Talk:Knowledge of the Lore-master

From Lotro-Wiki.com
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Creature Template

Hey guys is there a way we can display the template but not have the categories take effect? If you notice it's placing this article inside creature stubs. Rogue (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Seth added a nocat parameter to a template the other day, think it was suggested by Erik Ratcatcher. I assume it will probably get added to all templates that auto-categorise eventually. Amphoras (talkTalk to me!) 16:19, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
What he said. Brilliant idea from Erik that I'll try to add as I go through templates. Might be challenging with this one, but I'll give it a shot when I get home in a couple of days if it's not done by then. :) Check the forum for a bit more about this. Sethladan 21:18, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Range of Level?

The other day Rogue mentioned that LM can inspect creatures within a range of LM's öevel. What is that range?

While updating intro-quests there were some creatures that could use an update, but this ability is obtained at level 20 so...

Oh, fun! I didn't know you had a Lore-master as well! *Rubs hands in prospect of luring yet another contributor into helping out with skill values.* What level is he/she?
It boils down to the fact that an inspect is best if made by a Lore-master of the same level as the creature. But any inspect is better than none at all, so we'll have to live with what we have available. For your creatures it would be fine to return at a later level and take the inspects then, if possible at all. --Ravanel (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Update 6 KoLM vs NPCs.

So far I have not been able to inspect any "ringed" NPC (i.e. Quest giver) on Bullroarer, in the Great River area. (Haven't tried in older areas.)

Also, the Brown Lands appear to be the "last/least" developed... i.e. their MOBS have all the "<string error" entries! :)

You are only able to inspect combat NPCs (= NPCs that you are able to fight --> mobs). Quest givers usually don't fight you, and thus are not 'inspectable'. --Ravanel (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2012 (EST)