Point Buy - Down to 7


Advice

501 to 550 of 978 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Its interesting how people only use part of a discription to make their point.

Intelligence determines how well your character Learns and Reasons.

But of course only the learn part has a game mechanic to support it.

I'd say WIS accounts for the second part.

Shadow Lodge

n o 417 wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:

Its interesting how people only use part of a discription to make their point.

Intelligence determines how well your character Learns and Reasons.

But of course only the learn part has a game mechanic to support it.

I'd say WIS accounts for the second part.

Actually thats all intelligence.

Wisdom covers willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition.

Shadow Lodge

Roberta Yang wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
So people constantly use the ONE person who views things this way(admittedly extreme) as an example of everyones view who disagrees with them?

Orfamay Quest wrote:
It's easier to disagree with a straw man than an actual person.

Roberta Yang wrote:
Remy's not an actual person?

Remy may be the only one asking for a check to know what grass is, but other people have said things along similar lines. For example, quite a few pulled the "There are no 7's in the basic array so 7 Int makes you literally the stupidest human who has ever lived in the entire world and so you are superhumanly mentally disabled!!" nonsense.

Jacob Saltband wrote:
Give some quotes from earlier posts on this.

Roberta Yang wrote:
Gladly.

DrDeth wrote:

Yes, but no one has a 7 on that scale, without racial minuses.

Jiggy wrote:

Sarcasmancer wrote:
What's so bad about dumping to 7 vs dumping to 8?

Jiggy wrote:
I haven't read the whole thread, but I wanted to reply to this in particular.

An 8 is within the realm of "normal" in the game world. The teeming masses have (pre-racial) stats ranging from 8-13 (also including a 9). Even the heroic, PC-classed NPCs include an 8.

(Of course, some people will label even this representation of a normal person as "min-maxing", but whatever.)

This means that a 7 is something that, among the general populace, is only achievable by members of a race with a penalty to that stat. That is, one-third of the dwarven population has CHA of 7 or less, but a human with 7 CHA is a statistical outlier. (One might then imagine a 7 CHA human's companions making remarks like "Geez, it's like working with a friggin' dwarf!")

Now, to be clear: a 7 in a stat is still an entirely functional individual on the whole. I mean, for any given stat there's a race whose penalty means that a third of that race's population has a 7 or below in that stat, yet they all have functional societies. But it does take you across a threshold from "completely normal" to "noticeably different".

So based on what's in the books, that's the difference between 7 and 8: humanoid norms versus "Seriously, do you have a nagaji uncle or something?"

Nobody has a 7! A 7 makes you so dumb you don't even seem human!

Interesting choices.....

Now DrDeths' post does corroborate what you were looking for. Did you read Jiggys' post at all? He was responding to the OP and look at what I have bolded in his post....doesnt corroborate.

So, yes you found one other person not "Quite a Few"


If "7 makes you Literally Subhuman" doesn't look like what I described then I dunno what to tell you

Shadow Lodge

Roberta Yang wrote:
If "7 makes you Literally Subhuman" doesn't look like what I described then I dunno what to tell you

You know at no point did Jiggy state that those were his opinions. He was using extreme example to try and explain to the OP why some people had a problem with a 7 while an 8 was ok. At no time he state that that was his opinion on what 7 int represented.

Can seem to find '7 makes you Literally Subhuman' in his post either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In other words, the "7 makes you literally subhuman" concept is a reductio ad absurdum argument.

To present another facet of the argument, what happens if you roll your stats and end up with the following array of values, to be assigned to your scores at your discretion:

18, 15, 12, 10, 8, 4

If you are a Fighter, the 4 is most likely going into Int and the 8 into Cha. All that means is that you have a -3 to Int skills and Int ability checks and -3 skill points. If you're a Human, that means 2 skill points per level, or 3 if you take the skill point favored class bonus. For an Int skill with a class bonus and 1 skill point, you can still take 10 on a DC 10 check and succeed. If this is an NPC, he can still have Diplomacy used on him. You're still vulnerable to ability damage/drain as a single Bestow Curse can take you out, but that vulnerability will be somewhere so it may as well be in the spot it does the least harm. If you were a clumsy oaf with 4 Dex, why take up Fighter as a class? That's bad roleplay. If you were a weakling with 4 Str, why take up Fighter as a class? Put it in Con or Wis and you lack either physical or mental fortitude, both of which would be a significant hindrance for fighter training; you'd have washed out within the first week. Do you have to play like an animal with even a 2 in Int? No. Just as an animal with 3 Int is just a smart animal and not considered a dump person, a person with 2 Int is just a dumb person and not considered an animal beyond being able to use Handle Animal in place of Diplomacy. That's the only time I'd consider significantly adjusting my roleplay regarding a low-Int character and even then, it's a matter of personal choice not dictated by mechanics.

Hell, even a golem has a Charisma of 1. A mindless automaton has a nominal value for force of personality. From our perspective, it has the bare minimum of force of personality to speak of. That doesn't mean it needs to "umm" and "err" and shuffle its feet when it carries out it's instructions and tells you you cannot enter the ancient temple. It will still clearly and monotonously repeat itself and, if you try to enter anyway, it will clearly and unambiguously try to smash you into chunky salsa. So why does even a Person with very low Int need to act like a retard? Just as Charisma doesn't dictate that you're pretty or ugly or whatnot, just how much so; Intelligence doesn't dictate whether you're good at figuring out puzzles or strategic or tactical thinking or book smart or street smart or whatnot, just how much so. A pretty person with low Charisma is easy to look at, but forgettable while a pretty person with sky-high Charisma is drop-dead gorgeous and unforgettable. This is because the ability scores are quantitative; they measure quantity (how much), not quality. An ugly person with low Charisma is hard to look at, but still forgettable while an ugly person with sky-high Charisma is mind-breakingly ugly. A person who favors solving puzzles but has 7 Int still favors solving puzzles. It may take a bit longer and he may not get it right, but that's still a preferred thing to think about. Meanwhile, the character with sky-high Int solves 15 Rubik's Cubes in the morning before breakfast as a warm-up for the day... if he likes doing puzzles. But the smartest person in the world won't do puzzles well if he doesn't like to.


ericthetolle wrote:


But that's traditionally D&D. Back in the day, with original D&D, characters with 3 Int and 5 Wisdom were tactical geniuses who were experts at figuring out complicated puzzles, and characters with 3 Charisma were able to do stirring oratory that would make Shakespeare tear up. Admittedly stats didn't mean that much back ten, but still, ignoring the implication of stats when convenient was an accepted part of the game.

I had the completely opposite experience. I feel like people USED to RP their stats; my players always tried to play their stats in 1e and 2e.


Kazaan wrote:
If you were a clumsy oaf with 4 Dex, why take up Fighter as a class? That's bad roleplay.

While I agree that taking a 4 Dex as a fighter would be a bad choice, I can't call it "bad role play". People don't always choose the path in life they'd naturally be most good at. There are managers with bad people skills, clergy who make poor choices, and engineers who struggle at math.

As long as no one STOPS you, and you are able to push through and become whatever it is you want to do, you can definitely become a mediocre professional in one career when you could have been a great professional in a different one. Life is like that. It's not common, but imagine the conversations you would have with the fighter in your party:
"why on earth did you choose to be a fighter when you're so clumsy?"
"well, my dad always pushed me to become one, said anything less than a warrior was just being weak..." It is certainly a viable scenario, story wise. Choosing sub-optimally doesn't mean bad role play.


Scavion wrote:
And thats awful. Folks don't want their characters called mentally disabled just because they wanted some extra health to survive the campaign.

And I don't WANT to get my car repossessed because I felt like I needed a vacation to Bermuda, but it would happen anyway. You make choices in a game; those choices have consequences. A wizard might take a low Con, assuming he's never going to get into combat, and that extra Int will get him another 2nd level spell. But when the DM throws a Ninja up against him with ranged sneak attack, that low Con is gonna hurt.

Same with our said fighter. If you want your fighter to be considered "average" intelligence (or greater) in game, you need to have a 10 (or greater) Int. Yes, he's not going to have as many hit points. That's like. You want one thing, you give up another.

I do agree that it sucks that real life PLAYERS would get razzed for having dumb CHARACTERS, but that's something to DM needs to handle at his table. He also needs to point out what that 7 Int means, vs. how the players are interpreting it.

Silver Crusade

rando1000 wrote:
You make choices in a game; those choices have consequences. A wizard might take a low Con, assuming he's never going to get into combat, and that extra Int will get him another 2nd level spell.

As a player, you know the consequences of your ability allocation choices. Why? Because the rules are in the book, and we're all playing by the same rules. Right? Right?

DM: What's that? Your wizard is moving 30-feet? But you moved 30-feet last round! I think that's very poor role-playing from a Con 7 wizard. Make a DC 10 Con check or be fatigued.

Do you think that this is an unrealistic example? Let's try again.

DM: What's that? Your fighter has an idea? But you had an idea last round! I think that's very poor role-playing of an Int 7 fighter. Make a DC 10 Int check or you don't have that idea.

Is that a more realistic example?

Shadow Lodge

If your actually forcing people to play with a 4 stat I feel sorry for your players. Also there are smart people who hate doing puzzles but can solve them quickly and with ease.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
As a player, you know the consequences of your ability allocation choices. Why? Because the rules are in the book, and we're all playing by the same rules. Right? Right?

Yes and no. Some people consider anything without a numeric penalty attached to be "fluff", and not part of the rules, others consider statements in the rules to be part of the same continuum regardless of whether they are crunchy or not.

If Int 7 is below average (it is) and this is a role playing game (it is), then it stands that in game, there are consequences for having a below average Int. I'm not trying to say 7 is disabled, as some people have said, but it's low enough that the town expert should reasonably be able say "You're not the smartest copper in the pouch, are you?" and not have a player be shocked and offended that someone picked up on his below average stat. Certainly, if a Wizard with 7 strength tried to lift too much, people might see him and say "man, that guy is weak". Why, when a somewhat dull Fighter tries to do something smart (and fails), would people not say "you're not very bright, are you?" Now if said dumb fighter routinely succeeds at knowledge rolls (i.e. he's spent Ranks on them) and he's careful not to talk about things he's NOT knowledgeable about, he might be able to appear smarter than he is. That would draw a different response from NPCs.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm playing an Int 5 paladin in Kingmaker. Why? Because I rolled my stats, and where can I put that 5?

It can't be Str or Cha, because these are my two best stats. If I choose Dex or Con I won't be alive for long enough to get to my level.

So it's Int or Wis. A Wis 5 combined with the Code of Conduct would've turned him into an ex-paladin ages ago. I've got a job to do in the party and it'd be irresponsible to turn up with a PC who couldn't do his job.

So he's Int 5 Wis 13 Cha 18. I had to think long and hard about what this guy is like, and eventually came up with something fun, playable, tied into the adventure background and avoids the 'too dumb to breathe in and out without advice' stereotype.

I talked about it with my DM. He liked the story, and liked the approach.

When trying to work out what a stat of 5 represents, it's really that one out of every 36 people have any individual stat of 5 or less. Definitely noticeable, but the specifics will vary from person to person.

So my paladin with the Fey Foundling feat imagines that he sees glimpses of another world. He's not always certain that what he sees is real, and has learned to not be distracted by what he sees. Unfortunately this leads him to ignore many real things too, so he's a 'space cadet'.

There are many other ways this Int 5 Wis 13 Cha 18 paladin could have been (correctly) imagined, but that doesn't make mine 'wrong'.

I'm lucky enough to have a DM who gets this. There are some who think that their way is the 'right' way therefore any other way must be 'wrong' and it's their job as DM to take appropriate steps!

Silver Crusade

As I get older I realise that it isn't that smart people never do dumb things and dumb people never do smart things.

Smart people still do dumb things, but far less often than dumb people. Dumb people still do smart things, but far less often than smart people.

The friction we're talking about in this thread is caused by those who have a knee-jerk reaction to a good idea from an Int of 7. 'You're character could never have thought of that!'

A single instance is not an adequate sample! Who's tracking 'good ideas' game by game!

Shadow Lodge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I'm playing an Int 5 paladin in Kingmaker. Why? Because I rolled my stats, and where can I put that 5?

It can't be Str or Cha, because these are my two best stats. If I choose Dex or Con I won't be alive for long enough to get to my level.

So it's Int or Wis. A Wis 5 combined with the Code of Conduct would've turned him into an ex-paladin ages ago. I've got a job to do in the party and it'd be irresponsible to turn up with a PC who couldn't do his job.

So he's Int 5 Wis 13 Cha 18. I had to think long and hard about what this guy is like, and eventually came up with something fun, playable, tied into the adventure background and avoids the 'too dumb to breathe in and out without advice' stereotype.

I talked about it with my DM. He liked the story, and liked the approach.

When trying to work out what a stat of 5 represents, it's really that one out of every 36 people have any individual stat of 5 or less. Definitely noticeable, but the specifics will vary from person to person.

So my paladin with the Fey Foundling feat imagines that he sees glimpses of another world. He's not always certain that what he sees is real, and has learned to not be distracted by what he sees. Unfortunately this leads him to ignore many real things too, so he's a 'space cadet'.

There are many other ways this Int 5 Wis 13 Cha 18 paladin could have been (correctly) imagined, but that doesn't make mine 'wrong'.

I'm lucky enough to have a DM who gets this. There are some who think that their way is the 'right' way therefore any other way must be 'wrong' and it's their job as DM to take appropriate steps!

Thats just it, you thought about it and talked to your GM about it and actually ROLEPLAYED your low ability score instead of just saying that puting a few skill point into some skills and maybe use a feat or two to shore up some holes means you dont have think about or roleplay a low score.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
There are many other ways this Int 5 Wis 13 Cha 18 paladin could have been (correctly) imagined, but that doesn't make mine 'wrong'.

I agree. Yours was a very innovative way to make sense of a weird set of stats, and your explanation will have interesting RP implications. I'd be perfectly willing to run a character that was explained to me that way. NPC comments would just be changed to be relevant to your particular drawbacks.

Shadow Lodge

Sarcasmancer wrote:
So this kept coming up in another thread but I never got a good answer and it was slightly off-topic anyway. Many many people say that they would disallow stats to be dumped down to 7 under a point-buy system. If you're one of those people - why? What's so bad about dumping to 7 vs dumping to 8? I await your reply.

I think 7 is the magic number because it's the lowest you can dump to in PFS before racial adjustments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
A single instance is not an adequate sample! Who's tracking 'good ideas' game by game!

That's the reason I can't allow an Int 7 to go unnoticed as a DM. I'm not going to track a character's intellectual success, so all I have to go by are his stats, and any conversations the player has had with me. So my default assumption is that NPCs are going to treat someone as a literal example of his stats, unless the player does something to make me react otherwise (such as your Paladin example). If a player with a 7 Int character comes to me and says "people generally won't notice I'm not too smart because I don't talk much unless I know the answer for sure", that's fine. I'll remember that about the character and keep my eye on it.

It's really just like Alignment, in a way. Chaotic Good means most often, the character is going to ignore the law when he wants, but generally treat people well. It doesn't mean he'll NEVER follow the law, or that he'll NEVER commit an evil act. But as a DM, if he starts to RELIABLY commit Lawful and/or Evil acts, I have to say something.


rando1000 wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
A single instance is not an adequate sample! Who's tracking 'good ideas' game by game!
That's the reason I can't allow an Int 7 to go unnoticed as a DM. I'm not going to track a character's intellectual success, so all I have to go by are his stats, and any conversations the player has had with me.

Stats, especially mental stats, aren't visible. You cannot determine whether the sword-carrying woman who just walked into the tavern has Int 7 or Int 13 just by looking at her. When DMing, I like to have a physical description of all the PCs so I can use that to decide initial reactions of NPCs. But raw ability scores aren't part of that. At least in the games I run, raw ability scores don't directly come up often. Skill checks come up, hit points come up, spell DCs come up, etc., but rarely does the actual ability score come up itself. If a PC is trying to convince an NPC of something and the player rolls a diplomacy check, I'll use the result of that check to determine how the NPC reacts, not the PC's raw Charisma score. An Int 8 bard who usually makes knowledge checks because of bardic knowledge and putting ranks into them is going to be treated as someone knowledgeable about the world. The NPCs cannot look at her character sheet and see what her Intelligence score is. They only see that she knows a lot.

I mean, I don't show players the stats of NPCs so they know how to treat them. Why are PCs different?

Liberty's Edge

This is all about mechanics, plain and simple, not role-playing. That is where it starts then a personality is created to wrap around it to somewhat mimic the stats. How long that role-playing and personality is maintained will vary, depending on how committed to holding up a personality they may or may not like but really like the build.

Stat dumping is a power play to exploit the point buy system. Lower stats are, in an ideal mechanical world, considered a disadvantage, so more points are given to balance them out with higher stats elsewhere. The exploitation happens when the lowered stat is actually not a disadvantage at all. This creates "freebie" points for classes that have stats the are irreverent or low significance. This then creates a class imbalance, at least at lower levels. Fighters can have crazy high physical stats compared to a Paladin or Monk. To offset this, Monks and Paladins need to all be somewhat slow and unlikable because of it if they want to be somewhat close in comparison.

I completely removed dumping in my games and all the characters ended up with comparable stats to each other and more well rounded.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Stats, especially mental stats, aren't visible. You cannot determine whether the sword-carrying woman who just walked into the tavern has Int 7 or Int 13 just by looking at her.

True, but it's not only skill checks that can give away someone's ability score (within a couple points). It's in the general statements, the misuse of colloquialisms, the length of the sentences. They don't have to be making a knowledge check for you to notice. I just becomes more obvious the longer you talk to them.

Now, I wouldn't make a BIG DEAL out of a person's 7 Int continuously, unless he repeatedly tried and failed to do things obviously beyond his ken (at which point it would become more obvious to those around him). But I might NOTE it, especially toward the beginning of a campaign.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You are not allowed to have fun that way.

You must have fun in a way that I find appropriate, even if it is not fun for you.

It's not about enjoying yourselves, it is about doing it right.


Much like Malachi Silverclaw, I made up a background story to cover my Kingmaker PC's dump stats of 7 in both Int and Wis. He was an orphan who repeatedly ran away from bad situations, never received even a basic education. He finally joined a Varisian traveling circus, became an alcoholic, and worked as a monkey grinder (the guy with a crank driven street organ and a monkey to collect coins)

Rather than portray him as stupid and unable to think I made him a brash and bold show off (low Wis) with a comically weak command of the Common tongue (low Int and lack of education). He's prone to mispronunciations, malapropisms, and egg corns, rarely getting through any RP scene without several. He can think and plan just fine though, and as levels have worn on his bardic knowledge and skill ranks actually made him quite knowledgeable and arguably "smart" though he still has a thick accent and somewhat ridiculous mannerisms. He also has a headband of +4 Int, but his monkey familiar has a headband too and is still smarter than he is.

This PC also has a 25 Charisma by this point and excels at Diplomacy. With his magic headband he even knows what grass is!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rando1000 wrote:
True, but it's not only skill checks that can give away someone's ability score (within a couple points). It's in the general statements, the misuse of colloquialisms, the length of the sentences.

Sure. And if a player roleplays their character that way, NPCs will react appropriately. I once played a kobold (Int 12) who spoke draconic and common. When my character was speaking in draconic, I used proper grammar, had a larger vocabulary, etc. When speaking common, he spoke much more pidgin and less grammatically. The idea was he spoke draconic fluently, but common was very much a second language for him. If a player does something similar to roleplay their Int 7 character, then I'll go along with it. But if they choose to roleplay their character differently, I'm not going to try to force my player to conform to a narrow spectrum of what Int 7 means. I'm not in the business of micromanaging my players' roleplaying decisions.


This is very simple.

As long as there are classes that can get by with one really good stat and some others need 3 or more, there will be people making up the difference

EX:

Make 1 character of each class, using the stats: 18, 10, 10,10, 8, 6 (yes crap stats on point buy but go with me on this, it is to prove a point.)

A few classes will be able to get by with those stats, and others are completely unplayable.

The usefulness of stats are not all the same.

Str: most melee need it but it does not have any vitally needed skills associated with it, and if you do not plan to fight with weapons it does not matter beyond carrying weight.

Dex: Needed for just about everyone, some can get by with a 10 - 12 if they make up for it with heavy armor, but there are many skills that use it, it is one Reflex saves on top of it being used in Initiative and AC. Very useful stat.

Con: HP, and Fort saves... that is it. Not a single skill based on it and very few class abilities.
HP keeps you alive so VERY few people ever dump it.

Int: Skill points, and knowledge skills. Also some classes have abilities that are based on them but most don't. Lets face it, other than Perception, some classes do not really care about most skills, and their skill points are so low it does not matter.

Wis: Will saves, and some of the best skills in the game, along with quite a few class features.
Only Paladins will ever bottom this out. people with completely pointless skills, (fighter) might drop it because it will not make difference anyway.

Cha: Dump stat of choice form most classes.
Here is why: This is a game of role playing, and some people just treat it like big dungeon crawl with talking in between. If you do not plan to be the talker of the group. It does not matter. It has nothing to do with any saves, no combat traits of any kind unless you specifically bold for it, and no skills that matter if you do not talk.


demontroll wrote:
I do the opposite. I let players dump their stats all the way down to 3. A base stat min of 7 is just too confining for proper 3/18 min/max.

I did same, though in my game, when stat is 8 or below, all related skills lose their Class skill bonus and if stat is 6 or below, it is impossible to put any ranks to any related skill, as the character can't stay motivated to learn things, what he clearly sucks.

I gave them only 15 points to buy stats, but I also rewarded some points from image and background story. The lowest stat on my group was 8 on Str by sorcerer, which included the aging modifiers.


I don't have any problem with people dumping stats, as long as the player doesn't get mad if they end up in a bind for it. I usually try to give them some warning at character creation though:
"Ok, your caster dumped strength down to 7? You know that means one good single Ray of Enfeeblement will probably make him unable to stand with the weight of even a really light pack, right?"

With mental stats I'll also ask them questions like "So your character has an 8 in Wisdom, what does that represent? Is he just really dense? Is he constantly on edge and twitchy?"

As long as they realize that a really low stat is, in fact, a weakness that clever enemies may try to exploit I'm ok with them Minimizing whatever they want and Maximizing whatever else. They can have whatever they want as their weakness as long as they don't cry foul when it comes into play.


DetectiveKatana wrote:
"Ok, your caster dumped strength down to 7? You know that means one good single Ray of Enfeeblement will probably make him unable to stand with the weight of even a really light pack, right?"

Point of clarification: SKR is on record as saying temporary bonuses/ability damage change your ability score modifier and only when applied to dice rolls or DCs; so ability damage or penalties wouldn't affect your encumbrance since it's based on raw Str. You would, however, suffer on all Strength rolls including, but not limited to, melee attack and damage, Strength ability checks, Swim and Climb checks, and special abilities you perform with strength-based DCs (I don't know of any DCs off-hand that add Strength; this would be more applicable to spellcasting and mental stats).

Ability Drain, on the other hand, does affect the stat itself (though it's more rare).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shar Tahl wrote:
Stat dumping is a power play to exploit the point buy system. Lower stats are, in an ideal mechanical world, considered a disadvantage, so more points are given to balance them out with higher stats elsewhere. The exploitation happens when the lowered stat is actually not a disadvantage at all. This creates "freebie" points for classes that have stats the are irreverent or low significance.

I fail to see how it's exploitative. Do you honestly think the designers hadn't anticipated that Wizards might dump Str, or Fighters dump Int? I think it's the system working exactly as intended.


You muchkins and your buying down to 7.

Back in the days of 3.5 the lowest you could buy was 8! And we liked it that way.

Silver Crusade

In 35 years of playing the various incarnations of D&D I never used point-buy until I was forced to by PFS, and by the 4th ed group I joined.

(Interestingly, that group is now a general role-play games group. Pathfinder is probably the most played system, and there hasn't been a single 4th ed game there for years.)

Shadow Lodge

Sarcasmancer wrote:
Shar Tahl wrote:
Stat dumping is a power play to exploit the point buy system. Lower stats are, in an ideal mechanical world, considered a disadvantage, so more points are given to balance them out with higher stats elsewhere. The exploitation happens when the lowered stat is actually not a disadvantage at all. This creates "freebie" points for classes that have stats the are irreverent or low significance.
I fail to see how it's exploitative. Do you honestly think the designers hadn't anticipated that Wizards might dump Str, or Fighters dump Int? I think it's the system working exactly as intended.

Your probably right in so far as lowering stats.

My opinion, they probsbly didnt anticipate those who dont want to RP the lowered ability scores.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! people who roleplay badwrongly. Part of designing a game is having a narrow spectrum of what is proper roleplay and assuming everyone who ever plays the game will stay within your confines.

Silver Crusade

Some people play the game more as a tactical combat game. RPing your mental stats isn't an issue.

I've played a game of MERP where I spent days researching the Sindarin and Quenya translation of 'Day Star', for the name of my beautiful (102 appearance out of 100) elf, and I wanted the middle ground between Tínuviel (Dawnstar) and Undomiel (Evenstar). The best I could come up with was 'Résil', but it was in the wrong dialect; it's the best I could do.

At the same table was a guy who called his PC 'Dwarf Number Four'.

I also briefly joined a game of Basic D&D and wanted to make an Elf (which were basically forced to be fighter/mages). Since one of the players was already playing an Elf and I didn't want to step on her toes, I asked what weapon she was using so that I could choose something different.

'I don't know, but it does 1d8 damage.'


Scavion wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:


Yes, having your group cover for your weaknesses makes a lot of sense much of the time.

In this case, sometimes you have to ask though... why does even the Bard like him? If he plays a character 'no one likes'... why does he have a loyal group of people with him at all time to watch his back?

Why? Because he wouldn't be much of a PC if they didn't. So it gets hand waved of course. This surly uncouth jerk of a guy has to be accepted by the group... if he isn't, then the player gets upset, or some other plot devices get thrown at the situation to force them to play well together.

All metagame reasons. And players who dump their Cha know this, they know their low cha will not have anything to do with group dynamics. They'll have a group of other PCs to cover for them, and they can freely act as jerkish as they desire and the group feels the need to suck it up, because it would create player conflicts otherwise.

Careful, this kind of ridiculousness spawned the whole "No one in good conscious should take an Oracle as a party member if they can help it since some of them are literally disabled."

What I find fascinating about this whole thing is that I don't think having a 7 in a stat is a bad thing. But somehow people are assuming I am implying such.

A handicapped character is a totally viable character, if you play it as a handicapped character. Play him as both great at things and not-great at things, explore what it is to have those limitations and weaknesses.

I only take exception to people who dump a stat to 7 and then try to pretend their character doesn't have a major flaw. That is just munchkin cheesiness.


The problem here is that you are the only person in this thread that thinks 7 Int is "handicapped".

No amount of you spewing out bad math, strange and nonsensical (and constantly shifting) parameters, and calling people "munchkins" is going to change that.

Let it go, man.


Roberta Yang wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
So people constantly use the ONE person who views things this way(admittedly extreme) as an example of everyones view who disagrees with them?
It's easier to disagree with a straw man than an actual person.

Remy's not an actual person?

Remy may be the only one asking for a check to know what grass is, but other people have said things along similar lines. For example, quite a few pulled the "There are no 7's in the basic array so 7 Int makes you literally the stupidest human who has ever lived in the entire world and so you are superhumanly mentally disabled!!" nonsense.

But people aren't arguing with me, they're arguing with their own straw man version of me. It is fun. You should try it...wait, never mind, you have.


Rynjin wrote:

The problem here is that you are the only person in this thread that thinks 7 Int is "handicapped".

No amount of you spewing out bad math, strange and nonsensical (and constantly shifting) parameters, and calling people "munchkins" is going to change that.

Let it go, man.

Show how my math is bad. Show how my parameters are strange or nonsensical. Labeling them such arbitrarily isn't going to get me to 'let it go'.

If you think I'm wrong, awesome! Show me why.

No one has shown me why. A good chunk of responses have been roughly ‘You’re wrong and shut up’. How does that help anyone?

Do people know what a handicap is?

Handicap: “hindrance: something that hinders or is a disadvantage to somebody or something”

How is a 7 in a stat not a handicap?


Marthkus wrote:

You muchkins and your buying down to 7.

Back in the days of 3.5 the lowest you could buy was 8! And we liked it that way.

I'd tell you to keep walking but its up hill no matter which way you go! :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Did I not mention the Village Idiot?

Intelligence of 4, not 7.


Remy Balster wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

The problem here is that you are the only person in this thread that thinks 7 Int is "handicapped".

No amount of you spewing out bad math, strange and nonsensical (and constantly shifting) parameters, and calling people "munchkins" is going to change that.

Let it go, man.

Show how my math is bad. Show how my parameters are strange or nonsensical. Labeling them such arbitrarily isn't going to get me to 'let it go'.

If you think I'm wrong, awesome! Show me why.

No one has shown me why. A good chunk of responses have been roughly ‘You’re wrong and shut up’. How does that help anyone?

Do people know what a handicap is?

Handicap: “hindrance: something that hinders or is a disadvantage to somebody or something”

How is a 7 in a stat not a handicap?

it's a minor hinderance at best

a lot of the nonhuman races function just fine with 7s, 6s, and 5s, i don't see much of an issue with a 7, hell, a 5 is just fine with me. it's only 15% less than normal. a 7 is only 10% less than normal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Did I not mention the Village Idiot?

Intelligence of 4, not 7.

To be fair he was TRYING to write a 7 on the sheet.

Shadow Lodge

Seems when you use the word 'handicapped' some people see 'HANDICAPPED'. A negative bonus is a handicap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Remy Balster wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

The problem here is that you are the only person in this thread that thinks 7 Int is "handicapped".

No amount of you spewing out bad math, strange and nonsensical (and constantly shifting) parameters, and calling people "munchkins" is going to change that.

Let it go, man.

Show how my math is bad. Show how my parameters are strange or nonsensical. Labeling them such arbitrarily isn't going to get me to 'let it go'.

If you think I'm wrong, awesome! Show me why.

No one has shown me why. A good chunk of responses have been roughly ‘You’re wrong and shut up’. How does that help anyone?

Do people know what a handicap is?

Handicap: “hindrance: something that hinders or is a disadvantage to somebody or something”

How is a 7 in a stat not a handicap?

The issue here is that the word "handicap" can refer to quite a broad spectrum of disabilities. So, while you may be correct in claiming that an intelligence of 7 is a handicap, you can still be (simultaneously) incorrect about the following claim:

"The guy with a 7 int can barely even write his name, when he remembers what it even is of course. He cannot retain information to save his life. You could tell him simple instructions and he'll forget them."

In other words, you seem to be backtracking quite a bit to make your position seem more tractable whenever it gets attacked. However, when you want to demonstrate how earth-shatteringly crippling an intelligence of 7, you make ridiculous claims as above.


Remy Balster wrote:


Show how my math is bad.

Quite simply, it's based on false assumptions (every piece of information in the game requires a Knowledge check, be it "What is a fork" to questions on advanced particle physics).

Everything that follows from that is therefore null.

Remy Balster wrote:
Show how my parameters are strange or nonsensical.

"The base check for any action (no matter how simple) is DC 0."

When proven wrong by pointing out counter examples in the rules:.

"The base check for any action (no matter how simple) is DC 10."

When proven wrong by pointing out counterexamples in the rules:

"..."

There's one.

Repeatedly saying Int 7 is at mouth breathing moron levels of stupid and you can hardly function, when in-game the Village Idiot has Int 4 and is the only character that fits your description is another.

Do you REALLY want me to keep going?

Remy Balster wrote:


No one has shown me why.

Plenty of people have. On multiple occasions.

You not accepting it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Remy Balster wrote:

Do people know what a handicap is?

Handicap: “hindrance: something that hinders or is a disadvantage to somebody or something”

How is a 7 in a stat not a handicap?

Cute. However, that is not the definition of handicapped you've been using up to now.

In fact, it's not the primary definition of handicapped at all (note the extra "p" and the "ed").

"1.
having a condition that markedly restricts one's ability to function physically, mentally, or socially."

Nobody disagrees that Int 7 is a hindrance. Int 7 is a handicap.

However, what you've been pushing for is that an Int 7 person is handicapped. A term usually reserved for someone who, as the definition suggests is "markedly hindered".

A person with no legs is handicapped in a race.

A person whose shoelace is untied has a handicap.

An Int 7 person is the mental equivalent of the latter, not the former.

Shadow Lodge

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


a lot of the nonhuman races function just fine with 7s, 6s, and 5s, i don't see much of an issue with a 7, hell, a 5 is just fine with me. it's only 15% less than normal. a 7 is only 10% less than normal.

My opinion, this thinking is wrong. There is only upto a -5 possible, so each negative is actually 20%.


Jacob Saltband wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


a lot of the nonhuman races function just fine with 7s, 6s, and 5s, i don't see much of an issue with a 7, hell, a 5 is just fine with me. it's only 15% less than normal. a 7 is only 10% less than normal.
My opinion, this thinking is wrong. There is only upto a -5 possible, so each negative is actually 20%.

That's a bit binary.

It implies that the ONLY difference between intelligence scores is by the modifiers. So a 9 and an 8 are identical. A 10 and an 11 are identical. A 12 and a 13 are identical, and so on.

This isn't the case in-game, most prominently with Feats that require odd numbered stat bonuses. If a 12 and a 13 were really identical, a 12 Int person should have no issue taking Combat Expertise. But that's not the case.

Likewise, a 14 Dex person is demonstrably NOT as nimble as a 15 Dex person, because they cannot effectively Two-Weapon Fight without that extra point of Dex (unless they're a Ranger. Rangers break a lotta rules. =)).

Shadow Lodge

Rynjin wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


a lot of the nonhuman races function just fine with 7s, 6s, and 5s, i don't see much of an issue with a 7, hell, a 5 is just fine with me. it's only 15% less than normal. a 7 is only 10% less than normal.
My opinion, this thinking is wrong. There is only upto a -5 possible, so each negative is actually 20%.

That's a bit binary.

It implies that the ONLY difference between intelligence scores is by the modifiers. So a 9 and an 8 are identical. A 10 and an 11 are identical. A 12 and a 13 are identical, and so on.

This isn't the case in-game, most prominently with Feats that require odd numbered stat bonuses. If a 12 and a 13 were really identical, a 12 Int person should have no issue taking Combat Expertise. But that's not the case.

Likewise, a 14 Dex person is demonstrably NOT as nimble as a 15 Dex person, because they cannot effectively Two-Weapon Fight without that extra point of Dex (unless they're a Ranger. Rangers break a lotta rules. =)).

So your saying the 5 snd 10% used earlier works better as an example? They dont differentiate between even and odd scores either.


Jacob Saltband wrote:


So your saying the 5 snd 10% used earlier works better as an example? They dont differentiate between even and odd scores either.

Erm...yeah they do.

This assumes a continnum of 0-20, rather than 0-10. Because we know 10 is DEFINITELY not the max score for normal people.

Rather than what you were saying (each modifier is just a flat 20%, with nothing in between).

Unless I'm just confused as to what y'all are talking about at this point, which is possible.

501 to 550 of 978 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Point Buy - Down to 7 All Messageboards