Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Retros_x" data-source="post: 9669214" data-attributes="member: 7033171">Knowledge skills don't get any love from me haha. If I could I would abandon them in total. I describe the world incl. monsters, if a PC might know about it due to background I tell them the information they need. I only roll on knowledge skills if there is an actual action and stake involved - which is almost never due to the nature of knowledge skills.I follow the principle only roll if there are stakes and possible failure that is meaningful. The rogue only rolls for lockpicking if they are under time pressure while breaking in a home or fortress. If they find a locked chest somewhere in the nature - the rogue doesn't need to roll, they get the thing open.Same applies to knowledge rolls IMO, but due to their nature they rarely are dramatic. And in general I prefer the players gathering information through roleplaying and exploring, not through a dice roll. But thats also OSR mentality speaking through me.Additionally they feel off. For me the roll represents the random circumstances that influence our attempt to do something while the static modifier represents the actual skill and training of the character. A wizard failing their arcana check feels always so off to me. &quot;Yeah, you studied magical beasts for years, but somehow you can't remember anything about this magical creature than the absolute basics every farmer would know&quot;. If one knows their stuff, they know. Its not like climbing a mountain where even an expert climber could fall if they have bad luck.That all being said - If I would do knowledge checks, I would include something like your rules you present here, its a nice principle to have some sort of graded success for knowledge rolls.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Retros_x, post: 9669214, member: 7033171"] Knowledge skills don't get any love from me haha. If I could I would abandon them in total. I describe the world incl. monsters, if a PC might know about it due to background I tell them the information they need. I only roll on knowledge skills if there is an actual action and stake involved - which is almost never due to the nature of knowledge skills. I follow the principle only roll if there are stakes and possible failure that is meaningful. The rogue only rolls for lockpicking if they are under time pressure while breaking in a home or fortress. If they find a locked chest somewhere in the nature - the rogue doesn't need to roll, they get the thing open. Same applies to knowledge rolls IMO, but due to their nature they rarely are dramatic. And in general I prefer the players gathering information through roleplaying and exploring, not through a dice roll. But thats also OSR mentality speaking through me. Additionally they feel off. For me the roll represents the random circumstances that influence our attempt to do something while the static modifier represents the actual skill and training of the character. A wizard failing their arcana check feels always so off to me. "Yeah, you studied magical beasts for years, but somehow you can't remember anything about this magical creature than the absolute basics every farmer would know". If one knows their stuff, they know. Its not like climbing a mountain where even an expert climber could fall if they have bad luck. That all being said - If I would do knowledge checks, I would include something like your rules you present here, its a nice principle to have some sort of graded success for knowledge rolls. [/QUOTE]

Verification