Question regarding Bardic Knowledge

[Tharkon]

I mean, consider the Internet, that great misinformation super highway. How many people do you know who *know* things that flatly aren't true. But they heard it from <insert source>, and they wouldn't steer me wrong.

I think of Bardic Knowledge that way.

Ill defined as it is, it's an incredible class ability.

Considering D&D a game, a class feature meant to be an advantage to the character
shouldn't suddenly have the possibility to become a disadvantage.
That's like having a Paladin who accidentally smites a non-evil character have his smite bonus subtracted instead of added,
because the positive energy of the smite somehow heals his opponent.

Anyway, here's an extract from the FAQ:

Can a bard use bardic knowledge anytime a Knowledge skill check called for?
Bardic knowledge is not a substitute for Knowledge checks. The PH doesn’t give a lot of detail about this class feature,
indicating only that a bard can make the check “to see whether he knows some relevant information about local notable people,
legendary items, or noteworthy places.”
By its nature, bardic knowledge represents stray knowledge and random bits remembered from stories, not encyclopedic details.
Compare that to the definition of a Knowledge skill, which describes it as “a study of some body of lore, possibly an academic
or even scientific discipline.” This is a narrow distinction, but one that the DM should keep in mind.
Asking the DM if your bard knows anything about the demon prince Orcus (whose cult the PCs are fighting),
or what the local duke’s favorite delicacy is, or if there are particularly interesting legends
concerning the so-called haunted forest just outside town, are all reasonable uses of bardic knowledge.
Bardic knowledge wouldn’t, on the other hand, enable the bard to provide details regarding a particular demon’s vulnerabilities,
rattle off a complete list of all the kings and queens who have ruled a particular country,
or identify a particular species of fern—all those answers would be more appropriately derived by Knowledge checks.
If the vagueness of bardic knowledge doesn’t suit your tastes,
the bardic knack variant class feature (PH2 35) provides a much clearer way to mimic a wide range of minor talents and knowledge.

Bardic Knack
When making any skill check, you can use 1/2 your bard level (rounded up) in place of the number of ranks you have in the skill (even if that number is 0). For example, a 5th-level bard would have the equivalent of 3 ranks in Appraise, Balance, Bluff, and so on (but only for the purpose of making skill checks). You can’t take 10 on checks when you use bardic knack (to take 10 you have to use your actual ranks). If the skill doesn’t allow untrained checks, you must have at least 1 actual rank to attempt the check.

 

[Ranes]

It shouldn't necessarily provide the details of all the vulnerabilities of every demon, sure, but there's no reason why it shouldn't provide some or all of a specific monster's vulnerabilities, if there are legends, songs or tales of that being. Folklore is typically rich in this kind of detail.

It's all in the purvue of the DM, too. Over here, BK can fill in for a Knowledge (Arcana) check. Over here, it cannot.

To come back to Greenfield's original concern, it's the vagueness of the ability that gives it its flexibility. But there is no obligation on the DM to make it applicable every time a player wants information.

 

[Greenfield]

Brings to mind a game I once ran. A being referred to simply as "The Necromancer" was plaguing a town. It would select a specific member of a church or guild, call them out and kill them. It was working through the town's elite, one by one.

The party was given all available information, and a mission: Rid the town of the thing.

The "relevant information" was all negatives. It appeared to have no weaknesses or vulnerabilities. No spells had worked on it. Powers to rebuke or control undead didn't work on it. Mundane weapons had passed through it harmlessly, as had a number of magic arrows. Fire, lightning, acid, cold, death effects, positive energy effects and poisons were useless.

The reason this comes to mind is the comment about known vulnerabilities, how to kill or defeat a specific monster will always fall into this category: A study in what hasn't worked.

Why? Because if they'd worked, the creature would be dead.

So I'll argue that a Bard might learn about a specific creature from tales and ballads, and might learn how such things had been defeated in the past, but won't come up with things like, "He'll die if washed with pure water in direct sunlight", with regards to a specific individual. Or if he does, it will be wrong.

The "Necromancer"? Perfectly normal, mortal human being on a mission of vengeance. Took time to study each target, knew their preferred style of combat, and tailored her defenses to that style, changing them for each battle. 100% killable.

 

[lordxaviar]

Originally Posted by Greenfield
I mean, consider the Internet, that great misinformation super highway. How many people do you know who *know* things that flatly aren't true?


Sometimes, I am one of those people

have to agree here too... it happens

 

[domino]

The way I've seen it happen in games that I played a bard in was that it was for things like legends and songs and myths. A bard knows tales, so he'd know the stuff about those tales. That the local mayor's daughter eloped with the blacksmith's son? Not so much. That there's a grove in the forest rumored to be where pursued lovers can find shelter? Yes. How to turn iron into steel and what proportions are needed? No. That the ancient warlord's blade was forged from a star that fell 3 valleys over, and was quenched in the blood of a hundred prisoners? Yes.

That kind of thing.

 

[Dandu]

How to turn iron into steel and what proportions are needed? No.

I'm sure the dwarves would have written an epic poem about that.

 

[Ranes]

...So I'll argue that a Bard might learn about a specific creature from tales and ballads, and might learn how such things had been defeated in the past, but won't come up with things like, "He'll die if washed with pure water in direct sunlight", with regards to a specific individual. Or if he does, it will be wrong.

I don't think we're that far apart on this but, in the example you've just given, I would like to suggest a consideration:

Q. Do we know how this specific creature has been defeated before?

A. Is it legendary or emergent? If the former is true, BK might work. If the latter is true, it won't (possible exception for really high BK vs local folklore).

The "Necromancer"? Perfectly normal, mortal human being on a mission of vengeance.

That, in conjunction with your earlier premise, suggests that while there is necromancer lore the bard may be able to elucidate to the party for fun and profit, if this creature has any particular mutation or attribute that deviates from the popular conception of such an individual (and it certainly doesn't sound like what we might call 'legendary'), BK fails, with such ramifications as spectacular as the DM sees fit.

 

[Vespucci]

Bardic Knowledge seems vague, poorly defined.

For example, in the SRD it says that a "A successful bardic knowledge check will not reveal the powers of a magic item but may give a hint as to its general function.", but doesn't say what roll qualifies as "Success".

The DC for magic items depends on the obscurity of the knowledge, as with all other Bardic Knowledge checks.

 

[Greenfield]

And how would you rate the obscurity factor for an item? Base it on price?

Hmm, actually, that seems like as good a standard as any, and it's objectively verifiable.

It all ties in to the idea that "Form fits function", which is to say that the item's powers are in some way evident in the way it looks. While that seems to match the art and illustrations in the various books, there are a lot of items whose descriptions begin with, "This item looks like an ordinary <noun>, but once <verbed>...".

I guess they paid their illustrators better than they paid their writers.

 

[Tharkon]

I mean, consider the Internet, that great misinformation super highway. How many people do you know who *know* things that flatly aren't true. But they heard it from <insert source>, and they wouldn't steer me wrong.

I think of Bardic Knowledge that way.

Misinformation could be a possible result for a failed check.

Maybe success = information
Failure within 5 of DC = no information
Failure by 5 or more = misinformation