Zilvar, you are seeing a conflict where there is none. You attack the wind, you have no opponent.
I agree with you.
Very well. If you could just answer the question I posed I think we might be able to do the impossible, and actually reach a congenial and fruitful conclusion to an internet message thread.
Zilvar2k11, at no point have I disagreed with you.However, blindly ignoring differences (OBVIOUS differences) in characters stats takes something away from the enjoyment of the game.Why? At level 1, a character with Diplomacy as a class skill gets +4 to any roll to influence someone's opinion. (hey! A shoutout to the thread title!) Unless you've maximized your starting stats, that is probably as high or higher than you're going to get from your charisma. In non-game terms, your innate (stat) ability to interact with people and make them treat you like a better person is overwhelmed by the effort you've learned to put into it and the techniques you've learned and honed (skill).
That's level 1, out of the gate with a single skill point. If you're not a caster aiming to blow DC's into the skies or jonesing for more bonus spells, what you learned is much more important than who you are.
And the disparity just grows.
That pattern follows with every skill in the game. Why is it that OBVIOUS differences in character skills are more easily ignored than those in character stats?
Because I can look at a man and see if he is strong or weak, but I will never know how good he is at juggling without him showing me.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
That's why his original value was 6. Take the NPC stat array you showed. 8 is the low stat, and now add a -2 penalty for race. So dwarves, Oreads, tieflings all have a cha penalty. And that other races have such penalties to Con, Wisdom, Str then you'd get a decent number of 6's in various stats.
That's what I thought too, but then he started comparing things to everyday real world life, where everyone is human. So in that paradigm a score below 8 would be very rare.
Basically, those people you see in your day to day life that are bad at things? Those are the 8s in action.
That pattern follows with every skill in the game. Why is it that OBVIOUS differences in character skills are more easily ignored than those in character stats?
Because I can look at a man and see if he is strong or weak, but I will never know how good he is at juggling without him showing me.
Not really, though. Or at least, not necessarily depending on your game world. This is too table-specific to be definitive.
Do short term buffs change your appearance?
Do buff items change your appearance?
Where does the cutoff lie? Is a 16 obviously strong? Is a 14? both are above average.
How do Con and Str and Dex interact to determine outward appearance, and even failing that, the point about Charisma being STRONGLY related to physical appearance has been pointed out as faulty so many times as to be laughable (Night Hag anyone? Racial preferences? Is a handsome orc attractive to a prissy elf? It's a -factor-, but it simply cannot be a strong one in a game or world that is internally consistent.)
I believe that your position creates more problems than it solves. :) I also believe that (for physical skills) there are obvious cues to watchers to indicate exceptional proficiency. Haven't you ever watched someone who practices Martial Arts, or dancing, or football, or gymnastics, just walk around? They all move differently, and distinct, and stand out.
At least, that's how I see it.
Alas, I do not have the awesome ability to determine someones skills by looking at them...
I can however tell the difference between a body builder and a couch potato.
How high would I have to roll to determine someones ability to do my taxes? To see if they could build a boat?
Certain attributes are easier to notice than others.
A brief conversation with someone might reveal that they are educated, and employed in a certain field, but their level of proficiency would remain a mystery... however, during the course of that conversation, you might form an opinion of them as a person...
How easy was it to learn about their skills? Did they engage you and employ active listening? Did they make you want to talk to them more or did you want to end the conversation?
You weren't trying to get anything out of them, just making small talk. You weren't being hustled by them, they weren't trying to change your opinion of them, you were just sharing a drink at the bar with a stranger, a friendly stranger.
Turns out he had a high Charisma. Also, he makes boats. Maybe he's good at it.
It's more internally consistent to believe that he took 10 on his diplomacy check (that is, used his learned skills in dealing with people), with a circumstantial bonus of -2 to the DC because you were drinking, and influenced your attitude from indifferent to friendly. In a couple of hours, you won't care anymore, but next time you talk to him you'll remember he seemed like a friendly guy. :) No raw stat checks required. No dice rolling required. And internally consistent rules dialogue that exists within the framed story and doesn't require anything out of the ordinary and even makes sense within the bounds of our reality.A brief conversation with someone might reveal that they are educated, and employed in a certain field, but their level of proficiency would remain a mystery... however, during the course of that conversation, you might form an opinion of them as a person...
How easy was it to learn about their skills? Did they engage you and employ active listening? Did they make you want to talk to them more or did you want to end the conversation?
You weren't trying to get anything out of them, just making small talk. You weren't being hustled by them, they weren't trying to change your opinion of them, you were just sharing a drink at the bar with a stranger, a friendly stranger.
Turns out he had a high Charisma. Also, he makes boats. Maybe he's good at it.
More internally consistent than what? Do you force people to roll Diplomacy to order drinks?
Are you trying to convince me that you can gauge someones level of proficiency in a skill, but not determine the underlying natural talent (stat) associated with it?
Very interesting... Let's play pretend: INT 3, level 10 commoner.
10 ranks in Knowledge: Religion, Skill focus: Knowledge-Religion.
Rolling on, what, like 12? Not bad, for an INT of 3...
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!"
NPC 2 "Strange. He seems to be acting oddly, oh well, they say he is a sage, so let's ask him for that advice about the adventure we want to go on!"
NPC 1 "Sounds good, I'm sure he's smart, he knew about a single topic in depth! Also, others say he is smart."
NPC 2 "Yes, let us assume he is intelligent. We must, because we will never have any way of knowing one way or the other..."
NPC 1 "If only there were clues..."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way Unchained wrote about Charisma poison progression, it really makes me feel Charisma should be the major contributor to will saves or at least resisting anything mind altering.
Charisma poisons progress by making the subject slowly lose their ability to practically say no to anything and will do whatever someone tells them to. They lose their ability to be willful. Like god, charisma gives you power of will. Why can't that attribute to will save?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My group goes entire sessions without rolling dice, to others, this would seem a horrible fate worse than death.
Looks like we have something in common.
However, blindly ignoring differences (OBVIOUS differences) in characters stats takes something away from the enjoyment of the game.
If everyone is treated like a sheet of paper with numbers on it, rather than as individual characters with personalities, something is lost.
The numbers are not the character, they are simply the mechanics, which again is why Charisma X does not mean any specific thing, but it does influence how naturally gifted you are at several important social skills.
Would you rather have a barmaid come up to your character and proposition him with a line like "I see your codpiece is well-made, I finish at eight bells, what say you and I test the new mattress upstairs, bold adventurer?"
or...
"The barmaid comes up to you and Diplomacy roll 18".
Neither, actually. Both results would end with my character turning them down. The first one sounds like she might actually have an abysmal Charisma as her words are a horrible turnoff, don't make much sense, and make her come off as horribly desperate (so much so that before even asking your name she's commenting on your unseen phallus and asking you to bang her brains out) and immediately makes me think that anyone who jumps at that opportunity must have a pocket-priest with remove disease handy.
Though, I will say that if she said something like that with a high Diplomacy check associated with it, if the check was a success then she delivered that crazy line in a way that comes off in a positive light (maybe her inflection makes it more humorous than crude, or makes her actually seem very strong willed rather than desperate as she more or less just expects to get what she wants and you don't want to disagree, or maybe it shatters the ice before she actually strikes up the real conversation before later remarking that she was only half-joking).
Since players have final say, most GMs don't include Diplomacy checks, but if my GM remarked what her check result was, I would likely take it into consideration when determining how my character reacts to her rather bold opening liner.
Why would she approach in the first place, from a rules perspective?
I find it funny that you keep going on about how rules-lite your group is with your comments about going sessions without rolling, only to find that you somehow need rules to justify people acting like people.
This Is What I Would Do (TIWIWD)
Francine the barmaid has a relatively boring life. The young men and women of the village seem so plain and humdrum to her, more like extended family than romantic interests. She wanted something different. That's when she saw him. A stranger stood at the bar when she arrived for her shift. He was covered in glistening armor still slightly touched with crimson stains from a battle not long ago. Not one but three ornate weapons of different make and design hanging from his belt, along with additional belts, pouches, and satchels filled with exotic objects that hung like ornaments on a festival tree.
He was different. He was interesting. If his expensive armor and weaponry didn't make it obvious enough, when she noticed him paying for inn services in bulk for himself and his companions in gold coins rather than silver she also knew he was rich and wealthy. While that didn't particularly interest Francine, she knew it'd pacify her mother pretty well.
With this unusual stranger there, Francine approaches and begins to make some small talk and maybe be a little flirtatious as she socially explores the enigmatic stranger.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT DEPENDS ON THE PLAYER! (^-^)
Here I determine what Francine's starting attitude is based on what I think is natural. I'm going to go with Friendly because Francine is naturally interested in interesting and exotic strangers and is actively looking for a romantic interest so she's pretty open-minded at the moment.
Mechanical Breakdown
The encounter is "classic barmaid/boy booty call".
Base DC: 11 (Francine or Francis if you want to replace with a male barman is Friendly and has a +1 Charisma).
Modifiers: I apply a +5 modifier to the DC if Francine is actually Francis the barman for lengthy or complicated aid, resulting in DC 16 for a female protagonist to woo him. Not all things are equal in the world however, and Francine gets a +15 modifier because random dalliances can result in her lifestyle suffering if the exotic stranger leaves town and leaves her pregnant. If there are common and reliable forms of contraception available, then she has the same DC as the barman.
Final DC: 16 (male), 26 (female)
Awful Diplomacy Guy/Gal: Unfortunately, that mountain of polished steel and coin has about as much talent in communication as a literal mountain. Jorlan or Joan has a 5 Charisma (poor guy/gal started with 7 and got ability drained to 5 during a recent adventure) and for all his/her skill with a sword, s/he wasn't nearly as swift with his/her tongue.
Result: With a modifier of -3, Jorlan/Joan sure can't take 10 to woo this potential romantic interest. Joan has a 10% chance to get lucky if she requests a dalliance (19-20 on a d20) which isn't great odds, but she can attempt to improve the barman's opinion of her by trying to beat a DC 11 Diplomacy check to swing his attitude from Friendly to Helpful but she's got a really good chance of making his attitude drop to Indifferent as he finds her less interesting than he thought. If she manages to improve his attitude, then the DC drops to 6 and she can impress him enough to take 10 from there and woo him.
In the case of Jorlan it's a lot harder. At DC 26, he has no hope of wooing her even at a Friendly attitude (she just isn't going to risk it, even if he manages to keep his feet out of his mouth). He runs the same risk as Joan when trying to improve her opinion of him as he may very well cause her to lose her interest that he started with. If he succeeds at improving her attitude beyond Friendly, her DC drops to 16 and he has the same 10% chance that Joan started with. Odds are it's not happening tonight. Sorry Jorlan. Maybe one day.
Average Diplomacy Guy/Gal: This time, the adventurers are Anise and Andor. Their modifiers to Diplomacy are +2 total (on has a +1 Charisma and a cross-classed rank, the other has a -2 Charisma and a class rank) and the same event happens to them. Anise finds it pretty simple to woo ol' Francis as her casual conversation with him (taking 10) shifts him to Helpful and then later she's impressing him with her grappling techniques.
Andor finds it a lot easier than Jorlan. He opens with the same charming attitude and improves Francine's attitude, dropping the DC to 16. Now he can't take 10 to steal her heart for the evening, but his chances are a lot better than Jorlan's (he only needs to roll a 14+ instead of a 19+, or 35% vs 10%). Still not great but maybe!
Very Charming Guy/Gal: Carrying on, Felicia and Feldon are both pretty charming, both having a +6 Diplomacy (Felicia has a -2 Charisma but she has Diplomacy as a class skill, 2 ranks, and Skill Focus; Feldon has a +4 Charisma and 2 cross-class ranks). Both being talented or gifted in social interactions, they have no trouble, both casually improving the opinions of the barman/barmaid and then casually charming them away for a romantic dalliance. You'll see this with lots of 1st level bards. Damn bards. :P
AM DIPROMANCER!11!!!~: Finally, Sarine and Sora find themselves in this position. Silver tongues are too cheap for these adventurers, as both are sporting a massive +17 Diplomacy check through various modifiers. With the already interested barman or barmaid, they don't even have to improve their attitudes, just take 10 and name the time and the place. These individuals are so charming that they can walk up to a perfect stranger with an attitude of indifferent and be enjoying the afterglow less than an hour later.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More internally consistent than what? Do you force people to roll Diplomacy to order drinks?
Assuming they're taking ten with a rather massive discount to the DC. However, if the bartender was a racist who hated orcs his starting attitude might mean that you actually do need to roll Diplomacy to order a drink if you're a half-orc or an orc.
Are you trying to convince me that you can gauge someones level of proficiency in a skill, but not determine the underlying natural talent (stat) associated with it?
Very interesting... Let's play pretend: INT 3, level 10 commoner.
10 ranks in Knowledge: Religion, Skill focus: Knowledge-Religion.
Rolling on, what, like 12? Not bad, for an INT of 3...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!"
Your ignorance of the rules is astounding. Int 3 doesn't mean grunting like a beast. In fact, non-handicapped humans range from 3-20. That 3 Int guy speaks and reads at least one language. Maybe two (a 3 Int dwarf speaks dwarven and common).
NPC 2 "Strange. He seems to be acting oddly, oh well, they say he is a sage, so let's ask him for that advice about the adventure we want to go on!"
NPC 1 "Sounds good, I'm sure he's smart, he knew about a single topic in depth! Also, others say he is smart."
NPC 2 "Yes, let us assume he is intelligent. We must, because we will never have any way of knowing one way or the other..."
NPC 1 "If only there were clues..."
What you're describing could be roleplayed as an idiot savant, a very sheltered individual, or someone who was very forgetful, etc. Remember, DC 6-10 represents common-knowledge things like the names of lords, basic geography, and stuff common people will know. This individual cannot be assumed to know all of these things but knows at lot about what he does know. He might know all there is to know about vampires but he hasn't a clue as to what the name of the local landlord is until someone tells him.
He's still entitled to his check however, so he's got about a 65% check to know and successfully answer any common knowledge question.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Think of it more this way: Same barmaid. Same interest in potential encounter with exotic wealthy stranger. 4 PCs walk in. All apparently exotic, wealthy and strange. Before they make any attempt to seduce her, how do you determine which of them she'll consider approaching? (Assume for the moment we leave meta-reasons out)
Is it based on which has the highest Diplomacy? Even though they haven't used it yet.
That's a place a lot of people consider using bare Charisma.
If the one with the extremely high Charisma is a Cha-To-Everything oracle who is dual cursed with blackened and wasting? How about not them, for a start.
In a party of 7 cha stat dumpers, the oracle will probably win the Cha check, but I highly doubt a girl would be jumping at the guy with severe health issues over a muscly warrior.
Why do you boil down a character to how much charisma they have. Deciding based on an ability check is saying "This is pretty much all that matters". Unless you arbitrarily discount people based on what you feel the girl would want, but that means that you aren't willing to deal with the consequences of applying the rules you are making up consistently, which is a pretty good sign that the rules don't function properly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
but what if it is a bar man who is into bears
do you add in the STR stat as well
or just who in the group has the most rocking amount of facial hair and overall hirsute look
Another way to play a 7 Cha: pretty but mean. Sure, everyone approaches you but a few words in your utter disdain for anything so mundane as OTHER people comes out. Every sentence you utter is dripping with sarcasm.
Cha 13 guy: I REALLY want to be your friend!
Cha 7 guy with the exact same physical attractiveness: I "REALLY" want to be YOUR "friend"...
Just tack on a little sarcasm and boom; you've got an unlikeable jerk who looks as attractive as everyone else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another way to play a 7 Cha: pretty but mean. Sure, everyone approaches you but a few words in your utter disdain for anything so mundane as OTHER people comes out. Every sentence you utter is dripping with sarcasm.
Cha 13 guy: I REALLY want to be your friend!
Cha 7 guy with the exact same physical attractiveness: I "REALLY" want to be YOUR "friend"...
Just tack on a little sarcasm and boom; you've got an unlikeable jerk who looks as attractive as everyone else.
I super agree with this.
I think an issue with this charisma debate is those wanting a penalty of charisma to mean only one thing.
Charisma: Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
So let's take a look at Kronk from the Emperor's New Groove. Does he have a high or a low charisma?
He's quite personable and good looking. But people aren't drawn to him, and he's walked over by everyone, definitely not a leader character. The restaurant didn't even notice he wasn't their chef.
I could easily see him with a high charisma, and also with a low charisma.
Kusko?
He's a jerk, but probably decent to good looking. Seems to be energetic and upbeat personality, but again can't lead, at least at the beginning.
I could see him with a high charisma, and also with a low charisma.
I feel both of these could be played exactly as they are with a charisma 14 or charisma 8.
Now lets look at "a hot mean girl" example character. She's super hot, but a total jerk, people dislike being around her, and couldn't lead a horse to water.
What's her charisma? I'd want to place it probably at a 6, but we'll go with 7 since that is the dumpiest a human can go.
So really, attractiveness/appearance is a part of Charisma, but character descriptions give more meaning to it than Charisma does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but what if it is a bar man who is into bears
do you add in the STR stat as well
or just who in the group has the most rocking amount of facial hair and overall hirsute look
I love you so much Lamontius. :D
I like the way you threw away the entire question and went to a detailed analysis of how a PC could use Diplomacy to seduce the barperson.
Think of it more this way: Same barmaid. Same interest in potential encounter with exotic wealthy stranger. 4 PCs walk in. All apparently exotic, wealthy and strange. Before they make any attempt to seduce her, how do you determine which of them she'll consider approaching? (Assume for the moment we leave meta-reasons out)
Is it based on which has the highest Diplomacy? Even though they haven't used it yet.
That's a place a lot of people consider using bare Charisma.Once they actually start talking to her, the low Charisma, high Diplomacy character might sweettalk her away from her initial high Charisma, untrained Diplomacy interest.
He said all things being equal, which means they're roughly as physically beautiful as one-another, roughly as well-dressed, etc. Assuming the NPC has no particular preferences that stand out, probably whomever is the closest. >_>
However, Charisma is a mental ability score and unless it's actively being used it's about as stupid to say that someone approaches someone because of their Charisma as it is to say that the barmaid approaches this stranger because she likes smart guys and this PC has a high Int score.
In some cases they will be disappointed because they approach someone who's physically attractive (as in the previous example, you have a relatively normal individual who seems flashy and exciting) only to end up being rather unimpressed by them. The reverse is also true, because there are plenty of high-social characters who don't look particularly noteworthy or attractive who end up wowing you.
Anyone who actually engages with people on a regular basis will recognize these to be social norms. It's just how stuff works.
Coming back to Latamonius for a moment~
but what if it is a bar man who is into bears
do you add in the STR stat as well
or just who in the group has the most rocking amount of facial hair and overall hirsute look
This NPC prefers bears. Thus, the NPC may first approach whichever of the PCs happens to be the biggest, burliest, most manliest character in the party. They might be disappointed when they find out that the Grizzly the Bearbarian has a 7 Charisma and no social skills, or they might turn to happy goo as the knees wobble at the glory of Pa Fuzz the Beardadin with 22 Charisma and maximum ranks in Diplomacy.
Just tack on a little sarcasm and boom; you've got an unlikeable jerk
It works for me. :P
More internally consistent than what? Do you force people to roll Diplomacy to order drinks?Assuming they're taking ten with a rather massive discount to the DC. However, if the bartender was a racist who hated orcs his starting attitude might mean that you actually do need to roll Diplomacy to order a drink if you're a half-orc or an orc.
Are you trying to convince me that you can gauge someones level of proficiency in a skill, but not determine the underlying natural talent (stat) associated with it?
Very interesting... Let's play pretend: INT 3, level 10 commoner.
10 ranks in Knowledge: Religion, Skill focus: Knowledge-Religion.
Rolling on, what, like 12? Not bad, for an INT of 3...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!"
Your ignorance of the rules is astounding. Int 3 doesn't mean grunting like a beast. In fact, non-handicapped humans range from 3-20. That 3 Int guy speaks and reads at least one language. Maybe two (a 3 Int dwarf speaks dwarven and common).
What you're describing could be roleplayed as an idiot savant, a very sheltered individual, or someone who was very forgetful, etc. Remember, DC 6-10 represents common-knowledge things like the names of lords, basic geography, and stuff common people will know. This individual cannot be assumed to know all of these things but knows at lot about what he does know. He might know all...NPC 2 "Strange. He seems to be acting oddly, oh well, they say he is a sage, so let's ask him for that advice about the adventure we want to go on!"
NPC 1 "Sounds good, I'm sure he's smart, he knew about a single topic in depth! Also, others say he is smart."
NPC 2 "Yes, let us assume he is intelligent. We must, because we will never have any way of knowing one way or the other..."
NPC 1 "If only there were clues..."
Calling me ignorant, that's just not very nice... I don't generally resort to name calling, but to each their own.
INT 3 is literally a single point higher than a dog. If you consider this a highly functioning individual, then someone with a 17 (the same number away from average) is someone slightly smarter than most...
I wouldn't role-play this as an idiot savant. I would roleplay it as someone who could barely speak the language, and was in competition with the pet dog for 'smartest animal in the house'. Yes, the rules system allows for him to put points into learning skills, and according to the rules he could learn ten new languages...
But doesn't that just seem silly to you?
This isn't a sheltered or forgetful person, this is someone with a VERY serious disability. Humans in the game can't have an intelligence lower than this at birth.
Ironically, by the time he was near death, his intellectual capacity would literally double... but let's not go there...
My point is that people who blindly adhere to the rules and try to use them in all situations sometimes create a square peg-round hole scenario.
The precious rules don't cover every scenario. Sometimes you just have to use what some call common sense.
You also apparently can't tell unless he's actually making skill rolls. After all it's a mental stat and you can't tell unless it's actively being used to make rolls. (or Take 10s.)
Even then it's only the skills. If he's got a Know(Local) of 10 and an Int of 3, there's no way to tell he's dumb as long as you're on his topic.
I... can't tell if you are being sarcastic or serious...
I mean... has anyone on here ever MET someone with an IQ of 60? You can tell pretty easily... really guys...
Wow.
Are all the NPCs in these games just carbon copies of each other, differing only when rolls are made? Sounds pretty dull...
No stable boys that are "a bit simple, you know, touched in the head... but he has a good heart and a strong arm!"
"That blacksmith, he has arms as big as you, Frederick! He must be strong!" (Frederick) "What are you talking about, you have no idea how strong he is, don't assume that!"
I... need to go... my head hurts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Calling me ignorant, that's just not very nice.
If the shoe fits, wear it. By the way, ignorance is not an insult, it is a condition. It implies that you are intelligent but misinformed. Since you are describing things that are not in the rules as being part of the rules, yes, you are misinformed about the rules and that ignorance shows clearly.
INT 3 is literally a single point higher than a dog. If you consider this a highly functioning individual, then someone with a 17 (the same number away from average) is someone slightly smarter than most...
Again, you are making stuff up. You are suggesting that every point of Int is equal in value. It's not. There is a massive jump from Int 1-2 to Int 3 in the fact that Int 3 means you are sentient, speak languages, and can function as a normal human being in a normal society. There's also other forces at work here as dropping to Int 1-2 through penalties or ability damage do not remove these aspects from your character either.
One has to look at what the character is actually capable of to get a reasonable gauge on what it means for that character and then determine how to roleplay it. For example, we can deduce that a 17 Int character is naturally mind-blowingly talented at creative thinking as they can rival trained professional at Craft checks by winging it. However, that same genius character might suck as an accountant (having a -1 Wisdom and no ranks in Profession).
When you compare the two, the Int 3 guy and the Int 17 guy both can read and write their base languages. The Int 17 guy even has three bonus languages that he picked up without having to actually invest time into learning them, he was just really inclined to doing so. The 3 Int guy doesn't know a lot of common knowledge things. The Int guy knows as much about any given subject as the average commoner unless he decided to actually study it, in which case his natural inclinations make him excel at it rapidly. Both can exist in the day to day world and function. The 3 Int guy might even be more successful than the 17 Int guy depending on his other mental stats.
A 3 Int individual with a decent Wisdom and Charisma might be ignorant to a lot of things but we can't call him stupid. He's not only holding down an accounting job but he's damn good at it and making tons of money compared to most people, and he's naturally pretty charming and witty. Since human beings get 2 skill points minimum, there's effectively very little difference between a human being with 3 Int and one with 9 Int other than just how much worse they are at skills involving raw Intelligence (such as craft or knowledge skills). Our "idiot" might be one of the most successful and charming people you've ever met.
But what's the difference between an animal with 2 Int and a human with 3 Int? The world. The animal cannot speak and cannot learn to. It cannot read, it cannot write. It cannot tell the difference between right or wrong. It cannot practice skills, and no matter what its Wisdom or Charisma scores it cannot obtain a profession. The difference between a human being with a 3 Int and a 9 Int (6 points) is almost non-existant. The difference between an animal with 2 Int and a human with 3 Int is massive.
It's not a linear scale.
I have a character with a charisma of 8. Sometimes his attempts to use diplomacy sound more like an intimidation attempt, but I keep it rare, so the party(players) don't want to throw books at me. He has a 13 or 14 wisdom so most of the time he knows to just be quiet.
Just to be clear however I was asking what "extra penalties*" you would push on a PC as a GM. Sorry if I was not clear.
*I don't mean numbers.
The "extra penalties" at my table are essentially just social or narrative (or occasionally tactical*) consequences for the character's behavior. In other words, the PCs create the consequences of the low stats *themselves* by role-playing appropriately. The low charisma ranger mouths off to the quest-giving wizard, who won't help them until the guy with diplomacy goes back to defuse the situation. The low wisdom fighter charges ahead of the group recklessly and gets himself flanked. Etc.
This probably doesn't work as well in drop-in environments like PFS, where you don't have players who know what to expect from each other and you sometimes get problem players, but I don't have to worry about that.
But what's the difference between an animal with 2 Int and a human with 3 Int? The world. The animal cannot speak and cannot learn to. It cannot read, it cannot write. It cannot tell the difference between right or wrong.
There is actually quite a bit of evidence showing that animals can tell between right and wrong in their own sense. It is quite likely that morality and justice exists, even in non-primates. Though it's probably best/easiest to regard animals as a neutral or unaligned alignment for a lot of good reasons.
INT 3 is literally a single point higher than a dog. If you consider this a highly functioning individual, then someone with a 17 (the same number away from average) is someone slightly smarter than most...Again, you are making stuff up. You are suggesting that every point of Int is equal in value. It's not. There is a massive jump from Int 1-2 to Int 3 in the fact that Int 3 means you are sentient, speak languages, and can function as a normal human being in a normal society. There's also other forces at work here as dropping to Int 1-2 through penalties or ability damage do not remove these aspects from your character either.
One has to look at what the character is actually capable of to get a reasonable gauge on what it means for that character and then determine how to roleplay it. For example, we can deduce that a 17 Int character is naturally mind-blowingly talented at creative thinking as they can rival trained professional at Craft checks by winging it. However, that same genius character might suck as an accountant (having a -1 Wisdom and no ranks in Profession).
When you compare the two, the Int 3 guy and the Int 17 guy both can read and write their base languages. The Int 17 guy even has three bonus languages that he picked up without having to actually invest time into learning them, he was just really inclined to doing so. The 3 Int guy doesn't know a lot of common knowledge things. The Int guy knows as much about any given subject as the average commoner unless he decided to actually study it, in which case his natural inclinations make him excel at it rapidly. Both can exist in the day to day world and...
Wow. So there's nothing between "can't call him stupid" and "animal"?
There is quite a bit of difference between an individual communicating by grunting and being stupid.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You also apparently can't tell unless he's actually making skill rolls. After all it's a mental stat and you can't tell unless it's actively being used to make rolls. (or Take 10s.)
Even then it's only the skills. If he's got a Know(Local) of 10 and an Int of 3, there's no way to tell he's dumb as long as you're on his topic.
I mean... has anyone on here ever MET someone with an IQ of 60? You can tell pretty easily... really guys...
Stupid is as stupid does sir. My mamma taught me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't role-play this as an idiot savant. I would roleplay it as someone who could barely speak the language, and was in competition with the pet dog for 'smartest animal in the house'.
And that would be your prerogative as the player of that character. However it is not the only solution, so like I said, you may play it as an idiot savant, you may play it sheltered, you may play him as a blithering idiot, or you may come up with some other way of roleplaying it.
Yes, the rules system allows for him to put points into learning skills, and according to the rules he could learn ten new languages...
But doesn't that just seem silly to you?
No, it really doesn't. I meet people that struggle to answer common questions all the time, who mechanically speaking would have a low Int. Their professions aren't academic and they might often be concerned about asking a "dumb question" because they don't know something that is common.
Overall human mental capacity is quite varied.
This isn't a sheltered or forgetful person, this is someone with a VERY serious disability. Humans in the game can't have an intelligence lower than this at birth.
You're wrong there. There's nothing in the game that suggests that it is a severe disability. The standard generation for normal people in D&D/Pathfinder is 3-18 pre-modifiers.
If you're talking about brain damage, birth defects, and so forth, those would be conditions and they can be healed by magic, and they would have their own penalties associated with them. A cleric cannot heal a 3 Int, but they can heal disabilities, which is what brain damage or disease would be.
For example, if you wanted to be technical, I think your roleplaying your character as disabled due to a birth defect or whatever would be poorly done with just a low Int. You'd need some penalties to your social skills to represent your communication shortcomings, etc. If you were legitimately interested in pursuing that route, I'd create a condition that imposed some penalties to certain checks and such without altering the score itself (which also leaves open possible options such as a "simple-sorcerer").
My point is that people who blindly adhere to the rules and try to use them in all situations sometimes create a square peg-round hole scenario.
The precious rules don't cover every scenario. Sometimes you just have to use what some call common sense.
And I think you are the one trying to force a square peg into a round hole. You're the one trying to force things that just don't really work, refusing to look at the big picture (square->circle again), and forcing inconsistencies to fit your demands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But what's the difference between an animal with 2 Int and a human with 3 Int? The world. The animal cannot speak and cannot learn to. It cannot read, it cannot write. It cannot tell the difference between right or wrong.There is actually quite a bit of evidence showing that animals can tell between right and wrong in their own sense. It is quite likely that morality and justice exists, even in non-primates. Though it's probably best/easiest to regard animals as a neutral or unaligned alignment for a lot of good reasons.
Heh, well, let me put it another way. They don't have an alignment. :)
Wolin, I think your interpretation is a little extreme. I wouldn't be that draconian about penalizing dump stats. At that point you might as well just ban them. Many people play with "no stat below 10 allowed" or some such rule.
Wraithstrike, I think BretI has homed in on a difference in game world design that has been leading this argument in circles. You(and others) are arguing as if most characters have their stats rolled on 3d6; I (and others) instead presume most NPCs have 13 12 11 10 9 8 and only vary from that for important people. These two paradigms of world design (neither of which is "wrong," it's just a style issue) will give us vastly different consequences for what low stats mean in terms of world-building.
That's why when you mention a NPC having a 5 we've been like "How did he get a 5 if we didn't deliberately decide to make him that way? No one gets a 5 using the standard NPC array." If I've misinterpreted your paradigm I apologize.
And yeah this thread has ventured far from it's original topic. Still an interesting read, though.
Nope.
I was going by the standard NPC stat array, and assuming the low stat was evenly distributed to every stat.
Wolin, I think your interpretation is a little extreme. I wouldn't be that draconian about penalizing dump stats. At that point you might as well just ban them. Many people play with "no stat below 10 allowed" or some such rule.
Wraithstrike, I think BretI has homed in on a difference in game world design that has been leading this argument in circles. You(and others) are arguing as if most characters have their stats rolled on 3d6; I (and others) instead presume most NPCs have 13 12 11 10 9 8 and only vary from that for important people. These two paradigms of world design (neither of which is "wrong," it's just a style issue) will give us vastly different consequences for what low stats mean in terms of world-building.
That's why when you mention a NPC having a 5 we've been like "How did he get a 5 if we didn't deliberately decide to make him that way? No one gets a 5 using the standard NPC array." If I've misinterpreted your paradigm I apologize.
And yeah this thread has ventured far from it's original topic. Still an interesting read, though.
Nope.
I was going by the standard NPC stat array, and assuming the low stat was evenly distributed to every stat.
It actually isn't evenly distributed if you use the arrays out of the book - none of the 5 blocks ever assign the 8 to Constitution or Intelligence, for example.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are all the NPCs in these games just carbon copies of each other, differing only when rolls are made? Sounds pretty dull...
Nope, because it's a roleplaying game and ability scores do not determine character personalities.
No stable boys that are "a bit simple, you know, touched in the head... but he has a good heart and a strong arm!"
Again, nope, because you can totally have that. Nothing is stopping you from doing so.
"That blacksmith, he has arms as big as you, Frederick! He must be strong!" (Frederick) "What are you talking about, you have no idea how strong he is, don't assume that!"
I... need to go... my head hurts.
You get what is described to you. If the blacksmith could be skinny with wiry muscle, or might be kind of chubby and his muscles concealed. I've met dudes that look small but fold easily in arm wrestling and stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I've heard is that when the Dev get together and make up characters for their games they use the 4d6 dro lowest.
How can you say that one in 216 is the smartest man in the World?It is my impression that most players don't roll dice any more (thank goodness!) when generating characters.
For my groups, the only system we use point-buy for is 4e, and we don't really ever play that system anymore - just one game that's wrapping up and hasn't had a new character in ages. Every other chargen method we use involves at least some stats being rolled.
|
some people see ability scores as just machanics of the game and have no influence on RP. While others see ability scores as ways to help give their characters depth by linking game mehanics and RP.
Ashiel clearly and adamantly falls in the bolded part, and by the 'tone' of her posts she believes that playing the game using the non-bold part is badwrongfun.
Edit: At least that what I get from her posts.
Calling me ignorant, that's just not very nice... I don't generally resort to name calling, but to each their own.
INT 3 is literally a single point higher than a dog. If you consider this a highly functioning individual, then someone with a 17 (the same number away from average) is someone slightly smarter than most...
I wouldn't role-play this as an idiot savant. I would roleplay it as someone who could barely speak the language, and was in competition with the pet dog for 'smartest animal in the house'. Yes, the rules system allows for him to put points into learning skills, and according to the rules he could learn ten new languages...
But doesn't that just seem silly to you?
This isn't a sheltered or forgetful person, this is someone with a VERY serious disability. Humans in the game can't have an intelligence lower than this at birth.
Ironically, by the time he was near death, his intellectual capacity would literally double... but let's not go there...
My point is that people who blindly adhere to the rules and try to use them in all situations sometimes create a square peg-round hole scenario.
The precious rules don't cover every scenario. Sometimes you just have to use what some call common sense.
An official Pathfinder AP actually has an int 3 human with PC class levels. He is described as being very mentally challenged, but if he can learn the skills(not game term) needed for a PC class then that shows my point about how the normal range also supports going down to 6 or 7 for ability scores. 6 and 7 are a lot better than 3.
|
|
An official Pathfinder AP actually has an int 3 human with PC class levels. He is described as being very mentally challenged, but if he can learn the skills(not game term) needed for a PC class then that shows my point about how the normal range also supports going down to 6 or 7 for ability scores. 6 and 7 are a lot better than 3.
Calling me ignorant, that's just not very nice... I don't generally resort to name calling, but to each their own.
INT 3 is literally a single point higher than a dog. If you consider this a highly functioning individual, then someone with a 17 (the same number away from average) is someone slightly smarter than most...
I wouldn't role-play this as an idiot savant. I would roleplay it as someone who could barely speak the language, and was in competition with the pet dog for 'smartest animal in the house'. Yes, the rules system allows for him to put points into learning skills, and according to the rules he could learn ten new languages...
But doesn't that just seem silly to you?
This isn't a sheltered or forgetful person, this is someone with a VERY serious disability. Humans in the game can't have an intelligence lower than this at birth.
Ironically, by the time he was near death, his intellectual capacity would literally double... but let's not go there...
My point is that people who blindly adhere to the rules and try to use them in all situations sometimes create a square peg-round hole scenario.
The precious rules don't cover every scenario. Sometimes you just have to use what some call common sense.
I'm wondering if at the start of this NPC's life he had a 3 int or ,more likely, something happened to him.
I once had a sorcerer pirate with int 3, his parrot familiar did most of the thinking and talking. He, him self, was mostly yelling "skwarrk" or "gold coils gold coins".