I would hit the party with a variety of challenges and let the chips fall where they may. You could target him with puzzles, will saves, and diplomacy checks, but I would not go out of my way to do so, because I don't believe in punishing a player for making a character by the rules.
On the other hand, if an enemy caster sees this big guy wailing on his big guys, it might make a lot of sense for the enemy to cast hold person. You have to expect that if you stand out, you will get targeted.
Also make sure that you have a variety of challenges for the party to face. If everything is combat, then all the PCs will eventually be tricked out for combat. But you have enemies using tactics like sniping, attacking from high places, ambushing, et cetera, then Mr. No Skills Barbarian may taste the effects of not having any ranks in Perception or Climb. Again, use a variety so that the player does not feel picked on.
(Also, Mr. Low Perception Barbarian could be helped out lot of a friendly spellcaster could use something like Flare or Flaming Sphere to mark where the hidden enemy is. That's if one of the other players thinks to be so helpful.)
Also, since he is a half-ogre, he may face prejudice in the towns, and need the other PCs to vouch for him. After a while, his own deeds will also speak for him, for either better or worse. So having a low Charisma in a game where role playing is important, means that the player will have to consider his actions -- perhaps give generously to local charities to offset his charisma. (Money makes a great diplomacy skill bonus.)
He obviously doesn't care about the lack of skills and Will save but I feel there should be some kind of repercussions for him dropping his two thinking stats down to a 5.
What exactly, as a Barbarian, were you expecting him to do with them?
Any suggestions?
Let him play his character in a normal game. He's just a Barbarian, not a min-maxed gish.
Here are some things he's going to have to deal with:
1) With a low Perception, he probably won't be going first and will most likely end up surprised most of the time.
2) He has opened himself up to some poisons that will affect his mental stats
3) He is probably going to fall victim to many spells since his Will save will be so low
4) He won't be contributing much out of combat so he's going to get bored
5) He may end up being charged more for goods and services with such a low Charisma and no way to improve someone's attitude toward him. Being a half-ogre is probably seen the same as being a monster
As was mentioned before, don't target him. There really isn't any need. Just remember that if you see a raging half-ogre charging at your friends, you will probably want to stop him quickly. The NPCs should want the same thing.
I have a player who created a Barbarian for my campaign and went very over-the-top in min-maxing him for combat. He chose Half-Ogre and reduced his Int, Wis, and Cha stats down to 7 (so he has Int, Wis, and Cha of 5, 5, and 7 respectively).
He obviously doesn't care about the lack of skills and Will save but I feel there should be some kind of repercussions for him dropping his two thinking stats down to a 5.
Any suggestions?
You can't give him a half-ogre and complain about his mental stats. He is "role-playing" the character.
Serious answer: The game handles such things, no need for extra rules. Will saves, and perception checks are not going to be his friends. That sets him up for fear, charm, dominate, and other mind affecting spells. Low perception is a good way to walk into a trap or get sneak attacked.I am not advocating you target him just because you don't like his score. I am just pointing why it is a bad idea.
If the group ever enters into a long RP situation he will probably not feel to useful.
Just call the player out anytime he does something with the character that is improbable given his mental stats. Even in combat, I'd rip on the player any time he started anticipating flanks with fellow team-mates, moving carefully and tactically to avoid AoOs, and really anything that requires even AVERAGE intelligence or common sense. In fact, I'd point out that if he wasn't making really poor choices every now and then, even in combat, then he's probably failing to play his character correctly....especially if he is also raging at the time.
It's fine to make characters like this, but you gotta actually be willing to play them. (And if you are they can be some of the most memorable and fun characters ever...though often they are short-lived.) It's much easier to play a character who is dumber than you than it is to play a character smarter than you actually are!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rip on the player any time he started anticipating flanks with fellow team-mates, moving carefully and tactically to avoid AoOs, and really anything that requires even AVERAGE intelligence or common sense.
The tactics can be covered with training. Even animals can do some of these things. Heck, my 1 year old nephew can judge the distance of someone's reach that he does not want to pick him up. Being 1, he is not mobile enough to really avoid anyone, but he can pick out the outer limits of how far they reach without moving.
Now if he starts to make plans or come up with ideas that is something different.
Even in combat, I'd rip on the player any time he started anticipating flanks with fellow team-mates, moving carefully and tactically to avoid AoOs, and really anything that requires even AVERAGE intelligence or common sense.
I presume when you DM, that's how all your elementals, lantern archons, mephits, ogres, orcs, and trolls act. And not how Lizardfolk, Goblins, or Kobolds act.
|
You don't need to do much. I have a personal rule that, all else being equal, the PC with the lowest charisma gets targeted. This guy wants to be in combat anyway, so make him face the most hurt. Don't use more attacks that target will, but again, make sure he's the one who gets hit with them. It only takes a raging barbarian charmed into attacking with the enemy once, and the rest of the party will straighten him out for you.
I want to make a thread about a Wizard who dumped Str and Con and asking what I can do to show him his "mistake." Like strictly enforcing carrying capacity rules. Or targeting him more with Fort saves than other people. Like everyone is suddenly wielding lots of bows with poisoned arrows.
I'd rip on the player any time he started anticipating flanks with fellow team-mates, moving carefully and tactically to avoid AoOs, and really anything that requires even AVERAGE intelligence or common sense.The tactics can be covered with training. Even animals can do some of these things. Heck, my 1 year old nephew can judge the distance of someone's reach that he does not want to pick him up. Being 1, he is not mobile enough to really avoid anyone, but he can pick out the outer limits of how far they reach without moving.
Now if he starts to make plans or come up with ideas that is something different.
Yeah, avoiding harm is fairly instinctual, I'm talking about more complex combat tactics. When he starts delaying to wait for certain triggers, calculating out where he needs to be to avoid getting charged by an NPC etc.
Also, I would bet that even your 1 year old nephew has better than a 5 wisdom, too. It's not just Int...wisdom is common sense and judgement...and as evidenced that the 1 year old has a high enough Sense Motive to know when people are trying to pick him up...well, I'm not sure a 5 wisdom character would even see that coming.
It's the combo of being TERRIBLE at reasoning (int) as well as awareness and common sense (wis) that made me say what I said earlier. You'll notice that even animals have average wisdom scores...many even have above average. Same goes for elemenals and even "mindless" undead.
@Cartigan: Yeah, I play monsters according to their mental stats when I GM. Things with really low mental ability scores tend to make poor decisions...animals go after who IS hurting them, not who MIGHT hurt them (aka the person who hit them hard, not the spellcaster even if he hasn't done anything...and if a spell drops out of mid-air stupid monsters don't realize it's the caster because they're not really reasoning...though if the wizard shoots a ray from his fingertips or some spell like that, then they have the common sense to go after the caster)
Orcs must be pushovers where Goblins are a real low level threat.
Orcs must be pushovers where Goblins are a real low level threat.
They present different challenges, yeah. That's why they're the same CR but very different. If you play orcs as more intelligent than they are they become more than CR 1/3...and if you don't play Goblins as a little smarter and more tactically sound, they become less than CR 1/3.
Orcs must be pushovers where Goblins are a real low level threat.They present different challenges, yeah. That's why they're the same CR but very different. If you play orcs as more intelligent than they are they become more than CR 1/3...and if you don't play Goblins as a little smarter and more tactically sound, they become less than CR 1/3.
Then you play Goblins significantly differently than the design for them is in Pathfinder.
I'm with the crew: Don't single him out, but any diverse set of encounters is going to show his weaknesses.
He's gonna put out big damage, so your real concern is keeping the other players from getting DPR envy.
If you simply run diverse games, your players will make characters able to handle diverse encounters.
|
I want to make a thread about a Wizard who dumped Str and Con and asking what I can do to show him his "mistake." Like strictly enforcing carrying capacity rules. Or targeting him more with Fort saves than other people. Like everyone is suddenly wielding lots of bows with poisoned arrows.
Yeah - carrying capacity isn't an optional rule. And targeting wizards with fort saves is already a common tactic. As is targeting barbarians with Will saves. Dump stats carry risk.
Then you play Goblins significantly differently than the design for them is in Pathfinder.Orcs must be pushovers where Goblins are a real low level threat.They present different challenges, yeah. That's why they're the same CR but very different. If you play orcs as more intelligent than they are they become more than CR 1/3...and if you don't play Goblins as a little smarter and more tactically sound, they become less than CR 1/3.
Mayhaps. I play things as they're described in the bestiary. If something has average intelligence, it is more tactically sound than something with below average intelligence. I don't see anything in there about goblins avoiding using their average intelligence in combat. I do see stuff that implies orcs DON'T strategize unless led by someone more intelligent, beyond just their lack of intelligence.
Mayhaps. I play things as they're described in the bestiary. If something has average intelligence, it is more tactically sound than something with below average intelligence. I don't see anything in there about goblins avoiding using their average intelligence in combat. I do see stuff that implies orcs DON'T strategize unless led by someone more intelligent, beyond just their lack of intelligence.Then you play Goblins significantly differently than the design for them is in Pathfinder.Orcs must be pushovers where Goblins are a real low level threat.They present different challenges, yeah. That's why they're the same CR but very different. If you play orcs as more intelligent than they are they become more than CR 1/3...and if you don't play Goblins as a little smarter and more tactically sound, they become less than CR 1/3.
So Orcs don't flank and just blindly charge around while Goblins are running complicated attack configurations with names in a different language.
So Orcs don't flank and just blindly charge around while Goblins are running complicated attack configurations with names in a different language.Mayhaps. I play things as they're described in the bestiary. If something has average intelligence, it is more tactically sound than something with below average intelligence. I don't see anything in there about goblins avoiding using their average intelligence in combat. I do see stuff that implies orcs DON'T strategize unless led by someone more intelligent, beyond just their lack of intelligence.Then you play Goblins significantly differently than the design for them is in Pathfinder.Orcs must be pushovers where Goblins are a real low level threat.They present different challenges, yeah. That's why they're the same CR but very different. If you play orcs as more intelligent than they are they become more than CR 1/3...and if you don't play Goblins as a little smarter and more tactically sound, they become less than CR 1/3.
Weird, that doesn't sound like what I've said. Goblins are smart enough to gang up on one thing at a time (and generally have a fair idea of who looks easier to take down in a group), this usually results in flanks. Orcs are more prone to solo tactics and, yes, they charge in relying on their much higher damage to bring down opponents. Do flanks sometimes happen in fights? Yes. Do orcs TRY to make those happen as a general rule? Not really.
Really just that small level of difference in tactics makes a big difference in how an encounter plays out. As I've said, they are different challenges. A solo, charging orc is about on the same level of difficulty as a few goblins flanking a character. If the two played in the same style, goblins wouldn't be the same CR as orcs....orcs are vastly superior as a straight up physical threat to a party (they can one shot a first level character fairly easily).
Edit: Also, goblins are more likely to attack from range, if possible. This makes them a little more dangerous.
Weird, that doesn't sound like what I've said. Goblins are smart enough to gang up on one thing at a time (and generally have a fair idea of who looks easier to take down in a group), this usually results in flanks. Orcs are more prone to solo tactics and, yes, they charge in relying on their much higher damage to bring down opponents. Do flanks sometimes happen in fights? Yes. Do orcs TRY to make those happen as a general rule? Not really.So Orcs don't flank and just blindly charge around while Goblins are running complicated attack configurations with names in a different language.Mayhaps. I play things as they're described in the bestiary. If something has average intelligence, it is more tactically sound than something with below average intelligence. I don't see anything in there about goblins avoiding using their average intelligence in combat. I do see stuff that implies orcs DON'T strategize unless led by someone more intelligent, beyond just their lack of intelligence.Then you play Goblins significantly differently than the design for them is in Pathfinder.Orcs must be pushovers where Goblins are a real low level threat.They present different challenges, yeah. That's why they're the same CR but very different. If you play orcs as more intelligent than they are they become more than CR 1/3...and if you don't play Goblins as a little smarter and more tactically sound, they become less than CR 1/3.
Not even when organized by a "smarter" leader? Isn't that the specific definition of a PC party? Why wouldn't a member of a PC group be familiar with common tactics?
Weird, that doesn't sound like what I've said. Goblins are smart enough to gang up on one thing at a time (and generally have a fair idea of who looks easier to take down in a group), this usually results in flanks. Orcs are more prone to solo tactics and, yes, they charge in relying on their much higher damage to bring down opponents. Do flanks sometimes happen in fights? Yes. Do orcs TRY to make those happen as a general rule? Not really.So Orcs don't flank and just blindly charge around while Goblins are running complicated attack configurations with names in a different language.Mayhaps. I play things as they're described in the bestiary. If something has average intelligence, it is more tactically sound than something with below average intelligence. I don't see anything in there about goblins avoiding using their average intelligence in combat. I do see stuff that implies orcs DON'T strategize unless led by someone more intelligent, beyond just their lack of intelligence.Then you play Goblins significantly differently than the design for them is in Pathfinder.Orcs must be pushovers where Goblins are a real low level threat.They present different challenges, yeah. That's why they're the same CR but very different. If you play orcs as more intelligent than they are they become more than CR 1/3...and if you don't play Goblins as a little smarter and more tactically sound, they become less than CR 1/3.Not even when organized by a "smarter" leader? Isn't that the specific definition of a PC party? Why wouldn't a member of a PC group be familiar with common tactics?
When organized by a smarter leader they may have better tactics. Same goes for the half-ogre in his party. If he is instructed to do things by the party he will have some tactics. However, due to his lack of common sense AND reasoning ability, he would most likely blindly follow those orders or tactics to the point of sometimes not doing the best thing. Setting up a flank is good...but if he is always told "try to get on the opposite side of creatures we fight" he may very well run through AoOs that he shouldn't in order to do so, or even put HIMSELF into a bad flank to set up the flank for his party.
This is the type of character who would need to be told "hey you have to peel an orange to really enjoy eating it" and then be found peeling every apple he tries to eat a week later.
Edit: I'm done hijacking this thread with you. If you want to play combats where mental ability scores have no meaning for strategy that is totally cool. I think they do, but I may just play the game wrong.
Even animals should be smart enough to be able to stay out of range of a threat. And that's what, 2 intelligence?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even animals should be smart enough to be able to stay out of range of a threat. And that's what, 2 intelligence?
No, it's a 10-13 wisdom.
Charm person and spells with Will Saves.
Mayhaps. I play things as they're described in the bestiary. If something has average intelligence, it is more tactically sound than something with below average intelligence. I don't see anything in there about goblins avoiding using their average intelligence in combat. I do see stuff that implies orcs DON'T strategize unless led by someone more intelligent, beyond just their lack of intelligence.Then you play Goblins significantly differently than the design for them is in Pathfinder.Orcs must be pushovers where Goblins are a real low level threat.They present different challenges, yeah. That's why they're the same CR but very different. If you play orcs as more intelligent than they are they become more than CR 1/3...and if you don't play Goblins as a little smarter and more tactically sound, they become less than CR 1/3.
You can't really categorize "average" though. I would think that if you
Harpy:Int 7
Often viewed as vicious and corrupted creatures, harpies know how creatures think and act. This understanding gives them an advantage when it comes to finding their favorite meals. While creatures of the wild easily fall victim to their captivating songs, these vile bird-women prefer their meals spiced with complex sentient thoughts. Easy prey makes for a boring meal.
While ultimately savage and without remorse for their actions, a number of harpies live close to humanoid societies and enjoy parlaying with creatures that they see as potential meals.
Harpies tend to wear baubles and trinkets stolen from their victims, as they like to indulge in the shiny ornaments of mankind. Up close, these creatures reek with the stench of consumed victims, and they rarely let creatures not yet captivated too near, lest they smell the gore and decay upon their feathers. For this reason, many harpies wear perfumes and scented oils.
Harpies appear wildly different in different lands. Some seem like an amalgam of vultures and women, while others bear the regal markings of hawks or falcons in their feathers. Rare clutches of harpies in isolated and tropical parts of the world even have colorful feathers akin to parrots.
Back to my previous post training can and should overcome stupidity in actual combat. As for how to account for it in game. A goblin would be more capable of more complex thought out plans but simple things such as how to gang up on someone is easily done. A decent wisdom alone is not enough to make up for an int of two. I am sure that warrior training involved using teamwork in an actual fight. If orcs are to stupid to do anything as easy as flanking or avoiding an AoO I doubt they would be able to hold on to any land since preparing defenses against intruders is a lot more difficult than avoiding AoO's.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The low Int is the easiest to 'deal' with, RAW, but it can be a pain... Just take a look at all the DC 10 Knowledge checks in the core book (the ones anyone can attempt untrained) - all stuff you'd normally handwave because everyone can take 10 and pass the check. With this guy, that's not the case... he's that dumb...
Where, normally, it's no issue to say...
'You head into the village of Stonebridge, strolling past a shepherd driving his sheep up to the pastures for the day, and waving to the farmers out tending the corn crops. Up ahead you see a patrol flying the arms of the local lord, Duke Fenlon, but they just glance and nod towards you as you head into Bob's tavern.'
But there's a lot of DC 10 Knowledge checks in there, RAW...
'You head into... a village [Knowledge (local) for the name], strolling past a shepherd drving his [Knowledge (nature) for what the animals are] up to the pastures for the day, and waving to the farmers out tending the [Knowledge (nature) to know what the plants are]. Up ahead you see a patrol flying the arms of [Knowledge (local) or (nobility) to recognise who the arms belong to, and what position he / she / or it has], but they just glance and nod towards you as you head into [Knowledge (local) to know what the building is].'
Life's tough for those lacking Intelligence... ;)
|
|
We have a half-ogre in our group who came with 20 Str/14 Dex/18 Con/5 Int/5 Wis/13 Cha stats at level first. Even if he could theorically get 22 str, we put the maximum beginning stat to 20. We are right now in a low-magic world, wizards are overall big bastards pumping the world's energy which vanishes on each spell cast, and thus tend to be evil from the beginning. The first we met was a almost epic-level chaotic good diviner at level 9 who protected licorns, so there wasn't a lot of magic threats to our group.
He's doing a huge mess in battle and was undoubtly the higher provider of DPR and one-shot kills during the first 5-6 levels, but he progressively became weaker when compared to any other fellow character, so we had to houserule his core barbarian up. It was before the APG came out. But even then, we kept the houserules we made because they weren't game breaking at all and only allowed him to keep the pace and stay good, instead of having useless skills like trap senses that wasn't useful nor in accord with the character's background. It's even weaker than some official variants.
He roleplays wonderfully well his stats. His ideas are voluntarily dumb, his speech a bad simili-french with sometimes comically impressive and noble words and he lacks common sense.
The player was previously a big jerk whenever roleplay became possible, and sighed/played with his dices when there wasn't any fight ; but this mini-max killing machine is the character that made him play and enjoy full game sessions without combat ! My suggestion to make him take high charisma helped him to become likable enough and good/impressive in social situations. Here are the things that made (and will always make) him cry :
- Cast a nice little ray of enfeeblement/touch of fatigue on him. If he's weakened, he loses one of his only advantages. If he's fatigued, he can't rage until high level or if he has the Roused Anger rage power, AND he gets a bit more weaker. This is a 6 stat points difference between fatigued and raging. Predilection school/heighten spell help making the saving throw harder.
- Globally, cast on him anything that debuffs and needs his abyssmal Will throw. Ranged Bestow Curse, a witch's hex...
- Any enchantment spell. Hit this damn will save. A "mere bard" could make him sing Edith Piaf's entire repertory while laughing, or make him drink a violent poison/activate a trap magic item at level 1.
- Throw in an assassin. Paralyzing death attack will be hard to see coming with so few wisdom, and will remind the barbarian he's not invincible at all.
- Sunder/disarm his weapon. Hilarity and roleplaying opportunities ensues when the weapon is a precious heritage.
- Lots of allips. One touch, 1d4 Wisdom damage, critical hit = +1 wisdom drain. Wisdom at 0 = goodbye barbarian.
- Long-ranged attacks with full-attack + rapid shot + manyshot + haste + Deadly Aim will make him running and cursing like crazy against "the cowardly skinny scoundrel". Add in it a ranger "favored ennemy = human" for teh lulz.
The low stats of this build already give you a lot of ways to f*ck with the barbarian in various ways.
Globally, I think that minimaxing a barbarian tends to make the adventure more frustrating for the player, because when you suffer, you suffer a lot and can't do anything against it except invest in precious feats or hope a friend will help you, you, the mighty barbarian. Helped by weaklings ! 8D
I want to make a thread about a Wizard who dumped Str and Con and asking what I can do to show him his "mistake." Like strictly enforcing carrying capacity rules. Or targeting him more with Fort saves than other people. Like everyone is suddenly wielding lots of bows with poisoned arrows.
You know, playing a Sorcerer with an 8 Con is bad enough. I've done that. It's like it takes almost nothing to take you out of the combat.
And it's probably fair to ask the 7 Str Wizard how she is carrying so much equipment. My PC's answer has usually been "I gave it to the Barbarian to carry for me."
You do have a point that people should not "suddenly" start wielding poisoned arrows just because a PC has a low Constitution score.
But it probably would be fair for a town guard, suspicious about the story the party's Rogue is telling him, to turn to the Barbarian to ask "And what do you say to that, Mr. Half-Ogre?"
The low Int is the easiest to 'deal' with, RAW, but it can be a pain... Just take a look at all the DC 10 Knowledge checks in the core book (the ones anyone can attempt untrained) - all stuff you'd normally handwave because everyone can take 10 and pass the check. With this guy, that's not the case... he's that dumb...
Where, normally, it's no issue to say...
'You head into the village of Stonebridge, strolling past a shepherd driving his sheep up to the pastures for the day, and waving to the farmers out tending the corn crops. Up ahead you see a patrol flying the arms of the local lord, Duke Fenlon, but they just glance and nod towards you as you head into Bob's tavern.'
But there's a lot of DC 10 Knowledge checks in there, RAW...
'You head into... a village [Knowledge (local) for the name], strolling past a shepherd drving his [Knowledge (nature) for what the animals are] up to the pastures for the day, and waving to the farmers out tending the [Knowledge (nature) to know what the plants are]. Up ahead you see a patrol flying the arms of [Knowledge (local) or (nobility) to recognise who the arms belong to, and what position he / she / or it has], but they just glance and nod towards you as you head into [Knowledge (local) to know what the building is].'
Life's tough for those lacking Intelligence... ;)
That sounds a bit like my chaotic neutral druid after she's found some good mushrooms. ;-)
As for not allowing a player to have a PC do things because the PC has a low wisdom, that is something I would not do. A Barbarian has got to be skilled in combat. So maybe he does not know the difference between a salad fork and a dinner fork (or maybe he does not know the difference between a fork and a spoon), but when he has an axe and there is an orc with a falchion, he knows what to do and he knows how to do it.
One thing I might do for characters with a really low Intelligence (like 7 or lower) would be to require a Memory Check to remember complicated instructions. Maybe a DC of 1 per clause would be appropriate.
But usually when I play a low intelligence character, I tend to play a low intelligence character. She can probably figure out how to flank and dodge in combat alright, but when it comes to keeping track of WHY we're in combat, well, somebody else better keep track of those details.
Like there was once when the GM was expecting my PC to come up with a plan to get out of a situation, but this PC happened to have a minimum Intelligence score, so she just decided to punch out the captain of the town guard.
|
|
Like there was once when the GM was expecting my PC to come up with a plan to get out of a situation, but this PC happened to have a minimum Intelligence score, so she just decided to punch out the captain of the town guard.
Punching things isn't a cunning way to get on with problems ?
Would they have lied to me ?
I have a player who created a Barbarian for my campaign and went very over-the-top in min-maxing him for combat. He chose Half-Ogre and reduced his Int, Wis, and Cha stats down to 7 (so he has Int, Wis, and Cha of 5, 5, and 7 respectively).
He obviously doesn't care about the lack of skills and Will save but I feel there should be some kind of repercussions for him dropping his two thinking stats down to a 5.
Any suggestions?
I don't think I missed a post, but it sounds as if you have not had a frank discussion of your philosophical differences with the player. Jocund's First Principle of Gaming is: The GM and the players must be on the same page.
Like everyone, I prefer certain play styles and find certain play styles stupid. However, I realize that these preferences are essentially arbitrary, and I therefore operate by the motto "De gustibus disputandum non est." I see that any game can work (meaning be fun for all involved) if everyone at the table has a similar idea of what constitutes great gaming. Likewise, any game will fail if there exist profound differences of opinion. The worst thing that can happen is a campaign starting without the GM and players having talked these issues through. By the time the game starts, everyone is excited and has invested time, effort, and probably money, and, as we read over and over again on these boards, a game in which the GM and players are not of one mind usually flames out, often spectacularly. I am not saying everyone must agree on every issue, of course, but once it gets to the point that the GM and player are butting heads over issues like implications of a low Charisma/Intelligence/Wisdom, the game is probably beyond saving (or, at the very least, there will be a disruption as one player leaves the group angrily or the GM quits). Thus, I recommend that you have an open discussion with your players about your GMing style and their expectations. That way you can see if there is any hope for the group, or if you are saving time and sparing heartache by not going forward.
Heck, my 1 year old nephew can judge the distance of someone's reach that he does not want to pick him up. Being 1, he is not mobile enough to really avoid anyone, but he can pick
That cinches it. Your nephew is a half Ogre. Wait until that bad boy grows up!
P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just call the player out anytime he does something with the character that is improbable given his mental stats. Even in combat, I'd rip on the player any time he started anticipating flanks with fellow team-mates, moving carefully and tactically to avoid AoOs, and really anything that requires even AVERAGE intelligence or common sense. In fact, I'd point out that if he wasn't making really poor choices every now and then, even in combat, then he's probably failing to play his character correctly....especially if he is also raging at the time.
It's fine to make characters like this, but you gotta actually be willing to play them. (And if you are they can be some of the most memorable and fun characters ever...though often they are short-lived.) It's much easier to play a character who is dumber than you than it is to play a character smarter than you actually are!
I hate this attitude. where the DM decides to take player control away just because they arnt as dumb as the dm thinks they should be. whats next? yelling at him every time he conjugates a verb or uses a pronoun other than "me smash"? keep in mind that wolves have an int of 2 and are well known for pack tactics including ambushes, hit and run, flanking, and disctraction
I hate this attitude. where the DM decides to take player control away just because they arnt as dumb as the dm thinks they should be. whats next? yelling at him every time he conjugates a verb or uses a pronoun other than "me smash"? keep in mind that wolves have an int of 2 and are well known for pack tactics including ambushes, hit and run, flanking, and disctraction
I hate people who dump mental stats and then play their characters as normal.
If a character has poor stats they should be roleplayed as such. Just because a player has a higher mental stat than his character does not mean they should be allowed to ignore that aspect of the character. Below are examples of what a person with the specified mental stats is supposed to be like.
2-3 INT: Animal-level intelligence, acts mostly on instinct but can be trained.
4-5 INT: Can speak but is apt to react instinctively and impulsively, sometimes resorts to charades to express thoughts.
6-7 INT: Dull-witted or slow, often misuses and mispronounces words.
2-3 WIS: Rarely notices important or prominent items, people, or occurrences.
4-5 WIS: Seemingly incapable of planning.
6-7 WIS: Seems to have almost no common sense.
4-5 CHA: Has no awareness of the needs of others, almost no sense of empathy.
6-7 CHA: Uninteresting, rude, boorish, and generally unpleasant to be around.
8-9 CHA: Something of a bore or makes people mildly uncomfortable.
That being said does not mean the GM has to be a dick about it. A few reminders and a little encouragement would be my method of reinforcing the characters stats. If the GM gives bonus XP for roleplaying and the player is ignoring his characters stats than withholding the bonus is entirely appropriate.
No one noticed the 7 year necro?
I have a personal rule that, all else being equal, the PC with the lowest charisma gets targeted.
Actually, this should be the opposite, since high charisma is noticed and low charisma is ignored.
/cevah
It can easily be low charisma is targeted. People with high charisma generate confidence, people with low charisma can seem meek and weak.
A minion killer!
/cevah