Point Buy - Down to 7


Advice

201 to 250 of 978 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:


Nice of you to address 1/3 of my point.
But the fact that it is a continuum is exactly the point that a number of people are making. A character with intelligence of 8 should be noticeably less intelligent than a character with intelligence of 10 and a character with intelligence of 7 should be even more so. If we're having a conversation in-character and I can't tell after five minutes that you dumped intelligence, then you're not role-playing your intelligence statistic. While there are lots of different ways to express low intelligence, "not at all" isn't one of them.

That only works with a one-dimensional view of "intelligence". If you think that a character with 8 Int is 20% less intelligent than a character with 10 Int, should communicate 20% less effectively, know 20% less, etc. then this view is fine. Of course, as we all know, it actually is a hard threshold; characters act completely normal and competent until they hit 5 Int, at which point they just go full retard.[/sarcasm]

Take a multi-dimensional view of Intelligence, however, and you start to see that an 8 or even 7 Int Fighter isn't a drooling idiot. Even a 5 Int Fighter isn't. You may find it harder to figure out new concepts and not use as many big words (or, if you do use big words frequently, you use them wrong), but you're not braindead. Even a Wolf with 2 Int can hunt and feed itself, use team tactics with the rest of the pack, communicate with other wolves, etc. Even an ant colony with -- Int can do this. As I stated previously; there's no difference between a 7 Int character's knowledge of farming and a 20 Int character's knowledge of farming if they both have the same number of skill points in Profession(Farming). Even on a Knowledge roll, if the 20 Int character rolls a 1 and the 7 Int character rolls a 20, the dim fighter may end up knowing something that the wizard doesn't. Say nothing of solving riddles; sometimes, knowing too much can be a detriment in that department. Furthermore, consider the low-Int Rogue with a significant number of skill points awarded by the class itself vs a particularly intelligent member of a low-sp class. The two may have skills of equitable breadth despite the intellectual difference.

Liberty's Edge

born_of_fire wrote:


Every time I post under my character's alias instead of on my main account, my Int score gets nearer to that of Farmer Brown's clever horse who can do arithmetic *facepalm*

Heh. Keep in mind that the ability scores do not represent a linear scale. There is a much bigger jump from a "mindless" score of zero to an animal intelligence of 1, than going from 10 to 11 on a human. Similarly, there is a pretty big gap going from a horse with an int of 2 to a human with an int of 3. When Gygax arbitrarily built stats around a 3d6 roll, he wasn't attempting to create an accurate psychometric model of intelligence, and so interpretations outside of that range get pretty wonky.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Question...
How many people play characters (regularly) that are age category venerable at first level?

Not often if at all?

Then why do people use examples, like venerable 1st level characters, to dispute other people posts?

Shadow Lodge

Sarcasmancer wrote:
So this kept coming up in another thread but I never got a good answer and it was slightly off-topic anyway. Many many people say that they would disallow stats to be dumped down to 7 under a point-buy system. If you're one of those people - why? What's so bad about dumping to 7 vs dumping to 8? I await your reply.

When you first started this thread how long did you think it would stay on topic?


Jacob Saltband wrote:

Question...

How many people play characters (regularly) that are age category venerable at first level?

Not often if at all?

Then why do people use examples, like venerable 1st level characters, to dispute other people posts?

I've seen a few across two decades of gaming.

Shadow Lodge

DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:

Question...

How many people play characters (regularly) that are age category venerable at first level?

Not often if at all?

Then why do people use examples, like venerable 1st level characters, to dispute other people posts?

I've seen a few across two decades of gaming.

Ususlly with GM approval right. Normally character are adult for their race.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The_Hanged_Man wrote:
When Gygax arbitrarily built stats around a 3d6 roll, he wasn't attempting to create an accurate psychometric model of intelligence, and so interpretations outside of that range get pretty wonky.

This. This right here.

Everything said in this thread has been built upon the underlining assumption that ability stats are an accurate representation or measurement of the human spectrum. They are not. All animals aren't Int 1 or 2. Humans may be capable of reaching Int 18, but not in the numbers represented by every character with Int as a primary casting stat. Int isn't even a true representative of how smart a person behaves in day to day life. Heck, most psychologists would say that there are multiple types of intelligence, so measuring them all with a single stat is fallacious from the beginning.

What the ability stats ARE is a scale built into a fantasy game meant as a convenience so everyone playing has a base to go off of.

Ages ago, in the far distant past of this thread, one person asked why dumping a stat to 7 was evil dirty min maxing, but dumping it to 8 was okay. My answer is that it isn't the act of dumping the stats that I'd consider to be the problem. Min maxing (and it's good natured brother Optimizing) aren't even evil dirty things. What they can be are signs or symptoms of a mentality that I would prefer to avoid at my table.

I like role play. I like battle and the strategy elements too, but I am in this game for the role play. When I get a table together, I want to gather like minded people so that we can have a good time together. After varied experience at different tables, I have found that I am not as good a fit with someone who is focused on mechanics as I am with someone who is focused on role play. There are, somewhere out there in the great blue yonder, players who excel at both. I find such players to be uncommon, but I am always delighted to meet and play alongside them.

My personal experience has taught me that players who are mechanically focused will min max most of the time. Not all of the time- most of the time. This has happened enough times in the past that I feel comfortable using it as a general indicator (one of several) to make an initial assessment of a new player. Do characters who are min maxed get run by people who emphasize role play? Absolutely. Lots of them. Maybe the player deliberately dumped the stat for role play purposes. Maybe the character build is MAD. Maybe the player is one of those far too uncommon few who can optimize but still role play well.

If I am running a home game (and thus have control of character creation), I am very likely not going to care if one of my players dumps a stat. If that player has been invited to my game, then I know their play style and trust them to role play that character in step with their stats. Does that mean Int 7 characters have to be idiots and Cha 7 characters have to be raging jerks? No. But they should be played as unusually below average in their respective stats. It doesn't have to be 100% of the time - the phrase "out of the mouth of babes" exists for a reason - but it should be most of the time. Playing a character with one or more below average stats as if they were above average in those stats is, in my mind, poor role playing. I'm not here to debate that opinion with any of you. It's a personal preference, and a sign that I would not be a good fit at the table with anyone who believes otherwise.

If - due to whatever circumstances - I were running a table with one or more players that I had not played with before, setting a 'no dump stats' rule until I had a good idea of their play style would not seem unreasonable to me. If I had a player who enjoyed role play but had a tendency to get munchkiny if not regulated a bit here and there (as I currently do), then setting a 'no dump stat' rule for that player would be a handy tool to assist them in better focussing on the goals of the campaign. I do not currently enforce such a rule as the campaign I am running is played for PFS credit, but I would happily use the rule if I felt it were beneficial.

Do I feel that dumping a stat to 7 (or 5 with racial mods) is evil dirty min maxing? No. But I do find it to be something that is easily abused. Normally, I trust my players not to abuse it. If I should have reason to lack that trust, then I will react accordingly. Removing the ability to dump a stat is a perfectly valid response... though it would not be my only response, nor my preferred one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Only read half the topic, but here's my two cp.

From some roleplayers' perspective, a 7 is a (mostly) unnecessary stat. With the range of stats someone can have, 7-18 before modifiers, the 7 number doesn't come up quite often enough. Let's use Charisma for example.

A 10 represents someone of average Charisma. A 9 represents someone who isn't especially prone to social mishaps, but may represent someone who has a propensity of blurting out the wrong thing or has a somewhat offputting personality. An 8 represents someone with a true and honest problem; maybe they don't like people, or maybe they have difficulties socializing without getting very anxious, or maybe they have a very offputting personality. A 7 could represent the same thing, or a more severe case, but a roleplayer can decide that an 8 is enough to represent a genuine and consistent flaw for their character.

My problem with the point buy system (at least for the standard 15-25 point system) isn't just that it encourages dumping, so we get the same dumb fighters and gullible paladins, but that it also discourages putting points into wasteful stats. Nobody ever gets to play Charisma-heavy barbarians or surprisingly buff wizards, either. With a good group that likes roleplaying and some generous dice rolling or points, they might choose to have a fighter with 14 Intelligence that can help the alchemist take a crack at that puzzle.

I discourage stats under 10 unless there's a good and solid roleplaying reason as to why you want it there. I also encourage putting points into stats that they don't have as much of a use for. Min-maxing might not be evil, it isn't, but I dislike it personally. If you enjoy min-maxing and combat more than roleplaying, or don't mind roleplaying a dumb brute every time you roll up a fighter, than drop those points down to 7. However, I prefer tables where the players may be a bit weaker to compensate for an unusually wise and sensible bard, where the GM is more liberal in his interpretation of the rules, and where talking in character and the social interactions are just as much fun and of import as the combat.


Addendum to my post:

Or... yanno ...what Zodiac_Sheep said. =)


Remember IQ adjusts for age, so you'd be compared to other venerable folks that are equally smart, and it wouldn't get you any extra points.


Jacob Saltband wrote:
When you first started this thread how long did you think it would stay on topic?

As I wrote in another thread on a completely different topic:

Sarcasmancer wrote:
You see this on every messageboard, regardless of topic. Question changes but the answer never does, like if you asked a talking doll their opinion on tariffs.[snip] it's not helpful when people pop up to recite their entirely predictable stock phrases that they trot out at every opportunity. I don't like it when people are lazy in their thinking and they deserve to be called out on it when they are.

So it was not entirely surprising to me that the thread would devolve. However I did get plenty of on-topic replies. I haven't changed my opinion but I definitely think I understand better.

Note that at almost exactly the same time as I posted this thread, I posted a thread in the same forum asking people about their table rules for dice-rolling character generation. Not a single reply to that one. Less opportunity to social-signal on that one? Who knows.


re: Int as IQ - a person with 7 Int is as "dumb" as a person with 13 int is "smart."


@Mystically Inclined, Zodiac_Sheep why is the assumption if someone is min/maxing they are doing it purely for combat effectiveness? (as opposed to social skills, for example)


Sarcasmancer wrote:


Note that at almost exactly the same time as I posted this thread, I posted a thread in the same forum asking people about their table rules for dice-rolling character generation. Not a single reply to that one. Less opportunity to social-signal on that one? Who knows.

More likely that fewer people have them, because fewer people use dice-rolling.

If you want a story with narrative complexity, you need to be able to build characters. This argues for point buy because you can build exactly what you want.

If you want to optimize characters for combat effectiveness, the same argument for point buy applies. The reason is the same : the first is just optimizing for narration.

Rolling therefore attracts a rather strange group of supporters, those who want to play characters but don't care as much what they play, either because they appreciate the challenge of something they'd not have thought of by themselves, or because they are more into the social and puzzle aspects of the game. I believe that third group is rarer than the first two.

I also believe that that group is less interested in the mechanics of character generation. Which makes sense. The more arcane and byzantine you make the randomization system, the more you're basically turning it into "roll until you get the character you would have designed in the first place."

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Remember IQ adjusts for age, so you'd be compared to other venerable folks that are equally smart, and it wouldn't get you any extra points.

Also, it is generally accepted that fluid intelligence declines after early adulthood. You can make an agreement for Charisma and Wisdom increasing as you age, but Int probably should decrease along with the physical stats (assuming Pathfinder is trying to model reality, which it is not).


Sarcasmancer wrote:
@Mystically Inclined, Zodiac_Sheep why is the assumption if someone is min/maxing they are doing it purely for combat effectiveness? (as opposed to social skills, for example)

I don't think they suggested that. The same pressure that makes a barbarian want a high strength and not give a toss about charisma would make a diplomancer want high charisma and not care about strength.


Sarcasmancer wrote:
Note that at almost exactly the same time as I posted this thread, I posted a thread in the same forum asking people about their table rules for dice-rolling character generation. Not a single reply to that one. Less opportunity to social-signal on that one? Who knows.

After spending a few hours writing thoughtful, detailed starter posts covering my experiences - and having the threads go quietly into that dark night - I am coming to the conclusion that unless you give people something to argue about then your thread is headed for a quick death. It seems to be a sad but true reality on message boards.

Edited for clarity.


The_Hanged_Man wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Remember IQ adjusts for age, so you'd be compared to other venerable folks that are equally smart, and it wouldn't get you any extra points.

Also, it is generally accepted that fluid intelligence declines after early adulthood. You can make an agreement for Charisma and Wisdom increasing as you age, but Int probably should decrease along with the physical stats (assuming Pathfinder is trying to model reality, which it is not).

But Pathfinder intelligence isn't "fluid intelligence" (if indeed there is any such thing). Pathfinder intelligence also explicitly incorporates knowledge and experience.

Liberty's Edge

Orfamay Quest wrote:
The_Hanged_Man wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Remember IQ adjusts for age, so you'd be compared to other venerable folks that are equally smart, and it wouldn't get you any extra points.

Also, it is generally accepted that fluid intelligence declines after early adulthood. You can make an agreement for Charisma and Wisdom increasing as you age, but Int probably should decrease along with the physical stats (assuming Pathfinder is trying to model reality, which it is not).
But Pathfinder intelligence isn't "fluid intelligence" (if indeed there is any such thing). Pathfinder intelligence also explicitly incorporates knowledge and experience.

Where do you see that? All I see is that "Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons". Knowledge and experience (crystallized intelligence) should be represented by skill ranks and levels.


The_Hanged_Man wrote:


Where do you see that? All I see is that "Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons". Knowledge and experience (crystallized intelligence) should be represented by skill ranks and levels.

Think of untrained Knowledge checks. There's even a feat you can take reflecting the extra experience you've acquired over the years as a bonus to all Knowledges -- if you're over 100 years old....


Sarcasmancer wrote:
@Mystically Inclined, Zodiac_Sheep why is the assumption if someone is min/maxing they are doing it purely for combat effectiveness? (as opposed to social skills, for example)

What Orfamay Quest said. I did address the underlying example of my post to the min maxed fighter because that's the build that has been the most discussed in this thread. However, my post applies equally well to a wizard who dumps everything but Int/Dex and a diplomancer bard who only cares about charisma. I would find a build which was so min maxed for role play that it couldn't contribute in battle to be just as much a concern as a min maxed fighter.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
I've heard the Int to IQ comparison before, but it doesn't really work. You still have your base language skill, you are not mechanically impaired in using it, there are no rules that say you are too dumb to do much, initiative mod is covered by dex and feats, wisdom covers the senses and grasping a situation, charisma governs how adept you are at conversation.

And that is the problem. What you've basically said is that there's effectively no penalty for a fighter dumping Int. Aside from some skills that are largely trained-only and that a figher is likely never to roll for in the course of the campaign, there is literally no way to tell whether a human fighter has an intelligence of 7 or of 11.

In that case, why not simply take four free stat points and add them on to his strength or constitution.

And this is a problem?

Well, consider that the same argument applies to the wizard dumping strength. Aside from lower carrying capacity (which can be fixed with muleback cords), the wizard is taking penalties in things he never uses. The end result is that a class that is already overpowered becomes even more so, because there's no reason not to put four extra stat points into the casting stat. (The only reason a well-played wizard would be involved in physical combat is because someone grapples him. The extra points in intelligence will, by astonishing coincidence, make Escape Artist a useful skill.....)

Ah yes, but in a party, why not dump to increase the effectiveness of the role you do have in the party. Essentially this comes down to why not take stats away from what you're already not doing to boost what you are doing.

The Wizard can dump strength because theres someone to carry his stuff for him. The Fighter can dump his charisma or int because theres already someone who takes care of those things in the party.

This is great. It means that the party relies on each other which is a beautiful thing. A group of specialists is stronger than a group of generalists.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Sarcasmancer wrote:
@Mystically Inclined, Zodiac_Sheep why is the assumption if someone is min/maxing they are doing it purely for combat effectiveness? (as opposed to social skills, for example)
I don't think they suggested that. The same pressure that makes a barbarian want a high strength and not give a toss about charisma would make a diplomancer want high charisma and not care about strength.

These are the statements that I interpreted as juxtaposing roleplay on one hand and battle/strategy/min-max on the other:

Zodiac_Sheep wrote:
If you enjoy min-maxing and combat more than roleplaying
Mystically Inclined wrote:
I like role play. I like battle and the strategy elements too, but I am in this game for the role play.

But that digression is orthogonal to the original topic so I'd be glad to let it drop, or fork it to another thread, if necessary. I'm not sure if anyone on these boards have ever addressed the comparative benefits of RP heavy gameplay vis-a-vis more mechanics oriented play.

EDIT: Mystically inclined posted a reply while I was typing this :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
This is great. It means that the party relies on each other which is a beautiful thing. A group of specialists is stronger than a group of generalists.

I agree with Scavion here, it promotes teamwork and cooperation if everybody has their strengths and weaknesses. If everybody was an island unto themselves they have less reason to depend on each other.


Sarcasmancer wrote:
Scavion wrote:
This is great. It means that the party relies on each other which is a beautiful thing. A group of specialists is stronger than a group of generalists.
I agree with Scavion here, it promotes teamwork and cooperation if everybody has their strengths and weaknesses. If everybody was an island unto themselves they have less reason to depend on each other.

Just to play a bit of devil's advocate here: that's all well and good if you're designing a group of characters to specifically be a team. It's not really practical if you want to build a character that had a life before joining an adventuring party. If it's wrong to tell someone how to play their character then it should be equally as wrong to tell someone that they need to shoehorn their background story into the group dynamic.

But hey, to each their own. There is no wrong way to play the game.


Simon Legrande wrote:
Just to play a bit of devil's advocate here: that's all well and good if you're designing a group of characters to specifically be a team. It's not really practical if you want to build a character that had a life before joining an adventuring party. If it's wrong to tell someone how to play their character then it should be equally as wrong to tell someone that they need to shoehorn their background story into the group dynamic.

See your devil's advocate, raise you qlippoth's advocate. It's a metagame consideration, but also jibes with both fiction and real life. People in the military had a life before they joined, but they have special training and are expected to fulfill a specific role.

Shadow Lodge

You know what I'd like to see but probably wont happen? I'd like to see a dev chime in and give an example of how the tables they at play do it.

No saying the anyone else plays is wrong, would just the prospective.


Simon Legrande wrote:
But hey, to each their own. There is no wrong way to play the game.

*Cough* *Splutter*


Jacob Saltband wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:

Question...

How many people play characters (regularly) that are age category venerable at first level?

Not often if at all?

Then why do people use examples, like venerable 1st level characters, to dispute other people posts?

I've seen a few across two decades of gaming.
Ususlly with GM approval right. Normally character are adult for their race.

Wait, there's a taboo against venerable PCs? Never heard of it.

In games I run all PCs start at whatever age makes the most sense for their story. That isn't necessarily young adulthood.
EDIT: Not that I don't believe you, there always seem to be groups and/or players with taboos against the weirdest things in the game.


Sarcasmancer wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Just to play a bit of devil's advocate here: that's all well and good if you're designing a group of characters to specifically be a team. It's not really practical if you want to build a character that had a life before joining an adventuring party. If it's wrong to tell someone how to play their character then it should be equally as wrong to tell someone that they need to shoehorn their background story into the group dynamic.
See your devil's advocate, raise you qlippoth's advocate. It's a metagame consideration, but also jibes with both fiction and real life. People in the military had a life before they joined, but they have special training and are expected to fulfill a specific role.

I agree, but not every infantryman is a dumb jock, not every sniper has trouble lugging their backpack around, not every medic has sage-like wisdom, etc.


Take 10 on Knowledge checks is a long-settled debate and outside the scope of this train wreck anyway.


137ben wrote:
Wait, there's a taboo against venerable PCs? Never heard of it.

Because it's MIN/MAXING. You get a penalty to some stats and a bonus to others. Broken! Do try to keep up, 137ben.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

7 Int fighters are crazy broken. Anyhow, I cast Time Stop,


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sarcasmancer wrote:
137ben wrote:
Wait, there's a taboo against venerable PCs? Never heard of it.
Because it's MIN/MAXING. You get a penalty to some stats and a bonus to others. Broken! Do try to keep up, 137ben.

Well, maybe I'm too old Venerable to keep up!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roberta Yang wrote:
7 Int fighters are crazy broken. Anyhow, I cast Time Stop,

Succinctly makes several good points. Being able to drop stats down to 7 benefits MADs the most (and MADs are your combat characters) and SADs (spellcasters) the least; and has more of an effect at lower levels where basic attributes are more important, less effect at higher levels (where stuff like Time Stop becomes available).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sarcasmancer wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
7 Int fighters are crazy broken. Anyhow, I cast Time Stop,
Succinctly makes several good points.

Ms. Yang usually does.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had a Lore Warden who had 16 14 12 13 10 14. He was a pretty good fighter, really good in certin situation. He used umd for wands and bluff for combat feint. And of course 2handed weapon with power attack, trip and felling smash.

Dump stats arent 'absolutely' necessary to effective as a MAD.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Sarcasmancer wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
7 Int fighters are crazy broken. Anyhow, I cast Time Stop,
Succinctly makes several good points.
Ms. Yang usually does.

And high-level Sarcasmancy to boot. Tip of the hat.


Jacob Saltband wrote:

I had a Lore Warden who had 16 14 12 13 10 14. He was a pretty good fighter, really good in certin situation. He used umd for wands and bluff for combat feint. And of course 2handed weapon with power attack, trip and felling smash.

Dump stats arent 'absolutely' necessary to effective as a MAD.

Hm those are good stats, that distribution would work for a monk too. Maybe I'll bust my players down to 15 point buy.

Shadow Lodge

Of course this was a human 20pt buy. Not sure if it could be done with an elf or dwarf etc...


Jacob Saltband wrote:
Of course this was a human 20pt buy. Not sure if it could be done with an elf or dwarf etc...

Eh, the hell with them.


Simon Legrande wrote:
Sarcasmancer wrote:
Scavion wrote:
This is great. It means that the party relies on each other which is a beautiful thing. A group of specialists is stronger than a group of generalists.
I agree with Scavion here, it promotes teamwork and cooperation if everybody has their strengths and weaknesses. If everybody was an island unto themselves they have less reason to depend on each other.

Just to play a bit of devil's advocate here: that's all well and good if you're designing a group of characters to specifically be a team. It's not really practical if you want to build a character that had a life before joining an adventuring party. If it's wrong to tell someone how to play their character then it should be equally as wrong to tell someone that they need to shoehorn their background story into the group dynamic.

But hey, to each their own. There is no wrong way to play the game.

A character with low int or low charisma (or shock horror, even low dex) can have a life before the adventuring group. That comes down to your fleshing out of the backstory, not to the stats at all. A low stat can inform your char and explain why they are the way they are. Maybe the low int char really invested in communication skills and getting along with people (cha and cha skills), in the hope people wouldn't realise he is of low learning and had trouble picking up more than a few narrow interests.

Maybe the low charisma fighter really doesn't get along with many people, always says the wrong thing, but they took to the spiked chain like they were born to it. And when they take an enemy's leg off and say their ever so crude insults, it almost makes up for how un-cool they are normally. A prickly person with a prickly weapon.


I am operating on a couple of assumptions, but here is why I'm convinced a 7, as compared to an 8 (The topic of this thread), makes such a big difference.

First assumption: The DC of something 'everyone can do' in a non-stressful environment. (Very easy task) is DC 10.

Second assumption: Having a rank in a skill represent having been trained or schooled or taught the skill at some point, where the character put in dedication and energy to learn the use the skill.

Thus: Let's compare 3 commoners. One with an Int 10, one with an Int 8, and one with an Int 7. Let's ask each of them a 'very easy question' about metals. We show them a chunk of gold. What kind of metal is this?

They each take 10. Int 10 guy knows that it is gold. The other two don't quite have the answer. Even if they rolled, the Int 8 guy had a 50% chance to know, and the Int 7 guy a 45% chance to know the answer.

So, frustrated by their lack of knowing what gold is... let's get these commoners trained in Knowledge: Dungeoneering. So... now the Int 8 guy and the Int 7 guy each have a rank in Knowledge: Dungeoneering.

They have been trained, they have taken classes, they are now educated about rocks, minerals, metals, natural structures. They have been given this training and information. They have been told.

Now, we show them another chunk of gold. "What kind of metal is this?" we ask.

The commoner with an Int of 8 can take 10 and know it is gold!! He learned! Thank the heavens, he figured it out.

The commoner with an Int of 7 fails the check still, if he takes 10. Wtf 7 Int commoner, we just trained you! He has a 50% chance of succeeding this check if he rolls. 50%! That would be a failing grade.

He just got instructed, he just was taught... and he still cannot reliably answer even the most basic questions.

A normal Int of 10 guy, with no training whatsoever, can reliably answer these questions! But even after putting what limited skills the guy has into learning this stuff, he still has trouble!

He... is... handicapped.

What other kinds of things does he have less than a 50% chance of knowing?
If something is dangerously constructed. That building that is about to collapse? Looks good to him!
Know recent events, or historically significant events. The country was invaded and taken over by hobgoblins?! Weird, he hadn’t heard a word of it.
Know local laws! He has a less than 50% chance to know if something is illegal! Yeah… this guy won’t have problems. He doesn’t need someone looking out for him, nope.
Identify ‘common’ plants or animals. What is grass? Less than 50%. What is a dog? Less than 50%.

To even the score, and get to the point where this 7 Int commoner could reliably answer all of these ‘very easy questions’ as well as a 10 Int commoner could, would mean he puts 2 ranks in each Knowledge skill. This would take him until level 10. (And it’d be all of his ranks)

A level 10 Int 7 commoner with training can finally reliably answer the same questions as a level 1 Int 10 commoner with no training.

I am not over exaggerating when I say he is incapable, or that he is handicapped. This guy would have a really tough go of it.

I don’t understand the pushback to this. I’m not trying to debate, but illustrate.

The things you and I take for granted, the things ‘everyone would know’ simply do not apply to this guy. Because there is a good chance he doesn’t know it, a good chance you can even teach him, and he still wouldn’t know it.


Sarcasmancer wrote:

@BigNorseWolf I'm not interested in getting into that. I'm interested specifically in why dumping to 7 is considered beyond the pale, even though it's allowed by the rules.

Well, in Golarion the lowest normal stat is 8. Other than specials, the dumbest normal race NPC has no lower than a 8. Thus the 7 PC is exceptionally stupid.

Nothing wrong with a low stat for RPing reasons. So, I give them a 20pt buy, but stats under 10 don't give any points back.

If then you want a big dumb jock, you can have him.

But even tho "big dumb jocks' do exist some IRL, how many fantasy heroes are dumb? Even Conan, unlettered as he was to start, was rather cunning and clever.

And, if we're doing it for RP reasons, the sickly hero, ala Elric or Doc Holiday is a meme, but not one I have seen in PF.

The reason is simple- dumping Int for a fighter has no real penalty. Same with dumping str for a wizard. We see almost no dumping of Dex or Con, as those effect almost every class. We only see Wis dumping when it's a paladin or barbarian with superstition, so again- the dump is no real penalty.

Min/maxers want the benefit, but aren;t willing to pay or RP the penalty. The Fighter with a 7 int still comes up with clever riddle or tactical ideas in most cases. The low CHA is often played as "being a cool loner type' not someone who no adventuring party would let in.


Remy Balster wrote:
First assumption: The DC of something 'everyone can do' in a non-stressful environment. (Very easy task) is DC 10.

DC to walk without tripping and falling: 10.

Have 9 Dex (as more than 1/3 of all people do)? Enjoy tripping and falling on 50% of all rounds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Suddenly, my life makes so much more sense. Rubs knee.


Roberta Yang wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
First assumption: The DC of something 'everyone can do' in a non-stressful environment. (Very easy task) is DC 10.

DC to walk without tripping and falling: 10.

Have 9 Dex (as more than 1/3 of all people do)? Enjoy tripping and falling on 50% of all rounds.

While blind, yes.

What makes you think 1/3rd of all people have 9 dex?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Who said anything about being blind? Walking without tripping is something "everyone can do" even with eyesight, therefore by your assertion the DC absolutely must be 10 because that is the DC of everything that "everyone can do".

Based on 3d6 die rolls, more than 1/3 of people have 9 Dex or less. Based on the basic array, 1/3 of people have 9 Dex or less. Scores of 9 or less aren't rare, they're everywhere - the average person has two of them.


Remy Balster wrote:

While blind, yes.

What makes you think 1/3rd of all people have 9 dex?

This:

Core Rulebook wrote:
Basic NPCs: The ability scores for a basic NPC are: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8.

I guess if you're counting heroic characters as regular people then it becomes 1/6 of people.


Roberta Yang wrote:

Who said anything about being blind? Walking without tripping is something "everyone can do" even with eyesight, therefore by your assertion the DC absolutely must be 10 because that is the DC of everything that "everyone can do".

Based on 3d6 die rolls, more than 1/3 of people have 9 Dex or less. Based on the basic array, 1/3 of people have 9 Dex or less. Scores of 9 or less aren't rare, they're everywhere - the average person has two of them.

Yes, but no one has a 7 on that scale, without racial minuses.

201 to 250 of 978 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Point Buy - Down to 7 All Messageboards