Yeah Seeker has been very polite, and very clear that this is a house rule of his, just like the minimum 4 skills for all classes is (and with everyone getting 4 skills points minimum from class it does work much better than it would in the current set up).
Seeker has been more than patient and more than polite. He has also been perfectly honest about what the rules say. The only "misdirection" that I see, is you claiming he said something else, somewhere, at some time, without context or evidence. That is misdirection.
Seeker himself admits it. And, I might point out, you're completely avoiding my actual point to make ad hominem attacks on me. I have been quite restrained in this thread; your attacks are unwarranted. All I was pointing out with the post you quoted is that your assertions about the argument have nothing to do with the actual argument. In effect, you're meddling and you don't even appear to know what you're meddling in.
What I admitted is I was overruled[And pointed to the official ruling} in another thread at lest a year ago. Which has nothing to do with this thread.
Am I the only one in here that would take greater issue with a DM requiring the OP being forced to keep a 5 [when they're not happy about it] than with seeker's houserule?
I'm sorry, but at my table, I'd have them roll a new set of 6 ability scores. Why? The mechanically optimal score assignment [in the case of a human Paladin] would be to dump Int which (if RP'd properly) would take the game in a direction that the other players at my table would find tedious and not fun.
Seeker: You've got to be one of the most patient and even-tempered guys I've encountered on the Internet.
Eh I am used to it. I normally attract the same set of posters who dislike something I have said or ruled in a home game. Why it should bug them is beyond me. But this is nothing, ya should have see the teeth gashing over a ruling a made about a bard in a homebrew :)
I am with ya though I would not make the man keep the 5.
What I admitted is I was overruled[And pointed to the official ruling} in another thread at lest a year ago. Which has nothing to do with this thread.
Right, and I don't deny that. I do deny that you have never made such a claim. MNIJ was waxing dramatically over-hyperbolic. It was an object lesson and the only reason it involved you is he brought it up in the first place.
Seeker has been more than patient and more than polite. He has also been perfectly honest about what the rules say. The only "misdirection" that I see, is you claiming he said something else, somewhere, at some time, without context or evidence. That is misdirection.Seeker himself admits it. And, I might point out, you're completely avoiding my actual point to make ad hominem attacks on me. I have been quite restrained in this thread; your attacks are unwarranted. All I was pointing out with the post you quoted is that your assertions about the argument have nothing to do with the actual argument. In effect, you're meddling and you don't even appear to know what you're meddling in.
You're joking, right? You accuse me of "misdirection," which is another word for "dishonest," and then have the gall to play the victim? Spare me. You're the one who accused me, by name, of engaging in misdirection. You're just a thin skinned poster who can't stand it when someone disagrees with you or calls you on your b.s.
Seeker, on the other hand, from the very beginning, has said, quite plainly, that his is a house rule. Nothing more, nothing less. Which hasn't stopped you or others from acting like the sky is falling. Or that the DnD politburo is going to force you to adopt Seeker's house rule. Sheesh. Get a grip.
And what, exactly, is your point? That you disagree? You've made that clear. That no one is entitled to an opinion that isn't Zurai certified? You've made that quite clear as well, on this thread and many, many others.
What? You don't like fingers pointed at you? Maybe you should engage in a little less of it yourself.
Right, and I don't deny that. I do deny that you have never made such a claim. MNIJ was waxing dramatically over-hyperbolic. It was an object lesson and the only reason it involved you is he brought it up in the first place.
And I have never made such a claim, in this thread. Which is what we are talking about right? A post with nothing to do with this thread has no bearing on this thread. I am not sure why it was brought up.
Seeker has been more than patient and more than polite. He has also been perfectly honest about what the rules say. The only "misdirection" that I see, is you claiming he said something else, somewhere, at some time, without context or evidence. That is misdirection.Seeker himself admits it. And, I might point out, you're completely avoiding my actual point to make ad hominem attacks on me. I have been quite restrained in this thread; your attacks are unwarranted. All I was pointing out with the post you quoted is that your assertions about the argument have nothing to do with the actual argument. In effect, you're meddling and you don't even appear to know what you're meddling in.You're joking, right? You accuse me of "misdirection," which is another word for "dishonest," and then have the gall to play the victim? Spare me. You're the one who accused me, by name, of engaging in misdirection. You're just a thin skinned poster who can't stand it when someone disagrees with you or calls you on your b.s.
Seeker, on the other hand, from the very beginning, has said, quite plainly, that his is a house rule. Nothing more, nothing less. Which hasn't stopped you or others from acting like the sky is falling. Or that the DnD politburo is going to force you to adopt Seeker's house rule. Sheesh. Get a grip.
And what, exactly, is your point? That you disagree? You've made that clear. That no one is entitled to an opinion that isn't Zurai certified? You've made that quite clear as well, on this thread and many, many others.
What? You don't like fingers pointed at you? Maybe you should engage in a little less of it yourself.
I think you need to read the thread rather than reply about posts you have dreamed up. I had precisely one post (a post that was all of two lines long and was essentially nothing more than an elaborate "+1") in the thread before I responded to you. You're outright lying about my involvement here with your claims that I am "acting like the sky is falling" or that the "DnD politburo is going to force me to adopt Seeker's house rule". I have made virtually no discussion of this matter in this thread or any other. You have invented the entire rant you just made against me out of whole cloth.
I removed some posts. People need to chill.
And I have never made such a claim, in this thread. Which is what we are talking about right?
Did you even read what I wrote? I was cutting down MNIJ's very overly hyperbolic reply. The only reason you were involved in it at all is because he brought it up. Gnaw on him about it if you dislike it.
It was brought up in the context of this thread. Anything I said months or a year ago have no bearing on this thread. You brought up the other thread.It really did have nothing to do with this one at all.
It was brought up in the context of this thread. Anything I said months or a year ago have no bearing on this thread. You brought up the other thread.It really did have nothing to do with this one at all.
Then he shouldn't have said:
1. Seeker has never claimed, implied, or hinted that how he does things is according to the rules. Unlike quite a few people on the boards, he doesn't pretend that he is using RAW by latching on to some obscure reference that is blatantly obvious to everyone but him. It's his house rule, and he's never claimed otherwise.
That's bringing up stuff that has no bearing on the thread in the exact same breath that he brought up you "never" having done suchandsuch. 1+1=2. I have nothing against you house ruling stuff, and before MNIJ started rampaging around trying to "shame the thread" I only had one minor post here.
You mean before you accused me of being dishonest.
No, I mean before I pointed out that you were A) stretching the truth considerably, and B) making a point that no one was contesting, which fully qualifies as misdirection (which is NOT the same as dishonesty; misdirection can be honest error or even well-intentioned).
Since then, though, you have been blatantly and flagrantly dishonest.
Again what did that have to do this this thread? What he said is true. I never have claimed any of those things in this thread, digging up something I may have said more then a year ago is not relevant and has nothing to do with this thread at all.
So yes he was correct. He was clearly talking about this thread, so yeah I have never said it was anything other then my houserule.
Not touching most of the back'n'forth going on, but just wanted to say this little bit about Humans:
I've always felt that the reason Humans get the extra skillpoint was exactly like why they get the extra Feat... they are adaptable and quicker at picking things up.
One typical explanation I've read over and over is because they have a shorter lifespan (I know, some have even shorter, they have their own caveats and reasons), so to survive in a world of magic, dragons and long-lived races, they adapt better, or perhaps the word is that they are more versatile, than most and thus learn faster than most.
They are typically portrayed as the dominant species on the planet, despite having a short lifespan. "Live a short life, but accomplish so much." or "The brightest candle burns quickest.", etc.
So basically I've seen it as a knack for picking up on things easier than most, because they are more adaptable, and willing to look at things from different/multiple angles... as it's how the race has survived and in fact become so prominent in the world.
.
This ties into how I see humans portrayed in most creative works. This includes SciFi too (thinking Star Trek tv shows and Master or Orion games, etc).
Non-humans are usually portrayed as having a focus on a particular thing. Powerful mental acuity, Stronger, or special abilities like chameleon skin or environmental survivability.
Humans are usually the middle ground of everything, and therefore weaker than everyone else at their individual thing they are good at.
What Humans have over others is a superior ability to adapt. This usually drives the story elements of "hope" and "success against the odds", etc. It also usually means that Humans are the diplomats, since they are adaptable enough to try seeing things from anyone's point of view, etc.
.
With that in mind, it makes me feel that it's more about picking up things more easily, than actual mental strength.
To sum it up into one sentence:
They aren't getting skills quicker because they are smarter, but rather because they are more willing to approach learning from more angles than others would.
So that's why I feel like Humans should leave their racially gained skillpoint outside of the Int modifier... since Intelligence isn't really how they are getting that extra skillpoint.
|
But it does. it comes back to bite on every Int check the character will make. And on the flipside, the bonus for race and favored class should matter just as much.I'm with Seeker here. The penulty for dumping Int should matter.
No it really doesn't in this case, or if it does (and I really doubt that), it is going to be very minor. Most Int base skills require you to be trained in them, so it is very unlikely that the Paladin will be devoting skill point to those skills, (most of which are not class skills anyway). Even so, they only have like 2 Int based skills anyway, (Know Religion and Nobility, maybe 1 or 2 more). If they are not trained in them, they simply can't use them.
At this point, it doens't matter if he had an Int of 2 or 20, (except that with 20 Int, they might have the skill points for a few Knowledges and everything else too). But it as no bearing on how poorly they would be with Int skills that they can't actually use anyway.
It would be a different story for a Rogue, who does have a lot of Int Class Skills.
yes we all know this, but my hoserules tend to offend some people. Go fig.Mainly because it doesn't make sense. It punishes the human more than any other race because the other races still get their full benefits.
Human fighter with Int 5 = 1 skill point.
Elf Fighter with Int 5 = 1 skill point.
Dwarf Fighter with Int 5 = 1 skill point.The elf and dwarf still get all their other bonuses from race -- the human doesn't.
Consider that this isn't a loophole -- The same thing happens with hit points, Consider:
Elf Wizard with a Con of 5.
First level he's "ok" since he gets maximum hit points and he puts all his FC into hit points meaning he has 4 hp at first level, and takes toughness just to see him through, giving him 7 (6-3+1+3=7)
At second level he rolls the d6 and it comes up a 1. Now he gets the minimum of 1 hp for the level... but what happens to the favored class bonus? Is it (roll 1 - 3 = (min 1) + 1) or is it (roll 1 - 2 = minimum 1)?
In the second case there is absolutely no point in using the FC in HP. In fact it's a double jeopardy case: By taking the bonus hit point you are completely negating it and not getting the skill point that you could have gotten to boot.
Net effect: This isn't an "exception to the rule" The rule when dealing with HP and Skill points is minimum 1 then bonuses. That is the rule. The formula for SP even shows this -- it is (class_amount + Int_Mod) skill points minimum 1 + bonus for FC + bonus for human (if applicable).
Everyone seemed to skip over this so I thought I'd quote it.
Houserules don't offend me. It's just when a creator of a Houserule seeks a further form of vindication by saying everyone should use HIS houserule is when it gets offensive.
Eh when did I say everyone should use my houserule? I do not recall saying that.
No it really doesn't in this case, or if it does (and I really doubt that), it is going to be very minor. Most Int base skills require you to be trained in them, so it is very unlikely that the Paladin will be devoting skill point to those skills, (most of which are not class skills anyway). Even so, they only have like 2 Int based skills anyway, (Know Religion and Nobility, maybe 1 or 2 more). If they are not trained in them, they simply can't use them.
Not true. Knowledge checks can be made untrained, but not for DC's higher than 10 (general knowledge). A low-Int character will be singularly unknowledgable about the world around him.
Appraise and Craft do not require training to use at all, which leaves Spellcraft as the only true 'Trained Only' INT-based skill.
Right... but Touch of Idiocy doesn't deal Intelligence damage. It applies an Intelligence penalty, like Ray of Enfeeblement.
"Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability penalty for a limited amount of time. While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage, but they cannot cause you to fall unconscious or die. In essence, penalties cannot decrease your ability score to less than 1."
Seems fine to me. :)
Off-Topic
Read it again ;-)"these penalties function just like ability damage"
"This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability."
"Intelligence: Damage to your Intelligence score causes
you to take penalties on Intelligence-based skill checks. This
penalty also applies to any spell DCs based on Intelligence."
|
To sum it up into one sentence:
They aren't getting skills quicker because they are smarter, but rather because they are more willing to approach learning from more angles than others would.
So that's why I feel like Humans should leave their racially gained skillpoint outside of the Int modifier... since Intelligence isn't really how they are getting that extra skillpoint.
This is exactly what it comes down to.
They are gaining a skill rank for their diversity and adaptability, not for being smarter than other races.
Guys, my wizard has 5 constitution and rolled a 2 for his first level hit points.
I'm thinking of having him just die in character creation, because I want the constitution penalty to really matter.
well ya don't roll at level 1 any more but yes he would die..to sickly to live..or ya know min of 1 hp
Ah the days of being a level 1 wizard with 1 spell 1 hp and a dagger. Can not say I miss those days
If a character in my game dumped their Intelligence to less than 7, I'd prevent them from coming up with good strategies and plans.
Wisdom might be about common sense, but with regards to a low Intelligence character, they have the mental agility of a bag of bricks.
Even if they use the dump stat idea for minimising their INT, it should go without saying a character with an abnormally low INT (such as less than 7) should literally be counted as having been dropped on his head too many times.
Roleplaying applications of having an absurdly low Intelligence score include and are not restricted to...
1.) Limited Vocabulary, since INT is related to Known Languages, a character with an absurdly low INT should have a very crude dialect and limited access of useable words...and frequenly be confounded by complicated words (requiring Linguistics checks) and long sentances.
2.) No forward planning, a character with an INT score this low should never be able to orchestrate any meaningful plans without other players characters telling them what to do since they shouldnt be able to think beyond 'running in and swinging away like a weedwhacker', sure they wouldnt want to die if the fight went against them, and self preservation kicks in (just dont expect a cunning getaway) but theres no guarantee a character with low INT is going to look past the ricketeyness of an old bridge spanning an old canyon anymore than they would judge their chances of making down some timed trapped corridor.
3.) They shouldnt really be able to be literate if they are that low of an INT...how on earth can someone explain how their INT score is so low?, a Feral character perhaps raised in the wild?, I'd question any attempt the character makes to try and read by making them do Linguistics tests for even simple written messages.
Intelligence goes hand in hand with planning, co-ordination and general intelligent thought, a subpar INT should pose some restrictions in the literary and conversational sense at the very least and the GM should also houserule the characters actions be prevented from being any better planned than the 'send in the weedwhacker' routine without the other players directing them or telling them what to do.
If a character in my game dumped their Intelligence to less than 7, I'd prevent them from coming up with good strategies and plans.Wisdom might be about common sense, but with regards to a low Intelligence character, they have the mental agility of a bag of bricks.
Even if they use the dump stat idea for minimising their INT, it should go without saying a character with an abnormally low INT (such as less than 7) should literally be counted as having been dropped on his head too many times.
Roleplaying applications of having an absurdly low Intelligence score include and are not restricted to...
1.) Limited Vocabulary, since INT is related to Known Languages, a character with an absurdly low INT should have a very crude dialect and limited access of useable words...and frequenly be confounded by complicated words (requiring Linguistics checks) and long sentances.
2.) No forward planning, a character with an INT score this low should never be able to orchestrate any meaningful plans without other players characters telling them what to do since they shouldnt be able to think beyond 'running in and swinging away like a weedwhacker', sure they wouldnt want to die if the fight went against them, and self preservation kicks in (just dont expect a cunning getaway) but theres no guarantee a character with low INT is going to look past the ricketeyness of an old bridge spanning an old canyon anymore than they would judge their chances of making down some timed trapped corridor.
3.) They shouldnt really be able to be literate if they are that low of an INT...how on earth can someone explain how their INT score is so low?, a Feral character perhaps raised in the wild?, I'd question any attempt the character makes to try and read by making them do Linguistics tests for even simple written messages.
Intelligence goes hand in hand with planning, co-ordination and general intelligent thought, a subpar INT should pose some restrictions in the literary and conversational sense at...
For 3 I would honestly make a character with an intelligence 5 or below illiterate. 6-8 I'd probably go with what you said and have them make either a Linguistics check or just an Intelligence check to be able to read messages (if they know the language). Speaking of which (but not to threadjack) I'm disappointed Barbarians aren't illiterate anymore.
Wisdom might be about common sense, but with regards to a low Intelligence character, they have the mental agility of a bag of bricks.
Int isn't mental agility. That's Wisdom. Intelligence is for rote knowledge, memory, and logic; all very structured and rigid things. Wisdom is intuition, insight, and wit (as in "keep your wits about you"). A person with low Intelligence is still fully capable of quite detailed thought and planning. Animals, after all, have 2 Int but are still quite capable of using fairly sophisticated strategy.
Wisdom might be about common sense, but with regards to a low Intelligence character, they have the mental agility of a bag of bricks.Int isn't mental agility. That's Wisdom. Intelligence is for rote knowledge, memory, and logic; all very structured and rigid things. Wisdom is intuition, insight, and wit (as in "keep your wits about you"). A person with low Intelligence is still fully capable of quite detailed thought and planning. Animals, after all, have 2 Int but are still quite capable of using fairly sophisticated strategy.
+1
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as in-game terms go, the way I always saw it:
Intelligence = mental dexterity
Wisdom = mental constitution
Charisma = mental strength
Wisdom might be about common sense, but with regards to a low Intelligence character, they have the mental agility of a bag of bricks.Int isn't mental agility. That's Wisdom. Intelligence is for rote knowledge, memory, and logic; all very structured and rigid things. Wisdom is intuition, insight, and wit (as in "keep your wits about you"). A person with low Intelligence is still fully capable of quite detailed thought and planning. Animals, after all, have 2 Int but are still quite capable of using fairly sophisticated strategy.
As far as 'sneak up on prey and launch a surprise attack' then sure, animals know how to be hunt prey, using cover to reach their victim, etc. But everything an animal does is based on INSTINCT, not Intellect, they know how to hunt, where to strike. A character with really low INT is going to have very poor knowledge skills, likely in the negative modifiers, and as a consequence is going to fail garden variety questions such as 'what does that lever do?', and they might as well stumble down a corridor that has a sign saying 'NO EGRESS' because they dont understand what it says, they'd be more used to someone saying 'That way bad' assuming someone went down that way and survived to tell the tale.
But as for proper planning and precision, Wisdom tells a character that 'ouch, that fire is hot, better not touch that again' and Intelligence tells them that its fire, its hot, why it burns and what it needs to burn, whats flammable, etc.But Animals in particular have no ability to understand things like fire or how it works, only that its 'scary, different and hurts to touch', so they avoid it.
An absurdly low intelligence character would be NO DIFFERENT from a caveman. Sure they could use crude tools, and could cook meat and hunt and forage (Survival is Wisdom based skill after all), but theyre not going to 'identify' a plant as edible without simply eating it first and chancing their luck.
How many cavemen do you think died from eating a tasty looking mushroom that was bright and colourful?, quite alot I'd wager.
Having a low intelligence character is basically like having an animal in the group if they have INT of 3 or less. They could exercise simple stealth/prowling tactics and try and get an enemy from behind, but theyre not going to plan out 'sneak to point A, around the corner and to point B, pull the lever to close off his escape route and wait for the patrol to pass by, wait ten seconds and rush the lone guy in the back'. Like an animal, they'll see an enemy put their back to them from point A and rush out toward them and through any interveining space without a second thought as long as they saw an opening, (and could possibly fall into a trap or something) unless his companions tell him to stay.
Intelligence 3 is no different than having a animal companion in the group, really...i'd wager people would even have to 'Handle' and 'Push' the character with Diplomacy, Bluff or Intimidate rolls to do things, or they'd wander off seeing something shiny right into an bad situation thats obvious to other characters.
Now characters with Intelligence scores between 4 and 6 are more intelligent, and can talk, but like Hill Giants, they should speak broken common and have limited understanding of bigger sentances or complicated words (all accomplished through Linguistics tests of course), and literacy should be questionable. They could exercise more clever tactics of course, but no better than your average Goblin (even then Goblins tend to be smarter than this)). They can be coversed with and find it difficult to understand what your saying.|
An Intelligence 4-6 character is as likely to walk up to a stall, grab something to eat that was on display and look confused when the vendor asks for money. When said vendor reaches out for the food to take it back, I'd safely wager the low intelligence character would get all defensive over his food and pummel said vendor into bloody pulp. Cue his friends having to drag him off, or paying for his food.
Intelligence 4-6 is basically lower than Tarzan or Mowgli, you try taking them into town and seeing the confusion reign. Your basically feral, somewhere between Animal Intellect and Humanoid Intellect, with limited but useful survival skills.
As far as 'sneak up on prey and launch a surprise attack' then sure, animals know how to be stealthy.
But as for proper planning and precision, Wisdom tells a character that 'ouch, that fire is hot, better not touch that again' and Intelligence tells them that its fire, its hot, why it burns and what it needs to burn, whats flammable, etc.
But Animals in particular have no ability to understand things like fire or how it works, only that its 'scary, different and hurts to touch', so they avoid it.
You're really showcasing ignorance, here. Animals are cunning and not at all as moronic as you describe. Sure, apex predators tend to just use the, and I quote you, "'send in the weedwhacker' routine". That's not because creatures with low Intelligence are incapable of strategy, it's because apex predators are the top of the food chain and have no reason to expect that charging in won't work. Creatures that are not apex predators (ie, that have other creatures that prey on them) are much more cunning and perform some very intricate strategies.
For example, there's a species of monkeys in South America that cracks nuts open with rocks for food. This is very loud and attracts attention from predators (who know that the sound means there are monkeys on the ground nearby), so the monkeys always set up shop near cliffsides with lots of loose rocks. When a predator warning is called, all the monkeys scramble up the cliff and start bombarding the predator with rocks from the top of the cliff. Essentially, they operate on a fortified position with sentries and ranged weapons all guarding their food-gathering operation.
There are also observed examples of animals executing bait-and-switches, envelopments, false alarms to steal food, and even using the psychology of their prey against them (dolphins are famous for this).
An absurdly low intelligence character would be NO DIFFERENT from a caveman. Sure they could use crude tools, and could cook meat and hunt and forage (Survival is Wisdom based skill after all), but theyre not going to 'identify' a plant as edible without simply eating it first and chancing their luck.
By that criteria, 99% of the people on the planet are incapable of planning beyond the "'send in the weedwhacker' routine". I certainly have no idea how to identify plants as edible without eating them (or looking them up on the internet, which is the equivalent of casting detect poison), and I've got a paper in my desk that tells me that I'm not a moron.
Its not ignorance. We live in a culture where the vast majority of us are educated to some extent, and can function in society. We know not to eat mushrooms we find in the woods...why?, because someone very educated in that field has explained to the masses its bad to do so because it could be poisonous. And household products that are harmful to eat/drink carry clear warning labels that mean the majority of us need to know nothing about biology/chemistry to know its bad to use. The vast majority of humans on this planet are at least INT 8 - 10, most know how to craft, make things, cook, etc. and can speak their own literate languages and are very capable of picking up more and learning new things quite easily given a proper education of course.
Characters with below 6 Intelligence have to be feral or from very backward communities (such as barbarian cultures). But even then generic Barbarian humanoids have 8 intelligence. Plus said characters/people would likely drink house cleaning products because they'd likely not understand what the symbols mean. Like the saying.. 'keep out of reach of children'. Int 3-6 is more or less childlike or feral.
Characters with less than 7 are more or less feral humanoids, unless they got dropped on their heads a number of times, I cant see why a character with an intelligence that low would feasibly survive unless someone is there to correct them along the way.
Someone with below normal Intelligence and average or better Wisdom is going to know that fire is frightening, painful and dangerous. Someone with Intelligence knows they can use that fire to forge metal, cook decent meals (beyond just cooking meat survival style to get by) and can burn things in general with it.
Subpar Intelligence lower than 7 is an indicator said character is an idiot, knows little to nothing about anything at all and while they might be able to hunt and kill using predatory tactics, they wont be able to identify the BBEG's escape route they're standing so near to and seeing a porticullis and if they can reach a lever (that'd be Knowledge Engineering at least) they could close off his escape route and the party would finish them off.
Subpar Intelligeence characters would simply sieze the chance to attack the opponent instead, by whatever means came 'impulsively' to them at the time unless someone told them what to do.
A prime example...Sloth from Goonies, big STR, low INT, doubt he'd survive in civilistion without Chunk and his family looking after him.
He'd likely get arrested and thrown in jail once hunger took him and he mugged a hotdog vendor and likely pulled both his arms out the guys sockets and beat him to death with them for trying to take away his hotdog. A character with at least 7 INT knows about commerce and understands how complex it is...if someone gave Sloth or said INT 3-6 character some GP to spend, the first vendor he meets is going to take more than he should and Sloth/Int 3-6 guy should rightly be conned out of his money (but hey, he thinks hes getting a good deal).
they wont be able ti identify the BBEG's escape route they're standing so near to
So you force Wisdom skills to be based on Intelligence instead? I guess that cripples every animal in the Bestiary then.
Hint: What you describe there is a function of the Perception skill, which is a Wisdom-based skill that almost every single animal in the Bestiary is trained in and many of them have Skill Focus or Alertness in.
It's also got no basis in reality. Animals are better at finding escape routes than any human I've ever met.
FYI, things like language and literacy are not actually affected by IQ. The language processing part of the brain is different, and some people can, like those with aphasia, can actually be quite mentally stunted while still having a stunning (if somewhat akward) vocabulary.
Low INT does not preclude language acquisition. That is a myth, oftentimes perpetuated by polylingual people...
Yes but Linguistics is an Intelligence based skill.
Yes but Linguistics is an Intelligence based skill.
Yes, and the rules explicitly state that you still both read and speak your racial language as long as you have at least 3 Intelligence.
Yes but Linguistics is an Intelligence based skill.Yes, and the rules explicitly state that you still both read and speak your racial language as long as you have at least 3 Intelligence.
So you can still read if you have an intelligence 1 above an animals? I'd house rule it that you couldn't read that seems a little much for Tarzan and Og the Barbarian IMO.
they wont be able ti identify the BBEG's escape route they're standing so near toSo you force Wisdom skills to be based on Intelligence instead? I guess that cripples every animal in the Bestiary then.
Hint: What you describe there is a function of the Perception skill, which is a Wisdom-based skill that almost every single animal in the Bestiary is trained in and many of them have Skill Focus or Alertness in.
It's also got no basis in reality. Animals are better at finding escape routes than any human I've ever met.
I am not relegating Wisdom based skills to Intelligence, sure the character is good at seeing/hearing things but is he going to figure out that if he rushed past the flatfooted BBEG he could pull the lever and leave the BBEG stranded for the party to deal with?, no.
Its assumed for most characters that everyday Knowledge based things arent even worth rolling...why?, because everyone has a certain INT score. (Look at the NPC array, minimum is 8 for the worst stat and even then you add racial modifiers).
So its assumed 99.9% of people in Pathfinder have some rudimentary or better upbringing or education to at least understand what commerce is, etc. An Intelligence 3-6 character would not understand WHY does this shiny metal thing get them some food...only that it does. Vendors would gladly be cleaning out these poor souls of every coin they had if they felt they were getting a good deal.
Fundamental aspects of knowledge such as basic math, reading & writing, fundamentals of plants and so on, etc. are accessible to every character in Pathfinder, but how well they grasp it depends on their INT score and how they spend their skillpoints. Characters without Knowledge skill as a class skill and a negative INT modifier are going to know less then Joe Public about what a Gold Piece can buy them, or how to open a locked door (INT 3-6 characters I would imagine would promptly try to break said doors down unless they were stopped), or why someone got angry when they took something from them without them asking.
INT 3-6 is essentially Mowgli or Tarzan, feral and brought up outside of civilisation, I cant see how a character with such a little grasp of societys norms and fundamentals can survive for long without outside assistance....which is why I quote that Sloth is an adequate example.
What reason would a player have to reduce his charaters INT so low?, assuming a GM allows it of course, it would be to min/max another primary stat like STR or CON.
Considering that there are real-world animals with languages, I don't think that's a terribly reasonable house rule, but it's your game.
Characters without Knowledge skill as a class skill and a negative INT modifier are going to know less then Joe Public about ... how to open a locked door (INT 3-6 characters I would imagine would promptly try to break said doors down unless they were stopped),
Every cat I've ever dwelt with has known how to open closed doors, and one cat in particular was able to unlock doors when he was on the locking side. There's also recorded, videotaped examples of other animals unlocking gates, cages, aquariums, and other assorted locked and closed barriers.
Considering that there are real-world animals with languages, I don't think that's a terribly reasonable house rule, but it's your game.Amazing how 1 INT vermin (honeybees) can communicate 3-dimensional coordinates miles away by dancing, but they have no language, huh?
Technically it's even worse than that. Vermin are mindless in D&D; no Intelligence score at all.
Characters without Knowledge skill as a class skill and a negative INT modifier are going to know less then Joe Public about ... how to open a locked door (INT 3-6 characters I would imagine would promptly try to break said doors down unless they were stopped),Every cat I've ever dwelt with has known how to open closed doors, and one cat in particular was able to unlock doors when he was on the locking side. There's also recorded, videotaped examples of other animals unlocking gates, cages, aquariums, and other assorted locked and closed barriers.
So those Animals spent a Skill Point then to take a Knowledge skill relevant to understanding the mechanism and then rolling high enough despite having a low INT on that skill to figure out how it works?
Thats how these feats could be explained in Pathfinder, but such animals accomplishing these feats are exceptions to the rule, not all animals can accomplish these things.Sure animals can be 'clever' to crack nuts with rocks to get food or open doors by the handles, but they learn these things by EXAMPLE, they do this by watching us humans and if the muse takes them, to mimic us. (Explained through the rules by spending a Skill Point on a Knowledge roll, or a person uses Handle Animal to teach them that 'trick')
Problem is, Joe Public INT 3-6 is STILL going to be cleaned out when he gets his allowance, he'll blow it on some magic beans in no time.
I'd also like to take issue with the idea that primitive humans are somehow unintelligent. That is very much NOT the case. Tarzan was not necessarily low-intelligence. I am not familiar with the stories per se, but I seem to recall him being able to pick up languages and communicate learn to communicate rather quickly (for a full grown adult). A lack of education does NOT equate to a lack of intelligence.
As a civilized species we have not grown in intelligence, we have grown in acquired knowledge. Our various societies have been able to learn from our ancestor's mistakes, and expand on their acheivements. If you were able to travel back in time and take an infant from, say, 500 years ago and have him raised in society today I'll bet you'd never know the difference.
Problem is, Joe Public INT 3-6 is STILL going to be cleaned out when he gets his allowance, he'll blow it on some magic beans in no time.
Nope, that's a low WIS character. Failed his Sense Motive vs. a Bluff.