| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
INT convinces you that you can win the forum argument
WIS tells you to click the close box on the browser window anyways
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your character has Str 7, other people are not going to see him as strong. If your character has Int 7 (and Wis 7 and Cha 7), other people are not going to see him as smart. If you envision your character as being particularly strong, or smart, or a skilled archer, your mechanics should reflect that. Laughing in your face would be impolite, but if you're going to describe your low-Int character as smart, you'd better have a pretty good reason why. Do they compensate with high wis, or fake it with high cha? Are they well-educated (reflected with skill points) despite lack of innate talent? Does the low score reflect a really poor intelligence in one area (learning ability, memory, logical reasoning) which is moderated by some other skill (ability to visualize abstract concepts). Do other qualities such as self-discipline or creativity help them to solve problems?
Low stats and other mechanics should inform roleplaying - they should affect a character's actions. A character with 7 Str should not be running into melee combat unless they have some ability to mitigate that disadvantage (such as the Weapon Finesse feat). A character with 7 Int should not be entering into a battle of wits unless they have the ability to mitigate that disadvantage (they are immune to Iocane powder).
The reason mental stats cause more problems than physical is:
1) Since physical competitions are determined by dice rather than by playing out the competition, the stat's effect is very clear. Mental or social competitions are more likely to be determined by having the player solve the riddle or give a stirring speech, which means that the stat's effect may be ignored. You're not actually taking a -2 to Diplomacy if the GM just makes you talk your way through things without a Diplomacy check.
2) In combat, there are multiple roles characters can fill that don't necessarily require a single high physical stat, so a Str 7 character can still participate in combat. However, mental or social challenges don't always have the same flexibility, and the Int 7 or Cha 7 fighter is more likely to be sidelined by their deficit.
If your low-Int character is able to avoid mental challenges, or if your group relies heavily on rolls to resolve these issues, you probably don't need a whole lot of additional RP to represent that score. But it can still be rewarding to do so, especially if your group waives the actual skill or ability checks for these things. Since an Int 7 isn't really all that dumb (roughly bottom 15% of the population, -2 to Knowledge = 10% lower chance of remembering facts) this doesn't take a whole lot. I played an Int 8 character who just didn't use a whole lot of big words (“I have a bad feeling about this”, instead of “I am suddenly apprehensive”, not “This feel bad”), preferred simple, concrete ideas and plans, and would occasionally ask people to summarize things in simple terms (“So those visions of the future we got aren't set in stone?”).
A friend of mine managed to roll himself an Int 3 Cha 3 ranger and he hammed it up as a total dunce. I'd never expect that of an Int 7-8 character, and I certainly wouldn't enforce it, but I really appreciate playing with someone who makes some effort to play a low-Int character as less intelligent beyond just the skill penalties.
I think everyone has stated good points. This has been a great discussion thanks.
But on a less serious note Can I still call the 7 int character Muffin head :)?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could if you want and it doesn't upset the character's player (assuming you are not the player).
BTW, how should this "playing the low mental stats you chose" apply to characters who rolled for stats ?
My group always rolls stats for PF. We still RP the low stats.
in fact, if the player thinks up the plan or solves the riddle. don't think that it is the player's dumb character that did it. think of it as a plan another player's genius character came up with. learn to divorce player and character, and instead of attributing the solution to Player A's dumb PC, Attribute it to Player C's Smart PC, Player A may have came up with the plan OOC, but treat it as Player C's Genius had the idea instead.
It's a pretty good idea. Would work very well for groups where a player likes to contribute with their full intelligence but also wants to RP a dumb character, and helps other players play a genius without relying too much on the GM hint mechanic.
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..."
INT may be an aggregate measure of how a character "learns and reasons", but I don't think either of those factors necessarily rule out any kind of creativity or idea generation per se... even if the character in question lacks the actual "book smarts" or other learned skills to put the specifics of those ideas in into concrete practice on their own. This allows them to participate in the party planning for kind of scenarios without replacing the efforts of the people who'd be actually pulling them off for the party.
Also a good idea. Having the low-int character make the general suggestion in-character lets you avoid the OOC planning Lumiere Dawnbringer suggested.
Equating IQ with intelligence, whether real-life intelligence or the intelligence stat, is a very bad idea though.
A look at the statistical distribution of the Int score is still a good way to get an idea of how significant it is for the character, especially since the Int score is intended to be a more accurate measure of intelligence than IQ.
So, it's just as possible that on Golarion, only the very exceptional have anything outside the standard array. Or maybe not, I cheerfully admit. But that is what the devs seem to be indicating. The std array also shows that 10 is not "average" anymore. 12 is more like average. Thus, 7 is 5 deviances away from average, whilst 13 is only one.
The basic NPC stat array, for use with most NPCs, is 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. Average: 10.5.
The heroic stat array,for use with exceptional NPCs, is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. Average: 12
So yes, exceptional people are going to be above average. But for the typical person, stats cluster perfectly evenly around 10.5. The total population might be a little different depending on how common the Heroic Array is and whether there's a corresponding below-average array (5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12). But 10-11 is indeed intended to be average for most of the population, the commoners, militia members, and craftsmen, as opposed to the wizards and elite fighters.
If we assume that the arrays are just a shorthand for the typical results of the 3d6 stat generation method (or 4d6 for the heroic array) then it becomes easy to interpret ability scores using the probability distribution of the 3d6 roll.
Oh how I'd like to favorite your posts ten times over, Weirdo.
So dumb that people come from miles around to stare and gawk. Freak-show stupid. The dumbest peasant has a Int of 8.
Actually assuming equal distribution across the board, 1 in every 6 peasants have an 8 INT. That's a little less that 20% of the population.
So dumb that people come from miles around to stare and gawk. Freak-show stupid. The dumbest peasant has a Int of 8.Actually assuming equal distribution across the board, 1 in every 6 peasants have an 8 INT. That's a little less that 20% of the population.
Well, to be exact, among humans the rate is more like 1/7 (5/36) because of the +2 to any score, assuming it's random.
Well, to be exact, among humans the rate is more like 1/7 (5/36) because of the +2 to any score, assuming it's random.
Hmm good point, I had assumed that the NPC stat array was what you arrived at after racial mods. I may have been mistaken in that assumption.
|
The first character I ever played in C&S had a 1 Int. I'd been a bystander for a while, and one day made noises about playing. The GM handed me a 9th lvl character (with a 1 Int) that was already a part of the group, explaining that he'd been severely brain-damaged, and had to be told literally everything. He had good muscle memory for swinging a sword, but the only tactic he knew was charge and hit things, and only what he was told to hit. He had to be given food, and reminded to eat.
His first encounter with me playing him was a balrog. He was told to attack, and did. He hit it, and it took the last remaining point of intelligence with a single blow that also ended up castrating him as it split him in two.
He died a hero's death...a very stupid hero, but a hero. They actually did manage to bring down the balrog...but he wasn't the only casualty, either.
No, this doesn't have much to do with the discussion, but I figured someone would get a chuckle out of it.
Equating IQ with intelligence, whether real-life intelligence or the intelligence stat, is a very bad idea though.
I got no problem with it. Helps when trying to figure out a fictional character and put them into attributes.
Really, its no different from what psychologists do when giving you tests. The trick is in how one PERCEIVES the data.
|
|
What's C&S? I'm familiar with C&C but not C&S.
Also, I can't imagine anyone here is trying to say it can't be fun to play a stupid character, only that we will not (as DM's) and don't want (as players) to see players forced to play stupid characters just because the point buy system forces characters to make mechanical choices to make their character work.
Chivalry and Sorcery by FGUI. This was back in the late 70s...
Equating IQ with intelligence, whether real-life intelligence or the intelligence stat, is a very bad idea though.
It's certainly no worse than assigning a number between 3-18 to the intelligence of all people in a Pathfinder campaign.
Any case you make that IQ doesn't describe "intelligence" can be equally made for any other means of measuring "intelligence," so if you're going to make that case you've already thrown the baby out with the bath water.
If you object so much to the idea of IQ, why do you not object to the idea of an INT stat?
The classic George Carlin comes to mind:
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
|
The problem with point buy is that it is a zero-sum game; in order to be better at something you have to be worse at something else.
We usually get burned when we make similar assumptions about real people.
'Brad Pitt is so good looking, he must be stupid to make up for it, right?'
One of the reasons I roll stats!
The problem with point buy is that it is a zero-sum game; in order to be better at something you have to be worse at something else.
We usually get burned when we make similar assumptions about real people.
'Brad Pitt is so good looking, he must be stupid to make up for it, right?'
One of the reasons I roll stats!
Well, it's an attribute, whether problem or feature.
But with any point buy system, you're better than average -- heroic material.
Why do you need to be better than your fellow party members at everything? That's not a good formula for a cooperative game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with point buy is that it is a zero-sum game; in order to be better at something you have to be worse at something else.
We usually get burned when we make similar assumptions about real people.
'Brad Pitt is so good looking, he must be stupid to make up for it, right?'
One of the reasons I roll stats!
Well, it's an attribute, whether problem or feature.
But with any point buy system, you're better than average -- heroic material.
Why do you need to be better than your fellow party members at everything? That's not a good formula for a cooperative game.
Rolling for stats doesn't mean you are, or want to be, better than your fellow party members.
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,...
Low charisma, int, wis or all of them do not have to be "dull." I played a scout with low wis (10 int, 14 charisma), and he was the most interesting character in the party! He was really human, made mistakes, held grudges, wasn't at all stoic, partied too hard, didn't cooperate that well with others (good thing he was an excellent scout), at times was a coward, but would recklessly push on when he (thought he) had the advantage. Does this sound dull for a low wisdom character?
Some of the other players, optimisers with high mental stats and a part of the party group-think were dull and under-developed. The low wis char was not.
beej67-
The classic George Carlin comes to mind:
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
That was over the top funny!... I saw him in concert a long time ago he was very funny.
I'll be chuckling all night now. Thanks I need that.
Dumber than a toaster, smarter than a house.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your gaming group attaches any additional meaning to the Intelligence score, that is a house rule. A perfectly fine, common-sense-based, simulationist house rule, but a house rule nonetheless. There is no RAW reason for gamers who prefer what you are calling "munchkin" and "delusional" behavior (also known as the gamist and narrativist playstyles) to adopt that house rule.
So, to avoid "house ruling" and to keep with the expectation of the average player, a GM should be encouraged to play monsters like ogres or even mindless undead, with the same level of tactics as the PCs. Targeting casters first and what not.
Imagine all those advising GM to "play a monster's INT" are using house rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with equating Intelligence directly to IQ is that Intelligence (stat) is only differentiated by 216 (6^3). On a 3d6, 3-18 scale, IQ above 139 (Wechsler) or 142 (Stanford-Binet) isn't measurable. Likewise IQ below 61 (Wechsler) or 58 (Stanford-Binet) isn't measurable.
Both of these are Gaussian distribution, so the Flat-line d20 has nothing to do with this.
If we include the (Potential) human +2 to intelligence it throws the curve off. As would anything that allows one to achieve higher Intelligence than you could get by rolling.
...but the table floating around is fairly accurate(for Wechsler test), the numbers are off for a Stanford-Binet test.
p.s. The 85 IQ suggested for INT 7 is for /15 (Wechsler). It would be 84 on a /16 distribution.
Who here advised that? It certainly wasn't me Steve.
Those monsters aren't going to survive very long in a wizard's world if they don't target the caster first. Hell even animals know to go after the 'easier/less armored prey' first.
Well, the Tactics entry in the stat blocks in every PF module or AP, for one.
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.
Except that Ypra is wrong. Yora would be right if Golarion was a 3d6 world, but it's not. An INT of 7 on Golarion means that you are dumber than 99% of other humans.
So, yes, I "got it" but Yora's assumption that Golarion is a 3d6 world is incorrect. That's what other people here don't get.
Let me put it this way- if the stats in a game world were rolled with 2d6 (and there are RP games like that) 7 would be average. Would we then be trying to say that at "At Int 7, 86.3% of all people have a higher Int score than you"? No. We'd accept that a 7 is pretty well average.
On Golarion the stat array does not include a 7. The lowest is a 8. This makes a INT of 7 well below average.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I always find ironic about these discussions is people who want to do 7/7/7 mental stats don't want any penalties for them beyond the purely mechanical. No repercussions for being a 7 int, and they usually play humans so they can have that minimum 2 or 3 skill points per level (min 1, +1 human, +1 favored class). To advocate for this (and here comes the ironic part), they always say 'it's only a -2 difference, you're only 10% worse than an average person at X).
I've got a math degree, and one of my favorite sayings is, there are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
Here's a statistic that is just as valid, but nobody in the above group ever utters a word about.
A 3 Int is -4. That's only 20% worse than average at X. However, it is the lowest possible int you can have, and you are barely better than a ravening animal with that int. That 7 is actually, statistically, only twice as good as the person who is an utterly stupid animal brained beast (-2 is twice as good as -4), and is only halfway up to average (or in other words, they've got half the brains an average person does, being halfway between average and minimum sentient creature).
Same numbers, statistics, those damn statistics.
Anytime someone starts arguing by using statistics to show that they are right, you can usually find the same numbers prove them wrong. It's just in how you slice or dice the statistics. That's why people pay really really good money to marketeers to dice those statistics to show the company is healthy and growing right before it goes down the tubes. :)
Except that Ypra is wrong. Yora would be right if Golarion was a 3d6 world, but it's not. An INT of 7 on Golarion means that you are dumber than 99% of other humans.
The average of best 3 of (4d6) is 12.24. The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes ALL people use best 3 of (4d6), even commoners. I don't think that is the case. Even if it was it is still at the 5.71 percentile. Which is still IQ 76 (on a /15 distribution) or 75 (on a /16 distribution). It is certainly not 1 in 100.
Edit: In keeping with what mdt says above, we could consider humans as having a +2 INT (it's possible). That would raise the average to 12.5 or 14.24 for 3 of (4d6). In the last case a 7 becomes a 1.17 percentile of Heroic (best 3 of 4d6) humans who put their +2 in INT.
The average of best 3 of (4d6) is 12.24. The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes ALL people use best 3 of (4d6), even commoners. I don't think that is the case. Even if it was it is still at the 5.71 percentile. Which is still IQ 76 (on a /15 distribution) or 75 (on a /16 distribution). It is certainly not 1 in 100.
Except that Ypra is wrong. Yora would be right if Golarion was a 3d6 world, but it's not. An INT of 7 on Golarion means that you are dumber than 99% of other humans.
True. If NPC stats are rolled at all in Golarion. But there is no indication they are, not under any system.
8 is the lowest, unless a DM or AP assigns a stat lower. That's just the way Golarion works.
Thus, almost no-one is under 8. Only PC's who have dumped and a few NPC's assigned that way.
Randomly, 0%.
Now, if we are NOT talking Golarion, but talking other worlds, then the math is correct.
How about this- a world where every NPC is a Elf. What's the average for CON, Dex and of course INT? Is the average INT still 10? Even if we roll 3d6 but assign the racial modifiers? Can you then claim the average Int is 10?
How about in a game where the stats are rolled using 2d6- is the average still 10? Yes, in a game where the stats are rolled using 3d6 the average is 10.5. (note it's not 10, which sets off some of posters figures by a bit). But Golarion IS NOT THAT WORLD.
On Golarion, no 'random' core race NPC has a INT of 7. None. Zip, Zero, Nada. Thus 7 is very very rare. That's just how Golarion is. Why is this so hard to understand?
(Note that no Core race has a - to INT)
A 3 Int is -4. That's only 20% worse than average at X. However, it is the lowest possible int you can have, and you are barely better than a ravening animal with that int. That 7 is actually, statistically, only twice as good as the person who is an utterly stupid animal brained beast (-2 is twice as good as -4), and is only halfway up to average (or in other words, they've got half the brains an average person does, being halfway between average and minimum sentient creature).
That isn't exactly true, unless you can tell me in what proportions talent and education/experience contribute to success of an endeavor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True. If NPC stats are rolled at all in Golarion. But there is no indication they are, not under any system.8 is the lowest, unless a DM or AP assigns a stat lower. That's just the way Golarion works.
Thus, almost no-one is under 8. Only PC's who have dumped and a few NPC's assigned that way.Randomly, 0%.
Why are you saying no one rolls stats on Golarion. It's a perfectly valid option.
But, let's go with it. an INT 7 then would be 0%, i.e. non-sentient. I wouldn't allow someone with an INT 7 in that case, as they would be below the lowest possible, and if your INT became 7, immediate animal.
INT 7 is either on the curve, or it isn't, but it can't be both.
|
|
This argument has gotten pretty silly.
Let's try this: However stupid a PC can be, that's the guy. If you *can* have a moron for a PC, that's him. He may well have the wisdom to help compensate, knowing that he's not too sharp, but that's a different thing. A 7 Int, 7 Wis, 7 Cha character is a stupid, obnoxious fool...or, perhaps, a stupid fool that nobody notices. He's got a very few friends, if any...can't carry on much of a conversation...and if he tries, his foot usually gets in the way.
I've played that character...and they can be fun...but it's ridiculous to think that they will ever do anything of mental or social significance...unless they have insane skill points, and even then, it's an uphill battle.
Now, if you feel that no PC can be a simpleton...fine...but that also means that relatively speaking, a lot of normal people must be pretty remarkable...and anyone with real bonuses (+2 to +3) is an absolute genius...unless you flatten it out an awful lot.
Incidentally, Rainman has an Int that's actually pretty decent, but limited skills that are maxed, with skill focus, and terrible wisdom and charisma...he also has flaws that penalize other skills, something not usually found in Pathfinder. A curse, maybe.
EldonG, I think you may have misread what some others are claiming on this thread.
They're not claiming that Int 7 is not so dumb.
They're claiming that a characters's Intelligence score is completely separate and divorced from their intelligence (with a little "i").
Yep, that's right. They're saying Intelligence =/= intelligence.
If that is actually the case, and we get an official word from some Paizonian that, in fact, Intelligence =/= intelligence, I would suggest we rename that ability score something like "Learning-Based Skill and Language Modifier". LBSLM for short.
It would be much more accurate than Intelligence.
Oh, by the way, my halfling barbarian is actually 7'10". Don't worry, mechanically he's Small, but mechanically Small doesn't have to be the same as "fluff" small. Only a Simulationist would say such a thing.
|
|
EldonG, I think you may have misread what some others are claiming on this thread.
They're not claiming that Int 7 is not so dumb.
They're claiming that a characters's Intelligence score is completely separate and divorced from their intelligence (with a little "i").
Yep, that's right. They're saying Intelligence =/= intelligence.
If that is actually the case, and we get an official word from some Paizonian that, in fact, Intelligence =/= intelligence, I would suggest we rename that ability score something like "Learning-Based Skill and Language Modifier". LBSLM for short.
It would be much more accurate than Intelligence.
Yeah, I noticed...and I thought it was a little silly.
Once, in a different game system, I played the basic 7/7/7 character...he was a literal young giant, something over 8' in height, but pretty dim, and very socially awkward. The cleverest thing he ever did was to not attack once, when he was well out-powered...but he had to almost die once to understand that he couldn't fight a whole band of (well, they were RQ Broo...goatmen) enemies at once. He was crazy tough, for a beginner, but he was a beginner, and got hit an awful lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Equating IQ with intelligence, whether real-life intelligence or the intelligence stat, is a very bad idea though.It's certainly no worse than assigning a number between 3-18 to the intelligence of all people in a Pathfinder campaign.
Any case you make that IQ doesn't describe "intelligence" can be equally made for any other means of measuring "intelligence," so if you're going to make that case you've already thrown the baby out with the bath water.
If you object so much to the idea of IQ, why do you not object to the idea of an INT stat?
Because IQ is used in real life, and when used by the general population (much in the way it has been used so far in this thread) tends to be argued to encompass what we define as "intelligence" or being "smart" and that people with low IQ are "dumb". This is often used for political reason (for example, racists claiming PoC are less intelligent because they get lower IQ scores on our IQ tests) or for people to feel superior to others (for example, MENSA, who doesn't even really do a full IQ test at least not in our country, but rather just focuses on a small part of it).
The big issue with IQ is it's name. Just becaues it's named Intelligence Quota people assume it shows a large part of one's intelligence, when it basically only shows how good you are at finding patterns and how good general knowledge you have.
I'm critical to any real-world measurement that is used to claim what people's "intelligence" is. If it was called PF&GKQ (pattern finding and general knowledge quota) I'd have no problem with it, and it would be used for far less bad stuff.
I've done proper IQ tests myself with my psychiatrists as part of establishing my diagnosis, and scored quite high (a few points below Mensa requirements), but that doesn't really say much about how smart I am. It just says I like to read the newspaper and like to lay puzzles.
The Intelligence _stat_ on the other hand is used in a game set in a fictional world and used to roughly describe fictional people. That's a HUGE difference.
It's like if doctors started mapping out the risk of heart disease for people, and called that the Health Quota, and loads of people would start claiming that high health quota = good health (rather than just good heart health). I'd have loads of issues with that. I don't have issues with hit points or constitution scores though, because they're fictional.
If your gaming group attaches any additional meaning to the Intelligence score, that is a house rule.
When my plot involves a scroll of raise dead as plot device, is that a house rule then? I attach additional meaning to the scroll, and the RAW description of scroll does not state "plot device".
This is often used for political reason (for example, racists claiming PoC are less intelligent because they get lower IQ scores on our IQ tests) or for people to feel superior to others (for example, MENSA, who doesn't even really do a full IQ test at least not in our country, but rather just focuses on a small part of it).
Very true. Let's also not forget about the attempts at eugenics/forced sterilization based on standardized tests.
Very true. Let's also not forget about the attempts at eugenics/forced sterilization based on standardized tests.
This is often used for political reason (for example, racists claiming PoC are less intelligent because they get lower IQ scores on our IQ tests) or for people to feel superior to others (for example, MENSA, who doesn't even really do a full IQ test at least not in our country, but rather just focuses on a small part of it).
Exactly.
I think IQ tests are great when they're used for what they measure and nothing else, but describing what they measure as "the intelligence of a person" is both inconsistent with what people consider smart and can easily lead down a very slippery slope.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems it boils down to opinion. So instead of trying to apply any of my degrees in some vain attempt to show that I am more "right" than another, let me just say this:
By the same silly virtue that a Str7 has a fair chance to beat a Str20 in a contest of strength, due to the game being hopelessly inaccurate and simplified compared to real life, an int7 should not be forced to auto-fail endeavors of intellect.
If you go to the local gym, find the strongest guy there, and send him on a challenge run at the local elementary school, competing against the kids in contests of opposed strength, by the logic of Pathfinder RAW, he should have a win ratio of merely 75-80%.
The system is flawed for portraying life accurately, and it boils down to opinions. Mechanically, both statements "An int7 is a mere 10% below average" and "An int7 is effectively only twice as smart as the lowest possible sentient score" are true.
Here are some others:
"An int 18 is only 30% smarter than an int 6"
"The strongest human only has a 25% greater chance to kick down a stuck door."
"A 30lb halfling can throw a 300lb half-orc to the ground." (inb4 magical anime-tier jujutsu. NOT talking about a lv10 halfling monk vs a lv1 half-orc warrior, which those people invariably argues for)
The ONLY statistic that I find even remotely well thought out is carrying/lifting capacity on the strength table. As a str 10 simply cannot outperform a str 18 in that regard... buuuut, he can in virtually any other sense, if his d20 is willing.
Who here advised that? It certainly wasn't me Steve.
Those monsters aren't going to survive very long in a wizard's world if they don't target the caster first. Hell even animals know to go after the 'easier/less armored prey' first.
If the squishy soft unarmed humanoid breaks from the pack and starts acting funny, the ogre tries to take their head off. If they are prone, and no joke, this has happened, they try to kick their head off.
This argument has gotten pretty silly.
Let's try this: However stupid a PC can be, that's the guy. If you *can* have a moron for a PC, that's him. He may well have the wisdom to help compensate, knowing that he's not too sharp, but that's a different thing. A 7 Int, 7 Wis, 7 Cha character is a stupid, obnoxious fool...or, perhaps, a stupid fool that nobody notices. He's got a very few friends, if any...can't carry on much of a conversation...and if he tries, his foot usually gets in the way.
I've played that character...and they can be fun...but it's ridiculous to think that they will ever do anything of mental or social significance...unless they have insane skill points, and even then, it's an uphill battle.
Now, if you feel that no PC can be a simpleton...fine...but that also means that relatively speaking, a lot of normal people must be pretty remarkable...and anyone with real bonuses (+2 to +3) is an absolute genius...unless you flatten it out an awful lot.
Incidentally, Rainman has an Int that's actually pretty decent, but limited skills that are maxed, with skill focus, and terrible wisdom and charisma...he also has flaws that penalize other skills, something not usually found in Pathfinder. A curse, maybe.
Never do anything of social significance? My 7 wis fighter/barb fought the agents and plots of the Runelords.