|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't read the whole thread when I'm posting this.
OP, what you need to do is secretly roll their Recall Knowledge checks for your players. Don't let them choose a skill, you choose the best skill for the creature, and roll it. Don't even tell them which skill they used. This way, they will start misidentifying creatures when they don't have the correct skills. A Druid wants to recall on a Stone Golem? Sure. You secretly roll an Arcana Recall Knowledge and they crit fail, misidentifying it as an Earth Elemental. Wizard using Religion on a zombie? Oh, that's a Flesh Golem.
Make them realize their "skills" only cover certain fields, and they need to spread them out. The only skills that can accurately roll a Recall Knowledge on everything are Bardic/Loremaster/Gossip Lore.
This is extremely BAD advice unless your goal is for players to never invest in or use knowledge skills (with the possible exception of characters who can become decent at ALL knowledge skills).
There is no way that my druid with good nature, decent religion, non existent occult/crafting/arcana should pretty much ALWAYS misidentify a golem. Not know what it is? Sure. Think its an earth elemental? Absolutely not.
Edit: This thread is actually VERY useful in showing how incredibly differently knowledge skills are used by different GMs. Some GMs look on knowledge skills as am opportunity to punish you for not having the character they want you to have (a character with ALL knowledge skills covered), others give you lots and lots of leeway and information, still others will just tell you in advance what skill to use.
Precisely the reason I stopped playing my knowledge Bard in PFS. Just way, way too much table variation for it to be remotely enjoyable
|
It's just a suggestion to show them that their knowledge in a single skill doesn't mean they automatically get to use it on everything. Putting the players trying to exploit the system in their place.
Either they use an inapplicable skill and get nothing 100% of the time, or they use a skill they're poor at and possibly get the wrong info. Either way it teaches them to spread out knowledge or only use the skills their good at when it matters.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In your example the druid doesn't even get a chance to use the skill 'correctly' though. You make a secret check and feed them bad information that to some extent contradicts what their character should know to begin with (after all, a Druid with a high nature skill should know a lot about elementals).
What it teaches them is not to bother, because very few characters are going to be the omni-knowledge experts you expect them to be.
I'm always baffled by the number of GMs who seem so fixated on "putting the players in their place" when running games. It just seems like such a bizarre thing to prioritize.
|
|
What's bizarre to me is the insistence to break the game. GMs are the adjudicators to make the game fun and balanced, and when players insist on them being the only person to have fun by making the most overpowered character they can, the GM needs to shut them down.
OP can simply say no, but if the players argue (which it sounds like they are) then they may need to get strict and explain to them that the game isn't about just them having fun, it's about everyone having fun together, as a group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't read the whole thread when I'm posting this.
OP, what you need to do is secretly roll their Recall Knowledge checks for your players. Don't let them choose a skill, you choose the best skill for the creature, and roll it. Don't even tell them which skill they used. This way, they will start misidentifying creatures when they don't have the correct skills. A Druid wants to recall on a Stone Golem? Sure. You secretly roll an Arcana Recall Knowledge and they crit fail, misidentifying it as an Earth Elemental. Wizard using Religion on a zombie? Oh, that's a Flesh Golem.
Make them realize their "skills" only cover certain fields, and they need to spread them out. The only skills that can accurately roll a Recall Knowledge on everything are Bardic/Loremaster/Gossip Lore.
This... doesn't make sense. Sure, crit-fail technically involves learning false information about the creature, but the example given is... let's just say "odd". Presumably this druid you speak of knows what an Earth Elemental is, as you were connecting it to what they are familiar with (nature). If you know what an Earth Elemental is, wouldn't you know that this is most definitely NOT it?
That being said, the general concept of it being secret which skill their using isn't a bad idea. For a more realistic example of a crit fail, let's take a look at what it says:
Critical Failure You recall incorrect information or gain an erroneous or misleading clue.
So, if you're knowledgeable in religion and nature, but not arcana or crafting, then perhaps when you try to identify a Stone Golem you might know for sure that it's neither natural, nor divine or undead in nature, but when it comes to what it actually is and what it can do you could get something wrong. This could be a flavor thing, something related to an ability that they may or may not even have, or, if you're the kind of GM that gives away things like the lowest save, you could flat-out lie, as the character thinks their fort save is lower due to misidentifying the kind of magic and/or materials involved in the crafting of the golem.
|
|
Yes I admit it was odd, I was just trying to match the examples given by OP. A better way of doing it would be giving them information about the rocks the Stone Golem is made of, which tells them nothing about the creature itself.
I still haven't read the thread yet so someone may have suggested this already. I swear I'll get to it soon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok I got through the thread. I basically added nothing new with my initial suggestions lol.
Basically, I am totally on board with enforcing secret checks, but I will ammend my original statements.
Let them pick a skill. If it's a skill that will give them no info, either make something unrelated up (Like Alistar suggested), or just say "You have no clue". If they don't pick a skill just roll whichever applicable skill they have that they're the best in.
A druid mis-identifying a Golem as some sort of elemental may be a stretch, so identifying the type of stone would be better. It would give relevant info to the topic (Nature) without completely invalidating other party members who may specialize in the skills actually needed to identify it (Arcana/Crafting), thus giving everyone a chance to participate.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just a suggestion to show them that their knowledge in a single skill doesn't mean they automatically get to use it on everything. Putting the players trying to exploit the system in their place.
...and when players insist on them being the only person to have fun by making the most overpowered character they can, the GM needs to shut them down.
So punish unruly players. Got it.
The GM is a volunteer storyteller, not the player's drill sergeant.
|
|
Others in this thread have mentioned similar actions, and even called the players OP is dealing with snobbish and entitled. What's the difference between what they said and what I said?
Also, if the players want to live out a power trip fantasy with no one telling them what to do, they should GM their own games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: This thread is actually VERY useful in showing how incredibly differently knowledge skills are used by different GMs. Some GMs look on knowledge skills as am opportunity to punish you for not having the character they want you to have (a character with ALL knowledge skills covered), others give you lots and lots of leeway and information, still others will just tell you in advance what skill to use.Precisely the reason I stopped playing my knowledge Bard in PFS. Just way, way too much table variation for it to be remotely enjoyable
This is because Paizo have created a rule that defies common sense if you play it too narrowly. People only have one mind. They don't put on their religion hat or their arcane hat to think.
Taking a moment to recall knowledge to potentially gan an advantage is a a great concept.
Having 4+ knowledge skills skills to choose from at random takes a reasonable tactic and makes it worthless in combat. Because you have diluted the value of the recall knowledge action by 4.
Which means it fails Paizo's own balance test. If its too good or too bad then you are doing it wrong.
The players need to largely know which skill to use, and they should be able to make a reasonable guess at it by the description they have of the monster as related by the GM through the normal course of play. Heck the players guide to Abomination Vaults basically says if in doubt choose Occult.
It they don't then they are better off with trial and error, and a wizard's main skill check in combat it almost pointless. It's just another negative for them. The level 10 Ranger Master Monster Hunter becomes the only sensible recall knowledge user.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if the players want to live out a power trip fantasy with no one telling them what to do, they should GM their own games.
That isn't what anybody in this thread has asked for (It may or may not apply to the players of the OP. Neither you nor I know).
All I'm asking for is
1) To know before I spend an action what skill I'll be using (with a possible exception for the rare cases where something looks a lot like what it isn't. Eg, bone golem resembling undead).
2) To actually consistently get some useful information (assuming there is any to be gained) when I succeed on said skill check.
information can be both positive and negative, such as nature on undead would tell you they are not natural (defy the normal rules of nature).
This is how Arcana worked on Robots in PF1. A construct but doesn't follow normal(magical) rules.
This is what I do. If they unknowingly use an inappropriate skill, I at least throw them a bone on anything short of a critical failure. (Usually giving them just enough info that they can identify the creature's type and get on track with using an appropriate skill to Recall Knowledge.)
On a success with the correct skill, I almsot always default to the full creature intro description, though I occasionally omit parts if (1) they are not the least bit relevant or (2) would be giving away multiple useful pieces of information (I reserve that for crit success).
I like that as a rule of thumb because the Recall Knowledge rules say to go with the most well known features of the creature first, and I find the intro description do a good job of pointing out precisely what those are.
PC: I use Religion. *Crit Fails*
GM: It is a zombie brute, essentially a bigger stronger zombie capable of hurling debri and body parts like a catapult hurls boulders.***
...
I like this way of doing it. The issue isn't that I have whiney players, I don't, usually. I'm trying to make this experience FUN at the table and the players consider wasting actions = not fun. I find it odd that my players (and other groups from what I hear) have recently been telling me that Recall Knowledge is 'wasting an action' (mostly due to the concerns in my original post) but have no problems rolling that third attack at a -10 penalty, when actually a Recall Knowledge can give some VERY useful information.
Unfortunately, in order to get the majority of my players on board to switch to PF2e from 5e, the GM rolling secret checks had to be houseruled out. They really really really really balked at that and wouldn't agree to switch over until that one, and just the one, change was made. So no secret checks. Ever. Yeah I know. But they do roleplay failures and crit failures really well, so I honestly had no issue with that once I saw the wouldn't metagame it.
1. Recall knowledge is a secret check, and I personally think it works a lot better to run it as such. If a player is trying to identify the creature, then they, in character, don't even know what skill they're using, really. That's part of the recall knowledge check: you're recalling the relevant information about the thing's origins.
This. I have my players tell me they want to use Recall Knowledge, then I consult my GM Sheet which has all their skill modifiers (auto-imported from their character sheets) and roll the appropriate one. If multiple skills apply, I roll their best skill since I'm not trying to cheat them - just keep knowledge of success/failure separate from seeing the dice result.
I'll admit I often give a bit more info on a success than is probably RAW - and rarely make crit failures elaborate misinformation (if I can't think of anything reasonable quickly, it generally just turns into "You're not sure, maybe [detail]?"). Also, critical success tends to get telegraphed with how I present the info, "Oh yeah, you know all about [X]."
One thing I'm considering doing, is having a failure due to lack of proficiency indicate what party member(s) are best suited for the check. "You don't know what it is, seems more like something [PC] might know."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When your players critfail their 3rd attack, there is no negative beyond the wasted action. When they critfail their RK, they get misleading info which can easily be a strong negative.
Well Riposte is a thing and I'm a fan , but you are right to point this out.
No knowing the right skill means that Critical Failure is not just possible its probable. Which even further swings the calculus towards making Recall Knowledge useless.
Clearly a bad idea.
|
|
What's wrong with misidentifying a creature? It makes the game more fun. I played an entire PFS Scenario thinking we were fighting Daemons when it was actually Divs. It was great.
If your party has a good skill spread misidentifying a creature isn't as bad as you're all making it out to be. Sure the Druid may mis-identify the obviously unnatural creature with a bunch of tentacles as some sort of fiend, but the Bard should know what a Roper is no problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's wrong with misidentifying a creature? It makes the game more fun.
Tell that to a Mastermind Rogue... :P
If your party has a good skill spread misidentifying a creature isn't as bad as you're all making it out to be.
The issue is the PLAYER has to know which skill to use to avoid using a bad skill. So if the player thinks Society should work but it's an Undead, you get a bad result. You just can't see if you've heard of a Roper before unless you already know what type it is beforehand.
|
|
Which is why the GM should just pick the appropriate skill and roll in secret. This way the players don't have to "guess" what the skill should be. If someone gets it wrong, like the Druid thinking the roper is a fiend, just let the Bard know they think that's wrong so they can try if they want. If they don't want to that's up to them, and the party can fight it as if it were a fiend.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, not a fan of that approach. If my players are attacked by an undead lion, I'll allow Nature to know lion-stuff about it (Pounce activities and the like) or Religion to know about more supernatural abilities that I have it using, and I'll let them know that. I want the player that has both of those skills to be able to choose which of those skills they're rolling.
Sure, telling them skills that could apply imparts a certain level of meta-knowledge... but when the effort you put into obfuscation starts detracting from the game instead of adding to it, it's time to worry a little less. For me, taking over the choice of what skill to roll as well as the results of the roll being secret passes that line.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When your players critfail their 3rd attack, there is no negative beyond the wasted action. When they critfail their RK, they get misleading info which can easily be a strong negative.
Furthermore, we have the weird situation where a combination of poor bonuses and high DCs could make a critical failure more likely than a success. That could be manipulated by savvy players if they are not forced to act as though they believe what the GM tells them even on a secret roll. Obviously, the technically better approach would be for such a player not to waste actions on such pointless rolls.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's wrong with misidentifying a creature? It makes the game more fun. I played an entire PFS Scenario thinking we were fighting Daemons when it was actually Divs. It was great.
Glad you think so (genuinely). But many of us do NOT want to regularly play the Keystone Cops. We prefer to seem like competent adventurers.
Oh, an OCCASIONAL misidentification can be fun. But not a constant stream of them
If your party has a good skill spread misidentifying a creature isn't as bad as you're all making it out to be. Sure the Druid may mis-identify the obviously unnatural creature with a bunch of tentacles as some sort of fiend, but the Bard should know what a Roper is no problem.
And when BOTH the bard AND the druid identify the creature and get radically different results. how are the players supposed to decide which is right?
A lot also depends on how difficult the encounters are. If its an easy encounter, then the cost of misinformation (usually essentially losing some actions as you throw the wrong attacks, set up the wrong defences, etc) is affordable. The players still win.
But if the encounters are already difficult then that misinformation can be the difference between victory and defeat, character death or TPK.
But the fundamental problem remains.
Using knowledge skills is already a moderately iffy activity even if the GM tells you in advance what skills to use, gives you useful information on a success, etc. The character has to spend build resources to be decent at it and has to use those valuable actions in combat. And sometimes you get nothing useful anyway (you fail, or there just is no useful information to be gotten) or misinformation (crit fail).
If the GM is doing what you suggest its just no longer an attractive option at all (or, at least, a MUCH less attractive option). The players will stop doing it or do it less frequently. There is likely a negative feedback loop set up where they also invest less resources in it, therefore making it still worse.
And the game just became harder because the characters don't have the knowledge that the designers expected them to have. And, for many players, less fun since they never know what they're facing, everything is a crap shoot, and they can't reliably use any kind of "advanced" tactics like knowing to use a slashing weapon instead of a stabbing weapon
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the middle ground here might be letting the player pick the skill but telling the up front the knowledge will be appropriate to the skill they use. As long as the roll usually tells the player the right skill to use, that seems fine. Pretty much how Ravingdork outlines. That way you're not punishing a player with an auto crit failure on an untrained skill.
Personally, I usually just tell my players the skill before the decide if they want to roll, because not all of them are rules/genre savvy enough to know you use Religion and not Occultism for the demon in front of them, or that it will be Arcans and not Nature for the big scaly winged lizard, and I don't really want to punish them for it. But I could see RD's method working white well with an experienced group if the GM gives enough description.
I have my own insights on the debate on a player guessing the wrong skill for Recall Knowledge to identify a creature. Three weeks ago, a player wanted his character to perform a Long Jump and asked, "That's an Acrobatics check, right?" No, Long Jump falls under Athletics, so I corrected him to make an Athletics check. If I had not corrected him and punished his character for rolling on the wrong skill, then I would fail as a GM. Part of my job is informing the players about the rules. It works the same way for Recall Knowledge.
Pathfinder is only a guessing game when solving mysteries. Skills work efficiently, except due to bad luck, not bad guesses.
The d20 roll represents luck. If a player makes a Strike and rolls a d20 to hit, he might get lucky and swing just as the opponent leaves an opening in his defenses. If he is especially lucky, that opening lets him hit an especially vulnerable spot for critical damage. If he rolls well on a Climb check, then he found handholds on the path he chose to climb and his grip did not slip on the moss and dirt. If he rolls well on Tracking, then his quarry left some good footprints or damaged some twigs in its path. Real life has luck in addition to skill and Pathfinder game mechanics reflect that.
Decades ago as a graduate student, I taught a differential equations class, some of the hardest mathematics a typical engineering student will study. The curriculum was too long, so I asked my father, an automotive engineer with degrees in both mechanical and electrical engineering, what I should be sure to cover. He said that the only differential-equation techniques he used in his career were the Laplace Transforms. Therefore, I made sure to cover the Laplace Transforms in practical depth. Afterwards, I talked with a fellow graduate student who taught the same course. He too had noticed that the curriculum was too long, so he had skipped the Laplace Transforms.
The luck in a Recall Knowledge roll to identify a flesh golem is whether the wizard's teacher in Magical Creatures class had covered golems in sufficient depth. The teacher might have figured that that topic was best left for the advanced class in Magical Constructs. Thus, the wizard rolling low on his Recall Knowledge Arcana means that he was not taught enough about flesh golems to recognize them.
Suppose the cleric in the party, untrained in Arcana and Crafting, wants to try Recall Knowledge on the flesh golem. Then my duty as the GM is to warn him that a Recall Knowledge Religion check would give limited information. He rolls anyway and succeeds. I would tell him, "You wondered whether the creature is a kind of zombie, animated by negative energy applied to stitched-together flesh. No, for a zombie's flesh is visibly rotten, easily cut by slashing weapons. This creature is an arcane construct and its flesh is held firm by arcane power. It has Resistances physical 5." He learns how the flesh golem seems visibly different from zombies. I would not tell him about how electricity affects a flesh golem, because that has no basis for comparison with zombies.
What's wrong with misidentifying a creature? It makes the game more fun. I played an entire PFS Scenario thinking we were fighting Daemons when it was actually Divs. It was great.
I don't roll in secret, and my players love hamming up about misinformation. When a doppelganger was impersonating a city official, one misroll had our rogue thinking it was an intellect devourer stealing the official's body, "We have to make sure nothing crawls out of his head." A ranger thought that morlocks had a time travel attack, "Don't let them escape alive, or they will go back into the past and make sure we were never born."
But for the most part, I like the players to make successful Recall Knowledge rolls. They fought a Nuckelavee when 6 out of 7 PCs were trained or expert in Nature, so they knew about its mortasheen disease. Thus, the combat had the tactical tension of them trying to avoid the disease. Two still ended up with mortasheen and the real result was anticlimactic. One rolled well after 8 hours with Treat Disease and the other didn't. So they went to town, purchased antiplague, and spent another 8 hours Treating Disease. They had some other errands in town, but otherwise the adventure was put on hold. Knowledge creates dramatic tension. Ignorance has to clean up the unexpected result.
So would anyone else allow this...I have a player who plays a Wizard but has a very very low WIS. But he wants to be like a Lore Wizard. He wants to be able to know stuff about Nature and Religion (but they use Wis modifiers). He wants to take Lore Nature and Lore Religion so he can use his Int mod instead. Is that something doable you think?
My gut reaction is 'no', Lore skills are meant to be more specific.
So would anyone else allow this...I have a player who plays a Wizard but has a very very low WIS. But he wants to be like a Lore Wizard. He wants to be able to know stuff about Nature and Religion (but they use Wis modifiers). He wants to take Lore Nature and Lore Religion so he can use his Int mod instead. Is that something doable you think?
My gut reaction is 'no', Lore skills are meant to be more specific.
Your gut reaction is correct, and Lore skills are meant to be more specific.
The GM determines what other subcategories they’ll allow as Lore skills, though these categories are always less broad than any of the other skills that allow you to Recall Knowledge, and they should never be able to fully or mainly take the place of another skill’s Recall Knowledge action. For instance, Magic Lore wouldn’t enable you to recall the same breadth of knowledge covered by Arcana, Adventuring Lore wouldn’t simply give you all the information an adventurer needs, and Planar Lore would not be sufficient to gain all the information spread across various skills and subcategories such as Heaven Lore.
Emphasis mine. If they really want to "Lore: Everything" that badly suggest the Loremaster dedication.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Off the top of my head, I wouldn't allow it. It basically allows INT based characters to reskin any mental skills to their best stat. I don't think Lore skills should be able to replace a broad, general skill. They're narrow, and that's why the Recall Knowledge DC is lower.
Cool, that's what I thought. These players of mine are trying to squeeze every +1 out of Lore checks as possible.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So would anyone else allow this...I have a player who plays a Wizard but has a very very low WIS. But he wants to be like a Lore Wizard. He wants to be able to know stuff about Nature and Religion (but they use Wis modifiers). He wants to take Lore Nature and Lore Religion so he can use his Int mod instead. Is that something doable you think?
My gut reaction is 'no', Lore skills are meant to be more specific.
Tell them to become a Loremaster then.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Outside of what has already been pointed out about Lores and the Loremaster, this further drives the point about different skills having worse DCs home. The more specific a Lore is to it's topic, the lower the DC. So to identify a slaver demon:
Religion uses the base DC.
Fiend Lore gets a DC 2 lower.
Demon lore uses a DC that is 5 lower.
And Slaver Demon lore would have 10 lower.
That last one might feel a little contrived, but pretty often you're gonna learn who the villain(s) you are gonna be dealing with are, and picking Lore: that specific organization or Lore: that BBEG are practical choices.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Direct them towards the following lores:
Undead
Celestial
Fiends
Beasts
Feys
Plants
Elementals.
Easily snaggable through the additional lore skill.
|
Outside of what has already been pointed out about Lores and the Loremaster, this further drives the point about different skills having worse DCs home. The more specific a Lore is to it's topic, the lower the DC. So to identify a slaver demon:
Religion uses the base DC.
Fiend Lore gets a DC 2 lower.
Demon lore uses a DC that is 5 lower.
And Slaver Demon lore would have 10 lower.
That last one might feel a little contrived, but pretty often you're gonna learn who the villain(s) you are gonna be dealing with are, and picking Lore: that specific organization or Lore: that BBEG are practical choices.
IIRC the RAW only mention DC-2 and DC-5.
|
|
Tell them to become a Loremaster then.So would anyone else allow this...I have a player who plays a Wizard but has a very very low WIS. But he wants to be like a Lore Wizard. He wants to be able to know stuff about Nature and Religion (but they use Wis modifiers). He wants to take Lore Nature and Lore Religion so he can use his Int mod instead. Is that something doable you think?
My gut reaction is 'no', Lore skills are meant to be more specific.
That can be a nice option, especially with the Loremaster Etude focus spell.
Note however that whether Loremaster's Lore or Bardic Lore for the matter provides a reduction in DC is completely GM-dependent.
An INT-based Know-it-all should go Loremaster (and Loremaster Etude), Pathfinder Agent (and Thorough Reports) and finally Scrollmaster (and Bestiary Scholar). Get a common Additional Lore (Undead or Fiend) and Unmistakable Lore, as well as Cognitive Crossover and Master in Occult, Crafting or Arcana depending on your other needs. And Master in Society for those creatures you cannot identify otherwise.
The build does not really come online before level 10, but after that you will almost always get to know everything on any creature you meet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IIRC the RAW only mention DC-2 and DC-5.Outside of what has already been pointed out about Lores and the Loremaster, this further drives the point about different skills having worse DCs home. The more specific a Lore is to it's topic, the lower the DC. So to identify a slaver demon:
Religion uses the base DC.
Fiend Lore gets a DC 2 lower.
Demon lore uses a DC that is 5 lower.
And Slaver Demon lore would have 10 lower.
That last one might feel a little contrived, but pretty often you're gonna learn who the villain(s) you are gonna be dealing with are, and picking Lore: that specific organization or Lore: that BBEG are practical choices.
Eh, maybe, but I don't see any reason you couldn't take it further. After all, Lore: a specific person would just be neutralizing increasing the DC by 10 for the unique tag.
Tell them to become a Loremaster then.So would anyone else allow this...I have a player who plays a Wizard but has a very very low WIS. But he wants to be like a Lore Wizard. He wants to be able to know stuff about Nature and Religion (but they use Wis modifiers). He wants to take Lore Nature and Lore Religion so he can use his Int mod instead. Is that something doable you think?
My gut reaction is 'no', Lore skills are meant to be more specific.
That can be a nice option, especially with the Loremaster Etude focus spell.
Note however that whether Loremaster's Lore or Bardic Lore for the matter provides a reduction in DC is completely GM-dependent.
An INT-based Know-it-all should go Loremaster (and Loremaster Etude), Pathfinder Agent (and Thorough Reports) and finally Scrollmaster (and Bestiary Scholar). Get a common Additional Lore (Undead or Fiend) and Unmistakable Lore, as well as Cognitive Crossover and Master in Occult, Crafting or Arcana depending on your other needs. And Master in Society for those creatures you cannot identify otherwise.
The build does not really come online before level 10, but after that you will almost always get to know everything on any creature you meet.
That is a LOT of feats.
|
|
That is a LOT of feats.Tell them to become a Loremaster then.So would anyone else allow this...I have a player who plays a Wizard but has a very very low WIS. But he wants to be like a Lore Wizard. He wants to be able to know stuff about Nature and Religion (but they use Wis modifiers). He wants to take Lore Nature and Lore Religion so he can use his Int mod instead. Is that something doable you think?
My gut reaction is 'no', Lore skills are meant to be more specific.
That can be a nice option, especially with the Loremaster Etude focus spell.
Note however that whether Loremaster's Lore or Bardic Lore for the matter provides a reduction in DC is completely GM-dependent.
An INT-based Know-it-all should go Loremaster (and Loremaster Etude), Pathfinder Agent (and Thorough Reports) and finally Scrollmaster (and Bestiary Scholar). Get a common Additional Lore (Undead or Fiend) and Unmistakable Lore, as well as Cognitive Crossover and Master in Occult, Crafting or Arcana depending on your other needs. And Master in Society for those creatures you cannot identify otherwise.
The build does not really come online before level 10, but after that you will almost always get to know everything on any creature you meet.
All are not required though, some just increase your chances of success at RK.
|
|
Eh, maybe, but I don't see any reason you couldn't take it further. After all, Lore: a specific person would just be neutralizing increasing the DC by 10 for the unique tag.IIRC the RAW only mention DC-2 and DC-5.Outside of what has already been pointed out about Lores and the Loremaster, this further drives the point about different skills having worse DCs home. The more specific a Lore is to it's topic, the lower the DC. So to identify a slaver demon:
Religion uses the base DC.
Fiend Lore gets a DC 2 lower.
Demon lore uses a DC that is 5 lower.
And Slaver Demon lore would have 10 lower.
That last one might feel a little contrived, but pretty often you're gonna learn who the villain(s) you are gonna be dealing with are, and picking Lore: that specific organization or Lore: that BBEG are practical choices.
I tried this with my Abomination Vaults' GM for the BBEG considering their previous place in history. He answered with a resounding NO ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
