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? Or geniuses with a crippling lack of awareness? Or near autistic savants?
Let me 'splain. I've read Treantmonk's guides; they're (in my opinion) mechanically sound. I've seen suggestions on how to build on the boards that are similar. One thing that Treantmonk's guides (and I'm not picking on Treantmonk; I see this stuff ALL OVER THE PLACE- it's just that Treantmonk's guides are gathered in one place so for demo purposes they are easy to reference)is one or two severely low stats. Wizards with superhuman intellects and wisdom slightly above that of a sloth, with psoriasis. Or functionally retarded fighters who punch holes in walls. Or physically crippled weaklings who radiate the most amazing charisma, but don't know how to tie their shoes.
Why should a Fighter sell Int down to 7? Why must this person be a step below Forrest Gump? I realize that with point buy you may want the extra points, but I see it so often taken for granted that if you don't sell down your "Dump Stats" for extra points, you're just a sucker who can't do math.
I understand the need to contribute to the party, to do what your character needs to do and do it well. I imagine, however, that a whole bunch of the people who create these lopsided heroes would be all kinds of offended if you pointed out that they play their Fighter as being smarter than he is, or if you made sure that nobody liked the creepy Wizard who had bad skin and mumbled to himself a lot. I have been in a party with a Archer Fighter who sold his Int and Cha down to 7, but certainly seemed quite tactically brilliant and knowledgeable about things that he would have no reason to be informed about. He got all angry when this was pointed out to him. He understood, eventually, and adjusted, at least. But really? If we assume that each 1 point swing is a standard deviation, then a 7 Int is bone deep impaired, and bordering (if not solidly in) the region of truly quantifiable intellectual disability. This guy maintains his own equipment? Manages his own money? Has the mental capacity to deal with the myriad of situation that come up when adventuring? Maybe. But it's kinda suspect. Ditto with various and sundry other scores.
Look, I don't mean to offend or attack anyone. I know that low scores can help define a character, and make for great roleplaying. But these cookie-cutter builds are populating the world with dull, lumbering oxen, barely communicative savants, and various and sundry adventurers who suffer from what should be, realistically, crippling problems. If that's the character you want to play, fine, more power to you. I just wondered if anyone else looked at it the way I do. No offense intended, please keep it civil, and have fun.
|
100% agree with this post. I am a G.M., and when one of my players creates a character with obvious flaws, one way or another, I will make sure they have to deal with the consequences of those choices.
For example; when the int 7 fighter comes up with a plan to storm the castle... the obvious choice for the players strategic minds, will become the worst character decisions... likely missed guard rotations, unseen key defensive elements and forgotten about mistakes.
I see this as an issue with my local pathfinder society play, and it ticks me off so much, I am starting to loose interest in playing within that format.
Why min-max your character to the extreme. I believe in strong builds, don't get me wrong, but overly focused builds have flaws which good game masters should exploit.
As long as a player sees nothing but numbers and efficiency when looking at a character they will never step away from min/maxing stats. Its only when you venture out of your point-and-click DPS mindset and roleplay that these stats start to look silly. If that's your fun, running from encounter to encounter to kick stuff in the butt in the most efficient way possible, go forth and have fun.
Personally I come down on the side that not playing to your stats in a reasonable manner is paramount to cheating. Surely not on the level of fudging dice, but you are not playing your character as mechanically represented. Its similar to me knowing all about the lifecycles and vulnerabilities of dragons without a rank of Knowledge Arcana, its metagaming for powers sake, which makes it all the worse, since a roleplaying game is something that can't be "won", so power is relative.
Now, why this mentality exists falls firmly on the head of DMs. We are responsible for how the world sees and reacts to a PC, and if you don't have barmaids retreat once the CHA 5 Fighter starts his smoozing, then you are at fault for not playing to the disadvantages of having a dumpstat. Social and Intellectual interactions should have a prominent place in most games (for those into hack n' slash, ignore), more than just attack rolls, saving throws and Acrobatics checks against CMD should be accurring. Again play up to the weaknesses of these slack-jawed yokel fighters (fairly mind you) and maybe the players who build such characters will begin to second guess such "optimal" builds.
This irks me to no end myself, and it's especially annoying on the boards when people respond 'Well, if you rolled, that would still be a dump stat'. It's as if they don't see the difference between rolling a 7 and putting it somewhere to hurt you less, and buying 2 stats down to 7 and coupling it with an 18 somewhere else. First off, I've rarely seen a set of stats with an 18 and two 7's rolled. Secondly, I'm not saying you have to put the highest thing in a stat that isn't mechanically important to your class or concept. I just get tired of seeing 7's over and over again with point builds.
I had a character that started with a 7 in STR. It was rolled. I had an 18 in INT (16 +2 for human). I was a Rogue (Scout) character, dex based (16 dex). What did I do? I played it to the hilt. I managed my weight carefully, I RP'd being scrawny (had a backstory that he was a warmage trainee who had a nasty accident in training that ravaged his body and ripped his muscles apart). So since he couldn't do that, he went into the scouts (was in the military as a warmage trainee), as he didn't need strength more than intelligence and the ability to move quietly and not be seen. Did him up as an archer. The point is, people keep wanting to put 7 in INT (Or Wisdom) and CHA, and then throw hissy fits if they get treated like scum all the time, or are told they aren't smart enough to figure out an attack plan involving a pincer movement between 3 seperate forces and do the timing in their head. They say 'Hey, I'm an idiot savant'. I always want to respond 'Yeah, I know, but we're discussing your character, not his player'.
|
I solve this problem by not using point-buy. I'm hardly alone in this.
I am at least rare in not using the rolled method either (since I really do want the PCs to be roughly equal). I give the PCs one of the following stat arrays:
16, 14, 14, 13, 12, 10
16, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8
And then let them assign them and apply racial modifiers to taste. These both use 25 point buy, so few players will complain, and they keep ridiculous stat dumping or mono-focus from occurring. They also result in fun like things like the Dex 18 Sorcerer in my upcoming Legacy of Fire game, which almost never occur in straight point-buy.
.
.
.
An alternate (and related) idea is simply giving out 5 more points than you usually do, but then forbidding buying stats down. Or limiting it to one stat, and no lower than 8 (low enough for it to be a flavorful low score, not so low as to be crippling). That'll avoid the problem without screwing anyone's concept or mechanical effectiveness over.
|
I prefer lowering just one stat to no less than 8 and keeping the rest of the stats at 10+, but I also have two minmaxers at my tables. To keep the game balanced, I have a house rule that they have to roleplay their 'disabilities'.
I don't mind a barbarian with int 7, as long as the player stays on the background when it comes to in-game puzzles. Only after everyone else has had a go and failed, the barbarian may attempt the puzzle. And if the player solves it, we blame the barbarian's dumb luck. All players are happy with the way this works for us.
There's also a dwarf monk with cha 6 (8 with a -2 racial penalty) and his rude character hates being around people, and whaddayaknow it's likewise. He's really annoying when he is in character, which is impressive for the novice player he is. I feel we still have to finetune the moments when he can go free in being a totally antisocial dwarf and when he should step back and let the other players take the spotlight.
*Facepalm* A 7 is the offset of a 13, so by your logic if 7 is semi-retarded then 13 is smarter then 99% of the people on our planet. So that wizard with an 18? yeah he can see into the future before using divination his intellect is so high.
Or maybe those fighters are just a little dumber then the general populace because they are the jocks of the DnD world. Because turns out the kid with a 14 STR and 12 INT isn't going to make the football team, but the guy with a 18 and an 7 might. 3-4 is the retarded range. Forest Gump was probably a 5.
One thing I've considered doing is this.
Change rolling of stats to 4d4+2. This gives a minimum score of 6, an average score of 12, and a maximum score of 18. Frankly, that's a good curve, and it's also about what the elite array ends up with.
As far as making all the PCs even, if you wanted to, you could let all PCs roll a set of stats, and then each PC can use any stat array rolled.
So, if you had :
18/14/12/10/10/9
14/10/10/8/7/7
16/15/14/14/12/10
15/12/12/12/10/7
Then each player could choose to use whichever array they wanted. One person might say, hey, I have a fighter, I only need good str and con, so I'll take the 18/14/12/10/10/9 array. A Cleric might say hey, that's a good idea. The rogue on the other hand might say Woah, I need more stats, I'll give up having an 18 to take that 16/15/14/14/12/10 array, so I can be good across the board, even if I'm not the best at one stat. And the monk could nod and take the same array, because he's a MAD class.
*Facepalm* A 7 is the offset of a 13, so by your logic if 7 is semi-retarded then 13 is smarter then 99% of the people on our planet. So that wizard with an 18? yeah he can see into the future before using divination his intellect is so high.
Or maybe those fighters are just a little dumber then the general populace because they are the jocks of the DnD world. Because turns out the kid with a 14 STR and 12 INT isn't going to make the football team, but the guy with a 18 and an 7 might. 3-4 is the retarded range. Forest Gump was probably a 5.
Actually, he's right SoD.
Legal retardation in humans is IQ below 70 (in most states). Average IQ is 100. In game terms, an average Int is 10 for a human. So, dividing by 10, a 7 is 70 IQ (Borderline). That puts the 'opposite' end up around 130 (+30 IQ). Which would be... 13. You have to have a 140 to be in mensa. Guess what the highest IQ recorded so far is? 190. That would be, hmmm, 19. So in other words, 7 Int being borderline at the mental retardation level is pretty accurate.
I personally never created a character with a dump stat. Not one of my low stats has ever dipped down to where the score gives me a penalty, in any version of the game; 1E, 2E, 3/3.5E, or PF. I suppose in reality, an 8 or 9 isn't "bad" just a bit below average, which I think everyone in real life has at least one stat that is that, but we'er playing above average "heroes". If some one else wants a dump stat, go fore it, I'll never do it. I'll take a 15 or 16 to keep my loweest stat a 10, instead of making an 18 stat.
Actually, he's right SoD.
Legal retardation in humans is IQ below 70 (in most states). Average IQ is 100. In game terms, an average Int is 10 for a human. So, dividing by 10, a 7 is 70 IQ (Borderline). That puts the 'opposite' end up around 130 (+30 IQ). Which would be... 13. You have to have a 140 to be in mensa. Guess what the highest IQ recorded so far is? 190. That would be, hmmm, 19. So in other words, 7 Int being borderline at the mental retardation level is pretty accurate.
Idk I never considered 70 to be legally retarded, that would make half the state I live in legally retarded. Which doesn't seem right
Idk I never considered 70 to be legally retarded, that would make half the state I live in legally retarded. Which doesn't seem right
Actually, he's right SoD.
Legal retardation in humans is IQ below 70 (in most states). Average IQ is 100. In game terms, an average Int is 10 for a human. So, dividing by 10, a 7 is 70 IQ (Borderline). That puts the 'opposite' end up around 130 (+30 IQ). Which would be... 13. You have to have a 140 to be in mensa. Guess what the highest IQ recorded so far is? 190. That would be, hmmm, 19. So in other words, 7 Int being borderline at the mental retardation level is pretty accurate.
I sincerely doubt that you are in a state where half the population has an IQ below 70.
However, if you don't believe me, try looking over here. Wikipedia link on Mental Retardation.
IQ/Class
0-20/Profound mental retardation
20-34/Severe mental retardation
35-49/Moderate mental retardation
50-69/Mild mental retardation
70-84/Borderline intellectual functioning
EDIT :
It's actually worse if you take into account that less than 3 INT in PF is non-sentience. That means that if you adjust for that, then 1 IQ = 3 INT, and 100 IQ = 10. That makes each point of INT worth 100/8 = 12.5. So, someone with a 7 INT is actually having an IQ of 100 - (3 * 12.5) = 62.5. That would be solidly into the mental retardation range.
The reason those builds and posts are written this way is because they are about optimization, not roleplay. It is a proposed build to show what would be the most mechanically effective way to build a character, even if this mean the character is a total retard. It is first and foremost a mathematical exercise to be used as guidelines and then build a fun and balanced character while keeping those guidelines in mind to help you. That does not mean you need to blindly follow them.
Legal retardation in humans is IQ below 70 (in most states). Average IQ is 100. In game terms, an average Int is 10 for a human. So, dividing by 10, a 7 is 70 IQ (Borderline). That puts the 'opposite' end up around 130 (+30 IQ). Which would be... 13. You have to have a 140 to be in mensa. Guess what the highest IQ recorded so far is? 190. That would be, hmmm, 19. So in other words, 7 Int being borderline at the mental retardation level is pretty accurate.
Exactly. An average person with average stats across the board is a 9 or 10 everything. IQ, 10=100 IQ, 13=130 IQ. So, you're right on there mdt. It isn't until the maybe the 7-6 or lower that true debilitations stat to take place. Like I said, whenever I do a buy method, I buy 10s across the board, then build them up from there to meet my class req's.
Exactly. An average person with average stats across the board is a 9 or 10 everything. IQ, 10=100 IQ, 13=130 IQ. So, you're right on there mdt. It isn't until the maybe the 7-6 or lower that true debilitations stat to take place. Like I said, whenever I do a buy method, I buy 10s across the board, then build them up from there to meet my class req's.
Legal retardation in humans is IQ below 70 (in most states). Average IQ is 100. In game terms, an average Int is 10 for a human. So, dividing by 10, a 7 is 70 IQ (Borderline). That puts the 'opposite' end up around 130 (+30 IQ). Which would be... 13. You have to have a 140 to be in mensa. Guess what the highest IQ recorded so far is? 190. That would be, hmmm, 19. So in other words, 7 Int being borderline at the mental retardation level is pretty accurate.
Thanks. See my edit above though. For INT, it's actually worse than it looks, since minimum sentience requires 3 INT, not 1 INT. :)
One thing I've considered doing is this.
Change rolling of stats to 4d4+2. This gives a minimum score of 6, an average score of 12, and a maximum score of 18. Frankly, that's a good curve, and it's also about what the elite array ends up with.
As far as making all the PCs even, if you wanted to, you could let all PCs roll a set of stats, and then each PC can use any stat array rolled.
So, if you had :
18/14/12/10/10/9
14/10/10/8/7/7
16/15/14/14/12/10
15/12/12/12/10/7Then each player could choose to use whichever array they wanted. One person might say, hey, I have a fighter, I only need good str and con, so I'll take the 18/14/12/10/10/9 array. A Cleric might say hey, that's a good idea. The rogue on the other hand might say Woah, I need more stats, I'll give up having an 18 to take that 16/15/14/14/12/10 array, so I can be good across the board, even if I'm not the best at one stat. And the monk could nod and take the same array, because he's a MAD class.
I did something very like this for my about-to-start Kingmaker game. Everyone (6 players) rolled a set of 4d6-keep-3, and I took them all, and chose three sets for my players to choose from. As it worked out, there were two relatively low rolls, one amazing roll, and the other three were all a 30-point-buy equivalent, so they worked out nicely.
The reason those builds and posts are written this way is because they are about optimization, not roleplay. It is a proposed build to show what would be the most mechanically effective way to build a character, even if this mean the character is a total retard. It is first and foremost a mathematical exercise to be used as guidelines and then build a fun and balanced character while keeping those guidelines in mind to help you. That does not mean you need to blindly follow them.
I would agree with that, if it weren't for the people posting in the same thread that players should not be penalized in Roleplaying for having a 7 INT or 7 CHA or 7 WIS. They state that the penalties to skills take the low stat into account, and therefore any roleplaying should just be handledby the skill checks, and anyone should be able to come up with plans.
I see that. Glad I keep my stats at 10 or more.
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.
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.
+1
I actually agree with that. If a fighter has 7 Wisdom but has put maximum ranks and a skill focus into (Profession: Battle Planner) i'm not going to tell the player his 7 Wisdom makes it impossible for him to come up with good battle plans...
+1
I would agree with that, if it weren't for the people posting in the same thread that players should not be penalized in Roleplaying for having a 7 INT or 7 CHA or 7 WIS. They state that the penalties to skills take the low stat into account, and therefore any roleplaying should just be handledby the skill checks, and anyone should be able to come up with plans.
only problem is, the high CHA player can roleplay his low CHA character (what you would like to happen), this is all good and well until you have a low CHA player with a high CHA character. Do you penalize his high stat because you don't measure with skill checks and force them to fail at being a CHA 18 person?
I would otherwise be all for it, I just haven't found a way around this.
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.
Uhm, yeah. IQ of 30 does make you automatically retarded. An IQ test does not measure how much you know or how much you learned in school. It measures your ability to think and reason. The guy in the country who does nothing but bale hay and work the farm is not stupid, he's just uneducated. He's also not going to have an IQ of 30, unless he's mentally retarded. If he's got an average IQ (100), then he's as able to think and reason as anyone else with an IQ of 100. He just has less experience and knowledge to base that reasoning on.
Here's an example, if you look back at the Beverly Hillbilly's TV show, Jed was above average intelligence and wisdom, but he didn't have a lot of book learning. Granny had plenty of smarts, she could connive her way all over the place, she just didn't have a lot of wisdom, so she got in trouble a lot. Ellie Mae had a decent brain and wisdom too, she just didn't have the book learning.
The one with a low IQ was, ironically, the only one that went to school, Jethro. Jethro had an IQ in the mid 80s. He had book learnin, and didn't do anything for his ability to actually think. Combine that with a low wisdom, and you see his character.
EDIT : SOrry, misread the original, but the argument is still the same. INT is not a measure of book smarts. Book smarts is your SKILL RANKS. INT is how smart you are, how well you can think.
I actually agree with that. If a fighter has 7 Wisdom but has put maximum ranks and a skill focus into (Profession: Battle Planner) i'm not going to tell the player his 7 Wisdom makes it impossible for him to come up with good battle plans...
I don't mind that either, because he's spent the skill points to show that he IS an idiot savante. But nobody ever spends things on Profession (Battle Planner). They spend it on Perception and Stealth, or Perception and Intimidate, or Intimidate and Bluff.
I would agree with that, if it weren't for the people posting in the same thread that players should not be penalized in Roleplaying for having a 7 INT or 7 CHA or 7 WIS. They state that the penalties to skills take the low stat into account, and therefore any roleplaying should just be handledby the skill checks, and anyone should be able to come up with plans.
only problem is, the high CHA player can roleplay his low CHA character (what you would like to happen), this is all good and well until you have a low CHA player with a high CHA character. Do you penalize his high stat because you don't measure with skill checks and force them to fail at being a CHA 18 person?
I would otherwise be all for it, I just haven't found a way around this.
It's a lot easier for an average IQ player to tone down his ideas to represent the stupid character he intentionally built than it is for a shy guy or gal to play a charismatic person.
What I usually do is, in the case you posit, of a low CHA player with a high CHA character is tell them to do their best. As long as they try, I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are doing the best they can IC and the character's innate CHA means that is very good indeed.
Whereas, a HIGH CHA character playing a low CHA character, doing teh best they can, is still going to be abysmal IC.
SOrry, misread the original, but the argument is still the same. INT is not a measure of book smarts. Book smarts is your SKILL RANKS. INT is how smart you are, how well you can think.
I believe we just have a different definition of Dnd INT, I put reasoning and critical thinking into the wisdom category myself.
It's a lot easier for an average IQ player to tone down his ideas to represent the stupid character he intentionally built than it is for a shy guy or gal to play a charismatic person.
What I usually do is, in the case you posit, of a low CHA player with a high CHA character is tell them to do their best. As long as they try, I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are doing the best they can IC and the character's innate CHA means that is very good indeed.
Whereas, a HIGH CHA character playing a low CHA character, doing teh best they can, is still going to be abysmal IC.
That's too subjective for my taste, too much DM bias. You might be able to do it well but not all DM's can keep from just letting what they want to succeed, succeed, and what they are hoping players to fail, will fail.
Everyone is assuming that just because, mechanically, every point of int is the same as every other point, that they measure up to IQ in the same manner. Just because that is how things measure out mechanically doesn't mean that's how it is in game.
IMO it would be a better plan to use standard deviation. IIRC the standard deviation for Int is 15 points. If I knew how to figure standard deviation for 3d6 I would do so, perhaps someone with better math skills could be so kind. . .
That doesn't really work. Standard Deviation is heavily affected by the size of your result set.
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).
Treantmonks guides are optimization guides. That will always involve some form of min-maxing. If you dont like min-maxing by all means dont. But it is a legitimate way to play the game if someone wants to. There is no right or wrong way to play the game, just the right way for you and your group. Dont like minmaxing? Dont use a stat system that rewards it. Or dont allow the sell off for stats bellow 10. Different people have differnt opinions of how stats should and shouldnt be roleplayed, becuuse roleplaying is unique to every group.
Some groups like mine are far less stringent about what stats mean. I personally dont really think there is any specific roleplay requirement for stats between 8 and 12, i consider 2 a reasonable standard deviation from 'normal' in 10. Your group may differ, and thats awesome, I sincerely hope you have fun with it, but it doesnt make you 'right'. Nor do you have the right to condemn people for talking about playing the game in a way you dont approve of.
SOrry, misread the original, but the argument is still the same. INT is not a measure of book smarts. Book smarts is your SKILL RANKS. INT is how smart you are, how well you can think.I believe we just have a different definition of Dnd INT, I put reasoning and critical thinking into the wisdom category myself.
Then, if I might say, you are wrong.
Intelligence (Int)Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons.
Wisdom (Wis)
Wisdom (Wis)
Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition.
Int is quite clearly how well you learn and reason. Wis is quite clearly common sense, awareness, willpower and intuition.
What I am about to do for my next game is a card draw for stats. It works like this:
You take two suits of cards #s 4-9 and mix them up and draw two cards for each stat. you do not preplace those cards in the deck as you pull. It seems to churn out above average stats (just above heroic array).
Edithere are some examples of draws: (total bounus of modifiers)
15.13.13.9.13.15 (+6)
15.17.12.11.11.12 (+7)
15.17.14.10.11.11 (+7)
17.11.13.10.16.13 (+8)
16.15.17.11.8.11 (+7)
17.17.13.13.9.9 (+6)
17.17.14.12.9.9 (+7)
15.14.13.12.10.8 (+5)(Standard array for comparison)
Treantmonks guides are optimization guides. That will always involve some form of min-maxing. If you dont like min-maxing by all means dont. But it is a legitimate way to play the game if someone wants to. There is no right or wrong way to play the game, just the right way for you and your group. Dont like minmaxing? Dont use a stat system that rewards it. Or dont allow the sell off for stats bellow 10. Different people have differnt opinions of how stats should and shouldnt be roleplayed, becuuse roleplaying is unique to every group.
Some groups like mine are far less stringent about what stats mean. I personally dont really think there is any specific roleplay requirement for stats between 8 and 12, i consider 2 a reasonable standard deviation from 'normal' in 10. Your group may differ, and thats awesome, I sincerely hope you have fun with it, but it doesnt make you 'right'. Nor do you have the right to condemn people for talking about playing the game in a way you dont approve of.
I don't mind min/maxing all that much, as long as people accept that they are gimping certain areas of their character in exchange for boosting others. My problem is people who gimp their character a couple of ways and then get upset when there are in game penalties for it.
And no, I don't have an issue with 8 to 12 being played normally. It's the 7 or less crowd. And, I never said it was a wrong way to play to minmax, if that's what your group likes, great. I do think it's wrong to be upset when you get penalized for your negatives that you bought.
That's too subjective for my taste, too much DM bias. You might be able to do it well but not all DM's can keep from just letting what they want to succeed, succeed, and what they are hoping players to fail, will fail.
It's a lot easier for an average IQ player to tone down his ideas to represent the stupid character he intentionally built than it is for a shy guy or gal to play a charismatic person.
What I usually do is, in the case you posit, of a low CHA player with a high CHA character is tell them to do their best. As long as they try, I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are doing the best they can IC and the character's innate CHA means that is very good indeed.
Whereas, a HIGH CHA character playing a low CHA character, doing teh best they can, is still going to be abysmal IC.
Well, since I don't know any other way for a person to play a 26 int character (since nobody has a 26 int character), I'll just continue that way. I'm curious how you handle someone with an IQ of 120 roleplaying an IQ of 260.
Well, since I don't know any other way for a person to play a 26 int character (since nobody has a 26 int character), I'll just continue that way. I'm curious how you handle someone with an IQ of 120 roleplaying an IQ of 260.
The same way I handle a Cha 14 player with a Cha 6 character, I have them roll for things. I know the details of the world so I know the best way to do things. If Mr. 26 INT wants to come up with a plan I make him roll a few checks to realize a few useful tactics. (gotta be subtle about it though, you can't actually write out a plan or anything)
hell you can stare at someone for a min in my campaigns and roll a diplomacy check, you sure as hell won't get a circumstance bonus but you can still succeed.
look at various predatory animals with an intellegence of 1 or 2. quite a few of them either plan or utilize smart tactics. and they all know how to weigh risk against reward.
i'm sure a lot of us are familiar with wolves, sharks, and most big cats. these guys all calculate thier prey very well.
if a wolf with 1 intellegence can utilize pack tactics, then a feebleminded rogue should be able to sneak attack.
if a panther with 1 intellegence can utilize stealth and ambush, i'm sure a feebleminded ranger should be able to as well.
if a monkey with 1 intellegence can utilize tools, a feebleminded fighter should still be able to swing a weapon and recognize which one works better against which creature. either through practice or familiarity.
if a pidgeon with 1 intellegence can be trained to deliver messages between various parts of a country and find it's way home. a feebleminded courier of any class should be able to deliver messages. based on familiarity.
by feebleminded, i mean both someone effected by the spell, and somebody with just plain poor intellect.
Wow. I'm gratified that I'm not the only one bothered by this, one way or the other.
Look, this was never about the right way to play - that is a highly subjective thing, and what works is what works as far as how the game is played goes. Kolokotroni, I don't think anyone was condemning how anyone else plays the game; that certainly wasn't my intention, and I didn't see it anywhere else. That being said, of course, that particular playstyle doesn't work for me, but that's fine - I want people to have fun. It actually means a lot to me that people play the game and support the hobby. I may never want to play in their games and may dislike every rule or interpretation they play with, but I am 100% behind any and all RPGing. That being said - I'm off to win the internet debate!
Spoiler Alert - Philosophical assumptions made below.
The ruleset assumes a certain correspondance. That is to say, that an 8 Int and an 8 Str apply the same penalty (-1). This differs from older versions of the game, where each stat was an island unto itself, with things like Exceptional Strength and Fighter bonuses to HP (if you never played 1st or 2nd Edition, take my word for it. or not.). So it seems reasonable to assume that, comparing Int and Str (apples and oranges), as much as one can, that an 8 is an 8 is an 8. I remember reading somewhere that every 5 points of Str double the strength of the character (I do not know where I read this). This assertion is borne out by the encumbrance table, where a 10 Str lifts half as much as a 15 Str. Extrapolating this kind of hard measurement to other stats is tricky, but my assumption is that it is implicit in the design (I would love to hear from someone in the know on this, like SKR or Monte or JoT). This would mean that a character with 15 Int is twice as smart as someone with 10 Int - very hard to quantify such a thing, but still a decent assumption (in my opinion). I do not assume, however, that each point of Int represents 10 points of IQ (not that there's anything wrong with that; I appreciate the simplicity of it, and it actually works okay). I assume that if a 3d6 roll represents the entire continuum of human potential (a model which fails to take into account scores higher than 18, but still a relatively decent model as I will attempt to explain), then 90% of people in the world will have a score of 14 or less. This means you can be in the top 10% of all of humanity in one stat and still have a 14. If you have a 16 you are in the top 2%, if you have the highly sought after 18 you are in the top .5%. Scores higher that 18 put one in the realm of the cream of the crop of the best of the best of the best, in such a tiny slice of humanity that you may have no peers. So the wizard with a 20 Int: he's smarter than everybody in town, in the city, maybe in the country. He's not just clever, he's Stephen Hawking's love child with Einstein who trained under Oppenheimer and Feynman and Curie (both of them). He or she is (if I may be so bold) almost certainly much smarter than the player controlling the character (my apologies to those members of Olymiq or PARS who happen to be reading this). Yeah, she's a freak, in actuality, because she tested so far out from the normal that she's just that rare and bizarre and special (compared to the norm; thus, a freak). Buit a fun freak to play, because super genius can be simulated by cheating, and anyway, it's a game of heroic fantasy and characters are supposed to be exceptional. Same for Strength, and Wis, etc.
So then, we've already got a handy measuring stick, the bell curve. Sure, our characters are exceptional; they're better than that, they cheat. But the sword has to cut both ways, that is to say, an Int of 7 is less intelligent than 83% or so of people. That's...kinda dumb. More than a little. Maybe dumb jock dumb, maybe dumber. I've always felt that "dumb jocks" were less about low intelligence and more about learning disabilities or extreme anti-intellectualism. And maybe a severe learning disability is a good way to model a low Int; YMMV. But there it is. So is a 7 Int an IQ of 70? 80? Hard to say. But it's definitely low. And the game is pretty clear on what Int relates to (less so on Wis and Cha).
The point is, the stats can mean what your group wants them to mean. I'm a RAI and RAW guy myself, so a 7 is pretty damn feeble where I play. just as I personally feel that a character with a 14 Int is, in fact, a genius, so too is a 7 Str pretty damn weak. A 6 to me seems clearly within the range of some severe ability retardation, with a 7 at straddling the borderline. I have no problem if that's made as a roleplaying choice, and if your group doesn't care to look too hard at it that's fine - this is an intellectual exercise in defining what means what. I guess it just bothered me seeing all those 'Int is a dump stat for Monks drop it to 7' threads. From a very real world perspective, I don't view that as optimized (and yes, I can accept an optimization guide for what it's worth - I actually think Treantmonk and others do great work). The game does not reward raw intelligence the same way that reality often does (as a survival trait, not a get wealthy and powerful trait). Is it a structural problem with the game - I don't think so (let's not go overboard here, every body knows that PF is the best thing evar!!!1!11!). I just think that a DM should really take into account what the player chooses to say about their character via the stat choices. A 7 Int screams "my character is a complete moron" to me. A 7 Str says "I can barely support my own weight, I may need a walker", a & Con screams "kill me quick, I'd rather be stabbed to death by a reduced halfling than die of this chronic leprous asthma". YMMV, and have fun, whatever you decide.
look at various predatory animals with an intellegence of 1 or 2. quite a few of them either plan or utilize smart tactics. and they all know how to weigh risk against reward.
i'm sure a lot of us are familiar with wolves, sharks, and most big cats. these guys all calculate thier prey very well.
if a wolf with 1 intellegence can utilize pack tactics, then a feebleminded rogue should be able to sneak attack.
if a panther with 1 intellegence can utilize stealth and ambush, i'm sure a feebleminded ranger should be able to as well.
if a monkey with 1 intellegence can utilize tools, a feebleminded fighter should still be able to swing a weapon and recognize which one works better against which creature. either through practice or familiarity.
if a pidgeon with 1 intellegence can be trained to deliver messages between various parts of a country and find it's way home. a feebleminded courier of any class should be able to deliver messages. based on familiarity.
by feebleminded, i mean both someone effected by the spell, and somebody with just plain poor intellect.
Animals vs Humans is Apples vs Oranges.
The reason being, that animals have insticts. If you watch a kitten stalk up on a ball of yarn and attack it and roll over and over, bunny kicking it as hard as he can, you smile and say "Awwww... cute!".
It's not really cute if you think about it. What the cute little animal is doing is training his insticts. Those insticts say 'Stalk a warm furry little mouse, leap on it's back and break it, bite it's neck and try to break that, and while you're doing that, bring your hind legs up and rip and shred it' stomach and disembowl it so you can munch on it's insides'.
Not so cute is it? All those abilities you discuss (other than tool use with apes) are instinctual uses of skills bred into them over all of time.
The tool use is arguably closer, and if you notice, the real tool users of the apes should have IQ's of 2 at the least, maybe 2.75.
heck, i remember trying to propose a highly sickly highly anemic fetchling bard to some DM. she was a loli who had a strength and constitution of 7. and her reason for adventuring is because she wanted some mythical cure for her supernatural anemia. i was also going to practice faking fevers, hacking coughing fits, cold clammy hands, and spontaneous feinting. the idea was somewhat inspired by patchouli knowledge meets lelouch lamperouge with just a heavy dose of gothic lolita. add in a female partially flonne inspired aasimaar childhood friend for more fun.
heck, i remember trying to propose a highly sickly highly anemic fetchling bard to some DM. she was a loli who had a strength and constitution of 7. and her reason for adventuring is because she wanted some mythical cure for her supernatural anemia. i was also going to practice faking fevers, hacking coughing fits, cold clammy hands, and spontaneous feinting. the idea was somewhat inspired by patchouli knowledge meets lelouch lamperouge with just a heavy dose of gothic lolita. add in a female partially flonne inspired aasimaar childhood friend for more fun.
And I'd have no problem with that personally, as long as you were roleplaying the fact you were a sick weakling who couldn't do anything physical. Heck, that's a lot like Raistlin Magus.
I'll repeat again, if you buy stats down, and then accept and roleplay the limitations, there's nothing wrong with it. It's when people want to have stats of 18/16/18/7/7/7 and then get upset if they get called on not buying the Brooklyn Bridge, get upset when they come up with insightful ideas that NPCs ignore, and get upset when people charge them more for staying in the inn to cover the complaints by the other patrons, only then do I get upset.
who is Raistlin Magus?
the sickly little girl i was considering would have positive scores in dexteirty, charisma, intellegence and wisdom. though sickly and unable to carry much. she can always find the stamina to dance. even if she can't find it for much else.
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.
There are lots of ways to represent that low stat as well. My cleric serves Death. I have to do things like say rites over bodies and whatnot. I also have an 8 Strength. So when it comes time to do some of that stuff, I ask someone to help me move the bodies. I've consistently played my character as having no exceptional physical ability; with enhancements I'm now Str 10 Dex 12 Con 12. The bonus points in creation went to my Intelligence of all things. I knew there'd be penalties, and I've lived with them, including no encumbrance capacity worth mentioning. You can play those low stats without min/maxing or whatnot.
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?
thank you for the info. i see the character i was going for wasn't exactly the same, though similar. and her background included an amount of convenient luck that rivaled most Mary Sues. especially some of the ones i have seen in anime. i just handwaive it as her seemingly infinitely rich, eccentric, persistent uncle working to keep her alive. i mean the guy always has the funds to commission research for a new cure.
There are lots of ways to represent that low stat as well. My cleric serves Death. I have to do things like say rites over bodies and whatnot. I also have an 8 Strength. So when it comes time to do some of that stuff, I ask someone to help me move the bodies. I've consistently played my character as having no exceptional physical ability; with enhancements I'm now Str 10 Dex 12 Con 12. The bonus points in creation went to my Intelligence of all things. I knew there'd be penalties, and I've lived with them, including no encumbrance capacity worth mentioning. You can play those low stats without min/maxing or whatnot.
You are then, in my experience, the exception that proves the rule then. :) Usually, other than encumbrance (which has rules in the book for it), people want to walk and run and do things their stats don't back up.
EDIT : As in, walk and run and keep up with people who have twice their con, twice their dex, twice their str, etc.