Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Irlo" data-source="post: 8520724" data-attributes="member: 7028372">I have a few thoughts and half-formed questions, but I haven't taken the time to decide if these are good ideas. You be the judge.1) You don't need to come up with an exhaustive list of areas of knowledge. Let the players identify their own and let them take broad fields (religion, for example) or hyper-focused areas (secret rites of the heretical Blue Sun sect of Pelor).  Rolling for knowledge skills often strikes me as weird, so I understand your desire to separate knowledge from skill. Doing so, the DM will still need to make determinations of what the PCs actually know, since they can't know everything. Do you have ideas of the practical effects of having a knowledge area in your background? And the effect of NOT having it? How much religion do I know when I don't have that area noted on my character sheet?2) Some issues might be resolved by a more explicit permission to use alternate ability scores to support skills. Maybe the night watch can use CON to modify perception checks during those long, cold nights on the walls of the keep. The sharp-minded rogue might use INT to modify perception when it involves attention to detail, allowing them to still be competent in investigation, while the ranger can use WIS for a more general something's-not-right sense out in the forest. One might use CON for persuasion, if it means standing there and holding one's breath until they get their way.3) I balk at combining deception and persuasion. I like the idea of the idealistic hero very capable of inspiring others to acts of bravery and self-sacrifice but unable to tell a convicing lie to save his life. Those fine distinctions might be better made using traits, ideals, and flaws, though. The player might volunteer to take disadvantage on deception (or just chose to fail) in exchange for inspiration, in games that use inspiration that way. Does anyone do that?</blockquote>

Verification