| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Handicap: “hindrance: something that hinders or is a disadvantage to somebody or something”How is a 7 in a stat not a handicap?
I've personally never claimed it WASN'T a hindrance... but the hindrance is built into the rule mechanics. If you have a low stat, you are fundamentally weaker in the category that needs that stat.
No more, no less.
If you dump INT, you do not have the skill points, you do not get to roll well for Knowledge. If the DC is over 10 of a knowledge... you don't get to roll untrained at all. Which you are. Because you didn't have the skill points to pad them up...
If you dump CHR, you suck at Diplomacies and skills that require CHR.
I just don't like people saying that a 'dumb' guy can't contribute to a puzzle or plan. Just because I know nothing about Astronomy or Abberations... doesn't mean I don't know tactics or the best way to get around town.
It seems like in most of the shows I've seen there is always a village idiot floating around who says something profounc at JUST the right time, and all the 'smarter' people just turn and look at him and open the door.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We all know that the stats and how they affect something as variable as a d20 don't quite match up with reality.
|
Handicap: “hindrance: something that hinders or is a disadvantage to somebody or something”How is a 7 in a stat not a handicap?
I've personally never claimed it WASN'T a hindrance... but the hindrance is built into the rule mechanics. If you have a low stat, you are fundamentally weaker in the category that needs that stat.
No more, no less.
If you dump INT, you do not have the skill points, you do not get to roll well for Knowledge. If the DC is over 10 of a knowledge... you don't get to roll untrained at all. Which you are. Because you didn't have the skill points to pad them up...
If you dump CHR, you suck at Diplomacies and skills that require CHR.
I just don't like people saying that a 'dumb' guy can't contribute to a puzzle or plan. Just because I know nothing about Astronomy or Abberations... doesn't mean I don't know tactics or the best way to get around town.
It seems like in most of the shows I've seen there is always a village idiot floating around who says something profounc at JUST the right time, and all the 'smarter' people just turn and look at him and open the door.
This is the type of response you get from those who feel that ability scores dont effect roleplay, they just effect rollplay.
|
|
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.
I dont know math that well beyond basic. Why are we assuming a 0-20 when 20 isnt the maxium. 20 is only the starting max.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I am most certainly not backtracking, and have on numerous occasions said that there are a multitude of ways to role play a 7 in a stat. Low Int characters can be played in a number of ways, the Int stat is abstract.
People seem to be taking exception to specific examples I've given, as though they all MUST BE ENFORCED or something. I've never claimed anything like that.
I have said, and stand by firmly;
An attribute of a 7 is a handicap
An attribute of an 8-9 is a character flaw
A 7 Int character is learning impaired (and I showed why)
A low stat should be considered while role playing that character
3d6 is not the standard population attribute model, stat array is
Trying to pretend your character doesn't have a low stat, while he has a 7, is a strong indicator of being a munchkin
I dont know math that well beyond basic. Why are we assuming a 0-20 when 20 isnt the maxium. 20 is only the starting max.
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.
Starting max is pretty much THE max for your average NPC...high as you can go without magic, levels 8 or above, or being a race with at least +4 to Str.
It's just a good cut-off for where "Mundane Strongman" ends and "Super-human Might" begins, because without outside assistance (magic or magic items) or "Breaking the Reality Barrier" you can't go higher.
|
|
I dont know math that well beyond basic. Why are we assuming a 0-20 when 20 isnt the maxium. 20 is only the starting max.
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.
Starting max is pretty much THE max for your average NPC...high as you can go without magic, levels 8 or above, or being a race with at least +4 to Str.
It's just a good cut-off for where "Mundane Strongman" ends and "Super-human Might" begins, because without outside assistance (magic or magic items) or "Breaking the Reality Barrier" you can't go higher.
Ok I can understsnd that. What I dont understand is how a 5 is 15% off of normal (10).
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.
Good thing it isn’t actually based on that assumption, no matter how many times you say it is.
"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:
"..."
I made 2 comparisons, one for rolling, and one for taking 10. Both are valid, even if you don’t understand them.
I will give it one more shot, and explain again.
DC 0 is the DC at which a task that just about anyone can accomplish, always. If I need to make a DC 0 strength check, and have a 10 Str…. This is a check that I cannot fail. If I need to make an Acrobatics check DC 0, not wearing any armor and Dex 10, this is a check that I cannot fail.
DC 0 checks do not get failed by people with a relevant stat of 10 (average). Thus, it is the DC of tasks that everyone can do. Not ‘everyone’ in the sense of every last creature… but ‘everyone’ in the sense of the common phrasing.
Now, similarly, DC 10 is the DC of a task for which those same everyones can take 10 for. If you have a relevant stat of 10 to the task, and can take 10 on the task, DC 10 is a DC which you automatically succeed.
Then, after establishing these fairly obvious self evident truths about how the game functions, demonstrated how a 9 in the relevant stat changes these scenarios, and how an 7 changes these scenarios even further.
Why you are so hung up on trying to straw man this clearly self evident, undeniably true aspect of the d20 check system, I have no clue.
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?
Int 8-9 has a -1
Int 6-7 has a -2Int 4-5 has a -3
An Int of 4 is only -1 modifier different than Int 7. Mechanically, that is the same difference as a 9 to a 10.
I showed why the -2 was such a big difference from a -1. With training, a -1 Int can at least become proficient enough to understand the same things most people do by default. With the -2, even with training they still do not understand the same things most people do by default. -3 require even more training than -2, but only by 50%. They require 3 ranks, as compared to 2 ranks, to make up for and understand the same things normal people do by default.
They are both slow, the Int 4 is noticeably slower, but the Int 7 is still remarkably slow.
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.
So, you are saying a person with an Int of 7 has a handicap. But a person with an Int of 7 is not handicapped.
That is really what you are saying?
Okay.
If we assume that normal people roll 3d6 for their stats (which there is no conclusive evidence for or against), then out of a population of 100, there will be around 9 with Intelligence below 7, 7 with Intelligence of 7, and 84 with Intelligence above 7.
Given the same amount of skill points in a single subject, a character with 7 Int will have only 5% lower chance of succeeding at an Int-based skill than someone with an Int of 9 (though they will usually have a less broad range or skills).
|
|
If we assume that normal people roll 3d6 for their stats (which there is no conclusive evidence for or against), then out of a population of 100, there will be around 9 with Intelligence below 7, 7 with Intelligence of 7, and 84 with Intelligence above 7.
Given the same amount of skill points in a single subject, a character with 7 Int will have only 5% lower chance of succeeding at an Int-based skill than someone with an Int of 9 (though they will usually have a less broad range or skills).
Ok I can see that. But the way I look at it is that a -2 isnt 10% off normal, its over 1/3 of the way to the max penalty.
If we assume that normal people roll 3d6 for their stats (which there is no conclusive evidence for or against), then out of a population of 100, there will be around 9 with Intelligence below 7, 7 with Intelligence of 7, and 84 with Intelligence above 7.
Given the same amount of skill points in a single subject, a character with 7 Int will have only 5% lower chance of succeeding at an Int-based skill than someone with an Int of 9 (though they will usually have a less broad range or skills).
5% lower chance, yes, but that isn't the important number.
If the chance for 10 is 100% chance, the guy with 9 has 95% chance, and the guy with 7 has a 90% chance. And infinitely more failures than Int 10 guy. The guy with 7 fails twice as often as the Int 9 guy. 100% increased failure rate.
If the guy with 10 has a 50%, the guy with 9 has a 45%, and 7 has a 40%. The guy with a 7 fails 9% more often than the Int 9 guy on this one. And 20% more often than the Int 10 guy.
That's the funny thing about the d20 system, and linear bonuses and penalties to your checks with variable target numbers. 5% isn't simply 5%
/////
To demonstrate, the following example;
Fighter A and Fighter B. Both do 10 damage on a hit. Fighter A has +11 to hit, Fighter B has +10 to hit. Using a 20/x2 weapon, no confirms, for simplicity.
Fighter A has 5% greater chance to hit than Fighter B, yeah? But... what does that actually mean?
Against AC 11, they both do 10.5 damage per attack on average. A does 0% more damage.
Against AC 12 , A does 10.5 and B does 10 damage per attack on average. A does 5% more damage.
Against AC 14 , A does 9.5 and B does 9 damage per attack on average. A does 5.5% more damage.
Against AC 16, A does 8.5 and B does 8 damage per attack on average. A does 6.25% more damage.
Against AC 18, A does 7.5 and B does 7 damage per attack on average. A does 7.14% more damage.
Against AC 20, A does 6.5 and B does 6 damage per attack on average. A does 8.33% more damage.
Against AC 22, A does 5.5 and B does 5 damage per attack on average. A does 10% more damage.
Against AC 24, A does 4.5 and B does 4 damage per attack on average. A does 12.5% more damage.
Against AC 26 , A does 3.5 and B does 3 damage per attack on average. A does 16.66% more damage.
Against AC 28, A does 2.5 and B does 2 damage per attack on average. A does 25% more damage.
Against AC 30, A does 1.5 and B does 1 damage per attack on average. A does 50% more damage.
So, as you can see... 5% difference in chance doesn't translate to 5% difference in results. Not in d20, and not in Pathfinder.
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.'
I wonder if the guy who played Dwarf Number Four knew the guy in our Traveler game where every character was "A Boy Named Sue <insert number here>". He died a lot. He died strafing sheep in a high tech starfighter. I think he died three times one night.
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.'
I just cried a little inside.
|
I have said, and stand by firmly;
...3d6 is not the standard population attribute model, stat array is...
Each ability score generally ranges from 3 to 18
min 3 max 18
Standard: 4d6 drop the lowest
min 3 max 18
Classic: 3d6
min 3 max 18
Heroic: 2d6+6
min 8 max 18
Dice Pool: Divide 24 (or 28) d6 between the six abilities (min 3d6), add the highest 3 results
min 3 max 18
Point-Buy:
min 7 max 18
As a whole, the minimum score is 3 and the maximum is 18.
All these methods are ways to generate heroes. Just how heroic depends on the choice of method, but the least heroic is to have an average hero, an everyman if you will, the 'classic' 3d6.
The reason we know that (most) of these methods end up creating better than average heroes is that we know what the average range is! As stated, the range is 3 to 18. The method to get this is the 'classic' 3d6, which produces the familiar bell-curve upon which all the games assumptions on what the numbers mean is based.
The various methods used to create better than average PCs does not, by definition, change the scale that these heroes are measured against.
Aids to make the DMs life easier, such as giving a stat array for NPCs (whether 13 12 11 10 9 8 or 11 11 11 10 10 10) are simply saving him the trouble of rolling up every creature on the planet with as much effort as it take to create the heroes. They are not limits to human potential! This is so basic even the Village Idiot knows this (Int 4)!
Rolling for stats is dumb. Much like buying 7s
Good thing it isn’t actually based on that assumption, no matter how many times you say it is.
Given that you've said nearly that exact thing multiple times now, forgive me if I don't believe you.
I made 2 comparisons, one for rolling, and one for taking 10. Both are valid, even if you don’t understand them.
I will give it one more shot, and explain again.
DC 0 is the DC at which a task that just about anyone can accomplish, always. If I need to make a DC 0 strength check, and have a 10 Str…. This is a check that I cannot fail. If I need to make an Acrobatics check DC 0, not wearing any armor and Dex 10, this is a check that I cannot fail.
DC 0 checks do not get failed by people with a relevant stat of 10 (average). Thus, it is the DC of tasks that everyone can do. Not ‘everyone’ in the sense of every last creature… but ‘everyone’ in the sense of the common phrasing.
The problem with it is that it assumes (as the previous statement...which you said you never made) that EVERY action requires a check. Both this and the following are based on that assumption.
This assumption is false, at least in the sense that it proves your point that someone with a stat penalty is handicapped. DC 0 things are not as simple as you make them out to be in this game.
DC 0 is stuff like climbing a knotted rope up a rock face. I know a number of people IRL that would not be able to do that (on their first try, without undue effort).
They are not handicapped. Merely weak. They have a Str of 8, even 7. They can function just fine in daily life. It's just that climbing a rope up a wall is not something that comes up very often.
Now, similarly, DC 10 is the DC of a task for which those same everyones can take 10 for. If you have a relevant stat of 10 to the task, and can take 10 on the task, DC 10 is a DC which you automatically succeed.
Again, technically true, but not in the manner you've been using it.
The main example you've been using is Knowledge checks, assuming DC 10 or DC 0 is required for every possible thing a person could ever know below "advanced" knowledge.
A person does not need to make a DC 10, or even a DC 0 Knowledge check to know what one of their body parts is. Or what grass is. Or what extremely common animals (dogs, cats, birds) are. They may not know the exact TYPE of dog, cat, or bird (which is what Kn. Nature is for), but they know the basic idea. No check was required.
Then, after establishing these fairly obvious self evident truths about how the game functions, demonstrated how a 9 in the relevant stat changes these scenarios, and how an 7 changes these scenarios even further.
Why you are so hung up on trying to straw man this clearly self evident, undeniably true aspect of the d20 check system, I have no clue.
Because technically correct is the best type of correct, as we know.
There's no straw man here. I am arguing against EXACT THINGS YOU HAVE SAID. People keep using that word. They really need to look up the f$*&ing definition before they do.
An Int of 4 is only -1 modifier different than Int 7. Mechanically, that is the same difference as a 9 to a 10.
I showed why the -2 was such a big difference from a -1. With training, a -1 Int can at least become proficient enough to understand the same things most people do by default. With the -2, even with training they still do not understand the same things most people do by default. -3 require even more training than -2, but only by 50%. They require 3 ranks, as compared to 2 ranks, to make up for and understand the same things normal people do by default.
They are both slow, the Int 4 is noticeably slower, but the Int 7 is still remarkably slow.
Again, your math worked from the assumption (at first) that everything required a Knowledge check.
Your second (well, some example after the first one anyway, I lost track) example, I'll admit, was much more valid.
On a test, yes, the Int 7 person will do poorly. He's not going to pick up the fine points of spelunking (Kn. Dungeoneering) very well. Stupid people are bad test takers when they don't retain the knowledge, true.
However, that doesn't hinder him very well in daily life. He can still do his job. He is not, as you keep saying, handicapped (or "distinctively incapable" of functioning in day to day life).
He's not so big on fancy book-larnin', but he's not an ignoraymoose, if you get what I'm saying.
He's a tiny bit smarter than an Ogre. Ogres live just fine on their own, pillaging, plundering, raping and...what do we have here? Common labor. "Mining, forging, clearing land..." they get by just fine.
Even more complicated professions are open to someone with Int 6/7, as long as they have a decent Wis. You could be a dynamite lawyer with only Int 7, even.
Here's the second problem with your argument...it ignores that once a Knowledge check has been made, it sticks with the character forever.
An Int 7 person can study hard and ace that test no problem, just like in real life. Yes, an Int 7 slacker is worse than an Int 10 slacker...but it evens out in the end if the Int 7 guy works hard at it.
Not convinced that's in the rules? Check the Untrained section, about libraries.
Go to your local library, spend 1d4 hours studying and making Knowledge checks (sometimes at a bonus, and you can even make ones with a DC over 10!), and you can ace that test.
Yes it takes a while. Yes you're slow. But you COULD actually end up knowing MORE about a subject than an Int 10 guy who doesn't study could.
So, you are saying a person with an Int of 7 has a handicap. But a person with an Int of 7 is not handicapped.
That is really what you are saying?
Okay.
Yes. Hence why I spent a whole paragraph explaining the very important difference between the two words.
Int 7 is like having a bum leg (and can walk with a limp). You're a bit slow, but you'll eventually get there. It's a handicap, but you can manage. It's not like having both of your legs cut off (handicapped).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the type of response you get from those who feel that ability scores dont effect roleplay, they just effect rollplay.
Handicap: “hindrance: something that hinders or is a disadvantage to somebody or something”How is a 7 in a stat not a handicap?
I've personally never claimed it WASN'T a hindrance... but the hindrance is built into the rule mechanics. If you have a low stat, you are fundamentally weaker in the category that needs that stat.
No more, no less.
If you dump INT, you do not have the skill points, you do not get to roll well for Knowledge. If the DC is over 10 of a knowledge... you don't get to roll untrained at all. Which you are. Because you didn't have the skill points to pad them up...
If you dump CHR, you suck at Diplomacies and skills that require CHR.
I just don't like people saying that a 'dumb' guy can't contribute to a puzzle or plan. Just because I know nothing about Astronomy or Abberations... doesn't mean I don't know tactics or the best way to get around town.
It seems like in most of the shows I've seen there is always a village idiot floating around who says something profounc at JUST the right time, and all the 'smarter' people just turn and look at him and open the door.
Rollplay and RolePlay go hand in hand.
It's obvious nobody agrees what the stat actually means therefore its impossible to 'force' people to your idea of 'dumb'. Just as it's impossible to 'force' your idea of smart. Just as its not cool to let one guy with a low chr succeed based only on the players personality.... so would it be uncool for the Suave swashbuckler or cunning diplomat to fail based entirely on the the personality of the player.
I have a paladin who depends on the 21 chr and 15 diplomacy to offset MY stupid remarks and my 18 Chr swashbuckler is much more a ladies man than "I" ever was or will be...
But quite frankly I know a LOT of useless facts and I would not rank my Int extremely high. If the riddle is how many rings are around Saturn and the Int 7 guy spouted out the right answer... That's legit. Why would he know that?? Who knows WHERE that useless stuff comes from. Anywhere from 'Heard it on Star Trek' to 'I once dated an Astronomer' are perfectly viable answers for why the dumb guy solved the riddle that the wizard was scratching his head over.
|
|
We can agree that groups of people with have different takes on how a low mental ability score should be played, i.e. how smart/not smart, personable/non personable, etc.
There have been times while playing that I knew the answer to a puzzle/non knowledge based question because I personally had some type of experience before that gave me the answer. Before I answered for my character I thought sbout where he/she would have any reason what so ever to be able to come up with the answer. Whether at some point in their back ground they might have run across it before or that that characters raw reasoning power (int score) was good enough to possibly come up with the answer. If I thought they didnt have an possible reason the know, I wouldnt answer as my character, I'd tell one of the other players whose character could possibly know, what I thought the answer was so that they could answer.
By thats just me I guess.
We can agree that groups of people with have different takes on how a low mental ability score should be played, i.e. how smart/not smart, personable/non personable, etc.
There have been times while playing that I knew the answer to a puzzle/non knowledge based question because I personally had some type of experience before that gave me the answer. Before I answered for my character I thought sbout where he/she would have any reason what so ever to be able to come up with the answer. Whether at some point in their back ground they might have run across it before or that that characters raw reasoning power (int score) was good enough to possibly come up with the answer. If I thought they didnt have an possible reason the know, I wouldnt answer as my character, I'd tell one of the other players whose character could possibly know, what I thought the answer was so that they could answer.
By thats just me I guess.
Nope! I actually agree with you here.
I once played (in 2E) a savage elven wolfrider who had zero exposure outside his tribe and only a tentative grasp on the common language. he was a blast, but useless in riddle situations.
I don't remember his int score... but I played it lower then it was. he was quite clever in HIS society, but in human lands?? not as much.
When people mocked his language skills he pointed a finger at them and said "I speak elf. I speak Wolf, I speak people. What you speak?" :D
But again, it wasn't the ONLY way I could have played him. He knew a lot of stuff but couldn't really communicate it to the group, but the dm didn't magically make up new house ruled penalties to hurt my character... I did it myself.
|
|
You know phantom1592 you were doing good up until you said that last part.
It is 'your opinion' that roleplay penalties are not part of the game rules. You refuse to see the parts in the ability score discription that are part of each score. What you see as magically new never been seen before houserule penalties are already there, you just dont want to see.
In my opinion, skills dont replace ability scores. Lets use an example using a 5 cha scores and ranks in deplomacy and a 14 cha score with equal ranks in deplomacy. Now lets assume the 5 succeded on his roll and the 14 did not.
NPC talks to a friend later: you know that guy who was in here earlier? I just didnt like him,he rubbed me the wrong way but when he started talking about (insert request) he kind of made since.
NPC admits to wife later: I met this guy today, he seemed really nice, but I didnt think what he was me to do was worth the trouble.
|
|
NPC talks to a friend later: you know that guy who was in here earlier? I just didnt like him,he rubbed me the wrong way but when he started talking about (insert request) he kind of made since.
In RL some people like you, some don't. There isn't some precise Cha score at which you are liked and below which you rub everyone the wrong way.
Sure, low Cha people are more likely to rub you up the wrong way and high Cha people are more likely to be liked; that's what Diplomacy rolls are for.
NPC admits to wife later: I met this guy today, he seemed really nice, but I didnt think what he was me to do was worth the trouble.
By using these two examples you are supposing that the Cha score always has the same response, which is only changed by a contrary Diplomacy roll. I'm saying that the Diplomacy roll is what the response is based upon.
When talking about Int instead of Cha, it's like saying that Int 15 people will always know a particular fact and Int 5 people cannot know that same fact. I'm saying that you make the roll to discover who knows what.
Yes, the higher the Int the more likely to know, but this doesn't determine what these individuals actually know! That's what the roll is for.
You could very well model this by imagining a test with 20 questions. You might expect that, statistically, the Int 5 guy will get 5 correct answers and the Int 15 guy will get 15, but you cannot say that every single person with Int 15 or more will get question X correct and every single person with Int 14 or less will get that same question wrong.
By extension, those in this thread that imagine that Int 7 people must be like this or cannot know that are barking up the wrong tree.
By using these two examples you are supposing that the Cha score always has the same response, which is only changed by a contrary Diplomacy roll. I'm saying that the Diplomacy roll is what the response is based upon.
When talking about Int instead of Cha, it's like saying that Int 15 people will always know a particular fact and Int 5 people cannot know that same fact. I'm saying that you make the roll to discover who knows what.
This, I suspect, is the source of contention and misunderstanding throughout this entire thread. (mostly)
When people use examples of a low Cha, or a low Int or Wis etc, they are not claiming that ALL Int/Wis/Cha scores of this level MUST be played EXACTLY like the example.
We all know that there are MANY ways that a low or high score can manifest itself in someone. Providing an example is just that; an example. One of many possibilities.
By extension, those in this thread that imagine that Int 7 people must be like this or cannot know that are barking up the wrong tree.
Less people are doing this than you think, I suspect.
|
|
Only my opinion.
I say it againt. Skill do not change what your ability scores are. Your brain functions a certin way (int score), learning something doesnt change how your brain works it gives you more knowledge/skills to work with. Having lots of skills my make you seem smarter but doesnt change how 'smart' you actually are. Its called 'book smarts'
The same thing with cha and wis.
Also the way I see skills is that they are something you 'use'. Your making a diplomacy roll in every little conversation you have are you? Cha is your personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead and appearance. Anyone or all of them could be used as a reason for a low ability scores. I chose personality as part of my example. Your choosing to interpret what I said as 14 cha can only be played this way and that 5 cha will always be played as rubbing people the wrong way, is just you being somewhat narrow minded, because I NEVER said that.
Now after saying all that I aware that this stand is as solid as it used to be since in 3.x and PF you an ability score increase which can be placed in you mental stats
I would put 9 at pretty average. :)
Not completely average, but rather average. Npc stats have been mentioned above.
Let me ask a straight forward question.
Is a 5 ability score below average?
Is any score below 10 a below average score?
5 is below average.
The second part's a bit iffy. Speaking very technically, yes, since 10 is the average, but one 8 and one 9 are a standard in NPC arrays for non Heroic NPCs, so it may be more accurate to say anything below an 8 is below average, in the sense that you don't usually see stats that low without a racial penalty. For races with a penalty to a stat, even as low as a 6 could be the lowest "average" score.
|
|
Let me ask a straight forward question.
Is a 5 ability score below average?
Is any score below 10 a below average score?
5 is below average.
The second part's a bit iffy. Speaking very technically, yes, since 10 is the average, but one 8 and one 9 are a standard in NPC arrays for non Heroic NPCs, so it may be more accurate to say anything below an 8 is below average, in the sense that you don't usually see stats that low without a racial penalty. For races with a penalty to a stat, even as low as a 6 could be the lowest "average" score.
Personally I'd say that the arrays make the 8 and 9 a 'normal' range since RAW says that a 10 is 'average'. Admittedly a minor distinction.
|
|
@Malachi Silverclaw.
My turn to say some thing narrow minded.
From the way you talk about diplomacy I get the imperssion that, to you, if a charactrer doesnt have ranks in diplomacy they not have a personality or personal magnetism. Thats what I get from the way you talk about the diplomacy skill in your last post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Say I make a dwarf with charisma of 5. If 8 is perceived as the normal limit of low charisma, 5 is sub-human. You'd expect such a person to be shockingly obnoxious all the time, or something.
But say I give him 1 rank of Diplomacy, and it's a class skill. That means his net Diplomacy score is 1. He's better at befriending strangers and persuading people to do things than someone with 11 charisma and no ranks. So his social disability can't be all that bad, can it?
|
|
Say I make a dwarf with charisma of 5. If 8 is perceived as the normal limit of low charisma, 5 is sub-human. You'd expect such a person to be shockingly obnoxious all the time, or something.
But say I give him 1 rank of Diplomacy, and it's a class skill. That means his net Diplomacy score is 1. He's better at befriending strangers and persuading people to do things than someone with 11 charisma and no ranks. So his social disability can't be all that bad, can it?
Diplomacy is a skill that allows you influence others with a successful skill check.
It doesnt say once you a positive score in diplomacy it replaces your cha. It just means he now has 'some' idea of how to try and influence people.
Cha of 5 isnt sub-human, they just have well below average personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. How exactly you play is up to you, it doesnt have to be played as 'in your face extrovert' i.e. the loud obnoxious jerk. You could play it as a painfully shy, hidein the corner in social encounter, type person.
Say I make a dwarf with charisma of 5. If 8 is perceived as the normal limit of low charisma, 5 is sub-human. You'd expect such a person to be shockingly obnoxious all the time, or something.
Uhm... You do know that not being normal isn't equal to being subhuman? I'd probably have a Wisdom of 7 or so if statted up, due to having ADHD as well as some autistic traits. I have a hard time reading social subtext, concentrating on things I don't enjoy, and have a pretty hard time keeping a normal full-time job (though that of course has a lot of political reasons to). Fortunately I'm pretty "intelligent", so I can make up for a lot of the social issues by consciously analyzing situations - one can say that I've used my bonus skill point to train sense motive. It still requires me to actively analyze things that come intuitively for other people though, so it's quite tireing.
I'm not subhuman. I differ from the norm - I'm not "normal" in that regard. I'm not shocking and I can still have a good life. It's a noticable handicap for me, but the disability doesn't make me "subhuman".
That's basically what I was trying to say. Some people seem to think that every commoner uses the normal stat array, so no human would ever have a charisma below 8. If that was the case 5 would be freakishly low, unfit to be an adventurer or to be seen in public. But to me, 5 is just at the low end of the range and you can learn to overcome the drawbacks through making an effort.
|
|
That's basically what I was trying to say. Some people seem to think that every commoner uses the normal stat array, so no human would ever have a charisma below 8. If that was the case 5 would be freakishly low, unfit to be an adventurer or to be seen in public. But to me, 5 is just at the low end of the range and you can learn to overcome the drawbacks through making an effort.
If you dont mind could elaborate on your thoughts please.
|
|
@Malachi Silverclaw.
My turn to say some thing narrow minded.
From the way you talk about diplomacy I get the imperssion that, to you, if a charactrer doesnt have ranks in diplomacy they not have a personality or personal magnetism. Thats what I get from the way you talk about the diplomacy skill in your last post.
As I stated, the result of the diplomacy check is what determines if that person liked you. You can use that skill untrained. Creatures with higher Cha are more likely to make a good first impression than those with low Cha. So, not having any ranks in the skill does not equal 'zero personality or personal magnetism'.
Of course, if you're trained in personal interaction skills (skill ranks) then you are more likely to get a favourable reaction than if you don't have that training.
But to me, 5 is just at the low end of the range and you can learn to overcome the drawbacks through making an effort.If you dont mind could elaborate on your thoughts please.
If you're not a Charisma-based class, Charisma doesn't do much (mechanically) beyond improve your bluffing, diplomacy and intimidation. Oh, and animal handling, but you're probably not a lion-tamer. Someone who puts in a few skill points (makes an effort) has effectively overcome their disadvantage (shyness, rudeness, whatever) and become a socially capable person. How many skill points it takes to do this is an indicator of how serious your 'disability' is. By that reckoning, a 7 is not that serious.
You could do the same thing with low Wisdom by putting points into Sense Motive and taking Iron Will as a feat.
I broadly believe in role-playing the character's stats, but with flexibility. A character might figure out a problem by using their intelligence, but they could also do it through wisdom, or occasionally sheer luck.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Charisma was valued by even fewer classes back in 1e/2e, so a local DM came up with the "Luck Check", which used a d20 plus your Charisma modifier. If you want to find a certain item in town you might be asked to make a "Luck Check DC15". If a big monster is about to attack a random PC the DM might ask all the players to make opposed Luck Checks to see who gets smashed. This is often called an "Ugly Off". Everybody I know uses this house rule, and it has generated a lot of laughter and fun over the years, especially since everybody feels that the guy who dumped Cha to 7 "had it coming", especially if the bad event is a spell with a Will save and the PC also dumped Wis to 7.
|
|
@Malachi Silverclaw.
My turn to say some thing narrow minded.
From the way you talk about diplomacy I get the imperssion that, to you, if a charactrer doesnt have ranks in diplomacy they not have a personality or personal magnetism. Thats what I get from the way you talk about the diplomacy skill in your last post.
As I stated, the result of the diplomacy check is what determines if that person liked you. You can use that skill untrained. Creatures with higher Cha are more likely to make a good first impression than those with low Cha. So, not having any ranks in the skill does not equal 'zero personality or personal magnetism'.
Of course, if you're trained in personal interaction skills (skill ranks) then you are more likely to get a favourable reaction than if you don't have that training.
So what your saying is that every interaction is a diplomacy roll?
@Kazan.
Good post.
I think a 7 int fighter can fight tactically, especailly using standard tactics. What I have a problem with is the player who plays his 7 int fighter as an elaborate battle planner constantly.
If he's an instinctual general then there is no problem.
Low mental stats do not cause RP restraints.
Likewise though dumping down to 7 is silly and reprehensible. It's something reserved for point buys less than 20.
|
|
@Kazan.
Good post.
I think a 7 int fighter can fight tactically, especailly using standard tactics. What I have a problem with is the player who plays his 7 int fighter as an elaborate battle planner constantly.
If he's an instinctual general then there is no problem.
Low mental stats do not cause RP restraints.
Likewise though dumping down to 7 is silly and reprehensible. It's something reserved for point buys less than 20.
You opinion Marthkus.
If his wisdom is above average I'd have no problem with him saying that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Likewise though dumping down to 7 is silly and reprehensible.
Tell me more about the morality of having a below-average stat in an elfgame
Likewise though dumping down to 7 is silly and reprehensible.Tell me more about the morality of having a below-average stat in an elfgame
Hrm.
Taking a course of actions precludes the ability to take alternate courses of action. Given than there are untold numbers of potential actions you exclude when taking any action, and the likelihood of one of (or many of) those not taken actions to lead to better results and greater overall happiness, then it can be assumed that in all likelihood any action taken is not the maximally good option, and if morality is defined as choosing the best possible action which achieve the greatest good, then all actions are morally wrong, in all likelihood.
Or some such nonsense.