|
Hi all,
I would like to request a clarification from the Paizo team about the General Feat Untrained Improvisation. I've seen a few threads about it, but no answer from Paizo.
In general it's a decent feat allowing you to attempt Untrained skills with a better modifier due to the character being a jack-of-all-trades. Where the clarification request comes in, is how this interacts with Lore skills. In general, compared to the broad knowledge skills (Arcana, Religion, etc.) Lore DCs are usually against a -2 DC for an unspecific lore (such as Fiend Lore) and -5 against a specific lore (such as Demon Lore). As written, there seems to be nothing preventing a high Intelligence character with Untrained Improvisation from attempting all the Recall Knowledge skills against the DC of specific lores.
Is this intentional? How should we handle this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yea. Official clarifications usually only happen in the next errata if the designers want write about this.
That said. I don't see a problem to run Untrained Improvisation to use vs DC-2 for lore checks. It's already to low so make a check like it was trained for RK is not like it will break the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi all,
I would like to request a clarification from the Paizo team about the General Feat Untrained Improvisation. I've seen a few threads about it, but no answer from Paizo.In general it's a decent feat allowing you to attempt Untrained skills with a better modifier due to the character being a jack-of-all-trades. Where the clarification request comes in, is how this interacts with Lore skills. In general, compared to the broad knowledge skills (Arcana, Religion, etc.) Lore DCs are usually against a -2 DC for an unspecific lore (such as Fiend Lore) and -5 against a specific lore (such as Demon Lore). As written, there seems to be nothing preventing a high Intelligence character with Untrained Improvisation from attempting all the Recall Knowledge skills against the DC of specific lores.
Is this intentional? How should we handle this?
Note that while the principle of adjusting DCs based on lore specificity is laid out in the rules, it is something done by GM discretion when setting RK DCs. "Specific Lore" and "Unspecific Lore" as shown on AoN monster entries are not actual rules terms worh set DCs and are not seen in actual monster entries in books. They are just standard difficulty adjustment steps away from the level and rarity formula presented for convenience.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Untrained Improvisation doesn't grant any reduction of DC. The reduction of DC comes if you use a specific skill instead of a general one. Here, you don't use a specific skill, you use Untrained Improvisation. It's a general ability and not a specific one and as such doesn't come with any reduction in DC. Trying to reframe it as if you were using a specific skill is just the player trying to grab an undue advantage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I can see how it could get there.
"Your proficiency bonus to untrained skill checks is equal to your level –2. This improves to your level –1 at 5th level and your full level at 7th level. This doesn’t allow you to use the skill’s trained actions."
-> See dog.
-> Make a Recall Knowledge check for Dog Lore to identify breed. The DC is set by the skill used, in this case Dog Lore is perfect so it would be DC10 vs DC 15 for Nature or Society (as decided by GM), and doesn't require training (also decided by GM)
-> Untrained Improvisation kicks in, you get your bonus based on your level
The problem is being able to make make recall knowledge checks with any lore untrained, not trying to use untrained improvisation. The problem is the same if a level 1 person without that feat and untrained in Nature or Society uses the Dog Lore skill they're also untrained in to target the lower DC.
In my opinion, I would make a call that when you're untrained in a lore, you would target a typical DC for a general skill instead of the specific DC, because you're improvising and it's harder to "wing-it" in more specialized fields.
It's not spelled out in RAW as far as I can tell.
-> See dog.
-> Make a Recall Knowledge check for Dog Lore to identify breed. The DC is set by the skill used, in this case Dog Lore is perfect so it would be DC10 vs DC 15 for Nature or Society (as decided by GM), and doesn't require training (also decided by GM)
The issue is that you don't choose the skill to use. Untrained Improvisation only allows you to roll the dice.
If you want to use Dog Lore, it's fine, but then you don't use Untrained Improvisation as Untrained Improvisation doesn't grant you Dog Lore or any skill, just the right to roll with a fixed bonus.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding getting an answer from a developer, this is what a developer has said.
My instinct on this is that the DC benefit of using a Lore skill should not apply to Untrained Improvisation. This is what the rules text for that is:
Using an applicable Lore to Recall Knowledge about a topic, such as Engineering Lore instead of Crafting to find structural weaknesses in a bridge, typically comes with a lower DC. Your special interests can pay off!
In the case of Untrained Improvisation, no one can reasonably claim that the character has a special interest in every possible Lore subtype.
Another minor thing that I find is that there is a difference between the preRemaster Lore Skill and the Remaster Lore Skill. The Rule text "Even if you're untrained in Lore, you can use it to Recall Knowledge" has been removed.
So it can now be said that Recall Knowledge is a trained only action if you want to use a Lore subtype for the skill. And as such, it would not qualify for Untrained Improvisation (though I don't really like this line of reasoning since it doesn't prevent this from being used with Human: Clever Improviser).
In general, using Untrained Improvisation or other general purpose things to get a DC reduction designed for having a specific thing feels like cheese. The DC reduction for having a specific thing is intended to only come up very infrequently. It should feel like a special bonus that happens when all the stars align. Not something that every character needs to take a particular feat or ability so that they can get this special bonus every time they need to make a check.
That's very interesting, but they haven't restricted lores from the general rule: "Anyone can use a skill's untrained actions, but you can use trained actions only if you have a proficiency rank of trained or better in that skill." So nothing really changed, you still need to use some of GMs ruling on DCs and such.Another minor thing that I find is that there is a difference between the preRemaster Lore Skill and the Remaster Lore Skill. The Rule text "Even if you're untrained in Lore, you can use it to Recall Knowledge" has been removed.
So it can now be said that Recall Knowledge is a trained only action if you want to use a Lore subtype for the skill. And as such, it would not qualify for Untrained Improvisation (though I don't really like this line of reasoning since it doesn't prevent this from being used with Human: Clever Improviser).
Which is why I consider it a minor thing to note rather than a QED moment. It kinda sorta hints at the intention. But doesn't actually prove anything.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The conclusion is fine but I'm struggling a bit with SuperBidi's reasoning. Specifically the idea of 'granting you' a skill or something.
Like this:
Here, you don't use a specific skill, you use Untrained Improvisation.
Seems just incorrect, because you never 'use' Untrained Improvisation in the first place, it's not an action, it just changes your untrained proficiency bonus. To be even more pedantic, you don't 'use' a skill either, you perform an action that references a skill bonus. There's no real concept in the rules of 'granting' schools. Worse, Recall Knowledge has the player suggesting which skill to use by default, not the GM.
So everything about that construction seems... wrong.
... But RAW this is a self solving problem: The DC for RK is explicitly set by the GM, and bonuses from specific lore is again definitively an 'ask your GM' issue. Whether or not Untrained Improvisation lets you have any extra benefits with Recall is explicitly the GM's choice. There's no cheese because the GM has to approve it.
Though if there's any change to be made, it'd probably be the easiest to just say that RK is a trained action if you use Lore, because untrained Lore actions kind of run counter to the purpose and narrative place of Lore as a skill and trying to be goofy with DCs is literally the only use case with untrained Lore anyways.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Untrained Improvisation only allows you to roll the dice.
Incorrect. Untrained Improvisation never “allows you to roll the dice.” All that Untrained Improvisation does is alter your untrained proficiency. In fact, the text explicitly states that it “doesn’t allow you to use the skill’s trained actions.”
If you want to use Dog Lore, it's fine, but then you don't use Untrained Improvisation as Untrained Improvisation doesn't grant you Dog Lore or any skill, just the right to roll with a fixed bonus.
As it happens, Recall Knowledge is not a trained action, so if you want to roll Dog Lore to Recall Knowledge about a dog, you can roll it untrained whether you have Untrained Improvisation or not, the only difference will be your proficiency bonus to the roll.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi all,
I would like to request a clarification from the Paizo team about the General Feat Untrained Improvisation. I've seen a few threads about it, but no answer from Paizo.
As others have mentioned, there is no official clarification. This has been a question since PF2 was released, so no idea if one will ever come.
In general it's a decent feat allowing you to attempt Untrained skills with a better modifier due to the character being a jack-of-all-trades. Where the clarification request comes in, is how this interacts with Lore skills. In general, compared to the broad knowledge skills (Arcana, Religion, etc.) Lore DCs are usually against a -2 DC for an unspecific lore (such as Fiend Lore) and -5 against a specific lore (such as Demon Lore). As written, there seems to be nothing preventing a high Intelligence character with Untrained Improvisation from attempting all the Recall Knowledge skills against the DC of specific lores.
Is this intentional? How should we handle this?
I don't allow it for basically that reason. Someone with Untrained Improvision who can use it for Lore can claim "I'm using <Super Specific Lore About This Precise Thing>" for literally every Recall Knowledge. They can then claim that means they're using a very specific lore to get -5 on the DC.
That means for example that if you have three characters with the same INT and you want to recall knowledge about a named, singular Dragon, the one with Untrained Improvisation is more likely to succeed than the one who has Expert Arcana (the appropriate skill for Dragons) and the person trained in Dragon Lore (because that's not very specific for our singular dragon of a specific type so it only gets the -2).
Does that outcome make sense to you? It doesn't make sense to me, so I don't allow it. I have it apply to all the main skills, so it would give its bonus to Arcana and they could roll that. But no claiming to have literally every hyper-specific Lore under Sarenrae's light.
I had a player try it once, and I pointed out that allowing it made Untrained Improv better than class features like Loremaster's Lore, which does allow usage on every subject.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the DC adjustments are applied at GM discretion, not dictated by a rule for the skill, it is completely in line with written rules to run it in the reasonable way.
So something like the below is proper:
Alice: "That thief that stole Bob's pack had some kind of symbol on his cloak. I have Untrained Improvisation, I want to try rolling Untrained Society to see if I can recognize it."
Bob: "I also have Untrained Improvisation, so I want to roll 'Left-handed halfling thieves operating in Magnimar Lore' Untrained."
The GM with good judgement: "Bob and Alice are doing the same thing (drawing on their general knowledge to try to get the same kind of info) with the same qualifications, so I'll assign the same DC for both. It would be silly to give Bob an easier roll just because he was smug about how he phrased doing the exact same thing as Alice."
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't make sense that by picking Untrained Improvisation you get a grip of every possible lore. But people saying that there's no clarification is right.
My interpretation? You don't get the right to roll any lore skill with that feat. You use the generic skill most fitting for the situation. If you wanna RK about a dog, you can't roll dog lore, you just make a nature check. Any other interpretation would just lead to problematic player behavior.
I would allow you to roll Dog Lore instead of Nature, but at the same DC. That way you would get to use your INT instead of WIS, but no other advantage.
people saying that there's no clarification is right.
Technically true.
Though there is the Ambiguous Rules rule to fall back on in this case too.
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn't work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.
Yes, you can argue that the rules don't prevent you from taking one level 3 general feat and then being able to get a DC reduction bonus on every skill check that you attempt for the rest of the game.
However, there is also nothing in the rules that says that you are entitled to that DC reduction benefit. I think HammerJack pointed that out the best.
So the rules are ambiguous. They don't fully specify for or against either of these ideas.
But one of them is causing a game balance problem and the other is not.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My interpretation? You don't get the right to roll any lore skill with that feat.
You don’t “get the right to roll” any skill “with that feat.” You just have the right to roll any untrained use of any skill, including Lore skills by operation of the rules. Untrained Improvisation changes your proficiency bonus when you attempt a Lore check untrained, but it doesn’t “allow” you to make the check.
You use the generic skill most fitting for the situation. If you wanna RK about a dog, you can't roll dog lore, you just make a nature check.
That’s a fine house rule, but it’s just that, a house rule, not an “interpretation.”
In fact it’s counter to RAW:
If you're making a check and multiple subcategories of Lore could apply, or a non-Lore skill could apply, you can use whichever skill you prefer. If there's any doubt whether a Lore skill applies to a specific topic or action, the GM decides whether it can be used or not.
“You can choose whichever skill you prefer.” And “the GM decides whether it can be used or not” based on whether “there’s any doubt whether a Lore skill applies[,]” not on whether you’re trained with the Lore skill.
The rules for Creature Identification also state that “Using the applicable Lore usually has an easy or very easy DC (before adjusting for rarity).” Again, the rules don’t specificy a “trained Lore skill,” but there’s enough wiggle room in the word “usually” to justify a ruling that only trained Lore skills enjoy the reduction to DC.
Any other interpretation would just lead to problematic player behavior.
I am almost exclusively a GM, and I don’t find anything problematic about my players taking Untrained Improvisation and then attempting a lot of Recall Knowledge checks. I love when my players make Recall Knowledge checks, so encouraging it is more of a feature than a bug for me.
In fact, even if you don’t give the DC reduction to untrained Lore checks to Recall Knowledge (independent of Untrained Improvisation), I strongly support allowing untrained Lore checks to Recall Knowledge because it opens up possibilities. At low levels, for instance, even without a DC reduction, a Wizard is likely better off attempting an untrained Animal Lore check than a trained Nature check to identify an animal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By RAW you don't roll some "Untrained Improvisation" check, you roll the check the same as anything else, so it would get the lore adjustment.
With that said, I probably wouldn't help them pick the most appropriate lore to use. If they get lucky they get lucky, or if someone has narrowed down the options go nuts. Otherwise you're improvising, it's a shot in the dark. It's really only problematic when you have someone that knows a s%!#load about the game and can metagame choose the best option every time.
All of that said, and even though it's generally not problematic, I do find this to be extremely stupid.
The problem here is in the phrase "the lore adjustment" suggesting that that's some fixed adjustment that exists. The only lore adjustments are ones the GM decides are appropriate to apply.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for the replies everyone.
Yea. Official clarifications usually only happen in the next errata if the designers want write about this.
My reasoning behind the post is that, since they have scheduled specific errata moments, I might as well put out a request for this to be looked at: If we get an answer, great. If we don't, well then the Lore part of the feat will remain unclear.
My interpretation? You don't get the right to roll any lore skill with that feat. You use the generic skill most fitting for the situation. If you wanna RK about a dog, you can't roll dog lore, you just make a nature check. Any other interpretation would just lead to problematic player behavior.
As written, even witout the feat you can do any check Untrained, including Lore skills. In general this is not going to be very relevant beyond level 1 since your modifier stagnates if you're not at least Trained.
As written, the only thing Untrained Improvisation adds to the equation is that your modifier scales with your level, resulting in a weaker version of Bardic Lore. The fact that a level 3 General Feat (almost) copies a Class Feat and gives you additional boosts is what bothers me about it, hence the clarification request.
Thank you for the replies everyone.
Yea. Official clarifications usually only happen in the next errata if the designers want write about this.My reasoning behind the post is that, since they have scheduled specific errata moments, I might as well put out a request for this to be looked at: If we get an answer, great. If we don't, well then the Lore part of the feat will remain unclear.
So I recommend that you put it in the Spring Errata 2025 suggestions topic in PF2e general forum. It's there that we are concentrating all errata questions, asks for clarification and pointing errors.
It will too hard for designers to navigate in all topics to search for community suggested fixes and clarifications. That's why we are concentrating everything in a single place.
|
|
So I recommend that you put it in the Spring Errata 2025 suggestions topic in PF2e general forum. It's there that we are concentrating all errata questions, asks for clarification and pointing errors.
Thanks for pointing this out, I missed that thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd generally chuck this under the "does this interpretation sound too good to be true?" rule of thumb. If one general feat allowed you to apply a -5 to the DC of recall knowledge checks, then it would be better than Expert in the relevant skill.
It would also mean that at level 1, you should never roll Arcana, Occultism, Society, or Crafting to recall knowledge on any character, because the +3 from a trained skill will always be worse than the -5 to DC from an untrained specific lore.
There's no harm in asking for it to be spelled out officially, but for getting flexible specific lore benefits, I'd recommend the various "pick a skill daily to be trained in" options.
|
|
I'd generally chuck this under the "does this interpretation sound too good to be true?" rule of thumb. If one general feat allowed you to apply a -5 to the DC of recall knowledge checks, then it would be better than Expert in the relevant skill.
Putting aside the fact that Untrained Improvisation doesn’t allow “you to apply a -5 to the DC of recall knowledge checks,” but rather allows you to make a check you were already able to make with a proficiency bonus greater than 0, how is that better than “Expert in the relevant skill”? Expert in the relevant skill provides a proficiency bonus of Level + 4, which is always higher than Untrained Improvisation ever goes, and you also get enjoy whatever reduction to DC applies when you use the skill to Recall Knowledge.
It would also mean that at level 1, you should never roll Arcana, Occultism, Society, or Crafting to recall knowledge on any character, because the +3 from a trained skill will always be worse than the -5 to DC from an untrained specific lore.
If a specific Lore skill exists, sure, though that’s an entirely separate “problem” from using Untrained Improvisation to Recall Knowledge with Lore skills.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However this is largely solvable by just making people guess what to use instead of just assuming they use the most appropriate thing.
Outside of weird corner cases like “Is this Osyluth an undead or a fiend, that seems SUPER antagonistic GM behavior to me, and I say that as a GM.
I honestly don’t understand the why so many GMs seem to want to make Recall Knowledge checks harder or less efficacious. I love when my players make Recall Knowledge checks, so I like almost any option that encourages it.
I'd generally chuck this under the "does this interpretation sound too good to be true?" rule of thumb. If one general feat allowed you to apply a -5 to the DC of recall knowledge checks, then it would be better than Expert in the relevant skill.Putting aside the fact that Untrained Improvisation doesn’t allow “you to apply a -5 to the DC of recall knowledge checks,” but rather allows you to make a check you were already able to make with a proficiency bonus greater than 0, how is that better than “Expert in the relevant skill”? Expert in the relevant skill provides a proficiency bonus of Level + 4, which is always higher than Untrained Improvisation ever goes, and you also get enjoy whatever reduction to DC applies when you use the skill to Recall Knowledge.
Ah, let me be more clear: by "relevant skill", I mean the relevant non-Lore skill, the one rolling at the normal DC (e.g. Arcana or Nature). Sorry, that was poor communication on my part.
For example, a 7th level party runs into an occult dragon of some kind, easily recognizable as such by its body shape. Alice the Wizard has expert Occultism, and rolls that. Bob the Inventor has Untrained Improvisation and says he's rolling "Occult Dragon Lore". If the -5 DC modifier is applied for Bob rolling a specific lore, Bob has a better chance of succeeding than Alice.
It would also mean that at level 1, you should never roll Arcana, Occultism, Society, or Crafting to recall knowledge on any character, because the +3 from a trained skill will always be worse than the -5 to DC from an untrained specific lore.If a specific Lore skill exists, sure, though that’s an entirely separate “problem” from using Untrained Improvisation to Recall Knowledge with Lore skills.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying is a separate problem, so... answering both.
If you're saying "The specific lore might not exist"- I don't really feel like saying Vampire Lore or Farm Animal Lore doesn't exist is the solution to the issue. (My personal guideline is, if somebody's written a book about it, then a lore skill exists.) For the sake of discussion, I think it's easiest to assume that specific lores do generally exist.
If you're saying "Untrained Improvisation lore use is a different problem than first-level untrained lore use", then I don't think so. Allowing untrained lores to be rolled against a -5 DC results in better options than characters invested in the general knowledge skills (e.g. Occultism, Religion) in either case.
Using the characters from before, at level 1 if the GM applies the specific lore DC reduction for untrained skills, Alice would be a chump for ever rolling Arcana or Occultism to recall knowledge about anything. To me, that suggests that the GM shouldn't reduce the DC when a player rolls an untrained lore skill- or at the very least, should limit the DC reduction to -2 so that it's never overshadowing actually having the regular non-lore knowledge skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think they mean you can improvise Golem Lore and be better than someone that's Expert in Arcana or Crafting.
However this is largely solvable by just making people guess what to use instead of just assuming they use the most appropriate thing.
Also Investigators get this for free on Recall Knowledge.
Eh, I really don't think the guessing game is a good general solution. It goes in really hard on "What is and isn't a lore" to resolve mechanical issues. "Monsters of the Absalom Sewers Lore" is certainly something I'd let a player take, but now there's no guessing for a dungeon and improvisation is the better choice. Or you don't allow something like that, and now it's a question of how good the player is at guessing the sort of creature it is, which is a fairly metagame-y thing. (It might be fun for particular groups, of course, with it actually being an intentionally meta game of "how specific do you want to risk the lore you choose to be, weighing a better reduction vs. missing the mark and getting very little".)
But yeah, that's definitely what I mean, and thank you for the good example.
|
|
Ah, let me be more clear: by "relevant skill", I mean the relevant non-Lore skill, the one rolling at the normal DC (e.g. Arcana or Nature). Sorry, that was poor communication on my part.
Oh, I see. No worries. Though I’d say that if you intend to focus on Recall Knowledge, you should be focusing on Lore skills because of the DC reduction.
For example, a 7th level party runs into an occult dragon of some kind, easily recognizable as such by its body shape. Alice the Wizard has expert Occultism, and rolls that. Bob the Inventor has Untrained Improvisation and says he's rolling "Occult Dragon Lore". If the -5 DC modifier is applied for Bob rolling a specific lore, Bob has a better chance of succeeding than Alice.
Because Bob wanted to be good at identifying creatures, Bob selected Untrained Improvisation. Because Alice wanted more hit points, she selected Toughness. Because Alice has +1 hp per level, Bob reaches 0 hp when they both fail a Reflex save against a Fireball, but Alice doesn’t.
If you're saying "The specific lore might not exist"- I don't really feel like saying Vampire Lore or Farm Animal Lore doesn't exist is the solution to the issue.
Vampire Lore definitely exists because there’s a feat that explicitly grants Additional Lore: Vampire Lore. I don’t think Farm Animal Lore exists. Animal Lore exists, and I’d buy that Horse Lore exists, but I don’t buy “Farm Animal Lore.” Farming Lore exists, and I’d allow a check with that skill to Recall Knowledge about a farm animal, in place of Nature, but I wouldn’t give any reduction to DC. If you can point me to an official source that establishes “Farm Animal Lore,” I’ll give it to you, but I’d call that -2, not -5.
If you're saying "Untrained Improvisation lore use is a different problem than first-level untrained lore use", then I don't think so. Allowing untrained lores to be rolled against a -5 DC results in better options than characters invested in the general knowledge skills (e.g. Occultism, Religion) in either case.
That’s my point. At level 1, Rules As Written, an untrained [Specific Lore] check to Recall Knowledge to identify a creature is better than a trained Occultism check to Recall Knowledge to identify a creature. That has nothing to do with Untrained Improvisation, which is a level 3 feat. The “problem” exists completely independently of Untrained Improvisation.
Religion, of course, is a different matter, because it’s keyed to Wisdom, so at level 1, a character with +4 Wisdom, and trained in Religion is ahead of an untrained Zombie Lore check.
at level 1 if the GM applies the specific lore DC reduction for untrained skills, Alice would be a chump for ever rolling Arcana or Occultism to recall knowledge about anything.
So? Alice would also be a chump for making a nonlethal attack against a Zombie, and Carl’s trained Relgion Check is more likely to tell Alice that than Alice’s untrained Zombie Lore check.
To me, that suggests that the GM shouldn't reduce the DC when a player rolls an untrained lore skill- or at the very least, should limit the DC reduction to -2 so that it's never overshadowing actually having the regular non-lore knowledge skill.
It may suggest that, and you might decide that’s a good reason to make a house rule, but that’s not Rules As Written. I linked the rules up-thread.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh and Finoan, I'm not sure why it's not in the AoN page you linked but the description for Lore on PC1 p.240-241 ends with the line, "Even if you're untrained in Lore, you can use it to Recall Knowledge."
Good to know. Thanks.
The idea of a new player sitting down for level one and being told that they should be rolling an untrained specific lore, and that investing in Arcana and Occultism is mostly worse than just spending one general feat to know things better by not knowing them so that your skills can go towards other things... *shudders* I'm gonna point to the "usually" there on what you linked, like you said.
Buuut, from the perspective of wanting experienced players to actually use Recall Knowledge and it being a pain to keep the five-or-more skills to "know what that thing I'm fighting is" relevant, I can certainly see the benefits to giving any edge to Recall Knowledge that's available.
My point isn't "I'm right by RAW" (it's pretty clear that nowhere do the rules expressly state my position) and more, "if we do get a clarification, it's not going to be that GMs should be giving the DC decrease for specific lore on untrained lore checks".
Because Bob wanted to be good at identifying creatures, Bob selected Untrained Improvisation.
Except this makes no real sense in a game where options like Loremaster and Bardic Lore exist, both of which require more investment to do this specific thing and yet are strictly worse than Untrained Improvisation if you allow it for every Lore in the game.
There's no reason for either of those options to even exist if the actual design intent is "take Untrained Improvisation and just pretend like you have a lore skill for literally everything in existence." Especially when both of those are strictly limited to Recall Knowledge and Lore skills aren't when a relevant situation pops up.
That’s my point. At level 1, Rules As Written, an untrained [Specific Lore] check to Recall Knowledge to identify a creature is better than a trained Occultism check to Recall Knowledge to identify a creature. That has nothing to do with Untrained Improvisation, which is a level 3 feat. The “problem” exists completely independently of Untrained Improvisation.
The part that makes Untrained Improvisation relevant to that discussion is that the feat makes the problem still exist at level 5 when it otherwise wouldn't. With the feat, using "super specific lore for this singular named creature that I never mentioned knowing about until right now" is better than someone who is an Expert in the relevant skill, and also better than someone with Bardic Lore/Loremaster Lore, both of which are supposed to be for this exact purpose (since those are only trained at this level).
But yes, it is also a problem at level 1 even without it the feat if its allowed. That just normally ceases to be a problem so quickly that it rarely comes up in practice.
I just don't allow it at all for consistency.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bardic Lore is a single level 1 feat I'm not sure why we're acting like it's some huge investment.
Bardic Lore is a single level 1 feat I'm not sure why we're acting like it's some huge investment.
It requires the Enigma Muse, which locks out other options like Lingering Composition unless you also buy Multifarious Muse, which is another feat. So yeah, it's a significantly greater investment than a General Feat.
|
|
Except this makes no real sense in a game where options like Loremaster and Bardic Lore exist, both of which require more investment to do this specific thing and yet are strictly worse than Untrained Improvisation if you allow it for every Lore in the game.
Then house rule it. You can even pretend it’s not a house rule if you want.
The part that makes Untrained Improvisation relevant to that discussion is that the feat makes the problem still exist at level 5 when it otherwise wouldn't.
That’s my point. “Still exists” means it’s a “problem” that exists independently of the feat.
With the feat, using "super specific lore for this singular named creature that I never mentioned knowing about until right now"
Do you generally require PCs to have “mentioned” abilities prior to their use?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bardic Lore is a single level 1 feat I'm not sure why we're acting like it's some huge investment.
Same for Esoteric Lore that is part of the chassis and can improved by Diverse Lore.
Honestly I think some people are overvaluing it. PF2e is pretty eas game to take a good knowledge about anything. Skills are super easier to take and super-powerful in this system.
So my interpretation about Untrained Improvisation and lore:
1. It allows any player to roll its level -2 as proficiency at levels 1-4, level -1 as proficiency at levels 5 and 6, and full level after this.
2. The PC1 is pretty clear when it says "Even if you're untrained in Lore, you can use it to Recall Knowledge" so if you are RK using an untrained lore with a Untrained Improvisation you roll your level as proficiency no matter what lore is.
3. As pointed by Creature Identification: "Lore skills can also be used to identify a specific creature. Using the applicable Lore usually has an easy or very easy DC (before adjusting for rarity)", so let'us go to a level 1 creature being identified by a level 1 wizard. For example a Cacodaemon is a Daemon and it's identified using Religion with Wis but our example character is a wizard so it's main stat is Int being +4 not Wis that is +2, so we have 2 options. So once that lore allows to be used untrained let us use Lore. It will choose an specific lore, a Cacodaemon lore making its DC being 10 instead of 15. So the check will be +4 vs DC 10, so 10 - 4 = 6 of more to succeed so if rolls a 6 or more will have a success. Notice that this example isn't uses Untrained Improvisation it is only using the normal lore rules. Now a cleric will make the RK check vs Cacodaemon using Religion will be +4 + 1 (lvl) + 2 (trained) = 7 vs DC 15, so 10 - 7 = 3 or more to succeed, and finally the Wizard again but using Untrained Improvisation using Cacodaemon lore will be be +4 -1 (lvl-2) (Untrained Improvisation) = +3 vs DC 10, so 10 - 3 = 7 to succeed so the Untrained Improvisation makes no sense here!
My point is Untrained Improvisation just makes the Untrained Lore in same situation that it has in lower levels avoiding Untrained checks that have a good chance to pass in lower levels to keep useful during higher levels at cost of a general feat. So you are "sacrificing" or delaying a Adopted Ancestry/Armor Proficiency/Diehard/Fleet/Shield Block/Toughness/Weapon Proficiency to able to keep your RK checks with a good chance. IMO it doesn't look like so overpowered for a general feat.
What happened is that many people were scared because they thought the feat was useless and now that discovered that it doesn't they are now thinking that it is too strong but honestly it doesn't. Probably I will still taking one of many other useful general feats that improves my HP, survivability, speed or shield block instead because probably is more useful than eventually be able to RK some random creature topic that I or any other party member may already recall using another skill.
You right my bad. It's a lvl 3 general feat.
But I know that it's valid for all skills but restricted to untrained actions/activities but once that the focus is in RK I made my comment focused in RK.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Untrained Improvisation is applicable for everything, every skill. Recall Knowledge is not even its main use as people who like and take the feat say.
At tables I GM, Recall Knowledge seems to be its most common use, but as I’ve said many times, my players tend to make a lot of Recall Knowledge checks. That said, Athletics checks to climb or swim are fairly common, too. It sees a little use for Stealth, too, but that seems to come up less often in combat for characters who aren’t Stealth-focused, Follow the Expert serves the same purpose in Exploration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then house rule it. You can even pretend it’s not a house rule if you want.
Already did. That's in my first post in the thread.
Do you generally require PCs to have “mentioned” abilities prior to their use?
Generally speaking things PCs can do are on their character sheet. So yes. "I'm rolling Lore for this singular specific unique individual creature that I've never heard of before" is something of an exception to that.
You don't find it problematic that every character that takes a single general feat can suddenly have hyper specific knowledge on literally everything in a way that is better than a class feat and an archetype designed to do the same thing?
If that actually works for you verisimilitude wise, then more power to you, I guess. I find that to be both a balance problem and pretty ridiculous. It's not like anything is even being taken away here since they can still roll it, they just have to do it with the general skill applicable to the purpose instead of claiming they have specialized knowledge/training in literally everything.
It's functionally identical to Keen Recollection, do you ban that too?
I treat it the same way, so it applies to the core skills, not "I'm going to use a hyper specific lore for the creature that just appeared in front of me" on literally everything that they're not a Master in the appropriate skill for.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't find it problematic that every character that takes a single general feat can suddenly have hyper specific knowledge on literally everything in a way that is better than a class feat and an archetype designed to do the same thing?
Not really. For one thing, one only gets five general feats over the course of a career, while one gets ten class feats, so if a “single general feat” is stronger than “a class feat,” I can live with that.
But the class feat eventually “wins out,” because at some point the special Lore skill advances to Expert, and Level + 4 vs DC -2 is better than Level vs DC -5. So I’m not sure Untrained Improvisation is necessarily better for this purpose, though it has other uses, too.
Honestly, though, I think the “special Lore” class feats could use a boost, so if I were to address this problem with a house rule it would be to improve those feats rather than to nerf “normal” Lore skills.
At the very least, I think Bardic Lore should just be advanced when Occultism is advanced, likewise Loremaster Lore. Honestly, though, I think it’d be fine if they both automatically advanced on the rate of Additional Lore.
It's not like anything is even being taken away here since they can still roll it, they just have to do it with the general skill applicable to the purpose instead of claiming they have specialized knowledge/training in literally everything.
That’s definitely something being taken away.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thaumaturge and Diverse Lore, it is kind of crazy at level 15 you have Master Loremaster Lore/Bardic Lore with a level 1 feat which uses Charisma instead of INT and the fact that you can only max Loremaster/Bardic Lore to Expert while Esoteric Lore caps at Legendary with the -2 from Diverse lore is still equal to Master proficiency... Oh wait unless you pick up Loremaster on an Int class you still be at most +5 Int vs +7 Cha which puts you at a further -2 for a total of -4.
Also Int is considered on the lower end of the six attributes. So lettign more people use RK which i don't see often enough is fine I think. If you are doing it in combat you are potentially wasting 1 action of your first turn which can be used as set up.
All Untrained Improvisation does is let you get similar power to a level 1 class feat. You can judge rather or not a level 3 general is equal to a level 1 class feat for yourself. That's really where this answer should be, if you do then keep it this way if you don't then clearly houserule it.