| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I raise this question in response to lack of skills for many classes (ie, Fighter, Paladin, Cleric, etc): Should the knowledges (arcana, engineering, nature, religion, etc) require "training" to use? Why does my Fighter, a student of war, suffer in basics tactics and strategy? How come my Cleric, who spent years training under the tutelage of a monastery/temple/church, knows nothing about other religions or even his deity's realm of residence?
Now, imagine a world where "bardic knowledge" was applied to every class, to a set of knowledge skills pertinent to that class. Ie, a Ranger would be good at Dungeoneering, Nature, maybe Local, without having to spend skill points; whereas a Cleric would have innate understanding of Religion, History, and even the Planes without letting his Diplomacy or Heal skill suffer. Instead of having to spend a skill point to train in this skill, they would both receive a bonus based on class level (not unlike Bard, perhaps even 1/2 level), and apply other modifiers from there.
Here, it can be re-limited: Fighters may only benefit from 1 or 2 knowledge skills, while Wizards and Bards would still receive bonuses to a majority of knowledge checks. Classes like Clerics and Rogues (which have other skills they can allocate their points to) wouldn't suffer as harshly on even the simplest knowledge DCs.
TL;DR: why must I spend my precious skill points to "train" in something I should most likely already have access to? Why not make it an innate class bonus?
What do the rest of you think? Is this worth play-testing?
I raise this question in response to lack of skills for many classes (ie, Fighter, Paladin, Cleric, etc): Should the knowledges (arcana, engineering, nature, religion, etc) require "training" to use? Why does my Fighter, a student of war, suffer in basics tactics and strategy? How come my Cleric, who spent years training under the tutelage of a monastery/temple/church, knows nothing about other religions or even his deity's realm of residence?
Tactics and strategy coudl be profesion (soldier. And if you want your cleric to know about religion then spent in the skill (I would give the cleric a bonus to know about his religion though)
The real problem is :
There shoudl not be classes with only 2 skill pint per level
I agree with you on principle (i give people make rolls untrained—or grant bonuses if they have ranks—in things that especially relate to them), but I disagree about the clerics. I see no reason why a devout priest would study a religion he doesn't believe in any more than a layperson would. If anything, he might be less inclined.
If your characters exist in a world where education isn't freely available or widely spread, especially on the weird creatures and situations that adventurers would run across daily (Why would a farmer's son need to know what a mimic was?), it makes sense for them to have to invest themselves to learn about dragons, military tactics, noble politics, etc.
Remember, you can make Knowledge checks under DC 10 untrained, and can Take 10 on Knowledge checks when you're not distacted.
So as long as you have an Int of at least 10, you should know any basic information. What other common religion's symbols look like and their basic tenets, common animals and monsters with a CR of less than 1, basic engineering (well if I pull this rod out everything comes tumbling down...ain't Jenga fun?), etc.
Ranks represents specialized knowledge, meaning you have the capability to know about things beyond the basic.
It's a decent analogue to real life. Everybody knows what gravity is, and the basics behind the theory of Evolution.
Not everyone is a physicist or an evolutionary biologist, however.
If your characters exist in a world where education isn't freely available or widely spread...
This is the thing that I considered the most obstructive reason why Knowledges cant be real "education"-based: There really is no such thing as public schooling or free education (beyond "on-the-job" training haha), so I would understand this being a reasonable counter argument.
A world where bardic knowledge is made does exist, some what. It's called 4th Ed...
While trying to avoid 4th E, I have been impresssed with certain aspects of it; this is something I think I could look into.
Remember, you can make Knowledge checks under DC 10 untrained, and can Take 10 on Knowledge checks when you're not distacted.
While I admit, I always forget about taking 10 on knowledge checks, I find it frustrating when I fail a DC 10 check (which could still happen, it being a stressful situation or combat) because I couldn't roll above an 11 (assuming min/max Ftr or Clr with Int 8).
It seems that the majority of newer classes (Cavalier, Gunslinger, Alchemist, to name a few) tend to have a higher base of skill points than comparable classes (Paladin, Fighter, Wizard, respectively), and it makes me wonder if perhaps Paizo dev's tried to rectify this with the newer classes... but that theory hasn't been fully tested, so I'd be interested in any feedback on that as well.
Finally,
Plus it would mean the 2 skill point/level classes aren't as terrible when out of combat.
...is my point. I personally tend to avoid classes that lack out-of-combat options, and this only seems like a minor fix to a much bigger issue to me. I'd like to try play-testing it as a house rule, but if anyone has personal experience with such a style please let me know!
Philosophically I think 'knowledge' should be something that you gain from things as packages of information much like feats. Game-wise I'm not sure how to implement knowledge in that kind of way without it being tedious.
The religion point is one that I disagree with too. Unless the priest is a scholar of religion, they aren't going to know much more than the basics. How many Catholic priests really know more than what's considered "common knowledge" about Islam? A handful, I'm sure, but probably not many.
As of the knowledge skill roll, unless it's knowledge that's completely not germane to anything going on, I usually let the knowledge roll indicate how much time it takes to uncover information that's important, if that knowledge is "needed" for the story to continue on. For example if the party absolutely has to know that an abandoned temple is was used for x purpose long ago, I'll let the roll determine how long it takes to uncover that info. If they roll poorly it may take days, if they roll middling; hours, and if they roll extremely high, it takes minutes. Since time is of the essence in most cases, PCs will work together, find all the materials they can to help get bonuses to the roll, etc, all of which falls neatly into an easy story fix. The bard remembers hearing an old ballad about the temple which mentions <geographical anomaly>, in turn the dwarven fighter with geography digs up an old map that shows something like it, and then the rogue with local knowledge puts them all together to remember an old spot they used to pass when they were younger.
I always give PCs a chance to roll an unskilled check if it makes sense, such as the fighter and tactics, but remember, just because a soldier knows how to march in line and flank something, doesn't make them Patton. ;)