|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
So we've discussed which ability scores are better than others... and one thing that many of us seem to agree on is that Intelligence is weak.
Specifically because it only gives out more trained skills. You don't get more Expert, Master and Legendary skills. In short, you don't get more skill increases.
So what's a reasonable house rule here? How many extra skill increases should you get? Should you get them already for having Int 12... or should they only be handed out to truly smart characters (Int 18+)?
Have this been discussed previous?
I looked around. Most of the discussion here was from the Playtest, so I checked Reddit and found this:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zpr4yfCTeMsTj6V5mxx1iRF6nKe4V_Tst_o A2Lpw8Nk/edit#gid=0
Here's my simplified version:
Int 16 (+3): levels 6, 12, 18
Int 18 (+4): levels 5, 10, 15, 20
Int 20 (+5): levels 4, 8, 12, 16, 20
Int 22 (+6): levels 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18
You still gain a total number of extra skill increases equal to your Int bonus, except we don't reward you until you've made a sizeable investment (Int 16 or higher).
More intelligent characters gain their first extra skill increase at a lower level, allowing you to create exceptions to the usual limits (Master only at level 7; Legendary at level 15). Yes, these skill increases are special in that the normal limits don't apply. Only rule is - you can't use two consecutive skill increases (from this rule) on one and the same skill.
Like the regular rules, any increases in Int has retroactive results.
What this means is that an Int 18 character gets to increase one Expert proficiency to Master already at level 5. (That's the earliest since you can't get to Int 20 already at level 4.)
When the character does get to Int 20, he gets to retroactively upgrade that proficiency already at level 4, not that this matter much. Since he's likely already past level 8, he gets one more retroactive skill increase, but he could not upgrade the same skill to Legendary (since he must alternate between skills). When he reaches level 12, though, he totally can.
Net effect is
* gain your Int bonus in extra skill increases, not limited to Trained proficiency
* reach Master at level 5 at the earliest (instead of level 7 like normal)
* reach Legendary at level 12 at the earliest (instead of level 15 like normal)
* at most, maximizing Int will get you two extra Legendary skills or three extra Master skills or six extra Expert skills or some combination thereof
It's an interesting idea.
It does feel a little awkward though that going from 14>16 int has such a huge jump in returns over going from 12>14 or 10>12 though. Not sure what could be done about it though.
Squiggit wrote: It's an interesting idea.
It does feel a little awkward though that going from 14>16 int has such a huge jump in returns over going from 12>14 or 10>12 though. Not sure what could be done about it though.
Thanks.
The reason is because if you had something like
Int 12 (+1): levels 10
Int 14 (+2): levels 8, 16
...in the table, it would IMHO be too generous. You want only characters that put a significant value in Int to benefit, otherwise it's too easy for "stupid fighters" to gain something by making a token effort (getting Int 12 by level 10 isn't exactly a major sacrifice).
Once you put a 16 or higher in an ability score, you've committed to that ability in a way that has a real cost (so you've earned the reward), and (insert devil smile here) you're strongly tempted to keep increasing Int...
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
My modest House Rule (which I just added recently) is that the bonus Skills you get from Int 20 or higher can be used for Skill Upgrades rather than just Trained Skills. If you max out Int that's another 3 Skill upgrades, which isn't bad.
It has the virtue of simplicity, but it's also a very minor increase rather than a large one. Of course, I think Int as-is is better than a lot of people give it credit for.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
An interesting proposition. I wasn't able to access the url you shared, though.
I think the key would be to make it simple and intuitive to apply. Since Pathfinder 2e is all about introducing things via feats, what about a general feat that "turns on" the skill increases.
That way you can go:
General Feat
Studious Excellence (Level 3)
Requires Int 16
Your substantial intellect has made you a natural at mastering new skills. At level three and every three levels thereafter you gain a number of bonus skill increases according to the chart below, depending on your intelligence modifier.
Int 16 (+3): levels 6, 12, 18
Int 18 (+4): levels 5, 10, 15, 20
Int 20 (+5): levels 4, 8, 12, 16, 20
Int 22 (+6): levels 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18
These skill increases follow the same rules regarding access to training tiers greater than expert.
Now, I don't know if that's the right number of increases. I think maybe it would be plausible to start by knocking one off of each level. This format would make it easy to modify without having to have clear math built into Int bonuses.
This really does take away from the Rogue's key out of combat feature, sadly.
Cottoncaek wrote: This really does take away from the Rogue's key out of combat feature, sadly. Not sure "Int must be kept crappy for the Rogue's sake" is a good argument...
As for the feat, why is it better to force Int users to get a feat?
There's plenty of basic rules not tied to feats?
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
I think a feat would be the best way to go about it for several reasons.
1. It's optional, ban, un-ban, or give for free.
2. You can balance it easier by modifying the details of the feat, as well as when you can access it, without having to figure out a new, intuitive way to have it automatically scale.
3. The power boost is higher than you're giving it credit for, extra skill increases are very valuable, and can potentially step on the toes of Rogues. Paying a one time feat for them, as you've written above, would be an instant pick for any character with 16 int or higher for me, which indicates it's a hefty bonus.
4. Feat access has historically been a selling point of different ability scores.
5. I like neat little packages.
WatersLethe wrote: and can potentially step on the toes of Rogues. I don't think that's necessarily true at all. Rogues still get their bonuses for free, and a high int rogue could benefit from extra skill increases too.
Additionally, I'm not sure that this is a niche that should be protected at all. Lots of classes can swing weapons, which steps on the Fighter's toes, I don't see why we need to shackle the whole skill system around just one class.
Homogenization of all classes winds you up with D&D 5e. If everyone is special, nobody is special.
Cottoncaek wrote: Homogenization of all classes winds you up with D&D 5e. If everyone is special, nobody is special. That is correct.
It is the reason we're trying to boost Intelligence - to make different heroes stand more apart.
Instead of having five abilities to separate heroes, we'll have six.
with so many archetypes these days offering expert proficiency at level 2, i don't see an issue allowing a few expert skils at level 1 (with a caveat that those don't count for feat requirements).
so, for me if we start a new campaign the houserule would probably look like:
extra skills gained for intelligence 12-14 can only be used to gain Trained proficiency, 16-18 can be used to make a skill Expert, 20-22 to make a skill Master, and 24 to make a skill Legendary. If that allows you to have expert proficiency at level 1, it doesn't count for Feat requirements.
Zapp wrote: Cottoncaek wrote: Homogenization of all classes winds you up with D&D 5e. If everyone is special, nobody is special. That is correct.
It is the reason we're trying to boost Intelligence - to make different heroes stand more apart.
Instead of having five abilities to separate heroes, we'll have six. ...by taking the key feature of Rogue and giving it to everyone? Nice 20ft reach there, bruh
Cottoncaek wrote: Homogenization Is a shitty buzzword. Diversity for no reason other than diversity doesn't help anyone.
No one gives a damn that all of the martials are "homogenized" in being able to reliably hit targets. Letting people who invest in getting good at skills be good at skills won't end the world or somehow magically invalidate rogues.
Cottoncaek wrote: Zapp wrote: Cottoncaek wrote: Homogenization of all classes winds you up with D&D 5e. If everyone is special, nobody is special. That is correct.
It is the reason we're trying to boost Intelligence - to make different heroes stand more apart.
Instead of having five abilities to separate heroes, we'll have six. ...by taking the key feature of Rogue and giving it to everyone? Nice 20ft reach there, bruh you arent taking anything out of rogue. Rogue can as well build with intelligence with all those houserule here and gain the same benefit as everyone else.
the "homogenisation" you try to preach is exactly that: a rogue with intelligence 22 and a rogue with intelligence 10 have the same amount of expert+ skills, exactly because intelligence is the most useless stat in the game atm that does practically nothing.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
One of the unique traits about the Rogue class is the number of skill increases it gains, and even the very fact that it gains as many trained skills as it does.
If other classes are given more trained skills or more skill increases, that unique trait becomes less unique.
That's what people are talking about when they say adding the house-rule from this thread is "homogenization" or taking something away from the rogue class.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
If I were house ruling any kind of additional skills to my players, it would probably be in the form of giving out free lores or boosts to lore skills that include things like rock climbing lore or other incredibly specific versions of a lore skill that could have some practical applications for PCs. Since these lores are all INT based, Intelligence becomes more valuable to skill usage without having to change anything major about the way the rest of the skills work.
shroudb wrote: Cottoncaek wrote: Zapp wrote: Cottoncaek wrote: Homogenization of all classes winds you up with D&D 5e. If everyone is special, nobody is special. That is correct.
It is the reason we're trying to boost Intelligence - to make different heroes stand more apart.
Instead of having five abilities to separate heroes, we'll have six. ...by taking the key feature of Rogue and giving it to everyone? Nice 20ft reach there, bruh you arent taking anything out of rogue. Rogue can as well build with intelligence with all those houserule here and gain the same benefit as everyone else.
the "homogenisation" you try to preach is exactly that: a rogue with intelligence 22 and a rogue with intelligence 10 have the same amount of expert+ skills, exactly because intelligence is the most useless stat in the game atm that does practically nothing. This is the exact same argument pirates use to justify robbing creators, though; "well I wouldn't have paid for it anyway so I'm not taking anything away from them."
Cottoncaek wrote: shroudb wrote: Cottoncaek wrote: Zapp wrote: Cottoncaek wrote: Homogenization of all classes winds you up with D&D 5e. If everyone is special, nobody is special. That is correct.
It is the reason we're trying to boost Intelligence - to make different heroes stand more apart.
Instead of having five abilities to separate heroes, we'll have six. ...by taking the key feature of Rogue and giving it to everyone? Nice 20ft reach there, bruh you arent taking anything out of rogue. Rogue can as well build with intelligence with all those houserule here and gain the same benefit as everyone else.
the "homogenisation" you try to preach is exactly that: a rogue with intelligence 22 and a rogue with intelligence 10 have the same amount of expert+ skills, exactly because intelligence is the most useless stat in the game atm that does practically nothing. This is the exact same argument pirates use to justify robbing creators, though; "well I wouldn't have paid for it anyway so I'm not taking anything away from them." that makes exactly 0 sense.
that's like saying strength shouldnt give +attack, because it's robbing the fighter's ability to have higher base +attack.
rogues get more skill increases than others. if intelligence gives more skill increases, rogues would STILL get more skill increases than others.
it literally takes nothing away from rogues.
to put it as simply as i can:
a stat giving something, isn't stealing a class' advantage on said thing:
Con giving HP isn't stealing Barbarian's having more HP
Str/Dex giving Attack isn't stealing Fighter's ability to have the highest attack
Wisdom giving Perception isn't stealing Rogue/Ranger ability to have highest perception.
in the exact same way, if Int gave expert skills, it wouldn't steal anything from rogue.
It's like if Dex gave damage for anybody else but a Thief Rogue.
Cottoncaek wrote: Zapp wrote: Cottoncaek wrote: Homogenization of all classes winds you up with D&D 5e. If everyone is special, nobody is special. That is correct.
It is the reason we're trying to boost Intelligence - to make different heroes stand more apart.
Instead of having five abilities to separate heroes, we'll have six. ...by taking the key feature of Rogue and giving it to everyone? Nice 20ft reach there, bruh Not taking anything from the Rogue.
Bruh.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
|
