D&D 5E Knowledge: Nobility and Local?

[Thaumaturge]

Speaking for myself, I'm quite happy to throw monster knowledge checks in the garbage and return to a "has your character seen this before?" model.

Eh, you can speak for me, too. At least in this.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Murkmoldiev]

I agree. I hate reading out a new exiting monster description, to hear a chorus of " Can I get a ( Insert skill ) check to Know all about it .

Im gunna lock it down... OR every monster could become something bizzare - Orcs are now Furry redskinned creatures with mickey mouse ears and four long fingers... ( Stats the Same ) .

 

[Snapdragyn]

I agree. I hate reading out a new exiting monster description, to hear a chorus of " Can I get a ( Insert skill ) check to Know all about it .

Im gunna lock it down... OR every monster could become something bizzare - Orcs are now Furry redskinned creatures with mickey mouse ears and four long fingers... ( Stats the Same ) .

To me this sounds like a 'you're dropped into a world you've never seen' situation, a la the D&D cartoon. Which is fine - plenty of great campaigns work that way.

If, however, my character is expected to have been born & raised in the world in which he's adventuring, then I would surely expect him to have picked up some tidbits of information along the way. I don't see why he might have a chance to know about The Battle of Great Importance from 500 years ago, but not a chance to know anything about something like the orcs that regularly raid villages in the area (assuming this is a world in which they're 'standard D&D' common; if they're rare, totally different ballgame).

That said, the 3.5 'CR=DC' system is surely not ideal for setting appropriate 'stuff you might have heard about' checks. Why should a unique CR 1 beastie be better known than a common high CR creature, or just a really important one like Smaug? I think DM fiat is indeed the way to go to get DCs appropriate for each game world, but 'no creature knowledge ever' is just too strict of a ruling for my personal gaming preference. *shrug*

 

[doctorhook]

In other words, DM fiat.

Until an ACTUAL skill system is presented for use with 5E rules.

Must...resist temptation...to feed troll....

 

[variant]

I couldn't belove the gaps in the skills. So I canned History and put in a Lore skill as a catch all.
I think I just fixed the entire Knowledge skill system.
Your welcome


Nature- Humanoids, Fey, Giants, The Underdark, The Wilderness ( geography ) , Vermin, Weather, Climate.

Arcana : Ancient Mysteries, Magic traditions, Arcane Symbols, Cryptic Phrases, Constructs, Dragons, Magical Beasts, Spells, Magic Items , Planes, Alchemy .

Religion : Gods and goddesses, Mythic History, Ecclesiastic Tradition, Holy symbols, Undead.

Lore : ( Replaces History ) Royalty, Wars, Constructions ( Engineering / Architecture ) , Legends, Laws, Customs, Traditions, Lineages, Heraldry, Towns, Citys and Countries.

If there is a subject that is not listed just jam it into one of the above.
If it dosent fit, just press on it harder.

Everything you put under Lore goes under History already. You don't go to Lore class to learn about royalty, wars, constructions, legends, laws, customs, traditions, lineages, heraldry, towns, cities, and countries. You go to History class.

 

[Agamon]

Speaking for myself, I'm quite happy to throw monster knowledge checks in the garbage and return to a "has your character seen this before?" model.

ACKS has a great method of dealing with this, and it let's players use meta knowledge. If a player knows what a monster is, his PC, being an adventurer, also knows about it for some reason (heard a story about it, was taught it from someone, read about it, actually saw one once, etc). If the player gets something wrong about it, so does the PC, as he was misinformed for some reason.

Not for everyone (some people don't like equating player and PC skill, I know), but I think it's pretty nifty.

 

[Agamon]

In other words, DM fiat.

Excellent answer.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Excellent answer.

Boom.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Sammael]

Must...resist temptation...to feed troll....

Huh? I'm not trolling, I'm deadly serious.

From what we've seen in the Basic rules, 5E doesn't have a skill system at all. It has a binary proficiency system which heavily relies on ability scores and provides an automatic improvement of all proficient skills as the character levels up.

An ACTUAL skill system would allow for far greater granularity, rely more on actual skills and less on ability scores (the emphasis on ability scores has been a major annoyance of mine in Next/5E ever since the first playtest package came out), and have a greater number of well-defined skills rather than a dozen incredibly broad ones.

It is entirely possible that the DMG will contain such a system. I hope it does.

 

[wwanno]

ACKS has a great method of dealing with this, and it let's players use meta knowledge. If a player knows what a monster is, his PC, being an adventurer, also knows about it for some reason (heard a story about it, was taught it from someone, read about it, actually saw one once, etc). If the player gets something wrong about it, so does the PC, as he was misinformed for some reason.

Not for everyone (some people don't like equating player and PC skill, I know), but I think it's pretty nifty.

I like it and I use it in my PS campaign.
Players cannot read the MM, cannot study it, so they can only learn playing, and to learn while playing they cannot distract.
I don't care if the player learned something with a previous PC, I reward player's past attention.