|
Hey folks!
One of the "Wizards Suck" megathreads has spawned a breakout rules debate over the use of Clever Improviser and to roll any and all specific Lore subcategories.
Read the thread portion here.
The contention resolves around if having access to all subcategories is simply too good to be true?
Let's Discuss!
Well, I certainly think it is. I guess my beef revolves much more around Untrained Improvisation than Clever Improviser - I view the additional benefits offered by Clever Improviser to be pretty mild all things considered, and I don't consider it a very good ancestry feat compared to just taking Untrained Improv as a skill feat.
My main beef with Untrained Improvisation using lore, then, is invalidating a multi-skill skill action (recall knowledge) with a single skill feat general feat. A skill feat is probably the single "cheapest" character build resource in the entire game, and it is very disproportionate to have it be as good at the recall knowledge action as investing skill ups into four separate knowledge skills.
Edit: Ubertron pointed out that untrained improv is, in fact, a general feat and is of course correct. One of my players have the feat so I was sure I had it right but this is a good example of why you always double-check. I'll retract my point on Clever Improviser (I think an ancestry feat and general feat are roughly equal resources), but my main point stands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and I don't consider it a very good ancestry feat compared to just taking Untrained Improv as a skill feat.
UI is a general feat.
Whoops, you're right. My main point still stands, though I will concede that general feats are a more expensive character resource than skill feats.
Lore, when used for knowledge that's specifically addressed, like Lore: Vampires for a vampire, lowers the DC quite a bit. That's cool, right?
A person with X as their main hobby should have an easier time recalling knowledge about X.
In fact, the narrower the focus of Lore, the more you're supposed to get out of it. (I believe that's in the GMG; apologies for no citation).
So you could have Lore: Strahd and not just get his vampire traits, but access to his backstory (which is crucial in his modules BTW). This is even if nobody on Golarion has heard of the man and your party was plucked from there and tossed into the Mists (by a most fabulous GM I'd reckon).
If allowed to fine-tune to the narrowest of Lore options, Clever Improvisor/Untrained Improvisation becomes superior to Master Monster Hunter. Not only can you do monsters, you can do ancient books, magic pools, whatever you come across.
That doesn't balance mechanically nor does it elude absurdity.
As a GM, I feel I can set a reasonable breadth limit (most likely to the nearest other Recall Knowledge skill's DC), yet how about in PFS2?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lore, when used for knowledge that's specifically addressed, like Lore: Vampires for a vampire, lowers the DC quite a bit. That's cool, right?
A person with X as their main hobby should have an easier time recalling knowledge about X.
In fact, the narrower the focus of Lore, the more you're supposed to get out of it. (I believe that's in the GMG; apologies for no citation).
Yes, Lore DCs are suggested to be lower in the CRB by one step, which can essentially net you either a +2 or +5 if the GM permits it.
I realized this combo when building my Human Monk. Her Int wasn't going to be great, but the concept of her being a student of all knowledge appealed to me.
But, for argument's sake, let's leave Int out of this, because anyone actually Trained in Lore can also raise their Int. Instead, let's look at just the Proficiency bonus.
At Level 5, the earliest this combo can go online, you only have a +2 on all Lore checks. Anybody that was Trained in Lore will have had at least a +2 at Level 1 (and that's with an Int penalty).
At Level 6, that bonus increases to +3. So now you're on par with a 1st Level character. By Level 7, it rockets up to +7, which is still two levels later than anyone else who was actually Trained in Lore.
And that's the best it's going to get. You will have a wider breadth of knowledge, to be sure, but you're always going to be at least two levels behind the average PC.
All this ultimately means that your chances of a critical failure and recalling the wrong knowledge is always higher, and your chances of succeeding are always lower. Plus, we all know how rarely players want to waste an action on a Recall Knowledge check in combat.
I think it's fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the question is, "Should Untrained Improvisation (and Clever Improviser) allow you to do Lore skills and thus get a lower DC for the task?"
I have a clear answer, which is absolutely not.
Those feats represent general training to be "okay" at everything. It doesn't represent a specific knowledge in anything. If you want the lower DC benefit of a lore you need to have the lore.
Otherwise you can roll using one of the main "core" skills at the regular DC.
And no, I don't entertain arguments otherwise or consider whether it's "RAW" or not.
My take, since this thread is kinda my fault: I'm fine with a character using Untrained Improvisation on a relevant Lore. But it doesn't get to be a specific lore. So if the party is fighting a Vampire, I will let the character role Undead Lore untrained, getting a modifier of Int + lvl. If a character actually has Vampire Lore trained, then they get to roll against a lower DC, since it is specific knowledge.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, the narrower the focus of Lore, the more you're supposed to get out of it. (I believe that's in the GMG; apologies for no citation).
I honestly can't find anything like that. Is it part of the Research system you are maybe thinking of?
In any case, the GM is still the ultimate arbiter of information available to the players through recall knowledge.
A player might be able to mechanically make a Lore: Strahd roll with whatever bonus, but a GM is 100% within their right to say they can't possibly possess knowledge of a particular person on a particular plane they've equally never heard of.
Could a player with a series of knowledge checks maybe put together something? I'd say "Sure! that sounds like a great idea, walk me through it!", and let the player explain a series of possibly interconnected lore rolls that might get them some knowledge, but that would be me reaching to help them really.
Just being able to make the roll doesn't entitle a player to specific knowledge if that knowledge would be literally impossible for them to know.
Every character already can make untrained lore checks to recall knowledge on any topic they can imagine, it just doesn't work a lot of the time
Even if you’re untrained in Lore, you can use it to Recall Knowledge.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see absolutely zero rules saying to treat Lore as 'not a Skill'. Untrained Improvisation gives you a bonus on all Untrained Skills, and Lore can be used Untrained to Recall Knowledge (though not for anything else).
This mechanically works and making it not is a House Rule.
As for specific Lores making Recall Knowledge easier, that's on p. 506 of the core rulebook, specific to creature identification, and entirely at GM discretion. Here's the text:
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).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the sake of clarity:
So, the way I read this, it'd play out something like this:
GM: [Describes a weird statue something related to Sarenrae]
Player: Can I Recall Knowledge?
GM: Yes, it'd be Religion DC 25, or Lore: Cult of the Dawnflower DC 21.
Does the Player have Lore: Cult of the Dawnflower Trained?
- If the answer is Yes, nothing happens.
- If the answer is No, then it's Untrained. The Player can use Untrained Improvisation to roll, adding half their level (if at level 6 or lower), or their full level (if at level 7 or higher). They can also, if they wish, use Incredible Improvisation to get +4 to the check.
- If the answer is No, but they have Bardic Lore, they can use Bardic Lore instead. But if they do, they can't use Incredible Improvisation, because Bardic Lore is Trained (or Expert, depending on the player's Occult proficiency).
That's how I read it. Recall Knowledge (the action) specifically states:
"The GM determines the DCs for such checks and which skills apply."
So it's not like a player can just ask for a lower DC because theoretically they know every Lore. It's up to the GM to determine if a Lore even applies, and even if it applies the DC may not be lower.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it's not like a player can just ask for a lower DC because theoretically they know every Lore. It's up to the GM to determine if a Lore even applies, and even if it applies the DC may not be lower.What you put in bold simply highlight that it's up to the DM validates a specific lore to be used on a specific task.
The recall knowledge check explains this, in adjunct to how the answer you get could be different
The following skills can be used to Recall Knowledge, getting information about the listed topics. In some cases, you can get the GM’s permission to use a different but related skill, usually against a higher DC than normal. Some topics might appear on multiple lists, but the skills could give different information. For example, Arcana might tell you about the magical defenses of a golem, whereas Crafting could tell you about its sturdy resistance to physical attacks.For example:
DM: Who has Religion or Cult of the Dragon Lore can roll
Player: I have dragon lore, can I also roll?
DM: Yes, you can ( another DM could have said "unfortunately your dragon lore won't help you this time" ).So,
The Religion check would have DC XX
The Dragon Lore Would have DC XX-2/3
The Cult of the Dragon Lore would have DC XX-4/5
I mean, nothing says Lores get lower DCs by default, anywhere. Even when talking about identifying creatures, the game says:
Using the applicable Lore usually has an easy or very easy DC (before adjusting for rarity).
People seem to be assuming two things when they have a problem with Untrained/Incredible Improvisation:
1)Every Recall Knowledge check has an applicable lore.
2)Using a Lore skill to recall knowledge=lower DC.
Neither of these are true. The GM is final arbiter on what skills apply and what DCs those skills have. Period.
In fact you may have a situation where your Lore skill is a higher DC, because it's related, but not what you need (for example, you have Lore: Whispering Way, but the check is about Norgorber in general and thus Religion).
Since untrained improvisation (supposedly) gives you a bonus to every hypothetical lore, I'm not sure I understand your argument and the example you gave TheFinish.
Couldn't an Untrained Improvisation user just use Norgorber lore when trying to figure out a Norgorber-related question? Similarly, you can always invent creature type-lore when up against a certain creature. For example, troll lore against trolls.
Now, I don't agree this is how the game works or should be run. My take is a lot more similar to Claxon's. But I don't really understand your rebuttal here.
Since untrained improvisation (supposedly) gives you a bonus to every hypothetical lore, I'm not sure I understand your argument and the example you gave TheFinish.
Couldn't an Untrained Improvisation user just use Norgorber lore when trying to figure out a Norgorber-related question? Similarly, you can always invent creature type-lore when up against a certain creature. For example, troll lore against trolls.
Now, I don't agree this is how the game works or should be run. My take is a lot more similar to Claxon's. But I don't really understand your rebuttal here.
Sorry, my bad. My second point wasn't about any of the Improvisations, just the idea of Lores always giving a lower DC. I was trying to present a situation where a Lore might be applicable but not necessarily give do that.
And sure, in your example they could use Norgorber lore, if the GM allows it. They may just say "No, Norgorber Lore doesn't apply, this is just a normal Religion check".
And yes, you can use Troll lore against Trolls instead of...uh...whatever Trolls use now (I can never remember off the top of my head.) And the GM can just say the DC is exactly the same.
That's my entire point, in a nutshell. People act as though being able to use Lore untrained is an instant lowering of the DC. It isn't. Therefore I see no problem allowing the rules to work RAW. Especially because Untrained Recall Knowledge gives very little facts, if any, so it's of dubious use anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lore skills are unequivocally skills. Trying to say someone can't use Lore in this situation seems really arbitrary and just a punitive action.
But the DC of any check is already explicitly within the purview of the GM, so there's no inherent problem here of someone gaming DCs. It feels almost like a red herring argument, because there's nothing to game, except the GM themselves and if you feel like someone at your table is socially manipulating the GM to get benefits for themselves there's a much larger problem going on.
The 'worst' thing this lets you do is use Int instead of Wisdom by rolling a Lore skill instead of Religion or Nature and... I'm sorry but I'm not gonna freak out over what some people treat as a universal dump stat having some niche way of being slightly more useful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I were going to make up a houserule or ruling for this off the cuff, I'd say that these feats absolutely allow you to roll a Lore Check if Lore is the Skill required.
If another skill is reccomended or directly applicable, however, you have to roll that.
A "no abuse" clause if you will.
Its not materially different from just making sure the DCs match, but it might feel better to the players and be more transparent.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean by RAW, Lores are Skills, and Lores can be pretty much anything you want. So, yes, a Clever Improviser gets to add his level to his Recall Knowledge Check in Chellaxian Vampires named Bob Lore.
That should probably get errata, but as printed, outside of house ruling it, that's what it does.
Also, it's important to note that literally anyone can use any Lore to Recall Knowledge. Untrained Improvisers are simply better at it.
Even if you’re untrained in Lore, you can use it to Recall Knowledge (page 238).
You can't reduce the DC to a Lore check if the character is not specifically trained in it. Otherwise, at level 1, instead of rolling Arcana (Int + 3) to Recall Knowledge about a construct you just have to roll Lore(Broom that moves on its own) and you can roll Int with a DC reduced by 5. The bonus to the DC should only be applied when the character is Trained in the specific Lore, not when the player invents a Lore to roll with an easier DC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't reduce the DC to a Lore check if the character is not specifically trained in it. Otherwise, at level 1, instead of rolling Arcana (Int + 3) to Recall Knowledge about a construct you just have to roll Lore(Broom that moves on its own) and you can roll Int with a DC reduced by 5. The bonus to the DC should only be applied when the character is Trained in the specific Lore, not when the player invents a Lore to roll with an easier DC.
To reiterate a previous point: using a Lore skill does not automatically mean a lower DC, and the GM is well within their purview to just disallow Lores invented on the spot. This idea that access to Lores is an easy 2 to 5 DC reduction needs to stop. It's not supported by the rules anywhere.
To your other point, though: DC is DC is DC. If the GM says identifying the Broom is an Arcana DC 10 check, but also a Lore (Animated Object) DC 7 check (I'm making the numbers up here, don't read intot hem too much), then yeah, anyone can try the Untrained Lore (Animated Object) roll if they so wish. This is perfectly within the rules, otherwise there'd be no point to Lore specifically saying it can be used Untrained to Recall Knowledge.
But seriously, there's no such thing as "You can use Lore to reduce the DC to Recall Knowledge on Monster identification". There's guidelines to let GMs know they can allow Lore checks in certain situations to supplant a broader skill, and that usually this check is Easy or Very Easy. But that's it.
And when it comes to Recall Knowledge not related to monster identification, the only rules talking about supplanting one skill for another talk about making the DCs higher, not lower.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reduced DC being at GM discretion rather than a written rule should make it difficult to abuse this tactic (rather than merely using it.
Player A: "I want to see of I can recall knowledge to know anything about this smuggling ring."
GM: "Sure, you could try to see of you've heard anything around with a Society check." (Mentally assigns DC 17)
Player A: "Actually, I have Underworld Lore, could I use that?"
GM: "Yeah, that would totally apply here." (Mentally changes DC to 15)
Player B: "I have Clever Improviser, so I'd also like to recall, with Lore: Smuggling rings operating in this town that are led by a left-handed halfling"
GM: So you're actually wanting to roll Lore:Everything? Sure, go ahead." (Keeps the DC at 17 for that one since only Player A is ACTUALLY using a specific skill investment.)
Everything in that exchange is 100% legitimate as the DC is set by discretion, and giving the lower DC to the character who actually has a specific interest is not an inappropriate call.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Why would a DM forbid a player from having a lower DC on a subject he is really into?"
Mostly because the advantage of Lore isn't to give you lower DCs, it's to allow you to test in specific situations pertaining to that Lore when you have a worse proficiency in another relevant skill.
For example, you have Lore: Sandpoint Trained, but not Society. The GM calls for a Society roll to determine a bit of history of Sandpoint. You could say "Hey, can I use my Lore; Sandpoint skill instead?" and the GM would probably say yes. But do you get a lower DC? Maybe, maybe not. The big advtange you're already getting is using a Trained skill instead of Untrained.
Or to use my own earlier example, you run into a religious book on Norgorber. The GM says parsing through the coded messages inside is Religion, and sets a DC of 25. You have Religion Trained, but you also have Lore: Anaphexia at Master. Now, the GM knows this book is actually related to Norgorber as Father Skinsaw, not The Reaper of Reputation, which is the aspect what the Anaphexia worships. So they say "Yes, but the DC is 28" (or they keep it a secret, however they prefer). Again, the big advantage here is you get to use better proficiency, not necessarily a lower DC.
And when it comes to monsters, we can agree it's different because you could always ask to try with Lore:Particular Monster. It's true. But the GM can just say the DC is the same. Or that this particular monster is so rare you need Trained or better to even try. Or a whole host of other things.
You could argue this steps on the toes of Master Monster Hunter (the Ranger Feat), but a Ranger using that feat is going to be rolling Master Nature (at a minimum), while you roll Untrained (Whatever). Oh but they can use Incredible Improvisation to get a +4, then maybe they'll be better than the Ranger. Yes, once per day. And they might not even end up being better than the Ranger, again, depending on the DCs the GM sets.
A lot of the discussion on "gaming" the Improvisation feats seems to ignore the GM is the final arbiter of anything, and that it's very easy to tell when someone is trying to abuse something like this and act accordingly.
So what about the elf ancestry feat “Ancestral Longevity “? If you choose the lore “nobles of Absalom” for the day should you get the reduction in DC?
For example, you have Lore: Sandpoint Trained, but not Society. The GM calls for a Society roll to determine a bit of history of Sandpoint. You could say "Hey, can I use my Lore; Sandpoint skill instead?" and the GM would probably say yes. But do you get a lower DC? Maybe, maybe not. The big advtange you're already getting is using a Trained skill instead of Untrained.
I really disagree on this.
Also, you made an example where a character has a specific lore skill but not the society skill trained. "A little" unfair.
Unfair? What? They could be any number of characters without Society, it's not as if everyone gets Society by default. But everyone does get a Lore skill from their background.
It's also an example from my current crop of players, one of which is a Street Urchin Fighter from Absalom. He doesn't have Society, he does have Absalom Lore. It's not really a stretch, or unfair.
As for disagreeing, that's fine. But using a Trained skill instead of Untrained (or Expert instead of Trainerd, etc) is an advantage.
This is an interesting conundrum. I kind of agree with Superbidi overall but disagree for Bardic Lore. Bardic lore kind of implies you are 'trained' in all lores as all lores fall under bardic lore. This would also put it in line with the history of the class ability a little better as it being able to be easily superseded by a 3rd level general feat makes it an awful class ability. Untrained Improvisation would be better than Bardic Lore in every way which feels wrong given that bardic lore is gated behind a class and a specific muse where as Untrained Improvisation is available to everyone early in the game.
The simplest solution would have been to be 'you can only make recall knowledge checks in lore skills in which you are trained' meaning for all other checks you are using the appropriate non-lore recall knowledge skill.
With Untrained Improvisation applying to all lore skills, when would you ever use it to recall knowledge for Society, Arcana, Religion etc
It would also greatly reduce the benefit of Unified Theory a significantly higher level skill feat.
But that is not RAW and RAW is a little blurry. RAW only really matters all that much for PFS games otherwise so long as you make it clear to players that turn up at your table how you do it there shouldn't be an issue.
|
I'm cool with it.
I typically shorten Lore skill DCs by 2. Infrequently, by more.
What you have is Four tiers of knowledge, and the "Bardic Lore" ability now available in two different tiers.
T1 > You have the Lore skill, Trained or better
T2 > You have the closest General skill, Trained of better (Nature, Religion, Society, etc)
T3 > You have Bardic Lore ("All Lore"), Trained (and late game, at Expert)
T4 > You have "All Lore" at your Level (two points less than Trained)
Working as intended?
Ok, question, which is better?
Untrained Improvisation (granting the lore-DC-reduction, same as any trained lore skill, for every possible lore skill that exists)
or
Additional Lore (gives you training+ in a single lore skill)
Better at what? I'd honestly consider them to be tools for separate tasks.
Additional lore is great for mechanically keeping up with a character concept, by making something that is their field of special interest scale all the way to legendary without a heavy investment that badly impacts general adventuring competence.
It isn't a Jack of All Trades tool, or a Know All The Things tool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Why would a DM forbid a player from having a lower DC on a subject he is really into?"
Mostly because the advantage of Lore isn't to give you lower DCs, it's to allow you to test in specific situations pertaining to that Lore when you have a worse proficiency in another relevant skill.
For example, you have Lore: Sandpoint Trained, but not Society. The GM calls for a Society roll to determine a bit of history of Sandpoint. You could say "Hey, can I use my Lore; Sandpoint skill instead?" and the GM would probably say yes. But do you get a lower DC? Maybe, maybe not. The big advtange you're already getting is using a Trained skill instead of Untrained.
Or to use my own earlier example, you run into a religious book on Norgorber. The GM says parsing through the coded messages inside is Religion, and sets a DC of 25. You have Religion Trained, but you also have Lore: Anaphexia at Master. Now, the GM knows this book is actually related to Norgorber as Father Skinsaw, not The Reaper of Reputation, which is the aspect what the Anaphexia worships. So they say "Yes, but the DC is 28" (or they keep it a secret, however they prefer). Again, the big advantage here is you get to use better proficiency, not necessarily a lower DC.
And when it comes to monsters, we can agree it's different because you could always ask to try with Lore:Particular Monster. It's true. But the GM can just say the DC is the same. Or that this particular monster is so rare you need Trained or better to even try. Or a whole host of other things.
You could argue this steps on the toes of Master Monster Hunter (the Ranger Feat), but a Ranger using that feat is going to be rolling Master Nature (at a minimum), while you roll Untrained (Whatever). Oh but they can use Incredible Improvisation to get a +4, then maybe they'll be better than the Ranger. Yes, once per day. And they might not even end up being better than the Ranger, again, depending on the DCs the GM sets.
A lot of the discussion on...
This is an absurd view of Lore that makes it even more useless than RAW. Other than the Lore you got trained in from your background, why would anyone ever waste Ranks in Lore? All you've done is effectively punish your player for wasting Ranks in Lore: Anaphexia.
They would have been much better off putting those Ranks into Religion, having a lower DC and a much more broadly applicable Skill.
The only advantage to Lores is a lower DC compared to other Skills.
Ok, question, which is better?
Untrained Improvisation (granting the lore-DC-reduction, same as any trained lore skill, for every possible lore skill that exists)
or
Additional Lore (gives you training+ in a single lore skill)
Additional Lore is a terrible Feat, that has its own problems. First and foremost being that if you want to be a specialist in a particular Lore, you are better off choosing a completely unrelated background, and then getting the Lore you actually want with Additional Lore, because then it auto levels, which is just silly.
This is an interesting conundrum. I kind of agree with Superbidi overall but disagree for Bardic Lore. Bardic lore kind of implies you are 'trained' in all lores as all lores fall under bardic lore. This would also put it in line with the history of the class ability a little better as it being able to be easily superseded by a 3rd level general feat makes it an awful class ability. Untrained Improvisation would be better than Bardic Lore in every way which feels wrong given that bardic lore is gated behind a class and a specific muse where as Untrained Improvisation is available to everyone early in the game.
The simplest solution would have been to be 'you can only make recall knowledge checks in lore skills in which you are trained' meaning for all other checks you are using the appropriate non-lore recall knowledge skill.
With Untrained Improvisation applying to all lore skills, when would you ever use it to recall knowledge for Society, Arcana, Religion etc
It would also greatly reduce the benefit of Unified Theory a significantly higher level skill feat.
But that is not RAW and RAW is a little blurry. RAW only really matters all that much for PFS games otherwise so long as you make it clear to players that turn up at your table how you do it there shouldn't be an issue.
With Bardic Lore, you are Trained or even Expert at high level. So you have a +2/+4 compared to Untrained Improvisation. And you can use Bardic Lore on Trained skill checks. So it's really better than Untrained Improvisation.
Also, Untrained Improvisation is not very good for Lores because Lores are based off Int, and if you have a big Intelligence you are Trained in more skills and as such get less out of Untrained Improvisation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With Bardic Lore, you are Trained or even Expert at high level. So you have a +2/+4 compared to Untrained Improvisation. And you can use Bardic Lore on Trained skill checks. So it's really better than Untrained Improvisation.
Also, Untrained Improvisation is not very good for Lores because Lores are based off Int, and if you have a big Intelligence you are Trained in more skills and as such get less out of Untrained Improvisation.
Bardic Lore can only be used to Recall Knowledge. Recall Knowledge is an action that can be done untrained. So I believe the only benefit is the +2/+4 to the check. (Keeping in mind that Untrained Improvisation only kicks in fully at 7th level, and from 3rd to 6th you only add half your level).
On your second point I would have phrased it a little differently. Untrained Improvisation is very good for Lore skills if you have a high int, but that’s mostly what it does for you, since you likely have more skills trained and need it to cover fewer non-lore skills.
Ok, question, which is better?
Untrained Improvisation (granting the lore-DC-reduction, same as any trained lore skill, for every possible lore skill that exists)
or
Additional Lore (gives you training+ in a single lore skill)
So, here's the thing - in most campaigns, which tend to be reasonably narrowly focused and have a common theme? Its super debatable, but I likely give the edge to Additional Lore. If you choose the right lore you're going to be super effective throughout and get lots of chances to roll being the Master of Themetic Lore, and you're likely going to benefit from being able to be making 'easy' checks with a max level skill, while still having the normal 'knowledges' as backup.
Though... a lot of builds are gonna have room for both.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With Bardic Lore, you are Trained or even Expert at high level. So you have a +2/+4 compared to Untrained Improvisation. And you can use Bardic Lore on Trained skill checks. So it's really better than Untrained Improvisation.
Also, Untrained Improvisation is not very good for Lores because Lores are based off Int, and if you have a big Intelligence you are Trained in more skills and as such get less out of Untrained Improvisation.
Bardic Lore can only be used to Recall Knowledge. Recall Knowledge is an action that can be done untrained. So I believe the only benefit is the +2/+4 to the check. (Keeping in mind that Untrained Improvisation only kicks in fully at 7th level, and from 3rd to 6th you only add half your level).
On your second point I would have phrased it a little differently. Untrained Improvisation is very good for Lore skills if you have a high int, but that’s mostly what it does for you, since you likely have more skills trained and need it to cover fewer non-lore skills.
Nothing forbids a DM to ask for a Trained proficiency to roll a check that normaly doesn't require any. But it's true it should not happen often.
You got my point for high Int Untrained Improvisation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Draco18s, which is better:
Breadth
or
Depth?
I think you missed the point. The way people are talking about Untrained Improvisation, its only a few points behind Additional Lore (because you don't get the TEML value).
Its sort of like asking "which is better, depth AND breadth, or a little more depth?"
I don't think Untrained Improvisation should apply to lore skills (at least, not in the way being discussed).
This doesn’t allow you to use the skill’s trained actions.
Recall Knowledge Tasks
Untrained name of a ruler, key noble, or major deity
Untrained Improvisation is still untrained and can only uncover the most basic of details using Recall Knowledge. At best you have a lower DC to know the same things as if you were using Recall Knowledge untrained using the 4 main non-lore skills (Arcana, Society, Occult, Religion).
You don't magically get "Lore: The Former King's Long Lost Brother's Multiple Affairs" and get to know everything. You get "Lore: The King's Lost Brother's Name was John (DC 10: you know his name was John)."
Bardic Lore, meanwhile, gets up to Expert details:
Trained line of succession for a major noble family, core
doctrines of a major deity
Expert genealogy of a minor noble, teachings of an
ancient priest
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Draco18s, which is better:
Breadth
or
Depth?I think you missed the point. The way people are talking about Untrained Improvisation, its only a few points behind Additional Lore (because you don't get the TEML value).
Its sort of like asking "which is better, depth AND breadth, or a little more depth?"
I don't think Untrained Improvisation should apply to lore skills (at least, not in the way being discussed).
This doesn’t allow you to use the skill’s trained actions.Recall Knowledge Tasks
Untrained name of a ruler, key noble, or major deityUntrained Improvisation is still untrained and can only uncover the most basic of details using Recall Knowledge. At best you have a lower DC to know the same things as if you were using Recall Knowledge untrained using the 4 main non-lore skills (Arcana, Society, Occult, Religion).
You don't magically get "Lore: The Former King's Long Lost Brother's Multiple Affairs" and get to know everything. You get "Lore: The King's Lost Brother's Name was John (DC 10: you know his name was John)."
Bardic Lore, meanwhile, gets up to Expert details:
Trained line of succession for a major noble family, core
doctrines of a major deity
Expert genealogy of a minor noble, teachings of an
ancient priest
You are conflating recommended DCs with Requirements. The samples are to give the GM guidance on the DC, not Requirements to do those tasks.
The GM can certainly set those requirements if he chooses, but I have never seen a Proficiency gated Lore Check in an AP.
Outside of heavy RP campaigns, it is unlikely that anyone will be higher than Trained in a single Lore, as the return on investment just isn't worth it.
Then why is the word "legendary" next to it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then why is the word "legendary" next to it?
.
.
.
Task Difficulty.Simple DC
Untrained.......10
Trained.........15
Expert..........20
Master..........30
Legendary.......40
So you know it's DC 40, as shown at the table at the start of the Skills Chapter.
Man this forum makes formatting any kind of table difficult.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then why is the word "legendary" next to it?
Because those are the names of the simple DCs.
The entire issue of lore aside, it'd be incredibly destructive to treat each tier of DC as also requiring a proficiency gate too.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then why is the word "legendary" next to it?Because those are the names of the simple DCs.
The entire issue of lore aside, it'd be incredibly destructive to treat each tier of DC as also requiring a proficiency gate too.
And clearly unintended as well, given DC usage in published works.
|
|
I think you missed the point. The way people are talking about Untrained Improvisation, its only a few points behind Additional Lore (because you don't get the TEML value).Draco18s, which is better:
Breadth
or
Depth?
Ergo, a choice between the two.
A few points is a non-insignificant margin.
Working as intended!
|
I mean by RAW, Lores are Skills, and Lores can be pretty much anything you want. So, yes, a Clever Improviser gets to add his level to his Recall Knowledge Check in Chellaxian Vampires named Bob Lore.
That should probably get errata, but as printed, outside of house ruling it, that's what it does.
I don't think all Lore Subcategories are permissible. Certainly not Lore (Chellaxian Vampires named Bob).
I notice that none of the given Lore skills deal with individuals (besides deities) or nations. This was the developer's intention, per Michael Sayre
Okay, OFFICIAL clarifications per discussion with the design team-
Pathfinder Lore and Pathfinder Society Lore are the same thing and should be treated as such. If you took the Pathfinder Hopeful background and then took the Pathfinder Agent Dedication, the Pathfinder Society Lore you gained from the background would be bumped to Expert by the dedication.
RE: lores- You cannot have a lore about an extant nation; the largest this category can be for modern-day knowledge is a settlement, such as "Magnimar Lore" or "Xin-Edasseril Lore". This would mean that "Thassilon Lore" and "Thassilon History Lore" are functionally the same thing, because to have a lore category that encompasses an entire nation, that nation would need to be one that doesn't currently exist. Similarly, you could have "Ancient Osirion Lore" or "Jitska Lore" but not "(modern) Osirion Lore".
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My practice as a GM to reduce the Recall Knowledge DC by 2 or 5 whenever someone uses an applicable Lore. So if one of My PC wanted to Recall Knowledge, I would tell them the creature is Undead and to roll Religion. But if they have Undead Lore, they could roll that instead and I lower the DC by 2. If they know it's a vampire and have Vampire Lore, I lower the DC by 5.
If a PC claimed to have "Chellaxian Vampires named Bob Lore" for whatever reason, I wouldn't lower the DC further than 5 even though that's a more narrow category.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean by RAW, Lores are Skills, and Lores can be pretty much anything you want. So, yes, a Clever Improviser gets to add his level to his Recall Knowledge Check in Chellaxian Vampires named Bob Lore.
That should probably get errata, but as printed, outside of house ruling it, that's what it does.
I don't think all Lore Subcategories are permissible. Certainly not Lore (Chellaxian Vampires named Bob).
I notice that none of the given Lore skills deal with individuals (besides deities) or nations. This was the developer's intention, per Michael Sayre
Okay, OFFICIAL clarifications per discussion with the design team-
Pathfinder Lore and Pathfinder Society Lore are the same thing and should be treated as such. If you took the Pathfinder Hopeful background and then took the Pathfinder Agent Dedication, the Pathfinder Society Lore you gained from the background would be bumped to Expert by the dedication.
RE: lores- You cannot have a lore about an extant nation; the largest this category can be for modern-day knowledge is a settlement, such as "Magnimar Lore" or "Xin-Edasseril Lore". This would mean that "Thassilon Lore" and "Thassilon History Lore" are functionally the same thing, because to have a lore category that encompasses an entire nation, that nation would need to be one that doesn't currently exist. Similarly, you could have "Ancient Osirion Lore" or "Jitska Lore" but not "(modern) Osirion Lore".
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My practice as a GM to reduce the Recall Knowledge DC by 2 or 5 whenever someone uses an applicable Lore. So if one of My PC wanted to Recall Knowledge, I would tell them the creature is Undead and to roll Religion. But if they have Undead Lore, they could roll that instead and I lower the DC by 2. If they know it's a vampire and have Vampire Lore, I lower the DC by 5.
If a PC claimed to have "Chellaxian Vampires named Bob Lore" for whatever reason, I wouldn't...
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.
|
|
| 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.