|
I'm curious to find out how others feel about XP and the Intelligence stat. Since intelligence is basically one's potential for learning and also dealing with the processing of information, could or should it be appropriate to assign an XP penalty for those with below normal intelligence?
If so, then I'm also curious as to what degree that should be taken. Since an Int of 8-9 provides a -1 modifier, would a 5% XP penalty be appropriate and be a cumulative 5% for every modifier category below that?
It may seem like a punishment to those who have created a good background, but choices do have consequences. If someone wanted to make a powerful warrior, as an example, with high strength and constitution which both are of great benefit to most martials; is it also fair to say that since they want to handicap their Int to have great scores in the other stats that there would be bad with that good?
Again, I'm just curious about how other folks feel about such a question.
If you look at Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Theory, you will see that INT describes what we would call the "standard Intelligence Quota" or "IQ." However, Gardner postulates that an individual may possess a number of "Intelligences" related to physical, cognitive, and social abilities beyond our conventional understanding of what makes someone "smart."
For example, the aforementioned fighter with good Strength and Constitution scores might have a high Kinesthetic and Intrapersonal intelligence. A bard with a high Charisma score might have a high Interpersonal or Musical intelligence. A cleric with a high Wisdom score might also score well on Interpersonal as well as Existential intelligence.
If you wanted to focus on these things, you could potentially apply bonuses or penalties to the earned XP from combat encounters, skill encounters, and social encounters based on the related ability scores, but in the end they should just average out. The wizard isn't going to get much cognitive stimulation from killing enemies (even with magic spells) and a fighter isn't going to get much physical stimulation from researching the evil outsider who plagues the neighboring village (no matter how heavy the tomes are). Besides, party members should be at or around the same level to make it easier for the GM as well as avoid *cough* measuring contests based on who has the biggest XP pool.
Just my thoughts.
I'm going to say 'no, terrible idea'. It's never a good idea to have party members of different levels; it just makes it harder to run the game.
|
|
I can definitely appreciate keeping the extra bookkeeping to minimal levels. I also considered the flip side of the question and the problems that come with it. XP bonuses based on Int are by default limited to those four or so classes that benefit from a higher Int score.
That and the fact that players may feel obligated to ramp up their Int scores so they don't lag behind certain classes at the expense of the stats they actually need most of their points in.
It really wouldn't be logical to have the penalty without the bonus if one were to go down that road. Ceteris Paribus.
Thank you for your thoughts Pheoran, I also agree that keeping PC's at or around the same level is the better option.
|
|
I'm going to say 'no, terrible idea'. It's never a good idea to have party members of different levels; it just makes it harder to run the game.
I agree with the idea of keeping PC's at or around the same level, this was more of a general "what do you think" question. Part of me supports the idea of it, but the realist in me and concerns from others are reinforcing my belief that it's not a necessity.
|
|
Whether it's a bonus for high Int or a penalty for low Int, the result is that those classes that need Int end up with more XP than those that don't, or that the classes that have other stats as their priority have to lower those to pay for a better Int. Either way punishes those classes that don't need Int.
First ed gave you an XP bonus if you had 16+ in the 'prime stat(s)' of your class, but this would reward SAD classes and punish MAD classes in PF, making the disparity even worse than it is now.
Either method would benefit the (SAD) wizard. Which class really doesn't need any extra help from houserules?
|
|
wizurd fanboy eh?
Didn't bother reading my other posts I see. I mentioned the other side of the question and the problems associated with it which I won't repeat.
Also, thanks for dropping the troll comment from your original post. The question was meant as an honest concern because from reading through numerous threads, I see that certain stats get tanked to benefit others. Int being one of them.
First ed gave you an XP bonus if you had 16+ in the 'prime stat(s)' of your class, but this would reward SAD classes and punish MAD classes in PF, making the disparity even worse than it is now.
Agreed.
1st edition also had alternate XP progressions based on class, with the rogue (thief) being ahead of the pack and the paladin tending to lag at the rear.
Overall, it was annoying.
almost every group from 3.0, 3.5 PF and 4th ED have always had group members level at the same time. As previously stated different levels in the party can cause big problems for the DM. Monsters either get to weak, too strong, or just play WRONG. (EX. The horde of goblins dont attack the level 3 because the dm knows they would destroy him, so he sends them after the paladin instead, but most goblins are cowardly and would attack weakest member first.)
|
|
Yeah, this was one of those thoughts that I was on the fence about. That's why I like to toss some of my thoughts up on these boards, that way I can get some feedback.
At this point I can say that I'm not in favor of the extra bookkeeping this would involve, nor am I looking to lift up certain classes beyond others.
I appreciate the feedback from you folks.