| 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.
Given how strong is even a +1, I really think it's just an oversight ( shame on them for not have stated what imo is obvious, in terms of balance ).
But apart from that, requiring trained/expert on some checks is definitely normal given some situations.
So a DM could easily deal with untrained improvisation even if its players want to use it with lore checks too.
A +1 on attacks is strong. A +1 on Demoralize is strong. A +1 on an untrained Lore check is not particularly strong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Recall Knowledge is an Untrained use. Anyone can make the check. That's not a reward, and that's now how DCs work. The GM can absolutely decide the DC. But not on a per player basis. That's just discriminatory.
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.
This is not correct. Master gives Level +6. Untrained improvisation gives Level. The Master is always +6 ahead of someone using the same Skill. If you are comparing different Skills, that's not a relevant comparison.
This is not correct. Master gives Level +6. Untrained improvisation gives Level. The Master is always +6 ahead of someone using the same Skill. If you are comparing different Skills, that's not a relevant comparison.
A -5 reduction in DC is equivalent to a +5, so assuming my point A is true (I'm not saying it has to be true, but whether it is or not is a separate argument and I'd rather engage with this one point at a time), the UI-user is getting nearly as good of a result when it comes to monster identification as someone who's a master in Arcane, Nature, Occultism and Religion.
This is not correct. Master gives Level +6. Untrained improvisation gives Level. The Master is always +6 ahead of someone using the same Skill. If you are comparing different Skills, that's not a relevant comparison.A -5 reduction in DC is equivalent to a +5, so assuming my point A is true (I'm not saying it has to be true, but whether it is or not is a separate argument and I'd rather engage with this one point at a time), the UI-user is getting nearly as good of a result when it comes to monster identification as someone who's a master in Arcane, Nature, Occultism and Religion.
The person who's a master in Arcane, Nature, Occultism and Religion has not spent their entire life studying Vampires. They've studied a broad category.
They can roll the specific Lore and get the lower DC too if they want. If they aren't Trained in it, that would be a bad idea though. Unless they take Untrained Improvisation. In which case, they'd still be down 1 point. I don't understand the problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Recall Knowledge is an Untrained use. Anyone can make the check. That's not a reward, and that's now how DCs work. The GM can absolutely decide the DC. But not on a per player basis. That's just discriminatory.
In a technical sense, yes anyone can make the check, but from a practical sense without being trained or having Untrained Improvisation they will fail against most monsters.
Untrained Improvisation will give them a reasonable chance of success.
But I'm not going to let Untrained Improvisation count as having every possible lore ever imagined and reduce the DC of knowledge checks for picking up one feat. It's simply not happening.
We can argue about what is RAW or what's a house rule, but there is no convincing me on this. I would never reduce the DC for a character using untrained improvisation to emulate a lore.
And this isn't some per player basis as if I'm punishing someone because I don't like them. This is me saying, no one gets to lower the DC of all knowledge checks just because you took 1 feat.
Recall Knowledge is an Untrained use. Anyone can make the check. That's not a reward, and that's now how DCs work. The GM can absolutely decide the DC. But not on a per player basis. That's just discriminatory.
GM: "You see a hulking humanoid before you, make a lore check."
Player: "Sounds like a troll, I'll make a Troll Lore check."GM: "Sounds appropriate, -2 to the DC."
Player: "Since I'm untrained, its just a raw d20." *Roll* "18"
Would you allow that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Recall Knowledge is an Untrained use. Anyone can make the check. That's not a reward, and that's now how DCs work. The GM can absolutely decide the DC. But not on a per player basis. That's just discriminatory.GM: "You see a hulking humanoid before you, make a lore check."
Player: "Sounds like a troll, I'll make a Troll Lore check."
GM: "Sounds appropriate, -2 to the DC."
Player: "Since I'm untrained, its just a raw d20." *Roll* "18"Would you allow that?
Yes. That's how the rules work. I wouldn't recommend it, since the result is going to be worse than using the appropriate Arcana or Nature, but it's perfectly legal.
They can roll the specific Lore and get the lower DC too if they want. If they aren't Trained in it, that would be a bad idea though. Unless they take Untrained Improvisation. In which case, they'd still be down 1 point. I don't understand the problem.
They would be down 1 point compared to a master, and they would be able to do this for every single recall knowledge check to identify monsters. At that point, UI is a much better tool for monster identification at level 7 than investing into knowledge skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They can roll the specific Lore and get the lower DC too if they want. If they aren't Trained in it, that would be a bad idea though. Unless they take Untrained Improvisation. In which case, they'd still be down 1 point. I don't understand the problem.They would be down 1 point compared to a master, and they would be able to do this for every single recall knowledge check to identify monsters. At that point, UI is a much better tool for monster identification at level 7 than investing into knowledge skills.
Compared to a Master in a different Skill. A Master in the Lore will be 6 points ahead.
Arcana, Nature, Religion, Occult, Society etc... are broader Skills with many applications beyond Recall Knowledge.
You aren't making an accurate comparison.
Compared to a Master in a different Skill. A Master in the Lore will be 6 points ahead.
Arcana, Nature, Religion, Occult, Society etc... are broader Skills with many applications beyond Recall Knowledge.
You aren't making an accurate comparison.
In that case, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree since we're just repeating ourselves at this point. I think a single feat covering all of recall knowledge to nearly the same level as a specialist in all of the knowledge skills is an issue, you don't. I've already said my piece, so that's that I suppose.
It doesn't matter if they *can* roll, the minimum proficiency uses a knowledge check (arcana) as an example, but still asserts that they wouldn't have a chance of success if the GM decides it requires a minimum proficiency, instead you'd just be figuring out if you're lying to them.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=557
This IS RAW, no ifs, ands, or buts, suggesting you can't do this or that it happens automatically are houserules.
THEREFORE, untrained improvisation lores can be of benefit vs. a normal skill or even bardic lore, but it runs the risk of not handling minimum proficiency-- because there's a 'texture' difference to the levels of proficiency that isn't expressed in the raw numerical result.
This is pretty much /thread.
Yeah, that's why I don't think arguing whether this is a houserule or no is productive - it's pretty cut-and-dry. GMs are empowered to rule against RAW though, and this is a case where I would argue they have good reasons to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't matter if they *can* roll, the minimum proficiency uses a knowledge check (arcana) as an example, but still asserts that they wouldn't have a chance of success if the GM decides it requires a minimum proficiency, instead you'd just be figuring out if you're lying to them.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=557
This IS RAW, no ifs, ands, or buts, suggesting you can't do this or that it happens automatically are houserules.
THEREFORE, untrained improvisation lores can be of benefit vs. a normal skill or even bardic lore, but it runs the risk of not handling minimum proficiency-- because there's a 'texture' difference to the levels of proficiency that isn't expressed in the raw numerical result.
This is pretty much /thread.
Setting a Proficiency gate is RAW yes. That's not the same as changing the DC for one PC but not another.
There is also no precedent that I am aware of in any published material for a Recall Knowledge check being Proficiency gated.
It doesn't matter if they *can* roll, the minimum proficiency uses a knowledge check (arcana) as an example, but still asserts that they wouldn't have a chance of success if the GM decides it requires a minimum proficiency, instead you'd just be figuring out if you're lying to them.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=557
This IS RAW, no ifs, ands, or buts, suggesting you can't do this or that it happens automatically are houserules.
THEREFORE, untrained improvisation lores can be of benefit vs. a normal skill or even bardic lore, but it runs the risk of not handling minimum proficiency-- because there's a 'texture' difference to the levels of proficiency that isn't expressed in the raw numerical result.
This is pretty much /thread.
Setting a Proficiency gate is RAW yes. That's not the same as changing the DC for one PC but not another.
There is also no precedent that I am aware of in any published material for a Recall Knowledge check being Proficiency gated.
Then click the link in the post you just quoted, its used as the example for the "Minimum Proficiency" rule, that's the core rulebook.
As for the other part, I don't think it's worth talking about, since it sounds like the argument would be that the GM is using a system where they don't proficiency gate conventionally for whatever reason, but still want people with a lower "qualification" to have to be luckier than someone who has the same numerical bonus via proficiency level.
I would call it a ruling once, and a house ruled 'minimum proficiency system' if used consistently that way. This is because the GM sets the DC whenever a player rolls it, which means they 'set it' every time it's used, and are objectively within rights to change it, its just that it would 'feel bad' unless there's a reason for it to be changing. Which is why you don't normally see DCs changing randomly without circumstances changing.
At that point there's really nothing to say about it, we're in the realm of house rule design, some players would appreciate always being able to roll via the soft gate, others would prefer the RAW "you have no chance unless you have X prof"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't matter if they *can* roll, the minimum proficiency uses a knowledge check (arcana) as an example, but still asserts that they wouldn't have a chance of success if the GM decides it requires a minimum proficiency, instead you'd just be figuring out if you're lying to them.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=557
This IS RAW, no ifs, ands, or buts, suggesting you can't do this or that it happens automatically are houserules.
THEREFORE, untrained improvisation lores can be of benefit vs. a normal skill or even bardic lore, but it runs the risk of not handling minimum proficiency-- because there's a 'texture' difference to the levels of proficiency that isn't expressed in the raw numerical result.
This is pretty much /thread.
Setting a Proficiency gate is RAW yes. That's not the same as changing the DC for one PC but not another.
There is also no precedent that I am aware of in any published material for a Recall Knowledge check being Proficiency gated.
Then click the link in the post you just quoted, its used as the example for the "Minimum Proficiency" rule, that's the core rulebook.
As for the other part, I don't think it's worth talking about, since it sounds like the argument would be that the GM is using a system where they don't proficiency gate conventionally for whatever reason, but still want people with a lower "qualification" to have to be luckier than someone who has the same numerical bonus via proficiency level.
I would call it a ruling once, and a house ruled 'minimum proficiency system' if used consistently that way. This is because the GM sets the DC whenever a player rolls it, which means they 'set it' every time it's used, and are objectively within rights to change it, its just that it would 'feel bad' unless there's a reason for it to be changing. Which is why you don't normally see DCs changing randomly without circumstances changing.
At that point there's really nothing to say...
Source Core Rulebook pg. 504
Sometimes succeeding at a particular task requires a character to have a specific proficiency rank in addition to a success on the check. Locks and traps often require a certain proficiency rank to successfully use the Pick a Lock or Disable a Device actions of Thievery. A character whose proficiency rank is lower than what’s listed can attempt the check, but they can’t succeed. You can apply similar minimum proficiencies to other tasks. You might decide, for example, that a particular arcane theorem requires training in Arcana to understand. An untrained barbarian can’t succeed at the check, but she can still attempt it if she wants—after all, she needs to have a chance to critically fail and get erroneous information!For checks that require a minimum proficiency, keep the following guidelines in mind. A 2nd-level or lower task should almost never require expert proficiency, a 6th-level or lower task should almost never require master proficiency, and a 14th-level or lower task should almost never require legendary proficiency. If they did, no character of the appropriate level could succeed.
None of those examples are Recall Knowledge checks, so I'm not sure what part of that text you are referring to.
...It doesn't matter if they *can* roll, the minimum proficiency uses a knowledge check (arcana) as an example, but still asserts that they wouldn't have a chance of success if the GM decides it requires a minimum proficiency, instead you'd just be figuring out if you're lying to them.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=557
This IS RAW, no ifs, ands, or buts, suggesting you can't do this or that it happens automatically are houserules.
THEREFORE, untrained improvisation lores can be of benefit vs. a normal skill or even bardic lore, but it runs the risk of not handling minimum proficiency-- because there's a 'texture' difference to the levels of proficiency that isn't expressed in the raw numerical result.
This is pretty much /thread.
Setting a Proficiency gate is RAW yes. That's not the same as changing the DC for one PC but not another.
There is also no precedent that I am aware of in any published material for a Recall Knowledge check being Proficiency gated.
Then click the link in the post you just quoted, its used as the example for the "Minimum Proficiency" rule, that's the core rulebook.
As for the other part, I don't think it's worth talking about, since it sounds like the argument would be that the GM is using a system where they don't proficiency gate conventionally for whatever reason, but still want people with a lower "qualification" to have to be luckier than someone who has the same numerical bonus via proficiency level.
I would call it a ruling once, and a house ruled 'minimum proficiency system' if used consistently that way. This is because the GM sets the DC whenever a player rolls it, which means they 'set it' every time it's used, and are objectively within rights to change it, its just that it would 'feel bad' unless there's a reason for it to be changing. Which is why you don't normally see DCs changing randomly without circumstances changing.
At that point
"A character whose proficiency rank is lower than what’s listed can attempt the check, but they can’t succeed. You can apply similar minimum proficiencies to other tasks. You might decide, for example, that a particular arcane theorem requires training in Arcana to understand. An untrained barbarian can’t succeed at the check, but she can still attempt it if she wants—after all, she needs to have a chance to critically fail and get erroneous information!"
The check to understand the arcane theorem would be a recall knowledge check, it even alludes to the erroneous information on a critical failure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The check to understand the arcane theorem would be a recall knowledge check, it even alludes to the erroneous information on a critical failure.
Seems more like Decipher Writing to me. It's actually from the Decipher Writing Arcana example Task.
Arcana: writings about magic or science, like arcane theory.
That's one of the things that makes Arcana better than Lore. You can use it for other stuff like that. It's also a Trained use.
I don't think you can have a Proficiency gate for an Untrained use, as it inherently conflicts with it being an Untrained use.
The check to understand the arcane theorem would be a recall knowledge check, it even alludes to the erroneous information on a critical failure.Seems more like Decipher Writing to me. It's actually from the Decipher Writing Arcana example Task.
Arcana: writings about magic or science, like arcane theory.That's one of the things that makes Arcana better than Lore. You can use it for other stuff like that. It's also a Trained use.
I don't think you can have a Proficiency gate for an Untrained use, as it inherently conflicts with it being an Untrained use.
Hmm, maybe on the first part, I don't think its disqualifying and the argument about precedent is a bit of a red herring anyway.
There's no reason to think you can't, its an untrained use, which means you don't need to be trained to do it in general the way other actions require a certain level of training. E.g. the decipher writing things can never be used untrained, whereas recall knowledge can sometimes be successful untrained.
If it required training, you could *never* use it untrained, whereas with the way its currently written, you can always make the attempt, but the DC may include a minimum proficiency and therefore result in automatic failure.
Personally, I’d allow Clever Improvisor to take advantage of the reduced DC for applicable Lore, but I would theme the information gained as improvised ideas. Things like try a slashing weapon against the zombies, or cold damage against the fiery creature.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For Clever Improviser, I'd say you technically do gain the benefits of using a specific Lore, however many checks don't even have a Lore that gives -5, and one doing so is entirely at GM discretion, so I'd universally keep to the -2 for 'appropriate Lore' when using Clever Improviser.
This is technically a bit of a House Rule, but seems like a reasonable compromise. In order to keep it useful and powerful, I'd generally give Bardic Lore the same difficulty reduction, which is even more of a House Rule, but I don't really care.
For Clever Improviser, I'd say you technically do gain the benefits of using a specific Lore, however many checks don't even have a Lore that gives -5, and one doing so is entirely at GM discretion, so I'd universally keep to the -2 for 'appropriate Lore' when using Clever Improviser.
I feel like that's not right, and that most checks do have an appropriate Lore that would deserve a -5 modifier to the DC. The guidelines on what types of Lore subcategories are allowed are pretty open, and allow for most specific fields/topics that might be recalled about. And the thing is that most of the limitations on what types of Lore subcategories are allowed to exist restrict the topic to be more specific, not less. So with this feat, a character would have access to every hyper-specific lore if one could exist that perfectly captures the nature of the knowledge to be recalled. Though the player might have to select this specific Lore depending on what the piece of knowledge was which might be a bit of a hassle.
If the character is proficient in every possible choice of Lore and as long as the very specific Lore could exist, this feat seems overly powerful with essentially master proficiency -1 in most topics of recall knowledge.
I specifically noted it's a bit of a House Rule, and it solves your problem pretty directly.
So I'm not really seeing what your issue with my version is.
My main argument was against the idea that many checks don't have a very specific Lore.
And yeah, I'd probably run an actual game the way you suggest by making Lores used by this feat as being at -2 DC in general. And while I agree that the feat currently grants proficiency in all Lore skills, I think that maybe this feat just shouldn't unless the given Lore skill was the only applicable skill for the task. In that case, a character should be restricted to using the more general skill to represent their improvisational skills.
I know how to houserule this, even if I would appreciate an errata weakening the feat re: Lore. (I know I couldn't pass it up w/ Dubious Knowledge on top.)
I'm unsure how to PFS rule this.
(That said, most players are reasonable around here so hopefully it shan't be an issue.)
Man... this is a long thread.
What was the veredict on whether you could or couldn't?
Whether RAW or RAI?
There wasn't ever a universal consensual to summarize for you. Expect some variation.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's always nice to take a little bit of a break from a discussion and come back at it with a fresh set of eyes.
How would people feel about this?
In the Core Rulebook we're given guidance that Lore DCs should be lower than the corresponding Arcana/Crafting/Nature/Occultism/Religion/Society check to Recall Knowledge, representing that character's specialized training. But I think (hope?) most people would agree that having access to ALL Lore subcategories is obviously more generalistic. Therefore, when calculating DCs for Clever Improviser, don't use the lower Lore DC. Go with the standard DC instead to represent their non-specific training.
It rewards people who have Clever Improviser while still leaving room for actual Lore specialists to shine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's always nice to take a little bit of a break from a discussion and come back at it with a fresh set of eyes.
How would people feel about this?
In the Core Rulebook we're given guidance that Lore DCs should be lower than the corresponding Arcana/Crafting/Nature/Occultism/Religion/Society check to Recall Knowledge, representing that character's specialized training. But I think (hope?) most people would agree that having access to ALL Lore subcategories is obviously more generalistic. Therefore, when calculating DCs for Clever Improviser, don't use the lower Lore DC. Go with the standard DC instead to represent their non-specific training.
It rewards people who have Clever Improviser while still leaving room for actual Lore specialists to shine.
Hmm, are there any questions one might answer with Lore but not with any of Arcana/Crafting/Nature/etc? If so, this rewards the Clever Improviser as you say. If not, it seems to me to be effectively the same as "Clever Improviser does not apply to Lore." That is, if your improv'd Vampire Lore gets the same DC as Religion, there's no advantage to not just using Religion instead, either trained or improv'd.
I wish we could just tag one of the game developers so they would just answer the question.
Whereas I would consider doing the -2 but not -5 for Bardic Lore, maybe, but would absolutely not give any DC reduction for Clever Improviser.
Whereas I would consider doing the -2 but not -5 for Bardic Lore, maybe, but would absolutely not give any DC reduction for Clever Improviser.I would also give the -2 for Bardic Lore, in fairness.
So the advantage would be that bardic lore would have +2 over Clever Improvisor from being trained, or eventually +4 if it rose to expert?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the advantage would be that bardic lore would have +2 over Clever Improvisor from being trained, or eventually +4 if it rose to expert?Whereas I would consider doing the -2 but not -5 for Bardic Lore, maybe, but would absolutely not give any DC reduction for Clever Improviser.I would also give the -2 for Bardic Lore, in fairness.
Yep. It also kicks in sooner. You can have Level+2 from 1st level, but Clever Improviser doesn't hit Level+0 until 7th level.
|
|
Hmm, are there any questions one might answer with Lore but not with any of Arcana/Crafting/Nature/etc? If so, this rewards the Clever Improviser as you say. If not, it seems to me to be effectively the same as "Clever Improviser does not apply to Lore." That is, if your improv'd Vampire Lore gets the same DC as Religion, there's no advantage to not just using Religion instead, either trained or improv'd.It's always nice to take a little bit of a break from a discussion and come back at it with a fresh set of eyes.
How would people feel about this?
In the Core Rulebook we're given guidance that Lore DCs should be lower than the corresponding Arcana/Crafting/Nature/Occultism/Religion/Society check to Recall Knowledge, representing that character's specialized training. But I think (hope?) most people would agree that having access to ALL Lore subcategories is obviously more generalistic. Therefore, when calculating DCs for Clever Improviser, don't use the lower Lore DC. Go with the standard DC instead to represent their non-specific training.
It rewards people who have Clever Improviser while still leaving room for actual Lore specialists to shine.
The advantage is using Intelligence for Lore and not investing in multiple skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The advantage is using Intelligence for Lore and not investing in multiple skills.Hmm, are there any questions one might answer with Lore but not with any of Arcana/Crafting/Nature/etc? If so, this rewards the Clever Improviser as you say. If not, it seems to me to be effectively the same as "Clever Improviser does not apply to Lore." That is, if your improv'd Vampire Lore gets the same DC as Religion, there's no advantage to not just using Religion instead, either trained or improv'd.It's always nice to take a little bit of a break from a discussion and come back at it with a fresh set of eyes.
How would people feel about this?
In the Core Rulebook we're given guidance that Lore DCs should be lower than the corresponding Arcana/Crafting/Nature/Occultism/Religion/Society check to Recall Knowledge, representing that character's specialized training. But I think (hope?) most people would agree that having access to ALL Lore subcategories is obviously more generalistic. Therefore, when calculating DCs for Clever Improviser, don't use the lower Lore DC. Go with the standard DC instead to represent their non-specific training.
It rewards people who have Clever Improviser while still leaving room for actual Lore specialists to shine.
Investment: No, my point was that if your untrained, improvised Vampire Lore is no more effective than your untrained, improvised Religion, you might as well use the latter even if you haven't invested in it. So not being able to use CI on Lore doesn't mean you have to invest in multiple other skills to reach the same level of competence.
Getting to use Int: This is a good point, depending on your build. Personally I like taking things like Untrained Imrovisation, Clever Improviser, or the Pathfinder Agent Dedication even if I'm not specifically building around them.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah since I just started playing a Human Investigator I might toss it on him purely for the Lore aspect, since he'll be Trained (at least) in virtually everything else.
Investigators get this ability free for Recall Knowledge via Keen Recollection at level 3. So Investigators basically never need to do this.
Yeah since I just started playing a Human Investigator I might toss it on him purely for the Lore aspect, since he'll be Trained (at least) in virtually everything else.Investigators get this ability free for Recall Knowledge via Keen Recollection at level 3. So Investigators basically never need to do this.
Since he mentioned Trained he might be thinking Loremaster Dedication for Loremaster Lore: since Loremaster has a skill feat in it, you can finish your 3 feats by 4th.
