The Importance of Trained-Only Skills

[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

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."

Why so serious?

I made a simple request, for you to tell me what the terms "special powers and vulnerabilities" mean in the context of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 Edition. Would you kindly do so?

Now, when I look at the terms "special powers and vulnerabilities" and try to figure out what it means, I look at examples of "special powers and vulnerabilities" that have already been given.

For example, take the vampire. What are it's "special powers and vulnerabilities"?

Well, according to the information listed in the SRD, the special powers are: Blood Drain, Children of the Night, Dominate, Create Spawn, Energy Drain, Alternate Form, Damage Reduction, Fast Healing, Gaseous Form, Energy Resistance (cold 10 and electricity 10), Spider Climb, and Turn Resistance.

The vampire's vulnerabilities are: the strong odor of garlic, mirrors, holy symbols, running water, tresspassing, sunlight, wooden stakes, and beheading.

Other information, such as the fact that they are very sexy and sparkle, are not what the game considers to be "special powers or vulnerabilities", otherwise they would have been included in the description of the vampire template.

Now, let's apply this to a common aimal, like a wolf. What does a knowledge check tell you about wolves?  If you roll well and are trained in Knowledge Nature, you will receive "useful information". In the wolf's case, this is given in its stat block. Wolves can bite, trip, have an excellent sense of smell, can see in low light, can track, and are either found by themselves, in a pair, or in a pack of 7-16 other wolves. This sort of thing is what the game considered useful information.

The fact that a female wolf gives birth to live young, produces milk for her pups, regurgitates partially digested food for the pups, that their social structure is centered around a mating pair, the fact that they are omnivorous, that wolves become increasingly distrustful of strangers as they age, and other facts are not mentioned in the creature entry. This information, while interesting and useful for characters who work with wolves, is not what the game considers to be part of their "special powers and vulnerabilities".

And that is how Bob the commoner knows that cows can produce milk.

[Cyclone Joker]

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.

And there is less than no text supporting this "interpretation." Even if all mammals producing milk would be common knowledge, in medieval Europe-esque, where I'm not even sure the concept of mammals and reptiles was well known, or even really existed, then the identification of a cow as a mammal would involve identifying it as a cow, and the ability to produce milk is not common to all animals, and so would qualify as "special."

So, yeah, not only is your idea not supported, it's basically directly contradicted.

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."

Why so serious?

I'm not, really. I make it a point to be as unserious an possible under most circumstances. It makes a life possibly shredded in any given instant, like a gamma burst or rogue black hole, much more enjoyable.

I made a simple request, for you to tell me what the terms "special powers and vulnerabilities" mean in the context of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 Edition. Would you kindly do so?

"Special powers and vulnerabilities" is not an official game term. Thus, we must fall back onto the real definition, which I have provided. That is, unless you can provide an official definition of "of" for me.

Now, when I look at the terms "special powers and vulnerabilities" and try to figure out what it means, I look at examples of "special powers and vulnerabilities" that have already been given.

For example, take the vampire. What are it's "special powers and vulnerabilities"?

Well, according to the information listed in the SRD, the special powers are: Blood Drain, Children of the Night, Dominate, Create Spawn, Energy Drain, Alternate Form, Damage Reduction, Fast Healing, Gaseous Form, Energy Resistance (cold 10 and electricity 10), spider climb, Turn Resistance.

Not entirely correct. While those would qualify as "Special powers," they are listed as "Special attacks" and "special qualities. If they were listed directly as "Special powers," you'd be correct. However, given that they are not, any power they have that is not universal to all, or at least the vast majority of undead, would be considered "special," and thus a special power. If vampires are particularly sexy, if that would qualify as a power, which is debatable, then that super-sexiness would qualify as a "special power."

The vampire's vulnerabilities are: the strong odor of garlic, mirrors, holy symbols, running water, tresspassing, sunlight, wooden stakes, and beheading

Yes. Because there is not an absolute provided list, it is not limited to those. For example, if vampires were sparkly, Pelor forbid, then that would be considered a special weakness(Assuming it qualifies as a weakness, which I assume).

Other information, such as the fact that they are very sexy and sparkle, are not what the game considers to be "special powers or vulnerabilities", otherwise they would have been included in the description of the vampire template.

Incorrect. They are not direct game terms.

Look bro.  Your argument is sound, but is based on a false premise.

Now, let's apply this to a common aimal, like a wolf. What does a knowledge check tell you about wolves?  If you roll well and are trained in Knowledge Nature, you will receive "useful information". In the wolf's case, this is given in its stat block. Wolves can bite, trip, have an excellent sense of smell, can see in low light, can track, and are either found by themselves, in a pair, or in a pack of 7-16 other wolves. This sort of thing is what the game considered useful information.

The fact that a female wolf produces milk for her pups, that their social structure is centered around a mating pair, the fact that they are omnivorous, that wolves become increasingly distrustful of strangers as they age, and other facts are not mentioned in the creature entry. This information, while interesting and useful for characters who work with wolves, does not seem to be considered part of their "special powers and vulnerabilities".

Again, incorrect. You are assuming that all weaknesses are listed there, which is incorrect. If it has the ability to produce milk, that would be considered a "special power." If that is the case, then a knowledge check at DC 12 would be required to know this. Dogs hate loud noises. If that is the case, much like if they produce milk, that would be a "special vulnerability," and a DC 12-ish check would be required to know this.

And that is why Bob the commoner doesn't know that cows can produce milk.

FTFY.

[sirpercival]

CJ, I'm not sure what this "cow" animal is that you're talking about.  It's certainly not one with mechanical support... there's no stat blocks for a "cow" anywhere that I can see.  Thus, a "cow" must be a construct of the particular campaign worlds you've played in, and is therefore Rule 0 incarnate.

In fact, I can't find rules for this "milk" you speak of anywhere.  When I Google "milk", it seems it has something to do with cheese, which is in fact supported by the rules.  As for where it comes from, well, I'd have to say that you can probably make it with create food and water, and maybe even the Craft (Cheesemaking) skill.  But I still don't see what that has to do with "milk".

EDIT: Aha!  I found the cow -- apparently a trade good and not a creature.

[Vasja]

In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities.

I don't see how this negates using common knowledge to identify things. This has nothing to do with specific vs. general - the rules say there is a specific method for identifying monsters, but they in no way rule out that other methods exist. If knowing how to identify orcs is common knowledge (DC 10), then that is already a specific rule. That there exists another way of getting useful facts about them (making a DC 11 Knowledge [local] check) doesn't mean that the first method is somehow negated.

[Bauglir]

CJ, I'm not sure what this "cow" animal is that you're talking about.  It's certainly not one with mechanical support... there's no stat blocks for a "cow" anywhere that I can see.  Thus, a "cow" must be a construct of the particular campaign worlds you've played in, and is therefore Rule 0 incarnate.

In fact, I can't find rules for this "milk" you speak of anywhere.  When I Google "milk", it seems it has something to do with cheese, which is in fact supported by the rules.  As for where it comes from, well, I'd have to say that you can probably make it with create food and water, and maybe even the Craft (Cheesemaking) skill.  But I still don't see what that has to do with "milk".

EDIT: Aha!  I found the cow -- apparently a trade good and not a creature.

Can't argue with this. We should really be arguing in terms of bison. Or maybe get our expanded cultural horizons on, and talk about milking horses. The Profession skill does contain rules for actually performing milking, but only over the course of an entire week in exchange for wages, at least given any sensible definitions of the listed professions (you'll have to crack open the PHB for this, they're omitted from the SRD).

[Cyclone Joker]

CJ, I'm not sure what this "cow" animal is that you're talking about.  It's certainly not one with mechanical support... there's no stat blocks for a "cow" anywhere that I can see.  Thus, a "cow" must be a construct of the particular campaign worlds you've played in, and is therefore Rule 0 incarnate.

Given that bison are closely related to cows(The separate genus is a point of contention), using a bison(Already horribly imprecise, given that there are three separate species of bison) to represent a cow is not unreasonable. But, in this case, you are correct. We should have been using horses or bison, or  really any other milked herbivore.

In fact, I can't find rules for this "milk" you speak of anywhere.  When I Google "milk", it seems it has something to do with cheese, which is in fact supported by the rules.  As for where it comes from, well, I'd have to say that you can probably make it with create food and water, and maybe even the Craft (Cheesemaking) skill.  But I still don't see what that has to do with "milk".

And we were getting so close. You're assuming some adaption, again. CFAW states it creates water. No other liquid.

And, no. Given that a craft check requires raw material, no, you cannot create cheese without milk, and other raw materials.

Still, we're making progress here.

EDIT: Aha!  I found the cow -- apparently a trade good and not a creature.

This falls into a case of the simulation trumping(For more information on the simulation part of the game, look at page 136 for more information. Other pages cover this, too, just, for the life of me, I can't remember which ones.

In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities.

I don't see how this negates using common knowledge to identify things. This has nothing to do with specific vs. general - the rules say there is a specific method for identifying monsters, but they in no way rule out that other methods exist. If knowing how to identify orcs is common knowledge (DC 10), then that is already a specific rule. That there exists another way of getting useful facts about them (making a DC 11 Knowledge [local] check) doesn't mean that the first method is somehow negated.

Wrong, yet again. That is the way to identify creatures. It is the only way because no others were provided.

So, the specific still trumps the general, and a human identifying other humans is DC 11, or unable to be used untrained.

[sirpercival]

In fact, I can't find rules for this "milk" you speak of anywhere.  When I Google "milk", it seems it has something to do with cheese, which is in fact supported by the rules.  As for where it comes from, well, I'd have to say that you can probably make it with create food and water, and maybe even the Craft (Cheesemaking) skill.  But I still don't see what that has to do with "milk".

And we were getting so close. You're assuming some adaption, again. CFAW states it creates water. No other liquid.

Cheese isn't a liquid, and it says you can create any food you like, so I think that's okay.

And, no. Given that a craft check requires raw material, no, you cannot create cheese without milk, and other raw materials.

Still, we're making progress here.

Well, there's nowhere by RAW that specifies what the raw materials are to make cheese, and either way milk does not exist so it can't be used as a material.  But I think this is beyond the bounds of what the Craft skill can adequately describe, since the rules for it are intentionally vague so the designers didn't have to micromanage the Universe.

EDIT: Aha!  I found the cow -- apparently a trade good and not a creature.

This falls into a case of the simulation trumping(For more information on the simulation part of the game, look at page 136 for more information. Other pages cover this, too, just, for the life of me, I can't remember which ones.

I would agree if we weren't (by your contention) sticking to absolute RAW.  Simulation trumping is Rule 0 territory.

Even if we move away from the cow to other potentially milkable animals like bisons or horses, there are no rules for these animals producing milk, so by strict RAW they don't, which is why you can't figure it out via a Knowledge check.  If they do, then it's built into the setting, and falls under common knowledge ("as part of this setting, horses produce milk").

[Bauglir]

No, I think there arguably are rules for creatures producing milk. The PHB lists possible professions, among them, "farmer... herder... rancher...", any three of which (particularly the second) could include milking animals. It's pretty vague, to be sure, but I think we can safely make this claim - it's part of any sensible definition of what that profession means, just as knowing that cows produce milk is part of any sensible definition of common knowledge (it's just not relevant unless you identify the creature with a separate roll from identifying its special powers and vulnerabilities).

Once again, the strict rules lead us to an absurd conclusion - that creatures produce milk only when milked as part of a Profession check. Wet nurses presumably have ultimate job security.

EDIT: Or, everything is born with ranks in Profession (Infant), which they retrain as they age. Usually.

[sirpercival]

Well, the fact remains that being able to produce milk is not an ability which is written down anywhere.  That's why you can't learn it with a Knowledge check by RAW.

[Solo]

Do mammals in D&D actually produce milk at all? What is the RAW support, if any, for this?

[Bauglir]

Do mammals in D&D actually produce milk at all? What is the RAW support, if any, for this?

While there is no RAW support for creatures producing milk, there is RAW support for creatures being milked as part of a Profession check since such an action falls under the purview of (say) a herder, which is explicitly called out as a possible profession. How to reconcile these facts is left as an exercise for the reader (I choose to assume that herders first inject milk into their livestock).

However, there may be support for "milk" being synonymous for poison, since I think the only reference to it might be the rules for getting poison from vermin.

[Solo]

It's certainly bad for some people to ingest milk...

[awaken_D_M_golem]

"Milk" Maid Expert 2
max Charisma
flaw (loose) ... Orison 1/day (Cure Deflowering)
1) ... Hidden Talent (Minor Creation)

... "You can have your Milk any way you want it, boys."

[SorO_Lost]

You know, other than Dragons, I'm not sure any creature has a diaphragm, and apparently breathing is a special power.

It's magic, or dyson.

[Sinfire Titan]

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

You keep overlooking this part:

A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.

Figuring out that a cow is a cow and not an undead abomination is only useful if the DM is being an absolute asshole. This?

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.

This is being an asshole.

[NunoM]

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?

(...i've been afk during the weekend.)

Here goes...
These excerpts are from the PHB in the chapter on Skill Checks.

This one is just a small quote, that i grant is related to "DM says so", but this one concerns specifically to skill checks so i figure it must count for something...

Difficulty Class
Some checks are made against a Difficulty Class (DC). The DC is a number set by the DM (using the skill rules as a guideline) that you must score as a result on your skill check in order to succeed.

(emphasis mine)

Further on, there are 4 topics explaining modifiers for Favorable and Unfavorable conditions in the checks: 2 concerning circumstance modifiers and 2 related to DCs on the task. I'll be quoting the 2 concerning DCs + a bit of text that explains how apply these modifiers.

Favorable and Unfavorable Conditions
[...]
3. Reduce the DC by 2 to represent circumstances that make the task easier, such as having a friendly audience or doing work that can be subpar.
4. Increase the DC by 2 to represent circumstances that make the task harder, such as having an uncooperative audience or doing work that must be flawless.

Conditions that affect your character’s ability to perform the skill change the skill modifier. Conditions that modify how well the
character has to perform the skill to succeed change the DC. A bonus to the skill modifier and a reduction in the check’s DC have
the same result: They create a better chance of success. But they represent different circumstances, and sometimes that difference is important.

For a cow, i would assume as common knowledge: strong four-legged mammal, herbivore, source of milk and meat, also used to pull wagons and farming tools/machinery like plows.
A more specific in-game (even bordering on meta-gamey) information (thus, requiring a check) could be: what's the STR score of a cow? how much damage do they do with a gore attack?

Personally, i consider being a common surface dweller, from a temperate climate, and living in a medieval(-ish) setting, a favorable condition for identifying a common animal such as a cow, a duck or a chicken, thus reducing the DC by 2 or more. A guy that came from the barren sand deserts wouldn't have that for the same animals, but i would grant these for bonuses to identify a camel, for example.

[ariasderros]

I have deliberately ignored this thread since my last post.
I come back, and you guys are still debating about the freaking COW!

Doesn't that level or rules argumentation declare just how ridiculous "Trained Only" is?

Here is the thing:
Let us say that people are wrong about the DC to recognize a cow and it is less than ten, or that having profession (farmer) works, or other sum-such. Then: what is the point in the appropriate Knowledge skills at all? Apparently there is justification in rules that don't exist and / or roleplaying that circumvents the RAW; what is the harm in treating all skills as not requiring a rank in order to work? Oh, there is no relevant change here.

Let us say that you took away "Trained Only" tags on skills. Then all of a sudden, Farmers can raise their kids and teach them the animals on their farm. Literally, by the rules, the father, the mother, and any siblings all make Aid Another rolls, granting a minimum of +4 circumstance, likely more than that due to being able to observe over time, the kid taking ten on the check, and he know exactly what the cow is, what it is for, etc.

"Trained Only" is meant to represent that certain skills can only be used to any relevant effect if you have had formal training in their use. That it is impossible to pick up any form of its use without that exact formal training.

There are some skills that should be in that category (UMD), but there are more that shouldn't.
And it makes the rules much simpler to simply remove the tag all-together.


Because with the "Trained Only" tag on the Knowledges, and without DM intervention, the RAW says that it doesn't matter how many times little billy pulls the cord that makes the little device go "the cow says 'moo'" little billy is never going to understand the devise itself, nor what it is trying to tell him. Debate how you can twist the rules to say otherwise all you like. This is what the rules say. Yes it is ridiculous, welcome to D&D 3.5 RAW.

CJ, I'm not sure what this "cow" animal is that you're talking about.  It's certainly not one with mechanical support... there's no stat blocks for a "cow" anywhere that I can see.  Thus, a "cow" must be a construct of the particular campaign worlds you've played in, and is therefore Rule 0 incarnate.

Given that bison are closely related to cows(The separate genus is a point of contention), using a bison(Already horribly imprecise, given that there are three separate species of bison) to represent a cow is not unreasonable. But, in this case, you are correct. We should have been using horses or bison, or  really any other milked herbivore.

Yeah, as a trade good, Cows exist, but there is still nothing about them producing milk.
Brixa are, however, stated, and are mentioned to produce milk. Although... their entry does mention milk-cows in the fluff.

[OutlawPhilosopher]

The fact that some skills, such as UMD, by your own admission should be trained only, argues in favor of the tag. Surely, if you think knowledges ought to be usable untrained, we could simply make knowledges usable untrained, while, I don't know, Autohypnosis and Iaijutsu Focus remained trained-only, as seems to be intuitively necessary. 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.

[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.

[Bauglir]

I'll be honest, the cow argument is hilarious. Is anyone here actually taking it seriously? Because if so, I sincerely apologize for my posts - I've kind of been assuming this whole thing was just us being silly about how badly the rules were written again. Every ridiculous turn in the wording that allows us to come to an obviously stupid conclusion without violating the letter of the law is worth the effort, I think. I still say that since there's no definition for "special powers", we have to treat "special" as a non-rules term indicating variance from the norm, applied to the rules term "powers" that describes psionic abilities.