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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

651 to 700 of 720 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

Aratrok wrote:
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.

Sorry, I'm only going off the SRD here. Help me out.

Simple Advanced Template
Heavy, Horse


I'm not sure what you need help with.

Quote:

Heavy horses are larger and heartier, bred for labor such as pulling plows or carriages. These horses gain the following adjustments to the base horse statistics:

A heavy horse gains the Advanced Simple Template (already applied here). In addition, it also gains a bite attack that inflicts 1d4 damage, and its hoof damage increases to 1d6. As with a light horse, a heavy horse can be specifically trained for combat with the Handle Animal skill.

You take normal light horse statistics, and you stick the Advanced template on them. Part of the Advanced template is increasing all ability scores by 4, which in the context of that blog post would mean increasing Int from 2 to 6.


Weirdo wrote:


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...

Suggests is not the same as rules, unfortunately. And why, if there's nothing wrong mechanically speaking, I should be able to create such a squirrel, correct? Ashiel would think so.

Quote:

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.

Creatures, aside from animals, can speak and learn most skills or feats. Irregardless of their Intelligence. It's not until they become mindless do you see mechanical effects, as far as I know.

The village idiot IS a simple commoner by definition. Otherwise, there is the Commoner class.


MongoLikeCandy wrote:
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?

Actually, yes.

CORE RULEBOOK - GETTING STARTED wrote:

Intelligence (Int)

Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. This ability is important for wizards because it affects their spellcasting ability in many ways. Creatures of animal-level instinct have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2. Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3. A character with an Intelligence score of 0 is comatose. Some creatures do not possess an Intelligence score. Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based skills or checks.

So yes, if your character gets Intelligence drained (not damaged) down to less than 3 Intelligence you can't speak/understand speech and are no longer of human Intelligence, you are of animal intelligence.

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

Yes, because having a 3+ Int means you can have an alignment other than Neutral and can have a language. Also the rules say nothing about what creatures can or cannot speak outside of polymorph effects which say that you must have some sort of anatomy or ability to speak to cast spells while in an appropriate form.

By RAW, if you come across a deer in the woods and its Intelligence is 3+ then the deer might be able to speak, and it might be a magical beast since the animal type says animals cannot have greater than 2 Int. It probably has more right to speak than elementals who don't even have mouths or the anatomy to speak at all but they can still converse in languages.

Quote:

Sorry, I'm only going off the SRD here. Help me out.

Simple Advanced Template
Heavy, Horse

That's because the d20pfsrd.com goes by the rules. The rules say an animal cannot have more than a 2 Int and still be an animal, so they capped the horse at 2 Int despite applying the advanced template.


Aratrok wrote:

I'm not sure what you need help with.

Quote:

Heavy horses are larger and heartier, bred for labor such as pulling plows or carriages. These horses gain the following adjustments to the base horse statistics:

A heavy horse gains the Advanced Simple Template (already applied here). In addition, it also gains a bite attack that inflicts 1d4 damage, and its hoof damage increases to 1d6. As with a light horse, a heavy horse can be specifically trained for combat with the Handle Animal skill.

You take normal light horse statistics, and you stick the Advanced template on them. Part of the Advanced template is increasing all ability scores by 4, which in the context of that blog post would mean increasing Int from 2 to 6.

Let's try this again:

Horse stats wrote:
Str 20, Dex 18, Con 21, Int 2, Wis 17, Cha 11
Horse Description wrote:
A heavy horse gains the Advanced Simple Template (already applied here).
Simple Advance Template wrote:
Rebuild Rules: AC increase natural armor by +2; Ability Scores +4 to all ability scores (except Int scores of 2 or less)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) There is no official stat block for heavy horses
2) There are rules for figuring out the stats of heavy horses (much like dragons of different age categories)
3) d20pfsrd is a 3rd party site that does some of that legwork for you
4) That stat block was made by people following the rules for creating a heavy horse, not published by Paizo
5) That stat block was created before the blog post you referenced (and I daresay it's a good idea to ignore that blog post, since it results in a lot of problems as discussed in other posts)

Does that clear things up?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is the reason I have so very little faith in the FAQ. I've seen it screw more stuff up than it solves, frequently ignores rules or tries to change the rules instead of just explaining what they do. In many cases it's more like "Ask the Devs about their house rules" than a real FAQ.


Ashiel wrote:
MongoLikeCandy wrote:
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?

Actually, yes.

CORE RULEBOOK - GETTING STARTED wrote:

Intelligence (Int)

Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. This ability is important for wizards because it affects their spellcasting ability in many ways. Creatures of animal-level instinct have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2. Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3. A character with an Intelligence score of 0 is comatose. Some creatures do not possess an Intelligence score. Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based skills or checks.

Aha! Thank you for a definitive answer!

Quote:
So yes, if your character gets Intelligence drained (not damaged) down to less than 3 Intelligence you can't speak/understand speech and are no longer of human Intelligence, you are of animal intelligence.

Agreed

Quote:
Quote:
In any case, do you have to speak and have an alignment to be intelligent?
Yes, because having a 3+ Int means you can have an alignment other than Neutral and can have a language. Also the rules say nothing about what creatures can or cannot speak outside of polymorph effects which say that you must have some sort of anatomy or ability to speak to cast spells while in an appropriate form.

Okay, so would you mind finding the rules that say less than a 3 intelligence you have to default to neutral?

All I can find is that alignment states:

Quote:
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral.

It doesn't say creatures of animal intelligence. What makes you capable of moral action?

Quote:
By RAW, if you come across a deer in the woods and its Intelligence is 3+ then the deer might be able to speak, and it might be a magical beast since the animal type says animals cannot have greater than 2 Int. It probably has more right to speak than elementals who don't even have mouths or the anatomy to speak at all but they can still converse in languages.

What sense does it make for it to completely change type due to an ability score increase? No other creature does this. This makes a particularly smart monkey end up in the same category as Hydras and somehow gets darkvision and higher HD.

On the other hand, you can have humans of double or triple the average Intelligence score (or any ability) and they are still human.

Quote:

They do and this is an intentional change we are making. The rules leave no room for an animal to gain intelligence without somehow transforming into a magical beast, which comes with a whole host of changes. There has to be room here for corner cases and exceptions, which this absolute rule does not allow.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Quote:
Quote:

Sorry, I'm only going off the SRD here. Help me out.

Simple Advanced Template
Heavy, Horse

That's because the d20pfsrd.com goes by the rules. The rules say an animal cannot have...

See post in reply to Aratok.


Aratrok wrote:

1) There is no official stat block for heavy horses

2) There are rules for figuring out the stats of heavy horses (much like dragons of different age categories)
3) d20pfsrd is a 3rd party site that does some of that legwork for you
4) That stat block was made by people following the rules for creating a heavy horse, not published by Paizo
5) That stat block was created before the blog post you referenced (and I daresay it's a good idea to ignore that blog post, since it results in a lot of problems as discussed in other posts)

Does that clear things up?

Okay, so, unless the Advanced Template rules I see are incorrect, the Heavy Warhorse you build yourself will still end up with 2 Int.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

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).

my half-nymph was also really pale, with black hair and blue eyes. and rather than hanging out in taverns, she hung out in ballrooms, and whatever the fantasy equivalent to a nightclub would be

her race wasn't too different from a lightly reskinned half-elf with some alternate racials and a different set of racial modifiers. (+2 int/+2 cha/-2 Str, Fey instead of humanoid, fey foundling instead of adaptability. skilled instead of multitalented)

she also tended to do performances as a puppeteer (Act) ventriloquist (oratory) dancer (Dance) a Comedian, a Vocalist, and a Pianist. only the first 3 were versatile performances

she eventually learned the secret to lichdom and became an immortal undead of non-malicious intent, not all bones or rotting, more like a well preserved and well maintained doll. and took a few houseruled feats to be healed by both positive and negative energy (around 13th level, 1 level after she became a lich)

everybody assumed she was just a wealthy and terminally ill half-elf, even after lichdom. after 12 levels of high risk, she gained a huge defensive boost on the 13th.

no interest in ending the world or any crazy plots, merely overcoming her illness, and when she did, her goal changed to helping others with the flaws that irked them.


Yeah, and the FAQ says you can get animals with Int greater than 2 and cites the Advanced Template as one method of doing so. Again, like I said, the d20pfsrd.com follows the rules. The FAQ is not the rules. I've never seen anyone who prints out and carries the FAQ with them when they go to play the game, we break open the book and maybe errata as it's released; or we read the PRD which is a good portable tool.

As to the alignment thing below 3 Int, there's nothing in Pathfinder that specifically says animals and other creatures incapable of moral action. In pre-Pathfinder it was clearer. There's nothing about animals other than their lack of Intelligence that would make them incapable of moral action, but since Pathfinder left out some stuff that it continues to reference from 3.x, we can agree to disagree on this one.


so even if my neutral evil dwarven druid has a chaotic evil talking dire jaguar companion? the dire jaguar follows the following guidelines

it has an intelligence of 3
it is combat trained
it has a chaotic evil alignment
it speaks and understands dwarven
it uses the stat block of the big cat animal companion
it wears masterwork studded leather barding with no feats spent on proficiency (no ACP)

this should be a viable feline combat pet

but appearantly, the middle 2 portions are impossible because of a FAQ


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

so even if my neutral evil dwarven druid has a chaotic evil talking dire jaguar companion? the dire jaguar follows the following guidelines

it has an intelligence of 3
it is combat trained
it has a chaotic evil alignment
it speaks and understands dwarven
it uses the stat block of the big cat animal companion
it wears masterwork studded leather barding with no feats spent on proficiency (no ACP)

this should be a viable feline combat pet

but appearantly, the middle 2 portions are impossible because of a FAQ

Oh, and don't forget that even though it's now of human intelligence and can even learn your language you can't simply ask or tell your companion to do something, you must actually make a Handle Animal check to get them to preform a trick.

That's probably the most ridiculous part of the whole thing. Here you have a creature who is as intelligent as a human being, capable of moral activity, capable of communicating via a language, and you couldn't just ask him to bring the newspaper into the house when he came in, or asking him to use the toilet instead of the gardenias.

Maybe I should start forcing my players to make Handle Animal checks on their cohorts or other NPCs. I can see it now.

Knight: "Squire, grab your sword and hold off that ruffian!"
Squire: "No."
Knight: "Dafuq man?"
Squire: "Roll your handle animal check to push me. I'm not trained to be your guard dog."
Knight: "You're not a dog you fool!"
Squire: "Dude, your horse beat me a rock paper scissors today and showed me how to hunt and field dress a deer, and you still have to roll Handle Animal to get him to do stuff."
Knight: "That is entirely irrelevant!"
Squire: "Why?"
Knight: "I have no idea, but will you please block the ruffians? Here, handle animal 15, are you happy?"
Squire: "Whatever..."
Knight: "Okay Silver, let us go forth and lance these ruffians!"
Horse: "Actually, y'know, that squire has a point. Give me a Diplomacy check."
Knight: "Oh for ****-sakes!"

Shadow Lodge

The FAQ are rules clarifications as asked by people through the forums and emails and such.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

so even if my neutral evil dwarven druid has a chaotic evil talking dire jaguar companion? the dire jaguar follows the following guidelines

it has an intelligence of 3
it is combat trained
it has a chaotic evil alignment
it speaks and understands dwarven
it uses the stat block of the big cat animal companion
it wears masterwork studded leather barding with no feats spent on proficiency (no ACP)

this should be a viable feline combat pet

but appearantly, the middle 2 portions are impossible because of a FAQ

How so? Alignment I understand. Why can't he understand Dwarven if he still has Int 3?

*Edit - Scratch that. Too off topic already.


Actually the druid animal companion rules actually note that druid animal companions are not normal animals. In fact, it even has to point out:

PRD wrote:

Unlike normal animals of its kind, an animal companion's Hit Dice, abilities, skills, and feats advance as the druid advances in level. If a character receives an animal companion from more than one source, her effective druid levels stack for the purposes of determining the statistics and abilities of the companion. Most animal companions increase in size when their druid reaches 4th or 7th level, depending on the companion. If a druid releases her companion from service, she may gain a new one by performing a ceremony requiring 24 uninterrupted hours of prayer in the environment where the new companion typically lives. This ceremony can also replace an animal companion that has perished.

An animal companion's abilities are determined by the druid's level and its animal racial traits. Table: Animal Companion Base Statistics determines many of the base statistics of the animal companion. They remain creatures of the animal type for purposes of determining which spells can affect them.

It's already called out as not following the normal rules for animals, and according to this its type is only considered an animal for the purposes of stuff affecting them as animals.

EDIT: A druid's animal companion is to animals as a summoner's eidolon is to the creatures it is intended to look like. Looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, but strangely it's not really not a duck but more like a duck-like class feature that functions under its own special laws that show it's not a duck.


MongoLikeCandy wrote:
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.

If a specific benefit calls out scars, then you follow that. Otherwise, it's a fluff explanation for other mechanical benefits; ie. your stat boost every 4 levels could be a Charisma point explained by a proud scar you earned in combat. It was the event that bolstered your confidence, not the scar itself, but the scar serves as a convenient and visible trophy for you. But the primary point is that physical qualities are not the source of Charisma any more than wearing glasses is a source of Intelligence. Charisma is your confidence, force of personality, and how well you attract attention. Your physical appearance is a tool of your Charisma, for better or for worse. Three warriors, one with 15 Cha, one with 11, and the other with 7 Cha, each earn a highly visible scar somewhere on their body. The 7 Cha character is highly self-conscious of it. Even if he covers it up, magically disguises it, even magically heals it, he knows it's there. He doesn't like it and hopes others don't really notice it, but the more he obsesses about it, the more other people will notice it and notice that he's uncomfortable with it. That blunts his ability to hold sway over others as well as commanding abilities rooted in his confidence. He may, otherwise, be a highly capable and effective fighter, but he focuses on his mistakes rather than his accomplishments. Meanwhile, the 15 Cha fighter is proud of his scar and uses it to his best advantage to show what a badass he is, especially when trying to persuade others. The confidence that it represents (not generates, but represents) bolsters his ability to use magic devices (If I could survive that axe to the face, using some magic stick shouldn't be that hard). Again, it says nothing about his capabilities; his confidence in his abilities may or may not be warranted, but the bottom line is that he has a high level of confidence. Lastly, we have the 11 Cha fighter. Scars happen; nothing to obsess over and nothing to be particularly proud of. And this isn't limited just to scars; it could be anything. Effects that reduce your Charisma through prominent scarring are actually shaking your self-confidence. As with History of Scars, for example, after taking so many hits you start to think, "wow, maybe I'm not as awesome as I thought if I've taken this many hits". It could just as well be male pattern baldness making you think about aging and mortality or the death of a loved one because you failed to protect them or whatever. How it's explained is fluff. The actual stat being targeted is the mental stat that governs self-confidence and uses physical appearance (among other traits including your speech/vocabulary, body-language/posture, etc) as a tool of expression.


MongoLikeCandy wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

so even if my neutral evil dwarven druid has a chaotic evil talking dire jaguar companion? the dire jaguar follows the following guidelines

it has an intelligence of 3
it is combat trained
it has a chaotic evil alignment
it speaks and understands dwarven
it uses the stat block of the big cat animal companion
it wears masterwork studded leather barding with no feats spent on proficiency (no ACP)

this should be a viable feline combat pet

but appearantly, the middle 2 portions are impossible because of a FAQ

How so? Alignment I understand. Why can't he understand Dwarven if he still has Int 3?

*Edit - Scratch that. Too off topic already.

because the FAQ doesn't want animals possessing alignments or speaking

the whole point of it, is that it is a Chaotic Evil Dire Jaguar that not only understands dwarven, but speaks it too, and because of his human-like sentience, doesn't require a handle animal check because he can actually be communicated with verbally, and actually communicate back. effectively negating the need to push him around because he can think for himself, act independently, and follow advice and guidance as needed.

the idea, is it's too smart to be a normal jaguar


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

because the FAQ doesn't want animals possessing alignments or speaking

the whole point of it, is that it is a Chaotic Evil Dire Jaguar that not only understands dwarven, but speaks it too, and because of his human-like sentience, doesn't require a handle animal check because he can actually be communicated with verbally, and actually communicate back. effectively negating the need to push him around because he can think for himself, act independently, and follow advice and guidance as needed.

the idea, is it's too smart to be a normal jaguar

Well most likely this happens because of awaken, which already gives an idea over this matter.

The spell is meant to make the animal smart and so on, and if you use it on your AC he stops being your AC because now he is smart enough to take his own decisions, to have things he like/dislike and so on.

Basically , he is not a simple class feature anymore , if your animal is CE he may take actions to actually kill you together with all the others if that benefit him, the "im your master" is not going to stop him from eating you if he gets the chance.

Simple giving him int , saying he is capable of a "human level of thinking" and so on , would enter the helms of the spell , which says what happens if you do it. So the trick is , keep him stupid/neutral and actually say he is under your control, while being "smarter" than other animals , say he gets his own mind , and accept now he is the GM NPC , and he might disagree and decide he can whatever he wants to do (not likely , but can and will happen from time to time).


Reminds me of my witch's psicrystal. It has a mind of its own and is currently doing what it can to tempt her into being a "stronger witch" which as far as her mentoring fetish is concerned means being more evil.


Nox Aeterna wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

because the FAQ doesn't want animals possessing alignments or speaking

the whole point of it, is that it is a Chaotic Evil Dire Jaguar that not only understands dwarven, but speaks it too, and because of his human-like sentience, doesn't require a handle animal check because he can actually be communicated with verbally, and actually communicate back. effectively negating the need to push him around because he can think for himself, act independently, and follow advice and guidance as needed.

the idea, is it's too smart to be a normal jaguar

Well most likely this happens because of awaken, which already gives an idea over this matter.

The spell is meant to make the animal smart and so on, and if you use it on your AC he stops being your AC because now he is smart enough to take his own decisions, to have things he like/dislike and so on.

Basically , he is not a simple class feature anymore , if your animal is CE he may take actions to actually kill you together with all the others if that benefit him, the "im your master" is not going to stop him from eating you if he gets the chance.

Simple giving him int , saying he is capable of a "human level of thinking" and so on , would enter the helms of the spell , which says what happens if you do it. So the trick is , keep him stupid/neutral and actually say he is under your control, while being "smarter" than other animals , say he gets his own mind , and accept now he is the GM NPC , and he might disagree and decide he can whatever he wants to do (not likely , but can and will happen from time to time).

true, but even a Chaotic Evil NPC would be wary about murdering the companion that raised them the entirety of their life, trained them in the methods they relish so finely, has offered them advice and counseling throughout their life, and provided them a legal outlet to vent their desires.

imagine the Sorcerer Henry from Fire Emblem Awakening, he was a former member of the Plegian Army, enemies of the country of Ylisse, he didn't want to be locked up as a war prisoner, so he joined the Ylissian Army, turned his back on Plegia, and started to slaughter his former people because he was so obsessed with murder, that he couldn't stand to be locked up, and wanted a legal means to murder people. if he helped the Country of Ylisse win the war, he was guaranteed a pardon on all the War Crimes he commited on behalf of the country of Plegia. yes, he would likely go back to killing Yliisians again, but if he restrains himself, he could get a job with the murder squad known as the Shepards, and get rewarded handsomely for his murders. of which he enjoys, with no risk of being locked up.

i'm sure even the Jaguar wouldn't wish to be punished for his murder frenzies, and as long as the party offered him a legal outlet, i'm sure he wouldn't kill them.


Ashiel wrote:
Reminds me of my witch's psicrystal. It has a mind of its own and is currently doing what it can to tempt her into being a "stronger witch" which as far as her mentoring fetish is concerned means being more evil.

Well , this part of the rules are confusing lols , actually INT 3 should not be "INT 3".

Animals got their own INT , while humans got their own INT.

This is from the UC:

"Increasing an animal’s Intelligence to 3 or higher means it is
smart enough to understand a language. However, unless
an awaken spell is used, the animal doesn’t automatically
and instantly learn a language, any more than a human
child does. The animal must be taught a language, usually
over the course of months, giving it the understanding of
the meaning of words and sentences beyond its trained
responses to commands like “attack” and “heel.”
Even if the animal is taught to understand a language,
it probably lacks the anatomy to actually speak (unless
awaken is used). For example, dogs, elephants, and even
gorillas lack the proper physiology to speak humanoid
languages, though they can use their limited “vocabulary”
of sounds to articulate concepts, especially if working with
a person who learns what the sounds mean.
An intelligent animal is smart enough to use tools, but
might lack the ability to manipulate them. A crow could
be able to use simple lockpicks, but a dog can’t. Even if
the animal is physically capable of using a tool, it might
still prefer its own natural body to manufactured items,
especially when it comes to weapons. An intelligent
gorilla could hold or wield a sword, but its inclination is
to make slam attacks. No amount of training (including
weapon proficiency feats) is going to make it fully
comfortable attacking in any other way.
Even if an animal’s Intelligence increases to 3 or
higher, you must still use the Handle Animal skill to
direct the animal, as it is a smart animal rather than a
low-intelligence person (using awaken is an exception—
an awakened animal takes orders like a person)
. The GM
should take the animal’s Intelligence into account when
determining its response to commands or its behavior
when it doesn’t have specific instructions. For example,
an intelligent wolf companion can pick the weakestlooking
target if directed to do so, and that same wolf
trapped in a burning building might push open a door or
window without being told."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That is very odd. By that account, Intelligence means something completely different to creatures that are naturally < 3 Intelligence and those that aren't. That would imply that humans are always smarter than animals, period, unless the animal has been awakened.

Personally I think all of it is very silly. :P


Ashiel wrote:

That is very odd. By that account, Intelligence means something completely different to creatures that are naturally < 3 Intelligence and those that aren't. That would imply that humans are always smarter than animals, period, unless the animal has been awakened.

Personally I think all of it is very silly. :P

me too


Ashiel wrote:

That is very odd. By that account, Intelligence means something completely different to creatures that are naturally < 3 Intelligence and those that aren't. That would imply that humans are always smarter than animals, period, unless the animal has been awakened.

Personally I think all of it is very silly. :P

Hahaha yeah pretty much it does.

But dont look at me , i did say this was all very confusing , because INT 7 does not always mean the same INT 7 if we follow this :P.

Well anyway , this is in the book, page 143.


On another note , i dont think there is a big issue if the AC and the player are of the same alig (which pretty much just needs to mean they can work together without big clashes).

This is the way eidolons/familiars(improved)/cohorts all work with the PCs , they are all inteligent beings and they work together because they have common grounds (some more, some less) to do so.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I prefer Shadowrun's method of handling animals.

An animal has two stats, Intelligence (how good it is at figuring out non-animal things) and an Instinct (how good it is at figuring out animal things).

So, a raccoon, which has a fairly high Intelligence for an animal in the system is very good at figuring out locks and such (and actually has a special ability that gives it lockpicking). But he's fairly average on instinct, as he's not really a hunter but a scavenger.

A wolf, on the other hand, is fairly low intelligence and isn't likely to figure out how to escape a locked room or cage. But, his instinct is high so he is a good hunter, has good initiative, and can execute very complex battle tactics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

That is very odd. By that account, Intelligence means something completely different to creatures that are naturally < 3 Intelligence and those that aren't. That would imply that humans are always smarter than animals, period, unless the animal has been awakened.

Personally I think all of it is very silly. :P

Sometimes when I look around the world today, I tend to think more than a few humans in it could use an awakening. Most of them tend to end up governing countries...

Back on topic though, for me anything like this tends to just come down to "okay, well that's what they say in RAW, I'll just do it my own way instead"

I'd like to hope more GMs and Players would work together to come up with their own solutions when the one in the rulebook doesn't work for them. The rules can never work perfectly for everyone as we all want to pull them in different directions, so we should all be encouraging more diversity and innovation - after all that's the best way for rulesets to evolve and move forward.


If I'm going to "dump" a stat, I never go below 8, and only ever with one stat (I never dump more than one). Thus, my fighter might have a Charisma of 8, whilst my wizard might have a Strength of 8, but neither will have less than 10 in any other ability score.


Matt Thomason wrote:
Sometimes when I look around the world today, I tend to think more than a few humans in it could use an awakening. Most of them tend to end up governing countries...

Tell me about it. T_T

Quote:

Back on topic though, for me anything like this tends to just come down to "okay, well that's what they say in RAW, I'll just do it my own way instead"

I'd like to hope more GMs and Players would work together to come up with their own solutions when the one in the rulebook doesn't work for them. The rules can never work perfectly for everyone as we all want to pull them in different directions, so we should all be encouraging more diversity and innovation - after all that's the best way for rulesets to evolve and move forward.

Wise words.

Quote:
If I'm going to "dump" a stat, I never go below 8, and only ever with one stat (I never dump more than one). Thus, my fighter might have a Charisma of 8, whilst my wizard might have a Strength of 8, but neither will have less than 10 in any other ability score.

That's actually really optimal. Few people complain about an 8 (but god, get a 7 and the world explodes) and you get a lot of points for the hindrance (+2 points for -5%).

Digital Products Assistant

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post and reply. Leave the sniping out of the conversation.


i usually go for one score of 7, sometimes a second fitting 7 as the concept demands. most of the time, the 7 goes somewhere that makes sense for the score

for example, my half nymph had a strength of 5 and a constitution of 7 but her highest stat was intelligence, not charisma, which is usually unexpected of a half-nymph bard. charisma was 2nd place though.

my sylph street magician, had a 7 strength to represent her hollow sylph skeleton, she also had a custom flaw where every time she got hit by a bludgeoning weapon, she had to make a DC 20 fortitude save or gain a broken bone, treated as the sickened condition, stacks once for each arm, once for each leg and twice for torso, maximium of 6 times (total penalty of -12). mending said bones requires a lesser restoration, or some conjuration (healing) spell of 3rd level or higher. she gained 3 extra feats for that flaw because the condition also stacked with really being sickened itself (try -14 penalty on everything at max) most of the feats were skill oriented stuff to make mimicking a rogue easier

my onispawn martial artist, Miyabi "Rex" Kobayashi, had a charisma of 5, why? because she sought to detach herself as far as possible from humanity, the only reason she wasn't chaotic evil on paper, was because she had both the understanding and social skills of a T-Rex, was driven by animalistic urges and impulses. and was little more than a predatory animal within a humanoid body. in other words, she could be tamed with such things as food, encouragement, affection, and such.


@ the op i find that this happens due to players using dump stats when using points buy to create a character .
The character has know real use for those stats so they get lowered as much as possible to raise there primary stats
Its one of the reasons i prefer to roll stats


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tony gent wrote:

@ the op i find that this happens due to players using dump stats when using points buy to create a character .

The character has know real use for those stats so they get lowered as much as possible to raise there primary stats
Its one of the reasons i prefer to roll stats

even when you roll attributes randomly, you are going to have a dump stat

to explain my own definition of stat dumping

stat dumping, i prefer to call, attribute prioritization. whether you roll or use point buy, you are going to have at least 1 or 2 extremely low attributes unless you are one of those munchkins who wants the benefit of a high stat without the associated cost, as most rollers i know tend to be. now, if you really wanted to beef up your players stats to where they don't need a stat less than 10, let alone 12, simply beef up the available points to a ridiculously high number such as 40 or 50. now your flaws, are still advantaged over peasants, a 50 point mary sue needs completely different challenges to opposed them because any by the book threat less than 5 levels above them, is going to die instantly.

in a real game, your DM is going to give a 15, 20, or 25 point buy, though a lot i know, default to 20 or 25 point allotments. even with a 25 point buy, you still need to dump stats and make strategic race choices. unlike the 40-50 point DM, the 15-25 point DM makes race choices for specific classes highly limited on the grounds, that there aren't enough points to play a viable kobold fighter, so races that offer bonuses to 2 key attributes of your build and a penalty to a an attribute of little relevance become important

dumping stats, is the act of deciding which stats, have less priority for your character. some give stats lower priority based upon concept, others choose to dump a stat to specialize further in their intended role, there isn't anything wrong with either definition. it makes little sense for a big hulking, lumbering brute such as a giant to have decent manners and a polite attitude. most giants, tend to dump charisma unless their goal is to be the gentle giant. it makes sense for a character to prioritize their focus based on their role, or choose their role based upon their natural affinities. for example, the majority of Angelkin Aasimaars become paladins, antipaladins, or melee oriented oracles, bards, or fighters and barbarians with the eldritch heritage feats, the reason why, is because said professions naturally cater to their enhanced strength, and their enhanced confidence and assertiveness. as another example, a lot of elves become rogues, witches and wizards, the reasons why, their agility helps all 3 paths with survivability due to a lack of armor, their enhanced intellect benefits the primary focus of all 3, skills for the rogue, spells for witches and wizards, and their inherent frailty, is seen as less important because all 3 paths, are widely seen as routes that breed frailty

in fact, there is nothing wrong with stat prioritization, it happens both in point buy, and rolling. just learn to bite your lip and accept these specialized builds already. the guys with 2 or even 3 stats of 7 or lower, may be focused on their primary facet, but they are extremely dependent on their allies for the facets they don't cover, which encourages teamwork.


Well , not always when you roll actually.

I have a friend who lowest roll is at least 12 (sometimes more lols) , usually she gets many 16 and more sometimes even more than one 18. She is lucky , it is that simple , in a roll 4d6 take the worst , she is always quite strong and got no bad point. Happens everytime.(and we use the same dices ... i get low scores lol , so no , no cheats).

Also like another guy said , i agree to call a 7 when you roll a low stat , not a dump stat.

There is a great difference in the mentality of people when the idea is not that they chose to be bad at something voluntarily (point buy)) , but instead they are simple conforming to the fact they MUST be bad at something because they rolled it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hiya

Lemmy wrote:


Here's a build, you tell me if you'd really play it. So far, nobody has agreed that they'd do it, but it has awesome diplomacy and bluff and intimidate skills!

Human Level 5 Fighter
Str 18, Dex 10, Con 16, INT 7, WIS 7, CHA 7
SKills / Level : 2 (human + minimum)
Feats : Skill Focus (Diplomacy), Skill Focus (Intimidate), Skill Focus (Bluff), Persuasive
Favored Class Bonus (Skill points every level)
Skills : Diplomacy +8 (5 Ranks + 3 Focus +2 Persuasive - 2 Stat), Intimidate +11 (5 Ranks + 3 Focus + 3 Trained +2 Persuasive - 2 Stat), Bluff +9 (5 Ranks + 3 Focus + 3 Trained - 2 Stat)

Yes, no problem....he'd be a lot of fun...

Salvatore Kreegston. Grew up just at the edge of the 'bad side of town'. His father, Salvatore senior, was an ex-enforcer for the Galboni clan (a rough thieves guild), now he runs a (mostly) upstanding restaurant. After the birth of young Sal Jr., Sal Sr. was not going to have his son grow up the same as his old man. During his young teen years, however, the Galboni clan constantly tried to recruit young Sal. Due to his already impressive physical stature, even at age 16, Sal was good at the 'muscle' part. His father would have none of it, and forced Sal to learn how to resolve things through talking, not fighting (any trouble with the law that Sal Jr. had, ended up costing Sal Sr. *much* more then he could afford due to all the dirt the law held over him for his previous lifestyle). Sal Jr.'s lack of personal willpower and ego didn't let him stand up much to either 'side' (his fathers "learn how to talk it out with people, go legit" or the Galboni clans "learn how to knock out people, you'll go far"). The end result; Salvatore Jr. learned how to fight and was a natural...which was good, because he had no official training due to his fathers forceful teaching of the arts of the silver tongue. But at the same time, learned how to read people and tell them what they wanted to hear (or scare them into not asking in the first place). Now a young man, Sal has finally acquired the courage to strike out on his own. With no professional skill at much of anything, the high-risk, high-reward path of an adventurer seemed like the only choice. He is now searching for people he can trust, being smart enough to know he isn't smart enough to do it on his own.

Hmmm. Yup. Sounds like fun! :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Well , not always when you roll actually.

I have a friend who lowest roll is at least 12 (sometimes more lols) , usually she gets many 16 and more sometimes even more than one 18. She is lucky , it is that simple , in a roll 4d6 take the worst , she is always quite strong and got no bad point. Happens everytime.(and we use the same dices ... i get low scores lol , so no , no cheats).

Also like another guy said , i agree to call a 7 when you roll a low stat , not a dump stat.

There is a great difference in the mentality of people when the idea is not that they chose to be bad at something voluntarily (point buy)) , but instead they are simple conforming to the fact they MUST be bad at something because they rolled it.

but in my opinion, if you want to be really good at one specific thing, you are usually compensating for a lack elsewhere.

if the friends lowest roll is a 12? does she still put that 12 in the stat with the lowest priority to put her plural 16s and 18s where they provide the most benefit? if it's true, she still dumps stats, it's just that she has really high stats and the lowest stat (the dump stat) is higher than a similar stat from most people

dump stats, aren't simply a matter of points, it's a mind set of prioritizing which stats are more important

even if you have multiple scores of 16+ and not a single stat below 12, you will still be quite likely to prioritize how you allocate them based on importance to your role

it's not whether or not you choose to be bad at something or the dice give you something low, it's whether or not you place priorities on attributes, everybody has a few attributes they assign a higher priority too, which while it may vary based on build, everybody has stat priorities

rolling nothing below 12 doesn't change the fact you are still prioritizing when you place that 12 (your lowest roll) into something far less important than your other attributes, whether for concept, optimization, or deliberately building something that sucks, you are still prioritizing.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Well , not always when you roll actually.

I have a friend who lowest roll is at least 12 (sometimes more lols) , usually she gets many 16 and more sometimes even more than one 18. She is lucky , it is that simple , in a roll 4d6 take the worst , she is always quite strong and got no bad point. Happens everytime.(and we use the same dices ... i get low scores lol , so no , no cheats).

Also like another guy said , i agree to call a 7 when you roll a low stat , not a dump stat.

There is a great difference in the mentality of people when the idea is not that they chose to be bad at something voluntarily (point buy)) , but instead they are simple conforming to the fact they MUST be bad at something because they rolled it.

but in my opinion, if you want to be really good at one specific thing, you are usually compensating for a lack elsewhere.

if the friends lowest roll is a 12? does she still put that 12 in the stat with the lowest priority to put her plural 16s and 18s where they provide the most benefit? if it's true, she still dumps stats, it's just that she has really high stats and the lowest stat (the dump stat) is higher than a similar stat from most people

dump stats, aren't simply a matter of points, it's a mind set of prioritizing which stats are more important

even if you have multiple scores of 16+ and not a single stat below 12, you will still be quite likely to prioritize how you allocate them based on importance to your role

it's not whether or not you choose to be bad at something or the dice give you something low, it's whether or not you place priorities on attributes, everybody has a few attributes they assign a higher priority too, which while it may vary based on build, everybody has stat priorities

rolling nothing below 12 doesn't change the fact you are still prioritizing when you place that 12 (your lowest roll) into something far less important than your other attributes, whether for concept, optimization, or deliberately building...

While I agree with you about stat prioritizing, I disagree on what IS a dump stat. For me, it is a stat that you lower to allow you to make another better. When you roll for stats, you are not making any stat lower, you just have low stat. In older systems I have sometimes used a two-for-one point trade, so that you wound up with an increased value in one stat at the expense of another. That would be a system with a dump stat. Point buy forces a dump stat by its very process.

To the matter of role playing vs. stats, I try to come up with a personality that is suitable to a back story, and also is in line with my stats. This way, I have no disconnect between stats and role. I also have fun this way. It also means that if I need to generate a character on the fly, I can play the character easily because I have a number of concepts for stat strengths and weaknesses, and can assemble them immediately. For those who play against stats, I find it breaks immersion, some more than others. Unless it really stands out, I usually try to ignore it so I can have fun.

/cevah


point buy has the advantage of allowing you to make your character and bring the sheet to the game that night.

it also has the advantage of giving you freedom to choose your concept within reason

the real problem with Dump Stats. is not taking 1 or 2 deliberately to fit your character

it's people that want to be awesome, take flaws, and complain when the DM exploits their flaws, and also, DMs whom look for excuses to target their players by exploiting their flaws

i can understand exploiting flaws here and there, just don't excessively target the player and exploit their flaws.

it's a general rule, that when PCs make their characters orphans with no close friends or attachments, that they don't want to deal with the "i kidnapped your helpless NPC little sister" Scenario. a factor that should only apply if you use it to establish starting connections. many PCs don't like tying themselves to organizations unless they are either forced to, or expect a tangible mechanical benefit from the organization.

a player doesn't give thier character a fleshed out series of relatives unless they seek benefits from those relatives


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

it's a general rule, that when PCs make their characters orphans with no close friends or attachments, that they don't want to deal with the "i kidnapped your helpless NPC little sister" Scenario. a factor that should only apply if you use it to establish starting connections. many PCs don't like tying themselves to organizations unless they are either forced to, or expect a tangible mechanical benefit from the organization.

a player doesn't give thier character a fleshed out series of relatives unless they seek benefits from those relatives

Well...I do. But I understand you mean as a general rule, and I also realize that one of the biggest reasons players don't put so much investment into characters is because their GMs beat any and all creativity out of them and then complain when they don't roleplay more.

GM: "Your last seven characters have been barbarians with no friends, family, and scarcely any motivation beyond killing stuff and getting treasure. What gives?"

Player: "Character #1 you killed with an orc when the party was captured because you said his Charisma was too low and thus the orcs hated him extra. Character #2 had a fleshed out family and siblings. They all died at the hands of your BBEG off screen. Character #3 was a wizard who was a member of the Order of Stars with no mechanical benefit, solely for flavor, but you had the head of the order boss him around and later sell him out to the BBEG in exchange for something. Why don't you figure it out Mr. Omniscient."


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
a player doesn't give thier character a fleshed out series of relatives unless they seek benefits from those relatives

Hey! I resent that :D.

On another system my GM had made , i created to myself quite a good family , which gave me problems when i became a wanted man (even more when i became wanted by the big evil forces not only the law, yeah i was part of a organization wanted by many hehe ) , only because i quite liked it.

They never really helped me , i mean , they were just common folk , while ofc , they required me to make some sacrifices and deal with situations to keep them safe (Like accepting to made deals with a country my char hated because it could keep my family safe).

To me , it was fair , i was the wanted man , therefore im the one who got get out of my way and take the hits to protect them , even if they cant give me something in return.


pming wrote:

Hiya

Lemmy wrote:


Here's a build, you tell me if you'd really play it. So far, nobody has agreed that they'd do it, but it has awesome diplomacy and bluff and intimidate skills!

Human Level 5 Fighter
Str 18, Dex 10, Con 16, INT 7, WIS 7, CHA 7
SKills / Level : 2 (human + minimum)
Feats : Skill Focus (Diplomacy), Skill Focus (Intimidate), Skill Focus (Bluff), Persuasive
Favored Class Bonus (Skill points every level)
Skills : Diplomacy +8 (5 Ranks + 3 Focus +2 Persuasive - 2 Stat), Intimidate +11 (5 Ranks + 3 Focus + 3 Trained +2 Persuasive - 2 Stat), Bluff +9 (5 Ranks + 3 Focus + 3 Trained - 2 Stat)

Yes, no problem....he'd be a lot of fun...

Salvatore Kreegston. Grew up just at the edge of the 'bad side of town'. His father, Salvatore senior, was an ex-enforcer for the Galboni clan (a rough thieves guild), now he runs a (mostly) upstanding restaurant. After the birth of young Sal Jr., Sal Sr. was not going to have his son grow up the same as his old man. During his young teen years, however, the Galboni clan constantly tried to recruit young Sal. Due to his already impressive physical stature, even at age 16, Sal was good at the 'muscle' part. His father would have none of it, and forced Sal to learn how to resolve things through talking, not fighting (any trouble with the law that Sal Jr. had, ended up costing Sal Sr. *much* more then he could afford due to all the dirt the law held over him for his previous lifestyle). Sal Jr.'s lack of personal willpower and ego didn't let him stand up much to either 'side' (his fathers "learn how to talk it out with people, go legit" or the Galboni clans "learn how to knock out people, you'll go far"). The end result; Salvatore Jr. learned how to fight and was a natural...which was good, because he had no official training due to his fathers forceful teaching of the arts of the silver tongue. But at the same time, learned how to read people and tell them what they wanted to hear (or scare them into not asking in the first place). Now a...

Good Background sir.

Can you describe Salvatores goals, mannerism and general behaviour?


Hi five Nox. That makes at least two of us. <(^.^)7


Ashiel wrote:
Hi five Nox. That makes at least two of us. <(^.^)7

Hi five! <(^.^)7

Well , for me the fun is more on having the family , than getting stuff from it.

My reward was a bunch of NPCs i could interact with and do normal stuff with , to have this , i had to take care of them and spend my time making sure they were safe. Ofc , my GM made sure to give me opportunities to keep them that way and did not just killed them off for no reason.


Ashiel wrote:
Hi five Nox. That makes at least two of us. <(^.^)7

Make that three. High Five all.

/cevah


Ashiel wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

it's a general rule, that when PCs make their characters orphans with no close friends or attachments, that they don't want to deal with the "i kidnapped your helpless NPC little sister" Scenario. a factor that should only apply if you use it to establish starting connections. many PCs don't like tying themselves to organizations unless they are either forced to, or expect a tangible mechanical benefit from the organization.

a player doesn't give thier character a fleshed out series of relatives unless they seek benefits from those relatives

Well...I do. But I understand you mean as a general rule, and I also realize that one of the biggest reasons players don't put so much investment into characters is because their GMs beat any and all creativity out of them and then complain when they don't roleplay more.

GM: "Your last seven characters have been barbarians with no friends, family, and scarcely any motivation beyond killing stuff and getting treasure. What gives?"

Player: "Character #1 you killed with an orc when the party was captured because you said his Charisma was too low and thus the orcs hated him extra. Character #2 had a fleshed out family and siblings. They all died at the hands of your BBEG off screen. Character #3 was a wizard who was a member of the Order of Stars with no mechanical benefit, solely for flavor, but you had the head of the order boss him around and later sell him out to the BBEG in exchange for something. Why don't you figure it out Mr. Omniscient."

so true

such a scenario is a poor incentive to flesh out friends and family for a PC

characters with grand motivations and well detailed families, friends and connections, tend to have their grand motivations ignored, their connections severed, their families and friends, either slain or kidnapped by the BBEG offscreen, or simply ignoring them because they don't wish to deal with the risks.

why be involved in a guild when the guildmaster will simply boss you around and sell you out to the main villain at the first opportunity to gain something of great importance? even good aligned religious organizations that shouldn't do this, end up doing it.

Silver Crusade

mdt wrote:
Lemmy wrote:


If my Cha 5 character uses feats and skill ranks to have amazing Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate skills, then I better have amazing Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate skills. I'd be pissed off if my GM told me people dislike me despite my +48 Diplomacy check just because I have low Cha score.

This is a flawed response.

If you're dumping int/cha/etc, you are not wasting feats on skils. You're putting those feats into combat skills.

Here's a build, you tell me if you'd really play it. So far, nobody has agreed that they'd do it, but it has awesome diplomacy and bluff and intimidate skills!

Human Level 5 Fighter
Str 18, Dex 10, Con 16, INT 7, WIS 7, CHA 7
SKills / Level : 2 (human + minimum)
Feats : Skill Focus (Diplomacy), Skill Focus (Intimidate), Skill Focus (Bluff), Persuasive
Favored Class Bonus (Skill points every level)
Skills : Diplomacy +8 (5 Ranks + 3 Focus +2 Persuasive - 2 Stat), Intimidate +11 (5 Ranks + 3 Focus + 3 Trained +2 Persuasive - 2 Stat), Bluff +9 (5 Ranks + 3 Focus + 3 Trained - 2 Stat)

Now, here's a human fighter, at level 5, who has decent diplomacy, decent intimidate, and decent bluff. He sucks as a fighter, he has nothing to boost his damage, nothing to give him special combat things. He's not as good at being the face as the sorcerer who put a rank or two into his skills. He's a drain on resources, since he's a sucky face and a sucky fighter. If you played this character, sure, I'd not give you any issues on people responding to you, but that's because you've put everything into overcoming it. You would not do that. Nobody who dumps does it. So this whole argument is, frankly, BS.

Why on earth would I play a character with an 5 point buy?

Factoring in the +1 at level 4 going to STR. Your build spends 7 points on Str to start adds the +2 to Str to get 17, then spends 10 points on con to get it to 16, then gets back 12 from the 3 7s, seriously, what GM is using a 5 point buy?


P33J wrote:
mdt wrote:
Lemmy wrote:


If my Cha 5 character uses feats and skill ranks to have amazing Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate skills, then I better have amazing Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate skills. I'd be pissed off if my GM told me people dislike me despite my +48 Diplomacy check just because I have low Cha score.

This is a flawed response.

If you're dumping int/cha/etc, you are not wasting feats on skils. You're putting those feats into combat skills.

Here's a build, you tell me if you'd really play it. So far, nobody has agreed that they'd do it, but it has awesome diplomacy and bluff and intimidate skills!

Human Level 5 Fighter
Str 18, Dex 10, Con 16, INT 7, WIS 7, CHA 7
SKills / Level : 2 (human + minimum)
Feats : Skill Focus (Diplomacy), Skill Focus (Intimidate), Skill Focus (Bluff), Persuasive
Favored Class Bonus (Skill points every level)
Skills : Diplomacy +8 (5 Ranks + 3 Focus +2 Persuasive - 2 Stat), Intimidate +11 (5 Ranks + 3 Focus + 3 Trained +2 Persuasive - 2 Stat), Bluff +9 (5 Ranks + 3 Focus + 3 Trained - 2 Stat)

Now, here's a human fighter, at level 5, who has decent diplomacy, decent intimidate, and decent bluff. He sucks as a fighter, he has nothing to boost his damage, nothing to give him special combat things. He's not as good at being the face as the sorcerer who put a rank or two into his skills. He's a drain on resources, since he's a sucky face and a sucky fighter. If you played this character, sure, I'd not give you any issues on people responding to you, but that's because you've put everything into overcoming it. You would not do that. Nobody who dumps does it. So this whole argument is, frankly, BS.

Why on earth would I play a character with an 5 point buy?

Factoring in the +1 at level 4 going to STR. Your build spends 7 points on Str to start adds the +2 to Str to get 17, then spends 10 points on con to get it to 16, then gets back 12 from the 3 7s, seriously, what GM is using a 5 point buy?

with another 10 points, 15 total, the fighter could have a 16 dexterity as well.

651 to 700 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.