PDA

View Full Version : retroactive skill points?



Jallorn
2009-06-19, 05:47 PM
Do you acquire skill points retroactively? If you have Int 5 for three levels, than raise it to 16 on level four, do you get 3 more skill points for your previous levels?

Quietus
2009-06-19, 05:49 PM
Nope. Pretty sure that's spelled out specifically in the PHB, actually..

Flickerdart
2009-06-19, 05:50 PM
Nope. Only HP is gained or lost retroactively from CON. Otherwise, you could do all sorts of reassignment shenanigans.

Zeta Kai
2009-06-19, 05:53 PM
Yeah, it's a shame though. It makes statting up high-level NPCs a pain, because you can't calculate from the intended level. For best results, you really have to build them level-by-level, or never raise their INT from 1st level.

KillianHawkeye
2009-06-19, 05:57 PM
Yeah, it's a shame though. It makes statting up high-level NPCs a pain, because you can't calculate from the intended level. For best results, you really have to build them level-by-level, or never raise their INT from 1st level.

This is one of the main reasons that the skill point system has been abolished in more recent d20 systems (Star Wars SAGA, D&D 4E). It's just not worth it for how much of a hassle it is.

Indon
2009-06-19, 06:03 PM
You could just ask your DM to houserule that in. It's not like there's much you can do exploitatively with skill points in general - all the exploits associated with the skill system don't really require that many skill points themselves.

CthulhuM
2009-06-19, 06:03 PM
Yeah, it's a shame though. It makes statting up high-level NPCs a pain, because you can't calculate from the intended level. For best results, you really have to build them level-by-level, or never raise their INT from 1st level.

Which is why I've always ignored this rule and encouraged anyone DMing for me to do the same. It really is a particularly dumb rule - there's no particular logic behind it (either from a gamist or simulationist perspective), and it also has the distinction of making INT the only stat in that does not grant you its full benefit if you put points in it after 1st level. It's basically just arbitrary and irritating on all counts.

Quietus
2009-06-19, 06:06 PM
Which is why I've always ignored this rule and encouraged anyone DMing for me to do the same. It really is a particularly dumb rule - there's no particular logic behind it (either from a gamist or simulationist perspective), and it also has the distinction of making INT the only stat in that does not grant you its full benefit if you put points in it after 1st level. It's basically just arbitrary and irritating on all counts.

This I agree with; As a houserule, retroactive skill points are fine. It does make sense, after all, that as you grow more intelligent, you make connections between things that hadn't occurred to you before - represented in game as skill points.

Deepblue706
2009-06-19, 06:20 PM
There's probably little to worry in how this plays into mechanics, although I believe the main idea behind ranks is representing how much you've retained from training. You can't re-retain things that you previously failed to retain just because you're smarter later in life. You need to train again, which I believe is supposed to work somewhat in accordance with levels.

J.Gellert
2009-06-19, 06:25 PM
I think even PH2 says, under the retraining rules, that you shouldn't worry too much about these skill points when retraining your skills.

It's not going to break any games anytime soon, and it makes life easier.

Jallorn
2009-06-19, 06:25 PM
Done, thanks guys

erikun
2009-06-19, 09:45 PM
Which is why I've always ignored this rule and encouraged anyone DMing for me to do the same.


This I agree with; As a houserule, retroactive skill points are fine.

Interesting. Do you give out free languages with an INT increase, too?

Jallorn
2009-06-19, 09:48 PM
No, those are tied to a skill. usual rules for languages.

Zeta Kai
2009-06-19, 09:54 PM
Interesting. Do you give out free languages with an INT increase, too?

Why not? When was the last time an extra language made a difference in-game anyway?

Saying that, I'm sure some one out there has a fascinating story of how they won the game by knowing some obscure tongue. Great job; so what. 95% of creatures worth talking to speak Common, & even more DM's forget all about language as soon as the game starts.

jcsw
2009-06-19, 10:28 PM
Why not? When was the last time an extra language made a difference in-game anyway?

Some DMs love enforcing the idea that not everyone speaks english/common. It's a tad annoying, but at the same time you feel all that smug that you thought to take giant.

Personally, I find the skill rank system pretty simple. Just look at every level with an int gain and with a change of class and go from there.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-19, 10:50 PM
Some DMs love enforcing the idea that not everyone speaks english/common. It's a tad annoying, but at the same time you feel all that smug that you thought to take giant.Or, you know, can cast Tongues.

Zeta Kai
2009-06-19, 10:59 PM
Some DMs love enforcing the idea that not everyone speaks english/common. It's a tad annoying, but at the same time you feel all that smug that you thought to take giant.

Personally, I find the skill rank system pretty simple. Just look at every level with an int gain and with a change of class and go from there.

Yeah, I was like that once. It made for a cool, fun world with roleplaying experiences that my players really sank their teeth into...

...Until the sorcerer spammed tongues & comprehend languages, spoiling the fun for everyone. No more conlangs at the table for that campaign. After that, I switched to Common, & every campaign since has had a few odd spells banned for reasons my new players cannot understand. :smallamused:

Stormageddon
2009-06-20, 01:14 AM
I want to do more damage retroactively when my STR increases.

Kosjsjach
2009-06-20, 01:23 AM
I want to do more damage retroactively when my STR increases.
Err...

ret-ro-ac-tive
adj. Influencing or applying to a period prior to enactment: a retroactive pay increase.
So... you want to deal more damage to enemies already felled?
I imagine your statement was in jest, but nevertheless... :smallconfused:

Quietus
2009-06-20, 01:25 AM
Interesting. Do you give out free languages with an INT increase, too?

If the players seek it after gaining the int, yes. The skill points I give for free as a normal part of a "Eureka!" moment accompanying a sudden increase in intellectual power. Later on, if the players want to spend some downtime picking up Goblin and can find someone who speaks it - or hell, even ask another party member to teach them while at camp - then I'll let them get it if they just increased their int bonus.

AstralFire
2009-06-20, 01:28 AM
Yeah, I was like that once. It made for a cool, fun world with roleplaying experiences that my players really sank their teeth into...

...Until the sorcerer spammed tongues & comprehend languages, spoiling the fun for everyone. No more conlangs at the table for that campaign. After that, I switched to Common, & every campaign since has had a few odd spells banned for reasons my new players cannot understand. :smallamused:

One of my frequent houserules was to ban tongues and comprehend languages (in part because there's no logical reason for them to not autobreak most cyphers) and reduce the number of languages that are important, and then sticking to that list. The problem with language usage is that there are too many if the DM never provides an indication of what he may wish to focus on.

Jallorn
2009-06-20, 01:32 AM
Theoretically that could be an advantage if one of the objectives of a quest might be to find someone who either knows the language needed or can figure it out over time. Say a creature has a message, and it can understand common, but not speak it (different vocal cords), so you have to find someone to translate his very important message.

AstralFire
2009-06-20, 01:35 AM
True, but that doesn't help make the design any more useful for players hoping to take more languages.

TSED
2009-06-20, 01:48 AM
I want to do more damage retroactively when my STR increases.


I want my insults to hurt more retroactively as I increase my charisma, but that won't change the fact that I said what I said and you hit as hard as you hit.

RTGoodman
2009-06-20, 01:52 AM
Some DMs love enforcing the idea that not everyone speaks english/common. It's a tad annoying, but at the same time you feel all that smug that you thought to take giant.

Oh yeah, it's great. I'm running Keep on the Shadowfell right now, and most of the early enemies are kobolds. Two PCs only speak Common and Elven, one speaks Common and Giant, and one speaks Common, Elven, and, for some reason, Primordial. What do the kobolds do? Speak in Draconic incessantly. Every combat I get to smile devilishly and ask, "Hey, any of you guys speak Draconic? Oh, wait..." :smalltongue:

The Warlock has asked to retrain the (useless) Primordial into Draconic, so I suppose I'll allow it (they just hit 2nd level), but it takes a lot of fun out of combat for me.

Dogmantra
2009-06-20, 01:53 AM
I want to do more damage retroactively when my STR increases.

You retroactively do 1 more damage (or 2 if it's now an even bonus and you're using a two hander), however, your dice retroactively rolles 1 (or 2) lower than normal. Sorted.

Oh, and I never saw why you get retroactive HP, but not skill points, after all, HP is probably more important.

Haven
2009-06-20, 02:21 AM
I want to do more damage retroactively when my STR increases.

This analogy would be correct if someone had said that they should retroactively apply their new ranks to a spot check they failed.

But as I assume you're just joking, as I didn't even think to question until I read TSED's post, I'll just say I want to retroactively had the common sense not to have gotten drunk, punched my boss and then crabwalked home through a dark alleyway while texting an ex-girlfriend.

Riffington
2009-06-20, 07:05 AM
The problem with language usage is that there are too many if the DM never provides an indication of what he may wish to focus on.

Right. Let me take this a step farther. The D&D notion of racial-based languages is sad, especially when you have languages called "common". I understand that they do it that way because TSR is trying to make a game that can work in a variety of worlds, so it can't define what languages should exist.

But you can and should. You have invented a world (or picked one someone else invented), and it should have languages. If you call two of them Common and Undercommon, then languages won't play a big part in your campaign - they're just secret codes because everyone can communicate. But it's fun to get rid of Common, give players a list of the most spoken languages (with hints about what languages are likely to come up more in the campaign), and give language some relevance. Relevance in that not everyone speaks the same language, and relevance in that one's choice of language has diplomatic and legal repercussions.

Also, not every language needs to work the same way. For example, it may be the case that Celestial is incapable of expressing certain ideas, that statements in Infernal always contain ambiguities, or that a speaker of one dialect of Orcish needs an Int check to figure out a different dialect.

AstralFire
2009-06-20, 07:45 AM
I like that. Sort of similarly, when I talk in Binary in Star Wars, I talk like I'm programming. Like instead of "Don't worry. If he tries anything, I'll protect you," I'd say:

If (creature.hostile attack(you)) then
!fear;
creature.me protect(you));
Else
!fear;

aarondirebear
2009-06-23, 11:36 AM
Just houserule that it does, and if your players complain about a character suddenly becoming more skilled in an area he had never practiced in before, explain it as an epiphany of sudden inspiration.

ZeroNumerous
2009-06-23, 11:59 AM
I like that. Sort of similarly, when I talk in Binary in Star Wars, I talk like I'm programming.

Except this isn't how Binary works. Nice idea, but not what Binary is in Star Wars. To wit (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Binary).

Renegade Paladin
2009-06-23, 12:08 PM
Which is why I've always ignored this rule and encouraged anyone DMing for me to do the same. It really is a particularly dumb rule - there's no particular logic behind it (either from a gamist or simulationist perspective), and it also has the distinction of making INT the only stat in that does not grant you its full benefit if you put points in it after 1st level. It's basically just arbitrary and irritating on all counts.
Conversely, it also has the distinction of making INT the only stat that doesn't lose its full benefit if it is later drained. Skill points don't retroactively appear if the stat goes up, but they don't retroactively go away if it goes down either.

claddath
2009-06-23, 09:11 PM
Originally Posted by Renegade Paladin
Conversely, it also has the distinction of making INT the only stat that doesn't lose its full benefit if it is later drained. Skill points don't retroactively appear if the stat goes up, but they don't retroactively go away if it goes down either.

Which is why it doesn't work retroactively. It's easy to say "Loss of 2 Con? Lose 1 HP, per level " It's much harder to say "Loss of 2 Int? Lose the last skill point you bought at each level."

Although now that I put it that way, as a DM it'd be fun to just grab a character sheet and say "Ok, you no longer know how to pick locks Mr. Rogue."
Mean, but fun.

holywhippet
2009-06-23, 09:21 PM
Something I'm slightly confused about. I get the impression that if you use an item or spell that boosts INT just before levelling up, you don't get the extra skill points from that boost because you have to have had the INT boost for pretty much the entire level. Does that mean if I put an item on that boosts INT by +4 just before levelling up and keep it on all the time I gain an extra 2 skill points when I level up the time afterwards?


Conversely, it also has the distinction of making INT the only stat that doesn't lose its full benefit if it is later drained. Skill points don't retroactively appear if the stat goes up, but they don't retroactively go away if it goes down either.

What about wizard bonus spells? If your INT is drained sufficiently do you immediately lose any bonus spells memorised due to high INT?

Curmudgeon
2009-06-23, 09:36 PM
I get the impression that if you use an item or spell that boosts INT just before levelling up, you don't get the extra skill points from that boost because you have to have had the INT boost for pretty much the entire level. Wrong. It doesn't matter how long you wear things; temporary INT boosters never give you skill points. See page 58 of the Player's Handbook.

holywhippet
2009-06-23, 09:41 PM
Wrong. It doesn't matter how long you wear things; temporary INT boosters never give you skill points. See page 58 of the Player's Handbook.

Isn't that what I said? I don't have the 3.5 handbook (I've only played 3.0) but to me it suggested that a long lasting INT boost might work since you've had it for the entire level.

Jallorn
2009-06-23, 09:44 PM
Isn't that what I said? I don't have the 3.5 handbook (I've only played 3.0) but to me it suggested that a long lasting INT boost might work since you've had it for the entire level.

Your idea could be very easily homebrewed in. It makes sense and it hardly imbalances anything. In fact, I think you could even lower the time requirment to around say two-thirds of the time between levels. I don't think you'd have any trouble getting a DM to go with that.

Curmudgeon
2009-06-23, 09:48 PM
Isn't that what I said? I don't have the 3.5 handbook (I've only played 3.0) but to me it suggested that a long lasting INT boost might work since you've had it for the entire level. No, that's not what you said, but the lack of 3.5 PH does explain the confusion. Here's the relevant line:
Use your character’s current Intelligence score, including all permanent changes (such as inherent bonuses, ability drains, or an Intelligence increase gained at step 4, above) but not any temporary changes (such as ability damage, or enhancement bonuses gained from spells or magic items, such as a headband of intellect), to determine the number of skill points you gain. If it's not permanent, it never gives skill points. "Long-lasting" doesn't cut it in D&D 3.5.

Chronos
2009-06-23, 09:59 PM
I did have one adventure once where the inability to speak the same language as some captives meant that we couldn't get any information out of them (Tongues was allowed, but nobody in the party happened to have it). And it can be fun to have some esoteric language (like Ignan or Celestial or the like) that everyone in the party speaks, in case you ever want to communicate without others understanding.