High DC Knowledge checks

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:3bmppcF6k40n2U1@individual.net...
> Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>> Mere moments before death, Malachias Invictus hastily scrawled:
>>> "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in
>>> message news:3bli2cF6jmiv8U1@individual.net...
>>>
>>>> That being the case, how exactly would not being under pressure
>>>> allow you to apply that skill
>>>> more reliably?
>>>
>>> Let's see: is it easier to remember something you read in a book
>>> when being attacked by demons, or when sitting quietly in your study?
>>
>> And if you were attacked by demons while trying to recall a particular
>> fact, would that make it impossible for you to know that fact later?
>> And if you don't know something now, why is it you can never learn
>> that fact even if you train further in that field of study? What is
>> it the knowledge skill ranks are representing, if not learning things?
>
> Certainly, a very sensible houserule would be to allow retries after an
> increase in skill ranks.
>
> It does seem that there is nothing in the rules against taking 10, but it
> definitely throws up some logical inconsistencies when combined with the
> 'no
> retries' rule. I guess the basic fix would be to rewrite the 'Re-try' part
> of the skill description to:
>
> "Yes, but only by taking 10, or after adding new ranks to the skill."
>
> That allows for the "can't remember under pressure" factor.

That seems like a very sensible house rule.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 7 Apr 2005 20:38:33 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb)
scribed into the ether:

>In article <pu5b51leqhontf3g8mtv6mvd8vn05e7qs6@4ax.com>,
>Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>Found this...3.0 PHB, Page 62.
>
>OK, but if it's not repeated in 3.5 it no longer applies (except for rule 0).

Just making the note for clarity, since even if the text is repeated, it is
likely not on the same page number. Wouldn't want a bunch of people running
to their 3.5 books and then bitching me out cause they couldn't find it

>>The normal take 10 rules apply for ability checks that are routine
>>untrained skill checks (such as jumping but not disguising yourself) or
>>when there is no skill associated with the check. The normal take 20 rules
>>apply to all ability checks.
>>
>>That's not really it, since we are talking about making a trained check,
>>and not just an ability roll vs int...but it is as close as I could find.
>
>Actually that could imply that trained-only skills like Knowledge don't get to
>Take 10. Because a presumption if someone mentions a special case only is
>that the general case is different -- "the exception proves (the existence of)
>the rule".

Well, like I said, it's the closest I could find.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3bmppcF6k40n2U1@individual.net...
>
>>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>>
>>>Mere moments before death, Malachias Invictus hastily scrawled:
>>>
>>>>"Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in
>>>>message news:3bli2cF6jmiv8U1@individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That being the case, how exactly would not being under pressure
>>>>>allow you to apply that skill
>>>>>more reliably?
>>>>
>>>>Let's see: is it easier to remember something you read in a book
>>>>when being attacked by demons, or when sitting quietly in your study?
>>>
>>>And if you were attacked by demons while trying to recall a particular
>>>fact, would that make it impossible for you to know that fact later?
>>>And if you don't know something now, why is it you can never learn
>>>that fact even if you train further in that field of study? What is
>>>it the knowledge skill ranks are representing, if not learning things?
>>
>>Certainly, a very sensible houserule would be to allow retries after an
>>increase in skill ranks.
>>
>>It does seem that there is nothing in the rules against taking 10, but it
>>definitely throws up some logical inconsistencies when combined with the
>>'no
>>retries' rule. I guess the basic fix would be to rewrite the 'Re-try' part
>>of the skill description to:
>>
>>"Yes, but only by taking 10, or after adding new ranks to the skill."
>>
>>That allows for the "can't remember under pressure" factor.
>
>
> That seems like a very sensible house rule.

I'd go further, and allow retries when external factors grant additional
bonuses to the skill that weren't present before.

For example, I couldn't remember what sort of demon it was while it was
attacking me, nor could I remember it when we had time to rest and catch
oour breath.

Now, I've got access to a book on demonology, so that should help, no?
Ah, but the book doens't list this demon type.

So I get another shot at it when I travel to Honest Ivan's Infernal
Bestiary and Petting Zoo and talk to the handlers and see the exhibits.

Lots of DM intervention here, but I'd rather make it DM heavy. The
other option is to let the rules mis-model how knowledge and learning
seem to work.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Serhienko wrote:

>
>
> I'd go further, and allow retries when external factors grant additional
> bonuses to the skill that weren't present before.
>
> For example, I couldn't remember what sort of demon it was while it was
> attacking me, nor could I remember it when we had time to rest and catch
> oour breath.
>
> Now, I've got access to a book on demonology, so that should help, no?
> Ah, but the book doens't list this demon type.
>
> So I get another shot at it when I travel to Honest Ivan's Infernal
> Bestiary and Petting Zoo and talk to the handlers and see the exhibits.
>
> Lots of DM intervention here, but I'd rather make it DM heavy. The
> other option is to let the rules mis-model how knowledge and learning
> seem to work.

That really seems to be the core of this. Better to ad-hoc a good
decision here.

CH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, David Serhienko hastily scrawled:
>Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:3bmppcF6k40n2U1@individual.net...
>>>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>>>>Mere moments before death, Malachias Invictus hastily scrawled:
>>>>>"Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>message news:3bli2cF6jmiv8U1@individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>That being the case, how exactly would not being under pressure
>>>>>>allow you to apply that skill
>>>>>>more reliably?
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's see: is it easier to remember something you read in a book
>>>>>when being attacked by demons, or when sitting quietly in your study?
>>>>
>>>>And if you were attacked by demons while trying to recall a particular
>>>>fact, would that make it impossible for you to know that fact later?
>>>>And if you don't know something now, why is it you can never learn
>>>>that fact even if you train further in that field of study? What is
>>>>it the knowledge skill ranks are representing, if not learning things?
>>>
>>>Certainly, a very sensible houserule would be to allow retries after an
>>>increase in skill ranks.
>>>
>>>It does seem that there is nothing in the rules against taking 10, but it
>>>definitely throws up some logical inconsistencies when combined with the
>>>'no
>>>retries' rule. I guess the basic fix would be to rewrite the 'Re-try' part
>>>of the skill description to:
>>>
>>>"Yes, but only by taking 10, or after adding new ranks to the skill."
>>>
>>>That allows for the "can't remember under pressure" factor.
>>
>>
>> That seems like a very sensible house rule.
>
>I'd go further, and allow retries when external factors grant additional
>bonuses to the skill that weren't present before.

I go all the way and just allow retries.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Mark wrote:

>>What on earth would taking 10 on a Knowledge skill represent?
>
> The same thing it does for any other skill: routine use.

It has weird meta-game effects though. If the peice of knowledge is
within reach, then the character automatically knows it if the player
takes 10; if it's harder than that then you've got to avoid taking 10 to
have any chance.

I just can't grok that how well characters having learnt stuff in
the past is based on how well the players guess the DC when it turns up
in game. Other skills are resolving what's happening now, Knowledge is
about what you already know.
You can't retroactively do a routine job of learning things.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock wrote:
>
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> > Mark wrote:
>
> >>What on earth would taking 10 on a Knowledge skill represent?
> >
> > The same thing it does for any other skill: routine use.
>
> It has weird meta-game effects though. If the peice of knowledge is
> within reach, then the character automatically knows it if the player
> takes 10; if it's harder than that then you've got to avoid taking 10 to
> have any chance.
>
> I just can't grok that how well characters having learnt stuff in
> the past is based on how well the players guess the DC when it turns up
> in game.

I don't really like the idea of taking 10 on Knowledge
checks, but if your DM is consistent about assigning
DCs, this shouldn't be a problem. If the Knowledge
check is player-initiated, the player knows what he
wants his character to know and *should* have a pretty
good idea how obscure the knowledge is; he'll take 10
if it's reasonably sure to be within his character's
range of knowledge, and roll for it if chances are
better that it's obscure enough to require a roll of
11+. If, on the other hand, the Knowledge check is
DM-initiated (as most are in my experience), the player
probably has no clue why the check is even being called
for, so he has no idea what the DC is likely to be, so
he'll just have to roll for it anyway.

Really, the only time the character's success will be
dependent on the player's "guess" is when the player
underestimates the obscurity of the knowledge he hopes
to have...in which case, it's his own fault (and not
much different, in my opinion, from underestimating
your opponent's AC when deciding to use your Power
Attack feat; you pays your nickel and you takes your
chances). Unless, of course, your DM is pulling the
DCs out of his ass.

-Bluto

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Serhienko wrote:
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:3bmppcF6k40n2U1@individual.net...
>>
>>> Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mere moments before death, Malachias Invictus hastily scrawled:
>>>>
>>>>> "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in
>>>>> message news:3bli2cF6jmiv8U1@individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> That being the case, how exactly would not being under pressure
>>>>>> allow you to apply that skill
>>>>>> more reliably?
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's see: is it easier to remember something you read in a book
>>>>> when being attacked by demons, or when sitting quietly in your
>>>>> study?
>>>>
>>>> And if you were attacked by demons while trying to recall a
>>>> particular fact, would that make it impossible for you to know
>>>> that fact later? And if you don't know something now, why is it
>>>> you can never learn that fact even if you train further in that
>>>> field of study? What is it the knowledge skill ranks are
>>>> representing, if not learning things?
>>>
>>> Certainly, a very sensible houserule would be to allow retries
>>> after an increase in skill ranks.
>>>
>>> It does seem that there is nothing in the rules against taking 10,
>>> but it definitely throws up some logical inconsistencies when
>>> combined with the 'no
>>> retries' rule. I guess the basic fix would be to rewrite the
>>> 'Re-try' part of the skill description to:
>>>
>>> "Yes, but only by taking 10, or after adding new ranks to the
>>> skill."
>>>
>>> That allows for the "can't remember under pressure" factor.
>>
>>
>> That seems like a very sensible house rule.
>
> I'd go further, and allow retries when external factors grant
> additional bonuses to the skill that weren't present before.
>
> For example, I couldn't remember what sort of demon it was while it
> was attacking me, nor could I remember it when we had time to rest
> and catch oour breath.
>
> Now, I've got access to a book on demonology, so that should help, no?
> Ah, but the book doens't list this demon type.
>
> So I get another shot at it when I travel to Honest Ivan's Infernal
> Bestiary and Petting Zoo and talk to the handlers and see the
> exhibits.

Are the last two even Knowledge checks? The book check has little to do with
your current ranks in the skill - if the book includes a description of the
demon, you can identify it, if it doesn't you can't. And talking to the
handlers at the zoo is definitely a Gather Information check.

--
Mark.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:
> David Serhienko wrote:
>
>>
>>I'd go further, and allow retries when external factors grant
>>additional bonuses to the skill that weren't present before.
>>
>>For example, I couldn't remember what sort of demon it was while it
>>was attacking me, nor could I remember it when we had time to rest
>>and catch oour breath.
>>
>>Now, I've got access to a book on demonology, so that should help, no?
>>Ah, but the book doens't list this demon type.
>>
>>So I get another shot at it when I travel to Honest Ivan's Infernal
>>Bestiary and Petting Zoo and talk to the handlers and see the
>>exhibits.
>
>
> Are the last two even Knowledge checks? The book check has little to do with
> your current ranks in the skill - if the book includes a description of the
> demon, you can identify it, if it doesn't you can't. And talking to the
> handlers at the zoo is definitely a Gather Information check.


I've seen write-ups for mundane books in "official" sources
(particularly those associated with Living Greyhawk). Usually they are
described as giving "+2 to Knowledge(xxx) checks." It helps the DM
figure out if the information is in a book without having to flesh out
every detail of every book.

I think your ranks in the skill do have a reflection on what you can get
out of a book. I doubt my psychology-major roommate would be able to
get any more out of my advanced computer textbooks than I'd get out of
his psychology books.

And as for the Zoo-keeper, I think the Knowledge skill is still
something of a factor. You get so much more information out of a
specialist if you know the jargon yourself. But you may be right- maybe
the appropriate call is a Gather Information check with a synergy bonus
for Knowledge(the planes) or other appropriate skill.

-Tialan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Tialan wrote:
> Mark Blunden wrote:
>
>> David Serhienko wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'd go further, and allow retries when external factors grant
>>> additional bonuses to the skill that weren't present before.
>>>
>>> For example, I couldn't remember what sort of demon it was while it
>>> was attacking me, nor could I remember it when we had time to rest
>>> and catch oour breath.
>>>
>>> Now, I've got access to a book on demonology, so that should help, no?
>>> Ah, but the book doens't list this demon type.
>>>
>>> So I get another shot at it when I travel to Honest Ivan's Infernal
>>> Bestiary and Petting Zoo and talk to the handlers and see the
>>> exhibits.
>>
>>
>>
>> Are the last two even Knowledge checks? The book check has little to
>> do with
>> your current ranks in the skill - if the book includes a description
>> of the
>> demon, you can identify it, if it doesn't you can't. And talking to the
>> handlers at the zoo is definitely a Gather Information check.

Possibly, but see below.

> I've seen write-ups for mundane books in "official" sources
> (particularly those associated with Living Greyhawk). Usually they are
> described as giving "+2 to Knowledge(xxx) checks." It helps the DM
> figure out if the information is in a book without having to flesh out
> every detail of every book.

I was assuming that books aren't really encyclopedic the way we tend to
want them to be these days, but rather page upon page of semi-organized
observations, comments and speculations, in whatever order the author
decided to put them down.

> I think your ranks in the skill do have a reflection on what you can get
> out of a book. I doubt my psychology-major roommate would be able to
> get any more out of my advanced computer textbooks than I'd get out of
> his psychology books.

S'what I was thinking. I wouldn't expect to find, in my notional
demonoly text, an index, glossary, table of contents, etc. I especially
wouln't expect Monster Manual style entries for each possible variant of
the demons. Rather, I would expect them to be arranged by some
categorization method that seemed obvious to the author: Demons with
Bad Odor, Demons which smell even worse, and Demons which smell so bad
you'd be better just choking yourself.

> And as for the Zoo-keeper, I think the Knowledge skill is still
> something of a factor. You get so much more information out of a
> specialist if you know the jargon yourself. But you may be right- maybe
> the appropriate call is a Gather Information check with a synergy bonus
> for Knowledge(the planes) or other appropriate skill.

Yeah, probably that was a bad example of a situation where a knowledge
check might be allowed to be re-rolled, but the principle stands, I'd
think.

Anytime you are in a situation which would grant a new circumstance
bonus, I'd allow a new knowledge check.

Eventually, given enough aids, you'll remember the info (if the DM
doesn't attack you with a squad of crack suicide goblin ninjas for
slowing down the game, first).

DWS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Tialan <shalahhr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I've seen write-ups for mundane books in "official" sources
> (particularly those associated with Living Greyhawk). Usually they
> are described as giving "+2 to Knowledge(xxx) checks." It helps the
> DM figure out if the information is in a book without having to flesh
> out every detail of every book.

It is an easier way to handle it. There seems to be some dispute over
just how much material is needed, though -- LG says 'a book',
_Stronghold Builders_ says 'library unit' (IIRC) and allows higher
bonuses for more library.


I once considered a (Cthulhu-style) knowledge system where each
book/source of knowledge had a level and a rating. The level indicated
how much you needed to know about the subject already in order to gain
benefit from the book, the rating indicated how much you could learn by
studying the book. For each step you were away from the book's level,
the rating was decreased. If you were too low you didn't know enough to
understand the material well, if you were too high you already knew it.

This was for 2e, so using a percentage system made the numbers work
better than using percentages in 3e would (because percentage in 3e is
used for things you have no control over).

Anyway, once you successfully studied the book (Int check) you could
roll the rating and add it to your score. You could restudy the book
and reroll, but could only benefit to the maximum of the rating. That
is, if you had 50 points and read a d8 book, and rolled a 2, you could
restudy and reroll, replacing the 2 with a higher value.

If you read it when below the level, you could roll the reduced rating.
As your knowledge went up, you could restudy (possibly with the ability
to roll better ratings as you improved).

For practical purposes if you were more than 3-5 levels away from the
book's level (where 'your level' measures your knowledge, not character
level) the book was more or less unusable.

> I think your ranks in the skill do have a reflection on what you can get
> out of a book. I doubt my psychology-major roommate would be able to
> get any more out of my advanced computer textbooks than I'd get out of
> his psychology books.
>
> And as for the Zoo-keeper, I think the Knowledge skill is still
> something of a factor. You get so much more information out of a
> specialist if you know the jargon yourself. But you may be right- maybe
> the appropriate call is a Gather Information check with a synergy bonus
> for Knowledge(the planes) or other appropriate skill.

Assuming you can convince him to help (Diplomacy, Gather Information,
Knowledge could each by the skill used with possibly synergy from the
others, depending how you try to do this) the Zookeeper might make a
Knowledge check to see if he knows, or do Aid Other with his Knowledge
skill to help you with yours... or vice-versa.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
> Tialan <shalahhr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I've seen write-ups for mundane books in "official" sources
>>(particularly those associated with Living Greyhawk). Usually they
>>are described as giving "+2 to Knowledge(xxx) checks." It helps the
>>DM figure out if the information is in a book without having to flesh
>>out every detail of every book.
>
>
> It is an easier way to handle it. There seems to be some dispute over
> just how much material is needed, though -- LG says 'a book',
> _Stronghold Builders_ says 'library unit' (IIRC) and allows higher
> bonuses for more library.

You're correct. The Stronghold Builder's Guidebook says a standard
"book lot" grants a +2 bonus. A book lot being roughly one half of a
basic library's capacity, and one sixth the capacity of a luxury library.

Now that I think about it, though, the Living Greyhawk bonuses for a
single book tend to be restricted to specific subjects within a
knowledge skill. i.e. "Knowledge (arcana) checks involving the Society
for Arcane Defense," "Knowledge (geography) checks involving the
Mountains of Doom," etc. So, you do need more than one book for
comprehensive bonuses.


> I once considered a (Cthulhu-style) knowledge system where each
> book/source of knowledge had a level and a rating. The level indicated
> how much you needed to know about the subject already in order to gain
> benefit from the book, the rating indicated how much you could learn by
> studying the book. For each step you were away from the book's level,
> the rating was decreased. If you were too low you didn't know enough to
> understand the material well, if you were too high you already knew it.

<snip specifics>

Sounds pretty cool. Here are my thoughts on adapting it for 3.5e D&D:

Each book has is associated with a difficulty, bonus, subject, and
condition. The subject is the Knowledge skill covered by the book. The
condition says what specific type of information about the subject that
the book contains. For example, "A History of House Klethira," would
have subject: Nobility and Royalty, and condition: House Klethira. The
book could be used on Knowledge (nobility and royalty) checks, but only
if they involved House Klethira.

The bonus is the bonus you get for consulting the book just before
making a knowledge check. The bonus is reduced by 1 for every 2 ranks
of skill you have away from the difficulty. For example, if "A History
of House Klethira" is difficulty 6 and bonus +2, and I have 4 ranks in
Knowledge (nobility and royalty), using the book only gives me a +1
bonus to my check because the book is a little too advanced for me.
Likewise, if I had 8 ranks, the book would be below my skill level.

You can only gain the bonus from actively consulting the book. Any
benefit gained from reading through the book is assumed to be included
in the next rank you gain in the appropriate Knowledge skill. If you
don't take any more ranks in that skill, it is assumed you never
internalized any of the information.

A comprehensive book could have multiple subjects and conditions, each
with their own associated bonuses and difficulties.

The more subjects and conditions associated with a book, the larger and
more expensive it becomes. Likewise, a larger bonus also implies a
heavier and more expensive book. You can only fit so much knowledge on
a given number of pages.

On a similar note, larger bonuses tend to be associated with narrower
subject and condition.

The last two comments on size, price, and bonus restrictions can be
thrown out in the case of a magical book, of course.

What do you think?

-Tialan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> ...which is as it should be. As it is, Bardic/Loremaster abilities are
>> disgustingly powerful (not that this is a *bad* thing). At last Dundracon I
>> ran a giant 10-person game where the Bard character was basically the key to
>> to figuring out *everything*. He was 19th level, and was regularly busting
>> out upper-30s to 40s Bardic Knowledge checks.
>
> Well, a 19th-level bard has to be useful for
> *something*. ;-)

Zing!
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:3bmppcF6k40n2U1@individual.net...
>>>I guess the basic fix would be to rewrite the 'Re-try' part
>>>of the skill description to:
>>>
>>>"Yes, but only by taking 10, or after adding new ranks to the skill."
>>>
>>>That allows for the "can't remember under pressure" factor.
>>
>> That seems like a very sensible house rule.
>
> I'd go further, and allow retries when external factors grant additional
> bonuses to the skill that weren't present before.

Good ideas, both of you.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Tialan <shalahhr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> Tialan <shalahhr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I've seen write-ups for mundane books in "official" sources
>>>(particularly those associated with Living Greyhawk). Usually they
>>>are described as giving "+2 to Knowledge(xxx) checks." It helps the
>>>DM figure out if the information is in a book without having to flesh
>>>out every detail of every book.
>>
>>
>> It is an easier way to handle it. There seems to be some dispute over
>> just how much material is needed, though -- LG says 'a book',
>> _Stronghold Builders_ says 'library unit' (IIRC) and allows higher
>> bonuses for more library.
>
> You're correct. The Stronghold Builder's Guidebook says a standard
> "book lot" grants a +2 bonus. A book lot being roughly one half of a
> basic library's capacity, and one sixth the capacity of a luxury library.
>
> Now that I think about it, though, the Living Greyhawk bonuses for a
> single book tend to be restricted to specific subjects within a
> knowledge skill. i.e. "Knowledge (arcana) checks involving the Society
> for Arcane Defense," "Knowledge (geography) checks involving the
> Mountains of Doom," etc. So, you do need more than one book for
> comprehensive bonuses.

Ah. That does make more sense.

>> I once considered a (Cthulhu-style) knowledge system where each
>> book/source of knowledge had a level and a rating. The level indicated
>> how much you needed to know about the subject already in order to gain
>> benefit from the book, the rating indicated how much you could learn by
>> studying the book. For each step you were away from the book's level,
>> the rating was decreased. If you were too low you didn't know enough to
>> understand the material well, if you were too high you already knew it.
>
><snip specifics>
>
> Sounds pretty cool. Here are my thoughts on adapting it for 3.5e D&D:
>
> Each book has is associated with a difficulty, bonus, subject, and
> condition. The subject is the Knowledge skill covered by the book.
> The condition says what specific type of information about the subject
> that the book contains. For example, "A History of House Klethira,"
> would have subject: Nobility and Royalty, and condition: House
> Klethira. The book could be used on Knowledge (nobility and royalty)
> checks, but only if they involved House Klethira.
>
> The bonus is the bonus you get for consulting the book just before
> making a knowledge check. The bonus is reduced by 1 for every 2 ranks
> of skill you have away from the difficulty. For example, if "A
> History of House Klethira" is difficulty 6 and bonus +2, and I have 4
> ranks in Knowledge (nobility and royalty), using the book only gives
> me a +1 bonus to my check because the book is a little too advanced
> for me. Likewise, if I had 8 ranks, the book would be below my skill
> level.

'just before or while making a knowledge check' -- require it to be on
hand, I think.

> You can only gain the bonus from actively consulting the book. Any
> benefit gained from reading through the book is assumed to be included
> in the next rank you gain in the appropriate Knowledge skill. If you
> don't take any more ranks in that skill, it is assumed you never
> internalized any of the information.

Sounds reasonable. Abstract but fair.

> A comprehensive book could have multiple subjects and conditions, each
> with their own associated bonuses and difficulties.
>
> The more subjects and conditions associated with a book, the larger
> and more expensive it becomes. Likewise, a larger bonus also implies
> a heavier and more expensive book. You can only fit so much knowledge
> on a given number of pages.
>
> On a similar note, larger bonuses tend to be associated with narrower
> subject and condition.
>
> The last two comments on size, price, and bonus restrictions can be
> thrown out in the case of a magical book, of course.
>
> What do you think?

It looks like a useable conversion of the ideas.


It's probably most appropriate to start from the competence skill bonus
costs for magic items. These books should cost less (bonus-wise) than a
general magic item that provides the same bonus to *all* checks made
against the skill.


Competence skill bonus costs $bonus ^ 2 * 100gp.

.. no adjustment for slot -- not worn, but has to be at/in hand to use,
consider slotted
.. halve this for narrowing scope ('condition')
.. halve again for rank ('difficulty')

That brings us down to $bonus ^ 2 * 25gp.

I'd probably also put a time requirement for use on it -- you don't get
the bonus just for waving the book around, you have to actually try to
find the information. Perhaps $bonus rounds (or $bonus minutes...
probably not *hours*) per check. Let's say this is worth another /5.

Down to $bonus ^ 2 * 5gp.

This seems really low, but considering the difficulty of use (narrow
scope, relatively narrow range of ranks to make it applicable, extra
time, *finding such a book*) this is probably a reasonable value.


If a book covers more than one subject or more than one scope, I'd
probably just add the costs. That they're in the same object doesn't
really add much to its immediate applicability.


Add to this the cost of the book itself. 15gp just for the book
("Wizard's spellbook"), plus copying fees. Call it 25gp total.
It might be beneficial to add a 'total benefit per book' limit,
requiring that additional benefit require more book. You could do this
either on total bonuses (if you say +5, a +10 book [or one giving
+4/+3/+2/+1 on four subject/scopes] would be twice the size and require
twice the copying).


Now, for some examples.

.. _Book Title_
bonus skill(subskill)[scope]{ranks}
bonus * bonus * 5gp == base, +material = total

.. _Recent Events of House Klethira_
+2 Knowledge(Nobility)[House Klethira]{2}
2 * 2 * 5gp == 20gp, +25gp = 45gp

.. _On the Rise of House Klethira_
+5 Knowledge(Nobility)[House Klethira]{8}
5 * 5 * 5gp == 125gp, +25gp = 150gp

.. _House Klethira and the Origins of Empire_
+8 Knowledge(Nobility)[House Klethira]{12}
8 * 8 * 5gp == 320gp, +25gp = 345gp

These are big bonuses, but given the narrowness of scope and difficulty
in application, and (presumed) difficulty in discovery and acquisition,
these prices probably aren't far off.

Hrm. It might be worth scaling *somewhat* by rank of the book; while
the higher rank books are useful to fewer people, they're arguably of
greater use. Perhaps add a $bonus * $rank surcharge?

.. _Recent Events of House Klethira_
+2 Knowledge(Nobility)[House Klethira]{2}
2 * 2 * 5gp == 20gp, +25gp = 45gp, + 2 * 2 = 49gp

.. _On the Rise of House Klethira_
+5 Knowledge(Nobility)[House Klethira]{8}
5 * 5 * 5gp == 125gp, +25gp = 150gp, + 5 * 8 = 190gp

.. _House Klethira and the Origins of Empire_
+8 Knowledge(Nobility)[House Klethira]{12}
8 * 8 * 5gp == 320gp, +25gp = 345gp, + 8 * 12 = 441gp


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock wrote:

> It has weird meta-game effects though. If the peice of knowledge is
> within reach, then the character automatically knows it if the player
> takes 10; if it's harder than that then you've got to avoid taking 10 to
> have any chance.
>
> I just can't grok that how well characters having learnt stuff in
> the past is based on how well the players guess the DC when it turns up
> in game. Other skills are resolving what's happening now, Knowledge is
> about what you already know.
> You can't retroactively do a routine job of learning things.


I'll weigh in with the opinion that one shouldn't be able to take
10 to make a knowledge check, and must roll each time, and thus be
allowed retries when new facts or additional related knowledge is
uncovered in the course of play. Everyone presumes that once you
learn something you will always accurately recall or remember what
you have learned, and this is simply not true without the ability
to recall what one has learned.

Anxiety is good for memory recall, but bad for solving complex
problems, so that puts some weight towards Malachias' claim that
one should be able to take 10, however taking 10 would be for
solving complex problems or learning, not for recalling some past
observation, a small detail, or trivial fact that could be a key.

Reference:
http://www.cshl.edu/public/releases/tully052301.html

As a side note, there is a good writeup for knowledge skills
checks for the sage character class in the JG d20 "Player's Guide
to the Wilderlands". Sages are allowed one retry for failed
knowledge checks with a PENALTY based on the degree of failure of
the original Knowledge Check, lending some credence to the SWAG
factor one sees with folks that fail to accurately recall what has
already been learned, and who then simply makes stuff up.

In addition, Sages can gain additional bonuses to Knowledge checks
by researching a question to increase their chance to accurately
know the answer to that question. DC's for knowledge checks are
based on knowledge obscurity or frequency, regional differences,
and on account historical information is more difficult to know,
the older that information is the more difficult the DC. This plus
the synergy bonuses for having significant SR's in related skills
was an additional factor leading to my decision to aqcuire this book.

Re,
Dirk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11:17:26 -0500, David Serhienko
<david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:

>>>"Yes, but only by taking 10, or after adding new ranks to the skill."
>>>
>>>That allows for the "can't remember under pressure" factor.
>>
>>
>> That seems like a very sensible house rule.
>
>I'd go further, and allow retries when external factors grant additional
>bonuses to the skill that weren't present before.
>
>For example, I couldn't remember what sort of demon it was while it was
>attacking me, nor could I remember it when we had time to rest and catch
>oour breath.
>
>Now, I've got access to a book on demonology, so that should help, no?
>Ah, but the book doens't list this demon type.
>
>So I get another shot at it when I travel to Honest Ivan's Infernal
>Bestiary and Petting Zoo and talk to the handlers and see the exhibits.
>
>Lots of DM intervention here, but I'd rather make it DM heavy. The
>other option is to let the rules mis-model how knowledge and learning
>seem to work.

Retry: Yes, but only by taking 10 or something that increases the
final modifier.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:27:53 GMT, Keith Davies
<keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:

>I once considered a (Cthulhu-style) knowledge system where each
>book/source of knowledge had a level and a rating. The level indicated
>how much you needed to know about the subject already in order to gain
>benefit from the book, the rating indicated how much you could learn by
>studying the book. For each step you were away from the book's level,
>the rating was decreased. If you were too low you didn't know enough to
>understand the material well, if you were too high you already knew it.
>
>This was for 2e, so using a percentage system made the numbers work
>better than using percentages in 3e would (because percentage in 3e is
>used for things you have no control over).
>
>Anyway, once you successfully studied the book (Int check) you could
>roll the rating and add it to your score. You could restudy the book
>and reroll, but could only benefit to the maximum of the rating. That
>is, if you had 50 points and read a d8 book, and rolled a 2, you could
>restudy and reroll, replacing the 2 with a higher value.
>
>If you read it when below the level, you could roll the reduced rating.
>As your knowledge went up, you could restudy (possibly with the ability
>to roll better ratings as you improved).
>
>For practical purposes if you were more than 3-5 levels away from the
>book's level (where 'your level' measures your knowledge, not character
>level) the book was more or less unusable.

I like the general idea. For a long time it's bothered me that the
only way to gain knowledge was to adventure. I would think the
*PRIMARY* means of gaining knowledge, especially at the lower levels,
should be studying.

I've been debating designing an alternate means of acquiring knowledge
skills but I haven't decided on the details.

What I'm looking at in general:

Books have knowledge ratings and intelligence ratings.

The knowledge rating says who can learn from it. It's generally a
fairly narrow range. If you're below it, you're not going to
understand the material, if you're above it, there's nothing new.
Successfully studying the book grants 1 point of knowledge in that
field.

The intelligence rating reflects how it is written. A book with a
high intelligence rating is shorter and can be studied faster--but you
take a serious penalty to the speed you can learn if your intelligence
is below that of the book and you must have other lower-level books
around to even make this possible.

When you write a book you choose the intelligence rating it should
have, up to your own rating. You also choose the knowledge level, up
to 2/3 of your rating.

There are also course books. These must be written as a series of
books--you need books in the same series to get the benefit. They can
be studied in 1/2 the normal time but you must start with a book no
higher than 1/2 your rating and then study them in order. Course
books can be written up to your knowledge - 1. These work better
because they are designed as a set--everything gets covered but
nothing gets repeated.

Thus acquiring truly new knowledge requires adventuring but you can
learn from what others have done in the past.

I'm thinking the base time to learn should be perhaps 1 month of
concentrated study, or 1 year if you are on the road, studying around
the fire etc. This would be modified say -20% for each + to your
intelligence bonus, +33% for every minus. This would be limited by
the rating of the book. Thus if you have int 20 for a +5 bonus but
pick up "Dungeoneering for Dummies" which is written at -1, it's going
to take you 40 days to learn it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Loren Pechtel wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11:17:26 -0500, David Serhienko
> <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>>>"Yes, but only by taking 10, or after adding new ranks to the skill."
>>>>
>>>>That allows for the "can't remember under pressure" factor.
>>>
>>>
>>>That seems like a very sensible house rule.
>>
>>I'd go further, and allow retries when external factors grant additional
>>bonuses to the skill that weren't present before.
>>
>>For example, I couldn't remember what sort of demon it was while it was
>>attacking me, nor could I remember it when we had time to rest and catch
>>oour breath.
>>
>>Now, I've got access to a book on demonology, so that should help, no?
>>Ah, but the book doens't list this demon type.
>>
>>So I get another shot at it when I travel to Honest Ivan's Infernal
>>Bestiary and Petting Zoo and talk to the handlers and see the exhibits.
>>
>>Lots of DM intervention here, but I'd rather make it DM heavy. The
>>other option is to let the rules mis-model how knowledge and learning
>>seem to work.
>
>
> Retry: Yes, but only by taking 10 or something that increases the
> final modifier.

Excellent summary.

Would everyone say that the modifier needs to increase overall? Or
could we just have a new positive modifer included?

For example, I had put on a headband of intellect earlier, but I had to
give it back. Now I've got increased ranks in the skill (or, say, a
Pearl of Demon Knowledge) which grants me the same bonus to my knowledge
check as I had before, but for different reasons.

As DM, if a player asked for it, I'd give them the retry. Probably too
many factors for most to bother keeping track of, though.

DWS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1vmb519thtt7l55q1451qruun3vgvgngcs@4ax.com>,
Loren Pechtel <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 7 Apr 2005 17:48:22 GMT, Peter Meilinger <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote:
>>Am I the only one who thinks 10+HD doesn't make a lot of sense?
>>Why are high hit-dice monsters more obscure? I would think dragons,
>>for example, would be easy to remember. If you read about something
>>nasty enough to defeat an army, you're going to remember. If you
>>read about a type of kangaroo rat native to an obscure part of
>>the continent, you're not likely to remember much.
>
>I think it has to do with unfamiliarity. There aren't a lot of
>high-HD creatures around so people know less about them.
>
>On other other hand, for things like dragons I think I would let them
>be identified at low DC's suitable for when they were small.
>Likewise, their powers could be identified based on when they gained
>the power. When you're facing the Great Wyrm it's a more powerful
>version of the Wrymling--anything the Wyrmling has, it also has. That
>doesn't mean you'll get to identify it's later powers.

This makes a lot of sense to me -- if one checks out a Great Worm and fails
the check, but manages to identify it as a bigger version of an Adult, you
should be able to remember the Adult properties. Similarly, identifying a
bugbear with 12 class levels in Fighter really amounts to identifying a 3HD
bugbear, with no idea of what class levels s/he would have.

Here are the Knowledge skills that permit identifying monsters:
Arcana constructs, dragons, magical beasts
Dungeoneering aberrations, oozes
Local humanoids
Nature animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, vermin
Religion undead
the Planes outsiders

It seems to me that most of these would need to be maxed out (24 ranks, +39
for my sage), since these categories include some high-HD monsters, except
possibly Local/humanoids -- as far as I recall, the MM entries for humanoids
are generally all fairly low-level (so it would just need +29, 14 ranks).
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:36:17 -0500, David Serhienko
<david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:

>> Retry: Yes, but only by taking 10 or something that increases the
>> final modifier.
>
>Excellent summary.
>
>Would everyone say that the modifier needs to increase overall? Or
>could we just have a new positive modifer included?
>
>For example, I had put on a headband of intellect earlier, but I had to
>give it back. Now I've got increased ranks in the skill (or, say, a
>Pearl of Demon Knowledge) which grants me the same bonus to my knowledge
>check as I had before, but for different reasons.
>
>As DM, if a player asked for it, I'd give them the retry. Probably too
>many factors for most to bother keeping track of, though.

Good point.

Retry: Yes, but only by taking 10 or something that either increases
your actual ranks or the total modifier.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Serhienko wrote:
>>> Sometimes a player tries to do something, via Rules Lawyerlyness
>>> etc, that is clearly a violation of the spirit of the rules, if not
>>> the actual rules themselves. That is when the DM slaps the player
>>> with a fish and says 'Bad Player, no more cookies for you'.

Senator Blutarsky wrote:
>> Some of us prefer to correct the flawed rule, rather than blame the
>> player for relying on it.

> Nicely snipped followup context, moron. No cookies for you, either.

The rest of your article doesn't change anything. It merely pointed out
that this smackdown is especially appropriate when playtesting house
rules. In that case, I feel that smackdown is even /less/ appropriate,
and that fixing the rule is even more important. If anything, the extra
context would strengthen Bluto's case, in my mind.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>
>> I'd simply make them use the same roll in each case.
>
> Reasonably solution.

s/Reasonably/Reasonable/

I'm having a rough time getting the right words this week.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch