Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Permanent Increases in Intelligence Question
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 7183805" data-attributes="member: 6669384"><p>I thought we were done.</p><p></p><p>Okay.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I'm not saying that you're wrong. I've said, several times, that your rule may be right, <em>for your table</em>. Each DM can set their own house rules.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>You say that I object to you using your house rule. Apparently I wasn't the only one responding without reading the full post.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Setting the past aside, and without adrenaline, let me see if I can sum up:</p><p></p><p>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. )</p><p></p><p>I feel that INT bonuses <em>are</em> 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. </p><p></p><p>Is that a fair representation of our differences, when we boil them down to the essence?</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Greenfield, post: 7183805, member: 6669384"] 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, [I]for your table[/I]. 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 [I]are[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Permanent Increases in Intelligence Question
Top