My DM and I are having a discussion about in game knowledge. We are trying to determine how much a character would know about the world around them without having to go into knowledge checks. The current issue is if its reasonable for a dragonborn warlock to have basic knowledge about the dragon races, ie; knowing basic stuff like Blue dragons breath lightning in a straight line and usually have minions, Black dragons live in swamps and are about rotting meats and poisons, basic info that applies to the entire race not specific info like this dragon prefers kobold minions to flesh golems. He's been swapping between asking for nature and arcana checks but doesn't even have a firm decision on which, and I don't think the basic should be covered by a check in the first place. A dragonborn knowing about dragons makes sense in the same way a human knows about humans. You don't need a knowledge check to know that the bandit coming out of the trees isn't going to breath fire and have skin like steel when he looks like a human. Asking for knowledge checks on Minotaur or Loxodon makes sense when there's no preset explanation for knowing about them but to know basics about a related species seems common sense. At the moment we're stuck falling back to the final rule of DM has final say but it's a very unsatisfactory solution.
I would say that a dragonborn would have natural insight into a dragon's breath weapons and elemental affinity, but not their behaviors, personalities, lairs, etc. Because dragonborn don't know dragons the way humans know humans, they know dragons the way humans know other apes. Some anatomy is the same, so they can make connections based on that, but they are very different creatures that will likely never interact with one another. (Could vary based on setting and DM, answer given based on general information and forgotten realms setting).
And knowledge about dragons would usually be an arcana check, but different types of checks could give different information.
IMO, having a preset explanation for knowing about them is necessary for being able to make a roll. That said, I'd be fairly lenient on what I would consider a preset explanation. Being a dragonborn wouldn't qualify. Living in a world that has dragons as a real and present danger would. Having studied that world would give you proficiency in nature, I'd leave arcana for dealing with magic as it is useful enough in just that respect.
All going to depend on what is common knowledge in that world. For example, I historically as a DM tend to make dragons pretty rare. So in my worlds, there would be few people with cataloged knowledge of all the colors and their various abilities. But for other worlds, dragons are much more common, and even street urchins might know that info.
It makes some sense that a dragonborn might have more knowledge about dragons than other races. But depending on the world, maybe not. Maybe, if dragons are rare, the dragonborn themselves have only legends they pass on--and have gotten wrong over the years.
There's no right answer or wrong answer to this, all depends on how common that info is, which depends on the DM.
If you want to get technical, asking whether a character knows anything that has not occurred directly in actual sessions (character physically/mentally present when (blank) transpired, NPC or PC telling you something, something explicitly written in a backstory, etc.) requires a Knowledge (whatever) check. The context of what you are asking about is what helps your DM determine what the appropriate DC for the check should be. Depending on that context, the knowledge you're asking for could be so common that the appropriate DC is so low that your passive Knowledge (whatever) score is sufficient for the DM to not require a roll.
For instance, recalling a parent's name is (context dependent) so trivial that it would be a DC 0... no point in forcing a roll on this unless there's a veryspecific reason that your character would not know that.
Recalling their birthday? Weeelll, for most people that's probably still a DC 0-5, but context matters... how close were you growing up? Did you live with them your entire youth? Are birthdays something that your family and/or culture even values/celebrates? A DM might make you roll that.
Recalling the names of your parent's extended family members? Again, context, but that's probably a DC 5-10. A DM is more likely to make you roll this.
Recalling something your parent taught you 15 years ago because it's a (un-required) clue that can help you unravel a mystery in the present? DC 15+, and a DM will almost certainly require you to roll for that.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
If you want to get technical, asking whether a character knows anything that has not occurred directly in actual sessions (character physically/mentally present when (blank) transpired, NPC or PC telling you something, something explicitly written in a backstory, etc.) requires a Knowledge (whatever) check. The context of what you are asking about is what helps your DM determine what the appropriate DC for the check should be. Depending on that context, the knowledge you're asking for could be so common that the appropriate DC is so low that your passive Knowledge (whatever) score is sufficient for the DM to not require a roll.
For instance, recalling a parent's name is (context dependent) so trivial that it would be a DC 0... no point in forcing a roll on this unless there's a veryspecific reason that your character would not know that.
Recalling their birthday? Weeelll, for most people that's probably still a DC 0-5, but context matters... how close were you growing up? Did you live with them your entire youth? Are birthdays something that your family and/or culture even values/celebrates? A DM might make you roll that.
Recalling the names of your parent's extended family members? Again, context, but that's probably a DC 5-10. A DM is more likely to make you roll this.
Recalling something your parent taught you 15 years ago because it's a (un-required) clue that can help you unravel a mystery in the present? DC 15+, and a DM will almost certainly require you to roll for that.
Is it right to say that the rules 'require' a History/Int check for these things? It's absolutely the right skill for the job. But that's different then saying that a DM just letting you know things is going 'against' the rules in some way. There doesn't seem to be a requirement that I the DM have my players roll for any of these things. All the rules I find say things like "The DM might require..." or "A History check measures your ability to recall". It might be splitting hairs, but 'requires' seems too strict. The rules just give you a mechanical system for doing this when you want to. I don't think there's anything contrary to any part of skill/ability checks if the DM says "You know all about X event from the past". That's not a DM changing a rule, just a DM electing to not bother with the skill check system for that instance.
Clearly not. The DM is free to set the DC for such a check and if the DM feels a character would intrinsically know something, then the DC for the check is lower than the character's passive skill. No roll needed. That's a purely mechanical way of saying that the DM can assume a player has knowledge of whatever the DM thinks the player should have knowledge of. No check required.
If you want to get technical, asking whether a character knows anything that has not occurred directly in actual sessions (character physically/mentally present when (blank) transpired, NPC or PC telling you something, something explicitly written in a backstory, etc.) requires a Knowledge (whatever) check. The context of what you are asking about is what helps your DM determine what the appropriate DC for the check should be. Depending on that context, the knowledge you're asking for could be so common that the appropriate DC is so low that your passive Knowledge (whatever) score is sufficient for the DM to not require a roll.
For instance, recalling a parent's name is (context dependent) so trivial that it would be a DC 0... no point in forcing a roll on this unless there's a veryspecific reason that your character would not know that.
Recalling their birthday? Weeelll, for most people that's probably still a DC 0-5, but context matters... how close were you growing up? Did you live with them your entire youth? Are birthdays something that your family and/or culture even values/celebrates? A DM might make you roll that.
Recalling the names of your parent's extended family members? Again, context, but that's probably a DC 5-10. A DM is more likely to make you roll this.
Recalling something your parent taught you 15 years ago because it's a (un-required) clue that can help you unravel a mystery in the present? DC 15+, and a DM will almost certainly require you to roll for that.
Is it right to say that the rules 'require' a History/Int check for these things? It's absolutely the right skill for the job. But that's different then saying that a DM just letting you know things is going 'against' the rules in some way. There doesn't seem to be a requirement that I the DM have my players roll for any of these things. All the rules I find say things like "The DM might require..." or "A History check measures your ability to recall". It might be splitting hairs, but 'requires' seems too strict. The rules just give you a mechanical system for doing this when you want to. I don't think there's anything contrary to any part of skill/ability checks if the DM says "You know all about X event from the past". That's not a DM changing a rule, just a DM electing to not bother with the skill check system for that instance.
History is for recalling events about the world, there is no skill for recalling about your own past, that's just an int check.
As for information about monsters, no matter how rare dragons are in your world, the average person in the world probably knows at least as much about them as the average (non-dnd player) person in our world where they never existed.
History is for recalling events about the world, there is no skill for recalling about your own past, that's just an int check.
As for information about monsters, no matter how rare dragons are in your world, the average person in the world probably knows at least as much about them as the average (non-dnd player) person in our world where they never existed.
No, you're right that History is for recalling events. But that doesn't mean History is required for recalling events. (And you're off-RAW about the 'recalling your own past' part--there is nothing in the rules at all, at least not that I can find, that would separate recalling events in your own life from recalling anything else. AFAIK, it's not something mentioned at all. You can rule that way, and it makes sense. But I don't see that anywhere. Heck, there are parts of my own life I can't tell you about as well as I can tell you about certain events from the Civil War :)
But on the part about required rolling, take the Time of Troubles in Forgotten Realms. Gods dying, gods falling to earth, magic upended, wars, chaos, death, famine, etc. The entire surface of the world and politics and life everywhere in the FR dramatically changed. Consider a character born just after that all happened. That person is journeying through some town, and they stop to chat with someone in a tavern. That someone mentions the Time of Troubles.
The rules do not require a History roll here. The rules indicate that if the DM decides that there needs to be a roll, it would be a History roll. There's no rule I am seeing that says "When a player wants to recall information about an event, they must roll a History check."
A DM in fact is free to never use a History check at all if she doesn't want to. Nothing in the rules that says you can't run a game that way.
As for information about monsters, no matter how rare dragons are in your world, the average person in the world probably knows at least as much about them as the average (non-dnd player) person in our world where they never existed.
And this part is also assumption. I've run campaigns where no one knew a thing about dragons, and the players never even met one. This is a fantasy world, who's to say that dragons are even a part of the mythology in that world? (There is an answer to that. Who's to say? The DM is to say.)
No, you're right that History is for recalling events. But that doesn't mean History is required for recalling events. (And you're off-RAW about the 'recalling your own past' part--there is nothing in the rules at all, at least not that I can find, that would separate recalling events in your own life from recalling anything else. AFAIK, it's not something mentioned at all. You can rule that way, and it makes sense. But I don't see that anywhere. Heck, there are parts of my own life I can't tell you about as well as I can tell you about certain events from the Civil War :)
But on the part about required rolling, take the Time of Troubles in Forgotten Realms. Gods dying, gods falling to earth, magic upended, wars, chaos, death, famine, etc. The entire surface of the world and politics and life everywhere in the FR dramatically changed. Consider a character born just after that all happened. That person is journeying through some town, and they stop to chat with someone in a tavern. That someone mentions the Time of Troubles.
The rules do not require a History roll here. The rules indicate that if the DM decides that there needs to be a roll, it would be a History roll. There's no rule I am seeing that says "When a player wants to recall information about an event, they must roll a History check."
A DM in fact is free to never use a History check at all if she doesn't want to. Nothing in the rules that says you can't run a game that way.
It doesn't make sense that someone who has studied world history would be better at remembering their own personal history than someone that hasn't. If you're going to ask for a roll to remember your character's own personal history (usually because the player has little or no notes) it should be an intelligence roll with no skill attached, or with proficiency assumed, there's no real difference aside from the appropriate DC to set.
Clearly not. The DM is free to set the DC for such a check and if the DM feels a character would intrinsically know something, then the DC for the check is lower than the character's passive skill. No roll needed. That's a purely mechanical way of saying that the DM can assume a player has knowledge of whatever the DM thinks the player should have knowledge of. No check required.
Yup, that's exactly what I was trying to get across. The DM is the absolute final say on whether anyone knows anything; from wether you know the true names of all the demon lords of hell to whether you know how to tie shoelaces. Depending on the specific context, the DM will determine whether you need to roll for it or not, and what the DC is if they will require a roll.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
No, you're right that History is for recalling events. But that doesn't mean History is required for recalling events. (And you're off-RAW about the 'recalling your own past' part--there is nothing in the rules at all, at least not that I can find, that would separate recalling events in your own life from recalling anything else. AFAIK, it's not something mentioned at all. You can rule that way, and it makes sense. But I don't see that anywhere. Heck, there are parts of my own life I can't tell you about as well as I can tell you about certain events from the Civil War :)
But on the part about required rolling, take the Time of Troubles in Forgotten Realms. Gods dying, gods falling to earth, magic upended, wars, chaos, death, famine, etc. The entire surface of the world and politics and life everywhere in the FR dramatically changed. Consider a character born just after that all happened. That person is journeying through some town, and they stop to chat with someone in a tavern. That someone mentions the Time of Troubles.
The rules do not require a History roll here. The rules indicate that if the DM decides that there needs to be a roll, it would be a History roll. There's no rule I am seeing that says "When a player wants to recall information about an event, they must roll a History check."
A DM in fact is free to never use a History check at all if she doesn't want to. Nothing in the rules that says you can't run a game that way.
It doesn't make sense that someone who has studied world history would be better at remembering their own personal history than someone that hasn't.
And I didn't say that. My point there is that someone using History for that is still, in fact, ruling in accordance with RAW, simply because there is nothing in the rules separating remembering one bit of the history of the world from another.
You are in fact heavily interpreting the History skill when you qualify it as someone 'studying world history'. There are plenty of backgrounds that could give you History that would not include someone 'studying' history. It is a general skill about one's ability to recall events from the past. I'm all in favor of interpreting rules to make sense, I'm definitely pro-heavy interpretation :) But it is an interpretation that's not required by the rules. If someone were to want to simplify the game, it's perfectly within RAW to use History for recalling anything from the past.
If you're going to ask for a roll to remember your character's own personal history (usually because the player has little or no notes) it should be an intelligence roll with no skill attached, or with proficiency assumed, there's no real difference aside from the appropriate DC to set.
No, it should be whatever the DM decides works best for their game.
You are in fact heavily interpreting the History skill when you qualify it as someone 'studying world history'. There are plenty of backgrounds that could give you History that would not include someone 'studying' history. It is a general skill about one's ability to recall events from the past. I'm all in favor of interpreting rules to make sense, I'm definitely pro-heavy interpretation :) But it is an interpretation that's not required by the rules. If someone were to want to simplify the game, it's perfectly within RAW to use History for recalling anything from the past.
It's also perfectly within RAW to use history for climbing a building if the DM decides, it just isn't the way it was intended to be used. The description of the history skill clearly defines it as being lore about historical people, places, and events, there is no suggestion that it is for a character's personal history.
You are in fact heavily interpreting the History skill when you qualify it as someone 'studying world history'. There are plenty of backgrounds that could give you History that would not include someone 'studying' history. It is a general skill about one's ability to recall events from the past. I'm all in favor of interpreting rules to make sense, I'm definitely pro-heavy interpretation :) But it is an interpretation that's not required by the rules. If someone were to want to simplify the game, it's perfectly within RAW to use History for recalling anything from the past.
It's also perfectly within RAW to use history for climbing a building if the DM decides, it just isn't the way it was intended to be used. The description of the history skill clearly defines it as being lore about historical people, places, and events, there is no suggestion that it is for a character's personal history.
You are in fact heavily interpreting the History skill when you qualify it as someone 'studying world history'. There are plenty of backgrounds that could give you History that would not include someone 'studying' history. It is a general skill about one's ability to recall events from the past. I'm all in favor of interpreting rules to make sense, I'm definitely pro-heavy interpretation :) But it is an interpretation that's not required by the rules. If someone were to want to simplify the game, it's perfectly within RAW to use History for recalling anything from the past.
It's also perfectly within RAW to use history for climbing a building if the DM decides,
No, that would be the DM actually running counter to RAW. The PHB does indicate that if you were to use a check, then "Your Strenglh (Alhlelics) check covers difficult situations you encounter while climbing, jumping. or swimming." Not 'you must use a check', but it clearly indicates what would be covered by what. For History and Int, there's no such indications about personal history vs any other past event. That's my entire point here.
it just isn't the way it was intended to be used. The description of the history skill clearly defines it as being lore about historical people, places, and events, there is no suggestion that it is for a character's personal history.
You're right that it doesn't talk about a character's history. A character's history specifically is also not mentioned as covered by anything. Not even Intelligence generally. So the question is this: if a character is asking about something that happened in the past, and there's no mention in the rules of how a character's personal history is handled, how should a DM handle it? One option is to use the skill that exists to deal with the past. Another is to just allow them to know everything about their past with no role. Another is to use a straight Int roll. None of those are required as the solution, and each seems to have something going for it, imo.
You're right that it doesn't talk about a character's history. A character's history specifically is also not mentioned as covered by anything. Not even Intelligence generally. So the question is this: if a character is asking about something that happened in the past, and there's no mention in the rules of how a character's personal history is handled, how should a DM handle it? One option is to use the skill that exists to deal with the past. Another is to just allow them to know everything about their past with no role. Another is to use a straight Int roll. None of those are required as the solution, and each seems to have something going for it, imo.
"Intelligence, measuring reasoning and memory" Seems to clearly indicate that a character's memory would be covered by an intelligence check of some kind. Using history as a bonus to it means that characters that have studied history in some fashion remember their own life better than characters that study anything else. If that's really what you want as a DM then go for it, but it doesn't really make sense.
You're right that it doesn't talk about a character's history. A character's history specifically is also not mentioned as covered by anything. Not even Intelligence generally. So the question is this: if a character is asking about something that happened in the past, and there's no mention in the rules of how a character's personal history is handled, how should a DM handle it? One option is to use the skill that exists to deal with the past. Another is to just allow them to know everything about their past with no role. Another is to use a straight Int roll. None of those are required as the solution, and each seems to have something going for it, imo.
"Intelligence, measuring reasoning and memory" Seems to clearly indicate that a character's memory would be covered by an intelligence check of some kind. Using history as a bonus to it means that characters that have studied history in some fashion remember their own life better than characters that study anything else. If that's really what you want as a DM then go for it, but it doesn't really make sense.
I think that when you are trying to codify something like the operation of a brain, you have to draw lines at some place that won't make sense. If someone wants to keep rules simplified to various extents, they will make different decisions about what makes sense. If you want to keep splitting things apart, you can keep doing that as long as you want, and adding rules as much as you want until you get the game where you like it.
What about events that happened during your lifetime, but you were not present for and were communicated to you by someone else? A friend who was at the Destruction of the Temple of Goombah told you about it. That is a form is 'studying history', as much as reading a first-hand account of the same event. And the Destruction happened during your lifetime, but again, you weren't there. Is that a straight up memory/Int check? Because you are technically remembering what someone told you, i.e. a 'thing that happened to you in your lifetime'? Or is that a History check, because you're remembering a Historical Event that you learned about?
The DM needs to go with what makes sense to them, absolutely :) I'm just pushing back about whether only one thing could possibly make sense in this situation.
My DM and I are having a discussion about in game knowledge. We are trying to determine how much a character would know about the world around them without having to go into knowledge checks. The current issue is if its reasonable for a dragonborn warlock to have basic knowledge about the dragon races, ie; knowing basic stuff like Blue dragons breath lightning in a straight line and usually have minions, Black dragons live in swamps and are about rotting meats and poisons, basic info that applies to the entire race not specific info like this dragon prefers kobold minions to flesh golems. He's been swapping between asking for nature and arcana checks but doesn't even have a firm decision on which, and I don't think the basic should be covered by a check in the first place. A dragonborn knowing about dragons makes sense in the same way a human knows about humans. You don't need a knowledge check to know that the bandit coming out of the trees isn't going to breath fire and have skin like steel when he looks like a human. Asking for knowledge checks on Minotaur or Loxodon makes sense when there's no preset explanation for knowing about them but to know basics about a related species seems common sense. At the moment we're stuck falling back to the final rule of DM has final say but it's a very unsatisfactory solution.
I would say that a dragonborn would have natural insight into a dragon's breath weapons and elemental affinity, but not their behaviors, personalities, lairs, etc. Because dragonborn don't know dragons the way humans know humans, they know dragons the way humans know other apes. Some anatomy is the same, so they can make connections based on that, but they are very different creatures that will likely never interact with one another. (Could vary based on setting and DM, answer given based on general information and forgotten realms setting).
And knowledge about dragons would usually be an arcana check, but different types of checks could give different information.
IMO, having a preset explanation for knowing about them is necessary for being able to make a roll. That said, I'd be fairly lenient on what I would consider a preset explanation. Being a dragonborn wouldn't qualify. Living in a world that has dragons as a real and present danger would. Having studied that world would give you proficiency in nature, I'd leave arcana for dealing with magic as it is useful enough in just that respect.
All going to depend on what is common knowledge in that world. For example, I historically as a DM tend to make dragons pretty rare. So in my worlds, there would be few people with cataloged knowledge of all the colors and their various abilities. But for other worlds, dragons are much more common, and even street urchins might know that info.
It makes some sense that a dragonborn might have more knowledge about dragons than other races. But depending on the world, maybe not. Maybe, if dragons are rare, the dragonborn themselves have only legends they pass on--and have gotten wrong over the years.
There's no right answer or wrong answer to this, all depends on how common that info is, which depends on the DM.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
If you want to get technical, asking whether a character knows anything that has not occurred directly in actual sessions (character physically/mentally present when (blank) transpired, NPC or PC telling you something, something explicitly written in a backstory, etc.) requires a Knowledge (whatever) check. The context of what you are asking about is what helps your DM determine what the appropriate DC for the check should be. Depending on that context, the knowledge you're asking for could be so common that the appropriate DC is so low that your passive Knowledge (whatever) score is sufficient for the DM to not require a roll.
For instance, recalling a parent's name is (context dependent) so trivial that it would be a DC 0... no point in forcing a roll on this unless there's a very specific reason that your character would not know that.
Recalling their birthday? Weeelll, for most people that's probably still a DC 0-5, but context matters... how close were you growing up? Did you live with them your entire youth? Are birthdays something that your family and/or culture even values/celebrates? A DM might make you roll that.
Recalling the names of your parent's extended family members? Again, context, but that's probably a DC 5-10. A DM is more likely to make you roll this.
Recalling something your parent taught you 15 years ago because it's a (un-required) clue that can help you unravel a mystery in the present? DC 15+, and a DM will almost certainly require you to roll for that.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Is it right to say that the rules 'require' a History/Int check for these things? It's absolutely the right skill for the job. But that's different then saying that a DM just letting you know things is going 'against' the rules in some way. There doesn't seem to be a requirement that I the DM have my players roll for any of these things. All the rules I find say things like "The DM might require..." or "A History check measures your ability to recall". It might be splitting hairs, but 'requires' seems too strict. The rules just give you a mechanical system for doing this when you want to. I don't think there's anything contrary to any part of skill/ability checks if the DM says "You know all about X event from the past". That's not a DM changing a rule, just a DM electing to not bother with the skill check system for that instance.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Clearly not. The DM is free to set the DC for such a check and if the DM feels a character would intrinsically know something, then the DC for the check is lower than the character's passive skill. No roll needed. That's a purely mechanical way of saying that the DM can assume a player has knowledge of whatever the DM thinks the player should have knowledge of. No check required.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
History is for recalling events about the world, there is no skill for recalling about your own past, that's just an int check.
As for information about monsters, no matter how rare dragons are in your world, the average person in the world probably knows at least as much about them as the average (non-dnd player) person in our world where they never existed.
No, you're right that History is for recalling events. But that doesn't mean History is required for recalling events. (And you're off-RAW about the 'recalling your own past' part--there is nothing in the rules at all, at least not that I can find, that would separate recalling events in your own life from recalling anything else. AFAIK, it's not something mentioned at all. You can rule that way, and it makes sense. But I don't see that anywhere. Heck, there are parts of my own life I can't tell you about as well as I can tell you about certain events from the Civil War :)
But on the part about required rolling, take the Time of Troubles in Forgotten Realms. Gods dying, gods falling to earth, magic upended, wars, chaos, death, famine, etc. The entire surface of the world and politics and life everywhere in the FR dramatically changed. Consider a character born just after that all happened. That person is journeying through some town, and they stop to chat with someone in a tavern. That someone mentions the Time of Troubles.
The rules do not require a History roll here. The rules indicate that if the DM decides that there needs to be a roll, it would be a History roll. There's no rule I am seeing that says "When a player wants to recall information about an event, they must roll a History check."
A DM in fact is free to never use a History check at all if she doesn't want to. Nothing in the rules that says you can't run a game that way.
And this part is also assumption. I've run campaigns where no one knew a thing about dragons, and the players never even met one. This is a fantasy world, who's to say that dragons are even a part of the mythology in that world? (There is an answer to that. Who's to say? The DM is to say.)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
It doesn't make sense that someone who has studied world history would be better at remembering their own personal history than someone that hasn't. If you're going to ask for a roll to remember your character's own personal history (usually because the player has little or no notes) it should be an intelligence roll with no skill attached, or with proficiency assumed, there's no real difference aside from the appropriate DC to set.
Yup, that's exactly what I was trying to get across. The DM is the absolute final say on whether anyone knows anything; from wether you know the true names of all the demon lords of hell to whether you know how to tie shoelaces. Depending on the specific context, the DM will determine whether you need to roll for it or not, and what the DC is if they will require a roll.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
And I didn't say that. My point there is that someone using History for that is still, in fact, ruling in accordance with RAW, simply because there is nothing in the rules separating remembering one bit of the history of the world from another.
You are in fact heavily interpreting the History skill when you qualify it as someone 'studying world history'. There are plenty of backgrounds that could give you History that would not include someone 'studying' history. It is a general skill about one's ability to recall events from the past. I'm all in favor of interpreting rules to make sense, I'm definitely pro-heavy interpretation :) But it is an interpretation that's not required by the rules. If someone were to want to simplify the game, it's perfectly within RAW to use History for recalling anything from the past.
No, it should be whatever the DM decides works best for their game.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
It's also perfectly within RAW to use history for climbing a building if the DM decides, it just isn't the way it was intended to be used. The description of the history skill clearly defines it as being lore about historical people, places, and events, there is no suggestion that it is for a character's personal history.
No, that would be the DM actually running counter to RAW. The PHB does indicate that if you were to use a check, then "Your Strenglh (Alhlelics) check covers difficult situations you encounter while climbing, jumping. or swimming." Not 'you must use a check', but it clearly indicates what would be covered by what. For History and Int, there's no such indications about personal history vs any other past event. That's my entire point here.
You're right that it doesn't talk about a character's history. A character's history specifically is also not mentioned as covered by anything. Not even Intelligence generally. So the question is this: if a character is asking about something that happened in the past, and there's no mention in the rules of how a character's personal history is handled, how should a DM handle it? One option is to use the skill that exists to deal with the past. Another is to just allow them to know everything about their past with no role. Another is to use a straight Int roll. None of those are required as the solution, and each seems to have something going for it, imo.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
"Intelligence, measuring reasoning and memory" Seems to clearly indicate that a character's memory would be covered by an intelligence check of some kind. Using history as a bonus to it means that characters that have studied history in some fashion remember their own life better than characters that study anything else. If that's really what you want as a DM then go for it, but it doesn't really make sense.
I think that when you are trying to codify something like the operation of a brain, you have to draw lines at some place that won't make sense. If someone wants to keep rules simplified to various extents, they will make different decisions about what makes sense. If you want to keep splitting things apart, you can keep doing that as long as you want, and adding rules as much as you want until you get the game where you like it.
What about events that happened during your lifetime, but you were not present for and were communicated to you by someone else? A friend who was at the Destruction of the Temple of Goombah told you about it. That is a form is 'studying history', as much as reading a first-hand account of the same event. And the Destruction happened during your lifetime, but again, you weren't there. Is that a straight up memory/Int check? Because you are technically remembering what someone told you, i.e. a 'thing that happened to you in your lifetime'? Or is that a History check, because you're remembering a Historical Event that you learned about?
The DM needs to go with what makes sense to them, absolutely :) I'm just pushing back about whether only one thing could possibly make sense in this situation.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)