Crippling Disadvantages, or, What Happens when INT Reaches 0?

[Chris Mortika]

The nice people of Chicago were generous enough to let me come and GM at their "Stuffed Cows" convention this weekend. As always, the Sunday morning slot brought something interesting to the table.

One of the players handed me a sheet with the game mechanics for schizophrenia (-4 to WIS and CHA skills, never be able to Take 10, when you go into combat or some other stressful sutiation, make a Will save to avoid being confused for 1-6 rounds). He explained that one of his earlier GMs had imposed that as a permanent penalty for taking enough INT damage to drop his attribute to 0. The GM hadn't mentioned this on the Chronicle sheet, and the player was a little unsure about it.

So, if you're that GM, I'm sorry for ignoring the PC's permanent mental disability, but I need some guidance on the Chronicle sheet as to why you imposed that penalty (See the rules for insanity).

[Thod]

Shouldn't a drop to 0 for Int (or -1) be the death of a character?

Need to check it out in the rules (no time now) but I think Int and Con both yield death. Wis = coma and not sure the other ones.

[DarkWhite]

Pathfinder RPG Reference Document:
A character with a Strength score of 0 is too weak to move in any way and is unconscious;
A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious);
A character with a Constitution score of 0 is dead;
A character with an Intelligence score of 0 is comatose;
A character with a Wisdom score of 0 is incapable of rational thought and is unconscious;
A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious.

So no, Int 0 is comatose, incapable of thinking for themselves, not dead.

[Chris Mortika]

As an aside, the party had a difficult time In Shadow's Last Stand I at the 3-4 subtier. That disability would very likely have resulted in a dead party.

[Doug Miles]

The rules for insanity come out of the Gamemastery Guide, which I do not believe is Core and unless specifically called out in a scenario it shouldn't be used in PFS. If a player voluntarily accepts an affliction such as insanity I would support it, I love players who handicap themselves to enhance the game. However, I wonder with it being such a low-level PC what scenario it could have come from. I haven't played the 2 newest ones. I'm still waiting for someone to post and identify the scenario involved.

[Eric Brittain]

Chris Mortika wrote:

The nice people of Chicago were generous enough to let me come and GM at their "Stuffed Cows" convention this weekend. As always, the Sunday morning slot brought something interesting to the table.

One of the players handed me a sheet with the game mechanics for schizophrenia (-4 to WIS and CHA skills, never be able to Take 10, when you go into combat or some other stressful sutiation, make a Will save to avoid being confused for 1-6 rounds). He explained that one of his earlier GMs had imposed that as a permanent penalty for taking enough INT damage to drop his attribute to 0. The GM hadn't mentioned this on the Chronicle sheet, and the player was a little unsure about it.

So, if you're that GM, I'm sorry for ignoring the PC's permanent mental disability, but I need some guidance on the Chronicle sheet as to why you imposed that penalty (See the rules for insanity).

These type of consequences for past actions are perfectly fine in a home game or if the player is voluntarily accepting it / having fun with them, but I do not believe that it is within the scope of a PFSOP game masters authority to impose penalties outside of the rules as written (such as blindness/deafness, curses, etc.).

All that said if everyone involved is having a blast, game on! If they aren't then the player should know that this penalty is not (in my understanding) supported in PFSOP.

[Sir Ma'Layo]

Eric Brittain wrote:

Chris Mortika wrote:

stuff

These type of consequences for past actions are perfectly fine in a home game or if the player is voluntarily accepting it / having fun with them, but I do not believe that it is within the scope of a PFSOP game masters authority to impose penalties outside of the rules as written (such as blindness/deafness, curses, etc.).

All that said if everyone involved is having a blast, game on! If they aren't then the player should know that this penalty is not (in my understanding) supported in PFSOP.

Here here; I concur.

[Dragnmoon]

Doug Miles wrote:

I love players who handicap themselves to enhance the game.

You must Love GMing Kyle, He gets a handicap for just being Kyle.. ;)

[Professor Calaelen]

Eric Brittain wrote:

All that said if everyone involved is having a blast, game on! If they aren't then the player should know that this penalty is not (in my understanding) supported in PFSOP.

Exactly! I have a few players that would certainly be fine with taking something more fun than RAW for this kind of thing, as long as the GM and the player agree and it doesn't randomly help the player, then game on indeed!

I 100% agree. Fun, fun, fun!

[Chris Mortika]

Oh, you might want to check if it's "fun, fun, fun" for the other players at the table, too.

"There's a good chance that, once combat starts, I'll be attacking you randomly rather than the enemy. 'Cause that's fun for me." As a fellow player, I'd like an opportunity to object.

cf. Wild raging barbarians