| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
7 int is just stew ped. :) It's a role playing game not a roll playing game. The difference is if you chose to dump a stat. You should role play that score. I'm not saying you ( the player ) can't help out other players come up with ideas but in game your 7 int fighter is not going to come up with a multi layered escape plan. If you don't role play your scores then the number on the character's sheet are just numbers and if that's the case why bother writing them down?
He already sucks at everything that has anything to do with intelligence mechanically. He is a fighter, so he will not have skill points. His int modifier is -2, so he is never gonna make even average knowledge checks. This means he will not be able to justify player knowledge, so he will be whacking enemies with his go-to Big Stick, and when it does not work too well, he will try to hit harder until someone points out that his silver sword is gonna work better.
Forcing someone to undertake additional penalty is over the top in my book. Kinda like forcing the Cha 5 dwarf player to pick his nose and be disgusting at the table, or the Str 7 wizard to whine that his component pouch is too heavy.
True, so it's such a shame that the DM forced the player at gunpoint to have a dump stat.
He dumped 3 points of int to get a +1 to str. His fault entirely.
On a side note I do give my characters minuses when I feel they are called for. ie my character gets drunk as a skunk I'll just give him a minus 2 on all rolls that being drunk might affect. Like a balance check or concentrate check If he is a wizard trying to cast a spell but I wouldn't take off any points from damage. I just find it more fun to play that way. But, you if you don't that is ok too.
I prefer a heavily role playing game over a PFS style game. I don't think I'm any better then others because of this. There is nothing wrong with PFS games they are fun too. Everyone is different which is a good thing.
7 int is just stew ped. :) It's a role playing game not a roll playing game. The difference is if you chose to dump a stat. You should role play that score. I'm not saying you ( the player ) can't help out other players come up with ideas but in game your 7 int fighter is not going to come up with a multi layered escape plan. If you don't role play your scores then the number on the character's sheet are just numbers and if that's the case why bother writing them down?
He already sucks at everything that has anything to do with intelligence mechanically. He is a fighter, so he will not have skill points. His int modifier is -2, so he is never gonna make even average knowledge checks. This means he will not be able to justify player knowledge, so he will be whacking enemies with his go-to Big Stick, and when it does not work too well, he will try to hit harder until someone points out that his silver sword is gonna work better.
Forcing someone to undertake additional penalty is over the top in my book. Kinda like forcing the Cha 5 dwarf player to pick his nose and be disgusting at the table, or the Str 7 wizard to whine that his component pouch is too heavy.
But when the 5 cha Dwarf stands up and gives a moving and eloquent speech to the troops and the group OOC claps their hands the DM rolls the dice and says "take the booger off your finger first next time, they didn't hear a word you said.. they were just watching you wave it around".
Unfortunately when it comes to planning things the DM shouldn't tell a PLAYER to shut up. But he should REMIND the player that he's playing someone who SHOULDN'T be the one coming up with plans. he should be the one looking for an extra bit of the rations while everyone else is trying to think up what to do.We are in a ROLE playing game. When you dump your stats you are accepting that ROLE to play. If you don't want that role then don't choose those stats. Its that simple. Why do folks dump stats like this?
Because DM's don't make them ROLE play the stats they chose.
If you have an int of 18 and your character has an int of 7, then you have some serious work to make that character believeable. Its not going to be easy but it can definately be fun. If you take that 7 though and *don't* ROLE play it out then all you are really doing is playing half the game. Don't role play yourself. Role play your character. If he's weak he's weak, if he's dumb he's dumb. You don't get to play strongman with a 7 Str. You don't get to play genius with a 7 int.
-S
I have a question for those that advocate a player play down to a low INT character. Do you as the GM or other players help a player play up to a high INT character?
As GM I never curtail a player's ideas due to low stats. You cannot peg something like creativity to someone's intelligence, there are plenty of dumb people that come up with great ideas all the time. At best you could say that a characters Intelligence may influence how that idea is expressed, but to try to pigeonhole a player due to a low INT stat on their character is bad form in my opinion. A low stat already has a place in the game, as it affects appropriate dice rolls. Seems silly to limit the player due to a stat unless it is something that the player finds enjoyable to play out.
BiggDawg-
I am very much for Players to help out other Players. I have no issues with a really smart Player helping out a Player who's not. For instance instead of saying do this or do that, maybe say something like try making a knowledge check. If that doesn't work. Than yes just tell him answer. But please give the player a chance to learn on his own. If it's not going to end up with dire consequences then let him make a mistake and then after very nicely point out where the mistake was or let him know that doing X would have worked out better.
|
I understand what they were trying to do with this in correlating the 1-20 to % on the distribution curve, but I don't think this really works out. For one the 1-20 system is "flat" and not distributed.
INT IQ
5 75
6 80
7 85
8 90
9 95
10 100
11 105
12 110
13 115
14 120
15 125
16 131
17 139
18+ 140+No it isn't 'flat'. The game doesn't use a flat '1-20' system, it uses a '3-18' bell-shaped curve, and this matches the bell-shaped curve of IQ distribution.
Second:
18 is like the "max" for a human being. Thus it wouldn't be 140 unless we're saying that 18 represents like 140 iq to 200 iq which seems a bit silly.
Despite being initially generated on a bell-shaped curve with one person in every 216 having a score of 18 in any particular stat, 18 is no more the maximum possible Int score in the game than 140 is the maximum IQ in real life.
|
|
FWIW, my observations of RL people are that high intelligence doesn't mean that they never make mistakes, it's just that they make fewer mistakes than less intelligent people.
Similarly, it's not that dumb people never have good ideas, it's that they have fewer good ideas than smart people.
Therefore, it's not reasonable to prevent players having good ideas just because their PC is dumb. If you do, how do you reward players for playing a PC with 20 Int/Wis/Cha?
|
My take on dumping mental stats is "fun first". In other words, if the player wants to roleplay a dumb character making stupid decisions, that is just fine by me, as long as he takes care not to endanger the party.
But I do not like that a GM would FORCE a player to have his character act in such or such way, especially when it makes the player unhappy.
Also I dislike putting non-RAW penalties on characters who dumped mental stats, especially by restricting their actions, because there is no equivalent additional restriction for the characters who dump physical stats.
In other words, why should the GM penalize the guy who chose to play a Fighter over the one who chose to play a Wizard ?
The black raven
For me I don't penalize anyone. I have taken advantage of players who have made bad decisions though :) Mind you I'm kidding. The whole point is to have fun and making a game not fun is like a GM with a 7 int :)
In terms of the real world a lot of people within the poorer socio-economic groups of western societies have poor literacy and educational attainment. This does not necessarily mean they are stupid or cannot solve problems (life could be viewed as one continual puzzle). Likewise those people may make poor choices (e.g. were you view an addiction as a form of coping mechanism with a crap life) - but this would probably fall under the 'Wisdom' stat.
You would need to define how a low Int score expressed itself for each character - poor education, poor abstract reasoning, literal interpretation of statements, a lack of imaginative thinking, etc are all viable.
As someone who hates dump stats with a passion I'd be all for making low stats have consequences.
Except the Pathfinder Core Rule Book explicitly says what Intelligence is
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. This ability is important for wizards because it affects their spellcasting ability in many ways. Creatures of animal-level instinct have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2. Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3. A character with an Intelligence score of 0 is comatose. Some creatures do not possess an Intelligence score. Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based skills or checks.
Socio-economic conditions and level of education have nothing to do with your Intelligence score.
Sure. If you compare body weight to carrying capacity, my 350-lb. half-orc with 17 Str is weaker than your 90-lb. human with 7 Str.
Also, the Strength score doesn't account for differences in strength between individual muscle groups. My 7-Str character might be a bookworm with no muscle mass whatsoever, or a brute with bulging muscles everywhere except in one arm that is stunted as a result of a birth defect. Note that a lack of leverage due to having one stunted arm could account for all of the mechanical penalties of a low Strength score just as easily as could a complete lack of muscle mass. The hulk with the stunted arm isn't weak at all; he just has trouble bringing his full strength to bear.
Every person who has ever arm wrestled would like a word with you.
Also, are you saying a grown man is actually weaker than a child? Why do you believe that Strength is the ratio of weight to carrying capacity? Your weight has nothing to do with your Strength score.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An intelligence score of 3 is considered sentient and beyond animalistic thinking. An intelligence of 7 should function as a pretty normal person.
Are we talking 1 syllable words only here? Can barely speak? How do you play a really dumb character?
Here you go, the numbers check out as far as I can tell:
INT IQ
5 75
6 80
7 85
8 90
9 95
10 100
11 105
12 110
13 115
14 120
15 125
16 131
17 139
18+ 140+
This is approximate, and 18+ extends infinitely.
An IQ of 7 is functionally retarded. This is not normal social function. This is Down's Syndrome territory.
I see INT 7 as an indicator of how the character views the world, the type of solutions he will choose for a problem, and how he views the actions of others. "Dayam those artsy fartsy bards." could be a catch phrase. "A door is a door, and iffn it don't open, knock that sucker offen its hinges," is a simple and direct act. It would be the type of charater who uses eni meeni mini mow to decide which way to go. Perhaps he doesn't trust wizards. Perhaps he approaches all pretty girls and says, "Pull my finger," or gifts them with spiders and snakes.
Int 7 is easier to play than Int 17. It is pretty easy to fake stupid, but faking smarts is much more dificult unless the GM gives you lots of clues.
you can fake smarts by getting a lot of divination magic going
He already sucks at everything that has anything to do with intelligence mechanically. He is a fighter, so he will not have skill points. His int modifier is -2, so he is never gonna make even average knowledge checks. This means he will not be able to justify player knowledge, so he will be whacking enemies with his go-to Big Stick, and when it does not work too well, he will try to hit harder until someone points out that his silver sword is gonna work better.
Actually, mechanically the fighter will be as able to figure out a weapon doesn't work whether she's got 7 int or 20 int. If she doesn't have Knowledge (enemy type) she can't know it unless it's a very common enemy like a goblin.
So the experienced fighter with 20 int that's fought dozens of enemies resistant to non-silver weapons, maybe saved the kingdom from a huge army of werewolves will be as bad at understanding it doesn't work against a werecrocodile as the 7 int fighter that's only fought rats in the cellar, unless the fighter has taken Knowledge (Local).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question for those that advocate a player play down to a low INT character. Do you as the GM or other players help a player play up to a high INT character?
As GM I never curtail a player's ideas due to low stats. You cannot peg something like creativity to someone's intelligence, there are plenty of dumb people that come up with great ideas all the time. At best you could say that a characters Intelligence may influence how that idea is expressed, but to try to pigeonhole a player due to a low INT stat on their character is bad form in my opinion. A low stat already has a place in the game, as it affects appropriate dice rolls. Seems silly to limit the player due to a stat unless it is something that the player finds enjoyable to play out.
In answer to your question: Absolutely, that is what Knowledge checks are for and if the character does not have the requisite Knowledge skill, but it is still something that a character with their intelligence likely would have thought of, you can just do a raw Intelligence check.
Frankly, this is rarely an issue with my current group or other groups I have played with. RPG players tend to be of higher intelligence than the average, in my experience, probably because the imagination necessary to play such games requires a significant level of intelligence. I would estimate the Int scores of my current group to all fall between 12 and 18 (and maybe a couple pushing 20). So it is more of a roleplaying challenge for them to play someone with a low Int than a high one, and I doubt that is true just across my groups.
I appreciate that you have the right as GM not to insist on such roleplaying from your group. It's a shame, in my opinion, because in doing so you are turning Pathfinder into more of a tactical wargame than an RPG, and I think it kind of sucks as a tactical wargame and rocks as an RPG.
I take your point on making the game enjoyable for your players, and if they all want to play that way, cool. Frankly, whether I am GM or another player, I get annoyed with players who refuse to roleplay the characters they created, particularly those who refuse to roleplay significant handicaps they created for themselves. I would not enjoy myself at such a table. But that's just me.
As for dumb people who come up with "great ideas all the time" I have to say I've never met one. It seems to me that if they came up with great ideas all the time, they'd be, pretty much by definition, smart people. That doesn't mean dumb people never have a great idea, but it is pretty rare, and usually falls in the category of common sense that sometimes escapes highly intelligent people, which you can argue would be represented by a decent Wisdom score. For example, the 7 Int Fighter with a 12 Wisdom might listen to a planning session dominated by his more intelligent companions regarding sneaking into a castle, in which they are coming up with all kinds of intricate, layered plans involving magic and Stealth and might say something like: "Guys, wouldn't it be simpler to just dress up like peasants and walk in the front gate on Market Day?" Of course the OP was also dumping his Wis to 7, so that's not really an option for him, either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My take on dumping mental stats is "fun first". In other words, if the player wants to roleplay a dumb character making stupid decisions, that is just fine by me, as long as he takes care not to endanger the party.
But I do not like that a GM would FORCE a player to have his character act in such or such way, especially when it makes the player unhappy.
Also I dislike putting non-RAW penalties on characters who dumped mental stats, especially by restricting their actions, because there is no equivalent additional restriction for the characters who dump physical stats.
In other words, why should the GM penalize the guy who chose to play a Fighter over the one who chose to play a Wizard ?
Very simple. It is because under the RAW there are already HUGE penalties for people who dump physical stats (except arguably Strength for a caster who never intends to enter physical combat), whereas the RAW penalties for dumping mental stats are relatively minor.
It's not about penalizing the Fighter over the Wizard. It's about making the player who CHOSE to take crippling mental stats roleplay the character he CHOSE to make.
Again, this is very simple. If you don't want to play a dumb character, don't create a dumb character.
He already sucks at everything that has anything to do with intelligence mechanically. He is a fighter, so he will not have skill points. His int modifier is -2, so he is never gonna make even average knowledge checks. This means he will not be able to justify player knowledge, so he will be whacking enemies with his go-to Big Stick, and when it does not work too well, he will try to hit harder until someone points out that his silver sword is gonna work better.Actually, mechanically the fighter will be as able to figure out a weapon doesn't work whether she's got 7 int or 20 int. If she doesn't have Knowledge (enemy type) she can't know it unless it's a very common enemy like a goblin.
So the experienced fighter with 20 int that's fought dozens of enemies resistant to non-silver weapons, maybe saved the kingdom from a huge army of werewolves will be as bad at understanding it doesn't work against a werecrocodile as the 7 int fighter that's only fought rats in the cellar, unless the fighter has taken Knowledge (Local).
That is the whole point. Int 7 means you don't get to have skillpoints, and thus your stat will be crippled. An Int20 fighter has a lot more skill points to allocate to cover all monster knowledge skills even on lv1, and with just a single rank, he has +6 to that knowledge, which is enough to casually identify the type of monster (lycanthrope), if not individual characteristics. This will clue him in that it likely shares characteristics of other creatures of its type.
Even if the int7 dude WERE to start covering a single monster knowledge skill, he would get one per level, and be at -1, meaning even checks with a DC of 10 would on average fail, and DC20 would be impossible.
The mechanics aptly penalizes you for a low score, is my argument. If you are going to penalize int outside what the game already does, then you are making house rules. Would you do any of the following?:
- Make the Str7/Int18 character fail at Craft checks because you think he is too weak to realistically work the materials?
- Make the Dex7/Wis18 character routinely botch his heal checks because he is too clumsy to do perform surgical procedures?
- Make the Con7 character fatigued whenever the party has to ascend a flight of stairs, or take a run action in melee?
This is the equivalent to limiting int7 from being able to have a good idea.
As for the Cha5 dude making a grand speech, I have a way to deal with that in-game. I simply nod, and ask for a diplomacy/perform (oratory) check. Which they will likely fail.
If a player started talking about monster lore, and his character has low int and no knowledge skills, I similarly ask him to roll a knowledge check, if he even CAN. Then, when that usually comes up short, I tell him that he does not KNOW any of this, but he can suggest that the wizard tells everyone, since that is his field of expertise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is the whole point. Int 7 means you don't get to have skillpoints, and thus your stat will be crippled. An Int20 fighter has a lot more skill points to allocate to cover all monster knowledge skills even on lv1, and with just a single rank, he has +6 to that knowledge, which is enough to casually identify the type of monster (lycanthrope), if not individual characteristics. This will clue him in that it likely shares characteristics of other creatures of its type.
Even if the int7 dude WERE to start covering a single monster knowledge skill, he would get one per level, and be at -1, meaning even checks with a DC of 10 would on average fail, and DC20 would be impossible.
The mechanics aptly penalizes you for a low score, is my argument. If you are going to penalize int outside what the game already does, then you are making house rules. Would you do any of the following?:
- Make the Str7/Int18 character fail at Craft checks...
One, I don't think this is "houseruling" beyond the normal interpretation of the rules inherent in all RPGs.
Two, I certainly would make someone fail at Craft checks if what they were attempting were physically impossible or at least highly improbable for someone with a 7 Strength. If you can't lift the smith's hammer, you can't craft the sword. I could see doing it wiht a stronger assistant working under your direction, but that person would have to have at least one skill point in the Craft as well. Most Crafts aren't going to require significant Strength, though.
The Heal check is a poor example, because we aren't talking brain surgery here, we're talking emergency trauma first aid, and having taken the courses (but thank God never having had to use them), it doesn't require that much physical dexterity - pretty much any normal human being can do it, and 7 is at the bottom end of normal, but still normal. I would have a problem if someone with a 7 Dex said that they were going to conduct brain surgery, and would probably call for a Dex check. Again, they could have someone with higher Dex assist under direction, if they had the Heal skill.
As for fatigue, there are rules for it, and a 7 Con character is certainly going to become fatigued much faster than a character with average or better Con. Probably wouldn't be after a single flight of stairs, but after a few rounds of running trying to flee the BBEG (or chase him down), yeah, he's going to be hurting.
Of course, a character can overcome low mental scores by investing in Skills, kind of like a person who is not very bright naturally, but who works really hard in school, and thus there is a mechanical way to represent that. But let's be real. Do you really think the player who dumps all his mental stats to 7 so that he can have a 20 Str is going to invest in Knowledge skills? No, he's going to leave that to his more intelligent party members, who thus are going to be the ones who have to, if roleplaying matters to you, come up with most of the great ideas for the group.
That is the whole point. Int 7 means you don't get to have skillpoints, and thus your stat will be crippled. An Int20 fighter has a lot more skill points to allocate to cover all monster knowledge skills even on lv1, and with just a single rank, he has +6 to that knowledge, which is enough to casually identify the type of monster (lycanthrope), if not individual characteristics. This will clue him in that it likely shares characteristics of other creatures of its type.
While this is true, there is still the matter that if they haven't been actually training in monster knowledge, it doesn't matter how smart you are, you'll have the same chance of figuring it out by the rules.
The mechanics aptly penalizes you for a low score, is my argument. If you are going to penalize int outside what the game already does, then you are making house rules. Would you do any of the following?:
There is a gray area between house rules and not house rules, I think. For example, calling for ability checks not required by the RAW for a subject matter not discussed in the RAW (such as figuring out a riddle or the weakness of a monster), I think falls within that gray area (much like creating homebrew monsters or setting up an NPC not written out in the NPC gallery is). But yes, it's outside of the cure rules - that much is clear.
- Make the Str7/Int18 character fail at Craft checks because you think he is too weak to realistically work the materials?
- Make the Dex7/Wis18 character routinely botch his heal checks because he is too clumsy to do perform surgical procedures?
- Make the Con7 character fatigued whenever the party has to ascend a flight of stairs, or take a run action in melee?
Of course not, because those are things already stated by the rules how they work.
But if the player for example says he want to kick a filled barrel down a flight of stairs, I'll call for a strength check and then the Str7/Int18 character will be penalized compared to the Str18 character.
And if a character wants to cheat at a game I might call for a dexterity or sleight of hand check.
If a character wants to stay up for three days in a row, I might call for constitution checks not to get fatigued/exhausted.
These are all situations not covered by the rules as is, and from a strictly mechanical point of view the characters should be equally good at it, but I don't feel it's unfair to require these kinds of rolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not going ot be able to not fight in this.
So I'm going to leave it at this:
Many of the worlds most brilliant people contributed very little. Many people who contributed a great deal had average or just above. Ingenuity and intelligence are different things.
If you want an example think of rainman and study up on the theory of multiple intelligence. It submits that rather than intelligence being one sweeping thing, intelligence is found in many different forms. So someone could be supremely stupid in 9/10 areas and still be a genius in another.
IQ in and of itself only covers logical and language skills. It has no inherent ability to measure innovation which could be found in many other areas.
My 2 CP. I'm now going to hide this thread. Good luck all.
Rainman is, of course, a fictional character. The vast majority of people who actually succeeded at counting cards (and it is virtually impossible to do in modern casinos with multi-deck shoes unless you are using computers) have been highly intelligent and, in some cases, mathematical geniuses.
Yes, I am pretty conversant with the theory of multiple intelligences and find much (but not all) of it pretty convincing. I fully agree with you that IQ is an utterly inadequate measure of functional intelligence across a broad spectrum of reasoning, and that many people with dazzling IQ scores contribute little (check your local MENSA club for proof). I would argue that means they probably aren't as brilliant as they think they are. And I would argue that people with average IQs who contributed far more actually were brilliant, regardless of their score.
That is why I personally never equate Int in RPGs with IQ. Instead, I assume it is a measure that is actually much more adequate than IQ for measuring intelligence across a broad spectrum.
I understand why people use IQ to compare to Int, because it a common frame of reference that makes it easier to make illustrations, but I do not believe the two should be equated. I note that the official rules do not equate the two or provide a chart to note equivalents for various scores.
You can have a low int, and still be really good at a few skills (ranks, feats, ooh yeah!). So it doesn't make you that stupid.
Dealing with a lot of lecturers I sometimes wonder about intelligence and why people do what they do. I've been talking to people really knowledgeable in their area, scholars, and I've wondered why they've taken a course of action or put forth certain tenuous views. Are they compartmentalising most of their thinking to their specialty? Do they not give a s~&+ so they will make mistakes and push forward without apparently thinking? Why do they repeat certain arguments over and over? Do they think because they found some answers a few decades ago, that is it, case closed? Age, adaptability and being stuck in their ways (or high up in a hierarchy so they are certain they are right, naaa naaa) seems to really factor in when I've been considering the intelligence of the supposed intelligent.
I need more sense motive.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about penalizing the Fighter over the Wizard. It's about making the player who CHOSE to take crippling mental stats roleplay the character he CHOSE to make.
Again, this is very simple. If you don't want to play a dumb character, don't create a dumb character.
The end-result is that, apart from INT based casters, the guy who want to ROLEplay a not-too-dumb character (say a Fighter with INT 10) will be (obviously) less optimized and thus less efficient at his job than the guy who is quite happy roleplaying the stupid INT 7 Fighter (or even worse, the INT 7 Fighter NPC who has no goal in his (short) life beyond making the PCs waste resources)
And that is useful how ?
BTW, how should this "playing the low mental stats you chose" apply to characters who rolled for stats ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very simple. It is because under the RAW there are already HUGE penalties for people who dump physical stats (except arguably Strength for a caster who never intends to enter physical combat), whereas the RAW penalties for dumping mental stats are relatively minor.
It's not about penalizing the Fighter over the Wizard. It's about making the player who CHOSE to take crippling mental stats roleplay the character he CHOSE to make.
By your own admission, the RAW impose relatively minor penalties on low mental stats. Which means low mental stats are not "crippling" scores. Each is a relatively minor step down from a higher mental ability score.
Again, this is very simple. If you don't want to play a dumb character, don't create a dumb character.Agreed. If you don't want to play a dumb character, don't describe your character as being dumb when you create the fluff for your character. None of which has anything to do with game mechanics.
We have a basic disagreement about how we understand the game and it's roleplaying aspects. I believe that taking a 7 in all three of your mental scores is indeed "crippling", not in the sense it will make that character ineffective in the game, but "crippling" in the sense that such a character is extremely specialized and limited in the roles he can take on in the party. They're not mentally handicapped or impaired, they're simply dull, and in my mind playing them as anything else is poor roleplaying at best and dishonest at worst. I can almost see it if someone was rolling for stats and didn't want to play a dumb character but the dice gods cursed him - I'd have more sympathy. But in a point buy system in which the choice is all in the player's hands? No sympathy whatsoever.
For me, what you call "fluff", the story, is the most vitally important part of the game, and to be credible, must be supported by the stats. If you want your character to be smart, or even average, don't dump the stat. You don't have to have a 20 Strength at first level to be a strong and effective character. You don't even need to have an 18, unless you are playing in a highly optimized group with little tolerance for less than optimal characters.
If someone handed me a character sheet for one of my games with 7s in all three mental stats, but still described himself as "smart" in his background story, I would laugh uncontrollably for a few minutes and then tell the player that may be how the character views himself, but that he is actually delusional and the rest of the world pretty much considers him a dullard.
To give all those making the argument the benefit of the doubt, at best this is a way to ensure people have fun no matter what their scores are, and if it's fun for any group to ignore their stats and play every character however they want, far be it from me to take that away from them. Rock on, just not at our table.
The dark side of that coin, however, is the possibility that some people advocating it want all the goodies without having to take the tradeoffs that are explicit in a point buy system. I can't make out the sign on that exit ramp, but the people who live there are short, dress funny and pick a strange yellow color for their cobbles.
Actually, mechanically the fighter will be as able to figure out a weapon doesn't work whether she's got 7 int or 20 int. If she doesn't have Knowledge (enemy type) she can't know it unless it's a very common enemy like a goblin.So the experienced fighter with 20 int that's fought dozens of enemies resistant to non-silver weapons, maybe saved the kingdom from a huge army of werewolves will be as bad at understanding it doesn't work against a werecrocodile as the 7 int fighter that's only fought rats in the cellar, unless the fighter has taken Knowledge (Local).
I think the minimum skill points a Fighter could have is 2 with favored class, or 3 if human. Me, I run low Int characters as talking like Cookie Monster or the Hulk.
"no, the one next to him trying to sharpen his teeth with the stick.""Why'd you take points in handle animal? Your druid took the fire domain?"
"Have you met our Barbarian?"
"The guy by the fire sharpening sticks?"
"With his teeth?"
Oh yeah? How about the troll Barbarian I once ran, who kept picking his nose with his greatsword and going in a little too deep, and falling over twitching....
Theoretically, for min-maxing purposes, I could create a level 1 human with the following stats: 20/14/16/7/7/7
Just trying to figure out if I would want to play him, and if so, how.
7-7-7 JACKPOT!
Never go the 'full retard'.
On a side note when you play a 7 int character how often do you have them do dumb things? I don't mean party crippling dumb stuff, just general not bright things. ie forgetting to get oil for the lamps? That won't cripple the party but make the wizard have to cast the spell light a lot.
It's not that 7 int characters can't come up with a good ideas every now and then. It's when the 7 int character has good ideas in every situation that some players and GM's have issues with.
If you go straight 7's in mental scores the answer is yes. You are the kid in the back of the class picking your nose and eating the bogeys thinking no one sees you. :)
On a side note when you play a 7 int character how often do you have them do dumb things? I don't mean party crippling dumb stuff, just general not bright things. ie forgetting to get oil for the lamps? That won't cripple the party but make the wizard have to cast the spell light a lot.
Int 7 doesn't mean that you're uncapable of basic things for your profession - the Int 5-8 characters I've played have all been adept at doing what they're trained at and what they do in their daily life. What they are bad at is adjusting to new situations and doing more complex thought.
That kind of forgetful like forgetting lamp oil etc I generally connect more to a very lousy wisdom score, but I see no reason why they'd forget to do stuff that are part of their daily routine.
My "stupid" (as in low-int) characters are generally uneducated and/or have a hard time grasping new concepts, but it also depends a lot on other stats.
Arm wrestling? You mean an opposed Strength check where a 7-Str character has a 25% chance of beating a 17-Str character? Opposed Strength checks are pretty much a textbook example of ability scores existing as pure game-mechanical constructs with no direct relevance to actual, real-world capabilities. In fact, Strength (the ability score) is so completely unrelated to strength (the common sense meaning of the word) that you would have to create a new subsystem for PFRPG before you could run an encounter involving a realistic arm-wrestling competition.
Which makes your argument even more ridiculous. Now you're saying that a giant muscle-bound dude with one gimpy arm only has a 25% chance of beating a giant muscle-bound dude without a gimpy arm in a contest involving only one arm. You're saying a guy with a broken arm isn't as strong in his good arm as the same guy without a broken arm. In terms of role-playing, it's like saying the giant muscle-bound dude with a gimpy arm has a 7 Strength because you're forcing him to use his gimpy arm for everything. Balance has nothing to do with it. Tuck your off hand in your belt some day and see if you can't swing a hammer just as hard with your main hand.
Ilja
A low int score in not the same as uneducated. If you don't have a formal education you can still be smart.
For example If you were Mentally retarded. I'm not saying you can't learn new things but you will always be mentally retarded. I'm not saying that to insult MR people. I have a learning disability and weather I like it or not that does come into play with my everyday life. It doesn't mean I can't do or get things but I do forget things every now and again. I have made some really bad decisions in life because of my " low int " But I have made some really good ones too. That is what it means to have a 7 int. I sometimes have good ideas or at least I thought I did until someone else points out that my good idea is not a good idea.
Again, this is very simple. If you don't want to play a dumb character, don't create a dumb character.Agreed. If you don't want to play a dumb character, don't describe your character as being dumb when you create the fluff for your character. None of which has anything to do with game mechanics.
Incorrect. RAW describes characters with low Int scores as dumb. Read the bit in the CRB that tells you what a low Int score tells you about your character.
Hint: it says they're dumb.
Also, just to repeat, Int 7 is not that dumb. Yes your character is a bit dumb. But not cripplingly dumb. To my mind it should remain pretty much a flavour thing. But the bards won't be singing lays about the genius of Grok the Int 7 barbarian.
Your character cannot start a uranium centrifuge even if you yourself are nuclear physicist with a side of engineer. Doing so is metagaming by using Player knowledge as character knowledge.
Your in 7 character with no ranks in craft alchemy does not know how to make gunpowder out of burnt wood, sulfer, and bat guano. Doing so is metagaming by using Player knowledge as character knowledge.
Your int 7 wis. 7 character with no ranks in profession cook doesn't know how to make a souffle. Doing so is metagaming by using Player knowledge as character knowledge.
Likewise, while you may be able to come up with some macguyvered cantilever contraption to get you out of the dungeon, your int 7 barbarian with no ranks in knowledge engineering cannot. Doing so is metagaming by using Player knowledge as character knowledge.
The game already has mechanics to penalize the low INT attribute. The INT attribute itself is a mechanic and should be handled like other mechanics. While roleplaying your character to fit your attributes is a desirable thing, it should be a flavor thing and something that the player does for enjoyment.
Just because you have an INT of 7 doesn't mean u shud talkh liek diz unless that is what you want to do as a player. It also doesn't mean that the GM should say sorry you are too dumb to think to search for secret doors or you are too dumb to have realized that the Duke is behind the plot.
If you try to pass your INT 7 character off as super smart it won't work because the game mechanics will betray your attempt. You will have low skill points and all your INT related skills will have penalties and thus you will likely fail those tests.
In my opinion, for things outside of the game mechanics the GM should not be hamstringing the player or his ideas. I think it is bad form as it is arbitrary and goes beyond the scope of the mechanic, and unless you give additional information to players with super high INT you are also being unfair. Being that it is impossible for any of us to conceptualize what a 30 INT character would know, and therefore impossible to actually give advice to a player on how to act with that INT, it really is just picking on a character who has a low stat. If you don't like dump stats there are better ways to deal with that than passive aggressively penalizing a player.
I would like to hear what an Int/Cha 10 fighter is easily managing that a Int/Cha 7 fighter is failing. There are only two things that come to mind:
- Reduced to a single skillpoint per level due to intelligence penalty.
- Lower defense against ability damage targeting intelligence and charisma.
An int 10 fighter is going to be able to sink 2-4 skillpoints into stuff every level, depending on race/preferences. No monster lore skills are class skills for him, so he will not be able to keep up with the DCs. His intimidate will be 2 higher, but in the big picture, having more strength/dexterity/constitution with the +4 points from tanking charisma, he is going to do better in the 98% of the game when intimidate is not even relevant. And there WILL be someone better at it in party, so the only real use is to give the party bard a +2 aid by standing in the back, looking menacing.
So, the real question is: "Do you want a few more skillpoints and have a better chance to succeed at your aid another checks, or do you want to be better at the thing your class excels at?" Because you are going to be irrelevant on both the Int and Cha front by level 5 by virtue of the game design.
Not to say that it is not AMUSING to play a character you feel like you can believe in. I had a Paladin who had a fluff-rank in Perform (Oratory), and fancied himself a poet and philosopher. But when there was a challenge in the AP, he needed a 19 on the die to make the DC set, which was made to challenge actually skilled performers.
Edit: Also want to say I agree with claymade in the post above. If you want people to play int 7 as unable to figure stuff out, then the Int20 guy should be as smart as the entire table, and everyone should pool their ideas and have his character be the one to come up with the idea in-game.
Ilja
A low int score in not the same as uneducated. If you don't have a formal education you can still be smart.
Of course you _can_, but that's usually how I play my low-int characters; since they have bad general knowledge and probably no skill points in knowledge skills, they usually don't have a formal education.
Note that the "intelligence" stat isn't the same as "smart" per se; "Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons."
Looking at the effects of low int vs high int in the mechanics, someone with high int:
Knows a lot of languages
Has good general knowledge (good success chance at untrained knowledge checks)
Has training in many different skills, of course also affected by class.
Someone with little intelligence:
Usually only knows a single language.
Has bad general knowledge (bad success rate at untrained knowledge).
Has less training in skills.
This indicates to me that while intelligence isn't the same as education, there is a strong correlation between them.
Meanwhile, a lot of what is generally considered "smart" is reliant on wisdom or charisma; the ability to figure out people, to perceptive, to be convincing or to successfully hold a profession. Basically, wisdom and charisma has a large effect on "streetsmarts" while intelligence is more of "booksmarts". Of course this isn't an absolute, but rather a general trend.
For example If you were Mentally retarded. I'm not saying you can't learn new things but you will always be mentally retarded. I'm not saying that to insult MR people.
I understand you're not saying it to insult people but I'd rather we don't drag real-life diagnosises into this, especially when none of us has that diagnosis. I ask you respectfully to keep that kind of comparisons out of the game (and the same goes for everyone on the thread).
I have a learning disability and weather I like it or not that does come into play with my everyday life. It doesn't mean I can't do or get things but I do forget things every now and again.
I too have issues with forgetting stuff and the ADHD diagnosis, but according to my psychiatrists I have a higher than average "intelligence" in the areas the intelligence score covers; knowledge, formal logic, pattern analysis etc. So I don't think the ability to remember stuff is so much tied to intelligence. I've also made bad decisions, I have a hard time noticing things if not told they're there (tend to "not see the trees for the forest"), and have a hard time keeping a decent job. I think these are signs of a low wisdom, rather than a low intelligence.
Personally, if I were to stat myself, I'd peg myself as an int 13, wisdom 7, cha 10 or so.
At the same time, if an int 7 character speaks up to the int 20 guy with max ranks in engineering and says "hey, wait a sec... do you think you could work up one of your fancy gizmos to get us out of this pickle here?" I don't think I'd smack him down as a GM for coming up with the root idea. Similarly with other basic stuff like "hey, talky guy... think you could maybe... I dunno, lie to those two groups out for us, get 'em to fight each other instead of us? Way you've got with words, you oughta be able to pull it off..."
I fully agree. I generally encourage players that have characters with low stats in a mental attribute to help the players that have characters with high mental attributes come up with an idea; that way, both players can be active and the _player_ gets socially rewarded by the group for coming up with a good idea, while the player of the _smart character_ (or smooth, or wise) gets to have her character save the party from a difficult situation.
I would like to hear what an Int/Cha 10 fighter is easily managing that a Int/Cha 7 fighter is failing. There are only two things that come to mind:
- Reduced to a single skillpoint per level due to intelligence penalty.
- Lower defense against ability damage targeting intelligence and charisma.An int 10 fighter is going to be able to sink 2-4 skillpoints into stuff every level, depending on race/preferences. No monster lore skills are class skills for him, so he will not be able to keep up with the DCs. His intimidate will be 2 higher, but in the big picture, having more strength/dexterity/constitution with the +4 points from tanking charisma, he is going to do better in the 98% of the game when intimidate is not even relevant. And there WILL be someone better at it in party, so the only real use is to give the party bard a +2 aid by standing in the back, looking menacing.
This is a big part of the reason _why_ some groups want larger penalties for dumping stats; right now, there's no large mechanical reason for a fighter not to dump her stats. Basically, the penalties aren't "enough" to make it an interesting choice.
I generally prefer to rather give advantages to having decent/good scores in different stats, and have been/are using houserules for that (for example we use riddle hint Int-checks, we've been using cha-based hero points, free leadership-like mechanics based on cha, etc), but some kinds of soft penalties can also be useful (like the call for Con checks not to be fatigued when up and running for over 24 hours).
Everyone struggling with this thread should read and reread and rereread Yora's post on page 1 over and over until they get it. This is the answer.
Given a 3d6 ability score creation for common people who are not special and adventurers (which created the whole minimum 3, 10 and 11 are average thing), I get the same result: Int 7 equals an IQ of 84.
Or the most useful way to put it: At Int 7, 86.3% of all people have a higher Int score than you.
And also, at IQ 84, roughly 86% to 85% will score a higher result on an IQ test.Being among the lowest 16% isn't much, but that's still about 1 in 6 people. Chances are in a primary school class of 24 kids, three or four will be in that range or lower as adults. It may not be great, but still far more than enough to graduate from secondary school.
The amount of people who are classified as having "mild retardation" is about as high as the chance to roll an ability score of 3 or 4. And even these people can manage life without supervision (maybe with some assistance for legal issues and finding work. Giving a character a significant impairment only is neccessary with an Int score of 3. But since it is primarily an issue of learning skills, the way the character was raised would probably even make a bigger difference. A character with an Int score of 3 that has been taken very good care of as a child might speak significantly better than one with a score of 6 that has been neglected.
On INT vs WIS, the guideline is this:
INT tells you it's raining. WIS tells you to go inside.
Equating IQ with intelligence, whether real-life intelligence or the intelligence stat, is a very bad idea though.