Is optimising characters actually suboptimal?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 359 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Design Manager

9 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Extra hit points can provide extra time for other interesting elements to come into play.

So can designing an encounter where terrain, enemy preparedness, and other factors come into play. The tools to deal with just about anything a character can throw at an enemy already exist within the game, so it's rarely a good idea to take big steps outside of that framework without a full understanding of the consequences of the change you are making.

Simply increasing hit points can raise the challenge for martial characters who excel at hitting stuff, but it also negatively impacts blaster characters, who typically rely on lesser but more consistent or versatile damage. It also doesn't actually impact saves or other relevant defenses of enemies, so SoL/SoS casters are completely unaffected, meaning you've actually rewarded the most optimal playstyle in the game by making it even more essential.

Look at what you're trying to achieve and consider how to do that within the framework the game has already presented you; extra hit points are ultimately just a means to make the enemy last longer do the GM can actually have them do the things they're supposed to do, yes? You know what else has that same result without negatively impacting other characters? Proper use of terrain and enemy abilities. I ran a table for a party of 5th level adventurers whose previous GM didn't make use of terrain features really at all, unless they were traps or some obvious and showy piece of the map, and one of their first big encounters with me at the helm was against a black dragon encountered in a swamp. This was an encounter the party was positive they would steamroll, because they'd defeated more powerful enemies with the exact same characters, but it didn't play out as expected for them at all. The dragon, in its native environment, was virtually unchargeable negating both their barbarian's pounce and their paladin's spirited charge, its ability to move about underwater freely made it horrifically mobile and difficult to nail down or target (just read the rules on aquatic combat sometime), and the party's traditional SWAT tactics just weren't enough to steamroll the creature as they'd expected. I took a Bestiary monster with no modifications, not even spending its wealth on useful items, and challenged a party that was legitimately optimized, both on an individual level and as a team, and all I did was read the little ecology block on the monster and brush up on the rules for the relevant terrain.

Even if there is internal variation in the party's optimization, perhaps a particularly skilled player in a more casual group, there are still ways to address the optimized character without deviating from the established framework of the rules. Generally speaking, no one character is going to be equally effective against all defenses, and if it's a problem that can be "solved" by adding more hit points, the only relevant defense is probably AC. Monsters typically have an allotted amount of wealth; this is more than just the candy to pour into your party's Halloween bags, this is a tool chest for the GM to dip into and customize his or her critters. If you're worried about the target getting hit too consistently and taking too much damage, look at using that wealth to buy a cloak of displacement or ring of blinking, providing your critter with a non-AC defense that doesn't care how high the barbarian's to-hit is. If they're liable to get nailed with SoS/SoL spells, use that cash to invest in a cloak of resistance or other save boosters. These are fixes that are baked into the system, are internally balanced, and ensure that the party is fairly rewarded when they work their way through the obstacle.

Now, you may run into an issue where a party or party member is equally capable of targeting any enemy defenses with brutal efficacy; these guys are called "full casters" and the game is designed so that they can rule over lesser beings with an iron fist. Get used to these vile bastards ruining your fun, or look at replacing them with a more balanced 3pp alternative. If you plan on keeping them around as is, the various terrain, cover, concealment, and other rules can still help curb their reign of terror somewhat, so the above advice still holds, it just may not be as obviously impactful.

I'll also say that I do believe party members hold some responsibility to guage the relative system mastery and optimization of their table-mates and play accordingly. If you know, based on empirical evidence, that you are raising the bar for the whole group in a way that they're unable or unwilling to match, look at focusing your talents into something a little less likely to hog the spotlight, and maybe capable of spreading the awesome around. When I want to go full flex at a table and really show my chops without ruining anyone else's day, I like to play bards and similar classes that drag their teammates up with them, and for whom the most awesome thing they can be doing often involves or includes making their companions more awesome as well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I wince every time I see a DM making hidden rolls in combat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I for one love when the fighters make DC 20 will saves 90% of the time. But it's okay the DM assures me he keeps rolling 19's behind the screen. /s

Like if you don't want people to play a specific thing then just ban it from the outset. Otherwise your just playing magical tea party and the player might as well not even be there


On the other hand, there are not many tools you can use to make instict-driven beasts harder to fight.

Tucker's kobolds is a neat thing, but all enemies are not cunning. INT 4 is able to speak, but still. We are talking about the level of a parrot. Chimera is probably not capable of traps and ambushes, or teaming up with support troops or anything. Nevermind the player's fantasies, what about the GM's?

He pictures a classic arena fight. The heroes cornered by a massive beast, a fight to the death! "No I am sorry" says the system while they just easily kill the lone danger. Who is at fault? Because either the players have high enough DC in their control spells to contain the big boss fight or they don't. Big Dragon being classic.

Big Dragon can be adjusted because they know magic and are very intelligent. But there are also lot of dumb big creatures that might be considered bosses to early levels. Party's boss fight at sea is a MASSIVE SEA SERPENT! WOO! Except the party might make a mockery out of it. I mean, picking too high CR opponent to be your boss monster might also just make so that nobody hits it or is able to make it fail a save. That is not fun either.

The idea is that the correct way to make difficult battles is to basically play PvP seems a bit ... flawed. Your average GM should be able to trust whatever is printed in a published adventure instead of having to basically PvP 5v1 with his own team of humanoid orcs with coincidental good party compositions.


Scavion wrote:
I wince every time I see a DM making hidden rolls in combat.

Eh, I don't worry about it much. I've had GMs cheat quite openly on combat rolls without bothering with the screen. It's all in who you play with. :/


Yeah, big cinematic fights vs one strong foe are a huge problem with the system.

Especially since a level appropriate one can sometimes just knock you unconcious with a full attack, putting the fight on a timer.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:

On the other hand, there are not many tools you can use to make instict-driven beasts harder to fight.

Tucker's kobolds is a neat thing, but all enemies are not cunning. INT 4 is able to speak, but still. We are talking about the level of a parrot.

Factually wrong. Int 3+ is sentient and capable of doing pretty much anything any non-damaged human can do. The normal non-damaged, non-crippled, non-diseased, range for humans is 3-18 + floating +2 modifier.

A parrot is an animal. It has less than 3 Int. It is not sentient. It cannot, per the rules, function as creatures with 3 Int or greater.

Quote:
Chimera is probably not capable of traps and ambushes, or teaming up with support troops or anything. Nevermind the player's fantasies, what about the GM's?

Animals are capable of using traps and ambushes. Chimeras should have no problems with that. Further, they pick their marks for easy prey. They are actually noted as acting as toadies to more powerful creatures, and it's noted that their lack of organizational ties to non-chimera come from their belligerent attitudes, though some may have kobold followers who make offerings to them. Some may be make allegiances with respectful humanoids or even agree to be a mount, etc.

They're not blithering idiots. They're not smart but they're as smart as humans. I actually recently used a chimera in a game, where the party used some trickery into fooling a chimera into losing his cool and attacking his master's other minions (some pirates), which resulted in the chimera being chastised when his mistress emerged to see what all the commotion was about (rather than figure out why the pirate lackies were starting a fight with him, he just flipped the kill-switch to the on position).

After the wizardess whom he respected emerged and was like "Wtf is going on here!?" he was like "They started it!" and she was like "I don't care who started it!" and then somebody noticed the party members trying to make off out of the cove with their ship and then the chimera got busy.

Quote:
He pictures a classic arena fight. The heroes cornered by a massive beast, a fight to the death! "No I am sorry" says the system while they just easily kill the lone danger. Who is at fault? Because either the players have high enough DC in their control spells to contain the big boss fight or they don't. Big Dragon being classic.

DCs aren't even the half of it. While it's possible to - legally - build creatures with a lot of endurance and what-not, the problem comes from the fact that a creature has to be - by nature - imbalanced for the encounter to take on a party with superior numbers by itself. To put this into perspective, an "Epic" (APL+3) encounter isn't even a "fair" fight (if you total the party's CR and then build an encounter of that CR it amounts to an APL+4 encounter).

The issue is things like action economy. Being able to affect the battle or react to things one turn at a time versus having to deal with 4, 5, or like 10 other actions against you isn't very conductive to winning in a strait fight.

However, even in "classic arena fights", those are pretty boring unless there's something other than the mad beast. Usually there's some sort of trick to beating a monster that is beyond your means of properly defeating, such as collapsing something onto it, or squeezing into an area it cannot get to properly, or tricking it into falling into lava, and so forth.

Or it's a more fair fight but everyone's dodging the extras in the arena and using them to their advantage.

Or it's a dragon or beast in its home field advantage such as a wyvern drifting between mountainous crags, ambushing from higher altitudes, snatching people and hurling them off the cliffs, etc. Because a direct "by the numbers" fight isn't particularly interesting anyway, but a wyvern or three harassing adventurers on a cliffside is.

A black dragon drifting in and out of a marsh and hazing their foes while they toy and hunt them, or snatching them and dragging them into the black bog while the party scrambles to save them is intense and terrifying.

An ankheg who lurks in wait until its tremorsense notices prey above who charges during the surprise round from underground to try to down a flat-footed prey, only to attempt to drag them or someone else underground with them on the following round (or spray acid and then burrow again) is frightening.

The sea serpent that's impossible to target with spells and abilities beneath the water's surface, who emerges only to grab victims with it's mighty 20 ft. reach and then dive into the depths of the ocean with them is incredibly difficult! Suddenly you're ripped from apparent safety and pulled into the dark expanses of the ocean where you can't breathe, perhaps cannot see, cannot move effectively (allowing the beast to slap you around underwater if you're too much to simply hold onto), where most of your attacks are worthless (oops, only piercing attacks are worthwhile here), and casting or manifesting is a pain.

A giant animated object with hardness fighting a party in a collapsing building filled with fire, smoke, and debris. The animated object is dangerous but can you defeat it whilst surviving the dangers of the spreading fire (which the animate object doesn't care about) and the smoke inhalation (that it also doesn't care about) threatens to choke the life from you as quickly as the statue's blade?

Quote:
Big Dragon can be adjusted because they know magic and are very intelligent. But there are also lot of dumb big creatures that might be considered bosses to early levels. Party's boss fight at sea is a MASSIVE SEA SERPENT! WOO! Except the party might make a mockery out of it. I mean, picking too high CR opponent to be your boss monster might also just make so that nobody hits it or is able to make it fail a save. That is not fun either.

Yeah, let's not even get into dragons. They have enough ways to ruin your day that they could use a different one every day of the week and two on Sundays.

Quote:
The idea is that the correct way to make difficult battles is to basically play PvP seems a bit ... flawed. Your average GM should be able to trust whatever is printed in a published adventure instead of having to basically PvP 5v1 with his own team of humanoid orcs with coincidental good party compositions.

Because fighting dragons in swamps, wyverns and chimera on hills, sea serpents in the sea, and stuff like that is PvP at its finest. Yep. Absolutely.


I'll start by saying that our views differ immensely and we do not see eye to eye. I mean, consider. Is the fox cunning because he pounces or does the fox's pounce make it seem cunning? Animals have number of learned habits from instincts, without actually no ability to reason why they do such things. Also sentience is not the same as being able to understand language.

Many monsters can talk, but I refuse to accept that as a measure of equality to human intelligence. Be it merely magical ability, whatever works. I do not see how you see the language working, but for me it is nothing but magic translating the growls into common . How beastiary and reference NPCs stat blocks compare, INT 4 is nothing more than beast who can talk, but is still a beast lead by impulsive instincts.

You say normal human can have a huge range, but I find no proof for it. You are hard pressed to even find a human NPC with 7 INT. There are several 8 INT reference NPCs, those with simple fates such as cult acolytes or squires. The system attempts to include so many varied metal states into a single number, however badly it might work. There are handful of numbers between 2-8 which all dictate level of reasoning going from "straightforward" minded to animal. So what is 4 then.

Orcs are INT 7. How much tactical mindset are you allowed to have at this INT number? Ogres are 6, which is one point less. Dretch Demon has 5. Earth Elemental hits 4. All of them, I mean all of them would be categorized as NOT SMART AS HUMANS. So what does that mean to us, humans. Real life humans. How would an intelligent, but less than human intelligent species, respond to tactical situations? And the important point is that they need to in a linear fashion make less beneficial decisions.

Not that I disagree with everything you wrote, but there is too much so I want to avoid starting one of those horrible quote pyramids.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Envall: Look in core book, Ability Scores, Generating Ability Scores

Standard: Roll 4d6, discard the lowest die result, and add the three remaining results together.

Classic: Roll 3d6 and add the dice together.

2 of the 4 methods of generating stats result in a 3-18 roll. With racial modifiers, that becomes 1-20. That means you can roll up a suli with a 1 intelligence...

So proof is in the core rules.

EDIT:
NPC with 4 int. Villager (Village Idiot)
"A village idiot can also represent any simple commoner, by replacing his Climb skill with an appropriate Craft or Profession skill." So all those creatures you call "NOT SMART AS HUMANS" applies to "any simple commoner".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:
I'll start by saying that our views differ immensely and we do not see eye to eye. I mean, consider. Is the fox cunning because he pounces or does the fox's pounce make it seem cunning? Animals have number of learned habits from instincts, without actually no ability to reason why they do such things. Also sentience is not the same as being able to understand language.

And you would, factually, be wrong. You're free to be wrong, but you are and will always be wrong on this, because you are equating subsentient intelligence with sentient intelligence.

Quote:
Many monsters can talk, but I refuse to accept that as a measure of equality to human intelligence. Be it merely magical ability, whatever works. I do not see how you see the language working, but for me it is nothing but magic translating the growls into common.

Again, demonstrably wrong. They can still talk in an antimagic field. There's nothing about a chimera's speech or ability to understand speech that is magical in nature. So, again, you're just wrong.

Quote:
How beastiary and reference NPCs stat blocks compare, INT 4 is nothing more than beast who can talk, but is still a beast lead by impulsive instincts.

Creature fluff is not indicative of what an ability score means. The chimera is an example of a creature that is brutish but intelligent and even discusses their interactions with other creatures, which it notes that their tendency to not work with allies outside of other Chimera comes as much from their belligerence as it does stupidity, but then notes that they still pay respect to more powerful creatures and may form alliances with certain individuals.

You are making a claim that Int X means something but you have nothing but some vague fluff bits to back it up. Whereas there have been many people who've noted that descriptions of creatures aren't particularly indicative of ability scores and what they mean (a creature, for example, can be given a Charisma bonus or penalty even if they are described as having the same attributes such as strong wills or unearthly exoticism).

Quote:
You say normal human can have a huge range, but I find no proof for it. You are hard pressed to even find a human NPC with 7 INT. There are several 8 INT reference NPCs, those with simple fates such as cult acolytes or squires. The system attempts to include so many varied metal states into a single number, however badly it might work. There are handful of numbers between 2-8 which all dictate level of reasoning going from "straightforward" minded to animal. So what is 4 then.

There is no absolute meaning to ability scores and frankly there shouldn't be. As to he proof of normal human range, all the standard dice generation methods use a range between 3-18 (4d6, drop lowest; 3d6, etc). In 3.5, which Pathfinder is a continuation of, it noted that when using rolled statistics, non-heroic NPCs use 3d6 (rather than 4d6, drop lowest). In Pathfinder, the reason most non-heroic NPCs aren't sporting low (or high) scores is because they are built using 3 point buy (and with point buy, to prevent really ferocious min/maxing, you are capped at 7 for your lowest starting score, but racials can bring you lower).

Now things like being mentally handicapped (such as having been denied oxygen to your brain for too long) are typically indicative of ability drain or similar damage, or disease, etc. The range for a normal human is 3-18, and it's not surprising to find that the differences between a 3 Int human and an 11 Int human is pretty small. Both can lead perfectly normal lives and be quite successful in those lives, though the low-Int human is a better fit for certain concepts and themes and backgrounds and the same is true for the higher Int humans.

These are demonstrable truths. For example, let's take a 3 Int dwarf commoner vs an 11 Int dwarf commoner. The difference is the 3 Int dwarf has a -20% penalty compared to the 11 Int dwarf commoner. This means he's pretty crap at doing Int-based things but not much else. He's not relegated to having someone take care of him and change his clothes for him or give him a bath or feed him. He can be a highly successful individual.

We know for a fact said dwarf frequently doesn't know the answers to common questions (DC 7-10 Knowledge skills) but can casually answer easy questions about any given subject (DC 6 or lower, with DC 5 being the standard "easy" difficulty in D20) without missing a beat.

To have a truly mentally weak individual, we'd need to have less than 3 Int (the sentient point) or have abysmally low scores in Wisdom and Charisma as well (the other mental ability scores).

Quote:
Orcs are INT 7. How much tactical mindset are you allowed to have at this INT number?

However much fits the theme of orcs in your campaign, more or less, but if they're acting incredibly stupid it'll just seem dumb. For example, orcs should be able to do things like ambush enemies, try to sneak up on things, drink magic potions brewed by their shamans to fill them with the might of their gods, make pit traps with spiked poles in them, etc. Because these are pretty basic things that primitive individuals can do and don't require a lot of knowledge to do so.

Quote:
Ogres are 6, which is one point less. Dretch Demon has 5. Earth Elemental hits 4. All of them, I mean all of them would be categorized as NOT SMART AS HUMANS.

They're as smart as humans but not necessarily as smart as smart humans (to steal the phrase from the familiar descriptions in 3.5). They might be fairly simple but they're not handicapped. They can learn and follow instructions without people training them like animals (in fact they cannot be trained like animals because they're too smart and above simple instinct to do so).

Quote:
So what does that mean to us, humans. Real life humans. How would an intelligent, but less than human intelligent species, respond to tactical situations?

Depends on their experience. Most humans aren't particularly tactical. They're prone to flight or fight responses. Most tactical planning is learned or created outside of combat or through experience and drills. I wouldn't expect a green rookie in an orc army to be particularly skilled when it came to anything outside of basic pack-tactics, but a more experienced veteran probably should be, or one with better training or instruction from their superiors.

Older Orc: "Okay, youz guyz go 'round da back and wait for smoke,"
Younger Orc: "Why we not chargin' in wit you guys?"
Older Orc: "Dey know we'z comin' diz way. You come 'round and dey gots no place ta hidez. We chop 'em front and back,"
Younger Orc: *snickers* "Good thinkin' dad,"
Orc Shaman: "Take dez flagons of Grom's Piss. Our father the blood letter shall look fava'bly on diz fight,"
Younger Orc: "It smell like bull piss an' goat blood,"
Orc Shaman: "De gods work in mys'trious wayz young un',"

Quote:
And the important point is that they need to in a linear fashion make less beneficial decisions.

Why?

Quote:
Not that I disagree with everything you wrote, but there is too much so I want to avoid starting one of those horrible quote pyramids.

Well, y'know...


For a general idea of intelligence I tend to multiply the score by ten and compare it to the Stanford–Binet IQ score. It works out fairly well and has similar distribution to the standard 3d6 die rolls bell curve. That being said it's an even rougher estimate of capability then IQ normally is but it puts your average orc at the smarts of Forrest Gump who was a completely capable individual and a somewhat accomplished soldier and businessman.
'Mama always said life was like a box of half elf ears... You never know if it's gonna have a point.'


VargrBoartusk wrote:

For a general idea of intelligence I tend to multiply the score by ten and compare it to the Stanford–Binet IQ score. It works out fairly well and has similar distribution to the standard 3d6 die rolls bell curve. That being said it's an even rougher estimate of capability then IQ normally is but it puts your average orc at the smarts of Forrest Gump who was a completely capable individual and a somewhat accomplished soldier and businessman.

'Mama always said life was like a box of half elf ears... You never know if it's gonna have a point.'

That's a bad system for measuring intelligence. Since the difference between a person with a 7 INT and a person with 11 INT is only 10% success rate. 10%!


Anzyr wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:

For a general idea of intelligence I tend to multiply the score by ten and compare it to the Stanford–Binet IQ score. It works out fairly well and has similar distribution to the standard 3d6 die rolls bell curve. That being said it's an even rougher estimate of capability then IQ normally is but it puts your average orc at the smarts of Forrest Gump who was a completely capable individual and a somewhat accomplished soldier and businessman.

'Mama always said life was like a box of half elf ears... You never know if it's gonna have a point.'
That's a bad system for measuring intelligence. Since the difference between a person with a 7 INT and a person with 11 INT is only 10% success rate. 10%!

Not precisely true, as a big difference will be that the seven int has to roll for things that the 11 just gets to know without even rolling.

Still, if I was going to do a equivalent 'real world iq' combo, I would probably use an average of int and wis and perhaps even cha, and multiply THAT average by ten. Because the things that make up intelligence real world are composed of more than just the things in the int score.


RDM42 wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:

For a general idea of intelligence I tend to multiply the score by ten and compare it to the Stanford–Binet IQ score. It works out fairly well and has similar distribution to the standard 3d6 die rolls bell curve. That being said it's an even rougher estimate of capability then IQ normally is but it puts your average orc at the smarts of Forrest Gump who was a completely capable individual and a somewhat accomplished soldier and businessman.

'Mama always said life was like a box of half elf ears... You never know if it's gonna have a point.'
That's a bad system for measuring intelligence. Since the difference between a person with a 7 INT and a person with 11 INT is only 10% success rate. 10%!

Not precisely true, as a big difference will be that the seven int has to roll for things that the 11 just gets to know without even rolling.

Still, if I was going to do a equivalent 'real world iq' combo, I would probably use an average of int and wis and perhaps even cha, and multiply THAT average by ten. Because the things that make up intelligence real world are composed of more than just the things in the int score.

10% of things though. It's a gap certainly. But it's not the gap between 70 IQ* and 110 IQ* though.

*IQ not really being accurate.


But a lack of reliable knowledge of ten percent of the things that EVERYONE should just KNOW is significant.


Anzyr wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:

For a general idea of intelligence I tend to multiply the score by ten and compare it to the Stanford–Binet IQ score. It works out fairly well and has similar distribution to the standard 3d6 die rolls bell curve. That being said it's an even rougher estimate of capability then IQ normally is but it puts your average orc at the smarts of Forrest Gump who was a completely capable individual and a somewhat accomplished soldier and businessman.

'Mama always said life was like a box of half elf ears... You never know if it's gonna have a point.'
That's a bad system for measuring intelligence. Since the difference between a person with a 7 INT and a person with 11 INT is only 10% success rate. 10%!

We also have an example of an int 4 individual that can stand in for "simple commoner", "dock rat", "stableboy" or "urchin runner". The NPC is noted as a "amiable simpleton". That's almost 1/2 of what he thought was Forrest Gump.

RMK42: The only real difference is the 2 point difference in int check. At worse it means that can't take ten on DC 10 info without points in the skill so they are bad at book learning. And even then, that 7 int person goes from having to roll to making those skills automatically just by putting a point in a class knowledge skill.

So the difference is int check difference and less skill points and that's about it. A 4 int person can have better total bonuses to int skill rolls than a int 18 person with a big enough level difference by throwing skill points at the issue.


graystone wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:

For a general idea of intelligence I tend to multiply the score by ten and compare it to the Stanford–Binet IQ score. It works out fairly well and has similar distribution to the standard 3d6 die rolls bell curve. That being said it's an even rougher estimate of capability then IQ normally is but it puts your average orc at the smarts of Forrest Gump who was a completely capable individual and a somewhat accomplished soldier and businessman.

'Mama always said life was like a box of half elf ears... You never know if it's gonna have a point.'
That's a bad system for measuring intelligence. Since the difference between a person with a 7 INT and a person with 11 INT is only 10% success rate. 10%!

We also have an example of an int 4 individual that can stand in for "simple commoner", "dock rat", "stableboy" or "urchin runner". The NPC is noted as a "amiable simpleton". That's almost 1/2 of what he thought was Forrest Gump.

RMK42: The only real difference is the 2 point difference in int check. At worse it means that can't take ten on DC 10 info without points in the skill so they are bad at book learning. And even then, that 7 int person goes from having to roll to making those skills automatically just by putting a point in a class knowledge skill.

So the difference is int check difference and less skill points and that's about it. A 4 int person can have better total bonuses to int skill rolls than a int 18 person with a big enough level difference by throwing skill points at the issue.

Once you throw in a big level difference, you are not any longer comparing apples to apples. You are installing acquired traits instead of innate. And the higher intelligence person at the same level will have a massively BROADER base of knowledge represented by skill ranks in more skills or knowledges.


RDM42 wrote:
Once you throw in a big level difference, you are not any longer comparing apples to apples. You are installing acquired traits instead of innate. And the higher intelligence person at the same level will have a massively BROADER base of knowledge represented by skill ranks in more skills or knowledges.

Not if one's a magus and the other's a bard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
But a lack of reliable knowledge of ten percent of the things that EVERYONE should just KNOW is significant.

Certainly it is significant. It's just not 70 IQ* to 110 IQ* significant. It's 10% significant. Which... is 90% not significant.

*See above.


RDM42 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:

For a general idea of intelligence I tend to multiply the score by ten and compare it to the Stanford–Binet IQ score. It works out fairly well and has similar distribution to the standard 3d6 die rolls bell curve. That being said it's an even rougher estimate of capability then IQ normally is but it puts your average orc at the smarts of Forrest Gump who was a completely capable individual and a somewhat accomplished soldier and businessman.

'Mama always said life was like a box of half elf ears... You never know if it's gonna have a point.'
That's a bad system for measuring intelligence. Since the difference between a person with a 7 INT and a person with 11 INT is only 10% success rate. 10%!

We also have an example of an int 4 individual that can stand in for "simple commoner", "dock rat", "stableboy" or "urchin runner". The NPC is noted as a "amiable simpleton". That's almost 1/2 of what he thought was Forrest Gump.

RMK42: The only real difference is the 2 point difference in int check. At worse it means that can't take ten on DC 10 info without points in the skill so they are bad at book learning. And even then, that 7 int person goes from having to roll to making those skills automatically just by putting a point in a class knowledge skill.

So the difference is int check difference and less skill points and that's about it. A 4 int person can have better total bonuses to int skill rolls than a int 18 person with a big enough level difference by throwing skill points at the issue.

Once you throw in a big level difference, you are not any longer comparing apples to apples. You are installing acquired traits instead of innate. And the higher intelligence person at the same level will have a massively BROADER base of knowledge represented by skill ranks in more skills or knowledges.

But we're still comparing int to int so it's still apples vs apples. You where basing things on auto making int checks or not but skill points change that and make that point invalid.

Secondly, you have no way of knowing if the higher int person "massively BROADER base of knowledge". If a int 4 human rogue put every skill point into knowledge skills while the 18 int elf wizard never put a single point into them who is more knowledge at 20th level?


Scavion wrote:
I wince every time I see a DM making hidden rolls in combat.

I like hidden rolls when I don't want it to be known that there even was a roll (e.g., passive perception checks for a trap/surprise attack, or whether the effect of a cursed item that the players don't know is cursed has triggered). A PRNG with good statistical random properties is going to be better than a molded die anyhow, so I have no problem 'rolling' with my laptop without it being obvious that I have rolled anything.

I can't think of many instances where it would happen in combat, but they do exist. If there is a hidden potential combatant in another room who has not yet entered the fight, their presence might be a secret until a PC succeeds on their (secret) listen check, which is only possible if they don't know a roll occurred. More often, though, IME hidden rolls happen before combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regarding adding hp: That was the track taken in 4th edition. Everything had tons and tons of hp. Fights took ages. Sure, it doesn't completely add up when you add hp, but I can see worse ways to make fights last longer. However, going by 4th edition results, it didn't really improve things.

About hidden rolls and not: "Okay, he made the Will save on a 12, and he hit my AC 22 on a 13 last round. That means he is either level 6, or level 5 with a Will save boost. Given that all his feats are accounted for and he doesn't have any active spell effects, I would guess he's wearing a cloak of resistance of at least +2. I call dibbs!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Regarding adding hp: That was the track taken in 4th edition. Everything had tons and tons of hp. Fights took ages. Sure, it doesn't completely add up when you add hp, but I can see worse ways to make fights last longer. However, going by 4th edition results, it didn't really improve things.

About hidden rolls and not: "Okay, he made the Will save on a 12, and he hit my AC 22 on a 13 last round. That means he is either level 6, or level 5 with a Will save boost. Given that all his feats are accounted for and he doesn't have any active spell effects, I would guess he's wearing a cloak of resistance of at least +2. I call dibbs!"

My buddy Aratrok is like a machine when it comes to this. It takes very little time for him to break down stuff in his head from simple dice rolls. It's really amusing.

He's also really good at deducing plot stuff. He's like Sherlock Holmes man. It's awesome. :3


Ashiel wrote:
Post is too big to quote in full, like I said, replying to huge posts is a pain in the ass

Ok here is my problem.

The abstractions of ability scores are both ignored and used by the bestiary. It very clearly says in the orc entry that "orcs are less intelligent than humans". And then they give orcs INT 7.

Again, this is supposed to be the cruel cut of the whole race. The whole race, painted as inferior to humans in this area. If they had not given orcs 7 INT but maybe 8 or 9, the connection between the fluff and crunch would had imminently been crushed, but they had to go and give them int 7, which you do not really find in NPC humans. Reference NPCs and reference monsters are meant to be the framework of fauna that the world operates with.

If they had just ... not bothered, there would not be this problem. If all humanoids had INT from 8-10, we could all call them in the same ballpark as the pig farmers and such. But no, they really wanted to give the impression ogres and orcs are incapable of reasoning the same way humans do, in a detrimental way.

Also antimagic fields are stupid because they do not truly deny all magic. Sure, visible magic disappears but golems still walk and other stuff. But I digress.

Also gimme pages of reference if you call me wrong, I am not interested in being wrong, I am interested in knowing from where you get that from.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:


Ok here is my problem.
The abstractions of ability scores are both ignored and used by the bestiary. It very clearly says in the orc entry that "orcs are less intelligent than humans". And then they give orcs INT 7.

Again, this is supposed to be the cruel cut of the whole race. The whole race, painted as inferior to humans in this area. If they had not given orcs 7 INT but maybe 8 or 9, the connection between the fluff and crunch would had imminently been crushed, but they had to go and give them int 7, which you do not really find in NPC humans. Reference NPCs and reference monsters are meant to be the framework of fauna that the world operates with.

If they had just ... not bothered, there would not be this problem. If all humanoids had INT from 8-10, we could all call them in the same ballpark as the pig farmers and such. But no, they really wanted to give the impression ogres and orcs are incapable of reasoning the same way humans do, in a detrimental way.

You're only confused because you're adding rules that aren't there. The normal range of intelligence for humans is 3-18. The normal range of intelligence for orcs is 3-16 (-2 int penalty). Orcs aren't "incapable of reasoning the same way humans do." Animals, with 2 intelligence or lower, can't reason the way humans can. Orcs can, because the Core Rulebook and Bestiary say so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is not a hard concept. On average orcs are dumber than humans, but there are smart orcs and dumb humans. Humans have a higher potential, but orcs still fall within the range of human intelligence.

Here's a quote from the old 3.5 Player's Handbook that sums this point up quickly and easily.

Player's Handbook wrote:
Int: The familiar's Intelligence score. Familiars are as smart as people, though not necessarily as smart as smart people.

Same deal here. They're within the range of human Intelligence. They have human-like Intelligence. They can do pretty much the same things that humans can do. They might not be as good at Int-based things but they are still playing on the same field as humans.

By your same argument, a human either can't have a higher than average Int score and still be a human, or having a higher Int score than the human average (such as Int 16) means you're in some completely different league than humans. But you're not. Because we're dealing with average ability scores here.

Clearly orcs are dumber than humans when you compare them across the board. Orcs consistently are on the lower end of human Intelligence. Elves are typically on the higher end of human Intelligence. They are both within the ranges of human Intelligence.

The only and short of it is, if your Int is 3+, you are as smart as people but not necessarily as smart as smart people. You're now playing in the same field. You are a sentient, intelligent creature, no longer limited in terms of what you can do based on Int (aside from casting keyed off Int but then you're no worse off than the dude with a 9).


137ben wrote:


You're only confused because you're adding rules that aren't there. The normal range of intelligence for humans is 3-18. The normal range of intelligence for orcs is 3-16 (-2 int penalty). Orcs aren't "incapable of reasoning the same way humans do." Animals, with 2 intelligence or lower, can't reason the way humans can. Orcs can, because the Core Rulebook and Bestiary say so.

Is this range you two keep mentioning rolling stats or something?

Core book gives very clear NPC attribute table with fixed numbers.

Also even we humans cannot reason all the same. That is why there are such gap between many of us, even if we are the same species. In the ladder, where humans inhabit a whole range of steps, orcs stand at one lower while animals are very very lower.


From all of the references of animal intelligence that is inflated above two still having animal intelligence, I would think that intelligence scores are only representative of norms within the race in question.

If you're way outside the standard metric for your race, then it shows up as ten or fifteen percent fluctuations from median.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:
137ben wrote:


You're only confused because you're adding rules that aren't there. The normal range of intelligence for humans is 3-18. The normal range of intelligence for orcs is 3-16 (-2 int penalty). Orcs aren't "incapable of reasoning the same way humans do." Animals, with 2 intelligence or lower, can't reason the way humans can. Orcs can, because the Core Rulebook and Bestiary say so.

Is this range you two keep mentioning rolling stats or something?

Core book gives very clear NPC attribute table with fixed numbers.

Also even we humans cannot reason all the same. That is why there are such gap between many of us, even if we are the same species. In the ladder, where humans inhabit a whole range of steps, orcs stand at one lower while animals are very very lower.

That's because the preset ability scores for NPCs in the creating NPCs chapter uses 3 point buy to build its arrays. However, NPCs can also be generated with custom ability scores, and the standard random generation for ability scores in 3.5 (which PF is based off of) was the 3d6 generation (nonheroic generation). That's the scale of the d20 system.

Even still, when generating characters without arrays using the normal range for their abilities, humans have a 3-20 range.


Ashiel wrote:

Even still, when generating characters without arrays using the normal range for their abilities, humans have a 3-20 range.

Does Pathfinder core books even mention this possibility?

Even if it is an age old method that everything was based on, it also seems outdated idea.
If you are talking about the fact that the range is the all the extremes of the dice roll.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, rolling for ability scores is one of the standard generation method for characters in Pathfinder (and I don't even like rolling for ability scores, I'm a PB-person all the way). By definition that means that the range of humans is 3-18 with a floating +2.

To not be the range of human ability would mean that you cannot roll outside of that range.

But trying to shoehorn the ability scores into meaning vast, expansive gaps between ability doesn't work. It's not backed up by the mechanics at all, which shatters immersion and verisimilitude.


Ashiel wrote:

Yes, rolling for ability scores is one of the standard generation method for characters in Pathfinder (and I don't even like rolling for ability scores, I'm a PB-person all the way). By definition that means that the range of humans is 3-18 with a floating +2.

To not be the range of human ability would mean that you cannot roll outside of that range.

But trying to shoehorn the ability scores into meaning vast, expansive gaps between ability doesn't work. It's not backed up by the mechanics at all, which shatters immersion and verisimilitude.

I would rule rolling for stats is purely player character related rule because player characters are special and are allowed to break the mold of the norm. Since the whole point of PCs are to be special.

So I do not think it has any relation to the actual norm of the human NPC race. This might sound like facist to some, but if you showed me Human PC with 3 INT, I would require a good flavor/explanation why that is.

Because I am a dogmatic person in this way I guess. "Mechanics not fully supporting the fluff" is not mutually exclusive with "Fluff and crunch being implied with a connection". It might seem that it should be, but I do not think it is. There is a gap that is left for interpretation. I would say that it is very natural that the GM comes up with something that fills the gap and makes it work.

I think this came up in past threads too. I am in the camp of the ability score dogma where they are a score that explains the world and to you they are nothing but a mechanic. And those two camps are never going to agree.


Anzyr wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:

For a general idea of intelligence I tend to multiply the score by ten and compare it to the Stanford–Binet IQ score. It works out fairly well and has similar distribution to the standard 3d6 die rolls bell curve. That being said it's an even rougher estimate of capability then IQ normally is but it puts your average orc at the smarts of Forrest Gump who was a completely capable individual and a somewhat accomplished soldier and businessman.

'Mama always said life was like a box of half elf ears... You never know if it's gonna have a point.'
That's a bad system for measuring intelligence. Since the difference between a person with a 7 INT and a person with 11 INT is only 10% success rate. 10%!

You're also forgetting the two fewer skills. The skill point system being stupid making everyone with a case of the derp an idiot savant does little to dissuade me from using t as a 'Will this NPC think to dig a pit and put spikes in it' guideline


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:

I'll start by saying that our views differ immensely and we do not see eye to eye. I mean, consider. Is the fox cunning because he pounces or does the fox's pounce make it seem cunning? Animals have number of learned habits from instincts, without actually no ability to reason why they do such things. Also sentience is not the same as being able to understand language.

Many monsters can talk, but I refuse to accept that as a measure of equality to human intelligence. Be it merely magical ability, whatever works. I do not see how you see the language working, but for me it is nothing but magic translating the growls into common . How beastiary and reference NPCs stat blocks compare, INT 4 is nothing more than beast who can talk, but is still a beast lead by impulsive instincts.

You say normal human can have a huge range, but I find no proof for it. You are hard pressed to even find a human NPC with 7 INT. There are several 8 INT reference NPCs, those with simple fates such as cult acolytes or squires. The system attempts to include so many varied metal states into a single number, however badly it might work. There are handful of numbers between 2-8 which all dictate level of reasoning going from "straightforward" minded to animal. So what is 4 then.

Orcs are INT 7. How much tactical mindset are you allowed to have at this INT number? Ogres are 6, which is one point less. Dretch Demon has 5. Earth Elemental hits 4. All of them, I mean all of them would be categorized as NOT SMART AS HUMANS. So what does that mean to us, humans. Real life humans. How would an intelligent, but less than human intelligent species, respond to tactical situations? And the important point is that they need to in a linear fashion make less beneficial decisions.

Not that I disagree with everything you wrote, but there is too much so I want to avoid starting one of those horrible quote pyramids.

In an actual AP a human with an intelligence of 3 actually had PC class levels. That is all you need from a rules perspective. All this talk of low intelligence not being able to form simple battle tactics us just house ruling, which is fine, but it should not be presented as "not legal/right".

Now I don't expect anyone with int 3 to form a 9 or 10 step tactical plan to take apart an army, but ambush tactics, and using the environment to your advantage as well as ascertain threat levels of enemies is something that even animals can do.


wraithstrike wrote:
In an actual AP a human with an intelligence of 3 actually had PC class levels. That is all you need from a rules perspective.

I actually do want more context on that out of curiosity.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:
I would rule rolling for stats is purely player character related rule because player characters are special and are allowed to break the mold of the norm. Since the whole point of PCs are to be special.

I don't really care what you would rule (beyond recognizing that I'd have no interest in participating in a game ran by you). It doesn't change that in Pathfinder the range of normal ability scores are between the range of 3-18.

Quote:
So I do not think it has any relation to the actual norm of the human NPC race. This might sound like facist to some, but if you showed me Human PC with 3 INT, I would require a good flavor/explanation why that is.

Like I said, I don't really care about your house rules. You are making declarations and rules concerning things that ability scores simply do not do and do not reflect.

Quote:
Because I am a dogmatic person in this way I guess. "Mechanics not fully supporting the fluff" is not mutually exclusive with "Fluff and crunch being implied with a connection". It might seem that it should be, but I do not think it is. There is a gap that is left for interpretation. I would say that it is very natural that the GM comes up with something that fills the gap and makes it work.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. You're seriously like "Chimeras can't make traps!" and I'm like "Dude, according to this Chimeras are intelligent and can indeed make Craft Trap checks, albeit really crappy ones", "Well in my games they can't do that because they're too dumb, they're just animals even if they can talk and stuff", "Okay but...you seriously just made that up and it contradicts how the game actually works", "But DOGMA!".

This is seriously how it's coming off to me when I read your responses on this subject. Little to nothing seems well explained as to why you are making these claims about the meaning of ability scores when the ability scores and what they mean are - likely intentionally - left vague (which allows for more freedom with designing characters on either side of the screen).

Quote:
I think this came up in past threads too. I am in the camp of the ability score dogma where they are a score that explains the world and to you they are nothing but a mechanic. And those two camps are never going to agree.

The problem is that you're acting like ability scores are the big picture. They're just a piece of the much larger puzzle. Ability scores are not defined beyond an abstract measure of a certain trait and how it affects your character's potential and aptitude in a given thing. The actual character is an amalgam of a lot of different things.

This is not the ancient days where the only defining characteristics of a character were your ability scores. Ability scores mean less to the overall package (which is good for a lot of reasons, most of which being that there's less emphasis on having the best ability scores possible).

As to my seeing them as "just a mechanic", far from it. As noted, they're a cog in the bigger machine that runs a rather robust world. The issue I have with your posts is simply that you are trying to attribute things to them that they do not mean. They could mean those things but you are trying to force absolutes onto them, and extreme absolutes at that (such as outright forbidding something with a low-ish Intelligence from doing things that they are allowed to do) and that's just wrong. That's not the way the game works. That shouldn't be the way the game works because it's more stifling on potential narratives and emphasizes building an array of ability scores rather than characters.

For example, if I wanted to make a character who had a lack of a common education such as a farmhand, I could give them a low Int to represent that they're actually not familiar with things typically common knowledge to most people in their realm, having to make a check to see if they know the name of the Duke's son, or that the king in a neighboring country was recently killed, and so forth. Perfect for a sheltered or rural individual who has to occasionally ask the odd question to a nearby stranger.

I could also give a character a low Int to represent them being incredibly forgetful, needing to make a check to recall stuff like that or remark "Y'know, I don't remember...it's right on the tip of my tongue buuuuuuuut...I got nothin'."

I could likewise give them a low Int to represent them being pretty stupid, and really ham it up, like having them speak in 1-word sentences whenever possible, and recite complex poetry like "Grog like beer! Bring Grog beer!"

What you describe doesn't make a world, it chokes it.


Ashiel wrote:
Big post again

I care more about a consistent world than a creative one, I can admit that. In fact, the world functions best when it is predictable to a certain extend. The world we live in is formulaic and deterministic. And I think it is all the better for it. Well, that would not be probably the right way to say it.

In right dogmatic sense, the right statement is to say that it would be so better for everyone. It would be even better if everyone were forced to play under a single unified vision. But this is getting political now, gods.

So how much more do you think we disagree one?


Ashiel wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

Regarding adding hp: That was the track taken in 4th edition. Everything had tons and tons of hp. Fights took ages. Sure, it doesn't completely add up when you add hp, but I can see worse ways to make fights last longer. However, going by 4th edition results, it didn't really improve things.

About hidden rolls and not: "Okay, he made the Will save on a 12, and he hit my AC 22 on a 13 last round. That means he is either level 6, or level 5 with a Will save boost. Given that all his feats are accounted for and he doesn't have any active spell effects, I would guess he's wearing a cloak of resistance of at least +2. I call dibbs!"

My buddy Aratrok is like a machine when it comes to this. It takes very little time for him to break down stuff in his head from simple dice rolls. It's really amusing.

He's also really good at deducing plot stuff. He's like Sherlock Holmes man. It's awesome. :3

But it also makes the game a silly mess of metagaming. I would rather not deal with it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Big post again

I care more about a consistent world than a creative one, I can admit that. In fact, the world functions best when it is predictable to a certain extend. The world we live in is formulaic and deterministic. And I think it is all the better for it. Well, that would not be probably the right way to say it.

In right dogmatic sense, the right statement is to say that it would be so better for everyone. It would be even better if everyone were forced to play under a single unified vision. But this is getting political now, gods.

So how much more do you think we disagree one?

Well, we seem to disagree on you making any sense. See, what I'm describing is consistency. It's being consistent with the rules and not creating weird, arbitrary, tacked on, ad-hocs that make the rules of "reality" in the game less effective at modeling a world.

Because as noted, there is a lot of variation in things. If we had an RPG that was a perfect simulation of reality, each individual character sheet would make The Bible look thin. However, we settle for a certain level of abstraction that makes the process simpler and more easily managed without losing the ability to present the world or a world in a context that seems believable.

We can define a creature through fluff and then mechanics that represent that fluff in a mechanical sense. There's absolutely nothing wrong with deciding that a chimera or indeed most chimera wouldn't come up with the idea to dig a hole in the ground and cover it with some big leaves or something but someone could just as easily decide that the chimera is much like an extremely clever animal and does in fact make use of crude tools such as falling object traps or pitfalls because it can reason that falling down is bad and rocks falling on you is bad and decides "I can move rock, make rock fall. If something come in, rock fall on them, then I eat them".

But what you describe is not a unified vision or system, it's in fact less unified. It breaks from the actual rules and makes it far more difficult for the game to model anything but very specific archetypes anywhere near effectively.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

Regarding adding hp: That was the track taken in 4th edition. Everything had tons and tons of hp. Fights took ages. Sure, it doesn't completely add up when you add hp, but I can see worse ways to make fights last longer. However, going by 4th edition results, it didn't really improve things.

About hidden rolls and not: "Okay, he made the Will save on a 12, and he hit my AC 22 on a 13 last round. That means he is either level 6, or level 5 with a Will save boost. Given that all his feats are accounted for and he doesn't have any active spell effects, I would guess he's wearing a cloak of resistance of at least +2. I call dibbs!"

My buddy Aratrok is like a machine when it comes to this. It takes very little time for him to break down stuff in his head from simple dice rolls. It's really amusing.

He's also really good at deducing plot stuff. He's like Sherlock Holmes man. It's awesome. :3

But it also makes the game a silly mess of metagaming. I would rather not deal with it.

I've never seen him cause any harm with it. It's just funny. It's fairly difficult to not think about things in mechanical terms when you're familiar with the subject matter, in much the way game designers will frequently recognize when something in the game they're playing is using switches and variables. It doesn't stop you from having fun playing a game because you know how the game works.

The plot stuff isn't really metagaming at all though. He just has damn good hunches quite frequently, or manages to deduce that something's up - with striking detail - before anyone else in the group notices things. I think it's because he's both very smart and attentive. He really seems to enjoy and care about what's going on, almost like he were really there. :)


Envall wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
In an actual AP a human with an intelligence of 3 actually had PC class levels. That is all you need from a rules perspective.
I actually do want more context on that out of curiosity.

In the AP the human was mentally challenged, and he was being led around by another NPC he looked up to. He however was still able to use all the class abilities with no limitation.

If you have any specific questions feel free to ask.


Ashiel wrote:


-Other stuff-

We can define a creature through fluff and then mechanics that represent that fluff in a mechanical sense. There's absolutely nothing wrong with deciding that a chimera or indeed most chimera wouldn't come up with the idea to dig a hole in the ground and cover it with some big leaves or something but someone could just as easily decide that the chimera is much like an extremely clever animal and does in fact make use of crude tools such as falling object traps or pitfalls because it can reason that falling down is bad and rocks falling on you is bad and decides "I can move rock, make rock fall. If something come in, rock fall on them, then I eat them".

Not that even we real life humans completely understand the limits of animal intelligence. Crows pass the mirror tests and solve multiple step tests.

But there is a gap that is unknown to us. The mental process to create a trap for instance, is somewhere in between. Spiders naturally create traps, but do we know if they do it realizing it is a trap. I would say it would be verisimilitude breaking to have too clever monsters, because for players it makes them feel even more artificial. They know that it is a beast, but suddenly the beast starts using tactical knowledge for its fight.

In past post you said that sea serpent could use the sea to its advantage and drag players to water to make the fight more difficult. This seems wrong because sea serpent is dumb and probably sees the ship as a big sea animal that it must kill to compete in the sea food chain. So it might just slam and try to crush the boat, while the small player character kill it. Kraken on the other hand has massive intelligence, in that case it would make a lot of sense that it plays the environment to its huge advantage.

Monsters should not be more or less clever just because the encounter might need them to be.
I mean, you could always just make a new monster bestiary entry for a more intelligent version of the same creature.

wraithstrike wrote:


-Other stuff-

In the AP the human was mentally challenged, and he was being led around by another NPC he looked up to. He however was still able to use all the class abilities with no limitation.

If you have any specific questions feel free to ask.

Ah yes, Master Blaster from Thunderdome kind of deal yes?

That makes sense because the 3-INT is not really in control of itself.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:
Not that even we real life humans completely understand the limits of animal intelligence. Crows pass the mirror tests and solve multiple step tests.

Exactly. We see animals displaying acts of high cognition and intelligence all the time, as well as using tactics suited to their habitats and needs. When creatures of nonsentient intelligence can do things that could be called "smart", is it really any wonder when creatures who are in an entirely different weight class could do things no more complex that simple beasts and vermin?

What you describe is not befitting any reality I've ever seen and it describes a rather cruddy sounding fantasy to boot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:
In past post you said that sea serpent could use the sea to its advantage and drag players to water to make the fight more difficult. This seems wrong because sea serpent is dumb and probably sees the ship as a big sea animal that it must kill to compete in the sea food chain. So it might just slam and try to crush the boat, while the small player character kill it. Kraken on the other hand has massive intelligence, in that case it would make a lot of sense that it plays the environment to its huge advantage.

Dude...c'mon, seriously man. The sea serpent has a 20 ft. reach, both of its attacks (bite and tail slap) have the grab + constrict abilities, and it lives in the freakin' ocean. Grabbing a snack and toting it off isn't rocket science. It's barely a tactic since it's basically just what an animal would do anyway. The environment itself is also a difficulty aspect of the encounter because you can't target the thing with spells and abilities until it surfaces (or you go underwater too) and in its more suited to its environment than you are.

Seriously, if this is too tactical...just...I don't even know man. I can't fathom how pointlessly brick stupid you expect things to act when even dumb animals look like geniuses by comparison. This is literally...

Sea Serpent (Surprise Round): "Rawr, I'm a monster!" *nom*
Sea Serpent (Round #1): With the serpent's meal (possibly one of many) clasped in its jaws or tail, it whisks itself back into the depths where it came from. :B
Party: "Um...should we go in after Melzen?" - "Um...it's really dark down there and these water is deeper than we know," :(


Ashiel wrote:

Exactly. We see animals displaying acts of high cognition and intelligence all the time, as well as using tactics suited to their habitats and needs. When creatures of nonsentient intelligence can do things that could be called "smart", is it really any wonder when creatures who are in an entirely different weight class could do things no more complex that simple beasts and vermin?

What you describe is not befitting any reality I've ever seen and it describes a rather cruddy sounding fantasy to boot.

"Reality is unrealistic."

What I mean is that the perceptions of reality are different from actual reality.
It is better for roleplaying and worldbuilding that the world is built on top of our misconceptions, because it keeps the artificiality of it at bay funny enough. Big huge axes are less immersion breaking than if you suddenly incorporate real warfare.

The core books advice us to make animals habit more like video game behavior than real behavior because they are not real wolves in the context of the adventure, they are just aggressive savage animals to work as adversary.


HyperMissingno wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Once you throw in a big level difference, you are not any longer comparing apples to apples. You are installing acquired traits instead of innate. And the higher intelligence person at the same level will have a massively BROADER base of knowledge represented by skill ranks in more skills or knowledges.
Not if one's a magus and the other's a bard.

You are STILL throwing in an acquired difference.


RDM42 wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Once you throw in a big level difference, you are not any longer comparing apples to apples. You are installing acquired traits instead of innate. And the higher intelligence person at the same level will have a massively BROADER base of knowledge represented by skill ranks in more skills or knowledges.
Not if one's a magus and the other's a bard.
You are STILL throwing in an acquired difference.

And you were implying that the situation was the same no matter which class had the low int and which class had the high int even if the levels were the same. Now if you clarified that a higher int character will always have more skill ranks and knowledge than a lower int character of the same class and level then you would have been correct.


graystone wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:

For a general idea of intelligence I tend to multiply the score by ten and compare it to the Stanford–Binet IQ score. It works out fairly well and has similar distribution to the standard 3d6 die rolls bell curve. That being said it's an even rougher estimate of capability then IQ normally is but it puts your average orc at the smarts of Forrest Gump who was a completely capable individual and a somewhat accomplished soldier and businessman.

'Mama always said life was like a box of half elf ears... You never know if it's gonna have a point.'
That's a bad system for measuring intelligence. Since the difference between a person with a 7 INT and a person with 11 INT is only 10% success rate. 10%!

We also have an example of an int 4 individual that can stand in for "simple commoner", "dock rat", "stableboy" or "urchin runner". The NPC is noted as a "amiable simpleton". That's almost 1/2 of what he thought was Forrest Gump.

RMK42: The only real difference is the 2 point difference in int check. At worse it means that can't take ten on DC 10 info without points in the skill so they are bad at book learning. And even then, that 7 int person goes from having to roll to making those skills automatically just by putting a point in a class knowledge skill.

So the difference is int check difference and less skill points and that's about it. A 4 int person can have better total bonuses to int skill rolls than a int 18 person with a big enough level difference by throwing skill points at the issue.

Once you throw in a big level difference, you are not any longer comparing apples to apples. You are installing acquired traits instead of innate. And the higher intelligence person at the same level will have a massively BROADER base of knowledge represented by skill ranks in more skills or knowledges.
But we're still comparing int to int so it's still apples vs apples. You where basing things on auto...

Noooooo ...

You are in fact comparing intellignce plus nothing to intelligence plus extra skill ranks. Skill ranks are acquired knowledge, not innate capacity.

Also ...you CANNOT make an untrained knowledge check with a DC higher than ten. And so, unless that imaginary seven intelligence commoner just happens to have spent points on that particular knowledge, he knows nichyevo, nada, nothing, about anything with dc10 or higher as he can't take ten on them and make those knowledge checks. He would have to spend a long time in the library to find the answer.


You cannot make an untrained knowledge check with a DC higher than ten under normal circumstances. There's a crazy amount of stuff that allows for untrained knowledge checks, even ones commoners can get.

You are really bad with your absolutes.


How many first level commoners are going to be taking that feat? And in that case - we are going back to things which .. Are not innate but instead acquired, this time by AGE, for example. More oranges mixed with apples.

I mean heck, look at the description 'lifetime of knowledge and training'. 'Must be more than 100 in a long lived race'

151 to 200 of 359 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Is optimising characters actually suboptimal? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.