Inherent bonus?

[pyk]

Actually, you know... looking at the Race section and the Reincarnate spell, the changes to abilities for Race are not listed as bonuses, or penalties, or modifiers.

Under Race, it just says "+2 Con, -2 Cha". Under Reincarnate, it refers to racial adjustments.

They're not bonuses, so they do behave exactly like levelups, and exactly unlike true bonuses (like enhancement, or inherent). "Racial bonuses" apply to skills and saves, not abilities.

They do and they don't. Look under the "Racial Adjustments" header. It actually says "Lidda... gets a +2 racial bonus to her Dexterity score, and a -2 racial penalty to her Strength score". Unless they have changed this for 3.5.

Absolutely. It's a bonus that can't be removed. Why does that mean it's an adjustment and not a bonus?

Because, in my games, that's the way I have defined it.

Any bonus does. If I have a Con of 10, and a +4 Amulet of Health, and I take 13 points of Con damage, I'm still alive. If I take the Amulet off, I die. If I take one more point of Con damage, I die.

If I have a Con of 10, and a +4 inherent bonus to Con, and I take 13 points of Con damage, I'm still alive. I can't lose the inherent bonus, but if I take one more point of Con damage, I die.

They behave in the same way.

-Hyp.

No, in order for any magical item to apply bonuses, the character must have a base score of at least 1. So if the base score drops to -3 in the first example, the amulet ceases to function, and you die. This is due to the bonus being temporary. However, the second example, the inherent bonus is permanent, therefore the score stays at 1, not dropped to -3.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, in order for any magical item to apply bonuses, the character must have a base score of at least 1.

Source?

-Hyp.

 

[Will]

Pyk, no disrespect, but this thread is about trying to identify how the rule actually works, not how people houserule it.

That's why it's in the D&D rules forum, not Houserules forum.

I do agree that what you have is a good houserule, but I'd like to get to the bottom of what the rules actually justify. This is important if I end up in someone else's game, or when I publish materials that might make use of the core rules.

 

[UltimaGabe]

The stacking and cap requirements are balance issues. Otherwise, once a character (read Wizard) gets to be able to use 9th level spells, what is otherwise to prevent said character from wishing his way to 40 or 50 Intelligence? Using a wish each time this character gains 5,000XP, and he eventually could.

So what? Keep in mind he's losing several levels in the process. Which is more powerful- a 20th-level Wizard with a 50 intelligence, or a 25th-level Wizard with 30 intelligence?

 

[Artoomis]

So what? Keep in mind he's losing several levels in the process. Which is more powerful- a 20th-level Wizard with a 50 intelligence, or a 25th-level Wizard with 30 intelligence?

Given that :

1. All wishes must be done together in increase the inherent bonus and
2. You cannot lose a level through this process.

It's not until 20th level that you have 25,000 xp you can spend on getting a +5 bonus to one stat. This is not an issue with RAW.

 

[drnuncheon]

It's not until 20th level that you have 25,000 xp you can spend on getting a +5 bonus to one stat. This is not an issue with RAW.

Using the wizard's handy Scribe Scroll feat, one need not earn all 25,000 xp at one time - only enough for a single scroll of wish. So one could conceivably do this at 17th level - cast 3 wishes from personal XP, and two more from scrolls. There is a small surcharge of 306 xp for this, but it's really fairly minor compared to the cost of the wishes themselves.

J

 

[Artoomis]

Using the wizard's handy Scribe Scroll feat, one need not earn all 25,000 xp at one time - only enough for a single scroll of wish. So one could conceivably do this at 17th level - cast 3 wishes from personal XP, and two more from scrolls. There is a small surcharge of 306 xp for this, but it's really fairly minor compared to the cost of the wishes themselves.

J

And if you want to spend the xp for this, by all means go for it. The +5 cap is RAW in any case, but you're right, it could be done as soon as 9th level spells ca be cast - but it requires a lot of patience - earn 5,000 xp, spend it on a scroll, earn another 5,000, spend it on a scroll...

Legal, but probably not the best choice - that's a lot of xp - it takes 17,000 to go from 17th (when you get 9th level spells) to 18th, so you'd be about a level and half behind. Maybe it's worth it, maybe not - that'd be campaign-specific, I think. If you advance rapidly, it might be a good choice, if not, it may not be so wise.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It takes 15,000 to go from 15th (when you get 9th level spells)...

[cough17thcough]

As well as doing it via scrolls, you can also simply elect not to level from 17th to 18th, even once you have 17k xp over and above the 17th level requirement. And keep electing not to level until you hit 25k, then cast five wishes.

Saves you the scribing time and 306 xp...

-Hyp.

 

[pyk]

[RANT]

Pyk, no disrespect, but this thread is about trying to identify how the rule actually works, not how people houserule it.

That's why it's in the D&D rules forum, not Houserules forum.

I do agree that what you have is a good houserule, but I'd like to get to the bottom of what the rules actually justify. This is important if I end up in someone else's game, or when I publish materials that might make use of the core rules.

Sorry, disrespect taken. As this is the way I define the rule as written. The inherent bonus is a permanent bonus, therefore has different properties than any temporary bonuses, therefore the adjudication of whether the inherent bonus stays with the base or not is based on this. I said:

Because, in my games, that's the way I have defined it.

Defined, not houseruled. I use the rules as written to justify my rulings. And, guess what? The players at my table agree.

Apparently, when one disagrees with how a rule works as written, then this is just a houserule? Since when? In that case, why have rules discussions at all, since we're apparently all just playing our own set of houserules.
[/end rant]

Source?

-Hyp.

Right there in the DMG. Does not say the actual words as I laid them out, but it's common sense. Otherwise, by your definition, if a character received temporary Con damage, enough to be reduced to 0 and died, applying the Amulet of Health after would bring the character back to life as this would raise the Con to 4, because a Con of 0 is different from no Con at all. This would apply to any temporary bonuses applied to any ability. Permanent bonuses, no matter if it is called a bonus or not, would and should be handled differently. It is called a bonus so the stacking and capping rules can apply, and not confuse everyone.

At least, the way I read them. But, everyone is free to read the rules, as written, with their own interpretation.

Enough of this. I believe the rules say one thing, ya'll agree the rules say many different things. I agree to disagree with all this.

Peace.

 

[Will]

So it is obvious that is the way it works, despite it not actually being written anywhere. Does not say the actual words, but it's common sense.

Permanent bonuses would and should be handled differently, even if this isn't stated anywhere.

See, that, to me, is what crosses the line between rules and houserules. It looks obvious to you that it should be done a certain way, and that a certain direction makes most sense given how things are written, but the rules don't actually say to do it that way.

Me, I think the rules don't actually say, one way or another. The only reason I'm wondering if inherent bonus is like other bonuses is because there isn't anything written that says it shouldn't, and the general principle is 'if X is like Y, but differences are noted, anything unsaid should still be like Y.'

I suspect I'm going to tell my players:
Option1: Rules as written, I think.
Stacking rules apply as written, which is a drawback. Inherent bonus applies in any form, which is a benefit.
Option2: Rules as I think they should work.
You can stack freely, capped by +5. Inherent bonus only applies to your 'actual' form.

While I think, Psyk, that you might be right, from literal reading of the rules I can't see it justified completely.
I think #1 is rules, and #2 is houserules. But I'm inclined to go with houserules.

And hey, peace.