User talk:Luigifan18/Knowledge (theatrics) (3.5e Skill)

Ratings

Sulacu dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.

I don't really feel like voting something down just because the mechanics are somewhat ponderous, but I don't agree with your implementation of 'theatrics' and find this article to be redundant. Understanding of theatrics is not so much a Knowledge per se as it is a sense. In my opinion it should therefore be Charisma-based, and can just as easily be taken as a part of Perform skills, since you cannot perform in the first place without having some inkling of theatrics to begin with. And if you list all the knowledge skills that exist in core D&D in a row, besides such broad terms as 'architecture/engineering', 'arcana', 'history' and 'religion', 'hamminess/how to appeal to small children' just seems arbitrarily specific.

	Foxwarrior opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	It's good to see that this skill now does something of value, but it's bad to see that you moved over the inane rolling exercise and skill-ruining parts without fixing them.

	DanielDraco opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	The actual Knowledge portion is completely redundant with K(Local). The mechanical function feels arbitrary and insufficiently related to the skill's basic purpose. It's also questionably balanced and potentially triples the amount of the rolling the DM has to do, in addition to requiring him to find some way to connect any arbitrary tiny detail to some trope.

	Franken Kesey opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	For reasons already stated, and the fact that it now does not function like a skill.

Genre Savvy originally was going to be a basic application of the skill, but when I devised its mechanics, I realized it'd be overpowered and overly complicated as an innate skill function outside of a Tome of Prowess-like system. If I can think of a way to bring a watered-down version of its functionality into the skill itself, I'll do so. --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

To Foxwarrior: how is theater "local?" Many tropes are universal across cultures - people are more alike than they are different. --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, perhaps, although that can apply to broad statements about cultures and laws as well. But if you've got any sort of serious modifier in this, you'd better be able to at least recite the specifics of theater wherever you're at. --Foxwarrior (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, of course. I couldn't agree more on that point. --Luigifan18 (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

...The reroll is intentionally more restrictive than Genre Savvy - you only get to do it once here. And if you really want to make it quick and keep the suspense up, just roll all three dice at once, then only use the ones that are actually necessary. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

" this pattern repeats itself until you succeed on the original check, fail the Knowledge (theatrics) check, or fail the original check for the third time" is confusing me then.

And if you're going to use a game element to give the players permission to metagame, you should be very worried about giving people extra player knowledge. Sure, you can roll all three dice at once, although it's awkward since they don't all have the same bonus, but if you don't (because it's not glaringly obvious how important that is) then the player will know "ah, I failed this Sense Motive check" whether or not the character succeeds on their Knowledge (Theatrics) roll. --Foxwarrior (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No, no, it's only with Genre Savvy that you get to retry your original check three times. With just Knowledge (theatrics), you only get to retry once. You also only get to roll to determine whether you know that you succeeded or failed if you have Genre Savvy, and you make that roll regardless of the original check result, because without that check, you don't know if you succeeded just as much as you don't know if you failed. As for the player catching on when the DM rolls dice separately, well, that's the DM's fault, isn't it? And yeah, rolling those three dice? I'd recommend having 'em be different colors. --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I quoted this page, you know.

Oh, you don't find having the DM roll things secretly all the time too bothersome then. --Foxwarrior (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

...Oh, crap, I forgot to modify the passage I copy-pasted! I just corrected the problem. ^_^; Oh, and there are just some rolls that the DM's supposed to make secretly... unless you're using the Tome of Prowess system, in which case this skill isn't even part of the game anyways (it's just stuff your character knows due to his or her background). --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Local?

As an element of culture, should this not simply be covered by Knowledge(Local)? --DanielDraco (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I addressed that in the article itself - if you don't want to use Knowledge (theatrics), just have it be absorbed into Knowledge (local). Easy as pie. --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Easy as pie, but useless as...some other simile. I understand your point, but the way I see, it boils down to "If you don't like it, you don't have to use it." And that is not a good argument that an article is worthwhile -- if it were, no article could ever validly be seen as bad. --DanielDraco (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, the alternative skill for VFX identification would be Knowledge (psionics). I doubt any non-psionic characters even have that. With Knowledge (theatrics), the bards at least will know what's going on when the guy in the gaudy costume starts punching people across the room. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No they won't (ignoring bardic knowledge), because they will never ever ever invest ranks into such a niche and otherwise useless skill. It's like Profession.

And why would the alternative skill for VFX identification be K(Psionics), rather than K(Local)? Under standard rules, pretty much everything within K(Theatrics) would fall under K(Local). --DanielDraco (talk) 05:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

In the D&D world, VFX can be treated as a subset of psionics, as they come from a very similar source. And Knowledge (theatrics) would also involve knowledge of tropes, which could be a good way to see practically anything coming via genre savviness ("Oh, it's just a cat in there. Guess there isn't anything hunting us after all-" "I cast wind shield!" *proceeds to catch poisoned blowdart from the shadows* "A cat in the closet means the manic killer is always somewhere nearby, Redgar! You seriously haven't seen 'Don't Let The Bedbugbears Bite?'"). --Luigifan18 (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Eiji Fun Fact, depending on the level of transparency, Arcana and Psionics are interchangable. In any case, +1 to this being Knowledge Local. but I already told you that elsewhere. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not understanding the argument for this not just being K(Local). You're giving examples of how it's used, and all of those definitely fall under Local -- except for VFX stuff, which is definitely either Psionics or Local. The big problem is that, unless you're expecting to fight a lot of Viewtiful Warriors, this is completely useless. It's too niche. It's like K(Architecture and Engineering); when's the last time you used that skill and felt like the ranks had been a good investment? --DanielDraco (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, just have it as a subset of Perform (Acting)? --Ghostwheel (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have another idea. I'll throw in a new feature: a character with ranks in Knowledge (theatrics) is Genre Savvy. He just knows that anyplace with a lot of statues is the lair of a medusa or beholder. He doesn't even try doing anything the straightforward way because he knows that it won't work. He keeps a very generous distance between himself and those with a penchant for tempting the universe/DM to do horrible, horrible things, he's the first to turn on the Munchkin so the "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies" button never gets pushed, and he never, ever assumes that the party is safe from the manic killer, even after they've apparently killed him. Mechanically, this acts as a way to retry just about any skill use that involves knowing or noticing something (Knowledge, Search, Spot, Listen, Spellcraft, etc.) by succeeding on a Knowledge (theatrics) check to realize that there's a limited range of ways the situation can end up and that he should pay more attention. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

CommOpp

Hey, heads up in case you misunderstood, articles are given a week in CommOpp status (to make changes, or to get redeeming ratings) before they're required to be moved to a sandbox. If you simply decided to move it ahead of time, that's fine -- just want to make sure you know that you have that wiggle room. --DanielDraco (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Possibly not relevant at present, because I don't have a rating here or want to put one in at this time, but I would be more comfortable with a new knowledge skill if there were more classes that utilized it. Psionics and ToB and whatnot all get their own special knowledge skill, and it's not a big deal. The skill doesn't do anything other than normal knowledge skills (which would still be weird about this one), but they have a large enough body of stuff tied to the skill to justify it's existence. That's lacking from this at present, and without it I just don't see the value in making a new skill instead of just accepting that it's non-ideal and using a different one. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 09:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Other Classes

Not that I particularly like this skill, but there are a few classes that may also be added to your list: Loremaster, Drunken Master, Chameleon, Rogue, Assassin, and Evil Clown. To see the last mentioned, edit the page, remove the "nowiki" line at the top, then click "preview". If you like it, harass and complement Draco into finishing his awesome class. --Franken Kesey (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I do recall considering the Loremaster, Rogue, and Assassin, and finding no major reason for this to be a class skill for them. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)