PDA

View Full Version : Loremasters: Does Anyone Play Them?



Surfing HalfOrc
2009-02-12, 01:21 PM
I've been rereading the novel "Dream Park." The leader of the Adventure is Chester Henderson, the Lore Master.

While it worked well in the book, to me it seems that a Loremaster in D&D is a slightly overpowered Bard/Wizard.

What advantages do they have? Or was the creation of the Loremaster an homage to this great book?

Morty
2009-02-12, 01:35 PM
Well, if my current D&D campaign ever resumes and I manage to get the wizard I play in it to 7th level, I'll definetly go into Loremaster. It looks like a very fun class for someone who wants to play a scholarly know-it-all type. It's not as überpowerful as the Archmage, but it's not weak either. The downside is that you have to take Skill Focus in one type of knowledge, which is a bit of a waste.

Nohwl
2009-02-12, 01:39 PM
you can get a free feat from the class, so you can use that for whatever you wanted instead of whatever skill focus you took.

Saph
2009-02-12, 01:42 PM
Loremaster's a very nice all-round prestige class. It doesn't work so well for Sorcerers due to the number of feats and skills you need, but for Wizards it's great.

My longest-running 3.5 character was a Wizard/Loremaster, and I really enjoyed playing the class.

• More skill points - at 4+Int modifier, you can easily be getting 9 skillpoints a level.

• Great skill list - Use Magic Device is very nice for Wizards, as it lets you use healing wands and even Cleric scrolls in a pinch. The Perform skill can be fun, too, and there are a couple more interesting ones on there.

• Bardic Lore - Your Int modifier lets you make the most of this. My Bardic Lore check modifier was higher than the party Bard's!

• Various freebies - Free save bonuses are always nice.

- Saph

wadledo
2009-02-12, 01:43 PM
I've always wanted to play a gestalt Psionic Mind Flayer//Wizard/Loremaster.
Completely insane in terms of power, but unimaginably fun.

Also, they get a free feat nearly right off the bat, if you do things right, and the other bonuses are always awesome(except the first 2, though you should never have to choose those anyway).

There are also a mass of other options for it, depending on what you want to play.
Divine Oracle, Knowledge Devotion, the list is pretty decent for any kind of character you want.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-02-12, 01:53 PM
It has no drawbacks, except for the feat requirements (once you go Archmage, you have a total of two useless Skill Focus feats), and is a good choice for any wizard, really. You get one feat back from the secrets anyway. Really, any PrC that advances your casting and doesn't require multiclassing to meet the requirements is good stuff.

valadil
2009-02-12, 02:09 PM
I played one. I like the flavor, but mechanically they're not too interesting. I'll take LM over straight wizard though.

Starbuck_II
2009-02-12, 02:45 PM
I had a Wu Jen 7/Fatespiner 4/LoreMaster 1
I used Lore Master to get +1 Dodge bonus AC (the rarest permanent bonus to AC).

Campaign stopped before I could go for more. He was alot of fun.

Prometheus
2009-02-12, 02:57 PM
As far as the fluff goes, Archivists make far better Bibliophiles.

dspeyer
2009-02-12, 10:08 PM
I've never played one, but my impression is they add skill-monkey capability to a wizard without subtracting anything. Wizards are generally short on skills more because hardly anything is class than because they lack ranks (high int does that). Loremaster gives a really broad selection plus another two ranks/level.

The only weakness is that levels in loremaster aren't levels in the *really* powerful arcane PrCs.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-02-12, 10:20 PM
I don't know much about optimization, but a friend of mine who does says the loremaster is, frankly, dog crap, and that if one truly wants to optimize using the DMG the archmage is infinitely better. Which is a real shame because I've always wanted to play a sagely type.

Aneantir
2009-02-12, 10:43 PM
I don't know much about optimization, but a friend of mine who does says the loremaster is, frankly, dog crap, and that if one truly wants to optimize using the DMG the archmage is infinitely better. Which is a real shame because I've always wanted to play a sagely type.

Then play the Archmage as a sagely character. Theres nothing stopping you from doing it. You get all the roleplaying aspects and none of the mediocrity of the class.

Jack_Simth
2009-02-12, 10:48 PM
I don't know much about optimization, but a friend of mine who does says the loremaster is, frankly, dog crap, and that if one truly wants to optimize using the DMG the archmage is infinitely better. Which is a real shame because I've always wanted to play a sagely type.
Do note, though, that the Archmage has much higher-level requirements. You can get into Loremaster after 7th. Archmage, not until after 13th. That is, you could be a Wizard-7/Loremaster-6/Archmage-5/Loremaster+2. Be both an Archmage AND a Loremaster.

Basically, as a Wizard, Loremaster costs you one feat (For a Wizard, 10 ranks in two Knoweledge skills isn't worthy of note; the other two feats are either Metamagic or item creation - which you get as Wizard bonus feats anyway). It gives you: Extra skill points, the option of a feat (which can be *any* feat, not just those on the Wizard Bonus list), plus other goodies. The Wizard-9 will usually be mechanically inferior to the Wizard-7/Loremaster-2. Past that, though, you start losing out on Wizard Bonus Feats, so it's not quite so clear-cut.

monty
2009-02-12, 11:03 PM
I don't know much about optimization, but a friend of mine who does says the loremaster is, frankly, dog crap, and that if one truly wants to optimize using the DMG the archmage is infinitely better. Which is a real shame because I've always wanted to play a sagely type.

Keep in mind that archmage is only five levels, and wizards generally have 15 potential levels of prestige classes to play with.

Draz74
2009-02-12, 11:08 PM
My last character was a Loremaster. Great class.

@Jack Simth: two minor appendages to your statements.

First, access to UMD is more than a minor perk of the class.

Second, 2 levels of Loremaster may not be enough to get you the awesome Bonus Feat secret. You'll need at least 22 Intelligence to do that. Which is possible for a mid-level Wizard, but by no means guaranteed, especially if your DM rules that Headbands of Intellect don't count.

Temp.
2009-02-12, 11:15 PM
I'm not a fan. The biggest benefit of the class is its extra skill points and UMD. Frankly, I've never worried much about skill points with a wizard, given high Int and spells.

I wouldn't even say it's better than straight Wizard; I'd rather have a couple extra feats than most of its benefits. I'll admit that's a judgement call--it's about equally as useful as Wizard levels. If the rest of D&D were as balanced, it might be a kinda-slick class. As it is, I can't justify giving up any of the something-for-nothing classes like Master Specialist, MotAO or Incantor.

Its fluff isn't even much of a draw for Wizards; it's essentially the same as the base class or most other Wizard PrCs. For a Cleric (I don't remember if they can enter; I'll assume they can) without access to the Cloistered variant, maybe.

RTGoodman
2009-02-12, 11:17 PM
I played a Gnome Wizard/Loremaster in our XCrawl game back in college and had fun with it. I was limited to Core only for basically everything, so I didn't get to use either of the builds I originally intended (something akin to the Killer Gnome or maybe just Wizard/Master Specialist (Illusion)/Fatespinner/Archmage or whatever), but overall Loremaster was great.

Like others said, if your DM allows headbands of intellect to count toward what secrets you can learn, or if you can swing a high Int via race or whatever, you can (IIRC) get a feat at your first level, meaning you really don't lose out on anything because that replaces your wasted Skill Focus (Knowledge) feat. And if you know the campaign's going high enough, Loremaster could be a good lead-in to Archmage anyway - I mean, it's not like more levels of Wizard is getting you much of anything, so why not prestige out instead?

herrhauptmann
2009-02-13, 12:29 AM
The problem with going loremaster is the obscene amount of feats you need to take. You end up spending almost all of your feats just on entry prereqs.

And if your DM lets you use headband of intellect for the loremaster secrets, he better be letting you use it for extra skill points. Plus stat boosting items should then let you qualify for feats and PrCs. /sarcasm

Fax Celestis
2009-02-13, 12:34 AM
Plus stat boosting items should then let you qualify for feats and PrCs.

They, uh, do.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-13, 12:54 AM
The problem with going loremaster is the obscene amount of feats you need to take. You end up spending almost all of your feats just on entry prereqs.You spend one feat on entry prereqs, the others you should be taking anyways. Metamagic is generally the only option for a core Wizard and a strong option non-core, and you get Scribe Scroll free. At level 6, a Human Wizard will have 4 feats, Scribe Scroll, and one aditional Metamagic/Item Creation feat. The only useful core feats for Wizards that don't qualify for Loremaster are Eschew Materials, Improved Init, Imp Familiar, and Leadership. You have to need 3 of those 4, before level 9, to run out. And then you get a free feat early on in the class(level 8 if items count, level 10 otherwise). Fairly nice.

monty
2009-02-13, 12:58 AM
And if your DM lets you use headband of intellect for the loremaster secrets, he better be letting you use it for extra skill points. Plus stat boosting items should then let you qualify for feats and PrCs. /sarcasm

What Fax said, and skill points explicitly don't count non-permanent bonuses.

Keld Denar
2009-02-13, 01:13 AM
Divine Oracle is a natural lead into Loremaster. A build might look like
Wizard5/DO2/LM3 into whatever you want. 3 levels of Master Specialist would lead you perfectly into Archmage from that point.

LM is great. It recoups the feat you lose from DO and LM, and gets you one neat ability. I like the +2 fort save, since its untyped. If you use a lot of rays, the +1 hit can be useful.

UMD is VERY useful. My favorite use of it is to get a Bead of Karma off a Strand of Prayer beads. The +4 CL is great when you cast your daily buff spells, as it makes them much harder to dispel and stronger. Especially good when you use it with GMW or similar spells. You could also use a wand or scrolls of Signs for extra init bonus that stacks with Nerveskitter.

Kantur
2009-02-13, 06:17 AM
I'm not a fan. The biggest benefit of the class is its extra skill points and UMD. Frankly, I've never worried much about skill points with a wizard, given high Int and spells.

I wouldn't even say it's better than straight Wizard; I'd rather have a couple extra feats than most of its benefits. I'll admit that's a judgement call--it's about equally as useful as Wizard levels. If the rest of D&D were as balanced, it might be a kinda-slick class. As it is, I can't justify giving up any of the something-for-nothing classes like Master Specialist, MotAO or Incantor.

Its fluff isn't even much of a draw for Wizards; it's essentially the same as the base class or most other Wizard PrCs. For a Cleric (I don't remember if they can enter; I'll assume they can) without access to the Cloistered variant, maybe.


As far as I can see, you give up the two free spells in your spellbook a level, the bonus metamagic or item creation feat every five levels, familiar progression and a regular feat (That you can get back easily) for:

More skill points
UMD
Identify at 6th level as an (Ex) ability (And looks like you don't need the material component, and it means you don't need to ever memorise it again)
A bonus feat equivilant every other level (That'll stack with the equivilant feat), though from a small list. If you're going for UMD or another new skill (Even something cross class like Tumble if you're moving around the battlefield), you can use the first level for a free 4 ranks in it, then bolster a poor save later, get a permananmt dodge bonus to AC and then get bonus 1st and 2nd level spells


I'd consider it worth it, but then, I've never used a familiar and I use most of my feats on metamagic feats anyway...

Jack_Simth
2009-02-13, 08:15 AM
I'd consider it worth it, but then, I've never used a familiar and I use most of my feats on metamagic feats anyway...
Familiars are useful so long as your DM doesn't like using them as plot-hooks and has no objections to "pets".

However
1) The most useful familiar feature (Speak with Master) is at 5th. Speak with Animals of it's kind (7th) is handy if you have a Druid in the party who's Animal Companion matches up with your familiar (or if your DM specifically sets up situations such that the ability is useful), and Scry on Familiar (13th) is occasionally useful, but for the most part, you don't really need anything that crops up after Speak with Master.

2) Familiar uses are generally limited to Scouting (which a competent Rogue can usually do better past about 5th level or so), taking a Watch (depends on which familiar, but Familiars tend to have pretty decent Spot or Listen scores ... if you pick the right ones), Buffing Allies with Touch spells at range (Deliver Touch spells + Flying or fast-moving Familiar - it's most of Reach Spell, usable every other round, without the spell level adjustment), and +2 to nearly every skill check you have ranks in (Aid Another, familiar uses your ranks, or it's own, whichever is better). In a complete party, most of these functions are redundant. In a partial party, they're very, very useful. As mentioned, though, you get full use of all of these very early on. With the right spells/feats, the familiar gets even more useful (there's a Core trick for a party with three arcane casters for infinite non-combat healing, for instance, that relies on three casters with a familiar and the Improved Familiar feat - doesn't cost anything beyond the familiar and the feat, though). Likewise, with Imbue Familiar With Spell Ability, you pick up the ability to give your familiar spells - doubling your effective combat actions.

sonofzeal
2009-02-13, 11:05 AM
As far as I can see, you give up the two free spells in your spellbook a level....

"When a new loremaster level is gained, the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if she had also gained a level in a spellcasting class she belonged to before she added the prestige class."

Pretty sure you don't lose that.

Telonius
2009-02-13, 01:00 PM
It's a really nit-picky rule, and I've heard good arguments for both sides of it.

On the "yes, you lose it," side: Wizards don't technically have any spells known. They get the spells from their spellbooks, not from a table of spells known. For example, if the spellbook is destroyed or stolen, then the Wizard is out of luck except for Read Magic. The "learn two spells" is explicitly stated as a Wizard level only thing in the text, and means you've researched, not learned or known, those spells. No PrC that doesn't explicitly state that you learn two new spells per level would grant you the two free researched spells.

On the "no, you don't lose it" side: The Wizard's Spellbook is effectively the list of their spells known, and levelling up a level of Wizard increases the number of spells in the spellbook; therefore the two extra spells are the same thing as giving two extra spells known. If the Wizard's book is destroyed, and the Wizard made scrolls of the spells in it (or still has some spells prepared from it), he doesn't need to decipher the magical writings again if he wants to rebuild those spells. So clearly something has been saved or learned. Any PrC that increases the number of spells known will give the Wizard the two free spells.

If there's an official ruling resolving these, I haven't seen it.

herrhauptmann
2009-02-13, 07:59 PM
They, uh, do.
Where's it state that nonpermanent effects grant access to class features?

Mind you, I wasn't insulting the loremaster, the loremaster is fun, but until I opened this thread, I've never heard someone mention getting permanent class abilities from an item outside of a AD&D game.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-13, 08:20 PM
Where's it state that nonpermanent effects grant access to class features?

Mind you, I wasn't insulting the loremaster, the loremaster is fun, but until I opened this thread, I've never heard someone mention getting permanent class abilities from an item outside of a AD&D game.CWar before the section on PrCs said something about it, IIRC, but it probably wasn't definitive. The way I remember it is that feats and classes give you the benefit when you qualify for them and don't when you don't. So if you have 13 Str when you take PA but have it drained later, you lose access to the feat's benefits. If you only have 9 Str but have an item of +4, you can use the feat. The same principle applies to PrCs.

Keep in mind I'm AFB right now, so don't hold me to any of this, sorry.

herrhauptmann
2009-02-13, 08:51 PM
CWar before the section on PrCs said something about it, IIRC, but it probably wasn't definitive. The way I remember it is that feats and classes give you the benefit when you qualify for them and don't when you don't. So if you have 13 Str when you take PA but have it drained later, you lose access to the feat's benefits. If you only have 9 Str but have an item of +4, you can use the feat. The same principle applies to PrCs.

Keep in mind I'm AFB right now, so don't hold me to any of this, sorry.

Gotchya, on that note, I wonder why anyone would risk sacrificing class abilities with the loss of a single item.
"Lose my headband because DM snuck black puddings into my mordenkainen's mansion, so I lose my free feat. My free feat went towards a prereq for Archmage. So I lose the prereq to archmage, which means I can't be an archmage until I get it back. AND I still can't use that spell slot I sacrificed for High Arcana."
Look at how many protested the use of a disjunction spell to destroy a lich's phylactery. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89778 Heck, loot is random, so you might end up with a +2 Holy vorpal monk weapon.

Edit:
From complete warrior pg 16.
"An alignment change, levels lost because of character death, or the loss of a magic item that granted an important abilities are examples of events that make a character ineligible to advance farther in a PrC."
So it does imply that an item grants you entry into a feat or PrC. But where is it stated (preferably in PHB or DMG, not one that came years later) that the item does the trick?

Zeful
2009-02-13, 10:09 PM
"When a new loremaster level is gained, the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if she had also gained a level in a spellcasting class she belonged to before she added the prestige class."

Pretty sure you don't lose that.

Technically, yes you do:
The two free spells per level are from the Spellbook class feature, which to my knowledge, no PrC actually advances. Spells known refer to the selfsame class feature of Sorcerers, Bards and similar casters.

However it wouldn't be unreasonable (and as long as the player isn't trying to steal the spotlight too much, not overpowered) to let them have the two spells per level.

Lycanthromancer
2009-02-13, 10:47 PM
To be fair, most spellcasting-advancement PrCs do grant spells known per level, which, in the case of a wizard, are the two-per-level.

monty
2009-02-13, 11:24 PM
To be fair, most spellcasting-advancement PrCs do grant spells known per level, which, in the case of a wizard, are the two-per-level.

Debatable.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-13, 11:29 PM
Debatable.I think one of the best RaI arguments(yes, I know, but RaW is so fuzzy here) is that some classes(Eldrich Knight) don't grant spells known. Which means those classes were either designed solely to rape sorcerers or that they were designed to give less advancement in the scholarly aspects to Wizards, who have no "Spells Known" mechanic other than the spellbook.

monty
2009-02-14, 12:54 AM
I think one of the best RaI arguments(yes, I know, but RaW is so fuzzy here) is that some classes(Eldrich Knight) don't grant spells known. Which means those classes were either designed solely to rape sorcerers or that they were designed to give less advancement in the scholarly aspects to Wizards, who have no "Spells Known" mechanic other than the spellbook.

Either that, or they just didn't realize it until later. Because even with that reasoning, it's still raping sorcerers, since wizards aren't restricted by spells known in the vast majority of campaigns.

Starbuck_II
2009-02-14, 09:35 AM
Edit:
From complete warrior pg 16.
"An alignment change, levels lost because of character death, or the loss of a magic item that granted an important abilities are examples of events that make a character ineligible to advance farther in a PrC."
So it does imply that an item grants you entry into a feat or PrC. But where is it stated (preferably in PHB or DMG, not one that came years later) that the item does the trick?

Dude, if you quote the entire passage about this in Complete Warrior: you make Dragon Deciple Prestige Class implode.
Because you stop qualifying then requalify; which causes you to stop qualifying, then you implode (because Time paradoxes occur).
Because you become a Dragon but you can't be a Dragon to become a Dragon Deciple (which makes you qualify but then you gain Dragon again)

Jack_Simth
2009-02-14, 09:48 AM
Dude, if you quote the entire passage about this in Complete Warrior: you make Dragon Deciple Prestige Class implode.
Because you stop qualifying then requalify; which causes you to stop qualifying, then you implode (because Time paradoxes occur).
Because you become a Dragon but you can't be a Dragon to become a Dragon Deciple (which makes you qualify but then you gain Dragon again)
What's really interesting?
In 3.0, that passage was in the DMG. It was removed in the transition to 3.5.

Complete Warrior was one of the earlier 3.5 books, and ended up with a lot of references to 3.0 material. The later books that include PrC's don't include that passage.

Devils_Advocate
2009-02-21, 06:03 AM
Same deal with Ur-priest. It grants divine spellcasting, thereby disqualifying you from being an Ur-priest.

The irony there is that if you ruled that the class's abilities only have a 50% chance of working with each use, that would probably make Ur-priest closer to actually being balanced. :smalltongue:


But where is it stated (preferably in PHB or DMG, not one that came years later) that the item does the trick?
The books don't specifically say that characters can attack orcs named Dave. Does this mean that Dave the Orc can't be attacked?

If e.g. you have a Strength score of 14, you qualify for a feat whose only prerequisite is having a Strength score of 13 or higher. If you only have that Strength score because you're wearing a magic item.. well, your Strength score is still 14, isn't it? And 14 is still more than 13, right? Well, OK, then!

Temporary Int increases don't boost skill points partly because skill ranks aren't generic like hit points, so it's not simple to just add and remove them. Also, they're supposed to represent actual practice and training, so it doesn't really make sense for a wizard to suddenly be pretty good at hiding just because he cast fox's cunning on himself. Anyway, it's not because he's conceptually not really that smart, but instead just faking it. Magic items don't boost ability scores any less genuinely than stat boosts from leveling up.

Ossian
2009-02-21, 06:08 AM
I've been rereading the novel "Dream Park." The leader of the Adventure is Chester Henderson, the Lore Master.

While it worked well in the book, to me it seems that a Loremaster in D&D is a slightly overpowered Bard/Wizard.

What advantages do they have? Or was the creation of the Loremaster an homage to this great book?

I love loremasters, especially for NPCs. We play D20 Middle Earth and it comes in very handy for most of the high level elven NPC as well as for some antagonists. Midle Earth magic in never an all out display of magic and elements, so "magical" adversaries need to be manipulative, well informed, knowledgeable and well versed in just as many fields as possible. Loremaster also does not damage their magical capabilities so it's a very good option. It also has the 2 extra skill points that can help you create a rounder character who isn't just obsessed by Spellcraft, Concentration and Knowledge Arcana.

O.

monty
2009-02-21, 01:17 PM
Temporary Int increases don't boost skill points partly because skill ranks aren't generic like hit points, so it's not simple to just add and remove them. Also, they're supposed to represent actual practice and training, so it doesn't really make sense for a wizard to suddenly be pretty good at hiding just because he cast fox's cunning on himself. Anyway, it's not because he's conceptually not really that smart, but instead just faking it. Magic items don't boost ability scores any less genuinely than stat boosts from leveling up.

Also, that temporary Int boosters explicitly state that you don't get more skill points from them, where there is no such exclusion for prerequisites anywhere.

herrhauptmann
2009-02-21, 01:39 PM
If e.g. you have a Strength score of 14, you qualify for a feat whose only prerequisite is having a Strength score of 13 or higher. If you only have that Strength score because you're wearing a magic item.. well, your Strength score is still 14, isn't it? And 14 is still more than 13, right? Well, OK, then!

Are you saying that wearing the item lets you take the feat in the first place?
Which brings me back to my point that losing an item could potentially cut you off from your class abilities. ex: A fighter gets strength drained to the point that his str is now a 12 without items. With items it's still 18, so he keeps power attack and all the feats and prestige classes (blackguard for instance) that have power attack as a prereq.
Next an enemy wizard dispels the fighters belt of giant strength. Look, the poor fighter just had his balls cut off because he likely focused on one or two methods of attack which had similar prereqs so as to maximize his feat selection.




Temporary Int increases don't boost skill points partly because skill ranks aren't generic like hit points, so it's not simple to just add and remove them. Also, they're supposed to represent actual practice and training, so it doesn't really make sense for a wizard to suddenly be pretty good at hiding just because he cast fox's cunning on himself. Anyway, it's not because he's conceptually not really that smart, but instead just faking it. Magic items don't boost ability scores any less genuinely than stat boosts from leveling up.
My point wasn't using fox cunning, which is a temporary spell, no matter how many feats you throw on it. It was wearing a headband of int for the entire time between gaining one level and the next. If a headband +6 allows a wizard to qualify for higher level secrets, it should let him get an extra 3 skill points when he levels.




The books don't specifically say that characters can attack orcs named Dave. Does this mean that Dave the Orc can't be attacked?
Now you're just being silly. Since when has there been a rule that dealt with attacking monsters because of their individual names? (Well besides some of the more annoying dungeon puzzles)

Good job on bringing back a week old thread btw.

monty
2009-02-21, 01:53 PM
My point wasn't using fox cunning, which is a temporary spell, no matter how many feats you throw on it. It was wearing a headband of int for the entire time between gaining one level and the next. If a headband +6 allows a wizard to qualify for higher level secrets, it should let him get an extra 3 skill points when he levels.

:smallsigh: Try reading; it works wonders.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#headbandofIntellect


This enhancement bonus does not earn the wearer extra skill points when a new level is attained; use the unenhanced Intelligence bonus to determine skill points.

You may notice I said this in the post immediately before yours, about 20 minutes earlier, and it's been stated multiple other times in the thread.