Reworking Knowledge Skills

[PD]

I was thinking of radically changing how Knowledge skills work.

1) Scrap all Knowledge skills
2) Add the following skills: Lore, Streetwise
3) For 1 skill point, a character can buy a Knowledge. Having an applicable knowledge gives +5 to a relevant skill roll when trying to recall information. E.g. Knowledge *(Sandpoint), Knowledge (Forests), Knowledge (Abjuration), Knowledge (Chelaxian Nobility), Knowledge (Outsiders). A relevant knowledge can also add +2 complimentary bonus to relevant non-Lore skill checks (e.g. Knowledge (Abjuration) when using Spellcraft to identify a spell from that school).
4) PCs without a relevant Knowledge cannot Take 10 on a Lore check.

Arcana - use Lore (for pure information) or Spellcraft
Dungeoneering - Lore or Survival with relevant knowledge
Engineering - Lore
Geography - Lore
History - Lore
Local - Streetwise (or Diplomacy for gather information)
Nature - Lore or Survival
Nobility - Lore or Diplomacy
Planes - Lore or Spellcraft
Religion - Lore

Because Lore can be used unskilled, it is possible that PCs could now make Lore rolls where previously they wouldn't be able to. As such, a GM can rule that certain checks require a relevant specialism before a roll can be made.

Thoughts?

p.s. I'm also considering treating professions and crafts in the same way, but less sure about that.

[PD]

Anyone? haha guess not :)

[Setorines]

I dont feel like the knowledge skill system right now is broken or needs fixing. Perhaps the whole skill system in general, but not the knowledge skill.

[hallows99]

Here is something that I do.
Knowledge skill specialties:
For every knowledge skill you have, you can gain 1+ Int. Mod. worth of specialties
A specialtiy grants you +2 to any skill roll pertaining to that specialty. By its nature,
a specialty has to be pretty specific. For example, If you have arcana you could choose
Divine spells, Magical Symbols, dragons, etc...but not Spells, Symbols, or monsters.
When you add a skill rank you can choose to add +2 to a specialty instead of the overall rank.
You can choose to add your additional int. bonus to an exsisting specialtiy; each additional
Int. Modifier added to specialty gives you an additional +1.
So example:
Kelzan has an int. of 14 and the religion knowledge skill. He has the option of gaining 3 specialties within
the religion KS. He chooses undead and ancient cults. Instead of picking a third specialty, he chooses
to bump his undead skill by 1. So, when making a religion KS dealing with the undead he would add +3 to
his role. +2 if if it were roll on ancient cults.

[Rub-Eta]

I don't see the point of your system. It's just changing the name from Knowledge to Lore.

PD wrote:

Because Lore can be used unskilled, it is possible that PCs could now make Lore rolls where previously they wouldn't be able to.

Is this something good? Should a Barbarian be able to know anything within the 20 DC range? That's a house rule that can easily be applied to knowledge checks as well.

It makes players have to spend more skill ranks or settle with knowing less (since you specify the instances of Lore much more than Knowledge does).
Unless you mean that you only can/need to spend one rank in each for a +2/+5 bonus in other skills/checks.

If later is the case, I don't understand why even bother removing knowledge skills. Then you're just making a seperate system that boosts skills.

Streetwise isn't needed, that's what you use Diplomacy for. If you don't like the way anybody with ranks in Knowledge Local can know a city first time visiting, remove that skill and make the players use Diplomacy instead.

[PD]

There are a few reasons I'm keen to make this change.
1) Knowledge (local) is broken. It's silly. It doesn't mean anything. Splitting up this way provides for Knowing things (lore) coupled with local or racial knowledge to give more subtle distinctions to PCs knowledge abilities.

2) Diplomacy and Streetwise, conceptually, feels very far apart to me and most RPGs treat them as such. Further, by splitting out Streetwise it means Rogues in particular can have knowledge of the dark underbelly of society without having to bulk up Lore skill, and they can be adept at gathering information without needing to be a master diplomat.

3) Skills don't have equal value. OK, this alone doesn't fix that, but I think Knowledge +1 is worth significantly less than Stealth +1 or Perception +1. This is a way to meet high Knowledge DCs without having to sink 1 rank every level.

I'm actually quite happy for a Barbarian to occasionally randomly know stuff. Most Knowledge rolls in the game fall into one of two camps: they give a bonus on a subsequent action, or they provide additional clues or context. Nothing game breaking in either case, so if occasionally the Barbarian pops up with something he vaguely remembers hearing in a tribal moot, it just helps move the game forward.

Rub-Eta, I think you've misunderstood my suggestion though. My fault for poor presentation. It's ONE Lore skill, and the list was illustrating how the previous Knowledge skills would equate to either Lore or, in a few instances, another skill. In other words, where you previously made a Knowledge (Nobility) check, now you might make a Lore check (or Diplomacy or Streetwise or Profession or anything else you can argue effectively with your DM) instead, and potentially have the benefit of a specific Knowledge that your character has picked up, such as Knowledge (Nobles of Varisia)