Undead Lore?

Ok Undead Lore is a horrible idea just inlclude it into Religion lore.
Agree. The number of lore skills currently is ridiculous.
"Utinam barbari spatium proprium tuum invadant!"
There certainly does seem to be an abundance of "Lore" skills. They've tried to hit as many topics as possible and they seem to have gone overboard. My personal favorite has to "Professional Lore".

I figure we'll see a number of them consolidated in the next update.
My Sig
Reality is but the sum total of all illusions. Proud Hand of Karsus, now and forever Mess with one Hand, mess with 'em all I am Blue/Green
I am Blue/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
"just do what LM the lord of magical might does, and you'll be fine" - sfdragon, 10/12/09
Board Snippets
147048523 wrote:
"I don't like X, they should remove it." "I like X, they should keep it." "They should replace X with Y." "Anybody that likes X is dumb. Y is better." "Why don't they include both X and Y." "Yeah, everybody can be happy then!" "But I don't like X, they should remove it." "X really needs to be replaced with Y." "But they can include both X and Y." "But I don't like X, they need to remove it." "Remove X, I don't like it." Repeat. Obstinance?
56790678 wrote:
Until you've had an in-law tell you your choice of game was stupid, and just Warcraft on paper, and dumbed down for dumber players who can't handle a real RPG, you haven't lived. You haven't lived.
56902498 wrote:
Lady and gentlemen.... I present to you the Edition War without Contrition, the War of the Web, the Mighty Match-up! We're using standard edition war rules. No posts of substance. Do not read the other person's posts with comprehension. Make frequent comparison to video games, MMOs, and CCGs. Use the words "fallacy" and "straw man", incorrectly and often. Passive aggressiveness gets you extra points and asking misleading and inflammatory questions is mandatory. If you're getting tired, just declare victory and leave the thread. Wait for the buzzer... and.... One, two, three, four, I declare Edition War Five, six, seven eight, I use the web to Go!
57062508 wrote:
D&D should not return to the days of blindfolding the DM and players. No tips on encounter power? No mention of expected party roles? No true meaning of level due to different level charts or tiered classes? Please, let's not sacrifice clear, helpful rules guidelines in favour of catering to the delicate sensibilities of the few who have problems with the ascetics of anything other than what they are familiar with.
56760448 wrote:
Just a quick note on the MMORPG as an insult comparison... MMORPGs, raking in money by the dumptruck full. Many options, tons of fans across many audiences, massive resources allocated to development. TTRPGs, dying product. Squeaking out an existence that relys on low cost. Fans fit primarily into a few small demographics. R&D budgets small, often rushed to market and patched after deployment. You're not really making much of an argument when you compare something to a MMORPG and assume people think that means bad. Lets face it, they make the money, have the audience and the budget. We here on this board are fans of TTRPGs but lets not try to pretend none of us play MMORPGs.
90571711 wrote:
Adding options at the system level is good. Adding options at the table level is hard. Removing options at the system level is bad. Removing options at the table level is easy. This is not complicated.
57333888 wrote:
112760109 wrote:
56902838 wrote:
Something like Tactical Shift is more magical than martial healing.
Telling someone to move over a few feet is magical now? :| I weep for this generation.
Given the laziness and morbid obsesity amongst D&Ders, being able to convince someone to get on their feet, do some heavy exercise, and use their words to make them be healthier must seem magical.
158710691 wrote:
D&D definitely improves mental health; Just as long as you stay away from these forums ;)
I think the best option might be for all the various "monster" lore to be lumped into a single skill - and then characters can have a speciality in a type of monster (with ways to gain additional specialities) 

That said, I can kinda understand not having undead tied to religion lore - only because undead created through strictly arcane ways wouldn't necessarily be tied to religion.   
Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/

I think the first Playtest's approach was better.  If every Lore Skill is an Intelligence check, then you only really need one Lore Skill entry for both PCs and DM.  What I think they need to do is explain every Skill in every Background.  So there is one Lore skill and the Undead Lore is explained under Sage. 


Yes, this could create multiple entries in the same book.  I could see a clerical background that also has the Undead Lore skill.  But what if that clerical background is in another book?  It keeps the information local without having to cross reference everything - another way to speed up character creation. 


There should only be one Undead Lore in Next, but by putting the Skill Description in the Background you could have a seperate background with Undead Slaying skill that does different things.  Listing all the Skills limits them, putting them in the Backgrounds makes them more dynamic.


And the DM gets a smaller more concise set of Skills and DCs to manage, like Lore instead of a dozen Different Lores.

What boggles my mind is that apparently Undead Lore and Forbidden Lore are two different skills. Says a lot about the world of DDNext, doesn't it?

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick