It spells out that your skill ranks don't change. That shoots down suddenly gaining more skill ranks by becoming human. You would get human bonus skill points going forwards.
No, that is not what it says:
"It retains any class abilities, feats, or skill ranks it formerly possessed. Its class, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, and hit points are unchanged."
Retaining what you had does not stop you from getting something more.
For skill ranks, we have the more general situation of how to handle a case where a character suddenly has more skill ranks than he is entitled to. Reincarnating from a human into something else would be one case -- a permanent intelligence drain would be an analogous case.
It would make sense to handle both in the same way, except for the point that ability drain specifically mentions losing skill points, while the Reincarnate spell denies this.
The most practical way to deal with the situation is to calculate how many skill ranks the character is entitled to and how many he actually has. If he is entitled to more skill ranks than he has (because he reincarneted into a human, for example), then he should gain those extra skill ranks. If he has more skill ranks than he is entitled to, then he gains no more skill ranks until his level entitles him to more than he has. This approach would prevent a character from benefitting from multiple reincarnations into a human.
The human bonus feat can be handled in much the same way.
For the ability score argument i still can't see the point of munchkinism... If you don't like (like me), that a human/half-elf/half-orc whose ability score bonus choice was mental has got an advantage on the looser who chose Strenght, simply add that you use the table even to determine what ability score his race had from the start.
If you notice, every "half" race has the racial bonus correlated to the father's/mother's race. You were a half-elf who put his racial bonus to Charisma? Doesn't matter, the table says the racial bonus for half-elves is Dexterity, so when you become a half-orc, you get -2 dexterity and +2 strenght.
This makes more sense, according to me obviously, because orcs are physically more powerful than elves, so if you were a weak half-orc, now you are a even weaker half-elf (i think human gets Constitution for 2 reasons: 1)it's the last remaining physical score :P and 2)humans are somewhat adaptable, so more resilient to adversity than most other race... it seems pretty much forced, but, oh well, i'm wandering...)
If a GM doesn't like the way it's worded, he will tell the character when his players mention the thing. If the GM is cool with that... well... i think it's a bit unfair, but there are people who like to roll ability score and i think that's really unfair too, so who am i to judge?
If the player complains too much because he didn't know the "houserule" before he decided to play... what kind of player would want to know this specific thing before deciding to play? The only reason i can think of is that he included the option in his build... And that's abusing RAW so, in my honest opinion, i wouldn't give him the chance anyway. In this case i think it's pretty legitimate to ask him to leave if he doesn't accept it.
For what it seems to be for racial traits, every GM should evaluate case by case if a racial trait is "partially or totally mental" or "totally physical".
In the case of "totally physical traits" the GM should give it immediately because, when the body changes, he gets it. I could include things like "Orc ferocity", "Gnome Magic", "Elven magic" bonus on perception and so on... Someone may agree, someone may not. Someone may even decide that a bonus to perception is ok and a bonus to diplomacy (given by the same identical trait) are two different categories and you get only one of both...
In the case of "partially or totally mental traits" we can have feats, bonus skill points, gnomes obsessions, "hatred" and things like that. According to a general reading of RAW (which usually, combined with careful reading, it's a good way to understand the RAI) this are the things you don't get in any way.
It's up to a player and a GM to analize the traits together and up to the GM to chose. Maybe a player could chose to change "totally or partially mental traits" with alternative traits that are considered physical... As a GM i would take in consideration this option... This gets too much complicated? Make a new table with racial subtypes... That could be pretty cool.
I see everybody making points about Skill Points that are "partially to totally mental" (Acrobatics, for example, it's not just how you jump, it's also knowing how to balance your weight and land) and it's pretty clear that they don't change in any way... It's written right there, you can't be wrong.
But, there are points even more obscure, like Hit Points. They don't change, but if i get a "minus something" to constitution i'm physically weaker... Hit points are something "totally phyical" so why should i keep my hit points if i am weaker than before? The only reasonable explanation i can find is that you keep hit points related to HD and bonus HP from Constitution change accordingly... Or this really makes no sense...
Now that i think about it... When you reincarnate you basically start as a half race... and you could end up as human from any other race: no feat, no bonus skill points untill you level up, no special senses from your previous race, shorter lifespan... You could also get a racial subtype whose racial traits are mostly based on a background rather than a physical change. And if you want to go back to your previous race you nedd a wish/miracle. When you reincarnate you might end up with just a suboptimal race... Or you might end up as a human from anything else... And the... Well... Sucks to be you...
I think i got why munchkin players will stay away from this spell.
EDIT: i made a lot of grammar mistakes... I'm really sorry.
Maybe we should hold off on houseruling things, for two reasons. This is probably the wrong forum for that, AND we haven't agreed on what the regular rules are yet.
I think there is quite a bit of ambiguity in the rules text.
Let us try to reach consensus about what "retain" means. There is obviously some disagreement here.
Let us focus on feats and the word "retains" for a moment.
The reincarnated creature "retains ... feats". Here is what I think about that.
1. Without this clause about retaining feats you would lose bonus feats such as from being human or from being half-elf (skill focus).
With this clause, however, you do not lose these feats (or any other feats, for that matter).
2. Retaining means you keep possession or use of them. It does not prevent you from gaining others. This clause has no bearing on whether reincarnating into a human gains you a new Bonus Feat or not. To work that out we must look elsewhere.
2a. It appears not everyone agrees with me. Blackbloodtroll, is this roughly your stance: 'retaining your previous feats prevents adding any new ones due to the effects of the spell. The clause about retaining feats thus specifically forbids a Bonus Feat for becoming Human'?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would anyone try to twist the RAW and obvious RAI of this spell?
Breaking it down, again:
You keep you mental scores, skill points, and feats. These do not change.
You lose any racial modifiers to your physical scores from your old body.
You gain any racial modifiers of your new body.
You lose any physical abilities, such as darkvision, from your old body.
You gain any physical abilities, such as low-light vision, of your new body.
That's it.
No new feats, skill points, and none lost.
No change in mental scores.
It is all that easy.
I'm not trying to twist anything. I want to figure out what the text actually says. I could be reading it incorrectly, sure, but please don't accuse me of twisting anything.
I don't think it is that easy, blackblood.
"The reincarnated creature gains all abilities associated with its new form", yet you claim they only get some.
Maybe how you think of it is how it should be, but I don't think that is what the spell actually instructs you to do.
EDIT
Also, the line between physical and non-physical is not as clear as you think. Feats can help you cast magic, make you better at skills, or give you "inherent physical prowess".
Do Gnomes get Gnome Magic due to mental talent, or is it a physical fact of Gnome biology that they get some spell-like abilities?
Sorcerer's get magic from a Bloodline. Is that physical? Does it carry over from body to body?
An Orc's Intimidate bonus is due to a "fearsome nature". Is that a fearsome appearance (physical) or fearsome personality (mental)?
As far as I can tell, all of these things are non-issues by the text of the spell, yet your advice on how the spell works makes these all very relevant.
I still don't think it is that easy. I simply do not understand why you think you don't get a feat if you reincarnate as human. Please point out the parts of the text that indicate this so simply that it should be 'easy' to figure out.
I may very well be wrong, but if so I'm going to need you to point it out to me.
Well, if I become a gnome, do I receive a +1 on attack rolls against humanoids of the reptilian and goblin subtypes due to special training against these hated foes?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It does not matter whatsoever where a human put their racial +2 bonus when reincarnating into something else. The only stat adjustments made are those on the table included with the reincarnation spell. You subtract the listed bonuses from the outgoing race, and add the ones to the incoming race.
In other words, as far as reincarnation is concerned, you put your racial +2 in con, regardless of whether that's true.
Humans do luck out in that all their other racial perks (+1 feat, +1 skill point/level) are not retroactively effected, so basically any new race is a trade-up.
The spell is ambiguous in its wording beyond that as far as what abilities are lost/gained (including further bonus skills for ex-humans), with the intent that GMs will make their own judgement calls.
My personal rule of thumb, if it's a result of anatomy (low-light vision), or innate magic (spell-like abilities), you go with the new race. If it's a result of upbringing (racial enemies, weapon training), you go with your original race.
Humans' racial bonuses have a frustrating lack of rationalization, but I'm more inclined to classify them as a cultural thing, so the human turned elf would continue to get the extra skill rank each level.
An elf who reincarnates human meanwhile gets a super raw deal. -2 Dex, +4 Con, and all your racial traits besides proficiency with elven weapons goes poof. Plus you've got a drastically shortened lifespan.
That's how the spell works though, one great big gamble that favors some races more than others. It's not really practical to try to game the system though, and if the risk doesn't seem worth it, there's other ways to fix death.
I think he's using the line that says you retain your old skills and feats to also mean you don't gain new ones- much in the same way that you retain your old mental scores and also can't have them increased (or decreased) by the new form.
-S
Selgard, that is what I thought blackbloodtroll may have meant. However, that is not what retain means.
I don't think it means that either- I was just stating what I think his POV is.
I'm not terribly bothered by the rule as written, even if it means you can "double dip" human.
If a human was so terribly fortunate as to die, roll the dice'o'crap for reincarnate and get human again And also have the DM interpret it so that he gets a brand spanking new feat for it.. well.. ok?
I doubt my DM'd see it that way anyway- and even if he did so what?
Now if someone was so daft as to try to just kill themselves over and over again to get it then I can see the DM interpreting the repeated- suicides as not actually wanting to come back at all.
"You want to come back to life"
"yes"
"but if its not human you'll Kill yourself again?"
"yes"
"denied"
Granted thats "houserule'ish" territory- but there's rule 0 involved in *any* abuse the PC's think up. Reincarnate is no exception.
-S
edit: self-suicide is redundant. ;p
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This spell should really get an errata... maybe even a total rewrite, keeping the meaning but clarifing all obsure points... The ability score loss is not as clear as i thought so that too.
Also i would specify directly in the spell description that a GM has the right to choose which abilities count as mental and which as physical when giving the new race... And letting the new character keep his own mental racial traits and get the new physical racial traits... This could make some interesting racial mix, but the high risk to end up with a inconvenient race should keep munchkins away.
|
I think he's using the line that says you retain your old skills and feats to also mean you don't gain new ones- much in the same way that you retain your old mental scores and also can't have them increased (or decreased) by the new form.
-S
If your boss told you that you were going to get a promotion along with its additional benefits but would retain your current salary what would you take that to mean?
Would you think that you would get both your current salary and the salary normally afforded the new position on top of it or would you think you are going to get the new benefits (Medical, retirement, etc..) but your salary would stay the same?
That is the sense in which the word retain is used here which is very clear from the context and makes the RAW consistent with the RAI.
I've always loved and hated this spell.
Personally, I take it as a 'must require GM interference' whenever it occurs.
To me, the RAI is that anything mental is retained, so in the OP's case, I would leave the reincarnated person with anything that is mentally based.
Bonus Skill : Has to do with how humans think, retained going forward.
Bonus Feat : Spell says retain no matter what, retained. But would also give the skill focus at higher levels if they took the racial benefit that gives 3 skill focus feats over 16 levels.
Heart of the <blah> : All those racial abilities are about human ability to recognize talent, which is a mental thing.
When you get the new race, I drop off any racial traits that are based on mental/culture. So, you reincarnate as an elf, you don't gain elf weapon traits, you didn't grow up learning to use them. Half-elf, you don't gain the broadened outlook that lets you have two favored classes, that's about growing up with two cultures influencing you.
So I love the concept of the spell, but it's so fuzzy in how it works, and a lot of work for the GM.
[offtopic as no rulesquestion]IF the spell gets a rewrite the table should be changed, as well. I would suggest reducing the chance to become human slightly and to add a line with "former race" instead for 1-2%.
Now the most likely race to become is human, no matter what you've been before.[/offtopic as no rulesquestion]