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

PaizoCon 2014!

Why I dump stats


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

151 to 200 of 277 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TClifford wrote:

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.

I believe that venn diagram is a lot more like to circles so nearly overlapped entirely that you can only just see the sliver on each side where the role-players that don't also get the rules and the roll-players that get nothing but the rules live.

My favorites are a couple of players in my own group: One wants nothing but the "best" character around and to decimate, accumulate, and repeat... and knows next to nothing about how to play any of the games we play, including having to have help building a character.

And the guy that knows the rules the best besides me (the always GM and rule-master extraordinaire) is also the one most concerned with getting into his character's mindset and making all decisions from that view point, including how to improve the character.


TClifford wrote:

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.

Probability of 8 or less on a roll of 4d6 drop lowest: 10.5%. The expected number of such stats per character is 0.63, which means on average, out of every eight characters, there will be five stats of 8 or less.

Probability of 8 or less on a roll of 3d6 drop lowest: 25.9%. The expected number of such stats per character is 1.55, which means on avergae, out of every eight characters, there will be twelve stats of 8 or less.

There are less than 2.5 times as many "low" stats on a 3d6 roll than there are on a 4d6 drop lowest roll, which means the difference isn't a full order of magnitude - it's significant, but not overwhelmingly so. And as often as not, a roll of 4d6 drop lowest will indeed have a "low" stat - something that happens half the time can hardly be reasonably said to be "hard"! (Of course, if you play with one of those variants like "Roll three sets of 4d6, pick whichever you want", it suddenly becomes much harder.)


TClifford wrote:
thejeff wrote:
TClifford wrote:


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.

Of course you'll get less. But it's not hard to get. Close to half your characters will have one.


Actually, the numbers are even closer than I posted above, since my calculations ignored the "if your total modifier isn't positive, reroll everything" - which is far more likely to happen, and therefore discards a lot more low stats, on a 3d6 roll than a 4d6 roll.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
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.

Definition of dumping a stat: Reducing a stat to give you more points to spend in other stats.

How is putting a roll in a stat dumping that stat? It has to go someplace. You aren't getting any benefit for putting it in that spot. Therefore, it isn't dumping.

Hopefully, you then roleplay that lowered stat. See as old school player, I find that the old rolling methods of coming up with your character reduced a lot of power gaming that is associated with dumping stats. You got what you rolled. Now make the best of it.

Conversly, there was the problem of having that one uber character with say 3 x 18s. Therefore, both rolling and points have their pros and cons.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber
Roberta Yang wrote:
Actually, the numbers are even closer than I posted above, since my calculations ignored the "if your total modifier isn't positive, reroll everything" - which is far more likely to happen, and therefore discards a lot more low stats, on a 3d6 roll than a 4d6 roll.

That is assuming you are using that rule. Straight up 3d6 is going to give a lot more rolls below 8 then 4d6-lowest.

I did the math like 30 years ago, but I distictly remember that the average of 4d6-lowest was 14. And everyone knows that with 3d6 the average is 10.5. 3d6 is a true bell curve while the other is a curve that is very skuded [sp?] towards the upper numbers.


TClifford wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
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.

Definition of dumping a stat: Reducing a stat to give you more points to spend in other stats.

How is putting a roll in a stat dumping that stat? It has to go someplace. You aren't getting any benefit for putting it in that spot. Therefore, it isn't dumping.

Hopefully, you then roleplay that lowered stat. See as old school player, I find that the old rolling methods of coming up with your character reduced a lot of power gaming that is associated with dumping stats. You got what you rolled. Now make the best of it.

Conversly, there was the problem of having that one uber character with say 3 x 18s. Therefore, both rolling and points have their pros and cons.

As another old school player, we talked about dump stats long before this new-fangled point buy thing came along. Dump stats were any stat you didn't care about for your class and you put your low stats there.

I do find the power-gaming mentality of point buy off putting. Even when I don't really care, I'm always going back and tweaking stats or agonizing over what I should boost or dump. I prefer just having a set of numbers to place.
OTOH, I really hate the wide disparity that comes with rolled stats. Someone always gets the uber rolls and someone else the lousy ones. I don't like either.
I don't have a good solution for this.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber

I like my solution. Point build with no more than 2 stats down to 8 and if you really want to go lower, then you need to have a really good reason, but then that is the only one. I.E., you can dump, but you better roleplay it.

But then again, I play with it even a little more. 20 points is baseline in my campaign. If you want more, then you can go up to 25, but then you lose your starting 1st level feat. Conversely, if you want a skilled character but weak stats, then I'll let you have an additional feat if you go with an 15 point buy.

Silver Crusade

One option nobody's mentioned is that there used to be point buy built into rolling back in the old days. You rolled using whatever method (usually 4d6, drop the lowest), and then you could trade points from one stat to another to drive up your most important stats at the expense of your least important. I believe it was a 2 to 1 trade, so the fighter would have to dump 2 points of cha to get 1 more point of str. I'm pretty sure this method was recommended in the 1e rulebooks.

So there were intentional dump stats back then, even before the current point buy systems.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TClifford wrote:

Definition of dumping a stat: Reducing a stat to give you more points to spend in other stats.

How is putting a roll in a stat dumping that stat?

I see we use different definitions.

Dumping a stat: Placing your lowest score into that stat, usually because you do not need that stat. Can happen multiple times if multiple low scores are generated.


Mysterious Stranger wrote:
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.

Actually Raistlin had NO dump stats. I posted it earlier.

The rest aren't D&D characters. So no stats apply to them at all.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
TClifford wrote:

Definition of dumping a stat: Reducing a stat to give you more points to spend in other stats.

How is putting a roll in a stat dumping that stat?

I see we use different definitions.

Dumping a stat: Placing your lowest score into that stat, usually because you do not need that stat. Can happen multiple times if multiple low scores are generated.

TOZ that is min/maxing.

TClifford is right about the definition of stat dumping as I understand it.

Lantern Lodge

thejeff wrote:

............

As another old school player, we talked about dump stats long before this new-fangled point buy thing came along. Dump stats were any stat you didn't care about for your class and you put your low stats there.

I do find the power-gaming mentality of point buy off putting. Even when I don't really care, I'm always going back and tweaking stats or agonizing over what I should boost or dump. I prefer just having a set of numbers to place.
OTOH, I really hate the wide disparity that comes with rolled stats. Someone always gets the uber rolls and someone else the lousy ones. I don't like either.
I don't have a good solution for this.

I do have two good solutions for this, arrays and organic point buy.

With an array everyone gets the same set of numbers to place as desired,
Organic point buy is where you spend all but 5 points on six scores, then roll to see where those scores land. The last 5 points then gets added as normal only after you roll for placement you can't reduce any scores.

Array is always nice and simple and keeps everyone on same scale,
Organic point buy is flexible, but unsure, and keeps everyone on the same scale. Sometimes feels like gambling, which can be good for some and bad for others.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
TOZ that is min/maxing.

That's not minimizing weaknesses and maximizing strengths.

And did you not read where I said we are using different definitions?

Lantern Lodge

I think the point being is if you build stats from a mechanical perspective then cover it with RP (if you decide on even including RP) then it's min/maxing.

If you build an RP concept then try to match the mechanics as close to concept then it's not min/maxing

And any kind of synergy of the two methods will always remain questionable.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Aranna wrote:
TOZ that is min/maxing.

That's not minimizing weaknesses and maximizing strengths.

And did you not read where I said we are using different definitions?

I saw but I was hoping to get you to start using our definition. Which I am fairly convinced is the correct definition. We all communicate better when we all use the same language.

And min/maxing is about placing your weaknesses where they don't hurt you as much as it is about maximizing your abilities. That sure does seem to be what you are doing when you place your low stats where they won't have mechanical impact. Am I not right?

Cheliax

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

I think the point being is if you build stats from a mechanical perspective then cover it with RP (if you decide on even including RP) then it's min/maxing.

If you build an RP concept then try to match the mechanics as close to concept then it's not min/maxing

And any kind of synergy of the two methods will always remain questionable.

I don't see why this divide is even relevant. Why should it even matter?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Seranov wrote:
I don't see why this divide is even relevant. Why should it even matter?

Pathfinder is a game fueled by the angst and self-doubt of fools who merely think they're probably good roleplayers but who may truly be vile munchkins at heart. The only fair solution is to hold everything up to magical standards of purity that can never be reached and ostracize anyone who fails to meet them.

The fact that you are on this board suggests that you may have glanced at a rulebook at some point. Knowing the game mechanics will corrupt your ability to roleplay purely. You have been tainted and may as well just not play RPG's at this point.

Cheliax

No no it's okay, because when I have an INT of 7 I just grunt a lot and do some periodic hooting.

Lantern Lodge

Trying to get find people of a different is a pain the ---- and ignoring the that different styles exist is a primary driver in these arguments, particularly for those who only give suggestions for their own playstyles, rather then the multitude of possibilities.

Cheliax

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Trying to get find people of a different is a pain the ---- and ignoring the that different styles exist is a primary driver in these arguments, particularly for those who only give suggestions for their own playstyles, rather then the multitude of possibilities.

For the life of me, I cannot understand what you're trying to get at here.

Are you saying that the problem is that people only give advice from their own experience? Because, yeah, generally you stick with what works for you and your group. If it doesn't work for another group, that's totally fine.

Are you saying that people SHOULDN'T give advice based off their own experience, and instead, should magically know what others want to hear? Because you know just as well as I do that that's silly and impossible.

Lantern Lodge

Apologies, it was in reply to your question Seranov.

Too many people on these boards don't just give advice but rather advocate why their way is or isn't ---- (either the best, or only way, or isn't munchkiny, etc)

Too many forget to give their advice from the perspective of various playstyles, or in the specific playstyle being discussed, and instead always give it only from their own play style.

Edit: Example was my thread on organic point buy, which lead to arguements over why point buy or rolling is better, instead of looking at what my method could do and what kind of playstyle it would be good for and how well people who play that style like it.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aranna wrote:


I saw but I was hoping to get you to start using our definition. Which I am fairly convinced is the correct definition. We all communicate better when we all use the same language.

And min/maxing is about placing your weaknesses where they don't hurt you as much as it is about maximizing your abilities. That sure does seem to be what you are doing when you place your low stats where they won't have mechanical impact. Am I not right?

There is no correct definition. We have a mishmash language of jargon stretching over thirty years of wildly different groups twisting and shaping the words into different things.

Nitpicking, there is nowhere you can place something where it won't have a mechanical impact when it comes to ability scores. Charisma is the closest, but even then you will eventually have to roll a Cha-based check, or take Charisma damage. Minimizing your weaknesses would be placing a higher score in your Dex as a cleric to counter your poor Reflex save. Placing a low score there would be maximizing your weakness, the complete opposite of min/maxing.

Cheliax

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Apologies, it was in reply to your question Seranov.

Too many people on these boards don't just give advice but rather advocate why their way is or isn't ---- (either the best, or only way, or isn't munchkiny, etc)

Too many forget to give their advice from the perspective of various playstyles, or in the specific playstyle being discussed, and instead always give it only from their own play style.

Edit: Example was my thread on organic point buy, which lead to arguements over why point buy or rolling is better, instead of looking at what my method could do and what kind of playstyle it would be good for and how well people who play that style like it.

Ah, gotcha.

Well, that I understand all too well. I am just saying that all this crying of "min/maxer!" or "munchkin!" sounds really silly to me. I can't for the life of me see how making up a character concept and then assigning stats/mechanics to it is magically more lofty and correct than making up a character's stats/mechanics and building a person around them.

I've never once claimed my ideals on how stat dumping works are the right ones, but I can sure as hell say they work for me and everyone I've played with.

Lantern Lodge

Personally, I use those terms to reference that playstyle but don't really think they are absolute bad things.


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.

To me, a 'dump stat' is when you have a choice, ie. pointbuy you lower a stat. If you have set rolls, i dont really see how you can dump stat as you have no choice, you are not able to dump the stat down for more points.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nether wrote:
To me, a 'dump stat' is when you have a choice, ie. pointbuy you lower a stat. If you have set rolls, i dont really see how you can dump stat as you have no choice, you are not able to dump the stat down for more points.

But you can dump it into your least important stat.

Note that thejeff said 'dump stat equivalent', not 'dump stat' however.


Yosarian wrote:
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".

As this thread is showing, there is a few different ways to correlate what a 7 Int is equivalent to. Bell curve is only one way to look at this, but doesnt make it the only logical way to see it.

I had always looked at it as, min 3, max 18 represented barely functionally alive in stat way, and the best of the best of your race. So a +4 in Int is a genius, +3 superior int, +2 high int ext, but on the flip, if 10 or +0 is the norm, then a -2 should be pretty deficient and slow.

Stat increase from lvling doesnt really factor in here, as it represents the character actively working to improve said area (like working out) or in improving over your racial max you are improving in fantastical or mystical ways which are not normal, hence racial min/max being 3-18.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
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...

This goes right in the middle of role player and roll player. This is what many, or the very least I have been of the opinion of from the beggining of this thread, that if you dump stats, then you need to roleplay it.

Posters like Seranov have said they dont understand why they should have to role play stat dumping. Role playing dumped str is easier over all because if playing by the rules, your encumberance ext suffers, but it also is very hard to not play that. But in the case of Int,Wis,Cha which require the player to represent them, they can be ignored completely and the minuses ignored. So a player could play his Int 5 character far smarter and clever than he prolly should be.

All i ask of my players or any group i am in, is that players play their stats. If they have dumped stats, that is completely fine as long as they represent that in character. But it has been my experience at the gaming club that majority of the players there do Not at all.


Nether wrote:

This goes right in the middle of role player and roll player. This is what many, or the very least I have been of the opinion of from the beggining of this thread, that if you dump stats, then you need to roleplay it.

Posters like Seranov have said they dont understand why they should have to role play stat dumping. Role playing dumped str is easier over all because if playing by the rules, your encumberance ext suffers, but it also is very hard to not play that. But in the case of Int,Wis,Cha which require the player to represent them, they can be ignored completely and the minuses ignored. So a player could play his Int 5 character far smarter and clever than he prolly should be.

All i ask of my players or any group i am in, is that players play their stats. If they have dumped stats, that is completely fine as long as they represent that in character. But it has been my experience at the gaming club that majority of the players there do Not at all.

Just to raise the old counterargument here:

If I'm required to roleplay my low Int or Wis, am I also required to roleplay my superhuman Int or Wis when I'm playing that character?
And how?

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nether wrote:

This goes right in the middle of role player and roll player. This is what many, or the very least I have been of the opinion of from the beggining of this thread, that if you dump stats, then you need to roleplay it.

Posters like Seranov have said they dont understand why they should have to role play stat dumping. Role playing dumped str is easier over all because if playing by the rules, your encumberance ext suffers, but it also is very hard to not play that. But in the case of Int,Wis,Cha which require the player to represent them, they can be ignored completely and the minuses ignored. So a player could play his Int 5 character far smarter and clever than he prolly should be.

All i ask of my players or any group i am in, is that players play their stats. If they have dumped stats, that is completely fine as long as they represent that in character. But it has been my experience at the gaming club that majority of the players there do Not at all.

You're attempting to put words in my mouth again, and you're still wrong.

I said that you shouldn't have to roleplay 7 Int as f&+%ing braindead. You shouldn't have to roleplay 7 Str as weaker than a ten year old girl. You CAN, but those numbers don't HAVE to be played that way.

I never said a SINGLE THING about not roleplaying your stats at all. But even if I had, who the hell are you to claim that would be wrong? Wrong for your table? That's a valid statement to make, assuming you aren't arbitrarily forcing your personal opinions on your group mates. But to say it's unacceptable for the tables that I play at, of which you certainly are not a participant, is so wrong it's funny.

And an aside: Stormwind Fallacy. Being anal-retentive about your stats NOT being min/maxed does not magically make you a good roleplayer. You are not necessarily any better at roleplaying than I am, just because you believe a 7 in a stat is crippling (which it's not).


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.

Arthur was a gullible sucker (wis dump)

Beowulf was arrogant, cant plan, nor control his emotions (Int and Wis dump)
Herc was insane, brash and rude (wis & cha dump)
Gilgamesh was essentially a tyrant and a coward, happy to insult goddesses, and many other flaws. Basically, all mental stats were a dump.


thejeff wrote:
Nether wrote:

This goes right in the middle of role player and roll player. This is what many, or the very least I have been of the opinion of from the beggining of this thread, that if you dump stats, then you need to roleplay it.

Posters like Seranov have said they dont understand why they should have to role play stat dumping. Role playing dumped str is easier over all because if playing by the rules, your encumberance ext suffers, but it also is very hard to not play that. But in the case of Int,Wis,Cha which require the player to represent them, they can be ignored completely and the minuses ignored. So a player could play his Int 5 character far smarter and clever than he prolly should be.

All i ask of my players or any group i am in, is that players play their stats. If they have dumped stats, that is completely fine as long as they represent that in character. But it has been my experience at the gaming club that majority of the players there do Not at all.

Just to raise the old counterargument here:

If I'm required to roleplay my low Int or Wis, am I also required to roleplay my superhuman Int or Wis when I'm playing that character?
And how?

In this i can see where it goes to interpretation of 'representing' that stat. What should that stat also represent is not clear either.

But just like skills, most players will not have the skill or same lvl of skill, but they make some kind of effort and allow the stat / skill to compensate the rest of the way.

So say you play 18 cha, but you are not a very social person, which i have had people like in game before, but as long as they make an attempt then they have tried to represent, then as gm you should let the stat / skill carry the player thru.

Of course how you do this is subjective to different groups, but in regards to not even attempting to role play it, you are breaking game rules. Ie, Str doesnt require alot for rp, as rules take care of it pretty well. But rules also say if you have a low stat/skill, you should role play that weakness, but it is up to each gm to gauge if that has been done. Same thing with high stat/skill, the gm needs to help the player out in roleplaying that.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:

I think the point being is if you build stats from a mechanical perspective then cover it with RP (if you decide on even including RP) then it's min/maxing.

If you build an RP concept then try to match the mechanics as close to concept then it's not min/maxing

And any kind of synergy of the two methods will always remain questionable.

I have to respectfully disagree with the entire premise of this post, hopefully I can make it clear why without disparaging anyone's preferences.

Hypothetical situation: DLH, you're the DM of a point-buy game. I turn up with my PC, who is a wizard, and has 7 for both Str and Cha. My background includes references to how these poor stats have affected my PC's life so far, and I RP my character beautifully and in line with both stats and background etc, most noticeably my low Cha

Bob turns up with his halfling bard. His Wis is 7 and his Str is 6. His background also notes how these low scores have impacted his life, and Bob also does a super job of RPing his low Wis.

Both my Cha and Bob's Wis seem to be integral parts of our PCs. However, one of us has deliberately dumped two stats with mechanical benefits in mind, and has then created a strong character concept around how that's worked out. The other conceptualised those low stats as part of the concept seed, and built the PC according to that vision.

Everyone has fun. Everyone's PCs are strong and effective, and everyone plays their character well.

What difference does it make who went concept first, and who went numbers first? And how would you even know unless you asked?

For the record, I'm normally the guy that makes a concept, then tries to build an effective PC around that concept. But occasionally I do it the other way, and as a GM I often help people create their PC with their mechanics in mind because I want them to feel effective and have fun (no one likes being Mr Useless).

When people use the word "should" all the time, I.e.discussing how one "should" play, it irks me.


Seranov wrote:
Nether wrote:

This goes right in the middle of role player and roll player. This is what many, or the very least I have been of the opinion of from the beggining of this thread, that if you dump stats, then you need to roleplay it.

Posters like Seranov have said they dont understand why they should have to role play stat dumping. Role playing dumped str is easier over all because if playing by the rules, your encumberance ext suffers, but it also is very hard to not play that. But in the case of Int,Wis,Cha which require the player to represent them, they can be ignored completely and the minuses ignored. So a player could play his Int 5 character far smarter and clever than he prolly should be.

All i ask of my players or any group i am in, is that players play their stats. If they have dumped stats, that is completely fine as long as they represent that in character. But it has been my experience at the gaming club that majority of the players there do Not at all.

You're attempting to put words in my mouth again, and you're still wrong.

I said that you shouldn't have to roleplay 7 Int as f!~@ing braindead. You shouldn't have to roleplay 7 Str as weaker than a ten year old girl. You CAN, but those numbers don't HAVE to be played that way.

I never said a SINGLE THING about not roleplaying your stats at all. But even if I had, who the hell are you to claim that would be wrong? Wrong for your table? That's a valid statement to make, assuming you aren't arbitrarily forcing your personal opinions on your group mates. But to say it's unacceptable for the tables that I play at, of which you certainly are not a participant, is so wrong it's funny.

And an aside: Stormwind Fallacy. Being anal-retentive about your stats NOT being min/maxed does not magically make you a good roleplayer. You are not necessarily any better at roleplaying than I am, just because you believe a 7 in a stat is crippling (which it's not).

I am not putting words in your mouth, i am quoting you.

Seranov wrote:
Everyone is playing their character. Why should someone who dumped Charisma, because it has absolutely no mechanical merit for their character, have to play like they are the Hunchback of Notre Dame?

I have mentioned prior that a 7 Int should make you mentally retarded. As you have pointed out, at the upper limit of 70 IQ people can still function, but are slower and take more repitition to achieve the same. I never disagreed with you on that, but you have assumed I said people should be slobbering idiots that can't function, which i never said.

I have also NOT said you are playing wrong, but if you dont role play the stats then it is the same as ignoring your encumbrance when you have a low str stat. This part has nothing to do with gaming style ext, it is the rules of the game. It's just some stats are just easier to play than others.

I can see in later posts you have said the opposite of what i quoted you on here, but i still chose to mention it because it defends what i have been saying.

No need to swear, as i have no problems with you with the exception of you assuming I was saying more than i did, ie telling you how to play correctly, the severity of stat ability ext., which i have not.


thejeff wrote:
Nether wrote:

This goes right in the middle of role player and roll player. This is what many, or the very least I have been of the opinion of from the beggining of this thread, that if you dump stats, then you need to roleplay it.

Posters like Seranov have said they dont understand why they should have to role play stat dumping. Role playing dumped str is easier over all because if playing by the rules, your encumberance ext suffers, but it also is very hard to not play that. But in the case of Int,Wis,Cha which require the player to represent them, they can be ignored completely and the minuses ignored. So a player could play his Int 5 character far smarter and clever than he prolly should be.

All i ask of my players or any group i am in, is that players play their stats. If they have dumped stats, that is completely fine as long as they represent that in character. But it has been my experience at the gaming club that majority of the players there do Not at all.

Just to raise the old counterargument here:

If I'm required to roleplay my low Int or Wis, am I also required to roleplay my superhuman Int or Wis when I'm playing that character?
And how?

I occasionally give my players hints, remind them of things they've forgotten, or allow them to ask me for ideas, but I roll and Int or Wis check behind the screen for them before I do. They know this, and they know that if they fail I'll deliberately mislead them. It's like their PC had an idea or memory pop into their head, and then they can decide whether or not they want to heed what I've said or ignore it. They still have all the power as far as decision-making goes, but they've got additional info based on their mental stats, for better or worse.

It works pretty well in my experience.


Nether wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Nether wrote:

This goes right in the middle of role player and roll player. This is what many, or the very least I have been of the opinion of from the beggining of this thread, that if you dump stats, then you need to roleplay it.

Posters like Seranov have said they dont understand why they should have to role play stat dumping. Role playing dumped str is easier over all because if playing by the rules, your encumberance ext suffers, but it also is very hard to not play that. But in the case of Int,Wis,Cha which require the player to represent them, they can be ignored completely and the minuses ignored. So a player could play his Int 5 character far smarter and clever than he prolly should be.

All i ask of my players or any group i am in, is that players play their stats. If they have dumped stats, that is completely fine as long as they represent that in character. But it has been my experience at the gaming club that majority of the players there do Not at all.

Just to raise the old counterargument here:

If I'm required to roleplay my low Int or Wis, am I also required to roleplay my superhuman Int or Wis when I'm playing that character?
And how?

In this i can see where it goes to interpretation of 'representing' that stat. What should that stat also represent is not clear either.

But just like skills, most players will not have the skill or same lvl of skill, but they make some kind of effort and allow the stat / skill to compensate the rest of the way.

So say you play 18 cha, but you are not a very social person, which i have had people like in game before, but as long as they make an attempt then they have tried to represent, then as gm you should let the stat / skill carry the player thru.

Of course how you do this is subjective to different groups, but in regards to not even attempting to role play it, you are breaking game rules. Ie, Str doesnt require alot for rp, as rules take care of it pretty well. But rules also say if you have a low...

1) Quote for the game rules requiring you to roleplay low stats, please. Mind you I generally agree it's a good idea, as far as I know it is not codified.

2) More importantly, Charisma is the easiest of the mental stats to handle, since it's mostly about how other people react to you and much of that is through skills anyway. Even in cases where no skill applies, the GM can adjust his NPCs reaction to the 25 CHA character appropriately.
Wisdom and Intelligence are much harder, which I why I mentioned them specifically. How do you roleplay that level of common sense and intuition or of reasoning power? Can you do it without GM help? Or do you just roleplay your character at about your native level of intelligence and wisdom?


Seranov wrote:


I never said a SINGLE THING about not roleplaying your stats at all. But even if I had, who the hell are you to claim that would be wrong? Wrong for your table? That's a valid statement to make, assuming you aren't arbitrarily forcing your personal opinions on your group mates. But to say it's unacceptable for the tables that I play at, of which you certainly are not a participant, is so wrong it's funny.

The rules claim you would be wrong, that is who. Not I or anyone else, but the rules good sir.

As mentioned, you can play a low str easily because it is a physical attr that mostly affects the mechanical unless you describe your 5 str character having the muscles or Mr. Olympia with not reason nor background. But a low mental attr in a role playing game means the rules say you need to play that as it has a much greater effect outside of mechanics, but what constitutes are representing that is up to your gm.


Nether wrote:
I have mentioned prior that a 7 Int should make you mentally retarded. As you have pointed out, at the upper limit of 70 IQ people can still function, but are slower and take more repitition to achieve the same. I never disagreed with you on that, but you have assumed I said people should be slobbering idiots that can't function, which i never said.

You have mentioned that an Int of 7 equals mentally retarded, but that doesn't mean you're correct. In my opinion, as someone who works day in, day out with people who are "mentally retarded", Int 7 is nowhere near "mentally retarded". On the scale of 3-18, and looking at the oft-mentioned bell curve distribution of 3d6, I would consider an Int of 5 to be borderline mentally retarded.

I think you're being very harsh on Int 7.


Nether wrote:
Seranov wrote:


I never said a SINGLE THING about not roleplaying your stats at all. But even if I had, who the hell are you to claim that would be wrong? Wrong for your table? That's a valid statement to make, assuming you aren't arbitrarily forcing your personal opinions on your group mates. But to say it's unacceptable for the tables that I play at, of which you certainly are not a participant, is so wrong it's funny.

The rules claim you would be wrong, that is who. Not I or anyone else, but the rules good sir.

As mentioned, you can play a low str easily because it is a physical attr that mostly affects the mechanical unless you describe your 5 str character having the muscles or Mr. Olympia with not reason nor background. But a low mental attr in a role playing game means the rules say you need to play that as it has a much greater effect outside of mechanics, but what constitutes are representing that is up to your gm.

As thejeff just asked, where in the rules does it say this?

Also like thejeff, I agree it's a good idea, but if you're going to say "the rules say you need to..." a quote would be helpful.

Cheliax

Nether wrote:
Seranov wrote:
Everyone is playing their character. Why should someone who dumped Charisma, because it has absolutely no mechanical merit for their character, have to play like they are the Hunchback of Notre Dame?

I have mentioned prior that a 7 Int should make you mentally retarded. As you have pointed out, at the upper limit of 70 IQ people can still function, but are slower and take more repitition to achieve the same. I never disagreed with you on that, but you have assumed I said people should be slobbering idiots that can't function, which i never said.

I have also NOT said you are playing wrong, but if you dont role play the stats then it is the same as ignoring your encumbrance when you have a low str stat. This part has nothing to do with gaming style ext, it is the rules of the game. It's just some stats are just easier to play than others.

I can see in later posts you have said the opposite of what i quoted you on here, but i still chose to mention it because it defends what i have been saying.

No need to swear, as i have no problems with you with the exception of you assuming I was saying more than i did, ie telling you how to play correctly, the severity of stat ability ext., which i have not.

I'm saying that you should not be required to roleplay someone as horrendously disabled, unsocial or weak because of a 7. I bolded the relevant part of my quote.

A 7 is a -2 on a related check. A 5 is a -3. In a fantasy world, where very little of our real-world stuff matters, it's pretty safe to call someone with those stats "clumsy," "mildly unsocial," or a "little slow." Implying that they should have to play a character that is severely handicapped because you don't like dump stats is fine at your table, but we'd never do it at mine.

Again, if you'd actually read my posts, I've claimed I roleplay my stats. But my 7 Int 7 Wis Paladin was Forrest Gump, not a nearly-comatose idiot. My 6 Cha Inquisitor has trouble talking to and getting along with others, but people don't attempt to chase him around with pitchforks and torches. The fact that you're taking my previous statements out of context does not make for a valid argument.

"Nether wrote:

The rules claim you would be wrong, that is who. Not I or anyone else, but the rules good sir.

As mentioned, you can play a low str easily because it is a physical attr that mostly affects the mechanical unless you describe your 5 str character having the muscles or Mr. Olympia with not reason nor background. But a low mental attr in a role playing game means the rules say you need to play that as it has a much greater effect outside of mechanics, but what constitutes are representing that is up to your gm.

Show me this rule, and I'll believe it. But in the meantime, as long as stats, mental stats especially, are nebulous without a solid explanation of what each point physically means inside the game world, you are absolutely not correct.


thejeff wrote:
Nether wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Nether wrote:

This goes right in the middle of role player and roll player. This is what many, or the very least I have been of the opinion of from the beggining of this thread, that if you dump stats, then you need to roleplay it.

Posters like Seranov have said they dont understand why they should have to role play stat dumping. Role playing dumped str is easier over all because if playing by the rules, your encumberance ext suffers, but it also is very hard to not play that. But in the case of Int,Wis,Cha which require the player to represent them, they can be ignored completely and the minuses ignored. So a player could play his Int 5 character far smarter and clever than he prolly should be.

All i ask of my players or any group i am in, is that players play their stats. If they have dumped stats, that is completely fine as long as they represent that in character. But it has been my experience at the gaming club that majority of the players there do Not at all.

Just to raise the old counterargument here:

If I'm required to roleplay my low Int or Wis, am I also required to roleplay my superhuman Int or Wis when I'm playing that character?
And how?

In this i can see where it goes to interpretation of 'representing' that stat. What should that stat also represent is not clear either.

But just like skills, most players will not have the skill or same lvl of skill, but they make some kind of effort and allow the stat / skill to compensate the rest of the way.

So say you play 18 cha, but you are not a very social person, which i have had people like in game before, but as long as they make an attempt then they have tried to represent, then as gm you should let the stat / skill carry the player thru.

Of course how you do this is subjective to different groups, but in regards to not even attempting to role play it, you are breaking game rules. Ie, Str doesnt require alot for rp, as rules take care of it pretty well. But rules

...

The rules would be inherent in the fact that the game mechanics have attr stats with +/- from the avg person of 10. Mental stats have a representation aspect though that is not covered by the mechanics to represent their score, so in playing the number on the sheet it is up to the player to show that score metaphysically, ie role playing. Then the game has 'role playing' in the title, which can be a bit of extrapolation on my part but i am thinking that aspect is very clear in a role playing game. I will review the core book to see if i am forgetting something, but i think the above should suffice. For those that want the hard mechanical rule in print about how to role play, well i guess there is a plethora of other resources i could refer you to.

I think gm help is important to represent stats/skills, as they are the ones that tell you how you interact with others. If you arent a brilliant tactician but your character is, that is where the gm should help you by making it come across as such. I think new GM's with exposure to just AP's have not developed these skills or they have been greatly diminished because of them. But this is another thread.


Someone else already mentioned this, but if 7 is mentally retarded, 14+ is genius level. No wizard with an 16+ intelligence can ever be roleplayed correctly unless you're playing with someone who graduated college at the age of 15, so I don't get why you would try to argue that you have to roleplay the 7 as a retarded person. If so, that seems like a double standard to me. Besides, if someone has to roleplay a 7 cha, there's a good chance that that would translate to them being a complete jerk, and no one likes playing with that. That player would be throwing insults at people all the time, and then justify it because "it's what his character would say."

Besides, everyone's got their own play style. Whatever you enjoy, right?


Oops, deleted post with faulty math...

Now I've done it right (I hope - I'm a musician, we only usually need to count to 4), it turns out that if Int 7 means mentally retarded, then 16.2% of Golarion's human population falls into that category.

If Int 4 is mentally retarded, then about 1 in 50 are.

Looks like Int 3 (0.5%) is reserved for the mentally retarded. Sorry Nether.

Cheliax

Okay, so what you're saying is "Because I say so."

Well, no. The rules don't say a -3 should be roleplayed as being almost completely inept, and you will never find a rule that says such a thing. A mental stat below 11 says you can't cast spells associated with that stat, but that's it.


But the Basic Array only goes down to 8, which means 7 Int literally makes you the stupidest person in Golarion. I'm pretty sure that level of superhuman stupidity means you need to make checks occasionally just to remember to breathe.

Cheliax

Roberta Yang wrote:
But the Basic Array only goes down to 8, which means 7 Int literally makes you the stupidest person in Golarion. I'm pretty sure that level of superhuman stupidity means you need to make checks occasionally just to remember to breathe.

Pfft.

I appreciate your humor.


Nether wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Nether wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Nether wrote:

This goes right in the middle of role player and roll player. This is what many, or the very least I have been of the opinion of from the beggining of this thread, that if you dump stats, then you need to roleplay it.

Posters like Seranov have said they dont understand why they should have to role play stat dumping. Role playing dumped str is easier over all because if playing by the rules, your encumberance ext suffers, but it also is very hard to not play that. But in the case of Int,Wis,Cha which require the player to represent them, they can be ignored completely and the minuses ignored. So a player could play his Int 5 character far smarter and clever than he prolly should be.

All i ask of my players or any group i am in, is that players play their stats. If they have dumped stats, that is completely fine as long as they represent that in character. But it has been my experience at the gaming club that majority of the players there do Not at all.

Just to raise the old counterargument here:

If I'm required to roleplay my low Int or Wis, am I also required to roleplay my superhuman Int or Wis when I'm playing that character?
And how?

In this i can see where it goes to interpretation of 'representing' that stat. What should that stat also represent is not clear either.

But just like skills, most players will not have the skill or same lvl of skill, but they make some kind of effort and allow the stat / skill to compensate the rest of the way.

So say you play 18 cha, but you are not a very social person, which i have had people like in game before, but as long as they make an attempt then they have tried to represent, then as gm you should let the stat / skill carry the player thru.

Of course how you do this is subjective to different groups, but in regards to not even attempting to role play it, you are breaking game rules. Ie, Str doesnt require alot for rp, as rules take care of

I think gm help is important to represent stats/skills, as they are the ones that tell you how you interact with others. If you arent a brilliant tactician but your character is, that is where the gm should help you by making it come across as such. I think new GM's with exposure to just AP's have not developed these skills or they have been greatly diminished because of them. But this is another thread.

So, when my shy, anti-social nature gets in the way of roleplaying my character's 20 cha, the GM should step in and, essentially, play my character for me? When we can't figure out a puzzle, the GM steps in to roleplay the wizard's 20 intelligence for him? I'm gonna say "no thanks" to that. I prefer to play my own character. I actually get annoyed when other people try to play them for me, truth be told.


Seranov wrote:
Nether wrote:
Seranov wrote:
Everyone is playing their character. Why should someone who dumped Charisma, because it has absolutely no mechanical merit for their character, have to play like they are the Hunchback of Notre Dame?

I have mentioned prior that a 7 Int should make you mentally retarded. As you have pointed out, at the upper limit of 70 IQ people can still function, but are slower and take more repitition to achieve the same. I never disagreed with you on that, but you have assumed I said people should be slobbering idiots that can't function, which i never said.

I have also NOT said you are playing wrong, but if you dont role play the stats then it is the same as ignoring your encumbrance when you have a low str stat. This part has nothing to do with gaming style ext, it is the rules of the game. It's just some stats are just easier to play than others.

I can see in later posts you have said the opposite of what i quoted you on here, but i still chose to mention it because it defends what i have been saying.

No need to swear, as i have no problems with you with the exception of you assuming I was saying more than i did, ie telling you how to play correctly, the severity of stat ability ext., which i have not.

I'm saying that you should not be required to roleplay someone as horrendously disabled, unsocial or weak because of a 7. I bolded the relevant part of my quote.

A 7 is a -2 on a related check. A 5 is a -3. In a fantasy world, where very little of our real-world stuff matters, it's pretty safe to call someone with those stats "clumsy," "mildly unsocial," or a "little slow." Implying that they should have to play a character that is severely handicapped because you don't like dump stats is fine at your table, but we'd never do it at mine.

Again, if you'd actually read my posts, I've claimed I roleplay my stats. But my 7 Int 7 Wis Paladin was Forrest Gump, not a nearly-comatose idiot. My 6 Cha Inquisitor has trouble talking to and getting along with...

I have never said you are horrendously disabled though, all i have been saying is that you would be slower and at a deficit in ability from the avg of 10. If 10 is normal, 18 is best of race at +4, then a -2 should be a strong drawback of ability. How you represent that though, is up to you and your gm.

But i have been saying, that stats matter, and are the core to your character's abilities/disabilities and should be represented though.

I do not claim to know exactly how a stat number should limit you, just that it should limit you based on how low it is.

So a attr of 1-2 should be the opposite of a 18, barely functional in the simplest, vs genius. Well a -2 is halfway between normal and barely alive.

In this regards i dont see the bell curve making as much sense based on real world IQ correlation to Int for eg.

I have read posts after where you claim to play your stats, but where you and i fell off the wagon was at my quote post of yours. I know your more like a player i would like playing with as you later mention what I have been trying to say from the beggining, we just got into some 'bad?' miscommunication i am thinking as we seem to have simular views than not. We have just rubbed elbows the wrong way.


littlehewy wrote:

Oops, deleted post with faulty math...

Now I've done it right (I hope - I'm a musician, we only usually need to count to 4), it turns out that if Int 7 means mentally retarded, then 16.2% of Golarion's human population falls into that category.

If Int 4 is mentally retarded, then about 1 in 50 are.

Looks like Int 3 (0.5%) is reserved for the mentally retarded. Sorry Nether.

Well if you go by bell curve, but after going thru this thread i am finding bell curve is not making as much sense. Because if 0 in a stat means you are so dis-functional that you literally die, then a Int 3 has got to be much worse than mentally retarded at IQ 70, which should be very close to 10 stat.

So avg american has 98 IQ, so avg in game is 10 Int. 70 IQ is the upper limit to being considered mentally retarded, but as pointed out by Seranov, you can still pretty much function like most avg people, you prolly just need more repition, time and maybe assistance to achieve similar skill lvls. So if 0 is death in stat, then i am thinking 70 IQ would be close to 10 int, so 8-9. Again this takes interpretation, but one thing that is clear, a stat lower than 10 is below the avg persons ability, and 0 is death, I would think we could come to some loose agreement to what a 6-7 Int would equate to. Same goes for wis and cha. But i would definitely disagree with a 3 being equal to a 70 IQ.

151 to 200 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.