually old and Angry Red Linnorm wearing an eyepatch"-lore, this only requires using Linnorm lore against Linnorms, Troll lore against Trolls, etc since I would normally grant those DC reductions to lore experts using "monster subtype"-lore against the appropriate monster.
B) Point A is an issue as the effective +5 bonus means the UI-user is only 1 point behind a master, something that both devalues going after knowledge skills for monster identification through skill increases, while also seeming quite out-of-flavor for the feat, allowing the improviser to somehow improvise obscure facts about monsters and be nearly as effective at it as the people who've trained their entire careers to know stuff.