| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like this kind of attitude.
I often play with a new player, here and there, and the one that would never do, is give them a hard time about RP.
Think about it. RP is hard. For some, it comes easy, and for others, not so much.
When it comes to someone who has little to no experience doing it, then the experience can be terrifying.So, if what they are doing isn't hurting, or offending anyone, then why make a fuss?
What gets accomplished?
Did anyone start having more fun, because everyone ganged up to make sure the other player didn't "play too smart"?
Will this make later sessions more fun for anyone?
Was this even a problem, that needed a solution?
This isn't about rules at all. It is about a broken social contract.
In a way it is cheating. If I take a low Strength, it limits my combat, the amount I can carry, etc, but a World's Strongest Man competitor can't use his personal strength to offset his characters low strength. If I take a low Intelligence, it limits my skills, but I can use my own brain to not do things that someone with a very low intelligence would do.
Part of the social contract is to play fair.
I've played a character with a low Int, and during that campaign there were times, when I the player saw the solution to the problem, but my low Int PC would not have, so I stayed quiet.
And what was your character's wisdom?
Could they determine what to do by considering and weighing the options? Come to a conclusion on what to do based on the actions and observed positions of others. Are their skills, background, class and professions unimportant in what they can do and conceive of, because a single mental ability score is a bit low?
INT is only a straight-jacket if you let it be. Refusing an RP straight-jacket is not cheating.
I think people don't realize that 10/216 people or about 1 in 20 people have a 3-5 INT based on how stats are generated. That means 1 or 2 people in every class you had as a student was a 3, 4 or 5 INT person.
No, it doesn't, any more than the fact that 51% of people are female means that 2-3 of the starting players on every NBA team are women.
There's normally a selection bias in the classes you had as a student. The special needs kids (Int 3-5, or wherever we can agree the cutoff lies -- it varies from district to district and government to government) are usually segregated into special education programs. A typical policy cutoff for intellectual disability is a score of 70 or below on an IQ test, two standard deviations below the norm, which by coincidence is about at that same 1 in 20 you're discussing for an intelligence score of 5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Refusing an RP straight-jacket is not cheating.
Nor, according to the rules as written, is taking an icosahedron, writing a '20' on every side of it, and using it as a 20-sided die.
Nevertheless, we would not be sitting at the same table if you tried that. Nor if you played a character with a 4 Int stat as having average or better intelligence.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remove the idea of IQ from the intelligence equation because what the hell would a wizard with a 26 intelligence have for an IQ...Something unseen ever.
I believe that Int scores should more closely reflect not the ability to process information but the speed in which information can be processed. This removes the 26 int, IQ 250? guys and the 4 int mentally disabled guys and allows the game to work. It would take a really long time for the int 4 guy to come up with a plan but it doesn't prevent him from ever being able to. It means that an int 4 guy can learn and take ranks in knowledge and int-based skills but he still isn't very good at recalling some of the info when on-the-spot.
A direct correlation of IQ to int is a fail. It can't scale right at the extremes of low and high so it is a flawed concept. Speed of thought can be roleplayed whereas depth of thought isn't so easy to achieve (yeah, tell me your int 26 wizard's plan when your int is probably around a 13or so when Int=IQ! Speed of thought lets you think IRL for 5 minutes to come up with a great plan that your 26int wizard had roll off of his tongue in 6 seconds) in roleplay.
I remove the idea of IQ from the intelligence equation because what the hell would a wizard with a 26 intelligence have for an IQ
130+, the same as a wizard with 15 intelligence. The tests don't aren't particularly well-calibrated at the high end, which is why claims of specific super-high scores are not taken seriously by anyone except journalists. Reputable tests don't even report high-end scores except as something like "130+," meaning "high end."
I believe that Int scores should more closely reflect not the ability to process information but the speed in which information can be processed.
Except that this doesn't actually describe how intelligence works in the game. You can't generally retry Intelligence-based checks, so, for example, a wizard with Intelligence 26 literally knows things that the Int 8 fighter doesn't. Giving the fighter more time to think about something doesn't improve his Knowledge checks.
Speed of thought can be roleplayed whereas depth of thought isn't so easy to achieve (yeah, tell me your int 26 wizard's plan when your int is probably around a 13or so when Int=IQ!
Actually, it's fairly easy. The player of the high-intelligence wizard has access to more information. In simple terms, the game master can (and should) tell him more about the opponent (remember that an astrodaemon has enervation at will, but an olethrodaemon does not) and allow access to more resources. Since we all have tablets and laptops at my groups' table, this is very easy to do by simply allowing high intelligence characters to look up things on the Web, or by allowing more group discussion of the tactical situation when we're considering plans.
Speed of thought lets you think IRL for 5 minutes to come up with a great plan that your 26int wizard had roll off of his tongue in 6 seconds) in roleplay.
Actually, that's a terrible approach; it stops the game dead in its tracks while the player of the wizard sits in stony silence for five minutes.
Nor if you played a character with a 4 Int stat as having average or better intelligence.
Has anyone in this thread claimed to be doing that though? Has anyone even seen it during play?
I'm not so certain it's as common a problem as you claim.
Seems to me one side is claiming they don't want to be told they don't know how a key works--and rightfully so. The other side is claiming that they don't want characters with low intelligence being played as super geniuses--and rightfully so.
There's a middle ground in there somewhere, guys. All you need to do is to stop talking past each other and find it.
Seems to me one side is claiming they don't want to be told they don't know how a key works
Well, I don't want to be told I missed an attack, or that I failed a saving throw. So I'm going to use a 20-sided die with a 20 written on all sides. After all, "refusing an RP straight-jacket is not cheating."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who has really played with these mystery players, who decide their 4 Intelligence players are super geniuses?
Besides, this isn't even close to a case like that.
Seriously, this is following, sneaking, and using a dang key.
I have to keep clean whilst on the boards, so I cannot fully express how I would react to someone telling me I am straight up a cheater, for completing those simple tasks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a way it is cheating. If I take a low Strength, it limits my combat, the amount I can carry, etc, but a World's Strongest Man competitor can't use his personal strength to offset his characters low strength. If I take a low Intelligence, it limits my skills, but I can use my own brain to not do things that someone with a very low intelligence would do.Part of the social contract is to play fair.
I've played a character with a low Int, and during that campaign there were times, when I the player saw the solution to the problem, but my low Int PC would not have, so I stayed quiet.
Your low int character had mechanical penalties the same way the low strength character had mechanical penalties.
If I make a 20 Strength fighter I can completely describe them as a normal body type Amazon Warrior Princess and that should be fine and appropriate. I don't need to say they are a hulking bodybuilding weight lifter type even though they can do weight lifter stuff mechanically.
If I make a low strength character he could still be a huge hulking mass of a man who looks strong but hits like a professional wrestler (looks like impressive mighty blows but does not really inflict significant damage). That could actually be a really fun bard concept, inspiring through catch phrases and looking charismatically buff and impressive even though the strength is all descriptive flavor and not real mechanically.
This is not cheating or playing unfair. It is not violating the social contract.
Physical stats only affect game mechanics, not non game mechanic aspects of the game.
Mental stats should be the same. High int characters should not get complex plans crafted by the DM handed to them and low int characters should not get plans vetoed by the DM. High wisdome players should not get stopped by the DM before doing something foolish and low wisdom characters should not be stopped before making not unwise decisions.
How a player plays their character should be up to their own concept of how they want to play their character, not someone else's concept of their stats.
Who has really played with these mystery players, who decide their 4 Intelligence players are super geniuses?
I have played with a number of people who have, for example, tried to tell me that the composition of black powder is common knowledge, and that their character should simply be able to mix saltpeter, charcoal, and sulphur to make explosive barrels. I've had any number of people suggest that Boy Scout level woodcraft is common knowledge and that everyone should know how to build a lean-to as protection against a storm, or to find their way to civilization by following water downhill.
This, of course, is fallacious. If everyone knew how to find their way out of woods, the Boy Scouts wouldn't have bothered to put it in their manual.
I think we all agree that use of player knowledge at the table that extends beyond the character's knowledge is a Bad Thing and a violation of social norms. If you want to call that violation "cheating" or not, that's up to you.
If you tell me that a person with 4 Intelligence knows everything that a person of 10 Intelligence would know,... that's simply wrong.
There are, in fact, rules for knowing things that are commonly known -- that's a very easy Knowledge check. Which a 4 intelligence character will probably fail.
Refusing an RP straight-jacket is not cheating.Nor, according to the rules as written, is taking an icosahedron, writing a '20' on every side of it, and using it as a 20-sided die.
I consider using a marked 20-sided die clearly cheating while coming up with reasonable alternative interpretations of how to roleplay stats as clearly not cheating.
I find the suggestion the two are analogous fairly ridiculous.
I consider using a marked 20-sided die clearly cheating while coming up with reasonable alternative interpretations of how to roleplay stats as clearly not cheating.Refusing an RP straight-jacket is not cheating.Nor, according to the rules as written, is taking an icosahedron, writing a '20' on every side of it, and using it as a 20-sided die.
Well, that's your opinion.
The official PRD disagrees with you. The rules simply say "Whenever a roll is required, the roll is noted as “d#,” with the “#” representing the number of sides on the die." An icosahedron has 20 sides.
So if someone's going to hide behind "the rules text of the game define all of the limitations on character play based on stats," I'm going to hide behind "the rules text of the game define all of the limitations on the dice I roll."
Still, there is a point, when you just have a number of other players being a dick.
Yes, and not being there, I don't know whether that point was reached. But there's definitely a lot of "I know how gunpowder (and keys) work, so my character should as well" on this very thread.
Something that has not been considered, for example, is how rare (and mysterious) locks actually were in the Middle Ages. Until something like the 18th century, a lock was basically a hole into which you stuck a stick to lever the bar open -- or to put it another way, you could open a 13th century lock as easily with a modern toothbrush as you could with the actual key for the lock. (Indeed, the height of security was dummy keyholes; the idea being that a would-be thief wouldn't know which slot to put his toothbrush into.)
This is reflected in the price of locks in Pathfinder; 20gp for a low-end lock, which is a month's wages. Imagine if the padlock for your locker cost you $1500, and how many people would have seen keys in such a world.
So, it's completely defensible to suggest that locks and keys are rare and mysterious items in Golarion and that many people are unfamiliar with how they work.
There are, in fact, rules for knowing things that are commonly known -- that's a very easy Knowledge check. Which a 4 intelligence character will probably fail.
Can we codify this into a playable rule? Let's say remembering how to use a key is a DC 0 Knowledge: Local check that you can make untrained. You can take 10 if you're not distracted. Trying to spring your friends from prison probably counts as distracted. Under this rule, someone with an Int of 8 can succeed even on a 1 (and so doesn't need to roll). Someone with an Int of 6 to 7 fails on a 1. Someone with an Int of 4 to 5 fails on a 1 or 2.
I wouldn't impose a rule like that, but I could probably tolerate it.
There are, in fact, rules for knowing things that are commonly known -- that's a very easy Knowledge check. Which a 4 intelligence character will probably fail.Can we codify this into a playable rule? Let's say remembering how to use a key is a DC 0 Knowledge: Local check that you can make untrained. You can take 10 if you're not distracted. Trying to spring your friends from prison probably counts as distracted. Under this rule, someone with an Int of 8 can succeed even on a 1 (and so doesn't need to roll). Someone with an Int of 6 to 7 fails on a 1. Someone with an Int of 4 to 5 fails on a 1 or 2.
I wouldn't impose a rule like that, but I could probably tolerate it.
This is fine and reasonable, except that it contradicts RAW (in which the lowest DC for Knowledge checks are DC 10, which is defined as "very easy"). If you're willing to handwave that away -- I am -- then at this point "we're just haggling over the price," and trying to decide just how common the knowledge of keys is. What distinguishes a DC 10 from a DC 5 from a DC 0? If locks really do cost 20gp and upwards. I'd suggest that simple economics makes them rarer and more unusual than, say, carrots, but less rare and unusual than breakaway chains or dire bats.
The RAW answer to the DC question, of course, is "GM fiat," since the GM sets the DCs for everything. But even with a DC 0, we're still back to the "you're telling the player he can't do something" that so many people seem to object to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it's easy to call foul when someone plays their 5 INT character too smart, but how about when someone plays their 30 INT wizard too dumb?
I find the indignant "role not roll" players to be especially guilty of this hypocrisy, but even the most zealous min-maxing power gamers are literally incapable of properly roleplaying such a character.
Unless you're going to force both ends of the spectrum to roleplay according to their stats (which is probably impossible), it seems more fair to leave INT as just a stat that affects spellcasting/knowledge checks/feat requirements and leave things like combat tactics and social acumen up to the player.
If not, make this super clear to your players ahead of time and get ready to punish low INT characters for basically everything (eg. your 18 charisma is great but good luck making a diplomacy check when your vocabulary is less than a small child's).
The actual rule is that knowledge skill represents education in a field of study, not general common knowledge.
You can make a check to answer a question in the field of study based on the character's education.
It is not a limit on the character's knowledge though, it is one source of knowledge a character can roll against as a skill check to answer a question. It is not even the only skill that can be checked to answer questions. Profession skill checks can provide answers related to their professions. If you know the answer yourself you don't need to roll to check to see if your character's education included that knowledge.
To demonstrate that it is not the only method to know knowledge think about a PC finding out in game the date of a specific historical event. This is defined as a DC 15 knowledge history skill check to answer that question based on education in the field of history. Now after finding out about this date an NPC asks the character when did it happen? The PC does not need to make a history check (which can't be done untrained for the DC 15 check) because he does not need to rely upon his education in the field of study, he is relying upon the knowledge he acquired in game.
Knowledge checks are designed to be aids to the PCs, not limitations.
Sorry about that.
So my view on the original question.
The other players and DM should let him roleplay his characterization of his character and stats as he sees fit. Nothing wrong IMO with playing a low int character as mechanically penalized on skills and not worrying about it beyond that.
So it's easy to call foul when someone plays their 5 INT character too smart, but how about when someone plays their 30 INT wizard too dumb?
Point out improvements. That should be done for anyone who's supposed to be competent, not just super-genius wizards. A low-level ranger should know not to pitch his tent somewhere where it's going to be subject to a flash flood, even if the player doesn't think to mention it.
In the case of the super-genius's super-genius plan, it's the responsibility of the game master to offer suggestions to make it as water-tight as possible. If the player forgot the details of elemental immunities, the character would not have.
The actual rule is that knowledge skill represents education in a field of study, not general common knowledge.
Citation?
The fact that you can make 'untrained' Knowledge checks at all suggests that it does not represent education, or you'd not be able to make the checks without education.
If you know the answer yourself you don't need to roll to check to see if your character's education included that knowledge.
So everyone at your table knows how to make gunpowder even though none of them have a rank in any relevant skill?
I disagree, vehemently. Player knowledge is not character knowledge. That's the very definition of metagaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please do not quote out of context and then make an unwarranted attack on the incomplete quote. If you read the full text it is perfectly clear he is talking about character knowledge, not player knowledge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please do not quote out of context and then make an unwarranted attack on the incomplete quote. If you read the full text it is perfectly clear he is talking about character knowledge, not player knowledge.
I disagree both with your interpretation and with your statement that it is clear. To me, it is perfectly clear that he's talking about alternative sources of knowledge, including rolling other skills as one such source and about player meta-knowledge as another source.
In particular, when he wrote "If you know the answer yourself you don't need to roll to check to see if your character's education included that knowledge," why is the "you" that owns the character and the "you" that is rolling different from the "you/yourself" that knows the knowledge?
I stand by my interpretation,.... and by my disagreement.
The actual rule is that knowledge skill represents education in a field of study, not general common knowledge.Citation?
Here you go:
Knowledge
(Int; Trained Only)
You are educated in a field of study and can answer both simple and complex questions.
The fact that you can make 'untrained' Knowledge checks at all suggests that it does not represent education, or you'd not be able to make the checks without education.
And yet it is explicitly education and a trained only skill. It has a special circumstance for simple questions in the field wich you can use the skill check mechanic untrained to get a knowledge answer to DC 10 questions and another special circumstance for checking at libraries for higher DC skills.
And yet it is explicitly education and a trained only skill. It has a special circumstance for simple questions in the field wich you can use the skill check mechanic untrained to get a knowledge answer to DC 10 questions and another special circumstance for checking at libraries for higher DC skills.
So, then, it's NOT restricted only to education, by the very passages you cite.
I stand by my interpretation.
If you know the answer yourself you don't need to roll to check to see if your character's education included that knowledge.So everyone at your table knows how to make gunpowder even though none of them have a rank in any relevant skill?
I disagree, vehemently. Player knowledge is not character knowledge. That's the very definition of metagaming.
Character knowledge vs knowledge skill. Not player vs character knowledge. I thought the example of a PC finding out specific knowledge in the game not through the knowledge skill mechanic would make that fairly clear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, for the DC 10 check people, do this:
1. Given: The brain generates electrical impulses which cause the autonomous nervous system to continue functioning. If your brain is destroyed, your heart stops beating. The brain is, of course, the center of intelligence.
2. Given: By very strict RAW, the lowest-DC Intelligence-based check is DC 10.
3. Therefore, it should require a DC Intelligence check each round for your brain to keep your heart beating. Most people Take 10, but dumber people usually die in a couple of rounds after birth. But wait! The possibility of death imposes "stress and distraction," making it impossible to Take 10 unless you have skill mastery. Therefore, the entire population dies within a few rounds after birth.
What a great game this is!
Or, you could waive DC 10 checks for patently obvious stuff. Like your heart beating. Or what your name is. Or whether keys open doors.
I'll break it down for you:
To demonstrate that it is not the only method to know knowledge think about a PC finding out in game the date of a specific historical event. This is defined as a DC 15 knowledge history skill check to answer that question based on education in the field of history.
Character A learns from a local sage that Thassilon fell approximately 9 000 years ago.
Now after finding out about this date an NPC asks the character when did it happen?
NPC B asks character A when Thassilon fell.
The PC does not need to make a history check (which can't be done untrained for the DC 15 check) because he does not need to rely upon his education in the field of study, he is relying upon the knowledge he acquired in game.
Character A answers that Thassilon fell 9000 years ago without needing to use a knowledge skill check as he is using prior knowledge.
Do you understand now?
Maybe intelligence should be linked not to IQ (Int score x 10 = IQ) and more one's grade level (Int score = has mastered concepts taught at that US Dept of Education Grade Level)? Grimm did this and it worked out well enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
oh god, i missed so much...
I've explained this like 50 times, mechanically intelligence is only your education AT BEST. All related skills and class abilities require an amount of education and training to perform, and it also lowers skill points per level showing that you have less of a desire to learn more skills than normal.
an int 3 character CAN read and write, he CAN learn any skill just as well as anyone else, and he CAN learn to cast and spells that are not int based.
as has been explained before a 4 int rogue has 5 skill points, and a 4 int bard has 3, both ample enough to get their jobs done easily.
apparently as I have said several times before, mental retardation can be coped with apparently with a single level's worth of training in a class skill.
There is nothing to suggest that Intelligence behaves like Real world intelligence other than its name.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, for the DC 10 check people, do this:
1. Given: The brain generates electrical impulses which cause the autonomous nervous system to continue functioning. If your brain is destroyed, your heart stops beating. The brain is, of course, the center of intelligence.
2. Given: By very strict RAW, the lowest-DC Intelligence-based check is DC 10.
3. Therefore, it should require a DC Intelligence check each round for your brain to keep your heart beating.
Keeping your heart beating is not an Intelligence-based skill.
You fail analogies forever.
Or, you could waive DC 10 checks for patently obvious stuff. Like your heart beating. Or what your name is. Or whether keys open doors.
I could. That's the GM's perogative. But I'm not required to.
I could also waive to-hit rolls and simply declare that you automatically hit. But I'm not required to, and I'm not going to.
Ok, for the DC 10 check people, do this:
1. Given: The brain generates electrical impulses which cause the autonomous nervous system to continue functioning. If your brain is destroyed, your heart stops beating. The brain is, of course, the center of intelligence.
2. Given: By very strict RAW, the lowest-DC Intelligence-based check is DC 10.
3. Therefore, it should require a DC Intelligence check each round for your brain to keep your heart beating. Most people Take 10, but dumber people usually die in a couple of rounds after birth. But wait! The possibility of death imposes "stress and distraction," making it impossible to Take 10 unless you have skill mastery. Therefore, the entire population dies within a few rounds after birth.
What a great game this is!
Or, you could waive DC 10 checks for patently obvious stuff. Like your heart beating. Or what your name is. Or whether keys open doors.
it might go a ways to explain brain farts.
I've explained this like 50 times, mechanically intelligence is only your education AT BEST.
Repeating an incorrect statement does not make it correct.
And yet it is explicitly education and a trained only skill. It has a special circumstance for simple questions in the field wich you can use the skill check mechanic untrained to get a knowledge answer to DC 10 questions and another special circumstance for checking at libraries for higher DC skills.So, then, it's NOT restricted only to education, by the very passages you cite.
I stand by my interpretation.
Try AgainNo. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know something that you never learned in the first place.
it's not a memory roll, it is a test of your education.
aka, if your character absolutely has learned it before, it does not need a knowledge roll.
low int characters are not forgetful, they simply did not get the education as much due to any number of reasons, one of which can be apathy.
once again, there is no connection between real world intelligence and the stat used in-game.
(edit: characters in-game appear to have perfect memory)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You fail analogies forever.
No, I'm just able to put aside some kind of compuslive authoritarian fetish over "punishing" people who are "trying to get away with something" long enough to actually let the guy with an Int 4 PC play the game.
I could. That's the GM's perogative. But I'm not required to.
And the players are not required to stay in a game with that kind of DM. In this instance, I'd urge them to use their perogative to go elsewhere.
And yet it is explicitly education and a trained only skill. It has a special circumstance for simple questions in the field wich you can use the skill check mechanic untrained to get a knowledge answer to DC 10 questions and another special circumstance for checking at libraries for higher DC skills.So, then, it's NOT restricted only to education, by the very passages you cite.
I stand by my interpretation.
And your interpretation is that characters should be limited to knowing common knowledge stuff through the knowledge skill mechanics? That int 8 and higher can generally take 10 and know common stuff without interrupting the game but int 7 and lower should roll for and not assume and be hit and miss on the PC knowing all basic knowledge?
That knowledge skills in pathfinder are not simply a mechancal option to get questions in fields of study answered based on abstract character education but a definition and limit of how much a character knows?
Is that a valid characterization?
And your interpretation is that characters should be limited to knowing common knowledge stuff through the knowledge skill mechanics?
And yet it is explicitly education and a trained only skill. It has a special circumstance for simple questions in the field wich you can use the skill check mechanic untrained to get a knowledge answer to DC 10 questions and another special circumstance for checking at libraries for higher DC skills.So, then, it's NOT restricted only to education, by the very passages you cite.
I stand by my interpretation.
No, but characters should be limited to performing common tasks in general through the attribute and skill system. As you pointed out, correctly, you can use a Charisma-based roll to learn something via Gather Information, basically asking a person who is more likely to know than you are. But this in and of itself is an acknowledgment that your character did not know how to do that, and this requires time and activity that may not be available in all circumstances. When you're at the table is not the time to pull out an etiquette book to see which fork to use.
A character with a high Climb skill can be expected to know how to make and use a rope harness, as can a character with appropriate levels in Profession (sailor) -- or a high enough Wisdom.
That int 8 and higher can generally take 10 and know common stuff without interrupting the game but int 7 and lower should roll for and not assume and be hit and miss on the PC knowing all basic knowledge?
... unless they have some other reasonable source for knowing the basic knowledge in question.
The fact that a particular piece of information is common knowledge does not mean that it's universally and without exception known.
We are all aware that no one is going to budge on this in the slightest at this point?
It should be blatantly clear that its not cheating, but a mere preference in roleplay and fluff.
We are all aware that no one is going to budge on this in the slightest at this point?
It should be blatantly clear that it is a form of metagaming and the use of player knowledge instead of character knowledge, and hence cheating.
See, I can do that, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still want to know a reason why int the stat is supposed to act at all like intelligence from the real world. They obviously aren't the same thing.
all the mental stats cover some form of intelligence.
Ability scores = natural aptitude/talent
Skill ranks = actual training/experience
Feats/miscellaneous bonuses = exceptional training/experience
Class skill bonus = synergy with your other abilities (based on class)
Hoping this will help change the way people look at certain aspects of the game's rules as they continue the discussion.
I still want to know a reason why int the stat is supposed to act at all like intelligence from the real world.
For approximately the same reason that dexterity-the-stat is supposed to act like dexterity in the real world, or for that matter, why hit point damage from falling is supposed to act like gravity in the real world.
I totally respect the players in thier game, if you arent roleplaying why bother.
i think the easiest way to handle this, is to simply ask, would common sense justify the character actions.
Ability scores = natural aptitude/talent
Skill ranks = actual training/experience
Feats/miscellaneous bonuses = exceptional training/experience
Class skill bonus = synergy with your other abilities (based on class)
I can work with this.
But let's look at this in more detail. Consider this image.
I just asked a number of people what it was (without context), and no one was able to correctly identify it as
a Roman-era key (I believe from Saalburg, Germany)
.... which in turn, suggests that knowledge of what that object is and how it is used is not the sort of thing you'll pick up from "natural aptitude/talent." (Suggestions about what it was included a hitch for a wagon, jewelry, or an antique marital aid.) You need actual experience with the object to identify it and know how to use it. This actual experience is what RD identified as "skill ranks," so there's some skill or set of skills that would allow you to know what it is.
(Similarly, I suspect a lot of people on the this forum can't identify this tool. It's not at all obvious what it is or how it's used. On the other hand, if you're "in the trade," i.e. have appropriate skill ranks, it is a very easy question.)
Now, as I keep pointing out, there are rules for using Knowledge skills untrained when we're dealing with common everybody-knows-that sort of material, like the name of the local bishop, the location of the bishop's cathedral, the proper method to hitch a horse to a wagon, ... and, yes, what a common tool (like a key) looks like and how it's used.
But if you have neither significant aptitude (as represented by an extremely low ability score) and no appropriate skills (have not spent any ranks on appropriate/related skills), there is no reason to believe that divine guidance will provide you with knowledge about what that object is or how to use it.
I still want to know a reason why int the stat is supposed to act at all like intelligence from the real world.For approximately the same reason that dexterity-the-stat is supposed to act like dexterity in the real world, or for that matter, why hit point damage from falling is supposed to act like gravity in the real world.
dexterity doesn't behave like it does in the real world though. It makes more sense for dexterity to determine too-hit rolls than strength, which is just raw power.
charisma is actually force of personality more than actual charisma. being wise means you are better at seeing or hearing things, and allows you to resist forces on your mind, so it behaves more like intuition AND strength of will(?).
lot's of the stats do things that don't make much sense if you think of the stats as that quality in the real world, but no one complains that low wisdom means you shouldn't be able to reason, just intelligence for what ever reason, even though it's tied to no mechanic like that at all.
you also still haven't reacted to the knowledge skills try again text which shows that it's whether you have ever learned something, not if you can remember it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ability scores = natural aptitude/talent
Skill ranks = actual training/experience
Feats/miscellaneous bonuses = exceptional training/experience
Class skill bonus = synergy with your other abilities (based on class)
I can work with this.
But let's look at this in more detail. Consider this image.
I just asked a number of people what it was (without context), and no one was able to correctly identify it as
** spoiler omitted **
.... which in turn, suggests that knowledge of what that object is and how it is used is not the sort of thing you'll pick up from "natural aptitude/talent." (Suggestions about what it was included a hitch for a wagon, jewelry, or an antique marital aid.) You need actual experience with the object to identify it and know how to use it. This actual experience is what RD identified as "skill ranks," so there's some skill or set of skills that would allow you to know what it is.
The problem with this line of reasoning, however, is that there really is no skill in Pathfinder that would govern "recognizing a modern key." So either the GM is forced to make something up to keep the game moving, or no one in the campaign world knows what keys are.
I just prefer to assume that locals know what local keys look like and how they are used (but perhaps not an ancient key used by the Azlants thousands of years ago--as you so aptly demonstrated. That might require Knowledge: history, Knowledge: engineering, or Knowledge: geography [which covers people]).