Urban Savant: Bardic Knowledge vs Knowledge (History)

[Doctor Despair]

This didn't really seem like a RAW question as much as a matter of opinion, but I thought I'd put it out to the Playground and see what the consensus was. Urban Savant has some fairly specific requirements:


Requirements
Skills: 8 ranks in any one, and 2 ranks in each of the other two: Knowledge (dungeoneering) (2 or) 8 ranks , Knowledge (local) (8 or) 2 ranks , and Knowledge (nature) (8 or) 2 ranks

Feats: Favored (League of Eyes or a similar organization)

Special: Bardic knowledge class ability (at DM's discretion, can be replaced by Knowledge (History 2 ranks).
Special: Must be a member in good standing of the League of Eyes or similar organizaion

How would you view the "at DM's discretion" portion of the requirements? On the one hand, I could see folks saying this leaves it up to DM fiat, such as building a character that relies on flaws in order to qualify for its prestige classes. On the other hand, literally everything is at DM's discretion; a DM could choose to waive the feat requirement at their discretion, for example, and this is literally printed alongside the prerequisites as rulestext.

In a Playground competition, would you look at a character qualifying with Knowledge (history) as relying on variant rules, or would it just be alternate RAW (in the same way that using variant classes and alternate class features is alternate RAW)?

[ExLibrisMortis]

I'd go with "alternate RAW" on this one.

Printing that "at the DM's discretion" is stupid. There are a few other lore abilities (e.g. Loremaster, cloistered cleric) that aren't listed. Does DM discretion not extend to those abilities?

[Thurbane]

If this was used in an Iron Chef or similar, and I was a judge, I would freely allow the skill ranks to sub for Bardic Knowledge without penalty.

[Biggus]

This isn't the only thing that has a similar clause, for example Leadership says "check with your DM before selecting this feat".

I'm not entirely sure what distinction you're making between variant rules and alternate RAW. I'd consider it acceptable if I was running a competetion personally.

[Telonius]

This didn't really seem like a RAW question as much as a matter of opinion, but I thought I'd put it out to the Playground and see what the consensus was. Urban Savant has some fairly specific requirements:



How would you view the "at DM's discretion" portion of the requirements? On the one hand, I could see folks saying this leaves it up to DM fiat, such as building a character that relies on flaws in order to qualify for its prestige classes. On the other hand, literally everything is at DM's discretion; a DM could choose to waive the feat requirement at their discretion, for example, and this is literally printed alongside the prerequisites as rulestext.

In a Playground competition, would you look at a character qualifying with Knowledge (history) as relying on variant rules, or would it just be alternate RAW (in the same way that using variant classes and alternate class features is alternate RAW)?

Personally, I'd say the "at DM's discretion" means that the League of Eyes is cool with having non-Bard members advance to be Urban Savants. Some of the fluff text backs this up:


An urban savant is a scholar at heart, with a voracious
appetite for information. While those of an intellectual
bent (particularly bards and wizards) are best suited to the
role, urban savants also hail from the ranks of skill-heavy
classes such as rangers and rogues. Knowledge-hungry
experts constitute a substantial minority as well

Also, that if you're a Bard, you don't have to have Know (History) ranks.

They could have made it clearer and more concise by saying

"Special: Bardic Knowledge or 2 ranks of Knowledge (History)," instead, but I think it means the same thing.