Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steverooo" data-source="post: 1101235" data-attributes="member: 9410">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.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> 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!   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> 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."   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> 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!"   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification