Point Buy - Down to 7


Advice

401 to 450 of 978 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

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.

It may help if folks actually focused on the thread topic(quoted post) and moved their off topic stuff to another thread ("I hate that 7 int described as stupid", and such). That is not helping at all. The last couple hundred strayed way off.


Kazaan wrote:

What if, as a player, you're not really a smart person and can't come up with all the answers... but you're playing a high-Int character? Is that also bad RP, that your supposedly high-Int character isn't coming up with all the answers and strategies just because you, as the player, can't think of them? You can't criticize "bad roleplay" of a low stat unless you also criticize "bad roleplay" of a high stat.

And remember... Frodo solved the door riddle while Gandalf pulled a blank... and I'm willing to bet Gandalf had significantly higher Intelligence than Frodo.

I'll give hints to players if they get stumped; by having them make Int checks. Make the check, get handed a card with a hint.

In practice, this helps people playing high Int characters who are otherwise having difficulty.

I do similar for Cha and Wis specific issues as well. This creates a situation where those who have higher stats in certain areas tend towards contributing with that stat in things that that stat represents more frequently. But that it is secondary to the contribution of the players themselves.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Jacob Saltband wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I just want to let people discussing the intelligence score, that the Village Idiot, from the Gamemastery Guide, has an intelligence of 4.

Not 7.

Elaborate please.

I am only pointing to a canon example of a "Intellectually disabled"(formally known as mentally retarded) character, which has a lower intelligence than the 7, which many are saying qualifies for such a title.

7 may be low, but it's not Down Syndrome low.


Shar Tahl wrote:
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.
It may help if folks actually focused on the thread topic(quoted post) and moved their off topic stuff to another thread ("I hate that 7 int described as stupid", and such). That is not helping at all. The last couple hundred strayed way off.

My answer: 7 represents a bit handicapped. 8/9 is just a flaw. Some people don't want their supposed heroes running around with such a big handicap. RP wise, a flawed character can be represented by an 8 or 9. Going to 7 is too severe, and can drag a game down.

The follow up: that some people sometimes bank on the fact that a 7 can drag the game down if it were to be played, they expect it to be hand waved away or ignored. So they pick the 7, simply because it gives extra points for optimizing their characters, and then they get upset if ‘forced’ to actually play the character they made.

Shadow Lodge

Kazaan wrote:

What if, as a player, you're not really a smart person and can't come up with all the answers... but you're playing a high-Int character? Is that also bad RP, that your supposedly high-Int character isn't coming up with all the answers and strategies just because you, as the player, can't think of them? You can't criticize "bad roleplay" of a low stat unless you also criticize "bad roleplay" of a high stat.

And remember... Frodo solved the door riddle while Gandalf pulled a blank... and I'm willing to bet Gandalf had significantly higher Intelligence than Frodo.

Gandalf faked pulling a blank to let the uncertin hobbit get some confidence.

Shadow Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I just want to let people discussing the intelligence score, that the Village Idiot, from the Gamemastery Guide, has an intelligence of 4.

Not 7.

Elaborate please.

I am only pointing to a canon example of a "Intellectually disabled"(formally known as mentally retarded) character, which has a lower intelligence than the 7, which many are saying qualifies for such a title.

7 may be low, but it's not Down Syndrome low.

No one (except Remy who was working under a false assumption) is saying that a 7 int should be played like that.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I just want to let people discussing the intelligence score, that the Village Idiot, from the Gamemastery Guide, has an intelligence of 4.

Not 7.

Elaborate please.

I am only pointing to a canon example of a "Intellectually disabled"(formally known as mentally retarded) character, which has a lower intelligence than the 7, which many are saying qualifies for such a title.

7 may be low, but it's not Down Syndrome low.

afaik remy balster is the only one claiming youd be severely disabled at 7. I think 7 is more forrest gump - noticable but not life-ruining. 4 is also "near animalistic intelligence" according to the bestiary entry on chokers.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I just want to let people discussing the intelligence score, that the Village Idiot, from the Gamemastery Guide, has an intelligence of 4.

Not 7.

Elaborate please.
I am only pointing to a canon example of a "Intellectually disabled"(formally known as mentally retarded) character, which has a lower intelligence than the 7, which many are saying qualifies for such a title.

An average commoner with 10 Int compared to a Commoner with 7 Int.

The average commoner has 2 skill points, and his knowledges have +0, meaning he can take 10 to answer all the "very easy" questions in life. He can learn quickly enough that he can train in two skills.

The Int 7 commoner has 1 skill point, half as many, and all his knowledge skills have a -2 penalty, meaning that he cannot take 10 to answer all the "very easy" questions in life. Worse yet, even if he puts all his skill points (all 1 of them) into a knowledge skill, his total modifier is still -1, and he still cannot take 10 to answer all the easy question in his area of expertise.

He has less skills, and much less capacity for information than an average intelligence. He fails the knowledge checks other people take for granted. And even if he dedicated himself to mastering a single intellectual discipline (representative of spending ALL of his available skill points in just one skill) he STILL cannot reliably answer the easy questions.

This guy has devoted himself to mastering a single Knowledge skill, put forth all of his effort... and not only is that the only thing he has been able to get better at, but he still isn't even good at it. He is still worse at it than most people who have no training whatsoever, they take 10 and fail easy question, normal people succeed even without training.

The guy is clearly mentally handicapped...

The descriptive interpretation of a -2 Int penalty and the repercussion of the penalties for having one is that; the character is intellectually disabled.

They 'can' learn, but they're really really not good at it.

A non-human Int 7 commoner would gain 1 skill point per level. To get to the point where he could reliably answer all of the same questions as a 1st level 10 Int commoner... he would need to get to level 20. Level 20!

Shadow Lodge

Kazaan wrote:

What if, as a player, you're not really a smart person and can't come up with all the answers... but you're playing a high-Int character? Is that also bad RP, that your supposedly high-Int character isn't coming up with all the answers and strategies just because you, as the player, can't think of them? You can't criticize "bad roleplay" of a low stat unless you also criticize "bad roleplay" of a high stat.

And remember... Frodo solved the door riddle while Gandalf pulled a blank... and I'm willing to bet Gandalf had significantly higher Intelligence than Frodo.

VERY few players are as smart as their characters can reach so its kind of asinine to use this as an arguement.

The best way the represent a very high int is to let all the players help.


Furthermore, why can't someone play a strategic savant: a character with 7 Int but just has a natural knack for strategic thinking. Contrast the Genius Ditz trope with the Idiot Savant trope. I wouldn't say that a 7 Int character is suffering from a mental disability or illness... they're just stupid. If I were to draw a line anywhere (and it would be an arbitrary line at that), I'd draw it between 2 and 3 Int. If anyone should be played as being outright mentally disabled, it would be the 1-2 Int character. 3 Int is still functional... just incredibly slow. So a 7 Int character who's coming up with otherwise brilliant strategies or solving puzzles like a pro is a Genius Ditz. They may not know a lot... they may be slow on the uptake... but put them in their favored situation and BAM they're coming up with amazing battle strategies. Think Son Goku from the Dragonball series. Arguably low intelligence but a martial arts genius. Or Fighter from 8-Bit Theater or Kronk from The Emperor's New Groove. Sure, when it comes to an actual Knowledge Check, they probably wouldn't make it. But there's no check for strategic thinking or solving a puzzle. You don't need to make an Intelligence check to be allowed to Flank someone. There's also the Frodo vs Gandalf issue I brought up earlier.

Liberty's Edge

It's funny. I've always allowed my players to point buy any starting value between 3 and 18 (before adding racial/age/whatever mods)... and, in decades of GM'ing, I can't recall ever having seen a PC with a stat lower than 8.

Frankly, it seems to me that if you make your character obviously deficient in some way you are all but asking your enemies to use that weakness to take you out. Not to mention that a -2 or more on various skill checks can be lethal all by itself.


Okay…

Let’s say there is a test. This test has 100 questions on each of the Knowledge skills. All of the questions are very easy, DC 10.

We give this test to any average intelligence (Int 10) commoner. They take 10 on every question and ace the test.

We give this test to another commoner with an Int 7. They cannot pass if they take 10, they’ll fail the test. If they roll, they’ll get a 45% and get an F on this test and fail.

Let’s track this commoners progress, as he levels up, he puts his skill point in knowledge skills up to 2 in each.

At level 2, he can now take 10 on one section, and rolls for the rest. Scores a 50.5 %
At level 4, he can now take 10 on two sections, and rolls for the rest. Scores a 56 %
At level 6, he can now take 10 on three sections, and rolls for the rest. Scores a 61.5 %
At level 8, he can now take 10 on four sections, and rolls for the rest. Scores a 67 %
At level 10, he can now take 10 on five sections, and rolls for the rest. Scores a 72.5 %
At level 12, he can now take 10 on six sections, and rolls for the rest. Scores a 78 %
At level 14, he can now take 10 on seven sections, and rolls for the rest. Scores a 83.5 %
At level 16, he can now take 10 on eight sections, and rolls for the rest. Scores a 89 %
At level 18, he can now take 10 on nine sections, and rolls for the rest. Scores a 94.5 %
At level 20, he can now take 10 on all sections, and rolls for the rest. Scores a 100 %

It takes him until level 20 to get the same score as the level 1 commoner. He is slooooooow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With 9 Wis, you cannot answer simple questions about professions, like "Do bakers bake bread?", even though all the 10 Wis normals always can. It takes so many skill points to put one in each profession that even by twentieth level you still won't know as much about the jobs of people in your town as any normal first-level person! Surely that means 9 Wis makes you... double-retarded???

Tune in next week and I'll count how many times you would need to take Weapon Focus to offset the -1 penalty of 9 Str with every weapon. The upshot is that a 9 Str character barely even has usable hands with opposable thumbs.


Even in ‘best case’ comparison.

A human rogue with 7 int.

At level 1, he can take 10 on four sections, he scores a 67 %
At level 2, he can take 10 on eight sections, he scores a 89 %
At level 3, he can take 10 on the whole test, and finally get the same score as a 10 Int commoner… who has no training whatsoever.

Slow? Slow.


Or

100 question test, 45% chance to get any question correct. We'll say 70% is a passing grade. The chance of him getting at least a 70% on the test is 0.000000000000000000000053% if he has no ranks in any knowledge. And yet, if he has 1 point in Appraise, he can appraise something adequately. If he has one point in Craft(whatever), he can craft simple items adequately or make a small living wage. What if he's a savant in one kind of knowledge; he has a trait that makes it a class skill and he puts 1 point into it because he likes doing it so much. But how many commoners are going to be confronted with a situation where they have to make checks against all knowledges? How many adventurers, even? With the chances above, 45% chance to get a knowledge correct, you have a greater chance of getting 16 consecutive knowledge checks correct than you have of drawing a royal flush in a straight draw. And did that knowledge suddenly pop into your head at the moment you made the check? No; the character has known it the whole time. It's just a matter of the player finding out that the character knew it. So a character with 7 Int can know nearly as much as a character with 20 Int if the player rolls well enough.

And an 18 Str Barbarian can throw out his back trying to lift something heavy if he rolls poorly enough. If the Str check is DC 15, a Str 18 Barb can't just take 10. But if he rolls 10 or less, he fails (50% chance of success). Meanwhile, the 7 Str Wizard needs to roll 17 or less to fail (15% success rate). But if the Barb rolls that 10 and the Wizard rolls that 18...


Kazaan wrote:
Furthermore, why can't someone play a strategic savant: a character with 7 Int but just has a natural knack for strategic thinking. Contrast the Genius Ditz trope with the Idiot Savant trope. I wouldn't say that a 7 Int character is suffering from a mental disability or illness... they're just stupid. If I were to draw a line anywhere (and it would be an arbitrary line at that), I'd draw it between 2 and 3 Int. If anyone should be played as being outright mentally disabled, it would be the 1-2 Int character. 3 Int is still functional... just incredibly slow. So a 7 Int character who's coming up with otherwise brilliant strategies or solving puzzles like a pro is a Genius Ditz. They may not know a lot... they may be slow on the uptake... but put them in their favored situation and BAM they're coming up with amazing battle strategies. Think Son Goku from the Dragonball series. Arguably low intelligence but a martial arts genius. Or Fighter from 8-Bit Theater or Kronk from The Emperor's New Groove. Sure, when it comes to an actual Knowledge Check, they probably wouldn't make it. But there's no check for strategic thinking or solving a puzzle. You don't need to make an Intelligence check to be allowed to Flank someone. There's also the Frodo vs Gandalf issue I brought up earlier.

It isn't that they cannot play that. It is more that (at least according to the posts I'm seeing here and other threads) most every 7 Intelligence fighter is a tactical genius or every 7 Charisma person is gorgeous with no flaws or every 7 Strength wizard is secretly buff but somehow cannot pick up things.

Once or twice is fine, but when that is the go-to counter-argument a player throws out so they can drop a score it gets old. Fortunately I haven't run across much of that sort of thing in the last few years; none of my players seem interested in having low scores.


Roberta Yang wrote:

With 9 Wis, you cannot answer simple questions about professions, like "Do bakers bake bread?", even though all the 10 Wis normals always can. It takes so many skill points to put one in each profession that even by twentieth level you still won't know as much about the jobs of people in your town as any normal first-level person! Surely that means 9 Wis makes you... double-retarded???

Tune in next week and I'll count how many times you would need to take Weapon Focus to offset the -1 penalty of 9 Str with every weapon. The upshot is that a 9 Str character barely even has usable hands with opposable thumbs.

If you had a low Int and Wis, you would be both slow and unobservant. Most people don't dump Wis and Int both. But if you did, the character would be rather clueless.

For your assertion, however... Profession is Trained Only. if you don't put ranks into it, you don't get to use it except for "Untrained laborers and assistants (that is, characters without any ranks in Profession) earn an average of 1 silver piece per day."

So having a low wis doesn't affect the use of the skill otherwise in the way you described, and if you have a rank in it, 1-1= 0, so they can still take 10 with a wis of 9.


CBDunkerson wrote:


Frankly, it seems to me that if you make your character obviously deficient in some way you are all but asking your enemies to use that weakness to take you out. Not to mention that a -2 or more on various skill checks can be lethal all by itself.

Yes as to the first, no as to the second.

Yes, a character with a 7 Strength should be the one the bullies pick on, in preference to the 20 Strength barbarian. A character with a 7 stat should, indeed, be "obviously deficient" in some way, and that indeed is what much of this debate is about. As I wrote earlier, if you dumped a mental stat to 7, I should be able to know both that you have done so, and which one you dumped, just by listening to how you play the character for a few minutes.

That doesn't mean that the skill check penalty is likely to be lethal. That's another point that's come up several times A fighter with a 7 Intelligence is going to take those penalties on Spellcraft, on Appraise, on Craft skills, and on Knowledge skills. Given that Spellcraft and Appraise are trained only, a penalty on a skill he can't succeed on anyway is literally meaningless. A penalty on Craft skills will make him poorer, but only if he relies on Crafting for his livelihood. Because Knowledge skills can only be used untrained on tasks of DC 10 or less -- common knowledge -- he will have some surprising deficits, but it's hard for me to see how those deficits would be life-threatening. This is particularly true since the adventuring group as a whole can cover for him. ("What do you mean, you don't know the name of the count who lives in that castle? You've lived here your entire life!" "I dunno, just never paid attention." "Well, it's Morgan." "But Morgan's a girl's name!" "Yes, but this Morgan is a guy. Just run with it.")

Similar for the character who dumps charisma. Sure, no one likes him. He takes penalties largely on skills he won't be rolling anyway -- Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. Let the bard talk to people, while he stands in the back rank and glowers.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Similar for the character who dumps charisma. Sure, no one likes him. He takes penalties largely on skills he won't be rolling anyway -- Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. Let the bard talk to people, while he stands in the back rank and glowers.

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.


Remy Balster wrote:


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

If by "much of the time," you mean "almost all the time," yes. Look at any football team. There's a reason that quarterbacks throw, receivers catch, and guards block. How utterly unrealistic that you'd put a guy with good blocking technique but hands of stone in a position where he's not even eligible to catch a pass....

But that's also the case with most of of the businesses with which I deal. The people who have good "people-skills" get put into positions where they interact with customers; the computer trolls stay in their cave and make sure the IT infrastructure stays up. Again, how utterly unrealistic to put the people with technical skills in a position where technical skills are needed....

I assume that in Remy-topia you'd make sure that all the doctors had high juggling skills and all the circus clowns had medical training, just so that the hospitals wouldn't be expected to cover for the weaknesses at the local circus?

Quote:


In this case, sometimes you have to ask though... why does even the Bard like him?

Maybe the bard doesn't. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you can't work with them or value them for their skills. "Yeah, guys, I know that the ranger's a real jerk, but he's really handy in a fight and no one knows the wilds of Ruthenia like him. I asked around; he's one of the best there is."

I remember a character in the Outland movie : "I'm unpleasant, not stupid."

Or maybe the bard is just a sweetness-and-light guy who likes everyone. Or maybe he has moral qualms about just ganking someone merely because he smells bad.


I don't see a problem with dumping stats down to 7. Min max all you want in my games. Point buy is all about min maxing.

As the GM I track the negative effects more closely. Such as dumping strength for Wizard and encumbrance it closely watched. A fighter who dumps Chr tend to get ignored in social settings. He's not the big tough guy in bar that fighter with higher chr is.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:


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

If by "much of the time," you mean "almost all the time," yes. Look at any football team. There's a reason that quarterbacks throw, receivers catch, and guards block. How utterly unrealistic that you'd put a guy with good blocking technique but hands of stone in a position where he's not even eligible to catch a pass....

But that's also the case with most of of the businesses with which I deal. The people who have good "people-skills" get put into positions where they interact with customers; the computer trolls stay in their cave and make sure the IT infrastructure stays up. Again, how utterly unrealistic to put the people with technical skills in a position where technical skills are needed....

I assume that in Remy-topia you'd make sure that all the doctors had high juggling skills and all the circus clowns had medical training, just so that the hospitals wouldn't be expected to cover for the weaknesses at the local circus?

Huh. If that is how you respond when someone agrees with you...


Remy Balster wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Similar for the character who dumps charisma. Sure, no one likes him. He takes penalties largely on skills he won't be rolling anyway -- Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. Let the bard talk to people, while he stands in the back rank and glowers.

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.

Having a low CHR doesn't mean you are a jerk. You can be a jerk with high CHR.

"CHR: Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." From the PRD

So person with a low CHR could be ugly. They could be a poor leader meaning people just don't listen to them as the commands they give fall into the background in a discussion. They could be the type of person that just goes unnoticed when the want to be noticed and gets noticed when they don't want to be noticed. Social bullies will take advantage of a character with a low stat. They will need to put points into Chr skills like diplomacy and intimidate to make up for it. If fighter goes intimidate that can lead to real problems in the long run. I find CHR is the one of the worst stats to dump, I don't even like leaving it at 10. At least dumping Str you just need to worry about what you carry around. Of course if you have GM that target weaknesses they dump away.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sarcasmancer wrote:
What's so bad about dumping to 7 vs dumping to 8?

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?"


Remy Balster wrote:

For your assertion, however... Profession is Trained Only. if you don't put ranks into it, you don't get to use it except for "Untrained laborers and assistants (that is, characters without any ranks in Profession) earn an average of 1 silver piece per day."

So having a low wis doesn't affect the use of the skill otherwise in the way you described, and if you have a rank in it, 1-1= 0, so they can still take 10 with a wis of 9.

So, unless I am missing something, you are fine that a guy with wis 3 can be totally functional in any profesion. But a guy with int 7 have to be non functional in life?

Dark Archive

Giving "hints" based on int is only making the strong stronger; as is limiting 7s in general. Wizards (non-fighty types) LOVE dumping both Str and Chr to 7 (mostly Str), as they have no relevant in-game effect for them. If you give them bonuses for having high int, hey, they'll take the "hints" for the party.

Fighting types (especially Monks, Rogues, and Pallies) NEED that stat-dump to keep up in power. If you disallow that you're just going to make them weaker.


voska66 wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Similar for the character who dumps charisma. Sure, no one likes him. He takes penalties largely on skills he won't be rolling anyway -- Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. Let the bard talk to people, while he stands in the back rank and glowers.

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.

Having a low CHR doesn't mean you are a jerk. You can be a jerk with high CHR.

"CHR: Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." From the PRD

So person with a low CHR could be ugly. They could be a poor leader meaning people just don't listen to them as the commands they give fall into the background in a discussion. They could be the type of person that just goes unnoticed when the want to be noticed and gets noticed when they don't want to be noticed. Social bullies will take advantage of a character with a low stat. They will need to put points into Chr skills like diplomacy and intimidate to make up for it. If fighter goes intimidate that can lead to real problems in the long run. I find CHR is the one of the worst...

I am very aware that many different aspects get rolled up into a stat. I replied to the example of a low cha 'jerk' type. Just because a 'jerk' was the example, doesn't mean anyone is saying all low cha characters are jerks.

Calm down.


Nicos wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:

For your assertion, however... Profession is Trained Only. if you don't put ranks into it, you don't get to use it except for "Untrained laborers and assistants (that is, characters without any ranks in Profession) earn an average of 1 silver piece per day."

So having a low wis doesn't affect the use of the skill otherwise in the way you described, and if you have a rank in it, 1-1= 0, so they can still take 10 with a wis of 9.

So, unless I am missing something, you are fine that a guy with wis 3 can be totally functional in any profesion. But a guy with int 7 have to be non functional in life?

You're missing a lot of things.


Thalin wrote:

Giving "hints" based on int is only making the strong stronger; as is limiting 7s in general. Wizards (non-fighty types) LOVE dumping both Str and Chr to 7 (mostly Str), as they have no relevant in-game effect for them. If you give them bonuses for having high int, hey, they'll take the "hints" for the party.

Fighting types (especially Monks, Rogues, and Pallies) NEED that stat-dump to keep up in power. If you disallow that you're just going to make them weaker.

How is helping players role play their character realistically have anything to do with power? And why would anyone care about this power thing you're talking about?

No one "NEEDS" to dump stats... and power balance is relative. The only person with power at the table is the GM. He gives as much to the players as he sees fit.

What other 'power' are you talking about?


Thalin wrote:

Giving "hints" based on int is only making the strong stronger; as is limiting 7s in general. Wizards (non-fighty types) LOVE dumping both Str and Chr to 7 (mostly Str), as they have no relevant in-game effect for them. If you give them bonuses for having high int, hey, they'll take the "hints" for the party.

Fighting types (especially Monks, Rogues, and Pallies) NEED that stat-dump to keep up in power. If you disallow that you're just going to make them weaker.

I know, double reply... but your objection just gave me an amazing idea for something completely unrelated. So, er, thanks!


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


How is helping players role play their character realistically have anything to do with power? And why would anyone care about this power thing you're talking about?

It does not matter how strong your melee combatant is if he is forced to do the foolests things in combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
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".

How does someone in-setting determine whether someone else has a mental stat of 7 or 8? An character with one 7 can still have their other mental stats high, which complicates the issue. Did they solve the puzzle through reasoning (governed by Int) or intuition (governed by Wis)? Then you start considering skill ranks, which just makes it more difficult to distinguish. A 2nd level bard with 7 Int can have +3 to all Knowledge checks. A 4th level bard with 7 Int and no ranks in a Knowledge skill can have +0 to all Knowledge checks and be able to make them untrained! A character with 7 Cha can put max ranks into all the social skills.

And now let's consider abilities that change what ability is added to what skill. An inquisitor with the conversion inquisition can have 7 Cha yet have great Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. Low Cha just means she's bad at disguises, performing, and UMD. It's frankly stupid to say that this inquisitor must be socially incompetent because she has 7 Cha. Her social skills aren't even based on her charisma! How is an observer going to determine that she has 7 Cha?

Let's go back to our bard. In addition to having 7 Int, she also has 7 Wis. She must be completely clueless and lost at reading other people, right? Except, due to versatile performance, she uses her ranks in Perform (Oratory) to determine her Sense Motive modifier. She's actually really good at reading other people! She's pretty good at noticing things too; being a half-elf with full ranks in Perception helps with that. How is an observer going to determine that this bard has 7 Int and 7 Wis? She can make any Knowledge check untrained and has a (small) chance of knowing anything with DC ≤20. She's perceptive and skilled at understanding people.

Or consider the bruising intellect and student of philosophy. Anyone can pick up one of these traits and use Int instead of Cha for some of the social skills. Is a witch with 7 Cha and 20 Int, the student of philosophy trait, and max ranks in Bluff and Diplomacy socially incapable? Must she, as has been claimed in this thread, stutter helplessly whenever more than two other people are nearby? How is an observer to know that she has 7 Cha?

The idea that it's easy for an observer in-universe to determine whether someone has a 7 or an 8 in a mental stat is absurd. For that matter, how does the observer in-universe even know that there is a difference between a 7 and an 8?

Silver Crusade

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

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?"

According to the 3d6 bell curve upon which the distribution of ability scores is modelled, 1 in 6 people have a Str of 7 or less, 1 in 6 have a Dex of 7 or less....1 in 6 for each individual ability.

'From completely normal to noticeably different'? Not if you know more than twelve people.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm in the group that says stats are used for rolling. All the talk about tactics and reasoning and such... have no mechnaical roll associated with them, therefore the DM shouldn't penalize a player where the rules don't.

Just because a person doesn't know anything about Geography or engineering or spellcraft... and has lower totals in heal and local knowledge doesn't mean he's a flat out idiot who can't figure out a flank or a pincher manuever.

Intelligence is tied to skill checks, and the 'downside' to having a low intelligence is hardwired into the skill system. One of the reasons i CAN'T seem to drop my stats less then 10... but for those who DO...

I am not a fan of creating NEW penalties just to suit someone else's need to see a character penalized more...

The old Marvel TSR game and various other systems I played told you exactly WHAT each 'stat' meant and at what level... Pathfinder/D&D does not. The difference between a stat of 10, 8, 7, or 3 are based on the penalties it's mechanically assigned.

A stat of 7 can be quite clever, but with very little book learning and still be a viable character by RAW.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
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".
How does someone in-setting determine whether someone else has a mental stat of 7 or 8?

They don't know the numbers, but the numbers represent what they know. For instance, among people I've been around a while (spouse, in-laws, coworkers, etc), I have an idea of who picks things up faster versus who needs to take notes for everything, whose hunches are more often correct and whose aren't, who seems to get sick more or less often than someone else, etc.

The difference between a 7 and an 8 is a -1 on checks. That means that you might not notice anything with just a few interactions. After 20 events, one more has been failed. After years of interaction... you start to get some trends.

Quote:

An character with one 7 can still have their other mental stats high, which complicates the issue. Did they solve the puzzle through reasoning (governed by Int) or intuition (governed by Wis)? Then you start considering skill ranks, which just makes it more difficult to distinguish. A 2nd level bard with 7 Int can have +3 to all Knowledge checks. A 4th level bard with 7 Int and no ranks in a Knowledge skill can have +0 to all Knowledge checks and be able to make them untrained! A character with 7 Cha can put max ranks into all the social skills.

And now let's consider abilities that change what ability is added to what skill. An inquisitor with the conversion inquisition can have 7 Cha yet have great Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. Low Cha just means she's bad at disguises, performing, and UMD. It's frankly stupid to say that this inquisitor must be socially incompetent because she has 7 Cha. Her social skills aren't even based on her charisma! How is an observer going to determine that she has 7 Cha?

Let's go back to our bard. In addition to having 7 Int, she also has 7 Wis. She must be completely clueless and lost at reading other people, right? Except, due to versatile performance, she uses her ranks in Perform (Oratory) to determine her Sense Motive modifier. She's actually really good at reading other people! She's pretty good at noticing things too; being a half-elf with full ranks in Perception helps with that. How is an observer going to determine that this bard has 7 Int and 7 Wis? She can make any Knowledge check untrained and has a (small) chance of knowing anything with DC ≤20. She's perceptive and skilled at understanding people.

Or consider the bruising intellect and student of philosophy. Anyone can pick up one of these traits and use Int instead of Cha for some of the social skills. Is a witch with 7 Cha and 20 Int, the student of philosophy trait, and max ranks in Bluff and Diplomacy socially incapable? Must she, as has been claimed in this thread, stutter helplessly whenever more than two other people are nearby? How is an observer to know that she has 7 Cha?

Yes, these all complicate the issue. I was speaking only to the baseline, with all else being equal. I wasn't trying to cover everything ever. Just the difference between the two numbers. My very generalized post was not meant to imply that stats completely override all other factors (skill ranks, special abilities, etc).

Just a starting point on what the stats mean: 8 is the range of normal for everyone who doesn't have a racial bonus, while 7 is only normal for races with a penalty. That's really all I was trying to say.


phantom1592 wrote:
The old Marvel TSR game and various other systems I played told you exactly WHAT each 'stat' meant and at what level... Pathfinder/D&D does not. The difference between a stat of 10, 8, 7, or 3 are based on the penalties it's mechanically assigned.

Another place you see this is if you look at statblocks from the Bestiary. Charisma is the obvious offender here---the charisma assigned to monsters has nothing to do with how the stat is described in the CRB. A corpse orgy apparently is pretty, has a strong personality, and is talented at leading. Wisdom can get pretty silly too. A colour out of space is just stuffed full of common sense and intuition.

Or you can compare creatures. Can you correctly order bats, owls, pigs, and turtles according to their common sense, willpower, awareness, and intuition?

Answer:
The order is owl > bat > pig > turtle. They also follow the same order for charisma. A pig familiar may give you +3 to diplomacy checks, but the other wizard's owl familiar is a much better leader.


If stats are only used for rolling, then why doesn't most bears use leather armor? It's enough if one bear in a hundred takes a level of barbarian/rogue/whatever to get craft as a class skill an switch a feat to skill focus and they can craft it just fine for all their pals. I assume quite a few will also use nets and other weapons that don't really require proficiency.


Jiggy wrote:
he difference between a 7 and an 8 is a -1 on checks. That means that you might not notice anything with just a few interactions. After 20 events, one more has been failed. After years of interaction... you start to get some trends.

You still haven't explained how anyone knows that there is a difference between a 7 Cha and an 8 Cha. Do commoners get free ranks in Knowledge (Metagame)?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
According to the 3d6 bell curve upon which the distribution of ability scores is modelled,

Please note that I'm talking about Pathfinder. I'm sure some past version of D&D probably assumed a 3d6 bell curve, but that's not the case in Pathfinder. The "standard" rolling method in Pathfinder is 4d6-drop-lowest, and even that is intended for PCs. As I already cited, the bulk of the in-world population in Pathfinder has stats ranging from 8-13, with a superior minority instead ranging from 8-15.

If you prefer to apply older methods of stat generation to your game world's population, great! Just understand that it's outside the scope of what I was talking about; I don't need to defend why my claims don't match your houserules or other game systems.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
he difference between a 7 and an 8 is a -1 on checks. That means that you might not notice anything with just a few interactions. After 20 events, one more has been failed. After years of interaction... you start to get some trends.
You still haven't explained how anyone knows that there is a difference between a 7 Cha and an 8 Cha. Do commoners get free ranks in Knowledge (Metagame)?

How do you see the difference between an aboleth and a wolf, mechanically? There's just fluff descriptions and those don't matter. You pretty much have to have both a good Knowledge (Nature) and a good Knowledge (Dungeoneering). So most normal people couldn't see the difference, mechanically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

According to the 3d6 bell curve upon which the distribution of ability scores is modelled, 1 in 6 people have a Str of 7 or less, 1 in 6 have a Dex of 7 or less....1 in 6 for each individual ability.

'From completely normal to noticeably different'? Not if you know more than twelve people.

Actually, I know substantially more than 12 people -- and I notice the dumb ones as being dumb, just as I notice the shy ones as being shy, and the witty ones as being witty, and the sarcastic ones as being sarcastic.

Noticeably different means you notice, not total incapacity. The person at the gaming table who asks how attacks of opportunity work in every single combat? That persons's noticeably different.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
he difference between a 7 and an 8 is a -1 on checks. That means that you might not notice anything with just a few interactions. After 20 events, one more has been failed. After years of interaction... you start to get some trends.
You still haven't explained how anyone knows that there is a difference between a 7 Cha and an 8 Cha. Do commoners get free ranks in Knowledge (Metagame)?

Probably as many ranks as players get.

More seriously, by observation. Or are you saying you don't have a relative idea how smart or strong or clumsy those around you are?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
he difference between a 7 and an 8 is a -1 on checks. That means that you might not notice anything with just a few interactions. After 20 events, one more has been failed. After years of interaction... you start to get some trends.
You still haven't explained how anyone knows that there is a difference between a 7 Cha and an 8 Cha. Do commoners get free ranks in Knowledge (Metagame)?

Like I said, I was speaking only of a baseline, before you start factoring in things like differing skill levels and whatnot. I.e., if Fred and Bob are both equally skilled at pick-up lines, but one of them has 7 and the other 8 CHA, they're going to eventually notice that one of them has a slightly better track record at the bar. Throw a skill rank in there and suddenly there's no difference, but that's beyond the scope of what I was saying.

I get the feeling you're responding not so much to what I really said, but more to the position held by a camp you've got me pegged as being a part of.


knightnday wrote:
Or are you saying you don't have a relative idea how smart or strong or clumsy those around you are?

Relative? Sure, to an extent. I know my cat isn't as smart as me. But Jiggy is claiming that really fine-grained ordering is easy to do. I mean, do you have a list in your head of all your acquaintances ordered by how intelligent you think they are? Let's see here... Samantha is at least a 14, which puts her above Bill, who is clearly a 13. George is a 9, so he goes below both of them. Eduardo is a 13, so that puts him on the same level as Bill. Maria is a 12 and Jack is an 8. That puts the final list as Samantha > Eduardo = Bill > Maria > George > Jack.

More seriously, intelligence isn't totally ordered among people. Sometimes, it's just incomparable.


Jiggy wrote:
Like I said, I was speaking only of a baseline, before you start factoring in things like differing skill levels and whatnot. I.e., if Fred and Bob are both equally skilled at pick-up lines, but one of them has 7 and the other 8 CHA, they're going to eventually notice that one of them has a slightly better track record at the bar. Throw a skill rank in there and suddenly there's no difference, but that's beyond the scope of what I was saying.

Where is this in-universe observer finding this group of people without skill ranks, feats, traits, or class abilities? How do they know that everyone in this group lacks skill ranks, feats, traits, and class abilities?

Anyway, the corpse orgy is much better at pick-up lines than both Fred and Bob.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

You obviously have a bone to pick, but it's not with me. Please stop pretending that I'm saying things I'm not just so you can finish an argument you started with someone else.


Jiggy wrote:
You obviously have a bone to pick, but it's not with me. Please stop pretending that I'm saying things I'm not just so you can finish an argument you started with someone else.

My bad. When you said that having a 7 instead of an 8 in a stat "takes you across a threshold from 'completely normal' to 'noticeably different' ", I thought you were saying that there's a noticeable difference between a 7 and an 8. Clearly I misunderstood you.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I did say "noticeable", but you seem to be attaching tons of baggage to that term that I neither stated nor implied.


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."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
But Jiggy is claiming that really fine-grained ordering is easy to do. I mean, do you have a list in your head of all your acquaintances ordered by how intelligent you think they are?

Well, that's something I have to do on a routine basis for my students. Come graduation time, a lot of them are asking for letters of recommendations, and they want me to order the students ("Susie is the top students this year, but not one of the top few I've ever taught") in terms not merely of skills, but also in terms of aptitude and reasoning ability. (I.e., they specifically want me to tell them not merely what grades they got in classes here, but they want to know how successful they will be at learning novel material in new classes.)

I'm even supposed to distinguish between attributes and skill ranks. ("Jason has an extraordinary mastery of course material due to an exceptional work ethic, but has difficulty applying this material in novel contexts.") ("Judy has among the highest aptitude for this material of any student I've ever seen, but her class performance has been limited due to her attendance and work habits.")

Heck, this is something that sports scouts also do on a regular basis. You don't draft a player based on who he is, but upon who you believe he can become with appropriate training. ("Strong, but does not have good technique.")

401 to 450 of 978 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Point Buy - Down to 7 All Messageboards