|
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.
You're basically making my point, here. We have the rudiments for instinct, but have essentially 'unlearned' them. That's what I was saying in the first place. Sadly, our odds of 'relearning' them before ending up as wild animal fodder or dead from eating the wrong thing, or what have you, if thrown unarmed into the wilds is pretty poor. Those that do survive are typically well learned on living in the wilds, and don't need the instincts, because they have the knowledge.
Our points are superficially similar, but fundamentally different I believe.
Yours is that we have lost our instincts.
Mine is that we've merely buried them.
So you prescribe to the Lamarck theory of evolution, I see?
|
|
So you prescribe to the Lamarck theory of evolution, I see?
No, not actually. What I follow is more of the basic thought that instincts, like every other trait, is variable and mutable...and when those with less in the way of instinct survived, anyhow, because we were more and more capable of reasoning, that got passed on when they bred. It's very much like any other characteristic that has evolved.
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. :)
That's nice, but I happen to be a specialist on human behavior. It's my career, and if you notice, nobody else here agrees with you. I'd have a chat with a social psychologist at your local corporation or college if I were you. You are going to be shocked.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instinctive nature is still present, but most of it is repressed thanks to the logical cortex (neocortex).
Evolutionary theory suggests that those predecessors with a higher ability to tap into their logical cortex even in times of stress andd danger were better able to survive as tehy could think their way out of problems rather than instinctively fleeing or fighting. This is how the human brain developed through the passing on of physically larger neocortex brain genes.
The Amygdala is still present, and quite large in humans. It is the part responsible for instinctive behaviour. People who've studied brain patterns have learned that entire sections of our Amigdala don't function at any where near the capacity of other, more instinctive organism. While the structure is still there, the ability to tap its full potential has indeed been diluted through natural selection. The ability of the logical cortex to over ride the natural instinctive behaviours driven by the amygdala is essential to human survival. Its essential to the building of complex social groupings in fact, which is why many of the primates that have naturally occuring large social structures also have less well developed amigdalas and an increase in logical cortex (though not to the extent of humans of course)
Yes, humans have retained certain instinctive behaviours.However, we have lost the access to many other which may have once existed in our past.
As an interesting side note, when puberty kicks in, the Amigdala is so active that it often releases horomones and instinctive brain patterns that are so strong that the lgical cortex cannot override it. This is also true in extremely high stress situations. In effect, it uncouples the pathways to the neocortex which disallows the override swithc from being activated. It explains many of the behaviours of teenagers going through puberty, particularly the aggressive nature of men as they suffer testosterone spikes. Luckily, once puberty has run its course, the amygdila settles down again and the logical brain can again usurp control.
So, in essence, you're both right. We have instincts, just very few of them compared to most animals that have large amygdala to neocortex ratios. We also have a well developed logical brain that allows us to ignore many of our instincts.
Unfortunately, the logical brain often works so completely that humans have lost the ability to conciously recognise some of our instinctive responses. Pheromone recognition and subtle body language are often instinctive, but completely ignored by the logical cortex. Yet we still produce pheromones and we still have unconcious body language.
Interesting discussion btw, but i dont think it answers the original question of how dumb/smart int 7 scores are.
Cheers
Look at my first response to Piccolo. The potential is still there, certainly. You've heard 'use it or lose it'? Same difference.Our points are superficially similar, but fundamentally different I believe.
Yours is that we have lost our instincts.
Mine is that we've merely buried them.
Doesn't happen. You are essentially stating that we are defined by our experiences, and research on identical separated twins completely negates that concept. Best guess is simply that it's approximately half n half. Sorry, Nurture does not dominate.
|
|
Instinctive nature is still present, but most of it is repressed thanks to the logical cortex (neocortex).
Evolutionary theory suggests that those predecessors with a higher ability to tap into their logical cortex even in times of stress andd danger were better able to survive as tehy could think their way out of problems rather than instinctively fleeing or fighting. This is how the human brain developed through the passing on of physically larger neocortex brain genes.
The Amygdala is still present, and quite large in humans. It is the part responsible for instinctive behaviour. People who've studied brain patterns have learned that entire sections of our Amigdala don't function at any where near the capacity of other, more instinctive organism. While the structure is still there, the ability to tap its full potential has indeed been diluted through natural selection. The ability of the logical cortex to over ride the natural instinctive behaviours driven by the amygdala is essential to human survival. Its essential to the building of complex social groupings in fact, which is why many of the primates that have naturally occuring large social structures also have less well developed amigdalas and an increase in logical cortex (though not to the extent of humans of course)
Yes, humans have retained certain instinctive behaviours.However, we have lost the access to many other which may have once existed in our past.
As an interesting side note, when puberty kicks in, the Amigdala is so active that it often releases horomones and instinctive brain patterns that are so strong that the lgical cortex cannot override it. This is also true in extremely high stress situations. In effect, it uncouples the pathways to the neocortex which disallows the override swithc from being activated. It explains many of the behaviours of teenagers going through puberty, particularly the aggressive nature of men as they suffer testosterone spikes. Luckily, once puberty has run its course, the amygdila settles down...
This is actually very much in line with what I was saying, without going into a full breakdown. *shrug*
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.
Actually, no. Even animals "learn" survival skills. Mother monkeys teach their juveniles to eat berries and leaves. Mother cats teach their kittens to hunt and kill. To get back to true "instinct" for survival, you more or less have to go back to things like wasps. Even lizards are trainable (albeit not well).
Humans have learned most of their behavior since before there were actual humans, and since long before we had the capacity for anything like abstract reasoning. Unless you're talking about "losing" instincts over a period of literally millions of years, humans have all the instincts they ever had (as humans).
And that's precisely because instincts, by definition, ARE in the DNA because they're not learned.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I played the character in question again last night, in First Steps part II. At one point there was a diplomacy roll made and in the middle of the discussion I had my barbarian say, "Talking boring, you make me mad!" and then he raged and charged ... and let me tell you, at first level, raging, charging, and power attacking with a 20 starting strength can have some impressive results.
|
I played the character in question again last night, in First Steps part II. At one point there was a diplomacy roll made and in the middle of the discussion I had my barbarian say, "Talking boring, you make me mad!" and then he raged and charged ... and let me tell you, at first level, raging, charging, and power attacking with a 20 starting strength can have some impressive results.
So....was the diplomacy successful?
|
|
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.Actually, no. Even animals "learn" survival skills. Mother monkeys teach their juveniles to eat berries and leaves. Mother cats teach their kittens to hunt and kill. To get back to true "instinct" for survival, you more or less have to go back to things like wasps. Even lizards are trainable (albeit not well).
Humans have learned most of their behavior since before there were actual humans, and since long before we had the capacity for anything like abstract reasoning. Unless you're talking about "losing" instincts over a period of literally millions of years, humans have all the instincts they ever had (as humans).
And that's precisely because instincts, by definition, ARE in the DNA because they're not learned.
Yes. Millions of years. Back when the brain capability increased in a major way. Did you miss that part? Some animals don't have good parents like cats and monkeys do, so no, it's not all taught behavior.
Yes. Millions of years. Back when the brain capability increased in a major way. Did you miss that part?
No, I didn't miss it. I just didn't think that you were serious about comparing the instinctive behavior of fishes with primates. Especially when you mentioned "hundreds or thousands of generations" earlier. In evolutionary terms, "hundreds of generations" is breakfast time, "thousands of generations" might be "last Tuesday." A thousand generations (for humans) is about thirty thousand years, not thirty million or three hundred million.
When most anthropologists talk about "the brain capability increased in a major way," they're talking about things like the increase in brain size from Homo erectus to H. sapiens. Or even from Australopithecus afarensis to H. sapiens. Not from Eusthenopteron foordi or other Devonian-era creatures.
Most primate -- most mammal behavior is learned. Survival in the wild for our ancestral tree hasn't been instinctual since before there were nuts and berries to eat. The instincts that we do have -- fear of falling and of loud noises, for example, or the mammalian diving reflex or the rooting and suckling instincts -- are largely tied to the things that could kill infants before they had a chance to learn anything. Which nuts and berries to eat or how to kill a squirrel is something you can learn from your parents, and was taught since long before genus Homo arrived on the scene.
|
|
Yes. Millions of years. Back when the brain capability increased in a major way. Did you miss that part?No, I didn't miss it. I just didn't think that you were serious about comparing the instinctive behavior of fishes with primates.
When most anthropologists talk about "the brain capability increased in a major way," they're talking about things like the increase in brain size from Homo erectus to H. sapiens. Or even from Australopithecus afarensis to H. sapiens. Not from Eusthenopteron foordi or other Devonian-era creatures.
Most primate -- most mammal behavior is learned. Survival in the wild for our ancestral tree hasn't been instinctual since before there were nuts and berries to eat. The instincts that we do have -- fear of falling and of loud noises, for example, or the mammalian diving reflex or the rooting and suckling instincts -- are largely tied to the things that could kill infants before they had a chance to learn anything. Which nuts and berries to eat or how to kill a squirrel is something you can learn from your parents, and was taught since long before genus Homo arrived on the scene.
It has been a process. It started millions of years ago, and continues through to this very day. It's a part of our evolution.
This is not my random crazy idea. If you desperately need it, I can dig up scholarly papers that will go into loving detail, but I didn't expect it was that important.
You're basically making my point, here. We have the rudiments for instinct, but have essentially 'unlearned' them.
Actually, I think you're talking past each other. And I also think you're wrong.
Humans have basically all the instincts today that humans have ever had.
When we "unlearn" instincts, we're basically learning to suppress or not to respond to them. For example, humans have an instinctive fear of heights (it's well documented in human infants), but people can reason and train themselves out of that fear. If we couldn't unlearn that fear, we'd never have skyjumpers or rock climbers.
That doesn't mean the instinct has gone away; the baby of a skyjumper will still be afraid of heights. The skyjumper has simply learned "heights aren't really scary."
I played the character in question again last night, in First Steps part II. At one point there was a diplomacy roll made and in the middle of the discussion I had my barbarian say, "Talking boring, you make me mad!" and then he raged and charged ... and let me tell you, at first level, raging, charging, and power attacking with a 20 starting strength can have some impressive results.
Some say to seize the initiative, gain advantage and attack with unstoppable momentum is the mark of tactical genius. A good thing barbarians pull this off so easily.
Yes. Millions of years. Back when the brain capability increased in a major way. Did you miss that part?No, I didn't miss it. I just didn't think that you were serious about comparing the instinctive behavior of fishes with primates. Especially when you mentioned "hundreds or thousands of generations" earlier. In evolutionary terms, "hundreds of generations" is breakfast time, "thousands of generations" might be "last Tuesday." A thousand generations (for humans) is about thirty thousand years, not thirty million or three hundred million.
When most anthropologists talk about "the brain capability increased in a major way," they're talking about things like the increase in brain size from Homo erectus to H. sapiens. Or even from Australopithecus afarensis to H. sapiens. Not from Eusthenopteron foordi or other Devonian-era creatures.
Most primate -- most mammal behavior is learned. Survival in the wild for our ancestral tree hasn't been instinctual since before there were nuts and berries to eat. The instincts that we do have -- fear of falling and of loud noises, for example, or the mammalian diving reflex or the rooting and suckling instincts -- are largely tied to the things that could kill infants before they had a chance to learn anything. Which nuts and berries to eat or how to kill a squirrel is something you can learn from your parents, and was taught since long before genus Homo arrived on the scene.
I don't find brains and speculation on when they changed very interesting, but the Axial age? Now there was a truly significant turn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_Age
|
|
Just as a baseline, Darwin, from Origin of the Species:
"Natural instincts are lost under domestication: a remarkable instance of this is seen in those breeds of fowls which very rarely or never become 'broody,' that is, never wish to sit on their eggs. Familiarity alone prevents our seeing how universally and largely the minds of our domestic animals have been modified by domestication. It is scarcely possible to doubt that the love of man has become instinctive in the dog. All wolves, foxes, jackals, and species of the cat genus, when kept tame, are most eager to attack poultry, sheep, and pigs; and this tendency has been found incurable in dogs which have been brought home as puppies from countries, such as Tierra del Fuego and Australia, where the savages do not keep these domestic animals. How rarely, on the other hand, do our civilised dogs, even when quite young, require to be taught not to attack poultry, sheep, and pigs! No doubt they occasionally do make an attack, and are then beaten; and if not cured, they are destroyed; so that habit, with some degree of selection, has probably concurred in civilising by inheritance our dogs. On the other hand, young chickens have lost, wholly by habit, that fear of the dog and cat which no doubt was originally instinctive in them, in the same way as it is so plainly instinctive in young pheasants, though reared under a hen. It is not that chickens have lost all fear, but fear only of dogs and cats, for if the hen gives the danger-chuckle, they will run (more especially young turkeys) from under her, and conceal themselves in the surrounding grass or thickets; and this is evidently done for the instinctive purpose of allowing, as we see in wild ground-birds, their mother to fly away. But this instinct retained by our chickens has become useless under domestication, for the mother-hen has almost lost by disuse the power of flight."
Now, he's not the latest expert on the matter, but I'm pretty sure he's right, here...and there is still a line of reasoning that follows, that is still active today.
|
|
I played the character in question again last night, in First Steps part II. At one point there was a diplomacy roll made and in the middle of the discussion I had my barbarian say, "Talking boring, you make me mad!" and then he raged and charged ... and let me tell you, at first level, raging, charging, and power attacking with a 20 starting strength can have some impressive results.So....was the diplomacy successful?
After a short but vigorous discussion, my barbarian ended with the upper hand.
To be more precise, ended with the other party's head in his upper hand. I think he rolled a 15 on the die and did 22 points of damage. Not much stuff a 1st level toon will be facing that can take that.
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?
There is also no "make an int check to know the town healer is actually a cleric of Rovagug", that doesn't mean characters should act on player information.
Of course every fighter will know that flanking is useful regardless of how stupid they are - the point was that "there's no mechanical prohibition of it" is a bad argument since 1. there is a mechanic that can be used for this (knowledge checks) and 2. just because there isn't any RAW prohibiting a certain behaviour doesn't mean it's okay at the table.
For example, it's never stated in the rules that you may not use loaded dice or that players can't read the AP while they play to instantly identify who's good and who's bad etc.
Flanking is something every creature used to combat with an int 3+ should no doubt understand, and many creatures with lower int or that aren't used to combat. Whether a Gelatinous Cube or giant centipede would understand the benefits of flanking is another matter.
But if a player claims that their PC's behaviour apart from the strictly mechanical penalties shouldn't be affected at all by their intelligence, then they should have no problem with my spider swarms all targeting the wizard, the giant centipede aiming to break down the rotting support beams to cause a cavein, and the giant scorpions making ambushes with barrels of caltrops ready to be pushed down on the party.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?There is also no "make an int check to know the town healer is actually a cleric of Rovagug", that doesn't mean characters should act on player information.
Of course every fighter will know that flanking is useful regardless of how stupid they are - the point was that "there's no mechanical prohibition of it" is a bad argument since 1. there is a mechanic that can be used for this (knowledge checks) and 2. just because there isn't any RAW prohibiting a certain behaviour doesn't mean it's okay at the table.
For example, it's never stated in the rules that you may not use loaded dice or that players can't read the AP while they play to instantly identify who's good and who's bad etc.
Flanking is something every creature used to combat with an int 3+ should no doubt understand, and many creatures with lower int or that aren't used to combat. Whether a Gelatinous Cube or giant centipede would understand the benefits of flanking is another matter.
But if a player claims that their PC's behaviour apart from the strictly mechanical penalties shouldn't be affected at all by their intelligence, then they should have no problem with my spider swarms all targeting the wizard, the giant centipede aiming to break down the rotting support beams to cause a cavein, and the giant scorpions making ambushes with barrels of caltrops ready to be pushed down on the party.
Something that occasionally boggles my mind - players that don't seem to understand that flanking is useful. I've both played with a group that refused to make the attempt, and run games for people that would only use it if I hinted at it.
Scary. They weren't stupid people, either. I'll never quite get that.
I would probably not ever require a 'flanking is good' roll. But, I might require an int check to notice 'flanking is useless' or 'flanking is bad'.
You might ask, where is flanking useless? In the situation of someone with uncanny dodge, it's useless.
You might ask, where is it bad? A flowing monk is a bad person to flank, since you're actually boosting their AC for every additional flanking opponent around them. It's better to go one-on-one with the hardest hitter taking the lead and everyone else doing ranged attacks if they can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@3.5 Loyalist
A thought occurred to me while I was taking a shower. (If it helps, picture me naked and wet while I tell you this.)
I believe I may have found our disconnect. I feel intelligence is an inherent value. You have a certain level of intellingence and can choose to use that intelligence or choose not to, hence the Int score. Your position seems to be that outside observers determine your intelligence. "Is that guy smart?" "Well, he knew we had to use silver to kill that werewolf and how much that diamond was worth, so yeah." So Bards are inherently "smarter" than wizards and humans are just basically smarter than everybody every thing else being equal.
Is that a fair assessment?
Awwwwww yeah, so wet.
For intelligence, I am not interested in some numbered value of a game poorly tied to IQ being the end of the argument since 3 int can speak and write, and other mental facets come under other ability scores. Intelligence is demonstrated through the action--so I ask, what can they do, what can they know, what are their reasoning abilities like, how skilled can they become, how can they demonstrate their intelligence? Since an int 7 can do a lot with their feats and skill points, they only take a hit to their total number of skill points and have an increased risk to fail INT checks (although those can be notoriously easy to fail, e.g. DC 20). Despite this, they can engage in higher learning (they can still learn, they are not penalised in the sense that they can't take ranks or use feats), they can reason, answer questions, function, I feel and it is my stance that we should be open to the possibility that 7 int may actually occur in a rather smart character. Smartness and intelligence being demonstrated in what they can do, and that they are not slow to act or incapable of demonstrations of knowing, thinking and problem-solving.
Relevant:
http://9gag.com/gag/7103328
Regardless of intelligence, everyone should watch Adventure Time with Finn and Jake. G+* d+%n, that show is fantastic!
Awwwwww yeah, so wet.
For intelligence, I am not interested in some numbered value of a game poorly tied to IQ being the end of the argument since 3 int can speak and write, and other mental facets come under other ability scores. Intelligence is demonstrated through the action--so I ask, what can they do, what can they know, what are their reasoning abilities like, how skilled can they become, how can they demonstrate their intelligence? Since an int 7 can do a lot with their feats and skill points, they only take a hit to their total number of skill points and have an increased risk to fail INT checks (although those can be notoriously easy to fail, e.g. DC 20). Despite this, they can engage in higher learning (they can still learn, they are not penalised in the sense that they can't take ranks or use feats), they can reason, answer questions, function, I feel and it is my stance that we should be open to the possibility that 7 int may actually occur in a rather smart character. Smartness and intelligence being demonstrated in what they can do, and that they are not slow to act or incapable of demonstrations of knowing, thinking and problem-solving.
So I ask you then, is the reverse true? If your character Int score is above average but chooses a low skill class, isn't human, doesn't put the favorite class bonus into skill points, do you play them as dumb? Are all fighters dumb if they don't take skill focus? Are characters dumb if they take physical skills instead of knowledge or craft etc.? Are do you point to your Int score if someone calls that character dumb?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone with a 20 int (+5) will only pass a DC20 Int check 25% of the time..
so.. yeah. thats pretty easy to fail.
-S
Selgard understands.
To Durngrun:
"Are do you"
I know that feel bro, you really want to make the sentence say something and then it goes haywire.
As for high int, if you don't take many knowledge skills, I guess you don't know much (such intelligence! What splendid learning), despite what your ability score says.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except, again, intelligence is not a measure of how much you know, it's a measure of how much you have the CAPABILITY to know.
It is perfectly possible for someone with a genius level IQ to know absolutely nothing about anything because they were kept in a box all their life or something.
Ignorant =/= Unintelligent.
Knowledgeable =/= Intelligent.
You can assist, you can be assisted, ommmm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To Durngrun:
"Are do you"
Yeah, yeah. I don't like to type and my phone has a talk to text feature that's not perfect. If its easier to focus on that then on my questions that's fine.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was just looking at a lvl 7 Pathfinder scenario...considered to be one of the really good ones. DC 23-25 all over in it. People tend to specialize. If you don't have a couple of skills at +12-+15 by then, yeah...you fail.
Loyalist was talking about ability checks, not skill checks. Never seen a level 7 PC with a +12 ability modifier.
Despite this, they can engage in higher learning (they can still learn, they are not penalised in the sense that they can't take ranks or use feats), they can reason, answer questions, function, I feel and it is my stance that we should be open to the possibility that 7 int may actually occur in a rather smart character. Smartness and intelligence being demonstrated in what they can do, and that they are not slow to act or incapable of demonstrations of knowing, thinking and problem-solving.
I don't want to read too much into the lack of further explicit restrictions on low-Int characters. There are also game design issues at play. For example, it would be horribly unbalanced for high Int characters to gain XP faster - it would multiply the problems with high-level wizards. While some feats do have Int requirements (Combat Expertise for one) having too many of these might make the game overcomplicated or make things hard on classes that are already MAD - it would be frustrating to build a Monk or Cleric if half the combat feats in the game had Int requirements. There's a similar point to be made with the skill system - it's easy to adjust ranks per level, but gets complicated if you want to place stat requirements for skills or adjust your max ranks in specific skills based on stats.
Yeah human monks can dump int, ha ha, "empty mind".
|
|
Except, again, intelligence is not a measure of how much you know, it's a measure of how much you have the CAPABILITY to know.
It is perfectly possible for someone with a genius level IQ to know absolutely nothing about anything because they were kept in a box all their life or something.
Ignorant =/= Unintelligent.
Knowledgeable =/= Intelligent.
Absolutely.
|
|
I was just looking at a lvl 7 Pathfinder scenario...considered to be one of the really good ones. DC 23-25 all over in it. People tend to specialize. If you don't have a couple of skills at +12-+15 by then, yeah...you fail.Loyalist was talking about ability checks, not skill checks. Never seen a level 7 PC with a +12 ability modifier.
Despite this, they can engage in higher learning (they can still learn, they are not penalised in the sense that they can't take ranks or use feats), they can reason, answer questions, function, I feel and it is my stance that we should be open to the possibility that 7 int may actually occur in a rather smart character. Smartness and intelligence being demonstrated in what they can do, and that they are not slow to act or incapable of demonstrations of knowing, thinking and problem-solving.I don't want to read too much into the lack of further explicit restrictions on low-Int characters. There are also game design issues at play. For example, it would be horribly unbalanced for high Int characters to gain XP faster - it would multiply the problems with high-level wizards. While some feats do have Int requirements (Combat Expertise for one) having too many of these might make the game overcomplicated or make things hard on classes that are already MAD - it would be frustrating to build a Monk or Cleric if half the combat feats in the game had Int requirements. There's a similar point to be made with the skill system - it's easy to adjust ranks per level, but gets complicated if you want to place stat requirements for skills or adjust your max ranks in specific skills based on stats.
Agreed...my point was the advantage that an intelligent character has by not being stupid to start with is quite significant. If it's 4-5 points different to start with (an Int based skill) and you get 4-5 points more per level, the fact that the low Int character can specialize becomes pretty moot.
Except when through specialisation they demonstrate intelligence and that they aren't actually stupid.
Around and around we go again.
Except when through specialisation they demonstrate intelligence and that they aren't actually stupid.
... if you consider "Intelligence" to mean "skill" instead of "intelligence," yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He thinks adventure is like a box of chocholates, you never know what you're gonna get.
Mr. Gump, may have had a INT of 5 or 6, but WIS was probably up around 15 or 16.
Screw it, let's stat out Mr. Gump.
STR: 12 (Gump keeps himself in decent shape with regular exercise)
DEX: 16 (Gump is an expert at hand-eye coordination (ping-pong))
CON: 16 (Gump is healthy, and doesn't tire easily)
INT: 6 (Gump is far below average)
WIS: 15 (Gump always has a bit of advice that is just right)
CHA: 16 (Gump is extremely friendly and likable and inspires others)
Skills: Profession (sailor), Profession (shrimper)
Feats: Run (did you expect anything less)
:)
|
|
Except when through specialisation they demonstrate intelligence and that they aren't actually stupid.
Around and around we go again.
What you have demonstrated is that stupid characters can be skilled. Not as skilled as smart characters, but skilled, nonetheless...something nobody ever disagreed with in the first place.
Have a nice day.
... if you consider "Intelligence" to mean "skill" instead of "intelligence," yes.Define "intelligence."
M-W defines it as "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills," which seems a pretty good working definition to me.
The more intelligent you are, the more easily and successfully you can acquire skills (e.g., more skill points per level, assuming all else being equal) and the more successfully you can apply skills in a novel environment (higher circumstance bonuses, lower circumstance penalties, as I suggested earlier in the thread).
So, yes, someone with little intelligence has little ability to acquire skills, but little ability does not mean 'none.' In the case of our int 7 fighter, acquiring substantial skill at anything more or less prevents him from becoming skilled at anything else. If you want to argue that "an int 7 fighter has the ability to acquire skills," you're right, and no one is disputing that. So, for that matter, does an octopus. In that sense, anything with an int score above 0 has "intelligence." But both the octopus and the int 7 fighter are pretty dumb by the standards of average human intelligence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Knowing stuff has always been part of the D&D stat "Intelligence" in every incarnation. There is no real mechanic in the game for reasoning. No skill, no check. You know, or you don't. The closest thing I have seen is what they do in Shattered Star, where you do Linguistics for word puzzles, which becomes a flat int check if you do not have linguistics.
Knowing stuff is KINDA part of real life intelligence, if you think of intelligence as your reasoning/acquiring ability. The more you know, the more stuff your brain can compare stuff to, and build upon. But there is an inherent intelligence that is different in people, which I think is what people consider "Real" intelligence. The kind that makes you consider someone "gifted" rather than "educated".
That said, the interpretation of what the numbers mean in PF is up to the individual. Even if we all come to agree on the definition of the word, what does the number mean? Int 7 is the lowest possible stat for a character with a class that sets him above 90% of the world and makes him effectively a super hero past a certain level.
With that in mind, I am reluctant to consider Int 7 as barely functional.
|
|
Knowing stuff has always been part of the D&D stat "Intelligence" in every incarnation. There is no real mechanic in the game for reasoning. No skill, no check. You know, or you don't. The closest thing I have seen is what they do in Shattered Star, where you do Linguistics for word puzzles, which becomes a flat int check if you do not have linguistics.
Knowing stuff is KINDA part of real life intelligence, if you think of intelligence as your reasoning/acquiring ability. The more you know, the more stuff your brain can compare stuff to, and build upon. But there is an inherent intelligence that is different in people, which I think is what people consider "Real" intelligence. The kind that makes you consider someone "gifted" rather than "educated".
That said, the interpretation of what the numbers mean in PF is up to the individual. Even if we all come to agree on the definition of the word, what does the number mean? Int 7 is the lowest possible stat for a character with a class that sets him above 90% of the world and makes him effectively a super hero past a certain level.
With that in mind, I am reluctant to consider Int 7 as barely functional.
That's lovely.
The average commoner has a 10 Int, which means he understands easier than the 7 Int. The average ogre has a 6, mechanically the same as 7.
"Understands easier"?
Except at 7 int, you can still take skills and specialise in knowledge/reasoning/understanding type skills. A 7 int character can know vastly more than an average commoner with 10 int if you are a bard or rogue, or if you have spent your feats on more skills or improving what you have. Do both and you are way ahead, regardless of what the 10 int mechanically does on its own.
Levels then open your intelligence capacity--what you know, can reason about, questions you can answer and how much you can learn (total skill points).
Circles, circles everywhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Understands easier"?
Except at 7 int, you can still take skills and specialise in knowledge/reasoning/understanding type skills. A 7 int character can know vastly more than an average commoner with 10 int if you are a bard or rogue, or if you have spent your feats on more skills or improving what you have. Do both and you are way ahead, regardless of what the 10 int mechanically does on its own.
Levels then open your intelligence capacity--what you know, can reason about, questions you can answer and how much you can learn (total skill points).
Circles, circles everywhere.
Incorrect. Skill ranks indicate your KNOWLEDGE and SKILL at/of a task and levels indicate your EXPERIENCE (which you need to level up, if you recall).
But all things being equal, a character with higher Int will have an easier time GAINING knowledge or skill (more skill points) based on their class.
Fighters (in theory) need few skills, as their "skill" is all combat based, whereas Bards and Rogues are based around the concept of having a wide breadth of skill, but not necessarily intelligence. If they're low Int they're gonna have a harder time learning skills than their peers, though the nature of their class means they have a leg up on other classes due to their usual implied background.
Classes with lots of skill points spend a lot of time drumming lessons into your head.
Classes with only a few skill points spend more time drumming lessons into your body (muscle memory), or drumming lessons into your mystic muscles (spellcasting).
Someone who is highly intelligent will get more out of that training, regardless of type (lessons into head, into muscles, or into arcana) than someone who's an idiot will.
Doesn't mean that the idiot can't have it beaten into his head with a stick, but it does mean the teacher is going to have to beat it in with a stick. :)