Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Why I dump stats


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

101 to 150 of 277 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Luminiere Solas wrote:
it's a fantasy game in a universe with completely different rules from our own. where abominations we would find horrifically ugly in the real world, are considered the epitome of sexy. (night hags), a world where humans breed with everything, a world where people can perform nearly impossible feats of athletic prowess by 4th level, a world where the mightiest heroes can wade waist deep through hot lava with little regard for their lives or fall thousands of feet with minor scrapes, a world where old men can chant mathematical formulae, rub thier hands in bat feces, and create a 45 foot diameter globe of fire from over 400 feet away. a world where modern japanese schoolgirls wearing black pajamas can kill fire breathing spellcasting sentient reptiles with thier heirloom tokugawa era daisho. a world where native american shamans, wear the hides of the beasts of the sahara desert, kill brain eating space aliens while taking the form of prehistoric dinosaurs, and commanding thier sentient animated pet tree to assist them, a world where medieval knights, wear rennaiscance era plate armor, worship greek gods, wield roman era falcatas, and slice through sentient jello, a world where young female puppeteers dressed like fragile china dolls, wearing lots of makeup, with a simple cute dance, turn an entire audience into thier personal marionettes, a world where a clueless and sheltered alter boy, can present his silver cross, and due to his faith in the lord, damage all undead in a burst centered around himself, because he beleives in the lord, a world where the local apothecary can further detach himself away from humanity the more skilled he becomes. a world where a little half elf girl can manifest her imaginary friend into reality and have it protect her from local bullies. clearly not intended to mirror our own world.

Ok, so what is your stance on stat dumping?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Nether wrote:
Where would you put a 70 IQ based on this?

You could gather information from published rules/setting material on what the different INT scores mean, and see what looks like the best fit for that IQ score.

For instance, even a 3 INT barbarian can read and write in Pathfinder (depending on race, possibly in more than one language).

One-sixth of the human population in Golarion (including heroic NPCs) has 8 INT.

Someone with 10 INT can consistently (by taking 10 on the check) answer easy questions within their field of study. If we consider "their field of study" to mean a class skill with 1 rank, then it takes 12 INT to consistently answer "basic" (as opposed to "easy") questions. By the same metric (still assuming 1 rank and a class skill), someone with 6-7 INT can still answer all easy questions in their field and (by rolling) about 40% of basic questions.

As for untrained knowledge checks (DC 10, like identifying poison ivy or something, but without the rank or class skill bonus), 6 INT needs to roll a 12, which means he knows 45% of those basic plants and animals. He has the same chance of knowing the names of the planes, identifying someone's accent, identifying a mineral, or spotting dangerous construction.

What IQ sounds appropriate for all that?

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber

Yes, Seranov, you are completely correct. Someone with a 70 IQ would have little to no problem handling a menial labor job. I never once said they would be drooling and pissing themselves in a corner. I stated that they would have a very difficult time getting through a modern school system past 6th grade. You are talking about a profession that typically wouldn't require any reading, writing or mathimatics.

If we are taking the fantasy world even one step farther, we can pretty much say that would include about 90% of the population. Of course someone with a much lower then average profession would have less problems in a society like that. But that doesn't mean you are going to have them running the books for your business.

As for role playing that level of INT, then you would have to take into account what you have already stated as their inability to grasp concepts quickly. To that end, they would have to have any plan probably explained to them a number of time. They would no be able to work higher problem solving as quickly as someone with a 14 INT. Yea, those would be reflected in the -/+ of their character, but the issue I have with people like you is that the numbers are all you look at. Very rarely do you actually role play a mentally challenged person, you just roll play them. If it all just comes down to the roll playing, well that just isn't fun for me as a GM and for most of the other players I play with.

Lantern Lodge

Nether wrote:
Luminiere Solas wrote:
it's a fantasy game in a universe with completely different rules from our own. where abominations we would find horrifically ugly in the real world, are considered the epitome of sexy. (night hags), a world where humans breed with everything, a world where people can perform nearly impossible feats of athletic prowess by 4th level, a world where the mightiest heroes can wade waist deep through hot lava with little regard for their lives or fall thousands of feet with minor scrapes, a world where old men can chant mathematical formulae, rub thier hands in bat feces, and create a 45 foot diameter globe of fire from over 400 feet away. a world where modern japanese schoolgirls wearing black pajamas can kill fire breathing spellcasting sentient reptiles with thier heirloom tokugawa era daisho. a world where native american shamans, wear the hides of the beasts of the sahara desert, kill brain eating space aliens while taking the form of prehistoric dinosaurs, and commanding thier sentient animated pet tree to assist them, a world where medieval knights, wear rennaiscance era plate armor, worship greek gods, wield roman era falcatas, and slice through sentient jello, a world where young female puppeteers dressed like fragile china dolls, wearing lots of makeup, with a simple cute dance, turn an entire audience into thier personal marionettes, a world where a clueless and sheltered alter boy, can present his silver cross, and due to his faith in the lord, damage all undead in a burst centered around himself, because he beleives in the lord, a world where the local apothecary can further detach himself away from humanity the more skilled he becomes. a world where a little half elf girl can manifest her imaginary friend into reality and have it protect her from local bullies. clearly not intended to mirror our own world.
Ok, so what is your stance on stat dumping?

i really don't mind it, i encourage it. though some dump stats fit some roles better than others. for example, it is very hard to imagine a non-enchanter wizard with a high charisma. they steriotypically spend a lot of time holed up in a corner doing research.


littlehewy wrote:

Yep Nether, I hear what you're saying, but I did already mention that good roleplaying underpins a memorable character :)

Also, I currently have an inquisitor, who happens to have a Cha of 5. The reason being that we used the old "everybody roll 4d6-drop low and you can pick any array that anyone rolls.

Ok, so my inquisitor idea was a bit MAD, and the onl on that gave me nough heroic stats was one that included a 5. So, I took it. The only stat I could bear to have it in (for this character) was Cha.

So,it totally changed my concept. I rewrote his backstory, making him a major burn victim as a child. As a result, he wears body-covering robes to hide his hideous scars, speaks often with a bit of a whisper or growl, and took the Conversion inquisition so he could use his social skills with Wis via his god-touched voice.

I love it. He's very good at almost everything, but his flaw has brought him to life for me.

Of course, this was totally unplanned when I mapped out my concept, and I agonised for hours over which array to take because Ididn't want a 5.

My PCs don't often have 5s though. Maybe never before this, in fact.

This raises a good point. Roleplayers will roleplay regardless of how their stats are allocated.

Many people would have just left it at "my character is bad at talking to people" and wouldn't have built a story around their low charisma.

Lantern Lodge

The only thing I don't like about dumping, is that the negatives always seem to hurt more then an equal bonus helps, and often you are running into minimums or garner no improvement when there should be improvement just slower.

As for the 70 iq is smarter then 35% of people, so this would be an 8 or a 9.

As for a 3 int creature being able to read, sentience and the ability to rationalize is different then pure IQ. Int covers too many unrelated aspects to be accurate. I have a friend who is a quick learner and great problem solver yet he still can't read, he tries but it just doesn't connect in his head.


Vestrial wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
to encourage people to give their character a flaw, you need a proper incentive. hence the extra points. i prefer characters with one or two major flaws over the character who seems to have none. and those extra points from dump stats, aren't being deducted from primary scores, they are being deducted from secondary and tertiary scores. but i too would default to a flawless character if the system either didn't provide an incentive for said flaws, or the penalties for said flaws drastically outweighed the compensatory benefits that served as the incentive.

Because you are letting your character concept serve the mechanics, rather than the other way around. "Hey look, I get a mechanical bonus for being an antisocial moron, I guess I'll incorporate that into my concept!" Funny how many people's concept end up being so similar, eh? If it was really a part of the character concept you wouldn't care about a mechanical reward for a weakness. Which is a total contradiction anyway. "I'm flawed, I'm less charming than others. But I'm stronger/dexier/tougher than them!"

Yeah, I like flawed characters too. When they are actually flawed. But people rarely play low int/wis/char appropriately. They just sorta default to their own. And the game has no real built-in incentive to not dump scores, and no built in punishment for doing so. You can dump charisma to 7, then buy a cheap hat of diplomacy and be more diplomatic than the guy with an 18 charisma.

Well to be fair, most people couldn't RP a character with 18 charisma. I think this ties into the issue that players are supposed to RP their characters when most people don't have mental stats that would match their wizards or their sorcerers.

So it ends up being a double edged sword. When you have a super high intelligence character, you can't make amazing plans because you aren't a super genius IRL, but when you play a super low int character you are supposed to make intentionally bad plans for "RP".


Seranov wrote:
Vestrial wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
to encourage people to give their character a flaw, you need a proper incentive. hence the extra points. i prefer characters with one or two major flaws over the character who seems to have none. and those extra points from dump stats, aren't being deducted from primary scores, they are being deducted from secondary and tertiary scores. but i too would default to a flawless character if the system either didn't provide an incentive for said flaws, or the penalties for said flaws drastically outweighed the compensatory benefits that served as the incentive.

Because you are letting your character concept serve the mechanics, rather than the other way around. "Hey look, I get a mechanical bonus for being an antisocial moron, I guess I'll incorporate that into my concept!" Funny how many people's concept end up being so similar, eh? If it was really a part of the character concept you wouldn't care about a mechanical reward for a weakness. Which is a total contradiction anyway. "I'm flawed, I'm less charming than others. But I'm stronger/dexier/tougher than them!"

Yeah, I like flawed characters too. When they are actually flawed. But people rarely play low int/wis/char appropriately. They just sorta default to their own. And the game has no real built-in incentive to not dump scores, and no built in punishment for doing so. You can dump charisma to 7, then buy a cheap hat of diplomacy and be more diplomatic than the guy with an 18 charisma.

You are Stormwind Fallacy-ing really, really hard right now.

So my issue with this fallacy is that roleplaying relies heavily on suspension of disbelief and optimizing a character often involves a character that stretches disbelief(IE, neutral Ratkin bloatmage wizard, very well optimized, hard to take seriously).

Roleplaying involves creating a character that makes logical sense and many features in Pathfinder tie stats with your characters background and personality.


Nether wrote:

Well this response pretty much tells me what kind of player you are, the video game type.

Why someone who is only interested in the mechanical wants to play a 'social roleplaying' game is beyond me. See the irony here?

If you and your group are having fun, as i have said multiple times already, then more power to you. Your group is prolly not the norm that this thread is talking about. Our debate is done as your not grasping the points of fairness, and why a rule system is needed in that regard in a 'role playing' game.

The first two sentences of this made me laugh, so thank you for the cheer. It was the kind of laugh when you see someone on tv get hit in the junk while playing catch with small children. (no, they weren't catching the children)

Maybe the question you should ask yourself is why someone who isn't interested any any rules mechanics is playing a game with almost 500 pages of rules mechanics?
But your responses pretty much tell me what kind of player you are, the LARP type.

Lantern Lodge

johnlocke90 wrote:

So my issue with this fallacy is that roleplaying relies heavily on suspension of disbelief and optimizing a character often involves a character that stretches disbelief(IE, neutral Ratkin bloatmage wizard, very well optimized, hard to take seriously).

Roleplaying involves creating a character that makes logical sense and many features in Pathfinder tie stats with your characters background and...

I think modern video games has affected the views of playing a game, most players I meet and play with want to win, they want feel the power of crushing all resistance, and thus that naturally leads to looking for ways to be better doing that. For most who play this way (that I have met) the RP is a pleasent but secondary concern and the disbelief can be suspended a bit to get what they really want.

As for those who truly focus on RP, having a chharacter make logical sense is important but then haveing stats tie into backgroud is an irritation as it should be left to us to make those connections. The game telling us what the fluff of our character is, is limiting.

Of course you always get a few that like to straddle the fence and each of them has to be taken individually.

Cheliax

johnlocke90 wrote:
Seranov wrote:
Vestrial wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
to encourage people to give their character a flaw, you need a proper incentive. hence the extra points. i prefer characters with one or two major flaws over the character who seems to have none. and those extra points from dump stats, aren't being deducted from primary scores, they are being deducted from secondary and tertiary scores. but i too would default to a flawless character if the system either didn't provide an incentive for said flaws, or the penalties for said flaws drastically outweighed the compensatory benefits that served as the incentive.

Because you are letting your character concept serve the mechanics, rather than the other way around. "Hey look, I get a mechanical bonus for being an antisocial moron, I guess I'll incorporate that into my concept!" Funny how many people's concept end up being so similar, eh? If it was really a part of the character concept you wouldn't care about a mechanical reward for a weakness. Which is a total contradiction anyway. "I'm flawed, I'm less charming than others. But I'm stronger/dexier/tougher than them!"

Yeah, I like flawed characters too. When they are actually flawed. But people rarely play low int/wis/char appropriately. They just sorta default to their own. And the game has no real built-in incentive to not dump scores, and no built in punishment for doing so. You can dump charisma to 7, then buy a cheap hat of diplomacy and be more diplomatic than the guy with an 18 charisma.

You are Stormwind Fallacy-ing really, really hard right now.

So my issue with this fallacy is that roleplaying relies heavily on suspension of disbelief and optimizing a character often involves a character that stretches disbelief(IE, neutral Ratkin bloatmage wizard, very well optimized, hard to take seriously).

Roleplaying involves creating a character that makes logical sense and many features in Pathfinder tie stats with your characters background and...

Well stated, or perhaps statted?


TClifford wrote:

I would like to point out that a 7 INT would be more than just -10% on a roll. We are talking more along the lines of 2 standard deviations from the norm. If you say that a normal INT of 10 is an IQ of 100, then 2 standard deviations would be an IQ around 70. At this point we would be talking about someone where they generally cannot complete elementary school. Most adults will need smarter help in coping with the world. Referring to this site

To be honest, the reason dump stats are a problems is that they are almost always matched up with power gaming. Rarely does someone drop a stat just for roleplaying purposes.

As I have stated in another thread, the problem have with power gaming is as a GM if you have a player that is basically mowing through anything you throw at them, you have to gear your adventures around them. You have to build a obsticle specifically to cause them problems. They can always tell when that villian is built to exploit their weaknesses and it always pisses them off.

In my opinion, power gamers take away from the role playing aspect of the game and I don't like that. That's just me.

Actually, your belief that a person with a 70 IQ would not reasonably expect to get past 6th grade in education is flatly wrong. I am a behavioral clinician that works primarily with kids who, for a variety of reasons, have IQs at or below 70. With very few accommodations (extra time on testing and homework being fairly standard), many kiddos with IQs at 70 or below can get a high school diploma. Some go on to tradeschools or college. More depends on social and familial support than IQ.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
As for the 70 iq is smarter then 35% of people,

I think your math might be slightly off.


7 int hasn't been equivalent to 70 IQ since 1e. There certainly isn't any indication that a +1 is equivalent to one standard deviation in 3.x or pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nether wrote:


A character with a 7 Int should literally be mentally handicapped, and you should be rp'ing your character like a mild retard. A Cha of 5 means you literally cannot function very well in a group, let alone society.

Why do people say stuff like this?

Assuming that NPC's role stats with 3d6, then 17% of all NPCs have an intellegence of 7 or under. That's not a "mild retard", that's about 1 out of 5 people. You're not a genius, but you're not an idiot either, you're just a little below average.

A Charisma of 5 or less is lower then that (about 5% chance), but that's still 1 in 20 people. If you work with 20 people, one of them has a 5 or lower charisma; he might be a little socially awkward, but he still gets by in society ok.

All the stat inflation in pathfinder makes people forget how low "normal" stats are. I think that's part of the reason that people get so up in arms about "stat dumping".


Personally I dislike that STR and CHA are extremely easy to dump, while CON and DEX are impossible to dump.

Personally, I consider 12 to be the minimum you should have for those stats, AFTER mods.


Strength? Really? Maybe for a full wizard, but for most characters, encumbrance gets to be a problem pretty fast, especially if you're wearing any kind of armor.

You can dump Dex is you really have to. Going from 10 dex to 8 dex only gives you a -1 to AC, which hurts, and a -1 to reflex saving throws, but if you're a deeply MAD character it can be worthwhile.

Con, I agree, is hard. Which is a shame, playing a sickly wizard would be fun, but it really hurts your survival chances at low-level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A 5 strenght is rough. It does not take much to encumber you and simple DC5 climb checks provide a problem. For my 5 str gnome small pools of water are very fatal.

I am considering using my presitge to hire a servant to carry him up and down ladders and such.

I often refuse to let DMs allow him a gimme on what he can and has to carry. I want to play with the hanidcap.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

• The Stormwind Fallacy illustrates that the idea that a player must be either a role-player or a roll-player is simply flat-out wrong!

• Following the rules is, by definition, not cheating!

• People follow the path of least resistance, no less so in character creation. If you limit a resource (like by using point-buy) then the normal response is to allocate these resources in such a way that you get the best advantage and minimise any disadvantage

• In the many, many different game systems I have played, character creation has some predictable patterns. I'll take superhero games as my example, but it is certainly not limited to that genre. In superhero games, each game requires the player to use the rules to generate their hero's powers:-
- In games where you can roll an extra power if you take a weakness (like Villians & Vigilantes), you take a weakness if you judge that weakness is worth the extra power
- In point-buy games (like Champions), you can get extra points by taking weaknesses of your choice. I've yet to meet a player who didn't exercise this option
- In games where you get no benefit for taking a weakness, you don't take a weakness unless it's part of your concept, and then usually your powers compensate, like blindness for a character with radar sense
- In short, if there is no benefit for having a weakness, few players will have a weakness; in games that get you more points/powers for having more weaknesses, all the heroes are borderline psychotic, colourblind, orphaned and/or tragic

• On Monday at my local RP club the regular game was cancelled at the last minute. The three of us without a game quickly joined a game of 3.5 which had a city guard concept, allowing characters to drop in and out week by week, explained in-game as different characters being on duty for different scenarios. I found my self in the unfamiliar position of having to roll-up a character as fast as I could, rather than thinking about it for at least a fortnight. I asked about the table rules for rolling stats; 4d6 drop the lowest six times, arrange to suit. If the total rolled added up to 72 or less re-roll the lowest stat. What would have happened if you still had 72 or less after the re-roll didn't come up.

In order, I rolled 14,14,9,9,10,12=68. I re-rolled a 9 and got 14. This is the worst set of stats I'd had in years (apart from Boosh the Mighty, a deluded joke bard I made-and chose the stats for!)

I decided to be (after checking out the rest of the party) a female Elven archer ranger, and her stats (after racial mods) were Str14 Dex16 Con8 Int14 Wis12 Cha9.

Did I dump Charisma? What about Con 8 when it could easily have been Con12?

The truth is, as the Stormwind Fallacy shows us, that the fluff and the crunch are mutually dependent, and both evolve together during character creation. I want 5 good stats; I only got 4-tough! So I can dump the 9 in Cha, but where's that 10 going? I need good Dex and Str, and my concept involves detective work and a broard array of skills so I want the last 14 to go on Int, which leaves me with a 12 and a 10 for the remaining stats and Con will be at -2.

Simultaneous with this mental process was the role-playing implications of these decisions. Why is her Cha low? Why are humans her favoured enemy? I know, she was the victim of a rape/assault, they hacked of the tips of her ears with a rusty knife 'cos they thought it was funny, and left her for dead. She grew into someone with the skills to track down her attackers and kill them, and wears her hair in a way that shows those mangled ears, just to keep her pain and fury fresh! She's an archer so she prefers to be at range. Okay, Con8 'cos she's 5'6'' and skinny (and avoids melee), Wis12 'cos she's perceptive.

Why is she working for the guard of a human city? What better way to be able to slay humans with relative impunity! She's not trapped in a city with a load of humans; they're trapped in a city with her! So, what alignment would match her? Not good, but neutral. Chaotic because she uses the law for her own ends but would break it in a heartbeat if it would serve her needs.

You see how organic this all is? I'd normally choose a short sword for her backup melee weapon, but she has a light pick so the x4 crit multiplier really helps in the coup de grace! And a spiked gauntlet to show she means business (and means she's always armed)! What feats? Archery feats? Sure, but how about Diehard at 3rd! That suits her!

You see how decisions about crunch affect the fluff, and those fluff decisions then affect the crunch?

• People should make characters that they think are cool! It's not your business to tell others what they should think!

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Beautiful, Malachi. That's exactly my thoughts on the subject.

Silver Crusade

I don't find dumping strength to be that bad, as long as you actually keep track of your encumbrance. In fact, 3 of my 10 Pathfinder Society PCs have 7 strength. For the sorcerers, staying lightly encumbered isn't an issue. For the halfling cleric, medium armor leaves him medium encumbered, which also isn't an issue. He doesn't carry much in the way of weapons, so he's good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Malachi Silverclaw, that is exactly how I build characters. I develop them after I made the points that are strong/weak in. With you choice of words I bet you are one of those player that break mods with a pregen.

Silver Crusade

Finlanderboy wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw, that is exactly how I build characters. I develop them after I made the points that are strong/weak in. With you choice of words I bet you are one of those player that break mods with a pregen.

Thankyou. : )

Actually, my usual way of making characters involves just deciding what my stats are. Of course, if I turned up with six 18s the DM would impose rolling PDQ; it's like choosing your own switch!

I've recently started PFS; I've played Malachi Silverclaw (natch!) four times and Niamh Snowmane once. The restrictions of point-buy make me take it as a challenge to get the most bang for my buck!

Stats are:-
Malachi (human): Str18 Dex12 Con13 Int7 Wis7 Cha17
Niamh (halfling): Str5 Dex20 Con8 Int7 Wis7 Cha20

So, what story was behind their stats?

Malachi (human paladin): born in Cheliax; a country ruled by devil worshippers! Was the result of a breeding experiment to get powerful but obedient soldiers. Mother was an aasimar who's parents were human and half-celestial (who's father was an angel). Father was a tiefling who's father was a half-fiend (who's mother was a succubus). Although they hoped the breeding program would result in a half celestial/half-fiend, what they got was a full human! But there is some odd colouring of eyes/hair/skin, and really high Str/Dex and really low Int/Wis.

Niamh (halfling Dawnflower Dervish bard): found crawling out of a forest (Fey Foundling feat) by priests of Saranrae, Niamh was brought up in a church, but her aptitudes (and lack thereof) geared her to her eventual path. I role-play her as a good-hearted bimbo, mercurial of mood, gets into trouble by getting the wrong end of the stick, sleeping for 15 minutes then woken by our ranger and initially thinking she'd slept for 24 hours, falling out with the ranger for waking her early and refusing to use prestidigitation to dry him when he fell in the lake, quickly forgiving him when the baddy turned up. Her low physical stats are their own disadvantage; RP, she's small even for a halfling.

Did I min/max? Yes.

Does that mean I cheated? No.

Does that mean (as a dreaded powergamer!) that I min/maxed at the expense of role-play? No.

I think both my characters are cool, and while YMMV, your mileage isn't what matters about my characters, and my mileage isn't what matters about yours. I hope you like my PCs, but it's not what matters. What matters is how my presence at your table directly affects your game, and that's a separate issue.


TClifford wrote:

Yes, Seranov, you are completely correct. Someone with a 70 IQ would have little to no problem handling a menial labor job. I never once said they would be drooling and pissing themselves in a corner. I stated that they would have a very difficult time getting through a modern school system past 6th grade. You are talking about a profession that typically wouldn't require any reading, writing or mathimatics.

Sorry mate, my job is working with people with disabilities, and I can categorically state that people with an IQ of 70 (which is on the high-functioning end of the folks I work with) have no trouble passing Grade 6. I know plenty with lower IQs that finish high school, albeit in special environments.

Many of the dudes I work with are lower than 70, but can talk and superficially function just fine. They don't always appear to have disabilities, either. It certainly takes a lot of repetition and hard work for them to learn stuff, but they can and do function in the workplace.

Also, I would count IQ 70 folks as having an Int of 5, given the statistical chance of non-heroic people (the 3d6ers)having that score. Do the math and you'll probably see what I mean.

Lantern Lodge

Roberta Yang wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
As for the 70 iq is smarter then 35% of people,
I think your math might be slightly off.

Compared to DnD/PF perhaps, compared to reality no.

The scale is 0-200 and with 100 as the absolute average, it comes from the statical formulas used to compare an individual to the norm, 200 is smarter then everyone else, 0 is dumber then everyone else, and each point is equal to 0.5% of the population.

Thus 70 is smarter then 35% just like 100 is smarter then 50% and 196 is smarter then 97%.


TClifford wrote:

Says who? If anything I would say Conan wasn't as wise as he was intelligent. I have always felt that Conan was more clever based on this smattering the thieving abilities and his problem solving.

He tended to get himself in over his head a lot which shows a lack of foresight which is in my opinion a major contributor to wisdom. Mind you I am going off the movies and the books I read like 30 years ago.

Says my personal opinion, which I obviously cannot quantify. If you think differently, you are entitled to your interpretation. But I stand by mine. This is not a part of any rules debate or comparison. It's an opinion. Although one that may have been biased by Arnold's portrayal.

TClifford wrote:
Also, by dump stat, what are you talking about? I don't consider putting an 8 in something really dumping that stat. That is just a tad below norm. Dumping in my opinion is anything from 7-3.

Yep. Same here, generally 7-3. Having a score at 8 because of racial adjustments or traits makes 8 a very viable number. Normally (not all-inclusive, so don't bother flaming or arguing with "what if" examples) when a player chooses to downplay a single stat to raise up his main stat or stats if he's MAD, it's easy to tell because he'll have a 7 or below in something that doesn't generally play into his main class's play style. Such as Charisma for a Fighter (also not all-inclusive. Obviously there are theorycrafters out there who can make an CHA-based fighter just to do it).

When I see this, I will put a distrustful NPC or enemy out there specifically to engage the social skills (or lack thereof) of the fighter. If the player figures out a way within his character's ability score parameters to rise above the challenge without metagaming, I will generally leave him alone from there on out. If the player is clever enough to overcome his PC's weaknesses, then that's what makes him heroic.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Compared to DnD/PF perhaps, compared to reality no.

The scale is 0-200 and with 100 as the absolute average, it comes from the statical formulas used to compare an individual to the norm, 200 is smarter then everyone else, 0 is dumber then everyone else, and each point is equal to 0.5% of the population.

Thus 70 is smarter then 35% just like 100 is smarter then 50% and 196 is smarter then 97%.

Exactly scale are you using that ranks intelligence of a population as a uniform distribution from 0 to 200? Because that's not how IQ works, that's not how D&D stats work, and that's not how any other scale I've ever seen works.

Lantern Lodge

It isn't the population that is evenly distibuted, it is the numbers, which is because they are numbers.

Basically it's a ratio converted to a different numerical form (more modern IQ test actually use the percentile as the form now I.E. joe shmoe has an IQ of 57%)

If you graphed how many people had each IQ number, you would get a bell curve, probably a sharper thinner one then DnD too.

It is statistics, read the manga guide to statistics, great introduction to the concepts and you can understand them in 5 minutes, instead of reading a textbook for three days.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:

It isn't the population that is evenly distibuted, it is the numbers, which is because they are numbers.

Basically it's a ratio converted to a different numerical form (more modern IQ test actually use the percentile as the form now I.E. joe shmoe has an IQ of 57%)

If you graphed how many people had each IQ number, you would get a bell curve, probably a sharper thinner one then DnD too.

That doesn't make any sense. If you get a bell curve, that means there are more people at the middle numbers than at the ends, which means that each point isn't "equal to 0.5% of the population."

Each point representing the same number of people gets you a line, not a curve.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
As for the 70 iq is smarter then 35% of people,
I think your math might be slightly off.

Compared to DnD/PF perhaps, compared to reality no.

The scale is 0-200 and with 100 as the absolute average, it comes from the statical formulas used to compare an individual to the norm, 200 is smarter then everyone else, 0 is dumber then everyone else, and each point is equal to 0.5% of the population.

Thus 70 is smarter then 35% just like 100 is smarter then 50% and 196 is smarter then 97%.

Where the hell did you get that idea from? IQ is based on a bell curve centered on 100 with a standard deviation of 15.

Lantern Lodge

The numbers represent what perecentage of the popluation an individual falls in. More people will have an IQ near 100 then near 0, but near 0 means you aren't going to have very many people under you either.

The "evening out" is illusory.

Go here,
Here

If you look at the rows of numbers below the bell curve, you will see, percentile, z scores and t scores among others. IQ is the T-score doubled, it's that simple.

Edited and fixed url.


"If you know statistics, you know what a bell curve is. Anyhow, that's why I ignored bell curves completely and assumed a uniform distribution. Maybe if you read more manga you would be smart enough to understand this."

What am I reading here.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:

It isn't the population that is evenly distibuted, it is the numbers, which is because they are numbers.

Basically it's a ratio converted to a different numerical form (more modern IQ test actually use the percentile as the form now I.E. joe shmoe has an IQ of 57%)

If you graphed how many people had each IQ number, you would get a bell curve, probably a sharper thinner one then DnD too.

It is statistics, read the manga guide to statistics, great introduction to the concepts and you can understand them in 5 minutes, instead of reading a textbook for three days.

Actually, no; if you look at the IQ bell curve, it's set up in such a way that about 68% of all people are between IQ 85 and IQ 115. By the time you get down to a 70 IQ there's only a few percent of the population below you.

[url]http://meds.queensu.ca/courses/assets/modules/types-of-data/symmetrical_and _asymmetrical_data.html[/url]


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
The numbers represent what perecentage of the popluation an individual falls in. More people will have an IQ near 100 then near 0, but near 0 means you aren't going to have very many people under you either.

So there are more people between say 100 and 101 than between 0 and 1, but "each point is equal to 0.5% of the population"?

How does that work?

Cheliax

Okay I'm just going to go with a CHA of 7.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Reading this thread, I'm not so sure 100 is the average IQ.


Jiggy wrote:
Reading this thread, I'm not so sure 100 is the average IQ.

That is mildly mean, and also quite thoroughly not something this thread could even possibly show.

After all, gamers are only a small sub-set of humans, Pathfinder players are a smaller sub-set still, and then we size down to Pathfinder player that post on this message board and again to those that posted in this thread... so our sample size is too small and our sample selection not nearly broad enough to determine anything about people in general.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:

That is mildly mean, and also quite thoroughly not something this thread could even possibly show.

After all, gamers are only a small sub-set of humans, Pathfinder players are a smaller sub-set still, and then we size down to Pathfinder player that post on this message board and again to those that posted in this thread... so our sample size is too small and our sample selection not nearly broad enough to determine anything about people in general.

I too am offended when jokes are not literally true under analysis of statistical significance.


Jiggy wrote:
Reading this thread, I'm not so sure 100 is the average IQ.

Well the median isn't bad, but the mean is low.


Roberta Yang wrote:
to determine anything about people in general.
I too am offended when jokes are not literally true under analysis of statistical significance.

The nobledrake is obviously actually Nate Silver.

Cheliax

Okay, I'll go with an INT of 7, then.


Icyshadow wrote:
Actually, many heroes of myth seemed to lack dump stats. Arthur, Beowulf, Hercules and Gilgamesh didn't have huge weaknesses from what I know.

I have to disagree with literary and mythological hero's not having dump stats. While many did not a some of them had definite dump stats.

Hercules probably had a low wisdom. Anger issues and being tricked would indicate a low wisdom to me.

Elric and Raistlin both dumped STR and CON. Mandorallen and Lelldorin both dumped INT and WIS. Hephaestus dumped CHA and he was god.

I can't off hand think of anyone who dumped DEX, but there are probably some out there.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber

Dumping stats only count for point built characters. If you are rolling your stats, then you have to basically play with your luck, or lack there of. If you roll as 6 and decide to put that in INT, that isn't dumping. That is going with a concept based on the roll that you got.

Actually, it is really hard to dump stats unless you are strictly following the 3d6 rule. I haven't used that rule since 1e. Until the point buy idea came around the standard was 4d6 drop the lowest. Which, if you do the math averages out at around 14 per roll. Another meathod was to use 2d6 + 6, which comes out to 13 average.

As for the concept that roleplaying and rollplaying are two distinct playing styles, I have never said that. What I have said is that I prefer more roleplaying then rollplaying in MY GAMING GROUP. You can do what ever you want in yours. As I have stated before, play how ever you want to play. I am only voicing and defending my opinion. I guess you aren't allowed to actually have an opinion on these boards.

Cheliax

4d6, reroll 1's, drop the lowest.
Wash, rinse, repeat six times.
No dumping necessary.

But oh god the odd numbers.
This TClifford person makes sense. I like his style. I like his moves.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Zuko dumped WIS.


TClifford wrote:

Dumping stats only count for point built characters. If you are rolling your stats, then you have to basically play with your luck, or lack there of. If you roll as 6 and decide to put that in INT, that isn't dumping. That is going with a concept based on the roll that you got.

Actually, it is really hard to dump stats unless you are strictly following the 3d6 rule. I haven't used that rule since 1e. Until the point buy idea came around the standard was 4d6 drop the lowest. Which, if you do the math averages out at around 14 per roll. Another meathod was to use 2d6 + 6, which comes out to 13 average.

It's not that hard. I just rolled up 8 sets of stats using 4d6 drop low. I got a 5, a 6, a 7 and a 9.

And only 1 18 :(

Someone will probably have a dump stat equivalent in most groups using 4d6 drop low.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber

I would like to point out that I also think that pure roleplayers can be almost as much of a pain at pure rollplayers. They usually going off on some tangent that has nothing to do with the campaign. When it comes down to the nitty gritty of combat or any other stressful situation, they usually have to be walked through the mechanics.

In my mind there is a venn diagram of RPG gamers. In one circle there are Roleplayers. In another there are Rollplayers. Somewhere in the middle those two circles overlap and those are the people I like to play with.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
TClifford wrote:

Dumping stats only count for point built characters. If you are rolling your stats, then you have to basically play with your luck, or lack there of. If you roll as 6 and decide to put that in INT, that isn't dumping. That is going with a concept based on the roll that you got.

Actually, it is really hard to dump stats unless you are strictly following the 3d6 rule. I haven't used that rule since 1e. Until the point buy idea came around the standard was 4d6 drop the lowest. Which, if you do the math averages out at around 14 per roll. Another meathod was to use 2d6 + 6, which comes out to 13 average.

It's not that hard. I just rolled up 8 sets of stats using 4d6 drop low. I got a 5, a 6, a 7 and a 9.

And only 1 18 :(

Someone will probably have a dump stat equivalent in most groups using 4d6 drop low.

Wait. In 8 sets of 6 stats you only got 3 below norm [I don't count the 9 below norm]. That is 3 out of 48 or 6.25% of your rolls. And your point? That is pretty rare in my opinion.

Try it again with 3d6 and I bet you get a lot more below the Mendosa line then with 4d6 drop lowest.


Roberta Yang wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:

That is mildly mean, and also quite thoroughly not something this thread could even possibly show.

After all, gamers are only a small sub-set of humans, Pathfinder players are a smaller sub-set still, and then we size down to Pathfinder player that post on this message board and again to those that posted in this thread... so our sample size is too small and our sample selection not nearly broad enough to determine anything about people in general.

I too am offended when jokes are not literally true under analysis of statistical significance.

I forgot my sarcasm tags.

I will pay for my dishonor. [cut]pinky finger[/cut]

Edit: I am confusing myself now, I swear I only have the one account here (Noble Drake) but it seems each of my computers is coming up with different screen names that aren't aliases.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Quote:
If you roll as 6 and decide to put that in INT, that isn't dumping.

Depends on why you decided to put it there.

It was your last score to assign and you don't need the skill points, so put the low one there? Dumping.

You want to play the mentally challenged guy and put it there first? Not dumping.

101 to 150 of 277 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Why I dump stats All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.