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.
Yep claymade, I agree and that was my point. There is no roll to think on your feet check "make this DC in order to justify the idea you, the player, already thought up" is covered under and as a part of roleplaying. We are playing characters, ideas and plans go through the character. To impose int checks to act is just a hurdle to punish a low or even mediocre intelligence score.
I understand your thinking and reasoning Rasmus Nielsen and you make a good case. I still somewhat disagree with you but not enough to split hairs. Have a good night
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.
Yeah, I've seen that too, which is what I think is drawing me into this. The idea a low stat char (which I play), should be bland and dull when the high stats are not thinking at all (well maybe thinking about optimisation and offering sexual favours to npcs to get a new upgrade).
Thus, I feel that someone who has 7 intelligence, is not nescesarilly dumb, or slow, or dull, by the RAW, but can be exceptionally intelligent, and simply lack the ability or tools intellectually to apply the intelligence "effectively" at all times.
This is an excellent summation of my thoughts. Thanks Rasmus.
Yep, or they only have a few specialties, and cannot be good at everything (reflected in the skill points).
Oh, by the way, my halfling barbarian is actually 7'10". Don't worry, mechanically he's Small, but mechanically Small doesn't have to be the same as "fluff" small. Only a Simulationist would say such a thing.Gamists, narrativists, and simulationists would all agree that your halfling cannot be 7'10" tall in his natural form, because the rules explicitly state how tall halflings can be in real-world feet and inches. In fact, the rules explicitly state how long or tall a Small creature can be in real-world feet and inches (allowing for abstractions in the case of long, narrow creatures like snakes).
That being said, Small (size category) does not equal small (English-language adjective). If that were the case, a character with a small scar on his cheek would somehow have a two-foot long gash on his face, because two feet is the bottom limit for the length of something Small.
Can you how me where in the rules it says that a character cannot exceed the height range given on the "Random Height and Weight" table?.
Since you seem determined to deliberately misunderstand my "Small =/= small" paragraph, let me explicitly describe what I meant: a Small creature is actually small, not because of rules and numbers, but because small means small. The designers used the word small to create the game term "Small" because of they wanted the term to describe a creature that is small compared to our baseline, which is human-sized. Similarly, the designers used the word intelligence to create the game term "Intelligence" because that's what they wanted that number to describe. If your Intelligence stat is above average, you have above average intelligence. If you have a below average Intelligence stat, you have below average intelligence.
Just clear this up for me.
Are you claiming that Intelligence =/= intelligence?
Do you think the game designers meant for that stat to be a metric for intelligence?
If not, why did they use the word?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you claiming that Intelligence =/= intelligence?
Do you think the game designers meant for that stat to be a metric for intelligence?
If not, why did they use the word?
My 2cp: Because that is what they did in D&D, AD&D, 2E, 3E, 3.5?
An interesting note is that in 2E Players Option: Skills & Powers, you were given the option to partition Intelligence into TWO substats: Reason and Knowledge.
Reason governed your deductive reasoning, your ability to think abstract, solve puzzles and so on. Knowledge determined your level of education, governed you bonus languages and additional proficiencies, which today you translate to skillpoints.
Simplicity and backwards compatibility seems to me to fit more when applying Occam's Razor, rather than intent.
Also, back in the day, when the game was designed, there was NO mechanical difference between someone with Int 3 and int 8. The table even read "Int 3-8: 1 Bonus proficiency, no spellcasting". So for all intents and purposes Int3 = Int8 in the old days, when the game was made, if your character did not take any int based proficiencies.
Saying that a stat is more than what the table of modifiers imply is strictly up to the interpretation of every player and GM. There was a time when we were so spoiled with ability scores that we considered anything below 15 worthless. Because according to 2e tables... that was true.
Are you claiming that Intelligence =/= intelligence?
Do you think the game designers meant for that stat to be a metric for intelligence?
If not, why did they use the word?My 2cp: Because that is what they did in D&D, AD&D, 2E, 3E, 3.5?
An interesting note is that in 2E Players Option: Skills & Powers, you were given the option to partition Intelligence into TWO substats: Reason and Knowledge.
Reason governed your deductive reasoning, your ability to think abstract, solve puzzles and so on. Knowledge determined your level of education, governed you bonus languages and additional proficiencies, which today you translate to skillpoints.
Simplicity and backwards compatibility seems to me to fit more when applying Occam's Razor, rather than intent.
Also, back in the day, when the game was designed, there was NO mechanical difference between someone with Int 3 and int 8. The table even read "Int 3-8: 1 Bonus proficiency, no spellcasting". So for all intents and purposes Int3 = Int8 in the old days, when the game was made, if your character did not take any int based proficiencies.
Saying that a stat is more than what the table of modifiers imply is strictly up to the interpretation of every player and GM. There was a time when we were so spoiled with ability scores that we considered anything below 15 worthless. Because according to 2e tables... that was true.
You answered the last question (and thus implicitly the second I guess), but not the first. Care to?
Also, the CRB does define the Int stat as more than the table of modifiers. It's been quoted numerous times in this thread.
If someone handed me a character sheet for one of my games with 7s in all three mental stats, but still described himself as "smart" in his background story, I would laugh uncontrollably for a few minutes and then tell the player that may be how the character views himself, but that he is actually delusional and the rest of the world pretty much considers him a dullard.And that is when I would walk away from your table.
If you wanted to be a reasonable human being and talk to me about it, about your perspective, and how you felt about stats and the way you think they should affect the story, I'd have listened and perhaps we could have come to a compromise.
But you just ripping control over my character away like that, interpreting him differently from how I envisioned him, and to even go so far as to laugh in my face about it? No thank you. I'd rather go gameless than play in that scenario.
You are correct that that would be pretty rude, and thank you for calling me on it. I guess I was thinking in the context of my group, which has been playing together for years, and laughs a lot at/with each other without anyone taking offense (well, at least not usually, certainly noone has ever walked away from the table). We also (naturally) have a similar playstyle that has developed over the years, and it just wouldn't fly in our group. I, as the GM, would not be the only one laughing, the rest of the table would, too, because, in our opinion, a player who describes his 7 Int, 7 Wis, 7 Cha character as "smart" is pretty hilarious. Sorry if you don't appreciate the humor.
You answered the last question (and thus implicitly the second I guess), but not the first. Care to?Are you claiming that Intelligence =/= intelligence?
Do you think the game designers meant for that stat to be a metric for intelligence?
If not, why did they use the word?My 2cp: Because that is what they did in D&D, AD&D, 2E, 3E, 3.5?
An interesting note is that in 2E Players Option: Skills & Powers, you were given the option to partition Intelligence into TWO substats: Reason and Knowledge.
Reason governed your deductive reasoning, your ability to think abstract, solve puzzles and so on. Knowledge determined your level of education, governed you bonus languages and additional proficiencies, which today you translate to skillpoints.
Simplicity and backwards compatibility seems to me to fit more when applying Occam's Razor, rather than intent.
Also, back in the day, when the game was designed, there was NO mechanical difference between someone with Int 3 and int 8. The table even read "Int 3-8: 1 Bonus proficiency, no spellcasting". So for all intents and purposes Int3 = Int8 in the old days, when the game was made, if your character did not take any int based proficiencies.
Saying that a stat is more than what the table of modifiers imply is strictly up to the interpretation of every player and GM. There was a time when we were so spoiled with ability scores that we considered anything below 15 worthless. Because according to 2e tables... that was true.
I guess it might be a bit of a cop-out, but I think my answer would be "Depends on how you see it."
I have seen a ton of interpretations through my 20-odd years of playing roleplaying games, and I find that the textbook definition of intelligence encroaches on Wisdom on more than a few places.
Personally, I think that int and wis combined form the amalgam of what we consider to be intelligence IRL.
For me, what you call "fluff", the story, is the most vitally important part of the game, and to be credible, must be supported by the stats. If you want your character to be smart, or even average, don't dump the stat.For me, what I call "fluff" isn't directly supported by any stat in the game. Each ability score measures the probability of a character achieving a certain result (plus carrying capacity for Strength, etc.). I expect the story in-game to exactly agree with the probabilities laid out in the rules. Beyond that, I could care less what numbers I've written on a character sheet. Their only purpose is to determine the aforementioned probabilities.
Intelligence measures a character's ability to "learn and reason." The description of the Intelligence score explicitly lists what learning and reasoning entail in Pathfinder: modifiers to number of skill ranks, number of languages known, wizard spellcasting ability, and Intelligence-based skill checks. The description also specifies that Int 1 or 2 is animal intelligence and Int 0 is comatose. That (plus the glossary definition of a null Intelligence score) is the entire definition of the Intelligence score in the Pathfinder game. The abstract, game-mechanical variable assigned the name Intelligence does not measure anything else.
If your gaming group attaches any additional meaning to the Intelligence score, that is a house rule. A perfectly fine, common-sense-based, simulationist house rule, but a house rule nonetheless. There is no RAW reason for gamers who prefer what you are calling "munchkin" and "delusional" behavior (also known as the gamist and narrativist playstyles) to adopt that house rule.
Gamists are free to interpret the RAW as the "computer code" that runs the game, complete with exploits and bugs. Narrativists are free to ignore anything not explicitly stated in the rules if doing so would give them more freedom to tell their characters' stories. And simulationists are free to assign common-sense...
Personally, I wouldn't consider myself simulationist, gamist or narrativist. Roleplaying is an important part of the game for my group, but we also love combat and the heavy rules crunch that they require. I actually kind of regret that in 3.X/PF that so many of the roleplaying interactions have been or can be reduced to a die roll.
The stats of a character have always been, through every edition, one of the best ways to help inform roleplaying and define a character. In 3.X/PF some more tools are added, such as skill points and feats(you got them somehow). They don't need to be absolutely determinative, but they should have some relation to how your character is played. Or not, if this aspect of the game isn't important to you. I do kind of object to an emphasis on roleplaying a character accurately being called a "house rule", at least until they change the name of the genre to something other than roleplaying game.
I don't believe that everyone who is arguing the opposite side of this argument is doing so only because they want to have all the benefits of their min/maxed character without any of the drawbacks, and I respect honest differences of opinion. However, I believe some probably are, and that is a step in the direction of the land where the really short folks with funny accents reside. No, thank you, I'll take a different route, please.
Er, I would submit that there is no detectable difference between someone's intelligence (little "i"!) and how able they are to access and use their intelligence...
Look, it says under "Intelligence" in the CRB what the designers intend that stat to define. Playing your Intelligence any other way is the house rule - playing Int as intelligence is not.
Yes, it says it's your ABILITY, not your capacity, those are two very different words. Your ability to reason and learn, is not the same as your capacity to reason and learn. So, if you want to go with directly using RAW precisely as written, rather than as intended, Intelligence is your ability to use your intelligence effectively.Er, I would submit that there is no detectable difference between someone's intelligence (little "i"!) and how able they are to access and use their intelligence...
Look, it says under "Intelligence" in the CRB what the designers intend that stat to define. Playing your Intelligence any other way is the house rule - playing Int as intelligence is not.
Ok. So how does that support the idea that someone can make a PC with an Int of 7 that can think of awesome plans all the time and understands things really, really well.. I.e., someone who can access their internal capability for intelligence?
Hint: it doesn't :)
Not being able to access your intelligence is, like I said, functionally the same as being unintelligent.
Yes, it says it's your ABILITY, not your capacity, those are two very different words. Your ability to reason and learn, is not the same as your capacity to reason and learn. So, if you want to go with directly using RAW precisely as written, rather than as intended, Intelligence is your ability to use your intelligence effectively.Er, I would submit that there is no detectable difference between someone's intelligence (little "i"!) and how able they are to access and use their intelligence...
Look, it says under "Intelligence" in the CRB what the designers intend that stat to define. Playing your Intelligence any other way is the house rule - playing Int as intelligence is not.
Might be the language barrier, but I don't see the difference between capacity and ability... The only definition of capacity I find that is relevant is "mental ability" from the list here: link. When words are so close they're either listed as synonyms or have a completely different meaning (as in "maximum that can be contained") I think it's kind of redundant to argue on the exact wording.
Not being able to access your intelligence is, like I said, functionally the same as being unintelligent.
I do think there can be a difference between someone's intelligence and how able they are to access and use their intelligence, though it depends on the definition of intelligence. I do not think it's in the "intelligence" stat though.
I'm pretty "intelligent" in some ways (at least according to my psychiatrist), but on the other hand I'm very easily disturbed and need a fair amount of time to understand those things. Thus I often come across as a bit slow to others and can have a very hard time thinking on my feet.
Think of Sheldon Cooper from the Big Bang Theory. Exceptionally intelligent, but if you'd throw him in a dungeon he wouldn't really be quick at finding a way out despite all that intellect. It's not that he's unintelligent, it's just that there's a difference between being intelligent and intuitively knowing how to apply one's knowledge and reasoning to a situation.
I personally believe that intuition would be covered under Wisdom, so a character like Sheldon Cooper (and me) would have decently high intelligence, but mediocre wisdom. Meanwhile, someone like Sherlock Holmes would have a good intelligence (not as good as Cooper, but still a fair bit above average) and a very good wisdom.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually think Holmes would be just as intelligent as Sheldon, and not terribly better off in his Wisdom stat either. Though I'm speaking original, literary Holmes. In any case, I don't think Holmes is using a 15 point buy, whereas Sheldon could be :)
Having said all this ^^^ stuff, I've never, in all my years of GMing, told a player "Your PC can't think that! He's too dumb, Int of 7, remember?" I've just never encountered anyone that even hinted that they thought Intelligence wasn't intelligence, just like I've never encountered anyone that thought Strength wasn't how strong your character is.
And for the record, I'm quite happy with the reskinning of classes, feats, spells, what have you, to keep their mechanical benefits/drawbacks but be reflavoured. I guess it's just that Ability Scores are so simple and integral and definitive to a character that it seems ridiculous - it smacks of wanting to be the best at everything no matter what the rules say. "I know my Str is only 6, but I'm actually totally ripped and massively strong. I'm just not very good at accessing it."
When all's said and done, I guess it doesn't matter one bit if your table is happy with that. Despite all this talk of RAW, I'm really not a rules nazi when I GM or play.
So I guess I have two questions for those that are arguing for "smart" characters with low Int:
1) Why would you want this? What's your underlying motivation? Why can't your character have a low intelligence to go with their low Intelligence?
2) Have you ever actually played a character like this?
Ok. But see, as far as the world, and everyone it, is concerned, if you can't apply your intelligence, you're unintelligent. If you can't access it, you will appear dumb, and everyone will think you're dumb. So what's the point of making a character that's "smart" but can't access/apply it? How will that change how you roleplay them, and how will it change how other PCs/NPCs view/interact with them?
In other words, what's the point?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the game designers agree with this line of thinking though. Otherwise, we'd be able to find at least one published NPC who had mechanical stats that weren't reflected in their concept.
If you were designing an adventure or sourcebook with a character like that for Paizo, or any of the more reputable 3pps, I think a character like that would get the red marker - would need to be rewritten or restatted, at least. Sure, play it that way in your group if your GM says ok, but it's not the baseline assumption of the game.
That's all I'm saying. It's not the baseline assumption.
Actually, low stats do mean you're terrible at everything that stat does, unless you've spent lots of skill points or feats to overcome your natural deficiency. But we're specifically not talking mechanics.
We're talking about roleplaying a character with low Int as smart. And again, that's not the baseline assumption of the game. And I hope your not suggesting that anyone that plays by the baseline assumption that low Int = not very smart only likes black and white flaws, and has less layered and interesting characters than you do.
(I'm not claiming you are saying that, just hoping you're not!)
|
Actually, low stats do mean you're terrible at everything that stat does, unless you've spent lots of skill points or feats to overcome your natural deficiency.
And even if you spent the skill points, you are only not terrible at that aspect that the skill covers.
You can be fairly dumb in general, and yet knowledgeable about religion or arcana.
Ok. But see, as far as the world, and everyone it, is concerned, if you can't apply your intelligence, you're unintelligent. If you can't access it, you will appear dumb, and everyone will think you're dumb. So what's the point of making a character that's "smart" but can't access/apply it? How will that change how you roleplay them, and how will it change how other PCs/NPCs view/interact with them?
In other words, what's the point?
What's the point? Well, what's the point of roleplaying *any* character? What's the point of roleplaying a character who's flaws are not black and white? It creates a more layered and interesting character, both for *yourself* but also for others.
For instance, just because a character has low wisdom, doesn't mean he can't have insights into personal issues or problems, or a social situation, even though he has terrible impulse control, can't shut up, doesn't notice sounds or spots sights, or hell, forgets things which are common sense. Low Stats don't *mean* that a character is terrible at *everything* the stat does, it means the character has a low ability to apply the stat when he *needs* it, when it's required, at will, at his behest.
The Low Wis Barbarian, who always talks at the wrong time, or makes the wrong comment in social situations, who never notices when his friends are upset, but who *cares* about his friends, and wants to help them and can express that, but simply isn't good at doing it most of the time, or all the time, or when he needs to. The bard, who *knows* all sorts of things, but *never* can remember them when he *needs* to remember them. "Ooooh, it was just on the tip of my tongue..." who's relatively good at puzzles and riddles, but, the problem is, he just *can't* seem to get the answers formulated right when they're posed before others answer. The low Charisma Warrior, who's brash and has bad manners in a crowd, who's actually a good leader, but he acts like an idiot in a crowd, or simply is ugly, or doesn't have...
Rasmus, my friend, you do realize you are totally undermining your own argument that you would have a real life Int score of 7 with every articulate, well-reasoned post you make, don't you? Perhaps your disability comes across more in person, but in writing you're pretty smooth. Not that I agree with you, mind you, but I respect the skill with which you are putting forth your argument.
Also, back in the day, when the game was designed, there was NO mechanical difference between someone with Int 3 and int 8. The table even read "Int 3-8: 1 Bonus proficiency, no spellcasting". So for all intents and purposes Int3 = Int8 in the old days, when the game was made, if your character did not take any int based proficiencies.
Saying that a stat is more than what the table of modifiers imply is strictly up to the interpretation of every player and GM. There was a time when we were so spoiled with ability scores that we considered anything below 15 worthless. Because according to 2e tables... that was true.
Absolutely correct that there was no mechanical difference. The game was far less numbers-driven then.
In fact, the only purpose the difference in numbers of mental stats for non-spellcasters served was to inform roleplaying. Not that everyone was a great roleplayer then, but playing the role of a character was pretty much an expected part of the game, and in my mind, still is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now I want to play a character with an interesting backstory in which his family hoped he would go into wizardry, but it turns out he has an int between 3 and 8.
Give him spellcraft for giggles.
"Oh I've heard of this spell, I could never get it working though."
"You were a wizard?"
"Yeah the mages said I was the worst pupil they had seen in a generation."
Actually, low stats do mean you're terrible at everything that stat does, unless you've spent lots of skill points or feats to overcome your natural deficiency. But we're specifically not talking mechanics.
We're talking about roleplaying a character with low Int as smart. And again, that's not the baseline assumption of the game. And I hope your not suggesting that anyone that plays by the baseline assumption that low Int = not very smart only likes black and white flaws, and has less layered and interesting characters than you do.
(I'm not claiming you are saying that, just hoping you're not!)
The roll determines how terrible a character is at each individual thing.
The roll determines how terrible a character is at each individual thing.Actually, low stats do mean you're terrible at everything that stat does, unless you've spent lots of skill points or feats to overcome your natural deficiency. But we're specifically not talking mechanics.
We're talking about roleplaying a character with low Int as smart. And again, that's not the baseline assumption of the game. And I hope your not suggesting that anyone that plays by the baseline assumption that low Int = not very smart only likes black and white flaws, and has less layered and interesting characters than you do.
(I'm not claiming you are saying that, just hoping you're not!)
Hmmmm... No. The roll tells you how successful you are in any given instance. I'm a bad tennis player, but I can still bang in the occasional ace.
Having said all this ^^^ stuff, I've never, in all my years of GMing, told a player "Your PC can't think that! He's too dumb, Int of 7, remember?" I've just never encountered anyone that even hinted that they thought Intelligence wasn't intelligence, just like I've never encountered anyone that thought Strength wasn't how strong your character is.
I should note, too, that although I've been one of the ones arguing the hardest for people to roleplay the character they have created, including the intelligence score, which I find to have meaning other than purely mechanically, I also would not be so blatant.
At our table, the same folks usually end up being the "leaders" in every adventuring group, making the plans, being the faces, etc. Fortunately, those players, because they agree with me that the stats have meaning, would never create a character with all low mental stats, or likely any really low mental stats at all. On those rare occasions that they (or I) do, we deliberately take a back seat and let others be the leaders. When people are not playing their character accurately, it is not at all unusual for someone at the table (not always or even usually the GM) to point it out.
Actually, low stats do mean you're terrible at everything that stat does, unless you've spent lots of skill points or feats to overcome your natural deficiency. But we're specifically not talking mechanics.
We're talking about roleplaying a character with low Int as smart. And again, that's not the baseline assumption of the game. And I hope your not suggesting that anyone that plays by the baseline assumption that low Int = not very smart only likes black and white flaws, and has less layered and interesting characters than you do.
(I'm not claiming you are saying that, just hoping you're not!)
Actually, it doesn't mean you're terrible at everything the stat does, what it means is that you're not able to apply what the stat does easilly, and that *overall* taken *all* the aspects of the stat, you are weaker in more areas than you are strong. Low Intelligence does not mean you're dumb, even by the definition of dumb or the RAW, heck, I don't even think by RAI. It means you do not have the ability to easily apply reason and learning mechanically and at will, and more than that it means, that while your character might be intelligent and skilled, his ability to reason might be VERY lacking, or his ability to learn new things might be lacking, OR his ability to do both of those, might be slightly lacking, but his ability to apply what he's learned or reasoned effectively might be lacking.
In fact, nowhere do the RAW imply that someone with a low stat is terrible at everything the stat does, what stats imply are your overall ability to apply the stat either through inborn ability or aqquired ability, from a *roleplaying* perspective, it obviously often makes sense to make stats fit a character, but one persons idea of how a stat suits a character might be different from another, and *both* equally valid, both as intended and as written.
Stats represent mechanical ability to access/apply what they represent, *not* only ability to apply,...
But if you have the capacity but not the ability (which is what you are saying, unless I'm misreading the information) how does that alter the RP of the character?
You are a genius but can't express it? You are Albert Einstein but no one knows it but you?
Is it Stephen Hawking without the computer to talk for him?
If you are a genius and can't tell anyone because you just can't express it how is that any different from *actually* just being a 7 int? I.e. stump dumb?
If you are 7/7/7 but really are the smartest wisest and most charismatic thing to hit Magnimar in the past 2000 years- how does that change your RP since no one knows it but your character?
You can RP that character. Its called being delusional. (the character- not you).
People can certainly think they are things they aren't.
Bob the Butcher can think he's the smooth suave guy the barmaids are talking about and that he's smarter than the Archmage and wiser than the High priest but that doesn't make it so. 7/7/7 Tells you that its not so- regardless of his own internal monologue. In fact, that would be a really fun, not dull/boring way to play 7/7/7. He thinks he's the best think since sliced bread when he's really abit of spoiled meat in the trash heap.
But I'm not really following the "he has a 7 int but he's really smart he just can't express how smart he is". He has a 7 int, whether he knows it likes it or can express it.
The number is a measure of his intelligence *however* You want to describe it and a 7 is a *low* number.
-S
Now I want to play a character with an interesting backstory in which his family hoped he would go into wizardry, but it turns out he has an int between 3 and 8.
Give him spellcraft for giggles.
"Oh I've heard of this spell, I could never get it working though.""You were a wizard?"
"Yeah the mages said I was the worst pupil they had seen in a generation."
If you really want to disappoint his parents, he could become a sorcerer...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it doesn't mean you're terrible at everything the stat does, what it means is that you're not able to apply what the stat does easilly, and that *overall* taken *all* the aspects of the stat, you are weaker in more areas than you are strong. Low Intelligence does not mean you're dumb, even by the definition of dumb or the RAW, heck, I don't even think by RAI. It means you do not have the ability to easily apply reason and learning mechanically and at will, and more than that it means, that while your character might be intelligent and skilled, his ability to reason might be VERY lacking, or his ability to learn new things might be lacking, OR his ability to do both of those, might be slightly lacking, but his ability to apply what he's learned or reasoned effectively might be lacking.Actually, low stats do mean you're terrible at everything that stat does, unless you've spent lots of skill points or feats to overcome your natural deficiency. But we're specifically not talking mechanics.
We're talking about roleplaying a character with low Int as smart. And again, that's not the baseline assumption of the game. And I hope your not suggesting that anyone that plays by the baseline assumption that low Int = not very smart only likes black and white flaws, and has less layered and interesting characters than you do.
(I'm not claiming you are saying that, just hoping you're not!)
You've misunderstood me. Having a low stat (Int) does mean you're terrible at everything that stat (Int) does. That's the only purpose of the stat mechanically - to tell you numerically how good or bad you are at stuff that uses that stat (like skills or opposed checks, whatever). That's mechanics.
In fact, nowhere do the RAW imply that someone with a low stat is terrible at everything the stat does, what stats imply are your overall ability to apply the stat either through inborn ability or aqquired ability, from a *roleplaying* perspective, it obviously often makes sense to make stats fit a character, but one persons idea of how a stat suits a character might be different from another, and *both* equally valid, both as intended and as written.
RAW is entirely about how your stats (among other things) interact with the world. How the stat suits the character is an entirely different thing - and what we're actually talking about (or what we were talking about!).
Stats represent mechanical ability to access/apply what they represent, *not* only ability to apply, OR to access. This is why you have Villains who have hundreds of henchmen, and thousands of gold and lead nations, who often don't have *sky* high Charisma but who still manage to lead, often with both low diplomacy and intimidate skills (For their respective levels) Or Villains with average intelligence scores who still think up convoluted and complicated plots, or who have *really* high intelligence scores and think up *really* stupid/unreasonable/illogical ones. Or Villains with High Wisdom scores, who are neither wise, nor calm, who have *serious* impulse control issues, it's because often NPC's and Monsters don't *follow* the rules for stats, because stats are not *direct* translations of abilities. But rather a mechanical tool that shows *how* well you access the prerequisite ability and apply it when you need to apply it (with or without a roll)
Ok, let's see some examples of published villains that rule nations with low Cha scores etc. Because saying they exist doesn't mean they do. I'm sure some exist, but I'm just a sure there's a reason in their backstory that explains it that's not "they're a good leader".
Your stat is not a stat, it is an *ability score* it is a score, that states on a scale of 3-18 (For PC's) how well you can apply the sum-total of an ability scores meaning, some have more visible effects than others (Strength springs to mind), but none even by the Rules, *dictate* exactly what the meaning of a stat is.
Actually, the CRB section on the ability scores is quite clear about what each ability score represents. Again, saying "rules don't say what a stat means" doesn't make it true.
Intelligence is listed as your ability to reason and learn, the important thing to notice is that your stat is not your capability to reason and learn (This is why as characters level, they get to add +1 to stats, clearly, those stats are not your capabilities, simply your current abilities to apply the effects.) it is your ability to apply said stat when needed.
That's fine, but an empty jug with a capacity for a litre of water is no good when you need a drink. A capacity for intelligence doesn't make you intelligent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it doesn't just mean that he can't express complex ideas. It means he doesn't HAVE complex ideas. I'm sure that when the little ogre saw his character sheet his mom told him he was just a bad test taker, he just couldn't express himself, that he was a different kind of smart etc etc...
Truth is he's dumb. Club dragging, paste eating, rock chewing dumb.
If you dump your characters intelligence and wisdom scores down into a room temperature IQ and then play him like Ceasar you're cheating. The problem isn't with the people calling you on it the problem is with you doing it.
That's the thing people miss, just because he has 7 Int, doesn't mean he's dumb, it means that he has 7 int, it means his ability score is 7, so his ability overall, is 7 it doesn't mean he's dumb a a stump, it might mean he's got little logical sense, it might mean he doesn't know how to properly express complex Ideas, it might *mean* a great many things, heck, it might *also* just mean he's dumb as a post, but that's not the *only* way or only thing it means, not by how the stats are written, not by how they're intended.
Actually Charisma is used to express ideas, not Intelligence. Intelligence is used to think of complex ideas.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to go on the record and remind people that there is a huge difference between saying you CAN play int 7 as the stereotypical slack-jawed idiot... and that you HAVE TO play int 7 as a stereotypical slack-jawed idiot.
There was a book I really enjoyed back in 2e that covered suggestions on how to roleplay interesting combinations of stats. Where one was a person with low int and good cha, that was able to SOUND very intelligent and articulate, but anyone knowledgeable on the topic would be able to see through his facade.
Kinda like the Eddie Izzard stand-up bit about the "Ich bin ein Berliner!" speech, which is grammatically incorrect, but since it was delivered well by a person that looked good delivering it, that was completely overshadowed.
So, yeah. How dumb IS a character with int 7?
I say "Tell me more about this character."
Heaggles: There are nuances that should be addressed. Like how Str alone does not determine how HARD you hit, Int alone does not determine everything related to knowledge and intelligence. You can have a good vocabulary, justifying it by having ranks in diplomacy and linguistics. You could have a good education by playing a class with lots of skill points. Your base potential alone is just one number in a bigger equation.