Permanent Increases in Intelligence Question

[Greenfield]

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.

I looked over the answers, though I admit that I didn't read them all in detail. Most of them, however, gave a lot more than "We've always done it that way".

Does it require more work? Character is hit with Bestow Curse, and loses six Int points. How do you decide which Skills they retroactively never trained for?

Character reads a Tome of Clear Thought and gains Int points. How do you explain how they, retroactively, gained skills they never studied, trained for or practiced?

Do I have to try those impossible rationalizations to see that they're impossible rationalizations?

As most of you folks know, I'm a rules guy. When in doubt, check the rules and play by them. But my reasons aren't just "Because the rules say so", and neither are most of those who say not to do this. They're giving reasons, both in game and out, and you're more or less dismissing them.

You compared the bonuses from other stats, like Dex and Con.

Please explain how you would apply a Dex bonus retroactively?

Con bonus (or penalty) applies immediately: Plus or minus hit points per dice. Suffered a permanent CON loss? You don't declare the character retroactively dead because they wouldn't have survived some previous injury.

All stat bonuses and penalties apply only in the immediate sense, per the rules.

Temporary stat items are, as the name implies, temporary. A Headband of Intellect will grant bonuses to INT based skills, and may grant bonus spell slots if worn continuously, but it doesn't add to the Wizard's 1st level spells: Starting Wizards get 1st level spells based on INT bonus. Putting on that Headband doesn't automatically teach you a language you've never studied. And it doesn't suddenly give you the hours or days of training needed to master a skill, such as Craft - Blacksmith.

How would the permanent ability change do any of that? The Wiz suddenly finds a few extra pages in his/her book that they never noticed before? They suddenly dream-experience days of study, or hours at the forge?

I think we all agree that it's easier to ignore inconvenient rules. There's a word for players who ignore rules, but if I wrote it here the Mods would probably have some harsh words for me.

In the end, each DM decides what their house rules are, and I have no right to condemn games where those rules differ from mine. So if your DM is cool with your way, then play and enjoy. If your DM isn't, or hasn't been consulted then, well there's that word again, the one I'm not supposed to post.

 

[ElectricDragon]

The rationalizations for why it is done are all metagame: it is not realistic, I follow the rules, etc. But they are just that, rationalizations. As far as skills set upon finding the item; Stealth, Bluff, Hide, etc. would be a strange one for a wizard to construct, unless your rogues regularly make magic items, rationally, more likely would be other intelligence-based skills like the less-used knowledge skills (like history, architecture, nature, etc.). But of course you do not have to have rationalizations in your game. It is a game and you make the rules, even those who say, "I'm a rules kind of guy"

I have never had someone use Int for bestow curse, more likely is Con to lessen hp or Str to lessen damage or Dex to lessen AC. Decreasing Int for a dumb creature would be the quickest way to make such a creature a non-encounter. But like I said before, skills can wait until after battle to adjust. Me (the DM) and the player would then work out which skills took the hit. If the Intelligence loss is temporary because of (remove curse or some such), the same points would return upon removal of the curse. It is strange that you have no problem with a character magically gaining Intelligence but rebel against the magic extending to skills. Every other stat does not make the character gain a level to get the full bonus from the magic item/spell No matter how you rationalize it, you are weakening Tome of Clear Thought and wishes for increased intelligence to make them less effective than their counterparts with any other stat. As far as what the skills would be, I do not let such Intelligence increases allow the character to learn new skills, they can only improve on the ones they already have that aren't maxed out.

Retroactive, that is the word everyone has a problem with. How about this: It is not retroactive, they are immediately smarter, and they now understand what they trained in better. Kinda like how a stronger fighter hits more often and does more damage without having to train with this new increased strength. Or a more Dexterous rogue can improve his chance to hide, move silently, balance better, tumble better, etc. all of a sudden; all without extra training.

Nevertheless, how you ask? The answer of course is two-fold: it is a game, played for fun; and there is no reason to limit only one character class when it is not for balance. Yes, characters other than wizards can use the book or spell to increase intelligence; most do not even think about it unless they are a wizard (and by your ruling, nothing would actually change for non-wizards other than skill mods until level up).

Let me ask you a question in return, when someone spends a skill point or two, during the level-up process; if they choose to learn a new language, do you make them have to make some kind of a check for 6-8 months of game-play to simulate them learning the new language, with lots of chances to misunderstand or say the wrong thing all the while? And then extend the time required if they do not use the language at every opportunity? Or do you just hand wave it because it is not specifically called out in the rules to make them wait for proficiency? If you do not do this; reality suffers and your rationalizations falter.
BTW, I did not advocate extra starting spells or languages, those parts are only for beginning characters.

 

[ElectricDragon]

Take this real world example. Astronauts must extensively train for outer space. They train in low gravity environments (under water) and in zero gravity. Going from normal gravity to zero gravity is similar to gaining Strength. Your strength does not change but the weight you have to move decreases so it is like you gained lots of strength, so much so that you do not know your own strength. Bouncing off walls and ceilings is probably pretty common for the first few days on the ISS. Their body has to attune to the new conditions, so much less strength is needed for even simple tasks that it becomes difficult for a while. So shouldn't we make fighters who improved their Strength even temporarily, suffer an attunement period where they do not gain the bonuses to hit and must make strength checks to keep from breaking fragile items they hold? Whoo, wouldn't my fighters really like that? IMHO, it adds nothing to the game and in fact detracts from it to pull out these arbitrary, single-out-one-character-class rules.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

As far as what the skills would be, I do not let such Intelligence increases allow the character to learn new skills, they can only improve on the ones they already have that aren't maxed out.

Most 3E characters that I've seen tend to choose a handful of skills and keep them maxed out, because having a couple of ranks in something just isn't very useful. There are exceptions, of course, but this is still my observation of ~80 percent of characters. It's less bookkeeping, and it tends to streamline actual gameplay since you don't have to worry about attempting checks that you have a low chance of passing.

Let me ask you a question in return, when someone spends a skill point or two, during the level-up process; if they choose to learn a new language, do you make them have to make some kind of a check for 6-8 months of game-play to simulate them learning the new language, with lots of chances to misunderstand or say the wrong thing all the while?

Those rules are in the DMG, and are considered optional. Plenty of people opted to use those rules, because instantly mastering a language is silly, and there's only so many concessions you can make in the name of gameplay before the players stop taking things seriously. Many did not opt to use those rules, because they just didn't care that much.

When 4E launched, the ability to instantly retrain out one language for another language was one of the first criticisms against it, but it's only a problem if you actually care about that sort of thing.

 

[ElectricDragon]

Caution: DetourI have also seen somewhere on enworld a thread where someone (forget who, real full of info today) worked out a system for learning languages including different levels of proficiency (basic, advanced, native, or something like that). Everyone's racial language is native, or common if no racial, each other starting language would be less than that but proficiency could be improved with both practice (no one speaks any of your other languages, you have to use it to interact with others) or skill points and time. It was a very intricate system, but too much for my campaigns.End Detour

My point is that the type of verisimilitude wanted will impact the game. If you do not think that Intelligence gets the shaft for no reason; then by all means use what works for you. I, on the other hand, intend to give out the full intelligence bonuses whenever Intelligence is increased, deal with the decreases as I mentioned earlier and not penalize fighters who increase their strength by making them attune themselves to their new strength score before they get the benefits of it; or any other way of making gaining a point in a stat a less than winning moment.

 

[Greenfield]

Actually, ElectricDragon, my questions regarding long term or permanent INT loss were purely practical, not meta-gaming at all. Neither were they "Those are the rules" type arguments. Neither were those of several others in this discussion, though you've just kind of hand-waved them all.

As I implied earlier, you seem to have asked a question, having already decided on the only answer you're willing to accept. Your privilege I suppose, but it you ask for our collective wisdom please don't complain when you get it.

Which brings us back to non-meta-game questions, such as "How would you decide which skills someone never learned, after an INT loss?"

<Partial Tangent>I've heard your argument of "That doesn't happen very often", in all it's myriad forms, from a lot of people other than you. The nature of rules is that they should work in the rare cases just like they work in the common cases. If they don't, then they don't really work at all, they just seem to.

In my work we have two sayings, and I've found that they apply in gaming as well: "Almost always" means "Never". Also "Almost never" means "Always".

In my business (Computers), if we *almost always* have a given piece of information, that means we are going to see cases where we don't have it. The system needs to keep working when that happens, so we need to prepare for the "never" scenario. Similarly, if we "almost never" have to bill certain items, it means that we do have to bill them, once in a while. The system needs to be able to do that when the time arises, as if it happened every day.

In gaming, if a rule says "This is almost always accompanied by...", every single player will want their character or their situation to be the exception. If a power or spell "almost always has a visible effect", you can count on players arguing that their character's use of that power or spell will have "Invisible special effects".

And of course, if a rule says, "... to a maximum of...", read it as "...to a minimum of ...", because it's a rare player who will accept less than the maximum of anything, and many will argue that they should be the exception who can exceed that limit.</Partial Tangent>

Responding more directly, making rules the way you suggest, which cover the easy-way path means that they have a gaping hole as soon as that unexpected event arises.

You don't see Bestow Curse being used on Int very often because of the style of game you play. Hit points are what you care about. Kill spells are favored over "You're screwed" spells. Generally, anyone can do hit points of damage, and it's a waste to spend your limited supply of magic trying to do what anyone with a pointy-stick can do an essentially unlimited amount of: Hit point damage.

When facing some opponents, you need to cripple before you kill. Consider the big-bad who uses Magic Jar as a standard tactic: You never get to face him/her in person, only the body they're currently possessing. Cripple or kill that body and he/she just possesses another. Hit points matter in the specific battle, but the battle isn't the war. Cripple the mind, on the other hand, and he's crippled no matter what body he might possess.

Even if I'm facing a straight combat machine, seven feet of Feral Half-Ogre Barbarian fury five levels higher than my character, something like Bestow Curse can reduce his CON by 6, and thus drop his HP by 3 per level. Or, it can reduce that INT he used as a dump-stat and turn him into a house plant. (Unlike Touch of Idiocy, Bestow Curse can drop a stat to a 1, which is all but non-functional. And it doesn't wear off.)

Or, to put it more simply, why hit him where he's strongest when you can hit him where he's weakest?

And you don't need to be a Rogue to have ranks in Hide or Move Silent. My current Wiz' has points in both. Same for spot and Listen. Having a high Int means a lot of skill points, including enough to go cross-class once in a while. (Between the Elven bonus to Spot and Listen, the Alertness feat that comes from having a Familiar and me not using Wisdom as a dump stat, my character has Spot and Listen second only to the party Ranger.)

And, oddly, you don't need huge ranks in any skill to create the skill-boost item.

But all of your "That almost never happens" arguments point to rules holes, places where your home-brew system breaks. And, in my experience, players love rules holes. They hunt for them and exploit the hell out of them on a regular basis.

Now, as noted, if you're the DM you are free to run your game by any rules you want.

 

[ElectricDragon]

NO rule survives the table unchallenged. Coming up with a rule that does is strictly impossible. There are ALWAYS corner cases. The players are not computers and they will think of many things you did not prepare for in every situation and with every rule. That is why there is a DM required at the table to arbitrate such occurrences and make ruling that handle the situation. If you are letting everyone be so super special that every case (as it seems from your response) is "to a maximum of" when at least some should be at the minimum or at the mid point at least. So, why have the randomness of the game, just decide. This sounds more like a story-telling game, with the players the main story-tellers rather than the protagonists. More power to you if that is your type of game, but to me it is not D&D.

You do not deal with increased Strength the same way you deal with increased Intelligence, making you seem to favor the martial classes over the spell-casting classes. Decreased stats have their disadvantages immediately apparent. All stats but Intelligence have their advantages immediately apparent.

And bestow curse is nothing about the question at hand. It is not something that will only come up in my games played my way. It will happen in your game too, even with your rules. How do you deal with "he never learned that skill"? Do you do it mid-battle? Does that barbarian suddenly fall out of the tree he's climbing because his Climb skill dropped to non-existence? Can he no longer Jump as far or as high? Perhaps his hearing got worse or his sight? Barbarians going down to 1 Intelligence would lose most of their skill points (-5 modifier to skill points/level). He would only get to keep 1 skill point per level (plus the bonus 3 at 1st level); with Int as the dump stat, the fall would not be very far; but to the player, you just killed their character because they had so few skill points to begin with and the whining commences. [If a tactic is so good for the players to use against the monsters that it shortens battles immensely; I have found that keeping it in check requires that I use the same tactic against the players.] Should I mention that getting close enough to touch a barbarian (or any melee-focused monster) in battle is never a good idea? Especially with a spellcaster whose AC, hp, and touch attack is not on par with any of the front-line fighters who can withstand the barbarian at least for a few rounds. Sometimes, though, it is the only choice; but to use it as a normal tactic is suicidal. And that is fair enough, I have had and dealt with suicidal-themed characters, they were fun while they lasted, but the randomness of the game always took care of them eventually.

So, with RAW and only RAW, how do you deal with Intelligence loss in your game? This thread was about Intelligence gains, and somehow got onto Intelligence losses because you thought it was a hole in my argument; but I showed you how I deal with it. After combat, working together (DM and player). Shouldn't stat gains be a cover-all rule? Or do you prefer to gank the mages and only apply their gains after they gain a level? And if that lucky mage gains a point or two of intelligence but gets hit by bestow curse before he levels, do you apply the penalties before he gains the bonuses, or rather instead of the bonuses?

 

[ElectricDragon]

Upon thinking about it for a bit; you seem to be working on a false assumption. An Intelligence of 1 does not take out someone.

Quote from the SRD:
An animal has an Intelligence score of 1 or 2. A creature of humanlike intelligence has a score of at least 3.
...
While any loss is debilitating, losing all points in an ability score can be devastating.
• Strength 0 means that the character cannot move at all. He lies helpless on the ground.
• Dexterity 0 means that the character cannot move at all. He stands motionless, rigid, and helpless.
• Constitution 0 means that the character is dead.
• Intelligence 0 means that the character cannot think and is unconscious in a coma-like stupor, helpless.
• Wisdom 0 means that the character is withdrawn into a deep sleep filled with nightmares, helpless.
• Charisma 0 means that the character is withdrawn into a catatonic, coma-like stupor, helpless.
End quote from SRD.


1 Intelligence will limit the choices he will consider each round but there are no rules to determine this. Animals can attack and defend with only 1 Intelligence, even using special attacks when appropriate. So, I do not see why the barbarian of 1 intelligence would be unable to continue the battle. In fact, if he is already attacking, why wouldn't he continue doing so; not having the intelligence to even see that the battle is already lost or consider another option? 0 is the place where he would just fall over, unconscious and in a coma. 1 is not low enough to do that. Bestow curse in actuality would not help that much. He is already a killing machine, but with a (limited) amount of intelligence, he could be persuaded in some way. Lowering his intelligence to 1 would remove that option to deal with him; but at the same time, he would be susceptible to common ruses that a barbarian would normally see through.

And making him make an Intelligence check to do anything means you need to do that for all your animals too. So the Intelligence checks need to be especially low so that animals can be opponents rather than stuffed animal toys.

 

[Greenfield]

Will a 1 Int warrior know friend from foe, or will he attack anything, like a rabid dog?

And if people back off and just walk around him, will he remember that he was supposed to guard that door? Or that chest? Will he remember how to use or even hold a sword or axe?

He's reduced to the lowest of animal Intelligence. His ability to damage others, or to defend himself, is all but gone. Walk out of the room for five minutes, come back and go about your business. He won't remember who you are, or that he was fighting you. Toss him something tasty and he'll leave you alone. (Clue: IRL most fish have a "linear memory" span of about six seconds. That's why they strike at a lure, get hurt when they slip the hook, then go right back to striking at the same lure.)

He's a house plant. Water him, let him have some sun and he's happy.

As for the prior post: I do deal with STR increases the same way I deal with INT increases. Both apply going forward only. You are the one who wants to treat them differently.

Some feats, like Power Attack, have a stat minimum. Would you allow a PC to change feats after the fact, because they now meet a minimum they didn't before? You seem to want to do that for INT and Skills, why not STR and Feats?

Increased INT's effects are immediately apparent: Higher bonuses for INT based skills, more difficult Saves v the higher INT caster's spells, more bonus spell slots. All applies immediately or, at latest, when they do their next spell preparation.

As for Bestow Curse, the question you refuse to address: Stat drains and stat bumps are opposite sides of the same coin. Any rule addressing the effects of one *must* address the effects of the other.

You say there are "corner cases" for any rule, that no rule hits the table unchallenged. Let me bounce one of our house rules off of you.
************
Because we observed that combat types tend to get left behind at higher levels, with spell casters dominating play, we decided to change the iterative attacks rule, Instead of getting additional attacks every five points, we made it every four.

Secondary attacks happen when BAB is five, not six, and are taken at a penalty of minus four instead of minus five. Tertiary attacks happen at BAB of nine, not eleven, etc.

This leaves the fighter's power curve the same at lower levels, but about the time spell casters start to get their big-boom AoE spells, the fighter gets his extra attack. He ends up keeping pace with the spell casters for about three levels more than he does under the standard rule.
************
Okay, find the "corner case" on that. How would someone challenge it? It's a fundamental rule change that affects all classes, but benefits the high BAB classes the most, particularly at the higher levels. Find the hole, the inconsistency that can be objected to.

Now you say the INT drop will affect my game too, that a Barbarian will suddenly fall out of a tree because he never learned the Climb skill.

Please step away from the mirror. You're talking to me, but looking at yourself.

The situation will never occur in my game because I *don't* apply stat bonuses or penalties retroactively. They only apply going forward. Skills, once learned, are there for life. You don't spontaneously lose them when INT drops any more than you spontaneously gain them when INT increases. INT based skills will have their bonuses changed immediately, but the base skill ranks remain unchanged.

Now you sap the guy's Strength and he might fall from the tree, because his STR bonus to Climb isn't there any more, but his base skill ranks remain in place.

So, with RAW and only RAW, how do we deal with Intelligence loss? According to RAW, of course: It affects the number of skills a character can learn as they advance in levels, but that doesn't mean anything until their next level advancement. It affects bonus spell slots granted by high INT. It affects the ability bonus to INT based skills. It affects the Save DC for spells cast by an INT based spell caster.

Going forward, only. If it happened today, it affects today, not yesterday, two weeks or three years ago. The only spell or ability in the game that can change the past is Wish (or perhaps Miracle), and that only for the preceding six seconds.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Will a 1 Int warrior know friend from foe, or will he attack anything, like a rabid dog?

Intelligence 1 isn't the same as Intelligence of a snake, let alone a house-plant. Even the Feeblemind spell, which sets your Intelligence to 1, reminds us that the character still knows who their friends are and can follow or protect them.