An adventurer should be able to...

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think that it's important for DMs to set expectations up front as to the sorts of things the character should be able to do. This varies from game to game and from setting to setting, so I don't like encoding it into the game itself. Instead, DMs should let people know at the same time they give rules about character creation and house rules.
---------
In interest of sparking a conversation, I've put my Tier 1 guidelines (where my games start) in a spoiler. It's organized by ability score and skill proficiency. These are my thresholds for basically the minimum that someone with a +2 or so modifier will require a check for. Higher modifiers and later tiers of play move the baseline upward; lower modifiers move it down (slightly). Of course anything on this list only requires a check under circumstances that impose interesting consequences for failure and prevent trivial retries. Easier things may require a check under very extreme circumstances, but that's rare. No proficiency means no skill proficiency--tools or vehicle proficiencies may apply.


Strength (No Proficiency):
Move a heavy boulder
Break a normal interior door.
Break weak hemp rope used to tie you up.

Strength (Athletics):
Climb trees without easy handholds or other technically-challenging surfaces.
Swim swift rivers (without rapids) or choppy seas.
Jump and pull yourself up while wearing a full pack.
Make a long jump of 110% of your normal distance.


Dexterity (No proficiency):
Escape from crude hand-cuffs or the equivalent.
Escape from crudely-tied bonds around the whole body.
Pick a crude lock
Disable a crude mechanical trap
Tie someone up competently

Dexterity (Acrobatics):
Land upright (not prone) after a short (~10’) fall.
Balance on a beam or ledge the width of your foot.
Jump over a 5’-wide pressure plate in a 10x10 hallway without touching the walls, floor, or ceiling.

Dexterity (Sleight of Hand):
Steal an object worn by an unaware person, slit a purse of someone not on guard.
Slip a small object into an external pouch or bag of someone not actively watching you.
Hide a small object or weapon from a cursory pat-down.
Complex stage-magic tricks


Go a night without sleep after exertion.
Handle moderate heat or cold (90-110 or 0-30) without protective gear.
Drink normal amounts of hard liquor (2-3 substantial drinks) without getting drunk.
Swim more than 2 hours at a time, run more than 6 hours at a time.


NB: The Federated Nations is the main civilized play area that the PCs come from.

Intelligence (No Proficiency):
Establish basic communications (“friends!” “food!”) in a language you do not speak.
Prepare a disguise to pass cursory inspection.
Forge a document with a reference document at hand.

Intelligence (Arcana):
Recognize and disable simple magical traps.
Understand the basic intent of simple rituals.
Recognize simple spells (cantrips)
Recognize the type, resistances, and vulnerabilities for elemental creatures or denizens of the Astral plane.
Be able to determine the type of magic being employed by a spellcaster (arcane, divine, nature, etc).
Be able to determine the origin and probable intent of magical writings.

Intelligence (History):
Recognize and recall the physical and cultural traits of humanoids and giants, as well as the historically-significant creatures of other types.
Remember obscure figures, places, and events from the recent past.
Recall proper non-religious cultural observances for minor cultures in the immediate environs of the Federated Nations and be able to advise on avoiding offense (or being deliberately offensive, if desired).
Recall the personalities and public personas for the major players in the power structures of the Federated Nations.
Recall general facts about and the stated goals of the non-secret factions in the Federated Nations.

Intelligence (Investigation):
Solve simple “missing piece” or mathematical/word-based puzzles.
Discern what is required to disable complex traps
Crack simple ciphers
Find opening mechanisms for most hidden doors or hidden compartments.
Decide the likely suspects based on significant physical evidence.
Piece together fragments of information from different obscure sources

Intelligence (Nature):
Recognize common and uncommon natural creatures, including lifecycle, habitat, and basic attack styles.
Recognize when common and uncommon natural creatures are acting unnaturally
Recognize natural flora, including distinguishing corrupted flora from clean flora
Recognize common fey creatures and the effects of kami.

Intelligence (Religion):
Recall religious observances for all public religious groups in the Federated Nations.
Recall the markings of all public religious hierarchies in the Federated Nations.
Recall the Demon Princes, their modus operandi and symbology.
Recall the major fiendish Houses and Territories and their specialties
Be able to perform the appropriate rites for the dead or for festivals for major religions.


Wisdom (No Proficiency):
Distinguish common undead from corpses.
Determine the presence of small numbers of undead.

Wisdom (Animal Handling):
Calm a domesticated animal in the presence of natural predators or fire.
Ride a trained mount into extreme danger.
Understand the intent of a beast or other natural animal.
Prevent a calm wild animal from becoming hostile.
Assist in childbirth (animal) with minor complications.

Wisdom (Insight):
Predict the reaction of a person you know moderately well to a new event.
Detect most lies from non-experts.
Predict what the most effective approach will be for a person.
Predict how a culture will react to an event in the short run.
Identify people who are acting out of character for their culture.
Get a sense for the general mood of a locality.

Wisdom (Medicine):
Stabilize a dying person
Diagnose a normal illness or poison
Treat a diagnosed poison or illness (may take several checks)
Locate the source of a natural miasma or contamination and know how to remove it.
Assist in humanoid childbirth with minor complications.

Wisdom (Perception):
Detect most non-expert sneaks.
Listen through a door for soft noises
Detect soft air currents in an enclosed space.
Detect non-expert tripwires and pressure plates.

Wisdom (Survival):
Follow game trails
Basic navigation through unfamiliar terrain
Predict locations of lairs for “normal” creatures
Predict the next few hours of weather
Avoid simple natural hazards.
Track a particular creature through soft terrain, assuming no special measures are taken to conceal tracks.


I've lumped deception, intimidation, and persuasion into one category here (Social). They're separate in game proficiencies, but used for the same types of things.

Charisma (No Proficiency):
Know who to talk to for gossip or information in a familiar culture.
Blend into a non-paranoid crowd for information.

Charisma (Social):
Convince/deceive/bully a neutral person into doing something inconvenient but not risky or an unfriendly person into not taking direct hostile action.

Charisma (Performance):
Entertain a common crowd
Distract a bored guard or guards from quiet illicit activity
Keep a restless crowd appeased or improve the disposition of a happy one.

[darknite]

That's cool if not a bit over-specific (IMHO). My guideline is typically that adventurers can do heroic things because that's what they do. However that doesn't mean that a good Dex roll means they can parkour up a well-maintained curtain wall or a good Con save means they can guzzle poison with no consequence.

[stoutstien]

That's cool if not a bit over-specific (IMHO). My guideline is typically that adventurers can do heroic things because that's what they do. However that doesn't mean that a good Dex roll means they can parkour up a well-maintained curtain wall or a good Con save means they can guzzle poison with no consequence.

I was part of the original discussion covering this. The reason for specific examples is the players have an idea of what the DM considers heroic actions actually is at. Players can be more confident of where they stand with each DM now as far as what are their capabilities are

[darknite]

I was part of the original discussion covering this. The reason for specific examples is the players have an idea of what the DM considers heroic actions actually is at. Players can be more confident of where they stand with each DM now as far as what are their capabilities are

That's good. One of the core points of friction in a game is matching DM and player expectations as to the normal limits of 'the possible' in a heroic setting. There's no harm in giving examples, for sure.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's good. One of the core points of friction in a game is matching DM and player expectations as to the normal limits of 'the possible' in a heroic setting. There's no harm in giving examples, for sure.

That's my intent. Give non-exhaustive examples as a baseline.

In practice, I'm more accepting than this, even. This is just the minimum I will stipulate to.

Also, this particular document is a WIP--if I missed anything major I'm more than happy to consider changes.

[Nidgit]

Most of this seems fine, but the swimming/running durations are insanely high and very superhuman compared to everything else. If you cut both of those by half you'd probably be fine.

[stoutstien]

Most of this seems fine, but the swimming/running durations are insanely high and very superhuman compared to everything else. If you cut both of those by half you'd probably be fine.
Eh, we already have people making 20 feet long jumps in full plate and a pack on so is the ablity to jog for a day really out of line?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Most of this seems fine, but the swimming/running durations are insanely high and very superhuman compared to everything else. If you cut both of those by half you'd probably be fine.

I'm not thinking sprint speeds, more just moving steadily. I'm thinking more like a marathon runner or an Ironman competitor.

Edit: looking at real averages, I've cut those down a bit. I'm thinking that a +2 CON should entitle you to run a half-marathon or about a mile swim with better than an 50% chance of success. Not great, but you can do it in full gear. I'd say a +5 CON can do a full Ironman in heavy armor with a good chance of success.

Failure of that check would imply gaining a level of Exhaustion, not entirely failing at the effort.

[Coffee_Dragon]

If I did anything like this I would avoid all references to specific modifiers or proficiencies. Putting arbitrary thresholds for automatic success gives minor modifier bumps a new and awkward mechanical effect: suddenly +2 isn't just one more than +1, sometimes it's +30 because something's on a list. Same thing with proficiency; mechanically it's just a boost to your modifier. You can but do not have to flavour it as special training, and are clearly not meant to do so by default.

I can understand the desire to establish a baseline of "simple tasks", basically declaring some of the thematic flavour you're aiming for. For anything beyond that I would use normal considerations of game flow, meaningfulness, conceptual fit etc. to determine when rolls are called for. When rolls are made, each modifier step is equal, as the game is designed. -1 is two less than +1, just like +2 is two less than +4. No additional arbitrary magnifications of these abstract values.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If I did anything like this I would avoid all references to specific modifiers or proficiencies. Putting arbitrary thresholds for automatic success gives minor modifier bumps a new and awkward mechanical effect: suddenly +2 isn't just one more than +1, sometimes it's +30 because something's on a list. Same thing with proficiency; mechanically it's just a boost to your modifier. You can but do not have to flavour it as special training, and are clearly not meant to do so by default.

I can understand the desire to establish a baseline of "simple tasks", basically declaring some of the thematic flavour you're aiming for. For anything beyond that I would use normal considerations of game flow, meaningfulness, conceptual fit etc. to determine when rolls are called for. When rolls are made, each modifier step is equal, as the game is designed. -1 is two less than +1, just like +2 is two less than +4. No additional arbitrary magnifications of these abstract values.

These are designed to be squishy baselines, not hard boundaries. It's a notice to the players: I'm not likely to ask for a check until you get to these levels unless you're particularly incompetent (by choice) at that particular activity.

I want to remove as many checks as possible without harming the players' enjoyment (because rolling is fun). A document like this is a way to encourage people to try things with a good chance of succeeding. Not a ironclad promise of automatic success or failure.

[Nidgit]

Full plate and 20 strength are both typical only in Tier 2 or later, when the PCs are fully-fledged heroes. This is a Tier 1 scale with essentially just starting stats. You're telling me a Level 1 wizard with 14-16 Con could run a 50k, no problem? That just seems way out of scale with "can take three shots without feeling drunk."

Edit:

I'm not thinking sprint speeds, more just moving steadily. I'm thinking more like a marathon runner or an Ironman competitor.

Edit: looking at real averages, I've cut those down a bit. I'm thinking that a +2 CON should entitle you to run a half-marathon or about a mile swim with better than an 50% chance of success. Not great, but you can do it in full gear. I'd say a +5 CON can do a full Ironman in heavy armor with a good chance of success.

Failure of that check would imply gaining a level of Exhaustion, not entirely failing at the effort.

Yep, this seems more reasonable.

[clash]

I think I would also provide examples of things they should not be able to do to show a contrast.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Full plate and 20 strength are both typical only in Tier 2 or later, when the PCs are fully-fledged heroes. This is a Tier 1 scale with essentially just starting stats. You're telling me a Level 1 wizard with 14-16 Con could run a 50k, no problem? That just seems way out of scale with "can take three shots without feeling drunk."


When I was thinking drinks, I was thinking larger than just a shot. So that's part of the disconnect. More like downing 2 pints of ~20% ABV (sake or fortified wine) or 0.5 pints of vodka or about a 6-pack of 5% ABV beer.

[LudicSavant]

Recall proper non-religious cultural observances

Why only non-religious?

I'm guessing that you're afraid of stepping on Religion's toes, but my advice would be don't be. There are plenty of places in the rules where skills overlap at the edges. For example, Arcana can detect and disable magic traps, but so can other skills.

[Dr. Cliché]

Personally I would be more inclined to base this sort of thing on the base ability score, rather than proficiency in a particular skill.

[Nidgit]

When I was thinking drinks, I was thinking larger than just a shot. So that's part of the disconnect. More like downing 2 pints of ~20% ABV (sake or fortified wine) or 0.5 pints of vodka or about a 6-pack of 5% ABV beer.
I mean, that's all pretty similar in terms of alcohol content, right? That's the whole point of the serving sizes 😄

[Coffee_Dragon]

These are designed to be squishy baselines, not hard boundaries. It's a notice to the players: I'm not likely to ask for a check until you get to these levels unless you're particularly incompetent (by choice) at that particular activity.

But as long as "incompetent" refers to a span of modifiers that means precisely you're introducing a new mechanical element and effectively imposing additional complications. -1 (or whatever counts as incompetent one or more days of the week) is no longer just "one below zero" when there's a roll, it's also "make more rolls".

I guess I don't see why you couldn't have "squishy baselines" without reference to mechanical flags and numbers that do not carry such significance by design. If you clearly declare which modifiers correspond to which auto-passes then it's a step above DMs gatekeeping rolls or successes with gut feeling about what's "high enough", but it's still a subversion of the design.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But as long as "incompetent" refers to a span of modifiers that means precisely you're introducing a new mechanical element and effectively imposing additional complications. -1 (or whatever counts as incompetent one or more days of the week) is no longer just "one below zero" when there's a roll, it's also "make more rolls".

I guess I don't see why you couldn't have "squishy baselines" without reference to mechanical flags and numbers that do not carry such significance by design. If you clearly declare which modifiers correspond to which auto-passes then it's a step above DMs gatekeeping rolls or successes with gut feeling about what's "high enough", but it's still a subversion of the design.

I don't see where I did any of that? In my experience, people who care about being able to do something in T1 have around a +2 modifier in it (at least). Those are the people I'm talking to, because those who don't care don't care. If you're way above that, you can do more before I'll ask for a roll, because asking for a roll you're guaranteed to pass (with p > ARBITRARY_THRESHOLD) wastes my very limited table time. If you're way below that (-2 or worse), you're probably not even trying to do those things unless forced. And if forced, everybody's going to be making rolls (possibly saving throws not ability checks).

I wanted to dispel the idea that only people with proficiency, a high ability score and preferably expertise can do things. To reinforce that either a tolerable ability score or proficiency is enough to go beyond what most people think of as normal. Remember that these are examples of what I will call a check for. If it's noticeably easier than this or you are substantially worse than the baseline, you're on notice that you'll have to roll more.

I'm trying to signal to new players that they shouldn't only concentrate on their strengths (putting proficiency into things they're already good at from an ability score). Either one is enough in most cases, so using proficiency to shore up weaknesses (in ability scores) is, in my opinion, the better choice.

[Pex]

That's my intent. Give non-exhaustive examples as a baseline.

In practice, I'm more accepting than this, even. This is just the minimum I will stipulate to.

Also, this particular document is a WIP--if I missed anything major I'm more than happy to consider changes.

I'd have preferred the game designers did this so we can just play the game instead of having to figure out what the rules are every time a new campaign starts, and I'll leave it at that.

[stoutstien]

I'd have preferred the game designers did this so we can just play the game instead of having to figure out what the rules are every time a new campaign starts, and I'll leave it at that.

What and remove one of the numerous useless random tables the slap in every book to make space.🙄
This should have been right next to the DC chart in the ablity section of the PHB. Heck they could have had three covering low, normal, and high style fantasy.

I have a similar table printed on the back of my screen so even in a one shot with new players they feel they have a good idea of what I consider a reasonable action

[PhoenixPhyre]

What and remove one of the numerous useless random tables the slap in every book to make space.🙄
This should have been right next to the DC chart in the ablity section of the PHB. Heck they could have had three covering low, normal, and high style fantasy.

I have a similar table printed on the back of my screen so even in a one shot with new players they feel they have a good idea of what I consider a reasonable action

Here's the thing. It varies tremendously between tables. And as you see above, it's not a short table. Mine was only for my games, and only for T1. Doing so for all of the possible combinations would take up a significant portion of a book just by itself to do a decent job.

[jjordan]

You may be under-crediting some of these skills.

Medicine is a good (bad?) example. In D&D Medicine is the catch all skill for non-magical treatment. If we take a medieval baseline for this skill then someone with the medicine skill should be able to diagnose a disease, treat a disease, set a bone, amputate a limb, perform surgery, suture wounds, mix an anesthetic, apply an antibiotic bandage/poultice, assist in childbirth, perform a C-section, trepan (drill into a skull to relieve pressure or release demons), perform dentistry, give dietary advice, and cut hair and beards.

Constitution is a sticky one for me. Some of your examples are very trainable. Swimming and running, for example. With the proper techniques it's very easy to swim for a long time. I've run distances of 20+ miles multiple times and used to run half-marathons two or three times a week. It's mostly a matter of practice. There's also the question of willpower with those actions. You can do some pretty amazing feats of physical endurance if you simply put your mind to it. Most people can go out and physically complete a 13.3 mile course if they simply don't quit. So I'm not sure how to factor that in.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You may be under-crediting some of these skills.

Medicine is a good (bad?) example. In D&D Medicine is the catch all skill for non-magical treatment. If we take a medieval baseline for this skill then someone with the medicine skill should be able to diagnose a disease, treat a disease, set a bone, amputate a limb, perform surgery, suture wounds, mix an anesthetic, apply an antibiotic bandage/poultice, assist in childbirth, perform a C-section, trepan (drill into a skull to relieve pressure or release demons), perform dentistry, give dietary advice, and cut hair and beards.


I don't see much of those come up in game, so I left them off. Any of those would likely be fine at about this level (although mixing an anesthetic might use alchemists kit proficiency as well or instead). My heroic games rarely involve pulling teeth except as torture :smalltongue: But sure. I did include "assist in childbirth" though.



Constitution is a sticky one for me. Some of your examples are very trainable. Swimming and running, for example. With the proper techniques it's very easy to swim for a long time. I've run distances of 20+ miles multiple times and used to run half-marathons two or three times a week. It's mostly a matter of practice. There's also the question of willpower with those actions. You can do some pretty amazing feats of physical endurance if you simply put your mind to it. Most people can go out and physically complete a 13.3 mile course if they simply don't quit. So I'm not sure how to factor that in.

I'd be willing to accept Athletics proficiency in most of them, but by default they're just an ability check. I took my descriptions directly from the PHB for ease of use in most cases. And with Constitution, it's about not being Exhausted (game term) from doing so. Anyone can do it...but if I tried I'd be in sad shape afterward. A D&D character with decent Constitution should have a pretty good shot at not being mechanically tired at all.

[Keravath]

How do you handle non-proficient skill checks for commons tasks?

Perception, Investigation, Medicine, Nature, Acrobatics, Athletics etc?

A character with a high relevant stat is fairly good at these skills in the basic game even without proficiency. Is proficiency a requirement to even attempt certain tasks? Or can anyone attempt any task, they just don't add a proficiency modifier which is only +2 or 10% difference in tier 1? Does it depend on the task?

[PhoenixPhyre]

How do you handle non-proficient skill checks for commons tasks?

Perception, Investigation, Medicine, Nature, Acrobatics, Athletics etc?

A character with a high relevant stat is fairly good at these skills in the basic game even without proficiency. Is proficiency a requirement to even attempt certain tasks? Or can anyone attempt any task, they just don't add a proficiency modifier which is only +2 or 10% difference in tier 1? Does it depend on the task?

The only "proficiency required" check for me is opening a standard lock with Thieves Tools. Anything else it doesn't matter. Proficiency is a bonus, not a requirement.

If you're just naturally good at something and/or trained in a related area (represented by a high ability score) you're just as good as someone who has specific training and practice but is weaker intrinsically (represented by a low ability score but proficiency for the same total modifier).

[jjordan]

And with Constitution, it's about not being Exhausted (game term) from doing so. Anyone can do it...but if I tried I'd be in sad shape afterward. A D&D character with decent Constitution should have a pretty good shot at not being mechanically tired at all.That's a good point and thanks for taking the time to make it.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I don't see where I did any of that?

Actually I misread you in at least one way. First, I thought the things you listed were the max things you don't have to roll for, not the min things you do. With that clarified the list makes more sense, both on its own and in relation to my own non-articulated baselines.

Second, I assumed that grouping things by proficiency implied some element of gatekeeping, but if by that you only meant, "these are also things you can always do, and if so, proficiency applies", and nothing else, then I have no quibbles on that score.


I wanted to dispel the idea that only people with proficiency, a high ability score and preferably expertise can do things. To reinforce that either a tolerable ability score or proficiency is enough to go beyond what most people think of as normal.

It does seem one of my points still stands though, that you're doubly penalizing those without "competent" or "tolerable" modifiers, based on a notion that the function of modifiers is not just to statistically affect the outcomes of rolls. Saying "if you have X or Y you can attempt Z" is still functionally equal to saying that if you don't have either, you can't; that's not exactly a strong stance against gatekeeping.

I don't know if this reflects your own thinking, but it seems to me a number of people go through a line of reasoning roughly like this:

The game should simulate being bad, and being bad should count.

In a point buy environment, the worst a PC can normally be at something is -1, and since 0 is nominally normal, we have to fit in all the badness in that -1.

But mechanically, -1 doesn't really feel like it counts as much as we want it to.

We could add a straightforward house rule saying if you're have a -1 modifier you roll at -5. But that's kinda iffy, isn't it?

So instead we address the issue in the DM fiat layer, getting the same effect through gatekeeping, more rolls, or character-specific DCs.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Actually I misread you in at least one way. First, I thought the things you listed were the max things you don't have to roll for, not the min things you do. With that clarified the list makes more sense, both on its own and in relation to my own non-articulated baselines.

Second, I assumed that grouping things by proficiency implied some element of gatekeeping, but if by that you only meant, "these are also things you can always do, and if so, proficiency applies", and nothing else, then I have no quibbles on that score.



It does seem one of my points still stands though, that you're doubly penalizing those without "competent" or "tolerable" modifiers, based on a notion that the function of modifiers is not just to statistically affect the outcomes of rolls. Saying "if you have X or Y you can attempt Z" is still functionally equal to saying that if you don't have either, you can't; that's not exactly a strong stance against gatekeeping.

I don't know if this reflects your own thinking, but it seems to me a number of people go through a line of reasoning roughly like this:

The game should simulate being bad, and being bad should count.

In a point buy environment, the worst a PC can normally be at something is -1, and since 0 is nominally normal, we have to fit in all the badness in that -1.

But mechanically, -1 doesn't really feel like it counts as much as we want it to.

We could add a straightforward house rule saying if you're have a -1 modifier you roll at -5. But that's kinda iffy, isn't it?

So instead we address the issue in the DM fiat layer, getting the same effect through gatekeeping, more rolls, or character-specific DCs.

You can always attempt anything. And since I'm a softy, you're not unlikely to succeed even with a low modifier. It's just that I'm less likely to simply allow you to succeed at something moderately challenging if you've declared (by your choices) that you're not very good at it or practiced. Basically, I gatekeep with a straight passive. If your "passive" would be above the DC, then the circumstances calling for a roll (consequences, difficulty, whatever) have to be quite good. And since my DC scale starts at 10 normally, most people who don't actively dump an ability score auto-succeed at a whole lot of things.

[Bjarkmundur]

I've yet to read the whole thing, but I love this thread!

[Chronos]

To be clear, is this meant to be things adventurers can do (if they roll well enough on the check), or things that adventurers can do (without having to bother to roll the dice)?

[PhoenixPhyre]

To be clear, is this meant to be things adventurers can do (if they roll well enough on the check), or things that adventurers can do (without having to bother to roll the dice)?

This is a list of things that are the minimum that may prompt an active check. Things that are borderline, in fact. If you go much harder, you'll usually have to pass a check. If you go much easier, you'll likely automatically succeed, even under stress. Even a lot of these things may not need a check

That is, it puts a floor on the guaranteed success for most PCs that care about each specific thing. And it's an assurance that what I consider "skilled" isn't "max ranks" (ie both a high score and proficiency/expertise). Anyone with a 0-2 can do these things more often than not. Occasionally I'll call for a check for easier things--those are degrees of success checks. Can't fail, but a higher roll gives more information (usually it's INT-type checks)

[Bjarkmundur]

I have a feeling ill be referencing this thread. A lot.
It's a very good way to quickly bring a new player up to speed on the ability scores and flavour of the game.

Please add more vague examples. There's definitely a new player out there somewhere who's gonna be using this as a "how-to: an adventuring guide"

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have a feeling ill be referencing this thread. A lot.
It's a very good way to quickly bring a new player up to speed on the ability scores and flavour of the game.

Please add more vague examples. There's definitely a new player out there somewhere who's gonna be using this as a "how-to: an adventuring guide"

Thanks for the good words. I will caution that this is very setting/table specific. DMs should make their own lists (or modify this one) to fit their games. I tend to play fast-and-loose with abilities and it shows.

Here's another piece of relevant stuff I've been working on: a document listing (by creature type) what monsters are known and which check is required (and how hard) to know more. This one's a WIP as well: Monster Knowledge (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jAUouYa2A7mNFLeN8Tk3ewHD7G9k0kegf83MOXPFMCA/edit?usp=sharing).

As far as what I consider "common knowledge" about societies and things like that, here is an example of the common knowledge documents available to the players about each of the 4 major nations of the main play area of the setting (the places PCs can come from). Anything in here would be known without a check needed, unless the player decided that they're from somewhere else or from the backwoods and chose not to know this stuff.

Remnant Dynasty (https://www.admiralbenbo.org/index.php/the-council-lands/people-and-places/21-nations-and-politics/remnant-dynasty/124-remnant-dynasty-common-knowledge)