| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Really, Rynjin? I don't know, but I guess I assume that when someone uses quotes, they are, you know, actually quoting someone, rather than indicating what they wish he/she had said because it makes their own argument stronger if they actually had said that. I call foul.
No one has said anything remotely like what you are "quoting" (that is, of course, a different use of quotation marks, indicating that I do not believe you were actually quoting anyone). We are merely stating that roleplaying is important in what is, you know, a roleplaying game. Further, we believe that the stats have meaning beyond the purely mechanical RAW, and that players should make an effort to incorporate their stats (and their character background, and their relevant skills, feats and other abilities) into their roleplaying.
I am presenting the OPINION and ADVICE (which is what the OP asked for) that to roleplay a 7 Int/7 Wis/7 Cha character with no or few knowledge or social skills to compensate for the low raw scores should be played as someone who is less intelligent, wise and charismatic than average. Because they are less intelligent, wise and charismatic than average. To expand, they should not be the character solving every riddle, should not be showing extraordinary judgment consistently, and should not be smoothly negotiating disputes on a regular basis. They may occasionally have good ideas, make good judgments or sway someone with their arguments, but that should be the exception, rather than the rule, when roleplaying that character.
I'm also willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those who argue the opposite side of the coin that they may not be a "powergaming dick" (See, that is how quotes are used accurately. You actually wrote it and I put it in quotes to show that you actually wrote it and make it distinct from what I am writing). However, I hold to my opinion that they are not roleplaying the character as accurately as they could, for whatever reason. Doesn't mean they can't/shouldn't do it that way if their whole table either agrees that roleplaying is completely independent from stats or could care less, and they are having fun. It is merely my opinion that such would not be fun or accepted in my group, or apparently, in quite a few others.
To sum up. Build whatever character (within reason) that you want to play. Develop that charactr's persona based on whatever information is available to you, including, but not limited to: backstory (best if developed jointly with or at least cleared with, the GM), stats, skills, feats, other abilities and setting. Stats is just one of many factors used to form the personality of a character, but it is, in my opinion, one of the most important ones, and is certainly one of the most concrete ones. Once you have that character built, play that characer as accurately as you can.
|
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.
No, the comparison is worthless when you compare apples to oranges.
The simple point is, a 7 is less intelligent.
Period.
It matters not how skilled they are, the 7 is not smart, and never will be, without not being a 7 anymore. They may become skilled, but a 7 is a 7, is mentally challenged. No, not braindead...slightly smarter than an average ogre.
Now...what are you going to claim that people are claiming?
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.
Well I thought the (current) discussion was about averages. What is average Intelligence? Is 7 Intelligence lower than average? Does Intelligence mean intelligence? (Hard to believe that's one of the questions but it is what it is.) Some people seem to argue Int 7 is not lower than any other score (or Intelligence does not equal intelligence) because with the right race and right class and high enough level you could know something that someone else doesn't. Others seem to say that Int 7 isn't dumb because they played an Int 7 character once and they didn't play that character as dumb.
Now as far as listening to the Int 7 Bard over the Int 14 Fighter? Sure, if it is something he knows. Would you demand they listen to the Int 7 Fighter over the Int 14 Bard? If I have an Int 7 Fighter (which I would consider to not be as intelligent as most people) and then multiclass as a Bard can I no longer play him as dumb?
Also, I believe the OP said Int 7 and Wis 7 and Cha 7. That's not really the bard I'd want adventuring with me. (He also said he was playing a barbarian who did not know his own name and might possibly like donuts. I don't know if we ever got confirmation on the donut thing.)
"The 7 Int character can't afford to spread a few points around like the 14 can. I understand math. Do you?"
Lol Eldon, I disagree with you and you keep trying to work those insults on my intelligence. You don't need to do that buddy, this isn't do or die.
Edit, quote died in the attempt.
Well I'm sticking by int 7 not being drastically slow and dumb to answer the original question. You can do a lot with int 7, as a previous post pointed out.
They could be played as quite daft, but they are just behind on skill points, can never be a wizard and are more likely to fail INT checks (but those are notoriously easy to fail as an int 29, level 16 wizard can fail a DC 20 int check half the time.).
Well I'm sticking by int 7 not being drastically slow and dumb to answer the original question. You can do a lot with int 7, as a previous post pointed out.
Yes you can. You can make an Int 7 Bard, throw some ranks into knowledge and play that character as very smart and educated (or just have him pull facts out of the ether, there are no mechanics for education, right?) There are no "mechanics" to say you can't do this. I would say it is a mistake to assume this applies to all Int 7 characters.
You could have a caster with permanent fly/levitate/feather fall spells and claim gravity doesn't exist for your character but I wouldn't say that applies to everyone.
I agree with almost everything you posted, but we don't possess even one tenth of the survival instincts we once did. Most people, left to their own in the wilderness fare very poorly, where at one time, we flourished.
Wrong. We still have all out DNA instincts. It's been estimated that at any given point in your lifespan, half your behavior is dictated by that same DNA, the other half by experience.
Oh, and that bit about Int 3 needed to speak? That's wrong by a modern psychological perspective, given the distribution of Int scores on 3d6 and the Bell curve. You need at least 6, because at 5 you end up speaking like Cookie Monster. Lower yet, and you can't speak at all.
Yep 3.5 loyalist, now after reading and responding to this question I WANT to play a int 7 cleric. Thanks for the idea everyone
Me too. Int 7 4 life.
sinc ethen we've just been arguing with each other about related issues because, well, it's the Internet and we all like to argue, even though our chances of convincing each other of anything is probably less than the chance of your barbarian winning the Nobel Prize for Physics.
I dunno about everyone else, but I know that I am perfectly willing, and even eager sometimes, to be convinced (assuming I agree with their logic). Already have been in several threads that I myself created.
I agree with almost everything you posted, but we don't possess even one tenth of the survival instincts we once did. Most people, left to their own in the wilderness fare very poorly, where at one time, we flourished.
Wrong. We still have all out DNA instincts. It's been estimated that at any given point in your lifespan, half your behavior is dictated by that same DNA, the other half by experience.
Oh, and that bit about Int 3 needed to speak? That's wrong by a modern psychological perspective, given the distribution of Int scores on 3d6 and the Bell curve. You need at least 6, because at 5 you end up speaking like Cookie Monster. Lower yet, and you can't speak at all.
Eh, there's rules for that:
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.
Your bell curve and averages only work if they apply. Which they do not since a 3 is still fine for literacy. You do not have to speak like Cookie Monster. Although that might humorous.
@Brian: lol. I think the quotes were for humor and not real quotes.
sinc ethen we've just been arguing with each other about related issues because, well, it's the Internet and we all like to argue, even though our chances of convincing each other of anything is probably less than the chance of your barbarian winning the Nobel Prize for Physics.
I dunno about everyone else, but I know that I am perfectly willing, and even eager sometimes, to be convinced (assuming I agree with their logic). Already have been in several threads that I myself created.
Actually, I was engagin in a bit of hopefully humorous hyperbole. I too, have occasionally been convinced by people on the Boards, and I always learn something new from them, even if it is just info about how other people play the game differently from my group.
That said, there are a fair number of posters whom I have never seen change their positions one iota for any reason despite any argument placed before them. Thus the post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for an interesting thread guys. It has helped me figure out a few things for my own homebrew and has solidified my thinking on how this and other systems with an intelligence/skill based paradigm like this view intelligence as a whole. It certainly could have been more civil at times, but it was well moderated as ever. Thanks guys.
|
I agree with almost everything you posted, but we don't possess even one tenth of the survival instincts we once did. Most people, left to their own in the wilderness fare very poorly, where at one time, we flourished.
Wrong. We still have all out DNA instincts. It's been estimated that at any given point in your lifespan, half your behavior is dictated by that same DNA, the other half by experience.
Oh, and that bit about Int 3 needed to speak? That's wrong by a modern psychological perspective, given the distribution of Int scores on 3d6 and the Bell curve. You need at least 6, because at 5 you end up speaking like Cookie Monster. Lower yet, and you can't speak at all.
I trust you in your field of expertise.
I trust you when you say that IQ 70-75 has trouble speaking.
I trust you when you match the bell curves for IQ with the bell curve for 3d6, and that the matching point for Int7 is IQ 70-75, and I find this a usefull ballpark figure.
However, IQ =/= Intelligence score in PF or D&D.
It may be a useful tool to model the behaviour of a particular intelligence, but it doesn't work as a complete substitution. For example, creatures with Int3 can speak, read and write in PF and D&D. The equivalent IQ in RL cannot.
|
|
Well I'm sticking by int 7 not being drastically slow and dumb to answer the original question. You can do a lot with int 7, as a previous post pointed out.
They could be played as quite daft, but they are just behind on skill points, can never be a wizard and are more likely to fail INT checks (but those are notoriously easy to fail as an int 29, level 16 wizard can fail a DC 20 int check half the time.).
Nobody ever said they were "drastically slow and dumb"...but...my favorite example - planning an assault - many borderline genius experts on the subject failed throughout history. Sorry, I'm not going to entrust that to a guy that started out well behind...and if the person playing that character insists that he should be taken seriously, he'll be looked at as if he was performing slapstick. Now...I'd listen to suggestions from him, but if he's being properly played, those suggestions should be limited to what that character could possibly understand.
|
|
I agree with almost everything you posted, but we don't possess even one tenth of the survival instincts we once did. Most people, left to their own in the wilderness fare very poorly, where at one time, we flourished.
Wrong. We still have all out DNA instincts. It's been estimated that at any given point in your lifespan, half your behavior is dictated by that same DNA, the other half by experience.
Oh, and that bit about Int 3 needed to speak? That's wrong by a modern psychological perspective, given the distribution of Int scores on 3d6 and the Bell curve. You need at least 6, because at 5 you end up speaking like Cookie Monster. Lower yet, and you can't speak at all.
Instincts are not a part of DNA.
I agree with the 3 Int thing. It's arguable that some chimps and gorillas likely have IQs around 80...one actually tested to that - Koko, by name - which is about a 6. She had learned a little sign language and could construct simple sentences.
|
|
sinc ethen we've just been arguing with each other about related issues because, well, it's the Internet and we all like to argue, even though our chances of convincing each other of anything is probably less than the chance of your barbarian winning the Nobel Prize for Physics.
I dunno about everyone else, but I know that I am perfectly willing, and even eager sometimes, to be convinced (assuming I agree with their logic). Already have been in several threads that I myself created.
Actually, I was engagin in a bit of hopefully humorous hyperbole. I too, have occasionally been convinced by people on the Boards, and I always learn something new from them, even if it is just info about how other people play the game differently from my group.
That said, there are a fair number of posters whom I have never seen change their positions one iota for any reason despite any argument placed before them. Thus the post.
Definitely. It's not like I'll ever be convinced that Intelligence =/= intelligence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely. It's not like I'll ever be convinced that Intelligence =/= intelligence.
To be fair, there's a lot of unpacking that can be done to that statement.
Equating IQ to real-world intelligence is at best controversial; I myself have serious difficulties with it, but psychometricians don't really have a lot of other measures for intelligence than Spearman's g. Especially if you want a single numeric measure.
Equating intelligence in the real world to Intelligence in a game-setting may differ depending upon what crunch is associated with the statistic. The idea that higher Intelligence results in better learning and more skills makes it sound like there should be a strong connection, the idea that higher Intelligence corresponds with more damage when an alchemist throws a vial of acid does not.
The idea that the statistics of the real world apply to Golarion (or any other fictional world) is an implicit assumption many of us are making, just as is the assumption that the word "human" in Pathfinder means Homo sapiens and not Oryctolagus cuniculus. But I don't think there's actually any RAW to prove that Pathfinder isn't a bizarre variant on Bunnies and Burrows.
But if someone wants to tell me that "human" actually means "bunny," I'd like to see some support of that claim.
|
|
Definitely. It's not like I'll ever be convinced that Intelligence =/= intelligence.To be fair, there's a lot of unpacking that can be done to that statement.
Equating IQ to real-world intelligence is at best controversial; I myself have serious difficulties with it, but psychometricians don't really have a lot of other measures for intelligence than Spearman's g. Especially if you want a single numeric measure.
Equating intelligence in the real world to Intelligence in a game-setting may differ depending upon what crunch is associated with the statistic. The idea that higher Intelligence results in better learning and more skills makes it sound like there should be a strong connection, the idea that higher Intelligence corresponds with more damage when an alchemist throws a vial of acid does not.
The idea that the statistics of the real world apply to Golarion (or any other fictional world) is an implicit assumption many of us are making, just as is the assumption that the word "human" in Pathfinder means Homo sapiens and not Oryctolagus cuniculus. But I don't think there's actually any RAW to prove that Pathfinder isn't a bizarre variant on Bunnies and Burrows.
But if someone wants to tell me that "human" actually means "bunny," I'd like to see some support of that claim.
Bunnies and Burrows! I actually owned a copy of that game! :D
*...hops away...tittering madly...*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I decided to skip 10 pages of thread, but I wanted to share my experiences.
I'm the player of two characters with 7 Int (and one with 25). I have wondered in the past who would ever want to play a stupid character, but I gave it a try, and found it really fun.
One of them is a dwarf fighter named Schtalgard who took Bodyguard and In Harm's Way. I figured that if he took it upon himself to actively take hits for his party, he must not be very smart. I have a lot of fun questioning the others about what things mean or poorly interpreting the information I have. I occasionally attempt knowledge checks or the like, provoking laughter with my negative results and the DM's summary of what I know, which I always act on. He also has a low charisma, so my party takes measures to ensure that I am far away from the diplomatic action. He does have a high wisdom, though, so he usually knows when to shut up.
The other is a human Cavalier/Barbarian. With his middling charisma and wisdom, not to mention class features, he acts as the nominal leader of the party. Since he has this responsibility, he doesn't act outright stupid like Schtalgard, but he simply doesn't have any scholastic knowledge, and planning kinda escapes him. When things get rough, he defers to the planning of his brother (a party member with Int 12).
Really, Rynjin? I don't know, but I guess I assume that when someone uses quotes, they are, you know, actually quoting someone, rather than indicating what they wish he/she had said because it makes their own argument stronger if they actually had said that. I call foul.
No one has said anything remotely like what you are "quoting" (that is, of course, a different use of quotation marks, indicating that I do not believe you were actually quoting anyone). We are merely stating that roleplaying is important in what is, you know, a roleplaying game. Further, we believe that the stats have meaning beyond the purely mechanical RAW, and that players should make an effort to incorporate their stats (and their character background, and their relevant skills, feats and other abilities) into their roleplaying.
Think air quotes. The [.quote] tag is for actual quotes. Do you expect me to not read between the lines on some of this?
I am presenting the OPINION and ADVICE (which is what the OP asked for) that to roleplay a 7 Int/7 Wis/7 Cha character with no or few knowledge or social skills to compensate for the low raw scores should be played as someone who is less intelligent, wise and charismatic than average. Because they are less intelligent, wise and charismatic than average. To expand, they should not be the character solving every riddle, should not be showing extraordinary judgment consistently, and should not be smoothly negotiating disputes on a regular basis. They may occasionally have good ideas, make good judgments or sway someone with their arguments, but that should be the exception, rather than the rule, when roleplaying that character.
And yet some people are saying he shouldn't be able to figure out how to flank.
Not the same thing, and that's what I was responding to.
To sum up. Build whatever character (within reason) that you want to play. Develop that charactr's persona based on whatever information is available to you, including, but not limited to: backstory (best if developed jointly with or at least cleared with, the GM), stats, skills, feats, other abilities and setting. Stats is just one of many factors used to form the personality of a character, but it is, in my opinion, one of the most important ones, and is certainly one of the most concrete ones. Once you have that character built, play that characer as accurately as you can.
The thing is, it's not nearly as simple as playing the Int 7 guy like he's less intelligent. There are varying gradients in there, and it's not automatically set in stone that he'll have less vocabulary or is not as good at solving puzzles.
He just can't be good at all of them at once, I think.
I wonder what this thread would have looked like if the OP asked How smart is my 7 int character? Just food for thought.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Equating intelligence in the real world to Intelligence in a game-setting may differ depending upon what crunch is associated with the statistic. The idea that higher Intelligence results in better learning and more skills makes it sound like there should be a strong connection, the idea that higher Intelligence corresponds with more damage when an alchemist throws a vial of acid does not.
I tend to assume that terms in PF mean what they mean in the real world except where explicitly stated otherwise. It's also possible for PF to modify what a term means without entirely turning it upside down. A dead character in PF means pretty much the same thing as a dead person in real life, except that due to certain magic it's not an irreversible condition in PF. The fact that death is reversible in PF does not mean that dead characters can take actions.
Similarly, the fact that intelligence enables you to use certain forms of magic or supernaturally increase the potency of acid or explosives, and the fact that the sharp border between non-sentience and literacy is weird, does not mean that the real-world meaning of intelligence is completely unapplicable to PF.
The thing is, it's not nearly as simple as playing the Int 7 guy like he's less intelligent. There are varying gradients in there, and it's not automatically set in stone that he'll have less vocabulary or is not as good at solving puzzles.
He just can't be good at all of them at once, I think.
Agreed. Intelligence is a combination of factors, and some individuals may be better or worse at particular factors.
Nice builds, you show what can be done.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 **
Thanks. General principles:
1) Traits are the most efficient way to boost non-class skills, and they work great for representing a character with natural talent at a specific skill.
2) Don't forget your favoured class bonus. The extra skill point gives you more to spread around. I expect this would be a particularly useful option for an Int 7 caster cleric or bard, since they need the HP less than the fighter or barbarian does.
3) Don't forget racial features. The human has most to offer here with a bonus feat and a skill rank per level, but lots of races give different bonuses to Int- Wis- and Cha-based skills which can balance a low ability score. Gnomes for example get +2 to any one Craft, Profession, or Knowledge, and can trade their combat bonuses against giants and goblinoids for +1 to bluff and diplomacy and two languages learned for every point in Linguistics.
I agree with almost everything you posted, but we don't possess even one tenth of the survival instincts we once did. Most people, left to their own in the wilderness fare very poorly, where at one time, we flourished.
Wrong. We still have all out DNA instincts. It's been estimated that at any given point in your lifespan, half your behavior is dictated by that same DNA, the other half by experience.
Oh, and that bit about Int 3 needed to speak? That's wrong by a modern psychological perspective, given the distribution of Int scores on 3d6 and the Bell curve. You need at least 6, because at 5 you end up speaking like Cookie Monster. Lower yet, and you can't speak at all.
I trust you in your field of expertise.
I trust you when you say that IQ 70-75 has trouble speaking.
I trust you when you match the bell curves for IQ with the bell curve for 3d6, and that the matching point for Int7 is IQ 70-75, and I find this a usefull ballpark figure.
However, IQ =/= Intelligence score in PF or D&D.
It may be a useful tool to model the behaviour of a particular intelligence, but it doesn't work as a complete substitution. For example, creatures with Int3 can speak, read and write in PF and D&D. The equivalent IQ in RL cannot.
Nope, that matching point is actually 6, I believe.
I agree with almost everything you posted, but we don't possess even one tenth of the survival instincts we once did. Most people, left to their own in the wilderness fare very poorly, where at one time, we flourished.
Wrong. We still have all out DNA instincts. It's been estimated that at any given point in your lifespan, half your behavior is dictated by that same DNA, the other half by experience.
Oh, and that bit about Int 3 needed to speak? That's wrong by a modern psychological perspective, given the distribution of Int scores on 3d6 and the Bell curve. You need at least 6, because at 5 you end up speaking like Cookie Monster. Lower yet, and you can't speak at all.
Instincts are not a part of DNA.
I agree with the 3 Int thing. It's arguable that some chimps and gorillas likely have IQs around 80...one actually tested to that - Koko, by name - which is about a 6. She had learned a little sign language and could construct simple sentences.
Yes, as a matter of fact, instincts ARE a part of DNA. I do not kid, and it is the truth, you can look it up.
As it's been so long since I last posted, and as I pretty much wholly agree with everything Piccolo has posted, I'll just say that from here on out in this thread Piccolo can speak for me.
...
And yet some people are saying he shouldn't be able to figure out how to flank.
Who's been saying that? I mentioned flanking as a response to someone saying there is no rules support for requiring roleplay, and I said that if we wanna go to the RAWy side it IS possible for a DM to require a "very easy" knowledge check to know that flanking is a good tactic.
I did not say it was a good thing to do or that Int7 wouldn't know how to flank, just that there are rules in the book that the DM can utilize to penalize characters that are dumb, should they want to; thus the claim that there aren't any rules for it is an argument completely dependant on what rules you care about.
Well an int 7 fighter is going to know that flanking is a good tactic, if he/she has done flanking, if he/she has heard flanking is great from a trusted instructor or mentor, if he/she has studied any historical battles where flanking is used or if it is a respected tactic amongst their people, if it has been used against him/her, and so on.
I'd rp a 7 int fighter as offended if another char said "you don't know tactics, flanking, assaulting an area or any of that, be quiet dumbidy dumb dumb!" ""Err, that is one of the few things I have studied thoroughly and know to the core of my being." *Sad fighter is left out*
A cavalier especially should grasp flanking since using cavalry is the precise application of momentum and force where there is a weakness on the battlefield, for the greatest effect. They flank, they hit from behind as a matter of course.
Well an int 7 fighter is going to know that flanking is a good tactic, if he/she has done flanking, if he/she has heard flanking is great from a trusted instructor or mentor, if he/she has studied any historical battles where flanking is used or if it is a respected tactic amongst their people, if it has been used against him/her, and so on.
And once again, I must point out that you're assuming a degree of cognitive generalization that doesn't necessarily hold.
* If flanking an orc is a good tactic, is it also a good tactic to flank a bear? How about a gelatinous cube?
* If flanking an orc is a good tactic when you're holding a sword, how about when you're holding an axe? How about when you're holding a bow? How about when you have an exotic weapon you're unfamiliar with?
Generalizing -- and equally importantly, not generalizing -- is one of the key real-world attributes of intelligence, and a key aspect of what people with "borderline intellectual functioning" don't do well. Sure, I'll grant that "flanking is a respected tactic amongst [your] people".... now tell me about how "your people" learned that flanking orcs, bears, and werewolves is a good idea, but flanking grey oozes and fire elementals is not? There's a very good chance that no one in your tribe has fought with a fire elemental in the past century.
I think it's completely legitimate to require a very easy knowledge check to know appropriate tactics against common monsters, and to require correspondingly more difficult checks to know appropriate tactics against rarer monsters.
For a literary example, think of Merry and Pippin's encounter with Treebeard, the Ent. Would they have known that arrows were bad tactics against them? (The orcs of Isengard demonstrably didn't, from the battle descriptions.) While it is easily possible to reason that "well, Ents are like trees, so if I want to kill an Ent, I should use something that works against trees, like an axe or fire, instead of peppering trees with arrows," that's exactly the kind of abstract reasoning that would be represented in the Pathfinder universe with the Intelligence statistic.
I'm curious... do many DM's play that their ogres are 'too stupid to know about flanking?'
Or is that a 'PC standard'?
Same with any other monster that is 7 or under int?
I'm curious... do many DM's play that their ogres are 'too stupid to know about flanking?'
Or is that a 'PC standard'?
Same with any other monster that is 7 or under int?
Depends. How many skill points do they have?
Or the player that is playing a martial character that can fight and knows how to, could just declare their combat actions and we could move this right along.
A critic of dnd that I know joked you need to make a check to tie your shoelaces, I'd hate to prove him right with the absurd you must make an int check to be able to think to take an appropriate action.
Like say you set the bar at an int check of dc 5 to be able to think of using flanking, and so that the dm allows you to make that action. Okay, a char of int 14 fails that on a 1 or 2 (2+2 = 4, not the required 5). That is a 10% chance of failing for an int 14 regardless of character class, background or experience.
In the combat section, as I have said before, there are no "make an int check to use tactics" rolls. Now if we were to apply this (and I think it is a very bad idea), do the monsters have to make int checks to be able to flank as well?
I'm curious... do many DM's play that their ogres are 'too stupid to know about flanking?'
Or is that a 'PC standard'?
Same with any other monster that is 7 or under int?
Looks like we are making a similar point.
I read the first couple of pages, skipped a load and had a play with the standard deviation table. It seems that (according to wikipedia) the average IQ is 100 and the standard deviation is 15 points in either direction. The average 3d6 roll is 10.5 and according to another Google search the standard deviation is 3.
So with a bit of rounding, a roll of 10 could easily equate to an IQ of 100. The every point of intelligence away from that equals an adjustment of 5 IQ points. So an INT of 20 equates to an IQ of 150 and an INT of 3 equates to an IQ of 65, which according to the wikipedia article is still enough to harvest vegetables and repair furniture. The intelligence 7 character would have an IQ of 85 by this method, which is just under the average IQ of unskilled workers.
Sorry if you guys have moved the thread on in the last 10 pages
I wonder what this thread would have looked like if the OP asked How smart is my 7 int character? Just food for thought.
Similarly, I'd like to ask: How smart is my 7 Int animal companion?
Durngrun Skill points do not mean that someone is smart, by that a 6 int rouge will always be smarter then a 14 int fighter. We need to remember that skill points show how skilled someone is in noncombat.
Ok, are you ribbing me here? I can't tell over the Internet. I've clearly been arguing against that concept just in case you couldn't tell I was joking.
On a side note, something about the name Durngrun Skill really appeals to me.
|
|
Yes, as a matter of fact, instincts ARE a part of DNA. I do not kid, and it is the truth, you can look it up.I agree with almost everything you posted, but we don't possess even one tenth of the survival instincts we once did. Most people, left to their own in the wilderness fare very poorly, where at one time, we flourished.
Wrong. We still have all out DNA instincts. It's been estimated that at any given point in your lifespan, half your behavior is dictated by that same DNA, the other half by experience.
Oh, and that bit about Int 3 needed to speak? That's wrong by a modern psychological perspective, given the distribution of Int scores on 3d6 and the Bell curve. You need at least 6, because at 5 you end up speaking like Cookie Monster. Lower yet, and you can't speak at all.
Instincts are not a part of DNA.
I agree with the 3 Int thing. It's arguable that some chimps and gorillas likely have IQs around 80...one actually tested to that - Koko, by name - which is about a 6. She had learned a little sign language and could construct simple sentences.
I won't argue that the basics for instincts are in DNA, but that's not instinct unto itself. The basics for intelligence...on our level...is in the DNA of a mouse, but it's not realized.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes it is.
Instincts, by definition, are not learned through experience. They are wholly genetic.
I stand by my original statement. We do not have the instincts we once did. Feel free to read up on the subject. It's been a particular interest of mine since I was a child...a...ummm...while back. :pYes it is.
Instincts, by definition, are not learned through experience. They are wholly genetic.
Do you have any concept of just how long it takes to develop a genetic trait that has any sort of positive impact? Or how long it takes to suppress a given trait? Lemme ask, where do you think diabetes came from?
Homo sapiens sapiens hasn't evolved THAT fast since we split off from the rest of the branches. Sorry camper, you've given no evidence, cited no facts, just reiterated the same thing.
Human behavior is my field of expertise. Doesn't mean I understand humanity; just means I study humanity and have since I was old enough to walk.
|
|
I stand by my original statement. We do not have the instincts we once did. Feel free to read up on the subject. It's been a particular interest of mine since I was a child...a...ummm...while back. :pYes it is.
Instincts, by definition, are not learned through experience. They are wholly genetic.
Do you have any concept of just how long it takes to develop a genetic trait that has any sort of positive impact? Or how long it takes to suppress a given trait? Lemme ask, where do you think diabetes came from?
Homo sapiens sapiens hasn't evolved THAT fast since we split off from the rest of the branches. Sorry camper, you've given no evidence, cited no facts, just reiterated the same thing.
Human behavior is my field of expertise. Doesn't mean I understand humanity; just means I study humanity and have since I was old enough to walk.
Good for you. You should probably understand, then, that as we gained abstract reasoning, we no longer relied on just instinct, and just like everything else, it dulls over generations (especially hundreds or thousands of generations) with continuously decreasing use.
Science has been discussing this truism since I was a child.
Do you understand how much genetic material we share with every other mammal we know of? It's surprising, if you aren't up on it. The commonality of it is amazing...and the amount of DNA that is still present in every case, and not realized, is stunning.
My ex-roommate worked on the human genome project, and I got to hear about it quite a lot. :)
I stand by my original statement. We do not have the instincts we once did. Feel free to read up on the subject. It's been a particular interest of mine since I was a child...a...ummm...while back. :pYes it is.
Instincts, by definition, are not learned through experience. They are wholly genetic.
We have all the same instincts as we ever did, many just never have need to use them in this day and age. The Fight or Flight reaction, the need to procreate, the instinct to protect others of your same "clan" or family are all things that still exist.
How to survive in the wild, however, is not an instinctual thing. It's a learned trait, learned from experience or taught by others. Which plants are edible, how to kill animals and prepare them to eat, how to find shelter, etc. are not instincts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is what happens when people can't separate the game from reality...
Sad really.
Int isn't IQ... It never was.
Int is an artificial game stat to determine how skilled your character is. Nothing more. The player is free to role play that anyway they want. Anything else is the GM overstepping their position and becoming just as guilty as the entitlement player who wants to run the game from the player's seat.
|
|
I stand by my original statement. We do not have the instincts we once did. Feel free to read up on the subject. It's been a particular interest of mine since I was a child...a...ummm...while back. :pYes it is.
Instincts, by definition, are not learned through experience. They are wholly genetic.
We have all the same instincts as we ever did, many just never have need to use them in this day and age. The Fight or Flight reaction, the need to procreate, the instinct to protect others of your same "clan" or family are all things that still exist.
How to survive in the wild, however, is not an instinctual thing. It's a learned trait, learned from experience or taught by others. Which plants are edible, how to kill animals and prepare them to eat, how to find shelter, etc. are not instincts.
Virtually everything you just mentioned is actually reasoned, and not instinctual. Survival in the wild used to be instinctual, as well, or we wouldn't be alive...and we've lost that.
This is a good example of an int 7. Ryan Lochte interview
|
|
This is a good example of an int 7. Ryan Lochte interview
Umm...wow. Yeah, about a 7. Just my feelings on it.
Virtually everything you just mentioned is actually reasoned, and not instinctual. Survival in the wild used to be instinctual, as well, or we wouldn't be alive...and we've lost that.
Oh?
That goes against the grain of pretty much everything I've read or learned on the subject.
Lots of people died before others figured out the best way to do things. Quick reflexes and a strong body will get you very far when trying to survive in the wild, but no amount of instinct will tell you things that require specific knowledge.
|
|
Virtually everything you just mentioned is actually reasoned, and not instinctual. Survival in the wild used to be instinctual, as well, or we wouldn't be alive...and we've lost that.Oh?
That goes against the grain of pretty much everything I've read or learned on the subject.
Lots of people died before others figured out the best way to do things. Quick reflexes and a strong body will get you very far when trying to survive in the wild, but no amount of instinct will tell you things that require specific knowledge.
There was a time when we could not reason abstractly. This is, admittedly, before we were fully homo sapiens...to get to that point, we needed the instincts...like other animals still possess...to survive.
Dogs no longer have the same instincts in many cases, either...in fact, it's true of all common domesticated animals. They have lost some degree of instinct, from depending on us for centuries. Most of them have little chance of survival in the wilds, anymore.
Incidentally, fight or flight is a reflex, not an instinct unto itself. Once danger is recognized (whether instinctively or by reasoning) the body starts pumping out adrenaline...it's the adrenaline surge that causes the reflex itself. This can be useful...or damn counterproductive, as it blurs the thinking processes, something that might help survival, in the modern world.
That's less because they don't have instincts and more because they've "unlearned" them.
If you take a domesticated animal and it survives in the wild long enough to have children, they'll revert to a feral state just like that, because they don't have the learned patterns of action truly domesticated animals do. You see it occasionally with wild cats and dogs that have been abandoned as puppies and such.
Humans are the same way. We're born with the same instincts we need to survive.
But we unlearn them over time because we no longer need them in today's society, and in some cases they even hold us back a bit.