Dispute over a character with low int


Advice

351 to 400 of 464 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Ravingdork wrote:
I'm so vain!

RD I thought this thread was about you!


Ravingdork wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


I just asked a number of people what it was (without context), and no one was able to correctly identify it
The problem with this line of reasoning, however, is that there really is no skill in Pathfinder that would govern "recognizing a modern key." So either the GM is forced to make something up to keep the game moving, or no one in the campaign world knows what keys are.

Aw,... the poor GM, having to make rulings and all that. My sympathy for the "problems" this causes is just as deep as appropriate.


Bandw2 wrote:


you also still haven't reacted to the knowledge skills try again text which shows that it's whether you have ever learned something, not if you can remember it.

No, it doesn't, unless you want to suggest that you can remember everything that you've ever learned.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


you also still haven't reacted to the knowledge skills try again text which shows that it's whether you have ever learned something, not if you can remember it.
No, it doesn't, unless you want to suggest that you can remember everything that you've ever learned.
knowledge wrote:


Try Again

No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know something that you never learned in the first place.

I mentioned this, that characters remember everything they have ever learned for simplicities sake.


Bandw2 wrote:


I mentioned this, that characters remember everything they have ever learned for simplicities sake.

Then we're done here.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I had a Lore Oracle Bard, that had a 5 intelligence, and over +20 on all Knowledge skills.

If I got ganged up on, by my fellow players, telling me I don't know how a damn key works, or how to hide, I would be rightfully upset.

Yeah, Bards can dump int, and still know more than many characters.

Don't forget that even with a great int and knowledge skills, it is still possible to consistently fail checks if the DC is rather high. Then the high int characters seems stupid, when it comes to the crunch. I've seen it. We laughed at the int 22 wizard.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


I just asked a number of people what it was (without context), and no one was able to correctly identify it
The problem with this line of reasoning, however, is that there really is no skill in Pathfinder that would govern "recognizing a modern key." So either the GM is forced to make something up to keep the game moving, or no one in the campaign world knows what keys are.
Aw,... the poor GM, having to make rulings and all that. My sympathy for the "problems" this causes is just as deep as appropriate.

Tone.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I had a Lore Oracle Bard, that had a 5 intelligence, and over +20 on all Knowledge skills.

If I got ganged up on, by my fellow players, telling me I don't know how a damn key works, or how to hide, I would be rightfully upset.

Yeah, Bards can dump int, and still know more than many characters.

Don't forget that even with a great int and knowledge skills, it is still possible to consistently fail checks if the DC is rather high. Then the high int characters seems stupid, when it comes to the crunch. I've seen it. We laughed at the int 22 wizard.

imagine how much the int based bard build knows.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, this is getting to the level of "Dwarves cannot have high pitched voices, so you must speak in baritone, or not at all" type of silliness for me.

Really, to what end is this extreme level of restrictive roleplay supposed to bring about?

Who benefits?


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I had a Lore Oracle Bard, that had a 5 intelligence, and over +20 on all Knowledge skills.

If I got ganged up on, by my fellow players, telling me I don't know how a damn key works, or how to hide, I would be rightfully upset.

Yeah, Bards can dump int, and still know more than many characters.

Don't forget that even with a great int and knowledge skills, it is still possible to consistently fail checks if the DC is rather high. Then the high int characters seems stupid, when it comes to the crunch. I've seen it. We laughed at the int 22 wizard.

This is one of the reasons I've started to favor the NO STATS variant.

Stats have always been the root causes of silly. From people who refused to play a PC with less than 2(!) 18s as starters to guys whose entire inventory is just a resource pool to get that oh so sweet triple boosting belt.
Sadly also RP nazis who freak out about MinMaxing (which started 10 minutes after there were stats added to the original game) and people who basically Meta think everything all the time.

Stats are just another system flaw, like falling damage or Item Crafting. Point buy was theoretically supposed to fix this but it just altered the problem into something different. It failed to adress MAD issues and created the INT 5 bards who are just trying to overcome MAD issues by dumping a stat that is mechanically not needed even if it would be a prerequisite for actually being all learned and stuff.

My proposal for the future would be a 2 stat system Mind and Body.
People would hate it though because it's harder to Game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One reason to make a houserule no stats under 10 because my other players can't control themselves and feel the need to interject......

Also how do they know the other person's ability score?
Do they know everyones alignment also?

.............

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the DM applies rules then he should apply them equally. He shouldn't decide whether or not to impose a skill check based on the character's ability score but on what the action is. If it is decided that a PC must make a DC10 Intelligence check for a character to know how a fork works (with a failure resulting in being unable to eat!), then that check must apply to all creatures attempting to use a fork no matter their Int score, or even if that person invented the fork!

This would not just punish characters with Int 4, but also of Int 9, who would have a 50% chance to fail to eat any particular meal. It would also mean that if the PC in question was having a serious debate at dinner, then he would be unable to take 10 and even people with 20 Int would be unable to eat their meal 25% of the time on the grounds that they couldn't remember how a fork works during that particular meal!

Or perhaps you're mis-applying the rules for Knowledge skill checks...!

Knowledge skill wrote:

You are educated in a field of study and can answer both simple and complex questions. Like the Craft, Perform and Profession skills, Knowledge actually encompasses a number of different specialties. Below are listed typical fields of study.

-Arcana
-Dungeoneering
-Engineering
-Geography
-History
-Local
-Nature
-Nobility
-Planes
-Religion

Check: Answering questions within your field of study...

Which 'field of study' covers the use of the eating utensils of your own culture? Should my Int 9 PC invest a point in Engineering? Geography? I had to be taught how to use chopsticks as an adult, because my culture uses forks; I might get 'chopstick use' as part of Knowledge(Chinese local), but reading about chopsticks in my textbook won't help much.

I come from my village (obviously!), and you need a Knowledge(local) check to know the names of people in the area. Does this mean that I have to roll a DC10 Knowledge(local) check to know my own name? If my PC has Int 9 and no ranks, taking 10 won't help, so I have a 50% chance of not knowing my own name, with no chance of a re-try?

To the OP: if the DM gives you a list of things that an Int 4 PC cannot think of that an Int 5 PC can, then ask to see the list detailing what an Int 13 PC is allowed to think of that an Int 12 PC is not allowed to think of.

I can understand the hatred of the kind of meta-gaming that has a player try to convince the DM that his first level Int 10 barbarian with no Knowledge skills knows how to make gunpowder, but this is not the same as a PC knowing the cultural norms of his own culture.

Just because an untrained Knowledge skill check is called a 'common knowledge' check does not mean that every kind of common knowledge (like 'how to use my fork', 'what is the name of my village') requires that game mechanic.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I had a Lore Oracle Bard, that had a 5 intelligence, and over +20 on all Knowledge skills.

If I got ganged up on, by my fellow players, telling me I don't know how a damn key works, or how to hide, I would be rightfully upset.

We laughed at the int 22 wizard.

i'm going to assume you laughed at him Before he learned to cast Disintegrate?

because, i personally know from experience you do Not want to laugh at a Wizard with a 22 intelligence And has Disintegrate memorized! Spoiler Alert! he wasn't a Foe, then (tho he is now!)


Orfamay Quest wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Refusing an RP straight-jacket is not cheating.

Nor, according to the rules as written, is taking an icosahedron, writing a '20' on every side of it, and using it as a 20-sided die.

Nevertheless, we would not be sitting at the same table if you tried that. Nor if you played a character with a 4 Int stat as having average or better intelligence.

To be fair we wouldn't be sitting at the same table once you said "You're just going to have to play with that 4 that you rolled." That is pretty much a cue from a bad DM that I should flip the table toss a grenade over it and run.

Grand Lodge

Now I am reminded of the "Kanji Dice".

We had a player with a number of dice, but with all the numbers in, what he said, was Kanji.

None of the other players, or DM, could read them, but he insisted he use them, as they were his "lucky dice".

This eventually prompted a table houserule, that if everyone can't read the dice, they can't be used.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
If the DM applies rules then he should apply them equally. He shouldn't decide whether or not to impose a skill check based on the character's ability score but on what the action is. If it is decided that a PC must make a DC10 Intelligence check for a character to know how a fork works (with a failure resulting in being unable to eat!), then that check must apply to all creatures attempting to use a fork no matter their Int score, or even if that person invented the fork!

Certainly. Of course, the person who invented the fork has a +20 circumstance bonus to that check.

I'd also point out that you don't need to use a fork to eat. It's simply a huge social faux pas if you don't.

Quote:


This would not just punish characters with Int 4, but also of Int 9, who would have a 50% chance to fail to eat any particular meal.

Nope. I'll grant that having used forks before gives them a +2 circumstance bonuses.

Quote:


Knowledge skill wrote:

You are educated in a field of study and can answer both simple and complex questions. Like the Craft, Perform and Profession skills, Knowledge actually encompasses a number of different specialties. Below are listed typical fields of study.

-Arcana
-Dungeoneering
-Engineering
-Geography
-History
-Local
-Nature
-Nobility
-Planes
-Religion

Check: Answering questions within your field of study...

Which 'field of study' covers the use of the eating utensils of your own culture?

Assuming you're human(oid), Knowledge (local). If you're an archon, of course, things may be different.

Quote:


Should my Int 9 PC invest a point in Engineering? Geography? I had to be taught how to use chopsticks as an adult, because my culture uses forks; I might get 'chopstick use' as part of Knowledge(Chinese local), but reading about chopsticks in my textbook won't help much.

There is no "Knowledge (Chinese local)." Knowledge (local) covers all humans.

Quote:
I come from my village (obviously!), and you need a Knowledge(local) check to know the names of people in the area. Does this mean that I have to roll a DC10 Knowledge(local) check to know my own name?

Yes, but I'll give you a circumstance bonus for that as well.

Quote:


I can understand the hatred of the kind of meta-gaming that has a player try to convince the DM that his first level Int 10 barbarian with no Knowledge skills knows how to make gunpowder, but this is not the same as a PC knowing the cultural norms of his own culture.

The problem is that the significantly intellectually handicapped do not routinely know the cultural norms of their own culture. That's among the major indicators of intellectual disability. Wikipedia specifically singles out "difficulty learning social rules," "lack of social inhibitors," and "delays in the development of adaptive behaviors such as self-help or self-care skills" in addition to more obvious issues like "deficits in memory skills." Remember the social faux pas of not using a fork? Wikipedia would probably describe that as a "social rule."

That's one of the key issues. Remember that Intelligence 4 is literally "the village idiot," the very exemplar of significant intellectual handicap. A person choosing to play a character with intelligence 4 is choosing to playing the village idiot. That's no less a handicap than choosing to play a blind bard or a paraplegic psion.

The difference is that the rest of the group has no problem stating that Homer can't actually see (because, you know, he's blind), or that Professor Xavier can't tap-dance, but somehow to demand that the village idiot act like the village idiot is unreasonable.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Okay, this is getting to the level of "Dwarves cannot have high pitched voices, so you must speak in baritone, or not at all" type of silliness for me.

Really, to what end is this extreme level of restrictive roleplay supposed to bring about?

Who benefits?

The rest of the party, in that you don't have someone gaming the system by taking disadvantages that aren't and making themselves so much more powerful than the rest of the group that it's impossible to design appropriate encounters for them

Of course, most of that benefit was thrown out the window when the GM demanded that the party roll for stats instead of use point-buy (if gnomersy thinks that saying "you have to play the 4 that you rolled" is the sign of a bad GM, I'd like to point out that simply saying "roll for stats" is a very reliable early warning sign.) But the idea that "a disadvantage that does not handicap the character is not worth bonus points" goes back at least to the late 1970s and the Champions game.

Disadvantages are, in general, good for the game. They make it easier for the game master to make interesting and challenging encounters, they provide an additional element of challenge to the game without relying on raw power, and they provide excellent material for role-playing and making this druid (who dumped intelligence) different from that one (who dumped charisma) while still allowing both to be effective in their primary roles.

Disadvantages that aren't disadvantages, however, are just ways to play a 20 point character in a 15 point buy game. Literally. If I've dumped my intelligence to 7 and my charisma to 9, that's five bonus points. If those two choices don't affect my role-playing in any way, then I've just stolen 5 points from the game master. Perhaps "counterfeited" points is a more accurate description. And I've basically stolen five points of the spotlight from everyone else at the table.

If you can do this with impunity, why not simply award yourself a +2 inherent bonus to every stat, and an extra 10,000 gp per level of equipment?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just think there is a point when it would be considered too harsh.

You stance seems to be "you can never be too harsh".

I just can't stand by that.

Silver Crusade

Inventing dynamite =/= hiding a key.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
I just think there is a point when it would be considered too harsh.

it's a balancing act. I side with the "rest of the group," the people whose fun is being stolen from them by the actions of the selfish person at the table.

If Tom is stealing $100 from Dick and Harry, the solution is not to make Tom give only $50 back (so he's stealing "less"). If Tom is stealing "fun" from Dick and Harry, the solution is not to make Tom steal "less" fun from Dick and Harry.

If Tom can't have fun playing by the same rules as Dick and Harry -- if he can't have fun without stealing it from others -- then he has no business at the same table as them.

Quote:


You stance seems to be "you can never be too harsh".

Sure you can. I think assault-and-battery is probably too harsh. I think banning him from the table, however, is reasonable if nothing else works. Any anything less than an outright ban is more lenient yet.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

George notices Lenny using a key to unlock a door.

George shoots him for behaving too smart.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Inventing dynamite =/= hiding a key.

So it's perfectly acceptable to award yourself a +6 untyped bonus to a stat as long as it's a stat that you dumped at character creation?

I'm serious. If your stat is a 4 and you're playing it as a 10, then you got a +6 bonus from somewhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
I just think there is a point when it would be considered too harsh.

If Tom is stealing $100 from Dick and Harry, the solution is not to make Tom give only $50 back (so he's stealing "less"). If Tom is stealing "fun" from Dick and Harry, the solution is not to make Tom steal "less" fun from Dick and Harry.

If Tom can't have fun playing by the same rules as Dick and Harry -- if he can't have fun without stealing it from others -- then he has no business at the same table as the

Dumb example, as the smartest goblin in the party I divided up the treasure "equally" four way it went......

"One for me, one, one one....one two for me, two, two, two for you, one two three for me, thre, three,three for you......."

Everyone had a great time. Who complained about being cheated? No one, and everyone I repeat everyone had a great time! Including the DM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:

game.

The rest of the party, in that you don't have someone gaming the system by taking disadvantages that aren't and making themselves so much more powerful than the rest of the group that it's impossible to design appropriate encounters for them

Of course, most of that benefit was thrown out the window when the GM demanded that the party roll for stats instead of use point-buy (if gnomersy thinks that saying "you have to play the 4 that you rolled" is the sign of a bad GM, I'd like to point out that simply saying "roll for stats" is a very reliable early warning sign.) But the idea that "a disadvantage that does not handicap the character is not worth bonus points" goes back at least to the late 1970s and the Champions game.

Disadvantages are, in general, good for the game. They make it easier for the game master to make interesting and challenging encounters, they provide an additional element of challenge to the game without relying on raw power, and they provide excellent material for role-playing and making this druid (who dumped intelligence) different from that one (who dumped charisma) while still allowing both to be effective in their primary roles.

Disadvantages that aren't disadvantages, however, are just ways to play a 20 point character in a 15 point buy game. Literally. If I've dumped my intelligence to 7 and my charisma to 9, that's five bonus points. If those two choices don't affect my role-playing in any way, then I've just stolen 5 points from the game master. Perhaps "counterfeited" points is a more accurate description. And I've basically stolen five points of the spotlight from everyone else at the table.

If you can do this with impunity, why not simply award yourself a +2 inherent bonus to every stat, and an extra 10,000 gp per level of equipment?

but to the fighter or barbarian with the 7 intelligence and 5 charisma as an example, the intelligence and charisma are mechanical advantage worthy of giving the barbarian the 8 extra points for the 7s, even if he took a race with a -2 to charisma

the advantages the example barbarian chose include, -2 skill points per level, -2 to all intelligence based skills, -3 to all charisma based skills, and the inability to learn or cast spells from most arcane spellcasting classes

you might not consider it an important or relevant disadvantage, but it is a disadvantage nonetheless. it doesn't need special roleplaying because disadvantages are supposed to be mechanical, not RP based. at the same time, the game was balanced around the by the book penalties for dump stats.

if 4 Int means you cannot remember your own name or how to use a fork, then does 4 Strength mean you have to use a wheelchair to move? those are arbritrary penalties that do nothing more than slow the table down with needless rolls for minor things. the dump stat is already reflected in mechanical numbers designed around the attribute in question

a character with a 5 charisma who trains in diplomacy, is actually working to counteract, but not negate their penalty.

does an orc shaman with a 5 charisma who transforms into a pretty elf negate the -3 charisma penalty to his disguise check while pretending to be an elven female? no, he doesn't, he just gets to pile a bonus that exceeds the penalty

does that same orc shaman with 7 int who disguises himself as a human sage and casts a spell to gain an instant +15 to all knowledge checks for 10 minutes negate the -2 intelligence penalty on knowledge checks? no, it doesn't, he probably has a total knowledge bonus of 13, which lasts 10 minutes before dropping to -2. he just used a 1st level spell to gain a temporary knowledge bonus

does the gruff dwarf rogue with 5 charisma who spends 5 ranks in diplomacy and takes skill focus on his diplomacy class skill negate the -3? no he doesn't, he just piled on +11 worth of bonuses to get a +8.


There is no playing it as 10, because mechanically the 4 is still 4 and people differ in what they think 10 actually involves, allows and represents.

This becomes complicated by the other mental ability scores.

Orfamay, there are no rules backing up your views on the restrictions of low int. It is entirely your opinion. If you want to say "ha! I will make every mental thought, plan or action an int check", you will slow the game to a crawl, and even intelligent characters can fail a flat int check to allow them to do something basic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Inventing dynamite =/= hiding a key.

So it's perfectly acceptable to award yourself a +6 untyped bonus to a stat as long as it's a stat that you dumped at character creation?

I'm serious. If your stat is a 4 and you're playing it as a 10, then you got a +6 bonus from somewhere.

but it's still not a 10, it still has a -3 to all intelligence based skill checks, -3 skill points per level and -3 to intelligence checks. just because you roleplay it in a way where you can do routine things and not handicap your party, doesn't mean you still aren't suffering the -3 to a lot of skills, and get 3 less skills points per level.

this is not a +6 untyped bonus to intelligence, it is called eating the official mechanical penalties in mechanical circumstances where they apply and doing things that even a developmentally delayed individual like Forrest Gump can do.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I need a 10 intelligence to use a key?

Look, I understand what you are saying, but your stance on how to treat such a PC is horrifically restrictive, and cruel.

Hell, you seem like you want to punch the player, or straight murder the PC, just for even having a low mental stat.

I mean, this isn't the level of "cheating" you make it out to be.

This "roll to see if you remember how pants work" kind of reaction is just ridiculously absurd, in my opinion.


Do you get a bonus if your people have had locks since ancient times?

Where can I put this down on my sheet for when it comes up next time?


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

.

Orfamay, there are no rules backing up your views on the restrictions of low int.

There are also no rules backing up your views that a d20 should have numbers lower than 20 written on it. I'm sure you'll consider it a tremendous improvement in your game when I literally never miss a roll again -- and I'm sure the rest of your group will as well.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

you keep adding circumstance bonuses that the rules don't call for and saying "see the rules show that it my way makes sense".

there are no rules for familiarity of an object granting circumstance bonuses.

another thing, a fighter that put's all his 1 skill points into perception with 4 int. Does he even know what a sword is? sure his class has him proficient with one, but does that mean he can name it or has ever heard of one before?

Seriously though back ago. characters are assumed to remember everything. As a player, if i remember that count bargoodle has some such insignia, and this was like 2 years ago in-game, do I have to roll to remember? no. why? because how is it fun to play in ignorance of what you actually know.

the thing that I will bring up as well, is once again. HOW UNDER YOUR RULES Orfamay, do you allow anyone to play a 22 int wizard. that is literally above human possibility. How can someone hope to mimic the intelligence of a being superior to humans?

once again though, there is NOTHING to suggest intelligence is a carbon copy of the general real word term.

also, you haven't ever brought up evidence against 4 dex or con. if 4 is mentally deficient, then 4 dex probably means he can barely move, let alone walk, and someone with 4 con should simply be bed ridden with disease all the time. the rules don't support this, a 4 dex person can his just fine with a sword and move at normal speed.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I need a 10 intelligence to use a key?

Look, I understand what you are saying, but your stance on how to treat such a PC is horrifically restrictive, and cruel.

Hell, you seem like you want to punch the player, or straight murder the PC, just for even having a low mental stat.

I mean, this isn't the level of "cheating" you make it out to be.

This "roll to see if you remember how pants work" kind of reaction is just ridiculously absurd, in my opinion.

a key is so easy to use, it is akin to using a fork, something that shouldn't require a roll. regardless of intelligence. it is also akin to asking a peasant if he knows the name of the local lord or lady that runs the town he grew up in. of course he is going to know.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Do you get a bonus if your people have had locks since ancient times?

No, unless you've also been around since ancient times. You can't learn things from the fact that your great-great-grandfather knew them.


Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:


a key is so easy to use, it is akin to using a fork, something that shouldn't require a roll.

No, we did that experiment upthread. The number of people of normal or better intelligence who can't even recognize a key is surprisingly high.

Quote:
it is also akin to asking a peasant if he knows the name of the local lord or lady that runs the town he grew up in. of course he is going to know.

29% of the American population can't name the vice president (in a recent survey). The number of people who can name their mayor is even smaller.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

.

Orfamay, there are no rules backing up your views on the restrictions of low int.
There are also no rules backing up your views that a d20 should have numbers lower than 20 written on it. I'm sure you'll consider it a tremendous improvement in your game when I literally never miss a roll again -- and I'm sure the rest of your group will as well.

What the hell are you talking about?

When did I say that, and what does that even mean?


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

Now I am reminded of the "Kanji Dice".

We had a player with a number of dice, but with all the numbers in, what he said, was Kanji.

None of the other players, or DM, could read them, but he insisted he use them, as they were his "lucky dice".

This eventually prompted a table houserule, that if everyone can't read the dice, they can't be used.

I wish I could institute such a rule, but my players would never go for it. They love their tiny, next to impossible to read dice.

I hate them with a passion (the dice, not my friends).


Bandw2 wrote:

you keep adding circumstance bonuses that the rules don't call for and saying "see the rules show that it my way makes sense".

there are no rules for familiarity of an object granting circumstance bonuses.

another thing, a fighter that put's all his 1 skill points into perception with 4 int. Does he even know what a sword is? sure his class has him proficient with one, but does that mean he can name it or has ever heard of one before?

Seriously though back ago. characters are assumed to remember everything. As a player, if i remember that count bargoodle has some such insignia, and this was like 2 years ago in-game, do I have to roll to remember? no. why? because how is it fun to play in ignorance of what you actually know.

the thing that I will bring up as well, is once again. HOW UNDER YOUR RULES Orfamay, do you allow anyone to play a 22 int wizard. that is literally above human possibility. How can someone hope to mimic the intelligence of a being superior to humans?

once again though, there is NOTHING to suggest intelligence is a carbon copy of the general real word term.

also, you haven't ever brought up evidence against 4 dex or con. if 4 is mentally deficient, then 4 dex probably means he can barely move, let alone walk, and someone with 4 con should simply be bed ridden with disease all the time. the rules don't support this, a 4 dex person can his just fine with a sword and move at normal speed.

Asked and answered.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Do you get a bonus if your people have had locks since ancient times?

No, unless you've also been around since ancient times. You can't learn things from the fact that your great-great-grandfather knew them.

So you are saying Egyptian lock technology can't be passed down to other Egyptians?

Have you heard of education?

What is my bonus to this check if my character's father was a locksmith?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow. Some people see a thread asking for advice and they offer it up and accept that some agree and some don't. Others decide that their way is the One Correct Way and spend pages of the thread seeking to tear apart every other person's view of a subjective matter to....I don't know.....win the internet or some crap. If anyone's ego is so fragile that they have to rabidly rip into everyone else to gain their feeling of superiority then that is someone that should be pitied.
It would be nice if this advice thread could stop being what it has become and revert back to an advice thread.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:


a key is so easy to use, it is akin to using a fork, something that shouldn't require a roll.

No, we did that experiment upthread. The number of people of normal or better intelligence who can't even recognize a key is surprisingly high.

Quote:
it is also akin to asking a peasant if he knows the name of the local lord or lady that runs the town he grew up in. of course he is going to know.

29% of the American population can't name the vice president (in a recent survey). The number of people who can name their mayor is even smaller.

Political knowledge has nothing to do with knowing what a lock and key is. Americans and their level of political knowledge is also not the subject. Please try again stretching your analogy. Limber up first with a comparison that makes sense.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

.

Orfamay, there are no rules backing up your views on the restrictions of low int.
There are also no rules backing up your views that a d20 should have numbers lower than 20 written on it. I'm sure you'll consider it a tremendous improvement in your game when I literally never miss a roll again -- and I'm sure the rest of your group will as well.
What the hell are you talking about?

The rules for d20s simply say that a d20 has twenty sides.

They do not specify the numbers to be written on the sides, or that the numbers be different. There is no rule to back up what I assume to be your view that I can't write a '20' on every side of an icosahedron and use it as a d20.

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Now I am reminded of the "Kanji Dice".

We had a player with a number of dice, but with all the numbers in, what he said, was Kanji.

None of the other players, or DM, could read them, but he insisted he use them, as they were his "lucky dice".

This eventually prompted a table houserule, that if everyone can't read the dice, they can't be used.

I wish I could institute such a rule, but my players would never go for it. They love their tiny, next to impossible to read dice.

I hate them with a passion (the dice, not my friends).

Well, at least they are readable upon closer inspection. I couldn't even get this guy to write down the "Kanji" and the corresponding number to the symbol.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:


it is also akin to asking a peasant if he knows the name of the local lord or lady that runs the town he grew up in. of course he is going to know.

29% of the American population can't name the vice president (in a recent survey). The number of people who can name their mayor is even smaller.

Political knowledge has nothing to do with knowing what a lock and key is.

But it has everything to do with knowing your local ruler. Do you know "who runs the town you grew up in"?


Orfamay Quest wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

.

Orfamay, there are no rules backing up your views on the restrictions of low int.
There are also no rules backing up your views that a d20 should have numbers lower than 20 written on it. I'm sure you'll consider it a tremendous improvement in your game when I literally never miss a roll again -- and I'm sure the rest of your group will as well.
What the hell are you talking about?

The rules for d20s simply say that a d20 has twenty sides.

They do not specify the numbers to be written on the sides, or that the numbers be different. There is no rule to back up what I assume to be your view that I can't write a '20' on every side of an icosahedron and use it as a d20.

You are confusing me with someone else. That might be a witty retort, but you were having that discussion with another.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

.

Orfamay, there are no rules backing up your views on the restrictions of low int.
There are also no rules backing up your views that a d20 should have numbers lower than 20 written on it. I'm sure you'll consider it a tremendous improvement in your game when I literally never miss a roll again -- and I'm sure the rest of your group will as well.
What the hell are you talking about?

The rules for d20s simply say that a d20 has twenty sides.

They do not specify the numbers to be written on the sides, or that the numbers be different. There is no rule to back up what I assume to be your view that I can't write a '20' on every side of an icosahedron and use it as a d20.

Do the rules say anything about your players not beating you unconscious with their hard back rulebooks and finding a DM who isn't a twat?


Orfamay Quest wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:


it is also akin to asking a peasant if he knows the name of the local lord or lady that runs the town he grew up in. of course he is going to know.

29% of the American population can't name the vice president (in a recent survey). The number of people who can name their mayor is even smaller.

Political knowledge has nothing to do with knowing what a lock and key is.

But it has everything to do with knowing your local ruler. Do you know "who runs the town you grew up in"?

You mean a knowledge local check that has nothing to do with key manipulation?

Would a low int rogue with disable device know what a lock is? Lol.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:


Would a low int rogue with disable device know what a lock is? Lol.

Of course. Or one with ranks in Profession (locksmith), for that matter.


gnomersy wrote:


Do the rules say anything about your players not beating you unconscious with their hard back rulebooks and finding a DM who isn't a t!*+?

Oddly enough, no. But I'd not allow them to assault me, either. Funny how 'but the rules don't say anything about this" is looking less and less like a compelling argument.


So, to be clear. By your reading and in your games, you need profession locksmith to know what locks are, or a 10+ intelligence? If you have disable device you are also set.

Background doesn't count only certain enablers to lock comprehension like the skills above? You didn't cover that yet. Do guardsmen that need to lock up know what locks are?

I think your absurdity is quite clear now. Thank you.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I need a 10 intelligence to use a key?

Look, I understand what you are saying, but your stance on how to treat such a PC is horrifically restrictive, and cruel.

Hell, you seem like you want to punch the player, or straight murder the PC, just for even having a low mental stat.

I mean, this isn't the level of "cheating" you make it out to be.

This "roll to see if you remember how pants work" kind of reaction is just ridiculously absurd, in my opinion.

a key is so easy to use, it is akin to using a fork, something that shouldn't require a roll. regardless of intelligence. it is also akin to asking a peasant if he knows the name of the local lord or lady that runs the town he grew up in. of course he is going to know.

if he doesn't it's the lord's fault, not his.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:


it is also akin to asking a peasant if he knows the name of the local lord or lady that runs the town he grew up in. of course he is going to know.

29% of the American population can't name the vice president (in a recent survey). The number of people who can name their mayor is even smaller.

Political knowledge has nothing to do with knowing what a lock and key is.

But it has everything to do with knowing your local ruler. Do you know "who runs the town you grew up in"?

most Americans never even see their current "Mayor" even once in their lifespan and usually, the period spent as a mayor us too brief to really leave a nasty impression, but a lot of us can remember the local governors we had issues with in the past and the main celebrities in our favorite films.

351 to 400 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