|
so valcirm if I get it right a int 7 person starts out not that skilled but with time and experience he can be as good or better then someone that has a 20 int but is not experienced. I think thats what most people have been saying. I int 7 person dose not start as skilled as someone that has a 20 int, as in real life if someone that takes the time can learn to be better then someone that is naturally good at something, but it might take longer.
They still can't keep up. The 20 Int has +5 skill points...the 7, -2, Assuming they both keep one skill at max, the 20 Int will forever be better at that Int based skill...also assuming no feats add, or add equally.
Ignorance eh?
"The most important rule: Don't be a jerk."
An int 7 character can still be pretty good at int based skills. In near keeping up to a levelling genius, and surpassing a lower level genius, they are demonstrating they are not dumb or slow.
The +3 from class skills really helps.
A difference of 2 could go either way on a d20, in a competitive sense.
That would include not twisting people's words, where I come from.Ignorance eh?
"The most important rule: Don't be a jerk."
Slow and dumb don't apply, so I have argued. Not dumb in the sense you can match a genius with some effort and simple build; not slow in the initiative and response sense, not slow in that using your skills is not delayed by a 7 int. You roll like everyone else.
yea your right that they can not keep up, but for skill check DCs the diffrance will start not be not so bad. Now the Int 20 person would always be better unless feats and traits are used but what do you expect from someone that is more intelligent.Exactly the point.
If they are so much more intelligent, what happens when you are at their modifier just a few levels later?
Are you intelligent yet? What about when you surpass low level geniuses? Are you intelligent then?
>:D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, and some cultures think you are a genius if you are a genius in a craft or art form. You've heard of artistic geniuses I am sure.I've heard that expression before, sure. It means talented, not smart.
And talent can be a demonstration of...?
Dedication, intelligence, learning and skills.
Actually, I think of "talent" as innate or God-given. Someone talented at something is naturally gifted in that area. They can, of course, become even better at something through working hard at it, and someone with lower levels of talent can even become better at something than a naturally gifted person through hard work.
For example, there was kid on my HS track team (way back in the Stone Age) who worked his butt off, put in more miles and workout time than anyone else on the team. With hard work and dedication he became a contributor, but never a star. Why? Because he was simply not very talented. On the other hand, we had a kid who walked onto the team senior year, ran a few practices and became an instant star, because he was blessed with natural talent. Of course, a third kid, who became a state champion, had both talent and dedication.
I realize this is a physical example, and we are talking about mental stats. However, I believe it still applies. There is talent (represented by the Int score) and dedication/hard work/learning (represented by skill ranks and/or feats). A character can overcome lack of natural talent through hard work, and a character with natural talent can perhaps breeze by without putting in the work. The most effective characters, of course, will blend natural talent and hard work.
But let's be serious, here. Does anyone really think that the min-maxed 7 Int/7 Wis/7 Cha fighter is going to be putting lots of ranks into social and knowledge skills to compensate for his low scores? Of course not.
As for the hypothetical 7 Int bard, that's just what he is, hypothetical. Who would create such a character? Theoretically, he could exist, of course, but I don't think anyone would legitimately create a character for a class heavily dependent on skills for effectiveness and give them a 7 Int (assuming you are not rolling for stats with a pretty restrictive method and just got unlucky), as anything but a joke (or a strawman, as the case may be).
So what we are relly talking about is fighters and barbarians, who aren't likely to have many skills either to compensate for their low natural talent. So, we are talking unskilled and untalented. My argument all along is just to be honest and play them that way. Embrace your place at the lower end of the normal spectrum and go with it.
Well I apparently have too much time on my hands.
A few questions for the "skills = smarts" crowd. Are all skills equal or do only Int based skills count? (Or only knowledge skills?) If I have more skill points but put them in acrobatics/climb/swim etc., am I dumber than your one skill point character that maxes out knowledge (local)? If we both have the same number of skill points, is one of us smarter based on what skills we choose? Are all first level characters inherently dumb (and all high level characters are automatically smart)? Are bards inherently smarter than wizards? Since any character can theoretically take any skill and can theoretically gain any number of levels, then is any person, anywhere, stupid? If you have the chance to succeed but fail, are you smart or dumb? If you have one knowledge skill and I have five but all of them are the same bonus, am I smarter or are we tied? If you have a knowledge skill with a +15 bonus and I have four knowledge skills with a +5 bonus, who is smarter? If you pass a skill check but then fail five are you still smart? If you make five checks then fail one are you now stupid? Could your Int score represent your base intelligence and your skill points represent your training in a subject? Will Wolverine ever uncover the dark secrets that haunt his past? Have I asked so many questions that I literally can not stop? Is there anyone who could help me?
|
Slow and dumb don't apply, so I have argued. Not dumb in the sense you can match a genius with some effort and simple build; not slow in the initiative and response sense, not slow in that using your skills is not delayed by a 7 int.
You get fewer skill points per level. Your rate of gaining skill points is slower.
You roll like everyone else.
You roll. But you have lower odds of success than someone with a higher intelligence, all else being equal. It may not be a huge difference, but it's significant over time - in terms of grade average, 10% is enough to cost you a scholarship or admittance to an exclusive school.
If they are so much more intelligent, what happens when you are at their modifier just a few levels later?
Are you intelligent yet? What about when you surpass low level geniuses? Are you intelligent then?
No, you are not intelligent. You are skilled and/or well-educated.
Comparing a 3rd level Int 7 with a 1st level Int 18 is like comparing a dull but diligent high school graduate with an extremely bright grade schooler. It's not the grade schooler's fault that he doesn't know the basic structure of an atom - he's missing years of education.
But let's be serious, here. Does anyone really think that the min-maxed 7 Int/7 Wis/7 Cha fighter is going to be putting lots of ranks into social and knowledge skills to compensate for his low scores? Of course not.
I'm planning up an Int/Cha dump character (probably 8/10, pending rolled stats) who will sink half of a meagre skill point allotment into Knowledge and Diplomacy. It's not as extreme, but we use a pretty generous rolling method and I'm unlikely to need to dump lower *fingers crossed*
As for the hypothetical 7 Int bard, that's just what he is, hypothetical. Who would create such a character? Theoretically, he could exist, of course, but I don't think anyone would legitimately create a character for a class heavily dependent on skills for effectiveness and give them a 7 Int (assuming you are not rolling for stats with a pretty restrictive method and just got unlucky), as anything but a joke (or a strawman, as the case may be).
I'd play that character. I wouldn't play them if I intended them to be heavily dependent on skills, but if I was the bard in a party with plenty of other skill characters I'd play the Int 7 bard for fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we are just talking fighters and barbarians... then none of this matters. Because the Int/Wis/Cha 7 dude is likely never going to be in a position where his word matters unless the GM sets him up to fail just on spite. He is there to tear stuff apart, and withstand the damage of other things that would crush his more eloquent and intelligent friends. That is his sole purpose.
How many characters have any of you played that do not into social stuff, and then step up and speak for the party? How many times have your progress been halted because your melee monster does not have knowledges? Or if we flip the coin, how many Str7-8 wizards have you played that insist on going melee?
If you feel there is some manner of need to punish someone for min-maxing, then don't allow it. And if someone is playing their character with knowledge beyond their scope, then request a relevant skill check. But if you open that can of worms, prepare to require that check from EVERYONE who comes up with an idea, regardless of point buy configuration. Some of the most intelligent people I know regularly gets stumped when confronted with a problem outside their field of interest/education.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we are just talking fighters and barbarians... then none of this matters. Because the Int/Wis/Cha 7 dude is likely never going to be in a position where his word matters unless the GM sets him up to fail just on spite. He is there to tear stuff apart, and withstand the damage of other things that would crush his more eloquent and intelligent friends. That is his sole purpose.
How many characters have any of you played that do not into social stuff, and then step up and speak for the party? How many times have your progress been halted because your melee monster does not have knowledges? Or if we flip the coin, how many Str7-8 wizards have you played that insist on going melee?
If you feel there is some manner of need to punish someone for min-maxing, then don't allow it. And if someone is playing their character with knowledge beyond their scope, then request a relevant skill check. But if you open that can of worms, prepare to require that check from EVERYONE who comes up with an idea, regardless of point buy configuration. Some of the most intelligent people I know regularly gets stumped when confronted with a problem outside their field of interest/education.
I agree with you, the sole purpose of that build is to hit things hard in combat. My argument all along is that - you build it that way, play it that way. Don't build it that way, and then decide that is too "limiting" and you want to play that character as actually being smart. If you want to play a smart character, build a smart character.
I also agree that asking for skill checks all the time is tedious and not fun. Personally, I would have preferred if 3.X/PF had left social skills firmly in the roleplay area and left die-rolling out of it. I'm not proposing asking for skill checks all the time in social situations or planning sessions (although, it is sorely tempting when confronted with the "only the mechanics matter" argument). I'm just saying, play the role of the character you build. If you have low mental stats across the board and no skills to compensate, play it that way. Don't try to be the lord high strategist and the ambassador at large for the party, or invent far-fetched arguments as to why your character really should be able to do that, rather than just being able to hit things really hard.
So, the Bard, who knows more about *everything* than the fighter (7 Int bard, vs 14 Int Fighter), is dumb, if he has 7 int, even though, he's both learned, knowledgable, speaks perhaps 5 languages, and knows something about everything? Or, is he simply a character with 7 int, who has a harder time using that knowledge and accessing it when he needs it, or expressing it correctly, or a harder time picking up new skills?
No, he's not, he's actually very intelligent, because intelligence is not *just* the Int stat, heck, on subjects he knows, he's both able to reason and learn, so obviously he's not *dumb* *if you don't choose*...
A bard doesn't know more about everything than a fighter if they are the same level. The fighter will always know more about fighting (represented in a higher BAB).
That said, while intelligence can mean many different things I think saying knowledge is enough to be smart. I mean, just having lots of knowledge isn't usually enough to describe something as intelligent - or any computer that downloads a few terrabytes from Wikipedia will be more intelligent than most people.
Also, a level 1 bard with 7 int will have 4 skill points and gain +1 from bardic knowledge, so if it invests four skillpoints in four knowledges it'll have knowledges:
4 knowledges at +3
6 knowledges at -1
for a total of +6 in knowledges.
Meanwhile, the fighter with four skill ranks if it invests in four knowledges (two of which are the class knowledges) will have
2 knowledges at +6
2 knowledges at +3
6 knowledges at +2
for a total of +30 in knowledges.
So no, an int 7 bard doesn't have to know more than an int 14 fighter at all, not even close.
Slow and dumb don't apply, so I have argued. Not dumb in the sense you can match a genius with some effort and simple build; not slow in the initiative and response sense, not slow in that using your skills is not delayed by a 7 int.You get fewer skill points per level. Your rate of gaining skill points is slower.
You roll like everyone else.You roll. But you have lower odds of success than someone with a higher intelligence, all else being equal. It may not be a huge difference, but it's significant over time - in terms of grade average, 10% is enough to cost you a scholarship or admittance to an exclusive school.
If they are so much more intelligent, what happens when you are at their modifier just a few levels later?
Are you intelligent yet? What about when you surpass low level geniuses? Are you intelligent then?
No, you are not intelligent. You are skilled and/or well-educated.
Comparing a 3rd level Int 7 with a 1st level Int 18 is like comparing a dull but diligent high school graduate with an extremely bright grade schooler. It's not the grade schooler's fault that he doesn't know the basic structure of an atom - he's missing years of education.
But let's be serious, here. Does anyone really think that the min-maxed 7 Int/7 Wis/7 Cha fighter is going to be putting lots of ranks into social and knowledge skills to compensate for his low scores? Of course not.I'm planning up an Int/Cha dump character (probably 8/10, pending rolled stats) who will sink half of a meagre skill point allotment into Knowledge and Diplomacy. It's not as extreme, but we use a pretty generous rolling method and I'm unlikely to need to dump lower *fingers crossed*
As for the hypothetical 7 Int bard, that's just what he is, hypothetical. Who would create such a character? Theoretically, he could exist, of course, but I don't think anyone would legitimately create a...
I guess I should know that someone who goes by the name Weirdo on the boards would play a 7 Int bard and insist on giving social/knowledge skills to an 8 Int/10 Cha fighter. :) Although I do note that there is a significant diffeence between that and a 7/7/7 mental stat fighter.
Weirdo exceptions, however, do not invalidate the basic thesis. :)
An int 7 character can still be pretty good at int based skills. In near keeping up to a levelling genius, and surpassing a lower level genius, they are demonstrating they are not dumb or slow.
The +3 from class skills really helps.
They can be pretty good at those few skills that they focus in, while still being bad at most everything else. They also require more work to be as good.
If comparing a level 5 with int 7 (aka "old") and a level 1 with Int16 (aka "young"), supposing they are the both druids. The old 7 can surely be decent at Know Nature and Geography, but risks failing at crafting a common pot unless he's got aid or superior tools. When asked a question on any other knowledge he'll also probably fail; not only will his modifier be lower, he can't even spread around the skill points if he wants to keep up with the intelligent character.
Lets say the old one has invested both the 3rd and 5th level feats in Skill Focus (knowledge) for his knowledges of choice; their 1st level feat is something else.
The dumb one will have:
Knowledge Nature +7
Know Geography +7
Know Local +0
Spellcraft +0
Know Arcana -2
Know Engineering -2
Know Dungeoneering -2
Know History -2
Know Nobility -2
Know Planes -2
Know Religion -2
Craft (ALL) -2
Meanwhile, the smart one will have:
Knowledge Nature +7
Know Geography +7
Know Arcana +4
Spellcraft +7
Know Religion +4
Know Dungeoneering +4
Know Local +4
Know Engineering +3
Know History +3
Know Nobility +3
Know Planes +3
Craft (ALL) +3
The old one matches her knowledges in nature and geography, but which could be considered a "smart" character? Would anyone say these are equally smart just because they match knowledges in a single skill, when the old one has a hard time identifying a gnoll, and hasn't got a chance at identifying a dragon or zombie?
Notice that even a 1st level _fighter_ would outskill the 5th level druid (though at different skills; the druid would be as good at knowledge nature as the fighter would be at engineering, but the fighter would still blow the druid out of the water on any other int skill. Heck, the young fighter could take a spellcraft class and be better at identifying druid spells than the experienced druid!
Did you just call me stupid ?
Nope. A learning disability doesn't normally affect general intelligence. Why would you think I was taking a shot at you? Dude, I don't even KNOW you.
Of course a low intelligence character can show cunning. Cats show incredible cunning everyday, but they're less intelligent than humans. They don't make elaborate plans, though. They lack the needed level of intelligence.A cat has an INT of 2. You're suggesting that more than tripling that intelligence would make you less than a cat?
A lot of people say dogs are as smart as humans.. they also have an INT of 2.
Mechanically, you really just need an INT of 3 to achieve human intelligence levels. Now, if you want to RP a dullard, go right ahead, but you shouldn't force someone to adhere to a standard.
Calvos, the Bard from the NPC codex Bards has an int of 8, he's a street performer not a buffoon. He plays a wind instrument, but only speaks one language.
Wow...try re-reading.
Cats can show cunning. Low Int humans can show cunning, too. I made that as a point. Incidentally, the smarter and more educated we get, the less animal cunning we possess, because it's no longer the survival trait it once was. That's a generalization, but the basic point holds true...and cunning is found throughout the animal world. Even insects can be cunning. Trap door spider, anybody?
Not quite. In the manner you are using the word, cunning is merely survival instinct. ALL CREATURES HAVE SURVIVAL INSTINCT. Doesn't matter if you are human, or not. Nor what age you are, since it is encoded in your DNA.
A trap door spider's actions are literally encoded in it's DNA. I know of only ONE spider breed that can actually learn, that's the Portia. Oddly cute things, too.
Your Int 3 fighter with barely human intelligence is "smarter" than my Int 20 wizard because you're level 20 and I'm level 1? So words, numbers...meaningless?
Actually, at Intelligence 5, aka 70-75 IQ, people have difficulty speaking. Therefore to be fully functional in game, you need at least a 6 Intelligence.
|
|
Of course a low intelligence character can show cunning. Cats show incredible cunning everyday, but they're less intelligent than humans. They don't make elaborate plans, though. They lack the needed level of intelligence.A cat has an INT of 2. You're suggesting that more than tripling that intelligence would make you less than a cat?
A lot of people say dogs are as smart as humans.. they also have an INT of 2.
Mechanically, you really just need an INT of 3 to achieve human intelligence levels. Now, if you want to RP a dullard, go right ahead, but you shouldn't force someone to adhere to a standard.
Calvos, the Bard from the NPC codex Bards has an int of 8, he's a street performer not a buffoon. He plays a wind instrument, but only speaks one language.
Wow...try re-reading.
Cats can show cunning. Low Int humans can show cunning, too. I made that as a point. Incidentally, the smarter and more educated we get, the less animal cunning we possess, because it's no longer the survival trait it once was. That's a generalization, but the basic point holds true...and cunning is found throughout the animal world. Even insects can be cunning. Trap door spider, anybody?
Not quite. In the manner you are using the word, cunning is merely survival instinct. ALL CREATURES HAVE SURVIVAL INSTINCT. Doesn't matter if you are human, or not. Nor what age you are, since it is encoded in your DNA.
A trap door spider's actions are literally encoded in it's DNA. I know of only ONE spider breed that can actually learn, that's the Portia. Oddly cute things, too.
I agree with almost everything you posted, but we don't possess even one tenth of the survival instincts we once did. Most people, left to their own in the wilderness fare very poorly, where at one time, we flourished.
|
|
Actually, at Intelligence 5, aka 70-75 IQ, people have difficulty speaking. Therefore to be fully functional in game, you need at least a 6 Intelligence.
Your Int 3 fighter with barely human intelligence is "smarter" than my Int 20 wizard because you're level 20 and I'm level 1? So words, numbers...meaningless?
Supposedly, a 3 can speak. I always felt that was a bit crazy, but it's right there in the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gump stood alone through the adventure arc
killin fae in the forests and demons in the park
pullin string from his cloak of endless pockets
He'd say adventure is like a box of chocholates
He's gump, he's gump, he's gump, he slays undead....
He's gump, he's gump, he's gump, whats in his head...
Supposedly, a 3 can speak. I always felt that was a bit crazy, but it's right there in the rules.
quite.. here's the rules for this stuff... thanks to BNW for parodying the issue..
Here's the relevant information about Intelligence from... the first chapter of the core rules.
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. This ability is important for wizards because it affects their spellcasting ability in many ways. Creatures of animal-level instinct have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2. Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3. A character with an Intelligence score of 0 is comatose. Some creatures do not possess an Intelligence score. Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based skills or checks.
You apply your character's Intelligence modifier to:
The number of bonus languages your character knows at the start of the game. These are in addition to any starting racial languages and Common. If you have a penalty, you can still read and speak your racial languages unless your Intelligence is lower than 3.
Similarly, looking through the wisdom score write up, if you have a score of above a 0 you are capable of rational thought. Again, Paizo themselves statted an NPC bard with INT of 8.
Again, you can RP your character anyway you like, but don't force that idea on others, it's not supported in the rulebook. Mechanical INT penalties are already assessed on skill and ability checks.
This reminds me of the idea out there that people with a low CHA are ugly as sin. Not true at all.
Piccolo I was joking :) I didn't think you were really insulting me.
For the whole thread - I can prove my 7 int fighter is not slow because he has a 16 Dex :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Stynkk
Nobody is saying you have to play your 7/7/7 character in a specific way.
People have complained about people wanting to RP their 7/7/7 as a suave, savvy, and smart person.
He is not suave, he is not savvy, and he is not smart. He could be self delusional and think he is, but nobody is going to perceive him as such, unless he has spent a ton of skill ranks to prove it (although that is hard unless he is a rogue and thus has 6 ranks per level). To be suave, you'd need Diplomacy. To be Savvy you'd need Sense Motive and Perception. To be Smart you'd need 3-4 knowledge skills, and be able to converse on multiple topics. That's your skill points right there. And you basically don't have any of the other rogue standbys. In addition, people keep throwing out skill focus in one skill, but I find it a strawman argument, because nobody is going to play the following rogue character at level 3...
Str : 20
Dex : 14
Con : 14
Int : 7
Wis : 7
Cha : 7
Feats : Skill Focus (Diplomacy), Skill Focus (Sense Motive)
Skill Ranks : 6 (8 - 2 (Int)) x 3 = 18 (21 if you use favored class)
Diplomacy : +7 (3 Ranks + 3 CS + 3 SF - 2 Cha)
Sense Motive : +7 (3 Ranks + 3 CS + 3 SF - 2 Wis)
Kn (Local) : +4 (3 Ranks + 3 CS - 2 Int)
Kn (Arcana) : +4 (3 Ranks + 3 CS - 2 Int)
Kn (Religion) : +4 (3 Ranks + 3 CS - 2 Int)
Perception : +4 (3 Ranks + 3 CS - 2 Wis)
Now, this rogue can pass himself off as suave (diplomacy), Savvy (Sense motive and perception), and Smart (3 knowledge skills). But his rolls simply aren't that great, even with the skill focus, and he can't disable devices, he can't stealth, he can't acrobatics, he can't do much of anything. You could get another 3 ranks from favored class, woo hoo, one additional skill (which single one of the other rogue skills are you going to get, you know, those vital ones like stealth, acrobatics, linguistics, escape artist, use magical device, etc).
This is a classically 'self gimped' character, he's a face rogue with no face. This is the example of 'someone you could play' that people keep throwing up to say you don't have to RP your 7/7/7 character as an unkempt slow-witted gullible buffoon.
Looks to me like a disaster of a character waiting to happen, and a drain on the party. I see no reason why anyone would invite him into a party or keep him there.
If you try to make a fighter (which was the OP class) with the 7/7/7 he looks even worse.
Str : 20
Dex : 14
Con : 14
Int : 7
Wis : 7
Cha : 7
Feats : Skill Focus (Diplomacy), Skill Focus (Sense Motive)
Skill Ranks : 1 (2 - 2 (Int) = 1) x 3 = 3 (4 if you use favored class)
Diplomacy : +2 (1 Ranks + 3 SF - 2 Cha)
Sense Motive : +2 (1 Ranks + 3 SF - 2 Wis)
Kn (Engineering) : +2 (1 Ranks + 3 CS - 2 Int)
Perception : +4 (3 Ranks + 3 CS - 2 Wis)
Now, tell me you would play a fighter who is using all his feats (non fighter feats) for Skill Focus as above? Nobody would, because he's a lousy fighter. So scratch +3 off those diplomacy and sense motive skills to make them a -1 each. Not at all a suave savvy smart individual. More of an in-duh-vidual. :)
To think, I started this thread just looking for advice on how to play my int 7 barbarian.
I think you got most of that in the first page or two. sinc ethen we've just been arguing with each other about related issues because, well, it's the Internet and we all like to argue, even though our chances of convincing each other of anything is probably less than the chance of your barbarian winning the Nobel Prize for Physics.
Of course, that said, I'm right and everybody who disagrees with me is wrong. :)
Seriously, best of luck playing your barbarian. I hope he kicks serious ass.
@Stynkk
Nobody is saying you have to play your 7/7/7 character in a specific way.
People have complained about people wanting to RP their 7/7/7 as a suave, savvy, and smart person.
He is not suave, he is not savvy, and he is not smart.
This is not the case MDT. This would only be the case if you had to roll a d20 INT ability check (or any ability check) every time you spoke or suggested anything.
A lot of conversation and extracurricular things are not defined by the skill system. Your decision making ability is one of them. Your words, vocabulary and course of action are others.
You don't need ranks in skills to be considered suave, savvy or smart. You can have ideas too.
If your character has 7 STR, do they fail at opening doors or moving a chair from a table? If your character has 20 STR do they break glass bottles when they hold them, unable to control the raw power at their disposal?
|
|
@Stynkk
Nobody is saying you have to play your 7/7/7 character in a specific way.
People have complained about people wanting to RP their 7/7/7 as a suave, savvy, and smart person.
He is not suave, he is not savvy, and he is not smart.
This is not the case MDT. This would only be the case if you had to roll a d20 INT ability check (or any ability check) every time you spoke or suggested anything.
A lot of conversation and extracurricular things are not defined by the skill system. Your decision making ability is one of them. Your words, vocabulary and course of action are others.
You don't need ranks in skills to be considered suave, savvy or smart. You can have ideas too.
If your character has 7 STR, do they fail at opening doors or moving a chair from a table? If your character has 20 STR do they break glass bottles when they hold them, unable to control the raw power at their disposal?
No, but the 7 Str is STILL weak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is not the case MDT. This would only be the case if you had to roll a d20 INT ability check (or any ability check) every time you spoke or suggested anything.
If you want to play a character who can converse like an average person, and has an average person's common sense, and an average person's magnetism, then may I politely suggest that you play a character with average stats? Your argument suspiciously sounds a lot like 'I want the benefit of having low stats (extra points) but I do not want to deal with any negatives from such that I don't have to'. Why are you playing a P&P RPG in this case? Why have a character if you don't want to role play that character?
A lot of conversation and extracurricular things are not defined by the skill system. Your decision making ability is one of them. Your words, vocabulary and course of action are others.
The point is, you as a person do your best to convey the character. The GM has to take into account when you roleplay your character sheet, and the fiddly little numbers on it, to see how the world reacts to your character. However, there becomes a point when there is a disconnect between the numbers and the way you role play your character, you are no longer role playing, you are min-maxing (note that I reserve that term for things like this, as opposed to optimization, which is a different thing, and not bad). Trying to get the benefit of the negative stats but minimizing the impact on your fun. Perhaps you could give up your ability to rhyme on purpose for a +1 to hit vs red-headed pixies?
You don't need ranks in skills to be considered suave, savvy or smart. You can have ideas too.
If you have 7/7/7, then yes you do. Otherwise you're just a smelly, slow-witted, annoyingly gullible person (as a character that is, not a real life person).
If your character has 7 STR, do they fail at opening doors or moving a chair from a table? If your character has 20 STR do they break glass bottles when they hold them, unable to control the raw power at their disposal?
If the DC to open the door is 10, then yes, they do fail often (55% chance, more often than not). If the DC to move the chair is 5, then yes, they fail often (30% chance of failing on a DC 5). My wife is muscularly challenged due to a neuropathy, and she quite often fails to open doors and move chairs, because she has a lower than average strength. Just as 10 to 14 year olds sometimes fail to open a door or move a chair on the first attempt, or if it's heavy enough, they fail repeatedly or take 10 times as long to do the same thing.
As to the crushing a glass, it's quite possible. I have seen drunk football players smash beer bottles to shards just tapping the necks together too hard while drunk, because they forgot how strong they are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A character with STR 7 is weaker but not debilitatingly weak. According to the carrying capacity rules they can: deadlift between 84-140lbs and push or drag 235-350lbs. Not terrible by any stretch, certainly not the hulk, but able.
A charcter with a STR of 10 can deadlift 122-180 lbs.
If you want to play a character who can converse like an average person, and has an average person's common sense, and an average person's magnetism, then may I politely suggest that you play a character with average stats? Your argument suspiciously sounds a lot like 'I want the benefit of having low stats (extra points) but I do not want to deal with any negatives from such that I don't have to'. Why are you playing a P&P RPG in this case? Why have a character if you don't want to role play that character?
What I am trying to suggest is that the stats are pretty average, the fall-off between 10 and 7 is not as drastic or detrimental or debilitating as you (and others) make it sound.
If you have 7/7/7, then yes you do. Otherwise you're just a smelly, slow-witted, annoyingly gullible person (as a character that is, not a real life person).
You're simply below average, not some denzien outcast rabble. That's the point I'm trying to get across here. There is really no real, meaningful difference between RPing a character win an INT of 10 or 7 called for. You can if you like. Again, I personally use stat arrays because of the way the mechanics work out, but I don't have a problem with someone that has 7 INT (unless they also have 22 str or something).
If the DC to open the door is 10, then yes, they do fail often (55% chance, more often than not). If the DC to move the chair is 5, then yes, they fail often (30% chance of failing on a DC 5). My wife is muscularly challenged due to a neuropathy, and she quite often fails to open doors and move chairs, because she has a lower than average strength. Just as 10 to 14 year olds sometimes fail to open a door or move a chair on the first attempt, or if it's heavy enough, they fail repeatedly or take 10 times as long to do the same thing.
As to the crushing a glass, it's quite possible. I have seen drunk football players smash beer bottles to shards just tapping the necks together too hard while drunk, because they forgot how strong they are.
I thought that the game didn't take physical/mental disabilities into account, so while appreciated, your wife's situation is not a parallel to the conversation at hand. Rasmus had a similar point with their autism, and that was pretty summarily dismissed by many of the other posters. As far as the objects, I'm just referring to a regular door or chair, not something that would be considered heavy, but I hope you ask all your players to roll STR checks when they open a door, lift a sword, open a cupboard, etc. Sounds really tedious, imo.
I understand that people can forget themselves and crush things (having done it myself a number of times) but every time? There is some amount of control involved.
@Stynkk
I make people roll for things when it make sense to do so.
P : I want to open the door as I'm moving, to keep from using up part of my movement.
GM : Ok, Str DC 10 to push your way through the door while moving and not slowing down.
P : My drunk character wants to move the chair out of his way so he can get to the barmaid.
GM : Ok, Str DC 5 to push it out of the way while moving.
P : I rap my mug against the Count's mug, to seal the deal.
GM : You've been drinking for half an hour, so give me a Dex Check, DC 10, to not hit them too hard and shatter them, given you have a 20 Str and are drunk.
As to your disregarding my wife's inability to move things, she can pick up a 50 lb sack of cat food if she needs to, she's just not very good at it. And her nueropathy simply makes it harder for her to put on muscle mass, which is all we're talking about with Str, muscle mass. So yes, it's still a good example, but if you don't like it, go with the 11 year old girl instead. Perfectly normal 11 yo girl with a 5-7 strength, I have enough younger cousins that I have seen them slam their nose into a door at a store because the door didn't open when they pushed on it because they were moving too fast and didn't have the strength to open it.
I don't ask for a check on every door, just those that have a DC where they have a decent chance of failing, or failing on a take 10. :)
|
|
A character with STR 7 is weaker but not debilitatingly weak. According to the carrying capacity rules they can: deadlift between 84-140lbs and push or drag 235-350lbs. Not terrible by any stretch, certainly not the hulk, but able.
A charcter with a STR of 10 can deadlift 122-180 lbs.
If you want to play a character who can converse like an average person, and has an average person's common sense, and an average person's magnetism, then may I politely suggest that you play a character with average stats? Your argument suspiciously sounds a lot like 'I want the benefit of having low stats (extra points) but I do not want to deal with any negatives from such that I don't have to'. Why are you playing a P&P RPG in this case? Why have a character if you don't want to role play that character?What I am trying to suggest is that the stats are pretty average, the fall-off between 10 and 7 is not as drastic or detrimental or debilitating as you (and others) make it sound.
If you have 7/7/7, then yes you do. Otherwise you're just a smelly, slow-witted, annoyingly gullible person (as a character that is, not a real life person).You're simply below average, not some denzien outcast rabble. That's the point I'm trying to get across here. There is really no real, meaningful difference between RPing a character win an INT of 10 or 7 called for. You can if you like. Again, I personally use stat arrays because of the way the mechanics work out, but I don't have a problem with someone that has 7 INT (unless they also have 22 str or something).
If the DC to open the door is 10, then yes, they do fail often (55% chance, more often than not). If the DC to move the chair is 5, then yes, they fail often (30% chance of failing on a DC 5). My wife is muscularly challenged due to a neuropathy, and she quite often fails to open doors and move chairs, because she has a lower than average strength. Just as 10 to 14 year olds sometimes fail to...
It's not drastic, no...but just put on a chain shirt and carry a couple of weapons, and when you go slower than most of the rest of the party, you'll understand...you're weak.
|
|
I guess I should know that someone who goes by the name Weirdo on the boards would play a 7 Int bard and insist on giving social/knowledge skills to an 8 Int/10 Cha fighter. :) Although I do note that there is a significant difference between that and a 7/7/7 mental stat fighter.
With the stat-rolling method my group uses, three 7s are highly unlikely.
If I were to make a 7/7/7 fighter I might put my favoured class bonus into skills, pick a trait to give me Sense Motive as a class skill with +1 trait bonus, put most of my 2 ranks/level in Intimidate and Sense Motive, and be the big scary guy who grumbles "I'll know if you lie to me." Actually, give me until after work and I can throw up my own build for a skilled 7/7/7.
Weirdo exceptions, however, do not invalidate the basic thesis. :)
Your point is valid that in general characters with low mental stats are not likely to have social skills.
However, these characters do exist and it's important to be aware of them and what they would play like.
And there's a very simple reason why they would exist: because while the Str 7 wizard can cast spells or even use a crossbow in combat instead of going into melee, the 7/7/7 fighter cannot (usually) cut off heads in the middle of trade negotiations. If you are in a game that includes a sizeable amount of talking, you don't want to sit on your hands during these scenes, and you don't want to RP an oaf, you put at least a few ranks into social skills for the sake of competence.
To think, I started this thread just looking for advice on how to play my int 7 barbarian.
There are lots of ways to do so. Do you want to compensate for the defect or play up the fact that your character is ignorant as well as unintelligent?
EDIT:
What I am trying to suggest is that the stats are pretty average, the fall-off between 10 and 7 is not as drastic or detrimental or debilitating as you (and others) make it sound.
It's not drastic, but it's noticeable, especially in the absence of compensating training (skill ranks).
A lot of conversation and extracurricular things are not defined by the skill system. Your decision making ability is one of them. Your words, vocabulary and course of action are others.
That of course depends on how the DM run things. Notice that "very easy question" is still a DC10 knowledge check, and a LOT of decisions players have their characters make rely on information that could EASILY require a DC 5-10 knowledge check.
For example, one could state that it's "very easy" to know that flanking works to easier hit your enemy - thus if you fail the DC10 knowledge check and go for the flank anyway you're metagaming just as much as the player who'se character "just happens" to use Acid against trolls despite never having heard of a troll before.
So yes, there is an option for the DM to, by the rules, force you to roleplay that way (unless you want to metagame, but then again, nothing in the RAW forbids you from reading the adventure path beforehand to know how to know who the bad guy is beforehand).
Again, you can RP your character anyway you like, but don't force that idea on others, it's not supported in the rulebook. Mechanical INT penalties are already assessed on skill and ability checks.
I force my players to stop playing their characters while they are dead by death effects. That isn't supported by the rulebook (nothing prevents you from acting while dead unless you're unconscious or paralyzed or similar).
Am I a horrible DM now? :(
I vehemently oppose the very notion that it is somehow wrong to "force roleplay". Roleplaying is a social game where the _primary and most important rules_ are always made up by the group regardless of system.
There is nothing wrong at all with a group coming up with a ruleset (or rather guidelines or case by case decisions) on what is and what is not okay roleplay.
To take an extreme example, most would agree that it isn't okay to roleplay someone who happens to be omniscient and sit with the adventure path sourcebook while playing to always know everything that's going to happen. "This isn't forbidden by the rulebook!" or "There's no rule saying what I know about this person!" simply isn't a valid defense against that kind of metagaming.
Now, when it's less extreme cases things tend to get a bit fuzzier, but I still strongly support the idea that groups can decide what kind of roleplay they want to have or not, and what is considered metagaming or not. For many people, having your int7 cloistered cleric know the Art of War by hand IS metagaming. Having your cha7 character know exactly what to say to get past a social obstacle IS metagaming for some.
Of course, the game relies on a great deal of metagaming, or all adventures would come to a halt very quickly, but how much and what metagaming is okay or not, and what is metagaming, varies from group to group and should continue to do that.
"The rules doesn't say I can't" is an immature response to give seriously in an actual social scenario, kinda like the obnoxious kids in my junior high going all "the air is free! the air is free!" while pushing their hands a centimetre in front of my face.
Sure, I can't force you to roleplay a certain way. But I am free to tell you "sorry, this doesn't fly at our table. Find somewhere else to play.".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real amusement is people insisting that you don't have to play a 7/7/7 stat as not smart/not savvy/not suave... then later saying that a 7 stat is not smart/not savvy/not suave. IS it really THAT hard to let your player play their own character?! You HAVE to tell them to speak stupidly and even go so far as to FORCE them to do so. There is NO RAW or RAI that supports making a PC play in any particular way. If you want role play Great! Let them decide why their stats give them a -2 to whatever checks and write it down to facilitate role play later. WAIT you don't want to do that? You just want to make them stupid without any justification. Then you mr GM are the real problem. You are killing role play in your own game... in the name of role play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real amusement is people insisting that you don't have to play a 7/7/7 stat as not smart/not savvy/not suave... then later saying that a 7 stat is not smart/not savvy/not suave. IS it really THAT hard to let your player play their own character?!
Yes.
Perhaps your group are better method actors than mine, in which case I congratulate you.
I have the sort of players who will insist that despite having had both arms removed, they can still juggle.
There is NO RAW or RAI that supports making a PC play in any particular way.
There's also no RAW that suggests that a character cannot use Perform(sing) in the area of a Silence spell, that having a caltrop stuffed into an eye socket causes any damage whatsoever (they only cause damage if they are stepped on), that a character polymorphed into a gelatinous cube loses the ability to pick locks or play the lute, and most famously, that a dead character cannot take actions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real amusement is people insisting that you don't have to play a 7/7/7 stat as not smart/not savvy/not suave... then later saying that a 7 stat is not smart/not savvy/not suave. IS it really THAT hard to let your player play their own character?! You HAVE to tell them to speak stupidly and even go so far as to FORCE them to do so. There is NO RAW or RAI that supports making a PC play in any particular way. If you want role play Great! Let them decide why their stats give them a -2 to whatever checks and write it down to facilitate role play later. WAIT you don't want to do that? You just want to make them stupid without any justification. Then you mr GM are the real problem. You are killing role play in your own game... in the name of role play.
Oh? A low Int is *gosh, by golly, gee whilickers* not very intelligent. RAW says so. Yes, there is justification.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think some people are not understanding one another. If your fighter has a 7 int he is not a fountain of information you could play him like he's not super dumb no problem. He's just not going to offer the correct answer to every riddle that comes along either.
The other issue is that multi dump stats can and *should* affect how you RP your character. Not must or be dammed kind of thing. Just should.
If you have a 7 int 7 wis 7 cha. All those stats are connected and you *should* RP that. There are no rules on any page that states that is how it should be done. There are no rules that say you have to be polite to the person hosting the game. You can show up and be a world class jackass but don't expect to get invited back. If the group as a whole thinks that a 7 dump is a big negative in that ability then RP that way. If your group thinks it's not a big deal then RP that way.
If you find yourself at odds with most gaming groups either as a player or GM, That a good indication that the problem is you and not everyone else.
|
|
I think some people are not understanding one another. If your fighter has a 7 int he is not a fountain of information you could play him like he's not super dumb no problem. He's just not going to offer the correct answer to every riddle that comes along either.
The other issue is that multi dump stats can and *should* affect how you RP your character. Not must or be dammed kind of thing. Just should.
If you have a 7 int 7 wis 7 cha. All those stats are connected and you *should* RP that. There are no rules on any page that states that is how it should be done. There are no rules that say you have to be polite to the person hosting the game. You can show up and be a world class jackass but don't expect to get invited back. If the group as a whole thinks that a 7 dump is a big negative in that ability then RP that way. If your group thinks it's not a big deal then RP that way.
If you find yourself at odds with most gaming groups either as a player or GM, That a good indication that the problem is you and not everyone else.
I really don't think it should be huge...but it's one point over the average ogre. That's a fair summation of my stance.
"The rules doesn't say I can't" is an immature response to give seriously in an actual social scenario, kinda like the obnoxious kids in my junior high going all "the air is free! the air is free!" while pushing their hands a centimetre in front of my face.
Sure, I can't force you to roleplay a certain way. But I am free to tell you "sorry, this doesn't fly at our table. Find somewhere else to play.".
Likewise, your players are entitled to say: "Hey, we disagree, let's talk about this or we'll just find someone else to run the game".
I am not holding up the extremism DM forcing certain RP banner that many have suggested, but your (collective, to a few posters here) unwillingness to even be open to the concept is quite unnerving. There are many ways of interpreting something,
This bears repeating, I don't approve of dump stats, heck I don't even use the attribute allocation system, but I don't think low scores should make some "handicapped" character such as a trained Fighter class character that can't figure out what flanking is. Unless, you've established in your game a system of already demanding ability checks at every turn.
If a player with negative DEX wants to try and RP a stealthy character, let them try. It will probably not go as planned and they will be discovered a lot, but let them enjoy themselves instead telling them they trip over their own cloak and hit every stair on the way down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"The rules doesn't say I can't" is an immature response to give seriously in an actual social scenario, kinda like the obnoxious kids in my junior high going all "the air is free! the air is free!" while pushing their hands a centimetre in front of my face.
Sure, I can't force you to roleplay a certain way. But I am free to tell you "sorry, this doesn't fly at our table. Find somewhere else to play.".
Likewise, your players are entitled to say: "Hey, we disagree, let's talk about this or we'll just find someone else to run the game".
I am not holding up the extremism DM forcing banner that many have suggested, but your (collective, to a few posters here) unwillingness to even be open to the concept is quite unnerving.
Again, I don't approve of dump stats, heck I don't even use the attribute allocation system, but I don't think low scores should make some "handicapped" character such as a trained Fighter class character that can't figure out what flanking is.
Wolves use pack tactics, which implies flanking. Int 2.
If I had a fighter flank, and a GM were to tell me "Play your Int 7!" at that point, I would bring my trolling a-game. I would require people to help me open my cans at the table, not move unless another character told me, have my character poo and pee his pants and run around town having conversations with animals and start hoarding sticks and shiny stuff. He would spend all his money on turnips, pick up a club, because hell if he can understand the complexities of wielding a SWORD, which is among the most complex weapons to take to a fight. Derail the game, yell at inappropriate moments when NPCs are talking, and so on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh? A low Int is *gosh, by golly, gee whilickers* not very intelligent. RAW says so. Yes, there is justification.
"Not very intelligent" is not equivalent to "an utter f&@@ing dingus".
This is not even getting into the sheer stupidity of the "If your Int 7 Fighter isn't a gibbering moron you're just trying to be a powergaming dick and should leave my glorious (inaccurate) method acting presence" argument I've seen tossed around by multiple people in multiple threads.
Likewise, your players are entitled to say: "Hey, we disagree, let's talk about this or we'll just find someone else to run the game".
Of course. We decide group rules and such through consensusbased decisions and I as DM don't have any special power over that (other than of course that I as everyone else can decide not to play and it might be harder to find a replacement DM than a single replacement player).
But yes, it of course goes both ways. It's the notion that everyone should accept all other kinds of roleplay in their group I'm opposed to.
I am not holding up the extremism DM forcing banner that many have suggested, but your (collective, to a few posters here) unwillingness to even be open to the concept is quite unnerving.
I'm also opposed to the concept of playing a character killed by Circle of Death, running around dead all day.
I'm not against dump stats but I want them to be roleplayed, likewise players can of course roleplay their high stats too.