[4E] Simple fix for Int's irrelevance to trained skill selection?

[Isomenes]

One of the best things about 3E's skill system was that Intelligence factored heavily into one's selection of skills. And looking at 4E, I find the lack of this feature somewhat odd. Seems like it'd be an easy enough thing to house-rule that any character could have one extra trained skill at first level for every two or three points in his Int modifier (rounding down).

My question is, how broken would this be? Would it push skillful characters (Bard [preview], Rogue, Ranger) even farther beyond non-skilled ones, or would it open up the skill game a little more for those willing to invest the ability points? Or would it obviate the point of the skill system entirely?

Disregarding racial bonuses, Wizards would obviously benefit most from it, given that they have only six possible skills to train at first level, three slots to fill, and no reason not to maximize Int. (A Human Wizard with 20 Int could gain all but one.) Tactical Warlords, too, could easily come close to maxing out on trained skills, and a Human Fighter could with a spare 16. But is it a bad thing?

[Hzurr]

In my group, we tried doing bonus languages, but since it seems that there aren't as many languages in 4E, this tends to be pretty strong (and it makes the linguist feat a bit useless).

What if rather than giving people new skills, you let them add skills to their skill list?

[Human Paragon 3]

Maybe it could be the higher of INT or WIS for a bonus skill? That way, you need at least 1 good mental stat, but doesn't just give a huge benefit to wizards.

[Zeful]

One of the best things about 3E's skill system was that Intelligence factored heavily into one's selection of skills. And looking at 4E, I find the lack of this feature somewhat odd. Seems like it'd be an easy enough thing to house-rule that any character could have one extra trained skill at first level for every two or three points in his Int modifier (rounding down).

My question is, how broken would this be? Would it push skillful characters (Bard [preview], Rogue, Ranger) even farther beyond non-skilled ones, or would it open up the skill game a little more for those willing to invest the ability points? Or would it obviate the point of the skill system entirely?

Disregarding racial bonuses, Wizards would obviously benefit most from it, given that they have only six possible skills to train at first level, three slots to fill, and no reason not to maximize Int. (A Human Wizard with 20 Int could gain all but one.) Tactical Warlords, too, could easily come close to maxing out on trained skills, and a Human Fighter could with a spare 16. But is it a bad thing?

It wouldn't be broken, but characters with high Int could have all their class skills trained, which for some classes invalidates the archetypal role of other classes. This can be bad for some people. I don't see what benefit this could have besides making one attribute slightly more important.

[Starsinger]

Why is Int being a dump stat such a big deal?

[Nerd-o-rama]

Really, so far in 4e, there are plenty of classes that can use high Int. More so than in 3e, really. Now, if you want people to stop using Int as a dump stat when minmaxing their Fighters/Paladins/Clerics...well, that's tricky, as 4e stat generation generally favors minmaxing (or rather, favors dependence on exactly 2 primary ability scores and 2 secondary, leaving the others to be dumped).

[Isomenes]

In my group, we tried doing bonus languages, but since it seems that there aren't as many languages in 4E, this tends to be pretty strong (and it makes the linguist feat a bit useless).

What if rather than giving people new skills, you let them add skills to their skill list?

My group has always had a huge number of languages (no standard PHB languages, but rather regional and cultural), partly because of DM control and also to preserve the sense of the mysterious and foreign. We tend to have a regional Common that all players must speak, but it is by no means necessarily spoken world-wide or even culture-wide.

I like the notion of adding skills to the list rather than a trained skill slot, but this in particular seems to lend itself to abuse. When the Ranger multiclass feat is already somewhat optimal because of the access to Perception, it seems like a no-brainer if this were to be accessible through a decent Int. I would further condition this suggestion with a DM-written list of allowable skills to train, to preserve the skill system's class distinctions.

[Isomenes]

Really, so far in 4e, there are plenty of classes that can use high Int. More so than in 3e, really. Now, if you want people to stop using Int as a dump stat when minmaxing their Fighters/Paladins/Clerics...well, that's tricky, as 4e stat generation generally favors minmaxing (or rather, favors dependence on exactly 2 primary ability scores and 2 secondary, leaving the others to be dumped).

Why is Int being a dump stat such a big deal?

I think my main focus is the preservation of an intrinsic bonus to skills for having better-than-average Int. (I suppose the title's a bit misleading.) It's intended more as a practical necessity of having high intelligence rather than a way to encourage/discourage stat dumps. I guess I just really like skillful characters

[its_all_ogre]

personally i think it depends on party composition.
with wizards, tac lords using it as a primary stat (i think the taclord benefits more from max int than str personally. well the party does anyway)
warlocks and bards alos benefit from it quite a lot too.
so really it is only the remaining ones that are short of it.

failing this, make people roleplay their intelligence scores.
it's a roleplaying game after all.

some people don't like this reminder, this may cause a stir, but if you're a paladin or fighter with an int of 8 then your tactics in a fight should be really limited in scope.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Unless you have the Wisdom to come up with decent tactics intuitively, of course. Int is for planning, but Wis is for reacting.

I think my main focus is the preservation of an intrinsic bonus to skills for having better-than-average Int. (I suppose the title's a bit misleading.) It's intended more as a practical necessity of having high intelligence rather than a way to encourage/discourage stat dumps. I guess I just really like skillful characters

Yes, the title is misleading. I suppose your proposed system isn't too bad if you want everyone (or at least Wizards, Taclords, and Swordmages) to have a ton of skills. +1 trained skill/+2 int mod probably isn't gamebreaking. I don't think it's necessary, but if you want to, go ahead.

[Galdor Miriel]

First a quick aside, as it is slightly relevant: In my 4E campaign I house ruled that int could be used for initiative, which made it still useful for some players, though we had no wizards. Our rolling system of rolling 4d6 -1 for each stat, three sets, then select your favourite, meant that dump stats were not really a problem however.

Now to the meat:

The thing to remember about skills is that now they are actually quite fun in game under 4e. My group really enjoyed skill challenges, and I found as a dm that it was really easy to to make a social, or combat situation evolve into one or out of one. The players use their imaginations and you try and weave a story thread based on a few rolls of the dice. If a player has too many trained skills then it makes those skill challenge decisions easy, and might make them less fun.

The overall way of understanding 4e that I have is not one in terms of balance of classes, its rather in terms of a narrative thread. In good fantasy literature the hero (or villain) upon whose actions the story hangs in balance is anything, warrior, thief, wizard, blessed with fey powers, filled with divine light etc. The new rules mean that your heros can make a story using any of the literature archetypes without sucking in comparison to the other people at the table. That is really cool. Its not that wizards suck now, no. Wizards are in fact in the 4E world incredibly powerful. Its just that people with other strengths can still challenge them and have a chance of winning, just like in all our favorite fantasy literature.

This view I have makes me want to analyse things in terms of how they affect story rather than power. And I think that playing around with skills will affect story quite a lot, so be careful.

[Aahz]

One thing to note is that not all skills are mental: there's Athletics, Acrobats, Thievery, etc (just off the top of my head). Instead of awarding bonus skills for high Int, you could rule that if a player has a +3 or better bonus in a stat, she can choose to be trained in a single extra skill whose bonus comes from that stat (Athletics = Str, Acrobatics = Dex, etc.).

A high stat obviously already help any skill which uses that stat as a bonus, and it's likely that e.g. a high-Str character will already have a relevant skill like Athletics. But it would give nearly every character a single extra skill which will be relevant to the class.

[mangosta71]

The way skills work in 4e, being trained in one skill over another washes out quite a bit as you reach the high levels. You're adding half your level to the roll, along with the stat modifier [which adds half your level again, in addition to (stat-10)/2] already. When you're adding 15 to your roll due to level and stat mods, another +5 doesn't make nearly as much difference as it does in the early levels.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The way skills work in 4e, being trained in one skill over another washes out quite a bit as you reach the high levels. You're adding half your level to the roll, along with the stat modifier [which adds half your level again, in addition to (stat-10)/2] already. When you're adding 15 to your roll due to level and stat mods, another +5 doesn't make nearly as much difference as it does in the early levels.

I'd disagree, since the DCs tend to scale. So, while at LV 20 it doesn't matter if you're trained or not when trying to scale a wall, it does matter for getting that super-secret knowledge from your History check.

As to the OP
If you must, then a new class skill for every +2 is probably fine, so long as you limit it to initial skill selection. At worst, this ensures Wizards will max their skill selection and pretty much everyone else will try to have an INT of 12. That's fine, if that's the game you want to run, but I don't see why you'd want to do it.

But, if you allow characters to learn new skills by bumping their INT, you have a problem. Wizards, Warlocks, and INT Lords will soon be trained in everything, while pretty much everyone else will be stagnant. I think that'll be a problem, because nobody else's skill selection will really matter for 75% of the skills.

[Isomenes]

One thing to note is that not all skills are mental: there's Athletics, Acrobats, Thievery, etc (just off the top of my head). Instead of awarding bonus skills for high Int, you could rule that if a player has a +3 or better bonus in a stat, she can choose to be trained in a single extra skill whose bonus comes from that stat (Athletics = Str, Acrobatics = Dex, etc.).

A high stat obviously already help any skill which uses that stat as a bonus, and it's likely that e.g. a high-Str character will already have a relevant skill like Athletics. But it would give nearly every character a single extra skill which will be relevant to the class.

This strikes me as an excellent alternative for a more skilled game. I would use this in conjunction with Hzurr's extra skill idea as a way to limit its abuse instead of a DM-written list, but I would temper this idea by making the highest ability score the mandatory score from which to choose the extra skill. This reflects the use of Intelligence in improving a character's natural prowess. It also plays to a character's strengths in the way that the 3E class skill lists did, without penalizing low-Int players or making it a must-have.

[Oracle_Hunter]

This strikes me as an excellent alternative for a more skilled game. I would use this in conjunction with Hzurr's extra skill idea as a way to limit its abuse instead of a DM-written list, but I would temper this idea by making the highest ability score the mandatory score from which to choose the extra skill. This reflects the use of Intelligence in improving a character's natural prowess. It also plays to a character's strengths in the way that the 3E class skill lists did, without penalizing low-Int players or making it a must-have.

Oh no, this is terrible!

All this means is that Skill Training is irrelevant. Most everyone will be trained in whatever they need, which means nobody will particularly care about Training. One of the best parts of 4E is that Training does mean more than raw natural ability; here raw talent will be synonymous with natural ability.

[Isomenes]

If you must, then a new class skill for every +2 is probably fine, so long as you limit it to initial skill selection. At worst, this ensures Wizards will max their skill selection and pretty much everyone else will try to have an INT of 12. That's fine, if that's the game you want to run, but I don't see why you'd want to do it.

Yeah, it would only apply at first level; the problem you point out is exactly why I don't want to overhaul the training system entirely. As it is, you can retrain a skill within your class skills, so Hzurr's suggestion only broadens that pool slightly. But per RAW the only way to get training in a non-class skill is through the Skill Training feat, and I aim to keep it that way.

As to why, it's mostly a matter of enjoying skills as much as combat; I just want to encourage skill use, and this seems to be a neat way to do so without detracting from combat or other aspects of character creation.

[Zeful]

The way skills work in 4e, being trained in one skill over another washes out quite a bit as you reach the high levels. You're adding half your level to the roll, along with the stat modifier [which adds half your level again, in addition to (stat-10)/2] already. When you're adding 15 to your roll due to level and stat mods, another +5 doesn't make nearly as much difference as it does in the early levels.

This is incorrect. Stat mods do not increase unless the relevant ability score does so as well. All skill and ability rolls receive a bonus equal to your level/2 rounded down.

[Oracle_Hunter]

As to why, it's mostly a matter of enjoying skills as much as combat; I just want to encourage skill use, and this seems to be a neat way to do so without detracting from combat or other aspects of character creation.

But... if you want people to enjoy skills, wouldn't it be better for each character to have only a few skills, so that they can have areas where they shine? The more skills you let people train, the more characters will have overlapping skills, and the less they will care about who makes what roll.

When skills are scarce, it can matter whether you brought the Wizard along to detect magic. If everyone who can train Arcana, does train Arcana (because they can) it just doesn't matter.

[Isomenes]

Oh no, this is terrible!

All this means is that Skill Training is irrelevant. Most everyone will be trained in whatever they need, which means nobody will particularly care about Training. One of the best parts of 4E is that Training does mean more than raw natural ability; here raw talent will be synonymous with natural ability.

But only if the character's Int is 14 or greater (or 16, if one goes with the more conservative modifier), which is not always feasible or even desirable. And it represents an opportunity cost. For a Human Fighter (the smallest pool with the greatest number of trained skills), an Int of 14 would net them an additional class skill. But what would he give up in exchange for training this skill?

Even so, there's more to skills than just using the ones you're trained in. Adopting this house rule imples a certain skill consciousness on the part of the DM, I suppose, in that you will want to test your players even in skills they don't have training in. But I can't see that it would undermine skill training entirely unless the DM were asleep at the wheel.

[Kurald Galain]

When you're adding 15 to your roll due to level and stat mods, another +5 doesn't make nearly as much difference as it does in the early levels.

Actually it does, because the difficulty also increases (roughly) with one point per two levels.

[Oracle_Hunter]

But only if the character's Int is 14 or greater (or 16, if one goes with the more conservative modifier), which is not always feasible or even desirable. And it represents an opportunity cost. For a Human Fighter (the smallest pool with the greatest number of trained skills), an Int of 14 would net them an additional class skill. But what would he give up in exchange for training this skill?

Even so, there's more to skills than just using the ones you're trained in. Adopting this house rule imples a certain skill consciousness on the part of the DM, I suppose, in that you will want to test your players even in skills they don't have training in. But I can't see that it would undermine skill training entirely unless the DM were asleep at the wheel.

Note that my post quoted another post that referred to this plan:

One thing to note is that not all skills are mental: there's Athletics, Acrobats, Thievery, etc (just off the top of my head). Instead of awarding bonus skills for high Int, you could rule that if a player has a +3 or better bonus in a stat, she can choose to be trained in a single extra skill whose bonus comes from that stat (Athletics = Str, Acrobatics = Dex, etc.).

A high stat obviously already help any skill which uses that stat as a bonus, and it's likely that e.g. a high-Str character will already have a relevant skill like Athletics. But it would give nearly every character a single extra skill which will be relevant to the class.

Here, there is no opportunity cost. That is the problem. Allowing INT to give more skills just gives Wizards, Warlocks, and INT Warlords free power - if you're fine with giving an arbitrary boost to some classes and not others, then fine.

[Yakk]

Education: You have 1 skill point per point of intelligence bonus. You may retrain these skill points by using a retrain.

For the purpose of stacking:
If you invest 1 skill point in a skill, it is an untyped bonus.
If you invest 2 to 3 points in a skill, it is a feat bonus.
If you invest 4 to 5 points in a skill, it is a skill bonus. You can used trained only uses of the skill with 4 to 5 points invested.
You are not allowed to invest 6+ points in a skill.

[Kurald Galain]

Here, there is no opportunity cost. That is the problem. Allowing INT to give more skills just gives Wizards, Warlocks, and INT Warlords free power - if you're fine with giving an arbitrary boost to some classes and not others, then fine.

Well, yes, but that's easily remedied by giving e.g. wizards less skills. They now have four skills (plus Arcana), so simply give them two skills plus int bonus instead.

[Starsinger]

But I like being able to play a dumb character who can still do things. That's one of the fundamental reasons I enjoy the divorce between skills and Intelligence. If I have an int of 8, in 3.5 that means I have less skill points than "average". In 4e that means I'm dumb and should stay away from Wizard, Warlock, and Warlord (tactical only).

[Asbestos]

When skills are scarce, it can matter whether you brought the Wizard along to detect magic. If everyone who can train Arcana, does train Arcana (because they can) it just doesn't matter.

My Eldarin Taclord had almost as good an Arcana check as the party wizard... and I used it damn more effectively than that unimaginative punk. Not sure he ever even thought to do Arcana checks

Also, under some of these suggestions Eldarin are totally nuts in terms of skills. More so than normal.

[Aahz]

Here, there is no opportunity cost. That is the problem. Allowing INT to give more skills just gives Wizards, Warlocks, and INT Warlords free power - if you're fine with giving an arbitrary boost to some classes and not others, then fine.

??? In my suggestion, the "relevant" stat for the skill (Dex for Acrobatics, Str for Athletics) determines whether or not you can train it as an "extra" skill. In other words, if you have a 16 Dex, you can train one extra Dex-based skill.

I admit this would lead to skill bloat and reduction in the value of skill training feats, but the OP didn't seem to be too concerned about that. But I think it would be pretty evenly fair to all classes, since almost everyone would have a 16 in some stat.

[Oracle_Hunter]

But I like being able to play a dumb character who can still do things. That's one of the fundamental reasons I enjoy the divorce between skills and Intelligence. If I have an int of 8, in 3.5 that means I have less skill points than "average". In 4e that means I'm dumb and should stay away from Wizard, Warlock, and Warlord (tactical only).

Fortunately, you and I can keep playing 4E as normal. The OP just wanted to make some changes for his game, and see if they'd break it.

I think the moral of the story is that giving a free skill for INT is just going to make Wizards, most Warlocks, and INT Lords skill monkeys. This will make them extra-good at most skill challenges, while the other classes won't get any buff.

And if you allow +3 (stat) to make a skill accessible to a class, you're just going to make Wizards even better. They have a very small skill list, but all of them will put substantial points in their Implement Stat. Orb Wizards will get access to Insight & Heal, Wand Wizards will get Acrobatics, Stealth and Thievery, while Staff Wizards just get Endurance. Pretty much nobody else will be able to take advantage of these extra skill choices.

IMHO, giving players more trained skills reduces the pressure to specialize (and therefore make room for other characters to shine) but if you're going to do it, don't use a method that clearly benefits some classes over others.

[DM Raven]

I don't think you should try to improve Int. In 4th edition, just about any ability score can be treated as a dump stat...and that's a good thing. I was amazed that they were able to make con a dump stat...never before in the history of D&D has con been a dump stat for ANY good build. Everyone needed con in the olden days of D&D. But in 4th, you can have a very low con and still be a very viable character build.

All the classes need good scores in several key abilities. And no ability score really shines above the rest in 4e. It all depends on what class you play and where you want your strengths to be. I think it would be interesting if they made class builds that played off strange stats...

[KKL]

I don't think you should try to improve Int. In 4th edition, just about any ability score can be treated as a dump stat...and that's a good thing. I was amazed that they were able to make con a dump stat...never before in the history of D&D has con been a dump stat for ANY good build. Everyone needed con in the olden days of D&D. But in 4th, you can have a very low con and still be a very viable character build.

Con, being made a dump stat? I cry. Never have I heard the suggestion to have 8 con. 10/12 at the minimum? Sure. But 8? That's lunacy!

However, Int is a completely different matter. :3