religion issue, don't read if you are easily offended
Religion, it's continued existence, and the undeserved respect it holds in an enlightened age offends me quite a bit, so thank you for the spoiler tag >_>
religion issue, don't read if you are easily offendedReligion, it's continued existence, and the undeserved respect it holds in an enlightened age offends me quite a bit, so thank you for the spoiler tag >_>
I googled that emoticon, but I could not find it.
I hope not. If so I advise the poster to either read carefully since I was mostly speaking on past events, not that they could not happen today or heed warnings when given.
After looking around some more the closest matches I could find were being upset or satire.
Oh well.
|
I find it interesting that people when citing religion tend to use the negative example when attempting explain Charisma. My take would be to use both positive and negative Consider:
Religion: David Koresh (negative) vs Mother Theresa (postive)
Politics: Adolf Hitler (negative) vs Golda Meir (positive)
Business: Bernie Madoff (negative) vs S. Truett Cathy (positive)
In all these above examples are people who had vast influence, but not so much on the looks. Hilter and Koresh were often attributed to having a great charisma. Koresh was dyslexic and dropped out from high school junior year, so, training to improve is 'diplomacy skills' would be hard. Natural Charisma? I think so....
Dang it. Sucked into the 'Charisma' debate when I wanted to get the thread back on track.
We all see why some people use Charisma as a dump stat when Min/Maxing: It's a highly interpretable stat that can be (apparently) easily compensated for by RP'ing (or perhaps a lack there of). To a lesser extent all the 'Mental' Stats suffer the same.
Very rarely do I see con used as a dump stat. But going back to my original question (in regards to point buy): Why do it at all? why Min/Max?
Very rarely do I see con used as a dump stat. But going back to my original question (in regards to point buy): Why do it at all? why Min/Max?
There are several reasons that seem fairly strait-forward.
1) You must give up something to become better at something else. Unless you want strait 18s across the board, this is an inevitable truth.2) Being good at what you do helps you succeed at what you do. A Fighter that has a 13 Strength and a 13 Charisma is most likely not performing for his team at competent levels. Likewise, a wizard with 18 Strength, and 8 Int is completely useless.
3) Physical stats tend to be more important in situations where you are in danger (which is the assumption of virtually every campaign at some point).
Swinging pointy objects, carrying your gear, and being naturally gifted at climbing, swimming, or jumping (Str).
When things like pointy objects are being hurled or swung at you, and explosive balls of fire erupting around you, then it's good to be quick to avoid them (Dex).
Not dying (Con).
Meanwhile, Fighters with 7 Charisma and no ranks in Diplomacy who let the charisma focused bards and sorcerers with ranks in Diplomacy speak for the group are fine. Why are they fine? Because it's likely that the sorcerer and bard also defer to the Fighter in melee combat.
Having a low Intelligence means you have less skill points. It's hard to call someone who knows more about every subject than most people, and speaks eight languages, stupid. They might get less skill points than their higher Int peers, which could represent a learning disability or a lack of general education/study, but the effects are clear.
[i]Example: Let's take a human cleric. He has Int 7 and Cha 7, and puts his favored class bonus into skills. He gets 3 ranks per level. At 1st level he places a rank into Knowledge (Religion), Knowledge (History), and Knowledge (Arcana), giving him an effective +2 in each. He can now take 10 and answer questions most people couldn't answer, and he can attempt them where others couldn't. At 2nd level, he places a point into Diplomacy, giving him a +2, a point into Linguistics granting a new language and a +2 modifier, and puts a point into Knowledge (History). At level 3, he dumps 3 points into Spellcraft because he's going to be making Wondrous Items soonihs. At 4th level, he drops a point into Spellcraft, a point into Knowledge (Nature), and anther in Lingusitics and now speaks 3 languages. At 5th level, he drops a point into Knowledge (Local), Spellcraft, and Linguistics.
So by 5th level, our "moron" speaks four languages, can comfortably craft a plethora of magical sundries, and knows more than most people about Religion, Magic, Nature, Locations and People, and History. This is before things like masterwork tools, magic items, and so forth.
By 20th level, he will gain an additional 45 skill points, which means he could improve his knowledges further, learn survival skills, practice medicine, run out of languages to lean, etc, etc, etc.
Stupid low Int score morons. >.>
I find it interesting that people when citing religion tend to use the negative example when attempting explain Charisma. My take would be to use both positive and negative Consider:
Religion: David Koresh (negative) vs Mother Theresa (postive)
Politics: Adolf Hitler (negative) vs Golda Meir (positive)
Business: Bernie Madoff (negative) vs S. Truett Cathy (positive)
In all these above examples are people who had vast influence, but not so much on the looks. Hilter and Koresh were often attributed to having a great charisma. Koresh was dyslexic and dropped out from high school junior year, so, training to improve is 'diplomacy skills' would be hard. Natural Charisma? I think so....
Dang it. Sucked into the 'Charisma' debate when I wanted to get the thread back on track.
We all see why some people use Charisma as a dump stat when Min/Maxing: It's a highly interpretable stat that can be (apparently) easily compensated for by RP'ing (or perhaps a lack there of). To a lesser extent all the 'Mental' Stats suffer the same.
Very rarely do I see con used as a dump stat. But going back to my original question (in regards to point buy): Why do it at all? why Min/Max?
I don't see stat dumping and min-maxing as the exact same thing. Min-Maxing is an extreme form of stat dumping.
A GM may run a hard enough game that a player feels it is required, and if that same GM is not being generous with treasure then you have to got by however you can.
|
It's hard to call someone who knows more about every subject than most people, and speaks eight languages, stupid.
I have know 2 persons with a certified Dawn syndrome.
One did know 2 languages fairly well and probably hadn't a IQ score above 80, the other had a IQ score around 70 (and that is lower than a 7 int in D&D) and he did "know" four languages. Italian, a Slavic dialect, English and Latin.
Knowing a language to the level of "You elf. I want eat." mean very little.
It's hard to call someone who knows more about every subject than most people, and speaks eight languages, stupid.I have know 2 persons with a certified Dawn syndrome.
One did know 2 languages fairly well and probably hadn't a IQ score above 80, the other had a IQ score around 70 (and that is lower than a 7 int in D&D) and he did "know" four languages. Italian, a Slavic dialect, English and Latin.
Knowing a language to the level of "You elf. I want eat." mean very little.
I am pretty sure she meant fluently. If not then I know over 10 languages, just don't try to hold a conversation with me in any of them except english.
Having a low Intelligence means you have less skill points. It's hard to call someone who knows more about every subject than most people, and speaks eight languages, stupid. They might get less skill points than their higher Int peers, which could represent a learning disability or a lack of general education/study, but the effects are clear.Example: Let's take a human cleric. He has Int 7 and Cha 7, and puts his favored class bonus into skills. He gets 3 ranks per level. At 1st level he places a rank into Knowledge (Religion), Knowledge (History), and Knowledge (Arcana), giving him an effective +2 in each. He can now take 10 and answer questions most people couldn't answer, and...
Doesn't this strike you as a problem though?
Charisma and Int dumps (excepting class abilties) specifically can be mitigated by allocating skill points.
Strength, Dex, and Con cannot. I can't just spend skill points to hit harder. Or spend skill points for better initiative. Sure, there are feats, but feats are more expensive than skills.
I think the core problem people have comes from the fact that a player can fairly easily overcome dumped int or charisma by RAW, unless class abilities depend on it, but can't overcome low initial physical scores.
I'm not saying that your reading of the rules is incorrect, it's not. I'm saying that the rules are lacking in this area.
Having a low Intelligence means you have less skill points. It's hard to call someone who knows more about every subject than most people, and speaks eight languages, stupid. They might get less skill points than their higher Int peers, which could represent a learning disability or a lack of general education/study, but the effects are clear.Example: Let's take a human cleric. He has Int 7 and Cha 7, and puts his favored class bonus into skills. He gets 3 ranks per level. At 1st level he places a rank into Knowledge (Religion), Knowledge (History), and Knowledge (Arcana), giving him an effective +2 in each. He can now take 10 and answer questions most people couldn't answer, and...
Doesn't this strike you as a problem though?
Charisma and Int dumps (excepting class abilties) specifically can be mitigated by allocating skill points.
Strength, Dex, and Con cannot. I can't just spend skill points to hit harder. Or spend skill points for better initiative. Sure, there are feats, but feats are more expensive than skills.
I think the core problem people have comes from the fact that a player can fairly easily overcome dumped int or charisma by RAW, unless class abilities depend on it, but can't overcome low initial physical scores.
I'm not saying that your reading of the rules is incorrect, it's not. I'm saying that the rules are lacking in this area.
You can spend ranks on physical stat based skills like climbing and acrobatics though. I really don't like the result of either case now that I think about it. I am all about improvement, but ranks basically allow you to ignore the stat score to an extent, and if you take skill focus it gets better or worse depending on your view of things.
Having a low Intelligence means you have less skill points. It's hard to call someone who knows more about every subject than most people, and speaks eight languages, stupid. They might get less skill points than their higher Int peers, which could represent a learning disability or a lack of general education/study, but the effects are clear.Example: Let's take a human cleric. He has Int 7 and Cha 7, and puts his favored class bonus into skills. He gets 3 ranks per level. At 1st level he places a rank into Knowledge (Religion), Knowledge (History), and Knowledge (Arcana), giving him an effective +2 in each. He can now take 10 and answer questions most people couldn't answer, and...
Doesn't this strike you as a problem though?
Charisma and Int dumps (excepting class abilties) specifically can be mitigated by allocating skill points.
Strength, Dex, and Con cannot. I can't just spend skill points to hit harder. Or spend skill points for better initiative. Sure, there are feats, but feats are more expensive than skills.
I think the core problem people have comes from the fact that a player can fairly easily overcome dumped int or charisma by RAW, unless class abilities depend on it, but can't overcome low initial physical scores.
I'm not saying that your reading of the rules is incorrect, it's not. I'm saying that the rules are lacking in this area.
Strength: Can hit better and harder with superior weapons and feats. And improve strength based skills with skill points. Most of my weakling casters have a rank in swim and climb, so they can take 10 on easy checks.
Dexterity: Can compensate for Dex related effects with feats (Imp Initiative, Lightning Reflexes etc). Same story with skills as Str.
Constitution: Toughness, Great Fortitude. No skills are based off this one.
Your beef with int and cha is that they don't DO anything in _battle_. And that is where physical weakness is punished. And that skills and combat are largely disassociated. The non-combat aspect of the game vs the combat aspect is terribly underdeveloped if you draw parallels between the two.
And in all other fields than ability scores does this shine through VERY clearly. In order to be good at social stuff, you only need to put some ranks in relevant skills, and maybe traits or feats if you want to be REALLY good. In order to be REALLY good at combat, you need to put a metric ton of feats towards it, have high scores and obtain optimal gear. Not to mention that falling short in terms of social encounters rarely leads to anything terribly inconvenient, while falling short in combat means DEATH.
Strength: Can hit better and harder with superior weapons and feats. And improve strength based skills with skill points. Most of my weakling casters have a rank in swim and climb, so they can take 10 on easy checks.Dexterity: Can compensate for Dex related effects with feats (Imp Initiative, Lightning Reflexes etc). Same story with skills as Str.
Constitution: Toughness, Great Fortitude. No skills are based off this one.
Your beef with int and cha is that they don't DO anything in _battle_. And that is where physical weakness is punished. And that skills and combat are largely...
But a feat is more expensive than a skill point. A feat you get once every 2 levels, as opposed to an absolute minimum of one skill point per level.
My beef with int and charisma is that they don't do anything other than skills and therefore can be more easily dealt with.
I always play high charisma/high int, very low combat games. It's not a problem at my tables, at all, ever. My issue is with the theorycraft.
Spending skill points in climb is all well and good, but it doesn't overcome all the problems of low str. Spending points in the charisma skills apparently completely overcomes low charisma. That's the root of the issue.
The non-combat aspect of the game vs the combat aspect is terribly underdeveloped if you draw parallels between the two.
Which is one of the things that bothers me the most, actually. I'd like social stuff to be much more developed, allowing for charisma and intelligence to come into their own as valuable abilities.
If someone in one of my campaigns attempted to dump charisma, wisdom or intelligence, and then just tried to skill point their way around it, I'd impose some attribute based limits to those skills. I'd have to think about what those limits would be, but an int of 7 is not going to be fluent in seven languages, period. A cha of 7 is not going to be a diplomat, period. A wisdom of 7 is not going to be spotting the mouse in the next room gnawing on the leather strap of the prison key, period.
Dumping stats would have consequences in my world.
Now, I am very lucky in that I have never had a player do that, and I've run a lot of campaigns. I must be really lucky, my players always seem to build reasonable characters and don't min/max everything to gain every mechanical advantage possible. But I can't help but think that is in part because I set expectations about my campaigns and let people know that dumping stats will hurt them.
Dumping stats would have consequences in my world.
Dumbest thing I have heard you say I am sorry to say Brassy.
Of course it has consequences -- think about it:
I dump int -- now I have fewer skill points and learn fewer languages to begin with. So I spend some of my very hard to come by skill points on learning languages instead of say perception. This is of course purely flavor since I could instead look for a tongues ability.
Now you are going to turn around and say "You've not paid enough with your lack of skills and having to then spend more skills to learn these languages -- I'm going to punish you more"?
That makes sense how?
I go from getting 2 skill points a level to 1 a level and then spend that one per level over 6 levels to finally be able to talk in 7 languages (common and then 6 more) and somehow I've not suffered enough for you?
I have no ranks in swim, climb, acrobatics, sense motive, bluff, diplomacy, perception or anything else -- and you are going to still hit me more for this choice?
Or wisdom -- I now suck at making will saves -- I am unlikely to make my perception checks or sense motive checks. I am easy to feint, and bluff due to my low wisdom and now you are going to hit me more when I do put points into heal? Nevermind that my bonus isn't going to be good or that I'm trying to play a naive healer witch, you are going to punish me more for having a weakness -- that you can already easily exploit?
Do you hit the wizard with an extra penalty to hit due to his low dex?
Make all the house rules that you like, but that's the way it is. Meanwhile, inventing whole new drawbacks and limitations just to spite your player seems like the worst kind of GMing (this coming from someone who GMs 90% of his gaming time, because no one else is around).
Likewise, inventing drawbacks that don't exist, such as telling a player that their Int 7 Character can't use grammar, or count to 10, is a steamy load as well.
Meanwhile, people love to complain that Intelligence and Charisma are useless and not as important as other stats, but they are vital if you are A) a class that relies on them, or B) you want more skills.
Intelligence is pretty much required if you want a lot of skill power. While you can get by one 2-3 skill points per level (I wouldn't want only 1 point per level), it's way more convenient to have more. In my practical optimization thread, I put a pretty solid amount in Intelligence on a Fighter to pull some extra skill points every level so he could function outside of combat as well.
Charisma is the soft stat, while also being a balancing stat. Classes like Paladins would be OP if their paladin abilities were based off Strength, for example. Charisma is the stat used for inborn magic, leadership, and is vitally important to undead (a wizard with a 7 Cha makes a craptastically frail lich).
The whole reason you dump stats is if you don't plan to use them as much, or you feel you can try to be weaker or do without in one area to be stronger in another.
A fine example would by my tabletop group. One of their characters (the party's Paladin with a shiny super-huge charisma and ranks in Diplomacy) and the party's barbarian and psychic warrior (both who couldn't convince paper to burn at 1st level). They're better at what they do, and rely on Aid Another to help the Paladin, as a group. The psychic warrior has put a few points into Diplomacy to get his Aid Another chances to be better. The Barbarian's picked up the feat to apply his Strength to Intimidate and put some points into Intimidate to question hostile prisoners.
Everyone participates, and everything seems to be working 110% OK.
I'm not the one who showed how a cleric who dumped int to gain wisdom bonuses can pump skill points into skills and be anything but "dumb."
What Ashiel is describing is a classic example of exploiting the game rules to get around the intended consequences of low attributes.
I suppose I'm lucky nobody in my games has ever been that much of a game-mechanic exploiter. I suppose you could argue that low int is the hardest case to exploit since the low int itself reduces available skill points, but a class that benefits from intelligence dumping charisma to gain maximum intelligence then using those intelligence-provided skill points to boost skills to offset the charisma loss is pretty much a classic example of exploiting the game rules.
If someone in one of my games attempted this I would sit down with them and ask what character concept they were attempting to fulfill. If the only answer they could give me is that they wanted to dump charisma without suffering from it, I would have to think hard about how to deal with it.
I have to be honest. I really do not like min-maxers and game-mechanic exploiters. I don't like playing with them and I don't like GMing them. We had one in our group and he drove the GM crazy. I simply never volunteered to GM any game he was playing in because I didn't want to deal with it.
I've been a GM for a long, long time, and from what my players tell me, I'm a pretty good one. But as I said, I have managed so far to avoid being the GM with a player like that, and I intend for that to continue.
Correct. He doesn't have to be dumb. He isn't, however, the best. Keep in mind, we're comparing these characters to normal people (that would be commoners with 3 PB ability scores, with 2 skill points, a tiny handful of class skills, with the average being a +0 to most skills, or a +4 being professional level).
If he had a 10 Int, he could have gotten 20 hit points (effectively +2 Con as far as HP goes). If he had a 12 Int, he would have gotten 4 skill points per level, meaning he could progress in a variety of skills faster, have larger bonuses, and easily specialize (notice that with a +1 Intelligence, instead of pulling 3 Knowledge skills at +2, he could pull 4 at +5). He can take 10 for DC 12 stuff, while the guy with the +1 can take 10 for DC 15 stuff.
It's not that he's ignoring the drawback for dumping Intelligence. He's just dealing with it. It's accepting the penalties that he's taken to make a viable character, and he's working through them as he gains levels.
To scoff and suggest that he is abusing the system shows a lack of understanding of that system to begin with. To say that he is completely ignoring the penalties because of his skill point investments is frankly wrong. You can count the numbers and see it's wrong.
Hmmm, more skills with higher modifiers vs less skills with lower modifiers? Hmmm, this is a trick question, isn't it?
I suppose I'm lucky nobody in my games has ever been that much of a game-mechanic exploiter. I suppose you could argue that low int is the hardest case to exploit since the low int itself reduces available skill points, but a class that benefits from intelligence dumping charisma to gain maximum intelligence then using those intelligence-provided skill points to boost skills to offset the charisma loss is pretty much a classic example of exploiting the game rules.
Or you know acting realistically.
Or should we tell people that are uncharismatic in life that they simply must continue to suffer due to their lack of social skills and how dare they somehow learn to be more approachable, less creepy, and have better hygiene?
They are obviously flaunting the game system of LIFE!
::eyeroll::
As I said, the intelligence dumping example is sort of self-limiting. Dumping wisdom has some saving throw consequences. Dumping charisma for intelligence and then pumping your extra skill points into diplomacy to counter it is just plain exploiting the system.
I would just put this into the category of things that I prefer not to do. Perhaps I would not house rule this, in spite of my earlier comment, I really don't house rule much, and I have not yet introduced a single house rule into my Pathfinder campaign because this is my first PF campaign and I don't do things like make house rules casually. If one of my players decides to do this sort of exploit, I will do what I can to understand why he feels it is necessary to do so. I like to think that I could talk him out of it and the result would not reduce anyone's fun.
I suppose I'm lucky nobody in my games has ever been that much of a game-mechanic exploiter. I suppose you could argue that low int is the hardest case to exploit since the low int itself reduces available skill points, but a class that benefits from intelligence dumping charisma to gain maximum intelligence then using those intelligence-provided skill points to boost skills to offset the charisma loss is pretty much a classic example of exploiting the game rules.
Or you know acting realistically.
Or should we tell people that are uncharismatic in life that they simply must continue to suffer due to their lack of social skills and how dare they somehow learn to be more approachable, less creepy, and have better hygiene?
They are obviously flaunting the game system of LIFE!
::eyeroll::
As far as I am aware, real people don't have attribute scores. ::double eyeroll::
As far as I am aware, real people don't have attribute scores. ::double eyeroll::
So you know no one that has charisma, strength, dexterity, intelligence or constitution?
You have never rated the appearance, intelligence, strength or hand eye coordination of another person?
Just because we don't have a formal system for ranking people in real life doesn't mean they are lacking these traits, or can't be compared in them to other people.
Also the very statistics you are arguing should somehow rule the game are abstracts for these traits in real life -- the scale is an emulation of real life. As such to say that because of the emulation you can't do what you can do in what is being emulated is faulty.
Your entire argument boils down to a very 'gamist' "you can't do that because I don't like it, and feel you must suffer more for a low score because you have found a means over several levels to overcome a short coming -- just like people do in real life."
It simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Would you do the same thing to the guy that rolls his stats and ends up with a low score? If not then you are simply arbitrarily punishing someone because their character is 'bad/wrong/unfun'.
Abraham Spaulding for the win. :D
Abraham Spaulding for the win. :D
Appreciated but it's Spalding -- the 'u' was added by the family members that didn't want to be associated with, 'thate riffraff in the hills making illegal shine and of obvious lower standing."
I guess we'll have to disagree. Dumping charisma to gain intelligence and then using the extra skill points to get around the consequences of dumping charisma so that you end up with the benefits of increased intelligence and no consequences to dumping charisma does not have a "real world" corollary. It's purely a game mechanic issue. Real people don't have a point buy, if anything real people have random stat rolls, and as such this whole concept of dumping stats simply doesn't apply in any way, shape or form to the "real world."
So much for "the win." Sheesh.
So since it is entirely a game mechanic issue the only question is if it is an acceptable or unacceptable exploit.
I would never do it, because I don't like taking advantage of obvious metagame exploits. It feels like cheating to me.
But you are welcome to play how you like.
I guess we'll have to disagree. Dumping charisma to gain intelligence and then using the extra skill points to get around the consequences of dumping charisma so that you end up with the benefits of increased intelligence and no consequences to dumping charisma does not have a "real world" corollary. It's purely a game mechanic issue. Real people don't have a point buy, if anything real people have random stat rolls, and as such this whole concept of dumping stats simply doesn't apply in any way, shape or form to the "real world."
So much for "the win." Sheesh.
So since it is entirely a game mechanic issue the only question is if it is an acceptable or unacceptable exploit.
I would never do it, because I don't like taking advantage of obvious metagame exploits. It feels like cheating to me.
But you are welcome to play how you like.
Yes, it DOES have a real world corrollary. It's called working hard. I'm not a strong person, I have a hard time swimming and climbing. So I practice them. BoBo the Barbarian may be able to climb through sheer strength, but I climb using ropes, pitons, etc. Two different methods, one through Strength and one through Skill (training).
Not very Charismatic? Work on your social skills, bro. Read books and use psychology to become a Pick Up Artist (PUA) (and yes, those techniques work). Or study your own interactions. You may still come off as slightly brusque, but your knowledge of how to say the right thing keeps you on par with someone who hasn't trained as much as you, maybe even better, depending on how focused on training that skill.
Now, someone WITH high ability scores who chooses to put as much effort into the skills as you do will definitely surpass you. But It will at least put you on par with someone that it just comes naturally to.
Lets not forget the anti-social anti-hero that gets the girl type that seems to attract so much love despite being socially inept... and always of the beautiful girl.
Or the absolute jerk (dare I use the D*** word?) that seems to always have the babe that he treats like crap on his arm -- and isn't even decent looking.
Yeah charisma has soooooo much effect on things.
Yes, it DOES have a real world corrollary. It's called working hard. I'm not a strong person, I have a hard time swimming and climbing.
But you are welcome to play how you like.
No, it does not. The whole conversation here is not about whether a real person can gain skills. It's about whether a PF character can dump one stat to gain an advantage in another area and then buy skills to compensate.
Unless you know of some way for a fetus to trade charisma for intelligence, then there is no real world corollary to the subject we are discussing. None at all.
Yes, it DOES have a real world corrollary. It's called working hard. I'm not a strong person, I have a hard time swimming and climbing.
But you are welcome to play how you like.
No, it does not. The whole conversation here is not about whether a real person can gain skills. It's about whether a PF character can dump one stat to gain an advantage in another area and then buy skills to compensate.
Unless you know of some way for a fetus to trade charisma for intelligence, then there is no real world corollary to the subject we are discussing. None at all.
Education, social interaction?
And actually, yeah. There's a very large precedent for the Pathfinder character to be able to do so. To mirror reality. Admittedly in the mirror image we got swords & dragons, but if simple reality things cannot be emulated the illusion fades fast.
You seem to be complaining about something that doesn't exist.
Can you offset the penalties for having a low Charisma? Yes, given enough time.
Could you be much better, with Charisma? Well, yes, given similar time.
Example
We have a Human Fighter. He grew up in a rural area, and is under educated, but is very well trained for war and rural living, and is physically fit.
Str 18, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 7, Wis 14, Cha 7.
Skills: Handle Animal +2, Ride +6, Survival +6.
In the same party, we have a Human Paladin. He was an under educated orphaned boy who was eventually taken in by a mentor and taught the ways.
Str 16, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 7, Wis 7, Cha 16.
Skills: Handle Animal +7, Ride +6, Diplomacy +7.
At 2nd level, the Fighter puts 2 Ranks into Diplomacy.
At 2nd level, the Paladin puts 2 Ranks into Survival.
Str 18, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 7, Wis 14, Cha 7.
Skills: Handle Animal +2, Ride +6, Survival +6, Diplomacy +0.
Str 16, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 7, Wis 7, Cha 16.
Skills: Handle Animal +7, Ride +6, Diplomacy +7, Survival +0.
Hmmmm...
I don't think either of them are suggesting that spending their skill points to compensate is equal to actually having skill points and a decent stat, or a class feature, or anything else. Hell, a 7 is only a -10%. If you think recouping a -10% is somehow dishonest and abusing the system...well, I don't even know what to say.
Yes, it DOES have a real world corrollary. It's called working hard. I'm not a strong person, I have a hard time swimming and climbing.
But you are welcome to play how you like.
No, it does not. The whole conversation here is not about whether a real person can gain skills. It's about whether a PF character can dump one stat to gain an advantage in another area and then buy skills to compensate.
Unless you know of some way for a fetus to trade charisma for intelligence, then there is no real world corollary to the subject we are discussing. None at all.
So, if I'm a caster, and charism is mostly useless to me, so I dump it, but decide I don't want to be socially retarded, I'm somehow metagaming?
If you put it that way, every character I've ever created is metagamed.
|
Anyone can Take 10 on a Knowledge check. Bards just get to do it during combat.Except for the fact that only bards can take 10 on Knowledge checks :)
Example: Let's take a human cleric. He has Int 7 and Cha 7, and puts his favored class bonus into skills. He gets 3 ranks per level. At 1st level he places a rank into Knowledge (Religion), Knowledge (History), and Knowledge (Arcana), giving him an effective +2 in each. He can now take 10 and answer questions most people couldn't answer, and...
You can not normal take 10 on knowledge checks. If your not a bard unless you have a library.
Knowledge (Int ; Trained Only)You are educated in a field of study and can answer both simple and complex questions.
Check: Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).
Untrained: You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10. If you have access to an extensive library that covers a specific skill, this limit is removed. The time to make checks using a library, however, increases to 1d4 hours. Particularly complete libraries might even grant a bonus on Knowledge checks in the fields that they cover.
Unless you know of some way for a fetus to trade charisma for intelligence, then there is no real world corollary to the subject we are discussing. None at all.
And neither does a PC dump stats or have any conception of dumping stats. His player does.
In character, a player character can simply choose to work to overcome their weaknesses, if they so choose -- exactly as a real person does.
Unless you know of some way for a fetus to trade charisma for intelligence, then there is no real world corollary to the subject we are discussing. None at all.And neither does a PC dump stats or have any conception of dumping stats. His player does.
In character, a player character can simply choose to work to overcome their weaknesses, if they so choose -- exactly as a real person does.
Exactly. If someone asked my Paladin what her Strength score was, she'd probably reply "My what?"
|
|
It's hard to call someone who knows more about every subject than most people, and speaks eight languages, stupid.I have know 2 persons with a certified Dawn syndrome.
One did know 2 languages fairly well and probably hadn't a IQ score above 80, the other had a IQ score around 70 (and that is lower than a 7 int in D&D) and he did "know" four languages. Italian, a Slavic dialect, English and Latin.
Knowing a language to the level of "You elf. I want eat." mean very little.
I am pretty sure she meant fluently. If not then I know over 10 languages, just don't try to hold a conversation with me in any of them except english.
Probable, but assuming that you know a language above "broken" level and above what your intelligence entitle because you have spent a point in it is questionable.
The 70 IQ guy did know his native Slavic dialect and Italian to the top of his capabilities.
That didn't mean that he did know them very well.
You can live your day by day life with a 50 words vocabulary and still be functional.
I don't know what IQ level is considered the minimum to be a functional person, from what I have found in internet it is something around 60, and that should be the equivalent of a 3 int guy (in this game he is seriously handicapped but can still live alone), on the other hand a 7 int guy is noticeably less intelligent than an average human.
So it is very hard to translate RL intelligence into the game definition of intelligent.
It's hard to call someone who knows more about every subject than most people, and speaks eight languages, stupid.I have know 2 persons with a certified Dawn syndrome.
One did know 2 languages fairly well and probably hadn't a IQ score above 80, the other had a IQ score around 70 (and that is lower than a 7 int in D&D) and he did "know" four languages. Italian, a Slavic dialect, English and Latin.
Knowing a language to the level of "You elf. I want eat." mean very little.
I am pretty sure she meant fluently. If not then I know over 10 languages, just don't try to hold a conversation with me in any of them except english.Probable, but assuming that you know a language above "broken" level and above what your intelligence entitle because you have spent a point in it is questionable.
The 70 IQ guy did know his native Slavic dialect and Italian to the top of his capabilities.
That didn't mean that he did know them very well.You can live your day by day life with a 50 words vocabulary and still be functional.
I don't know what IQ level is considered the minimum to be a functional person, from what I have found in internet it is something around 60, and that should be the equivalent of a 3 int guy (in this game he is seriously handicapped but can still live alone), on the other hand a 7 int guy is noticeably less intelligent than an average human.
So it is very hard to translate RL intelligence into the game definition of intelligent.
Some people are just good at certain things so learning a language may not translate to intelligence. I knew a guy that was really good in math when I was in H.S., but he was a C or D student for everything else. It was quiet strange. Maybe the low int, but "lot of skills" guy is just good at focusing.
I work with a guy now who is below the norm, and if he were a Pathfinder character would be below a 10 in all mental stats, but ask him anything about a movie, well to be honest, anything on TV and he knows the answer 90+% of the time. This includes random sports trivia also.I think a low int person can learn a lot. They might not be so good at figuring things out though. Intelligence in the game is not broken down to differentiate between problem solving and memorization though.
Unless you know of some way for a fetus to trade charisma for intelligence, then there is no real world corollary to the subject we are discussing. None at all.
Well since you brought it up, a fetus has effective scores of 0 across the board, so switching int 0 with cha 0 puts int at 0 so effectively switched. Even after birth stats bump to about 1 a piece. As a child, depending on your genes you get actual stats, this is where your actually arguing, but genes just determine where you get to put those 11's that commoners get. Genes will not give you something like a 14 in anything, this is where training due to learned interests come into play.
|
|
Unless you know of some way for a fetus to trade charisma for intelligence, then there is no real world corollary to the subject we are discussing. None at all.Well since you brought it up, a fetus has effective scores of 0 across the board, so switching int 0 with cha 0 puts int at 0 so effectively switched. Even after birth stats bump to about 1 a piece. As a child, depending on your genes you get actual stats, this is where your actually arguing, but genes just determine where you get to put those 11's that commoners get. Genes will not give you something like a 14 in anything, this is where training due to learned interests come into play.
High intelligence is high intelligence. You're pretty much born with it, but you can dull it or increase it by practicing it or not. I don't agree that stats above 11 come only with practice, i have high con (i haven't been sick for 12 years) and i am overweight and do not practice much. I do get winded easily, but i guess that is because my weight imposes penalties.
High intelligence is high intelligence. You're pretty much born with it, but you can dull it or increase it by practicing it or not. I don't agree that stats above 11 come only with practice, i have high con (i haven't been sick for 12 years) and i am overweight and do not practice much. I do get winded easily, but i guess that is because my weight imposes penalties.
I wouldn't say you have a high Con, not being sick is caused by not being exposed to anything or an immunity/resistance to the things your constantly exposed to. Weight penalties are CON penalties so that doesnt help your case either. A 9 will keep you safe from what your exposed to and still accurately reflect how your easily winded. No offense, people generally give themselves higher stats then is realistically, most of us don't have above commoner stats, they wouldn't be commoners if they were the minority.
People that grow up on farms generally aren't smart (with the exception of the gifted but that is a whole separate issue and we are talking about people that can't memorize pi to the 1 millionth digit but cant tie their shoes), but by your randomly generated logic there should be an equal chance of an above average IQ coming from those origins. Turns out the majority are still dumb as rocks.
Being smart and being intelligent are two different things.
um no, that is like saying being strong and being buff are two different things. The thesaurus was invented for this very type of instance. Plus we would have to invent a smart stat because nothing else would cover that attribute if that were the case.
|
|
Um, yes. A smart person may know a lot, by investing skill ranks into various useful knowledges and skills, while a stupid person will invest skill ranks into various useless knowledge skills. Intelligence will make that process easier and faster, but there is nothing saying that an unintelligent person can know a lot.
And, you actaully can't compare mental abilities with physical abilities, so i guess my con argument was misplaced and wrong.
Um, yes. A smart person may know a lot, by investing skill ranks into various useful knowledges and skills, while a stupid person will invest skill ranks into various useless knowledge skills. Intelligence will make that process easier and faster, but there is nothing saying that an unintelligent person can know a lot.
And, you actaully can't compare mental abilities with physical abilities, so i guess my con argument was misplaced and wrong.
*hands Hama a cookie*
More impressive than the logical, is the person who can see illogical patterns and correct them. You win an internet cookie, for being mature and awesome. ☺I tend to agree as well. Mental ability scores are something if a different ballgame. There is nothing in the books that says X means Y in terms of the ability scores. So the best that we have is what your character does, and I actually thing that's better.
It gives us more variety, and a greater toolset and method of detailing complex characters in more accurate ways. No one in-game sees your ability scores. One doesn't walk up to an NPC and go "So what's this guy's Int/Wis/Cha?". Your character is measured by what they can do.
For example, a 3rd level character with a 7 Wis and 3 ranks in Perception and Sense Motive might be described like this:
"Well he's not very good at resisting mental attacks (-2 Will), but he's actually pretty observant of his surroundings and good at picking up signs when something is up (+1 in both Survival and Sense Motive)."
This same kind of detail was put into my hypothetical Fighter, Sigfried, who had a 7 Charisma and 5 ranks in Diplomacy and some ranks in Sense Motive, and wore decorative armor (+2 Diplomacy).
"Well Sigfried isn't much for lying (-2 Bluff) because he doesn't believe in it. He's good at talking to people, and his appearance gives him a certain presence (+6 Diplomacy). He's good at noticing when someone's being dishonest (+7 Sense Motive), but he's horrible at making magic items work (-2 Use Magic Device) because he knows nothing about them."
Thanks :D
*munches on the cookie*
Although, i wouldn't go too far and actually claim that i am mature...i have a long way to go yet...
"It takes the smartest individuals to realize there's always more to learn." ☺