• Please note: In an effort to ensure that all of our users feel welcome on our forums, we’ve updated our forum rules. You can review the updated rules here: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=5528.

    If a fellow Community member is not following the forum rules, please report the post by clicking the Report button (the red yield sign on the left) located on every post. This will notify the moderators directly. If you have any questions about these new rules, please contact support@wolflair.com.

    - The Lone Wolf Development Team

Increased Intelligence erroneously adding languages

R

Redcap's Corner

Well-known member
This subject seems to have been mentioned a few times on here already, and there seems to have been some debate, but I thought I'd revisit the subject since it's the most annoying aspect of Hero Lab to me at present (not to imply that Hero Lab is annoying at large... It isn't, and it's clear you guys put a phenomenal amount of work into making it continuously more awesome!). When a character bumps his Intelligence from an odd to an even number after creation, or puts on a Headband of Vast Intelligence, Hero Lab seems to be under the mistaken impression that he somehow knows more languages. This is a bug, and I want to make the case from three different angles:

1) The Core Rulebook explicitly states that starting languages only are based on Intelligence: "The number of bonus languages your character knows at the start of the game. These are in addition to any starting racial languages and Common. If you have a penalty, you can still read and speak your racial languages unless your Intelligence is lower than 3." This is not incompatible with James Jacobs's oft-quoted assertion that "All bonuses are retroactive when an ability score increases, be they bonuses to damage, to skill ranks, to hit points, to saves, to skill checks... all of them. Skill ranks not being retroactive are a 3.5 convention we specifically removed from the game because it was a weird exception to the rule, and since now there are no exceptions to this rule, there's no need to specifically state that skill ranks are retroactively granted if your Intelligence goes up." He doesn't mention languages and it's honestly a really loose reading of the rules that extrapolates gained languages from his clarification. Intelligence applies to 1) skill points gained at each level, 2) Appraise, Craft, Knowledge, Linguistics, and Spellcraft checks, and 3) languages your character knows at the start of the game. Since languages only check Int "at the start of the game" (pretty obviously intended to mean "at character creation"), it seems a poor reading of the rules to add a language known every time a character's Int improves.

2) Paizo stat-blocks always adhere to the above interpretation. Hell, even the example stat-blocks included with the iPad Hero Lab have the languages worked out as above and come complete with erroneous error warnings, if I remember correctly.

3) I realize this is a game of abstractions, but it just doesn't make sense that someone would just automatically know more languages upon becoming smarter. Other things that improve with stats, sure! I buy that a belt that makes me healthier will make me harder to kill, a belt that makes me stronger will make me hit harder, and a headband that makes me wiser will improve my will power, but does it make any sense that a headband that makes me smarter will somehow make me automatically fluent in one or more languages? I grant that it certainly makes me more capable of learning languages, but auto-learning? Putting ranks in skills is supposed to represent training in those areas, so I can buy that putting a rank in linguistics represents the culmination of my having spent time learning a language and thereby gains me use of one, but being smarter merely allows for the application of knowledge in ways previously unused. It doesn't by default grant additional knowledge.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I play a lot of arcane casters and this is a big ugly bug that annoys me every time I use Hero Lab to play one.
 
I'm sorry, but I disagree with your reading of the rules. The number of languages granted by intelligence is one of the "...statistics related to that ability." (Core Rulebook pg. 555).

If you have a ruling from someone at Paizo that is directly on point for this issue, I would appreciate a link to it.
 
The workaround for this one, if your GM rules differently for your campaign, is to add the "Languages Known, From Intelligence" adjustment on the Permanent Adjustments table on the Personal tab, and set it to the correct negative number.
 
Mathias, I really don't see how you can disagree with this interpretation of the language rules. As Redcap said, Intelligence very specifically calls out that bonus languages from Intelligence are added at the "start of the game." I mean, I really don't understand how it could possibly be interpreted any other way. Yes, the developers have come forward to say that all bonuses from increased attributes are retroactive, and that because this is the general rule, there is no need to call it out separately. So, with the developers saying that because it is not an exception to the rule, and it not needing to be called out because it is the general rule, then specifically saying that it applies to 'the start of the game' is specifically saying that it is an exception to that rule. As Pathfinder is a game built off of making exceptions to the rules, then I would say that specifically saying something contrary to the general rule needs to be treated as one of those exceptions.

But really, the strongest argument is this:
Redcap's Corner said:
2) Paizo stat-blocks always adhere to the above interpretation. Hell, even the example stat-blocks included with the iPad Hero Lab have the languages worked out as above and come complete with erroneous error warnings, if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...

When he says always, I know he hasn't checked every single portfolio or anything, but EVERY single portfolio I've ever opened, and every single statblock I've ever checked myself has also always stuck with this interpretation as well.

As you probably still don't agree, I'm just gonna throw this in: At least make it so that when advancing a character and increasing their intelligence, give them extra language slots, but somehow get rid of the error message. That way characters will have the free language slots open to learn, but they don't get told that their character is wrong just because they haven't actually learned another language yet.
 
ChrisRevocateur said:
As you probably still don't agree, I'm just gonna throw this in: At least make it so that when advancing a character and increasing their intelligence, give them extra language slots, but somehow get rid of the error message. That way characters will have the free language slots open to learn, but they don't get told that their character is wrong just because they haven't actually learned another language yet.
Click to expand...

I'm going to go so far as to ask that this should be possible for all error messages. some way to check them off, or ignore them so you don't always have it marked red or show with the exclamation point.
 
Thats a pretty tall order that you're asking for, and I think all it would really get you is that you dont see the red error at the bottom of the page.

You could also approach this from the other side and just not add the language when the slot opens due to an increase in Int.

Although I like the idea that a character can learne a new language over time during the game.
 
Characters CAN learn new languages over the course of a game! (: They just have to put a rank in linguistics to do it. I'll see what I can do to get someone from Paizo to clarify this so it can be put to rest.
 
Just to chime in again really quickly: the above quote from James Jacobs seems intended as a clarification of the core rules, not as errata. Mr. Jacobs (God bless him), who is not a designer and seems very definitely to be a fluff guy, so often has his quotes used to justify opposite interpretations of the rules he's trying to help clarify because his choices of words are not terribly precise. That said, the actual core rules say that Intelligence only dictates the number of languages you know at character creation.

I'm not trying to hassle anyone, and I'm sure its been frustrating to hear this opinion voiced over and over for years when you disagree with it. It's just that it's also really frustrating having to constantly double check things when the point of using Hero Lab for me is to minimize human error and workload. I'll do my best to get Paizo to voice a definitive clarification.
 
Actually, the exact quote says "...at the start of the game," not "at character generation."

So the question is, what if you're creating a character for a game at a level higher than 1? Say you're creating a level 10 character to join a game and let's say that they have an INT bonus thanks to a magical device *and* it's determined that they received the item say at level 6. I'd say it's reasonable to rule that the INT bonus language stat in part reflects potential and that over the course of 4 levels, the character could recognize that potential.

In a case where someone instantly receives an INT bonus, I could see a reasonable interpretation being that the character doesn't get bonus languages out of the blue, but they'd have extra bonus slots to be filled in when the DM says to fill them in.

The rules themselves say:

You apply your character's Intelligence modifier to:

The number of bonus languages your character knows at the start of the game. These are in addition to any starting racial languages and Common. If you have a penalty, you can still read and speak your racial languages unless your Intelligence is lower than 3.
Click to expand...

James Jacobs said, "All bonuses are retroactive when an ability score increases, be they bonuses to damage, to skill ranks, to hit points, to saves, to skill checks... all of them. Skill ranks not being retroactive are a 3.5 convention we specifically removed from the game because it was a weird exception to the rule, and since now there are no exceptions to this rule, there's no need to specifically state that skill ranks are retroactively granted if your Intelligence goes up."

"All bonuses are retroactive..."

Retroactive, as defined by Merriam-Webster is ": extending in scope or effect to a prior time or to conditions that existed or originated in the past; especially : made effective as of a date prior to enactment, promulgation, or imposition"

Thus as I read it, you determine *all* bonuses as if the new Intelligence was the one at the start of the game. The wording in the Intelligence section (determined at the start of the game) is *not* an exception to the general rule regarding all bonuses being retroactively calculated. They explain a timing detail - (1# bonus at start) and (2# retroactively) calculated informs us to redo (1#) whenever there is an increase in INT.

But as I said earlier, I think it's ultimately up to the DM.

On a side note, describing James Jacobs as "not a designer and seems very definitely to be a fluff guy," seems somewhat dismissive of someone who is credited as Editor-in-Chief for the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, Designer for Advanced Player's Guide, Designer for Bestiary 1, and Developer for Bestiary 2 - some very non-fluff roles in some very key books. While he does seem take an interest in the fluff stuff, he also seems engaged in the crunchy bits as well. I don't think you can ignore one or the other in terms of discussing his expertise relating to rule-related answer.

And for what it's worth, Redcap's Corner, this was the first time I've actually seen this question arise as we've been doing it the way I outline, so it was actually nice for me to research it and explore the question. Thank you for bringing it up.
 
Last edited:
Oh, and found this specific quote from James Jacobs, "Correct. All bonuses are retroactive, so if your Intelligence increases, you do indeed gain additional Spell Mastery spells. Treat these bonuses the same way you treat bonus skill ranks and bonus languages granted by intelligence increases in your game."

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kek5?Intelligence-increases-and-spell-mastery#6

If he's saying you gain bonus Spell Mastery spells and we know from explicit statements in the Core Rulebook that you get bonus skill ranks, then when he says to treat them all the same, that would indicate that bonus languages are also granted.
 
I don't mean to be dismissive of James Jacobs. I have a lot of respect for him, and think he does great work. It's hard for me to say what I believe without being a little dismissive, though. He is, as you mentioned, credited as editor-in-chief/developer/designer in some important books. His official title at Paizo, however, is creative director, and he definitely seems to be a fluff guy first. He has also frequently answered questions on the Paizo boards incorrectly and even more frequently answered them correctly but used imprecise enough language that false conclusions are drawn from his posts. He obviously knows what he's talking about and I hope I'm not coming across as claiming he's incompetent or anything, because he's not. But sometimes he doesn't read the questions he's answering all that carefully, and sometimes he doesn't phrase his answers terribly precisely. As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't in 1) a Paizo book, 2) a Paizo errata document, 3) a Paizo FAQ, or 4) a post made by Jason Bulmahn or Sean K. Reynolds, it isn't official.
 
Redcap's Corner said:
As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't in 1) a Paizo book, 2) a Paizo errata document, 3) a Paizo FAQ, or 4) a post made by Jason Bulmahn or Sean K. Reynolds, it isn't official.
Click to expand...

Hey I agree with you, that there needs to be an official way to do the languages deal.

But I don't agree your interpretation is correct. I agree with the interpretation utilized by Herolab and since stat blocks have always historically been done by someone other than the developers, they are the last place you want to look for evidence of how a rule works.

So if they did swing Herolab to not adding languages on higher INT, I'd file a bug report with them the next day.
 
Redcap's Corner said:
I don't mean to be dismissive of James Jacobs. I have a lot of respect for him, and think he does great work. It's hard for me to say what I believe without being a little dismissive, though. He is, as you mentioned, credited as editor-in-chief/developer/designer in some important books. His official title at Paizo, however, is creative director, and he definitely seems to be a fluff guy first. He has also frequently answered questions on the Paizo boards incorrectly and even more frequently answered them correctly but used imprecise enough language that false conclusions are drawn from his posts. He obviously knows what he's talking about and I hope I'm not coming across as claiming he's incompetent or anything, because he's not. But sometimes he doesn't read the questions he's answering all that carefully, and sometimes he doesn't phrase his answers terribly precisely. As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't in 1) a Paizo book, 2) a Paizo errata document, 3) a Paizo FAQ, or 4) a post made by Jason Bulmahn or Sean K. Reynolds, it isn't official.
Click to expand...

To be sure, there have been confusing and contradictory answers by James...but then, the same is true of answers by Sean (and in Sean's case, some of his answers are frankly terrible). However, given that James has given essentially the same answer twice on separate occasions, that speaks strongly to a consistency of thought.

I would hesitate to placing stock faith in any of the four methods you outline - I think that even the best method would typically require a DM's ruling for a given campaign.

I point out that in the Core Rulebook, under the section that describes what happens if you gain points in an ability, it only specifically mentions skills and spells. Thus, if you wanted to not add Bonus Languages, I'd say you have a just case for that at your table.

If, on the other hand, you opted to add Bonus Languages, you're supported by official Paizo responses, tangential responses to other subjects given, the actual wording of when you give Bonus Languages - i.e. at the start of the game, not at character creation as those in theory can be different.

Frankly, short of something clear and official from Paizo (and I sincerely wish you good luck on that), it would seem that no matter how Hero Lab handles it, people will think Wolflair is doing it wrong...and they'd have a valid argument.

One last thing - while a Creative Director is, as you'd imagine, someone overseeing a lot of the graphical and descriptive elements, in a lot of places there's also some technical overlap. Given the size of Paizo and James' genuine design work, I find it somewhat difficult to believe that he doesn't have an antennae in on things mechanical, even if it's not his main thrust. And again, given some of SKR's responses to questions, I hardly think he could do worse.
 
Thanks for following up and pointing us to the official response. I'm glad it supports things as they are!
 
enrious said:
Regardless of how it was answered, the fact that it was answered is remarkable.
Click to expand...

I can't second this enough. This is one of those problems where two people read a passage of text and come to be certain of their interpretation (which happens to be diametrically opposed.)

The fact that Paizo will answer these questions is one thing. WotC nearly never did so.

The second fact is the community is willing to accept the statements. I remember several statements on WotC about how things worked and you still had the folks (rude as they may be) who rejected it and still championed their "RAW" and ignored the developers.

So in short, Pathfinder community is stocked with better players, better developers, better companies, and just plain more fun as a result.
 
risner said:
I can't second this enough. This is one of those problems where two people read a passage of text and come to be certain of their interpretation (which happens to be diametrically opposed.)

The fact that Paizo will answer these questions is one thing. WotC nearly never did so.

The second fact is the community is willing to accept the statements. I remember several statements on WotC about how things worked and you still had the folks (rude as they may be) who rejected it and still championed their "RAW" and ignored the developers.

So in short, Pathfinder community is stocked with better players, better developers, better companies, and just plain more fun as a result.
Click to expand...

totally agree about the community, though it seemed to me like the ruling was the obvious interpretation because it would not have been consistent with how 99.99% of everything similar works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top