|
| 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.
Simple solution...embrace logic. Quit going in circles.
Let's say your 7 Int bard takes an Int skill that's a non-class skill for both him and the commoner with 10 Int. 1st level. What's the bonus for the bard? The commoner?
Bards get all knowledge (int) skills as class skills.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard
Sucker!
You made a classic blunder.
They also get appraise and linguistics. Bwahahahaha!
Lets say you were playing a class that doesn't have a particular Int based class skill. There are ways around this. Burn a trait to make it a class skill. Multiclass to synergize your character and to get this skill as a class skill. Or, if the dm allows it, swap out certain class skills to make the int based skill, a class skill for your character. Depends on whether you are willing to explore additional options. Unless you are playing with a dm who completely doesn't allow flexibility of any kind by outright banning traits and all possible options', you can generally still achieve your character concept, regardless of whether your character is sitting on a 7 or 17 Int. Yet to see a dm who ran their games in this manner. A negative modifier doesn't necessarily mean such a pc or npc is doomed to be mediocre at everything related to that particular ability score.
Yep, fighter does that and over a number of levels with two feats and two traits invested, becomes a master of dungeoneering and history. Blends them into dungeonstory.
|
|
Bards get all knowledge (int) skills as class skills.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard
Sucker!
You made a classic blunder.They also get appraise and linguistics. Bwahahahaha!
Make it a class skill that both get...sucker. For that matter, if he has a 12 in Int, he matches your class skills with non-class skills.
|
|
Lets say you were playing a class that doesn't have a particular Int based class skill. There are ways around this. Burn a trait to make it a class skill. Multiclass to synergize your character and to get this skill as a class skill. Or, if the dm allows it, swap out certain class skills to make the int based skill, a class skill for your character. Depends on whether you are willing to explore additional options. Unless you are playing with a dm who completely doesn't allow flexibility of any kind by outright banning traits and all possible options', you can generally still achieve your character concept, regardless of whether your character is sitting on a 7 or 17 Int. Yet to see a dm who ran their games in this manner. A negative modifier doesn't necessarily mean such a pc or npc is doomed to be mediocre at everything related to that particular ability score.
And the guy with more Int is better. *shrug*
|
|
I'm not against dump stats but I want them to be roleplayed, likewise players can of course roleplay their high stats too.
That right there is the crux of the matter for me.
I do not care for forcing people to roleplay in this or that way.
But if you do, then it should apply equally to all.
Either the players CAN roleplay their stats (whether high or low), which means it is the player's choice. Or the GM want the stats to be roleplayed and then it should apply to all stats too whether high or low.
|
Playing up is harder than playing down. You can try to RP a genius, but it's going to be harder than it is to RP an idiot.
Make it a class skill that both get...sucker. For that matter, if he has a 12 in Int, he matches your class skills with non-class skills.
Craft works. Without spending feats or traits, and with 1 rank in Craft, the Int 7 bard gets a +2 bonus and the Int 10 commoner gets a +4 bonus.
The bard still gets more skill points and still has better Knowledge skills because he's better educated than the commoner. But the lack of intelligence will show.
Yep, fighter does that and over a number of levels with two feats and two traits invested, becomes a master of dungeoneering and history. Blends them into dungeonstory.
That really only needs one feat and one trait - one trait to make Knowledge (History) a class skill, and Scholar to give you +2 to both checks, +4 on getting 10 ranks. It's a better deal than two Skill Focuses, the extra +1/+2 to each skill is probably not worth the extra feat.
If you really want to take two feats (and if you qualify) Breadth of Experience is better thank Skill Focus on two Knowledges since it gives that +2 to all Knowledge checks without a rank prerequisite and lets you make any Knowledge check untrained (and same to Profession).
This character will be very skilled. However, he is still not intelligent and I wouldn't play him as intelligent.
For example, I might emphasize his ability to explain complex ideas in simple ways that are easy to understand or remember, because he knows what examples and analogies helped him to understand the concepts - a more intelligent character is more likely to go over their listener's head unless they're also trained in communication (Diplomacy).
Either the players CAN roleplay their stats (whether high or low), which means it is the player's choice. Or the GM want the stats to be roleplayed and then it should apply to all stats too whether high or low.
The thing is, a charismatic, wise genius could still choose to act down as if they weren't these things as much, but a dumb, uncharismatic fool cannot reliably pretend to be a charismatic, wise genius.
Kinda like how wonder woman could still complain about the weight of her beer mug if she wanted, but a really weak person can't lift a car from the ground.
|
|
Playing up is harder than playing down. You can try to RP a genius, but it's going to be harder than it is to RP an idiot.
Make it a class skill that both get...sucker. For that matter, if he has a 12 in Int, he matches your class skills with non-class skills.Craft works. Without spending feats or traits, and with 1 rank in Craft, the Int 7 bard gets a +2 bonus and the Int 10 commoner gets a +4 bonus.
The bard still gets more skill points and still has better Knowledge skills because he's better educated than the commoner. But the lack of intelligence will show.
Yep, fighter does that and over a number of levels with two feats and two traits invested, becomes a master of dungeoneering and history. Blends them into dungeonstory.That really only needs one feat and one trait - one trait to make Knowledge (History) a class skill, and Scholar to give you +2 to both checks, +4 on getting 10 ranks. It's a better deal than two Skill Focuses, the extra +1/+2 to each skill is probably not worth the extra feat.
If you really want to take two feats (and if you qualify) Breadth of Experience is better thank Skill Focus on two Knowledges since it gives that +2 to all Knowledge checks without a rank prerequisite and lets you make any Knowledge check untrained (and same to Profession).
This character will be very skilled. However, he is still not intelligent and I wouldn't play him as intelligent.
For example, I might emphasize his ability to explain complex ideas in simple ways that are easy to understand or remember, because he knows what examples and analogies helped him to understand the concepts - a more intelligent character is more likely to go over their listener's head unless they're also trained in communication (Diplomacy).
Breadth of Experience rocks. I built an NPC theologian...a dwarf...he's got knowledge as his specialty domain and Breadth of Experience...with a 16 Int. It's crazy how knowledgeable he is...at 3rd level.
MONDAIN THE SAGE
CR 2
Male Dwarf cleric 3
LG medium humanoid (dwarf)
Init -1; Senses Darkvision (60 ft.), Perception +6,
Languages Celestial, Common, Dwarven, Giant, Gnome
AC 17, touch 9, flat-footed 17
hp 21 (3HD)
Fort +4, Ref +0, Will +6, +2 vs. poison, spells, and spell-like abilities
Speed 20 ft. (4 squares)
Melee masterwork morningstar +4 (1d8+1)
Melee dagger +3 (1d4+1/19-20)
Ranged dagger (thrown) +1 (1d4+1/19-20)
Ranged masterwork crossbow (heavy) +2 (1d10/19-20)
Face 5 ft. Reach 5 ft.
Base Atk +2; CMB +3; CMD 12 (16 vs bullrush) (16 vs trip)
Special Actions Channel Positive Energy (2d6, DC 13, 5/day), Lore Keeper,
Prepared Spells Prepared Spell List
Cleric (CL 3rd):
2nd - bull's strength (DC 15) , owl's wisdom (DC 15)
1st - air bubble (DC 14) , doom (DC 14) , protection from evil (DC 14)
0th - purify food and drink (DC 13) , read magic (DC ) , resistance (DC 13) , stabilize (DC 13)
*: Domain spell.
Deity None; Domains Knowledge, Abilities Str 13, Dex 8, Con 13, Int 16, Wis 16, Cha 14
Special Qualities Darkvision, Defensive Training, Focused Domain, Greed, Hardy, Hatred, Orisons, Spontaneous Casting, Stability, Steady, Stonecunning, Variant Channeling - Knowledge, Weapon Familiarity,
Feats Armor Proficiency, Light, Armor Proficiency, Medium, Breadth of Experience, Selective Channeling, Shield Proficiency, Simple Weapon Proficiency
Skills Acrobatics -6, Acrobatics (Jump) -10, Appraise +3, Appraise (Precious metals and gemstones) +5, Bluff +2, Climb -4, Craft (Untrained) +3, Diplomacy +8, Disguise +2, Escape Artist -6, Fly -6, Heal +9, Intimidate +2, Knowledge (Arcana) +9, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +9, Knowledge (Engineering) +9, Knowledge (Geography) +9, Knowledge (History) +9, Knowledge (Local) +9, Knowledge (Religion) +11, Perception +6, Perception (Notice unusual stonework) +8, Perform (Untrained) +2, Ride -6, Sense Motive +3, Stealth -6, Survival +3, Swim -4,
Possessions masterwork morningstar; masterwork chainmail; scholar's outfit; masterwork shield (heavy/steel); bolt, crossbow (x20); dagger; Backpack [ Case (Map or Scroll) (x3); ]; Case (Map or Scroll) ; Masterwork Crossbow (Heavy) ; Waterskin ;
His stats are rolled.
| 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.
In every case how well you learn something in real life is NOT based on a stat, it is based on how much you want to learn it and how relatable the knowledge is to your experiences. It's why otherwise brilliant people do poorly in a particular class or two. If someone were stat driven then all their classes would end in the same grade. With the exception of mentally handicapped people EVERYONE is fully capable of being very smart. Remember the huge controversy over IQ tests unfairly being biased against black people? This is a perfect example of making material relatable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have said it before in a completely different thread "Stats DON'T exist in real life". EVEN Strength fluctuates wildly in the same person from day to day based on any number of factors.
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.In every case how well you learn something in real life is NOT based on a stat, it is based on how much you want to learn it and how relatable the knowledge is to your experiences. It's why otherwise brilliant people do poorly in a particular class or two. If someone were stat driven then all their classes would end in the same grade. With the exception of mentally handicapped people EVERYONE is fully capable of being very smart. Remember the huge controversy over IQ tests unfairly being biased against black people? This is a perfect example of making material relatable.
thats true to a part, but thas kind of what skill ranks are for.
And i dont see how it relates to iq tests at all. The issue with those iq tests are that a lot of what they measure are learned skills and knowledge, but that IQ is often interpreted by nonspecialists to give a result based mostly in some inner ability to think rather than giving results based on skills. That for example PoCs gwt worse results are evidence of a lacking educational system that discriminates PoCs, not (obviously) that PoC are dumber.
(of course this spreads wider than just the educational system anf intersections a lot with class but you get my point)
|
| 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.In every case how well you learn something in real life is NOT based on a stat, it is based on how much you want to learn it and how relatable the knowledge is to your experiences. It's why otherwise brilliant people do poorly in a particular class or two. If someone were stat driven then all their classes would end in the same grade. With the exception of mentally handicapped people EVERYONE is fully capable of being very smart. Remember the huge controversy over IQ tests unfairly being biased against black people? This is a perfect example of making material relatable.
As a teacher of 15 years experience, I'm telling you this is wrong. I've lost count of the number of people who've desperately wanted to learn physics and high level theoretical maths. No matter how hard they worked, they couldn't get more than a pass, and in some cases even that was beyond them. Part of teaching is to provide the experience by the way. This allows everyone to relate on a certain level.
There actually is a links to how the brain is physically built to how well it performs certain tasks. Intelligence is far more than just hard work. Otherwise there'd be far more rocket scientists and astir noughts out there.
As for knowledge skills, that's not a good measure of intelligence at all. It's a measure of experience. I regularly teach kids who are far more intelligent than I'll ever be. However, I have far more knowledge than they do, and a really good ability to impart that knowledge . It makes me a great teacher, but I'm extremely happy to say that a number of my students go on to far greater levels of success than I could hope for because they are clearly more intelligent than I am.
I reckon a guy with int 7 may well have great knowledge in certain topics, but that's about it. In fact, its probably all he can talk about with any real confidence. Think Bubba from Forest Gump. Nice guy, but all he knew was shrimping. He was an expert in shrimping, but no one confused him for a smart man.
Cheers
Edit - its ironic how the auto correct function on my iPad puts in all sorts of spelling and word breaks. In a conversation about intelligence, my smart pad makes me look dumber.
It should be noted that how the brain is built is also partly due to experiences/environment, consifering platicity.
I get it, but the whole enterprise is fundamentally flawed. It assumes that a score of 18 was supposed to represent a fair swath of the real world population, or part of the average. It doesn't. It's supposed to be something beyond exceptional, something superheroic, representing a percentage of a fantasy world population. The math is simply wrong because the basic premise of what the numbers...
Actually, 18s are supposed to be fairly common--relatively speaking. The 'typical' genius. "Superheroic" intelligence is generally 20+.
EDIT: Wow, I thought there were two pages, not fourteen. This is what happens when y'don't pay attention. XD
I did a what type of character are you test. I am a human Level 5 Druid
Str-10
Dex- 10
Con-11
Int-8
Wis-13
Cha-13
I guess, I know just how dumb a 7 int character is :0 Dumberer then me :Þ
I recently rolled up a barbarian for a friends campaign. He had us use the dice pool method for generating stats and I ended up with a whopping 4 Int. (oddly enough I also somehow managed to roll an 18 for Cha...) I really didn't feel like playing the character as the typical grunting, muttering, 'one-word per sentence' type of dumb guy, so I'm trying to roleplay him like Groo. Often confused, tends to misunderstand others, gets lost easy. So far it's been pretty amusing.
4 int is pretty damn low, that I will agree on. lol
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's do this in character.
|
|
|
|
|
The halfling doffs his green stovepipe hat, showing his reddish hair, and bows politely to the crowd.
"Ladies and gentlemen, I give you 'The Village Idiot'."
"Beneath the spreading chestnut tree the village idiot sat."
"Amusing himself by abusing himself and catching it in his hat."
He deftly tosses his hat back atop his head, turns a quick somersault and saunters on down the street, twirling his staff and whistling brightly.
Yep, but the village idiot, with a lot of levels, can move beyond being an idiot. This is a part of the game design.
I've got a few late-bloomer characters lined up. Middle aged adventurers can be a fun opportunity.
"I used to be a guardsman, then things went bad, I made mistakes and then had to take to the road. Sometimes you have to hunt monsters and bandits just to survive. Now I kill dragons, umber hulks, and if I have to clear out one more damn vampire nest I've going to start funneling clerics into every backward in-bred village, whether they like it or not.
I've been in enough dungeons to pick up a few things, and I've learned the local legends off the many low-born folk I've talked to. Man, they are chatty. My take is if you listen, and get out there, you really grow you know?"
Low int character with experience, who is no longer "dumb".
He's still dumb.
He's just experienced now.
Apparently, dumb is having lost your naïveté in a number of areas.
Apparently, dumb is having lost your naïveté in a number of areas.
He might be wordly wise, but he's still dumb as a sack of hammers. He's just better at covering it up.
The classic example, of course, being Forrest Gump. He's got a good Wis and great physical stats, and is pretty good at what he does and knows a lot about whatever he happens to be doing at the time, but he's still dumb.
Yeah, the dumb fighter (or whatever character) may have a high wis, and not be at all dumb when it comes to what wisdom covers, reading people, understanding them and their drives, general mental alertness to numerous cues.
What I was referring to though, in my last two posts, is a low int character that over the years and levels actually learns things, gains a base of knowledge, isn't misinformed or lacking in intelligence/knowledge or reasoning. Want to ask them about dungeons? Yeah they know a fair bit, want to ask them about local knowledge or history? Yep. It can easily be covered.
Intelligence in our world is not the same as the intelligence stat in D&D. This is the problem of dealing with abstractions that claim "intelligence" under a single score. If a character is no longer functioning or mechanically like a beginner character with a low int, they are no longer dumb. They have escaped.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you're getting what I'm driving at here.
Intelligence is purely a measure of your mental processing power. How much memory storage you have and how quickly you can add things to it and learn new concepts.
People with low intelligence learn things more slowly, but they STILL LEARN THINGS.
The character you are proposing is simply a low Int character that has learned over the years. He's still dumb, he's still got low Int, and any new concepts introduced to him are going to take longer to be driven home than a high Int character (represented in-game by more skill points since less time taken learning one thing means more time can be taken to learn other things), but once he's got stuff on lock (allocated his skill points) he's GOT IT.
So yeah, he can answer questions about stuff he already knows. But learning something NEW will take more time.
Ya feel me?
"Yeah, so dumb I planned the taking of the dungeons of Graz'zt, the seizure of more than a few evil wizard towers and the storming of the castle of badendforyo'ou. I've seen all manner of formations and stratagems and I know what works, and what only works on paper. Most beasties you can encounter down here, yeah, I've fought them, even read a book or two, although I question how much they really know without first-hand experience. Those that have never cracked the carapace, as we used to say in the barracks.
By Iomedae I hate ankhegs, let me tell you about the ankheg raids of the summer of..."
Doesn't sound dumb to me at all (but a tad defensive).
For our types of games, you should know xp is king.
I don't think you're getting what I'm driving at here.
Intelligence is purely a measure of your mental processing power. How much memory storage you have and how quickly you can add things to it and learn new concepts.
People with low intelligence learn things more slowly, but they STILL LEARN THINGS.
The character you are proposing is simply a low Int character that has learned over the years. He's still dumb, he's still got low Int, and any new concepts introduced to him are going to take longer to be driven home than a high Int character (represented in-game by more skill points since less time taken learning one thing means more time can be taken to learn other things), but once he's got stuff on lock (allocated his skill points) he's GOT IT.
So yeah, he can answer questions about stuff he already knows. But learning something NEW will take more time.
Ya feel me?
Your levels, and the skill points you get over the levels covers your storage buddy.
I don't think you're getting what I'm driving at here.
Intelligence is purely a measure of your mental processing power. How much memory storage you have and how quickly you can add things to it and learn new concepts.
People with low intelligence learn things more slowly, but they STILL LEARN THINGS.
The character you are proposing is simply a low Int character that has learned over the years. He's still dumb, he's still got low Int, and any new concepts introduced to him are going to take longer to be driven home than a high Int character (represented in-game by more skill points since less time taken learning one thing means more time can be taken to learn other things), but once he's got stuff on lock (allocated his skill points) he's GOT IT.
So yeah, he can answer questions about stuff he already knows. But learning something NEW will take more time.
Ya feel me?
The mechanics do not cover slow learning because you have a low int. A low int hits your rolls a bit, but only a bit. When you level you assign your skills just like everyone else. It is known.
Your levels, and the skill points you get over the levels covers your storage buddy.
I covered that in my post, if you'll recall.
As you level, you gain skill points.
The guy with 2 skill points per level is learning things more slowly than the guy with 4 skill points per level.
The guy with 2 spends a week (we'll assume that's how long it took him to level) learning 2 skills. We'll say Kn. Dungeoneering and Perception.
The guy with 4 spends a week learning 4 skills. Kn. Dungeoneering, Perception, Diplomacy, and Climb. He had the same amount of time, but he learns more things more quickly because he is more intelligent (given that they are the same class).
Now, classes with different skills per level are trickier to cover. I just chalk it up to how much of a knowledge base each class has in its backstory. Rangers are trained in the basics of a lot of things and thus advance quickly in all of those things. Fighters are trained to rip and tear, and thus have a smaller base to work from.
Given the same Int, the Ranger still learns things faster because he's "reviewing" or improving on already decent skills, whereas the Fighter is learning all his s+%* from scratch.
|
|
The mechanics do not cover slow learning because you have a low int. A low int hits your rolls a bit, but only a bit. When you level you assign your skills just like everyone else. It is known.I don't think you're getting what I'm driving at here.
Intelligence is purely a measure of your mental processing power. How much memory storage you have and how quickly you can add things to it and learn new concepts.
People with low intelligence learn things more slowly, but they STILL LEARN THINGS.
The character you are proposing is simply a low Int character that has learned over the years. He's still dumb, he's still got low Int, and any new concepts introduced to him are going to take longer to be driven home than a high Int character (represented in-game by more skill points since less time taken learning one thing means more time can be taken to learn other things), but once he's got stuff on lock (allocated his skill points) he's GOT IT.
So yeah, he can answer questions about stuff he already knows. But learning something NEW will take more time.
Ya feel me?
2 bards, 1 with a 7 Int, 1 with a 14, learn things. Let's take a look at what they learn. The 7 Int gets 4 points a level...the 14, 8. Gee, the 14 Int is learning...twice as fast. What's more, in an Int based skill, he starts out 4 higher.
No, not fast, more, he can learn more. Speed does not come into it, you learn your allotment of skills at the same speed, when you level.
Levels will impact greatly upon this. The build/class you are going for can emphasise or really cut out the amount of skill points you have to play with, and that is why storage is more covered by the total number of skills you have. This is greatly impacted by levels and the points you have unlocked.
That 7 int bard has the same amount of skill points per level as a wizard with 14 int. What a stupid bard eh? Class matters.
On the bard example, 4 higher on a d20 roll doesn't always mean the one with the higher mod comes out on top. The lower int char can match that with a skill focus. Bam! He now rolls that int skill as if he has 14 int. Is he intelligent yet? Well in that area, I definitely think so.
Lowish int with a few ranks, beating a high int char with a lot of ranks. I've seen it, even done it a few times. It is most satisfying to beat those arrogant wizards at their own game ("I have all the knowledges" they say).
Low int does not mean your character is and will always be dumb.
|
|
No, not fast, more, he can learn more. Speed does not come into it, you learn your allotment of skills at the same speed, when you level.
Levels will impact greatly upon this. The build/class you are going for can emphasise or really cut out the amount of skill points you have to play with, and that is why storage is more covered by the total number of skills you have. This is greatly impacted by levels and the points you have unlocked.
That 7 int bard has the same amount of skill points per level as a wizard with 14 int. What a stupid bard eh? Class matters.
On the bard example, 4 higher on a d20 roll doesn't always mean the one with the higher mod comes out on top. The lower int char can match that with a skill focus. Bam! He now rolls that int skill as if he has 14 int. Is he intelligent yet? Well in that area, I definitely think so.
Lowish int with a few ranks, beating a high int char with a lot of ranks. I've seen it, even done it a few times. It is most satisfying to beat those arrogant wizards at their own game ("I have all the knowledges" they say).
Low int does not mean your character is and will always be dumb.
It absolutely does come into it. If we're both learning the same 8 skills, my 14 Int learns every one of them per level. It takes you 2 levels.
Oh, yeah...and I can focus, too. Bam. You're still an idiot.
That wizard merely shakes his head...you're too stupid to learn even the basics of casting spells like he does.
He could actually teach that 12 Int fighter, should he choose to learn...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is he intelligent yet?
Nope. He's educated.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A 1st level PC with 7 Int could actually increase that score to 8 at 4th level, 9 at 8th, etc. In this game system you definately can get more intelligent with more levels, and we don't need to discuss what skill points mean.
Can real people increase their intelligence (read: processing power)? Doesn't matter; they can in the game, and that's the game reality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, yeah. As we've already determined, intelligence is largely a function of how efficient your memory is. That CAN be trained, though like anything else some people have a natural aptitude for it and others don't.
If intelligence can be improved with training, then after training someone who has improved considerably is no longer dumb.
So we are in agreement Rynjin.
If intelligence can be improved with training, then after training someone who has improved considerably is no longer dumb.
So we are in agreement Rynjin.
A character who raises their Intelligence Ability Score is no longer as dumb as they used to be.
(Didn't you used to be a frog?)
If intelligence can be improved with training, then after training someone who has improved considerably is no longer dumb.
So we are in agreement Rynjin.
No, we're not.
You're saying the "training" is learning new skills. Knowing things does not make you smart. It just means you know things. There's a very fine distinction there.
Now your 7 Int character can add each of his 4/8/12/16/20th level attribute scores into Int, yes, and in that way he is raising his intelligence through training. At the expense of his other attributes since it's damn hard work.
If intelligence can be improved with training, then after training someone who has improved considerably is no longer dumb.
Not at all. Intelligence can be improved through training (to be intelligent). Training (to lift weights) will not do much if anything to make you smarter, ditto training (to run a marathon), training (to be a professional juggler), training (to conjugate irregular French verbs), training (to sing opera) and so forth.
Learning the Perform(opera) skill is the equivalent of training to sing opera, and it won't do a thing for your intelligence, in game or in the real world.
Putting points into Intelligence is the equivalent of specialized memory training and its equivalents, and it will improve your intelligence both in game and in the real world. Oddly enough, though, it won't do a thing for your singing voice (although it might help you recall the words).
In PF the average person has a stat array going from 8 to 13.
Once you add in racial modifiers that 8 can become a 6, so I would say they are functional to the point where they can live on their own, and they can handle simple task, but complicated task may take them longer to learn or you may have to take more time to explain things to them.
Heresy Time!
As smart as you want. There's no rules for roleplay, regardless of one's stats. Since all of the stats, save perhaps strength, are aggregate scores comprised of multiple, disparate, abstract and frequently undefinable qualities, you can RP however you like. The actual effects of the stat will show up on your die rolls.
You could be absolutely brilliant, but have memory issues, which is why you tend to fail Knowledge checks. Or perhaps you never got much education. Lots of ways to dress it up.
Ultimately, you are only 10% less likely to succeed at a task as someone with a 10 INT, all other things being equal. That's not a huge margin.
Heresy Time!
As smart as you want. There's no rules for roleplay, regardless of one's stats. Since all of the stats, save perhaps strength, are aggregate scores comprised of multiple, disparate, abstract and frequently undefinable qualities, you can RP however you like. The actual effects of the stat will show up on your die rolls.
You could be absolutely brilliant, but have memory issues, which is why you tend to fail Knowledge checks. Or perhaps you never got much education. Lots of ways to dress it up.
Ultimately, you are only 10% less likely to succeed at a task as someone with a 10 INT, all other things being equal. That's not a huge margin.
Okay, I make a gnome fighter with a Str of 6. I "role play" him as really strong but really lazy. He has weapon finesse so his attack is fine. Is he strong? Or is he weaker than average?
|
|
Okay, I make a gnome fighter with a Str of 6. I "role play" him as really strong but really lazy. He has weapon finesse so his attack is fine. Is he strong? Or is he weaker than average?Heresy Time!
As smart as you want. There's no rules for roleplay, regardless of one's stats. Since all of the stats, save perhaps strength, are aggregate scores comprised of multiple, disparate, abstract and frequently undefinable qualities, you can RP however you like. The actual effects of the stat will show up on your die rolls.
You could be absolutely brilliant, but have memory issues, which is why you tend to fail Knowledge checks. Or perhaps you never got much education. Lots of ways to dress it up.
Ultimately, you are only 10% less likely to succeed at a task as someone with a 10 INT, all other things being equal. That's not a huge margin.
We learn the truth when the 18 Str Bbn hands him the chest of gold to carry, and he collapses under it. ;)
We learn the truth when the 18 Str Bbn hands him the chest of gold to carry, and he collapses under it. ;)Okay, I make a gnome fighter with a Str of 6. I "role play" him as really strong but really lazy. He has weapon finesse so his attack is fine. Is he strong? Or is he weaker than average?Heresy Time!
As smart as you want. There's no rules for roleplay, regardless of one's stats. Since all of the stats, save perhaps strength, are aggregate scores comprised of multiple, disparate, abstract and frequently undefinable qualities, you can RP however you like. The actual effects of the stat will show up on your die rolls.
You could be absolutely brilliant, but have memory issues, which is why you tend to fail Knowledge checks. Or perhaps you never got much education. Lots of ways to dress it up.
Ultimately, you are only 10% less likely to succeed at a task as someone with a 10 INT, all other things being equal. That's not a huge margin.
"No, no. I don't wanna carry that. I'm tired. I mean I totally could, I just don't want to."