Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 5845267" data-attributes="member: 1465">This is how we've always played it, in fact we would spend skill points in Knowledge(Thay), Knowledge(Waterdeep) etc. separately, not Knowledge(Local) which is a placeholder name useful to determine who gets it as class skill and who gets it as cross-class skill.The other way makes no sense to me, but that's because if you have one or more Knowledge(Local) in our games, you really get some benefit out of it. Truth is, it's all a matter of usefulness. If you think in your game a PC has invested in a skill but is not finding enough benefit from it, it's good to try and make it apply more broadly.Overall the idea behind Knowledge skills in 3ed was that each DM could make additional ones dynamically, so that you could have Knowledge(Geography) apply to the whole world (e.g. Toril), then have more specialized ones e.g. Knowledge(The North) and so on until the smaller scale, and the DM would make a trade-off between the versatility/width and the precision/narrowness so that the wider the region, the less likely (i.e. harder DC) you know a specific fact on the smaller scale. Knowledge(Geography) and Knowledge(Local) then is a differentiation only to decide if it's e.g. your party's Ranger rather than the Rogue to have easier access to it.</blockquote>