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...
*mopping the condescension off with a towel* Wow.
Okay.
So you believe INT 2 and 3 are worlds apart, INT 3 is basically a normal person, but INT 17 is highly gifted?
I'm actively trying to avoid dragging rules into the point I'm trying to make, attempting to talk about role-playing situations and how STUPID OR NICE PEOPLE CAN EXIST IN THE WORLD.
Also, if CHA is treated as a stat that modifies Diplomacy, but isn't a factor in either how nice you are, how likeable you are or how attractive you are... then what is it exactly? WHY does it make you better at the things it makes you better at?
Apparently I'm wrong (about something...), and due to lack of knowledge of the rules...
Uh...
I'm clearly in the wrong place to try and talk about role-playing.
Next time I'm in a game and someone describes a simpleton of any sort, I will be sure to correct them and let them know that you have clarified the situation for us all.
There can't be retarded people in the game. The rules don't allow for it.
You 'win'. Enjoy your internet point. Heck, have twelve.
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.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.
I was not going by published NPC's. I dont think any of us is going to stat up thousands of NPC's, especially the common NPC's who only get NPC class levels.
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"?
"Even if an animal's Intelligence increases to 3 or higher, you must still use the Handle Animal skill to direct the animal, as it is a smart animal rather than a low-intelligence person (using awaken is an exception—an awakened animal takes orders like a person). The GM should take the animal's Intelligence into account when determining its response to commands or its behavior when it doesn't have specific instructions. For example, an intelligent wolf companion can pick the weakest-looking target if directed to do so, and that same wolf trapped in a burning building might push open a door or window without being told."
So an animal with 6+ int is still just an animal and is different from a 6+ int race.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we get back to arguing about whether or not you're a bad person if you start with an 18 instead of whether or not you're a bad person for saying a low Charisma means people don't like you?
17 16 14 12 10 7
haters gonna hate at level 4 and 8and I am a poet and I did not even know it
...!
:O
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
That is not what I get at all. I see it as saying "don't make things up and claim they are the rules".
Alex wants to ignore the rules and say int 3 can't speak, and he would probably not make such an NPC with class levels. However the game rules do not agree with him. I think 3 is below that of a normal human, but int 3 by the book still allows for you to learn a language. The book specifically says that int 3 is high enough to learn a language. It is definitely not grunting like a beast.
...Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3...........you can still read and speak your racial languages unless your Intelligence is lower than 3.
While myself an Ashiel often agree, we don't always agree. If I can find rules quote or use other objective evidence.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actively trying to avoid dragging rules into the point I'm trying to make, attempting to talk about role-playing situations and how STUPID OR NICE PEOPLE CAN EXIST IN THE WORLD.
Also, if CHA is treated as a stat that modifies Diplomacy, but isn't a factor in either how nice you are, how likeable you are or how attractive you are... then what is it exactly? WHY does it make you better at the things it makes you better at?
Apparently I'm wrong (about something...), and due to lack of knowledge of the rules...
Uh...
I'm clearly in the wrong place to try and talk about role-playing.
Next time I'm in a game and someone describes a simpleton of any sort, I will be sure to correct them and let them know that you have clarified the situation for us all.
There can't be retarded people in the game. The rules don't allow for it.
You 'win'. Enjoy your internet point. Heck, have twelve.
The rules matter even in the RP'ing unless you houserule them away so you cant really avoid the rules.
A while back I said charisma is about appearance, not just positive appearance. That was from a developer. That is why those ugly demons have a high charisma, and the succubus(a not so ugly demon) also has a high charisma. At the same time you can have another equally ugly or attractive creature and it wont affect you the same way.
And no charisma alone does not make you likeable. It is your ability to get influence others basically. The ability score itself in no way translates to likeable. The jerk who is forceful and everybody just listens is often not liked, but he still gets people to do what he wants.
Earlier I even mentioned the jerk who gets the girl, even when people know he is jerk vs the nice guy who cant get a girl, even if he is not ugly. To avoid any semantics, I meant the nice guy that people actually like.
Personally I think anyone below int 6 is mentally handicapped, but I can't prove it by the rules. The closest thing I have is an int 3 fighter from an AP.
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.
That is not what I get at all. I see it as saying "don't make things up and claim they are the rules".
Alex wants to ignore the rules and say int 3 can't speak, and he would probably not make such an NPC with class levels. However the game rules do not agree with him. I think 3 is below that of a normal human, but int 3 by the book still allows for you to learn a language. The book specifically says that int 3 is high enough to learn a language. It is definitely not grunting like a beast.
...Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3...........you can still read and speak your racial languages unless your Intelligence is lower than 3.
While myself an Ashiel often agree, we don't always agree. If I can find rules quote or use other objective evidence.
I'd say they could speak, but they're going to have trouble with it. They'll have a hard time with complex words or concepts. They'll probably mispronounce and misuse grammar more than more intelligent people will. Stick to simple phrases and sentences.
They'll have a smaller vocabulary.Though such a person might have multiple birth languages, I probably wouldn't have them take ranks in Linguistics to learn more.
Hodor. Hodor hodor hodor. Hodor?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always respect a player who assigns his or her characters ability scores around a specific character idea, rather than just maxing things out, so they can be the biggest terror on the battlefield.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
*mopping the condescension off with a towel* Wow.
Okay.
So you believe INT 2 and 3 are worlds apart, INT 3 is basically a normal person, but INT 17 is highly gifted?
I'm actively trying to avoid dragging rules into the point I'm trying to make, attempting to talk about role-playing situations and how STUPID OR NICE PEOPLE CAN EXIST IN THE WORLD.
Also, if CHA is treated as a stat that modifies Diplomacy, but isn't a factor in either how nice you are, how likeable you are or how attractive you are... then what is it exactly? WHY does it make you better at the things it makes you better at?
Apparently I'm wrong (about something...), and due to lack of knowledge of the rules...
Uh...
I'm clearly in the wrong place to try and talk about role-playing.
Next time I'm in a game and someone describes a simpleton of any sort, I will be sure to correct them and let them know that you have clarified the situation for us all.
There can't be retarded people in the game. The rules don't allow for it.
You 'win'. Enjoy your internet point. Heck, have twelve.
You're straight up ignoring what's been said and choosing to be offended. :/
Int 3 is not "basically a normal person". They're a person who isn't able to master as many topics and is worse at knowledge skills, spellcraft, appraise, and crafting. That is what Int defines- how you choose to represent that in your roleplaying is up to you (it could be that the character is dim witted and doesn't pick up on things very fast, but being stupid and being mentally handicapped are not the same thing), but those are the hard effects of having a lower intelligence score. A high intelligence makes a bigger difference than a low intelligence, straight up. A commoner with 3 Int loses 1 skillpoint and takes penalties on Int based skills. The same commoner with 18 Int learns 4 new languages, gains 4 skillpoints, and gets bonuses on Int based skills. It is obviously self evident that a higher Int makes a bigger difference than a lower int.
The delta between Int 3 and Int 10 is much, much smaller than the delta between Int 10 and Int 18.
What Cha does is it modifies your Cha based skills and force of will in mental contests (see Charm effects and planar binding). It modifies. If two characters have Cha 6 and Cha 14, but both have Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Bluff bonuses of +10 after skill ranks and other benefits are accounted for, for the purposes of social interaction they have the same capabilities (ignoring differences in personality). Charisma makes a difference, but it is not the only thing that makes a difference. It contributes to a character's social prowess, but is not the sole definer nor is it more important than any other bonus- it just applies more broadly.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alex wants to ignore the rules and say int 3 can't speak, and he would probably not make such an NPC with class levels. However the game rules do not agree with him. I think 3 is below that of a normal human, but int 3 by the book still allows for you to learn a language. The book specifically says that int 3 is high enough to learn a language. It is definitely not grunting like a beast.
I have no idea if any of the "Int 3 means difficulty speaking" group are remembering things from previous editions, but in BECMI, at least, low Int (less than 9) was specifically called out with things like, "Can only use simple Common words, can't read or write." So there is a historical basis for that idea, even if it's not RAW in Pathfinder.
As always, play the way you like!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we get back to arguing about whether or not you're a bad person if you start with an 18 instead of whether or not you're a bad person for saying a low Charisma means people don't like you?17 16 14 12 10 7
haters gonna hate at level 4 and 8
and I am a poet and I did not even know it...!
:O
... and ainters gonna aint.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
18 16 8?
Only if she's level 8!
MY ANACONDA DON'T WANT NONE
UNLESS YOU'VE GOT A STATISTICALLY SOUND TWENTY POINT BUY HUN
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
18 16 8?
Only if she's level 8!MY ANACONDA DON'T WANT NONE
UNLESS YOU'VE GOT A STATISTICALLY SOUND TWENTY POINT BUY HUN
You haven't lived until you've bought all odd numbers and then bound some efreeti. ;p
I don't always max out my primary ability, but when I do, its my Base Speed
Seriously, max it or don't. All that's gonna happen is either
1. you hit more often/spells are a little harder to save against/you've got higher AC or att bonus from range/etc.
or
2. you have just a little bonus in a lot of basic things
Which makes more sense based on what you're playing? If the GM pulls out the hard cover of Rappan Athuk, smiles maniacally and says "Winter is coming" more than likely you don't want a bunch of scattered bonuses. On the other hand if you show up to session zero and your GM greets you at his round door, freshly painted green, wearing a cloak and smoking a pipe, while grinning ear to ear about all the RP fun you're going to have over elevensees, you still probably want a laser focus on stats, just in the opposite direction.
However if your GM is likely to pull out Bestiary 1, make a random roll and then just run the vanilla monster he generated then you don't need that much. Starting at level 1 you need to consistently pull a +2 attack bonus, inflict at least 3.75 pts of damage/hit to significantly contribute, and nab at least a 13 AC at level 1, and then up one or 2 pts every level from there. Heck, a Halfling wizard with a 14 Dex using cantrips and a flask of acid does all this and then some, leaving plenty of room for him to go MAD with other stats.
TL/DR. I guess my point has always been: it depends on the game. If we're talking personal preference, I've always enjoyed spreading stats around.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really, I think all that needs to be said on the topic of playing out mental stats is that there is no One True Way to RP a character with low mental stats.
|
I've noticed whenever I see character builds that very very few people don't go as far as possible to max their primary ability score. Starting with less than an 18 at level 1 seems almost unheard of, even if it means dumping multiple stats to 7 or 8. I find even I myself do this to an extent.
But lately I've found myself wanting to play races less 'suited' to the class. An Elven Paladin for example, or a Dwarf Wizard. Usually this mean I end up with 16 in my primary score, but also feel like I have a more well balanced ability score array in the end.
I mean most of the time characters also go for 14 CON, so once you have your primary at 18 and your CON at 14 you have so little to make your ability scores unique and interesting.
This is all considering point buy of course.
How do you guys feel about less optimized ability score arrays?
The last fighter type I play had a 16 str after race and a 14 cha. I agree with what Mark said about "it depend on the game", most published APs are build around a 15pt buy for character making, which in my opinion seriously limits your ability to max stats unless your willing to dump multiple stats. Meatgrinder APs like Rappan Athuk make not suggestion about what point buy to use but they do suggest you make several characters and have ready to step in.
|
|
Just as an aside to Ashiel's continued referances to characters with 3 int and levels in professions.
Doesn't change the fact that giving a super-low Intelligence person a skill like Profession (banker) is really silly, though.
Random quote.
Yes while the game does allow for int 3 charcters having ranks in professions like Banker, Barrister, etc....it also allows for characters with 3 str to have the profession Porter.
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.
That is not what I get at all. I see it as saying "don't make things up and claim they are the rules".
Alex wants to ignore the rules and say int 3 can't speak, and he would probably not make such an NPC with class levels. However the game rules do not agree with him. I think 3 is below that of a normal human, but int 3 by the book still allows for you to learn a language. The book specifically says that int 3 is high enough to learn a language. It is definitely not grunting like a beast.
...Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3...........you can still read and speak your racial languages unless your Intelligence is lower than 3.
While myself an Ashiel often agree, we don't always agree. If I can find rules quote or use other objective evidence.
That's not accurate at all.
Don't tell other people what I am trying to do. Let them read my posts.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.
Quoting the rules wasn't required, as the situation you created never actually happened.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
*mopping the condescension off with a towel* Wow.
Okay.
You missed a spot.
So you believe INT 2 and 3 are worlds apart, INT 3 is basically a normal person, but INT 17 is highly gifted?
I'm actively trying to avoid dragging rules into the point I'm trying to make, attempting to talk about role-playing situations and how STUPID OR NICE PEOPLE CAN EXIST IN THE WORLD.
Because the raw statistics are a starting point. They don't dictate anything. There is not one-true-way to play a given character. That's my point. There is nothing lost and the world gained. By trying to pidgeon-hole characters into these non-existent stereotypes only diminishes roleplaying, it doesn't support it.
For example, long ago in another thread, I demonstrated building characters in the rules that were effective and flavorful. Part of that involved putting together a Fighter that was to be charming. That was all it was. He was supposed to become charming after he ended up a heroic sort.
I intentionally gave him a 7 Charisma. He is intentionally not a good liar, couldn't activate a magic wand on a good day, and he wasn't intended to be particularly good in tests of will (such as when charmed). So I invested some ranks into Diplomacy and Intimidate and that was that. He began as a bit weak but by about 5th level he was pretty social. He still wasn't a great liar, but he wasn't supposed to be. Design goal obtained.
Similarly, if I wanted to make a character such as a Paladin who had been sheltered and raised in a temple or monastery and was a bit ignorant to the ways of the world, I'd tank their Int to a 7 so they can't take 10 on Knowledge checks and answer DC 10 questions, even if the character's otherwise a pretty sharp cookie with ranks in Sense Motive and Diplomacy.
Further, I typically tank Int and Cha to 7 on Rangers to make them more like tough woodsman types. It just works really well for emulating the kinds of skillsets and capabilities of the characters as they should be and gives them room to grow as characters as the game progresses (especially since I tend to sprinkle skill ranks all over the place).
Also, if CHA is treated as a stat that modifies Diplomacy, but isn't a factor in either how nice you are, how likeable you are or how attractive you are... then what is it exactly? WHY does it make you better at the things it makes you better at?
Because it's your force of personality and your certainty in yourself. If you need to lie, you're less likely to be obvious about it. You're more likely to influence others. You're more likely to inspire others. You're more likely to resist or exert control when someone is contesting your will magically. You're more likely confident and in control of yourself and what you project to others. Charisma is your sense of "I" and how strong that is. It's a measure of confidence
I'm clearly in the wrong place to try and talk about role-playing.
This is a great place to talk about roleplaying. I do it all the time. Not to toot my own horn or anything but one of my favorite things is talking about PCs and NPCs in my campaigns and getting favorite posts or people talking about how fun and/or interesting they sound.
I just have a problem with your insistence with X score in Y ability means Z, when those things aren't established. Your position is a deterrent, a detraction, an obstacle, to roleplaying, and it is also not supported. As a result I'll speak out against it at every opportunity because people shouldn't be shackled into playing a list of 6 statistics with nonspecific numerical values that are grossly defined as meaning one thing, especially when they could be playing a character.
Next time I'm in a game and someone describes a simpleton of any sort, I will be sure to correct them and let them know that you have clarified the situation for us all.
I'd fight you on that one too. You missed the entire point. Well, horses and water I guess.
There can't be retarded people in the game. The rules don't allow for it.
They certainly do, but you would need a condition. What you describe as "retarded" is not an ability score thing. It's like trying to say "Dexterity 1 = Crippled". It obviously doesn't. A character with 1 Dextertiy can run a marathon even if they're a little bit of a klutz. It doesn't reduce their speed or anything. You'd need something that actually applies appropriate penalties to appropriate things like the oracle's "Lame" curse.
What you are describing as a debilitating mental handicap, such as brain damage sustained during child birth, or from disease, or from genetic ailment, these would be specific conditions. Like I said, if a player wished to play a character like this and wanted to reflect it in their statistics, I'd cook up a condition that represented it. It would come with some penalties to specific and appropriate areas that would fit with the intended consequences.
If the idea was for them have language or social problems then it would come in the form of penalties to social skills across the board. However I wouldn't have it actually change their Int or Charisma scores themselves because the condition could eventually be removed with magic (such as with certain high level healing spells, wish, or miracle), and it keeps certain things on the table such as the "simple-sorcerer" who's got problems but still has magical abilities.
You 'win'. Enjoy your internet point. Heck, have twelve.
*sigh* Good day to you sir and Godspeed.
There seems to be a general theme that many believe dumping charisma or another stat is not a big deal. Obviously it depends on how your game is run and I suspect most GMs allow the players to role play interactions without making some kind of charisma role. When I GM I constantly have characters make charisma based roles.
Character strolls into the tavern and says can I get a booth in the back, make a roll to see what the tavern keeper's reaction is, the booth may be free, cost a little extra, cost a lot extra, or may be refused access all together.
Paladin character leader orders wizard character with a 6 charisma to memorize certain spells for an upcoming encounter, wizard wants to memorize different spells - make a roll. In this instance if the wizard used his intellect to convince the Paladin that other spells were needed I would let wizard add his INT mod to his charisma roll.
Same thing if the Wizard has no strength or any other stat. Everyone grabs a sack of gold and run. The wizard with a 6 strength now moves at 10 and gets left behind or more likely drops the sack.
The cleric with an 8 DEX in full plate is failing any Dex related check she makes. She tries to cross the rope bridge. Opps, can you fly? No? Well you just found out how deep the chasm is.
Etc., etc., etc.
If the characters in a group are all dumping stats down below 8 it is likely the GM is not taking into account the weakness created in the character by the stat dump. Just to be clear I am not saying a GM should search a characters sheet seeking weaknesses (unless the group has an arch nemesis who would know them this well) but the GM does have to make characters roll the appropriate skill checks for everything including the dumped stat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel do you have any ice for the burn you just inflicted?
@Big Blue
Are these strait stat checks for skill checks?
Also the rope bridge example would definitely be acrobatics, but that's only if it's an unstable one.
|
|
@Big Blue22: Thing is the wizard is the least affected by lower stats, well guess the case of most casters. Low charisma? doesn't matter when you cast enchantment spells and the likes. Low strength? with a strength of 6, ant haul is still as good as someone with a strength of 15 when it comes to carrying stuffs and to add insult to injuries, ant haul lasts 2 hours per caster level.
There seems to be a general theme that many believe dumping charisma or another stat is not a big deal. Obviously it depends on how your game is run and I suspect most GMs allow the players to role play interactions without making some kind of charisma role. When I GM I constantly have characters make charisma based roles.
Character strolls into the tavern and says can I get a booth in the back, make a roll to see what the tavern keeper's reaction is, the booth may be free, cost a little extra, cost a lot extra, or may be refused access all together.
Paladin character leader orders wizard character with a 6 charisma to memorize certain spells for an upcoming encounter, wizard wants to memorize different spells - make a roll. In this instance if the wizard used his intellect to convince the Paladin that other spells were needed I would let wizard add his INT mod to his charisma roll.
Same thing if the Wizard has no strength or any other stat. Everyone grabs a sack of gold and run. The wizard with a 6 strength now moves at 10 and gets left behind or more likely drops the sack.
The cleric with an 8 DEX in full plate is failing any Dex related check she makes. She tries to cross the rope bridge. Opps, can you fly? No? Well you just found out how deep the chasm is.
Etc., etc., etc.
If the characters in a group are all dumping stats down below 8 it is likely the GM is not taking into account the weakness created in the character by the stat dump. Just to be clear I am not saying a GM should search a characters sheet seeking weaknesses (unless the group has an arch nemesis who would know them this well) but the GM does have to make characters roll the appropriate skill checks for everything including the dumped stat.
So I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. Are you saying that the GM should use Diplomacy Checks, Bluff Checks, and the like? Or are you saying they should use flat Charisma checks? Was your paladin wizard example doing a paladin CHARISMA check to the wizards CHARIMSA+INT check? or doing a diplomacy/intimidate to get the wizard to do a favor?
If your stance is the skill checks then I think the "pro-dumping" side would agree that having the penalty to those skills is the penalty for having a dump stat.
If your stance is the charisma checks then I think the "pro-dumping" side would argue that you're making extra rules to penalize dumping more than the game says to. They agree that if you want to houserule it that way you're fine to, but that you shouldn't feel it's the appropriate default way to handle it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin character leader orders wizard character with a 6 charisma to memorize certain spells for an upcoming encounter, wizard wants to memorize different spells - make a roll. In this instance if the wizard used his intellect to convince the Paladin that other spells were needed I would let wizard add his INT mod to his charisma roll.
Wait, are you letting players take control of each other's characters with stat rolls? That's ... well, if I was playing at any table where the GM did that, I'd probably leave.
Paladin character leader orders wizard character with a 6 charisma to memorize certain spells for an upcoming encounter, wizard wants to memorize different spells - make a roll. In this instance if the wizard used his intellect to convince the Paladin that other spells were needed I would let wizard add his INT mod to his charisma roll.Wait, are you letting players take control of each other's characters with stat rolls? That's ... well, if I was playing at any table where the GM did that, I'd probably leave.
Yeah. This is one of those feel-good moments where people on both sides of the argument can come together and agree that that sounds completely bizarre.
Paladin character leader orders wizard character with a 6 charisma to memorize certain spells for an upcoming encounter, wizard wants to memorize different spells - make a roll. In this instance if the wizard used his intellect to convince the Paladin that other spells were needed I would let wizard add his INT mod to his charisma roll.Wait, are you letting players take control of each other's characters with stat rolls? That's ... well, if I was playing at any table where the GM did that, I'd probably leave.
If there is an applicable skill it would be a skill check, if not improvise.
(wow, my reply's going to be a little late, but...)
I'm playing a campaign where not one, but two characters have massively dumped strength to 5. 7 on the point buy, with a -2 racial penalty. It for strength on a primary spellcaster, which is sort of why I used the example I did. I've seen just how terrible a strength that low can be first hand. While carrying capacity isn't much of an issue for normal characters, when strength's that low, it's a constant struggle. A bag of holding's not even going to help, because they weigh enough to encumber you. You simply HAVE to have someone else carry your stuff around, or get some lighter bit of gear to help.
Like I said, a low strength is the only one that has mechanically low consequences. There OUGHT to be some sort of disadvantage to other stats, because otherwise it simply doesn't make sense to have just one ability with a substantial penalty for dumping it.
At the risk of making a real world example, a low dexterity character might have something like Cerebral Palsy or a low constiution character might have an auto-immune disease or anemia. Low charisma might be something like autism. These things are really tough for people to overcome. They need training to overcome their deficincies (as a nod to the skills replace abilities people), but they still suffer from their inherent flaws.
This is the sort of problem that will typically only happen with PCs. As people have said, dumping an NPC ability that low isn't possible using a standard array (unless they're a wierd race). They might be around, treating things as a bell curve, but they certainly wouldn't be common. But, consider that if you were running an NPC with a ability that low, you would really bring out the fact that they're suffering from it. If it's good enough for an NPC, it's good enough for a PC.
I'm aware that my interpretation is a little extreme, but this sort of thing will only really be a problem early game. With magic, most things can be overcome. Long term, low abilities aren't an issue.
I know what people have been saying about skills, but the important thing about skills is: You need to take actions to use them. Sure, the 20 charisma character will initially recieve more attention than the 5 charisma one, but if the low charisma one has a better diplomacy, they'll draw people to them... when they start talking. Even if you have a diplomacy bonus of +100, if you've got a low charisma you're still going to make a bad first impression. They'll just completely change their minds when you speak.
I'm sorry for dragging it off topic, but dump stats are really the only way you can afford to have a maximised ability at the start. I'm trying to say that the penalties for having a dump stat should outweigh the benefits you get for maximised ability, and that's why you don't maximise an ability.
Paladin character leader orders wizard character with a 6 charisma to memorize certain spells for an upcoming encounter, wizard wants to memorize different spells - make a roll. In this instance if the wizard used his intellect to convince the Paladin that other spells were needed I would let wizard add his INT mod to his charisma roll.Wait, are you letting players take control of each other's characters with stat rolls? That's ... well, if I was playing at any table where the GM did that, I'd probably leave.
I disagree with the "taking control" reference. Players need to play their characters per the characters' abilities on the character sheet. A character with a 6 Int and 8 Wis should not be figuring out complicated puzzles regardless of the player's ability to figure out the puzzle (unless he roles a nat 20 on the appropriate skill check). IMO while others are working on the puzzle the player should go refill his soda or take a trip to the bathroom or sit and silently wait or make a dumb suggestion. Play the character you created including playing her weaknesses, perform the acts and say the things the character would say, give her a personality and that fits the stats. A player making her character do and say things the character would not or could not do is a piss poor roleplayer again IMO.
So I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. Are you saying that the GM should use Diplomacy Checks, Bluff Checks, and the like? Or are you saying they should use flat Charisma checks? Was your paladin wizard example doing a paladin CHARISMA...There seems to be a general theme that many believe dumping charisma or another stat is not a big deal. Obviously it depends on how your game is run and I suspect most GMs allow the players to role play interactions without making some kind of charisma role. When I GM I constantly have characters make charisma based roles.
Character strolls into the tavern and says can I get a booth in the back, make a roll to see what the tavern keeper's reaction is, the booth may be free, cost a little extra, cost a lot extra, or may be refused access all together.
Paladin character leader orders wizard character with a 6 charisma to memorize certain spells for an upcoming encounter, wizard wants to memorize different spells - make a roll. In this instance if the wizard used his intellect to convince the Paladin that other spells were needed I would let wizard add his INT mod to his charisma roll.
Same thing if the Wizard has no strength or any other stat. Everyone grabs a sack of gold and run. The wizard with a 6 strength now moves at 10 and gets left behind or more likely drops the sack.
The cleric with an 8 DEX in full plate is failing any Dex related check she makes. She tries to cross the rope bridge. Opps, can you fly? No? Well you just found out how deep the chasm is.
Etc., etc., etc.
If the characters in a group are all dumping stats down below 8 it is likely the GM is not taking into account the weakness created in the character by the stat dump. Just to be clear I am not saying a GM should search a characters sheet seeking weaknesses (unless the group has an arch nemesis who would know them this well) but the GM does have to make characters roll the appropriate skill checks for everything including the dumped stat.
If there is an appropriate skill use a skill check, if not improvise.
Admittedly, I am an old school DND guy. I started playing in the late 1970's with the original box set with 32 page books that measured 8 1/2 x 5 1/2. In most ways the game was more fun back then when there was very little time spent plowing through voluminous rule books that is common place in today games. Imagination was more important than rulebooks.
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.
If there is an applicable skill it would be a skill check, if not improvise.Paladin character leader orders wizard character with a 6 charisma to memorize certain spells for an upcoming encounter, wizard wants to memorize different spells - make a roll. In this instance if the wizard used his intellect to convince the Paladin that other spells were needed I would let wizard add his INT mod to his charisma roll.Wait, are you letting players take control of each other's characters with stat rolls? That's ... well, if I was playing at any table where the GM did that, I'd probably leave.
The game calls for skill checks not random ability checks.
I disagree with the "taking control" reference. Players need to play their characters per the characters' abilities on the character sheet. A character with a 6 Int and 8 Wis should not be figuring out complicated puzzles regardless of the player's ability to figure out the puzzle (unless he roles a nat 20 on the appropriate skill check). IMO while others are working on the puzzle the player should go refill his soda or take a trip to the bathroom or sit and silently wait or make a dumb suggestion. Play the character you created including playing her weaknesses, perform the acts and say the things the character would say, give her a personality and that fits the stats. A player making her character do and say things the character would not or could not do is a piss poor roleplayer again IMO.Paladin character leader orders wizard character with a 6 charisma to memorize certain spells for an upcoming encounter, wizard wants to memorize different spells - make a roll. In this instance if the wizard used his intellect to convince the Paladin that other spells were needed I would let wizard add his INT mod to his charisma roll.Wait, are you letting players take control of each other's characters with stat rolls? That's ... well, if I was playing at any table where the GM did that, I'd probably leave.
... What?
What does any of that have to do with your prior post that I was quoting and responding to? It's a complete non-sequitur.
It sounds like he's having PCs use skill checks vs. each other? Which... I just don't even.
IMHO, puzzle are for the players not for the PCs, it the puzzle is about beating a DC with an int check or something then it is not a puzzle.
I understand your point, but disagree.
Your conclusion is that if the player is intelligent the character stats are irrelevant to anything that does not involve an actual die roll. Similarly if the player is charismatic the character's charisma stat is irrelevant unless a situation actually calls for a die roll. This is precisely the logic that leads to stat dumping as there are almost no consequences to dump many stats if the player chooses to ignore the dumped stat.
My position is the character's stats need to enter into the character's actions.
Take this example - Character with 20 charisma suggests a course of action to the group. Character with a 6 charisma suggest a different course of action to the group. Unless other characters have some reason to strongly desire one course over the other the group should almost always follow Mr. Charisma.
Remember when picking teams in dodge ball we pick the bigger, stronger, athletic players first even if their dumb so we can team up on Winston the small, uncoordinated, weak, egghead. If your character is a Winston play him like a Winston. If she is a moose, play her like a moose.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your conclusion is that if the player is intelligent the character stats are irrelevant to anything that does not involve an actual die roll. Similarly if the player is charismatic the character's charisma stat is irrelevant unless a situation actually calls for a die roll. This is precisely the logic that leads to stat dumping as there are almost no consequences to dump many stats if the player chooses to ignore the dumped stat.
My position is the character's stats need to enter into the character's actions.
Take this example - Character with 20 charisma suggests a course of action to the group. Character with a 6 charisma suggest a different course of action to the group. Unless other characters have some reason to strongly desire one course over the other the group should almost always follow Mr. Charisma.
Remember when picking teams in dodge ball we pick the bigger, stronger, athletic players first even if their dumb so we can team up on Winston the small, uncoordinated, weak, egghead. If your character is a Winston play him like a Winston. If she is a moose, play her like a moose.
Or the group comes up with a solution and plays it off as an intelligent character's idea. A puzzle solved by an ability check isn't fun, it's just an ability score gate where you get through if someone in your party can hit the DC by taking 20, or you don't and the adventure ends.
I'm also seriously uncomfortable with the idea that you allow players to mind control each other with ability score checks. Like, I hate it when people use this phrase, but I think this is a case where "roleplay, don't rollplay" is actually appropriate and accurate.
I disagree with the "taking control" reference. Players need to play their characters per the characters' abilities on the character sheet. A character with a 6 Int and 8 Wis should not be figuring out complicated puzzles regardless of the player's ability to figure out the puzzle (unless he roles a nat 20 on the appropriate skill check). IMO while others are working on the puzzle the player should go refill his soda or take a trip to the bathroom or sit and silently wait or make a dumb suggestion. Play the character you created including playing her weaknesses, perform the acts and say the things the character would say, give her a personality and that fits the stats. A player making her character do and say things the character would not or could not do is a piss poor roleplayer again IMO.Paladin character leader orders wizard character with a 6 charisma to memorize certain spells for an upcoming encounter, wizard wants to memorize different spells - make a roll. In this instance if the wizard used his intellect to convince the Paladin that other spells were needed I would let wizard add his INT mod to his charisma roll.Wait, are you letting players take control of each other's characters with stat rolls? That's ... well, if I was playing at any table where the GM did that, I'd probably leave.... What?
What does any of that have to do with your prior post that I was quoting and responding to? It's a complete non-sequitur.
This is a thread about the consequences of stat dumping. I choose that particular charisma ability because it seems the favorite of the stat dumpers as it does not affect saves, hit points, # of skill points per level, AC bonuses, attack or damage rolls, or the ability to carry anything. My point is a character with a very high charisma when dealing with a player with a really, really low charisma should have an advantage if they disagree, just like she would with an NPC. IMO a good role player will play the character according to her charisma, but if a charismatic player chooses to have his extremely low charisma character continually butt heads with a much more charismatic character over an activity that would normally involve charisma based skill check if it was with and NPC I think you have to make opposing skill checks at some point in time. If you don't there is no real disadvantage to the stat dump just give the guy a 2 charisma or and use the points elsewhere.
I can think of lots of examples that would involve characters making opposed skill checks and am not sure why diplomacy checks would be any different. Two characters are on a 10' pit trap when the floor drops out. There is a small ledge that only one player can fit on to prevent a fatal fall. How do you decide which player gets to the ledge. Assuming both make perception checks to see the ledge they are next going to make opposing acrobatics check to see who gets hold of the ledge and who dies. Why would a charisma based skill check be ignored because the player thinks it should be ignored.