Would you let INT mod give languages/tools?

[Greywander]

I was just bemoaning the undervaluedness of Intelligence in another thread, and one idea I had to make it a bit more valuable to non-wizards was that you would get additional languages or tool proficiencies according to your INT mod. Since you get two from your background, dumping to 8 would mean you only get one (if rolling, 6 or less means none except racial languages/tools). Raising your INT to 20 would get you five extra, plus the two from your BG.

It's not much, but it's exactly the sort of edge that someone attracted to INT builds would want. I like to play scholarly types myself, so extra languages are always nice.

[hymer]

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?587499-Make-languages-tools-int-dependent) you go. :smallsmile:

[Unoriginal]

The Xanathar's rules make so you can learn language and tool proficiencies faster the more INT you have.

[Greywander]

Hmm, actually, I literally just remembered that XGtE lets you spend downtime to acquire new languages and tool proficiencies, and that the time spent learning is 10 - your INT mod weeks. So... I guess that works.

Not to say this couldn't be used to reflect a higher number of languages or tools at character creation. Maybe let players spend gold for additional languages/tools, with the cost going down with higher INT.

[Chronos]

Learning new tools and languages in downtime is already there in the PHB. X just expanded on those rules, by adding the part about Int helping.

[JackPhoenix]

No.

In practice, wizards (and artificers, who, granted, could have an use for the extra tool proficiencies) would get free stuff, and nobody else would bother anyway, because tools and languages are rarely relevant, and if you have enough downtime to use tools, you'll also have enough time to learn the proficiency without compromising character's core effectivness.

[Mjolnirbear]

I allow half-int bonus (round up). Because tools are RP hooks and languages are story gates. Having more is better.

Granted the wizard and artificer do not need it. They are great classes. But neither do they become OP with this change. Wizard gets a tiny bit more interesting, but more importantly, it rewards people just enough that int might not be an automatic dump.

[MaxWilson]

I was just bemoaning the undervaluedness of Intelligence in another thread, and one idea I had to make it a bit more valuable to non-wizards was that you would get additional languages or tool proficiencies according to your INT mod. Since you get two from your background, dumping to 8 would mean you only get one (if rolling, 6 or less means none except racial languages/tools). Raising your INT to 20 would get you five extra, plus the two from your BG.

It's not much, but it's exactly the sort of edge that someone attracted to INT builds would want. I like to play scholarly types myself, so extra languages are always nice.

Sure, you can gain those things during play anyway, so it can't break anything.

In fact I'll go one better: for each +1, you can have either a language, a tool proficiency, or an extra 100 gp of starting gold (from commerce).

[ImproperJustice]

I heartily vote yes to both languages and tool proficiency at creation.
Both add flavor, and additional information gathering tools, for a richer play experience.

Also, Warlocks should be INT based too. Or at least have the option.

[Sariel Vailo]

Hmm, actually, I literally just remembered that XGtE lets you spend downtime to acquire new languages and tool proficiencies, and that the time spent learning is 10 - your INT mod weeks. So... I guess that works.

Not to say this couldn't be used to reflect a higher number of languages or tools at character creation. Maybe let players spend gold for additional languages/tools, with the cost going down with higher INT.
I like this idea I'm gonna be stealing that,please don't be mad at me.

[Bjarkmundur]

In fact, I'll go one better: for each +1, you can have either a language, a tool proficiency, or an extra 100gp of starting gold (from commerce).

This.

Besides, tools an languages are non-gamebreaking mechanics.

This forum can sometimes be a little bit... angry? at things that might give certain character's an edge but not others. Although, actual campaigns are rarely as balanced as they lead us to believe. You can safely go one step further than language/tool proficiencies for making INT more attractive. I've heard some give INT as a crit damage bonus, others have a rule "You gain +1/+0/-1 skill depending on if you have a positive/none/negative INT modifier".

[Maelynn]

In fact I'll go one better: for each +1, you can have either a language, a tool proficiency, or an extra 100 gp of starting gold (from commerce).

I wouldn't let extra starting gold depend on flat INT. A Druid with the Hermit background has no valid source of income that warrants that extra gold, despite them having 14 INT. I would allow it with, say, a Fighter with the Guild Artisan background who grew up among craftsmen before adventuring and was smart enough to make profitable bargains. Or a Rogue with the Urchin background who made some coin because he was smart enough to not get caught stealing.

[The Glyphstone]

I wouldn't let extra starting gold depend on flat INT. A Druid with the Hermit background has no valid source of income that warrants that extra gold, despite them having 14 INT. I would allow it with, say, a Fighter with the Guild Artisan background who grew up among craftsmen before adventuring and was smart enough to make profitable bargains. Or a Rogue with the Urchin background who made some coin because he was smart enough to not get caught stealing.

He might be a hermit, but that brainpower means he can recognize a patch of particularly valuable herbs/plants near his hermit hut and how to harvest them sustainably. Taking that with him and selling it to a merchant gives him a nice bankroll to start off his adventure with.

All in how you justify it.

[Maelynn]

All in how you justify it.

My point exactly. Simply having the INT doesn't suffice, give me a reason why your character could have reasonably found their way to that amount of gold and I'd be okay with it. Not just a "well, I have 14 INT on my char sheet, so better fork over that 200g now!"

[Vogie]

I wouldn't tie it to Intelligence, outside of the XGtE rules. Just because someone is generally smart doesn't mean they're automatically proficient in tools - just more able to pick them up over time.

However, I could see a sort of jack of all trades thing like bards - you can add half your Intelligence Modifier, rounded down, to any tool check you make that doesn’t already include your proficiency bonus, once per week. That means someone with an 18+intelligence is equivalent to a first level character with proficiency, but only with one thing at a time.

[Spectrulus]

I noticed the INT stat shallowness myself, so I do the following when I DM

12+ Bonus Language
14+ Bonus Tool
16+ Bonus Skill
18+ Bonus Exotic Language
20. Bonus Skill

That encourages players pretty well at my group. No longer are they suave sadistic stupid murder hobos, Now they are all uncharismatic murder hobos that know how to hide evidence! Plus paladins, warlocks, bards and sorcerers.

[Greywander]

How about something completely different?

In older editions, there were rules about "taking 10 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#taking10)" or "taking 20". What if you could spend a certain amount of time in preparation to "take your INT score", basically substituting your INT score for a die roll in an ability check? You can't do it when you're in danger or distracted, and you need enough time to properly prepare. This could escalate the normal time required to the next level. Time in 5e seems to break down into chunks of discrete sizes, so a task that normally takes, say, 1 action would instead take 1 minute when you take your INT score, and so on. Here's the time intervals that seem most common in 5e:

1 action
1 minute
10 minutes
1 hour
8 hours
1 day
1 week
1 month
1 year

One problem with this idea is that it breaks when you go past INT 20, which shouldn't be an issue for most campaigns, but it should probably be addressed and handled. We could also make this handle advantage and disadvantage, maybe by substituting one die with your INT score, but rolling the other die.

I feel like this might need some tweaking, as it would make wizards automatically good at everything as long as they have time to kill. Then again, maybe that's working as intended? It kind of makes sense for wizards to be ponderous and slow, but to get good results in the end, while other classes are better at getting good results in a pinch.

[JackPhoenix]

How about something completely different?

In older editions, there were rules about "taking 10 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#taking10)" or "taking 20". What if you could spend a certain amount of time in preparation to "take your INT score", basically substituting your INT score for a die roll in an ability check? You can't do it when you're in danger or distracted, and you need enough time to properly prepare. This could escalate the normal time required to the next level. Time in 5e seems to break down into chunks of discrete sizes, so a task that normally takes, say, 1 action would instead take 1 minute when you take your INT score, and so on. Here's the time intervals that seem most common in 5e:

1 action
1 minute
10 minutes
1 hour
8 hours
1 day
1 week
1 month
1 year

One problem with this idea is that it breaks when you go past INT 20, which shouldn't be an issue for most campaigns, but it should probably be addressed and handled. We could also make this handle advantage and disadvantage, maybe by substituting one die with your INT score, but rolling the other die.

I feel like this might need some tweaking, as it would make wizards automatically good at everything as long as they have time to kill. Then again, maybe that's working as intended? It kind of makes sense for wizards to be ponderous and slow, but to get good results in the end, while other classes are better at getting good results in a pinch.

You mean like the already existing rule that if you take 10 times longer to accomplish a task, you succeed automatically, if success is possible at all, but worse?