meaning of extremely low stats

[Ettina]

OK, so I know Int less than 3 makes you unable to speak, and 1 or 2 Int means animal-level intelligence.

What about other ability scores?

Strength of 1 - does it just mean having an extremely low carrying capacity and doing very poor at any Strength check? Or could it affect your movement? It seems odd that Strength 0 would make you unable to move and Strength 1 wouldn't affect your move speed at all. Would the impact of very low Strength on movement depend on your character's weight?

Dexterity of 1 - does this affect your ability to equip or unequip items, or wield a weapon, or do somatic spell components? Or heck, even walk without falling over?

Wisdom of 1 - would this make you insane? Unable to tell reality from fantasy, or something like that? Or lost in your own mind, only noticing outside sensations if they're very intense?

Constitution of 1 - what would your HP be? What impact would being that close to death have on your ability to exert yourself?

Charisma of 1 - since Charisma seems to mostly be about influencing others, would this mean you can't conceive of doing anything to influence someone else's actions? Maybe you don't even realize it's possible that others might alter their behaviour in reaction to you, so you act as if people are objects or automatons?

[Aliquid]

I would say that anything below 3 would make a person unable to do any day-to-day task that a normal human would be capable of.

STR 1 - you wouldn't be strong enough to support your own weight. You couldn't stand, let alone walk.
DEX 1 - Coordination so low that you couldn't dress yourself.
WIS 1 - Yes I would say Unable to tell reality from fantasy.
CON 1 - Extremely sickly. Difficulty breathing. Standing up from a sitting position would be exhausting.
CHR 1 - People simply don't even notice you. Maybe a 100% lack of confidence... and it shows.

[Vitruviansquid]

Charisma 1 is like those people you just hate being around, and then when they leave the room, you feel bad for hating them because you think about it and realize they've never done anything to wrong you. But man, when they're talking to you, you just want to shove them down a flight of stairs.

Wisdom 1 I would think is acting on any and all impulses, like an animal, rather than stopping and thinking about what you're doing.

[Spiryt]

STR 1 - you wouldn't be strong enough to support your own weight. You couldn't stand, let alone walk.
.

Probably, though kinda problem is that stats seem to be intended to be 'objective' or ' absolute'.

So raven, and many other small animals have 1 Str but are easily able to more around, obviously.

[Lanaya]

Charisma 1 is like those people you just hate being around, and then when they leave the room, you feel bad for hating them because you think about it and realize they've never done anything to wrong you. But man, when they're talking to you, you just want to shove them down a flight of stairs.

I'd call that Charisma 4 or so. Charisma 1 would be someone who you don't even feel bad about hating because they're just that unbearable a person.

[TheThan]

dnd 3.5 at least; an int score of less than 3 indicates that the creature has the intelligence of an animal. So someone with an int of 3, is slightly above that of a dog.

[veti]

I think someone with a STR of 1 would be bed-ridden. If they needed to go somewhere, then someone else would have to either carry them or load them into a wheelchair or equivalent. STR of 2 or 3 would still be wheelchair-level mobility. (And not the sort where you can push yourself along with your hands, either.)

DEX of 1 - I would model as suffering from some severe nervous disease or damage. Either half-paralysed, or shaking uncontrollably, or otherwise unable to control your muscles. Would probably also affect speech.

CON of 1 - is probably in intensive care, maybe dependent on external life support machine of some kind.

WIS of 1-2 - think of the hobo in the street, shouting at the air. He's probably drunk or high or both. Now imagine someone who's like that all the time, has only the dimmest concept of their own surroundings.

CHA of 1 - has no discernable personality of their own, but just follows and imitates those around them. Will follow virtually any instruction or suggestion. Overcome by self-consciousness, will not initiate speech or engage in conversation even if spoken to very gently.


I'd call that Charisma 4 or so. Charisma 1 would be someone who you don't even feel bad about hating because they're just that unbearable a person.

I don't think you'd hate a Charisma 1 person - you probably wouldn't even notice them.

[Seto]

Probably, though kinda problem is that stats seem to be intended to be 'objective' or ' absolute'.

So raven, and many other small animals have 1 Str but are easily able to more around, obviously.

Yeah, but would they be able to move around something with human weight ? Which is what you do when you're a humanoid with STR1 trying to move.

[Tengu_temp]

It seems odd that Strength 0 would make you unable to move and Strength 1 wouldn't affect your move speed at all.

Actually, extremely low strength means that even carrying very light items makes you encumbered and slows you down. And since carrying capacity is directly proportional to your strength, it means that at strength 0 you are automatically carrying too much to move even if you're actually not carrying anything!

[Deaxsa]

...does this mean crows/elephants/dolphins/chimps have 3 intelligence? because i feel like there should be 3 distinctions: pretty darn mindless animals (horses, mice), not quite so mindless (cats, dogs, rats), and then tool-using and self-aware animals (the list above, varying on how much you believe of each of those). Or, because awareness is more of a cha/wis thing, should a horse simply have like 2 wisdom?

[PrincessCupcake]

Horses by most systems are reasonably wise, if not especially intelligent. They are alert, attentive, and are able to make common sense level decisions such as "avoid fire" and "jump over the jagged stuff in the way". On that note:

Wis 1-2: creature has absolutely zero self-preservation instinct, and unless guided will not avoid harm. Is also probably only barely aware of the significance of their surrounding. (while perception is a wisdom skill, I don't really see the low score as having no senses whatsoever, but more having no context to interpret what those senses are telling you.)

Con 1-2: if not bed-ridden, they are extremely susceptible to heat, cold, and nausea. I'd say they automatically fail any check to resist initial poisoning or disease, or perhaps all nonlethal damage is considered lethal. (I keep thinking of someone with hemophilia or an immune disorder)

Str 1-2: In addition to the encumbrance limits being etxremely low, a character with strength that low would not be able to make strength-based checks. They might even succumb to fatigue/exhaustion much more quickly as well.

Dex 1-2: Have a high chance of dropping things they carry, and hands constantly shaking. While it might affect speech somewhat (slurring, etc.) it would make them incapable of writing or crafting.

CHA 1-2: Almost all mindless constructs have charisma scores of 1, and reflect more of a "have no personality to speak of" than "are completely repulsive to be around". So I'd say no personality (blindly mimicking whatever you come across) and no ability to empathize.

[Galen]

Wisdom 1 I would think is acting on any and all impulses, like an animal, rather than stopping and thinking about what you're doing.And yet, in D&D 3.5 at least, most animals have wisdom in the 10+ range ...

[Mastikator]

STR 1 = Unable support your own weight, barely able to move at all.
DEX 1 = Unable to coordinate your movement in a meaningful way, like a toddler.
CON 1 = Needs lifesupport to survive.
WIS 1 = Either blind and deaf or delusional to the point of unable to tell reality apart from fiction.
CHA 1 = No personality at all, on the brink of being an inanimate object.

[Ettina]

...does this mean crows/elephants/dolphins/chimps have 3 intelligence? because i feel like there should be 3 distinctions: pretty darn mindless animals (horses, mice), not quite so mindless (cats, dogs, rats), and then tool-using and self-aware animals (the list above, varying on how much you believe of each of those). Or, because awareness is more of a cha/wis thing, should a horse simply have like 2 wisdom?

I think at least some of that list should have 3 Int rather than 1 or 2.

If we put the benchmark at 'cognitively capable of using language', then all great apes, some parrots (eg African Greys), maybe some corvids, and probably dolphins qualify. (Dolphins have a very complex system of whistles that some argue constitutes a language.)

If we decide that tool use & self-awareness also count here, then all of that list would have Int 3. And probably some others.

Incidentally, horses are a lot smarter than you think. They're at least on par with cats and dogs. They can be trained to do some pretty complicated tasks. They can also read human cues quite well. Certainly no symbolic reasoning, self-awareness or tool use, but that's true of cats and dogs too.

I don't know as much about mice, but I believe they're reasonably smart, too. Not as smart as rats, but rats are quite a bit smarter than cats and dogs (not up to primate levels, though, so I think 2 Int would fit as a crude measure).

How about this benchmark:

3 Int - at least one of tool use, self-awareness and symbolic language use (note: rote instinctive tool use, such as nest-building, doesn't count)
2 Int - intelligence equivalent to a mammal that doesn't qualify for Int 3 (mammals, some reptiles such as monitor lizards, crocodiles, etc, most birds, cephalopods such as octopus and squid, and some of the smartest insects and spiders). These guys have fairly complex and flexible behaviour and, with training, can learn to do a lot of tricks. An animal that can chain together a series of learnt commands, or learn to do a behaviour that isn't already in their repertoire qualifies for Int 2.
1 Int - intelligence equivalent to an animal that has a brain but is dumber than the dumbest mammals (eg most insects, many other invertebrates). These guys have an instinctive behaviour set, but only very limited learning such as habituation (learning to ignore a repeated stimulus) and maybe some basic stimulus-response learning, making use of responses that are already fairly typical of their behaviour
Mindless - I think animals without a nervous system should qualify as mindless (jellyfish, sponges, etc) and have Int of -.

[Ettina]

And yet, in D&D 3.5 at least, most animals have wisdom in the 10+ range ...

Wisdom means having good sense about whether something is safe or dangerous, whether someone is trustworthy, and being able to make sense of your perceptions. Most animals can do that even if they aren't very intelligent, because their behaviour is adapted to the environment they evolved in.

A cat, for example, can typically take one look at a foe and make a reasonably accurate judgment of whether they fall into 'I can easily beat this with no risk to myself', 'I'd be able to beat it but I might get hurt', or 'I might not be able to beat it, but I can probably hurt it' or 'I can't even hurt this thing'. (Incidentally, the reason cats seem cowardly is because they're not willing to risk even getting injured unless the stakes are really high. If you're a solitary hunter and you get an injury that makes hunting more difficult, you'd probably starve to death.)

[BeerMug Paladin]

I don't generally inflict any particular ailment on a player if they have low stats. 1 or 2 means the character just performs badly in that particular area in a game engine sense.

For example, 1 or 2 strength just means they're hilariously weak. Their carrying capacity is reduced. But that's it. No further problems besides what being weak might directly cause on its own. Maybe they are incapable of moving that thick stone door everyone else can move with ease.

If the player wants, I would encourage them to roleplay their character as having other debilitating conditions, but I would not enforce these in a general sense. And these make a lot more sense if they're combined with other stats. And not require ridiculously small numbers to pull off.

For example, a 6 dex, 6 wisdom orc would knock things over because they misjudge their own bulk. Maybe a lizardfolk with these scores would hit or knock things over accidentally with their tail on a regular basis. And be annoyed people keep placing furniture wrong. The other stats could be anything and this concept would still work. A higher wisdom would result in the lizardfolk understanding their own bulk and giving themselves plenty of room to move, and a higher dex would result in more nimble movement in the first place.

A 6 dex, 6 strength elf would probably get easily knocked over by a gust of wind (in non-combat situations). A higher strength would resist the gust of wind at the temporary cost of mobility, and a higher dex means they would be able to shift their body to reduce the force of the wind on themselves.

[Jay R]

Mechanically, a stat of 1 merely means a 25% lower chance of succeeding at a task than a person with a stat of 10.

[Ettina]

Thinking more about Constitution 1...

If you're that sickly, it should have mechanical effects on your ability to fight etc. Having recently had a really bad bout of the flu, I'm thinking the most prominent impact of being sick on a person's ability to do things is likely to be tiring very easily.

So, what would be a fairly logical system for having low Con scores make you get fatigued/exhausted by normal activities?

[Spiryt]

Thinking more about Constitution 1...

If you're that sickly, it should have mechanical effects on your ability to fight etc. Having recently had a really bad bout of the flu, I'm thinking the most prominent impact of being sick on a person's ability to do things is likely to be tiring very easily.

So, what would be a fairly logical system for having low Con scores make you get fatigued/exhausted by normal activities?

The closest thing D&D 3.5 has to endurance/stamina/cardio are hit points indeed.

Can't see much purpose in introducing more elaborate mechanics just for very low stats.


Mechanically, a stat of 1 merely means a 25% lower chance of succeeding at a task than a person with a stat of 10.

That too. :smallbiggrin:

[Ettina]

So, what would be a fairly logical system for having low Con scores make you get fatigued/exhausted by normal activities?

OK, this (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Revised_Overland_Movement_and_Fatigue_Rules_(3.5e_ Variant_Rule)) looks like it would cover that.

So, Con of 1 means the person could run for 1 round, fight for 1 minute (10 rounds) or walk at normal pace for 15 minutes before getting fatigued. Which seems reasonable for a very sickly person.

[calam]

I think the way low stats should be played out would partially depend on their other stats. For example if someone has both low Constitution and Charisma then it could be that they look physically ill all the time and no one wants to catch something from him.

But if they only have one low stat I'd probably say:
3 STR: probably needs assistance in moving, can hardly lift anything and probably too weak to use most tools.
3 DEX: terrible balance and coordination. Has a good chance fumbling with a plate their carrying, can't walk a straight line and bumps into things constantly
3 CON: Sickly or very fragile, Fragile skin and bones or bruises like a peach.
3 INT:Just enough for a progressing society however very slowly. Very unchanging with their plans and has no ability to make up a new one without much thought
3 WIS: Hardly aware of their surroundings, permanent daze or never thinks things through or asks themselves if what they are doing is a good idea.
3 CHA: always says something completely inappropriate, either purposely or not. Permanent foot-in-mouth syndrome or so shy that they can't ask someone for directions.

[Mastikator]

Mechanically, a stat of 1 merely means a 25% lower chance of succeeding at a task than a person with a stat of 10.

And that some routine tasks can't be taken a 10 on, you'd be struggling with things that others take for granted.