|
Ahhhhhh, this old argument again...
I am of the opinion that it's good to roleplay your stats... but I'm also pretty convinced that the "required" actual usual effects of a normal buy-down just aren't as severe as people often make them out to be. As was mentioned upthread, the stereotypical "Village Idiot" isn't an INT 7, he's an INT 4, and even that INT 4, if you look at the NPC's writeup, is still described as being functional, though significantly impaired. He's capable of hunting food for himself, handling odd jobs, and finding secrets to guide the PCs to as a Boon out of gratitude.
Yeah, the people acting like NPCs with an INT of 7 are unable to function within society are a bit crazy. If that was true, then the other end of the scale would be that an INT of 13 makes you the equivalent of Reed Richards.
Ahhh, that strawman saying that people who comment that 7 INT is borderline mental retardation are saying people with a 7 can't function in society.
Forrest Gump is probably about a 7 (IQ 75). He has borderline mental retardation, but he's still able to function in society. I have a cousin who is borderline, and she functions just fine. She's just doesn't have a job as an engineer, she works as a checkout girl at a grocery store (when she's not in jail, but that's more to do with how her parents raised her than her IQ).
I don't think anyone in the thread said someone with a 7 IQ had to be 'Ugh, Thac Smash!'. But they also shouldn't be doing mental gymnastics and figuring out that the BBEG is the mayor because he has a smudge of sulfur on his shirt and some black hairs on his shoes either.
If you wanted some examples from Movies :
IQ 3 : Rainman
IQ 5 : Homer Simpson
IQ 7 : Forrest Gump/Pointy Haired Boss
IQ 11: Jack Carter (Eureka)
IQ 13: Your average College Professor
IQ 16: Zoe Carter (Eureka)/Lisa Simpson
IQ 19: Sherlock Holmes/Batman
|
|
IQ 5 : Homer Simpson
IQ 7 : Forrest Gump/Pointy Haired Boss
It's funny that you have Homer and Forest in that order, because, at least for the cartoon world that he lives in, Homer is a lot more capable of functioning independently than Forest is. Forest may have had a pretty amazing life, but throughout all of it he was leaning pretty heavily on his family and friends to function in the world. Homer, while a complete moron...is pretty functional in Springfield society.
EDIT: And yes, I realize I'm comparing a semi-realistic drama with a cartoon comedy. I just think that they would be closer. Maybe both a 6.
Nah, (movie) Gump lower INT but higher WIS than Homer. Gump has good insights, decent instincts, especially about people but is more... limited in several ways than Homer.
I listed them in that order because that's officially what they rank in.
Homer officially has a 55 IQ. And probably a 5 Wisdom to go with it, with a 14 Charisma and diplomacy cause he talks his way out of problems a lot.
Forrest Gump is officially listed at 75 IQ, probably with about the same charisma as Homer (most people like him on meeting him), and a very very high wisdom (18ish?).
So that's why I listed them in that order, that's their official IQ levels. Pointy Haired Boss is officially a 57, Jack Carter 111, College Professors average around 130, Zoe Carter is 157, Lisa Simpson 156, Sherlock Holmes 192, and Bruce Wayne 190.
(Well, that, and also making the more general point that trying to map hypothesized population demographics onto our own world really shouldn't overrule what we see from the actual mechanical/described aspects of the effect dumping stats actually entails, as a general principle.)
Except, if we're strictly just doing dice rolling, and roleplay doesn't really come into it, why the heck are we bothering? I can play video game RPGs if I just want some dice rolls.
The only reason I play is the roleplaying. If it's just a dry recitation of what goes on, and some die rolls, and more dry recitation, then it's boring.
And if the numbers don't mean anything, other than the die rolls, again, why bother with them. I can get the same level of play from WoW.
What, exactly are your players "missing out on" by having average mental stats? Characters with average mental stats can excel in a number of skill areas that are important to role playing, and some classes get buckets of skill points to make up for any mental stat limitations they may have.Honestly, I just don't role play based on what my mental stats are. Otherwise pretty much everyone in my group would want to play casters since they don't lose out on anything by focusing on mental stats. Hell, I even made a high int/wis magus who was a bit dim.
It just feels really restrictive to base your role playing on your mental stats. If you want to, then awesome, but I don't feel like that should be a requirement.
I'm not talking about skills, I'm talking about general roleplaying. I don't a character's build to suffer because they don't want their 8 to go into intelligence which limits how well IC they should be able to respond to questions, or come up with cunning strategies, or solve riddles, or whatever. From what I've read on this thread, a lot of people think they can't do any of those in character if they put their low stat into intelligence.
How is it "restrictive" to base your role playing on your stats? It's not just mental stats either, it's also physical stats. Role playing takes all your characters stats into account, or should. Role playing is as much about limitations as it is about capabilities anyway, so limitations provide role playing opportunities of their own.
I would argue that a character's mental stats are FAR more important in determining a character's personality. I generally hear a lot more people claim they're tentative in putting less than a 10 or 12 into intelligence for a class that doesn't need it (say, Barbarian or Fighter) than I hear people tentative to put less than a 10 into strength for a wizard. That's why I like to separate roleplay and stats; I apply it to physical stats as well, but in effect those wouldn't influence roleplaying nearly as much as intelligence, wisdom, or charisma.
I would argue that a character's mental stats are FAR more important in determining a character's personality. I generally hear a lot more people claim they're tentative in putting less than a 10 or 12 into intelligence for a class that doesn't need it (say, Barbarian or Fighter) than I hear people tentative to put less than a 10 into strength for a wizard. That's why I like to separate roleplay and stats; I apply it to physical stats as well, but in effect those wouldn't influence roleplaying nearly as much as intelligence, wisdom, or charisma.
I disagree very much.
Your physical stats can have a more profound effect on role playing than your mental stats. For the same reasons, if they are extremes.
I played a Warlock back in 3.5 with a very high charisma, and a 7 STR and 10 Con and 14 Dex. I worked his back ground as a failed warmage, the ritual that was supposed to put his spells into his head went awry, and it nearly killed him. A former scout and soldier (multiclassed warlock/scout), he had his strength and health ruined. So I roleplayed him as very frustrated with his physical weakness, and also that he tended to get sick more often than he used to (no more than average, but that was way more than he used to as a scout). His one saving grace was his high charisma, which he used to parlay his skills and brains (13 int) into making him a guild leader and major mover in the home base town (by the time he was level 14, he pretty much could afford anything he wanted, WBL blown all to heck). But is physical infirmities were what drove him, what generated his personality, not his mental stats.
Raistlin would be another example of physical stats driving the roleplay way more than mental stats.
With all due respect Mechalibur, to me it sounds like the only role playing limitations you are dealing with are self-imposed ones.
Huh? How did you get "roleplay doesn't really come into it" out of what I said?Roleplay! Roleplay as much as you want! All I'm saying is that if a player is trying to determine how to roleplay, if a player is trying to determine what that modifier to their stat actually means in terms of its severity... then it makes perfect sense for them to keep said roleplay consistent with its mechanical effect, and with how the fluff describes it as well. They're still roleplaying, just doing that roleplay in a way such that there's no disconnect between said roleplay and the mechanics when they do come in.
If their roleplay is within the ballpark of what the fluff and mechanics describe the stat effect as actually being, I don't think those players should be told they're doing it wrong based on an attempted statistical population model of Golarion using the NPC stat array or whatever other method. That's my point.
I would say it was the part I quoted, which sounded like saying mechanical bits of the character shouldn't limit roleplaying. That is usually the line from people who want to dump charisma to 5 or 7 and then roleplay that character as not having a bad charisma, because, you know, roleplay!
With all due respect Mechalibur, to me it sounds like the only role playing limitations you are dealing with are self-imposed ones.
I really have no idea where you're getting that idea, I'm saying I put absolutely no limitations on myself whatsoever in contrast to the posts I'm seeing on this thread. I have my characters act however they like regardless of their mental stats. How is that even remotely similar to making self-imposed roleplaying restrictions?
With all due respect Mechalibur, to me it sounds like the only role playing limitations you are dealing with are self-imposed ones.I really have no idea where you're getting that idea, I'm saying I put absolutely no limitations on myself whatsoever in contrast to the posts I'm seeing on this thread. I have my characters act however they like regardless of their mental stats. How is that even remotely similar to making self-imposed roleplaying restrictions?
I'm not saying you understand it Mechalibur, just that you're doing it.
I would argue that a character's mental stats are FAR more important in determining a character's personality. I generally hear a lot more people claim they're tentative in putting less than a 10 or 12 into intelligence for a class that doesn't need it (say, Barbarian or Fighter) than I hear people tentative to put less than a 10 into strength for a wizard. That's why I like to separate roleplay and stats; I apply it to physical stats as well, but in effect those wouldn't influence roleplaying nearly as much as intelligence, wisdom, or charisma.
I disagree very much.
Your physical stats can have a more profound effect on role playing than your mental stats. For the same reasons, if they are extremes.
I played a Warlock back in 3.5 with a very high charisma, and a 7 STR and 10 Con and 14 Dex. I worked his back ground as a failed warmage, the ritual that was supposed to put his spells into his head went awry, and it nearly killed him. A former scout and soldier (multiclassed warlock/scout), he had his strength and health ruined. So I roleplayed him as very frustrated with his physical weakness, and also that he tended to get sick more often than he used to (no more than average, but that was way more than he used to as a scout). His one saving grace was his high charisma, which he used to parlay his skills and brains (13 int) into making him a guild leader and major mover in the home base town (by the time he was level 14, he pretty much could afford anything he wanted, WBL blown all to heck). But is physical infirmities were what drove him, what generated his personality, not his mental stats.
Raistlin would be another example of physical stats driving the roleplay way more than mental stats.
I agree, a character's physical abilities can absolutely have an effect on your roleplaying. I'm just saying that it seems to come up a lot less often due to the large number of people who require their characters to have high mental stats, but no such limitations on physical ones. My point was if your group (or an individual) puts emphasis on stats determining roleplay capabilities, then low strength is far less detrimental than low mental stats.
Granted, I haven't made an official survey about it, but I've seen at least 10 topics like this on various roleplaying forums. I've never seen one saying "Who else always has good strength, even on wizards?" (Although I have seen a few who always have at least 10 in every stat... it's just if it's mental vs physical, the tendency appears to be toward never having bad mental stats)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying you understand it Mechalibur, just that you're doing it.With all due respect Mechalibur, to me it sounds like the only role playing limitations you are dealing with are self-imposed ones.I really have no idea where you're getting that idea, I'm saying I put absolutely no limitations on myself whatsoever in contrast to the posts I'm seeing on this thread. I have my characters act however they like regardless of their mental stats. How is that even remotely similar to making self-imposed roleplaying restrictions?
Considering I'm not having my mental stats influence my roleplaying, then no, I'm not limiting my roleplaying. You don't have to be condescending.
Considering I'm not having my mental stats influence my roleplaying, then no, I'm not limiting my roleplaying. You don't have to be condescending.
I find it grating when someone dumps mental stats, and then ignores the ramifications. If you have a 5 cha, or a 5 int, or a 5 wisdom, then your character is fundamentally damaged at some level. To ignore that and do whatever you want, without taking it into your character's personality is as bogus as someone ignoring their 5 str and carrying 300 lbs of equipment (and yes, I've caught people doing this before).
|
Smaart peples always think the answer is on the inside, is why always they have head stuck up own backside. I sees it all the time.
Smartest wizird we had, has all right things for any sitewashun but bag was full and couldn't get across rum so never made it to sitewashun while it was. Wizirdz not right tule for most sitewashuns.
Dont cares much bout flanks cause me cant be and me's hit stuff hard anyway smarts peples smart nuf to flanks wit me do cause then they can hit stuffs too, tho not hards as i.
Considering I'm not having my mental stats influence my roleplaying, then no, I'm not limiting my roleplaying. You don't have to be condescending.I'm not saying you understand it Mechalibur, just that you're doing it.With all due respect Mechalibur, to me it sounds like the only role playing limitations you are dealing with are self-imposed ones.I really have no idea where you're getting that idea, I'm saying I put absolutely no limitations on myself whatsoever in contrast to the posts I'm seeing on this thread. I have my characters act however they like regardless of their mental stats. How is that even remotely similar to making self-imposed roleplaying restrictions?
Let me try one more time. Your stated approach to "role playing" is to ignore your mental stats. In my opinion that means you are missing out on the challenge of dealing with the limitations of role playing according to your character's stats. The irony is that it is the limitations that you are avoiding that create the real challenge of creating a truly interesting and compelling character. To make a comparison, in art it is well recognized that true creativity is discovered not by the lack of constraints, but in the overcoming of them..
The way I see it you are missing out on the most challenging and interesting part of the process of creating and playing truly interesting characters because your characters can just arbitrarily be whatever you want with no explanation, justification or challenge involved. It's like playing checkers with chess pieces. The self-limitation in your approach is that you don't even allow yourself the opportunity to challenge yourself. You just make up whatever you want.
I would say it was the part I quoted, which sounded like saying mechanical bits of the character shouldn't limit roleplaying. That is usually the line from people who want to dump charisma to 5 or 7 and then roleplay that character as not having a bad charisma, because, you know, roleplay!
Huh? How did you get "roleplay doesn't really come into it" out of what I said?Roleplay! Roleplay as much as you want! All I'm saying is that if a player is trying to determine how to roleplay, if a player is trying to determine what that modifier to their stat actually means in terms of its severity... then it makes perfect sense for them to keep said roleplay consistent with its mechanical effect, and with how the fluff describes it as well. They're still roleplaying, just doing that roleplay in a way such that there's no disconnect between said roleplay and the mechanics when they do come in.
If their roleplay is within the ballpark of what the fluff and mechanics describe the stat effect as actually being, I don't think those players should be told they're doing it wrong based on an attempted statistical population model of Golarion using the NPC stat array or whatever other method. That's my point.
what a character looks like, should not be tied to charisma, but instead, to their physical stats. for what you look like, is a factor of the body, not the mind. and different cultures favor different physical features that cannot be measured with charisma alone.
i am also against the comeliness attribute
charisma is a combination of the following, confidence, presentation, leadership skill, your ability to persuade, your ability to leave a mark in history
a low charisma character can also leave a mark in history, or even lead with a bit of practice, but a low charisma character might exibit any of the following traits. some high charisma characters may exhibit these as well, but be seen as appealing rather than appalling
Shyness
Low Self Esteem/Heightened Sense of Shame
Creepiness
Obsessive Tendencies
Difficulty Drawing Attention
Difficulty Being Understood
Tsundere Mood Swings
Immaturity/Spoiled Attitude
Gruff or other Rude Attitude
Sailor/Trucker Mouth (Lots of Profanity)
Annoying levels of Sweetness
Common and Rudely Stereotypical Aspergers Symptoms
Difficulty maintaining a position of leadership
Easily Embarrassed/Bashful
Difficulty Leaving a Decent Impression or Social Imprint
Disrespectful Personality
I find it grating when someone dumps mental stats, and then ignores the ramifications. If you have a 5 cha, or a 5 int, or a 5 wisdom, then your character is fundamentally damaged at some level. To ignore that and do whatever you want, without taking it into your character's personality is as bogus as someone ignoring their 5 str and carrying 300 lbs of equipment (and yes, I've caught people doing this before).
Considering I'm not having my mental stats influence my roleplaying, then no, I'm not limiting my roleplaying. You don't have to be condescending.
One of those is a gameplay restriction, and I abide by all of those. For example, my 7 int character won't take Combat Expertise. I will not force myself to roleplay a particular way just because I don't want to screw myself over based on physical stats because I had the nerve to play a fighter instead of a wizard. Strength has a lot of gameplay restrictions, but not a whole lot of roleplaying restrictions, which is why almost no one seems to have a problem dumping strength. Casters already have enough going for them, as countless threads on the subject will attest to.
I'm not opposed to playing stupid or not particularly smart characters; sometimes it really fits the idea for a character I have in mind. But I'm not going to make all of my physically-focused characters that way, and I don't think anyone should have to play under that restriction.
If you have more fun doing that, then great! I have no qualms with anyone who prefers to play that way. But I find that my group and I have been having a lot more fun playing the game when ignoring those restrictions, and really that's the most important thing here.
Considering I'm not having my mental stats influence my roleplaying, then no, I'm not limiting my roleplaying. You don't have to be condescending.I'm not saying you understand it Mechalibur, just that you're doing it.With all due respect Mechalibur, to me it sounds like the only role playing limitations you are dealing with are self-imposed ones.I really have no idea where you're getting that idea, I'm saying I put absolutely no limitations on myself whatsoever in contrast to the posts I'm seeing on this thread. I have my characters act however they like regardless of their mental stats. How is that even remotely similar to making self-imposed roleplaying restrictions?Let me try one more time. Your stated approach to "role playing" is to ignore your mental stats. In my opinion that means you are missing out on the challenge of dealing with the limitations of role playing according to your character's stats. The irony is that it is the limitations that you are avoiding that create the real challenge of creating a truly interesting and compelling character. To make a comparison, in art it is well recognized that true creativity is discovered not by the lack of constraints, but in the overcoming of them..
The way I see it you are missing out on the most challenging and interesting part of the process of creating and playing truly interesting characters because your characters can just arbitrarily be whatever you want with no explanation, justification or challenge involved. It's like playing checkers with chess pieces. The self-limitation in your approach is that you don't even allow yourself the opportunity to challenge yourself. You just make up whatever you want.
Well thank you for explaining yourself instead of just telling me I don't understand.
Yes, I ignore mental stats, but I am perfectly content to play characters who aren't intelligent, wise, or charismatic. I just want that to be on *my* terms, not based on what stats I rolled. I'm perfectly capable of creating compelling characters, and I think it's a bit unfair for you to assume otherwise, not knowing anything about me or my games. Many of my characters have constraints that they need to overcome, and I have played a wide variety of characters with different flaws. But the key difference is I don't do it based on the numbers on my sheet, nor do I think it's necessary.
Yep, that's all great Umbriere Moonwhisper, and I never said Charisma was what you looked like.
Honestly, I think 'comeliness' could probably be a good average of Strength, Constitution, and Charisma (muscle tone, health, and personality).
However, the system by default does include 'appearance' under Charisma, if you look at the skills and descriptions and iconics.
My point was, if you dump a mental stat to 7 or 5, and then ignore it and insist your character is brainy/wise/charismatic you are as guilty of violating the spirit of roleplaying as you are if you dump your str to 7 or 5 and then ignore your encumbrance.
I'm not opposed to playing stupid or not particularly smart characters; sometimes it really fits the idea for a character I have in mind. But I'm not going to make all of my physically-focused characters that way, and I don't think anyone should have to play under that restriction.
If you want to play an average intelligence fighter, I have absolutely no qualms with it. Good for you, do it!
But actually play an average intelligence fighter. If you are buying back your INT to 7, and then ignoring it, you are cheating as much as the guy who ignores his encumbrance.
I would not like playing in a game where people did this. I have yet to have anyone give me a good reason why they have to dump INT (Or Wis or Cha) on their fighter when they want to play an average intelligence (or wisdom or charisma) in roleplay when it wasn't a desire to min-max the system. And min-maxing (not optimizing, I optimize my characters) is not about roleplaying, it's about roll-playing.
Well thank you for explaining yourself instead of just telling me I don't understand.
Yes, I ignore mental stats, but I am perfectly content to play characters who aren't intelligent, wise, or charismatic. I just want that to be on *my* terms, not based on what stats I rolled. I'm perfectly capable of creating compelling characters, and I think it's a bit unfair for you to assume otherwise, not knowing anything about me or my games. Many of my characters have constraints that they need to overcome, and I have played a wide variety of characters with different flaws. But the key difference is I don't do it based on the numbers on my sheet, nor do I think it's necessary.
It is hard to overlook the rather obvious result of your approach that you get to play the most mechanically optimized characters and then "role play" them to be "compelling" in direct contradiction to their actual stats.
Based on your reply I am forced to conclude that you still don't "get" what I am saying. You seem to be totally focused on the "I get to do whatever I want" without understanding that is exactly what I believe is limiting your gaming. Maybe it's just time and experience that needs to occur. I don't know. I just know that the style of gaming you are describing sounds to me like you need to have your cake and eat it too to be happy.
But whatever churns your butter dude. I hope your style doesn't grate on your gamer group's nerves. I know a lot of gamers who would give you all kinds of grief about "role playing" this way.
Update/Edit: FWIW, I don't think what you are doing qualifies as "role playing" since you are not playing the character on your sheet. What you are doing is "play acting". That's what I don't think you are grasping. There is a difference between role playing and just making s*$! up.
Actually no its not cheating. The game doesn't say you can't do it anywhere. You're not breaking rules. Therefore, not cheating.Whether you would like the game is irrelevant. And min-maxing can be about role playing just as much as roll playing. I find the idea that any adventurer (aka people that do life or death on a daily basis) wouldn't be the absolute best of the best that they could to be frankly ridiculous. Aka, i wanna live. I'm going to become as strong and tough and as good with a blade as i physically can.
Please explain how your average intelligence 7 INT character is roleplaying, and not min-maxing and ignoring your down sides?
This is just you wanting to get the benefit of the 7 INT without any roleplaying restrictions. Which is to say, you want to roleplay what is in your head, and ignore what is on paper.
Another way to say this is, why is it such an inposition to your 'roleplaying' to have a 10 int (average) on your fighter you don't want to roleplay as being 'slow witted'?
You seem to me to not want to accurately reflect your character, you just want mechanical benefits.
i played a Half Nymph Bard Who Started with
Strength 5 (7-2)
Dexterity 14
constitution 7
Intelligence 20 (18+2) (could have also been 19, 17+2, it's been so long, but she had a +8 modifier by 12th level)
Wisdom 14
Charisma 18 (16+2)
she was a sickly weakling, a countess, and a cunning manipulator, she had a Valet Ranger Hireling to Carry her Gear for her and protect her. Her Twin Sister was an angelkin melee oriented oracle to protect her
she had her sister, whom progressed as a cohort starting at level 3, which required the early leadership feat. before that, she was treated as a hireling
but in addition to the Valet/Guide Hireling, the Pet Horse and her Twin
she had a Group of 6 Female Loli Knights at a time, trained in stock and created by Alchemy, (Elven Switch hitter Rangers in Gothic Lolita Dresses, each with their own Onyx Crucifix, mithril shirt, composite bow, Curveblades, and Trained Messenger Falcon Companions. effectively spoiled hirelings like her Valet)
i got over her weaknesses by lotsa hirelings.
6 gothic lolita elves and an oracle did the killing for me. they were my noble bodyguards and my knight protectors. the Valet could protect himself, and i inspired all 8.
she had a goal of overcoming her illnesses.
when the party asked about her 6 Heroic Rangers, her Valet, and her Cohort. i pointed out, she has a twin sister as her "Knight of Zero" and he 6 Ranger Knights, were her bodyguards she created in a beaker (Craft Alchemy) and took a matter of months to replace, because whom else could get such perfectly uniform soldiers who act with such cohesion.
took 2 weeks to deliver a message to summon one of the remaining ones.
really, it was a reflavoring of the hireling rules
Actually no its not cheating. The game doesn't say you can't do it anywhere. You're not breaking rules. Therefore, not cheating.Whether you would like the game is irrelevant. And min-maxing can be about role playing just as much as roll playing. I find the idea that any adventurer (aka people that do life or death on a daily basis) wouldn't be the absolute best of the best that they could to be frankly ridiculous. Aka, i wanna live. I'm going to become as strong and tough and as good with a blade as i physically can.
Please explain how your average intelligence 7 INT character is roleplaying, and not min-maxing and ignoring your down sides?
This is just you wanting to get the benefit of the 7 INT without any roleplaying restrictions. Which is to say, you want to roleplay what is in your head, and ignore what is on paper.
Another way to say this is, why is it such an inposition to your 'roleplaying' to have a 10 int (average) on your fighter you don't want to roleplay as being 'slow witted'?
You seem to me to not want to accurately reflect your character, you just want mechanical benefits.
even a 7 INT fighter, can fake having a 14 INT on the battlefield, but only on the battlefield, and on one or two skills they specialized in.
it's not that they are intelligent, it's that they are conditioned by a series of training regiments that drills tactics into their seemingly unintelligent brains
the fighter can still perform the basics of academic education, they just know so much about warfare due to constant drilling, that they can fake genius on the battlefield
practice, can overcome inherent weaknesses, but it doesn't negate them
just like a low charisma character can learn to become diplomatic, but they may not be a good liar or very intimidating.
That is not the same thing at all, and you know it. There is a difference between experience (BAB and Skill Ranks) and 'I am smart and talk normal even with a 5 int', as the person I was responding to says they RP.
And yet, all those people are self delusional.
The Sorcerer is not smart, and nobody believes he's smart, he just thinks he is.
The barbarian is not actually very charismatic, he just thinks everyone likes him.
The fighter is not wise, he just thinks he is, and nobody else would believe it.
Nothing is wrong with playing a self deluded character. Nobody has said it is. The problem is having a low stat, and then wanting the world to treat you like you have a high stat.
And no, I am not being rude, I am being honest. Most people have trouble distinguishing between the two. And there are no rules against being rude, there are rules against cursing (#$*@#&*), personal insults (you stink and have an illigitimate parency), and various other things (like posting copyrighted works).
I'll reiterate, if you want to dump your stat, and you want to be treated in character as if you'd bought it high, then you are cheating. If you dump your stat, and your character is self deluded and thinks he's smart/wise/charismatic, then you are fine. But don't expect NPCs to believe your delusion after being around you for a bit.
That is not the same thing at all, and you know it. There is a difference between experience (BAB and Skill Ranks) and 'I am smart and talk normal even with a 5 int', as the person I was responding to says they RP.
there is a difference
all i answered is the use of tactics
doesn't cover talking
a low int character with a high linguistics or perform (Oratory) could speak normally. as both are about speech
a Character with 5 Int (or even a 9), i wouldn't personally allow if i ran a game for the following reasons
there are so many steriotypes of low intelligence characters that can be deemed offensive
there aren't many well known roleplay archetypes but those specific steriotypes
i like my players to be able to contribute to some out of combat skill checks, i hate seeing 5 Int characters who only max perception
i myself, am highly mentally disabled and am offended by mental disability steriotypes
i hate "Thogg Smash" type characters and want to see more dimension than "Thogg Smash". the problem with low int characters is they are so one dimensional
i know most of my gaming buddies, would ignore their character's intelligence score and play as they seem fit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if you said how the world treats you. You can be hideous and be loveable and low charisma. People may still like you after talking to you for 5 minutes despite your ugliness. You can be a dilettante in one area and still be a complete imbecile. This can be shown by skills. You can lack street smarts out the wazoo and still be highly perceptive.
"Charisma" is not "good looks". It is the force of personality. Charisma is literally a measure of how much influence you have on other people. So, no, you can't be "ugly but still be likable" with a low charisma. Because being "likeable" is itself what charisma is measuring. If you are "likeable" then by definition you don't have a low charisma, regardless of your character's physical appearance. By the rules anyway.
Similarly in the game you can develop skills through experience, but that's a slow process and is generally very limited to a few skills. In general it is very hard to be a "complete imbecile" (int of 4) and still be a "dilettante" in another area. You certainly will not measure up to another character who has invested the same ranks but has a high intelligence.
Just as with Mechalibur above, this whole argument boils down to "stats don't matter". And sure, you can play that way, but that's not the way the game is INTENDED to be played, and players like me who appreciate the subtleties and challenge of creating characters and then playing them with all their limitations and restrictions as listed on their character sheet is what makes role playing truly a challenging and compelling activity. There is nothing challenging about ignoring your character's actual stats. In fact when it comes right down to it, I don't know why anyone even wants to play that way. What's the challenge? You just make up whatever you want and call it "role playing" simply to justify the activity. And it is always this amazing coincidence that the character just happens to have all the right mechanical advantages to give the player the edge they want their character to have.
if a character wants the benefit of a high score, but has only a low score in that attribute, they better invest BAB or Skill Ranks in the desired Facets.
it won't cover everything
but i agree a 5 Int character shouldn't be capable of normal fluent native speech with the following exception
a minimum of 3 Ranks in either Linguisitics or Perform (Oratory) to represent learning to speak properly.
This is just you wanting to get the benefit of the 7 INT without any roleplaying restrictions. Which is to say, you want to roleplay what is in your head, and ignore what is on paper.
.... Rude
Not really, since 'you' in this case, refers to people who put a 5 down and want to be treated as smart anyway. Again, if that's not you, it doesn't apply to you. Please remember, in english You can be a specific person, or a generic.
Rules against being Rude. Bottom of every page:You see it nearly every single time a moderator removes a post and replies too. So yes, there are rules against being rude.Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards to be a fun and friendly page.
No, there are rules against being a jerk. For example, trolling every message is being a jerk. Posting long winded posts that are not on topic is being a jerk. Posting something that another poster considers rude is not being a jerk.
Besides, if you really think it's rude, quoting it is just as frowned upon. The rules say, if someone violates a posting guideline, flag it and move on. Don't start a fight over it. yes?
Nobody has said anything as to how the world treats you. They are arguing as to how the character acts. Can i have good ideas while having a low int and such. Can i make good speeches with a low charisma.Even if you said how the world treats you. You can be hideous and be loveable and low charisma. People may still like you after talking to you for 5 minutes despite your ugliness. You can be a dilettante in one area and still be a complete imbecile. This can be shown by skills. You can lack street smarts out the wazoo and still be highly perceptive.
If you go back and look at all my posts, every one of them, you will see that I have advocated repeatedly that you can act however you want, but that doesn't make the character smart/wise/charismatic. I even gave the same (or similar) examples as yours of people who were, in character, deluded. So not really sure why you're so angry over my basically agreeing with you that people can play some guy as thinking he's smart when he's not. I only object to people playing a guy as smart when he's not and expecting to have their character treated as smart when they aren't. Or wise.. or charismatic.. or strong..
I'd feel the same way about a character with a STR of 7 and a Con of 10 whose player wanted to describe him as '6 ft 4 and full of muscles'. Because he's not. He might be 6 ft 4, but if he is, he's a string bean, not a really tall Hulk Hogan.
if a character wants the benefit of a high score, but has only a low score in that attribute, they better invest BAB or Skill Ranks in the desired Facets.
it won't cover everything
but i agree a 5 Int character shouldn't be capable of normal fluent native speech with the following exception
a minimum of 3 Ranks in either Linguisitics or Perform (Oratory) to represent learning to speak properly.
Linguistics is more about writing and speaking (as in understanding) not speaking. Perform (Oratory) I agree would make one a good public speaker. Diplomacy does the same thing. The difference between the two is, Perform (Oratory) makes you sound intelligent, but doesn't actually get people to change their opinions (basically, you're a talking head, you sound good, but your arguments fall flat). Diplomacy, even with a low int, let's you make your point effectively, even if you sound like Ugh the caveman.
Ugh the Caveman (4 int, 10 Perform (Oratory))
"There no reason for us fight, we are just brothers inside with different skins."
Ugh the Caveman (4 int, 10 diplomacy)
"No fight. Fight Bad. Much better eat! I bring beer! We be friends!"
my Half-Nymph with
5 STR
14 DEX
7 CON
was a sickly weakling, highly emaciated, coughed up blood on a regular basis, had Hyperhemowhatsitcalledican'trememberthename (the one medical condition where you produce inconveniently excessive amounts of blood to the point it's a hinderance), had Anemia due to her excessive blood production, and seemed to have tuberculosis in short glance due to her excessive blood production.
she was highly suboptimal
as i said before
she used hirelings, cohorts, and eventually gained lichdom to overcome her weaknesses and had abilities that would normally be illegal except in a home game.
if it weren't a home game with a very lenient DM, i wouldn't have played her
luckily, i didn't use her with Weekly William. i had a special 5th IRL group i played her in.
if a character wants the benefit of a high score, but has only a low score in that attribute, they better invest BAB or Skill Ranks in the desired Facets.
it won't cover everything
but i agree a 5 Int character shouldn't be capable of normal fluent native speech with the following exception
a minimum of 3 Ranks in either Linguisitics or Perform (Oratory) to represent learning to speak properly.
Linguistics is more about writing and speaking (as in understanding) not speaking. Perform (Oratory) I agree would make one a good public speaker. Diplomacy does the same thing. The difference between the two is, Perform (Oratory) makes you sound intelligent, but doesn't actually get people to change their opinions (basically, you're a talking head, you sound good, but your arguments fall flat). Diplomacy, even with a low int, let's you make your point effectively, even if you sound like Ugh the caveman.
Ugh the Caveman (4 int, 10 Perform (Oratory))
"There no reason for us fight, we are just brothers inside with different skins."
Ugh the Caveman (4 int, 10 diplomacy)
"No fight. Fight Bad. Much better eat! I bring beer! We be friends!"
but then, i never have personally dumped intelligence, i know players that do, but i often find ways to weasel extra intelligence
usually by dumping a more appropriate stat
or buying a 15 before bonuses instead of a 20 after bonuses.
There is no reason to relate Intelligence to being "smart" or "tactical." That's not what Intelligence is. Someone with an Int 7 could be a tactical genius... if they are the sort of person who really struggles with learning the basics of most skills. Intelligence is "brainpower," not whether a character has good ideas, which is a combination of Intelligence, Wisdom, various intangibles, and of course metagaming. Really, smartness and common sense should also encompass Dex and Cha, since we all know people who say stupid things, or who have accidents because the way they approach a physical challenge is just clueless and dangerous. Intelligence may inform how "smart" you play your PC but it doesn't define it. No legal score for Intelligence should be an impediment to roleplaying, any more than having Int 21 should make your character some kind of savant completely removed from normal human ways of thinking.
There is no reason to relate Intelligence to being "smart" or "tactical." That's not what Intelligence is. Someone with an Int 7 could be a tactical genius... if they are the sort of person who really struggles with learning the basics of most skills. Intelligence is "brainpower," not whether a character has good ideas, which is a combination of Intelligence, Wisdom, various intangibles, and of course metagaming. Really, smartness and common sense should also encompass Dex and Cha, since we all know people who say stupid things, or who have accidents because the way they approach a physical challenge is just clueless and dangerous. Intelligence may inform how "smart" you play your PC but it doesn't define it. No legal score for Intelligence should be an impediment to roleplaying, any more than having Int 21 should make your character some kind of savant completely removed from normal human ways of thinking.
This comes across to me as pure rationalization to allow any sort of interpretation the player desires with absolutely no regard whatsoever to stats.
Why even roll stats if they have no meaning? Just put an 18 in everything and play act whatever you want.
The game rules are not an attempt to model complex real world human behavior. They are deliberate abstractions to allow the game to be played according to a defined set of rules. Pointing out edge cases of human personalities is completely immaterial from a rules perspective. It's like saying "Some people have very strong legs, but weak arms." Sure some PEOPLE do, but no Pathfinder CHARACTER does, because strength is an attribute that is deliberately abstracted to AVOID these sorts of edge cases. And that abstraction applies to every attribute, not just strength.
There is no reason to relate Intelligence to being "smart" or "tactical." That's not what Intelligence is. Someone with an Int 7 could be a tactical genius... if they are the sort of person who really struggles with learning the basics of most skills. Intelligence is "brainpower," not whether a character has good ideas, which is a combination of Intelligence, Wisdom, various intangibles, and of course metagaming. Really, smartness and common sense should also encompass Dex and Cha, since we all know people who say stupid things, or who have accidents because the way they approach a physical challenge is just clueless and dangerous. Intelligence may inform how "smart" you play your PC but it doesn't define it. No legal score for Intelligence should be an impediment to roleplaying, any more than having Int 21 should make your character some kind of savant completely removed from normal human ways of thinking.
if Int 7, or Int 5, are seen as Highly Intellectually Impaired, or to be Politically Correct. Developmentally Delayed (Hate the 'R' word) as some people on these boards want them portrayed
then their Opposites
Int 14 and Int 16, should be considered Geniuses by the same measuring stick.
but Puzzles, Such as those involving Riddles, Pop Quizzes, or Pattern Memorization, as commonly played, aren't so much a matter of Challenging the Character's intellect as they should be, but the Player's
such puzzles would be boring if they boiled down to a handful of Intelligence Checks
but at the same time, i'd recommend giving Int Checks for Hints in said scenarios
being 10%, or 15% more likely to fail such checks, is plenty of penalty, and being 10% or 15% more likely to succeed is a similarly reasonable parameter for bonuses
if you want people to actually care about Character intelligence while solving riddles
allow Characters to Roll intelligence checks for hints, with additional hints for beating higher numbers on the DC.
sometimes, the player hive mind, can be a benefit
As the OP, I've been following this thread and have seen everything from playful banter to bickering and a whole lot of (admittedly interesting) discussion that is frankly not on topic. With all due respect, and again, I'm not saying I don't see merit in the discussion, but I would prefer at least some discussion on the OP and if I may, request that someone could start a new topic to continue pondering the definition of intelligence.