Does anyone NOT use this house rule?
- Thread starter Gnome
- Start date
smootrk
First Post
One reason that I use retroactive skill points is because of the PDF character sheet that I use for my characters. It does not track skill points at each level, it simply calculates total number of skill points for a given intelligence score. It is 'smart' enough not to base skill points off of 'temporary' adjustments like magic items or spell effects, but it does not do a level by level total.
Voadam
Legend
We don't in the campaign that I took over because that was how the last DM ran it.
I wish the RAW did make it that way. It would be much easier to check correct skill points for high level characters or monsters that use int and might advance it. I hate how the order of taking things matters for the end result.
I wish the RAW did make it that way. It would be much easier to check correct skill points for high level characters or monsters that use int and might advance it. I hate how the order of taking things matters for the end result.
ARandomGod
First Post
I've never played with it as a character, but it makes perfect sense to do it. I've been in campaigns where it was a house rule (but didn't affect my character).
It's not that complicated to do... and you really can learn things from memory if you become smarter. I've "learned" things retroactively in my life. Very few things, but it's happened.
Of course, I say it's complicated because you can't just "get new skill points"... you have to get 'em and spend them in places you would have been allowed to spend them. This is very important in multiclassed characters.
Now, in campaigns where it's not done, and I'm playing a (high level) character who's increasing Int on a regular basis I've occasionally made a Wish to that effect. A very effective wish, and the two times I did it the GM let me.
It's not that complicated to do... and you really can learn things from memory if you become smarter. I've "learned" things retroactively in my life. Very few things, but it's happened.
Of course, I say it's complicated because you can't just "get new skill points"... you have to get 'em and spend them in places you would have been allowed to spend them. This is very important in multiclassed characters.
Now, in campaigns where it's not done, and I'm playing a (high level) character who's increasing Int on a regular basis I've occasionally made a Wish to that effect. A very effective wish, and the two times I did it the GM let me.
the Jester
Legend
Not only do I not use this house rule, I've never played with anyone who did either.
Spatzimaus
First Post
I've never used this house rule either. The RAW work just fine for everything other than generating a high-level character from scratch, and even that's really only an issue when using a character that'd raise his INT (i.e., Wizards and Psions). And really, it's not that hard to handle, since you'd already have to figure out skill point spending level-by-level for multiclassed characters in the first place.
IndyPendant
First Post
Wow. I seem to be in a very strong minority of GMs here that use that house rule--and not just for ease-of-use, but because I think it should be that way! (Note that it's only permanent changes--via Wish, levelling up, etc. Items, spells, and other temporary changes do not count for skill point increases. --And, for the record, I disagree even that not changing skill points for temporary int changes is the way it 'should' be. I am just forced to do it that way because any other option is horribly complex and too easily abused.)
Part of my reasoning is balance between the stats is balance: 1) if you don't give skill points retro, then there is ZERO REASON for a non-mage to increase int. Period. End of story. A player would be stupid to do so. 2) it's the only stat that takes such a nasty hit to how it's used. Int is used (for non-mages) only for a) skill points per level, and b) bonus to int-based skills. That's it. We're done.
Let me argue against the common reasoning: that you can't suddenly learn new skills. Well, flavour text can be used to justify anything. And, when you come down to it, all that crap about "Well, you can't suddenly know a lot of stuff, but your body can suddenly be tougher" is nothing more than flavour text at its core. A mage gains a level, and suddenly has at least 6 skill points (usually) to distribute. RAW, he can put all six skill points into one skill. If he's level 2, that *exactly the same effect* as if he had somehow permanently increased his Int by two points. But one, simply because of the wording of flavour text, is allowed. The other is not.
Now let's look at Constitution. You see, Constitution is a measure of how tough your body is at any particular moment in time. Hit points are a measure of how your body develops over time. If hit points were not a measurement of development over time, then everyone would have their points based exclusively on constitution (or maybe constitution and class)--level would have nothing to do with it. But since levelling *always* increases your hit points, obviously hit points are a measure of development over time. Therefore, hit points should not be retroactive. You gained 7 hit points on reaching level 2; how did you 'suddenly', retroactively, gain one more hit point for that level? If anything, it's worse than that: wear a necklace, and you retroactively gained 1 (or more!) hit points for previous levels. Take it off, those bonus hit points are gone. Put in on, take it off, put it on... --You can die from this silliness!
So. Do you see why trying to justify a point via flavour is fruitless? Flavour text can justify anything. Sure, you can argue my reasoning about hit points--but the whole point of this is, my flavour text *sounds* like it makes perfect sense!
The reasoning for not giving retroactive skill points for (*permanent*) Int increases is arbitrary, not really justified for balance or common-sense reasons, and hoses anyone wanting to increase Int (including those poor mages).
So why not give it to players?
Part of my reasoning is balance between the stats is balance: 1) if you don't give skill points retro, then there is ZERO REASON for a non-mage to increase int. Period. End of story. A player would be stupid to do so. 2) it's the only stat that takes such a nasty hit to how it's used. Int is used (for non-mages) only for a) skill points per level, and b) bonus to int-based skills. That's it. We're done.
Let me argue against the common reasoning: that you can't suddenly learn new skills. Well, flavour text can be used to justify anything. And, when you come down to it, all that crap about "Well, you can't suddenly know a lot of stuff, but your body can suddenly be tougher" is nothing more than flavour text at its core. A mage gains a level, and suddenly has at least 6 skill points (usually) to distribute. RAW, he can put all six skill points into one skill. If he's level 2, that *exactly the same effect* as if he had somehow permanently increased his Int by two points. But one, simply because of the wording of flavour text, is allowed. The other is not.
Now let's look at Constitution. You see, Constitution is a measure of how tough your body is at any particular moment in time. Hit points are a measure of how your body develops over time. If hit points were not a measurement of development over time, then everyone would have their points based exclusively on constitution (or maybe constitution and class)--level would have nothing to do with it. But since levelling *always* increases your hit points, obviously hit points are a measure of development over time. Therefore, hit points should not be retroactive. You gained 7 hit points on reaching level 2; how did you 'suddenly', retroactively, gain one more hit point for that level? If anything, it's worse than that: wear a necklace, and you retroactively gained 1 (or more!) hit points for previous levels. Take it off, those bonus hit points are gone. Put in on, take it off, put it on... --You can die from this silliness!
So. Do you see why trying to justify a point via flavour is fruitless? Flavour text can justify anything. Sure, you can argue my reasoning about hit points--but the whole point of this is, my flavour text *sounds* like it makes perfect sense!
The reasoning for not giving retroactive skill points for (*permanent*) Int increases is arbitrary, not really justified for balance or common-sense reasons, and hoses anyone wanting to increase Int (including those poor mages).
So why not give it to players?
IndyPendant - let's turn the conversation around for a minute.
What do you do when someone suffers Intelligence damage or drain?
Logically, if increases are applied retroactively, then decreases should be as well. But if a 15th level character loses 2 points if Intelligence, how do you decide which 15 skill points they lose? In my opinion, this is where it really gets sticky. ADDING skill points retroactively is easy. SUBTRACTING them is hard.
What do you do when someone suffers Intelligence damage or drain?
Logically, if increases are applied retroactively, then decreases should be as well. But if a 15th level character loses 2 points if Intelligence, how do you decide which 15 skill points they lose? In my opinion, this is where it really gets sticky. ADDING skill points retroactively is easy. SUBTRACTING them is hard.
