The Importance of Trained-Only Skills

[Solo]

I don't know, I'm just here to troll.

[zook1shoe]

I think Cyclone Joker is the only one here that is serious about the cow thing. I stopped trying to argue with him, but still enjoy seeing the rest of you argue about it all. 

[ariasderros]

I think Cyclone Joker is the only one here that is serious about the cow thing. I stopped trying to argue with him, but still enjoy seeing the rest of you argue about it all. 

I personally just used it as an example, after someone else did, of the extreme ridiculousness of the RAW. Same thing as the people that mention the fact that you can't spot the sun.

The difference here being that this one is just the sheer fact of how limited (Trained-only) can be.

I don't know, I'm just here to troll.

Somehow, I don't think you are referring to just this thread.

[TiaC]

Here's what farmers who don't put ranks in Knowledge [nature] do, they farm dirt! Only the Master Farmers are skilled enough to have mastered animal husbandry/identification.
Alternatively, they just randomly grab animals and put them on the farm. I see these farms as just being full of random plants and animals, and the farmer just walks around shaking them and picking up the coins that fall out. more ranks in Profession[farmer] would lead to better shaking techniques.

(Also, I'm rather sorry I brought up this whole cow thing now. The better example is that most commoners can't identify their own species. [also by RAW the Knowledge skills ignore disguise, so a DC 14 Knowledge[nature] check would always identify a doppleganger.])

[ariasderros]

Here's what farmers who don't put ranks in Knowledge [nature] do, they farm dirt! Only the Master Farmers are skilled enough to have mastered animal husbandry/identification.
Alternatively, they just randomly grab animals and put them on the farm. I see these farms as just being full of random plants and animals, and the farmer just walks around shaking them and picking up the coins that fall out. more ranks in Profession[farmer] would lead to better shaking techniques.

Just don't "shake" the chickens to many times. You'll get attacked by a never-ending swarm of them until you're dead or leave the area.

Otherwise, yes, the D&D peasants are the same as those in those in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

[Sohala]

Commoners must be an awfully forgetful lot, because I am going to assume that if they are a farmer, then one of their parents was farmer, then one of their parents before that and so on. Why do I say this? Well, parents usually teach their children about the world, which for a farm probably includes the livestock they are raising, the crops they are growing, and some tales to keep the little ones entertained at night. Again, the point? Well, knowledge checks are what you remember/recall, so going by the interpretation of Cyclone Joker the commoners would not remember a single detail about anything they attempt to identify, even if they had been told a million times over the past twenty years, they would remember nothing. Yes we all know he won't budge on this, so the point? Okay, okay I am getting to it.

Where in the rules does it state that you HAVE to role a knowledge check to attempt to identify something you meet? In most cases that seems to actually make you forget what you know about a certain animal, so don't try to identify something, work with what you can know without knowledge.

We can't identify a cow (or whichever such animal we wish to use), but we do know that our father claimed the thing in that pen was a 'cow', and that every day since he taught you, you have come out and gotten milk from it. You need to buy another of these 'cows'? All that must be done is a comparison to figure out what you are buying is or is not be what you are looking for.

We can't identify a skeleton (creature), but we can know what a skeleton (bone structure) is and that it can't normally walk by itself, though we don't know what creatures have skeletons or what each creature's skeleton looks like.


So the question for Cyclone Joker:
What happens, according to the rules, when the guy next to you (who has ranks in knowledge) says something is a cow (more details may or may not be given) and then you attempt to identify it (without ranks in knowledge)? Do you forget what that person just said six seconds ago?

[Bauglir]

While I'm not Cyclone Joker, I'd reason that you are no longer attempting to identify it since you were just told what it was. You're not consulting your own personal knowledge. However, if you were told that one thing was a cow, you would apparently gain no help in identifying other cows on your own. The rules don't have room for forgetfulness, though, so you should presumably be able to remember that that same cow is a cow (no matter what happens to it) until the end of time, or one of you dies (whichever comes first).

[NunoM]

As i read somewhere, the RAW are not meant to represent reality in it's truest form, but only to provide guidelines to play a game in settings governed by a set of "laws". There's no magic IRL and, as someone said back there (sorry for not quoting), even Einstein was a puny human with a slightly above average INT score...

There are plenty of rules that appear to defy logic and even physical laws as we know it... and that's perfectly fine.

That being said, let's go back to RAW discussion...
It would make sense to me, that a character that succeeds in a Knowledge check for a given subject (such as identifying a creature), would be able to retain that information and "convert it" to common knowledge for that character, at least for a reasonable amount of time.
If one would want to create a house rule to represent forgetfulness and information lost by too many blows to the head, it would be ok, but an over complication of things, IMO.

I agree with Sohala: a farmer commoner, son and grandson of farmers would have a knowledge grasp of agriculture, animal tending and husbandry, seasons, etc. rivaling even the most erudite of scholars on that subject, but for him would be common knowledge, because it falls into his field of study.

I know it's not meant for me, but trying to answer the question above (by Sohala), i think that falls under the same category of "Does the character making the second check, believe the character with knowledge ranks?"... The same goes for "Appraise" checks, for example. It's all a matter of PC-to-PC interaction.

[zook1shoe]

Otherwise, yes, the D&D peasants are the same as those in those in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Roflmao!

[Bauglir]

Otherwise, yes, the D&D peasants are the same as those in those in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Roflmao!

I've heard it said before that the best D&D movie ever made was Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I never realized just how accurate that claim was.

[veekie]

From another angle though, what skills would a Commoner Farmer need? Assuming a Human Commoner with Int 10, you have 3 skill points. They would need Profession, Handle Animal...and thats pretty much it for vital skills. Half ranks in Knowledge means SOMEBODY on the farm probably knows enough to work out a few things here and there about their crops and animals. Probably also why they have large families. Everyone puts their spare points into something that others don't have, and then just stack Aid Another to make the rest of the skills work.

[Jackinthegreen]

I believe the human commoner would have 12 points actually given that the first level is 4 x (2+ Int) which equals 8, and then the bonus 4 for being human.  He potentially has more if he decides to take Open Minded once or twice.

[zook1shoe]

Or able learner + open mined x1

[OutlawPhilosopher]

Does the simplicity of eliminating the tag really make that option more attractive than just shuffling to which skills the tag applies? I don't see that it does.

Because had I not said that there are skills like UMD, people would have seen fit to argue about those skills that would require formal training.

Because had I not said that it would be easier to remove the tag all-together, then it would just start a list of which skills are or are not deserving of that tag, that would then turn to argumentation about which skills do or do not belong on said list.

Because by saying it both ways myself, I get to have my cake and eat it too, while you all go and argue about cows for five more pages.

I'm sorry. What do these explain, exactly? I take it from the use of "because" that they are being offered as reasons for something. What is that something? I don't understand why you are quoting me, or what you are saying in response. It is very strange.

[ariasderros]

Does the simplicity of eliminating the tag really make that option more attractive than just shuffling to which skills the tag applies? I don't see that it does.

Because had I not said that there are skills like UMD, people would have seen fit to argue about those skills that would require formal training.

Because had I not said that it would be easier to remove the tag all-together, then it would just start a list of which skills are or are not deserving of that tag, that would then turn to argumentation about which skills do or do not belong on said list.

Because by saying it both ways myself, I get to have my cake and eat it too, while you all go and argue about cows for five more pages.

I'm sorry. What do these explain, exactly? I take it from the use of "because" that they are being offered as reasons for something. What is that something? I don't understand why you are quoting me, or what you are saying in response. It is very strange.

Start from the question mark of yours that I quoted. Then realize that each "because" is a separate answer.