Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Spatzimaus" data-source="post: 2635657" data-attributes="member: 3051">A big part of the argument seemed to be based on &quot;well, CON changes are retroactive!&quot;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; How about this: for each change in modifier due to temporary INT, you get a straight +1 or -1 to all skill checks.&nbsp; 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 &quot;INT=learning rate&quot; concept, think about this.&nbsp; If I were a multiclassed character (or had a Prestige Class), which skills could I spend those points on?&nbsp; This isn't like CON, where I'd gain a flat 40 HP no matter how I had progressed.&nbsp; I'd need to know that 10 of those skill points were Rogue levels, and 16 were Wizard, and 20 were Loremaster.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; They'll dump 10 skill ranks into a class they stopped taking at level 2, that sort of thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Spatzimaus, post: 2635657, member: 3051"] 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 [i]not the same[/i], 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification