Knowledge: Local?

[Jdvn1]

There are several instances where an ability covers or enhances skill checks. Bardic Knowledge is one of them.

Regardless, saying that Bardic Knowledge does what K:Local is supposed to do is wrong, as the two are different.

 

[DonTadow]

That would be the result of the name "Local". You see, part of the description of the skill is the name of the skill, which your interpretation basically ignores. Instead, your version of the skill would be named "Knowledge: Everything".

Back to the subject, there is nothing at all stating that hte FRCS is another "interpretation because none of the evidence backs it up. Knowledge local is a line at best. What is there to interpret there. THat is what is so interesting about this subject. There's not much to interpret and people are adding an E at the end of local. I'm sure they used the word local so not to use words uch as cities, villages and hamlets which would have been to narrow.

We have the evidence that that is how the skill is actually used by those designing material for the creators of the game system. Given that this is how the skill is applied in actual usage, it seems like strong evidence that this was what was intended, as opposed to making it a infinitly morphable superskill that obviates half of the remaining knowledge specialties.



Except that your definition makes it silly to put any ranks in most other knowledge skills, when you can just go with the superskill Knowledge: Local, and get everything.

[/i]

Then he would define his area of local knowledge as "U.S. Cities". I'm not sure what is hard about this concept.

You would really have to make me understand how knowledge local, under my definitions is knowlege everything? It's knowledge of the things we mentioned. Its like college. I took history, sociology and geography classes in school so I would say I had a broad "knowledge of these skills". My history teacher did not focus on one cities history, my sociologiest did not focus on one culture and my geography did not focus on one region. So why should education in the game world be so limiting.

Local is essentially knowledge sociology which studies the cultures and methods of different regions and civilizations. It's not a catch all. I won't know if two regal brothers have always liked each other with knowledge local. I won't know about the goblin wars on the city that happened 20 years ago with knowledge local. I won't know where to find the waterfalls of lanai with knowledge local. All I will know is the basic culture of the city.

You still have yet to explain Storm why other knowledge skills and skills do not break down?

And you're deriving your definition based on the name of something is completely the wrong way to go about deriving definitions. I can't tell how many english words can be mixed up doing this. The definition is next to the word. Thats the definitation. Not the name. The phb defines what this word means, despite how mis poorly named it may be.

 

[ARandomGod]

Actually, the skill description says:

Local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids).

Your reading simply bypasses the "Local" part. And since you morph the content of the skill based upon where you happen to be at the moment, it basically writes the "Local" out of the equation. The character, apparently, simply knows everything there is to know.

No, local is a definition that we're in debate about. So adding it back in and pointing at it is misdirection. A good spell, and secretly a good debate technique, but not actually a valid point.

And, actually, the skill has
"Knowledge: Local"
as the NAME of the skill, followed by the description of the skill, which is:
"(legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids)"

Note that this is simly NOT "everything there is to know".

Which simply cannot be correct. Since that would make the other knowledge skills completely useless. Why bother with Knowledge: History, when you can take Knowledge: Local and know everything there is to know about history and a bunch of other stuff?

For example here. A person would perhaps take 'Knowledge: History' to tell them about (royalty, wars, colonies, migrations, founding of cities). If you look at the skill description, 'Knowlege: Local' doesn't say anything about ANY of those items. ALthough I do take your point that 'Knowledge: History' And 'Knowledge Royalty and Nobility' (royalty, wars, colonies, migrations, founding of cities) do have a large overlap, I don't see where 'Knowledge: Local' overlaps with 'Knowledge: History' in any great detail at all.

So I do take your point that some knowledge skills have area's of overlap, however I don't see how that point invalidated the description of the skill as written (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids) in any way.

Further on the overlap of knowledge skills... certainly, there are possibly legends of the founding of the city. And 'local' will possibly give those. And then there are possibly histories of the founding of the city... These two things can be very, very different.

For that matter Knowledge: Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, cryptic phrases, constructs, dragons, magical beasts)

Ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols and cryptic phases... all those COULD have legends about them that could possibly be found Knowledge: Local. Or they could have histories written about them that could be found under Knowledge: History.

Or there might not be such legends.

However, Knowledge: Local won't tell you anything on these topics but the local legends. Legends can be far off. History and Acana will give you the History, and the Arcana, respectively. And there is your reason to potentially take other knowledges. Since you asked.

 

[DonTadow]

Regardless, saying that Bardic Knowledge does what K:Local is supposed to do is wrong, as the two are different.

Bardic Knowledge takes up several skills one of them K: Local. The bardic knowledge overlaps a lot of knowledge skills .

 

[Storm Raven]

You would really have to make me understand how knowledge local, under my definitions is knowlege everything? It's knowledge of the things we mentioned. Its like college. I took history, sociology and geography classes in school so I would say I had a broad "knowledge of these skills". My history teacher did not focus on one cities history, my sociologiest did not focus on one culture and my geography did not focus on one region. So why should education in the game world be so limiting.

It isn't. I'm saying that if you want Knowledge: History, take Knowledge: History. It isn't subsumed into Knowledge: Local. Knowledge: Local is the guy who specialized in information concerning a particular region. What you are looking for are the broad knowledge skills, which are covered by the broadly listed skills.

Local is essentially knowledge sociology which studies the cultures and methods of different regions and civilizations. It's not a catch all. I won't know if two regal brothers have always liked each other with knowledge local. I won't know about the goblin wars on the city that happened 20 years ago with knowledge local. I won't know where to find the waterfalls of lanai with knowledge local. All I will know is the basic culture of the city.

No, Knowledge: Sociology would cover Knowledge: Sociology (to the extent such a topic would be studied as an academic dsicipline in a pre-industrial fantasy society).

Yes, you would, since the skill description says you would know "personalities", "legends", "traditions" and "customs".

You still have yet to explain Storm why other knowledge skills and skills do not break down?

Because they are not used that way. Maybe they should (for example breaking Knowledge: History down into categories, so one person would have Knowledge: History (Age of the Rhadynnic Empire) and another would have Knowledge: History (Era of the Leucadian City-States), but we have no precedent for the skill being broken down that way. We do have a precedent for the Knowledge: Local skill being used that way in various other works.

And you're deriving your definition based on the name of something is completely the wrong way to go about deriving definitions. I can't tell how many english words can be mixed up doing this. The definition is next to the word. Thats the definitation. Not the name. The phb defines what this word means, despite how mis poorly named it may be.

The name is part of the definition in this case. Just as with Craft: Armorsmith, or Profession: Baker, the knowledge skill modifiers give descriptive content that is part of their definition.

 

[Storm Raven]

No, local is a definition that we're in debate about. So adding it back in and pointing at it is misdirection. A good spell, and secretly a good debate technique, but not actually a valid point.

No, it is the key element of the debate. Your reading eliminates the word "Local". You may want to think we are debating what it means, but we aren't. Your argument essentially says that it is meaningless and nonexistent. That's not a valid position to take, and you know it.

And, actually, the skill has
"Knowledge: Local"
as the NAME of the skill, followed by the description of the skill, which is:
"(legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids)"

Note that this is simly NOT "everything there is to know".

The name of the skill is part of its description.

According to your interpretation of an infinitley morphable skill concerning these items that changes depending on your location, it is. It also effectively obviates the Gather Information skill, since you would know everything you could get from Gather Infromation from Knowledge: Local based upon its morphability to where you are standing.

For example here. A person would perhaps take 'Knowledge: History' to tell them about (royalty, wars, colonies, migrations, founding of cities). If you look at the skill description, 'Knowlege: Local' doesn't say anything about ANY of those items. ALthough I do take your point that 'Knowledge: History' And 'Knowledge Royalty and Nobility' (royalty, wars, colonies, migrations, founding of cities) do have a large overlap, I don't see where 'Knowledge: Local' overlaps with 'Knowledge: History' in any great detail at all.

You mean, other than telling you about personalities (royalty), legends (war, colonies, migrations, founding of cities), customs (ibid), traditions (ibid), and humanoids (ibid)?

So I do take your point that some knowledge skills have area's of overlap, however I don't see how that point invalidated the description of the skill as written (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids) in any way.

Because that description basically covers everything, if it isn't limited to a particular locality (as is mandated by the very name of the skill).

 

[DonTadow]

It isn't. I'm saying that if you want Knowledge: History, take Knowledge: History. It isn't subsumed into Knowledge: Local. Knowledge: Local is the guy who specialized in information concerning a particular region. What you are looking for are the broad knowledge skills, which are covered by the broadly listed skills.

[/i]

No, Knowledge: Sociology would cover Knowledge: Sociology (to the extent such a topic would be studied as an academic dsicipline in a pre-industrial fantasy society).

Yes, you would, since the skill description says you would know "personalities", "legends", "traditions" and "customs".

[/i]

Because they are not used that way. Maybe they should (for example breaking Knowledge: History down into categories, so one person would have Knowledge: History (Age of the Rhadynnic Empire) and another would have Knowledge: History (Era of the Leucadian City-States), but we have no precedent for the skill being broken down that way. We do have a precedent for the Knowledge: Local skill being used that way in various other works.

[/i]

The name is part of the definition in this case. Just as with Craft: Armorsmith, or Profession: Baker, the knowledge skill modifiers give descriptive content that is part of their definition.

So where do i go if i want to know about a bunch of different cities? A bunch of different teachers? Isn't it likely that there would be books and teachers in a campaign whom can teach about a broad group of cities and civlizations?

My reference is that sociology is local if you're looking at the definitions of both words. Trust me, I now have my minor in sociology and a majroity of the subject is learning the traditions and customs of civilizations, just as local defines.

The name is not part of the definition. Even with armorsmith and profession it defines in the description what those skills are specifically used for.

 

[Jdvn1]

Bardic Knowledge takes up several skills one of them K: Local. The bardic knowledge overlaps a lot of knowledge skills .

Well, not entirely, though. K:Local also covers basic information about various places. Bardic Knowledge doesn't.

 

[DonTadow]

No, it is the key element of the debate. Your reading eliminates the word "Local". You may want to think we are debating what it means, but we aren't. Your argument essentially says that it is meaningless and nonexistent. That's not a valid position to take, and you know it.

[/i]

The name of the skill is part of its description.

According to your interpretation of an infinitley morphable skill concerning these items that changes depending on your location, it is. It also effectively obviates the Gather Information skill, since you would know everything you could get from Gather Infromation from Knowledge: Local based upon its morphability to where you are standing.

[/i]

You mean, other than telling you about personalities (royalty), legends (war, colonies, migrations, founding of cities), customs (ibid), traditions (ibid), and humanoids (ibid)?

[/i]

Because that description basically covers everything, if it isn't limited to a particular locality (as is mandated by the very name of the skill).

It is funny that you try to dictate the topic of the debate here, as I am sure that Arandom and myself both agree that we are debating the definition of the Knowledge Local skill. That was the original subject of the thread . I have no intention on debating why people name things the way they do. The skill is poorly named but the defintion is clearly defined.

I fail to see this mandatory thing you speak of and the remaining skills in the book do not back up your opinion. The only evidence you have is that you believe it makes sense with no clear reasoning as to why it does outside of what it is poorly named.

And you have yet to really say why NO OTHER skill is treated as you wish to treat K:Local.


JDVN1-
I'm not sure where you're getting your definition of bardic knowledge but

Bardic Knowledge

A bard may make a special bardic knowledge check with a bonus equal to his bard level + his Intelligence modifier to see whether he knows some relevant information about local notable people, legendary items, or noteworthy places.

 

[Jdvn1]

I'm not sure where you're getting your definition of bardic knowledge but

Bardic Knowledge

A bard may make a special bardic knowledge check with a bonus equal to his bard level + his Intelligence modifier to see whether he knows some relevant information about local notable people, legendary items, or noteworthy places.

Exactly. Information about local notable people, legendary items, or noteworthy places.

Whereas K:Local gives information about legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, and humanoids.

You could argue, for example, that 'legendary items' and 'legends' overlap, but it's not the same. K:Local gives a wider variety of legends, not just ones related to items. You could argue that 'notable people' and 'inhabitants' overlap, but it's not the same. 'Inhabitants' is a more broad term that doesn't necessarily relate to important people but could also relate to contacts. Or, more generally, it could refer to the sorts of people could be found in a region. Either way, Bardic Knowledge doesn't cover personalities, laws, customs, traditions, and humanoids.

They're not the same and shouldn't be treated as such.