Super Negative Stat Modifiers and How bad they suck!

[betelgeuce]

I'm going to pose this question. What is everyone's opinion on super negative ability modifiers such as -4 and below? Does the type of ability modifier/type of class, or if the ability is a dump stat, effect how the character should play ie a melee character taking a -6 to int or a arcane caster take a -6 to str. Is this too much cheese? Too much munchkin? How does everyone including DM's feel about this in their games? Is it acceptable as long as the trade off is worth it? Explain.

[Kish]

"As long as the trade off is worth it"?

It's fine if that's the character one wants to play. Hopefully, that means one wants to play a severely-deficient-in-some-way character and not that one has a means of making the low stat "not matter."

[Zale]

With such low strength, you'd be unable to carry so much as a twig before crushing yourself to death.

[Mnemnosyne]

Charisma and Strength are the only stats I can imagine dumping to that degree, and Strength is tough because it leaves you barely able to carry anything at all. Charisma only if you are pretty damn certain you'll never have to use social skills. Every other stat has something too important tied to it to be worth such a high penalty. Wisdom has will saves, int has skill points, con has hit points and fort saves, dex has AC and reflex saves.

[betelgeuce]

Well I'm just curious if other people feel the same way. I personally think if you have a stat array with no 18's you are still able to have fun and pwn hammer everything with your awesome mind of "I pay attention to RAW, RAI, and actually read books". But if I build a character with a stat bonus array like the following:
+6 str, +4 dex, +6 con, -6 int, +0 wis, -4 cha and he is a melee fighter if I put 10s in everything except int and cha I still have a decent character of 16/14/16/(-6+16)=10/10/(-4+14)=10. I was just thinking how more experienced players would view this in gaming.

[Namfuak]

Well I'm just curious if other people feel the same way. I personally think if you have a stat array with no 18's you are still able to have fun and pwn hammer everything with your awesome mind of "I pay attention to RAW, RAI, and actually read books". But if I build a character with a stat bonus array like the following:
+6 str, +4 dex, +6 con, -6 int, +0 wis, -4 cha and he is a melee fighter if I put 10s in everything except int and cha I still have a decent character of 16/14/16/(-6+16)=10/10/(-4+14)=10. I was just thinking how more experienced players would view this in gaming.

Assuming 3.5, that stat adjustment alone is worth +2 LA; you end up with a net +6 to ability score. Although I don't know what point-buy values you are using to get an array of 10, 10, 10, 16, 10, 14, if you are just going to negate the penalty and bonus by putting high scores in your negative stats and medium scores everywhere else, what's the point of having the adjustment in the first place?

If you are wondering what people would make with ability scores of 16/14/16/10/10/10, I'd make a Warblade.

As for your original question, unless it was a one-shot campaign or something, I would not want to have to deal with having such low scores. The problem is that either I do what you are doing in this post and end up buffing my big negatives and not caring as much about my big positives so I end up with the same character I would have likely had in the first place but with LA, or I would actually dump some stat hard (knowing the characters I tend to make, probably strength) and either cheese my way around it or have to be functionally useless at some facet of the game. Being less useful than other party members can be fine, but if I'm literally so weak that I can't carry more than a bag of holding and the clothes on my back then there is a problem. Or if I'm so dumb that I can choose one and only one skill to be good at (knowing me, it'd probably be bluff, for all that synergy).

As I said, it could be funny for a one shot campaign, but after a few sessions it would get really old that my character starts drooling on the table AGAIN or gets pushed over by the wind AGAIN.

[betelgeuce]

If you only considered those stats as the entire character, you're right it would suck. But think about why you have -6 to int or -4 to cha, there had to be some kind of ability to gain from it. Say you now have the feral template and the mineral warrior template (Inherited/Acquired) totally legitimate right? Now you have claw attacks 8 DR/adamantine, a butt load of str and con, a d10 in HD regardless of class, Darkvision, Natural Armor out the butt. You know, something to make it worth it. I'm sorry I wasn't clear originally but these are the things I meant by, "Do you think the trade off is worth it?".

[lsfreak]

Keep in mind the lowest you can even go is -4 before being either unconscious or paralyzed. I'd be very leery of even a 6 in a stat just because of what that would mean roleplaying wise, especially for the mental stats. It's hard to play someone with that level of social ineptitude, or intelligence, or lack of forethought, and not either just end up based off cliches or ignoring it because it's too hard to deal with (though I'd argue half-jokingly that most "Chaotic Neutral" characters are played with a Wisdom of 1, and probably a good portion of evil ones as well).

[navar100]

Charisma and Strength are the only stats I can imagine dumping to that degree, and Strength is tough because it leaves you barely able to carry anything at all. Charisma only if you are pretty damn certain you'll never have to use social skills. Every other stat has something too important tied to it to be worth such a high penalty. Wisdom has will saves, int has skill points, con has hit points and fort saves, dex has AC and reflex saves.

My other scores and class will matter heavily, but I could put up with a low Dex. I presume right off I'm a spellcaster. I'm not going to be in melee most of the time, so only archers are a real problem. I deal with it. As a wizard, there's Mirror Image, Displacement, Invisibility; I'm good on defense. Illusion will NOT be an opposition school. As a cleric, Sanctuary is my BFF. Otherwise, I stay out of the way. I'm more likely buffing but attack spells are in play. Heal when necessary to prevent dropping. As a druid, Wildshape. Case closed. If playing in Pathfinder, I use Wildshape as a disguise instead of engaging in combat.

I don't care about AC.

99% of reflex save spells still damage you on making the save. Sure, taking only half damage is a lot better than full, but I'm taking damage anyway. I suck it up. Resist Energy/Protection From Energy could be close friends. Besides, my reflex save is poor progression I wasn't likely to have made the save anyway.

I don't care about reflex.

As for initiative, while going first is an advantage, going after you see what your opponent has done has its benefits as well. Also bias: years of experience playing with low initiative has made me an expert of sorts of low initiative play I really don't care about initiative at all regardless of my Dex in actual play beyond this hypothetical discussion.

[Slipperychicken]

I'm going to pose this question. What is everyone's opinion on super negative ability modifiers such as -4 and below? Does the type of ability modifier/type of class, or if the ability is a dump stat, effect how the character should play ie a melee character taking a -6 to int or a arcane caster take a -6 to str. Is this too much cheese? Too much munchkin? How does everyone including DM's feel about this in their games? Is it acceptable as long as the trade off is worth it? Explain.

Ummm... a -5 in an ability score means it's literally at Zero, which means you're either comatose, or paralyzed like Steven Hawking. You can't even have a negative ability score.


I'm fine with dumping stats, as long as you can obviate the need for that stat. Like a Fighter, who will never need an Int-based check in his life because his pencil-necked Nerd Wizard buddy will tell him all the answers. Or the Wizard, who never needs to lift anything heavy, partly because magic and partly because he has a big beefy Fighter to lift things for him. Our Wizard can get all the girls he needs wants can handle with magical mind-control around level 9, so Charisma isn't a priority for him. Besides, playing an awkward, quirky magic-user can be fun.

[nedz]

Some of the best characters I've played have had a 6. Characters are defined by their weaknesses as much as their strengths. A mix of high/low stats is much more interesting than an array of middling ones.

[TuggyNE]

Keep in mind the lowest you can even go is -4 before being either unconscious or paralyzed.

Ummm... a -5 in an ability score means it's literally at Zero, which means you're either comatose, or paralyzed like Steven Hawking. You can't even have a negative ability score.

I believe the OP refers to ability score adjustments, such as come from templates and races, not final ability score modifiers. See the Pixie's -4 Str as an example.

[GreenZ]

Balance of such depends entirely on if you can make up the loss with other positives that cover that weakness and if it creates a usable weakness in the first place. A nice balance of power and weakness makes from a well balanced character.

I have a character aptly named Tryndamere that can withstand pretty much any amount of otherwise reasonable HP damage. He's walked into a building with explosives, leveled the building, then walked out of the blast radius. Because he can do this, no longer caring about AC, he has an abysmal dexterity and can reach negative AC at times.

It also sucks that he can't make a reflex save, won't ever throw a weapon or shoot a crossbow, has a negative initiative mod, and good modifiers on dex-based skills are pretty much unattainable. Of course, my GM also knows how to drive a weakness into the ground and can hit hard when he needs to (such as Grease, oh gods the Grease)

[Devils_Advocate]

Sometimes, a task is so difficult that the character couldn't possibly succeed even if the relevant modifier was 1 point higher. And sometimes, a task is so easy that the character couldn't possibly fail even if the relevant modifier was 1 point lower.

Most of the time, however, an increase of 1 point means a one in twenty chance to succeed where you otherwise would have failed, and a decrease of 1 point means a one in twenty chance to fail where you otherwise would have succeeded. And if it's worth it to lower modifier A by x points to raise modifier B by y points once, then it's probably worth doing it again, because it's still the same tradeoff and is probably just as favorable the second time around. And if it's a 1 to 1 tradeoff, then it's just a question of which score is more important. If one score will be used more often and the result will matter more, then it's obvious which score is the more important one.

This doesn't just apply to Ability scores; the same reasoning applies to deciding how to spend skill points, for example.

Sometimes, however, all you really want is enough to qualify for a feat or a prestige class, or to be able to succeed on a skill check by taking 10. Or enough Dexterity to get that +1 to your Armor Class in full plate. Or enough Strength to carry a given selection of gear without bringing you over a light load. In these cases, a tradeoff stops being worth it at a specific point.

Strength and Dexterity have a bit of an interesting relationship here, actually. You can use either one to get a high attack bonus, so they're rather redundant. And you can patch low AC and low carrying capacity with armor and extradimensional storage space... but only to a degree. Dex below 10 is still stinky, because that means lower AC no matter what sort of armor you're wearing, and even when you're flatfooted. And a portable hole is only good for storing things while you're not using them; terrible Str means that the weight of weapons and armor hampers you, and also restricts your movement in that it can keep you from being able to pass relatively easy Climb, Jump, and Swim checks by taking 10. So the standard here is a high score in one Ability, and an average-ish but not abysmal score in the other.

The significant benefits of an Ability score can often be measured in feats. +4 Wisdom is effectively equivalent to the Alertness and Iron Will feats for most characters, since Wisdom doesn't do much more for most characters than buff Spot, Listen, and Will. +4 Constitution, meanwhile, is the equivalent of twice Improved Toughness and Great Fortitude. So it's relatively cheaper to buff the Wis-related things through feats, and relatively more beneficial to put the higher number in Con. But e.g. for a Ranger who uses the Survival and Heal skills and has limited Wis-based casting, Wisdom has other uses and thus is more valuable.

An obvious example of this is a low-level Artificer. If all you're going to use Charisma for is passing Use Magic Device checks, then it makes more sense to tank your Cha and just take the Skill Focus (Use Magic Device) and/or Magical Aptitude feats. Save your high scores for Abilities that do more for you -- most notably, Intelligence.

Similarly, the Extra Turning feat and/or a Phylactery of Undead Turning are far more efficient ways for a cleric to turn undead more frequently and/or more effectively than by raising Charisma. Charisma is much more useful to paladins, for who it powers a whole bunch of stuff.

The final caveat to all of this is that Ability scores also serve as weird alternate hit points for weird alternate damage. And running out of any of these weird alternate hit points can screw you. So there's a special danger in having any of these scores too low.

"The great thing about ego whip is that almost any target either doesn't have a lot of Charisma or uses Charisma for something important."


Keep in mind the lowest you can even go is -4 before being either unconscious or paralyzed.

Ummm... a -5 in an ability score means it's literally at Zero, which means you're either comatose, or paralyzed like Steven Hawking.
An Ability score of 1 gives a -5 Ability modifier, you silly folks. Yeesh!

[lsfreak]

I'm fine with dumping stats, as long as you can obviate the need for that stat. Like a Fighter, who will never need an Int-based check in his life because his pencil-necked Nerd Wizard buddy will tell him all the answers.

The problem here is the fighter will undoubtedly be played smarter than he is. A 6-Int fighter will be extremely basic on the tactics - he might be able to be taught how to find the spellcaster, and he'll recognize dangers from magic, but lack the knowledge to actually deal with those dangers. If they're suddenly faced with a flying enemy, he'll be able to recognize the danger and maybe what to do to keep themselves safe, but he'd be baffled at how to counter it. Surprises would not do this character well; he's likely to see exactly what's going on and have exactly no idea how to adjust to it.

That's why I said I'm extremely dubious to allow low stats, especially mental stats. Unless you've got an excellent roleplayer, best-case they're reduced to a few cliches, and more likely they're ignored as drawbacks.

EDIT: And yes, negative math is clearly not my strong suit >.>

[TrueDiviner]

I don't mind characters having the occasional low stat (I've seen plenty of characters with 6 Cha or Str), but it just has to be properly handled. A player who is taking 6 (or less, hopefully not) Strength should understand the negative consequences of dumping a stat so low and not complain when the DM places the player in a situation that, for example, requires at least an average Strength score for a good chance at success (as long as the DM isn't doing this to frustrate the players).

I think that every character - villain, NPC, or PC - should have some sort of exploitable weakness, as no one is truly invincible. If that weakness happens to be a low ability score, then so be it. People just need to be careful when dumping INT or WIS - it's difficult to play a low intelligence or wisdom character, because you will be smarter/wiser than your character and come up with schemes that a 6 INT/WIS character would probably never fathom.

[Sutremaine]

On the other hand, Int and Wis can cover each other to a degree. A character with high Int and low Wis could use their power of reasoning to untangle a situation, and a low-Int-high-Wis character could fall back on experience and use the wisdom gained from those experiences. But both of those things take time.

As for low-Int fighter-types with lots and lots of intricate feats or manoeuvres... put that one down to muscle memory or a savant-like approach to the potential useages of the abilities they have.

[lsfreak]

On the other hand, Int and Wis can cover each other to a degree. A character with high Int and low Wis could use their power of reasoning to untangle a situation, and a low-Int-high-Wis character could fall back on experience and use the wisdom gained from those experiences. But both of those things take time.

That's why I was fairly careful with my wording/examples. Wisdom is perception and experience, while Intelligence is knowledge and analysis. New situations are likely to catch a low-Int character off-guard; they comprehend what's going on but lack the understanding to know what to do about it. If a wizard throws up a Wall of Sand and they've never seen it before, they'll likely either ignore it or treat it as certain death, until someone else tells them they can go through it, and won't reason through "it's just sand, it won't hurt much." Likewise, an ambush will likely leave them either with "I was fighting these guys already, I should keep fighting them" or "There's more of them, I'll switch," without being able to take into consideration that one group has a very dangerous caster or that the other is made up of enemies very vulnerable to his trips.

[Slipperychicken]

I don't mind characters having the occasional low stat (I've seen plenty of characters with 6 Cha or Str), but it just has to be properly handled. A player who is taking 6 (or less, hopefully not) Strength should understand the negative consequences of dumping a stat so low and not complain when the DM places the player in a situation that, for example, requires at least an average Strength score for a good chance at success (as long as the DM isn't doing this to frustrate the players).



Usually, the reason that people have dump stats at all is they already know the stat isn't important to them, and that's how point-buy is expected to work. The Wizard who dumped Str knows that he's boned in a grapple anyway from his awful BAB, and he has other ways of dealing with heavy things (summons, the party Fighter, bags of holding, mules), so he might as well dump it. The Fighter has exactly one Charisma-based skill on his list (Intimidate, which can be switched to Strength-based), and is not expected to deal with social encounters, so he can freely dump Charisma to 6 or even 4 if it means he gets more points in another stat.

[planswalker]

well, int could be considered for a super-dump if you don't need the skill points. There are several builds that don't really use skills at all. And since it's minimum 1 skill point/level, many characters get the same lack of benefit for a 9 int as a 3.

[Spuddles]

The problem here is the fighter will undoubtedly be played smarter than he is. A 6-Int fighter will be extremely basic on the tactics - he might be able to be taught how to find the spellcaster, and he'll recognize dangers from magic, but lack the knowledge to actually deal with those dangers. If they're suddenly faced with a flying enemy, he'll be able to recognize the danger and maybe what to do to keep themselves safe, but he'd be baffled at how to counter it. Surprises would not do this character well; he's likely to see exactly what's going on and have exactly no idea how to adjust to it.

That's why I said I'm extremely dubious to allow low stats, especially mental stats. Unless you've got an excellent roleplayer, best-case they're reduced to a few cliches, and more likely they're ignored as drawbacks.

EDIT: And yes, negative math is clearly not my strong suit >.>

Low int mid to high wis means you fight like a wolf. And wolves flank, feint, lure, track, and flush.

Gamers oversell int cause they think it's their best stat. Int's alright, but for roleplay stats, wis and cha are like 10x better.

[planswalker]

nah, cha is situationally better, but on its own has little inherently good with it. Which I guess is why it gets so much support for it in feeding other things. My problem with this approach is that so much is incompatible that it's hard to find competitively powerful stuff keyed off cha.

[HunterOfJello]

I don't mind heavy negatives as long as it comes with a heavy positive. I'd be perfectly fine with a 16+ Int character if he had 6s or worse in strength and charisma. Hell, a 4 in wisdom and 17 intelligence character could be a ton of fun, all you'd have to do is take Keen Intellect to cover your will saves and then run around with a highly intelligent character who's halfway blind and has absolutely no common sense.

What I can't tolerate is mediocre stats all the way around. If all my character's stats are above 10 but below 17 then I'm going to want to make a new character. I hate not having at least one high stat to work with. No matter which one it is, I can work with it, but I hate having none.


nah, cha is situationally better, but on its own has little inherently good with it. Which I guess is why it gets so much support for it in feeding other things. My problem with this approach is that so much is incompatible that it's hard to find competitively powerful stuff keyed off cha.


Charisma is hard to work with?

First throw in some Necropolitan. Now you have your charisma working for your hp, which is already d12s and flippin awesome. You're also immune to mind-affecting abilities and fear. That covers the majority of your will saves and leaves you open to other options. Now you can choose several options that all work nicely. Sorcerer can blast anything to death without effort. Wilder is a bit boring, but can work well with some PrCs thrown in. Bards can sing, charm, and diplomancy anything to death and back. Totemist and Incarnate are both available if you go ahead and use charisma instead of Con for their casting/incarnumating stat. If you really want to fight in melee, you can use bard and go with snowflake wardance, some dragonfire and a handful of items to boost your striking abilities.

You can do plenty with Cha.

[Spuddles]

nah, cha is situationally better, but on its own has little inherently good with it. Which I guess is why it gets so much support for it in feeding other things. My problem with this approach is that so much is incompatible that it's hard to find competitively powerful stuff keyed off cha.

Only suckers work. Charisma means everyone's your tool. That's pretty good.

[planswalker]

a high bluff or diplo score won't be achieved through high charisma alone. That requires you to shore it up with support from several other things. It also requires the dm to allow you to do that. Many won't allow that.

[LordDrakulzen]

If you only considered those stats as the entire character, you're right it would suck. But think about why you have -6 to int or -4 to cha, there had to be some kind of ability to gain from it. Say you now have the feral template and the mineral warrior template (Inherited/Acquired) totally legitimate right? Now you have claw attacks 8 DR/adamantine, a butt load of str and con, a d10 in HD regardless of class, Darkvision, Natural Armor out the butt. You know, something to make it worth it. I'm sorry I wasn't clear originally but these are the things I meant by, "Do you think the trade off is worth it?".

I believe that you have fallen into the trap I had for so long. That d10 for HD is only for monster HD, not class HD. Oh, how i wish it were different.

Other than that, most fun character group I had there were 3 beef-tanks, and a dry-lich cleric. The cleric had Cha mod of +15, Int mod of around +10. The 3 tanks had combined int scores of 13, and combined cha scores of 15. The people who hired us asked in character "Have we really sunk this low?" Great fun anyway.

[Slipperychicken]

Only suckers work. Charisma means everyone's your tool. That's pretty good.

You don't need Charisma to freeload. If you aren't doing anything, you're an NPC, and you reroll as the poor bastard you convinced to clear the dungeon for you :smallbiggrin:

[Spuddles]

a high bluff or diplo score won't be achieved through high charisma alone. That requires you to shore it up with support from several other things. It also requires the dm to allow you to do that. Many won't allow that.

My point is, if 6 int means you're too dumb to figure out how to fight flying enemies or that the guy in robes is dangerous, then 6 charisma means your wizard has to spend 2x to buy his equipment, npcs won't give him quests, and princess decides that she didn't really want to be rescued from the dragon.

[planswalker]

Please explain that reasoning to me. I'm not following.

[Spuddles]

Please explain that reasoning to me. I'm not following.

It's DM fiat to claim that int 6 characters react slow (that's dex), or don't know how to flank, or can't figure out how to fight flying enemies. If such impositions are in place for low int characters, similar ones should be in place for low wis and cha characters. {{scrubbed}}

[lsfreak]

Low int mid to high wis means you fight like a wolf. And wolves flank, feint, lure, track, and flush.

And if you stick a them in a herd of hippos they're not going to know how to react, let alone a group of water elementals. That's my point. Basic tactics, unable to react to new or rapidly-changing situations. A low-Int character is going to see a dragon and possibly react several ways, but a high-Int character will be effective - disguising themselves, ambushing, keeping them from taking off somehow.

High Int, low Wis I'm less sure of how to deal with. Part of it's just going to be overly focused, since Wisdom is perception - they'll be focused on something to the exclusion of something else, i.e. locking down the enemy spellcaster but doesn't bother paying attention to the melee because "that's the fighter's job," so they won't really notice or do much about the advancing goblins.

Cha 6 is likely to be very quiet, or have inappropriate outbursts, or be so friendly that it makes others uncomfortable. Charisma, less than the others, doesn't translate well into battle tactics.

A 6 is bottom 5% of Int/Wis/Cha, 4 is bottom 2%.

[planswalker]

It's DM fiat to claim that int 6 characters react slow (that's dex), or don't know how to flank, or can't figure out how to fight flying enemies. If such impositions are in place for low int characters, similar ones should be in place for low wis and cha characters. {{scrubbed}}

ah. Your intent was lost behind your ridiculous exaggerations. Now I know. Not an argument I'd really want to participate in, on either side. Sorry for butting in.

[betelgeuce]

My OP was about modifiers but a few people brought up an auxiliary point that runs parallel to my question, which was about actually taking a 6 in a stat. I've done that before on a wizard because of point buy requirements but I don't know if I'd do it again.

[lsfreak]

My OP was about modifiers but a few people brought up an auxiliary point that runs parallel to my question, which was about actually taking a 6 in a stat. I've done that before on a wizard because of point buy requirements but I don't know if I'd do it again.

My main problem isn't that it can't be done but, but that's it far easier to roleplay someone with mental stats closer to one's own that a 6 likely is. And it avoids the entire discussion I've been having about what should or shouldn't be expected for a given mental stat. For that reason, I prefer to limit PC's to 8's unless they give me a good reason, and prefer higher for myself just so that I can be fairly confident that, if anything, I'm playing them too dumb. If it was a game that was nothing but combat, no roleplaying at all, I'd be much more comfortable with a 4 or 6 in a score.

[planswalker]

I tend to not force my players to feel straightjacketed by their mental stats. If everyone has fun roleplaying themselves even when the mental stats of their pc's don't match, I'm not going to tell them not to have fun. Normally they make an effort, but if they don't slavishly obey the subjective view of what mental stats "should" be, so what?

[Kazyan]

They do not suck--they are freeing. When my IRL stats are like 15/6/8, and my in-game stats for a cleric are 5/24/18, the 5 is not the one I am worred about playing correctly.

[Devils_Advocate]

A player who is taking 6 (or less, hopefully not) Strength should understand the negative consequences of dumping a stat so low and not complain when the DM places the player in a situation that, for example, requires at least an average Strength score for a good chance at success (as long as the DM isn't doing this to frustrate the players).
But the thing is, pretty much nothing is going to require a high Strength score in particular. Wizards have spells like Tenser’s floating disk, fly, and disintegrate because they're supposed to be physically weak wussies who use magic as a substitute for muscle power. Like, that is the archetype that the class is based on.

The game isn't designed so that any particular task can only be accomplished through the use of one particular Ability score. Which means that you shouldn't do things like

DM: Haha, you can't escape this monster's grip, puny halfling!
Rogue's player: No, it's cool, I can just use Escape Artist.
DM: Um, no. This monster's grapple doesn't work that way.
Rogue's player: What?! Um, why, exactly?
DM: Because I say so, OK?

Can we agree that that's inappropriate? Hopefully that's covered by "not just trying to frustrate the players".


New situations are likely to catch a low-Int character off-guard; they comprehend what's going on but lack the understanding to know what to do about it.
In some cases, sure.


If a wizard throws up a Wall of Sand and they've never seen it before, they'll likely either ignore it or treat it as certain death, until someone else tells them they can go through it, and won't reason through "it's just sand, it won't hurt much."
Why would someone assume that a wall of sand was highly dangerous? Someone experienced in fighting wizards might know from experience that their spells can be far deadlier than they appear, but that's not limited to dumb characters, it's a problem for everyone without a good Spellcraft mod.


Likewise, an ambush will likely leave them either with "I was fighting these guys already, I should keep fighting them" or "There's more of them, I'll switch," without being able to take into consideration that one group has a very dangerous caster or that the other is made up of enemies very vulnerable to his trips.
Knowing how to prioritize targets seems like it would require an Int score of... 2, maybe? "Target the vulnerable" seems like pretty basic predator stuff.

Similarly, "ranged attacks must be used against foes that keep out of reach" does not require a stupendous intellect to understand. Dudes who are proficient with and carry both melee and ranged weapons can generally be assumed to get this.

A few techniques do require significant Intelligence, like the Combat Expertise feat tree. But basic tactics are basic and can be learned by fairly stupid people.

Keep in mind that d20 is not a high-realism simulation. If it were, then speed of learning would probably be represented by an XP multiplier. Planescape: Torment did this with Wisdom, which helped to make Wisdom hands-down the best stat in the game. d20 deals with Int by letting smart characters learn more in parallel (by getting more skill points), rather than by having them level up faster. Hard to justify from a strict simulationist perspective, but it does fit the basic concept of "learns more in the same amount of time", and it does so in a more balanced fashion. It gets the job done.

d20 has a way of dealing with tasks based on Ability scores where success isn't certain. This is handled by setting a target number and making a d20 roll, which in some cases might be just a straight-up Ability check. The distribution is possible results probably isn't realistic; for that you'd probably want a 3d6 roll. But it suits the general cinematic, low-realism atmosphere. It gets the job done.


ah. Your intent was lost behind your ridiculous exaggerations.
I don't think that Spuddles was using hyperbole. Fiating that a character with a low Charisma (or a low Diplomacy modifier, if you prefer) is disliked by everyone doesn't strike me as any more unreasonable than fiating that a low-Int Fighter barely knows how to fight. That's not an exaggeration, but a sincere statement of opinion.

In fact, basing likability on one's Diplomacy modifier is in fact more reasonable, since (a) that is pretty nearly exactly what a Diplomacy modifier represents and (b) it allows a player to compensate for a low Ability score with skill ranks, so having the low score isn't nearly so crippling. An equivalent to that might be using the Martial Lore skill from Tome of Battle, or perhaps BAB + Int mod, to represent knowledge of combat tactics.

[Slipperychicken]

The Int requirement for Combat Expertise functions solely as an ability tax on non-Power-Attack melee, forcing them to essentially waste points to begin a feat-chain which already eats all the feats you're expected to have.

Does WotC think you need to be a genius to trip people? Or is Int 12 supposed to mean you're so abysmally stupid that you can't even trip people without being smacked? Because even a Int 2 Wolf can trip without provoking AoOs.

[NeedsAnswersNao]

Very negative stats are awesome. Period.

[Ettina]

Knowing how to prioritize targets seems like it would require an Int score of... 2, maybe? "Target the vulnerable" seems like pretty basic predator stuff.

I don't think it involves Int at all, personally. Sounds more like a Wisdom thing.

I do think some combat tactics would involve Int, but that would be more things like 'use bludgeoning weapons on skeletons', 'kill the troll with fire' or 'that necromancer is healing the zombies with negative energy' (Knowledge checks). But deciding the guy in robes looks like he'd take damage more easily than the guy in armour seems more like a Wisdom thing.

After all, Intimidate is opposed by a Wisdom-based check. Since intimidating someone means acting more threatening than you are, that implies Wisdom is needed to accurately gauge threat level.

[nedz]

Thread Necromancy