Post/Author/DateTime	Post
technochris81 03-24-06, 02:02 AM	a few questions about these two 1. how often does a piece of knowledge fall under both? 2. if something does fall under both, does that mean you get to roll on both if you have the appropriate knowledge skill and bardic knowledge? 3. should the DC be the same for both? or should it be higher for one than the other? why? thanks, -chris
Thorak 03-24-06, 02:09 AM	a few questions about these two 1. how often does a piece of knowledge fall under both? Always. Knowledge: History, Local, or Geography. 2. if something does fall under both, does that mean you get to roll on both if you have the appropriate knowledge skill and bardic knowledge? Don't see why not. 3. should the DC be the same for both? or should it be higher for one than the other? why? Should be pretty much the same. All bardic knowledge is, is a limited combined form of the above three Knowledge skills.
Board_Rider 03-24-06, 02:19 AM	Hi-ya 1. Theoretically a Knowledge check is a bit more specialized than a Bardic Knowledge check which is a bit more general. However both can cross. On page 28 of the 3.5 PHB you see a BK check of DC10 and the type of Knowledge that is gained. A Knowledge: Local check can do the same thing. The biggest difference is that Bardic Knowledge may reveal powers of a magic item and a Bard adds his/her level to the check. 2. That is the DMs call. If it were me I would tell the Player to make a Bardic Knowledge check because he gets to add levels onto the d20 roll as well a his/her Int modifier. Basically your rolling a Knowledge check without actually having the Knowledge: Whatever skill with ranks put into it. 3. I think that the DC should be the same. However, again if I were the DM, I would probably be a bit more specific to the PC that actually had the Knowledge skill rather than the Bard making a Bardic Knowledge check. Why? Well the Knowledge skill, to me anyways represents a characters field of applied study whereas a Bardic Knowledge check is more of a gleaning of information from other Bards. Kinda like a glorified Gather Information check. The Knowledge: History gives a nice bonus because that helps the Bard draw upon the past to coraborrate the stuff that he/she has gained from other Bards. Hope that helps.
Thorak 03-24-06, 02:41 AM	The biggest difference is that Bardic Knowledge may reveal powers of a magic item . . . No, it can't. "A successful bardic knowledge check will not reveal the powers of a magic item but may give a hint as to its general function." 'General function' as in "I think this wand shoots things, somehow".
ManTimeForgot 03-24-06, 02:52 AM	I think it can probably get more specific than that. Something like: Bard: This weapon was used in the last blood war to slay a thousand devils... Fighter: Well how did it do that? Bard: Something about shooting hundreds of devil slaying arrows in the blink of an eye... Fighter: Can you be more specific? Bard: Smart:censored: you try getting lore about things which happened in the 9 hells 3 centuries ago... But more to the point I think the more famous and powerful the item the more specific I would rule the information provided would be. I don't think bardic knowledge should be of very much help when dealing with an item that was just crafted yesterday, but if an item has a mythology surrounding it the information (while not necessarily accurate) should have a wealth of potential knowledge about it. *Side Note* I'm pretty sure this discussion belongs on the Skills board... MTF
technochris81 03-24-06, 03:34 AM	thanks guys *Side Note* I'm pretty sure this discussion belongs on the Skills board... i'll post it on the skills forum and see if anyone tells me that a bardic knowledge query should be on the class forum :P (just kidding)
Board_Rider 03-24-06, 11:40 AM	No, it can't. "A successful bardic knowledge check will not reveal the powers of a magic item but may give a hint as to its general function." 'General function' as in "I think this wand shoots things, somehow". Jeez, I wrote all of that and thats what you worry about? Flavor text? Hell, I gave a page number for reference. Thanks for worrying about what I wrote though.
Thorak 03-24-06, 12:15 PM	Jeez, I wrote all of that and thats what you worry about? Flavor text? Hell, I gave a page number for reference. Thanks for worrying about what I wrote though. You claimed something that was absolutely 100% false, and you'd have known this if you'd actually read the section you cited. Don't whine at me because you screwed the pooch and I pointed it out. Oh, and FYI; that's not flavor text, it's a mechanical limitation of Bardic Knowledge. It can never tell you the powers of a magic item. Just a general hint. You might know a ring protects you, but you won't know if it's a Ring of Protection, a Shield Ring, or a Ring of Fire Resistance.
Board_Rider 03-24-06, 02:24 PM	You claimed something that was absolutely 100% false, and you'd have known this if you'd actually read the section you cited. Don't whine at me because you screwed the pooch and I pointed it out. Oh, and FYI; that's not flavor text, it's a mechanical limitation of Bardic Knowledge. It can never tell you the powers of a magic item. Just a general hint. You might know a ring protects you, but you won't know if it's a Ring of Protection, a Shield Ring, or a Ring of Fire Resistance. HAHAHAHAHA..man you people are sensitive! Who's whinig? Besides "general function" can mean that a Bard can know that a Ring of Fire can indeed protect you from fire. Its all interpretation. Just because you don't see it that way doesn't mean that I am wrong. I will agree that something more powerful, say a rare artifact or a sword with special properties, wont be figured out by a Bardic Knowledge check but something as mundane as a Ring of Fire could be figured out if the DC was high enough. Moreso if that particular RoF was unique in some way. Again, before you go spouting off about my interpretations and a misquote, try and be a bit more mature about it. I eagerly await your response... EDIT: If you want Thorak you can reply here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=610184). Lets not debate on our opinions on this thread.
Vrellum 03-24-06, 04:05 PM	I think bardic knowledge should also have quite a bit of overlap with knowledge nobility. Many of the nobility would be famous...
Thorak 03-24-06, 04:56 PM	HAHAHAHAHA..man you people are sensitive! Who's whinig? You were. When you said "Jeez, I wrote all of that and thats what you worry about? Flavor text? Hell, I gave a page number for reference. Thanks for worrying about what I wrote though." How did you expect that to be taken in any way but whiny? You essentially said "Aww, man, c'mon, don't look at what I wrote, look at what I thought". Which is either ridiculous, or whiny. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming it's just a tone thing, rather than a completely ridiculous belief. Besides "general function" can mean that a Bard can know that a Ring of Fire can indeed protect you from fire. Its all interpretation. Just because you don't see it that way doesn't mean that I am wrong. I will agree that something more powerful, say a rare artifact or a sword with special properties, wont be figured out by a Bardic Knowledge check but something as mundane as a Ring of Fire could be figured out if the DC was high enough. Moreso if that particular RoF was unique in some way. How else can you intepret "will not reveal the powers of a magical item"? Will not. You can't monkey that into "will, sometimes, in a limited way". You cannot possibly figure out the powers of an item through Bardic Knowledge. You might know Justin the Brave fought fire elementals while wearing this ring to protect himself, but that doesn't mean it protects you against fire, maybe it protects you in other ways, or against planar creatures, or some such thing. You can not figure out what an item does through bardic knowledge. Period. The PHB is explicitly clear on this. Again, before you go spouting off about my interpretations and a misquote, try and be a bit more mature about it. How am I being immature? By pointing out your whiny tone and that you are, in fact, incorrect? I'm not the one saying "jeez, don't look at what I wrote".
Board_Rider 03-24-06, 05:16 PM	You were. When you said "Jeez, I wrote all of that and thats what you worry about? Flavor text? Hell, I gave a page number for reference. Thanks for worrying about what I wrote though." How did you expect that to be taken in any way but whiny? You essentially said "Aww, man, c'mon, don't look at what I wrote, look at what I thought". Which is either ridiculous, or whiny. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming it's just a tone thing, rather than a completely ridiculous belief. How else can you intepret "will not reveal the powers of a magical item"? Will not. You can't monkey that into "will, sometimes, in a limited way". You cannot possibly figure out the powers of an item through Bardic Knowledge. You might know Justin the Brave fought fire elementals while wearing this ring to protect himself, but that doesn't mean it protects you against fire, maybe it protects you in other ways, or against planar creatures, or some such thing. You can not figure out what an item does through bardic knowledge. Period. The PHB is explicitly clear on this. How am I being immature? By pointing out your whiny tone and that you are, in fact, incorrect? I'm not the one saying "jeez, don't look at what I wrote". Okay. I really hoped that we could dissolve this on the other thread but okay. If you are mature enough you would know that text has a funny way of transferring tone. Was my response to you "whiny"? I don't read it as so and that certainly wasn't my intent. My intent in that specific case was "Jeez, I offered this guy something in no way, shape or form affected you. You then hand picked out 1 sentence that you read and tried to offer up the PHB and how I misqouted it. In the end it serves no purpose to ANYTHING because I gave a page number so that the OP can reference it for himself. I misqouted...no big deal. You, for some reason, felt to point that out even though it serves no purpose to do so. In the end worry about yourself and let people come to their own conclusions/interpretations/playstyles." Maybe this strokes your ego? I could TOTALLY understand if I asked for your opinion. I didn't. And, in truth, I can "monkey" any rule that I wish as a DM. Hell, any DM can "monkey" with the rules as they wish. Just because it is written in a book doesn't make it law. Especially if what is written is found in a fantasy roleplaying book. Tell me chief, is that clear enough for you? Do you understand now? Or shall we keep this going?
FabulousRex 03-24-06, 06:24 PM	True, you can 'monkey' any rule you want, but nothing will ever change the FACT that bardic knowledge states you can -not- learn the specifics of magic items. Oh, and I can back that up (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/bard.htm#bardicKnowledge).
Board_Rider 03-24-06, 06:53 PM	True, you can 'monkey' any rule you want, but nothing will ever change the FACT that bardic knowledge states you can -not- learn the specifics of magic items. Oh, and I can back that up (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/bard.htm#bardicKnowledge). Yeah, I own the PHB...I read the section. I know that I cannot change what the PHB has written. But it still does not change the FACT that as a DM I can change the rules to better fit my game and the FACT that all the rules as written are guidelines...nothing more. So as log as there is consistency for everybody at the table.
ManTimeForgot 03-24-06, 07:02 PM	But it still does not change the FACT that as a DM I can make up rules and then tell everyone on the D&D boards that this is in fact how things work. (The above was edited for clarity). So what if you can house rule anything the way you like. It doesn't change the fact that the rules state that you can't use bardic knowledge to do what you want it to, and that if you do let bardic knowledge do that, then it is entirely a house rule. MTF
Thorak 03-24-06, 08:20 PM	Okay. I really hoped that we could dissolve this on the other thread but okay. If you are mature enough you would know that text has a funny way of transferring tone. Was my response to you "whiny"? I don't read it as so and that certainly wasn't my intent. My intent in that specific case was "Jeez, I offered this guy something in no way, shape or form affected you. You then hand picked out 1 sentence that you read and tried to offer up the PHB and how I misqouted it. In the end it serves no purpose to ANYTHING because I gave a page number so that the OP can reference it for himself. I misqouted...no big deal. You, for some reason, felt to point that out even though it serves no purpose to do so. In the end worry about yourself and let people come to their own conclusions/interpretations/playstyles." I hand picked out the sentence where you made a glaring error, and pointed out the error. And? Don't want mistakes to be pointed out, don't make them in the first place. And for pointing it out, you called me stupid. I could TOTALLY understand if I asked for your opinion. I didn't. This is a public board. You, pretty much by definition, don't ask for a specific person's opinion; you post the comment, and then anyone can reply. That's sort of how these forums work, after all. Tell me chief, is that clear enough for you? Do you understand now? Or shall we keep this going? I understand just fine. You're desperately trying to save face by making me out to be the "bad guy", when all I did was call you on the mistakes you made.
Board_Rider 03-24-06, 09:04 PM	(The above was edited for clarity). So what if you can house rule anything the way you like. It doesn't change the fact that the rules state that you can't use bardic knowledge to do what you want it to, and that if you do let bardic knowledge do that, then it is entirely a house rule. Ooooh good one...all snarky and backhanded! It's cool, the ol' BR says "The more the merrier". Hope you stick around boss. As to your post, When did I say otherwise? I said that it was fact that I could change the rules. It is. I never forced, or told anyone, that they had too. In fact I even wrote that I read and understood what was written in the PHB. I can state the obvious for you if you would like: It's a houserule. Happy? Next... I hand picked out the sentence where you made a glaring error, and pointed out the error. And? Don't want mistakes to be pointed out, don't make them in the first place. And for pointing it out, you called me stupid. WHAT?!! Don't make errors? Listen ace everybody makes errors. If you don't, great. SO WHAT if I did not quote verbatim. As I wrote prior I gave the OP a page number so that he may reference the material himself. And calling you stupid? Where? Are you even reading my posts? I called you immature. I still stand by that statement. This is a public board. You, pretty much by definition, don't ask for a specific person's opinion; you post the comment, and then anyone can reply. That's sort of how these forums work, after all. Actually, most posters post either wanting opinions, to give answers or to rant. Note I said most. My comments, are indeed, however on a public forum and can be commented on themselves. However, again, you quoting my comments in this case do nothing to with: a) Helping the original poster as I gave him a reference page b) Do little more than prove that you can quote a PHB better than I Wow. I must say I do like your little attempt at sarcasm though. Its cute. I understand just fine. You're desperately trying to save face by making me out to be the "bad guy", when all I did was call you on the mistakes you made. This is what I was writing about earlier, your immaturity. You speak of things like "desperately trying to save face" and making you out to be the "bady guy". WHO am I trying to save face with? I don't know any of you. You don't know me. Making you out to be a bad guy? All I have done is responded with my opinions of how I think the Bardic Knowledge works and about your immaturity slick. THATS IT. You started this little tango sugar shorts. YOU hit the quote button. Hell, I will break it down to you: 1. I responded and misqouted 2. You responded with what it says in the PHB and that I was wrong 3. I wrote what I thought was a passable retort that was meant to be (albeit not very) funny. 4. You said that I was "whining" 5. Debate ensues...here we are Hmmm... At least be the man I think you can be and fess up to that. I could care less if you agree with me or not on my games, my houserules or my opinion of what the Bardic Knowledge check does. But please don't say that I called you stupid. Man, please respond. This is getting fun. MTF, you too.
Thorak 03-24-06, 11:08 PM	WHAT?!! Don't make errors? Listen ace everybody makes errors. If you don't, great. SO WHAT if I did not quote verbatim. As I wrote prior I gave the OP a page number so that he may reference the material himself. It's not that you "did not quote verbatim". It's that you claimed the PHB said X, when it said not-X. And yes, you gave a page number. So what? All I did was point out what your own reference said. You're the one trying to defend the obvious mistake as somehow "right". Actually, most posters post either wanting opinions, to give answers or to rant. Note I said most. My comments, are indeed, however on a public forum and can be commented on themselves. However, again, you quoting my comments in this case do nothing to with: a) Helping the original poster as I gave him a reference page b) Do little more than prove that you can quote a PHB better than I Frankly, correcting misinformation given by another poster is helping the original poster. So he doesn't take your post as how things work without bothering to check the source themselves. So yes, it was contributing to the thread. Or do you not understand how the process of debate works? This is what I was writing about earlier, your immaturity. You speak of things like "desperately trying to save face" and making you out to be the "bady guy". WHO am I trying to save face with? I don't know any of you. You don't know me. Making you out to be a bad guy? All I have done is responded with my opinions of how I think the Bardic Knowledge works and about your immaturity slick. THATS IT. You started this little tango sugar shorts. YOU hit the quote button. And again, how am I being "immature"? Yes, pointing out your attempts to try and make your mistake somehow not a real mistake and such is an attempt to save face. Sure, you don't know us, but if you didn't care, you wouldn't have retorted to my correction in the first place. And what the hell does "sugar shorts" mean? Are you coming on to me? Hell, I will break it down to you: 1. I responded and misqouted 2. You responded with what it says in the PHB and that I was wrong 3. I wrote what I thought was a passable retort that was meant to be (albeit not very) funny. 4. You said that I was "whining" 5. Debate ensues...here we are And it's at stage 3 that you broke the CoC. Baiting and all that. At least be the man I think you can be and fess up to that. I could care less if you agree with me or not on my games, my houserules or my opinion of what the Bardic Knowledge check does. But please don't say that I called you stupid. Right, I apologize for that, I've got a goof on another unrelated thread who called me stupid, and I got the two of you mixed up.
Wolf_Boy 03-24-06, 11:45 PM	I let bardic knowledge cover most things to a limited degree at higher dc's than knowledges.
Board_Rider 03-25-06, 12:09 AM	It's not that you "did not quote verbatim". It's that you claimed the PHB said X, when it said not-X. And yes, you gave a page number. So what? All I did was point out what your own reference said. You're the one trying to defend the obvious mistake as somehow "right". When did I ever say that I was "right"? I am merely defending my posistion. By giving the page number I gave the OP a chance to look for himself. I never claimed anything...I wrote a reply comment. Frankly, correcting misinformation given by another poster is helping the original poster. So he doesn't take your post as how things work without bothering to check the source themselves. So yes, it was contributing to the thread. Or do you not understand how the process of debate works? Yes, I understand the debate process. What do you want to do next? Compare IQ's? Lets stick with the topic at hand. While I will agree that fixing my misquote is all fine and good, basing your answer on the fact that the OP may not bother to check the source himself is irrelevant and you know that. ANY time someone wants to play a class I would hope that they will check the class features and understand them. Sorry, hoss, but that dog just don't hunt. Besides that really isn't when this all started. You know that. It's when you called me a "whiner". And again, how am I being "immature"? Yes, pointing out your attempts to try and make your mistake somehow not a real mistake and such is an attempt to save face. Sure, you don't know us, but if you didn't care, you wouldn't have retorted to my correction in the first place. I didn't retort to your correction because I cared, I did so because I though it humurous and I even wrote as much in my prior post. This whole thing started getting fun when you called me a whiner. Then I felt I should keep on going. Point of fact..if you don't care why do you keep replying? Actually, scratch that, I am having too good of a time here. However, I will point out that you never did point out who I was trying to save face with. I respond because it pleases me. And what the hell does "sugar shorts" mean? Are you coming on to me? No, no my young friend...just ribbing you a bit. How does "buddy" catch ya? And it's at stage 3 that you broke the CoC. Baiting and all that. And its when you called me a "whiner", long before stage 3, when you broke the CoC. Lets not be a hypocrite Thorak. You started the name calling. Remember that and man up to it. Right, I apologize for that, I've got a goof on another unrelated thread who called me stupid, and I got the two of you mixed up. "Another goof" huh? Man, are you serious when you don't see the immaturity? I mean, don't get me wrong, I love the fact that you seem to be having problems with other posters, as it strengthens my resolve in thinking of what I think of you. Adds fuel to my fire. Keep it coming.
Thorak 03-25-06, 01:12 AM	When did I ever say that I was "right"? I am merely defending my posistion. By giving the page number I gave the OP a chance to look for himself. I never claimed anything...I wrote a reply comment. You're defending your position. Obviously, you think you were in the right. Yes, I understand the debate process. What do you want to do next? Compare IQ's? Lets stick with the topic at hand. While I will agree that fixing my misquote is all fine and good, basing your answer on the fact that the OP may not bother to check the source himself is irrelevant and you know that. ANY time someone wants to play a class I would hope that they will check the class features and understand them. Sorry, hoss, but that dog just don't hunt. That's what we do here. Someone gives someone misinformation, someone else will speak up to correct them. I didn't retort to your correction because I cared, I did so because I though it humurous and I even wrote as much in my prior post. This whole thing started getting fun when you called me a whiner. Then I felt I should keep on going. Point of fact..if you don't care why do you keep replying? Actually, scratch that, I am having too good of a time here. Who said I don't care? I come on these boards to argue with people. I enjoy this. However, I will point out that you never did point out who I was trying to save face with. I respond because it pleases me. The public at large. Whoever might read the thread. And its when you called me a "whiner", long before stage 3, when you broke the CoC. Lets not be a hypocrite Thorak. You started the name calling. Remember that and man up to it. To be technical, I said you were whining. That's not quite the same thing as calling you a whiner. And I stand by my statement; your comment was whiney. You said "Jeez, I wrote all of that and thats what you worry about? Flavor text? Hell, I gave a page number for reference." I see that as "whiny". I probably wouldn't if it weren't for that initial "Jeez", which to me comes off as an "aww, man...." kind of tone. "Another goof" huh? Man, are you serious when you don't see the immaturity? I mean, don't get me wrong, I love the fact that you seem to be having problems with other posters, as it strengthens my resolve in thinking of what I think of you. Adds fuel to my fire. Did I say "another goof"? No. I specifically avoided saying "another", because I know what that would have implied. Absolutely nothing about my comment could have been taken personally by you unless you reword it with things like "another".
Board_Rider 03-25-06, 01:44 AM	You're defending your position. Obviously, you think you were in the right. Correct, I defend my opinions. That's what we do here. Someone gives someone misinformation, someone else will speak up to correct them. I can roll with that, however I still think that misquoting, and making a mistake, is not mis-informing. It is what it is...a mistake, but we have covered this already. Who said I don't care? I come on these boards to argue with people. I enjoy this. Well, at least we can agree on something. While I don't come here looking for it, I sure enjoy getting my point across. To be technical, I said you were whining. That's not quite the same thing as calling you a whiner. Man, I laugh when I read that. Come on, you know what you wrote and implied. Lets not bow out now. And I stand by my statement; your comment was whiney. You said "Jeez, I wrote all of that and thats what you worry about? Flavor text? Hell, I gave a page number for reference." I see that as "whiny". I probably wouldn't if it weren't for that initial "Jeez", which to me comes off as an "aww, man...." kind of tone. No. My comment was not "whiny", you interpretated that way by a single word. I used "Jeez" as a way to offer levity to show that it was no big deal. You simply "misread" the implied tone. Did I say "another goof"? No. I specifically avoided saying "another", because I know what that would have implied. Absolutely nothing about my comment could have been taken personally by you unless you reword it with things like "another". Ok "a goof". I didn't take it personally. I mentioned it because it lends insight in how you think. You can think whatever you wish but you need to understand that I can, and will, think whatever I wish too. If it effects you in any way then I welcome the challenge. Look, this all came down because you were mistaken by my written "tone". As I stated prior, and exhaustively, if you have an issue with what my opinion is I really don't care. But when you try and hide behind some BS "I am doing it for the OP" excuse I think thats just weak and this is what happens. Especially now when you write things like "I come here to argue with people".
ArochanoX 03-25-06, 04:16 AM	KNOWLEDGE (INT; TRAINED ONLY) Like the Craft and Profession skills, Knowledge actually encompasses a number of unrelated skills. Knowledge represents a study of some body of lore, possibly an academic or even scientific discipline. Below are listed typical fields of study. • Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, cryptic phrases, constructs, dragons, magical beasts) • Architecture and engineering (buildings, aqueducts, bridges, fortifications) • Dungeoneering (aberrations, caverns, oozes, spelunking) • Geography (lands, terrain, climate, people) • History (royalty, wars, colonies, migrations, founding of cities) • Local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids) • Nature (animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin) • Nobility and royalty (lineages, heraldry, family trees, mottoes, personalities) • Religion (gods and goddesses, mythic history, ecclesiastic tradition, holy symbols, undead) • The planes (the Inner Planes, the Outer Planes, the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, outsiders, elementals, magic related to the planes) Check: Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions). In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. Action: Usually none. In most cases, making a Knowledge check doesn’t take an action—you simply know the answer or you don’t. Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know something that you never learned in the first place. from SRD 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. from SRD The bolded texts are overlapping areas of knowledge. The DC difference is quite hard to estimate because bardic knowledge DC:s are related to the fact, how many people know about the thing. Knowledge checks have higher DC:s for advanced information than for general information. For example it would be a quite low BK check to know that Bush is the president of USA. It would be also a quite easy K(local) check. But to know about Bush's family history would require higher BK check than K(nobility and royalty), because few people know something about that, but in the eyes of K(nobility and royalty) the person in question is noteworthy and it would be quite basic info for a specialist.
cambric 03-25-06, 09:21 AM	from SRD 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. (My bolding) Here's my point about it: Legendary Items. In some campaigns, such as Board Rider's, a ring of Fire might be "legendary" and that would qualify. In a low magic setting, any magic item could be legendary, depending on how the DM interepts it. Hint to general function: As Thorak has agreed to on the other board, it may "hint" to what it does: "Gerrad, the fire bringer, could run through fires and not be hurt": Translation: Some form of protection...probably fire. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to assume that. So yes, RAI would come into effect here. RAW says..."A successful Bard knowledge will not reveal a magic items function..." but it continues to say, "it may hint to what it does". So on one hand you have "no" and on the other, "may"...it isn't 100% clear. If it was, it should have stated: "A successful Bard knowledge will not reveal a magic items function, nor give any hint to what it may do." That would give us 100% RAW that it could not be interpeted in any other way. I stand by Board Rider in the fact that you can get some hint, which could be enough to have it figured out without having to use some other source, such as Identify or UMD. Granted, I wouldn't bet the house on it, but in an emergancy, it could work. The "hint" could be enough to know it gives protection for a particular defense, such as fire. As Board Rider said, you wouldn't know it is 10 resistance, but you could quite possibly figure out is for fire. Cam
Cantankerous 03-25-06, 09:53 AM	There's the point, for it to cross over into the relam of the legendary, it has to be NOTEWORTHY. People in a high magic campaign won't be singing about a Ring of Fire Resistance +10. It simply will NOT be noteworthy. In a turly low magic campaign, sure. If the item in question is one that is common, even if that common is relative to ONLY adventurers, (such as said Ring in a high magic campaign) then it is too common to be noteworthy. If not, why not? I'd certainly let it go. The idea here is to make the Bardic Knowledge ability actually useful after all, not to nerf it down to such an extent that it's superfluous. At the same time, a certain amount of perspective must be kept. No one is going to sing about my match grade Sharps Rifle, even though I've won "old west" competitions with it. She's the smoothest Sharps I'm told (by other collectors) that most anyone has ever seen.... but it's still just a Sharps Rifle. Isshia
Thorak 03-25-06, 03:46 PM	I can roll with that, however I still think that misquoting, and making a mistake, is not mis-informing. It is what it is...a mistake, but we have covered this already. And you're trying to defend it, rather than acknowledge it as an error and move on. Hence the posts continue. No. My comment was not "whiny", you interpretated that way by a single word. I used "Jeez" as a way to offer levity to show that it was no big deal. You simply "misread" the implied tone. Fine. You weren't whiny. Can we move on now? Ok "a goof". I didn't take it personally. I mentioned it because it lends insight in how you think. You can think whatever you wish but you need to understand that I can, and will, think whatever I wish too. If it effects you in any way then I welcome the challenge. First off; yes, I will lay aspersions on those I think deserve it. The guy in the other thread called me "stupid" and "hopeless" because I disagreed with his argument, hence I label him as a goof. I'm not the only one in that thread riding him, though. Second, I don't expect you to change what you think because I tell you to. If anything, I hope you change what you think because you see my point and agree, or provide a decent enough argument that either the opposite happens and you change my mind, or we can at least discover that there's too much grey area to be conclusive. Hint to general function: As Thorak has agreed to on the other board, it may "hint" to what it does: "Gerrad, the fire bringer, could run through fires and not be hurt": Translation: Some form of protection...probably fire. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to assume that. And, as I also noted on that other thread, you have absolutely no idea what form the protection takes. It could be a passive protection, giving you Resist Energy: Fire. It could be an active one, letting you douse fires at will. It could even be mightier than you expect, giving you DR 5/- or some such. You have no idea what kind of protection it is, just that it helps against fires. This doesn't mean you can use the ring, you've just got a general hint as to what it could be used for.
cambric 03-25-06, 03:58 PM	And, as I also noted on that other thread, you have absolutely no idea what form the protection takes. It could be a passive protection, giving you Resist Energy: Fire. It could be an active one, letting you douse fires at will. It could even be mightier than you expect, giving you DR 5/- or some such. You have no idea what kind of protection it is, just that it helps against fires. This doesn't mean you can use the ring, you've just got a general hint as to what it could be used for. Please read my final two lines: Translation: Some form of protection...probably fire. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to assume that. "SOME" form of protection...probably fire. Too much of a stretch... You can use the ring and you might be wrong...that's always a chance. But it can give you a clue to what it may do. Cam
Board_Rider 03-25-06, 08:10 PM	And you're trying to defend it, rather than acknowledge it as an error and move on. Hence the posts continue. What are talking about? I already acknowledged that I made a mistake in the misquote and even called my opinion a houserule. I have already acknowledged the error. I am defending my opinion that, as a DM, I can change the rules as I see fit. Any DM can. Or they don't have too. Your not making any sense with this line of thinking. Second, I don't expect you to change what you think because I tell you to. If anything, I hope you change what you think because you see my point and agree, or provide a decent enough argument that either the opposite happens and you change my mind, or we can at least discover that there's too much grey area to be conclusive. Then why keep responding then? I answered why I do. I am defending my opinion and this amuses me. In the end I do not need to form an argument to make you see things my way. Besides, I provided my explanation on how I see it (the Bardic Knowledge ability) on the other thread. You disagree? Fine. I was just hoping that you would eventually man up and admit that you like to argue a point, I can respect that, rather than write that you were doing all of this clarification business for the OP. Balls in your court.
Nephlite 03-25-06, 09:28 PM	And, as I also noted on that other thread, you have absolutely no idea what form the protection takes. It could be a passive protection, giving you Resist Energy: Fire. It could be an active one, letting you douse fires at will. It could even be mightier than you expect, giving you DR 5/- or some such. You have no idea what kind of protection it is, just that it helps against fires. This doesn't mean you can use the ring, you've just got a general hint as to what it could be used for. Thorak, now you are just being silly. DR 5/- won't do a thing for elemental damage. Now if it was a Ring of fire resistance that also gave DR 5/-; okay maybe. Though, I can't think of a ring that does that. I'd say a Ring of DR 5/- is weaker than RoFR against fire. Now it is possible the slam damage from a fire elemental was protected against in the legends. But than he was still damaged by fire (since Fire elementals do fire and slam when they hit). Most likely I'd assume it had something to do with fire. It won't tell me what exactly: I agree, I'd need Identify. Dousing fires at will could be useful against fire elementals. Does it damage them?
Thorak 03-25-06, 09:59 PM	Thorak, now you are just being silly. DR 5/- won't do a thing for elemental damage. Right, I boobed up DR. Still, my point was that you don't know how it protects you. Maybe it grants you Control Flames at will, if you activate it with the command word. Maybe it's a Ring of Spell Storing and he got a friendly cleric to toss some Resist Energy spells in there. You don't know.