|
Never do anything of social significance? My 7 wis fighter/barb fought the agents and plots of the Runelords.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.
...socially? Over tea?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're both giving "social significance" a different meaning. Hard to discuss meaningfully when that's the case...
|
|
You're both giving "social significance" a different meaning. Hard to discuss meaningfully when that's the case...
My point was simple...I didn't mean the actions couldn't have social relevance...I meant they would not be done in a social manner. He didn't work out a logical position, and sit down at a table and debate it out, coming up victorious when the Runelord became a good person, seeing the light...he cut his friggin' head off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the same silly virtue that a Str7 has a fair chance to beat a Str20 in a contest of strength,
What contest of strength is that? The closest mechanical solution for a strength of contest in the rules I've found would be either something like grappling or simply weight-lifting, or potentially trying to break stuff with higher and higher DC's. There are no specifics for an actual contest of strength as far as I can see, so anything like that is made up by the DM and has the chances affected by the DM.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't get this comparison. In an in-world (and out in the real world) contest of strength weightlifting seems a very plausible thing to contest in. Of course it fails to some degree due to stats being limited to an array of 18 different values, but that's a flaw of the system we can't get away from regardless.
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%.
What RAW is that? I've never seen it. Weightlifting should probably be the main method, and as kids would be small creatures with a strength of 4-9 (standard array with the young template) I don't see how they could come even close.
Here are some others:
"An int 18 is only 30% smarter than an int 6"
A half-truth. Even looking at it strictly mechanically, an int 6 has a 55% risk of not knowing the answer to a really easy question about any subject matter she isn't trained in, but an int 18 has a 25% risk; essentially, the gap in common knowledge is more than twice that of the int 18, assuming neither has education in the matter.
Or for that matter, an int 6 that isn't trained at crafting can only reliably craft really simple items without good tools, or standard items with good tools. An int 18 can craft standard items with no issues at all, or high-quality items with good tools.
"The strongest human only has a 25% greater chance to kick down a stuck door."
Actually, to break down a strong door, the average human would always fail. A Str 16 has a 5% chance and a Str20 has a 15% chance, thus having 300% greater chance to kick down the door than the Str16 guy.
"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)
What rules are you talking about here? I see nothing about throwing other people actually. If you're talking about a dead orc, a non-heroic halfling tops out at 112.5 lbs to lift over the head, but that's hardly the same as throwing.
buuuut, he can in virtually any other sense, if his d20 is willing.
Apart from kicking down doors, climbing in adverse conditions, swimming in adverse conditions or doing basically anything else against a higher than very low DC. If the DC is very low, it makes sense that luck and other things matter more; if you're competing with a weightlifter at throwing a tennis ball 20 meters it's more a matter of luck as it's something both can easily handle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're both giving "social significance" a different meaning. Hard to discuss meaningfully when that's the case...My point was simple...I didn't mean the actions couldn't have social relevance...I meant they would not be done in a social manner. He didn't work out a logical position, and sit down at a table and debate it out, coming up victorious when the Runelord became a good person, seeing the light...he cut his friggin' head off.
A Cha/Int10 fighter/barb will not be socially significant either. Because he is not a socially significant class. He is slightly better at intimidating, which is only a facet of social maneuvering. A real social character has Lv+5 or more in Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive, something a barbarian/fighter cannot achieve without crippling his other ability scores and sinking several feats towards it.
People do not seem to realize that a cha/int 10 fighting type character will fail just as hard at social finesse and knowledge related endeavors simply because they are mechanically unable to keep their skills on par with the gradual increase of DCs by virtue of the design of their class. Having +1 or having -2 is irrelevant when the DC is over 20. Both fail automatically.
If you just cannot deal with people having 7 in a stat, cap the low end at character creation at 8, or hell, even 10. It is well within the power of a GM to do so. Give them a +2 or 4 PB at start to make up for it if people protest too much.
|
|
You're both giving "social significance" a different meaning. Hard to discuss meaningfully when that's the case...My point was simple...I didn't mean the actions couldn't have social relevance...I meant they would not be done in a social manner. He didn't work out a logical position, and sit down at a table and debate it out, coming up victorious when the Runelord became a good person, seeing the light...he cut his friggin' head off.A Cha/Int10 fighter/barb will not be socially significant either. Because he is not a socially significant class. He is slightly better at intimidating, which is only a facet of social maneuvering. A real social character has Lv+5 or more in Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive, something a barbarian/fighter cannot achieve without crippling his other ability scores and sinking several feats towards it.
People do not seem to realize that a cha/int 10 fighting type character will fail just as hard at social finesse and knowledge related endeavors simply because they are mechanically unable to keep their skills on par with the gradual increase of DCs by virtue of the design of their class. Having +1 or having -2 is irrelevant when the DC is over 20. Both fail automatically.
If you just cannot deal with people having 7 in a stat, cap the low end at character creation at 8, or hell, even 10. It is well within the power of a GM to do so. Give them a +2 or 4 PB at start to make up for it if people protest too much.
I don't mind it at all...I just think it's notable that the character is, in fact, pretty dull, mentally.
And yes, you got the point precisely...it takes Int, Cha, and skills to make a socially significant character.
| 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?
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.
That's wonderful, but you have to understand that there are multiple ways to determine IQ, not just the handful YOU may have encountered. This is part of my profession. Try not to pooh-pooh something until you've fully investigated with an open mind. Second, if you can come up with a better way to measure intelligence, PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US. I'm certain we'd all be better for the knowledge.
I'm not trying to come across as aggressive here, but my limited skills in English might lead to my posts seeming more antagonistic than they are. Sorry for that, in that case. Also, when I say "you" in the post I don't mean you personally, rather "you" as "people who use IQ as a measurement of intelligence". And it's not meant in a deragatory way.
That's wonderful, but you have to understand that there are multiple ways to determine IQ, not just the handful YOU may have encountered. This is part of my profession. Try not to pooh-pooh something until you've fully investigated with an open mind.
How does that make a comparison to it more useful? The fact that there are loads of different ways to calculate it and that they may lead to different results just reinforces that IQ is a very bad measurement to use outside of their specific circumstances. If the IQ tests you work with for example tests creativity instead of pattern recognition, that doesn't mean IQ tests are more accurate to describe intelligence - it just means that the IQ rating your tests lead to are more accurate to describe creativity.
So exactly what does these IQ tests involve, and why is it better to say "IQ measures intelligence" rather than "IQ measures XXX" where XXX is the thing you actually measure?
And the "try not to pooh pooh" part is really unnecessary, especially when my objection isn't to a specific type of IQ tests but rather the concept of being able to measure and number something as complex as "intelligence". I'm not trying to be aggressive here, in no way, it's just that the whole hype about IQ as a measurement of actual intelligence
Second, if you can come up with a better way to measure intelligence, PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US. I'm certain we'd all be better for the knowledge.
As I said, you cannot successfully measure what we consider "intelligence" since it's a sum of so, so many variables. The whole concept of putting a number on people's intelligence is deeply flawed - especially since "intelligence" is such a vaguely defined word.
As a quick example, wiki describes intelligence like this:
"Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including, but not limited to, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, reasoning, learning, having emotional knowledge, retaining, planning, and problem solving."
There is no way in hell we can make a standardized test that includes these, especially not when half the time someone refers to intelligence they don't refer to these all but rather a subset of them.
Due to this, I see _no way to possibly number a persons intelligence_ and also I see _no reason to do so ever_.
The IQ tests I've been through have been useful at measuring certain specific things, and were no doubt crucial to me getting a diagnosis, but they don't describe my "intelligence" or lack thereof.
You're both giving "social significance" a different meaning. Hard to discuss meaningfully when that's the case...My point was simple...I didn't mean the actions couldn't have social relevance...I meant they would not be done in a social manner. He didn't work out a logical position, and sit down at a table and debate it out, coming up victorious when the Runelord became a good person, seeing the light...he cut his friggin' head off.A Cha/Int10 fighter/barb will not be socially significant either. Because he is not a socially significant class. He is slightly better at intimidating, which is only a facet of social maneuvering. A real social character has Lv+5 or more in Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive, something a barbarian/fighter cannot achieve without crippling his other ability scores and sinking several feats towards it.
People do not seem to realize that a cha/int 10 fighting type character will fail just as hard at social finesse and knowledge related endeavors simply because they are mechanically unable to keep their skills on par with the gradual increase of DCs by virtue of the design of their class. Having +1 or having -2 is irrelevant when the DC is over 20. Both fail automatically.
If you just cannot deal with people having 7 in a stat, cap the low end at character creation at 8, or hell, even 10. It is well within the power of a GM to do so. Give them a +2 or 4 PB at start to make up for it if people protest too much.
I don't mind it at all...I just think it's notable that the character is, in fact, pretty dull, mentally.
And yes, you got the point precisely...it takes Int, Cha, and skills to make a socially significant character.
I wonder if you will move the goalposts, but I will bite. To be socially significant, to have social effect in game you just need to pass some social checks and make some good calls. Now the base ability score for that is CHA, but the ranks and feats matter more to being able to pass a check. If you specialise really hard in a social skill, after half a dozen levels the cha mod is just gravy.
You can try to say a 7 int or 7 wis cha is too dumb to come up with plans, to manipulate, to strategise, to get one over the bad guys or the opponents, but I have seen nothing in core saying low int means you can't plan, can't use your skills and can't succeed. When it comes down to it, with levels and a social focus, you don't need the great charisma to socially contribute, you certainly don't need wis (I usually run high charisma chars as lowish in wisdom, and the reverse) and int covers how many skills you have to play with, not whether you specialise in 1-2 (and you can always specialise in at least one skill).
So I disagree with your position a lot Eldon, and I have already given an example of a low wis char that was not "dull".
|
|
I wonder if you will move the goalposts, but I will bite. To be socially significant, to have social effect in game you just need to pass some social checks and make some good calls. Now the base ability score for that is...You're both giving "social significance" a different meaning. Hard to discuss meaningfully when that's the case...My point was simple...I didn't mean the actions couldn't have social relevance...I meant they would not be done in a social manner. He didn't work out a logical position, and sit down at a table and debate it out, coming up victorious when the Runelord became a good person, seeing the light...he cut his friggin' head off.A Cha/Int10 fighter/barb will not be socially significant either. Because he is not a socially significant class. He is slightly better at intimidating, which is only a facet of social maneuvering. A real social character has Lv+5 or more in Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive, something a barbarian/fighter cannot achieve without crippling his other ability scores and sinking several feats towards it.
People do not seem to realize that a cha/int 10 fighting type character will fail just as hard at social finesse and knowledge related endeavors simply because they are mechanically unable to keep their skills on par with the gradual increase of DCs by virtue of the design of their class. Having +1 or having -2 is irrelevant when the DC is over 20. Both fail automatically.
If you just cannot deal with people having 7 in a stat, cap the low end at character creation at 8, or hell, even 10. It is well within the power of a GM to do so. Give them a +2 or 4 PB at start to make up for it if people protest too much.
I don't mind it at all...I just think it's notable that the character is, in fact, pretty dull, mentally.
And yes, you got the point precisely...it takes Int, Cha, and skills to make a socially significant character.
Well, we were discussing Int, not Wis. The term that comes to mind for Wis is foolish. If you really want to argue against it, why not try for 7 Str is not weak, 7 Dex is not clumsy, 7 Con is not sickly...soon you'll see that it hardly matters that we use numbers for stats at all. Yay.
I'm not trying to come across as aggressive here, but my limited skills in English might lead to my posts seeming more antagonistic than they are. Sorry for that, in that case. Also, when I say "you" in the post I don't mean you personally, rather "you" as "people who use IQ as a measurement of intelligence". And it's not meant in a deragatory way.
That's wonderful, but you have to understand that there are multiple ways to determine IQ, not just the handful YOU may have encountered. This is part of my profession. Try not to pooh-pooh something until you've fully investigated with an open mind.How does that make a comparison to it more useful? The fact that there are loads of different ways to calculate it and that they may lead to different results just reinforces that IQ is a very bad measurement to use outside of their specific circumstances. If the IQ tests you work with for example tests creativity instead of pattern recognition, that doesn't mean IQ tests are more accurate to describe intelligence - it just means that the IQ rating your tests lead to are more accurate to describe creativity.
So exactly what does these IQ tests involve, and why is it better to say "IQ measures intelligence" rather than "IQ measures XXX" where XXX is the thing you actually measure?
And the "try not to pooh pooh" part is really unnecessary, especially when my objection isn't to a specific type of IQ tests but rather the concept of being able to measure and number something as complex as "intelligence". I'm not trying to be aggressive here, in no way, it's just that the whole hype about IQ as a measurement of actual intelligence
Second, if you can come up with a better way to measure intelligence, PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US. I'm certain we'd all be better for the knowledge.As I said, you cannot successfully measure what we consider "intelligence" since it's a sum of so, so many variables. The whole concept of putting a number on people's intelligence is deeply flawed -...
They do in fact measure general intelligence, incorrect of you, but that's not the only form of it, correct of you. They are basically shorthand for getting a ballpark idea of just how bright someone is. No psychologist treats them as more than that, and if they do, I wanna have a teensy chat with them.
It's not limited English that bothers me, yours is fine, but the attitude that goes with it in this case. Most of your posts I rather enjoy. That one I didn't.
Ok
First off lets take a deep breath everyone :)
I know some people have an issue with IQ = int. It's not that it can't be used or is wrong to use. We are trying to measure int. We need some sort of measuring cup to determine a rating. An IQ test score is a reasonable measuring cup. It's not perfect but it's the most widely understood method, ( I believe )
Second off
Here is a second way to try and measure the concept of int. Take your Bestiary books and take a look at what has a 7 int and then say I'm as smart as a ....
P.S. Good morning everyone
That isn't exactly true, unless you can tell me in what proportions talent and education/experience contribute to success of an endeavor.
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).
Not at all, it's exactly true mathematically. It doesn't matter what the education/experience or talent (feats) are. We're talking about brain power, not training. You can train a monkey to fly a jet if you work at it hard enough. That doesn't mean that the monkey is a genius, it means someone spent a lot of time hammering things into the monkey's head.
Intelligence is a stat that describes your raw ability to learn and reason (go read the rules). From that standpoint, someone with a 7 has only half the ability to reason and think that an average person does, and is twice as good at it as the animal brain moron, statistically.
Again, the point is, if you use statistics to make your points, you can make them work either way, to minimize the argument, or maximize it. It's a bad way to make the argument either way. Personally, I think 6 or 7 is a Forest Gump, while a 3 is probably closer to Solomon Grundy, who tops out with 'Grundy No Like You' as a complex sentence. Gump of course has a 16 or 18 wisdom.
I'm fine if people want to play a 7/7/7 character, but play that character. He's not smart, he doesn't get the punch line of jokes, he's easily talked into doing stupid things, he doesn't inspire confidence in people, he doesn't take the lead, or if he does, nobody pays attention to him when he does. Basically, if this were a comic book, you're playing a flunky, because no hero would ever be so utterly blech mentally. Heck, even villains aren't that blech. Only extremely lame flunkies are, usually the ones that don't survive the movie/story arc/fight. They're just not that interesting, and nobody cares what happens to them.
Ok
First off lets take a deep breath everyone :)
I know some people have an issue with IQ = int. It's not that it can't be used or is wrong to use. We are trying to measure int. We need some sort of measuring cup to determine a rating. An IQ test score is a reasonable measuring cup. It's not perfect but it's the most widely understood method, ( I believe )
Second off
Here is a second way to try and measure the concept of int. Take your Bestiary books and take a look at what has a 7 int and then say I'm as smart as a ....P.S. Good morning everyone
I don't have a problem with IQ equalling or not equalling intelligence.
I have a problem with Intelligence =/= intelligence.
Likewise, I would have a problem if someone suggested Small =/= small.
PS Hi there strydr316 :)
|
|
Ok
First off lets take a deep breath everyone :)
I know some people have an issue with IQ = int. It's not that it can't be used or is wrong to use. We are trying to measure int. We need some sort of measuring cup to determine a rating. An IQ test score is a reasonable measuring cup. It's not perfect but it's the most widely understood method, ( I believe )
Second off
Here is a second way to try and measure the concept of int. Take your Bestiary books and take a look at what has a 7 int and then say I'm as smart as a ....P.S. Good morning everyone
How about smarter than an ogre...just not notably so?
They do in fact measure general intelligence, incorrect of you, but that's not the only form of it, correct of you. They are basically shorthand for getting a ballpark idea of just how bright someone is. No psychologist treats them as more than that, and if they do, I wanna have a teensy chat with them.It's not limited English that bothers me, yours is fine, but the attitude that goes with it in this case. Most of your posts I rather enjoy. That one I didn't.
As I've said several times, the issue isn't when psychologists use them for their purpose - that's fine and useful and all. The issue is when it's regarded just as "intelligence" and taken out of that setting and putting it into another setting (such as politics or gaming). A psychologist will know what the limits and purposes of that specific test they're doing is and will regard it as that, but saying "int 13 is like 130 IQ" doesn't say anything really in terms of how good the person can be at coming up with plans, how well they can put forth an argument in a logical fashion, how well they can understand how a device works etc etc etc. A person can get a rating of 80 IQ on one test and still be a very "bright" person; just one that isn't good at those specific measurement that the test encompassed. Likewise, someone can be like me and get a 128 on an IQ test but still fail to make rational decisions all the time and have to concentrate and think a lot to understand any subject I'm not already familiar with.
Most IQ tests (at least all I've done and all I can find online except Mensa) seem to at least include understanding of words. So if you for example have a heavy dialect or you're uneducated or you're newly immigrated and because of these reasons have a smaller or different vocabulary than the text-makers, you'll get a lower IQ score. The psychologist using the test of course understands this and can recognize that that's the reason so there isn't an issue with it there, but when racists then start claiming that immigrants have a low IQ and thus are dumb you see where that leads. That of course isn't the fault of the psychologist doing the test, but it's an example of where taking the tests out of their intended situation can have dire consequences.
I've yet to see an IQ test that takes even the majority of definitions from the wiki article into account. Do you know of any? (honest question, not rethorical).
And part of the issue is the name of the quota and the fact (as you said) that there are many different ways to get the result; as the method differs I assume the result can also differ on the same person based on what is tested.
Naming IQ "intelligence quota" was a bad idea from the beginning, since it so easily opens up for misinterpretations (as we see constantly in politics) and flawed application (as seen in this thread). And especially if it's used to measure different things (as I understood your comment on that different tests differ in what they account for).
It's kind of the same issue when weight simultaneously is used to refer to both mass and how heavy something feels, except far worse.
Again, I'm not against IQ tests. I'm against using IQ as a measurement outside of specific situations where trained professionals are using it as a tool.
|
|
That isn't exactly true, unless you can tell me in what proportions talent and education/experience contribute to success of an endeavor.
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).
Not at all, it's exactly true mathematically. It doesn't matter what the education/experience or talent (feats) are. We're talking about brain power, not training. You can train a monkey to fly a jet if you work at it hard enough. That doesn't mean that the monkey is a genius, it means someone spent a lot of time hammering things into the monkey's head.
Intelligence is a stat that describes your raw ability to learn and reason (go read the rules). From that standpoint, someone with a 7 has only half the ability to reason and think that an average person does, and is twice as good at it as the animal brain moron, statistically.
Again, the point is, if you use statistics to make your points, you can make them work either way, to minimize the argument, or maximize it. It's a bad way to make the argument either way. Personally, I think 6 or 7 is a Forest Gump, while a 3 is probably closer to Solomon Grundy, who tops out with 'Grundy No Like You' as a complex sentence. Gump of course has a 16 or 18 wisdom.
I'm fine if people want to play a 7/7/7 character, but play that character. He's not smart, he doesn't get the punch line of jokes, he's easily talked into doing stupid things, he doesn't inspire confidence in people, he doesn't take the lead, or if he does, nobody pays attention to him when he does....
Yup, that's it. No, they aren't the ones that make the plan that works. If they could do that with consistency, they'd be smarter and wiser. Oh, and with the charisma, people aren't paying them any attention, anyhow, unless they're intimidated into it.
I'm fine if people want to play a 7/7/7 character, but play that character. He's not smart, he doesn't get the punch line of jokes, he's easily talked into doing stupid things, he doesn't inspire confidence in people, he doesn't take the lead, or if he does, nobody pays attention to him when he does....
Unless of course that character has worked really hard to overcome his natural deficiency to excel in one or two particular areas (ie Cha 7, but 8 ranks, class skill and a Skill Focus in Diplomacy or Bluff still gives +12).
But I'm with you. Int 7 = not naturally intelligent, must apply oneself to become good at things that rely on learning/reasoning.
|
|
I'm fine if people want to play a 7/7/7 character, but play that character. He's not smart, he doesn't get the punch line of jokes, he's easily talked into doing stupid things, he doesn't inspire confidence in people, he doesn't take the lead, or if he does, nobody pays attention to him when he does....Unless of course that character has worked really hard to overcome his natural deficiency to excel in one or two particular areas (ie Cha 7, but 8 ranks, class skill and a Skill Focus in Diplomacy or Bluff still gives +12).
But I'm with you. Int 7 = not naturally intelligent, must apply oneself to become good at things that rely on learning/reasoning.
That's dedication. :)
Personally, I think 6 or 7 is a Forest Gump, while a 3 is probably closer to Solomon Grundy, who tops out with 'Grundy No Like You' as a complex sentence.
I agree with this, except Grundy probably has a 4.
That's dedication. :)I'm fine if people want to play a 7/7/7 character, but play that character. He's not smart, he doesn't get the punch line of jokes, he's easily talked into doing stupid things, he doesn't inspire confidence in people, he doesn't take the lead, or if he does, nobody pays attention to him when he does....Unless of course that character has worked really hard to overcome his natural deficiency to excel in one or two particular areas (ie Cha 7, but 8 ranks, class skill and a Skill Focus in Diplomacy or Bluff still gives +12).
But I'm with you. Int 7 = not naturally intelligent, must apply oneself to become good at things that rely on learning/reasoning.
The problem I've seen is, the people who do 7/7/7 don't put anything into what they'd need to 'overcome' their weaknesses. They get one skill rank per level (maybe 2 if human), and put that skill rank into Perception or Intimidate (or both). Then they want to sit at the table, and talk eloquently to the king, discuss tactics and plans with the Council of Generals, and want to impress the tavern wench (or the handsome bard, depending on gender and orientation).
The problem being of course, that they have not actually done anything to enable them to do these things, and don't put skill ranks or feats toward frippery. But then yowl like a scalded cat if the NPCs don't treat them like god on toast. After all, they are the heroes, how dare the NPCs not worship them.
I agree with this, except Grundy probably has a 4.
Personally, I think 6 or 7 is a Forest Gump, while a 3 is probably closer to Solomon Grundy, who tops out with 'Grundy No Like You' as a complex sentence.
I can live with four. Grundy drunk would be a 3. :)
Littlehewy wrote
PS Hi there strydr316 :)
Hi . I hope you are having a good day littlehewy
The problem I've seen is, the people who do 7/7/7 don't put anything into what they'd need to 'overcome' their weaknesses. They get one skill rank per level (maybe 2 if human), and put that skill rank into Perception or Intimidate (or both). Then they want to sit at the table, and talk eloquently to the king, discuss tactics and plans with the Council of Generals, and want to impress the tavern wench (or the handsome bard, depending on gender and orientation).
The problem being of course, that they have not actually done anything to enable them to do these things, and don't put skill ranks or feats toward frippery. But then yowl like a scalded cat if the NPCs don't treat them like god on toast. After all, they are the heroes, how dare the NPCs not worship them.
Yeah, I get that, and I agree.
Having said that, I do recall having a similar attitude back in the day...
|
|
That's dedication. :)I'm fine if people want to play a 7/7/7 character, but play that character. He's not smart, he doesn't get the punch line of jokes, he's easily talked into doing stupid things, he doesn't inspire confidence in people, he doesn't take the lead, or if he does, nobody pays attention to him when he does....Unless of course that character has worked really hard to overcome his natural deficiency to excel in one or two particular areas (ie Cha 7, but 8 ranks, class skill and a Skill Focus in Diplomacy or Bluff still gives +12).
But I'm with you. Int 7 = not naturally intelligent, must apply oneself to become good at things that rely on learning/reasoning.
The problem I've seen is, the people who do 7/7/7 don't put anything into what they'd need to 'overcome' their weaknesses. They get one skill rank per level (maybe 2 if human), and put that skill rank into Perception or Intimidate (or both). Then they want to sit at the table, and talk eloquently to the king, discuss tactics and plans with the Council of Generals, and want to impress the tavern wench (or the handsome bard, depending on gender and orientation).
The problem being of course, that they have not actually done anything to enable them to do these things, and don't put skill ranks or feats toward frippery. But then yowl like a scalded cat if the NPCs don't treat them like god on toast. After all, they are the heroes, how dare the NPCs not worship them.
...and that's plainly ridiculous. I mean, dumb characters can be fun, but play them as they are. My giant would have happily sat in on planning sessions, but he couldn't read or write, and didn't get what a map was. Planning to him was, 'We go dat way.(pointing, hopefully the right direction) I got big surprise. I not just got club, I got big rock! HAW! I throw rock! HAW!' (throws rock through window)
This thread reminds me of the barbarian PC in a new game I joined. We used the "Dice Pool" option when we rolled up characters, and the player who was making the barbarian, obviously decided to use the fewest dice on his INT.
He rolled a 4. Interestingly enough, he also got an 18 CHA.
But what's sort of funny about it, is that the player himself has the highest IQ at our table; he's somewhere in the 150's. He's a great role-player, so I'm looking forward to seeing just how he handles this odd combo...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread reminds me of the barbarian PC in a new game I joined. We used the "Dice Pool" option when we rolled up characters, and the player who was making the barbarian, obviously decided to use the fewest dice on his INT.
He rolled a 4. Interestingly enough, he also got an 18 CHA.
But what's sort of funny about it, is that the player himself has the highest IQ at our table; he's somewhere in the 150's. He's a great role-player, so I'm looking forward to seeing just how he handles this odd combo...
Classic...the big, dumb jock...with the girls hanging all over him. Just remember high school...and multiply it by a bit... ;)
By the same silly virtue that a Str7 has a fair chance to beat a Str20 in a contest of strength,What contest of strength is that? The closest mechanical solution for a strength of contest in the rules I've found would be either something like grappling or simply weight-lifting, or potentially trying to break stuff with higher and higher DC's. There are no specifics for an actual contest of strength as far as I can see, so anything like that is made up by the DM and has the chances affected by the DM.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't get this comparison. In an in-world (and out in the real world) contest of strength weightlifting seems a very plausible thing to contest in. Of course it fails to some degree due to stats being limited to an array of 18 different values, but that's a flaw of the system we can't get away from regardless.
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%.What RAW is that? I've never seen it. Weightlifting should probably be the main method, and as kids would be small creatures with a strength of 4-9 (standard array with the young template) I don't see how they could come even close.
Here are some others:
"An int 18 is only 30% smarter than an int 6"
A half-truth. Even looking at it strictly mechanically, an int 6 has a 55% risk of not knowing the answer to a really easy question about any subject matter she isn't trained in, but an int 18 has a 25% risk; essentially, the gap in common knowledge is more than twice that of the int 18, assuming neither has education in the matter.
Or for that matter, an int 6 that isn't trained at crafting can only reliably craft really simple items without good tools, or standard items with good tools. An int 18 can craft standard items with no issues at all,...
The example with the strongest dude at the gym vs the kids is a commentary that in an opposed check, the difference is ridiculously insignificant compared to real life. Lifting =/= opposed strength. I am thinking of opposed skill/ability checks, as well as CMB/CMD stuff. Take arm-wrestling; in reality, NO child would ever beat a bodybuilder, ever. But translate that situation to Pathfinder, and most people would likely do either an opposed str check or CMB check. The nature of the d20 system makes it so that the kids will on average have more than 10% success if you make 20+ checks. The system is flawed across the board when you try to apply it to real life, as it is more focused on internal consistency and balance than being an accurate portrayal of real life.
And don't mistake me here, I am completely fine with the game not being "realistic". I play the game to make-believe being a borderline superhero doing feats that belong in a comic-book or cartoon, not some historical figure that might have existed in the medieval times. Game of Thrones is fun and all, but I am playing to be awesome, not to realize the shortcomings and futilities of man.
So yes, most my examples are hyperboles and half-truths, as they are observations of the flaws of donning the goggles of "realism" when trying to decide how to interpret a game stat. The game is designed to promote synergy and teamwork, which is why certain classes are inherently bad at some things, and good at others. And it is my argument that to make a big deal over he nuance of failing and failing (which the difference of giving your fighter 7 and 10 really boils down to, heck even at int/cha 14, the fighter would still play second fiddle to any class that is designed to do int/cha stuff), is silly. Have an internal debate over your own table, agree on what works for you, and have fun.
An int 7 is dumb, he suffers in terms of skill points and a penalty on knowledges, crafts and languages. He will fail most int-based checks, and even have a poor chance of aiding someone on their checks.
If you feel that a player is coming up with ideas that you think are too far fetched for their character, then call a relevant knowledge check. HOWEVER! You should also do this when the int12 rogue starts talking about magical stuff, or when the int16 magus starts talking about mechanical stuff. This is all stuff they likely have little knowledge about, since it is not among their class skills, and thus their smart characters lack the relevant education.
I have measured my IQ to somewhere between 139 and 158, and have two college degrees. I still do not innately know how to construct an underwater tunnel, nor do I know half the verses of the quran, nor do I know how to tell poisonous mushrooms apart from edible ones... as I never studied those things.
|
|
Just some input on arm wrestling - I see it as a series of tests...the way I might do it is to keep track of who is beating who by how much, with a goal of say...a margin of 20.
Thus, schoolchild with Str 4 vs 20 Str strongman...-3 vs +5. The best the kid could hope for would be a 20 - 3, 17. The worst the strongman could get would be 1+5, 6. The kid is up by 11, miraculously. Still, if the numbers get reversed...-2 vs 25...that's 27 points, and the strongman would be up by 14, with odds of an easy win on the next roll...
Just a quick way of handling it that works more consistently.
...and that's plainly ridiculous. I mean, dumb characters can be fun, but play them as they are. My giant would have happily sat in on planning sessions, but he couldn't read or write, and didn't get what a map was. Planning to him was, 'We go dat way.(pointing, hopefully the right direction) I got big surprise. I not just got club, I got big rock! HAW! I throw rock! HAW!' (throws rock through window)
Yep, my own 'big dumb' was Chak. Chak was a half-orc Barbarian, and he had a 5 int. He had a 14 Cha, and a 14 wisdom. (dice rolls). Back in second edition. Physical stats were pretty good (18 str, 16 dex, 18 con), I had rolled pretty well that day. :) I put the one low roll into Int, and played Chak as dumb as bricks, but he'd do the wise thing without realizing why he was doing it. His catch phrase was 'CHACK SMASH!' with his greatclub. :)
I remember one time, we were going through a dungeon, and Chak (Barbarian class) was just wandering along, and never seemed to hit any of the fiendish traps (we didn't have a rogue). Everyone else was getting slammed hard, but Chak never got touched. Someone finally noticed that he was moving funny, he'd take two steps, then sidestep, then hop, then pause, then step catty-corner. When they confronted him (and got him to understand the question), he pointed to the floor. "Bad floor", then he hit with the club and set off a trap. I forget why, but he was the only one with the right abilities to spot the traps. This was 2nd ed I believe, he was a kit (or maybe built from the barbarian hand book). I didn't have either book, so the GM helped fill out the details. Anyway, it was funny with the rest of the players doing everything Chak did from that point on. So he started adding extra things, like bunny hops, and hopping backwards, and hopping on one leg, just to watch them all do the same thing. :)
That's dedication. :)I'm fine if people want to play a 7/7/7 character, but play that character. He's not smart, he doesn't get the punch line of jokes, he's easily talked into doing stupid things, he doesn't inspire confidence in people, he doesn't take the lead, or if he does, nobody pays attention to him when he does....Unless of course that character has worked really hard to overcome his natural deficiency to excel in one or two particular areas (ie Cha 7, but 8 ranks, class skill and a Skill Focus in Diplomacy or Bluff still gives +12).
But I'm with you. Int 7 = not naturally intelligent, must apply oneself to become good at things that rely on learning/reasoning.
The problem I've seen is, the people who do 7/7/7 don't put anything into what they'd need to 'overcome' their weaknesses. They get one skill rank per level (maybe 2 if human), and put that skill rank into Perception or Intimidate (or both). Then they want to sit at the table, and talk eloquently to the king, discuss tactics and plans with the Council of Generals, and want to impress the tavern wench (or the handsome bard, depending on gender and orientation).
The problem being of course, that they have not actually done anything to enable them to do these things, and don't put skill ranks or feats toward frippery. But then yowl like a scalded cat if the NPCs don't treat them like god on toast. After all, they are the heroes, how dare the NPCs not worship them.
Depends on the situation, if you ask me.
The moment the "heroes" come to town at level 1 and have no achievements under their belt, then certainly, their mouthbreathing ways and foul odor will make people roll their eyes. But on the flip side, if they save the town from the marauding ogres that would have killed and eaten every man, woman and child, and the locals still go "Well, we're grateful you killed all the monsters, but your unkempt visage just rustles my jimmies, so don't expect any preferential treatment.", you will get a raised eyebrow from me across the table.
If someone saves me and my family from a rabid gang of murderers, I am not going to be overly critical of their personal hygiene.
|
|
...and that's plainly ridiculous. I mean, dumb characters can be fun, but play them as they are. My giant would have happily sat in on planning sessions, but he couldn't read or write, and didn't get what a map was. Planning to him was, 'We go dat way.(pointing, hopefully the right direction) I got big surprise. I not just got club, I got big rock! HAW! I throw rock! HAW!' (throws rock through window)Yep, my own 'big dumb' was Chak. Chak was a half-orc Barbarian, and he had a 5 int. He had a 14 Cha, and a 14 wisdom. (dice rolls). Back in second edition. Physical stats were pretty good (18 str, 16 dex, 18 con), I had rolled pretty well that day. :) I put the one low roll into Int, and played Chak as dumb as bricks, but he'd do the wise thing without realizing why he was doing it. His catch phrase was 'CHACK SMASH!' with his greatclub. :)
I remember one time, we were going through a dungeon, and Chak (Barbarian class) was just wandering along, and never seemed to hit any of the fiendish traps (we didn't have a rogue). Everyone else was getting slammed hard, but Chak never got touched. Someone finally noticed that he was moving funny, he'd take two steps, then sidestep, then hop, then pause, then step catty-corner. When they confronted him (and got him to understand the question), he pointed to the floor. "Bad floor", then he hit with the club and set off a trap. I forget why, but he was the only one with the right abilities to spot the traps. This was 2nd ed I believe, he was a kit (or maybe built from the barbarian hand book). I didn't have either book, so the GM helped fill out the details. Anyway, it was funny with the rest of the players doing everything Chak did from that point on. So he started adding extra things, like bunny hops, and hopping backwards, and hopping on one leg, just to watch them all do the same thing. :)
LOL! He should have broken into the Hokey-Pokey. ;)
Just some input on arm wrestling - I see it as a series of tests...the way I might do it is to keep track of who is beating who by how much, with a goal of say...a margin of 20.
Thus, schoolchild with Str 4 vs 20 Str strongman...-3 vs +5. The best the kid could hope for would be a 20 - 3, 17. The worst the strongman could get would be 1+5, 6. The kid is up by 11, miraculously. Still, if the numbers get reversed...-2 vs 25...that's 27 points, and the strongman would be up by 14, with odds of an easy win on the next roll...
Just a quick way of handling it that works more consistently.
I just say the strongman wins.
10 + 5 = 15
10 - 3 = 7
Take 10 should be used when you have no real chance of failure, and a strongman vs a 10yo school child is a 'no chance of failure' situation.
|
|
Just some input on arm wrestling - I see it as a series of tests...the way I might do it is to keep track of who is beating who by how much, with a goal of say...a margin of 20.
Thus, schoolchild with Str 4 vs 20 Str strongman...-3 vs +5. The best the kid could hope for would be a 20 - 3, 17. The worst the strongman could get would be 1+5, 6. The kid is up by 11, miraculously. Still, if the numbers get reversed...-2 vs 25...that's 27 points, and the strongman would be up by 14, with odds of an easy win on the next roll...
Just a quick way of handling it that works more consistently.
I just say the strongman wins.
10 + 5 = 15
10 - 3 = 7Take 10 should be used when you have no real chance of failure, and a strongman vs a 10yo school child is a 'no chance of failure' situation.
Realistically, so would I. That's just a quick thought on how to run a fairly evenly matched contest. :)
Just to contribute here, INT of 2 is the "smart" end of animal intelligence (dogs, horses) and 1 is the "dumb" animals, so based on that exponent who can imagine what a score of 3 can be...
IMO, 7 is fine, no RP penalty. You're bad at remembering and picking things up but you function as average.
What we should be talking about are people that roll characters with 20 INT that only have 9 in real life :). How do you play a "smart" character?
It's pretty hard to force these constructs on people and change their logical capabilities.
More importantly, I would ask what kind of cha score would the strong guy have if he needed to go to a little kids school and change them to arm wrestling matches? I would assume he would win and then what? Would he feel all kinds of powerful? Would he say I'm the strongest guy in the third grade? I'm being silly here.
Depends on the situation, if you ask me.The moment the "heroes" come to town at level 1 and have no achievements under their belt, then certainly, their mouthbreathing ways and foul odor will make people roll their eyes. But on the flip side, if they save the town from the marauding ogres that would have killed and eaten every man, woman and child, and the locals still go "Well, we're grateful you killed all the monsters, but your unkempt visage just...
Nobody ever said actions don't count for anything, but even with actions, the 7/7/7 guy is not going to be the one everyone is heaping the praise on. He just doesn't stand out.
Who get's the praise? The dashing rogue? The scrawny but smart caster? The wise and gentle priestess? Or the big dumb flunky? I doubt if the PCs hirelings get much praise, or at least not the lions share. The problem with a 7/7/7 character is that everyone is going to assume he's a flunky unless the rest of the party go out of their way to make sure everyone in town realizes he's not just a hired hand flunky who was in the right place at the right time. If they do that, then sure, he'll get some rewards and praise, but people with a choice will want to hang out with the dashing rogue, or the wise cleric, or the witty wizard, not the dull, dumb, foolish fighter/barbarian/whatever. They're a lot less likely to toss him out of a drinking establishment at least, now.
|
|
That's dedication. :)I'm fine if people want to play a 7/7/7 character, but play that character. He's not smart, he doesn't get the punch line of jokes, he's easily talked into doing stupid things, he doesn't inspire confidence in people, he doesn't take the lead, or if he does, nobody pays attention to him when he does....Unless of course that character has worked really hard to overcome his natural deficiency to excel in one or two particular areas (ie Cha 7, but 8 ranks, class skill and a Skill Focus in Diplomacy or Bluff still gives +12).
But I'm with you. Int 7 = not naturally intelligent, must apply oneself to become good at things that rely on learning/reasoning.
The problem I've seen is, the people who do 7/7/7 don't put anything into what they'd need to 'overcome' their weaknesses. They get one skill rank per level (maybe 2 if human), and put that skill rank into Perception or Intimidate (or both). Then they want to sit at the table, and talk eloquently to the king, discuss tactics and plans with the Council of Generals, and want to impress the tavern wench (or the handsome bard, depending on gender and orientation).
The problem being of course, that they have not actually done anything to enable them to do these things, and don't put skill ranks or feats toward frippery. But then yowl like a scalded cat if the NPCs don't treat them like god on toast. After all, they are the heroes, how dare the NPCs not worship them.
Depends on the situation, if you ask me.
The moment the "heroes" come to town at level 1 and have no achievements under their belt, then certainly, their mouthbreathing ways and foul odor will make people roll their eyes. But on the flip side, if they save the town from the marauding ogres that would have killed and eaten every man, woman and child, and the locals still go "Well, we're grateful you killed all the monsters, but your unkempt visage just...
That makes sense. They're heroes, no matter what...just because you wouldn't want your sister marrying one is no reason not to throw a party and feed 'em real good. ;)
|
|
Just to contribute here, INT of 2 is the "smart" end of animal intelligence (dogs, horses) and 1 is the "dumb" animals, so based on that exponent who can imagine what a score of 3 can be...
IMO, 7 is fine, no RP penalty. You're bad at remembering and picking things up but you function as average.
What we should be talking about are people that roll characters with 20 INT that only have 9 in real life :). How do you play a "smart" character?
It's pretty hard to force these constructs on people and change their logical capabilities.
Lol...yeah...or 8...or 7...
I always help out that kind of player. I want him to enjoy the game, and be able to play what he wants...it can be hard to not overdo it.
I always help out that kind of player. I want him to enjoy the game, and be able to play what he wants...it can be hard to not overdo it.
Yeah, but how? Do you randomly slip them Nietczhe quotes to smarten them up? lol
BTW, I have an array for my characters, don't allow dump stats - for purely mechanical reasons.
...I wonder if you will move the goalposts, but I will bite. To be socially significant, to have social effect in game you just need to pass some social checks and make some good calls. Now theYou're both giving "social significance" a different meaning. Hard to discuss meaningfully when that's the case...My point was simple...I didn't mean the actions couldn't have social relevance...I meant they would not be done in a social manner. He didn't work out a logical position, and sit down at a table and debate it out, coming up victorious when the Runelord became a good person, seeing the light...he cut his friggin' head off.A Cha/Int10 fighter/barb will not be socially significant either. Because he is not a socially significant class. He is slightly better at intimidating, which is only a facet of social maneuvering. A real social character has Lv+5 or more in Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive, something a barbarian/fighter cannot achieve without crippling his other ability scores and sinking several feats towards it.
People do not seem to realize that a cha/int 10 fighting type character will fail just as hard at social finesse and knowledge related endeavors simply because they are mechanically unable to keep their skills on par with the gradual increase of DCs by virtue of the design of their class. Having +1 or having -2 is irrelevant when the DC is over 20. Both fail automatically.
If you just cannot deal with people having 7 in a stat, cap the low end at character creation at 8, or hell, even 10. It is well within the power of a GM to do so. Give them a +2 or 4 PB at start to make up for it if people protest too much.
I don't mind it at all...I just think it's notable that the character is, in fact, pretty dull, mentally.
And yes, you got the point precisely...it takes Int, Cha, and skills to make a socially significant character.
Aww come on, don't be like that. I explained how in rp and in the mechanics a 7 int/wis or cha character can be socially significant. It is easy, declare actions, make rolls; focus if you want to succeed, the system rewards specialisation after all. There is little on the line here, you can take the hit.
I've got the perfect 7/7/7 guy example.
Kid comes home from school and say Mom we were comparing winkie sizes at school and I had the biggest one. Mom states you should have won your 17 and still in third grade. :)
Ok, I know old joke but still funny.