Does anyone NOT use this house rule?

[smootrk]

I like to think of the movie "Phenomon (spellling?)". Travolta's character gained INT, and was able to assemble old information differently (the rabbit in the garden) and was able to acquire and mesh new material much more quickly (why his new information seemed to focus on aspects of his farming lifestyle, or his network of friends (portugese)).

Again, this illustrates why I would retroactively grant skill points, but I (the DM) would allocate those 'new' skill points into skills that the character already had or into appropriate related skills (give Craft Woodworking to a character with Profession Lumberjack, or similar situations).

If faced with permanent loss of INT, I would simply remove skill points across all the skills that the character had to lessen any significant impact on any one skill. It wouldn't make sense for a character to all of a sudden become absolutely worthless at doing 1 skill because that was the last batch of new skills gained.

 

[ARandomGod]

A big part of the argument seemed to be based on "well, CON changes are retroactive!"

Well, to be fair, does any skill other than INT not affect the character "retroactively" in this manner?

 

[Crothian]

It's been explained pretty clearly by people in this thread why INT changes shouldn't be retroactive, but I'll give the munchkin's side of things:
.

I don't make rules and worry about what a munchkin would do. If you really need to use the munchkin arguement to defeat a rule, then the game is going down in flames because as the Rules forum shows, everything can get mucnkinized.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Well, to be fair, does any skill other than INT not affect the character "retroactively" in this manner?

Well, if I raise my STR at level 20, do I get to go back and retroactively do more damage to the rats I fought at level 1? If I raise my DEX, do I get to say that the fatal blow I took from a bugbear way back when missed me? If I switch from Wizard to Fighter, do I get to recalculate my BAB as +1/level? Most stats only deal with the present time. The amount of damage you deal at a given level is dependent on your STR at that level. Your AC at a given level is dependent on your DEX at that level. The amount of skill points you gain at a given level is dependent on your INT at that level. Your saves and BAB increase only if your current class level would increase them, without any relation to what classes came before or what will come later.

The only things I can think of in the game that are truly "retroactive" are the HP gain from CON and your bonus spells (especially the bonus power points for psionic characters, which are explicitly level-dependent). So, instead of saying that INT should be retroactive, maybe you should be arguing that CON changes shouldn't be. Say that your CON at the time you gain a level is what determines your HP, and temporary CON changes don't affect this. From my point of view, CON is the minority, so using it as justification for an INT change seems backwards.

And Crothian, while it's fine to dislike munchkinism as a measuring stick, the situation I came up with is hardly limited to that sort of playstyle. The Wish-based tomes are available in most campaigns, if you follow the DMG wealth guidelines, and even without them, you can get the same effect by using the Wish spell itself. Also, you'd get the same effect if someone used their 4-level stat increase to raise their INT modifier at level 20; they'd gain 23 skill points instantly, and have to figure out how to spend them. And most players either multiclass or add a Prestige Class, so this is hardly limited to the powergamers.

 

[IndyPendant]

(Now, if you want temporary INT changes to affect skills, I think we can find a middle ground. How about this: for each change in modifier due to temporary INT, you get a straight +1 or -1 to all skill checks. Sort of like how temporay negative levels work.)

Well, as I've stated already, I believe that people who gain a temporary int change should have their skill points adjusted. The only reason why I don't houserule that in my campaigns is that it's way too complex to work out. For example, your +1 bonus accross all skills is far more powerful than a straight +2 increase to Int gives. There simply is no easy answer--or even mildly complex answer!--that is both fair mechanically and avoids abuse. So I was forced--against my wishes, note--to rule that temp Int changes do not change skill points.

At level 20, I use the +4 Tome and gain 46 skill points instantly...

...If you DON'T do it this rigidly, and just let the players spend however they want, you're giving a substantial benefit to players who raise INT late instead of early. They'll dump 10 skill ranks into a class they stopped taking at level 2, that sort of thing.

Ah, you caught me in an error of omission there, thanks. When I said I would allow the player to choose, I just meant that I, as GM, wouldn't pick his skills for him. But he would still have to allot his extra skill points exactly as you describe of course. Yes, it's a bit of a headache--but nowhere near a gamebreaker. And permanent int changes would happen very rarely--1 to 5 times in a char's entire life going from 1st to 20th, most likely.

Also, it bears mentioning that the example you blithely toss out here cost the char ONE HUNDRED AND TEN THOUSAND gold pieces! Even at 20th, that's a very significant chunk of wealth. And so he gains 46 skill points? Chances are if he's spending that much coin, he's a rogue, bard, or wizard. Which means he probably already has at least 8 x 23 = 184 skill points. For that kind of coin, I'd have no problem letting him increase his skill points by 25%! (Spent as if he had levelled up with them, like you mentioned. : ) And if he's a fighter, cleric, etc--well then he gets much less utility out of the skill point increase anyways, since those classes traditionally don't gain a lot of benefit from skills in general. Again, not a prob imo.

 

[IndyPendant]

Well, if I raise my STR at level 20, do I get to go back and retroactively do more damage to the rats I fought at level 1? If I raise my DEX, do I get to say that the fatal blow I took from a bugbear way back when missed me?

Bah! I forgot to deal with this issue as well in my previous posts. Not doing so well yesterday.

Anyways, the problem with this is it's not looking at the issue properly. The question you should be asking is "Did I have those skill points to spend at level 1? If I raise my Int, do I get to say that I succeeded in that Diplomacy check I suddenly have ranks in, thus allowing us to talk our way out of the trap?"

The skill points are retroactive. Their use is not. --Just like a person who increases their Con gets retroactive hit points--but of course does not get to retroactively remain conscious during that last battle.

 

[Crothian]

And Crothian, while it's fine to dislike munchkinism as a measuring stick, the situation I came up with is hardly limited to that sort of playstyle. The Wish-based tomes are available in most campaigns, if you follow the DMG wealth guidelines, and even without them, you can get the same effect by using the Wish spell itself. Also, you'd get the same effect if someone used their 4-level stat increase to raise their INT modifier at level 20; they'd gain 23 skill points instantly, and have to figure out how to spend them. And most players either multiclass or add a Prestige Class, so this is hardly limited to the powergamers.

And this is bad why? The character is 20th level, let them have some fun. What does multi classing have to do with this? I could see if skills were this powerful thing that didn't practically get totally eclipsed by magic at level 20, there might be some problems. But if the way the players spend the skill points is botrhersome to the DM, then the DM can easy set guidelines to spending them.

But all this aside I do it becasue I want players to increase int and get something out of it. 5 years of it, zero problems.

 

[ARandomGod]

Well, if I raise my STR at level 20, do I get to go back and retroactively do more damage to the rats I fought at level 1? If I raise my DEX, do I get to say that the fatal blow I took from a bugbear way back when missed me? If I switch from Wizard to Fighter, do I get to recalculate my BAB as +1/level? Most stats only deal with the present time.

Actually this is my point. All the othe stats DO "retrocativly" change you as much as they possibly could.

Note: Yes, if you re-roll as a wizard you do get to recalculate your BAB. Here you're just being silly.

 

[ResurectedLlama]

keeping track of such things is definately to much book keeping.

 

[Thia Halmades]

Ultimately this is the house rule board. If there's one thing I've gotten good at saying, it's this: "I would never, ever do that, but if you want the drama, go nuts." I come from a pro-house rule setting (since I write 'em all myself, mua ha ha) and I guarantee you that the players would go absolutely ape over the idea of gaining skill points instantly just by adding INT. I'm falling on the same side as Spatizmaus here, and quite the opposite of IndyPendant.

The original question posed was: Does anyone not use this house rule? The answer is clearly "yes," there's a whole bunch of us not using that house rule. It isn't a balance issue (although extreme examples are always good for that, nice one Spatzimaus) because what INT giveth, INT taketh away. My first question back in the original thread was "Do you also reduce skill points for a loss of INT?" The answer, it seems, is yes, assuming that we're talking about permanent (item, WISH, Level Advance) adjustments to the stat, and not Fox's Cunning.

Next point: INT gets the shaft as its only good for skill points and skills related to it. Have you met my poor, maligned friend CHA? Friendliest guy in the game, and doesn't even have skill points to his credit; just some personal skills. We could make dozens of separate arguments about how the stat system is biased towards physical stats. CON always gives more HP; STR always auto-adjusts on the next hit and what you can carry. DEX modifies both REF, INIT & AC. We'd be right on all counts. But INT fills its niche roll, and for my players, it's a highly prized stat because I run a skill-heavy campaign.

I don't hold with retro skill points; IndyPendant makes a good point, though. You can flavor text anything; you can argue till you're blue in the face. He also supports the idea that temporary INT changes should give you more skill points. I simply assume that's what the little adjustment next to your stat is for; to reflect that you've gotten BETTER or WORSE at something because it moves in accord with skills associated with that stat. I don't come from an INT = all skills attitude. I come more from the "STR should contribute directly to STR skills" argument, but that (again) is why we have stat modifiers.

Anything else seems excessively complicated.

LCpt. Thia Halmades