Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Level, Skills, Feats, and Summary Tab

Expand Messages
  • arknathd
    I really don t see where all the confusion lies in determining Con/Int modifiers being retroactive. There is no other way to do hit points without a direct
    Message 1 of 58 , Jul 1, 2002
      I really don't see where all the confusion lies in determining
      Con/Int modifiers being retroactive. There is no other way to do hit
      points without a direct reflection of the Con modifier. When you
      gain a Con point, your body is tougher all over, not tougher in some
      spots versus others. Your WHOLE body takes a hit the same, and
      making Con mods unretroactive doesn't make any sense in the grand
      scheme of things.

      However, as people age, they get smarter. Therefore, the game
      mechanic uses a point of Intelligence to reflect that. Does that
      mean my brain "magically" gains knowledge when I get smarter? No.
      Do certain events/spells/skills insert themselves into my brain as if
      i've always known them? No. Intelligence is not retroactive because
      you cannot suddenly learn things or know things as if you've always
      known them. If I took a course in a subject, my brain doesnt all of
      the sudden become more aborbent to everything around me, including
      that subject.

      Sorry, but it seems to me that this debate is pointless.

      Ark
      Feat 'tang
      LST Henchmule
      "Life's a hench." - Nodwick coffee mug


      --- In pcgen@y..., "StromMcLeod" <pkmf@y...> wrote:
      > --- In pcgen@y..., Keith Davies <keith.davies@k...> wrote:
      > > [1] this may be slightly more generous than the rules state; I
      seem
      > to
      > > recall someone saying the other day that you get the benefit
      of
      > > improved Con when rolling hit points, but not improved Int for
      > > skills. I prefer consistency. Neither of these attributes'
      > > benefits can be pushed back -- you don't the extra hit points
      or
      > > skill points if you advance for the levels before your
      advance
      > them.
      > > You do get the benefits for the level in which you advance
      them.
      >
      > actually, you can see the official (unless errata'ed) rules on page
      > 10 of the PHB...
      >
      > It starts with "For example, when Mialee becomes a 4th-level
      wizard,
      > she decides to increase her Intelligence to 16...." then "as a new
      > 4th level char, she get the skill points AFTER raising her Int,
      > giving her 5 instead of 4." then, "but this is not retroactive" so
      > she doesn't gain 3 extra points from the previous levels where it
      > wasn't 5.
      > So, Increased Int does not affect skill points retroactively.
      > However, ability increase happens BEFORE selecting the class to
      raise.
      >
      > On the other hand, page 145 gives a checklist of "When your
      character
      > achieves a new level" and... just to add spice to our lives, puts
      > them in this order/sequence:
      > Choose Class, BAB, Base Saves, Skill Points, Ability Score, Hit
      > Point, Feats, Spells, Class Features.
      >
      > fun!
      >
      > Under Hit Points, there are also 2 contradictory statements! :)
      >
      > Pg 146 says: Roll hit die, add Con mod, add the result to Total Hit
      > points.
      >
      > This would assume that CON changes are also not retroactive.
      >
      > However... back on page 9: "If a character's Constitution changes
      > enough to alter his or her Con Mod, his or her hitpoints also
      > increase or decrease accordingly."
      >
      > more fun!
      >
      > maybe they fixed these in the erratas...
    • arknathd
      I will say this again...and this is the last time. I was merely pointing out that the rules in the book, as they apply to the way PCGen implements them, are
      Message 58 of 58 , Jul 5, 2002
        I will say this again...and this is the last time.

        I was merely pointing out that the rules in the book, as they apply
        to the way PCGen implements them, are very clear. Thus, the debate
        that was being made, on this PCGen oriented board which deals with
        the way PCGen implements rules from sourcebooks, was pointless.

        Hopefully this clears up any misconceptions about my opinions on
        debates. Debates about relevant topics are good...I enjoy a good
        debate even.

        Ah well, clear as mud, right?

        and, the obligatory quote from Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to
        say about that."

        Ark
        Feat 'tang
        LST Henchmule
        "Life's a hench." <HEE HAW> - Nodwick coffee mug


        --- In pcgen@y..., Mynex <mynex3@c...> wrote:
        >
        > Haffhand, the very same question could be asked of you for this
        troll
        > question.
        >
        > Regardless, debates on this group happen quite often, and many, MANY
        > people play devil's advocate. Many people on this group are more
        than
        > willing to look at issues multiple times from different directions
        until
        > a consensus is reached on how to handle something. And sometimes
        people
        > have to repeat their arguments as the original message has been
        lost in
        > the shuffle or misunderstood through various replies. This is
        nothing
        > new here, and won't change, nor do we want it to change.
        >
        > As for 'traits' to be inferred, I _could_ make many of them from
        _your_
        > question, as I've seen many "questions" like this at the WotC
        boards...
        > but we're generally a bit more friendly here.
        >
        > Mynex
        >
        > - #1 Evil Assistant to the PCGen Code Monkeys
        > - List files & Documentation Silverback
        > - RPG Reviews Editor & Reviewer
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: haffhand [mailto:bacchus@m...]
        > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 11:02 PM
        > To: pcgen@y...
        > Subject: [pcgen] Re: Level, Skills, Feats, and Summary Tab
        >
        > --- In pcgen@y..., "arknathd" <gemguard@h...> wrote:
        > > --- In pcgen@y..., Scott Ellsworth <scott@a...> wrote:
        > > >
        > <snip>
        > But I still say the debate is pointless.
        > </snip>
        >
        > This is twice now you've engaged in a debate you believe to be
        > pointless. Same debate, but done twice. What traits of you is one
        > supposed to infer from that?
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.