The Importance of Trained-Only Skills

[veekie]

Cut that out. If you have an argument, make it.
Personal attacks are not relevant to the discussion, and act as nothing more than baiting.

[Bauglir]

Cyclone Joker, it seems to me that you have an exactly correct understanding of the particular rules involved and the hierarchy in which rules are generally applied (specific trumps general). However, a strict reading of the rules disagrees with your conclusion. I'll summarize briefly what's already been said, in a way that should unambiguously show the argument. Crucial step is bolded.

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

2. The specific rule is, "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."

3. The logical operator "and", strictly applied, requires both conditions to be true.

4. The specific rule applies, then, if and only if you attempt to identify a monster and that monster's special powers or vulnerabilities. Otherwise, the general rule applies. The possible cases in which the general rule applies are
      4a. Identifying a monster, but not its special powers or vulnerabilities. "I know that's a dragon, but I don't know anything about dragons."
      4b. Identifying a monster's special powers or vulnerabilities, but not the monster. "I know that thing breathes fire, but I don't know what the hell it is."

This isn't to say the rules haven't put us in a very stupid place. If we accept that cows are monsters*, then we find ourselves with many hypothetical commoners who can make the common knowledge check to determine what a cow is, roll poorly and fail the check to actually know things about cows (such as that they produce milk), and still make the Profession check to milk a cow (despite having no knowledge that cows produce milk). Alternatively, it could reasonably be interpreted that you're only allowed to make one of the common knowledge checks, but not the other, since otherwise you're sidestepping the rules in a way that I'm happy to agree is stupid. This makes the previously mentioned scenario practically mandatory.

I'd also like to point out that ignoring the strict definition of the logical operator "and", or arguing that context makes the intent clear, is obviously absurd, since the entire chain of reasoning you're following is that the rules must be followed to their strictest possible conclusions (because that's what a game is).

*Is this a question we can answer? It seems relevant to the current strict constructionism insanity we're going through in this thread. Could we read it as having meaning in a moral sense, rather than anatomical? Suddenly, you can tell who's a Nazi on sight, but elk are forever a mystery.

EDIT: Deleted a stupid paragraph. 3 AM posts = not optimal quality.

[Solo]

If we accept that cows are monsters*, then we find ourselves with many hypothetical commoners who can make the common knowledge check to determine what a cow is, roll poorly and fail the check to actually know things about cows (such as that they produce milk), and still make the Profession check to milk a cow (despite having no knowledge that cows produce milk).

Can they take 10 on the knowledge check?

[Bauglir]

Possibly, but there will inevitably be the odd dumbass Half-Orc day laborer with an Int of 6 who's under stress from an overbearing farmer and gets a negative result on one of the checks. Rare! But I think that the fact that it can happen to anybody at all is stupid enough.

4a and 4b are also both pretty stupid in and of themselves, if you are allowed to make only one of them.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

... that Half-Orc can't i.d. the Farmer anymore. 

Farmer goes boom.

[Cyclone Joker]

You are correct on the "And" point, Bauglir, but you missed one point; "Special" powers and qualities, or qualities that are different from "normal." So, can all, or basically all, monsters, including things like outsiders and constructs, produce milk? No. Therefore, you must make a DC 15(Assuming we're using bison as a stand-in for cows) knowledge check to know that they produce milk. Needing to breath is different from many creatures, and so would qualify as a special vulnerability.

Also, I think you're misinterpreting what I meant. The rules, in their strictest sense, are required to be the baseline for any discussion on altering them in some way, or a meaningful discussion for the impact of rules.

[Nanshork]

You are correct on the "And" point, Bauglir, but you missed one point; "Special" powers and qualities, or qualities that are different from "normal." So, can all, or basically all, monsters, including things like outsiders and constructs, produce milk? No. Therefore, you must make a DC 15(Assuming we're using bison as a stand-in for cows) knowledge check to know that they produce milk. Needing to breath is different from many creatures, and so would qualify as a special vulnerability.

Also, I think you're misinterpreting what I meant. The rules, in their strictest sense, are required to be the baseline for any discussion on altering them in some way, or a meaningful discussion for the impact of rules.

Your interpretation is not the only valid interpretation.  Someday I hope you will recognize this fact.

[Vasja]

Needing to breath[e] is different from many creatures, and so would qualify as a special vulnerability.

Really not seeing the difference between this and trolling. Maybe I failed my knowledge (internet) check.

@The Topic: I don't know that removing the trained-only clause would really change much. If you also remove the cross-class requirement, then some skill-heavy classes can get a bit more breadth in their skills. Ranger can pick up UMD, stuff like that. But without removing the cross-class, past level 5/6 the small bonus you'd have from your ability bonus is really it. Most classes simply don't have the skill points to cover any more bases than they already do.

[Cyclone Joker]

You are correct on the "And" point, Bauglir, but you missed one point; "Special" powers and qualities, or qualities that are different from "normal." So, can all, or basically all, monsters, including things like outsiders and constructs, produce milk? No. Therefore, you must make a DC 15(Assuming we're using bison as a stand-in for cows) knowledge check to know that they produce milk. Needing to breath is different from many creatures, and so would qualify as a special vulnerability.

Also, I think you're misinterpreting what I meant. The rules, in their strictest sense, are required to be the baseline for any discussion on altering them in some way, or a meaningful discussion for the impact of rules.

Your interpretation is not the only valid interpretation.  Someday I hope you will recognize this fact.

Yes and no. Getting as strict as possible, no. If you want to be loose with the interpretation, then there are plenty others, but, by strict rules, no, I really can't  see any other. Care to provide and support one?

Vasja: Yeah, you did. Not sure how, it's a basic DC10 check. Trolling is extraneous, off-topic, and for the purpose of provoking emotional reactions. I simply provided facts.

[Solo]

WotC provides the facts. You provide interpretations.

[Cyclone Joker]

WotC provides the facts. You provide interpretations.

Nope. WotC provides facts. I provide definitions and corrections of things that are absolutely wrong. You know, facts.

All of the things I've brought up are fact, because they are what WotC said. WotC said that identifying a creature and its special powers and vulnerabilities is DC10+HD. Therefore, everyone claiming any other DC to identify a creature and its abilities is wrong. Period. Fact. I stated this. There is no interpretation here.

[Pencil]

Vasja: Yeah, you did. Not sure how, it's a basic DC10 check. Trolling is extraneous, off-topic, and for the purpose of provoking emotional reactions. I simply provided facts.

(click to show/hide)

suuure.Why would i believe a Troll?It is even after midnight my timezone...

[Solo]

WotC provides the facts. You provide interpretations.

Nope. WotC provides facts. I provide definitions and corrections of things that are absolutely wrong. You know, facts.

All of the things I've brought up are fact, because they are what WotC said. WotC said that identifying a creature and its special powers and vulnerabilities is DC10+HD. Therefore, everyone claiming any other DC to identify a creature and its abilities is wrong. Period. Fact. I stated this. There is no interpretation here.

Would you kindly define what special powers and vulnerabilities are, using WotC terminology?

[Nanshork]

WotC provides the facts. You provide interpretations.

Nope. WotC provides facts. I provide definitions and corrections of things that are absolutely wrong. You know, facts.

All of the things I've brought up are fact, because they are what WotC said. WotC said that identifying a creature and its special powers and vulnerabilities is DC10+HD. Therefore, everyone claiming any other DC to identify a creature and its abilities is wrong. Period. Fact. I stated this. There is no interpretation here.

Would you kindly define what special powers and vulnerabilities are, using WotC terminology?

This.  You seem to define special as unique.  That's all well and good, but that isn't the only possible definition of the word special.

[NunoM]

I'm coming a bit late to the discussion, sure, and i admit i didn't read every single post in this topic, but i read many to get some kind of picture of it. Anyway here are my two cents on this...

I didn't see this mentioned above, so here goes... There's a general rule that states that, at any given time, the DM is allowed to apply modifiers of his/her choosing to specific checks. That's in the "Favorable and Unfavorable Conditions" chapter (here).

Assuming the cow example i read above in this topic:
If i were a DM, i would grant a land based surface dwelling PC a fair chance to recognize/identify a (kind of) cow along with some of the animal's special abilities (ex.: sources of milk) when he/she sees it. I could apply many modifiers to this: DC-2 for it's general size and shape being similar to things the character is familiar with (other cows), another DC -2 for seeing the animal eating, another DC -2 for appearing domesticated ("the animal remains calm when you approach it"), etc.

Now, for this same PC, when encountering rothés in the underdark i could categorize as common knowledge the fact that those are a sort of cattle and perhaps "milkable", but i wouldn't let the PC know that they are magical beasts or even that they are blind w/o an appropriate knowledge check.

The point is: the DM is always in charge, so he/she can apply modifiers at will and that's perfectly legal according to the rules of the game. Unless the DM abuses this "special power" messing the game for everyone, I don't see a problem with it.


As for the importance of Trained-only skills:
IMHO, the rules are well balanced. Most untrained skills relate to actions that were common in a medieval(-ish) setting, like riding or intimidating people. I even saw some arguments, at the game table, suggesting that skills like "craft" should be trained only! That argument was lost, because "one can always learn a new craft and experiment with it".
It stands to reason, that the ones that are required training, have special qualities and nuances that allow them to be effective for their purpose in the rules. Ex.: I could never decipher a script if i didn't have some basics on linguistics, ancient runes, or whatever is needed for it...

[Cyclone Joker]

Vasja: Yeah, you did. Not sure how, it's a basic DC10 check. Trolling is extraneous, off-topic, and for the purpose of provoking emotional reactions. I simply provided facts.

(click to show/hide)

suuure.Why would i believe a Troll?It is even after midnight my timezone...

I don't know. The fact that the accusation is frequently used as a defense of a failed argument?

WotC provides the facts. You provide interpretations.

Nope. WotC provides facts. I provide definitions and corrections of things that are absolutely wrong. You know, facts.

All of the things I've brought up are fact, because they are what WotC said. WotC said that identifying a creature and its special powers and vulnerabilities is DC10+HD. Therefore, everyone claiming any other DC to identify a creature and its abilities is wrong. Period. Fact. I stated this. There is no interpretation here.

Would you kindly define what special powers and vulnerabilities are, using WotC terminology

Very nice non-sequitur.  While we're at it, please define "of" in official game terms. Or "time," using official game terminology. Or "question" Or "Answer." Or "study."

WotC provides the facts. You provide interpretations.

Nope. WotC provides facts. I provide definitions and corrections of things that are absolutely wrong. You know, facts.

All of the things I've brought up are fact, because they are what WotC said. WotC said that identifying a creature and its special powers and vulnerabilities is DC10+HD. Therefore, everyone claiming any other DC to identify a creature and its abilities is wrong. Period. Fact. I stated this. There is no interpretation here.

Would you kindly define what special powers and vulnerabilities are, using WotC terminology?

This.  You seem to define special as unique.  That's all well and good, but that isn't the only possible definition of the word special.

spe·cial
adjective /ˈspeSHəl/ 

Better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual
- they always made a special effort at Christmas

Exceptionally good or precious
- she's a very special person

Belonging specifically to a particular person or place
- we want to preserve our town's special character

Designed or organized for a particular person, purpose, or occasion
- we will return by special coaches

(of a subject) Studied in particular depth

Used to denote education for children with particular needs, esp. those with learning difficulties

Denoting a group consisting of matrices of unit determinant

noun /ˈspeSHəl/ 
specials, plural

A thing, such as an event, product, or broadcast, that is designed or organized for a particular occasion or purpose
- television's election night specials

A dish not on the regular menu at a restaurant but served on a particular day

A product or service offered at a temporarily reduced price

Now, how many are applicable here? Only the first adjective.

Nunom, look, "The DM says so" or "Rule 0" means absolutely nothing in a discussion of rules.

[Bauglir]

You are correct on the "And" point, Bauglir, but you missed one point; "Special" powers and qualities, or qualities that are different from "normal." So, can all, or basically all, monsters, including things like outsiders and constructs, produce milk? No. Therefore, you must make a DC 15(Assuming we're using bison as a stand-in for cows) knowledge check to know that they produce milk. Needing to breath is different from many creatures, and so would qualify as a special vulnerability.

Also, I think you're misinterpreting what I meant. The rules, in their strictest sense, are required to be the baseline for any discussion on altering them in some way, or a meaningful discussion for the impact of rules.

Yeah, I agree that you must make that check if you want to identify the cow as a cow and also know that it produces milk with a single check, if I accept that producing milk is a "power" (it's certainly an ability, but I'm not sure how WotC defines powers, outside of psionics). I have no argument with this from a rules perspective. I'm just saying you can get one or the other without triggering that specific rule, since the game doesn't have a specific rule to handle that case. Similarly needing to breathe. I think both of these fall under common knowledge and are therefore fair game, but that matters only if you can dodge the specific rule. Since the game never defines what's actually common knowledge, we kind of just have to make educated guesses. Mine is that if a piece of knowledge is so obvious that it demonstrates the absurdity of the system if you can fail to know it, it's probably common knowledge.

Also, fair enough. I suppose I should be clear that I don't think either of us is talking about how we'd actually play the game, just how we think the rules are written.

On Topic, while I don't exactly like the idea of a trained-only skill (a game as open-ended as D&D doesn't lend itself well to binaries in terms of what you can or cannot do), I think they have value in maintaining verisimilitude. I'd just have such skills have a high penalty or lower modifier from a high ability score than others. For instance, you could argue that advanced physics isn't something you can guess, and you really just have to be educated - but I'd argue that an Int 34 Wizard should be able to derive it from basic principles in his head, at least in theory, because that's how obnoxiously high an Int score that is.

[NunoM]

Nunom, look, "The DM says so" or "Rule 0" means absolutely nothing in a discussion of rules.

I believe i was stating rules. I even posted a link for them, but i can quote them here if you wish.

The chapter i mentioned, defines the exceptions the DM is allowed to make + the valid modifiers to apply (which limits the DM ruling) and specifically for handling skill checks. As the title of the chapter states, those are destined to replicate favorable or unfavorable conditions during the check. Of course the conditions to apply will have to be decided by the DM, but IMO it's not a random "The-DM-says-so-Rule-0" kind of ruling, it's RAW.

EDIT: (added quote to put the reply in context)

[Cyclone Joker]

You are correct on the "And" point, Bauglir, but you missed one point; "Special" powers and qualities, or qualities that are different from "normal." So, can all, or basically all, monsters, including things like outsiders and constructs, produce milk? No. Therefore, you must make a DC 15(Assuming we're using bison as a stand-in for cows) knowledge check to know that they produce milk. Needing to breath is different from many creatures, and so would qualify as a special vulnerability.

Also, I think you're misinterpreting what I meant. The rules, in their strictest sense, are required to be the baseline for any discussion on altering them in some way, or a meaningful discussion for the impact of rules.

Yeah, I agree that you must make that check if you want to identify the cow as a cow and also know that it produces milk with a single check, if I accept that producing milk is a "power" (it's certainly an ability, but I'm not sure how WotC defines powers, outside of psionics). I have no argument with this from a rules perspective. I'm just saying you can get one or the other without triggering that specific rule, since the game doesn't have a specific rule to handle that case. Similarly needing to breathe. I think both of these fall under common knowledge and are therefore fair game, but that matters only if you can dodge the specific rule. Since the game never defines what's actually common knowledge, we kind of just have to make educated guesses. Mine is that if a piece of knowledge is so obvious that it demonstrates the absurdity of the system if you can fail to know it, it's probably common knowledge.

The "Special" in the phrase "Special power" obviously distinguishes it from Psionics, so we must, again, fall back to the definition, which would include the production of milk is a power. It is quite obviously common knowledge, but the specific rules trump it. It appears we are in agreement?

Also, fair enough. I suppose I should be clear that I don't think either of us is talking about how we'd actually play the game, just how we think the rules are written.

Oh, absolutely not. I love me my house rules, don't get me wrong. I just firmly believe that, for a discussion of the actual, physical rules, the actual rules must not only be established, but treated as the baseline. Until this is established, any debate on rules is meaningless at best.

On Topic, while I don't exactly like the idea of a trained-only skill (a game as open-ended as D&D doesn't lend itself well to binaries in terms of what you can or cannot do), I think they have value in maintaining verisimilitude. I'd just have such skills have a high penalty or lower modifier from a high ability score than others. For instance, you could argue that advanced physics isn't something you can guess, and you really just have to be educated - but I'd argue that an Int 34 Wizard should be able to derive it from basic principles in his head, at least in theory, because that's how obnoxiously high an Int score that is.

Again, agreed here. My group threw around the idea of a double digit penalty, somewhere between -10 and -15 for untrained "Trained only" checks. I was in favor of -10, as the magnitude of the penalty seemed sufficient for low-mid level play, and high-level characters are gods anyways, so it doesn't matter, but an agreement was never reached, and we dropped it 'cause it wasn't relevant in the particular game we were in.

Nunom:DM adjudication doesn't apply in online discussions, simply because no baseline or true common ground can be established. Unless you can find be a DM who is the officially empowered absolute arbiter of all D&D to tell me exactly what penalty would apply to this specific case, it doesn't apply. Also, care to provide exact text?

[veekie]

You might want to break it down into categories of information:
Take said cow and disassemble it into its attributes:
-Mammal: As a subset of the Animal, Humanoid, Monstrous Humanoid and Giant types, but with no game role. It declares that they have hair, warm bloodedness, give birth live, and produce milk, none of which is relevant in a mechanical sense.
Any mammal would find these traits to be extremely common knowledge, as they possess them personally, and can verify them with personal examination.

-Gross physical traits: Size, horns, hooves, color. These are not necessarily common knowledge, but easily acquired through observation. Just as you need no knowledge check to tell you that the dragon in front of you is fucking huge, you need no knowledge to know that the creature in front of you is big, horned, quadrupedal and hoofed.
This also means that knowing about these attributes is automatic on sight, common knowledge to those who have seen it before(though they may know it by another name), and a harder roll for those who've never seen it before.

-Type: This goes under one of the information points of the 10+CR check. A Type and all it implies are part of one special ability/vulnerability. Yes, you might not be able to positively identify a cow as the Animal type. You can call it an animal anyway, but you do not know about animal HD size, skill points, BAB and save progression if you fail the check.

-Detailed physical traits: Yes its big and strong. How big, and how strong is a specific creature ability check. Whether this particular cow has a trample attack is a specific creature ability check. All of these have the CR based formula in play. Remember that the CR based knowledge DC goes up rapidly from each additional ability/vulnerability you want to know about, if used exactly in the manner Cyclone Joker specifies, it opens an undesirable loophole in that when I roll a special ability knowledge check on a red dragon, the DM gives me the following information: It lays eggs and its scales can be used to make armor, oh look, you ran out of your two items of information.

Finally, you need to consider checking against a named creature(just a name), an observed creature(seen, described or heard), an encountered creature(engaged in extended interaction such as combat), and a rumored creature. Each of these are very different checks with very different difficulties, reflecting very different levels of available information. The more intimate your interaction, the more info you have to work with.