A character with low intelligence may very well suffer from a lack of skill points, and yes that represents education to a large extent but also the ability to reason as it is stated under the ability description itself in the Core Rulebook that Intelligence determines the ability to learn and reason.
This is the definition of [reason] by yourdictionary.com
rea-son
1. an explanation or justification of an act, idea, etc.
2. a cause or motive
3. the ability to think, form judgments, draw conclusions, etc.
4. sound thought or judgment; good sense
5. normal mental powers; a sound mind; sanityintransitive verb
1. to think coherently and logically; draw inferences or conclusions from facts known or assumed
2. to argue or talk in a logical waytransitive verb
1. to think logically about; think out systematically; analyze
2. to argue, conclude, or infer: now usually with a clause introduced by that as the object
3. to support, justify, etc. with reasons
4. to persuade or bring by reasoning (into or out of)
By this definition, someone with high Intelligence learns exceptionally well and has a powerful ability to reason, someone inversely with a low Intelligence doesnt just suffer a lack of skill points due to the inability to retain information, they are also possessed of a weak ability to reason, and mechanically in roleplay should he demonstrated by a struggle to form judgements, draw conclusions, rationale, sound judgement, to argue and talk in a logical way, etc.
This wouldnt put some 'homerule' on having a Low Intelligence, its demonstrated that frequently, low INT creatures (below 6 INT, and this is NOT a RL arguement, Pathfinder commoners have 8 INT minimum, see the NPC section for details) dont have the same faculties to reason or make judgements as other characters, its not to say they cant - they just dont do it very well and this should have roleplaying applications, as Kaisoku explained, could be demonstrated by using limited sentances although the character has some kind of ability to learn if something is generally good or bad through experiences or communication with other beings.
As for the notion of a stealthy ogre, its not to say it cant, but with a -4 size penalty and average dexterity score, its not going to do a terrific job at it (unless its planning on spending 10 minutes taking a 20). Its not to say they cant be cunning smart enough to be stealthy, but Ogres tend to exhibit 'smash and grab' mentality and prefer a direct thuggish approach to situations if your using generic run of the mill Ogre (though Hill Giants and such work just as well for this purpose but lets assume we run with the Ogre for now).
Thats down to their upbringing, Ogres are raised in primitive tribes and taught to resort to the vast majority of stimuli by being violent.
I bought Pathfinder Monsters Revisited 3.5 supplement which explains more in Pathfinder terms about basic monstrous races such as Orcs, Goblins and so forth and Ogres in particular tend to be very direct, destructive, thuggish and bullyish by average Ogre standards. In particular in this supplement, Ogres eat their captives frequently and use them a rudimentary clubs, pull limbs off their victims and so forth.
Not to say a player character Ogre brought up among another culture wouldnt be the same way, of course, they may allocate their stats differently using the NPC array and adding racial modifers. They would have little need to use their great strength everyday so that'd likely be a moderate to low stat (even with the racial modifier its still pretty high compared to generic humans) but their mental faculties would be much more superior on average than an average Ogre on account of allocating its highest stats or higher stats to mental stats.
But this is of course assuming this is an NPC Ogre brought up in humanoid pathinder society.
A player character with low Intelligence can still be brought up in society and function well, but their reduced reasoning abilities would see them struggle in alot of common situations when it comes to making complicated judgements, analysing situations or facts and so forth.
Thereby using that logic, frequent poor judgements among other things could be tantramount to eating with a pair of sharp knives instead of using a fork, leaving your prize shield on a table in a seedy bar to go get a drink because "you think it'll save your space for you/tell someone that someone sits there" (EDIT : Doesnt mean they wont try and keep an eye on it best they can, but doing this isnt good judgement on part of the character) and so on, poor judgement effects even commercial matters, two vendors selling the same product by a different name, one touting they have garden variety beans and someone touting theyre selling exotic or rare beans, the character is likely to go for the exotic variety without being overly analytical of the whole idea of where the beans come from - then it would be down to the merchant to con the character into buying them (given the characters above average WIS and consider Sense Motive is a class skill), they dont have alot of Skill Points and might not allocate much to the skill itself. Other characters might reason with average or better Intelligence that the beans are a fraud because of their color or texture being identical to the other, that represents good judgement and not innate use of Knowledge skills themselves.
A character with low intelligence may very well suffer from a lack of skill points, and yes that represents education to a large extent but also the ability to reason as it is stated under the ability description itself in the Core Rulebook that Intelligence determines the ability to learn and reason.
... and whole bunch of stuff ...
What you spent most of this post stating, I agree with. Intelligence represents the ability of the character to learn (hence it's association with skill points), reason and think logically.
However, it still has nothing to do with a character's education. Their education may shape their background story and perhaps how they spend their skill points. However, having a formal education does not grant you a higher Intelligence score though. Having a lack of formal education does not limit it.
A tribal barbarian with an INT of 14 is just as uneducated as one with an INT of 8. Sure, he's got more skill points, but that just makes him a more talented barbarian. He learns well enough that he can afford to spend skill points in things other than Survival, Climb and Swim.
Heck, even ranks in the Knowledge skills may not represent a formal education. A streetwise Rogue who has never gone to a day of school in his life may have max ranks in Knowledge: Local, simply by virtue of having grown up on the streets. Perhaps he has a hobby of stealing history books and actually reading them before fencing them. Hey look, Knowledge: History ranks. Since it's not a class skill for him that means he'll never be quite as well versed as a Bard or Wizard, but he can do ok. And note that none of this has anything to do with the character's actual Intelligence score. The effort (ie skill points) put into learning these obscure local or historical facts means that something else doesn't get focused on.
Once more with feeling. Intelligence is not dependant on education. Education is not dependant on Intelligence. Having both in combination helps, but one is not a requirement for the other.
I said to me the official ruling made no sense and have not yet seen anyone show otherwise. Ya can argue all you want but I have yet to see any reason other then "WEll..humans..are better is all"
I am not trying to convince anyone, Just responding to what folks say. I do not expect nor am I trying to convince anyone of my view. Ya guys just can't seem to get though your heads I simply do not agree with you.
It does make sense. It's a racial ability not based on Intelligence at all. It's not different that any other races racial feature.
Your problem with the ruling is not the racial feature. It the rule of 1 minimum skill. If that rule wasn't there this wouldn't even be problem.
Not sure what ya mean. I just can't see any logic behind the human skill point not being effected by low INT. I mean I get from a purely gamemist point why officially it has been ruled to work like that, I just can not agree with it is all.
People keep bring the adaptable"fluff" up as a reason, I say that is covered by the feat. Nothing really else to say other then I just can not agree with the logic behind it. Just seems sloppy and hand waved to me.
But , we all have houserules of some form. Not like I'm coming over and forcing y'all to use mine after all.
|
Well, here's what I see when I look at Intelligence on pages 16 and 17.
You apply your character's Intelligence modifier to:
The number of skill points gained at each level, though your character always gets at least 1 skill point per level.
It says your character's int mod is applied to skill points gained at each level.
Then it says your character always gets at least one skill point per level.
Order of operations. Apply part one. Add your int modifier to skill points gained at each level *which would include class and racial bonuses, as well as favored class and any feats that might boost it.
Apply part two. You get a minimum of 1 skill point.
When the book tells you how to do something, you generally need to complete the steps in the order it says. Or, for example, you could have a lot of *fun* by applying the magic item creation rules in whatever order you wanted.
I don't really see the confusion, unless you're attempting to reinterpret how to read directions.
Well, here's what I see when I look at Intelligence on pages 16 and 17.
You apply your character's Intelligence modifier to:
The number of skill points gained at each level, though your character always gets at least 1 skill point per level.It says your character's int mod is applied to skill points gained at each level.
Then it says your character always gets at least one skill point per level.
Order of operations. Apply part one. Add your int modifier to skill points gained at each level *which would include class and racial bonuses, as well as favored class and any feats that might boost it.
Apply part two. You get a minimum of 1 skill point.
When the book tells you how to do something, you generally need to complete the steps in the order it says. Or, for example, you could have a lot of *fun* by applying the magic item creation rules in whatever order you wanted.
I don't really see the confusion, unless you're attempting to reinterpret how to read directions.
That section does not include directions, it is just a description of what the Intelligence ability score represents. The 'Acquiring Skills' section of the Skills chapter has the appropriate rules for, well, acquiring skills.
Magicdealer what was my take as well back in 3.0 and 3.5, I never check online to see if I had it right as I just went in the order, and to me it made sense.
|
|
Is that so Zappo? Then there's a problem, because under acquiring skills, it says nothing at all about a minimum of 1 skill point gained.
So either the section I referred to, which mentions the minimum +1 skill/level is relevant because you're using it for a rule, or it's not, in which case...
I think it's pretty evident that the section I'm referring to has the rules for the interaction of intelligence scores with skills.
Is that so Zappo? Then there's a problem, because under acquiring skills, it says nothing at all about a minimum of 1 skill point gained.
So either the section I referred to, which mentions the minimum +1 skill/level is relevant because you're using it for a rule, or it's not, in which case...
I think it's pretty evident that the section I'm referring to has the rules for the interaction of intelligence scores with skills.
Hmm, true enough. This is one of those times where the relevant rules are scattered across multiple sections I guess. Regardless, the two sections do not contradict one another. The description under Intelligence lays down the minimum rule, while Acquiring Skills goes into the process in more detail.
Since this has already been clarified by an official source, I don't think your stance has merit. At least Seeker has acknowledged (right from the start, or close to it) that his method is a house rule.
Now to be honest I used to think that was simply how it worked, as magicdealer pointed out and is evident by threads like this it is and always has been unclear if it worked something like the way I do it or the official way. Once I found out it was the official way I just kept using it the way I always had, As I did not agree with the offical way
But it is a bit unclear.
|
|
Well, that official source has stated many times that what he says are his opinions on how things work.
No offense to you, Mr. Jacobs.
And until it comes out in an official errata or official clarification, it's still unofficial and may be reworded or reworked when all the members sit down to hash it out.
Goodness knows there have been times when he has changed his mind one way or another. Such as vital strike and spring attack.
So please, remember to take what he says in context -- as in his opinion on how he would rule it. When everyone gets together to clarify it, they may use his opinion, or they might discuss it and come to a different conclusion.
Plus, as always, rule things in the way that makes sense for you, your campaign, and your players.
But I can't pretend to read any ambiguity in it. I read the section on int score, and apply those rules first to calculating my skill points. Then I go to the skills section. I don't see anything there that countermands the first section, so I apply the acquiring skills rules in context of the int penalty.
I guess another way to look at it would be the same way that skills are are added up when used. I take each source of skill points, whether bonuses from ranks (class), feats or racial abilities (misc) to get my total. Then I apply the rules regarding total bonuses.
It seems to me that the whole argument of getting no bonus from a racial skill bonus is no different than arguing that, since the elf isn't using a weapon with elven in the name, he should get that bonus applied elsewhere since otherwise it would be wasted.
A racial skillpoint isn't wasted. However, if you choose to set your int low enough that you have that large a negative to skill points, I don't see why you should get to ignore that because you happen to have a racial bonus to skills.
Just like any other racial ability, it provides a benefit within the context of use. If you never go hunting at night, you don't get extra benefits from darkvision. If you don't use your racial weapons, you don't get to offset that. If you never drop below 0, you don't get to offset that either.
But should the character ever end up increasing his intellect, he'll see dividends sooner from the ability. Same if a character should suddenly have to fight at night, or drops below 0, or picks up their elven curve blade.
Actually, I seem to remember hearing somewhere last month or so that they were looking into putting an official rulings subforum in. I hope that they can manage to get it through all the red tape. :)
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.
I'm not sure I can counter the job-status (ie: you're probably right in that you'd not be as close in the running for hire in that situation), BUT I do think you need to re-evaluate the immediate nay-say you've used.
People that go to college and study ... do EXACTLY that - they read a lot of books and comprehend what they're reading. You don't need a college degree to back this up - you just need to read, and comprehend what you're reading.
Game-wise, this is overall represented by your ranks + modifiers in a skill (in this case Knowledge - Nuclear Physics). If you find, read, and study such things in your spare time, there's no reason that you couldn't comprehend the stuff better than the "pros" in all likelihood.
Seriously, the degree you want to wave high - it's really just a piece of paper at the end of the day. Virtually meaningless except for the status society gives to it. All it "really" means is that you spent more $ and time in a classroom learning something that others could very likely just have picked up books and read with interest to learn as much as, if not more than you did with all the $ and classroom time.
Seriously, the degree you want to wave high - it's really just a piece of paper at the end of the day. Virtually meaningless except for the status society gives to it. All it "really" means is that you spent more $ and time in a classroom learning something that others could very likely just have picked up books and read with interest to learn as much as, if not more than you did with all the $ and classroom time.
That lack of a meaningless piece of paper is really biting me in the ass right now, though. I'm a fairly intelligent, well-read guy with a decent command and love of the English language. I've got a lot of experience teaching ESL, but I'm finding it difficult to get a job teaching in Auckland, NZ right now. I've got other qualifications, but that piece of paper is CRUCIAL in getting your foot in the door, job-wise.
Zo
|
|
The meaningless piece of paper generally signifies a rounded knowledge of the subject. I.E. you won't have gaping holes in your area of study. Even if you don't remember much of the specifics of a specific topic, you'll have a starting place.
And, sadly, it *is* becoming more and more important to be able to prove that you have the knowledge through this piece of paper because businesses are less and less willing to give you the *benefit of the doubt*.
Note though, that for people who are *fairly intelligent, well-read, and willing to put some effort in*, it's usually possible to get a slew of certifications just by paying some cash and taking the tests. So at least for the time being, that piece of paper isn't a life or death requirement in all fields.
Though I can only see the obsession getting worse... :(
But I can't pretend to read any ambiguity in it. I read the section on int score, and apply those rules first to calculating my skill points. Then I go to the skills section. I don't see anything there that countermands the first section, so I apply the acquiring skills rules in context of the int penalty.
Well, let's look at it your way. First, the Int section:
Intelligence (Int)
...
You apply your character's Intelligence modifier to:
•The number of bonus languages your character knows at the start of the game. These are in addition to any starting racial languages and Common. If you have a penalty, you can still read and speak your racial languages unless your Intelligence is lower than 3.
•The number of skill points gained each level, though your character always gets at least 1 skill point per level.
•Appraise, Craft, Knowledge, Linguistics, and Spellcraft checks.
A wizard gains bonus spells based on his Intelligence score. The minimum Intelligence score needed to cast a wizard spell is 10 + the spell's level.
And then the skills section, which comes later:
Acquiring Skills
Each level, your character gains a number of skill ranks dependent upon your class plus your Intelligence modifier....
The number of skill ranks you gain when taking a level in one of the base classes is shown on Table: Skill Ranks. Humans gain 1 additional skill rank per class level. Characters who take a level in a favored class have the option of gaining 1 additional skill rank or an additional hit point . If you select a level in a new class, all of its class skills are automatically added to your list of class skills, and you gain a +3 bonus on these skills if you have ranks in them.
Notice the bold. The skill points granted by the human race feature, and by the favored class bonus are extra points. Also note that they are completely independant of the Intelligence modifier. They are not even mentioned in the same paragraph. Thus the as-close-to-official-as-we-can-get ruling.
The meaningless piece of paper generally signifies a rounded knowledge of the subject. I.E. you won't have gaping holes in your area of study. Even if you don't remember much of the specifics of a specific topic, you'll have a starting place.
And, sadly, it *is* becoming more and more important to be able to prove that you have the knowledge through this piece of paper because businesses are less and less willing to give you the *benefit of the doubt*.
Note though, that for people who are *fairly intelligent, well-read, and willing to put some effort in*, it's usually possible to get a slew of certifications just by paying some cash and taking the tests. So at least for the time being, that piece of paper isn't a life or death requirement in all fields.
Though I can only see the obsession getting worse... :(
Absolutely. +1. I'm finding that experience and excellent references aren't really cutting it by themselves. And this is in a field with numerous sources of qualification other than a university degree. Convincing yourself that "I don't need no stinkin' degree" can really come back on you. I'm regretting I didn't put in that last year at uni.
Zo
|
|
Once again:
•The number of skill points gained each level, though your character always gets at least 1 skill point per level.
It doesn't say only the skill points gained from your class and your intelligence modifier, or that bonus skill points are excluded from it, or anything else along those lines.
since all these sources increase the skill points gained at each level, there is no reason here to apply them differently from the manner specified in the above statement.
From your second quote:
Humans gain 1 additional skill rank per class level. Characters who take a level in a favored class have the option of gaining 1 additional skill rank or an additional hit point.
That shows that these points are gained each level. Which puts them under the purview of the first sentence.
Add up the skillpoints, then apply the minimum skillpoint. Not add up skill points from int, apply the minimum of one, then add class, racial, and favored class skill points.
Not add up class and int skill points, apply minimum skill points, then add racial and favored class skill points.
If you attempt to rule that the minimum skill rank comes into effect other than after all sources of skill points have been tallied, you're giving a negative intelligence modifier absolutely no impact on skills.
For example, if I decided that I could apply the minimum skill point rule whenever I wanted to, then I would pick an int of, say, 4 for a negative modifier of -3.
Then I would apply the min 1 rule.
Giving me 1 skill point.
Then I would apply my class skill points *assume pally with +2. Then I would apply my human racial bonus, and then my favored class bonus. Leaving me with 5 skill points every level with an int of 4.
Heck, if I had an int of 1 for some reason, I would still get the same amount. If I had an int of 12, I would get the same amount.
The very first sentence tells you when you check for the minimum of 1 skill point. That is after you total up the skill points you gain at each level.
The argument that the bonus skill points aren't mentioned explicitly in the section about intelligence is overlooking that they are included in *the number of skill points gained at each level*. It doesn't specify that the rule only applies to the number of points you gain from intelligence, or intelligence and class. It's an all-inclusive statement. Since it is all-inclusive, not excluding, and not specifying just int and class, there's not an argument to be made that it only includes intelligence and skillpoints from level.
Of course, you could argue that you think it was meant to only imply int and class *which I think is your intent here*, but that is not what it says.
|
Well, that official source has stated many times that what he says are his opinions on how things work.
No offense to you, Mr. Jacobs.
And until it comes out in an official errata or official clarification, it's still unofficial and may be reworded or reworked when all the members sit down to hash it out. . . + a lot more
This is pretty much exactly what I said pages ago, though i think you might have said it better. I agree, on all accounts.
Bull.
As soon as the "official ruling" is added to the books you'll still just ignore it.
Don't demand errata or an official ruling if you've already stated you won't use it.
I think anyone who does not agree humans should get the extra skill point always.
Don't worry with it, he did it to me earlier in this thread, Ross will prob delete it Monday if this thread is still active, ignore him.
The meaningless piece of paper generally signifies a rounded knowledge of the subject. I.E. you won't have gaping holes in your area of study. Even if you don't remember much of the specifics of a specific topic, you'll have a starting place.
And, sadly, it *is* becoming more and more important to be able to prove that you have the knowledge through this piece of paper because businesses are less and less willing to give you the *benefit of the doubt*.
Note though, that for people who are *fairly intelligent, well-read, and willing to put some effort in*, it's usually possible to get a slew of certifications just by paying some cash and taking the tests. So at least for the time being, that piece of paper isn't a life or death requirement in all fields.
Though I can only see the obsession getting worse... :(
Absolutely. +1. I'm finding that experience and excellent references aren't really cutting it by themselves. And this is in a field with numerous sources of qualification other than a university degree. Convincing yourself that "I don't need no stinkin' degree" can really come back on you. I'm regretting I didn't put in that last year at uni.
Zo
Well ... hold on, guys and gals!
I'm NOT saying it's irrelevant to OUR society, but rather that saying "I have my paper! It says I'm smart!" Is not a measure of intellect in the slightest.
That is ALL I'm saying.
The paper records neither your GPA, extracurriculars, IQ, or any other such "measure" of success other than having sat in a classroom and passed *most* of your coursework at some level. That is all.
OUR society's obsession with it is fully NOT a part of that argument/point/observation I'm making. Only the attempt to use our, modern obsession with such a thing as the absolute measure of intelligence.
Most of the more brilliant scientists out there in recorded history started out as back-yard hobos, by the measure of today's "degree" standards. They were BRILLIANT men and women who decided to focus upon their areas of interest - and then were recognized for their intellect and pursuits OUTSIDE of universities and the like. Seriously - don't cheapen intelligence by saying it comes as a requisite on paper, because there are literally DOZENS of examples that prove a "paper education" is not a measure of intelligence, or aptitude in any given area.
Edit: Not sure if it matters, but I write this as a person with multiple "papers of intellect" - I've a BA and a MA, and I can see them for exactly what they are - described above.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well ... hold on, guys and gals!I'm NOT saying it's irrelevant to OUR society, but rather that saying "I have my paper! It says I'm smart!" Is not a measure of intellect in the slightest.
That is ALL I'm saying.
The paper records neither your GPA, extracurriculars, IQ, or any other such "measure" of success other than having sat in a classroom and passed *most* of your coursework at some level. That is all.
OUR society's obsession with it is fully NOT a part of that argument/point/observation I'm making. Only the attempt to use our, modern obsession with such a thing as the absolute measure of intelligence.
Most of the more brilliant scientists out there in recorded history started out as back-yard hobos, by the measure of today's "degree" standards. They were BRILLIANT men...
Yah, I wasn't particularly arguing against that :D I was merely pointing out that businesses who are looking for, as an example, an accountant, like to know that their accountant has a solid foundation in, oh, tax returns, payroll, governmental, legal requirements, that sort of thing, even though they might be hiring him/her specifically for payroll.
Heck, one can even look at it as a measure of one's ability to set and complete a long-term goal.
But I think that our societys obsession of using it as a measure of intelligence is directly related to our obsession with money as a means of comparison between each other. After all, you might say that the guy with the bachelors degree is a pretty smart guy. But then you turn to the internet tycoon who made 30 billion dollars, and say that guy is a stinking genius!
It's more relevant since we're trained now to look for averages. On average, a bachelors holder makes more money than an associates holder who makes more than a high school diploma holder who makes more than a ged holder who makes more than a dropout.
So we use those as general levels for comparisons. As we creep up to more direct and frequent comparisons with people, we can use personal observations of them to create a more accurate personal evaluation. So you can say that your school dropout friend is a lot *smarter* than your friend with a degree.
Heck, for myself, I'm pretty good at *book smarts*, and pretty bad at *street smarts* type stuff. Meaning that I can teach myself how to change a tire much faster using a book than working with someone else on it. Also, common sense solutions will often elude me, and I'll come up with an unnecessarily complex answer.
There are different types of intelligence, from spacial to logical to creative. People are generally more *intelligent*, or better at those area where they construct the best memes *according to my psychology class a few years back* so the better the framework you constructed to assimilate a specific type of sensory feedback, the better you'll be at learning it.
I tend to think of d&d intelligence as the overall efficiency of your meme construction. I think of wisdom as your ability to use the data you *have* assimilated.
So a super wise character may not have memorized a lot of information, but he/she gets a lot more mileage out of it. And a super intelligent character might be able to quote the strengths and weaknesses of a particular creature, and yet have no idea on how to adapt the party tactics to best take advantage of that information.
All true, and still does nothing but further illuminate our own societal dispositions.
BTW, I was the one that brought up "multiple intelligences" way back in the thread - apparently irrelevant to the nay-sayers, though. :shrugs:
|
|
I tend to think of d&d intelligence as the overall efficiency of your meme construction. I think of wisdom as your ability to use the data you *have* assimilated.
So a super wise character may not have memorized a lot of information, but he/she gets a lot more mileage out of it. And a super intelligent character might be able to quote the strengths and weaknesses of a particular creature, and yet have no idea on how to adapt the party tactics to best take advantage of that information.
Very true. I would also add that Int related to being able to guess and theorize about things that are directly related (scientific method and mathmatical logic style), while Wis allows for understanding, relating things that are not obviously/directly related (parables and riddles), and also to tackle an issue from different angles.
Intelligence is the ability to learn and to reason as it stated under the ability entry itself.
As I stated earlier, someone with High INT has an amazing ability to retain information and is good at utilising it in a meaningful way, and someone with Low INT has difficulty holding onto information and has trouble making good judgements based on what they know.
Look at my other post above for the definition of what reason is, its part of what defines the INT characteristic.
Let me put this into a workable example.
Maxwell Smart VS Inspector Holmes.
Maxwell Smart represents someone with average to low INT score but who has allocated his skill points into Knowledge skills to represent the fact he was educated. However, his low INT would define his ability to reason and form judgements from the facts he was given and frequently through the series he jumps to plausible but wrong conclusions based on the facts he was presented with. He still gets to the proper answer eventually, just takes longer for him on his own devices unless Agent 99 assists him.
Sherlock Holmes on the other hand is someone with a similar education and a High INT, he has fantastic powers of deduction and reason and can piece together facts that others might miss or that seem to have no real relation to one another.
Having a bad INT score represents a limitation on how well you learn but ALSO on how well a character can use that said information to convince someone else they were right about something, to make accurate judgements based on facts known or presented and general powers of reason...
The whole interpretation of what INT is, isnt just how many skill points a level you get, its also how well you use facts and information given to you to create an accurate judgement of some sort.
Reason which is mentioned as part of what defines INT is not a 'fluff word' anymore than STR's mention of muscles or CHA's mention of physical attractiveness/magnetism is and those values define some attributes of that character based on how high (or low) those stats are.
A good demonstration of how a low INT, average or better WIS character at work is someone with limited knowledges (or perhaps none at all) operating within the confines of lets say, a dungeon complex.
Without said knowledges (and lets assume theyre on their own), sure they can spot something moving, hide and plan a course of attack (as long as it wasnt overly contrived or depended on variables that Knowledge rolls would be handy for) and they can likely fight pretty well.
Outside of a dungeon, the same lack of knowledges doesnt mean the character lacks common sense (thats a derivitive of WISDOM), but it does mean the character lacks the ability to accurately use given or presented facts or information but doesnt mean they cant do it...they just take longer to get there on their own steam is all, and get there faster if someone helps them along the way (demonstrated perhaps by the character perhaps spending a skill point when they go up a level on the relevant knowledge skill, likely Knowledge (Local) so they dont stand out as a tourist in society).
Actually a case could be made that both had the same intelligence but that Agent 86 is the low Wisdom example of the pair. Very low Wisdom of the pair.
Someone with high Wisdom has a great degree of common sense, but low Intelligence characters have subpar analytical/judgement skills and by the very definition of the term "Reason" they are lacking in that department.
The Intelligence attribute controls the ability to retain information and reasoning skills, by the very definition of the attribute itself in the core rulebook.
I'm well aware that there is no 'rule' for having bad reasoning skills but it SHOULD be roleplayed in-character. Someone with low INT isnt neccisarily 'stupid' but they are prone to bad judgements by the very definition of their bad reasoning skills.
A lack of skill points in general sets them behind other beings in the game universe/world, due to their difficulty at holding onto information but they CAN learn and adapt, it just takes them longer to do so than the average INT 8 Commoner (based on NPC statistics).
Reasoning is a mental faculty which measures someones ability to correctly assess and dissect information, being able to use that information and to make good choices based on that information. The character would suffer from lapses of judgement, but generic common sense would stop them from eating with sharp knives and so forth and other common knowledge expereinces any of us could have endured and learned from.
Not to mention its a houserule for anyone to dump a stat below 7 or rise one (before racial modifiers) beyond 18, says as much under the point buy rules in the Core Rulebook
Not to mention its a houserule for anyone to dump a stat below 7 or rise one (before racial modifiers) beyond 18, says as much under the point buy rules in the Core Rulebook
LOL! +1, lady!
Seriously, the OP said it was a rolled generation, so the 5 kind of stays. The big breaking point of "OMG - you dumped the Int stat!" isn't really something "within reason" given the guidelines of point buy and the game's expectations overall.
Plus, old-school style, if you kept a 5 for Int, you'd be darn well expected to play a DAMN fool to the hilt - I see no reason that shouldn't apply.
I don't think I've weighed in on that yet, but I'm 110% behind that idea of role playing out how stupid the character is - it's just a good idea. {plus it can be fun! Some of the most zaney characters I've had and/or gamed with were "Iron Man" style guys - roll 'em in order and play it out! God! Hilarity ensued - but you had to be willing to PLAY it out, though.}
Well ... hold on, guys and gals!I'm NOT saying it's irrelevant to OUR society, but rather that saying "I have my paper! It says I'm smart!" Is not a measure of intellect in the slightest.
That is ALL I'm saying.
The paper records neither your GPA, extracurriculars, IQ, or any other such "measure" of success other than having sat in a classroom and passed *most* of your coursework at some level. That is all.
OUR society's obsession with it is fully NOT a part of that argument/point/observation I'm making. Only the attempt to use our, modern obsession with such a thing as the absolute measure of intelligence.
Most of the more brilliant scientists out there in recorded history started out as back-yard hobos, by the measure of today's "degree" standards. They were BRILLIANT men...
Don't worry, I didn't misunderstand you or misconstrue your argument. I agree that a degree /= intelligence (and for some, even education). I was just pointing out a personal anecdote that was somewhat off-topic. I think we're on the same page here...
Zo
That's fine - some of the argument tones were just drifting too far that way for my taste and I wanted to make that point very clear before anyone was all falling for that false logic.
For me, the Princess really nailed this already - existing guidelines just say it's a BAD idea, so if you let this happen, you're inviting disaster, IMO.
On the nay-say side, a 7 (minimum suggested) would be a -2, so 2+ skills = -2 == net of 0, but the minimum of 1 pops up, and then the race thing hits this for +1 more (if human - source of problem) and nets a total of 2 skill points for a "dumb" character in this situation if human, and 1 point otherwise (ie: all else being equal beyond race). It leaves the human intact. Going with that house rule of "add it all first" and you get 2 - 2+1 = 1 period. Compared to a dumb character of a non-human race (again all else equal) the human and the existing guy still get only 1 point - disadvantage to humans.
Really, though, any evaluation to the HR needs to keep in mind the skill point boost given as well - and he already did that upthread, and it works ... provided the skill point base is adjusted first. If not - clearly, this HR would bone the human outright!
My favorite house rule on skill points, though is a flat +2 across the board for every class. Everyone's better that way! ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm. . . what to do about low Int characters. . .
Let's assume your character must have an Int score above 0. Comatose or mindless characters are very boring.
I imagine playing a character with 1-2 Int would also be rather boring. Since you can't understand speech, you'd be essentially mentally handicapped. I don't think it's impossible to play this way. . . but it is rather difficult. I would only allow the best roleplayers to attempt this.
With 3-6 Int, you can interact with your teammates in a better way than with 1-2 Int. I would generally allow an experienced player to play a character with an Int score in this range. But I would require that both the player and I write a character contract to lay out what is permissible and what isn't with the character. This level of Intelligence is essentially a box that contains what you want to do. And no, the books don't specify such limitations.
With 7+ Int, I impose no real restrictions on what happens in the game. That's up to the player.
Only if you play with pt buy, which is not the case in the OP, not the case in games I tend to run, and not the case in any of the game I currently play in.
And the kicker to this truth? Point buy ("Purchase", in the rules) is not even the default character generation method in the Core Rulebook. The default method is 4d6 drop the lowest, which can generate a score of 3 (or 1, if using a race with a penalty to that stat). So no, in a generic non-PFS, you cannot assume that it is a house rule to have a stat below 7. And Princess would know if she had bothered to read the first page of the thread or some of my responses to her that this discussion was about a character who rolled for his stats and ended up with a 5 that he was trying to find a place for.
Only if you play with pt buy, which is not the case in the OP, not the case in games I tend to run, and not the case in any of the game I currently play in.And the kicker to this truth? Point buy ("Purchase", in the rules) is not even the default character generation method in the Core Rulebook. The default method is 4d6 drop the lowest, which can generate a score of 3 (or 1, if using a race with a penalty to that stat). So no, in a generic non-PFS, you cannot assume that it is a house rule to have a stat below 7. And Princess would know if she had bothered to read the first page of the thread or some of my responses to her that this discussion was about a character who rolled for his stats and ended up with a 5 that he was trying to find a place for.
I am aware that the character 'rolled' a 5 in this example, but the arguement pertains to what effect INT 5 has on a character beyond simply a lack of skill points and the whole human +1 racial skill point/level and the favored class +1 skill point/level and winding up with 3 a level regardless of how poor his INT was.
INT 5 characters arent the norm, much as a STR 5, DEX 5, CON 5, WIS 5 or CHA 5 wouldnt be considered 'normal', the same goes for characters that have stats above 18 (NPC's at the most have 17's if they put their 15 in the relevant stat and add racial modiers).
Its not to say they are drooling incoherent messes, of course not. They can think and act, but how they act should show frequent lapses of good judgement (as determined by the fact Intelligence represents the ability to 'reason' as well as the ability to retain information through education/learning), and subsequently take longer to pick things up (this is why they gain such few skill points per level, they take longer to adapt and learn).
Plus without needing to say, they'd be much less smarter than the average Pathfinder NPC, which has a minimum stat of 8 excluding racial bonuses if any. If any NPC had less than 8 INT it'd be a DM creation and I bet you if there was such a character in any prepublished adventure their writeup would suggest they be played in a manner that denotes their limited INT.
Thats all I am saying, the whole Intelligence debate is more about what effect INT 5 has on a character than just a lack of skill points...the effect is so much more. But its all to be done through roleplaying skills, there is no 'mechanical' effect of adding or subtracting to rolls anymore than the INT penalty already applies, the lack of INT already demonstrates the poor capacity to learn through reduced skill points, but the character would also have difficulty grasping with their reasoning skills...
...Its not to say they CANT accomplish things that a INT 8 or better character can, they sure could but it takes them longer to adapt and learn from their experiences. Thats a roleplaying element that the DM should impress on the character in the least.
|
|
The sad truth of the matter is that most players are actually playing with an average intellect, which can be anywhere from 9-15 according to pg 453 creating npcs, adjusting for possible racials. Pathfinder seems to take a more open view of intelligence in the game. I seem to remember 3.0 being a 9 or 10.
A 3 int is required to know your own language - both to read and to speak it.
It's unfortunate, but you can't really attempt to apply real world intelligence equivalents to a single number between 3 and 30 :/ The closer you look at it, the more it breaks down in real life comparison.
That being said, I evaluate how players play their characters based off both the player and the character. If a character has a low int score, but the player is really, really bad at roleplaying that, I won't inflict it on him -- or the rest of the party. I also won't award him any bonus exp for playing to his character either. He'll have options suitable to him for bonus exp to give him an even footing with the other players, but it'll be something that he as a person can do.
If you have a player who can roleplay a low int character, then they can be the most fun. I've got a player who's running a character with a 7 or 8 int * can't remember specifics without pulling out my dm book* and he plays the int in an entertaining and fun way.
Dm'ing is all about making the game the most fun you can. At least, in my opinion it is. So I generally flex depending on what I expect the player can accomplish. This is one of those areas *low vs high int, low vs high wisdom* where you can't really be as cut-and-dried as one would like.
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?
Yep. Ta! Apologies for being so late in replying - I don't have much time for browsing the boards as I used to.
No problem. Just wanted to be sure what ya was asking is all