The Lore Skill and Monsters

[Thrym]

Thought about posting this in the DM Q&A section first, but I figured some players might perhaps have faced similiar trouble:

Reading the sentence 'No one knows everything' in the 'Shadow Weave' thread made me think a bit. Of course, no one knows everything, but... how much may a PC know about Monsters etc. when no DM is around? How much of our known knowledge can we have our char know depending on his Lore check?

Basic DC in pen and paper is 15+HD to know a few very basic things. This works nicely with chars that have a relatively normal lore skill. Character rolls and either fails or beats the DC barely or with some luck by 5 or so. No info, or some basic stuff like name, is it an undead/outsider etc., and maybe the ability it is most likely known for (For example: It's called a shadow, it's undead and it can sap away your strength) . Don't think there's much of a problem with that.

Now though, a high level wizard like Zae has an -insanely- high lore skill. When I heard of the white slaad and Zae decided to search for it for example, I rolled Lore about it first.... result was somewhere between 50 and 60.

Now a 50 or 60 beats the DC even for (most) epic monsters pretty effortlessly, so I was wondering... what can I assume my char knows with such a roll? Sure looks like he'd know a LOT about said creature, but... where is the border to metagaming here?

I really enjoy having Zae know lots of stuff about things other people have no idea off, that's a part of playing a wizard in my opinion (;D), but I wonder how much I may actually assume to know with my char.

Cause well... if you roll a 60 about something, that's sometimes pretty hard to tell.

[heimdall]

If he's encountered it in game 'before'...it's usually a safe bet to say he's been able to subsequently research it 'afterwards' and will have a greater understanding of what he's dealing with in the future.

If it's not something he's encountered 'before' and there is no DM on to ask, then just play that it is something he has never seen before...and then he can go research it later on.

That's my opinion on it anyways. When in doubt, ask on the DM Channel or send a PM to the gang and we're usually pretty quick on the replies.

Always err on the side of caution however. It's easier to research it after the fact than to have to go back and 'unlearn what you have learned'...which usually makes no sense and gets too OOC for my tastes. I bet Vangerdahast has a higher lore skill than Zae (no offense heh) and there are still things that he hasn't seen before and has to study to learn more about.

[Thrym]

Yeah well, of course one might never had met a creature, but how would that prevent one from knowing about it? I never met a tiger either, and still know what it is.

And wizards DO spent much time reading after all, shouldn't they know some beings at least without having seen them? Zae has never seen a ... spinagon or a lemure for example, but sure read loads of tomes about the nine hells, so I'd assume him to know what those are.

[heimdall]

Hey, you asked....I answered.

[Munroe]

Also remember that Lore is not Knowledge skill. Lore is Bioware's excuse for all Knowledge skills, and a poor excuse it is. Expect any Lore DCs you get from a DM to be much much much higher than the equivalent Knowledge check.

[gathera]

What is that old adage "ignorance is bliss" heh. Now what would I ever do if I didn't have my ol'fountain of knowledge mister Zaebros to ask. I would say in the case of the white Slaad given that you have the means to summon a red you should know about such a creature. After all in order to call upon such a entity in my opinion you would have at least some tentative contact/dealings with the ruling creatures of Limbo anyway. Having knowledge of a white Slaad to my mind is a sort of linked knowledge concept. An field of knowledge well studied so well known. Conversely even with a high lore to my mind as an example you would be utterly clueless to say heraldic symbols of the Lords of Cormyr. I have used that sort of concept with a few of my characters. Fairly extensive knowledge in a few fields that I feel closely associated with them and utter clueless in others. Hmmm cuts a bit close to home that but again this is just me. My two cents take it or leave it.

[Driderman]

*Grabs Gatheras two cents and runs*

[Myth]

I think I agree with Gathera on this, or at least that's how I've RPed it even when playing a Loremaster Bard. It's nice if you choose one field of knowledge and say your char is expert on -that- one. Or maybe more than one if say you've invested a lot on lore.

Still having even a 60 or so roll in lore wouldn't be able to reveal something our chars really have -no- way of knowing.

But anyway, I'd expect someone with access to resources, could always spend a day or two researching prior to say go fighting a monster, and find out about some of it's most known traits...

[Quadhund/Greenhouse]

Here's my feeling.

The lore skill, as Munroe pointed out, combines all the knowledge skills into one. So we have to seperate out what our characters actually know. As a DM, how are we supposed to know which areas your PCs are experts in? Not to say any players would do this, but one day a wizard could say he is an expert on outsiders, and then next be an expert on religion. What I am basically driving at is that until a DM has access to your background (whether it be from a PM or placed in the adventure registry), you cannot claim that you have knowledge of something. Now you might go ahead and roll the lore skill and ask a DM if you know something and you still might get some knowledge.

So now you've picked your area of expertise. This still does not mean you know everything about this field. Sure you can summon a red slaad, but maybe there is only 1 white slaad in existence?

So moral of the story is don't assume on any basis that you know something obscure. If there is something you wish to know if your PC knows about, then just ask. If it is a fairly common occurence (like there are 9 hells) then I think it is safe to say you probably know about it.

[max]

I might get yelled at here, but i have my character's history with him reading up about all the evil things. Like he knows about most of the chaotic evil creatures from reading up on books in one of the Temples of Torm he stayed in while he was a squire to His Paladin Mentor, thus he knows some about slaad's, balors, succubi, the chaos plane, and hell hounds.
Does he know how everything works on the inside out, nope, he just knows what they look like and they're evil, and the chaos plane is bad, thats all he knows, so he isn't fully informed about everything. But me as a player knows whats on the up and up, but i don't put all the info i know into my char.

[EDM Neo]

max said:

Like he knows about most of the chaotic evil creatures from reading up on books in one of the Temples of Torm he stayed in while he was a squire to His Paladin Mentor, thus he knows some about slaad's, balors, succubi, the chaos plane, and hell hounds.

Actually, Hell Hounds are lawful evil. :3

www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hellHound.htm

[Myth]

And all slaadi afaik are chaotic neutral...

[Gabusta]

neoseanster said:

max said:

Like he knows about most of the chaotic evil creatures from reading up on books in one of the Temples of Torm he stayed in while he was a squire to His Paladin Mentor, thus he knows some about slaad's, balors, succubi, the chaos plane, and hell hounds.

Actually, Hell Hounds are lawful evil. :3

www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hellHound.htm

And Slaadi are not CE evil(most of them are not, anyway), but CN, they come from the "chaos plane"(was Limbo before, have no idea if it's still called this with this weird new cosmology), and as nonevil creatures really shouldn't be smited by a paladin, except maybe the death slaad, who actually is CE in most sourcebooks.
Bah, I'm rambling...


EDIT: Bah, gotta look at all the posts before posting anything... Well, I'm tired anyway...

[hexer]

max said:

I might get yelled at here, but i have my character's history with him reading up about all the evil things. Like he knows about most of the chaotic evil creatures from reading up on books in one of the Temples of Torm he stayed in while he was a squire to His Paladin Mentor, thus he knows some about slaad's, balors, succubi, the chaos plane, and hell hounds.

That's a tall claim to make. Writing all the knowledge on evil and chaos into your character history's not really allowed. If that were the case, every player could say "Oh, my character once lived at Candlekeep and studied everything there is to know about everything."

Please, unless it is a common monster (goblin, orc, minotaur, gnoll, etc), use only what you learn in game. That's the extent of your character's knowledge. What you see and hear while playing on our server, not what knowledge you 'poofed' into exsistance in the character's history.

[btaf90]

WOOO HOOO! Finally!

I just knew that years of cultivated ignorance would pay off one day!

[EDM Neo]

I'm presuming that, even if we know nothing that our character didn't directly learn, some things are common knowledge... but just how far does common knowledge go? I'd think things like knowing a vampire's common weaknesses (garlic, holy water, stakes, etc), or not to look at a Medusa/Basilisk would be pretty well known, but then again, meh... should it be assumed that unless a character learned it through first hand experience, or something else like that, we know nothing about whatever random creature we encounter?

And while on the topic of knowing things... if a character succeeds at a spellcraft check, and learns the identity of a spell, does that mean that he/she automatically knows what the spell does, or even what it's named? Or just that they recognize it as being magic?

*corrects typos 20 months after the post was made*

[hexer]

neoseanster said:

I'm presuming that, eevn if we know nothing that our character didn't directly learn, some things are common knowledge... but just how far does common knowledge go? I'd think things like knowing a vampire's common weaknesses (garlic, holy water, stakes, etc), or not to look at a Medusa/Basilisk would be pretty well known, but then again, meh... should it be assumed that unless a character learned it through first hand experience, or something else like that, we know nothing about whatever random creature we encounter?

And while on the topic of knowing things... if a character succeeds at a spellcraft check, and learns the identity of a spell, does that mean that he/she automatically knows what the spell does, or even what it's named? Or just that they recognize it as being magic?

Well, to compile a list of every creature in D&D and give you what would be considered in the realm of common knowledge is a massive undertaking.

As a rule of thumb, use common sense. How often are these types of creatures encountered? Do they play a large role in Cormyr? Are they close to civilization or out in the middle of knowhere? Is the creature something bizzare and exotic (aboleth, for instance) with a form completely unlike anything even vaugely humaniod? Or is it a creature that his humaniod and fairly common?

For example, a common Faerunian is likely to know near nothing about the Underdark's denizens except that there are drow, mind flayers, and duergar. Why? Because these are the few races that ever actually interact with the surface (though in those cases its almost always a violent raid).

Another example would be fiends or celestials. Sure, the commoner in question is aware that there are fiends and celestials, but chances are he wouldn't know the names of every kind of fiend and he almost *certainly* wouldn't know the names of most of the fiendish lords (there are a few exceptions out there that have played large roles in the server's past). The same goes for different types of celestials and their Paragons. He might refer to them all as 'angels' and leave it at that.

Why? Because these beings aren't the day-to-day. Chances are that Farmer John in this small rural community has never seen a fiend, let alone know every detail about them.

It all comes down to common sense. Keep in mind that this is a medieval setting and that knowledge is limited because, well, not every town and city has a library or academies. Folk in a medieval setting tend to know what they hear and see. Sure, a mage might know more and may be willing to share more, but in Faerun, the population of arcane spellcasters is fairly small. And, on top of that, its a rare mage that will take time away from his studies to give a course in the thousands of different and exotic creatures roaming the world to Farmer John.


As far as spellcraft goes, if you succeed a spellcraft check, you are aware of what the spell is. Be it the name, the function, whatever. If you succeed a spellcraft roll, you're entitled to all that knowledge, and you can choose to say "Oh, this spell is Lesser Planar binding and it calls forth an outsider from another plane to ours for a short period of time" or say "I've not seen this spell before, but I believe it conjurs something..." Its your discression.

[hexer]

Just like to add that I think things that are exceptionally popular in old folklore are probably well known about. Like, as you said, vampires. The people might not know ever last detail about them, but things like garlic, a stake, and holy water are a fairly safe bet. A rural community experiencing vampiric attacks by night might hang garlic on their doors and windows and sleep with a stake.

Of course, *identifying* a vampire by appearance is a different matter. Just because it says 'vampire' over its head doesn't mean your character's aware of it. Identifying something that looks completely human by sight is a hard task.

A person probably wouldn't be able to tell a Tyrantfog Zombie from a regular zombie until they got close enough to smell it. A ghast may as well be a ghoul.

My suggestion? Disable the floating names over everything and go by what you see the creature do.

[EDM Neo]

*revives old topics*

There might be somewhere more suitable to ask this, but this if the first topic on lore I found, and I didn't want to make a new one, so, here goes.

What exactly do items that give a general bonus to lore do, in regards to what a character actually knows? Does a +5 to Lore from an item represent the equivelent of a character gaining some amount of knowledge in regards to all things? Does it only apply to a specific area of lore? Or what?

How different is putting on a ring that gives +5 lore from putting 5 skill points in it at level up?

[The Supreme Watcher]

A ring that gives 5 lore does not allow you to know more BS. It gives you the ability to identify magical properties. In this case, there is a break from knowledge (anything) and knowledge (arcana).

We can assume that rings that grant a bonus to lore are used to identify substances, properties, and objects of a magical nature.

The difference is great in the same stripe, Neo.

Whereas at level up you can gain more accessible knowledge through your travels and represent this in a lore rank increase, the ring is limited to only allowing you to get bonuses on knowledge (arcana).

Now if there was a book of lore (which I'm sure there is -somewhere- on Cormyr), such as a magical encyclopedia, or an encyclopedia of "magical beasts" or such, then that would be applicable in other skills, maybe a book on demons and devils would grant knowledge (the planes), or a book on ecology would grant knowledge (nature).

The possibilities are endless for your Lore check, but I believe that Rings of Lore are representative of an item that assists the user in identifying magical items.

[The Supreme Watcher]

As a followup, I would like to say that I used a bit of reasoning from Pen and Paper.

Sorry if it's inapplicable to the unilateral lore check of NWN

[EDM Neo]

For reference, I'm just looking for people's opinions on this in general, rather then in regards to any one specific item (such as a ring that specifically helps to identify magical items)... the ring I used was just an example, there are other items that give bonuses to lore, such as books, magical robes, helms, amulets, and so on, some of which specify giving knowledge in a specific area, but some of which don't specify in their descriptions.

Thanks for the response.

[Grozer]

Personally I look at them as a magical effect. The items with a lore bonus are enchanted items in my opinion and they dont really allow you to "know more", I mean if they did what happens when you are not using them or you remove the item? You become less knowledgable?

So my personal style of handling them is have the item grant some magical enhancement. For example when slipping on the ring +5 lore, the runes on a magical item shimmer and glow giving off a feeling or sense of the magical properties of the unidentified item.

For me this explains why once I remove the lore boost item it doesnt permanently grant knowledge and as such I need to reuse it each time.

[ShadowCatJen]

The +5 rings of lore have probably been always the hardest object to translate into an RP sense. Even harder since taking the object off suddenly makes the lore you knew "go away".

The way I've always thought of it that the lore rings don't so much give you more knowledge so much as sharpen your memory magically.

For example, say someone describes to you about a monster. You have your +5 to lore ring on, but your character also has never come across the creature being described. However, the magic of the ring makes you recall a book you had flipped through once that had a picture of exactly what is described. You can remember the name of it, but that's about it.

Or say some scandal comes up regarding a local lord. You don't know the latest word, but the rings help you recall a conversation you overheard a year ago between two guards concerning that same lord. Your head didn't put much importance on the conversation then, but the ring helps bring the memory back to the front of your mind.

I'd say that the rings don't help with something your character has never even vaguely come across before or helps with anything that is "super secret". So a person can't have two of those rings, roll a 20 on their lore, and suddenly just happen know that there are three distinct druidic circles, each with their own languages.

... nononono... don't work that way.

Least, this is just all my own take on all of it.

[brian333]

I had always thought of the Lore items as something specifically used to identify items as opposed to increasing memory or knowledge.

This way it's more like an Identify spell than a means to recall the History of Hulruaa. It doesn't confer knowledge or memory, it just makes it easier to tell how powerful the enchantments on your longsword may be.

P.S. I'm opposed to Lore being used to tell what an item is, it should be a spellcraft check instead, but I didn't design NWN.

[The Supreme Watcher]

Brian, Spellcraft would NEVER be used to identify items. Spellcraft is used ONLY to determine the identity of a spell or a spell's effects.

Knowledge (Arcana) is the correct corresponding skill in the Pen and Paper world to identify magical properties on items.

However, in Neverwinter Nights' engine, there are no knowledge skills, they're all roped up into the general category of Lore.

That's where the divide comes. We must each have our character determine what sort of Lore they have.

For example, a rogue might have Knowledge (local) and Knowledge (Dungeoneering). A PDK might have Knowledge (nobility/royalty) and Knowledge (Local) Etc.

Clerics, Wizards, Sorcerors, and Bards are the best candidates for the Knowledge (arcana) skill and I would say that they are the ones best suited to identifying magical porperties imbued in an item.

Lore is NOT one skill, it is a myriad of different skills compiled into one.

Ancient, I could use your abilities in this discussion.

[EDM Entori]

Sept 17, 2008 19:01:21 GMT -5 The Supreme Watcher said:

Brian, Spellcraft would NEVER be used to identify items. Spellcraft is used ONLY to determine the identity of a spell or a spell's effects.

Knowledge (Arcana) is the correct corresponding skill in the Pen and Paper world to identify magical properties on items.

However, in Neverwinter Nights' engine, there are no knowledge skills, they're all roped up into the general category of Lore.

That's where the divide comes. We must each have our character determine what sort of Lore they have.

For example, a rogue might have Knowledge (local) and Knowledge (Dungeoneering). A PDK might have Knowledge (nobility/royalty) and Knowledge (Local) Etc.

Clerics, Wizards, Sorcerors, and Bards are the best candidates for the Knowledge (arcana) skill and I would say that they are the ones best suited to identifying magical porperties imbued in an item.

Lore is NOT one skill, it is a myriad of different skills compiled into one.

Ancient, I could use your abilities in this discussion.

woa.. *hauls out the lassoo* SLOW down..

Yes we all know, and brian also knows that lore is mulitple categories in dnd, I think brian just meant to say that NWN as an engine where it does not have an arcana, spellcraft would be the closest thing, just because they lumped all the lore together, we have to make due.

I'd agree with this for NWN Rp purposes because, well that way we have a figure to represent Arcana knowledge, other then lore.

while it is good Rp to break it down or limit ones knowledge, I think everyone needs to make that judgement call themselves

[ashaffer]

I actually never use Rings of Insight for anything but identifying items... To me, the name it's called gives a slight hint on how the ring works:


Insight

1: n. clear or deep perception of a situation [syn: penetration]
2: a feeling of understanding [syn: perceptiveness, perceptivity]
3: the clear (and often sudden) understanding of a complex situation [syn: brainstorm, brainwave]
4: grasping the inner nature of things intuitively [syn: sixth sense]



But people need to keep in mind that these rings should never be confused with what the Identify, or Legend Lore, spells do...

[EDM Entori]

knowledge (arcana)
knowledge (architecture and engineering)
Knowledge (duengoneering)
Knowledge (geography)
knowledge (history)
Knowledge (local)
Knowledge (nature)
Knowledge (nobility and Royalty)
Knowledge (the planes)

for those with no idea whats being said..


Lore is broken up in dnd as above,

this was taken from the table on pg 63, phB

[ancientempathy]

I'd like to take a very simple, laidback approach with lore rings in NwN

I take into account two things

1.) It's a video game
2.) The rings description

What is the Ring of Insight's description in NwN?

Description:

These rings are coveted by sages and bards alike, and more than one befuddled professor owes his academic reputation to one of those "scholar's friends." They are no less valuable to adventurers, who put them to more practical use identifying magic items.

Past what the description says, I don't use a lore ring for anything else.

Items that give a lore bonus on a grand scale....

My first question is; What's the name of the item called? And then the second question is; What's the description of the item?

Typically that'll help me use the bonus that the item provides.

If there are no specifics, meaning, you aren't given any hints as to what the lore bonus may pertain to...then most fortunate for the adventurer who found it. You've now an item you can use for multiple fields of lore *shrugs* Just be sure to practice modesty. DM's like that

Hope that helps

I'll indulge on my character's general approach to the use of NwN LORE (not using items) if requested, but right now I'll refrain from boring people