Bullet Points: Skill School

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20modern/bp/20061222&cmp=ILC-RSSDND

Just a few questions. Did you know there's no official rule against retroactive skill point gains from a increasing your Int bonus through level-based gains?

 

[Vigilance]

Hmmm.

I found his answer on the Intelligence change modifying skill ranks disturbing.

I never liked the idea that d20 Modern was "a new paradigm".

I always felt that if a rule was stated in d20/D&D but not explicitly CHANGED in d20 Modern (like the Intelligence change modifying skill ranks retroactively) that you should go with the explicitly stated rule elsewhere as the "spirit" of the rules.

Oh god... Im becoming a grognard.

Chuck

 

[Roudi]

When statting NPCs, I've always avoided increasing Intelligence scores from where they started, because I hated having to break up my stat work for each new Intelligence modifier. What Owen says rings very true to me... I much prefer making it retroactive.

 

[Owen K.C. Stephens]

When answering questions about d20 Modern, I stick with only those rulebooks. That said, it is stated that Int adds to your skill pointed added at each new level, which one could argue means it doesn't add to old levels. Not definitive, but worth mentioning.

I have always run my own games using a the non-retroactive rule, because it's instinctive. I may have to reconsider, or wait and see if a d20 Modern errata or new edition comes out in the next year or two. (Note: I have no knowledge of such an event on way or the other.)

For my homebrew Mutant Age game I have always gone with the ruling I suggested as easiest -- temporary bonuses aren't retroactive, permanent ones are. It does make writing up 9th level smart characters faster.

Owen K.C. Stephens
d20 Triggerman

Need better cheap magic options?
Get Loot 4 Less II: Rods, Staves and Wands

 

[Aussiegamer]

remember that modern rules are based on 3.0 not 3.5.

I would though need to go to the 3.0 rule book to find the rule. Most likely the rule got changed for 3.5 to remove that worry.

Interestingly if you pick up a magic item that grants +3hp/ level (+6 CON) then you lose the extra hps when its not on you.

So then why not allow retro skills? Just have the player assign the new skills to that item and if they lose the item then they lose those skills. Same rule then for all ability modifing items.

Yes a bit of paper work needed!

It is interesting what happens when say the PC gets drained of INT by a spell or such, never really thought about it. I suppose one way to handle it would be like if the get level drained in 3.5, instead I would make them lose points off your highest skills.

 

[jaerdaph]

remember that modern rules are based on 3.0 not 3.5.

Not entirely - it many ways, d20 Modern was also a preview of what was coming in 3.5e.

 

[Ranger REG]

Not entirely - it many ways, d20 Modern was also a preview of what was coming in 3.5e.

Oh, yes. The rules will continually evolves. I would not be surprised if the upcoming Star Wars Saga Edition Core Rulebook (or SECR) will be a preview of the next D&D core rulebook(s) ... or Unearthed Arcana II.

 

[Owen K.C. Stephens]

The rules do constantly evolve, because as designers we are constantly looking at what has and hasn't worked and getting new ideas to fix areas we're not satisfied with. I know Saga is going some directions previous d20 games really haven't (as well as covering a lot of well-worn territory). But we're also trying to make the best rules for Star Wars, so I honestly don't know if any of it is going to get carried over into a new edition of D&D or d20 Modern, should new editions of those games ever be written. I'm sure anyone designing those games would look at what we've done, but they'll be designing a game for a different genre and somewhat different audience.