I think it's important to separate the concept of your intelligence for your characters intelligence.
Even if your character has a higher intelligence then another character your character doesn't gain any special benefit when answering a riddle.
Even if your character doesn't have a good charisma you can use your intelligence to think of the best thing to say so that you can get the highest modifier.
You can always use your intelligence to help your character fight with the best strategy in combat.
Your brain is your characters greatest power.
Yes, being a smart player does give you an advantage.
There is nothing wrong with this.
But, as I am old school, I agree.
The idea isn't about erasing shortcomings.
After all were not playing a game where a single players shortcoming should really have any substantial effect on the enjoyment of the game as a whole.
If your players are playing against each other then being smarter gives you an advantage.
But these are the same players who will complain that there character has an 18 intelligence so he should get a hint.
Basically they're trying to use their charisma(convince the GM) instead of their intelligence.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But, as I am old school, I agree.The idea isn't about erasing shortcomings.
After all were not playing a game where a single players shortcoming should really have any substantial effect on the enjoyment of the game as a whole.
If your players are playing against each other then being smarter gives you an advantage.
But these are the same players who will complain that there character has an 18 intelligence so he should get a hint.
Basically they're trying to use their charisma(convince the GM) instead of their intelligence.
I am going to disagree with you to a degree. I have characters which wield longswords, but I as a player have absolutely no idea how to wield a sword of any type aside from "keep the pointy end away from me". Also, I make characters who have amazing strength and have knocked iron doors off their hinges. I'm not sure that I am strong enough to break through a thick piece of plywood. Why are the mental stats so different? If I am DMing and want to use a riddle or some other puzzle I definitely allow appropriate checks to those with the right knowledge/skill/high base stat for hints. I also would let my players discuss the problem with each other out of character and then switch back to "in character" when giving their response. I feel that even though I am absolutely horrid at solving riddles my Wizard with a 26 INT and max ranks in linguistics (with class bonus and an additional +2) should be able to decipher something.
We are not our characters and our characters are not us. There needs to be a divide between in-character and out-of-character if you want to run this as an RP game. I am all for giving the group something which requires some thought and gets away from the "roll dice and I'll tell you if you win the game" adventures, but you need to consider the difference between PLAYING a wizard with a massive intelligence and BEING a wizard with a massive intelligence. Allowing for players to gain some hints if they are struggling does not detract from the game. Having the party sit for an hour trying to figure out a puzzle does.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Figuring things out for yourself is practically the only freedom anyone really has nowadays. Use that freedom," Jean Rasczak, Starship Troopers (the film, but I think it is a line that Robert Heinlein would have approved of)
Master Arminas
Why are the mental stats so different?
Both the benefits for mental stats and the benefits for physical stats are listed in the book. No more no less.
Certainly if the riddle involves some specific piece of information that the player needs to solve the riddle give then a knowledge roll and give them that piece of information.
The thing is that you use your intelligence for every aspect of playing pathfinder.
You use it when answering riddles.
You use it for strategy
You use it to figure out where to go.
See you can't remove the benefit for your player being intelligent.
If one of your players is playing a stupid character but he figured out the answer to the riddle would you deny him the option of answering?
"No, your character is too stupid to answer the riddle sorry."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Figuring things out for yourself is practically the only freedom anyone really has nowadays. Use that freedom," Jean Rasczak, Starship Troopers (the film, but I think it is a line that Robert Heinlein would have approved of)
Master Arminas
It's settled. The ultimate authority, Starship Troopers, has been appealed to and quoted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WARNING: what follows is personal opinion. Thanks.
Limited range disagreement, go!
Short version: I'm with Nipin.
Slightly longer version: your players should work hard at being as good as they can be, and they need to use their stats to their best advantage. Just because someone has a high INT doesn't mean they automatically get everything or know everything - they have to actually do something. But similarly, it's silly to have a double standard of requiring your the player to be able to accomplish something on their own mentally but not physically. Some players are smarter than others. Some are more physically capable. Some are more tired or distracted of have real life things intruding on their mind. None of this has any bearing on their characters' capabilities. I, too, apply a double standard. My double standard just goes toward leniency rather than harshness.
THAT SAID: it all should not rely on dice rolls or stat hard lines. Simply handing out a sheet saying "you're smart, here's the answer" isn't the way to go. The players do need to use what they have and try.
Sometimes they try but just can't do it for various reasons. Being a jerk and penalizing them for their inadequacies seems hardly the way to GM to me, though.
But ultimately, like the other thread, this one is about personal opinion. Each GM uses their own discretion and decides what to do in their own game, and the players agree to abide by that. And that's fine. That's what a social contract is - a group of people agreeing to abide by certain rules and concepts. Mine just differs from Karlgamers. And that's fine. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If one of your players is playing a stupid character but he figured out the answer to the riddle would you deny him the option of answering?
"No, your character is too stupid to answer the riddle sorry."
I am saying if the group is being tasked with a riddle or other puzzle this is a challenge for the group to overcome similar to a combat. In combat there are strategies which work well or work poorly (force them to come down the hallway one at a time when fighting large groups for example) but regardless of the strategy employed the character still gets to utilize their AC to help avoid hits. What you are suggesting sounds like my DM would throw a ball at me and see if I dodge to determine if my character gets hit. Yes, having players do puzzles can be fun. However, if I had a group which was struggling with a puzzle or some similar challenge I would definitely allow them to utilize some rolls to gain a few hints or reminders.
For example, the players have visited the scene of a crime and after some thorough searching found several foot prints where the left foot is missing a toe. Earlier the players during their discussions with people in town found out that people who work at the coal mine tend to have injuries related to the cart getting loose or cave-ins which they dismissed as some background fluff. After their investigation at the scene the only clue they have is the foot print and none of the players is figuring out anything relevant from the foot print. They do not want to go through town asking for folks who have missing toes since the town already doesn't like outsiders and might take offense at personal questions such as asking about deformities. I could allow the group to get stuck and potentially waste a lot of time doing nothing OR I could give a player with a high Wisdom a roll and if he makes a decent check (15 is usually my rule of thumb) he remembers people who work at the coal mine get odd injuries from the carts and cave-ins.
The idea I am promoting is to challenge the players, but be flexible with helping to move the game along. I do not point blank give them answers. The hints help players to pass the challenge and continue playing the game.
Imagine you had an encounter where the players had to hit the enemy with a certain sequence of blows to kill it. It lingers at deaths door for how many rounds before the players get frustrated and stop enjoying the game? They ask if the creature has fast healing, regeneration, immortality, DR, is being healed somehow, and every other standard condition, but never think to hit it with the sword then mace then fire. The wizard may even think it is getting healed by fire because he goes after the sword wielding fighter and before the mace wielding paladin (sword hits and it weakens then fire hits and it looks better).
If one of your players is playing a stupid character but he figured out the answer to the riddle would you deny him the option of answering?
"No, your character is too stupid to answer the riddle sorry."
If I ever used riddles (and I never will - they are solved by player intelligence, not character intelligence), I would require an Intelligence check from the dumb character. Its still possible for him to get lucky and guess the correct answer, but dumb characters should not be solving riddles. They're dumb. If you wanted a riddle-solving smart character, you should of put a higher score into Intelligence, not made it a dump stat.
The idea I am promoting is to challenge the players, but be flexible with helping to move the game along. I do not point blank give them answers. The hints help players to pass the challenge and continue playing the game.
This is what I was trying to say.
Does this mean I can dump charisma if I am low charisma person so I am not gaining and bonuses for thing my character is not good at. Then there are people that complain about dumping charsima.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is really a matter of taste and personal style. You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But I would like to point out that neither playing style is old school or new school.
As far back as 1981, I played with people who totally ignored their INT, WIS and CHA scores. As far back as 1981, I played with people who stopped the game to argue that those scores ought to count for something.
Right after 2nd Ed came out, I got together with friends with whom we hammered out the notion that the whole group can contribute to a single character's decision, should that character have an INT much higher than his player, and in that way simulate the rightful Intelligence of the character.
There is nothing different in this from a player playing his WIS 6 character through a series of bad decisions.
And if this is "new school," then it's new school from about 1993. Which I suppose means Pearl Jam, Wu-Tang Clan, Seinfeld and Jurassic Park are all "new school," too.
|
|
If I ever used riddles (and I never will - they are solved by player intelligence, not character intelligence), I would require an Intelligence check from the dumb character. Its still possible for him to get lucky and guess the correct answer, but dumb characters should not be solving riddles. They're dumb. If you wanted a riddle-solving smart character, you should of put a higher score into Intelligence, not made it a dump stat.If one of your players is playing a stupid character but he figured out the answer to the riddle would you deny him the option of answering?
"No, your character is too stupid to answer the riddle sorry."
Since you feel this way I would suggest letting riddles or similar mental puzzles be solved out-of-character and then have the solution presented in-character. This allows the dumb brute who is actually a PHD candidate (we have some at our table) help out the group, but remain in-character while doing so. The game has a layer of abstraction between the player and the character and as a DM we can control the interplay between the player and the character.
However, with great power comes great responsibility. We must always use our DM powers to further the enjoyment of the game for our players as well as ourselves or we have failed in our most important responsibility as a DM (also players who are not having fun stop playing).
I find myself somewhere in the middle of the opinions expressed so far.
I don't care what the number is on your sheet in most cases. You are going to have to figure it out for yourself...unless we have hit a brick wall where everyone is sitting around staring at one another blankly. Once in a while, that's a good thing IMO, but more than once every handful of sessions is overkill and will guarantee you less players in the long run. If it gets to gridlock, I generally start giving hints to the players with the higher stats, or letting them make relevant skill rolls to get us moving again.
If it's not fun for over half the people at the table, you're not doing it right.
Mine just differs from Karlgamers. And that's fine. :)
It's important to note that smart players aren't getting any advantage over other players unless your players are playing against each other. I would suggest not having players play against each other.
It's important to note that a players strength, dexterity and constitution shouldn't have any noticeable influence on gameplay.
It's important to note that a players intelligence, charisma and wisdom will have a noticeable influence on all aspects of gameplay not just those aspects that involve intelligence.
It's important to note that the benefits for physical stats are clearly noted in the book.
It's important to note that the benefits for mental stats are clearly noted in the book.
It's important to note that answering of riddles is common in adventure stories but that the people who eventually answer those riddles are not necessarily intelligent.
If one of your players is playing a stupid character but he figured out the answer to the riddle would you deny him the option of answering?"No, your character is too stupid to answer the riddle sorry."
No, but for many years now, most of the players in my game have been amiable enough to work out whether the character would be the one to say it. Sometimes they decide he might answer it on accident. Other times, they might nominate the smartest character in the group to say it.
In either case, nobody forgets which player got the answer, and he gets his props (which I suspect is the real issue of the thread - ego and pride). Since everybody pats that player on the back, he doesn't need to worry if his INT 3 half-orc barbarian is the guy to utter it. And since I long ago stopped giving the XP for such a riddle to the player who answered it, instead splitting it fairly, it's not an issue on that front, either.
Nobody is forcing you to play this way. It's what my players like. It works well. It's one recommendation on how to play out of many.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else notice intelligence is spelled incorrectly in the thread title? :)
Anyone else notice intelligence is spelled incorrectly in the thread title? :)
Oops...:)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else notice intelligence is spelled incorrectly in the thread title? :)
I did.
My IQ is 295, among the highest in the world. That's my own estimate. Others figure it much lower, but what do they know? They're not as smart as me.
I wouldn't, but I've had the... *ahem* fortune of playing under a few such DMs.
Once I suggested making a half-orc bard and one one my friends said:
Oh, well I would make you roll a strength check and if it was too high you would break your instrument
*sigh*
Needless to say this friend didn't know anything about GMing.
|
|
Mine just differs from Karlgamers. And that's fine. :)It's important to note that smart players aren't getting any advantage over other players unless your players are playing against each other. I would suggest not having players play against each other.
It's important to note that a players strength, dexterity and constitution shouldn't have any noticeable influence on gameplay.
It's important to note that a players intelligence, charisma and wisdom will have a noticeable influence on all aspects of gameplay not just those aspects that involve intelligence.
It's important to note that the benefits for physical stats are clearly noted in the book.
It's important to note that the benefits for mental stats are clearly noted in the book.
It's important to note that answering of riddles is common in adventure stories but that the people who eventually answer those riddles are not necessarily intelligent.
It is important to note what a player says is not necessarily what a character says.
It is important to note what a player knows is not necessarily what a character knows.
It is important to note what a player is capable of doing is not necessarily what a character is capable of doing.
I have had Barbarians with a 9 (could have been less) Int figure out complex riddles. The group accepted the moment of clarity and moved on. If I had wanted to enforce role-play of the character then I would have stated the Wizard figured it out and congratulated the player who figured out the solution not the player with the high number in the Int box on their sheet. The game remains true to what the characters are capable of doing and the player who was capable of solving the problem is allowed to do so.
I have had times when none of the players is able to piece together the puzzle. I then allowed those with appropriate stats to roll in order to progress the game. We have also had Barbarians with a 9 Int (could have been less) roll natural 20 on the roll and the Wizard rolled a natural 1. We enforced the role-play strictly since we were using dice to determine results. The Barbarian had a moment of clarity or remembered some lost knowledge while the Wizard kicked himself for not seeing it sooner once the answer was available to him.
I am not saying that player Intelligence etc. is not relevant or has no impact. I am saying that a character can be capable of things the player is not. The statistics provided by the game is how we (my group) determine if the character is able to figure out some clue to a complex riddle or hit a retreating Orc from 100 yards away with a volley of arrows. I use this to help the players progress when they are stuck and/or getting frustrated.
I am saying that a character can be capable of things the player is not.
Absolutely! You didn't think that I thought different right?
The statistics provided by the game is how we (my group) determine if the character is able to figure out some clue to a complex riddle or hit a retreating Orc from 100 yards away with a volley of arrows. I use this to help the players progress when they are stuck and/or getting frustrated.
The book has rules for hitting a retreating orc for 100 yards away.
Another thing(and I've had to learn this the hard way) is that a single riddle should never be a crunch point. In other words there should always be a way through that bypasses the riddle... although perhaps not as rewarding a path.
I agree with all of you, but I have a much looser interpretation of things.
The players use their characters are avatars in which to interact with the world, and can play with their toy in any way they see fit (within reason).
Any puzzles or tasks or hints I give take into account not only the characters (Where each encounter is more or less designed to make sure everyone can feel effective) but also the players (Where our shared experiences and knowledge allow me to communicate with them in ways that I would be unable to do so in other groups).
If a player figures out a unique way to deal with an encounter of puzzle, high-fives all around. I'm more interested in my group playing the game than being forced to act in a particular way.
This argument reminds me of Gandalf in that riddle, he tired every freaking word (because he is smart) yet could not figure out the correct one. Because he was smart he was thinking in a grand scale, yet Frodo kind of got the riddle right (I'm not sure if Frodo was supposed to be smart anyways). Kind of ironic now that you think about it XD.
|
You can actually run things both ways you know. If you want your plyers trying to solve problems, then giv details about puzzles, traps and riddles and let them at it. Some folk like to use their own intelligence for this kind of game.
However, you can also just describe it as " a riddle of fiendish complexity is spelled out before you in the stones." set a dc for knowledge checks, or make a series of dc checks using multiple knowledge and other problem solving skills and have at it. This way it was their characters alone that solved it.
Each method has folk it appeals to. Unfortunately in my group it's about half and half split. I try to make multifaceted problems for them to solve if I need to to cater for the divergence tastes.
Cheers
|
This argument reminds me of Gandalf in that riddle, he tired every freaking word (because he is smart) yet could not figure out the correct one. Because he was smart he was thinking in a grand scale, yet Frodo kind of got the riddle right (I'm not sure if Frodo was supposed to be smart anyways). Kind of ironic now that you think about it XD.
Nope. They all just sat around until Gandalf remembered to simply say mellon.
You can actually run things both ways you know. If you want your plyers trying to solve problems, then giv details about puzzles, traps and riddles and let them at it. Some folk like to use their own intelligence for this kind of game.
However, you can also just describe it as " a riddle of fiendish complexity is spelled out before you in the stones." set a dc for knowledge checks, or make a series of dc checks using multiple knowledge and other problem solving skills and have at it. This way it was their characters alone that solved it.
Each method has folk it appeals to. Unfortunately in my group it's about half and half split. I try to make multifaceted problems for them to solve if I need to to cater for the divergence tastes.
Cheers
This sounds like a good dogma. Remember the DM is the ultimate arbiter of what flies and what doesnt, but his first job is maintaining the flow of the game. The GM that says "No, Steve. Your barbarian is too dumb to figure that out. Go sit in the corner for 10 minutes and we'll pretend we didnt hear it." is not doing his job. Likewise, the DM that gives his characters no use of their skills and no clues is also not doing his job.
We had a great thread on riddles a month or two back. I recall it used Diamonds, referring to their qualities as "givers of life" and "fulfillers of desire" as the spell components for ressurection and wish. I thought this was really clever. It encourages your players to think, but it's also a clue that can be solved with your player's precious knowledge skills.
Likewise, squeeze some uses for linguistics and spellcraft and knowledge (geography) and (local), or even (engineering) in there too, and suddenly your ranger, rogue and fighter can puzzle out some clues as well!
While I don't think I'd enjoy it being forced upon me I do think as a roleplaying game the player ought to conform to the character's role.
Roleplaying is the easy part. By easy I mean there are no rules to follow. You can play your character the way you want. If, however, you try to do anything that falls under the rules you will have to make a die roll modified by your ability scores.
The role you are playing is suppose to be as complex as an actual human which means that trying to follow pure ability scores is silly. Humans don't have ability scores.
For example:
Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
I agree with all of you, but I have a much looser interpretation of things.
The players use their characters are avatars in which to interact with the world, and can play with their toy in any way they see fit (within reason).
Any puzzles or tasks or hints I give take into account not only the characters (Where each encounter is more or less designed to make sure everyone can feel effective) but also the players (Where our shared experiences and knowledge allow me to communicate with them in ways that I would be unable to do so in other groups).
If a player figures out a unique way to deal with an encounter of puzzle, high-fives all around. I'm more interested in my group playing the game than being forced to act in a particular way.
This.
Karlgamer, I'm not entirely sure where you're getting the idea that because a person is rewarded for having a high ability score, they are somehow in competition against the other players. I don't understand that philosophy or side. I'm really attempting to do so. Please explain it to me? Seriously - I'm not attempting snark (despite the seeming tone of your response) I'm genuinely curious. What does one have to do with the other?
This argument reminds me of Gandalf in that riddle, he tired every freaking word (because he is smart) yet could not figure out the correct one. Because he was smart he was thinking in a grand scale, yet Frodo kind of got the riddle right (I'm not sure if Frodo was supposed to be smart anyways). Kind of ironic now that you think about it XD.
It was Frodo's high wisdom score. Gandalf was very intelligent, but not terribly wise at first (the Halfling leaf and all that... which Frodo didn't use). I mean, Frodo had to have some means of continually making his will save v. the ring, after all!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are the mental stats so different?Both the benefits for mental stats and the benefits for physical stats are listed in the book. No more no less.
Certainly if the riddle involves some specific piece of information that the player needs to solve the riddle give then a knowledge roll and give them that piece of information.
The thing is that you use your intelligence for every aspect of playing pathfinder.
You use it when answering riddles.
You use it for strategy
You use it to figure out where to go.See you can't remove the benefit for your player being intelligent.
If one of your players is playing a stupid character but he figured out the answer to the riddle would you deny him the option of answering?
"No, your character is too stupid to answer the riddle sorry."
I would do that. If a character is too stupid to answer the riddle yet the player knows the answer then the skill check determines if the Character can access that player knowledge. The reverse goes too, if the riddle is too tricky for the player to figure out but the player has a high intelligence the check in case allows them to know the answer.
I only ever seem to come up with the intelligent answers when I'm playing really dumb characters. Do that too much, and I start sounding like Xander from Buffy the Vampire Slayer (seriously. How many times did straight-D-average guy have the *perfect* idea?)
Karlgamer, I'm not entirely sure where you're getting the idea that because a person is rewarded for having a high ability score, they are somehow in competition against the other players.
I never stated this as an idea that I had. My point is that a smart PLAYER does NOT have an advantage over other players because the players aren't in completion(shouldn't be in competition). Meaning that this discussion has nothing to do with being fair. At least amongst players.
It was Frodo's high wisdom score. Gandalf was very intelligent, but not terribly wise at first (the Halfling leaf and all that... which Frodo didn't use). I mean, Frodo had to have some means of continually making his will save v. the ring, after all!
I suppose with the will saves that Frodo must have been making he must have had a high wisdom.
Wisdom adds to Heal, Perception, Profession, Sense Motive, and Survival checks.
Sense motive is interesting. If one of my character was guessing at a riddle and always getting it wrong. I might allow a player to roll a sense motive to get a gut assessment of the social situation. But I would only allow that to give a Hot or Cold assessment of the line of guessing.
That could also get the player into hot water if they roll badly on there sense motive and believe that there line of guesses is good.
Another interesting thing about sense motive is that the players ability to sense motives always trumps the character sense motive skill. If, for instance, the players hears a very good bluff from a satyr they don't have to believe it.
Also the players knowledge trumps the character knowledge skill(Although this might be hotly debated). If, for instance, the character get attacked by skeletons they might pull out there bludgeoning weapons despite the fact that none of them rolled a knowledge religion skill.
Also the players ability to lie CAN trump the characters bluff skill. This can occur when the GM fails to sense his players motives. This can also occur when the characters tell a lie which the recipient of has absolutely no reason not to believe. Also the GM ability to lie Can trump the NPC's bluff skill. That is to say, if the players don't ask for a sense motive roll then they may believe anything that is told to them.
Although I know that I've open a huge can of worms here the point I am trying to make is that mix more rules into the roleplaying part of the game is a bad idea.
We use our actual mental stats for every portion of the game not just roleplaying our characters. This might cause some players to be better then others in certain aspects of the game.
There is nothing wrong with this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um. Let's try to communicate again, because I think I'm not understanding what you're saying and you're not understanding what I'm saying.
Karlgamer, I'm not entirely sure where you're getting the idea that because a person is rewarded for having a high ability score, they are somehow in competition against the other players.
I never stated this as an idea that I had. My point is that a smart PLAYER does NOT have an advantage over other players because the players aren't in completion(shouldn't be in competition). Meaning that this discussion has nothing to do with being fair. At least amongst players.
Okay, but...
It's important to note that smart players aren't getting any advantage over other players unless your players are playing against each other. I would suggest not having players play against each other.
Unless this is me completely misreading what you wrote, it seems like your above quote, which was in response to my disagreement with you, indicates exactly that allowing a player to utilize their character's mental ability score is giving an unfair advantage and making players play against each other. This was the part I was attempting to understand. If this is not what you're saying, I'd like to understand what you're saying. If you'd rather drop it, it's dropped, I was simply trying to clarify before commenting (or not, depending on what you meant) on it.
Anyway.
It was Frodo's high wisdom score. Gandalf was very intelligent, but not terribly wise at first (the Halfling leaf and all that... which Frodo didn't use). I mean, Frodo had to have some means of continually making his will save v. the ring, after all!
I, Tac, spoilered your breakdown of Wisdom and Sense Motive for brevity:I suppose with the will saves that Frodo must have been making he must have had a high wisdom.Wisdom adds to Heal, Perception, Profession, Sense Motive, and Survival checks.
Sense motive is interesting. If one of my character was guessing at a riddle and always getting it wrong. I might allow a player to roll a sense motive to get a gut assessment of the social situation. But I would only allow that to give a Hot or Cold assessment of the line of guessing.
That could also get the player into hot water if they roll badly on there sense motive and believe that there line of guesses is good.
Another interesting thing about sense motive is that the players ability to sense motives always trumps the character sense motive skill. If, for instance, the players hears a very good bluff from a satyr they don't have to believe it.
Also the players knowledge trumps the character knowledge skill(Although this might be hotly debated). If, for instance, the character get attacked by skeletons they might pull out there bludgeoning weapons despite the fact that none of them rolled a knowledge religion skill.
Also the players ability to lie CAN trump the characters bluff skill. This can occur when the GM fails to sense his players motives. This can also occur when the characters tell a lie which the recipient of has absolutely no reason not to believe. Also the GM ability to lie Can trump the NPC's bluff skill. That is to say, if the players don't ask for a sense motive roll then they may believe anything that is told to them.
Although I know that I've open a huge can of worms here the point I am trying to make is that mix more rules into the roleplaying part of the game is a bad idea.
We use our actual mental stats for every portion of the game not just roleplaying our characters. This might cause some players to be better then others in certain aspects of the game.
There is nothing wrong with this.
Ah, nice. A breakdown of ability scores and what they do. You forgot something, however:
Wisdom (Wis)
Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition.
(found here, bold mine)
Common sense and intuition. Curiously, this is exactly what Frodo was showing and exactly what Gandalf was lacking. Ergo, he was using his wisdom! Fancy!
So, you've been saying that the scores detail exactly what a character can do and can't. I've been saying that play style factors heavily into this, and you've been dismissing it with your previous argument. SO LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THEY DO.
Intelligence (Int)
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. This ability is important for wizards because it affects their spellcasting ability in many ways. Creatures of animal-level instinct have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2. Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3. A character with an Intelligence score of 0 is comatose. Some creatures do not possess an Intelligence score. Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based skills or checks.
(again found here, bold mine)
Oh, that's interesting. How well your character learns and reasons. That's a very abstract and obscure thing to say. Are there a number of specific in-game ways that statement applies? Absolutely. Specifically, it goes on to say:
You apply your character's Intelligence modifier to:
The number of bonus languages your character knows at the start of the game. These are in addition to any starting racial languages and Common. If you have a penalty, you can still read and speak your racial languages unless your Intelligence is lower than 3.
The number of skill points gained each level, though your character always gets at least 1 skill point per level.
Appraise, Craft, Knowledge, Linguistics, and Spellcraft checks.A wizard gains bonus spells based on his Intelligence score. The minimum Intelligence score needed to cast a wizard spell is 10 + the spell's level.
I spoilered this stuff, but included it for completeness:Temporary Bonuses: Temporary increases to your Intelligence score give you a bonus on Intelligence-based skill checks. This bonus also applies to any spell DCs based on Intelligence.Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics as appropriate. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.
FAQ/Errata
If I wear a headband of vast intelligence, do I get retroactive skill ranks for my Int increase in addition to the skill ranks associated with the item?
No. The skill associated with the magic item represents the "retroactive" skill ranks you'd get from the item increasing your Intelligence. You don't get the item's built-in skill ranks and another set to assign however you want.
[Source]
Unofficial Board Post
"All bonuses are retroactive when an ability score increases, be they bonuses to damage, to skill ranks, to hit points, to saves, to skill checks... all of them. Skill ranks not being retroactive are a 3.5 convention we specifically removed from the game because it was a weird exception to the rule, and since now there are no exceptions to this rule, there's no need to specifically state that skill ranks are retroactively granted if your Intelligence goes up."
[James Jacobs]Ability Damage: Damage to your Intelligence score causes you to take penalties on Intelligence-based skill checks. This penalty also applies to any spell DCs based on Intelligence.
Curiously, that talks entirely about modifiers, not about ability score use. Odd, that. Also, it mentions wizards, but not witches or other spellcasting classes that use intelligence. Obviously, what is written is incomplete.
Are there many role-playing ways it can apply? Yes. Can a player go outside of this? Sure. But it's meant to help a player do things. If your personal social contract indicates that you guys should stick to using player mental scores: do that. That's fine. As you say, there's nothing wrong with that. I've not once tried to disparage you or your style. Instead, what I've tried to refute is your assertion that other play styles are incorrect is, itself, incorrect. There are reasons - likely more than either of us are capable of coming up with or disparaging on an individual level - for individual groups to allow this. I've shared some. You've handwaved them away, mentioning that the "rules" give concrete things they do, no more. While that's perfectly fine for your local play style, there are also non-concrete things that the rules concretely indicate an ability score does (such as reasoning). If there weren't things that the rules failed to cover, there would never be a reason for ability score checks that aren't tied to one of the other rules already. And yet...
Check
A check is a d20 roll which may or may not be modified by another value. The most common types are attack rolls, skill checks, ability checks and saving throws.
(found here)
Notice there is a separation from attacks/skills/saves and ability checks? That means that all ability checks aren't simply attacks/skills/saves, which, if we go by "concrete" things the game says the bonuses apply to, we can't make.
Look, play your game however you like. That's fine! I really am glad you guys like to do that. But. Asserting that it's wrong to utilize the rules to perform things that you don't... that's incorrect.
EDIT: to finish a sentence (I hit the wrong button... failed my WIS check and all that!) and to finish.
I'm also not touching your specific use of Sense Motive. You yourself noted that it's a "can of worms" which means that you can see other ways of using it. Whenever you get into the realm of mental v. physical (and quantifying it) you're going to get arguments. That's why the designers took the time to say "Hey, look, see, we know we can't cover everything. We'll generalize and let you guys play." THAT is my argument. Not that your play-style is wrong... but that your assertion that it's THE play-style is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is an example of player intelligence from a real D&D 3.0 game.
The party had reached the enormous underground cavern in which the evil shaman was performing his dire ritual. He had to be stopped. Unfortunately, he was atop a 20-foot tall spire of rock in the middle of 50-foot wide pool of water. Oddly, the pool had a current flowing into an outlet, but no visible inlet. It was centered in the cavern.
No-one in our first-level party had ranks in Swim. The seven-foot-tall barbarian waded in and discovered that the water was over his head. The halfling rogue riding his shoulders was washed off by the current and was almost swept down an underground river, except that the bard reached out his quarterstaff and she managed to grab it. The barbarian reached the spire by sheer strength and holding his breath. The rogue, bard, and ranger wanted to join him. (The cleric and sorcerer were not so ambitious.) How?
My elven cleric sighed. He pulled 100 feet of silk rope out of his backpack, tied one end to a stalagmite, walked 200 degrees around the pool trailing the rope, and tied it taut to another stalagmite. This pulled the rope tight against the spire. "Use the rope to pull yourselves across," he yelled. Then he pulled out his longbow and started shooting arrows at the shaman.
I was embarrassed to use my intelligence and knowledge of engineering to solve the problem, rather than my character's, but the game was stalled by a pond that the DM later confessed he had designed as a dramatic setting rather than as a major obstacle.
Note that this action required no skill check, no die roll. It was simply about seeing a good use for 100 feet of rope. My cleric had put skill ranks into Use Rope. (I am glad the Pathfinder dropped overspecialized skills like that.) I had established that he had grown up in a nomadic elven caravan, so perhaps he was familiar with his clan's method of crossing rivers.
Afterwards, everyone promised to learn to swim. At seventh level, we again encountered a water obstacle. Only half of the original party--including my cleric--had put ranks into Swim.
Unless this is me completely misreading what you wrote, it seems like your above quote, which was in response to my disagreement with you, indicates exactly that allowing a player to utilize their character's mental ability score is giving an unfair advantage and making players play against each other. This was the part I was attempting to understand. If this is not what you're saying, I'd like to understand what you're saying. If you'd rather drop it, it's dropped, I was simply trying to clarify before commenting (or not, depending on what you meant) on it.
Yep, you misread it. In neither post did I mention character or intelligence. I am talking about smart players. I am not talking about ability scores in either post. I'm talking about actual human intelligence.
Smart players are not getting any advantage over other players unless your players are playing against each other.
Charismatic players are not getting any advantage over other players unless your players are playing against each other.
Wisdom players are not getting any advantage over other players unless your players are playing against each other.
Although a players intelligence, charisma, and wisdom(not ability scores) are used when you play pathfinder no players is getting any special advantages because of this since all players are playing cooperatively(or should be).
Ah, nice. A breakdown of ability scores and what they do.
It wasn't just a breakdown of what ability scores do. It was a bunch of examples of how a players actual mind(not ability scores) can effect actual gameplay. Specifically gameplay involving mental ability scores.
If your personal social contract indicates that you guys should stick to using player mental scores: do that. That's fine. As you say, there's nothing wrong with that. I've not once tried to disparage you or your style. Instead, what I've tried to refute is your assertion that other play styles are incorrect is, itself, incorrect. There are reasons - likely more than either of us are capable of coming up with or disparaging on an individual level - for individual groups to allow this. I've shared some. You've handwaved them away, mentioning that the "rules" give concrete things they do, no more. While that's perfectly fine for your local play style, there are also non-concrete things that the rules concretely indicate an ability score does (such as reasoning).
I suppose that someone could play pathfinder where every choice a character makes is entirely subject to one or more attack rolls, skill checks, ability checks and saving throws. I would certainly be willing to disparage this type of play.
But, certainly you don't play like this, and I'm not going to insult you by suggesting that you would play in such a horrible manner.
I don't believe that a characters stats are all a characters can be. There is a player playing that character who already can use his intelligence, his charisma and his wisdom as a boon to his strategies in combat an other non-roleplaying encounters.
Why can't a players intelligence, charisma or wisdom factor in for other moments where a character intelligence, charisma or wisdom are not officially invoked.
After all if a character makes a particularly devious choice in combat we don't make them make intelligence checks to see if he would even make such a choice.
If a character buys a Block and tackle (because the player has found them incredibly useful in a previous game.) we don't make them role a wisdom check to see if he would even make such a choice.
If a character always tips well and remembers the name of the bartenders in every town he goes to we don't make them role a charisma check to see if he would even make such a choice.
How the players play there characters is up to them. Certainly they should be influenced by there characters ability scores, alignment and history.
Look, play your game however you like. That's fine! I really am glad you guys like to do that.
One of the great things about playing the why I'm suggesting, is that you don't have to add, subtract or interpret the rules to play. You play the rules as written. You keep them an arms length away from roleplaying.
edit: I forgot something
I'm also not touching your specific use of Sense Motive. You yourself noted that it's a "can of worms" which means that you can see other ways of using it.
By "Can of worms" I meant that they might be hotly debated things. I didn't mean that my examples can't be backed up both by RAW and RAI.
I was trying to say that I wasn't trying to derail the conversation. I was just trying to provide you with some precedence.
I can't help but disagree. If my character isn't very intelligent do I allow him to use complex mathematics to create a cave in to kill the bad guys inside just because the guy playing him is an engineer?
If you think that I'm saying that we should disregard our stats outright, when roleplaying, then you didn't read my post. The responsibility for roleplaying a character is on the player playing that character. Certainly a player can't arbitrarily give their players abilities that they wouldn't otherwise have. Certainly GM should apply any skill or ability checks that might arise from the activities brought about by roleplaying.
For example:
Say your players characters need to cross a fast moving subterranean river in order to surprise a band of goblins what are planning invading a town.
Your players characters could take off their armor and attempt to swim across the river. This may leave them without armor or weapons. Even if they attempt to throw there armor and equipment across the river there would be a chance that it would land in the river and be swept away.
Your players characters could use Knowledge:Engineering to devise a rope and pulley system to get them across, but none of your players have that skill.
Your players characters could decide to attack the goblins form the front of there mountain fortress but they are not sure they can get past the goblins deference which they were warned about.
Or your players could decide to roleplay.
Player A: My character comes from the large city of Hangarb where clothes lines are hung between buildings. Could my character run a rope across the river like he saw in his home city.
GM: As long as you can successfully go through the motions. It would certainly give you a bonus to swim checks if you had a rope to hang on to
Player A: Okay well, um, I attach one rope to a stalagmite.
GM: Which one? There are about 10 stalagmites on this side of the room.
Player A: I tie it to the strongest.
GM: Give me a knowledge Dungenearing check to find the strongest.
Player B: I have knowledge Dungenearing Can I help. *roles*
GM: Sure.
Player B: My Dwarf walks over and says "if your lookin' for the strongest one to attach it to try that one."
Player A: Thanks! I knew you would come in handy. Now I need to attach another rope to the other side but I'm no good at swimming.
Player C: I'm an expert at swimming with my ring. Let me swim over there and throw me the rope. I take off my equipment and swim across the river.*rolls*
player B: When you get over there I'll help you pick out a strong stalagmite. *rolls*
GM: Okay! Well I still need swim checks to cross the river but the DC has drop significantly because of your roleplaying. *rolls*
GM: If you would have had Knowledge Engineering you probably wouldn't have had to go threw so much trouble. There is enough stalactites on the ceiling you could have made a natural pulley system. It also would have taken a lot less time.
The players could have attempted a more complicated system but it would have involved more checks and more specificity.
The same thing goes for other skills. If a player describes his character turning each and every pocket inside out, one by one. He isn't going to miss anything in those pockets. The player might not be having fun describing such a thorough search but if he doesn't look into the left boot he doesn't find the gold pieces there. With a high enough Perception check he might however find everything the corps had on it.
Now you don't have to always do that particularly since a stat of 10 is average so most characters are above average in most ways but if you have a barbarian with 7 int intentionally dumping that stat and I was the GM I'd outright say "Too bad you aren't smart enough to solve ___"
Are you making this decision because they intentionally dumped there stat or do you actually think that a character with a 7 int couldn't solve it?
PS: The game totally has rules on how to solve riddles. The DM picks a dc for the riddle based on it's obscurity, you take the base score which applies to the riddle int or wis mostly then you apply any learning you have on the subject matter aka skill points either in Knowledge, survival, craft etc., you then roll and add the bonus for the ability mod and the skill points if you beat the DC assigned you answer the riddle.
I have said:
I suppose that someone could play pathfinder where every choice a character makes is entirely subject to one or more attack rolls, skill checks, ability checks and saving throws. I would certainly be willing to disparage this type of play.
But, certainly you don't play like this, and I'm not going to insult you by suggesting that you would play in such a horrible manner.
If you wish to remove every aspect of roleplaying from your game I will not stand by and say it's fine for you to do so. It isn't fine. You are playing the game wrong. Perhaps you would have more fun playing a something that isn't a roleplaying game.
There is nothing wrong with this.
Agreed. I'm fine with (and even condone) ignoring mental statistics for anything outside the mechanics associated with those statistics.
(I do understand certain groups like to do things differently. That's fine too.)
As a DM, I appreciate the players being able to solve riddles with the roll of a die based on their characters' abilities. It makes my job as DM waaaay easier. Allow me to illustrate:
DM: The mural has a riddle on it, written in the common tongue. It says--
Player: What's the DC of the riddle? I have 26 INT, that gives me +8, and I <rolls d20> rolled 17, that's 25.
DM: You solve the riddle!
Traps are more of the same. Players can put ranks in Perception and Disable Device and get a nice little return on their investment:
DM: The room is 30' long and 40' wide--
Player: Rolling perception <rolls>...35! Does my rogue find any traps?
DM: Uh, I suppose...
Player: <rolls again> Ok, I rolled 28. Does that disable the trap?
DM: <sighs> Sure, whatever...
Notice we don't know anything about the riddle or the trap, because we don't need to know! The player solves it all with dice, and the details are meaningless. The DM shaves hours off his prep time and enjoys a vibrant social life.
</sarcasm>
|
Can you point to where in the rules it says wisdom or intelligence are used for puzzles & riddles?
Not that I am disagreeing with using rolls. One of my house rules is that linguistics can be used for riddles, puzzles, & cyphers. Why linguistics? Shut up! That's why. I had a reason...when they were recruiting code breakers in WW2 one of the characteristics they looked for were people who liked word puzzles and solved them in their free time.
@lvl12: Sweet sarcasm bro, how about I paint you a picture real quick. In this scene the party walks into a room and Bob, who plays the barbarian who has trouble so much as tying his shoes properly, spends the next hour checking every single piece of wall for minute changes in the wood grain and knocking on walls to indicate the presence of a false wall, sure the barbarian has no idea that would show there's a false wall but metagaming totally makes the game MORE fun and immersive right?
I'll allow it. I spend a ton of time on my settings, I'm not gonna let some player throw that away with a 5-second die roll. There are multiple levels of immersion, and when you play for one you sacrifice another.
Let's switch it around and consider it from the perspective of the INT 12 DM role-playing his INT 30 super-genius villain. Can he simply roll dice to outsmart the characters? NO WAY! The DM is on his own. He must match wits with the players' dice.
I played a paladin who had moderate Int once. We were in some demon infested dungeon where everything was evil. I watched my companions try to solve a puzzle and kept getting hit with various spells/traps. My character decided not to play, since the riddle was clearly evil and rigged. He went off and smashed some demons face instead.