Knowledge Devotion vs. Humans?

[barna10]

What knowledge skill would you use when fighting humans to get the bonus?

[Yukitsu]

If I recall, knowledge local describes humanoids.

[Chilingsworth]

Local, I believe

*Checks SRD* Yup, definately local by default. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/knowledge.htm)

On the other hand, depending on any organisation they belong to, you might be able to get them with some other knowledge skill. (At least that's a potential houserule DM's might use to add flavor.)

[Cog]

On the other hand, depending on any organisation they belong to, you might be able to get them with some other knowledge skill. (At least that's a potential houserule DM's might use to add flavor.)
I'm not seeing the reasoning, there. I don't see why whether somebody is e.g. a politician or a merchant would affect whether you know how to aim for their kneecaps/gut/etc.

[Siosilvar]

I'm not seeing the reasoning, there. I don't see why whether somebody is e.g. a politician or a merchant would affect whether you know how to aim for their kneecaps/gut/etc.

Knowing common tactics and fighting styles taught by the Et Cetera Fighter's guild gives you an insight into how to fight against them... (continue fluff as desired)

For one that would actually fall outside of Local, then go with the royal trainers of Whatever who teach the soldiers in Whatever how to fight.

[Phelix-Mu]

It seems somewhat bizarre that Knowledge (local: place x) gives me Knowledge Devotion bonuses against all humanoids, no matter where they hail from. Or am I misreading this, and the feat is really not so great against humanoids when you are away from home (or place x)?

[Flickerdart]

Knowledge: Local doesn't subdivide into knowledge about specific locations unless you're in Faerun. Knowledge: Local is a single skill in 3.5, used to identify humanoids among other things.

[Phelix-Mu]

Ah, but then isn't it maybe too useful? Or maybe I was going with a Faerun type knowledge idea. I though 3.0 also had you specify a place. Maybe that's the source of my confusion.

Too bad, cause my Faerun character is leaving planet in an upcoming planewalking campaign. Great. Note: Talk to DM about possibly retraining Knowledge (local: Chult) into the broader Knowledge (local).

Still seems weird about knowing the local customs, laws, and traditions of everywhere (even places and people that aren't humanoids...i.e., marriage practices in Celestia), since most of these will have pretty low DCs (the Celestia bit might still be hard to know).

[Flickerdart]

It's generally easier to know what another community of your species does somewhere than it is to know the functioning of a dragon's fire breath...mostly because you can just ask them, whereas knowledge of dragons mostly comes from people who are running away really fast to avoid being eaten.

[HunterOfJello]

Humans have the type of Humanoid (Human). Humanoid is their type. (Human) is their subtype.

Elves are Humanoid (Elf)
Dwarves are Humanoid (Dwarf)
Orcs are Humanoid (Orc)
Goblins are Humanoid (Goblinoid)
Kobolds are DRAGON


~

Knowledge (Local) gives information about all Humanoid type creatures.

[Phelix-Mu]

But it seems to me that Knowledge (local) isn't limited by species, just like geography isn't limited by planet.


Local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions,
humanoids)That's PHB there. Pretty vague scope.

[Eldariel]

Kobolds are DRAGON

Normal Kobolds are Humanoid (Reptilian). Or are we operating under the assumption only Dragonwroughts exist? :smalltongue:

Local is a bit weird but that's how it works by RAW. If you're runningsubdivided Knowledge: Local, tying humanoids to Knowledge: Nature is probably your best bet (Heal sorta works too, except it's Wis-based; if you know what makes them tick you know what makes that ticking stop).

Homebrewing a "Knowledge: Society" or some such skill could also work to cover more general information about Humanoids and the Humanoid-based KDev bonuses. Either way, Knowledge Devotion and split Knowledge: Local don't really play nice with each other.

[Phelix-Mu]

I'm making a big planet, personally, and can hardly imagine that Knowledge(local) applies everywhere. Plus, isn't that just a stupid name for it if it's supposed to work everywhere?

Anyway, [/rant]

[Coidzor]

But it seems to me that Knowledge (local) isn't limited by species, just like geography isn't limited by planet.

That's PHB there. Pretty vague scope.

Yes, it's an abstraction like all of the other knowledge skills. Having a single knowledge local helps cut down on skill list bloat and wasted skill points however.

[Phelix-Mu]

I guess having x ranks in it means that you just keep up to date with said topics as the you travel to new areas. Out-of-combat studying ftw.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I guess having x ranks in it means that you just keep up to date with said topics as the you travel to new areas. Out-of-combat studying ftw.

So it's basically your ranks in the "gossip hound" skill then?

[Deophaun]

I'm making a big planet, personally, and can hardly imagine that Knowledge(local) applies everywhere. Plus, isn't that just a stupid name for it if it's supposed to work everywhere?

Anyway, [/rant]
If you think it's stupid, may I suggest getting rid of it entirely and folding all its functions under Gather Information? Also, make sure that every class that had Knowledge: Local on its class list is compensated by Gather Information.

Because, in all honesty, Knowledge: Local (Tyr) is never going to be useful unless 50% of your campaign takes place in Tyr, and nothing should ever depend on someone have Knowledge: Local (Middleof#%^&knowswhere).

[Answerer]

Knowledge (Local) is very much intentionally (I'd argue) an abstraction: a loss of simulation for the sake of improving gameplay. In this case, the skill list is way too bloated as it is. Having a separate Knowledge (Local) for every locality makes it mechanically impossible to play a heavily-knowledgeable character, because no one gets enough skill points to do it.

Actually, even without that, no one gets enough skill points to have even a significant fraction of the skills. With a list as long as 3.5's is, there have to be skills that no one ever takes. Like Use Rope.

[Eldariel]

Honestly, Knowledge: Local is merely kind of a misnomer; I think the current functionality should just be renamed into something like K: Society or K: Civilization and it works just fine.

[Slipperychicken]

Honestly, Knowledge: Local is merely kind of a misnomer; I think the current functionality should just be renamed into something like K: Society or K: Civilization and it works just fine.

Knowledge (Anthropology) seems like an even better fit, honestly.


SRD
Local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids)


Definition of Anthropology

the study of humankind, in particular:
(also cultural or social anthropology) the comparative study of human societies and cultures and their development.
(also physical anthropology) the science of human zoology, evolution, and ecology.

[Eldariel]

Knowledge (Anthropology) seems like an even better fit, honestly.

Well, technically it only refers to "humans" rather than humanoids ("anthropos" = "human" in Greek) but I suppose you could make a case for the term being used for this in a fantasy settings. Anthropoidlogy would be slightly more accurate.

[Gildedragon]

Knowledge (Anthropoidlogy) is going into my games henceforth.
As an aside, anthropologists do kind of fixate on on human hominids... Neanderthals, austalopithecenes, other apes, so anthropology does work as is.
Knowledge (Anatomy) or something like anatomy from LM (if I recall correctly) ought to fit the bill too.

[Unusual Muse]

Knowledge (Local) is very much intentionally (I'd argue) an abstraction: a loss of simulation for the sake of improving gameplay. In this case, the skill list is way too bloated as it is. Having a separate Knowledge (Local) for every locality makes it mechanically impossible to play a heavily-knowledgeable character, because no one gets enough skill points to do it.

You can't do a reasonable Knowledge simulation with the mechanics of skills, but you can do it with Lore and other methods; which is probably more in line with a "heavily knowledgeable character" anyway than doing it with skill points (which generally reflect more practical than academic abilities).

[Slipperychicken]

Knowledge (Anatomy) or something like anatomy from LM (if I recall correctly) ought to fit the bill too.

Not really. Culture, traditions, laws, and legends are a large part of Knowledge (Local).

[Flickerdart]

Knowledge (Social Sciences)? :smalltongue:

[Namfuak]

Knowledge (Social Sciences)? :smalltongue:

No wonder rogues are always finding clever ways to cheat the economy. All of them are closet economists!

[Gildedragon]

Not really. Culture, traditions, laws, and legends are a large part of Knowledge (Local).

I meant for the Kn Devotion to humanoids. Mid paragraph topic shift is my bad.

[Spuddles]

Ah, but then isn't it maybe too useful? Or maybe I was going with a Faerun type knowledge idea. I though 3.0 also had you specify a place. Maybe that's the source of my confusion.

Too bad, cause my Faerun character is leaving planet in an upcoming planewalking campaign. Great. Note: Talk to DM about possibly retraining Knowledge (local: Chult) into the broader Knowledge (local).

Still seems weird about knowing the local customs, laws, and traditions of everywhere (even places and people that aren't humanoids...i.e., marriage practices in Celestia), since most of these will have pretty low DCs (the Celestia bit might still be hard to know).

It's no weirder than arcana covering everything from knowing about the high mages of candlekeep, the dragons of argonnesse, and the robots of mechanus.

[Phelix-Mu]

So, here's my question:

Knowledge (local) covers traditions. Not human or humanoid traditions, just traditions. So does it let you know that dragons have some kind of verbal ritual that they exchange before mating? That is a "tradition," dragons have culture.

Thus, it seems like Knowledge(local) might be usable as a substitute for lots of other stuff, albeit maybe at a slightly higher DC. Similar to the way that there is lots of overlap for Knowledge(arcana) and Knowledge(religion) checks in the MM4 entries for the dragonspawn of Tiamat. In this sense, it is anti-skill bloat.

Speaking of which, as a fan of skills-based games, I think that 3.5 has a quite reasonable number of skills. Is it hard to get ranks in everything you're character should know/would like to know how to do? Good, welcome to a system that replicates real life, where people only ever got good at anything by specializing.

For my campaign world, I am even considering adding one or two more Knowledge skills, not to mention a couple Craft skills that usually won't come up elsewhere. Knowledge(astrology) would fill a niche between Knowledge(history), Knowledge(geography), and Knowledge(local), probably ending up being useful only to loremasters and such, unless the campaign would go into interplanetary travel, where it would be much more useful. Similar to Knowledge(history) being most useful in a campaign dealing heavily with the past or time travel. It would also incorporate mythology from various races related to constellations, which feature heavily in various origin/racial myths, as well as a method of timekeeping common to both elves and dragons.

I also recently finished a campaign with a custom Craft(cuisine) designed for an Int-based caster that wanted to develop skills as a master chef, crafting specific dishes (which made Profession(cooking) seem inappropriate, not to mention MAD-inducing). It was awesome role playing, great since this was the player most into optional role playing, and eventually he gained enough skill to even be able to mix magical ingredients in a manner to make potion-like dished that gave temporary benefits based on the theme of the dish. I don't mind a little skills bloat if it creates more interesting campaign features.

[White_Drake]

3.5 has a lot of skills for even extremely skilled characters to maintain decent proficiency (for their level) in a significant portion of them. A low Int fighter, at the opposite end, is laughably unskilled.

Edit: also, craft is already a catch-all, adding a specific craft specialization (such as Craft (disturbing mental image)) isn't homebrew.

[Arcanist]

Knowledge (Social Sciences)? :smalltongue:

Everyone gets a +2 inherit bonus to this for attending High School? I LOVE IT! :smalltongue:

[Phelix-Mu]

But this is more because skill acquisition is keyed to Intelligence, not because of the size of the skill list. A 20th level fighter, while he might have poor total ranks compared to everyone else, can probably specialize in one or two skills, and can use his large selection of feats to further optimize the use of those skills. Jump, for instance, stands to be both very useful and quite strong, with all the items and feats that can help optimize this Str-based skill.

If you need more skill points than fighter, multiclass. Very easy in 3.5, even for low-Int people.

As for skill-characters, if all smart rogues could get all the roguish skills at high ranks, they'd all look the same, and that would be weird and unrealistic. Again with the specialization, something which usually forces players to have their characters cooperate.

[Gildedragon]

No more than to Kns (History) & (Geography)

[nedz]

As an aside, anthropologists do kind of fixate on on human hominids... Neanderthals, austalopithecenes, other apes, so anthropology does work as is.
Knowledge (Anatomy) or something like anatomy from LM (if I recall correctly) ought to fit the bill too.

Do they have non human hominids in the far north ? :smalltongue:
I don't think this analogy with RL works.


With a list as long as 3.5's is, there have to be skills that no one ever takes. Like Use Rope.

I have seen characters with 5 ranks of Use Rope — it's a low level thing; besides losing prisoners, or fellow party members who just so happen to be climbing, is embarrassing. The campaign was set in the mountains, but I could see it being used in a nautical setting also.

[White_Drake]

But this is more because skill acquisition is keyed to Intelligence, not because of the size of the skill list. A 20th level fighter, while he might have poor total ranks compared to everyone else, can probably specialize in one or two skills, and can use his large selection of feats to further optimize the use of those skills. Jump, for instance, stands to be both very useful and quite strong, with all the items and feats that can help optimize this Str-based skill.

If you need more skill points than fighter, multiclass. Very easy in 3.5, even for low-Int people.

As for skill-characters, if all smart rogues could get all the roguish skills at high ranks, they'd all look the same, and that would be weird and unrealistic. Again with the specialization, something which usually forces players to have their characters cooperate.

You're complaining about D&D being "unrealistic"? I think you may want to do some research on certain topics, such as whether or not real world barbarians could survive atmospheric reentry.

Edit: I just realized that I probably misinterpreted your statement; I meant that, supposing the skills list was condensed, or the characters got more skill points.

[Phelix-Mu]

When I refer to realism in reference to D&D, I am usually referring to the way in which the rules try to replicate the complexity of actual life, while also adding in magic and such, but also making that complicated (as such a versatile tool should be). A system that is too simple can become overly reliant on role play to create an interesting gaming experience, and some groups don't put a lot of focus on in-depth role play.

Personally, I do like role play (my players are often somewhat less keen), but, in modelling my personal campaign world and planet, I want something as big and diverse as the real world, plus all the bells and whistles possible in a high fantasy setting (gods, living legends, monstrous beasties, and the beauty that is magic).

Again, I've played rpgs entirely based on skills, and I find that these have lots of appeal because out-of-the-box optimized stuff is still pretty diverse in practice.

In my world, a barbarian still probably will die from re-entry. Atmosphere extends most of the way to the moon, so "re-entry" stands to be a very, very long way, plus I usually empower the damage from absolutely stupendous falls (house rule, yay!). [/endtakingjoketooseriously]

[White_Drake]

I find it irritating that there are so few skill points in 3.5 that I can't use some for flavor or just handy things without sacrificing points from my crucial skills. Also, even "realistic" things such as melee combat are so abstracted in 3.5 it really wouldn't be a huge leap to make skills a little bit more abstract, although I think I may have wandered from my original point. I actually don't want more abstract skills, I just want enough points to go around so that I can maintain proficiency in wide range of things if such would be appropriate for the character. Having a jack-of-all-trades character (without using feats and such) who is at least moderately good at most of what he does is difficult.

[Spuddles]

D&D's skill system leaves a lot to be desired. An int 10 commoner canno tell if the captain of the town gaurd is an orc or a halfling, unless he spends an inordinate number of his skill points training knowledge local.

There's nothing realistic about a system that encourages characters to be incredibly proficient at one thing, but comically useless at a closely related, but slightly different other thing.

The problem is almost entirely due to too few skill points and not enough class skills.

Handwaiving away problems with houserules explicitly acknowledges that there are problems because you actually have to fix them.

[Phelix-Mu]

House rules sometimes are more matter of preference than having to "fix" things.

Otherwise, I agree, there are too few class skills, particularly for fighter and sorc.

Things that don't make sense as written with RAW for skills, I typically just ignore. I concede that they're not all making sense. Sleight of Hand is one that required some rethinking, since it doesn't seem quite right to me RAW.

On the other hand, does a simple person necessarily know what an orc looks like? I think he could probably tell a human was a human just by noticing that there aren't differences between the Captain (a human, I guess) and another human, aside from uniform. I allow ability checks for a lot of stuff that should be available to average people (the name of the Tavernkeep is George...right, he's a friend of my brother...sounds like Int check, not Knowledge(local), but don't know what RAW says about this).

[TuggyNE]

On the other hand, does a simple person necessarily know what an orc looks like?

If they didn't, why would they be prejudiced against half-orcs? Moreover, the same rules that make orcs unidentifiable also make elves, dwarves, halflings, and humans unidentifiable to themselves or others. (Presumably a trivial houserule is to make a person of a given race always able to identify others of the race, but that isn't necessarily good enough.)

Also, horses/dogs/eagles/mules/owls/leopards/bears/badgers/wolves/boars all have at least one HD, and fall into the same category.

Knowledge checks are a good example of something that's usually houseruled away without even noticing, much less fully thinking through the ramifications. So a lot of the stupidly obvious problems are taken care of, but not the subtler systemic ones.

[Spuddles]

If they didn't, why would they be prejudiced against half-orcs? Moreover, the same rules that make orcs unidentifiable also make elves, dwarves, halflings, and humans unidentifiable to themselves or others. (Presumably a trivial houserule is to make a person of a given race always able to identify others of the race, but that isn't necessarily good enough.)

Also, horses/dogs/eagles/mules/owls/leopards/bears/badgers/wolves/boars all have at least one HD, and fall into the same category.

Knowledge checks are a good example of something that's usually houseruled away without even noticing, much less fully thinking through the ramifications. So a lot of the stupidly obvious problems are taken care of, but not the subtler systemic ones.

OTOH, people in real life think rabbits and rodents are the same thing; I've had people call skinks geckos; and seen spiders confused with ants. That's like confusing elephants with giraffes or fish with birds.

"trained only" and DC10+hd ought to be modified to at least let commoners distinguish horses from dogs.

[Unusual Muse]

I think the easiest way to reconcile the mechanics with the abstract/"simulation" implementation of Knowledge skills is by varying the DC. They're already set up so that things that are "harder" for you to know have a higher DC, so go with that. On the subject of Orcs, for example, someone who grew up among orcs, regardless of how many ranks they have in whatever Knowledge skill is in question, is going to have a low-to-insignificant DC on their knowledge check. It doesn't have to be a question of "You don't have 12 ranks in Knowledge (Orc), so you don't know" if the DC is so low so as not to matter for that character, in those circumstances, based on their backstory or whatever. This approach allows simulation and mechanics to meet halfway.