heavyfuel
2015-06-27, 09:32 AM
Discussion emerged in the RAW Q&A, so I decided to create a thread about it.
Please only post about RAW. While I think no one will argue that it's a fair ruling, this isn't what this is about.
Here are the relevant posts:
Q 123
If you have 5 or more ranks in knowledge (history) you get a +2 on bardic knowledge checks. Does this also apply to the lore ability of cloistered clerics?
A 123
Yes.
Since it's identical to it, bards would get the +2 in Lore. However, since a bard is someone with one level in bard, you also use your cloistered cleric class level in place of bard levels, and also get the +2
A 123 No.
Lore functions identically to Bardic Knowledge except for having a different name and using Cloistered Cleric levels instead of Bard levels. However, those differences mean that it's not the check specifically called out in the Knowledge skill description. Your DM may add Lore checks to the benefit as a reasonable house rule, but that's not guaranteed by RAW.
Edit: Because we've got contesting answers here, I'll add an example. If Mary and Sue are identical twins, and Sue enters a lottery and wins a car, is the lottery required to also give Mary a car because the twins are identical except for their names?
Without taking a side regarding which answer is the correct one, I just want to point out that this example is terrible. Giving out a second car will cost somebody something, while giving a cloistered cleric a +2 on Lore checks costs nothing. Also, just because two people are twins with identical genetic details does not mean that they are in any sense functionally identical or considered by anyone to be the same person, whereas Lore is functionally identical to Bardic Knowledge to the point of essentially being the same ability with a different name.
The two situations are not remotely comparable.
EDIT: A better example would be if I used my GiantITP user name to enter a contest and win a car. Should I be prohibited from driving it in real life where I use my actual legal name?
Wouldn't the point of contention be whether the bonus is a function of bardic knowledge (in which case it is copied, as lore is identical to bardic knowledge) or Knowledge (History) (in which case it is not copied, as Knowledge (History) refers to a specific ability)?
This point is not actually in contention at all, because the bonus comes from having skill synergy with the Knowledge (history) skill. By strict RAW, that synergy bonus applies to Bardic Knowledge, and the only question here is whether or not the Lore ability possessed by Cloistered Clerics (and Loremasters), which differs only in name and which class counts towards the check, is close enough to being the same thing to also get that bonus.
I believe this to be an oversight (or at the very least, a point of ambiguity) in the rules, one which is easily solvable without needing to determine whether or not following the strictest reading of the rules confers the bonus to non-Bards. I, for one, would totally allow it at my table, but I'm of the opinion that the rules are not some infallible holy text.
However, that is not the purpose of this thread. This thread is for determining exactly where the lines are drawn when possible, or saying that it has to be determined by each individual DM otherwise. I am not convinced 100% that we can't determine where the line actually lies in this particular case, I just don't think that finding it is of any great importance. We've pretty much hashed it out, and we should all have enough information to make up our own minds. It isn't always necessary to come to a consensus.
Yes, and skill synergy is outlined in two places, the skill that grants the synergy bonus and the skill that receives it. In this case, bardic knowledge says:
Which implies that the bonus is a part of the ability, which is copied by the Cloistered Cleric's lore ability. OTOH, Knowledge (History) has text referring to specifically and exclusively bardic knowledge.
@Brova:
Hmm... okay, I concede the point. I think the rest of my post (about further investigation into this issue being more-or-less unnecessary) still stands, though.
Please only post about RAW. While I think no one will argue that it's a fair ruling, this isn't what this is about.
Here are the relevant posts:
Q 123
If you have 5 or more ranks in knowledge (history) you get a +2 on bardic knowledge checks. Does this also apply to the lore ability of cloistered clerics?
A 123
Yes.
Since it's identical to it, bards would get the +2 in Lore. However, since a bard is someone with one level in bard, you also use your cloistered cleric class level in place of bard levels, and also get the +2
A 123 No.
Lore functions identically to Bardic Knowledge except for having a different name and using Cloistered Cleric levels instead of Bard levels. However, those differences mean that it's not the check specifically called out in the Knowledge skill description. Your DM may add Lore checks to the benefit as a reasonable house rule, but that's not guaranteed by RAW.
Edit: Because we've got contesting answers here, I'll add an example. If Mary and Sue are identical twins, and Sue enters a lottery and wins a car, is the lottery required to also give Mary a car because the twins are identical except for their names?
Without taking a side regarding which answer is the correct one, I just want to point out that this example is terrible. Giving out a second car will cost somebody something, while giving a cloistered cleric a +2 on Lore checks costs nothing. Also, just because two people are twins with identical genetic details does not mean that they are in any sense functionally identical or considered by anyone to be the same person, whereas Lore is functionally identical to Bardic Knowledge to the point of essentially being the same ability with a different name.
The two situations are not remotely comparable.
EDIT: A better example would be if I used my GiantITP user name to enter a contest and win a car. Should I be prohibited from driving it in real life where I use my actual legal name?
Wouldn't the point of contention be whether the bonus is a function of bardic knowledge (in which case it is copied, as lore is identical to bardic knowledge) or Knowledge (History) (in which case it is not copied, as Knowledge (History) refers to a specific ability)?
This point is not actually in contention at all, because the bonus comes from having skill synergy with the Knowledge (history) skill. By strict RAW, that synergy bonus applies to Bardic Knowledge, and the only question here is whether or not the Lore ability possessed by Cloistered Clerics (and Loremasters), which differs only in name and which class counts towards the check, is close enough to being the same thing to also get that bonus.
I believe this to be an oversight (or at the very least, a point of ambiguity) in the rules, one which is easily solvable without needing to determine whether or not following the strictest reading of the rules confers the bonus to non-Bards. I, for one, would totally allow it at my table, but I'm of the opinion that the rules are not some infallible holy text.
However, that is not the purpose of this thread. This thread is for determining exactly where the lines are drawn when possible, or saying that it has to be determined by each individual DM otherwise. I am not convinced 100% that we can't determine where the line actually lies in this particular case, I just don't think that finding it is of any great importance. We've pretty much hashed it out, and we should all have enough information to make up our own minds. It isn't always necessary to come to a consensus.
Yes, and skill synergy is outlined in two places, the skill that grants the synergy bonus and the skill that receives it. In this case, bardic knowledge says:
Which implies that the bonus is a part of the ability, which is copied by the Cloistered Cleric's lore ability. OTOH, Knowledge (History) has text referring to specifically and exclusively bardic knowledge.
@Brova:
Hmm... okay, I concede the point. I think the rest of my post (about further investigation into this issue being more-or-less unnecessary) still stands, though.