| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Best of luck getting an official clarification
As a GM i would not let something untrained qualify for something specific, but as i am not part of the Paizo team i'll see myself out.
This is the same answer I would give at my table.
Officially there is nothing clarifying.
At my table, you're not going to use your untrained jack of all trades broad knowledge to pretend you have a specific focused knowledge so you can target a lower DC. End of story.
|
I think this is ambiguous enough that you can't find an interpretation that everyone will agree is "clear RAW" for this.
On the face of it, Untrained Improvisation is for using skills you're not trained in - which it does fine. You won't be amazing at those skills, but at least you stand a chance. By around level 5, having to roll a skill without adding your level is making it quite likely you'll critfail. So it's great for those skill challenges where YOU must roll, and you MUST roll.
Getting a DC break on lore/RK checks is not in the description of UI. It's a kind of "trick" you get from making a surprising connection between things in very different ends of the book. That doesn't mean it couldn't possibly work, but it's not what UI was made for.
It also strikes me as a "too good to be true" thing. I'm fine with UI letting you use a lore instead of religion/nature to identify half a dozen monster types, so if your intelligence is better than your wisdom it's still decent.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is ambiguous enough that you can't find an interpretation that everyone will agree is "clear RAW" for this.
I don't really agree.
UI unambiguously gives you a benefit to untrained skill checksuntrained RK with lore is unambiguously something you're allowed to do (twice over, because RK is an untrained check and Lore specifically calls this out again)
And GMs are unambiguously empowered to adjust DCs as they see fit based on the skills being used.
This is a "feels intuitively cheesy" thing like tumbling without tumbling, but there's no RAW issue. I've been thinking about it a lot and there's genuinely nothing at all to support the counter position other than bad vibes. Which is fine. It's not a big deal to house rule and I don't even think it'd be bad to reverse things and make RK trained only just for Lore, but there's no RAW argument here.
The other elephant in the room here is how many layers of GM fiat there are here: GM sets DCs and GM chooses what/how much information to give out (with a little bit of extra player agency for creature identification).. there's no real room to exploit anything here.
Like at its 'worst' what happens is someone may benefit from slightly higher accuracy if I feel like it on checks for me to give them whatever information I feel like they should have. What's supposed to be setting me off here?
Plus like, Int is kind of garbo. If Lore was a wisdom skill I might be more inclined to houserule but eh.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you argument is that you should let someone say they are rolling Lore instead of a "regular" knowledge skill, I can agree with that, in the sense that it might let someone roll using int, rather than wisdom. Which I'm fine with that part.
As you note, the GM sets the DC and whether or not there is an adjustment.
And all I'm saying is, I'm not going to give an adjustment that reduces the DC if you're using Untrained Improvisation.
The whole idea of lore skills reducing the DC is kind of "hey, you're investing in this skill that isn't broadly useful, and for doing so we're going to throw you a bone on these specialty topics".
To me, arguing you should get the same benefit from Untrained Improvisation is where I have the problem, because you could argue that you have literally every specific lore you could imagine and have the bonus from Untrained Improvisation. It's simply too much. Call it bad vibes if you like.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Getting a DC break on lore/RK checks is not in the description of UI.
Why would it be “in the description of UI?” UI isn’t what is causing the DC reduction. The DC reduction, if it applies, is a function of rolling an applicable Lore skill to Recall Knowledge, whether you roll it with untrained, trained, expert, master, or legendary proficiency.
Rolling a D20 as part of the check when you use UI “is not in the description of UI,” either, but we all know to do that. The rulebooks are long enough without insisting that every rule be repeated every time it’s relevant..
it’s not what UI was made for.
What UI is “made for” is changing your proficiency bonus when you make an untrained skill check. That’s literally all it does. If Lore checks to Recall Knowledge enjoy a reduction to DC without UI, that isn’t changed by UI. If they don’t, that also isn’t changed by UI.
It also strikes me as a "too good to be true" thing.
Is an improved chance to make Recall Knowledge checks at the cost of one of only five general feat selections over a 20 level career really “too good to be true?”
Also, it’s a third level feat, so we should expect it to be better than such mainstay first level general feats as Toughness, and Fleet. But do you sincerely believe that it’s so much better than either of those that, even two levels higher, it is too good to be true?
it's still decent.
I should hope that a third level general feat would be better than decent.
The question is where should power of General Feats be? You only get 5 of them over the course of the entire game, so should they be powerful or just meh. I mean the problem is at the table I am in, you see Incredible Initiative, Toughness, Fleet constantly added to characters repeatedly over any other general feats.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In general, the power level of General Feats isn't super high IMO.
Incredible Initiative is a +2 to init.
Toughness is bonus HP and reduced recovery checks (by 1). (I don't personally see many people take this)
Fleet is +5 movement speed.
Canny Accumen increases proficiency in one save or perception.*
*Technically it makes you an expert until level 17 where you become a master. It's good for shoring up your weak save progression.
Those are "good" but good is relative. None of the bonuses are mind blowing.
I think Clever Improviser's "you're untrained proficiency bonus is equal to your level instead of 0" is enough without letting it also get a -5 to DCs for any/every recall knowledge check.
And I should add, those above examples are the "strong" general feats (excluding any skill feats, which can be very strong but can also be taken through your granted skill feats).
Even though the bonuses are moderate, they're considered good because they are widely applicable things that most every character want.
If the above are your bar for general feats (and I think they are) then Clever Improviser is in line in my opinion. At most what I would do is remove the line that says you can't do task that require you to be trained. Otherwise the ability is fine, and doesn't need to reduce recall knowledge DCs by 5 to be relevant.
|
|
If the above are your bar for general feats (and I think they are) then Clever Improviser is in line in my opinion.
If those are the bar for general feats, and Untrained Improvisation is “in line” with them, then we have a problem, because they are all first level feats and Untrained Improvisation is a third level feat.
At most what I would do is remove the line that says you can't do task that require you to be trained.
There’s already another fear that does that — Clever Improviser.
Otherwise the ability is fine, and doesn't need to reduce recall knowledge DCs by 5 to be relevant.
Untrained Improvisation doesn’t reduce any DC of any check. That’s a completely separate rule.
Just as Canny Accumen, applied to Reflex, doesn’t make you take half damage on a successful basic Reflex save, it just makes you more like to roll a success.
You're right, I'm technically conflating.
But what I'm saying is, while there's an option to adjust DCs based on having a lore that applies, or a very specific lore that applies, I as a GM, would not make that adjustment for "lores" supported only by Untrained Improvisation.
Also, Clever Improviser is a Human feat, not a general feat. Although, if I play a human I usually grab that rather than the general feat Untrained Improvisation.
And I don't buy you're argument that it's a problem that the 3rd level feat is a problem, since all the other general feats are so bad that people prefer to take 3 first level general feats compared to the other options.
However, what I was suggesting was that if you really felt it was necessary to make an adjustment, remove the Human only feat Clever Improviser and just allow Untrained Improvisation to do trained only actions too.
Also to clarify, this isn't a topic that anyone can convince me to feel differently on. It's not "open for discussion" for me. I'm simply explaining my thoughts and feelings. Feel free to give your players with Untrained Improvisation the -5 to all their recall knowledge checks because they "have" every possible lore that they can use to recall knowledge. But please also recognize that's a bit like making them Master proficiency (in terms of bonus) in all the "default" knowledge skills.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In general, the power level of General Feats isn't super high IMO.
Incredible Initiative is a +2 to init.
Toughness is bonus HP and reduced recovery checks (by 1). (I don't personally see many people take this)
Fleet is +5 movement speed.
Canny Accumen increases proficiency in one save or perception.*
*Technically it makes you an expert until level 17 where you become a master. It's good for shoring up your weak save progression.
Those are "good" but good is relative. None of the bonuses are mind blowing.
I think Clever Improviser's "you're untrained proficiency bonus is equal to your level instead of 0" is enough without letting it also get a -5 to DCs for any/every recall knowledge check.
Kind of funny, because my take is that even running it RAW of all the feats mentioned here Untrained Improvisation is one of the weaker ones on that list (ymmv depending on the campaign)
Fleet and Canny Acumen are super nice feats I see multiple times in every game I play and Incredible Initiative isn't that far behind. Even toughness I see not super uncommonly on MAD frontliners.
The most common use case I see UI taken for is either for flavor purposes or when someone is worried about non-team skill actions but lacks skill increases.
... Not that it's bad mind you but because general feats are so premium I see it get crowded out a lot.
I agree that I definitely take fleet as my level 1 general feat.
And then typically canny acumen.
I don't personally value initative as much, but only because I like playing melee characters and like to wait for the enemy to move to me or see where other people are moving/doing so going first isn't as much a priority to me. If I played range or spell casters I would probably value it much more.
But to me, Untrained Improvisation is good 3rd general feat to pick up.
Now, if we want to argue that general feats are unimpressive and lack any real punch...well that is a conversation to be had, because I generally agree.
|
|
But what I'm saying is, while there's an option to adjust DCs based on having a lore that applies, or a very specific lore that applies, I as a GM, would not make that adjustment for "lores" supported only by Untrained Improvisation.
I see.
Also, Clever Improviser is a Human feat, not a general feat.
Sure, but I’m okay with that.
And I don't buy you're argument that it's a problem that the 3rd level feat is a problem, since all the other general feats are so bad that people prefer to take 3 first level general feats compared to the other options.
In the case of Untrained Improvisation, there’s an “independent” reason from power level to set it at 3, i.e. as written it would actually decrease your proficiency bonus at level 1. But in general, a higher level feat of a given category should be better than a lower level feat of that same category.
But please also recognize that's a bit like making them Master proficiency (in terms of bonus) in all the "default" knowledge skills.
For the limited purpose of Recall Knowledge, yes. And, again, I’m down with that. I love for my players to make Recall Knowledge checks, so I’m unlikely to institute a house rule that discourages it.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always considered Untrained Improvisation to be one of the better General Feats. It's a must take for me at level 3 for every non-skill monkey character.
In addition to setting you up to auto-aid just about anything, it gives you a puncher's chance at any skill check that comes up that doesn't have a proficiency gate.
If your campaign goes for victory point-based skill challenges (where number of success matters and is based on number of party members) it can easily make the difference between success and failure. PFS does this a lot, so I definitely consider it near-mandatory for a PFS character.
Over the life of a campaign, there is a huge difference between "succeed on a 16-20" and "only succeed on a 20" (and at higher levels, "only avoid crit fail on a 20").
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always considered Untrained Improvisation to be one of the better General Feats. It's a must take for me at level 3 for every non-skill monkey character.
In addition to setting you up to auto-aid just about anything, it gives you a puncher's chance at any skill check that comes up that doesn't have a proficiency gate.
If your campaign goes for victory point-based skill challenges (where number of success matters and is based on number of party members) it can easily make the difference between success and failure. PFS does this a lot, so I definitely consider it near-mandatory for a PFS character.
Over the life of a campaign, there is a huge difference between "succeed on a 16-20" and "only succeed on a 20" (and at higher levels, "only avoid crit fail on a 20").
That is all basically the exact reason I like Untrained Improvisation.
My group uses a fair number of victory point based skill challenges to determine success, not just a single character making a check. In which case, an untrained character quickly becomes a liability to those kind of challenges.
If you play in a group where victory point challenges are uncommon, and you have good skill coverage (someone taking every skill to master/legendary) then Untrained Improvisation is of low value, since you would always be second fiddle to someone trained. The chance of your roll mattering is low in such a scenario.
For the limited purpose of Recall Knowledge, yes. And, again, I’m down with that. I love for my players to make Recall Knowledge checks, so I’m unlikely to institute a house rule that discourages it.
It's not really a house rule though. The rule 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 some cases, you can get the GM's permission to use a different but related skill, usually against a higher DC than normal. The GM might allow checks to Recall Knowledge using other skills. For example, you might assess the skill of an acrobat using Acrobatics. If you're using a physical skill (like in this example), the GM will most likely have you use a mental modifier—typically Intelligence—instead of the skill's normal physical attribute modifier.
So it says "typically" an applicable lore skill used to recall knowledge comes with a lower DC, but that doesn't mean always.
What I'm saying is, if you're using Untrained Improvisation it means you wont get the DC adjustment. Which is within the rules already.
Although to clarify I'm not saying that is the only answer.
Every GM would be free to decide at their table whether or not to allow for the adjustment, and that is what the rules support anyways.
|
|
It's not really a house rule though.
. . .
So it says "typically" an applicable lore skill used to recall knowledge comes with a lower DC, but that doesn't mean always.
What I'm saying is, if you're using Untrained Improvisation it means you wont get the DC adjustment. Which is within the rules already.
The rules say that "Using an applicable Lore to Recall Knowledge about a topic . . . typically comes with a lower DC." They don't say " . . . unless you're making an untrained check."
The rules state that "Even if you're untrained in Lore, you can use it to Recall Knowledge" not "Even if you're untrained in Lore, you can use it to Recall Knowledge, but expect a higher DC."
That's notable because the rules do warn that if you use "a different but related skill, [you will] usually [roll] against a higher DC than normal." That's also not conditioned on whether you're trained in "a different but related skill[.]"
I think the pretty clear intent is that increases or decreases to the DC are conditioned on the applicability of the skill used. So I'm comfortable saying that conditioning them on anything else, whether that's the PC's proficiency level or the color of the player's shirt is a house rule.
My group uses a fair number of victory point based skill challenges to determine success, not just a single character making a check. In which case, an untrained character quickly becomes a liability to those kind of challenges.
Victory Point encounters often offer a reduced DC for Lore checks as compared to other skill options. Do you allow PCs to roll untrained Lore against the reduced DC, or do you make them roll against the highest DC on the list?
I don't give a lower DC for untrained lore skills either. And honestly wouldn't allow people to roll an untrained lore skill to begin with.
It's basically a hail mary attempt to make a knowledge check, since your bonus is 0, unless you have Untrained Improvisation.
Anyways, you do you.
I've said my piece on this topic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you argument is that you should let someone say they are rolling Lore instead of a "regular" knowledge skill, I can agree with that, in the sense that it might let someone roll using int, rather than wisdom. Which I'm fine with that part.
As you note, the GM sets the DC and whether or not there is an adjustment.
And all I'm saying is, I'm not going to give an adjustment that reduces the DC if you're using Untrained Improvisation.
The whole idea of lore skills reducing the DC is kind of "hey, you're investing in this skill that isn't broadly useful, and for doing so we're going to throw you a bone on these specialty topics".
To me, arguing you should get the same benefit from Untrained Improvisation is where I have the problem, because you could argue that you have literally every specific lore you could imagine and have the bonus from Untrained Improvisation. It's simply too much. Call it bad vibes if you like.
This is it.
If you're arguing that you can take an L3 general feat and use every lore skill that exists to lower the DC of your RK checks, that is quintessential rules lawyering. It's too good to be true, but you're pretending it's an RAW/RAI discussion. It's not reasonable.|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're arguing that you can take an L3 general feat and use every lore skill that exists to lower the DC of your RK checks, that is quintessential rules lawyering.
That's not what I'm arguing.
I'm arguing that using a relevant Lore skill to Recall Knowledge generally reduces the DC, and that you can make untrained Lore skill checks to Recall Knowledge.
I am further arguing that neither of those rules depend in any way on the existence of Untrained Improvisation.
Again, all that Untrained Improvisation does is improve your proficiency bonus on untrained checks you are, independently, explicitly allowed to attempt. It doesn't give you any new actions, it only improves your chances at actions you could already attempt. It also doesn't affect the DC of those checks in any way; the DC is either reduced or increased by dint of the skill you're using.
It's too good to be true, but you're pretending it's an RAW/RAI discussion. It's not reasonable.
First off, I'm not pretending anything. I think it's pretty clearly RAW, and I am unconvinced it's not RAI. I am unconvinced that it's not RAI because I strongly disagree that it's too good to be true.
One, I've been GMing PF2e since release, having completed several adventure paths, a number or modules, and a couple original campaigns, all using this interpretation of Recall Knowledge. My primary player group is fairly focused on optimization, and Untrained Improvisation is only occasionally selected.
Second, outside of combat, Recall Knowledge checks are a great avenue by which to convey information about the world to players. The Gumshoe RPG exists based on the premise that it is rarely interesting for PCs in an investigative game to fail to get a clue. In Pathfinder, I think it's rarely interesting for the PCs to not learn about the world, and while I think there's value in the tension of a check to Recall Knowledge, I think the game is improved by the players, collectively, having a pretty good chance to succeed at knowing facts about their world. It's a great vehicle for communicating all that cool background stuff written into published modules that the players are unlikely to ever learn unless the GM just "breaks character" and exposits.
Third, in combat, so we're talking about creature identification, I just don't see being good at Recall Knowledge as a worrying power boost. It's useful, but it doesn't directly make you more effective in combat. It helps the PCs use other abilities more efficiently, and is a nice boost for a support-oriented character. And because it's not all that uncommon to fight above-level creatures, and DCs scale with the expectation of proficiency boosts through training, Untrained Improvisation isn't some sort of reliable "I win" button on Recall Knowledge. Characters who select campaign-relevant Additional Lore are going to shine.
That said, why do you think it's too good to be true? "It makes you better" isn't enough to be too good to be true, that just makes it good, which I don't disagree with. What's actually too good about it? What aspect of the game does it disrupt?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
that is quintessential rules lawyering.
Is it? Nothing in this discussion is really hinging on some twisted interpretation of the rules or bizarre, fringe interaction or absurd selective literalism. Untrained lore checks is specifically written into the book as a thing you're allowed to do and untrained improvisation does nothing other than give you a bonus to untrained skill checks.
Now we can argue over whether it's a good or bad thing, but acting like people are performing some profane alchemy on the rules text feels like an overreaction. The mechanics are pretty much all right there. There almost isn't another way you could interpret the underlying rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't see an issue with Untrained Improv being used with untrained Lores for RK.Assuming two characters have the same attribute modifier then even counting its full effect and the -5 reduction in DC you still only are marginally better (+1) to someone using a basic skill with expert proficiency, you are strictly worse than someone with master proficiency.
There's more than one RK skill, though. This makes you better than someone who is an expert in ALL of them. At the same time. For a single feat.
Outside of a Thaumaturge (because Esoteric/Diverse Lore) or high level Bardic Lore/Loremaster, no one is going to be a master of every RK skill, so this will basically always be an improvement except a WIS based character on Nature/Religion/Medicine.
"I'm untrained and better at it than an expert" is patently absurd if you stop and think about that sentence.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't see an issue with Untrained Improv being used with untrained Lores for RK.Assuming two characters have the same attribute modifier then even counting its full effect and the -5 reduction in DC you still only are marginally better (+1) to someone using a basic skill with expert proficiency, you are strictly worse than someone with master proficiency.There's more than one RK skill, though. This makes you better than someone who is an expert in ALL of them. At the same time. For a single feat.
Outside of a Thaumaturge (because Esoteric/Diverse Lore) or high level Bardic Lore/Loremaster, no one is going to be a master of every RK skill, so this will basically always be an improvement except a WIS based character on Nature/Religion/Medicine.
"I'm untrained and better at it than an expert" is patently absurd if you stop and think about that sentence.
Yep, that's my exact problem.
If you consider a non-thaumaturge non-bard character without Untrained Improvisation (but expert in one of the standard knowledge skills) vs the same character with Untrained Improvisation....what happens if you give them the -5 to DC for recall knowledge for lore while using Untrained Improvisation (and ignoring Int vs Wis difference) the build with Untrained Improvisation is doing better in terms of what they need to roll to succeed. And that just doesn't sit right with me. And they can do it for every recall knowledge check vs just the ones that characters are spending their skill increases on.
Ultimately my view is that the rule to lower DCs was to encourage and throw a bone to people who might want to invest skill increases on Lore skills vs the general skill. Because without a decreased DC, why ever bother investing skill increases in a lore? Just invest in one of the generic knowledge skills.
So with that in mind, I don't feel it's fair to provide the DC adjustment for someone with Untrained Improvisation (or for someone trying to make an untrained lore check). The whole point was to reward an investment, but that investment isn't being made.
I really don't see an issue with Untrained Improv being used with untrained Lores for RK.Assuming two characters have the same attribute modifier then even counting its full effect and the -5 reduction in DC you still only are marginally better (+1) to someone using a basic skill with expert proficiency, you are strictly worse than someone with master proficiency.There's more than one RK skill, though. This makes you better than someone who is an expert in ALL of them. At the same time. For a single feat.
Outside of a Thaumaturge (because Esoteric/Diverse Lore) or high level Bardic Lore/Loremaster, no one is going to be a master of every RK skill, so this will basically always be an improvement except a WIS based character on Nature/Religion/Medicine.
"I'm untrained and better at it than an expert" is patently absurd if you stop and think about that sentence.
Yep, that's my exact problem.
If you consider a non-thaumaturge non-bard character without Untrained Improvisation (but expert in one of the standard knowledge skills) vs the same character with Untrained Improvisation....what happens if you give them the -5 to DC for recall knowledge for lore while using Untrained Improvisation (and ignoring Int vs Wis difference) the build with Untrained Improvisation is doing better in terms of what they need to roll to succeed. And that just doesn't sit right with me. And they can do it for every recall knowledge check vs just the ones that characters are spending their skill increases on.
Ultimately my view is that the rule to lower DCs was to encourage and throw a bone to people who might want to invest skill increases on Lore skills vs the general skill. Because without a decreased DC, why ever bother investing skill increases in a lore? Just invest in one of the generic knowledge skills.
So with that in mind, I don't feel it's fair to provide the DC adjustment for someone with Untrained Improvisation (or for someone trying to make an...
I agree. It's also not fitting the narrative of what Improvisation means. You can improvise in specialized fields of study for broad strokes, but improvising won't get you the depth of knowledge and experience where those DC improvements are coming from.
It's meant for being able to improvise enough to talk shop with a professional, but not actually having the experience to instantly apply specialized knowledge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NorrKnekten, do you mean to tell me you actually play in a way where players have to tell the GM "Hey I'm going to try to use *insert knowledge skill* to identify/know something about that thing" and if you choose the wrong one the GMs just like "Ha, gotcha! You didn't choose the right thing".
Cause I doubt that is how most people play.
I think typically when players want to know about a thing or a creature the GM typically tells you what you need to roll, or it's obvious (like you want to know the history of something, or you want to know about the design of a bridge or the like).
Sometimes I've seen players say "Hey, I see this bridge up ahead, I don't know anything about engineering, but I'd like to think about if in my knowledge of wars history etc there was anything about this bridge, and if there was anything that might help us to knock it down".
And the DM might allow for a skill substitution at a different DC.
Like a history check about a bridge might tell you that it's actually a very ancient bridge that was known to be able to lift up and down (drawbridge) hundreds of years ago during war to protect the city, but no one alive has seen it done.
Such knowledge wouldn't necessarily be useful on its own, but knowing that it's a drawbridge and your goal is to stop pursuers, you might be able to figure out how to get it to lift with some additional checks.
What I've never done or seen as a GM is someone say "I want to role Lore war history" and the GM say "you've completely wasted your roll and time".
I don't view it as a character thinking "I'm going to use this specific knowledge to recall something about a topic" because that's not how people work.
When you encounter something you think to yourself "Do I know anything similar to this or do I recognize this outright"
You might vaguely recognize it and spend some time thinking about it to start recalling more and more. Or you might look at it and say "Nope, doesn't ring any bells". But no where do we experience reality as "I tried thinking about cars on this thing, and it turns out it was a train so I didn't learn anything about it".
Obviously I do not, I follow the wording for Recall KnowledgeNorrKnekten, do you mean to tell me you actually play in a way where players have to tell the GM "Hey I'm going to try to use *insert knowledge skill* to identify/know something about that thing" and if you choose the wrong one the GMs just like "Ha, gotcha! You didn't choose the right thing".
Cause I doubt that is how most people play.
I think typically when players want to know about a thing or a creature the GM typically tells you what you need to roll, or it's obvious (like you want to know the history of something, or you want to know about the design of a bridge or the like).
Sometimes I've seen players say "Hey, I see this bridge up ahead, I don't know anything about engineering, but I'd like to think about if in my knowledge of wars history etc there was anything about this bridge, and if there was anything that might help us to knock it down".
You attempt a skill check to try to remember a bit of knowledge regarding a topic related to that skill. Suggest which skill you'd like to use and ask the GM one question. The GM determines the DC. You might need to collaborate with the GM to narrow down the question or skills, and you can decide not to Recall Knowledge before committing to the action if you don't like your options.
I may even tell players trying to use lores for creature identification "Are you sure this is X? You may have a better luck getting your question answered with Religion incase you are wrong." That is what collaboration means.
This also means that on a success I should give them accurate information regardless if the skill was useful or not, as is the effect of a Successful RK. If there was no useful information to be gained from the skill I just tell them that using that skill is fruitless before they commit.
"I would like to use Mountain Lore to figure out what ores exist in this region" is one such example I have had and...
It sounds like in reality you run it much the same way I expect most people do.
You emphasize the part about players suggesting a skill to use, but you admit that if that skill isn't relevant you tell the player so. And you also seem to suggest skills that might be relevant. I think the reality of play is that it doesn't matter whether the GM or the player make the first suggestion. The only problem that could arise if a GM tells a skill is that it could give away what kind of a creature something is, but that would be metagaming and it's not something my group worries about. The efficiency of the GM being direct is more worth it. We trust each other not to metagame things are character shouldn't know.
I would however argue that Mountain Lore, would include knowing about ore that comes from a mountain range, although possibly not where to find it in the mountain and certainly not how to extract it. It's kind of like knowing coal came from (and still does to an extent) from the Appalachian mountains of eastern Kentucky.
I guess (especially in non-combat situations) I encourage players to roll anything that might even be tangentially related. But I will modify the information that is available to them.
To your point, if you have "United States Mountain Lore" I would let you know the Appalachian mountain have coal. With an even higher roll I might even tell you where historical sites of coal mining occurred. You might even know if any of those were still in operation.
However, assuming a slightly different scenario where no one has been operating any mines in the region for a hundred years for some reason, while you might be able to locate a past dig site. Once you're there you'd have a lot of work to do get it ready to extract anything useful.
Exactly I to try to suggest skills that give them the information they are actually after [b]without revealing the nature of the subject[b]
That's the piece I'm not getting.
For non-creatures the nature should generally be pretty obvious, or you are typically going to have enough time that even if you required the player to use the right skill without telling them, they would still get it, it would just take longer to get there. Just cut to the point and tell them things that might be applicable and they can negotiate "Hey, you didn't say X but I think it might be applicable in this kind of way, what do you think?"
In the case of a creature, I can see not wanting to to them what to roll, but only if you're concerned about them metagaming that oh, because it's a devil you expect it to have these traits even without fully identifying it.
Which honestly
1) I typically allow people to identify the "kind" of thing it is, at a lower DC even if they can't fully identify it. Like knowing the thing is an fiend in my mind should be a lower check, than knowing it's a devil, than knowing what kind of specific Devil it is.
But 2) I just don't worry about my players metagaming. Based on whether they fail or succeed on the roll knowledge check, the way their character has typically behaved, etc I have a pretty good idea if they're metagaming and will call them out on it. And if it becomes a problem, they encounter special versions of monsters that will have different stats than what is published. Like a Devil without fire immunity, but immunity to other energy types. But that doesn't happen often with people I've played with regularly.
I guess I look at it very differently, especially with creatures.
Because I simply don't envision anyone ever going "What do I know about topic X, it may allow me to know more about this thing in front on me"
Rather, someone is looking at something and goes "What do I know about that thing in front of me?"
In fact, within my group that's normally how the question is phrased "What do I know about that thing"
The player maybe does or doesn't know, but that absolutely shouldn't be a factor, in the same way that just because a player is good at something, doesn't mean their character should be, or vice versa. A character good at diplomacy and convincing others, shouldn't require an eloquent player to achieve the result.
As a GM, I also make sure I have copies of the characters sheets. At least the skills/saves/defenses. Technically recall knowledge is a secret check. The GM is allowed to (supposed to) roll it. Now, the only time I see GMs roll in secret is if they have a problem with metagaming. But since the player isn't even the one rolling, why do they really need to pick a specific skill. It seems likely an incredibly unnecessary step.
|
|
Yeah, it goes the same at our tables. In most cases people have only one Lore (plus PFS Lore), so they ask whether theirs is applicable. If a character has multiple Lore skills, as a player I'd offer the different Lores and modifiers and let the GM decide what to roll (out to decline all). As a GM I'd ask for the various modifiers.
UI is weird here: I'm all for players attempting RK rolls: It leads to more interesting combats with players trying to target oravoid specific things, and it helps boost casters (target weakest save). I also don't mind high Intelligence characters being able to RK on a Lore skill rather than a Wisdom skill. But I'd like to know what the design teams view behind this is.
To be fair, I've always imagined a character with UI as one that has read most of Wikipedia without fully understanding everything. In a universe where magic is a thing, it wouldn't be an unreasonable thing to be able to do.
|
|
I Actually why did they even print Undead Lore to begin with, its one of the broadest creature types in the game. Was it just to let Int characters replace religion entirely in undead campaigns?
That's a whole other issue on which they haven't come back to, and which they complicated further with the Necromancer playtest .
I roll it in secret because I am supposed to give false information on a critical failure. It aint much use actually giving false information if they can see the rolled 1 or 2.
It isnt wrong to roll it open either, but you have to consider what is best for the group when making that consideration.
The GM can choose to make any check secret, even if it’s not usually rolled secretly. Conversely, the GM can let you roll any check yourself, even if that check would usually be secret. Some groups find it simpler to have players roll all secret checks and just try to avoid acting on any out-of-character knowledge, while others enjoy the mystery.Same for the question, "what do I know about this thing" is the same as "What is this" To which a name,category and commonly known feature is what I typically give, "This is a hydra, A serpentine beast feared for their regeneration capabilities"
Going back to UI, I don't think there is a problem with the way lores are written. Especially since lores are supposed to be narrow, You can't just say you use Animal Lore when the suggestion for creature lore is "Lore about a specific creature or narrow category of creatures" After all the only way you are beating an on-level DC is if you know the specific lore that applies. Which requires you to know the creature, or the creature to be incredibly obvious in what it is, Which more often than not isn't the case once we start to consider non-animals or the extremely well known cases such as ghouls, zombies and skeletons.
Actually why did they even print Undead Lore to begin with, its one of the broadest creature types in the game. Was it just to let Int characters replace religion entirely in undead campaigns?
I support the idea of rolling in secret. I simply am very trusting with my group to not act on meta information. To the point that once they failed a check to identify a creature with some type of fire immunity (I forget which one) and then proceeded to hit it with fire spells even though as players they all knew it was immune, because their go to damage spells they had were fire. After a couple attempts They said, "Can my character observe that it's not taking damage, and infer they either have resistance or immunity?"
Going back to Untrained Improvisation, I disagree the problem is with the Lore skills. Because the lore skill entry doesn't actually mention a DC adjustment. It's technically with the way recall knowledge is written (At least from what I'm looking at in AoN right now).
The fix would be as simple as saying something like "If you are trained or better in a lore skill then..."
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 some cases, you can get the GM's permission to use a different but related skill, usually against a higher DC than normal. The GM might allow checks to Recall Knowledge using other skills. For example, you might assess the skill of an acrobat using Acrobatics. If you're using a physical skill (like in this example), the GM will most likely have you use a mental modifier—typically Intelligence—instead of the skill's normal physical attribute modifier.
At least that's how I'd prefer it to be clarified.
Honestly, I think that's probably the intention and no one considered that Untrained Improvisation allowed you to "have" any conceivable lore skill without being trained in it, which opens the door for players to argue and ask for DC adjustments. Of course, they might have also just considered that since the paragraph mentions GM discretion in adjusting the DCs that they could leave it to each group to decide if the interaction with Untrained Improvisation was worth addressing.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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!
Yeah, that does give a lot of room to the GM to say:
- Typically you'd get a lower DC because your special interests pay off.- This is not that typical case, because this isn't actually your special interest. If it was your special interest you would have invested some actual training into it.