Basically both of you guys think there is a "right" way to roleplay.
Which is about the only thing that you can be wrong about when it comes to roleplaying.
And yet I knew people dumber than rocks who were state wrestling champions because of their technique and strategy, not their physical prowess.Why should raw mental metrics affect the soul or agency of my character?In some languages, "mind" and "soul" are actually the same word. German, for example, has only one word for this concept, "Geist" (which also means "spirit" and occasionally "ghost"). Why shouldn't your mental faculties be seen as at least a rough representation of your soul? What else are they there for?
As far as agency goes, we all know well enough that a person's choices in life are very much constrained by their mental faculties.
The way I see it, INT is just your ability to retain, recall, and process information. Wisdom is effects how well you can interpret information and the accuracy of your intuition. Cha is the force of your personality or natural presence.
You don't need a high mental stat to make up clever ideas, these can just be the culmination of your experience.
That's what "recall" means. Everyone has experiences, but not everyone retains and recalls them well enough to apply them to new situations.
I doubt the state wrestling champions were champions because of their "clever ideas," however.
So I don't see the relevance.
I think we're getting a little off topic here, which was the narrowness of builds not rping stats and stuff.
Not as far as you think. One of the complaints about guides and sample builds is that they lead to cookie-cutter character sheets; almost every archer-fighter will have a very high dexterity but a lower intelligence and/or charisma. To some extent, this is both realistic and appropriate -- in the real world, the people who become professional archers do so because they're good at it, or more accurately, the people who try to become professional archers but aren't any good at the core task of shooting bows, don't succeed.
A level 20 greatsword fighter with a strength of 7 would be an extreme rarity in any game world, because such a person would have been a 1st level fighter with a strength of 7 at some point, and would have had a hard time surviving to 2nd level.
However, there are lots of different character that can be played from the same stat array (and the rest of the character sheet). So even if you grant that stats should be roleplayed, that doesn't mean that the narrowness of recommended builds substantially narrows the characters that can be played from those builds.
That's fair, and I agree. I was just interpreting the problem as the feasibility of the builds before they sweetspot given variances in parties, reliance on very specific gear, types of enemies faced, etc.
I think a lot of the feasibility issues go away when you play RAW. For example, access to very specific gear is not a problem under RAW, since you can buy whatever you need during downtime. Types of enemies is similarly a houserules issue -- the guides are focusing on a typical PFS-style variety of enemies. If the GM tells you upfront (for example) that this is an undead-heavy campaign, that goes to the selection of the type of optimization you want to do, but not to the optimization itself (hmm, maybe I don't want to be an enchanter).
And similarly, party variance is, almost by definition, not the optimizer's problem, since an optimizer is concentrating on doing his job as well as possible. If you need to play outside your position, you're not going to be being the best you can be at that position.
|
And similarly, party variance is, almost by definition, not the optimizer's problem, since an optimizer is concentrating on doing his job as well as possible. If you need to play outside your position, you're not going to be being the best you can be at that position.
Unless you're a bard. Their job is to play every position. :P
I'm curious, was it the new player (who had his character murdered by the group) who sought out the optimization guides that started your whole diatribe?
It was not. He was actually a very good sport about it, asked for some help working out the feats associated with his new character, and is still a regular member of our group. The guys obviously following some guide or another have shown up intermittently over the past ten years or so since the guides started getting popular.
I catch most of it on review, but I've been tripped up a couple of times, most embarrassingly by a Bard. Part of my modus operandi is that if I haven't expressly banned something in house rules, then you can do it, and I refuse to fudge die rolls. I may ban something after it becomes a problem, but I'll let the first character to utilize some exploit have his fun with it. I find it adds some flavor to the story, and is a fair way of handling things. Anyway, this Bard got his social skills bonuses up so high that I basically had to give him what he wanted. Completely derailed a section of the adventure...after which the character gracefully retired to rule the kingdom he had talked his way into.
Dag the Devil-tongued...still an interesting NPC in our world.
Er, I don't think that's how diplomacy works, though...
If you can bluff your way into making everyone think you're this-and-that basically all the time, can disguise yourself like a doppelganger and are willing to cut a few people's throats, stealing a kingdom is entirely possible. But no, not with diplomacy.
|
I like optimising, I prefer it when it works as a good story theme. Here are a couple of my characters.
- An Oracle with the Lame curse. I gave him the Peg Leg Trait so it explains the lameness and gives him +1 Fort. It's easy to explain and gives a mechanical benefit. He's taken Eldritch Heritage (Arcane) for a Parrot familiar who can talk, use wands etc. This is mechanically optimised, but it does not betray any roleplaying angle - he's a pirate with a peg leg and a parrot on his shoulder.
An Aasimar Paladin/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple. Yes, I've squeezed every last thing out of the build, but he's a Paladin of Apsu, he's an Aasimar with a murky Draconic heritage and he's Silver Dragon heritage because Silver Dragons are Paladins anyway. His career path is to turn himself into as much of a Silver Dragon as possible.
To be honest, I don't really like Treantmonk's Wizard guide. It is tongue in cheek but it doesn't allow leeway for fun over winning. In a similar way, I prefer the Bloodrager to the Barbarian because it allows a charismatic play style with more RP and fun opportunities than a Cha 7 Int 7 AM BARBARIAN.
Having said that, I'll max the hell out of things if they make sense. With my Ranger, I've made him an astonishing archer. He's a lovely fellow, and he's Dr. Doolittle, but he can shoot that bow. My Sorcerers always grab Diplomacy as a trait and boost it. Too optimised? This guy starts with 19 or 20 Cha at first level and I shouldn't use that charm?
I don't buy it. I'm not a stat dumper but it's not unreasonable to make a character personality fit the design concept.
And besides, someone in the party has to be good at their job.
- The other side of the coin is the GM who hates optimisation.
I asked to join a game recently with a very decent GM. We discussed play style and my PC. I said I wanted to be a Wizard, he said he hates Wizards, they imbalance. I said okay, I'll be a Ranger. The game started in a desert, all potential players knew that. He complained that all the Ranger applicants were from the desert.
So there's the other side. The anti-optimisation GM.
Why should raw mental metrics affect the soul or agency of my character?Because the numbers on the sheet are one way of describing your character, and the way you play them is another, and the two should match.
Why...my 7 cha alchemist did take a minus two penalty on diplomacy checks and that did effect things.
Why must certain stats effect roleplaying while others are taken into consideration via completely mechanical means?
Key word there being must. You can play up a dump stat, but there is no reason you must treat it as anything more than its mechanical repercussions to be an effective roleplayer.
A 7 cha noble with 20 ranks in diplomacy, bluff, perform(dance), perform(oratory) can be the life of the party more so than someone with 30 cha and no ranks in any of those skills. You can be quite the ham with lots of ego, but with no skill ranks and low charisma people are going to mechanically be less responsive to you, even with lots of circumstance bonuses.
It also shouldn't need to be said. Anyone with any sense looks at a guide and says, "Okay, I don't particularly want to follow this to the letter because of personal preference/my group's houserules/etc." and then uses it as a guide and not a pair of shackles.I wish I had your faith in the good sense of humanity, old boy. Unfortunately it does need to be said because, at the end of the day, the average gamer is, like the average person, just not all that bright.
I know you go on to discuss personal experiences that back this up, but - and it's very much an off-topic point, but to stop treating people as presumably bright unless proven otherwise rather spoils the entire set-up, does it not?
After all, if I assume the player across from me is not bright, then why should I try to explore the themes and narratives I want to? Why try to play a game that relies on exploration of options to maintain its fun (like most things), why engage in a conversation that will fail to stimulate? Indeed, I would have to conclude - you may be right, but the sheer depressing depth of the conclusion that leads to leaves me demanding naught but the most abject denial of myself.Indeed, why make a build if the majority won't be able to explore/critique it? Why write a guide if it won't work as a guide is meant to? I.e. To spark and prompt rather than railroad. Sure, people will do both - but I would say it's safe (and as above, a condition of ongoing personal sanity) to claim that the majority do not make such poor decisions. As such, reading guides and builds under an assumption of being written under assumption of an intelligent audience lends to a far far different view of the current state of play than you seem to be espousing. Indeed, by personal experiences, I fail to see guides as anything but a way to promote ideas to new players with example options, and builds as anything but a categorization of means to a particular ends.
I don't know what sorts of people you game with (maybe you're lucky like Jiggy and don't run into the hard cases), but I've seen plenty of folks follow the guides more-or-less to the letter, to include gratuitous stat-dumping, initiative-cheezing, gory dipping shenanigans (more a disease that attacked 3.5 than PF, but it's making a comeback...), and so on.
Actually, a thought occurs - wasn't going to leave this bit but define "plenty". You see, people are actually quite poor at identifying the likelihood of events on an intuitive level. So I have to ponder if this plenty is actually a 5% of players you meet. Seriously, can you verify it is actually a significant extent of the play you've witnessed?
Also, when did "guide" and "optimization guide" become self-identical terms? Most guides treat their subject as "this is how you build an X", not as, "this is how you build a cheezed-out, barely functional outside of the murder-hobo olympics X", which is what they actually are. A few sober disclaimers wouldn't have killed Treantmonk, but they weren't on offer, and so the ultimate product ended up being a munchkin's manifesto for the strongest class in the game. Why this is bad for the community, at large, shouldn't be hard to grasp.
Since most of this thread has iterated a section of one of Treantmonk's guides, I wish to highlight a KEY word it contains; examples. Examples are not a be-all, end-all, by definition. Whether the community treats them as such is a malus of individual players. More yet, "cheezed-out, barely functional"? Surely the defined aim is to create a functional character. Given that the guides are cited so, this can be concluded as not the case. As to "cheezed-out"; define cheese. Because so many people have such maddeningly silly ideas of cheese that frankly, I find as little more than an empty pejorative that should be scrubbed from the syntax.
Now, as to damaging the community, I must ask - what community? OK, yes - roleplayers have one, but unlike a neighbourhood, or MMO community, you are not forced to interact with that existent at large to enjoy the medium in question. The closest community I could cite is these forums. Which I am skeptical reflect a single poster fully.| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anybody got a link to a optimization guide? I'm hurting bad for a fix!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to note that the players are on-board with this style, and it is done not to kill their fun, but to make success and failure meaningful. A character who is weak in his primary role would be a liability and could certainly get people killed, but this is rare. It's happened a couple of times that new guys entering a game where the party was already leveled have run afoul of the system (mostly the feat system) and ended up with toons that were a menace to themselves and others in combat. This is part of the story, too. Full disclosure: the longtime players have gotten annoyed on occasion about it...they tend to be pretty invested in the PCs who have survived for a long time. The worst "incompetent new guy" was actually murdered "in self defense" by another PC halfway through his first adventure. It was an act of mercy.
I have to say that killing someone's character because you are annoyed about them -- on their first adventure with the character no less -- is far more problematic than someone overusing one of the guides or potentially somehow abusing one of the guides.
On the topic of roleplaying your stats, throw me in the camp that thinks they should be roleplayed. Hell, I'm of the opinion that every number on your character sheet should have some amount of character/roleplaying ramifications, even if that is a very minute effect.
And yes, some builds can be too specialized. It's one of the problems that comes with the nature of system that so greatly rewards specialization. Even relatively "weak" tricks like stealth or bluff can be world beaters when the NPCs aren't ready to counter them because they simply won't be able to touch your opposed check roll results.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playing your character to match your stat block isn't any kind of penalty. If you were made to roll for a thing and it would come out one way, then playing it that way without rolling is just saving time.
Lets say your character is cha 7, but you play them as really suave and charming. The mechanics say they're at -2, and you fail a lot of rolls. So how are they suave and charming and yet failing all the time? There's a contradiction.
There are multiple possibilities here:
1- The character just thinks he's suave, but he isn't.2- The character tries to be suave, but fails at it.
3- The character's deficiency at that aspect of the game is not nearly as steep as you think (a character with Cha 7 is only a 10% less likely to succeed on a social check than one with Cha 10, after all).
Does every NPC automatically fall in love with my Cha 20 Bard? No? Then why does my Cha 7 Fighter suffer penalties from his low cha even when the rules say there isn't any?
Or say you wrote a character with Int 7 and with no relevant skills to the subject of mathematics. Now this character finds themselves trying to solve a maths puzzle. You might be a maths ninja who can solve the puzzle in seconds. But if you just look at it and then give the answer, the GM is likely to suggest you make a roll. And then the roll doesn't succeed. So what just happened?
That's a problem with metagame. Not attributes. You can very well just make an Int check. Truth is, puzzles don't really work very well from a roleplay perspective, because they either can be solved with an skill/attribute check or they are a metagame challenge directed at the players, rather than tehir characters (which, IME, happens more often than not). None of which is wrong, but the former is not very fun and the latter is not role playing.
The stuff that happens when you roll dice - that happens, canonically in the game world. The stuff that happens when you don't roll dice, also happens canonically in the game world. If your character is one way and one level of effectiveness when you're rolling dice and is completely different when you're not obliged to roll, that's going to break the fiction that they are actually one unified character.
If you don't have to roll the dice (i.e.: use your characters attributes and skills), then those penalties are irrelevant in that scene.
Of course, you might see the character just as a playing piece, and not care about the fiction of the game-world. That's fine. But even so, unless your GM is totally fine with that, the result will probably be that you start rolling dice for everything. And if you're fine with rolling dice for every social interaction too, then there is no problem. But at that point you've mitigated or eliminated the inconsistency by reducing or removing the non-dice parts.
Players can role-play their attributes, but they shouldn't have to. No one should get any extra benefits or suffer any extra penalty from their attributes, because those choices already have very clear and concise consequences.
IMO, mechanical choices should have mechanical consequences and role-playing choices should have role-playing consequences.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with that is it encourages metagaming and min-maxing. If I take a character who's crap at social stuff, but I think I can bluff it OOC by using my real-life social skills and hoping not to have to roll dice, then I suddenly have a lot less incentive to put points into charisma and social skills. Is that really a good thing?
That's exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. Your character is good at social skills if you invest in Cha and social skills. That's a mechanical choice. If you have low Cha and zero ranks in Bluff/Diplomacy/etc, then you're bad at that. If any of those come up, your character will probably perform poorly. That's the penalty you suffer for having low Cha and no ranks in social skills.
That's a mechanical choice with mechanical consequences.
However, in a situation where Charisma/Diplomacy/Bluff/whatever is irrelevant, there is no penalty for having low Cha.
What I dislike is the "you have low charisma, therefore you automatically fail every Cha-based check and every NPC hates you" mentality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. I mean, in the real world two people can say and do the EXACT SAME things and one be "smooth" and the other be "creepy" based entirely on the the fact that one is prettier and has a nice haircut.
Indeed. As we've all learned in recent years, you can totally win the hearts of millions of girls by breaking into a girl's room, watching her sleep, and saying you like the smell of her blood so long as you look like Robert Pattison.
Because that's not the purview of an optimization guide. By its definition, giving up focus in your primary area of expertise to be a bit more versatile is not optimizing.
{. . .}
Not necessarily. If the guide told you how you can dial back from 100% of max performance to 90% of max performance on the primary focus of a build in exchange for advancing from 25% of max performance to 50% of max performance on at least one secondary focus, that could be very helpful for optimization. You can see this in evolution, where organisms that are very specialized are at greater risk of extinction, even though they were outperforming their less specialized peers in their particular focus.
One obvious and basic but important example in Pathfinder is the Ability Score Point Buy. For instance, I put together a Wizard for a Rise of the Runelords AE PbP using a 15 Point Buy; taking racial bonuses into account, it wasn't too hard to get Intelligence to 18. In the Recruitment thread for the PbP I found out it was actually 20 Point Buy, so I had the choice of whether to put the extra 5 points into Intelligence for an increase to 20, or into Charisma (or maybe Wisdom), for an increase from 10 to 14 (or maybe even increase both by 2 to 3 each; also some other choices, but these were the main ones I considered). I didn't get accepted into the PbP, so this choice is still in Schroedinger-land, but it illustrates the choice between trying to eke out a tiny further increase in primary focus (Spellcasting) or getting a bigger benefit somewhere else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
so... I wondered why this was getting so many posts, and it's this argument again?
all stats, mechanically, have at worst a few skill points and a class skill away from being entirely covered for. In other words, mechanically in game, stats don't actually have a huge effect on your characters inept or brilliance in any given stat.
AKA, low int doesn't make you retarded, low wisdom doesn't make you dense, and low charisma doesn't make you a wall flower.
if we follow the opposite and force people to play high stats accurately, you may have to force people to use lower stats, because they don't have an int of 26 like the wizard they're playing.
Because that's not the purview of an optimization guide. By its definition, giving up focus in your primary area of expertise to be a bit more versatile is not optimizing.
{. . .}
Not necessarily. If the guide told you how you can dial back from 100% of max performance to 90% of max performance on the primary focus of a build in exchange for advancing from 25% of max performance to 50% of max performance on at least one secondary focus, that could be very helpful for optimization. You can see this in evolution, where organisms that are very specialized are at greater risk of extinction, even though they were outperforming their less specialized peers in their particular focus.
One obvious and basic but important example in Pathfinder is the Ability Score Point Buy. For instance, I put together a Wizard for a Rise of the Runelords AE PbP using a 15 Point Buy; taking racial bonuses into account, it wasn't too hard to get Intelligence to 18. In the Recruitment thread for the PbP I found out it was actually 20 Point Buy, so I had the choice of whether to put the extra 5 points into Intelligence for an increase to 20, or into Charisma (or maybe Wisdom), for an increase from 10 to 14 (or maybe even increase both by 2 to 3 each; also some other choices, but these were the main ones I considered). I didn't get accepted into the PbP, so this choice is still in Schroedinger-land, but it illustrates the choice between trying to eke out a tiny further increase in primary focus (Spellcasting) or getting a bigger benefit somewhere else.
The correct choice is to take INT to 20, then focus on your DEX and CON. For an INT based caster, every other stat can be covered for or replaced. Outside of skill use: STR gives you nothing you need and you can use spells or magic items to cover your carrying capacity. WIS only gives you a minor benefit your best save. And CHA does nothing since we're talking outside of skills, which is all CHA does for you. And even that can be replaced for the important skills with INT. Speaking in terms of optimization this is pretty easy math to do.
so... I wondered why this was getting so many posts, and it's this argument again?
all stats, mechanically, have at worst a few skill points and a class skill away from being entirely covered for. In other words, mechanically in game, stats don't actually have a huge effect on your characters inept or brilliance in any given stat.
This is a mechanical weakness of the system, though, not a reason to ignore roll playing one's stats.
Yes, the game makes it possible to treat point-buy stat arrays as an equation to be maximized, and then turn around and easily cover whatever niggling weaknesses arise out of dumping through "the tricks of the trade" - stuff like Student of Philosophy, and such. The fact that we can build hyper-efficient characters devoid of believable human characteristics (and god forbid...flaws) is not an argument that we should.
For those who feel that the stats should seriously impact RP, I have a question for you.
I have a character, Shariza. Her lowest stat is her Charisma-- it's an 11, on a character whose stats average to a 16.3. I've been role-playing her as book-smart and very quick about analyzing the information you give her, and a voracious learner-- she has a very high Int stat. But she's also shy, more comfortable following orders than anything else, and terrible with people. She really only comes into her own in a serious fight. Her backstory fits this personality.
To reiterate-- while her lowest stat is Charisma, it's not what one would classically call a 'dump' stat. But at the table of those who insist on applying the stats to a character's personality... am I roleplaying her wrong? By the standards of the world her Charisma is actually slightly above average. If you're requiring or insisting that a player with a low stat portray their character that way... is the reverse true? And if not, why not?
If your character's stats average 16.3, she is essentially a superhuman. This would be, what...the equivalent of around a 60 point-buy character, right? Kind of a corner case.
There are a variety of ways to square RP style with stats, in specific cases. Maybe she is extremely attractive, and as a result ends up leaving a neutral impression on most people despite her churlish demeanor? Many paths lead to Rome.
But, here's the thing: the problem of not role playing stats is impossible to identify by analyzing any one, specific, character. It's a question of patterns, one which doesn't emerge until you take a step back and look at a whole ecosystem of characters, their stats, and how they are played. There's more than one way to role play a 7 CHA (or an 11), but there is no way to honestly represent all possible character concepts with a 7 CHA.
In the long-run, optimization leads either to a pigeon-holing of PC role playing concepts/opportunities, or to a crass disconnect between characters and their stats (which are meant to represent, broadly, their characteristics) where there are essentially no constraints, at all. Neither of these outcomes is acceptable. Real people run the whole gamut of strengths and weaknesses, and are constrained by them.
^That said, it probably wouldn't hurt if the Guides said something like "you might want to defocus a build slightly to make your character more versatile, to cover gaps in your party's abilities, to adapt to the particular situations of the campaign, or simply for improved roleplaying potential, and here are some ways you can do it without shooting yourself in the foot . . .". I have seen a couple of examples of this in numerous Guides -- that is, most don't even mention this apart from mention of things that might be useful in certain types of campaign, and on the rare occasions that they do they pretty much gloss over it (even giving the situationally useful things rather short shrift).
The guides do not need to say that. The purpose of a guide is to be say "use this cookie cutter build". The point of the guide is to tell you how certain options work. As an example I got a lot of use out of Treantmonk guides, but I don't swear by it 100%. I really dont like not having precise shot and improved precise shot on a switch hitter for a ranger.
What you are saying the guide should say, is something that people should just know. A brand new player might not know it, but the guide is not written just for brand new players.
The correct choice is to take INT to 20, then focus on your DEX and CON. For an INT based caster, every other stat can be covered for or replaced. Outside of skill use: STR gives you nothing you need and you can use spells or magic items to cover your carrying capacity. WIS only gives you a minor benefit your best save. And CHA does nothing since we're talking outside of skills, which is all CHA does for you. And even that can be replaced for the important skills with INT. Speaking in terms of optimization this is pretty easy math to do.Because that's not the purview of an optimization guide. By its definition, giving up focus in your primary area of expertise to be a bit more versatile is not optimizing.
{. . .}
Not necessarily. If the guide told you how you can dial back from 100% of max performance to 90% of max performance on the primary focus of a build in exchange for advancing from 25% of max performance to 50% of max performance on at least one secondary focus, that could be very helpful for optimization. You can see this in evolution, where organisms that are very specialized are at greater risk of extinction, even though they were outperforming their less specialized peers in their particular focus.
One obvious and basic but important example in Pathfinder is the Ability Score Point Buy. For instance, I put together a Wizard for a Rise of the Runelords AE PbP using a 15 Point Buy; taking racial bonuses into account, it wasn't too hard to get Intelligence to 18. In the Recruitment thread for the PbP I found out it was actually 20 Point Buy, so I had the choice of whether to put the extra 5 points into Intelligence for an increase to 20, or into Charisma (or maybe Wisdom), for an increase from 10 to 14 (or maybe even increase both by 2 to 3 each; also some other choices, but these were the main ones I considered). I didn't get accepted into the PbP, so this choice is still in Schroedinger-land, but it illustrates the choice between trying to eke out a tiny further increase in primary focus (Spellcasting) or getting a bigger benefit somewhere else.
One thing I dislike is a 15 point buy instead of 20. I feel like the low point buy really encourages dump stating just to get your primary stats where they need to be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I dislike is a 15 point buy instead of 20. I feel like the low point buy really encourages dump stating just to get your primary stats where they need to be.
I think this is a bit over-the-top, when you start talking about where a stat "needs" to be. If you think that a 16 in a primary stat is useless, you're losing perspective. A sorccerer starting with a 16 in charisma is still an effective spellcaster, just not as powerful a caster as she would be with a 20.
The issue that I have is that I've never fully understood what the benefit to the game is supposed to get from lower stat arrays. It makes weak characters, granted. If you're in a group of players that are going to be optimizing in the first place, that suggests that the players want their characters to be powerful.
So, basically, your first act as a game master is to identify the type of campaign that your players want and ban it. Learn what your audience wants so that you can deprive them of it. That's pretty much an operational definition of adversarial, and therefore poor, game mastering style.
so... I wondered why this was getting so many posts, and it's this argument again?
all stats, mechanically, have at worst a few skill points and a class skill away from being entirely covered for. In other words, mechanically in game, stats don't actually have a huge effect on your characters inept or brilliance in any given stat.
Agreed. I wasn't talking "ability scores," though. I was taklking "stats." Not to get into a giant discussion about defining terms, but when people say stats, I think they are including all of a character's skill points, feats, BAB, race, whatever else, and not just their ability scores.
It could also reasonably shift as a character levels up. A character that starts with 14 Int and 7 Cha, but levels up putting ranks in diplomacy and bluff, could be a character that studied how to become a better speaker and eventually overcame their early-life timidness in speaking.
And yes, having 7 int doesn't make you inept. By the same token, I wouldn't play the character as a Rhodes scholar, either. At least early in the game, or when low scores aren't counteracted by stats in other areas, like in the above example, I prefer to roleplay them.
*Edit in bold*