Low INT and skill points.

[Terath Ninir]

The wording in the rules is unimportant. The INTENT was clearly that humans get a bonus skill point every level, giving them an absolute mimimum of 2 skill points/level.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

And an elven fighter with 8 INT gets the same number of skill points as an elven fighter with 6 INT (and 3 INT!). Why's the same offensive for humans?

Well, the difference in my mind is that with the case of the humans we are talking about two (in my opinion both legitimate, I just choose to read it as I state above) ways of reading the same rule. One reading makes the INT 8 better than the INT 6 - the other reading renders them equal. So the DM seems to have a choice - or at the very least a possible houserule choice.

With the elf, there is no choice. The skillpoints are what they are.

That's the difference in my mind.

As a sidenote, I can't help but think this is a funny thread.
"OK, here's an arbitrary build for a fighter who's not being optimized for skills points anyway. Does he get ONE, or TWO?"

Yes, I thought that funny as well. but then again, I think most people just like to argue regardless of what it is they are really arguing about.

 

[Kobold Stew]

The wording in the rules is unimportant. The INTENT was clearly that humans get a bonus skill point every level, giving them an absolute mimimum of 2 skill points/level.

I doubt you mean the first sentence of the post; even if you do, though, the second sentence is an assumption, nothing more. You believe you discern from the rules (the wording of which, you tell us, matters not) that moronic humans should be twice as skilled as average intelligence non-humans, when both are fighters.

I trust you will accept that such an "INTENT" does not obviously follow and is the subject of legitimate debate.

I'll concede that the rules probably support your position; you, however are uninterested in the rules as written. The (ever nebulous) intent is much more likely to suggest that intelligence-penalized humans are more skillful than equally intelligence-penalized non-humans, and that if you need help tying your own shoes you are unlikely able to aquire the average number of skillpoints for fighters, clerics, wizards, and sorcerers (three of the four archetypical classes).

 

[CronoDekar]

Well, it's only arbitrary because the dice gave me two bad stats, and I wanted to see what the worst case scenario would give me for INT.

It's true, this fighter isn't maximized for skill points, but he will be maximized for attack/damage. The skill points would have just been gravy.

Oh, it's not so much the situation or even the question, just that the dispute is over such a little point. Just because it's not very significant though doesn't mean we can't discuss, as long as we put it in perspective.

Yes, I thought that funny as well. but then again, I think most people just like to argue regardless of what it is they are really arguing about.

I hear that.

 

[DamionW]

I think I read on Sean K Reynolds website the other day that humans add their racial bonus last, so always get at least 2 skill points per level.

On page 62 (in the Skills chapter) of the Player's Handbook it says to use the following steps (I'm paraphrasing) for a 1st level fighter

1a) Give the character (2 + Int modifier) x 4 skill points;
1b) The fighter always gets at least 4 skill points at first level, regardless of intelligence
1c) A human gets 4 extra skill points at first level

2) spend skill points

[The text doesn't actually use "a,b,c" to split the text in step 1.]

I would say that given the statement about minimum 4 skill points appears BEFORE the statement that humans get an extra 4 skill points, you apply the minimum of 4 first, then add on the extra 4 racial skill points.

I agree with this analysis upon reading pg 62. The first step in determining skill points for a character is to take the amount allowed by class and adjust for intelligence. Resolve. Apply the minimum of one rule. Resolve. THEN humans are allowed the extra point given to them by their race. Total. Multiply by four if first level. That seems the order of application presented on page 62 for both first level and higher level characters, which would imply minimum of 2/lvl skill points for any human character.

 

[werk]

I agree with this analysis upon reading pg 62. The first step in determining skill points for a character is to take the amount allowed by class and adjust for intelligence. Resolve. Apply the minimum of one rule. Resolve. THEN humans are allowed the extra point given to them by their race. Total. Multiply by four if first level. That seems the order of application presented on page 62 for both first level and higher level characters, which would imply minimum of 2/lvl skill points for any human character.

The PHB says to add the extra sp to the total.

1 [base] + (-2)[Int] = -1[total] +1 [human] = 0

It says to add it to the total, nothing more. That is clearly their INTENT!

 

[Crothian]

I see it as the characters skill points from the class have to be at least one. And then the human skill point is added to that.

 

[Artoomis]

The PHB says to add the extra sp to the total.

1 [base] + (-2)[Int] = -1[total] +1 [human] = 0

It says to add it to the total, nothing more. That is clearly their INTENT!

Incorrect. Look at page 62, right-hand column.

"1. Determine the number of skill points ... at least 1 skill point ... even if he or she has an Intelligence penalty.

A human gets 1 extra skill point per level..."

Looks to me like a minimum of 2 per per level

 

[Nonlethal Force]

See, there is a reason why nobody is wrong - it is a matter of how you read the text. Actually, there are several reasons:

1. Who says p. 62 is an ordered list? It says nothing about doing this first then that. It is merely listing everything that is true about skill points per level. It doesn't ever say first this, then that, finally this. Now, if you want to read it that way, that is your perogative. And nobody can tell you that you are absolutely wrong. In the same light, if someone wants to read it as merely a list - but not an ordered list - they can read it that way too ... and not be wrong.

2. The book says "a human gets 1 extra skill point per level." The problem with using words like "extra" is that they are modifiers. Extra ... than what? If it said a human gets one extra skill point more than any other race would for the same INT score then it would clearly indicate that a human fighter of INT 6 would get 2 skill points. However, it could just as easily have said that a human gets one more skill point added in than they normally would which would indicate that the human could only get 1 Skill Point, because technically 1 is more than 0 before you apply the minimum of 1 skill point.

My point is that this is a case where I really wish the rules lawyers would just shut up.

...

...

Well, because the words can clearly be read to mean two different things. Page 62 is not specifically an ordered list meaning that the minimum of 1 skill point may be before the human gets the bonus or after.

It is ambiguous. It has no right or wrong answer. Rules lawyers, listen up very closely. There is no right or wrong here. There is a shade of gray. There is right for your campaign and there is right for someone else's campaign. But neither side is explicitly right or wrong. It just depends on how you read the text.

Sometimes life ain't black and white. Deal with the ambiguity. End solution to the first poster - ask your DM what makes more sense to them. And that's the way you have to read the rules for that campaign. If it were me - you'd be getting 1 SP per level. Someone else may give you 2 SP. Neither answer is completely right nor wrong.

 

[Artoomis]

...Well, because the words can clearly be read to mean two different things. Page 62 is not specifically an ordered list meaning that the minimum of 1 skill point may be before the human gets the bonus or after...

Actually, you are partially right. It is possible to read the rules to allow only 1 skill point per level for humans with low intelligence, but it's not really possible to do that definatively.

On the other hand, the text "1. Determine the number of skill points ... at least 1 skill point ... even if he or she has an Intelligence penalty." and then, in a following sentence, "A human gets 1 extra skill point per level..." is, in fact, contained within an ordered list. It makes it look like you first figure out the skill points and THEN figure in the extra human one.

You may read it either way, true, but it's a bit of a stretch to ignore the order of the steps contained within the quoted step 1. These sentences are contained within an ordered list, so ignoring the fact that they happen one after another seems to ignore the fact that they are within an ordered list.

The analysis applies to first level as well, but it's just plain a lot more typing for the first level text anaylsis.

Remember that this is the rules forum - it's about interpreting what the rules say - it's up to each DM to do whatever seems right with what we say. A lot of what we do here is intellectual exercises on fine points of the rules.