Are knowledge skills worth it?

[KnowTheToe]

IMO, the current Knowledge skills are way too specific. On average you have to spend too many points to be even consistantly hitting DC 15 knowledge checks. With the skills covering such narrow facets, you could spend 20 skill points across 5 knowledge skills and still have low knowledge checks and be completely ignorant on many general topics. If you really consider it, they also have knowledge tied to crafts as well. While it may be realistic, for someone to know blacksmithing in order to know about metal strength as it relates to heat, in D&D you do not get enough skill points to cover every specific aspect of a well rounded education. If you try it, you are less than adequate at many different knowledge based skills/crafts. Knowledge is not that important skill in most games so it seems to me, outside of using them to access PrCs, and certain class based ones such as knowledge nature, that knowledge are worthless skills.

 

[Crothian]

Depends on the DM. In my game they are, I ask for different knowledge checks a few times per session. But I also know of many people who don't use them. So, it isn't that knowledge skills are worthless, it is that some DMs make them worthless.

 

[Torm]

You have to remember that most DMs will allow a +2 Synergy bonus to other skill checks that your Knowledge applies to if you have 5 or more ranks in that Knowledge skill. So you get possible insight into specific situations, AND you can do certain things a little better. Not bad.

Admittedly, though, I usually only put skill points into Knowledge skills if I either A. Think it is appropriate for the character concept, or B. Want the synergy bonus for some skill I've already got at maximum.

 

[ForceUser]

Depends on the DM. In my game they are, I ask for different knowledge checks a few times per session. But I also know of many people who don't use them. So, it isn't that knowledge skills are worthless, it is that some DMs make them worthless.

Right. They're quite valuable in my campaign, because I make it so. When people ask for information beyond the mundane, my first response is always, "Well, what kind of knowledges do you have?" An expert in arcana is also an expert in constructs and dragons, just as an expert in nature knows a lot about fey and giants. This information, in turn, can be used to prepare defenses and plan strategies against such creatures, which is invaluable. I even go so far as to write up information sheets containing esoteric information known only to sages in a particular knowledge skill--a player who drops 5, 10, or 15 ranks in a knowledge in my campaign will see tangible results when I hand him a piece of paper with hard, useful data on it. This, in turn, aids roleplaying, as players in the know share their knowledge with the rest of the party as the situation warrants. A player who feels like an expert on a topic is a happy player. I want that.

Players like to know stuff, and the knowledge skills are an easy way for me to put that information in their hands, equitably. Likewise, bardic knowledge is a great skill in my campaign.

 

[Buttercup]

Depends on the DM. In my game they are, I ask for different knowledge checks a few times per session. But I also know of many people who don't use them. So, it isn't that knowledge skills are worthless, it is that some DMs make them worthless.

True. Also, there isn't any reason why a DM and player can't agree to tweak the scope of certain knowledge skills. For instance, I'd say that Knowledge (History) could easily cover Nobility too if you wanted to work it that way.

I think Knowledge skills are useful for character development even if they don't get used as often as, say, Listen and Spot. But then, I tend to give extra skill points at character creation to be used solely on Craft, Profession and Knowledge skills.

 

[mmadsen]

IMO, the current Knowledge skills are way too specific.

Absolutely. Bardic Lore, for instance, should be one Knowledge skill -- Knowledge (Lore) -- nd should cover anything Gandalf, Elrond, or Aragorn might know -- history, nobility, etc. Spellcraft should cover Knowledge (Arcana, the Planes, etc.). Survival should cover Knowledge (Nature). Why draw such narrow distinctions?

 

[Buttercup]

I even go so far as to write up information sheets containing esoteric information known only to sages in a particular knowledge skill--a player who drops 5, 10, or 15 ranks in a knowledge in my campaign will see tangible results when I hand him a piece of paper with hard, useful data on it. This, in turn, aids roleplaying, as players in the know share their knowledge with the rest of the party as the situation warrants.

I want to play in your game so bad I can taste it.

 

[Jdvn1]

I really like the Knowledge skills, myself. Although I don't like when the GM makes up new ones. "... Oh, that's Knowledge (Old Religion). Oh, that's Knowledge (Warfare)."

 

[NTZ]

I even go so far as to write up information sheets containing esoteric information known only to sages in a particular knowledge skill--a player who drops 5, 10, or 15 ranks in a knowledge in my campaign will see tangible results when I hand him a piece of paper with hard, useful data on it.

I love this idea! Now I will just have to think of what I can do to implement it into my game.

NTZ

 

[IronWolf]

I have to agree with Crothian, it depends a lot of the DM. I like to let people use their knowledge skills to make checks against things their characters might know. I try to remember to encourage their use, but it does sometimes take a player reminding me "Hey can I use my knowledge dungeonering to help identify xxxxx?" I am more than willing to let the roll be made.