Permanent Increases in Intelligence Question

[Greenfield]

I think I'll dissect this one piece by piece.

The increased Intelligence allows you to more fully understand what you have already learned, you can add skill points only to those skills that are not maxed out yet (Spot and Listen come to mind). This is not the modifier, which shows up as increased utility of the skills, the same roll will be met with better results because the skill gets easier to do, rather than by increased capacity with the skill.

A point you left off: Can you suddenly become a boyer (bow maker) or blacksmith, even if you've never even fired a bow nor taken time at a forge? (Trust me, there's a lot more to making a bow than just carving up a likely looking piece of wood.)

And, of course, my question was, how do you handle INT losses? Which skills do you retroactively lose? You've yet to answer that one.

Whereas anyone gets all Str stat bonuses immediately, as they do with Con, Dex, Wis, and Cha; only Intelligence gets the shaft. Only Intelligence gets two parts of it removed: the beginning languages of the character, which should not change with stat increases because of how it is named (Starting Languages) and the number of skill points per level.

The bonuses from Wis and Cha are no more immediate than the ones from Int. All stats affect Skill modifiers right away. STR affects combat melee attack and damage rolls, Dex affects Init, Reflex Saves, ranged attacks and AC right away. Con affects HP and Fort saves right away. Wis affects skill checks and Will Saves right away. Int and Cha affect skill bonuses and Spell DCs right away. CHA affects a cleric's dealing with Undead.

Those last two seem to get the short end of the stick because neither one has a Save attached, and none of the mental stats affect physical performance (i.e. they aren't really applicable in combat), but there's no black hole around INT (nor CHA for that matter) that says it's somehow excluded. You keep calling it an exception, but it isn't.

Str affects lift and carry, as well as melee attacks and damage. But unless you happen to be in the middle of a fight at the moment the stat increases, you have to wait for the right situation for it to come into play. Future, not past.

Int, and all other stat changes, affect future events only. Charisma helps deal with people, and undead, but you can't take advantage until the situation arises. Future, not past.

Same for Wisdom, Dex and Charisma. CON is the funny one, in that it can be read as if it applied to the past. It doesn't though, not really. It just lets you make the most of what you already have.

Every other stat allows all parts of it to be applied immediately upon gaining a stat increase by magic or by level increase or by age.
I am saying when the increase is from magic, there is no reason to put real-life realistic answers as to why it can't be done.

I understand what you're saying. What I understand though is that you want this one stat to have an exception rule applied, a "black hole" that makes it different from every other stat. You want changes today to change what happened yesterday.

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 more dodging, blocking, and parrying since hp are not really damage 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. And you have suggested the required time period: until next level.

So you think that temporary buffs, like Bull's strength or Cat's Grace (with durations in minutes) should take a few hours or days to come into play? Sorry, I didn't intend to mock you, but your suggestion is, at the least, cringe-worthy.

I know you weren't actually making that suggestion, but then neither did I. I just observed that the specific effect you're asking about applies when you gain a level. It affects future events, not past ones. Just like every other stat-change in the game. And the sad thing is of course, you have to wait for the future to happen. It isn't instant.

(Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening all at once. )

It is a magical world, and gaining a stat mid level is a magical event that should be FULLY rewarded. Magic. That's how and that's why.

As noted earlier: Only a Wish or Miracle (I think) can change the past, and even they can only roll back time by six seconds. Why you would grant such a scope to the natural progression of earned and learned abilities isn't a question of "realism v magic". It's more of a "WTF???"

The answer of "Hey, it's magic" is an easy one to fall back on, but it's usually used by people who can't or won't try to understand the rules, and/or don't care about consistency.

Yes, there's magic in the game world, and yes it defies our normal sense of physics and "what's possible". "It just happened" though is a lousy excuse for anything in a Role Playing game, magical or otherwise.

As far as your idea is concerned: The rules say no. Rules consistency says no. Game balance says no. The inability to handle the contra-case (stat loss) says no. "Realism", for what it's worth, says no.

If you're the DM and it's your table, you're free to say yes. Your table, your rules and all that.

If you're trying to convince me though, well, the answer is no.

 

[Greenfield]

Odd tangent: Should a sudden increase in wealth allow a character to retroactively buy magic or needed supplies? Or is that money only useful in the future?

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Odd tangent: Should a sudden increase in wealth allow a character to retroactively buy magic or needed supplies? Or is that money only useful in the future?

That is called, "buying on credit."

 

[Greenfield]

I just reread my recent long post, and I realized that I mis-stated something.

STR bonuses apply immediately to melee combat, if your character is a melee combatant. Not everyone is.

CON bonuses apply immediately to Fort Saves and HP for everyone.

Dex bonuses apply immediately to Init, ranged attacks and Reflex saves.

INT bonuses apply immediately to magical combat, if your character is an INT based spell caster. Not everyone is.

WIS bonuses apply immediately to Will saves and Magical combat, if your character is a Cleric or Wisdom based caster. Not everyone is. Dealing with undead is limited to Clerics and, to a lesser extent, Paladins.

Cha bonuses apply immediately to magical combat, if your character is a Charisma based spell caster. Not everyone is.

All stats affect skill bonuses for related skills, but INT gets an extra advantage that none of the others do. It affects how many skill points your character gets for every future level.

Over all the physical stats seem to have the edge, in terms of direct effects for bonuses, since physical combat plays such a large role in the game. Charisma seems to come out on the short end of the stick, since there are so few Charisma based skills, it has no Save associated with it and it has no physical combat effect. Unless you're a Sorcerer or Bard a Charisma bonus seems almost wasted.

It's an uneven field, to be sure, but of the mental stats INT seems to be the golden child.

Looked at in that light though, trying to make that extra advantage retroactive just seems greedy.

 

[ElectricDragon]

Taking your points one at a time.

if your character is a melee combatant. Not everyone is.

So If I, a mage, gain a point of str permanently (that is what we are talking about permanent changes, quit trying to confuse the issue with temporary). and it increases my attack and damage bonus, I do not get to apply it because I am not a melee combatant when I have to resort to melee combat to save my life? Or are you saying I can't change it on my character sheet until I get into melee combat, which may never happen if I'm lucky?

WIS bonuses apply immediately to Will saves and Magical combat, if your character is a Cleric or Wisdom based caster. Not everyone is. Dealing with undead is limited to Clerics and, to a lesser extent, Paladins.

Wisdom bonuses have nothing to do with turning undead.

Cha bonuses apply immediately to magical combat, if your character is a Charisma based spell caster. Not everyone is.

This is where turn undead bonuses like extra turning attempts, extra mods on the check, and bonus damage to successful turning attempts apply. Making Charisma not the "red-headed step-child" you proposed. I do not see how this makes Int the "golden child" The hp bonus for Con seems to be both every level you have attained plus every level you will attain. Greedy, huh? Greedy to only allow melee bonuses for "melee types" Adding an extra attack per round to even it up for the fighter class could also be claimed to be greedy. I mean, don't fighters get all those neat feats, the ability to wear the heaviest armors, more hp, and more extra attacks than anyone else to make them competitive? Yet, you seem to need more for them. And their stat bonuses are not delayed or removed, even if they improve another physical stat. Greed indeed.

A point you left off: Can you suddenly become a boyer (bow maker) or blacksmith, even if you've never even fired a bow nor taken time at a forge? (Trust me, there's a lot more to making a bow than just carving up a likely looking piece of wood.)

I thought I said only already learned skills can be chosen (must have at least one rank in the skills you want to improve); looking back, I left that part out, sorry. But this gives players another reason for that 1 rank in a skill you don't use often (other that the trained skills which you cannot use unless you have at least one rank in them).

According to you: Intelligence provides only: skill mods and extra skill points when you level up. UNLESS YOU ARE A MAGE. It does not have a save tied to it. It doesn't have a special ability tied to it (Charisma and turn undead: thus increasing the number of classes that get extra benefits), and it doesn't give anything at all if you have no Int-based skills (for example: a low-Int fighter who shouldn't have read the book, but did anyway and now has an Int of 10. Whoo hoo, his mods for his Int skills, which he doesn't have, went up 1 point. and from now on when he levels, he gets one more skill point. But for a powerful magical book that will only impart this bonus once (or 1/10 years, I kinda like that rule, I think from 4e?)? No this lowly fighter needs more. This rule is not just to mages. Everyone benefits from this ruling. Of course, that being said, mages are the most likely class to benefit and they would benefit the most. But this rule is mainly so that the not-wizard classes do get a benefit from this stat increase.

Str affects lift and carry, as well as melee attacks and damage. But unless you happen to be in the middle of a fight at the moment the stat increases, you have to wait for the right situation for it to come into play. Future, not past.

Future as in "how I will get to the next level"? Or future as in "not until next level"?

I understand what you're saying. What I understand though is that you want this one stat to have an exception rule applied, a "black hole" that makes it different from every other stat. You want changes today to change what happened yesterday.

As I have explained. This is untrue. Permanent magical changes that add to what is already there, not to create something new that was not there. Even though creating something new would seem to be more in the spirit of a wish; I would consider the gaining of new skills only if the wish were granted by a beneficent deific being (extremely rare occurrence).

CON is the funny one, in that it can be read as if it applied to the past. It doesn't though, not really. It just lets you make the most of what you already have.

Kind of like that but for Intelligence. Number of skill points affects everyone. I do not see the balance issues at all. (My 12th level mage is too powerful because he just gained 12 skill points from a wish, I'll have to retire him now, he'll overshadow the whole group).

(Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening all at once. )

(And space is nature's way of keeping everything from happening in the same place.)
But waiting until the next combat is nothing like waiting until the next level. Don't even pretend that it is.

As far as Intelligence loss, I will go over it yet again.
After combat, we [the DM and player] get together and decide which skills take the hit.
What I didn't mention before is that no skill can be totally unlearned, you must keep at least one rank in a skill that you learned. If the decrease is deemed by campaign or adventure path (DM fiat) that it might be reversed soon; the skills are not changed; instead, the player gains a negative modifier to the skill checks equal to the number of skill points lost in that skill. Getting the curse reversed will remove the negative modifiers.

As far as your idea is concerned: The rules say no. Rules consistency says no. Game balance says no. The inability to handle the contra-case (stat loss) says no. "Realism", for what it's worth, says no.

Blah to this, I answered most of these above. I disagree on most points, too. It is mean, but I feel I have to point out that most of these apply to your house rule too. Even though you claim that the problem you had is not related, it seemed to come to mind quickly as if the two were connected (and it does deal with combat and fighters and attacks: all areas your rule affects). I do not have problems in my campaigns with fighters being ineffective; I do not see in the rules where even more extra attacks are allowed by or are consistent with the rules. To me it would throw off balance quite quickly. But it is for your campaign and I have no say so about how you have fun. More power to you.

 

[Greenfield]

I'll reply, but I'm going to try and reduce the volume. We're both pretty long winded.

So If I, a mage, gain a point of str permanently (that is what we are talking about permanent changes, quit trying to confuse the issue with temporary). and it increases my attack and damage bonus, I do not get to apply it because I am not a melee combatant when I have to resort to melee combat to save my life? Or are you saying I can't change it on my character sheet until I get into melee combat, which may never happen if I'm lucky?

Okay. Your Mage gets a bump in STRength. Will he heft his greatsword and go charging into melee? Or a Longsword? A Battle Axe? A Rapier? A Staple-remover?

Not if you want the character to live. It applies, but is pretty close to useless. Write it down immediately, of course, but then you'll go back to playing the Mage pretty much as you always have. Why? Because Strength is almost meaningless for a Mage except under the most unusual circumstances.

To clarify the "Future, not past" line that you seemed not to understand.

The future includes things that haven't happened yet. All of them, from a millisecond in the future until the death of the universe.

The past includes everything that's already happened.

One of these can be changed.

Now, you say that "most of these apply to my house rule too". I'm guessing that you;re referrin to my list of places that say no to your rule.

The RAW says no to my rule. Rules consistency doesn't. Game balance doesn't say no. There is no contra-case to say no. Realism doesn't say no.

I could play the pedant and explain what "most" actually means, but let's skip that part.

No surprise that you say "Blah" to my arguments. It's more or less what you've been saying from the beginning. Not sure why you asked the question, if you weren't prepared for someone to answer it.

Yeah, you disagree. And as I've said, you're free to apply any rules you like, when you're the DM. Why you act so determined to "win" this exchange is kind of hard to understand. You won't convince me, and I accept that I won't convince you.

 

[ElectricDragon]

Quick Recap of this thread up to page 5.

Herzog said that decreases should be retroactive too.

I agreed and modified my rule such.

Runestar claimed retroactive con is easier to figure than retroactive int, I disagree, my formula is just as easy as his.

Voadam asked when you permanently lose Int? You answered that with feeblemind, bestow curse, and a few creatures. There may be other things too, not important; but I modified my rule to deal with it.

FranktheDM claims lessening of record keeping to not do it. I disagree and stated that in practice it has been less bookkeeping as no one has to remember and write down when they increased their intelligence and for what reason and how.

Ahnehois said he uses his version of the rule.

rgard said he uses it too.

Corsair claims Con is not retroactive. I use his explanation to prove Int is not retroactive either.

Irdeggman says, truthfully, we as DM's cheat. Possibly the best answer, but does it invalidate my rule, no.

Celebrim agrees with Irdeggman accuses me of being jealous of the dragon's skill points. Untrue, but good avoidance of the issue.

Greenfield asks how someone suddenly and retroactively learn skills that they never studied. I counter with how did someone who never worked out suddenly get all those strength bonuses as if they had spent that time doing it? But I modify the rule to move away from that restriction: only skills already owned and not maxed out.

Greenfield asks why ask if I wasn't going to listen to the answers, like if the answer were easy I couldn't have figured it out by myself.

I go off about the answers received so far.

Tequila Sunrise said he used a version of this rule for his 3.x days.

Saelorn says the bonus from magic items is considered permanent after 24 hours. I can find no reference to this, maybe 4e? He also mentions PF rules for bonuses to specific skills. Tried this, not happy with my attempted implementation, dropped it.

Greenfield mentions bestow curse and permanently losing int. He then asks if Dex bonuses can be retroactive. So I remove the word "retoractive" from the int rule description and show how it would be possible for permanent Dex bonuses to be delayed until next level. Not really fun but possible. Like intelligence bonuses awaiting the next level gain.

I give an astronaut example for (albeit temporary) increased strength and the problems associated with it.

Saelorn says that most 3e characters tend to keep a handful of skills maxed out. I have to disagree, but that is my campaign, maybe I encourage it.

I mention what is good for some doesn't work for all.
But gaining a stat, even mid level, should be nothing short of a winning moment.

Greenfield gives a lecture on computers and computes that it has relevance and conjures that I only use "easy-way" rules and thus somehow am a powergamer. I seethe, but I do not respond to this troll.

I say no rule survives the table unchallenged

Greenfield accuses me of asking a question I didn't want an answer to. Tries to show that a 1 Int warrior forgets his friends and mindlessly attacks anything near him. Tries to spread the rule to gaining of feats and asks me again to answer the question about bestow curse. Then asserts his rule that cannot be challenged.

I challenge his rule.

Greenfield asserts that that is no challenge, it happened differently. Claims that 1 Int is houseplant. Lizard gets thrown around.

Saelorn refutes houseplant theory.

Greenfield claims literal for fish memory.

I ask about lizard reference, still not in my copy.

I recap what this all started with to get people back on track, still looking for an answer I can use in my game.

Greenfield says lizard is in physical phb, does not mean anything, fluff was pulled out of SRD but left in PHB. Then I realize that maybe Greenfield's is the older SRD, see when it updated to 1.1 they pulled all the IP out of it and as I was actively writing for the RPG market at the time, I needed an SRD without any IP in it so I immediately updated. I didn't realize they would also pull the fluff until later. But that just let me make my own fluff where needed.
Greenfield then warms me to keep it less personal.

I resort to magic as the answer to Greenfield's assertion that my rule is not realistic.

And then this page. I'll reply later.

 

[Greenfield]

I started to pick your summary apart (not that hard), and point out the mischaracterizations you included, but you said something that I realized was true.

I was being a troll, responding before I'd fully read your posts, and generally letting my adrenal system do my thinking for me.

I'm sorry. I went off topic just to prove you wrong about things, and i pounded on irrelevant points as if they meant something.

We disagree on this, and I don't think that's going to change. I still think you're hand waving opinions you don't like (as in "blah to all of that"), but I'd like to think we can disagree in a more civil manner.

So I'll start anew, on topic and civil this time.

I disagree with your idea because:

1) It doesn't handle the contra-case very well: INT loss. Agreed it's a rare thing, as even spells like Bestow Curse and Feeblemind aren't actually permanent.
2) The "ease of book keeping" you cite presumes a spreadsheet approach to calculating skills. That approach is notoriously poor when it comes to skills because it not only doesn't handle INT increases or decreases, it also has a hard time keeping track of in-class and out-of-class skills when someone changes classes.
3) Whether you use the word "retroactive" or not, that is what you're trying to rationalize, and it's a bad idea for both game balance and continuity.
4) You've come up with a partial answer to the question of how someone learned a skill, after the fact, but it comes across to me as a thin excuse. A "pay no attention to that rule behind the curtain" kind of thing. D&D has far too many of those already. (Comparing that to gaining Strength without working out is a bad idea though. Skill points are the product of the stat bump, while working to improve a stat is the cause.)

We could argue about what a 1 INT does or doesn't allow, or what house rules I do or don't use. I do use house rules, but I think that they should be approached carefully. I admit my prejudice against PC power-ups, which your rule seems to be designed to provide. But I don't think I'm wrong to advise that they should be handled carefully.

As I've said several times, if you're the DM you can implement any house rule you like. It's your game and that's fine. By the same token though, I'm free to disagree with you.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Saelorn says the bonus from magic items is considered permanent after 24 hours. I can find no reference to this, maybe 4e? He also mentions PF rules for bonuses to specific skills. Tried this, not happy with my attempted implementation, dropped it.

I can't find it in the SRD, but I can find it in the PFSRD. Going over the headband of intellect, it specifically calls out that you don't gain extra skills from it, and fox's cunning specifically points out that it doesn't grant extra spell slots or skill points, so that's some evidence that the difference between temporary and permanent was only codified in Pathfinder where 3.5 left it as a series of ad hoc rulings. The reason that a magic item grants extra spell slots then, where the spell does not, is just because it specifically says so.

 

[ElectricDragon]

I started to pick your summary apart (not that hard), and point out the mischaracterizations you included, but you said something that I realized was true.

I was being a troll, responding before I'd fully read your posts, and generally letting my adrenal system do my thinking for me.

I'm sorry. I went off topic just to prove you wrong about things, and i pounded on irrelevant points as if they meant something.

We disagree on this, and I don't think that's going to change. I still think you're hand waving opinions you don't like (as in "blah to all of that"), but I'd like to think we can disagree in a more civil manner.

So I'll start anew, on topic and civil this time.

I disagree with your idea because:

1) It doesn't handle the contra-case very well: INT loss. Agreed it's a rare thing, as even spells like Bestow Curse and Feeblemind aren't actually permanent.
2) The "ease of book keeping" you cite presumes a spreadsheet approach to calculating skills. That approach is notoriously poor when it comes to skills because it not only doesn't handle INT increases or decreases, it also has a hard time keeping track of in-class and out-of-class skills when someone changes classes.
3) Whether you use the word "retroactive" or not, that is what you're trying to rationalize, and it's a bad idea for both game balance and continuity.
4) You've come up with a partial answer to the question of how someone learned a skill, after the fact, but it comes across to me as a thin excuse. A "pay no attention to that rule behind the curtain" kind of thing. D&D has far too many of those already. (Comparing that to gaining Strength without working out is a bad idea though. Skill points are the product of the stat bump, while working to improve a stat is the cause.)

We could argue about what a 1 INT does or doesn't allow, or what house rules I do or don't use. I do use house rules, but I think that they should be approached carefully. I admit my prejudice against PC power-ups, which your rule seems to be designed to provide. But I don't think I'm wrong to advise that they should be handled carefully.

As I've said several times, if you're the DM you can implement any house rule you like. It's your game and that's fine. By the same token though, I'm free to disagree with you.

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?

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.

3. Game balance, that is what this is about, see #4 below.

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.