well if 100 is average then yeah most are retarded, most are below average, 70 isn't very far below average so I feel safe to say there are quite a few in that range.
The irony of this statement is painful.
What you just said is mathematically impossible and, unsurprisingly, is not even related to how IQ works at all.
For 3d6, the standard deviation is about 3.24. That would put an INT two standard deviations off average at a little above 4 (or, barely sentient) rather than borderline mentally retarded (within the system).
At the upper end of the range, that just about fits. Standard deviation in IQ is around 15 points-- one deviation above normal is bright, two is gifted, three qualifies for Mensa, and four is the point at which the standard measuring tools are insufficient.
Which sounds about right for INT scores of 13, 16, 19, and 22.
If you run the other direction, one standard deviation below average is borderline intellectual functioning and two or more would qualify as varying degrees of mental retardation.
Which sounds about right for scores of 7 and 4.
IQ = INT * 10 doesn't work; it doesn't line up properly with statistical distribution and it puts the upper end of measurable human intelligence in the 16-17 range. Using standard bell curves, you end up with a shockingly accurate distribution of Intelligence scores; translated into point buy, a character with 7 Intelligence isn't very bright, but he's perfectly capable of functioning in society. There's no reason to saddle him with any additional limitations than are provided for in the rules.
Sorry, Raistlin Magister, not Magus. A character from the Dragonlance novels, famous for being one of the most powerful Wizards in the mythology, while simultaneously being a physical wreck, weak, spastic, and coughed up blood if he walked too hard or too far.who is Raistlin Magus?
It is Raistlin Majere.
On topic. I tend to agree with you...though mostly I ignore the optimizing guides that pop up here and there mostly because the math equation bore me and I notice in actual game play usualy don't work out as well as the writters think they will.
i learned a lot of weekly william's odd philosophies that seem to warp his group. in his games, theoretical optimization is a wasted effort.
you could drastically improve your survivability in his games by doing the following
writing a multi page background
answering 20 questions similar to those from L5R
writing a miniature family tree
actually finding a way to tie your character into the setting.
coming up with plot fodder in your backstory
these methods usually give you the following
more points to buy with
access to more material than most
access to special resources reserved for those who do all of the above, such as titles, contacts, NPC boons, or even stuff like traits or hero points.
though this same ability that improves your survivability gives you more potential weaknesses to be exploited. but the extra boons are nice to have.
<rant>
Percentages, bell curves, and IQ aside, why would any GM inflict a particular penalty on a character with a 7 in any stat?
Having a 7 in one stat already incurs a (-2) penalty to everything related to that stat, including skill checks. Less Int? Less skill points as well. And don't forget that Int is a third of the mental abilities. Your character could have a genius-level Int but a lower-than-low Wis and Cha, actually putting it into autism-range.
Sure, it's better to have players actually roleplay their characters including their various weaknesses (don't get me started on Flaws). It's also alright to give them challenges their particular character will have difficulties with. However, I don't consider it right and fair to do so all the time.
I remember those times when we rolled stats on 3d6. We had to play the character, even if half of the ability scores were lower than 8. And we had fun, too.
Even if some of us feel justified to consider all those characters of 7 Int as retarded autists, let's not forget that there are scores lower than 7. A character can also have 6, 5, 4, and 3 Int (and Str, etc) - 1 and 2 Int are animals. If you consider 7 as low, how would you play/interpret/adjudicate a character with an Int even lower?
7 is lower than 10, but higher than 3. The character is perhaps not-very-intelligent, but he's certainly not dumb-as-a-doorknob.
Now if you play a race with a Int penalty and already put 7 in Int, that character would be even dumber, but still a few lumens away from an burnt lightbulb.
Finally, let me say something that I've read in one of those many D&D books: this is a cooperative play. In most cases, characters play in parties where one's weaknesses are covered by the others.
</rant>
Am I the only one bothered by the idea that it's somehow "necessary" or good building practice to minmax characters into moronic creeps who can lift small trucks over their heads?
I don't think that idea is commonplace at all. The guide just shows you how to best do X. That does not make it common place though.
The irony of this statement is painful.
What you just said is mathematically impossible and, unsurprisingly, is not even related to how IQ works at all.
Think of it this way, if 10 is average that does not mean 90% of people have a int of 10 (except for npc commoners for ease of use). What it means is that there are people mostly between the 7-13 range with some higher or lower and it averages out to ten. Which where i'm from comprises out too a high amount of under-average people (yes I've seen the statistics, although admittedly it was a couple years ago), some average ones, and some exceptional people. So no my statement is not mathematically impossible, it averages out correctly.
And for the uses of INT in pathfinder how IQ works is hardly relevant. Those tests don't even cover everything anyway, very skewed if someone has certain knowledge that makes the critical thinking questions more like obvious answer.
Either way im not fond of retarded (int 7) being the opposite of above average (int 13). One is noticeably bad while going the other way is hardly different to average. At least the way I do it you gain and lose the same when you add and subtract from a score. As opposed to penalty for going down and no noticeable difference when you go up.
I'd be interested in playing with the 7=barely functional GMs.
I'd play a Cha20 bard and have everyone lose their minds when they see me, throwing rose petals in my way, the women begging me to sleep with them so they can have my babies, never having to roll social rolls, as everyone would just obey me in abject awe. I would be able to go into the magic shops and get everything I want for free, the shopkeeper just giddy that I would chose his store over all others for my shopping needs.
Right?
You know what, any fighter with Int7 can apply all their OoC intellect and savvy, as long as they have an int20+ wizard in the party. Whatever your puny mortal mind might come up with, he already thought of five days ago, and told you. If 7 is so low it needs to be penalized, then int20 is so smart you should hand the AP/GM notes to the player and let him study and prepare his stuff accordingly.
tl;dr: Stat threads are Int7>
I'd be interested in playing with the 7=barely functional GMs.
I'd play a Cha20 bard and have everyone lose their minds when they see me, throwing rose petals in my way, the women begging me to sleep with them so they can have my babies, never having to roll social rolls, as everyone would just obey me in abject awe. I would be able to go into the magic shops and get everything I want for free, the shopkeeper just giddy that I would chose his store over all others for my shopping needs.
Right?
You know what, any fighter with Int7 can apply all their OoC intellect and savvy, as long as they have an int20+ wizard in the party. Whatever your puny mortal mind might come up with, he already thought of five days ago, and told you. If 7 is so low it needs to be penalized, then int20 is so smart you should hand the AP/GM notes to the player and let him study and prepare his stuff accordingly.
tl;dr: Stat threads are Int7>
You'd be just like Elan from OoTS! :)
Seriously though, I personally find the problem with stat dumping to be a result of the way the point-buy system works. I never use the standard point-buy rules.
On the avg. INT subject- there was a thread about this back on ENworld sometime around 2001 or 2002... A statistician on the boards there broke down the comparison between a 3d6 roll and standard deviation for IQ. It came out a lot like what Viktyr said upthread. INT 7 worked out to about 82 IQ. Dumb, but near the bottom of 'low average' not 'borderline retarded'. Also, INT 18 came out to about 138 IQ, making that high INT caster a lot easier to roleplay for many of us.
|
who is Raistlin Magus?
Sorry, Raistlin Magister, not Magus. A character from the Dragonlance novels, famous for being one of the most powerful Wizards in the mythology, while simultaneously being a physical wreck, weak, spastic, and coughed up blood if he walked too hard or too far.
If Raistlin is to be the poster-boy for abysmally-low Con, I have to say, he doesn't look too bad to me. It was years after the release of the DL modules, before I ever heard of his apparent frailty. Not playing the modules (too scripted for me) or reading the novels, all I had to go on was the art which appeared in the ads. Whether it's a failing of Larry Elmore and Clyde Caldwell, that they couldn't bring themselves to draw unattractive people, the Raistlin of the Art Dept was a lantern-jawed, flowing white-haired bishi-boy, with a wonderful golden tan to die for, which implied he was forever getting his kit off to play volleyball on Muscle Beach.
All of which made his whining even more grating "Oh, woe is me! I was forever cursed with this flawless golden skin and mesmerising hourglass pupils! Oh, who could love such a wretch as me!"Given that Raistlin, an iconic PC, anti-hero of dozens of novels, scenarios, and a core element of much-pushed gameworld, based on an offically-sanctioned campaign, run and played by employees of the company that owned the trademarks of the game, was such a min-maxed Mary-Sue, is it any surprise that players have taken this as the 'right', nay, the 'expected' way to play?
If his dump stats never inconvenienced him in the slightest, why should it bite them?
If Raistlin is to be the poster-boy for abysmally-low Con, I have to say, he doesn't look too bad to me. It was years after the release of the DL modules, before I ever heard of his apparent frailty. Not playing the modules (too scripted for me) or reading the novels, all I had to go on was the art which appeared in the ads. Whether it's a failing of Larry Elmore and Clyde Caldwell, that they couldn't bring themselves to draw unattractive people, the Raistlin of the Art Dept was a lantern-jawed, flowing white-haired bishi-boy, with a wonderful golden tan to die for, which implied he was forever getting his kit off to play volleyball on Muscle Beach.
All of which made his whining even more grating "Oh, woe is me! I was forever cursed with this flawless golden skin and mesmerising hourglass pupils! Oh, who could love such a wretch as me!"Given that Raistlin, an iconic PC, anti-hero of dozens of novels, scenarios, and a core element of much-pushed gameworld, based on an offically-sanctioned campaign, run and played by employees of the company that owned the trademarks of the game, was such a min-maxed Mary-Sue, is it any surprise that players have taken this as the 'right', nay, the 'expected' way to play?
If his dump stats never inconvenienced him in the slightest, why should it bite them?
Um...since you have not read them....and I did I'll just say he did suffer for his weak health.
Though the worst was his hourglass shaped eyes. True the downside would be ignored by any min/maxer but living in a world that you see everything as decayed...I don't care what it gaved me...I would not take it. Heck i rather be blind.
|
|
Um...since you have not read them....and I did I'll just say he did suffer for his weak health.
Though the worst was his hourglass shaped eyes. True the downside would be ignored by any min/maxer but living in a world that you see everything as decayed...I don't care what it gaved me...I would not take it. Heck i rather be blind.
I've not read them, true, except for some of the flavour text in the adventures, but, Oh boy, have I had to listen to fanboys wittering about him, and how aaaaawesome he is. Not one of whom mentioned his debilitating health.
And the fantasy-receptive ladies I've known all swoon over his manly good looks, and his coool eyes. Not what you'd expect of a wizard with low Con; hardly Stephen Hawking. Which all lead me to believe that his so-called 'disadvantages' inconvenienced him about as much as taking hay fever, for a campaign on Athas.
I've not read them, true, except for some of the flavour text in the adventures, but, Oh boy, have I had to listen to wittering about him, and how aaaaawesome he is. Not one of whom mentioned his debilitating health.
Well now, there's your problem right there!
And the fantasy-receptive ladies I've known all swoon over his manly good looks, and his coool eyes. Not what you'd expect of a wizard with low Con; hardly Stephen Hawking. Which all lead me to believe that his so-called 'disadvantages' inconvenienced him about as much as taking hay fever, for a campaign on Athas.
Actually, in the books, they were quite inconvenient. Fanboys, and fangirls, tend to gloss over the flaws and cracks in their idols. Sort of how hard-core Mel Gibson fans gloss over any anti-semitic remarks he makes and go on about how it's blown out of proportion by the media. Or how hardcore Hoff (David Hasselhoff) fans gloss over his drinking binges and dead career.
|
|
Fanboys, and fangirls, tend to gloss over the flaws and cracks in their idols. Sort of how hard-core Mel Gibson fans gloss over any anti-semitic remarks he makes and go on about how it's blown out of proportion by the media. Or how hardcore Hoff (David Hasselhoff) fans gloss over his drinking binges and dead career.
I accept your point about the fanboys.
But not about The Hoff!
He totally saves the day, in the Spongebob Squarepants movie!
|
well if 100 is average then yeah most are retarded, most are below average, 70 isn't very far below average so I feel safe to say there are quite a few in that range.
You also have to remember that INT is a measure of booksmarts. Retardation is an inability to learn not an innate stupidity. So having an IQ of 30 doesn't automatically make you retarded it could mean you were raised in the country and weren't taught more then how to eat and move hay.
50% of people fall within the 90 - 110 IQ range. 70 is not a *little* bit off of 100. Less than 10% of the population falls under an 80 IQ. The number being estimated at 70 being between 5% and 7%. Less than one in 1 in 10 people in your state should be at this level.
70 to 80 IQ is defined as Borderline intellectual functioning, which the DSM IV describes thusly: People who fall into this category have a moderately normal expression of affect for their age, despite the fact that their capability to think abstractly is rather limited. Reasoning displays a inclination for real thinking. Others may portray such a person as "simple" or "a little slow". They are habitually able to do their day to day activities without any assistance, which includes holding down a simple job.
Thus, they could swing a sword, but the complexities of strategy, tactics, and lock picking would be out of their range. Anyone with an INT of 7 attempting to draw up battle plans or take a leadership position in the party should be patted on the head by the INT 18 wizard and have his suggestions blatantly ignored as the rest of the characters would recognize his deficiencies and acknowledge that most suggestions from the character would likely get them killed.
you can see the bell curve graph of IQ here: link
and the percentages here: link
|
|
He was sick all the time, he would cast a spell and get winded, and would have to make a special brew every night or otherwise he would get reaaaly sick. He started to get stronger during the second trilogy, which is when fanboys maybe could say that he's uber-cool and talk about how "aaawsome" he was, but that was a journey to get there. The first trilogy he was hacking coughing wreck who needed his twin brother to lean on and who saw everything and decaying and dying. Though in the novels he always was depicted as fairly good looking (though thin, and somewhat fragile looking at times)Um...since you have not read them....and I did I'll just say he did suffer for his weak health.
I've not read them, true, except for some of the flavour text in the adventures, but, Oh boy, have I had to listen to fanboys wittering about him, and how aaaaawesome he is. Not one of whom mentioned his debilitating health.
+1.
Coughing up blood and being wracked with seizures is far far worse than Hay fever. He effectively had non-terminal lung cancer. The fan boys were missing 90% of the characterization by focusing on his "kewl powerz". If anything Raistlin only emphasizes the point that a low CON score should be role played. If you don't, you are missing out on one hell of an opportunity. Furthermore, in said case you shouldn't be taking a score that low.
|
|
Fanboys, and fangirls, tend to gloss over the flaws and cracks in their idols. Sort of how hard-core Mel Gibson fans gloss over any anti-semitic remarks he makes and go on about how it's blown out of proportion by the media. Or how hardcore Hoff (David Hasselhoff) fans gloss over his drinking binges and dead career.I accept your point about the fanboys.
But not about The Hoff!
He totally saves the day, in the Spongebob Squarepants movie!
Which makes my last post an endeavor in extraneousness. Huzzah for being late to the party!
Did someone say party? Is the Hoff here? Yay!