Does anyone NOT use this house rule?

[IndyPendant]

Not really. Int damage is temporary. No change in skill points. Int drain can (rarely) be permanent. If it ever happens, then I would just allow the player to decide what skill points to drop. Easy. (Well, for everyone except that poor player!)

And before anyone starts into how you can't forget what you've already learned--how many of you over the age of 30 remember your grammar lessons from high school? Or how to calculate the earth's effect on the sun's movement through space (assuming a closed earth-sun system)? How many of you are as good at basketball as you were when you were on the school team? That's a skill too.

If you haven't used those skills, they degrade over time. Everyone forgets things they used to know, all the time! Sure, you might be able to relearn it faster than someone who is starting from scratch--but you still have lost those skills at this moment.

That has a DND mechanic: reduced points in skills. And what's a player going to do when faced with having to reduce his char's skill points? Why he's going to take them away from the least-useful skills for that character. --In other words, the skills he's used the least--and thus forgotten how to do. (Sound familiar? : ) Over time the char can regain those lost skill points as he retrains himself, just like in real life. In DND, that means--guess what?--gaining a level and (if the player chooses; I don't force him) replacing the lost skill points.

Isn't flavour text grand? It can justify anything!

In fact, I think I shall edit my signature accordingly. : )

(Edit: Better description of the earth-sun example.)

 

[CronoDekar]

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.

Not going to cover the other points since they're reasonable enough and I'm not really invested in this issue. One thing I'm wondering about here though: couldn't you say the same about Cha and (to a lesser extent) Str?

Cha is used for spontaneous arcane spellcasters, bonus to cha-based skills, and DC modifier on certain special and spell-like abilities. Str is used for melee attack, melee damage, str-based checks, and carrying capacity (the last of which is the reason for the "to a lesser extent").

Mainly the point I'm trying to make is, wouldn't it be just as silly for a non-mage to increase their Int by RAW as their Cha? Or a mage to increase their Str?

 

[IndyPendant]

True, Crono--but my point is that for Cha and Str, those benefits are all they provide. Int has an additional benefit, bonus skill points, that is arbitrarily taken away from the stat for reasons that really don't hold up to careful analysis. If Cha and Str had similar benefits that were arbitrarily removed, I would almost certainly add them right back in as a house rule as well.

 

[Raduin711]

I wouldn't use that house rule because it doesn't make sense from an in-game POV. The rules IMHO should serve to represent a fantasy reality, than vice-versa.

 

[Nim]

Not really. Int damage is temporary. No change in skill points. Int drain can (rarely) be permanent. If it ever happens, then I would just allow the player to decide what skill points to drop. Easy. (Well, for everyone except that poor player!)

Oh, I thought you were advocating giving retroactive skill points for temporary Int increases (Fox's Cunning, Headband of Intellect, etc). Looking back, that was actually someone else in the thread. My argument was basically that if you're going to give bonuses for temporary increases, you have to give penalties for temporary decreases.

 

[Crothian]

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.

actual it is quite easy, they lose the last ones they gained...but if they repair the int damage they gain those back, they can't spend them differently.

 

[Crothian]

I wouldn't use that house rule because it doesn't make sense from an in-game POV. The rules IMHO should serve to represent a fantasy reality, than vice-versa.

and how doesn't it make sense in game?

 

[KRT]

I would think that much unlearned potential knowledge is carried around by all of us. A character may have no ranks in disable device (a trained only skill). However upon reaching 4th level and raising their intelligence not only do they gain new skill points for the level but all the stuff they did before now makes a bit more sense. In fact even stuff they never trained in before (like disable device) they may gain sudden insight and be able to test their new theories, thus gaining actual skill points. In real world terms this is known as the Aha phenomenon. Temporary enhancement of Intelligence (Fox's cunning, not owl's wisdom) should not allow skill point increases because skills are trained abilities and no additional traning has occurred. They may have some new insights but they only affect those skill that apply an intelligence modifier.

I use the retroactive skill point gain because it makes sense. More sense in fact than the idea that intelligence can be increased at all or that people can do magic. The primary reason however is that every other stat being raised gives you immediate and/or retroactive gains if applicable. Some stats give you multiple immediate gains. On the whole to not do it biases against Intelligence.

 

[Nifft]

If you're allowed to take one level of Rogue and put every skill point into, say, Bluff, I don't see how it makes any less sense for you to "suddenly" gain skill points for raising your Int.

-- N

 

[Spatzimaus]

A big part of the argument seemed to be based on "well, CON changes are retroactive!" If you're going to say that temporary INT gains/losses shouldn't give/cost skill points, then temporary CON changes shouldn't give/cost hit points. Except, of course, that they're not the same, so using CON as the basis of your argument only works if you go all the way, and either make CON changes (like Barbarian Rage) not change HP, or make even temporary INT changes adjust skills.

(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.)

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:

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

Even ignoring the huge number in question and how it doesn't fit with the "INT=learning rate" concept, think about this. If I were a multiclassed character (or had a Prestige Class), which skills could I spend those points on? This isn't like CON, where I'd gain a flat 40 HP no matter how I had progressed. I'd need to know that 10 of those skill points were Rogue levels, and 16 were Wizard, and 20 were Loremaster. And to top it all off, I'd have to make sure that in the process of spending those points, I didn't exceed the (level+3) maximum at any time along the way.
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.