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.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!)
No, we are in agreement. Being a bad tennis player is the same as being at a 7 int, you aren't terrible all the time.
I have a question is Int dose not mean how smart someone is what dose it mean? Whats the point of having a Int stat at all? I know where people are coming from but come on people so whats next str is not how strong you are? Is con not how healthy you are?
Because INT in game is how many skill points you have to play with, but this is greatly determined by class (rogues still have a lot after -2). It doesn't determine your smarts, because we say someone is smart when they know a lot or really have expertise in an area of knowledge (in dnd these are knowledge skills, professions or survival) or have an ability at applying themselves in a profession (which is under wis) as in "he is a smart banker" or "she is an excellent student", or they just seem trickier (a mark of a devious nature) or more verbally cunning than the norm (which is charisma not int).
In game, being smart at something is determined by having a lot of ranks in a character focus (such as through feats or special abilities and always putting your ranks in a spot every single level) and then rolling well. Int doesn't end up adequately covering all forms of intelligence or even knowledge because it only determines how many things you can be good at, not whether you are smart in an area which is determined by ranks (low int historian, low int bard using their bardic knowledge).
As Valcrim said it "is just one number in a bigger equation". The low int diplomat can be brilliant at social manipulation, the low int scholar can still be a great expert in their field, the low int commoner can still be a master of two professions, the low int bodyguard can still totally work out what you are intending. not all of what is covered under smarts or intelligence in our world, fits in the humble INT score.
You seem to be missing the point, which is alright, sometimes I have trouble expressing myself so others understand what I'm saying.
No.
Its not a matter of miscommunication. You're not proving your point here. We disagree, and i think you're wrong.
Someone with 7 Int, isn't *dumb* he simply has 7 int.
I understand you.
No.
Someone with a 7 int IS DUMB.
This means, that overall, with *all* the aspects of a character intelligence covers, those aspects add up to a 7, that does *not* mean that all the aspects of the characters intelligence are 7
Yes. It does.
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasonsThere is no rule for "reasons" but we know the int 7 character is bad at it.
Wisdom is more the stat for common sense.
since if it did, and as we know, intelligence is stated as being your capability to reason and learn, a fighter with 7 int, would have the exact same skillset and skills as a rogue with 7 int
1) If you need 5 commas in sentence its probably time for a period.
2) No. The rogue and fighter learn at the same speed but the rogue spent his time at dinner parties learning to be polite and the fighter spent more time on the practice yard learning how to hit things in the head.
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.
Of course, keep in mind that the specific case being discussed was a character that had dumped not just Int to 7, but also Wis and Cha, in order to have a strating Str of 20. While not explicitly stated, I would seriously doubt this character had ranks in much of anything with his one or two skilll pojnts per level. So your examples of perfectly valid coping mechanisms that can be taken by a character to compensate for a 7 Int simply don't apply.
Also, before I am misquoted, I will also add that "Not being terrible" does not imply that I am saying that they are GREAT.
A rogue with int 7, maxed ranks and skill focus (disable device) will only be AS GOOD as a rogue with int 12 and maxed ranks.
Almost every check in the game are equations in which ability scores play a part. Very few things are governed by ability scores alone.
If you have a combination of things that imply you are inept in a field, like playing a class with only 2+int skill points, very few (if any) trained skills, and no means to justify higher function, then I would think it bad form to play your character based off your own knowledges or reasoning level.
A barbarian with 7/7/7 for mental stats and no ranks in any knowledge skills should not be the one to suggest altering the abjurations on the summoning pentagram (arcana) to ensure that the unique fiend Gygaxifer (planes) cannot open a Gate to the abyss upon his prophesied arrival (history). That is just bad form and a flow-breaker.
altering the abjurations on the summoning pentagram (arcana) to ensure that the unique fiend Gygaxifer (planes) cannot open a Gate to the abyss upon his prophesied arrival (history).
I like this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to ask if 10-11 is average and if you had a 7 int then your %30 less intelligent then average. So by that your are Dumb by what most people would say. I am not saying that you cant be skilled but you are dumber then the average person. So a rogue with a 7 int would have 6 skill points and a rogue with a 10 would have 8 skill points. Now thats not to say that the fighter with his 3 skill points with a Int of 12 is dumber then a rouge with 7 int but the fighter is less skilled with noncombat skills (like feats). We need to remember that skill points do not show how smart you are just how skilled you are. But your Int dose show how smart you are. and brian now what else adds to damage with melee attacks then str?
Back in the 2e example I brought up "Knowledge" was part of the int sub-stats. So I will argue that your education comes into play. NOT going to argue that all people who complete an education are intelligent. But there is a whole lot between "Smart" and "Dumb".
Also, 30% is just one interpretation. Which is a valid one. Another valid one is 10% dumber, as those are the mechanical consequences. But the main reason I am a fervent believer that 7 is not "hurr durr, imma gonna eats me an rock" is because by the same reasoning, int 13+ would imply a godlike intellect. Also like to add that in the same way, I do not have people chase the cha7 dude with pitchforks, nor do I have them throw their unmarried daughters at the cha14+ bard.
As for melee attacks: Magical bonuses, weapon specialization, power attack, class abilities, buffs etc all factor in. My Jade Regent bard typically hits for 1d8+16 with his longsword (in two hands). Only 3 of those are from strength. 2 are from Arcane Strike, 2 is from inspire courage, 2 is from Good Hope (usually open combat by inspiring and casting good hope), 6 is from Power Attack, and the last one is the weapon enhancement.
@ Rasmus: If you're going to insist that Int is used to express oneself, and use Knowledge checks to ID tangos as an example of how Int is used for expression, I think I'm just going to bow out now.
But, it was nice to have a discussion that was civil and about how intelligent or otherwise characters are, with no snide references to how intelligent either of us are :)
Cheers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, the Bard, who knows more about *everything* than the fighter (7 Int bard, vs 14 Int Fighter), is dumb, if he has 7 int, even though, he's both learned, knowledgable, speaks perhaps 5 languages, and knows something about everything?
Yes. He's a very well educated idiot.
Or, is he simply a character with 7 int, who has a harder time using that knowledge and accessing it when he needs it
That comes out to the same thing. He KNOWS that the Andoran town of Itsanmoore is famous for its peach cobblers, and he knows that the poison that killed the Baron was in the peach cobbler, but can't quite rub the two sticks together to get a fire to question the representative from Itsanmoore.
or expressing it correctly
Thats Cha.
|
Did I see that we've somehow slipped to saying that skill points determine that a character is smart? So, like the 10 Int human barbarian is somehow smarter than a 16 Int elf wizard?
Seriously?
Hold on.... a wizard gets 2 skill points and 16 is a +3 so that would be 5. The Barbarion only gets 4 and no more because of his intellect....... EldonG did you math wrong?
|
Hold on.... a wizard gets 2 skill points and 16 is a +3 so that would be 5. The Barbarion only gets 4 and no more because of his intellect....... EldonG did you math wrong?Did I see that we've somehow slipped to saying that skill points determine that a character is smart? So, like the 10 Int human barbarian is somehow smarter than a 16 Int elf wizard?
Seriously?
No, I added human to barbarian...and then assumed that the wizard would always take the extra hp. The barbarian might, too...or maybe not.
|
|
No, what we have determined is that specific mechanics have specific effects. This is a wargame not modern simulation psychoanalysis. Whether you roleplay or cheese what you parse out from the mechanics is up to you.Did I see that we've somehow slipped to saying that skill points determine that a character is smart? So, like the 10 Int human barbarian is somehow smarter than a 16 Int elf wizard?
Seriously?
Good. That was my point in the first place. I love cheese, but only for eating.
You seem to be missing the point, which is alright, sometimes I have trouble expressing myself so others understand what I'm saying.
No.
Its not a matter of miscommunication. You're not proving your point here. We disagree, and i think you're wrong.
Someone with 7 Int, isn't *dumb* he simply has 7 int.I understand you.
No.
Someone with a 7 int IS DUMB.
This means, that overall, with *all* the aspects of a character intelligence covers, those aspects add up to a 7, that does *not* mean that all the aspects of the characters intelligence are 7Yes. It does.
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasonsThere is no rule for "reasons" but we know the int 7 character is bad at it.
Wisdom is more the stat for common sense.
since if it did, and as we know, intelligence is stated as being your capability to reason and learn, a fighter with 7 int, would have the exact same skillset and skills as a rogue with 7 int1) If you need 5 commas in sentence its probably time for a period.
2) No. The rogue and fighter learn at the same speed but the rogue spent his time at dinner parties learning to be polite and the fighter spent more time on the practice yard learning how to hit things in the head.So, the Bard, who knows more about *everything* than the fighter (7 Int bard, vs 14 Int Fighter), is dumb, if he has 7 int, even though, he's both learned, knowledgable, speaks perhaps 5 languages, and knows something about everything? Or, is he simply a character with 7 int, who has a harder time using that knowledge and accessing it when he needs it, or expressing it correctly, or a harder time picking up new skills?
No, he's not, he's actually very intelligent, because intelligence is not *just* the Int stat, heck, on subjects he knows, he's both able to reason and learn, so obviously he's not *dumb* *if you don't choose*...
I'm backing Rasmus on this one. The "dumb" int 7 bard is a long way from actually being dumb. This isn't a village idiot. With more levels the bard will only know more, and be able to pull out even more with bardic knowledge on the fly, and raise his current skills up and add some more.
To use a high level low int example, if the level 15 int 7 veteran speluker fighter (who has put a rank in dungeoneering every level) is conveying what he knows about dungeons and underground areas, he is quite the source of knowledge and really knows his stuff. He isn't daft when it comes to dungeons. He has learned their ins and outs mostly through experience but also through the knowledge and research side. His reasoning and recall on this is potentially excellent, depending on the rolls of the day.
Now imagine such a low int char being a rogue or bard. They are rolling in skills, knowledge and recall/question-answering potential. Yes, that's right, even thinking on their feet.
I just want to ask if 10-11 is average and if you had a 7 int then your %30 less intelligent then average. So by that your are Dumb by what most people would say. I am not saying that you cant be skilled but you are dumber then the average person. So a rogue with a 7 int would have 6 skill points and a rogue with a 10 would have 8 skill points. Now thats not to say that the fighter with his 3 skill points with a Int of 12 is dumber then a rouge with 7 int but the fighter is less skilled with noncombat skills (like feats). We need to remember that skill points do not show how smart you are just how skilled you are. But your Int dose show how smart you are. and brian now what else adds to damage with melee attacks then str?Back in the 2e example I brought up "Knowledge" was part of the int sub-stats. So I will argue that your education comes into play. NOT going to argue that all people who complete an education are intelligent. But there is a whole lot between "Smart" and "Dumb".
Also, 30% is just one interpretation. Which is a valid one. Another valid one is 10% dumber, as those are the mechanical consequences. But the main reason I am a fervent believer that 7 is not "hurr durr, imma gonna eats me an rock" is because by the same reasoning, int 13+ would imply a godlike intellect. Also like to add that in the same way, I do not have people chase the cha7 dude with pitchforks, nor do I have them throw their unmarried daughters at the cha14+ bard.
As for melee attacks: Magical bonuses, weapon specialization, power attack, class abilities, buffs etc all factor in. My Jade Regent bard typically hits for 1d8+16 with his longsword (in two hands). Only 3 of those are from strength. 2 are from Arcane Strike, 2 is from inspire courage, 2 is from Good Hope (usually open combat by inspiring and casting good hope), 6 is from Power Attack, and the last one is the weapon enhancement.
Throw all the unmarried daughters!
|
|
...
You seem to be missing the point, which is alright, sometimes I have trouble expressing myself so others understand what I'm saying.
No.
Its not a matter of miscommunication. You're not proving your point here. We disagree, and i think you're wrong.
Someone with 7 Int, isn't *dumb* he simply has 7 int.I understand you.
No.
Someone with a 7 int IS DUMB.
This means, that overall, with *all* the aspects of a character intelligence covers, those aspects add up to a 7, that does *not* mean that all the aspects of the characters intelligence are 7Yes. It does.
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasonsThere is no rule for "reasons" but we know the int 7 character is bad at it.
Wisdom is more the stat for common sense.
since if it did, and as we know, intelligence is stated as being your capability to reason and learn, a fighter with 7 int, would have the exact same skillset and skills as a rogue with 7 int1) If you need 5 commas in sentence its probably time for a period.
2) No. The rogue and fighter learn at the same speed but the rogue spent his time at dinner parties learning to be polite and the fighter spent more time on the practice yard learning how to hit things in the head.So, the Bard, who knows more about *everything* than the fighter (7 Int bard, vs 14 Int Fighter), is dumb, if he has 7 int, even though, he's both learned, knowledgable, speaks perhaps 5 languages, and knows something about everything? Or, is he simply a character with 7 int, who has a harder time using that knowledge and accessing it when he needs it, or expressing it correctly, or a harder time picking up new skills?
No, he's not, he's actually very intelligent, because intelligence is not *just* the Int stat, heck, on subjects he knows, he's both able to reason and learn, so obviously he's
Nonsense. Skilled does not equal intelligent. Incidentally, that fighter knows more languages, by default.
You have never called someone intelligent because they demonstrated their skills, learning or knowledge? Ooookay.
I do think the negatives of this debate are in the hardening of positions. Some player is going to get the rough end of this stick one day soon.
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.
Not true. Urban legend.
|
|
You have never called someone intelligent because they demonstrated their skills, learning or knowledge? Ooookay.
I do think the negatives of this debate are in the hardening of positions. Some player is going to get the rough end of this stick one day soon.
They always do.
That Bard just realized he needs a new skill, even though he has TONS of skill. It's a class skill. He puts the first point into it, and struggles for success, with a +2.
The 14 Int fighter decides it's important...and even though it's not a class skill, that first point makes him better than the Bard.
You have never called someone intelligent because they demonstrated their skills, learning or knowledge? Ooookay.
Well, this is one of the areas where the technical language of psychology and the common language of ordinary English differ somewhat. But the idea that someone can be knowledgeable without being a particularly quick study isn't -- or shouldn't be -- that controversial.
That's one of the reasons that IQ tests tend to focus on learning and aptitudes instead of content knowledge. Culture fairness is a major issue in IQ test design precisely because background and knowledge differ independently. (For a rather blatant example of this, look at questions 15 and 16 of this test and tell me what the missing elements of the pictures are.)
In the Pathfinder system, aptitude is represented by the intelligence stat; skills, experience, and training by skill ranks and by class features.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's not forget...that fighter has tons of skill, too. He knows just how to thrust with the sword to clip an artery, the arc required to hit two with one blow, how to jam his shield-edge into someone's mouth while still blocking the axe...
Just because they don't learn it from books doesn't negate their capabilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's not forget...that fighter has tons of skill, too. He knows just how to thrust with the sword to clip an artery, the arc required to hit two with one blow, how to jam his shield-edge into someone's mouth while still blocking the axe...
Just because they don't learn it from books doesn't negate their capabilities.
Exactly; that's why I said "skill ranks and class features." In a fighter's case, he doesn't learn as many skills, but learns a large number of feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The OP said
Theoretically, for min-maxing purposes, I could create a level 1 human with the following stats: 20/14/16/7/7/7
Just trying to figure out if I would want to play him, and if so, how.
I will leave it to you to determine how INT 7 should be played, but you could role play WIS 7 CHA 7 as a person who will spend 8 pages arguing what INT 7 means. I.E. Highly annoying and does not realize that they are changing no one's mind with their arguments. LOL
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just popping in to add that the ability to regurgitate facts does not make one Intelligent.
A 7 Int bard, with all the knowledges is doing almost exactly that. He makes his Dungeoneering check, and suddenly offers "Did you know that most oozes are immune to mind-affecting abilities?" but he may not exactly realize that he should stop using daze on it. The 14 Int fighter, though, may tell him to try something else.
I've seen many an idiot that has had rote information crammed into their skull in the Army (sadly it's how they determine promotion a lot of the time), but it doesn't mean they could apply those facts in a meaningful way at the appropriate moment. Most of them stare blankly and wait to be told what to do (which is probably why the Army wants to keep them).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will leave it to you to determine how INT 7 should be played, but you could role play WIS 7 CHA 7 as a person who will spend 8 pages arguing what INT 7 means. I.E. Highly annoying and does not realize that they are changing no one's mind with their arguments. LOL
As I said many pages back in this thread, I liked the idea of playing my barbarian as a cross between Homer Simpson and Forrest Gump.
A 7 Int bard, with all the knowledges is doing almost exactly that. He makes his Dungeoneering check, and suddenly offers "Did you know that most oozes are immune to mind-affecting abilities?" but he may not exactly realize that he should stop using daze on it. The 14 Int fighter, though, may tell him to try something else.
That's actually, real-world, a very good example of the consequences of low intelligence. One of the technical terms that would be applicable is "borderline intellectual functioning" (q.v.) and it's characterized not by an inability to function in ordinary circumstances, but by poor abstract reasoning ability and a poor ability to adapt to novel circumstances.
I'd go further. A 7 int bard who has fought oozes many times before would know, from experience, not to cast daze on it; fighting oozes is part of his ordinary circumstances. A 7 int bard who's not seen many oozes wouldn't make the connection, because he's never had to deal with the "how do I fight an ooze?" circumstance before, and isn't very good on this abstract reasoning about categories of spells.
Similarly, if our bardic hero discovers that his Deep Slumber wand had no effect on the novel monster he's facing, he's probably smart enough -- even at int 7 -- not to try burning another charge. But he might not be smart enough to figure out to try a spell that isn't based on Will saves, and might follow up with Smug Narcissism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Round and round we go eh?
Seems like a 7 intelligence character can excel at things but they will not be diverse. They can skill focus into a knowledge skill but they won't have many points for anything else. But they won't be held back in any way.
Here's a bit from animal companions: Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can purchase ranks in any skill. An animal companion cannot have more ranks in a skill than it has Hit Dice.
Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can select any feat they are physically capable of using. GMs might expand this list to include feats from other sources.
So we can see that 3 int is the cut off for higher level thinking.
I like orfamay's post above mine. It's solid and could further be reinforced by tr fact that our bard is taking big negatives to his INT checks even if he does try to test his knowledge
So we can see that 3 int is the cut off for higher level thinking.
If you're thinking of it in terms of "cut offs," you're approaching it the wrong way. It's a continuum.
Yes, any character with intelligence 3 or better, could, in theory, learn any specific skill to a high level. But in a realistic context, characters with low intelligence will find it both more difficult to learn that skill and more difficult to apply that skill outside of the immediate context in which they learned that skill.
Yes, this does mean that in a realistic setting, there should be game-mechanical differences between an int 14 character with a +2 bonus and an int 7 character with a +6 bonus. The GM would be completely justified in imposing higher circumstance penalties (or lesser circumstance bonuses) on the int 7 character to reflect the fact that adaptation to new circumstances is harder.
Int 5 Bard vs Int 16 Fighter.
This reminds me of the inspiration for Rainman. He's a nice guy (high charisma), and he has TONS of knowledge skills. He can remember dates of important events, tell you what day of the week any date in history is, perfectly recall things he's read and committed to memory...
And he requires his father's help getting dressed, and has the conversational level of a mid-elementary school child.
This is probably the classic example of someone with lots of skills (imagine the Bard put all his ranks into Performance (public speaking) and all the knowledge fields). But while he has all that massive amount of knowledge, because of his mental issues (low int in game terms), he can't actually use all that knowledge. He makes a great 'aid other' character, as he can dredge up all sorts of information. But trying to do any combining of that knowledge, or applying it to a situation he finds himself in, is just beyond him.
The 16 int fighter is more like my cousin Ronny. Ronny is a very charismatic guy, he's got a brain that won't quit. He can photographically recall any picture he has seen, and draw it verbatim with anything, pencil, pen, chalk on a chalk board... and he has a 4 Wisdom. He's been in and out of jail since he was 15, and wasted his brain and all his talents. He has little or no schooling (he quit going at 15), and basically has a partial middle school education. But he is VERY smart at figuring out sneaky things to do, and talking his way out of trouble. He just can't quite get the idea that there's no easy get rich quick scheme that works (hence the low wisdom). He's the classic con-artist who is better at coming up with cons than implementing them (he usually get's caught due to spending the money he bilks, not at the actual bilking).
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 think you have your Intelligence score all wrong. I'd put you at approximately 14, but you have a relatively low Dexterity score (that handles initiative in PF), and a low Wisdom and probably Charisma score.
Ultimately, you should understand that mental illnesses are not covered in lack or high amount of attributes in Pathfinder. You are what White Wolf's Vampire used to call an honorary Malkavian, and you have a Wits of 1 with an Intelligence of 3, probably nonexistent Empathy score. Might want to check out Dark Ages Vampire and see if you can get a game going of that one, as it would help with training in your social abilities better than Pathfinder.
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.
Sort of. He's got a mental illness, not a disorder. An illness is crippling, while a disorder is merely troublesome. He literally needs help with certain tasks, and to have people he can trust to watch his back. You, however, have a much less intense form of psychological problem.
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.
Basically, don't dump stats. Instead, just roll them up and assign priorities based on your class and what you want to do with the PC. It's what I do.
Yes, this does mean that in a realistic setting, there should be game-mechanical differences between an int 14 character with a +2 bonus and an int 7 character with a +6 bonus. The GM would be completely justified in imposing higher circumstance penalties (or lesser circumstance bonuses) on the int 7 character to reflect the fact that adaptation to new circumstances is harder.No. The "circumstance penalty" for having a low Intelligence score is the Intelligence modifier that comes with the Intelligence score. That's what the penalty for having a low Intelligence score is in this game. Period.
And that's completely and entirely wrong.
You have a +10 to Disable Device, but have never opened this specific type of lock before? Intelligence is the attribute that lets you figure out what you need to do differently. Even on a Dex-based skill. That's the way intelligence works.
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.
Actually, intelligence is covered by Pathfinder's Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, and to a certain extent Dexterity.
In Vampire, there are NINE main attributes, not six like Pathfinder. I like it better, because it allows one to be more precise with social attributes.
Strength, Dexterity, and Stamina correspond to Pathfinder's Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution. Meanwhile, Pathfinder's Charisma is broken up into Charisma(how likable you are, and how much of a leader), Manipulation(convincing someone), and Appearance (your "pretty" factor). Pathfinder's Intelligence and Wisdom is handled by Intelligence (quality of thought), Wits (speed of thought), Willpower (a mental trait so important it has its own category) and Perception. Very different way of seeing characters, imo.
It's not about Intelligence, it's about Disable Device.
Indeed, folks are muddling perception of what intelligence should govern in reality, and not taking into account the construct of the game.
@Piccolo: Rolling stats vs arrays, basically the same for assuring people aren't trying to game the system on attribute distribution. Well, maybe too harsh, keeping people honest.
Lets say I am a multiclassed level 20 character with 1 level in Wizard, have max ranks in disable device and a cat familiar with a 6 intelligence.
That cat has a +22 bonus to disable device, and can out-disable device the best level 1 rogue in the world, even if that level 1 rogue is an elf with a 20 intelligence and dexterity and 300 years of lockpicking experience. He'll be pulling a Meowth or Scooby Doo, sticking a claw into a lock, and picking it like a mid-level pro.
dealwithit
Don't have to. Your familiar has no opposable thumbs, or even manipulating digits of any kind. He can be an expert on how to pick locks, but he can't pick the lock without the ability to manipulate the lockpicks. And no, a claw doesn't do it. No matter how smart the cat is, he can't do things he's physically incapable of doing. No more than a 20th level sorcerer with no wings, spells, or magic flight items can just flap his arms and fly with his +22 fly skill.
dealwithit
|
|
Yes, this does mean that in a realistic setting, there should be game-mechanical differences between an int 14 character with a +2 bonus and an int 7 character with a +6 bonus. The GM would be completely justified in imposing higher circumstance penalties (or lesser circumstance bonuses) on the int 7 character to reflect the fact that adaptation to new circumstances is harder.No. The "circumstance penalty" for having a low Intelligence score is the Intelligence modifier that comes with the Intelligence score. That's what the penalty for having a low Intelligence score is in this game. Period.
Many people in this thread keep saying that someone with 7/7/7 Int/Wis/Cha must necessarily be some sort of dimwitted monosyllabic simpleton with no ability to solve problems and no hope of interacting with other members of society in a meaningful way. Well, if that's the case, then you'd better assign an experience point penalty to every character with low mental stats, and give them a maximum level limit, and give them less feats, and restrict them from taking certain classes, because few of the default character advancement options which the game allows a 7/7/7 character to pursue are things that a dimwitted simpleton should be able to accomplish.
Frankly, I refuse to believe that a dimwitted simpleton as crippled as some people want a 7/7/7 character to be could ever acquire more than one or two class levels in anything, even barbarian or fighter. The hopeless, developmentally-disabled character you are describing should be flat-out barred from ever excelling at anything related to adventuring classes. Which, of course, means that a 7/7/7 character can't actually be that crippled, because the game does allow that character to excel in numerous fields of study that a dimwitted simpleton could never master.
EDIT: There are numerous, game-mechanical drawbacks that a 7/7/7 character will face during play, and the player will have to roleplay those drawbacks because...
I disagree. People are saying that's the lowest a hero can be...which is pretty bad...but not utterly incapable. A 5 can tie his shoes...
A 7 Int can have meaningful interactions within the scope of his own life...we all have friends that are a bit notably dull, but have other qualities that tend to make up for it. NOT many of us, however have friends that are a bit dull...foolish...and somehow basically unlikable. That's your 7/7/7. They don't tend to have many friends.
They're also VERY rare.
Xill
strydr316 wrote:
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.
Sort of. He's got a mental illness, not a disorder. An illness is crippling, while a disorder is merely troublesome. He literally needs help with certain tasks, and to have people he can trust to watch his back. You, however, have a much less intense form of psychological problem.
Did you just call me stupid ?
I'm backing Rasmus on this one. The "dumb" int 7 bard is a long way from actually being dumb. This isn't a village idiot. With more levels the bard will only know more, and be able to pull out even more with bardic knowledge on the fly, and raise his current skills up and add some more.
To use a high level low int example, if the level 15 int 7 veteran speluker fighter (who has put a rank in dungeoneering every level) is conveying what he knows about dungeons and underground areas, he is quite the source of knowledge and really knows his stuff. He isn't daft when it comes to dungeons. He has learned their ins and outs mostly through experience but also through the knowledge and research side. His reasoning and recall on this is potentially excellent, depending on the rolls of the day.
Now imagine such a low int char being a rogue or bard. They are rolling in skills, knowledge and recall/question-answering potential. Yes, that's right, even thinking on their feet.
You're conflating Intelligence with Knowledge. They aren't the same thing, that's why Intelligence is a stat and Knowledge is split into individual skills. Someone with low intelligence can know a lot of things, someone with high intelligence can focus on few things. The difference is that someone with high intelligence finds it easier to learn new things than a person with low intelligence.
Even in real life there are plenty of examples of really smart people believing really dumb things (yes, I understand smart and dumb are subjective). Would you go to your doctor to fix your computer? Is your doctor smart? Would you go to your auto mechanic when you have stomach pains? Is your auto mechanic smart? Would you call a computer tech when your car dies? Is a computer tech smart? These are all knowledge skills.
How long would it take the doctor to learn to fix a computer? How long would it take your auto mechanic to diagnose health problems? How long would it take a computer tech to learn to fix a car? These are all measures of intelligence.