Regarding Knowledge Checks

[Viking Bastard]

Again situational modifiers could be applied, to change the difficulty of a Religion roll for a Cleric, as he would have applicable working knowledge.

Yeah, but that's really what being Trained should encompass, and Bonus inflation is just annoying.

 

[Ryujin]

Yeah, but that's really what being Trained should encompass, and Bonus inflation is just annoying.

Then DEflate the Wizard's bonus.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Then DEflate the Wizard's bonus.

Ah, but then the Wizard feels like he's being gimped.

 

[Ryujin]

Ah, but then the Wizard feels like he's being gimped.

Maybe, but in reality it's giving the Cleric the chance to shine in a way he should be able to.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Maybe, but in reality it's giving the Cleric the chance to shine in a way he should be able to.

Like I said in my original post: options are being explored. Simply keying Religion of WIS when appropriate takes care of this. The question is simply whether it's too annoying to track (Ability Check + Skill Bonus vs. Pre-calculated Skill Check). It remains to be seen.

Largely, I take care of this with Training giving you auto-successes at most things. Simply, when there's divinity afoot, I inform the Cleric instead of the Mage that she notices X, despite them both being Trained in Religion. This bothers noone.

 

[RYPros53]

So when dishing out information regarding knowledge checks, just give the info to the character who is trained in that skill, as long as the DC Is moderate or lower. Not including situations under time constraints or when there's a real threat involved, in that case have everyone roll who wants to roll to discern what they can.

 

[Viking Bastard]

So when dishing out information regarding knowledge checks, just give the info to the character who is trained in that skill, as long as the DC Is moderate or lower. Not including situations under time constraints or when there's a real threat involved, in that case have everyone roll who wants to roll to discern what they can.

Works for me, at least. And I got the idea of this board, so I know it works for others as well. But I also had a problem with some players spamming knowledge checks, which bogged down gameplay. Another popular variation is the Passive check, where PCs pass any check where 10 + Skill Bonus beats the DC. I like going with Training because it involves less "paperwork".

Basically, try it out and then go with what feels right for you and your group. Some people like a lot of checks for everything, others (like myself) only want to roll for significant things.

 

[Quickleaf]

When making decisions for which skill to apply to an on-the-fly knowledge check, I have some difficulties coming up with which skill rolls to ask my players for.

It seems strange to me that there is Arcane power, Divine power, Psionic power, etc... relating to magical powers and the like, but when making a magic-related skill check, there is only Arcana?

I house ruled allowing Religion, Nature, and Heal to identify or interact with corresponding ritual types. Also, I suggest using some creativity when it comes to "magical phenomenon"; the entire D&D world is magical after all. If the PCs are examining some runes that the wizard detects magic on to determine they are some kind of crude magical sensors, perhaps the dwarf trained in Dungeoneering can recognize these runes as poison-to-depth readings used to alert miners in the event of breaking a poison gas pocket, and the elf trained in Perception (or an auto-success for a Linguist/bard) notices that there is a hidden pattern among the runes - a trap?

Also I know that each monster's type relates to which skill the PCs need to role in order to discover information about it, but have yet to find a good table/chart describing this and the type of information that is provided on which DCs.

My cheat sheet has a very clear chart ( as does the Rules Compendium). http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-discussion/307923-d-d-4th-edition-dm-cheat-sheet.html

Then I come to the part of 4E that suggests, "if the PCs need to know the information, give it to them." Why even have them make a knowledge check then? But if its information that they don't entirely need, its only thematic in essence, and therefore it should just be given to them also?

My approach is to have a very small amount of "need to know" information - this is the stuff that sets up the premise of the game, leads to a prepared adventure, or develops an individual PC's story. Obviously if you run more linear/path games there is more "need to know" than in sandbox games.

With "need to know" information there is no roll involved, there is no skill involved, the PC's just learn it. IME experience such information is best conveyed multiple times thru a "show don't tell" model. That increases the chances of players paying attention and remembering.

Then there's everything else, which is "optional" info, and encompasses the vast majority of information the PCs may seek out. Generally if a player asks a story question that's a good indication for a knowledge check, versus top-down into initiated by the DM which is generally "need to know."

With "optional" info, a knowledge skill is usually involved. Often this will mean a roll, but sometimes "taking 10" (or a passive check) makes more sense. This can be conveyed simply from DM to player (eg. "you know the duke is alleged to have incestuous relations with his aunt"), thru a plot exposition NPC, a book, or anything really.

So that's the difference.

 

[Nytmare]

I house ruled allowing Religion, Nature, and Heal to identify or interact with corresponding ritual types. Also, I suggest using some creativity when it comes to "magical phenomenon"; the entire D&D world is magical after all. If the PCs are examining some runes that the wizard detects magic on to determine they are some kind of crude magical sensors, perhaps the dwarf trained in Dungeoneering can recognize these runes as poison-to-depth readings used to alert miners in the event of breaking a poison gas pocket, and the elf trained in Perception (or an auto-success for a Linguist/bard) notices that there is a hidden pattern among the runes - a trap?

can not... give. ex-pee...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Like I said in my original post: options are being explored. Simply keying Religion of WIS when appropriate takes care of this. The question is simply whether it's too annoying to track (Ability Check + Skill Bonus vs. Pre-calculated Skill Check). It remains to be seen.

Largely, I take care of this with Training giving you auto-successes at most things. Simply, when there's divinity afoot, I inform the Cleric instead of the Mage that she notices X, despite them both being Trained in Religion. This bothers noone.

I don't see the issue. The cleric certainly knows SOMETHING about his own religion, but he may not even be the greatest expert in THAT. If he's got a decent INT score he'll have a good bonus and we assume he's studied it pretty well, and he always gets Religion as a skill, so he's never BAD at it. Some other character may well be quite knowledgeable on the subject, like the high INT wizard that trained Religion, who may well have many reasons to know obscure facts about various religions.

So, ask a cleric about some basic fact relating to his god or religion in general he's probably going to just know it. If you want to know some obscure fact about some ancient cult, ask the expert, who may well not be the cleric.