D&D 5E Too many knowledge skills.

[Frostmarrow]

Read Info

I'm thinking we could expand upon Read instead. We have read magic, tracks, faces, signs, maps, script (human, dwarf, elf, and dragon), and heraldry. That means the characters need to have something to read in front of them rather than just an abstract concept. Our characters are medieval adventurers after all and not academics.

This way the DM can say there are writings on the wall or that the dark knight sports a helmet crest. Whomever can read script or heraldry gets the information.

Maybe we can add the following: Read Rock formation, Cant, Augery, and Melody*.

Everybody can hear the music but it takes a trained ear to know what the song is about.

 

[Blackwarder]

I very much dislike the current skill system.

First of all I don't like the fact that once again skills are related to particular ability score.
Secondly, I don't like the fact that currently, skills only add flat bonus to skill checks.

I'm of the opinion that there should either be no skills or tons of them and that if we do have skills than they should tell us what the character can do (meaning adding new abilities) rather than just having a flat bonus.

What I would like to see is something like this: tasks difficulty are divided into five ranks: Easy, Moderate, Hard, Very Hard and Formidable (with the six one being impossible) just like the ranks in the DM Guidelines PDF in the play test.

Characters can train ranks which correspond to the ranks in the guidelines, each time a character gain a new rank he gain a new ability. Also, if a character got enough ranks in a skill than given enough time he can accomplish the task with no roll.

Lets take Climb for example, having one rank in climb give you +1 to any climb check, it also means that out of combat any easy task is an automatic success and can take (with DM discretion) a whole turn (10 min), trying to climb the same thing during combat would still require a climb check.

Also having one rank in Climb also give the character some sort of a perk, for example it might be "You can climb twice as fast" or "using climbing gear you can help your party mates climb the same surfaces you can with no roll for half the climbing speed" etc etc.

If your Character skill rank is two ranks higher than the difficulty (hard to easy, very hard to moderate etc) than the character don't need to roll even during combat.

the list of perks could either be predetermined or picked up by the players and DMs, players could also try to lower the difficulty level via role-playing.

When it comes to knowledge skills unless someone is really knowledgeable, he usually won't have time to stop and think about what mister it is when they fight one.

BTW Rogues skill mastery will manifest itself by the rogue having more skill ranks and not being made to roll if the his skill rank is one rank higher than the task difficulty.

I hope that if D&D focus on skill ranks and perks rather than flat progression and skill training only when picking the skill, than we can avoid the numbers bloat problem and add flavor to the skill system.

Warder

 

[hamstertamer]

Nah.

I expanded my list of skills actually. It works better since it comes up less often and makes it more special and it's another way of making the characters unique. The more you consolidate the more they will be used. Knowledge: magic, for example, would be used far too often because it so general and vague, and of course adjudicating it's use or non-use would be more difficult and more difficult to keep consistent and fair for all participants involved.

But I really don't care, since I won't be buying what they are making anyway. Might as well just have 'knowledge' as a skill at this point.

So for me having a wide range skills is important, more important than other considerations, for making Characters unique. I actually like it when players use their skills to find out information, and when they do I pass them a little note with some info of what their character knows and the others don't. It makes them feel special when they get tell the other characters what they know (sometimes they withhold info, and sometimes they tell them a different "truth", it's up to them). It just makes the game more interesting.

 

[tuxgeo]

Try this:

Knowledge & Lore
There are four main "tiers" of knowledge:

1. Common Knowledge: This knowledge is effectively free to all. All characters know this right off the bat. . . .
2. Specialized Details: This knowledge requires some experience and familiarity. . . .
3. Exclusive Information: This knowledge requires a great deal of attention, or at least some lucky history and a good memory, to know. . . .
4. Secret Lore: This knowledge is deliberately obscured by others, and difficult to find. . . .

There is also knowledge that others cannot tell you even if they try.

The classic example is: How do you explain color to a man born blind? However, there are other, more trainable situations as well, such as: How do you explain a perfect fifth interval in music to someone accustomed only to log-and-hide drums? Training can teach things that mere explanation never could; hence, experts in their fields can help you learn to experience those types of things, but their mere words will never substitute for actual practice and exposure ("participation") on your part.

The esoteric knowledge of some religious mysteries may fall into this same category: the experts would explain it to you if they could, but they cannot, because you have to experience it to know it.

I'm half-convinced that the "cannot be told" sorts of knowledge fit into your category number 2, above ("Specialized Details"); however, these sorts of knowledge might fall outside of that into a separate category of their own.

(I should have put this into an s-block, shouldn't I? Ah, phooey on that.)

 

[Gorgoroth]

..

yeah, the fact that 4e three characters in every group I was in, out of 4 wanted Arcana and it was BY FAR the most often rolled skill, is a sign it should have been broken down into smaller pieces.

Not too many, mind you. There's a sweet spot I think.

 

[Jester David]

Do we really need Forbidden, Geographical, Heraldic, Historical, Local, Magical, Natural, Planar, Religious, Societal, Underdark, and Undead Lore as separate skills?

I see the need for all, as they can overlap, unlike the 4e (and even 3e) skills where you have skills that were "close enough" and had wide range of application. Such as why Religion applied to Undead. Other than clerics turning undead there was no real connection. Why would a necromancer wizard who specialized in armies of zombies and skeletons bother learing "religion".

You can justify using Local to answer a "heraldic" or "societal" question just at a higher DC. Or "forbidden" for "undead" or "planes" depending on the subject. Just as you might use "religion" to identify an angel or demon while previously that would just be ther pervue of "planar".

More skills also makes it harder to stack all of them. That was a problem in 3e and especially with 4e where it was seen as necessary to have someone know every skill for Skill Challenges or answer questions. More skills implies that you don't need all of them, take what's appropriate.

Overlapping and broader lore skills also make it easier to add skills. They can slip in a Psionic Lore or Shadow Lore where appropriate. It's more modular. It's easier to customize skills for settings or other worlds.
You can also drop lore skills without leaving a void. If you decide to play in Ravenloft where Planar Lore is harder to justify (no planar travel) you can dump it and call for other skills instead. In Dark Sun you can dump Religious Lore without having to find a place for identifying undead.

 

[Steely_Dan]

The classic example is: How do you explain color to a man born blind?

In the film Mask he used heat, a cold stone for blue, hot for red.

 

[Roger]

Do you really need an explanation for what "History" or "Heraldry" covers?

I sure did. I would not have guessed that the answer to "Hey can I remember which one of King Olbon's bastards led the Burun's Farm Rebellion in '28?" would be "Sure go ahead and roll Heraldic Lore" before reading the skill description.



Cheers,
Roger

 

[Plaguescarred]

I believe Lore Skills should be folded as well.

 

[am181d]

I'm okay with the higher number of skill categories as long as any topic can be potentially covered by a few different skills. In the playtest I ran, it was a pleasant change to have a couple of scholarly characters discuss their different disciplines, and it allowed me to target a few plot twists directly to the players' characters. I saw no downside.