Class Knowledge Skills

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

On the main topic.

The PH clearly states that new knowledge skills can be developed.
And there is precedent for some classes having access to a limited list of knowledge skills. Therefore, it seems reasonable that some classes beyond the bard and wizard may gain access new knowledge skills that are developed.

Know:Undead being a perfect example of an appropriate new class knowledge skill for clerics.

 

[hong]

Like I said, if you are going to constrain your game, you are going to have to adapt material to fit you view.

Kid, I adapt tons of material already as it is. I don't need people telling me to adapt stuff. I certainly don't need people telling me that Monte's word is holy writ.

I think the addition of knowledge skills adds to the flavor in the game. With any luck, it will catch on even more.

"More skills make the characters stupid." -- Geoff Grabowski, designer of Exalted

Although it may be the case that in some situations, two or more skills may apply to the one question, it's likely that in many _more_ situations, DMs will feel constrained to apply only the narrower skill in preference to the broader one, if only to justify the narrower skill's existence. Thus, the addition of knowledge skills is a Bad Thing. See the ever-growing proliferation of skills in GURPS, for example.

 

[IceBear]

I am sure that in Tome and Blood (or another supplement) they give the example of multiple Knowledge skills applying to the same task. However, since some Knowledge skills were more focused than others, then the DCs would vary - as the above examples.

Axiomatic Unicorn isn't being unreasonable in what he is saying. If a character wants to waste valuable skill points getting more knowledgeable in a focused subject, let him. That skill won't be as helpful in most cases where a broader knowledge may be required.

As for the prestiege class, as was pointed out Monte added that skill after the PHB. Thus, as the DM, I would make some arrangement with the player - either to add that skill to his class list, or to make the requirement Knowledge: Religion instead (but at a higher required rank).

IceBear

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Kid, eh?

Now I've lost this debate for sure.

What I don't need is people putting words in my mouth.
"holy writ"??????

How about Player's Hanbook Page 70.
Under Knowledge

"With you DM's approval you can invent new area's of study."

I think Monte should have the luxury of using the rules as stated in the PH without your approval.

You get all defensive about your ability to adapt, but your entire point in this thread has been that new skills are a bad thing.
If you adapt so easily, what exactly is the problem?

"More skills make the characters stupid." -- Geoff Grabowski, designer of Exalted

Although it may be the case that in some situations, two or more skills may apply to the one question, it's likely that in many _more_ situations, DMs will feel constrained to apply only the narrower skill in preference to the broader one, if only to justify the narrower skill's existence. Thus, the addition of knowledge skills is a Bad Thing. See the ever-growing proliferation of skills in GURPS, for example.

So again the game should be constrained by a poor DM's inability to adapt?

Because if a DM did what you proposed, that would simply mean they were not a good DM. At least in this case.

I played GURPS for many years. Great game.

Note that the quote you provided is not relavent, becuase it refers to skills in general. I quite agree in that case.

A skill: tie knot would make a character with the skill use roipe suddenly stupid because it would imply they don't know how to tie a knot, and would need to spend more points to get the same ability they had before.

A version of knowledge, Know:Undead, does not in any way imply that a player with know:religion knows any less about undead than they did before.

When a third party promotes the "New Skills" they have come up with, I assume very bad things about their understanding of the game system.
There is a big difference in adding a new skill that detracts from the player's skill point allowance, and allowing flexibility in existing skills such as knowledge, craft and profession.

It seems clear to me that your problem comes from the fact that you are trapped in this, no knowledge skills may overlap box.
If you won't let go of that narrow view, then you will need to adapt material. Being as you are so proficent ay adapting material, this should be very easy for you and you should have no further complaint.

 

[hong]

I am sure that in Tome and Blood (or another supplement) they give the example of multiple Knowledge skills applying to the same task. However, since some Knowledge skills were more focused than others, then the DCs would vary - as the above examples.

The only thing in T&B regarding this issue is how to decide which of Spellcraft _or_ Knowledge (arcana) to use in a given situation. The unstated assumption is that these are exclusive skills -- one or the other applies, but not both.

Axiomatic Unicorn isn't being unreasonable in what he is saying. If a character wants to waste valuable skill points getting more knowledgeable in a focused subject, let him. That skill won't be as helpful in most cases where a broader knowledge may be required.

What he's saying is quite reasonable, if the aim is to produce a more faithful representation of reality. Since I couldn't give two hoots about reality where D&D is concerned, I couldn't care less about having six million knowledge skills in the game. The broader they are, the better, in fact; that at least gives PCs more knowledge about different subjects than they would have otherwise.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

What he's saying is quite reasonable, if the aim is to produce a more faithful representation of reality. Since I couldn't give two hoots about reality where D&D is concerned, I couldn't care less about having six million knowledge skills in the game. The broader they are, the better, in fact; that at least gives PCs more knowledge about different subjects than they would have otherwise.

Your faithful representation of reality straw man has nothing to do with the point I am making.

 

[hong]

Kid, eh?

Now I've lost this debate for sure.

That's right.

I think Monte should have the luxury of using the rules as stated in the PH without your approval.

Monte can do anything he likes. I can also ignore anything Monte does. That's the great thing about this hobby.

So again the game should be constrained by a poor DM's inability to adapt?

You have this odd tendency to launch into flights of fancy (what exactly is "the game"? Is it something played by angels dancing on the head of a pin?), but I'll indulge you. The answer is yes, the game _should_ be constrained by what DMs (and players) in the real world like and enjoy. The game, in the end, is meant to be played. Just because designers tend to get caught up in their own creative endeavours doesn't mean everyone should follow along. Designers naturally want to add frills and bits of cruft along the way, to better advance their particular vision of what the game should be. However, the end result of this is a system that's overburdened by its complexities and loses sight of what made it good in the first place. It's not limited to D&D; this can be seen in other rulesets (cf GURPS again), computer games and other general applications, even novels.

They have a name for it: "second system effect". Here's a reference, since I'm in a generous mood:

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/second-system-effect.html

Because if a DM did what you proposed, that would simply mean they were not a good DM. At least in this case.

I define "good DM" purely in terms of how well they can run a game and
provide a fun experience for all concerned. Faithfulness to the rulebooks
and adherence to convention are distinctly secondary.

Note that the quote you provided is not relavent, becuase it refers to skills in general. I quite agree in that case.

A skill: tie knot would make a character with the skill use roipe suddenly stupid because it would imply they don't know how to tie a knot, and would need to spend more points to get the same ability they had before.

A version of knowledge, Know:Undead, does not in any way imply that a player with know:religion knows any less about undead than they did before.

Since you like to indulge in false dichotomies, I'll ask you: can you guarantee that NO DM will prohibit the use of Knowledge (religion) where a Knowledge (undead) roll would apply?

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Monte can do anything he likes. I can also ignore anything Monte does. That's the great thing about this hobby.

Well, unless people like you try to put an end to it. Clearly you are not ignoring it, you are complaining, calling it bad, and hoping for it to be taken away from the rest of us.

Your whole second system effect tanget is irrelevent.
Additional areas of knowledge are directly allowed for in the PH. A point that has been made several times, but you seem to not want to acknowledge.
No frills, just PH rules.

I define "good DM" purely in terms of how well they can run a game and
provide a fun experience for all concerned. Faithfulness to the rulebooks
and adherence to convention are distinctly secondary.

And your point is what?
If the DM did what you said in your previous post, they would not be promoting a fun experience for all concerned. so by your definition, they would not be a "Good DM". The weakness of a bad DM should not restrain the game.
(being as it appears to have gone over your head, "the game" is D&D 3E)

Since you like to indulge in false dichotomies, I'll ask you: can you guarantee that NO DM will prohibit the use of Knowledge (religion) where a Knowledge (undead) roll would apply?

Care to provide an example of a flase dichotomy? Or would your find it more easy to make false charges if not held to proof?

I already said that bad DMing should not limit the rules of the game.

 

[kreynolds]

Bottom line people? Here it is. If you player wants the Knowledge: Bellybutton Lint skill, let the moron have it. If you, the DM, want to create Knowledge: Bellybutton Lint, then let us all support this fellow moron DM. (This is a reference to things to come, not to anyone here)

The point is this. You can make all the Knowledge skills you want. You'll know pretty quick wether or not you wasted your time.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Bottom line people? Here it is. If you player wants the Knowledge: Bellybutton Lint skill, let the moron have it. If you, the DM, want to create Knowledge: Bellybutton Lint, then let us all support this fellow moron DM. (This is a reference to things to come, not to anyone here)

The point is this. You can make all the Knowledge skills you want. You'll know pretty quick wether or not you wasted your time.

Amen