Point Buy - Down to 7


Advice

251 to 300 of 978 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know why you'd be surprised at scores of 9 or lower being so common. You know the truism that "50% of people are below-average"? Well, it's a bit lower than 50% here because ability scores are atomic rather than continuous so quite a few people are exactly average, but the outcome is the same: being mildly below-average isn't some rare crippling disease spoken only of in legends.


Roberta Yang wrote:

Who said anything about being blind? Walking without tripping is something "everyone can do" even with eyesight, therefore by your assertion the DC absolutely must be 10 because that is the DC of everything that "everyone can do".

Based on 3d6 die rolls, more than 1/3 of people have 9 Dex or less. Based on the basic array, 1/3 of people have 9 Dex or less. Scores of 9 or less aren't rare, they're everywhere - the average person has two of them.

The rules say something about being blind, and fit your example. "Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone."

You just forgot the Blind part. I'm assuming you are actually having a conversation here. If you are just straw manning, go ahead and disregard my correction, and I'll go ahead and disregard your post.

And ok, so you get it from dice rolls. So you wish to fit in your own assertion? Or, more to the point, you believe I am not making an assertion that you have made?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roberta Yang wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Yes, but no one has a 7 on that scale, without racial minuses.

I knew someone would pull the "well according to the basic array a 7 makes you LITERALLY THE DUMBEST PERSON WHO EVER LIVED EVER!!!!!" garbage.

The basic array is meant to be a shorthand way of representing a 3d6 die roll because rolling stats for every farmer you meet is a stupid waste of time. The probability of rolling 7 or less on 3d6 is 16.2%, or about 1/6 - in other words, the average person has one score of 7 or less, and about 1/6 of the population has a score of 7 or less in any given stat you name (such as Int).

If you walk into a room with 30 people, do you expect 5 of them to be mentally handicapped? If not, then that's not what a 7 Int represents.

Remember, a 7 is no further below average than a 14 is above it. Does 14 Int make you a visionary genius?

So, your assertion is thus;

Despite the fact that the array is used for the bulk majority of all NPCs everywhere, we should ignore that and pretend that they all use 3d6 for stats instead. And because I say so.

No?

Shadow Lodge

Roberta Yang wrote:

Remember, a 7 is no further below average than a 14 is above it. Does 14 Int make you a visionary genius?

This should actually read....

Remember, a 6-7 is no further below average then a 14-15 is above it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

No no, I see what Remy is saying.

It adds a lot of suspense to daily life.

"Can my 7 Str Wizard make all of his daily checks to chew his food?" for example.

Brilliant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
For me it's not the people who drop their INT to 7. It's the people who drop their INT to 7, but then don't play their character that way.

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.

Frankly if people don't want min-maxing,the solution is simple; don't use point buy systems. Point buy is implicitly designed for min-maxing. Instead, roll stats with 3D6 in order, like God and Gary Gygax intended.


Rynjin wrote:

No no, I see what Remy is saying.

It adds a lot of suspense to daily life.

"Can my 7 Str Wizard make all of his daily checks to chew his food?" for example.

Brilliant.

You clearly do not see what I am saying.

Go ahead and continue to play your 7 Int/Cha fighter like he has 10s or higher. If your GM doesn't stop you, alls the better! Immersion? Role play? Bah. You got orc heads to remove! And your greatsword can put out more damage than the rest of the party combined!

/winning


Remy Balster wrote:


You clearly do not see what I am saying.

Well if you'd stop changing it every post maybe I could.

I'm getting whiplash from all the times you've jumped tracks.

The rest of the post is so pointless I shouldn't even be acknowledging it.


Roberta Yang wrote:
I don't know why you'd be surprised at scores of 9 or lower being so common. You know the truism that "50% of people are below-average"? Well, it's a bit lower than 50% here because ability scores are atomic rather than continuous so quite a few people are exactly average, but the outcome is the same: being mildly below-average isn't some rare crippling disease spoken only of in legends.

Isn't their an island of super humans in Golarion presided over by a dragon? In such a place of high achievers, being mildly below average may be spoken of in hushed whispers.

"Our breeding program is sound and they went through the education system, but they are... below average".


ericthetolle wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
For me it's not the people who drop their INT to 7. It's the people who drop their INT to 7, but then don't play their character that way.

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.

Frankly if people don't want min-maxing,the solution is simple; don't use point buy systems. Point buy is implicitly designed for min-maxing. Instead, roll stats with 3D6 in order, like God and Gary Gygax intended.

Hail Gygax. He has shown us the way.

I remember a few months back, we did some 3d6 roll stats and I got some pretty good results. Awww yeah. My friend that did not venerate The Gygax did not do so well. Thus he hated that stat generating method, LoL.

Silver Crusade

Ability Scores in the CRB wrote:
Each character has six ability scores that represent his character's most basic attributes. They are his raw talent and prowess. While a character rarely rolls a check using just an ability score, these scores, and the modifiers they create, affect nearly every aspect of a character's skills and abilities. Each ability score generally ranges from 3 to 18, although racial bonuses and penalties can alter this; an average ability score is 10.

Three to eighteen.

Not seven to eighteen. Three to eighteen.

The model for each stat is the 3d6 bell curve; this is the population before racial mods.

When we use 4d6 (drop the lowest) to generate our heroes, we are not changing the bell curve for the assumptions of what scores represent compared to 'average', we are just trying to generate heroes!

Similarly, standard arrays for PCs (15 14 13 12 10 8) or NPCs (11 11 11 10 10 10) are just shorthand ways of generating characters, not changing the assumption of the 3d6 bell curve.

Point-buy exists to help us generate heroes, while at the same time removing luck from the equation. Point-buy does not exist to alter the assumptions of the 3d6 bell curve! Point-buy does not alter the minimum stat for Humanity in general from a three to a seven. Seven is not the lowest stat! Three is the lowest stat!


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


You clearly do not see what I am saying.

Well if you'd stop changing it every post maybe I could.

I'm getting whiplash from all the times you've jumped tracks.

The rest of the post is so pointless I shouldn't even be acknowledging it.

Try not being ridiculous and combinative and maybe how I reply won't be equally as silly?

Are you trying to share advice here on the Advice message boards, or is this a way for you to get out your frustrations?

Is it fun to misrepresent what people say and then mock your absurd concoction? Do you derive pleasure from it?

What is your goal, here? Discourse or derision?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your argument was this, right?

Remy Balster wrote:
First assumption: The DC of something 'everyone can do' in a non-stressful environment. (Very easy task) is DC 10.

Though the comments of 7 Str Wizards needing checks to chew food and 9 Dex characters needing checks to avoid falling over while walking are crude, they are accurate examples of what you're claiming.

If this is not what you intended, it's probably best for you to revise your argument.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Similarly, standard arrays for PCs (15 14 13 12 10 8) or NPCs (11 11 11 10 10 10) are just shorthand ways of generating characters, not changing the assumption of the 3d6 bell curve.

This is the part that I disagree with. If the stat arrays for all of the NPCs you ever meet end up being those figures... how can you possible make a case that 3d6 is the norm?

3d6 is not the norm. It doesn't represent the PCs, it doesn't represent the NPCs. It doesn't represent anyone.


Lyra Amary wrote:

Your argument was this, right?

Remy Balster wrote:
First assumption: The DC of something 'everyone can do' in a non-stressful environment. (Very easy task) is DC 10.

Though the comments of 7 Str Wizards needing checks to chew food and 9 Dex characters needing checks to avoid falling over while walking are crude, they are accurate examples of what you're claiming.

If this is not what you intended, it's probably best for you to revise your argument.

The causality is being reversed to mock my assertion.

A task with a DC 10 is something anyone with average ability scores can do by simply taking 10. Thus, DC 10 represents the difficulty of things people commonly take for granted that any healthy normal human being should be able to do. Ie. Very Easy/Automatic

My entire point is that many of the things that people take for granted as an assumed automatic success wouldn't be a guarantee for someone with a 7 attribute. But entirely too many people who min/max and dump their stats skim past this simple fact and play on the assumption that ‘anyone’ can do it, and they won’t even be asked to make a check in the first place. Despite the fact that they would likely fail it if they had to try a check.

I showed many examples of why, by the numbers this is the case. How the relationship of penalties plays out with interactions of ranks, ie training. Even went into comparative success rates, and examined differing DCs and how the disparity is heightened further on more difficult tasks.

How anyone could persist to misunderstand, seemingly intentionally, and with the intent to mock, is beyond me. Unless they simply engage in the sort of behavior I am objecting to, as a matter of personal taste, to playing with at my table. Which I still don’t really understand, because if someone wants to play Pathfinder the tabletop dice rolling game, more power to them I say. It just isn’t for me.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Ability Scores in the CRB wrote:
Each character has six ability scores that represent his character's most basic attributes. They are his raw talent and prowess. While a character rarely rolls a check using just an ability score, these scores, and the modifiers they create, affect nearly every aspect of a character's skills and abilities. Each ability score generally ranges from 3 to 18, although racial bonuses and penalties can alter this; an average ability score is 10.

Three to eighteen.

Not seven to eighteen. Three to eighteen.

The model for each stat is the 3d6 bell curve; this is the population before racial mods.

When we use 4d6 (drop the lowest) to generate our heroes, we are not changing the bell curve for the assumptions of what scores represent compared to 'average', we are just trying to generate heroes!

Similarly, standard arrays for PCs (15 14 13 12 10 8) or NPCs (11 11 11 10 10 10) are just shorthand ways of generating characters, not changing the assumption of the 3d6 bell curve.

Point-buy exists to help us generate heroes, while at the same time removing luck from the equation. Point-buy does not exist to alter the assumptions of the 3d6 bell curve! Point-buy does not alter the minimum stat for Humanity in general from a three to a seven. Seven is not the lowest stat! Three is the lowest stat!

Makes me wonder if 7 is the new 3.


Rynjin wrote:

No no, I see what Remy is saying.

It adds a lot of suspense to daily life.

"Can my 7 Str Wizard make all of his daily checks to chew his food?" for example.

Brilliant.

I once pushed a door to try and shut it, and failed. My father never let me live it down. "Limp-wristed!" whenever doors were involved. It was kind of hilarious.

The fun of making a 7 int wizard pass dc 10 str checks to do basic things. You fail to tighten your belt properly, your pants fall down. You can't open the door handle, you may not proceed. You cannot lift the book to remove it from the library, maybe ask a librarian (but did they dump str as well?).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

RE tactics

For combat, I don't think the game has an in game level of tactics that an int 7 character could not pick up as a trained warrior. The way the rules work take some brains on the players part (ooo if i can move here I can flank, delay, and then attack!) but they're blatantly obvious for the characters.

I once saw some ravens (allegedly an int of 2) land around a wolf in a circle. The one in back lifted up his tail, the one in front stole some meat he was chewing on and then they flew off together.

In pathfinder terms, they synched their initiative, pre planned landing in a circle around the wolf, and then everyone held their actions for the one in the back to snag the wolfs tail while the two back there with him delayed to aid another for armor class, while the two in front delayed and aided another for the steal maneuver.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

RE tactics

For combat, I don't think the game has an in game level of tactics that an int 7 character could not pick up as a trained warrior. The way the rules work take some brains on the players part (ooo if i can move here I can flank, delay, and then attack!) but they're blatantly obvious for the characters.

I once saw some ravens (allegedly an int of 2) land around a wolf in a circle. The one in back lifted up his tail, the one in front stole some meat he was chewing on and then they flew off together.

In pathfinder terms, they synched their initiative, pre planned landing in a circle around the wolf, and then everyone held their actions for the one in the back to snag the wolfs tail while the two back there with him delayed to aid another for armor class, while the two in front delayed and aided another for the steal maneuver.

Ravens are exceptionally brilliant animals. There have been really cool studies on their thinking capabilities, and they can use advanced planning, insightful tool use and manipulation, and have incredible puzzle solving skills. They're pretty amazing animals. ^.^

I have a pair of em in my neighborhood, and I know firsthand that these guys know how to flank. They're rather good at working together. I've seen em drive off much larger birds this way, always diving in to attack when the bird is looking at the other one. They'll pull that exact distract-and-snatch technique too. I'm pretty sure they know when they're being watched as well, with a distinct caw if you stop and look at one of them. They never perch together... always across the street from one another, I suspect it is for better combined vantages.

>.>

Shadow Lodge

So lets look at dome numbers...

You need at least a 3 int to be able to understand speach. Int 3 -4 mod
Village idiot int 4 -3 mod

So the next mod is -2 which is 6-7 int. Int of 7 is only 1 mod point of a village idiot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A few things.

1. People go to 7 because lower isn't allowed at most tables. If they could, they would. If we used Champions/HERO system, people would try to sell back their hands and tell you that their toes were long enough to grasp weapons. For a (large?) number of posters, it's about the points to make the build. I need a strong fighter and nothing else matters.

2. The hyperbolic speech on both sides isn't really helping. A 7 Intelligence person isn't the village idiot nor do they have trouble tying their shoes. But they are in some way not quite as smart as the average guy. The problem isn't dumping whatever stat it is. It's the idea that you can dump it and continue on like you don't have a problem. A disadvantage that isn't a disadvantage is not a disadvantage. I've personally seen a number of people that play their subpar scores like they were Joe Average or better -- these are the people that are causing some of the ill will towards dumping stats.

3. I find it amusing that (if my poor memory is correct) some of the same posters that talk on the PFS boards about how your character should be able to do everything themselves are also saying how they expect there to be a team when they dump so that someone else can deal with talking, thinking, and really anything other than hitting things for lots of damage. It's interesting that the build philosophy changes like that.

4. Again, it isn't the dumping of stats for many of its naysayers. It's the idea that you can have your cake and eat it to -- that is, you can drop these scores for your megabuilds but feel in no way like playing someone who is below average. Having dealt with some people who do that, I think it is the fear of feeling left out. The same sort of people that are killing a monster down the hall but are SUDDENLY next to the treasure when it is time to look at it because they might miss something. Or that hear every conversation even when it isn't possible. That and the mistaken belief that not having the megascores out of the gate -- not being Jordan or Bryant or Beckham or whomever -- means that you fail at the game forever. It really doesn't.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you dump Int to 7 on your fighter then you deserve to sit out for large parts of the game because you need to pay the price you munchkin!!! *rolls up wizard with no consequences and dominates the game, dumps str to 7 because it makes no difference*


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Roberta Yang wrote:
If you dump Int to 7 on your fighter then you deserve to sit out for large parts of the game because you need to pay the price you munchkin!!! *rolls up wizard with no consequences and dominates the game, dumps str to 7 because it makes no difference*

Which is exactly what no one is saying. But congratulations on getting to be snarky.

That said, the wizard's low Strength choice could come back to bite them in any number of ways. When he's the only one to have to drag someone out of combat/danger. When people are trapped and he's out of spells and has to help pull them out. Carrying things. Climbing. Appearing weaker.

It goes for any stat, Roberta. Your choices should impact your character for good or bad.


knightnday wrote:

A few things.

1. People go to 7 because lower isn't allowed at most tables. If they could, they would. If we used Champions/HERO system, people would try to sell back their hands and tell you that their toes were long enough to grasp weapons. For a (large?) number of posters, it's about the points to make the build. I need a strong fighter and nothing else matters.

2. The hyperbolic speech on both sides isn't really helping. A 7 Intelligence person isn't the village idiot nor do they have trouble tying their shoes. But they are in some way not quite as smart as the average guy. The problem isn't dumping whatever stat it is. It's the idea that you can dump it and continue on like you don't have a problem. A disadvantage that isn't a disadvantage is not a disadvantage. I've personally seen a number of people that play their subpar scores like they were Joe Average or better -- these are the people that are causing some of the ill will towards dumping stats.

3. I find it amusing that (if my poor memory is correct) some of the same posters that talk on the PFS boards about how your character should be able to do everything themselves are also saying how they expect there to be a team when they dump so that someone else can deal with talking, thinking, and really anything other than hitting things for lots of damage. It's interesting that the build philosophy changes like that.

4. Again, it isn't the dumping of stats for many of its naysayers. It's the idea that you can have your cake and eat it to -- that is, you can drop these scores for your megabuilds but feel in no way like playing someone who is below average. Having dealt with some people who do that, I think it is the fear of feeling left out. The same sort of people that are killing a monster down the hall but are SUDDENLY next to the treasure when it is time to look at it because they might miss something. Or that hear every conversation even when it isn't possible. That and the mistaken belief that not having the megascores out of the gate --...

Well, is the 7 inf successful fighter smarter than the village peasant that gets eaten by monsters and beaten up and robbed by brigands? Yes, I think the fighter is much smarter. Ready, trained and capable. That doesn't sound very dumb to me! ; )

Does he understand the ancient writings or the heraldry of the last empire? *dismissive hand wave* There are specialists for that.

Intelligence is a funny thing in fantasy, because you can have an int of 7 but a conflict doesn't have to come down to a battle of wits (I do like social combat though). The sword can do the talking, your feats are your arguments and your magic items your evidence.


Roberta Yang wrote:
If you dump Int to 7 on your fighter then you deserve to sit out for large parts of the game because you need to pay the price you munchkin!!! *rolls up wizard with no consequences and dominates the game, dumps str to 7 because it makes no difference*

Why sit out the game? Why not fail some checks once in a while as you contribute to discussions and planning (which doesn't always require checks)? Go with the flow, no need to be apart from parts of the game because you have 7 int. I certainly never read that anywhere else. You must have this int score to play your character? Laughable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
If you dump Int to 7 on your fighter then you deserve to sit out for large parts of the game because you need to pay the price you munchkin!!! *rolls up wizard with no consequences and dominates the game, dumps str to 7 because it makes no difference*

Which is exactly what no one is saying. But congratulations on getting to be snarky.

That said, the wizard's low Strength choice could come back to bite them in any number of ways. When he's the only one to have to drag someone out of combat/danger. When people are trapped and he's out of spells and has to help pull them out. Carrying things. Climbing. Appearing weaker.

It goes for any stat, Roberta. Your choices should impact your character for good or bad.

The difference is that according to this thread a fighter with 7 Int is expected to be crippled in every interaction at all times whereas a wizard with 7 Str is expected to be maybe inconvenienced in corner cases.

But for some reason the fighter (who is playing a weak MAD class) is seen as a munchkin for dumping Int whereas the wizard (who is playing a god SAD class) gets a free pass. I have never seen anyone complain about wizards not roleplaying their 7 Str, or demanding that the wizard make a DC 10 strength check to uncork a potion.

DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Why sit out the game? Why not fail some checks once in a while as you contribute to discussions and planning (which doesn't always require checks)? Go with the flow, no need to be apart from parts of the game because you have 7 int. I certainly never read that anywhere else. You must have this int score to play your character? Laughable.

Responding to knightnday's assertion that those damn Int 7 munchkins "cheat" because the alternative is to be left out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know if anyone mentioned this but for me the rub is when a smart player makes the dumb as a stump character and then uses the player's brain for decision making. That is I get that a trained (by rote) warrior will use basic moves and set ups to enable himself and his team, but how does the 'trained by rote' warrior know how to deal with something that probably would not have popped up in their training? Clever players that create detailed, complex ambushes to defeat the enemy. Or says things like, "Oh, the caster that just disappeared is only 6th level, so it's not like he can cast Dimension Door or Teleport. Keep searching for him!"

Yes, I am talking about meta gaming. This whole conversation is about metagaming. Now, I don't care if players want to dump stats, but there will be repercussions. Exactly as if they had repercussions from high stats: smart PCs make good planners, dumb PCs make good doers. It is up to the specific group on how they want to deal with this issue (if it is an issue to them! :) ), and it is all subjective. Some players want to have poor mental stats as an excuse for not participating outside of combat (Yes, I know that guy... plural.) DMs should not *create* problems where there are none, but sometimes, the wizzy has to push through a door to come and save the party... :)

In any event, dump away so long as you don't comp your crap stat with the Player's dazzling brilliance :)


Ant haul + a 1,000 gp pearl of power on a wizard means never having to say you're encumbered.


Remy Balster wrote:


. I'm pretty sure they know when they're being watched as well, with a distinct caw if you stop and look at one of them. They never perch together... always across the street from one another, I suspect it is for better combined vantages.

>.>

Don't worry, they're just paparazzi. They're not planning to go all Alfred Hitchcock or anything...


Roberta Yang wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
If you dump Int to 7 on your fighter then you deserve to sit out for large parts of the game because you need to pay the price you munchkin!!! *rolls up wizard with no consequences and dominates the game, dumps str to 7 because it makes no difference*

Which is exactly what no one is saying. But congratulations on getting to be snarky.

That said, the wizard's low Strength choice could come back to bite them in any number of ways. When he's the only one to have to drag someone out of combat/danger. When people are trapped and he's out of spells and has to help pull them out. Carrying things. Climbing. Appearing weaker.

It goes for any stat, Roberta. Your choices should impact your character for good or bad.

The difference is that according to this thread a fighter with 7 Int is expected to be crippled in every interaction at all times whereas a wizard with 7 Str is expected to be maybe inconvenienced in corner cases.

But for some reason the fighter (who is playing a weak MAD class) is seen as a munchkin for dumping Int whereas the wizard (who is playing a god SAD class) gets a free pass. I have never seen anyone complain about wizards not roleplaying their 7 Str, or demanding that the wizard make a DC 10 strength check to uncork a potion.

DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Why sit out the game? Why not fail some checks once in a while as you contribute to discussions and planning (which doesn't always require checks)? Go with the flow, no need to be apart from parts of the game because you have 7 int. I certainly never read that anywhere else. You must have this int score to play your character? Laughable.
Responding to knightnday's assertion that those damn Int 7 munchkins "cheat" because the alternative is to be left out.

Likely the Strength bit didn't come up because people are busy trying to make points against each other about IQ and whether or not someone is not as smart as someone else or the village idiot. At our table, the wizard wouldn't get a free pass either, although we'd avoid the obviously silly bits like uncorking a potion or tying one's shoes or walking.

As for the cheating comment, that may be your term for it, not mine. The "cheat" for my players and myself is when you don't play the character you put forth. If you don't want to be subpar, don't put the points that way. But if you have your 20 Strength fighter at first level who has lower than average stats and want to play that you don't, then you are at best misrepresenting yourself. And some tables are fine with that. Some are not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sure having a 7 Str has no consequence when you aren't using encumbrance rules and when you'll probably never need to make a climb or swim check. How does a Str 7 wizard carry around his gear:

Bag of holding? Ranges from 15 to 60 pounds. Type I will hold 250 lbs and requires an action to retrieve anything from it. You can have the smallest bag and 8 pounds of gear handy before you hit medium encumbrance.

Muleback cords? Even better, lets you treat your Str as if it were 15 (when determining carrying capacity only). And it's a good thing you don't need a cloak of any kind.

Handy Haversack? Now you're getting somewhere, holds 120 lbs and only weighs 5.

Portable Hole (edit:derp)? Finally, hold 10 cu ft of material and weighs nothing all for a mere 20,000 g. Oh and the time it takes to spread it out and sort through everything to find what you're looking for.

But wait, you're a wizard! With all the spells a wizard can cast you'll just let your magic handle everything for you! And since you get unlimited spells per day, why not use some to offset your physical weakness?

In all of the above cases, the wizard has put some sort of resource into overcoming his strength deficit. Rarely, if ever, do you see someone with a 7 Int or 7 Cha do so.


"Hey, oaf, you're carrying my wallet."

Tada, encumbrance problems solved.


Roberta Yang wrote:

"Hey, oaf, you're carrying my wallet."

Tada, encumbrance problems solved.

Perfect, you've come up with the ideal solution! Now just hope you don't need something he's carrying while he's busy doing something else. And don't pretend like you still aren't using a resource to overcome your deficit.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Remy Balster wrote:
There are laws in place for these kinds of things. You didn't simply insult me; you crossed into legal territory here. Watch it.

Good grief Remy, Internet snark is never going to get you in trouble with the law. If you brought that to a lawyer they'd bill you $500 for their time then laugh you out of the office.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Remy Balster wrote:


The causality is being reversed to mock my assertion.

A task with a DC 10 is something anyone with average ability scores can do by simply taking 10.

Granted.

Quote:
Thus, DC 10 represents the difficulty of things people commonly take for granted that any healthy normal human being should be able to do.

No, for two reasons.

First, there's a difference between "anyone with average ability scores" and "any healthy normal human being." Normal is usually a broader range than "average," witness the classification of a person with IQ 85 as "low normal." If you have a IQ of 85, you're not average, but you're technically "normal" (within one standard deviation of the mean).

Second, DC 10 is the maximum difficulty of such things. For example, as you point out, the rules suggest that to walk while blindfolded is DC 10. This means, obviously, that to walk while not blindfolded is less than that. If you assume that blind causes the usual -4 penalty, then walking while not blindfolded would be DC 6.

Quote:


My entire point is that many of the things that people take for granted as an assumed automatic success wouldn't be a guarantee for someone with a 7 attribute.

And this point is incorrect. Walking while blindfolded is actually a rather difficult task, since you can't see the things you're about to trip over. While some of the things may be DC 10, most of them will be much less.

In the case of the climb skill, "a slope too sleep to walk up" is officially DC 0. Sure, drop your strength to 4. That will only be a -3 penalty, and you'll still be able to make it while taking 10.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

And, if we're doing it for RP reasons, the sickly hero, ala Elric or Doc Holiday is a meme, but not one I have seen in PF.

In a 3.0 game with rolled stats instead of point buy, I put my rolled stat of 8 into Constitution for a Sorceror. I explained that a magical accident had triggered his inborn powers but damaged his health in the process. He selected a toad familiar to use the strength of the magical bond to offset that weakness, but I never described him as being particularly robust. I haven't done anything like that with a point buy yet, since I'm one of those people with a strong aversion to stats below 10.


Remy Balster wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The average person has an 8 for a base score.
Uh... 10.

I said A base score not every base score.

The stat arrays are:
Basic NPCs: The ability scores for a basic NPC are: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8.

Heroic NPCs: The ability scores for a heroic NPC are: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8.

So like I said the average person has an 8 for A base score.

edit: You just happened to skip my statement on elves and dwarves having a high number of 6's but still having a functioning society. Obviously the game does not weight those 7's and 6's as heavily as you do.


Going back to the idea that, "a common task that everyone can do is DC 10," it would be more reasonable to say that a common task that nearly anyone can do is DC 5. That's the DC to tear up a piece of paper, to jump into a hammock as a move action rather than a full-round, and to move at normal speed on ice using ice-skates. DC 10 is, for example, to operate the winch of a light catapult. Sure, someone who has 9 or less Str would not auto-succeed at that and may need to try a couple of times. But even a wizard with 5 Str can roll a 20. Kind of reminds me of that one scene from Dorkness Rising where the high Str Barbarian tries to open the portcullis and rolls low enough to fail, while the average Str Ranger rolls high and succeeds. His advice: Lift with your legs, not your back. But to tear up a piece of paper, a Str 7 character can still take 10 and succeed; if you can't take 10, it's still only a 30% chance that you'd sit there struggling with a piece of paper. Though, mind you this is probably durable and rugged paper equitable to a piece of animal-skin parchment of the middle ages/renaissance age rather than sheets of printer paper we'd be familiar with which are more likely DC 0; the chance for a 7 Str character to tear a piece of modern printer paper, presuming break DC of 0, is 95%.

To address the example given of the 3 commoners of 10, 8, and 7 Int trying to identify gold, the 7 Int guy's 50% chance to properly identify it does not equate to a failing grade of 50% on a test. The knowledge and learning already happened when he took the class, but it's in a quantum state of uncertainty until the check happens. It's Schrodinger's Knowledge, both in a state of "he knows what gold is" and "he doesn't know what gold is" until he rolls to determine which statement represents objective reality. If he rolls well on quite a few knowledge checks, he could actually end up knowing a good 80% of what the check covers. 80% is hardly failing. But the person with 8 knowledge can just automatically know everything at DC 10 or less that the knowledge covers (provided he isn't distracted) after the training and an Int 10 doesn't even need the training in the first place. But what about DCs above 10? The 10 Int commoner who can already figure out what Gold is decides against taking the Dungeoneering class while the other two decide to take the class. They can now field questions of DC above 10 while the 10 Int guy has no hope of doing that without a library to aid him. Sure, it's still uncertain whether they actually learned the answer to any particular question until they attempt to answer it, but that's all in the rolls. As I said, just because the odds of drawing a Royal Flush are low doesn't mean that you can't do it and it doesn't mean you can't do it repeatedly. Think of people who win the lottery multiple times in a row.

What's the difference between the 10 Int commoner who can take 10 on any DC 10 or lower knowledge check and the 7 Int commoner who has to roll at 50% odds but makes his roll every time? Is the correct knowledge of the 7 Int commoner some how less valid than that of the 10 Int one?

Or, to quote Tanimoto-kun from History's Strongest Disciple Kenichi:
"100% hard work may not beat 100% talent... but what about 1000% hard work? What about 10,000%? There's a reason martial arts are passed down generation to generation... the hard work of all your predecessors combined will always beat natural talent.

Of course, I have both hard work and talent, so there's that."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Roberta, I like how you are claiming that no one ever roleplays their low strength score when, in the course of this very thread, I bemoaned the choice to drop my strength to 9 on the Alchemist I'm currently playing. I talked about how I can't carry all my stuff without going into medium load and mentioned how I use half of my daily allotment of 1st level extracts to memorize Ant Haul--a spell that no min/maxer would touch with a 10' pole, just look at how it is talked about in all the class and spell guides--to ensure that I can carry what I want to. I lowered my Str to 9 so I could bump my Int to 18 and all I've done with the bonus extract slot I got from my high Int is memorize an extract to cover for my dumped Str. Considering that I only dumped my Str to 9, I'd be much worse off if I dumped it to 7.

I realize I am new to this board and don't have a reputation or garner much cachet around here but it's a bald-faced lie to claim that no one ever role plays their low Strength the way that Remy is suggesting people need to roleplay their low Int score.

251 to 300 of 978 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Point Buy - Down to 7 All Messageboards