Let's say 10 = average intelligence. That's the usual line of thought, right?
that being the case, how you represent "A bit dumb, but still capable of functioning within civilized society?" Sure sounds like it would need to be a score below 10 to me.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are 5% less good at a given thing (solving math problems, for example) if you have 9 in a stat, rather than a 10. 10% if you have a 6-7. You're below average but not in the realm of hilarious ineptitude.
How about this: we RP the way we want, you RP the way you want, and everybody stop acting like anyone is more correct or less correct about this nonsense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about this: we RP the way we want, you RP the way you want, and everybody stop acting like anyone is more correct or less correct about this nonsense.
But a dev said that 8 Int means you're an illiterate retard! Everyone knows there is only One True Way to roleplay, and any deviation from it is heresy that must be purged with holy fire.[/sarcasm]
See this is were we differ. There are those of us (whoever US might be) who believe that a neg mod is noticeable otherwise there wouldnt be neg mod.I see what you're saying. I just don't think someone with an 8 in an ability would 'stand out' so to speak. That's why you could still consider them a "normal person".I took it to mean, the average person has at least one slightly below average ability.Do note that 8 int is basically a normal person.So a normal person is 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8 ?That assumes you use a stat array with an 8 as the lowest stat. Change the stat array to have a 10 as the lowest stat and what do you get?
Just as there are people with notably high ability scores and notably low ability scores, there are people with no notably low or high scores.
Al least to me, an ability score with a positive modifier is above average or more, an ability score with a negative modifier is below average or more, an ability score with a zero modifier is average.
If someone struggles in a specific area it might not be all that noticeable. Especially if that individual has trained in skills to compensate. An example would be a generally shy person (Charisma 8) , learning some levels in Diplomacy or Perform (oratory)to better be able to interact with the world. He or she could interact as well as most in formal situations, and would only be noticeably less outgoing in settings like a tavern where proper form gives way to carousing.
|
So, unless a person have 10,10,10,10,10,10 that person is not normal? because if a 9 or an 8 is noticeable, then a 11 or a 12 is noticeable too.Aratrok, the stat arrays in the PHB are for ease of use so you dont have to roll ability scores for or pt buy each NPC.We're not talking about making our own stat arrays. We're talking about the one you're supposed to use for NPCs. Right out of the rulebook.
13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8
Effectively 3 point buy.
And yes, +0 is average. -1 is below average. +1 is above average. Nobody is arguing with you about that.
This is correct.
Ooookay then.
|
|
If someone struggles in a specific area it might not be all that noticeable. Especially if that individual has trained in skills to compensate. An example would be a generally shy person (Charisma 8) , learning some levels in Diplomacy or Perform (oratory)to better be able to interact with the world. He or she could interact as well as most in formal situations, and would only be noticeably less outgoing in settings like a tavern where proper form gives way to carousing.See this is were we differ. There are those of us (whoever US might be) who believe that a neg mod is noticeable otherwise there wouldnt be neg mod.I see what you're saying. I just don't think someone with an 8 in an ability would 'stand out' so to speak. That's why you could still consider them a "normal person".I took it to mean, the average person has at least one slightly below average ability.Do note that 8 int is basically a normal person.So a normal person is 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8 ?That assumes you use a stat array with an 8 as the lowest stat. Change the stat array to have a 10 as the lowest stat and what do you get?
Just as there are people with notably high ability scores and notably low ability scores, there are people with no notably low or high scores.
Al least to me, an ability score with a positive modifier is above average or more, an ability score with a negative modifier is below average or more, an ability score with a zero modifier is average.
See you gotit. That person would still be slightly shy but has learned to overcome that shyness IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS.
Perform (Oratory) means that that person is speaking in front of a crowd but would probably still come across as shy when one on one.
Diplomacy is a skill you learn to manipulate people. When your not trying to get something from someone and just being yourself that person would still come across as kinda shy.
To me skills dont change the base of who you are they just give you more options in certain situations.
|
|
We have then that a normal person are very unusual, a statistical anomaly, basically your definition of normal person make them very abnormal.This is correct.So, unless a person have 10,10,10,10,10,10 that person is not normal? because if a 9 or an 8 is noticeable, then a 11 or a 12 is noticeable too.Aratrok, the stat arrays in the PHB are for ease of use so you dont have to roll ability scores for or pt buy each NPC.We're not talking about making our own stat arrays. We're talking about the one you're supposed to use for NPCs. Right out of the rulebook.
13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8
Effectively 3 point buy.
And yes, +0 is average. -1 is below average. +1 is above average. Nobody is arguing with you about that.
Yup.
|
|
You are 5% less good at a given thing (solving math problems, for example) if you have 9 in a stat, rather than a 10. 10% if you have a 6-7. You're below average but not in the realm of hilarious ineptitude.
How about this: we RP the way we want, you RP the way you want, and everybody stop acting like anyone is more correct or less correct about this nonsense.
Nobady was saying that "hilariously inept" was the way to portray a character with a negative modifier, that was all those who disliked what was being said and took it to extremes.
What was being said was that you should portray a character with a neg mod in some why that makes sense for that neg ability. What "what makes senses" was at contention.
|
|
Nobady was saying that "hilariously inept" was the way to portray a character with a negative modifier, that was all those who disliked what was being said and took it to extremes.
What was being said was that you should portray a character with a neg mod in some why that makes sense for that neg ability. What "what makes senses" was at contention.
Or, I could not, and you could stop trying to tell me what I, or anyone else, should do at tables other than your own.
|
Postive ability modifiers can go up a long ways. Negative ability modifiers only go down to -5. And below -5 your either dead, unconscious, or paralised. So -1 means something.
Positive modifiers only go to +7 for human beings who aren't magically enhanced (and down to -4 by the same standards). So...the scales aren't as different as you're implying.
A -1 is certainly no more notable than a +2.
|
|
Postive ability modifiers can go up a long ways. Negative ability modifiers only go down to -5. And below -5 your either dead, unconscious, or paralised. So -1 means something.Positive modifiers only go to +7 for human beings who aren't magically enhanced (and down to -4 by the same standards). So...the scales aren't as different as you're implying.
A -1 is certainly no more notable than a +2.
I understand what your saying......
You did forget to add in the age mods though.
|
|
Yeah, it means you will fail rolls related to it 5% more often. Any meaning you try to give it beyond that is not a rule or a standard that anyone is required to be held to.
If you dont expend resources such as skill points, traits, and feats on a skill governed by the ability with the -1 mod, everytime you 'take 10' you will fail.
|
|
Postive ability modifiers can go up a long ways. Negative ability modifiers only go down to -5. And below -5 your either dead, unconscious, or paralised. So -1 means something.Positive modifiers only go to +7 for human beings who aren't magically enhanced (and down to -4 by the same standards). So...the scales aren't as different as you're implying.
A -1 is certainly no more notable than a +2.
I understand what your saying......
You did forget to add in the age mods though.
Okay, for mental stats make it a +9...if you somehow get to 20th level (which makes you a demigod for all practical purposes anyway). If translating real-world humans you almost certainly cap out at +8 at most.
Either way, it doesn't change my basic point.
Yeah, it means you will fail rolls related to it 5% more often. Any meaning you try to give it beyond that is not a rule or a standard that anyone is required to be held to.
When people get together to play Pathfinder there is a social contract that people abide by or at least should abide by.
So there is a rule, an invisible rule that everyone knows about. Like suspension of disbelief of the fantastical stories of James Jacobs (or whoever wrote the AP) and generally being co-operative with your fellow players.
A major issue with this thread is that posters are really only mentioning mental stats. Why should a fighter with Int 7 be penalised when a Dex 7 Wizard or Cleric has no penalty at all except for the penalties associated with the stat.
Being clumsy can be just as socially inhibiting (especially around characters who are naturally dextrous and take pride in their abilities, monks and rogues come to mind) as having a low IQ.
In the end it comes down to the Stormwind Fallacy: there is something wrong with your character because it has a low stat, a low stat the class doesn't really need.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A common set up I see before racials is 15, 14, 14, 14, 12, 7.
The racials goes into the 15 and one of the 14s, while the racial penalty goes into the 12 or 7, or sometimes another 14.
The level 4 stat bump goes into the 15, which with the racials means you have that 18.
It hurts quite a bit with two-handed builds because you're only dealing +4 damage as opposed to +6 at levels 1-3, but for a lot of d8 classes it works out quite nicely.
This is James Jacobs reply to a question about RPing ability scores.
James Jacobs wrote:
Mr. Jacobs, question on roleplaying. When you roleplay your character, how do you roleplay a high(18+) mental ability scores? What are some of the ways you've seen it potrayed?Also how do you roleplay mental ability scores below 10? Say only a couple points like a score of 9 or 8. What about lower?
What was one of your favorite characters that you played?
I'm looking for more ideas for roleplaying various ability scores.
Thank you. I appreciate being able to talk to you.
It's easier for the GM to play a high Int NPC, since he can use metagame info to fake the high intellect. For a PC, I sometimes do the same, but I also tend to put a few extra skill points in knowledge skills to help set up the fact that my character's a smartie. I also try to use more metagame knowledge as well, subject to GM approval. Patrick plays a super smart wizard in one of my games, and he plays his character as slightly mad—other folks are just to stupid to understand the reasons he does what he does. He sometimes laces made-up words into his character's dialogue and then defines them for the other players, simulating a larger vocabulary than other characters (and other players).
Low mental ability scores generally indicate some sort of madness or brain damage or personality flaw.
Low INT: Play the character by making dumb choices or having trouble reading or the like. Avoid putting ANY ranks into Int-based skills.
Low WIS: Play the character as super impulsive, little common sense, and kind of oblivious to things. Get distracted a lot.
Low CHA: Play the character as a jerk, or alternately as someone who just doesn't have much personality at all. A character who simply doesn't say much or hangs back during non-combat encounters. Frankly... this type of character, the one who avoids actual roleplaying or is antagonistic, is my LEAST favorite type of character to play, so my...
To be fair the question was ask "How do you...", so James said how he did it. He did not say "This is how everyone should do it".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This fighting happens just because while all stats are vague abstractions, some and less than the others.
And you can't have that. Immersion can be broken by inconsistency, because players gets an implication from how one stat scales and then subconsciously applies it to the others. "If you half your strength you half you carrying capacity, okay so halving a stat halfs the nature of your ability score."
You can say that all stats do not scale the same way, but then you are just confirming inconsistency and it creates tension because you are both actively fighting then whose imagination is legit.
Because roleplaying does require cooperation of imagination. Either Paizo should make ability scores more vague or less. If more vague, different ideas probably dont clash as there is more room for everyone, more strict rules would allow rules to override imagination to avoid clashes.
Do note that 8 int is basically a normal person.So a normal person is 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8 ?
Most normal people range from 8 to 13. Those races with ability penalties or modifiers go down to 6 or up to 15. They are beyond average but exceptionally terrible or exceptionally great. That is why I said before that a 6 is still in the range of a normal/capable functioning person. It is just on the lower end. I would say it is the guy that can do basic math, but struggles with algebra and word problems when it comes to intelligence. He can however count money, and basically make a monthly budge.
8+9+10+11+12+13=10.5.
To answer your question in fantasyland a normal person will be good at something and not good at other things so he will have the standard NPC array. This normal person will also have an 8 and a 9 assuming no racial modifiers have been added to those scores. If a racial penalty was added to those scores he has a 6 or a 7 so a normal person(and nonhumans count) might have 15(bonus to strong score) 12 11 10 9 6(penalty to weak score). They may also have 12 11(penalty to strong score) 11 10 10(bonus to weak score) 9.
Aratrok, the stat arrays in the PHB are for ease of use so you dont have to roll ability scores for or pt buy each NPC.We're not talking about making our own stat arrays. We're talking about the one you're supposed to use for NPCs. Right out of the rulebook.
13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8
Effectively 3 point buy.
And yes, +0 is average. -1 is below average. +1 is above average. Nobody is arguing with you about that.
That is true but we still use the common baselines in the book so we have the same point of reference. That is why we use WBL, even though it is not a hard rule for the sake of discussions. If you give your NPC's a 29 point buy, and I give mine -7 point buy then it just makes it more difficult to discuss things. It also makes it easier to have a neutral discussion. As an example when discussing the power of _____ I know I allow more things than most GM's I meet. So rather than use my own games as to what is ok, I try to use what I think is closer to the median of being acceptable.
The other issue here is that there is no common reference as to how bad that "- X" is when it comes RP'ing, and that is on purpose so people can run the games however they want.
I don't think anyone here has a problem with someone saying "In my games I like to do _____ when you have a negative penalty of X".
The issue comes when someone says or insinuates "Paizo/WoTC did not put in arbitrary penalties 001 to 100, but that is how they intended for the game to be played." Charisma more than anything else gets this because it is the easiest to ignore just by keeping your mouth shut as much as possible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your having fun then your not playing the game wrong.
This I can agree with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This fighting happens just because while all stats are vague abstractions, some and less than the others.
And you can't have that. Immersion can be broken by inconsistency, because players gets an implication from how one stat scales and then subconsciously applies it to the others. "If you half your strength you half you carrying capacity, okay so halving a stat halfs the nature of your ability score."
You can say that all stats do not scale the same way, but then you are just confirming inconsistency and it creates tension because you are both actively fighting then whose imagination is legit.
Because roleplaying does require cooperation of imagination. Either Paizo should make ability scores more vague or less. If more vague, different ideas probably dont clash as there is more room for everyone, more strict rules would allow rules to override imagination to avoid clashes.
Cooperation of imagination? Very much so, in recent games, collaboration between players or between players and GM has helped progress the maturity level of Pathfinder games.
I agree inconsistencies, can create all sorts of problems as there isn't a benchmark to measure anything against.
Yes, the vague or more detailed approach is a fantastic idea. It at least gives people a starting point of discussion. Having a -5 to +7 bandwidth to determine physical traits kind of lends itself to a concrete view on character attributes, yet skill ranks, which can easily override those attributes sabotages anything concrete those attributes convey.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing I'm seeing is that if you filter out all the strawmen(on both sides), most of us seem to be in agreement:
Play how you enjoy.
It's okay to roleplay low/high stats in any way you think is appropriate.
Sure there are a few people on each side that take things to a more extreme place - "I super-extra-punish low stats" vs. "low stats are their mechanical consequences and no more; my 3 Int guy is a genius he's just bad at skills." - but those seem to be outliers.
The thing I'm seeing is that if you filter out all the strawmen(on both sides), most of us seem to be in agreement:
Play how you enjoy.
It's okay to roleplay low/high stats in any way you think is appropriate.Sure there are a few people on each side that take things to a more extreme place - "I super-extra-punish low stats" vs. "low stats are their mechanical consequences and no more; my 3 Int guy is a genius he's just bad at skills." - but those seem to be outliers.
i agree,
Except the part about enjoyment, for me and some others it comes down to integrity (to the character in question), and through that others get an enjoyable experience from you roleplaying your character. Personal enjoyment in the pure sense can be very self-serving.
As eluded from previous posts, I'm currently playing a half-orc Fighter with 7 Int, he is pretty thick, misses the subtle bluffs of the party's Slayer (vanguard) and makes impulsive decisions that often are not to his advantage.
I don't enjoy it, but it is compelling, and provides immersion to the group (they can visualise and self-actualise who my character is, quite easily). Pretending to be someone else, without continual optimisation, and self gratification can be very intoxicating.
|
|
The thing I'm seeing is that if you filter out all the strawmen(on both sides), most of us seem to be in agreement:
Play how you enjoy.
It's okay to roleplay low/high stats in any way you think is appropriate.Sure there are a few people on each side that take things to a more extreme place - "I super-extra-punish low stats" vs. "low stats are their mechanical consequences and no more; my 3 Int guy is a genius he's just bad at skills." - but those seem to be outliers.
Totally agree.
|
|
This is correct.So, unless a person have 10,10,10,10,10,10 that person is not normal? because if a 9 or an 8 is noticeable, then a 11 or a 12 is noticeable too.Aratrok, the stat arrays in the PHB are for ease of use so you dont have to roll ability scores for or pt buy each NPC.We're not talking about making our own stat arrays. We're talking about the one you're supposed to use for NPCs. Right out of the rulebook.
13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8
Effectively 3 point buy.
And yes, +0 is average. -1 is below average. +1 is above average. Nobody is arguing with you about that.
I was being an ass with this answer, sorry.
But you were also wrong in your choice of number. A character who is 'completely average would have some combination of 10's and 11's, a 0 modifier.
But you were correct in saying a 'normal' person isnt 'completely average'.
It is my opinion that modifiers are noticeable otherwise every normal person would seem the same.
You are actually lying when you say that, as at NO point did I say INT 3 can't talk.So... don't do that. Lying is wrong.
You used a grunting human as an example. Why should I assume your grunting human can speak when grunts as a means of communication in media tends to mean the person cant speak?
Maybe you were being hyperbolic but if so you should replace that example with another one.
Also if we are not discuy rules you need to be more clear. You have clearly said X does Y more than once. If you are switching between the rules or what you believe the game intends and what you personally prefer you need to differentiate between the two. The reason I, and maybe Ashiel also keep referencing rules is because you seem to be making rules based arguments.
He did in fact grunt. Sometimes I do to. He was speaking in the example though. I don't blame you for ignoring that, as people will pick and choose parts of other peoples statements if it furthers whatever cause they think they are fighting for...
In this case though, you stated that I was saying INT 3 couldn't talk. I'm calling you out on your lie, because that is what you did. You said something about me that wasn't true, you fabricated a situation that never happened, and then attributed it to me. That is NOT cool.
That's the only thing I'm commenting on here, of course, if you want to pick and choose specific words to quote, I'm sure you can...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a lie if it wasn't intentional. Calm your t#%%, dude.
You are actually lying when you say that, as at NO point did I say INT 3 can't talk.So... don't do that. Lying is wrong.
You used a grunting human as an example. Why should I assume your grunting human can speak when grunts as a means of communication in media tends to mean the person cant speak?
Maybe you were being hyperbolic but if so you should replace that example with another one.
Also if we are not discuy rules you need to be more clear. You have clearly said X does Y more than once. If you are switching between the rules or what you believe the game intends and what you personally prefer you need to differentiate between the two. The reason I, and maybe Ashiel also keep referencing rules is because you seem to be making rules based arguments.He did in fact grunt. Sometimes I do to. He was speaking in the example though. I don't blame you for ignoring that, as people will pick and choose parts of other peoples statements if it furthers whatever cause they think they are fighting for...
In this case though, you stated that I was saying INT 3 couldn't talk. I'm calling you out on your lie, because that is what you did. You said something about me that wasn't true, you fabricated a situation that never happened, and then attributed it to me. That is NOT cool.
That's the only thing I'm commenting on here, of course, if you want to pick and choose specific words to quote, I'm sure you can...
I wasn't trying to pick the post apart. I may have thought you were one of those taking things to an extreme end, so I focused on the grunting. TheJeff pointed out what you actually said so I get what you mean now.
The original quote
You are actually lying when you say that, as at NO point did I say INT 3 can't talk.So... don't do that. Lying is wrong.
You used a grunting human as an example. Why should I assume your grunting human can speak when grunts as a means of communication in media tends to mean the person cant speak?
Maybe you were being hyperbolic but if so you should replace that example with another one.
Also if we are not discuy rules you need to be more clear. You have clearly said X does Y more than once. If you are switching between the rules or what you believe the game intends and what you personally prefer you need to differentiate between the two. The reason I, and maybe Ashiel also keep referencing rules is because you seem to be making rules based arguments.NPC 1 "He didn't know anything about any topic except religion... his grasp of common was that of a child... whenever I tried to engage him about any other topic he shook his head and started grunting like a beast!"So yes, "grunting like a beast", but also "grasp of common like a child", so "Could speak, but poorly and even less on topics other than the one skill he put points into."
Thank you for pointing that out.
I used the example of a child deliberately, because I assume a certain level of intelligence on these forums when I post, you (thankfully) showed that I should continue doing so.
For those who don't already know:
Certain animals (primates/pigs/dolphins for example) and children learning to speak have very similar levels of linguistic intelligence.
In my opinion, the minimum intelligence (sorry, INT) required to have language develop does NOT imply an instant and 100% comprehensive understanding of a language. We all went to school with kids who couldn't read out loud as fast as us, or kids who didn't know as many words as us...
Intelligence is measurable, and noticeable because of this.
I always assumed that 10 was normal but that the curve up or down from 10 was somewhat exponential. In reviewing the way the ability bonuses work Pathfinder seems to treat the increase or decrease in ability scores as linear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The original quote
You are actually lying when you say that, as at NO point did I say INT 3 can't talk.So... don't do that. Lying is wrong.
You used a grunting human as an example. Why should I assume your grunting human can speak when grunts as a means of communication in media tends to mean the person cant speak?
Maybe you were being hyperbolic but if so you should replace that example with another one.
Also if we are not discuy rules you need to be more clear. You have clearly said X does Y more than once. If you are switching between the rules or what you believe the game intends and what you personally prefer you need to differentiate between the two. The reason I, and maybe Ashiel also keep referencing rules is because you seem to be making rules based arguments.NPC 1 "He didn't know anything about any topic except religion... his grasp of common was that of a child... whenever I tried to engage him about any other topic he shook his head and started grunting like a beast!"So yes, "grunting like a beast", but also "grasp of common like a child", so "Could speak, but poorly and even less on topics other than the one skill he put points into."Thank you for pointing that out.
I used the example of a child deliberately, because I assume a certain level of intelligence on these forums when I post, you (thankfully) showed that I should continue doing so.
For those who don't already know:
Certain animals (primates/pigs/dolphins for example) and children learning to speak have very similar levels of linguistic intelligence.
In my opinion, the minimum intelligence (sorry, INT) required to have language develop does NOT imply an instant and 100% comprehensive understanding of a language. We all went to school with kids who couldn't read out loud as fast as us, or kids who didn't know as many words as us...
Intelligence is measurable, and noticeable because of this.
In Pathfinder, if you have that language written down on your character sheet you have 100% comprehension.
Its all about context, some people are highly intelligent but have trouble learning a second or third language, while others (who might have a lower IQ) could pick up languages very fast.
In Pathfinder, you could have a character who knows many languages, and the whole motivation could be the player wants to create exposition- a character who has travelled far, visited distant exotic places. It's not even a matter of having a high IQ or having abilities that reflect it.
This is correct.So, unless a person have 10,10,10,10,10,10 that person is not normal? because if a 9 or an 8 is noticeable, then a 11 or a 12 is noticeable too.Aratrok, the stat arrays in the PHB are for ease of use so you dont have to roll ability scores for or pt buy each NPC.We're not talking about making our own stat arrays. We're talking about the one you're supposed to use for NPCs. Right out of the rulebook.
13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8
Effectively 3 point buy.
And yes, +0 is average. -1 is below average. +1 is above average. Nobody is arguing with you about that.
There are signifiers in the Pathfinder game that allows us to acknowledge what an attribute score represents.
Ogres have Intelligence 6 and a Charisma 7. Intelligence 6 is normal for an Ogre warrior.
A Watch Captain have Int 13 and Charisma 10. Intelligence 13 is normal for a Watch Captain.
Standardised numbers without any context is a pretty frivolous exercise.
Pathfinder and probably 3.x before that assumed that high Int ment knowledge of several languages. High Int you automatically get a bonus language for very positive Int mod you have.
Yes that's true. But the ability scores themselves are made up of of a multitude of things, take Wisdom, it signifies will power, awareness, common sense and intuition.
So you could have a character with a low Wisdom who has terrible awareness and good will power. Simply by taking the Iron Will feat and putting little skill points into perception.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I used the example of a child deliberately, because I assume a certain level of intelligence on these forums when I post, you (thankfully) showed that I should continue doing so.
We try to be inclusive here, so please continue.
In my opinion, the minimum intelligence (sorry, INT) required to have language develop does NOT imply an instant and 100% comprehensive understanding of a language. We all went to school with kids who couldn't read out loud as fast as us, or kids who didn't know as many words as us...
Vocabulary is not a certain measure of intelligence, nor is reading speed. Those are measures of certain skills. In Pathfinder terms, the former can fall into Int, Wis, or Charisma, as vocabulary can fall under Linguistics, Craft (writing), Profession (Writer), or Perform (Oratory).
Further, difficulty reading does not imply stupidity. I know many people who were more adept at things like mathematics rather than literary skill, and vice-versa. One of my close friends has an associate's degree in English and speaks two languages, yet he had difficulty reading as a child. He is far from stupid.
Intelligence is measurable, and noticeable because of this.
No, it isn't. That's a skillset like most anything else. There are plenty of people in the world who are very smart but aren't going to win any literary or oratory awards because their language skills are simplistic. I've also found the reverse to be true, as I've met people with great language skills who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag without someone helping them to do so.
So, again, X Int does not mean anything beyond what it actually does. Which is a good thing, because it means it's your prerogative as to how you want to handle your character and/or NPCs. It allows for nigh infinite different character concepts.
So it's a Win/Win. You can choose to play your character as a grunting, drooling, animal-like individual, and Johnny next to you can play the ignorant shut-in, and you're both doing it right and having fun.
Everybody wins.