Ok... I see that now.
But gosh where on earth did Hollywood get THAT stereotype from. Everyone I asked said preppy... not ditzy. And you need minimum grades to qualify for cheerleading.
I wouldn't blame Hollywood. Movies, and the media in general, perpetuate a lot of silly things, but a society's media is usually a reflection of that society, by and large. There are cheeleaders who aren't that bright, and there are cheerleaders who would make great wizards, given the opportunity, I'm sure. :)
@Bruunwald: I'm just two steps away from world domination, myself. Just waiting until the copy of the Necronomicon at my local city library goes back into circulation.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 7 int = IQ 70 is fundamentally flawed. You're assuming that because a 10 intellect and an IQ of 100 are both considered average, therefore it's the metric system all the way down.
There's no reason the scale has to be like that. As others have said, a character with a 7 intellect has a -2 penalty to knowledge skills, and lost a few skill points. That just seems to me like a poor memory.
Epic Meepo is correct.
I have no idea why people try to place real world IQ in relation to an artificial game stat anyway. Take it from someone who has an 18 Int according to that silly chart, the two aren't related. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A character with 7 Int could be just as smart as a character with 17 Int, since a character's Intelligence score doesn't measure that character's IQ.
An Intelligence score just measures how many skills and languages a person has. A total genius might lack the motivation to learn more than a few skills, while a complete idiot might be a savant who speaks seven languages and has encyclopedic knowledge of numerous subjects. Or vice versa.
I think it really depends on how much you read into the "fluff" of the descriptions of each attribute. There are strict mechanical results of having low or high scores in the purely physical attributes. This is easy to play out in-game because there are concrete limits to these things even IRL (although, there are strange cases where a person's "set" physical limitations can be overcome in the real world, that aren't necessarily refelected in game, too).
But the mental/social attributes can only really be tracked to a certain degree in game mechanics (refelected in the aforementioned minuses or pluses to skills and languages, also reflected in magic use), and that's where a gaming group (the DM and the players should be in consensus in this, IMO, for best effect) decides how much they want to role-play the stuff that can't be decided by pluses or minuses.
Re: "Intelligence Quotients". In my experience, IQ tests are very biased and aren't really a super-reliable reflection of a person's ability to reason and learn, even when created by and geared to people with the same societal background.
If you want to play your 7 INT character as a lazy genius, that's completely up to you. I kinda feel that a 7 INT is a little more than just a -2 to skills and languages, fully understanding that this is RAI. When the attribute description reads: "Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons", I kinda like to have that reflected in how I play my character.
And I'm so proud of being somewhat on-topic, I'm now going to go make me some toast! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just watch some JayWalking on Jay Leno...
|
Our group has gone with the idea that while a player can discuss any idea or have any conversation they wish with the DM, we take the overall gist of that concept and then apply it through the lense of their character.
The best example we had for a low intelligence, wisdom charisma guy was when the group spend nearly ten minutes discussing a tactic where they held back and tackled opponents from a distance. Everyone agreed it was a sound tactic. Then the fighter charged into the room and ignored the entire plan. When everyone at the table looked at him, he laughed and said "My character would've forgotten half of that before we finished and most likely got distracted by thoughts of eating before we finished planning. When the enemy shows his face, he falls back to old faithful. Charge and kill"
Charisma is the other one we regularly have this conversation for. I have friends at my table who can say their ideas in the most eloquent of ways, but their characters Charisma is quite low.
We play like the scenes where a person means to say " my good sir, could you kindly step side and let me and my friends through. The king himself has asked for an audience"
Roll the dice, apply stat etc, and what actually comes out on a low roll is " You great bufoon, get out of my before your stupidness rubs off on me"
The difference between mechanical stats and role play is what your game table wants to make it. At my table, we encourage you to play to the stat. You can compensate with skills later on, but the base stat represents your underlying personality and build. At some stage it always comes through.
Cheers
So dumb that people come from miles around to stare and gawk. Freak-show stupid. The dumbest peasant has a Int of 8.Do people come from miles around to wonder and marvel at the guy with Int 13?
That's the 'smart' equivalent to the 'dumb' Int 7.
Nope, nearly every person in Golarion has a 15 and a 14, Std arrya= 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8.
Unless specifically set up, no one has a 8 in any stat, racial modifiers aside.
I stole this particular table from Piccolo, who is a psychiatrist, I believe.
BTW, the 'standard array' of stats does not represent the population! The idea that a score of less than 8 is impossible (on the grounds that the 'standard array' is 15/14/13/12/10/8) is as absurd as saying that there is no such score as a 9.
I don’t believe.
It does represent the population, per the rules, like it or no. But of course, the DM or the Dev can assign scores as they like.
Golarion is not 2oth century America. It's a fantasy world, with it's own set of rules- there are real dragons & unicorns, magic is real, etc.
I get it, but the whole enterprise is fundamentally flawed. It assumes that a score of 18 was supposed to represent a fair swath of the real world population, or part of the average. It doesn't. It's supposed to be something beyond exceptional, something superheroic, representing a percentage of a fantasy world population. The math is simply wrong because the basic premise of what the numbers...
What you're saying here is that you don't understand statistics. If, according to the chart, an 18 INT = 140 IQ, you're talking about the upper 2% of the entire human population in terms of intelligence. It doesn't mean that 98% of people are that smart, it means those people are smarter than 98% of the human population.
|
I stole this particular table from Piccolo, who is a psychiatrist, I believe.
BTW, the 'standard array' of stats does not represent the population! The idea that a score of less than 8 is impossible (on the grounds that the 'standard array' is 15/14/13/12/10/8) is as absurd as saying that there is no such score as a 9.I don’t believe.
It does represent the population, per the rules, like it or no. But of course, the DM or the Dev can assign scores as they like.
Golarion is not 2oth century America. It's a fantasy world, with it's own set of rules- there are real dragons & unicorns, magic is real, etc.
Doctor, I'd be very surprised if someone as old as you (fifty-odd?) and who's had role-playing stuff actually published (even if you spelt your own name wrong : p) didn't play AD&D 1st ed. The 3d6 random roll method was the way ordinary NPC stat scores were generated, resulting in a general population whose individual stats conformed to the bell curve. The fact that PCs got to roll 12 times and keep the best six (or roll 4d6 keep 3) didn't change the general population.
The existence of stat arrays doesn't change the general population either, just a tool to get quick, fair, playable characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For comparison, according to the Bestiary the typical orc warrior has an intelligence score of 7.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we have a discussion where we say that people with a 7 Strength aren't any weaker than people with a 17 Strength, they're just not as good at hitting things hard and carrying stuff?
ok, lets compare this to real life as seen from the point of view of someone reading random facebooks...
the person who posts that they just graduated harvard medical with a PhD. would be a 20 INT...
on the flip side, someone who posts that the sun isn't a star and makes fun of the "nerds" who though it was, would be an 8....
also, the book describes a creature with "animal intelligence" to be equal to a PC with an intelligence of 2. thus base instincts like survival and hunger are rated there...
|
ok, lets compare this to real life as seen from the point of view of someone reading random facebooks...
the person who posts that they just graduated harvard medical with a PhD. would be a 20 INT.../QUOTE]
I would say people like Stephen Hawking and Nicola Tesla and Mozart would be Int 20. Someone graduating Harvard Med would probably be 15-18 range, seeing as they graduate at least a few dozen every year.
|
I get it, but the whole enterprise is fundamentally flawed. It assumes that a score of 18 was supposed to represent a fair swath of the real world population, or part of the average. It doesn't. It's supposed to be something beyond exceptional, something superheroic, representing a percentage of a fantasy world population. The math is simply wrong because the basic premise of what the numbers...What you're saying here is that you don't understand statistics. If, according to the chart, an 18 INT = 140 IQ, you're talking about the upper 2% of the entire human population in terms of intelligence. It doesn't mean that 98% of people are that smart, it means those people are smarter than 98% of the human population.
Honestly, Int maps pretty poorly to IQ, which isn't really supposed to go up over the course of a person's life, at least not relative to other people of the same age. I'm personally of the opinion that, at least for characters with NPC or PC class levels, ability scores represent the results of upbringing and training better than they do inborn talent. Some if not all of the ability scores represent traits that depend at least as much on nurture as on nature, and the fact is that you can increase them slowly over time through experience.
So I think you could definitely play a quick-witted and even clever character with an int of 7, especially if his charisma and/or wisdom scores were good. He wouldn't be very well educated or wordly (poor knowledge skills and no grasp of the principals upon which wizardry is based), probably wouldn't have been exposed to cultures beyond his homeland (no bonus languages), and he's not going to be very handy with tools, either (poor craft skills).
On the other hand, he could be a shrewd businessman, an insightful student of human nature, or even an expert in practical medicine. Think of it as the difference between university-trained doctors and "craft-trained" medical practitioners in the middle ages. The educated doctor (a high Int character) would be able to discuss the theories of Avicenna, Galen, and Hippocrates and quote from a dozen classical works on medicine, but a common surgeon or dentist (a low-Int, high Wis character) knows his trade and can do what needs to be done to cure treatable maladies.
ok, lets compare this to real life as seen from the point of view of someone reading random facebooks...
the person who posts that they just graduated harvard medical with a PhD. would be a 20 INT.../QUOTE]
I would say people like Stephen Hawking and Nicola Tesla and Mozart would be Int 20. Someone graduating Harvard Med would probably be 15-18 range, seeing as they graduate at least a few dozen every year.
valid point, but IMO the genius's of our would would be somewhere near a 30 INT given that they are so rare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
valid point, but IMO the genius's of our would would be somewhere near a 30 INT given that they are so rare.Extrapolating ability scores into real life means we'd have to have people well over level 40 to get to 30 int, seeing as we don't have magical headbands and such.
Just saying.
DaVincci could have made a magical headband....
Honestly, Int maps pretty poorly to IQ, which isn't really supposed to go up over the course of a person's life, at least not relative to other people of the same age. I'm personally of the opinion that, at least for characters with NPC or PC class levels, ability scores represent the results of upbringing and training better than they do inborn talent. Some if not all of the ability scores represent traits that depend at least as much on nurture as on nature, and the fact is that you can increase them slowly over time through experience.So I think you could definitely play a quick-witted and even clever character with an int of 7, especially if his charisma and/or wisdom scores were good. He wouldn't be very well educated or wordly (poor knowledge skills and no grasp of the principals upon which wizardry is based), probably wouldn't have been exposed to cultures beyond his homeland (no bonus languages), and he's not going to be very handy with tools, either (poor craft skills).
On the other hand, he could be a shrewd businessman, an insightful student of human nature, or even an expert in practical medicine. Think of it as the difference between university-trained doctors and "craft-trained" medical practitioners in the middle ages. The educated doctor (a high Int character) would be able to discuss the theories of Avicenna, Galen, and Hippocrates and quote from a dozen classical works on medicine, but a common surgeon or dentist (a low-Int, high Wis character) knows his trade and can do what needs to be done to cure treatable maladies.
I agree that outside of 10 Int mapping to 100 IQ, because those are the accepted average scores, the new ability score system doesn't really map well to IQ scores. As someone else mentioned, when the scores were between 3 and 18 it was better because the rolled score distribution was pretty close the the IQ distribution.
Cleverness I think would map better to Wisdom and quick-wittedness to a combination of Charisma and Wisdom, same with shrewdness. However, since Intelligence is now a measure of pure reasoning ability, even a high Wisdom, low Intelligence character is going to have trouble figuring things out. That's not to say they won't be able to, it will just take them longer to figure things out and most likely won't be able to tell how or why they were able to figure.
So dumb that people come from miles around to stare and gawk. Freak-show stupid. The dumbest peasant has a Int of 8.Do people come from miles around to wonder and marvel at the guy with Int 13?
That's the 'smart' equivalent to the 'dumb' Int 7.
The average being 10.5 the equivalent would be 14 intelligence actually, which is pretty smart, I'll just call intelligence 7 pretty simple or slow.
valid point, but IMO the genius's of our would would be somewhere near a 30 INT given that they are so rare.I would say people like Stephen Hawking and Nicola Tesla and Mozart would be Int 20. Someone graduating Harvard Med would probably be 15-18 range, seeing as they graduate at least a few dozen every year.ok, lets compare this to real life as seen from the point of view of someone reading random facebooks...
the person who posts that they just graduated harvard medical with a PhD. would be a 20 INT...
I would say the smartest of the smart would probably be no more than 23 or 24. If you're willing to call a 20 INT a genius, you're saying that someone with a 30 would be as much smarter than someone with a 20 as a person with 20 is smarter than someone with 10. At the uppermost levels of genius, I don't think the difference is that great.
I stole this particular table from Piccolo, who is a psychiatrist, I believe.
BTW, the 'standard array' of stats does not represent the population! The idea that a score of less than 8 is impossible (on the grounds that the 'standard array' is 15/14/13/12/10/8) is as absurd as saying that there is no such score as a 9.I don’t believe.
It does represent the population, per the rules, like it or no. But of course, the DM or the Dev can assign scores as they like.
Golarion is not 2oth century America. It's a fantasy world, with it's own set of rules- there are real dragons & unicorns, magic is real, etc.
Doctor, I'd be very surprised if someone as old as you (fifty-odd?) and who's had role-playing stuff actually published (even if you spelt your own name wrong : p) didn't play AD&D 1st ed. The 3d6 random roll method was the way ordinary NPC stat scores were generated, resulting in a general population whose individual stats conformed to the bell curve. The fact that PCs got to roll 12 times and keep the best six (or roll 4d6 keep 3) didn't change the general population.
The existence of stat arrays doesn't change the general population either, just a tool to get quick, fair, playable characters.
Yeah. Our Typist was a bit strange. He didn't spell his name wrong.... Yeah, too old.
Absolutely. In a AD&D universe, there were more or less the normal distribution you'd expect of a "7". OTOH, unless you were a Wizard, Int made little difference.
But I think that in Golarion the stat arrays do change the general population. Just like in some worlds, there are lots of demi-humans, and in others none. On Earth there are no Demi-humans at all, and in fact no humanoid species other than humans (altho some might argue for Chimps, etc). So, if we took the normal general population of Earth we'd expect NO Elves, dwarves, orcs, hobbits, etc. But on Golarion they are not uncommon.
No one on Earth lives past 115. What with Elves, dwarves, Liches and what not, ages of hundreds and hundreds of years are seen.
So, it's just as possible that on Golarion, only the very exceptional have anything outside the standard array. Or maybe not, I cheerfully admit. But that is what the devs seem to be indicating. The std array also shows that 10 is not "average" anymore. 12 is more like average. Thus, 7 is 5 deviances away from average, whilst 13 is only one.
It appears that in Golarion, the devs are indicating a slightly superior overall population. And, why not? The various deities may well have simply made it that way. or magic. Or both.
I would say the smartest of the smart would probably be no more than 23 or 24. If you're willing to call a 20 INT a genius, you're saying that someone with a 30 would be as much smarter than someone with a 20 as a person with 20 is smarter than someone with 10. At the uppermost levels of genius, I don't think the difference is that great.valid point, but IMO the genius's of our would would be somewhere near a 30 INT given that they are so rare.I would say people like Stephen Hawking and Nicola Tesla and Mozart would be Int 20. Someone graduating Harvard Med would probably be 15-18 range, seeing as they graduate at least a few dozen every year.ok, lets compare this to real life as seen from the point of view of someone reading random facebooks...
the person who posts that they just graduated harvard medical with a PhD. would be a 20 INT...
I concur that a 24 intelligence would probably be the uppermost of humanity, at least about 4 points of that comes from learned knowledge or brain training, possibly with a trait or two and some feats increasing his intelligence based skills and checks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When Paizo APs portray mentally disabled people, they tend to go south of 5. A 7 would be your average "disadvantaged" person, raised in a place without much access to education. The game mechanically penalizes you adequately without having the GM force you to go full retard.
You never go full retard!
Sorry, couldn't help it. :P
A rule of thumb that I've heard is to multiply the Intelligence score by 10, the example giving you an IQ of 70. According to the Wikipedia article, an IQ of 70 is is the bottom limit of "normal" mental faculties. It is within two standard deviations of the mean of 100. Your character may have some trouble with the finer points of philosophy or what have you, but will speak and function just as well as 95% of the population, according to real-world statistics.
You could just as well play a "really dumb" character if that's what you feel works for you, though. Maybe his social skills leave something to be desired, and people think he's "dumb" simply because of that. A few points in some Knowledge skills could make him an absent-minded professor of sorts, if you'd like to go the other way with it.
Yeah, 7 int is dumb, but still with enough intellect to get good at something with a lot of effort and pass off as not being actually that dumb, but competent in a field (well represented by still having at least 1 skill point and feats).
Apply 7 into to a high skill class and a 7 int rogue is no genius, but they still have the potential to be good at breaking and entering and reading people. They know the criminal life and that is it (along with plenty of your mother jokes and a crude vernacular--thieves cant?).
It's interesting how "omg dumbzorz" people get about anything south of 10. Is it the (-) modifier? Sure they aren't the brightest candle in the window at 7, but they are a far cry from people coming from miles around to gawk, or Hodor levels of cognitive deficiency. They are diminished at 7, though. Enough that an average intelligence individual would quickly realize that "oh, that's why you work at the quarry smashing big rocks into little rocks."
:Edit: And what Mr. Hunter wrote. Though I'd put Homer above Peter in the intelligence race :-)
One npc I put in a game was a troll with an int of about 12. Now he wasn't that quick of mind, but his intelligence was unusual amongst trolls and he was careful, patient and ponderous. He had done a lot of thinking about how to hunt and kill other trolls (his slightly stronger brethren which he competed with for space and in a Nietzschean I am the over-thinker sense). That he didn't have a low int was a big deal and a real part of the character, event though he wasn't on 16-20 int. His brethren with 6 int were a long way below him, and were barbaric, stupid and predictable.
I stole this particular table from Piccolo, who is a psychiatrist, I believe.
BTW, the 'standard array' of stats does not represent the population! The idea that a score of less than 8 is impossible (on the grounds that the 'standard array' is 15/14/13/12/10/8) is as absurd as saying that there is no such score as a 9.I don’t believe.
It does represent the population, per the rules, like it or no. But of course, the DM or the Dev can assign scores as they like.
Golarion is not 2oth century America. It's a fantasy world, with it's own set of rules- there are real dragons & unicorns, magic is real, etc.
Doctor, I'd be very surprised if someone as old as you (fifty-odd?) and who's had role-playing stuff actually published (even if you spelt your own name wrong : p) didn't play AD&D 1st ed. The 3d6 random roll method was the way ordinary NPC stat scores were generated, resulting in a general population whose individual stats conformed to the bell curve. The fact that PCs got to roll 12 times and keep the best six (or roll 4d6 keep 3) didn't change the general population.
The existence of stat arrays doesn't change the general population either, just a tool to get quick, fair, playable characters.
Yeah. Our Typist was a bit strange. He didn't spell his name wrong.... Yeah, too old.
Absolutely. In a AD&D universe, there were more or less the normal distribution you'd expect of a "7". OTOH, unless you were a Wizard, Int made little difference.
But I think that in Golarion the stat arrays do change the general population. Just like in some worlds, there are lots of demi-humans, and in others none. On Earth there are no Demi-humans at all, and in fact no humanoid species other than humans (altho some might argue for Chimps, etc). So, if we took the normal general population of Earth we'd expect NO Elves, dwarves, orcs, hobbits, etc. But on Golarion they are not uncommon.
No one on...
Jiroemon Kimura, (age 115 years, 359 days), one week till he turns 116.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiroemon_Kimura
The whole thing with intelligence and IQ is rather skewed anyway. If using the table with Int to IQ from earlier in this thread and extrapolating from there Chimpansees should have an Int of about 4-5, and both Orangutans and Gorillas should be at 3-4. A whole load of other animals, like parrots (though since it differs highly per species I'd see a range there) and dolphins should also have higher Int scores, yet by rule animals are stuck at 2.
Can we have a discussion where we say that people with a 7 Strength aren't any weaker than people with a 17 Strength, they're just not as good at hitting things hard and carrying stuff?
I remember having an argument with a GM who wanted to make strength equal muscle mass. Which is patently absurd in a fantasy game. He refused to see logic till halflings and ogres came up... then he realized that YES you can be small and frail and have a big strength score OR big and have a small strength score.
Ogres, trolls and hill giants still manage to live their daily lives, organize in societies (okay, small societies) and generally get by. And that's in a society where they're all that stupid by average, rather than in a society where most people are a bit smarter and can shore up for the persons weakness by teaching it things.
They're also all chaotic evil which in itself lends to make the "stupid" impression.
And since the steps are qutie big, a 7 is a fair bit above a 6 - remember, it's only one step below 8 which about 1/7th of the population has.
Looking at a race specified as Int 7 on average, this is the section on habitat and society:
"Harpies live in small family and tribal groups, from a single pair to a dozen individuals, and multiple groups may join together into loud, squabbling rookeries. Harpies are highly social creatures, at least among their own kind-a harpy on her own is either an outcast or on a specific mission that takes her away from her family.
Harpies worship Pazuzu, the demon lord of winged creatures, and harpy haunts usually have an elaborate shrine to Pazuzu upon which matings are conducted and severed tongues and eyes of victims are laid in sacrifice. The shrine is usually made up of several smaller pieces for easy transport if the harpies have to move quickly. As Pazuzu is also King of the Wind Demons, harpies worship not only through sacrificial killings but also by going aloft during violent windstorms, flying recklessly in an ecstatic dance.
Harpies like to play with their victims. Torture is the norm, though harpies don't take chances-if there is any risk that their prey might break their mental hold and pose a threat, they'll cut their play short rather than risk vengeance. Particularly cruel harpies who aren't very hungry may play with victims over weeks or even months, keeping them alive by feeding them the leavings of other victims. Harpies aren't very trustworthy, and other evil creatures allying with them need to have contingency plans and fail-safes to keep from falling victim to the harpies once their current engagement ends, as harpies love irony. When more powerful creatures dominate them, harpies may deign to work with other creatures, but the reverse can also be true: harpies sometimes form lasting alliances with creatures that aren't very intelligent and don't taste very good, and occasionally coexist with creatures like ettins or ogres in this way, provided the latter maintain their utility.
Harpies that live near a human settlement sometimes try to moderate their predations, keeping attacks at a level that won't result in the settlement banding together to drive them off. Harpies are adept at this calculation and can haunt a village for years, taking just enough victims that they don't become a priority for the local authorities. Harpies preying on trade routes use a similar calculus to avoid bringing armed expeditions to their aeries. Harpies are fierce but practical and avoid confrontations with more powerful forces; overwhelmingly punitive expeditions often drive harpies to migrate elsewhere rather than fight to the death.
While harpies usually live in tight family or tribal groups, their greater communities can't be reasonably called "harmonious." Harpies do not cooperate well as equals, and usually have a clearly established pecking order, enforced by intimidation and petty violence. The highest ranks of a harpy flock are filled by a combination of the strongest and most cunning harpies, since both of those traits help them keep the rest of their flock in line. Magic users, typically sorcerers or clerics of Pazuzu, often ascend to high positions, though they sometimes opt to support a more physically powerful harpy and set themselves up as the power behind the throne. Harpy social structures can be chaotic, and higher-level harpies are often brought down by a coalition of their social inferiors, who then immediately fall upon each other in an attempt to come out on top. For this reason, adventurers may find it useful to attempt to parley with a harpy if they can do so safely. Offering one harpy or family unit a chance at betrayal and advancement can distract and neutralize an entire multi-family flock.
As harpies are single-gendered and generally devour those humanoid males used for mating, their species does not recognize anything close to marriage. Outside of filial attachment, the closest thing harpies have to romance is the concept of pair-bonding, by which two harpies with respect for each other's abilities will cleave together for mutual defense, shared parenting duties, and non-reproductive physical pleasure. Though not common, these pairs are often the heart of family groups, and represent one of the few bonds in harpy society not easily thrown aside in the name of temper and ambition."
So, not the brightest around, but still able to form functioning societies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lower end of normal. This guy is perfectly functional and can be skilled at what he has specific training in. Just not going to be the guy with the bright ideas or a leader of anything other than a gang of thugs.
I assume that the OP himself is probably at least normal or quite probably above normal in intelligence. That makes it an RP challenge to "dumb down" the character to his own level, one not everyone can do. I've seen lots of folks who dump their INT down like that, but then still want to be leaders in the party, helping solve the riddles, advising on tactics, etc. I've also seen lots of folks on this board defend that, with various arguments that all boil down to being unwilling to pay the price in roleplaying for a mechanical choice, saying the mechanical penalties alone should suffice.
I respectfully but strongly disagree. You make a choice to play a 7 Int, 7 Wis, 7 Cha character, so play that character. He's not a mental cripple, but he's definitely not a leader and not going to be the one solving problems. He's the one someone else points in the right direction and gives very specific instructions to or he'll screw it up.
If playing under those restrictions doesn't appeal to you and you want to be a leader in the party, don't dump the stats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the 7 INT character already has enough of a mechanical penalty, 2 less skill points per level, -2 on knowledge skills, the inability to take combat expertise, and effectively being barred from 90% of the combat manuever feats
the 7 WIS character has -2 to their will save and to perception checks, is barred from casting most divine spells, barred from many monk oriented feats, and takes a -2 AC penalty as a Monk
the 7 CHA character has a -2 to almost every social skill, is barred from casting spells as a spontaneous caster, and barred from eldritch heritage
these mechanical penalties are enough of a penalty for dumping a mental stat. you don't need to penalize the player for thinking up tactics and solving riddles.
in fact, if the player thinks up the plan or solves the riddle. don't think that it is the player's dumb character that did it. think of it as a plan another player's genius character came up with. learn to divorce player and character, and instead of attributing the solution to Player A's dumb PC, Attribute it to Player C's Smart PC, Player A may have came up with the plan OOC, but treat it as Player C's Genius had the idea instead.
Can we have a discussion where we say that people with a 7 Strength aren't any weaker than people with a 17 Strength, they're just not as good at hitting things hard and carrying stuff?I remember having an argument with a GM who wanted to make strength equal muscle mass. Which is patently absurd in a fantasy game. He refused to see logic till halflings and ogres came up... then he realized that YES you can be small and frail and have a big strength score OR big and have a small strength score.
My father in his days as a butcher knew a brawler. This guy was small, but his specialty was unhinging his opponent's jaw (hammer fist).
For small people with a high strength, see Japanese karate dudes and Thai kickboxers.
Lower end of normal. This guy is perfectly functional and can be skilled at what he has specific training in. Just not going to be the guy with the bright ideas or a leader of anything other than a gang of thugs.
I assume that the OP himself is probably at least normal or quite probably above normal in intelligence. That makes it an RP challenge to "dumb down" the character to his own level, one not everyone can do. I've seen lots of folks who dump their INT down like that, but then still want to be leaders in the party, helping solve the riddles, advising on tactics, etc. I've also seen lots of folks on this board defend that, with various arguments that all boil down to being unwilling to pay the price in roleplaying for a mechanical choice, saying the mechanical penalties alone should suffice.
I respectfully but strongly disagree. You make a choice to play a 7 Int, 7 Wis, 7 Cha character, so play that character. He's not a mental cripple, but he's definitely not a leader and not going to be the one solving problems. He's the one someone else points in the right direction and gives very specific instructions to or he'll screw it up.
If playing under those restrictions doesn't appeal to you and you want to be a leader in the party, don't dump the stats.
You can add funny character quirks, so the 7 int guy gets nervous meeting many new people since he can't recall their names and gets overwhelmed by fast-paced thinking.
I've seen lots of folks who dump their INT down like that, but then still want to be leaders in the party, helping solve the riddles, advising on tactics, etc. I've also seen lots of folks on this board defend that, with various arguments that all boil down to being unwilling to pay the price in roleplaying for a mechanical choice, saying the mechanical penalties alone should suffice.
I respectfully but strongly disagree. You make a choice to play a 7 Int, 7 Wis, 7 Cha character, so play that character. He's not a mental cripple, but he's definitely not a leader and not going to be the one solving problems. He's the one someone else points in the right direction and gives very specific instructions to or he'll screw it up.
If playing under those restrictions doesn't appeal to you and you want to be a leader in the party, don't dump the stats.
Yup (although Lumiere describes how to not invalidate the player's intelligence and affect their fun).
From the CRB (p16): "Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons."
Reason (v) means to "think, understand, and form judgements by a process of logic".
So a lower than average Int means that your character is below average at learning, thinking, understanding, and forming judgements by logical processes.
Which means you're dumb.
It's in the RAW, in black and white. A character with a low Intelligence is, surprisingly, unintelligent, or dumb. Arguing otherwise is ignoring RAW, and, I would suggest, the intent of the designers.
Having said that, an Int of 7 isn't all that dumb.
in fact, if the player thinks up the plan or solves the riddle. don't think that it is the player's dumb character that did it. think of it as a plan another player's genius character came up with. learn to divorce player and character, and instead of attributing the solution to Player A's dumb PC, Attribute it to Player C's Smart PC, Player A may have came up with the plan OOC, but treat it as Player C's Genius had the idea instead.
Absolutely.
the 7 INT character already has enough of a mechanical penalty, 2 less skill points per level, -2 on knowledge skills, the inability to take combat expertise, and effectively being barred from 90% of the combat manuever feats
the 7 WIS character has -2 to their will save and to perception checks, is barred from casting most divine spells, barred from many monk oriented feats, and takes a -2 AC penalty as a Monk
the 7 CHA character has a -2 to almost every social skill, is barred from casting spells as a spontaneous caster, and barred from eldritch heritage
these mechanical penalties are enough of a penalty for dumping a mental stat. you don't need to penalize the player for thinking up tactics and solving riddles.
in fact, if the player thinks up the plan or solves the riddle. don't think that it is the player's dumb character that did it. think of it as a plan another player's genius character came up with. learn to divorce player and character, and instead of attributing the solution to Player A's dumb PC, Attribute it to Player C's Smart PC, Player A may have came up with the plan OOC, but treat it as Player C's Genius had the idea instead.
I appreciate the argument but just don't agree. It is equally hard to play highly intelligent characters when the player simply isn't, and the mechanics allow for the DM to allow for an Intelligence check or something like it to think up things their characters would have but they don't. Having other players do it for them is playing someone else's character for him or her, which I do not endorse.
I stick to my argument. If you dump your mental stats, you have an obligation to play it as accurately as you can. That is what the roleplaying in RPG is all about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a DM, I frequently apply stats towards things other than the direct mechanics, basically, i's kind of "soft modifiers". If someone has a strength of 18, dex of 14 and con of 16 - he's more likely to be given the opportunity to become knighted by the king than the guy with 10's across the board.
Also, I frequently make use of ability checks when there isn't a specific skill to govern something I think is affected by an ability. If the party gets a puzzle/riddle, I give a hint to anyone succeeding at an Int check.
I think these can be good ways to incorporate stats into the game so that they feel as if they are part of the character. If the Int 7, Wis 12 guy is as likely to win a game of chess or solve the riddle as the Int 20, Wis 14 guy, there'll be a dissonance.
I think these are good ways, but I also think it's important that the players know about them, and that they are kept to moderation. No stat penalty in the book is large enough that the person having it is truly crippled.
And on a side note: Often the claim "the mechanical penalties are enough" is used to discredit different methods of incorporating ability scores into games outside of the strictest RAW. I think it's kind of a weak argument, as it doesn't define what is it enough for. Enough to make a difference between 10 and 7? Sure. Enough to actually discourage dump-statting or making it a difficult choice? No way. Nearly all characters even remotely optimized have one or several dump stats. Especially Int, Cha and Strength is used as a dump regularly.
For a specific example:
the 7 INT character already has enough of a mechanical penalty, 2 less skill points per level, -2 on knowledge skills, the inability to take combat expertise, and effectively being barred from 90% of the combat manuever feats
the 7 WIS character has -2 to their will save and to perception checks, is barred from casting most divine spells, barred from many monk oriented feats, and takes a -2 AC penalty as a Monk
the 7 CHA character has a -2 to almost every social skill, is barred from casting spells as a spontaneous caster, and barred from eldritch heritage
these mechanical penalties are enough of a penalty for dumping a mental stat. you don't need to penalize the player for thinking up tactics and solving riddles.
As said, first of, enough for what?
Second of all, these are true when considered in a vacuum. But consider an actual character, say an archer fighter, dumping these. The actual penalties:
The 7 Int gets 1 less skill point per level and -2 on knowledge skills.
The 7 Wis gets -2 on will saves and perception and sense motive checks (and 3 irrelevant skills).
The 7 Cha gets -2 to 3 relevant skills.
So yeah, the wisdom penalty is quite large and it's not that common to dump wisdom, but the other penalties are minor compared to the 4 more point buys for each check. Compared to straight 10's on a 15pb, it goes from having 15 points for the physical stats to having 27 points. And that's quite a large difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm currently playing a Paladin4/Bard6 who started with an Int and Wis of 7 and a Charisma of 18. He's managed to get his Int up to 9 with a headband, but his monkey familiar (from Eldritch Heritage) is still smarter than him. He was stolen by kobolds as a baby and later enslaved in Brevoy before escaping to join a Varisian circus, where his hard life and their hard partying encouraged him to become an alcoholic. My story is that he's drunk, uneducated, and perhaps a bit impulsive rather than naturally stupid.
Since the PC is being played in Kingmaker he's become the ruler of a nation (along with his wife the Sorceress, who I think has Int 12). In keeping with his 7 Wisdom, his Edicts include no Taxes at all but 24 Festivals per year. His kingdom is like a big, non-stop party, and he builds Brothels in every city.
The PC is quite good at Diplomacy though he has a comical propensity to misuse and mispronounce big or uncommon words. He's also an expert in Knowledge [Religion], which he has Skill Focus in. He's capable of learning. He'd just prefer to spend most of his time having fun and slaying evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
7 int is just stew ped. :) It's a role playing game not a roll playing game. The difference is if you chose to dump a stat. You should role play that score. I'm not saying you ( the player ) can't help out other players come up with ideas but in game your 7 int fighter is not going to come up with a multi layered escape plan. If you don't role play your scores then the number on the character's sheet are just numbers and if that's the case why bother writing them down?
7 int is just stew ped. :) It's a role playing game not a roll playing game. The difference is if you chose to dump a stat. You should role play that score. I'm not saying you ( the player ) can't help out other players come up with ideas but in game your 7 int fighter is not going to come up with a multi layered escape plan. If you don't role play your scores then the number on the character's sheet are just numbers and if that's the case why bother writing them down?
He already sucks at everything that has anything to do with intelligence mechanically. He is a fighter, so he will not have skill points. His int modifier is -2, so he is never gonna make even average knowledge checks. This means he will not be able to justify player knowledge, so he will be whacking enemies with his go-to Big Stick, and when it does not work too well, he will try to hit harder until someone points out that his silver sword is gonna work better.
Forcing someone to undertake additional penalty is over the top in my book. Kinda like forcing the Cha 5 dwarf player to pick his nose and be disgusting at the table, or the Str 7 wizard to whine that his component pouch is too heavy.
Kamelguru
I'm not saying the player has to act like a muffin head if he plays a 7 int character. I agree with your example of the go-to big stick until someone else suggests a silver sword. I'm not saying he has to handicap himself but in game let the guy with knowledge's skills point out that Were creatures need to be attacked with silver. One round of not using the most effective weapon shouldn't kill your guy off.
But far to often I've played with the muffin head who says " they are Trolls we need to use fire to kill them because they ( the Trolls ) can regenerate, only acid and fire can really hurt the Trolls on there 1st encounter with Trolls. Or the even more crazy is party kills (whatever)and then said muffin head states " I going to take the heart because it's worth a zillion GP to wizards who are trying to do cast a 9th level spell" ..........imho