Skill Points bound to Constitution


Homebrew and House Rules

Sovereign Court

In reaction to this blogpost;

http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/2015/03/skillful-disruptions/

I've thought about allowing players gain skill points from other ability scores. That they could choose to gain skill points from constitution or intelligence, one of the two. The idea being that constitution represents, in part, your endurance and ability to concentrate. That, while you might not neccesarily get ideas quickly, you are patient or disciplined enough to pour over tasks that others would eventually give up on.

I feel like that's a fair way of doing things and it has the added benefit that there are both people whom are stereotypically low on health points and people whom are stereotypically high on health points that could reasonably complete a skill challenge. The ones with higher survivability would still have less skills, making the defense of high-skilled characters a priority, but at the very least the party won't immediately be helpless if their high-skilled character ventures off on his own (see rogues) or is axed off (see wizards).

Plus, constitution is useful for any class and skill ranks aren't the be-all end-all in most games. Validating the players' choice probably isn't a bad thing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

But that's the problem. Con has very real and very valuable uses all by itself. If you unbind Intelligence from skill points, it becomes absolutely worthless for anyone but a wizard.

If you wanted to give another stat to base skill points off of, you would need to tack it onto a Stat that otherwise has little attractive use. Namely, I'd tie it to Charisma. You don't pick up skills through study, you picked them up by socializing with others that knew those skills and you just absorbed some knowledge of it as you went.

Would not put it on Wisdom because that is a save stat. So is Con. Dex is already borderline OP, and Str is a damage stat.

So yeah, Cha is the only other under used stat I could justify making into an alternate skill source.

Sovereign Court

EDIT: Note that the thread suggests that players are able to choose Intelligence or Constitution as their source of skill points. One or the other. Not just Constitution for everyone.

Edymnion wrote:
But that's the problem. Con has very real and very valuable uses all by itself. If you unbind Intelligence from skill points, it becomes absolutely worthless for anyone but a wizard.

How many people do you know that would be willing to deal with MAD in melee and take intelligence with it? They exist, but they choose to make a sub optimal build. As described in the linked article, skills provide out of combat utility, meaning that to a lot of melee oriented characters like fighters and paladins, their lack of skill points is costing them roleplay opportunities.

You are correct, Con is useful, but maxing it out is a fool's errand in most cases. Offense is always going to be the optimal strategy in the Pathfinder combat system; turtling up is typically not an option. This means that in most builds, 16 would be the max. Additional skill points aren't going to convince people to push that up to 18.

Intelligence has other uses. Primarily, it is required for the feat tax and many class abilities cue off of intelligence. It also provides bonuses to many skills, which a skill monging character would look for. You can't get that from constitution, since it has no skills linked to it.

Quote:

If you wanted to give another stat to base skill points off of, you would need to tack it onto a Stat that otherwise has little attractive use. Namely, I'd tie it to Charisma. You don't pick up skills through study, you picked them up by socializing with others that knew those skills and you just absorbed some knowledge of it as you went.

Would not put it on Wisdom because that is a save stat. So is Con. Dex is already borderline OP, and Str is a damage stat.

So yeah, Cha is the only other under used stat I could justify making into an alternate skill source.

No offense, but those choices would be kind of backward. The purpose is to give melee classes a more reliable source of skill points.

In addition, it is supposed to encourage players to choose between greater survivability and favorable bonuses and lesser survivability, but optimal bonuses.

A character optimizing knowledge checks would still choose intelligence as his source of skill points. However, a character whom merely wants to supplement his classes' out-of-combat utility, picking constitution suffices.

Perhaps I'm missing on a few archetypes, but the only one that I know of that cues off of constitution is the Orcish Scarred Witch archetype. And it was kind of broken to begin with; more skills is not going to make it more broken, relatively speaking.

Does this smake constitution OP? Yeah, probably. In fact, I can just go ahead and call it OP. But something that you learn from experience; it's okay if there's a choice that is universally good, as long as it does not invalidate other choices. And I don't think this does. I'd much rather have players roll less characters with a high intelligence score and more health points and fortitude than I would players with no skill points to speak of gritting their teeth. It's okay for characters to be less intelligent on paper, as long as we don't misinterpret 7 INT characters as the mentally vacant.


Sacredless, are you asking for criticism on this house rule? You didn't ask a question in the OP so I can only make guesses to what you're seeking.

If you're asking for criticism, I think your houserule will lead to many players dumping Intelligence, and many PCs who used to get 1 or 2 skill points / level will now get 4 or 5, based on Point Buy. I think it solves the problem introduced in the blog post.

If you're looking for other answers to the 'lack of skill points' problem introduced in the blogpost you linked, then I can introduce an alternative house rule that attempts to answer the same problem:

Houserule Goal: Grant more skill points to builds with previously low skill points in a flavourful way.
Change 1) Each class only get 1/2 the number of "Class" skill points each level. These are "untyped" skill points that can be used in any skill. So each level, a Fighter gets 1 untyped skill point, a Rogue gets 4 untyped skill points, etc.
Change 2) Each class gets "typed" skill points equal to their attribute bonus each level, except for Constitution.
A Stat distribution of 18 / 14 / 14 / 10 / 12 / 8 will get 4 Str points, 2 Dex points, no Con points, no Int points, 1 Wis point, and -1 Cha point.
Each level, a character can distribute these points into their skill ranks, but they can only distribute them into skills keyed to that attribute. So the above character could put 1 point each into Climb and Swim (Str), put 1 point each into Stealth and Ride (Dex), put 1 point into Perception (Wis).
If you have negative points, then it is a "debt" that the character must pay off ONLY IF the character wants to invest in skills keyed to that attribute. For the above character, if the character has 2 "untyped" skill points from Change 1) and wants to invest in Diplomacy (Cha), then they can use 1 point to pay off the Cha "debt", and 1 point to gain 1 rank.
Change 3) Each class can swap 2 "typed" skill points for 1 "untyped" skill point. The above character used 2 out of the 4 Str points, and thus can swap the other 2 points into an "untyped" point to spend somewhere else like Knowledge(Local).

The above houserule was something I found on these forums. I would like to give credit to the original poster, but unfortunately my Google-fu is weak.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think this is a terrible idea, mostly for the reasons Edymnion states.

No-brainer choices are bad for systems that rely on build variety as a source of system depth. Outside of INT casters, every single other character in the game will now have an INT of 7.

CHA already takes flak for being a stat that doesn't contribute a whole lot outside of CHA based casters. You've just done the same thing to INT.

A much better solution to your problem would be simply to increase the number of base skill points available to martial classes.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If the purpose of this is to give me lee classes more skill points, then just give them more skill points.

Said another way, if you think a class needs more skill points, give more skill points to that class. Moving the bonus skill point binding from Int to Con messes with everyone, even the classes you think don't need more skill points.

-Skeld

Sovereign Court

Skeld wrote:
Said another way, if you think a class needs more skill points, give more skill points to that class. Moving the bonus skill point binding from Int to Con messes with everyone, even the classes you think don't need more skill points.

It's optional. Either constitution or intelligence. Up to the individual player.

Quote:
No-brainer choices are bad for systems that rely on build variety as a source of system depth. Outside of INT casters, every single other character in the game will now have an INT of 7.

System depth would never have come from the ability scores or point buy systems to begin with. The depth comes from how abilities interact with one another and finding creative ways to use those.

Personally, I think that people roll characters with too high INT. That they are way, way, way too concerned about the skill of their character as opposed to the intellect that the Pathfinder system associates with that. In other words; INT is being chosen for the wrong reason.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sacredless wrote:
EDIT: Note that the thread suggests that players are able to choose Intelligence or Constitution as their source of skill points. One or the other. Not just Constitution for everyone.

You made it pretty clear that the intended purpose for this is to give melee characters more skillpoints. No player, given the choice, is ever going to take Intelligence based skillpoints over Con based unless they are playing an Int based caster. They will always take Con because it lets them triple dip, they get skills, hitpoints, and better saves. In exchange for what? Lousy Knowledge(Local) checks? A melee character already gets virtually nothing from Intelligence, removing skillpoints from it turns it into not just a dump stat (which it pretty much already was) into a stat that isn't even worth considering.

Quote:
How many people do you know that would be willing to deal with MAD in melee and take intelligence with it? They exist, but they choose to make a sub optimal build. As described in the linked article, skills provide out of combat utility, meaning that to a lot of melee oriented characters like fighters and paladins, their lack of skill points is costing them roleplay opportunities.

Great, so give the melee classes more skillpoints. Bump everybody up to a minimum of 4. But don't destroy an entire stat just because you don't like playing the big dumb fighter.

Quote:

You are correct, Con is useful, but maxing it out is a fool's errand in most cases. Offense is always going to be the optimal strategy in the Pathfinder combat system; turtling up is typically not an option. This means that in most builds, 16 would be the max. Additional skill points aren't going to convince people to push that up to 18.

Intelligence has other uses. Primarily, it is required for the feat tax and many class abilities cue off of intelligence. It also provides bonuses to many skills, which a skill monging character would look for. You can't get that from constitution, since it has no skills linked to it.

Care to name some Fighter and Barbarian must have feats and abilities that key off Intelligence?

Intelligence is already a dump stat for most melee characters, the only reason they don't floor it completely is that they want to have some skill points. I think you already know this is the case because otherwise what would be the point of this thread? You recognize that your melee character has no use for Intelligence, but you want more skillpoints and are trying to find a way to get them that doesn't require you to sacrifice your combat stats in a point buy. If Intelligence is so important to melee characters that they would still want it after it no longer contributes to skill points, then why are you having problems with your skillpoints?

Quote:
No offense, but those choices would be kind of backward. The purpose is to give melee classes a more reliable source of skill points.
Then just give them more skillpoints.
Quote:
Does this smake constitution OP? Yeah, probably. In fact, I can just go ahead and call it OP.

The problem is that you are basically using a cannon to swat a fly. You are making a change to the basic workings of the system that will affect *ALL CHARACTERS* and throw off the value of stats as a whole across the board just to give Fighters 2 more skillpoints?

Again, just give them more skillpoints per level and be done with it. Don't destroy an entire stat's relevance to every non-wizard in the game just so your Fighter can pick up a few ranks of Intimidate.

Sovereign Court

You're talking about this, as though I play a melee based character. That's kind of presumptuous. I also don't really like your accusory tone. This is a GM consideration that I am taking for my group. õ_Õ

You are right, it affects all characters. I am glad that you offer criticisms and I hope you will continue to do so. But right now, I've not been presented with a compelling argument why this would be gamebreaking. I will gladly continue to discuss with you until I find one to reconsider the implementation of my idea.

Like I said, I don't mind people dumping intelligence. I'd much rather that people dump intelligence than that people take intelligence for the wrong reasons. And I do think that skill points should not be what pursuades characters.

You are right, there are no essential feats that require INT. Never said there were either. There are feats that have intelligence requirements, though. I am looking to provide players whom would rather play sub-optimal characters than to be useless in skill challenges. Being good at certain skill challenges versus being a worthy member of the team shouldn't be a choice that my players should have to make. I want to be able to throw skill challenges at any one of the players that I have and make them feel like they are right [...] for the job.

So, to summarize;
A) I want more players with moderate skill points AND survivability in addition to players with high skill points AND fragility. To create roles around the different acquisitions of skill points.
B) I want players to not feel punished for dumping intelligence.
C) I want players to feel like they earned their skill points, as opposed to me just giving it to them. Create the illusion of agency.


Well, OP, you asked for feedback. I'm not going to attack the reasons why someone would do this, but the idea itself doesn't make much sense to me. A healthy, fit, person does not translate into a skilled person. I can see a high WIS person getting the skill point bonus almost as easily as a high INT person (but honestly, I think the designers got this right, INT makes the most sense), but CON- no, for the reason the other folks have shared. If it works for your group, fine. You can do it. But, if you come onto a message board, expect to hear reasons why other folks think that this is nonsensical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sacredless wrote:

So, to summarize;

A) I want more players with moderate skill points AND survivability in addition to players with high skill points AND fragility. To create roles around the different acquisitions of skill points.
B) I want players to not feel punished for dumping intelligence.
C) I want players to feel like they earned their skill points, as opposed to me just giving it to them. Create the illusion of agency.

A) Giving the lower skilled classes a bump in the number of skillpoints they get would accomplish the same goal. They can then dump intelligence, use those points for a higher con, and still come out ahead on skills. Without affecting anyone else.

B) Players should always be punished for dumping any stat, just like they should be rewarded for pumping a stat. If you want to say there are no downsides to having a dumped stat, and you take away the primary benefit of having said stat (for every non-wizard), why not just do away with the stat entirely? You've effectively stripped it of all of it's main uses.

C) But the system you are proposing specifically does not let them "earn" those skillpoints. Melee characters would take a higher con score with or without this change, all this would accomplish is tacking on extra bonuses to something they would do anyway. There's no choice in the matter, they didn't have to do anything extra to get it, and they didn't have to sacrifice anything to get it.

They're not "earning" anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I personally like the method voideternal dredged up. It's way clunkier than a skill method should be, but i like the way it ties skills to attributes. And if you do the math, and sprinkle in some common sense, you end up with a pretty solid nearly well balanced system, IMO. take the fighter example voideternal had used you end up with 2+1=3 skill points using the standard system. Or 8-4 skill points to spend using the syetm voideternal had read about (most likely it will be 7-4 skill points, be cause you can only get so good at jumping and swimming, and everyone wants some knowledge).

as for higher skilled classes, their main attribute usually falls into more skill-useful areas. bards have a plethora of useful cha skills to put their points into, rogues have no shortage of cha or dex skills to allocate their skill points. Which means that those classes will be converting less "typed" skill points into "untyped" than the fighter or barb, which will allow them to keep their overall mastery of skills.

edit: to be perfectly honest tho. increasing base skill bonus is still probably the best way to go about things.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sacredless wrote:
Skeld wrote:
Said another way, if you think a class needs more skill points, give more skill points to that class. Moving the bonus skill point binding from Int to Con messes with everyone, even the classes you think don't need more skill points.
It's optional. Either constitution or intelligence. Up to the individual player.

Ok, that addresses the second part of my comment, but not the first. Why not just bump 2+Int classes to 4+Int (or whatever you feel is appropriate)?

Sacredless wrote:

So, to summarize;

A) I want more players with moderate skill points AND survivability in addition to players with high skill points AND fragility. To create roles around the different acquisitions of skill points.
B) I want players to not feel punished for dumping intelligence.
C) I want players to feel like they earned their skill points, as opposed to me just giving it to them. Create the illusion of agency.

A) I don't think this will accomplish you goal. I think you'll end up with moderate skill points + survivability and high skill points + survivability. Wizard players will see this as a way of getting higher skill points and higher HP.

B) Remove the skill point penalty for dumping Int. Done.
3) This already happens; players "earn" skill points by investing in Int.

This feels like a solution looking for a problem.

-Skeld


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're presenting a clutch option, meaning that unless a class actually needs intelligence to be effective nobody will invest into it. Now, if you don't care, then right on, this is totally a way for physical classes to actually have some skills, but it's kind of unfair to anyone who doesn't choose to do that, namely wizards. Do mages have the option of basing their hit points off of intelligence? Doesn't seem very fair to let fighters have it all and shaft the squishies. If I was an Int based character in this group I would never invest in both Int and Con, since I know I'm not getting the same benefit out of pumping Con that any non Int based character would get.

Nobody is attacking you, but this idea seems like an over complicated solution to a simple problem. You want the melee classes to have some more skills? Give them more skill points, bam, done.

Sovereign Court

Robert Carter 58 wrote:
Well, OP, you asked for feedback. [...] But, if you come onto a message board, expect to hear reasons why other folks think that this is nonsensical.

*sigh* Just because I don't thus far agree with the reactions that I have received, that doesn't mean that I am not open to feedback. Let's not start thowing those kind of accusations around. I like the idea, but I want to know if there are objective problems with the ruling. I already mentioned a potential problem; the Scarred Witch archetype, for example has the following feature that might conflict with this kind of rule change;

Quote:

Constitution Dependent

A scarred witch doctor uses Constitution instead of Intelligence when determining the highest level of spells she can cast, her spell save DCs, number of spells known at 1st level, and any effects of her hexes normally determined by her Intelligence.

I can definitely see a problem there. The Scarred Witch is not meant to gain skill points in addition to all the things that she already gains from constitution. That is what she is balanced for. A Scarred Witch could therefore conceivably dump Int for Con to optimize her use of the Fetish Mask. That, and of course, the obvious problem of a caster who's spells are more powerful and also a caster who has more health than some melee focused characters at almost no trade-off.

For a campaign with someone who wants to play a Scarred Witch, either I'd say not to use this rule for anyone or make the choice for intelligence as the source of skill points mandatory for the Scarred Witch to make sure she's not a better version of all other characters in the party in regards to her skills, defensive and offensive capabilities.

Quote:
A healthy, fit, person does not translate into a skilled person.

Someone with a high constitution can also be seen as someone who can concentrate on learning a task on the job over a longer period of time than someone who's intelligent and can reason out why things are done a certain way.

Robert Carter 58 wrote:
I'm not going to attack the reasons why someone would do this, but the idea itself doesn't make much sense to me. I can see a high WIS person getting the skill point bonus almost as easily as a high INT person (but honestly, I think the designers got this right, INT makes the most sense), but CON- no, for the reason the other folks have shared.

There are too many classes which encourage maximizing Wisdom. The reason that I chose CON is because it is the ability score least likely to be maximized and if it is, it inevitably means sacrificing offensive capabilities in some way, which is inevitably a bad thing in Pathfinder; encounters are not meant to be won through attrition and they almost never can be.

Edymnion wrote:
A) Giving the lower skilled classes a bump in the number of skillpoints they get would accomplish the same goal. They can then dump intelligence, use those points for a higher con, and still come out ahead on skills. Without affecting anyone else.

You've state before that my suggestion affects everyone else, but from the way you are saying it here, I feel you are refering to something you have not yet explained. Would you please explain why you mean by "it affects everyone else" so we are all on the same page what that means?

Edymnion wrote:
B) Players should always be punished for dumping any stat, just like they should be rewarded for pumping a stat. If you want to say there are no downsides to having a dumped stat, and you take away the primary benefit of having said stat (for every non-wizard), why not just do away with the stat entirely? You've effectively stripped it of all of it's main uses.

You're grossly exxagerating. And no, dumping a stat should not come with a punishment; it should be a trade-off. The trade-off to dumping a stat is pumping another. Dumping intelligence comes with an added punishment that I feel isn't balanced with everything. There is no SAD class based on Constitution, unlike Intelligence (except for the Scarred Witch). That means that Con will almost never be maximized, because it'd inevitably be a trade-off with the SAD or MAD class's primary ability scores. Well, perhaps if they are barbarians and I would welcome a barbarian that is good for more things than hacking things to pieces.

Quote:

C) But the system you are proposing specifically does not let them "earn" those skillpoints. Melee characters would take a higher con score with or without this change, all this would accomplish is tacking on extra bonuses to something they would do anyway. There's no choice in the matter, they didn't have to do anything extra to get it, and they didn't have to sacrifice anything to get it.

They're not "earning" anything.

They don't actually have a choice in the matter. That is why it is called the illusion of agency. They get the opportunity to see constitution in a different light without drastically altering their behaviour.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sacredless wrote:
You're grossly exxagerating. And no, dumping a stat should not come with a punishment; it should be a trade-off. The trade-off to dumping a stat is pumping another. Dumping intelligence comes with an added punishment that I feel isn't balanced with everything. There is no SAD class based on Constitution, unlike Intelligence (except for the Scarred Witch). That means that Con will almost never be maximized, because it'd inevitably be a trade-off with the SAD or MAD class's primary ability scores. Well, perhaps if they are barbarians and I would welcome a barbarian that is good for more things than hacking things to pieces.

dump str - can't hit in melee, and can't do physical dmg

dump dex - cant hit ranged, has horrible/below avg ac and reflex saves
dump con - horrible hp and fort saves
dump int - horrible/below avg skill points
dump wis - perception and will saves suck
dump cha - can't be the party face.

the ONLY stat that hurts less when you dump it is cha, so i don't see where you get the

Quote:
Dumping intelligence comes with an added punishment that I feel isn't balanced with everything.

melee builds using your system will ALWAYS dump INT... and almost always dump CHA (like they all do already) rogues will dump INT, rangers will dump INT... everyone will dump int (except wizards).

to mention your "trade off" argument. Where is the tradeoff? By using CON for skill points you now have no need to decided between skill points against HP. just put it all into CON and you gain HP, FORT save, and Skill Points. and you lose... knowledge skills. thats not a trade off, thats cashing in monopoly money for a whole stack of $100 bills.

Sovereign Court

GypsyMischief wrote:

You're presenting a clutch option, meaning that unless a class actually needs intelligence to be effective nobody will invest into it. Now, if you don't care, then right on, this is totally a way for physical classes to actually have some skills, but it's kind of unfair to anyone who doesn't choose to do that, namely wizards. Do mages have the option of basing their hit points off of intelligence? Doesn't seem very fair to let fighters have it all and shaft the squishies. If I was an Int based character in this group I would never invest in both Int and Con, since I know I'm not getting the same benefit out of pumping Con that any non Int based character would get.

Nobody is attacking you, but this idea seems like an over complicated solution to a simple problem. You want the melee classes to have some more skills? Give them more skill points, bam, done.

Wizards can still choose to gain their skill points from intelligence. That's more or less the point of my suggestion. Intelligence-SAD or MAD classes function as they already are. Every class that doesn't have intelligence as a primary stat, though, can gain skill points through an ability score that they wouldn't normally dump.

To me, going through the different classes and increasing their skill points individually based on whether they are "melee" or not seems like too much work. Much rather, I'd just put it on the one stat that all melee classes use, but don't typically maximize and not think about it too much. It's also fairly simple to explain to the players; "Alright, one change; before play starts, you have the option to switch your INT for your CON bonus to determine the number of skill points. Go to town!"

So, if a player still wants to dump both CON and INT, yeah, they are going to have less skill points. But since they dumped two stats, they made up for that in the four remaining stats, so they got the glass canon that they craved for. Then it stops being my problem as a GM.

Simple changes can have complicated effects, I agree. But there's nothing here that I don't like. Yet. Unless someone can point out a way to make a rediculously OP character with this somehow, which is what I was hoping for when I started this thread.

Thanks for your feedback, Gypsy!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sacredless wrote:
Just because I don't thus far agree with the reactions that I have received, that doesn't mean that I am not open to feedback.

Thats not what we're seeing though.

Please look at things from our perspective.

1) You have identified a minor problem with the rules.
2) You have addressed the issue by proposing a *MAJOR* change.
3) You have presented no solid foundation on which why this major change that affects every class and character in the game is more suitable than simply addressing the issue you have with the one or two classes that are actually being aimed at.
4) You have dismissed multiple people giving you the same responses with a handwaved "But thats not what I proposed", and without giving any reason why the alternative suggestions do not solve the original problem more cleanly than what you proposed.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Skeld. You seem more intent on selling this change than you are in actual feedback.

You say its because you want to put this houserule into effect for your own games. Its clear that you are not really interested in reasons why you should not, so why not just go ahead and do it? The defensive responses make it sound more like you are a player that wants to get some board weight thrown behind their idea before pitching it to their GM.

So, I'm out. I've said my peace on why I think this is a very bad idea, and you're apparently not interested in hearing it. Go ahead and implement it in games you run. I'm fairly certain you will spend more time trying to fix all of the holes with a laundry list of exceptions and work-arounds as things come up than it is worth than if you had simply gone with a more limited answer that did not have such wide reaching scope. Like upping the skillpoints of the melee classes. Or making a feat that grants X skillpoints. Or any of the other avenues available short of redesigning the core abilities and what they do.

Sovereign Court

Quote:
1) You have identified a minor problem with the rules.

I don't need to see things from your perspective if you don't agree what I identify as a major problem is a major problem. There's seeing things from a different perspective and there's just not agreeing whether a problem is a problem. You don't agree that there is a problem, so you don't want to fix it. That's fine. Just don't expect me to change my opinion that the problem that I describe is a problem.

I didn't ask you to pick sides, Edymnion, but you are. How is that my problem, exactly? You are taking a stance and sticking to it. So fine? Don't use it? I don't really understand what your problem is with me not blindly discarding my own idea. You are the one that choose sides; I am still in the stage of identifying what problems this might cause.

I like some of the suggestions presented, but it's not something that I would personally do. Is that such a crime?

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how this effects ever character in the game. I don't mean that in a negative way; I am looking forward to reading your arguments why this affects so many characters negatively and I am willing to listen if you'd just tell me what you are thinking of.

I have given ONE exception where this houserule would be ill-advised. You cannot possibly discard the viability of my houserule just because I thought of an objectively bad development myself. If you'd just tell me where I'm going to run into problems, I can take that into consideration. Why do you have to be such a prick about it and act so dismissive without giving me a single concrete example of how I'd make a "laundry list of exceptions"?

Just tell me g!##%*nit, I'm concretely looking for examples. õ_Õ Step off your high horse and talk.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

(I write this assuming that "PCs have too few skill points." is really the crux of the issue. If not, please give us a problem statement to work with. We can't properly discuss an idea or improvements to it without knowing the problem you set out to solve. Ignore the rest of my post if I guessed the root problem wrong as it's probably not valid in that case.)

1) Low skill points, on the whole, is a minor problem. A major problem is something like a class ability not working, or a feat doing nothing because core rules already allow what it does, or a class being so OP that virtually everyone is playing it. This is not such a problem. Minor problems deserve minor solutions.

2) Con is already a powerful stat. I rarely see anyone have less than 12 in con, often 14+. Int is likewise rarely dropped below 10. If you allow this, most characters will leave con the same and simply drop Int for something else. If anything, I would want int to be *stronger*, not weaker. Removing skill points leaves Int with "Knowledge Guy" and "class abilities", which basically means only those with int-based class abilities will bother with int because "Knowledge Guy" is not a good enough justification on its own. This is exactly the situation with Cha right now, which is widely harried as being below par for anyone without class abilities based on it. This means your initial suggestion solves a minor problem by introducing a moderate one.

My table dealt with the "too few skill points" problem by giving everyone +2 per level and raising the minimum per level to 2; the lowest class is 4 + int (min 2). Int is still valuable because it still gave you a lot more, but it prevented people from being stuck as 1-2 trick ponies. Even a *really* dumb character with a low-skill class can have up to 4 skills per level (int 5 means a base of 2, +1FCB, +1 from skilled for being human). We also allow spending a feat for +1 SP per level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sacredless wrote:

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how this effects ever character in the game. I don't mean that in a negative way; I am looking forward to reading your arguments why this affects so many characters negatively and I am willing to listen if you'd just tell me what you are thinking of.

I have given ONE exception where this houserule would be ill-advised. You cannot possibly discard the viability of my houserule just because I thought of an objectively bad development myself. If you'd just tell me where I'm going to run into problems, I can take that into consideration. Why do you have to be such a prick about it and act so dismissive without giving me a single concrete example of how I'd make a "laundry list of exceptions"?

This effects every class in the fact that it shatters what little balance exists in the system. By allowing this all classes w/o int dependent class abilities will be just as tough as before but gain more skills for less point buy than a character that has int dependent class abilities.

This in and of itself will not cause anything to "break", and all the issues that arise would be easy enough to patch up. The issue that everyone is getting caught on (including myself) is that: CON is simply more useful and more influential than INT as things stand... and you are trying to argue that giving even more influence to CON and removing what little influence INT has is no big thing.

i can not think of any way that anything will be over powered, even the scarred witch (because a few extra skill points is not going to tip this class into completely broken territory). But just because it will not cause any game breaking issues does not mean that it is a good idea. The game is balanced in such a way that it is assuming that a well balanced character has at least a 0 in both INT and CON, which will not be the case in your system, because int has no value for most classes with your system (monopoly money).

Sovereign Court

But the default system isn't balanced in skill challenges. That is a major problem. Read the linked article. Not being able to contribute for hours on end because there is no combat and no talking is a big problem.

Additionally, I've yet to be explained why dump stats are bad for players. I understand the principle, but concretely, why should a system avoid dump stats?

I'm eager to learn how such a taboo arose.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I don't see this having any advantage over giving out more skill points.

Thematically, Constitution represents physical endurance and health, not mental endurance and discipline. That's why it's considered one of the three physical stats, not one of the three mental stats.

Mechanically, you're moving a general function from a stat that has little general function (skills) compared to specialized function (spells & class features) to a stat that has little specific function (scarred witch doctor) but lots of general function (HP, fort saves). The result is that Intelligence becomes much more a specialist's stat. And that doesn't just mean people dumping Int - it means characters not specializing in Intelligence are less likely to invest in Int-based skills.

The link you posted used the example of a paladin having a hard time in a scenario heavy on knowledge (local) and (history) checks to point out the problem with not having many skill points. But would your proposed fix actually fix the paladin's problem? If you let the paladin get bonus skills based on Con, they'll probably get an extra 2-3 skill points per level. They'll also probably dump Int to 7. Now, what would I spend those extra skill points on? Diplomacy and Sense Motive, maybe a few ranks in Heal, Ride, and Handle Animal which are class skills. Perception, Intimidate, and UMD are useful cross-class skills. Knowledge (local) and (history) will be at the bottom of my list because not only am I not getting the +3 bonus for a class skill (which as the blog points out already discourages people from putting ranks in cross-class skills) but I'm starting with a -2 ability modifier. With my first rank in either skill I'm at a -1 skill modifier! At most I'll put a few ranks in (religion) or Spellcraft since those are class skills.

Similarly, a fighter with 4-5 skill points and Int 7 is not going to pick up (local) (history) or (nobility). There are simply too many useful skills which he could take instead that aren't fighting an ability penalty. They might put a rank in class skills (dungeoneering) or (engineering) but will still be pretty bad at these

Compare this to just giving these classes 2 more skill points per level. You get the same number of skill points to spread around, but it's more likely someone will place a cross-class rank in a Knowledge skill (or Linguistics or Spellcraft) rather than in Disable Device or Stealth.

And if the character doesn't dump Int so as to not suffer the penalty to intelligence based skills they're not getting as much of a benefit from your house-rule as someone who does dump Int to invest in other stats. You are incentivizing people to leave the Knowledge skills to the specialist. Sure you'll get more fighters with Disable Device but you're only half solving the problem of skill specialization.

Have you asked your players why they make sub-optimal builds with higher intelligence? It may be because they want to see the characters as being smarter or because they aesthetically like a well-rounded stat array, not just because they want more skill points. And if this is the case then they may not appreciate you adding a houserule that makes their smarter characters even more sub-optimal compared to the fighter who dumped Int.

If you're worried about a mixed group with some people liking and not liking to dump, then add extra skill points and remove the skill point penalty for dumping Int. That way the ones who dump Int won't be terrible at skills, but the ones who don't dump it (whether aesthetically, to qualify for Combat Expertise, or for class features) still benefit compared to the ones who do dump Int.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sacredless wrote:

But the default system isn't balanced in skill challenges. That is a major problem. Read the linked article. Not being able to contribute for hours on end because there is no combat and no talking is a big problem.

Additionally, I've yet to be explained why dump stats are bad for players. I understand the principle, but concretely, why should a system avoid dump stats?

I'm eager to learn how such a taboo arose.

It's less about "OMG why is he dumping cha!?" and more about not giving players something in exchange for *not* dumping it. Not a punishment, but rather a reward for their choice of approach.

In this case, having dramatically reduced incentive to increase int means it won't be increased nearly as often. We aren't *rewarding* the character who needs both con and int for increasing int in any strong meaningful way. A 14 versus a 10 should be a big difference, but a +2 to all knowledges is only one feat (Breadth of Experience). Compared to 14 to 10 on con which, just with HP, is 2 feats (toughness twice over). A character who increases both int and con gains a lot less for doing so (compared to just con) than without the proposed rule.

If the core issue is making everyone useful when combat slows, then I offer a three-part solution:
1) Grant everyone +2 skill points. This is easy, gives everyone more skills, and thus a higher chance to matter in the skills department. It's more helpful to those hurting the most, as an increase from 1 to 3 is much more noticable than an increase from 10 to 12. This makes it a "targeted solution" of sorts.
2) Grant everyone a free skill focus. Doesn't have to be a class skill, just has to be worked into their background. Split-focus feats (like Stealthy, Acrobatic, or Prodigy) can also be taken. Alternatively, or perhaps in addition, allow such feats to make their affected skills into class skills as well. This makes it possible for everyone to pick up one or more skills not typical to their class.
3) As a DM, try to target the skills unique to a character at least once in a deliberate non-combat situation. This one takes some thinking and is probably, on average, the least effective solution as players are generally good about bringing up their own (good) skills when relevant, or even when not relevant. So.. perhaps better advice is to go with the flow a bit more when people propose odd uses of skills?

EDIT: Adding a feat that grants +1 SP/level can also help, but since that's not a freebie it may not actually be that useful due to player behavior w/r/t builds.

Sovereign Court

@Weirdo The example's an example. It serves to show that there's a problem that a paladin would have difficulty solving. Your refutation is that, given the tools that I gave the paladin, he might not be able to use them in all situations. That is not on my houserule, though, that's just the nature of repeated skill challenges in general. If the party is forced to roll Knowledge (History) for two hours straight and it just so happens that only one character has that skill, it doesn't matter if you are a wizard of a paladin; if you didn't invest in it, you didn't invest in it.

The problem is that there's little to no moments where optimized fighters and paladins will feel like the choices they made in their character creation process is reflected in skill challenges. There's not a moment where the character goes, "Aha! But I'm not only a fighter, I am also a very skilled [x]!" that makes the player feel like their character's background is relevant to the storytelling.

Yes, I am incentivizing people to leave knowledge skills to specialist characters.

To reiterate; the problem that I am trying to address is that melee characters don't get enough skill points to diversify their roles, leading to a complete and lack of balance in skill challenges, exactly where their character backgrounds shoud be coming into play.

The responses that I am getting are; Your houserule will encourage melee characters to dump intelligence.

My response to that response is; Yes, but is that a bad thing?

I understand the principle of what you are saying, I really do. I'm a game designer; I get it. Questions posed by a game or system should not have just one answer, because that leads to lack of depth. But the ability score system isn't deep. It's not going to be deep. I have absolutely no negative experiences with Charisma being a dump stat. I just don't see it as that big of a problem if one big choice has an obvious answer if it enables about 30+ other choices more meaningful to the roleplay of the game. The choices of skills.

Sovereign Court

StabbittyDoom wrote:
Sacredless wrote:

But the default system isn't balanced in skill challenges. That is a major problem. Read the linked article. Not being able to contribute for hours on end because there is no combat and no talking is a big problem.

Additionally, I've yet to be explained why dump stats are bad for players. I understand the principle, but concretely, why should a system avoid dump stats?

I'm eager to learn how such a taboo arose.

It's less about "OMG why is he dumping cha!?" and more about not giving players something in exchange for *not* dumping it. Not a punishment, but rather a reward for their choice of approach.

In this case, having dramatically reduced incentive to increase int means it won't be increased nearly as often. We aren't *rewarding* the character who needs both con and int for increasing int in any strong meaningful way. A 14 versus a 10 should be a big difference, but a +2 to all knowledges is only one feat (Breadth of Experience). Compared to 14 to 10 on con which, just with HP, is 2 feats (toughness twice over). A character who increases both int and con gains a lot less for doing so (compared to just con) than without the proposed rule.

If the core issue is making everyone useful when combat slows, then I offer a three-part solution:
1) Grant everyone +2 skill points. This is easy, gives everyone more skills, and thus a higher chance to matter in the skills department. It's more helpful to those hurting the most, as an increase from 1 to 3 is much more noticable than an increase from 10 to 12. This makes it a "targeted solution" of sorts.
2) Grant everyone a free skill focus. Doesn't have to be a class skill, just has to be worked into their background. Split-focus feats (like Stealthy, Acrobatic, or Prodigy) can also be taken. Alternatively, or perhaps in addition, allow such feats to make their affected skills into class skills as well. This makes it possible for everyone to pick up one or more skills not typical to their class.
3) As a DM, try to target the...

I like those a lot, so I might try them.

How about I just do what I have proposed and I tell you guys how it turns out?

EDIT: I'm quite astounded that I got so much accusational responses. Given that this is the House Rule/Homebrew section of the forums, I expected more people would be open-minded. It seems that that is not the case, or at least not for enough people. That's really disappointing. I suppose I won't post other ideas I have here, given how defensive people get.


"Someone with a high constitution can also be seen as someone who can concentrate on learning a task on the job over a longer period of time than someone who's intelligent and can reason out why things are done a certain way."

I would disagree with this interpretation. If it works for you, great. You don't have to play the game my way, or the way anyone else plays it. I make house rules that might not work for others, some that effect the ways PC develop, as well.

I don't like stat dumping in general. My rule is 25 point buy, no stats below 8, none higher than 20 (after racial adjustments). So they can manipulate the scores to a certain point, but there won't be any PCs who are idiot-savants- though they can have certain strengths and deficits. This works for me and my group, maybe not for others.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sacredless wrote:

The problem is that there's little to no moments where optimized fighters and paladins will feel like the choices they made in their character creation process is reflected in skill challenges. There's not a moment where the character goes, "Aha! But I'm not only a fighter, I am also a very skilled [x]!" that makes the player feel like their character's background is relevant to the storytelling.

Yes, I am incentivizing people to leave knowledge skills to specialist characters.

I'm a big fan of character backgrounds being relevant and characters coming up with unusual skills. I'm currently playing a drunken monk with profession (bartender) and a bloodrager with +17 to Sense Motive (at level 7).

What I'm not a fan of is a system that encourages a fighter to be a skilled lockpick or pickpocket over being a skilled historian or student of heraldry. Favouring the former background over the latter does not make sense to me.

Adding extra skill points, skill focus, or class skills, or creating a skill point increasing feat will all improve the ability of fighters and paladins to participate in skill challenges, but without further dictating the subset of skill challenges in which they should be able to be relevant.

Sacredless wrote:

Additionally, I've yet to be explained why dump stats are bad for players. I understand the principle, but concretely, why should a system avoid dump stats?

I'm eager to learn how such a taboo arose.

I think it's not so much that dump stats are bad as that having stats that everyone dumps is bad. Having the occasional fighter with 7 Cha is fine. Having a majority of fighters with 7 Cha gets repetitive. Having a majority of fighters, rangers, barbarians, monks, wizards, alchemists, druids, gunslingers, inquisitors, magi, witches, brawlers, hunters, slayers, and warpriests all dumping cha... frustrates people.

Some have suggested letting Will saves use either Wis or Cha, whichever is higher, in order to get some diversity of dump stats and make it as mechanically feasible to play a brash and charming fighter as a canny and gruff one.

Sacredless wrote:
EDIT: I'm quite astounded that I got so much accusational responses. Given that this is the House Rule/Homebrew section of the forums, I expected more people would be open-minded. It seems that that is not the case, or at least not for enough people. That's really disappointing. I suppose I won't post other ideas I have here, given how defensive people get.

People are usually pretty open minded here. You happen to have suggested a change that an overwhelming majority of people think is a bad idea. While you may not agree with us our arguments aren't unfounded and I'm seeing very little in the way of personal accusations or personal defensiveness (as opposed to constructive criticism, offered alternatives, and defense of our ideas).

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Sacredless: The key to success for a house-rule post is to declare up front exactly what problem you wish to solve, why it's a problem, and any constraints you might have. THEN describe your attempted solution. This makes it easier for people to be explicit about whether they challenge the solution or the premise. Or if they wish to challenge it at all, as the separation may make it clear that it's something not typically a problem for a table and yours is a special case.

Example:

Example wrote:

I don't like that metamagic is so hard to use, no-one at my table ever uses it. I don't want to make a rule that's going to make the spell take any longer to resolve becasue combat moves slower already.

I'm thinking of making metamagic just require a higher concentration check, something like +5 per spell level of increase, instead of the spell slot. If it doesn't normally need a concentration check then it's just 5 + double spell level + 5 per adjustment or lose the spell. You still can't have an adjusted level higher than your max, though.

The first sentence is the problem statement. It's a bit weak because it doesn't define what "hard to use" means. It could mean that it's hard for the players, or hard for the characters. From context we might assume that the poster means "hard for characters" because the solution removes the spell level adjustment. Better would be to say "the increased spell level is too harsh, so no-one at my table ever uses it".

Giving examples of how it's been a problem lends legitimacy to house-ruling it at your table. Where applicable, examples of problem situations are good too.

The second sentence gives the constraint that it shouldn't take long to resolve. That's fair enough. No-one wants to consult an excel spreadsheet before casting every spell, after all.

The second paragraph is the solution. Good or not, separating it from the problem statement makes it easier to discuss.

Template wrote:

Problem: What is the problem?

Why is This A Problem: Justification for bothering to solve the problem. Can easily be table-specific.

Constraints: Constraints, usually due to table preference.

My Solution: The actual proposed solution.

Sovereign Court

Okay.

Problem #1: Players with high skill tend to get seperated and/or killed and/or fail at a crucial junction.

Why is This A Problem? #1: As a GM, I think that avoiding skill challenges neglects a huge part of the game. I want players to be as immersed in skill challenges as they are in combat.

Constraints #1: I don't want players with high skill feel like their responsibility stifles their independence, nor do I want to alleviate players from their responsibilities to the party.

Problem #2: Melee characters often feel left out when they are not being used in combat. They feel like they have no role to play.

Why is This A Problem? #2: When these players feel like the only way they can contribute is through conflict, they are more eager to solve problems through physical conflict. No one around my table ought to feel frustrated because of a lack of combat encounters.

Constraints #2: I want players to be able to play optimized characters without being punished on the roleplay front. I want to cast a new perspective on the way skills are gained other than through intellect, so my players stop treating their 8 INT characters as brain-dead.

Solution #1-2: I divide skill challenges into three roles; the savant, the veteran and the glass canon. The savant is more fragile in melee combat, but makes up for this in skills out of combat, despite their flighty nature. The veteran on the other hand has learned from trial and error (a lot of error), both in combat and skills and is capable of assisting when the savant is unavailable.

The way I wish to achieve this is by allowing the savant to gain skill points from intelligence and the veteran gain skill points from constitution. The savant typically maximizes intelligence to 18 and 20 due to class features. The veteran typically raises constitution to only 14 or 16.

Concerns: I am concerned that there might be reasons I haven't thought of to raise constitution to 18 or 20 or beyond that makes veterans more desirable in skill challenges than savants. I am also concerned this may lead to weird rule interactions or optimization corner cases.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So based on your problems, it seems the core issue is that some characters are all-combat (and thus bored when not in combat, in turn causing them to seek it out needlessly), and the ones that aren't often end up taking all the risk onto themselves rather than splitting the work.

This means that boosting up skills such that you can always have at least 1 really good (not-absolutely-necessary) skill is only half the equation, so even allowing use of con for skill points might not solve the whole thing. (Though I still contend that, at least for this half of the problem, simply granting a free skill focus and +2 ranks should suffice and is much less likely to cause weird rules interactions or optimization corner-cases.)

As for the second half.. perhaps allow people who aid each-other on a skill check to not declare a primary. Instead they would all roll normally, and the +2 is added onto whomever rolled highest. This means that hitting more than the DC10 matters for assistance since even if you have a +14 and the other guy has a +7, they could roll a 20 and you roll a 1. Standard Rules: Result is 17. Changed Rule: Result is 29. Now the guy who's assisting doesn't feel like he's there for show since it might be his roll that is used for the total.

I may have to think harder for anything more interesting than the above.

Sovereign Court

I like that. I'd prefer it if the guy who chose to specialize gets credit, but in the way you describe it, he or she is the most likely to get credit, though sometimes has to grit his teeth when the newbie outdoes him.

I am interested if people can find weird rule interactions and optimization corner-cases for my houserule. Really, that is what I was hoping to hear about. I'll edit the post before this to reflect that.


I seperated things out a bit as part of an ongoing experiment, maybethe following example will help and maybe it won't. In essence, you gained/lost skill points based on combined attribute modifiers. Had the interestng side effect of cutting down on dump stats.

Example

1st level Fighter

Strength 15 (+2 physical), Con 14 (+2 physical), Int 13 (+1 mental), Dex 12 (+1 physical), Wis 10 (+0 mental), Cha 8 (-1 mental)

Class Skill Points 2 (which can be spent on any class skill).

Mental Skill Points (Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma) Total: 0
Physical Skill Points (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution) Total: 5

At 1st level, he can spend 2 skill points on any class skills of his choice; additionally, he may spend 5 skill points on skills which use physical ability scores. Alternatively, he may spend 2 points derived from his physical skill points on one which is drawn from the mental list.

Example:
Class Skill Points: Perception 1 (class skill point), Sense Motive 1(Class Skill Point)

Physical Skills: Climb 1, Swim 1, Acrobatics 1, Ride 1, Stealth 1

Assume he wanted Perception instead. It could look like this:
Physical Skills: Swim 1, Acrobatics 1, Ride 1
Mental Skills: Perception 1

Quikc off the top of my head example. Hope it's self explanatory, but if it isn't, I'll try to explain better.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, it makes the Scarred Witch Doctor *super* awesome. They get their full casting, hexes, fort saves, HP, *and* skill points all based on one stat. It was already good before, though.

If a high level Mountain Druid or Goliath Druid were to stay in Giant Form for 24+ hours consecutively (they could do so indefinitely) would they gain additional skills like they would with a headband of +int? What about a master chymist with mutagen, who can also hit 24h+?

Con drain, already the nastiest thing out there, gets even nastier.

But mostly I think what it's going to do is cause already good builds to be better at their main shtick, like a fighter with 1 more point of strength and dex, and the skill points will be seen almost as a side-effect. Unless the players already dump int into the floor, in which case skill'd be the main effect, but I've not (personally) seen a player do that in quite a while.

My main thing against con-for-skills isn't so much about creating any single OP build. More it's about giving no incentive for increasing int when you already depend a lot on con, and the incentive was already weak. I guess this is largely a play-style thing. And the flavor, while not *entirely* out there, is still a bit funky.

At the risk of jumping back on the "try something else" train: A more interesting rule might be to give everyone the same mod for skills (say, +4, so a fighter gets 6) and just not base skill points on your ability score(s) at all. But then you'd want to move something to Int if you did that, like initiative.


there is a couple solutions, and maybe you'd like to combine them.
keep skills attatched to int.
-change all 2+int->4+int except int. based classes(witch, magus, wizard, ect.)
-give everyone two extra skills that HAVE to be used in knowledge skills every level, and (if you wish) become classes skill if they were not before(at first level would they become class skills).
-give skills based on the mod of that skill+con free skills to be used anywhere
(this means a +4 dex gives you 4 ranks that can only be used in dex based skills Only. Since Con has no skills, they are not restricted)
this gives bonus ranks based on Con like you want, and everyone gains the same number of skills based on point buy allocation, and does very little to change the number of ranks rigen for dumping int.)

(dumping Int. is interesting because an int. of -2,-1,0 potentially gives the exact same number of ranks for 2+int classes anyway[unless you multiclass, and not an half-elf.])


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I think one of the unintended problems is that intelligence based characters may feel cheated with the houserule (alchemists, investigators, wizards, etc.).

Paizo seems to equate hit points with skill points (favored class allows one to gain either a hit point or skill point each new level, which makes them somewhat equivalent).

Your house rule as it stands favors martial characters, yet gives nothing to other classes. Perhaps allow PCs to also choose to have bonus hit points off of either CON or INT as well? Maybe find some way to justify charisma somehow?

Long story short, it benefits only certain classes and makes intelligence the new charisma.


One thing I will note to the OP: you say Con represents in part your ability to focus and concentrate. These are mental traits more commonly attributed to the Intelligence score or even the Wisdom score. Constitution is heartiness, healthiness, and whatnot. So you might want to reconsider your premise based on that alone.

Grand Lodge

I don't normally knock a gm's house rules unless they are WAYYY OUT THERE. This is definitely one of those cases. This is a terrible TERRIBLE idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lathiira wrote:
One thing I will note to the OP: you say Con represents in part your ability to focus and concentrate. These are mental traits more commonly attributed to the Intelligence score or even the Wisdom score. Constitution is heartiness, healthiness, and whatnot. So you might want to reconsider your premise based on that alone.

The one thing I won't entirely knock of the OP's original rules-concept is the concept of endurance-to-learn, and Concentration being tied to Constitution.

While Pathfinder's concentration rules explicitly call out that they are based on the caster's mental scores, and Constitution makes no mention of such, Concentration was a specific constitution-based skill in the old 3.X-era of gaming. It's probably a hold-over in his perceptions, considering the similarities of the system. Besides, most of the things involving making checks require you to 'endure' them!

That said, it really doesn't gel with how PF has set itself up rules or fluff wise.


..Or just give more skill points to the classes that you want to be better at doing skill stuff...

Chiming in here to say that basing skills off of Constitution not only seems to be a bad idea to me conceptually but also mechanically, and it throws off one of the primary ways the six stats are balanced. Constitution has nothing to do with learning; you can be a marathon runner, but that makes you no better at being able to pick up languages or historical knowledge. Mental fortitude is reflected in-game as Wisdom, where OP might have an argument, but mental acuity and ability to pick up new facts and incorporate them is Intelligence. Constitution is physical hardiness, and it's put in that category for the sole purpose of balancing classes and creating MAD choices so that there are different roles within a party. Characters have to prioritize so that there is a sense of cohesiveness within a group and a feeling that things are insurmountable without the diversity of talent that a well-prepared adventuring party brings to the table.

Increasing base skill points for the classes in question will do the same thing for those classes as OP's suggestion but remove the complete overhaul of ability score balance that's already inherent in the system. Occam's Razor comes into effect here: doing something absurdly complicated and potentially game-breaking is going to be much worse than just going straight to the problem's source and fixing it there. A roundabout way of showing your players that, "Hey, if you just crank up Constitution then guess what.... SKILL POINTS!!!" is much less efficient than just saying, "You guys have two more base skill points. Build your characters how you normally would."

I'm also getting the feeling that there is an assumption from the OP that players always gravitate and create optimized builds. In all of my years DMing this has not been the case. Making rules that assume your players will optimize and punishing or inconveniencing them for not will only lead to a table that feels it has to optimize character builds along the DM's parameters in order to play the game. There will be no fighter, rogue, ranger, paladin, barbarian, cavalier, inquisitor, slayer, druid, monk, sorcerer, bard, cleric, bloodrager, brawler, hunter, shaman, skald, swashbuckler, or warpriest with an Intelligence greater than 7 if optimization is assumed and this houserule is in effect. There will be more hit points and skill points, and if that's your goal, just hand them out and let people build their characters how they want.

Sovereign Court

Not for nothing, but Occam's Razor has nothing to do with what you just described, Puna'chong.

And just like you have experience that people do not gravitate towards optimized build, I have the experience that people will build their character on fluff rather than optimized builds. I still invest in Cha, even though it has no benefit to me. In just the same way, you can still invest in Int even if it has no benefit. I'd rather than players make choices based on fluff than mechanics.


my personal favorite idea relating to this was something MDT posted on the boards

mdt wrote:

Halve the # of skill points each class get's per level. So, Fighters/Wizards get 1, Rogues get 4, Bards get 3, etc.

Grant everyone skill points equal to their stat bonuses that can only be spent on skills associated with that stat.
So, someone playing a fighter with the following stats :
Str : 16 (+3)
Dex : 14 (+2)
Con : 16 (+3)
Int : 10 (+0)
Wis : 12 (+1)
Cha : 8 (-1)
Would have the following skill points to distribute :
Class : 1
Str : 3
Dex : 2
Wis : 1
Cha : -1
So they'd be very good at physical stuff, not so good at mental, and awful at charisma things.
You were allowed to trade 2 of one stat skill points to get 1 of another (so 2 str's to get one cha for example) to indicate concentrating more on diplomacy than on climbing or swimming.
Finally, if you had a negative stat, and you wanted to spend points on it, you had to spend enough that level to 'overcome' the negative. So from our example, if you wanted to put a point into diplomacy, you had to put spend your class point (1) to negate the -1 charisma skill level, then trade in two attribute skill points (1 str/1 dex, 2 str, 1 dex/1 wis, etc) to get another Cha skill point.
This worked really well, it gave people more skill ranks overall, but it also meant they usually ended up with skill curves that fit their stats, those who were smart ended up with lots of INT based skills, those who were really strong but not so bright (18 str/8 int) usually ended up with lots of climb and swim and not so many Knowledge skill.
EDIT : Note class skill points were 'unaligned' and could be spent on any skill.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing I'd like to point out is what it means to drop or raise an ability score. And what it means in relation to INT as a dump stat.

Sean K Reynolds wrote: wrote:
Actually, that's not a theory--the 3E designers deliberately used "+5 on an ability score = twice as good" as a concept when working on the game.

Here are the given Benchmarks in Pathfinder for Intelligence:

-An INT 10 is Average intelligence.
-An INT <3 and you're unable to comprehend language.

I'd wager that an INT 7 PC would probably be low average or have borderline impaired function. INT 5 and the PC would be ruled incompetent to stand trial for their murderhobo crimes.

Personally, of all the ability scores, I think INT is the hardest to roleplay. It's difficult to play someone more or less intelligent than yourself in a game that at its basis consists of intelligence or dice. And in lots of ways it's hard for a GM to hold a person to their INT stat. Has your GM ever said to the INT 7 Paladin, "Your character isn't smart enough to have come up with this battleplan"? Though judge by the conjoined complexity/stupidity of many PC plans, maybe that is roleplaying it well.

Anyway, the class based number of skill points are, to my knowledge, supposed to approximate your ability to gain skills while training/growing in your class abilities. It's managed by class because some classes might require more focus/study than others. There are only so many hours in the day and all that jazz.

So a Cleric/Wizard/Fighter/etc. of average intelligence would gain 2 skill points per level (Ok you won't be a very good wizard). I'm not sure that makes sense next to the 4 gained by the Barbarian/Monk/Druid/Cavalier/etc.

The SKR quote does raise some serious(ly fun) issues with Charisma. It's not unusual for a PC to be 25-30 in their casting stat. Which for CHA-based characters could be interpreted as 3-4 times as attractive as an average person. My home rule for this would be to have all people potentially romantically/physically interested in that PC roll a will save to keep from hitting on them, DC 10+mod. Soon the PC will be wearing masks/veils in public.

Scarab Sages

While I like christos gurd's results it seems like a lot of bookkeeping.

My prefered option would:
1) Either bring every class up by +2, or if I decided if that cheapened the benefits to the high skill point classes, increase base skill points by 50%.

2) Change Skill points to a one for one trade off (INT 13 = 3 skill points per level). Frankly I'd like to see more benefits from the odd levels similar to encumbrance works, so I'd probably bump up languages learned that way too.

3) I'd also tie INT, WIS, & CHA to Will Saves (highest score applies).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sacredless wrote:

Not for nothing, but Occam's Razor has nothing to do with what you just described, Puna'chong.

And just like you have experience that people do not gravitate towards optimized build, I have the experience that people will build their character on fluff rather than optimized builds. I still invest in Cha, even though it has no benefit to me. In just the same way, you can still invest in Int even if it has no benefit. I'd rather than players make choices based on fluff than mechanics.

Well, if you want to get really technical, yes. But most people will grasp that you're trying to argue for the simplest explanation or solution to the problem at hand, rather than a more complex or esoteric solution.

Again, I don't see how Constitution could be fluffed for skill points any more than Strength or Dexterity. An above poster mentioned Concentration checks from 3.X being based on CON, but that still has nothing to do with your ability to train in a skillful endeavor, but rather push through pain or distractions to ensure that your spell goes off. You seem sold on your idea, though, so have fun with it. It's changing a fundamental part of how characters are built. If you want to have ability scores mean less and have fluffed PCs then I'd honestly say the simplest solution is to just straight-up tell your players. Creating a Byzantine web of different rules to encourage characters that rely less on crunch seems underhanded and a bit like your players may not be on the same page you are.

Adios.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If your players have too few skill points to roleplay, I know that Unchained has an optional rule to apparently give everybody an extra 2 skill points, but they have to spend them only on certain skills. It's a two tiered thing. Like, adventuring skills and role playing skills or something like that. You could make up something similar to that, or wait for it.

Con to Skills is really unbalancing though, especially if it's just a choice. But I guess I'll just leave that as an opinion and not try to argue it. There are others here for that.

Sovereign Court

StabbittyDoom wrote:

Well, it makes the Scarred Witch Doctor *super* awesome. They get their full casting, hexes, fort saves, HP, *and* skill points all based on one stat. It was already good before, though.

If a high level Mountain Druid or Goliath Druid were to stay in Giant Form for 24+ hours consecutively (they could do so indefinitely) would they gain additional skills like they would with a headband of +int? What about a master chymist with mutagen, who can also hit 24h+?

Con drain, already the nastiest thing out there, gets even nastier.

But mostly I think what it's going to do is cause already good builds to be better at their main shtick, like a fighter with 1 more point of strength and dex, and the skill points will be seen almost as a side-effect. Unless the players already dump int into the floor, in which case skill'd be the main effect, but I've not (personally) seen a player do that in quite a while.

My main thing against con-for-skills isn't so much about creating any single OP build. More it's about giving no incentive for increasing int when you already depend a lot on con, and the incentive was already weak. I guess this is largely a play-style thing. And the flavor, while not *entirely* out there, is still a bit funky.

At the risk of jumping back on the "try something else" train: A more interesting rule might be to give everyone the same mod for skills (say, +4, so a fighter gets 6) and just not base skill points on your ability score(s) at all. But then you'd want to move something to Int if you did that, like initiative.

Thank you, Stabbity! I didn't think about the way the player gains skill points in another form, but I presume that it's the same way they would gain hit points.

I'll try to think of something to return to the INT stat. Regardless of fluff, I think that initiative would be good for the INT stat, since typically INT based classes tend to be arm or anvil classes, which typically have the higher initiative of the group. However, other classes don't use INT, so I'm not entirely sure if that's how I'd want it to work. Conceivably, you could start out players with +10 initiative and then deduct based on CON, but that doesn't really solve the problem, that's a different topic entirely.

Honestly, I don't know how I'd want to do that. But I'll think about what I'd want to add to INT to balance things out, in case it's needed.


Hmm. If you wanted to give something back to Intelligence, you could actually take one of the pages from 4th edition and let players use Intelligence for AC and Reflex as opposed to Dexterity. Then Strength for Fortitude saves and Charisma for Will. I think that's how it went.

It's certainly at least an... Interesting idea.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Skill Points bound to Constitution All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules