Inherent Bonuses and why I think they should be houseruled to stack

[Fiery Diamond]

Inherent bonuses have a cap of +5 for each stat. There is literally no reason to not allow them to stack other than "RAW says they can't stack." If you look at the price of the Tomes, the difference between say, a +1 Tome and a +3 Tome is the price of a +2 Tome, which is exactly what you would expect it to be if you could use three +1 Tomes to produce the same effect as a +3 Tome. Pretty much every other non-stacking thing is set up to be some flavor of exponential cost.

Also, if you adhere to WBL, you are objectively worse off getting a low Inherent bonus than you are holding out for a higher one, because unlike Enhancement bonus items, you can't resell the cheaper one to recoup some of your losses if you later come across a higher one, and Inherent Bonuses are really expensive.

Also, due to the fact that Strength is basically the only stat where odd numbers matter (unless you're routinely taking stat damage), getting a +1 Inherent bonus on an even numbered stat is basically useless unless you later use your stat point from leveling to even it out.

I think it is not only a reasonable houserule, but a commonsense houserule, to declare that they do stack. After all, with the cap of +5, you can't really cheese it to get ridiculous numbers.

What do you all think?

[Biggus]

Agreed, I've already houseruled it this way. I can't see any reason for it except wanting to make them seem "special".

Part of the thought process which led me to do so was similar to this:


Also, if you adhere to WBL, you are objectively worse off getting a low Inherent bonus than you are holding out for a higher one, because unlike Enhancement bonus items, you can't resell the cheaper one to recoup some of your losses if you later come across a higher one, and Inherent Bonuses are really expensive.

If you expect the campaign to reach a level where you can afford a +4 or +5 inherent bonus, you're just throwing away money if you get a lesser one. Arguably if a stat is really super important to you (eg you're a caster who casts a lot of spells which allow saving throws) it might be worth getting a +1 or +2 bonus and then a +4 or +5 one later, but there are almost no circumstances in which a +3 bonus would be worth getting.

Just one minor quibble with this point:


Also, due to the fact that Strength is basically the only stat where odd numbers matter (unless you're routinely taking stat damage), getting a +1 Inherent bonus on an even numbered stat is basically useless unless you later use your stat point from leveling to even it out.

Some feats require odd numbers to take them, including some epic feats. While that's not something you're going to need all the time, it does happen.

[Athan Artilliam]

I think they should be stackable up to +5. That way you cant break the math, but also dont break the bank. You said it yourself each Manual/Tome is a flat rate increase, so buying +1s is no different than waiting & buying higher. I also dont like the odd number hanging off either, but its there to round off the odd numbered stats. If you have an even stat then just go to +4 if you want & save your change

[Mordante]

Is this really ever an issue? How often do you find something that gives an Inherent Bonus? The tomes are rarer than hens' teeth. In a level 1 to 20 campaign you'll maybe find 2 tomes that give a random stat a +1 to +3 bonus.

[Doctor Despair]

Technically, if you have a +2 book early that you later replace with a +4 book, doesn't the +2 book stop counting against your WBL? Consumables don't count against wbl iirc, and you're no longer really receiving the bonus from the +2 book. Sure, you can't sell it, but you should be given more wealth within the level by your DM to compensate.

[Balthanon]

For the original question, I personally don't have any problems with stacking inherent bonuses and I think I've run with that a time or two as well. It does make it more likely you're going to end up with +5 in bonuses significantly earlier though, which I assume might be part of the reason they might have written it up like that so DMs didn't have any concerns about handing out the lower level books and tomes.


Technically, if you have a +2 book early that you later replace with a +4 book, doesn't the +2 book stop counting against your WBL? Consumables don't count against wbl iirc, and you're no longer really receiving the bonus from the +2 book. Sure, you can't sell it, but you should be given more wealth within the level by your DM to compensate.

Wealth by Level isn't really an enforced rule (though it could be if a DM wanted), it's just an expectation of how much you've probably gotten by a given point. A DM going by the book is just handing out treasure according to the encounter level and it should take care of itself. It doesn't always work that way admittedly, particularly if the DM is using random charts-- I've played in several campaigns where we had well above our wealth by level (and a few where we were significantly under too.)

That said, you could do something around that or talk to your DM about it-- but expect it to go the other way too. If you start exceeding your WBL, you might have to trim down in that case. Or you could use a house rule like I had, where I basically made magic items in use a modifier on your effective level. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?429118-Wealth-by-Level-Modifier-Calculating-ECL-for-the-High-(and-Low)-Net-Value-PC)

[Biggus]

Is this really ever an issue? How often do you find something that gives an Inherent Bonus? The tomes are rarer than hens' teeth. In a level 1 to 20 campaign you'll maybe find 2 tomes that give a random stat a +1 to +3 bonus.

The Tomes aren't the only way to get inherent bonuses, anything which grants a Wish can give them. If the party has a Wizard they can just cast it on themselves if they want to, and if the setting has high-level NPCs it could be possible to pay them to cast it.

Also, not every campaign stops at level 20. I'm currently DMing one which will soon reach epic levels, so this is going to be an issue for me.

[nedz]

I have no real problem with this though it does only effect high level play - so it's not all that important.

[tyckspoon]

The Tomes aren't the only way to get inherent bonuses, anything which grants a Wish can give them. If the party has a Wizard they can just cast it on themselves if they want to, and if the setting has high-level NPCs it could be possible to pay them to cast it.


One Wish = +1 inherent bonus. If you want higher than that, you have to cast consecutive Wishes.. and while getting a Wish is not especially difficult for high levels, getting 4 or 5 of them in a row is far more difficult to achieve (with the notable exception of playing in a game where binding stuff for Wishes works, in which case everybody has +5 to every stat as soon as you are able to bind 2 or more efreeti at once.) The proposed houserule would presumably do away with that as well, and make 'seek out Wishes for your inherent bonuses' a much more attractive proposition.

[Zanos]

IIRC every source of inherent bonuses scale linearly, so I see no reason they shouldn't stack up to the +5 cap. As is, actually using a +1 or +2 tome is probably just a waste of money. It also lets you spread the increases out over your levels. In practice, usually people get all of their inherent bonus at once, so they're getting +2/3 to all their big numbers instead of dripfeeding those increases across levels like with normal progression.


One Wish = +1 inherent bonus. If you want higher than that, you have to cast consecutive Wishes.. and while getting a Wish is not especially difficult for high levels, getting 4 or 5 of them in a row is far more difficult to achieve (with the notable exception of playing in a game where binding stuff for Wishes works, in which case everybody has +5 to every stat as soon as you are able to bind 2 or more efreeti at once.) The proposed houserule would presumably do away with that as well, and make 'seek out Wishes for your inherent bonuses' a much more attractive proposition.
Yeah, getting the full +5 to a stat in the absence of cheese would cost 25k xp. Even if you store up XP(if that's even allowed by RAW) to cast wish, you're talking about blowing over a levels worth of XP at ECL 18+ to get the full +5 to a single stat, for one party member. And sorry to my party mates, but I am not blowing over a level worth of XP to give myself +5 int, let alone +5 to one of your stats.

[sreservoir]

When you're burning 25k XP overall, it's not exactly hard to afford the 3825 gp and 306 XP extra to prep two scrolls to go with the three wishes you can actually manage to make at a time.

Heck, you can just buy scrolls of wish at a premium pretty comparable to the price of the manuals (28825 gp/+1 vs 27500 gp/+1), except that they're expressly wish effects so you can combine them with whatever wish effects you can scrounge up, and don't require you to spend a week reading them.

[icefractal]

Personally, I let them stack (up to +5) and also disregard that thing about needing consecutive Wishes in immediate succession. Given the linear cost, it doesn't serve a good purpose from a balance POV, and from a fiction POV it doesn't make much sense. Plus (IMO obviously), it's more natural for a character to grow toward the maximum in steps than just straight from nothing to +5, but the non-stacking rules encourage the latter.

[Vaern]

The reason the cost is linear instead of exponential is because it's literally the equivalent of just casting wish a set number of times. +1 tome? You're casting wish once. +3 tome? You're casting wish 3 times.
They don't follow the same rules as items that grant other types of bonuses because they instead follow the rules for consumables granting a spell effect, with wish setting the rules for how it affects and interacts with inherent bonuses. If you change how tomes function, you would also have to change how wish functions so it no longer has to be cast back-to-back-to-back.

[Brackenlord]

The whole thing about needing wishes to be cast back to back always irked me, is real silly.

"I bound you to my command! Now genie! I wish to be stronger!"

*ding* +1 STR

"It's done."

The following day..

"This boulder is still to heavy for my awesome might. Genie! I wish to be even stronger!"

*ding* +1 STR inherent that doesn't stack with bonus of same type and size

...

...

"..maybe you should've asked for that yesterday."


It makes zero sense to me. Having a hardcap of +5 is ok for balance purposes, but the way of acquiring it is too arbitrary.

[Biggus]

One Wish = +1 inherent bonus. If you want higher than that, you have to cast consecutive Wishes.. and while getting a Wish is not especially difficult for high levels, getting 4 or 5 of them in a row is far more difficult to achieve (with the notable exception of playing in a game where binding stuff for Wishes works, in which case everybody has +5 to every stat as soon as you are able to bind 2 or more efreeti at once.) The proposed houserule would presumably do away with that as well, and make 'seek out Wishes for your inherent bonuses' a much more attractive proposition.

Yes, I've also houseruled that Wishes don't have to be cast back to back in my campaign. My comments were replying to Mordantes' that it didn't really matter because it's so rare to find tomes.

[Balthanon]

Huh, just ran across a house rule in my house rules document I had forgotten about-- I basically ruled that stacking inherent bonuses like this could be done, but it required a limited wish in addition to the normal wish. Which seems reasonable.

[rel]

Seems reasonable, I doubt the change will cause the game to fall apart.

[Jervis]

Also, due to the fact that Strength is basically the only stat where odd numbers matter (unless you're routinely taking stat damage), getting a +1 Inherent bonus on an even numbered stat is basically useless unless you later use your stat point from leveling to even it out.


Hellfire warlocks actually want odd con because it means they can take a point of con damage before lowered hp sets in. With a binder dip in there you never need to worry about lowering your HP as a consequence of channeling the powers of the underworld

[Elkad]

I ignore that "consecutive" junk, let you stack tomes, etc.
You just obey the total limit.

It's silly that the most efficient method is to wait until you can afford the whole book and do it all at once. I like letting my players have gradual increases without feeling like they are "wasting resources".

[Jay R]

A few thoughts on the issue:

A +1 bonus to the stat you increase every four levels has value. Half the time it improves your ability.

An odd ability score has value half the time you are hit by a monster that drains 1d6 or 1d4 from an ability score.

If increasing your ability by +1 actually increases your probability to stay alive and acquire more treasure, then it's worth doing, even if you eventually get a +4 or +5 Tome later. In a recent game, my wizard killed a monster who was trying to escape. If his INT hadn't recently been boosted by +1, I suspect that the monster would have gotten away. It had treasure valued at around 40,000 gp. 27,500 gp value used, and an extra 40,000 gp recouped. That's a net gain. [Of course, in a game in which PCs never die, and treasure is absolutely determined by WBL, this doesn't matter.]

If you don't use the Tome +1, you sell it for half value. So not using it saves you 13,750, not 27,500. Suppose you get a +4 or +5 Tome 10-12 levels later. Then you basically spent 13,750 gp for 10-12 levels of a +1 ability. Yes, it's a resource you eventually use up -- just like a scroll, potion, wand, or staff. I think 10 or more levels of +1 ability is worth 13,750 gp. That's about the same as a wand of lightning (6th level) and less than any staff -- both of which you can only use 50 times.


In any event, in my experience, about the time a party first gets +1 Tomes or Manuals, they are very glad to have them, and they use them as soon as possible. That alone is proof that there is no need to change how they work.

[Elkad]

For Wishes "consecutive" isn't defined anyway.

Does that mean all in the same round? A string of rounds?

If I spend a round getting the next scroll out of my pack, does that interrupt?

How about memorizing one wish per day and casting them.
If I don't do anything else between them, just rest and rememorize?
How about if I go to the royal ball inbetween. Or kill a troll?

What if I Wish I was stronger, do anything I want other than Wishing for something else for years, and then Wish I was stronger again. You could call those Wishes consecutive.

I really like the 1e method better in some respects. Use all the wishes you want, without restrictions on time or sequence. 1 wish = 1pt, until you get to 16. After that, it's 10 wishes per point.

Without having the 25pt cap from 1e, it gets weird, but it really seems more reasonable. Wishes get you to "perfect for your race" fairly easily (base 18, +/- racial mods), and it gets tough after that.

[Zanos]

In any event, in my experience, about the time a party first gets +1 Tomes or Manuals, they are very glad to have them, and they use them as soon as possible. That alone is proof that there is no need to change how they work.
You're using it's value as found treasure, which is pretty uncommon RAW since it's a big ticket item and failing to take into account an opportunity cost. 13750gp in magic items that aren't a +1 tome are almost definitely going to have more impact than +1 modifier half the time.

And if you're going to treat it like a consumable, you might as well buy 13750 gp in scrolls, which will almost assuredly be more useful.

[Doctor Despair]

You're using it's value as found treasure, which is pretty uncommon RAW since it's a big ticket item and failing to take into account an opportunity cost. 13750gp in magic items that aren't a +1 tome are almost definitely going to have more impact than +1 modifier half the time.

And if you're going to treat it like a consumable, you might as well buy 13750 gp in scrolls, which will almost assuredly be more useful.

That's assuming there's an NPC with that much wealth willing to buy one. After all, surely the NPC will want to wait until they can afford a +5 tome, too. Might as well use the one you found now instead of selling it for 1/10th the listed market value.

[Zanos]

That's assuming there's an NPC with that much wealth willing to buy one. After all, surely the NPC will want to wait until they can afford a +5 tome, too. Might as well use the one you found now instead of selling it for 1/10th the listed market value.
Yes, you can indeed change from the default assumptions from the books to make specific items either better or worse. :smallsigh:

[RandomPeasant]

I really like the 1e method better in some respects. Use all the wishes you want, without restrictions on time or sequence. 1 wish = 1pt, until you get to 16. After that, it's 10 wishes per point.

That seems like it just creates a massive divide between campaigns where you can reliably get wishes out of Genies (or other no-XP sources) and ones where you can't. Just let people wish or pop Tomes for a point at a time up to five.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

What happens if you're at +4 already but find a +2 tome? Do you waste half the value, or is there a +1's worth left? Maybe that's why +1 through +4 are a thing to begin with; someone used up part of a +5 tome and sold the rest because they couldn't use it.

[Jay R]

You're using it's value as found treasure, which is pretty uncommon RAW since it's a big ticket item and failing to take into account an opportunity cost. 13750gp in magic items that aren't a +1 tome are almost definitely going to have more impact than +1 modifier half the time.

And if you're going to treat it like a consumable, you might as well buy 13750 gp in scrolls, which will almost assuredly be more useful.

If that's what you choose to buy, then that's great. But some players do have their characters use such books when they find them, and often do choose to buy them. As I said, and you quoted, that alone is proof that there is no need to change how they work.


That seems like it just creates a massive divide between campaigns where you can reliably get wishes out of Genies (or other no-XP sources) and ones where you can't. Just let people wish or pop Tomes for a point at a time up to five.

"...creates"? The divide between games with a reliable stream of no-XP wishes and games with no such stream is already there, and already massive. This is not the biggest aspect of that massive divide.

[Zanos]

If that's what you choose to buy, then that's great. But some players do have their characters use such books when they find them, and often do choose to buy them. As I said, and you quoted, that alone is proof that there is no need to change how they work.
Ah, the good ol' "it works for my table/on my machine so nothing is wrong with it".

Of course, I don't see anyone at my tables ever buy +1 tomes.

Both of these things are true but neither is a particularly compelling argument for any table other than your own.

[RandomPeasant]

If that's what you choose to buy, then that's great. But some players do have their characters use such books when they find them, and often do choose to buy them. As I said, and you quoted, that alone is proof that there is no need to change how they work.

"There exists a person who will do X" does not mean "X is fine". I would probably use a +3 Tome if I found one, because the chance that the campaign is going to continue long enough for me to get a +5 Tome instead is pretty minimal. That doesn't mean that it's good that I just lit a bunch of money on fire if I do happen to find one. Mechanics that encourage players to make decisions based on the estimated real-world end of the campaign are a bad idea.


"...creates"? The divide between games with a reliable stream of no-XP wishes and games with no such stream is already there, and already massive. This is not the biggest aspect of that massive divide.

Not really. No-XP wish is broken in one specific context (magic items), and that part of it is broken even if you only get one ever. But turning inherent bonuses from a capped benefit (and one that reduces imbalance by helping MAD classes more) to an uncapped benefit makes large numbers of wishes inherently broken. It's just really unclear why this is something you'd want to do. The current paradigm is fine.

[Biggus]

For Wishes "consecutive" isn't defined anyway.

Does that mean all in the same round? A string of rounds?

If I spend a round getting the next scroll out of my pack, does that interrupt?



The exact wording is "in immediate succession". Immediate means without "without delay, with nothing inbetween", so the slowest that would make sense is one per round. If you spend a round doing anything else, it would definitely break the chain.



If you don't use the Tome +1, you sell it for half value. So not using it saves you 13,750, not 27,500. Suppose you get a +4 or +5 Tome 10-12 levels later. Then you basically spent 13,750 gp for 10-12 levels of a +1 ability. Yes, it's a resource you eventually use up -- just like a scroll, potion, wand, or staff. I think 10 or more levels of +1 ability is worth 13,750 gp. That's about the same as a wand of lightning (6th level) and less than any staff -- both of which you can only use 50 times.


Why 10-12 levels? The proportion of your wealth a +1 tome represents is the same as what a +4 to +5 tome represents only about 6-7 levels later.

[icefractal]

But some players do have their characters use such books when they find them, and often do choose to buy them. As I said, and you quoted, that alone is proof that there is no need to change how they work.That's not proof of anything.
Some players do have their characters go straight Sword-n-Board Fighter. Or Truenamer without doing much to boost the skill. So it's proof that those are perfect and there's no reason to change them?

Tomes/Manuals aren't that extreme a case, but they do have a limitation which serves no useful balance purpose and incentivizes behavior counter to what many people would want. Something doesn't need to be completely dysfunctional to be worth changing.