Permanent Increases in Intelligence Question

[ElectricDragon]

The problem is the misuse of the word "retroactive" in reference to Constitution. Constitution is in no way "retroactive."

Constitution affects your current total HP and your current max HP.

Lets say you have bob the human fighter. He has 12 con, he is level 1. He had 1 HD which grants him 10 HP, for a total of 11 HP.

Bob hits level 2. Yay! He rolls his d10 HD and gets a 7. Note that he doesn't gain 8 HP this level! He gains 7! However his Constitution is giving him now 2 HP, +1 per HD.

The flaw is in the reasoning of most players in that they include their constitution bonus to the amount gained at leveling up. This isn't technically correct. The HP gained at leveling are only those from the HD. Once they have a new, higher HD total, the amount of HP granted by the Constitution bonus is higher.

If the constitution changes, then the bonus changes. However that 10 from Bob's first HD and the 7 from his second don't change.

There is nothing happening "retroactively."

Suppose Intelligence only supplies a bonus, too. And upon changing your intelligence permanently, the bonus changes, just like for your description of Constitution. Because I do believe you would use this same description if the Con gain were from a book. [A metagame description].

Retroactively, as the character's build gets stronger, every bonus for each hit die increases. There: in-game description.

I am sorry, but the two stats are important to all characters (no one just says, I'll skip using that stat: unless your DM allows players to play animals, undead, oozes, vermin, or constructs). Increases or decreases in either are game-shaking events. Why make increases in Intelligence different? I have yet to see a solid reason. Refiguring your hit points because you just got drained of 3 Con, mid-battle; is ok but down-time refiguring of skill points is a no-no? Strange.

 

[Celebrim]

Because DMs (we) "cheat".

Absolutely. As a matter of fact, I rarely spend a lot of time when advancing a monster or NPC worrying about whether the skill points are correct. Most of the time the skill points will not matter. When they do matter, it is rarely a critical matter. When I use them, whether they are off by a point or two is of little consequence, and as a practical matter that error will only matter on a few of the die rolls. The burden of getting skill points exactly correct is just not one I consider very important compared to delivering a fun and exciting game for my players. If I've missed a few calculations on the skill points, I may be in theory cheating the players or cheating 'the monster', but so what?

Yes, ideally we'd create all characters in the game by some sort of incremental chargen process that ran through the characters life story up to that point, adding new qualities to the character along the way. Ideally, the number of skill points a dragon has would reflect the past history of the dragon's growth in intelligence. But it's just not worth dealing with.

The current situation with PC's is both the least book keeping AND the most natural and realistic way to handle changes in the capacity to learn based on changes in intelligence. So what is the pressing need to change?

Or put it another way, why are you jealous of the dragon's skill points? Is it any skin off your character's nose? Personally, if I was actually making characters for one shots as 20th level characters, I might use the simpler process as well. But I am generally not doing that. Most PC's start as low level characters and advance up through the ranks.

 

[Greenfield]

Simple question: How does a character suddenly and retroactively learn skills that they never studied?

As a character gains a level, they assign points to skills, either to new ones or they increase their old ones. These, in theory at least, are supposed to reflect study and work the character undertook to develop those talents during the time spent earning that level.

Now an extra dose of any ability score will immediately boost the bonus in any related skills. No problem with that, even when the bump is temporary.

The Hit Point bump for a Con boost, or the drop for a Con loss is immediate and complete because it has nothing to do with how tough you were when you gained that Level.

But the Skill changes from an Int boost or drop for Int loss is only applicable going forward, because it affects how easy it is to learn things.

Presume a Touch of Idiocy spell, or a Curse that saps Int: Do you require the player to go through and reduce or drop some number of skill ranks, until the spell expires? Not talking about the Int bonus to Int based skills, I'm talking about the whole skill list.

And how would you/they choose which skills they have to lose?

See the insanity of this? Yeah, it's nice to get a whole bunch of skill points when a higher level character gains Int, and it's far easier for a character sheet/spreadsheet to calculate skills if the current score is considered your forever score (I think that's the "simplified" part that was referred to), but it's power gaming.

I had a player in my group who always started his characters with a level of Rogue. Max 1st level skills, and he thought that this kept those skills as "In Class" forever more. I showed him the page in the book that said otherwise. He was devastated, he hated it. He argued that it "made no sense".

Apparently Pathfinder lets you keep all of the "In Class" skills, even when your class changes. I had to remind him, for about the seventeenth time, that we were playing D&D, not Pathfinder.

Getting back on topic though, it makes no sense, in game terms, for an Int bonus (or loss) to retroactively grant (or deny) learning opportunities.

 

[ElectricDragon]

When someone gains or loses Constitution. Even in the middle of battle (as it usually happens). It is dealt with immediately, hp, saves, and if a spellcaster Concentration mod. Someone that gains Intelligence, if not a Wizard; gains +1 Int and the skill mods if applicable. If it is not at level gaining time there is nothing else, there are no extra skill points, you have to then wait a level to see any improvement. Constitution on the other hand; gives all its bonuses immediately even if it is not level gaining time. I see it as a way to make Wizards less powerful. It does not really affect anyone else. If that is why, then they should have just said that this is to weaken wizards. Strength gets all its bonuses if changed whether at level time or not, same with all the other scores except Intelligence. It is no more bookkeeping, in fact, in practice, it has been less. No one has to remember what their intelligence was at what level to determine skill points, easy peasy. As DM I can look over the character sheet and instantly tell if the skill points are right without doing a lot of math. People often have one or two skill points off one way or the other; I can point and say, "You have 2 too many skill points, fix it." Or, "You missed one skill point, pick it now."

For those who think that where did this intelligence come from (magic or character improvement), why should they all of a sudden know more? Where did that strength come from? Your character did not spend his last level working out, pumping iron or actually doing anything different, realistically, that should not happen. Do not put realistic as your answer. It is a cop out. It is a game and real life answers do not work, but you can continue to deprive your wizards if you want. I think it is a silly rule that hurts only one character class and should be circular-filed.


Temporary stat decreases:r what about Con, drained of 4 Con, do you stop combat, subtract the Constitution, adjust the hp, change the skill ranks, change the save modifier, then go back to combat? The Fortitude save is probably gonna be needed for saves against the draining creature, it is important to the power of the monster to at least change saves and hp. Only because of combat is this really necessary. If out of combat, it is easy to say, "have your character ready at the next session."

But the main reason is because this is a game and should not favor one character class over another. You do it your way, I'll do it mine. But my wizards will be happier.

 

[Greenfield]

Not wanting tobe rude, but if yu weren't going to listen to the answers, why ask the question?

 

[ElectricDragon]

I asked the question and I listened because I could not think of a good answer. Neither could anyone else. All the answers seem to boil down to: it has always been done this way, don't rock the boat. People who do not want to try it claim it requires more work, without trying it to see for themselves. Why should I listen to anyone who is unwilling to try it and see for themselves. Every answer is nothing more than: this is what I think. Reworking Con in mid battle is terrible to do. Intelligence, on the other hand, does not usually change during battle and skills can usually wait until battle is over to adjust them, not so hit points, or attack bonuses, or AC; which all immediately get (or lose) all their bonuses during combat where it is important. Only Intelligence requires you to wait until you gain a level to get the full bonuses allowed; even if you already leveled just before gaining Intelligence. In a game where skills are important and there are never enough skill points to go around; why deny players a few extra skill points? Balance? NO, not even that can be called upon as a savior. It is only because someone thinks it would be difficult to do. I have done it my way and I tell you it does not increase bookkeeping; even less so than Constitution or Strength or Dexterity.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I ruled Int to be retroactive in my 3.x days, no biggie, made things simpler for anyone making dragons, higher-level NPCs, or higher-level PCs. Also I just like to have the option of having max ranks in a minimum number of skills, rather than odd ranks in this or that skill.

Int is probably not retroactive by RAW b/c somebody thought that it would be more realistic that way -- or who knows, maybe it was a simple oversight. (I'm AFB right now and haven't read the rules recently, so correct me if it's clearly not an oversight.) In any case, we gamers like to think that the RAW is there for a good reason, hence all the pushback.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Skill points are only affected when an int change is permanent such as by levelling or using a tome of clear thought, not by things like fox's cunning or headbands of intellect.

From what I recall, the bonus from a magic item is considered permanent after you've been using it for 24 hours (until you stop using it). That's why a magic belt grants extra HP, and why a magic headband grants extra spell slots.

If you let level-based and Wish-based permanent bonuses grant retroactive skill points, but you didn't let item-based permanent bonuses do the same, then you'd need a third category of buff duration just to note that magic headbands work like permanent bonuses in some ways but specifically not for skill points. And if you let magic headbands work like other permanent bonuses, then you'd have to deal with designating which specific skill ranks are granted by putting on the headband (so you know which ones to remove when you take it off).

For the record, Pathfinder dealt with that issue by having each item specify one skill per +2 bonus, in which the headband granted one rank per level; it was effectively like granting the correct number of extra skill points, unless you happened to already have ranks in the given skill(s).

 

[ElectricDragon]

For the record, Pathfinder dealt with that issue by having each item specify one skill per +2 bonus, in which the headband granted one rank per level; it was effectively like granting the correct number of extra skill points, unless you happened to already have ranks in the given skill(s).

I like this idea. But it does seem to force the chosen skill on the player (unless I misunderstood what you posted), so I would just let them choose the skill(s) when first put on (err, after the 24 hour period), and then they would be stuck with that choice. Even taking off the headband and putting it back on will not change it. I do not allow loaning or borrowing of magic items. I tend to think of them as expensive, but non-insured cars: Nobody borrows my Ferrari! This stops such madness as everyone using the same one magic item as an easy way past an adventure obstacle by trading it to everyone.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I like this idea. But it does seem to force the chosen skill on the player (unless I misunderstood what you posted), so I would just let them choose the skill(s) when first put on (err, after the 24 hour period), and then they would be stuck with that choice.

If you find one randomly in a dungeon somewhere, then it's very much the case that you're likely to end up with a skill you don't care about, or one which you already have. As obvious as it might seem to find one with Spellcraft or Arcana in it, most wizards probably invested ranks into those skills before they got around to making the magic item, so those ones are unlikely to show up.

Having played through more than one Adventure Path, I can say that this item provides a rare chance for the wizard to be disappointed in the same way that the weapon-based classes are routinely disappointed by the terrible random items that show up. If the fighter is forced to put up with a +1 defending greatclub instead of the +1 keen falchion they wanted, then the wizard can put up with free bonus ranks in Stealth rather than Appraise.