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: 6160158" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Useful? Sure. Not so much if every character knows the strengths and weaknesses of every monster by default, though. And I'm interested in other posters who see Knowledge checks being as frequent as attacks or saves.  That's not been my experience, but that's only one experience.To me, the rules make many of those decisions or, at a minimum, provide the framework for their adjudication. I consider a player who makes an eloquent speech on behalf of his 8 CHA character who has spent precisely zero skill points on any form of social or interaction skill to be poorly role playing his character, and more deserving of an xp penalty for that than of any bonus to his skill roll.So one might be an expert at matters arcane (high ranks in spellcraft and arcana) but unable to cast the simplest of spells, despite possessing all relevant knowledge of how they are cast?  Seems a disconnect there.  He's just a polyglot and picks up new languages with no investment of skill points?  Disable device seems like a D&D technology skill (while some basic computer knowledge is similar to driving in the 21st century).  Anyone with a great CHA is an animal trainer?  Sleight of hand is on the cusp, but I can see this requiring some basic training.  Spellcraft is that Magic Basic Training, so seems reasonable.  Similar for Use Magic Device, although that depends on how one envisions their use working.And if there is no reason anyone can't effectively undertake these various skills, why can't they use a longbow, or a hand crossbow effectively (or as effectively as their BAB allows)?  How much harder can it be to fire a smaller crossbow than the standard one virtually everyone can use?  Yet it seems it was a good idea for that Noble, wasn't it?To the moral issues, I commented on those immediately after, but you chose to ignore that aspect of my post.  If all it takes is an unwilling sacrifice, I could see many religions using worshippers of opposing deities in this manner.The idea I do like from your various comments is modifying Local Knowledge to provide a knowledge check on indigenous species, either in addition to or probably in replacement of humanoids.  In fact, perhaps humanoids should be "common knowledge" - are there any that are all that rare? There is quite a list, but we could always move the less common to other categories - perhaps "underdark humanoids" move to Dungeoneering, some of the on the line ones get reclassified as Monstrous, etc.  If we took the very logical step of setting DC's by monster, rather than by HD, we could define some as common knowledge, and also reclassify others and/or place them on more than one list (I note 'humanoid' includes 'vampire').  We could indicate some are not restricted to "trained" users, despite having a DC above 10.That would be a default, though. Really, each campaign setting should have its own DC's and "common" rules.  The Zeitgeist world has a lot more Fey involvement, and a lot less planar incursions, which would suggest the former are better known and the latter more of a mystery.Finally, the prospect of someone with misinformation, rather than just not knowing, merits consideration.  [Now, what did Bree-yark mean, again?]</blockquote>

Verification