Retroactive Skill Points

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Are they really such a bad idea?

[Lord Iames Osari]

I don't think so. I houserule this all the time.

[triforcel]

Yeah, except that you would have to keep track of how you spent your skill points at each level for when your intelligence is drained or damaged and you suffer retroactive skill point loss. Plus wearing an item or under the effect of a spell that temporarily boosts your intelligence would require you to spend retroactive skill points and then remove them whenever the item was removed or the spell ended.

It sounds nice, but it's overly complicated for not much benefit.

[Tengu]

Are they really such a bad idea?

Only for people whose math skills are so low that adding up their attack bonus is like integrals to them.

A decent houserule that ensures that intelligence 16 at the start, but not improved, is as good as intelligence 15 at the start but improved to 16 at level 4.

[Quietus]

Yeah, except that you would have to keep track of how you spent your skill points at each level for when your intelligence is drained or damaged and you suffer retroactive skill point loss. Plus wearing an item or under the effect of a spell that temporarily boosts your intelligence would require you to spend retroactive skill points and then remove them whenever the item was removed or the spell ended.

It sounds nice, but it's overly complicated for not much benefit.

This is why I don't allow the Item of Int to give skill points; Permanent increases do change how many skill points you have, but temporary ones do not.

[Kaelik]

This is why I don't allow the Item of Int to give skill points; Permanent increases do change how many skill points you have, but temporary ones do not.

Actually, the item of Int specifically does not grant skill points anyway.

[triforcel]

But that's how skill points work now. If you make them retroactive there is argument for the item to grant skill points.

[Starsinger]

But that's how skill points work now. If you make them retroactive there is argument for the item to grant skill points.

Uhh no, there's a difference to permanently increasing your skill points and putting on a hat.. Upgrading your stat is permanent, any idiot can take off a hat, or have it dispelled.

[triforcel]

And there's a difference between permanently increasing your Constitution and putting on an amulet. But a temporary increase to Con retroactively increases your hit points for the period of time that the item is on and/or effective. Con is the only stat that has retroactive effects when increased so it's going to be the comparison point for making skill points retroactive.

[Draz74]

Well, yes, that is how temporary Con boosts work. People are just saying that, if they make a rule about retroactive skill points at all, it seems obvious to make an additional house rule that differentiates between temporary and permanent Int changes!

... but personally the lack of realism involved makes me not like retroactive skill points anyway. You've grown smarter in a permanent, meaningful way ... so you suddenly have been a more clever, "handy" person your whole life?

EDIT: Mechanically I can't deny that they make a lot of sense. It's a shame to have Int be different from other stats in this way. But in terms of "the game making sense" I unfortunately have to support the original ruling on this issue.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

So, it can't be explained away as you have a sudden knack for x because it just... clicked?

[Lord Iames Osari]

... but personally the lack of realism involved makes me not like retroactive skill points anyway. You've grown smarter in a permanent, meaningful way ... so you suddenly have been a more clever, "handy" person your whole life?

No, but with your new insight, you may come up with better, more efficient ways to do things that you've been doing for a long time. You might get more out of your off-screen between-level training thanks to your greater intelligence.

[Draz74]

No, but with your new insight, you may come up with better, more efficient ways to do things that you've been doing for a long time. You might get more out of your off-screen between-level training thanks to your greater intelligence.

That might be sort of convincing if you had to spread out your new skill points over a bunch of skills that you already have ranks in. Not so convincing if the Rogue says, "Hey! I just got a permanent boost to my Int bonus! I think I'll ... suddenly be a grandmaster of Sense Motive, which I've never trained before!"

[Kaelik]

And there's a difference between permanently increasing your Constitution and putting on an amulet. But a temporary increase to Con retroactively increases your hit points for the period of time that the item is on and/or effective. Con is the only stat that has retroactive effects when increased so it's going to be the comparison point for making skill points retroactive.

But my point is that as it stands, your intelligence when you level up does not determine your skill points. Your Int without your item determines your skill points. So the difference clearly exists as is, without retroactive, so changing retroactive would not change that.

[triforcel]

But the only reason that your total con modifier applies to your hit points each level is because hit points are gained retroactively from the item. The same thing would occur with skill points if they too were made retroactive.

[TheOOB]

I retroactively apply skill points in my game, then again I also don't use class skills, any class can take any skill (except UMD, which is a class feature of rogues and bards, very similar to how animal empathy became wild empathy for druids and rangers).

[Lord Iames Osari]

That might be sort of convincing if you had to spread out your new skill points over a bunch of skills that you already have ranks in. Not so convincing if the Rogue says, "Hey! I just got a permanent boost to my Int bonus! I think I'll ... suddenly be a grandmaster of Sense Motive, which I've never trained before!"

Well, yeah. Can't help you there.

[TheOOB]

That might be sort of convincing if you had to spread out your new skill points over a bunch of skills that you already have ranks in. Not so convincing if the Rogue says, "Hey! I just got a permanent boost to my Int bonus! I think I'll ... suddenly be a grandmaster of Sense Motive, which I've never trained before!"

It's not all bad, all you need is a skill training montage.

[Aquillion]

That might be sort of convincing if you had to spread out your new skill points over a bunch of skills that you already have ranks in. Not so convincing if the Rogue says, "Hey! I just got a permanent boost to my Int bonus! I think I'll ... suddenly be a grandmaster of Sense Motive, which I've never trained before!"Look at it as unlocking hidden potentials in the rogue's brain. From a fluff standpoint, the rogue has always been trying to do sense motive, but never really got the hang of it; then they read a book that makes them smarter, something goes click inside their head. Suddenly the solid wall they were battering themselves up against all this time trying to master sense motive is gone, and they understand it perfectly!

Regarding giving / removing skill points for temporary bonuses, I can think of one major reason not to do that. It lets players reassign skill points on the fly, which they shouldn't be able to do. If my skill points changed every time I took off and put back on my Headband of Intellect +6, I could effectively max any six skills I want at any time. Even if you impose a delay of a day or so to gain skills from an int increase, it could still be easily abused. (Without at least that delay, it's totally absurd; they basically have every skill maxxed whenever they need it, including all cross-class skills up to half.)

One way around this is to let players assign skill points only the first time their overall total reaches a certain point. When it drops, their most recently-assigned skills are temporarily lost; if their int goes back up to that point (or they gain a level), all their skillpoints must first go back into regaining the skills they had before.

[Jack Mann]

That might be sort of convincing if you had to spread out your new skill points over a bunch of skills that you already have ranks in. Not so convincing if the Rogue says, "Hey! I just got a permanent boost to my Int bonus! I think I'll ... suddenly be a grandmaster of Sense Motive, which I've never trained before!"

You can just about do that anyway, until you get to high levels. An Int-based rogue, for example, could probably manage it at any level up to ten, say. Human with 18 Int places all of his skill points into a single skill, heretofore untrained. Now he's a master at it.

Sure, it's not the smartest thing he can do with those skill points, but there's nothing that stops him from doing it.

I don't really see a problem with it. It's like multiclassing into wizard, or some other highly trained class. You're presumed to have been studying the lore in your off-time. You studied/trained really hard at it. You had all the knowledge before, but now it all comes together, and you finally understand it.

Not that I use retroactive skill points, since I think it works well enough as is. But it's easily justified.

[Krimm_Blackleaf]

I usually houserule them into my games.(Anyone in my campaign should probably make a note of that) And I do it whenever I make a character that shall never see the light of day. I don't grant bonus skill points from magic items, only from permanent stat increases.

[Ossian]

I'd say that it's already factored, in a way. If you raise your INT score by whichever mean (NY Yankees cap of intelligence +3 or simple ability adj at IV, VIII and so on level), your INT bonus might go up, and this would give you a bonus to all the INT skills you have. For the ones you don't have, it's beneficial for the "untrained" skill checks (quicker and better analysis capacity, logical thinking and whatever makes a person intelligent). For the trained only skill checks, becoming a genius overnight (unless your INT becomes "divine" like above 30) should not make any difference. Even if I myself should get +5 INT points by typing this post, that would not make me able to solve non linear differential equations better than I already can. Surely, if I talked to a professor about that matter, I'd be able to follow what she says, but that would be it. If I then took a level (in mathematician, but not only), I'd benefit from extra skill points.

I'd take the comparison between INT and CON boosts due to items pretty much like being on some kind of extra powerful drug. The CON boost would make me tougher and a real die-hard, with a higher pain threshold and so on. As the drug wears off, my abilities go back to normal (one should keep track of that). Same goes for the INT drug. My brain works 30 times faster, and I can work on a difficult project in less time and more effectively, but if the project is in biochemistry and I'm a Politician, I get no benefit other than, maybe, being able to appraise the project's worth or feasibility.

This is even more true with 1st level INT bonus on skill points. You can't really reassign any of those, since they mirror a whole age, your youth and adolescence and young adult life. So, no, in my campaign I'd not allow skill points to work retroactively.
:smallsmile:
O.

[Kaelik]

But the only reason that your total con modifier applies to your hit points each level is because hit points are gained retroactively from the item. The same thing would occur with skill points if they too were made retroactive.

That makes no sense. The rules right now are:

1)Con applies retroactively.
2)Temporary Con affects HP.
3)Int does not apply retroactively.
4)Temporary Int does not affect skill points.

Changing one rule does not mean you have to change another. The temporary/permanent difference already exists for skill points without them being retroactive, that wouldn't change.

[triforcel]

That makes no sense. The rules right now are:

1)Con applies retroactively.
2)Temporary Con affects HP.
3)Int does not apply retroactively.
4)Temporary Int does not affect skill points.

Changing one rule does not mean you have to change another. The temporary/permanent difference already exists for skill points without them being retroactive, that wouldn't change.

But if Con didn't apply retroactively then a temporary increase to Con wouldn't affect HP. And the only reason that Temporary increase to Int doesn't affect skill points is because Int doesn't apply retroactively. You can't say that a person who grows smarter with age should suddenly benefit as if he had been that smart all along and not allow the same to be true for someone who grows smarter through wearing a magical hat.

[FirstAdam]

We always houseruled where if you have a temporary increase to INT for the majority of a level, your intelligence counts as the modified INT when you gain skill points for the next level. It doesnt work retroactively, but we reasoned, if your intelligence is higher, you'd pick up more along your travels, which equates to more skill points.

[kamikasei]

I don't see the constitution/hit point and intelligence/skill point relationship as being so close. The bonus hit points from a high constitution are level-dependent, but not in a "you gain X at each level, and retroactively gain more for those levels if your Con later goes up" way. Rather, as you level, you gain a certain number of HP based on your class, and in addition at any given time you have bonus hit points based on your current Con score and level. It's much more like power points than skill points - again, power points are gained according to class and level, and then you get bonus points added in according to your current ability score and level. The point is that the classes in which you took those levels matter not at all to your Con and the hit points it gives you, and only a little to your bonus power points.

In contrast, skill points are gained according to class and must be allocated at each level according to what skills are class skills for that level. They're not like hit points or power points, which are a single pool independent of source which are depleted and restored over time. Working out what happens to skills points already allocated if your Intelligence drops, or how you can gain ranks in a skill (representing training or study) just for a temporary boost from an item or spell (which, depending on the skill, may already be granting you a bonus anyway!) is a pointless quagmire. The equivalence is false and there's no point trying to force it.

[Kaelik]

But if Con didn't apply retroactively then a temporary increase to Con wouldn't affect HP. And the only reason that Temporary increase to Int doesn't affect skill points is because Int doesn't apply retroactively. You can't say that a person who grows smarter with age should suddenly benefit as if he had been that smart all along and not allow the same to be true for someone who grows smarter through wearing a magical hat.

No! If your Int is 10 you get X+0 skill points. If your Int is 10 and you are wearing an item you get X+0 skill points. Temporary Int does not effect skill points even when you level up. If this were not a separate rule from retroactively gaining skill points then an item would increase your skill points when you leveled. It does not, they are two separate rules that are not tied to each other at all.

[Draz74]

You can just about do that anyway, until you get to high levels. An Int-based rogue, for example, could probably manage it at any level up to ten, say. Human with 18 Int places all of his skill points into a single skill, heretofore untrained. Now he's a master at it.
Sure, it's not the smartest thing he can do with those skill points, but there's nothing that stops him from doing it.

Yeah, well, I think that's dumb too. :smalltongue: Just because this is a (small) problem with the way the game works doesn't mean I'm going to expand the nonsensical rule in my games.


I don't really see a problem with it. It's like multiclassing into wizard, or some other highly trained class. You're presumed to have been studying the lore in your off-time. You studied/trained really hard at it. You had all the knowledge before, but now it all comes together, and you finally understand it.

The difference is that skill ranks are more granular. If fractions of wizard levels existed (and thank goodness they don't!), it would make sense to require that you would have to have, say, 1/2 of a Wizard level already trained before you could take a level in Wizard. That's why the assumption that you have already been working "behind the scenes" on Wizardry isn't as bad as it could be.

If you've already been "working on Sense Motive behind the scenes," shouldn't that be represented by at least some skill ranks before you "jump" to having 16 ranks?

[Aquillion]

If you've already been "working on Sense Motive behind the scenes," shouldn't that be represented by at least some skill ranks before you "jump" to having 16 ranks?Not if there's some 'trigger event' that suddenly lets you break through and become an expert... like, say, reading a book that boosts your intelligence. Think of it more like this: Your character has learned, by rote, the mechanics of sense motive, but until now wasn't quite smart enough to understand them (and therefore couldn't apply them.) They were getting some essential part wrong. Then, when they read the book of intelligence, everything suddenly starts to make sense and they can finally apply the things they've learned.

[Matthew]

I prefer to apply them retroactively [i.e. permanent Intelligence increases garner additional Skill Points from previous levels]. Temporary increases generally don't result in additional skill points, but I can see an argument for allowing them. The Skill System is borked anyway, so as long as it doesn't further unbalance the game, I won't shed any tears either way.

[triforcel]

No! If your Int is 10 you get X+0 skill points. If your Int is 10 and you are wearing an item you get X+0 skill points. Temporary Int does not effect skill points even when you level up.

Yes, that's how it works normally.


If this were not a separate rule from retroactively gaining skill points then an item would increase your skill points when you leveled. It does not, they are two separate rules that are not tied to each other at all.

Currently there is no rule for retroactively gaining skill points which is why temporary int doesn't apply to skills.

Take this example of Bill Nobody. Bill is a farmer in his late forties. <In gaming terms lets call him a level 2 human commoner with unimpressive stats, but an 11 int thanks to the plus 1 from age category. This gives him 15 skill points probably allotted as Climb 2, , Jump 2, Listen 2, Profession(Farmer) 5, Spot 2, Swim 2.> One day, Bill happens upon an old musty looking book in his attic <Tome of clear thought (+1)>, blowing off the dust and flipping through the pages, he finds it intriguing and takes it back downstairs with him. Over the next few weeks he reads from the book in the little free time a farmer has and after finally closing the back cover he suddenly feels things becoming clearer to him <Int now 12 he retroactively gains 5 skill points>. He finds that he better understands the subtle politics of his small village, his wife's gossip that once sounded like meaningless prattle now starts to make sense <Bonus from the increase Int and 2 ranks increase Knowledge (local)>. Furthermore he soon finds that he can comprehend some of the trickier knots he had tried to learn as a boy <a rank into Use Rope>.

That's basically the justification for retroactive skill points with metagame terms to clarify. However, if instead of a book he were to find a magical headband that increased his intelligence to thirteen, not only would he experience the same feeling of clarity, but it would be of greater magnitude than when he read the book. There is no difference between an inherent increase to intelligence and one derived from enhancement other than the fact that the enhancement one can be removed. To the character it will feel the same, the intelligence from the magical headband isn't any less valuable than that from aging or leveling.

[Kaelik]

Currently there is no rule for retroactively gaining skill points which is why temporary int doesn't apply to skills.

You have completely missed the point once again. Forget retroactive skill points for three seconds.

When Joe the Farmer levels up does he gain skill points based off of his Int score? YES! Does he gain them off of his Temporary Int score? NO! Even if he is wearing an item while he levels (not retroactive, current) he still doesn't get skill points for it. Because temporary intelligence is different then permanent for skill points. Not because there are no retroactive skill points, but just because it is treated differently.

[malcolm]

I think it's a bad idea because INT is already such a good stat, and you want to power up INT based characters even more? Go ahead, house-rule away until 4e hits.

[North]

Yeah Id like to see both Con and Int work retroactively in 4E like it is in Saga.

[Aquillion]

Currently there is no rule for retroactively gaining skill points which is why temporary int doesn't apply to skills.That simply isn't true. The rules stat that "temporary" int (defined as any bonus from an item, among other things) does not add to skill points. Ever. End of questions, fullstop.

If you take a baby and put a Headband of Intellect +6 on his head the instant he's born, and leave it on him every day of his life until he dies at age 80, he will not, at any point in his life, get a single extra skillpoint from its bonus intelligence. Doesn't matter if he studies for fifty years and goes from level 1 all the way into epic wearing that headband; it has no effect on his skill points whatsoever.

There are lots of possible explainations for this, but it has nothing at all to do with whether or not skillpoints are applied retroactively.

[Tequila Sunrise]

I house rule retro skill points whenever I DM, because it's just generally simpler. When I make wizard BBEGs, I don't want to have to work out which levels their Int bonuses went up to calculate skill points; I want to just add base class skill points to permanent Int mod and then max out that number of skills. When a player gains a permanent bonus to Int I don't want to make them piddle that extra skill point into Knowledge (the planes), because that's a near-useless skill point. I don't think that retro skill points are unrealistic either. You get smarter, you pick up a new trick and you get a better understanding of your old tricks.

Some players don't like maxing out skills, which I've never understood, but in any case it's not very complicated to work out their new skill points. Just work out how many total skill points they have and then subtract how many skill points they've spent up until now. If it were really a tough case of a PC with six different classes, cross-class ranks and 2-5 points in every skill, then I'd consider dropping the retro skill points...but just for that character.

[triforcel]

You have completely missed the point once again. Forget retroactive skill points for three seconds.

When Joe the Farmer levels up does he gain skill points based off of his Int score? YES! Does he gain them off of his Temporary Int score? NO! Even if he is wearing an item while he levels (not retroactive, current) he still doesn't get skill points for it. Because temporary intelligence is different then permanent for skill points. Not because there are no retroactive skill points, but just because it is treated differently.

You're missing the point. I am fully aware that temporary Int does not affect skill points as things currently stand. That is not the issue here.

The issue is making skill points retroactive. The only statistic in DnD that is currently retroactive is Hit Points. Any change in the related score for Hit Points (Con, unless you have some crazy feat or ability to change that), whether temporary or permanent, causes a retroactive change in the number of Hit Points you have.

It can logically be reasoned that should Skill Points be changed to being retroactively, then they would be affected by temporary Int.

[BardicDuelist]

I use it. I like it, and so do my players. It makes skill bookeeping easier (my int bonus is +3, I am a rogue, so I have 11 skills that I max ranks out in). Even if you don't max out ranks, unless you're an Int based spellcasting class, Int is a weak stat. Just my two cents.

[Jack Mann]

If you take a baby and put a Headband of Intellect +6 on his head the instant he's born, and leave it on him every day of his life until he dies at age 80, he will not, at any point in his life, get a single extra skillpoint from its bonus intelligence. Doesn't matter if he studies for fifty years and goes from level 1 all the way into epic wearing that headband; it has no effect on his skill points whatsoever.

There are lots of possible explainations for this, but it has nothing at all to do with whether or not skillpoints are applied retroactively.

I have an image of a dragon or other nigh-immortal creature doing this as part of a long-term arcano-anthropology study.

Hmm. I think I may have a BBEG, or at least an NPC.

[Scribble]

Dragons get retro-active skill points for the INT they gain from advancing an age catergory...

I say from wishes/level-up/other permanent gains it should gain retroactive skill points.. but only in skills you already have points in.

The on and off again from items seems just.. wrong.

[Kaelik]

You're missing the point. I am fully aware that temporary Int does not affect skill points as things currently stand. That is not the issue here.

The issue is making skill points retroactive. The only statistic in DnD that is currently retroactive is Hit Points. Any change in the related score for Hit Points (Con, unless you have some crazy feat or ability to change that), whether temporary or permanent, causes a retroactive change in the number of Hit Points you have.

It can logically be reasoned that should Skill Points be changed to being retroactively, then they would be affected by temporary Int.

And I'm trying to show you that they are two separate issues and do not automatically follow. Look at the example of the baby with a headband of intellect from level one. Now imagine that same baby with retroactive skill points. Since items do not effect skill points he still doesn't gain skill points from it.

It doesn't matter how much you say that it follows, it still doesn't follow. That's like saying that if you make Con non-retroactive that you must give +1 1/2 times Con to HP because now it is like Str. Just because it shares one single trait does not mean that it must share another completely unrelated trait.

[Starsinger]

Name a non-spellcasting class that increases their Int at level 4. Go on.. I'll wait.. most likely you won't find one. Except like Factotum, and that's because for most people, int isn't worth it to increase. I mean that 1 extra skill point at level 4? it's 6 points behind every other non-cross class skill. Why bother grabbing it for another skill?

Retroactive skill points would allow that.. and then people might do so. Otherwise, Int's a useless stat to bump, unless you need it for class abilities.

[goat]

Name a non-spellcasting class that increases their Int at level 4. Go on.. I'll wait.. most likely you won't find one. Except like Factotum, and that's because for most people, int isn't worth it to increase.

I build rogues around it. Any skill monkey class can benefit from high int, and with retroactives, int-boosts could be used to get 15+ maximised skills without too much problem.

[BardicDuelist]

Name a non-spellcasting class that increases their Int at level 4. Go on.. I'll wait.. most likely you won't find one. Except like Factotum, and that's because for most people, int isn't worth it to increase. I mean that 1 extra skill point at level 4? it's 6 points behind every other non-cross class skill. Why bother grabbing it for another skill?

Retroactive skill points would allow that.. and then people might do so. Otherwise, Int's a useless stat to bump, unless you need it for class abilities.

Exactly. Everyone boosts STR, DEX, or CON, unless they are spellcasters or have a 9 or somthing that they want to remove the penalty from. And increasing WIS increases everything having to do with WIS, incercreasing CHA increases everthing having to do with CHA, so increasing INT should increase everything having to do with INT.

Although a Warblade or Swashbuckler MIGHT increase their INT at level 4, too.

And actually, I see nothing wrong with a headband of intellect giving you extra skills, I would just make it so that you would have to MAX skill ranks in the number of skills you choose (+2 gives you one, +4 give you two, etc). It kind of reminds me of Abadon's broach in "The Black Cauldron." I still don't use this, because it complicates book keeping, and since most people who are using a headband of intellect are casters who don't really need the extra skills (even a Factotum doesn't really need them).

[MrNexx]

Name a non-spellcasting class that increases their Int at level 4. Go on.. I'll wait.. most likely you won't find one. Except like Factotum, and that's because for most people, int isn't worth it to increase. I mean that 1 extra skill point at level 4? it's 6 points behind every other non-cross class skill. Why bother grabbing it for another skill?

Retroactive skill points would allow that.. and then people might do so. Otherwise, Int's a useless stat to bump, unless you need it for class abilities.

Factotum ?

[BardicDuelist]

Factotum ?

From Dungeonscape. It is a great class that is incrediably SAD (Int, although a good Wis helps as wel). You can basically do anything, albeit a few levels later than others.

Or was your question about somthing else?

[MrNexx]

From Dungeonscape. It is a great class that is incrediably SAD (Int, although a good Wis helps as wel). You can basically do anything, albeit a few levels later than others.

Or was your question about somthing else?

It wasn't a question, so much as answering his... and I now see that he already mentioned it, so I feel sheepish.

[Fax Celestis]

Dragons get retro-active skill points for the INT they gain from advancing an age catergory...

Dragons are also generally not PCs and are therefore free of the trappings of "balance". They're not required to be balanced against other PCs since, well, they're not PCs and are supposed to be encounters (and are therefore balanced as an encounter is).

[Fax Celestis]

Name a non-spellcasting class that increases their Int at level 4. Go on.. I'll wait.. most likely you won't find one.

Warblade, Swashbuckler, Rogue, Factotum, Bardic Sage, Monk with Kung-Fu Genius. Headed for PrCs? Exemplar, Daggerspell Mage, Thief-Acrobat, fully half the stuff from CAdv and CScn.

[StickMan]

I think the rule should be used, after all INT is the only thing that does not improve retroactively. You get retroactive Hit points after all why not skill points.

[triforcel]

And I'm trying to show you that they are two separate issues and do not automatically follow. Look at the example of the baby with a headband of intellect from level one. Now imagine that same baby with retroactive skill points. Since items do not effect skill points he still doesn't gain skill points from it.

But they are not separate issues. The reason that temporary Int does not affect skill points is because skill points are not retroactive. If skill points were retroactive then temporary Int would affect skill points.


It doesn't matter how much you say that it follows, it still doesn't follow. That's like saying that if you make Con non-retroactive that you must give +1 1/2 times Con to HP because now it is like Str. Just because it shares one single trait does not mean that it must share another completely unrelated trait.


If you were to make Con non-retroactive then temporary Con would cease to affect your hit points. Con has more in common with Intelligence than it does any other stat.

[Kaelik]

If you were to make Con non-retroactive then temporary Con would cease to affect your hit points. Con has more in common with Intelligence than it does any other stat.

No. Con and Int have as much in common as every stat has in common with every other stat. All stats are identical. Con's effect on HP has most in common with Wis/Int's effect on PP. Int's effect on skill points has nothing in common with any other stat's effect on anything. Because skill points are a separate system that has nothing to do with HP. Just as attack and damage are separate systems that have nothing to do with AC or saves. You are confusing stats with the type of effect they have on some other aspect of the game.

It doesn't work that way. Int's effect on skill points has as much to do with Con's effect on HP as it does with Wis's effect on Will saves, which is to say, absolutely nothing.

[Azerian Kelimon]

To (try) to cut the debate short, stat increases are tricky because they work as if you had been like that the whole life. If you are hellbent on adding retroactive skillpoints, the best way to go around is that EVERY increase in X, be it CHA, INT, or STR, has a time of "attunement" equal to weeks * the bonus to the score, except for ability increases every 4 levels, which already represent that sort of attunement. This way, not only does it seem credible, it also allows you to apply retroactive changes (Example: STR. You equip a girdle of strength +6. Over 6 weeks, you notice you are changing gradually. Your muscles are stronger, you can apply more force to them, and you grow fitter.).

[Matthew]

Hmmn. Do you apply Skill Points retroactively during the 'retraining' process? I don't recall off hand.

[Roog]

To (try) to cut the debate short, stat increases are tricky because they work as if you had been like that the whole life. If you are hellbent on adding retroactive skillpoints, the best way to go around is that EVERY increase in X, be it CHA, INT, or STR, has a time of "attunement" equal to weeks * the bonus to the score, except for ability increases every 4 levels, which already represent that sort of attunement. This way, not only does it seem credible, it also allows you to apply retroactive changes (Example: STR. You equip a girdle of strength +6. Over 6 weeks, you notice you are changing gradually. Your muscles are stronger, you can apply more force to them, and you grow fitter.).


Why on earth would that extra complexity help anything?
#Edit, although it would make any stat-boosting spell into a joke.


If you have a problem with the retroactive skillpoint option giving an immediate boost to skills, then if you are consistent you should also have a problem with leveling up giving an immediate boost to skills.

If you do find that to be a problem, then separate gaining extra skill points from learning skills.

For example, a Wizard (with 18 INT) takes a level of Rogue and gains 12 skill points, at that point the skill points are not spent on anything yet. The Rogue's player then asks the GM if they can spend the skill points on the skills they want to increase. If the character, who has never used a Magical Device and has no UMD skill, now wants to immediately increase his UMD to 12, you might think that that would be unreasonable (And what you have said about the effects of the retroactive skillpoint option implies that you would find this unreasonable). So the GM could say "No, thats a bit much all at once, you can have 2 points now, and the rest as you get more practice/training with magical devices."

Treat skill points from going up a level and retroactive skill points the same way, any increase to a skill that does not seem reasonable requires more practice/training before the skill points can be spent.

There is no need to change the rules for other stats, and if you are hell bent on conflating retroactive skill points and temporary stat boost skill points, and insist that allowing one requires allowing the other, then you get to force those PCs who wear magic items to boost their INT to retrain every time they take the item off while spells to boost INT have durations that are too short to worry about spending the extra skill points.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Not really, that idea wouldn't be at all unreasonable. Remember the char was a frickin WIZARD. He already know how to operate devices perfectly, but when he chose to be a rogue and focus on things other than spellcasting, he lost his flair for using ANY device, and thus, now relies more on struggling to make the dev work.

Of course, stat boosting and diminishing spells are another altogether different story. I guess it could be made so that the spells give you the immediate boost anyway because of X, but it still would be fishy.

[Roog]

Not really, that idea wouldn't be at all unreasonable. Remember the char was a frickin WIZARD. He already know how to operate devices perfectly, but when he chose to be a rogue and focus on things other than spellcasting, he lost his flair for using ANY device, and thus, now relies more on struggling to make the dev work.

Of course, stat boosting and diminishing spells are another altogether different story. I guess it could be made so that the spells give you the immediate boost anyway because of X, but it still would be fishy.

Well, in that case take another example, where the Wizard spends those 12 skill points on Bluff.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Ahh. That one's more consistent. You could say it's just because of his working on such skills, and attaining finesse at them through the training, but it is no explanation. It means, quite simply, that it's one of D&D's oversight. Remember the game expects you to max an amount of skills according to your skillpoints, not to dump in a single skill. So really, that's a failure of the mechanics.

[Roog]

Ahh. That one's more consistent. You could say it's just because of his working on such skills, and attaining finesse at them through the training, but it is no explanation. It means, quite simply, that it's one of D&D's oversight. Remember the game expects you to max an amount of skills according to your skillpoints, not to dump in a single skill. So really, that's a failure of the mechanics.

So, the real problem is D&D's oversight on how skillpoints can be spent, not retroactive skill points themselves?

If thats the case, adding retroactive skill points does not create a new problem, and fixing the existing problem would make retroactive skill points OK.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Sadly, if you fix the problem, you gimp some approaches to playing, which is a worse idea than leaving it alone. To be frank, the best thing to do there is grin and bear it.

[Roog]

Sadly, if you fix the problem, you gimp some approaches to playing, which is a worse idea than leaving it alone. To be frank, the best thing to do there is grin and bear it.


Since the problem is aesthetic rather than mechanical, the best solution is probably a fluff solution.

Requiring some sort of in game practice or training (or even a training montage), for skills that seem inappropriate for the character to immediately acquire, would change the feel of what happens without changing the mechanics; and this would work for any kind of skill acquisition.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Yes, indeed. A la feat training conditions detailed in the DMG's guide. Of course, this depends on the classes that are involved in the multiclassing. The Wiz/rogue you detailed for UMD doesn't need much extra training. But the Wiz/rogue WOULD need the extra training for Bluff.

[Fax Celestis]

Yes, indeed. A la feat training conditions detailed in the DMG's guide. Of course, this depends on the classes that are involved in the multiclassing. The Wiz/rogue you detailed for UMD doesn't need much extra training. But the Wiz/rogue WOULD need the extra training for Bluff.

Why can't a wizard be good at lying? I know a lot of wizards that are really good at lying.

[Roog]

Why can't a wizard be good at lying? I know a lot of wizards that are really good at lying.
Because its a cross class skill :smallbiggrin:


The point was that the wizard was not good at lying but wants to be. If the change in the character is not large enough to be an aesthetic problem to those involved, then there is no problem and no need for a solution.

[Nightwalker]

Couple things are temp drops in int would have to affect skills as well... Just like temporary drops in Con affect hit points. Now this would be a pain to calculate, either they completely forget x number of skills, or do they just drop 1 or 2 ranks off of every skill they have? Thats the big reason I think for not having Int be retroactive, because if it can be retroactively positive, then it will have to be able to be retroactivly negative.

If you want a simple way though for Int boost items to give retroactive. Allow every Int boost item to have 1 skill in it for a +1 bonus and an additional skill for each +2 beyond that. The character will get max ranks in those skills (as if it were a class skill). Usually I would say these should only be Int based skills, but I guess anything could be reasoned out. This makes items slightly more useful in Int for non casters.

Spells of Int boost might be able to give skills, but only of those known to the caster. Wizard can't cast Int boost on self, and suddenly know any skill he wishes, but he could cast on someone else and then they have spellcraft as well.

Level Int bonuses, should be retroactive, as a personal opinion I like the idea of gaining intelligence and being able to learn new tricks/improve the old. For those that just max x number of skills, retroactive doesn't look as good as those who keep more skills all at moderate levels. +1 Int at level 16 translates to yesterday I didn't know which side of the horse was front, but today I can ride standing on bareback with a blindfold.

[Fhaolan]

Really, when it all boils down to it, it's not a mechanical reason against retroactive skill points, or a fluff reason against retroactive skill points. It's a bookkeeping reason.

Retroactive Hit Points from con are easy. They apply to HP. That's only one thing to track. Con goes up, hit points go up. Con goes down, hit points go down. It's relatively trival.

Retroactive Skill Points... Int goes up, you have to spread these new skill points across all the skills in some manner. Int goes *down*... ah. Where did I put those points now? What happens if I gain those Int points back again? Can I pick new skills to improve, or do I have to remember which ones went down before?

I fully believe that the game designers decided that this was too much bookkeeping, and put the 'no retroactive skill points/no temp skill points' rules in place so people would stop asking them what the rules were.

Which brings up Star Wars Saga and what we know of 4e. It sounds like the skill system is completely different, and you're not making decisions at a skill-point level of granularity. It's possible that this entire issue is one of the things that they were deliberately addressing with Saga/4e.

[Roog]

Retroactive Skill Points... Int goes up, you have to spread these new skill points across all the skills in some manner. Int goes *down*... ah. Where did I put those points now? What happens if I gain those Int points back again? Can I pick new skills to improve, or do I have to remember which ones went down before?

Which is why people have been making a distinction between inherent and current INT.

Unless I'm missing something, inherent INT only does up.


Also, does this text look familiar?

This enhancement bonus does not earn the wearer extra skill points when a new level is attained; use the unenhanced Intelligence bonus to determine skill points.
The current rules have special clauses that separate inherent and current INT, a Retroactive Skill Point System needs similar clauses.

[Shatteredtower]

I've usually found it easiest to determine skill points for a middle-aged or older NPC as though the character always had its current Intelligence. I tried it the other way a few times and it wasn't worth the hassle. In the end, I came to the conclusion that these folks had spent years picking up the extra skills that came with their greater intelligence anyway, something many PCs do not do, by virtue of racing through ten to twenty levels within a few years (or even months!) of in-game time.

You still have to leave the enhancement bonuses to Intelligence out of the equation, but there's no other way to lose skills -- unless you create rules for senility, which tend to be more hassle than they're worth. (You're better off assigning the character a penalty to all Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma checks.)

Players could even adapt the PHB retraining rules to "fill in the gaps" that come with instantaneously increased Intelligence, and I don't see the harm in that, since time is often a valuable commodity.

[Fhaolan]

Unless I'm missing something, inherent INT only does up.


There are ways to take ability damage that is permanent. I can't think of any that affect INT, but I haven't read all the books all the way through. I would be surprised, though, if there wasn't some way to take INT damage permanently. :smallsmile:

Once you start throwing in INT damage, you have to start making more rules as to what happens with the skill points lost from INT damage, and someone will be bound to ask what happens when that damage is repaired (via Wish or whatever). Do you regain the points in the skills you had them before, or just gain new points? Did you record which skills got docked when you took the INT damage? And so on and so forth.

Personally, I'm all for Retroactive Skill Points. But then I keep very detailed records of where every skill point came from, and where points were lost and why, so I can roll a character forward or back at a whim. I'm used to dealing with other game systems where this kind of recordkeeping is expected or required.

[Kaelik]

There are ways to take ability damage that is permanent. I can't think of any that affect INT, but I haven't read all the books all the way through. I would be surprised, though, if there wasn't some way to take INT damage permanently. :smallsmile:

Actually there is no way to take any stat damage that is permanent. Everything can be removed pretty easily. The only stats that can go down permanently with no way to be raised are the Physical ones when you age. Everything else is easily recoverable.

[Ogh_the_Second]

Actually there is no way to take any stat damage that is permanent. Everything can be removed pretty easily. The only stats that can go down permanently with no way to be raised are the Physical ones when you age. Everything else is easily recoverable.

There may not be anything regular "in the book" - but I've seen irregular stat changes in a few campaigns, in which the respective DMs thought it appropriate to make events change the PCs' stats. (Permanently.) The INT drop - skill points question has come up, yes.

[Kaelik]

There may not be anything regular "in the book" - but I've seen irregular stat changes in a few campaigns, in which the respective DMs thought it appropriate to make events change the PCs' stats. (Permanently.) The INT drop - skill points question has come up, yes.

You mean house rules create a situation that requires DM arbitration? What else is new?