| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have played the iconic big dumb guy, but never with an intelligence below 8 (although the way I roleplayed it, it could have been a 6)
I am not a fan of negative stats, and many GMs don't even allow them as a part of the Point Buy process (only afterward if there is a racial penalty).
The truth is, however, that a 10 is just average, so while a 12 doesn't make you a super genius, an 8 also doesn't make you a complete moron.
Using the Stanford-Binet intelligence scale we have a top category of 160 and above and a bottom IQ of 40. That means that if we assume the Intelligence ability score to be a linear classification with 10 being average at an IQ of about 100, we can define a set of limits.
Now.. the bottom intelligence for a human is not 0. Even a 2 is only animal intelligence, so lets say that 3 is our starting point with an IQ of 40. That means that the full scale is divided evenly amongst the remaining 120 IQ points. So we have 8 IQ points per point of intelligence above 3. So here is our scale:
Moderate Impairment:
Int:3 IQ:40
Int:4 IQ:48
Mild Impairment:
Int:5 IQ:56
Int:6 IQ:64
Borderline Impairment:
Int:7 IQ:72
Int:8 IQ:80
Low Average:
Int:9 IQ:88
Average:
Int:10 IQ:96
Int:11 IQ:104
High Average:
Int:12 IQ:112
Superior:
Int:13 IQ:120
Int:14 IQ:128
Gifted or Very Advanced:
Int:15 IQ:136
Int:16 IQ:144
Very Gifted or Highly Advanced:
Int:17 IQ:152
Int:18 IQ:160
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
They exist. Take a look at Tony Abbott in Australia.
We voted a guy who dumped Int, Wis and Cha to our highest public office.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This sort of min-maxing occurs because there is very little benefit to these ability scores outside of class-dependencies. Charisma in particular is a bit of a wasted stat. You may have an 18 charisma versus my 10, but (A) 1 point in a cha-based class skill and I also have a +4 and (B) Skill DCs don't properly scale, so if you keep a skill maxed it will probably be overkill by level 15.
As a GM, however, there are a few very good ways to handle this.
Firstly, remember that Ability damage will demolish these characters faster than most.
Secondly... USE it. If a character has a super low charisma, people are going to immediately dislike them. They will, in turn, dislike whoever he is with. They might try to pay that character less than the rest of the group for a job, refuse to let him in to any decent establishment etc. Guards will be more likely to harass him.
For low Int... hit the wallet. Merchants are going to work this guy over and charge him extra for everything he buys. Bartenders are going to charge for 12 drinks when he has only had 2. Local officials, guards and powerful NPCs are going to immediately dismiss his advice or warnings because, lets face it, he is an idiot. And if the character complains, you can always fall back on the 2 skills that commerce depends on: appraise and diplomacy. So if he tanks charisma AND intelligence, he is going to have no defense. Every back alley crook will see a 6 int character, no matter how strong, as a walking target.
I'm playing a Barbarian with Cha 6. He's not stupid or incredibly deformed. He's just really bad at talking to people or lying, and his scary features make him look rather untrustworthy.
You can role play your attributes, good or bad, in a variety of ways.
Secondly... USE it. If a character has a super low charisma, people are going to immediately dislike them. They will, in turn, dislike whoever he is with. They might try to pay that character less than the rest of the group for a job, refuse to let him in to any decent establishment etc. Guards will be more likely to harass him.
That sounds like a sure fire way to make an unsocial character decide that he might as well go full murder hobo. And if he's super minmaxed it's not like that snotty noble who tried to pay him half wages is going to do anything but die.
I have 3 PFS characters that have dumped cha hard.
Doyle- Sneaky druid with a velociraptor cha 7
Pyrite: Tanky druid with an ankylosaurus cha 7
Joey: Gnome Ranger with a kangaroo cha 9 (as low as a gnome can go)
My idiot savant sorcerer Fabrizio has both int and wis at 7. His thrush familiar tries valiantly to steer him out of trouble, as it has 4 more points of int than he does and twice his wisdom.
My one shot paladin (who may yet see more life) has an int of 7, partially from a point buy system (there's no mechanical difference between a 7 or 9 int) and partially to justify the party tricking him into doing something illegal.
Why does this bother people so much? It's been part of the game since day one. In Original D&D you rolled 3d6 six times and took what you got, so there were a lot of bad stats. When it was 4d6 arrange to taste you still prioritized stats and could still have bad ones. All of the sudden with point buy being standard it's some kind of sin to have low stats rather than choosing to be well rounded in all six abilities. The system already penalizes you, if you dump intelligence you suck in the skill category. If you dump charisma you aren't good in social encounters and you won't be able to get a good cohort. It's the player's choice if they want to penalize themselves and get that extra bit of strength.
| 22 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason people are annoyed by it, in my experience, is that people don't want to roleplay their dumped stats, and argue that any use of the GM by having people react to those negative stats in anyway is 'bad gm' moves.
In the old days, you rolled and you made do with what you have. With point systems, you can intentionally gimp your character in multiple ways in order to be uber somewhere else. Which I'm ok with, but not if you want to reduce everything to pure mechanics. Mental stats are more than just mechanics, they describe your character's smarts, wisdom, and charisma. If you have a fighter with 7/7/7 and then $*#$* and moan when the GM has NPCs react as if you were Maxwell Smart (from the old Get Smart TV show) instead of reacting as if you were James Bond. You're not James Bond, get over yourself. You're Maxwell Smart.
The reason people are annoyed by it, in my experience, is that people don't want to roleplay their dumped stats, and argue that any use of the GM by having people react to those negative stats in anyway is 'bad gm' moves.
I'd agree with those people. Dumping stats already come with innate penalties, there is no reason to add an extra punishment.
If my Cha 5 character uses feats and skill ranks to have amazing Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate skills, then I better have amazing Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate skills. I'd be pissed off if my GM told me people dislike me despite my +48 Diplomacy check just because I have low Cha score.
Realistically most PFS groups would role play something like the movie dumb and dumber if the dump stats were role played well. Smart/pretty Lauren Holly would be your caster plus a bunch of morons representing most other classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I only resent them dumping the stats then playing smart.
Its like some oddball Synthesist where they use the characters physical stats but their own mental, and then get sore when you call them on it.
If they are as thick as mince and ugly as sin, they should expect the GM to say "erm no I suspect your character wouldn't/couldn't join MENSA and win the national Diplomacy title just because you as a person spoke really well"
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If my Cha 5 character uses feats and skill ranks to have amazing Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate skills, then I better have amazing Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate skills. I'd be pissed off if my GM told me people dislike me despite my +48 Diplomacy check just because I have low Cha score.
This is a flawed response.
If you're dumping int/cha/etc, you are not wasting feats on skils. You're putting those feats into combat skills.
Here's a build, you tell me if you'd really play it. So far, nobody has agreed that they'd do it, but it has awesome diplomacy and bluff and intimidate skills!
Human Level 5 Fighter
Str 18, Dex 10, Con 16, INT 7, WIS 7, CHA 7
SKills / Level : 2 (human + minimum)
Feats : Skill Focus (Diplomacy), Skill Focus (Intimidate), Skill Focus (Bluff), Persuasive
Favored Class Bonus (Skill points every level)
Skills : Diplomacy +8 (5 Ranks + 3 Focus +2 Persuasive - 2 Stat), Intimidate +11 (5 Ranks + 3 Focus + 3 Trained +2 Persuasive - 2 Stat), Bluff +9 (5 Ranks + 3 Focus + 3 Trained - 2 Stat)
Now, here's a human fighter, at level 5, who has decent diplomacy, decent intimidate, and decent bluff. He sucks as a fighter, he has nothing to boost his damage, nothing to give him special combat things. He's not as good at being the face as the sorcerer who put a rank or two into his skills. He's a drain on resources, since he's a sucky face and a sucky fighter. If you played this character, sure, I'd not give you any issues on people responding to you, but that's because you've put everything into overcoming it. You would not do that. Nobody who dumps does it. So this whole argument is, frankly, BS.
If my Cha 5 character uses feats and skill ranks to have amazing Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate skills, then I better have amazing Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate skills. I'd be pissed off if my GM told me people dislike me despite my +48 Diplomacy check just because I have low Cha score.
This is a flawed response.
If you're dumping int/cha/etc, you are not wasting feats on skils. You're putting those feats into combat skills.
Its not a flawed response. they're talking about an actual character, you're talking about theorycrafting other peoples build decisions.
Case in point, I have a Tengu inquisitor of Calden Cayen with a Charisma of 7... but he has the conversion inquisition which lets him use his wisdom instead of cha. for diplomacy bluff and intimidate... which means he uses wisdom for 99.9999% of what he'll ever use charisma for.
You don't need all three social skills: usually 1 is sufficient to cover for the others (diplomacy especially is the perception of social skills). A fighter with a 13 int putting the points into diplomacy will far outstrip a 13 charisma fighter over the long haul.
Its not a flawed response. they're talking about an actual character, you're talking about theorycrafting other peoples build decisions.
Case in point, I have a Tengu inquisitor of Calden Cayen with a Charisma of 7... but he has the conversion inquisition which lets him use his wisdom instead of cha. for diplomacy bluff and intimidate... which means he uses wisdom for 99.9999% of what he'll ever use charisma for
Who's theorycrafting now? You pick a single racial trait out of how many hundred to prove that all dumping people are not dumping and then ignoring the RP?
I posted you a build that was advanced by the poster I replied to, a fighter with a 7 cha and +48 diplomacy (that was quote from him). To get that sort of diplomacy, someone is spending all their feats on those abilities.
Sure, if that one special snowflake tengu shows up, Good for him, he has put actual game resources, his racial traits, into overcoming the limitations. End of argument, full stop.
It's the people who don't do game resources that piss people off.
So , does anyone got an actual table who shows how dump a guy with int 8 should be? How tick with wis 8? and how annoying with char 8? (or 6 for this matter)
The problem i have with this is , there is really a margin to how dumb or smart you can be for the same number and no example that i know off.
Add to to that the fact usually people dont go out of their way to praise or notice the beauty or cooliness of my char 18 sorc.
Honestly now , do you help your player act like a int 18 guy , i mean this kind of inteligence would reach some crazy conclusions that many times a guy does not even think about.
What about a guy with 18 wis? He gets a GM common sense machine by his side?
There are both sides to this coin, and many times i see people go after one , but ignore the other.
If I have low Con, should my GM make my character have the diseased/sickened condition all the time? If he has low Dex, should the GM make my character trip and fall prone at random times?
Or should we have the character deal with the penalties already caused by dumping stats, instead of having extra punishment created by the GM? Why should it be different for Int or Cha?
Lowering your attributes already have penalties included. It's unfair and unreasonable to create more drawbacks.
Would you make this character fail on social checks or give him extra penalties because of his low Cha? If yes... Why? The low charisma already gives him a penalty. Why should it be increased? Would you lower the melee damage of a character with low Str?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I have low Con, should my GM make my character have the diseased/sickened condition all the time? If he has low Dex, should the GM make my character trip and fall prone at random times?
Or should we have the character deal with the penalties already caused by dumping stats, instead of having extra punishment created by the GM? Why should it be different for Int or Cha?
Lowering your attributes already have penalties included. It's unfair and unreasonable to create more drawbacks.
Would you make this character fail on social checks or give him extra penalties because of his low Cha? If yes... Why? The low charisma already gives him a penalty. Why should it be increased? Would you lower the melee damage of a character with low Str?
Is he tryign to be the face and interact with everyone? Or is he being stabby mcstabby and not being the face, and not trying to talk people into things? Is he portraying himself as a ladies man in character? Expecting every woman he meets to actually fall into his arms because he's big and buff and handsome and scores with all the ladies?
Becuase if he is, then yes, I'd have him have all sorts of problems, because he's not the big ladies man, and every woman he meets is not falling into his arms. He's Herb Tarlick. He thinks he's every ladies dream and their thinking he's their nightmare.
If you roleplay him as someone who is very good at combat, and doesn't try to be the face, and doesn't try to sway people to his way of thinking and expect them to listen to him without making some diplomacy rolls, then you're fine. But if you think he should be listened too because look, pecs! Then no.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't stand playing low int characters, so I seldom do that.
However, more than half of my characters do have Cha 8 or lower. Beyond the obvious mechanical reason of "more stat points," there are a few reasons for this:
1. It's FUN for me to play a snickety old coot, an acerbic sharp-witted insult machine, a horrific looking freak of nature, or however else I end up implementing the low charisma into my character. After spending all day holding my tongue when I think of smart ass remarks, it's utterly, gloriously liberating to get to role play someone who has no filter between brain and mouth.
2. I am not charismatic in real life. And while RPing things very different from you is great and noble and all...I've found in practice it just doesn't work out so well. Charisma, sadly, is the one stat -- to a FAAAAAAAR greater extent than any other stat -- that you're expected to supplement with player knowledge/ability. You want to break down a door, the DM doesn't make you bench press 200 pounds. But if you dare to want to gather information from some townsfolk, or talk someone down from violence...you'd best start saying something eloquent. It's really not fair. I don't mind if the DM requires you to say *something*, but it should have absolutely zero bearing on your skill check. But in nearly every case, the DM's I've had have not let me influence NPCs without saying something convincing.
It actually does kind of suck; several of the characters I'd like to and have tried to play are high charisma. But I always end up regretting trying it.
Who's theorycrafting now? You pick a single racial trait out of how many hundred to prove that all dumping people are not dumping and then ignoring the RP?
Ok, its not theory crafting because its my actual character, its not a racial trait its an inquisition, I made no argument that all dumping people are not dumping and then ignoring the rp, and its not some "Special snowflake" character, as you so banally insult one of my characters. If you're going to be THAT insulting the least I can expect is that you get SOMETHING right to back it up.
I posted you a build that was advanced by the poster I replied to, a fighter with a 7 cha and +48 diplomacy (that was quote from him). To get that sort of diplomacy, someone is spending all their feats on those abilities.
Just because you need to throw all of your feats into a build to get those numbers doesn't mean that everyone does. There are many less intensive ways of getting scores that high. Off the top of my head there's a new trait from the pathfinder primer that lets you use Int. instead of charisma for one charisma based skill.
Just because you need to throw all of your feats into a build to get those numbers doesn't mean that everyone does. There are many less intensive ways of getting scores that high. Off the top of my head there's a new trait from the pathfinder primer that lets you use Int. instead of charisma for one charisma based skill.
Which invalidates, in what way, my statement that if they are compensating for it in game with mechanics, then it's fine? It's only the situations where they are NOT compensating in game, and then $#*@#$& and moaning out of character about 'not fair, I thought up that wonderful plan and gave a really good speech!'.
Bet the 7 CHA fighter takes Reactionary instead though :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I have low Con, should my GM make my character have the diseased/sickened condition all the time? If he has low Dex, should the GM make my character trip and fall prone at random times?
Or should we have the character deal with the penalties already caused by dumping stats, instead of having extra punishment created by the GM? Why should it be different for Int or Cha?
Lowering your attributes already have penalties included. It's unfair and unreasonable to create more drawbacks.
Would you make this character fail on social checks or give him extra penalties because of his low Cha? If yes... Why? The low charisma already gives him a penalty. Why should it be increased? Would you lower the melee damage of a character with low Str?
This is not some made up penalty. You have a low charisma, people tend to dislike you. This only affects their starting attitude however and that attitude can be changed with diplomacy. Matter-of-factly, it makes sense that a character with low charisma would have ranks in diplomacy precisely because of this. The guy with 18 charisma can just operate on his natural charm and personable demeanor. The guy with a 7 charisma needs to convince people.
If you have a fighter with 7/7/7 and then $*#$* and moan when the GM has NPCs react as if you were Maxwell Smart (from the old Get Smart TV show) instead of reacting as if you were James Bond. You're not James Bond, get over yourself. You're Maxwell Smart.
I disagree. Max had a girlfriend, and was quite personable even if not usually believed. ["Would you believe...."] His Cha was not dumped. I think he even ended up marrying agent 99 in one of the movies.
/cevah
This only affects their starting attitude however and that attitude can be changed with diplomacy.
Charisma doesn't affect the starting attitude. It only has the same effect on attitude as any other bonus to the diplomacy roll: that's why its considered the weakest stat. Its far too easy to get the same bonuses other ways.
If you have a fighter with 7/7/7 and then $*#$* and moan when the GM has NPCs react as if you were Maxwell Smart (from the old Get Smart TV show) instead of reacting as if you were James Bond. You're not James Bond, get over yourself. You're Maxwell Smart.I disagree. Max had a girlfriend, and was quite personable even if not usually believed. ["Would you believe...."] His Cha was not dumped. I think he even ended up marrying agent 99 in one of the movies.
/cevah
Ok, so he they are Maxwell Smart (Int 7/Wis 7) combined with a lepper?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is he tryign to be the face and interact with everyone? Or is he being stabby mcstabby and not being the face, and not trying to talk people into things? Is he portraying himself as a ladies man in character? Expecting every woman he meets to actually fall into his arms because he's big and buff and handsome and scores with all the ladies?
Becuase if he is, then yes, I'd have him have all sorts of problems, because he's not the big ladies man, and every woman he meets is not falling into his arms. He's Herb Tarlick. He thinks he's every ladies dream and their thinking he's their nightmare.
Why? He has high Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate bonuses. He IS very convincing and charming, just not naturally so. What he lacks in natural charisma, he compensates with training and practice. Maybe he was shy, but forced himself to talk to people until he became confident and charming. There is no rule saying NPCs automatically dislike or distrust characters with low Cha. The system already gives him a penalty to social skill. The GM doesn't have to create another one.
Making him fail or giving him extra difficulty in social checks is unfair. It's saying the character with low Str he failed to damage his opponent instead of letting her make her damage roll.
If you roleplay him as someone who is very good at combat, and doesn't try to be the face, and doesn't try to sway people to his way of thinking and expect them to listen to him without making some diplomacy rolls, then you're fine. But if you think he should be listened too because look, pecs! Then no.
So if the guy has high Cha, but no ranks in Diplomacy whatsoever he auto-succeeds, but it he has low Cha and full ranks he auto fails? That makes no sense. Shouldn't a Diplomacy/Bluff/Whatever check be decided by, you know, an actual Diplomacy/Bluff/Whatever check instead of the GM eyeballing the character's attributes and deciding what happens?
So if the guy has high Cha, but no ranks in Diplomacy whatsoever he auto-succeeds, but it he has low Cha and full ranks he auto fails?
That's not what MDT said.
So if the guy has high Cha, but no ranks in Diplomacy whatsoever he auto-succeeds, but it he has low Cha and full ranks he auto fails?That's not what MDT said.
Then I'm misunderstanding his point. If that's the case, I apologize and ask that he tries to be clearer.
Why? He has high Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate bonuses. He doesn't IS very convincing and charming, just not naturally so. What he lacks in natural charisma, he compensates with training and practice. Maybe he was shy, but forced himself to talk to people until he became confident and charming. There is no rule saying NPCs automatically dislike or distrust characters with low Cha. The system already gives him a penalty to social skill. The GM doesn't have to create another one.Making him fail or giving him extra difficulty in social checks is unfair. It's saying the character with low Str he failed to damage his opponent instead of letting her make her damage roll.
You seem to be ignoring every time I say 'Without spending resources' don't you?
If you roleplay him as someone who is very good at combat, and doesn't try to be the face, and doesn't try to sway people to his way of thinking and expect them to listen to him , then you're fine. But if you think he should be listened too because look, pecs! Then no.So if the guy has high Cha, but no ranks in Diplomacy whatsoever he auto-succeeds, but it he has low Cha and full ranks he auto fails? That makes no sense. Shouldn't a Diplomacy/Bluff/Whatever check be decided by, you know, an actual Diplomacy/Bluff/Whatever check instead of the GM eyeballing the character's attributes and deciding what happens?
Nice strawman, since I didn't say that, now did I? But the high cha guy can at least RP that his guy is naturally attractive and girls notice him when he walks in. Why? . Your character isn't attractive on sight, and he isn't honey tongued. He has to work at it. Which is why you put resources into it. Which I have posted REPEATEDLY is what needs to be done if you want to dump your stats.
Why don't you try debating what I posted, rather than what you want to think I'm saying? Maybe read what I post, rather than what you want me to post?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does that mean profound mental handicaps and developmental hinderances??
No. Even a 7 is only a 10% differential. It's not a particularly large margin between 'average' and a 7. A 7 INT might be a little slow, or he might not have a lot of book smarts. A 7 CHA could represent anything from being kind of a jerk, to being kind of shy, to being too nice.
So, no, a 7 stat is not mentally or socially disabled. Just slightly disadvantaged. And considering that every stat except perhaps Strength is an amalgamation of several concepts, many of which are completely unrelated, that wouldn't even be a requirement. If you feel like it, you can overcome some of those issues with skills; if you have a 7 CHA but still built up a Diplomacy bonus of +10 or so, then you *are* a pretty slick talker. If you have a 7 INT and a KN: History bonus of +10, you *are* a historian. The actual statistics have little impact on character abilities, and roleplaying.
And, simply put, this is the reality of dump stats. It's no different from a wizard or sorcerer dumping STR down to 7 because they have no use for it. By designer intent, PF requires system mastery, which means putting your stats where the give you the most benefit.
If this bothers you, I have two recommendations, based on how mature and truthworthy your group is:
1. Increase your Point Buy points, then forbid buying stats below 10.
1a. Give everybody the same point array, and don't include anything south of a 10.
2. If your group is VERY mature and trustworthy, just let them assign stats based on their concept. No rolling, no points. They just write 'em down, then you look over 'em and discuss them with the players.
Then I'm misunderstanding his point. If that's the case, I apologize and ask that he tries to be clearer.So if the guy has high Cha, but no ranks in Diplomacy whatsoever he auto-succeeds, but it he has low Cha and full ranks he auto fails?That's not what MDT said.
I don't know how clearer I can be, I keep posting that what ticks people off is dumping stats and then wanting to roleplay that you don't have gimped stats without puting anything into them to back it up. But you and others keep posting that I'm saying things like what you posted above, which I never ever posted, and you know I didn't post it.
May I suggest you attempt to read what I post, rather just ranting at what you want to argue against?
The difference between skills and ability checks based off an ability dropped to 7 is -2 compared to a baseline of 10. That's it.
An ability score of 6-7 is the inverse of a 14-15; I hope any GM punishing a player for not roleplaying an Int 7 character as a simpleton similarly punishes a player with an Int 14 character who isn't tactically cunning and mentally quick with calculations.
As long as a player is roleplaying to the expected immersion level of the gaming group, that should be enough for everyone involved to have fun.
No. Even a 7 is only a 10% differential. It's not a particularly large margin between 'average' and a 7. A 7 INT might be a little slow, or he might not have a lot of book smarts. A 7 CHA could represent anything from being kind of a jerk, to being kind of shy, to being too nice.
So, no, a 7 stat is not mentally or socially disabled. Just slightly disadvantaged. And considering that every stat except perhaps Strength is an amalgamation of several concepts, many of which are completely unrelated, that wouldn't even be a requirement. If you feel like it, you can overcome some of those issues with skills; if you have a 7 CHA but still built up a Diplomacy bonus of +10 or so, then you *are* a pretty slick talker. If you have a 7 INT and a KN: History bonus of +10, you *are* a historian. The actual statistics have little impact on character abilities, and roleplaying.
And, simply put, this is the reality of dump stats. It's no different from a wizard or sorcerer dumping STR down to 7 because they have no use for it. By designer intent, PF requires system mastery, which means putting your stats where the give you the most benefit.
If this bothers you, I have two recommendations, based on how mature and truthworthy your group is:
1. Increase your Point Buy points, then forbid buying stats below 10.
1a. Give everybody the same point array, and don't include anything south of a 10.
2. If your group is VERY mature and trustworthy, just let them assign stats based on their concept. No rolling, no points. They just write 'em down, then you look over 'em and discuss them with the players.
I agree with you. Going outside this creates the usual double standards.
The difference between skills and ability checks based off an ability dropped to 7 is -2 compared to a baseline of 10. That's it.
An ability score of 6-7 is the inverse of a 14-15; I hope any GM punishing a player for not roleplaying an Int 7 character as a simpleton similarly punishes a player with an Int 14 character who isn't tactically cunning and mentally quick with calculations.
As long as a player is roleplaying to the expected immersion level of the gaming group, that should be enough for everyone involved to have fun.
No, because having double standards is funnier! :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. Even a 7 is only a 10% differential. It's not a particularly large margin between 'average' and a 7. A 7 INT might be a little slow, or he might not have a lot of book smarts. A 7 CHA could represent anything from being kind of a jerk, to being kind of shy, to being too nice.
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.
That 7 INT is half-way between the minimum intelligence allowed to a sentient creature (3) and average (10). That makes him half as bright as the average human. That would, percentage wise, make him about 60 IQ.
So, no, a 7 stat is not mentally or socially disabled. Just slightly disadvantaged. And considering that every stat except perhaps Strength is an amalgamation of several concepts, many of which are completely unrelated, that wouldn't even be a requirement. If you feel like it, you can overcome some of those issues with skills; if you have a 7 CHA but still built up a Diplomacy bonus of +10 or so, then you *are* a pretty slick talker. If you have a 7 INT and a KN: History bonus of +10, you *are* a historian. The actual statistics have little impact on character abilities, and roleplaying.
No, a 7 INT is pretty mentally impared. See above. It's at best borderline mental retardation. He's functional, but he's not going to be a rocket scientist, and he's not going to get complex things.
And, simply put, this is the reality of dump stats. It's no different from a wizard or sorcerer dumping STR down to 7 because they have no use for it. By designer intent, PF requires system mastery, which means putting your stats where the give you the most benefit.
The difference is, people want to dump their int down to 7 and then role play as coming up with complex plans. Nobody would allow a 7 str wizard to roleplay himself as 6 foot 2 and full of muscles and not laugh. Why is it acceptable for a 7 INT fighter to pull a Sherlock Holmes though? And usually without any skills to back it up, since they put everything into Intimidate and Perception?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The difference between skills and ability checks based off an ability dropped to 7 is -2 compared to a baseline of 10. That's it.
An ability score of 6-7 is the inverse of a 14-15; I hope any GM punishing a player for not roleplaying an Int 7 character as a simpleton similarly punishes a player with an Int 14 character who isn't tactically cunning and mentally quick with calculations.
As long as a player is roleplaying to the expected immersion level of the gaming group, that should be enough for everyone involved to have fun.
Paying points for a 14/15 and then getting benefits from it.
GAINING points for a 6/7 and then not roleplaying any down sides from it
See the difference?
Statistically shouldn't 2 6s or 7s be about just as rare as an 18 or 2 getting rolled naturally before racial hits?
Statistically Speaking, there is a much smaller chance of getting a 18 (especially with the unheroic 3d6) 1 out of 216 chance. Rolling a 7 is a 15 out of 216 chance.
[115 151 511 124 142 214 241 412 421 133 313 331 223 232 322]
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, mdt, it seems I misunderstood your point, and for that I apologize. I have nothing against you. In fact, I usually like reading your posts.
The point I'm trying to make from the very start is that having low or high <whatever-attribute> doesn't decide what happens or how a character is viewed. It shouldn't affect you more than how the game says it does.
A character with low Cha is not automatically hated anymore than one with high Cha is automatically loved. They simply get the advantages and disadvantages that already come with their choice of attribute. If either of them wants to seduce the barmaid or whatever social skill check, the character has to roll Bluff/Diplomacy/Whatever.
Of course, if their total bonus is high enough and/or the DC is low enough that the skill check is an automatic success, the GM can save time by simply saying the character is successful.
BTW, IMHO, a character with low charisma can be described as beautiful, but she would get no benefits from this description. Maybe she's beautiful, but her personality is so annoying that no one can stand her, maybe she's shy, maybe she's not good at expressing her thoughts... It doesn't matter. There are many ways to describe, role play and justify your attributes, no matter how low or high they are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your stat is your initial impression. Your skill is what you can achieve. Lets say you see an obvious country bumpkin in town shopping. As a merchant, his Cha 7 makes you less interested in him. However, his 10 ranks and stuff in Diplomacy and Bluff means that when he came to bargain with you, you sold him a cow for a couple of beans, and thought you got the best of the deal. Next time, you recognize him as a serious customer who must be respected. So, first impression: below average. Later impression: respect and watch out for the fast talker.
/cevah
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paying points for a 14/15 and then getting benefits from it.GAINING points for a 6/7 and then not roleplaying any down sides from it
See the difference?
Having to make just as many skill/ability checks as other players and suffering lowered results plus any other mechanical drawbacks of dumping out those stats.
Punitively singling out the characters of certain players via an arbitrary method hidden under the guise of roleplay because of a bias against stat dumping.
See the difference?
No problem Lemmy, I get this a lot when I post on this topic for some reason. I think it's a blind spot people don't realize they have.
I have no problem with people dumping stats as long as they don't turn around and expect that their 7 cha character has everyone hanging on their every word without some investment in performance or diplomacy.
Or that their character is Sherlock Holmes with a 7 INT without some serious investment in Profession (Detective) and some knowledge skill purchases.
Or that their character is a Sage with a 7 Wis without having some serious investment in Sense Motive and such.
People always bring up this hoary chestnut about how it can be overcome with Skill Focus and such, but they never actually play these builds (usually, your acharacter spent some resources on it). But that's very rare. Mostly I run into people playing a 7 int 7 cha barbarian with an 18 str and 16 con but they want him treated as someone who's listened to and popular with the ladies (all while spending their 2 skill points on perception and intimidate).
Paying points for a 14/15 and then getting benefits from it.GAINING points for a 6/7 and then not roleplaying any down sides from it
See the difference?
Having to make just as many skill/ability checks as other players and suffering lowered results plus any other mechanical drawbacks of dumping out those stats.
Punitively singling out the characters of certain players via an arbitrary method hidden under the guise of roleplay because of a bias against stat dumping.
See the difference?
Dumping my stats and then #$*($& and moaning when the GM doesn't allow me to use my superior talking skills OOC for my character IC.
Dumping my stats and then spending resources in game on overcoming that and actually making the rolls with the penalties.
See the difference?
6-7 CHA people can still be beautiful and attract the attention of everyone of in the room. There's lots of celebrities that probably have very low CHA. People with low CHA can still say things that sound like something a 22 CHA person would say, the difference is purely in people's reaction to it. Provided that their CHA checks are impacted correctly, a person who dumped CHA can talk and act as charismatically as they like and still be properly roleplaying low CHA.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your stat is your initial impression. Your skill is what you can achieve. Lets say you see an obvious country bumpkin in town shopping. As a merchant, his Cha 7 makes you less interested in him. However, his 10 ranks and stuff in Diplomacy and Bluff means that when he came to bargain with you, you sold him a cow for a couple of beans, and thought you got the best of the deal. Next time, you recognize him as a serious customer who must be respected. So, first impression: below average. Later impression: respect and watch out for the fast talker.
/cevah
I dusagree. Charisma does not represent initial reaction any more than Strength represents your combat prowess.
Charisma is your natural charm. The difference between a guy with low Cha and ranks in Diplomacy and a guy with with high Cha and no ranks in Diplomacy is just that one is naturally convincing while the other had to practice how to convince people.
If they both have the same total bonus to Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate/Whatever, they both are equally convincing.
Now, I'd like to make Cha a more useful attribute. Having an Initial Reaction check would be okay, but I'd rather use the 4ed idea of basing each of your saves on the highest of two attributes or the Kirthfinder idea of splitting Will save in two separate saves.
The difference between skills and ability checks based off an ability dropped to 7 is -2 compared to a baseline of 10. That's it.
An ability score of 6-7 is the inverse of a 14-15; I hope any GM punishing a player for not roleplaying an Int 7 character as a simpleton similarly punishes a player with an Int 14 character who isn't tactically cunning and mentally quick with calculations.
As long as a player is roleplaying to the expected immersion level of the gaming group, that should be enough for everyone involved to have fun.
Paying points for a 14/15 and then getting benefits from it.
GAINING points for a 6/7 and then not roleplaying any down sides from it
See the difference?
There's your difference right there. You *are* getting the downsides from it. Whether or not you roleplay your character one way or another, when the GM calls for a check, you're penalized. When monsters start doling out INT and CHA damage/penalties, you're penalized.
Dumping my stats and then #$*($& and moaning when the GM doesn't allow me to use my superior talking skills OOC for my character IC.
This is a problem with your GM. It's your character, you're free to roleplay it however you like.
Charisma is your natural charm. The difference between a guy with low Cha and ranks in Diplomacy and a guy with with high Cha and no ranks in Diplomacy is just that one is naturally convincing while the other had to practice how to convince people.
If they both have the same total bonus to Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate/Whatever, they both are equally convincing.
Now, I'd like to make Cha a more useful attribute. Having an Initial Reaction check would be okay, but I'd rather use the 4ed idea of basing each of your saves on the highest of two attributes or the Kirthfinder idea of splitting Will save in two separate saves.
The difference is, to me, that to use diplomacy, you have to take 1 minute.
That means, you're no longer dealing with 'first impression'. We're now dealing with 'personality'.
First impressions are, just that, your first impression. What impression do you make in the first 10 or 20 seconds. For that, you have only Charisma to go off of.
I've seen lots of women in college that made a great initial first impression, and then after they talked for a minute, I was looking for a way to politely leave (note these were usually MRS majors who had been the 'in clique' in high school).
I've also met lots of women who gave a decent first impression, and after a minute or two of talking to them had a GREAT impression.
I've also met a few women who gave an awful first impression (specifically a couple who lacked any sense of self confidence) who after they got over being nervous talking to someone new, gave great impressions of themselves.
Note that physical attraction was only part of it, a big part was carriage (confident vs holding a book up over their chest, standing straight vs hunched over), eye contact (sustained vs staring at my shoes), and verbal greeting ('Hello! Nice to meet you! I'm Amy!' vs 'Uh, hi...' or 'Uh...').
I have no problem with people dumping stats as long as they don't turn around and expect that their 7 cha character has everyone hanging on their every word without some investment in performance or diplomacy.
And that's where the skill system comes in. Roll that d20-2, and see what happens.