Dispute over a character with low int


Advice

101 to 150 of 464 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

graystone wrote:
TrollingJoker wrote:
It's more the part about following them and help them break out. They expected him to bolt right after them like "WHAT ARE YOU GUYS DOING TO MY FRIENDS!?" or something among those lines.

And this is what's totally wrong. Again, it's right there in the village idiot monster entry. Replace his character with 'any simple commoner' or 'stableboy'. Would they have the issue if they didn't know those kind of characters have a 4 int? It's quite clear 4 int doesn't mean what they think it does.

Why would he rush right in? Toddlers can be surprisingly clever and I'm not expecting calculus out of them. What he did was a fairly simple plan. (follow, open cells, hide key). "Hey commoner. Can you follow someone, open some doors and then hide the key?" Do you really expect "Derp....." and he starts drooling on himself?

The village idiot can be a simple commoner or stable boy, not all commoners or stable boys have a four Intelligence. Sure you could explain to someone, follow, open cell, then hide the key, but would you expect the village idiot to come up with that plan on his own.

This isn't a discussion on what a four Int can learn to do, but what can that person come up with on their own.


I'd probably treat them as severely impaired only if at least two of their three mental stats are really low. If you have a case of a four and a twelve, and then his charisma to boot, he's certainly a bit below average perhaphs, but he has enough common sense and wisdom to be able to function fairly well on instinct and feel, even if he might have trouble sitting down and noodling it out or even saying why he did something. I would submit overall that someone's intellect is a gestalt of the mental stats, perhaps that four represents a severe Learning disability - which is in no wise the same as being an idiot.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
graystone wrote:
TrollingJoker wrote:
It's more the part about following them and help them break out. They expected him to bolt right after them like "WHAT ARE YOU GUYS DOING TO MY FRIENDS!?" or something among those lines.

And this is what's totally wrong. Again, it's right there in the village idiot monster entry. Replace his character with 'any simple commoner' or 'stableboy'. Would they have the issue if they didn't know those kind of characters have a 4 int? It's quite clear 4 int doesn't mean what they think it does.

Why would he rush right in? Toddlers can be surprisingly clever and I'm not expecting calculus out of them. What he did was a fairly simple plan. (follow, open cells, hide key). "Hey commoner. Can you follow someone, open some doors and then hide the key?" Do you really expect "Derp....." and he starts drooling on himself?

The village idiot can be a simple commoner or stable boy, not all commoners or stable boys have a four Intelligence. Sure you could explain to someone, follow, open cell, then hide the key, but would you expect the village idiot to come up with that plan on his own.

This isn't a discussion on what a four Int can learn to do, but what can that person come up with on their own.

What I am missing is how that is a hard plan to come up with? What was complicated about it? What took a lot of intelligence?

Follow? Open? Hide? I'm not seeing the complexity.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Stats should never affect roleplaying period - unless the roleplayer wants them to.

There are ALREADY mechanical penalties in place for low stats, people don't need to invent more.


CommandoDude wrote:

Stats should never affect roleplaying period - unless the roleplayer wants them to.

There are ALREADY mechanical penalties in place for low stats, people don't need to invent more.

Except they aren't really for mental stats. Sure if you want to know if you are strong enough to lift a box, there's a chart you can check; stomach a poison, there's a DC for that; conceive of a plan, that's just a judgement call.

This is not to say I agree with other people telling someone how to roleplay, but I understand their frustration. I would be annoyed by someone role playing their four Int as an eighteen Int, just as I would be at someone describing their gnome as a half-orc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:

Stats should never affect roleplaying period - unless the roleplayer wants them to.

There are ALREADY mechanical penalties in place for low stats, people don't need to invent more.

Except they aren't really for mental stats. Sure if you want to know if you are strong enough to lift a box, there's a chart you can check; stomach a poison, there's a DC for that; conceive of a plan, that's just a judgement call.

This is not to say I agree with other people telling someone how to roleplay, but I understand their frustration. I would be annoyed by someone role playing their four Int as an eighteen Int, just as I would be at someone describing their gnome as a half-orc.

If you have a low INT, you get less skill points, and all skills that key off INT have penalties. If you have low Wis, your Will save and Wis based skills have penalties. If you have low Cha, your Cha based skills have penalties - and you take a penalty on Will saves on certain Spell and SU abilities.

So yes, mental ability scores have modeled penalties - which by the way, are more significant than a carry capacity penalty, given the existence of super cheap items like bags of holding. Does that strength or constitution score accurately reflect how far you can actually get traveling all day? No, not one bit. A character with a strength score of 4 can get the same distance walking in 8 hours that a character with an 18 can get if they have the same base speed.

So if you're saying a character must make a DC 10 int check or whatever to "make a judgement call" if he's dumping int, expect to have to make a DC 10 strength check just to move without a walker if you're dumping strength in my game.


CommandoDude wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:

Stats should never affect roleplaying period - unless the roleplayer wants them to.

There are ALREADY mechanical penalties in place for low stats, people don't need to invent more.

Except they aren't really for mental stats. Sure if you want to know if you are strong enough to lift a box, there's a chart you can check; stomach a poison, there's a DC for that; conceive of a plan, that's just a judgement call.

This is not to say I agree with other people telling someone how to roleplay, but I understand their frustration. I would be annoyed by someone role playing their four Int as an eighteen Int, just as I would be at someone describing their gnome as a half-orc.

If you have a low INT, you get less skill points, and all skills that key off INT have penalties. If you have low Wis, your Will save and Wis based skills have penalties. If you have low Cha, your Cha based skills have penalties - and you take a penalty on Will saves on certain Spell and SU abilities.

So yes, mental ability scores have modeled penalties - which by the way, are more significant than a carry capacity penalty, given the existence of super cheap items like bags of holding. Does that strength or constitution score accurately reflect how far you can actually get traveling all day? No, not one bit. A character with a strength score of 4 can get the same distance walking in 8 hours that a character with an 18 can get if they have the same base speed.

So if you're saying a character must make a DC 10 int check or whatever to "make a judgement call" if he's dumping int, expect to have to make a DC 10 strength check just to walk if you're dumping strength in my game.

I didn't say that and I don't play in your games.

Scarab Sages

CommandoDude wrote:
So if you're saying a character must make a DC 10 int check or whatever to "make a judgement call" if he's dumping int, expect to have to make a DC 10 strength check just to move without a walker if you're dumping strength in my game.

How much weight you can carry is explicitly defined under RAW.

Low intelligence is not so well defined, which is why people are so eager to dump the stat. When sitting at the table, they are free to ignore their characters intelligence and can continue to come up with complex ideas and plans.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:

Stats should never affect roleplaying period - unless the roleplayer wants them to.

There are ALREADY mechanical penalties in place for low stats, people don't need to invent more.

Except they aren't really for mental stats. Sure if you want to know if you are strong enough to lift a box, there's a chart you can check; stomach a poison, there's a DC for that; conceive of a plan, that's just a judgement call.

Int does effect things, very specifically, skill points and all the int based skills, and ability to spell cast with a int based caster class. Int does not effect anything other than that. Low int doesn't necessitate stupidity.

Int is VERY clearly defined, it effects skill points, and since judgement IS NOT A SKILL CHECK int has no effect on it.


If I recall correctly it was once commented by a DEV that animals end up using an entirely different intelligence progression, i.e. an animal with 2 Int is different than if a human somehow got 2 int.

Probably not recognized by the company but it was a statement made by a game designer though for the life of me I can't recall in what thread.


Honestly most people would be incapable of playing a high stat "correctly" just the same as a low stat. Why? Because you can only guess at what you don't personally know. I don't know how a 4 int guy would think nor do I know what a 18+ int guy would think.

In our WoTR game our wizard has a 28 int yet he's the least tactical input because the guy who's playing him doesn't play that way. Is that a wrong way to play? No it's not but by the logic in this thread since he's not thinking up the perfect master plans he's somehow wrong. If something comes up to which I think his character would know or use I ask him about it. We all forget what we can do sometimes. Then it's up to him to choose or not.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

If I recall correctly it was once commented by a DEV that animals end up using an entirely different intelligence progression, i.e. an animal with 2 Int is different than if a human somehow got 2 int.

Probably not recognized by the company but it was a statement made by a game designer though for the life of me I can't recall in what thread.

Yes, I keep bringing this up, why do people ignore me, Animals are not awakened, they're Int has different effects on them than an awakened creature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:
So if you're saying a character must make a DC 10 int check or whatever to "make a judgement call" if he's dumping int, expect to have to make a DC 10 strength check just to move without a walker if you're dumping strength in my game.

How much weight you can carry is explicitly defined under RAW.

Low intelligence is not so well defined, which is why people are so eager to dump the stat. When sitting at the table, they are free to ignore their characters intelligence and can continue to come up with complex ideas and plans.

Except you're wrong. Low intelligence is perfectly defined.

A person with low intelligent has less breadth and depth of training in many skills, he or she is inherently more forgetful and has trouble recalling things that they may have read (takes a penalty to Knowledge skills), is more gullible or easily fooled as to the real value of an object(penalty to Appraise skill), lacks understanding of the craft of spell casting and how it is codified(takes a penalty on spellcraft), has a more difficult time planning and creating things (takes a penalty on craft skills), such a person is less eloquent and has more difficulty learning languages they weren't born into as well as having a harder time deciphering codes or ancient tomes (takes a penalty on linguistics).

Sounds like an awful lot of definition for the consequences of having a low Int score. Now just because you or your gaming group are too lazy to use or allow the use of those skills for anything of relevance doesn't mean they don't exist and don't accurately convey the penalty for having a bad score on their own.

That's like saying that because you ignore the weight capacity rules that Str scores aren't accurately covered and so from now on your character rolls DC10 Str checks to not collapse helplessly anytime he engages in physical activity.


Artanthos wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:
So if you're saying a character must make a DC 10 int check or whatever to "make a judgement call" if he's dumping int, expect to have to make a DC 10 strength check just to move without a walker if you're dumping strength in my game.

How much weight you can carry is explicitly defined under RAW.

Low intelligence is not so well defined, which is why people are so eager to dump the stat. When sitting at the table, they are free to ignore their characters intelligence and can continue to come up with complex ideas and plans.

And? Wizards popularly dump strength as low as possible. An commoner with a completely average 10 Str will have a 7 strength at old age. When sitting at the table, they are free to ignore their characters strength and can continue to move around as if they were a marathon runner.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

also all those -s to int based skills can be covered by it being a class skill, so I don't think they're really showing low int as horribly debilitatingly low intelligence.


gnomersy wrote:


Except you're wrong. Low intelligence is perfectly defined.

The entire paragraph following this is purely subjective and uses nothing but comparatives. it is very, very FAR from 'perfectly defined'.

I'll say it again.

Precise benchmarks for what each intelligence score can do that the one below it cannot. Not 'less likely', not 'more difficult', not 'might', but CANNOT. That is what 'perfectly defined' means.

Strength is perfectly defined. See that chart of carrying capacity? Str X cannot carry as much weight as Str X+1. Unless you can provide a chart with cold, hard, statistical data like that for INT, you got nothin'.


Truth be told I never liked the metric of comparing stats between hero's, monsters, and NPCs. I honestly don't feel they are equal to each other. I've always had my hero's apart from the norm because I like my hero's to be hero's, so my 4 int hero is smarter than the town fool.


Zhayne wrote:
gnomersy wrote:


Except you're wrong. Low intelligence is perfectly defined.

The entire paragraph following this is purely subjective and uses nothing but comparatives. it is very, very FAR from 'perfectly defined'.

I'll say it again.

Precise benchmarks for what each intelligence score can do that the one below it cannot. Not 'less likely', not 'more difficult', not 'might', but CANNOT. That is what 'perfectly defined' means.

Strength is perfectly defined. See that chart of carrying capacity? Str X cannot carry as much weight as Str X+1. Unless you can provide a chart with cold, hard, statistical data like that for INT, you got nothin'.

Intelligence is inherently subjective look up the theory of multiple intelligence's and read about how imprecise the use of IQ is to measure intelligence. When you find a way to provide a cold hard statistical chart for human intelligence come back, until then, "you got nothin'"


Actually comparing the sorcerer with the village idiot would backfire on us. They would first compare to a standard commoner and after comparing to the village idiot, they would probably conclude that if he's the village idiot then he's the retard and therefore unable to do worthwhile things. Said a bit extreme though but I think they would react similar to that.


A 4 Int, has a -3 adjustment to Int-based skills, skill ranks per level and Int checks.

Other than that, per RAW, he's free to RP however he wants without having to be handicapped or dumb or whatever. I'm pretty sure every character I've ever had was idealized well beyond his skill set ("of course he'd be able to make that jump"...and guess who just fell trying to make that ledge?). If his actions fall under the purview of skills, the penalty is already in place. If not, don't worry about it.

I do, however, see an issue of metagaming if he's coming up with brilliant ideas and strategies to handle situations (which I don't see happening based on what I've read above).

I'd have no problem pointing this out to the player and DM in session if I thought it was happening (as with any metagaming issue, but that's just a pet peeve of mine), however, just like everything else, I'd leave it up to the DM to judge it if it was an issue, and either way, take the ruling and move on. These situations are exactly why there's a DM in these games.


The DM himself said he isn't too experienced and he tends to not give a damn whatsoever. Not meaning he ignores stuff but he's just an easygoing go with the flow kind of guy. Also he's right about the part where we should be old and wise enough to solve this problem ourselves and that he shouldn't act as our babysitter. No disrespect intended towards him


gnomersy wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
gnomersy wrote:


Except you're wrong. Low intelligence is perfectly defined.

The entire paragraph following this is purely subjective and uses nothing but comparatives. it is very, very FAR from 'perfectly defined'.

I'll say it again.

Precise benchmarks for what each intelligence score can do that the one below it cannot. Not 'less likely', not 'more difficult', not 'might', but CANNOT. That is what 'perfectly defined' means.

Strength is perfectly defined. See that chart of carrying capacity? Str X cannot carry as much weight as Str X+1. Unless you can provide a chart with cold, hard, statistical data like that for INT, you got nothin'.

Intelligence is inherently subjective look up the theory of multiple intelligence's and read about how imprecise the use of IQ is to measure intelligence. When you find a way to provide a cold hard statistical chart for human intelligence come back, until then, "you got nothin'"

Thank you for agreeing with me that placing RP restrictions on a character due to low INT is wrong. I appreciate it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TrollingJoker wrote:
Actually comparing the sorcerer with the village idiot would backfire on us. They would first compare to a standard commoner and after comparing to the village idiot, they would probably conclude that if he's the village idiot then he's the retard and therefore unable to do worthwhile things. Said a bit extreme though but I think they would react similar to that.

Then there is no helping them. Nothing in his plan was complicated in the least. It's something I'd expect my animal companion could do let alone a fellow player.

If you're looking for a RAW type answer, then I'll agree with Krith. The only thing I'd differ in is that I'd be upset that the OTHER players are metagaming and complaining about a stat they shouldn't know anything about.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
4 int isn't unbelievably low. Its statted by Paizo as the common village idiot. Capable of taking directions, doing odd jobs, being a functional member of society but generally lacking in alot of skill to take their own initiative.

Taking initiative isn't covered by int. It is covered by a stat paired to dex (how fast you are) and the player's decision-making abilities separate from the stats (a decisive player can make a fool very decisive with a great sense of timing and no rounds wasted). Int also doesn't cover common sense or judgement, which is wisdom and the player's choices. Int also doesn't cover social intelligence, persuasion, personal charm or saying the right thing at the right time, that is charisma and social skills. Skills in the sense of skill points and capacities is linked to intelligence, but also to your class - a dumb rogue has far more capabilities and skill points than a dumb fighter.


Bandw2 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:

Stats should never affect roleplaying period - unless the roleplayer wants them to.

There are ALREADY mechanical penalties in place for low stats, people don't need to invent more.

Except they aren't really for mental stats. Sure if you want to know if you are strong enough to lift a box, there's a chart you can check; stomach a poison, there's a DC for that; conceive of a plan, that's just a judgement call.

Int does effect things, very specifically, skill points and all the int based skills, and ability to spell cast with a int based caster class. Int does not effect anything other than that. Low int doesn't necessitate stupidity.

Int is VERY clearly defined, it effects skill points, and since judgement IS NOT A SKILL CHECK int has no effect on it.

Yep, quite right.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If we step back from the word "intelligence" for a bit, let's consider the things INT affects: knowledge-based skills, appraise, craft, linguistics, spellcraft, languages and how many skill ranks you gain per level.

The description in the CRB is "how your character learns and reasons".

Being 'dumb' is one way to explain a deficiency in these areas, but hardly the only one. A learning disability such as dyslexia or dysgraphia could explain why you have a hard time with scholarly skills, for example. Just being flat-out lazy, or insisting on figuring out everything by yourself can explain why you're slow to learn new things.

For what it's worth, in my games having a low intelligence means whatever you want it to mean for your character. As long as you follow the mechanical restrictions of your ability scores, I'm not going to tell you how to play your own character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I do not believe that a low intelligence score equates to a mental disability at all. Mental disability would be a disease or an affliction of some kind operating independently of the actual intelligence score.

Think about it. A character with 3 intelligence (-4 modifier) is only 20% less likely to succeed at any intelligence-based task than a normal 10 intelligence character, given everything else is the same. That means in five rolls, the low intelligence character fails, on average, one additional time than the average character.

The genius-level character is ONLY 40% more likely to succeed at an intelligence-based task, given all other variables are the same.

Even 3 intelligence is hardly incapable.

I think the ability score modifiers and lack of skills more than covers the drawbacks necessary to represent a "dimwit." Leave the player to roleplay it as he sees fit: Perhaps he is a perfectly ordinary adventurer, but takes MUCH longer to read out a paragraph of text, or perform a mathematical calculation correctly. Perhaps he has am extremely limited vocabulary (Hodor comes to mind). Perhaps he is a simple huntsman who knows the local paths and survival, but has limited experience with anything outside his domain. Perhaps he's a hot-headed punk prone to act rashly without thinking things through first. There are plenty of ways to describe a low-intellect without resorting to making up new rules.

I agree with Zhayne. There's NEVER a good reason to harass another player.


i agree with Zhayne and RavingDork

we can't measure what an individual of a given intelligence score can do because intelligence is subjective, just like appearance is subjective. one guy might like the barely 5 foot tall and barely 100 pound nymph in the fancy black dress and another guy might like the beefy battle scarred 8 foot tall amazoness. just as there is no universal standard of beauty, there is no universal standard of intellect.


Ravingdork wrote:


Think about it. A character with 3 intelligence (-4 modifier) is only 20% less likely to succeed at any intelligence-based task than a normal 10 intelligence character, given everything else is the same.

Repeating this statement does not make it less false.

You're not allowing for the take 10 mechanic.

A person with intelligence 10 will, if not under stress, succeed 100% of the time on an DC 10 knowledge check. A person with intelligence 4 will need to roll a 13 or better in order to succeed, meaning that he will succeed approximately 40% of the time.

That's not 20% less chance to succeed -- that's 60% chance less to succeed.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A fair point, Orfamay. It also doesn't really account for lack of skill ranks and other variables. Truth is, all other variables being the same is highly unlikely, particularly in regards to skills.

Nevertheless, I think it a true statement that many people tend to overestimate what the penalty represents.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:


Think about it. A character with 3 intelligence (-4 modifier) is only 20% less likely to succeed at any intelligence-based task than a normal 10 intelligence character, given everything else is the same.

Repeating this statement does not make it less false.

You're not allowing for the take 10 mechanic.

A person with intelligence 10 will, if not under stress, succeed 100% of the time on an DC 10 knowledge check. A person with intelligence 4 will need to roll a 13 or better in order to succeed, meaning that he will succeed approximately 40% of the time.

That's not 20% less chance to succeed -- that's 60% chance less to succeed.

which would be useful if reasoning was a check, but it is not. you can still walk fine with a low dexterity, you can still not die randomly for having a low con.

Once again, this modifier is simply negated by having it as a class skill...


Bandw2 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:


Think about it. A character with 3 intelligence (-4 modifier) is only 20% less likely to succeed at any intelligence-based task than a normal 10 intelligence character, given everything else is the same.

Repeating this statement does not make it less false.

You're not allowing for the take 10 mechanic.

A person with intelligence 10 will, if not under stress, succeed 100% of the time on an DC 10 knowledge check. A person with intelligence 4 will need to roll a 13 or better in order to succeed, meaning that he will succeed approximately 40% of the time.

That's not 20% less chance to succeed -- that's 60% chance less to succeed.

which would be useful if reasoning was a check, but it is not.

No, but basic knowledge is. Want to know how many centimeters in an meter? Intelligence-based check. Want to know the the name of the next village over? Intelligence-based check. Want to know the name of the village reeve? Intelligence-based check.

Quote:


Once again, this modifier is simply negated by having it as a class skill...

Only if you put a skill point into it. You don't get the +3 on an untrained skill.

And for simple ability checks, for which the take 10 rules also apply, there is no "class skill" bonus.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
No, but basic knowledge is.

Basic knowledge does not exist within the rules. Common knowledge, on the other hand, is generally considered DC 10--which is unfortunate for anyone taking 10 with a penalty.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Want to know how many centimeters in an meter? Intelligence-based check.

Sure, if the GM called for such a check at all. It may well be assumed that everyone with any kind of education knows it (but see common knowledge above).

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Want to know the the name of the next village over? Intelligence-based check.

More likely a Gather Information check, Knowledge (local), or Knowledge (geography) check.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Want to know the name of the village reeve? Intelligence-based check.

More likely a Gather Information check, Knowledge (local) check, or Knowledge (nobility) check (assuming it's nobility--I'm not really sure what a reeve is).

Orfamay Quest wrote:
And for simple ability checks, for which the take 10 rules also apply, there is no "class skill" bonus.

Nevertheless, I think you are overestimating how common ability checks are. I almost never have need to call for them as most things are already covered by existing rules (as shown above).


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

there's no rules for intelligence based checks for common knowledge. If we're going completely by the books, you have to be trained in a knowledge skill to roll at all, so most people apparently don't know meters to centimeters unless they have a rank in knowledge engineering or something. I mean most people probably don't know what a fork is with out knowledge(cutlery) right?

also, the skill ranks thing was the point, just 1 levels worth of effort and it's recovered from. If int 4 makes you mentally deficient, class skill bonuses must make you a genius in that field...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There is clearly a point where calling for such checks crosses over into the absurd. What's not so clear to some, however, is where that line is. Hence the existence of this thread.


Bandw2 wrote:
there's no rules for intelligence based checks for common knowledge. If we're going completely by the books, you have to be trained in a knowledge skill to roll at all, so most people apparently don't know meters to centimeters unless they have a rank in knowledge engineering or something. I mean most people probably don't know what a fork is with out knowledge(cutlery) right?

Nope. Knowledge checks of DC 10 or less, which is "common knowledge" are explicitly permitted to be made untrained.

... which accurately reflects the fact that almost everyone in the village knows the name of the reeve, except for the real dullard who in all likelihood does not.


Ravingdork wrote:


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Want to know the the name of the next village over? Intelligence-based check.

More likely a Gather Information check, Knowledge (local), or Knowledge (geography) check.

Thank you for proving my point. Knowledge (all sorts) is an Intelligence-based check, and if you don't have a high-enough intelligence, you can't take 10 on it and have a better than 50/50 chance of not knowing.

And Gather Information? Yes, that's not hampered by intelligence, but that's also an explicit admission that the character doesn't know and has to ask someone. (Hence is "gathering" the information from someone else.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I wasn't attempting to prove that it wasn't intelligence-based, only that it isn't necessarily an ability check.

A GM asking for an ability check he know will fail when a skill check (which may or may not succeed itself) covers it just fine is being disingenuous to his players.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

knowing a near by site is a DC 20 geometry check...

I actually don't see how any of these supposed checks are DC 10... at worst, they'd be 5 or 0, there's not any rules on how to set the DC of an extremely easily known feature. what's the name of the common house hold utensil, is not the same difficulty as "Recognize a common deity's symbol or clergy". Anyway, under your rules, this means anyone who has 8 or lower suddenly can't name their own town, or even remember the definitions for most words.

I still don't see how simple reasoning is related to int.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Knowledge (geography): DC 20 - Know location of nearest community or noteworthy site.

Wow. That seems overly high. I'm guessing that's for when you're in the middle of nowhere, such as in a foreign land, not when you are in your own hometown.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

Knowledge (geography): DC 20 - Know location of nearest community or noteworthy site.

Wow. That seems overly high.

in ye olde medieval times, serfs weren't allowed to move to different cities.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:


Think about it. A character with 3 intelligence (-4 modifier) is only 20% less likely to succeed at any intelligence-based task than a normal 10 intelligence character, given everything else is the same.

Repeating this statement does not make it less false.

You're not allowing for the take 10 mechanic.

A person with intelligence 10 will, if not under stress, succeed 100% of the time on an DC 10 knowledge check. A person with intelligence 4 will need to roll a 13 or better in order to succeed, meaning that he will succeed approximately 40% of the time.

That's not 20% less chance to succeed -- that's 60% chance less to succeed.

That is merely a result of game consideration, Take 10 is in the game purely so that players can avoid failing skill checks that they'd make unless they roll very poorly. A person with an INT 4 has only a 30% change to roll a 10 compared to a person with an INT of 10 who has a 50% chance to roll a 10 - which is not all that different.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Knowledge (geography): DC 20 - Know location of nearest community or noteworthy site.

Wow. That seems overly high.

in ye olde medieval times, serfs weren't allowed to move to different cities.

Fantasy does not necessarily =/= ye old medieval times though. I imagine even many serfs knew the immediate settlements North, South, East, and West of their own though. Otherwise, trade would prove most difficult.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CommandoDude wrote:

Stats should never affect roleplaying period - unless the roleplayer wants them to.

There are ALREADY mechanical penalties in place for low stats, people don't need to invent more.

Roleplaying low stats as average or better is like ignoring the fact that you're missing an arm and expecting to wield two handed weapons as normal. The problem with Pathfinder/3.x is that the skill modifiers can dwarf the modifiers for actual mental or physical ability. And there are players more than willing to cheese with those mechanics.

A person with a 4 int isn't Einstein. There are reasons that I put floor limits as to how low a character stat can go. This thread exemplifies them.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Knowledge (geography): DC 20 - Know location of nearest community or noteworthy site.

Wow. That seems overly high.

in ye olde medieval times, serfs weren't allowed to move to different cities.
Fantasy does not necessarily =/= ye old medieval times though. I imagine even many serfs knew the immediate settlements North, South, East, and West of their own though. Otherwise, trade would prove most difficult.

serfs didn't trade, they brought their goods to the castle and then the nobility used it or traded it. Usually traveling merchants would buy stuff from the castle and sell it somewhere else.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That seems like a little bit of an exaggeration, LazarX.

This too, is why I use point buy. The "floor" is built in.


Lifat wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
JustSomeRandomCommoner wrote:


Low intelligence sounds more like the definition of being "slow": on equal skill ranks and bonuses (so equal effort on the topic), the character will have less chances to remember things they both studied. But you can still work in society, everybody knows "that dumb person" that got a college degree... Why should he not work fine in sosciety?

Because "that dumb person" who got a college degree doesn't have an IQ of 50; he's probably got an IQ of 90 or so.

I'm not entirely convinced that you understand the full range of human intelligence. I'm sure that you don't actually know how disabling an IQ of 50 is.

Why do you define 4 INT as IQ 50? JSRC wrote about how wolves with an INT of 2 could do some rather complex tactical work... Why shouldn't someone with double the INT be able to do something much more complex? The task that was described by OP doesn't sound that complex to me.

There is an assumption that intelligence among wolves and intelligence among humanoids is analogous. I'd argue that is not true. Our quantative annalysis of intellect involves numerous processes tha are not applicable to wolves.

Wolves can perform complicated group tactics. They can communicate among one another using a relatively complex system. they could arguably "play a hunch" based on deductive thought.
They do not perform creative expression using interpretive dance, visual mediums like sculpture, painting etc. There is no known fictional storytelling among them. They do have a type of music perhaps.
Wolves can't use magic, either inherently or learned. They lack opposable thumbs and generally are not tool users. They have no written language and only the most limited form of culture, similar to a humanoid tribal group. There is no higher civilization among wolves unless you house rule wolves to be similar to Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time Wolves (who are smarter than many humans and in all likely hood aligned).

All of this feeds into an average INT value for a wolf or an octopus or an canary.

Stat values are an abstraction in d20, just like HP, or AC. It's a simplification for mechanical ease of play. All of those abstractions go sideways the further you get from basic Human norms. The strength of gorillas is inadequate, the intelligence of Aboleths is inadequate and in all likelihood, the AC of dragons is inadequate. The mental stats of animals aren't exactly balanced with humans and it's unfair to animals and humans to jet them as approximations.
Upthread someone uses a human baby as another example of low intelligence. I'd disagree with this as well. Not that a baby has learned much compared to an adult but studies in the modern world have shown that babies learn much faster than adults. In the first 5 years of a human life they learn and even master some of the most complex tasks they will eventually know. It's not that babies have low intelligence, it's that they haven't yet achieved the potential of their intelligence.
Some of the smartest people in our world make breakthroughs at relatively young ages, especially in the field of mathematics. If the d20, age based, stat progression were perfect that wouldn't be the case.

The flip side of that is that a modern low IQ value is truly debilitating because the full potential is hit early perhaps as early as 4 or 5. That's the point where new skills stop being learned or learning slows down to a point that it's advancement is basically imperceptible. Anyone who has owned several dogs will tell you that they sometimes can learn new tricks.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:

Stats should never affect roleplaying period - unless the roleplayer wants them to.

There are ALREADY mechanical penalties in place for low stats, people don't need to invent more.

Roleplaying low stats as average or better is like ignoring the fact that you're missing an arm and expecting to wield two handed weapons as normal. The problem with Pathfinder/3.x is that the skill modifiers can dwarf the modifiers for actual mental or physical ability. And there are players more than willing to cheese with those mechanics.

A person with a 4 int isn't Einstein. There are reasons that I put floor limits as to how low a character stat can go. This thread exemplifies them.

they aren't Einstein but they aren't some Idiot. Actual mental problems would have to be covered with a disease or insanity. Int has no effect on ones reasoning skills.

Int has a very specific lined out effect just like strength or missing an arm, but people seem to want it to effect more than what the rules say it effects.


LazarX wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:

Stats should never affect roleplaying period - unless the roleplayer wants them to.

There are ALREADY mechanical penalties in place for low stats, people don't need to invent more.

Roleplaying low stats as average or better is like ignoring the fact that you're missing an arm and expecting to wield two handed weapons as normal. The problem with Pathfinder/3.x is that the skill modifiers can dwarf the modifiers for actual mental or physical ability. And there are players more than willing to cheese with those mechanics.

A person with a 4 int isn't Einstein. There are reasons that I put floor limits as to how low a character stat can go. This thread exemplifies them.

Like I said. If you're expecting a low int to be crippling to a warrior, I'll expect to see Wizards in wheel chairs from now on due to low str.

Anything that impairs roleplaying is stupid in my book, and that includes other players saying "You can't do that your character is too stupid" Besides which, as has been pointed out, Low intelligence is already modeled in Skill Point loss.

101 to 150 of 464 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Dispute over a character with low int All Messageboards