Playing a character with 8 Int and 8 Cha


Advice

51 to 100 of 159 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

A thought to ponder:

Back in 2nd Edition stats between 8 and 13 were considered average.
No one questioned having an 8 or 9 Int, why? I think it's obvious, there was no penalty or bonus associated with stats in this range. So the sudden desire to punish people with an 8 stat is NOT realism it is a weird desire to justify that -1 with something harsh.


Aranna, I tend to think it's more along the lines of comic exaggeration. An 8 isn't someone who's going to be defined by his low Intelligence, certainly, but "he's dumb" is an easy hook to hang exaggerated roleplaying off of. "Slightly dim" isn't as much fun to play.


I have always been sort of amused by how much most players exaggerate the penalties for below 10 scores when they bemoan the limited benefits of above 10 scores until they get to 16 or even 18.

For most practical purposes (especially role-playing purposes) there would be no more meaningful difference between playing a 10 or 8 int character and playing a 10 or 12 int character. I don't know anyone who would argue that an int of 12 creates a remarkably intelligent character, yet many players feel an int of 8 creates a "Hulk SMASH" sort of character.

Scores of 8 should be played as being well within the "normal" range of human ability, just as scores of 12 should be.


In college I played D&D with mostly physics and computer science majors who played a character with an Int of 10 like a drooling idiot, working from the assumption that anyone with a lower Int than a physics or computer science major is not very bright. Some of these players would translate into characters with above average Int and average or below average Wis and Cha. Stats could be viewed as somewhat relative, in a group of somewhat socially awkward physics majors an average sociology major would seem to have a staggering Cha.

While IQ is somewhat useful as a benchmark, an IQ is not as comprehensive as the thread seems to make it out as being. IQ is a good measure of some kinds of reasoning, particularly those useful to academics. But IQ is not a complete measure of reasoning and mental capabilities. I have a friend who got a PhD in Theoretical Mathematics and had offers to teach at Yale and Harvard. He has a very high IQ, but his roommates in college said he couldn't open a can with a can opener by himself, and matching socks was an adventure. And I have friends from high school who scored in the 90-95 range on IQ test who own their own businesses.

I'd like to suggest the manager from Office Space as a potential model for Int 8, Cha 8, and Wis 16. He wasn't the smartest guy in the office and wasn't the most charismatic either. But in game terms he would have maxed out profession (IT Manager) and might well have had a high Wis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Speaking as a person with a physics degree, I can assure you that I met a lot of physics and computer science majors whose int was no higher than 10. Some maybe not even that high.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Speaking as a person with a physics degree, I can assure you that I met a lot of physics and computer science majors whose int was no higher than 10. Some maybe not even that high.

That stands to reason, given the whole "You must go to college or you fail at life" thrust in our culture.

39%* of Americans go to college. ...and we're not looking at the top 39% in IQ in our colleges; intellect is hardly the determining factor in whether or not you go. As you would expect, some students are going to fall below average, or Int 10.

I'd argue that we're wasting time and money sending so many young people to college, but that's a discussion for another forum. >_>

*First number I found on a Google search; whether entirely accurate or in the right context is almost beside the point.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Int 10 is average.

But in the end, it's all about roleplaying and how you want to play the character.


Could an 8 Int simply mean that you were uneducated or didn't learn much as you grew up? Not just a measure of your intellect but also of your background and learning. A wide-eyed farm boy Fighter springs to mind.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Marv, from Sin City is a 8 intelligence guy.

Dark Archive

darkwarriorkarg wrote:

8 int, 16 wis, 8 cha?

Jed Clampett :-)

Nice analogy! I would say Jed was probably higher CHA though (14 CHA and 14 WIS?) - and maybe dump that INT to 7!


The Chort wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Speaking as a person with a physics degree, I can assure you that I met a lot of physics and computer science majors whose int was no higher than 10. Some maybe not even that high.

That stands to reason, given the whole "You must go to college or you fail at life" thrust in our culture.

39%* of Americans go to college. ...and we're not looking at the top 39% in IQ in our colleges; intellect is hardly the determining factor in whether or not you go. As you would expect, some students are going to fall below average, or Int 10.

Of course they are, but there's strong sorting among majors as well.

This site, for which I will not otherwise vouch, lists some numbers of "average IQ by college major." Physics is listed as the major with the highest average IQ, averaging 130+, two standard deviations above the norm. Basically, the person who was the best student in his high school math class is now average at Whatsamatta U.

I think that both of you are underestimating the well-documented tendency of geeks to think that everyone is as smart as they are. If the people you're taking classes with have IQs of 120+, someone with a "mere" 105 IQ will seem comparatively slow. And if all the people you're taking classes with are in this select group, then you'll end up thinking "You know, Herb is really dumb. I'm sure he's got a below average IQ." Sure he does -- in your group. Still smarter than average. Add in the effect of a selective college -- remember that 130 average is for all majors, so "physics majors at MIT/Harvard/Caltech/Berkeley" are probably smarter yet -- and you might be surprised how smart the really dumb guy in your Condensed Matter class really is.

Having said that, the dumb guy in the Elementary Childhood Education classes probably is dumber than average, given that the average there is barely above the population average.

The Exchange

Orfamay Quest wrote:
...both of you are underestimating the well-documented tendency of geeks to think that everyone is as smart as they are...

I wish I had that tendency. Instead, I wish I had a trapdoor onto which I could lure the imbeciles I constantly encounter!

Oh, for a trapdoor!

Shadow Lodge

The Chort wrote:
suggestions for how to effectively roleplay such a character? Right now, I'm more or less acting like Thog from Order of the Stick.

Better: Biff Tannen from Back to the Future.

Compose a stock-list of broken shibboleths similar to "Make like a tree and get oughta here!", and spout them when appropriate.

You're dumb, but not totally dumber than everyone else -- but your stupidly lies in the direction of thinking you're actually smarter than other people (with this explaining your low charisma by offending other people).


I have an 8 Cha character, and I see that as "somewhat brash" i.e. slightly less socially adept than the "average" person. Not dramatically so.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Only the "higher than thou" class forces an 8 to be horrendously debilitating.

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Marv, from Sin City is a 8 intelligence guy.

Nah, he's solidly smart (I'd give him an Int of 12 or so), with good abstract reasoning and planning abilities. His Charisma's bottom of the barrel and he's schizophrenic (though medicated), but his plans for dealing with adversaries are actually quite complex and well-thought out.


I ran a CHA 6 INT 8 Barbarian/Cleric. And it was a half-orc. And yes, he could not speak Common, at all. We had a great time where the Orc-speaking Elf had to translate stuff for him.
-That said, he could pins trolls by level 6.
-As a DM I don't consider dump stats to really exist, since my games will feature lots of skills, and you have to rollplay them. Like other's have said, 8 isn't the smartest tool in the shed, but hardly non-verbal.
-Low Charisma is actually harder to use. Because CHA 6 is really bad. Like you have to actually always say the wrong thing. ALWAYS. Ignore all social cues. Smell bad.
-For example, Zug though somebody lied to him. The man in question was running a pit fight. After Zug won, he thre the manager to a pit-wolf. It turned ugly. Zug thought that he was being mocked for his looks.


Doormouse wrote:

Int 10 is average.

But in the end, it's all about roleplaying and how you want to play the character.

As a player i would like to say "Yes!", but as a DM i would like to say "No!"

There are many players with a INT / CHA / WIS 8 character, which play him as he would be Albert Einstein / Don Juan de Marco / Budda
... so I would like to have a table (or something else) which would tell them, the cannot do this. Yes, I can tell them this, too, but a official rule would be better ;-)

Liberty's Edge

Der Origami Mann wrote:
Doormouse wrote:

Int 10 is average.

But in the end, it's all about roleplaying and how you want to play the character.

As a player i would like to say "Yes!", but as a DM i would like to say "No!"

There are many players with a INT / CHA / WIS 8 character, which play him as he would be Albert Einstein / Don Juan de Marco / Budda
... so I would like to have a table (or something else) which would tell them, the cannot do this. Yes, I can tell them this, too, but a official rule would be better ;-)

I do not agree with this because I feel that this becomes the GM (or the table) telling the player how he should roleplay his very own character.

Also, it becomes an additional constraint on players who chose martials (who need physical stats and thus have lesser or even dumped mental stats) over casters (who actually benefits from high mental stats).

My stance on the matter is that if the stat vs roleplay discrepancy is bothering the GM, he should deal with it like he would do with ANYTHING that bothers him in his players' playstyle : talk with them, adult to adult, about what he dislikes and build together a workable solution.


The black raven wrote:
I do not agree with this because I feel that this becomes the GM (or the table) telling the player how he should roleplay his very own character.

Because I don´t want to tell the player how he must roleplay his character, there should be a rule that says (i.e.):

INT: 8 "...you are Goofy..."
INT: 20 "...you are Albert Einstein..."

The black raven wrote:
talk with them, adult to adult,

I never needed to tell a player with an STR 8 SC that he perhaps is not the best of the group to break the wall - But I often need to tell a player with a INT 8 and CHA 8 SC that he perhaps is not the best SC for makeing a plan and talk to the king...

EDIT: Yes, you can talk to them but there are munchkins which ask me: "Show me the rule I couldn´t (...)" ;-)


3 is the lowest stat you can have with rolled stats. If NPCs rolled stats rather than using a standard array 3s would be as common as 18s.

If you were using rolled stats you would be expected to adventure with a mental stat of 3. Con or dex of 3 might be killed in chargen, but mentals can work if you have help, much the same way a str 3 character needs someone to carry his spellbook for him.

Forest Gump is int 3.
Rainman is cha 3.
A true solipsist would be wis 3, but I can't think of any examples in media.

These people can't adventure alone, but they can adventure.

8s have a quarter the penalties of 3s. Better than half of the people posting on this forum probably have either wisdom or charisma at 8 or lower. The hobby is historically intelligence correlated so there may be few low ints, but 8 int is smarter than some of us are wise or charismatic.

Dark Archive

For the record, if properly minmaxing, you get 4 extra points for almost no loss by dropping them down to 7, AND you get to act like even MORE of an idiot. At the very least, the CHA to 7 really should affect almost nothing. Just saying...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here in this thread again we see the notion that "role playing" means you get to have your character do whatever you want, regardless of their stats.

At my table if you play a 7 int character, I will not accept "role playing" him to be Albert Einstein. You took the 7 int, now you figure out how to play a character with below-average intelligence.

Rolling stats has not given a standard distribution where you are "as likely to roll a '3' as an '18'" in, well, forever. Pretty much every rolling option that is out there skews upward so that the player has a much, much higher chance of rolling an '18' than a '3'. In the most common dice rolling technique I used back in the early days of 2e (roll 4, drop lowest, arrange as desired) a player was roughly six times as likely to have an 18 as a 3.

Scarab Sages

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Here in this thread again we see the notion that "role playing" means you get to have your character do whatever you want, regardless of their stats.

At my table if you play a 7 int character, I will not accept "role playing" him to be Albert Einstein. You took the 7 int, now you figure out how to play a character with below-average intelligence.

No one is saying that INT 7 is Albert Einstein (who couldn't do simple arithmetic, by the way), but they are saying that INT 8 doesn't have to be this.

Liberty's Edge

Der Origami Mann wrote:
EDIT: Yes, you can talk to them but there are munchkins which ask me: "Show me the rule I couldn´t (...)" ;-)

Usually that is the moment when I ask the CHA 7 Barbarian with no social skills to roll Diplomacy since he was so eager to talk IC before the party face :-))

Peer pressure is a wonderful tool against munchkins.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Here in this thread again we see the notion that "role playing" means you get to have your character do whatever you want, regardless of their stats.

At my table if you play a 7 int character, I will not accept "role playing" him to be Albert Einstein. You took the 7 int, now you figure out how to play a character with below-average intelligence.

This argument is quietly ignoring the realities of efficient character building in the game, ie that a martial character cannot afford mental stats as high as those of a caster.

By ignoring this fact, you are punishing the martial with restrictions beyond what appears in the RAW while the caster goes away scott free with his STR 7.

In fact, you are actually punishing the player who wants to play an efficient martial while the player of the efficient caster hogs the limelight in non-combat situations.

Dark Archive

In fairness, do you make someone with 24 Intelligence play like they WERE a combination of Albert Einstein, Rainman, and Chuck Norris? It seems unlikely, being that most of us "peasent" types would have intelligence of the 8-12 range (whether we like it or not).

The best key is not to overthink it (pun intended). The game gives mechanical values to intelligence and charisma. With a 7 int, your character gets only 2 skill points per level (instead of the 4 of the standard trained person). They have no knowledges of the creatures they fight or the places they visit (unless they invest heavily to overcome their deficiencies).

The low charisma character will not be great at talking (this can be overcome if they really try by taking skill points; but only for specific instances).

Now you can always "ham it up" with a little roleplaying. My 7 int character I often proudly proclaim that he has no idea what was just said. My 7 charisma character I play as an "Eor" who is depressed about everything. My monk/fighter parrot-tengu has the inability to communicate properly, and can only mimic things recently said to him. In game terms, 7 charisma characters aren't usually loud and obnoxious; they're actually unnoticeable and heavily introverted (think: a lot of gamers). In game terms, they are about 10% less likely to convince someone they can do something than the average person.


A 7 or 8 int guy isn't Forrest Gump or Rainman, he's that guy working construction, that always complains about minorities really loudly.


A little off topic but how did you get those stats? assuming human that is a 43 point buy...

Are you sure you did everything right?

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

8 is not that low.

Village Idiot has a 4 intelligence.

8 is average guy working at McDonalds.

This also works for 8 Charisma :)


I thought the reason Pathfinder caps at 7 being the lowest stat you can buy because they wanted to thwart the prevalence of characters with mental or social disabilities. I would say anything below the cap is where you start to get non functional problems, but a 7 or an 8 is still pretty functional. There is enough tax in the lack of skill points, and not enough DMs use CHA skills by the sounds of things because CHA is the second most used stat by anyone who puts focus on the right side of their character sheet.
Whiny players make you feel bad when their 5 cha ogrekin barbarian gets his price marked up or can't succeed on a gather information check to even find the item that the vendor will want more than market value for? So what? That's how the world reacts to big, ugly, monstrous... monsters. DMs who just want to get the story along and let the un charismatic characters succeed on the interpersonal NPC relations part of the game have no right to complain about players gaining a mechanical advantage by dumping the stat, since they are enabling the players to do so without consequence in the first place.
The real problem is the view of certain mechanics as inalienable, and holding things like WBL or even xp as unhindered by the characters ability to perform only encourages CHA dumping.


The black raven wrote:

This argument is quietly ignoring the realities of efficient character building in the game, ie that a martial character cannot afford mental stats as high as those of a caster.

By ignoring this fact, you are punishing the martial with restrictions beyond what appears in the RAW while the caster goes away scott free with his STR 7.

In fact, you are actually punishing the player who wants to play an efficient martial while the player of the efficient caster hogs the limelight in non-combat situations.

Not quite. Buying a 12 or a 13 is cheap. There’s no reason why a fighter or BBn can’t have a 10 Int and a 12 Wis, just like a Wiz wants a decent Dex and Con.

And, the 7 str Wiz will have troubles climbing, jumping, hanging on, being grappled, and so forth.

And 10 isn’t average. Not in Golarion. “The ability scores for a basic NPC are: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8.” 8 is the very lowest you can have without being a special or racial modifiers. 10.5 is the average.


INT 8 CHA 8 would not be Thog level at all.

I'd liken it more to that guy we all know who is brutally honest, has no brain-to-mouth filter, tells you how it is, but doesn't have enough smarts to back up his abrasiveness with good math, statistics, semantics, or grammar.

He may have graduated from school, but definitely wasn't the valedictorian (sp?) and probably wasn't well liked. May have been a bit geared towards sports/martial arts. Your typical "jock bully" scenario. Think "Johnny" from the first Karate Kid movie.


Der Origami Mann wrote:
EDIT: Yes, you can talk to them but there are munchkins which ask me: "Show me the rule I couldn´t (...)" ;-)

Show the munchkins "Rule 0" which expressly states all rules are optional. Then show them "Rule 1" which expressly states that the DM is the end-all interpretation of rules questions, and decides what stays and what goes rule-wise.

No, you should not tell your player how to role-play. But if he's trying to make very wise decisions and has a 7 Wisdom, I will indeed tell him he's not wise enough to foresee what he's trying to do if I feel it's outside the scope. If he's got a 7 INT, and tries to extrapolate how far back he needs to start running and jump to the next rooftop, I'm going to tell him he probably can't comprehend the math involved, and to use his best guess (I might give a bonus if he's made such a leap before).

So, no, I won't tell him how to roleplay his personality, but I will give him answers and responses based on his chosen statistics.


You guys do realize a 1 or 2 is Animal Intelligence and even they can be trained and have reasoning.

If you want to take it back further 6 is the lowest allowable int you can have which would put you at more of a child like understanding of the world.

Barbarians are the only ones in 2nd edition that could be Below that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just be yourself :)

Liberty's Edge

DrDeth wrote:
Not quite. Buying a 12 or a 13 is cheap. There’s no reason why a fighter or BBn can’t have a 10 Int and a 12 Wis, just like a Wiz wants a decent Dex and Con.

Buying a 12 is not 2 points. It is 6 points (compared to the 7 you would get by dumping the stat). I do not think it "cheap" actually.

Also, I may have misrepresented things a bit because casters do dump mental stats too (just not their casting one). So you can play an efficient wizard with INT 18, DEX 14, CON 14, STR 7, WIS 10, CHA 7.

The Fighter cannot dump physical stats as much, so with the same array, he would NEED to be STR 18, DEX 14, CON 14, INT 7, WIS 10, CHA 7.

Alas, the high STR of the Fighter only brings him higher power at his combat role (attack and damage) whereas the high INT of the Wizard brings him higher power at his combat role (more spells, higher DCs, better Concentration) AND many skills as well as additional languages.

Quote:
And, the 7 str Wiz will have troubles climbing, jumping, hanging on, being grappled, and so forth.

All part of the RAW, just as the 7 INT Fighter will have very few skills and will be a total failure at INT-based skills.

Why then feel the need to add extra penalties (not RAW) to the Fighter ?

Scarab Sages

Cranefist wrote:
Just be yourself :)

If you happen to be a half-orc barbarian, I guess that works.


Der Origami Mann wrote:

There are many players with a INT / CHA / WIS 8 character, which play him as he would be Albert Einstein / Don Juan de Marco / Budda

How are they managing that? The player isn't Albert Einstein or Buddha. Probably not even close.

I think all this talk about not knowing how to play an INT 8 character is some ego boosting wanking.

How hard is Pathfinder?

Which lever opens the door?

Is the count screwing us or is he being dooped by like, one guy?

Even my house cat can figure out how to try and turn a door knob. If only he had longer fingers.

As a player, you only know what is described to you and the rest you fill in with your imagination. Doing your best, your character is no where near as equipped to make decisions as you are in real life.

Take your high average gamer, think through the decisions he makes in an RPG / things he says - on your best days you people RP an 8 INT.

When you think you are RPing an 8 INT, you are really just mocking retarded people.

The Exchange

The black raven wrote:
...Why then feel the need to add extra penalties (not RAW) to the Fighter ?

Because the game (after many decades of refinement) accurately simulates most of the difficulties of a low Strength or Dexterity, but it's not possible to do so on abilities like Wisdom without the players' cooperation: they must choose not to metagame, to keep their leaps of instinct or logic small... if the player has a brainwave, it's politer and more plausible to pass the idea (in an out-of-game way) to the people who are supposed to be smarter than they are in real life.


Rules wise dropping int below 10 is very significant. If your int is lower than 10, you can't take 10 on knowledge skills and succeed in basic knowledges. So knowing who the ruler of the land is or what a dog looks like would strictly by the rules need a roll. I mean those "10" knowledges are really basic.

Dark Archive

You can't ever take 10 on knowledge skills. Bards eventually can. By your standards 30% of the time an 18 int character doesn't know what a dog is :).


My understanding is that you can't take 10 on a knowledge check with DC higher than 10. Taking 10 on a knowledge check to know what a dog is (DC 5 + CR) is just fine. Even a character with Int 8 knows that.

However, your Int 18 character instantly knows how to identify minerals (something that I myself can't do).


Thalin wrote:
You can't ever take 10 on knowledge skills.

Not by my reading of the rules. Everybody can take 10, if not distracted. Bards can eventually take 10 even, if distracted.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Taking 10 on a knowledge check to know what a dog is (DC 5 + CR) is just fine.

Yeah right... dog had lower than 10 target, sorry.

Now we haven't ever forced knowledges for ints under 10, but as said strictly rules wise int under 10 would have some major holes in basic knowledges.


Riku Riekkinen wrote:
Thalin wrote:
You can't ever take 10 on knowledge skills.
Not by my reading of the rules. Everybody can take 10, if not distracted. Bards can eventually take 10 even, if distracted.

That's correct. Anyone can take 10 on any skill so long as they aren't distracted. Now taking 20 is an entirely different matter; there are some skill applications where you can and some where you can't and you must not only be distracted but also have significantly more time invested in it. So, while walking down the street, anyone without a significant penalty to Int knows what a dog is. In the heat of a fight, on the other hand, with a frantic glance towards some animal in the midst of it, a person with 18 Int but no trained knowledge in animal identification may mistake a dog for a wolf or possibly a goblin wearing a fur coat or a very large kiwi bird or a very small horse or possibly the loch ness monster. Bards get an ability which allows them to take 10 on knowledge even in heated, panicked moments and furthermore, allows them to, a certain number of times per day, take 20 on knowledge checks on the spot.

Some people seem to be confusing rules on this matter. You cannot make an untrained knowledge check with a DC higher than 10. However, if the check is, say, 8, and you have no more than a -2 penalty, you can take 10 and pass the check in a calm situation. So, with a -2 Int mod an untrained Knowledge(Nature), Norman the Barbarian can correctly identify a CR3 animal in the middle of combat 50% of the time. Out of combat, he can do it 100% of the time. Now if it were a CR4 creature, Norman has no earthly idea what in the world it is regardless of distraction.


Riku Riekkinen wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Taking 10 on a knowledge check to know what a dog is (DC 5 + CR) is just fine.

Yeah right... dog had lower than 10 target, sorry.

Now we haven't ever forced knowledges for ints under 10, but as said strictly rules wise int under 10 would have some major holes in basic knowledges.

... which, I feel, is appropriate.

Anything with DC 10, you need at least a 10 intelligence to know without a roll.
Anything with DC 8, you need at least a 6.

Basically, at int 10, you have a full mastery of "basic knowledge."


Imbicatus wrote:


No one is saying that INT 7 is Albert Einstein (who couldn't do simple arithmetic, by the way), but they are saying that INT 8 doesn't have to be this.

Read back through the thread. The statement was made that role playing essentially MEANT not being tied to rolled stats. I hear that a lot. A lot. Way too much.

And do you actually believe this nonsense about Albert Einstein not being able to do simple arithmetic?

Bwahahahahaaaa! That is hilarious.

Do you have the slightest idea how much "simple arithmetic" is involved in higher math?

I'll clue you in.

A lot.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Do you have the slightest idea how much "simple arithmetic" is involved in higher math?

Almost none.

Higher mathematics is about the structure of mathematical objects, not about rote computations. There are entire algebra textbooks that use no numbers higher than 3, except for page numbers.

Check out this page for an example of how little arithmetic you need to do higher math.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Do you have the slightest idea how much "simple arithmetic" is involved in higher math?

Almost none.

Higher mathematics is about the structure of mathematical objects, not about rote computations. There are entire algebra textbooks that use no numbers higher than 3, except for page numbers.

Check out this page for an example of how little arithmetic you need to do higher math.

Orfamay. How many math or physics equations have you derived from scratch?


The black raven wrote:

All part of the RAW, just as the 7 INT Fighter will have very few skills and will be a total failure at INT-based skills.

Why then feel the need to add extra penalties (not RAW) to the Fighter ?

I don´t want to give them more penalties - I want the players to understand and accept their penalities if they take a INT 7. ;-)

Cranefist wrote:


Der Origami Mann wrote:
There are many players with a INT / CHA / WIS 8 character, which play him as he would be Albert Einstein / Don Juan de Marco / Budda

How are they managing that? The player isn't Albert Einstein or Buddha. Probably not even close.

(...)
As a player, you only know what is described to you and the rest you fill in with your imagination. Doing your best, your character is no where near as equipped to make decisions as you are in real life.

Yes you are right, but I would like to give the player more information as only INT=7, INT=..., so they can get a better imagination on their character...

51 to 100 of 159 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Playing a character with 8 Int and 8 Cha All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.