How Many People Are Legitimately Running These "Social Incompetent" Builds Real World?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

601 to 650 of 720 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

MongoLikeCandy wrote:
Sorry, it certainly seemed like your posts were not just random musings:

Oh, well, no, I don't actually recall ever responding to you or anything. Sorry if it seemed like I was arguing with you. It wasn't even intentional. :P

Quote:
None of that was directed to the post I made earlier? Not even your support of Kazaan who was replying to my post had anything to do with me? Okay, just making sure.

Nah, I was mostly commenting on the fact that Charisma is a mental statistic and that "omg you ugly" doesn't make much sense when you can literally just stop being ugly at pretty much any time due to magic and the like.

Quote:
So why do scars and deformities cause Charisma penalties and/or damage? Even if that weren't the case, how does Charisma interact with social skills? My original point was:

That's an interesting question. The history of scars feat you linked to is indeed very odd. It gives you a bonus and a penalty and explains it as scars, but by all accounts of reason the penalty should just go away when you're under the effects of say a hat of disguise to make you appear as though you lack scars. So that's an example of fluff vs crunch dissonance that I was talking about before.

As to the Lamashtu's Mark feat, well it inflicts a Charisma penalty because it says it does. Again it could be dissonance because, again, if it was just because you looked strange or ugly or whatever, bam, hat of disguise and suddenly you look like you don't have an extra eyeball growing out of your stomach. :P

I think the History of Scars feat is more reasonable though since it imposes penalties on Diplomacy skill checks, which is something that appearances are known to alter (for example, parade armor gives +2 to diplomacy / intimidate, while wearing the wrong outfit gets you a -2 on some skill checks when dealing with nobility).

But these are good arguments for flavoring stuff as you like since even the rules have some dissonance with fluff and/or logic pretty regularly.

Quote:

Surely it must be in some way perceptible, right? If it was not perceptible, how does it add to your interactions with NPCs? Or are you telling me that they just find the NPC with an 18 Charisma to be strangely more compelling than other NPCs for unknown reasons? It's not like the NPC is speaking in a more cunning fashion. That would be intelligence and there is a class feature and another for that. Same for Wisdom.

In any case, I just thought it was interesting. Having a low intelligence because of none of that thar book lernin, is fine. Oh no, he's not slow to learn and is actually quite sharp. He just earns skill points much more slowly than a normal person of his field on top of having penalties in all Int based skills. No biggie. Wouldn't affect someone's day to day life at all! Especially if they were in some kind of profession or craft field.

Having a scar on your face for low charisma, on the other hand, is dissonant with the mechanics. Who would've thought?

I don't think it is. Because it's far more fluff-able than the scar thing (though, again, I wouldn't argue the scar thing too heavily, particularly since there is a precedent for it, though I would roll my eyes a bit given how amazingly easy it is to completely change your appearance in the blink of an eye). Having a low Int score can mean that you don't excel at certain things while excelling at others, just as some people have a difficult time with mathematics but are quite gifted in the arts.

A human commoner with a 3 Intelligence (this happens frequently enough with the 3d6 die rolling method common to NPCs) and a 10 Wisdom can earn a very good living (such as Profession [Barrister] or Profession [Accountant] or Profession [Farmer] or Profession [Banker], speak two languages, and have an extra skill handy for poops and giggles, maybe meaning he has training in two professions (maybe he was also a Sailor or a chef at some point).

Most people aren't going to call him stupid, because people don't get to see his character sheet. They have to interact with him and decide if he's stupid. He probably makes more money than they do (24 gp / month in fact). He doesn't know much about the world though. He can only answer easy (DC 5) questions by taking 10.

They are going to look on and see a man who is arguably under educated in general knowledge and/or appraisals, but who has a good head on his shoulders and very practical and valuable skills, and many may be impressed that he speaks a second language fluently.

So one we see a person who is just worse at skills and wizardry, and the other we see a guy who has less of an ability score because of a scar that could just go away with a simple spell. I find the latter to be more problematic from a logical standpoint, but again I'm not going tell someone that they're eating their Reese's wrong until they start ignoring the mechanics.


MongoLikeCandy wrote:
No, actually that all seems perfectly reasonable to me. Though, as I pointed out, Paizo published permanent Charisma penalties due to scars.

Actually, no you showed a feat that gave a penalty on Charisma-based skill checks, and another one that had a pseudo-curse that imposes a Charisma penalty for 1 hour. Those aren't actually permanent Charisma penalties. O.o

More like the sort of circumstance modifiers like Matt Thompson points out, or the penalty you take when you get slapped with touch of idiocy. :P

Speaking of Matt. :o

Matt Thompson wrote:

Personally, I'd be the same. A charisma low enough to warrant a negative penalty is probably more than a scar. In ye olden days before we had skills, I'd have probably deducted a single charisma point for gaining a permanent facial scar. Now even that much is questionable, and is probably more a case of giving that character a -1 or -2 CHA circumstance penalty whenever attempting something where the visual impact of that scar matters (and arguably +1 or +2 CHA when dealing with people for whom a scar is a positive badge of some kind.)

Of course, if we had a separate appearance stat, we'd have none of these problems ;) (Indeed, we'd have a whole slew of new problems with people arguing about how beauty is in the eye of the beholder, etc!)

Agreed. And yes, appearance statistics cause tons of troubles, and only serve to give roleplaying the finger rather than improving it. Personally if a player wanted to have a scar that was heinous without lowering their Charisma (such as say a sorcerer with a terrible scar disfiguring scar), I'd probably work with them to create some sort of custom homebrew condition for him or her that would impose some penalties to certain Charisma-based checks but with certain benefits as well (like you said where the penalty might become a benefit when in a situation where the scar makes them seem more serious or respectable).


Quote:
Aside from spells, I would expect my appearance would have some kind of effect upon my social interactions. Whether that includes performing for a crowd or not. Spellcasting is a different beast. That's why Charisma can be defined in some ways as a sense of self. That, personality, etc are what make it a mental stat. However, it does say "appearance" in the ability description.

Appearance by definition can mean more than physical appearance. It can literally mean your ability to project a given appearance, such as seeming to remain calm when nervous, having a good poker face, etc. I've actually referenced the definition a few times now on these boards. :\

Quote:
If my appearance changed, I imagine in your games nothing would happen. That's fine. That's RAW, but illogical. So, on the off chance that my character could possibly have his scar hidden for several rounds, I should scrap my concept or at least enjoy a nice little chat where you try to tell me that it doesn't fit mechanically. Even though, no where in the rules does it say that Charisma has to be defined purely by personality and mannerisms. Are you seeing the hypocrisy yet?

Not really. Mostly because I said that while I found a dissonance in fluff it wasn't so much of a dissonance that I wouldn't allow you to play a character who had a penalty that you were blaming on your scar (now my wishful thinking would hope you might supplement that with personality reasons such as self consciousness, but I made peace with the fact not everyone is into making deep characters a long time ago, and some people just want to have fun playing D&D).

Quote:
Why would you want to go with a position that limits the possibilities for roleplay, rather than a position which gives you more freedom in roleplay? Because a character might temporarily change his appearance means that I shouldn't use a hideous scar to explain my characters Charisma dump in a flavorful way?

Mostly because I don't, and haven't?

Quote:
So how does Charisma add to Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, etc. exactly? Or I mean to the music you play, the way you sing, how scary you can be, how socially gifted you are, and so on? Is it in some sort of discernible way?

That's a very good question. There's a number of skills that are sometimes strangely associated with certain abilities (for example, they placed jump into acrobatics which is Dex-based moving from 3.x to PF, but jumping is a muscle thing).

As someone who used to take dance classes in tap, jazz, clogging, and ballet, I can say that sometimes the quality of a dance performance can be augmented by a certain radiance and appearance that is projected by the person even if their technique is very strong, and the reverse is true too (such as having a strong technique but not "feeling" the dance). But given that I don't know much about other sorts of performing, who the hell knows? :P

Which, again, I say unto you...figure it out. We have the crunch so you make up the story around it. I have a character with 7 Charisma and it's currently representing several aspects of her persona, from the fact she was physically and mentally abused by a mean old witch, to the fact she grew up alone in the woods save for the old witch and has little to no experience with dealing with people. So she is both weak willed and tends to rub people the wrong way. She isn't physically unattractive but her personality can be scathing sometimes and she has a tendency to do things in front of her companions and occasionally other people that are very off-putting (the party met her while she was feeding on the corpses of some dead humans).


Ashiel wrote:
She isn't physically unattractive but her personality can be scathing sometimes and she has a tendency to do things in front of her companions and occasionally other people that are very off-putting (the party met her while she was feeding on the corpses of some dead humans).

I kinda want to hear how she managed to persuade them she wasn't a ghoul, and wasn't slain outright in the first five seconds :)

(and thank goodness she didn't have to worry about making a charisma check to convince the PCs...)


Matt Thomason wrote:
I kinda want to hear how she managed to persuade them she wasn't a ghoul, and wasn't slain outright in the first five seconds

Maybe they made the DC ≤10 Knowledge (Local) (or Planes, if she's a native outsider) check to recognize her race?

Shadow Lodge

ciretose wrote:
Weirdo wrote:

Oxford Dictionary: Influence: to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something.

To have an effect on (influence) something, you are changing a starting point.

Is the bolded part from the dictionary, because I'm pretty sure it isn't.

That's... basic logic? To determine that point B (something that you have influenced) is different from point A (that thing if you didn't influence it) you have to have a point A?

That everything that exists must have some state of existence and you can't interact with (and thus influence) something that doesn't exist (has no point A)?

ciretose wrote:
I agree with. My charisma influences how people view me. My personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance are all factors that will influence others.

And what makes you think that "influence" specifically takes the form of setting starting attitude?

Remember, in PF terms starting attitude is a mechanical concept. That's assuming you're using Diplomacy RAW.

ciretose wrote:
I think redward is trying to get me to pin down some save DC's for a circumstance that has no specific DC anywhere. As many, many things have no specific DC anywhere.

He's trying to get a sense of how you would apply this, mechanically, in a game. And if you're applying it mechanically (as a "check to influence people)", you must have some idea of what general sort of number you would be using - even if just to decide whether it's worth asking for a roll.

For example, I'd probably set an Acrobatics check to catch a chandelier mid-jump and change your trajectory at, say, DC 18. Hard for a novice, but a well-trained person (3 ranks, class bonus, and +2 Dex) could do it confidently if not rushed, and a real expert (10 ranks, class bonus, and +4 Dex) would never fail. Maybe you'd set the DC at 15, or 20, but at least now we're talking specifics.

Matt Thomason wrote:
Unfriendly may be a bit too much, but I can certainly see people pointing and laughing at - possibly even shunning - the character with the really ugly face/scar/speech impediment. Having trouble asking for simple advice and directions - with a low enough CHA that would actually be a possibility. I think the question is how low it'd have to be to have a noticeable rules effect or whether to just RP it, and as with any such thing that's pretty much up to the individual GM to decide.

I'm perfectly happy to have subtle differences in the way NPCs would talk to an NPC with low vs high cha (see examples at the bottom of this post), even with equal social skill modifiers.

But when you're talking about the real mechanical effect of "can my character get the NPC to do what I want" the Diplomacy check determines the overall outcome - unless you're in one of the handful of situations in which you can't make a Diplomacy check (no common language is a good example).


Quote:
Mostly because I don't, and haven't?

Sorry, that was a line from Kazaan. He was speaking about how your position, specifically, was one of roleplaying freedom. Specifically the avoidance of limited roleplaying due to certain ability scores not matching how a character is fluffed.

Ashiel wrote:
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:

Ashiel's position, that is the "the mechanics matter, fluff is mutable" and "let people play what they want as long as they are following the rules so everyone can shut up and have a good time" positions, expand the range of possible characters. Any concept is allowed, so long as the mechanics are followed. For example, you can play a ranger who is neither a scout, tracker, nor bounty hunter.

The position of strictly interpreting the fluff for ability scores (or just strictly interpreting fluff in general), on the other, limits the number of possible characters. If you go with this approach, all druids must have a lot of willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition. It's not allowed (without building a completely mechanically incompetent character) to roleplay a druid who is more analytically minded than intuitive, whose long years among dusty tomes and alone in the wild has dulled their common sense and awareness among other people.

Why would you want to go with a position that limits the possibilities for roleplay, rather than a position which gives you gives you more freedom in roleplay?

I <3 you so much right now. You totally get it. :O

You're willing to concede your position about Charisma not being physical to allow my character concept, and that's great. (And by that I mean give into my unreasonable demands) However, why would you favor your position in the first place? Why does it bother you to use physical appearance for Charisma? Do you think others might feel the same disconnect with other scores?

This is all aside from my original point about being able to distinguish excellent charisma from bad charisma anyway. I'll refrain from point to point, because it would be a very long post. So, let me simplify it. I don't care how you quantify Charisma either. I do, however, find it funny that you are vehemently against limiting how one defines Intelligence at the same time as finding that some definitions of Charisma are dissonant. It's further interesting because Charisma defines itself with appearance (which I agree is not the main consideration) as one of the components of the stat. Intelligence explicitly states that it is a measure of how well your character learns and reasons. That by definition does not fit your character concept. No one cares, but it's true.

Let me fix a (or one of the) mistake(s) I made though:

Quote:

A human commoner with a 3 Intelligence (this happens frequently enough with the 3d6 die rolling method common to NPCs) and a 10 Wisdom can earn a very good living (such as Profession [Barrister] or Profession [Accountant] or Profession [Farmer] or Profession [Banker], speak two languages, and have an extra skill handy for poops and giggles, maybe meaning he has training in two professions (maybe he was also a Sailor or a chef at some point).

Most people aren't going to call him stupid, because people don't get to see his character sheet. They have to interact with him and decide if he's stupid. He probably makes more money than they do (24 gp / month in fact). He doesn't know much about the world though. He can only answer easy (DC 5) questions by taking 10.

They are going to look on and see a man who is arguably under educated in general knowledge and/or appraisals, but who has a good head on his shoulders and very practical and valuable skills, and many may be impressed that he speaks a second language fluently.

Sorry, for some reason I had it in my mind that Profession was Int related. Silly mistake. Still, my point applies. Low Int commoner's are not going to make good craftsman. Low int commoners are going to have fewer skills and this DEFINITELY affects their lives. At 2 minus 4 skill points per level, it's going to hurt. Same difference for low Wisdom Professionals, but at least they get more skill points.

They'll have one language, Common, unless it's from their own race. But really, do you want to have a PC be unable to speak Common? Forced to not be able to speak their own Race language? (I mean forced to due to low Int. Not for interesting roleplay.) It's just a convenience rule and not really a determination of Intelligence. It will impress no one, unless it surprises them he's capable of being like everyone else.

Who does he make more money than? If forced to use his low score in Craft, would earn something like 5 gp a week. He rolls the same as someone untrained with average Intelligence. The low Int character invested a portion of his life to learning that Craft skill. He can easily be outperformed by someone of just slightly above average Intelligence. It gets better if he focuses feats on it, but not by much. I think that could be a serious impact on his life. You're right, he needs to stick to Profession.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MongoLikeCandy wrote:
You're right, he needs to stick to Profession.

Or perform.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
MongoLikeCandy wrote:
You're right, he needs to stick to Profession.
Or perform.

It's unclear to me if this is an example of someone with low mental stats or an example of a performer. Either way, keep little girls out of this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weirdo wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I think redward is trying to get me to pin down some save DC's for a circumstance that has no specific DC anywhere. As many, many things have no specific DC anywhere.

He's trying to get a sense of how you would apply this, mechanically, in a game. And if you're applying it mechanically (as a "check to influence people)", you must have some idea of what general sort of number you would be using - even if just to decide whether it's worth asking for a roll.

For example, I'd probably set an Acrobatics check to catch a chandelier mid-jump and change your trajectory at, say, DC 18. Hard for a novice, but a well-trained person (3 ranks, class bonus, and +2 Dex) could do it confidently if not rushed, and a real expert (10 ranks, class bonus, and +4 Dex) would never fail. Maybe you'd set the DC at 15, or 20, but at least now we're talking specifics.

This.

That rule I keep "ignoring"?

Quote:

Charisma (Cha)

Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to channel energy. For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.” Every creature has a Charisma score. A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious.

You apply your character's Charisma modifier to:

  • Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, and Use Magic Device checks.
  • Checks that represent attempts to influence others.
  • Channel energy DCs for clerics and paladins attempting to harm undead foes.

That's a thing with a definition

Quote:
Check: A check is a d20 roll which may or may not be modified by another value. The most common types are attack rolls, ability checks, skill checks, and saving throws.

So when you say it's RAW to have Charisma checks, I agree. When you say they're used in attempts to influence others, I agree. When I ask what the DC is, or whether it's an opposed roll, it's because a Check is a d20 roll. So when you say 'I'm not going to roll, because I know how someone's going to react to a Cha 18 vs. a Cha 6,' that doesn't sound like a Check, RAW. It sounds like you just want to penalize the players who play the game wrong.

So you either need to figure out how that roll's going to look, or you need to stop hanging your hat on that one line.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
She isn't physically unattractive but her personality can be scathing sometimes and she has a tendency to do things in front of her companions and occasionally other people that are very off-putting (the party met her while she was feeding on the corpses of some dead humans).
I kinda want to hear how she managed to persuade them she wasn't a ghoul, and wasn't slain outright in the first five seconds :)

Mostly because she kept her distance from the party and due to some shapeshifting powers of her burrowed through the ground to get to a safer vantage point when she wasn't sure as to if the party was a danger to her or not. At first they thought she had killed everyone, but she scoffed at the sheer thought and recounted what she saw. When the party realized that she saw one of the members of the band get kidnapped (a noblewoman) they demanded that she tell them more. In exchange for them not letting the witch-hating paladin smacking her around, she offered to help track the people who did the kidnapping. She could do nothing for the woman by her lonesome against so many people but she was willing to help.

The party grudgingly accepted her offer, though the witch-hating paladin was very unamused by her and she didn't much like him either. It wasn't until she transformed into a monster and jumped into the fray to help protect one of the party members later that they began to trust her a bit more. They found her to be strange in her mixture of furs, bone fetishes and fine jewelry. They found out that she doesn't believe in killing people, has no qualms with eating the dead because she views the body as little more than a meat vessel for the soul that is no more sacred than a rock after the soul has departed (and doesn't have any reservations against cannibalism because as a shapeshifter she does not identify based on flesh).

She and the paladin traded verbal jabs over the course of the game for a short while, until she found out that the reason he hated witches was because one tortured him and ate his sister. Having lost any semblance of any family that should could recall and knowing what it was like to live with a cruel old hag she secretly pitied him and stopped delivering verbal jabs and instead just took his abuse. Though it seemed that the less she tried to offend him the angrier he got (perhaps because it was challenging his idea that all witches are asshats).

She has been a source of both confusion and amusement for the party. She's a neutral with good tendencies witch who worships hag goddesses, and is creepy as hell. The witch-hunting Paladin fell when he tried to kill her when she tried to throw herself in front of another witch (an apprentice white witch) in a - futile - effort to prevent combat from breaking out and he demanded that it was because she was going to betray them and tried to murder her (she used her magic to deflect the blow and felt sorry for him when his power left him). He was mostly just looking for a reason at that time. She even told him she was sorry that she had birthed such anger in his heart before he left the party (the player wanted to roll another character class he found that seemed really fun to him).

I think the party's mischievous bard likes her the most, but I'm not sure. The barbarian might rival the bard but I think he likes her mentor (who accompanies her in the form of an opalescent gemmed eyesocket fetish) more and has been rather amused since she recently acquired the ability to speak telepathically to the party and has been making jests at Agatha (my PC's) expense. However, Magthera (her mentor who's spirit resides in her fetish) is a cruel woman indeed and has been urging her through their spirit link to cast aside her petty notions of mercy and act like a true witch of Irrisen and has begun conditioning her to rival the white witches to be an instrument of her ascension, revenge, and to continue on their family.

Agatha has been getting more and more comfortable with dealing with people and has mostly overcome her disability with interacting with people, and has been less likely to start eating corpses since she has been eating with the party rather than fending for herself in the wilds. The last time her eating habits came up was during a situation where the party had spared the life of an NPC who attacked and nearly killed her but the NPC was being exceptionally antagonistic despite being in no position to be jerking them around. Since she was already angry about being slashed across the face with a blade she scowled and told the NPC that she had a big mouth for someone so low on the food chain. :P

Quote:
(and thank goodness she didn't have to worry about making a charisma check to convince the PCs...)

She's definitely not winning any academy awards anytime soon. :P

Shadow Lodge

To tell the truth, I skipped through most of this thread because I was originally hoping for more people talking about their characters with mental dump stats and their justification for them.

For me, I normally avoid giving characters dump stats,but when I do, they tend to be justified by way of characterization.

One of my PFS characters is an eleven evocationist with Int 18, Cha 8. He's autistic, preferring to write his thoughts down and read those of others over conversing. Occasionally, he'll try to Aid Another with someone's socials skills, fail, then go offendedly silent when his thoughtful advice gets ignored.

Going through Mask of the Living God with him got him more upset than he'd ever been, mostly starting when his writing implements were taken from him.

So, how do people play their characters who are slow on the uptake, lack self-awareness, or think of eloquence as something that happens to other people?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MongoLikeCandy wrote:
You're willing to concede your position about Charisma not being physical to allow my character concept, and that's great. (And by that I mean give into my unreasonable demands) However, why would you favor your position in the first place? Why does it bother you to use physical appearance for Charisma? Do you think others might feel the same disconnect with other scores?

The reason I have more difficulty with the Charisma vs Scars thing is because it's taking an abstract thing like the mental faculties and turning it into a physical thing. I have no problem with keeping mental statistics as mental statistics. Things like learning, motivation, application, ambition, focus, and all those sorts of things are all mental traits.

However, at the end of the day it's not worth fighting over. As long as the mechanics are accounted for and we can play and have fun then I'm happy and fine with it. It's not worth arguing over, and I would just say my peace about why I think the concept could be deeper as a suggestion for a deeper character and leave it at that. I'm not going to tell you how to make and play your character beyond ensuring that you're not cheating.

Just like I don't mind it when a new player who hasn't been into roleplaying comes to the game with a concept no more fleshed out than "I want to make a barbarian with an axe that hits stuff" and begins the game with the personality of a brick (and I don't mean Charisma in this case). As long as everyone can play and have fun then we're all "winning" D&D/PF. As someone plays with us, they usually pick up some of our habits like thinking about our characters histories, motivations, and what makes them tick.

Quote:
This is all aside from my original point about being able to distinguish excellent charisma from bad charisma anyway. I'll refrain from point to point, because it would be a very long post. So, let me simplify it. I don't care how you quantify Charisma either. I do, however, find it funny that you are vehemently against limiting how one defines Intelligence at the same time as finding that some definitions of Charisma are dissonant. It's further interesting because Charisma defines itself with appearance (which I agree is not the main consideration) as one of the components of the stat. Intelligence explicitly states that it is a measure of how well your character learns and reasons. That by definition does not fit your character concept. No one cares, but it's true.

I'm confused as to what you're arguing. I never told anyone they were doing it wrong but that fluff was mutable, and that I understood that there can be dissonance. I actually agree with Nicos about a tundra ranger who grabs favored terrain Jungle and a Panther pet. It's a dissonance. I understand how that could unwanted but asked if there was a reason for it (I don't think he ever answered, or I may have missed it).

I'll summarize.
1. I understand and relate to mechanics vs fluff dissonance issue.
2. I do find the idea of purely physical reasons for different Charisma scores because Charisma is a mental statistic and it creates dissonance.
3. I am willing to put aside some of my reservations about using physical reasons to explain the penalty to a mental skill when the physical reason doesn't mesh well with circumstances if it means that we can all play and have fun, but I would talk it over with my player.
4. I have few to no reservations with players fluffing their mental statistics with other abstract concepts. Things like learning is an abstraction in D&D/PF. You do not learn by doing, you learn by getting X skill points each level and/or from experiencing things as a player (IE - after you learn that bludgeoning weapons work better vs a skeleton you're just going to draw your mace next time you see a skeletal monster).

I would likewise mention to a player who wanted to explain his or her low mental statistics as being the result of brain damage caused by earlier injuries (as was implied with Minsc from Baldur's Gate I & II) because such things are usually able to be healed with magic, and I'd like them to think up some sort of reason for why a spell like heal or restoration or reincarnate wouldn't fix their brain damage.

To me, comparing "my character has a low Charisma and I'm flavoring it as he is ugly but with no effects on his personality" to "my character has a low Intelligence that I'm flavoring it as a combination with lack of education/narrow focus/wasted potential/etc" is like comparing apples to oranges.

Quote:

Sorry, for some reason I had it in my mind that Profession was Int related. Silly mistake. Still, my point applies. Low Int commoner's are not going to make good craftsman. Low int commoners are going to have fewer skills and this DEFINITELY affects their lives. At 2 minus 4 skill points per level, it's going to hurt. Same difference for low Wisdom Professionals, but at least they get more skill points.

They'll have one language, Common, unless it's from their own race. But really, do you want to have a PC be unable to speak Common? Forced to not be able to speak their own Race language? (I mean forced to due to low Int. Not for interesting roleplay.) It's just a convenience rule and not really a determination of Intelligence. It will impress no one, unless it surprises them he's capable of being like everyone else.

Who does he make more money than? If forced to use his low score in Craft, would earn something like 5 gp a week. He rolls the same as someone untrained with average Intelligence. The low Int character invested a portion of his life to learning that Craft skill. He can easily be outperformed by someone of just slightly above average Intelligence. It gets better if he focuses feats on it, but not by much. I think that could be a serious impact on his life. You're right, he needs to stick to Profession.

OH BOY, back to the crunch time! :D

Actually you have a minimum of 1 skill point gained from hit dice (that's the 2 +/- mod), then you can acquire an additional +1 point for being human (who only begin with Common as a language, while other races who lack the +1 point begin speaking 2 languages), and then another +1 for your favored class bonus if desired.

The difference between a Commoner with 11 Intelligence and 3 Intelligence in terms of skill points gained per HD is 1 skill point. However, as the score drops lower, the character becomes less and less capable at Intelligence-based skills. That means things like Appraise, Craft, Knowledge skills, and Spellcraft are all 20% worse off than the guy who has an 11.

This is not the end of the world. Assuming that the character is not also hurting in Wisdom, he has the potential to have a good life. With a 3 Int and 10-11 Wisdom he's definitely lacking in booksmarts but he's got plenty of awareness, and a single one of his 2-3 ranks into Profession nets him a +4 bonus in his chosen profession. He can take 10 each weak to generate 7 gp worth of income or 28 gp per month. The average lifestyle cost is 10 gold per month so he's doing pretty well. He even has 1-2 more skill points to round out his arsenal of life skills, allowing him to learn a 2nd language (by placing a rank into Linguistics) though he's not very good at forging or deciphering codes (this may actually be a plus if that sort of thing does not suit his character concept) and potentially 1 floating skill point for another purpose.

If the character is lacking in both Intelligence AND Wisdom then life is much harder but if his Charisma or other statistics are good then he might be able to make a life begging for simple handouts (DC 15 + Cha mod for give simple aid vs indifferent people, doesn't innately risk upsetting them) or as a Performer (1 rank, +1 Charisma, plus Skill Focus (Perform) nets you a +5) so you can take 10 and earn about 3.8 gold pieces per week or around 15.2 gold per month, enough to make an average living but not much more.

If he had a +0 to +1 Intelligence but a poor Wisdom or Charisma (let's go balls to the walls and say -4 penalties in each) he can still pick up Craft (anything) and pull 28 gold per month without fail. Potentially more if he burns a feat on it (skill focus nets an extra 6 gp/month, same for Profession).

Non-humans are similar but they lack the extra skill point that humans get so it's basically auto-reserved in buying an extra language, though they have enough to have a fine profession and their favored class bonus if placed into skill points will net them an extra point for doing something with as well (such as learning a third language).

Or a low intelligence character could be a professional trapper with ranks in Profession (trapper) and taking 10 on Survival checks to live off the land.

There's so many things that characters with low mental abilities can do to survive. And if they have low mental abilities and strong physical ones then they are probably suited to be warriors.


The Shifty Mongoose wrote:

To tell the truth, I skipped through most of this thread because I was originally hoping for more people talking about their characters with mental dump stats and their justification for them.

For me, I normally avoid giving characters dump stats,but when I do, they tend to be justified by way of characterization.

One of my PFS characters is an eleven evocationist with Int 18, Cha 8. He's autistic, preferring to write his thoughts down and read those of others over conversing. Occasionally, he'll try to Aid Another with someone's socials skills, fail, then go offendedly silent when his thoughtful advice gets ignored.

Going through Mask of the Living God with him got him more upset than he'd ever been, mostly starting when his writing implements were taken from him.

So, how do people play their characters who are slow on the uptake, lack self-awareness, or think of eloquence as something that happens to other people?

I like your idea, and thank you for sharing. ^_^

Shadow Lodge

I could be wrong but, after looking through NPC creation, I saw nothing that indecated that an NPC got favored class bonuses.


Ashiel wrote:
I'm confused as to what you're arguing. I never told anyone they were doing it wrong but that fluff was mutable, and that I understood that there can be dissonance. I actually agree with Nicos about a tundra ranger who grabs favored terrain Jungle and a Panther pet. It's a dissonance. I understand how that could unwanted but asked if there was a reason for it (I don't think he ever answered, or I may have missed it).

I think you get the gist of my point. I'm not going to go back and show you where you disagreed with others when it came to how they believed attributes should affect roleplay. It's there. Your memory is a little selective.

Now that is settled, I'm kind of enjoying the experiment with the Commoner:

Quote:
Actually you have a minimum of 1 skill point gained from hit dice (that's the 2 +/- mod), then you can acquire an additional +1 point for being human (who only begin with Common as a language, while other races who lack the +1 point begin speaking 2 languages), and then another +1 for your favored class bonus if desired.

Not sure on the rules when dealing with a net negative skill points. I know the minimum is one. Saw a ruling that Humans still get their +1 after the total.

Anyway, 2 minus 4 skill points still hurts. Much more than say, any positive number. Why the insistence on 2 languages?

Quote:
The difference between a Commoner with 11 Intelligence and 3 Intelligence in terms of skill points gained per HD is 1 skill point. However, as the score drops lower, the character becomes less and less capable at Intelligence-based skills. That means things like Appraise, Craft, Knowledge skills, and Spellcraft are all 20% worse off than the guy who has an 11.

How much better is a Commoner of 3 Int than a Commoner of animal Intelligence at Appraise or Craft? Or, better yet, how does he do against a squirrel Commoner?

Urist McCraftySquirrel the Squirrel, puts one rank into Craft. This nets him a 0.

Urist McCantThinkNoGood the Human, puts one rank into Craft. This nets him a 0 as well.

Declaration = No difference. Well, McCraftySquirrel is at least better at being a professional due to his 12 Wisdom, I guess.

Quote:
If the character is lacking in both Intelligence AND Wisdom then life is much harder but if his Charisma or other statistics are good then he might be able to make a life begging for simple handouts (DC 15 + Cha mod for give simple aid vs indifferent people, doesn't innately risk upsetting them) or as a Performer (1 rank, +1 Charisma, plus Skill Focus (Perform) nets you a +5) so you can take 10 and earn about 3.8 gold pieces per week or around 15.2 gold per month, enough to make an average living but not much more.

Yes, I would fully expect his handlers to help him find alternative ways to deal with his disability. Grunty might love crafting his toy horses, but he's not getting many sales these days.


Quote:
Charisma applies to checks that represent attempts to influence others.

Just for the exercise, can we think of what checks to influence others are explicitly in the rules but not covered by Diplomacy or Intimidate?

• You cannot use Diplomacy on a creature that doesn’t understand you (such as when there is no common language) or an intelligence of 3 or less (commonly but not exclusively animals. There will be some 3 Intelligence humanoids you cannot use Diplomacy on).

• Diplomacy is ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend you harm in the immediate future.

You could try to influence creatures in the above categories with Intimidate, but using this skill has its own problems.

So, when trying to influence creatures (without threatening them) that intend you harm, that don’t understand your language or have an Intelligence of 3 or less you use Charisma.

I think this covers the RAW “checks that represent attempts to influence others” that are separate from skills, so there is no need to create a “starting attitude check” to satisfy this piece of text.

Liberty's Edge

Weirdo wrote:

Oxford Dictionary: Influence: to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something.

To have an effect on (influence) something, you are changing a starting point.

And every starting point is a previously influenced state.

And if you are making a check to influence, and it is not a skill check, and there is a check in the book that specifically says it is to be used to influence...

Your quote helps my case.

Personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance influence how NPCs view the PC.

It literally says that.

If you don't agree for your game, that is fine. I am not at your table.

But I have yet to see a reasonable argument being made as to why personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance would not influence how NPCs view the PC.

Liberty's Edge

Durinor wrote:
Quote:
Charisma applies to checks that represent attempts to influence others.

Just for the exercise, can we think of what checks to influence others are explicitly in the rules but not covered by Diplomacy or Intimidate?

• You cannot use Diplomacy on a creature that doesn’t understand you (such as when there is no common language) or an intelligence of 3 or less (commonly but not exclusively animals. There will be some 3 Intelligence humanoids you cannot use Diplomacy on).

• Diplomacy is ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend you harm in the immediate future.

You could try to influence creatures in the above categories with Intimidate, but using this skill has its own problems.

So, when trying to influence creatures (without threatening them) that intend you harm, that don’t understand your language or have an Intelligence of 3 or less you use Charisma.

I think this covers the RAW “checks that represent attempts to influence others” that are separate from skills, so there is no need to create a “starting attitude check” to satisfy this piece of text.

You forgot

"Influence Attitude: Using Diplomacy to influence a creature’s attitude takes 1 minute of continuous interaction."

So any influence that takes less than a full minute of continuous interaction.

And

"Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion)."

Any time you want the attitude shift to last more than 1d4 hours without special exception from the GM.

And

"You cannot use Diplomacy to influence a given creature’s attitude more than once in a 24 hour period."

Of the top of my head.


Ciretose: Yes, those are all other examples of when you would use Charisma, not Diplomacy - though I wonder if it is intentional that a straight Charisma check can permanently change a creatures attitude, even if it is written that way.

Some really interesting issues about how NPCs view the world have come up in this thread.

Here's my thoughts on the starting attitude of NPCs. Let’s assume that the average NPC (10 Charisma)would be indifferent to the average stranger (10 Charisma). This means that if the stranger asked for directions (DC 10) they would be successful, but if they asked for 'simple aid' (DC 15) they would be refused. That seems fair enough.
Using this system a slightly shy, homely person (Charisma 9) would have no luck getting directions out of the average person, which is harsh but I can certainly picture the scene - the hapless mumbler trying in vain to get the attention of strangers as they hurry about on their business. Almost any 'country boy in New York' movie has this trope.

But if you adjust that indifferent starting attitude with a charisma check, the average stranger (Charisma 10) will fail that DC 15 check, and they will fail it by 5 – adjusting the other's attitude down by one step.

So now we have the situation where if one completely average NPC approaches another in the street, the approachee immediately adopts an unfriendly attitude and will refuse to even give directions (DC 15).

I don’t think that sounds very realistic (except maybe in New York!) but unless I’m missing something this seems to be the unintended consequence of adjusting starting attitude with a Charisma check.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Easy fix for attributes under 10... have the player in question tell you what makes his attribute that low:

8 charisma?
characters is sweaty/smelly/shy/...?
this does not hamper his diplomacy/... ranks in the least (it will also not change the range of detection vs scent monsters) but it means that before being able to speak to that king with his hard-trained silver tongue, he might earn some chuckles from bystanders at his expense. It's about roleplay... not rollplay.

8 intelligence? 8 wisdom?
sure, just tell me how you intend to roleplay that first?

And, no, you cannot say charisma=6 and be bad at talking to people and then put ranks in diplomacy... charisma is more then just diplomacy... so you have to explain why a sorcerer with diplomacy=10 is different from charisma-dumper with diplomacy=10...

Standard NPC Nobles would first approach the guy with the highest charisma... and switch talking to the highest diplomacy person after being asked to. That's not punishing the players... they still get to do their diplomacy just the same, it just takes a wee longer if your are not the natural magnet of the group (charismatic) to grab the attention.

8 int doesn't necessarily mean bad tactician if he's a fighter (such a fighter would not live long)...
But I'd expect that player to roleplay how his character asks silly questions or points out obvious things, drawing a smirk from bystanders.

I don't like people dumping stats and then ignoring them because they put points into the necessary skill to make up for it... in that case you would not need those stats to begin with.
I like those stats to mean something beyond the bonus/malus they might give to some skills.

If you are not willing or capable of roleplaying those lower stats, I won't allow you to dump stats at my table.

low constitution?
you catch a cold easily... does that hamper you in any way? no... does that mean you sneeze every now and then? yes

wonder what recurring hiccups would be for a low stats... hmm? :-)

Liberty's Edge

Durinor wrote:

Ciretose: Yes, those are all other examples of when you would use Charisma, not Diplomacy - though I wonder if it is intentional that a straight Charisma check can permanently change a creatures attitude, even if it is written that way.

Punching someone in the face also can permanently change someones attitude :)

Ability scores are what who you are. Skills are skills you have learned.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that low Charisma in and off itself would make someone dislike you. If there were other factors involved, it could be the straw that breaks the camels back, but it just one a factor to consider.

But why wouldn't a high charisma influence someone to be interested in giving you a minute of their time? If it were borderline, why wouldn't it be a consideration for the GM, or if need be a rolled check?

Lots of things factor into starting attitude. As they should. Saying personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance would not influence how NPCs view the PC is deciding to ignore those factors.

For what reason, I have no idea.


Ashiel wrote:
RunebladeX wrote:
if you have a 7 Chr your going to look or act like you belong in the movie the hills have eyes, not a boy band.

Citation, please? Also, Charisma =/= physical attractiveness and/or beauty. At least, I sure hope not.

Meanwhile, Amiri the barbarian is physically hot and tantalizing. Her Charisma is on the bottom side of average (10 vs 11).

I didnt say charisma = physical attractiveness and/ or beauty, see above. And that wasn't completely serious either the pun about the hills have eyes. Plus i dont have to cite anything cause i thought this was the general discussion not the RULES forum. Its of my Opinion and interpretation that charisma is a combination of many qualities-INCLUDING but not limited to BEAUTY. If you want a citation i suppose i can give you one...

My home dictionary:
1: a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (as a political leader)

2: a special magnetic charm or appeal <the charisma of a popular actor>

Synonym: allure, animal magnetism, appeal, ATTRACTIVENESS, captivation, charm, duende, enchantment, fascination...

See how attractiveness is a synonym for charisma? thats odd since charisma has nothing to do with physical attractiveness.


Ashiel wrote:
slade867 wrote:

An INT of 7 is a -2. They are only 10% dumber than the average person. We are NOT in "Hulk smash puny human" territory.

A -7 CHA, even if we assume controls your physical appearance, is only 10% uglier than "average". So, not being able to even make the Diplomacy check is suspect, to me.

Finally, reason! :D

First off an INT of 7 is a -4 penalty. Second if 10 is average how is 7 only 10% less intelligent than average when the average is 10?? Ummmm This isn't reason at all its actually the quite opposite!!! So what score would be a character with a constant stutter or terets be? Or Int of a "hulk smasher". from what im hearing it would have to be a score of -3 or so. to each his own i guess.

like i said before if a player wants to play a strong champion tactician then i expect a positive STR and INT or WIS. If a player wants to play a gnome sexist racist i expect his chr to probably be on the low side. If a player describes his PC as wise as the gods i dont expect to to see a 7 wis. If a pc says he's going to play a leper who is constantly sick and has a constant snotty nose and drools he's more than welcome too, as long as his PC doesn't have a 16 CON and CHR. Maybe i'm alone in this but i've always played with some cohesion and sense of realism in all my campaigns and with most my players. If a player wants to make a 7 str Hercules,a 7 dex Flash, or 7 CON wolverine he's more than welcome to....take his absurdity to someone elses comedy campaign ;)

And to answer the OP- How Many People Are Legitimately Running These "Social Incompetent" Builds Real World?

NO ONE i know in RL as truly good players have no need to min/max :D

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:

Mr. Jacobs,

As a player and a GM, what is Charisma to you.

And how do you see it effecting casual encounters?

Charisma is the mental equivalent of Strength, just as Intelligence is the mental equivalent of Dexterity and Wisdom is of Constitution.

Charisma is your ability to use your personality and your magnetesim as a force; it's how you carry yourself; it's your presence; and as such it has a DEEP influence on your appearance (be that making you more attractive/ferocious looking or more forgettable or plain).

The higher your charisma, the more likely you are to have lots of friends, allies, and supporters. Leaders and movers and shakers have high charismas, generally, while followers and loners generally do not.

It affects casual encounters most often via social interaction—Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate.

This is how James Jacobs views charisma.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
RunebladeX wrote:


First off an INT of 7 is a -4 penalty. Second if 10 is average how is 7 only 10% less intelligent than average when the average is 10??

Check your rules, 6-7 is -2, 8-9 is -1, 10-11 is 0, etc.

And it's 10 percent less because 2 more of your 20 possible rolls will fail. (Although I agree that's not really accurate, that's where the numbers are coming from.)

Shadow Lodge

@ciretose: fine, my semantic argument was flawed. Please address the second two concerns:

1) "Check" means a d20 roll against a DC, so if you're allowing a check to influence starting attitude you should be using a DC. (And if this regularly comes up in your actual play before you should be able to give an example of the sorts of DC you use.)

2) Just because checks made to influence others are modified by charisma does not mean that any type of influence can be achieved by a charisma check. Example: RAW does not support changing a person's alignment with a charisma check.

Social situations are usually at least a little subjective, and GM discretion is always a factor. However, you seem to be arguing that there is specific RAW support for the call you are making, and if you are not treating this situation as a check, your argument doesn't even get off the ground.

At this point, we hit argument 2 - is this actually something that should be decided / achieved via a check, or is it unbalanced or unfair?

--

As for the general validity of using cha to influence starting attitude, while there isn't much guidance in determining starting attitude, the optional Relationships rules have two interesting points.

Firstly, your relationship is determined primarily by your experiences with a person and the actions you have taken relative to them (gifts, insults, rescuing or humiliating them).

Secondly, the effect of charisma on your score is to increase it in either a friendly or competitive direction. Meaning that charisma doesn't necessarily improve attitudes, it just makes people feel more strongly about you in either direction. And that's something to take into account if we are using GM discretion to set NPC starting attitudes without a check.

So people inclined to be friendly towards the PCs might make minor extra gestures towards the high cha person, people inclined to be indifferent will be curious (more likely to approach) but not actually more helpful or trusting, and people inclined to be hostile will likely target the high-cha PC first.

EDIT: Note I'm not talking about a significant enough effect to justify a change in mechanical attitude, just enough to notice the flavour / enjoy the RP.

Shadow Lodge

ciretose wrote:

You forgot

"Influence Attitude: Using Diplomacy to influence a creature’s attitude takes 1 minute of continuous interaction."

So any influence that takes less than a full minute of continuous interaction.

Actually:

"Make Request: Making a request of a creature takes 1 or more rounds of interaction, depending upon the complexity of the request."

If you want to make a creature more willing to help you in general, then you do need a minute, but a simple request like "could you tell me how to get to town hall?" can be made in just one round using Diplomacy.

This means that the primary use of a flat Charisma check would be to communicate with creatures of Int 3 or less or who do not share your language, or the handful of specific checks mentioned in the CRB (such as those in charm, planar binding, and enthrall).

Durinor wrote:
Ciretose: Yes, those are all other examples of when you would use Charisma, not Diplomacy - though I wonder if it is intentional that a straight Charisma check can permanently change a creatures attitude, even if it is written that way.

Is it intentional that a straight cha check can change a creature's alignment, since that would be an influence on them? The RAW is that Diplomacy doesn't permanently change an NPC's attitude, not that straight charisma checks do. It doesn't specifically forbid permanently changing an NPC's attitude with a charisma check, but I can't see any support for the idea and some evidence that that was not the intent.

Durinor wrote:

Here's my thoughts on the starting attitude of NPCs. Let’s assume that the average NPC (10 Charisma)would be indifferent to the average stranger (10 Charisma). This means that if the stranger asked for directions (DC 10) they would be successful, but if they asked for 'simple aid' (DC 15) they would be refused. That seems fair enough.

Using this system a slightly shy, homely person (Charisma 9) would have no luck getting directions out of the average person, which is harsh but I can certainly picture the scene - the hapless mumbler trying in vain to get the attention of strangers as they hurry about on their business. Almost any 'country boy in New York' movie has this trope.

The country boy from NY is probably also suffering from a -2 circumstance penalty for an unfamiliar environment.


MongoLikeCandy wrote:
Anyway, 2 minus 4 skill points still hurts. Much more than say, any positive number. Why the insistence on 2 languages?

Because communication is useful? I guess you could just go with Common since most races are going to speak that anyway and just do something with your extra skill points. And it doesn't hurt that bad.

Quote:

How much better is a Commoner of 3 Int than a Commoner of animal Intelligence at Appraise or Craft? Or, better yet, how does he do against a squirrel Commoner?

Urist McCraftySquirrel the Squirrel, puts one rank into Craft. This nets him a 0.

Urist McCantThinkNoGood the Human, puts one rank into Craft. This nets him a 0 as well.

Declaration = No difference. Well, McCraftySquirrel is at least better at being a professional due to his 12 Wisdom, I guess.

An animal commoner? Well, I suppose that's fine. I've used the warrior NPC class to represent heartier war-trained dogs who have been taught to fight viciously, so I suppose that's fair.

And yeah, I suppose if you found a squirrel that had Craft as a class skill and for some bizarre reason the squirrel had a rank placed in the appropriate craft skill, you'd end up with a +0 modifier on the skill check. Maybe you have solved beaver dams.

That's a pretty special squirrel you have there. I'd love to speak with animals with that guy. >.>

I'll mess with your head a little more. Mindless creatures have a +0 to Craft and Profession checks. Yep. I guess it's because they are just like baseline robots or something.

But if MrCraftySquirrel gets to put ranks into Craft skills (every druid needs to find out what this squirrel is eating and feed it to their animal companions) then why is it that Urist McCan'tThinkNoGood decide he has no talent with creativity and instead do something that suits him better? He places that rank into Profession and wham, life is good, because he is doing something that suits him better.

Though I'll admit, the squirrel is definitely better 'cause I'd love to have a pet that made me 20 gold pieces a month making origami nuts or something. :P

That being said, I think you're giving Urist a bit of an unfair shake. He's one out of an average of 216 commoners who happened to roll a 3 and had it assigned to Intelligence. I've been intentionally modest with the ability score assumptions, but more than likely he has some high statistics as well, given that he is statistically probable to hit between the 9-12 with the most frequency and has about a 41% to roll a 14 or so.

So if he rolled particularly terrible on Intelligence (1/216 chance of rolling a 3, with 6 chances to try) then he's probably got some average and better rolls as well. So he could probably match or beat the squirrel in other statistics rightly enough. :)

Quote:
Yes, I would fully expect his handlers to help him find alternative ways to deal with his disability. Grunty might love crafting his toy horses, but he's not getting many sales these days.

That's pretty offensive man. He doesn't have a disability, he just sucks at a lot of stuff. Calling him grunty is messed up given that he can speak one or more languages, understand moral quandary and make moral decisions, etc, etc. Saying he needs a handler is silly.

Shadow Lodge

James Jacobs wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:

Mr. Jacobs,

If you dont mind.... what is your take on this statment?

A human commoner with a 3 Intelligence (this happens frequently enough with the 3d6 die rolling method common to NPCs) and a 10 Wisdom can earn a very good living (such as Profession [Barrister] or Profession [Accountant] or Profession [Farmer] or Profession [Banker], speak two languages, and have an extra skill handy for poops and giggles, maybe meaning he has training in two professions (maybe he was also a Sailor or a chef at some point).

That's VERY unusual... but kind of fits in to the area of someone being a savant or other special case. Like Rain Man, to a certain extent. He'd only have 1 skill point per level, though, since the bonus point granted by being a human would be degraded by his Intelligence penalty to the minimum of 1 per HD.


Jacob Saltband wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:

Mr. Jacobs,

If you dont mind.... what is your take on this statment?

A human commoner with a 3 Intelligence (this happens frequently enough with the 3d6 die rolling method common to NPCs) and a 10 Wisdom can earn a very good living (such as Profession [Barrister] or Profession [Accountant] or Profession [Farmer] or Profession [Banker], speak two languages, and have an extra skill handy for poops and giggles, maybe meaning he has training in two professions (maybe he was also a Sailor or a chef at some point).

That's VERY unusual... but kind of fits in to the area of someone being a savant or other special case. Like Rain Man, to a certain extent. He'd only have 1 skill point per level, though, since the bonus point granted by being a human would be degraded by his Intelligence penalty to the minimum of 1 per HD.
Core Rulebook FAQ 03/21/13 wrote:

Human: For a low-Int human character, is the minimum number of skill ranks per level 1 or 2?

It's 1, but you add your human bonus rank at the end, so you end up with 2 ranks total.
For example, a human fighter 1 with Int 6 would start with 2 ranks, add the –2 from the Int penalty (for a total of 0 ranks), apply the "minimum 1" rule (for an adjusted total of 1 rank), then add the 1 human rank (for a total of 2 ranks).

In other words, a human should end up with more skill ranks than an otherwise-equivalent character of a different race.

I like James Jacobs, but he's not a designer. :P


Jacob Saltband wrote:
Like Rain Man, to a certain extent. He'd only have 1 skill point per level, though, since the bonus point granted by being a human would be degraded by his Intelligence penalty to the minimum of 1 per HD.

Nope, that bonus is applied after the int mod. So if you're a human fighter you can dump your int HARD.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

These arguments will rage and rage because there is not definitive answer.

The game has mechanics, these give roleplay indicators and rule modifiers. We all interpret the role play indicators differently, with two extremes.

In the point buy system there are those who cannot tolerate the thought of a player choosing a 7 stat. They also resent those players having better combat stats, spell casting stats etc. for no apparent penalty.

There are also those who cannot tolerate wasting points in a stat for no practical benefit, eg int for a human fighter/ paladin/ sorcerer who will get the same number of skill points for a 9 or a 7 int.

The two camps will never agree...

In game terms however most NPC's have an 8 in one stat if you follow the creation guidelines in Core Rules. Thats a potential 6 with a racial modifier (like all dwarf warriors and charisma).

You probably guessed, I fall into the second camp and couldn't resist a little dig ;)

Shadow Lodge

Aratrok wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:

Mr. Jacobs,

If you dont mind.... what is your take on this statment?

A human commoner with a 3 Intelligence (this happens frequently enough with the 3d6 die rolling method common to NPCs) and a 10 Wisdom can earn a very good living (such as Profession [Barrister] or Profession [Accountant] or Profession [Farmer] or Profession [Banker], speak two languages, and have an extra skill handy for poops and giggles, maybe meaning he has training in two professions (maybe he was also a Sailor or a chef at some point).

That's VERY unusual... but kind of fits in to the area of someone being a savant or other special case. Like Rain Man, to a certain extent. He'd only have 1 skill point per level, though, since the bonus point granted by being a human would be degraded by his Intelligence penalty to the minimum of 1 per HD.
Core Rulebook FAQ 03/21/13 wrote:

Human: For a low-Int human character, is the minimum number of skill ranks per level 1 or 2?

It's 1, but you add your human bonus rank at the end, so you end up with 2 ranks total.
For example, a human fighter 1 with Int 6 would start with 2 ranks, add the –2 from the Int penalty (for a total of 0 ranks), apply the "minimum 1" rule (for an adjusted total of 1 rank), then add the 1 human rank (for a total of 2 ranks).

In other words, a human should end up with more skill ranks than an otherwise-equivalent character of a different race.

I like James Jacobs, but he's not a designer. :P

Ok so send Ashiel's sample character to SKR or whoever you have access to and ask them their take on the example. I'd like to see what a designer would have to say.

Shadow Lodge

I've been corrected. Any creature that has a level in a class can take a favored bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Ok so send Ashiel's sample character to SKR or whoever you have access to and ask them their take on the example. I'd like to see what a designer would have to say.

Why would I want to hear what SKR says? I'd rather read the rules rather than what SKR thinks the rules are today.


Ashiel wrote:
MongoLikeCandy wrote:
Anyway, 2 minus 4 skill points still hurts. Much more than say, any positive number. Why the insistence on 2 languages?
Because communication is useful? I guess you could just go with Common since most races are going to speak that anyway and just do something with your extra skill points. And it doesn't hurt that bad.

I'm guessing his conversations would be rather dull.

Quote:
Quote:

How much better is a Commoner of 3 Int than a Commoner of animal Intelligence at Appraise or Craft? Or, better yet, how does he do against a squirrel Commoner?

Urist McCraftySquirrel the Squirrel, puts one rank into Craft. This nets him a 0.

Urist McCantThinkNoGood the Human, puts one rank into Craft. This nets him a 0 as well.

Declaration = No difference. Well, McCraftySquirrel is at least better at being a professional due to his 12 Wisdom, I guess.

An animal commoner? Well, I suppose that's fine. I've used the warrior NPC class to represent heartier war-trained dogs who have been taught to fight viciously, so I suppose that's fair.

And yeah, I suppose if you found a squirrel that had Craft as a class skill and for some bizarre reason the squirrel had a rank placed in the appropriate craft skill, you'd end up with a +0 modifier on the skill check. Maybe you have solved beaver dams.

That's a pretty special squirrel you have there. I'd love to speak with animals with that guy. >.>

Actually, he's not very special at all. At least, not compared to McCantThinkNoGood.
Quote:
The difference between a Commoner with 11 Intelligence and 3 Intelligence in terms of skill points gained per HD is 1 skill point. However, as the score drops lower, the character becomes less and less capable at Intelligence-based skills. That means things like Appraise, Craft, Knowledge skills, and Spellcraft are all 20% worse off than the guy who has an 11.

Animals, after all, are only 20% worse off than a guy who has an 11 Int.

Quote:
I'll mess with your head a little more. Mindless creatures have a +0 to Craft and Profession checks. Yep. I guess it's because they are just like baseline robots or something.

Yep, they have more raw ability in Craft skills than McCantThinkNoGood.

Quote:
But if MrCraftySquirrel gets to put ranks into Craft skills (every druid needs to find out what this squirrel is eating and feed it to their animal companions) then why is it that Urist McCan'tThinkNoGood decide he has no talent with creativity and instead do something that suits him better? He places that rank into Profession and wham, life is good, because he is doing something that suits him better.

Sure, he can do something else. I mean, he's got near animal level intelligence. A Druid's 4th lvl Animal Companion can be as intelligent as he is. I certainly hope he's got something else to fall back on. Poor fella.

Quote:

Though I'll admit, the squirrel is definitely better 'cause I'd love to have a pet that made me 20 gold pieces a month making origami nuts or something. :P

That being said, I think you're giving Urist a bit of an unfair shake. He's one out of an average of 216 commoners who happened to roll a 3 and had it assigned to Intelligence. I've been intentionally modest with the ability score assumptions, but more than likely he has some high statistics as well, given that he is statistically probable to hit between the 9-12 with the most frequency and has about a 41% to roll a 14 or so.

Once again, I certainly hope he has something else going for him. Lest he be defeated by wet paper bags and the like. Not sure what it'd have to do with the discussion, though. I mean, what if he just really loves crafting Alchemical items? What if his life was ruined by not being able to do what he loves!?

Fact of the matter is, he is no better at thought than a Commoner squirrel. The squirrel is no more intelligent than his brethren. Just better trained.

If you'd like to rationalize your world as having 1 out of 216 people as dumb as a squirrel, go ahead.

Quote:
So if he rolled particularly terrible on Intelligence (1/216 chance of rolling a 3, with 6 chances to try) then he's probably got some average and better rolls as well. So he could probably match or beat the squirrel in other statistics rightly enough. :)

Hopefully he puts his +2 Racial modifier into Intelligence. In any case,

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, I would fully expect his handlers to help him find alternative ways to deal with his disability. Grunty might love crafting his toy horses, but he's not getting many sales these days.
That's pretty offensive man. He doesn't have a disability, he just sucks at a lot of stuff. Calling him grunty is messed up given that he can speak one or more languages, understand moral quandary and make moral decisions, etc, etc. Saying he needs a handler is silly.

Animal companions can understand one or more languages. Just a simple Int increase at lvl 4. Animals can understand moral quandary and make moral decisions as well. What makes him better than an Animal Companion? What makes him better than a familiar?

Do you characterize familiars as being animal-like? They are twice as intelligent as ol'Grunty.


Quote:

Animal companions can understand one or more languages. Just a simple Int increase at lvl 4. Animals can understand moral quandary and make moral decisions as well. What makes him better than an Animal Companion? What makes him better than a familiar?

Do you characterize familiars as being animal-like? They are twice as intelligent as ol'Grunty.

Once the animal companion's Intelligence rises to 3+ then it is the range of human Intelligence. Same with familiars. They're now as smart as humans and can moral and philosophical decisions, understand languages, etc.

To me you're saying "Here is an animal that is as smart as a human, so this human is only as smart as an animal". But he's only as smart as an animal that is as smart as a human. Ergo he's as smart as a human. No complaints here. And the reason I say that squirrel is really amazing and special is because of this:

PRD wrote:

Traits: An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).

  • Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).

There's several other locations in the rules that say if an animal gains an Int score higher than 3 they become a magical beast.


Quote:
I'm guessing his conversations would be rather dull.

Hard to say. That would probably be governed his social skills. I've met people who have nothing to add or contribute in a challenging way to a conversation but were the life of the conversation, often asked interesting questions, or kept the conversation enjoyable.


so as an example my sickly half-nymph noblewoman whom dresses in doll like fashion and has

Str 5
Dex 14
Con 7
Int 19 (20 at 4th level, 22 at 12th etc)
Wis 14
Cha 18

could look like a fragile little living doll with a half-elven appearance, whom due to her reknowned generosity, cute and appealing appearance, and sweet words, has the power to persuade others by appealing to their kinder and more protective aspects?

effectively, she pulls emotional strings, but she does so in a way that seems kind, sweet, and helpful. she draws a lot of friends whom would willingly give their lives to protect her because she seems so vulnerable, helpless, and seems so inspiring. it's like her aura is similar to a nonmagical compulsion effect that draws the protective older sibling aspect in everyone's heart, making people more willing to protect her, spoil her, and on occasion, abduct or assault her because they so badly want her to themselves. yet those around her, feel less inhibited by her Amity and Passion inspiring aura, which makes warriors fight harder, the sour people more friendly, makes Tsunderes more Tsundere and so on.

essentially, she can make her most bitter of enemies, willing to protect her with merely a minute to persuade them


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regarding Scars: The more pertinent question is why doesn't everyone with scars get a reduction to Charisma skills? It's hard to imagine a Fighter who doesn't earn a fair number of scars in his profession, but these scars don't usually affect his Charisma in a negative way unless he takes a specific feat that explicitly says so. So why don't all scars impact your Charisma and social skills? Why don't magical disguised remove these penalties (or bonuses, for that matter)? Because that's not what Charisma is. The scar is merely a focus, a talisman so to speak, for your increased confidence and force of personality. If someone earns several scars and obsesses about them in a negative way, it represents a reduction in their Charisma (or effective Charisma). History of Scars applies a penalty to all Charisma skills, including Intimidate. Having a body covered in scars and leveraging that through this feat makes you less intimidating. Why? Because you're thinking about the failure that each of those scars represents; a moment where your defenses weren't good enough. Thousands of such moments. It impacts your confidence and, without confidence, you have a harder time intimidating, bluffing, even using magical devices (it takes confidence and force of personality to "short-circuit" the rules of magic). By contrast, say you have Scars that increase your Charisma; sexy and exotic scars can give you bonuses to Charisma or charisma-based skills. In this case, instead of obsessing about the failure the scar represents, you gain confidence from the success it represents; you survived a close call. Or, lastly, the scars neither empower you nor do they bother you. It's a just a scar and you invested no feat or stat bonus to Charisma to represent it.

Regarding Charisma checks to influence people, perhaps it's referring to opposed Charisma checks as with Charm Person or in who's orders the subject of two different Command Undead casters will obey or the like? Seems like already extant calls for Charisma Checks with mechanics and everything is a much more reliable explanation for this line under the effects of the Charisma stat than this notion of affecting starting attitude with no mechanical explanation of precisely how.


Ashiel wrote:

Once the animal companion's Intelligence rises to 3+ then it is the range of human Intelligence. Same with familiars. They're now as smart as humans and can moral and philosophical decisions, understand languages, etc.

To me you're saying "Here is an animal that is as smart as a human, so this human is only as smart as an animal". But he's only as smart as an animal that is as smart as a human. Ergo he's as smart as a human. No complaints here. And the reason I say that squirrel is really amazing and special is because of this:

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying he's only as smart as other barely intelligent creatures. How often do you see Animal Companions with Craft (alchemy) or Profession (architect) ranks?

Also, by your measure, he's only as smart as a 2 Intelligence creature. He earns the same number of skill points (aside from the racial bonus) and has the same penalty score.

Quote:
PRD wrote:

Traits: An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).

  • Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).

There's several other locations in the rules that say if an animal gains an Int score higher than 3 they become a magical beast.

Who said Urist McCraftySquirrel had an intelligence of 3? He's just as smart as other squirrels. Plus, you don't become a magical beast for having an intelligence higher than 2.

Quote:
Note that while the monster guidelines talk about a maximum Int for an animal, this only applies to the creation process. Giving an animal a higher Intelligence score does not somehow transform it into a magical beast, unless the effect says otherwise, such as in the case of awaken. Animals can grow to have an Int higher than 2 through a variety of means, but they should not, as a general rule, be created that way.

Source

Kazaan, what are the rules for gaining scars? As far as I know, no one gets any unless they want them or something specifically says so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I had a Paladin who tanked Con to 7 to represent a blood disorder that she had that left her with a very low red bloodcell count which causes her to become fatigued faster, effectively bled out faster, and she had some other issues. Her father spent a lot of time away from home searching for some sort of cure for her condition, because according to the healers it wasn't actually a disease and they couldn't heal it.

Since her father spent so much time away from home looking for some sort of panacea to cure her she was resented by her mother for driving him away from them, and so she was often mistreated because her mother became very short tempered with her and would often punish her for trivial things. When her father took an exceptionally long time to return from one of his outings, her mother assumed the worst and blamed the character for his apparent demise and threw her out of the house (the PC didn't know that eventually her father returned home having been delayed in another city for a few months due to dangers along the roads, and neither of the parents knew where their daughter was at that point).

She was taken in by a church of Wee Jass (a lawful neutral goddess of death and magic) where she learned faith and developed a special bond and adoration for her patron. Some of the members of the church taught her to be strong and to fight. Eventually she felt she was being called to leave the church and so she became a wanderer. She never called herself a Paladin and probably looked more like a witch with weapons, and was often somewhat blunt and forward in a way that made her feel accessible rather than offensive in most cases.

Part of her paladin journey and overlying campaign arc included seeking out the knowledge to become an arclich (those are the good-aligned liches in 3.x/3.5 like the Baelnorn) as a form of "cure" to her condition and so she could continue to wander the world and do what she felt needed to be done.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Charisma is a tricky stat to characterize, because a low score doesn't just mean you're not witty or charming. It means you're not *scary* either, and also (if you're an NPC, at least) that you're easily manipulated through Diplomacy.

So when a character with single-digit charisma comes into the room, people don't see a slavering death-dealer (unless you've put a lot of points into intimidate). What they see is a dumpy, unimpressive looking guy who mumbles and fidgets and probably smells bad. Not, like, frighteningly bad, just "wow, I really don't want to be in the same room with this person" bad.

To put it another way, having a low Charisma and no social skills means that, even if you're the legendary savior of all worlds known and unknown, when you show up some place everyone looks disappointed and mutters something about how they thought you'd be taller.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MongoLikeCandy wrote:
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying he's only as smart as other barely intelligent creatures. How often do you see Animal Companions with Craft (alchemy) or Profession (architect) ranks?

Oh I see. Well there's a big jump from 2 Int to 3 Int outside of the usual mechanics for Intelligence. 3 Int is the milestone into human Intelligence range, when you can speak languages and have an alignment. It's a separate mechanic from the standard 5% deviations.

Quote:
Also, by your measure, he's only as smart as a 2 Intelligence creature. He earns the same number of skill points (aside from the racial bonus) and has the same penalty score.

Nope. He has the same modifier to those skills but he's smarter than a 2 Int animal because he has 3 Int which grants him human levels of Intelligence.

Quote:
Note that while the monster guidelines talk about a maximum Int for an animal, this only applies to the creation process. Giving an animal a higher Intelligence score does not somehow transform it into a magical beast, unless the effect says otherwise, such as in the case of awaken. Animals can grow to have an Int higher than 2 through a variety of means, but they should not, as a general rule, be created that way.
Source

Haha, that's amusing. That means every Heavy Warhorse is incredibly Intelligent, should have a language (such as the language of its owners), and an alignment. It also means that if I take this FAQ as RAW then my players would really hate dealing with animals. I wonder what they're going to think when some dude's horse comes up and writes them a message in the dirt with its hooves saying "Hey, you look like murderous hobos if I've ever seen them, so what say you and I go on an adventure. I know where this old treasure cache is because my former owner - the slaving bastard - died trying to get it. So I propose we be partners and split the treasure evenly".

Honestly this FAQ is bizarre. The only animals who are restricted in what feats they are allowed to take are animal companions. There is no rule for general animals being restricted in what feats they can use. And the animal companions that druids get are not normal for their kind since they do not share statistics with them.

The FAQ doesn't even make sense. You can have an animal that understands you, can make complex decisions, and so forth, but you have to make a Handle Animal check to try to get the animal to bring you an object instead of saying "Hey Rex, can you bring me that pencil? Thanks man, you're the best dinosaur ever, for real".

"Rex, heel! What the? Do not look at me that way! Oh no, do not give me the second finger! What has gotten into you? What if I give you a treat? I can do WHAT with my treat!?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

I had a Paladin who tanked Con to 7 to represent a blood disorder that she had that left her with a very low red bloodcell count which causes her to become fatigued faster, effectively bled out faster, and she had some other issues. Her father spent a lot of time away from home searching for some sort of cure for her condition, because according to the healers it wasn't actually a disease and they couldn't heal it.

Since her father spent so much time away from home looking for some sort of panacea to cure her she was resented by her mother for driving him away from them, and so she was often mistreated because her mother became very short tempered with her and would often punish her for trivial things. When her father took an exceptionally long time to return from one of his outings, her mother assumed the worst and blamed the character for his apparent demise and threw her out of the house (the PC didn't know that eventually her father returned home having been delayed in another city for a few months due to dangers along the roads, and neither of the parents knew where their daughter was at that point).

She was taken in by a church of Wee Jass (a lawful neutral goddess of death and magic) where she learned faith and developed a special bond and adoration for her patron. Some of the members of the church taught her to be strong and to fight. Eventually she felt she was being called to leave the church and so she became a wanderer. She never called herself a Paladin and probably looked more like a witch with weapons, and was often somewhat blunt and forward in a way that made her feel accessible rather than offensive in most cases.

Part of her paladin journey and overlying campaign arc included seeking out the knowledge to become an arclich (those are the good-aligned liches in 3.x/3.5 like the Baelnorn) as a form of "cure" to her condition and so she could continue to wander the world and do what she felt needed to be done.

your paladin had a lack of Red Blood Cells?

my Half-Nymph bard had the reverse, an excess of red blood cells that seemed highly detrimental and quite hindering, the excess of blood production would pool in such odd locations as her lungs, she couldn't produce enough iron to keep up with the blood, giving her anemia as a side affect, the fact she had a habit of wheezing, choking on the blood in her lungs and having to cough it up, made it seem she had some combination of asthma and tuberculosis.

as fluff, she used magic to make the symptoms more managable, to make normal social interaction more feasible, but when highly stressed or heavily engrossed in a dire situation. she had a chance of failing to cast her spell as she coughed up a bit of blood whilst chanting. which was the fluff for failing a concentration check, not a new mechanic. in fact, if she failed a skill check, attack roll or other d20 based function it was generally assumed to be because she was busy choking on or hacking up blood. she learned quickly to avoid personal confrontation when she coughed excessively in response to the discomfort.


Ashiel wrote:
Oh I see. Well there's a big jump from 2 Int to 3 Int outside of the usual mechanics for Intelligence. 3 Int is the milestone into human Intelligence range, when you can speak languages and have an alignment. It's a separate mechanic from the standard 5% deviations.

This is true of animals. However, what about other creature types. I don't recall ever seeing rules stating that other creatures below 2 Int cannot speak or have an alignment. Does Grunty lose his speech if he drops below 2? Why?

In any case, do you have to speak and have an alignment to be intelligent?

Quote:
Nope. He has the same modifier to those skills but he's smarter than a 2 Int animal because he has 3 Int which grants him human levels of Intelligence.

Yep, he's a 50% smarter than a normal animal. The average person is only over 200% more intelligent than he is.

I mean, why only define intelligence by modifier if the rules are supposedly calling for such a drastic change within the same modifier bracket?

Quote:
Note that while the monster guidelines talk about a maximum Int for an animal, this only applies to the creation process. Giving an animal a higher Intelligence score does not somehow transform it into a magical beast, unless the effect says otherwise, such as in the case of awaken. Animals can grow to have an Int higher than 2 through a variety of means, but they should not, as a general rule, be created that way.
Source
Quote:

Haha, that's amusing. That means every Heavy Warhorse is incredibly Intelligent, should have a language (such as the language of its owners), and an alignment. It also means that if I take this FAQ as RAW then my players would really hate dealing with animals. I wonder what they're going to think when some dude's horse comes up and writes them a message in the dirt with its hooves saying "Hey, you look like murderous hobos if I've ever seen them, so what say you and I go on an adventure. I know where this old treasure cache is because my former owner - the slaving bastard - died trying to get it. So I propose we be partners and split the treasure evenly".

Honestly this FAQ is bizarre....

Er, since when did Heavy Warhorse's have an Int higher than 2?


A Heavy Horse is a normal horse with the Advanced template. If the animal intelligence limit doesn't apply after creation, then the horse would have 2 + 4 = 6 Int. Which is the case if you alter the rules to function as that post suggests they do.

Shadow Lodge

Jacob Saltband wrote:
Ok so send Ashiel's sample character to SKR or whoever you have access to and ask them their take on the example. I'd like to see what a designer would have to say.

You just responded to a post quoting the FAQ stating that the human bonus skill point is on top of the minimum 1 skill point per HD. An FAQ is about as official as it gets.

MongoLikeCandy wrote:
Who said Urist McCraftySquirrel had an intelligence of 3? He's just as smart as other squirrels. Plus, you don't become a magical beast for having an intelligence higher than 2.

By allowing him to take ranks in Craft or Profession, you're implying Int 3:

Animal Companion Skills wrote:

Animal companions can assign skill ranks to any skill listed under Animal Skills. If an animal companion increases its Intelligence to 10 or higher, it gains bonus skill ranks as normal. Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can purchase ranks in any skill. An animal companion cannot have more ranks in a skill than it has Hit Dice.

Animal companions can have ranks in any of the following skills:

Acrobatics* (Dex), Climb* (Str), Escape Artist (Dex), Fly* (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Perception* (Wis), Stealth* (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim* (Str).

Though this rule specifically deals with animal companions, it strongly suggests that Int 3 is a pre-requisite for some skills, Craft included, so a normal squirrel can't lean it. An animal companion of a 4th level druid who increased their companion's intelligence could take Craft, but in that case as Ashiel pointed out you are talking about a supernaturally smart animal and so it's not a great comparison. Not to mention that many animals are much smarter than most people give them credit for. Corvids have excellent problem-solving skills - just google "crow tool use." And songbird song appears to be learned in a way similar to human language.

Personally, I don't think 3.X/PF handles animal intelligence well. There's a firm cut-off between "20% more likely to fail at remembering facts and solving puzzles" and "cannot speak or learn most skills or feats" and no real guidance for reconciling that cut-off.

Note that the Village Idiot, Int 4, is described as being able to represent any "simple commoner" given a Craft or Profession skill.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

That's a cool flavor Lumiere. And yeah, I figured that a low red blood cell count would be a pretty good explanation for why she was pale and sickly and became winded faster than most people (I figured red blood cells add to our skin coloration and carry oxygen through the body, etc).

I could have flavored it lots of ways, but it felt most right for the character I was going for who had worse health and was more prone to being sick than her peers even though her physical statistics were otherwise pretty awesome (she had a 14 Str / Dex / Con 7).

She drew on her powerful Charisma and supernatural powers to allow her to transcend the limits she was born with. She didn't sleep either, which added to her mystery. She was this pale wanderer who didn't sleep and often ate or drank less than her peers (this was because she would remove the fatigued condition each day through her Lay on Hands and could remove the fatigued condition from lack of food or water, though she would eventually starve to death through the nonlethal damage if she didn't eat or drink SOMETHING). She didn't consider herself an emissary of her goddess or a paladin in title, just a wandering fool with too much heart to not get involved in things, and she knew it'd likely get her killed some day.

She also enjoyed hanging out in taverns where she reveled and partied but drank green tea ('cause she found out about green tea during her wandering and fell in love with the stuff, so she carries a pile of green tealeaves rolled up in her gear that she uses when she's in her downtime).

She once beat some evil monster half to death with her fists (she wears spiked gauntlets and spiked armor) during a smite, stabilized it so it wouldn't die, dropped back on a nearby rock rubbing the blood and sweat off her face and lamented about how troublesome this job was and how she really wished she was at the tavern drinking and ****ing. She ended up burying the evil monster guy in the dirt up to the neck and when he came to she offered him some of her food and had a long talk with him about what he had been doing. And apologized for giving him what amounted to a smite-ryuken in the face earlier.

601 to 650 of 720 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / How Many People Are Legitimately Running These "Social Incompetent" Builds Real World? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.