Permanent Increases in Intelligence Question

ElectricDragon said:

Thank you for noticing the troll part, I do want to continue this conversation, without all the heated argument.

1. So my explanation for Int loss is not good for you? Negative mods to the skills equal in value to Int lost until reversed?

Click to expand...

I must have missed that. Who decides which skills get docked?

ElectricDragon said:

2. Spreadsheet? Don't know how to use those. pffbb! I am unsure even how that would help. You do need to note which skills have the neg mod from the "permanent" loss, but the actual training does not go away (you still have the same amount of ranks, just some become irrelavent until reversed). I don't know about you, but most character sheets I know of have lots of empty space to record odd things. "If I don't find ways to fill this space; they won't", is my theory. No skill can be totally unlearned by this rule, no new skills can be learned by this rule.

Click to expand...

Most computerized character generators/character sheets are based on spreadsheets, either directly as premade templates, or indirectly as emulations.

None that I've seen keep good track of when ability scores or classes change.

So you might be using a spread sheet, or something similar, without it being obvious.

ElectricDragon said:

4. [partially quoting my self] The "It is not realistic" answer could be spread to most of the other stats too: increased Strength must face a period of training until the full bonuses are gained from practice; increased Dexterity makes Reflex Saves (at the old number) to not trip over your own feet until you get used to it, increased Constitution doesn't give the hp until your body adjusts to being more resilient (or is it that your body becomes more adept at dodging, blocking, and parrying since hp are not really physical wounds for the most part); increased Charisma requires the use of the old Cha mod for Cha checks and Turn Undead rolls until the increased social ability is fully processed, etc. But wait, what if it's mid-level, and it's a book so probably not the stat they had been working on, yet still they get the full bonuses immediately. Int does not. Do you see the problem yet? And you have suggested the required waiting time period: until next level for all the mid-level stats. Or do you have a better rule to deal with this problem in the game? Denying it is a problem means you don't have to deal with it in your campaign, good for you. But I do, so trying to convince me that it should not be a rule is not what I am looking for; it was at the beginning in 2009, but now it is more of a "I gotta fix this" thingy. So, please help.

Click to expand...

As I think I mentioned (rather mockingly I'm sad to say), that argument fails when you consider the short term boosts that come from items or spells. Bull's Strength, for example, has a duration in minutes. Requiring hours or days of training to take advantage makes the spells useless.

I never suggested that anyone wait to take advantage of stat increases. They apply as soon as the situation arises when they might apply. But not all of these situations are instantly available.

All stat boosts affect the appropriately related skills the next time you use the skill. They affect all related Saves the next time the Save is called for. They affect spell DCs the next time a spell is cast.

But they don't apply to the past.

Consider a related example: A Character has a spell, such as See Invisible, held in place by Permanency. Dispelling it calls for a caster level check. But it's based on the caster's level at the time the permanency was cast. The caster may have gained levels since granting the ability, but those levels aren't applicable to previously cast spells.

Similarly, a long term spell, such as Glyph of Warding (Can be attached to Hallowed ground, and so last for up to a year) may require a Saving throw. The Save DC is based on the caster's ability score at the time the spell was cast. Ability score changes after the fact don't affect that spell Save DC.

What you are proposing would be the only rule in the game that applies retroactively.

You suggested that game balance is related to realism. "Realism" is an odd term to apply to a magical setting, by the way. We use it, but I think we mean "Logical consistency".

Anyway, game balance isn't tied to realism or believability. It's more of a question of giving an advantage to one side or another. Your rule applies almost exclusively to PCs, and tips the playing field in their favor.

Monsters and NPCs are, for the most part, static. They "come into existence" when the DM needs them, and they vanish away again after the encounter, with the rare exception of the recurring villain. They don't advance in levels, nor experience that odd situation that miraculously and permanently bumps a stat during play.

Regarding game balance, my iterative attack rule affected game balance in that it gave an advantage that applied to high BAB classes more than others, and to physical combatants more than spell casters. But that was its intent, since physical combatants tended to fall behind at higher levels. The impact of the rule increased at higher levels, by design.

That rule didn't impact realism, just game balance.

Your rule does impact "realism", which I see as a flaw, but it also impacts game balance, adding advantage to characters who already have the rules stacked in their favor.

Re-reading, I see that I once again missed things.

You suggested that INT bonuses don't apply immediately.

I see what you mean, but I disagree. They apply as soon as the situation where they can apply comes to pass.

Presume the Fighter reading a Manual of Gainful Exercise (or whatever it's called) gains 4 Strength. Neat! But their combat bonuses don't apply until, well, combat. It might be tomorrow or next week, but until the opportunity arises they can't use that effect of their new higher Strength.

Similarly the ability to learn more skills is there immediately, but doesn't apply until the character has the opportunity to learn new skills. Might be tomorrow, might be next week, but it isn't right now.

By the explanation in the book, skill points gained reflect work and study the character has been doing as part of their life, day to day, throughout the course of gaining that next level. While mechanically it might look like a magical plop of points landing on you, that's supposed to be the result of time and ongoing study. More points reflect how good a student you are.

Your current skill base, therefore, reflects how good a student you *were*.

Your rationale is purely meta-game, a cry of "it's not fair, they get goodies and I don't". The fact is, you get goodies just like they do. But you don't see all of them until the opportunity arises. Just like they do.

Thank you Greenfield, for no help whatsoever. I will stop responding to you.

As you choose.

Your objections are getting tired. The same ones, that I have refuted repeatedly. You continually seem to discover things that I said previously in earlier posts as new information. Your perfect house rule that cannot be challenged, I challenged. I do not use it in my campaign thus it is not a necessary house rule. I do not find a need for such a rule. Whether I am wrong or right, it is my right to refuse to use the rule. My house rule, though you have said repeatedly that you do not use it and will not use it; for some reason you seem to object to ME using it.

I asked for help in making the rule better; instead you go off again on the tirade of how it is not a good rule and breaks the game and balance suffers and cats and dogs are living together. But no help.

I thought we were done.

Okay.

You keep asking "Do you understand yet". Many people dismiss critics with "You just don't understand", as if anyone who truly understood their position would agree with it. It's quite possible to fully understand another person's position and reasoning, and still disagree. Sometime we understand the other guy, but we understand that they're wrong.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. I've said, several times, that your rule may be right, for your table. Each DM can set their own house rules.

What I am saying is that I understand your position and your argument, but I disagree with your point that INT bonuses are somehow being cheated. They aren't.

Now, have I "rediscovered" things you wrote? Yes. I admitted that I hadn't fully read some of your posts before I responded. I apologized for it, and I'm trying hard not to continue that pattern. I'm not succeeding as well as I might like, but I am trying.

I thought I was presenting my argument anew, without rancor or bad blood. I honestly don't know what triggered your pseudo exit. I accepted your "I will no longer respond to you" without taking any parting shots, without trying to bait you back in. Those are troll tactics and I'm making an honest effort not to play the troll.

I never said that my house rule was perfect or that it was in any way required. Not sure where you got that idea. I only presented it in response to your claim that every house rule has "corner conditions". That particular one doesn't. Other than that, it was part of the "off topic" stuff that should have been left out. Your "challenge" to it was a stretch, at best, something you made up just so you could say you had a challenge for it. Your trollish response to my trollish behavior, I suppose.

You say that I object to you using your house rule. Apparently I wasn't the only one responding without reading the full post.

I ended several of my posts by saying that you, as DM, were free to use any house rules you like. I've said that I don't like it, and I've given my reasons, but I've never said that you have to play by my rules. I've said quite the opposite, in fact.

Ironically, I've often wondered during our exchanges why you seemed so driven to convince me that you were right, why it appeared that you couldn't accept that someone could disagree with you. For you to accuse me of that was a real shock.

Setting the past aside, and without adrenaline, let me see if I can sum up:

You feel that INT bonuses aren't treated like other bonuses because the Skill bump from them doesn't apply immediately. Your solution is to apply them retroactively. (Yes, I know that you've tried to distance yourself from the "R" word, but that is what you're trying to do, rhetoric not withstanding. )

I feel that INT bonuses are treated like other bonuses. Every bonus has effects that apply to particular situations, and only those situations. Saves, combat, skill use etc. It's just that one of INT's uses, the gaining of extra skills, only applies when you gain skills, and that only happens when the character levels up, rather than every day.

Is that a fair representation of our differences, when we boil them down to the essence?

If it is then I think we both can, and should, walk away. We aren't going to convince each other, and the world is big enough for there to be more than one opinion on this.

Can't believe a thread about Int bonuses is still going after 5 pages.

I suppose it has a ways to go before it gets the length of the resting thread, though.

Greenfield said:

Your rule does impact "realism", which I see as a flaw, but it also impacts game balance, adding advantage to characters who already have the rules stacked in their favor.

Click to expand...

If you're concerned about 'realism' and balance, you're already playing the wrong game and the wrong edition, respectively.

To be fair, I did clarify that "Realism" in a magic/fantasy setting was almost a joke. What we mean when we talk about realism is more like "consistent with the internal logic of the setting".

When many people talk about "realism", they often mean "Believable". (All within the framework of the game, that is). Actual realism would require the game's author (and most of the DMs) to have PHDs in physics, and have a rule book bigger than the Encyclopedia Brittainica.

As for balance: Lots of people say that the game balance is a problem. I happen to agree. That doesn't mean we have to give up and make it worse with house rules.

Having seen and played a lot of other D&D editions (plus Pathfinder, which is a sort-of D&D), I can safely say that none of them are in any danger of being balanced.

Funny, I know an edition that's very well-balanced and very 'realistic' as well. Or internally consistent, or whatever term you want to use.

But by all means, you know your tastes best, both in games and in flame wars.

ElectricDragon said:

I asked for help in making the rule better; instead you go off again on the tirade of how it is not a good rule and breaks the game and balance suffers and cats and dogs are living together. But no help.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why Greenfield won't let this go, but you're totally justified in doing so. You're not going to get any further help here, no new objections. Just more tired rationalizations of comfortable familiarity and RAW faith. If you discover any personal issues with your house rule, it'll be via play itself, so happy gaming!

How odd. I did let it go.

E.D. said he wouldn't respond to me any more, and I said that was fine.

I'm not the one who couldn't walk away.

I dread turning this into an edition war, but I have to ask: Which edition do you prefer?