|
Oh? A low Int is *gosh, by golly, gee whilickers* not very intelligent. RAW says so. Yes, there is justification."Not very intelligent" is not equivalent to "an utter f*!+ing dingus".
This is not even getting into the sheer stupidity of the "If your Int 7 Fighter isn't a gibbering moron you're just trying to be a powergaming dick and should leave my glorious (inaccurate) method acting presence" argument I've seen tossed around by multiple people in multiple threads.
And I've agreed that it isn't much...but if you play him up to your full intelligence...well, most gamers are smarter than that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Int 7 is the intelligence of your average uneducated laborer, maybe slightly less.
I'd say "swinging a sword and murdering people for a living" can be done effectively by an uneducated laborer, wouldn't you? And would you go up to your, I dunno, janitor and speak to him like he was a small child?
No, you wouldn't. Because he's perfectly capable of talking like a normal person. He probably won't have a ton of sesquipedalian loquaciousness, but you can carry on a rational conversation with the guy, and that's generally how most people talk.
There might be some slight impact to his grasp of higher concept thinking, but again, that rarely comes up at the table either so the whole point is moot.
You can very well play an Int 7 guy as talking like you normally do and acting as the average person would.
|
|
Int 7 is the intelligence of your average uneducated laborer, maybe slightly less.
I'd say "swinging a sword and murdering people for a living" can be done effectively by an uneducated laborer, wouldn't you? And would you go up to your, I dunno, janitor and speak to him like he was a small child?
No, you wouldn't. Because he's perfectly capable of talking like a normal person. He probably won't have a ton of sesquipedalian loquaciousness, but you can carry on a rational conversation with the guy, and that's generally how most people talk.
There might be some slight impact to his grasp of higher concept thinking, but again, that rarely comes up at the table either so the whole point is moot.
You can very well play an Int 7 guy as talking like you normally do and acting as the average person would.
Agreed.
You wouldn't talk physics, though, or philosophy...you wouldn't ask him to plan an assault...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You wouldn't talk physics, though, or philosophy...you wouldn't ask him to plan an assault...
Although they might surprise you, if you asked.
|
|
You wouldn't talk physics, though, or philosophy...you wouldn't ask him to plan an assault...Although they might surprise you, if you asked.
They might have ideas. I've never rejected that...but they won't be incredibly complex ideas, unless they've had previous experience.
I've had a few players that were likely a 10 Int...and they only rarely came up with anything particularly innovative.
Agreed.You wouldn't talk physics, though, or philosophy...you wouldn't ask him to plan an assault...
Now, the planning an assault part I'd disagree with.
Just as your janitor is likely to know a bit about chemistry, and your wrecking crew probably has some sort of instinctual grasp of physics, your professional soldier (Fighter) is likely going to have a solid idea of battle tactics if he does it enough.
I'd trust the experienced in battle Int 7 Fighter over the inexperienced (and uneducated in such matters) Int 20 Wizard when planning an assault any day (though the Wizard would probably have a better grasp of the logistics involved).
|
|
Agreed.You wouldn't talk physics, though, or philosophy...you wouldn't ask him to plan an assault...
Now, the planning an assault part I'd disagree with.
Just as your janitor is likely to know a bit about chemistry, and your wrecking crew probably has some sort of instinctual grasp of physics, your professional soldier (Fighter) is likely going to have a solid idea of battle tactics if he does it enough.
I'd trust the experienced in battle Int 7 Fighter over the inexperienced (and uneducated in such matters) Int 20 Wizard when planning an assault any day (though the Wizard would probably have a better grasp of the logistics involved).
Int 7 fighters don't become commanders, as a rule. I'd trust the commander, with actual experience...which might involve the wizard digging through a book on ancient battles... :p
Oh definitely, I'd trust the commander more, but given a choice between someone who's got experience, and is quite intelligent enough to function, and the guy that just picked up a textbook on it...
|
|
Oh definitely, I'd trust the commander more, but given a choice between someone who's got experience, and is quite intelligent enough to function, and the guy that just picked up a textbook on it...
In all fairness, "swinging a sword and murdering people for a living" is no kind of experience for planning an assault.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And neither is sitting in a tower far away from any sort of battle.
Neither is a great choice, but I think the experience in combat Int 7 Fighter is the lesser of two evils. And I'm talking more of the "professional soldier/mercenary" variant of fighter rather than the "Farmboy who left home to seek his fortune" variant.
|
|
And neither is sitting in a tower far away from any sort of battle.
Neither is a great choice, but I think the experience in combat Int 7 Fighter is the lesser of two evils. And I'm talking more of the "professional soldier/mercenary" variant of fighter rather than the "Farmboy who left home to seek his fortune" variant.
If he's participated in one, he may well have some worthwhile knowledge. Of course, adventuring wizards participate in these sometimes as well.
If he's participated in one, he may well have some worthwhile knowledge. Of course, adventuring wizards participate in these sometimes as well.
Maybe we should find out if the either of the characters (fighter or wizard) has been in such a battle?
There are a lot of circumstantial back-story moments involved here, and we'll have to get involved in some heavy duty rp to find out :). Hey that janitor was in the national guard!
I haven't personally read anyone saying 7 is an utter moron. What I have seen (and posted) is that 7 is about Forest Gump level. Forest is a good soldier, he follows orders, he can figure out how to shoot, clean his weapons, and pretty much be a very very capable soldier, fisherman, and so on. What he can't do is be an effective leader, nor can he be counted on for complex plans.
If you ask him to assault a hill, he'll assault it. He will likely use cover on the way up, but he's not going to go for a distraction pincer attack, nor is he going to hold his scouts in reserve to sneak behind the enemy line while they are distracted by the frontal assault.
That's pretty much all I've ever said is the way to go, Forest isn't an utter moron, he's a pretty good guy, and he can handle himself day to day. He's just not the the person everyone looks to in a crisis for leadership or ideas.
Leadership is charisma. I'll jump to the other side of the argument for a bit.
Tactics and strategy can be learned by near-simpletons and not learned by the intelligent. I'll explain with two examples:
I game in and around a university, there was a naval pirate game we were playing. We had one player, uni student, tall and intelligent fellow, definitely had a decent charisma too, but he had done 0 research on war, tactics, naval fighting or any of that. He got his character and all his crew of multiple vessels killed doing something stupid. He didn't understand an un-winnable situation and that attacking that armada was a bad idea, he didn't use a great stratagem to turn it to his favour. He had nothing to draw on.
Intelligence doesn't mean you always know what to do, experience and learning account for far more when you get down to the specifics.
Second example, shogun 2. It is a strategy game that can be played online. I play with some interesting fellows but I am only mediocre at it (alas alack). You see, I haven't perfected my play, but there are some that have. Now these people will often seem really stupid, say dumb things (it is online) over and over, and not seem to have much intelligence outside of the game. But in the game they are geniuses. They demonstrate a lot of thought, they know how to get the objectives, win easily, have all the troops work together and take the hill/smash the army. Real complexity is in play and dastardly deviousness-intelligence in short.
One of my friends has an idea, that these strategy games attract social retards and dumb-folk. So you get people that can't talk properly, have trouble communicating, don't seem to think about much else, repeat what others have said (the repetitive shorthand communication lingo of mp), you certainly don't have many good conversations on a range of topics, you won't find much wit, but you will find geniuses inside the game according to the rules of the game. They will cane you and cane hard. All your other learning, your aptitude for this, that or problem solving doesn't matter against these masters, these armchair generals.
Course with D&D characters you can get around so many of your low int weaknesses and make a character that is quite intelligent.
Online if you want to be Sun Tzu in a game, you just have to learn it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And thus sayeth they upon their inevitable victory "GG no re nub cum bak wen u lrn2play".
And thou dost weep for the future of humanity.
Yeah, you get my point.
Bogan generals we might say in Australia.
Actually some of the worst shogun players I have ever gone against, know who Sun Tzu is and have read a bit by him. Shogun is a dalliance where they get to indulge in that side of what they already know. It is really sad when they fail so utterly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it hilarious, and utterly saddening, that we are equating learning to play a game with being able to lead men in battle, and being able to think up complex tactics on the fly and respond to rapid changes in situations.
I am not in the military, I have had friends who were. I play every type of game from FPS to RPG to Action to Platform. I am utterly convinced that I would not be a good military thinker based on that game play. I am utterly convinced that someone can be taught small unit tactics. I am utterly convinced it will take 10 times longer to teach someone with a 70 IQ small unit tactics than it will someone with a 120 IQ. There is a reason the Military doesn't accept people with an IQ below 70, and entrance into command school requires enough testing that 70 isn't getting in. The idea that arm-chair nerds in their mom's basements are even semi-seriously, much less seriously, being put forth as examples of 70 IQ being tactical idiot savants is ludicrous.
/thread
They think up complex tactics on the fly and respond to rapid changes in the situation. The micro of these guys, and the plans they come up with. Wow.
There is no leading, which is charisma. Their intelligence in the game really is clear though.
On the time to teach someone with low int, this has already been covered. In PF low int doesn't mean you take longer to learn, they level and assign their ranks like everyone else. They have to wait to level to place the ranks just like all characters. Real world IQ is not the same as PF INT. There is no learning penalty or mental slowness.
You can call it ludicrous, you weren't there man on the virtual battlefield! LOL. You clearly do not know the people I am talking about, or you would agree--because they seem to be idiot savants.
Mdt, does it offend you that dumb people with a limited vocabulary can be masters of strategy?
I know these guys, see. They are the stupidest people I know. They are the dumbest of dumb guys ever in the history of dumbness. But they are constantly and consistently coming up with the greatest ideas you have ever heard every minute of every day year after year after year. Explain that!
And I've agreed that it isn't much...but if you play him up to your full intelligence...well, most gamers are smarter than that.Oh? A low Int is *gosh, by golly, gee whilickers* not very intelligent. RAW says so. Yes, there is justification."Not very intelligent" is not equivalent to "an utter f*!+ing dingus".
This is not even getting into the sheer stupidity of the "If your Int 7 Fighter isn't a gibbering moron you're just trying to be a powergaming dick and should leave my glorious (inaccurate) method acting presence" argument I've seen tossed around by multiple people in multiple threads.
Where do we get this assumption from?
I think in a FANTASY world, we could assume a 'base 10' normal stat... but really??? Do you think the average person in THIS world doesn't get any negatives to obscure questions?
50% chance to answer a basic question on religion? EVERY religion? 50% chance at every geography question? Every underground question? Every engineering question?
I'll admit to a 7 int with a few skill points tossed in the fields I actually KNOW something about... but it's basically hubris to claim that I'm a 10 int in ALL fields...
Same as I'll admit that I'm no 10 strength either. I toss 2-3 college books in my bag, and try hiking across campus... I'm encumbered!
The old TSR Marvel game had a list of every stat, along with what it meant, and an example of who had such stats. I remember stating up some friends one time, and a buddy got mad since he was only 'Typical' or 'Poor' strength.
I asked if he could bench press 250 pounds... he said no. I said sorry, this is where your at. We have a range from aunt may to Thor... us pansy humans are at the low end. ;)
As for the hypothetical 7 Int bard, that's just what he is, hypothetical. Who would create such a character? Theoretically, he could exist, of course, but I don't think anyone would legitimately create a character for a class heavily dependent on skills for effectiveness and give them a 7 Int (assuming you are not rolling for stats with a pretty restrictive method and just got unlucky), as anything but a joke (or a strawman, as the case may be).
Bards are pretty versatile for buffing and knowledge... However, if I wanted one who was decent at COMBAT... I could foresee short changing him a bit on knowledge and counting on his bard ability to pick up that slack.
If my 4th level bard has essentially wiped the penalty away AND I'm hitting a bit harder and more often, and then loaded down with skill points... it MAY be a good trade off.
I would certainly consider it... (Though as a rule I go the route of dump stats... i hate negatives :P )
Besides... arent' they Chr based characters? I made a detective once with HIGH intelligence... and mediocre chr and was quickly informed how 'unoptimal' that was...
every saturday before playing PF, i have to walk an entire 3 blocks with an 80 lbs bag of gaming material after being dropped off.
and that is after my mother drops me off in the nearest parking lot
plus i have to walk those 3 blocks to get back to her car
the reason why, is because we lack the funds for paid parking, and carrying 80 lbs for 3 blocks is easier than spending $10 USD to park closer to the game shop.
it is only once a week. but it is a little into my medium load limit, but not my heavy. but a 50 lbs bag of dog food was a light load for me back in middle school.
and if you weigh the contents of the gaming material in my PF bag, it rounds DOWN (not up) to 80 lbs being the nearest increment of 5. but 3/4 of the duffelbag's contents are 3.5 material.
there are the circumstance bonuses of having just ate 5 minutes before and the circumstance penalty of 3 or more hours of errands on foot. plus, despite being unemployed, i do volunteer work at the food locker a minimum of 3 days a week, do a minimum of 2 days of housework a week, and have 2 days off where i may get forced to do more housework before i game, or have to interrupt my game for housework.
As for the hypothetical 7 Int bard, that's just what he is, hypothetical. Who would create such a character? Theoretically, he could exist, of course, but I don't think anyone would legitimately create a character for a class heavily dependent on skills for effectiveness and give them a 7 Int (assuming you are not rolling for stats with a pretty restrictive method and just got unlucky), as anything but a joke (or a strawman, as the case may be).Bards are pretty versatile for buffing and knowledge... However, if I wanted one who was decent at COMBAT... I could foresee short changing him a bit on knowledge and counting on his bard ability to pick up that slack.
If my 4th level bard has essentially wiped the penalty away AND I'm hitting a bit harder and more often, and then loaded down with skill points... it MAY be a good trade off.
I would certainly consider it... (Though as a rule I go the route of dump stats... i hate negatives :P )
Besides... arent' they Chr based characters? I made a detective once with HIGH intelligence... and mediocre chr and was quickly informed how 'unoptimal' that was...
if you build a bard who doesn't rely excessively on DCs, you can get away with a 16 Cha by 16th level, if you don't mind having few spells per day. and go with a martial build. and since bards get a decent will progression, they don't require excessive amounts of wisdom. Int is still more powerful than Cha because Int gives you skill ranks, but you could with a bit of finangling and planning. build a decent ranged bard who mostly uses buffs and turns stuff into a pincushion. circlet of persausion easily makes up the slack on social skills and concentration checks.
it is really less optimal for a bard to try to mimic a caster and maximize Cha than it is to build a martial bard with a reasonable Int and Cha with Decent Combat Ability.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right, here's two examples of how I might build 7/7/7 fighters to do things other than kill monsters and get into bar fights, and how I might play them.
Race: Human
Class: Fighter (favoured)
Stats: 20/14/14/7/7/7 (15-point buy, racial bonus in Str)
Traits: World Traveller (Knowledge Local class skill and +1), Conspiracy Hunter (Sense Motive class skill and +1)
Favoured class bonus – skill point = 3 skill points /level. These would be used to keep Intimidate and Sense Motive at max, with 1 extra skill point per level to spread around.
Alternate race trait: Focused Study – trade level 1 bonus feat for Skill Focus at level 1, 8, and 16.
Feats: I use bonus Skill Focus feats for Intimidate, Sense Motive, and Perception, respectively. I take Power Attack at level 1 and Cornugon Smash at level 6 as my fighter bonus, which makes my solid Intimidate work for me in combat. I still have one feat at every level except 6 to spend on other optimized combat feats, maybe with Iron Will thrown in there to make up for the Wis penalty.
At level 1, I'd have:
+5 Intimidate (1 rank, 3 class skill, 3 skill focus, -2 Cha)
+3 Sense Motive (1 rank, 3 class skill, 1 trait, -2 Wis)
+3 Knowledge local (1 rank, 3 class skill, 1 trait, -2 Int)
At level 3,
+7 Intimidate (1 rank, 3 class skill, 3 skill focus, -2 Cha)
+5 Sense Motive (1 rank, 3 class skill, 1 trait, -2 Wis)
+3 Knowledge local (1 rank, 3 class skill, 1 trait, -2 Int)
+2 Knowledge (dungeoneering and engineering, each)
After that I'd throw a few of my floating skill ranks in Perception, maybe a few in other class skills to get the training bonus, maybe a few more in the Knowledges at higher levels.
This build costs me only 2 traits, my human bonus feat, and my favoured class bonus, and I think it looks like a build someone would play for reasons other than an RP challenge – it's the typical two-hand fighter with a few “bad cop” skills thrown in. He's not going to be better in interrogation than the Inquisitor, but he can participate effectively and would be a perfect aide to a "good cop" face PC.
I would play the character as suspicious, gruff, and abrasive – he knows he's not a bright person and is always worried that someone might try to take advantage (maybe this happened a lot when he was a kid). He's physically imposing and knows how to remind others of that fact - and liars sometimes trip over their tongues when they're scared of you (the penalty from demoralize can make his Sense Motive effectively a respectable +5 at level 1). He's not particularly learned, but he has some training and/or experience and will be noticeably more competent in three core fields than an untrained character. With Knowledge(local) at +3, he's pretty streetwise even for an intelligent fighter - the +4 from the trait makes a big difference.
Race: Human
Class: Fighter (Lore Warden)
Stats: 20/14/14/7/7/7 (15-point buy, racial bonus in Str)
Traits: World Traveler (Sense Motive class skill and +1), Ease of Faith (Diplomacy class skill and +1)
Favoured class bonus – skill point = 3 skill points /level plus 2 skill points for Int-based skills
Alternate race trait: Focused Study – trade level 1 bonus feat for Skill Focus at level 1, 8, and 16.
Feats: Skill Focus goes in Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and Perception, in that order. Spend level 5 feat on Dilettante. All other feats go to whatever combat build I like, but will probably pick up a few Trip feats to take advantage of the free Combat Expertise (without meeting the Int prerequisite!) and Lore Warden bonus to maneuvers.
Skills level 1:
+6 Diplomacy (1 rank, 3 class skill, 1 trait, 3 skill focus, -2 Cha)
+3 Sense Motive (1 rank, 3 class skill, 1 trait, -2 Wis)
+2 Knowledge (any two) (1 rank, 3 class skill, -2 Int)
Skills by level 5:
+10 Diplomacy (5 ranks, 3 class skill, 1 trait, 3 skill focus, -2 Cha)
+7 Sense Motive (5 ranks, 3 class skill, 1 trait, -2 Wis)
+5 Knowledge (any five) (2 ranks, 3 class skill, 2 Dilettante, -2 Int)
5 ranks in Perception and Acrobatics (the Lore Warden can eventually use Acrobatics to negate a crit).
Can make DC 15 Knowledge checks untrained, and 1 rank in untrained Knowledge skills at later levels gives a +4 check. Could also keep bumping existing Knowledges or divert Int-skill points into Linguistics if the character needs extra languages.
This build costs me only 2 traits, 2 of 7 feats by level 5 (human bonus feat + Dilettante) and my favoured class bonus, plus requiring the use of the Lore Warden archetype which knocks a few points off the AC but gives a few fun abilities to compensate. It's not totally optimized, but it's not gimped. The high physical stats (which account for +2 to hit, +2 damage or +3 with a two-hand weapon) should still make it effective.
In exchange he's as a effective a Diplomat as any character not optimized for that function. He also gets to pick five Knowledge skills to fill in any gaps left in the rest of the party (there are 10 Knowledge skills, most parties have gaps) or to give the party a second chance at making that crucial Knowledge check if the specialist botches his.
This is the kind of character who overcomes poor innate ability through discipline, dedication, and hard work. He is not naturally intelligent but has a broad knowledge base from much study - he may use this to hide his lack of natural intelligence or may be proud of how much he has achieved. He has no personal presence or charm, but by being attentive to others and choosing his words carefully, he manages to be a skilled negotiator.
|
|
As for the hypothetical 7 Int bard, that's just what he is, hypothetical. Who would create such a character? Theoretically, he could exist, of course, but I don't think anyone would legitimately create a character for a class heavily dependent on skills for effectiveness and give them a 7 Int (assuming you are not rolling for stats with a pretty restrictive method and just got unlucky), as anything but a joke (or a strawman, as the case may be).Bards are pretty versatile for buffing and knowledge... However, if I wanted one who was decent at COMBAT... I could foresee short changing him a bit on knowledge and counting on his bard ability to pick up that slack.
If my 4th level bard has essentially wiped the penalty away AND I'm hitting a bit harder and more often, and then loaded down with skill points... it MAY be a good trade off.
I would certainly consider it... (Though as a rule I go the route of dump stats... i hate negatives :P )
Besides... arent' they Chr based characters? I made a detective once with HIGH intelligence... and mediocre chr and was quickly informed how 'unoptimal' that was...
sorry, wrong post
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mdt, does it offend you that dumb people with a limited vocabulary can be masters of strategy?
I can't be offended by something that doesn't exist.
On a separate note, you might want to consult a dictionary for the definitions of Strategy vs Tactics.
Unfortunately, I see no way to further respond to your argument at this point without violating posting rules. I honestly have been trying for an hour now. But it's devolved to the point where any thing I respond with is a personal insult toward you (or at least can only be taken that way), given your argument and the logical fault inherent in it.
Given my choices are to not respond further, or violate the posting rules... I'll simply bow out of any further discussion with you. Have a good day.
|
|
And I've agreed that it isn't much...but if you play him up to your full intelligence...well, most gamers are smarter than that.Oh? A low Int is *gosh, by golly, gee whilickers* not very intelligent. RAW says so. Yes, there is justification."Not very intelligent" is not equivalent to "an utter f*!+ing dingus".
This is not even getting into the sheer stupidity of the "If your Int 7 Fighter isn't a gibbering moron you're just trying to be a powergaming dick and should leave my glorious (inaccurate) method acting presence" argument I've seen tossed around by multiple people in multiple threads.
Where do we get this assumption from?
I think in a FANTASY world, we could assume a 'base 10' normal stat... but really??? Do you think the average person in THIS world doesn't get any negatives to obscure questions?
50% chance to answer a basic question on religion? EVERY religion? 50% chance at every geography question? Every underground question? Every engineering question?
I'll admit to a 7 int with a few skill points tossed in the fields I actually KNOW something about... but it's basically hubris to claim that I'm a 10 int in ALL fields...
Same as I'll admit that I'm no 10 strength either. I toss 2-3 college books in my bag, and try hiking across campus... I'm encumbered!
The old TSR Marvel game had a list of every stat, along with what it meant, and an example of who had such stats. I remember stating up some friends one time, and a buddy got mad since he was only 'Typical' or 'Poor' strength.
I asked if he could bench press 250 pounds... he said no. I said sorry, this is where your at. We have a range from aunt may to Thor... us pansy humans are at the low end. ;)
How do I figure that most gamers would translate to a better than 7 Int?
Seriously?
Oh, please.
By the way, you do understand that there is the base stat...and all those are skills...don't you?
Right, here's two examples of how I might build 7/7/7 fighters to do things other than kill monsters and get into bar fights, and how I might play them.
** spoiler omitted **
This build costs me only 2 traits, my human bonus feat, and my favoured class bonus, and I think it looks like a build someone would play for reasons other than an RP challenge – it's the typical two-hand fighter with a few “bad cop” skills thrown in. He's not going to be better in interrogation than the...
Nice builds, you show what can be done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do I figure that most gamers would translate to a better than 7 Int?
Seriously?
Oh, please.
By the way, you do understand that there is the base stat...and all those are...
Which was kind of my point. Skills are where it's at. Pathfinder has done quite the job of micromanaging things to the point that just about everything is covered by one of the knowledge skills. Even things that don't really 'fit' all that well still get lumped in.
Also if the DC is over 10... you have to be TRAINED in the knowledge skill to use it... or be a bard.
My point is that 7 isn't that bad, and with the proper use of skill points, class skills and bonus feats/traits... There won't be much difference in 'every day life' between a 7 int and a 10.
Just looking at the 'sample Knowledge checks'
Determine slope 15
Determine structures Style or age. 15
Recognize Reginal terrain features 15
Determine approximate date of a specific event 15
Identify unusual weather phenomon 15
common peasants without skill ranks in these... don't get them. (also, Geography,engineering and dungeoneering are pretty rare in our groups so the PC'S don't get rolls for it either.
The description is DC 10 (for really easy questions) and DC 15 (for Basic Questions)
Having a 20 intelligence does not help you answer Basic Questions. Without the skill points put there, you don't even get a roll.
Out of curiosity... what has everyone been using 'Just the base stat' for in game?
With a well-chosen profession choice, you can also milk that heavily in the right game. Profession: sailor, bandit, forester, mercenary, bodyguard can all give you an edge over higher intelligence opponents or allies.
Don't just hunt bandits, be a former bandit and know the ins and outs of banditry.
Yes you are smart, but do you know THIS! *rolls profession check*.
How do I figure that most gamers would translate to a better than 7 Int?
Seriously?
Oh, please.
By the way, you do understand that there is the base stat...and all those are...
Yep, for trained only, you need the right skill or "you don't even get a roll." Which why diversifying can be surprisingly useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Int 7 is the intelligence of your average uneducated laborer, maybe slightly less.
Please, stop that. That's just rude and plays into the power structures that reinforces the view of low education = low intelligence.
There's lots of highly educated people which have a hard time grasping formal logic and aren't good at reasoning, while there are lots of people from the proletariat with low or no formal education that are very intelligent. However, since our society wants to equate professional success with being smart (and being smart with one's worth as a human being -.-), there's loads of propaganda about low income/low education being equal to not being intelligent (a main trope in sitcoms but it exists everywhere). When one lives in the bottom of this power structure, it becomes reeeaaally tireing to hear those tropes over and over.
I realize you didn't say it to reinforce that, and I don't believe you meant any harm, but it's both based on a bad stereotype and causes people distress.
|
|
How do I figure that most gamers would translate to a better than 7 Int?
Seriously?
Oh, please.
By the way, you do understand that there is the base stat...and all those are...
Which was kind of my point. Skills are where it's at. Pathfinder has done quite the job of micromanaging things to the point that just about everything is covered by one of the knowledge skills. Even things that don't really 'fit' all that well still get lumped in.
Also if the DC is over 10... you have to be TRAINED in the knowledge skill to use it... or be a bard.
My point is that 7 isn't that bad, and with the proper use of skill points, class skills and bonus feats/traits... There won't be much difference in 'every day life' between a 7 int and a 10.
Just looking at the 'sample Knowledge checks'
Determine slope 15
Determine structures Style or age. 15
Recognize Reginal terrain features 15
Determine approximate date of a specific event 15
Identify unusual weather phenomon 15
common peasants without skill ranks in these... don't get them. (also, Geography,engineering and dungeoneering are pretty rare in our groups so the PC'S don't get rolls for it either.
The description is DC 10 (for really easy questions) and DC 15 (for Basic Questions)
Having a 20 intelligence does not help you answer Basic Questions. Without the skill points put there, you don't even get a roll.
Out of curiosity... what has everyone been using 'Just the base stat' for in game?
Ok, maybe you missed out on the simple fact that - higher Int = more skill points, and higher skills? If it's 'all about skills', you've all but crippled yourself by building a stupid character.
If the 20 Int character puts 1 point into 10 different Int skills by 3rd level, how long before the Int 7 character catches up?
The point here has always been that skills isn't intelligence...but if you insist it is...the higher the Int (which, for some silly reason, I read as intelligence), the higher the skills. By far, in the same class, with any significant difference.
I've made this point before, and just to make sure it's clear...a 7 is not a total moron...but it's slow. A slight learning disability. Yes, the character CAN learn...but he'll always be behind the intelligent character, all other things being equal...on Int skills. That's the way the game works. If you want to play Einstein, put points into Int.
|
|
Yep, for trained only, you need the right skill or "you don't even get a roll." Which why diversifying can be surprisingly useful.
How do I figure that most gamers would translate to a better than 7 Int?
Seriously?
Oh, please.
By the way, you do understand that there is the base stat...and all those are...
Yes, and?
The 7 Int character can't afford to spread a few points around like the 14 can. I understand math. Do you?
Please, stop that. That's just rude and plays into the power structures that reinforces the view of low education = low intelligence.
There's lots of highly educated people which have a hard time grasping formal logic and aren't good at reasoning, while there are lots of people from the proletariat with low or no formal education that are very intelligent. However, since our society wants to equate professional success with being smart (and being smart with one's worth as a human being -.-), there's loads of propaganda about low income/low education being equal to not being intelligent (a main trope in sitcoms but it exists everywhere). When one lives in the bottom of this power structure, it becomes reeeaaally tireing to hear those tropes over and over.
I realize you didn't say it to reinforce that, and I don't believe you meant any harm, but it's both based on a bad stereotype and causes people distress.
Not unintelligent per se, but uneducated, yes.
Not everyone, but on average your millwrights, food service employees, janitors (Custodians? Whatever PC term is the new one these days?) has no higher than a high school education, and many have average intelligence by virtue of the average intelligence being, well, average. I'm not quite convinced of the 10 Int = Average IQ thing myself, or at least not as an average that anything below is significantly lower intelligence/cognitive function.
Actually, going back to look at it, Int 9 is average for NPCs of the Melee and... Divine categories. Yeah I'm not touchin' that one.
In any case I've got no agenda with that remark. My dad's a millwright and he's a pretty intelligent man (though a high school dropout), and I know everyone's heard the old "In Russia, I was pheeseecist. Now, I am yanitor" story and similar ones as well. Hell, I work at pretty much anything I can find currently, so I'd be insulting MYSELF with that remark if I meant it that way. ;)
Yes, and?
The 7 Int character can't afford to spread a few points around like the 14 can. I understand math. Do you?
Unless he's a bard or Rogue... I know enough math to know that a rogues 8 skill points are better then the fighters 2... or most peoples 4...
And humans gets their extra one... and leveling up gets you another one... my Rogue in serpent skull was getting around 10 skill points a level with a 10 intelligence.
and of course the bard get their 6 and can roll untrained... and gets half his level added to them...
Depends on if they want to focus on knowledge history or swimming and climbing...
|
|
Yes, and?
The 7 Int character can't afford to spread a few points around like the 14 can. I understand math. Do you?
Unless he's a bard or Rogue... I know enough math to know that a rogues 8 skill points are better then the fighters 2... or most peoples 4...
And humans gets their extra one... and leveling up gets you another one... my Rogue in serpent skull was getting around 10 skill points a level with a 10 intelligence.
and of course the bard get their 6 and can roll untrained... and gets half his level added to them...
Depends on if they want to focus on knowledge history or swimming and climbing...
No.
Compare rogues to rogues. Compare fighters to fighters. Fighters have a *different skill set*...involving ways to maim and kill, usually face to face. The 7 Int fighter will have fewer extra skills than the 14 will. Again, it's simple math.
And I've agreed that it isn't much...but if you play him up to your full intelligence...well, most gamers are smarter than that.Where do we get this assumption from?
I think in a FANTASY world, we could assume a 'base 10' normal stat... but really??? Do you think the average person in THIS world doesn't get any negatives to obscure questions?
I don't think I understand what you're saying here.
I'm of the that the average person in this world is of average intelligence. I'm also of the opinion that the average gamer is also of average intelligence (possibly slightly higher because tabletop gaming is a reading-intensive activity). Int 7 is demonstrably substantially lower than average.
So unless you're suggesting that humans in Golarian are substantially more intelligent then their real-world counterparts, I'm not sure that your question even makes sense.
50% chance to answer a basic question on religion? EVERY religion?
Yes, that's what a "basic" question means. If you're talking about a sufficiently obscure religion that 50% of the population has never even heard of it, then it's no longer a basic question.
50% chance at every geography question? Every underground question? Every engineering question?
Same answer. That's what a "basic" question means -- one where the answer is common knowledge that requires no specialist skill to answer.
|
|
Please, stop that. That's just rude and plays into the power structures that reinforces the view of low education = low intelligence.
There's lots of highly educated people which have a hard time grasping formal logic and aren't good at reasoning, while there are lots of people from the proletariat with low or no formal education that are very intelligent. However, since our society wants to equate professional success with being smart (and being smart with one's worth as a human being -.-), there's loads of propaganda about low income/low education being equal to not being intelligent (a main trope in sitcoms but it exists everywhere). When one lives in the bottom of this power structure, it becomes reeeaaally tireing to hear those tropes over and over.
I realize you didn't say it to reinforce that, and I don't believe you meant any harm, but it's both based on a bad stereotype and causes people distress.
Not unintelligent per se, but uneducated, yes.
Not everyone, but on average your millwrights, food service employees, janitors (Custodians? Whatever PC term is the new one these days?) has no higher than a high school education, and many have average intelligence by virtue of the average intelligence being, well, average. I'm not quite convinced of the 10 Int = Average IQ thing myself, or at least not as an average that anything below is significantly lower intelligence/cognitive function.
Actually, going back to look at it, Int 9 is average for NPCs of the Melee and... Divine categories. Yeah I'm not touchin' that one.
In any case I've got no agenda with that remark. My dad's a millwright and he's a pretty intelligent man (though a high school dropout), and I know everyone's heard the old "In Russia, I was pheeseecist. Now, I am yanitor" story and similar ones as well. Hell, I work at pretty much anything I can find currently, so I'd be insulting MYSELF with that remark if I meant it that way. ;)
There are a lot of people limited by their Int when it comes to work. Absolutely. I've never said, though, that they can't be skilled. Some definitely are...and that's worthy of recognition. It doesn't mean that they're any smarter, but it usually does mean that they might well be very dedicated. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think what people inadvertently or intentionally do here is use words that are... inappropriate to describe the level of function a person with limited stats can achieve.
A person with Int 7 can never be a MASTER of anything that has to do with intelligence. He can be ADEQUATE, heck, he can even be GOOD with sufficient investment. But the MASTER is one with max ranks, relevant feats AND the good Int score.
Cha/Int7-12 fighter will never be a master of anything int/cha related. Without heavy investment, they will fail level appropriate DCs when skills are called.
Cha/Int 14+ fighter can be good, but still lacking due to his choice of class. He will be adequately skilled to be relevant at trained skills in which he chooses to focus (intimidate, engineering etc), but his class still limits his trained skills and potential to build on skills. So they will not be MASTERS of any skill without heavy investment.
But if you really want to be a MASTER of a skill, you play a class and have stats to support the claim. You can make a PASSABLE combat rogue or monk, but no monk or rogue will hold his own in melee with a well made fighter. (inb4 example builds of monks with "good" AC and 'what if the rogue has this or that item, is this or that race, its dark, underwater, upsidedown and the stars are aligned?' situations. Everyone damn well knows to what I am referring)
As for the "Fighters makes better strategists/tacticians". Sadly, that is not the case. They have no skills or class abilities that even imply that they have a higher understanding of combat on a larger scale than "my pointy end goes in enemy". Cavaliers on the other hand, have class abilities to imply skill in tactics, due to having a class ability called 'Tactics'. And yes, a dumb cav makes a good leader, mechanically. Because mechanics. There is no mechanics in PF to determine strategy or even tactics in terms of planning. So that point is kinda moot.
In the end, I am for the dumb fighter coming up with the solution. It is good comedy. Like Gourry from Slayers realizing stuff to everyones surprise, and have them facepalm for not seeing the obvious solution staring them in the face. Dumb people tend to go for the more obvious solution, and smart people have a tendency to overthink.
Betcha not a lot of people want to chastise the Int22 wizard for finding the simple answer, yelling "PLAY YOUR INT, OT GTFO!"...
Not everyone, but on average your millwrights, food service employees, janitors (Custodians? Whatever PC term is the new one these days?) has no higher than a high school education, and many have average intelligence by virtue of the average intelligence being, well, average. I'm not quite convinced of the 10 Int = Average IQ thing myself, or at least not as an average that anything below is significantly lower intelligence/cognitive function.
Well, until someone comes up with a better measurable proxy for intelligence than IQ, that's the best data available.
And, yes, the average IQ of custodians is "significantly" below average (in the technical sense). The data that I've seen suggests the average is about 91 or so, which is about one-half of a standard deviation below the average. Not enough to significantly impact daily life; we're not talking about 'this rock taste bad' here, but enough for statisticians to believe there's a relationship. Policemen average right around 100, and MDs average around 120.
And, of course, these are averages. The 90th percentile for custodians (meaning, the cutoff to be in the top ten percent of custodians surveyed) is an IQ of about 110, and the 75th percentile is about 100.
So, no, being a janitor doesn't mean you specifically are not intelligent. If you think about how smart the average janitor is,.... well, by the statistics, an int 7 character is in a lower percentile of the general population than the average janitor, or to put it another way, the other janitors would consider him to be stupid among his peer group.
Supposedly, a 3 can speak. I always felt that was a bit crazy, but it's right there in the rules.Actually, at Intelligence 5, aka 70-75 IQ, people have difficulty speaking. Therefore to be fully functional in game, you need at least a 6 Intelligence.
Your Int 3 fighter with barely human intelligence is "smarter" than my Int 20 wizard because you're level 20 and I'm level 1? So words, numbers...meaningless?
They did it for the same reason that they made all characters literate in the most recent editions, even though they haven't built a public school system or any such means for them to become literate into settings I am aware of. Because players complain about not being literate, and complain about not being able to communicate verbally with a hyper-low score. Wouldn't want players to whine even more, even if it isn't logical.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They did it for the same reason that they made all characters literate in the most recent editions, even though they haven't built a public school system or any such means for them to become literate into settings I am aware of. Because players complain about not being literate, and complain about not being able to communicate verbally with a hyper-low score. Wouldn't want players to whine even more, even if it isn't logical.Supposedly, a 3 can speak. I always felt that was a bit crazy, but it's right there in the rules.Actually, at Intelligence 5, aka 70-75 IQ, people have difficulty speaking. Therefore to be fully functional in game, you need at least a 6 Intelligence.
Your Int 3 fighter with barely human intelligence is "smarter" than my Int 20 wizard because you're level 20 and I'm level 1? So words, numbers...meaningless?
Lol...yeah...in Pathfinder, the literacy rate is stunning compared to say, the real world of a few hundred years ago.
Compare rogues to rogues. Compare fighters to fighters. Fighters have a *different skill set*...involving ways to maim and kill, usually face to face. The 7 Int fighter will have fewer extra skills than the 14 will. Again, it's simple math.
Unless you have a party of just Fighters, then that comparisons worthless.
Is a fighter with 7 int going to be more limited then one with 14? Of course.
But we're not talking about 'fighters' we're talking about people in general.
Will there EVER be a situation where one person with a 7 int is more knowledgeable and better than another person with a 14 int.
Yeah, it may not be often, but it can and would happen.
There can easily come a time in a game where you should be listening to the 7 int bard and not the 14 int fighter. Highest base stat in the party doesn't automatically mean what people claim it means.