I'm not even slightly surprised.
All of which has nothing to do with Bodaks or D&D in any way, other than that it's speculation and mostly fantasy.
That being said, you should probably disregard everything I've said on the subject.
While I agree the subject matter is off the topic, it illustrates that having some people who lecture about topics the general populace has no experience or expertise with in no way provides a substantial knowledge base for the population.
Because they're cute. If there were a D&D monster with an SoD and a deceptively benign appearance, I bet it would be really dangerous. I don't know of any.
By the "everybody knows what it basically looks like and can do" belief you have been espousing, it should not matter that it is cute, unless it precisely mimics the appearance of some other creature (and even then everyone would know some creatures can do that).
A more apt analogy would be comparing the rules on Knowledge with the rules on attacks, period. That's a more similar scope. By comparison, the former is pretty light.
I think your breadth is excessive. This would imply Knowledge should occupy what, 25% to 1/3 of the rules? We should have Knowledge Skill descriptions that are as many and varied as feats, or as spells? That we would make as many rolls, and spend us much time, on activities focused on the knowledge skills as we do in combat, in the typical game. That just is not the case. Knowledge skills are abbreviated abstractions because they are a limited focus of game activity.
The actual words the character says are in-game.
And they are chosen by the character, based on his persuasive abilities. A player who is quite honest and forthright, and a terrible poker player, might indicate "I try to convince the locals that this concoction of foul-smelling herbs, mud and water is a wondrous healing concoction". It is the character, with a +15 Bluff, who phrases the snappy patter that sells out the supply to the townsfolk.
Just as a high PER skill reminds a player that his character sees something subtle, and he need not pass a "where's Waldo" or "Scene-it" test to benefit from his character's skills, nor must he tell me how he feints, dodges and moves to land a sword blow - his character has those skills.
I think there's a pretty clear distinction in D&D that you control the character's mind but not his body.
Why does the character have INT, WIS or CHA if the intent is that the player uses his own? In my view, the player controls the decisions of the character, and what he attempts to do. The rules, including the character's skills and abilities, controls his success or failure in these efforts.
That would be the sort of thing that sensible DM interpretation of what the DC is and the scope of successful check easily prevents.
The rules are intended to place the players and GM on common ground as to what constitutes 'sensible GM interpretation" and "scope of successful checks". We could certainly remove to hit and damage roils, and leave that to "sensible GM interpretation" as well. Let's take a step back and remember that the rules for adjudication of success and failure are just structure for a game of "let's pretend", so rather than "I hit - fall down you're dead", offset with "No, you missed", instead the dice arbitrate the success of the attack.
There are, but I am not aware of any D&D skills that meet that description.
Then we disagree on whether certain of these skills could require special training. If anything, I question Craft and Perform lacking a similar "you can only do so much untrained" aspect similar to Knowledge. Profession, though, requires training - what makes it different?
Wait, so you're okay with a character benefiting from a player's knowledge for substituting the function of knowledge checks, but not his speech construction for diplomacy checks? (I'm okay with both because you inhabit the character's mind and both are mental)
No, I am OK with a character learning from experience without investing skill ranks. Borog the Stupid and Sacriligious can certainly learn from experience that attacking a spectre with a non-magical weapon is futile, or be told by Leon the Learned that Silver will harm the werewolf. Having seen that in action, he can certainly consider himself justified in using a silver weapon when he encounters a werewolf again, or even deciding to try it Leon's way when they track this one down. But just because the player is well versed in werewolf lore, that should not mean Borog (or even Leon) automatically knows werewolves are susceptible to silver. Leon may have the knowledge skill, so he gets a roll. Borog's one skill point per level went to Intimidate.
No, there isn't. "That's a basilisk, don't look at it" is knowable to characters. Its HD are not readily observable.
So despite these world travelers ensuring every schoolchild can recognize a basilisk on sight, know of its petrification gave and be aware of exactly what steps they should take in defense, they can't know that it can absorb more damage than a warhorse and keep on going? I think your "common knowledge" is very sporadic and selective in its application.
I don't understand the first question. As to the second, it's a good question, but they didn't really know for sure. Of course, they have a general idea of relative power levels, and one imagines that high-powered criminals who get the death penalty are a very valuable commodity. But there is a gamble there.
To the first question, it is simply that there would seem to be pretty common resurrections, given the scroll and the condemned prisoner. Hasn't anyone stepped up to the plate, like those world travellers, to disseminate successes and failures so we have a better idea which lives are enough? How many sentient creatures do PC's combat? Keeping a few prisoner hardly seems a stretch. Hell, they're "condemned" anyway - would they not be a valuable commodity in being available for sacrifice to Raise nobles, even if the PC's don't need them?
And the last question, the players could use the same approach, assuming they could find and chaperon a suitable sacrifice, pay all the normal costs, and have no moral compunction about killing someone in cold blood in exchange for a resurrection.
Suspend Animation and Shrinking spells/carrying devices seem likely developments when these creatures become such valuable commodities, as the main scarcity seems to be the life to sacrifice. Traveling NPC's of little note have the spell available.
The moral issue is the more scary one to me. Seems an unlikely action for a Paladin, or even a Good cleric - exchanging one life for another seems an evil act. Now, if I wanted such a system to truly make Resurrection rare, I'd be fine with it being a CANTRIP. But the exchanged life must be given freely and voluntarily, with no compulsion, no magical or mundane coercion, and no force. A 100% without regrets sacrifice freely chosen by the entity giving up its life for another.
Ahnehnois - Without looking it up, what color is a common krait snake? What does it look like? How big is it? What are the methods for treatment of a bite?
Even given the vast amount of information at your fingertips, I'm fairly certain that you wouldn't know anything about this snake other than its name and that it's very poisonous. Why would you expect some Middle Ages peasants to know anything about an Athach? Or a Bodak? Or a Teneberous Worm? Or a Grey Ooze?
On and on.
BINGO!
Isn't that enough? "Snakes are often poisonous is common knowledge". So is "undead often drain the life out of you".
Then do the PC's believe this of all snakes (it surprises many that constrictors are not poisonous, or that rattlers don't inject poison) and a walking skeleton can slay a man instantly merely by meeting its gaze? Do we fear a Crocodile might turn us to stone, and avert our eyes? It's a big reptile, like a basilisk. Or do they know the specifics of each creature independently? The former is legend and myth, the latter textbook recognition on sight.
Because they live nearby and are dangerous. Why would you expect them to be ignorant of the world they live in?
If the whole MM lives nearby, how do humans survive? This does open up the suggestion that "local knowledge" should grant an understanding of creatures that live in the local area, rather than all humanoids and only humanoids, though.
2) Kraits are @3' long and bluish black with white stripes.* but none live where I am- I know this 'cause I'm kind of into snakes. I'd expectpeoplewho live near poisonous snakes to at least be familiar with the concept that some snakes are poisonous, and maybe even be able to ID some of the more notable facts about the most dangerous ones. Even though they may not know what a krait is, most people in the American Southwest can ID a rattlesnake by sound, and would be loath to blithely stick their hands into nooks & crannies near rocks & rotting logs.
This shows a further abstraction - we don't want dozens or hundreds of Knowledges, so we have KN Nature for all animals, not separate skills for snakes., fish, toadstools, etc. Knowledges are broad abstractions, like Doctors and Scientists in Sci Fi always have specialist level knowledge in dozens of separate fields.
Out of curiosity, who are all these people being mauled by koalas? I live in Australia and don't hear of very many koala-maulings!
I googled Koala Mauling - stupid people getting too close to an animal get scratched. No reports of anyone turned to stone or slain by a death gaze, though...
