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.
want to include an Edge Personality case?
gain some BAB or invest some Skill Ranks
a trained fighter, through experience, can be a great tactician on the battlefield, regardless of their intellect, where said fighter fails, is every aspect of intellect
it's not that your intellect goes up
it's that your base attack bonus, grows as you gain combat experience.
and combat experience, allows the use of tactics
within reason
a fighter of any intelligence score, knows how to flank with their allies, and that ranged weapons help greatly against flying foes, they would, through experience, know which weapons work better against which foes. they would know how to avoid attacks of opportunity
what may be harder to permit such a fighter to do
is quote various historians verbatum
quote Sun-Tzu
engage in extremely complicated guerilla warfare methods (wolf pack tactics are fine.) (Hit and Run Mounted Skirmish warfare isn't)
Actually, I see where the title I gave the tread could have given everyone the wrong impression of my intentions, and I'm sure there is another hours long discussion on the definition of roleplaying, but still, my question was intened to be a leisurely stroll through the shallow end.
Korfmann, I'm not sure there is a "shallow end" to the interwebz...
Korfmann, I'm not sure there is a "shallow end" to the interwebz...
there isn't. it's deep all the way. hope you can swim.
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.
Honestly, this is all coming across less like you want good RP, and more like you want to find any excuse you can to punish min-maxers for daring to have badwrongfun.
Getting back to the matter at hand, I would say if someone wants to play a low-intelligence but still highly capable fighter, pretty much any classic anime Idiot Hero would make a good example to build on. Someone with a fairly simple outlook on the world and uncomplicated goals, but still capable in their field and with a knack for their chosen field.
To bring up a classic example that hopefully most people will be familiar with, look at Goku from Dragonball Z. He wants to beat up bad guys, have good fights, and get stronger. He doesn't come up with incredibly convoluted plans on the battlefield, but he's more than capable of all the usual maneuvers. However, his simplistic outlook on the world and goals do cause him trouble from time to time, like letting his opponents power up so the fight will be more interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a reason I don't like point buy systems and that is the aforementioned dump stat.
A low Intelligence - a SLOW learner, probably limited in vocabulary/knowledges and finds it difficult to follow complex concepts.
A low Wisdom - either prone to rash and impulsive and/or fixed and inflexible despite evidence to the contrary. Capable of pretty bad mistakes.
A low Charisma - someone people don't want to be around for whatever reason. Lacks the force of personality to sway/motivate people.
I will somewhat cynically observe how few times I have seen players consistently apply their selectively chosen role-playing deficits when it results in consequences to their detriment in an adventuring situation.
i'm not a fan of Point buy
but i like randomly generated attributes even less, unless the rolling method is so generous, that it encourages new build types rather than restricting them
such as 2d6+6 reroll 1s for example is a good high powered rolling system
A low Intelligence - a SLOW learner, probably limited in vocabulary/knowledges and finds it difficult to follow complex concepts.
A low Wisdom - either prone to rash and impulsive and/or fixed and inflexible despite evidence to the contrary. Capable of pretty bad mistakes.
A low Charisma - someone people don't want to be around for whatever reason. Lacks the force of personality to sway/motivate people.
I really like this. It takes into account that an INT 8 fighter of level 8 could be as capable as a level 1 savant with INT 14 in skills like Knowledge. Experience points represent experience. You learn through using your skills. A lower INT person simply learns more slowly but may overcome his INT penalty through sheer experience (although he'd still be less capable than a savant of similar level)
I had a real eye-opener when I started my first research internship in my Master of Science after completing my Bachelor. I'm pretty smart if I say so myself and my BSc was not much of a problem vis-a-vis intelligence. When I started my internship alongside other new MSc students, I noticed that the vocational school analysts were far more capable, despite the general preconception that MSc students are more intelligent (the specifics would take too long to explain, I'm not gonna go into our national education system too much).
The point is that BSc students learned through classes and books, starting their first internship after 3+ years of theoretical learning, while the analysts started internships in the first or second year of their education. The analysts had more experience and thus were more capable. The BSc students eventually got an edge after at least 6-9 months of experience; we were better at creative and critical thinking and deducting conclusions but even then, we were much less capable in conducting experiments.
TL:DR
I'm now of the opinion that INT represents the speed of learning, critical thinking and imagination to some degree but is not a direct limitation of mental capabilities (INT 6 or lower might be a different case but anyway).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
My perspective is based on years of gaming and dealing with games and game design. If course they are not a model of complex real world human behavior, which is exactly why saying Int 8 or 12 or whatever has to be roleplayed a certain way is arbitrary and non-constructive. Also, I am not talking about edge cases. You can look at any given human skill, especially a professional skill, and you will discover a lot of people are really good at it without necessarily being all-around intelligent. This is not "strong legs, but weak arms," this is me saying, your guy with Strength 18 could look like a Nordic bodybuilder, a fat dockworker, or a willowy tribal warrior. All they have in common is that they are uncommonly good at everything having to do with explosive movement. I'll also point out that while a character's Strength is used to estimate their carrying capacity, that is not the primary job of Strength (as evidenced most clearly by Size differences and various abilities that affect load). So, "the best climber in the village" doesn't have Strength 18, he probably has Strength 14 and Skill Focus (Climb).
Coming back around, there is nothing that says Int 8 is "dumb" because it doesn't do anything related to dumbness. It relates purely to skill acquisition and mental problem solving. Trying to show that Int 8 means a character is slow or dumb is the argument that requires rationalization. You might as well try to argue whether Constitution 8 means they are fat and out of shape, scrawny and out of shape, or lack a will to live. It could be any of those those things. The number on the character sheet simply dictates how good they will actually be at accomplishing various tasks. Is someone with Charisma 8 overbearing or shy? They could be either or neither.
Someone with Intelligence 8 isn't going to learn a lot of skills, is never going to make it as a wizard, and isn't an expert on the science of fencing (Combat Expertise). However, they could still be a gifted linguist (Skill Focus), a reasonably gifted athlete (Athletic) or an unusually dedicated study of the art of subterfuge (levels in the Rogue class). So why couldn't they be a combat tactician? Haven't you watched The Professional? Or if you think about "geeky" sitcom characters, many of them would actually have a mediocre Intelligence, because they are often only good at one thing.
So, to roleplay such a character, they would obviously not have a background that suggests polymathy or great insights. But they are still good at whatever they are good at. And they would not necessarily act a certain way. I've administered IQ tests to people who have "borderline intellectual functioning" and did not even know it-- although most had gisted that school was not their best subject.
So, no, I am not rationalizing. I'm offering a counterargument to, firstly, an insistence on "correct roleplaying" that has no basis whatsoever in the rules, and second, misconceptions about what Intelligence, often based on misconceptions of real world intelligence. Nothing in the rules says "Characters with low intelligence don't fight with the grasp of tactics you would guess from their level and class."
Also, assuming a 3d6 roll and a bellcurve, mental retardation would an Intelligence of 3 to 5, borderline intellectual functioning would be a 6 to about 8. Virtually all PCs have Intelligence, therefore, of at least average, possibly borderline. Unless they have an Int, Wis, and Cha all of 8, I would assume that just about any PC was capable of any action their player might conceive.
EDIT: Let me pose a thought problem. Say you've decided your character is going to be a charismatic proselytizer. You're a cleric with Int 8, Wis 18, and Cha 14, with Skill Focus (Knowledge [religion]) and Skill Focus (Diplomacy). What is the "correct" way to roleplay that character?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting how this thread has shifted from "I do not wish to play a PC with INT lower than 14" to the old eternal debate of "Roleplaying low mental stats should be forced on the player".
My take on it : low mental stats already put you at a disadvantage through game mechanics (just as low physical stats do).
I see no point in adding houserules disadvantages beyond that, even worse if it only affects low mental stats and not low physical stats.
Finally, I do not intend to force someone to play his character in a certain way and I would not look kindly on anyone trying to force me to play my character the way he thinks I should play it.
This holds true for concept, this holds true for alignment and this holds true for stats.
Another way to look at Intelligence is that it reflects your capacity for Memory. It represents how much training in skills you're capable of holding onto, how must Knowledge you're able to recall, how many languages you're able to keep track of, etc. There are lots of smart people with really bad memory and they get around this by jotting mundane things down and saving their precious memory capacity for really important and critical things.
I'm like that. Except replace important and critical with video games and Pathfinder.
Bit of a side note:
You can't compare the memory processes of the current generation too much with the classical models. Research has shown that the internet-savvy folk have different patterns of memorization; we don't remember specific facts anymore, we remember how to find those facts again.
Yeah... our brains have become dependent on Google.
I saw a youtube clip the other day. It had a man take a slingshot he'd built himself, with pretty good wooden plates for security reasons, and shoot steel balls at a table, filmed by a camera, with a hard surface behind the table.
The first ball went into a plastic bottle. The second demolished a glass bottle. The third time, the steel ball went through the bottle, bounced against the hard surface behind the table, all the way back to him to hit him in the head, which looked extremely painful. Apparently, he survived, though, so that's something.
Now... what kind of failed roll would this be represented by? Is this what a low Wisdom character would do, or one with a low Intelligence?
It's foolish, so primarily low WIS to decide to do it.
Possibly secondarily low INT since he didn't imagine it could backfire.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have not seen anyone suggest in any form or fashion that a player should be "forced to play their character a certain way." In fact the absolute reverse has been asserted by everyone who has expressed concern about the desire some players have expressed to have their cake and eat it too. We have all said "play as you like" and "if it is working for your table, that's fine."
Telling someone some version of "I think there's another way to do things that is more consistent with the rules and I think you would actually benefit from giving that way a chance" is a far, far cry from "You must play your character the way I say or I will come into your house and rip up your character sheets."
The fact that "Hey, you might want to consider this" is interpreted as "I am the lord of all role playing and you must follow my commands" says a lot about the debate in my opinion.
I say again (as I do so frequently here on these boards) play as you like. But if you insist upon ignoring your stats for role play, while optimizing them for mechanics so that you can gain the mechanical advantages of your stats while avoiding the role playing consequences, I believe that you are only cheating yourself of an opportunity for a more rewarding style of play.
So cheat yourself. But stop telling me I'm somehow "forcing" you to do what I want.
His problem was not the attack roll. He hit the bottle and it did what it was supposed to. The problem was that 1) he did not imagine a steel ball could bounce, 2) so he just put up a solid wooden wall behind the bottle, angled right back to him, instead of 3) angling the wall behind the bottle to dump the steel ball down into a bucket of water or similar substance.
Int or wis?
Heh, I fell into the trap and failed my wisdom check on this steel ball question. I'm going to delete my other reply.
This question of whether wisdom or intelligence should apply is actually pointless in both the real world and Pathfinder.
It is pointless in the real world because there is no scientifically quantifiable distinction between "wisdom" and "intelligence."
It is pointless in Pathfinder because steel balls don't bounce off of wood walls in Pathfinder. This literally could not happen in Pathfinder except by GM fiat, and now we're squarely in GM fiat territory for what should or shouldn't happen.
Lucky people in the Pathfinderverse. No bouncing steel balls. So, at least they are safe from "power cradles" on their bosses' desks.
As someone who is one of the "scientists" who works in "daycare" "lab" I would like some evidence of any sort that indicates that IQ is representative of a logarithmic scale. I'm not saying it's impossible, its not my field of research, I'm an engineer. But the concept that someone of IQ 100 is 100 times more intelligent than someone of IQ 80 seems proposterous and also meaningless at the same time. What does it actually mean to be 100 times more intelligent then someone? What is hard terms would that mean?The amount of calculating power a brain has in relation to the IQ-scale was explained to me as being logarithmic in nature (maybe it's not factor 10, but that's how I remember it).
And yes I meant int 8 = IQ 80, int 9 = IQ 90 , int 15 = IQ 150, etc. etc.
And that means that the difference between an IQ 80 and IQ 100 is indeed a factor 100 in calculating power.The reason we usually do not notice this difference is because we diagnosed all high IQ personae as scientists and locked them in Daycare Centers we named 'Laboratories', leaving them free to live in their own world, without harming themselves or others.
Off course the real reason we do not notice the difference is because the amount of people having a IQ over 120 is small and the amount of people with an IQ over 140 is minute.The way to explain the logarithmic scale fastest is by comparing computer calculating power. If you want a computer to be 2 times faster you'd need 2 CPU's.
If you need it 3 times as fast you need 4 cpu's.
4 times faster -> 8 cpu's.
6 times faster -> 32 cpu's
8 times faster -> 128 cpu's
I know the analogy isn't exact but shows how incredibly big the difference is.
I assume you understand the fact the part of the scientist locked up in laboratory is a joke right?
A way to 'calculate' brainpower is measuring the speed human need for solving complex situations. Like how many moves is a chess player able to anticipate ahead of his/her play. How well are you at the, I know ,that you know ,therefor I prepared this one in advance to counter your knowledge. That kind of reasoning requires a lot of calculating power of the brain. And I was taught this accounts for huge differences.Average people range anywhere from 90 to 110 in IQ, with the arithmetic mean intentionally set at 100. I very much doubt in interactions with relatively average people you can tell any significant difference between a person of IQ 90 and 100, esepcially enough to say one is 10 times smarter than the other. The...
Yes there is, the difference is shown in how well the smarter person will prepare for the future. On of the reasons most people don't plan for their retirement is because they are unable to anticipate the requirements and will therefor do nothing. Remember that studies show that the lower someone intelligence is the worse their feeding pattern is, because people tend to eat what they like and not neccasarily what's best for them, even though that will gain them 7 years extra life. Someone with higher intelligence will understand that it will be bad for them in the future and not now. A less intelligent person says and I quote: oh the doctor will fix it, if it becomes a problem, not realising that by then it's too late and the chance they won't survive their heart attack is substantial. The range of average intelligence was created as a border beneath someone is unable to take care of himself/herself without seriously damaging himself/herself in the short term. People in Jail have a substantially larger percentage of people with lower intelligence (80-90 and even 90-100) and this is largely accounted for as an inability to plan ahead (as well as smarter people abusing that).
I am not stating that a difference in intelligence would make somebody less valueable, it's just a difference.
I assume you understand the fact the part of the scientist locked up in laboratory is a joke right?
A way to 'calculate' brainpower is measuring the speed human need for solving complex situations. Like how many moves is a chess player able to anticipate ahead of his/her play. How well are you at the, I know ,that you know ,therefor I prepared this one in advance to counter your knowledge. That kind of reasoning requires a lot of calculating power of the brain. And I was taught this accounts for huge differences.
You did not actually address my question. I asked what does it mean to say someone is 100 times smarter than someone else, which came from your statement about intelligence being logarithmic. Now you talking about trying to calculate brain power, but you still can't just make a bold statement that it somehow relates to being 100 times. You could say that it takes person x y minutes to solve an abstract thought problem. You could also say that it takes person a b minutes. But you can't ratio those in any meaningful way. You're talking about how one may measure intelligence, but my whole damn point is just saying 100 times if F!@@ING meaningless.
Yes there is, the difference is shown in how well the smarter person will prepare for the future. On of the reasons most people don't plan for their retirement is because they are unable to anticipate the requirements and will therefor do nothing. Remember that studies show that the lower someone intelligence is the worse their feeding pattern is, because people tend to eat what they like and not neccasarily what's best for them, even though that will gain them 7 years extra life. Someone with higher intelligence will understand that it will be bad for them in the future and not now. A less intelligent person says and I quote: oh the doctor will fix it, if it becomes a problem, not realising that by then it's too late and the chance they won't survive their heart attack is substantial. The range of average intelligence was created as a border beneath someone is unable to take care of himself/herself without seriously damaging himself/herself in the short term. People in Jail have a substantially larger percentage of people with lower intelligence (80-90 and even 90-100) and this is largely accounted for as an inability to plan ahead (as well as smarter people abusing that).
Average people range anywhere from 90 to 110 in IQ, with the arithmetic mean intentionally set at 100. I very much doubt in interactions with relatively average people you can tell any significant difference between a person of IQ 90 and 100, esepcially enough to say one is 10 times smarter than the other. The...
Provide an actual piece of evidence, not an anecdote, not things you were told. Provide evidence that there is a substantial difference between a person of 90 IQ and 100 IQ.
I agree that yes, you're correct in a general sense that a higher IQ person is more capable of preparing for the future and better at complex logic general being forward thinking individuals. My whole problem is that you have blown the scale of proportion of difference between IQ.
Also, relating to an earlier argument you made, your computer processor analogy is incorrect. They are not logarithmic. They are ideally linear. 128 processors is at best 128 times faster. But that requires you have enough processes that requires the use of 128 processor concurrently.
I seem to have this hangup with INT. I can't dump it with any character for one reason, skills and skill checks are 80% (give or take) of roleplaying. Almost everything outside of combat eventually requires skill checks. If you only care about combat, or you just rely on the party rogue to do everything for you, than it's probably not that big of a deal to you, but in my limited experience, rogues are not that honest and probably shouldn't be. Sometimes you just need to be able to jump, or converse, or know (anything), or just tie your own shoes. I'm not satisfied with anything below a 14 INT with any character and I rarely if ever play a character with INT as a main stat.
It's basically for this reason that I've decided to give a Sorcerer with Sage bloodline a go as my next character just to make it as simple as I can. I'll probably head toward Dragon Disciple with it.
Am I alone on this island? I'm interested in lots of opinions. If you can break me of this long-held belief, I'd be appreciative. On the other hand, if I'm right I'd like to know I'm not crazy.
I could never play with low INT characters because of the roleplaying impacts (neither I, nor anyone I have ever played with, believe in the "do whatever you want, roll to see how it goes" mentality -- you roleplay your character as they would act in reality). I don't like playing dumb brutes and neither does anyone I have played with. As a result of that I have played with the most intelligent and charismatic Barbarians one has ever seen.
I have always based my expectations (both personal and as the DM of games) of stats and skills around The Alexandrians analysis of them -- basically I need at least a 10 in everything else I feel lackluster in that particular aspect and will feel compelled to roleplay that accordingly. While being lackluster can have its moments of interest, on the whole I much prefer to not constantly question my own characters thought process as to their actions. Just one more thing I have to worry about that interrupts the flow.
I seem to have this hangup with INT. I can't dump it with any character for one reason, skills and skill checks are 80% (give or take) of roleplaying. Almost everything outside of combat eventually requires skill checks. If you only care about combat, or you just rely on the party rogue to do everything for you, than it's probably not that big of a deal to you, but in my limited experience, rogues are not that honest and probably shouldn't be. Sometimes you just need to be able to jump, or converse, or know (anything), or just tie your own shoes. I'm not satisfied with anything below a 14 INT with any character and I rarely if ever play a character with INT as a main stat.
It's basically for this reason that I've decided to give a Sorcerer with Sage bloodline a go as my next character just to make it as simple as I can. I'll probably head toward Dragon Disciple with it.
Am I alone on this island? I'm interested in lots of opinions. If you can break me of this long-held belief, I'd be appreciative. On the other hand, if I'm right I'd like to know I'm not crazy.
I played smart characters, average characters and dumb characters. Sometimes the roleplaying was a consequence of the build, and sometimes the opposite, but I always had fun when the character had a nice concept.
Granted that it depends on a group's play style, I don't find intelligence to be so important for a few reasons:
- In my experience, skill checks are not 80% of roleplaying. Choices, character personality and consistency are. In particular, choices had much more in-game impact than die rolls outside combat in the groups I played with.
- In PF, I see intelligence as something like "processing power" and memory, but that does not make the character incapable of making good choices that are based on intuition, common sense or experience. For example, I force myself to remain silent with my Int 8 barbarian every time I (as a player) come up with convoluted plans or ideas that would require a lot of thinking, but I feel free to talk about battle strategy for the simple fact that my character is a mercenary by background and has several years of experience in warfare. Similarly, I point out the obvious when others miss it due to "overthinking". I actually did help my party in a few occasions due to my no-frills approach to problems.
In any case, I don't think Intelligence is much more important than Wisdom and Charisma roleplay-wise. Making wise choices (and more important, not making reckless choices) is a life saver, and a low Charisma can have repercussions in many ways even within the party (if you have a weaker personality you should be more prone to leave decisions to other party members and to accept those decisions, for example).
- Having a low stat can be fun and is a challenge when it comes to roleplay. Also, high stats should be roleplayed as well, which can be equally a burden when expressing a character's personality.
- I suffer from "skill point addiction". The more I have, the more I want, especially when I am building around certain character concepts... So sometimes I am better off just living with a few skill points/level rather than stretching the build to its extremes. After all, there will always be something you can't do well enough and will have to rely on other party members, who are not necessarily rogues :)
But I can definitely see your point. Having slightly above average mental attributes gives more freedom in roleplaying, and more out-of-combat resources due to skill points.
With that barbarian I am currently playing, I sometimes had to refrain from expressing ideas that I felt were out of character, but that I am pretty sure would have been very good ones, which can be annoying... Some of those ideas involved using spells though, so they would have been inappropriate for a character totally ignorant about magic (and Superstitious) even with an Int 14 or more.
|
Remember also that you can roleplay your character differently once you acquire some stat-boosting gear. If you get annoyed playing a dummy or someone with no social graces, buy an item that increases your mental stats and treat it preciously.
Just wondering, how would you guys roleplay a high-wisdom, low-charisma, medium-intelligence character?
Wise, loyal curmudgeon. Examples: Porlyusica from Fairy Tail; Durkon from OotS, Nynaeve al'Meara from WoT etc.