If you get nothing from having a 7 other than "you can roleplay having that low stat" then why pick 7 over 10? Sure, if you roll a stat and get a 7, it can be a fun challenge to roleplay and deal with it. But if you are buying stats, and 7 and 10 are effectively the same, why purposely make yourself worse? Its like saying "well, some people like to play fighters with a negative strength penalty, its a fun roleplay opportunity." Sure, it could be, but it also makes you worse at handling challenges.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't understand the Level 99 Panty Knotting going on over letting people be good at what they do in exchange of being bad at something else.
I still don't understand the Level 99 Panty Knotting going on over letting people be good at what they do in exchange of being bad at something else.
Agreed. I find it is just as difficult to comprehend as the Level 99 Panty Knotting going on over others attempting to tailor their game to the preferences and perceptions of balance of their gaming table and groups.
Likely because the latter group is pissed off at the former group being so up on their high horse about how high stats means bad power gamer OMG go away.
I am going to guess he meant since there are fewer valleys (7s) and fewer peaks (18s) it produces a more balanced array.That's precisely what I meant.
We use a point buy of 25, Base stat of 10.
So here is my question... Why not just use a 20 point buy with the rules as is?
Lets say I have a Fighter.
Under your rules he could go with the following...
STR: 18 DEX: 13 CON: 14 INT: 10 WIS: 10 CHA: 10
With a 20 Point buy you could see something like this...
STR: 18 DEX: 13 CON: 14 INT: 9 WIS: 10 CHA: 7
Either way he still has an 18 stat. At least with a 20 point buy and dumped stats he has to sacrifice something and RP a low Int/CHA. By using a 25 point buy you are completely negating the whole need for dumping. You can still get a maxed stat.
Personally I dont see the issue with dumping stats. Its the difference of a +1/-1 here and there. Past 5th level it has very little effect on your game. Stats only really start to effect the game when you roll stats and get lucky with ludicrous stats that are effectively a 30+ stat point buy
Likely because the latter group is pissed off at the former group being so up on their high horse about how high stats means bad power gamer OMG go away.To be fair, there were plenty of unnecessary "you must have the most unfun games EVAR" comments from both sides.
-Skeld
Agreed.
So here is my question... Why not just use a 20 point buy with the rules as is?
Lets say I have a Fighter.
Under your rules he could go with the following...
STR: 18 DEX: 13 CON: 14 INT: 10 WIS: 10 CHA: 10
With a 20 Point buy you could see something like this...
STR: 18 DEX: 13 CON: 14 INT: 9 WIS: 10 CHA: 7
Either way he still has an 18 stat. At least with a 20 point buy and dumped stats he has to sacrifice something and RP a low Int/CHA.
The lack of clarity (of intent behind our system) is my fault. Neither I, nor my players have have a problem with the "18". In fact, back in 1st & 2nd edition AD&D when we rolled stats, we increased a player's highest stat to 18 if he or she did not have an 18 (which would allow, for example, a fighter to roll his percentile to get the 18/XX variable).
By using a 25 point buy you are completely negating the whole need for dumping. You can still get a maxed stat.
This was precisely the goal of using the above system.
I'd also like to add for the purposes of clarification, I am in no way a draconian or antagonistic GM. I've had the fortune of playing for the last 12 years with the same group of people (8 players and I or one of the others as GM) ages 29-52 with almost half of them being female. We identify a problem, perceived or otherwise, address it and vote. If it works, fantastic. If it doesn't, we toss it out and try something else.
I know a lot of folks claim they put a 7 in CHA or INt or STR for “roleplaying reasons’ but I notice they never dump CON down to 7, ala Doc Holiday or Elric.Too true. It's funny how the dump stats are never anything "important" for the specific character class or overall survival.
nobody puts a 7 in constitution?
i had a fetchling bard, whom on a 25 point buy had
STR 7 Con 7 Dex 16 Int 17 Wis 12 Cha 18
For level 1 base stats
she bumped int as high as she could and used skills and buffs to contribute as a force multiplier, face, battlefield controller and trap finder.
i was thinking more Patchouli Knowledge than Elric or Raistlin. she was an anemic countess born under cursed circumstances with incurable supernatural illness that crippled her immune system and caused her to cough up blood. i flavored her skill failures as being interrupted by a hacking fit, as well as crits against her. she needed no weapon, the party was her weapon. and even then, in most fights, you had to roll miss chances against her shadow blending, blur, and greater mirror images
This is one change I am pushing. You get no points for reducing stats below 10. You can if you want to.I already do this in my campaigns. Almost like magic in the game I started after this rule was implemented, all the "its for roleplaying" folks suddenly stopped dumping stats and more balanced arrays (in my opinion) were produced.
hey, if you give no incentive for dumping stats, nobody is going to do it.
i don't like playing Jack Alltrades Master of Nothing
i like playing that character whom despite having beyond superhuman strengths in some areas, has crippling flaws in others.
Rex, my Onispawn Martial Artist of Many Styles from the Sacred Mountain. at 5th level, on a 25 point buy, after modifiers
17 Strength (18 at 4th level)
14 Dexterity
16 Constitution
12 int
16 Wis
5 Cha
her 5 Cha was because she was a slave who never learned people skills, came off as abrasive, had a blatantly known desire to become a spawn of Rovagug greater than the terrasque, Idolized the Terrasque, adopted her new name after the T-Rex, was seen as a monster due to being an 8 foot tall woman with inhuman muscles and a savage personality. she was a cannibal whom had no qualms about eating the sentient humanoids she slew, she was an emotionally unstable mess, her education was that of a predator, meaning she spoke broken english, despite being intelligent in the predatory ways, she was badly scarred, had adamantine prosthetic clockwork forearms to replace the ones she lost to gangrene that worked in a similar fashion to FMA automail, she had a poverty stricken appearance, had lots of slave tattoos and was seen as a barbarian because of them, and because she had a negative reputation for being a monster whom no asylum could hold. plus she worshipped Rovagug and slaughtered legions with her martial arts.
the only reason Rex was neutral and not chaotic evil, was because i got the DM to accept that she had the thought patterns of an intelligent yet predatory animal. food, reproduction, rest, shelter, survival, and other animalistic concerns were her priority. she understood neither honor nor morality in any way shape or form.
the only reason she used some semblance of tactics, was because she figured "If these guys am helping Rex Hunt, Rex am work with them and Rex am Help them Hunt. Numbers am good for survival."
because the concept of currency was beyond her, her share was held by a trustworthy party member whom served as her bank as something akin to a money manager.
If you get nothing from having a 7 other than "you can roleplay having that low stat" then why pick 7 over 10? Sure, if you roll a stat and get a 7, it can be a fun challenge to roleplay and deal with it. But if you are buying stats, and 7 and 10 are effectively the same, why purposely make yourself worse? Its like saying "well, some people like to play fighters with a negative strength penalty, its a fun roleplay opportunity." Sure, it could be, but it also makes you worse at handling challenges.
in my 7's i like to ham them up
but i usually don't have more than a single 7, 2 if those 7s make sense. such as Umbriere with strength and constitution.
i don't need to play the wizard with OMG 3 7s and a 20 int.
though i have dump stat option priorities
if i have a class that can afford to dump CHA, that'll be my go to choice
i never Dump INT and i only Dump CON on certain niche concepts
if i have a full arcane caster or psionic character. Strength is a likely choice if i cannot Dump CHA
if i have a cleric, or an oracle, i will focus on one aspect and dump which doesn't fit. but i'm not the type to play a cleric when oracle is less MAD and has more skill points. so a battle cleric will dump CHA, wear heavy armor and will have a mediocre Dex while a battle oracle does the same, Dumping Wis instead of Cha.
if i have a bard, i decide on the basic contribution, and specialize from there
if i have a rogue or ninja, i go with a 2hand weapon strength build using a race with a flexible bonus, or an aasimaar variant, or if i go ninja, i may get permission to dervish dance with a wakazashi, and if approved, build a dervish dance pirahna strike fetchling. rogues would do the same with a Gladius or Dagger
i try to spend as few feats on proficiencies as possible, so i will ask DM permission for such regional things as proficiency swaps based on background. trading similar weapons based on backstory. 1 for 1 is preferred. armor and shield proficiencies are also fair game to trade for such things as 2WF or precise shot if i can convince my DM.
i only play home games and online games that mimic home games, so i can milk the benefits of a home game.
none of my concepts would work in PFS.
I know a lot of folks claim they put a 7 in CHA or INt or STR for “roleplaying reasons’ but I notice they never dump CON down to 7, ala Doc Holiday or Elric.
I made a Kuthite cleric with 7 CON, explained it as a weakened body from all the self torture. Not going to say it worked out great (~25 hp at lvl 5...), but was a lot of fun. Had a goblin gunslinger with 7 WIS - no grit points for me, but a high WIS just didn't mesh with his compulsive nature. Kobold Paladin of Apsu, fought melee... -4 STR racial hurt, but the concept was worth it.
You pick the character you want to play, and build it to fit your vision. Usually that means you build them to be effective.
Side note: dumping CON is a lot harder to roleplay out. CON is very, VERY much a mechanical benefit. If I have low INT, I talk broken English and do stupid things. If I have low WIS, I'm gullible and have low self control. If I have low CHA, I'm either shy or rude, but people don't like me. Other than dying a lot, how the heck do you roleplay low CON?
Other than dying a lot, how the heck do you roleplay low CON?
Act sick a lot, overreact to outside stimuli, constantly pretend you are out of breath, ect...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When people dump CON they die, I've had a player who had a negative CON before, he stopped playing the character.
Why do your stats directly affect whether or not the character is good for role playing? Why are 20's not okay? Why is it overpowered? Obviously this thread is about min covers, I want to know what the problem is?
If I have a character who spends his time and effort studying, and not training or doing physical labor, wouldn't it make sense that he has a really high INT and a really low STR?
Why is it bad that I want a higher stat in something that I care about, and I'm willing to drop a stat that I don't? Why should I not get any extra points towards my point buy if I drop a stat? How does that make the game better?
I know a lot of folks claim they put a 7 in CHA or INt or STR for “roleplaying reasons’ but I notice they never dump CON down to 7, ala Doc Holiday or Elric.
I made a Kuthite cleric with 7 CON, explained it as a weakened body from all the self torture. Not going to say it worked out great (~25 hp at lvl 5...), but was a lot of fun. Had a goblin gunslinger with 7 WIS - no grit points for me, but a high WIS just didn't mesh with his compulsive nature. Kobold Paladin of Apsu, fought melee... -4 STR racial hurt, but the concept was worth it.
You pick the character you want to play, and build it to fit your vision. Usually that means you build them to be effective.
Side note: dumping CON is a lot harder to roleplay out. CON is very, VERY much a mechanical benefit. If I have low INT, I talk broken English and do stupid things. If I have low WIS, I'm gullible and have low self control. If I have low CHA, I'm either shy or rude, but people don't like me. Other than dying a lot, how the heck do you roleplay low CON?
now those were some fairly gimped concepts
how i roleplayed my 7 con noble loli? (the fetchling bard)
everytime i rolled a 1 on the d20, or my foe rolled a critical threat against me, i would pretend to hack up blood Izumi Kurtis/Jushiro Ukitake style.
no blood needed, real nor fake, just the coughing was sufficient for maximum roleplay experience bonus.
but the incurable cough of death is an easy and cheap way to roleplay a low constitution.
plus i used such descriptors as "Pale", "small framed" and "Emaciated" to describe her appearance. it didn't help that she couldn't stand milk.
I know a lot of folks claim they put a 7 in CHA or INt or STR for “roleplaying reasons’ but I notice they never dump CON down to 7, ala Doc Holiday or Elric.
I made a Kuthite cleric with 7 CON, explained it as a weakened body from all the self torture. Not going to say it worked out great (~25 hp at lvl 5...), but was a lot of fun. Had a goblin gunslinger with 7 WIS - no grit points for me, but a high WIS just didn't mesh with his compulsive nature. Kobold Paladin of Apsu, fought melee... -4 STR racial hurt, but the concept was worth it.
You pick the character you want to play, and build it to fit your vision. Usually that means you build them to be effective.
Side note: dumping CON is a lot harder to roleplay out. CON is very, VERY much a mechanical benefit. If I have low INT, I talk broken English and do stupid things. If I have low WIS, I'm gullible and have low self control. If I have low CHA, I'm either shy or rude, but people don't like me. Other than dying a lot, how the heck do you roleplay low CON?
now those were some fairly gimped concepts
how i roleplayed my 7 con noble loli? (the fetchling bard)
everytime i rolled a 1 on the d20, or my foe rolled a critical threat against me, i would pretend to hack up blood Izumi Kurtis/Jushiro Ukitake style.
no blood needed, real nor fake, just the coughing was sufficient for maximum roleplay experience bonus.
but the incurable cough of death is an easy and cheap way to roleplay a low constitution.
plus i used such descriptors as "Pale", "small framed" and "Emaciated" to describe her appearance. it didn't help that she couldn't stand milk.
Our player who's character had a low CON constantly puked and was very squeamish, and couldn't handle things like sight of blood, dead bodies, etc. without feeling sick and/or puking.
When i GM i have my players run their characters by me before the game and really just check to see if their sheet matches their character. So 7 in a stat wont really break the game but i have in the past made 8 the minimum. But the best way for characters with low stats is to make sure that it IS an issue for them in game. It adds to roleplaying and brings out the character flaws as well and if they did it just to min/max it can be seen as a punishment. For example take charisma, a character who dumped his down to 7 (or 5 post racials) makes a really compelling speech to sway the mind of a potential employer I would ask for a diplomacy check (DCs of these checks depend on how compelling the arguement or statement) now his dump charisma becomes a serious problem. I also dont allow metagaming on conversations so they cant just tell the other person in the group "Hey ask him this" while standing in front of them.
Alternative Solutions to dump stat players as a GM:
Physical stats show with exception of dex,Strength: Enforce carrying capacities/NPCs may comment or pass over a pc for a task because they look weak.
Dexterity: Require them to make dex based checks that are auto successes for other players/Comments on how they have no coordination (they pay for this one with their reflex save anyway)
Constitution: Between their con score and HP, this one doesnt need further punishment/ NPCs may comment on them looking sickly or meek passing them up on jobs they dont think they will survive.
Mental Stats dont show as much but become obvious:
Intelligence: Not so bad mechanically their lack of skills will suffer, but be more inclined to make them roll to identify monsters or recall information. "Hey i dont remember what did NPC Jack say" me: "make me an int check". Set at an easy DC or so./NPCs may ridicule the player for being stupid. Intelligent NPCs may not care to speak to him. Overall not terribly bad on the RP side. Also consider making 7 int illiterate trait if you want to. He cant read or...
This post is all kinds of evil, why are you punishing players for making an effective character?
Why are 7's bad? No one has answered this yet.Has anyone (besides me) ever considered that the dump stats are just part of the character and the role playing.
Wizards spend their time studying and practicing their writing, hence most wizards have a higher INT and DEX, while they forgo their other stats that they don't need, since they don't do much lifting they tend ot have low STR, and being recluse as much as they are while studying they have a low CHA as well.
Fighters who spend all their time training their bodies and no time reading or becoming educated beyond being able to read don't gain knowledges, and they don't learn the mannerisms or wisdoms they need to take over the life of the party. Dumping mental stats makes sense.
There really aren't many other SAD classes who can't be carbon copied onto these basic ideas. The stat dumping makes sense for the character.
This post is all kinds of evil, why are you punishing players for making an effective character?
Punishing the players isn't good. In the dex example, does that mean its a DC 8 if I can't make an 8 but everyone else gets at least a 9? How does that work, there probably isn't that much of a difference. Targeting players is usually something I suggest against. I'm not sure if the character is still effective, but it still doesn't feel right to me when I hear it.
Things like "Special needs character" and ignoring the player when he says something important strike me as offensive in particular.
Why are 7's bad? No one has answered this yet.
I'd actually like to hear this too. At best I saw someone compare a character to the village idiot, or claiming it somehow means they have 18's just because of this which throws the game off balance.
|
We had a warforged barbarian who dumped his charisma, everyone found him unnerving all the time. They would avoid talking to him or try and make him go away when they were forced to but i homebrewed a trait to let him use str in place of cha for intimidate. He had no chance of ever making friends but he could intimidate everyone out of everything.
What, no Iron Giant option?
Its a meta perspective, not a power gamer. Your looking at the treatment of others based upon their decisions outside of the game. Using the word power game infers your targeting people based upon "Power gamer" rather than "Would my group enjoy this and does it work?" Very different things.
Just be careful about extremes. I'd hate it if someone referred to my character as "special needs."
Punishing the players isn't good. In the dex example, does that mean its a DC 8 if I can't make an 8 but everyone else gets at least a 9? How does that work, there probably isn't that much of a difference. Targeting players is usually something I suggest against. I'm not sure if the character is still effective, but it still doesn't feel right to me when I hear it.
It sounds more to me like he's having NPCs react in accordance with the statistics someone selects. Are you suggesting it is okay for the players to roleplay according to their stats, but not okay for the NPCs to react to someone based on their perceptions of them? I'd like to hope you're not actually suggesting that, so please clarify.
Things like "Special needs character" and ignoring the player when he says something important strike me as offensive in particular.
"Offensive" is so subjective it really has no place in this discussion.
From a modern perspective, a 7 in an ability score is roughly approximate to two deviations below the norm (avg 10-11), which does qualify someone as "special needs" in many states, whether due to physical, mental, or psychological disability.
It sounds more to me like he's having NPCs react in accordance with the statistics someone selects. Are you suggesting it is okay for the players to roleplay according to their stats, but not okay for the NPCs to react to someone based on their perceptions of them? I'd like to hope you're not actually suggesting that, so please clarify.
I'm suggesting its okay to react and to roleplay, but not to take it too far. Ignoring the players statements kills a good amount of fun imo, and calling them special needs could get pretty offensive. Those are two that struck me in particular, but I'm actually okay with keeping track of encumbrance or an NPC stating "Are you sure you can carry that? Its pretty heavy!" "Yeah, don't worry, I've got a spell! (Ant Haul)".
Like I said, just don't take it to extremes or go out of your way to make the player feel bad and its cool.
"Offensive" is so subjective it really has no place in this discussion.
If I'm stating my opinion, which I noted I was, then its probably got something to do with this discussion. Hard to discuss purely mechanics when this is about how people run things and a reaction to a world without 7's. Personally, I think special needs could get pretty offensive.
I'm suggesting its okay to react and to roleplay, but not to take it too far. Ignoring the players statements kills a good amount of fun imo, and calling them special needs could get pretty offensive. Those are two that struck me in particular, but I'm actually okay with keeping track of encumbrance or an NPC stating "Are you sure you can carry that? Its pretty heavy!" "Yeah, don't worry, I've got a spell! (Ant Haul)".
Like I said, just don't take it to extremes or go out of your way to make the player feel bad and its cool.
You know, if he's berating the player and calling their character "special needs", I agree - that's a sign of a poor GM. I don't believe that's what he's doing. His text indicates he's describing something from an academic perspective or how he sees these stats reflected in play.
If I'm stating my opinion, which I noted I was, then its probably got something to do with this discussion. Hard to discuss purely mechanics when this is about how people run things and a reaction to a world without 7's. Personally, I think special needs could get pretty offensive.
I do not disagree with your opinion; I am simply questioning the relevance. In this specific instance, it is only relevant if he is being abusive to the player(s) and not attempting to describe his perspective in an academic manner, which I see no indication of.
Lastly, to address the OP's original question: It is my opinion that limiting or removing the ability of players to select 7s will in no way adversely affect your campaign.
Da'ath gets it. Thank you i was worried i was being vastly misinterpreted for a while. Two notches below average is definitely going to make some npcs react differently and treating it as an in game handicap is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact i would reward players for getting through situations where their handicap is a particularly difficult obstacle. So its a bit of both and some basic knowledge in psychology with my intelligence comment how people generally like to associate with people on a similar intellectual level. Contrary to punishing them i think this adds another degree of immersion rather than punishment because the world actually reacts to the way their characters are perceived rather than waiting for you to trigger a dialogue with their speech on notecards. I wouldnt ever call a player special needs but if someone shows me an abnormally low stat i will warn them that it will be a potential handicap in game.
I am very similar with social interactions. It also gives your players a strong sense that the individuals they're interacting with are multi-faceted.
From a modern perspective, a 7 in an ability score is roughly approximate to two deviations below the norm (avg 10-11), which does qualify someone as "special needs" in many states, whether due to physical, mental, or psychological disability.
It's actually not.
A 7 Int roughly correlates to an 85 IQ, well within the parameters of a fully mentally capable human being.
People just like to pretend you're right so they can grab at straws and JUSTIFY their punishment of the players by saying "Oh but it makes sense".
From a modern perspective, a 7 in an ability score is roughly approximate to two deviations below the norm (avg 10-11), which does qualify someone as "special needs" in many states, whether due to physical, mental, or psychological disability.
It's actually not.
A 7 Int roughly correlates to an 85 IQ, well within the parameters of a fully mentally capable human being.
People just like to pretend you're right so they can grab at straws and JUSTIFY their punishment of the players by saying "Oh but it makes sense".
I'd be interested to know how you came up with that calculation. I sat down and calculated INT to IQ based on the actual, most commonly accepted scale and came up with something entirely different.
If 10 is the average INT score of a character, since 10 is assumed to be the "adult human average" of a character, that means that (s)he is of average IQ. The average human IQ IQ Scale is 90 - 109; the median is a straight 100, meaning that 10 INT = 100 IQ. Well, 10 - 11 are both considered "average," but it's the score of 10 itself that changes the character's modifier from a below average score.
A 7 INT then gives you seven/tenths of the average score - an IQ of 70, which actually is considered borderline deficient. According to your own suggestion of 85 IQ, that person falls under the "Below Average" level of cognitive ability; functional, yes, but demonstrably affected.
I'd be interested to know how you came up with that calculation. I sat down and calculated INT to IQ based on the actual, most commonly accepted scale and came up with something entirely different.
If 10 is the average INT score of a character, since 10 is assumed to be the "adult human average" of a character, that means that (s)he is of average IQ. The average human IQ IQ Scale is 90 - 109; the median is a straight 100, meaning that 10 INT = 100 IQ. Well, 10 - 11 are both considered "average," but it's the score of 10 itself that changes the character's modifier from a below average score.
A 7 INT then gives you seven/tenths of the average score - an IQ of 70, which actually is considered borderline deficient. According to your own suggestion of 85 IQ, that person falls under the "Below Average" level of cognitive ability; functional, yes, but demonstrably affected.
Agreed. I'm curious, as well. An IQ of 50-70 is generally considered "mild mental disability".
7 is well above 70% of 10.
You fail basic mathematics with this statement. 7 is exactly 70% of 10.
As far as logarithmic scales, that only applies to strength, when recording carrying capacity. You can't apply it to the rest of the stats.
GuYZ InT 30 iS LIkE 300, iQ pointz!!!!!!!! Da sMArTEst EvAR!!!
Link
Also INT 13 = genius level -> get out of my kitchen!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to prevent min/maxing stats, you shouldn't be running point buy. Unless you give out enough points for the player to have the stats he cares about high, and the ones he doesn't at 10, you're going to see at least one 8, if not a 7. This is what point-buy is designed to do.
Worried about Dump Stats?
then double your intended point buy. now PCs will have so many points, they can 'maybe' afford a 12 in their dump stats. unless they are a monk.
15 becomes 30
20 becomes 40
25 becomes 50
big problem with dump stats stems from the lack of points.
I'd be interested to know how you came up with that calculation. I sat down and calculated INT to IQ based on the actual, most commonly accepted scale and came up with something entirely different.
Variance. The standard deviation of 3d6 is about three pips, so an Int of 7 is one s.d. below the norm and Int 4 is two.
The standard deviation for IQ is 15 pts. Hence 7 Int is 85 IQ, and 4 Int is 70 IQ. The means scale more intuitively than the variances.
"Intelligence indicates the basic equivalent of human ‘IQ’" (AD&D - MM p. 6, FF p. 7, MM2 p. 6, Deities & Demigods p. 6). - Gary E. Gygax, who created the various ability scores such as Intelligence in the first place, and wrote the original Monster Manual.
"To determine your intelligence, look up the results of the most recent IQ test you have taken and divide the result by ten. This number is your intelligence rating." (Dragon #8, "So, You Want Realism in D&D?", by Brian Blume).
"A character with an Intelligence score of 3 is smarter than most animals, but only barely... Ten points of IQ per point of Intelligence is a good rule of thumb, so your example character has an IQ of about 30." (D&D FAQ, Version 3.5; Update Version 09/28/05, p. 2).
While I found quotes in print, I sincerely don't think either side of this discussion is going to give way. While I doubt the debate has helped the OP much, one can hope.
I applaud your argument against my position (and that of others in the thread). Instead of providing your opinion as fact to support a stance, you provided facts with modern statistical breakdowns. Additionally, kudos on your use of Medieval Demographics Made Easy. I have found that site invaluable for the purposes of world-building over the years.
This does not mean I agree. I would posit that the "village idiot" commoner (assuming you're talking about the NPC commoner from the Gamemastery Guide) is a modern, one-dimensional interpretation of a stereotype* which provides no degree of differentiation between the following:
a. those with a mental disability (ranging from mild to severe);
b. suffering from a form of insanity;
c. the uneducated or ignorant;
d. a stereotypically silly or nonsensical person (court jester); or
e. an unrealistically optimistic or naive individual;
* While I would never cite wikipedia for a research paper, it is more than adequate for the purposes of these boards (see Village Idiot).
Edit: In essence, the village idiot as presented in the Gamemastery Guide is a poor example, but "good enough" for use as a severely handicapped NPC. While your method of argument is not flawed, the assumption of birth rates, mortality rates, and physical or mental dsability (and severity) being an accurate "pound for pound" measurement of those in medieval times is - modern medicine keeps a great deal of people alive that would otherwise not survive long after birth.
