|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Lately, I've embraced the grid rolling method. 3 of four in a 3x3 grid, Str, Dex, and Con along one edge, Int, Wis, and Cha on one perpendicular:
... Str Dex Con
Int ... ... ...
Wis ... ... ...
Cha ... ... ...
Once a stat is used, It's used. Makes for pretty heroic stats, and it's rare that one is under 10.
:D
Does a stat under 10 trouble you El?
|
|
...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 makeYou'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.
Or, you know, you could just roleplay the character you built.
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.
Oh certainly. When set beside someone who is stellar at something, the inept one will disappear. That is how the game works. My Jade Regent bard can swing his sword, but compared to the optimized magus who totally dumped all mental stats but Int, he don't even know what end of the sword to hold. He outdamages me 3-5 times.
On the flip side, he has a good chance to fail at convincing an indifferent NPC to tell him what time it is. And my bard is automatically approached as the leader of the party, despite the fact that there is a dude wielding an artifact, a legitimate heir to an empire and an experienced caravan captain among the crew.
Only thing I kinda disagree upon is the notion of trying to toss out the professional combatant armed to the teeth. I've done part-time work as a bouncer in my college days, and I would be VERY polite around a guy who could ruin my ass without even trying. He may not have the skills to intimidate anyone, but neither does a T-rex or a dire tiger...
...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 toYou'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.
Game of thrones, today. Bronn, a character who disdains reading, fancy words, complexity. He seems to have a low int and comes from a very humble background. He likes fighting, prostitutes and getting paid. He is a really fine swordsman which takes a lot of skill but he is at heart a simple man with a distrust of intellect. When given control of the city guard, he puts a plan in motion to kill a lot of thieves to improve security during a siege. The plan is a success, because the guy knows thieves and how they turn on people, hoard food and will sell out the city. So we have Bronn who is not a reader, not into abstract complexity, not great in intellect, but effective at his job where simple solutions are required, effective at conceiving and carrying out a plan for his new city because it was in his own interest.
Roleplaying a low int? A few points off average doesn't mean roleplaying can't involve planning and using what the character knows: thieves, dungeoneering, monsters, trade networks or what have you. It also doesn't mean a character is too dumb to work out obvious benefit. The dumb can still see simple solutions, and success always has an effect.
He is not a brain, but he sure isn't dull. Yeah I am all over this dull claim of yours Eldon because whether a character is dull is not determined by a stat!
|
|
...I wonder if you will move the goalposts, but I will bite. To be socially significant, to have social effect inYou'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.
Bronn? Low intellect? He doesn't have a single low stat. He's exceptional...one of the most exceptional characters on the show, stat-wise...he's just not cultured.
|
|
He is not a brain, but he sure isn't dull. Yeah I am all over this dull claim of yours Eldon because whether a character is dull is not determined by a stat!
Dull...as in intellectually...is covered by Int. Really, it is. The higher it is, the smarter you are. The lower...the duller. Sorry if you don't like it...you don't have to. *shrug* It is what it is.
He doesn't read, is suspicious of books, he doesn't know any of the fields of high learning (low int).
He picks fights with some of the finest guards in westeros, the kingsguard last ep, and almost came to blows needlessly with said kingsguard who were guarding the queen, while all were inside the castle capital (low wis).
Really interesting character, very strong in melee and a jobber, but not smart or wise based on his behaviour, yet still capable of carrying out a plan to get ahead (although he also almost got himself into real trouble with the kingsguard).
Heroes, anti-heroes and characters far from dull do not have to have high mental stats. In stories and shows, they don't all have a fine mental stat array.
|
|
He doesn't read, is suspicious of books, he doesn't know any of the fields of high learning (low int).
He picks fights with some of the finest guards in westeros, the kingsguard last ep, and almost came to blows needlessly with said kingsguard who were guarding the queen, while all were inside the castle capital (low wis).
Really interesting character, very strong in melee and a jobber, but not smart or wise based on his behaviour, yet still capable of carrying out a plan to get ahead (although he also almost got himself into real trouble with the kingsguard).
Heroes, anti-heroes and characters far from dull do not have to have high mental stats. In stories and shows, they don't all have a fine mental stat array.
He can beat the finest guards in Westeros, and is basically CN. :p
That said, Wis is likely his lowest stat...maybe a 10...maybe 12. He plays players.
Again, what did you think the stats meant?
He is not a brain, but he sure isn't dull. Yeah I am all over this dull claim of yours Eldon because whether a character is dull is not determined by a stat!Dull...as in intellectually...is covered by Int. Really, it is. The higher it is, the smarter you are. The lower...the duller. Sorry if you don't like it...you don't have to. *shrug* It is what it is.
Wrong. Totally wrong in this game. What you would call dull, a dullard can still with skill points and feats be extremely adept at at least a few knowledge skills. They can take history, they can take nobility. So this "dull" person has a great deal of historical knowledge, a grasp of epochs, events, key figures and historical transition, along with the names and accomplishments of elites and heroes which they can recall because they know it thoroughly.
The same thing happens if the low int druid specialises in knowledge nature. They are not dull, they know huge amounts about the natural world: the changes behind the seasons, animals, plants, natural dangers what flora or fauna can do in nature and how they can be used.
How dull are they again? How has the stat of int forced them to be intellectually dull?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of it is based on level and class. a 10th level bard with a 7 int. is going to be smarter than a 1st level warrior with 10 int.
Skill points, class skills, items... these are more important then the base score...
I would consider a 7 int character the type who has to look at his notes before spouting off knowledge. A little absent minded, not too great with the details. But I don't think it automatically makes him a hillbilly mountain folk/ogre kin type who sounds out the big words...
Really it's just a negative 2 to the knowledge roll... with a class skill in the knowledge skill... he's still +1 better then the 10 int guy who ISN'T class skilling it...
|
|
I think a lot of it is based on level and class. a 10th level bard with a 7 int. is going to be smarter than a 1st level warrior with 10 int.
Skill points, class skills, items... these are more important then the base score...
I would consider a 7 int character the type who has to look at his notes before spouting off knowledge. A little absent minded, not too great with the details. But I don't think it automatically makes him a hillbilly mountain folk/ogre kin type who sounds out the big words...
Really it's just a negative 2 to the knowledge roll... with a class skill in the knowledge skill... he's still +1 better then the 10 int guy who ISN'T class skilling it...
Not smarter...more knowledgeable. More skilled. Less raw intelligence.
He doesn't read, is suspicious of books, he doesn't know any of the fields of high learning (low int).
He picks fights with some of the finest guards in westeros, the kingsguard last ep, and almost came to blows needlessly with said kingsguard who were guarding the queen, while all were inside the castle capital (low wis).
Really interesting character, very strong in melee and a jobber, but not smart or wise based on his behaviour, yet still capable of carrying out a plan to get ahead (although he also almost got himself into real trouble with the kingsguard).
Heroes, anti-heroes and characters far from dull do not have to have high mental stats. In stories and shows, they don't all have a fine mental stat array.
He can beat the finest guards in Westeros, and is basically CN. :p
That said, Wis is likely his lowest stat...maybe a 10...maybe 12. He plays players.
Again, what did you think the stats meant?
You don't get it do you, if he had won he would have died or been forced to flee. More kingsguard, more guards, the queen calls for his death. If he had lost he would also be dead. Profoundly un-wise move from the tv character, and it has been emphasised he isn't especially intelligent or learned, a simple crude and very good sellsword.
Trying to say he is 10 but no lower is simply the refusal to acknowledge how un-wise it was (almost getting yourself killed in a no-win situation, go Bronn the great thinker).
Clearly you want all heroes and adventurer types to always have great stats, or they are useless and dull. Work out what you desperately want to make fit, and you will see you are attempting to force your way when it doesn't always work.
|
|
He is not a brain, but he sure isn't dull. Yeah I am all over this dull claim of yours Eldon because whether a character is dull is not determined by a stat!Dull...as in intellectually...is covered by Int. Really, it is. The higher it is, the smarter you are. The lower...the duller. Sorry if you don't like it...you don't have to. *shrug* It is what it is.Wrong. Totally wrong in this game. What you would call dull, a dullard can still with skill points and feats be extremely adept at at least a few knowledge skills. They can take history, they can take nobility. So this "dull" person has a great deal of historical knowledge, a grasp of epochs, events, key figures and historical transition, along with the names and accomplishments of elites and heroes which they can recall because they know it thoroughly.
The same thing happens if the low int druid specialises in knowledge nature. They are not dull, they know huge amounts about the natural world: the changes behind the seasons, animals, plants, natural dangers what flora or fauna can do in nature and how they can be used.
How dull are they again? How has the stat of int forced them to be intellectually dull?
Intelligence is the ability to think on one's feet, to reason out what one does not know by rote. Yes, a dullard can slowly come to know one subject very well...while a genius may never apply himself at all.
And? The genius can still out-think the guy with the 7 Int, all other things being equal.
I think a lot of it is based on level and class. a 10th level bard with a 7 int. is going to be smarter than a 1st level warrior with 10 int.
Skill points, class skills, items... these are more important then the base score...
I would consider a 7 int character the type who has to look at his notes before spouting off knowledge. A little absent minded, not too great with the details. But I don't think it automatically makes him a hillbilly mountain folk/ogre kin type who sounds out the big words...
Really it's just a negative 2 to the knowledge roll... with a class skill in the knowledge skill... he's still +1 better then the 10 int guy who ISN'T class skilling it...
Yeah that is a good way to see it. Not perfect, I am sure I left my notes here somewhere.
He is not a brain, but he sure isn't dull. Yeah I am all over this dull claim of yours Eldon because whether a character is dull is not determined by a stat!Dull...as in intellectually...is covered by Int. Really, it is. The higher it is, the smarter you are. The lower...the duller. Sorry if you don't like it...you don't have to. *shrug* It is what it is.Wrong. Totally wrong in this game. What you would call dull, a dullard can still with skill points and feats be extremely adept at at least a few knowledge skills. They can take history, they can take nobility. So this "dull" person has a great deal of historical knowledge, a grasp of epochs, events, key figures and historical transition, along with the names and accomplishments of elites and heroes which they can recall because they know it thoroughly.
The same thing happens if the low int druid specialises in knowledge nature. They are not dull, they know huge amounts about the natural world: the changes behind the seasons, animals, plants, natural dangers what flora or fauna can do in nature and how they can be used.
How dull are they again? How has the stat of int forced them to be intellectually dull?
Intelligence is the ability to think on one's feet, to reason out what one does not know by rote. Yes, a dullard can slowly come to know one subject very well...while a genius may never apply himself at all.
And? The genius can still out-think the guy with the 7 Int, all other things being equal.
Yeah, and a low int character can still think on their feet and recall and apply any knowledge skill they have, and anything they know. There is no think on your feet ability that is disabled by a 7 int.
|
|
He doesn't read, is suspicious of books, he doesn't know any of the fields of high learning (low int).
He picks fights with some of the finest guards in westeros, the kingsguard last ep, and almost came to blows needlessly with said kingsguard who were guarding the queen, while all were inside the castle capital (low wis).
Really interesting character, very strong in melee and a jobber, but not smart or wise based on his behaviour, yet still capable of carrying out a plan to get ahead (although he also almost got himself into real trouble with the kingsguard).
Heroes, anti-heroes and characters far from dull do not have to have high mental stats. In stories and shows, they don't all have a fine mental stat array.
He can beat the finest guards in Westeros, and is basically CN. :p
That said, Wis is likely his lowest stat...maybe a 10...maybe 12. He plays players.
Again, what did you think the stats meant?
You don't get it do you, if he had won he would have died or been forced to flee. More kingsguard, more guards, the queen calls for his death. If he had lost he would also be dead. Profoundly un-wise move from the tv character, and it has been emphasised he isn't especially intelligent or learned, a simple crude and very good sellsword.
Trying to say he is 10 but no lower is simply the refusal to acknowledge how un-wise it was (almost getting yourself killed in a no-win situation, go Bronn the great thinker).
Clearly you want all heroes and adventurer types to always have great stats, or they are useless and dull. Work out what you desperately want to make fit, and you will see you are attempting to force your way when it doesn't always work.
No.
You fail to understand that it's all a huge game of chess, move and counter-move...and he is a player. He is not a pawn. He's not a genius, but you don't come close to giving him the credit he's due. Now...he's out of his element, in the city, but he learns fast. That's the mark of an intelligent man.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, and a low int character can still think on their feet and recall and apply any knowledge skill they have, and anything they know. There is no think on your feet ability that is disabled by a 7 int.He is not a brain, but he sure isn't dull. Yeah I am all over this dull claim of yours Eldon because whether a character is dull is not determined by a stat!Dull...as in intellectually...is covered by Int. Really, it is. The higher it is, the smarter you are. The lower...the duller. Sorry if you don't like it...you don't have to. *shrug* It is what it is.Wrong. Totally wrong in this game. What you would call dull, a dullard can still with skill points and feats be extremely adept at at least a few knowledge skills. They can take history, they can take nobility. So this "dull" person has a great deal of historical knowledge, a grasp of epochs, events, key figures and historical transition, along with the names and accomplishments of elites and heroes which they can recall because they know it thoroughly.
The same thing happens if the low int druid specialises in knowledge nature. They are not dull, they know huge amounts about the natural world: the changes behind the seasons, animals, plants, natural dangers what flora or fauna can do in nature and how they can be used.
How dull are they again? How has the stat of int forced them to be intellectually dull?
Intelligence is the ability to think on one's feet, to reason out what one does not know by rote. Yes, a dullard can slowly come to know one subject very well...while a genius may never apply himself at all.
And? The genius can still out-think the guy with the 7 Int, all other things being equal.
Yes, there is. It's called an Int roll. Make it. It's a tough one, the target is 20.
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.
But now you assume a situation where a DM comes up with a solution for testing something, and that solution makes the kid have a chance. I don't think there are ANY opposed strength checks in the book at all, so everything is made up by the DM. And if we look at intent, it might be relevant to look at what 3.5 wrote about this:
"In some cases, an action is a straight test of one’s ability with no luck involved. Just as you wouldn’t make a height check to see who is taller, you don’t make a Strength check to see who is stronger."
I realize PF is a different game but PF by RAW has basically no opposed strength checks so claiming that someone doing an opposed check would have high risk of losing against a weak character seems irrelevant.
Actually, looking at it now, I cannot find any section mentioning opposed strength checks at all. I might very well have missed it, but it's not in Ability Scores (where it'd make sense) or in Using Skills (where it was in 3.5).
The only opposed ability check I can think of would be the opposed charisma check of someone trying to bind outsiders, which is pretty niche and hard to determine what is "realistic" or not.
So while the system isn't realistic as such, this way of showing how it's not realistic fails in that it's not part of the actual system but a completely DM-invented method of determination.
So what we have is skills, and there the difference is much larger. For example, if the test of strength is to see who is quickest at swiming a length of 100 ft. in calm water, the character with 18 str WILL win over the str 7 character, unless extremely unlucky. The str 7 will move an average of 6.75 ft per round, the strength 18 at a speed of 12.25 ft per round. That difference is too large to make up for with luck.
In basically any real life test of strength that exists, they either cannot at all be modelled by the mechanics of the game or they can be, and when they can be the stronger character will have almost certain success (if the difference is as large as a +6) whether it's swimming, climbing or jumping (if jump had been dex-based).
Yes, there is. It's called an Int roll. Make it. It's a tough one, the target is 20.Yeah, and a low int character can still think on their feet and recall and apply any knowledge skill they have, and anything they know. There is no think on your feet ability that is disabled by a 7 int.He is not a brain, but he sure isn't dull. Yeah I am all over this dull claim of yours Eldon because whether a character is dull is not determined by a stat!Dull...as in intellectually...is covered by Int. Really, it is. The higher it is, the smarter you are. The lower...the duller. Sorry if you don't like it...you don't have to. *shrug* It is what it is.Wrong. Totally wrong in this game. What you would call dull, a dullard can still with skill points and feats be extremely adept at at least a few knowledge skills. They can take history, they can take nobility. So this "dull" person has a great deal of historical knowledge, a grasp of epochs, events, key figures and historical transition, along with the names and accomplishments of elites and heroes which they can recall because they know it thoroughly.
The same thing happens if the low int druid specialises in knowledge nature. They are not dull, they know huge amounts about the natural world: the changes behind the seasons, animals, plants, natural dangers what flora or fauna can do in nature and how they can be used.
How dull are they again? How has the stat of int forced them to be intellectually dull?
Intelligence is the ability to think on one's feet, to reason out what one does not know by rote. Yes, a dullard can slowly come to know one subject very well...while a genius may never apply himself at all.
And? The genius can still out-think the guy with the 7 Int, all other things being equal.
Why is it an int roll? Why is it 20?
Are you trying to tell me we have to make an int check of 20, by the rules to have our characters think on their feet?
Are you serious, show me the rules. Better make it THIRTY!
|
|
Yes, there is. It's called an Int roll. Make it. It's a tough one, the target is 20.Yeah, and a low int character can still think on their feet and recall and apply any knowledge skill they have, and anything they know. There is no think on your feet ability that is disabled by a 7 int.He is not a brain, but he sure isn't dull. Yeah I am all over this dull claim of yours Eldon because whether a character is dull is not determined by a stat!Dull...as in intellectually...is covered by Int. Really, it is. The higher it is, the smarter you are. The lower...the duller. Sorry if you don't like it...you don't have to. *shrug* It is what it is.Wrong. Totally wrong in this game. What you would call dull, a dullard can still with skill points and feats be extremely adept at at least a few knowledge skills. They can take history, they can take nobility. So this "dull" person has a great deal of historical knowledge, a grasp of epochs, events, key figures and historical transition, along with the names and accomplishments of elites and heroes which they can recall because they know it thoroughly.
The same thing happens if the low int druid specialises in knowledge nature. They are not dull, they know huge amounts about the natural world: the changes behind the seasons, animals, plants, natural dangers what flora or fauna can do in nature and how they can be used.
How dull are they again? How has the stat of int forced them to be intellectually dull?
Intelligence is the ability to think on one's feet, to reason out what one does not know by rote. Yes, a dullard can slowly come to know one subject very well...while a genius may never apply himself at all.
And? The genius can still out-think the guy with the 7 Int, all other things being equal.
Why is it an int roll? Why is it 20?
Are you trying to tell me...
The DC is set at what the DM thinks it should be...and what it is is a roll against an untrained skill. If you've never heard of that, look in the rulebook.
Why is thinking on your feet an int check of 20?
Because you are scared int doesn't matter than much. 14, 16, 20 all the high stats, they don't really matter. For intelligence, the player matters and the plans they come up with matter, so you want to put a very high int check for thinking. Which is plainly ludicrous as "make a dc int check of 20 to have your character think" is nowhere in the pf rulebook.
If it is any sort of knowledge check, that is the check that needs to be made. Those are the rules buddy, and alas, a low int specialist may put a high int with no or low investment in a skill to shame. How dull, lol.
Your biggest problem with putting an int check of 20 to think on you feet, is what happens if the 18 int char fails it? HA! They are only on +4, they could still fail your "thinking" challenge hard.
Or would you just waiver it for them? Because the 7 int char must have a massive hurdle to prevent thinking and doing in game.
|
|
Why is thinking on your feet an int check of 20?
Because you are scared int doesn't matter than much. 14, 16, 20 all the high stats, they don't really matter. For intelligence, the player matters and the plans they come up with matter, so you want to put a very high int check for thinking. Which is plainly ludicrous as "make a dc int check of 20 to have your character think" is nowhere in the pf rulebook.
If it is any sort of knowledge check, that is the check that needs to be made. Those are the rules buddy, and alas, a low int specialist may put a high int with no or low investment in a skill to shame. How dull, lol.
Take a look throughout APs. It's not always 20...it can be higher or lower. Did you get the point, though? 20 is very reasonable, come mid levels...and you simply cannot make it with a low Int. You're quite challenged if it's a 12...and that's very low level. That's thinking on your feet...being able to reason out something you don't know by rote.
Why would that be? Because the character is unintelligent...dull...stupid....take your pick. Again, I've played stupid characters...and I play them as stupid characters. That can be a blast...but they don't make elaborate plans...and are likely to foul them up if someone makes one for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take a look throughout APs. It's not always 20...it can be higher or lower. Did you get the point, though? 20 is very reasonable, come mid levels...and you simply cannot make it with a low Int. You're quite challenged if it's a 12...and that's very low level. That's thinking on your feet...being able to reason out something you don't know by rote.
Why would that be? Because the character is unintelligent...dull...stupid....take your pick. Again, I've played stupid characters...and I play them as stupid characters. That can be a blast...but they don't make elaborate plans...and are likely to foul them up if someone makes one for them.
Uh, no. A 20 on an ability check isn't "very reasonable" at any point except for characters that hyper focus in it. Heck, even the smartest human alive (Starting Int 20 +5 Levels +5 Tomes +6 headband = 36 = +13 mod) has a 35% chance of failing that DC 20 ability check to think on their feet.
And I see you failed to note that any Int check just to "think on their feet" makes characters that are at the peak of standard human learning (20 or so) are only 25% more likely to be able to "think on their feet" than the average man, and only 35% more likely than this "dullard" you're talking about. So setting this DC to "think on your feet" doesn't always stop the dullard while making the genius guaranteed to succeed, simply because of how small a range the numbers provide.
|
|
Take a look throughout APs. It's not always 20...it can be higher or lower. Did you get the point, though? 20 is very reasonable, come mid levels...and you simply cannot make it with a low Int. You're quite challenged if it's a 12...and that's very low level. That's thinking on your feet...being able to reason out something you don't know by rote.
Why would that be? Because the character is unintelligent...dull...stupid....take your pick. Again, I've played stupid characters...and I play them as stupid characters. That can be a blast...but they don't make elaborate plans...and are likely to foul them up if someone makes one for them.
Uh, no. A 20 on an ability check isn't "very reasonable" at any point except for characters that hyper focus in it. Heck, even the smartest human alive (Starting Int 20 +5 Levels +5 Tomes +6 headband = 36 = +13 mod) has a 35% chance of failing that DC 20 ability check to think on their feet.
And I see you failed to note that any Int check just to "think on their feet" makes characters that are at the peak of standard human learning (20 or so) are only 25% more likely to be able to "think on their feet" than the average man, and only 35% more likely than this "dullard" you're talking about. So setting this DC to "think on your feet" doesn't always stop the dullard while making the genius guaranteed to succeed, simply because of how small a range the numbers provide.
Slow down, here.
When a roll is called for, and it's an untrained skill, that doesn't change the DC of the roll. A 20 is a reasonable DC. It's quite simple. If you can actually make whatever roll is required successfully, you've performed a skill you were only vaguely familiar with. No, even the smartest characters aren't going to have that flash of inspiration, every time...but if it is a DC 20, the dull characters have a zero chance. Yes, even a very slow individual can come up with something every once in a blue moon. I didn't mean that it was impossible...and I even mentioned something about consistency.
Let me give you an even better example...you have a party that seems utterly lost on a point...but they start brainstorming. If you call for Int rolls, and make them too low, you might as well not bother. If you make them fairly high...and give them a new roll every once in a while...maybe making it tougher as it goes...who will make the roll? Odds are it won't be the guy with the 7 Int, if anybody does.
|
|
Incidentally, here is Jerome Flynn's description of Bronn (and the preceding question):
IGN: That's interesting. I guess in my mind it would be more disturbing to play Bronn, because he doesn't have any moral compass.
Jerome Flynn: Well maybe I tap into Bennett Drake’s own experience; because he is to be used in the police department as brawn (funnily enough), but he's not totally comfortable with it. For Bronn on the other hand, it would be much more like water off a ducks back to him. He will kill when he has to kill, but having said that, and I may be proved wrong…Tyrion says, 'Would you kill a baby if I asked you?' and Bronn says, 'I'd ask how much.' I don't know if that's true. I think he's very good at telling Tyrion what he wants to hear, and showing Tyrion what he wants to see. He's a clever man, Bronn, actually. And so he's also playing a parody, or some kind of character. He's very ambitious.
|
|
Let me give you an even better example...you have a party that seems utterly lost on a point...but they start brainstorming. If you call for Int rolls, and make them too low, you might as well not bother. If you make them fairly high...and give them a new roll every once in a while...maybe making it tougher as it goes...who will make the roll? Odds are it won't be the guy with the 7 Int, if anybody does.So are you talking about situations where the players are stumped, and the GM is feeding them information based on the INT roll? Because I don't see how that relates to the situation being discussed. Yes, INT 7 characters will have a very hard time getting those kind of hints from the GM. I don't think anyone's suggesting that they're as entitled to those as the INT 20 guy.
The problem is when you make the very act of "thinking on your feet" into a skill check in and of itself. I.e. when the party isn't stumped, when the players themselves come up with an idea of their own that qualifies as "thinking on their feet". But if "thinking on your feet" requires a check beyond saying what you're going to do (like "bluffing the guard" requires a check beyond "explaining the lie they want to tell") and you ask for a DC20 INT check for them to put that into practice then you get the absurdity of the situation described above.
There are DCs for recalling specific facts, for evaluating the value of items, and for crafting items. There is no INT rolling DC mechanic described anywhere in the rules for "make this DC in order to justify the idea you, the player, already thought up", because if there were it would result in the problem that Johnico so aptly points out.
No, there isn't. If it suits you that an intelligent player plays his low intelligence character like he's just shy of a genius, good for you. I find that extremely poor roleplaying. What I thoroughly object to, however, is the concept that I'm supposed to agree with someone that a 7 Int character isn't slow. He is, and that's all there is to it. Feel free to think that a 7 represents Einstein, for all I care, but it's ridiculous...a low stat represents a low intelligence. If you don't like me using the word dull to describe that, that's on you.
Now, if you think I made up some sort of roll by pointing out that an unskilled roll for an Int skill uses the Int bonus, I suggest you read up in the book.
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.
"All I want is pants, a decent pair of pants!"
"Solomon Grundy want pants too!"
"Solomon Grundy want pants too!"
I just knew someone was going to bring that up.
(roaring laughter)
Actually, I REEEEEALY wish the original animated cartoon was that warped! The bits Cartoon Network did on the twins alone was worth ALL of the 90's!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that a 7 int character would not be making elaborate plans. It doesn't necessarily mean that hey would be poor at thinking on their feet. It comes down their skillset and the situation. If everyone is on a ship and its extremely stormy, those with average or below average int but have invested ranks and feats in the appropriate knowledge skill(nature), would have the best chance of figuring out some temporary solution. I've seen 7 cha rogues who are the party diplomats because their average diplomacy check at level 8 was in the high twenties. So this individual is scarred and nowhere near good-looking but when they speak, they rarely offend, regardless of who or what they are addressing.
Also seen 7 int characters who at least formulate some sort of plan, on occasion. Granted, such plans are not elaborate. However, the other pc wth 16+ int never comes up with any such thing. Shys away from social interaction. I've noticed its increasingly common in games. Its the character with the -ve modifier to certain mental stats which are interesting. The ones with +ves in all mental stats, they behave in a very bland fashion. Really odd.
So, it appears that in Golarion, about 90% of the NPC are Std array, 10% are elite, a handful have special arrays by assignment, and PC’s are so rare as to not even be 1/10 of 1%.
Thus, in Golarion, Int 7 (base races) are well less than 1% of the population.
Of course, in other fantasy universes, other numbers rule.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ 3.5 Loyalist, “dull” can be defined as "intellectually weak or obtuse; stupid." Saying that an Int 7 character is stupid (not intelligent) is not the same thing as saying they can't be knowledgeable about a specific subject, and it certainly isn't saying they're boring.
I've noticed its increasingly common in games. Its the character with the -ve modifier to certain mental stats which are interesting. The ones with +ves in all mental stats, they behave in a very bland fashion. Really odd.
It can indeed be interesting to play a character who overcomes some weakness.
There are DCs for recalling specific facts, for evaluating the value of items, and for crafting items. There is no INT rolling DC mechanic described anywhere in the rules for "make this DC in order to justify the idea you, the player, already thought up", because if there were it would result in the problem that Johnico so aptly points out.
And this is the problem with mental stats. A 7/7/7 Int/Wis/Cha character should have a hard time making good decisions and coming up with complex plans, especially without relevant skill points. But who wants to tell a player to keep their mouth shut because they're coming up with more good ideas or more complex plans than their character should be able to come up with (without relying on OOC knowledge)? Player participation and creativity are good things, and some players don't like to sit on a good idea for the sake of RP. And I don't blame them. If one of these people is playing a low Int character it might be helpful for them to plan OOC and then execute OOC with the high-Int characters in the lead, like Lumiere Dawnbringer suggested a while back. For others, this might break immersion. Every group needs to find a solution that works for them.
So, it appears that in Golarion, about 90% of the NPC are Std array, 10% are elite, a handful have special arrays by assignment, and PC’s are so rare as to not even be 1/10 of 1%.
Thus, in Golarion, Int 7 (base races) are well less than 1% of the population.
Of course, in other fantasy universes, other numbers rule.
...so you're claiming, if I understand you correctly, that everybody in Golarion gets their stats from an array instead of rolling? Can I get a source on that? I don't follow what you're basing that requirement on.
The suggested method for NPC generation is an array. Of course, that's in order to save the GM the effort of actually rolling stats for every NPC...
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.
True, but when you're talking about how to interpret the meaning of a number (the Int score) we either need examples of things with that score or we need to look at the statistics to see how high or low that score is relative to the collection of scores as a whole.
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.
I find it interesting that you assume that the hulking brute is more likely to be dismissed as a flunky than the scrawny bookworm. The whole reason that wizards usually get pointy hats, long beards, robes, staves, etc is because without these things they are likely to be mistaken for clerks.
If the 7/7/7 character has correspondingly high physical stats, he is going to get respect for that ability, especially in a culture that values physical prowess. He might be a dumb ugly guy, but he's a big dumb ugly guy who can kill a lion with his bare hands. You might not want to hang out with him, but you're not going to dismiss him. And if the Int 20 wizard also has Cha 7, people aren't going to want to hang out with him no matter how witty he is.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I used to work with developmentally disabled adults, so here are a few roleplaying suggestions based on my observations of them:
I'd say a person with a 7 INT would not learn new things easily. He would tend to want to do things the way he first learned to do them in childhood, and be unwilling or unable to learn a different method.
He might have a limited vocabulary. Not Solomon Grundy limited, but he wouldn't know many three or four syllable words.
He wouldn't come up with complex plans of action, but he might be able to come up with a suggestion when the party is brainstorming. It would just be a simple "Get 'em!" plan though, not something with a lot of detailed dependencies.
He might like certain objects, shiny things or bits of fur or fabric for example, and always wants to collect them from any treasure being shared among the party.
He might have a tendency to call people by the wrong names, if that person resembles someone else he used to know.
He probably wouldn't have a very good grasp of the value of money. He wouldn't get the right change, and wouldn't be able to haggle.
Dire Elf, I too have worked with disabled adults and children and teens. I totally agree with you.
In a rpg characters aren't players. I don't think anyone is saying that a player has to just sit there like a lump on a log if they are playing a 7/7/7. Players can help each other out OOC. The problem is when the 7/7/7 player has his character in game say " listen dumb a$$ E= mc2 means that Bla Bla. His 7/7/7 would have no freaking idea how E= mc2 affects anything. It's a bit of realism that I think most people are looking for.
Rasmus Nielsen you said you have autism. Autism is not a low int score but a disorder. I have a learning disorder as well. Which is not the same thing as a low int score. I think an adequate example of autism might be an allergic reaction to a bee sting. You could have a 20 con and be in great shape and rarely get sick but when a bee stings you are toast.
|
|
As someone with a diagnosed atypical autism disorder, but higher functioning, someone who is developmentally disabled, can be quite intelligent, in the intelligence area, that is, however, his social and communication, plus common sense, might be lacking.
I often RP things that I am *not* in real life, it's one of the parts of my autism that makes me atypical, my ability to communicate, and my active intelligence and creativity, which in an online spectrum in particular aren't as visible as in person. However, as my doctors (Psychiatrists and Psychologists) explained to me, I am mentally handicapped, due to my autism, because a large part of my intelligence is used to cope and react and understand the world around me, that I do not grasp, I use a large part of my reasoning and mental faculties to understand the world around me, and make sense of things. I cannot read body language, I don't get social situations, I have trouble keeping track of social directions, what's right and wrong, all in all, I have a very hard time "thinking" on my feet, when it comes to common sense, social situations, and even in heavilly traficked social situations, where I'm not trying to figure things out, but trying to do something intelligent (Such as finances, complex math, solving puzzles, seeing patterns.) However, in a stressed situation, where I have little to no interference, my ability to grasp, both logic, complex math, new concepts, complex ideas and complex social interactions, on a logical and intellectual level is high, I can for instance roleplay a character who grasps/masters social concepts, in small groups or one on one, I can, due to my own previous experiences and catalogues, and due to my brain, and teaching myself to cover the fact that I have no clue about body language, instead learning to use eyes, and voice to help me understand social cues, from individuals, I have highly repetitive body language, and also exaggerated bodylanguage, for instance, as a child, I mimmicked adult body-language, not...
I would definitely disagree that you have an Int 7. Did you see my comment on Rainman, earlier? It's not that you're actually unintelligent, it's that you have problems in the brain...flaws. You likely have a decent Wis, too, from what I see in your post...Cha is harder to say. I really don't think you give yourself the credit you deserve.
I just knew someone was going to bring that up.
"Solomon Grundy want pants too!"
LOL