Dispute over a character with low int


Advice

251 to 300 of 464 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

graystone wrote:
zagnabbit wrote:
disruptive element
You mean like the metagaming players that got annoyed that the 4 int player should have more negatives that the game says he should? Yeah, kick them to the curb...

of course, the same elitists who metagamed the sorcerer's intelligence he gained through bad luck.

it wasn't the sorcerer not following the by the book penalties in the OP, it was the group trying to give him extra negatives for a 4 intelligence. knowledge checks aside, back to the original topic, those metagaming players should be glad the sorcerer saved them, and if they tried to enforce those penalties, they would have been stuck inside that cell.

knowing the keys unlock the prison cells is a matter of wisdom, and so is getting the key into the hole. but we tend to mix up academics and common sense because to make a 3rd mental stat when they could have used two, they tried to create a wisdom stat by siphoning parts of intellect and charisma. but mental stat bonuses and penalties are defined, just not the properties of the mental stats themselves. kind of confusing to know what is intelligence and what is wisdom.


This is as much a play style difference as rules issue.

Arguing the nature of intelligence is like arguing the nature of Lawful Good.
Opinions will vary.


i think metagaming that the sorcerer has a 4 intelligence and trying to apply an extra set of penalties based on some contrived sense of fridge logic because i'm not pleased with the book would hurt my sense of enjoyment. this is why i hate sharing my character sheet with other players, i like performing that surprise reveal, and well, i find nothing wrong with a certain cute yet timid sylph with social anxiety disorder who has a 7 charisma. i wanted to make a timid street magician, so i lowered her charisma to represent her lower confidence, but the low charisma is to represent her lack of confidence, this was an additional action on my part that wasn't required. but she is just a young carnival magician with a knife, so i play her as very self demeaning, because it has no impact on her ability to solve problems or perform basic tasks.

a lack of common sense should be a purely descriptive thing chosen by the player for improving his or her enjoyment. it shouldn't be forced on a player to punish them for things the dice saddled their character with.


zagnabbit wrote:

This is as much a play style difference as rules issue.

Arguing the nature of intelligence is like arguing the nature of Lawful Good.
Opinions will vary.

it is an issue because the players metagamed them moment they saw the sorcerer's character sheet and said "you have a 4 intelligence, you shouldn't have done that"

it is a playstyle difference indeed, and a reason that players should not be able to peek at each other's character sheets on a whim. and definitely not when they returned from the act of grabbing a beer from the fridge.

but it is definitely a playstyle difference, more than it is a rules issue. because there is no way to really quantify intelligence. we just know that you can get really good grades in modern schools by being really good about regurgitating information provided to you from external sources, doesn't mean you are smart, just that you can regurgitate external information.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

we should ban intelligences above 11 since it's impossible for players to accurately have the player mimic 18 intelligence.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
zagnabbit wrote:

This is as much a play style difference as rules issue.

Arguing the nature of intelligence is like arguing the nature of Lawful Good.
Opinions will vary.

except this isn't about the nature of intelligence >_>

real world intelligence and game intelligence are not connected IN ANY WAY.


Most game issues are playstyle differences.

When we have a joiner, they are amazed at all the skill checks. We RP haggling gear purchases and loot sales, but at least 2 players are seriously into that.

We still do basic ability checks even at high levels where they usually disappear under the stat boosting item ubiquity.

We also have a high casualty rate which is shocking to some players when someone does something that is almost certainly suicide from a meta standpoint. Meta thinking is inevitable given the nature of the medium but it can create problems. We long ago agreed that PC death is to be expected given the situations involved and that a Good Death is worth 10 mediocre victories.

Grand Lodge

This is really not about rules.

No rules cover this.

This is about fellow players being serious dicks.

What you need, is some good advice on how to handle this.

Flagged.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
zagnabbit wrote:

Most game issues are playstyle differences.

When we have a joiner, they are amazed at all the skill checks. We RP haggling gear purchases and loot sales, but at least 2 players are seriously into that.

We still do basic ability checks even at high levels where they usually disappear under the stat boosting item ubiquity.

We also have a high casualty rate which is shocking to some players when someone does something that is almost certainly suicide from a meta standpoint. Meta thinking is inevitable given the nature of the medium but it can create problems. We long ago agreed that PC death is to be expected given the situations involved and that a Good Death is worth 10 mediocre victories.

while nice, still has nothing to do with how you don't roll for basic everyday knowledge.


It's about playstyles while using houserules I guess.


The style difference comes from what constitutes basic everyday knowledge.

For characters in a world without tv, Internet and even easy access to the printing press that basic knowledge shrinks. Now remove free, cumpulsory education and basic knowledge shrinks even further. Remove geographic mobility and turn a trip of 100 miles into a major life event and knowledge shrinks. Add in healthy doses of superstition and ready amounts of prejudice and not only is basic knowledge smaller but what does exist may in fact be outright wrong, even if it's known.

Lots of games have a common world wide language and libraries full of books in even tiny villages but that is not always a default assumption. Different games are different.


Knowledge checks aren't houserules.
You can argue all day that a PC should know something but the GM makes that call.

If your background specifically spells out what you know, great. If you got screwed by dice and have a 4 INT that may not be much, if somehow your rich parents overcame your staggering divine punishment through rigorous schooling, ok. It's not going to be cool with everyone's playstyle and the person that controls most of the rolling is just as much a player at the table.

Spell this stuff out ahead of time. In the open, with everyone's input.
Disconnecting stats and RP is fine, if everyone is onboard. So is playing without stats entirely (it's also way easier to do the math for basically everything, especially the GM side of things).


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
zagnabbit wrote:

Knowledge checks aren't houserules.

You can argue all day that a PC should know something but the GM makes that call.

we've been arguing whether or not things like "what is a fork?", "where is my house?", "what day is after monday?", "what is the name of the ruler of the town I've lived in for most of my life?".

these aren't under the domain of knowledge checks, none of them (except possibly local and the ruler thing) are under the domain of learned knowledge, which is all that the knowledge skills cover.

the game defers knowledge on other more practical things(knowledge more learned from experience than training to master the knowledge of it) to profession(X), which is a Wisdom skill...

>_> knowledge checks aren't house rules yes, but applying them to the above questions IS. Once again knowledge checks do not have the domain of memory, they are what you have learned.

this isn't about play style, this is about the rules. We're in the rules section of the board, not advice.


I watch Jimmy Kimmel and Jay Leno interview people on the street all the time. They can't name their governor, congressman, mayor or the vice president. Sometimes they can't name the sitting POTUS. That's not unlikely in Absolom either.

Knowing the name of the local Ruler is a DC 10 Knowledge:Local check. Knowledge is a Trained Only skill. So for a character to even make that check by RAW they gotta have a rank.
Now I will concede your point that the knowledge skills are written from an outsider's standpoint but that is not actually how they are written. If the rules are followed exactly as written; the PC may not actually know the mayor's name.

I didn't say that a low stat character couldn't identify a fork, I said he may not have the linguistic skills to name it on command. Not the same thing.
The character can speak the Common Tongue; but nowhere does it elaborate how extensive that linguistic skill is. He may know the word King but not the word Monarch.

I know the word Antidisestablishmentarianism but I don't actually know what it means.

The Online document doesn't cover much on Intelligence beyond saying that it governs the ability to Learn and Reason. Then what it's mod effects.

Yes it's the Rule Section.
There are virtually no rules for Role Playing. Aside from the mechanics of Alignment.

Alignment is often reviled for that reason.
So it's an issue of playstyle. I've played in games where not one person spoke In Character for 3 hours. I've played in games where you couldn't speak Out of Character to anyone other than the DM nor could you speak if it wasn't your turn during combat. Lots of things are only lightly touched on other things are incredibly specific.

We can't perfectly model real life with RPG rules, heck we barely model fantasy life with RPG rules. Comparing Jump Skill to Olympic Athletes shows failings in the model. Falling out of a 3rd story window shows a failing in the model. Watch some FreeDiving what's that guys CON score?

"Dude, Where is my House" is a valid issue for a low WIS character.

I went to Savannah GA on a spring break years ago. I drove my cousin to the mall. She was 16, had gone to that mall twice a week for years and didn't know how to get there. Years later she still gets lost on the way to the mall; but she's got a PHD and can answer the most arcane trivia. She's not well modeled by a low WIS stat either. Her sense of direction is just terrible but her Sense Motive is never off.


Bandw2 wrote:
we should ban intelligences above 11 since it's impossible for players to accurately have the player mimic 18 intelligence.

It is n impossible, however, to at last _try_.

A bit of a fallacy to say "if I can't get it perfect I shouldn't have to even make a half-***** attempt."


Bandw2 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

A low force of personality is easier overrun by a strong force of personality. Naturally.

But a five charisma probably isn't going to be charming, debonaire, suave and the like regardless of if they go through the mechanical motions. They just wouldn't have that 'it' factor.

sure he can be though, he just has some critical self image flaw maybe, or people can easily see him for how shallow he is.

moving off onto another topic, how do people handle an int 4 character with 20 ranks in knowledge(arcana) though?

If they are easily seeing through it then he isn't being that charming, suave, debonaire etcetera. He just thinks he is. He might be going through the mechanical motions, but the there is not there. There is no sizzle to the steak. No pepper to the corn. No whistle to the dog. No Miao to the cat. No dodge to the ball ...

so? beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

and zagnabbit, I think you have it confused, the person WITH low charisma is himself easier to use diplomacy on.

on and someone with social anxiety disorder i think would be harder to make your friend, so they would probably actually have an above average charisma and simply not like USING diplomacy or otherwise to make people interact with him. Mechanically any time he would roll he would opt for an automatic failure, which you can do in the rules.

Beauty may be in the eyes of the beholder, and he wouldn't have to be ugly ... But by definition he would NOT be charming,suave, debonaire ... There would be something off about him, whether in words, body language - what have you.

Whatever 'it' is, the character absolutely, rues wise does not have it.

Just like a 4 int, 12 wis, 17 cha is not going to, period, be a tactical genius ... But more like a slightly above average person with a severe learning disability. (Wisdom and charisma above average, int very low)


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
zagnabbit wrote:


Knowing the name of the local Ruler is a DC 10 Knowledge:Local check.
Bandw2 wrote:


(except possibly local and the ruler thing)
zagnabbit wrote:


Knowledge is a Trained Only skill. So for a character to even make that check by RAW they gotta have a rank.
Knowledge wrote:


You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10.
zagnabbit wrote:


Now I will concede your point that the knowledge skills are written from an outsider's standpoint but that is not actually how they are written. If the rules are followed exactly as written; the PC may not actually know the mayor's name.

RAI the stuff is written with no back story in mind, and knowing the name of the mayor of the town you lived in for a while, is not an academic thing you'd learn or not learn.

zagnabbit wrote:


I didn't say that a low stat character couldn't identify a fork, I said he may not have the linguistic skills to name it on command. Not the same thing.

that was that other guy, and he does have the linguistic skill, since every awakened creature gets a free language that he can read and write in.

zagnabbit wrote:


The character can speak the Common Tongue; but nowhere does it elaborate how extensive that linguistic skill is. He may know the word King but not the word Monarch.

if it isn't written down then there's nothing stopping him from knowing it.

zagnabbit wrote:


I know the word Antidisestablishmentarianism but I don't actually know what it means.

It's a word for the political movement to end the Church of England's non-connection with the pope.

zagnabbit wrote:


The Online document doesn't cover much on Intelligence beyond saying that it governs the ability to Learn and Reason. Then what it's mod effects.

Yes it's the Rule Section.

If the rules don't have a section for how intelligence effects a character, then guess what, there aren't any rules for it, so by RAW there is no limit.

zagnabbit wrote:


There are virtually no rules for Role Playing. Aside from the mechanics of Alignment. Alignment is often reviled for that reason.
So it's an issue of playstyle. I've played in games where not one person spoke In Character for 3 hours. I've played in games where you couldn't speak Out of Character to anyone other than the DM nor could you speak if it wasn't your turn during combat. Lots of things are only lightly touched on other things are incredibly specific.

I don't really understand how alignment is a problem other than paladins who have a good over the top where they cannot do an evil act or lose all their powers.

the rest of the paragraph(and post) doesn't really pertain to anything having to do with how the knowledge skill behaves or how the rules limit a character with low int.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

A low force of personality is easier overrun by a strong force of personality. Naturally.

But a five charisma probably isn't going to be charming, debonaire, suave and the like regardless of if they go through the mechanical motions. They just wouldn't have that 'it' factor.

sure he can be though, he just has some critical self image flaw maybe, or people can easily see him for how shallow he is.

moving off onto another topic, how do people handle an int 4 character with 20 ranks in knowledge(arcana) though?

If they are easily seeing through it then he isn't being that charming, suave, debonaire etcetera. He just thinks he is. He might be going through the mechanical motions, but the there is not there. There is no sizzle to the steak. No pepper to the corn. No whistle to the dog. No Miao to the cat. No dodge to the ball ...

so? beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

and zagnabbit, I think you have it confused, the person WITH low charisma is himself easier to use diplomacy on.

on and someone with social anxiety disorder i think would be harder to make your friend, so they would probably actually have an above average charisma and simply not like USING diplomacy or otherwise to make people interact with him. Mechanically any time he would roll he would opt for an automatic failure, which you can do in the rules.

Beauty may be in the eyes of the beholder, and he wouldn't have to be ugly ... But by definition he would NOT be charming,suave, debonaire ... There would be something off about him, whether in words, body language - what have you.

Whatever 'it' is, the character absolutely, rues wise does not have it.

Just like a 4 int, 12 wis, 17 cha is not going to, period, be a tactical genius ... But more like a slightly above average person with a severe learning disability. (Wisdom and charisma above average, int very low)

Natsu from fairy tail is a good example of a tactical "genius" for someone with an arguably low "intelligence" score(if we're trying to apply stats to personality).

people who are obviously doing something non-friendly to your pals are non-friends and so he followed them since he thought that getting noticed by them would be a bad idea, and later was able to find the keys (also not really all that require intelligence) and knew he could open his pal's doors.

once again this is even if you're still trying to apply stats to personality.


zagnabbit wrote:
Ah. Ok gotcha. This discussion moved so fast I failed my will save.

Tell me about it. I leave this thread for one night and you guys talk a full three pages during that time haha. I'm rereading this like crazy ^^

Ravingdork wrote:
zagnabbit wrote:
I've never seen a character with a 4 CON score survive more than 3 game sessions.
I've played a sorcerer that survived from 1st-level to level 10 on less than 30 hit points. In the end, she was lost not due to an enemy attack, but due to a betrayal of her PC allies (they feared the low-constitution crone would soon succeed at becoming a lich).

Aside from the stats thing and all. By chance he has the highest HP of all . Even higher than our tanky characters. 77 HP on character lvl 7 if I recall? He's often lucky to roll high on HP rolls and the d12 of Dragon Disciple helps a lot.

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

Per SRD:

"Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. "

"Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition."

1) How did this guy get 4 INT? In 3.5, 4 int was considered severe learning disabled but *not* special services. This sort of situation is a good example of why re-rolling absurdly low stats is a good idea, and actually suggested by the SRD and Core Rulebook as well.

2) Does the player properly roleplay the intelligence in other cases? By the way, he should *not* get any skill ranks beyond 1 per level, RAW. Might want to audit the character if you really are the DM of this group.

3) As you can see above, situational awareness, perception, intuition and "hiding the keys" plus "following his friends" are all easily covered by WIS rather than INT. INT would be more like knowledge about the prison, guards, logical deduction and so forth.

Sounds like the rest of the party is a bit butthurt they got captured. Any item he is carrying, hidden or not, becomes invisible per SRD. It also lasts 1 min/caster level. (Guards still get opposed Perception to see him, plus he can be heard as normal)

Why would the guards have had the keys off their body, though? He'd need a Sleight of Hand to actually grab the keys from the guards pocket or from their person. Frankly I'd call BS on him just magically grabbing them too, both as a DM and a player.

Well like I said, his other stats were fine so the DM didn't see a need to reroll.

He mostly RP's an idiotic character which sometimes does something completely random. For example at every end of his turn he starts to dance. Also he only gets 2 ranks per level. One from the low int and the other because he chose skill ranks instead of HP or favored class bonus.

Oh and he did sleight of hand the keys. He has a decent amount of dex so by default he has a decent change of not failing that.

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

What I would question is logistically, how does the Sorcerer follow the party, they get booked, paperwork done, locked up and then the guard goes away... all within the duration of 1 invisibility spell.

Then again we aren't getting all the details here I think (or it's buried in the thread, which I have not read all of).

Actually the DM didn't bother with paperwork and everything. It wasn't that big of a sophisticated society where the team was. And they were standing close to the jail by chance. So he just literally throwed them in jail over the span of a minute or three. Which at least gave him enough time to move.


Bandw2 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

A low force of personality is easier overrun by a strong force of personality. Naturally.

But a five charisma probably isn't going to be charming, debonaire, suave and the like regardless of if they go through the mechanical motions. They just wouldn't have that 'it' factor.

sure he can be though, he just has some critical self image flaw maybe, or people can easily see him for how shallow he is.

moving off onto another topic, how do people handle an int 4 character with 20 ranks in knowledge(arcana) though?

If they are easily seeing through it then he isn't being that charming, suave, debonaire etcetera. He just thinks he is. He might be going through the mechanical motions, but the there is not there. There is no sizzle to the steak. No pepper to the corn. No whistle to the dog. No Miao to the cat. No dodge to the ball ...

so? beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

and zagnabbit, I think you have it confused, the person WITH low charisma is himself easier to use diplomacy on.

on and someone with social anxiety disorder i think would be harder to make your friend, so they would probably actually have an above average charisma and simply not like USING diplomacy or otherwise to make people interact with him. Mechanically any time he would roll he would opt for an automatic failure, which you can do in the rules.

Beauty may be in the eyes of the beholder, and he wouldn't have to be ugly ... But by definition he would NOT be charming,suave, debonaire ... There would be something off about him, whether in words, body language - what have you.

Whatever 'it' is, the character absolutely, rues wise does not have it.

Just like a 4 int, 12 wis, 17 cha is not going to, period, be a tactical genius ... But more like a slightly above average person with a severe learning disability. (Wisdom and charisma above average, int very low)

Natsu from fairy...

For the record I am fine with the acrivities of the player in question. Just find annoying the 'super low score should have no effect at all' attitude. No, it shouldn't be gm entorced, but I think its kinda cheesy to not try to make it have at least some effect on your character as a player.


zagnabbit wrote:
I'm not sure where "Intellignce is purely academic" comes from.

It's based on the description of intelligence in the CRB (ability to learn and reason, both important academic qualities) and looking at the skills and abilities that intelligence modifies - all the skills are 'academic' in nature.

I think a lot of the disconnect is with the name of the attribute, since intelligence is a very broad term and used differently by different people. Going purely by the things intelligence modifies it might be more accurate being called 'studied' or 'educated'.

P.s. apologies in advance for typing or editing mistakes. On holiday atm so typing this up via phone.


Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:


it wasn't the sorcerer not following the by the book penalties in the OP, it was the group trying to give him extra negatives for a 4 intelligence. knowledge checks aside, back to the original topic, those metagaming players should be glad the sorcerer saved them, and if they tried to enforce those penalties, they would have been stuck inside that cell.

Well actually turned out that our Barbarian would have been able to bull rush the door out because he threw a critical. Which alerted a few guards. So they would have been able to break themselves out maybe. We didn't know that at the time.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

This is really not about rules.

No rules cover this.

This is about fellow players being serious dicks.

What you need, is some good advice on how to handle this.

Flagged.

I don't see why this should be flagged. I already explained at the beginning of this thread how I chose to post this in Rules Questions because I wanted a couple of people to explain the definitions of int and wis and the related rules. If there aren't any rules that cover this then I did not know this at that time and I'd still want to know how the others view int and wis. Which is what is happening now on this thread.

Also, I also said that I gave the link to this thread to our DM. He told me that he got a lot of good suggestions from what people said here and will use a couple as a solution for this problem. The thread did its job and now we're mainly talking casually about the definitions because it's an interesting topic.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:
For the record I am fine with the acrivities of the player in question. Just find annoying the 'super low score should have no effect at all' attitude. No, it shouldn't be gm entorced, but I think its kinda cheesy to not try to make it have at least some effect on your character as a player.

as said in other areas, intelligence get's a bad rap for some reason 4 dex and 4 con both if treated how some people want for int, would be life threatening on a daily basis.


Wheldrake wrote:
HODOR!!!

Hodor is smarter than that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Vod Canockers wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
HODOR!!!
Hodor is smarter than that.

That's the whole point. Hodor functions in society, he is a valuable member of Bran's team. But his language skills are somewhat limited.

This player sounds like he would be far higher functioning than Hodor. With a 12 WIS and 19 CHA? That doesn't sound like Hodor at all.

The description of the INT score in the core rulebook makes it sound more like CoC's "EDU" characteristic. IT's how you "learn and reason" and "you can still read and speak your racial languages unless your Intelligence is lower than 3".

Personally, I have a problem with everyone in society being able to read, as general literacy doesn't correspond to my idea of the fantasy-medieval world. Then again, we don't usually pause to determine what socio-economic background each player has, which would play a greater role in reading ability than raw INT. But it does suggest that even INT 3 characters aren't drooling idiots. They are simply awful at learning and reasoning: they are set in their ways (doing things as they always have been done) and not amenable to changing their minds through logic.


A lot of people think INT 4 and imagine a hopeless simpleton. But someone like that would have low wisdom and charisma too. They wouldn't be good at bluffing or sensing motive or professions or any of those other mental skills. If you're going to role-play low intelligence without low wisdom in line with how it works in the rules, you should probably play it as some severe but specific learning difficulty - attention deficit disorder, or a form of amnesia - which makes it incredibly hard to learn new facts about which monsters are fire resistant or which holy symbol belongs to which god, but which in no way stops you being a good conversationalist who can hold down a job.


Soon we'll discuss the matter at hand and I'll let you guys know how it went.


I just want to toss out this list of animal tricks.

Everything on that list a creature with an INT of 2 can learn how to do. Especially relevant is the Liberator trick grouping.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
A GM is completely within his rights to demand of any character who dumped a stat that that character make a roll for an otherwise "routine" task that any normal person could make without trying. Trying to remember where you parked your car? Trying to open a jar of pickles? Trying to carry a plate of food without dropping it? All of these are simple checks that should be trivial but that are not trivial with bad stats.

Respectfully, I disagree. There are no rules anywhere saying you need to make checks for any of those things, regardless of what your stats may be. A GM asking for such checks is simply making up new rules out of thin air, quite possibly because they subconsciously want to punish the player for doing something different and unique, or consciously because it makes them feel more powerful and in control of the situation.

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider has the right of it: "Some of those checks are redundant and serve no purpose but to slow down table time by punishing a PC for taking a dump stat you don't approve of."

Blackbloodtroll seems to have a good grasp of the situation as well: "This is really not about rules. No rules cover this. This is about fellow players being serious dicks. What you need, is some good advice on how to handle this."

Zagnabbit and I disagree on a few of the finer points, but not the following: "Spell this stuff out ahead of time. In the open, with everyone's input. Disconnecting stats and RP is fine, if everyone is onboard. So is playing without stats entirely (it's also way easier to do the math for basically everything, especially the GM side of things)."

zagnabbit wrote:
Knowing the name of the local Ruler is a DC 10 Knowledge:Local check. Knowledge is a Trained Only skill. So for a character to even make that check by RAW they gotta have a rank.

Not quite correct I'm afraid. You can still make the check untrained, provided the DC is not higher than 10.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't like this kind of attitude.

I often play with a new player, here and there, and the one that would never do, is give them a hard time about RP.

Think about it. RP is hard. For some, it comes easy, and for others, not so much.
When it comes to someone who has little to no experience doing it, then the experience can be terrifying.

So, if what they are doing isn't hurting, or offending anyone, then why make a fuss?

What gets accomplished?

Did anyone start having more fun, because everyone ganged up to make sure the other player didn't "play too smart"?

Will this make later sessions more fun for anyone?

Was this even a problem, that needed a solution?

This isn't about rules at all. It is about a broken social contract.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I don't like this kind of attitude.

I often play with a new player, here and there, and the one that would never do, is give them a hard time about RP.

Think about it. RP is hard. For some, it comes easy, and for others, not so much.
When it comes to someone who has little to no experience doing it, then the experience can be terrifying.

So, if what they are doing isn't hurting, or offending anyone, then why make a fuss?

What gets accomplished?

Did anyone start having more fun, because everyone ganged up to make sure the other player didn't "play too smart"?

Will this make later sessions more fun for anyone?

Was this even a problem, that needed a solution?

This isn't about rules at all. It is about a broken social contract.

You are correct about it being a social thing but that is not why I started the topic. The reason I started it is because I wanted a clear rule definition of int and wis. To explain why I needed to know that, I gave insight to the situation we had. So the topic is about the rules but the topic shifted eventually.

Grand Lodge

Well, as many have stated, there are no rules governing how one must roleplay.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's also nothing that stops a DM from saying "your character is too stupid/unwise/uncharismatic to automagically think of a genius-level strategy or speech on his own". Roll intelligence check, or you can't do it. Roleplaying discretion stops at blatant metagaming IMNSHO

SRD wrote:

Metagaming

This is when characters act on information that they don’t have access to, but which their players know from the real world. Metagaming comes into play when players fail to maintain a divide between in-character knowledge and out-of-character knowledge. That could include anything from uncannily accurate in-character predictions from a player who’s already read the adventure, players recognizing monsters when their characters wouldn’t, low-Intelligence characters accessing well-educated players’ knowledge and talents, etc.

Emphasis mine. In OP's example, I think the guy didnt act inappropriately based on just this information. But pretending intelligence doesn't heavily influence knowledge and reasoning ability is just not the way that the game was constructed IMO.

Examples of creatures with 4 INT: Void Elemental, magical beasts (summoned) and Hill Giant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TrollingJoker wrote:
The reason I started it is because I wanted a clear rule definition of int and wis.

Ask and you shall receive:

Intelligence (Int)

Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. This ability is important for wizards because it affects their spellcasting ability in many ways. Creatures of animal-level instinct have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2. Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3. A character with an Intelligence score of 0 is comatose. Some creatures do not possess an Intelligence score. Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based skills or checks.

You apply your character's Intelligence modifier to:

- The number of bonus languages your character knows at the start of the game. These are in addition to any starting racial languages and Common. If you have a penalty, you can still read and speak your racial languages unless your Intelligence is lower than 3.
- The number of skill points gained each level, though your character always gets at least 1 skill point per level.
- Appraise, Craft, Knowledge, Linguistics, and Spellcraft checks.

A wizard gains bonus spells based on his Intelligence score. The minimum Intelligence score needed to cast a wizard spell is 10 + the spell's level.

Wisdom (Wis)

Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition. Wisdom is the most important ability for clerics and druids, and it is also important for paladins and rangers. If you want your character to have acute senses, put a high score in Wisdom. Every creature has a Wisdom score. A character with a Wisdom score of 0 is incapable of rational thought and is unconscious.

You apply your character's Wisdom modifier to:

- Will saving throws (for negating the effects of charm person and other spells).
- Heal, Perception, Profession, Sense Motive, and Survival checks.

Clerics, druids, and rangers get bonus spells based on their Wisdom scores. The minimum Wisdom score needed to cast a cleric, druid, or ranger spell is 10 + the spell's level.

And that's about all there is insofar as gaming definitions go.


mental stats are subjective. A low int high wisdom could be roleplayed as, as has been mentioned before, like Forrest Gump, while low wis high int could be roleplayed like Mister Monk (Smart as hell, but constantly getting sidetracked by OCD or some similar mental disorder, see http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/Monk for further info.)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elfguy wrote:
mental stats are subjective. A low int high wisdom could be roleplayed as, as has been mentioned before, like Forrest Gump, while low wis high int could be roleplayed like Mister Monk (Smart as hell, but constantly getting sidetracked by OCD or some similar mental disorder, see http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/Monk for further info.)

Yes and no. For roleplaying there is many ways to RP a low intelligence, but it is definitely a severe mental retardation. SRD says "Each character has six ability scores that represent his character's most basic attributes. They are his raw talent and prowess."

Intelligence "determines how well your character learns and reasons"

The most damning sentence is "Each ability score generally ranges from 3 to 18, although racial bonuses and penalties can alter this; an average ability score is 10. Each ability score generally ranges from 3 to 18"

"Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3"

This puts a 4 Intelligence at just above the minimum level for speech, and near the bottom end of human function, reflecting a very poor ability to learn and reason. It would represent a severe learning disability.

"Intelligence score of 1 or 2" is for animal. An intelligence of 4 is damn near special services, reflecting a poor raw talent for reasoning and for learning.

Dark Archive

Bandw2 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
For the record I am fine with the acrivities of the player in question. Just find annoying the 'super low score should have no effect at all' attitude. No, it shouldn't be gm entorced, but I think its kinda cheesy to not try to make it have at least some effect on your character as a player.
as said in other areas, intelligence get's a bad rap for some reason 4 dex and 4 con both if treated how some people want for int, would be life threatening on a daily basis.

The reason that low int gets a bad rap whereas low physical skills do not is because you don't have to RP the physical skills. I can be a weakling and have my character lift a 500 pound boulder. I could also be a weight lifter yet play a character that can't hold a backpack. However, it is difficult to "roll play" intelligence. For example, I am a fan of logic puzzles and me (as a person) can figure out logic traps and puzzles. However, my very low intelligent character should not necessarily be able to figure those out.

If you (the player) can lift a 200 pound weight, does your GM make your 4 strength weakling make a roll to see if your character can lift the same weight? If you (the player) know the answer to a puzzle/riddle, does your GM makes your 4 int dummy make a roll to see if he knows it?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
taldanrebel2187 wrote:
Elfguy wrote:
mental stats are subjective. A low int high wisdom could be roleplayed as, as has been mentioned before, like Forrest Gump, while low wis high int could be roleplayed like Mister Monk (Smart as hell, but constantly getting sidetracked by OCD or some similar mental disorder, see http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/Monk for further info.)

Yes and no. For roleplaying there is many ways to RP a low intelligence, but it is definitely a severe mental retardation. SRD says "Each character has six ability scores that represent his character's most basic attributes. They are his raw talent and prowess."

Intelligence "determines how well your character learns and reasons"

The most damning sentence is "Each ability score generally ranges from 3 to 18, although racial bonuses and penalties can alter this; an average ability score is 10. Each ability score generally ranges from 3 to 18"

"Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3"

This puts a 4 Intelligence at just above the minimum level for speech, and near the bottom end of human function, reflecting a very poor ability to learn and reason. It would represent a severe learning disability.

"Intelligence score of 1 or 2" is for animal. An intelligence of 4 is damn near special services, reflecting a poor raw talent for reasoning and for learning.

apparently debilitating mental deficiencies can be fixed by something being your class skill.

I mean it must be astounding that they can still have a +4 to diplomacy and train that skill. How does someone go about skillfully talking to people if they have such a debilitating intelligence.

a rogue still ends up with 5 skill points, how is it possible they can learn so much at a time with this mental deficiency.

seriously now, there is no real way to start with less than 3 intelligence, you have to be hit by some form of attack or poison or disease. Then you stop knowing how to READ and WRITE and speak you language.

there is nothing to say that a low intelligence score must be caused by a mental deficiency. His character definitely didn't act on knowledge an academic would of had that he didn't.

also, all forms of reasoning are definitely not under intelligence, or else most mental skills would be tied to it. a Low int but high wisdom character can still track people through the woods using evidence of their trail, or know when someone is probably not being honest with them.

as has been said so much before, all int based skills appear to be ACADEMIC LEARNED KNOWLEDGE nothing more or less, nothing to do with reasoning, so that line of fluff hardly is mimicked by actual in world mechanics.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Criik wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
For the record I am fine with the acrivities of the player in question. Just find annoying the 'super low score should have no effect at all' attitude. No, it shouldn't be gm entorced, but I think its kinda cheesy to not try to make it have at least some effect on your character as a player.
as said in other areas, intelligence get's a bad rap for some reason 4 dex and 4 con both if treated how some people want for int, would be life threatening on a daily basis.

The reason that low int gets a bad rap whereas low physical skills do not is because you don't have to RP the physical skills. I can be a weakling and have my character lift a 500 pound boulder. I could also be a weight lifter yet play a character that can't hold a backpack. However, it is difficult to "roll play" intelligence. For example, I am a fan of logic puzzles and me (as a person) can figure out logic traps and puzzles. However, my very low intelligent character should not necessarily be able to figure those out.

If you (the player) can lift a 200 pound weight, does your GM make your 4 strength weakling make a roll to see if your character can lift the same weight? If you (the player) know the answer to a puzzle/riddle, does your GM makes your 4 int dummy make a roll to see if he knows it?

no but if 4 int is mental retardation

then 4 strength = probably can't stand
4 dex = probably has LITERALLY a horrible inability to control his actions well
4 con = must be constantly sick and shouldn't be able to survive in general let alone on an adventure out in the world.


For low Int, High Wisdom, see Peter Sellers' character Chauncy Gardner in "Being There"


Bandw2 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
For the record I am fine with the acrivities of the player in question. Just find annoying the 'super low score should have no effect at all' attitude. No, it shouldn't be gm entorced, but I think its kinda cheesy to not try to make it have at least some effect on your character as a player.
as said in other areas, intelligence get's a bad rap for some reason 4 dex and 4 con both if treated how some people want for int, would be life threatening on a daily basis.

Saying that some evidence of the score should be shown is not the sameas requiring a roll to tie your shoes,.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed some posts and replies to them. Guys, if what you are posting isn't actually advice in reference to the original post, don't post it. Let's leave real world topics, debates about rules, and other derails elsewhere. If this can't happen, this thread will be locked.


I think people don't realize that 10/216 people or about 1 in 20 people have a 3-5 INT based on how stats are generated. That means 1 or 2 people in every class you had as a student was a 3, 4 or 5 INT person.

Thinking of it that way, should change your mind about what a low INT person can do.


Ravingdork wrote:
TrollingJoker wrote:
The reason I started it is because I wanted a clear rule definition of int and wis.
** spoiler omitted **...

Yeah came across this one before. Was hoping people would have anything else but it's funny to see how wisdom literally states "common sense,awareness and intuition". You'd think that'd be enough evidence for them haha.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some posts and replies to them. Guys, if what you are posting isn't actually advice in reference to the original post, don't post it. Let's leave real world topics, debates about rules, and other derails elsewhere. If this can't happen, this thread will be locked.

Actually they are. Exceptions here and there of course since some people are really trying to get their point across.

As OP I asked them the definition of int and wis in their opinions. They are all giving their opinions on that matter. Some are just overzealous about it so I don't think locking this thread will help me with this. My DM likes to read this thread for ideas on how to resolve the matter. Even recent comments were still useful.

So with all due respect, I think locking the thread isn't really necessary but it's not my call of course.


Ravingdork wrote:

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.

The huntsman with little experience of the outside world reminds me of a clear low int character in a novel I was reading. Chap was a druid, and quite the melee specialist as well. He protected the forests, he knew nature, he lived and breathed the seasons. This druid had many problems and weaknesses though, he didn't know much of the outside world except that cities are bad, cities are filthy, cities are against nature. Druid was a clear ideologue and apart from nature and tactics, didn't know much. He stalked, he killed, he defended his narrow worldview when a merc asked what he was on about (this female merc was clearly smarter than him, more experienced in learning and encountering a greater range of knowledges, but was lower level than the druid ganker). Clearly a very low int character, but still quite dangerous with enough simple excuses to kill humanoids that wandered into the forest. It doesn't take much INT to tell your pet bear to kill someone while you hack up the rest with scimitars and cast the occasional spell off your wisdom. I liked this character, but such low int. :)


Wheldrake wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
HODOR!!!
Hodor is smarter than that.

That's the whole point. Hodor functions in society, he is a valuable member of Bran's team. But his language skills are somewhat limited.

This player sounds like he would be far higher functioning than Hodor. With a 12 WIS and 19 CHA? That doesn't sound like Hodor at all.

The description of the INT score in the core rulebook makes it sound more like CoC's "EDU" characteristic. IT's how you "learn and reason" and "you can still read and speak your racial languages unless your Intelligence is lower than 3".

Personally, I have a problem with everyone in society being able to read, as general literacy doesn't correspond to my idea of the fantasy-medieval world. Then again, we don't usually pause to determine what socio-economic background each player has, which would play a greater role in reading ability than raw INT. But it does suggest that even INT 3 characters aren't drooling idiots. They are simply awful at learning and reasoning: they are set in their ways (doing things as they always have been done) and not amenable to changing their minds through logic.

I ran a pathfinder game where the players started as peasants (first thing to sort out was surviving the winter, next was working towards getting an actual level in a core class). No one started able to read by default, you had to buy it with a skill point.

Does this excite you? :D

251 to 300 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