Knowledge skills - how they can be worthless

[Plane Sailing]

In a campaign that I play in knowledge skills are almost worthless for a different reason - the DM allows Bardic knowledge checks to be made for pretty much everything that someone might make a knowledge check for. The Bard has a high intelligence and he pretty much automatically trumps everybodies attempts to gain knowledge.

How do other DMs balance the Bardic Knowledge vis a vis Knowledge skills?

Cheers

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Bards should know something about everything...but not specific details. For example, I'd say that a Bard would know about the deadly powers of the evil vampires that can enslaves a man's mind and force him to do terrible things, but I'm not so sure he'd know about the specifics of killing one. That's more in line with a Knowledge(undead) check.

What I mean is that Bards know generalities, people with Knowledge skills know specifics.

And in the campaign I'm in, our DM loves Knowledge checks. He gives out information all the frickin' time. Doesn't always mean we know what to do with it, though.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

What I mean is that Bards know generalities, people with Knowledge skills know specifics.

So in what sort of circumstance would a generality be more useful than specifics? It would seem that, by your ruling, bardic knowledge is basically useless.

I allow Bardic Knowledge to act as any other knowledge skill, at a circumstance penalty. After all, there's always a chance that the bard happened to get into a conversation with a wizard in a tavern, where the subject of illithids came up, etc. So a bard has a chance of having heard of info from any field, but not so good a chance as someone who actually studies that field.

Bardic Knowledge trumps regular knowledge checks with it comes to particular objects, individuals. For instance, if the party is trying to figure out where Evangrave the Lich keeps his phylactery, Knowledge (Undead) gets you nothing, but Bardic Knowledge might score you a legend about Evangrave, and how he always wears a particular pair of gilded boots...

 

[Will]

I prefer to keep knowledge skills dry, and bard knowledge... er... wet?

So knowledge (architecture) gives you that the Duven period of castle design usually included an access point at a nearby hill.

Bardic knowledge tells you that it's a Duven castle, renovations were made 10 years ago, and where to find the people who worked on it.

Sorta. I find it frustrating keeping the two distinct, at times. But the knowledge-monsters haven't felt too put out. When it comes to knowing spells and stuff... man.

16th level party, one of the wizards has a 32 Int. Maaaan.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I wouldn't give precise odds either. It just seems to me that, since SR and such are situations where a little more granularity is called for than simply "good" or "bad". The 11th level wizard going up against SR 13 will nearly always blow through it. Going up against SR 18, he'll usually blow through it and against SR 22, he'll blow through it half the time. I think a good knowledge check deserves a bit more than differentiation than "good" for all of those. Similarly, against SR 26, he's got a chance but the odds aren't good and against SR 30, he might as well pack up his bags even though he theoretically could effect it. Those deserve more differentiation from bad. So I think "certain/almost certain/good/average/bad/almost impossible/impossible" is the appropriate range of responses rather than simply good/bad.

Last things first: absolutely they can request specific bits of information, although in the example you give, I wouldn't give them stats on what the odds of penetrating SR would be, other than (maybe) to say, "You can probably affect them," or, "you probably can't affect them."