On the value of Lore - how many skill points to have?

[Tsidkenu]

Take ten.

AFAIK you cannot take 10 with Knowledge skills. You either know something or you don't. If you should know it, you're making a d20 roll to see if you remember it.

[Rhifox]

I would agree that for a level 30 server that DCs should probably be made 10 points higher than is standard for PnP games.

[Boddynock]

I think most of the skill DCs and other such reference material for D&D is based on a lvl 20 cap.

We're lvl 30 here.

I think my bard can keep greater heroism running the entire duration the server will be up: reset to reset. Edit: Without resting.

The DCs should be 10 higher than quotes earlier. That at least nullifies the "take 10" advantage and makes skill-based or Int-based classes need more than one point to be exceptional at it.

Other classes would have to invest (not even that heavily imo) but they can still achieve expert status on subjects.

See? DC inflation. The DCs in the sourcebooks aren't set by a level 20 cap, they aren't level based at all, or they would look more like this: "Hard DC is equal to CL +15". The DCs just are what they are.

Also, I just logged on Liam to check this, but it loks like all my bardic knowledge points went into what is know Knowledge: Arcana...wha?

Bardic Knowledge

A bard may make a special bardic knowledge check with a bonus equal to his bard level + his Intelligence modifier to see whether he knows some relevant information about local notable people, legendary items, or noteworthy places. (If the bard has 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (history), he gains a +2 bonus on this check.)

A successful bardic knowledge check will not reveal the powers of a magic item but may give a hint as to its general function. A bard may not take 10 or take 20 on this check; this sort of knowledge is essentially random.
DC Type of Knowledge
10 Common, known by at least a substantial minority of the local population.
20 Uncommon but available, known by only a few people legends.
25 Obscure, known by few, hard to come by.
30 Extremely obscure, known by very few, possibly forgotten by most who once knew it, possibly known only by those who don’t understand the significance of the knowledge.

If knowledge arcana is going to still be the basis by which items are identified, then sure, keep the bardic knowledge points there, but now they have to also be added to geography, history, local, and nobility and royalty, to cover all the things bardic knowledge should cover.

[Selande]

Take ten.

AFAIK you cannot take 10 with Knowledge skills. You either know something or you don't. If you should know it, you're making a d20 roll to see if you remember it.

I think you're confusing take ten with try again.

Pretty sure you can take ten on knowledge checks. You can't roll again on them a round later if you failed, however.

[Boddynock]

Checks without Rolls

A skill check represents an attempt to accomplish some goal, usually while under some sort of time pressure or distraction. Sometimes, though, a character can use a skill under more favorable conditions and eliminate the luck factor.
Taking 10

When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure —you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help.
Taking 20

When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, eventually you will get a 20 on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.

Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take.

Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search.


So this doesn't outright say it, but heavily implies you can take ten, but not take 20. Because taking 20 implies a number f failures before success, and is not allowed on skills that do not allow a try again.

[Hoihe]

On DC inflation consider the fact that we have a bunch of skills now, 10 in fact.

With just 1 lore skill, I'm already starved with 369 skill points (Yes, three hundred sixty nine).

This is a build that has 16 intelligence and lots of rogue levels.

If we go with "Character level +15" for our DCs for knowledge...

Knowledge Arcana would get its full investment.
But character might as well not take any ranks in the following skills, even though I'd freely assign them otherwise with:
Knowledge (Geography) 15
Knowledge (History) 5
Knowledge (Religion) 3
Knowledge (Nature) 5
Knowledge (Planes) 2
Knowledge (Dungeoneering) 3

And with PnP DCs, it'd reflect pretty well the character's actual knowledge. With the "All DCs must be a challenge", I might as well just put most of those into say... Diplomacy or UMD or Tumble.

With "All DCs must be a challenge" mentality, you either get 25+ in a skill or just leave it alone. With PnP DCs you can spread out your skills and maybe invest just 10, 5, 20... whatever you fancy, comparing it with a chance against a certain DC you want to consistently pass.

Sure, Intelligence will help. Spells will help, but ranks are what signifies character investment, intelligence character understanding and spells... well, spells are cheating.

[Selande]

If everyone is the master of every Knowledge for all the reasons of see above...

Then what's the point of actually having a character devoted to it? We're back at square one with only one Lore skill and many builds easily able to hit 60 DCs.

Look at Candlekeep. Loremasters of ________ Oh wait they can't specialize in anything because they're all the masters of everything.

Same thing would be the case if these DCs are trivial.

[Hoihe]

I don't see how Candlekeep could get consistent DCs of 60 with any build other than rogue 30 with maxed int and no investment in anything else.

A human wizard build with 30 intelligence should get something like 293 skill points.

They need a lot of skill points.

If the character only invests into these skills they'd give up 150 points already to get 15 in each, 333 if they want to max everything.


Now if someone buffs their skill up, that's another matter.

But Ranks are what a character really knows, and what we should be looking at.

The super high DCs that need buffs should be the most obscure knowledge in that field, not something that's basic or even just a little hard.

[Selande]

Chuck a rock in Candlekeep and you'll hit a nerd that can beat the DC.

And then be blown to smitherines...


When I was part of the guild, they even had a thread for research purposes where they divvied up their Lore into the appropriate categories, trying to find some kind of identity amongst them. Pretty sure you were part of that thread, Hoihe.

And for what it matters, my skill-monkey (who was also my Candlekeep toon) has zero points in Lore. I don't think it's so much how many skillpoints you have available as it is what skills are in-class and worthwhile to your toon.

[Boddynock]

I'm with Hoihe on this. We have to make sure that people who want to put some points in a knowledge but not become a master in that field don't feel like they just wasted the points. Part of that is just saying "Hey DMs, not all DCs have to be eight billion"... And I know, before you jump on me, that isn't always the case. But once again, Hoihe said it best with this.

"With just 1 lore skill, I'm already starved with 369 skill points (Yes, three hundred sixty nine)."

How can you be starved for skill points with that many? Easy, because on our server DCs are so inflated, if you want to benefit from a skill you put pints in, you have to max it out, plain and simple. (With very few exceptions)

Players should feel, when developing thier character ideas, that they can safely say "Hey, I want this guy to have lived with a mapmaker for a while, so I'll throw a few points in geography to represent that, but not fill it up." and then not have them feel like an idiot every time a geography DC pops up and its is a DC of 40+. When that happens, those literally turn into wasted points, and no one appreciates that feeling. We all put on a brave face and many of us say "Oh, it's ok I do it because it is RP appropriate." But wouldn't we feel better if we were actually rewarded with manageable challenges for our RP accurate builds, instead of feeling like we have to choose between picking RP skills and being capable of contributing mechanically to the success of our character and party?

[Boddynock]

Chuck a rock in Candlekeep and you'll hit a nerd that can beat the DC.

And then be blown to smitherines...


When I was part of the guild, they even had a thread for research purposes where they divvied up their Lore into the appropriate categories, trying to find some kind of identity amongst them. Pretty sure you were part of that thread, Hoihe.

And for what it matters, my skill-monkey (who was also my Candlekeep toon) has zero points in Lore. I don't think it's so much how many skillpoints you have available as it is what skills are in-class and worthwhile to your toon.

And, just for clarity, what is wrong with this? So what if every other member of that faction has insane lore checks? You know what that does? That gives other PCs a reason to involve the CK PCs in roleplay when they need to speak to someone who is highly educated or knowledgeable on a subject. Having certain classes/builds that tend to be masters of certain skills encourages RP when collaboration is needed and the risk of failure is great. IF failure means a huge consequence, you have to go find a guy (or gal) who basically has no chance of failure. What is the problem with that?

[Hoihe]

Also...

For every 5 points above the D.C. you gain 1 additional piece of information. What does this mean?

It means while my 5 rank deep knowledge of History on Hoihe will allow me to answer even D.C. 25 checks if I am lucky, especially with his/herintelligence, i will only get the answer to the question asked, not the whole picture.

So imagine I ask the wrong question and get the answer and remain ignorant of its exact significance.

Now someone with 25 history comes along and rolls a 45. They realize the question is not structured properly, restructure it and ask a better question and realize its significance and some not so obvious factors.

[AlwaysSummer Day]

My character Maxwell is RPed as a Dwarven Lore master. He knows all things dwarven and when buffed reaches 99 on a critical roll. He knows some things in regards to engineering, geneology, smithing, and history however other subjects I RP him as clueless in. Granted every single Bard I come across RPs their high lore as knowing everything. Makes me cringe every time. . .

[Grimdark Hitman]

Which is why I just preached to the choir hours ago on the IRC that bards should have lower lore skills than wizards (at least in arcana).

[Theodore01]

Do all these new different lore aspects have (or will get) any mechanical use in game or are they only useful in DM events ?