41 réponses à ce sujet

[PJ156]

I want to set up a situation where, within a conversation, a character of 16th level can only pass a lore skill check if they have taken skill focus in lore.

 

My point being, is that the fact they need to have to solve a puzzle is so obscure that only the most dedicate lore monger could get it. Later the character will be given hints to solve the puzzle and the lore requirement will drop but, in the first instance, only the best should be able to guess the puzzle.

 

I know the character can take four points at the start then 1 per level so a character could have 20 at lv 16 but where else could lore come from. Int is one I think but are there any other character feats or stats that add to lore.

 

What I need to do is put the lore check at minimum X where X is the max it could be at lv 16 without skill focus.

 

My question to all you rules and stats people is:

 

What is X?

 

Thanks,

 

PJ

[Thorsson64]

You are going to have some problems. Apart from the Intelligence modifier Bards & Harper Agents have Class Knowledge. In addition there are buffs, with Bards being particularly adept - Inspire Competence & Heroism.

[Arkalezth]

Well, unless you check for the feat itself (which is really a feat nobody would ever take), certain character types will be able to pass the DC.

Bards and harpers get 1 lore per class level, dwarves get a racial +2 bonus, some backgrounds add another +1 or +2, and maybe some of the level 1-only feats as well. If you add all those up, the possible score is much higher than a "normal" character with Skill Focus.

[kevL]

... check for the feat itself ...

+1

[PJ156]

It's more complex than i imagined so yes, I will check for the feat as an indication that the player is all lore'd up.

 

Thanks

 

PJ

[Arkalezth]

Just keep in mind that, unless people know about this feature and take the feat for that reason, I wouldn't be surprised if no player would ever find it.

Maybe I'm wrong and Skill Focus: Lore is a very popular feat, but I sincerely doubt so.

[kamal_]

Unless there's some kind prestige class that requires it, I doubt anyone has ever taken skill focus: lore. I would just count on the player needing to collect all the hints and such unless they have x levels of bard. If they don't then you give them a DC check. So you might put in the conditional as x levels of bard or skill focus: lore.

[Dann-J]

I don't see why it should matter how a character gets a high lore skill. Whether it's from a skill focus feat, their intelligence bonus, a class-related feat, a potion of lore, a legend lore spell, or a ring of scholars - it's still the same lore ranking regardless of the source.

 

The simplest way would be to do a skill rank check based on what the average wizard would have at that level (assuming maximum points in lore at each level, and their likely intelligence bonus), then add a couple of points on top of that. Then any character who has a boosted lore skill from whatever source would pass the check.

[Tchos]

I agree with Dann.  Skill Focus: Lore gives you only a +3 to the Lore skill, but a bard of that level should be able to cast Legend Lore and gain +10 to the Lore skill, which amounts to using divination to magically gain knowledge on a topic.  Why shouldn't that count?

[kevL]

but that's so.. obvious

 

sometimes a game mechanic is just a game mechanic

[GCoyote]

I want to set up a situation where, within a conversation, a character of 16th level can only pass a lore skill check if they have taken skill focus in lore.

My point being, is that the fact they need to have to solve a puzzle is so obscure that only the most dedicate lore monger could get it. Later the character will be given hints to solve the puzzle and the lore requirement will drop but, in the first instance, only the best should be able to guess the puzzle. ...

Thanks,

PJ

But sometimes it's more fun to do things the hard way. :-) [damn Samsung isn't showing the emoticons]

I have to agree, setting the requirements to include skill focus: lore is functionally the same as skipping it and making them collect the necessary clues from the start.

Stray thought: If one of the conversation choices at the beginning of this quest is clearly marked as a [Lore] option you might present the player with the problem of acquiring the necessary lore skills or solving the problem by other means.

[PJ156]

I understand that there are ways of boosting lore and a Bard might be able to do that and solve the puzzle but casting that before the conversation. I considered that and it would be an unlikely action I think. Unless perhaps in a second run through the player had a heads up that it was possible to gain an advantage at that point. In the end the result will be the same. The player will get it later on in the game, maybe an npc will make the connection if they are low in lore and int. This is just to test if the player has the chance of that flash of brilliance to get the solution right from the outset.

 

The test is less about, "what is your lore DC?", though it needs to be high, it is more about; "are you so dedicated to lore as a skill that you have taken a feat to boost it?" I rarely power play builds. If I chose to run a trader worshiping Denier through the game then I take lore and appraise skill focus.

 

Thanks for the replies,

 

PJ

[Jfoxtail]

Hey PJ 

 

Two things.

 

Failed to be mentioned here are spells like Legend Lore which obviously affect the mechanics; so another option is to simply plant an generic scroll in a placeable to see if players are smart enough to keep it  

 

More importantly ~ this issue of Lore and specific sub-realms of Lore.

 

The Skill check is a mechanic of the game especially electronically. The engine doesn't allow for detailed PnP style common sense application.

 

Test : Who shot JFK ??

 

We may not live in the USA and frankly most of us here (including me) were not alive but I bet we know answers and may have further opinions ! LOL

 

A Fighter with a militia background may have some "military lore" that includes the "legends of a specific battle eons ago" that may be important to the plot. As a DM I would rule it applicable (or not) and roll an intelligence or memory check.

 

Perhaps I would simply roll D20 and based on the result  I would feed accurate info (high roll) or inaccurate info (low roll).

 

If the Lore is "plot specific" I would encourage you to offer multiple channels to "solve" for... some of which can even provide "mis information leading to traps, sets ups, ambushes....with proof at the ambush to help re-direct players on the correct path.

 

Don't leave it to "skill focus Lore"... although that can perhaps be the only method to get a 100% true answer....

 

~ spell i.e legend lore and Lore skill > X gives 100% true

~ Random books placed in mod "check inventory > Y gives 75% true + 1 ambush and one collectible to get correct answer.

~ Intelligence check "success" Z gives 50% true + 2 ambush and to collectibles to get correct answer 

~ Bluff / Persuade / Intimidate success gives 25% true + 3 ambushes etc 

~ Fail = ambush that is serious death trap as rival group / master boss left false bread crumb trail to kill off any rivals.

[Jfoxtail]

Test answer: Harvey Oswald acting alone....

 

LMAO 

[Naeryna]

I guess only fool who did invest skill points in lore (I especially put points in lore when I play with bard, silly me) was me. I didn't know lots of classes get to boost lore? I knew about bards...

[Arkalezth]

Not lots of classes, just bard and harper agent, and wizard if you count Legend Lore and/or Heroism (even sorcerers have better spells to pick in their limited selection). Skill points in Lore are ok, but investing a feat to gain 3 more ranks is a waste. And, of course, there's also the spell Identify.

In the end, it's up to the module's author. I think extra dialogue and content for certain classes and the like is great, but I'd imagine that the chances that a player takes ANY Skill Focus in the first place and that it happens to be lore in particular are close to zero. There's a huge gap between that and powerbuilding, and I just don't see much point in including something that nobody's ever going to see (not counting players who take the feat or console it because they know about this beforehand, but that would never do that otherwise).

As for checking the feat, well, it's also unlikely, but what if I take it but I don't invest skill points in lore? I guess you'd have to include a DC as well somewhere.

[Basher of Glory]

In the end, it's up to the module's author. I think extra dialogue and content for certain classes and the like is great, but I'd imagine that the chances that a player takes ANY Skill Focus in the first place and that it happens to be lore in particular are close to zero. There's a huge gap between that and powerbuilding, and I just don't see much point in including something that nobody's ever going to see (not counting players who take the feat or console it because they know about this beforehand, but that would never do that otherwise).

 

There is a "nice" example about what happens, when the devs (aka authors) literally force certain feats upon classes:

 

Some years ago I played that DDO (D&D online) for a while.

Level cap was ten, but every level had four stages which granted something like an attribute point or even a feat.

 

Especially for the rogue the DC-checks were on any given level maxed, meaning that the rogue without investing every skill point and feat into open lock and disable device would simply be incompetent.

 

If you build a rogue like that, then you will have a locksmith and a deminer, but not a sneaking backstabber. In other words: For most of the players it was no fun, because they were all used to play their rogues in an offensive way.

 

When you looked for a party you were asked "do you have feat x and skill focus y?" If the answer was "no", well, you had to look for the next party.

(The same happened to clerics, who were degraded to pure healing monkeys).

 

After a while it was really hard to find rogues for a PUG. Why? Most players didn't like it and put their rogues to rest.

 

I dare say, that the missing success of this MMO was a result of these indirectly dictated evolvement of certain classes.

 

So, authors and devs: Leave always a second option and don't force your players to take feats which nobody would take!

[Thorsson64]

I really wanted to like DDO. I made my first Halfling Xbowman there, and even ended up in the testing team. But as is often the case, the developers didn't really listen to the testers and I gave up in disgust.

[PJ156]

Perhaps if it's that obscure for people to take the feat I will go about it another way.

 

*shuffles away to ponder some more"

[rjshae]

There are several other feats that provide a Lore bonus: Appraiser (+1), Foreigner (+1), Tale Teller (+1), Wizard's Apprentice (+1), and Courteous Magocracy (+2).

[Lugaid of the Red Stripes]

Well, if you're up for doing things the hard way, you could make a sidequest that grants the skill focus: lore feat as reward.  Simple as clearing a library full of rats, or maybe collecting a bunch of different books scattered across the gameworld.  The really difficult way to do it would be with a set of conversations that require many successful lore checks to complete, like outwitting a Sphinx, out-lawyering a local bureaucrat, or winning trivia night at the local tavern.  The player still has to go out of their way to show their dedication to mastering lore, but can get there without wasting a feat.

[Tchos]

In this case it's not so much like DDO where you're forcing players to take a feat, but rather just creating a near-certain probability that no one will see the special content.  I don't think that's a bad thing per se... I did very much the same thing in BSoCC, where I put in a couple of bonus options for characters with exceptionally high skill levels, but which were just barely possible at the intended level with certain backgrounds, foci, or buffs like potions, spells, or bardic inspirations.  One required a high appraise skill, another required the same appraise but also a high diplomacy skill, and the other required a high search skill.  But I used skill level alone, rather than for instance checking for the feat Blessed of Waukeen instead of the appraise skill.

 

Still, my expectation is that no one has seen any of those things when they played it.  And I even put a quest behind one of them.    You're letting players play through the quest even without passing these checks, which is much more lenient.

[kevL]

@PJ, don't let 'em get to ya

If you'd never brought this up nobody would ever know. Except maybe that lone fringe lunacidal loremaster whose sole roleplay hope is one day to ID the Artefact of Obscure Reasons ...

"ah, Grasshoppa, you look like a curious one. Bend ye close and I will whisper a tale ...."

 

 

 

 

or, how long does a Feat check take to implement, 5 mins?

[PJ156]

Heh, I don't mind in the least. It's good to hear all the different thoughts on the matter.

 

Aside from that I prefer a dozens corrections than silence. I am still pondering how I will do this though.

 

PJ

[Arkalezth]

If it's a puzzle, maybe check intelligence and/or wisdom as well? Or the class, depending on what type of lore it is (i.e. if it's magical lore, it would be even more unlikely for a fighter  to know about it)?