Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6160026" data-attributes="member: 6681948">While I agree the subject matter is off the topic, it illustrates that having some people who lecture about topics the general populace has no experience or expertise with in no way provides a substantial knowledge base for the population.By the "everybody knows what it basically looks like and can do" belief you have been espousing, it should not matter that it is cute, unless it precisely mimics the appearance of some other creature (and even then everyone would know some creatures can do that).I think your breadth is excessive.  This would imply Knowledge should occupy what, 25% to 1/3 of the rules?  We should have Knowledge Skill descriptions that are as many and varied as feats, or as spells?   That we would make as many rolls, and spend us much time, on activities focused on the knowledge skills as we do in combat, in the typical game. That just is not the case.  Knowledge skills are abbreviated abstractions because they are a limited focus of game activity.And they are chosen by the character, based on his persuasive abilities.  A player who is quite honest and forthright, and a terrible poker player, might indicate "I try to convince the locals that this concoction of foul-smelling herbs, mud and water is a wondrous healing concoction". It is the character, with a +15 Bluff, who phrases the snappy patter that sells out the supply to the townsfolk.Just as a high PER skill reminds a player that his character sees something subtle, and he need not pass a "where's Waldo" or "Scene-it" test to benefit from his character's skills, nor must he tell me how he feints, dodges and moves to land a sword blow - his character has those skills.Why does the character have INT, WIS or CHA if the intent is that the player uses his own?  In my view, the player controls the decisions of the character, and what he attempts to do.  The rules, including the character's skills and abilities, controls his success or failure in these efforts.The rules are intended to place the players and GM on common ground as to what constitutes 'sensible GM interpretation" and "scope of successful checks". We could certainly remove to hit and damage roils, and leave that to "sensible GM interpretation" as well. Let's take a step back and remember that the rules for adjudication of success and failure are just structure for a game of "let's pretend", so rather than "I hit - fall down you're dead", offset with "No, you missed", instead the dice arbitrate the success of the attack.Then we disagree on whether certain of these skills could require special training. If anything, I question Craft and Perform lacking a similar "you can only do so much untrained" aspect similar to Knowledge. Profession, though, requires training - what makes it different?  No, I am OK with a character learning from experience without investing skill ranks.  Borog the Stupid and Sacriligious can certainly learn from experience that attacking a spectre with a non-magical weapon is futile, or be told by Leon the Learned that Silver will harm the werewolf. Having seen that in action, he can certainly consider himself justified in using a silver weapon when he encounters a werewolf again, or even deciding to try it Leon's way when they track this one down.  But just because the player is well versed in werewolf lore, that should not mean Borog (or even Leon) automatically knows werewolves are susceptible to silver.  Leon may have the knowledge skill, so he gets a roll. Borog's one skill point per level went to Intimidate.So despite these world travelers ensuring every schoolchild can recognize a basilisk on sight, know of its petrification gave and be aware of exactly what steps they should take in defense, they can't know that it can absorb more damage than a warhorse and keep on going? I think your "common knowledge" is very sporadic and selective in its application.To the first question, it is simply that there would seem to be pretty common resurrections, given the scroll and the condemned prisoner.  Hasn't anyone stepped up to the plate, like those world travellers, to disseminate successes and failures so we have a better idea which lives are enough?  How many sentient creatures do PC's combat? Keeping a few prisoner hardly seems a stretch. Hell, they're "condemned" anyway - would they not be a valuable commodity in being available for sacrifice to Raise nobles, even if the PC's don't need them?Suspend Animation and Shrinking spells/carrying devices seem likely developments when these creatures become such valuable commodities, as the main scarcity seems to be the life to sacrifice. Traveling NPC's of little note have the spell available.The moral issue is the more scary one to me.  Seems an unlikely action for a Paladin, or even a Good cleric - exchanging one life for another seems an evil act.  Now, if I wanted such a system to truly make Resurrection rare, I'd be fine with it being a CANTRIP.  But the exchanged life must be given freely and voluntarily, with no compulsion, no magical or mundane coercion, and no force.  A 100% without regrets sacrifice freely chosen by the entity giving up its life for another.BINGO!Then do the PC's believe this of all snakes (it surprises many that constrictors are not poisonous, or that rattlers don't inject poison) and a walking skeleton can slay a man instantly merely by meeting its gaze? Do we fear a Crocodile might turn us to stone, and avert our eyes? It's a big reptile, like a basilisk. Or do they know the specifics of each creature independently?  The former is legend and myth, the latter textbook recognition on sight.If the whole MM lives nearby, how do humans survive? This does open up the suggestion that "local knowledge" should grant an understanding of creatures that live in the local area, rather than all humanoids and only humanoids, though.This shows a further abstraction - we don't want dozens or hundreds of Knowledges, so we have KN Nature for all animals, not separate skills for snakes., fish, toadstools, etc.  Knowledges are broad abstractions, like Doctors and Scientists in Sci Fi always have specialist level knowledge in dozens of separate fields.I googled Koala Mauling - stupid people getting too close to an animal get scratched.  No reports of anyone turned to stone or slain by a death gaze, though...</blockquote>

Verification