How should skills be done in D&D?

[OgreBattle]

I've got two questions in mind:

-Purpose of skills: What separates a skill from an attribute check or raw ability score?
-Execution of Skills: How does the ideal skill selection look for your favorite edition/heartbreaker


I was browsing through the old The New Edition threads and found some nice discussion that related to my query.

If you already have ability and stat customization, skills are completely useless.

True.

Until you define your terms, you're just playing word games.

Also true.

Words like attributes, skills, abilities, powers, feats, schticks, perks, and talents don't actually mean anything in any abstract context. They are only ascribed a meaning by the game system nailing them down with mechanics for acquiring, rating, and using them. So to an extent this discussion is entirely pointless.

But there is a couple deeper questions that this discussion is talking around

• Should the things you do be numerically rated?
• Should the things you do that are "major" come in on a different set of points than your "minor" things?

The answers to both are "it depends." For a level based system, the answers are probably "no, yes" and for a skill based system the answers are probably "yes, no."

There's a couple of nested questions here. The first of course is to what extent a leveled character can be thwarted by mundane tasks and defeated by minor characters. Things to keep in mind:

• A level bonus rapidly outpaces differences in attributes. A best case stat modifier is a +9 and a worst case is a +4. So if level bonuses are involved, a character five levels up has basically no need for the services of a specialist five levels down save as a source of teamwork bonuses.
  
  
• An optional level bonus is inherently divergent. That is, if you can either add your level or not to a skill you will rapidly depart the RNG.
  
  
• Having powerful adventurers pick pocketed by gutter rats is not necessarily bad.
  
  
• Powerful characters should be able to do stupid shit like plowing fields before lunch, manning a ship by themselves, and forging siege engines of awesome power.
  
  
• If you can only learn languages after gaining a level, you might as well not be able to do it at all, because you won't gain a level until you conquer Mount Chaining, and then you won't be dealing with the Leopard Tribe anyway.

So what does that all mean?

It means that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If you give people spendable ranks they will go off the RNG with each other. If you give everyone a Level bonus to throw around, the players have no use for low level sages and can't be harassed by child thieves. And if you don't give either of those things, players won't be getting nice stuff when they go up in level.

---

My thoughts on the subject are many. The first is that ranks in skills should be extremely finite. Like probably between one and five ranks total. Possibly Untrained, Trained, and Expert. Different races might also have different lists of no-default skills, which would be interesting and add depth to the races.

The other thing I'm thinking is that characters should probably pick up skill ranks to throw around independently of gaining power levels.

Untrained: +Stat Modifier
Trained: +Stat Modifier + 5
Expert: +Stat Modifier + 10
?

---

Sociality is a separate thing. And I think that it should be more... big. Like seriously I think that there should be overall Diplomatic Position Scores which are influenced by winning battles against foes.

-Username17

So there's an idea of how the math stands for skills in D&D and how it could scale for different categories (ex: Your ability to jump and lift heavy things grows faster than your ability to persuade)


As for the purpose of skills, I like the idea of 'Five cornerstones of adventuring':

The life of an adventurer is a wild and woolly place. One day you are fighting dragons from the side of mountain crevasses and delving into mostly extinct volcanoes to kill a barrow of flaming wights, and the next day you are sipping sherbet with the duke and doing your best to avoid the love triangle between his daughter and the wizard adviser.

After some thought, there are things every adventurer needs to be able to do to qualify as a minimally competent adventurer.

1. Fight Monsters.
A character has to be able to solo things and fight things as a team. Nuff' said.

2. Talk.
Whether it is witty reparte with liches or doing an inspiring speech to rouse the villagers to take up arms, every real adventurer needs some ability to talk and persuade.

3. Handle Magic Items/Effects.
Magic is everywhere in the fantasy universe, so every adventurer needs some ability to identify, understand, and use weird magics. Fighters may need to cut through magic walls with their equally magic swords while wizards are casting counter-magics, but both need to look at a castle made out of ice and say "meh, its a powerful magic at work here...."

4. Not Die.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of statistics knows that a small probability of dying means you'll die eventually (and probably ignobly). For this reason, DnD uses Raise Dead, action points, and weird things like contingent effects to keep heroes and villains alive. Whether it is access to a good cleric or clones in your basement, every adventurer needs a way to avoid dying.

5. Information
Knowledge wins quests, so in many ways you need some sort of information gathering to accomplish anything. This can run the range from friendly sages to quest-granting angels to street rats with gossip, but figuring out what is going on is essential.

So with these in mind, how should skills be mechanically executed in D&D? What should the skill list look like? What SHOULDN'T be done with skills?
The only rule I can think of is that purely RP effects (weaving) shouldn't take up the same resources as combat/adventuring effects (perceiving danger, identifying magic, etc.)

These old TNE discussions also talk about chase mechanics that eventually got put in After Sundown. Has After Sundown's chasing mechanics been adapted to d20 already? If it became more abstract I could see it as the grounds for a "Skill challenge that works!"

[deaddmwalking]

-Purpose of skills: What separates a skill from an attribute check or raw ability score?

You can improve your chance of success with practice or specialized training.

So with these in mind, how should skills be mechanically executed in D&D?

I'm in favor of the untrained/trained/expert divide. In addition to the bonus from training, in my heartbreaker we include an additional bonus equal to half character level. We only go up to 12 levels, but an untrained 12th level character is better than a trained 1st level character in 'adventuring skills', all else being equal.

What SHOULDN'T be done with skills?
The only rule I can think of is that purely RP effects (weaving) shouldn't take up the same resources as combat/adventuring effects (perceiving danger, identifying magic, etc.)

From an emulationist point of view, this doesn't necessarily follow. If it takes you 10,000 hours to become a master weaver or a concert pianist, that's time you're devoting to a craft or art that you could be devoting to 'being better at adventuring'. The thing is, there are lots of situations where a skill like that is BETTER than adventuring type skills, usually because of 'magic'. If you need to be an expert to identify magic, but a 0- or 1st- level spell can reveal all the properties of a magical item, you skill is mostly pointless. If you're an expert jumper, that might be good for a while, but when you strap on your wings of flying it matters a lot less. Meanwhile, your 'concert pianist' skill might get you invited to the Duke's Ball.

Usually, a skill list is not limited to adventurers. Animals and non-adventurers have need for skills, too. If you make them purchase them with a different currency, you have to figure out how PCs access that currency as well. If you decide that these skills don't matter and PCs can have as many as they want, you could have PCs being the best blacksmiths and the best weavers and the best scholars because they get these 'free skills' in addition to skills they actually need.

If skills are universally available, there are going to be people (especially non-adventurers) who get a whole lot more out of 'craft' than they would out of 'sense danger'. Giving them the ability to purchase 'adventuring skills' because they have two pools of currency might seem strange - but it'd be even worse to completely lock them out of accessing them. The commoner/hunter might have reasons to need to be able to track and survive in the forest (also skills PCs might want) even if he's not using them for 'adventuring purpose'.

If you include skills, I think you're better off making them all purchasable with a common currency, allowing players to decide what is most worthwhile to them. This avoids any complication for skills that could legitimately belong to either list depending on circumstances.

[ishy]

I've got two questions in mind:

-Purpose of skills: What separates a skill from an attribute check or raw ability score?
-Execution of Skills: How does the ideal skill selection look for your favorite edition/heartbreaker

Attribute 'checks' for say Strength would be: lifting / pushing / dragging etc.
You're really good at that stuff because you're really strong

Skills would be things like Forgery.
You're really good at it, because you have lots of training in that, your attributes don't really matter that much.

My ideal skill system would be different from campaign to campaign. In one campaign I want child thieves to be a thing, in the other I want mid-level adventurers to automatically detect them.

- Edit: But I'm in favour of ditching attributes all together. And just handing out class bonuses or automatic training if you pick a class for some skills.

[Seerow]

1) Fewer ranks, each rank has more meaning. I don't think a skill needs to be improved every level. If you have something like you can boost your skill 1 rank, giving you a +3 in that skill, but can only do so every 3-4 levels? That's fine.

2) Knowledge/profession skills and active skills are separate. This is something Shadowrun gets right. Spending points from your skills that go towards shit like "I'm super stealthy" on stuff like "I can craft mundane items" is bullshit.

3) As a result of #2, being more free and loose with knowledge/profession skills. If your stealth skill goes off the RNG, it causes problems. If your diplomacy goes off the RNG, it causes problems. If your knowledge(Religion) goes off the RNG, you'll know a Demilich when you see him. Not particularly devastating. If Craft(Weapon) goes off the RNG, you might craft a masterwork weapon a bit faster or earlier. Nobody really cares. Let the player spend a couple weeks of downtime to gain an extra knowledge/profession skill rank. Let them invest those ranks above the normal level limits. It's okay. It also has the side effect of making a local level 1 archivist or blacksmith a resource even high level characters may want to interact with, if they're good enough at their jobs.

4) Attributes should influence skills in some way. This one is more vague, but above Ishy states he wants to see attributes go away, or be divorced from skills. I do not agree with this premise. It might be the linked attribute directly adds to the skill ala 3.5, or it limits the skill (maybe only as many skill ranks as your attribute modifier as a cap), or something else entirely. Either way, skill and attribute should interact in some way. It's okay if Skill is the much bigger factor, but if you remove attribute from the equation entirely it devalues attributes a lot, and that's not really something I see as fitting in D&D.

[JonSetanta]

For many games stats tend to be static while skills can improve.

[Ice9]

Scaling (or not) is tricky, because it seems like you want different results in some cases than others.

For example, keeping child thieves and low-level sages relevant was mentioned as a desirable thing. And I can see that. On the other hand, if someone is "the king of thieves, who has stolen years from death itself", then they should absolutely be able to do things that an ordinary "master thief" has no fucking chance at. Likewise, the 1000-year-old diviner who watches a hundred worlds should be able to answer questions that "an experienced researcher" can't.

So - I don't know. Maybe 3E-style divergent skills are actually what we want. Because in the child-thief example, it seems like ideally some character concepts should still get pickpocketed, but others should catch it trivially.


Edit: Actually, thinking about it, we have a nasty circular dependency here. Take these four characters:
Pip, the plucky child thief.
Sergeant Fred, the fairly observant watchman.
Bob, the classic heroic adventurer.
Silent Death, the legendary assassin.

Now, take these four statements:
A) Pip has a chance of pickpocketing Bob.
B) Pip has a chance to be seen by Fred, and so would be cautious about that.
C) Silent Death could walk up to Fred and steal the sword out of his hand, and Fred wouldn't notice until it was in his chest and SD was walking away casually.
D) Bob should not be auto-pwned by SD.

They can't all be true at once, but it's also not clear which one you'd want to give up on. Non-scaling skills give up on C, divergent skills give up on D, and auto-scaling skills give up on A.

[shadzar]

I've got two questions in mind:

-Purpose of skills: What separates a skill from an attribute check or raw ability score?
-Execution of Skills: How does the ideal skill selection look for your favorite edition/heartbreaker

1. unknown, but probably it wouldnt even be connected to them. maybe loosley to tell which attribute check to perform if something really out there comes up to need the RNG. otherwise it would be a have or have not situation like AD&D Secondary skills.

2. it has common things explained so you can be inspired to not get stuck picking lists and picking from lists. it also prevents the same "class" being done 600 times just so each individual skill can be the specialty of a single class. ergo, no thief class would exist because everyone is a thief if they act like one, same for assassin as that is just a hired killer, which ALL PCs really are be being mercenaries adventurers for hire.

[codeGlaze]

Edit: Actually, thinking about it, we have a nasty circular dependency here. Take these four characters:
Pip, the plucky child thief.
Sergeant Fred, the fairly observant watchman.
Bob, the classic heroic adventurer.
Silent Death, the legendary assassin.

Now, take these four statements:
A) Pip has a chance of pickpocketing Bob.
B) Pip has a chance to be seen by Fred, and so would be cautious about that.
C) Silent Death could walk up to Fred and steal the sword out of his hand, and Fred wouldn't notice until it was in his chest and SD was walking away casually.
D) Bob should not be auto-pwned by SD.

They can't all be true at once, but it's also not clear which one you'd want to give up on. Non-scaling skills give up on C, divergent skills give up on D, and auto-scaling skills give up on A.

What about Fred is capable of noticing the assassin, but is powerless to stop him? Whereas Bob might not notice the assassin at first (sneak attaaack!) but could possibly survive the assault AND fight back. Last-minute spider sense/reflexes, toughness/fortitude what ever you want to associate with it... adventurer's luck.

Shit, Fred might get stabbed and live long enough to ask Bob to... avenge him, or stop the evil man from stealing the princess.

edit: Perception is definitely something higher level adventurers should be obtaining by default in my opinion. Being oblivious to the world around you at level 10+ is extraordinarily bad for one's health.

edit2: In the situation of a child thief, the pick-pocketing may not be skill alone, it could be the result of a slew of situational modifiers. Crowded area, lots of activity, children are small and also not typically perceived as a threat. They could also be acting as someone else's child or simply hiding and waiting for a 'scene' to take the PC's attention away.

[RadiantPhoenix]

They can't all be true at once, but it's also not clear which one you'd want to give up on. Non-scaling skills give up on C, divergent skills give up on D, and auto-scaling skills give up on A.

I would give up on A.

[CCarter]

Now, take these four statements:
A) Pip has a chance of pickpocketing Bob.
B) Pip has a chance to be seen by Fred, and so would be cautious about that.
C) Silent Death could walk up to Fred and steal the sword out of his hand, and Fred wouldn't notice until it was in his chest and SD was walking away casually.
D) Bob should not be auto-pwned by SD.

They can't all be true at once, but it's also not clear which one you'd want to give up on. Non-scaling skills give up on C, divergent skills give up on D, and auto-scaling skills give up on A.

With 'auto-pwned' in D) does he have to be able to notice Silent Death, or just have to be able to survive a sneak attack/death attack from him?
If its acceptable to have him oblivious to the assassin, Bod could still survive due to 'level appropriate' hit points & Fortitude that Fred doesn't have.

[OgreBattle]

-Child thief has situational modifiers
-Heroic superguy has the durability/fate/action points to survive the assassin's strike
-Guard dude doesn't

edit: Perception is definitely something higher level adventurers should be obtaining by default in my opinion. Being oblivious to the world around you at level 10+ is extraordinarily bad for one's health.

If something like Perception is useful for all adventurers, is it worth it to make it a specific skill and not just something that raises by leveling up (and having a high WIS attribute).

[radthemad4]

Well, one thing that's really annoyed me is the variation in performance for some skills, e.g. Jump. I find it kinda ridiculous that a guy who's max jump distance is 20 feet can roll a 1 and just jump 1 foot.

[shadzar]

edit: Perception is definitely something higher level adventurers should be obtaining by default in my opinion. Being oblivious to the world around you at level 10+ is extraordinarily bad for one's health.

If something like Perception is useful for all adventurers, is it worth it to make it a specific skill and not just something that raises by leveling up (and having a high WIS attribute).

i am going out on a lim here and saying it is meant something like how an Elf in D&D can detect secret doors. they just get it rather than having to train it or upgrade it. so at a certain level, what is being said, is that, i guess i am using the term right... Take10 would become something like Take20.

the higher level character just automatically notices things whether they trained it or not.

but that would mean a return on any "points" or such spent n the skill? or maybe those "ranks" in the skill grant automatic things depending on how high the rank was before automatic success can into play?

1- you can hear someone speaking without having to roll.
2- you know a door is there
3- you can tell is someone is alone or acting alone (you know if someone is signalling someone)

things like that are automatic depending on the "rank" you got to.

so sort of like turn undead did when you got a certain level it no longer turned the lesser ones, but flat out automatically destroyed them, with no roll needed.

that kind of "granted at level" kind of thing.

at least that is how i read it to mean.

[Lago PARANOIA]

1.) Well, first things first, I don't think that skills should all increase at the same rate. For a heroic fantasy game, increases to diplomacy should be logarithmic. Increases to knowledge skills should be greater-than-linear, or even exponential.

I don't think anyone really minds if an ambassador is verbally outmaneuvered by a layperson or even a particularly cunning child, but I think few people would like for a layperson to beat a trained mathematician at writing complicated proofs.

2.) Secondly, while base level bonuses increases that 4E D&D were for simplifying micromanagement, I don't really think that they should be in the game. People don't and didn't like the fact that high-level grubby fighters could school a low-level cleric in matters of religion.

3.) If you're going to have a stat that determines how many skill points people get at certain intervals, it shouldn't be one of the base attribute stats at all.


That's a 5-minute pitch to improving 3E D&D skills right now. Really overhauling the skill system is beyond the scope of this thread. To show the magnitude of the task ahead: two of the stats in D&D as-envisioned are entirely redundant and need to go away immediately or be intentionally demoted in importance.

[deaddmwalking]

2.) Secondly, while base level bonuses increases that 4E D&D were for simplifying micromanagement, I don't really think that they should be in the game. People don't and didn't like the fact that high-level grubby fighters could school a low-level cleric in matters of religion.

I disagree with this. Depending on the maximum bonus from level and/or the training bonus, it is possible for an 'untrained' grubby fighter to basically know as much as the 'trained' cleric, and considering that the Fighter may have actually MET some of the deities, maybe he does know.

I like the idea of the Fighter saying, "That may be what they taught you in school, but when I was hanging out with him in Valahall, he told me otherwise."

[codeGlaze]

2.) Secondly, while base level bonuses increases that 4E D&D were for simplifying micromanagement, I don't really think that they should be in the game. People don't and didn't like the fact that high-level grubby fighters could school a low-level cleric in matters of religion.

I disagree with this. Depending on the maximum bonus from level and/or the training bonus, it is possible for an 'untrained' grubby fighter to basically know as much as the 'trained' cleric, and considering that the Fighter may have actually MET some of the deities, maybe he does know.

I like the idea of the Fighter saying, "That may be what they taught you in school, but when I was hanging out with him in Valahall, he told me otherwise."

That sort of parallels the conversation TarkisFlux, Sigil and I had about Tome Skills.

But a fighter having some personal knowledge about demons and angels spoken of in theology (even meeting a god personally) is first-hand experience and subject to being narrow in focus. On the flip side I see knowledge as kind of being like a broad set of knowledge about a topic. So the fighter might be able to best a Cleric on a debate about whether Thor likes grapes or watermelon more, but he might be in the dark about holy symbols/runes, rituals, church history, etc.

[deaddmwalking]

2.) Secondly, while base level bonuses increases that 4E D&D were for simplifying micromanagement, I don't really think that they should be in the game. People don't and didn't like the fact that high-level grubby fighters could school a low-level cleric in matters of religion.

I disagree with this. Depending on the maximum bonus from level and/or the training bonus, it is possible for an 'untrained' grubby fighter to basically know as much as the 'trained' cleric, and considering that the Fighter may have actually MET some of the deities, maybe he does know.

I like the idea of the Fighter saying, "That may be what they taught you in school, but when I was hanging out with him in Valahall, he told me otherwise."

That sort of parallels the conversation TarkisFlux, Sigil and I had about Tome Skills.

But a fighter having some personal knowledge about demons and angels spoken of in theology (even meeting a god personally) is first-hand experience and subject to being narrow in focus. On the flip side I see knowledge as kind of being like a broad set of knowledge about a topic. So the fighter might be able to best a Cleric on a debate about whether Thor likes grapes or watermelon more, but he might be in the dark about holy symbols/runes, rituals, church history, etc.

I think this is true to a point, but this touches on the 'jack of all trades' type of situation. It's possible to have a broad knowledge of a topic without having very specialized knowledge. For example, most of us could probably identify the symbols of at least 10 of the world's major religions. Whether we could answer any questions of theological import is another story. But in 3.x, the skills don't differentiate between specific knowledge and general knowledge - in fact, the more you specialize, the more you learn about things you aren't studying.

For example, if you are a cleric that spends a lot of time studying YOUR religion, you can put ranks so you can achieve a DC 35 check. If you encounter a religion that no one living remembers, you can identify it with a successful DC 35 check. How does your knowledge of Heironeous apply to knowledge of Nyarlathotep? And if they ARE teaching you about Nyarlathotep in seminary, maybe someone should stop them!

[Josh_Kablack]

Well if I was concepting out my own D&D level-based heartbreakers, I'd go with something like:


At low levels:

Skills should be "must be this tall checks" - someone in the party having the skill at such and such rank unlocks adventures. If nobody in the party has Track [x] you cannot find the goblin lair and have to go on a different adventure. If nobody in the party has Jump or Climb [X], you can't run the rope across the ravine and can't explore the lower caverns. This approach means that there should be a correlation between levels and both the value and variety of skills available. So characters need to get more and better skills as they gain levels, in order to unlock more adventuring locales. This approach also means that skills possessed by an individual PC have to apply to the whole adventuring party and therefore PC groups would want diverse skill sets, and design considerations would have to include ways to prevent players from cheesing the intent by bringing along large numbers of henchmen specialists.

At mid levels, skills stop being merely skills but become prerequisites or combo-pieces for superpowers. If you have Track [X] you can buy Blindsight. If you have Track [x] and Knowledge (n-type monsters) you get to Locate Creature for n-type monsters. If you have Jump [X] and/or Acrobatics / Tubling [X] you can buy airwalk / flight / teleportation effects. This lets you have characters at this level who cannot get robbed by zero-level child pickpockets and other characters who cannot - since even among characters who maxed out Detect Ambush, not all of them will have bought Spider Sense superpower that makes the eligible for.


At high level, this shit goes to crazy town, characters get superpowers like candy, and those let you do everything pretty much everything skills or skill combos allowed you to do at lower levels, but there are still a few combos from mid-level that keep up.

[codeGlaze]

I've always liked the idea that you can graduate from "perceiving mundanity really well" to "seeing fucking ghosts and shit". (As an example)

[CCarter]

I think this is true to a point, but this touches on the 'jack of all trades' type of situation. It's possible to have a broad knowledge of a topic without having very specialized knowledge. For example, most of us could probably identify the symbols of at least 10 of the world's major religions. Whether we could answer any questions of theological import is another story. But in 3.x, the skills don't differentiate between specific knowledge and general knowledge - in fact, the more you specialize, the more you learn about things you aren't studying.

For example, if you are a cleric that spends a lot of time studying YOUR religion, you can put ranks so you can achieve a DC 35 check. If you encounter a religion that no one living remembers, you can identify it with a successful DC 35 check. How does your knowledge of Heironeous apply to knowledge of Nyarlathotep? And if they ARE teaching you about Nyarlathotep in seminary, maybe someone should stop them!

The cleric who puts lots of ranks into Knowledge (religion) is going to include bits on lots of religions because its Knowledge (religion) not Knowledge (Hieroneus).

There's no way currently to represent a character who specifically is just learning about Hieroneus - generally this actually would default to MTP (i.e. the GM says your cleric of Pelor has heard of Pelor and doesn't need to roll for basic matters relating to him).
The other interesting thing here is that it seems like rolling a d20 is suited to fairly 'broad' skills - if it was Knowledge (Pelor) the cleric who rolls would still be failing their knowledge checks an embarrassing amount of the time. (Unless they take-10, i.e. find some other way to avoid rolling the d20).

[fectin]

You might be able to use different skills at different DCs, just like anywhere else, so the Knowledge (Hieroneus) check might be significantly easier.

[MGuy]

You might be able to use different skills at different DCs, just like anywhere else, so the Knowledge (Hieroneus) check might be significantly easier.

I'd label it "familiarity" and make DC adjustments from there. At least that's what I'm doing in my write up. That way if characters in-game decide to do a lot of research on frost bears at one point and even go on a whole frost bear adventure then later on when frost bears come up again they all can make knowledge rolls fairly easily on frost bears without having to be the 'dood with all da knowledge skillz'.

[codeGlaze]

I'd label it "familiarity" and make DC adjustments from there. At least that's what I'm doing in my write up. That way if characters in-game decide to do a lot of research on frost bears at one point and even go on a whole frost bear adventure then later on when frost bears come up again they all can make knowledge rolls fairly easily on frost bears without having to be the 'dood with all da knowledge skillz'.

Doesn't that run into a Bookkeeping nightmare eventually, though?
With an entire page of shit your familiar with from experience?
I've thought about something like that to, but ran into that particular wall with my thought exercise.

[MGuy]

I'd label it "familiarity" and make DC adjustments from there. At least that's what I'm doing in my write up. That way if characters in-game decide to do a lot of research on frost bears at one point and even go on a whole frost bear adventure then later on when frost bears come up again they all can make knowledge rolls fairly easily on frost bears without having to be the 'dood with all da knowledge skillz'.

Doesn't that run into a Bookkeeping nightmare eventually, though?
With an entire page of shit your familiar with from experience?
I've thought about something like that to, but ran into that particular wall with my thought exercise.

Most players are fine with that. Anything major they've gone out of their way to do research on they are going to remember anyway. If you spent an entire three sessions hunting down and butt cutting frost bears you're very likely to remember it even without referring to their notes. If you have someone who decides to study a lot of stuff and they decide to keep lengthy notes for it I am ok with that (as long as they are the ones who keep them). I did have someone do that once and all I did was type down the name of what he studied and just used the control F function to reference it whenever he called something up.

[deaddmwalking]

It would be a terrible DM who after a particular red dragon breathes fire on the group that tells them that they can't cast protection from fire because none of them rolled a high enough knowledge check to identify that as a standard ability of a red dragon...

DM: "Maybe it used a spell".

Since players can have knowledge of monsters, the way 3.x allows identifying them doesn't work at all. Now, if succeeding on your check gave you some BONUS against them (like Favored Enemy type stuff) maybe that would work... In that case it's hard to get a bonus against a dragon because they're pretty freaking awesome - not because nobody knows what they are.