Consider things like Animal Lore or Undead Lore would be valid choices, I see no reason to deny Swarm Lore.
Animal Lore would get you anything with the animal tag. Swarm lore would include some animals, but miss lots.
Meanwhile, Nature (not a lore) gets you knowledge on animals, beasts, fey, and plant creatures.
And looking at Undead Lore, that gets you around 200 creatures.
Yeah, I think Swarm Lore is reasonable.
Remember that there are different degrees of lores, for example Undead Lore is an unspecific lore (DC-2), whereas Zombie Lore would be a specific lore (DC-5).
I do think that Swarm Lore would be a specific one, but in general GMs can always allow trait lores and just modify the DC adjustment within (or even beyond) this frame.
That seems like a reasonable lore subcategory - I might be tempted to increase the lore DC slightly for the very unusual swarms (aeon stones, cobbleswarms, wizard sponges, etc), but that'd definitely let you RK reasonably about most swarms.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that there are different degrees of lores, for example Undead Lore is an unspecific lore (DC-2), whereas Zombie Lore would be a specific lore (DC-5).
I do think that Swarm Lore would be a specific one, but in general GMs can always allow trait lores and just modify the DC adjustment within (or even beyond) this frame.
No, this bold part is false. No such categories as "Specific lore" or "Unspecific lore" exist in the rules. Do not mistake the sample RK DCs that AoN puts on creature pages for real rules. They are not present in any book. They are just the level-based, rarity adjusted DC (a starting point, not an end point of RK DC setting) with Easy and Very Easy adjustments applied for convenient reference.
The non-lore skills listed there, and the DC with them, are also not a part of any actual creature statblock. They are just the most common skills for traits on that creature, which the RK rules very clearly state are NOT always or only the skills to allow for a given creature.
What IS true is that the applicability and specificity of a skill are things you consider as a GM when setting RK DCs.
What Hammerjack said.
AFAIK, there are no official rules about more and less specific lores, but as a GM what is suggested be Theaitetos is how I would run it.
For lore that is broad (but obviously more specific than existing Knowledge Skills like Nature or Arcane) as a GM I'm likely giving the DC a -2 compared to the DC for the default knowledge skill. For a more specific lore, I'm probably giving a -4 to the DC.
Remember that there are different degrees of lores, for example Undead Lore is an unspecific lore (DC-2), whereas Zombie Lore would be a specific lore (DC-5).
I do think that Swarm Lore would be a specific one, but in general GMs can always allow trait lores and just modify the DC adjustment within (or even beyond) this frame.
No, this bold part is false. No such categories as "Specific lore" or "Unspecific lore" exist in the rules. Do not mistake the sample RK DCs that AoN puts on creature pages for real rules. They are not present in any book. They are just the level-based, rarity adjusted DC (a starting point, not an end point of RK DC setting) with Easy and Very Easy adjustments applied for convenient reference.
The non-lore skills listed there, and the DC with them, are also not a part of any actual creature statblock. They are just the most common skills for traits on that creature, which the RK rules very clearly state are NOT always or only the skills to allow for a given creature.
What IS true is that the applicability and specificity of a skill are things you consider as a GM when setting RK DCs.
Which is important to note because Lores are one of the things it's a good idea to talk with your GM about beforehand in any case. A GM might tell you straight up they don't like running swarms so it's going to be pretty pointless. They also might tell you their strategy for setting DCs and suggest a better fit.
In general, though, I think Swarm Lore is a pretty neat lore to take if you have good character reason for doing so. I'd give it a pretty good edge in the specificity DC reduction cases.
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).
Doesn't really matter how you wanna call it exactly. Lores give the -2 (easy) or -5 (very easy) DC bonus.
If you want to hand out the -5 DC bonus on a zombie with Undead Lore, then you are free to do so. Or keep it at -2 for Undead Lore and give the -5 only for Zombie Lore.
Playing the swarm's advocate here, is there enough commonality to lump swarms together? In many cases "being a swarm" is more a mathematical simplification for a horde, a mechanic more than a distinct thing in (super-)nature to study. Yet sometimes it's very intrinsic, like a Worm that Walks. Or one might study hive minds, much like studying starlings, if looking at swarming behaviors; yet IMO that'd leave out some Swarms, add in some larger entities. And focusing on just swarms without knowing much about the entities that form them feels more like a player recognizing that Recall Knowledge vs. Swarms is one of the best instances of monster-IDing in the game.
I find the concept similar to Lore: Troops (which funnily enough would be among the least necessary RK checks). That too is a slue of creature types that for some reason you'd only understand when clumped? Feels odd, too odd for my tastes.
Back to the pro-side, I'd accept Lore: Fighting Swarms, with it's overt IDing of what and why your PC (or yourself) targets Swarms so specifically. In that sense it feels more like a class one might actually take in a combat academy or say PFS. None of that fluff, simple rules for the swamp dweller, infestation exterminator, or swarm-ophobe.
As for Lore: Fighting Troops, I'd likely lump that in Warfare Lore, if anyone would even bother. (Yes, I have little to no respect for Troops in general, as wonderful as the underlying concept is.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That seems like a reasonable lore subcategory - I might be tempted to increase the lore DC slightly for the very unusual swarms (aeon stones, cobbleswarms, wizard sponges, etc), but that'd definitely let you RK reasonably about most swarms.
Surely that's what the +2 DC for Uncommon, and +5 DC for Rare there are for?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd allow Swarm Lore since I can see it as thinking "how things that form swarms behave once they've formed swarms and why they form swarms to begin with" which seems like a reasonable thing for a person to think about a lot.
Like you wouldn't know that much about what wasps are like when they're going about their daily business, but you'd know a lot about what they're like when swarming.
I find the concept similar to Lore: Troops (which funnily enough would be among the least necessary RK checks). That too is a slue of creature types that for some reason you'd only understand when clumped? Feels odd, too odd for my tastes.
That's just warfare lore, to be fair.
Playing the swarm's advocate here, is there enough commonality to lump swarms together? In many cases "being a swarm" is more a mathematical simplification for a horde, a mechanic more than a distinct thing in (super-)nature to study. Yet sometimes it's very intrinsic, like a Worm that Walks. Or one might study hive minds, much like studying starlings, if looking at swarming behaviors; yet IMO that'd leave out some Swarms, add in some larger entities. And focusing on just swarms without knowing much about the entities that form them feels more like a player recognizing that Recall Knowledge vs. Swarms is one of the best instances of monster-IDing in the game.
If you look at it that way, maybe it doesn't make a lot of sense.
If you look at it in the direction of "this character has a fascination with swarming creatures and studies them regardless of type", then it makes perfect sense as a lore category.
People in real life have all kinds of oddly specific interests, and this fits perfectly as one of those. If you look at it that way and compare to other creature type lores given as examples, there's really nothing out of line about this one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's what the rules say about "specific skills":
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.
That says that it may typically come with a lower DC, but not what that lower DC is, and it's not guaranteed to come with one at all. In cases where the skill isn't appropriate, you might get a higher DC instead if you're allowed to attempt it at all.
But when it comes to identifying creatures...
A character who successfully identifies a creature learns one of its best-known attributes—such as a hydra's head regrowth (and the fact that it can be stopped by acid or fire) or a manticore's tail spikes. On a critical success, the character also learns something subtler, like a weakness that's not obvious or the trigger for one of the creature's reactions.
The skill used to identify a creature usually depends on that creature's trait, as shown on the Creature Identification Skills table, but you have leeway on which skills apply. For instance, hags are humanoids but have a strong connection to occult spells and live outside society, so you might allow a character to use Occultism to identify them without any DC adjustment and make using Society harder. 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).
Note that "easy or very easy DC" are mentioned here specifically. So sites like AoN are not pulling this out of nowhere: the rules say there's cases where that applies.
Of course, if it applies at all and which one applies is entirely GM fiat, RAW. You don't automatically get -2 for using literally any Lore skill. In fact, if your Lore skill is a poor fit and the GM is letting you use it anyway, you may get a higher DC instead, per Player Core.
This leads to some table variance in determining what is specific enough to get the benefits, so you need to talk to your GM about that.
The other aspect of this is how to calculate DCs:
On most topics, you can use simple DCs for checks to Recall Knowledge. For a check about a specific creature, trap, or other subject with a level, use a level-based DC (adjusting for rarity as needed). You might adjust the difficulty down, maybe even drastically, if the subject is especially notorious or famed. Knowing simple tales about an infamous dragon’s exploits, for example, might be incredibly easy for the dragon’s level, or even just a simple trained DC.
The first part of that is what AoN/Foundry are doing: using a level based DC adjusted by rarity.
The trouble is that they don't do the second part: adjusting it to be easier if the thing is well known. GMs often overlook that part, but some RK is supposed to be really easy because the subject is famous. I get why they don't do it because it's basically impossible for different settings to know what is famous and what isn't.
The downside to those numbers being there is some folks just use them blindly as gospel without understanding the rules around when they should be used and when they shouldn't.
But it's unfair to say there's no rules basis for those numbers, because there definitely is rules support for them as a common case baseline.
|
Playing the swarm's advocate here, is there enough commonality to lump swarms together? In many cases "being a swarm" is more a mathematical simplification for a horde, a mechanic more than a distinct thing in (super-)nature to study.Yeah, that's exactly the question I thought about. Mechanically it's fine, but it's rather strange as a Lore. What's common between a swarm of bees and a swarm of bones (my kind of homebrew necromantic monster)?
Many things actually :
"A swarm is a mass or cloud of creatures that functions as one monster. Its size entry gives the size of the entire mass, though for most swarms, the individual creatures that make up that mass are Tiny. A swarm can occupy the same space as other creatures and must do so in order to use its damaging action. A swarm typically has weakness to effects that deal damage over an area (like area spells and splash weapons). Swarms are immune to the grappled, prone, and restrained conditions.
"
In addition to this, many swarms have the Swarm mind feature, are immune to precision damage, have resistance against some types of physical damage and their damaging action requires a Reflex save.
Come to think of it, it is pretty odd that someone who is Legendary in Nature but Untrained in Religion will know all this about Animal swarms and nothing about Undead swarms.
If there are aspects of an undead swarm that are like an animal swarm, there isn't any rule saying their knowledge has to be 100% useless. Having case by case leeway on what skills can apply to a subject, and what type of information a given skill can offer about a given subject, is already the way RK works.
This also goes in the other direction. A GM could also reasonably rule that Swarm Lore is appropriate, but that it will only give information that fits as being about the swarming behavior of a swarm, and not information that's about the details of the component creatures.
Come to think of it, it is pretty odd that someone who is Legendary in Nature but Untrained in Religion will know all this about Animal swarms and nothing about Undead swarms.If there are aspects of an undead swarm that are like an animal swarm, there isn't any rule saying their knowledge has to be 100% useless. Having case by case leeway on what skills can apply to a subject, and what type of information a given skill can offer about a given subject, is already the way RK works.
This also goes in the other direction. A GM could also reasonably rule that Swarm Lore is appropriate, but that it will only give information that fits as being about the swarming behavior of a swarm, and not information that's about the details of the component creatures.
That last portion is where I was leaning with the Lore: Fighting Swarms suggestion. That your PC is good at understanding/determining Swarm characteristics for Swarms, but not so much their lifestyles, etc. So the PC might see that bludgeoning has the lowest Resistance for Swarm X because of (insert reasons). Might be kind enough re: Worm that Walks to help with catching straggling worms, but not so much about their spellcasting or personal history.