Know-skills rant -- but also a question

[marshaldwm]

Now this was originally a rant to my players, but it is also something I try to enforce, but most of my players absolutely ignore.

In my campaign, I give all characters all knowledge skills as class skills plus two free class skills. But, hardly anyone ever takes knowledge skills, so I end up with Players knowing loads, and characters being ignorant.

Really ticks me off.

Especially the high level games where the characters have supposedly been traveling around, learning stuff, but have no knowledge skills at all, but whenever they need to know something they argue "But I would have learned this during my adventuring career."

Hogwash, to be blunt.

A mage who skimps on spellcraft cannot recognize high level spells much ofthe time, even though they are a 400 year old epic elf mage. No skill, no knowledge. For me, IMC it is the same for all knowledge skills. (And that is why I make them class skills for everyone.)

Does anyone think Wizards really missed the boat by not putting knowledge skills as class skills for everyone? Would it have broken the game?

I am intersted in hearing comments.

DWM

----------The original Rant-----------------------
Normally I really find keeping all posts on the list to be the most
enjoyable for everyone. We can be a real group of players, and enjoy each other's actions. But it only works if characters can seperate what they know and do not know.

I use shorthand descriptions such as 'ogre', 'orc', 'scrying sensor' etc to
make it easy to visualize what is happening, and frankly make the game run smoother.

If I say a large green-skinned humanoid with warts and ...... whatever,
everyone has to either go for the MM and read the creature in detail(not
desireable), or ask questions to determine what the creature is.

And a bit of the rant: I give all characters access to Knowledge skills for
a reason. So they know things, and I can easily catagorize what they know.
So, if your character has no ranks of Knowledge(local) you know damned near nothing about that city. If you have no ranks of Know-history, you slept in class every day. Sure you can get up at a DC5, but that is not much.(Basic info only) Look on the bard table for a good description of basic knowledge.

Not much, is it? Not very impressive for a high-level character.

And remember, the difference between a Rank 0 and rank 1 in a knowledge skill is DC5 or DC21+Int modifier. To be blunt, with no knowledge skills, the character is ignorant, badly so.

Look at your character sheet. Any Know-???? skills is what yoru character knows. And the its-logical-by-my-background-to-know-this argument does not hold water with me. If you want your character to have fought trolls and know them well, take the very narrow Know-trolls skill. Or the broader Know-monsters skill. If your character has been living in the northern wilds for decades, take a Know skill to reflect that, instead of dropping a few more points into another skill like spot or listen.

In RL, I am no genius at much of anything, but I read newspapers, watch CNN and such and I consider myself having one rank in a whole lot of different knowledge skills(and more in a couple) After all, I can tell you basic things about near any country on earth(or many fields of study), and I have occasional flashes of really estoric knowledge about most countries, (including a lot of other fields of study.) Of course an expet in just about anything can snow my knowledge.

So I expect characters to edit themselves, and what they know. We all know far more about the game, its creatures, and everything else than do most sages in the world itself. Read all the FR novels and 2E game supplements and you have at least a 30 or more Knowledge-FR skill. Not too many characters know even a fraction of that.

Read the PHB, MM and DMG, and you know far more than your character probably ever will.

If in doubt, ask the DM. You all see how much I post. I am on all day, most days and I will get back to you quickly.

As a last note, when you upgrade(change over) to 3.5, look at what you want your character to know. With all know-skills as class skills and two free class skills, it is very possible for you to know what you want to know. But if it is not onthe sheet, you do not know it.

Doug

 

[Sanackranib]

it may just be your players. several of mine have taken ranks in knowlege skills as cross class. although unless you increase the skill points as well most will not likly have the extra points to spend.

 

[Amrynn Moonshadow]

I feel the same way you do re: Knowledge skills; unfortunately as a DM i've had opposite results than you have had. people see the benefit of putting ranks there, not just to crunch out some of the flavor of their character, but also for how it works in the game.

say a player thinks up of a great idea, how does it stack vs. what the 'character' should or does know?

idea: we can go up those hills, and go behind the forest if we march through the night. the bandits would be watching the road, not behind them. we can ambush THEM this way.

does the character that suggested it know enough about geography / survival (not a knowledge, but similar to spellcraft as in, some classes need to have it, even if it is a cross class skill) or tactics to even understand that, let alone suggest it?

let the dice to the talking in that case.

"no, sorry; that's meta game thinking because you know what that part of the world looks like on a map because as a PC you've seen that map. your character doesn't know that though."

I find some of the better skills are K:Local and Krace). that last one isn't a SRD approved skill, but i find it is important. it shows how much you know about yourself, or your quarry.

"Elves don't drink mead . . . wench . . . give me your finest wine!"

"I know goblins like i know the back of me hand, those farms were destroyed by goblins . . ."

K:Local is so important I find, at least, in my games. it lets you know which is the best shop in the city you live in for different things, know the going rate, know who the major players are in the city, etc . . . of course, after all the gaming sessions, much of these things are revealed, but characters who dont invest in that skill tent to 'forget' these things.

seriously. what's the justification for some rogue who for the past level has been adventuring in a city, in mostly diplomatic venues to somehow when he levels up boosts his balance skill and his tumble, instead of gather info / sense motive / bluff / k:local / k:history . . . ?

 

[marshaldwm]

seriously. what's the justification for some rogue who for the past level has been adventuring in a city, in mostly diplomatic venues to somehow when he levels up boosts his balance skill and his tumble, instead of gather info / sense motive / bluff / k:local / k:history . . . ?

I agree wholeheartedly. I have found that most players(and I am talking PBEMs here, maybe I should have said that from the get-go) take combat, combat combat stats, or if not combat then manipulation skills like diplomacy, gather info, etc.

Makes no sense.

How are you diplomatic with a race you know nothing about? I could go to some Islamic country and would probably embarress myself time and time again violating social codes and customs. Be hard to come across as a knowledgeable, repected guy someone should listen to.

Or elaborate battle plans drawn up by the character with no tactics, spellcraft, know-arcane? Even twhen they are taking into effect AoOs, spell blast radiuses, and other things their character apparently has no clue about.

I see it as roleplaying.

In my case, whenever I play a character in FR, I never take know-skills, because that way my chracter is as ignorant about that world as I am.

 

[Steverooo]

I'll take the other side of this issue...

Fighters get no Knowledge skills. None at all! They SHOULD have Knowledge (History) - which mentions ancient battles/wars - and Knowledge (Architecture & Engineering) - which mentions fortifications. They don't get them.

Expecting a Fighter (especially) to put BOTH of his two skill points into a Cross-classed Knowledge skill is just... well, I'll spare you my opinion.

Even if all Knowledge skills are made class skills, there are still too few skill points to spend on all the Knowledge skills (what are there, now? 10 of them?) And then, many GMs go inventing NEW ones for stuff the rules ALREADY cover!

There is no "Tactics" skill. There is no NEED for Knowledge (Race). Each race is covered by a Knowledge skill, already.

Then, there is "Character Knowledge" vs. "Player Knowledge". If the Fighter has been around the Mage for the last two in-game years, then he probably DOES know how fireball works, regardless of whether or not he has any Spellcraft...

[Sidetrack Rant]Why is there Spellcraft and Knowledge (Arcana), anyway? With the 3.5e consolidation of skills, why didn't they put these two together, in the first place? Knowledge of things arcane doesn't include spells?[/Sidetrack Rant]

3e (and 3.5e... and 2e... and 1e) is a CLASS-BASED system. In a class based system, each class is supposed to bring different talents and skills to the table. 3e did a pretty bad job of this (as far as Knowledge was concerned). 3.5 is better.

The Wizard and Bard CAN know everything. The Ranger will probably know Nature & Geography, maybe a little Spelunking (Dungeoneering), but has no Arcana nor Spellcraft (even though he casts spells). The Paladin will have Knowledge of Nobility & Royalty, and the Rogue be streetwise. Unfortunately, they left the Barbarian & Fighter as ignorant!

So, since there are too few skill points for anyone to be knowledgable in ALL the knowledge skills, expecting PCs to have each of them (even if all are made class) is... a bit ridiculous. There just aren't enough skill points!

One way this COULD be fixed would be by giving each class a certain number of ranks in class skills. One/level, one/2 levels, one/5, whatever. Another way is to allow "background" skills based on race and class (Elves get Knowledge (Nature) & Perform, Dwarves get Knowledge (Dungeoneering) & Craft (Stonemasonry), etc.)

[Sidetrack Rant]And just WHY can't a Fighter have Profession (Bodyguard) or Profession (Siege Artilleriast), or whatever?
[/Sidetrack Rant]

Well, it's a game. Games have rules. Rules have problems... Therefore; games have problems.

I play Rangers. They are really the only D&D class I can stand. I play anything else only under protest. Now I expect my PC to be able to do anything I see in a survival manual, especially since I max out Survival... GMs and I get into the stupidest, piddly little arguments over stuff it seems clear to me that my Ranger should be able to do...

I spend half the day making the DC:10 (or is it 15?) Survival check to gather food. I state that my PCs is setting some snares, and checking them in the morning. The GM says either "You can't do thatQ", or "Make a Craft (Trapmaking) roll... Oh, and it costs you 1,000 GP and takes a week of work."

I've set snares, IRL. It cost me nothing but some cord and less than 15 minutes (and this was the kind that jerks the snaree off the ground, using a tree branch, not a simple snare).

It is a trend in modern gaming to weaken characters, so that they can advance a long way. The "other" trend is to start them strong, and advance them very slowly (I understand Seventh Sea uses this method). D&D starts PCs off TOO weak and ignorant (and ineffectual, and unheroic) for me. I hafta say, I greatly dislike this trend.

So, I'm against anything that weakens the character by saying "No, you can't do that, your PC doesn't have XYZ skill.", when the action in question fits the class.

"No, your PC doesn't know that oil will stop the Troll, because you failed to take Knowledge (Nature) at first level, with your two skill points!"
"But I'm gonna do it, anyway."
"No, your PC doesn't know to do that!"
"So he'll learn."
"Maybe after he buys some skill..."
"Well, then what did he buy oil for?"
"For his lantern?"
"What lantern? I'm first level!"
"Oh... Well, roll to hit..."
(After the TPK, because no one had Knowledge (Nature)...)
"Okay you guys wanna roll up new PCs, and..."
"Nah!"

 

[DWARF]

That's weird, usually whoever's playing the Wizard in a given campaign will end up going crazy for Knowledge skills and Languages, they basically become walking, self-translating encyclopoedia's.

Then again, or regular DM is really generous in handing out both hints and just plain great knowledge when it comes to using our knowldge skills and extra languages.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

I sorta agree with both sides on this... PC knowledge is important as nothing stinks more than not playing in character but it's also broken. Their should be another knowledge skill.

Knowledge: Common Sense, which should be background based and maybe a random roll of the the dice add your Int bonus and if it's high enough you automaticity gain some knowledge and other fields.

Example, your a farmer, hey you rolled a 5 and have no INT bonus so you only know how to farm so you get:
knowledge: nature (1 rank)

Example, hey your a farmer, hey you rolled a 15, wow you gain:

knowledge: nature (3 ranks)

plus you can pick another catagory to have knowledge in.


Anyhow the thought isn't complete and it would need major hammering out but it would solve the issues somewhat.

 

[Kichwas]

I've no problems with the existing system.

Note that most of them get craft and profession skills, and that's where knowledge is with the average peasant anyway.

How many serfs go to college? Answer is, very few if any.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

I've no problems with the existing system.

Note that most of them get craft and profession skills, and that's where knowledge is with the average peasant anyway.

How many serfs go to college? Answer is, very few if any.

How many know something of nature? Answer is, most if not all, and they really get nothing of knowledge from it.

 

[Norfleet]

The real problem with the skillpoint system is the issue of opportunity cost: If you burn skillpoints on a Knowledge(Something) skill, you've effectively lost the ability to do something else. Unfortunately, knowledge is not something so easily quantified: It's perfectly possible to have never, ever, attempted to seriously study a matter, to never have spent any time even attempting to read about the matter, yet wind up knowing a great deal about it simply from exposure. Since you've never spent any time studying it, however, it follows that you've been able to study anything else, and have therefore not suffered any kind of opportunity cost for it: Yet, in the D&D system, to acquire a knowledge skill implies a direct and quantifiable opportunity cost, in the form of a lost skill since you've traded the potential to purchase one skill for a knowledge skill: What exactly you LEARN from each rank of this knowledge skill is a complete mystery. In essence, the system is treating your character's brain as a hard drive, where filling it with 3 GBs of data on religion means that space is no longer available for you to fill with 3 GBs of data on horseback riding. That's just not how it works. Also, all classes are especially tight with skillpoints. With a character of base int, meaning, not-a-genius, you can maybe pick up 2-8 skills, depending on class: When you take into account how many skills are tied up in a class's core competencies, that's leaves little or nothing: For instance, consider the rogue, 8 SPs/lvl: You have the stealth suite, that takes up 2 of them. Landmine detection and removal consumes another 2. Tumble and lockpicking, another 2 gone. Spot/listen, and we're out.

There's just not enough skillpoints to take anything else other than required and functional skills, and the opportunity cost of doing so is both too high....and silly.

Some wise guy is undoubtedly going to suggest that you don't need to max them.

Consider this: IIRC, Knowledge(*) skills don't allow take-10/20. That means any attempt to use the skill without a huge amount of skillpoints invested in it will simply be buried under random noise anyway. One rank of knowledge(nature), for instance, has basically no meaningful effect: The amount of noise produced by the random roll will obscure any meaningful signal unless you're called upon to use the skill dozens of times.

Given the direct opportunity cost, you're better off trying to raise skills to punch through noise on skills you'll actually be called upon to use.