Why are Know:Dungeonering and Know:A&E seperate skills anyways?

[deuxhero]

(Admitedly, I know the answer is something along the lines of "Because WotC isn't very brigh at balancet" and "Core Pathfinder is largely ctrl+c the OGL content", but let's ignore that)

Let's look at what Dungeonering covers

"Identify underground hazard"
What an "underground hazard" is isn't clear (depending on how you define it, it takes training to know that a pit is a pit because it is underground) so I can't judge.

"Identify mineral, stone, or metal"
Definitely something an engineer could know (could also be covered by nature, but not the point now)

"Determine slope"
You're kidding? This is an architect/engineer's bread and butter! What is this doing in Dungeonering even if they somehow merited separate skills?

"Determine depth underground"
OK, not reasonably put under A&E outside of man made places, but that's far too little. (Again, could be put in nature but not the point.)

"aberrations and oozes"
Neither of which is really "underground" (Underdark is campaign specific) and it feels more like the two were tossed in because they fit in nothing else.


Any reason not to combine the two (and possibly serve as a redundent Construct skill?)?

[Mystify]

They feel very distinct to me. Dungeneering is exploring dungeons, architecture and engineering is the construction of buildings. Dungeneering tells you about hazards you face, including certain creatures. Engineering tells you about bridges and buildings and such.
Contents of a dungeon and the construction of bridges are two very different things.

Just compare their descriptions from knowledge side by side(which is conveinet, since they are next to each other)
Architecture and engineering (buildings, aqueducts, bridges, fortifications)
Dungeoneering (aberrations, caverns, oozes, spelunking)
Those are different things altogether. Sure, there may be some occasional overlap if you are exploring a subterranean building. But knowledges frequently overlap. Knowledge architecture won't tell you about a natural cavern, and it makes no sense for it to tell you about oozes and aberrations. Knowing about dungeons won't help you figure out how the city aqueducts work, or the weak points in that particular type of bridge.

[Lucy Land]

Any reason not to combine the two (and possibly serve as a redundent Construct skill?)?
None at all. It's not like I've ever seen anyone actually put ranks in A&E, so it's all good as far as I'm concerned!

[BillyBobJoe]

None at all. It's not like I've ever seen anyone actually put ranks in A&E, so it's all good as far as I'm concerned!

Roy disagrees with you. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0808.html)

[Akal Saris]

I think of the high number of partly redundant knowledge skills as a holdover from 2E's unbelievably huge list of 'flavor' skills, just like Hide and Move Silently are separate skills, or Spot, Listen, and Search are all separate.

Personally, I don't see any problem in combining A&E with Dungeoneering, or combining Arcana with Spellcraft. But I also like the idea of giving PCs free skill ranks to spend on 'flavor' profession and knowledge skills.

[bloodtide]

Architecture and engineering is very different then Dungeoneering.

Dungeoneering is more of a 'fun, player friendly' type skill. The idea is simple enough: Characters will spend a lot of time in dungeons(it's dungeons and dragons after all:smallwink:), so it's nice for them to have a 'catch all trivia like skill that covers dungeons'. As a typical adventuring type will spend a lot of times in dungeons, it would stand to reason that they would know a lot about dungeons in general.


Architecture and engineering is much more a 'complicated role-playing skill'. The idea is that some players like a bit more detail, fluff and flavor. So this is the skill for them. The skill covers all sorts of complicated construction type things, but no 'trivia'. The typical adventurer will not have this skill, it's only for the select few to take.

[Seharvepernfan]

I see them as distinctly different. Would you combine geography and nature? If yes, then go ahead and combine these as well.

Also, you could give synergy bonuses between the two for certain uses.

[Acanous]

I take Know: A&E. It's good for Seige engines, building construction, tolerance of materials, finding weak points, determining the available interior space based on exterior measurement...

And of course, with about a +30 bonus in the skill there's practically nothing you can't justify with a Lyre of Building, a Permanent Wall of Fire and a Decanter of Endless Water.

[hiryuu]

Because architecture and engineering is about building things and siege engines. Dungeoneering is, well, dungeon trivia plus it covers natural cavern formations; it's basically between Geography and Architecture, with knowledge of the slimy stuff you find down there that don't want your feet to be in). It seems to be a practical skill, something you learn with a painfully hands-on experience in places where normal people do not tread. I mean, seriously, unless they're a caving enthusiast, does a trained architect know anything about spelunking and gelatinous cubes?

Most of the skills are named terribly, I believe. "Local" should be named "Streetwise," or maybe even "Anthropology," (first used for its modern meaning in the 1500s!) since it covers mythology, legends, personalities, and customs just like the discipline, and its current name makes a lot of folks think it's got its own subcategories of skills and never take it.

[Arbitrarious]

The D&D knowledge skills are all messed up. Have you looked at the SRD skill descriptions?

Geography (lands, terrain, climate, people)
Nature (animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin)

History (royalty, wars, colonies, migrations, founding of cities)
Nobility and royalty (lineages, heraldry, family trees, mottoes, personalities)
Local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids)

Religion (gods and goddesses, mythic history, ecclesiastic tradition, holy symbols, undead) what no outsiders, the oft-time servants of deities?

In my opinion it would be best to get rid of the separate knowledge skills and have a single skill that every rank or 2 gives you an extra specialty. Perhaps throw in a straight monster lore specialty. There is just so much overlap and nonsense in the current skills it's funny.

[Mystify]

The D&D knowledge skills are all messed up. Have you looked at the SRD skill descriptions?

Geography (lands, terrain, climate, people)
Nature (animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin)

History (royalty, wars, colonies, migrations, founding of cities)
Nobility and royalty (lineages, heraldry, family trees, mottoes, personalities)
Local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids)

Religion (gods and goddesses, mythic history, ecclesiastic tradition, holy symbols, undead) what no outsiders, the oft-time servants of deities?

In my opinion it would be best to get rid of the separate knowledge skills and have a single skill that every rank or 2 gives you an extra specialty. Perhaps throw in a straight monster lore specialty. There is just so much overlap and nonsense in the current skills it's funny.
What is wrong with being able to learn things from multiple skills? I often allow multiple skills to learn something, though perhaps with a different DC.
And some of your overlap is not overlap. the personalities in royalty and local are focused on different things. Royalty tells you about the personalities of the nobility. local tells you about the personalities of notable people in the area. Both may cover the personality of the local baron, but that is a point of overlap, not two identical skills. And knowing the history of the land will tell you about the old rulers, whilst knowledge nobility is concerned with the current rulers.
Really, trying to create skills with 0 overlap is absurd. There should be multiple paths to knowledge.

[Namfuak]

What is wrong with being able to learn things from multiple skills? I often allow multiple skills to learn something, though perhaps with a different DC.
And some of your overlap is not overlap. the personalities in royalty and local are focused on different things. Royalty tells you about the personalities of the nobility. local tells you about the personalities of notable people in the area. Both may cover the personality of the local baron, but that is a point of overlap, not two identical skills. And knowing the history of the land will tell you about the old rulers, whilst knowledge nobility is concerned with the current rulers.
Really, trying to create skills with 0 overlap is absurd. There should be multiple paths to knowledge.

In addition to this, it also depends on how you justify "knowing" something through a skill. I usually think of it like you have spent a certain amount of time studying that type of knowledge, and when you roll you are checking if your character ever actually looked into the particular thing you are rolling knowledge about. So, if a person tends to be a history buff or a royalty/nobility buff, they may have read the same book about the lineage of the King- the roll is retroactively checking if they actually did. The higher the DC, the less likely they have actually read/learned something about the subject. The higher the skill ranks, the more they have read/learned about the subject, and the better chance they learned about the particular thing they are performing the skill check to know about.

[Mystify]

In addition to this, it also depends on how you justify "knowing" something through a skill. I usually think of it like you have spent a certain amount of time studying that type of knowledge, and when you roll you are checking if your character ever actually looked into the particular thing you are rolling knowledge about. So, if a person tends to be a history buff or a royalty/nobility buff, they may have read the same book about the lineage of the King- the roll is retroactively checking if they actually did. The higher the DC, the less likely they have actually read/learned something about the subject. The higher the skill ranks, the more they have read/learned about the subject, and the better chance they learned about the particular thing they are performing the skill check to know about.
Thats pretty much how I interpret it as well. I often joke that when somebody rolls a 20, they had done a book report on that topic(very specifically) in school.

[Arbitrarious]

What is wrong with being able to learn things from multiple skills? I often allow multiple skills to learn something, though perhaps with a different DC.
And some of your overlap is not overlap. the personalities in royalty and local are focused on different things. Royalty tells you about the personalities of the nobility. local tells you about the personalities of notable people in the area. Both may cover the personality of the local baron, but that is a point of overlap, not two identical skills. And knowing the history of the land will tell you about the old rulers, whilst knowledge nobility is concerned with the current rulers.
Really, trying to create skills with 0 overlap is absurd. There should be multiple paths to knowledge.

First. Do you think the knowledge skills are all clearly defined and self contained? Do you think they all use the same criteria to determine what they cover and that criteria is consistently applied? Do you think all knowledge skills are approximately as useful as another (barring VERY specific game types)?

I don't. I never claimed the knowledge skills were duplicating each other, I said that they are a mess. Overlap is one of the more prominent symptoms of it. Your example is a more benign one, but it isn't the only issue. What purpose does knowledge nobility serve as a core knowledge? How does it compare to Knowledge Nature or Arcana? It covers a very narrow band of history and local. You get a small diplomacy bonus, but does it warrant it's own printed knowledge category? The combining a few traits from several knowledges into one and a small mechanical bonus in reasonable situation is a useful benchmark for custom knowledge skills, but not a group wizards should be presenting as "typical". Instead they should of presented it as an example of a custom knowledge category. As it is, what limits what I can define as a knowledge skill? Could I have a Knowledge Monster Lore that covered all monsters, but only monster information? Is that a fair use of a knowledge category?

The system is certainly not unworkable. It just seems that the way they split it up and what examples they chose to define were poor. Thankfully most DMs, myself and you included, will exercise common sense and allow a reasonable amount of leeway in knowledge coverage. It doesn't make it a good system. There is no harm in calling out it's failings and asking what could be done to improve it.

[Mystify]

First. Do you think the knowledge skills are all clearly defined and self contained? Do you think they all use the same criteria to determine what they cover and that criteria is consistently applied? Do you think all knowledge skills are approximately as useful as another (barring VERY specific game types)?

I don't. I never claimed the knowledge skills were duplicating each other, I said that they are a mess. Overlap is one of the more prominent symptoms of it. Your example is a more benign one, but it isn't the only issue. What purpose does knowledge nobility serve as a core knowledge? It covers a very narrow band of history and local. You get a small diplomacy bonus, but does it warrant it's own printed knowledge category? How does it compare to Knowledge Nature or Arcana? It combines a few traits from several knowledges into one and gives a small mechanical bonus in reasonable situation. That is a useful benchmark for custom knowledge skills, but not the groups wizards should be presenting as "typical". Instead they should of presented it as an example of a custom knowledge category. As it is what limits what I can define as a knowledge skill? Could I have a Knowledge Monster Lore that covered all monsters, but only monster information? Is that a fair use of a knowledge category?

The system is certainly not unworkable. It just seems that the way they split it up and what examples they chose to define were poor. Thankfully most DMs, myself and you included, will exercise common sense and allow a reasonable amount of leeway in knowledge coverage. It doesn't make it a good system. There is no harm in calling out it's failings and asking what could be done to improve it.
Considering a typical medieval setting, knowledge nobilty and royalty makes very good sense. I've taken it several times, and have gotten good use out of it. Its a major part of most settings. You have actual royalty, and a whole slew of nobles at all levels of society. It also makes clear RP sense. If you are playing a knight, then knowing about the nobilty makes a lot of sense, whilst local isn't really appropriate, and history is something completely different. Sure, it might not get equal use in every campaign, but what skills do? Know(Nature) gets very little use in an urban campaign. Knowledge religion and arcana are more prominent, but that is because they work with major aspects of the setting. The main reason they are so useful is they are obvious choices. People think of them. knowledge history can be very useful if you think to use it. The DM has to willing to let it be useful, but that is a flaw of DM style, not so much the system.
The knowledge system has always made sense to me, and has worked well in the games I've seen it in. Unlike most aspects of the system.

[Arbitrarious]

Considering a typical medieval setting, knowledge nobilty and royalty makes very good sense. I've taken it several times, and have gotten good use out of it. Its a major part of most settings. You have actual royalty, and a whole slew of nobles at all levels of society. It also makes clear RP sense. If you are playing a knight, then knowing about the nobilty makes a lot of sense, whilst local isn't really appropriate, and history is something completely different. Sure, it might not get equal use in every campaign, but what skills do? Know(Nature) gets very little use in an urban campaign. Knowledge religion and arcana are more prominent, but that is because they work with major aspects of the setting. The main reason they are so useful is they are obvious choices. People think of them. knowledge history can be very useful if you think to use it. The DM has to willing to let it be useful, but that is a flaw of DM style, not so much the system.
The knowledge system has always made sense to me, and has worked well in the games I've seen it in. Unlike most aspects of the system.

I would argue against a knight not having local. It covers laws, traditions, and customs. All things I would expect a knight to be able to observe. History is certainly something that could be argued either way depending on the type of knight we are discussing. After all history covers wars, colonies, foundations of cities and kingdoms in addition to nobility. All appropriate for a educated knight if it wasn't for the darth of skill points they receive to actually allot to those skills. Note I did say knowledge nobility makes an excellent example of a 'this fits my character theme' type knowledge. However from an anecdotal standpoint I have had characters interact in upper society without that particular knowledge by relying on local and diplomacy. Knowledge nobility, much like history, requires a certain amount of DM fiat to garner functional use. It is indeed a system flaw, one I wonder if could be addressed in the system as a whole.

If you are completely satisfied with the knowledge skills as written, then good gentle person will we simply have to agree to disagree. I will certainly concede that the system functions, but there is a great deal of dross I would see weeded out. I would like a stream lined system where the divisions are clear and well though out, or if they simply said "whatever makes sense". It seems like they are between those 2 points and that is the source of my dissatisfaction. I wonder where D&D 5th edition will place us in terms of these skills.

I am also eager to hear if anyone has revised the knowledge groups in a way they've found satisfactory or addressed these write in skills in some other manner.

[bloodtide]

First. Do you think the knowledge skills are all clearly defined and self contained? Do you think they all use the same criteria to determine what they cover and that criteria is consistently applied? Do you think all knowledge skills are approximately as useful as another (barring VERY specific game types)?


Yes, knowledge skills are defined, though they cross over a lot as knowledge does this. Each knowledge skill is useful to get needed information.



What purpose does knowledge nobility serve as a core knowledge? How does it compare to Knowledge Nature or Arcana?

Well, if you were in a campaign with nobles, knowledge of them would be very important. I would say that not poaching on the kings private hunting grounds is just as important as identifying a magic effect.

[Venger]

one somewhat justifiable reason for the overlap in certain knowledge skills is that some classes (we're looking at you, sorcerer) only get one or two random knowledges instead of all of them (wizard rears its ugly head once more) so they want normal characters to have a chance of accessing certain info without having to buy CC ranks in a knowledge skill, which is the bitterest pill in the game to swallow regarding game ranks except speak language on the off chance that your DM doesn't just have everyone speak common/forgets that there are different languages in this game.

honestly, I've been playing for 3 and a half years, and in my experience, knowledge skills are really only used to identify monsters (knowledge devotion, I love you) and fulfill awkward prereqs (such as the infamous green star adept)

[Mystify]

honestly, I've been playing for 3 and a half years, and in my experience, knowledge skills are really only used to identify monsters (knowledge devotion, I love you) and fulfill awkward prereqs (such as the infamous green star adept)
Proactiveness on the side of the players can greatly extend the usefullness of the knowledge skills, imo. The DM may not think to ask for a knowledge history roll about the tapestry you find, but if the player tries it he will generally come up with something. I guess it depends on the campaign and DM.

[Augmental]

The D&D knowledge skills are all messed up. Have you looked at the SRD skill descriptions?

Geography (lands, terrain, climate, people)
*snip*

Human geography is actually one of two major divisions of geography in real life. I don't get why it wouldn't make sense considering that.

[ericgrau]

If you read both descriptions dungeoneering is about cave nature and A&E is about constructions. They aren't related at all. Dungeoneering is closer to nature. A&E is closer to... I dunno, craft (masonry) or knowledge (local) because of humanoid builders or appraise I suppose.




Architecture and engineering (buildings, aqueducts, bridges, fortifications)
Dungeoneering (aberrations, caverns, oozes, spelunking)


The confusion comes from the name which makes it sound like it's about half of what the entire system is about (_&D) when really it's about caves.

[bloodtide]

honestly, I've been playing for 3 and a half years, and in my experience, knowledge skills are really only used to identify monsters (knowledge devotion, I love you) and fulfill awkward prereqs (such as the infamous green star adept)

It's one of the things that depends on the type of game. An action adventure game or a hack and slash game would only use knowledge skills for things like identifying monsters.

But if you play a deep storytelling type game, then knowledge skills are of great importance and very useful.

[Urpriest]

Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering) is an old skill from when Knowledges were mostly fluff. Knowledge(Dungeoneering) is a new skill from when Knowledges were assumed to give monster stats and otherwise perform in-game functions. They lived under different paradigms. There's really no reason to have both, they just come from diametrically opposed ends of D&D's design evolution so there was no call to combine them.

[Mystify]

Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering) is an old skill from when Knowledges were mostly fluff. Knowledge(Dungeoneering) is a new skill from when Knowledges were assumed to give monster stats and otherwise perform in-game functions. They lived under different paradigms. There's really no reason to have both, they just come from diametrically opposed ends of D&D's design evolution so there was no call to combine them.

But they still represent 2 very different sets of knowledge, which happen to have a small area of overlap.

[Suddo]

A&E is a NPC skill. Don't take away one of the few things NPCs will probably do well. Making it almost worthless to a PC is a good thing.

But in all serious-ness I think I'd be okay with them being combined, though they wouldn't be my first choice for messing with. Nobility & Royalty being combined with History is totally something I'm going to do.

Edit: I'd also combine Geography and Nature I'd probably combine before A&E and Dungeonering.

[Urpriest]

But they still represent 2 very different sets of knowledge, which happen to have a small area of overlap.

Irrelevant. Only A&E is built on the design paradigm that Knowledge skills should correspond to areas of personal knowledge. Dungeoneering is built as a modern monster knowledge skill.

[Mystify]

Irrelevant. Only A&E is built on the design paradigm that Knowledge skills should correspond to areas of personal knowledge. Dungeoneering is built as a modern monster knowledge skill.
So in a more story oriented enviroment, skills that have more out of combat applications are bad, and skills with an in combat focus are the way to go. That seems backwards to me.
Both aspects have a place in a campaign. I would find it very restrictive if knowledge history was not part of campaigns, even if there is no monsters associated with it. If anything, I would argue that monster knowledge should be split off. knowledge Acana is extremely useful, and then it gets 3 types of monsters on top of it. If you split them, the knowledge remains useful in its own, and its not boosted in capability by associating monster knowledges with it.
Sure, many of them may not be useful in combat. But in a modern game, combat is only a part of the game, and your out of combat role play can be just as important. Just because they added in the idea that knowledges should tell you about monsters does not mean that all knowledges that don't are worthless and should be thrown out. If the monster knowledges were the important thing, then it should be handled better. The monster knowledge is really oddly designed. The base knowledge is based on HD with no regard to notability or rarity, and you get to learn "a bit of useful information". You beat the DC by 5, and recall "another piece of useful information"If its meant to be mechanically significant, then the rules should be mechanically meaningful.