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.
So thats why in the Animated Series he picked up a rifle and stared down the barrel looking for food?
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?
No. Knowledge is not an allowed skill for animals with less than 3 Intelligence.
So thats why in the Animated Series he picked up a rifle and stared down the barrel looking for food?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.
...
And if you had never seen a rifle before, or seen its use, how exactly does it make you stupid to look down the hole? There are no indications whatsoever that it's a dangerous object. Seriously, this is the worst possible example you could have come up with.
A character with low int is dopey.
A character with low wisdom is naive or brash.
Intelligence HAS been linked more to booksmarts then anything else throughout D&D - and remember, this is D&D, not Real World Mundane Adventures. The knowledges and spellcraft are int's main skills.
Wisdom is more inner smarts. Judgement of others' character, having solid instincts, that kinda thing. Survival, sense motive, heal.
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.
Actually its not, characters do not automatically aquire knowledge of commerce and so on, go and put a fifty dollar bill in a young kids hand and send them off to buy something. They'll come back minus that fifty and with a lollypop in no time and they'll think they have a good deal.|
Young children mentally are in the area of INT 3-6, they arent aware of science, literature and so on but they know when something tastes good and when something hurts to touch it (thus they learn to not touch fire again for example).
A character with INT 3-6 is going to buy those 'magic beans' because has has a negative Knowledge skill to identify them as regular beans and also because he would know through a basic Knowledge (Local) check about customs and commerce and how much beans would really cost.
Odds are he wont have anything in Knowledges I'd wager, given the character has a negative INT adjustment, even given Class Skill modifiers he's looking at (in those skills alone) at least a substandard grasp of that particular knowledge. Any other Knowledge skill carries with it a substantial negative and all tests require very high die rolls to pass.
While the merchant in the above example may be using Bluff against the characters Sense Motive, hes likely got little to no Skill Points in it anyway given his poor Skill Points thanks to his Low INT, whereas the Merchant is likely going to have a reasonable bonus. Even with a reasonable WIS score, and Sense Motive as a class skill, hes only looking at a small bonus at best. I doubt a character with 3 SP is going to spend those in Knowledges to boot ontop of that, more likely Perception or something
So in well over 70% of cases for low level characters (and excluding competence bonus items, etc) they will get cleaned out unless someone is with them to catch the crook at work.
"Heres your magic beans sir...you wont regret it, its a real bargain!"
Intelligence HAS been linked more to booksmarts then anything else throughout D&D - and remember, this is D&D, not Real World Mundane Adventures. The knowledges and spellcraft are int's main skills.
Intelligence is linked to "Book smarts" because it's the best fit. However it's not the only thing. Craft is Intelligence-based after all. There are tons of well crafted goods made by "primitive" societies that line the walls of our museums today.
I try not to be too PC, but PoC's stance that uncivilized = unintelligent is borderline racist, and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. These recent posts of hers makes me, as a Canadian, embarassed and wishing she'd change her name.
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.
In 3.5 a Barbarian with a 18 intelligence was illiterate, is that unreasonable? I don't know any Barbarians that ever have an 18 intelligence though. Which animals are you talking about though? A Raven? That's actually taken from mythology (Norse I believe but I don't remember).
So thats why in the Animated Series he picked up a rifle and stared down the barrel looking for food?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.
...
And if you had never seen a rifle before, or seen its use, how exactly does it make you stupid to look down the hole? There are no indications whatsoever that it's a dangerous object. Seriously, this is the worst possible example you could have come up with.
Well regardless, we have people around us telling us not to touch the 'rifle', who were likely told by someone else or they read about it, etc.
Thats why we dont touch rifles, because we're told not to.
Intelligence 3-6 characters could overcome their limits to Knowledge by spending Skill Points on relevant skills and getting bonuses from magic items, etc. But a charater with such low Intelligence is outside of societys norm, most commoners have INT 8 or better depending on what race they are.
Animal Companions/Paladins Mount have INT ranging from 3-6 depending which your using, and the Wizards familiar gets a decently high INT for a magical animal.
A character with INT 3-6 is pretty much idiotic, it doesnt matter if you have education or not, you just dont get things the way people do, you learn through example and action not through books and words. It doesnt mean they dont have common sense or cant be charasmatic, of course they can - but characters with such abnormal INT scores are as likely to eat a colorful mushroom because it looks good....why?, because they probably dont have Knowledge Nature and if they did, they probably wont pass the roll most of the time, and without someone holding them back and stopping them from doing it (because even without that Knowledge skill, society has likely taught them to never eat strange fungi from the woods among other things) as a precuation, not really knowing the risk if its good to eat or not.
Young children mentally are in the area of INT 3-6, they arent aware of science, literature and so on but they know when something tastes good and when something hurts to touch it (thus they learn to not touch fire again for example).You, ma'am, do not have children. Children are quite intelligent and VERY aware that people think they are not. My friend's 2 year old was able to manipulate his entire day care staff into waiting on him hand and foot. Methodically and deliberatly, I might add. He could even tell which nurses at the hospital were most vulnerable, and how to change up his act to convince them he "needed" something.
Then, he bragged about it. Actively. To the mental health doctor, who was acting unimpressed.
Education =/= Intelligence.
Children today are much smarter than children from a fantasy-ish dark ages type fantasy setting.
This is an arguement about something in game, not some statement in RL.The fact I am trying to press is someone with abormally low INT has difficulty functioning in civlisation, but not by his wits in the wild, thats ALL I am trying to point at.
Every commoner more or less has their smarts about them on the street to some degree, I fail to see how someone with INT 3-6 functions just as well which is what people are suggesting. That would be like putting Hill Giant in town and asking him to fit in.
Actually its not, characters do not automatically aquire knowledge of commerce and so on, go and put a fifty dollar bill in a young kids hand and send them off to buy something. They'll come back minus that fifty and with a lollypop in no time and they'll think they have a good deal.
Silly me. When you referenced 'Magic Beans' I thought you were referencing the story of Jack and the Beanstalk, where Jack is swindled out of ownership of his cow by a con man with some beans. I've never once heard of an interpretation of that tale where Jack was mentally handicapped, simply naive and gullible.
Young children mentally are in the area of INT 3-6, they arent aware of science, literature and so on but they know when something tastes good and when something hurts to touch it (thus they learn to not touch fire again for example).
Again confusing lack of education with lack of intelligence. Children CAN pick up surprisingly complex concepts, they just have to be taught them. The problem is that teaching them all the varied concepts we live with in modern society takes lots and lots of time. If we were to give a child a focused education on one or two concepts to the exclusion of all others, you'd find that they'd probably be just as competent at it as older people with a broader education.
Sadly, this is why child labor and child soldiers are actually effective.
Children today are much smarter than children from a fantasy-ish dark ages type fantasy setting.
False. They have access to better education; they are no smarter. You could time warp a baby from 1 AD to the present day and if it was raised in a Western country it would be far more capable than if it had been left in 1 AD. Conversely, if you took a modern baby to 1 AD and it was raised by a family there, even if that family was Roman, it would be less capable if you were to then return it to the modern world at age 18 (or whatever age) and compare it to its 1 AD timeswapped counterpart.
Children today are much smarter than children from a fantasy-ish dark ages type fantasy setting. I am not racist either...I resent that remark.
This is an arguement about something in game, not some statement in RL.
The fact I am trying to press is someone with abormally low INT has difficulty functioning in civlisation, but not by his wits in the wild, thats ALL I am trying to point at.
You should edit your post to make sure everyone realizes you're responding to me with the above, not Mirror Mirror.
I put the word "borderline" in front of racist for a reason. I don't know you, so I don't know if you are racist or not. Heck, I don't know if you're a Canadian female or not. All I can go by is the content of your posts, and the attitude that uneducated = unintelligent is ignorant.
The fact that a character that has never been in a city before and has been raised in the wilderness should have zero bearing on his ability scores. None. It would affect his skill choices, perhaps his feats. It would certainly affect his roleplay. That's it.
I am not racist either...I resent that remark.Which remark? The one you made up in your head? No one accused you of being racist.
She's refering to this post by me:
Intelligence HAS been linked more to booksmarts then anything else throughout D&D - and remember, this is D&D, not Real World Mundane Adventures. The knowledges and spellcraft are int's main skills.Intelligence is linked to "Book smarts" because it's the best fit. However it's not the only thing. Craft is Intelligence-based after all. There are tons of well crafted goods made by "primitive" societies that line the walls of our museums today.
I try not to be too PC, but PoC's stance that uncivilized = unintelligent is borderline racist, and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. These recent posts of hers makes me, as a Canadian, embarassed and wishing she'd change her name.
Children today are much smarter than children from a fantasy-ish dark ages type fantasy setting.False. They have access to better education; they are no smarter. You could time warp a baby from 1 AD to the present day and if it was raised in a Western country it would be far more capable than if it had been left in 1 AD. Conversely, if you took a modern baby to 1 AD and it was raised by a family there, even if that family was Roman, it would be less capable if you were to then return it to the modern world at age 18 (or whatever age) and compare it to its 1 AD timeswapped counterpart.
So people that go to college aren't considered more intelligent than people that only finished high school?
No, your all arguing that someone can be less intelligent than the average Pathfinder commoner and somehow function just as well with zero difficulty in any respect.
I am not comparing this to RL in any sense, but Pathfinder characters are representations of their stats. Someone with high STR looks muscular, someone with high CHA is attractive and good at conversation. Someone with high INT is naturally a genius, etc.
The opposite is also true, someone with a low ability score is at a detriment of some sort. To say all you suffer from by having a low INT is a lack of skill point is a fallousy. Someone with low STR is weak, someone with low DEX is clumsy, someone with low CHA is unattractive or just bad with people in general, so too does someone with low INT represent a lack of ability to retain information perhaps on the part of that character, etc.
The other stats when negative affect your skills, by applying penalties, but they also effect saves, special ability DC's, AC and so forth. What does INT affect besides this?, Bonus Languages and Skill Points, Wizards bonus spells & spell DC's and Assassins Death Attacks?. Its not even a good comparison, low INT Wizards along with other classes are prohibited from learning/casting spells because of that low INT/other stat?, is that not also unfair that the game itself judges the character to not be smart enough/wise enough/charasmatic enough to cast the spell?
"Sorry Cleric buddy, your devoted to your God but he just doesnt love you enough to let you work his miracles"
Of course they can survive by their own two hands using the means they have learned to use, but someone with low INT in my opinion would suffer when it comes to language barriers, reading and writing, and knowledges in general and knowledges in particular have grounds in various aspects of the Pathfinder universe.
I of course advocate that a low INT character can overcome any difficulties by spending skill points on neccisary skills and so forth, but in Pathfinder, lack of INT means lack of Skill Points, which generally means low modifiers for most skills even at high levels, thats not a slanderous remark either its simply the rules. If you have an issue with low INT characters being penalised unfairly because the game judges them for having bad INT, then take it up with the game.
Not to mention you shouldnt be allowed to reduce a stat to 3, its a loophole and a bad one at that. Min/Max builds do not create a character, its optimisation.
So people that go to college aren't considered more intelligent than people that only finished high school?
No. They're considered better educated. Education does not equate to Intelligence.
No, your all arguing that someone can be less intelligent than the average Pathfinder commoner and somehow function just as well with zero difficulty in any respect.
False. No one has made any such claim. Actually, the universal claim in this thread is that a character with low Intelligence will suffer when using Intelligence-linked skills, such as Knowledge, Spellcraft, and Linguistics. You've been trying to add to that by making them into drooling morons who can't even wipe their own butts.
Someone with high STR looks muscular, someone with high CHA is attractive and good at conversation.
False. There is nothing in the rules that states or implies this, and Charisma is explicitly more than just attractiveness.
Not to mention you shouldnt be allowed to reduce a stat to 3, its a loophole and a bad one at that. Min/Max builds do not create a character, its optimisation.
Or it's a really, really bad roll -- which, if you'd bothered to read the thread before decrying about min/maxers, you'd find out is the truth. The OP rolled a 5 and was trying to decide where to put it, which is how this thread came about.
So people that go to college aren't considered more intelligent than people that only finished high school?No. They're considered better educated. Education does not equate to Intelligence.
No, your all arguing that someone can be less intelligent than the average Pathfinder commoner and somehow function just as well with zero difficulty in any respect.False. No one has made any such claim. Actually, the universal claim in this thread is that a character with low Intelligence will suffer when using Intelligence-linked skills, such as Knowledge, Spellcraft, and Linguistics. You've been trying to add to that by making them into drooling morons who can't even wipe their own butts.
Someone with high STR looks muscular, someone with high CHA is attractive and good at conversation.False. There is nothing in the rules that states or implies this, and Charisma is explicitly more than just attractiveness.
Not to mention you shouldnt be allowed to reduce a stat to 3, its a loophole and a bad one at that. Min/Max builds do not create a character, its optimisation.Or it's a really, really bad roll -- which, if you'd bothered to read the thread before decrying about min/maxers, you'd find out is the truth. The OP rolled a 5 and was trying to decide where to put it, which is how this thread came about.
So your asserting then that a STR 3 character can have a physical build of a Mr. Universe contestant?
So your asserting then that a STR 3 character can have a physical build of a Mr. Universe contestant?
No, that's your imaginary reading coming up again.
What I'm asserting is that a Strength 18 character does not necessarily have the physical build of a body builder.
Just so you guys know, this page and a bit of the last page has every bit of my education screaming in rage.
GUESS THAT MAKES ME A LOW INTELLIGENCE BARBARIAN
http://www.sadtrombone.com/
So people that go to college aren't considered more intelligent than people that only finished high school?No. They're considered better educated. Education does not equate to Intelligence.
Someone with high STR looks muscular, someone with high CHA is attractive and good at conversation.False. There is nothing in the rules that states or implies this, and Charisma is explicitly more than just attractiveness.
1st: Ok, I'll tell the people at the nuclear lab that someone with a college degree in nuclear physics is only better educated than me but even though I've only got a high school diploma, I've got more ranks in Knowledge (nuclear physics) because I've read a lot of books and have a higher intelligence than the other candidates with college degrees and I'm sure they'll hire me over everyone else. Having an better education means nothing if you don't have the intelligence to actually take in what you're learning/being taught, yes some of it might be wisdom based or even charisma based (such as learning how to play an instrument) but learning to read is intelligence based as well as learning to write, etc. etc. etc.
2nd: You're actually both wrong, Charisma has nothing to do with your appearance it just affects what how people think of you.
1st: Ok, I'll tell the people at the nuclear lab that someone with a college degree in nuclear physics is only better educated than me but even though I've only got a high school diploma, I've got more ranks in Knowledge (nuclear physics) because I've read a lot of books and have a higher intelligence than the other candidates with college degrees and I'm sure they'll hire me over everyone else. Having an better education means nothing if you don't have the intelligence to actually take in what you're learning/being taught, yes some of it might be wisdom based or even charisma based (such as learning how to play an instrument) but learning to read is intelligence based as well as learning to write, etc. etc. etc.
This is nothing but a giant straw man argument. You're inventing arguments aside from what I'm discussing and trying to say that my argument is defeated because you defeat the argument you just made up that has nothing to do with my argument. Please stop, you're only embarrassing yourself.
What I said is this: graduating college doesn't mean you're any smarter than someone who never went to college. There are plenty of brilliant people who never graduated college. For example, Thomas Edison never even attended high school. Was he a moron?
2nd: You're actually both wrong, Charisma has nothing to do with your appearance it just affects what how people think of you.
First, how can I be wrong because of what you just said when all I said was that Charisma measures more than just appearance?
Second, you're wrong. From the Core Rulebook, in the very first chapter:
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
Explination of what your statistics represent from the Pathfinder Core Rulebook Page 15-17...
Strength Strength measures muscle and physical power....Strength also sets the maximum amount of weight your character can carry. A character with a strength score of 0 is too weak to move in any way and is unconcious.Dexterity Dexterity measures agility, reflexes and balance....A character with a deterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and effectively immobile (but not uncuncious)
Constituion Constitution represents your characters health and stamina...a character with a constitution score of 0 is dead.
Intelligence Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons... Any creature of understanding speech has a score of at least 3.
Wisdom Wisdom describes a characters willpower, common sense, awareness and intuition....A character with a wisdom score of 0 is incapable of rational thought and is unconcious.
Charisma Charisma measures a characters personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead and appearance...A character with a charisma score of 0 is unable to assert themselves in any way and is unconcious.
Statistics represent the physical and mental attributes of your character, each stat represents a little more than a number on your sheet.
Someone with high STR looks muscular, someone with high CHA is attractive, someone with high INT or WIS have no 'visible' trait but their behaviour and mannerisms are dictated by their stat, etc.
Since high stats indicate a positive in some department or another which may or may not be visible or evidenced by spending time with that character then so does having a negative do the opposite.
Someone with low WISDOM has little or no common sense, willpower and is unperceptive and has little to no intuition by these very attributes defintions, and indeed, suffering a reduction to a stat has a detrimental effect to the character if inflicted by a spell, etc.
Likewise someone with low STR looks weak, scrawny, etc and someone with low DEX is stiff, moves awkward and is clumsy, etc. and someone with low CON looks sick (given the negative to HP and Fort Saves), etc.
Someone with high STR looks muscular, someone with high CHA is attractive
So it's impossible to have a plain-looking character with an 18 Charisma? It's utterly impossible to have a leader who can inspire his followers with only his personality and words, rather than his physical appearance?
No. You're reading more into those statements than is actually there. All six attributes measure more than one thing. That means that you can have a high score in one of the things they measure and a lower score in another and come out with a high overall attribute. You can be physically powerful without looking like a body builder, you can be an inspiring leader without being beautiful, and you can have incredible reflexes without being graceful.
1st: Ok, I'll tell the people at the nuclear lab that someone with a college degree in nuclear physics is only better educated than me but even though I've only got a high school diploma, I've got more ranks in Knowledge (nuclear physics) because I've read a lot of books and have a higher intelligence than the other candidates with college degrees and I'm sure they'll hire me over everyone else. Having an better education means nothing if you don't have the intelligence to actually take in what you're learning/being taught, yes some of it might be wisdom based or even charisma based (such as learning how to play an instrument) but learning to read is intelligence based as well as learning to write, etc. etc. etc.This is nothing but a giant straw man argument. You're inventing arguments aside from what I'm discussing and trying to say that my argument is defeated because you defeat the argument you just made up that has nothing to do with my argument. Please stop, you're only embarrassing yourself.
What I said is this: graduating college doesn't mean you're any smarter than someone who never went to college. There are plenty of brilliant people who never graduated college. For example, Thomas Edison never even attended high school. Was he a moron?
2nd: You're actually both wrong, Charisma has nothing to do with your appearance it just affects what how people think of you.First, how can I be wrong because of what you just said when all I said was that Charisma measures more than just appearance?
Second, you're wrong. From the Core Rulebook, in the very first chapter:
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
Not really, the argument I created was an analogy that had to do with your argument. Someone that has gone to college will most likely be considered smarter (having a higher intelligence) than (most people) that only have a high school diploma. Sure Thomas Edison didn't attend high school, neither did Einstein but, a college degree wasn't as regarded as highly as it is now. Someone now who didn't have a college degree and said they had plans for a bomb more impressive than a nuclear weapon would probably be laughed at. You seem to be going back and forth on whether or not intelligence has something to do with education or not. You say it doesn't but then you say that people now a days aren't smarter than people from the middle ages they just have a better education which indicates what exactly?
I stand corrected on the Charisma issue, I thought it was like it had been in 3.5 where it didn't have anything to do with appearance.
Someone with high STR looks muscular, someone with high CHA is attractiveSo it's impossible to have a plain-looking character with an 18 Charisma? It's utterly impossible to have a leader who can inspire his followers with only his personality and words, rather than his physical appearance?
No. You're reading more into those statements than is actually there. All six attributes measure more than one thing. That means that you can have a high score in one of the things they measure and a lower score in another and come out with a high overall attribute. You can be physically powerful without looking like a body builder, you can be an inspiring leader without being beautiful, and you can have incredible reflexes without being graceful.
It might be interpreted as 'fluff text' but it makes more sense that someone with STR 18 looks muscular, they dont need to be Mr. Universe but they'd be buff without a doubt.
And on the subject of Charisma, sure it doesnt have to relate to physical appearance, but any pictures I have seen of beings with high CHA that are in anyway humanoid (such as the Nymph or the Succubus) tend to go hand in hand with it.But that is of course down to the player at the end of the day how they want to look so your right in that regard Zurai.
But to the point in hand, a character that has a limited Intelligence score of 3 to 6 is recieving very little Skill Points, this isnt down to him being genetically weird, hes just bad at learning, slow on the uptake as the ability type entry suggests.
But a lack of skill points in general carries with it an unusual problem for the character, especially if they recieve only 2-3 per level. Characters so designed with low INT arent going to put their points onto INT based skills because the negative will likely wipe it out unless they have the Class Skill bonus for it being in their class.
And I to date, havent came across characters who dont attempt to invest something in Knowledge skills, and at the very least Knowledge(Local) helps you to fit in where you go and most commoners would have at least a rank in that as well as Craft and/or Profession.
But still to date, I have seldom if ever witnessed a character naturally that had a stat worse than 8, negatives are undesireable, and a lack of skill points is a huge problem especially at higher levels when things like Perception/Knowledges/Stealth, etc are so critical. I wouldnt like to be that low INT character and be left on my own for any reason with poor stealth, below average perception and so forth due to bad skill points.
Someone that has gone to college will most likely be considered smarter (having a higher intelligence) than (most people) that only have a high school diploma. Sure Thomas Edison didn't attend high school, neither did Einstein but, a college degree wasn't as regarded as highly as it is now.
Einstein did attend college, although he didn't get into the one he wanted to. Just a side note.
Regard has nothing to do with statistics. You can be considered a moron and still have an 18 intelligence. I have a very low regard for several posters on these boards, but I'm fairly sure that at least a few of them are above average in what Pathfinder considers Intelligence.
Intelligence, as the Pathfinder attribute, is not the same as intelligence as in IQ. IQ combines what Pathfinder calls Intelligence and Wisdom plus Knowledge skills.
You seem to be going back and forth on whether or not intelligence has something to do with education or not. You say it doesn't but then you say that people now a days aren't smarter than people from the middle ages they just have a better education which indicates what exactly?
...
It indicates that modern people have a better education? That we have more knowledge available to us? A philosopher from Biblical times couldn't have created a nuclear bomb, not because he was stupider, but because he didn't have the knowledge base we have now. I have not gone back and forth in this thread; education and the Intelligence stat are entirely different things. Otherwise we would not have Knowledge skills, as they'd just be Intelligence checks if they were equated.
Someone that has gone to college will most likely be considered smarter (having a higher intelligence) than (most people) that only have a high school diploma. Sure Thomas Edison didn't attend high school, neither did Einstein but, a college degree wasn't as regarded as highly as it is now.Einstein did attend college, although he didn't get into the one he wanted to. Just a side note.
Regard has nothing to do with statistics. You can be considered a moron and still have an 18 intelligence. I have a very low regard for several posters on these boards, but I'm fairly sure that at least a few of them are above average in what Pathfinder considers Intelligence.
Intelligence, as the Pathfinder attribute, is not the same as intelligence as in IQ. IQ combines what Pathfinder calls Intelligence and Wisdom plus Knowledge skills.
You seem to be going back and forth on whether or not intelligence has something to do with education or not. You say it doesn't but then you say that people now a days aren't smarter than people from the middle ages they just have a better education which indicates what exactly?...
It indicates that modern people have a better education? That we have more knowledge available to us? A philosopher from Biblical times couldn't have created a nuclear bomb, not because he was stupider, but because he didn't have the knowledge base we have now. I have not gone back and forth in this thread; education and the Intelligence stat are entirely different things. Otherwise we would not have Knowledge skills, as they'd just be Intelligence checks if they were equated.
Huh... I could've swore Einstein dropped out of high school. O well. On another note the threads not talking about IQ it's talking about intelligence, in the pathfinder sense. And yes, you have been talking back and forth. In you're last paragraph you said "education and the Intelligence stat are entirely different things. Otherwise we would not have Knowledge skills, as they'd just be Intelligence checks if they were equated." But you forgot to mention that education (or the Knowledge skill in the world of Pathfinder) is modified by your intelligence score. They're not entirely different, if you have a low intelligence you're likely to not get as much from your education, shown in game by applying your negative ability modifier to your knowledge check.
On another note the threads not talking about IQ it's talking about intelligence, in the pathfinder sense.
No, you've been talking about intelligence in the IQ sense, by saying that people who have completed college are smarter than those who havn't. You're saying that there is a cause:effect relationship between having a better education and being smarter. That's true when you're talking about IQ, but not when you're talking about Pathfinder Intelligence. In Pathfinder, you can have a 50 Intelligence and still be unable to make any Knowledge checks above DC 10.
And yes, you have been talking back and forth. In you're last paragraph you said "education and the Intelligence stat are entirely different things. Otherwise we would not have Knowledge skills, as they'd just be Intelligence checks if they were equated." But you forgot to mention that education (or the Knowledge skill in the world of Pathfinder) is modified by your intelligence score.
No, I didn't "forget to mention it". It's not relevant. In Pathfinder, being being well-educated doesn't mean you have a higher Intelligence (you can have an Int of 3 and still have a higher Knowledge: Arcane bonus than a character with an Int of 10 at the same level). In IQ, being well-educated means you have a higher IQ, straight up.
I'm not sure the made-up mental statistics of a fantasy role-playing game match up well to real-world IQ or general human or animal experience. The model is somewhere between "a little bit off but no-one is that bothered" to "way out of whack but doesn't blow completely for a role-playing game" . I am enjoying reading the posts by the way. Well, the shorter ones at least.
To go back a topic (and if they are still reading): Seeker, could I ask what you do for the HP bonus a character can opt for for favoured class instead of skill point bonus? A guy with a CON of 6 rolls a 1 on his next level of HD, and applies the +1 HP adjustment to it for favoured class.
What HP does he end up with?
I'm not that bothered about the justification of it, just curious as to the answer. The logic behind it and behind that of the minimum Skill Points awarded are similar and connected. Apologies if it's already been covered, but I'd read the thread and it's only been alluded to once, I think.
Yes, I know we're talking about humans getting one extra point on top, but the "problem" exists for the favoured class bonus too, I think.
I tend to do HD a bit diff in most cases. The con six guy could not end up with a 1 total.I tend to use a d4+ a flat number in most games EXAMPLE: A wizard would roll 1d4+2. So he could only roll a 3 which with the -2 would make it a 1 so would be fine for adding the FC +1HP
However, if I used standard and he had a -2 and rolled a one his total would be -1 with a min of +1, so yes if he used his FC +1 HP the -1 would eat it and he would still gain 1 HP
Is that what ya was asking?
How much of this is a legitimate argument about intelligence (etc.) and how much is a red herring tossed out by munchkins who want to minimize the negative impact of dumping a stat? I've seen a fair few players dump Int, Wis, or Cha and completely ignore the effect it should have on role-playing their character. This tends to work because the physical attributes have a greater effect in pure mechanical terms, or at least a greater frequency of use, and it's a buzzkill harshing on players to roleplay and STOP METAGAMING DAMMIT all the time. :)
I've got a player in a game I DM right now with Wis 7 and the only arguable impact it has had in game, roleplayingwise, is that he doesn't hesitate to charge into large groups of enemies. But he's a fighter with great cleave that does 19+ damage power attacking (at 4th level). It's my responsibility to put the smack down on him, er, I mean reinforce good roleplaying, but a low Will save shouldn't be the only effect dumping Wis has.
Zo
How much of this is a legitimate argument about intelligence (etc.) and how much is a red herring tossed out by munchkins who want to minimize the negative impact of dumping a stat?
Impressive. Already onto the passive-aggressive ad-hominems in your first sentence in the thread! Here's your Bronze Trolling award in acknowledgment of your efforts. Keep up the good work!
How much of this is a legitimate argument about intelligence (etc.) and how much is a red herring tossed out by munchkins who want to minimize the negative impact of dumping a stat?Impressive. Already onto the passive-aggressive ad-hominems in your first sentence in the thread! Here's your Bronze Trolling award in acknowledgment of your efforts. Keep up the good work!
Wasn't trolling, legitimate question. Thanks for assuming the worst. Made my day.
Zo
Wasn't trolling, legitimate question. Thanks for assuming the worst. Made my day.
Zo
I don't believe for a second that was a legitimate question. Do you honestly expect anyone to answer, "Oh, yes, I'm a total munchkin out to ruin games by any means I can"? Maybe you were looking for, "Yeah, everyone who dumps their Int is a munchkin, they're just trying to rationalize" (in which case you're posting the question after the response because that's already been said more than once in the thread)?
Seriously, what kind of response were you expecting with that "legitimate question"? It was total flamebait, and if you don't realize that, you need to take some gamer etiquette classes stat. Calling someone a munchkin or implying that they are (even in a general sense without specifying any single person) is a flashpoint topic in tabletop gaming.
eh he is no more trolling then anyone else has been since page 1.
Seems logical to me... Going to school doesn't make you intelligent, it is merely, in game terms, training your knowledge skills (And some other other unrelated skills, such as acrobatics for phys.ed, and so on.) Here are example most of us probably noticed in our time in high school.
Three students in high school: you have the first guy; He has a big interest in learning stuff, and rigorously studies, reads and consults databases.
The second tries just as hard as he can, but he simply doesn't have what it takes. He's the working type always camping and helping his dad with his work in his woodlot and wants to make his future in it.
The third never do over-time studying, he understands pretty much everything when the class is given. He spends a lot of time body building, though.
!!! Final Exam Time !!! (They all took-10)
First student - 95%
Second student - 48%
Third student - 83%The first wasn't the biggest intel score, but he was better in the end since he put many skill ranks in the relevant knowledge skill.
The second had ranks, but his very low intel was his doom. And more, he didn't have knowledge skills as class skills.
The third one had the highest intel, but maybe... only one rank in the relevant knowledge.
That said, INT is like the natural capacity to learn. A low-INT primitive character might not be good about reading a map or knowing the history or lineage of his warchief's family. The truth is, as a primitive character, he simply does not care about it. In his mentality, knowing such things is useless. This kind of character will likely focus his skills in a single aspect; may it be hunting, crafting, building... but he won't be capable to do all these.
The warchief of that tribe, however, not only has a high-CHA to control his lesser warriors, but was accepted a leader by the shaman because he proved himself worthy of leading different types of men and women. A leader has to know how to store food, manage village ressources, be a good hunter himself, and many other chores. Only a high-INT character would be such a chief. (We're not talking orcs with high-CHA and High-STR here, it is a different type of leading)
While the two men consider certain learnings useless for their uses, one focuses in being polyvalent. That is what INT does to the Roleplay of a character. And guess what? The high-intel one was raised in the same village. And they both speak the same primitive language.
Thus, a character can have a primitive language regardless of his INT score. BUT, a character raised in a primitive is MORE LIKELY to have a primitive language, since in such settings, men with specializations over polyvalence were more common.
I don't believe for a second that was a legitimate question. [a bunch of other crap]Wasn't trolling, legitimate question. Thanks for assuming the worst. Made my day.
Zo
Believe what you want. I'm personally interested in this topic as it applies to aspects of a game I DM. You totally jumped down my throat in the other thread and you were wrong there too. How's that for etiquette?
Zo
[EDIT] By the way, you incorrectly parsed my original post yet again.
Starts the BBQ pit and brings out the lawn chairs
Hands out naked succubi
Okay, I'll bite. I'll try a reasonable response to the aggressive question.
How much of this is a legitimate argument about intelligence (etc.) and how much is a red herring tossed out by munchkins who want to minimize the negative impact of dumping a stat?
I find it perfectly legitimate. I will ignore that you might be calling me a munchkin for feeling this way.
I usually run as DM for one group, and player for another group of friends.
As DM, I feel that a human's racial benefit should apply, regardless of Int score. Both because I feel they should get the benefit, racially, over and above how Skills and Int are treating everyone else, and because of my feelings on how Human's extra skillpoint being divorced from Intelligence.
Plus, as a DM, I like my players to have more skillpoints overall anyways. I'm very close to upping every class' skillpoints per level by +2 to begin with.
As a Player, I've played a low-Int character before. Decent Wisdom, but like 3 or 4 Int (we played 3d6, roll-in-order, characters on a lark). I'd be perceptive enough to notice things, but then conveyed my thoughts to the rest of the group in simple, one-word terms (I was also a Barbarian, due to my stats rolled).
Like.. when we entered a room full of garbage and I was the only one to pass my fort save. So while everyone was puking, I warned the rest of the group (too late of course): "Garbage".
Later, I alerted the sleeping group that there was a rat swarm crawling over me... "Rats."
Always in a gravely, monotone voice. It was quite funny actually. I didn't participate in strategy, except to maybe point them in the direction where I was being perceptive. Otherwise, I let the thinking people do the thinking.
I expect this same kind (or similar) roleplaying from my players too. Most people don't opt for anything less than a 9 in any stat (point buy/rolling 4d6).
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...
You realize 1/10 regular people have 6 or less intelligence, right? 6 intelligence means you're stupid, but not totally retarded. Much like how 6 strength means you're weak, but you can still stand up. It's just because of the "drop the lowest dice" and the point buys of heroic character that makes one think 6 is extremely low. On top of that, ogres often use ambushes, and they have an average intelligence of 6.
45% of the regular population has 6 or less in at least one ability score. If 6 where the drooling retard you describe that can't speak and can't open a door, I think humanity would have died out long ago.
Okay, I'll bite. I'll try a reasonable response to the aggressive question.
How much of this is a legitimate argument about intelligence (etc.) and how much is a red herring tossed out by munchkins who want to minimize the negative impact of dumping a stat?I find it perfectly legitimate. I will ignore that you might be calling me a munchkin for feeling this way.
I usually run as DM for one group, and player for another group of friends.
As DM, I feel that a human's racial benefit should apply, regardless of Int score. Both because I feel they should get the benefit, racially, over and above how Skills and Int are treating everyone else, and because of my feelings on how Human's extra skillpoint being divorced from Intelligence.
Plus, as a DM, I like my players to have more skillpoints overall anyways. I'm very close to upping every class' skillpoints per level by +2 to begin with.
As a Player, I've played a low-Int character before. Decent Wisdom, but like 3 or 4 Int (we played 3d6, roll-in-order, characters on a lark). I'd be perceptive enough to notice things, but then conveyed my thoughts to the rest of the group in simple, one-word terms (I was also a Barbarian, due to my stats rolled).
...
I expect this same kind (or similar) roleplaying from my players too. Most people don't opt for anything less than a 9 in any stat (point buy/rolling 4d6).
This is exactly the kind of answer I was hoping for. RAW seems clear on the skill point question, but actually roleplaying the low stat should be the challenge that accompanies the benefits gained by dumping. In my opinion of course. I absolutely side with the notion of multiple forms of intelligence, wisdom and intelligence being intertwined in real life, etc. etc. I won't dispute that a low Int character can have other mental traits that tend to mitigate the lack of cogitative prowess. My initial question, objectionable or otherwise, referred to the tendency of players to rationalize their munchkinism using a logical smokescreen. We've all done it to some degree, I'm sure. I know I have.
Zo
(1) We have a ruling. The rest is history (for the time being)
(2) Education does not equal Intelligence. A graduate of the Wampum College of Arcanists can be a pampered rich kid who skips classes with an Int of 8 but an end result of 6 trained Knowledge skills. The 'barbarian' kid night-fishing at the creek can be fathoming the cycles of the stars but lack any formal training.
That does not mean that the Int 8 kid is smart. There's some weird confusion over this upthread. Just because uneducated people can be intelligent, does not mean there are no unintelligent people.
(3) Modern Western sophistication doesn't equal intelligence either. I'm going to bet that other posters here have read Jared Diamond's excellent Guns, Germs & Steel. Diamond examines the potential intelligence of early humans and nomadic tribes, and concludes that the harshness of the accompanying lifestyles demaded a *higher* intelligence than our social cosseting.
If that theory makes sense to you, then it follows that children who survive in Pathfinder's mediaeval-type world are likely to be fractionally more intelligent than those cottonwooled by modern society. We don't need to be as smart now as we did when we had to invent fire or hunt for our next meal.
Edit: if a DM so wishes, this could be used as a fluff argument for the higher Human skill point minimum, ie; if Human society is the most widely established and modern/mediaeval/sophisticated in the gameworld, then Humans might receive more formal education than their nonhuman counterparts: thus, a Human with 5 Int would have 'learned' more skills than her Dwarven/Halforc/Elven sisters.
(4) Interesting discussion!