Not maximizing your primary ability?

[Ashiel]

thejeff wrote:

Just to pick one of the examples: I'd find that very limiting. More so than just "sheltered and ignorant".

That paladin, assuming he's human has two skill points. Devoting that to Sense Motive and Diplomacy means he's learned nothing of religion in his time - even less than the average commoner. He's got no practical adventuring skills. I guess he's got one more if you're willing to trade in the favored class bonus.

I didn't say he only had ranks in those skills. I just said a bit ago that I'm very pro-dipping when it comes to skills. IF I wanted my Paladin to have ranks in Knowledge: Religion (which isn't necessary unless I want him to recognize lots of religious symbols other than his own god's, or want him to be an expert on undead) I can drop a point there, and drop a couple of points into Sense Motive and Diplomacy (his massive Charisma gives me a headstart on Diplomacy).

Quote:

Moreover, there's no route to grow out of his ignorance, other than slowly devoting his only 2 skill points to get his Knowledge skills up to par for a 1st level untrained character.

To me, that doesn't spell sheltered and ignorant, that spells dumb. Not knowing things is ignorance. The difference between that and stupidity is that ignorance is curable. If you don't learn things, that's a sign it's not ignorance.
(Eventually, he'll pick up a headband and boost his int somewhat, so magic can even cure stupidity, but barring that...)

Actually, no, there is a very obvious route to grow out of his ignorance. He can't answer questions on his own but he can go to a library a research them (see Knowledge check), or he can ask other people that would know (Diplomacy check), etc. Once you have obtained that information it doesn't simply disappear. It just means that you will need to obtain the information manually rather than assuming that you already know it via a Knowledge check.

For example, if he fails a DC 10 Knowledge (Nobility) check and doesn't know anything about the local duke, he can make a Diplomacy check to ask someone who can take 10 and answer the question, or he might make a Gather Information check and find out more detailed information.

He grows out of ignorance rather organically. He has a 65% chance to answer a DC 10 Knowledge check, 70% for DC 9, 75% for DC 8, and 100% for DC 7 or lower. He will still frequently know common things but will occasionally have to ask or learn through other factors.

I don't see this as a bad thing. And since the ignorance is by definition quite curable the Paladin doesn't have to be stupid. It just means you have to experience it or get information from someone else about it. It gives the Paladin as character flaw that can be overcome through the course of the game. It also creates some nice roleplaying opportunities as well (the Paladin might admire the party's wizard for being so well learned and having gone to college and such).

[Nicos]

Ashiel wrote:

Actually, no, there is a very obvious route to grow out of his ignorance. He can't answer questions on his own but he can go to a library a research them (see Knowledge check), or he can ask other people that would know (Diplomacy check), etc. Once you have obtained that information it doesn't simply disappear. It just means that you will need to obtain the information manually rather than assuming that you already know it via a Knowledge check.

It also means that that paladin will always have less chances to find/understand the information in the library (Generally a library gives bonuses to knowledge check).

Two guys want to research about some topic (let say itis covered under knowledge dungeoneering) and they are totally ignorant about the issue (0 skill ranks for boths). They go to a library to research it. The library gives a +10 circumstance bonus to the check, your paladin have less chances to success, that makes him less smart that the guy with 10 in int, not just less educated.

[Ashiel]

Nicos wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Actually, no, there is a very obvious route to grow out of his ignorance. He can't answer questions on his own but he can go to a library a research them (see Knowledge check), or he can ask other people that would know (Diplomacy check), etc. Once you have obtained that information it doesn't simply disappear. It just means that you will need to obtain the information manually rather than assuming that you already know it via a Knowledge check.

It also means that that paladin will always have less chances to find/understand the information in the library (Generally a library gives bonuses to knowledge check).

Two guys want to research about some topic (let say itis covered under knowledge dungeoneering) and they are totally ignorant about the issue (0 skill ranks for boths). They go to a library to research it. The library gives a +10 circumstance bonus to the check, your paladin have less chances to success, that makes him less smart that the guy with 10 in int, not just less educated.

"He's clearly not used to being in libraries and doesn't use them as efficiently."

Paladin: "Excuse me, Mr. Sage/Librarian/Lorekeeper/Etc, could you help me find more about X?" *rolls Diplomacy*

A few fellows roll Aid-Another to help point him in the right direction of the information, providing additional information. That's assuming that one of them can't make it with their own Knowledge check or Gather Information.

[Nicos]

Ashiel wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Actually, no, there is a very obvious route to grow out of his ignorance. He can't answer questions on his own but he can go to a library a research them (see Knowledge check), or he can ask other people that would know (Diplomacy check), etc. Once you have obtained that information it doesn't simply disappear. It just means that you will need to obtain the information manually rather than assuming that you already know it via a Knowledge check.

It also means that that paladin will always have less chances to find/understand the information in the library (Generally a library gives bonuses to knowledge check).

Two guys want to research about some topic (let say itis covered under knowledge dungeoneering) and they are totally ignorant about the issue (0 skill ranks for boths). They go to a library to research it. The library gives a +10 circumstance bonus to the check, your paladin have less chances to success, that makes him less smart that the guy with 10 in int, not just less educated.

"He's clearly not used to being in libraries and doesn't use them as efficiently."

Paladin: "Excuse me, Mr. Sage/Librarian/Lorekeeper/Etc, could you help me find more about X?" *rolls Diplomacy*

THe second guy is also not used to be in libraries, he have no rank in any knowledge check and is a barbarian that have lived in the wilderness most of his life.

He still have 10% more chances to obtain the information, because he is smarter.

[Ashiel]

If you guys haven't figured it out yet, there's no wrong way to eat a Reese's. :)

[Ashiel]

Nicos wrote:

THe second guy is also not used to be in libraries, he have no rank in any knowledge check and is a barbarian that have lived in the wilderness most of his life.

He is have 10% more chances to obtain the information, because he is smarter.

So the player probably wants to explain why the barbarian has more common knowledge. Why is he more educated than not? Because Knowledge is about what you know. Why does he know things that common city-folks know? Answer this question and you flesh out more of your character.

[Nicos]

Ashiel wrote:

Nicos wrote:

THe second guy is also not used to be in libraries, he have no rank in any knowledge check and is a barbarian that have lived in the wilderness most of his life.

He is have 10% more chances to obtain the information, because he is smarter.

So the player probably wants to explain why the barbarian has more common knowledge. Why is he more educated than not? Because Knowledge is about what you know. Why does he know things that common city-folks know? Answer this question and you flesh out more of your character.

Because in the short time in civilization he have learned enough, or whatever really.

In the end, the guy with int 10 is smarter than the guy with int 7 not just less educated, as demonstrated with the example.

[Aratrok]

Nicos wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Nicos wrote:

THe second guy is also not used to be in libraries, he have no rank in any knowledge check and is a barbarian that have lived in the wilderness most of his life.

He is have 10% more chances to obtain the information, because he is smarter.

So the player probably wants to explain why the barbarian has more common knowledge. Why is he more educated than not? Because Knowledge is about what you know. Why does he know things that common city-folks know? Answer this question and you flesh out more of your character.

Because in the short time in civilization he have learned enough, or whatever really.

In the end, the guy with int 10 is smarter than the guy with int 7 not just less educated, as demonstrated with the example.

If that's how you want to fluff the mechanical effects of the ability score, go for it. That's kinda the point.

[Ashiel]

One could fluff it as being lazy too. So many cool ideas for character quirks and traits. It's not about not roleplaying flaws, it's about not roleplaying your flaws in only one right way.

Even if someone decides that they don't want to and just ignore their flaws, it's no skin off my back. They're still not cheating the system and there is no special benefit or penalty for doing so, so let 'em do what makes them happy.

My witch Agatha started the game with a 7 Charisma. I decided that this was because she wasn't used to dealing with people and the only person that she had spent time socializing with was her rather mean and spiteful mentor. As a result, she initially began the campaign rather blunt, sarcastic, and took a sincere joy in teasing the party's Paladin for his apparent bigotry towards witches. At least until she found out that witches killed his sister and cooked her in front of him. She stopped teasing him after that.

As she assumed more responsibility for what was happening involving the party she became more serious and also more open to dealing with others. She eventually became closer with her mentor, began acting with more self respect to bring honor to her family legacy, and so forth.

She also eventually became the party face because she had the best social skills out of everyone, including the PC with the 22 Charisma.

[wraithstrike]

thejeff wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

alexd1976 wrote:

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.

The original quote

Quote:

NPC 1 "He didn't know anything about any topic except religion... his grasp of common was that of a child... whenever I tried to engage him about any other topic he shook his head and started grunting like a beast!"

So yes, "grunting like a beast", but also "grasp of common like a child", so "Could speak, but poorly and even less on topics other than the one skill he put points into."

So I did misread him. I stand corrected.

[wraithstrike]

Big Blue 22 wrote:

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.

Because one is explicitly against the rules.

[Ashiel]

Quote:

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!

This should be a social penalty, which Intelligence has no bearing on by itself. Which is why, again, actual brain-damage or defection should be covered by a condition. Likewise, actual afflictions can be healed with spells like regeneration, heal, miracle, etc.

[wraithstrike]

The strange thing here is that those using RP as an excuse to impose extra penalties and/or say lack of imagination is a problem or the game is too rules heavy without directly saying it seem to want the RP to be done in a very specific manner. That is not very imaginative to me and very rules heavy even if the rules(house rules) imposed are not written on paper. "You must act this way upon reach a score of <whatever I arbitrarily decide is low>".

It seems, as in actually is, more restrictive than the voluminous rule books in the current version of the game.

[Insain Dragoon]

I avoid this in general by giving these restrictions at character creation.

-24 PB
-No bonus points for dumping a stat
-Can't buy higher than a 16 on a single stat (can racial to 18)
-You get two traits

Keeps me from getting SAD casters who start with a 20 and allows MAD classes a chance to spread around points. Characters who are more well rounded without being ridiculous.

If a player wanted to role play something, then nothing is restricting or incentivizing it other than fun. In the end playing the character you want without odd rules getting in the way is what matters right?

[wraithstrike]

I think the no bonus points for dumping would be enough. Buying an 18 is not worth the price anyway in most cases.

[Ashiel]

It might be because I used to play Deadlands but it feels weird to have players take flaws on their characters without some sort of compensation.

[Ashiel]

wraithstrike wrote:

I think the no bonus points for dumping would be enough. Buying an 18 is not worth the price anyway in most cases.

Yeah, it's pretty rare I buy an 18. It usually means something is very unusual with my build.

[Morzadian]

Ah, the good old Stormwind Fallacy has blown all the way into this thread.

The idea you are not role-playing if you have a dump stat.

Every player is different, every game is different, so many ways of interpreting low stats.

As a player I place importance on role-playing and my current character has an Intelligence stat of 7, because the character concept is that he is a thick-as-a-brick half-orc fighter who joined a knighthood so he could kill people and not get in trouble for doing so (or so he thinks). It's not a dump stat per se, just a trope characteristic, which makes a huge difference.

Monte Cook wrote an interesting article in Kobold Quarterly 11 called "Haunted by the Spirit of the Rules." The article is definitely worth reading, investigates some of the problems that are appearing in this thread.

Ashiel, great commentary, you bring up a pertinent point about mental conditions.

[Deadmanwalking]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

I avoid this in general by giving these restrictions at character creation.

-24 PB
-No bonus points for dumping a stat
-Can't buy higher than a 16 on a single stat (can racial to 18)
-You get two traits

Keeps me from getting SAD casters who start with a 20 and allows MAD classes a chance to spread around points. Characters who are more well rounded without being ridiculous.

Yeah, like I said earlier, I use something similar (25 point-buy, and I allow one 'dump stat', but only one and no lower than 8...otherwise more or less the same).

I do allow those two bonus points from a 'dump' since many people like playing characters who suck at something, and I feel they should get something to make up for being sub-par in that area.

Throw in the fact that I give them the ability to use either Wis or Cha for Will Saves, and I think the most common dump stat in my games historically is Wis. Though the game I'm currently running has a lot of Str and Cha dumping as well, I admit (two characters have poor Wis, two poor Str, and two poor Cha...nobody lacks a dump stat in this one).

Still, having characters with weaknesses as well as strengths is often a lot of fun. :)

[Morzadian]

wraithstrike wrote:

I think the no bonus points for dumping would be enough. Buying an 18 is not worth the price anyway in most cases.

Yes, from a theory crafting POV, yet it all depends on what you want.

Maybe you want to play a 6'10" half orc iron monolith, with a physique that is every maiden's fantasy, with arms as big as tree trunks. And an 18 is actually too low of a score to represent such a character.

[Diminuendo]

this whole thread makes me want to make a monk in full plate

[Insain Dragoon]

Here's an example

Wizard
20 PB
8 str
14 dex
12 con
20 int
12 wis
7 cha

Traits
Student of Philosophy
Something else

This is an example of the type of build I'm trying to avoid. Only full casters benefit from starting at a 20 and full casters don't need that advantage.

Here's another example of what I try to get my players to avoid

Fightery type
20 PB
18 str
14 dex
14 con
9 int
14 wis
7 cha
Note: this build I don't like, not because of 18 str, but because he was forced to grab 7 cha to make it happen.

It makes no sense to me that negatives in one stat correlate to positives in another, so I removed that system and instead gave them 4 bonus points (equivalent to dumping a stat to 7).

It results with more balanced builds and makes it much easier to accomplish concepts that are stats wise diametrically opposed. (charismatic warrior leader)

[GreyWolfLord]

If PB, I wouldn't allow bonus points for Dumping. If they want to dump it to a 3, more power to them. They can play a character with a bad stat if they want to RP that way, but don't expect me as GM to reward them with more points in other stats for it.

[wraithstrike]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Here's an example

Wizard
20 PB
8 str
14 dex
12 con
20 int
12 wis
7 cha

Traits
Student of Philosophy
Something else

This is an example of the type of build I'm trying to avoid. Only full casters benefit from starting at a 20 and full casters don't need that advantage.

Here's another example of what I try to get my players to avoid

Fightery type
20 PB
18 str
14 dex
14 con
9 int
14 wis
7 cha
Note: this build I don't like, not because of 18 str, but because he was forced to grab 7 cha to make it happen.

It makes no sense to me that negatives in one stat correlate to positives in another, so I removed that system and instead gave them 4 bonus points (equivalent to dumping a stat to 7).

It results with more balanced builds and makes it much easier to accomplish concepts that are stats wise diametrically opposed. (charismatic warrior leader)

I understand your point, but the difference between starting with an 18 or a 20 is mostly insignificant.

PS:I am not trying to talk you into allowing it. I understand this is where you draw the line.

[wraithstrike]

I just thought of something.
If someone has a high stat and RP's it as lower than the GM would like how is that handled?

[thejeff]

Morzadian wrote:

Ah, the good old Stormwind Fallacy has blown all the way into this thread.

The idea you are not role-playing if you have a dump stat.

Every player is different, every game is different, so many ways of interpreting low stats.

As a player I place importance on role-playing and my current character has an Intelligence stat of 7, because the character concept is that he is a thick-as-a-brick half-orc fighter who joined a knighthood so he could kill people and not get in trouble for doing so (or so he thinks). It's not a dump stat per se, just a trope characteristic, which makes a huge difference.

I don't think anyone has said you're not role-playing if you have a dump stat, though some people don't like dump stats.

An Int 7, thick as a brick fighter is fine by me, though I might not enjoy playing it.
What's being argued is that you shouldn't have an Int 7 fighter and play him as smart.

[thejeff]

Ashiel wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Just to pick one of the examples: I'd find that very limiting. More so than just "sheltered and ignorant".

That paladin, assuming he's human has two skill points. Devoting that to Sense Motive and Diplomacy means he's learned nothing of religion in his time - even less than the average commoner. He's got no practical adventuring skills. I guess he's got one more if you're willing to trade in the favored class bonus.

I didn't say he only had ranks in those skills. I just said a bit ago that I'm very pro-dipping when it comes to skills. IF I wanted my Paladin to have ranks in Knowledge: Religion (which isn't necessary unless I want him to recognize lots of religious symbols other than his own god's, or want him to be an expert on undead) I can drop a point there, and drop a couple of points into Sense Motive and Diplomacy (his massive Charisma gives me a headstart on Diplomacy).

Quote:

Moreover, there's no route to grow out of his ignorance, other than slowly devoting his only 2 skill points to get his Knowledge skills up to par for a 1st level untrained character.

To me, that doesn't spell sheltered and ignorant, that spells dumb. Not knowing things is ignorance. The difference between that and stupidity is that ignorance is curable. If you don't learn things, that's a sign it's not ignorance.
(Eventually, he'll pick up a headband and boost his int somewhat, so magic can even cure stupidity, but barring that...)

Actually, no, there is a very obvious route to grow out of his ignorance. He can't answer questions on his own but he can go to a library a research them (see Knowledge check), or he can ask other people that would know (Diplomacy check), etc. Once you have obtained that information it doesn't simply disappear. It just means that you will need to obtain the information manually rather than assuming that you already know it via a Knowledge check.

For example, if he fails a DC 10 Knowledge (Nobility) check and doesn't know anything about the local duke,...

Yes, he can learn individual things, but unless he boosts his int or puts points in a lot of Knowledge skills he's still going to come across as dumb.

He's never going to know about anything new in the moment. He's always going to have to ask someone or go look it up.

A sheltered, but smart character would start with skills - just the impractical ones you'd be likely to learn in the cloistered life. Then, once outside, he could quickly adapt and learn things relevant to his new life.
There's no good way to represent that, beyond not taking ranks in skills. I'd probably just roleplay it - not rolling for things I felt he shouldn't know. Until he'd become more worldly and had reason to know them.

[RDM42]

Morzadian wrote:

Ah, the good old Stormwind Fallacy has blown all the way into this thread.

The idea you are not role-playing if you have a dump stat.

Every player is different, every game is different, so many ways of interpreting low stats.

As a player I place importance on role-playing and my current character has an Intelligence stat of 7, because the character concept is that he is a thick-as-a-brick half-orc fighter who joined a knighthood so he could kill people and not get in trouble for doing so (or so he thinks). It's not a dump stat per se, just a trope characteristic, which makes a huge difference.

Monte Cook wrote an interesting article in Kobold Quarterly 11 called "Haunted by the Spirit of the Rules." The article is definitely worth reading, investigates some of the problems that are appearing in this thread.

Ashiel, great commentary, you bring up a pertinent point about mental conditions.

You are only not role playing if you have a dump stat if you don't acknowledge that dump stat in some way. If you take it however then pretend it doesn't exist ...

[RDM42]

wraithstrike wrote:

I just thought of something.

If someone has a high stat and RP's it as lower than the GM would like how is that handled?

A smart person can fake dumb" a lot easier than a dumb person can fake smart. In other words, the twenty intelligence has within it the ability to do all of the things that a five intelligence can. A five intelligence does not have within it the ability to do all of the things the twenty intelligence can.

[wraithstrike]

RDM42 wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I just thought of something.

If someone has a high stat and RP's it as lower than the GM would like how is that handled?

A smart person can fake dumb" a lot easier than a dumb person can fake smart.

I was not talking about faking anything. I am saying he is actually playing his character that way. This also applies to charisma and wisdom.

If the idea is to "play the stat" then not playing up should also be enforced.

[RDM42]

wraithstrike wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I just thought of something.

If someone has a high stat and RP's it as lower than the GM would like how is that handled?

A smart person can fake dumb" a lot easier than a dumb person can fake smart.

I was not talking about faking anything. I am saying he is actually playing his character that way. This also applies to charisma and wisdom.

If the idea is to "play the stat" then not playing up should also be enforced.

I repeat. A person with capacity can much more easily not use it than someone without it can use what he doesn't have.

[Morzadian]

thejeff wrote:

Morzadian wrote:

Ah, the good old Stormwind Fallacy has blown all the way into this thread.

The idea you are not role-playing if you have a dump stat.

Every player is different, every game is different, so many ways of interpreting low stats.

As a player I place importance on role-playing and my current character has an Intelligence stat of 7, because the character concept is that he is a thick-as-a-brick half-orc fighter who joined a knighthood so he could kill people and not get in trouble for doing so (or so he thinks). It's not a dump stat per se, just a trope characteristic, which makes a huge difference.

I don't think anyone has said you're not role-playing if you have a dump stat, though some people don't like dump stats.

An Int 7, thick as a brick fighter is fine by me, though I might not enjoy playing it.
What's being argued is that you shouldn't have an Int 7 fighter and play him as smart.

From posts I've read on this thread, what is being argued by some is that dump stats should have considerable penalties to go with it (has Stormwind Fallacy written all over it, well-rounded scores are acceptable, extreme variation is not).

A low Int has its own penalty, low skill points and a penalty to Knowledge skills.

The point I was trying to make is that not every low stat is a dump stat. Player intention plays a significant part in how low stats can be interpreted.

[RDM42]

Morzadian wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Morzadian wrote:

Ah, the good old Stormwind Fallacy has blown all the way into this thread.

The idea you are not role-playing if you have a dump stat.

Every player is different, every game is different, so many ways of interpreting low stats.

As a player I place importance on role-playing and my current character has an Intelligence stat of 7, because the character concept is that he is a thick-as-a-brick half-orc fighter who joined a knighthood so he could kill people and not get in trouble for doing so (or so he thinks). It's not a dump stat per se, just a trope characteristic, which makes a huge difference.

I don't think anyone has said you're not role-playing if you have a dump stat, though some people don't like dump stats.

An Int 7, thick as a brick fighter is fine by me, though I might not enjoy playing it.
What's being argued is that you shouldn't have an Int 7 fighter and play him as smart.

From posts I've read on this thread, what is being argued by some is that dump stats should have considerable penalties to go with it (has Stormwind Fallacy written all over it, well-rounded scores are acceptable, extreme variation is not).

A low Int has its own penalty, low skill points and a penalty to Knowledge skills.

The point I was trying to make is that not every low stat is a dump stat. Player intention plays a significant part in how low stats can be interpreted.

So long as they are interpreted and acknowledged in some way.

As a note I don't really care than much about a nine or an eight. You start getting into 7/6/5 ...

And no, this isn't saying "extra penalties" just the equivalent of "sometimes a low stat has to roll when a higher one wouldn't have to even roll, because "low stat man" goes below the theoretical take ten success number. If the player self-enforces then I'm not asking for the rolls. If he or she just ignores it then I'm likely to start asking for the rolls.

[Aratrok]

RDM42 wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I just thought of something.

If someone has a high stat and RP's it as lower than the GM would like how is that handled?

A smart person can fake dumb" a lot easier than a dumb person can fake smart.

I was not talking about faking anything. I am saying he is actually playing his character that way. This also applies to charisma and wisdom.

If the idea is to "play the stat" then not playing up should also be enforced.

I repeat. A person with capacity can much more easily not use it than someone without it can use what he doesn't have.

I think you're missing the point.

For example: If I have a character with Int 14 (which is certainly more significantly different from a score of 10 than a score of 7 is), and I play them as a person of average intelligence who's a little more well rounded (they are not faking, playing dumb, or anything like that, I am deciding that that's literally what my character is), you're either going to get salty and demand I play my character as being more intelligent, or you're going to be acting hypocritically.

[RDM42]

Aratrok wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I just thought of something.

If someone has a high stat and RP's it as lower than the GM would like how is that handled?

A smart person can fake dumb" a lot easier than a dumb person can fake smart.

I was not talking about faking anything. I am saying he is actually playing his character that way. This also applies to charisma and wisdom.

If the idea is to "play the stat" then not playing up should also be enforced.

I repeat. A person with capacity can much more easily not use it than someone without it can use what he doesn't have.

I think you're missing the point.

For example: If I have a character with Int 14 (which is certainly more significantly different from a score of 10 than a score of 7 is), and I play them as a person of average intelligence who's a little more well rounded (they are not faking, playing dumb, or anything like that, I am deciding that that's literally what my character is), you're either going to get salty and demand I play my character as being more intelligent, or you're going to be acting hypocritically.

A person of average intelligence who is a little more rounded is a perfectly acceptable interpretation of a fourteen intelligence so why would I have a problem with that'? "Acknowledging the stat in some way" - a person of average intelligence raised by a scholar or librarian who picked up a much broader range of knowledge than the average person and learned how to learn because of that association" would be perfectly acceptable. Just like for an eight or so a normal intelligence person with a specific learning disability would be acceptable the other way.

Incidentally, over all I would call the equivalent of real world intelligence to be a gestalt of wisdom and intelligence and the real world social skill to be a gestalt of charisma and wisdom. A high wisdom low charisma person would have some trouble with first impressions and catching attention but afte having some time to observe would be able to pick up cues about a person that would let them find ways to interact with the better and gain circumstance bonuses so to speak(sense motive)

A person with a high charisma and low wisdom has a tongue of silver and a presence about him, but a tendency to misunderstand people and occasionally squash his silver tongue below the foot he is putting in his mouth.

A high intelligence low wisdom sort is the kind how epitomizes the old statement of "knows it's raining will tel you what caused it, but doesn't know to come in out of it.

High wisdom low int is a slow thinker who might not know much, but is good at understanding what he does know..

[Mark Hoover]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

I avoid this in general by giving these restrictions at character creation.

-24 PB
-No bonus points for dumping a stat
-Can't buy higher than a 16 on a single stat (can racial to 18)
-You get two traits

Keeps me from getting SAD casters who start with a 20 and allows MAD classes a chance to spread around points. Characters who are more well rounded without being ridiculous.

If a player wanted to role play something, then nothing is restricting or incentivizing it other than fun. In the end playing the character you want without odd rules getting in the way is what matters right?

So an array of 12, 15, 14, 12, 14, 12? Depending on race then he's got a +1 - +3 on

all saves
ranged attacks
Dex and Wis based skills

With 2 traits you have a good base for any Dex, Con or Wis build you need. Seems fair.

[ryric]

I'd say in the real world, with a modern education and easy internet access, that Knowledge skills can just be rolled untrained no matter the DC. It means you might have a chance to remember some obscure DC20 fact you read online, but you're still probably not going to solve the DC25 physics problem without training.

Ashiel and I disagree on these boards about a lot of things, but I have no problem with these alternate characterizations of low ability scores. If you want to roleplay a 7 Int as sheltered and unlearned, I have no problem with that. I just like to see low scores played somehow - whatever specific quirk you want to use is fine by me.

As always, no way is badwrongfun. But I raise an eyebrow of incredulity at this situation: (example from actual play once; description paraphrased but accurate)
"My character is a suave, mysterious brooding figure. People want to be near him and everyone wonders about his dark and mysterious past. Rumors of his coming flock ahead of his travels and when he arrives in town everyone wants to know why he's there. Women throw themselves at him but no one understands the pain of his heart."
"Ok, so what's your stats?"
*Describes Half-Elf ranger with a 7 Cha.*
"Do you have any social skills?"
"No."
Yes I've seen this guy in a campaign. The player expected to never actually roll social skills; he wanted to just roleplay interactions, be the center of attention, and basically hope that his natural player charisma would make the GM forget to call for checks. Sometimes it even worked.

On the subject of puzzles, they can be tricky. Not all players enjoy them so you always risk losing engagement while the one "smart guy" solves the puzzle. I love solving puzzles IRL but I am very wary of using them in games for that reason. Plus, how do you represent a puzzle that challenges a 30 Int guy, without excluding an 8 Int guy?

When we do use puzzles we let everyone work on them. Even if Bob the barbarian is dumb as a box of rocks, sometimes you need a hobbit to ask what the elf word for friend is after your wizard has been sitting there a long time.

[Cap. Darling]

No matter the internet there is plenty of knowledge you cannot Google and be safe. I Can find you 20 internet facts that are not facts at all.

[Zilvar2k11]

RDM42 wrote:

A person of average intelligence who is a little more rounded is a perfectly acceptable interpretation of a fourteen intelligence so why would I have a problem with that'? "Acknowledging the stat in some way" - a person of average intelligence raised by a scholar or librarian who picked up a much broader range of knowledge than the average person and learned how to learn because of that association" would be perfectly acceptable. Just like for an eight or so a normal intelligence person with a specific learning disability would be acceptable the other way.

Incidentally, over all I would call the equivalent of real world intelligence to be a gestalt of wisdom and intelligence and the real world social skill to be a gestalt of charisma and wisdom. A high wisdom low charisma person would have some trouble...

Was the list intended to be exclusive? You used a very definitive verbiage in the post (namely, 'is'). Are you suggesting that you know the One True Path to understanding widely disparate mental characteristics?

[RDM42]

It's just examples, but it's both acknowledging the deficient stat and allowing a competent participant in the particular arena. Meanwhile you seem to have somewhat of a problem with situations coming up tat highlight a character's deficiencies. It's done for strength dex and con through saves and other such I see no reason that the mental stats should be immune from being tested.

[ryric]

Cap. Darling wrote:

No matter the internet there is plenty of knowledge you cannot Google and be safe. I Can find you 20 internet facts that are not facts at all.

While true, and one must be careful with internet sources - I can look up hundreds of true things in minutes, whereas previous generations would have had to make a trip to a library, to look up facts, which, in many cases, were no more vetted or inherently truthful that a lot of crap on the internet. It's really hard to express to people born after the internet how easy it is to find out things now compared to just 30 years ago.

One hour of idly surfing the internet can expose me to more new knowledge than a 1970s person was exposed to in possibly an entire year, unless they were an avid library user/reader.

[Cap. Darling]

ryric wrote:

Cap. Darling wrote:

No matter the internet there is plenty of knowledge you cannot Google and be safe. I Can find you 20 internet facts that are not facts at all.

While true, and one must be careful with internet sources - I can look up hundreds of true things in minutes, whereas previous generations would have had to make a trip to a library, to look up facts, which, in many cases, were no more vetted or inherently truthful that a lot of crap on the internet. It's really hard to express to people born after the internet how easy it is to find out things now compared to just 30 years ago.

One hour of idly surfing the internet can expose me to more new knowledge than a 1970s person was exposed to in possibly an entire year, unless they were an avid library user/reader.

This is only true if you say that information equals knowledge.

[Morzadian]

Cap. Darling wrote:

ryric wrote:

Cap. Darling wrote:

No matter the internet there is plenty of knowledge you cannot Google and be safe. I Can find you 20 internet facts that are not facts at all.

While true, and one must be careful with internet sources - I can look up hundreds of true things in minutes, whereas previous generations would have had to make a trip to a library, to look up facts, which, in many cases, were no more vetted or inherently truthful that a lot of crap on the internet. It's really hard to express to people born after the internet how easy it is to find out things now compared to just 30 years ago.

One hour of idly surfing the internet can expose me to more new knowledge than a 1970s person was exposed to in possibly an entire year, unless they were an avid library user/reader.

This is only true if you say that information equals knowledge.

Information vs. broad comprehension?

Working in academic research for many years has revealed that internet research limits ones interests and ultimately ones knowledge. You don't have accidental discoveries like in the pre-internet days of searching through dusty tomes in a library. Search engines redirects everyone to the same ideas.

Much repetition exists in the way it never had before.

Definitely pros and cons to internet usage.

[Zilvar2k11]

RDM42 wrote:

It's just examples, but it's both acknowledging the deficient stat and allowing a competent participant in the particular arena. Meanwhile you seem to have somewhat of a problem with situations coming up tat highlight a character's deficiencies. It's done for strength dex and con through saves and other such I see no reason that the mental stats should be immune from being tested.

Considering the side I'm arguing I suppose that's a fair assumption to make, but I don't recall posting or suggesting character traits associated with one stat or another in this thread.

What I've attempted to do is point out that there's zero rules or common sense grounding for a GM imposing additional raw stat checks on any player for a low (mental) stat. The penalties associated with those stats are well-grounded in and already have consequences if you're using the rules.

Tanking Charisma already has an effect (being unable to, without additional effort, make requests of (buy from) an indifferent, strong-willed shopkeep for example). Tanking Int has effects. Tanking Wisdom has effects.

Some of those effects can be mitigated through skills, and that seems to offend the holy handgrenades right out of some people. Frankly, I don't get that, AT ALL. We have a forum that insists that skills are useless past a certain level in one thread, and refuses to accept (what appears to me to be) proper use of them in another. Plus, it just sounds unfair and seems to encourage strong typecasting of character types (which could lead to minmax play) to house rule in some additional, unfounded penalties because you think stat dumping is a terrible thing.

(edit) fixed unfriendly. meant indifferent.

[RDM42]

That's only true if you use the most superficial searching methods.

[thejeff]

Morzadian wrote:

Cap. Darling wrote:

ryric wrote:

Cap. Darling wrote:

No matter the internet there is plenty of knowledge you cannot Google and be safe. I Can find you 20 internet facts that are not facts at all.

While true, and one must be careful with internet sources - I can look up hundreds of true things in minutes, whereas previous generations would have had to make a trip to a library, to look up facts, which, in many cases, were no more vetted or inherently truthful that a lot of crap on the internet. It's really hard to express to people born after the internet how easy it is to find out things now compared to just 30 years ago.

One hour of idly surfing the internet can expose me to more new knowledge than a 1970s person was exposed to in possibly an entire year, unless they were an avid library user/reader.

This is only true if you say that information equals knowledge.

Information vs. broad comprehension?

Working in academic research for many years has revealed that internet research limits ones interests and ultimately ones knowledge. You don't have accidental discoveries like in the pre-internet days of searching through dusty tomes in a library. Search engines redirects everyone to the same ideas.

Much repetition exists in the way it never had before.

Definitely pros and cons to internet usage.

Way off topic, but I've wandered across many weird and wonderful things I'd never expected to find searching the web. Search engines often take you to weird places and links at those places often take you farther astray.

Often I lose track of what I was originally looking for.

There are many problems with internet research, but lack of accidental discoveries isn't one of them. Maybe strictly academic internet research is different? For the casual user, not at all.

[Cap. Darling]

IMOP the difference between knowledge and information is some degree of undestanding and to have the undestanding on a level where you Can ask relevant questions. Reading somthing on the net(pehaps somthing about the Way the romans discuraged there slaves from suacide) Will not give you the undestanding of the system around and how that system is complex. It Will give you some info that you Can belive or not. And beliving is not knowing.
I hope that made sense.

[thejeff]

Cap. Darling wrote:

IMOP the difference between knowledge and information is some degree of undestanding and to have the undestanding on a level where you Can ask relevant questions. Reading somthing on the net(pehaps somthing about the Way the romans discuraged there slaves from suacide) Will not give you the undestanding of the system around and how that system is complex. It Will give you some info that you Can belive or not. And beliving is not knowing.

I hope that made sense.

But that's true whether you read it on the net, watch a documentary on TV, read it in a text book or find an fragment of a primary document.

There's nothing magic about the internet that keeps you from actually learning things.

[Cap. Darling]

True

[Ashiel]

Diminuendo wrote:

this whole thread makes me want to make a monk in full plate

That's actually the most effective way I've found to play a monk, unfortunately.