Condensing knowledge into skill groups

[tedcahill2]

If you were to condense the knowledge skills into a few broad groups how would you do it and what would you call them?

The knowledge skills are as follows:
Arcana
Dungeoneering
Geography
History
Local
Nature
Nobility and royalty
Psionics
Religion
The planes

I'm thinking I want to condense it into 4 categories, academics, nature, religion, and culture. Or something, but I want to give them flashier sounding names. Academics is sufficiently flashy, I was thinking of calling religion Theology, but since nature will include knowledge nature I don't want to just call it Nature, and culture would include things like nobility and local, but I don't like culture as a name.

What skills should go into each category? What would you call each category?

[Falontani]

what skills are going into what groups?

Knowledge: Civilization?

[Venger]

why not just have knowledge be one skill? that way almost any character can enjoy it.

[BowStreetRunner]

The knowledge skills are as follows:
Arcana
Dungeoneering
Geography
History
Local
Nature
Nobility and royalty
Psionics
Religion
The planes
Don't forget Architecture and engineering.

Knowledge Devotion and Archivists both use mechanics that allow them to make knowledge checks to identify monsters and gain bonuses in combat. The rules for these work around the groupings of monster types among

Arcana (constructs, dragons, magical beasts)
Dungeoneering (aberrations, oozes)
Local (humanoids)
Nature (animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, vermin)
Religion (undead)
The Planes (outsiders, elementals)

So anything you come up with that alters these six will impact those mechanics.

[tedcahill2]

why not just have knowledge be one skill? that way almost any character can enjoy it.

I think unlike many DM's I actually try to utilize all of the knowledge skills, so it would be pretty powerful to just group them all into one.

[Zaq]

Material (Nature, Geography, Dungeoneering)
Metaphysical (Arcana, Psionics)
Theological (Religion, Planes)
Cultural (Local, Nobility/Royalty, History, Architecture/Engineering)

I could see shoving Architecture/Engineering into Material and/or shoving Dungeoneering into Metaphysical, but whatever.

[Troacctid]

I'd probably go with something like History, Spellcraft, Survival, and Monster Knowledge, with Craft and Profession skills also acting as Knowledge skills for things relating to that craft or profession.

History covers historical knowledge, including religion, local, nobility & royalty, bardic knowledge, and any other culture-related facts.
Spellcraft covers magic and psionics, and can identify spells or other magical or psionic effects.
Survival covers nature, geography, wilderness, and planar environments, as well as tracking.
Monster Knowledge is a catch-all for knowing about monsters of all kinds; I assume the DCs would need to be higher to balance having all the checks consolidated into a single skill.

[BassoonHero]

I think unlike many DM's I actually try to utilize all of the knowledge skills, so it would be pretty powerful to just group them all into one.

Out of curiosity, how do you use them?

[tedcahill2]

Out of curiosity, how do you use them?

The way their intended, for players to get information that I otherwise would not have provided. Or to see if they know answers to questions posed by NPCs.

I'm not saying I'm special, I just know in the games I've been a player in, the DM's generally gloss over most knowledge checks.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Don’t forget Martial Lore from ToB.

I’d roll in Spellcraft and group them into
*Culture (Local, History/Nobility)
*Arcane Lore (Constructs, Dragons, Magical Beasts, oozes, and Arcane Spellcraft)
*Nature Lore (Animals, Fey, Plants, and Vermin)
*Theology (Undead and Divine Spellcraft)
*Planar Lore (outsiders, elementals, aberrations)
*Martial Lore (Identifying humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and giants)

[Goaty14]

Don’t forget Martial Lore from ToB.

I’d roll in Spellcraft and group them into
*Culture (Local, History/Nobility)
*Arcane Lore (Constructs, Dragons, Magical Beasts, oozes, and Arcane Spellcraft)
*Nature Lore (Animals, Fey, Plants, and Vermin)
*Theology (Undead and Divine Spellcraft)
*Planar Lore (outsiders, elementals, aberrations)
*Martial Lore (Identifying humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and giants)

Where b dem psionics?

[Hrugner]

Esoterics: arcane, psionic, planes, religion
Navigation: Dungeoneering, Geography, Nature
Culture: History, Nobility, Local, Engineering

I'd be tempted to roll engineering into disable device instead.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Where b dem psionics?

I mostly play PF these days and forgot Psionics was 1st party in 3.5 lol. Probably just add Psionic Lore in there, functioning as Psicraft in addition to its existing uses. Maybe fold Culture and Martial Lore together and add Engineering (moving Construct identification there) too.

[Nifft]

If you were to condense the knowledge skills into a few broad groups how would you do it and what would you call them?

The knowledge skills are as follows:
Arcana
Dungeoneering
Geography
History
Local
Nature
Nobility and royalty
Psionics
Religion
The planes

I'm thinking I want to condense it into 4 categories, academics, nature, religion, and culture. Or something, but I want to give them flashier sounding names. Academics is sufficiently flashy, I was thinking of calling religion Theology, but since nature will include knowledge nature I don't want to just call it Nature, and culture would include things like nobility and local, but I don't like culture as a name.

What skills should go into each category? What would you call each category?

You could have multiple overlapping knowledge skills, so you get diminishing returns for taking more than N knowledge skills -- but you do get returns, so you can be the knows-everything character if you want, but it'll cost more than being one knows-lots character amongst many.

Kn (warfare) - Religion, Arcana, History, Architecture & Engineering, Local as related to wars
Kn (magecraft) - Arcana, History, Planes, Religion as related to spellcasting
Kn (navigation) - Nature, History, Geography, Dungeoneering as related to navigation & discovery
Kn (gourmand) - Nature, History, Nobility & Royalty, Geography, Local as related to food

Basically pick a wide area of expertise and look for ways to apply it to a situation if any of the constituent skills might help.

[BassoonHero]

The way their intended, for players to get information that I otherwise would not have provided. Or to see if they know answers to questions posed by NPCs.

I'm not saying I'm special, I just know in the games I've been a player in, the DM's generally gloss over most knowledge checks.
I tend to gloss over Knowledge checks myself, because I find them to be problematic in several respects.

1. A skill check generally determines the outcome of a concrete action taken by a character, but Knowledge does not.

In most cases this interpretation is obvious and straightforward: a character jumps and the skill check determines how far. Some cases are a little more abstract, like passively spotting a sneaky character. In that case, it's understood that the spotter is generally observing their surroundings. Even when a character makes a Spellcraft check, the check represents an attempt to quickly figure out a specific fact based on real-time observation.

For Knowledge, this interpretation fails entirely. The roll is totally disconnected from any action or decision on the character's part. When a player makes a knowledge check, it means that their character has known the fact for some time; the effect on the universe is not active but retroactive. One might argue that a knowledge check represents an attempt to remember a fact, but this presumes that the character did know it in the first place.

2. Knowledge DCs are arbitrary.

When a character climbs a wall, the DC of the associated Climb check is determined logically by in-universe details: the kind of wall, whether the character uses a rope, whether the wall is slippery, and so forth. This means that on one hand the character's success or failure relates directly and unambiguously to the nature of the challenge, and on the other hand it is easy for the DM to set the DC of the climb in a fair and consistent manner.

Knowledge check DCs are far more subjective. The Player's Handbook suggests DCs for "really easy", "basic", and "really tough" questions. Such vague guidelines effectively punt the entire question back to the DM. In the absence of useful guidelines for the DM to work with, Knowledge DCs are likely to be unpredictable and inconsistent.

3. Knowledge checks are even more random than other skill checks.

The d20 system is fairly swingy compared to systems using smaller dice or multiple dice. The variance of the d20 adds a significant random element to ordinary checks. This randomness is mitigated by two factors. For one, mundane checks can be resolved by taking ten. For another, most individual rolls are not decisive. For instance, combat typically involves many attacks over the course of several rounds, so a few swingy attack rolls are less likely to determine the outcome. (Save-or-lose spells are the subject of many complaints on these grounds.)

A Knowledge check cannot be retried; once a player has failed the check there is no remediation. While the rules do not explicitly prohibit taking 10 on a Knowledge check, doing so doesn't make logical sense. A knowledgeable character would know a certain fact for sure if they sat and thought about it for a moment, but if the first time they think about it they are in combat, then the fact may be lost forever.

4. Knowledge checks are too random to be of consequence.

In stories, the plot may turn on an obscure fact known to one of the characters. A DM might well "seed" key information into a campaign, but only by bypassing the Knowledge skill.

Suppose instead that the players need to make a DC 20 Knowledge (Arcana) check to save the world. Success is boring -- the characters aren't even rolling to do anything, but to see if they learned a fact sometime in the past. There's no sense of challenge. And, of course, if the players fail, they won't feel that they failed to overcome a challenge, but that they were defeated by bad RNG. And they'll be right. In neither case does the Knowledge check improve the game! The arbitrariness of Knowledge DCs (point 2) only compounds the inherent swinginess of Knowledge checks (point 3).

Now suppose that the knowledge check is consequential, but not decisive. For instance, suppose that success will make a battle easier. This is not disastrous, but in the end all that the Knowledge check does is add its own swinginess to the inherent swinginess of combat. Or suppose that success will save the characters a side trip. In that case, success denies the players a side quest. Some reward!

5. If a Knowledge check is inconsequential, why roll for it?

Another standard use of Knowledge checks is to provide the players with background exposition. But why bother rolling? Will the game be any more exciting if the description of the room is interrupted by a skill check? Will a successful Knowledge (History) check fill the party with a sense of accomplishment while the DM identifies the figures depicted in the wall frescoe? It certainly won't make the players feel like they've spent their skill points wisely, if my DMing experience is any indication.

6. Knowledge checks are an impediment to roleplaying.

A character's knowledge is a large part of their connection to the campaign world. What a character knows should flow logically from the character, their backstory and experiences, and their relationships. Nothing is gained by interposing a skill check. And, of course, the swinginess of Knowledge checks means that characters will end up with illogical and inexplicable gaps in their knowledge.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

I just assume/allow that they’re always taking 10 on the knowledge and sensory skills unless in active use (EG trying to see if they can remember something their character learned offscreen that’s a higher DC) and base the “free” and necessary information on that.

[Falontani]

Snip
Soooo we just have to make static DCs with modifiers depending on certain aspects, swap out the knowledge roll with taking 10 always (even in combat), and give the player a reason to say that he has knowledge? Right?

Proposed System:
Knowledge check to know a creature is DC: Average of CR and HD of an adult version




Rarity


DC



Rare
+5


Infrequent
+0


Common
-5





Finally modify it all based on renown:




Renown


DC



Legendary
-5


Normal
+0


Unheard Of
-5



So a Red Dragon's DC would be: (23 HD+15 CR) /2 = 19 + 0 Infrequent -5 due to their legendary Stature puts them at a DC 14 knowledge check.

Common Extraordinary Abilities (like natural attacks, rend, etc) would be +5 to the DC to know about them

Rare Extraordinary Abilities (like a slaad's implant ability) would be a +10 to the DC to know about them

Common Supernatural Abilities (like a breath weapon) would be +5 to the DC to know about them

Rare Supernatural Abilities (like an Illithid's Mind Blast) would be a +10 to the DC to know about them

All of the abilities a red dragon has is fairly normal... except their Wing Attacks, their Crush, their Frightful Presence, their Blindsense, and their sorcerer spellcasting. So
DC 14: Congratulations you know what a Red Dragon is. (Learn all things about dragon type, and fire subtype)
DC 19: Learn about the Red Dragon's Breath Attack, Bite Attack, Claw Attacks, DR, Immunities, SR, and Flight.
DC 24: Learn about the Red Dragon's Crush Attack, Tail Sweep, Tail Attack, Wing Attacks, sorcerer spellcasting, Frightful Presence, and Blindsense.

Now we might be able to go through everything about a red dragon from it's dietary habits to it's nesting habits, and everything else. However we can't do that for every creature, so giving the DM some leeway here, but generally you should know easily identifiable traits with the base DC (like that a red dragon is primarily a carnivore) and know more obscure things with the higher ones (like how a red dragon is usually chaotic evil, they are very proud, and love to have hoards) and with the highest one you should be able to uncover things like the Dragon's Twilight which only the smartest sages know.

Me personally I give anyone with a favored enemy a bit of a bonus here. If they fail to meet the DC to know what kind of creature it is they don't get their FE bonuses, however if they hit the base DC I push them up one category of knowledge.

Finally, the advantage. If my players know about an ability before it is first employed I give them a +1 save to the ability. It's small, but its nice. and a +5% could mean life and death when a red dragon turns their breath attack your way.

[ericgrau]

Sig consolidated skill system. And rules reference, but you can take just the skill system.

I based it on what the skills do by the rules rather than their names or what I wish they did. Hence why Nature and Dungeoneering are so similar and grouped.

I agree that DMs should use knowledge skills to give players info. I have an auto roller spreadsheet and do mass rolls for the party constantly and dole out information on everything they encounter. And when no one passes the check I move on without a word, which has also had interesting effects as it leaves a few things as mysterious.

[BassoonHero]

I forgot to mention that my objections do not necessarily apply to the specific use of Knowledge skills for identifying monsters. That's still a mess, mechanically speaking, but not to the same degree as the remaining uses of Knowledge skills.