Less is more. No need to complicate the game further.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, yes, less is more definitely, but part of the point is also to make cross-disciplinary and overlapping knowledge ok. I like lily's suggestion as an alternative to knowledge occult, particularly in a campaign where occultism, Lovecraftian tropes, and the like are taking a backseat to other factor, yet a need to properly differentiate this stuff as 'unusual' exists.
I'll say that I am very happy at the level of feedback I've gotten but more importantly by just the variations and ideas I have seen pouring out, many of them which are brilliant in and of their own.
Lily, my advice is that knowledge abnormal be covered pretty much by the same people that would get occult, since all of those basically tackle the 'things beyond the veil of understanding'. I would exclude magi because while they strike me as a soldiers first, scholars second kind of class, and their pursuits would focus on the subjects that increase their battle potential (arcana). Same could be said of warpriests. Inquisitors should definitely get it though. They specifically hunt down the HERETICAL MUTANTS FOR THE EMPR*cough cough* sorry, a bit of my 40K fan popped out for a second. Anyway, fighters and the like get knowledge martial anyway, so they are well compensated.
The name, I feel, could use work, too. Ahhh how about knowledge [cryptic] or [esoteric]. Rolls off the tongue better, imo. But that is all minor stuff, really,
I feel we have made quite a large number of different systems which can apply in their own genres and campaigns. I started this thread because my campaign focused heavily on horror and the occult with alien entities and the like, but still took place in Golarion. I didn't feel arcana was right, and dungeoneering focused in the wrong kind of dark spaces.
No one knowledge model is perfect for all, so I think we should settle with creating multiple, the right took for the right campaign. That said, let's shift the focus of this thread elsewhere. Write down your new knowledge skill set and what genre/campaign type it works with.
Knowledge [arcana]: Arcane practices and rituals, magical schools, magical etiquette, arcane magic, dragons, constructs, magical beasts
Knowledge [engineering]: Architecture, technology, applied mathematics,nonmagical and artificial hazards, nonmagical constructs, technological items, armor, and weapons
Knowledge [geography]: regional terrain, population, landmarks, industry, settlements, political structure, and current events
Knowledge [history]: historical figures and associated servants and monsters, ancient civilizations, previous eras and major events.
Knowledge [martial]: military strategy, army tactics, the art of war, martial arts and tools, regional physical techniques and exercises
Knowledge [nature]: Plants, beasts, giants, fey, shapeshifters, druidic deities, practices, and faiths, climates, natural wonders and phenomena, astronomy
Knowledge [occult]: aberrations, oozes, monstrous humanoids, incorporeal creatures, obscure and/or psychic magic, eldritch phenomena and apocalyptic/elder deities, astrology
Knowledge [planes]: realms beyond the material plane, planar climate and terrain, planar settlements, planar hazards, planar alignment and properties, planar travel
Knowledge [religion]: Deities and their domains, symbols, and servants, Outer Planes outsiders, undead and haunts, divine magic and religious doctrines, churches, regional religions, esoteric practices and religions*
*moved Here from occult because I realized a lot of what is occult does not really require religious leanings and because occult was getting too big.
Couple of things to add.
As I was writing this I realized that a lot of places defy the standard knowledge. I mean, look at the Orvian Vaults. They are natural/supernatural, artificially engineered ecosystems. Knowledge nature won't answer much, knowledge geography can't cover the whole deal, and Knowledge occult would only tell you about the weird deal without telling you all the mundane stuff. Another example is various extraterrestrial planets. You could maybe get by on nature and geography with Castrovel, but on Aballon (engineering)? Eox (religion)? F***ing Aucturn (occult)? Gonna need more knowledge than just the one or two. These places are, however, admittedly harder to reach and generally higher level, so it fits that you would need to succeed not just one but possibly two or even three rolls just to gain a nugget of information. The combinations concern me as being potentially confusing and difficult, which is where I encourage the use of the lore background skill. You gonna be spending a lot of time in an Orvian vault? Maybe taking lore [Orv] is a good idea.
Ps written from my phone, apologies for any auto corrected bullsh*t.
The name, I feel, could use work, too. Ahhh how about knowledge [cryptic] or [esoteric]. Rolls off the tongue better, imo. But that is all minor stuff, really,
To take this point first, I went to work with a thesaurus. Cryptic/ esoteric is great for parts of the skillset, but just about all of these skills could fit under that description. Hmmmm.
What about Knowledge (uncanny)?
Most of this stuff -- including the psychic magic -- would raise goosebumps when people first encounter it... The more I run that through my mind, the more I like it. I hope you do!
Lily, my advice is that knowledge abnormal be covered pretty much by the same people that would get occult, since all of those basically tackle the 'things beyond the veil of understanding'. I would exclude magi because while they strike me as a soldiers first, scholars second kind of class, and their pursuits would focus on the subjects that increase their battle potential (arcana). Same could be said of warpriests. Inquisitors should definitely get it though. They specifically hunt down the HERETICAL MUTANTS FOR THE EMPR*cough cough* sorry, a bit of my 40K fan popped out for a second. Anyway, fighters and the like get knowledge martial anyway, so they are well compensated.
I agree about magi, warpriests, fighters... And that they're well-compensated with (martial).
But in the end, it's going to be simpler to keep to a one-to-one. If you had (dungeoneering) before, you get (uncanny) now. Fewer arguments that way, and it's easier to remember. I feel a little sad about the 5 classes I'm not aiding. Especially since they don't qualify for (martial), either. But Brother Fen does have a point about the virtue of simplicity.
Similarly, if you used to have knowledge (nobility), you get...
Okay, this one isn't similar. You get (locals), if you didn't have it before, since that's what now covers the same material.
And I'm going with Cyrad's idea that monks and characters of any class with proficiency in all martial weapons consider Knowledge (martial) as a class skill. Although I noticed that brawlers get left out -- Cyrad, are they too unrefined, too street-thuggish?
Less is more. No need to complicate the game further.
In case you're counting only the new: while I'm going to introduce a completely new skill, it got paid for by eliminating an underused old one. The other semi-new skill is a replacement.
More importantly: uncomplicating the game is what has me so excited. My party may encounter a werewolf RSN, and then what? What skill do they use?
I never would have guessed where to find giant bugs before I went diving into the skill descriptions in pursuit of this thread. Now I'll just know: they sure don't look natural, do they? They're native, right? Not magical in any way? Got it: Knowledge (uncanny).
Let's say that in a month or two I decided to create an encounter with a troll. Now, I'm betting I'll think immediately that trolls must be monstrous. But I'll be able to check the write-up and see "humanoids." Then I'll simply know they're as natural as an elf, even if they count as a "monster." I never, ever, would have realized -- without flipping pages -- that they must be "a local!"
Maybe you've played the game for decades, and got used to the skill list when it first got introduced. I spent my youth (ahem, only youth, sure) on games like The Fantasy Trip and Champions. While I'm enjoying what WoTC did with D&D, and even more so what Paizo did with it, there's a lot of rules to learn.
A system that makes sense is simpler!
I would say giants are both local and nature. They are intrinsically tied to the natural world, but whereas nature delves into their physiology I.E. fire giants like, well, fire and are violent as a species, locals would reveal they are a militaristic society that is heavily structured with a strict hierarchy and a proficiency for smithing (that last part could also show up in nature, since it is a natural inclination). This is your chance to get creative as a DM and a chance for your players to start feeling like their knowledges are true fields of research rather than a hodgepodge of disconnected information. An organic system that relies on common sense rather than inflexible, mechanical definition makes for a more natural feeling story.
Also, I think brawlers more than anyone should have knowledge martial. Their whole schtick is, after all, pulling out martial feats from either muscle memory, knowledge, or instinct. Can't really pull off any of those without any training.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always have felt fighters are shorted out on skills. They shouldn't be skill monkeys but they should definitely get more than 2 ranks, especially when skills are far more focused on more than just knowing stuff.
Also, knowledge is not practice. A wizard might know more about the origins, history, and cultural significance of a fighting style, even how to do it, but just as someone who has studies, say, parlour is no more physically able to do that particular activity because they have not exercised their bodies to be able to, a wizard would be incapable of actually doing the things a fighter does. The reverse is true of a rare fighter that takes, say, knowledge arcana. They know stuff, but they have not actually practiced the rites and apellwork.
Wow, I really need to triple check my posts when I use my phone. Autocorrect messed my words up a lot.
I've been thinking about the knowledge skills for some time. Here's some homebrews I'd like some feedback on:
OVERALL GOAL #1: TRIMMING KNOWLEDGE [ARCANA]
It's got too much going for it, honestly, and needs some wind knocked out of its sails. Let's start with the following:
OVERALL GOAL #2: DIVERSIFYING MONSTER ID ROLLS
Each monster has only one knowledge roll associated with it. This is kinda folly, considering that some monsters, such as devils, would be extensively researched not only by 'planar' scholars but also by religious authorities such as paladin. Rather silly for a class that focuses on killing these things lacks the basic knowledge about them, no?OVERALL GOAL #3: MAKE SENSE
New Knowledge Skill: Knowledge [Occult]
Occult adventures introduced what is basically a 'new' branch of magic: occult magic. It has a lot of differences, down to how it's cast. It's likely that it uses an entirely different method and language from that which traditional arcane scholars like wizards would use, meaning you can't rely on your 'Beginners Guide to Prestidigitation' book for help in deciphering what that upside-down pentagram with an eyeball in the middle of it means. A whole new knowledge would be needed, one that focuses on recognizing much subtler signs.Furthermore, I kinda found it weird over time how aberrations and knowledge [dungeoneering] grew further and further apart. It used to be the go-to because most aberrations came from, well, underground. Now, it covers extraterrestrial lifeforms and creatures that are just... not quite a fit for the dimension they're in. So, knowledge [occult] would make more sense as a home. This takes a little power away from [dungeoneering], but we'll give it back some love later.
Knowledge [occult] could also be used to identify creatures with the incorporeal type, since these too are a major staple of 'just beyond the veil of reality'. Things relating to obscure cults worshiping unimaginable deities, obscure rituals, and other non-traditional...
honestly, I don't like the idea of both trimming knowledges down...AND diversifying Monster IDs...
Personally, I think there are too many knowledges that do the same thing... but I also believe that some monsters should be identified by a couple of different things.
For my own preference... I would get rid of Knowledge Arcana completely... or Spellcraft. Either way I would combine them. Knowing magic is knowing magic... knowing a spell that is cast, vs. knowing what the spell is used for?? There's just way too much overlap there. You use spellcraft to identify items but Arcana to know... other stuff? Just overcomplicates things.
Religion and Planar? Knowing your religion lets you know about undead and holy rituals... Knowing anything about the heavens and hells of your religion... that's Planar? Those should be combined too. OOOOORRRRR... if not actually combined, what I would rather see is things like Devils and demons able to be identified by either religion or Planes.... Give different characters with different focuses the chance to shine. Especially characters like Paladin. SERIOUSLY weak skill points, Class skill Religion... holy warrior for religion... able to smite demons, devils and evil outsiders... but no knowledge about them?? Not fun.
Knowledge Local??? This just bugs me. This is such an insane catch-all for any knowledge not covered by anything else... that it's just too weird. We fought two-headed giants on the moon one time... giant sub-type, Knowledge:Local. The whole table laughed about that one.
If anything I would rather Knowledge geography take over for some of that. Also split it up like the craft/profession/lore catagories. Knowledge Geography:Varisia, tells you the common monsters you meet in varisia. Geography Tian Xi... Same deal. Having 2 ranks in Knowledge Local when you start a game in Varisia... should not help you when your party is a whole world away in Tian Xi....
So basically, I'd like to see either fewer skills... or more options to use alternate skills for common problems. Arcana/Spellcraft, Geography/Survival/nature, Geography/Local Nobility/History...
@phantom1592
Oh boy, here comes a big one.
DEEEEP BREATH
Actually, spellcraft makes things a little simpler. Remember that it isn't just arcane spells being cast, but also divine and now psychic. It can be frustrating to be forced to, as a spellcaster, spend precious skill points on the knowledges just so you can decode what spell an enemy is going to use or what spells power a magic item. I actually thought deeply about this when I was doing my initial draft of my model and I realized two things: 1) that removing spellcraft might be a step too far for some of my players and 2) that, for instance, the sorcerer now has to put ranks in knowledge [religion] to identify divine spells, the cleric has to put some into [arcana], and in my rather occult horror focused campaign, [occult] would be just as vital for psychic spellcasting. They don't have all the skill points to spread all over and would like to be able to identify spells whilst still being able to spend them on, say, survival or craft or whatever else they fancy. In short, getting rid of spellcraft is going to pigeonhole all spellcasters into being knowledge monkeys, and this is somewhat limiting to gameplay. You do have a point, and in fact there is some allure to making 'arcane spells identified by knowledge arcane, divine by religion, etc.' but I also have to consider the stance of my players, at least a couple of which are staunch traditionalists who are already a mite uncomfortable with my changes.
In essence, I'm not saying you don't have a point because as previously mentioned no single model is perfect. You just have to tailor to best suit whatever campaign you are running whilst still being palatable to the tastes of your players.
Religion and planar have obvious overlap, and I address this. Not all planes are in the afterlife, and not all matters regarding the planes have to deal with religion. The planes are primordial places of the raw forces of reality, be they good, evil, law, chaos, the elements, and anything in between. I agree, knowledge religion should be able to tell a paladin about a balor's weaknesses, or a demonic cultist of the strength of an angel. These two are intrinsically linked, but there is still far too much distinction. Think of planes as knowledge [geography], which I will touch on in a sec, but for any place outside of the material plane. Religion won't teach you how to best survive in the Eternal Furnace or what hazards not related to the gods dwell within the Abyss. Besides, what can religion tell YOU about the Ethereal Realm? Or the Astral Plane? Neither of these have any significant religious significance.
Local isn't an insane catchall. That seems to be more dungeoneering's bag, which used to fit because in the olden days everything it described could be neatly found almost exclusively underground: oozes, aberrations, etc. But Pathfinder's universe has introduced such a MASSIVE variation of these monsters and much, much more that are found NOWHERE underground whatsoever that the knowledge just doesn't fit.
But back to local. It focuses on people. They are the focus. All that is covered by local is created by humanoids: civilization, society, laws. Giants are local because they have societies, structure, even industry and cities for the more intelligent and advanced of their kind. I actually only JUST double checked myself and realized giants AREN'T nature (I don't know why I thought that, honestly. I think it's an old memory from back in my starter days, and with their close connection to the world... well, you get the gist of it.) My point is, they're humanoids because they have all of these, and you'll find just about every creature covered BY local is the progenitor or a major part of some larger civilization, with a few notable exceptions among the DEFINITIVELY weird monstrous humanoid category, which while covered by nature, are just... too one-foot-in-one-foot-out for me to really think they are a fully NATURAL group in their entirety... and with the fact that hags, werewolves, and other infamously occult cryptids are monstrous humanoids, I moved them over to knowledge [occult], though as mentioned before, a lot of the knowledges overlap, a fact that I welcome.
Now on [geography]. This is where you have lost me. You propose that we see fewer skills, but here you are proposing splitting geography into small bites which means spending MORE hard-earned skill points in INCREASINGLY specialized knowledge skills. You have a point: knowledge of Tian Xia wouldn't help you in Varisia, but the whole point of knowledge skills is that it isn't just 'something the character knows'. They have actively studied these subjects thoroughly. And besides, books and libraries aren't the only place you learn about distant lands. You talk to travelers, socialize with merchants, do all that sort of boring background character stuff - you certainly MUST be doing SOMETHING if you are acquiring that skill rank... and if it's in the middle of a dungeon, maybe they had the knowledge all along, but have only now started to remember it. Possibilities for flavor are infinite, if possibly sometimes a little bullsh*tty.
At rank 1, they might've started with 'Atlas of the World', which gave them very broad strokes on what they know. They might've picked up a specialty bit of knowledge or two or used that massive +4 int bonus to logic out the bits that weren't in the book, but chances are that isn't the end of their studies. In essence, rolling a knowledge skill roll is like divining the past. If you fail, your character never touched on that knowledge when they studied it, and you can never retry a knowledge roll pertaining that specific question or subject without first consulting a library or discovering some new clue. Sometimes failure could mean your character forgot the knowledge, too. It's all up to DM discretion, honestly, and that makes it more interesting, because if the DM gives you a second chance for the same roll after 24 hours or whatever time s/he decided your character might get their memory jogged, it hints at you both ICly (your character's just... GOT that answer on the tip of their tongue, what -is- it?) and OOCly (the DM really, really wants me to get this one. It's either crucial to the story or a life-and-death kind of roll) that something big hangs in this. It makes for fun gameplay, IMO.
As an additional dallop... Lore already kinda does this! Though it is an extremely focused lens, so it wouldn't get the large strokes you want. Understandably, but if you want, we can just scrap lore. I mean, if you want to say that you studied... oh... Varisia, to take your example, then maybe knowledge [Varisia] might not be such a bad idea. It won't tell you everything - the DM is subject to discretion - and it's CERTAINLY useless outside of Varisia, but y'know. Honestly, if you talk to your DM and want to tell them 'hey, my character primarily studies X subject,' and your DM is a clever egg, your DM will go 'ok, that sounds cool, but you'll have to expend skill ranks dedicated to that field.'
In fact, the whole idea of being able to carte blanche new skills the way you can carte blanche profession and craft skills opens whole new venues of exploration. Imagine your characters need a guide through, say, the City of Brass, but they might not be able to rely on conventional knowledge or are lacking all of the knowledge skills they would need to proceed. So they find a guide, who happens to have knowledge [City of Brass] +15, and can very reliably guide them through not just its natural hazards but its social ones as well, telling them about customs, industry, etc.
BUT I must warn that such a system is ripe for abuse, and bitter disagreements can happen even with the DM. I mean, the person who has knowledge [Varisia] might also demand to know ALL about the Runelords, but Varisia was only a part of Thassilon, not its whole, and not all Runelords claimed Varisian land as their domain, so it becomes a bit of a lore mess, since now you have to scramble for the knowledge [history] rolls instead. As always, communication would be key to avoiding this. Talk to your DM, detail what can and cannot be known, or just straight up ask them to define the boundaries of this new knowledge skill.
There's also the fact that this sh*t does get complicated, so... risk-reward, as they say. It's why I'm suggesting people just build a general model based on what your campaign is doing. The truth is that there are DOZENS of disciplines beyond the ones listed. Those were just the ones that fit the stories the writers wanted to tell at the time.
Dear God, long post is long. My apologies on that.
Addendum: Some of you might've noticed I added 'shapeshifters' to knowledge [nature]. Since I extended nature to include druidic practices and, frankly, a lot of monstrous humanoids and druids themselves practice shapeshifting constantly, it seemed to fit. Besides, transformation happens in nature all the time, the most obvious example being larva -> butterflies and tadpoles -> frogs, creatures that radically transform into something else. Druidic magic just takes this natural phenomenon and through the miracle of gods (or the natural world itself) crunch this into not only a short amount of time but into wildly different beings altogether (I.E. Human turns into a shark.)
Shapeshifters are going to have some overlap with [occult], too, because many of these are monstrous humanoids. It's kind of fitting, given how... weird the actual nature of lycanthropes is. Are they cursed beings? Are they beings of nature? Were they spawned by a demon lord? The hell is up with them? They're just very strange. Favorite shapeshifters are dopplegangers, though. Boy do I love me some dopplegangers. I've never had this much fun confusing and/or tormenting my players before... or I would have if they would have just split up like gullible teenage detective wannabes with an awakened Great Dane companion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've come up with an idea tackling for making complex or niche knowledge more interesting. I need to note that this process IS a little more complicated, so for people who would prefer simplicity, it won't work. Still, it's not so complicated that it'd cripple the game table, especially once players get into the habit of it, and it can encourage creative use of skills.
Gestalt knowledge rolls
When attempting to identify very specific, complex, or specialized knowledge, especially about obscure matters, two or more rolls from different knowledge skills may be required by one or more people. The average of these rolls will determine bits and pieces of what they are attempting to discover.
For example: Aballon is the first planet of the solar system [geography] and is dominated by machinery [engineering]. To find out more about where exactly on the planet you are you will require a combination of the two. To do this, take the following steps:
1) Find the average of the bonus for the knowledge skills (round it down if needed)
2) roll that number against the DC (in this case, it would likely be a DC15)
If two or more characters are making the roll, it will require 5 minutes for every multiple of 10 that the DC is (I.E. a DC10 check will require 5 minutes, 20 will require 10, etc.) as the two characters discuss and compare their respective knowledge to reach the needed conclusion. Methods that can transfer complex information rapidly can crunch this time down to 1 round, and telepathy can lower it to 1 minute per 10 DC. The time is spent from the attempt and before the result of the check, so even a failed roll costs time.
In the event that both characters have both skills, they can make the gestalt roll on their own, but they can retry the roll with each other. In essence, they would gain 4 attempts (1 per character, 2 for each shared gestalt roll). If one character has two but the other has only one, then there can be 2 attempts (1 for the character, 1 for the shared gestalt roll).
For instance, Jeane has [engineering] +6 and [geography] +7, but fails her roll (a +6). Taimen has [geography] +8. Jean can use Taimen's [geography] +8 in place of her own, gaining a gestalt roll of +7, and try a new roll due to fresh information from a separate perspective. Their result is a 17, enough to beat the DC15 check.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hooo boy, here's my set of Knowledge skills. I'm calling it...
Notes on terminology:
>> I specify “survey of” something to emphasize that this is theoretical knowledge of a broad field.
>> All the other skills look at the specific “societal” skills of geography, history, & locals as a specialized interest. So I use "geo/his/loc" to refer to these three skills.
>> Finally, many skills teach the biology & ecology of specific kinds of creatures; I call this “fauna.”
Knowledge (arcana): arcane classes & feats, arcane geo/his/loc, arcane rituals, magical theory (including schools), magically-made materials & hazards, survey of arcane spells & magic items, and fauna - constructs (arcane), dragons, familiars, magical beasts.
Knowledge (engineering): architecture, engineering (civil), engineering (various), hazards (engineered), mathematics, sciences (various), survey of technological items, tech geo/his/loc, and “fauna” - constructs (engineered).
Knowledge (geography): climate, landmarks, terrain [geological, past or present] - and conflicts, culture, industry, linguistic terrain, political territories, populations, settlements [societal, broad-brush & present].
Knowledge (history): ancient civilizations, heraldry, legends, major past events, past geography (societal), past locals, trends [societal, any past; includes past nobility].
Knowledge (locals): aristocracy, current events, customs, etiquette, laws, rumors, significant inhabitants & locations, underworld [societal, fine-brush & present; includes present-day nobility].
Knowledge (martial): martial classes & feats, martial geo/his/loc, military tactics & strategy, physical exercises, small unit tactics, survey of arms (weapons & armor) [new skill; class skill for monks, brawlers, & any class with proficiency in all martial weapons].
Knowledge (nature): astronomy, ecology, farming, hazards (natural), nature geo/his/loc, plants, seasons & cycles, weather, and fauna ("natural" creatures) – animals, animal companions, fey, humanoids, vermin (Fine/Diminutive).
Knowledge (nobility): [removed; functions moved to geo/his/loc; class skill replacements – either none or else clerics get locals, mesmerists get geography, paladins get planes, swashbucklers get history; ninjas (peasants who shouldn’t have had it) get none; samurai (nobles who should have had it) get geography, history, & locals].
Knowledge (planes): planar alignment, planar properties, planar geo/his/loc, planar spells, and fauna - eidolons, extra-planars, outsiders.
Knowledge (religion): churches, cults (religious), deities & holy symbols, demi-gods, divine classes & feats, divine magical theory (including domains), myths, religious geo/his/loc, survey of divine spells & magic items, and fauna - outsider servants, undead.
Knowledge (uncanny): alchemy, astrology, cults (esoteric), druidic domains & faiths, druidic magic, haunts, hexes, possession, psychic auras & magic, uncanny classes & feats, uncanny geo/his/loc, wild talents (kineticist), and fauna - aberrations, augmented & monstrous humanoids, incorporeals, oozes, sentient plants, spirits, vermin (enlarged, Tiny+) [dungeoneering greatly revised; admittedly covers all rarely studied subjects; class skill for all classes that have “dungeoneering” as a class skill or that have related class features].
Functions that "do" things have been moved into other skills. Functions previously of arcana dealing with a spell coming at you or a magic item in your hands are now Spellcraft. Some functions of dungeoneering, such as determining a slope, are now Survival, while identifying precious materials is now Appraisal. Similarly, it will take the right Craft skill to build a prototype of anything designed with engineering.
Aldrius, thank you for sparking a stimulating discussion! My distillation of it all has been posted above, and I'm eager to hear what you have to say about it. Some scattered comments:
~~~
Yes, giants had an ancient civilization - studied as history. If they left ruins somewhere, it's a matter of geography. If there's a town with a group of giants living there, under human civilization, that's geography, too -- although personal details (who's married to who) would be learned with locals. None of this is any different from any other "people," just because it's giants, and I don't think it needs to be specified.
OTOH, giants as a subtype have some inherent strengths and weaknesses. They're big! Trolls, a kind of giant, have regeneration. It's stopped by acid or fire, but they aren't otherwise vulnerable to those energies. Cliff giants, by contrast, resist fire & acid. I'm calling all of that "fauna," and I'm saying that it belongs under Knowledge (nature), along with all humanoids. All unaltered humanoids are as natural to a Pathfinder world as humans.
~~~
The mere fact that you had to put shapeshifters into Knowledge (nature) because druidic magic is there is why I'm calling both uncanny. No, they're not "occult." So my name may work better. That shapeshifting business is "uncanny" to an academic cleric! Plus, I really think that if any religious type studies perversions of nature (as well as the natural order unbesmirched), it's druids. It's the same with witches, from a wizard's point of view. And wizards & clerics are the two main academic classes for Pathfinder.
So now I'm back to giving druids, and any class with weird magic, Knowledge (uncanny) as a class skill.
~~~
Instead of "gestalt" rolls, I would prefer the simple Aid Another mechanic. Or Hero Points. Or informing your PCs that they'll be ignorant until they find an expert or a library.
|
Seconded.
That said, I do not have a need to recalibrate and condense every knowledge skill (I have other uses for my OCD!), instead, I have a need to maintain compatibility as much as possible with the CRB (Core Rulebook) as written, because of the abundance of new players I introduce to the game (thanks 5e!).
But this thread pointed out a "hole" in those knowledges that I can now address. Also, it got me going over each sub-skill with a fine tuned comb (to "doublecheck"), and brought to my attention the functions of Arcana that ought to be Spellcraft. I have fixed those now.
Lastly, my players aren't ready for a skill that deals explicitly with "martial knowledge" - which I would call in my game Warcraft (and model after Spellcraft) if I were to induct it - but if and when they are, I will include it.
Cheers gang!
I like your system. With uncanny, I could see it working well in dark fantasy, with its focus on the strange and unnatural, which is different from mine that would be more straight up horror inspired. Then again, I think yours and mine have enough overlap they could easily take the place of the other! Semantics and a few classifications aside. My only recommendation would be to shift one or two of those fauna ID checks elsewhere. As it stands, uncanny is the new arcana in terms of importance.
You stand at a total of 10 skills total. Breaks even, so it's no biggie.
Your explanation for where it all fits makes perfect sense, and as I mentioned, shapeshifting is one of those things that really likes to mess with whether or not it is natural. Actually, the more I think about it, the more that seems like it'd be a really nice source of 'academic rivalry', with different schools of thinking seeking to get their own viewpoint legitimized over the other in universe. "Shapeshifting is natural! Here's the evidence!" "No it isn't, HERE'S the real evidence!" "Is not!" "Is too!" and so on and so forth. I can especially see druids having a time of it, with some taking the idea that their magic is 'unnatural' as an insult while the other side believes they shouldn't belie that druidic magic allows them to do things that meddle WITH the natural order... for its own good, of course.
Can't argue with your assessment of giants or even humanoids. We're all animals, in a sense. Just remember, giants live in their own societies. What would you classify a frost giant village under, since it isn't under any human civilization? Or is it just not possible to roll on it? I can imagine some experts must have written articles regarding giants and the way things work, and others, like cloud and storm giants, aren't necessarily immediately hostile to their smaller neighbors, allowing an easier flow of trade and information to pen down.
Aiding another becomes tricky with knowledge, because knowledge represents that you 'already know'. Instead of 'aid another', I'd allow another person with at least one rank in the same skill to give a retry, as they give new information that might allow the piecing together of what it is they are trying to do. This grants no additional bonuses, though. Of course... there is the fact that 1 rank in any skill might only know the bare minimum about something, so maybe the retry can be made at a penalty of -2 for every new attempt so as to dissuade people from just putting a skill rank in every knowledge and then chattering their way to victory. I already felt gestalt was a neat but cumbersome idea anyway. I'll let a much harder DC speak for the obscurity of the knowledge instead. Probably what was intended anyway.
Oh, one more thing to ask. As it stands, researching new spells, extracts, divine spells, magic items, etc. requires rolling a knowledge skill as a means of doing progress. Since your skills don't DO anything anymore beyond let you know stuff, would you make a new skill called research [x] or would you relegate it to some other, already existing skills, such as Craft or Profession?
Also, I appreciate your thanks! You've all been incredibly helpful and ingenious of your own accords.
I like your system. With uncanny, I could see it working well in dark fantasy, with its focus on the strange and unnatural, which is different from mine that would be more straight up horror inspired. Then again, I think yours and mine have enough overlap they could easily take the place of the other! Semantics and a few classifications aside. My only recommendation would be to shift one or two of those fauna ID checks elsewhere. As it stands, uncanny is the new arcana in terms of importance.
Thanks for the compliment. And yes, one of my objectives was to position the new skill to appeal to a broader audience -- at least, I hope "uncanny" would appeal to the horror crowd, as well as the fantasy crowd I'm familiar with.
As for shifting things out, I believe that's what got Pathfinder calling trolls "local." They were trying to balance skills in importance, instead of figuring out what would make sense.
Also, one big issue is how important is psychic magic -- in games that focus on it (like yours, I believe), Knowledge (uncanny) really is the go-to skill. In any game focused on arcane & divine magic, however, Knowledge (arcana & religion) would be more important.
Games that involve city life and never go into a dungeon are unlikely to even once involve encounters with aberrations, et al. If the GM wants to skip psychic magic, the PCs may rarely look to knowledge of the uncanny. Instead, they will find themselves making heavy use of their knowledge of geography, history, & locals, as well as of nature. If I were running that game, religion would come up over & over again, as well -- conflicts between churches should be important.
Finally, games that slide into science fiction may rely on Knowledge (engineering, geography, & martial) more than any of the others -- although horrors from outer space will, of course, still be uncanny. I don't expect that my players in any game I were running would be able to make extensive use of engineering or martial, but the skills should be there. And I may be surprised; my magus player is already rubbing his hands with glee at Knowledge (martial)! (Thank you again, Cyrad!)
Can't argue with your assessment of giants or even humanoids. We're all animals, in a sense. Just remember, giants live in their own societies. What would you classify a frost giant village under, since it isn't under any human civilization? Or is it just not possible to roll on it? I can imagine some experts must have written articles regarding giants and the way things work, and others, like cloud and storm giants, aren't necessarily immediately hostile to their smaller neighbors, allowing an easier flow of trade and information to pen down.
Of course it's possible to roll on it, although depending on the PC's backstory, the DC is likely to be higher. Geography, history, & locals apply to all humanoids. It's quite clear; from a Pathfinder standpoint, we're all "people." I'm sorry I didn't explain that well.
Aiding another becomes tricky with knowledge, because knowledge represents that you 'already know'. Instead of 'aid another', I'd allow another person with at least one rank in the same skill to give a retry, as they give new information that might allow the piecing together of what it is they are trying to do. This grants no additional bonuses, though. Of course... there is the fact that 1 rank in any skill might only know the bare minimum about something, so maybe the retry can be made at a penalty of -2 for every new attempt so as to dissuade people from just putting a skill rank in every knowledge and then chattering their way to victory. I already felt gestalt was a neat but cumbersome idea anyway. I'll let a much harder DC speak for the obscurity of the knowledge instead. Probably what was intended anyway.
I'm probably too liberal with Aid Another for RAW. If two PCs roll on something that Aid applies to, I'll let whoever rolled lower (assuming they got at least 10) give a +2 bonus to whoever rolled higher -- even though the players didn't declare ahead of time who was aiding and who was making the check proper. For knowledge checks, it actually makes a huge amount of sense. IRL, I often recall details in a conversation with someone else that I couldn't have remembered on my own -- even if the person I'm talking with knows/remembers less than I do.
Oh, one more thing to ask. As it stands, researching new spells, extracts, divine spells, magic items, etc. requires rolling a knowledge skill as a means of doing progress. Since your skills don't DO anything anymore beyond let you know stuff, would you make a new skill called research [x] or would you relegate it to some other, already existing skills, such as Craft or Profession?
Spellcraft. The procedure specified under Ultimate Campaign balances physical labwork (Spellcraft) with theoretical thinking about one's results (arcana or religion).
I'd prefer a system, though, that looked for an extensive period of "armchair" time working out a model before one leaped into the lab. Maybe the GM could secretly roll Knowledge (arcana) for a week's worth of thinking against the research DC specified -- DC 10 + (2 * spell level), although I'd want to adjust it for how comparable the projected spell is to known others. Each success would provide a +1 bonus on the following Spellcraft checks, while failures of over 5 would provide a -1 penalty. Probably, the PC could spend as much time thinking as they chose, before heading into the lab.
~~~
I hope my ponderings -- back & forth as they were -- helped you!
Lastly, my players aren't ready for a skill that deals explicitly with "martial knowledge" - which I would call in my game Warcraft (and model after Spellcraft) if I were to induct it - but if and when they are, I will include it.
I like Warcraft much better as a starting point than Knowledge (martial). Some kind of a way to analyze the enemy's offense and defense, either small scale or large. A way to identify weapons used by famous warriors, a magical identifier of sorts for weapons/armor. Reading battle plans. The fighter could add his Bravery bonus to it. ;)
I would like to explore more uses for knowledge martial/Warcraft. As it stands, it is pretty cool but I fear it might "mechanize" parts of the game that players should be able to handle on their own ie figuring out battle tactics. As it stands, the knowledge is very niche, and some things such as "what composes the enemy troops?" would not be relegated to mere knowledge but espionage. As far as figuring out weapons, most fighters are already expected to be familiar with most of not all, with the possible exception of exotic weapons. The best thing it can do, I feel, is allow you to read a martial opponent's feats by their stance and whatnot. How would that DC work anyway? 10 + HD? Hit dice tend to determine feats anyway, so I think that might make sense.
Actually, a little examples chart would be appreciated. I'm aiming for it to be useful outside of mass combat but not a crutch from which they look to me to determine all of their battle plans.
Ps lily, I honestly have exhausted all I can say about your system. You have a pretty solid model as far as I can tell. Hope your players like it as much as I do.
I would like to explore more uses for knowledge martial/Warcraft. As it stands, it is pretty cool but I fear it might "mechanize" parts of the game that players should be able to handle on their own ie figuring out battle tactics. As it stands, the knowledge is very niche, and some things such as "what composes the enemy troops?" would not be relegated to mere knowledge but espionage. As far as figuring out weapons, most fighters are already expected to be familiar with most of not all, with the possible exception of exotic weapons. The best thing it can do, I feel, is allow you to read a martial opponent's feats by their stance and whatnot. How would that DC work anyway? 10 + HD? Hit dice tend to determine feats anyway, so I think that might make sense.
Feats are tricky, because you can't decipher what you haven't directly observed. Well, if you see one feat, you'll know to be wary of the entire tree. The DC for a feat tree should be fairly low (maybe DC 15).
Or you might be able to deduce Combat Reflexes, for instance, from stance -- if a foe has already used an AoO, do they look off-balance or distracted, or like they could do that again? There (10 + HD) might make more sense. (And thanks for the idea!)And classes, now... The player may be thoroughly familiar with every class ever published, but that doesn't mean that the character is. Figuring out that the "barbarian" in front of you can also cast spells like a sorcerer might be very helpful. There's a lot fewer classes than feats, so DC 10 might be right.
And the skill may come up in conversations with NPCs. You might need a martial check to impress an esteemed martial of some sort into talking with you, training you, or helping you in some other way. In fact, if you use the retraining rules, it might well be that a lot of good trainers insist on testing applicants for training -- on whichever Knowledge skill most applies.
Oh, tactics... The GM can say that you were subject to a feint, and you can say that you are a master fighter and wouldn't fall for that a second time, but that don't make it so. Maybe with a successful martial Knowledge check (DC 10 + opponent's HD), the GM can grant you a +2 circumstance bonus on the DC you set for future feints by that opponent in that combat.
When I put "small unit tactics" into my skill write-up, I was thinking of help in dealing with tactically difficult situations for a typical party. But now that you're pushing me to make good on it... I'm stumped.
I'm waiting to hear from Cyrad!
PS: I stupidly hit "Submit Post" without giving credit for this response where it is due: my husband, Debnor. Thank-you!
Bumping so we can hopefully get Cyrad's attention.
What about a Feat or something similar that covers the grey area? Thinking something like this:
Breadth of Knowledge
Your continual studies has allowed you to absorb bits and pieces of information not necessarily related to your main field(s) of study, allowing you to make Knowledge checks in areas you do not possess the appropriate Knowledge skill for.
If you have at least 10 ranks total in any Knowledge skills, you may gain a +2 circumstance bonus to untrained (?) Knowledge checks.
If you have 10 ranks in one specific Knowledge skill, you may gain an additional +2 circumstance bonus to untrained Knowledge checks.
---
... Allowing for a total +4 to know things that you haven't actually studied specifically.
Excuse the sloppy wording - my own knowledge of skills (especially the knowledge domain) is poor at best ;)
Dot
MrShine, that feat is all well and good, though you can't really make untrained knowledge skills. If the feat would also permit you to make knowledge rolls untrained on top of the bonuses, it'd be worthwhile. Though, I need you to clarify, with the "10 ranks in one specific knowledge skill", does it mean only if you have only 10 ranks in one skill you get the total +4 bonus?
Another way of doing this would be to have a synergy bonus instead like they did in 3.5. The only problem is this has the potential to get a bit complicated in its building and implementation.
What about a Feat or something similar that covers the grey area? Thinking something like this:
Breadth of Knowledge
Your continual studies has allowed you to absorb bits and pieces of information not necessarily related to your main field(s) of study, allowing you to make Knowledge checks in areas you do not possess the appropriate Knowledge skill for.
If you have at least 10 ranks total in any Knowledge skills, you may gain a +2 circumstance bonus to untrained (?) Knowledge checks.
If you have 10 ranks in one specific Knowledge skill, you may gain an additional +2 circumstance bonus to untrained Knowledge checks.
I imagine you were thinking of the feats that give bonuses for only two skills, not up to 9 or 10. That bonus amounts to +4 for no investment, and +4 more if you invest 20 ranks. (The requirement for 10 ranks in a skill obviously means you have to be 10th level or higher to collect the extra.) Unfortunately, none of these 2-skill feats benefits knowledges. This may do the job we need...
Your continual studies have allowed you to absorb bits and pieces of information not related to your main fields of study.
Benefit: Pick two Knowledge skills. You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to checks for those two Knowledges, and may make checks with those skills untrained. In addition, if you have 10 or more ranks in any two other Knowledge skills, the bonus increases to +4 for both of the Knowledge skills you picked.
~~~
Alternatively, you may be thinking of a feat that is breathtakingly broader in scope, and yet tightly limited racially.
Breadth of Experience
Although still young for your kind, you have a lifetime of knowledge and training.
Prerequisites: Dwarf, elf, or gnome; 100+ years old.
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Knowledge and Profession skill checks, and can make checks with those skills untrained.
We don't need professions, but otherwise the broad scope is good. Certainly, I don't want a feat that only benefits untrained skills -- I'd hate to lose my circumstance bonus because I'd finally taken a single, lousy rank in some knowledge! However, not necessarily being 100 years old, we'll need a tight prereq of our own. That would give us a more liberal version...
Your continual studies have allowed you to absorb bits and pieces of information not necessarily related to your main fields of study.
Prerequisites: 5 or more ranks in each of two Knowledge skills, and 10 or more in a third.
Benefit: You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to all Knowledge checks, and may make checks with those skills untrained.
One other note. There were "background" feats in 3.5 -- your character had to have the right story, and take the feat at first level. I've long lamented the passing of one relevant feat in particular, more than the other background feats. I don't like mentioning it now, because the concept of a feat limited to 1st level is foreign to Pathfinder, and the concept behind the feat makes no sense if I "discover" my early education at 5th or 10th level. However, it went something like...
Your university studies have prepared you for life with a broad education.
Prerequisite: Character no higher than 1st-level, who has graduated from a university or similar institution.
Benefit: You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to all Knowledge checks, and may make checks with those skills untrained.
Pathfinder now has traits, to be sure, that reflect a character's background at character creation. There are a number of traits that give a +1 trait bonus on two Knowledge checks. They then say, "one of these skills (your choice) is always a class skill for you," or give some other bennie. (There are some cheap traits that do less.) These aren't as breath-taking as what we've been looking at -- and of course are limited to character creation. But I did feel obliged to point them out. :)
For that matter, it's a benchmark of sorts. +2 to two knowledge skills -- and making them both class skills -- should then be in the realm of a feat. Sort of.
You also can take the following trait, which may do what we want -- providing you don't want a different Magic trait...
Possessed (Magic): You were, or are, possessed in some way by another entity that grants you occasional access to its knowledge. Once per day, you can attempt a Knowledge check of your choice even if you are not trained in that skill and it is not usually possible to use that skill untrained. If you can normally use that skill untrained, you gain a +2 trait bonus on the check.
I'm not sure what happens if you (a) are trained and (b) cannot normally use it untrained. Does this trait just not apply or do you get the +2 bonus?
The idea with the feat is to simulate the fact that one would learn lots of incidental information as part of your main topic of study.
Breadth of Knowledge v. 1.2
Your continual studies have allowed you to absorb bits and pieces of information not necessarily related to your main fields of study.
Prerequisites: 5 or more ranks in each of two Knowledge skills, and 10 or more in a third.
Benefit: You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to all Knowledge checks, and may make checks with those skills untrained.
This is closer to what I would say I intended. I would rewrite it as such:
Breadth of Knowledge 2.0
Your continual studies have allowed you to absorb bits and pieces of information not necessarily related to your main fields of study.
Prerequisites: 5 or more ranks in each of two Knowledge skills
Benefit: You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to all Knowledge checks you don't have any ranks in, and may make checks with those skills untrained.
Specifically, it gives the bonus only to the skills you haven't actively trained. I also removed the 10 rank pre-req since I meant it to be a scaling feat, although we could add in this line:
"If you have 10 ranks in any one Knowledge skill, this bonus increases to +4"
As far as the scaling goes, obviously the pre-req would need some tweaking for balance - too early, and this is quite powerful - too late, kind of useless.
---
Lily - I like the idea the Possessed trait - University Graduate seems about the same power level... could that not also just be a trait?
---
... If the feat would also permit you to make knowledge rolls untrained on top of the bonuses, it'd be worthwhile.
That is what was intended, yes. My poor knowledge of the skills is showing ;)
Though, I need you to clarify, with the "10 ranks in one specific knowledge skill", does it mean only if you have only 10 ranks in one skill you get the total +4 bonus?
Yes. +2 until you have done a LOT of learning, then +4. It could scale differently, it was just a skeleton idea to start :)
If it is in two different knowledge skills, then it would be balanced enough I believe. Dunno about bumping it up to a +4 at 10. Let's imagine a wizard who put 10 ranks into 6 different skills. He would be getting a +12 on each of the untrained ones, making him MORE learned in the skills he didn't know! It's kinda weird. I'd put a follow-up feat called 'Omnidisciplinarian' that would accomplish the +4 at 10 ranks.
If it is in two different knowledge skills, then it would be balanced enough I believe. Dunno about bumping it up to a +4 at 10. Let's imagine a wizard who put 10 ranks into 6 different skills. He would be getting a +12 on each of the untrained ones, making him MORE learned in the skills he didn't know! It's kinda weird. I'd put a follow-up feat called 'Omnidisciplinarian' that would accomplish the +4 at 10 ranks.
You misunderstand - it's +2 ONCE when you take the feat (prereq being 2 skills with at least 5 ranks), and then another +2 when you have a skill with 10 ranks in it, for a limit of +4 total
Perhaps the wording of the extra bit should read:
"If you have 10 ranks in at least one Knowledge skill, this bonus increases to +4"
Nah, I got it. Note my math: 6 skills at 10 leads to +12 in the remaining 4 skills, that is 3 sets of +4.
Though from what I'm getting from your rewording, I could have 3 skills at 10 and 3 skills at 5 to get the +4 bonus?
Nah, I got it. Note my math: 6 skills at 10 leads to +12 in the remaining 4 skills, that is 3 sets of +4.
Though from what I'm getting from your rewording, I could have 3 skills at 10 and 3 skills at 5 to get the +4 bonus?
Your math is fine - my point is that it's only a threshold thing - you don't get the +4 for every skill that has 10 ranks, you get +4 as long as ONE (doesn't matter how many more) skill does.
Think of it like a condition - when one or more skills gets bumped up to 10 ranks, you get a +4 bonus to all the other skills. Doesn't matter if later other skills go up to 10 - you already have the +4
Ah. Understood. So having more than 2 skills would not increase the bonus by an additional +2?
You'd at the very least need to take the feat again.
I still say I don't think getting such a great bonus to so many skills is balanced compared to Alertness, etc.
And second, I don't like the idea of getting let's say a +4 to a Knowledge skill because it's untrained, only then I want to start building it up, so the minute I put one rank in it, my ability in that knowledge goes down.
Just my 2 coppers.
Dotting because I can never find this thread when I need to!
It flatters me that this topic has been as popular as it has.
Oh, btw lily, if you haven't seen already, I have shared an interactive map that I was building of my city, as promised. You can find it in the Spicing Up Urban Campaigns thread.
*dusts off thread*
I'm popping this back up because I got a houserule idea the other day.
It always struck me as a tad bit silly how intelligence determined how ALL skills are used. I mean, intelligence doesn't make you a better climber (wisdom would, since it would help you spot the best places to grab on to). This, coupled with the fact that oftentimes physical characters are left with little means of affording those precious utilitarian skills (knowledge, perception, survival, etc.) on top of these frankly essential skills (let's face it, the wizard can just cast fly to avoid having to climb anything) for nonmagical folk. Basically, Con skill points are earned not through cognitive study but through rigorous practice, training, and exercise.
I've really been mulling this over and I've decided that the solution to this is to make constitution contribute to skill ranks. This comes with a few caveats:
1) Con skill ranks will only be spendable on the following skills: Acrobatics, Craft*, Climb, Escape Artist, Fly, Perform*, Profession*, Ride, Survival, and Swim. The reason for these activities is that they represent skills that require a significant amount of stamina to train (and believe you me, these activities DO take a lot physical energy to properly train).
2) Con <10 does not impact your skill points the way Int <10 does.
3) You DO NOT gain additional skill points from permanent enhancement bonuses. Only inherent Con bonuses give Con based skill ranks.
4) You can still use Int skill ranks to raise Con skills. Cognitive learning is still the most efficient way to learn something, after all.
*The skill ranks for these only apply to physically demanding versions of these professions (Ex. Craft [carpenter], Perform [dance], or Profession [miner]). The DM is the final arbiter as to whether these activities are physically demanding enough to be trained through constitution skill points
As an extra aside, I feel fighters get severely shafted. To me, the fighter is the educated warrior, the one who actually spends time learning tactics, military history, a combatant who is knowledgeable and skilled. 2 ranks barely reflects this and unfortunately pigeonholes the fighter into 'dumb meat' territory. With this system, they'd be able to invest in those other skills without sacrificing their ability to navigate dungeons without having to use their magical counterparts as crutches (can I have a fly spell, please?) I confess this is less of a suggestion and more just me kinda throwing my opinion out there.
I played in a Call of Cthulhu game that treated skills in a similar way. How you calculated your skill point allotment depended in part on your profession (which was a very loose "Class" category). Mentally-demanding professions like Writer or Professor had you use Intelligence to calculate your skill points, while more physically-demanding professions like Police Officer or Carpenter let you choose either Dex or Str to calculate your skill points.
I like your system, but in a game that also uses the Background Skill system (and it's my belief that no game should ever NOT use the Background Skills system), it could wind up being way too many skills in some cases. Take a Rogue, who gets 8+Int skills. Add 2 skill ranks for background skills, and with no investment to Int whatsoever, it's getting 10 skill ranks per level. Say he gives himself a 14 Int and 14 Con - not an unreasonable expenditure for a Rogue - and now you're looking at 14 skills per level. Sure, 4 of those skill points have rules for where they can be spent, but a Fighter still isn't going to invest Int, and he's most likely not going to have more than a 16 in Con, which gives him 7 skill points - 5 of which have rules for where they can be spent. Meanwhile, that Wizard might have a 12 in Con, giving HIM an extra skill point as well.
It looks like most of your motivation for this system is to help Fighters get more skill ranks. I think something as simple as [2 + Str or Dex skill ranks per level] would be all you need. It might not make as much sense explaining how his bulging quads helped him practice his Bluff skill, but you could explain it as "his physical prowess cuts down his time needed to practice physical skills, and gives him more time than normal to practice mental/social skills".
Another system that I thought of while writing this is a sort of Weapon Training for Skill categories. At level A, choose a skill category. You gain a +B bonus in all trained skills in this category. Every C levels thereafter, choose another skill category. You gain a +B bonus in this category as well. In addition, each category previously chosen receives an additional +D bonus. Any skill that you become trained in after selecting a category it belongs to receives this bonus retroactively.
This system could help shore up the numbers, letting a Fighter put fewer ranks into more skills, and still having those skills keep up with other classes who have enough skill ranks to max them out. Alternatively, a Fighter could max out a small number of skills and be unparalleled in them. "The Crimson Blade is unmatched with the sword, and his Diplomacy skills are as honed as his signature weapon."
It flatters me that this topic has been as popular as it has.
Oh, btw lily, if you haven't seen already, I have shared an interactive map that I was building of my city, as promised. You can find it in the Spicing Up Urban Campaigns thread.
Thanks for dusting off the thread, thank you very much! I had missed, in the pre-holiday crunch, your post. (LOL, I almost missed the dust off -- thank you, Cuup, for responding when you did.)
Aldrius, can you link the campaign thread, pretty please?
As for your system, I'd look harder at the Background Skills system. You could set your list of Background Skills to the list you give here for Con-based skills. Otherwise, you're going to see a lot more characters with high HP & Fort, because they want Con for skills. (I do warn against including Perform, regardless of reality, due to its massive effects for bards.)
My own list of Background Skills:
• Appraise
• Climb
• Craft (any)
• Handle Animal
• Knowledge (engineering)
• Knowledge (geography)
• Knowledge (history)
• Knowledge (local)
• Knowledge (nobility or martial)
• Linguistics
• Profession (any)
• Ride
• Swim
You can see that my focus wasn't on how the skill might be learned, but rather on whether combat-focused players would put points into it. I think it's resulting in better-rounded characters without a huge amount of skill bloat.
{PS: If you go with your Con-based idea, I think Sleight of Hand should be on your list. It's on the Unchained Background Skills list, btw, but I took it off along with Perform because they're so class-specific. I added Climb, Knowledge (local), Ride, and Swim to the published list.}
Cuup: Appreciate the feedback, Cuup. Skill rank bloating is something I was taking into consideration, definitely, and I am fond of the Background Skill rules.
lily: Here ya go!
https://www.sendspace.com/file/06086i
As a friendly reminder, you need top open this file using Maptool, version 4.0.0.0.
Download link: http://download.rptools.net/zip/maptool-1.4.0.0.zip
Aldrius, thank you for (linkified)
>> campaign
which needs
>> MapTool v. 4.0.0.0. -- note clicking this triggers the download right away
I thought I downloaded MapTool correctly, although I had to go back to get the correct version. (I automatically grabbed the most recent one to begin with.) Nonetheless, I'm having trouble opening your campaign. I'm really tired, though, so I'll try again later.
Odd. You have Java, correct? If not, Maptool may not open.
This is the knowledge list I like to use with an explanation of what each knowledge skill is capable of identifying. I also find that we use all of these knowledge skills in our role playing at one point or the other. I also tend to tell the group if your player doesn't have it has a knowledge, craft, or a skill he doesn't know it. So the list helps to define what they know and don't know.
Knowledge Skills
Arcana
1) No longer identifies spellwork, spell effects. These have been moved to spellcraft checks.
2) Identifies magical components, properties, and chemicals.
3) Identifies dragons, constructs, and magical beasts. 4) Identifies magical history, lore, traditions and information. 5) Identifies magical runes, writing, languages, symbols and text. 6) identifies magical rituals, afflictions (curses, possession, lycanthropy) 7) Astrological information
Dungeoneering
1) Identifies underground creatures and oozes/slimes/fungus.
2) Used to identify underground civilizations, regions, myths, folklore, and history. 3) Identifies underground geography, flora, and fauna.
4) Identifies minerals, non-magical metals, and other natural underground resources and hazards. 5) Underground survival, spelunking, recognizing hazardous conditions, safe drinking water and food.
Engineering
1) Technological, Architectural, and Mechanical subjects.
2) Building of structures, aqueducts, bridges, fortifications, homes, castles, and underground complexes.
3) Identify constructs, robots, and mechanical creatures.
4) Identify how a trap works (not locate or sense a trap).
Geography
1) Read and amend maps.
2) Used to identify humanoids and monstrous humanoids.
3) Used to identify lands, terrain, climate, and weather conditions.
4) Used to identify people, culture, social customs and traditions.
5) Used to identify common social myths and folk lore. 6) Used for astronomical information 7) Used to identify crops and farming conditions.
History
1) Used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of historical figures, monsters associated with ancient civilizations.
2) Identify mythological creatures, dragons, and creatures that have historical significance.
3) Wars, colonies, migrations, founding of cities.
4) History of nations, kingdoms, famous people and locations.
Local
1) Local customs, laws, and traditions
2) Local law enforcement, political leaders, religious leaders, and military
3) Local merchants, inns, people of influence, trouble makers.
4) Locations of importance. Locations of festivals, trading, romantic interludes.
5) Local rumors and information
6) Local Guilds, Merchant companies, reputation of merchants/guilds. 7) Identify humanoids.
Military
1) Military history customs, courtesies and traditions.
2) Military ranks and structures.
3) Military tactics, doctrine and strategies. History of battles, major engagements, and wars.
4) Military siege equipment and siege tactics and strategy
5) Military logistics, training, and gathering information on your opponent.
6) Military races.
Nature
1) Identify animals, fey, monstrous humanoids, plants.
2) Identify climate, weather, seasons.
3) Farming, planting, livestock.
4) Identify fresh water and edible plants.
5) Druidic orders and traditions.
6) First Realm, Fey Realm myth and folklore
Nobility
1) Noble lineages, heraldry, customs, traditions, and courtesies.
2) Royal and Noble history.
3) Rumors and gossip among court.
4) Laws, diplomacy, kingdom history.
Occult
1) Identify aberrations and ancient outsiders, undead, alien lifeforms.
2) Identify strange rituals, cults, and practices.
3) Summoning of creatures, Great Old Ones, Outer Gods, and similar creatures.
4) Obscure religions and practices. Apocalyptic history/myth.
5) Psychic magic, lore, components, properties.
6) Languages, symbols, runes and texts tied to these items.
Planes
1)Inner and Outer Planes. Astral and Ethereal planes.
2)Outsiders.
3) Summoning, Possession, banishment of outsiders.
4) Myth and History of the planes.
Religion
1) Identifies outsiders, specifically those associated with Gods and religion. Undead. 2) Identifies myths, folklores, religious customs, and religious rituals, holy symbols.
3) Identifies clerical components, properties, and chemicals.
4) Identifies clerical runes, writing, text, and languages.
5) Astrological information, mythic history, religious history, ecclesiastic traditions.
6) Identifies magical rituals, afflictions (curses, possession, lycanthropy)
AllenDm
Odd. You have Java, correct? If not, Maptool may not open.
I'll have to check with my husband about accessing Java -- I thought we have it. And MapTool looks like it's opening, although I haven't tried to play around with it.
Allen: While your list is thorough in the topics it covers, it's a bit difficult to digest so many different skills, and it also means the party may find itself unable to expend all the skill points needed to properly act on it. Their knowledge would simply be spread far too thin. Other than that, it's a good list for categorizing, and perhaps if your campaign is more setting-focused than others it might work as a way to pick-and-choose. I do agree with your notion that profession and craft skills should be capable of being used in place of some knowledge rolls, such as using alchemy to identify a particular type of poisonous plant rather than knowledge (nature).
@lily: Yeah, gonna need to play with it for a while. To open the campaign, you gotta open Maptool, select 'file', and then open the campaign file from there. That might be why you couldn't open it before.