I'd like to humble request that a) knowledge dungeoneering be changed to knowledge exploring and broadened in its monster knowledge, overlap with another knowledge is no problem, as long as its not complete overlap.
and b) when you do up your Paizo Monster Manual, add a little knowledge sidebar to all of the monster entries. I like to make knowledge skills relevant in my game, and if Paizo helped me out that would rock!!
|
My campaign is the exact opposite. We see the knowledge skills as the divide between player knowledge and PC knowledge. We use those skills to fill in plot holes, navigate through towns, prep for social encounters, pinpoint monster weaknesses, make creative work of terrain, etc. We can't get enough skills to cover our class basics and know enough about the world.
Mike Mearls's Iron Heroes had an interesting system for linking knowledge skills. It was a little cumbersome but the idea was that you can't be an expert on History without knowing something about architecture, can't be a master of architecture without knowing something of the nobility that designed it, or the geography that influenced it's design, etc.
I have always found that the knowledge system was the one great failing of the 3.0/3.5 skill set. It was a huge jump in the right direction from 2nd Ed, but it didn't quite make it. My understanding of 4.0 is that they have done away with the set entirely, melding the knowledge skills in with appropriate crunch skills (Nobility&Royalty with Diplomacy, etc). Maybe this is the solution, or maybe there is another way to open up the field on these very useful and underrated skills. I'd like to see them used for more than a synergy bonus...
-Ryn, who knows too much
My campaign is the exact opposite. We see the knowledge skills as the divide between player knowledge and PC knowledge. We use those skills to fill in plot holes, navigate through towns, prep for social encounters, pinpoint monster weaknesses, make creative work of terrain, etc.
No, yeah, so do I, I would just like some of the results (or sample results of checks given in the MM, for simplicities sake, as it is in the core books, it took me awhile to get the hang of the system. Some simplicity and examples would make it easier for new players to get the system, and knowledge can be an excellent system, especially with all the extra skills in Pathfinder, this gives players somewhere to put them.
I would like to see monster entries with a Knowledge check DC, as opposed to the basic formula. While the basic formula (10+CR) works in some cases, it doesn't account for the "What the heck is a flumph?" aspect of rarity and oddity, and it becomes more difficult in cases of creatures with multiple CRs ("What do I have to roll to know that this blue dragon is going to breathe lightning? Is it based off his actual CR, or is it based off the lowest CR where he gets that ability?").
I’m in a bit of a quandary about Knowledge. This seems to be the one area that could definitely use improvement, but I am hard pressed to say how. Whereas many other skills are getting combined, more and more Knowledge types seem to have been added. We almost need a whole separate skill list for different types of Knowledge.
I agree that Knowledge as a skill is necessary to separate Player and Character knowledge. However, if it’s a skill, it implies some degree of training (reading a book about Dragons, for example). But the reality is that most of the knowledge the characters obtain after first level is obtained passively – i.e. it is a function of experience.
Wouldn’t an experience based knowledge value be better? The higher the character’s level, the more likely he is to know something? This would be for any general knowledge, including “dungeoneering” (after all, this is the primary focus of the characters’ attention while adventuring and the whole representation of “experience”). Presumably, all other areas are “trained only,” and infer some sort of study to acquire greater knowledge.
I personally just roll bunch of Knowledge skills (History, Nobility, Local, Monsters) into a Knowledge (World) and everyone's happy.
I understand the reason for specialized Knowledge. Anybody who wants to can study Arcana if they have the books, but only someone with the relevent class is going to. Therefore, it's probably that most characters will be mostly ignorant of Arcana. The same goes for History, nature, nobility, the planes, etc.
However, Dungeoneering? How does one study Dungeoneering without experiencing it? And, therefore, aren't all adventurers experiencing Dungeoneering? Why is it a class skill for Wizard and cross-classed for Sorcerer? That seems a bit arbitrary. Okay, I can see why a Lothar of the Hill People might not have any experience in dungeoneering … until he starts adventuring with the Wizard and Rogue and Fighter. I think he’ll have no trouble remembering to watch out for traps or not to wake the sleeping dragon.
My point: Dungeoneering should be a class skill for all PCs, and, therefore, doesn’t really make a lot of sense as a skill.