To allow a players to use the system to get around a disadvantage is a loophole. You can say otherwise but it still is a loophole.
Taking toughness because you're a frail wizard is a loophole. Got it.
Loophole generally refers to using rules contrary to how they were supposed to work, to gain a certain effect. It's where RAW opposes very obvious RAI. These rules are intended to work by giving the boni after the 1 base point, thus not a loophole.
Loophole generally refers to using rules contrary to how they were supposed to work, to gain a certain effect. It's where RAW opposes very obvious RAI. These rules are intended to work by giving the boni after the 1 base point, thus not a loophole.
This. You may not like this instance of the rules, but it doesn't make it a loophole or the player a cheater. It's just you wanting your game to be different, which is fine.
INT 5 is totally mentally incapacitated, you are barely capable of speech. In the real world you would likely be wearing a helmets and have a ward or live in a protected environment.
There's a 1/36 chance that a normal human will start with intelligence 5. So intelligence 5 probably isn't "totally mentally incapacitated" - yes, you're dumb as rock, but not more so than the dumbest kid in two classes when you grew up.
Real-world gorillas have an intelligence of 2 and are capable of speech (through sign language) and even creating new words. Chokers, Gibbering Mouthers, Chimeras all have intelligence less than 5 but still speak. Most of the int 5 monsters seem very capable of taking care of themselves, without wearing helmets.I think the "wearing helmet and have a ward" is more for low-wisdom characters. The ability to understand your surroundings, as well as intuition, both seem tied to wisdom rather than intelligence.
And an int 5 1-st level human fighter still has no more skill points than a horse.
|
I think giving the point buy method a 7 point option (much less rewarding it with a 2 point discount for droping the extra point) was a mistake.
The -4 for 7 is completely in line with the system, not a reward bonus. Each point has a cost of the bonus of that stat. 9 is -1, 8 is -1, 7 is -2....net total -4. if they allowed a drop to 6, it would cost -6 and stat of 5 would be -9. Its that same as if they allowed buys up to 20. 19 would cost 21, 20 would cost 26.
In all, stat dumping will inevitably cause a problem for a character in some instance, without the DM having to resort to making it their mission to make them suffer instead of not approving the character at the start of the game. I have a gnome sorcerer with 5 strength. In a recent game session, he took 2 points of strength damage from a tiny snake in a trap. in a party of level 1's, I had myself in a situation of being useless for the rest of the adventure while being stored in someone's backpack
It all come to the fact that any stat 8 or lower puts you in danger of being incapacitated. Most drains are d2 and d4, making it about 2 to 4 shots taking you down to helpless. If straight core rules are used, then a player can drop themselves to 5 in a stat if they so choose, then be constantly at risk of being 1 shotted with some draining ability. It's the inherent risk of min-maxing
One other point that may be relevant to this discussion. Back in 3.0/3.5, Half-Orc characters took a -2 penalty to INT. Furthermore, the official way of generation stats was rolling 3d6 and then assigning to abilities as you see fit. If you were playing a Half-Orc and were unlucky enough to roll a 3 (and your DM didn't permit rerolls), general advice was to put this into INT. Why? Because the minimum INT for a player character is 3. So you get to avoid that -2 penalty, by RAW. In fact, this "loophole" was specifically called out and recommended by Wizards of the Coast in their Hero Builder's Guidebook. So it's not really a loophole.
Therefore, I think the same can be said for taking advantage of the built-in minimum of 1 skill point per level, plus the additional human bonus skill point per level. This is just not RAW, it's RAI. There is no loophole.
Ok, now I'm confused again. How does it contradict? It applies a 1d6 penalty to someone's intelligence with a minimum of 1... what is it contradicting? o.O
Page 555
Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal
damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does
not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty
to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.
my bold
Page 556
Intelligence: Damage to your Intelligence score causes
you to take penalties on Intelligence-based skill checks. This
penalty also applies to any spell DCs based on Intelligence.
Page 556
Ability Drain: Ability drain actually reduces the relevant
ability score. Modify all skills and statistics related to that
ability. This might cause you to lose skill points, hit points,
and other bonuses.
So damage does not make you stupid it only gives a penalties on Intelligence-based skill checks and the penalty also applies to any spell DCs based on Intelligence. Damage does not not actually reduce an ability.
|
Right... but Touch of Idiocy doesn't deal Intelligence damage. It applies an Intelligence penalty, like Ray of Enfeeblement.
"Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability penalty for a limited amount of time. While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage, but they cannot cause you to fall unconscious or die. In essence, penalties cannot decrease your ability score to less than 1."
Seems fine to me. :)
So damage does not make you stupid it only gives a penalties on Intelligence-based skill checks and the penalty also applies to any spell DCs based on Intelligence. Damage does not not actually reduce an ability.
I think it's just that they expressed themselves bad. I think what they are trying to say is that it's not reduced in the same way that magical bonuses doesn't increase the base attribute - only level bonuses do (and some class features).
I THINK that when you take strength damage, you become weaker, and dexterity damage, you become clumsier. Intelligence damage should make you less able to store knowledge and learn new things (or is that wis? perception is wis, and inherently tied to learning new things. I really think PF should have redefined the int/wis distinction to avoid confusion).
Look guys this is my rule since 3.0 came out as that is how I read it and how it made sense. You can disagree but no one has yet to show me how it makes a damned lick of sense to allow such a loophole. I do not mind if ya want to take 5 on INT but INT mod to skills are the last step. So if ya have a -3 is is counted after all other modifiers.
If you have a -3 with a total of 3 then you have zero. If ya do not use a FC point ya still get one{3-3=0=min of 1 ]. If you use a FC point ya still have one as your total would then be 4-3=1
To allow a players to use the system to get around a disadvantage is a loophole. You can say otherwise but it still is a loophole.
I will not be changing how it works in my games. But feel free to debate more if ya wish, it is interesting.
Edit:Karui Kage , what I was getting at is your not using the same rules as the human skill point. Which Ignores the -3 totally so for perception the elf should be able to ignore his -5 as the humans does with his skill. But as you showed the elf does not get to ignore his neg mod so why should the human?
How do you handle it when say it's half-elf instead of a human? They take a the fighter as class with 5 intelligence. 2-3 would -1 skill points but the minimum is 1. So they get 1 and use the FC bonus on hit points. Seems the loop hole is still there but you deny the human a racial feature where all the other races get to make use of the loop hole with no ill effect.
No they would gain 1. 2-3 is -1 so the min would still be 1, if they use the FC it's 3-3=0 min of 1
So they still have 1 not 2. It is simple math, until they can overcome the -3 ya still lose 3 points, But get a min of 1. You still lose 3 but at the end if it is 0 or less ya still get 1 and will only get 1 unless ya have more then one point left after you take the -3.
|
|
No they would gain 1. 2-3 is -1 so the min would still be 1, if they use the FC it's 3-3=0 min of 1
So they still have 1 not 2. It is simple math, until they can overcome the -3 ya still lose 3 points, But get a min of 1. You still lose 3 but at the end if it is 0 or less ya still get 1 and will only get 1 unless ya have more then one point left after you take the -3.
If anything, that seems like you're taking one 'exception to the rules' and making another. If you force humans to lose their bonus skill point for being dumb, then that makes the only race that can lose a racial ability by means of ability scores. No other race has that issue (nor should they). A low wisdom elf still gets a +2 bonus to Perception, even if the end total is still low.
The elf gains it after he eats the -3, not ignoring the -3, the human ignores the -3.
I am just using the same rules every other race uses.
This argument is starting to get ridiculous. Every character in a class with few skill points and a low enough intelligence benefits from the exact same loophole. No Int penalty takes the class skill points below 1.
The fact that you can add a human bonus to that and a favored class bonus to it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. That just preserves the same relationship you'd see if the characters didn't have an intelligence penalty at all - humans and favored class participants gain 1 extra skill point ahead of non-humans and participants in a non-favored class (cumulative in the case of a human in his favored class).
That's all it is.
|
|
It is getting a little crazy. When it comes down to it, class skills ranks per level are calculated in a way contrary to SOS's argument.
1)Class skill per level + stat modifier = per level skill ranks. Any totals below 1 are set to 1.
2)After this is calculated, racial abilities and favored class selections are applied.
1 and 2 are independent or each other, not carried over. Under standard point buy rules, a 5 int cannot be attained with core races (7-18 range), so I don't understand how that got into the argument. So it all comes down to a human character with a 7 int getting getting 1 more point than a dwarf with 7 int. Oddly enough that is their racial ability, having 1 more skill point .
eh not sure what the big deal is, humans gain the extra skill point in my game. I can't help if if the player choose not to take advantage of it and puts his INT so lo it gets eaten. Same as any others races Ability dependent bonus
Shug, to each there own.
|
|
seeker - I don't think your problem is with the human ability, I think it's with the overall 'minimum 1 skill point' deal. As it is, every character, dumb as bricks or not, gets at least 1 minimum skill point. I find it hard to believe that you really just don't like dumb humans getting 2 as opposed to dumb non-humans getting 1... but maybe that's it. -shrug-
Anyhow, best of luck I guess, whatever works for ya. :)
That's the problem. By the rules, a stat penalty does not eat the human bonus. It is a separate modifier.
so is the elven +2 to perception.
Also I have no issue with the human extra +1 skill, but they will use the same rules for skills as everyone else. The neg mod is the last thing added. Not the 3rd. It is added to your total not just your class total.
In the end, he's free to houserule as he wants.
The original question however has been answered by the Rules.
-S
And again, the argument seems to be "Playing a human is a loophole!"
You're actively punishing players for being a human.
1 and 2 are independent or each other, not carried over. Under standard point buy rules, a 5 int cannot be attained with core races (7-18 range), so I don't understand how that got into the argument. So it all comes down to a human character with a 7 int getting getting 1 more point than a dwarf with 7 int. Oddly enough that is their racial ability, having 1 more skill point .
Actually you can have a 5 intelligence if your race has a -2 to intelligence and you bring it down to 7. I don't know of any races off the top of my head that have an intelligence penalty though.
1 and 2 are independent or each other, not carried over. Under standard point buy rules, a 5 int cannot be attained with core races (7-18 range), so I don't understand how that got into the argument. So it all comes down to a human character with a 7 int getting getting 1 more point than a dwarf with 7 int. Oddly enough that is their racial ability, having 1 more skill point .Actually you can have a 5 intelligence if your race has a -2 to intelligence and you bring it down to 7. I don't know of any races off the top of my head that have an intelligence penalty though.
Some of the tiefling variants from PF: 25 do.
And again, the argument seems to be "Playing a human is a loophole!"
You're actively punishing players for being a human.
Not at all, your augment seems to be "I can ignore the rules if I play human", which I do not allow. But eh what does it matter how I run my games?
Not at all, your augment seems to be "I can ignore the rules if I play human", which I do not allow. But eh what does it matter how I run my games?And again, the argument seems to be "Playing a human is a loophole!"
You're actively punishing players for being a human.
Not at all. Emphatically no. We've already established quite clearly that both RAW and RAI, and backed up from offcial sources, indicate that the human bonus skill point is applied AFTER ability score penalties. Yours is the approach that is ignoring rules, and thus a house rule.
That said, we're all in agreement that it's a house rule. Why bludgeon this deceased equine any further when SoS's opinion is obviously not going to be swayed? He's happy running his game the way he runs his game. We're all free not to play in it.
Man I said back in like the 5th or 6th post of this thread, that the official ruling of RAW worked how everyone else said it did. However I also went on to say how it works in my games. And I am not the only one who does it that way.
And yes I am not changing it as I have yet to see any reason to other then "But humans who can't count past 3 is just better!" which is not a reason. The other races ability dependent items do not work this way, so I am inclined not to change how I do it.
It has never been an issue. Not once.
And yes I am not changing it as I have yet to see any reason to other then "But humans who can't count past 3 is just better!" which is not a reason. The other races ability dependent items do not work this way, so I am inclined not to change how I do it.
An elephant has 11 skill points and only 2 intelligence. Basically, an elephant gains a +10 racial bonus to skill points (via HD). Why should an elephant with int 2 have more skill points than an average elven rogue?
Again I have not reduce the value. Not in the slightest. As I have pointed out about 15 times now I do not use 2 skills per level for any class. But if I did I would still use the same rule I am now using.
INT mod would give such a player a -3 to all INT based ability. One of which is number of skills. The skill system has a min of 1 safety net. But the -3 is still there. So unless ya can make more then 3 skills per level they are simply eaten like any other ability based "skill"
The only difference is that if your in the "red" ya still get 1. And to me you will only get one till you can "pay off" the neg modifier. Again like every other races skill based ability.
Humans still gain the skill point, I can not help it if they choose not to take advantage of it.
And again this is my game, what does it matter to you guys how I do it?
i am re-posting my earlier post so new people to this thread can see the RAW.
James Jacobs answered the question, go with adding the bonuses after accounting for the penalty.
house rule what you want but the raw says add the bonuses after the penalties.
any alteration you chose to incorporate is your choice not the players.
yes we all know this, but my hoserules tend to offend some people. Go fig.
eh not sure what the big deal is, humans gain the extra skill point in my game. I can't help if if the player choose not to take advantage of it and puts his INT so lo it gets eaten. Same as any others races Ability dependent bonus
Shug, to each there own.
So you just penalize Humans. If I were playing in your game I'd just never play a human with int too low. Not big deal but you have to realize that you penalizing that particular race. Other races don't get penalized as such.
yes we all know this, but my hoserules tend to offend some people. Go fig.
Mainly because it doesn't make sense. It punishes the human more than any other race because the other races still get their full benefits.
Human fighter with Int 5 = 1 skill point.
Elf Fighter with Int 5 = 1 skill point.
Dwarf Fighter with Int 5 = 1 skill point.
The elf and dwarf still get all their other bonuses from race -- the human doesn't.
Consider that this isn't a loophole -- The same thing happens with hit points, Consider:
Elf Wizard with a Con of 5.
First level he's "ok" since he gets maximum hit points and he puts all his FC into hit points meaning he has 4 hp at first level, and takes toughness just to see him through, giving him 7 (6-3+1+3=7)
At second level he rolls the d6 and it comes up a 1. Now he gets the minimum of 1 hp for the level... but what happens to the favored class bonus? Is it (roll 1 - 3 = (min 1) + 1) or is it (roll 1 - 2 = minimum 1)?
In the second case there is absolutely no point in using the FC in HP. In fact it's a double jeopardy case: By taking the bonus hit point you are completely negating it and not getting the skill point that you could have gotten to boot.
Net effect: This isn't an "exception to the rule" The rule when dealing with HP and Skill points is minimum 1 then bonuses. That is the rule. The formula for SP even shows this -- it is (class_amount + Int_Mod) skill points minimum 1 + bonus for FC + bonus for human (if applicable).
If ya guys think so, fine. I however do not agree. And nothing shown so far makes me think otherwise.
Well mirror if ya want to get technical you numbers are off for my games.
MY Games
1)
Human Ftr, 10 INT: 5 SP
Non-Human Ftr, 10 INT: 4 SP
2)
Human Ftr, 8 INT: 4 SP
Non-Human Ftr, 8 INT: 3 SP
3)
Human Ftr, 6 INT: 3 SP
Non-Human Ftr, 6 INT: 2 SP
4)
Human Ftr, 5 INT: 2 SP
Non-Human Ftr, 5 INT: 1 SP
As I have pointed out, more then once this is a non-issue in my games.
Yes, but ya know I have pointed out more then once, it goes hand in hand in my games.Which I have said a few times now have never been an issue.
Not at all, your augment seems to be "I can ignore the rules if I play human", which I do not allow. But eh what does it matter how I run my games?
Well .. it's more of "Humans have one slightly different rule in one particular area as a racial feature" rather than "ignoring rules" out of hand.
As for the "no good reason" business, if you find the latest educational research somehow irrelevant as an explanation, I'm beyond finding any remote way of approaching your argument. You've got some mental block of "no! It works like so, and SO only!"
This leaves any further discussion invited by yourself as nothing more than your continued nay-saying in the face of any that would care to even attempt help, or present a reasoning for the ruling.
:shrugs:
I'll take another common education analogy here as I leave, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."
The water's been laid all about you in buckets and trows by now ... if you're not drinkin' you're not drinkin' - fine. Just stop pretending to even entertain contrary notions, when clearly, you've not the slightest interest in doing so.
If anything, I bet that's what getting people's goats about now. You keep saying "but show me an argument - it's interesting." What you really mean is, "It's my game, my house rules, so piss the F--- off and leave me alone!"
At this point three things are very clear regardless:
1) The OP's been in an odd situation of rolled stats and has 1 terrible stat that needs placement. He was looking for some clarifications, and it's been resolved.
2) The game designers have weighed in and RAW is, in fact, in line with RAI (despite any arguments contrary).
3) Any further attempts to convince the resident nay-sayer away from his house rules is tantamount to a thread-jack after roughly 3+ pages of multiple attempts from multiple parties.
I, for one, am now content to cease any kind of thread-jacking for this thread and topic.
EDIT: Final note, for all of us on the 'convince him side' we should keep in mind that 4+ skills is actually pretty significant as a skill-changer, and IMO, that's a very "good" house rule overall.
Do you bump only the 2+ classes, or is that bump added across the board? If it's only a 2+ bump, then clearly it's now a favoritism issue and they are somehow exempt for the RAW, or a special case in these house rules ..... j/k.
{I am curious, just tossing the last bit of absurdity into a thread that's long past the "nutty" level)
A couple of things:
1. Seeker has never claimed, implied, or hinted that how he does things is according to the rules. Unlike quite a few people on the boards, he doesn't pretend that he is using RAW by latching on to some obscure reference that is blatantly obvious to everyone but him. It's his house rule, and he's never claimed otherwise.
2. Seeker has also been WAAAAAY more polite and respectful than many of the people who have responded. And much more than those same people deserve. The only people who deserve to be that annoyed are his players. And nobody on the boards is. So calm down.
3. Every DM is allowed one rule, and one rule only, that doesn't have to make sense to anyone but him or her. For me, it's stacking mw ammo with mw bows. It doesn't make play any easier, and in fact ofter complicates matters. But that's my One Rule. Given some of the totally bizarre rules I've seen espoused on these very boards, Seeker's is pretty tame.
4. Over a hundred posts (way over!) because a DM you don't know, will never play with, who's existence will never impact your own, has a rule that people don't like. Really? Reeeeeaaaaallly?
5. And for those one or two who have crossed over the line into abuse, you should really be ashamed of yourselves. Really.
He's already hampered by... {snip} ...having the other players prefer to talk to his horse.
Well, let's be fair here - it is a charming and wildly charismatic horse.
It's only the 2 skill classes. I have never like 2 skill per class and they way 2 skill class and 4 skill classes got divided up never made any sense either. IMO anyhow So in my games skills run 4/6/8 not 2/4/6/8
1. Seeker has never claimed, implied, or hinted that how he does things is according to the rules. Unlike quite a few people on the boards, he doesn't pretend that he is using RAW by latching on to some obscure reference that is blatantly obvious to everyone but him. It's his house rule, and he's never claimed otherwise.
Not in this thread, no; I seem to recall that in one of the original threads on this issue he did make such claims. EDIT: That said, my memory may be faulty and I'm not willing to go digging through the archives to determine whether I'm remembering correctly or not.
That's really a misdirection, though, because while he hasn't said that it is the rule, he's said/implied that it should be the rule, which is just as valid a reason to argue against him; perhaps even more so.
1. Seeker has never claimed, implied, or hinted that how he does things is according to the rules. Unlike quite a few people on the boards, he doesn't pretend that he is using RAW by latching on to some obscure reference that is blatantly obvious to everyone but him. It's his house rule, and he's never claimed otherwise.Not in this thread, no; I seem to recall that in one of the original threads on this issue he did make such claims. EDIT: That said, my memory may be faulty and I'm not willing to go digging through the archives to determine whether I'm remembering correctly or not.
That's really a misdirection, though, because while he hasn't said that it is the rule, he's said/implied that it should be the rule, which is just as valid a reason to argue against him; perhaps even more so.
Seeker has been more than patient and more than polite. He has also been perfectly honest about what the rules say. The only "misdirection" that I see, is you claiming he said something else, somewhere, at some time, without context or evidence. That is misdirection.
I said to me the official ruling made no sense and have not yet seen anyone show otherwise. Ya can argue all you want but I have yet to see any reason other then "WEll..humans..are better is all"
I am not trying to convince anyone, Just responding to what folks say. I do not expect nor am I trying to convince anyone of my view. Ya guys just can't seem to get though your heads I simply do not agree with you.
Ya know I did indeed say something to that effect a few years ago. As under the Rules in 3.5 it never said to not add the neg mod last. In fact as far as I recall it was no where in print.
So I gave my interpenetration. And then other pointed out where some person from wotc said offiacly it did not work that way.
But ya know that was a while back and has nothing to do with this thread.