The Importance of Trained-Only Skills

[zook1shoe]

Why is this so complicated?

you're the one making it complicated... we're trying to show the light of the Burning Hate, before you get skin cancer 

One's a wailing, thrice damned shell of its former self who seeks to drain all the life force from the living, and the other is the fell-animated remains of a once-living creature?

 

[OutlawPhilosopher]

Sighhh...

"Identify x AND get some information about x" is strictly stronger than "Identify x"

The fact that you cannot do "identify x AND get some information about x" without a trained knowledge check does not imply that you cannot "identify x" without a trained knowledge check. ~(a+b) -> (~a or ~b), not (~a +~b), if you recall your DeMorgan's rules.

'a game is identical with its rules' - Really? Are you sure? Football players aren't part of a game of football? (Though, being charitable, maybe there's just a type/token distinction here. The type of games of football is given by adherence to a set of rules, but a token of that type is defined by extra-rule factors.)

I imagine what is causing some hang-ups here is the notion of "identification." Identify could mean any of "be able to pick out uniquely," "know all the necessary and sufficient conditions of," "know the necessary conditions of," "know the sufficient conditions of," "be able to  categorize as correctly" or probably a whole whack of other things. Depending on how we understand that term, the ability or inability to identify a cow with an untrained knowledge check could look better or worse.

An intuition pump: if distinguishing x from y is part of identifying x, does identifying a cow require you be able to distinguish it from, say, a female aurochs? if so, should a commoner even be able to do this? Or if not, why think that distinguishing a cow from a chicken IS part of identifying a cow?

Note that, even if identifying x includes being able to distinguish it from other non-x stuff, that doesn't mean that people who can't identify x can't still distinguish x from other non-x stuff (again, recall your intro logic class.) So statements like "Well, he since was unable to make his Know:Arcana or religion check, then he cannot identify either. Identify includes distinguishing, so no, he really can't distinguish between the two" are just plain wrong. Compare the logically equivalent "You are unable to run the Spartathalon in 60 seconds. Running the Spartathalon in 60 seconds includes standing on your feet. Therefore you are unable to stand on your feet."

[belowyn]

Or the difference between an ancient undead skeleton and your buddy's ex-wife.

Are you sure there is a difference?

[Cyclone Joker]

Oh, of course! Silly me. I thought the rules were important in a discussion of said rules. Now, excuse me, since the rules don't matter, I guess I'll go burn all my books.

Let's go over the rules:

Untrained: An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).

Okay, let's go over the rules again:

In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.

It is common knowledge that a cow is a cow, to anyone without training.  The fact that it needs an average roll is enough to model those few who have never seen or heard of cows.  To say otherwise is bullshit.  The fact that the rules do say "The DC is 10 + the creature's HD" shows they weren't very consistent or thoughtful with certain things.

So? Them being idiots doesn't change the rules. The rules are that identifying a cow is a DC 13-15(depending on the animal used) check, identifying a human is a DC 11 check, and you are only allowed to make DC10 checks untrained. Those are the rules. If we're just dismissing them, I need to rekindle that fire and throw out all my Dark Heresy and Rifts books, too. Shame, too. I liked that Malefic Scholar. Oh, well. Since the rules don't matter, it doesn't do much good. 

I think I can safely say most people here would agree that hanging on to a broken rule such as that just because it's "RAW" is patently idiotic.  The rules do not make sense here and would be trivial to fix or houserule.

Which is part of the point I've been making. Please, try to keep up.

This also leads to another point; Houserules mean exactly Jack Shit in a rules discussion. Seriously. Not that complicated.

Zook, seriously, the identify rules are more specific, and so trump the general knowledge rules(unless some entry somewhere contradicts them for a particular creature or group of creatures). How the rules work.

Outlaw, provide a better definition, if you think the one I provided was insufficient. I can go pull out the OED if I need to.

And regardless of the finer semantics involved, it does not change the fact that a failure, or inability to identify a creature, also includes a failure to know anything about the creature, and any qualities it may possess, which brings up the same problem.

[belowyn]

Identify as noted in the Skill entry and use doesn't tell you a cow is a cow. It tells you that male cow is a four legged bovine dubbed bos primigenius taurus, also called a bull, with no Damage Deduction, Spell Resistance, or other defensive qualities. It's weakness is sharp objects, mud, water, and long falls. And they cannot see their own feet.

The common knowledge check, DC 10, tells you that you can milk it by squeezing it's nipples. Unless maybe you're not a mammal, do you think a Kobold would look at dangle parts and it wants to know what it would be like to suck on them?

Common knowledge to milk a bull? (You said earlier that the identify said it was a male cow, also called a bull).
Im pretty sure its common knowledge you milk a cow, not a bull ...

[sirpercival]

Untrained: An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).

Pretty sure this covers something like knowing what cows are. Or the difference between an ancient undead skeleton and your buddy's ex-wife.

One's a wailing, thrice damned shell of its former self who seeks to drain all the life force from the living, and the other is the fell-animated remains of a once-living creature?

You need to be more specific.

[OutlawPhilosopher]

Outlaw, provide a better definition, if you think the one I provided was insufficient. I can go pull out the OED if I need to.

And regardless of the finer semantics involved, it does not change the fact that a failure, or inability to identify a creature, also includes a failure to know anything about the creature, and any qualities it may possess, which brings up the same problem.

I don't have a particular definition to advance. I just think that, if your definition requires fine distinction, then the fact that a commoner can't identify a cow won't be problematic. If you want a very broad definition of 'identify' then you need to argue for why that's the one the rules suggest, contra all the people who think that there is good reason to separate knowledge-check style identification from the 'common knowledge' type stuff. Why think those rules are in conflict when there's a perfectly natural way to harmonize them by just reading "identify" in a special or narrow sense?

See, it was exactly my point that the semantics matter here. If you fail to identify a creature, that does not imply that you fail to know anything about the creature. Identifying a creature surely includes knowing something about it, but it includes other stuff too. Failing to do it can be the result either of knowing nothing, or of knowing something, but just less than what is required for identification. Before you want to argue about the implications of passages of rules, you need to know how implication works.

[zook1shoe]

here is the full section of the Knowledge section...

Check: Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).
    In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, the DM can give another piece of useful information.

the first part means that if you do not want the special powers of the monster, you can make a flat DC check that is not modified by a monster's HD.

its up to the DM to determine the DC of the check, based on the campaign.

that's if you HAVE ranks in knowledge, otherwise, the untrained part that was previously shown applies

[awaken_D_M_golem]

(minor tangent)

Seems like this is well thought out.  2e + 3e skills , ala 4e.

Valdark posts:
http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29338395/Skillful_Blend_of_3e_and_4e&post_num=208#523579651

Wrecan responds:
http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29338395/Skillful_Blend_of_3e_and_4e&post_num=211#523580613

(/minor tangent)

[Cyclone Joker]

here is the full section of the Knowledge section...

Check: Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).
    In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, the DM can give another piece of useful information.

the first part means that if you do not want the special powers of the monster, you can make a flat DC check that is not modified by a monster's HD.

its up to the DM to determine the DC of the check, based on the campaign.

that's if you HAVE ranks in knowledge, otherwise, the untrained part that was previously shown applies

Wrong, yet again. There is absolutely no text supporting your case. Identifying the creature rules trumps general knowledge rules. Period.

Outlaw:The problem with that is that no definition of "identify" I can find without pulling out that gorgeous 20 volume piece of art(Which I've been to lazy to do) that supports the idea that failing to identify means that you know all about it.

[zook1shoe]

Wrong, yet again. There is absolutely no text supporting your case. Identifying the creature rules trumps general knowledge rules. Period.

ok, i was wrong that only the untrained part applies if you don't have ranks.

was i wrong about anything else in that statement? if so, what?

[Cyclone Joker]

Wrong, yet again. There is absolutely no text supporting your case. Identifying the creature rules trumps general knowledge rules. Period.

ok, i was wrong that only the untrained part applies if you don't have ranks.

was i wrong about anything else in that statement? if so, what?

The identify rules. You appear to just love to throw rules you dislike out the window. It's not complicated.

[Jackinthegreen]

Wrong, yet again. There is absolutely no text supporting your case. Identifying the creature rules trumps general knowledge rules. Period.

ok, i was wrong that only the untrained part applies if you don't have ranks.

was i wrong about anything else in that statement? if so, what?

The identify rules. You appear to just love to throw rules you dislike out the window. It's not complicated.

Just because a rule exists doesn't mean it needs to be used to the letter.  Yes, those rules say it's a DC 12-15 or something to identify common farm animals.  Great, those are the rules.  But since this is a rules discussion, talking about implementing them is likewise on the table and the fact is implementing those rules as-is just doesn't work.  It has little to do with being mechanically broken and everything to do with "how the hell doesn't someone know what a chicken or a cow are?  Why does someone need training to figure out what these animals are when a toddler can tell the difference between a cow and a chicken?"  Knowing which kind of cow has white or yellow milk/meat fat would be a Knowledge check, not that a cow is a cow.

[veekie]

Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).
    In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, the DM can give another piece of useful information.

Looks like a clear cut case. You want to know the average strength and natural armor scores of a cow, you roll that. The ability to be milked is not a special ability or weakness of the cow from the statblock, therefore this particular subrule is inapplicable.

You want to tell that its some kind of cow, thats a simple question. If you lower the DC below 10, it can get even vaguer, as you know its some kind of cow, but aurochs, bison, or oxen all fall under that banner. As far as you're concerned its a Large, four footed mammal with horns.

This is also backed up by direct experiential knowledge, as the knowledge skill does not bar you from knowing things in ways outside of the skill. You know cows are heavy from trying to tip one once. You know they are edible because you've eaten beef before. You know they can be milked because you saw dad do it.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

You know Dad was drunk at the time he "milked" the cow.
You know Mom didn't know.

[zook1shoe]

Wrong, yet again. There is absolutely no text supporting your case. Identifying the creature rules trumps general knowledge rules. Period.

ok, i was wrong that only the untrained part applies if you don't have ranks.

was i wrong about anything else in that statement? if so, what?

The identify rules. You appear to just love to throw rules you dislike out the window. It's not complicated.

Maybe you should listen to your own advice?

Ive never thrown that rule out. I've seen it, but it doesn't apply because we're trying to identity just the just the creature NOT his special abilities, as veekie pointed out (along with many of us)

[Cyclone Joker]

Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).
    In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, the DM can give another piece of useful information.

Looks like a clear cut case. You want to know the average strength and natural armor scores of a cow, you roll that. The ability to be milked is not a special ability or weakness of the cow from the statblock, therefore this particular subrule is inapplicable.

The ability to produce tasty milk would constitute a "Special power." It does not say "Special qualities," it says "Special powers and vulnerabilities." The ability to produce tasty milk and being VERY delicious at 50 degrees are very obviously specifically bred-for special powers.

Try again.

You want to tell that its some kind of cow, thats a simple question. If you lower the DC below 10, it can get even vaguer, as you know its some kind of cow, but aurochs, bison, or oxen all fall under that banner. As far as you're concerned its a Large, four footed mammal with horns.

Which is unsupported by the rules.

This is also backed up by direct experiential knowledge, as the knowledge skill does not bar you from knowing things in ways outside of the skill. You know cows are heavy from trying to tip one once. You know they are edible because you've eaten beef before. You know they can be milked because you saw dad do it.

The knowledge is manifested in a knowledge check. That's why it's called, you know, "Knowledge."

But, really, I hear rules are cool.

Oh, and Zook, hon? Try checking the validity of someone else's argument before using it. Saves yourself some embarrassment.

[SorO_Lost]

I am compelled to point out that I said pretty much just this a few posts ago.

Oh, I missed it. Kind of ignoring walls of useless text on each page if you know what I mean.

Likewise Zooks table is very presentable. The Skill system is set up so by the time you hit level 5~7 you break far beyond real life's range of capabilities.

Like take Craft. With an assistant, Skill Focus (due to being a dedicated blacksmith), and four ranks, your average 1st level NPC is almost capable of Taking 10 to create Masterwork items. As soon as he earns 50gp, he can pick up a Masterwork Tool and do so. Upon gaining a level he could do without the assistant as well. These are Masterwork items, highest quality available, it's like you crafting not just a bird house, but one with gold inlays, swimming pools, and enough decor doesn't look like a stupid mailbox.

Another example, Jump. Female World's record is 24ft. Literally DC 24. Four ranks in jump and twenty tries = ties with it. At level 1. Would an Olympic athlete who spends a huge chunk of her life dedicated to it take Skill Focus and train her Strength some? Yes. But then the 24ft record would be beaten by another four feet or so, and NPCs certainly can have more than just one level.

And so on. A bonus of <+5 can still make you better than anyone you know in real life. And guess what, you know what the hell a cow is. And a pig, chicken, sheep, camel, elephant, el chupacabra, tiger, bear, frog, zombie, dog, cat, etc.

In fact, come to think of it. Someone did a rather nice detailed post on skills. Einstein was 5th level, not 20th, and look at how intelligent he is still perceived today.

[zook1shoe]

I told you before, Cyclone Joker, do not use any sort of nicknames with me. You use them to degrade others, not as terms as friendship as they seem.

Also, I'm no longer going to argue with you about anything. You have a hopelessly misguided in your understanding of quite a few concepts of this game, and I've wasted enough time attempting to try to help you. I personally hope others will understand the same and not bother arguing with you anymore either, as it is a complete waste of time.

In my opinion, you are here only to troll others into massive arguments the lead nowhere.

Goodbye to you.

-zook1shoe



Thank you very much, Soro

[Cyclone Joker]

Ah, yes, the old "I can't counter any of your arguments, so I attempt to claim moral high ground while flouncing" defense. Nice. Not my fault you appear to lack any basic reading comprehension or knowledge of the rules, and rely on parroting others. You're worse than SorO. At least he, despite being wrong  on many things, appears to be intelligent. At least capable of independent thought.

So, Zook, sweetie, you're free to flounce off whenever you're beaten, but you really should have the decency to admit when you're wrong. This kind of posturing and pretense is annoying, and a waste of time. Anyone with half a functioning neuron can see through it..

SorO: No one is claiming the rules on this, or skills in general, are anything but badly thought out at best. That said, rules are the topic, and rules disagree with you. Using  a made-up table to support your arguments is crap, and you know it.

And, yeah, Einstein is level 5, Gandalf is level 6, any given wuxia hero is level 8, house cats are weapons capable of wiping out villages, and level 20 characters make Solars, Green Sun Princes, and other Celestials look like commoners. Old news, and a distraction from the main topic.