Untying INT from skill points

[My Self]

Would it break the game if INT was separate from skill points? So if we removed INT bonus to extra skills, and granted all classes +1 skill/level, and gave an additional +2 skills/level to all 2+INT skill full martials, fullcasters, and other INT casters? Class-specific skill fixes might still be necessary afterwards, given that skill point increasers become rarer.

In effect, martials and fullcasters would have a minimum of 5 skills/level. Basically only the Summoner and Warpriest get left behind in terms of skills. I would probably raise the Warpriest skill base to 5 skills/level separately. Perhaps the Summoner would have a special clause about splitting 5-7 skills/level between the player and the Eidolon.

So: (Covering Core + selected cases)
Rogue would go from 8+INT skills/level to 9 skills/level
Ranger would go from 6+INT skills/level to 7 skills/level
Barbarian and Monk would go from 4+INT skills/level to 5 skills/level
Fighter and Paladin would go from 2+INT skills/level to 5 skills/level
Druid would go from 4+INT skills/level to 5 skills/level
Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard would go from 2+INT skills/level to 5 skills/level

Alchemist would go from 4+INT skills/level to 5 skills/level
Magus would go from 2+INT skills/level to 5 skills/level
Summoner would go from 2+INT skills/level to 3 skills/level

Any feedback? Unintended consequences? Good/bad idea for a home game?

[rainzax]

The players in my game who wanted to invest in more skill points intentionally prioritized INT along with their various other ability score wants. So, had I used this house rule with them at character creation, I imagine that my PCs would be less intelligent than they are now - for better or for worse.

Perhaps give something back to INT?

Ideas:

Let INT add to CMB and CMD.
Let INT add to Initiative checks.
Let INT add to Perception checks.
Let INT cover a saving throw; Reflex or Will could make sense.
Change Aid Another to add the helper's INT to the helped check.
Consolidate all Knowledge skills into a single skill with each rank purchasing a new area of study.

Then, if you do some of the above, consider breaking apart INT as a single super stat for prepared arcane casters: divide "spells known" and "spells per day" between INT and a second mental stat. Perhaps WIS for wizards/alchemists/magi and CHA for witches/arcanists?

[Cyrad]

My question is...why? If your goal is giving martials more skill points, you can do that without breaking Intelligence.

[My Self]

Cyrad wrote:

My question is...why? If your goal is giving martials more skill points, you can do that without breaking Intelligence.

It's not entirely about giving martials more skill points, although the thing outlined above does grant Paladins and Fighters more skill points. Well, some of it is to not have 2 skill point/level battle Clerics who don't know a lick about religion. But the main idea is to stop exponential skill point growth. INT being attached to both spellcasting and skill points has the extra hidden benefit of making INT-based classes better at skills than non INT-based classes in an exponential fashion - more skill ranks AND bonuses to skills. Which leads to things like Wizards able to invest in more skill checks than Fighters/Paladins/everyone else, on top of everything else. I suppose that on some level, it would make sense for intelligent people to be able to pick up more intelligence-based skills, but the current skill system also lets you spend your skill points on CHA, WIS, DEX, and STR-based skills. It seems strange that as a Wizard becomes smarter, they are able to learn how to swim better than the guy who has been muscling his way through life, in addition to keeping up with the latest advances in Craft (Powerful Characters). To me, it seems more like skill points represent time and practice learning a skill, not necessarily intelligence.

[Ciaran Barnes]

Some of your numbers are a little weird, but I supposed if used a system like this I would hand out 1 - 4 skill points to each class, based on the class's reliance on Intelligence. For example, a wizard needs it more than anything, so he can gets the most extra skill points per level. We can say that the bard, ranger, and rogue are all skill moneys, but since the ranger is more tuned to combat, maybe he gets less than the other two. Barbarian, cleric, and fighter can all benefit from intelligence, but have no other special use for it so they get less. Classes like the alchemist and magus that use intelligence but also need other ability scores would get less than the wizard. There are different ways to rationalize which class gets more or less. Using intelligence isn't a perfect system, but at least the player can prioritize and put a higher or lower score there.

[rainzax]

What about making class skills matter more?

Maximum number of ranks for cross-class skills are half that of class skills (minimum 1) cumulatively.

So, when your wizard reaches 7th level, he still gains (2+INT) skill points, but can only have a maximum of 3 ranks in Swim and other cross-class skills.

Or, when your multiclass fighter-wizard adds his 4th level of wizard on top of his 3 levels in fighter, he can have up to 5 ranks in Swim and other cross-class skills.

This has the side effect of making traits matter more.

[Azothath]

interesting but the assumption is flawed. Skills are not tied to INT, they have a stronger relationship to Class. INT just adds extra skill points to what you already get. Intelligence SHOULD model something...

buy skill chips from the Technology Guide...

[My Self]

Ciaran Barnes wrote:

Some of your numbers are a little weird, but I supposed if used a system like this I would hand out 1 - 4 skill points to each class, based on the class's reliance on Intelligence. For example, a wizard needs it more than anything, so he can gets the most extra skill points per level. We can say that the bard, ranger, and rogue are all skill moneys, but since the ranger is more tuned to combat, maybe he gets less than the other two. Barbarian, cleric, and fighter can all benefit from intelligence, but have no other special use for it so they get less. Classes like the alchemist and magus that use intelligence but also need other ability scores would get less than the wizard. There are different ways to rationalize which class gets more or less. Using intelligence isn't a perfect system, but at least the player can prioritize and put a higher or lower score there.

I was basically spitting up a "close enough" conversion system and trying to be internally consistent. Well, with a few things ironed out - I really dislike having to play classes that end up with 2 skill points/level. Summoner would probably get a bye, since the Eidolon has skills you can use.

So perhaps dropping the extra skill point/level would work?

rainzax wrote:

What about making class skills matter more?

Maximum number of ranks for cross-class skills are half that of class skills (minimum 1) cumulatively.

So, when your wizard reaches 7th level, he still gains (2+INT) skill points, but can only have a maximum of 3 ranks in Swim and other cross-class skills.

Or, when your multiclass fighter-wizard adds his 4th level of wizard on top of his 3 levels in fighter, he can have up to 5 ranks in Swim and other cross-class skills.

This has the side effect of making traits matter more.

So 3e, but with more non-class skill ranks, basically.

Azothath wrote:

interesting but the assumption is flawed. Skills are not tied to INT, they have a stronger relationship to Class. INT just adds extra skill points to what you already get. Intelligence SHOULD model something...

buy skill chips from the Technology Guide...

Uh...

Your number of skill ranks per level is Class/HD ranks (2-8) + FCB (0-1) + Racial (0-1) + INT (≥-5)

How is that not tied to INT? I'm talking about altering the number of skill ranks to a fixed number per class, instead of using the above formula, which is most definitely tied to INT.

Intelligence would still increase your languages known, bonus to INT-based skills (which there are the most of), and your wizardliness.

Also, the idea is to prevent exponential skill scaling, which happens when you have a class that encourages to boost your INT. Since total skill is basically level x skill ranks per level, most classes advance linearly, since they level up, but don't get any more skill ranks per level. However, classes with INT focus advance exponentially, since increasing INT as you level up increases your skill ranks per level.

[Azten]

Everyone gets there same amount of base skill points before modifiers, but get that number for each ability set for skills.. Let's use a fighter with the following ability scores.

Str 14
Con 14
Dex 14
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 14

For strength based skills the fight would gain 2(base) plus 2(Strenght modifier) he can spend on Strength based skills. The same is true for Dexterity, Wisdom, etc. he basically has 4 skills points in each 'set' of ability scores.

This is just a rough idea I had, but with some tweaking it could work.

[rainzax]

My Self wrote:

rainzax wrote:

What about making class skills matter more?

Maximum number of ranks for cross-class skills are half that of class skills (minimum 1) cumulatively.

So, when your wizard reaches 7th level, he still gains (2+INT) skill points, but can only have a maximum of 3 ranks in Swim and other cross-class skills.

Or, when your multiclass fighter-wizard adds his 4th level of wizard on top of his 3 levels in fighter, he can have up to 5 ranks in Swim and other cross-class skills.

This has the side effect of making traits matter more.

So 3e, but with more non-class skill ranks, basically.

Basically. But notably lacking both the "fractional arithmetic" and the "half-strength" rank-for-rank efficacy, thus forcing high skill-point but low-class-skill characters to spread out their ranks, or to multi-class, in order to get high skill bonuses with non-INT cross-class skills.

Simply divorcing skills from INT removes the primary incentive to invest in INT balanced against the other 5 ability scores (for any character not casting with it), and any ability score with negligible mechanical importance may as well be removed from the game altogether - or be explicitly conceded as a dump stat.

But if you are deadset on it, perhaps develop a rubric for rewriting which classes get which number of ranks per level?

Spoiler:

Base: 3 ranks per level

Full BAB +0
3/4 BAB +2
1/2 BAB +3

Full Spellcasting -3
2/3 Spellcasting +0
4/9 Spellcasting +2
No Spellcasting +3

Three good saves -1
Two good saves +0
One good save +1

note this gives you vastly different results than classes as-printed

[My Self]

Azten wrote:

Everyone gets there same amount of base skill points before modifiers, but get that number for each ability set for skills.. Let's use a fighter with the following ability scores.

Str 14
Con 14
Dex 14
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 14

For strength based skills the fight would gain 2(base) plus 2(Strenght modifier) he can spend on Strength based skills. The same is true for Dexterity, Wisdom, etc. he basically has 4 skills points in each 'set' of ability scores.

This is just a rough idea I had, but with some tweaking it could work.

I like this, but isn't there the problem of running out of skills? Back to your Fighter - you'd probably push your STR to 16 or 18 if you're not doing an archery or DEX to damage build. However, you've hit your max of 2 STR skills. And characters with high rolls will have more skills. For this to be practical, the base skill amount would probably need to be lowered significantly, or more(!) skills would need to be introduced. Also, the scaling issue remains. Perhaps 1/2 the stat modifier would function slightly better. I'd need to consider this more.

rainzax wrote:

My Self wrote:

rainzax wrote:

What about making class skills matter more?

Maximum number of ranks for cross-class skills are half that of class skills (minimum 1) cumulatively.

So, when your wizard reaches 7th level, he still gains (2+INT) skill points, but can only have a maximum of 3 ranks in Swim and other cross-class skills.

Or, when your multiclass fighter-wizard adds his 4th level of wizard on top of his 3 levels in fighter, he can have up to 5 ranks in Swim and other cross-class skills.

This has the side effect of making traits matter more.

So 3e, but with more non-class skill ranks, basically.

Basically. But notably lacking both the "fractional arithmetic" and the "half-strength" rank-for-rank efficacy, thus forcing high skill-point but low-class-skill characters to spread out their ranks, or to multi-class, in order to get high skill bonuses with non-INT cross-class skills.

Simply divorcing skills from INT removes the primary incentive to invest in INT balanced against the other 5 ability scores (for any character not casting with it), and any ability score with negligible mechanical importance may as well be removed from the game altogether - or be explicitly conceded as a dump stat.

But if you are deadset on it, perhaps develop a rubric for rewriting which classes get which number of ranks per level?
** spoiler omitted **

INT is still a valuable stat after the changes, and perhaps more so than CHA, the almost-universal dump stat. But I do see your point. I suppose you gain some, you lose some.

Instead of having the strange class skills math (1x class skill level + 1/2x non class skill level) for determining max ranks you can have in a skill, perhaps you simply can't raise a skill to over 1/2 your level if it isn't a class skill this level? So if you're a Fighter 4 with 4 ranks in Profession (Underwater Basket-weaving), and you dip a level into Barbarian, you can't raise your ranks in your Profession, because it would be more than 1/2 your level. But say you took another level in Fighter after Barbarian - you could raise your ranks from 4 to 6.

I'm mostly going off of Paizo's ranks, with some specifically targeted changes. Certain classes are meant to be skill classes, and that isn't necessarily reflected by their BAB, spellcasting, or saves. What I put in the first post is a really rough draft - I feel like I'd either need to go on a case-to-case basis, or have a slightly more nuanced approach to conversion.

[Squiggit]

Quote:

INT is still a valuable stat after the changes, and perhaps more so than CHA, the almost-universal dump stat.

It really isn't. Int is already a pretty common dump stat. This change basically mean int does nothing unless you're using a knowledge skill or spellcraft. Might make it still situation ally better than Charisma depending on which skills interest you, but Charisma's in a terrible place and it definitely shouldn't be our baseline.

[Azten]

My Self wrote:

I like this, but isn't there the problem of running out of skills? Back to your Fighter - you'd probably push your STR to 16 or 18 if you're not doing an archery or DEX to damage build. However, you've hit your max of 2 STR skills. And characters with high rolls will have more skills. For this to be practical, the base skill amount would probably need to be lowered significantly, or more(!) skills would need to be introduced. Also, the scaling issue remains. Perhaps 1/2 the stat modifier would function slightly better. I'd need to consider this more.

Which is why it could use some tweaking. Likely just changing some skills or using only half the modifier(rounding down).

[rainzax]

My Self wrote:

Instead of having the strange class skills math (1x class skill level + 1/2x non class skill level) for determining max ranks you can have in a skill, perhaps you simply can't raise a skill to over 1/2 your level if it isn't a class skill this level?

This is pretty much what I meant to say. Skill Points still purchase Skill Ranks 1-for-1, but a character cannot raise a cross-class skill past half the HD (minimum 1) of that class.

Another thing to consider is the Hybrid classes that have "counts as [other class] levels for feats" (ex. Brawler's Martial Training) count as synergy towards the skills of those class as well.

If you go this route, you may consider also allowing the "skill feats" (Athletic, Skill Focus, etc) grant one of the skills they modify as a class skill in addition to the feats normal benefits. That way, if a player really want to be good at a cross-class skill, they can leverage their feats to effectively remove this cap.

Happy homebrew!

[Wonderstell]

Squiggit wrote:

Quote:

INT is still a valuable stat after the changes, and perhaps more so than CHA, the almost-universal dump stat.

It really isn't. Int is already a pretty common dump stat. This change basically mean int does nothing unless you're using a knowledge skill or spellcraft. Might make it still situation ally better than Charisma depending on which skills interest you, but Charisma's in a terrible place and it definitely shouldn't be our baseline.

Agreed.

One problem with untying Int from skill points is that Int becomes worthless for martials. While I like the simplicity of just having one predetermined number of skill ranks per level, it also prevents those who value a high number of skill ranks to invest in it.

I don't believe the solution lies in untying skill ranks from one ability score, rather the opposite direction. It lies in tying skill ranks to all ability scores.

==========================================

Azten wrote:

My Self wrote:

I like this, but isn't there the problem of running out of skills? Back to your Fighter - you'd probably push your STR to 16 or 18 if you're not doing an archery or DEX to damage build. However, you've hit your max of 2 STR skills. And characters with high rolls will have more skills. For this to be practical, the base skill amount would probably need to be lowered significantly, or more(!) skills would need to be introduced. Also, the scaling issue remains. Perhaps 1/2 the stat modifier would function slightly better. I'd need to consider this more.

Which is why it could use some tweaking. Likely just changing some skills or using only half the modifier(rounding down).

There are many variations of this line of thought, but it always comes down to a problem of Skill Point overflow.

The fighter in your previous post would gain 16 skill points per level, far more than any Int-caster would (atleast at early levels).
Even if we only count the Class Skill Points (CSP) once, that's still 10 skill points/level. And while it would make sense that the number of skill points is directly connected to your ability modifier in that category, it has the unintented result of buffing everything but Strength and Constitution.

So to avoid the nerfing of Strength further, you could split skill points into "mental" and "physical", with Str/Dex/Con granting skill points to place in physical skills. This has the additional effect of allowing Con to be relevant in our calculations even though there are no skills based on Constitution. It would also prevent the weak, sluggish, anemic Wizard from investing skill ranks into skills he shouldn't be proficient in.

You would want to divide the total modifier of both categories depending on what Point Buy you're playing with. Dividing them with two should be enough for most point-buys, but there will be an increase in Skill Points when people get their hands on stat-increasing belts/headbands.

It is also recommended to halve CSP as the players will have more skill points, and since you can place CSP in any skill they are more valuable than before.

A 15 Point Buy Fighter with the following stat array:

Str 17 (+3)
Dex 12 (+1)
Con 14 (+2)

Int 13 (+1)
Wis 12 (+1)
Cha 7 (-2)

Would gain 3 ((3+1+2)x0.5) Physical Skill Points, and 0 ((1+1-2)x0.5) Mental Skill Points. In addition to half of their CSP.

So the Fighter would have three skill points to place in physical skills each level, none in mental skills, and one CSP to place in any skill he wants.

==========================================

Benefits of a skill point system which ties to every ability:

*Discourages stat-dumping.
*Grants more realistic spread of skill points.
*Nerfs Int based Casters.

Disadvantages:

*Difficult to adjust the number of skill points granted.
*Will benefit low-CSP classes more than high-CSP. (since it results in more skill ranks for everyone)
*More book-keeping when you have to respect from which ability the skill points came from.
*Takes away the only value Int has for martials.

==========================================

I would probably rule that ability score increases (Belts/Headbands/Tomes/ETC) wouldn't grant you any extra skill points just to able to prevent a total skill point overflow as the players level up. Might make an exception for the increases at level 4,8,12,16 and 20.

[Azothath]

My Self wrote:

Azothath wrote:

interesting but the assumption is flawed. Skills are not tied to INT, they have a stronger relationship to Class.

Uh...

Your number of skill ranks per level is Class/HD ranks (2-8) + FCB (0-1) + Racial (0-1) + INT (≥-5)
...
Also, the idea is to prevent exponential skill scaling, which happens when you have a class that encourages to boost your INT. Since total skill is basically level x skill ranks per level, most classes advance linearly, since they level up, but don't get any more skill ranks per level. However, classes with INT focus advance exponentially, since increasing INT as you level up increases your skill ranks per level.

actually, skill ranks per level is [(Class/HD skill points +INT bonus) minimum of 1] + optional Fvd Class bonus(1).

Skill points per level are generally 2-8, usually 2 and the same for scholarly classes (lol). Favored class bonuses are usually for the extra hit point, not skill points. Starting Racial bonuses and feat bonuses (skill focus) add to individual skills. Starting skill points are figured into the race and not a continuing thing.
So with a 6 INT and 2 skill points per level MOST classes will will still get 1 point per level. This shows that INT has little impact in the negative range. High base skill point characters will suffer the most loss. I'll quip that a dumb rogue is bound to get caught faster than a smart one.
On positive INT bonuses it just raises the baseline and slope of the curve in a linear fashion. It is not exponential (I'm thinking your math terms are not quite as precise as they should be). Linear is y = mx +b. Exponential is y = mx^n +b. I'll just refer to Multiplicative and additive functions

The slope of the skill point curve is based on class and some changes from INT. The change from INT can exceed the base class number but not usually. non-INT based characters may go for a high INT score of 13 based on feat selection. There are class and optimization pressures that devalue non-primary ability scores in general.

For simplicity and sensibility in the d20 model, INT was chosen for base skill points. Other abilities add to those base skill points by individual skill. It is an entirely practical and sensible thing to assume that intelligence baselines trainability and models the capacity to learn. Flies cannot be trained (that's a fact) whereas roaches can be.

[Shikaku Kyouryuu]

It seems to me that the main problem you have is that there aren't enough skill points to cover everything a player might need if they have low Int and only 2/ level. If I'm correct on this, you could use the rules for consolidated and grouped skills and background skills.

[Rub-Eta]

More than half of my characters I've played have had 10+ skill ranks per level, partly due to high Int. And I like it that way.

[Malignor]

A Houserule I created was this:

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worldly: All characters get 1 rank per HD, selected from among cultural skills. This includes

• Appraise, Bluff, Diplomacy, or Sense Motive, but only if the character spends time dealing with negotiation and similar activities in the last adventuring level (justify via gameplay).
• Craft, where the category is known by a current party member or friendly NPC willing to teach, or is among the equipment in the party.
• Knowledge (any), where the category is known by a current party member or friendly NPC willing to teach, or is among the things encountered during the last adventuring level.
• Linguistics, with the language known by a current party member or friendly NPC willing to teach, or is among those used often in the last adventuring level.
• Perform, where the performance skill is known by a current party member or friendly NPC willing to teach.
• Profession, where the profession is known by a current party member or friendly NPC willing to teach.

This rank cannot put any skill above 3 ranks. Because of the sheer number of Craft, Knowledge, Perform and Profession skills, this 3-rank limit will never be exhausted for all skills.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Capable: All characters get 1 rank per HD which can be allocated among adventure skills, after directly experiencing dangerous or tense situations related to them. This includes:

• Acrobatics, Climb, Fly, Heal, Perception, Ride, Spellcraft, Survival, Stealth, Swim, Use Magic Device.

This rank cannot put any of these skills above 3 ranks. If all of these skills have 3 ranks each, the character replaces the rank for +1 hitpoint.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

These represent how adventurer's travels make them into confident and capable people in more situations than their specialty. The ignorant and vulgar barbarian gets constantly exposed to the customs of various cultures and societies and becomes rather well learned, or even diplomatic over time. The frail wizard has been forced into so many physically challenging situations that they become somewhat more athletic. In short, every 20th level adventurer of any background has learned to become mentally flexible and physically capable. Simply by osmosis or sheer necessity.