Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="utopia27" data-source="post: 3857970" data-attributes="member: 26707">Our groups in general use knowledge skills per the book. In a campaign I run (for kids 7-12) I do most of the character gen, so I've got a pretty broad distribution of KSs, largely stereotypically by profession. Worst issue is overlap between the Ranger, Druid, and Cleric (of the main elf god...). Also some overlap between the MU/Thief and the Hexblade in arcana & spellcraft.In our other longer-running campaign (not kids-safe...) we're a bit less regular with the knowledge skills. Our GM is not much of a rules-lawyer (two of us players do a lot of the adjudicating for grapples & counterspells & such-like...). Too many of us have also spent too much time playing Champions and d6 Star Wars, and are used to KS:<make-it-up>, and/or <base skill> with specialty levels in <narrow skill area>. So... the GM will periodically request checks in skills that aren't defined in 3.5e (KS: Dragon Lore ? nope - it's KS: arcane now...), or throw in bonuses (through magic items, or special experience, or summat) to non-existant specialties. My half-dragon character has a... +9 (? gotta check the sheet) specifically for dragon lore - communion with a Great Wyrm gold, temporary ownership (for about 3 levels - just long enough to burn an exotic weapon prof feat...) of an artifact-level dragon slaying intelligent bastard sword - reading the Draco Mystere (after recovering it through diplomacy (and theft..) from a spectre (?) kobold arch-mage's lair). Oh - seduction is another one that keeps getting called for specifically, and which some folks have specific bonuses to.Overall the KS's seem to balance OK. The performs, crafts and professions, OTOH are very very overlooked. Major exceptions are for crafting of magic items, by bards, or by artificers. I might consider bonus points (as someone mentioned above - 1-3 per level) specifically for those...</blockquote>

Verification