Knowledge: Local?

[am181d]

Knowledge (Local) was in 2nd Edition, too. (Though it may have been called something else or been listed as a bard only ability?) I don't have 2E books with me. Did you have to pick a region then. If so, that would explain where that particular point of view came from, and why some people maintain that position even though it isn't explicitly called for now.

Personally, I read "local" as a limiting term. "Local" means "NOT universal." If a person purchases this skills, it pertains to the area that he bought the skill in.

Just as a practical matter, it wouldn't make sense to have players be familiar with ALL traditions, cultures, etc. EVERYWHERE as PCs tend to travel to plenty of strange, remote locations that no one has ever heard of before.

 

[DonTadow]

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.

I'm sorry, let me be clearer.
Notable locations can be any village, hamlet or city. I can either use bardic knowledge to find out about this notable place or I can roll knowledge local to see what I have learned about it from previous studies. A non bard would obviously use knowledge local.

Bardic knowledge is broad in that it sas you know about notable locals. It does not say what type of information this is limited to. So in fact you could know about personalities, laws, customs, traditions and humanoids. I will not use my own references, but you can reference many published adventures that have boxes for bardic knowledge. I have often seen information on laws, personalities, customs and traditions.

 

[DonTadow]

Knowledge (Local) was in 2nd Edition, too. (Though it may have been called something else or been listed as a bard only ability?) I don't have 2E books with me. Did you have to pick a region then. If so, that would explain where that particular point of view came from, and why some people maintain that position even though it isn't explicitly called for now.

Personally, I read "local" as a limiting term. "Local" means "NOT universal." If a person purchases this skills, it pertains to the area that he bought the skill in.

Just as a practical matter, it wouldn't make sense to have players be familiar with ALL traditions, cultures, etc. EVERYWHERE as PCs tend to travel to plenty of strange, remote locations that no one has ever heard of before.

Actually it would make as much sense as a thief knowing how to disable every trap or a cleric knowing about every religion. It is reasonable to assume that these peope may just be that good at what they know, or they bring reference materials with them.

 

[billd91]

For those of you leaving the local out of the definition of Knowledge: Local, it's time to put on the common sense hat.

In a world where travel between places relies on walking, riding horses, riding carts, or sailing on wind-powered vessels with nasty monsters roaming the hinterlands (just look at the encounter tables, I mean really).... how is it likely for a street thief or peasant who knows their own area or culture like the back of his hand (has invested ranks in Know: local) to know boo about some region across the continent or, for that matter, on another continent?

It makes little sense at all. It makes even less sense for them to be as intimately familiar with the personalities, customs, legends, and all that for EVERY place they manage to go across the globe.

I'm all for keeping local LOCAL.

 

[Christian]

Well, ain't this fun?

Here's my basic take on the situation. From the 3.5 SRD:

PERFORM (CHA)
Like Craft, Knowledge, and Profession, Perform is actually a number of separate skills.
You could have several Perform skills, each with its own ranks, each purchased as a separate skill ...

From the 3.0 SRD:

RIDE (DEX)
When the character selects this skill, choose the type of mount the character is familiar with. For this purpose, "horses" includes mules, donkeys, and ponies. If the character uses the skill with a different mount (such as riding a giant lizard when the character is used to riding horses), the character's rank is reduced by 2 (but not below 0). If the character uses this skill with a very different mount (such as riding a griffon when the character is used to riding horses), the character's rank is reduced by 5 (but not below 0).

And again, from the 3.5 SRD:

KNOWLEDGE (INT; Trained Only)
... Local: This is actually a number of separate skills. You could have several Knowledge (Local) skills, each with its own ranks, each purchased as a separate skill ...

Oh, wait. It doesn't say that. Let me try that copy/paste again.

KNOWLEDGE (INT; Trained Only)
... Local: When the character selects this skill, choose the locale the character is familiar with. If the character uses this skill in a different locale, the character's rank is reduced by ...

Oh, wait. It doesn't say that either.

The RAW have only one Knowledge (Local) skill. It's the same skill for someone raised in Mayberry as for someone raised in New York City. Maybe that doesn't make a lot of in-game logical sense, but from a balance perspective, it's eminently reasonable. Fact is, this is a marginally useful skill as written. Making PC's take it separately for each region (or, heaven forbid, each village) nerfs it to uselessness. Yes, FR does that as a special rule for that setting. If that were the only problem with the FRCS, I might still use it ...

 

[billd91]

Actually it would make as much sense as a thief knowing how to disable every trap or a cleric knowing about every religion. It is reasonable to assume that these peope may just be that good at what they know, or they bring reference materials with them.

Except that the thief probably doesn't know how to disable every trap. Rather, the skill pertains to how the thief analyzes traps in front of him and then takes steps to neutralize it in this case based on what he observes. It may be a different method each time a similar trap is encountered, depending on the circumstances.
It's also different from Know: religion and this may take a little longer to explain. In most campaigns, gods are considerably less diverse than local areas. Gods tend to be worshipped over wider areas than Knowledge: Local probably should apply. Also, religions tend to be closely interrelated. The churches of Heironeous and Hextor might be different, but since the gods are brothers, they are certainly related in their traditions and legends. In patheonic systems, gods tend to be related, sometimes very closely. Worshippers, while they may favor one god above others, still tend to propitiate several of them depending on whose festival it is today or what activities they are embarking upon. In other words, it's quite easy to explain how know: religion gives you insights into religions other than your own favorite. It's not so easy to explain how know: local gives you insight into the local traditions a continent away.

 

[DonTadow]

For those of you leaving the local out of the definition of Knowledge: Local, it's time to put on the common sense hat.

In a world where travel between places relies on walking, riding horses, riding carts, or sailing on wind-powered vessels with nasty monsters roaming the hinterlands (just look at the encounter tables, I mean really).... how is it likely for a street thief or peasant who knows their own area or culture like the back of his hand (has invested ranks in Know: local) to know boo about some region across the continent or, for that matter, on another continent?

It makes little sense at all. It makes even less sense for them to be as intimately familiar with the personalities, customs, legends, and all that for EVERY place they manage to go across the globe.

I'm all for keeping local LOCAL.

Yes, but then we're talking about fantasy vs. realism which is a topic for another thread another day. Right now we're in the rules forum. No matter how much your homerules make the game more realistic, the definition of K:Local is quite clear and the evidience of the other skills and how they are stated gives further reason that K: Local is what it is, a knowledge skill made to see what people know about particular cities, villages and such.

Honestly, it makes a lot of sense considering that people do a lot of walking and a lot of traveling. Stories get told very often and knowledge is passed around, not as easily as now by no means, but it is passed. Else we would have all been in isolated communities until the internet. But that was not hte case, Books were sold and merchants went from city to city spreading their knowledge. Adventures become commonplace in towns. Wears get shipped and rumors return.

Pcs travel from city to city and those who put ranks in knowledge local skills learn about other lands, spend time in pubs talking and communicating, read more books and study.

 

[ARandomGod]

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.

Ah. I see where you may be misinterpreting me. I'm not debating that the name of the skill has the word local in it. And in above popints I've addressed that... However I'm pointing out that the word is not in the description. And I stated that the name does seem to be disingenuous.

The name of the skill is part of its description.

Here I disagree. A name and a description are two separate things. I'll use an exampe here. "Improved initiative". That doesn't actually improve the initiative ability at all, it simply adds to your base roll.

"Cure Light Wounds" Doesn't actually cure wounds at all. It removes HP damage.

My statement is that Knowlege: Local
Is a name of a skill

And the description of the skill follows the name.

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.

Not completely morphable... only morphable to the extent of potentially telling you the things that the skill description says it will. But yes, I do say that knowledge local covers everything the skill says it will cover, regardless of the locale in question. I do believe that's the entire point of this particular debate, however, so here I accuse you of attempting a fallacious arguement. All I see you saying here is "your point is silly, so anyone thinking that way must be wrong". I'm not seeing any acutal content here other than "name calling" as it were.

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)?

I did say in any *great* detail. There is some overlap, of course. As there often is with many of the knowledge skills.

I wouldn't see it as telling you about past nobles, other than perhaps some with notable legends (the accuracy of the legends wouldn't be in any way garunteed, of course)... And not every city has a legend about it's foundations or migrations, not every war has a one either.

But I do take your point, Knowledge: History does not anywhere in the skill description define what constitues History anymore than Knowledge Local states in IT's skill description what consitutes Local.

Of course, in the end I also take a large portion of 'balance' into account. And I think that a skill point spent in Knowledge: Local should be relatively as effective as a skill point spent in any other knowledge skill... How useful each is, of course, is completely up to the GM. I say that imposing a definition of "local" to mean the household (or room of household... or perhaps hamlet or city) in which the character grew up in is severely limiting the usefulness of the skill, when indeed there is a valid available interpretation that would include this type of knowledge wherever you're at.

I can see giving *bonuses* based on growing up in a particular Locale. On the other hand, if you actually GREW UP there I'd say that you have a lot of knowledge about that city/hamlet/backyard that you grew up in without investing any points in it.

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).

That's our main point of dissention, however. For one I don't think it covers as much as you seem to think it covers, even in the town you grew up in, for another I say that it HAS to cover a larger region than you seem to think it can cover. Otherwise it's completely useless in any adventure where you're not spending a lot of time in the backwater where your character grew up. Now in an adventure that's completely in one city, I can see giving a specialized knowledge Local subskill that covers more about that area...

Well, no, even in an adventure that never strayes from one hometown I wouldn't let them know as much as it seems to me that you think "knowledge: Local" encapsulates with just points in that knowledge.

Mostly because I don't see that there should be a difference in the power level of that skill based on campaign style. It should be the same if you're a "Waterdeep" only campaign or one that travels all across the Prime Material.

And I think that if they meant it to be more restrictive than the other knowledge skills they would have made at least a token nod to those limitations in the skill description. I don't buy the thought that the skill name is enough to do that. Especially not since the definition of "local" isn't anywhere in RAW.

On a cosmic scale this entire solar system is Local. In a multiverse your closest planes are pretty darn local.

 

[billd91]

Yes, but then we're talking about fantasy vs. realism which is a topic for another thread another day. Right now we're in the rules forum. No matter how much your homerules make the game more realistic, the definition of K:Local is quite clear and the evidience of the other skills and how they are stated gives further reason that K: Local is what it is, a knowledge skill made to see what people know about particular cities, villages and such.

What I've said (keeping local LOCAL) is no more a house rule than your interpretation considering you have dropped the term local from having any meaning. Nor is it quite clear, apparently, considering the post from ARandomGod just below the one I'm quoting.
Personally, I don't see how the term local can be ignored in this situation.

 

[Tonguez]

For those of you leaving the local out of the definition of Knowledge: Local, it's time to put on the common sense hat.

In a world where travel between places relies on walking, riding horses, riding carts, or sailing on wind-powered vessels with nasty monsters roaming the hinterlands (just look at the encounter tables, I mean really).... how is it likely for a street thief or peasant who knows their own area or culture like the back of his hand (has invested ranks in Know: local) to know boo about some region across the continent or, for that matter, on another continent?

It makes little sense at all. It makes even less sense for them to be as intimately familiar with the personalities, customs, legends, and all that for EVERY place they manage to go across the globe.

I'm all for keeping local LOCAL.

Except of course we are also talking about a world where all the characters (except Barbarians) are Literate and thus able to access all kinds of book information (perhaps the peasant with K:Local has spent a lot of time reading Travel Guides)

Anyway commoners don't have Knowledge on their class skill list (so why a peasant would be investing valuable skills on K:Local is beyond me).

A Thief of the Rogue class does have access to Knowkledge skills but then the whole point about literacy comes up again. Also if we take that route a theif with the Rogue PC class is a bit more than a common street urchin and has probably spent sometime amongst merchants (perhaps trying to con them), abroad (as an adventurer even) or with some other 'special organisation' that gives them access to a broad base of knowledge

Anyway the point is - Knowledge:Local is NOT Bob the Comoners intimate familiarity wit' Bogside Meadow and allwithin 1 mile radius (because Commoners don't have Knowledge on their class skill list)

its knowledged picked up by literate persons who probably have access to broad knowledge base from around the known world