That might be a witty retort, but you were having that discussion with another.
Shrug. I thought you were one of the people who suggested "there are no rules backing up your views on the restrictions of low int." You should look into who's posting under your name, if that's not the case.
But for the benefit of whoever actually posted that statement under your name, it's both wrong and not relevant.
It's wrong because the Knowledge rules clearly do lay down that the answers to very easy questions are a DC 10 check that can be made untrained.
It's irrelevant because the fact that the rules don't support something doesn't mean that it's not implicitly a part of the game.
Asked and answered.you keep adding circumstance bonuses that the rules don't call for and saying "see the rules show that it my way makes sense".
there are no rules for familiarity of an object granting circumstance bonuses.
another thing, a fighter that put's all his 1 skill points into perception with 4 int. Does he even know what a sword is? sure his class has him proficient with one, but does that mean he can name it or has ever heard of one before?
Seriously though back ago. characters are assumed to remember everything. As a player, if i remember that count bargoodle has some such insignia, and this was like 2 years ago in-game, do I have to roll to remember? no. why? because how is it fun to play in ignorance of what you actually know.
the thing that I will bring up as well, is once again. HOW UNDER YOUR RULES Orfamay, do you allow anyone to play a 22 int wizard. that is literally above human possibility. How can someone hope to mimic the intelligence of a being superior to humans?
once again though, there is NOTHING to suggest intelligence is a carbon copy of the general real word term.
also, you haven't ever brought up evidence against 4 dex or con. if 4 is mentally deficient, then 4 dex probably means he can barely move, let alone walk, and someone with 4 con should simply be bed ridden with disease all the time. the rules don't support this, a 4 dex person can his just fine with a sword and move at normal speed.
what does this even mean?
what does this even mean?
Asked and answered.
It means the question has already been asked, already been answered, and I will not be badgered.
That might be a witty retort, but you were having that discussion with another.Shrug. I thought you were one of the people who suggested "there are no rules backing up your views on the restrictions of low int." You should look into who's posting under your name, if that's not the case.
But for the benefit of whoever actually posted that statement under your name, it's both wrong and not relevant.
It's wrong because the Knowledge rules clearly do lay down that the answers to very easy questions are a DC 10 check that can be made untrained.
It's irrelevant because the fact that the rules don't support something doesn't mean that it's not implicitly a part of the game.
does a 4 Strength Character have to make a DC10 strength check to walk?
does a 4 Dexterity Character have to make a DC10 dexterity check to not stumble every time she takes a single step
does a 4 Constitution character have to make a DC10 constitution check to not recieve a bedridding illness for that day?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does such a PC know that he needs to hit the enemy, and not himself, to hurt the enemy?
Really, just admit that you would never play as, or with, any player with a 4 in any mental stat.
In the end, that's all you are really saying, besides also saying that anyone who does, is totally badwrongfun, and should be ashamed.
It is why you are finding so many personally insulted by your posts.
But for the benefit of whoever actually posted that statement under your name, it's both wrong and not relevant.It's wrong because the Knowledge rules clearly do lay down that the answers to very easy questions are a DC 10 check that can be made untrained.
It's irrelevant because the fact that the rules don't support something doesn't mean that it's not implicitly a part of the game.
NO THEY DON'T, they literally DO NOT SAY anything to the effect of "easy knowledge checks be DC 10" it just so happens that all of the lowest DC examples are DC 10. correlation does not equal causation.
also, just because you think something is implicitly part of the game does not mean it actually is. you're pulling rules and information out of thin air to prove something that isn't based on reality.
if you keep trying to prove int = real world int by using real world int proof then you're never going to prove pathfinder's int is exactly the same as real world int.
LITERALLY, there is no evidence that pathfinder's int can be attributed to mental health, or that it effects how someone must role play.
this is like saying a digital apple MUST taste like a real world apple.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
disable device doesn't actually specifically entail locks much at all, but machinery in general.Of course. Or one with ranks in Profession (locksmith), for that matter.
Would a low int rogue with disable device know what a lock is? Lol.That's funny, I can imagine it now......
DM.....since player has low intelligence score....
"You can no longer go forward a brown and black hard item blocks your way."PC: "What is it?"
DM: make an int check
(Assume passed)
DM: "It's a door."PC: "I open it."...........not sure is another check needed here?
DM:"The door is locked."............
it isn't funny, it's rude
it is extremely bigoted to force all these DC 10 rolls on completely mundane things just to punish a guy extra for taking a dump stat, even though dumping the stat already comes with built in mechanical penalties. i honestly don't want to be forced to play such a character as a Patrick Warburton or Ashton Kutcher Moron Classic Overused Role Parody where the impossibly strong lack of intelligence is played up for undeserved laughs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That might be a witty retort, but you were having that discussion with another.Shrug. I thought you were one of the people who suggested "there are no rules backing up your views on the restrictions of low int." You should look into who's posting under your name, if that's not the case.
But for the benefit of whoever actually posted that statement under your name, it's both wrong and not relevant.
It's wrong because the Knowledge rules clearly do lay down that the answers to very easy questions are a DC 10 check that can be made untrained.
It's irrelevant because the fact that the rules don't support something doesn't mean that it's not implicitly a part of the game.
Your modified d20 argument is completely off topic, and that isn't what was being discussed. I was not talking about it.
There are knowledge checks, and then there are players declaring their actions, which are not always knowledge checks. Using a lock is not a knowledge check.
You are trying to use the DC 10 basic question mechanic, as required for any basic action you wish. You are making their choices a question that they need to overcome with this barrier that you just raised up. It is a really bad idea, but I don't think you actually do this, you have just come up with this now. It wouldn't fly in game, players would be annoyed, players would leave. You could use it as a form of bullying, but what is the purpose? You wouldn't sabotage your game like that would you? You wouldn't desperately try and punish a player that brought in a low int character, by forcing constant checks to act in any way in the world of the game?
Naaa, I think you are a better dm than that. I have some faith in you.
disable device doesn't actually specifically entail locks much at all, but machinery in general.Of course. Or one with ranks in Profession (locksmith), for that matter.
Would a low int rogue with disable device know what a lock is? Lol.That's funny, I can imagine it now......
DM.....since player has low intelligence score....
"You can no longer go forward a brown and black hard item blocks your way."PC: "What is it?"
DM: make an int check
(Assume passed)
DM: "It's a door."PC: "I open it."...........not sure is another check needed here?
DM:"The door is locked."............
I'm just saying, disable device also works on traps, wagons, and clockwork enemies. at least all of these have been explicitly referenced, and it probably will allow you to disable anything that can be broken and has moving parts.
someone with disable device should apparently be able to replace engineering entirely.
does a 4 Strength Character have to make a DC10 strength check to walk?
No, the limitations of walking with low strength are handled by the carrying capacity rules instead. If you're wearing a royal outfit, you can walk without difficulty, but your walking speed drops by about 30%, and there's no attribute check you can make to avoid this.
does a 4 Dexterity Character have to make a DC10 dexterity check to not stumble every time she takes a single step
No, the base DC for Acrobatics checks is DC 0 (assuming that you're walking on a surface over 3' wide). So if you're not distracted and can therefore take 10, you can stay on your feet just fine.
Furthermore, there's an explicit special case in the rules that unless surface modifiers raise the DC substantially, "no check is needed."
On the other hand, if such modifiers are present -- yes, a character with 4 Dexterity would need to make checks that a character with 10 Dexterity could simply take 10 on and ignore.
does a 4 Constitution character have to make a DC10 constitution check to not recieve a bedridding illness for that day?
No, there are rules for exposure to disease. If you live in isolation and are never exposed to disease, you don't have to make any checks at all -- of course, that's hardly an adventurous lifestyle. If you are exposed to a disease, it's a Fort save instead of a Con check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so, you needlessly punish a low intelligence, but don't do the same for a low strength, constitution or dexterity, how biased. this idea clearly favors the wizards that can dump strength and charisma to maximize their intelligence, but penalizes the classic barbarian who dumps intelligence and charisma to maximize strength. just because there are no DC 5 or DC 0 intelligence based Examples in the book doesn't mean they don't exist. they would logically be there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
does a 4 Strength Character have to make a DC10 strength check to walk?
No, the limitations of walking with low strength are handled by the carrying capacity rules instead. If you're wearing a royal outfit, you can walk without difficulty, but your walking speed drops by about 30%, and there's no attribute check you can make to avoid this.
it's almost like int already has all the associated penalties and you just don't think the penalties are "intelligent" enough. Also, so you don't need to do random int based checks then? like you suggested near the start of this thread?
does a 4 Dexterity Character have to make a DC10 dexterity check to not stumble every time she takes a single stepNo, the base DC for Acrobatics checks is DC 0 (assuming that you're walking on a surface over 3' wide). So if you're not distracted and can therefore take 10, you can stay on your feet just fine.
Furthermore, there's an explicit special case in the rules that unless surface modifiers raise the DC substantially, "no check is needed."
On the other hand, if such modifiers are present -- yes, a character with 4 Dexterity would need to make checks that a character with 10 Dexterity could simply take 10 on and ignore.
it's not a acrobatics check, it's a dex based check based on the fact that you have sub-optimal dex. acrobatic's was never brought up, stop comparing apples and oranges.
No, there are rules for exposure to disease. If you live in isolation and are never exposed to disease, you don't have to make any checks at all -- of course, that's hardly an adventurous lifestyle. If you are exposed to a disease, it's a Fort save instead of a Con check.
does a 4 Constitution character have to make a DC10 constitution check to not recieve a bedridding illness for that day?
if someone has a compromised immune system then they would be ravaged by bacterial disease... those do not need human contact. This is why people with HIV AIDS have to stay in hospitals because they're at extreme risk of bacterial infections.
so once again, con based check, nothing to do with apples or oranges.
so, you needlessly punish a low intelligence, but don't do the same for a low strength, constitution or dexterity, how biased.
How.... "interesting." Aside from the fact that it's not needless, it's not punishment, it's done evenhandedly across all and it's not biased,
... well, aside from that, I don't have much.
A smarter response might have been "all right, then, how often do characters actually encounter a disease and thus need to make a Fortitude save?" If encountering diseases happens on a daily basis, then a 4 Constitution is, in fact, an almost immediate death sentence. If the local roads are realistically typical medieval roads (e.g. dirt or gravel, moderately sloped, and mud-covered), then any time you need to walk at full speed, you would need to make appropriate checks and failing a good deal of the time.
so, you needlessly punish a low intelligence, but don't do the same for a low strength, constitution or dexterity, how biased.How.... "interesting." Aside from the fact that it's not needless, it's not punishment, it's done evenhandedly across all and it's not biased,
... well, aside from that, I don't have much.
A smarter response might have been "all right, then, how often do characters actually encounter a disease and thus need to make a Fortitude save?" If encountering diseases happens on a daily basis, then a 4 Constitution is, in fact, an almost immediate death sentence. If the local roads are realistically typical medieval roads (e.g. dirt or gravel, moderately sloped, and mud-covered), then any time you need to walk at full speed, you would need to make appropriate checks and failing a good deal of the time.
sounds like you are a very antagonistic and power mad cookie bear who shouldn't have allowed a character to have a 4 in the first place.
it's not a acrobatics check, it's a dex based check based on the fact that you have sub-optimal dex. acrobatic's was never brought up, stop comparing apples and oranges.
You know, the rule book is available on-line.
Acrobatics is the skill that covers movement, in the same way that Knowledge is the skill that covers factual understanding.
As with factual understanding, a low ability score can be compensated for by training; if you have low Dexterity but ranks in Acrobatics, walking is much easier.
sounds like you are a very antagonistic and power mad cookie bear who shouldn't have allowed a character to have a 4 in the first place.
I wouldn't have. We use point-buy in at our table, for reasons I outlined above. And when a character does dump a stat, there's a very clear understanding that low stats are disadvantages and will negatively affect the character's ability to perform in the areas covered by that stat. (I also encourage dump stats, because they provide characters with weaknesses as well as strengths, so if you dump dexterity for whatever reason, that enables me to turn you into Jerry-Lewis-style comedy relief the first time you need to run up a gravel slope.)
That's usually much easier to enforce with die rolls on the physical skills, because few people have the nerve to argue that "because I know how to juggle, so does my character." It's much more common for people to argue that "because I know how to X, so does my character," whether X be "make gunpowder" or "use a fork."
And, antagonistic or not, I'm a brilliant game master. You might hate my table, because I try to get people to role-play their characters instead of simply eating mechanical penalties when they roll dice.
it's not a acrobatics check, it's a dex based check based on the fact that you have sub-optimal dex. acrobatic's was never brought up, stop comparing apples and oranges.You know, the rule book is available on-line.
Acrobatics is the skill that covers movement, in the same way that Knowledge is the skill that covers factual understanding.
As with factual understanding, a low ability score can be compensated for by training; if you have low Dexterity but ranks in Acrobatics, walking is much easier.
do you really bully a player for his or her dump stat with these excessive and pointless rolls for completely mundane things that serve no purpose but to slow the table down and inflate your ego? Pathfinder is already a slow enough system. it doesn't need to be slowed further because you need to bully one player for dumping a stat and already accepting the mechanical penalties, it also alienates new players until they realized those random intelligence checks to use a fork or know their own name were uncalled for and little more than a fiat mechanic based on an expansion of an antagonistic interpretation of a rule designed for learning new academic knowledge, not for knowing how to use a fork.
so, you needlessly punish a low intelligence, but don't do the same for a low strength, constitution or dexterity, how biased.How.... "interesting." Aside from the fact that it's not needless, it's not punishment, it's done evenhandedly across all and it's not biased,
a game is considered punishing it's player when it does something harsh to a player based on a choice he made. Basically, it's the part of difficulty that is not fun. not like "you ran off a cliff and died" more like "HA in King's quest you didn't save that rat from the cat, SO YOU LOSE 2 hours from now when the Inn guys rope you up."
people are aware that running off a cliff is going to do something bad to them. People aren't aware that using your int on 4 means you basically aren't playing and you just roll to know if your characters knows what is happening. I suppose you could just wear head phones and listen to music, and the GM rolls and then explains things to you based on how well you did.
do you really bully a player for his or her dump stat with these excessive and pointless rolls for completely mundane things that serve no purpose but to slow the table down and inflate your ego?
It's not bullying, it's not excessive, it's not pointless, it's not mundane, it's not purposeless, it doesn't slow the table down, and it doesn't particularly slow the table down.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What a vile, disgusting power-mad series of posts by someone who resents a character not role-playing the way he thinks the player "should." Thanks for the insight. I now see the logic of those who scream munchkin at whatever perceived offense- it's projection plain and simple and not terribly attractive.
sounds like you are a very antagonistic and power mad cookie bear who shouldn't have allowed a character to have a 4 in the first place.
I wouldn't have. We use point-buy in at our table, for reasons I outlined above. And when a character does dump a stat, there's a very clear understanding that low stats are disadvantages and will negatively affect the character's ability to perform in the areas covered by that stat.
That's usually much easier to enforce with die rolls on the physical skills, because few people have the nerve to argue that "because I know how to juggle, so does my character." It's much more common for people to argue that "because I know how to X, so does my character," whether X be "make gunpowder" or "use a fork."
And, antagonistic or not, I'm a brilliant game master. You might hate my table, because I try to get people to role-play their characters instead of simply eating mechanical penalties when they roll dice.
so, dumping intelligence, makes you a cheap and unfunny knockoff of your standard television role played by Patrick Warburton or Asthon Kutcher for cheap, rude, and undeserved laughs? how about we expand the list of options by not seeing the stats through a literal real world basis. because there is no reason to compare the real world's definition of intelligence to a fantasy setting's intelligence definition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's not a acrobatics check, it's a dex based check based on the fact that you have sub-optimal dex. acrobatic's was never brought up, stop comparing apples and oranges.You know, the rule book is available on-line.
Acrobatics is the skill that covers movement, in the same way that Knowledge is the skill that covers factual understanding.
As with factual understanding, a low ability score can be compensated for by training; if you have low Dexterity but ranks in Acrobatics, walking is much easier.
movement? hmm ride and fly must be weird.
You can keep your balance while traversing narrow or treacherous surfaces. You can also dive, flip, jump, and roll, avoiding attacks and confusing your opponents.
hmm nothing treacherous about the flat path.
A successful check allows you to move at half speed across such surfaces...
...While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any).
really weird that I am able to move at normal speed without feats. Oh, and i still have my flat-footed AC and dex bonus... weird.
Adding extra checks for mundane actions and basic thought doesn't slow the table down?
How does that follow exactly?
If checks are failed and they have to reconsider what they are doing (because of what they found out they don't know and aren't allowed to do) why doesn't that slow down the game?
Proceeding without these types of checks would be faster yes? So putting them in is... slower yes?
You are not making any sense. I get you want to defend your position to the last, but adding plenty of int checks or checks to be even able to plan or act is a way to slow down the game.
people are aware that running off a cliff is going to do something bad to them. People aren't aware that using your int on 4 means you basically aren't playing and you just roll to know if your characters knows what is happening.
Well, if they're not aware, then they weren't paying attention when I audited their character sheet and explained that Int 4 was a crippling disability that would make their character probably not fun to play, and they might want to use a different stat array.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
people are aware that running off a cliff is going to do something bad to them. People aren't aware that using your int on 4 means you basically aren't playing and you just roll to know if your characters knows what is happening.Well, if they're not aware, then they weren't paying attention when I audited their character sheet and explained that Int 4 was a crippling disability that would make their character probably not fun to play, and they might want to use a different stat array.
except here's the thing, he's not "not fun to play" because of the 4 int, but because of you, the GM making it not fun.
Convinced of their rightness, fun no longer matters.
so, dumping intelligence, makes you a cheap and unfunny knockoff of your standard television role played by Patrick Warburton or Asthon Kutcher for cheap, rude, and undeserved laughs?
Or a sensitive struggling childlike intelligence in a world he doesn't fully understand, as played by Mickey Rooney, Dustin Hoffman, and Tom Hanks. There are other options, too.
But, yes. Dumping intelligence makes you less intelligent than average. You have many ways to play that, but "none of the above" is not an option.
And, knowing this, you still decided to dump intelligence?
except here's the thing, he's not "not fun to play" because of the 4 int, but because of you, the GM making it not fun.
people are aware that running off a cliff is going to do something bad to them. People aren't aware that using your int on 4 means you basically aren't playing and you just roll to know if your characters knows what is happening.Well, if they're not aware, then they weren't paying attention when I audited their character sheet and explained that Int 4 was a crippling disability that would make their character probably not fun to play, and they might want to use a different stat array.
No, he's "not fun to play" because the player thinks that "4 int" is just a number, and has no idea what it actually means to be in the lowest percentile of human intelligence. Even after it's been explained to him.
i honestly don't want to be forced to play such a character as a Patrick Warburton or Ashton Kutcher Moron Classic Overused Role Parody
So who forced you to use a stat array with a 4 intelligence? Not I.
Lol, Orfamay your restrictive play is looney. Have fun with that, but know that you risk draining the fun from those that you play with. You drive them into being forced to only play intelligent characters, or you punish them.
All in all you are not a person worth talking to further. I had faith in you fellow dm, you let me down. Ah well, I can move on easily.
i honestly don't want to be forced to play such a character as a Patrick Warburton or Ashton Kutcher Moron Classic Overused Role ParodySo who forced you to use a stat array with a 4 intelligence? Not I.
i'm not the person playing the 4 int PC, i merely empathize with the player due to the fact the other players were the metagamers who bullied him/her, i would honestly never play a PC with an int that low, i have played characters with a 5 Cha or 5 Str though. but the 5 Str characters would usually bring their own hired porter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, he's "not fun to play" because the player thinks that "4 int" is just a number, and has no idea what it actually means to be in the lowest percentile of human intelligence. Even after it's been explained to him.except here's the thing, he's not "not fun to play" because of the 4 int, but because of you, the GM making it not fun.
people are aware that running off a cliff is going to do something bad to them. People aren't aware that using your int on 4 means you basically aren't playing and you just roll to know if your characters knows what is happening.Well, if they're not aware, then they weren't paying attention when I audited their character sheet and explained that Int 4 was a crippling disability that would make their character probably not fun to play, and they might want to use a different stat array.
once again, YOU are still making those rules. I have shown before ways to represent a stat as other than the norm, but for you IT MUST be mental retardation. Strength can be played as a perfectionist, adjusting his load optimally and hitting exactly as he needs to. meanwhile, a low strength characters could be slavishly keeping his supplies together. The straps are tied weird all his loot bangs against him when he runs, so he runs slower to not make it so bad.
once again YOU are making the 4 int not fun. not the player who wants to just represent it with a poor education or apathetic personality. you are telling him, his fun is wrong, and he should be ashamed with himself and do it this way.
when he really wants to have a character who has less skill points and worse knowledge/appraise checks. NOT because he's an idiot, but because he has been away from civilization for most of his life, he really does have a -3 to everything that can be explained that way, and it makes sense.
but no under you he's doing it wrong. like i have said there is not reason Int has to be equated to mental deficiencies. you can explain any stat a number of ways, and sure you seem to want more role play but apparently only "correct" role play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
people are aware that running off a cliff is going to do something bad to them. People aren't aware that using your int on 4 means you basically aren't playing and you just roll to know if your characters knows what is happening.Well, if they're not aware, then they weren't paying attention when I audited their character sheet and explained that Int 4 was a crippling disability that would make their character probably not fun to play, and they might want to use a different stat array.
Damn. I guess I must be blind or something because I don't see wolves jumping off of cliffs to catch a bird...
And I am just going to throw this out there... DOGS can figure out doors... and they have an Int of less than 3....
Oh, and any creature with a int of 3 or more can speak and knows its native tongue... so they are not that slow...
Your just a poor GM... simple as that...
Harsh, but fair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An Int 4 player has a relative disadvantage of 3 points to an average Joe of Int 10 when it comes to Int checks of any stripe. Granted our 4 Int guy would have to work harder and has less skill points after all to begin with. However, that in no way, rules as written, translates as a basket case who has to roll to distinguish his left from right hand or to know to hide a key. Even a polar bear knows to hide his black nose when hunting and stalking so as not to betray his position.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i honestly don't want to be forced to play such a character as a Patrick Warburton or Ashton Kutcher Moron Classic Overused Role ParodySo who forced you to use a stat array with a 4 intelligence? Not I.
Since this is an advice thread about an actual experience and the situation was explained on page 1 this has an answer. The DM had them roll stats and then for this player had him place the 4 in int.
As a fellow player I would not chastise him for not role playing mentally disabled enough. Since I believe the poster said it was this player's first experience with Pathfinder I'd encourage him to just try to have fun playing a sorcerer.
Here are some example low stat basic DC checks.
STR 4: Mounting a horse unassisted.
Dex4: walking access wet flagstones. Also mounting the Horse if it's not the most cooperative animal (sans Handle Animal check).
Con4 : Theoretically there are rules for catching a cold; it's a check made everyday and they've been around forever (AD&D). No one uses them. But I do when players enter filthy places sewers, caves full of guano etc.
This one is difficult since CON fails tend to kill PCs, in my experience anyway. The Fortitude penalty alone means that poison and any form of CON damage equals a dead PC and both of those are or should be common place.
Int4: believe it or not, Locks aren't all that common place in most fantasy settings, so unless I see some reason like dads a locksmith, I'm a rogue, there's a lock faerie who gives out for Easter.....the first time the PC tries to reason something out a DC is not outta order. NOW once something is sorta learned it's learned so it would be staggeringly dikish to make them reroll everyone they try to operate a Block and Tackle.
While I'm well aware that literacy is automatic, that's one of the dumbest rules in the game. Dirt farmers in Golarion have a higher literacy rate than the United States general populace and we have compulsory education (which has been referenced repeatedly in this thread as if Fantasy campaign milieu X also has it).
WIS4: Basically noticing anything, even blatantly obvious things like like the City Guards are wearing rags and have foreign accents.
CHA 4: forget the basic social niceties, straight check is needed anytime this milquetoast needs to see if he can get noticed by shopkeepers, stable boys etc. It's not that they don't see him, they're just pretending this odd cat isn't here.
This is all well within the DM's fiat, and none of it is woefully unbalanced or cruel. This also assumes that this debilitating stat score was deliberate and not just the fickle dice gods punishing some poor gamer. I still maintain that sub7s are a bad idea, for a variety of reasons.
I think this is a new group in the original post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here are some example low stat basic DC checks...
Based on what reference?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here are some example low stat basic DC checks.
STR 4: Mounting a horse unassisted.
Dex4: walking access wet flagstones. Also mounting the Horse if it's not the most cooperative animal (sans Handle Animal check).
Con4 : Theoretically there are rules for catching a cold; it's a check made everyday and they've been around forever (AD&D). No one uses them. But I do when players enter filthy places sewers, caves full of guano etc.
This one is difficult since CON fails tend to kill PCs, in my experience anyway. The Fortitude penalty alone means that poison and any form of CON damage equals a dead PC and both of those are or should be common place.Int4: believe it or not, Locks aren't all that common place in most fantasy settings, so unless I see some reason like dads a locksmith, I'm a rogue, there's a lock faerie who gives out for Easter.....the first time the PC tries to reason something out a DC is not outta order. NOW once something is sorta learned it's learned so it would be staggeringly dikish to make them reroll everyone they try to operate a Block and Tackle.
While I'm well aware that literacy is automatic, that's one of the dumbest rules in the game. Dirt farmers in Golarion have a higher literacy rate than the United States general populace and we have compulsory education (which has been referenced repeatedly in this thread as if Fantasy campaign milieu X also has it).WIS4: Basically noticing anything, even blatantly obvious things like like the City Guards are wearing rags and have foreign accents.
CHA 4: forget the basic social niceties, straight check is needed anytime this milquetoast needs to see if he can get noticed by shopkeepers, stable boys etc. It's not that they don't see him, they're just pretending this odd cat isn't here.
This is all well within the DM's fiat, and none of it is woefully unbalanced or cruel. This also assumes that this debilitating stat score was deliberate and not just the fickle dice gods punishing some poor gamer. I still...
for what ever reason this post made me realize something.
pathfinder and other fantasy RPGs are medieval technology with modern socio-economic trends. AKA, large middle class, basic human rights, sewer systems everywhere, the ability for everyone to get some modest education.
Which is quite a mark of contention in some circles.
How feudal is your feudal fantasy, how unmoden is your premodern setting?
That might be a witty retort, but you were having that discussion with another.Shrug. I thought you were one of the people who suggested "there are no rules backing up your views on the restrictions of low int." You should look into who's posting under your name, if that's not the case.
But for the benefit of whoever actually posted that statement under your name, it's both wrong and not relevant.
It's wrong because the Knowledge rules clearly do lay down that the answers to very easy questions are a DC 10 check that can be made untrained.
It's irrelevant because the fact that the rules don't support something doesn't mean that it's not implicitly a part of the game.
does a 4 Strength Character have to make a DC10 strength check to walk?
does a 4 Dexterity Character have to make a DC10 dexterity check to not stumble every time she takes a single step
does a 4 Constitution character have to make a DC10 constitution check to not recieve a bedridding illness for that day?
No, but since I can carry more than a Strength 4 character can, is it fair for me to claim that my Strength 4 PC can carry the 50 lb load that I can without be affected?
Bandw2 wrote:
pathfinder and other fantasy RPGs are medieval technology with modern socio-economic trends. AKA, large middle class, basic human rights, sewer systems everywhere, the ability for everyone to get some modest education.
Yeah that gets forgotten on pretty much everythread on every forum and peer to peer discussion of RPGs. The worlds these are set in are terrible places that most gamers would never survive in.
RPG players are usually White, Male, Educated, Bougeois Middle Class kids from industrialized societies. Our parents and coworkers freak out about government tyranny but those people have no F'ing clue as to what real tyranny is like to live under. We complain about foreign religions but not one of those religions practices involuntary human sacrifice and is primarily devoted to ending all of existence (not just here on earth but total interdimensional annihilation).
We complain when the Internet is down, our water supply doesn't kill our children and not one of us has ever contemplated committing murder for no more gain than a full stomach.
Our PCs though have had genocides committed in their home areas, live with carnivorous predators that will actually attack a walled city and probobly have been faced with not only homelessness but starvation, superstition and racism that leads to mob violence and potentially having the debts of family members or even political leaders land them in some form of servitude.
That's what's funny about Paladin Falls threads, all the posters that feel like antiheroes in games are wimps next to that fictional paladins certainty that the Right thing has been done when he went Medieval on the situation.
Based on what reference?Here are some example low stat basic DC checks...
So it's no reference?
|
Yeah that gets forgotten on pretty much everythread on every forum and peer to peer discussion of RPGs. The worlds these are set in are terrible places that most gamers would never survive in.
Uh...no, they really aren't. Not universally, anyway. I mean, Nidal's awful, and parts of Varisia are seriously dangerous, but Andoran is a pretty nice place to live. Just to grab some examples at random.
RPG players are usually White, Male, Educated, Bougeois Middle Class kids from industrialized societies. Our parents and coworkers freak out about government tyranny but those people have no F'ing clue as to what real tyranny is like to live under. We complain about foreign religions but not one of those religions practices involuntary human sacrifice and is primarily devoted to ending all of existence (not just here on earth but total interdimensional annihilation).
We complain when the Internet is down, our water supply doesn't kill our children and not one of us has ever contemplated committing murder for no more gain than a full stomach.
I'm not sure to what degree this is actually true. It's certainly true of me (more or less), but certainly not true of all the players in my gaming group. I mean, you do say 'usually' but then go on to talk like it's everyone. And you assume people in first world countries have never dealt with an of the problems you cite...which is profoundly untrue. I mean, I've gamed with people who grew up dirt poor...and yes I mean all the way to 'I'll kill someone for a full belly' poor, just for example.
Our PCs though have had genocides committed in their home areas,
What? Where? There are like two nations in the Inner Sea region where this is true. If that. Genocide is actually pretty rare in most Pathfinder settings.
live with carnivorous predators that will actually attack a walled city
Not very many of them. And any city of size has defenses against such things in the form of high level characters.
and probobly have been faced with not only homelessness but starvation, superstition and racism that leads to mob violence and potentially having the debts of family members or even political leaders land them in some form of servitude.
What? Again, almost none of these conditions are universal, or even common, among PCs in Golarion. Let's look at the Iconics I think a whole two or three of them (around 1 in 10) has come close to starving, none have been involved in genocide, only one's been a slave, and only a couple victims of the kind of racism you speak of. Most haven't had the happiest lives, and many come from violent places to some degree...but the cultural conditions you cite aren't universal in Golarion at all.
That's what's funny about Paladin Falls threads, all the posters that feel like antiheroes in games are wimps next to that fictional paladins certainty that the Right thing has been done when he went Medieval on the situation.
Except that it's not medieval times. It's a whole different world, with (just to note a couple obvious differences from medieval times) a better and more effective medical establishment than we have in the real world, and the ability of certain people to instantly travel from one side of the world to the other. And that's leaving aside printing presses and guns and other such technological innovations. Some cultural divergences from a medieval worldview are not only logical but necessary, and making the social attitudes somewhat more like those in the real world and present day is both fairly reasonable and highly convenient.
So it's no reference?Based on what reference?Here are some example low stat basic DC checks...
I'm not sure of what your looking for?
Every AP has an adventure that calls for lots a basic skill and ability checks.
There is a rule of cool thing that has taken over gaming where if something isn't at least mildly "Heroic" it's not worth rolling dice.
But lots of things can and should be rolled. Not for for the sake of randomness either. If it only rains in your games to serve a plot purpose hen you have telegraphed to the players that Rain=Combat or that walking across the street will be a fight.
Walking across the street is a bad example but there are likely 100s of possibilities for why that roll should be checked.
If not then rolls are just extraneous dumb speedbumps in your narrative combat game, which is fine but it also shafts the mechanics of several classes and particularly anyone who has an INT stat for just skills. They SHOULD have dumped that down to 4, because skills and checks aren't important in your game unless it's important but the only rolls that matter are INIT, TO HIT, DAMAGE, and saving throws.
As it is .....
Survival is irrelevant, you ain't finding it unless the DM wants you to, then you always will.
Appraisal is hand waived away...
Handle Animal is for Rangers, that guy will handle it.
Ride/ unless you took Mounted Combat, no one uses this.
Craft/ why bother. Magic mart has it
Profession/ really you kill things and get the girl.
I could go on. But why. If it's not Perception/Intimidate/ Bluff, it better have a feat bonus.
So in a session I'm part of there is a bit of trouble concerning a sorcerer with 4 int and 12 wisdom. Other players feel like the sorcerer isn't being role played correctly.
A 4 Intelligence is barely above complete mental retardation. The character is quite literally stupider than the village idiot. He might understand the difference between right and wrong, but understanding technical details is completely beyond him.
In your example, the sorceror might have correctly used his natural gifts to turn invisible, and then to follow the team in to the jail cells, sure. He might also know that things he pick up are hidden, because he has observed this in the past.
There is no way in Hades he understands what a key is.
Yes, he might have seen the guard fiddle with the keys in order to close the cell gates. This does not mean he understands how a door works. To him, a lock might very well be completely magical in its working. The player might argue that he saw the guard unlock the door, so he knows how the key works... really? Did he see EXACTLY how it worked? Does he know you have to stick it in the lock, the correct orientation, does he know you have to turn the key? And more importantly, does he REMEMBER how it worked? Intelligence is also memory, and with a 4 Iintelligence, this character cannot remember squat.
Intelligence is dealing with technology. There is more to technology than a crossbow. A belt is technology, Buttons are technology. This character probably cannot wear most magical apparel because he doesn't understand how to secure it on his person. Sure, he understands that a magic item has power that he can use. That doesn't mean he understands how to work the clasp on his cloak of protection, or how to properly wear that circlet that gives him that bonus to Charisma.
What I'd do is this.
Any time the character has to figure out how to do something, how something works, he has to roll an Intelligence check. He has to roll under his Intelligence. If he can't, then the workings of that device remain forever a mystery to him. Including keys. Belts. Wands. Doors. And pretty much anything else that's a trapping of the society or technology in the game.