D&D 5E Knowledge: Nobility and Local?

[Evenglare]

Couple of ways of dealing with this stuff. First the sage background has a power that lets you know where to research crap you dont know. Second, look under basic document page 59, using each ability. Third, if this skill system bothers you don't even go near 13th age. I think 5e skill system offers a nice balance of skills and that awful bloated skill system of pathfinder and 3.x. Especially 3.x with those skill points god kill me now. Needlessly complicated IMO.

 

[Li Shenron]

Geography is included under Nature and as someone said planar information is included under Arcana.

If you are fine with Nature granting a PC geographical knowledge about the entire world, then yes.

 

[Snapdragyn]

If you are fine with Nature granting a PC geographical knowledge about the entire world, then yes.

As someone with a B.S. in Wildlife Biology who always went for the geography sections of Trivial Pursuit first, yes - yes, I am.

 

[evileeyore]

In comparison, NWOD has 24 skills. At the other end of the spectrum, WHFRP 2nd edition has 48 skills.

WHRP is not the "upper end" for "skill-based" roleplaying games.

I'm not sure GURPS is, but with over 370 skills (not including skill modifying Techniques or skills which require individual Specializations) I'm confident it's close.




Keep in mind though, a) it has skill that are basically irrelevant to a Fantasy game (since it's Universal) and b) GURPS counts weapon skills as skills.




EDIT: I also completely skipped counting Magic Spells, which in GURPS are also skills...

So on that comparison, D&D has a great long list of skills, it just wraps most of them up and calls them "Class Abilities", which I hate.

 

[darius0]

Huh? I'm not trolling, I'm deadly serious.

From what we've seen in the Basic rules, 5E doesn't have a skill system at all. It has a binary proficiency system which heavily relies on ability scores and provides an automatic improvement of all proficient skills as the character levels up.

An ACTUAL skill system would allow for far greater granularity, rely more on actual skills and less on ability scores (the emphasis on ability scores has been a major annoyance of mine in Next/5E ever since the first playtest package came out), and have a greater number of well-defined skills rather than a dozen incredibly broad ones.

It is entirely possible that the DMG will contain such a system. I hope it does.

Only big problem I see with adding "far greater granularity" on to the 5e system is avoiding the problems that such granularity caused in a system like 3e/3.5e. The problem where the DM would have to make the DC of tasks really high to challenge the players that concentrated on certain skills, which made those tasks impossible for most others. Every lock becomes a superior lock with DC 40 after a certain level and every enemy has +30 perception.

I'm all for other ways of introducing skill mastery. Through abilities that let you ignore certain limitations normally imposed when using the skill. Like moving full speed when stealthed and such.

Also, there is the ability to do research in downtime more obviously spelled out in this system. That research can be used for specific knowledge on monsters and regions and stuff. That can introduce some "granularity" into the knowledge system.

Commenting on the original post... I never liked Knowledge: Nobility or Knowledge: Local. Nobles houses and local customs are specific to regions. You could be very knowledgeable about your own countries nobility and local lore/customs, and know nothing about a country that is even a few hundred miles away. Having a knowledge skill that covers all localities and all nobles from all countries makes little sense.

 

[Sammael]

Yeah, GURPS is in a league of its own. I didn't have the book handy to count the skills, so I omitted it.

@darius0 - detailed skill systems are not without problems, that's for sure. However, with flatter math and alternative/creative ways to reduce DCs or gain bonuses on skill checks, they can work very well and provide a degree of verisimilitude that is otherwise absent in more abstract/gamist systems.

As for the DCs, my philosophy has always been to set DCs objectively and not tailor them to the party level. For instance, a kitchen door is not going to have a DC 40 lock even if the PCs are level 20, while at the same time King's Treasure Vault isn't going to have a DC 15 lock if the PCs are level 3. There will be easy challenges, moderate challenges, hard challenges, and challenges that are impossible to accomplish without some clever ideas.

 

[jgsugden]

5E clearly went for a simple skill system. As I had 2 decades of great fun playing D&D with no skill system at all, I can understand why they're not delving into the details in the core base sstem. It absolutely isn't necessary to have a great game.

 

[Wormwood]

5E clearly went for a simple skill system. As I had 2 decades of great fun playing D&D with no skill system at all, I can understand why they're not delving into the details in the core base sstem. It absolutely isn't necessary to have a great game.

I agree. I also don't think it's a coincidence that the 2e term 'proficiency' has been repurposed in 5e, but that's neither here not there.

 

[Werebat]

Huh? I'm not trolling, I'm deadly serious.

You just fed the "Call a guy a troll" troll.

 

[Werebat]

Yeah, GURPS is in a league of its own.

Rosie O'Donnell plays GURPS?